EPTIt is time to be honest with ourselves, and confess that Gladstonian moralism, elevated to political supremacy through the 20th century, has not made the world a more enchanting place.
Ukraine Crisis - Page 342
| Forum Index > Closed |
There is a new policy in effect in this thread. Anyone not complying will be moderated. New policy, please read before posting: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=21393711 | ||
|
MoltkeWarding
5195 Posts
It is time to be honest with ourselves, and confess that Gladstonian moralism, elevated to political supremacy through the 20th century, has not made the world a more enchanting place. | ||
|
Saihv
Finland54 Posts
So both Ukraine and Russia blame each other. | ||
|
Sub40APM
6336 Posts
On March 18 2014 21:47 zeo wrote: Why would any Ukrainian seek asylum in Serbia? (a) its as poor and hopeless as Ukraine (b) they can just get Russian citizenship and Russia is infinitely closer/cheaper to get to. In many ways it will be the only way to stabilize the situation, there are obviously many people in your part of Ukraine that want to protect themselves from the people that came to power in Kiev. Many Ukrainians are coming to Serbia seeking asylum, people from Kiev and western Ukraine afraid to speak Russian, or Ukrainian speakers terrified of marauding bands of right-wing extremists interrogating and beating up people on the streets, the total absence of law and order on the streets and the threat of war. A similar amount of people fleeing the Donbas region and Crimea because of similar fears of persecution and war. Here is the source (though in Serbian): http://www.novosti.rs/vesti/naslovna/drustvo/aktuelno.290.html:483123-Ukrajinci-traze-azil-u-Srbiji All of this because Ukraine was not a federated country and allowed the crazies of euromaidan to plunge the country into anarchy. Usually your lies are better constructed than this zoe. | ||
|
Sub40APM
6336 Posts
On March 19 2014 01:56 MoltkeWarding wrote: Why is this even a debate? If it came to a fair plebiscite, there is no doubt that the majority of Crimeans would have voted to join Russia. Actually there is doubt, hence the rigging of the referendum. | ||
|
MoltkeWarding
5195 Posts
On March 19 2014 02:01 Sub40APM wrote: Actually there is doubt, hence the rigging of the referendum. One does not need to be in doubt of the results of a referendum to tamper with the outcome. | ||
|
Sub40APM
6336 Posts
On March 19 2014 02:03 MoltkeWarding wrote: No you are right, they did it for practice to fit in better in Russian Federation elections. One does not need to be in doubt of the results of a referendum to tamper with the outcome. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On March 19 2014 01:56 MoltkeWarding wrote: Why is this even a debate? If it came to a fair plebiscite, there is no doubt that the majority of Crimeans would have voted to join Russia. Some basic historical and cultural knowledge of the region suffices to establish this very elementary fact. It is not due to concerns of proper procedurethat the accuracy of this referendum is being disputed. Of course it's about the 'proper procedure'. Because in this case the actual procedure consisted of Russia invading a sovereign country. This historical romanticism is ridiculous. We have established law. Countries can't just roam around and take what they want because they feel like it. If Crimea wanted to be independent they should have voted without Russian military at their doorsteps and with an option to keep the status quo. And they could have done so if they would have waited until May 25th. Everybody here knew Merkel would win our elections, that doesn't mean we skip them. You're arguing like elections are just some kind of formality. | ||
|
myminerals
560 Posts
On March 19 2014 01:56 MoltkeWarding wrote: Why is this even a debate? If it came to a fair plebiscite, there is no doubt that the majority of Crimeans would have voted to join Russia. Some basic historical and cultural knowledge of the region suffices to establish this very elementary fact. It is not due to concerns of proper procedure that the accuracy of this referendum is being disputed. It is because there are no other means by which one can attack Russia without appearing to attack the concept of self-determination and popular sovereignty. It is time to be honest with ourselves, and confess that Gladstonian moralism, elevated to political supremacy through the 20th century, has not made the world a more enchanting place. yep, as concise as it gets. | ||
|
myminerals
560 Posts
On March 19 2014 02:07 Nyxisto wrote: Of course it's about the 'proper procedure'. Because in this case the actual procedure consisted of Russia invading a sovereign country. This historical romanticism is ridiculous. We have established law. Countries can't just roam around and take what they want because they feel like it. If Crimea wanted to be independent they should have voted without Russian military at their doorsteps and with an option to keep the status quo. And they could have done so if they would have waited until May 25th. Everybody here knew Merkel would win our elections, that doesn't mean we skip them. You're arguing like elections are just some form of formality. Oh please, are you serious? | ||
|
semantics
10040 Posts
On March 19 2014 01:56 MoltkeWarding wrote: Why is this even a debate? If it came to a fair plebiscite, there is no doubt that the majority of Crimeans would have voted to join Russia. Some basic historical and cultural knowledge of the region suffices to establish this very elementary fact. It is not due to concerns of proper procedure that the accuracy of this referendum is being disputed. It is because there are no other means by which one can attack Russia without appearing to attack the concept of self-determination and popular sovereignty. It is time to be honest with ourselves, and confess that Gladstonian moralism, elevated to political supremacy through the 20th century, has not made the world a more enchanting place. False antecedent leads to false consequence. History and cultural doesn't make national identity, rather national identity influences culture and history. What was does not predetermine what always is, nations rise and fall and although there is a considerable history between russia and crimea not all of it is good from the point of view of crimeans. And continued russian influence in the area is only from military bases in the area, in order for russia to still hold a wet port all year round. Would you annex parts of japan to the US due to massive military presence tangential history? The US holds many cultures perhaps break the US based on cultural and historical lines, you can easily weave different threads for different sections of the US, easily breaking up the west, midwest, south, colonies and past the appalachian as all different on some level historically and culturally. You could easily break russia into 3 parts on cultural and historical divides as well. History and culture does not make national identity. | ||
|
Lonyo
United Kingdom3884 Posts
On March 19 2014 02:07 Nyxisto wrote: Of course it's about the 'proper procedure'. Because in this case the actual procedure consisted of Russia invading a sovereign country. This historical romanticism is ridiculous. We have established law. Countries can't just roam around and take what they want because they feel like it. If Crimea wanted to be independent they should have voted without Russian military at their doorsteps and with an option to keep the status quo. And they could have done so if they would have waited until May 25th. Everybody here knew Merkel would win our elections, that doesn't mean we skip them. You're arguing like elections are just some kind of formality. But if there's a coup, western governments can back one side even if they are the ones revolting. But Russia can't roam around when the elected president who was removed by the coup says they are welcome. | ||
|
myminerals
560 Posts
| ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
Yes. At least the German official position has been that if Russia withdraws and the international community gains access to Crimea (for example in the form of OECD supervision) Crimea has the right to decide what they want to do. But if there's a coup, western governments can back one side even if they are the ones revolting. But Russia can't roam around when the elected president who was removed by the coup says they are welcome. There was no coup.(As a coup d'état involves one part of the government overthrowing another).And the elected president was kicked out of office by the Ukrainian parliament. If Russia wants to live in a universe where that didn't happen it's their choice.Also the president of the Ukraine does not have the power to let another countries troops invade his own country. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11746 Posts
On March 19 2014 01:56 MoltkeWarding wrote: Why is this even a debate? If it came to a fair plebiscite, there is no doubt that the majority of Crimeans would have voted to join Russia. Some basic historical and cultural knowledge of the region suffices to establish this very elementary fact. It is not due to concerns of proper procedure that the accuracy of this referendum is being disputed. It is because there are no other means by which one can attack Russia without appearing to attack the concept of self-determination and popular sovereignty. It is time to be honest with ourselves, and confess that Gladstonian moralism, elevated to political supremacy through the 20th century, has not made the world a more enchanting place. Ok, we solved the problem. Elections are really expensive, we just always ask MoltkeWarding instead, because he knows what a majority wants without ever asking them. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On March 19 2014 02:17 myminerals wrote: Ukraininan government collecting money now to support recent enlisting by cutting social benefits, hilarious. how is it hilarious that a nation being invaded has to cut social benefits to deal with the invasion? sounds more like tragic to me. | ||
|
Sub40APM
6336 Posts
On March 19 2014 02:16 Lonyo wrote: But if there's a coup, western governments can back one side even if they are the ones revolting. But Russia can't roam around when the elected president who was removed by the coup says they are welcome. 1. If he is still president, he cant legally invite a foreign power to invade 2. If he is still president, cant legally invite a referendum without involvement of central government he is a leader of, and in his speeches from Russia he makes it clear that Ukraine should be indivisible. | ||
|
hzflank
United Kingdom2991 Posts
On March 19 2014 01:29 Simberto wrote: So, how hard is it to join NATO? Because if i were a country bordering Russia, i would try to do that really quickly right about now. NATO does not accept new members who are engaged in a territory dispute. So Russia has made it so that Ukraine can not possibly join NATO even if they wanted to, unless Ukraine were to recognize Crimea as part of Russia. | ||
|
oo_Wonderful_oo
The land of freedom23126 Posts
On March 19 2014 01:34 ZeromuS wrote: My only issue with the referendum is the following: With the contentious political climate surrounding it internationally some sort of third party not involved in the rhetoric should have conducted the referendum. It also should have been conducted without the russian troops in Crimea. Send all troops from both russia and ukraine back to their respective military bases for the duration of the referendum. Prior to the referendum prepare a way for the armed forces of the country that doesnt win the referendum to leave peacefully within a timeline. IDK in no world could a referendum be seen as "fair" from both sides. Sadly, this whole thing is too much of a mess to disentangle. As far as i know, Crimeans requested for every militaries in Simferopol' at least to be removed from middle of city week before referendum. So i don't think troops really influenced their decision. | ||
|
hzflank
United Kingdom2991 Posts
On March 19 2014 01:48 cSc.Dav1oN wrote: Ukrainian geodesist-soldier was shot while sturm of cartographic military base by russians. Possibly with sniper rifle. So this morning, Putin signs a piece of paper saying that Crimea is now part of Russia, and a few hours later Ukrainian soldiers are being fired at in their own bases. I am often one to look at things from the other point of view and I have certainly criticized bother Europe and America enough, but Russia is absolutely in the wrong here and they need to be put in their place. I don't care how much it costs our bankers or how much it raises our fuel prices, we (the UK) signed a treaty saying that we would protect Ukraine if needed, and we need to stick to our promise. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
| ||
