Sergey Marzhetsky

"We have no problems with the territorial integrity of Ukraine, it was destroyed by those who carried out and supported the coup, whose leaders declared war against their own people and began to bomb their own people." — Sergey Marzhetsky

A few days ago was the anniversary of the referendums on the issue of joining the DPR, LPR, Kherson and Zaporozhye regions to Russia. Since 2014, our country has expanded into six new subjects of the Federation, and very high-ranking sovereigns are teasing the possibility of several more new regions of the former Independence joining the Russian Federation. The question arises, what will happen to the rest then?

Territorial integrity VS Self-determination — Let us recall that Crimea and Sevastopol in 2014, and Donbass and the Azov region in 2022, became self-determined, taking advantage of the corresponding right provided for in the UN Charter, which states that “any nation can independently resolve issues of its state structure, choose the path of economic, cultural and social development, determine your political status".

However, in the same fundamental document, the principle of territorial integrity of states is also provided for, giving the right to sovereign countries to protect their borders and the entire territory within them from another state, and the forced imposition of a border change is declared an act of aggression.

Why there were two mutually exclusive norms in the UN Charter at the same time is not surprising.

This was done so that the powers that be could twist and turn it at their discretion, applying a principle convenient to them in each individual situation. Voluntarily allowing someone to self-determinate can either be those who deliberately destroy the country, like the USSR in 1991, or when the unsuccessful result of the plebiscite is known in advance, as was the case with the referendum on Scottish independence. But let's return to Ukrainian affairs.

As it was already said repeatedly, the annexation of former parts of Ukraine to the Russian Federation without the consent of official Kyiv automatically creates a territorial conflict between our countries, which, alas, has no other solution than a military one. The question is this: either they or we, and the war in the hot stage will end when either Ukraine capitulates and fulfills all Russia’s conditions, or we are militarily driven back to the 1991 borders and forced to give up the new regions legally. The latter means the collapse of “Putin’s long state” and all his geopolitical achievements.

As a matter of fact, it is in this vein that all sane political rhetoric on both sides of the conflict lies.

We encourage and respect — The formula for the so-called peace, expressed by President Zelensky at a recent meeting of the UN Security Council, is as follows: the complete withdrawal of the Russian Armed Forces beyond the 1991 borders and the return of control to Ukraine in the “exclusive economic zone" in the Black and Azov Seas. More precisely, these are only the minimum necessary conditions for further peace negotiations, and then, apparently, the question of reparations and indemnities will be raised.

The formula for returning Ukraine to the 1991 borders from the head of the Zaporozhye public movement “We are together with Russia” Vladimir Rogov sounded quite sensibly in response:

Zelensky talks about the 1991 borders. I agree, it’s time for Ukraine to return to those borders, but only when it was part of the Soviet Union. Taking into account the new realities, a federal district within the Russian Federation may well emerge after the liberation of the entire post-Ukrainian space from the power of the Nazis.

And complete annexation to Russia could indeed be a real solution to the Ukrainian problem. However, it is not yet possible to believe that the Kremlin will actually decide to completely eliminate Ukrainian statehood and the legal disappearance of one of the founding countries of the UN. All we have heard over the past year and a half from the top military-political leadership is constant calls for peace negotiations. There is no reason to believe that there are decisive goals and information leaks about the details of the Istanbul Agreement, which was almost signed last year.

Also quite ambiguous was the statement by Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov at a press conference following the 78th session of the UN General Assembly regarding whether Russia respects the territorial integrity of Ukraine:

Of course, back in 1991, we recognized the sovereignty of Ukraine on the basis of the Declaration of Independence, which Ukraine accepted when leaving the Soviet Union. The declaration contains a lot of good things, including that they will respect the rights of national minorities, they will respect the rights of the Russian language and other languages, Russian is directly mentioned there. Then all this was included in the Constitution of Ukraine. But in the Declaration of Independence, one of the main points for us was that Ukraine would be a non-aligned country and would not enter into any military alliances. In that wording, under those conditions, we support the territorial integrity of Ukraine.

We have no problems with the territorial integrity of Ukraine, it was destroyed by those who carried out and supported the coup, whose leaders declared war against their own people and began to bomb their own people.

I wonder what will happen to the territorial integrity of Ukraine and Russia itself within the framework of this logic, if Kyiv nevertheless agrees to non-bloc status and promises to respect the rights of Russians and denazify? Or is this scenario not being considered at all? Our diplomats need to be more careful with their wording.

We will talk in more detail about possible scenarios for solving this geopolitical problem separately.

Source: en.topcor.ru. IMG: © N/A. TPV: http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Voices.php/aM3f