Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

How United States created Putin

Page 3 of 4 [ 55 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

magz
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jun 2017
Age: 41
Gender: Female
Posts: 16,283
Location: Poland

01 Jun 2022, 1:41 am

SkinnedWolf wrote:
Before this year's conflict in Ukraine, France and Russia actually got along pretty well.
Yes.
Before Russia crossed the line of a taboo of redrawing European borders with brute force, it got along with West Europe very well.

European state borders are a big taboo, it's a Pandora's box of both World Wars. So, after WWII, to avoid further damage, Europe established some other way of functioning, treaty-based, keeping the national borders the way they are and attempting to open them instead of moving them.

The exceptions to keeping the borders the way they are were, of course, unification of Germany and splitting of several states - but only in Balkans armies were involved and it was met with strong international reactions.

By making a full scale invasion on Ukraine, Russia has broken a strong European taboo of post-WWII "never again". That got them shunned even by West Europeans who otherwise would love to just go back to business with Russia.


_________________
Let's not confuse being normal with being mentally healthy.

<not moderating PPR stuff concerning East Europe>


QFT
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Jun 2019
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,456

01 Jun 2022, 10:31 am

magz wrote:
SkinnedWolf wrote:
Before this year's conflict in Ukraine, France and Russia actually got along pretty well.
Yes.
Before Russia crossed the line of a taboo of redrawing European borders with brute force, it got along with West Europe very well.

European state borders are a big taboo, it's a Pandora's box of both World Wars. So, after WWII, to avoid further damage, Europe established some other way of functioning, treaty-based, keeping the national borders the way they are and attempting to open them instead of moving them.


Khrushchev handed Crimea to Ukraine after both wars.

magz wrote:
The exceptions to keeping the borders the way they are were, of course, unification of Germany and splitting of several states - but only in Balkans armies were involved and it was met with strong international reactions.


How do you decide which exceptions are okay and which aren’t?



magz
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jun 2017
Age: 41
Gender: Female
Posts: 16,283
Location: Poland

01 Jun 2022, 10:45 am

QFT wrote:
magz wrote:
SkinnedWolf wrote:
Before this year's conflict in Ukraine, France and Russia actually got along pretty well.
Yes.
Before Russia crossed the line of a taboo of redrawing European borders with brute force, it got along with West Europe very well.

European state borders are a big taboo, it's a Pandora's box of both World Wars. So, after WWII, to avoid further damage, Europe established some other way of functioning, treaty-based, keeping the national borders the way they are and attempting to open them instead of moving them.
Khrushchev handed Crimea to Ukraine after both wars.
Without changing state borders of the time - and without any kind of force use involved.
In similar time, Kaliningrad District was offered to Lithuanian SSR, but Lithuania declined - so there was no forcing either way.
QFT wrote:
magz wrote:
The exceptions to keeping the borders the way they are were, of course, unification of Germany and splitting of several states - but only in Balkans armies were involved and it was met with strong international reactions.
How do you decide which exceptions are okay and which aren’t?
That's really not complicated:
Changes made through negotiations and mutual agreements are okay.
Changes made with threat and force are not okay.


_________________
Let's not confuse being normal with being mentally healthy.

<not moderating PPR stuff concerning East Europe>


Mikah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Oct 2015
Age: 38
Posts: 3,201
Location: England

01 Jun 2022, 1:21 pm

magz wrote:
Changes made through negotiations and mutual agreements are okay.
Changes made with threat and force are not okay.


What do you think of the Belfast a.k.a. Good Friday agreement? It has qualities of both, no? It has the slick slimy sheen of a negotiated settlement, but at its heart it was a surrender to not just violence, but terrorism.


_________________
Behold! we are not bound for ever to the circles of the world, and beyond them is more than memory, Farewell!


magz
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jun 2017
Age: 41
Gender: Female
Posts: 16,283
Location: Poland

01 Jun 2022, 1:23 pm

Mikah wrote:
magz wrote:
Changes made through negotiations and mutual agreements are okay.
Changes made with threat and force are not okay.
What do you think of the Belfast a.k.a. Good Friday agreement? It has qualities of both, no? It has the slick slimy sheen of a negotiated settlement, but at its heart it was a surrender to not just violence, but terrorism.
It did not change state borders, which was the topic discussed here.


_________________
Let's not confuse being normal with being mentally healthy.

<not moderating PPR stuff concerning East Europe>


Mikah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Oct 2015
Age: 38
Posts: 3,201
Location: England

01 Jun 2022, 1:35 pm

magz wrote:
It did not redraw state borders, which was the topic discussed here.


It did in a roundabout way. The agreement provides a referendum on transferring the sovereignty of Northern Ireland to the Republic which can be held every 7 years in perpetuity or something and there are no provisions to reverse it. Given the demographics then and now it is practically guaranteed to happen at some point. Just because it didn't happen on the day...

If the hated Russians arranged for such an agreement for parts of Ukraine, I think you would see it for what it is.


_________________
Behold! we are not bound for ever to the circles of the world, and beyond them is more than memory, Farewell!


Fireblossom
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jan 2017
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,588

01 Jun 2022, 1:46 pm

QFT wrote:
You won’t see Russia trying to attack England or France. It just won’t happen.


Many people thought so about Russia attacking Ukraine, too.

Honestly, the biggest reason Russia won't try to attack those countries is that it'd be too hard because of all the other countries that are physically between them. But if Russia got those, then sooner or later it would most likely attack France and Britain, too. And if you're wondering about the reason, I'd say just greed in general. If they get half of the Europe, of course they'll want the rest of it too. That is the major reason for supporting Ukraine now; it protects the future of the entire Europe and Western civilization.



magz
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jun 2017
Age: 41
Gender: Female
Posts: 16,283
Location: Poland

01 Jun 2022, 3:33 pm

Mikah wrote:
magz wrote:
It did not redraw state borders, which was the topic discussed here.


It did in a roundabout way. The agreement provides a referendum on transferring the sovereignty of Northern Ireland to the Republic which can be held every 7 years in perpetuity or something and there are no provisions to reverse it. Given the demographics then and now it is practically guaranteed to happen at some point. Just because it didn't happen on the day...

If the hated Russians arranged for such an agreement for parts of Ukraine, I think you would see it for what it is.
If they arranged (or even proposed) a nation-wide, internationally-observed referendum about a proposal of a well-discussed partial solution, and were ready to accept a "no" for an answer... then the situations would be roughly comparable. But that would require deep social and political changes in Russia - or shallow changes and good timing (like Poland used the 1990s).

BTW: what defines "not just violence but terrorism"?


_________________
Let's not confuse being normal with being mentally healthy.

<not moderating PPR stuff concerning East Europe>


Mikah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Oct 2015
Age: 38
Posts: 3,201
Location: England

01 Jun 2022, 3:41 pm

magz wrote:
If they arranged (or even proposed) a nation-wide, internationally-observed referendum about a proposal of a well-discussed partial solution, and were ready to accept a "no" for an answer... then the situations would be roughly comparable.


Even if violence was the prime method for bringing about such an agreement? Recall what I originally quoted of you:

magz wrote:
Changes made through negotiations and mutual agreements are okay.
Changes made with threat and force are not okay.


_________________
Behold! we are not bound for ever to the circles of the world, and beyond them is more than memory, Farewell!


magz
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jun 2017
Age: 41
Gender: Female
Posts: 16,283
Location: Poland

01 Jun 2022, 3:45 pm

Proposing an agreement to end pre-existing violence is quite the opposite of introducing violence to change pre-existing agreements.


_________________
Let's not confuse being normal with being mentally healthy.

<not moderating PPR stuff concerning East Europe>


Mikah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Oct 2015
Age: 38
Posts: 3,201
Location: England

01 Jun 2022, 6:45 pm

magz wrote:
Proposing an agreement to end pre-existing violence is quite the opposite of introducing violence to change pre-existing agreements.


I propose we give Russia half of Ukraine and maybe a small piece of Poland to end the war.


_________________
Behold! we are not bound for ever to the circles of the world, and beyond them is more than memory, Farewell!


The_Walrus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,878
Location: London

01 Jun 2022, 9:20 pm

The GFA is about self-determination. The Irish state wasn’t funding the Republican terrorists, and the UK wasn’t funding the Unionist terrorists, at least not by the 80s and 90s. The violence was the result of genuine polarisation of the Northern Irish people. It was wrong, of course, but if any state was to blame then it was James I and VI’s colonisation of Ulster.



magz
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jun 2017
Age: 41
Gender: Female
Posts: 16,283
Location: Poland

02 Jun 2022, 1:43 am

Mikah wrote:
magz wrote:
Proposing an agreement to end pre-existing violence is quite the opposite of introducing violence to change pre-existing agreements.
I propose we give Russia half of Ukraine and maybe a small piece of Poland to end the war.
Proposition rejected by Poland and Ukraine. What's your next move?


_________________
Let's not confuse being normal with being mentally healthy.

<not moderating PPR stuff concerning East Europe>


Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

02 Jun 2022, 1:54 am

magz wrote:
Mikah wrote:
magz wrote:
Proposing an agreement to end pre-existing violence is quite the opposite of introducing violence to change pre-existing agreements.
I propose we give Russia half of Ukraine and maybe a small piece of Poland to end the war.
Proposition rejected by Poland and Ukraine. What's your next move?


Give the three Baltic States to the snake to pacify it? :scratch:
No Polish territory would be affected. <disingenuous> :mrgreen:



magz
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jun 2017
Age: 41
Gender: Female
Posts: 16,283
Location: Poland

02 Jun 2022, 3:14 am

^ Rejected by Baltic States. Next move?


_________________
Let's not confuse being normal with being mentally healthy.

<not moderating PPR stuff concerning East Europe>


Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

02 Jun 2022, 3:29 am

magz wrote:
^ Rejected by Baltic States. Next move?


Poland invades the baltic states and hands them over to the snake to save its own skin. 8)