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.
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