Surprisingly level headed article given the title.
Vladimir Putin: the most dangerous problem in the world
Ukraine isn’t the problem, it’s Russia’s pathetic cold-war mentality where they think they still own Ukraine. So it’s more accurate to say that “Putin is the most dangerous problem in the world”
>In July of this year, Russian President Vladimir Putin published an essay emphasizing (partly accurately, partly not) the close historical and cultural ties between Ukrainians and Russians and condemning what he suggested was the West’s strategy of turning Ukraine into an armed enemy of Russia.
These articles should most definitely not be seen as authoritative pieces, and neither as some positions of a regional power to make compromises with. We are talking about some extremely chauvinistic opinion pieces that are among the most hardline Russian-Soviet apologist positions, even borderline Stalinist viewpoints. No, seriously, it’s like the most dedicated RuNet Putinists would have come together and created a parallel history about poor abused Russia that has constantly been attacked by all these evil neighbours (fascists, nazis, Russophobes, you name it) and is now on its track to rise back on its feet and is not afraid to protect its interests. Let me remind you that this talk is, in this case, against its several times smaller neighbour that’s arguably had an even harsher 20th century than Russians, not to mention which is a historically close nation to Russians.
>§ A Ukrainian constitutional amendment establishing the Donbas region as an autonomous republic within Ukraine (including those parts of the Donetsk and Luhansk provinces currently controlled by Ukraine); and
While it’s welcoming to see a new approach to the stalemate, this is hardly as pragmatic as it sounds.
What good would autonomy do for the occupied area? They are not some cultural-linguisitic-religious minority. What separates them from rest of Ukraine is their sense of identity and feelings of loyalty, which are fully oriented towards Russia. How do you imagine a piece of Ukraine that’s loyal to Russia?
>If the parliament rejected it, a new internationally supervised referendum would be held giving the people of the region a straight choice between rejoining a unitary Ukraine and becoming independent, with a future option to join the Russian Federation.
So this would quite frankly mean opening a free path for Russia to expand its territory at the expense of neighbours even further, this time with full approval of the West. Amazing. I totally think we should keep throwing more land to the already world’s largest country, this will definitely improve relations. Appeasement never fails. /s
>There can thus be no objection from democratic principle to a federal system for Ukraine, or to special autonomy for the Donbas.
There can’t indeed, but this should be a decision taken in harmony by the majority of Ukrainians, not forced down their throat as a result of an invasive neighbour and manipulative “allies”. Otherwise, you’ll not be getting a new Germany, but instead a new Bosnia.
>These proposals will meet with strong opposition from Ukrainian nationalists and their supporters in the West, including some in the US Congress.
The authors of the article ought to be a little more careful with the use of ‘nationalists’ because in that sense it might just encompass the majority of the country.
>the current Western hostility toward Russia stems above all from the crisis in Ukraine and Russia’s actions there, and this hostility will be greatly reduced by an end to the Ukrainian crisis.
I don’t know if I should laugh or cry here. Maybe if they haven’t noticed that Putin’s hyper-aggressive and chauvinistic foreign policy towards their neighbours did not start and most definitely will not end with Ukraine, then the Baltics alone have plenty of material to show for that. Let me remind you that Moscow’s mayor, i.e. the head of a 10+ million city rallied against tiny Estonia, called for boycott against anything Estonian and swore revenge on Russia’s own produced fake news that a Soviet monument in Tallinn had been “sawn to pieces”. This is not a sane, level-headed country that you can just work your way out with. These conflicts and wars are simply inevitable with such angry trigger-happy people leading the society.
And now we have Belarus where Russia is propping up a hated illegitimate dictatorship just to slowly swallow the state (and endanger EU’s East even further).
>Russia’s willingness to bring power to bear in Ukraine has much deeper roots than that of the United States. In the case of the Donbas, if US attention to the region dates back some 30 years, the interest of the Moscow-based Russian state (later the Russian Empire) dates back some 600 years, and that of the previous state of Kievan Rus (whose legacy is disputed between Russia and Ukraine) up to 600 years before that.
Who should that persuade? If anything, this reveals what a disastrous foreign policy Russia has had. Their centuries-old links with neighbours have been completely destroyed, there’s not even a basic fabric of trust left. Furthermore, with Putin’s chauvinsitic almost history-rewriting articles, playing into the hand of “the historical rule” would be a grave mistake and legitimise such crazy takes even further. Let me remind you that Putin has also published similar articles on Baltic states, effectively denying occupation and implying Soviet rule had many benefits to the locals.
>But great powers will inevitably take a strong interest in regions on their borders, and will react with suspicion and hostility to the appearance of rival great powers there.
Just as the West, that is the EU and NATO, should react to Russia invading its neighbours. It’s a threat to us.
While I welcome a fresh approach to the Ukrainian stalemate, this piece unfortunately repeats the same old dangerous points of appeasement we’ve heard way too much and ultimately base on the false belief that Ukraine is the cause of the Western-Russian tensions. I’m afraid it’s only a symptom.
>The events of 2014, and the conflict with Russia that followed, have led to a situation in which ethnic nationalists (with Western backing) dominate national politics in Kiev.
Zelensky ethnic nationalist my arse. Another article that was written by a retard. Award-winning “professor” can`t do some basic fact check.
>Russia is planning annexation the Donbas!
Oh no, we are so scared! Quick implement Minsk agreement!
Putin is going to annex… wrecked hellhole that has no industry or resources, territory on the brink of ecological disaster. (Long story but soviets exploded nuke in one of the coal mines, and now because there is no maintenance it is going to spill everywhere). Ukraine, nuclear power, ecological disaster – your typical situation.
The territory that for the last 7 years was run by a literal scammer Pushilin (not making this up, this is hilarious. In 2011–2013 Pushilin volunteered for a recent successor of the Russian Ponzi scheme company MMM. I truly wonder, if Putin is just a big memer at heart.
>This was, however, inevitable. Since Russia has annexed Crimea (in accordance, it seems, with the wishes of a majority of the region’s population)
ah famous 10-day referendum. Scots are suckers, their referendum took 500 day, they have a lot to learn in life. If the majority was in support, why draw fake numbers in results, why forbid observers both local and foreign? Just in case?
6 comments
Wait, it’s not climate change?
Surprisingly level headed article given the title.
Vladimir Putin: the most dangerous problem in the world
Ukraine isn’t the problem, it’s Russia’s pathetic cold-war mentality where they think they still own Ukraine. So it’s more accurate to say that “Putin is the most dangerous problem in the world”
>In July of this year, Russian President Vladimir Putin published an essay emphasizing (partly accurately, partly not) the close historical and cultural ties between Ukrainians and Russians and condemning what he suggested was the West’s strategy of turning Ukraine into an armed enemy of Russia.
These articles should most definitely not be seen as authoritative pieces, and neither as some positions of a regional power to make compromises with. We are talking about some extremely chauvinistic opinion pieces that are among the most hardline Russian-Soviet apologist positions, even borderline Stalinist viewpoints. No, seriously, it’s like the most dedicated RuNet Putinists would have come together and created a parallel history about poor abused Russia that has constantly been attacked by all these evil neighbours (fascists, nazis, Russophobes, you name it) and is now on its track to rise back on its feet and is not afraid to protect its interests. Let me remind you that this talk is, in this case, against its several times smaller neighbour that’s arguably had an even harsher 20th century than Russians, not to mention which is a historically close nation to Russians.
>§ A Ukrainian constitutional amendment establishing the Donbas region as an autonomous republic within Ukraine (including those parts of the Donetsk and Luhansk provinces currently controlled by Ukraine); and
While it’s welcoming to see a new approach to the stalemate, this is hardly as pragmatic as it sounds.
What good would autonomy do for the occupied area? They are not some cultural-linguisitic-religious minority. What separates them from rest of Ukraine is their sense of identity and feelings of loyalty, which are fully oriented towards Russia. How do you imagine a piece of Ukraine that’s loyal to Russia?
>If the parliament rejected it, a new internationally supervised referendum would be held giving the people of the region a straight choice between rejoining a unitary Ukraine and becoming independent, with a future option to join the Russian Federation.
So this would quite frankly mean opening a free path for Russia to expand its territory at the expense of neighbours even further, this time with full approval of the West. Amazing. I totally think we should keep throwing more land to the already world’s largest country, this will definitely improve relations. Appeasement never fails. /s
>There can thus be no objection from democratic principle to a federal system for Ukraine, or to special autonomy for the Donbas.
There can’t indeed, but this should be a decision taken in harmony by the majority of Ukrainians, not forced down their throat as a result of an invasive neighbour and manipulative “allies”. Otherwise, you’ll not be getting a new Germany, but instead a new Bosnia.
>These proposals will meet with strong opposition from Ukrainian nationalists and their supporters in the West, including some in the US Congress.
The authors of the article ought to be a little more careful with the use of ‘nationalists’ because in that sense it might just encompass the majority of the country.
>the current Western hostility toward Russia stems above all from the crisis in Ukraine and Russia’s actions there, and this hostility will be greatly reduced by an end to the Ukrainian crisis.
I don’t know if I should laugh or cry here. Maybe if they haven’t noticed that Putin’s hyper-aggressive and chauvinistic foreign policy towards their neighbours did not start and most definitely will not end with Ukraine, then the Baltics alone have plenty of material to show for that. Let me remind you that Moscow’s mayor, i.e. the head of a 10+ million city rallied against tiny Estonia, called for boycott against anything Estonian and swore revenge on Russia’s own produced fake news that a Soviet monument in Tallinn had been “sawn to pieces”. This is not a sane, level-headed country that you can just work your way out with. These conflicts and wars are simply inevitable with such angry trigger-happy people leading the society.
And now we have Belarus where Russia is propping up a hated illegitimate dictatorship just to slowly swallow the state (and endanger EU’s East even further).
>Russia’s willingness to bring power to bear in Ukraine has much deeper roots than that of the United States. In the case of the Donbas, if US attention to the region dates back some 30 years, the interest of the Moscow-based Russian state (later the Russian Empire) dates back some 600 years, and that of the previous state of Kievan Rus (whose legacy is disputed between Russia and Ukraine) up to 600 years before that.
Who should that persuade? If anything, this reveals what a disastrous foreign policy Russia has had. Their centuries-old links with neighbours have been completely destroyed, there’s not even a basic fabric of trust left. Furthermore, with Putin’s chauvinsitic almost history-rewriting articles, playing into the hand of “the historical rule” would be a grave mistake and legitimise such crazy takes even further. Let me remind you that Putin has also published similar articles on Baltic states, effectively denying occupation and implying Soviet rule had many benefits to the locals.
>But great powers will inevitably take a strong interest in regions on their borders, and will react with suspicion and hostility to the appearance of rival great powers there.
Just as the West, that is the EU and NATO, should react to Russia invading its neighbours. It’s a threat to us.
While I welcome a fresh approach to the Ukrainian stalemate, this piece unfortunately repeats the same old dangerous points of appeasement we’ve heard way too much and ultimately base on the false belief that Ukraine is the cause of the Western-Russian tensions. I’m afraid it’s only a symptom.
>The events of 2014, and the conflict with Russia that followed, have led to a situation in which ethnic nationalists (with Western backing) dominate national politics in Kiev.
Zelensky ethnic nationalist my arse. Another article that was written by a retard. Award-winning “professor” can`t do some basic fact check.
>Russia is planning annexation the Donbas!
Oh no, we are so scared! Quick implement Minsk agreement!
Putin is going to annex… wrecked hellhole that has no industry or resources, territory on the brink of ecological disaster. (Long story but soviets exploded nuke in one of the coal mines, and now because there is no maintenance it is going to spill everywhere). Ukraine, nuclear power, ecological disaster – your typical situation.
The territory that for the last 7 years was run by a literal scammer Pushilin (not making this up, this is hilarious. In 2011–2013 Pushilin volunteered for a recent successor of the Russian Ponzi scheme company MMM. I truly wonder, if Putin is just a big memer at heart.
>This was, however, inevitable. Since Russia has annexed Crimea (in accordance, it seems, with the wishes of a majority of the region’s population)
ah famous 10-day referendum. Scots are suckers, their referendum took 500 day, they have a lot to learn in life. If the majority was in support, why draw fake numbers in results, why forbid observers both local and foreign? Just in case?