Jump to content

Ukraine and Russia where will this go? AKA Ukraine VIII


Ser Scot A Ellison

Recommended Posts

In this case the comparisons make sense though, even if they are overblown. Even using the negative interpretation of Godwin's Law which so many seem to like, it still wouldn't apply here.

How do the comparisons make sense other than the fact that Russia annexed Crimea?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

KREM RUSSIYA SOKU ZEREYESHU

THIS HAS BEEN A LESSON IN YELLING THINGS IN RUSSION WHILE DRUNK

I WILL NOT REMEMBER THIS TOMORROW

Err... "Cream Russia juice... [the fourth word is not easily interpreted as anything in Russian]"? I suspect you're more drunk than you thought. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do the comparisons make sense other than the fact that Russia annexed Crimea?

The fact that it's an annexation by a foreign power with the given reasoning being uniting people of a "common race".

The you throw in the fact that the annexation comes at least in part from a powerful country that took a bit of a spill from the top tiers and is trying trying to regain it's former station and feels slighted by other european powers because they are considered the root cause of that spill and also the rest of europe/the world is just hoping it ends there and they don't have to do anything.

The parallels are not terrible useful, but they are certainly extremely obvious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact that it's an annexation by a foreign power with the given reasoning being uniting people of a "common race".

The you throw in the fact that the annexation comes at least in part from a powerful country that took a bit of a spill from the top tiers and is trying trying to regain it's former station and feels slighted by other european powers because they are considered the root cause of that spill and also the rest of europe/the world is just hoping it ends there and they don't have to do anything.

The parallels are not terrible useful, but they are certainly extremely obvious.

Today is almost view as common Historical wisdom that the victorious Allies put on terrible harsh terms to Germany and is seen as major contributing factor to rise of such virulent Nationalism. Do you see anything similar in that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Today is almost view as common Historical wisdom that the victorious Allies put on terrible harsh terms to Germany and is seen as major contributing factor to rise of such virulent Nationalism. Do you see anything similar in that?

No, which is why I phrased it to show that the similarities here are how the annexing nation felt, rather then the truth of that feeling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, which is why I phrased it to show that the similarities here are how the annexing nation felt, rather then the truth of that feeling.

No, the phrasing is that the Annexing Nation feelings are to be belittled and dismissed. You are stating how invalid it is, and it is from a place of avoiding one's failure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, the phrasing is that the Annexing Nation feelings are to be belittled and dismissed. You are stating how invalid it is, and it is from a place of avoiding one's failure.

The hell are you on about? The phrasing is that the annexing nation feels that the rest of europe is to blame for their situation. Whether you think it's accurate or not does not enter in to anything I said in that paragraph. That's just you projecting on to what was written.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

- use violent revolution to take power

- Russian sponsored

- hate America

- are nostalgic about the Warsaw pact.

I wonder which ideology is most likely to fit this description...

none of that is intrinsic to marxism, and hating 'america' is not even incidental.

indeed. Marx wasn't an America-hater at all - he nearly became a Texan.

I fail to see how violent revolution isn't inherent to Marxism, given that I can't think of a single Marxist-inspired regime which didn't use violence to come to power and didn't rely on violence to stay in power.

While I admit that I didn't read Marx himself, all those who actually tried to put his ideas into practice (Lenin, Stalin, Mao, etc...) all openly advocated violence as the way to go. (To be fair, violent revolution is not specific to Marxism, but is instead a requirement for all totalitarian ideologies, since they seek to unmake the existing society and remake it according to their own ideals by any means necessary, including the physical elimination of those groups of people who don't fit into the "new order").

As for the other 3 points (anti-US, pro Russia, pro Warsaw pact), they don't mean very much individually, but together I took them as a reference to the former communist block.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I fail to see how violent revolution isn't inherent to Marxism, given that I can't think of a single Marxist-inspired regime which didn't use violence to come to power and didn't rely on violence to stay in power.

Sweden? Norway? The Netherlands? United Kingdom? Kerala? Chile? Germany? France?

EDIT: Seriously, I think you have a very skewed idea of how influential Marx has been. I suspect the countries that have had marxist-inspired governments in western democracies vastly outnumber those who have not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sweden? Norway? The Netherlands? United Kingdom? Kerala? Chile? Germany? France?

EDIT: Seriously, I think you have a very skewed idea of how influential Marx has been. I suspect the countries that have had marxist-inspired governments in western democracies vastly outnumber those who have not.

Well he's probably American, and we are taught the history of revolutionary thought as an idiot's cartoon.

And saying Marx-influenced and Marxist are different things.

I do think "Marxist" implies violent revolutionary. Violence was the crux of the argument between Bakunin (i.e. liberal/anarchist socialists) and Marx (i.e. communist/violent socialists). There was a lot of cross-pollination between socialists of all types in those days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well he's probably American, and we are taught the history of revolutionary thought as an idiot's cartoon.

If you are talking about me, I said in the previous thread that I'm from Romania, so I had the misfortune of seeing the after effects of a genuine Marxist regime (not some watered-down "Swedish model" stuff) up close and personal, as I grew up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well he's probably American, and we are taught the history of revolutionary thought as an idiot's cartoon.

And saying Marx-influenced and Marxist are different things.

I do think "Marxist" implies violent revolutionary. Violence was the crux of the argument between Bakunin (i.e. liberal/anarchist socialists) and Marx (i.e. communist/violent socialists). There was a lot of cross-pollination between socialists of all types in those days.

Not really, Bakunin was fine with violence. (he IS pretty much the archetype of the "Bomb-throwing anarchist" stereotype, unlike Kropotkin) thier differences has more to do with, shock, organization and the role of the state.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In other news, the US has given Moldova $10M for a rather odd reason:




The United States is giving ex-Soviet Moldova $10 million to strengthen security on its border with Ukraine, Washington's top diplomat in Europe Victoria Nuland said Sunday.




Why is it odd? Because Moldova doesn't actually control the part of that border which matters. It's controlled by the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic and by the Russian military. I am puzzled about the real purpose of this money. It can't be to organize protests -- the Moldovan government is already aligned with the West. It also can't be to arm Moldova: it's not nearly enough for even a token resistance against Russia. The overwhelming majority of the $10M is almost certainly going to wind up lining the pockets of Moldovan government officials, but it's not clear at all whom or why.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Russia seems to have very firm ideas for how the Ukrainian government ought to be structured:

http://m.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26814651

From the article:

Moscow claims that "fascists" have taken power in Ukraine, jeopardising the safety of Russian speakers.

Mr Lavrov told Russian state TV before the crisis talks on Sunday that Ukraine should come up with a new constitution "providing for a federal structure" and neutrality.

I have no doubt, now, that were Ukraine to be offered NATO membership Russia will be "a'coming".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Things are looking bright for Crimea: http://en.ria.ru/russia/20140331/188913841/Medvedev-Announces-Sweeping-Crimea-Development-Plan.html



A lot of extra funding from Russia, concrete plans are an special (low) tax-rate, investments in tourism, vineyards, roads and cheaper flight tickets to attract more Russian tourists. They'll also get higher wages, higher pensions... If that isn't gonna make the other Ukrainians jealous while they are paying the heavy loans back to the IMF, all the while also paying 50% more to the Russians for the gas. Not saying it proves that Ukraine would be better off with Russia, but I'm fairly sure Russia will try to paint the picture like that. And that's some good new for the Crimeans.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Things are looking bright for Crimea: http://en.ria.ru/russia/20140331/188913841/Medvedev-Announces-Sweeping-Crimea-Development-Plan.html

A lot of extra funding from Russia, concrete plans are an special (low) tax-rate, investments in tourism, vineyards, roads and cheaper flight tickets to attract more Russian tourists

How did that work out for South Ossetia?

ATOTSI, Georgia — As Crimeans danced in the streets this week, giddy at the prospect of being gathered into Russia, few were watching as closely as the residents of the tiny mountainous enclave of South Ossetia, who, five and a half years ago, were similarly ecstatic.

On the day in 2008 when Russia formally recognized the enclave as independent of Georgia, young men hung out of their car windows, waving Russian flags and spraying pedestrians with Champagne. Officials daydreamed about building an economy based on tourism, like that of Monaco or Andorra....

“During the first winter, we still thought, ‘The war just ended,’ ” she said. “By the second winter, frustration had taken root. When the third winter came, everything was clear.”...

As in Crimea, the war was presented to Russians as a humanitarian effort to protect its citizens, and more broadly as a challenge to encirclement by the United States, which was aligned with Georgia. Television stations gave the intervention blanket coverage, and it was wildly popular in Russia, lifting the approval ratings of Dmitri A. Medvedev to the highest point of his presidency.

The aftermath of recognition, however, has presented Russia with a long series of headaches. This week, economists have warned repeatedly that Crimea, if it is absorbed, will prove a serious drag on Russia’s budget, but their arguments have been drowned out in the roar of public support for annexation.

Aleksei V. Malashenko, an analyst at the Carnegie Moscow Center, said Russian officials “will be shocked” with the challenges they face when trying to manage Crimea — reviving its economy, distributing money and influence among its ethnic groups, and trying to control the corruption that accompanies all big Russian projects. And, judging from precedent, the public’s euphoria will fade, he said...

But within a few months of Russia’s recognition, shivering through the winter behind windows made of plastic sheeting, people began to wonder when the billions of rubles of aid pledged by Russia would reach them. The answer seems to have been that much of it was stolen: Mr. Malashenko said he estimated that 30 percent of the aid pledged by Russia had reached its target...

Russia’s federal audit chamber found that six months after the conflict, only $1.4 million had been spent on reconstruction out of a disbursement of $55 million in priority aid. By last year, the chamber estimated that $33 million had been lost or misused.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26822475




Russian President Vladimir Putin has ordered a "partial withdrawal" of troops from the border with Ukraine, the German government has said.



Mr Putin informed Chancellor Angela Merkel of the move in a telephone conversation, according to her office.



Thousands of Russian soldiers are still said to be deployed along the border.






Stuff seems to be calming down a bit. The Russians are still blabbing on about Ukraine become a more federalist state, but Ukraine has told them to fuck the hell off in diplomatic speak.



Suggestions are that the economic sanctions are hurting.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...