#views of Crimea | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

dontforgetukraine · 9 months ago

Text

Illia Ponomarenko shows us one of the many gems Kyiv has to offer: The Kyiv Pechersk Lavra (or the Kyiv Lavra of the Caves). It is considered the most significant and holiest of places in Eastern Slavic Orthodox Christianity. This is an example of what is at stake for Ukraine as Russia continues its efforts to eradicate Ukrainian history and identity.

So, about 1,000 years ago, Kyiv was living its golden age as the center of a large medieval kingdom of Rus under Prince Yaroslav the Wise—very possibly the greatest ruler of Kyiv ever. The official residence of the rulers of Kyiv Rus was located in the town of Berestove outside Kyiv (it's now where Kyiv's Park of Eternal Glory is). The Berestove priest Illarion sought comfort and solitude, so he dug a lonesome cave in the hills at the Dnipro riverside, where he could spend his time alone in prayers. That happened around 1051 A.D. That guy soon became the head of the Kyiv Church and left, but more hermits followed his suit and established their shelters in those caves. Over many years, they burrowed long mazes of catacombs and established churches and monastic cells. The monastery gradually became a grandiose Lavra, a magnificent center of religious and cultural life, the greatest in this corner of human civilization. As early as 1073 A.D., the Cathedral of the Dormition (or the 'Great Church') was established (and you can see the modern iteration of it, the magnificent white cathedral bearing images of the saints on its walls. Just like Kyiv, the Lavra was ruined and resurrected from ashes several times over its 1,000-year history. Mongolians seized and desolated Kyiv in 1240, and the Lavra was devastated so hard that it spent well over a century in empty ruins. Yet, it would always rise again in all of its glory. During WWII, the Great Church was blown up just as many other iconic locations of Kyiv, such as Kherschatyk Street (in my opinion, what happened was that the Soviets planted bombs at the Lavra upon their withdrawal from the city in 1941 and failed to detonate them on time; and Nazis took out the treasures of the Lavra and got rid of the Soviet bombs by blowing up the cathedral. Like many other significant treasures of Kyiv, the Great Church of the Lavra was resurrected by independent Ukraine by the 2000s. The Lavra is indeed a city within a city—I'm only showing you a tiny part of it that is popular with tourists. Unfortunately, the ancient monastery caves have been closed to visitors for over a year. Technically, the Lavra is a giant museum with many art exhibitions, collections of historical artifacts, and recreation zones for anyone. Right now, for instance, the Lavra Historical Museum exhibits ancient Scthyntian gold from Crimea that was recently returned to Ukraine. At the Lavra, you can easily find the resting places of many historical figures of the past, such as the one of Kostiantyn Ostrozky, the legendary ultra-rich magnate of the 15th and 16th centuries and the Lavra's lavish sponsor, or Petr Stolypin, the Russian imperial prime minister who was assassinated at the Kyiv Opera House in 1911. Of course, the Lavra is about the iconic Great Bell Tower, one of Kyiv's most legendary landmarks. The tower is 96 meters high and can be seen from around 30 kilometers away from the Lavra. It takes over 370 stairs to reach the tower's top -- but I'm telling you, it's 100% worth it as the Great Bell Tower shows you a truly stunning view of Kyiv, especially when the weather is fine. Fucking legend. For centuries, until recently, the Lavra was under complete control by the Russian Orthodox Church, which is fundamentally loyal to Russia. In 2023, amid the war against Russia, Kyiv authorities and the Zelensky administration tried (and failed) to terminate the Moscow clergy's legal presence at the Lavra in 2023. Currently, the Russian church and its monks remain in control of the so-called Lower Lavra. In the Upper Lavra, which has most of the iconic places and locations, the recently re-established Orthodox Church of Ukraine, the de-facto successor of the old original Christian church of the Kyiv Rus, now has its divine service again. Welcome to the beautiful ancient Kyiv.

#Ukraine #Kyiv #russia is a terrorist state #Kyiv Pechersk Lavra #Lavra #Ukrainian culture #Illia Ponomarenko #video

57 notes · View notes

postcard-from-the-past · 8 months ago

Text

View of Balaklava, Crimea, Ukraine

Russian vintage postcard

#ephemera #photography #vintage #briefkaart #crimea #carte postale #postcard #photo #balaklava #sepia #ansichtskarte #postkarte #postkaart #russian #view #ukraine #postal #tarjeta #historic

44 notes · View notes

tiger-manya · 2 months ago

Text

I first saw Tommy Cash entry without context and thought: "huh, the song is cute, but the trump parody part feels directionless." But then I found out he illegally visited occupied Crimea and overall had a lot of russian connection, and it suddenly made sense.

The parody aspect is irrelevant, those are just aesthetics of a parody, designed to catch attention, but nothing else. (Those are exactly the vibes of Little Big's whole shtick.) This guy's political views are probably annoyingly passive at best.

#eurovision 2025 #esc 2025 #maybe albania wins or something #i was so ready to go back to eurovision this year but so far it's mostly disappointment

22 notes · View notes

mariacallous · 5 months ago

Text

In Ukraine’s prolonged struggle against Russia, the election of Donald Trump as the next U.S. president was a black swan event.

Among other positions, Trump ran on the promise of extricating the United States from the conflict in Ukraine. His closest allies have openly disparaged Kyiv and made overtures to Russian President Vladimir Putin. Thus, with this transition of power begins a new chapter of the war in which Western support for Ukraine could fall by the wayside.

Outgoing U.S. President Joe Biden’s belated decision to allow Ukraine to use U.S. missiles to strike targets deep within Russian territory, a critical condition of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s “victory plan,” is hardly a godsend. These missiles cannot singlehandedly change the course of the war, and they put Zelensky in an awkward position. Striking Russian targets will trigger not only the wrath of Putin, but also that of Trump, who will undoubtedly view any escalation as a shot against his own prospects for dealmaking.

With Trump making threats to pull out of NATO and cut a deal with Putin, Europe is also having second thoughts on backing Ukraine. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz spoke with Putin on Nov. 15 about bringing an end to the war, while Czech President Petr Pavel announced plans in October to send a new ambassador to the Czech Embassy in Moscow in early 2025.

Meanwhile, United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres recently attended the annual summit of the BRICS countries—Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, and several recently added members—hosted in Kazan, Russia. The U.N.’s involvement in an event hosted by a country engaged in a war of aggression, whose president is wanted under an International Criminal Court warrant, sends a disheartening message.

Almost three years into Russia’s full-scale invasion, the West is tired. It no longer has the political will to help Ukraine win by military means and is seeking a settlement with the aggressor instead.

The U.S. shift toward isolationism may hasten the inevitable: Ukraine and the West will soon find themselves negotiating with Russia to define the terms of a settlement—and, by extension, shaping a new world order. This emerging order will not be the rules-based system established after World War II, but one driven by idiosyncratic dealmaking among strongmen.

The problem is that any deal will amount to Ukraine’s—and the West’s—capitulation to Russia.

A bad peace is better than a good quarrel, according to a Russian proverb. If the West is set on securing this “bad peace,” then it must have a negotiating strategy along four critical parameters: territories, security guarantees for Ukraine, reparations, and sanctions.

Even before Trump’s election, some of Ukraine’s staunchest allies began expressing the view that Ukraine would have to accept some loss of land. The most obvious settlement strategy, then, would likely involve buying Ukrainian and European security with territory—possibly including Donetsk; large chunks of the Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson regions; and the peninsula of Crimea, which Russia first seized in 2014.

This outcome is a far cry from the Western leaders’ earlier commitments to Ukraine’s territorial integrity and hopes for regime change in Russia, but realpolitik leaves little room for moral considerations.

Should Zelensky agree to this loss of territory, the only realistic security guarantee for Ukraine would be membership in NATO. Yet this runs counter to what U.S. Vice President-elect J.D. Vance has lobbied for: a demilitarized zone along the current front lines and an enduring commitment to Ukraine’s neutrality.

The next White House does not seem to have a plan for what happens to Europe in a few years, when it would face a revanchist Russia with a subdued Ukraine at its Western borders. Such an outcome is not in Trump’s best interest. Another option, therefore, may have Trump concede to Ukraine’s membership in a new NATO—one without the United States, perhaps—leaving Europeans to be the masters of their own security.

Battered and curtailed but still sovereign, Ukraine would gain a nuclear umbrella against future Russian aggression, and Europe would fund the postwar reconstruction. There would be no international tribunal and no reparations. (Putin won’t be negotiating his own sentence.) Sanctions against Russia would remain for the time being. Europe would accept the occupation de facto, but it wouldn’t de jure recognize the territory as Russian land.

It will be difficult to come up with a deal that satisfies all parties. But in any negotiation, reaching a mutually satisfactory outcome depends on the motivation and constraints of those involved. The West is motivated to settle in Ukraine because it is tired of war, and because Trump is uninterested in leading the existential fight for democracy. Ukraine, understanding that it cannot win on its own, can be motivated to settle in order to stop the now-pointless bloodshed.

Putin’s motivations are murkier. In fact, a closer look would reveal that Putin has no need for lasting peace.

Putin’s megalomaniacal intransigence is now reinforced by his perception that he is winning, even if it is taking longer than he hoped. Piecemeal shipments of Western military aid have made Russian advances slow and painful—but they have been advances nevertheless. While Ukraine’s ability to affect Russian military logistics was until recently severely hampered by Western restrictions, the Russian army has faced no such limitations, regularly bombing civilian infrastructure and military targets alike.

In wars of attrition, the side with more resources is poised to win, and Russia still mobilizes resources with frightening force. Russia has activated the economic and cultural mechanisms necessary for around-the-clock military production—bread-making factories churning out drones, schoolchildren making camouflage nets, and old Soviet tanks hauled out of Siberian forests and shipped to Ukrainian front lines.

Now that the economy has been switched on to military footing, there is no shortage of munitions. Meanwhile, government payouts ensure an ample supply of volunteers to enlist in the military, meaning Russia does not have a manpower crisis like Ukraine does.

No human toll is too high for Russia. During World War II, Russia lost more than 27 million people—the largest number of fatalities of all involved. Peter the Great’s 18th-century Great Northern War, which established Russia’s power in the Baltics, lasted 21 years and incurred enormous casualties, as did the 25-year-long Livonian War fought by Ivan the Terrible in the 16th century.

Russia has already suffered upward of 700,000 people dead or wounded during the Ukraine war, according to estimates from the National Interest. But with families of dead soldiers mollified by the “coffin money” they receive, society writ large has not budged in its support for the war. It will likely stay that way short of another mobilization.

It certainly helps that the brunt of the war is borne by recruited volunteers, who sign up to fight to improve their and their family’s economic standings, and by convicts—both groups making up a significant number of those killed and wounded in Ukraine. Another large constituency fighting Russia’s war is national minorities, often from depressed economic areas and the lowest strata of society. And now, those minorities are joined by North Korean soldiers and potentially by citizens of the other dictatorships that Putin courts.

Contrast this low visibility of Russia’s war toll, further obscured by Kremlin propaganda, to its loudly celebrated nativist successes. In the last two years, not only did Russia fail to fold under the weight of Western sanctions, but it also managed to build parallel economic, financial, and cultural structures that are independent of the West.

Economically, Russia has reoriented itself toward the East, increasing trade with China, India, and other countries in Asia and the Middle East. It has shifted its energy exports away from Europe and developed domestic production capabilities. Despite sanctions, oil money—the main source of Russia’s war financing—keeps flowing, albeit from a different direction than before. Cross-border payments are now handled through SPFS, a homegrown alternative to the SWIFT global financial system, and the Mir payment system that replaced Visa and MasterCard. Russia touts these systems to its BRICS partners as alternatives to “Western financial hegemony.”

If anything, the war in Ukraine has given Putin more money to play with than before. Assets belonging to Western companies exiting Russia have been nationalized or bought for cheap and redistributed to businesses with ties to the Kremlin—one of the largest property transfers in Russia’s history. Cut off from Western banks, Russian oligarchs must invest their money domestically. Sanctions evasion schemes protect Russians’ access to Western consumer goods, creating enormous enrichment opportunities for Russian and Western business agents alike. Tankers shuttle Russian oil with payments cleared through offshore shell companies. Putin’s personal wealth, estimated at somewhere between $70 billion and $200 billion, remains safe. Though he is a product of a socialist state, the Russian leader is a master of capitalism.

Cultural shifts in Russia increase Putin’s confidence in victory. What little dissent remained before the war has largely been rooted out, with Russians closing ranks around their leader. According to a recent poll conducted by the Levada Center in September and October, more than two-thirds of Russians who said they want the war to end are against returning Russian-occupied territories to Ukraine.

On the global stage, Russia has managed to upgrade its status from a regional power to a leader of the anti-Western coalition. These coalition members have their own stakes in Ukraine. A Russian victory would embarrass the United States, weakening its influence in Asia and helping China. North Korea has found exports—bad shells and soldiers—that it can exchange for food, money, and energy. And Iran is happy to keep the United States distracted from the Middle East.

Even if Putin wanted to end the war, it would entail serious risk for his regime. Drones, shells, and missile production would have to be scaled down, ending the economic boom. The sudden drop in government spending would create real prospects of an economic collapse. Around 1.5 million veterans would have to be pulled out of Ukraine to find new roles in a corrupt Russian society. The manufactured sense of national unity would give way to envy that beyond the border, on Russia’s “ancestral lands,” Ukrainians are thriving under European Union and NATO banners.

Taken together, in a country reacclimatized to grand-scale violence, the prospect of revolt becomes clear and present. To find an outlet for that aggression, Putin would have to start a new war not long after agreeing to settle for peace.

Ultimately, the status quo—an ongoing border squabble with conventional weapons—suits all but Ukraine and Europe, for which security deteriorates in direct proportion to Putin’s success.

The Putin that the West would face at the negotiating table is a former underdog—a man on a mission to free the world from what he has characterized as Western “hegemony,” his economy thriving, his new and old friends paying court, and his people unified behind him.

He is not, however, as invincible as he seems. The BRICS countries are not rushing to replace SWIFT with the Russian alternative. By putting all his economic eggs into the military basket, Putin has siphoned off resources from everywhere else, an unsustainable move. Inflation is real, and the ruble is weakening. Even the overheated military sector can’t keep up with demands. Moreover, as a student of Russian history, Putin knows that the support and adoration of the Russian masses can turn on its head overnight.

But Putin also knows how to keep a poker face. Having staked his survival on this war, Putin would be negotiating from the position of strength and with obligations to his domestic and international stakeholders in mind.

He has already shot an opening volley at the U.S. president-elect: After a call during which Trump told the Russian leader not to escalate in Ukraine, Russian state television released a special on Melania Trump’s modeling career, including nude photos of the once and future first lady.

The West, meanwhile, will be negotiating from a position of inherent weakness. After tiptoeing around the Kremlin’s red lines throughout the war, Western leaders have signaled their readiness to consider cessation of a large chunk of Ukrainian territory, wishing away what little leverage they had.

There is nothing stopping Putin from believing that he can’t get more. Unless Russia is decisively defeated on the battlefield or Putin is given precisely what he wants, he will not stop.

Of the options put forward for a negotiated solution, the only one that Putin would agree to is the one that gives him Ukraine’s capitulation on a platter. He will never agree to a thriving, independent, armed, and Western-aligned Ukraine on his border, because he would lose too much face. Putin will therefore demand an unviable Ukraine—without an army and without NATO membership—and, in effect, a Western surrender.

The issue of European security cannot be solved by a settlement with Moscow because appeasement only increases the aggressor’s appetite. Only the containment of Putin’s expansionism by military means will remove the existential threat to his neighbors. So long as there is an aggressive, revanchist Russia in the picture, lasting peace is an illusion.

32 notes · View notes

warsofasoiaf · 6 months ago

Note

who would be a better pick for director of national intelligence? as far as im aware Tulsi doesnt have experience in positions of that level, im not sure what to think about her views on Russia given she takes nuclear war seriously but also she was slandered by Shillary

Frankly speaking, any number of intelligence professionals would be more qualified than Tulsi Gabbard. She has no experience in the intelligence field, neither her assignments nor her Senate career saw her exposed to anything, so her lack of experience should be an automatic disqualifier, even if her trafficking in Russian and Syrian conspiracies didn't already demonstrate that she is manifestly unfit for the position. But let's embark on a thought exercise, just so I can illustrate my point a bit more clearly.

I hate steelmanning, but let's steelman her actions. Let's say that she's not a Russian stooge or a pet, and that her statements come from a place of deep personal conviction against US foreign entanglements. Let's assume she is not being coerced or compensated to repeat Russian propaganda, and say that she's a true believer. Her statements on the Russo-Ukrainian War would already render her unfit. As I've mentioned before, the idea of "NATO encroachment" on Russia doesn't suit the facts of what actually occurred in Ukraine. Russia was the primary breacher of the Minsk Accords (over 80% of ceasefire breaches were performed by Russian or pro-Russian separatist movements), and Ukraine didn't pivot toward NATO membership until after the seizure of Crimea (well-documented by reliable polling). These are not opinions, but facts. Just as how she made statements that Bashar al-Assad did not use chemical weapons despite the actual *physical* evidence that he did. This means that Tulsi Gabbard ignores objective reality to find a narrative that suits her - and then uses it to inform her conclusions, and thus, her decisions. This is *not* someone suited to lead any intelligence-gathering apparatus. Ignoring what *is* for what is *desired* does not lead to rational decision-making.

So even by the most generous of graces, Tulsi Gabbard is at best, a moron who looks to justify her own pre-conceived conclusions. And that's not someone I'd want in charge of intelligence.

Thanks for the question, Anon.

SomethingLikeALawyer, Hand of the King

#tulsi gabbard

33 notes · View notes

fiveeven · 3 months ago

Text

America, the New Russia.

There’s been a lot of discussion about authoritarianism creeping into American politics, and it’s hard not to see some unsettling parallels between Putin’s rise to power in Russia and what Trump could be shaping up to do in a second term. While the U.S. and Russia are obviously different in terms of government structure and institutions, there are patterns that feel a little too familiar for comfort. Let’s break it down.

Centralization of Power and Authoritarian Tendencies Putin didn’t start as an outright dictator—he consolidated power over time, pushing out opposition, reshaping government institutions to serve his interests, and taking control of key sectors of society, like the media. Trump’s rhetoric and actions have long suggested an affinity for strongman tactics. His repeated challenges to democratic norms, attacks on the judiciary, and efforts to undermine election integrity all point to a leader who doesn’t exactly have a healthy respect for checks and balances. If given another four years, there’s a legitimate concern that he’d escalate his efforts to tilt institutions in his favor.

Nationalism and Populism as a Political Strategy Both Putin and Trump have mastered the art of appealing to nationalism and populist anger. Putin leans on Russian exceptionalism, Soviet nostalgia, and traditionalist values to maintain power. Trump’s ‘America First’ brand of politics taps into a similar energy—framing global cooperation as weakness and positioning himself as the only one who can “fix” a corrupt system. Populism isn’t inherently bad, but when it’s mixed with authoritarian tendencies, it can quickly become a vehicle for eroding democracy.

The Oligarch Connection: Who Really Runs Things? Putin’s grip on Russia has been solidified in part by his close ties with oligarchs—business elites who thrive under his regime as long as they stay loyal. While Trump isn’t operating in a system with state-controlled oligarchs, his second-term agenda is packed with policy moves that benefit the ultra-wealthy and corporate elite. His administration has shown favoritism toward donors, big business, and industries that align with his interests, reinforcing the idea that money equals influence in his version of governance.

Media Control and Disinformation Putin doesn’t just control the Russian government—he controls the narrative. State-run media ensures the public hears what he wants them to hear, silencing opposition voices. While Trump doesn’t have that same level of control, he’s spent years delegitimizing mainstream media, aggressively promoting his own echo chambers (Truth Social, Fox News, etc.), and peddling conspiracy theories to sow distrust in independent journalism. The goal is similar: create an environment where only his version of events is believed.

Undermining International Norms and Alliances Putin has made it clear that international laws and agreements don’t apply to him. Whether it’s annexing Crimea or interfering in foreign elections, his strategy revolves around destabilizing global order in ways that benefit him. Trump has also shown an outright hostility toward international institutions like NATO and the UN, viewing alliances as liabilities rather than strengths. A second Trump term could further isolate the U.S. from global leadership, mirroring Putin’s approach of prioritizing personal power over diplomatic stability.

What’s the Takeaway? Look, America isn’t Russia, and Trump isn’t Putin. But ignoring the warning signs would be naive. The patterns are there—consolidation of power, nationalism as a rallying cry, catering to elites while presenting himself as a populist, discrediting the media, and disregarding international norms. Whether or not Trump can successfully push the U.S. further down that path depends on how much resistance he faces from institutions, the public, and political opposition.

The biggest difference? The U.S. still has functioning democratic mechanisms that could prevent full-scale authoritarianism—if people actually use them.

#democracy in crisis #fuck trump #vladimir putin #donald trump #oligarchy #american government #america #american politics

14 notes · View notes

goulashh · 2 months ago

Text

A drawing that I made on the 3rd anniversary of the full-scale war in Ukraine. This was inspired by the song "Snooze" by wotaku.

The translation on the drawing: "It's not that simple", "we don't know the truth", "setting free" (those words were said by the russian government and its people about the war). The third picture has a large red text: "FUCK YOU" (or "Go to hell")

Warning: I'll vent here

I need to say something that I really wanted for a while: I really wish it was all just a nightmare, that I would wake up, and there's no war, and I'm safe at home. But the reality is different.

I remember when I was little, I saw the news about Euromaidan and the annexation of Crimea in 2014. Even after asking my dad for an explanation, I still didn't get it. But when I realized – I decided to ignore it. "I'm not into politics" – I thought if I'm not gonna involve myself in here, it would not affect me in any way. But it's not. It did affect me and many other people.

I remember waking up at (almost) 5AM by a message from my classmate about how we are probably not going to school today. Because of russia invading Ukraine. At first, I thought that it was just a misunderstanding, that it would end quickly. But later I wanted to scream, I couldn't understand why it had to be that way, WHY THE FUCK WE CAN'T LIVE PEACEFULLY???

Of course, I don't want to sound like I feel so bad, the worst of all in this world. My town is not under occupation, my home is not destroyed, I fled abroad with my family to safety. And I can't fully imagine all the horrors that happen at the front...

From time to time, I had the thought that if I hadn't closed my eyes earlier, if I didn't try to ignore it, maybe something would have changed? But at the same time, I know that it's no use thinking about "what if..."

And I'm also so done that despite what russia's doing, some people are still distributed songs, games, comics, etc. And when you tell them WHY you shouldn't do that, they say: "it's just a song/comic/game/drawing 🙄😒", "AnD thErE aRe gOod peOplE in rUsSia too" – OH MY FUCKING GOD AAAAAAAA 😭😭😭 YOU LITERALLY GIVE THEM MONEY SO THAT THEY CAN KILL US.

And what also pisses me off is when people say: "We're little people, we can't do anything 🥺" NO. YOU CAN. YOUR ACTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES, AND THEY MATTER. YOUR "little" ACTION CAN TURN INTO A "BIG" ONE.

And last, but not least... HOW THE FUCK IT IS OUR FAULT THAT RUSSIA ATTACKED US??? (Yeah, I'm looking at YOU Trump. You piece of shit) ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!?! AAAAAAAAAAAA

... But despite that, I still don't want to lose hope. I want to move forward and return to my home, Ukraine. Where it's free and safe. I don't want to give up.

Fuck you, putin. I hope you die.

Thank you for reading this, I hope it was not too overdramatic. If you don't agree with me – please, just unfollow me. I'm not here to force you to change your mind. I've shared my point of view, but the decision what to do is up to you.

#art #my art #artwork #ukraine #russia is a terrorist state #russia #vent #vent post #vent art

18 notes · View notes

arkhyp-kuindzhi-paintings · 1 year ago

Text

-View of the beach and sea from the mountains, Crimea-

#arkhyp kuindzhi #art #art history #artwork #culture #history #museum #museums #painting #vintage

61 notes · View notes

perrysoup · 1 year ago

Text

Jewish State Ideas BEFORE Palestine

CRITICAL PREAMBLE: It is important to keep in mind that the idea of building a Jewish State is Zionist. It does not reflect the views of Judaism as a whole, and any antisemetic actions will result in blocking and banning. It is critical now more than ever that we recognize that there is a different. Your issues in Palestine are with ZIONISM, not Judaism. Do NOT associate them as the same. Doing so is a common Zionist tactic to make comments or opinions against Israel be rebutted that it is antisemetic purely because it comments on actions by Israel and their Zionist government and military.

Again, Zionism and Judaism are NOT one in the same, and should not be treated that way.

Anywho, timeline time!

1820 - Ararat City - Grand Island Niagara River in Western New York. Considered a precursor to Zionism as known today.

1902 - Leaugue of Eastern European States - "would entail the establishment of a buffer state (Pufferstaat) within the Jewish Pale of Settlement of Russia, composed of the former Polish provinces annexed by Russia."

Date Unsure - Herzl Plan - "The Jews who wish for a State will have it. We shall live at last as free men on our own soil, and die peacefully in our own homes." His proposed location? Cyprus 1903 - British Uganda Program - Rejected after (shocker) there were lions in Africa. Also "it was populated by a large number of Maasai people, who did not seem at all amenable to an influx of people coming from Europe." fuckin wonder why. Note that some Zionists were concerned it would "make it more difficult to establish a Jewish state in Palestine in Ottoman Syria, particularly the Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem" 1928 - Jewish Autonomous Oblast in USSR - Proposed by Russia specifcally to prevent a State of Israel AND done because it viewed Judaism as a threat to the state. "In that sense, it was also a response to two supposed threats to the Soviet state: Judaism, which ran counter to official state policy of atheism; and Zionism, the creation of the modern State of Israel, which countered Soviet views of nationalism. Yiddish, rather than Hebrew, would be the national language, and a new socialist literature and arts would replace religion as the primary expression of culture." Also included the idea of a JSR in Crimea or "part of Ukraine, however these were rejected because of fears of antagonizing non-Jews in those regions."

1940 - British Guiana - "the British Government decided that "the problem is at present too problematical to admit of the adoption of a definite policy and must be left for the decision of some future Government in years to come""

The Madagascar Plan and the Italian East Africa plans were both efforts by Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy to "solve Jewish problem" (YES THIS IS BAD). "Jews from Europe and Palestine would be resettled to the north-west Ethiopian districts of Gojjam and Begemder, along with the Beta Israel community."

1989 - Plans for the West Bank - Contemplation of a Second Jewish State - "Israeli settlers in the West Bank have mulled declaring independence as the State of Judea should Israel ever withdraw from the West Bank. In January 1989, several hundred activists met and announced their intention to create such a state in the event of Israeli withdrawal."

So yea, don't tell me about "homeland" when there were a shit ton of other ideas accepted within the Zionist ideal prior to SETTLING on Palestine. It's "homeland" cause that's where the British Empire could throw Israel. Not because they though it was the "right thing to do" or whatever thing Zionists claim now a days.

#palestine #free palestine #gaza #free gaza #israel is a terrorist state #israel #genocide #fuck the israeli government #gaza strip #idf is a terrorist group

70 notes · View notes