Comparing Russia vs Ukraine to other countries

Page 1 of 11 [ 162 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 11  Next

QFT
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Jun 2019
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,333

13 Jun 2022, 6:53 pm

In one of my other threads I was saying how Russia and Ukraine are historically one country because it is Kievlian Rus. Then magz explained to me as to why my reasoning wasn't working. What she said is that today's Russia dates back not to Kievlian Rus as a whole but to a small part of Kievlian Rus -- namely Moscovite estate. Since Moscovite Estate used to be rather minor, thats why other estates don't like how Moscovite one ended up presiding over all of them. In other words, Ukraine won't have anything against resurrecting Kievlian Rus with Kiev as a capital; what it doesn't like is the fact that Moscow is the capital.

This is actually a really good point, I just didn't know it until magz told me. But here is a new question. If Moscovite estate used to be so small, how did it grow so large? My guess is that it was NOT because of reproduction but, instead, because it captured a bunch of other things, in a similar way as it captured Ukraine. A good example is Saint Petersburgh, which used to belong to Sweden. But then, wouldn't the case of returning St Petersburgh to Sweden be just as good as separating Ukraine into a different country? Yet the West seems just fine with St Petersburgh being part of Russia yet they have a major problem with Kiev being such. Why inconsistency?

The other thought that crossed my mind, is that this situation is not unique to Russia. Other countries with similar situtions include Czechoslovakia, which is a product of Czechs and Slovaks, Germany which sometimes takes Austria as part of its country and other times lets it separate; and even with Austria separate, it is still having lots of estates that are historically independent yet are part of one country. I am sure there are more examples. Yet nobody seems to have nearly as much problem with this. At least not enough of a problem to impose all those sanctions on those countries.

Probably the country that is the most analogous to the Russia, in this respect, would be India. Because you see, Moscovite estate is really small yet it holds all those other estates. Similarly, in India there are many different estates with many different local languages, yet all of them are dominated from Dehli. So, whatever local language group that Dehli belongs to, is dominating over all those other language groups. Much like Moscovite estate is dominating over all those other estates. So do you think all those Indian estates want to separate from Dehli, much like all the Russian estates want to separate from Moscow?

So then, if you want to keep Ukraine separate, then the most logically consistent way of doing so would be to let ALL Russian estates separate too and, IN ADDITION TO THAT, all Indian estates to separate as well. In other words, we should let both Russia and India to split into lots and lots small independent countries -- to the point that there are no "large" countries left, only a bunch of small ones. I mean all those independent countries would have just as much claim for their independence as today's Ukraine does.

I guess in America I can't make that exact case since I can't assign each state to each language group. But there is something else that is analogous, too. Remember the Civil War between Union and Confederate states? Today's Southern states, having Confederate heritage, are feeling oppressed by Northern states due to historically losing the war. Consequntly, there are some Southerners that want to secede. Actually there are two separate seccessionist ideas. One idea is "just" for Texas to secede. The other idea is for "all" Southern states to secede (in which case there won't be a need for Texas to go a separate way since Texas is perfectly fine being together with other Confederate states, it just wants to separate from Union states). But, unfortunately, neither of those two things are realistic in a foreseeable future simply because Washington -- which represents the power of Northern states -- won't let it happen.

Now, look at this double standard. On the one hand, they say its okay for Northern states to hold Southern states against their will yet, on the other hand, they say its not okay for Russia to hold Ukraine against its will? And before you say it is a silly analogy, lets look at gay marriage that was passed among all 50 states. Do you think Southern states are in favor of gay marriage? Nope. But they were forced to approve it. So how is Washington forcing Southern states to approve of gay marriage any better than Russia forcing Ukraine to do something it doesn't want to do?



The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,236
Location: Reading, England

15 Jun 2022, 2:28 am

The difference between St Petersburg and Kyiv is that the people in one city want to be Russian, and the people in the other city want to be Ukrainian.

National boundaries shouldn’t, in this day and age, be decided by force, but by the consent of the governed.

The American Civil War was fought because the Confederates wanted to keep slaves. It was the Confederates who fired on Fort Sumpter. All that being said, I would disagree with the prevailing attitude of the time that secession was inherently wrong. States should be allowed to secede from the Union. It would be very stupid (take it from someone whose “state” has seceded from a Union in the last few years), but the United States shouldn’t force its members to remain as long as their departure reflects the will of the people and isn’t going to lead to human rights being violated.



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 29,933
Location: temperate zone

15 Jun 2022, 3:40 am

The_Walrus wrote:
The difference between St Petersburg and Kyiv is that the people in one city want to be Russian, and the people in the other city want to be Ukrainian.



Yes. Thats the main thing.

But also...Sweden never owned the city of St. Petersburg anyway. The land upon which the City now stands was indeed ruled by the king of Sweden in the Seventeenth Century. But the city wasnt founded until much later- by the Czar Peter the Great, after Russia had seized the land from Sweden. And even when Sweden owned the empty piece of coastline upon which the city stands now- it was as part of a Swedish ruled Baltic empire (Sweden also ruled Finland and Estonia at the time). So even you were to make some flimsy legal claim that Russia doesnt own the town based up who owned it in the Seventeenth century it would be Finland, or Estonia, who would have any claim to the land, and not Sweden (Sweden isnt even anywhere near St. Petersburg. Its Finland tha borders the suburbs of St. Petersburg- not Sweden).

It would be like the US giving Disneyland in Orlando "back" to Spain (because all of Florida was once part of the Spanish Empire).



Last edited by naturalplastic on 15 Jun 2022, 4:22 am, edited 1 time in total.

magz
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jun 2017
Age: 37
Gender: Female
Posts: 14,392
Location: Poland

15 Jun 2022, 3:47 am

If we start to argue about historical national borders, I propose 1612.

But the real thing is, two world wars have teached Europe why it's a very bad idea to move its borders by force in modern times. The age of empires is over, replaced by the age of globalization, based on trade and treaties, not wars.
Russian imperialism that has started this war is anachronic. It belongs to times long gone. It needs to be cut short or it opens a Pandora's box of worldwide suffering, where every dictator can do the same to his neighbours.


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

<not moderating PPR stuff concerning East Europe>


SkinnedWolf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Mar 2022
Age: 23
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 1,533
Location: China

15 Jun 2022, 7:17 am

Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances

Quote:
According to the memorandum, Russia, the US and the UK confirmed their recognition of Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine becoming parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and effectively abandoning their nuclear arsenal to Russia and that they agreed to the following:

1.Respect Belarusian, Kazakh and Ukrainian independence and sovereignty in the existing borders.

2.Refrain from the threat or the use of force against Belarus, Kazakhstan or Ukraine.

3.Refrain from using economic pressure on Belarus, Kazakhstan or Ukraine to influence their politics.

4.Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to Belarus, Kazakhstan or Ukraine if they "should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used".

5.Refrain from the use of nuclear arms against Belarus, Kazakhstan or Ukraine.

6.Consult with one another if questions arise regarding those commitments.


_________________
With the help of translation software.

Cover your eyes, if you like. It will serve no purpose.

You might expect to be able to crush them in your hand, into wolf-bone fragments.
Dance with me, funeralxempire. Into night's circle we fly, until the fire enjoys us.


QFT
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Jun 2019
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,333

15 Jun 2022, 10:10 am

magz wrote:
The age of empires is over, replaced by the age of globalization


Actually the use of the word globalization only gives me another reason not to like it. Because it is commonly believed (by Christians both in Russia AND in America) that globalization is what will bring forth the antichrist.



QFT
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Jun 2019
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,333

15 Jun 2022, 10:13 am

SkinnedWolf wrote:
Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances
Quote:
According to the memorandum, Russia, the US and the UK confirmed their recognition of Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine becoming parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and effectively abandoning their nuclear arsenal to Russia and that they agreed to the following:

1.Respect Belarusian, Kazakh and Ukrainian independence and sovereignty in the existing borders.

2.Refrain from the threat or the use of force against Belarus, Kazakhstan or Ukraine.

3.Refrain from using economic pressure on Belarus, Kazakhstan or Ukraine to influence their politics.

4.Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to Belarus, Kazakhstan or Ukraine if they "should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used".

5.Refrain from the use of nuclear arms against Belarus, Kazakhstan or Ukraine.

6.Consult with one another if questions arise regarding those commitments.


I didn't know about that treaty.

It is also weird why they decided for Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine to give all their nuclear weapons to Russia. Its like they purposely made them weak and then decided to protect them as weak. Why make them weak to begin with?

Of course, I am strongly opposed to the nuclear war on the first place. I am just saying the whole thing seems humiliating.



QFT
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Jun 2019
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,333

15 Jun 2022, 10:22 am

The_Walrus wrote:
All that being said, I would disagree with the prevailing attitude of the time that secession was inherently wrong. States should be allowed to secede from the Union. It would be very stupid (take it from someone whose “state” has seceded from a Union in the last few years), but the United States shouldn’t force its members to remain as long as their departure reflects the will of the people and isn’t going to lead to human rights being violated.


So then why don't they impose sanctions on the US as a punishment for keeping confederate states against their will?



SkinnedWolf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Mar 2022
Age: 23
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 1,533
Location: China

15 Jun 2022, 10:30 am

QFT wrote:
It is also weird why they decided for Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine to give all their nuclear weapons to Russia. Its like they purposely made them weak and then decided to protect them as weak. Why make them weak to begin with?

Of course, I am strongly opposed to the nuclear war on the first place. I am just saying the whole thing seems humiliating.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances#Content
Quote:
Until Ukraine returned the Russian nuclear weapons stationed on its soil, it had the world's third-largest nuclear weapons stockpile, of which Ukraine had physical but no operational control. Russia controlled the codes needed to operate the nuclear weapons through electronic Permissive Action Links and the Russian command and control system, although this could not be sufficient guarantee against Ukrainian access. Formally, these weapons were controlled by the Commonwealth of Independent States. Belarus only had mobile missile launchers, and Kazakhstan had chosen to quickly return its nuclear warheads and missiles to Russia. Ukraine went through a period of internal debate on their approach.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Non-Proliferation_of_Nuclear_Weapons#First_pillar:_Non-proliferation
Quote:
Under Article I of the NPT, nuclear-weapon states pledge not to transfer nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices to any recipient or in any way assist, encourage or induce any non-nuclear-weapon state in the manufacture or acquisition of a nuclear weapon.

Under Article II of the NPT, non-nuclear-weapon states pledge not to acquire or exercise control over nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices and not to seek or receive assistance in the manufacture of such devices.

Under Article VI of the NPT, all Parties undertake to pursue good-faith negotiations on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race, to nuclear disarmament, and to general and complete disarmament.

https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Ukraine-Nuclear-Weapons
Quote:
By 1996, Ukraine had returned all of its nuclear warheads to Russia in exchange for economic aid and security assurances.


_________________
With the help of translation software.

Cover your eyes, if you like. It will serve no purpose.

You might expect to be able to crush them in your hand, into wolf-bone fragments.
Dance with me, funeralxempire. Into night's circle we fly, until the fire enjoys us.


Fireblossom
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jan 2017
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,417

15 Jun 2022, 1:16 pm

QFT wrote:
magz wrote:
The age of empires is over, replaced by the age of globalization


Actually the use of the word globalization only gives me another reason not to like it. Because it is commonly believed (by Christians both in Russia AND in America) that globalization is what will bring forth the antichrist.


Antichrist and stuff like that is religion, not politics, which is what borders of countries and moving them are, and the two should not be mixed.



magz
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jun 2017
Age: 37
Gender: Female
Posts: 14,392
Location: Poland

15 Jun 2022, 2:15 pm

I don't think christianity should be ever used to justify killing innocent people.


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

<not moderating PPR stuff concerning East Europe>


The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,236
Location: Reading, England

15 Jun 2022, 2:55 pm

QFT wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
All that being said, I would disagree with the prevailing attitude of the time that secession was inherently wrong. States should be allowed to secede from the Union. It would be very stupid (take it from someone whose “state” has seceded from a Union in the last few years), but the United States shouldn’t force its members to remain as long as their departure reflects the will of the people and isn’t going to lead to human rights being violated.


So then why don't they impose sanctions on the US as a punishment for keeping confederate states against their will?

Because the Civil War ended 150 years ago.



The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,236
Location: Reading, England

15 Jun 2022, 3:02 pm

QFT wrote:
magz wrote:
The age of empires is over, replaced by the age of globalization


Actually the use of the word globalization only gives me another reason not to like it. Because it is commonly believed (by Christians both in Russia AND in America) that globalization is what will bring forth the antichrist.

So two things:

1) isn't the coming of the Antichrist a good thing? It means the Kingdom of God is imminent.

2) globalisation is a very broad term. Do aeroplanes bring the Antichrist? What about peace treaties? Starbucks?



Misslizard
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jun 2012
Age: 58
Gender: Female
Posts: 17,839
Location: Aux Arcs

15 Jun 2022, 3:07 pm

The Antichrist will arrive on an airplane swilling a Starbucks pumpkin spice latte and wearing Prada.


_________________
I am the dust that dances in the light. - Rumi


QFT
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Jun 2019
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,333

15 Jun 2022, 9:32 pm

The_Walrus wrote:
1) isn't the coming of the Antichrist a good thing? It means the Kingdom of God is imminent.


Well, I don't really want Kingdom of God to be immenent. For one thing, once it comes, then most people would go to hell and only few would make it into the kingdom. If I was God, I wouldn't set up that way. But since I am not God, I can't tell God what to do. So since God set it up so as most people go to hell, I want to postpone it as much as possible. And who knows hopefully few more people would get a chance to get saved.

The_Walrus wrote:
2) globalisation is a very broad term. Do aeroplanes bring the Antichrist? What about peace treaties? Starbucks?


Directly, no, but indirectly all of the things you listed sort of do. Starbucks trains people not to like natural food and like all that artificial stuff. Now, antichrist would also be very artificial: microchip implants are artificial, global control is artificial, etc. Does it mean eating at starbucks is a sin? Nope. I was eating at starbucks all the time before I started to worry about possible pre-diabetes. But starbucks plays a role in social conditioning.

As far as airplanes, let me give you a different example. Is scientific advancement good or bad? I say good: I am a theoretical physicist. Yet its bad: it allowed for nuclear bomb. So good can be used for bad. Same with airplanes. In and of themselves, there is nothing wrong with them. But they can be used to track down people, or emit chemtrails, or all sorts of other things, and that is bad.

So none of what you listed is inherently bad but it all can and is being used in a bad ways. Particularly in conditioning people for coming antichrist.

If people never ate in macdonalds and never flew the plane, etc. they won't accept microchip implant. But if they did all those other things, then some of them might. As long as we draw a line and make sure to avoid the actual implant, we are good. But a lot of people won't draw that line, since the conditioning will desensitize them.



QFT
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Jun 2019
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,333

15 Jun 2022, 9:35 pm

The_Walrus wrote:
QFT wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
All that being said, I would disagree with the prevailing attitude of the time that secession was inherently wrong. States should be allowed to secede from the Union. It would be very stupid (take it from someone whose “state” has seceded from a Union in the last few years), but the United States shouldn’t force its members to remain as long as their departure reflects the will of the people and isn’t going to lead to human rights being violated.


So then why don't they impose sanctions on the US as a punishment for keeping confederate states against their will?

Because the Civil War ended 150 years ago.


As I mentioned, there are people living in the southern states today that wish their states were to secede. Yet their proposals are not even being considered. Hence the question: why doesn't international community put a pressure on the US to consider the proposals of secessionist groups. After all, it puts a pressure on Russia to consider the opinion of Ukrainians.