Russia really doesn’t want a functioning Ukraine - even in the areas it might think it has a chance of holding.
https://twitter.com/MrKovalenko/status/1505255982368186380 The Russian air force completelly destroyed the one of the largest in #Europe metallurgical plants #AzovStal in #Mariupol city. "It's impossible to restart it. All is destroyed" said deputy city mayor Sergey Orlov for #Ukrainian media Forbes.
Just add it onto the reparations.
What reparations? Ukraine will not prolong the war over reparations. Look to Uncle Sam, the EU and even dear old Blighty to pick up the tab. There may be a question over whether America will insist on reparations as the price for lifting sanctions.
Ukraine won't. The rest of the world might make reparations part of the price for the removal of sanctions. "You broke it, you pay for it."
I think it's important for Russia to realise it did this, and that it lost. Germany did not get fully defeated in WW1, so a myth of treachery could develop. Only after full defeat in WW2 did it change. The same with Iraq: GW1 was a defeat for Iraq, but not a big one. Hence there was round 2.
If there is peace (hopefully!), and we want to avoid this happening again in a few years, Russia needs to know it was the aggressor, and that it lost. That does not mean we need to invade, but it does mean that they need to accept their crimes. And that probably means removing Putin and his fellow travellers.
I think restoring Crimea to Ukraine and confiscating Kaliningrad would do a better job at this than financial reparations.
That's not really fair to the people of Kaliningrad
Since Putin is demanding that areas of Ukraine be allowed to vote to secede, the same for areas of (currently) Russia seems not unreasonable.
Kaliningrad would undoubtedly vote to stay with Russia. So it would be a rather pointless gesture.
I'm not sure that the provision would be pointless; there are plenty of other areas depending how far it goes.
How would the former (part of) Karelia now in Russia vote wrt rejoining Finland, for example?
82% Russian in 2010, only 7.4% Karelian, 1.4% Finnish
I don't think you can call it.
All the areas of Ukraine voted for independence in the 1991 Referendum, including the 'Russian' ones.
Karelia isn't part of the Ukraine. And you said "rejoining Finland", not "vote for independence".
Why does Ukraine constantly have the definite article put in front of it, is it a cold war remnant or some such. Not just yourself, the number of times I've heard on the radio an incorrect "'the' Ukraine" is phenomonal.
It's not incorrect. Geographic regions often take a definite article (eg, the Dordogne) and sometimes they are the name of a country, eg the Congo, the Sudan.
It used to be more common. People used to say the Lebanon, the Argentine.
The Ukrainians prefer us not to use the article, on the grounds it makes them sound like a region of Russia (although it may have actually been named in reference to the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth). Western Ukraine used to have other names eg Galicia, Volhynia, Lodomeria.
It makes no difference in Ukrainian or Russian, neither of which language uses definite or indefinite articles
Since Ukraine's declaration of independence in 1991, the use of the definite article in the name has become rarer and style guides advise against its use.[21][22] According to US ambassador William Taylor, "the Ukraine" now implies disregard for Ukrainian sovereignty.[23] The official Ukrainian position is that "the Ukraine" is incorrect, both grammatically and politically.[24]
TSE may be interested to know I like to think in terms of "Predator".
"Predator" = sci-fi and action classic "The Predator" = crappy dumbed-down version.
"Help" = Beatles musical comedy-adventure classic "The Help" = a different film altogether.
What about “Batman” and “The Batman”?
Ah but which one? There were three Batmans, produced in 1943, 1966 and 1989. (Which makes me think, weren't we due another Batman in 2012?)
Comments
New Thread