[QUOTE=Gwoodman;46100593]In case you haven't noticed, it was a few months ago, I dunno maybe my eyes are playing tricks on me.[/QUOTE]
A drunk soviet dictator moved borders as a gift, it had no effect until 1991. (Undemocratically I might add) There is the history of Ukrainian control over Crimea.
[QUOTE=laserguided;46100601]Crimea is thoroughly Russian. Stop deluding yourself.[/QUOTE]
A lot of territories are thoroughly historically belonged to someone else, what's new?
[QUOTE=Gwoodman;46100593]In case you haven't noticed, it was a few months ago, I dunno maybe my eyes are playing tricks on me.[/QUOTE]
Crimea was only given to Ukraine when it was part of the Soviet Union, it was essentially like making Long Island part of Connecticut. It was never intended as the surrendering of land to another country because Ukraine was not another country at the time.
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;46100605]Eastern Ukraine is still part of Ukraine. It has been federalized like germany or the US.
You and others don't like Russia. You brand the seperatists + pro-russians + pro-federalisation people into one group "Pro-Russian". You turn a blind eye to the terrible things done by the pro-kiev militias, the shelling of civilians (In Ukraine and Russia) kidnappings and lies. The only reason I can think for you doing this is because you want to make it simpler for yourself to support "the good guys".
Not all the people fighting the gov "want to be part of Russia" they are disenfranchised. The gov they voted for got kicked out, they wanted more powers to self rule (not asking for much tbh) and the army came over and started shelling their homes.
Get a grip and have some compassion. You only acknowledge suffering when you can use it to fuel your anti-russian hate boner.[/QUOTE]
It's still part of Ukraine but it's controlled by rebels, what the fuck is the complication here?
"You and others don't like Russia", uhm when did I say I didn't like Russia? Putin, and when I talk about the government I only mention Putin and maybe sometimes Medvedev, those I don't like, but Russia? Why would I hate anyone from there for an individuals actions? I never denied Ukrainian crimes but you've denied Russian crimes before, so uhm, ok?
[QUOTE]Get a grip and have some compassion. You only acknowledge suffering when you can use it to fuel your anti-russian hate boner.[/QUOTE]
sorry this took a weird turn, can we return to the regular schedule?
[QUOTE=Gwoodman;46100643]It's still part of Ukraine but it's controlled by rebels, what the fuck is the complication here?
"You and others don't like Russia", uhm when did I say I didn't like Russia? Putin, and when I talk about the government I only mention Putin and maybe sometimes Medvedev, those I don't like, but Russia? Why would I hate anyone from there for an individuals actions? I never denied Ukrainian crimes but you've denied Russian crimes before, so uhm, ok?
sorry this took a weird turn, can we return to the regular schedule?[/QUOTE]
How is soviet leadership more legitimate than internal uprising. Explain.
Regardless of all the "X used to belong to Y" arguments, you aren't supposed to toy around with another country's borders without their consent. That's just not how it fucking works any more. If you start disregarding international law and get away with it, everyone will try it.
[QUOTE=deltasquid;46100668]Regardless of all the "X used to belong to Y" arguments, you aren't supposed to toy around with another country's borders without their consent. That's just not how it fucking works any more. If you start disregarding international law and get away with it, everyone will try it.[/QUOTE]
In the post-Soviet era the U.S. pretty much standardized toying around with other countries borders.
[QUOTE=laserguided;46100694]In the post-Soviet era the U.S. pretty much standardized toying around with other countries borders.[/QUOTE]
And two wrongs STILL don't make a right.
[QUOTE=laserguided;46100694]In the post-Soviet era the U.S. pretty much standardized toying around with other countries borders.[/QUOTE]
I know. It's despicable. And I'd like it to stop.
Much like I'd like to see Russia stop.
[QUOTE=deltasquid;46100716]I know. It's despicable. And I'd like it to stop.
Much like I'd like to see Russia stop.[/QUOTE]
No I seriously doubt that, go into a thread about the U.S. invading another country you won't get loads of spam, all in the form of "Fuck USA". Everybody believes in the U.S. narrative that it is the exceptional leader of the free world. It's like people have reverted to a cold war mentality. The US does the same shit in a less blunt format. Russia prefers fast, strategic action while the U.S. likes long drawn out strategic action.
[QUOTE=Gwoodman;46100706]And two wrongs STILL don't make a right.[/QUOTE]
"Two wrongs don’t make a right” is a general statement that we all subscribe to in moralistic debate. But to base solely on it as the gold standard in reality, risks being out of contact with the enormous complexities of human affairs.
[QUOTE=WhollyRufus;46099754]
Can we really call Russia imperialist? it has only taken military action in[B] small areas [/B]of countries on it's borders. Unlike America which has attacked and occupied vast territories in nations on the other side of the globe.[/QUOTE]
Yeah man, Russia totally [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_occupations_by_the_Soviet_Union"]occupied [/URL]and [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_imperialism"]influenced[/URL] only small places that nobody cared about; they are totally entitled to that. And I mean, the US does it too, so that makes it cool. Nothing wrong there.
[QUOTE]Some countries in the Third World had pro-Soviet governments during the Cold War. In the political terminology of the Soviet Union, these were "countries moving along the socialist road of development", as opposed to the more advanced "countries of developed socialism", which were mostly located in Eastern Europe, but also included Vietnam and Cuba. Most received some aid, either military or economic, from the Soviet Union, and were influenced by it to varying degrees. Sometimes, their support for the Soviet Union eventually stopped, for various reasons; in some cases the pro-Soviet government lost power, in other cases the pro-Soviet forces were overthrown by military coups promoted by the United States (such as in Brazil[citation needed]), in some cases the pro-Soviet forces gained power by military aid from the Soviet Union (such as in Vietnam), while in other cases the same government remained in power but ended its alliance with the Soviet Union.
Some of these countries were not communist states. They are marked in italic.
Egypt (1954–1973)
Syria (1955–1991)
India ()
Iraq (1958–1961)
Guinea (1960–1978)
Somalia (1961–1977)
Ghana (1964–1966)
Peru (1968–1975)
Sudan (1968–1972)
Libya (1969–1991)
Republic of the Congo People's Republic of the Congo (1969–1991)
Chile (1970–1973)
People's Democratic Republic of Yemen People's Democratic Republic of Yemen (1969–1990)
Uganda (1966–1971)
Madagascar (1972-1991)
Ethiopia People's Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (1974–1991)
Lao People's Democratic Republic (1975–1991)
Benin People's Republic of Benin (1975–1979)
Mozambique People's Republic of Mozambique (1975–1990)
Angola People's Republic of Angola (1977–1991)
Afghanistan Democratic Republic of Afghanistan (1978–1991)
Grenada (1979-1983)
Nicaragua (1979–1990)
Cambodia People's Republic of Kampuchea (1979–1989)[/QUOTE]
[thumb]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f5/Communist_block.svg/940px-Communist_block.svg.png[/thumb]
[editline]28th September 2014[/editline]
That was pre 90's, this is after 90's, although the Chechen war could be added to the toll.[thumb]http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/77400000/gif/_77400985_russsian-frozen-conflicts_20140905_624.gif[/thumb]
[QUOTE=laserguided;46100387]Eastern Europe belongs to Russia. Deal with it, that's the way it is.[/QUOTE]
Are you just a political realist, or do you actually support the idea of the Warsaw pact 2.0?
[QUOTE=godfatherk;46101043]
That was pre 90's, this is after 90's, although the Chechen war could be added to the toll.[thumb]http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/77400000/gif/_77400985_russsian-frozen-conflicts_20140905_624.gif[/thumb][/QUOTE]
Uhm nagorno-Karabakh is only disputed because Azerbaijan is batshit insane.
[QUOTE=godfatherk;46101043][thumb]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f5/Communist_block.svg/940px-Communist_block.svg.png[/thumb]
[/QUOTE]
lol, why did you post this map?
I had no idea the Soviets occupied China and turned it into a puppet!
you got a little confused there buddy, a pro-Soviet government does not equate to Soviet imperialism.
[QUOTE=laserguided;46100751]No I seriously doubt that, go into a thread about the U.S. invading another country you won't get loads of spam, all in the form of "Fuck USA". Everybody believes in the U.S. narrative that it is the exceptional leader of the free world. It's like people have reverted to a cold war mentality. The US does the same shit in a less blunt format. Russia prefers fast, strategic action while the U.S. likes long drawn out strategic action.[/QUOTE]
The difference is that the US hasn't invaded a country (and taken land) in roughly a hundred years, whereas the Russian Federation still continues to do so.
The US invasion of Iraq in 2003 was done on an excuse that was ultimately wrong, but we didn't try to "win" the country over through farce elections like Russia did in Crimea. The US set up a democratic system and allowed international overseers to monitor it. In the end it didn't work because disbarring [I]everyone[/I] who worked under Saddam, and therefore disbarring everyone who was competent at running a country turns out to be a pretty bad idea.
Other post-Cold War US invasions have been in the defense of allies (Gulf War) and from terrorist actions (Afghanistan).
Libya and Syria haven't been invasions per-se, though we've had a large effect on them from arming rebel groups (and air strikes in Libya).
[QUOTE=Saber15;46101233]The difference is that the US hasn't invaded a country (and taken land) in roughly a hundred years, whereas the Russian Federation still continues to do so.
The US invasion of Iraq in 2003 was done on an excuse that was ultimately wrong, but we didn't try to "win" the country over through farce elections like Russia did in Crimea. The US set up a democratic system and allowed international overseers to monitor it. In the end it didn't work because disbarring [I]everyone[/I] who worked under Saddam, and therefore disbarring everyone who was competent at running a country turns out to be a pretty bad idea.
Other post-Cold War US invasions have been in the defense of allies (Gulf War) and from terrorist actions (Afghanistan).
Libya and Syria haven't been invasions per-se, though we've had a large effect on them from arming rebel groups (and air strikes in Libya).[/QUOTE]
Afghanistan is still a shithole with a corrupt government who doesn't care for women's rights.
And yes they were invasions. And the U.S. does not limit itself to military action. They use political and economic pressure to influence other countries into submission. They care more for global influence and preserving bases of interest than human rights, for example the protests in Bahrain and the constant support of Israel. Oh and it's not like they have a peace loving global surveillance system which is used in conjunction with secret CIA prisons and centres of torture.
[QUOTE=Saber15;46101233]The difference is that the US hasn't invaded a country [b](and taken land)[/b] in roughly a hundred years, whereas the Russian Federation still continues to do so.[/QUOTE]
Please stop using this absolutely piss-poor, straw-grasping excuse.
The fact that you didn't take land means absolutely nothing. You still invaded sovereign nations in pursuit of your own interests even when such acts were deemed [url=http://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/sep/16/iraq.iraq]illegal by the UN[/url]. Not only that, but you have also caused more destabilization and death in a decade than Russia managed to do in all of its border wars combined since 1991.
And now people like you act like the taking of Crimea (where not a single damn shot was fired) is some sort of evidence that Putin is the devil incarnate when all he did was correct a historic mistake, and with the majority of support from the Crimean population and Russia itself.
[QUOTE=WhollyRufus;46099754]The Russians were deeply affected by World War II. They lost more that all the allied countries put together. [/QUOTE]
I'm sure they were. It's not like all the countries Russia and the Reich stomped on were untouched. Proportionally, the Baltic states, for example, were hit harder. Estonia lost more than 25% of it's entire population by the end of it all. 25% of an entire nation, wiped in a few short years. Forceful enlistment of local people by both sides also ensured Estonians were forced to shoot at Estonians. For fuck's sake, Russia took it bad, but stop making this only about Russian/Allied heroism and sacrifice, because nearly everyone else suffered as well. There are tens of thousands of unsung heroes and stories laid in the earth, restless in their eternal slumber because that which they REALLY fought, and died, for was twisted and shattered like dry branches in the hands of the scourge that was the great war. To this day, Russia calls the Baltic states fascist/nazis because we don't exactly appreciate Russian strong-handing in our internal affairs, while the "West" barely differentiates us from Russia.
tl;dr
Screw both the East and screw the West. Sincerely, the Middle.
[QUOTE=just-a-boy;46101396]I'm sure they were. It's not like all the countries Russia and the Reich stomped on were untouched. Proportionally, the Baltic states, for example, were hit harder. Estonia lost more than 25% of it's entire population by the end of it all. 25% of an entire nation, wiped in a few short years. Forceful enlistment of local people by both sides also ensured Estonians were forced to shoot at Estonians. For fuck's sake, Russia took it bad, but stop making this only about Russian/Allied heroism and sacrifice, because nearly everyone else suffered as well. There are tens of thousands of unsung heroes and stories laid in the earth, restless in their eternal slumber because that which they REALLY fought, and died, for was twisted and shattered like dry branches in the hands of the scourge that was the great war. To this day, Russia calls the Baltic states fascist/nazis because we don't exactly appreciate Russian strong-handing in our internal affairs, while the "West" barely differentiates us from Russia.
tl;dr
Screw both the East and screw the West. Sincerely, the Middle.[/QUOTE]
If a single Baltic state had as much power as the US or Russia they would be way more insane than both combined. Go through a Baltic newspaper and you'll see what I mean.
[QUOTE=laserguided;46101469]If a single Baltic state had as much power as the US or Russia they would be way more insane than both combined. Go through a Baltic newspaper and you'll see what I mean.[/QUOTE]
Unless flagdog is messing with you, you'll find I'm Estonian. I know our publications well enough (except the fucking yellow press, christ that shit is sensationalist), and I'm having a hard time grasping what exactly you are trying to imply. Please provide examples that would have you infer Estonia is a nutcase...
[QUOTE=Melnek;46101321]
And now people like you act like the taking of Crimea (where not a single damn shot was fired) is some sort of evidence that Putin is the devil incarnate when all he did was [B]correct a historic mistake[/B], and with the majority of support from the Crimean population and Russia itself.[/QUOTE]
By that line of [I]reasoning[/I], Turkey would have also been [I]entitled[/I] to correct an even more historic [I]historic mistake[/I].
Let's say the Crimea affair is about democracy, and a majority of its people were sick entirely of Ukraine governing them. Why not have Crimea independent of both UKR& RU?
Just because a place has people speaking a language it doesn't mean it has to be lumped together with other places with the same language, to form a country.
Tons of examples exist in those regards.
So yeah what was Russia's motives for occupying Crimea with military forces and issueing a [I]referendum[/I], again?
[QUOTE=godfatherk;46101648]By that line of [I]reasoning[/I], Turkey would have also been [I]entitled[/I] to correct an even more historic [I]historic mistake[/I].
Let's say the Crimea affair is about democracy, and a majority of its people were sick entirely of Ukraine governing them. Why not have Crimea independent of both UKR& RU?
Just because a place has people speaking a language it doesn't mean it has to be lumped together with other places with the same language, to form a country.
Tons of examples exist in those regards.
So yeah what was Russia's motives for occupying Crimea with military forces and issueing a [I]referendum[/I], again?[/QUOTE]
Well they captured the entire Ukrainian navy.
[QUOTE=laserguided;46100751]No I seriously doubt that, go into a thread about the U.S. invading another country you won't get loads of spam, all in the form of "Fuck USA". Everybody believes in the U.S. narrative that it is [B]the exceptional leader of the free world[/B]. It's like people have reverted to a cold war mentality. The US does the same shit in a less blunt format. Russia prefers fast, strategic action while the U.S. likes long drawn out strategic action.[/QUOTE]
What if the US really were an exceptional leader?
The Marshall plan spurred up post WW2 econ. growth in all of Europe west of the curtain.
South Korea and Japan also did wonders. Everyone who was on the US's side in the Cold War had and still have a GDP per capita of ~30.000$ and higher.
Although the communist regimes fell 25 years ago, most of the former commie states still have decades ahead to reach the level of prosperity that were commonplace in the West even before the 90's.
[QUOTE=godfatherk;46101750]What if the US really were an exceptional leader?
The Marshall plan spurred up post WW2 econ. growth in all of Europe west of the curtain.
South Korea and Japan also did wonders. Everyone who was on the US's side in the Cold War had and still have a GDP per capita of ~30.000$ and higher.
Communism fell 25 years ago. Most of the former commie states still have decades ahead to reach the level of prosperity that were commonplace in the West even before the 90's.[/QUOTE]
ya people point out the 3 or 4 bad examples of where the U.S. forign policy failed and use it to discredit the entire western world that was rebuilt by the same policy
You people and your fucking international laws
Whenevernneeded nobody is obligated to give a fuck about them because in all respects they are unenforceable.
Russia is a pseudo dictatorial federation retaining dreams of the old soviet past and the US is still a militaristic, domineering state which effectively justifies its imperialistic actions through a smokescreen of legal excuses and outright bullshit. Manipulating the law so that commiting murder legally in the eyes of some fucked beauracracy does not make it any less wrong.
Honestly if you support the actions of either in that respect you're probably subscribed to some mid-19th century imperial ideology and should therefore promptly remove the massive 1st world/2nd world dildo out of your ass where it's been since 1945
>:(
[QUOTE=Milkdairy;46102230]You people and your fucking international laws
Whenevernneeded nobody is obligated to give a fuck about them because in all respects they are unenforceable.
Russia is a pseudo dictatorial federation retaining dreams of the old soviet past and the US is still a militaristic, domineering state which effectively justifies its imperialistic actions through a smokescreen of legal excuses and outright bullshit. Manipulating the law so that commiting murder legally in the eyes of some fucked beauracracy does not make it any less wrong.
Honestly if you support the actions of either in that respect you're probably subscribed to some mid-19th century imperial ideology and should therefore promptly remove the massive 1st world/2nd world dildo out of your ass where it's been since 1945
>:([/QUOTE]
Peace is founded by the sword, because it only takes 1 person (country) to take up a sword and disturb it.
The major theories of international relations embrace the view that the international system is anarchic.
[QUOTE]Realism has long been the dominant perspective in IR theory and as such it seems logical to begin by outlining the key features of realism’s approach to anarchy. [B]A key principle of realist theory is that of survival and it could be argued that in the domestic politics governments create and enforce laws to protect citizens, thus reducing the prospect of conflict or civil war, however the same cannot be said of international politics[/B] (Lebow: 2007).
A central assumption of the realist approach to anarchy is thus that the rules of the international system are dictated by anarchy; in this sense, anarchy is perceived as a “[B]lack of central government to enforce rules[/B]” and protect states (Goldstein & Pevehouse: 2006: 73). Realists, such as Kenneth Waltz, link this lack of a ‘world government’ to the continued occurrence of violence among states (Cudworth & Hobden: 2010).
The absence of an authority higher than nation-states, it is argued, leads to a [B]self-help[/B] system among states (Weber: 2009; Cudworth & Hobden: 2010); Lebow cites Mearsheimer’s characterisation of this anarchical, self-help international system as “[B]a brutal arena[/B] where states look for opportunities to take advantage of each other” [/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]This characterisation can be linked to the perception that international relations “cannot escape from a state of anarchy and will continue to be dangerous as a result” (Goldstein & Pevehouse: 2006: 74). Such perceptions demonstrate that realists have a largely pessimistic view of the international system (Grieco: 1988).
In sum, all realists appear to subscribe to the belief that states are the only relevant actors in international politics and as there is no central authority to regulate or govern nation-states, a state of anarchy exists, where conflict and war is a constant threat as each state seeks to ensure its own survival at the expense of others.[/QUOTE]
[URL="http://www.e-ir.info/2011/08/29/realist-and-constructivist-approaches-to-anarchy/"][I]A continuation here[/URL][/I]
[editline]29th September 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE]This suggests that it is human nature to fight for power and survival and while constraints have been placed on man at a domestic level to reduce the likelihood of conflict in this struggle, without such constraints at an international level war will continue to be unavoidable. The classical realist view of politics as a struggle for power is perhaps best captured by reference to [B]the security dilemma[/B]. The security dilemma is simply explained as [B]“a situation in which states’ actions taken to assure their own security tend to threaten the security of other states[/B]” (Goldstein & Pevehouse: 2006: 74). Realism would thus argue that an [B]anarchical international system prevents the security dilemma being overcome, which in turn causes conflicts to arise[/B]. Theorists of a realist perspective would further this point by suggesting that it is unrealistic to think anarchy can be overcome as the states will never feel secure enough to cede sovereignty to a higher authority in some form of world government (Weber: 2009).[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=laserguided;46100387]Eastern Europe belongs to Russia. Deal with it, that's the way it is.[/QUOTE]
Try to take us again, we dare you. See how many russians go back in coffins.
I'd gladly enlist in the army just to kill a russian soldier. These pests of Eastern Europe fucked with this region ever since they were spawned into existence.
[QUOTE=Melnek;46101180]lol, why did you post this map?
I had no idea the Soviets occupied China and turned it into a puppet!
you got a little confused there buddy, a pro-Soviet government does not equate to Soviet imperialism.[/QUOTE]
It's related to the quote under wich it was posted. If you would have clicked on the word "occupation" you would have seen the actual occupations that took place. But no, you really have to clinge to that one word in the whole text just to turn it into something that it was not.
[QUOTE=laserguided;46100751]No I seriously doubt that, go into a thread about the U.S. invading another country you won't get loads of spam, all in the form of "Fuck USA". Everybody believes in the U.S. narrative that it is the exceptional leader of the free world. It's like people have reverted to a cold war mentality. The US does the same shit in a less blunt format. Russia prefers fast, strategic action while the U.S. likes long drawn out strategic action.[/QUOTE]
I'm glad you've decided what I think. Saves me the effort.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.