Ukraine-in-a-thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

Haha I don't buy into that line of thinking

I think most of you are 6 years old screaming "WELL YOU KIND OF DID IT ONCE TOO"

Which is fine, I realize the lot of you are malcontents with no hope, and no idea of how people actually interact

My only solace is that many of you will never have an effect on policy besides bitching to the people at your job who think youre strange

---

Ad hominem is always the best kind of argument when you run out of actual arguments.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Unbelievable apologism from the Europeans in here. Guess anything goes, because America has done bad things. Throw out the rule book and give Putin a fucking medal. :rolleyes: Ukraine will be two countries at best a month from now.

---

Yeah, just ignore my last post and repeat what you said before. How about quoting what people actually say instead of blanket statements that do not contain any arguments and only show you misunderstood what others are posting?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

Drop the ideology. This is not good vs. bad. It is two thugs who want the kid in their gang. One wants him whole the other will take whatever body parts he can get.

---

Indeed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

Personally I am for the people of Ukraine. The best thing that could happen is they keep their borders and get money to help out from both sides.

---

There are two problems, both sides want Ukraine for themselves and the people of Ukraine have chosen such extremes that their unity as Ukrainians broke apart.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

Putin however, is a patriot and true believer who wants to return to the glory days with more people under his thumb. That is the problem now.

---

Maybe, but then NATO is playing into his hands.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

They didn't get a serious proposal or a serious delegation. Only vague talk that there might be decentralization, but no guarantees or mentions of what and when.

---

Two representatives of the law-enforcement part of the government - Parubiy and Yarema - were there. Parubiy stated that it was hard to parley with the protesters: in the evening they agree on some decision, in the morning they forward new claims. It is evident that protesters are not the decision makers.

“How do you know they were not interested?” This is easy to answer as local languages are taught in schools on voluntary basis. Not too many attendants.

“Maidan and its followers in different regions NEVER proclaimed any quasi-states and NEVER declared their wish to separate from Ukraine and become a part of any other country.” True. They just claimed to speak for the entire Ukraine.

“Tristan has an S in.” Yeap, typing mistake. But I can understand it is a great and constructive critic of what I am saying… But read Blaise Pascal on the “divertissement” (basically, if a preacher is half shaved, nobody cares of what he says).

“ballard” Ballad. About typing mistake and distraction… It is still in a book. After the Romans slaughtered all the Druids who were transmitting knowledge by learning by heart, we went for printing form, even songs…

“I'm going to go away and have a cry.” Hopefully you will feel better. And you have a lot of reading to catch-up.

Unbelievable how much this thread has deteriorated during this last week. Does anyone actually anymore care what is happening in Ukraine or is the blame game and mud slinging too important to be disturbed by anything else?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Maybe, but then NATO is playing into his hands.

---

I just see Ukraine trying to do what ever it can to stop the unrest.

NATO and the EU can hardly agree on the day of the week. I don’t see them doing anything, helpful or otherwise.

All this is just Vlad’s game ATM.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Unbelievable apologism from the Europeans in here. Guess anything goes, because America has done bad things. Throw out the rule book and give Putin a fucking medal. :rolleyes:

---

You're again misinterpreting what's been said but after 10 times, I don't have an inclination to try to explain it once again.

Quote:

---

Ukraine will be two countries at best a month from now.

---

That's what I said will happen, on these boards four or five years ago, if Ukraine is pushed into NATO.

Claiming moral high ground is useless. Nevertheless the situation is worrisome. Take a look at this video filmed during Pro Russian "activist" takeover of the police HQ of Kramatorsk and make up your own mind if there are or are not Russian regular troops at Eastern Ukraine already:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/new...police-HQ.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

How am I misinterpreting anything? You've posted at great length how you believe what the west has done to rally students and give moral support to some of the Maidain crowd is somehow morally and legally equivalent to what Putin is doing now

---

More than just moral support. You know as well as I, that even though protests originally started as few hundred people were protesting against Yanukovich's decision to abandon a deal with EU but the majority of people later were involved in because they were tired of corruption and poverty. Those protest were hijacked and turned into an anti-Russian/pro-western issue, bringing a different batch of corrupt politicians with a sprinkle of nazis in power. And those militant protesters were responsible for provoking the police, trying to take over government buildings violently and quite likely shot other protesters to incite them to more violence. After a deal was made, the most militant protesters broke it and performed a coup.

Instead of indirect support the west offered, Russia is supporting anti-government protesters directly, either by equipping them or throwing some of their experts in there. It's not just Russian agents, a few dozen armed men can not take control of ten towns and cities without support from local population.

That's not important because of "you did it, too", but to understand that western actions are part of the problem and must also be a part of the solution. The west feels it has got Ukraine now and that's why they've changed their tune from "no one must touch the protesters" from a few months ago to "send tanks against them" now. Even though a more federalized and politically neutral Ukraine would end the conflict, the west is encouraging the Maidan government to crush protesters in the east.

Just like how they put pressure on Yanukovich to deal with protesters through diplomacy instead of violence, they now should put pressure on Maidan government to do the same, instead of applauding armoured vehicles and gunships being sent.

Because, just like you said, Ukrainian military can't do anything. The army is very pro-Russian and also, naturally, quite disinclined to fire on their own people. They can shuffle defense ministers through eternity, there's no chance the army will do it. That's why they're talking about creating a national guard type of thing, which will mostly be made up of western nationalists and fascists who will have no qualms about killing Russians or Ukrainian traitors. If those guys are sent in, all hell will break loose and civil war will be inevitable. The cart blanche Kiev got from the west needs to be withdrawn.

That's the only solution that may stop the conflict before it passes the point of no return and Ukraine really ends up in a bloody civil war and totally dismembered.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

“How do you know they were not interested?” This is easy to answer as local languages are taught in schools on voluntary basis. Not too many attendants.

---

What if Latin was taught on voluntary basis? Still low attendance? A good excuse to stop any attempts of helping the weaker languages. People were not interested because they can't see any prospects of a language being used some time in future. Will you be interested in learning driving if you knew that you will never see a car after you finish your study (except on the screen)? It has to be something else than asking people: "Which of you don't want to bother yourselves with learning that useless stuff?" Any newspapers, TV channels, University courses, books translated, dictionaries published, popularization campaigns or any other activities in those languages to report?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Unbelievable apologism from the Europeans in here. Guess anything goes, because America has done bad things. Throw out the rule book and give Putin a fucking medal. :rolleyes: Ukraine will be two countries at best a month from now.

---

And past experience shows that, once we intervene, we'll be there years from now being hated by both sides for intervening. I'd rather we weren't part of that. If we're going to be hated, at least let us be hated for not doing something and saving ourselves money in the process. Ukraine has no special claim on us that we need to do something for them, and if we do "help" them, a significant chunk of the country who see themselves as Russians will hate us for being there, and I'd wager a significant chunk of those who see themselves as not-Russians will hate us as well, either for not doing as they want us to do, or for simply being there. Why throw ourselves into that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Why throw ourselves into that?

---

To prevent 50 million people from losing their freedom, I guess.

The biggest takeaway is that, in all likelihood, a European power will dismember a fellow European state and annex some of its core constituent territories in what is no less than the name of ethnic irredentism. Aside from the Godwin, this is a return to form that nevertheless carries huge implications for the international system. Increasingly over the past couple of decades, the post-war order of stiff and stable borders has been deteriorating. This might prove a death-knell. And just because most of Europe has dropped whatever territorial claims they once held doesn't mean they can't invent new ones. In the medium-term, if the EU collapses, if the far-rightists take over, if Germany falters - we will see a continental war within our lifetimes.

And the second, more immediate, concern is Putin annexing the East and/or turning it into a client state or independent region is possibly the only thing mitigating against a Ukrainian civil war.

“What if Latin was taught on voluntary basis?” Err, Latin is taught on voluntary basis.

“Still low attendance?” Better than Breton, for sure.

“A good excuse to stop any attempts of helping the weaker languages” To stop any attempts? Err, when and where?

“Any newspapers, TV channels, University courses, books translated, dictionaries published, popularization campaigns or any other activities in those languages to report?” Yeah, universities, newspapers and all the lot. Not really picking-up and without massive subsidies from government, they would have cease to breath. Something else? Well, we can oblige unwilling pupils to learn useless languages, for sure, but you can’t force adults to use them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Kind of like how "The US drones the occasional wedding" is the best argument you have? You guys are using this as an excuse to air grievances about the US, while Russia dismantles your neighbor before your eyes.

---

It's just an argument I repeat when US-boys ride into the room on their exceptionally large moral horses again and again.
The only reason Russia dismantles that neighbor is because a bunch of people teamed up with Nazis to topple the democratically elected president and didn't take into consideration what their neighbors both inside and outside the country thought of it. Instead they announced to change the country's course 180° and celebrated that with their western buddies while their ignored neighbors who had their elected president expelled obviously got angrier and angrier. The result is a huge mess and I refuse to run around on a high horse and shift all blame to the other side, which is what most pro-Western posters here did. And just because I refuse to celebrate our way of life as the nonplusultra of ways of living and see that we made a big mistake there by blatantly supporting only half of the country and celebrating that the other half lost, I'm not a Putin apologist. Is that so hard to understand? And is it so hard to understand that "making up" for our mistake by starting WW3 now is a bloody idiotic idea?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

I just see Ukraine trying to do what ever it can to stop the unrest.

NATO and the EU can hardly agree on the day of the week. I don’t see them doing anything, helpful or otherwise.

All this is just Vlad’s game ATM.

---

Yes, just like Afghanistan, we went in cheering for ourselves and then found out that we have neither a clue nor a plan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

To prevent 50 million people from losing their freedom, I guess.

---

Would those 50 million include those who see themselves as Russians? Or do they not count, and freedom only applies to those who appeal to us, and those who aren't included get our version of freedom imposed on them? We Brits have lots of experience in sending troops to places where there are multiple groups of people who disagree with each other on how things should go, and we sent them in to enforce some kind of peace and order. And we've got loads of crap for it, including on many occasions from Americans who see this as yet more British imperialism.

Just to name a couple of instances, we got kicked for it in Palestine until we turned tail and ran, and there are probably still Americans who blame us for being there in the first place, and we're still hated by both Jews and Arabs for being there, not completely backing their side, and whatever else is related to the fact that it was us who were there. And more recently, there's Northern Ireland, and that phenomenon called the plastic paddy, Americans who've never been near Ireland or the British Isles but who find it glamorous to pretend to be Irish and define their "Irishness" as a hatred of the British. Who were, once again, only over there to keep two sides from killing each other.

At least in Northern Ireland there's a status quo of Britishness and the basic principle of self-determination to justify us being there. There's scant Britishness in Ukraine, and we'd be there to prevent self-determination. Why go there and pour money and blood down the drain for the end result of being hated by both sides?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Would those 50 million include those who see themselves as Russians?

---

Of course they count. Won't those Russians be free as well? Russian or not, if they're absorbed by Putin's blob they can bid farewell to freedom. Russia is rapidly crossing from your run of the mill authoritarian state into full scale totalitarianism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

Of course they count. Won't those Russians be free as well? Russian or not, if they're absorbed by Putin's blob they can bid farewell to freedom. Russia is rapidly crossing from your run of the mill authoritarian state into full scale totalitarianism.

---

But if they choose that, what right do we have to stop them? Britain's position on Northern Ireland, Gibraltar, Falklands and all those other places where we're the primary occupying power is based on the principle of self-determination. They're British because they choose to be. If they choose to not be British, that's their right too, and we'll respect that too. The Scots are getting a referendum on that as they wanted, and we'll respect the result of that too. Do you know any Americans who want the Scots to choose "freedom", as one in the eye for the English?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

All I see is apologism. Sarmation and Husar both write paragraph after paragraph to denigrate American foreign policy, as though its both relevant and some kind of super point.

---

Most of the time, I do, indeed, and in this case in particular.

I'd understand if you didn't agree with the point I made but I can't really accept that you don't understand that point and call it apologism

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Do you know any Americans who want the Scots to choose "freedom", as one in the eye for the English?

---

It's the internet so there's bound to be a couple.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

All I see is apologism. Sarmation and Husar both write paragraph after paragraph to denigrate American foreign policy, as though its both relevant and some kind of super point.

---

1. I include EU foreign policy in this

2. All I see is whining about how America cannot do what it wants and have everyone cheer for it. Did you think Putin/Russia would applaud your efforts to get yet another NATO member right on his borders? Your argument boils down to America being the lesser evil and that's why we should be happy to be allied to America. My argument is that it's no reason to be happy but maybe to be a little bit less sad. It's almost like some Americans refuse to believe that someone could actually not love their nation and not be an enemy of it. :dizzy2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

“What if Latin was taught on voluntary basis?” Err, Latin is taught on voluntary basis.

“Still low attendance?” Better than Breton, for sure.

“A good excuse to stop any attempts of helping the weaker languages” To stop any attempts? Err, when and where?

“Any newspapers, TV channels, University courses, books translated, dictionaries published, popularization campaigns or any other activities in those languages to report?” Yeah, universities, newspapers and all the lot. Not really picking-up and without massive subsidies from government, they would have cease to breath. Something else? Well, we can oblige unwilling pupils to learn useless languages, for sure, but you can’t force adults to use them.

---

I refer you, Brenus, to the plight of the Welsh language - and what has been achieved over the past two decades. The decline of a language, or not, is something a government chooses.

To whit - a people will work in their own language if they are permitted to, if they are not then their children will all by bi-lingual, and their children will not be wholly fluent in their mother tongue. This is a deliberate matter of politics. The phenomenon is well documented over the last two centuries in France, Britain, Germany and Spain. In all four examples there are two subsets to the policy - to elevate the local vulgar speech of the capital (High German, Parisian French, Chancery English, Castillian Spanish) and to subdue the ethnically distinct languages, (Can't think of a German example, Breton, Welsh/Gaelic, Basque).

This is deliberate cultural levelling, it enfranchises a particular cultural or ethnic group and they impose their culture of the country as normative. So, we no longer say "hey" or "yeah" in polite conversation, in English, because those are Norse loan-words from Northern England, not native to the London area.

Now - how does this relate to Ukraine?

Very sharply - and also to Latvia and Estonia. All three countries instituted a "one language" policy when they achieved independence from Russia. This was intended to give Russian a second-class status, Russian speakers (it was hoped) would either acquiesce in being Ukrainian/Estonian/Latvian first and Russian second, or go home to Russia. As it happened, even first generation immigrants imported in the 20 years before the USSR collapsed refused to co-operate, they demanded Russian as a language of state business.

I have a limited a mount of sympathy for these people, given that they never had to learn the language of the country the immigrated to, and they were given preferential treatment as Russians. Their purpose, of course, was to Russify the countries they moved to - make them more like Mother Russia and thus more pliable. Whether the newly sovereign governments should have realised this was all a bad idea is debatable, given that they were essentially following a Soviet model - and I understand Latvia and Estonia have relaxed the rules somewhat now anyway.

Husar - the problem I have with your standpoint is that it doesn't change anything - maybe this is a Greek Tragedy rather than an Action Blockbuster, but Putin is still the villain here - there's no excusing what he's doing now. to my knowledge there was, prior to this, no real separatist movement outside Crimea - unlike the Balkans where the unrest was bubbling up for several years before the US started tweaking things, Putin appears to have generated a lot of this is a matter of moths, even weeks, and he's not accountable to anyone, and Russia is becoming an increasingly terrible place to live.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

1. I include EU foreign policy in this

2. All I see is whining about how America cannot do what it wants and have everyone cheer for it. Did you think Putin/Russia would applaud your efforts to get yet another NATO member right on his borders? Your argument boils down to America being the lesser evil and that's why we should be happy to be allied to America. My argument is that it's no reason to be happy but maybe to be a little bit less sad. It's almost like some Americans refuse to believe that someone could actually not love their nation and not be an enemy of it. :dizzy2:

---

I utterly despise those EU officials, like the one Frag's pointed out, who've been cheering on the destabilisation of other countries. At least the Americans can be counted on to do something substantial to back up what they say. Those European leeches raise hell then scuttle away when it's their turn to pay the toll.

I just hope the Obama administration and the CIA are taking notes. Putin is putting on a masterclass on turning a crisis into an opportunity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

But if they choose that, what right do we have to stop them? Britain's position on Northern Ireland, Gibraltar, Falklands and all those other places where we're the primary occupying power is based on the principle of self-determination.

---

Self-determination is a great principle, but not when it's done under the barrel of a gun. If done right and during peace time, then sure.

Quote:

---

Do you know any Americans who want the Scots to choose "freedom", as one in the eye for the English?

---

Personally? No. I personally do not know any Americans who wish Britain to disintegrate. It would be downright stupid to undermine our best friend.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

....Do you know any Americans who want the Scots to choose "freedom", as one in the eye for the English?

---

Met a few; mostly of the "my grandfather said the English were evil so up the Irish!" Southie barfly type. Any serious folks or substantial numbers who would like to see England "flipped off?" Nope.

They have been our most reliable ally for 7 decades, probably more reliable for us than we have been for them. Not much bad blood left.

“Self-determination is a great principle, but not when it's done under the barrel of a gun.” Err, good principle, but few implementations. One I think of: separation of Czech for Slovakia. Perhaps there are more, but not that many.

Well, Crimea as well… Sorry…:sweatdrop:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

Self-determination is a great principle, but not when it's done under the barrel of a gun. If done right and during peace time, then sure.

---

But if we're willing to back the principle of self-determination, even to the extent of losing a significant chunk of our already small territory, on what grounds do we send in troops to deny others the same? If we say that self-determination shouldn't be done under the barrel of a gun, and send in troops to back this point, then we're using the barrels of our guns too, to enforce the belief that self-determination should not be done under the barrel of a gun. If the US really strongly believes that this is a matter of freedom and democracy and how the process is being perverted, Britain is the wrong country to ask to put back this process, especially in a year when a constituent part of the UK is voting on an issue that you'd like us to deny to whatever parts of the Ukraine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

But if we're willing to back the principle of self-determination, even to the extent of losing a significant chunk of our already small territory, on what grounds do we send in troops to deny others the same?

---

On the grounds that self-determination requires peaceful referendum that is not marred by violence or electoral fraud.

Quote:

---

If we say that self-determination shouldn't be done under the barrel of a gun, and send in troops to back this point, then we're using the barrels of our guns too, to enforce the belief that self-determination should not be done under the barrel of a gun.

---

We're not denying them self-determination but merely making sure that the process is fair and lawful.

Quote:

---

If the US really strongly believes that this is a matter of freedom and democracy and how the process is being perverted, Britain is the wrong country to ask to put back this process, especially in a year when a constituent part of the UK is voting on an issue that you'd like us to deny to whatever parts of the Ukraine.

---

Understandable. Then again, maybe the farce that took place in Crimea or the fact that Catalonians got the finger from Madrid as far as holding their own referendum, might sway the Scots towards maintaining the union. Either way, the talk of military intervention is a bit premature at this point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

On the grounds that self-determination requires peaceful referendum that is not marred by violence or electoral fraud.

We're not denying them self-determination but merely making sure that the process is fair and lawful.

Understandable. Then again, maybe the farce that took place in Crimea or the fact that Catalonians got the finger from Madrid as far as holding their own referendum, might sway the Scots towards maintaining the union. Either way, the talk of military intervention is a bit premature at this point.

---

When you see all the accusations that the SNP have made about the English, with every non-SNP-affiliated body refuting their claims about a post-Yes Scotland, only to be met by accusations of bias and whatnot, you'll see that the idea of a free and fair referendum has different interpretations around the world. In the recent British experience, free and fair according to the Yessers means an unlimited amount of crap thrown at those who live south of the border, and any response from the latter is an illegitimate intrusion into a purely Scottish process. So going by the Scottish experience, the best thing we can do regarding Ukraine is say that those parts that want a referendum should get one, then stand well clear until there are results. If we do or say anything more, it's the evil oppressive English intruding into what should be a purely Ukrainian matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

When you see all the accusations that the SNP have made about the English, with every non-SNP-affiliated body refuting their claims about a post-Yes Scotland, only to be met by accusations of bias and whatnot, you'll see that the idea of a free and fair referendum has different interpretations around the world. In the recent British experience, free and fair according to the Yessers means an unlimited amount of crap thrown at those who live south of the border, and any response from the latter is an illegitimate intrusion into a purely Scottish process. So going by the Scottish experience, the best thing we can do regarding Ukraine is say that those parts that want a referendum should get one, then stand well clear until there are results. If we do or say anything more, it's the evil oppressive English intruding into what should be a purely Ukrainian matter.

---

Not just me who feels that way, then.