Ukraine Crisis II: Electric Boogaloo

[Constantinopolis]

And you want to solve the problem of "blatant, complete imperialism and colonialism" by having a single all-powerful bloc in control of almost the entire world, and able to do anything it wants with impunity, which is what the West currently is (or aims to be)? Yeah, no thanks.

It's true that an all-powerful empire can bring peace. That's what Pax Romana was all about, for example. But I do not want that kind of peace.

So youre invading my country cause hurr durr fuck EU? so we have no right to join what organisations we want to cause, *gasp* the Ukrainians are doing something you disprove of?

I'm not personally invading anything. But yes, I support those who are invading your country, because your country's government (not the people) has chosen to join the side of the most powerful military and economic alliance on the planet, and that alliance needs to be weakened.

Does that mean I'm treating your country like a pawn in a great chess game? Perhaps. But, you know, my own country is even smaller, it's definitely a pawn, and I would treat it the same way. This is how the game is played.

Besides, if the EU wins, national cultures will cease to exist within the next 100-200 years anyway, so your country (and mine) are doomed anyway. Upholding a country's right to join the EU is like upholding a sheep's right to join a wolf pack.

[Gravlen]

As for all the incessant agonizing over the question of whether there are Russian troops in Ukraine or not (which there probably are): I fail to see why that matters.

First step to solving a problem is to admit you have a problem.

The United States doesn't give a crap about the UN or international law when it supports friendly rebel movements around the world with supplies, weapons, airstrikes and "advisers", so why hold Russia to a different standard?

We're actually not. But there's a difference in how things are done, and why they're done. We - as in, most of the world - have collectively agreed that it should no longer be acceptable for territory to change hands through conquest. That's the short version of the world order Russia is currently threatening.

In case you forgot, Russia has occupied and tried to make Crimea part of Russia. The US has not done any such thing in Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo, or Libya.

Russia is most likely supporting the Donbass rebels, Russia should support the Donbass rebels, and any person in his right mind sitting in the Kremlin would support the Donbass rebels.

Why?

Great powers always support armed movements that further their interests. Get over it.

No. Instead, realize that actions have consequences.

[Occupied Deutschland]

And you want to solve the problem of "blatant, complete imperialism and colonialism" by having a single all-powerful bloc in control of almost the entire world, and able to do anything it wants with impunity, which is what the West currently is (or aims to be)? Yeah, no thanks.

It's true that an all-powerful empire can bring peace. That's what Pax Romana was all about, for example. But I do not want that kind of peace.

So youre invading my country cause hurr durr fuck EU? so we have no right to join what organisations we want to cause, *gasp* the Ukrainians are doing something you disprove of?

Ukraine doesn't get to be one of those 'powers' Constantinopolis wants to see rise, only Russia.

Because...Well, he hasn't really explained. I guess imperialism is still rather hard to justify without nationalism and ethnocentrism.

[Geilinor]

So youre invading my country cause hurr durr fuck EU? so we have no right to join what organisations we want to cause, *gasp* the Ukrainians are doing something you disprove of?

Upholding a country's right to join the EU is like upholding a sheep's right to join a wolf pack.

So now you know what Ukraine should do and what it shouldn't? Ukraine likely won't get into the EU because of low per capita income, but as a European country, it has the right to apply.

[Crazed Pirates]

So did Russia actually invade or what?

NATO has satellite images of Russian units mobilised within Ukraine. And the T-72MBs seen in action on Ukrainian soil can only be Russian, with their version of Kontakt explosive reactive armour.

NATO can have satellite images of Reptilian cities all over Russia, it doesn't actually prove anything. And how about:
1. Give Seps money
2. Sell T-72s through online auctions using proxies
3. ???
4. PROFIT
BTW, why are you so sure that they have Russian version of Kontakt ERA? (or even have any ERA, if this matters)?

[Constantinopolis]

And you want to solve the problem of "blatant, complete imperialism and colonialism" by having a single all-powerful bloc in control of almost the entire world, and able to do anything it wants with impunity, which is what the West currently is (or aims to be)? Yeah, no thanks.

The side that's attempting to do anything it wants with impunity right now is Russia. The West can't do what it wants. If it could, it would have showed more than weak, half-hearted resistance.

The West CAN do what it wants. It is simply choosing to show restraint in the Ukrainian crisis because (a) it doesn't really care that much about Ukraine in the first place, and (b) Western leaders are divided over which course of action to adopt. Some of them, no doubt, wish they could just give Ukraine to Russia and wash their hands of this entire mess. Others are fanatically Russophobic and would like to destroy Russia completely if they could do so without consequences. And most Western leaders are somewhere in between. As Mefpan pointed out, "the West" is an alliance, not a hivemind.

Contrary to popular opinion, "the West" is not a singular, evil entity run by an Illuminato-Freemasonric Reptilian Communazi conspiracy bent on turning the world into 1984 according to the clever guidelines laid out in George Orwell's 1984.

I never said it was. I keep referring to the West as an alliance because that's what it is.

So yeah, one way to weaken the West would be to break up this alliance, but that's not bloody likely. So for the moment it makes sense to treat "the West" as a single entity, because it is an alliance which shows no signs of breaking up any time in the foreseeable future.

[Geilinor]

The side that's attempting to do anything it wants with impunity right now is Russia. The West can't do what it wants. If it could, it would have showed more than weak, half-hearted resistance.

The West CAN do what it wants. It is simply choosing to show restraint in the Ukrainian crisis because (a) it doesn't really care that much about Ukraine in the first place, and (b) Western leaders are divided over which course of action to adopt. Some of them, no doubt, wish they could just give Ukraine to Russia and wash their hands of this entire mess.

Exactly. NATO has internal divisions and uses those to check its power. Putin doesn't have to worry about those things, which is why he should be challenged on Ukraine.

[Constantinopolis]

So youre invading my country cause hurr durr fuck EU? so we have no right to join what organisations we want to cause, *gasp* the Ukrainians are doing something you disprove of?

Ukraine doesn't get to be one of those 'powers' Constantinopolis wants to see rise, only Russia.

If Ukraine wanted to become a regional power in its own right and opposed NATO and the EU, I would support it completely. Hell, if Ukraine somehow became a major anti-NATO power and invaded a pro-NATO Russia, I would support the Ukrainian invasion. Of if NATO was weak and Russia was an all-powerful global hegemon, then I would support NATO against Russia.

I want the most powerful military and economic alliance on the planet to be weakened, so I support those states that aim to weaken it.

Geopolitically, I always support the weaker powers/alliances against the stronger powers/alliances. (and you should too)

In this conflict, "the West" (NATO/the EU) is strong, and Russia is weak. So I support Russia. Ukraine is not a separate side (it could be, if it wanted to, but currently isn't).

I don't see what's so hard to understand.

Because...Well, he hasn't really explained. I guess imperialism is still rather hard to justify without nationalism and ethnocentrism.

I thought I did explain:

I openly disagree with the traditional Leninist stance on imperialism. It was conceived during a time when there were several opposing and more or less equally matched imperialist powers, so that it made sense to oppose all of them at once.

Today, however, one particular imperialist camp (generally called "the West") is vastly dominant, and all its rivals are no more than regional-level powers. As such, it makes sense to support those rivals, even in some of their imperialist ambitions, in order to hopefully return to a situation with several equally-powerful camps instead of one single dominant one.

Why is it better to have several equally-powerful camps instead of one single dominant one? Because it is better to have several equally-powerful enemies that are busy fighting each other instead of one single powerful enemy that can crush you at any moment.

[Farnhamia]

Am I too late?

(Image)

Never too late, Russian apologists are like a cancer that never leave.

One can only hope that they all live in Russia, as they deserve to spend their lives in the last European dictatorship.

You might want to moderate you tone here. That's very close to trolling.

[Mefpan]

Ukraine doesn't get to be one of those 'powers' Constantinopolis wants to see rise, only Russia.

If Ukraine wanted to become a regional power in its own right and opposed NATO and the EU, I would support it completely. Hell, if Ukraine somehow became a major anti-NATO power and invaded a pro-NATO Russia, I would support the Ukrainian invasion. Of if NATO was weak and Russia was an all-powerful global hegemon, then I would support NATO against Russia.

I want the most powerful military and economic alliance on the planet to be weakened, so I support those states that aim to weaken it.

Geopolitically, I always support the weaker powers/alliances against the stronger powers/alliances. (and you should too)

I don't see what's so hard to understand.

I'll pass. If that logic had been followed every time, we end up with a lot of factions that are roughly equal in strength. This sounds good on paper until you realize that people aren't reasonable and figure that hell yes they totally can take on that other faction they disagree with because they're not so much stronger after all. Perhaps that third faction will help us because they have gripes with the second one too! I'm sure the second one won't ask factions four, five and six that hate us for help.

Wait a moment.

You know, I think a large power isn't all bad, especially considering The West^TM is actually doing pretty well on social issues, compared to other places. I'll take them over stronger, less benevolent powers any time of the day.

[Geilinor]

Ukraine doesn't get to be one of those 'powers' Constantinopolis wants to see rise, only Russia.

If Ukraine wanted to become a regional power in its own right and opposed NATO and the EU, I would support it completely. Hell, if Ukraine somehow became a major anti-NATO power and invaded a pro-NATO Russia, I would support the Ukrainian invasion. Of if NATO was weak and Russia was an all-powerful global hegemon, then I would support NATO against Russia.

I want the most powerful military and economic alliance on the planet to be weakened, so I support those states that aim to weaken it.

Geopolitically, I always support the weaker powers/alliances against the stronger powers/alliances. (and you should too)

In this conflict, "the West" (NATO/the EU) is strong, and Russia is weak. So I support Russia. Ukraine is not a separate side (it could be, if it wanted to, but currently isn't).

I don't see what's so hard to understand.

Being on the weaker side doesn't necessarily make you correct.

[Constantinopolis]

The West CAN do what it wants. It is simply choosing to show restraint in the Ukrainian crisis because (a) it doesn't really care that much about Ukraine in the first place, and (b) Western leaders are divided over which course of action to adopt. Some of them, no doubt, wish they could just give Ukraine to Russia and wash their hands of this entire mess.

Exactly. NATO has internal divisions and uses those to check its power. Putin doesn't have to worry about those things, which is why he should be challenged on Ukraine.

You're comparing an alliance of several governments with one government. Of course the single government has less internal divisions.

Putin doesn't have any major allies and, as you can see, he is having serious trouble maintaining control of a territory that has been ruled from Moscow for 172 of the last 200 years. That doesn't make him dangerous, that makes him pathetic. His power doesn't need any more checking - it's checked enough already. Russia is a shadow of its former self.

[Geilinor]

Exactly. NATO has internal divisions and uses those to check its power. Putin doesn't have to worry about those things, which is why he should be challenged on Ukraine.

You're comparing an alliance of several governments with one government. Of course the single government has less internal divisions.

Putin doesn't have any major allies and, as you can see, he is having serious trouble maintaining control of a territory that has been ruled from Moscow for 172 of the last 200 years. That doesn't make him dangerous, that makes him pathetic. His power doesn't need any more checking - it's checked enough already. Russia is a shadow of its former self.

You say he's pathetic, but you also say that we should support him because he's on the weaker side.

[Constantinopolis]

You know, I think a large power isn't all bad, especially considering The West^TM is actually doing pretty well on social issues, compared to other places. I'll take them over stronger, less benevolent powers any time of the day.

The thing is, I don't believe in benevolence. Not in international relations, anyway. I believe that every powerful entity will always try to screw over everyone else for its own benefit, to the greatest extent that it can get away with. The less rivals an entity has, the more it can get away with.

Also, a country's internal policies are no indication of how that country will behave internationally. The countries with the best internal policies in the world - according to my own standards - are in the West (namely, they are the Scandinavian countries), but so what? The internally-democratic US has supported right-wing dictatorships more times than I can remember. Western countries have the highest respect for women's rights in the world, internally, but they prop up the incredibly sexist regime in Saudi Arabia, and during the Cold War they armed religious fundamentalists against the Soviets (and we all know how that turned out for women).

Internal politics and international politics are separate things and should not be mixed up.

Being on the weaker side doesn't necessarily make you correct.

No one is "correct". There are no good guys and bad guys in international politics. Only competing interests.

You're comparing an alliance of several governments with one government. Of course the single government has less internal divisions.

Putin doesn't have any major allies and, as you can see, he is having serious trouble maintaining control of a territory that has been ruled from Moscow for 172 of the last 200 years. That doesn't make him dangerous, that makes him pathetic. His power doesn't need any more checking - it's checked enough already. Russia is a shadow of its former self.

You say he's pathetic, but you also say that we should support him because he's on the weaker side.

Right. "Pathetic" and "weak" have similar meanings, at least in this context.

[Lyttenburg]

Meanwhile:

- Pfalzgraf Kolomoyskiy "extended his protectorate" over the Zaporizhya region and the coastline of the Azov sea up to Mariupol. Yay to the moder-age feudalism!

- As was promised yesteday, there is currently large rally near the Ministry of Defense in Kiev. Mentioned in my previous posts commander of "battalion Donbass" Semyon Semenchenko, a faithful son of the true father of the "Great Ukrs" (Stepan Bandera), is demanding the imediate send of relief columns to his troopers still trapped in Ilovaysk. He also made several threats to relatives and families of Ministry of Defense workers.

The protesters demand the resignation of Petr Poroshenko, the Minister of Defense and all commanders of the ATO. Some even demand to make Semenchenko a depty Minister of Defense.

[Holstaine]

Whole conflict is one bloody farce. Two major powers are just trying get even more influence over the back of one poor country, which is devastated by its Soviet heritage and privatisations that took place after Soviet Union's downfall which resulted in raise of oligarchs. One can only hope that conflict is solved as soon as possible, for sake of people who live there.

[Germanic Templars]

Not surprised, Lyttenburg, that you use Russian-bias sources. Please if you use one bias source of one side try and find one on the other side as well to prove this claim.

[Neoconstantius]

Not surprised, Lyttenburg, that you use Russian-bias sources. Please if you use one bias source of one side try and find one on the other side as well to prove this claim.

unn.com.ua, with "Єдина Країна. Единая Страна." as a tagline. Oh yeah, sounds real Russian biased.

[Thellonya]

So youre invading my country cause hurr durr fuck EU? so we have no right to join what organisations we want to cause, *gasp* the Ukrainians are doing something you disprove of?

I'm not personally invading anything. But yes, I support those who are invading your country, because your country's government (not the people) has chosen to join the side of the most powerful military and economic alliance on the planet, and that alliance needs to be weakened.

Does that mean I'm treating your country like a pawn in a great chess game? Perhaps. But, you know, my own country is even smaller, it's definitely a pawn, and I would treat it the same way. This is how the game is played.

Besides, if the EU wins, national cultures will cease to exist within the next 100-200 years anyway, so your country (and mine) are doomed anyway. Upholding a country's right to join the EU is like upholding a sheep's right to join a wolf pack.

You believe the crap that you spew? And so we get to be liberated by Russia, because we dare join the EU? Are you fucking serious? And so what if we choose to join the most powerful alliance/economy thing, that is OUR choice, and for what the fuck ever reason Russia seems to go, lolnope sorry ukraine, we is of taking land from you, AND you cant join the EU! so fuck off what that nonsense

[Germanic Templars]

Not surprised, Lyttenburg, that you use Russian-bias sources. Please if you use one bias source of one side try and find one on the other side as well to prove this claim.

unn.com.ua, with "Єдина Країна. Единая Страна." as a tagline. Oh yeah, sounds real Russian biased.

You do know I can't read Russian or anything Cyrillic.

[Occupied Deutschland]

No one is "correct". There are no good guys and bad guys in international politics. Only competing interests.

No, there are good guys and bad guys. The classification is just situation dependent.
Invading a sovereign country because of targeted genocides isn't a bad guy move.
Invading a sovereign country because 'my country needs more clay!' and you need a bump in domestic political opinion polls is a bad guy move.

[Constantinopolis]

You believe the crap that you spew? And so we get to be liberated by Russia, because we dare join the EU? Are you fucking serious? And so what if we choose to join the most powerful alliance/economy thing, that is OUR choice, and for what the fuck ever reason Russia seems to go, lolnope sorry ukraine, we is of taking land from you, AND you cant join the EU! so fuck off what that nonsense

Well, since you want to join the EU so much, you should know that, in the EU, when people vote for the wrong choice, they get to vote again until they make the right choice.

So think about it some more and make the right choice.

[Neoconstantius]

I'm not personally invading anything. But yes, I support those who are invading your country, because your country's government (not the people) has chosen to join the side of the most powerful military and economic alliance on the planet, and that alliance needs to be weakened.

Does that mean I'm treating your country like a pawn in a great chess game? Perhaps. But, you know, my own country is even smaller, it's definitely a pawn, and I would treat it the same way. This is how the game is played.

Besides, if the EU wins, national cultures will cease to exist within the next 100-200 years anyway, so your country (and mine) are doomed anyway. Upholding a country's right to join the EU is like upholding a sheep's right to join a wolf pack.

You believe the crap that you spew? And so we get to be liberated by Russia, because we dare join the EU? Are you fucking serious? And so what if we choose to join the most powerful alliance/economy thing, that is OUR choice, and for what the fuck ever reason Russia seems to go, lolnope sorry ukraine, we is of taking land from you, AND you cant join the EU! so fuck off what that nonsense

You speak for Ukraine as if you're the leader of some national hivemind. You really think EU integration is the aspiration of the majority of Ukrainians? You really think the current Kiev government, which shells and injures and kills its own civilians and oppresses its own people, represents the will of the entire populace? If that were the case, then Yanukovych, the president that HALF the country voted for, wouldn't needed to have been illegally removed in an undemocratic coup. Ukrainian apologists and nationalists scream about "freedom" and "democracy", but they have risen to power through the exact opposite of these ideals. The hypocrisy is unfathomable.

As a Rusyn, I will not let Kiev and western Ukraine send my family and friends to be slaughtered for some rabid nationalistic fantasies.

[Neoconstantius]

unn.com.ua, with "Єдина Країна. Единая Страна." as a tagline. Oh yeah, sounds real Russian biased.

You do know I can't read Russian or anything Cyrillic.

So then you're going to have very little idea what's going on in this conflict, since most sources on the ground are in Russian or Ukrainian, seeing as those are the languages spoken where the conflict is occurring.

[Geilinor]

You do know I can't read Russian or anything Cyrillic.

So then you're going to have very little idea what's going on in this conflict, since most sources on the ground are in Russian or Ukrainian, seeing as those are the languages spoken where the conflict is occurring.

The problem is that most of the people who can read Cyrillic on this forum are Russian and the articles they choose to post here will almost exclusively be from a Russian perspective.