The most that the EU has done is sanctioning a dozen of individual extremist colonizers for their crimes on palestinians.
There were some talks of sanctions last september, but it’s doubtful that it would have led to anything with, e.g., Germany or Italy opposing it, among other european states.
Oh yeah, i know that people here already know that. Just one more double standard to the list.
You probably already know that Mohammad Mossadegh in Iran was overthrown by the west two years after nationalizing Iran’s oil in 1958, but did you know that the same thing happened a decade earlier for Rómulo Gallegos, 9 months after implementing a 50-50 share of Venezuela’s oil in 1948 ?
He wasn’t replaced by a western-backed bloodthirsty king, but by one of our many western-backed bloodthirsty dictator, Pérez Jiménez, who received the Legion of Merit in 1954 for its anti-communist activities.
Guatemala also had a similar experience when it nationalized territories from the United Fruit Company(, 1954), or when S.Allende nationalized copper in 1971, or Syria in 1949, Congo in 1960, … Because their ressources are ours.
They should increase the prices of the raw materials as OPEC did in 1973, unite together, and nationalize their ressources. They’ll be sanctioned/overthrown/attacked/invaded/…
Edit : I.d.k. how they managed to get such estimation, even if there wasn’t an internet blackout, but western estimations are that « at least 12.000, and possibly as many as 20.000 people have been killed. » (here)
Such obvious lie(, since there’s no way to know, that was the whole debate in Palestine,) is believed by everyone, of course. It’d still be less than what our sanctions killed.
Yes, this was exactly the Russian reasoning prior to 2022. Which is why they launched the SMO the way they did, only with the intention to bring Ukraine to the negotiating table and not actually take territory.
That calculation changed when it became clear that the Kiev regime had no intention of negotiating, and instead, with the support of the West, opted to wage a total war against Russia.
The situation has fundamentally changed now and what was possible prior to 2022 is now no longer an option. Too much blood has been shed. The Russian people would see relinquishing what they fought and died for as a complete betrayal and would oust any Russian government that tried to do that.
What they prefer and what is realistically possible are two different things. As long as negotiation continues to be impossible (because the Kiev regime and its European backers refuse to engage seriously with Russia and instead demand Russia’s capitulation) Russia will secure its interests by force.
Ukraine had a chance to keep the entire Donbass with the Minsk agreements. They walked away from them and they permanently lost the DPR and LPR when Russia recognized their independence from Ukraine.
Then they had another chance in 2022 with the Istanbul negotiations to keep at least the rest of the Donbass, and they walked away from those negotiations too. Russia held referendums in the new oblasts, and they officially annexed them.
This is over and done with and there will be no repeat referendums there. You have to understand that the clock cannot be turned back. But there may be more referendums in other parts of Ukraine that Russia has not yet annexed if the conflict drags on and Ukraine continues to be intransigent.
No. Now most of them consider themselves Russian. And before 2014 but especially before 1991 that was not mutually exclusive with calling yourself Ukrainian. They were ethnically, culturally and linguistically Russian but geographically (and post-1991 passport-wise) Ukrainian.
That changed when the Banderites took over and redefined what it meant to be Ukrainian according to their ethno-nationalist conception.
And that is exactly why they are incompatible with eastern Ukraine, and why they won’t coexist under one state structure anymore.
My suggestion to you would be to read more Russian media and Russian commentary on the conflict to understand how they see it. You can’t impose your own outside lens on the conflict without taking into account what the people who are actually involved think.
I added an edit to my previous answer while you were writing yours, and if you’re angry/‘the one who downvoted my previous comment(, a few minutes after you answered)’, then chill out man, if you’re looking for opponents then go elsewhere than Lemmygrad where we’re all on the same side, don’t picture me as someone i’m not.
Yeah, they thought they could win(, or that they had to take the chance). Wouldn’t you agree that they seem to have changed their mind since the last year, being now more inclined towards a negotiated settlement that doesn’t come ?
I suppose that not, based on your comment. Would you say that they’re simply delusional ? I tried here to imagine what would be conditions such that both sides could agree to it, as pointless as it is.
Here’s the russian’s June 2024 demands b.t.w.
So, i think that Ukraine could accept them, by asking for these economic promises and later referendums in surplus, since it’s not forbidden to add their conditions to the russian ones.
I think that both sides could end up agreeing on these conditions. If you don’t then ok, i don’t see what i could add to what i said.
Even if it’s a 2050 referendum from these regions(, after Ukraine went back to support Russia, Belarus, and the side it held for pretty much its whole past) ?
If they still don’t want to in 2050, then Ukraine will have taken its chance.
Yeah(, the civil war kept raging though, even if Ukraine put anti-russian leaders in charge in these regions, they often had more than 95% of them voting for pro-russian political parties, not easy to overturn that), because they were interested in Crimea, and instead of cancelling their western shift they increased it, motivated by revenge instead of recognizing their wrongs.
Similarly, they lost Crimea due to previous pro-western decisions that endangered Russia(, making Crimea a n.a.t.o. port, overthrowing Yanukovich, anti-u.s.s.r. and anti-russia sentiments, opening themselves entirely to western companies and organizations, …) It was multiplied under Poroshenko, etc.
They perfectly knew how the west intended to use them against Russia, how we destroyed Yugoslavia and acted in the Chechnyan conflict, or used other russian neighbours against it, but despite knowing the consequences for Russia they went for it anyway.
They were pro-u.s.s.r. in the past, they can become pro-Rus again. As i said above, perhaps not for all of them though(, e.g. eastern Galicia).
And if you disagree and claim that Kiev, for example, will never rejoin its old side again, then we’ll both disagree, and so be it.
I don’t downvote comments that are arguing in good faith and i am not angry in the slightest, i don’t know what gave you that impression. We’re just having a friendly discussion which i am quite enjoying.
No, i see no indication of that. They still categorically refuse to agree to most of Russia’s core demands, and instead they make completely absurd demands of Russia, as if they were the ones winning on the battlefield and not the Russians.
They are either delusional or they are desperate to keep the money train going for as long as possible, because once the conflict stops their opportunities to fill their pockets with Western money will significantly dry up.
I think the current regime in Kiev is never going to accept those demands. And Russia is not going to accept anything less than those demands. If a different government were to come to power in Kiev then sure, they can negotiate a lot of economic benefits from Russia, so long as they accept those basic points. Referendums in the territories that already had them are probably still a no-go.
What point is there to holding a referendum in 2050? Why would the result be any different than in 2022? These regions are already overwhelmingly Russian and will only get more Russian as time goes on. The DPR and LPR already have autonomy within Russia. Why would they give that up to be subordinated to a government in Kiev again? I just don’t see the point and I don’t see any Russian government going for something like this. If there is any internal reorganization within Russia it will probably be by administrative decision.
No i don’t disagree with that. I think there is a good chance that sooner or later Ukraine will turn back toward Russia. It just makes the most sense geographically, economically and culturally for them. I still don’t see any world in which they get Donbass and Crimea back.
Oh ! Great then, thanks for saying that :) !
I must have misunderstood
I partially agree with you, Ukraine wasn’t aiming for a negotiated settlement in 2022 with its unreasonable demands that can only be asked of a defeated country, and they didn’t care about multiplying the proposals or intensifying the negotiations.
It’s just much less excessive nowadays, e.g. the 4th and 13th point aren’t uninteresting, but it’s still far from there, so Russia won’t accept.
Because they were opposed to an anti-russian shift, so could eventually want to reconcile with a pro-russian Ukraine, whether by nostalgia or more pragmatically to influence it from the inside.
I’m trying to see what would make Ukraine desire to give up its western shift, hence why i necessarily have to be looking for russian concessions.
It’d be easier(, but even more futile,) to just say that “there’s nothing to be done, let’s just wait until Russia invade the rest of Ukraine”, but i wanted to see if i/we could find what a negotiated resolution accepted by both sides would entail.
Promising such referendums could weight in the balance towards obtaining a ukrainian agreement, such promise could also be useful to maintain their desire of being pro-russian, since they’d want to become attractive again to their old territories. Russia, being the largest country on Earth, may agree to such potential loss if it’s worth it to them.
Apart from the referendums, a second thing that could weight in their decision to shift their allegiance would be money, but the e.u. promised them the same economic boom as Poland, a promise hard to compete against.
If they ever manage to outclass such economic promise though(, which remains doubtful), then i think that Ukraine’s shift may be assured.
Realistically, they’ll lose their territories and be demilitarized, not allowed in the n.a.t.o. But they may be in the e.u., and may conspire to wage another war while breaking their demilitarization promise(, just like they never intended to respect the Minsk agreements in the first place), i suppose that we’ll see.
Russia may invade the rest of Ukraine, i.d.k. why they haven’t yet, retreating from Kiev at the end of March and mostly defending their line afterwards instead of attacking.
It’s just my opinion, and w/e, it’s not that easy to find a win-win situation :/
It’s actually pretty simple why they retreated from Kiev in 2022: because they did not intend and were not prepared for a prolonged occupation - they went in with far too few forces for that.
All that the maneuver toward Kiev was intended to do was bring the Ukrainians to the negotiating table. That succeeded. Then the West intervened and convinced the Ukrainians to abandon negotiations. So the Russian presence around Kiev no longer served a purpose once the SMO turned into a prolonged war of attrition.
Since then Russia has reorganized and switched from a peacetime expeditionary force to a real war time army mostly focused on destroying Ukraine’s (and NATO’s) fighting power instead of taking territory, which serves one of their main goals: demilitarization.
When either the Kiev regime or the Ukrainian armed forces collapse the Russians can occupy as much of Ukraine as they want. Which is why it is in Ukraine’s advantage to make peace as soon as possible and why they are in no position to demand any concessions from Russia, because it can only get worse for them the longer they draw it out.
I understand that it will be hard to accept for Ukraine but there is no chance of another referendum happening where they already had one. That would signal to the population of those regions, who are now officially Russian citizens, that Russia is not serious about protecting them, that Russia lied about viewing them as an integral part of the Russian nation, and instead sees them as a bargaining chip that can be given away as a “concession”.
Also, if the remnant of Ukraine is allowed into the EU (something which countries like Hungary vehemently oppose) it will be a massive poison pill, an economic and security black hole for the rest of the union only speeding up the demise of the EU. Russia would not mind that.
How will that happen, an invasion of the whole territory seem possible to you ?
It seems to me that Ukraine cannot progress further, and Russia either can’t or refuses to in regard to the costs(, not that it’s bidding its time).
I think it’ll end up with a negotiation as said previously(, i.e. Ukraine in the e.u., but demilitarized and not in the n.a.t.o., with the risks it entails), i’m curious to know if you’d attempt a more precise prediction for this year.
I don’t agree, these populations rejected a certain kind of Ukraine, so may like to be given another choice in regard to another kind of Ukraine, and as stated it would weight in the negotiations without costing much, among other advantages.
But w/e, i get your point, no need to discuss it further i think.
Possible, yes, if the regime or its military collapse. Likely? No. Russia does not want to occupy all of Ukraine. They are more likely to install a friendly government in Kiev and let them deal with the rest while Russia takes majority ethnic Russian regions like Odessa and Kharkov.
Most wars end with some kind of negotiation. But the question here is: negotiation with who? The current regime in Kiev appears unwilling/incapable of negotiating, and its legitimacy to negotiate is legally dubious anyway considering that their legal term expired and elections have been cancelled. Any agreement made with an illegitimate government might be itself considered illegitimate. This is something that needs to be resolved before an official peace deal is signed.
The only prediction I will make is that Russia will keep advancing, Ukraine’s military and political crisis will get worse, and Ukraine and its Western backers will attempt more provocations to cause some sort of escalation of the conflict beyond Ukraine. That is all I am certain of.
How though ?
You’re excluding a russian occupation of Ukraine, so have you something else in mind to make it happen ?
I know that i didn’t went far enough when searching for something that would please both sides in my first comment(, and even less in the subsequent ones), but if it’s not through strength then it’ll be through mutual concessions, i think.
And as said/implied earlier, using strength won’t make ukrainians like Russia, while mutual concessions may inverse their western shift.
Anyway, i don’t know the perfect solution to each conflict, but what should distinguish us from the past is to avoid situations such as “the winner takes all”, in the case of Israel there should be a two-states solution eventually leading to a single state with a brotherly unity between israeli jews and arabic muslims, in the case of Venezuela they should have a control of their oil, and if they choose to accept foreign companies then it shouldn’t be the current decades-long robbery but stops e.g. at a 20% ROI, we should allow socialist/islamic/… states and other differences, and in every case we should treat others as we would like to be treated, which is obviously a laughable notion in international politics where strength(&‘narrative management’) rules supreme, a conclusion which leads to the necessity of establishing solutions such as an international army and tribunal, for example.
Or we could just continue to fight between each other so that we’re on the good side of an unfair situation that only one side agrees to.
I don’t know if it’s true, but Russia often said that Ukraine can choose any side it wants as long as it doesn’t endanger Russia, closing a path to n.a.t.o. but leaving them to choose the e.u… Seems reasonable if they stay demilitarized, but it’d mean joining the e.u. over keeping their south-eastern territories, which shouldn’t be considered worth it i.m.o.
avoidance