4 ms·

Title is a bit incorrect. Article clearly says that Ukraine remains a country and NOT becoming part of Russia.

jollybean 5y ago
It very clearly states that Ukraine would become a vassal state, if not a province of Russia. Technically 'it's own country' but absolutely under the thumb of Russia in all terms. This is not like the 'US and Canada' or Mexico, or some smaller S. American state where the US has obvious influence. Belarus is the other example cited and they are 100% under the control of the Russians, it's the most anti-democratic place in the Western world, it's a straight dictatorship. The article is essentially saying that Ukraine will become 'another Belarus'. It's deeply chauvinistic because in the Russian worldview - the 'big powers' naturally control and oppress the small ones and for some reason they seem to believe that their totalitarian control of Belarus is somehow analogous to the US/Canada relationship or something like that. It also absolutely and completely denies Ukranian agency, as though the Ukranians themselves have no say in the matter, it's not even worth mentioning. There is definitely legitimacy to the notion of historical relationship between Ukranians and Russians, there's no doubt there, but those ties exist in other parts of the world. The implication however that Ukraine should be subject to Russian rule makes this effectively a modern day Mein Kampf.
- rossmohax 5y ago
  Belarus authoritarian leader has chosen close alliance with Russia, but denying Belarus statehood is just silly.
  - jollybean 5y ago
    I don't agree. Putin choses the the order of the day, ergo, he is the de-facto, true 'head of state'. Lukashenko has no ability to contradict Russia on terms Russia does not want to be challenge upon. Ergo, their 'statehood' is effectively coopted by Russia. The context of the document refers to the USSR, I think this is a fairly close analogy.
  - vanusa 5y ago
    Denying Belarus statehood is just silly. That's what the term "vassal state" means. It doesn't "deny statehood", technically. What it indicates is that in practical terms, a state (or the regime running it) can become so dependent on the resources of a superior state (indeed owing its very existence to it) -- that it is fair to say that it is independent in name only. Which pretty much describes the relationship of Belarus vis-a-vis Russia, after the events of 2020.
- empressplay 5y ago
  As a Canadian I'd say Uncle Sam has his thumb pretty firmly placed on my government, but this is not without its privileges. And at least Uncle Sam is fairly elected, albeit not by Canadians.
notimetorelax 5y ago
Nah, they say it remains to be decided. And what is left of a country if they have no representation.
empressplay 5y ago
It also says that Ukrainian and Russian soldiers are still fighting each other which suggests an assumption of an inevitable future victory and so perhaps the article is written from a contemporary standpoint. It may have been deleted to avoid antagonizing Ukrainian ceasefire negotiators...?

It very clearly states that Ukraine would become a vassal state, if not a province of Russia. Technically 'it's own country' but absolutely under the thumb of Russia in all terms. This is not like the 'US and Canada' or Mexico, or some smaller S. American state where the US has obvious influence. Belarus is the other example cited and they are 100% under the control of the Russians, it's the most anti-democratic place in the Western world, it's a straight dictatorship. The article is essentially saying that Ukraine will become 'another Belarus'. It's deeply chauvinistic because in the Russian worldview - the 'big powers' naturally control and oppress the small ones and for some reason they seem to believe that their totalitarian control of Belarus is somehow analogous to the US/Canada relationship or something like that. It also absolutely and completely denies Ukranian agency, as though the Ukranians themselves have no say in the matter, it's not even worth mentioning. There is definitely legitimacy to the notion of historical relationship between Ukranians and Russians, there's no doubt there, but those ties exist in other parts of the world. The implication however that Ukraine should be subject to Russian rule makes this effectively a modern day Mein Kampf.

rossmohax 5y ago
Belarus authoritarian leader has chosen close alliance with Russia, but denying Belarus statehood is just silly.
- jollybean 5y ago
  I don't agree. Putin choses the the order of the day, ergo, he is the de-facto, true 'head of state'. Lukashenko has no ability to contradict Russia on terms Russia does not want to be challenge upon. Ergo, their 'statehood' is effectively coopted by Russia. The context of the document refers to the USSR, I think this is a fairly close analogy.
- vanusa 5y ago
  Denying Belarus statehood is just silly. That's what the term "vassal state" means. It doesn't "deny statehood", technically. What it indicates is that in practical terms, a state (or the regime running it) can become so dependent on the resources of a superior state (indeed owing its very existence to it) -- that it is fair to say that it is independent in name only. Which pretty much describes the relationship of Belarus vis-a-vis Russia, after the events of 2020.
empressplay 5y ago
As a Canadian I'd say Uncle Sam has his thumb pretty firmly placed on my government, but this is not without its privileges. And at least Uncle Sam is fairly elected, albeit not by Canadians.

notimetorelax 5y ago

Nah, they say it remains to be decided. And what is left of a country if they have no representation.

empressplay 5y ago

It also says that Ukrainian and Russian soldiers are still fighting each other which suggests an assumption of an inevitable future victory and so perhaps the article is written from a contemporary standpoint. It may have been deleted to avoid antagonizing Ukrainian ceasefire negotiators...?