this post was submitted on 31 Aug 2023
605 points (94.3% liked)
World News
32326 readers
986 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Saying "oh cool, this will help us regain New France one day and really piss off our archrivals" is still supporting them. That's my point, seperatists often rely on geopolitical rivals supporting them for ulterior motives. You can't really cleanly separate bottom-up political activism from opportunistic rivals with ulterior motives, because in practice the former will generally rely on the latter. Generally when you're fighting a civil war, you don't have the luxury of turning up your nose at offers of assistance for the sake of purity. So if your position is supporting seperatists movements except when they recieve foreign backing, you're not going to find yourself supporting many seperatists movements in practice, at least in cases where they have to fight.
If this was still like 2018, I'd be out there supporting the various brokered deals that included Russia at the table. Framing the current conflict as a civil war is inaccurate, as it lost the characteristics of a civil conflict when Russia attacked the rest of Ukraine in February 2022. What was a protracted, simmering war between a fraction of the Ukrainian army and Russian-backed Separatists on the fringes of the nation's territory, with a dynamic akin to plenty of regions around the world throughout the latter half of the 20th century and the start of the 21st.
I wouldn't say that's my position. I support separatism, but I also oppose war in most of its forms, since it means the destruction of people's livelihoods, and heritages, which of course cost many lives in the process too. People here often talk about ending the war in Ukraine as fast as possible because of the violence, so wouldn't the morally and ethically consistent viewpoint be to support what would prevent war too, not to argue for or justify foreign interventionism? No war but class war, you know?
Within the context of Ukraine, the DNR and LPR didn't have the relationship with Russia that, going back to the French and American Revolution example, the American colonists had with the French. American separatists didn't become subordinate to French military leadership or to French foreign policy goals. The newly-independent Americans didn't then ask to join the French Empire.
As an aside, France's support for the Americans failed them in their ambitions and led to the collapse of the Ancien Regime, which if we're to take it as indicative of the outcome and legacy of foreign-backed separatist conflicts, means that this isn't gonna be good for Russia long term.
Ok so what happens if a government says, "No you can't secede and I don't care how many of you want to?" Nations aren't generally keen on giving up territory, especially in cases where the relationship is exploitative. Renouncing force means renouncing the threat of force, which can often leave very little leverage for a seperatist movement to work with.
Personally though, I'm inclined to agree somewhat with your point that seperatism isn't always worth the conflict, and for that reason I wouldn't necessarily agree with the stance of being predisposed to support seperatist movements. Imo, it's better to take a pragmatic view, evaluating the specific conditions on a case by case basis.
I would argue that if Russia withdrew and the seperatist movements surrendered, there would still be a conflict between the Russian speaking population and the Ukrainian government. I suppose it'd be possible for Russia to offer citizenship and relocation assistance to everyone, but it would mean displacing a lot of people and I'm not sure it's realistic. Do you have examples of historical precedent in a comperable situation?
I don't think it's unreasonable that the DNR and LPR would want to join Russia for legitimate security reasons at this point. If you want to label them as Russian proxies and Ukraine as a US proxy, I don't mind, but I think the reality is that while both are influenced by foreign governments, they also both represent some degree of genuine support.
I don't think you can extrapolate like that from a single data point under pretty different conditions.
This is what happens with every seperatist movement pretty much though, and yet i dont see many calls for arms and civil war Cascadia, Scotland, Catalonia these days. The people there know it would mean the destruction of everything they hold dear.
I mean, I don't think there's any way of getting around displacing people - if it joined Russia I'm sure there are people who'd want to leave for Ukraine, and of course we're already talking about the reverse.
I can't think of specific examples but there's definitely been examples of mass migration or offering of citizenship due to "political solutions" meant to avoid conflict and reduce the spectre of war. Just off the cuff though, I can think of how people of Northern Ireland are able to hold Irish passports, or the numerous migrations that happened in the 20th century when borders were changed or imposes as parts of treaties (the part of Germany that is now Poland, the Muslim/Hindu migrations between Pakistan and India during partitioning, etc)
These aren't good or something I'm arguing for, but I believe that it was preferable to all out war.
Me too, that's why I said it at the end as an aside, it was more of a glib comment than an actual thesis.
I'm perfectly fine with a negotiated settlement. Ideally, the areas where more people want to stay in Ukraine should stay with Ukraine and the areas where more people want to join Russia should join Russia. That would minimize the amount of displacement while allowing people to live under the government of their choice. My real issue is that Ukraine won't negotiate at all, even on Crimea, and I just think that's unreasonable.
This was the biggest example that came to my mind and it's not exactly comparable but it's not exactly a ringing endorsement of relocation.
For the same reason that every country tells its own seperatist movements "no". I believe that Russia should've waited things out because its the open state of war that gives Ukraine enough diplomatic cover to push to its pre-2014 borders. Had it done so I think given another decade or two, Ukraine would have to accept reality and cede it formally in exchange for concessions of some sort (again, thinking of historical precedent).
While I've been describing and explaining sovereignty as a concept I do believe it presents inherent flaws indicative of its origins with European royals and its having been imposed across the world.
Of course not, but a war with shifting frontlines (since I was suggesting it as an alternative to invasion) would be inherently more destructive. (Although forced relocation can be committed as a war crime too).
That's kind of a fair point I think but I don't think the Donbas would ever be able to join Russia in this timeline. Without Russian intervention, the separatists likely lose and the years that follow establish precedent for Russia control of Crimea but also for Ukrainian control over Donbas. I think it's a valid, if cynical, argument to say that Russia should've cashed out with Crimea instead of going all in to try to take Donbas, but it means leaving the separatist out to dry. I do kind of agree with it though, I guess it comes down to what happens to the separatists if Ukraine wins, and I've seen people say they'd be genocided but I don't really buy that, seems speculative and like propaganda.
Valid, but cynical arguments make up a lot of foreign policy takes :/. Part of why I speak how I do is because I want to live in a world that one day won't be ruled by realpolitik and for people to matter when it comes to the foreign policies of nationstates.
I'm inclined to agree.