Ukraine Protests

Status
Not open for further replies.
#2,127
#2,127
volprof said:
A joke, Grand Vol?
Click to expand...


Burhead said:
Georgia.
Click to expand...

Actually, the Georgians started that one.

It's a strange situation with South Ossetia with the autonomous republic/district thing, but the Georgians moved in and the Russians countered.

Technically Afghanistan wouldn't be correct either since it was the Soviets. If we want to get specific, the Russians haven't invaded anyone since East Prussia in the early days of WWI.
 
#2,128
#2,128
Grand Vol said:
Actually, the Georgians started that one.

It's a strange situation with South Ossetia with the autonomous republic/district thing, but the Georgians moved in and the Russians countered.

Technically Afghanistan wouldn't be correct either since it was the Soviets. If we want to get specific, the Russians haven't invaded anyone since East Prussia in the early days of WWI.
Click to expand...

You're simplifying things quite a bit here. Saying that the Georgians are to blame for the Russo-Georgian War (or South Ossetian War) is akin to blaming the Russians for invading Chechnya and Dagestan. Do you blame Russia for keeping the Northern Caucasus in check? Seems to me that it's the same difference and one which would refute your claim that Russia has not invaded anyone since Prussia. As if every invasion launched by the Soviet Union wasn't a Russian invasion. Smh.
 
Last edited:
#2,129
#2,129
volprof said:
You're simplifying things quite a bit here. Saying that the Georgians are to blame for the Russo-Georgian War (or South Ossetian War) is akin to blaming the Russians for invading Chechnya and Dagestan. Do you blame Russia for keeping the Northern Caucasus in check? Seems to me that it's the same difference and one which would refute your claim that Russia has not invaded anyone since Prussia. As if every invasion launched by the Soviet Union wasn't a Russian invasion. Smh.
Click to expand...

Are Chechnya and Dagestan other nations? Were they "invaded" in the classic sense?

And actually, Georgia provided the provocative moves in South Ossetia. Which in turn provoked a Russian reaction.

The other Russian vs Soviet was a bit of levity. So sorry you missed it...
 
#2,131
#2,131
interesting take on Putin from Clinton

Bill Clinton: Putin ‘highly intelligent’ with skewed sense of greatness – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

Former President Bill Clinton says that Russian President Vladimir Putin is a "highly intelligent" leader but he has a flawed perception of his country's greatness and his quest for power comes at a cost to ordinary Russian citizens. "Here's what I think about Putin. First of all, he is highly intelligent, deeply, deeply patriotic in terms of Russia but he sees it more in the terms of the greatness of the state and country than what happens to ordinary Russians," Clinton said Sunday at the Global Education & Skills Forum in Dubai.
Click to expand...
To Putin's credit, Clinton called the Russian leader "always pretty transparent" from his experience in dealing with the country. "I found in dealing with him and, by the way, most other leaders with whom I had differences that it was best to be brutal with them in private and be honest because they respected you if you were," Clinton said.
Click to expand...

I found this part to be the most relevant based on recent statements from our Pres.

Clinton, who took office shortly after the fall of the Soviet Union and end of the Cold War, said the most effective way to gain respect from leaders like the Russian president is to "avoid embarrassing them in public."
Click to expand...

The forum in Dubai preceded Obama's warning Monday to Russia that "Further provocations will achieve nothing except to further isolate Russia and diminish its place in the world."
Click to expand...
 
#2,133
#2,133
Ron Paul: Crimea secedes. So what?

Residents of Crimea voted over the weekend on whether they would remain an autonomous region of Ukraine or join the Russian Federation. In so doing, they joined a number of countries and regions — including recently Scotland, Catalonia and Venice — that are seeking to secede from what they view as unresponsive or oppressive governments.

These latter three are proceeding without much notice, while the overwhelming Crimea vote to secede from Ukraine has incensed U.S. and European Union officials, and has led NATO closer to conflict with Russia than since the height of the Cold War.
Click to expand...
Critics point to the Russian "occupation" of Crimea as evidence that no fair vote could have taken place. Where were these people when an election held in an Iraq occupied by U.S. troops was called a "triumph of democracy"?
Click to expand...
Perhaps the U.S. officials who supported the unconstitutional overthrow of Ukraine's government should refocus their energies on learning our own Constitution, which does not allow the U.S. government to overthrow governments overseas or send a billion dollars to bail out Ukraine and its international creditors.
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#2,134
#2,134
Grand Vol said:
Are Chechnya and Dagestan other nations? Were they "invaded" in the classic sense?

And actually, Georgia provided the provocative moves in South Ossetia. Which in turn provoked a Russian reaction.

The other Russian vs Soviet was a bit of levity. So sorry you missed it...
Click to expand...

South Ossetia belonged to Soviet Georgia. Perhaps it belonged to the Russian Empire before then (I'd have to look it up); nonetheless, it was a part of Soviet Georgia, as I understand.

I guess I really don't see the difference between Georgia invading South Ossetia and Russia "invading" the Northern Caucasian republics, but I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree on that matter.

And I figured you were joking, which is why I also pulled out my first "Smh" in my message board history. But, admittedly, he had me covered just in case.
 
#2,136
#2,136
volprof said:
South Ossetia belonged to Soviet Georgia. Perhaps it belonged to the Russian Empire before then (I'd have to look it up); nonetheless, it was a part of Soviet Georgia, as I understand.

I guess I really don't see the difference between Georgia invading South Ossetia and Russia "invading" the Northern Caucasian republics, but I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree on that matter.

And I figured you were joking, which is why I also pulled out my first "Smh" in my message board history. But, admittedly, he had me covered just in case.
Click to expand...

Before you pass judgment on the whole South/North Ossetia thing and Russia "invading" Georgia, here's some reference to poke through:

1991

Sochi agreement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Georgian

And for reference:

At the time of the dissolution of the USSR, the United States government recognised as legitimate the pre-Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact 1933 borders of the country (the Franklin D. Roosevelt government established diplomatic relations with the Kremlin at the end of that year).[5] Because of this, the George H. W. Bush administration openly supported the restoration of independence of the Baltic SSRs, but regarded the questions relating to the independence and territorial conflicts of Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan and the rest of the Transcaucasus — which were integral part of the USSR with international borders unaltered since the 1920s — as internal Soviet affairs.
Click to expand...

Bold emphasis added by me.
 
#2,141
#2,141
An interesting look at the Russian populations in other nations that surround Russia:

20140117_TRANS_0.png
 
#2,144
#2,144
Velo Vol said:
What's interesting is that a lot of Russians are trying to get out.

Russia is seeing an emigration exodus - Los Angeles Times
Click to expand...

The wave of emigration, which has included large numbers of educated Russians, has grave implications for a country of 142 million with a death rate significantly higher than its birthrate. A study published this year by the Berlin Institute for Population and Development called Russia a waning power and predicted its population would shrink by 15 million by 2030.

Experts believe that 100,000 to 150,000 people now leave the country annually and warn that the exodus reached dangerous dimensions in the last three years.

"People are going abroad for better college education, for better medical help, for better career opportunities, believing they will come back someday, but very few actually do," said Dmitry Oreshkin, a political analyst with the Institute of Geography. "The intellectual potential of the nation is being washed away, as the most mobile, intelligent and active are leaving."

Lev Gudkov, head of Levada, also sees a political dimension. "The worst thing is that people who could have played a key role in the modernization campaign proclaimed by the Kremlin are all leaving," Gudkov said. "But it appears that the Kremlin couldn't care less if the most talented, the most active Russians are emigrating, because their exodus lifts the social and political tension in the country and weakens the opposition."
Click to expand...

Looked closer at your article. Very revealing, although a bit dated. I highly doubt any of this has changed though, which just proves to me further that Putin "looks" like the "most successful" actually defective leader in the world at the moment. Murder will out eventually though. Just needs some time.
 
#2,145
#2,145
Grand Vol said:
An interesting look at the Russian populations in other nations that surround Russia:

20140117_TRANS_0.png
Click to expand...

I don't see the Baltic States falling victim to this for the obvious reason (NATO), and even Kazakhstan would be a tough grab. Although I'm not sure what its old Soviet leader's relationship currently is with Moscow, it's still a nuclear power. Plus, you don't just stroll into the same nation that gave us Borat and think you're going to make out easy.
 
#2,147
#2,147
Grand Vol said:
We'll agree to disagree here.
Click to expand...

I guess I should clarify that I distinguish between nationalism and patriotism. Also, yes, nationalism can be rational in the sense that it allows for greater strength in numbers, assessing one's state of affairs, determining what will work best for their nation (or even themselves in some cases) vis a vis the international community, and acting upon this determination. In that sense, yes, nationalism is rational and even moral, I suppose. So, I overstated things a bit in my earlier post.

Nonetheless, nationalism can be incredibly irrational. And, indeed, I would argue it (along with ethnocentrism as a smaller-scale version) has contributed to the majority of the world's wars since at least the mid-1800s. I think we'd all be better off with a little less nationalism and a little more patriotism.
 
Last edited:
New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Advertisement



Back
Top