Self-rule and Amnesty for Rebel-held Ukrainian territories

[Borachio]

Well, I suspected you might say as much. I'm not yet convinced. Maybe I'm too familiar with the EU to realize the truth, though.

 

[Akka]

I see Russia doing the same basic thing as the EU does. I just don't see it with the 'good guys/bad guys' filter that you use all the time.

I don't see EU invading countries to keep them vassalized, but I do see Russia doing it on a distressing basis. I'm afraid that's plain cold hard FACTS.
But then I guess you could pretend that reality is biased and use manicheist filters too.

The EU has just as much, if not more, tradition (and current involvement) in oligarchy as it has in democracy.

Yeah I'm sure that an authoritarian regime with a dreadful record of oligarchy is just on the same level as the EU. Absolutely no bias at all, and anyone who might attempt to show the blatantly obvious fact that it's not because one thing isn't perfect that it means it's just as bad as everything else, is just biased and manicheist too !

(because of course there is no manicheism in thinking in binary "it's either perfect or like the rest", no no, the manicheism is only in saying that your dear favourite might actually be worse than someone else)

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Well, I suspected you might say as much. I'm not yet convinced. Maybe I'm too familiar with the EU to realize the truth, though.

Most European nations beat the Russians by a century or so in the race to oust their monarchies, or at least disempower them. In the grand scheme of tradition, a century is not all that long. You are more familiar than me, but really, how fully rejected can oligarchy be when a major element of the government is still called the house of lords?

 

[Akka]

Well, I suspected you might say as much. I'm not yet convinced. Maybe I'm too familiar with the EU to realize the truth, though.

Or maybe he just sprouts BS (not that the EU is perfect ofc, just that it's nowhere near as comparable to much worse regime as he claims).

Don't let yourself be blinded by the golden mean fallacy. It's not because two people have opposite opinions that the truth is in the middle between them. Even if they both are biased and not totally right (which is about everytime, perfect objectivity is very extremely rare), it doesn't follow at all they are equally biased anyway.

 

[Agent327]

Most European nations beat the Russians by a century or so in the race to oust their monarchies, or at least disempower them. In the grand scheme of tradition, a century is not all that long. You are more familiar than me, but really, how fully rejected can oligarchy be when a major element of the government is still called the house of lords?

Yes, well, they're British, you know. But the House of Lords has in fact been democratized somewhat. Since the 19th century, that is. Anywho, the House of Lords isn't a EU institution.

This doesn't contradict with point I made. Diversification doesn't come out as a natural result of free trade. Free market regulations favor specialization of Russian economy on export of natural resources, and diversification requires the opposite things - state intervention in economy, subsidies.

Yes, well, 'free market' and 'free trade' are mostly a fairy tale.

Unfortunately the EU/US doesn't allow neutrality...you are either with them in their holy crusade against the evil Russians, or you're agin'em.

The EU (and NATO) were actually in the process of improving relations with Russia when Russia decided to foil relations. So I don't quite see where you get this 'holy crusade' thing of yours from.

 

[warpus]

Russia's dependence on natural resources is rather an outcome of free trade, free market regulations and its integration into world economy. For example, Norway has the similar dependence simply because it has a lot of oil. Drilling oil and mining other resources, investing in natural resources sector, is more profitable than doing other business, because other countries in the world need these resources and willing to pay money for them.

Either way, for better or for worse, it seems that the majority of Ukraine wants to move west-wards. Whether they're right or wrong, they seem to think that the future of their country lies in further integration with the west.

Again, was the EU indispensible? You'd figure sovereignty is worth more than some money.

We didn't lose our sovereignty. In fact, the move should help secure our sovereignty in the future. We're used to other countries marching in and taking it away from us - with this in place that is going to be a lot more difficult to achieve for someone who wants to mess us up.

You obviously have to make concessions when you sign a political and economic agreement. We also obviously got a lot more than just random bags of money. This is an investment for the future of the country, not just a one time payout.

By the way, the way sovereignty is spelled is stupid.

The problem in Ukraine is that SOME people want to move westward, while other people want to move eastwards, and other more sensible people want to maintain non-alignment. This whole mess started because the people wanting to move westwards pissed on those who want closer ties with Russia. In such a polarized environment the sensible course of action is neutrality, or otherwise civil wars might ensue.
Economically, since Russia covers 30% of imports and exports, neutrality is the only sensible option.

There seems to be a much stronger support for further integration with the west, but I'm not really basing that on anything other than my perception of the situation based on what I see in the media.

Do you have a source that supports what you're saying about only some of Ukraine wanting to move westwards? What's the breakdown exactly?

Neutrality could have been an option, but when it's so easy for a neighbour to come in and start screwing with your sovereignty.. .. It's not surprising the opinion starts changing from "maybe we should just remain neutral" to "I think we new friends"

But the problem is : will Ukraine survives long enough to benefit from this, or will it be ruined, bankrupt and maybe dismembered by then ?

Yeah, exactly. It's so hard to predict any of that, so we're just going to have to wait and see.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Yes, well, they're British, you know. But the House of Lords has in fact been democratized somewhat. Since the 19th century, that is. Anywho, the House of Lords isn't a EU institution.

19th century...and someone said the Russians were about a century late...hmmmm.

The EU (and NATO) were actually in the process of improving relations with Russia when Russia decided to foil relations. So I don't quite see where you get this 'holy crusade' thing of yours from.

The EU and NATO version of 'improving relations' is heavily loaded with 'improved for our side'...naturally enough. The best improvement for the EU would be exploitive access to Russian resources, and the best improvement for NATO would be Russian disarmament. Obviously the Russian perspective on 'improvement' is different.

As to the 'holy crusade' thing, it comes from a lifetime of watching people like Akka paint Russia as the source of all evil and then pat themselves on the back for being marginally better.

 

[Akka]

As to the 'holy crusade' thing, it comes from a lifetime of watching people like Akka paint Russia as the source of all evil and then pat themselves on the back for being marginally better.

It's funny how fast you goes back to your caricatures once you lose your footing. Someone just needs to have the (very reasonable) opinion that invading a country to keep it in vassalization is actually yes "wrong", and suddendly he's someone who has always painted Russia as the source of all evil.
(of course, if someone holds the exact same opinion for the same reasons against a country who isn't among your own pet favourites, then there is no problem about that : your self-proclaimed anti-hypocrisy, amusingly enough, is very tighty targeted)

It speaks for itself.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

It's funny how fast you goes back to your caricatures once you lose your footing. Someone just needs to have the (very reasonable) opinion that invading a country to keep it in vassalization is actually yes "wrong", and suddendly he's someone who has always painted Russia as the source of all evil.
(of course, if someone holds the exact same opinion for the same reasons against a country who isn't among your own pet favourites, then there is no problem about that : your self-proclaimed anti-hypocrisy, amusingly enough, is very tighty targeted)

It speaks for itself.

What would you do without Russia?

"We keep our vassals without resorting to invasion like Russia does, so we are the souls of righteousness."

Hilarious, if you weren't so sincere.

 

[red_elk]

Either way, for better or for worse, it seems that the majority of Ukraine wants to move west-wards. Whether they're right or wrong, they seem to think that the future of their country lies in further integration with the west.

This could be true for the entire Ukraine, but certainly not true for Crimea, which has overwhelming pro-Russian sentiments, and also probably the areas of South-East where rebellion happened. In any case, pro-Russian supporters in Ukraine are counted in millions and if they are not majority, it is not the reason to suppress and kill them.

 

[Borachio]

Most European nations beat the Russians by a century or so in the race to oust their monarchies, or at least disempower them. In the grand scheme of tradition, a century is not all that long. You are more familiar than me, but really, how fully rejected can oligarchy be when a major element of the government is still called the house of lords?

I'm not sure what advantage there is in calling it something else, or how much significance there is in the historical name. I'd say the "Lords" fulfill a similar function to "Senators". (Though there are undoubted differences. One system being a constitutional monarchy and the other a presidential whatsit.) You're talking about a system that has been in the process of transmutation over centuries and comparing it with the oligarchy of the Russian Federation which dates back to... er... 1991.

Sure, the Russian system has also been undergoing a process of transmutation over centuries, too. Including some really rather radical, and sudden, revolutions.

I don't know, to be honest. How far would you take this? "There's really no difference amongst all the various political systems we see in the world". Certainly, they all feature human beings at their heart. How do you feel about Pol Pot?

I mean, Putin served in the KGB for 16 years. Yet I suppose the guy had to make a living somehow.

Many of Putin's actions are regarded by the domestic opposition and foreign observers as undemocratic.[6] The 2011 Democracy Index stated that Russia was in "a long process of regression [that] culminated in a move from a hybrid to an authoritarian regime" in view of Putin's candidacy and flawed parliamentary elections.[

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Putin

 

[Akka]

What would you do without Russia?

"We keep our vassals without resorting to invasion like Russia does, so we are the souls of righteousness."

You just confirm the quote you answer to : someone dares to hold a negative opinion about your pet favourite ? Let's throw the unsubstanciated caricatures !

BTW, you're welcome to make a search on my posts dating from before Maidan to find evidence of your accusations.

Hilarious, if you weren't so sincere.

That's at least one thing I certainly have over you. I might be wrong, but at least I'm not an hypocrite. Better the former than the latter.

 

[warpus]

This could be true for the entire Ukraine, but certainly not true for Crimea, which has overwhelming pro-Russian sentiments, and also probably the areas of South-East where rebellion happened. In any case, pro-Russian supporters in Ukraine are counted in millions and if they are not majority, it is not the reason to suppress and kill them.

Wait a second, I never said that we should be killing anyone. The wishes of everyone should be respected, but in the end most of the country wants to move in that direction. That's why they're pushing for NATO and EU integration, eventually down the road.

 

[red_elk]

You didn't say it, this is what actually happening. The Kievan government's way to respect the wishes of pro-Russian population is shelling their cities.

 

[Akka]

You didn't say it, this is what actually happening. The Kievan government's way to respect the wishes of pro-Russian population is shelling their cities.

I guess it's the moment to remind everyone that the pro-Russian rebels are the one who actively prevented any way to know the real opinion of the population in the vicinity.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I'm not sure what advantage there is in calling it something else, or how much significance there is in the historical name. I'd say the "Lords" fulfill a similar function to "Senators". (Though there are undoubted differences. One system being a constitutional monarchy and the other a presidential whatsit.) You're talking about a system that has been in the process of transmutation over centuries and comparing it with the oligarchy of the Russian Federation which dates back to... er... 1991.

Sure, the Russian system has also been undergoing a process of transmutation over centuries, too. Including some really rather radical, and sudden, revolutions.

I don't know, to be honest. How far would you take this? "There's really no difference amongst all the various political systems we see in the world". Certainly, they all feature human beings at their heart. How do you feel about Pol Pot?

I mean, Putin served in the KGB for 16 years. Yet I suppose the guy had to make a living somehow.

I'm not claiming 'no difference', I just bounce on the assumptions of superiority. If someone in the US starts talking about Russian Oligarchs I generally point at Kennedy and Bush and Rockefeller...not because I think our oligarchs are particularly bad, just to counter the assumption that Russia is somehow uniquely bad.

Speaking of which...GHW Bush was the director of the CIA, and that didn't make him a bad president either.

 

[red_elk]

I guess it's the moment to remind everyone that the pro-Russian rebels are the one who actively prevented any way to know the real opinion of the population in the vicinity.

What is preventing any elections in the area, is the war started by Kievan government.

 

[Akka]

What is preventing any elections in the area, is the war started by Kievan government.

Russian reversal strikes again !
The rebels are the ones who threatened people who would vote, but somehow in the mouth of our resident propagandists, it becomes the opposite, as usual.

 

[red_elk]

Russian reversal strikes again !
The rebels are the ones who threatened people who would vote, but somehow in the mouth of our resident propagandists, it becomes the opposite, as usual.

The rebels are the ones who organized referendum in Donetsk and Lugansk regions in the first place. To ask people whether they want independence.
http://rt.com/news/158276-referendum-results-east-ukraine/

And here is how the people who wanted to vote, were treated by Ukrainian National Guard.
Krasnoarmeysk, 11 May


Link to video.

So, who was threatening people?

 

[Agent327]

The rebels are the ones who organized referendum in Donetsk and Lugansk regions in the first place. To ask people whether they want independence.
http://rt.com/news/158276-referendum-results-east-ukraine/

Would that be the same type of 'referendum' as was organized in the Crimea, one wonders.

The EU and NATO version of 'improving relations' is heavily loaded with 'improved for our side'...naturally enough. The best improvement for the EU would be exploitive access to Russian resources, and the best improvement for NATO would be Russian disarmament. Obviously the Russian perspective on 'improvement' is different.

Which has nothing to do with what I stated, which is that both the EU and NATO were in the process of improving relations with Russia, when Putin decided 'Nah, let's not.'

As to the 'holy crusade' thing, it comes from a lifetime of watching people like Akka paint Russia as the source of all evil and then pat themselves on the back for being marginally better.

So, basically, there is no 'holy crusade'. Which is what I said. By the way, copying someone else's perceived distortion of facts does not truth make.