|
|
friendofgunnar
Honorable
Legendary Hero
able to speed up time
|
posted April 25, 2014 08:12 AM |
|
|
For what it's worth I think there should be a plebescite on independence. Not really sure why the political forces here in the US are so against it. All the tumultuous post-crimea events could have been avoided if there was some type of honest assesment about eastern Ukraine's desire to secede.
Speaking of which, if all the Russian speaking parts seceded and formed a 'buffer' state, what would it be called?
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted April 25, 2014 08:49 AM |
|
|
|
FriendOfGunnar, dividing Ukraine was not in Russia's interest and still isn't. Moscow would have a much greater use of a unified country which it can influence as a whole than a divided country, part of which is inaccessible for it. The issue for the Russians is the foreign military presence near their borders, they simply can not afford to have one more NATO place d'armes close to their mainland, especially if it denies them full access to Black Sea (hence Crimea). It's not the same for the US/NATO though. If Eastern Ukraine secedes, the Western part will certainly become a NATO member some time in the future. If it doesn't secede, there will still be no problem to organize events like the current ones under the umbrella of democracy and whatnot, especially given that the Russian puppets are far from nice people (as are the Western ones but people normally have delusions about such pseudo-revolutionaries for quite some time after they bring them to power).
|
|
friendofgunnar
Honorable
Legendary Hero
able to speed up time
|
|
posted April 25, 2014 09:36 AM |
|
|
Quote:
FriendOfGunnar, dividing Ukraine was not in Russia's interest and still isn't
?
wasn't a plebescite for independence the main demand for all the Russian speaking separatists that seized the government buildings in eastern Ukraine?
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted April 25, 2014 09:57 AM |
|
|
|
That's a tool to racketeer the Kiev government and its allies when needed. Of course Russia would prefer to see Eastern Ukraine secede if there is no other way to regain its influence in the country as a whole but in general that would not help it in the long run because it will lose its proxies on external territory and will have no other mean to stop NATO's advance in the country than a straight-forward invasion before that happens. Strategically that won't help it one bit.
|
|
seraphim
Supreme Hero
Knowledge Reaper
|
|
posted April 25, 2014 10:41 AM |
|
|
friendofgunnar said:
Speaking of which, if all the Russian speaking parts seceded and formed a 'buffer' state, what would it be called?
Name: Eastern Narnia
Capital: Nuclear submarine
Religion: Dont piss of russians, or else...
West ukraine will also change its name
Name: Groß Deutschland
Capital: Neu Berlin
Religion: Burn all the juice.
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 25, 2014 12:47 PM |
|
Edited by xerox at 12:48, 25 Apr 2014.
|
I think Donetskt may end up being annexed in the coming month, but not the rest of eastern Ukraine. Zenofex is right about dividing Ukraina benefitting the West rather than Russia.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
ihor
Supreme Hero
Accidental Hero
|
|
posted April 25, 2014 09:40 PM |
|
|
|
Even in the East of Ukraine younger people tend to support West more, while older feel some nostalgia about USSR. In my opinion if nothing major happens then after few generations Ukraine might join NATO even in current borders. So likely Russia will anyway get another NATO neighbor. So what is best for them: take few regions now or wait and take nothing later? My opinion is that Russia is indeed interested in dividing Ukraine and they'd like to take as more regions as they can.
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 25, 2014 10:26 PM |
|
Edited by xerox at 22:32, 25 Apr 2014.
|
yes unless the EU royally screws itself up, I'm convinced Ukraina will end up joining the West
but from Putin's perspective, the risk of having a NATO member next door in 50 years is better than having one for sure in 10 years
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
Aron
Known Hero
|
|
posted April 26, 2014 03:51 PM |
|
|
Apparently the loan package has some very interesting figures attached to it. It suggests halving pensions and wages. Pensions are to be halved to 80 dollars per month putting them at the level of Pakistan. I sorta missed this. I mean I knew it was bad but hungry tummies sure are a great motivator for sticking heads on poles. I think that if Russia and the east can hold out for a few more months for the EUropean parliament elections to happen where nationalists and radical socialists are predicted to get huge gains then coupled with internal distress the new government of Kiev is sure to fall.
The only sure bet is a CDU dominated Germany. I wonder what Merkel will do when facing a Front National controlled French faction and a Syriza controlled Greek one for example. Perhaps focus back on the issues in the EU?
____________
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 26, 2014 03:55 PM |
|
Edited by xerox at 15:55, 26 Apr 2014.
|
The Front National are are probably going to make huge gains in the EU elections due to the failure of the French socialist government but they have a long way to go before they control all of France. Nationalist and socialist parties are together estimated to get about 20% of the seats in the European Parliament.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
Aron
Known Hero
|
|
posted April 26, 2014 04:06 PM |
|
Edited by Aron at 16:28, 26 Apr 2014.
|
I doubt it. Depends how you classify some parties though like UKIP or even Syriza.
But we see huge gains possible in Spain (Huge gains expected for Anti-Capitalist factions) UK (UKIP-Isolationists???) Greece (SYRIZA, GA and one more party), Italy (Fascists and the populist protest vote of the 5 star movement), Czech Republic (Communists), Finland (True finns), Sweden (Swedish Democrats and Left expected to take over seats from among others Pirates), Croatia (Labour Party), Ireland (Sinn Fein), Denmark (Huge gains for Eurosceptic Left and Right).
edit: Perhaps we need to get rid to this archaic definition of socialism and nationalism in these issues. In general I think what we are seeing is the growth of radical populism from all sectors of the spectrum.
Meaning it is generally anti-elitist, communitarian, reactive to others and progressive in itself and perhaps the one thing all these groups have in common with each other is that they are anti-globalist.
They seem to dislike global corporations, the global financial system, the unipolar or even multipolar world view of politics, supranational legislation and they seem to favour protectionism. In the left often from an anti-capitalist and environmentalist perspective and in the right from a nationalist perspective.
____________
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted April 26, 2014 04:48 PM |
|
Edited by Zenofex at 18:19, 26 Apr 2014.
|
ihor said:
Even in the East of Ukraine younger people tend to support West more, while older feel some nostalgia about USSR. In my opinion if nothing major happens then after few generations Ukraine might join NATO even in current borders. So likely Russia will anyway get another NATO neighbor. So what is best for them: take few regions now or wait and take nothing later? My opinion is that Russia is indeed interested in dividing Ukraine and they'd like to take as more regions as they can.
What for? I really don't get how can this kind of thinking can survive even the simplest arguments against it. The biggest country in the world, with huge supplies of raw materials, needs more territory? What is it going to do with it?
Let's be rational, Russia doesn't need an inch of Ukrainian land. It needs security. Annexing even more territory is not going to bring it any security, it will just give it another neighbour willing to join a potentially hostile (or at leas unfriendly) alliance. You really underestimate Putin and his crew if you think that their goals are so basic. Crimea happened only because the Russians felt threatened by the events in Kiev in February and the badly disguised attempts of certain Western countries to extract maximum benefits from them, which still continue (and are not even disguised any more).
For Moscow, the perfect Ukraine is one which never joins NATO, provides safe and reliable transit for the gas pipelines and is generally friendly to Russia, most likely with its puppet at the head of the state. The worst Ukraine on the other hand would resemble Poland in a way - a largely Russophobic NATO member, gladly giving its territory for military uses to a potential enemy, of course led by a Western puppet. And if you are smart enough, you'll try to create one Ukraine which balances between these two and benefits from both of them. No chance that this will happen immediately but that's pretty much the only way to avoid being someone's colony or military base.
|
|
Aron
Known Hero
|
|
posted April 26, 2014 04:55 PM |
|
|
Zenofex said:
ihor said:
Even in the East of Ukraine younger people tend to support West more, while older feel some nostalgia about USSR. In my opinion if nothing major happens then after few generations Ukraine might join NATO even in current borders. So likely Russia will anyway get another NATO neighbor. So what is best for them: take few regions now or wait and take nothing later? My opinion is that Russia is indeed interested in dividing Ukraine and they'd like to take as more regions as they can.
What for? I really don't how can this kind of thinking can survive even the simplest arguments against it. The biggest country in the world, with huge supplies of raw materials, needs more territory? What is it going to do with it?
Let's be rational, Russia doesn't need an inch of Ukrainian land. It needs security. Annexing even more territory is not going to bring it any security, it will just give it another neighbour willing to join a potentially hostile (or at leas unfriendly) alliance. You really underestimate Putin and his crew if you think that their goals are so basic. Crimea happened only because the Russians felt threatened by the events in Kiev in February and the badly disguised attempts of certain Western countries to extract maximum benefits from them, which still continue (and are not even disguised any more).
For Moscow, the perfect Ukraine is one which never joins NATO, provides safe and reliable transit for the gas pipelines and is generally friendly to Russia, most likely with its puppet at the head of the state. The worst Ukraine on the other hand would resemble Poland in a way - a largely Russophobic NATO member, gladly giving its territory for military uses to a potential enemy, of course led by a Western puppet. And if you are smart enough, you'll try to create one Ukraine which balances between these two and benefits from both of them. No chance that this will happen immediately but that's pretty much the only way to avoid being someone's colony or military base.
Yup. Ukraine could have a good potential to become the next Yugoslavia. Then again, we know what happened there when they didn't feel they needed that country anymore.
____________
|
|
seraphim
Supreme Hero
Knowledge Reaper
|
|
posted April 26, 2014 05:33 PM |
|
|
Ukraine has a third choice, sell some stuff to china...
I am sure what europe need is a chinese aligned country.
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 26, 2014 05:52 PM |
|
Edited by Fauch at 18:27, 26 Apr 2014.
|
the huge gain of the FN are very over-estimated. even if the FN had taken over just one city at the last elections, the newspapers would have freaked out at how the FN is taking over the France.
also I really don't think the FN wants to fix any of the issues with the EU. the FN mostly exists to support the 2 major parties, to give people the illusion that there is an alternative. it is probably never meant to take the power (unless another party, maybe the front de gauche? assume this role at their place)
ihor said:
Even in the East of Ukraine younger people tend to support West more, while older feel some nostalgia about USSR. In my opinion if nothing major happens then after few generations Ukraine might join NATO even in current borders.
I found an interesting bit in Political Ponerology :
The ideology of a pathocracy changes. It ceases to be a conviction which defines ways of action, to turn towards other tasks, which aren't openly defined. It becomes a cover which hides the new reality to the critical conscience of people, inside the country, as well as outside. The first function quickly becomes obsolete , for two reasons : on one hand, everyday life show to the people of a country affected this way too many facts for the first function to last very long; on another hand, popular mass keep a contemptuous attitude towards the ideology represented by those same pathocrates. for those reasons, the main theatre of operations of this ideology are the nations neighbouring the pathocracy, since this world still believes in ideologies.
that may be what is happening with the EU.
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 26, 2014 07:21 PM |
|
Edited by xerox at 19:22, 26 Apr 2014.
|
Aron said:
edit: Perhaps we need to get rid to this archaic definition of socialism and nationalism in these issues. In general I think what we are seeing is the growth of radical populism from all sectors of the spectrum.
Meaning it is generally anti-elitist, communitarian, reactive to others and progressive in itself and perhaps the one thing all these groups have in common with each other is that they are anti-globalist.
They seem to dislike global corporations, the global financial system, the unipolar or even multipolar world view of politics, supranational legislation and they seem to favour protectionism. In the left often from an anti-capitalist and environmentalist perspective and in the right from a nationalist perspective.
I've always thought socialist ideologies have a lot of nationalism in them. They want to nationalize things, care a great deal about national sovereignity, are protectionists, oppose globalization etc. Imo, it's nationalism based on class and it's no surprise that the communism of post-Soviet countries was easily replaced by nationalism.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
seraphim
Supreme Hero
Knowledge Reaper
|
|
posted April 26, 2014 07:54 PM |
|
Edited by seraphim at 19:59, 26 Apr 2014.
|
xerox said:
Imo, it's nationalism based on class and it's no surprise that the communism of post-Soviet countries was easily replaced by nationalism.
It wasnt replaced with nationalism, nationalism was always there.
____________
"Science is not fun without cyanide"
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted April 26, 2014 07:59 PM |
|
Edited by Zenofex at 20:00, 26 Apr 2014.
|
|
The "authentic" communism as described by Marx and Engels is the direct opposite of nationalism, one of its aims is to bring the society to a point where the national state (and the state in general) becomes unnecessary. Nationalisation as an idea on the other hand has nothing to do with "nation" but with turning private property into public within an existing national state. Nationalism took over some countries from the Eastern bloc not because it's similar to socialism and communism but because of economic issues and ideological vacuum created by the end of the state socialism. "Nationalist" was nearly as bad a word as "capitalist" in the Soviet times. The whole thing is of course much more complex, but that's not for this thread.
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 26, 2014 08:27 PM |
|
Edited by xerox at 20:30, 26 Apr 2014.
|
When has "authentic communism" ever been a significant political force?
The socialism of the Soviet states was full of nationalism, and socialist parties of today share those same elements, despite ironically calling themselves the polar opposites of nationalists. The populist nationalists and socialists of today both share the goal of reconquering national sovereignity. That's their main idea in the EU elections.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
Aron
Known Hero
|
|
posted April 26, 2014 09:44 PM |
|
|
Well yes, I think if you'd ask any voter on the streets if they'd like to see local small businesses and large publicly owned industried they'd probably say yes in 9/10 times.
Large corporations as we have today are quite the new thing and not very popular across the spectrum. So the similiraties begin and mostly end there.
In the past most things were done locally and those that could not either had to get mandates from the government to engage in corporate activity such as was the case for the interstate railroad in the United States or were under some indirect control of the monarch.
The degree of deregulation is also quite new. In the past you would have trade organisations similiar to unions that regulated prices and had inspections. There wasn't much free trade at all.
This meant that the economy didn't boom but it also rarely, if ever, contracted except when there were natural disasters or revolutions going about.
The problem with the way things went about back then was that wars for resources were quite common and these tend to kill alot of people and bring alot more suffering to the living. Free trade helped to stem this. Socialists in general tend to recognise that this is a bad thing and so want internationalism or preferably no borders at all while nationalists are willing to take the good with the bad.
Either way back to Ukraine and all of that I think that Front National might not get France but it will get to represent France in the EU as the largest party. The one major incentive the Ukraine has to join the EU is free trade.It wishes to export its steel and coal and Russia simply doesn't need it. (Well beyond the incentives that corrupt politicians have).
If the free movement of goods and people is not desired by say the FN and if the populist and leftwing groups get all worried about NATO, the US and exploitation then Ukraine simply won't get what they want.
There is one more place where they agree and that is wage-dumping. Already worried about the Romanians and Bulgarians an Ukraine with slashed wages will act as a floodgate for this type of immigration. While the socialists don't mind actual immigration they do mind work-permit immigration. An unholy alliance is not all unlikely, even if they never speak to each other.
____________
|
|
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
