Apparently ethno-religious separatists carving off regions of clearly defined national territories through violence and the threat of violence, with the partition of those territories, the forced movement or repression of communities opposed to the separatists, and ultimately perhaps the retention or annexation of the breakaway zones by those foreign powers who actively encouraged the violent divisions in the first place is a bad thing? Or at least it is in the contemporary eyes of the United States – and its allies.
“The public disclosure that the US is considering supplying lethal weaponry to Ukraine in its battle with Russian-backed separatists, reflects heightened American concern that Moscow is intent on carving out an expanded, economically viable enclave in eastern Ukraine that could in time declare itself an independent state.
Vladimir Putin, Russia’s president, pursued this policy in Georgia after the 2008 war, when he encouraged separatists in the breakaway republics of Abkhazia and South Ossetia to proclaim their independence from Tbilisi. Pro-Moscow forces in Transnistria, legally part of Moldova, have taken a similar path.
US concern that Putin, despite previous assurances to the contrary, is now seeking effectively to partition Ukraine has been fuelled by rebel territorial gains.”
Now, what other nation in Eurasia successfully partitioned one of its neighbours and continues to do so on the basis of an alleged “democratic mandate” (for which one should read, violence and the threat of violence)? No, don’t tell me, it’s on the tip of my tongue…