[The link leads to 2 min. video.]

Alexander Borodai is a member of Russian Duma and one of the founding fathers of the “DPR” (Donetsk People Republic) under FSB control.

[…]

  • First, he admits that any ceasefire for Russia will only be a temporary freeze in the war, because Putin’s main goal will not be achieved - taking control of all of Ukraine and establishing a puppet Russian regime. Any independent Ukraine for Russians is “Western weapon”.

  • Second, he admits that Russia has been waging war with the help of people like him in Ukraine since 2014, and in 2022 it only continued with a full-scale invasion.

  • And most importantly, third, he directly says that the problem is not that Ukraine can be in NATO. The problem for Russians is that they consider all of Ukraine to be their “historical territory” and that Ukrainians “do not exist as a nation at all”, and that Ukraine is inhabited by “divided Russians”.

  • Foni@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    41
    ·
    23 hours ago

    I believe this is the issue: if there were a way for Ukraine to genuinely believe that Russia would not attack them again, they might accept certain territorial losses—in fact, they might have accepted them long ago. But no one believes that a Russia that wins in Donbas would stop there and not feel emboldened to push for more. Only a Russia that perceives this as a painful defeat might refrain from coming back for more.

    • Skua@kbin.earth
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      22 hours ago

      I could plausibly see a meaningful defensive agreement working for Ukraine too. I believe we should back Ukraine to the hilt for as long as they want to fight, but if we aren’t going to send in troops ourselves then when and how to negotiate is not for us to decide

      It would have to be sonthing other than NATO thanks to the current American administration, but I do think that an EU + UK agreement with sufficiently strong language - stronger than NATO’s article 5 and the EU’s mutual defence article, an actual requirement to actively deploy the military to the front - would be deterrrent enough to for Russia

      • khannie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        19 hours ago

        EU accession would cover it. The mutual defence part is fairly ironclad - “obligation” and “by all the means in their power”. Definitely less wishy-washy than article 5 IMO.

        edit: Here’s the relevant text:

        If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States.

        Commitments and cooperation in this area shall be consistent with commitments under the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, which, for those States which are members of it, remains the foundation of their collective defence and the forum for its implementation.

        Link to treaty. It’s at the bottom.

        Poland and the Baltics would be so excited at the prospect of dishing out some historical retribution so I feel like it would be enough to deter Putin.

        • Skua@kbin.earth
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          18 hours ago

          Fair point regarding the mutual defence clause actually, I had misremembered it as being significantly more vague. I’d be in favour of welcoming Ukraine into the EU, although as a Brit it would provoke a significant degree of envy in me

          • khannie@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            14 hours ago

            Ah c’mon back in neighbour. I really hope you do soon.

            edit: And there is some vagueness in there but it’s only to cover neutral countries - their obligation would be financial I think.

  • Skiluros@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    23 hours ago

    A lot of people in the West reflexively don’t want to admit this, but this the view of the overwhelming majority of the russian population. They are committed and genuine genocidal imperialists.

    • Bloodyhog@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      15 hours ago

      It is, as usual, a bit more complicated than that. Of course there are hard-boiled imperialists there, as anywhere. But it is unlikely that even Putin himself is one, he just has his own agenda.

      Russians are a nation with too dark a history in the last couple centuries (and of course before). They were oppressed by their own, killed by their many neighbours in millions, and the memory of this lives deep in them. The major driver for many of them is to avoid harm first of all, powered with fear of their own government and instilled fear of “foreign malign forces” (definition changes by the day, rather easily, driven by propaganda). It is not safe to be against the war, so naturally the majority goes with the flow.

      Do they want to actually conquer neighbours? In a way, there is a sense of pride in belonging to the strongest gang in the hood. As in, it is better to be a part of said gang than be chased by it.

      Source: am russian-born, with a lot of contacts in the country.

    • bungalowtill@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      16 hours ago

      Yeah, there’s nothing to admit here. The inherent chauvinism apparent in statements like yours should repel everybody with a little bit of decency.

  • Valmond@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    23 hours ago

    So water is wet.

    Interesting that it comes from the Duma though.

    I wonder how this, if at all, will affect the “negociations” and the European involvement.

    • Bloodyhog@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      14 hours ago

      The 2014 events were driven by the really nasty people, proper “russian jihadists”, if you like. Cut-throats armed by Russia dealt a lot of damage in Eastern Ukraine. Most of them now are either dead or in prison for being too unpalatable for their own. Borodai is one of the few survivors, but he still retains the spirit.

      Not sure if what he says is the real set of ideas behind all the war drama.

      Don’t get me wrong, I am not saying that the rest of Duma/government are fluffy kittens, just that he is an extremist not necessarily reflective of the majority even in Duma.

      Or maybe I am still too optimistic, after all these years.