Ukraine & Crimea

RobertDyck · 2014-04-12 12:59:11

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

RobertDyck wrote:
Inviting Georgia, Poland, and Ukraine to become part of NATO.
What's wrong with that?

And Balkan states? Former members of the Soviet Union itself? Try looking at it from Russia's point of view. Putin remembers the Soviet Union, one of the two superpowers of the world, equal in every way to the US. You are not only taking their allies, you are taking territory that Putin sees as belonging to the Soviet Union. And the proud people of Russia will not stay defeated for long, they support a leader who will return them to respect. Don't be surprised that your opponent won't sit idle while you continue to move against him.

There is a difference between understanding your opponent, vs agreeing with him. If you try to see it from Putin's point of view, it isn't hard to understand him. That doesn't mean I agree. He wants power and influence. He used soft power to get the Ukraine government to ally with Russia. From his point of view, his win was taken away by violent action. The government of Ukraine was overthrown, then the "rebels" introduced a bill to join EU and NATO, and oppress Russian language rights. In reality it was a peaceful protest, it was soldiers with orders from the president that opened fire on protestors. They had to respond just to protect themselves. And those bills were voted down the same day they were tabled. But Putin still sees this as violence to take away his win. So he responded with violence of his own. Russian troops secured the Russian navy.

You don't like it? How is this different from what Regan did in Granada?

I'm suggesting Ukraine not be a member of EU or NATO, but a neutral country that trades with both the West and Russia.

Last edited by RobertDyck (2014-04-12 14:21:10)

JoshNH4H · 2014-04-12 13:58:56

I'd just like to pick a quote out of one of Tom's posts because it really hits home how much it's not worth arguing with Tom.

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

...Russia started World War II...

RobertDyck · 2014-04-12 14:23:20

Very good point. I missed that.
I re-confirmed my email address to the dating site. Now if one of those beauties wants to escape Ukraine and come here?

Tom Kalbfus · 2014-04-13 08:12:03

RobertDyck wrote:

Tom Kalbfus wrote:
RobertDyck wrote:
Inviting Georgia, Poland, and Ukraine to become part of NATO.
What's wrong with that?
And Balkan states? Former members of the Soviet Union itself? Try looking at it from Russia's point of view. Putin remembers the Soviet Union, one of the two superpowers of the world, equal in every way to the US. You are not only taking their allies, you are taking territory that Putin sees as belonging to the Soviet Union. And the proud people of Russia will not stay defeated for long, they support a leader who will return them to respect. Don't be surprised that your opponent won't sit idle while you continue to move against him.
There is a difference between understanding your opponent, vs agreeing with him. If you try to see it from Putin's point of view, it isn't hard to understand him. That doesn't mean I agree. He wants power and influence. He used soft power to get the Ukraine government to ally with Russia. From his point of view, his win was taken away by violent action. The government of Ukraine was overthrown, then the "rebels" introduced a bill to join EU and NATO, and oppress Russian language rights. In reality it was a peaceful protest, it was soldiers with orders from the president that opened fire on protestors. They had to respond just to protect themselves. And those bills were voted down the same day they were tabled. But Putin still sees this as violence to take away his win. So he responded with violence of his own. Russian troops secured the Russian navy.
You don't like it? How is this different from what Regan did in Granada?
I'm suggesting Ukraine not be a member of EU or NATO, but a neutral country that trades with both the West and Russia.

Legally Russia was a member of the Soviet Union, just as the Baltic States were. the Baltic states got free of the Soviet Union just as Russia did. So what's the matter, doesn't' Putin want Russia to be free of the Soviet Union anymore? Just because Putin wants Russia to cease to exist and become part of the Soviet Union once agin, doesn't mean people in other countries have similar feelings.
A similar question to ask would be, how many countries were formerly part of the Roman Empire, and does Italy get a veto on what alliances former members of the Roman Empire may join? For example Georgia was once part of the Roman Empire, you,d think Italy would stand up for its former Roman provinces when barbarians from the north invade!
Just because Russia conquered a place once, doesn't mean they own it forever, just ask the Romans about that.
Anyway, Russians have a place to go, if they feel threatened, it's called Russia. I don't actually see Ukraine doing much to the Russians, Russians in uniforms have taken over Ukrainian Police stations, tell me how that is legal!
Poland was once part of the Russian Empire too, or at least the part that wasn't swallowed by Austria or Prussia. Poles aren't Russians, nor do they belong in Russia, as Russia once forbade them from speaking Polish. Poland got its independence after World War I. Poland was independent until 1939 when both Germany and Russia invaded once again, and they decided to split Poland between their respective Empires. So why shouldn't Poland join Nato? It was once part of the Third Reich as was Ukraine by the way, so if Germany says it's alright for Ukraine to join NATO, shouldn't they be allowed to?

Tom Kalbfus · 2014-04-13 08:19:22

JoshNH4H wrote:

I'd just like to pick a quote out of one of Tom's posts because it really hits home how much it's not worth arguing with Tom.
Tom Kalbfus wrote:
...Russia started World War II...

Never heard of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Nonaggression Pact to invade Poland and split it in two?
Never heard of the Kalyn massacre of Polish Officers, when Russia held a part of Poland as per their agreements with the German Nazi regime? That mean so the Russians started World War II right along side the Nazis.
It doesn't matter if the Russian later fought the Nazis, their prior agreements with them shows where their hearts were. Now would Germany still have invaded Poland if they could not secure an agreement with Russia to split Poland? We don't know, but securing an agreement with Russia certainly was a factor in their decision to invade.

Last edited by Tom Kalbfus (2014-04-13 08:24:25)

JoshNH4H · 2014-04-13 10:14:40

Trust me Tom, I know my history at least as well as you do. That's why I say your opinion is ridiculous and not worth arguing with.

Tom Kalbfus · 2014-04-13 11:57:26

So how do you say World War II in Europe started, if not by a combined German/USSR invasion of Poland? That is what I learned in my history class, both in High School and College, what part of this is wrong in your opinion? Do you think the Germans just invaded by themselves and the Russians just stood by and did nothing?

JoshNH4H · 2014-04-13 12:31:40

Please, see above. I have no interest in arguing this with you because I know you'll never admit to anything that goes against your worldview.

martienne · 2014-04-13 14:57:11

I am just really shocked by what I am reading in this thread and I am not even going to bother commenting.

I just want to encourage people to consider:

—Do I have both sides to this argument, or am I only getting one side, and a very heavily angled one at that?
—In hindsight, how reliable were the news stories and intelligence in American and Western European press about Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Egypt. Vietnam, Panama, etc, etc. Is it possible that I am being mislead here too?
—Have you actually made an effort to get the other side of the story before you jump to conclusions and start expressing opinions?
—How much do you know about culture, history, geography, social and economic factors?

If you are smart, visionary and open minded enough to support colonization of Mars - how can you let your mind be filled with Western propaganda and think in terms of outdated Cold War cliches? IMHO, Western propaganda is usually not even in the interest of regular, normal Americans and Europeans. Just the rich elites and the large corporations. Why would an intelligent person swallow and regurgitate that false and slanderous propaganda?

I am NOT ethnically Russian, and NOT an admirer of Putin. I have family in another ex Soviet republic and grew up mainly in Northern Europe. I speak Russian. I am perfectly aware of the issues with Putin and the Edinnaia Rossia party. Under normal circumstances Russia has no business meddling in ex Soviet republics. I have plenty of concerns about various internal problems in Russia that are partly spilling over into other ex Soviet countries.

However, in the issue of Ukraine specifically, Russia is NOT at fault. Krim was a clearcut case of an historically Russian area with Russian speaking people whose identities were tied to the USSR, and in the absence of that, Russia. What happened was long overdue, and Ukraine/the West triggered it by supporting and allowing an undemocratic coup d'etat that was really only supported by a minority of the population. Ukraine had 20 years to find a solution that worked for the population on Krim, but failed miserably.

If you knew anything about Ukraine, you'd see thousands of signs of how little the new regime actually represents most people in Ukraine. In the city of Kiev, for instance, normal people do not communicate in Ukrainian, very rarely at any rate. Yet all the coup makers did. They were from Western Ukraine and radicals. And the rumours of fascists and nazis was not exaggerated but sadly, true. The most radical and open Nazis on the European continent today are in Ukraine and the Baltic states. Sadly.

The revolts in Eastern Ukraine is NOT masterminded from Russia. You have to understand that this area is a completely "different ballgame" than Crimea. It's not really of interest to the Russian Federation if you are being cynical about it. The economic needs are HUGE. Mining towns and mid-sized industrial towns... Russia has more of those than it knows what to do with, and does not need or want more.

However the PEOPLE of Russia would love to see for the Eastern Ukrainians to become Russian because many regular Russians have family there - people moved there from all of the ex-USSR. That's why you are seeing so many Soviet flags in the crowd shots. People moved to these cities from Russia and all over the ex USSR. Specialists, workers and misc. people. Nobody could have guessed that one day they'd be required to dance to the tune of Ukrainian right wing extremists, and have Ukrainian language and NATO forced upon them. The exact same thing befell the Pridnestrovie area that ended up in modern Moldova despite few people there even speaking Moldovans. This is causing problems to this day.

—The population in Eastern Ukraine, not all, but most - want their language (Russian) to be 100% official in their region.
—They consider the new regime in Kiev to be illegitimate and are tempted by citizenship in the Russian Federation because they are fed up with the circus of Ukrainian politics with constant revolutions, incompetence and poverty.

Russia to them represents more freedom in terms of how to better themselves, much better economic prospects, jobs and national dignity. The area belonged to Russia up until the 1920s when it was transferred over to the Ukrainian SSSR for a rather silly ideological/administrative reason. This was not really very important in Soviet times, but now it's suddenly a big problem for those who live there. The unrest is triggered by events in Kiev, not anything that Moscow does.

Odessa and several other cities on the Black Sea coast (i.e. Southern Ukraine) are essentially completely Russian speaking. Walking around on town you only hear Russian spoken. Not sure the percentage but many are Jewish and identify neither as Russian, nor Ukrainian - they do not speak any Ukrainian, only Russian. Others are neither particularly Ukrainian, nor Russian - but they speak Russian, NOT Ukrainian. The maps of language usage that are circulating in English speaking media are not realistic. I have spent lots of time in Kiev, Odessa and Crimea and have only very rarely heard people speaking Ukrainian. You literally have to turn on the TV to hear people speak Ukrainian.

People in Eastern and Southern Ukraine identify mostly just as Soviet or "Russian speaking" and feel strongly about Russian culture and language. I.e. "the smartest man in Russia" is actually a Jew from Odessa in Ukraine and he is literally spitting on the new regime in Kiev.

It's not impossible that the unrest will spread along the South Cost too.

Nobody in Russia expects Moscow to lift a finger for Eastern Ukraine unless there is essentially civil war. Please get this! Russia is not trying to provoke anything in Eastern Ukraine. Putin is telling the truth. Russia simply doesn't want that area, and is not actually into opportunistic land-grabbing - if it was, there are several much more ripe areas it could have incorporated a long time ago. If you know Russian politics you know which ones I am talking about.

Crimea was a special case, implementation of the will of the people and a very special area to Russia.

I love Ukraine and I think all this is extremely tragic. It was shameless of the USA and the EU to meddle and they will NOT come through for Ukraine economically which is essentially what this is about in the end. Somebody needs to cough up some very large sums, very fast. Russia was about to do it, but in light of what happened, it wont.

I have never felt so strongly before about Russia actually being right in what they are saying, and Putin showing integrity as I do now.

I am not going to get into any quarrels with people who grew up with hatred of Russia in their mother's milk, or people who are blinded by only being able to see the world through the Western lens. So in terms of what I said, take it or leave it.

Last edited by martienne (2014-04-13 15:48:50)

RobertDyck · 2014-04-13 19:03:27

@martienne: Thank you. It's very refreshing hearing the other side. I was worried that was the case. Crimea was not part of Ukraine before the Soviet Union. That's why I have argued to let Crimea go. I've tried to be low key about it, because certain individuals here are best described as right-wing radicals, even by Western standards.

I have tried to use the Canadian experience as perspective. The first European settlement in North America was Newfoundland, but that was a special case. The first European settlement on continental North America was the French settlement of Quebec. That has been a major part of Canadian history. The French established colonies: Quebec, Acadia, and Louisiana. It was wars between French and English over centuries that resulted in what we have now. In 1867, citizens who lived in Ontario and Quebec wanted to establish a new country, French and English living together as brothers, not fighting. They had visions of a new country, and invited the other English colonies that didn't join the United States to join them. Politicians and diplomats went in a lake boat with its cargo hold filled with Champaign wine, to woo the other colonies. Newfoundland said no. Prince Edward Island wasn't large enough yet to be a separate colony. But Nova Scotia and New Brunswick did. These four provinces founded Canada. Other provinces joined later.

We have had separatists in Quebec who do not want to join Canada. They complain that they are pressured to be assimilated into English culture. But the rest of Canada has no such intention. And the Constitution of Canada grants provinces the right to protect the language and culture of their province. That was specifically intended for the French in Quebec, but was written to be general. So the rest of Canada keeps telling people of Quebec that they can continue to speak French, they can continue their French culture. We don't want to assimilate them into English culture. But certain radicals in Quebec stir up trouble because they want power. This has gone on since Canada was established in 1867. The radicals tried terrorism and violence in October 1970. When one Quebec provincial minister was murdered, the rest of the provincial government demanded the military be sent in to protect them. They were afraid for their lives. So the Canadian federal government enacted Martial Law, which is a state of emergency. They sent the military, they were fast and firm. Those individuals who weren't thrown in jail founded an new political party: Parti Québécois. They attempted a referendum to separate from Canada in 1980. Result was 40% to separate, 60% to stay. The Parti Québécois didn't like that, so they insisted on another referendum. To make a long story short, they lost that too. In this year's provincial election, the Parti Québécois stated they intend another referendum, but didn't say when. The result was they lost the election, badly.

Notice what I'm saying. That past may be long with various wars, but that is just the past. We all need to live together. Respect language and culture of another group.

This is the 21st century. We can't have another country using military to take territory from another country. That happened all over Europe from the fall of the Roman Empire until World War 1. That is the way to multiple wars. And that is what Western people are worried about.

And I have long heard Ukrainian history, remember there are a lot of people of Ukrainian descent where I live. In 1932-1933, food was forcibly removed. The result was 10 million people died. This was "Holodomor" or "Great Famine". Ukrainians will argue the only reason there was room for Russians to move in was the death of so many Ukrainians. Scholars debate whether that constituted genocide. So you have to realize that Kiev will not allow the fact Russians have moved in as an excuse to take their territory. But from the perspective of individuals, yes you are right. People moved in expecting they would continue to speak Russian. But Ukrainians want their country back. But Russian people who moved in just want to live their lives. But Ukrainians want their country back. But the people just want to live their lives. Yes, I'm repeating myself. That's to make the point.

What I'm suggesting is take the Canadian approach. Yes, a lot of things happened in the past. But the past is the past, today is today. Grant the people in eastern Ukraine the right to continue to use the Russian language, the same as Quebec uses French. Let them continue their culture. Grant the Oblasts of eastern Ukraine the same rights as the province of Quebec. But keep them part of Ukraine.

As for Crimea: just let it go.

The Clarity Act in Canada establishes how a region (intended for Quebec) would hold a referendum to separate from the country. It requires at least 2/3 of votes, not a simple majority. And there must be an option on the referendum to remain part of the country. And the question must be clear. And there must be no military activity what so ever. None of these things were done in Crimea. If Crimea re-held their referendum according to these rules, then Western countries would have to accept it. But let's be honest, if that was done the result would not be 97% to join Russia, but the result would still be greater than 2/3. So Crimea would remain part of Russia. But then Western politicians couldn't complain.

Last edited by RobertDyck (2014-04-13 20:00:40)

JoshNH4H · 2014-04-13 19:54:04

...Western politicians couldn't complain.

Correction: Canadian politicians couldn't complain. American politicians could and would. Sometimes I get the feeling that they see a fight with Russia as a way to get back to the "good old days" when it was us vs. them and the moral judgments in foreign policy were not treated as being nuanced.

GW Johnson · 2014-04-13 20:38:27

Of course western media are biased. All media are biased. That’s simply a part of being human. Not recognizing or dealing with that fact of life is insane. The real trick is looking past all the words at what people really do.

There is a definite pattern to these pro-Russian demonstrations, building takeovers, and other operations by pro-Russian “civilian militias” in Ukraine. That pattern suggests both pre-existing organization and outside support. These are simply not civilians looking for governmental change. It’s just too neatly the same in all the incidents taken together. This is orchestrated, and not locally. It’s coming from Putin’s Russia.

As for the argument that got so vitriolic earlier in this thread, WW2 had no one "cause" or "startpoint". No war ever does. It’s always a confluence of a lot of things. So, there is little point being dogmatic about this or that cause. That doesn't match reality. Which gets one nowhere. That’s why being dogmatic is insane.

WW2 in Europe could be said to have started with the Nazi annexations of Czechoslovakia and Austria, circa 1936-1937, just as easily as with the invasion of Poland Sept 1939. Or, just as valid, with the signing of the Treaty of Versailles in 1919, since some consider WW1 and WW2 two phases of the same war with a long pause in between. And, they do have a point about that.

WW2 in the Pacific started long before Dec 7, 1941. Take your pick, either the 1931 or 1937 Japanese invasions of China. Or, almost as valid, the US embargo on sending scrap metal, oil, and other potential war materials to Japan in 1939, which made the Pearl Harbor attack inevitable.

My father-in-law was a US Navy surface sailor, mostly destroyers until after the war was over. Early in 1939, long before the invasion of Poland, his ship was routinely in a “hot” shooting war with Nazi U-boats in the Atlantic, all the way to Dec 7, 1941, after which they sent him to the Pacific. Where he had 3 ships blown out from under him, and did hand to-hand combat in the Aleutians.

And my dad was a B-25 pilot, slated for surface attack duty in the Pacific when the war ended. Their combat lifetime expectations were about like helo pilots in Vietnam, by the way.

As a kid, our next door neighbor had been a WW2 crewman on a B-24, and had survived at least one shoot-down. He later killed himself, so that PTSD/suicide thing is nothing new. And, there's no excuse for anyone "not to have known about it", either. This has been going on for centuries.

Most of my uncles served in WW2, too. And my maternal grandfather was a USN battleship sailor in WW1. He anglicized his name from Wilhelm Friedrich Olsen to William Frederick Olsen, after the sinking of the Lusitania in 1915, even though technically he was more Danish than German. Politics has been a bitch far longer than most of you suspect.

So, yeah, I know personally an awful lot about the history of those times. It's a sort of family affair. Since long before most of you were even born.

GW

martienne · 2014-04-14 05:04:13

@RobertDyck - I really appreciated learning about Canada's experience. Have never been there and don't know about it from personal experience. I would not care either way about what Quebec did, obviously, but it seems that Canada is handling the language situation really well and is as sensitive as you could hope for about the language and culture. Seems to me that Canada is better off in more ways than one, for having Quebec.

As for the Crimean referendum; Well, Ukraine is not France, the UK or Canada. Things happen fast in that part of the world. Sure there might have been a few people who felt short changed. I think the odd person below legal voting age who grew up with the pro-Ukrainian school curriculum and has family on the Ukrainian mainland. Those among the Crimean Tatars who were strongly against didn't favour Ukraine, they favoured an Islamic Caliphate.

But for everybody over 25 it was a NO-BRAINER to join Russia. People's expectations on (alleged) democracy are not the same as in Western Europe and people locally are happy that the referendum was legit. There was never any question what the outcome would be.

PLUS - I think the propaganda angle, and the US/NATO agenda in Ukraine means, that it doesn't matter if they had done the referendum 100% according to the book. They would never even have got the thumbs up to go ahead, and they the referendum outcome would have been challenged according to every possible reservation you could muster up.

So I think it's meaningless to imagine that there could have been ANY way in which this would have been deemed acceptable to the US and NATO.

With Western Europe and Canada - they've got these countries where they want them already, and can allow for some leeway and don't have to worry about anything earth shattering happeneing.

But the ex-Soviet countries, the Middle East, Africa, South America; The countries there are strategic bricks or pieces on a chess board.

The USA figures out what it wants the next step to be, and then it formulates some ideological, humanitarian or economic narrative that will work for triggering the course of events they want.

Whether that is "democratic elections", overthrowing a democratically elected president (as just happened in Ukraine), supporting extremists, fundamentalist or radical sprinter groups, arming terrorists etc. And Western media are their willing supporters in the propaganda.

That's why it was OK to support a coup d'etat against a democratically elected president in Ukraine, but not for Eastern Ukrainians to protest against discrimination and nazism.

It explains why the overthrowing of President Al-Assad in Syria as part of the "arab spring" was incredibly desirable, while the arab spring in Bahrain, a country that hosts a US naval base and is populated by a pro-Iranian population must be ignored and supressed.

The examples of this double standard goes on and on and on as every educated person who follows the news surely knows.

As for Russia it doesn't always act with 100% perfect integrity - sure!
But Russia's goal is not to bend the entire world to it's will and to serve its economic purposes, like in the case of the USA. Russia doesn't want a military base in every other halfway civilised country in the world.
All that Russia cares about is:

1) to never be invaded in it's mainland again. 22 million Russians died in WW2. Most major cities were partly or completely destroyed. Before that, almost every empire Europe has seen has attempted to invade Russia, eventually lost,but not after horrendous destruction and civilian deaths. The Russian paranoia about this is monumental. That is what Victory Day parades are about. To re-assure people that Russia can defend itself and in memory of all the dead.

2) To protect the rights of Russian speakers in countries neighbouring Russia (ex Soviet) from bad discrimination, something that's been happening in some of these countries.

3) To honour defense agreements with countries that explicitly asked Russia for help and received a promise, plus old allies that have been loyal. It's not that many and Russia does not go to war, just use its strength and influence, as when it managed to stop a US invasion of Syria.

4) Russia does not want or need more land, more people or more natural resources. Right now the main priorities are diversifying industry and raising birth rate. Russia is already too dependendent on natural resources had heavy industryu which is exactly what Eastern Ukraine offers.

That's it! Russia's actions during the USSR years were predictable with the key of ideology and history in hand. Russia's current actions are predictable in light of these simple priorities.

The insinuations that Russia is behind the unrest in Eastern Ukraine falls on the simple fact that Russia actually doesn't WANT Eastern Ukraine, and there are plenty of local people who are both willing and able to raise some havoc themselves.

Russia has denied it over and over and given good reaons that make perfect sense as to why it hasn't done this.
But of course, these allegations look great in Western press, and it's perfectly fine to make insinuations without any proof.

Essentially every able-bodied man there will have done compulsory military service in either the Soviet army, or the Ukrainian army depending on age. There are plenty of local people with the skills to competently lead something like this.
The question is if this is something they are prepared to risk their lives and possibly die for, if it comes to a confrontation with Kiev. Plus, how badly out of hands things would have to get - how many have to die... before Russia would cross the border and restore order. I am concerned that there might be a hardcore group of pro-Russians in Ukraine who want to force Russia's hand to a point where it would have to get involved if actual Russians die in large numbers. Just a theory but others are worried about that too.

Plus most local policemen and probably half of Ukraine's army would not raise their weapons against these people anyway. That's why they have to rely on the "Right Sector" group of neo-nazis because they are the only ones who can be "trusted" to oppose the people in Eastern Ukraine.

It's a split country and only federalism can fix things now.
I personally think Eastern Ukraine should stay with Ukraine, but it's really none of my business.

I sympathise with those there who want Russian citizenship with all that means in terms of stability and instantly improved personal finances + investment in the region and having the same nationality as family members on the other side of the border.

I really don't think Russia's going to indulge that though.
Russia doesn't stir things up themselves.

Wouldn't you get worked up if your democratically elected president whom you happened to have vote for was overthrown by extremists with the support of nations you don't trust?
Then the TV stations you used to watched were closed down and you had no legal support for using your own native language, and you heard the rest of the world telling lies about you and blackpainting your people?
No wonder they are pissed off!

As far as I can tell from watching Russian news like Rossia 24, most of the Russian "experts" seem to think that federalism and greater independence is the way to go. I have never heard anyone express that they'd like to see an annexation using military force. Knowing Russian style TV, if this was being planned, there'd be a few hints about it.

And anyone who is silly enough to think that Ukraine has a snowballs chance in hell to get into the EU is deluding themselves. One basic requirement for the EU is no border conflicts at all - all border issues completely resolved before membership negotiations can even start. Plus Ukraine's economy will literally be p-d over by the EU. Nothing the Ukraine has at the moment, whether agriculture or industrial stands a chance in the EU competition. They'd end up worse off than Romania who's literally got nothing to show for their EU membership, practically the opposite.
Not that Ukraine isn't welcome in the EU as far as I am concerned, but I really can't think what good it would do them.

Last edited by martienne (2014-04-14 05:23:43)

Tom Kalbfus · 2014-04-14 13:32:29

martienne wrote:

I am just really shocked by what I am reading in this thread and I am not even going to bother commenting.
I just want to encourage people to consider:
—Do I have both sides to this argument, or am I only getting one side, and a very heavily angled one at that?
—In hindsight, how reliable were the news stories and intelligence in American and Western European press about Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Egypt. Vietnam, Panama, etc, etc. Is it possible that I am being mislead here too?
—Have you actually made an effort to get the other side of the story before you jump to conclusions and start expressing opinions?
—How much do you know about culture, history, geography, social and economic factors?
If you are smart, visionary and open minded enough to support colonization of Mars - how can you let your mind be filled with Western propaganda and think in terms of outdated Cold War cliches? IMHO, Western propaganda is usually not even in the interest of regular, normal Americans and Europeans. Just the rich elites and the large corporations. Why would an intelligent person swallow and regurgitate that false and slanderous propaganda?

Are you aware that "the West" is not a country, it is Europe and those places that have been populated by Europeans, which would include North America, South America, Australia, and New Zealand, and Russia too by the way, they are Europeans! Putin simply considers his country as not part of Europe because he wants to get away by not playing by European Rules, that is countries that are governed by Democracy You say you are from the EU, are you not proud to be a European? Does it not concern you when people like Putin make other Europeans suffer? Tell me, how do you justify Putin playing "Caesar"? Because that is exactly what Putin is up to, he wants to recreate a form of the Roman Empire, of course with Russian culture replacing that of the Latin people, but basically that's because he wants the power that Caesar had! The Roman Empire was a part of the West, in fact it can be considered the embryonic state of the West, but it is a part of Europe's history, we Europeans have moved beyond that, as well as Roman Slavery and gladiatorial combat in the arena, and basically Putin wants to bring that all back! Putin's idea of a United Europe is one united under him, much as the Roman Empire once united Europe. Now a New Roman Empire uniting Europe comflicts with the idea of what the European Union is. So which would you rather have, a European Union where everybody is a voluntary part of, or the Russian Empire (read Roman Empire) with different classes of citizens, some of which are slaves, do you want to return to that?

Tom Kalbfus · 2014-04-14 13:53:57

GW Johnson wrote:

Of course western media are biased. All media are biased. That’s simply a part of being human. Not recognizing or dealing with that fact of life is insane. The real trick is looking past all the words at what people really do.
There is a definite pattern to these pro-Russian demonstrations, building takeovers, and other operations by pro-Russian “civilian militias” in Ukraine. That pattern suggests both pre-existing organization and outside support. These are simply not civilians looking for governmental change. It’s just too neatly the same in all the incidents taken together. This is orchestrated, and not locally. It’s coming from Putin’s Russia.
As for the argument that got so vitriolic earlier in this thread, WW2 had no one "cause" or "startpoint". No war ever does. It’s always a confluence of a lot of things. So, there is little point being dogmatic about this or that cause. That doesn't match reality. Which gets one nowhere. That’s why being dogmatic is insane.
WW2 in Europe could be said to have started with the Nazi annexations of Czechoslovakia and Austria, circa 1936-1937, just as easily as with the invasion of Poland Sept 1939. Or, just as valid, with the signing of the Treaty of Versailles in 1919, since some consider WW1 and WW2 two phases of the same war with a long pause in between. And, they do have a point about that.

But in those cases it was all the Nazis under Hitler doing it If Hitler had stopped after Czechoslovakia, there would have been no World War II, If Hitler had stopped after annexing Austria, there would have been no World War II, the Allies didn't like it, but they weren't willing to fight Germany over it. There was really just one person who started World War II and that was Adolf Hitler, the others were just "bully boys" that wanted to join in on Hitler's side because they perceived Hitler as winning and with the examples of Austria and Czechoslovakia, why shouldn't they have believed that Hitler was winning? Joseph Stalin was one of those "bully boys" as was Mussolini and Prime Minister Tojo of Japan. Stalin perceived Hitler as an enemy of the West and since Stalin was also an enemy of the West, he wanted to join with Hitler to defeat the West, it was only when it turned out that Hitler did not want to share the World with Russia that Russia went begging to the West for help against the German invasion of their country. If Hitler was never born, there would have been no one to start World War II, Stalin wasn't brave enough to do it by himself, neither was Mussolini and Japan didn't want to fight the USA alone, so Hitler was a crucial element to starting World War II, he was the lynch pin, the other axis powers were just followers of Hitler's agenda, they wanted a piece of his action.

GW Johnson wrote:

WW2 in the Pacific started long before Dec 7, 1941. Take your pick, either the 1931 or 1937 Japanese invasions of China. Or, almost as valid, the US embargo on sending scrap metal, oil, and other potential war materials to Japan in 1939, which made the Pearl Harbor attack inevitable.
My father-in-law was a US Navy surface sailor, mostly destroyers until after the war was over. Early in 1939, long before the invasion of Poland, his ship was routinely in a “hot” shooting war with Nazi U-boats in the Atlantic, all the way to Dec 7, 1941, after which they sent him to the Pacific. Where he had 3 ships blown out from under him, and did hand to-hand combat in the Aleutians.
And my dad was a B-25 pilot, slated for surface attack duty in the Pacific when the war ended. Their combat lifetime expectations were about like helo pilots in Vietnam, by the way.
As a kid, our next door neighbor had been a WW2 crewman on a B-24, and had survived at least one shoot-down. He later killed himself, so that PTSD/suicide thing is nothing new. And, there's no excuse for anyone "not to have known about it", either. This has been going on for centuries.
Most of my uncles served in WW2, too. And my maternal grandfather was a USN battleship sailor in WW1. He anglicized his name from Wilhelm Friedrich Olsen to William Frederick Olsen, after the sinking of the Lusitania in 1915, even though technically he was more Danish than German. Politics has been a bitch far longer than most of you suspect.
So, yeah, I know personally an awful lot about the history of those times. It's a sort of family affair. Since long before most of you were even born.
GW

To have peace in the West, we need to discourage men like Putin and Hitler that want to tear down the West. Do you disagree with that statement. If any empire constantly gets bigger and bigger, don't you think we would be obligated to stop it at some point? if we say, "here you can have Ukraine, just don't take any more" do you think Putin would listen? Hitler didn't. Every time we give stuff away, we encourage people like Putin to try and take even more, and if we let it go on too far it may take a nuclear war to stop him! Now honestly, do you really like the choice of being either "red" or dead. By "red" I of course mean being under someone's empire as in the Soviet Union. Do you want to let the West die just so you can go on living and breathing? The Soviet Union was basically a destruction of Western values of democracy and freedom, you want to lose your democracy and freedom just so the Russians will let you live as a humble servant for someone else? that is what I'm talking about. We can live as peasants (or serfs or slaves) or die as free men and women! But all the same I'd rather not die either, so lets not get to the point where we let Russia get so big that nothing will stop them other than a nuclear war!

martienne · 2014-04-14 14:36:27

Sorry Tom, I can't comment in response to you on this topic without being either rude, sarcastic or hostile, so I am going to pass. I essentially don't see any shared ground at all, anyway.

Tom Kalbfus · 2014-04-14 14:38:28

martienne wrote:

@RobertDyck - I really appreciated learning about Canada's experience. Have never been there and don't know about it from personal experience. I would not care either way about what Quebec did, obviously, but it seems that Canada is handling the language situation really well and is as sensitive as you could hope for about the language and culture. Seems to me that Canada is better off in more ways than one, for having Quebec.

Not really the same situation, as Quebec was not granted its independence by Canada's government and then having it forcibly taken back by military force from Canada's next government. That is the situation Ukraine is in. if Canada gave Quebec its independence and let it be its own separate country for 20 years and then some Canadian Prime Minister didn't like the decision made by his predecessor and ordered an invasion of Quebec to take it back, what do you think the reaction of the United States government to that development would be? Do you think the US President would say, "Attaboy Canada!" or do you think the United States would send Quebac some assistance to help defend it against Canada's imperialist moves? Do you not think France too wouldn't join in on Quebec's side? I think it would!

martienne wrote:

As for the Crimean referendum; Well, Ukraine is not France, the UK or Canada. Things happen fast in that part of the world. Sure there might have been a few people who felt short changed. I think the odd person below legal voting age who grew up with the pro-Ukrainian school curriculum and has family on the Ukrainian mainland. Those among the Crimean Tatars who were strongly against didn't favour Ukraine, they favoured an Islamic Caliphate.
But for everybody over 25 it was a NO-BRAINER to join Russia. People's expectations on (alleged) democracy are not the same as in Western Europe and people locally are happy that the referendum was legit. There was never any question what the outcome would be.

So let me get this straight, you think Russia should take back all of Ukraine, not just the parts that are populated primarily by ethnic Russians, have I got this right?
So how is Russia to make Russian citizens out of unwilling ethnic Ukrainians, what would Russia have to do to make this happen? I'm pretty sure its going to be very ugly if it comes down to that, and to think Putin will be doing this to your fellow Europeans! Is there is European Pride is there no resistance against some Europeans being reduced again to a state of slavery or serfdom? This is white slavery by the way, it is your race that is being enslaved by Putin if you are white, how do you feel about this. Many blacks didn't like it when their brothers were enslaved by whites in the American South prior to the Civil War, how do you feel if its your own race that's being enslaved? Ukrainians are of my own race, and I don't like it one bit! I don't like black slavery or any other kind of slavery either, but I find it particularly grating when its my own race being enslaved by the Russians!

martienne wrote:

PLUS - I think the propaganda angle, and the US/NATO agenda in Ukraine means, that it doesn't matter if they had done the referendum 100% according to the book. They would never even have got the thumbs up to go ahead, and they the referendum outcome would have been challenged according to every possible reservation you could muster up.

You know the only reason NATO exists is because Russia/the Soviet Union or whatever they choose to call themselves, made it necessary. NATO didn't exist after World War II, it was only Russia's refusal to get out of Eastern Europe and allow those people to elect their own governments that caused NATO to come into existence, because people in France perceived that what could happen in Poland could also happen to them. They were further away from Russia, but you know if you feed the crocodiles your neighbors, those crocodiles will get hungry again, it is better to discourage those crocodiles rather than offering them your neighbors as a meal.

martienne wrote:

@So I think it's meaningless to imagine that there could have been ANY way in which this would have been deemed acceptable to the US and NATO.
With Western Europe and Canada - they've got these countries where they want them already, and can allow for some leeway and don't have to worry about anything earth shattering happeneing.
But the ex-Soviet countries, the Middle East, Africa, South America; The countries there are strategic bricks or pieces on a chess board.

This is a polite way of saying that you are willing to sacrifice other people's freedom for peace with the Russians but not your own. You like being part of the EU, but you don't want Ukraine as part of the EU because they are "chess pieces" or "pawns" that you are willing to sacrifice for your own freedom and comfort. How do you suppose they would feel about your attitude toward them? Do you walk past a Ukrainian on the street and say to him, "hello chess" piece or "hello pawn, I do not value your freedom, I think your lives belong to Russia and I'm willing to sell you into servitude towards them so I may remain free! Viva France!"

martienne wrote:

@The USA figures out what it wants the next step to be, and then it formulates some ideological, humanitarian or economic narrative that will work for triggering the course of events they want.

Ah that's it, you object to the United States being the Superpower. Well who else do you have in mind for this job? Which country is capable of being leader of the Free World? Is France up to this job or Canada? Do you really think France can stand up to the Russians and defend Europe? How good a job did Napoleon do?

martienne wrote:

Whether that is "democratic elections", overthrowing a democratically elected president (as just happened in Ukraine), supporting extremists, fundamentalist or radical sprinter groups, arming terrorists etc. And Western media are their willing supporters in the propaganda.

Actually the Media are mostly willing supporters of Obama, they want Obama to look good, so they support his policy as he stands up to Russia or makes the protestations as such, you know why? Because they don't want the Democrats to get "slaughtered" as weakling wimps in the nest election in 2014 and 2016. People outside the US might like a weak and wimpy president, but most Americans don't. The Americans that voted for Obama were willing to deceive themselves and tell themselves that what Obama wanted was a strong America, but if Obama does not stand up to Putin, at least in words if not in actions, then he and his party are toast in the next two elections. The Media supports Obama because they want to limit the gains the Republicans make. Foreigners in France and Russia support Obama so long as they perceive it is Obama's agenda to make America weaker and poorer, but unfortunately for them, Obama cannot honestly sell this policy to the American People, he cannot tell them that he wants to make them poorer and weaker, that he wants to see more of them on welfare and have a lower standard of living, so they can't afford that extra car or a yard in the suburbs, because this is what has to happen if the jealous French and Russians are to have their way, and the problem is Obama can't deliver this to them without setting up a situation where the hard right takes over after routing liberal Democrats from power for their anti-American agenda!

martienne wrote:

That's why it was OK to support a coup d'etat against a democratically elected president in Ukraine, but not for Eastern Ukrainians to protest against discrimination and nazism.

What has Ukraine done that is more reminiscent of the Nazis than what Putin is now doing to their country? Has Ukraine invaded anyone? Did Ukraine even ask for the Crimea to be given to them? No, but now that they had it do you suppose they would be happy for the Russians to march in and take it away again, and also to take other Ukrainian lands that have large ethnic Russian populations in them as well?

martienne wrote:

It explains why the overthrowing of President Al-Assad in Syria as part of the "arab spring" was incredibly desirable, while the arab spring in Bahrain, a country that hosts a US naval base and is populated by a pro-Iranian population must be ignored and supressed.

the arab spring was desired by Obama in Egypt and Syria because they perceived there was a good chance that Islamacists would take over from these secular regimes, the over throw of Iran was not supported because Iran was already an Islamacist regime, so the chances were that if it got overthrow, it would be replaced by more secular rulers that, God Forbid, might even be pro-American! Obama couldn't allow that to happen, as his foreign policy is to try to get the World to hate America, so he supports the rise of any potential government that might be America's enemy. Obama is unique like that, we walks around with guilt for being American wherever he goes and he goes out of the way to help America's enemies whenever it doesn't hurt his party's election chances! Obama has a mission to diminish America, but he has to balance that off with staying in power, so he's kind of walking a tightrope, which is why he doesn't always do what Putin asks of him, he's got to show some backbone, even if its only for show to the American people, just so his party stays in power so it can continue to diminish America. And by the way Mars People, Obama doesn't want America achieving any more firsts in space, no American flag planted in Mars Soil, we wants to hold us back, let the Russians or the Chinese get their first if he can! of course he can't come out and say that, not if he doesn't want to disillusion those Democrats who still think the Democratic Party's goal should be to improve America and not diminish it.

martienne wrote:

The examples of this double standard goes on and on and on as every educated person who follows the news surely knows.
As for Russia it doesn't always act with 100% perfect integrity - sure!
But Russia's goal is not to bend the entire world to it's will and to serve its economic purposes, like in the case of the USA. Russia doesn't want a military base in every other halfway civilised country in the world.
All that Russia cares about is:

That is what you tell yourself, because you are interested in opposing America, I am not sure Putin would agree with you however about Russia not wanting the rule the World, he will tell you whatever lie he feels is necessary that he thinks will help Russia achieve its goals. Your being anti-American really helps him out to a degree is his goal of World conquest. Of course in a World with nuclear weapons, he must be careful and cautious in achieving his objective just like the Soviet Union was, he doesn't want to be a Hitler and out and out invade, because he knows that will lead to disaster, but he does want to subvert and he needs insiders weakening the West to achieve his goals.

martienne wrote:

1) to never be invaded in it's mainland again. 22 million Russians died in WW2. Most major cities were partly or completely destroyed. Before that, almost every empire Europe has seen has attempted to invade Russia, eventually lost,but not after horrendous destruction and civilian deaths. The Russian paranoia about this is monumental. That is what Victory Day parades are about. To re-assure people that Russia can defend itself and in memory of all the dead.

The West does not want to invade Russia, and never did. Napoleon was not the West and neither was Hitler! Yes, I know Russia lost 22 million people in World War II, but think about this, didn't Russia just encourage Hitler more by taking a part in his invasion of Poland. Russia didn't have to cooperate with Hitler when he invaded Poland, but it did! Russia aided and assisted Germany in getting around armament restrictions that the allies imposed on it after World War I. Stalin at first saw a soul mate in Hitler, much as Russia wants to ally itself with America's enemies today. When Germany turned on Russia it was only after Russia helped Germany conquer Western Europe, it gave the Nazis oil and resources to it could bomb Great Britian, the Battle of Britain was in part supported by the Soviet Union, the Soviets sent oil and other raw materials to the Third Reich right up unto the German invasion of Russia. German troops passed by Soviet trains laden with oil heading the opposite direction. Germany took Russia by surprise and it was Stalin's fault that Russia was as unprepared as it was, because he really did want to be Hitler's ally in taking down the West, so that is why Russia lost 22 million people!

2) To protect the rights of Russian speakers in countries neighbouring Russia (ex Soviet) from bad discrimination, something that's been happening in some of these countries.

This is the reason Hitler used to invade Czechoslovakia and Poland, of course it was all in the name of protecting those German ethnic groups in other countries, Putin stole this page from Hitler's play book, even Hillary Clinton says this!

3) To honour defense agreements with countries that explicitly asked Russia for help and received a promise, plus old allies that have been loyal. It's not that many and Russia does not go to war, just use its strength and influence, as when it managed to stop a US invasion of Syria.

Do you ever wonder why Russia has such villainous allies that disregard human rights and use poison gas? Putin is like Lex Luthor in the Legion of Doom, that's basically the archetype he's attempting to follow, he wants to make common cause with America's enemies just as Stalin tried to do with Hitler! Big surprise than, and typically America's enemies tend to be "mustache-twisting" villains with no honor. It has indeed been a long time since America last fought an "honorable" enemy, I think the last one was probably the Confederate States of America, though they did things we disagree with, they usually treated our POWs they captured honorably. More than can be said of the Japanese, or the North Koreans. for that matter, much less Al Qaeda!

4) Russia does not want or need more land, more people or more natural resources. Right now the main priorities are diversifying industry and raising birth rate. Russia is already too dependendent on natural resources had heavy industry which is exactly what Eastern Ukraine offers.

Then why did Russia invade Ukraine, it could have simply offered those ethnic Russians political asylum. I'd sure the Ukrainians would have been happy to see them go, so they would stop messing up their country, but Russia has a hunger for land, always had, so did Hitler by the way, and they used the Russian/German minority question to advance the cause of their land grabs. We shall see if Putin stops at Eastern Ukraine or attempts to take the whole thing and make up excuses later!

That's it! Russia's actions during the USSR years were predictable with the key of ideology and history in hand. Russia's current actions are predictable in light of these simple priorities.

You know there is a memorial in Washington DC, it is a huge black wall with the names of 50,000 people who died in the Vietnam War in part because of those Predictable Soviet actions! Their blood is on Russia's hands, and Russia has yet to make amends for indirectly shedding American blood! And this after we helped them to fight off the Germans during World War II!

The insinuations that Russia is behind the unrest in Eastern Ukraine falls on the simple fact that Russia actually doesn't WANT Eastern Ukraine, and there are plenty of local people who are both willing and able to raise some havoc themselves.

You actually believe that? Well Russia could simply remove the people who want to be Russians and give Crimea back to Ukraine in that case, why doesn't it do that? it already has plenty of land after all! No one is forcing the Russians to get bigger, only Russia is doing that! Don't believe Russia is an accidental Empire, it is not!

Russia has denied it over and over and given good reaons that make perfect sense as to why it hasn't done this.
But of course, these allegations look great in Western press, and it's perfectly fine to make insinuations without any proof.

I wish the Western Press was as Pro-Western as you say, but it is not! Its always "Poor Palestinians" or "Poor terrorists" with them!

Essentially every able-bodied man there will have done compulsory military service in either the Soviet army, or the Ukrainian army depending on age. There are plenty of local people with the skills to competently lead something like this.

The circumstantial evidence of Russia's involvement is overwhelming, and usually the simplest explanation is the correct one, that is they Russians dressed up these people in Uniforms with the national insignia removed, their behavior is much too organized for them to be the result of a random mob, you know this as well as I, but perhaps it doesn't suit your argument to say so.

The question is if this is something they are prepared to risk their lives and possibly die for, if it comes to a confrontation with Kiev. Plus, how badly out of hands things would have to get - how many have to die... before Russia would cross the border and restore order. I am concerned that there might be a hardcore group of pro-Russians in Ukraine who want to force Russia's hand to a point where it would have to get involved if actual Russians die in large numbers. Just a theory but others are worried about that too.

How many more Russians would die if it turns into World War III with the West. Do you have any inkling of what a nuclear war would be like. If any Russians survived the initial nuclear exchange, what would they be left with? There would be places that are so thin with people that they wouldn't be worth nuking, for example Siberia! What do you think life would be like for those Russians after Russia and the Civilized World lost everything just because Putin decided to grab some land and went too far? Do you think those Russians would be happy with their new situation?

Plus most local policemen and probably half of Ukraine's army would not raise their weapons against these people anyway. That's why they have to rely on the "Right Sector" group of neo-nazis because they are the only ones who can be "trusted" to oppose the people in Eastern Ukraine.

You bring this up just to vilify the Ukrainians to justify Putin's brutal actions. When Putin's army enters Western Ukraine, it is not going to be so nice, so your just arming up calling the Ukrainians "Nazis" to justify whatever Putin may decide to do in the future. That is what I see you doing. if Putin turns out to be a monster, and your worried about that, you want to show how the Ukrainians are equally monsters so you don't completely have egg on your face.

It's a split country and only federalism can fix things now.
I personally think Eastern Ukraine should stay with Ukraine, but it's really none of my business.

I know why, if you deprive Ukraine of its Russians, the rest is going to be a hard core NATO ally, not a neutral "Finland" as you so desire. In order to have your "Finland, you need those Russians to remain citizens of Ukraine and you want a weak government that can be controlled and manipulated by Russia, to advance your anti-American agenda. If Russia takes all of Eastern Ukraine, what's left is going to be another "Poland" you can bet, it might even be part of Poland as it was in the past, and you don't want such a powerful Poland in Europe, it might overshadow France and Germany, and give you another country to be jealous of besides America!

I sympathise with those there who want Russian citizenship with all that means in terms of stability and instantly improved personal finances + investment in the region and having the same nationality as family members on the other side of the border.

Why don't you then apply for Russian citizenship if you love Russia so much?

I really don't think Russia's going to indulge that though.
Russia doesn't stir things up themselves.
Wouldn't you get worked up if your democratically elected president whom you happened to have vote for was overthrown by extremists with the support of nations you don't trust?

They couldn't do so without getting nuked!

Then the TV stations you used to watched were closed down and you had no legal support for using your own native language, and you heard the rest of the world telling lies about you and blackpainting your people?

It is ironic that is the ethnic Ukrainians that are trying to do exactly that. If the Russians get their way, then the Ukrainian language could be well on its way to extinction. The Russians have their own country, all they really have to do if they want it so bad is the cross the border, but what Russia wants to do is take away Ukraine from its people, they want to relegate Ukrainians to the status of a permanent minority, the "imperiled" Russian population is just an excuse to do so! There are plenty of Russians and fewer of Ukrainians.

No wonder they are pissed off!

They are not pissed off, Putin is not even mad, he just wants what the Ukrainians have, which is their land, he'll come up with all sorts of excuses. How come we've never heard about those minorities before the Ukrainians in Kiev overthrew their government? Those Ukrainians didn't actually do anything to those Russians. The Russians just rose up in violence under Putin's direction in order to provoke a confrontation to justify Putin's invasion. Putin will invade, its just a matter of time, if he can't find an excuse to soften the blow in the west he'll do it anyway, and you'll be eating crow when he does!

As far as I can tell from watching Russian news like Rossia 24, most of the Russian "experts" seem to think that federalism and greater independence is the way to go. I have never heard anyone express that they'd like to see an annexation using military force. Knowing Russian style TV, if this was being planned, there'd be a few hints about it.

HAs anyone asked the Ukrainians, whether they want to be part of a Federal Republic that is controlled from Moscow? Did anyone ask the Poles for that matter when the Soviets moved in? I don't think so!

And anyone who is silly enough to think that Ukraine has a snowballs chance in hell to get into the EU is deluding themselves. One basic requirement for the EU is no border conflicts at all - all border issues completely resolved before membership negotiations can even start. Plus Ukraine's economy will literally be p-d over by the EU.

Poland does have some historic claims to some of the land Ukraine now holds that predates World War II. Remember when I told you that Stalin took some land from Germany by moving Poland westward? Poland could take some of that land back if it looks like Ukraine's fall is inevitable. The Ukrainians government might even agree to this land transfer before Russia conquers all of it. I can see that happening and if Poland does take that land, with all the ethnic Ukrainians residing inside and calls the Polish citizens, what is the EU going to do?. Poland could say that Stalin's original land grab was not legitimate and that Poland is simply taking back what is rightfully its own, since Ukraine is shortly going to cease to exist. Poland could even go back further in history and take land all the way to Kiev if it wants and it has Kiev's cooperation in this. They could sign an agreement of union with Poland just as the East Ukrainians signed an agreement of Union with Russia. I could imagine how you'd feel should Poland do this. Poland could say there were no border disputes since the government of Ukraine agreed to this, besides, the land in question was never actually part of the Russian Federation or even that of the Russian Soviet Republic, prior to that it was part of the Russian Empire, but then so was Poland in the 19th century, if the EU can accept Poland, it can also accept Western Ukraine out to Kiev as part of Poland. If Poland gets the land before Russia can take it by force, too bad. Polands Army can move out into Ukraine with that governments permission and defend its new border against the Russians, and the Rest of NATO would be obligated to help defend Poland and its new border since it was mutually agreed to by both parties.

Nothing the Ukraine has at the moment, whether agriculture or industrial stands a chance in the EU competition. They'd end up worse off than Romania who's literally got nothing to show for their EU membership, practically the opposite.
Not that Ukraine isn't welcome in the EU as far as I am concerned, but I really can't think what good it would do them.

For one thing it would keep them out of Russia's clutches, which is the main thing that they want, any additional benefits they accrue is just icing on the cake.

Last edited by Tom Kalbfus (2014-04-14 15:37:54)

GW Johnson · 2014-04-14 14:50:56

Oh, I quite agree with you, Tom, that we ought to stop the Hitler wannabees.

But, it helps if we ourselves behave in way that doesn't make us look just as bad. And the problem is, we have been doing exactly that for about 3 decades at least. That's why the rest of the world no longer thinks very well of us.

The last time the US truly had the moral high ground was WW2, and for just a few weeks after 9-11. Too many of our leaders have cared more about polls and elections than actually doing-the-right-thing. They have screwed it up and cost us our good reputation, little by little, year after year.

This is a big, complex, rapidly-industrializing world. The US is one of the big, complex, and powerful countries in it. Trouble with "big" is, after a while, you start to act like it. Like I said before, nations tend to behave exactly like 5-year-olds misbehaving on the playground. They all do, us included.

No matter what happens in Ukraine, the US is under no real threat from Russia, because they aren't a superpower anymore. Putin is driven in part by that. He's trying to recapture the superpower that was the Soviet Union, but I don't think he (or anyone else) can pull it off, at least not for a time best measured in halves of centuries. Some of the others in this conversation choose not to believe it, but he's weighing his chances right now, for invading part of eastern Ukraine. Not because he really needs or wants it, but because that's how you look like a superpower.

The real threat to the US (or most other countries) is from within, not without. What I find to be true is that very large organizations, government or private, tend to display a bureaucratic arrogance that is inversely proportional to the level of competence they display. What that says is that smaller is better behaved. But, the huge, complex world is demanding big. Big governments generally try to make economic slaves of their citizens, sooner or later. Rock-and-a-hard-place, that is.

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2014-04-14 14:54:46)

Tom Kalbfus · 2014-04-14 15:43:45

GW Johnson wrote:

Oh, I quite agree with you, Tom, that we ought to stop the Hitler wannabees.
But, it helps if we ourselves behave in way that doesn't make us look just as bad. And the problem is, we have been doing exactly that for about 3 decades at least. That's why the rest of the world no longer thinks very well of us.

Give me some hard examples of the United States taking land from other countries in the last 30 years, which would bring us back to 1984. Did the United States get any larger since 1984? I have a map of the United States that dates to 1984 and I have more current maps of it. I don't see any extra states, do you? I would like to have an American flag with 52 stars on it, but I don't see it yet. Cuba would make a great addition I think! And of course Puerto Rico.

The last time the US truly had the moral high ground was WW2, and for just a few weeks after 9-11. Too many of our leaders have cared more about polls and elections than actually doing-the-right-thing. They have screwed it up and cost us our good reputation, little by little, year after year.
This is a big, complex, rapidly-industrializing world. The US is one of the big, complex, and powerful countries in it. Trouble with "big" is, after a while, you start to act like it. Like I said before, nations tend to behave exactly like 5-year-olds misbehaving on the playground. They all do, us included.

You've got to admit, the USA has behaved better than Putin!

No matter what happens in Ukraine, the US is under no real threat from Russia, because they aren't a superpower anymore. Putin is driven in part by that. He's trying to recapture the superpower that was the Soviet Union, but I don't think he (or anyone else) can pull it off, at least not for a time best measured in halves of centuries. Some of the others in this conversation choose not to believe it, but he's weighing his chances right now, for invading part of eastern Ukraine. Not because he really needs or wants it, but because that's how you look like a superpower.
The real threat to the US (or most other countries) is from within, not without. What I find to be true is that very large organizations, government or private, tend to display a bureaucratic arrogance that is inversely proportional to the level of competence they display. What that says is that smaller is better behaved. But, the huge, complex world is demanding big. Big governments generally try to make economic slaves of their citizens, sooner or later. Rock-and-a-hard-place, that is.
GW

Tom Kalbfus · 2014-04-15 11:23:12

martienne wrote:

Sorry Tom, I can't comment in response to you on this topic without being either rude, sarcastic or hostile, so I am going to pass. I essentially don't see any shared ground at all, anyway.

What can I say, you hate my country, I don't know what its ever done to you, but you hate my country, and nothing I say is ever going to convince you otherwise.

Terraformer · 2014-04-15 12:42:11

Wut. There's been far worse said about Russia by you than about America by anyone else...

Tom Kalbfus · 2014-04-15 13:30:09

Russia has done worse things, there were Stalin's purges for instance, the forced famine in the Ukraine. Russia's history appears to be about the opposite of America's history. During the American Revolutionary War for instance we rebelled against King George the Third, but we didn't kill King George or his family. The Russians rebelled against their King Nicolas Romanov II, and they didn't spare him or his immediate family, they killed them all. Of Course our Revolutionaries could get to King George, but I'm sure even if they could they would not order him and his entire family to be executed the way the Bolshevik executed the Romanovs. We had George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison, the Russians had Vladimir Lenin, Leon Trotsky, and Josef Stalin. Our Founding Fathers founded a Republic, the Russian Revolutions Founding Fathers founded a tyranny, their main purpose was to achieve power over Russia and to build an empire out of the carcass that was Russia. So who do you think had better leaders, was it the Americans or the Russians? Would you rather have George Washington or Vladimir Lenin? Thomas Jefferson or Leon Trotsky? James Madison of Josef Stalin?

Empire building is a long standing tradition in Europe, typically it starts with a bunch of disgruntled peasants, the peasants rebel, and then some unscrupulous leaders take over the rebellion and try to found a new tyranny to replace the old. We Americans were lucky that we had leaders with some honor and integrity, the Russians were not so lucky! So Russia is an example of a society that had a Revolution that went wrong in every way imaginable. I'm sure the peasants didn't rebel because they wanted an even more repressive leader than their King, but that is what they got. Russian society has made a lot of bad choices, they had bad leaders and they followed them because they were afraid of them, and this habit of replacing bad leaders with more bad leaders hasn't ended. I hate to see what sort of society they might build on Mars, if the past is any guide, it would probably be another tyranny, as tyranny is a long standing Russian tradition.

Last edited by Tom Kalbfus (2014-04-15 13:36:39)

JoshNH4H · 2014-04-15 14:16:31

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

martienne wrote:
Sorry Tom, I can't comment in response to you on this topic without being either rude, sarcastic or hostile, so I am going to pass. I essentially don't see any shared ground at all, anyway.
What can I say, you hate my country, I don't know what its ever done to you, but you hate my country, and nothing I say is ever going to convince you otherwise.

I feel the same way as Martienne. Do I hate America?

Here's a hint: I love America and the American people, but your ideology is ridiculous and it's not worth arguing with you.

Terraformer · 2014-04-15 16:08:01

Talking about annexing independent countries territory, claiming that it rightfully belongs to you... what was the annexation of West Virginia, then? Indeed, what was the War Between the States, other than the USA invading a country which had seceded from it and forcibly reincorporating it?

martienne · 2014-04-16 06:43:25

JoshNH4H wrote:

Tom Kalbfus wrote:
martienne wrote:
Sorry Tom, I can't comment in response to you on this topic without being either rude, sarcastic or hostile, so I am going to pass. I essentially don't see any shared ground at all, anyway.
What can I say, you hate my country, I don't know what its ever done to you, but you hate my country, and nothing I say is ever going to convince you otherwise.

I feel the same way as Martienne. Do I hate America?
Here's a hint: I love America and the American people, but your ideology is ridiculous and it's not worth arguing with you.

Yes. I really don't want to say anything categorical about Americans though - I have met some very nice, intelligent and inspiring Americans and there seem to be many here.

But I'll admit as much as Canada being my favourite country in North America, not the USA. :-) Some aspects of US culture are admirable, cool and impressive. Top being Tech and Nature. Entrepreneurship and Openness/Friendliness of people in everyday life. Obviously has to envy the super comfortable lifestyle of the middle classes in the USA.

Other aspects are ghastly, in my view: Consumerist culture, death by advertisments, lack of respect for anything and everyone; celebrating weapons, killing, bizarre lifestyles, promoting entertainment that's indulging in people's lowest instincts and setting that as an acceptable norm. Dumbness almost being a virtue.

But all of this is just observations. None of my business - it reaches me via American popular culture, but I am not forced to go there. I wouldn't care at all if it wasn't for the foreign policies of the USA.

My issue with the US is the foreign policy because it affects people outside the US borders. The military bases around the world, the "we-know-best" mentality that not only politicians but regular people adopt - even on subjects they don't know the first thing about.

The double standard, lack of principle, consistency and integrity in foreign policy gets to me too (supporting terrorists, dictators etc while at the same time preaching "democracy" and freedom).

I am SURE there must be plenty of Americans that have noticed the same thing.

I just hope that changed financial circumstances and power balance shifting towards China will mean that the US becomes a "normal" country so that people like me can enjoy the nice things about US culture without feeling revolted when all these things I mentioned come up.

On Ukraine: A Canadian study showed that only 1 in 6 Americans asked could actually find Ukraine on a map of the world, using a random sample of +2000 people. Those who could actually find it were less likely to express a categorical view on anything going on there. It goes without saying that it's totally ridiculous for a person to promote military intervention in a country they can't even find on a map. Sign of severe brainwashing if you ask me. They'll swallow absolutely anything they are told without knowing the very basics or trying to find an alternative perspective. And that for something as serious as a military intervention!

I believe nobody died at Russian hands as a direct result of the Crimea annexation. Drones alone have killed many hundred civilians in Afghanistan. Hundreds of thousands more as part of the actual occupation. And other places the US is not even at war with. Hundreds of thousands in Iraq. There are many US airbases in Europe. How long before American drones buzzing in the skies over us? The US even kills its own citizens; Russia does not use the death penalty.

If you look at it objectively without any preconceived notions I think you would probably find that modern Russia, or even the USSR in the last few decades is/was more decent and less aggressive that the USA. The Soviet Union was so "nice" that it allowed itself to disintegrate without even fighting back - despite the fact that it would have been the easiest thing in the world.

Not wanting to fight and not wanting to insult anyone. This is ONE perspective on the USA.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#226 2014-04-12 12:59:11

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#227 2014-04-12 13:58:56

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#228 2014-04-12 14:23:20

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#229 2014-04-13 08:12:03

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#230 2014-04-13 08:19:22

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#231 2014-04-13 10:14:40

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#232 2014-04-13 11:57:26

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#233 2014-04-13 12:31:40

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#234 2014-04-13 14:57:11

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#235 2014-04-13 19:03:27

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#236 2014-04-13 19:54:04

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#237 2014-04-13 20:38:27

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#238 2014-04-14 05:04:13

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#239 2014-04-14 13:32:29

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#240 2014-04-14 13:53:57

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#241 2014-04-14 14:36:27

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#242 2014-04-14 14:38:28

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#243 2014-04-14 14:50:56

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#244 2014-04-14 15:43:45

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#245 2014-04-15 11:23:12

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#246 2014-04-15 12:42:11

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#247 2014-04-15 13:30:09

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#248 2014-04-15 14:16:31

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#249 2014-04-15 16:08:01

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

#250 2014-04-16 06:43:25

Re: Ukraine & Crimea

Board footer