Comparing Russia vs Ukraine to other countries

Post Reply New Topic

Seeing that the number of Christians is quite large, their feelings should be respected.

What mixes the politics and religion is globalism. Magz appealed to globalism as her argument in regards to borders. And globalism offends the beliefs of Christians.

But people in Crimea voted to be Russian. So then Crimea should be analogous to St Petersburgh

Okay I did some mess with editting quotes, etc. Lets try again.

Last edited by QFT on 15 Jun 2022, 9:51 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Then maybe it was a bad idea for Soviet Union to collapse. Even though it wasn't by force, they didn't vote either. It was literally three presidents (Russia, Ukraine and Belarus) met and decided, without actually asking people what they want.

What Putin does today with borders is basically attempts to undo whatever was done in 1991, which was also long after the war.

Well, then maybe St Petersburgh should be a country on itself. Kind of like Finland, after being tossed between Russia and Sweden, ended up being its own country. Same for St Petersburgh after it was tossed between Sweden, Findland and Russia would also become its own country.

In any case, St Petersburgh is just one example. The bigger picture is that, as magz mentioned, Russia dates to Moscovite Estate. Since Moscovite Estate used to be small, it can be reasonable guess that the only area of Russia that actually historically dates there is a neighborh of Moscow. Anything sufficiently far away from Moscow is probably NOT a historical Moscovite estate but instead a historical Kievlian Rus that was later captured by Moscovite Estate. Now look at the following parallels:

--- Kiev is NOT historically part of Moscovite Estate. And any part of Russia far away from Moscow is NOT historically part of Moscovite Estate either

--- Any part of Russia far away from Moscow is probably part of historical Kievlian Rus. And Kiev itself is historically part of Kievlian Rus too.

Seeing this parallel, one can say that any part of Russia far away from Moscow has just as much right for independence as Kiev does. Therefore, the two logically consistent ways of going about it is:

1) Let all the regions far away from Moscow separate, so that Russia is reduced to just Moscow and small area around it

2) Keep all the regions far away from Moscow, BUT also absorb Kiev too

On the other hand, keeping all the rest of Russia while letting Kiev separate seems inconsistnt.

Particularly if you look at Asian parts of Russia. Clearly, Moscow has a lot more in common with Kiev than with some far Asian people. So why is it far Asian people are still part of Russia while Kiev isn't? Isn't it a bit odd?

Although on a flip side, I am rather pissed at Putin for giving off Siberia to Chinese because they cut off forests. I guess in Chinese culture forest isn't much appreciated but in Russian cultire it is. So I think Putin is being inconsistent when he doesn't mind Chinese ruining his forests, while he has major problem with Ukrainians simply keeping political control without any permanent damage like this.

Still, however, perhaps he could let Siberia separate WITHOUT giving it to Chinese. I am sure local Siberian population values its own forests. Point remains: Moscow has more in common with Kiev than Asia, so it keeping Asia yet not Kiev seems inconsistent.

Are you saying that "non-nuclear country not allowed to become nuclear" implied that Ukraine wasn't allowed to borrow the nuclear codes from Russia and thats why its nuclear arsenal was just being wasted until it gave it off to Russia?

Well, in this case, it should be pointed out that Ukraine wasn't quite non-nuclear since it DID have nuclear arsenal. The fact that it didn't have the codes was just because the stuff was split among various republics. It wasn't the "non-nuclear" in a sense in which that particular policy was intended.

As far as becoming non-nuclear in exchange of economic benefits, that is still humiliating. It reminds me of "roosters" in Russian prisons who get raped in exchange of some payment (in a form of food, cigarettes, etc). What they do is still humiliating regardless. Same with giving off nuclear weapons in exchange of economic protection. Same concept.

I was using Christianity to oppose globalism. I didn't cite it to justify killing anyone.

I guess if you follow this thread then the indirect connection might be as follows. You cited globalism as alternative to imperialism. So by opposing globalism I would indirectly support imperialism, which would indirectly support what Russia does, which kills innocent people.

But notice how all those links are indirct rather than direct. For one thing, I never once said that Russian soldiers are right when they kill pieceful citizens. That is horrible. But that doesn't logically imply that Russia is wrong in wanting to take Ukrain. It is perfectly possible to say that "Russia is right in wanting to take Ukraine but it goes about it in all the wrong ways".

Here is another example. I learned within past few weeks that back in World War 2 Soviet soldiers were raping German women in the defeated territories. I think it was horrible that they did it. But I still think it is good that Soviet Union defeated Nazis. So you see: its possible to say that its good they defeated Nazis yet its bad they raped women. So one can have similar attitude with Ukraine as well.

I didnt realize that you were the Pope. And spoke for all Christians.Lol! Jesus never said anything against "globalism". Its not a tenet of Christianity to oppose, or to have any opinion, on globalism. Could you please explain how Putin is doing God's work, and is upholding Christianity by..slaughtering folks in Ukriane?

And I just got through explaining how St Petersburg has NOT "changed hands" between anyone. It was founded by a Russian Czar, and always been a major Russian city. It never belonged to anyone else. There was land nearby Leningrad/Petrograd/St. Petersburg that did "change hands" one time: from Finland to the USSR, but not back again. And that was Finland. Not Sweden.

You maybe confusing St. Petersburg with Konigsberg/Kaliningrad. THAT city has changed hands many times just within the last century. Or you might be thinking of Danzig (which has changed hands, and was its own free city like Hongkong for a while).

Ukraine is a sovereign state/country recognized by international, including Russia.
You don't understand the differences between countries and regions/area, do you?

By the way, in terms of procedure, the United States allows the residents of part willing to separate to express themselves - but the latter has not reached a sufficient proportion to complete the separation.

Ukraine to Russia is the same as Panama to US.

US maintains a tight control over the regime in Panama as it is essential to the US navy. US take a military action if it's status there was threatened.

I did explain what I meant by "globalism" here: trade and treaties instead of wars.
Are you claiming that trade and treaties offend Christians while wars don't?

Like people in Soviet Union and satellites were ever asked about what they really wanted, lol.
The Soviet way of making referenda on an example familiar to me:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1946_Poli ... referendum
Official results for "three yes":
68.0%, 77.2%, 91.4%.
Actual results, according to historical documents released after 1989:
26.9%, 42%, 66.9%.
Only the third question (Western border of Poland) had actual popular support.

You see why a referendum is worth nothing without independent observers?

With methods from 80 years ago, labeled with "never again".

"Undoing what was done in 1991" means destroying 30 years of work and experience of tens of millions of people.
Literally demolishing all they've built since then.

The only people for nostalgia for the USSR are those who wouldn’t mind cheap vodka, long food lines, and idleness.

I think you neglect the crucial element:
Pride of their country being a superpower (no matter at what cost).
That's basically what imperialism is all about.

Yep....should have emphasized the "superpower" aspect. Of course.

Thats not true. When I read comments below any soviet youtube video, I see a lot of nostalgy about happy childhood, about simpler times and about better morals. As far as morals, an example would be a soviet movie full of comments "who would ever play anything like that nowdays; today everything is full of junk".

I reallize that part of "simpler times" is subjective, of course everything is simipler when you are a child. But here is something more objective. Back in the soviet union everyone was guaranteed to get a job in their area of specialty for a few years. Most people didn't like it and retired after those few years were over. But that was their choice to retire. So if it was someone like me who wants to be a theoretical physicist at any cost, I would have kept that job. But here in the US I don't have any such guarantees. The job of theoretical physics is highly competitive and so I have no idea if I will ever land one.

No, they didn't write about theoretical physics below those videos. But this concept extends to other things. Like they had guaranteed appartments that were simply given to them for free, and so forth. I think this is where you came up with an idea of "free vodka": they don't have to work since they will get their free appartment anyway. But like I just pointed out, to someone who DOES want to work, such as myself, I could get the job in my area of interest too. So someone who wants to be a theoretical physicist can be a theoretical physicist, someone who wants free vodka can have free vodka, and everyone is happy. Those comments below the videos weren't talking about either theoretical physics or vodka, but those are good examples that illustrate their point.

And by the way none of those comments talked about empire either. The types of comments that *could* be construed that way are the ones that talked about people dying in World War 2 for Soviet Union and then they stupidly wasted it in the 90-s; and yes there were plenty of those comments. But "dying for the Soviet Union" doesn't have to mean "dying for empire"; it could mean dying for the above things I listed. And in any case, I hope you agree it is nice they defeated Hitler.