Ukraine-in-a-thread

Originally Posted by Viking:
So in one facet of multculturalism, I'll claim that Ukraine scores relatively high, namely language. But in other facets, not so much. So over all, I will not say that Ukraine is multicultural. Yet there is this one facet of multuculturalism where it does score relatively high, and this facet is causing some trouble and tension.

If Ukraine is almost in the center of the language scale, where are Switzerland and Belgium? How can you derive that multiculturalism is the reason for the country's failure if so many other countries score much higher in almost every regard and are doing just fine?

And which countries are or even were monocultural? I already mentioned North Korea, I cannot think of many others. The Third Reich certainly tried to be monocultural but they still had a few black people left. Or do a few people not count? At which point does a country turn from monoculture to multiculture?

Originally Posted by Pannonian:
Kad, what is your experience of living in a multicultural society? Have you read about it on the internets?

- - - Updated - - -



Kad, what is your experience of living in a multicultural society? Have you read about it on the internets?

School in a multicultural ghetto. I had to run for my life chased by people with knives on some occasions, basically for the crime of being a Swede in Sweden.

I also live in Sthlm, going on the Subway here, you see way more Arabs and Africans than blondes.

I also live in a suburb with an African/Arab youth gang scaring the neighborhood...

I have to go by at least 10-15 begging gypsies just getting to work.

I live in a country that accepts MORE than 1% of their population a YEAR as immigrants, generally from the worlds most ****** up countries, like Afghanistan, Somalia, Syria...

Did you know there are more Iraqis in just one of the SUBURBS of Stockholm, than the US has accepted as refugees?

Sweden basically clean up the poo left by ill thought out politics and cultures.

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV:
School in a multicultural ghetto. I had to run for my life chased by people with knives on some occasions, basically for the crime of being a Swede in Sweden.

I also live in Sthlm, going on the Subway here, you see way more Arabs and Africans than blondes.

I also live in a suburb with an African/Arab youth gang scaring the neighborhood...

I have to go by at least 10-15 begging gypsies just getting to work.

I live in a country that accepts MORE than 1% of their population a YEAR as immigrants, generally from the worlds most ****** up countries, like Afghanistan, Somalia, Syria...

Did you know there are more Iraqis in just one of the SUBURBS of Stockholm, than the US has accepted as refugees?

Sweden basically clean up the poo left by ill thought out politics and cultures.

And you got assaulted and robbed.

how's the finger, btw?

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla:
And you got assaulted and robbed.

how's the finger, btw?

Yeah, that as well... Am too pissed off about that to bring it up for discussion here though...

About my finger, let's just say that my (non-existant) career as a computer game pro is over. I can bend it somewhat, but have no feel...

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV:
Yeah, that as well... Am too pissed off about that to bring it up for discussion here though...

About my finger, let's just say that my (non-existant) career as a computer game pro is over. I can bend it somewhat, but have no feel...

Here's hoping it gets better with time.

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla:
Here's hoping it gets better with time.

What? No pray!? :inquisitive:

Originally Posted by Brenus:
“they don't consider Russians our enemies putting all the blame on Putin.” Your answer: “You seem to have had a tour around Russian-speaking South-East, canvassed their opinion and formed yours”:laugh4::2thumbsup:

In my sentence you quoted I didn't speak of the inhabitants of South-eastern Ukraine (they are sure to see no enemies in Russians) but of Ukrainians in general. Recent polls quite surprisingly (for many) show that on the average Russians are not perceived as enemies. Ukrainians are sure that we are to keep friendly relations and we will when Putin calms down (or steps down). In Russia Ukrainians are perceived mostly negatively. Russian TV may claim credit for it.
http://lb.ua/news/2014/05/25/267674_...l_zayavil.html
In the video you can see the diagram in which Yarosh is shown to be winning presidential elections (in fact his support was around 1%).

Originally Posted by Husar:
I don't care, Viking said it's a perfect example for the problems of multiculturalism, you and Viking are both "them", if you two can't even agree on this, it just shows how unorganized "they" are. If you say Ukraine wasn't multicultural then why did you not agree that it was a bad example for the failures of multiculturalism?

I argued against Ukraine being considered multicultural. If you find where I said the contrary, I will be much obliged.

Originally Posted by Husar:
And which countries are or even were monocultural?

Japan? Iceland? Saudi Arabia?

Originally Posted by Gilrandir:
Japan? Iceland? Saudi Arabia?

Japan during the Imperial age is a good example of Monoculture (and how dangerous it is...)

Iceland... I dont really know enough about to say either way

Saudi Arabia is another good example - and is also a good example of why it isn't something you should desire...

Iceland comes closest, though no culture has been without cross-cultural episodes from time to time.

Originally Posted by Husar:
If Ukraine is almost in the center of the language scale, where are Switzerland and Belgium? How can you derive that multiculturalism is the reason for the country's failure if so many other countries score much higher in almost every regard and are doing just fine?

I've already answered this, either directly or indirectly. Switzerland and Belgium are doing just fine economically, Ukraine not so much. Many places in Eastern Ukraine seem to be in a not-too-good state.

Multiculturalism is most likely to cause trouble during bad times and decline.

Originally Posted by :
And which countries are or even were monocultural? I already mentioned North Korea, I cannot think of many others. The Third Reich certainly tried to be monocultural but they still had a few black people left. Or do a few people not count? At which point does a country turn from monoculture to multiculture?

There's a spectrum. Finding a completely monocultural society is not the point. The point is to be careful with things like mass-immigration, because they are likely to lay the foundation for large-scale multiculturalism for centuries ahead.

If a single neighbourhood is of a certain culture, that can't cause too much trouble; apart from the obvious examples, like that they are all part of organised criminality.

If, on the other hand, entire cities are split in half over culture, that's when things have a decent chance to turn nasty when the circumstances are right.

Originally Posted by Sir Moody:
Japan during the Imperial age is a good example of Monoculture (and how dangerous it is...)

Iceland... I dont really know enough about to say either way

Saudi Arabia is another good example - and is also a good example of why it isn't something you should desire...

Japan was a country with imperial ambitions, currently isn't. Saudi Arabia is not a country with imperialistic ambitions. Japan was an authoritarian country and is currently a democratic country. Saudi Arabia is an authoritarian country.

What's the trend we're supposed to be seeing?

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV:
Did you know there are more Iraqis in just one of the SUBURBS of Stockholm, than the US has accepted as refugees?

lolwhat? Kadagar is as factual as ever.

Originally Posted by HoreTore:
lolwhat? Kadagar is as factual as ever.

He's refering to post-"Iraqi freedom". Now that wiki is only going to 2008, but basically it's going 500> in 2002-2006, about 3000 in 2007 (with a goal of 7000) and estimated about 4500 for 2008.
I got no idea if still correct today, but under Bush that was correct.

Originally Posted by Ironside:
He's refering to post-"Iraqi freedom". Now that wiki is only going to 2008, but basically it's going 500> in 2002-2006, about 3000 in 2007 (with a goal of 7000) and estimated about 4500 for 2008.
I got no idea if still correct today, but under Bush that was correct.

Then it's comparing apples and oranges, as the Iraqis in Sweden are not post-2003 refugees.

And even his morality argument is skewed. Yes, Sweden is thankfully taking its responsibilities in accepting refugees, while the US has a way to go.

However, the vast majority(about 1 mill) of Iraqi refugees are internally displaced refugees. And who's paying to run the refugee camps in Iraq? The USA.

In addition to all of this, the US actually accepts immigrants, while Sweden has banned immigration. So, every foreign person living in Sweden is a refugee or granted asylum, while this isn't the case in the US.

Originally Posted by Viking:
Japan was a country with imperial ambitions, currently isn't. Saudi Arabia is not a country with imperialistic ambitions. Japan was an authoritarian country and is currently a democratic country. Saudi Arabia is an authoritarian country.

What's the trend we're supposed to be seeing?

As far as I can get, one can't determine a trend like "multicultural spells successful" or the other way around. Those were just the monocultural countries that came to my mind at once. I can add some more: Hungary, Albania, Armenia, Lithuania, Cambodia, Vietnam. There is no way one can group them all into successful or unsuccessful.

Originally Posted by Gilrandir:
As far as I can get, one can't determine a trend like "multicultural spells successful" or the other way around. Those were just the monocultural countries that came to my mind at once. I can add some more: Hungary, Albania, Armenia, Lithuania, Cambodia, Vietnam. There is no way one can group them all into successful or unsuccessful.

exactly this - like any political idea Monoculture is a double edged sword with a varying scale of success among the countries who have tried it out - Imperial Japan and Saudi Arabia are 2 of the Worst implementations of Monoculture that had (and continue to have) massive repercussions on either their own people or the surrounding area.

Monoculture can be implemented successfully, however it tends to be vulnerable to Xenophobia and rampant Nationalism both of which can be massively harmful.

I do personally favour the Multicultural model because it does model the "real" world better - even within distinct ethnic groups there are usually more than 1 cultural group and ideally a Multicultural model charts a course which is closest to what all groups want - the down sides as have been pointed out are generally more cultural tension and a tendency for Politicians to "suck up" to cultural groups they think they can score more votes from rather than trying to chart the middle ground as the model is designed to do...

Originally Posted by Sir Moody:
a tendency for Politicians to "suck up" to cultural groups they think they can score more votes from rather than trying to chart the middle ground as the model is designed to do...

It is what has been done in Ukraine by Party of regions and Communists - exploiting the topic of Russian as a second official language. They started to play this old record each time before the elections trying to cull votes in the South-east and forgot about it the moment they got what they wanted. They didn't want to really introduce it as this having been done would have rid them of a topic to propel during the election campaign.
Meanwile back to Ukraine. One more intercepted conversation was made public.
http://focus.ua/incident/307714/
Separatists in Ukraine talk to the ataman (something like the chieftain) of Don cossacks in Russia. The former claim that they captured OSCE mission and ask what is to be done with them. The ataman says that they are to take away their documents and keep them locked safe and sound. He adds that this is the order from quote far, far away unquote. Ruthless and cruel they are. Is there any doubt that here we are dealing with the dark side of the force? :laugh4:
One more symptomatic thing: separatists state that it is better for them to withdraw from Ukraine because they think they will be done in.

Originally Posted by Sir Moody:
exactly this - like any political idea Monoculture is a double edged sword with a varying scale of success among the countries who have tried it out - Imperial Japan and Saudi Arabia are 2 of the Worst implementations of Monoculture that had (and continue to have) massive repercussions on either their own people or the surrounding area.

Monoculture can be implemented successfully, however it tends to be vulnerable to Xenophobia and rampant Nationalism both of which can be massively harmful.

I do personally favour the Multicultural model because it does model the "real" world better - even within distinct ethnic groups there are usually more than 1 cultural group and ideally a Multicultural model charts a course which is closest to what all groups want - the down sides as have been pointed out are generally more cultural tension and a tendency for Politicians to "suck up" to cultural groups they think they can score more votes from rather than trying to chart the middle ground as the model is designed to do...

Multiculturalism has led to better food in Britain. A 10 minute walk from Leicester Square to Soho provides all the argument you'd want for multiculturalism, with grocery stores and restaurants spanning the Americas all the way across Eurasia to east Asia. Go further east to East and West Ham, and you can cover Africa as well.

Originally Posted by Gilrandir:
As far as I can get, one can't determine a trend like "multicultural spells successful" or the other way around. Those were just the monocultural countries that came to my mind at once. I can add some more: Hungary, Albania, Armenia, Lithuania, Cambodia, Vietnam. There is no way one can group them all into successful or unsuccessful.

Originally Posted by Sir Moody:
exactly this - like any political idea Monoculture is a double edged sword with a varying scale of success among the countries who have tried it out - Imperial Japan and Saudi Arabia are 2 of the Worst implementations of Monoculture that had (and continue to have) massive repercussions on either their own people or the surrounding area.

Monoculture can be implemented successfully, however it tends to be vulnerable to Xenophobia and rampant Nationalism both of which can be massively harmful.

I do personally favour the Multicultural model because it does model the "real" world better - even within distinct ethnic groups there are usually more than 1 cultural group and ideally a Multicultural model charts a course which is closest to what all groups want - the down sides as have been pointed out are generally more cultural tension and a tendency for Politicians to "suck up" to cultural groups they think they can score more votes from rather than trying to chart the middle ground as the model is designed to do...

I see no patterns when I look at monocultural countries. When I look at countries where subgroups are sizeable on a national level, I almost invariably see a lot of trouble. I see a trend for these countries.

Russia has seen a lot of trouble coming from it's largely non-Russian regional entities. Like Dagestan and Chechnya.

In fact the whole of Caucasus is full of conflicts, and most of these conflicts are between different ethnic groups (like Georgians vs. Abkhazians, Georgians vs. Ossetians, Armenians vs. Azeris).

Originally Posted by Pannonian:
Multiculturalism has led to better food in Britain. A 10 minute walk from Leicester Square to Soho provides all the argument you'd want for multiculturalism, with grocery stores and restaurants spanning the Americas all the way across Eurasia to east Asia. Go further east to East and West Ham, and you can cover Africa as well.

Diatologists claim that a person should consume whatever is grown or bred in his own country since (as a result of ancestral memory) his/her system has been adapting to digest this kind of food for generations. Food from "far, far away" may disagree with it for no apparent reason - because the system has no experience of dealing with it. So it is no better food but more variegated food.
And I think multiculturalism in Britain (as much as elsewhere) has led to doctors witnessing cases of diseases they had only read about before.

Originally Posted by Viking:
I see no patterns when I look at monocultural countries. When I look at countries where subgroups are sizeable on a national level, I almost invariably see a lot of trouble. I see a trend for these countries.

Russia has seen a lot of trouble coming from it's largely non-Russian regional entities. Like Dagestan and Chechnya.

In fact the whole of Caucasus is full of conflicts, and most of these conflicts are between different ethnic groups (like Georgians vs. Abkhazians, Georgians vs. Ossetians, Armenians vs. Azeris).

I believe what Sir Moody and me are trying to say that you can find successful and troublesome countries irrespective of their mono/multicultural background. It is true that multiculturalism adds one more headache so that the country in question has to learn to deal with it. But even monocultural countries can have a lot of problems even without interethnic tensions (present day Syria, for example, or Cambodia where Pol Pot's regime massacred millions of Khmers).

Originally Posted by Gilrandir:
I believe what Sir Moody and me are trying to say that you can find successful and troublesome countries irrespective of their mono/multicultural background. It is true that multiculturalism adds one more headache so that the country in question has to learn to deal with it. But even monocultural countries can have a lot of problems even without interethnic tensions (present day Syria, for example, or Cambodia where Pol Pot's regime massacred millions of Khmers).

Syria is a multiethnic/-religious country. There are Kurds vs. Arabs and there are Sunnis vs. Shias vs. Christians; and these divisions are most visible in the current civil war.

Monocultural countries are not immune to nasty things; but my hypothesis is that multicultural countries and societies are more likely to experience nasty things. Monocultural countries need to have both clear divides created before slaughter can commence (like through ideology) + the right conditions, while in multicultural countries, such divisions are always present and only the right conditions are needed.

Multicultural countries have weaker "defenses" against things like civil war.

Originally Posted by Viking:
Monocultural countries are not immune to nasty things; but my hypothesis is that multicultural countries and societies are more likely to experience nasty things.

That's what I've been trying to say.

Originally Posted by Viking:
Syria is a multiethnic/-religious country. There are Kurds vs. Arabs and there are Sunnis vs. Shias vs. Christians; and these divisions are most visible in the current civil war.

Monocultural countries are not immune to nasty things; but my hypothesis is that multicultural countries and societies are more likely to experience nasty things.

Id argue they are both vulnerable to "nasty things" but in different ways.

Started a new thread with my replies in case there's more to be said.

I wonder if things will change when Poroshenko is inaugurated on Saturday. Can we expect to see more aggressive military operations after that?

I think he has to do so. The objectives will probably be tightly limited, but failure to do so will erode so much confidence that the whole thing could degenerate further.

"The objectives will probably be tightly limited" I don't see why. He can bomb by airplanes, use attack-helicopters, sent troops as much he wants, even having being elected during a armed political crisis and only in the territory he controls, EU, US and the West in general won't say a word.

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh:
I think he has to do so. The objectives will probably be tightly limited, but failure to do so will erode so much confidence that the whole thing could degenerate further.

Ironically, he's been preaching restraint, but as soon as it was clear he won, the attacks intensified.

You believe trying to defeat them militarily is the best course of action?

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube:
Have you seen a map of the electoral results? Even if the entire Luhansk and Donetsk regions voted against him, or chose not to vote, he was still elected overwhelmingly in a democratic majority in a fair election.

Did anyone dispute this? And how did you come from that to this -

Originally Posted by :
Face it: There's a good team, and a bad team, and you and Sarmatian just can't but help root for the bad team, for whatever reason. :shrug:

- and how his win affects the "goodness" and "badness" of sides?

Nope! GC you have the blinders on.

Russia had legitimate concerns. The West was complacent in unsettling and destabilizing the situation there. The west also looted quite a few assets from Ukraine during that time.

Still Russia did exacerbate the situation and bring it to the point of international war and produced civil war within the country.

So I would just say there were no good guys or bad guys. Just thugs lined up to take advantage of a desperate situation.

Originally Posted by Fisherking:
Nope! GC you have the blinders on.

Russia had legitimate concerns. The West was complacent in unsettling and destabilizing the situation there. The west also looted quite a few assets from Ukraine during that time.

Still Russia did exacerbate the situation and bring it to the point of international war and produced civil war within the country.

So I would just say there were no good guys or bad guys. Just thugs lined up to take advantage of a desperate situation.

A Democratic Westward-looking Ukraine is only a threat to Russia if Russia has an irrational fear of democracy and the West.

Russian paranoia is not a legitimate Cassus Belli.

Everybody but Russia knows this.