You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 03, 2016, 08:06:34 PM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: Ukraine  (Read 13716 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Dice

  • Ooh, shiny.
  • Lord
  • Seducer
  • *
  • Join Date: Jun 2014
  • Location: Middle of nowhere, Australia
  • Gender: Male
  • Autocorrect will do its thing. Sorry about that.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 2
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #500 on: August 28, 2014, 10:26:09 AM »
"They did it so it is ok that we do it too?" Sorry, I do not agree with that logic.

Offline Dashenka

Re: Ukraine
« Reply #501 on: August 28, 2014, 10:31:00 AM »
I didn't say that. I don't agree with Zakharra's statement.

Somebody should do something in Ukraine because it was getting out of hand. Civilians were bombed, starved and otherwise oppressed by both parties. Russia steps in. Shame for the rest of the world it's not on the side they should want, but at least they are doing something. More than can be said about other countries who are too busy fighting their own people of ISIS.

Offline Qt

Re: Ukraine
« Reply #502 on: August 28, 2014, 10:42:24 AM »
I'm in no way supporting Russia's involvement in Ukraine, however one has to be very foolish to deny US involvement. I guess many of you here do not actually believe that the previous government was thrown out in a coup and that was the one that the US and EU rushed to support the new government, nor to you admit that the US has spend around 5 billion dollars to bring about regime change in Ukraine.

I'd say the US is as involved in Ukraine as Russia is. The only difference is the US involvement is carried out through proxy of the current Ukrainian government, since you know... they are the US supported government.

In anycase, I still argue that no country is a greater risk to global security than the US, due to US's demonstration of its power projection to almost any part of the global, example of past conflicts, and its very high military expenditure. Russia's conflicts had always been very close to Russian borders.

Offline Zakharra

Re: Ukraine
« Reply #503 on: August 28, 2014, 11:39:51 AM »
  The US did not absorb/annex Iraq. Russia HAS annexed/absorbed part of Ukraine; the Crimean being a part of Russia decades ago isn't relevant since it for 5 decades or so it was a part of Ukraine. Remember Russia voluntarily gave up the Crimea to Ukraine. IF the eastern parts of Ukraine successfully separated, I don't give them a snowballs chance in hell of remaining independant. They would have a 'fair' vote and would be absorbed by Russia. Either way, there is a difference between US involvement (I wonder why so many of you are focusing so much on the US and not the EU which is a hell of a lot closer to Ukraine and Russia) and Russian involvement. There are no US troops in Ukraine, any support seems to be limited to official aid to the government of Ukraine via intelligence and information (I haven't heard of any US material aid being given to Ukraine by anyone), while Russia is aiding the rebels with arms and equipment and now troops. Considering Russia admitted it flat out lied about there not being any Russian soldiers (spec ops or otherwise) in the Crimean area before the referendum and annexation, I'm not inclined to believe them when they say there are not Russian soldiers helping the rebels in Ukraine. They've lied before and there's no reason to believe they are telling the truth now.

Offline Dashenka

Re: Ukraine
« Reply #504 on: August 28, 2014, 11:58:30 AM »
Every super power lies. This shouldn't be news. Every superpower plays landgrab, this is no news either.

As I said before, when the UN or America does it, it's fine or at least the world stays quiet about it, when the big bad Russia does it, it's a crime and illegal.

Nobody of course agrees with this but it's how I think about it. When the UN or Nato or whoever took Kosovo from Serbia because the people wanted it, everything was fine but when Russia takes the Crim away from Ukraine because the people want it, everybody gets mad.

Gonna say it again, this whole conflict isn't about Ukraine or Crim or the Ukrainian people, it's about making Russia look bad.

Offline Iniquitous

Re: Ukraine
« Reply #505 on: August 28, 2014, 12:32:02 PM »
One, the US has not made a land grab. We have not annexed or absorbed any "new" land in the gods know how long. Two, Russia makes itself look bad. Look at it this way - you live in a duplex townhouse, your family is violently fighting because some of them want to leave, go live next door AND take their rooms with them. Now the people who live next door WANT your family members to come over because them coming over brings new rooms to their place so they actively break into your place to help those that want to leave.

Who's at fault here? The person who is trying to keep their home in one piece? Or the people breaking in and trying to help tear about the home? A sovereign land has the right to defend it's borders - another country moving into that sovereign land without permission of that country's government is invading and that is a hostile act. If there are people who do not wish to be part of Ukraine then they need to pack their shit and move to Russia. Simple as that.

Offline Dashenka

Re: Ukraine
« Reply #506 on: August 28, 2014, 01:39:41 PM »
One, the US has not made a land grab. We have not annexed or absorbed any "new" land in the gods know how long. Two, Russia makes itself look bad.

One. Nobody said they did.
Two. Russia only makes itself look bad in western press.

To the people in Ukraine, Russia's making itself look like the saviour. Ukraine joining the EU is now further away then ever simply because the EU forced their will upon half the country and now it will never join. Stands to reason that Yanukovich didn't make such a poor decision in rejecting the EU, he knew that half of the country would never accept it. Yet the EU kept pushing and pushing, with this as a result.

Then Kerry opened his mouth and spewed his ignorance into the world, only adding more oil to the fire and then everybody said to Russia, 'You shall stay away'. Everybody knows what happens when you a tell a slightly megalomaniacal world leader he cannot do it. Bush invaded Iraq, Putin 'invaded' Crim. History repeats itself but it would be humble from the US government to at least acknowledge that what Russia is doing, is something the US has been doing for decades. Though humble is not something the American government has not heard of yet.

Ukraine is in a civil war, the only country helping, one way or another, is Russia. For a country claiming they are after world peace, the USA has been very low on options on how to achieve peace in Ukraine and not very humbly in condemning Russia. That is a choice the US government made. I just wonder how long the average American will take their government serious for when that government says they have a leading role in a stable world but yet does nothing in a country in civil war. I know the reason to that but nobody wants to hear it.

Putin's not the messiah but he says what he does and stands to defend his point of views, something Obama has never done yet and something Bush never bothered to do. Don't be jealous at Russia for having a strong leader who stands up for his people and his country, because frankly, no other western country has that. Don't blame the Russians for your governments incompetence. Blame your government for not standing up to defend their ideals or their own people.

EU wants Ukraine to join the EU but when the shit hit the fan, the EU does nothing, although it clearly states that when an EU nation is under attack of some sort, ALL OTHER EU nations are legally bound to help that nation out. So really, the only reason the EU wants Ukraine in the EU, is to piss off Russia. If they wanted to stabilize the country, they would have already done so.

And now Russia is pissed off and it's costing the EU billions of Euro's in trade deals.

I say well done EU for screwing your own citizens. I hope they're proud of you when their farming company goes bankrupt. I hope you got a good explanation why they are bankrupt because of your incompetence and ignorance. Chapeau. Bravo. Well bloody done.

Offline Dice

  • Ooh, shiny.
  • Lord
  • Seducer
  • *
  • Join Date: Jun 2014
  • Location: Middle of nowhere, Australia
  • Gender: Male
  • Autocorrect will do its thing. Sorry about that.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 2
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #507 on: August 28, 2014, 01:47:19 PM »
Massive protests to join the EU, does not sound to me like anyone was tricked. That was a choice.

I know that others want to go join Russia and I feel is there equal right too. In all, this is complex but it is not as simple as saying someone was tricked.

Offline Iniquitous

Re: Ukraine
« Reply #508 on: August 28, 2014, 02:35:39 PM »
The way I view it is if the Ukraine wants to have a civil war, let them battle it out and kill themselves. The US does not need boots on ground there. Of course, I am damn close to being an isolationist.

Also, the US is cutting back on it's military - discharging current active duty soliders and not enlisting new people. By downsizing we dont have the soliders to send over. And quite frankly, I dont approve of sending money - we have issues here at home that need to be tended to.

My point still stands. If people do not want to be in the Ukraine then they should move their happy asses to Russia.

Offline Sabby

Re: Ukraine
« Reply #509 on: August 28, 2014, 02:38:35 PM »
Dashenka, could you provide an example of America forcibly absorbing anything nearby since it became known as the United States? I mean, you did reference such events with "When America does it", so I'd like to know exactly when it did that.

Online TheGlyphstone

Re: Ukraine
« Reply #510 on: August 28, 2014, 02:41:43 PM »
Dashenka, could you provide an example of America forcibly absorbing anything nearby since it became known as the United States? I mean, you did reference such events with "When America does it", so I'd like to know exactly when it did that.

Hawaii wasn't exactly a shining gold star in our book, but I don't think that is what you meant. ;D

Offline Dashenka

Re: Ukraine
« Reply #511 on: August 28, 2014, 03:05:14 PM »
Dashenka, could you provide an example of America forcibly absorbing anything nearby since it became known as the United States? I mean, you did reference such events with "When America does it", so I'd like to know exactly when it did that.

Where did I say that? I think I meant the US has put boots on the ground and according to Zakharra, putting military forces into another country is absorbing that country. Not my words :)

Offline ladia2287

Re: Ukraine
« Reply #512 on: August 28, 2014, 04:35:57 PM »
Quote
To the people in Ukraine, Russia's making itself look like the saviour.

I find this statement interesting, and would like to understand how you have come to this conclusion?

I won't deny that some residents of the Ukraine identify more with Russia than they do with Ukraine. Much in the same way that I, a person born and bred in Australia, identify more with the countries my parents were born in. Does this mean that if those countries were to interfere with Australian politics, either overtly or covertly, that I would support them? Probably not, and it's even less likely that I would view them as a Savior, even if Australia were to be plunged into civil war.

Russian politics has made no secret of their intentions to annex Ukraine as a whole and the reason why the world is concerned is because of the worry of history repeating itself. Russia was not exactly kind to citizens of the former USSR states.

Offline Zakharra

Re: Ukraine
« Reply #513 on: August 28, 2014, 07:54:35 PM »
Where did I say that? I think I meant the US has put boots on the ground and according to Zakharra, putting military forces into another country is absorbing that country. Not my words :)


So when American troops landed in Iraq, it was to absord parts of Iraq?

Seems legit.

  Reading comprehension is your friend. I never said the US has sent soldiers to Ukraine, just some aid (and aid does not always mean soldiers) in the form of satellite imagery, intelligence and NATO is adding some of its assets to help, but as far as I know, none of the NATO nations are sending soldiers. So there is a bloody big difference between the aid NATO and the EU is sending and what Russia is sending.

 The US invasion of Iraq was not to annex it, we've proven that. However Russia's intention is to annex the eastern parts of Ukraine (if they do get free, I will bet you any amount of money that within 6 months, they would be a part of Russian, not the Russian Federation, but a part of Russia). Russia wants that territory for itself and if it can get it, it will go after other territories using the excuse of 'helping protect the ethnic Russian population, or some such crap. Right now, Russia is somewhat justifying its actions because the Ukraine government is killing its citizens.  Well duh... some of the citizens, a minority mind you, are rebelling against the Ukrainian government, so of course people are going to die when the government moves in to retake the rebelling areas.

 
Quote
To the people in Ukraine, Russia's making itself look like the saviour. Ukraine joining the EU is now further away then ever simply because the EU forced their will upon half the country and now it will never join. Stands to reason that Yanukovich didn't make such a poor decision in rejecting the EU, he knew that half of the country would never accept it. Yet the EU kept pushing and pushing, with this as a result.

 *snip*

 
EU wants Ukraine to join the EU but when the shit hit the fan, the EU does nothing, although it clearly states that when an EU nation is under attack of some sort, ALL OTHER EU nations are legally bound to help that nation out. So really, the only reason the EU wants Ukraine in the EU, is to piss off Russia. If they wanted to stabilize the country, they would have already done so.

And now Russia is pissed off and it's costing the EU billions of Euro's in trade deals.

I say well done EU for screwing your own citizens. I hope they're proud of you when their farming company goes bankrupt. I hope you got a good explanation why they are bankrupt because of your incompetence and ignorance. Chapeau. Bravo. Well bloody done.

 And Russia didn't flip out when it looked like Ukraine was going to sign an agreement with the EU? The last minute switch of the then president to Russia smells awfully like Russia did flip out and offer some sort deal.

 As for half the country not wanting to be with the EU (I doubt it was half the population, just a large minority), well at least the same percentage of the population WANTED to have closer ties to the EU. Ever think of that? You're saying that Yanukovich made a good decision in rejecting the EU offer, of course you'd say that, because it would have brought Ukraine further under Russian control. You are literally dismissing a large section of the population that does not want to be tied closer to Russia because it fits your patriotic viewpoint. In your view, Russia isn't doing -anything- wrong, even as it actively meddles in a neighboring country because it wants to bite off chunks of it.

 You are acting on a conspiracy theory in the underlined section. You have no proof of that other than what you wish it to be. It seems you are taking the viewpoint in almost everything here is the world is against Russia. If so, ever think on WHY the world might be against Russia? It's certainly not for the stellar and upright government Russia has, or it's powerful and humming economy, or its trustworthy leaders and government. Maybe it's because Russia has acted like a bloodthirsty, dictatorial thug in the not too distant past. If the EU didn't need Russia's oil and gas, I am sure the EU and the rest of  Cenbtral Europe would be more than willing to cut Russia loose and let it be by itself.

 And for the record, this situation in Ukraine is costing Russia far more than its costing the EU in Euros. Russia needs to sell its oil and gas it its economy more or less collapses.


 Here's something someone linked to me. It's an excerpt from a letter given by ambassador Molotov to the Polish Ambassador on the eve of the Soviet invasion in 1939:
Quote
The Polish-German War has revealed the internal bankruptcy of the Polish State. During the course of ten days' hostilities Poland has lost all her industrial areas and cultural centres. Warsaw, as the capital of Poland, no longer exists. The Polish Government has disintegrated, and no longer shows any sign of life. This means that the Polish State and its Government have, in point of fact, ceased to exist. In the same way, the Agreements concluded between the U.S.S.R. and Poland have ceased to operate. Left to her own devices and bereft of leadership, Poland has become a suitable field for all manner of hazards and surprises, which may constitute a threat to the U.S.S.R. For these reasons the Soviet Government, who has hitherto been neutral, cannot any longer preserve a neutral attitude towards these facts.

The Soviet Government also cannot view with indifference the fact that the kindred Ukrainian and White Russian people, who live on Polish territory and who are at the mercy of fate, should be left defenceless.

In these circumstances, the Soviet Government have directed the High Command of the Red Army to order troops to cross the frontier and to take under their protection the life and property of the population of Western Ukraine and Western White Russia.

At the same time the Soviet Government propose to take all measures to extricate the Polish people from the unfortunate war into which they were dragged by their unwise leaders, and enable them to live a peaceful life.

 The underlined is my doing.  This is fairly close to the same language Russia used to justify its actions in Crimea and is increasingly close to what its said about its intervention in the eastern areas; to protect the citizens. It's a precedent that seems all too familiar to those who study history and who live in countries that have felt the heavy hand of the Russians throughout history.


Offline Qt

Re: Ukraine
« Reply #514 on: August 29, 2014, 06:11:52 AM »
  The US did not absorb/annex Iraq. Russia HAS annexed/absorbed part of Ukraine; the Crimean being a part of Russia decades ago isn't relevant since it for 5 decades or so it was a part of Ukraine. Remember Russia voluntarily gave up the Crimea to Ukraine. IF the eastern parts of Ukraine successfully separated, I don't give them a snowballs chance in hell of remaining independant. They would have a 'fair' vote and would be absorbed by Russia. Either way, there is a difference between US involvement (I wonder why so many of you are focusing so much on the US and not the EU which is a hell of a lot closer to Ukraine and Russia) and Russian involvement. There are no US troops in Ukraine, any support seems to be limited to official aid to the government of Ukraine via intelligence and information (I haven't heard of any US material aid being given to Ukraine by anyone), while Russia is aiding the rebels with arms and equipment and now troops. Considering Russia admitted it flat out lied about there not being any Russian soldiers (spec ops or otherwise) in the Crimean area before the referendum and annexation, I'm not inclined to believe them when they say there are not Russian soldiers helping the rebels in Ukraine. They've lied before and there's no reason to believe they are telling the truth now.

US invaded Iraq on the claim that it has weapons of mass destruction when in fact it more likely invaded Iraq to preserve petrodollar status since Iraq wanted to switch trading oil using Euros. Someone has mentioned before how the Russia uses oil and natural gas to gain leverage against it's former USSR countries and the EU, but no one even bats an eye when the US forces all oil deals to be done in its currency. Also I don't see the real difference between setting up puppet governments compared to straight up annexing. That's pretty much what the US did in Ukraine.

The reason why Russia looks bad, is because due to the lack of large economy like the US and effectively profiting from the two world wars of the previous century, Russia's current sphere of influence is much much smaller than the US. The US has more "friends" whom will all point fingers at the designated enemy whereas Russia is pretty isolated now, at least compared to when the Warsaw Pact was in tact.

Also did you guys know that the UK's Nuclear policies are pretty much completely reliant on the US? I'd say UK may as well be another state of the US given I don't see it having a foreign policy of its own. None will say the US annexed the UK(because it obviously hasn't). My question is, if the US can have countries obey it without annexing, then is there a need?

Offline consortium11

Re: Ukraine
« Reply #515 on: August 29, 2014, 06:55:59 AM »
And Russia didn't flip out when it looked like Ukraine was going to sign an agreement with the EU? The last minute switch of the then president to Russia smells awfully like Russia did flip out and offer some sort deal.

To be fair here you also have to point out that it was suddenly dropped on Ukraine that as a condition for signing the agreement they would have to take out a further, huge IMF loan and comply with the associated conditions (notably significant budget cuts and an eventual increase in gas tariffs within Ukraine by 40%). I have no doubt that Russia played real politique and offered it's own incentives as well... but countries have been known to occasionally stand up to the IMF on their own.

Offline Zakharra

Re: Ukraine
« Reply #516 on: August 29, 2014, 09:09:37 AM »
US invaded Iraq on the claim that it has weapons of mass destruction when in fact it more likely invaded Iraq to preserve petrodollar status since Iraq wanted to switch trading oil using Euros. Someone has mentioned before how the Russia uses oil and natural gas to gain leverage against it's former USSR countries and the EU, but no one even bats an eye when the US forces all oil deals to be done in its currency. Also I don't see the real difference between setting up puppet governments compared to straight up annexing. That's pretty much what the US did in Ukraine.

The reason why Russia looks bad, is because due to the lack of large economy like the US and effectively profiting from the two world wars of the previous century, Russia's current sphere of influence is much much smaller than the US. The US has more "friends" whom will all point fingers at the designated enemy whereas Russia is pretty isolated now, at least compared to when the Warsaw Pact was in tact.

Also did you guys know that the UK's Nuclear policies are pretty much completely reliant on the US? I'd say UK may as well be another state of the US given I don't see it having a foreign policy of its own. None will say the US annexed the UK(because it obviously hasn't). My question is, if the US can have countries obey it without annexing, then is there a need?


 There are differences though. Russia is known for using very strong arm tactics to get what it wants. After all it used force to keep Hungary in the Soviet sphere and the Warsaw Pact, it built the Iron Curtain, not to keep people out (that was a benefit), but to keep people in It didn't want its citizens leaving. There are numerous countries that have stood up to the US and not been invaded or attacked. France actually left NATO for awhile and suffered no repercussions, and nowadays, if Mexico allied to Russia, there is little the US would do other than tighten its southern border (I hope. I HATE how unsecure the Democrat party likes to keep the southern border.) There might be some trade consequences depending on how close the Mexican/Russian relationship was, but unless Mexico became belligerent, there would be no military response to/in Mexico unless Mexico made a move against the US.

 When the Soviet system fell, it's very indicative of how hated Russia was when many nations in the defunct Warsaw Pact turned to the west rather than keep allied to Russia. If Russia had had a decent system, why did so many of its former 'allies' drop it like a hot rock?  If Europe could, they would drop their dependance on Russia's oil and gas.

 Despite your insistence there's a huge difference between having governments ally with the US and annexing the country. For one thing, governments change and control of the direction of the country can change directions. An annexation means a lot more direct control, not less.  So the UK is not a US state and you'd be a fool to consider it one. 

  Honestly though I don't think you do, I think you are just reaching for excuses to equivalent the US to Russia in abuses and territorial ambitions. The US doesn't have any territorial ambitions, Russia does and like a mean petulant child, it should be slapped down for what it's doing. At the least, it's troops in Ukraine should be dealt with like the rebels are being dealt with.

Offline ShadowFox89

Re: Ukraine
« Reply #517 on: August 29, 2014, 03:28:42 PM »
Dashenka, could you provide an example of America forcibly absorbing anything nearby since it became known as the United States? I mean, you did reference such events with "When America does it", so I'd like to know exactly when it did that.

 Texas says hi.

Offline Dashenka

Re: Ukraine
« Reply #518 on: August 29, 2014, 03:50:10 PM »
If Russia had had a decent system, why did so many of its former 'allies' drop it like a hot rock?  If Europe could, they would drop their dependance on Russia's oil and gas.

Which former allies are you talking about?

At the least, it's troops in Ukraine should be dealt with like the rebels are being dealt with.

They probably will be.

Online TheGlyphstone

Re: Ukraine
« Reply #519 on: August 29, 2014, 04:45:11 PM »
Texas says hi.

Texas is a bad example - a lot of Texans wanted to become part of the US, but it was a nuclear political football because of how disruptive it would be to the slave state/free state stalemate. It was negotiated unilaterally by Polk, but we didn't annex it at gunpoint.

As I mentioned upthread, Hawaii would be more appropriate. That was a blatant economic land grab against the will of the natives and presiding government, which we strongarmed to benefit the plantation owners.

Offline Qt

Re: Ukraine
« Reply #520 on: August 29, 2014, 07:47:09 PM »

 There are differences though. Russia is known for using very strong arm tactics to get what it wants. After all it used force to keep Hungary in the Soviet sphere and the Warsaw Pact, it built the Iron Curtain, not to keep people out (that was a benefit), but to keep people in It didn't want its citizens leaving. There are numerous countries that have stood up to the US and not been invaded or attacked. France actually left NATO for awhile and suffered no repercussions, and nowadays, if Mexico allied to Russia, there is little the US would do other than tighten its southern border (I hope. I HATE how unsecure the Democrat party likes to keep the southern border.) There might be some trade consequences depending on how close the Mexican/Russian relationship was, but unless Mexico became belligerent, there would be no military response to/in Mexico unless Mexico made a move against the US.

Strong arm tactics are what the US uses, once again I ask... which country spends more on military? Which countries has invaded more in the last 50 years when you compared Russia and the US? As for Mexico allying with Russia, there's just no incentives. Also the tighter border control is mostly due to the difference in economy and GDP percaptia, when the difference is too big people will try flock to the richer ones.

Also I'm pretty damn sure that if Russia starts to funnel money into Mexico in hopes of getting an uprising and regime change the US would have no hesitation in occupying Mexico until the Russia supported groups are eliminated.


 When the Soviet system fell, it's very indicative of how hated Russia was when many nations in the defunct Warsaw Pact turned to the west rather than keep allied to Russia. If Russia had had a decent system, why did so many of its former 'allies' drop it like a hot rock?  If Europe could, they would drop their dependance on Russia's oil and gas.


They did so because of money. The communist system is just horrible in terms of economy, people turned to the west for money. Hell even Russia and China are using capitalist economy models now. There nothing moral about it. They hated their bad living standards and wanted better.

As for the oil and gas reliance? That's a good thing, I think once the world is truly economically linked, then stupid things like sanctions and wars wouldn't be so easy to wage. Of course each country would be less independent but that just put emphasis on everyone to work together rather than be exclusive.


 Despite your insistence there's a huge difference between having governments ally with the US and annexing the country. For one thing, governments change and control of the direction of the country can change directions. An annexation means a lot more direct control, not less.  So the UK is not a US state and you'd be a fool to consider it one. 

  Honestly though I don't think you do, I think you are just reaching for excuses to equivalent the US to Russia in abuses and territorial ambitions. The US doesn't have any territorial ambitions, Russia does and like a mean petulant child, it should be slapped down for what it's doing. At the least, it's troops in Ukraine should be dealt with like the rebels are being dealt with.

The same way governments can gain control, annexations could eventually be reversed, so what's your point?

As for UK isn't a state, I'm not saying it is. But I am saying that UK doesn't have its own nuclear policies, UK's policies are an extension of US Nuclear policies, just a testament to US influence. As for territorial ambitions, I do admit the US doesn't have an ambition of putting the US flag on countries it tramples over, it doesn't change the fact that flag or no flag, the US influence is there.

One other thing I wish to ask the Pro-US/EU people, do you really believe that the IMF is going to go easy on Ukraine? The IMF is notorious for being a international loan shark. It just puzzles me how you think the Ukrainian people is going to be better off being a debt slave.

Offline kylie

  • Bratty Princess of Twisty, Creeping Secrets. Frilly | Fussy | Framed | Dreamy | Glam | Risky | Sporty | Rapt | Tease | Ironic | Shadowed | Struggling | Whispery | Bespelled
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: Somewhere in the future.
  • Darkly sweet femme for rich & insidious scenarios.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #521 on: August 29, 2014, 09:08:05 PM »
          Well Dash is right that the US ended up well off in financial and industrial terms after WW2, and has largely cruised on that.  Whereas Russia seems more capable these days at playing more 19th century "spheres of influence" talk.  All of which leads to a sort of:  We can't win your rigged game, but we're just big enough that you probably wouldn't care to bother come beating us at ours.  So nyah nyah. 

          Though that is still tough cookies for much of Ukraine, except those particular corners that want to be spoken of as "New Russia."  And since this thing has been loaded with military action in those areas, no one is going to agree about how many people exactly that is.  I suppose if the rebellion doesn't expand, we will see in time if there is any insurgency to speak of against Kiev anywhere much west of Donbass, or not.

          They are still different games, when it comes to Ukraine.  However corrupt the international system, a trade agreement is not a military occupation -- though Russia sure comes out appearing to act like it had lost one, already.  Despite Eastern Europe not becoming the economic darlings of the EU, they are not so eager to have Russia reoccupy them all militarily by force.  Quite in the face of claims of Russia having had so many "friends" in the Warsaw Pact days.  That might work a little better for clients in the Middle East receiving lots of Soviet weapons -- and, Syria is still going... 

          Sure, at one time the US conquered everything from Native American tribes in the Southeast (the Cherokee, anyone)...  All the way to seizing Mexican settlements in the Southwest.  On into turning half the Pacific Ocean into tributary states which might resemble a page from the ancient Chinese playbook.  And yes in more contemporary times, the US is fairly selective about when to intervene (Kosovo, Libya) and when to ignore or stand aside (Rwanda, Bahrain). 

         But then Donetsk is not Kosovo.  There was no sense of serious threat of ethnic cleansing in east Ukraine.  While the threat even in Kosovo may have been overestimated, that is somewhat understandable in the wake of the rhetoric and violence that did fly around in the previous Bosnia war.  By contrast:  The Russian banter about Right Sector, at least as it is directed at the West, came out after Yanukovich fell and at the same time Crimea was outright annexed (not merely intervened in).  And now the Tartars may feel quite insecure, speaking of historical ethnic tensions. 

         And ranting on that anyone who dares oppose Russian policy, 'must be a Nazi' only serves to distance the West further and raise beliefs that Russia will continue to deploy troops and disrupt or occupy whatever it wishes.  One thing I appreciate Dash for is at least being (sometimes) direct about the realpolitik angle of this, and not always attempting to claim it's all some local theatrical remake of the German Eastern Front.

          If you believe the world has not evolved that much since the 19th century territorial tugs of war over pride and resources, so be it...  Perhaps in certain ways it has not.  But I'm not sure Russia can get so far at that game either.  I know, I know, people in the region have been living on bread -(or it's bread at least in Georgia now, I assume there was some similar standby for centuries) and stiff upper lip for ages.  Bravo defiance.  It still leads to a whole lot of added hardship for Ukraine, and not only the ones who preferred to be affiliated with Russia.  (Under whatever immediate Kremlin propaganda and occupation that we can't properly count them, but anyway.) 

          I don't know if the West and the IMF would have been very nice in the long run either...  I imagine some things would have improved and some might have remained depressed a la the former East Germany.  (Though I don't see them trying to break away over it?)  But you can default on debt and protest in the street to some extent.  (See Greece.)  How do you default on a military occupation?  How do you get back the people who were killed when a big neighbor kept sending weapons and now even, companies to fight?  How much can you really protest against Kremlin policies these days? 
   
« Last Edit: August 29, 2014, 09:20:45 PM by kylie »

Offline Qt

Re: Ukraine
« Reply #522 on: August 29, 2014, 10:08:39 PM »
          Well Dash is right that the US ended up well off in financial and industrial terms after WW2, and has largely cruised on that.  Whereas Russia seems more capable these days at playing more 19th century "spheres of influence" talk.  All of which leads to a sort of:  We can't win your rigged game, but we're just big enough that you probably wouldn't care to bother come beating us at ours.  So nyah nyah. 


It really comes down to the capitalist system being vastly superior to whatever the communists were cooking up. Looks at Germany and Japan, both completely wrecked in WW2, yet emerged to become the second and third largest economies during the 80s.

As for sphere of influence... the US's sphere of influence is pretty much the entire world. Most countries only concerns themselves over regional disputes, the US is there wherever in the world. All the military expenditure isn't just for show.

          Sure, at one time the US conquered everything from Native American tribes in the Southeast (the Cherokee, anyone)...  All the way to seizing Mexican settlements in the Southwest.  On into turning half the Pacific Ocean into tributary states which might resemble a page from the ancient Chinese playbook.  And yes in more contemporary times, the US is fairly selective about when to intervene (Kosovo, Libya) and when to ignore or stand aside (Rwanda, Bahrain). 

         But then Donetsk is not Kosovo.  There was no sense of serious threat of ethnic cleansing in east Ukraine.  While the threat even in Kosovo may have been overestimated, that is somewhat understandable in the wake of the rhetoric and violence that did fly around in the previous Bosnia war.  By contrast:  The Russian banter about Right Sector, at least as it is directed at the West, came out after Yanukovich fell and at the same time Crimea was outright annexed (not merely intervened in).  And now the Tartars may feel quite insecure, speaking of historical ethnic tensions. 


The US had no business in Kosovo or Libya.

American exceptionism right there, it's okay when the US does it, it's "different" it's for the good of the world. But when Russia or any other country that does it, it's a big no no. They are just evil and trying to take over the world.

          If you believe the world has not evolved that much since the 19th century territorial tugs of war over pride and resources, so be it...  Perhaps in certain ways it has not.  But I'm not sure Russia can get so far at that game either.  I know, I know, people in the region have been living on bread -(or it's bread at least in Georgia now, I assume there was some similar standby for centuries) and stiff upper lip for ages.  Bravo defiance.  It still leads to a whole lot of added hardship for Ukraine, and not only the ones who preferred to be affiliated with Russia.  (Under whatever immediate Kremlin propaganda and occupation that we can't properly count them, but anyway.) 

The world hasn't evolved, take a good look at the UN security council. Russia, US, France, UK and China, five big countries having the power to veto. Now might I ask, how come they get more of a say? Is that not a showing of 19th century thought?

Offline kylie

  • Bratty Princess of Twisty, Creeping Secrets. Frilly | Fussy | Framed | Dreamy | Glam | Risky | Sporty | Rapt | Tease | Ironic | Shadowed | Struggling | Whispery | Bespelled
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: Somewhere in the future.
  • Darkly sweet femme for rich & insidious scenarios.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #523 on: August 29, 2014, 11:00:23 PM »
Quote from: Qt
It really comes down to the capitalist system being vastly superior to whatever the communists were cooking up. Looks at Germany and Japan, both completely wrecked in WW2, yet emerged to become the second and third largest economies during the 80s.
          They were well organized and the USSR does not appear to have managed a great internal economy...  Though also:  While the Cold War was already starting, the US dumped massive funding and new equipment into both Germany and Japan.  And proceeded to provide a great deal of their defense for those decades.  While Russia had to rebuild half the country after a hard, scorched-earth war.  And worked to suppress rebellions against its preferred figureheads in Eastern Europe. 

           Sometimes it's easy to stay ahead if you have a huge start?  It seems to work for some wealthy families in the US, too.  Hoard, reinvest, and keep hoarding...  And when in doubt, take some of it and voila refinance!  Refinance much of the modern world, in the case of the US and the international monetary system.

Quote
As for sphere of influence... the US's sphere of influence is pretty much the entire world. Most countries only concerns themselves over regional disputes, the US is there wherever in the world. All the military expenditure isn't just for show.
         I sympathize to an extent.  The US can use freedom of navigation in rather dubious ways for example, as you often hear China upset about now...

         And yet oddly, for all this time since the Bay of Pigs, the US has not gotten around to invading Cuba.  It didn't even put up a serious effort with Nicaragua in the 80's (Iran-Contra seems like a strange little stumble then, doesn't it).  Hell, there hasn't even been an attack on Syria so far (though I've sometimes wondered about just why not).  The US doesn't simply go around invading because it can.  And it doesn't seem to assume that a regime nearby being friendly to Russia, makes a dire need to put in ground troops.  Though I would grant you, relations with those regimes have been less than stellar.  There have been attempts to isolate or destabilize many of them (rather secretly I think, though I was quite young re: the worst I've heard of Latin America and more informed Americans were often aware and sometimes protested these). 

         A question for comparison might be:  Will things like the Russian mothers demanding answers about Ukraine, have any potential for brewing a political movement that could actually force Putin to remove support from the Donetsk rebels?  Is Putin really liable to face an Iran-Contra style investigation over Ukraine?  If not, then I suggest that Russian policy is perhaps somewhat more fixated on strong central control and occupation of territory (as opposed to mostly financial or technical influence).  And that is more what I mean by 19th century style.
     
Quote
The US had no business in Kosovo or Libya.
        I dunno, there I'm more inclined to say Russia seems awfully content to have some really messy conflicts brewing in its neighboring areas...  Bosnia, Syria -- not to mention Afghanistan.  Today it just happens to be Ukraine, and the West has shown a lot of restraint.  (You suppose this one might not rage on for years?)  It's tough not to see at least some humanitarian interest, after these things rage on for so many years and as the bodies and crimes pile up. 

       Sure, one can fuss over exactly when and how decisions are made and what else ends up being pursued along the way.

Quote
American exceptionism right there, it's okay when the US does it, it's "different" it's for the good of the world. But when Russia or any other country that does it, it's a big no no. They are just evil and trying to take over the world.
       
        I do understand roughly how the sentiment builds...  But I think you want to be able to convince people that you're looking at cases of precisely the same behavior.  And there it can get messy finding agreement about what we're looking at.

Quote
The world hasn't evolved, take a good look at the UN security council. Russia, US, France, UK and China, five big countries having the power to veto. Now might I ask, how come they get more of a say? Is that not a showing of 19th century thought?
         It might be a bit more 1940's...  Seeing as Russia gets to be on it?  I seem to recall Russia was considered pretty unmentionable around say, the time of the First World War.  And this sort of goes against the rest of what you're saying...  How much American exceptionalism would it really take to kick Russia and China out, call a new organization and do without all those vetoes?

          But you're right, it has long been mentioned as one example of a rapidly aging, and many would say obsolete setup (if not precisely archaic). 

          Too bad for Putin, though.  If only he could live before was it, 1952...  No Crimea problem for him, and he could have had all his lovely vassal states and himself stay focused on trying to get serious nuclear weapons and such.  Maybe he's born in the wrong time?  He does have something of an uphill fight. 
« Last Edit: August 29, 2014, 11:06:38 PM by kylie »

Offline Zakharra

Re: Ukraine
« Reply #524 on: August 29, 2014, 11:58:23 PM »
Which former allies are you talking about?

They probably will be.

 Poland, the Baltic States, East Germany, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, Romania, Ukraine. They didn't like being under Russian rule and have been looking west rather than east.

 
Quote
They did so because of money. The communist system is just horrible in terms of economy, people turned to the west for money. Hell even Russia and China are using capitalist economy models now. There nothing moral about it. They hated their bad living standards and wanted better.

 I think it was more than money. More like a desire to be free. Free to speak out, to express ones opinion without being kidnapped and shot by some KGB type. T be free to leave if one wanted to, to have an actual voice in choosing a leader and not have one essentially chosen for you. So I'd say it was more than a desire for mere money that many of Russia's allies turned to the west rather than stay with Russia.