What Russia should do with Ukraine

"What Russia should do with Ukraine" is an article written by Timofey Sergeytsev and published by the Russian state-owned news agency RIA Novosti.The article calls for the full destruction of Ukraine as a state and the Ukrainian national identity.

It was published on 3 April 2022 in the context of the ongoing Russian invasion of Ukraine, on the same day as the bodies of dozens of civilians were discovered after the retreat of Russian forces from Ukrainian city of Bucha.

The article advocates for "brutal censorship" of the Ukrainian culture, large-scale "re-education" and "de-ukrainization" of Ukrainians on the territories occupied by Russia in the 2022 invasion of Ukraine.

The author insists that Ukraine's ethnocentrism is an artificial perversion, that Ukraine's existence is "impossible" as a nation-state, and that the word "Ukraine" itself cannot be allowed to exist. According to the author, Ukraine should be dismantled and replaced with several states under direct control by Russia. He adds that the "ethnic component of self-identification" of Ukraine would also be rejected after its occupation by Russia.

The author claims that "most likely the majority" of Ukrainian civilians are "Nazis" who "technically" cannot be punished as war criminals, but can be subjected to "denazification". While Sergeytsev notes that there's no Nazi parties, nor symbols or racist laws or other evidence of actual Nazism, he counters that by a conclusion that "Ukrainian Nazism is unique due to its amorphism and ambiguity", which is per Timothy Snyder equivalent to a "special Russian definition of Nazism".

He claims that Ukrainians must "assimilate the experience" of the war "as a historical lesson and atonement for [their] guilt". After the war, forced labor, imprisonment and the death penalty would be used as punishment. After that, the population would be "integrated" into "Russian civilization". The author describes the planned actions as a "decolonization" of Ukraine"

- [Link]

According to Oxford expert on Russian affairs Samuel Ramani, the article "represents mainstream Kremlin thinking".

The American historian Timothy Snyder wrote that the text "advocates the elimination of the Ukrainian people as such". He later noted that it uses a special definition of the word "Nazi": "a Nazi is a Ukrainian who refuses to admit being a Russian". In his opinion, the article reveals the genocidal intent of Russia.

And yet people like W12 view those fighting for their lives and country as scum and deny any and all Russian crimes visited upon them as part of this ideologically driven bombardment. All things considered, exactly what choice did the Ukrainian people have...

Edited by BlueJay (21 Apr 2022 6.49pm)

My personal position is far closer to Orban's.

Sanctions against Russia for invading Ukraine were appropriate. However, sanctions that move to the extent of creating a cold war and world separation into two power blocks isn't what I'd support.

I view that as potentially catastrophic both economically and in terms of nuclear confrontation and whole world disaster, not just a war in Eastern Europe.

I don't support the supply of weapons into Ukraine that could be used against our own civilian population. I support the original humanitarian and defence response. Again, similar to Orban.

I do support significant military enforcement of Nato countries. I regard that as sensible and necessary against an invasion of a border country. I don't support childish insults at the presidential level whether its Trump or Biden because negotiations need to actually happen and trust built. This is not currently possible and that's more danger.

It should be made clear that Nato will be defended and its treaties honoured. These are treaties that were ratified within the governments of all signees, unlike the Minsk agreement to defend the Ukraine.....something that should never have been signed without exceptions.

I also support Putin being told that Finland and Sweden (as much as I abhor the Swedish government) are western countries and while not in Nato would be defended if attacked....in the same manner that Ukraine is now.

Personally I wouldn't accept them into Nato as a de-escalation signal but I would make that clear. These countries would be defended because they are not Eastern European and are not slavs with a significant percent of pro Russian in its population.

The Ukraine should not have been meddled in....I do not believe the western line that this hasn't happened. I view the 2014 coup as obvious and so did the Russians who straight off took Crimea. I do agree with Russia that Nato enlargement was handled poorly and the rejection of Russia as a power structure in the region was pure escalation. I regard these as very bad policy approaches that badly backfired. Russia should be accepted as a power structure and trust built.....rejecting it from being part of Nato's future was madness.

I support de-escalation with Russia and rapprochement as much as possible with Putin as otherwise the risks don't bear thinking of.

If Putin wants world war let him attack Nato and he will get it, otherwise we need to accept that the west is holding a bad hand over Ukraine and has picked the wrong hill to die on....well for Ukrainians to die as their proxies.

Personally, that's my position. I do not agree with this war, how it came about nor Russia's decision to start it. I support peace as soon as possible.....and the politics of the possible in terms of world peace.

Edited by Stirlingsays (21 Apr 2022 7.43pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Er, bungle?

I don't think you're understanding what he means Croydon. You would have to read the previous posts.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

You have literally done exactly what you accuse people like me of and at the same time not engaged on anything factual. Another hatchling - born yesterday.

Why? I’m an English nationalist.