Comment by necovek
5 years ago
You seem to be completely denying the statement (what I though of as fact, but I am happy to be corrected) that there are regions of Ukraine which have predominantly Russian population. I am talking about allowing those regions to secede and internationally recognizing their independence.
The fact that there was continuous fighting since 2014 suggests to me that neither side was satisfied with the status quo.
I've long ago given up the premise of "independence": as a Serbian citizen, I don't have any say in what happens in Kosovo, and I shouldn't have. Majority of the population there is Albanian, and the only qualm I have is that entire (what used to be) official province of Kosovo & Metohija is automatically assigned to the majority of that province, instead of allowing small parts to remain in Serbia which desire to do so. Basically, a fuller right to self-determination. (Not that I think nationalist sentiment is a net win either: what we get in cultural value is easily cancelled with all the political crap it enables)
None of that happened through any "independence", but instead through an act of war by NATO on Serbia (just like another superpower is doing it today to Ukraine, though a lot worse since they kicked off a ground invasion too). If the UN had a framework to at least offer a peaceful secession, maybe we'd see none of the war. Because we now have plenty of evidence what immutability of borders means: it means an unavoidable war when minority regions disagree with majority vote.
> You seem to be completely denying the statement (what I though of as fact, but I am happy to be corrected) that there are regions of Ukraine which have predominantly Russian population. I am talking about allowing those regions to secede and internationally recognizing their independence.
And I am telling you, specifically, that those parts of Ukraine seceding to Russia, as they want to, does not matter in the grand scheme of things. I'm telling you, using Putin's words and ideology, that Ukraine, even without Crimea, even without Donetsk, and even without Luhansk, was never going to remain fully independent. You ignored practically the entirety of my post, it seems.
This is even evident today because Russia already has Crimea. Russia already took control of eastern Ukraine.
So...what is Putin doing in Kyiv?
I don't have a response to what is Putin doing in Kyiv: it beats me, and it certainly looks like they want full control of Ukraine (but then again, they are not after all the other Western cities of Ukraine).
I can't, for the life of me, figure out what is the ultimate outcome that Putin and Russian leadership desires: if they have only invaded Eastern Ukraine, they could keep some plausible deniability aspect in relationship to Ukrainian people. The way they've done it, especially in regards to Kyiv, throws that out of the picture, and they've established an animosity that's going to last for the next 30+ years at least.
The most likely outcome so far seems to be that they definitely succeed in taking over Eastern Ukraine, and possibly succeed in taking Kyiv over... and then what? Set up a dictatorship in Ukraine while still pretending to have democracy in Russia? That can't work.
But none of that matters in this what-if discussion. Russia took control of the eastern Ukraine, but it's obvious Ukraine still had pretension on getting it back, thus engaging their military at the frontier. I don't think you can warrant we'd see this development if there was an actual internationally-recognized secession going on, which is my entire point. Even originally I acknowledge that I wasn't certain this would stop Putin, but it would stop this excuse from being used. And then we could figure out what other excuse warlords like him can come up with, and work with that.
I mostly care about considering if there are ways to avoid wars and killing to achieve what are ultimately financial motives (hidden behind nationalistic and similar reasons, because those are great crowd-influencing tools). And the only solution to me seems to be an established framework for financial compensation for "losses" for the part of the land being split off. Unfortunately, throughout history, human life has been seen as zero cost, even though it has a huge cost even in inhumane terms (eg. lost tax income and production, taxable descendants...).
Edit: you seem to be completely underestimating the value of international recognition of a separatist region. Why did Russia not recognize separatist states earlier than last week? Their own laws would probably stop them until they were "called in to help". If they were recognized internationally, Ukraine would be prohibited from engaging in war actions as well.
> The most likely outcome so far seems to be that they definitely succeed in taking over Eastern Ukraine, and possibly succeed in taking Kyiv over... and then what? Set up a dictatorship in Ukraine while still pretending to have democracy in Russia? That can't work.
Yeah, that is ultimately one of the goals. Look to Georgia and Belarus here. Basically none of these countries can ever aspire to join NATO. That's the main problem, followed by the other problems I mentioned previously. How this is achieved really doesn't matter.
> Russia took control of the eastern Ukraine, but it's obvious Ukraine still had pretension on getting it back, thus engaging their military at the frontier. I don't think you can warrant we'd see this development if there was an actual internationally-recognized secession going on, which is my entire point.
But again, I'm literally telling you, this secession is practically irrelevant to what's going on today.
Hypothetically, let's say Ukraine was insane and agreed to give up Crimea. It agreed to give up Donetsk. And it agreed to give up Luhansk. Literally for free. There are now no military conflicts between Ukraine, Crimea, Donetsk, and Luhansk.
Everyone is happy. Yes?
Then a day after, the entire world recognizes that Crimea is part of Russia, recognizes that Donetsk (DPR) is independent, and recognizes that Luhansk (LPR) is independent.
Everyone is happy. Yes?
Then, another day later, Ukraine goes back to applying for membership into NATO.
Russia would invade Ukraine. That is a fact.
That's the problem with everything you're saying.
Yes, I get that the majority of the people in these regions want to split off and align with Russia. I get that.
I get that pro-separatist groups in these regions were in active combat prior to Russia's invasion. I get that Ukraine's military was actively engaging in combat within those regions. I get that. Ukraine blocked off Crimea's access to fresh water. I get that, too.
All of that is /completely/ irrelevant to Putin's reasoning for invading Ukraine.
And I think that's what's most annoying about how Putin does things. There's always a small hint of truth to his reasoning and people get completely stuck on that for some reason. This is part of his propaganda.
If you look at the reasons he gave for invading Ukraine, one of them was "denazification." How are you going to get rid of that pretext? Volodymyr Zelenskiy is Jewish and born to Jewish parents! How was he elected if Ukraine has a Nazi problem?!
But to quadruple re-iterate, none of those things matter. Putin, ultimately, wants to pull back NATO, he wants to gain control over former Soviet countries, and it wants Russia (USSR) to be a superpower again.
You're trying to see things from a perspective that just doesn't apply at all. Again, look at my initial post for my reasoning as to why this is the case. And again, look at the literal fact that Putin sent troops to invade /ALL/ of Ukraine, not just the Russia-backed separatist regions.
1 reply →