The “Ukraine” people government has already been slaughtering people who they claim are “Ukrainian” in the Donbass. They’ve been killing them since 2014.
The official Jew position is that identity is entirely dependent on location, and that location is entirely dependent on the borders created after the collapse of the USSR. For those who aren’t clear on this, the Ukraine border is what it is now because it was arbitrarily decided on as an administrative region in the USSR. It was not approximated in 1991 based on where the actual linguistic boundaries were, OR based on some previous historic border.
Here’s an administrative region map of the USSR, circa 1950ish:
Andrew Anglin argued with an Americanized Ukie on the Ralph Retort, and got him to admit that it would have made as much sense to include Rostov and Krasnodar in the Ukraine as it would have to include the Donbass in Russia. The guy knew the history, and admitted this very frankly, then said that Azov was soon going to take back Rostov and Krasnodar. (This was in like, early April. Poor bastard.)
Point being: this entire Westphalian idea that borders are totally sacred and you’re born within borders and that’s your identity based on your passport is obviously dumb, and it is respected by no one. If it was respected by Zelensky, he wouldn’t have been slaughtering people in the Donbass in the first place. No one actually believes in this.
Ukrainians who take Russian passports are simply taking passports to better reflect their identities.
Trying to obtain Russian citizenship as a Ukrainian could soon become a criminal offense, Ukrainian Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Reintegration of the Temporarily Occupied Territories Irina Vereschuk revealed on Friday.
In a Telegram post, Vereschuk said that the matter had previously been discussed during a closed interdepartmental meeting.
“Work on the draft law continues, there will be discussions, but the direction has been determined,” the deputy prime minister said.
She admitted that there could be “a long and difficult discussion” about the legal aspects of obtaining a Russian passport, about human rights, and “the need to survive under occupation.”
“But let’s not forget: There is a lot of Ukrainian blood on the red Russian passport – military and civilian, women’s and children’s,” Vereschuk said.
Two days ago, she wrote on Facebook that passports and referendums were being used by Moscow as “weapons, more dangerous than missiles.”
In her opinion, these “weapons” enable Russia to create a “live shield” of Ukrainian citizens in the territories it controls. Therefore, the deputy prime minister argued, Kiev should take “a clearer and stricter stance” on Ukrainians who obtain citizenship from the “aggressor state” and vote in referendums.
“I understand that it’s tough, but it’s about the existence of the Ukrainian state,” Vereschuk said.
Under what philosophical framework should the Ukrainian state exist?
It is officially a failed state, which only now exists because the US taxpayer is paying for it to continue to exist. So we’re already in a “might makes right” situation. If it was about “democracy,” then the referendums would be respected by the Ukraine government.
So it all just goes back to this Westphalianism abstraction, which doesn’t mean anything in real life. Maybe it was a good idea at certain points in history. You can argue about that.
But it isn’t really even being respected now by the West – America has areas that are completely Mexican, where the federal state does not actually have sovereignty. Many countries in Europe have “no-go zones” that are ruled by Islamic law.
What’s more, the US government is still to this day aggressively pushing for the establishment of a “Kurdistan” state. (You don’t even have to mention Israel, which is obviously mired in all this other gibberish – just look at the US push for Kurdistan.)
So again: no one actually believes in this, even the people who claim to believe in it.
These people will keep talking about a “rules-based order,” but they won’t tell you what rules the order is based on. So of course it becomes “might makes right.” If they wanted to avoid that situation, they should have made clear rules for their rules-based order.
The US won’t explain the rules. But according to their actions, the rules are: “do what we say or we’ll tape you to a post with your penis raw against the cold concrete.”
It’s all absurd.
I think there should be a rules-based order. But someone has to say what the rules are. And if the US supports Kurdistan and Israel, supports Taiwan independence, even apparently supports some kind of Hong Kong independence, and is also invading and/or staging inorganic revolutions all of these countries based on hoaxes or for no reason at all, then the rules are not Westphalian sovereignty. If regional independence referendums are not valid, then the rules are not democratic.
In the absence of rules, of course you have “might makes right.” You can call it that or you can call it something different, but if you don’t have agreed-upon rules and a way to enforce the rules, then anyone can do whatever they want and no one can stop them.