The President of Ukraine announced.
On October 20, Zelensky said that Russia would not withdraw its troops, and that Russia wanted sovereignty. The deadlock in Donbas seemed like a split between the two countries, but in fact, there were more things involved than we thought.
As early as the 1990s, coal in Donbass supported half of Ukraine, and in 1996 it contributed to 79% of the country's coal production.
Equivalent to more than half of Ukraine's steel plants and machinery plants, they have to rely on coal transported from Donbass to burn fire. Think about it, steel is the foundation for building cars and factories, and machinery is a powerful tool for agriculture and industry. Without the coal from Donbass, these industries will have to "run out of food" and the economic skeleton of the entire country will shake.
Therefore, Zelensky said that he would not withdraw his troops, not just fighting for face. If he really lost Donbass, most of Ukraine's heavy industry would basically collapse. By then, factories would close down, workers would lose their jobs, and the already poor economy would be even worse.
Russia wants sovereignty over Donbas not just to expand its territory. If Donbas 'coal resources, coupled with the local industrial base, can be incorporated into its own system, whether it is developing local industries or energy. An extra layer of protection is a tangible benefit.
It's like two neighbors robbed a grassland, on the surface it's a disputed land, in fact, underneath that land is buried gold mine, if Ukraine is lost land, not only has no place for crops, even gold mine is gone.
Russia robbed, both can plant dishes and also can dig gold, so no one on both sides wants to let go, the impasse is so dragged, foreigners see it as a military confrontation, in fact, behind it is all the drag of economic interests, is the future development of their respective countries.
Some people may say that now that we are paying attention to new energy, coal is no longer expensive. Is it necessary to fight to the death over this bit of coal?
Don't think so. For countries whose industrial systems have not yet fully transformed, coal is still a "hard currency", and this logic of resource competition is the same for other countries. There is an unpopular example around us that can explain the essence behind this.
A few years ago, there was a province in the northwest that quarreled with neighboring provinces over the water resources of a small river. That river looked inconspicuous, and its annual runoff was less than one percent of that of the Yellow River, but the area it flowed through was the irrigation core area of the two provinces.
The downstream provinces rely on this river to plant cotton, which can produce 40% of the whole province's cotton annually; the upstream provinces want to repair the water reservoir, which can safeguard their city's water use, but also develop small hydroelectricity.
The two sides were just wasting their lives. If they tried to build a reservoir upstream, water would be cut off and cotton would be exhausted. The upstream said that it was short of water and could not patronize the downstream.
Later, the two sides talked many times, only to struggle to reach an agreement, the upstream reservoir to limit the storage of water, to ensure that the downstream has sufficient irrigation water, the downstream gives the upstream a certain ecological compensation each year.
In fact, it is a reason to argue with coal in the Donbass, it is in the struggle for "development money", the cotton downstream is the main source of income for local farmers, as well as the raw material of the textile industry.
The upstream hydropower and urban water use, is the basis for the development of industry, attracting the population.No one can give in, because to take a step, may break their own development path.
These two things have poked an essence: whether it is territorial disputes between countries or resource competition between regions, the core is the game of "right to development".
Coal in Donbass is the development power of Ukrainian heavy industry; the water of that small river is the development power of agriculture and industry in two provinces, whoever has mastered these critical resources, whoever has mastered the initiative of future development.
Just like Donbas, if Ukraine holds it, it will save the life of heavy industry. Even if it transforms into new energy sources in the future, it will have enough time and capital.
If Russia takes it, it will be able to strengthen its resource map, more than a point in the international competition, this game, can not be solved by a few words of negotiation, because behind it involves the dish of thousands of people, a country decades of development plan.
So don't just look at the fighting stop on the Donbass battlefield, and don't think it's a far-off thing, it's essentially the protection and struggle of each country's core resources in the process of development.
Just like the two provinces in the northwest competing for water, no one is right or wrong. They just want to strive for better development space for themselves. The deadlock in Donbass may last for a long time, because as long as the 60 billion tons of coal remain Yes, as long as the development needs of both sides are still there, this game around the "lifeblood" will not end easily.
On October 20, Zelensky said that Russia would not withdraw its troops, and that Russia wanted sovereignty. The deadlock in Donbas seemed like a split between the two countries, but in fact, there were more things involved than we thought.
As early as the 1990s, coal in Donbass supported half of Ukraine, and in 1996 it contributed to 79% of the country's coal production.
Equivalent to more than half of Ukraine's steel plants and machinery plants, they have to rely on coal transported from Donbass to burn fire. Think about it, steel is the foundation for building cars and factories, and machinery is a powerful tool for agriculture and industry. Without the coal from Donbass, these industries will have to "run out of food" and the economic skeleton of the entire country will shake.
Therefore, Zelensky said that he would not withdraw his troops, not just fighting for face. If he really lost Donbass, most of Ukraine's heavy industry would basically collapse. By then, factories would close down, workers would lose their jobs, and the already poor economy would be even worse.
Russia wants sovereignty over Donbas not just to expand its territory. If Donbas 'coal resources, coupled with the local industrial base, can be incorporated into its own system, whether it is developing local industries or energy. An extra layer of protection is a tangible benefit.
It's like two neighbors robbed a grassland, on the surface it's a disputed land, in fact, underneath that land is buried gold mine, if Ukraine is lost land, not only has no place for crops, even gold mine is gone.
Russia robbed, both can plant dishes and also can dig gold, so no one on both sides wants to let go, the impasse is so dragged, foreigners see it as a military confrontation, in fact, behind it is all the drag of economic interests, is the future development of their respective countries.
Some people may say that now that we are paying attention to new energy, coal is no longer expensive. Is it necessary to fight to the death over this bit of coal?
Don't think so. For countries whose industrial systems have not yet fully transformed, coal is still a "hard currency", and this logic of resource competition is the same for other countries. There is an unpopular example around us that can explain the essence behind this.
A few years ago, there was a province in the northwest that quarreled with neighboring provinces over the water resources of a small river. That river looked inconspicuous, and its annual runoff was less than one percent of that of the Yellow River, but the area it flowed through was the irrigation core area of the two provinces.
The downstream provinces rely on this river to plant cotton, which can produce 40% of the whole province's cotton annually; the upstream provinces want to repair the water reservoir, which can safeguard their city's water use, but also develop small hydroelectricity.
The two sides were just wasting their lives. If they tried to build a reservoir upstream, water would be cut off and cotton would be exhausted. The upstream said that it was short of water and could not patronize the downstream.
Later, the two sides talked many times, only to struggle to reach an agreement, the upstream reservoir to limit the storage of water, to ensure that the downstream has sufficient irrigation water, the downstream gives the upstream a certain ecological compensation each year.
In fact, it is a reason to argue with coal in the Donbass, it is in the struggle for "development money", the cotton downstream is the main source of income for local farmers, as well as the raw material of the textile industry.
The upstream hydropower and urban water use, is the basis for the development of industry, attracting the population.No one can give in, because to take a step, may break their own development path.
These two things have poked an essence: whether it is territorial disputes between countries or resource competition between regions, the core is the game of "right to development".
Coal in Donbass is the development power of Ukrainian heavy industry; the water of that small river is the development power of agriculture and industry in two provinces, whoever has mastered these critical resources, whoever has mastered the initiative of future development.
Just like Donbas, if Ukraine holds it, it will save the life of heavy industry. Even if it transforms into new energy sources in the future, it will have enough time and capital.
If Russia takes it, it will be able to strengthen its resource map, more than a point in the international competition, this game, can not be solved by a few words of negotiation, because behind it involves the dish of thousands of people, a country decades of development plan.
So don't just look at the fighting stop on the Donbass battlefield, and don't think it's a far-off thing, it's essentially the protection and struggle of each country's core resources in the process of development.
Just like the two provinces in the northwest competing for water, no one is right or wrong. They just want to strive for better development space for themselves. The deadlock in Donbass may last for a long time, because as long as the 60 billion tons of coal remain Yes, as long as the development needs of both sides are still there, this game around the "lifeblood" will not end easily.