Russian special military operation in Ukraine #62

GarryB wrote:It doesn't matter how long it takes, what matters is is that it is done right so they don't have to do this again in 5 or 10 or 30 years time.

Russia will have to reformat all borders of Ukraine, by Evgeniy Pozdnyakov for VZGLYAD. 11.04.2024.

The desire to reach the borders of 1991 has become the calling card of Volodymyr Zelensky's office. And although not all Western politicians support this desire of Ukraine, the country's territory at the time of the collapse of the USSR is considered a given by them. However, the expert community believes that the word "Ukraine" at different times (and in different countries) meant a vast array of territories, and today many of these territories are directly or indirectly disputed by neighbors.

In mid-October, Volodymyr Zelensky acknowledged that Ukraine, after the end of the conflict, may not regain physical control over the territories that were part of the state in 1991. But Kyiv does not intend to legally recognize such an outcome.

Zelensky's insistence on returning the territories is not shared by everyone, even in the West. Thus, one of Kiev's closest military allies, Czech President Petr Pavel, doubted that Ukraine would be able to return to the 1991 borders. He also called on the country's authorities to realistically assess their own capabilities.

Similar assessments are increasingly appearing in the Western press and from politicians, and not only those in opposition to the EU authorities or the Biden administration. The West is also increasingly modeling different options for ending the conflict, which would imply, if not de jure, then de facto, Ukraine's renunciation of the 1991 borders.

Moreover, these borders are directly or indirectly questioned by almost all of the country's neighbours. History also plays a role. Over the past 500 years, the term "Ukraine" has meant very different geographic spaces. For example, "Crimean Ukraine" and "Ottoman/Khan Ukraine" are two completely different concepts, separated by many hundreds of kilometers.

The same applies to any other regions. If we take the conventional Polesie, then it usually includes the northern parts of the Volyn, Rivne, Zhitomir, Kyiv (excluding Kyiv), Chernigov and Sumy regions, as well as the southern regions of Belarus.

These regions have always gravitated towards each other in everyday life and in the economy. But at the same time, the southern parts of the above-mentioned Ukrainian regions belong to other regions, and Kyiv here looks like some kind of island in the middle of the Dnieper region.

"That is why "Ukraine" as a stable toponym appeared only in the 20th century. And earlier this word designated territories located on the "outskirts" of a kingdom or empire. This dictated the vagueness of the formulations: as the state grew, the lands that could be appropriately described by this term changed," noted historian Vladimir Skachko, a columnist for "Ukraina.ru".

"So, in the times of Alexei Mikhailovich, the "outskirts" were understood as the Sloboda territories, but the central regions of modern Ukraine were not included in them. Kyiv stood apart. The historical memory of the center of Russian lands played its role in this. Therefore, the "mother of Russian cities" did not fall under the criterion of remoteness," he emphasizes.

"Later, during the heyday of the empire, namely under Catherine the Great, the lands stretching all the way to Galicia began to be called "outskirts". This region includes the modern Ivano-Frankivsk, Lviv and Ternopil regions. In addition, the southwestern borders of Russia were extended by the Black Sea coast and Novorossiya," the expert says.

"In the 19th century, the empire reached its 'ultimate' borders. The population and politicians began to realize that further expansion to the West, if not completely impossible, would at least be extremely difficult. That's when the most detailed idea of ​​the 'outskirts' emerged," he believes.

"But it still remained speculative. This is where the different interpretations of the region's borders by writers and public figures of that time, including Pushkin and Gogol, for example, come from. Some believed that "Ukraine" should be understood as the territory where the Cossacks reside, whose task from time immemorial has been to protect the borders of the empire," the expert believes.

"At different times, Kuban, Belgorod districts, and many others could be considered "outskirts". Not everyone held such views, and even the residents of these lands, when asked who they were, confidently answered: "Russian", - the interlocutor shares.

“Ukraine” became a stable toponym only in the 20th century.


At first, the central regions were included in it, together with Donbass and Novorossiya. Then Volyn, Galicia, Bukovina and Zakarpattia were added. Already under Khrushchev, the borders of the republic were supplemented by Crimea, thus forming the basis for the "independent" state of 1991," he adds.

"It is worth adding that different countries understood fundamentally different spaces under the term "Ukraine". For example, due to historical reasons, Turkey viewed these lands through the prism of "Khan's Ukraine", including the right-bank zone, which abutted the eastern borders of Poland," Skachko recalls.

And in Poland at the turn of the 17th-18th centuries, "Ukraine" was the name given to the area stretching from Galicia all the way to Kyiv, notes Polonist Stanislav Stremidlovsky. "In Warsaw, by the way, this term was not given the meaning of a toponym. As in Russia, these lands received their name based on the principle of proximity to the state border," he says.

“At the same time, these lands were perceived as the territory of Poland, which the country inherited from the Grand Duchy of Lithuania under the terms of the Union of Lublin. This opinion was so entrenched among the people that it remained relevant until the beginning of the 21st century,” the interlocutor believes.

"Today, if you ask passers-by, for example, in Krakow, the majority will insist that Ukraine should be within the borders of 1991. Such an assessment is alien to local society and is dictated by the current political situation. In a frank conversation "face to face" they will still confidently call "Eastern Kresy" their own," shares Stremidlovsky.

Meanwhile, the internal division of Ukraine into regions raises no fewer questions. "Dividing this country into specific regions is probably a virtually impossible task. We are talking about an extremely "motley" territory, in which even neighboring cities can differ radically from each other," says Ivan Lizan, a political scientist and economist from Odessa.

“In the public consciousness, for example, the western part of Ukraine is perceived as a ‘monolithic’ formation.


But this is not so. There are significant contradictions between the Galicians and the residents of Volyn. The latter are generally distinguished by an extremely calm disposition, and their presence in the republic raises many questions. They could have been “defined” as an additional region of Belarus with the same success, and then their fate would have been completely different,” he says.

"Moreover, local cities are actively changing. Let's take Lviv: it has a scandalous reputation as almost the capital of "Ukrainianism". But in reality, a large number of Russian-speaking citizens are moving here. The cultural and linguistic picture of local life is actively transforming," says the interlocutor.

"As for the sea coast, here too the division is quite conditional. For example, Odessa region: its north could well be transferred to Vinnytsia, since there are strong tendencies to strengthen Ukrainian identity here. However, the port city itself still remains mentally Russian," the expert believes.

"There is, for example, Bessarabia, where a very complex "mix" of nationalities is represented. Here, until 2014, Ukrainian power was felt only through the use of the hryvnia. Bulgarians and Gagauzes living in the region used Russian in communication, which was the connecting link for all ethnic groups," he adds.

“And so, literally every area can be ‘cut’.

It is impossible to name a specific number of regions in this state – any figure will raise doubts in terms of the real reflection of cultures. By the way, the Kyiv authorities could not understand what to do in such a situation, even though they attempted to better “staff” the regions,” the interlocutor recalls.

"However, their primary motives were still economic interests. The option of consolidating regions along the borders of economic regions and simplifying the fiscal system was considered. But even the citizens of Ukraine themselves do not fully understand Ukraine. We will have to rediscover these territories: study local cultures and customs, and then form a more successful structure of regions. This is a long-term task," Lizan concluded.

https://vz.ru/society/2024/11/4/1295911.html

Kiko wrote:The debate is on, guys!
Under full & unconditional capitulation, following SVO advance till the farthest borders, 404 will have to be divided, and due referenda should be undertaken in the claimed Western regions by neighbouring countries:

Under full & unconditional capitulation, following SVO advance till the farthest borders, 404 will have to be divided, and due referenda should be undertaken in the claimed Western regions by neighbouring countries:

PhSt wrote:I don't think its fair for Russia to share portions of 404 territories to its neighbors, NAziTO added a huge chunk of territory after absorbing Sweden and Finland, and now Russia has to share parts of 404 too? any territories ceded to neighboring countries will become NAziTO territory, so I think its a Bad idea to reward NAziTO with additional territories after all the trouble and inconveniences they caused Russia in 404.

Just continue the sanitary operations in 404, Russify the population, those unwilling can FVCK OFF to the West. Just do it right this time and the entire 404 can become a Russian oblast again. Then Moldova should be the next country to liberate

404 will have to be divided, and due referenda should be undertaken in the claimed Western regions by neighbouring countries:

Hole wrote:
Another North-Korean in Russia!!!

Under the Soviet Union, most member states were extremely parasitic and contributed much less than they received financially. The reason this happened is simply because Russia isn't and has never been a good colonizer. The last thing they should do is annex hostile territory or struggling Eastern European stateless.

But Russia does not need to dirty its hands ethnically cleansing them.

In the case of Kiev, the situation is more complex. It makes more sense to reclaim this city than to leave it as the capital of the rump toilet. It is just too
generous a gift. I doubt its current population is 3.5 million and is likely around 2 million. These are not all frothing at the mouth Banderites, but they still
constitute a large turd. But Russia is going to have to process this turd and that will involve some coercion leading to "ethnic cleansing".

Should I be concerned?