|
|
On March 08 2014 00:20 farvacola wrote:
There's a difference between making an honest appraisal of the situation, one that acknowledges the information war going on around us, and languishing in the pit of relativism, too afraid to make a commitment to anything of substance. You're suggesting we go with the latter, and to that I say nay. This isn't about considering ourselves better, it is about calling a homophobic, invading spade a spade.
There is difference between relativism and abstaining from making a judgement due to lack of reliable information.
|
On March 08 2014 00:50 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2014 00:20 Ghanburighan wrote:
Perhaps. (As you like that word a lot...) But one should go for the explanation with the most evidence and prevalent arguments. But evidence that is available in this case can give you only facts. So for example evidence can tell you that there are Russian troops in Crimea and Russians are lying about that. But evidence here won't tell you anything about whether Russian actions is justified or whether West is also partially responsible for the crisis or whether being tough on Russia makes sense or myriad other topics that are discussed in this thread. And opinions on those topics are pretty biased from most people, mostly based on their country of origin due to lifelong indoctrination of opinions prevalent in their society. I do not mean indoctrination as a pejorative word here, just as a description of the fact that our opinion on complex social problems is highly dependent on how our brain has been trained by the society we live in. Just as an example if you group opinion of people from Germany and compare them to opinions of people from Baltics, the difference is extremely visible. There is some consensus and I am not saying that no reasonable conclusion can be reached, but a lot of posts suffer from significant bias. And in such biased atmosphere, where all information is going through "content massage" and manipulation on both sides, going to the prevalent argument is absolutely no guarantee of anything resembling the truth.
I'm not asking for a democratic vote on which is the prevalent argument. This thread allows for discussion, and discussion isn't restricted to this thread. What I'm saying is that if you try to find the most evidence and strongest arguments through discussion, you escape the murky slime of relativism and can judge for yourself. Sure, your starting point might be linked to your society, but you don't need to stop there.
|
On March 08 2014 00:53 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2014 00:20 farvacola wrote:
There's a difference between making an honest appraisal of the situation, one that acknowledges the information war going on around us, and languishing in the pit of relativism, too afraid to make a commitment to anything of substance. You're suggesting we go with the latter, and to that I say nay. This isn't about considering ourselves better, it is about calling a homophobic, invading spade a spade. There is difference between relativism and abstaining from making a judgement due to lack of reliable information.
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskSocialScience/comments/1zj0h8/the_asksocialscience_crimea_thread_ask_about_the/
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
the only thing we don't doubt is that we gotta doubt. not sure if this is worse than simple brainwashing. lol
|
|
|
On March 08 2014 01:01 oneofthem wrote:
the only thing we don't doubt is that we gotta doubt. not sure if this is worse than simple brainwashing. lol
There are plenty of avenues to learn about the issue for yourself, outside of standard news sources.
There's a great deal of history involved with the Crimea (if you were starting there, start with the Crimean War) that ties it to Russia ethnically, historically, and culturally (Tolstoy). In conjunction with major Russian security interests in the region (Sevastopol), and the events leading up the crisis, there's a nexus of interests that make intervention in the Crimea, though a heavy risk for Russia, entirely understandable and consistent.
On above tweet: It's pretty expected, and is not necessarily the result of Russian pressure (and I'd actually be surprised if it was). My guess it was a localized decision and pressuring.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 08 2014 01:11 Lord Tolkien wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2014 01:01 oneofthem wrote:
the only thing we don't doubt is that we gotta doubt. not sure if this is worse than simple brainwashing. lol There are plenty of avenues to learn about the issue for yourself, outside of standard news sources. There's a great deal of history involved with the Crimea (if you were starting there, start with the Crimean War) that ties it to Russia ethnically, historically, and culturally (Tolstoy). In conjunction with major Russian security interests in the region (Sevastopol), and the events leading up the crisis, there's a nexus of interests that make intervention in the Crimea, though a heavy risk for Russia, entirely understandable and consistent. On above tweet: It's pretty expected, and is not necessarily the result of Russian pressure (and I'd actually be surprised if it was). My guess it was a localized decision and pressuring.
sure. but posters in doubt are mostly already operating with a belief of western conspiracy/manipulation.
|
On March 08 2014 01:14 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2014 01:11 Lord Tolkien wrote:On March 08 2014 01:01 oneofthem wrote:
the only thing we don't doubt is that we gotta doubt. not sure if this is worse than simple brainwashing. lol There are plenty of avenues to learn about the issue for yourself, outside of standard news sources. There's a great deal of history involved with the Crimea (if you were starting there, start with the Crimean War) that ties it to Russia ethnically, historically, and culturally (Tolstoy). In conjunction with major Russian security interests in the region (Sevastopol), and the events leading up the crisis, there's a nexus of interests that make intervention in the Crimea, though a heavy risk for Russia, entirely understandable and consistent. On above tweet: It's pretty expected, and is not necessarily the result of Russian pressure (and I'd actually be surprised if it was). My guess it was a localized decision and pressuring. sure. but posters in doubt are mostly already operating with a belief of western conspiracy/manipulation.
Being new to this thread, I'll decline accepting the generalization.
Additionally, given most of those posters are likely not living in Russia, expressing doubt about the current Western narrative (which is certainly slanted in favor of Ukraine, despite my noted points about hypocrisy), I think expressing doubt by definition requires some skepticism of the national media they ingest.
Russian posters expressing doubt would naturally be inclined to scrutinize the regular coverage they get.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
sure you can doubt the details of events, and it's not like ukraine is some well run model state with entirely politically virtuous people, but the basic situation is undoubtedly russian operated intrusion. the 'west', whatever that may mean, is certainly involved but that does not then mean their project is bad.
posters who claim relativism basically want to see the situation as two strong and shadowy figures dueling it out, while having no sense of the real lives affected by this fiasco that will certainly not benefit from putin's behavior.
not that choosing teh west will save ukraine automatically, but it certainly stands a better chance at reform if it is brought within actual civilization.
|
On March 08 2014 01:11 Lord Tolkien wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2014 01:01 oneofthem wrote:
the only thing we don't doubt is that we gotta doubt. not sure if this is worse than simple brainwashing. lol There are plenty of avenues to learn about the issue for yourself, outside of standard news sources. There's a great deal of history involved with the Crimea (if you were starting there, start with the Crimean War) that ties it to Russia ethnically, historically, and culturally (Tolstoy). In conjunction with major Russian security interests in the region (Sevastopol), and the events leading up the crisis, there's a nexus of interests that make intervention in the Crimea, though a heavy risk for Russia, entirely understandable and consistent. On above tweet: It's pretty expected, and is not necessarily the result of Russian pressure (and I'd actually be surprised if it was). My guess it was a localized decision and pressuring.
That would depend on your moral stance. Unless there is something to defend against it seems questionable in terms of legitimacy towards the people, unless Ukraine asks for intervention (as long as the "who's in charge?" is a real question, using Yanukovych is not a sufficient excuse) the national level legitimacy of the actions is questionable and without bringing it up internationally before doing it, the international legitimacy doesn't exist at all!
Using tradition and ethniticity as an excuse for the intervention is not a very good reason unless something made the local authorities and military incapable of securing these people. The weakness of the proof of that need and the lack of consultation with appropriate authorities, makes the argument questionable at best.
|
On March 08 2014 01:14 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2014 01:11 Lord Tolkien wrote:On March 08 2014 01:01 oneofthem wrote:
the only thing we don't doubt is that we gotta doubt. not sure if this is worse than simple brainwashing. lol There are plenty of avenues to learn about the issue for yourself, outside of standard news sources. There's a great deal of history involved with the Crimea (if you were starting there, start with the Crimean War) that ties it to Russia ethnically, historically, and culturally (Tolstoy). In conjunction with major Russian security interests in the region (Sevastopol), and the events leading up the crisis, there's a nexus of interests that make intervention in the Crimea, though a heavy risk for Russia, entirely understandable and consistent. On above tweet: It's pretty expected, and is not necessarily the result of Russian pressure (and I'd actually be surprised if it was). My guess it was a localized decision and pressuring. sure. but posters in doubt are mostly already operating with a belief of western conspiracy/manipulation.
doubting western manipulation or are you talking about its extent?
|
On March 08 2014 00:57 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2014 00:50 mcc wrote:On March 08 2014 00:20 Ghanburighan wrote:
Perhaps. (As you like that word a lot...) But one should go for the explanation with the most evidence and prevalent arguments. But evidence that is available in this case can give you only facts. So for example evidence can tell you that there are Russian troops in Crimea and Russians are lying about that. But evidence here won't tell you anything about whether Russian actions is justified or whether West is also partially responsible for the crisis or whether being tough on Russia makes sense or myriad other topics that are discussed in this thread. And opinions on those topics are pretty biased from most people, mostly based on their country of origin due to lifelong indoctrination of opinions prevalent in their society. I do not mean indoctrination as a pejorative word here, just as a description of the fact that our opinion on complex social problems is highly dependent on how our brain has been trained by the society we live in. Just as an example if you group opinion of people from Germany and compare them to opinions of people from Baltics, the difference is extremely visible. There is some consensus and I am not saying that no reasonable conclusion can be reached, but a lot of posts suffer from significant bias. And in such biased atmosphere, where all information is going through "content massage" and manipulation on both sides, going to the prevalent argument is absolutely no guarantee of anything resembling the truth. I'm not asking for a democratic vote on which is the prevalent argument. This thread allows for discussion, and discussion isn't restricted to this thread. What I'm saying is that if you try to find the most evidence and strongest arguments through discussion, you escape the murky slime of relativism and can judge for yourself. Sure, your starting point might be linked to your society, but you don't need to stop there.
Well my point was a) that it is hard to escape that position of being locked into existing worldview and b) that discussion is well and good, but without enough knowledge, which I am claiming is close to impossible due to propaganda wars that are enforced by a), reasonable conclusions are necessarily very general and non-specific. So, yes you can judge for yourself, but if your conclusions are very specific on the complex topics that I mentioned, they are most likely not result of unbiased processing of evidence, but you just deceived yourself into thinking that they are. I am person furthest from promoting relativism, I am just not willing to judge for myself when I know there is not enough to base the judgment on.
|
On March 07 2014 19:23 vyyye wrote:
I have a mate who claims there is no evidence of any Russian troops being outside of their military bases (where they are allowed to be anyway) and that media just keeps mistaking pro Russian Crimean troops for Russians. Is there any actual evidence for actual Russian troops besieging Ukrainian bases?
Our military experts all seem to be in an agreement that those well equipped silent guys are from Spetsnaz, the Russian crème de la crème.
|
On March 08 2014 01:35 AlternativeEgo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2014 19:23 vyyye wrote:
I have a mate who claims there is no evidence of any Russian troops being outside of their military bases (where they are allowed to be anyway) and that media just keeps mistaking pro Russian Crimean troops for Russians. Is there any actual evidence for actual Russian troops besieging Ukrainian bases? Our military experts all seem to be in an agreement that those well equipped silent guys are from Spetsnaz, the Russian crème de la crème.
Same here. But seems like the news in Finland are a lot more careful about the whole situation compared such as the guardian. With the exception of yellow papers which are thrash anyway.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 08 2014 01:29 nunez wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2014 01:14 oneofthem wrote:On March 08 2014 01:11 Lord Tolkien wrote:On March 08 2014 01:01 oneofthem wrote:
the only thing we don't doubt is that we gotta doubt. not sure if this is worse than simple brainwashing. lol There are plenty of avenues to learn about the issue for yourself, outside of standard news sources. There's a great deal of history involved with the Crimea (if you were starting there, start with the Crimean War) that ties it to Russia ethnically, historically, and culturally (Tolstoy). In conjunction with major Russian security interests in the region (Sevastopol), and the events leading up the crisis, there's a nexus of interests that make intervention in the Crimea, though a heavy risk for Russia, entirely understandable and consistent. On above tweet: It's pretty expected, and is not necessarily the result of Russian pressure (and I'd actually be surprised if it was). My guess it was a localized decision and pressuring. sure. but posters in doubt are mostly already operating with a belief of western conspiracy/manipulation. doubting western manipulation or are you talking about its extent?
i don't know what some people's conception of 'the west' even is. is it a caricature of Imperialist Pig Americans or something out of the Jewish Illuminati playbook like you hear in ny bars? either way it's this shadowy figure that combats the russians or another opposing actor in a game of risk.
sure, the cia is there in some capacity no doubt. but if you take sides based purely on a framework of west vs russia, you are not looking at the content of their respective influence. the west, for example, may wish for some positive reforms, while putin is engaged in teh old nationalism to combat internal weakness routine.
|
![[image loading]](http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02840/ukraine-army-crime_2840910b.jpg)
This are clearly just armed civilians, let's not jump to conclusions!
|
On March 08 2014 01:53 Nyxisto wrote:This are clearly just armed civilians, let's not jump to conclusions!
Sure, and they are playing role games, with precise reconstruction of different battles, they does it every 4 years after Olympics!
|
Just bumped into the thread. I live in Belarus and most of my relatives are in Ukraine. We are all concerned about the situation and watch it closely despite tonnes of biased opinions, distorted facts and overstatements from either side, be it Russia or Europe.
From what I was told and what I always knew about Ukraine is that there has always been a deep and serious social split between people who support Russia and people who don't, people who speak Ukrainian and those who speak Russian. It may sound strange to you, but national identity in the former countries of USSR is something that has been constantly under heavy pressure to the extend that in some places it completely weared off. However there has always been a strong and zealous opposition to Moscow in Ukrainian West, a fat powder keg that needed just one thing, a spark. They really wanted this "revolution" or we'd rather call it a rebellion. I can't say the same for the others. The others certainly didn't like the way their lifes were shaped by the low level of living conditions and social insecurity, but they would never start throwing Molotov cocktails. Maidan though spontaneously summoned by people eventually fell under control of individual groups. Though it does not matter now, since the wave has been created. What's more important is what will East and South Ukrainians do? I know that most of them sympathize Moscow and literally hate their own fellow countrymen from the West. The problem is much more complex than the way it is being described in the news where Russia is "the evil oppressor" to free Ukrainian people OR "the good liberator and protector" against Western fascism. Both sides are so horribly biased.
Thousands of people, tend to associate themselves with Russia and Russian culture. We are very very close and I would never call myself a Belarussian just because I was born and live in Belarus. I speak Russian and I share Russian cultural legacy, there is so little Belarussian in me I can't even tell you how am I different? We share the same language and history we are much more close than most Europeans and especially North Americans imagine. I just hope things won't get worse over there, because, you know, when your cousin tells you that he had received a military draft notice you stop thinking about democratic liberation or protection of peaceful citizens in Crimea.
|
On March 08 2014 01:27 oneofthem wrote:
sure you can doubt the details of events, and it's not like ukraine is some well run model state with entirely politically virtuous people, but the basic situation is undoubtedly russian operated intrusion. the 'west', whatever that may mean, is certainly involved but that does not then mean their project is bad.
posters who claim relativism basically want to see the situation as two strong and shadowy figures dueling it out, while having no sense of the real lives affected by this fiasco that will certainly not benefit from putin's behavior.
not that choosing teh west will save ukraine automatically, but it certainly stands a better chance at reform if it is brought within actual civilization.
The first bit: the West is a colloquial IR term that generally refers to the United States and NATO (specifically Western & Central Europe), and was used to backdrop against the Communist "East". East vs. West is a pretty classic Cold War dichotomy.
There has been some general expansion of the term recently to include Japan and South Korea, which means it'll go the way of other Cold War relics like First/Second/Third world differentiation and lose it's relevant meaning.
The highlighted bit amuses the fk out of me, and reminds me of, oh, something something over a century ago. There is so much...arrogance in that one sentence, I'm impressed.
On March 08 2014 01:27 radiatoren wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2014 01:11 Lord Tolkien wrote:On March 08 2014 01:01 oneofthem wrote:
the only thing we don't doubt is that we gotta doubt. not sure if this is worse than simple brainwashing. lol There are plenty of avenues to learn about the issue for yourself, outside of standard news sources. There's a great deal of history involved with the Crimea (if you were starting there, start with the Crimean War) that ties it to Russia ethnically, historically, and culturally (Tolstoy). In conjunction with major Russian security interests in the region (Sevastopol), and the events leading up the crisis, there's a nexus of interests that make intervention in the Crimea, though a heavy risk for Russia, entirely understandable and consistent. On above tweet: It's pretty expected, and is not necessarily the result of Russian pressure (and I'd actually be surprised if it was). My guess it was a localized decision and pressuring. That would depend on your moral stance. Unless there is something to defend against it seems questionable in terms of legitimacy towards the people, unless Ukraine asks for intervention (as long as the "who's in charge?" is a real question, using Yanukovych is not a sufficient excuse) the national level legitimacy of the actions is questionable and without bringing it up internationally before doing it, the international legitimacy doesn't exist at all!
Morality is not a useful analytical tool in IR. Now, you can refer to international norms and values, but that's something entirely different than "morality". Also, I don't want to get into international regime and institutional liberal theory atm.
The issue you are having is that you are conflating national self-determination with Ukraine, which is generally conflating the state and the nation (which are entirely different). In a question of self-determination, it doesn't matter what the fk Ukraine has to say about it, just like Sudan didn't really have much to say when South Sudan seceded, or when numerous states formed out of the corpse of Yugoslavia.
Using tradition and ethniticity as an excuse for the intervention is not a very good reason unless something made the local authorities and military incapable of securing these people. The weakness of the proof of that need and the lack of consultation with appropriate authorities, makes the argument questionable at best.
No, but the will and sentiment of the people living in the region is.
I linked you to a good social science subreddit with some good answers, and I'll highlight one.
One of the key factors cited by Russian policymakers and press right now as an indicator of the new Ukrainian government's threat to ethnic Russians, although this is certainly not the whole of it, is the recent attempt to revoke Ukraine's "law of [regional] languages." On 23 February 2014, Ukraine's Supreme Council (the *Verkhovna Rada* functions as Ukraine's 450-member, unicameral parliament) voted to repeal the law protecting regional languages. This repeal could have made Ukrainian the only language of official business, disenfranchising a large amount of ethnic Russians Ukrainian citizens. This repeal vote was made one day after ousting President Viktor Yanukovich. New president Oleksander Turchynov eventually vetoed the bill repealing the language law, but said that they would revisit the matter when they could replace the law with more balanced legislation. This law had been a major victory in 2012 for the now ousted President Viktor Yanukovich. The authors of the law received accolades from Russia for protecting the rights of the ethnic Russian minority in Ukraine. Many of those same ethnic Russian Ukrainians (and watchful Russian Russians) have heard the EuroMaidan and other protestor vows that they will rid their government of corrupting Russian influence as thinly-veiled threats against the ethnic Russians in South and East Ukraine. Amidst fears that their president was being ousted by Ukrainian nationalists, at least one ethnic Russian civil society group in Sevestapol sent an appeal to Russia to intervene, and there have been reports of other, similar requests. The fear seemed to be validated and supported by the immediate attempt to repeal the language law. Russia used similar justifications to protect the ethnic Russians in S. Ossetia in the Georgian War, and it seems to be a fairly consistent stance taken by Moscow. This is by no means comprehensive, but I hope it offers one glimpse into the Russian perspective in a post-color revolution world. **Reference** Text of the language law: Відомості Верховної Ради (ВВР), 2013, № 23, ст.218 (Google can translate for you) A good representation of native Russian language speakers in Ukraine (apologies that it is from Wikipedia and based on data from 2001 census, but please note the demographics have not changed much)**News sources** 1) International Business Time2) RT3) RIANovosti*I apologize for the meager sources here, I have to run to a meeting, but can provide sources for anything specific you have questions on (either from my phone or when I am back at my desk).*
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskSocialScience/comments/1zj0h8/the_asksocialscience_crimea_thread_ask_about_the/cfu357d
On March 08 2014 01:43 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2014 01:29 nunez wrote:On March 08 2014 01:14 oneofthem wrote:On March 08 2014 01:11 Lord Tolkien wrote:On March 08 2014 01:01 oneofthem wrote:
the only thing we don't doubt is that we gotta doubt. not sure if this is worse than simple brainwashing. lol There are plenty of avenues to learn about the issue for yourself, outside of standard news sources. There's a great deal of history involved with the Crimea (if you were starting there, start with the Crimean War) that ties it to Russia ethnically, historically, and culturally (Tolstoy). In conjunction with major Russian security interests in the region (Sevastopol), and the events leading up the crisis, there's a nexus of interests that make intervention in the Crimea, though a heavy risk for Russia, entirely understandable and consistent. On above tweet: It's pretty expected, and is not necessarily the result of Russian pressure (and I'd actually be surprised if it was). My guess it was a localized decision and pressuring. sure. but posters in doubt are mostly already operating with a belief of western conspiracy/manipulation. doubting western manipulation or are you talking about its extent? i don't know what some people's conception of 'the west' even is. is it a caricature of Imperialist Pig Americans or something out of the Jewish Illuminati playbook like you hear in ny bars? either way it's this shadowy figure that combats the russians or another opposing actor in a game of risk. sure, the cia is there in some capacity no doubt. but if you take sides based purely on a framework of west vs russia, you are not looking at the content of their respective influence. the west, for example, may wish for some positive reforms, while putin is engaged in teh old nationalism to combat internal weakness routine.
You are certainly correct in pointing out that the term (and a number of Cold War terms) neglect the nuances of the regions, states, and non-state acotrs within NATO (which, having taken courses on it, dear fking lord), and do not transition well into the post-Cold War era. Even during the Cold War, "the West" or "the first world" has never been a unified body, France in particular stands out, just as "the second world" was never the unified boogeyman of asiatic communists bent on subverting the entire world (as the Sino-Soviet split serves as an obvious indication). It is still however useful for broadly defining the interests of these countries however, and given both the EU and the US have been condemning Russia and offering loans to Ukraine, is true. The EU and the US have largely converged on Ukraine, even neglecting NATO and the security discussion that is likely happening. There's been some debate already about the US strategic pivot to Asia, and within NATO Eastern European nations especially have been advocating for greater attention to Russia.
I'll just link you to the following paper:
http://www.swp-berlin.org/fileadmin/contents/products/comments/2008C22_rdf_ks.pdf
Also, why the goddamn Godwin?
As for that highlighted bit? Pretty fking wrong, and a gross oversimplification of Russian motives and objectives. It's far more of a (malicious) caricature then a benign use of a widely-accepted IR term.
There is:
1) A VERY strong security aspect to it. Sevastopol is the (leased) base for the Russian Black Sea Fleet, and there is no other Black Sea port for them to be based at; there is base in Russia for them, and no suitable location on the Russian coast to build a base from scratch (which would be expensive as all hell anyways). The anti-Russian sentiment of the new Ukrainian government puts the fleet in jeopardy.
2) A historical, cultural, and highly ethnic aspect of Russian interests in the Crimea, that isn't just "nationalism" or "combat internal weakness"
3) Local requests by Crimean and ethnic Russians in the region to intervene, with the Ukrainian government moving to repeal the linguistic law.
4) Other geopolitical concerns which are numerous and I'm too tired to list atm.
On March 08 2014 02:11 myminerals wrote:
Just bumped into the thread. I live in Belarus and most of my relatives are in Ukraine. We are all concerned about the situation and watch it closely despite tonnes of biased opinions, distorted facts and overstatements from either side, be it Russia or Europe.
From what I was told and what I always knew about Ukraine is that there has always been a deep and serious social split between people who support Russia and people who don't, people who speak Ukrainian and those who speak Russian. It may sound strange to you, but national identity in the former countries of USSR is something that has been constantly under heavy pressure to the extend that in some places it completely weared off. However there has always been a strong and zealous opposition to Moscow in Ukrainian West, a fat powder keg that needed just one thing, a spark. They really wanted this "revolution" or we'd rather call it a rebellion. I can't say the same for the others. They certainly didn't like the way their lifes were shaped by the low level of living conditions and social insecurity, but they would never start throwing Molotov cocktails. Maidan though spontaneously summoned by people eventually fell under control of individual groups. Though it does not matter now, since the wave has been created. What's more important is what will East and South Ukrainians do now? I know that most of them sympathize Moscow and literally hate their own fellow countrymen from the West. The problem is much more complex than the way it is being described in the news where Russia is "the evil oppressor" to free Ukrainian people OR "the good liberator and protector" against Western fascism. Both sides are so horribly biased.
Thousands of people, tend to associate themselves with Russia and Russian culture. We are very very close and I would never call myself a Belarussian just because I was born and live in Belarus. I speak Russian and I share Russian cultural legacy, there is so little Belarussian in me I can't even tell you how am I different? We share the same language and history we are much more close than most Europeans and especially North Americans imagine. I just hope things won't get worse over there, because, you know, when your cousin tells you that he had received a military draft notice you stop thinking about democratic liberation or protection of peaceful citizens in Crimea, you simply switch off the TV.
Yep, I understand completely.
And thank you for your input, as they highlight some of what I was trying to point out.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 08 2014 02:19 Lord Tolkien wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2014 01:27 oneofthem wrote:
sure you can doubt the details of events, and it's not like ukraine is some well run model state with entirely politically virtuous people, but the basic situation is undoubtedly russian operated intrusion. the 'west', whatever that may mean, is certainly involved but that does not then mean their project is bad.
posters who claim relativism basically want to see the situation as two strong and shadowy figures dueling it out, while having no sense of the real lives affected by this fiasco that will certainly not benefit from putin's behavior.
not that choosing teh west will save ukraine automatically, but it certainly stands a better chance at reform if it is brought within actual civilization. The first bit: the West is a colloquial IR term that generally refers to the United States and NATO (specifically Western & Central Europe), and was used to backdrop against the Communist "East". East vs. West is a pretty classic Cold War dichotomy. There has been some general expansion of the term recently to include Japan and South Korea, which means it'll go the way of other Cold War relics like First/Second/Third world differentiation and lose it's relevant meaning. The highlighted bit amuses the fk out of me, and reminds me of, oh, something something over a century ago. There is so much...arrogance in that one sentence, I'm impressed.
surely arrogance would not obscure the fact that the russian govt is not exactly good for its people. i don't have an anti-russian as culture bias so much as i have one against their failed state that holds the people back.
as for the detailing of putin's interests in crimea. there's a specific trigger to his actions, and reason to choose crimea and the current ukraine political upheaval to act, but the overall theme is a stressing of nationalistic narrative and a theatre designed to focus the attention of russians internally to the international arena rather than what is happening at home.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
