[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”.
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.
57 upvotes and zero downvotes.
based.
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
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.
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
The carve-out for neutral nations might throw people off (“This shall not prejudice…”) but with Sweden and Finland not neutral any more only the Austrians are left and we can manage without the catastrophe relief force they call an army.
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.
deleted by creator
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.
Usually sweeping generalizations about an entire ethnic group are spurious at best.
Why do you think this is a sweeping generalisation?
This is backed by a variety of research (both quantitative and qualitative, with different methodologies, some even run by opposition-minded russians). Not to mention historical reality since the breakup of the USSR. You do realize that russia is occupying 3 independent countries and is openly pursuing a policy of destruction of national identity?
Keep in mind that things like “preference falsification” can actually be measured and there is a wide variety of research that specifically estimates preference falsifiaction (with some rather interesting results). So don’t play dumb with the “they are all afraid to say the truth!1!!” and “all research is wrong if it doesn’t portray russian society in a good light.”
EDIT: Don’t know if it was you who downvoted me, but if it was, there is a beautiful irony considering all your talk about avoiding generalisations and actually knowing something about a topic.
So do you believe the propaganda they are being fed is going to push that Ukraine needs to be taken back or left to their own permanent sovereignty? In this day and age we have to realize that in a authoritarian government led country with an oligarchy, that their propoganda is what the general population is going to go with. When it comes to civil war or war on their neighbors, and they have already gone to war with their neighbors… Its hard to believe round 2 they won’t choose war with their neighbors as well. Animosity only grows for the neighbors when the military members come back and spread stories.
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.
Sense of belonging? This is exactly what I am mean by genocidal imperialism being universal among russians.
You (and other russians) fundamentally do not believe in self determination and will always find excuses to justify violence, occupations, torture and ethnic cleanings. The russians are even OK with being put down and abused by their own regime as long as there is imperial conquest.
I don’t buy the “dark history” narrative. There is nothing inherent (in a physical sense) about russians that leads to degeneracy and debauchery. It’s all the choices they make. The somewhat peaceful breakup of the USSR was a unique opportunity for russians and we can see the choices they made.
Source: I’ve lived in russia for many years and I speak fluent russian. I’ve also lived in North America, Asia and Europe and speak other languages.
I don’t buy the “dark history” narrative. There is nothing inherent (in a physical sense) about russians that leads to degeneracy and debauchery. It’s all the choices they make.
There’s a fuckton of cultural baggage from, following Emmanuel Todd, exogamous communal family structures. Stuff like this. There’s a whole theory about how the “really existing socialism” states started out with that family structure, replaced the actual pater familias with a grand national one, to silently change the actual family structure to nuclear in a rebellion against the violence inherent in that particular arrangement (Todd explains that way better than me). But the fundamental values that the system was an expression of still isn’t gone, and definitely alive and well in the military context. And mafia / prisoner culture. There’s one truth in that system: If you’re not a perpetrator, then you’re a victim. As such the “fear drives people to do things” is true, the question Russia should be asking itself, though, is where that fucking cart of theirs is headed. Where they want it to be headed. Have yourselves a February revolution and this time not have it usurped by October. Normalise civic agency.
Yeah, there’s nothing to admit here. The inherent chauvinism apparent in statements like yours should repel everybody with a little bit of decency.
No chauvinism. These are facts. And you know this. There are even russians who agree with what I am saying, not because they lack decency, but because they actually want their society to change.
Playing into russian victimhood narratives, treating them like children and coddling their worst instincts is not doing russians any favour.
Kinda weird that you assume that I know, and you know, what the overwhelming majority of Russians is thinking. I mean, I can make a general assumption, that obviously, they are no revolutionaries. They go to work every day. They have children they have to take care of. They have a pretty similar life to ours and therefore don’t want trouble upending their lives for the worse. If the government has imperial ambitions, it usually collides with people’s interests. I can say that without knowing one Russian.
Now I have a little bit of an…advantage? That is, I do know many Russians and yeah, none of them has genocidal tendencies. They also don’t claim that it is one of their national traits. National victimhood is just pretty fashionable inside nationalist governments. It is not limited to Russia, too.
Life isn’t a Star Wars movie. Going to work everyday and taking care of your children is not incompatible with being a genocidal imperialist. You can even not want any invasion to impact you directly and still be a genocidal imperialist.
So what that the russians you know aren’t genocidal imperialists? All the russians I speak to aren’t genocidal imperialists either, what are you trying to say? The reason why I said you know this and you’re just playing is because of these sort of arguments.
“We don’t know anything and even if we do it is all wrong unless it portrays russians as innocent children and who should never take responsibility for anything.”
You almost certainly know that all research (literally from any source, using any methodology, even multi-decade longitudinal research) shows that anything between a strong majority to an overwhelming majority of russians support genocidal imperialism.
And unlike you, I’ve actually lived in russia for many years and I speak fluent russian (and yet I constantly had to deal with racism by the russians because I am of a mixed ethnicity).
So spare me your fake humanism. It’s just more convenient for you to white wash their support for genocidal imperialism.
Your assumptions about me are just as ludicrous as the ones about Russians.
Goodbye
Unfortunately, these are not assumptions, but factual results of a very broad range of research, sometimes conducted over decades.
You on the hand assume that I am just shitposting or “spreading hate against the innocent”. That’s why I brought up the fake humanism. You can’t even imagine the possibility that I more than happy to read critiques and alternative viewpoints on the research I am alluding to. The problem being is that none of it is convincing and similar to your arguments it devolves into “trust me bro!” and “all research is wrong unless it aligns with my opinion of russian society”. Do you want some examples?
If you knew what you were talking about and weren’t engaging in fake humanism, you would have had an argument that goes beyond “your views are ludicrous!1!1!!”.
But you don’t.
Ah, the research you are alluding to:
all research (literally from any source, using any methodology, even multi-decade longitudinal research)
Why should I trust you, bro?
Instead you want to show me examples of your arguments with some other posters? I’ve seen some examples here, and all it boils down to are anecdotal references of yours. That’s also why I brought up mine. Of course they don’t account for much.
You really didn’t bring up anything to prove your accusation of enthusiasm for genocide ingrained in the Russian people.
He should avoid being near windows, and also eating or drinking.
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.
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.
Yeah let’s hope we (Europe) can grow a spine. We were actually quite good at war before …
