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.
Nope, the question is the balance of probabilities. A child is reaching for a cookie jar, and one party claims that this proves that the child likes cookies. The other party claims that this is not proof, because the child's actions had been manipulated by not having been fed lunch.
And on what is that analogy based? You are saying that Crimea would have wanted to join Russia even without russian troops invading first. On what is that based? Do you have any Data to back that up besides "It's obvious!"? What i have seen in this thread, there are some surveys, which might or might not be a good source of information, which say otherwise. Then we have the obviously tampered referendum which is pretty much worthless.
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.
Nope, the question is the balance of probabilities. A child is reaching for a cookie jar, and one party claims that this proves that the child likes cookies. The other party claims that this is not proof, because the child's actions had been manipulated by not having been fed lunch.
The point is all of that is irrelevant, because the world has kind of unilaterally agreed that not history, but the legal framework we have created, dictates what we can or can't do. It doesn't matter if my family has owned my neighbors property for centuries, I can't just go there and take it back.
I agree. I don't think you understood my critique of Gladstonian Moralism. The Urfeind of your precious legal framework is not 21st century Russian Imperialism, but Victorian Liberal Idealism.
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.
It was where Vladimir the Great converted to Orthodox Christianity. It was the site of Russia's first contact with Eastern Roman Civilisation long before the Mongol incursions turned the peninsula into an Mongolian satrapy, and later an Ottoman dependency. It was not some latter-day "American trans-appalachian" territory. Its place in Russian history is far more comparable to that of Plymouth Colony.
You know, if you want to act like a pretentious intellectual, a minute or two with google would do some good on topics that you are only marginally familiar with. The first known contact between Varangian Rus and Byzantium occurred either in Propontis or at the gates of Constantinople. And while Vladimir embraced Christianity in Cherson, he announced his -- and began the process of Christianinized his subjects -- in Kyiv. No Russian scholar would ever accept your analogy. The conquest of Crimea by the Tsarist state and the implied nationalistic pride in that -- and the transformation of Crimea into a Soviet resort reserved for the mid level elite of the Union -- is the origin of the emotional attachments modern Russians feel towards Crimea.
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.
Well mate, I wish you the best of luck getting anywhere without Uncle Sam. Sadly, toy poodles need a wolf if they're going to think of trying to deal with a bear.
Not really. As long as a "Western Power" (UK, France, Germany, Australia, or Canada) sends significant aid and protection to Ukraine, the US will be close behind should shit hit the fan.
I don't see in what world any of those countries can send "significant protection" to Ukraine, or why they would if they were capable. Their political interest in stealing Ukraine from Russian interests is not worth any sort of serious conflict with Russia. As for the US, I think we're more interested in wrecking poor countries in the Mideast and Asia, anyways. Ukraine wouldn't be worth our strategic interests either if we had to take things to this degree that you suggest, especially since the only interest Ukraine serves us is taking a strategic interest that Russia doesn't have. Next stop, Tehran.
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.
Sounds more like the junta is stealing from the people so that they can fund their personal militia's.
This so called national guard looks fit only to terrorize local citizen's, with this kind of training and equipment they could hardly do anything else. Arming the thugs from the street that set fire to the capitol and brought them to power, nobody is surprised.
You mean they are doing the exact same thing the Croats had to do when some 'local self defense units' came to 'liberate them' from 'fascist junta'? Not everyone starts the game with a fully formed army and a one party state loyal to a single leader bent on creating an empire based on race.
At least the Croats elected their government. A non-elected coup-imposed government has no right spending taxpayer money funding paramilitary organization's, let alone arming right-wing extremists.
Wtf, srsly, it looks like every time you get shut down with your stupid arguments you come back a while later just to spit the same shit. Just like with every argument Putin and you made, they were only speculations and not based on any facts:. "This seems to be a fascist coup, look at that right extremist guy!" "This fascist looking government can bring harm to etnic russians, so instead of invading the whole country we will invade Crimea while not wearing any signs!" "Everybody living in occupied Crimea wants to become part of Russia, look at that legitimate poll!"
So stop with the fear mongering aka that type of drama stupidity : "Arming the thugs from the street that set fire to the capitol and brought them to power, nobody is surprised"
On March 19 2014 02:52 zlefin wrote: All this really goes to show is that Putin, in addition to being an asshole and a criminal, is also being an idiot; he probably could have gotten Crimea legitimately without getting Russia into any trouble at all. Why engage in war when you can get it for free anyways? That's just idiotic.
Because its a theater for domestic purposes. Its the end of any kind of economic reforms and the embrace of vague nationalistic goals to bolster popular support while he frets about which clan within the Kremlin will come out on top once he dies.
On March 19 2014 02:59 zlefin wrote: Their moral interest in stopping people from doing bad things would still apply.
Yeah, they have such a moral interest in stopping the USA from doing bad things too... oh wait, they often support us or are neutral hehehe. In fact, the US has a ton on influence on these countries, so it would be impossible for them to ever publicly denounce us, even if they wished to. No, there is no "moral interest" here.
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.
Nope, the question is the balance of probabilities. A child is reaching for a cookie jar, and one party claims that this proves that the child likes cookies. The other party claims that this is not proof, because the child's actions had been manipulated by not having been fed lunch.
The point is all of that is irrelevant, because the world has kind of unilaterally agreed that not history, but the legal framework we have created, dictates what we can or can't do. It doesn't matter if my family has owned my neighbors property for centuries, I can't just go there and take it back.
I agree. I don't think you understood my critique of Gladstonian Moralism. The Urfeind of your precious legal framework is not 21st century Russian Imperialism, but Victorian Liberal Idealism.
I think that's not actually true. The West isn't circling in Russia because it's so morally imperial( at least not primarily), the West is gaining influence because it's a economic success story. Russia is simply falling behind in terms of geopolitical power because it's not opening itself up. You can't just rely on ruling in some kind of semi-autocratic fashion and living off your resources and think you're not going to lose influence in our time.
The Eastern European countries turned towards Europe not because it's such a mighty superpower, but because they saw the chance of getting away from corruption, gain more rights and prosper in the long run. Cheap gas from Russia simply doesn't cut it anymore. Russia's response to gain more influence again over Crimea is just desperation.
You can't rule like Putin does and not lose power over time. The current Russia has an expiration date just as the Soviet Union had.
There is moral interest, some of us, unlike you apparently, do care about such things. It's just not the only factor; and people do denounce the US all the time for the things it does.
On March 19 2014 03:04 zlefin wrote: There is moral interest, some of us, unlike you apparently, do care about such things. It's just not the only factor; and people do denounce the US all the time for the things it does.
Ummm no. Your insult is completely misplaced. I never said I don't care about Ukraine, in fact I've been one of the most vocal in this thread about avoiding war for the well-being of Ukrainians and their sake, while not having a generally Russophobic attitude.
I don't see how saying politicians with political/strategic interests in Ukraine means I don't care about Ukraine. This is among the oddest extrapolations I've seen. And you say, that some people in general have moral interest (even though I was referring to government and politics, not regular folk). Well, I'm sorry, but I don't see you leading a country, so your moral interest and my moral interest are relatively irrelevant.
"People do denounce.." What people? People who don't matter on these terms, right? When I see David Cameron and Angela Merkel stand up and say, "Fuck you America," then I'll acknowledge your statement. Until then, the US leads these countries and even if these administrations wanted to cross us, they never will.
We (our govts.) have about as much moral interest as Putin has in "protecting Russians" in Crimea and eastern Ukraine. Ukraine is a rope in a tug-of-war. That's what it boils down to.
Ukrainian police and SBU collected considerable body of evidence suggesting that recent violent protests in Lugansk, Kharkiv and Donetsk were orchestrated by Russian security servicemen. According to Yatsenyuk.
Some left wing politician from Poland was also there and he said that mainstream media are painting a bit deceiving picture. He said people voluntarily went to vote and there was no pressure from Russian soldiers.
EPT
![[image loading]](https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/t31.0-8/q71/s720x720/1932639_519057471545254_590003180_o.jpg)
