Ukraine war: Russia says 'liberation' of Donbas its key priority

[webfact]

A Ukrainian soldier inspects Russian shell damage in Marinka, Donetsk region, this weekend.IMAGE SOURCE, REUTERS

 

By Patrick Jackson
BBC News

 

The "liberation" of eastern Ukraine's Donbas region is an "unconditional priority" for Russia, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has said in an interview.

 

Defending Russia's ongoing military operation more than three months after it invaded, he said again it was aimed at "demilitarising" its neighbour.

 

He repeated the Kremlin's widely ridiculed line that Russia is fighting a "neo-Nazi regime".

 

Full story: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-61628473

 

-- © Copyright BBC 2022-05-30

[Isaan sailor]

Russia’s liberation analogous to near total destruction—nice try.

[LittleBear57]

You don't liberate by totally destroying a country and murdering it's inhabitants. I hope someone liberates Putin.

[Mr Derek]

It's as if the west is only just beginning to understand that this is what it is all about. We can't expect objectivity from the BBC but I see they at least say "Separatists in the two regions, which historically have strong ties to Russia, broke away in 2014 and are now fighting alongside Russian troops to take full control" - that must have stuck in their throat. Of course, it's not just 'separatists' who have strong ties to Russia but the statistical majority of the population in the Donbas (why is everyone refusing to acknowledge that point? - it's what the whole conflict is about!) and they will all want to see the 8-year civil war with Ukraine resolved.

 

It's a pity that Ukraine did not do the decent thing in the beginning, which was to give them independence or at least a referendum, and thereby prevent this mess. Given the way Ukraine has treated the Donbas in recent years it's a fair bet the population will choose to join the Russian Federation after liberation, which, if we call ourselves democratic, should be applauded by everyone in the west.

[billd766]

10 minutes ago, Mr Derek said:

It's as if the west is only just beginning to understand that this is what it is all about. We can't expect objectivity from the BBC but I see they at least say "Separatists in the two regions, which historically have strong ties to Russia, broke away in 2014 and are now fighting alongside Russian troops to take full control" - that must have stuck in their throat. Of course, it's not just 'separatists' who have strong ties to Russia but the statistical majority of the population in the Donbas (why is everyone refusing to acknowledge that point? - it's what the whole conflict is about!) and they will all want to see the 8-year civil war with Ukraine resolved.

 

It's a pity that Ukraine did not do the decent thing in the beginning, which was to give them independence or at least a referendum, and thereby prevent this mess. Given the way Ukraine has treated the Donbas in recent years it's a fair bet the population will choose to join the Russian Federation after liberation, which, if we call ourselves democratic, should be applauded by everyone in the west.

Try reading up on the regional history of Donbas, Ukraine and Russia.

 

It is not as Russia describes it,

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donbas

 

https://greekreporter.com/2022/02/22/history-donbas-donetsk-luhansk/

 

Both interesting reads.

[placeholder]

22 minutes ago, Mr Derek said:

It's as if the west is only just beginning to understand that this is what it is all about. We can't expect objectivity from the BBC but I see they at least say "Separatists in the two regions, which historically have strong ties to Russia, broke away in 2014 and are now fighting alongside Russian troops to take full control" - that must have stuck in their throat. Of course, it's not just 'separatists' who have strong ties to Russia but the statistical majority of the population in the Donbas (why is everyone refusing to acknowledge that point? - it's what the whole conflict is about!) and they will all want to see the 8-year civil war with Ukraine resolved.

 

It's a pity that Ukraine did not do the decent thing in the beginning, which was to give them independence or at least a referendum, and thereby prevent this mess. Given the way Ukraine has treated the Donbas in recent years it's a fair bet the population will choose to join the Russian Federation after liberation, which, if we call ourselves democratic, should be applauded by everyone in the west.

I have some exciting news for you. Ukraine did hold a referendum on independence from the Russian Federation in 1991. Here are the results by region

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Ukrainian_independence_referendum#:~:text=A referendum on the Act,Rada on 24 August 1991.

[Stupooey]

2 hours ago, Mr Derek said:

It's as if the west is only just beginning to understand that this is what it is all about. We can't expect objectivity from the BBC but I see they at least say "Separatists in the two regions, which historically have strong ties to Russia, broke away in 2014 and are now fighting alongside Russian troops to take full control" - that must have stuck in their throat. Of course, it's not just 'separatists' who have strong ties to Russia but the statistical majority of the population in the Donbas (why is everyone refusing to acknowledge that point? - it's what the whole conflict is about!) and they will all want to see the 8-year civil war with Ukraine resolved.

 

It's a pity that Ukraine did not do the decent thing in the beginning, which was to give them independence or at least a referendum, and thereby prevent this mess. Given the way Ukraine has treated the Donbas in recent years it's a fair bet the population will choose to join the Russian Federation after liberation, which, if we call ourselves democratic, should be applauded by everyone in the west.

As I understand it, nearly all the Russians in the Donbas region have moved there from Russia in the last 100 years or so. Whilst the USSR existed this was not a problem, but following the liberation of Ukraine  they had a choice: either assimilate with the Ukrainians or return to Russia. Instead, they chose to rebel. This is what the whole conflict is about. Expansionism by stealth, which has been the policy of the Russian Federation since the break-up, is another way of putting it.

[Mac Mickmanus]

2 hours ago, placeholder said:

I have some exciting news for you. Ukraine did hold a referendum on independence from the Russian Federation in 1991. Here are the results by region

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Ukrainian_independence_referendum#:~:text=A referendum on the Act,Rada on 24 August 1991.

But shouldn't the people of Donbas also then been given a referendum to see whether they wanted to leave the Ukraine ?

[placeholder]

20 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

But shouldn't the people of Donbas also then been given a referendum to see whether they wanted to leave the Ukraine ?

They voted overwhelmingly for the Ukraine to be an independent nation in 1991.  They could have voted for Ukraine to be part of the Russian Federation. You think every 20 years or so they should get a do-over?

 

[gargamon]

22 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

But shouldn't the people of Donbas also then been given a referendum to see whether they wantwere ed to leave the Ukraine ?

No. The real residents of Donbas have mostly left the country/region. Many that didn't leave have been shipped to Russia and then off to Siberia. Putin has shipped lots of Russians into the area to sway the fake vote in his favor. Those stupid enough to believe it would be an accurate vote are totally unaware of the situation. 

[Mac Mickmanus]

Just now, placeholder said:

They voted overwhelmingly for the Ukraine to be an independent nation in 1991.  They could have voted for Ukraine to be part of the Russian Federation. You think every 20 years or so they should get a do-over?

 

No you didn't understand . 

The people of Ukraine voted for an independent  Nation , so should nt people of Donbas also be given that opportunity ?

   Asked whether they want to be part of Ukraine or independent from Ukraine ?

[Raphael Hythlodaeus]

5 hours ago, Mr Derek said:

It's as if the west is only just beginning to understand that this is what it is all about. We can't expect objectivity from the BBC but I see they at least say "Separatists in the two regions, which historically have strong ties to Russia, broke away in 2014 and are now fighting alongside Russian troops to take full control" - that must have stuck in their throat. Of course, it's not just 'separatists' who have strong ties to Russia but the statistical majority of the population in the Donbas (why is everyone refusing to acknowledge that point? - it's what the whole conflict is about!) and they will all want to see the 8-year civil war with Ukraine resolved.

 

It's a pity that Ukraine did not do the decent thing in the beginning, which was to give them independence or at least a referendum, and thereby prevent this mess. Given the way Ukraine has treated the Donbas in recent years it's a fair bet the population will choose to join the Russian Federation after liberation, which, if we call ourselves democratic, should be applauded by everyone in the west.

You are absolutely correct. As an inducement for agreeing to German unification James Baker, then US Secretary of State, offered in an official memorandum “ironclad guarantees that NATO’s jurisdiction or forces would not move eastward,” He also said to Gorbachev “There would be no extension of NATO’s jurisdiction for forces of NATO one inch to the east."

Since then NATO membership has expanded from the original 12 founding members to the current 30, mostly ex Soviet republics in the East. 

Russia has repeatedly warned that Ukraine joining NATO is unacceptable and would jeopardize everyone's security.

[candide]

10 minutes ago, Raphael Hythlodaeus said:

You are absolutely correct. As an inducement for agreeing to German unification James Baker, then US Secretary of State, offered in an official memorandum “ironclad guarantees that NATO’s jurisdiction or forces would not move eastward,” He also said to Gorbachev “There would be no extension of NATO’s jurisdiction for forces of NATO one inch to the east."

Since then NATO membership has expanded from the original 12 founding members to the current 30, mostly ex Soviet republics in the East. 

Russia has repeatedly warned that Ukraine joining NATO is unacceptable and would jeopardize everyone's security.

1) This was an oral promise made to an Union which was dissolved in December 1991, not to Russia. Additionally, the Russian federation left the Soviet Union and declared its independence in June 1991 (which ultimately led to the dissolution of the Union)

2) No. Most of the Eastern Europe countries which joined NATO were not part of the Soviet Union (except for three small Baltic countries). They had been conquered by the red army and imposed a communist regime controlled by the Soviet Union.

Edited May 30, 2022 by candide

[Raphael Hythlodaeus]

2 minutes ago, candide said:

1) This was an oral promise made to an Union which was dissolved in December 1991, not to Russia. Additionally, the Russian federation left the Soviet Union and declared its independence in June 1991 (which ultimately led to the dissolution of the Union)

2) No. Most of the Eastern Europe countries which joined NATO were not part of the Soviet Union (except for three small Baltic countries). They had been conquered by the red army and imposed a communist regime controlled by the Soviet Union.

1) No, the first quote was stated in an official memorandum. An oral promise by Baker as US Secretary of State is not significant?

2) Splitting hairs. Yes, they were under Soviet domination, not by their own free will.

 

And yet, Zelensky went to the Munich Security Conference shortly before the war and again pleaded for Ukraine to join NATO. How do expect Russia to react, given the failed Ukrainian promises to uphold the Minsk Agreement?

 

[Mr Derek]

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

They voted overwhelmingly for the Ukraine to be an independent nation in 1991.  They could have voted for Ukraine to be part of the Russian Federation. You think every 20 years or so they should get a do-over?

 

Independence is what they really wanted but they were not given that choice. They voted for Ukraine believing that was the most likely path to autonomy, given that things were flying apart at that time and Kiev is weaker than Moscow. They made a terrible mistake. Ukraine turned nationalist, reneged on agreements, and started to oppress Donbas and 'Ukrainify' the whole region (this is what Russia means by 'Nazis'). Russia has got back on its feet since then and has stepped in to help the Donbas. There is no doubt that alignment with Russia represents the better and more reasonable future for the Donbas people.

Edited May 30, 2022 by Mr Derek

[candide]

1 hour ago, Raphael Hythlodaeus said:

1) No, the first quote was stated in an official memorandum. An oral promise by Baker as US Secretary of State is not significant?

2) Splitting hairs. Yes, they were under Soviet domination, not by their own free will.

 

And yet, Zelensky went to the Munich Security Conference shortly before the war and again pleaded for Ukraine to join NATO. How do expect Russia to react, given the failed Ukrainian promises to uphold the Minsk Agreement?

 

1) which memorandum? I did not find track of it.

Anyway, you ignore the fact that this promise was made to an entity which doesn't exist any more.  So basically Russia is complaining about a promise made to a defunct entity it left.

[heybruce]

2 hours ago, Raphael Hythlodaeus said:

You are absolutely correct. As an inducement for agreeing to German unification James Baker, then US Secretary of State, offered in an official memorandum “ironclad guarantees that NATO’s jurisdiction or forces would not move eastward,” He also said to Gorbachev “There would be no extension of NATO’s jurisdiction for forces of NATO one inch to the east."

Since then NATO membership has expanded from the original 12 founding members to the current 30, mostly ex Soviet republics in the East. 

Russia has repeatedly warned that Ukraine joining NATO is unacceptable and would jeopardize everyone's security.

Russian troll tactic.  Once a false claim has been thoroughly debunked, let it rest a little while then resurrect it.

 

There was no guarantee that NATO would not expand east.  Numerous credible sources have made that clear, including then Soviet President Gorbachev.  https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2014/11/06/did-nato-promise-not-to-enlarge-gorbachev-says-no/

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, Mr Derek said:

Independence is what they really wanted but they were not given that choice. They voted for Ukraine believing that was the most likely path to autonomy, given that things were flying apart at that time and Kiev is weaker than Moscow. They made a terrible mistake. Ukraine turned nationalist, reneged on agreements, and started to oppress Donbas and 'Ukrainify' the whole region (this is what Russia means by 'Nazis'). Russia has got back on its feet since then and has stepped in to help the Donbas. There is no doubt that alignment with Russia represents the better and more reasonable future for the Donbas people.

Provide credible sources to support your claim that the eastern regions were oppressed and Ukrainified.

[Stargeezr]

If this is the truth, why did Kiev get attacked? Putin and his military will lie until they are all jailed and or dead. If anyone actually believes anything else, well good luck to them. Putin and his Nazi BS, should be the first clue as to anything else he has to say.

[placeholder]

5 hours ago, Raphael Hythlodaeus said:

1) No, the first quote was stated in an official memorandum. An oral promise by Baker as US Secretary of State is not significant?

2) Splitting hairs. Yes, they were under Soviet domination, not by their own free will.

 

And yet, Zelensky went to the Munich Security Conference shortly before the war and again pleaded for Ukraine to join NATO. How do expect Russia to react, given the failed Ukrainian promises to uphold the Minsk Agreement?

 

Oh, it was only the Ukraine that failed to uphold the Minsk agreement? Not the rebels and Russia? Actually there were 2 Minsk agreements. The 2nd agreement called for the withdrawal of all foreign troops. Russia denied that it had any troops in Donbas and Luhansk. It is to laugh.

[olfu]

...liberation?

I never been high opinion about Russia or Russians and they managed to prove me right.

[Mr Derek]

11 hours ago, heybruce said:

Provide credible sources to support your claim that the eastern regions were oppressed and Ukrainified.

The fact that Ukraine has been waging civil war against the region the last 8 years should be a hint - that's not a party game. And the fact that the self-declared Nazis of the Azov regiment were sent to do the dirty work - they weren't there to control the traffic. Ukrainification attempts involve forcing the use of Ukraininian language in schools and the civil service, forcing Ukrainian versions of all newspapers etc - those facts are easy enough to source - if you can get past the western propaganda which wants to make an enemy of Russia for Orwellian reasons.

 

It should be clear enough: the Donbas doesn't want to be absorbed and neutered by Ukraine. Why do you want to force them? Just let them choose what they want for themselves democratically.

 

 

Edited May 31, 2022 by Mr Derek

[placeholder]

7 minutes ago, Mr Derek said:

The fact that Ukraine has been waging civil war against the region the last 8 years should be a hint - that's not a party game. And the fact that the self-declared Nazis of the Azov regiment were sent to do the dirty work - they weren't there to control the traffic. Ukrainification attempts involve forcing the use of Ukraininian language in schools and the civil service, forcing Ukrainian versions of all newspapers etc - those facts are easy enough to source - if you can get past the western propaganda which wants to make an enemy of Russia for Orwellian reasons.

 

It should be clear enough: the Donbas doesn't want to be absorbed and neutered by Ukraine. Why do you want to force them? Just let them choose what they want for themselves democratically.

 

 

Ukraine is waging a civil war? That's like blaming the American North for waging civil war against the American south. So anytime a faction in some region of a country wants to secede, they are blameless?

 

As for the Azov Brigade. Yes it certainly could be described as Neo-Nazi during the Donbas civil war. But they were far from the only brigades fighting for Ukraine. What's more, Ukraine was desperate. Russia was financing an insurrection. They took whatever help they could get. It's a measure of how desperate Ukraine was they they were using the Azov regiment even though one of its professed desires was to overthrow the Ukrainian govt. once the war in the east was won. 

 

As for the issue of unsavory allies, it should be pointed out that the USA was allied with Stalin's murderous Soviet Union against Hitler's Germany.. Does that mean that America was fighting for Communism? Are you familiar with the phrase "the enemy of my enemy is my friend"? That's often the case when it comes to war.

[AnotherFarang8]

Meanwhile those nut heads in Europe have agreed to embargo Russian oil. Waiting for oil to reach $150 in 1..2..3 weeks or months? Your pick. Hyperinflation is the end game. Russia will export less for a higher price getting the same revenue.

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, Mr Derek said:

The fact that Ukraine has been waging civil war against the region the last 8 years should be a hint - that's not a party game. And the fact that the self-declared Nazis of the Azov regiment were sent to do the dirty work - they weren't there to control the traffic. Ukrainification attempts involve forcing the use of Ukraininian language in schools and the civil service, forcing Ukrainian versions of all newspapers etc - those facts are easy enough to source - if you can get past the western propaganda which wants to make an enemy of Russia for Orwellian reasons.

 

It should be clear enough: the Donbas doesn't want to be absorbed and neutered by Ukraine. Why do you want to force them? Just let them choose what they want for themselves democratically.

 

 

The fact that Russian backed separatists began armed conflict with Russian support and leadership in 2014 does not mean that the majority of people in the region want independence from Ukraine. 

 

"The conflict in eastern Ukraine began in April 2014 with low-level fighting between the Ukrainian military and Russian-backed separatist rebels who seized some towns in predominantly Russian-speaking eastern Ukraine...One of the most important rebel leaders, Igor "Strelkov" Girkin, is a Russian citizen and military veteran who retired from Russia's internal security services just weeks before he began leading the rebels, who are widely thought to include unmarked Russian special forces."  https://www.vox.com/2014/9/3/18088560/ukraine-everything-you-need-to-know

 

The Azov regiment was one of many hastily thrown together to prevent the Russian backed, financed, armed and led rebellion from spreading.

 

Why shouldn't the Ukrainian language be taught in Ukrainian schools and used in Ukraine's government?   The country is Ukraine.  Isn't Russian taught in Russian schools and used in Russia's government?  How do they do things in your country?

 

An independence referendum in the eastern regions before 2014 might have had some merit, but a referendum conducted under Russian puppet administrations and after Russian ethnic cleansing would be meaningless. 

 

Do you think Russia would have respected the results of an independence referendum in Chechnya in 1994?

 

[billd766]

16 hours ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

No you didn't understand . 

The people of Ukraine voted for an independent  Nation , so should nt people of Donbas also be given that opportunity ?

   Asked whether they want to be part of Ukraine or independent from Ukraine ?

And how would that play out if every province in every country in the world did that every 20 years? Because if you do that for one province in one country you must do it for all.

 

As a close example think of the 3 southern states in Thailand who want to join Malaysia? How about a free Issan, or Pattaya, Phuket etc? 

 

How about if 2 provinces secede and then declare war on each other with a 3rd province between them?

 

What if, for example, all 77 provinces in Thailand want to separate? Would you need a passport to go between them all? How about the police, military, customs, immigration etc?

[DJ54]

Interesting input from all….  gives us something to think about….  Thanks appreciated 

[Mr Derek]

23 hours ago, billd766 said:

And how would that play out if every province in every country in the world did that every 20 years? Because if you do that for one province in one country you must do it for all.

 

As a close example think of the 3 southern states in Thailand who want to join Malaysia? How about a free Issan, or Pattaya, Phuket etc? 

 

How about if 2 provinces secede and then declare war on each other with a 3rd province between them?

 

What if, for example, all 77 provinces in Thailand want to separate? Would you need a passport to go between them all? How about the police, military, customs, immigration etc?

Each case according to its merits of course. It depends how independent they are economically, politically, and militarily, and also the historic and cultural case, and--crucially--how oppressed they are. Most would consider it hopeless but some justifiably get fed up with being kicked about and rise up. Wherever you are from, I can guarantee that has happened historically in your country too. You can't stop the world. It's a seething cauldron of competition.

[Mr Derek]

On 5/31/2022 at 2:22 PM, heybruce said:

 The country is Ukraine.

 

No it isn't. Not in any meaningful cultural and historic sense. That's what this is all about. Ukraine's current borders have come about only by historic happenstance. People made them, people can break them. Again, you need to understand the history. Take the major city of Lviv. A century ago it was called Lemberg and capital of the kingdom of Galicia (part of the Austro-Hungarian empire). Before that it was Polish-Lithuanian. Historically, there's nothing uniquely Ukrainian about it. Things have settled down a bit after two world wars and the collapse of the Soviet empire, but the whole region is still not in a 'finished' state.

 

Seems you want the status quo to apply for all eternity, presumably for the sake of world peace - but again, the situation has never been peaceful - Donbas has always wanted autonomy and for some time there's been civil war. For the sake of world peace, it needs sorting out. It takes force sometimes when nationalism gets out of control - as Europeans all know. Hopefully Russia will help achieve that soon.

 

 

Edited June 1, 2022 by Mr Derek

[billd766]

3 hours ago, Mr Derek said:

No it isn't. Not in any meaningful cultural and historic sense. That's what this is all about. Ukraine's current borders have come about only by historic happenstance. People made them, people can break them. Again, you need to understand the history. Take the major city of Lviv. A century ago it was called Lemberg and capital of the kingdom of Galicia (part of the Austro-Hungarian empire). Before that it was Polish-Lithuanian. Historically, there's nothing uniquely Ukrainian about it. Things have settled down a bit after two world wars and the collapse of the Soviet empire, but the whole region is still not in a 'finished' state.

 

Seems you want the status quo to apply for all eternity, presumably for the sake of world peace - but again, the situation has never been peaceful - Donbas has always wanted autonomy and for some time there's been civil war. For the sake of world peace, it needs sorting out. It takes force sometimes when nationalism gets out of control - as Europeans all know. Hopefully Russia will help achieve that soon.

 

 

Historical Russia

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_evolution_of_Russia

 

How far do you want to go back?

 

The name Russia for the Grand Duchy of Moscow began to appear in the late 15th century, and become official in 1547 when Tsardom of Russia was established. Before this point, the states encompassing modern Russian territories were Kievan Rus' and the Grand Duchy of Moscow. Another important starting point was the official end in 1480 of the overlordship of the Tatar Golden Horde over Moscovy, after its defeat in the Great Stand on the Ugra River. Ivan III (reigned 1462–1505) and Vasili III (reigned 1505–1533) had already expanded Muscovy's borders considerably by annexing the Novgorod Republic (1478), the Grand Duchy of Tver in 1485, the Pskov Republic in 1510, the Appanage of Volokolamsk in 1513, and the principalities of Ryazan in 1521 and Novhorod-Siverskyi in 1522.[1]

After a period of political instability between 1598 and 1613, which became known as the Time of Troubles, the Romanovs came to power (1613) and the expansion-colonization process of the Tsardom continued. While western Europe colonized the New World, the Tsardom of Russia expanded overland – principally to the east, north and south.

 

And there is a lot more.

 

Historic Ukraine borders

 

There are too many images here to paste

 

https://www.google.co.uk/search?sxsrf=ALiCzsb7XIPVj7hbTKaXCDZozDIJTcbvAA:1654081569828&source=univ&tbm=isch&q=Historic+Ukraine+borders&fir=rFSvc9h5J8P9nM%2Cyb-cMz6AsZTbmM%2C_%3Bt-58wDz4iI1-WM%2C1GRNkGlDUOyhWM%2C_%3B5R0SbNe9ubeYeM%2CDKDl7dUVHmYjPM%2C_%3Bu7Nsr47prRX14M%2CUivUe5kfKSc3aM%2C_%3BANeYVv2dMmtWdM%2CHsCdnlNztgNnLM%2C_%3BJhzTIY24NJxNGM%2C7bZw9WkWNo_D2M%2C_%3BFOB_dTTUFvlIuM%2CHsCdnlNztgNnLM%2C_%3BEuCyI3kT9l8ujM%2CUivUe5kfKSc3aM%2C_%3BOLlZQhYAIuFUGM%2Cdd6p_eZNUbxq0M%2C_%3B80hrzZ61WXReRM%2CPJMogD0CLIEEkM%2C_&usg=AI4_-kQjKvOc2J1x9Y38Mtf3hjVBiUSwbA&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjajZiDjoz4AhVEhv0HHfA8B3wQjJkEegQIAhAC&biw=1229&bih=559&dpr=1.56

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/03/09/maps-how-ukraine-became-ukraine/

 

How Ukraine became Ukraine, in 7 maps

 

Beneath the political divisions of the present lies a country's deep, complex past. The land that's now Ukraine has long been dear to Russian nationalists. But it has also been home to a host of other peoples and empires. Its shifting borders and overlapping histories all have echoes in the current heated moment. What follows is a sketch of how Ukraine became Ukraine over 1,300 years of history, mapped by The Washington Post's cartographer Gene Thorp. Ukraine's modern borders are outlined in green throughout.

 

There is much more.

 

It is not quite as simple as you make it out to be,