|
|
On May 14 2014 22:13 Adila wrote:
China does not want to back Russia publicly. Doing so would cause problems internally within Tibet and other regions who might consider "independence".
Like for instance...Taiwan? 
|
China couldnt care less.
China only care about china.
You just wait and see.
|
I'm surprised Russia, of all countries, supports the rights of separatists to secede from another country due to ethnicity. It's a very, very double-edged sword for Russia.
|
On May 14 2014 04:11 EtherealBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2014 03:35 Mc wrote:On May 14 2014 02:49 EtherealBlade wrote:On May 14 2014 02:31 Mc wrote:I don't think I've posted an op-ed so far but this one was especially well thought out and a quick read. So I'd really recommend anybody following this thread to read it. It's written by a Muscovite journalist for Al Jazeera. http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/05/ukraine-vs-russia-mafia-state--2014512164523249486.htmlAny thoughts? To me it sums up the conflict very well. Although, some of the conclusions it draws at the end are far-fetched. He says "The ethnicisation of the Ukrainian conflict suits the Kremlin. Its worst nightmare is a Ukraine growing into an alternative Russia - a better place for talented and entrepreneurial Russians to live and work than Russia proper." - there are other factors at play here, but this would be tragic for Russia. If Ukraine developed into a successful democracy, a whole lot of Russia's educated middle class would emigrate. Going a bit too far: "The West misinterprets Putin by thinking that he wants to rebuild an empire - it is much more likely that the real goal is a compact, monoethnic and ultra-nationalist Ukraine, with the Russian element reduced to a minimum." - I disagree, Putin wants a non-Western and undeveloped Ukraine. It doesn't have to be mono-ethnic and ultra-nationalist to achieve those goals. He misses the point where Ukraine was created as an artificial state, with borders having no historic precedent and found themselves in a very precarious geographic/political/economic situation. Much like Czechoslovakia or Yugoslavia, and like the latter, Ukraine is now a failed state. Partitioning Ukraine now is much more painful than it would have been in 1991, but at this point it's maybe not that bad of an idea as it sounds... almost all their neighbours have legit territorial claims. A smaller, more efficient and more homogenous Ukraine that doesn't dream about EU membership, which is unattainable anyway could function better. "Artificial state" is quite an exaggeration. I guess you mean that it has a significant Russian part to it. Many countries that are divided ethnically/linguistically manage to get by without any issues. Ukraine counts as such a country, and with the exception of Crimea separatism didn't ever really hold any sway in Ukraine until recently. Russian news/propaganda is the main source of separatist feelings and alienation. The only "legit territorial" claim you could try to argue is Crimea. Present day Western Ukraine is made up of former Poland and Hungary, if I remember correctly the Eastern parts were colonised by slavic settlers when the Russian Empire was expanding. In any case, communists were never good at drawing borders that the people liked. If only self determination was on the agenda in 1991 Ukraine would be much better off now.
FYI. In 1991 when Ukraine had an independence vote, Lugansk and Donetsk Oblasts had 83,86% and 83,90% acceptance rate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_independence_referendum,_1991
|
|
|
On May 14 2014 03:50 Mc wrote:@Cheerio/Ukrainians What are your views on Ukraine minus Donbas/Lugansk? Is there a sentiment amongst some non-separatist/moderate Ukrainians that Ukraine would be better off without those regions? I feel like Ukraine could move forward and attempt to become a functioning democracy without those primarily Russian-speaking regions. It'd be a tough pill to swallow, but I think it would bring stability. If you really want to become a European country, it's so much more difficult with the constant threat of Russian destabilization from those regions? Also, you wouldn't fluctuate every election from a pro-Russian government, to a pro-Ukrainian government and back. Clearly, this wouldn't be an issue if it weren't for Russian manipulation/propaganda, but you can't really stop or control that. Not to say that Russia wouldn't continue to destabilize Ukraine via other regions ( % speaking Ukrainian by region) or using other methods. But overall I think it would make Ukraine more resilient to Russian meddling. Your thoughts?
yes, there is. But the primary problem is that there are huge numbers of pro-Ukrainians there. Given the amount of anti-Ukrainian sentiment and violence is it acceptable to leave them alone?
|
On May 15 2014 01:13 marigoldran wrote:
I'm surprised Russia, of all countries, supports the rights of separatists to secede from another country due to ethnicity. It's a very, very double-edged sword for Russia.
Its not very double edged when those parts who might harbor desires for secession know what happens if they express that desire. (hint, Its not good for there health)
|
Well, yes, as long as Russia's economy and political system doesn't collapse, which is effectively what happens every 50 years or so.
|
On May 15 2014 01:34 Cheerio wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2014 03:50 Mc wrote:@Cheerio/Ukrainians What are your views on Ukraine minus Donbas/Lugansk? Is there a sentiment amongst some non-separatist/moderate Ukrainians that Ukraine would be better off without those regions? I feel like Ukraine could move forward and attempt to become a functioning democracy without those primarily Russian-speaking regions. It'd be a tough pill to swallow, but I think it would bring stability. If you really want to become a European country, it's so much more difficult with the constant threat of Russian destabilization from those regions? Also, you wouldn't fluctuate every election from a pro-Russian government, to a pro-Ukrainian government and back. Clearly, this wouldn't be an issue if it weren't for Russian manipulation/propaganda, but you can't really stop or control that. Not to say that Russia wouldn't continue to destabilize Ukraine via other regions ( % speaking Ukrainian by region) or using other methods. But overall I think it would make Ukraine more resilient to Russian meddling. Your thoughts? yes, there is. But the primary problem is that there are huge numbers of pro-Ukrainians there. Given the amount of anti-Ukrainian sentiment and violence is it acceptable to leave them alone?
Yeah good point. Can't really argue with that. Down with the separrorists!
|
On May 15 2014 01:21 Cheerio wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2014 04:11 EtherealBlade wrote:On May 14 2014 03:35 Mc wrote:On May 14 2014 02:49 EtherealBlade wrote:On May 14 2014 02:31 Mc wrote:I don't think I've posted an op-ed so far but this one was especially well thought out and a quick read. So I'd really recommend anybody following this thread to read it. It's written by a Muscovite journalist for Al Jazeera. http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/05/ukraine-vs-russia-mafia-state--2014512164523249486.htmlAny thoughts? To me it sums up the conflict very well. Although, some of the conclusions it draws at the end are far-fetched. He says "The ethnicisation of the Ukrainian conflict suits the Kremlin. Its worst nightmare is a Ukraine growing into an alternative Russia - a better place for talented and entrepreneurial Russians to live and work than Russia proper." - there are other factors at play here, but this would be tragic for Russia. If Ukraine developed into a successful democracy, a whole lot of Russia's educated middle class would emigrate. Going a bit too far: "The West misinterprets Putin by thinking that he wants to rebuild an empire - it is much more likely that the real goal is a compact, monoethnic and ultra-nationalist Ukraine, with the Russian element reduced to a minimum." - I disagree, Putin wants a non-Western and undeveloped Ukraine. It doesn't have to be mono-ethnic and ultra-nationalist to achieve those goals. He misses the point where Ukraine was created as an artificial state, with borders having no historic precedent and found themselves in a very precarious geographic/political/economic situation. Much like Czechoslovakia or Yugoslavia, and like the latter, Ukraine is now a failed state. Partitioning Ukraine now is much more painful than it would have been in 1991, but at this point it's maybe not that bad of an idea as it sounds... almost all their neighbours have legit territorial claims. A smaller, more efficient and more homogenous Ukraine that doesn't dream about EU membership, which is unattainable anyway could function better. "Artificial state" is quite an exaggeration. I guess you mean that it has a significant Russian part to it. Many countries that are divided ethnically/linguistically manage to get by without any issues. Ukraine counts as such a country, and with the exception of Crimea separatism didn't ever really hold any sway in Ukraine until recently. Russian news/propaganda is the main source of separatist feelings and alienation. The only "legit territorial" claim you could try to argue is Crimea. Present day Western Ukraine is made up of former Poland and Hungary, if I remember correctly the Eastern parts were colonised by slavic settlers when the Russian Empire was expanding. In any case, communists were never good at drawing borders that the people liked. If only self determination was on the agenda in 1991 Ukraine would be much better off now. FYI. In 1991 when Ukraine had an independence vote, Lugansk and Donetsk Oblasts had 83,86% and 83,90% acceptance rate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_independence_referendum,_1991
I'd say that referendum was more about "do you want to remain in the Soviet Union?" which was collapsing anyway, and not really about "do you want to be ruled by Kiev"? They just released Ukraine with the former Soviet Republics borders.
|
On May 15 2014 02:05 EtherealBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2014 01:21 Cheerio wrote:On May 14 2014 04:11 EtherealBlade wrote:On May 14 2014 03:35 Mc wrote:On May 14 2014 02:49 EtherealBlade wrote:On May 14 2014 02:31 Mc wrote:I don't think I've posted an op-ed so far but this one was especially well thought out and a quick read. So I'd really recommend anybody following this thread to read it. It's written by a Muscovite journalist for Al Jazeera. http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/05/ukraine-vs-russia-mafia-state--2014512164523249486.htmlAny thoughts? To me it sums up the conflict very well. Although, some of the conclusions it draws at the end are far-fetched. He says "The ethnicisation of the Ukrainian conflict suits the Kremlin. Its worst nightmare is a Ukraine growing into an alternative Russia - a better place for talented and entrepreneurial Russians to live and work than Russia proper." - there are other factors at play here, but this would be tragic for Russia. If Ukraine developed into a successful democracy, a whole lot of Russia's educated middle class would emigrate. Going a bit too far: "The West misinterprets Putin by thinking that he wants to rebuild an empire - it is much more likely that the real goal is a compact, monoethnic and ultra-nationalist Ukraine, with the Russian element reduced to a minimum." - I disagree, Putin wants a non-Western and undeveloped Ukraine. It doesn't have to be mono-ethnic and ultra-nationalist to achieve those goals. He misses the point where Ukraine was created as an artificial state, with borders having no historic precedent and found themselves in a very precarious geographic/political/economic situation. Much like Czechoslovakia or Yugoslavia, and like the latter, Ukraine is now a failed state. Partitioning Ukraine now is much more painful than it would have been in 1991, but at this point it's maybe not that bad of an idea as it sounds... almost all their neighbours have legit territorial claims. A smaller, more efficient and more homogenous Ukraine that doesn't dream about EU membership, which is unattainable anyway could function better. "Artificial state" is quite an exaggeration. I guess you mean that it has a significant Russian part to it. Many countries that are divided ethnically/linguistically manage to get by without any issues. Ukraine counts as such a country, and with the exception of Crimea separatism didn't ever really hold any sway in Ukraine until recently. Russian news/propaganda is the main source of separatist feelings and alienation. The only "legit territorial" claim you could try to argue is Crimea. Present day Western Ukraine is made up of former Poland and Hungary, if I remember correctly the Eastern parts were colonised by slavic settlers when the Russian Empire was expanding. In any case, communists were never good at drawing borders that the people liked. If only self determination was on the agenda in 1991 Ukraine would be much better off now. FYI. In 1991 when Ukraine had an independence vote, Lugansk and Donetsk Oblasts had 83,86% and 83,90% acceptance rate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_independence_referendum,_1991 I'd say that referendum was more about "do you want to remain in the Soviet Union?" which was collapsing anyway, and not really about "do you want to be ruled by Kiev"? They just released Ukraine with the former Soviet Republics borders.
are you just guessing now?
Voters were asked "Do you support the Act of Declaration of Independence of Ukraine?"
|
On May 15 2014 02:18 Cheerio wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2014 02:05 EtherealBlade wrote:On May 15 2014 01:21 Cheerio wrote:On May 14 2014 04:11 EtherealBlade wrote:On May 14 2014 03:35 Mc wrote:On May 14 2014 02:49 EtherealBlade wrote:On May 14 2014 02:31 Mc wrote:I don't think I've posted an op-ed so far but this one was especially well thought out and a quick read. So I'd really recommend anybody following this thread to read it. It's written by a Muscovite journalist for Al Jazeera. http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/05/ukraine-vs-russia-mafia-state--2014512164523249486.htmlAny thoughts? To me it sums up the conflict very well. Although, some of the conclusions it draws at the end are far-fetched. He says "The ethnicisation of the Ukrainian conflict suits the Kremlin. Its worst nightmare is a Ukraine growing into an alternative Russia - a better place for talented and entrepreneurial Russians to live and work than Russia proper." - there are other factors at play here, but this would be tragic for Russia. If Ukraine developed into a successful democracy, a whole lot of Russia's educated middle class would emigrate. Going a bit too far: "The West misinterprets Putin by thinking that he wants to rebuild an empire - it is much more likely that the real goal is a compact, monoethnic and ultra-nationalist Ukraine, with the Russian element reduced to a minimum." - I disagree, Putin wants a non-Western and undeveloped Ukraine. It doesn't have to be mono-ethnic and ultra-nationalist to achieve those goals. He misses the point where Ukraine was created as an artificial state, with borders having no historic precedent and found themselves in a very precarious geographic/political/economic situation. Much like Czechoslovakia or Yugoslavia, and like the latter, Ukraine is now a failed state. Partitioning Ukraine now is much more painful than it would have been in 1991, but at this point it's maybe not that bad of an idea as it sounds... almost all their neighbours have legit territorial claims. A smaller, more efficient and more homogenous Ukraine that doesn't dream about EU membership, which is unattainable anyway could function better. "Artificial state" is quite an exaggeration. I guess you mean that it has a significant Russian part to it. Many countries that are divided ethnically/linguistically manage to get by without any issues. Ukraine counts as such a country, and with the exception of Crimea separatism didn't ever really hold any sway in Ukraine until recently. Russian news/propaganda is the main source of separatist feelings and alienation. The only "legit territorial" claim you could try to argue is Crimea. Present day Western Ukraine is made up of former Poland and Hungary, if I remember correctly the Eastern parts were colonised by slavic settlers when the Russian Empire was expanding. In any case, communists were never good at drawing borders that the people liked. If only self determination was on the agenda in 1991 Ukraine would be much better off now. FYI. In 1991 when Ukraine had an independence vote, Lugansk and Donetsk Oblasts had 83,86% and 83,90% acceptance rate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_independence_referendum,_1991 I'd say that referendum was more about "do you want to remain in the Soviet Union?" which was collapsing anyway, and not really about "do you want to be ruled by Kiev"? They just released Ukraine with the former Soviet Republics borders. are you just guessing now? Show nested quote +Voters were asked "Do you support the Act of Declaration of Independence of Ukraine?"
Yeah, and the Soviet Union ceased to exist later that year. The two were probably connected somehow... would explain the overwhelming results too?
|
On May 14 2014 09:29 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2014 09:15 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:On May 14 2014 09:06 Gorsameth wrote:On May 14 2014 09:00 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:On May 14 2014 08:36 nunez wrote:On May 14 2014 07:55 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
Primarily, I want to see how Putin responds to the revolutionary leaders' appeals to join Russia. i think it largely depends on how commited kiev is to asserting its legitimacy in south and east and how much leeway they are going to give to their henchmen. until then (if they commit) we'll get to see hooke's law in action. It also largely depends on how much Putin wants sanctions. We are putting on sanctions without Russia doing anything. We are placing the entirety of the [successful] actions of the revolutionaries against Ukrainian political and military efforts on Russia, which is little more than an extremely immature justification to put sanctions. I mean, it isn't Crimea anymore. It's not like Russia conquered Kiev, that we are pushing for more sanctions. But I don't think the sanctions were ever a matter of "justice." The insurgents hurt US interests (or more specifically, help Russian interests which is against US policy), and putting the blame on Russia, and we're using its toy poodles in NATO to push sanctions with it. Fortunately for us, we are unsanctionable. We can cause any degree of death and destruction for the most twisted of reasons and not face any repercussions. Unfortunately for Russia, they don't run most of Europe to some degree or another. We can sanction them without them even doing anything. hahaha. If Putin understood this, he would be a wiser man. Don't forget the fake troop withdraw from the border. I would say there continued presence is one of the main reasons why sanctions are continuing without any apparent action from Russia. Or Putin asking for the vote to be postponed only to allow votes in Moscow. ect ect. The push for sanctions appear to come whenever the separatists gain more ground. That's about it. IMHO the overwhelmingly reason is just that we want to hurt Russia, plain and simple. These sanctions are because the separatists are successful. Unsurprisingly considering how terribly unintelligent most politicians are, this translates to "Russia is directly backing the separatists with tons of arms and money and therefore this is Russia's doing", which is laughably false. So Russia is getting sanctions because Ukraine has one of the most most pathetic military forces I've seen. The reality is, even US politicians are not THAT stupid. Rather, conspiracy theories about direct Russian intervention are a good excuse to hurt Russia, so why not. Maybe it's the non-partisan, non-jingoist person in me, but I'd be yelling at Ukraine for having a shit military, not at the Russians for laughing at Ukraine's military having serious problems with random losers with literally nothing better to do with their time. It's literally like someone punching someone else in the face because the assailant had an argument with his girlfriend. Maybe we should sanction the separatists themselves? At least that option is far more logical. Without Russian involvement there wouldn't be enough separatists to take over a McDonalds, let alone cities. A lot of people rely on Russian state media for their news, so all they hear is basically what Paleman keeps repeating over and over. Junta this, holocaust for russian speakers that.
Talking about McDonalds. Lugansk separatistic administration published this
![[image loading]](http://cs618519.vk.me/v618519103/4a94/VvjiMGA-pOI.jpg)
Sanctions against US. Basically they are banning Coca-Cola, Pepsi and McDonalds. If McDonalds restaurant (the only one in Lugansk?) doesn't close, they threaten to destroy it (without hurting employees or customers).
|
On May 15 2014 02:56 EtherealBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2014 02:18 Cheerio wrote:On May 15 2014 02:05 EtherealBlade wrote:On May 15 2014 01:21 Cheerio wrote:On May 14 2014 04:11 EtherealBlade wrote:On May 14 2014 03:35 Mc wrote:On May 14 2014 02:49 EtherealBlade wrote:On May 14 2014 02:31 Mc wrote:I don't think I've posted an op-ed so far but this one was especially well thought out and a quick read. So I'd really recommend anybody following this thread to read it. It's written by a Muscovite journalist for Al Jazeera. http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/05/ukraine-vs-russia-mafia-state--2014512164523249486.htmlAny thoughts? To me it sums up the conflict very well. Although, some of the conclusions it draws at the end are far-fetched. He says "The ethnicisation of the Ukrainian conflict suits the Kremlin. Its worst nightmare is a Ukraine growing into an alternative Russia - a better place for talented and entrepreneurial Russians to live and work than Russia proper." - there are other factors at play here, but this would be tragic for Russia. If Ukraine developed into a successful democracy, a whole lot of Russia's educated middle class would emigrate. Going a bit too far: "The West misinterprets Putin by thinking that he wants to rebuild an empire - it is much more likely that the real goal is a compact, monoethnic and ultra-nationalist Ukraine, with the Russian element reduced to a minimum." - I disagree, Putin wants a non-Western and undeveloped Ukraine. It doesn't have to be mono-ethnic and ultra-nationalist to achieve those goals. He misses the point where Ukraine was created as an artificial state, with borders having no historic precedent and found themselves in a very precarious geographic/political/economic situation. Much like Czechoslovakia or Yugoslavia, and like the latter, Ukraine is now a failed state. Partitioning Ukraine now is much more painful than it would have been in 1991, but at this point it's maybe not that bad of an idea as it sounds... almost all their neighbours have legit territorial claims. A smaller, more efficient and more homogenous Ukraine that doesn't dream about EU membership, which is unattainable anyway could function better. "Artificial state" is quite an exaggeration. I guess you mean that it has a significant Russian part to it. Many countries that are divided ethnically/linguistically manage to get by without any issues. Ukraine counts as such a country, and with the exception of Crimea separatism didn't ever really hold any sway in Ukraine until recently. Russian news/propaganda is the main source of separatist feelings and alienation. The only "legit territorial" claim you could try to argue is Crimea. Present day Western Ukraine is made up of former Poland and Hungary, if I remember correctly the Eastern parts were colonised by slavic settlers when the Russian Empire was expanding. In any case, communists were never good at drawing borders that the people liked. If only self determination was on the agenda in 1991 Ukraine would be much better off now. FYI. In 1991 when Ukraine had an independence vote, Lugansk and Donetsk Oblasts had 83,86% and 83,90% acceptance rate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_independence_referendum,_1991 I'd say that referendum was more about "do you want to remain in the Soviet Union?" which was collapsing anyway, and not really about "do you want to be ruled by Kiev"? They just released Ukraine with the former Soviet Republics borders. are you just guessing now? Voters were asked "Do you support the Act of Declaration of Independence of Ukraine?" Yeah, and the Soviet Union ceased to exist later that year. The two were probably connected somehow... would explain the overwhelming results too? A colonized for centuries country's wish for independence is not a primary explanation? The 92% vote must be too overwhelming for you considering your views of a "failed state". You'll get over it, eventually.
|
On May 15 2014 03:07 Cheerio wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2014 02:56 EtherealBlade wrote:On May 15 2014 02:18 Cheerio wrote:On May 15 2014 02:05 EtherealBlade wrote:On May 15 2014 01:21 Cheerio wrote:On May 14 2014 04:11 EtherealBlade wrote:On May 14 2014 03:35 Mc wrote:On May 14 2014 02:49 EtherealBlade wrote:On May 14 2014 02:31 Mc wrote:I don't think I've posted an op-ed so far but this one was especially well thought out and a quick read. So I'd really recommend anybody following this thread to read it. It's written by a Muscovite journalist for Al Jazeera. http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/05/ukraine-vs-russia-mafia-state--2014512164523249486.htmlAny thoughts? To me it sums up the conflict very well. Although, some of the conclusions it draws at the end are far-fetched. He says "The ethnicisation of the Ukrainian conflict suits the Kremlin. Its worst nightmare is a Ukraine growing into an alternative Russia - a better place for talented and entrepreneurial Russians to live and work than Russia proper." - there are other factors at play here, but this would be tragic for Russia. If Ukraine developed into a successful democracy, a whole lot of Russia's educated middle class would emigrate. Going a bit too far: "The West misinterprets Putin by thinking that he wants to rebuild an empire - it is much more likely that the real goal is a compact, monoethnic and ultra-nationalist Ukraine, with the Russian element reduced to a minimum." - I disagree, Putin wants a non-Western and undeveloped Ukraine. It doesn't have to be mono-ethnic and ultra-nationalist to achieve those goals. He misses the point where Ukraine was created as an artificial state, with borders having no historic precedent and found themselves in a very precarious geographic/political/economic situation. Much like Czechoslovakia or Yugoslavia, and like the latter, Ukraine is now a failed state. Partitioning Ukraine now is much more painful than it would have been in 1991, but at this point it's maybe not that bad of an idea as it sounds... almost all their neighbours have legit territorial claims. A smaller, more efficient and more homogenous Ukraine that doesn't dream about EU membership, which is unattainable anyway could function better. "Artificial state" is quite an exaggeration. I guess you mean that it has a significant Russian part to it. Many countries that are divided ethnically/linguistically manage to get by without any issues. Ukraine counts as such a country, and with the exception of Crimea separatism didn't ever really hold any sway in Ukraine until recently. Russian news/propaganda is the main source of separatist feelings and alienation. The only "legit territorial" claim you could try to argue is Crimea. Present day Western Ukraine is made up of former Poland and Hungary, if I remember correctly the Eastern parts were colonised by slavic settlers when the Russian Empire was expanding. In any case, communists were never good at drawing borders that the people liked. If only self determination was on the agenda in 1991 Ukraine would be much better off now. FYI. In 1991 when Ukraine had an independence vote, Lugansk and Donetsk Oblasts had 83,86% and 83,90% acceptance rate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_independence_referendum,_1991 I'd say that referendum was more about "do you want to remain in the Soviet Union?" which was collapsing anyway, and not really about "do you want to be ruled by Kiev"? They just released Ukraine with the former Soviet Republics borders. are you just guessing now? Voters were asked "Do you support the Act of Declaration of Independence of Ukraine?" Yeah, and the Soviet Union ceased to exist later that year. The two were probably connected somehow... would explain the overwhelming results too? A colonized for centuries country's wish for independence is not a primary explanation? The 92% vote must be too overwhelming for you considering your views of a "failed state". You'll get over it, eventually.
Those votes were cast without knowing what's going to happen next - all we knew in 1991 is that the age of communism is over.
And yes, Ukraine was then released what turned out to be a grand, but catastrophic experiment. It failed in every possible way it could have, including treatment of minorities and territorial integrity.
Basically, Ukraine pays the heaviest price for everyone else's wrong decisions, although to the outside world it's mind blowing how Yushchenko and Yanukovich managed to steer the country this far down the road in the last decade given the tensions, without being ousted earlier.
|
On May 15 2014 03:18 EtherealBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2014 03:07 Cheerio wrote:On May 15 2014 02:56 EtherealBlade wrote:On May 15 2014 02:18 Cheerio wrote:On May 15 2014 02:05 EtherealBlade wrote:On May 15 2014 01:21 Cheerio wrote:On May 14 2014 04:11 EtherealBlade wrote:On May 14 2014 03:35 Mc wrote:On May 14 2014 02:49 EtherealBlade wrote:On May 14 2014 02:31 Mc wrote:I don't think I've posted an op-ed so far but this one was especially well thought out and a quick read. So I'd really recommend anybody following this thread to read it. It's written by a Muscovite journalist for Al Jazeera. http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/05/ukraine-vs-russia-mafia-state--2014512164523249486.htmlAny thoughts? To me it sums up the conflict very well. Although, some of the conclusions it draws at the end are far-fetched. He says "The ethnicisation of the Ukrainian conflict suits the Kremlin. Its worst nightmare is a Ukraine growing into an alternative Russia - a better place for talented and entrepreneurial Russians to live and work than Russia proper." - there are other factors at play here, but this would be tragic for Russia. If Ukraine developed into a successful democracy, a whole lot of Russia's educated middle class would emigrate. Going a bit too far: "The West misinterprets Putin by thinking that he wants to rebuild an empire - it is much more likely that the real goal is a compact, monoethnic and ultra-nationalist Ukraine, with the Russian element reduced to a minimum." - I disagree, Putin wants a non-Western and undeveloped Ukraine. It doesn't have to be mono-ethnic and ultra-nationalist to achieve those goals. He misses the point where Ukraine was created as an artificial state, with borders having no historic precedent and found themselves in a very precarious geographic/political/economic situation. Much like Czechoslovakia or Yugoslavia, and like the latter, Ukraine is now a failed state. Partitioning Ukraine now is much more painful than it would have been in 1991, but at this point it's maybe not that bad of an idea as it sounds... almost all their neighbours have legit territorial claims. A smaller, more efficient and more homogenous Ukraine that doesn't dream about EU membership, which is unattainable anyway could function better. "Artificial state" is quite an exaggeration. I guess you mean that it has a significant Russian part to it. Many countries that are divided ethnically/linguistically manage to get by without any issues. Ukraine counts as such a country, and with the exception of Crimea separatism didn't ever really hold any sway in Ukraine until recently. Russian news/propaganda is the main source of separatist feelings and alienation. The only "legit territorial" claim you could try to argue is Crimea. Present day Western Ukraine is made up of former Poland and Hungary, if I remember correctly the Eastern parts were colonised by slavic settlers when the Russian Empire was expanding. In any case, communists were never good at drawing borders that the people liked. If only self determination was on the agenda in 1991 Ukraine would be much better off now. FYI. In 1991 when Ukraine had an independence vote, Lugansk and Donetsk Oblasts had 83,86% and 83,90% acceptance rate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_independence_referendum,_1991 I'd say that referendum was more about "do you want to remain in the Soviet Union?" which was collapsing anyway, and not really about "do you want to be ruled by Kiev"? They just released Ukraine with the former Soviet Republics borders. are you just guessing now? Voters were asked "Do you support the Act of Declaration of Independence of Ukraine?" Yeah, and the Soviet Union ceased to exist later that year. The two were probably connected somehow... would explain the overwhelming results too? A colonized for centuries country's wish for independence is not a primary explanation? The 92% vote must be too overwhelming for you considering your views of a "failed state". You'll get over it, eventually. Those votes were cast without knowing what's going to happen next - all we knew in 1991 is that the age of communism is over. And yes, Ukraine was then released what turned out to be a grand, but catastrophic experiment. It failed in every possible way it could have, including treatment of minorities and territorial integrity. Basically, Ukraine pays the heaviest price for everyone else's wrong decisions, although to the outside world it's mind blowing how Yushchenko and Yanukovich managed to steer the country this far down the road in the last decade given the tensions, without being ousted earlier. oh please. If it wasn't for Russia, we would have been doing just fine with both minorities and territorial integrity.
|
|
|
If hes not the new president ill be so sad xD
|
|
|
On May 14 2014 23:01 Greem wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2014 11:19 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:On May 14 2014 10:53 Jormundr wrote:On May 14 2014 10:31 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:On May 14 2014 10:20 Jormundr wrote:On May 14 2014 09:40 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:On May 14 2014 09:29 Jormundr wrote:On May 14 2014 09:15 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:On May 14 2014 09:06 Gorsameth wrote:On May 14 2014 09:00 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
[quote]
It also largely depends on how much Putin wants sanctions. We are putting on sanctions without Russia doing anything. We are placing the entirety of the [successful] actions of the revolutionaries against Ukrainian political and military efforts on Russia, which is little more than an extremely immature justification to put sanctions. I mean, it isn't Crimea anymore. It's not like Russia conquered Kiev, that we are pushing for more sanctions.
But I don't think the sanctions were ever a matter of "justice." The insurgents hurt US interests (or more specifically, help Russian interests which is against US policy), and putting the blame on Russia, and we're using its toy poodles in NATO to push sanctions with it. Fortunately for us, we are unsanctionable. We can cause any degree of death and destruction for the most twisted of reasons and not face any repercussions. Unfortunately for Russia, they don't run most of Europe to some degree or another. We can sanction them without them even doing anything. hahaha. If Putin understood this, he would be a wiser man. Don't forget the fake troop withdraw from the border. I would say there continued presence is one of the main reasons why sanctions are continuing without any apparent action from Russia. Or Putin asking for the vote to be postponed only to allow votes in Moscow. ect ect. The push for sanctions appear to come whenever the separatists gain more ground. That's about it. IMHO the overwhelmingly reason is just that we want to hurt Russia, plain and simple. These sanctions are because the separatists are successful. Unsurprisingly considering how terribly unintelligent most politicians are, this translates to "Russia is directly backing the separatists with tons of arms and money and therefore this is Russia's doing", which is laughably false. So Russia is getting sanctions because Ukraine has one of the most most pathetic military forces I've seen. The reality is, even US politicians are not THAT stupid. Rather, conspiracy theories about direct Russian intervention are a good excuse to hurt Russia, so why not. Maybe it's the non-partisan, non-jingoist person in me, but I'd be yelling at Ukraine for having a shit military, not at the Russians for laughing at Ukraine's military having serious problems with random losers with literally nothing better to do with their time. It's literally like someone punching someone else in the face because the assailant had an argument with his girlfriend. Maybe we should sanction the separatists themselves? At least that option is far more logical. Without Russian involvement there wouldn't be enough separatists to take over a McDonalds, let alone cities. A lot of people rely on Russian state media for their news, so all they hear is basically what Paleman keeps repeating over and over. Junta this, holocaust for russian speakers that. Ah, so the culprit is Russian media. Perhaps we should have sanctioned them then. Maybe replace them with Fox news or something, why not. But, we're blaming the media of a foreign country (foreign to Ukraine) for practically mind-controlling tons and tons of people. People in Ukraine must be dumb as nails to believe absurd things from the news from a foreign country like that. So, you have discovered the whole problem. Russian media. Well, let's sanction the Russian media. Wait, Ukrainian media is about as bad. We may as well sanction Ukrainian media too. lol. But that would be being fair. I'd make a horrible politician. lol you didn't have to mention him. That's a summon sign ya know. But seriously, I don't think Russian media that has existed there since radio/TV did is to blame. There's probably other Russian 'actions' more prominent than have media exist, so this was a bit confusing. But I say, why not sanction the separatists? They are the ones doing things. We shouldn't use the incompetence of Ukraine as a justification to slap Russia. We should either sanction the separatists or tell Ukraine to get its shit together (it seriously needs to). These are by far the most significant factors at ply here in this revolutionary scenario. You're vastly underestimating the power of propaganda. By acknowledging and hailing the 'separatists', they have turned opportunist terrorists into heroic freedom fighting thugs and turned any possible Ukrainian government (other than one approved by old Vladdy) into a terrifying machine which eats people who speak russian. Granted, I doubt that Russia really realized how effective this would be when they started their propaganda war. All they needed was a few hundred people asking for help in Crimea and they could move in, gain a new military port and then promptly forget that the more worthless parts of Ukraine exist. Unfortunately they stirred the beehive too much and Russia is stuck between a rock and a hard place. Russia will likely never have favorable ties with western Ukraine again, which was apparently worth it so they could compare military dick sizes with the US in the Black Sea. In case you didn't see the place next to my name, I live in America. I know the power of propaganda first-hand. When I was in my early teens, I was pretty " 'Murican ", entirely the result of media, before I grew a brain. But you're putting the entire burden on Russian media. Not on a million other factors that influenced the separatists. This was Russian propaganda for Russians, at that. If people in Ukraine prefer Russian media to their own, that's fine. Not to say Ukraine hasn't had infinite propaganda themselves, and they use the "T" word more than George Bush did, but it's just that they suck at it, even within their own country, so much so, that as you claim, foreign media (Russian) for a foreign country (Russia) is mind-controlling tons and tons of guys in Ukraine. I guess we can also say Libyan Islamic terrorists (I'll use the same word you did) were inspired to overthrow a secular regime because American media painted them as heroes? That must be American media's fault! The US must also be responsible for the civil war in Syria as well, by this line of logic! (Hmm, or maybe it was because they were jihadists and a secular govt. of any form is the greatest evil in their eyes) So apparently Russians have secret mind-control powers that no one else has, that even after telling separatists time and time again to go fuck themselves whenever they ask for help (which they do all the time, and complain to journalists all the time about how Russians don't help them), they continue to serve Rodina-mat because the Russians have mind-control power. Yeah, the separatists have ZERO other motivations... right. This is all a Russian conspiracy. The Russians set up everything. Had nothing to do with the timeline of events in the country that upset a lot of people, including a lot of impoverished guys like these who were already pissed off as is. You forget that the separatists were out and about before any media knew anything about them. You can't paint anyone as "heroes" until they're already doing stuff. By the time that happened, those separatists had already taken a ton of land and were digging in to defend against Ukrainian forces. It's obvious which came first. Unless you're implying that Russian media can also predict the future, and was calling the separatists heroes before there were separatists? Because the fact of the matter is, because anyone knew there were separatists, there were more than enough separatists to capture a bunch of cities, not just a McDonald's. That's when others, including Russian media, actually took notice of them. So tell me, why don't we sanction Russian media? I myself am terrified at this revelation of their mind-control and future-telling abilities. Did I ever say that Russia was the sole actor responsible for separatism in Eastern Ukraine? If I did, I was wrong and I apologize. Strawmanning on that front yields you nothing. Yes I know the country you're from, which is why I know you have to be naive to think that Russia ended up with Crimea by coincidence; they're playing the same game we are. Would you care to explain your views on how the separatist movement started and and grew such a large foothold? Don't apologize. I was just extrapolating to make silly comments about mind-control abilities ;D But yes, I do know the power of media. How did they start? Really angry guys pushed by a radical event (a coup) to make radical actions of their own. How they grew such a large foothold? Their initial success was increasingly huge, and has yielded many followers. It's becoming a movement of such a degree that it's inspiring people to be a part of it, especially other angry guys. They can't even enter a town with the local police force either disbanding or joining ranks with them. Unless I'm mistaken, I think even Ukrainian soldiers have deserted over the past weeks (I don't know if any joined the separatists, or just called it quits). And otherwise, at the very least, there's other angry guys willing to join them. Of course they're gaining ground. They're acting as the defenders against a coup government, and when they were attacked by Ukrainian forces, they probably said "See? They're trying to subjugate us", making their cause more accepted. Early May is a big thing in eastern Europe. This revolution has been going on since a couple months ago, and May is a big thing for them. By May 9, which is an important public holiday and one of the most important days of the year for any sort of politically-motivated people / patriots in some of these ex-Soviet countries, it couldn't be a bigger morale boost for them to see how much of a "large foothold" they have, thus inspiring more people. As far as I've read, they certainly celebrated the holiday. Obvious symbols have been seen for weeks now, most prominently the Ribbon of St. George, used to commemorate WW2. Big symbolism/morale thing. In the fight with Ukrainian military forces, they're having a lot more fighting success than anyone would expect. This is only showing to other people on the fence that there is hope in their cause. They have done tons and tons of things to gain ground and followers, far outside anything to do with Russia or Russian media. This may sound crazy, but Ukrainians and Russians are a lot more similar than people think. These eastern Ukrainian revolutionaries have many of the same cultural, historical, and other things. Calling people you don't like a "fascist" isn't just a Russian thing, it's also a Ukrainian thing. Interestingly, the new Ukrainian government has adopted American rhetoric by calling everyone they don't like (eg. these separatists) "terrorists". lol I do state that say Russian media has added "fuel to the fire", but the "accomplishments" of the separatists themselves are what started the "fire" and have contributed enough "fuel" to make the whole of non-Russian Europe independent of Russian fuels. I think thats the reality as well. I dont know how do you manage to gather this on your own despite the different media opinions all around, even in this thread. Also, i dont recall now a name of a guy who was talking history and how ukraine got much older historical indentity, well that identity is russian as well, you see there were no ukraine or russian back then, Kievan Rus is the closes thing, So both Russia and Ukraine draw they identity from there, not everyone, everyone decides that for themselves, some Ukrainians or some Russians forget that and move closer to 18 or 19 century or whatever year they like to consider more appropiate to be considered they past, funny right ? We all choose what to consider our past. Most of the time people choose the past with most glorius events and golden times for they country, Its Kievan Rus or USSR for most people i know, era of Cossacs also is quiete popular if you were born in Ukraine, Russians got more options to choose from, yet most choose that past common with Belarus or Ukraine, for support mostly, this is my understanding however.
Thanks dude. I just see what's going on and try to gather it without trying to choose sides or something similar.
Thanks also for the information.
On May 15 2014 00:26 Mc wrote:@Judicator Show nested quote +
Calling people you don't like a "fascist" isn't just a Russian thing, it's also a Ukrainian thing. Interestingly, the new Ukrainian government has adopted American rhetoric by calling everyone they don't like (eg. these separatists) "terrorists". lol
You are right that that calling enemies "fascists" is more of a Soviet thing then a Russian thing - it basically goes back to the last 'great' Soviet victory over the Nazis. So USSR propaganda kept reliving that victory for the past 70 years and thus people still have the image of "fascist" in their minds. As to the whole 'terrorist' thing, it really depends on your definition. If you think of terrorists as political *mass-murderers* then the separatists aren't terrorists. If you think of terrorists as an "non-state para-military group" then they are terrorists. However, there is more to it: the separrorists have abducted/beaten journalists, killed *some* civilians on purpose and by accident, and are enforcing their will on the part of the population that doesn't want their 'help'. You could thus label them as a "non-state para-military group that terrorizes part of the local population". Is that a terrorist organization? Depends on your definition again... There is also the difference of whether they are local. The local ones could be argued to be protecting the interest of part of their population. The non-local are closer to any definition of terrorists since they are not 'protecting local' interests, but have more overt political aims. If something similar happened in any other country, that country would also label them terrorists. So let's not dumb it down to the Ukrainian government "adopting America rhetoric by calling everyone they don't like terrorists". To Ukraine, they are terrorists not because they don't like them, but because they are terrorizing the state of Ukraine. Show nested quote +Russian media has added "fuel to the fire", but the "accomplishments" of the separatists themselves are what started the "fire" Well your chronology is completely wrong- Russian media was clearly demonizing Euromaidan/Ukrainian government well before the separatists in the East started doing anything. I really think it is improbable that the separatists would have done anything if it was only EuroMaidan that happened. Remember that there was the immediate precedence of Crimea - there was little separatism in E. Ukraine before Crimea was annexed. If EuroMaidan alone started the fire, would they not be advocating for separatism *before* Crimea was annexed?? If you add to that a 'suggestive' presence of Russian troops on the border, the E. Ukrainians seeing a very anti-Western version of the events, and a small partially-non-local para-military group (that group of 10-20 men that was accused of being Russian special ops, but actual were a mix of Russian cossacks, Crimeans, and locals), a much more clearer picture is painted. A lot of the initial takeovers were done by this small group of para-military. This wasn't a simple response to Euromaidan, but a movement that took advantage of E. Ukrainian's fears (Euromaidan) and through example (Crimea), mass propaganda (Russian media), a suggestion (Russian army on the border), and a spark (non-local paramilitary group) took off and became a full-fledged fire.
My chronology is "wrong" because we are speaking about two different things. You are talking about Russian media concerning Euromaidan and the coup. I was talking about Russian media regarding the insurgents, which obviously came after. And yes, I know about the pan-Slavic guerillas. A few guys in Crimea had even come all the way from Serbia. lol
==========================================================
Apparently, Dmitri Medvedev has suggested a compromise with Ukraine's gas debts. However, the motives of this new talk are unclear.
Russia has struck a more conciliatory note over the crisis in Ukraine, as the US claimed western sanctions on Moscow were starting to bite. Having previously suggested that Ukraine’s May 25th presidential election would be pointless and its winner illegitimate given unrest in eastern regions, and taken an uncompromising line on Kiev’s gas debt, Russia appeared to soften slightly on both points yesterday.
“If there is somebody who emerges as a figure with the support of the majority of Ukrainians, of course it’s easier to have such an interlocutor than self-appointed people,” said Moscow’s foreign minister Sergei Lavrov. Warning that Ukraine was “as close to civil war as you can get”, he said “any election is a move in the right direction and we will have to judge these elections by their outcome . . . It has to be good enough for Ukrainians.”
Oligarch connections
Acknowledging that he was well acquainted with Ukraine’s leading presidential candidate, billionaire “oligarch” Petro Poroshenko, Mr Lavrov said: “We can do business with anyone.”
He also insisted, however, that Kiev halt a military “anti- terrorist” operation against pro-Russian militants in eastern regions before the elections – something Ukraine’s leaders have refused to do. Kiev believes Moscow is now trying to feign distance from the insurgents to avert tougher western retaliation.
Also yesterday, Russian prime minister Dmitry Medvedev suggested Moscow may be open to compromise on Ukraine’s gas debt and the price it pays for Russian energy.
Earlier this week, Russia threatened to cut supplies next month if Kiev failed to pay arrears that allegedly stand at $3.51 billion (€2.56 billion), not including advance payment that Moscow is demanding for June exports to Ukraine.
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/ukraine-sceptical-as-russia-softens-rhetoric-1.1795726
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
