Double Standards in Self-Determination: Ukraine, Donbas, NATO

The Double Standard of Self-Determination: Donbas, Ukraine, and NATO

Can one territory decide its future by popular will while another cannot? The debate starts with a paradox that unsettles everyone: if we defend the right of the Donbas to choose to be with Russia, why is that same right denied to Ukraine to approach NATO or the EU? This blunt question uncovers a discussion mixing history, geopolitics, and hypocrisy.

National Security Arguments vs. Popular Will

One of the first responses is direct: the right to decide exists "provided neighbors allow it." National security takes precedence over any other principle. It is compared to an independent Catalonia installing military bases from Segarro or the UK the next day. The conclusion is that Ukraine's independence was a mistake due to its consequences, not its legitimacy. Others add that this is a civil war among brothers, with external actors profiting from the conflict.

The core issue is whether self-determination is a universal right or a foreign policy tool. Kosovo is cited as a precedent: there, popular will justified independence and bombings, whereas in the Republika Srpska of Bosnia, it did not. The takeaway is that empires have no principles, only interests. And NATO, far from being a defensive alliance against the USSR, continues to exist even though the USSR is gone, which for some makes it an alliance against Russia.

History as a Weapon

The past becomes a battlefield. There is debate on whether Ukraine is historically and culturally Russian. Some argue that Kyivan Rus is the common origin and that Ukrainians are the Russians who stayed. Others counter that Muscovites separated and that the concept of nation is later, so appealing to history to justify current political rights is absurd. The 1991 referendum on the continuity of the USSR in a new structure, the Union of Sovereign States, is brought up; it was approved but never signed. Post-Soviet borders, it is argued, are artificial because Moscow designed them to Russify the republics.

The parallel with Spain and Portugal or Mexico and Spain illustrates that identities change and no territory belongs eternally to anyone. The discussion shifts to whether the right to self-determination was Wilson's invention to Balkanize Europe after World War I, and if today it is applied selectively depending on what suits the powers.

NATO's Role and the Freedom to Choose

NATO appears as the elephant in the room. It is described as an aggressive military organization with bases in Europe pointing at Russia. It is mentioned that there are 47 US military bases in Germany alone. For some, allowing Ukraine to join NATO is like letting a neighbor put a gun to your head: it justifies a preventive reaction. For others, denying Ukraine that right is denying freedom itself. The clash of arguments is frontal: either self-determination applies to all or to none.

The discussion gets tangled with accusations of double standards. It is recalled that Spain does not officially recognize Kosovo to avoid losing provinces, yet accepted the Kosovar secession de facto. It is emphasized that the United States would not allow Texas to become independent because it would end its global hegemony. The lingering conclusion is that popular will is only valid if it coincides with the interests of the powers.

What Peine in the Donbas and Why It Matters?

A key data point is provided: according to one participant, people in the Donbas did not want independence, they wanted autonomy statutes to continue using Russian as a local language. War arrived when this was denied and repression began via military means. That nuance dismantles the simplification that everything was a Russian plan from the start. The discussion moves to whether Ukraine has the right to decide its future or if, conversely, its independence was a historical mistake now paid for with blood.

The debate does not reach a close. Some continue to defend that Ukraine is Russia and should never have become independent. Others maintain that if the Donbas could choose, Ukraine also could. In the middle, there is a sense that international law is worthless when it clashes with the interests of the powers. Does anyone have an answer that isn't "it depends on who asks"?