Great, everyone who lives on the occupied territories looses everything, no police ( prob in prison for or executed), no judges, lawlessness, where random militarily March in without anyone to stop em, that and if we ignore the fact that there are alot of Nazis who hate East Ukrainians and Russians, under perfect conditions the civilans just would need to get out, without anything.
And now imagne how many families would have someone in they’re familie who fought on the Russian side. ( as if you remember it was a civilwar 14-20 in the beginnng ).
“Maybe leave Ukraine“, would not stop the war it would just put civilans on the front line.
So you are saying the invasion cannot be stopped or someone with an expired passport won’t be able to renew it? Okay then, I guess there is no other option but continue then…
All Russian citizens who moved to Crimea after 2014 should be expelled
That’s not quite the same as your claim regarding those who were originally Ukrainian citizens and who would supposedly be forced out. You’re contradicting yourself or disregarding your own statement.
There’s nothing stopping Ukraine from accepting them as citizens. But that is Ukraine’s decision to make, seeing as it’s their country. And yes, if they decide that illegal settlers should be kicked out, hell, why were they there to begin with?
Are you talking about the current war, or do you mean that they were there before Russia took Crimea in 2014?
If you mean they were there after 2014, what does that matter, it was still stolen land at that time.
If they were there before 2014, I would agree that some form of a path towards citizenship should be made, but again that is Ukraine’s prerogative.
Edit: Reading your second article, that is exactly what Ukraine is proposing, expelling Russians who moved to annexed land after 2014. What about that seems unreasonable? They took a gamble and moved to a conflicted territory, maybe they were led to believe it was their right, but it doesn’t change the reality that it wasn’t.
About those who where there pre 2014.
They took up Russian citizenship.
Now they count as collaborators and traitors.
If you for example are policemen, doctor or have anything to do with the goverment, under Russian occupation you go to prison, as a traitor.
That does seem like a troubling situation. I do imagine that there are likely quite a few people who took those positions with good intentions, but when the new ruler comes to town and asks who wants power, it does seem obvious that there are strings attached. In this case, the deal was indeed to become a traitor in exchange for power/position, but I’m sure many were signing up just to survive.
You’re right, there are probably good people that are going to be harmed alongside the bad, and I don’t think there is a perfect solution. I would say it needs to get talked about as we get closer to a peace deal, it’s truly regrettable that Russia decided to create this problem, maybe they could also work towards a solution for these citizens they forced into this role.
Edit: purely hypothetical, but one thought comes to mind. A compromise might be acceptable if they were given the choice to either retain their Ukrainian citizenship, but lose their position, or to defect to Russia. Though, once again this realm of decision making lies entirely in the hands of the victor of the war.
Also, what would you describe people as that help an occupier annex your territory and build up the occupiers control over it, if not collaborateurs?
If they truly wanted to only help their people, they can argue that in court. Because as a country striving to become a fully fledged democracy, they will get a chance to defend themselves in Ukraine, as opposed to getting thrown out of windows, like in Russia.
You must be a troll checking if anyone is reading the articles you linked, right? This has to be an elaborate joke, right?
Per the very article you linked:
The timeline continues ahead to July 2024, when, according to new Russian laws, residents without Russian citizenship would be considered “foreigners” or “stateless” and can be detained in detention facilities and/or deported to Russia.
It says that there is a Russian law that forces Ukrainans to take on a Russian passport by threatening to deport or incarcerate them for not having a Russian passport! The paragraph describes exactly what you claimed, but for Russia, not Ukraine.
If Ukraine wins. Most civilans living in Crimea and in the occupied territories, as ukraines plan decrees, have to leave the country.
If they somehow still only have the Ukrainian citizenship they are barred from any job that has any ties to the goverment.
Also anyone with a goverment position who helped, so any policemen, doctor, teacher, etc will probability be judged as a collaborator and hence a traitor.
So imagne the regular Ukrainian Army moves in. With some nationalistic hatred that exists. You will have armed men while everyone around em is an enemy, and there is no one to stop you, some people will resort to self justice. Hence the metaphor of putting civilans on the front line.
Yeah… I’m pretty sure Putin doesn’t care about those people or anyone not named Putin. He can stop attacking whenever he wants. He won’t, because that’s admitting weakness.
I imagine roughly how America ended the Vietnam war. Russia would have to initiate some willingness to stop the war with favorable conditions, and then talks could start. That’s actually right there in the articles you linked with BoJo in them.
It’d likely take nothing less than ceasefire without conditions, returning all occupied Ukrainian territory, including Crimea. And if Russia doesn’t like that, I’d love to see people start talking about historical borders again and we can joke about restoring the empire of Kiev.
And then, just like the Vietnam war, they can strut around saying they didn’t lose the war, they just agreed on favorable terms.
Edit: Actually, I may even be a bit too pessimistic here. There’s a low, but still possible chance that the tucker interview could be that message. I invite nothing less but the opportunity for Putin to publicly surrender. It would be a great thing.
Haha, right you are. It just goes to show how silly this “historic border” talk is as a justification for land grabs. Why would the argument exist for giving up Crimea if it also didn’t come with the other historic borders. Did Russia even offer their portion of historical lands? Rude lol.
I’m honestly not entirely sure what you’re getting at there, are you suggesting that they should join Russia and be a part of the federation instead of retaining their independence?
Do you mean Ukraine?
No. I would prefer a three alliance sollution, where Baltic states, poland, Ukraine, serbia, and some other countries join a military alliance. Strong enough to stand on they’re own. Wich is neutral towards NATO and Russia.
Hence there would be stratigic balance between NATO and Russia. Russia would not bee needing to fear NATO nuclear weapons on their border while NATO would have a puffer zone towards Russia. This Baltic Alliance could be the trading crossroads while also having much closer ties and stronger garantees to each other. ( there is a common fear that if one of the smaller NATO countries would be attacked that article 5 wouldnt be enacted upon due to the “insignificance“ of the smaller country. )
Additionaly if Russia or NATO tried taking their independence they could join up for an alliance with the other one.
That honestly sounds like a reasonable way to position Baltic/border states, but wouldn’t it rely on the willingness of all of those countries? And since the Baltic states are already NATO, I don’t see a lot of likelihood for them to leave for a strategically weaker alliance.
You’re right about that common fear on article 5, I’m hoping it will never be tested haha.
No not illegal. But how do you imagne it would happen?
How Russia would stop the invasion they started?
Maybe leave Ukraine?
I’m not sure I’m understanding what you’re asking.
Ok and what about the people who stay there? Civilians.
https://www.politico.eu/article/in-ukraine-collaboration-cases-arent-always-clear-cut/
https://edition.cnn.com/2022/06/08/europe/ukraine-hunt-for-collaborators-intl/index.html
https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-war-crimea-9da550b396f42cc267a4808bf99d5e6d
Oops your passport expired, you cannot renew it as you are currently in occupied territory. Oops you are no longer a Ukrainian citizen so move out.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/aug/03/russia-forcing-ukrainian-passports-us-report
Great, everyone who lives on the occupied territories looses everything, no police ( prob in prison for or executed), no judges, lawlessness, where random militarily March in without anyone to stop em, that and if we ignore the fact that there are alot of Nazis who hate East Ukrainians and Russians, under perfect conditions the civilans just would need to get out, without anything.
And now imagne how many families would have someone in they’re familie who fought on the Russian side. ( as if you remember it was a civilwar 14-20 in the beginnng ).
“Maybe leave Ukraine“, would not stop the war it would just put civilans on the front line.
So you are saying the invasion cannot be stopped or someone with an expired passport won’t be able to renew it? Okay then, I guess there is no other option but continue then…
No. Expired passport means they have to take the Russian one. And if you have a Russian passport you will be forced out.
Says who exactly?
Ukraines plans with Russian citizens if they win the war.
https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-war-crimea-9da550b396f42cc267a4808bf99d5e6d
That’s not quite the same as your claim regarding those who were originally Ukrainian citizens and who would supposedly be forced out. You’re contradicting yourself or disregarding your own statement.
They absolutely do not have to take the russian one.
Expired passports happen all over the world. They just get renewed.
Which means they can just rip up the illegal passports they got forced upon them from soldiers from an illegal invasion.
Where? In a Ukranian Embassy? There is none on occupied territory.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/aug/03/russia-forcing-ukrainian-passports-us-report
And Ukraine sad countless times that anyone taking these is a traitor. Even if its enforced.
Put down the crack pipe.
There’s nothing stopping Ukraine from accepting them as citizens. But that is Ukraine’s decision to make, seeing as it’s their country. And yes, if they decide that illegal settlers should be kicked out, hell, why were they there to begin with?
Because they lived there before the war.
No, there is something stopping them from accepting them as citizens. The laws Ukraine has set in place.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/aug/03/russia-forcing-ukrainian-passports-us-report https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-war-crimea-9da550b396f42cc267a4808bf99d5e6d
Are you talking about the current war, or do you mean that they were there before Russia took Crimea in 2014?
If you mean they were there after 2014, what does that matter, it was still stolen land at that time.
If they were there before 2014, I would agree that some form of a path towards citizenship should be made, but again that is Ukraine’s prerogative.
Edit: Reading your second article, that is exactly what Ukraine is proposing, expelling Russians who moved to annexed land after 2014. What about that seems unreasonable? They took a gamble and moved to a conflicted territory, maybe they were led to believe it was their right, but it doesn’t change the reality that it wasn’t.
About those who where there pre 2014. They took up Russian citizenship. Now they count as collaborators and traitors. If you for example are policemen, doctor or have anything to do with the goverment, under Russian occupation you go to prison, as a traitor.
https://edition.cnn.com/2022/06/08/europe/ukraine-hunt-for-collaborators-intl/index.html
That does seem like a troubling situation. I do imagine that there are likely quite a few people who took those positions with good intentions, but when the new ruler comes to town and asks who wants power, it does seem obvious that there are strings attached. In this case, the deal was indeed to become a traitor in exchange for power/position, but I’m sure many were signing up just to survive.
You’re right, there are probably good people that are going to be harmed alongside the bad, and I don’t think there is a perfect solution. I would say it needs to get talked about as we get closer to a peace deal, it’s truly regrettable that Russia decided to create this problem, maybe they could also work towards a solution for these citizens they forced into this role.
Edit: purely hypothetical, but one thought comes to mind. A compromise might be acceptable if they were given the choice to either retain their Ukrainian citizenship, but lose their position, or to defect to Russia. Though, once again this realm of decision making lies entirely in the hands of the victor of the war.
If people supporting the Russian occupation don’t want to get detained by Ukraine, they can leave for Russia before Ukraine frees that territory.
Like the two brothers this article is about.
Also, what would you describe people as that help an occupier annex your territory and build up the occupiers control over it, if not collaborateurs?
If they truly wanted to only help their people, they can argue that in court. Because as a country striving to become a fully fledged democracy, they will get a chance to defend themselves in Ukraine, as opposed to getting thrown out of windows, like in Russia.
You must be a troll checking if anyone is reading the articles you linked, right? This has to be an elaborate joke, right?
Per the very article you linked:
But thats, exactly what I ment?
It says that there is a Russian law that forces Ukrainans to take on a Russian passport by threatening to deport or incarcerate them for not having a Russian passport! The paragraph describes exactly what you claimed, but for Russia, not Ukraine.
Yes. Now they got the passports.
Now read what happens when they got it. https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-war-crimea-9da550b396f42cc267a4808bf99d5e6d
Can you articulate what you’re trying to argue a little clearer?
If Ukraine wins. Most civilans living in Crimea and in the occupied territories, as ukraines plan decrees, have to leave the country. If they somehow still only have the Ukrainian citizenship they are barred from any job that has any ties to the goverment.
Also anyone with a goverment position who helped, so any policemen, doctor, teacher, etc will probability be judged as a collaborator and hence a traitor.
So imagne the regular Ukrainian Army moves in. With some nationalistic hatred that exists. You will have armed men while everyone around em is an enemy, and there is no one to stop you, some people will resort to self justice. Hence the metaphor of putting civilans on the front line.
Yeah… I’m pretty sure Putin doesn’t care about those people or anyone not named Putin. He can stop attacking whenever he wants. He won’t, because that’s admitting weakness.
OK. Tell me what would the Ukrainians do if he stopped.
They’d start rebuilding all the infrastructure (read: homes, schools and hospitals) that Russia managed to destroy in the past two years?
You mean the citizens that putin forced to live in their illegally occupied territories?
Oh no, now they will have to go back to where they used to live, the horror!
If you have read the thread or the articles you would know that that could mean either prison, death or being forced out.
It’s okay because Boris Johnson said Putin can’t pull out.
That was a strange sentence to type.
Lol
I imagine roughly how America ended the Vietnam war. Russia would have to initiate some willingness to stop the war with favorable conditions, and then talks could start. That’s actually right there in the articles you linked with BoJo in them.
It’d likely take nothing less than ceasefire without conditions, returning all occupied Ukrainian territory, including Crimea. And if Russia doesn’t like that, I’d love to see people start talking about historical borders again and we can joke about restoring the empire of Kiev.
And then, just like the Vietnam war, they can strut around saying they didn’t lose the war, they just agreed on favorable terms.
Edit: Actually, I may even be a bit too pessimistic here. There’s a low, but still possible chance that the tucker interview could be that message. I invite nothing less but the opportunity for Putin to publicly surrender. It would be a great thing.
Here is a map 200 yrs later.
So no Crimea for Ukraine.
Haha, right you are. It just goes to show how silly this “historic border” talk is as a justification for land grabs. Why would the argument exist for giving up Crimea if it also didn’t come with the other historic borders. Did Russia even offer their portion of historical lands? Rude lol.
Well it does. Russia is a federation composed of states with they’re historic borders.
I’m honestly not entirely sure what you’re getting at there, are you suggesting that they should join Russia and be a part of the federation instead of retaining their independence?
Do you mean Ukraine? No. I would prefer a three alliance sollution, where Baltic states, poland, Ukraine, serbia, and some other countries join a military alliance. Strong enough to stand on they’re own. Wich is neutral towards NATO and Russia. Hence there would be stratigic balance between NATO and Russia. Russia would not bee needing to fear NATO nuclear weapons on their border while NATO would have a puffer zone towards Russia. This Baltic Alliance could be the trading crossroads while also having much closer ties and stronger garantees to each other. ( there is a common fear that if one of the smaller NATO countries would be attacked that article 5 wouldnt be enacted upon due to the “insignificance“ of the smaller country. )
Additionaly if Russia or NATO tried taking their independence they could join up for an alliance with the other one.
That honestly sounds like a reasonable way to position Baltic/border states, but wouldn’t it rely on the willingness of all of those countries? And since the Baltic states are already NATO, I don’t see a lot of likelihood for them to leave for a strategically weaker alliance.
You’re right about that common fear on article 5, I’m hoping it will never be tested haha.
True, I dont want a nuclear war.
Historic borders are called like that because they are history, not current.
Well either keep those that are. Or kill more people to have em moved. Wich you like more?