• BBC - Ukraine's highest court backs reforms to give Donetsk and Lugansk limited self-rule.
    40 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48343834]Or Ukraine could give autonomy to the eastern regions and eat its cake too. War can be avoided by simply reforming the administration and government, building up the civil service as an institution and generally working towards re-integration by making local and regional government more sensitive to the needs of the local population. [/quote] You don't solve a national question with some autonomy. Besides, autonomy won't stop them from losing their jobs or having the state being used as a vehicle for Western foreign policy. [quote]The Bolsheviks themselves are indeed to blame for much of the problem you describe too. Joining up western Ukraine with the east stinks of attempts by the empires that divided up africa in much the same manner.[/quote] Well it was actually Stalin, but regardless, does it? I know it laid the ground for something bad to happen should the USSR ever collapse, but it was going to become part of the USSR anyway (especially considering it was supposed to encompass not just East Slav nations, but all of Europe) if it weren't for the Germans and Poles. Plus...what else do you do with it? Leave it to Poland? Then it's just a leverage for their Promotheism and you're leaving the people there to be Polonized (after you just took a stand against Russification). Let it be independent and pointlessly separated from the rest of Ukrainians? Then it's just exactly what it is today, a toxic nationalist springboard for some rival power to take advantage of. Plus in either case you're also giving the Nazis something to work with against you, in their designs to use nationalism to destroy a class-based project. As for the East, what do you do with it if you are Lenin? It's not historical Russia, its countryside is full of Ukrainians, but the cities (which are where the workers are) are Russian. It's a multicultural former colony, but why leave it a part of Russia when it's a symbol of the Tsar's empire and Great Russian chauvinism you are against? It only makes sense to integrate both West and East Ukraine into a Ukrainian SSR as part of class-based project that builds up a nation oppressed by the Tsar and transcends nationalism, a living legacy of the achievements of class solidarity over reactionary nationalism and Tsarism. Also, I think the africa comparison is unfounded. The Bolsheviks had a quite extensive platform on the minorities of the empire and Russian chauvinism, Lenin was intent on destroying the tsarist 'jailhouse of nations' and fostering their development. This won him the support of all sorts of Ukrainians, Latvians, Tatars, etc. In Ukraine's case, that inevitably meant building it up as it was historically. The only thing that really went wrong was the international revolution of the 20s was defeated and fascism rose to challenge the isolated, unstable USSR (which was seen as a house of cards by the nazis). That threw a nationalist wrench in things and it only unraveled from there. In Africa, it was just white imperialists putting together nations out of tribes that didn't organically develop such a national identity. [quote]The reason why Ukraine is in a civil war right now is directly due to the fault of the Communist Party having redrawn the borders of eastern europe and forcibly relocating or otherwise murdering people, before suppressing demands for independence. It's no surprise that when the implicit threat of violence was lifted (you weren't going to get the USSR sending in tanks like in Hungary), that it immediately collapsed.[/quote] The USSR redrawing the borders of Eastern Europe isn't the problem, that settled the nationalist issues and allowed nations to develop peacefully without ethnic strife and revanchism. The problem was fascism which in its anti-communist crusade opened old wounds, and before that the defeat of the international revolution which allowed European empires to exploit nationalism against the communists in the first place. Also, the March Referendum of 1991 throws a wrench in this narrative that tanks held a lid on things. [quote]Had Ukraine become independent after the First World War and avoided annexation, then the annexation of Crimea and the Donbass to the country would never have happened.[/QUOTE] Which implies the revolution not happening and Russia still existing, and therefore Novorossiya still existing and being an outpost of White Russian chauvinism/imperialism. That doesn't work either. [QUOTE=Sableye;48343801]ya, maybe Russia should take a lesson, let their regions have some autonomy and self elections instead of a centralized crushing government, otherwise there is going to be rebelions[/QUOTE] Russia is federalized. It's not a unitary state of Russians. It's a federation. Ukraine should probably try that.
[QUOTE=MuffinZerg;48343068] Russia is playing for its own interest. Russia needs a buffer zone of countries and its going to prevent a NATO base from appearing in Ukraine at any cost. Crimea was too much of a good oportunity to loose it. If a NATO base appeared in Crimea Russia would be basically finished as a military power[/QUOTE] Why exactly is a NATO base in Ukraine so threatening? If it's about the Black Sea, NATO already has a presence there in the form of Turkey. Furthermore, the Baltic nations share a border with Russia & are much closer to larger cities such as Moscow & St. Petersburg. In the event of a NATO - Russia conflict, the nukes are going to fly regardless of weather or not there's a naval base in the Black Sea.
[QUOTE=Flapjacks;48344142]Why exactly is a NATO base in Ukraine so threatening? If it's about the Black Sea, NATO already has a presence there in the form of Turkey. Furthermore, the Baltic nations share a border with Russia & are much closer to larger cities such as Moscow & St. Petersburg. In the event of a NATO - Russia conflict, the nukes are going to fly regardless of weather or not there's a naval base in the Black Sea.[/QUOTE] 1. Russia would lose its only warm water port. 2. Ukraine means culturally and historically much, much, much more to Russia than the Baltic nations. 3. There is a precedent for foreign empires having an outpost against Russia in the Baltics. Such a thing in Ukraine, let alone East and South Ukraine (only settled when Russia could project power way past it), is completely unprecedented. 4. Using Ukraine against Russia is a very old strategy outlined by everyone from Bismarck to Hitler to Pilsudski. Plus, you could make the case Russians are quite a bit more native to that area than the Baltics, and the place is otherwise of closer cultural significance: [img]http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-WxkZ9ku4kZA/VIMggYCJrRI/AAAAAAAAJsw/xHfiBw5Cnyw/s1600/10850566_746598232075015_196308428_n.jpg[/img] 'Donbass is the heart of Russia'. Besides, Russia [url=https://fasab.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/iraq-libya-syria-ukraine.jpg]sees the writing on the wall.[/url]
[QUOTE=Conscript;48344123]You don't solve a national question with some autonomy. Besides, autonomy won't stop them from losing their jobs or having the state being used as a vehicle for Western foreign policy.[/quote] Devolution and administrative reform works well in most countries. Something similar to Northern Ireland could be done, where a great deal of work to achieve peace has already been successful. [quote]Also, I think the africa comparison is unfounded. The Bolsheviks had a quite extensive platform on the minorities of the empire and Russian chauvinism, Lenin was intent on destroying the tsarist 'jailhouse of nations' and fostering their development. This won him the support of all sorts of Ukrainians, Latvians, Tatars, etc. In Ukraine's case, that inevitably meant building it up as it was historically. The only thing that really went wrong was the international revolution of the 20s was defeated and fascism rose to challenge the isolated, unstable USSR (which was seen as a house of cards by the nazis). That threw a nationalist wrench in things and it only unraveled from there.[/quote] The international revolution was defeated because it was never possible in the first place. The Russian Revolution owes more influence to Chernyshevsky than to Marx. I mean, to see Russia as the springboard for an international revolution betrays a fatal lack of ignorance of the history of Russia. [quote]The USSR redrawing the borders of Eastern Europe isn't the problem, that settled the nationalist issues and allowed nations to develop peacefully without ethnic strife and revanchism. The problem was fascism which in its anti-communist crusade opened old wounds, and before that the defeat of the international revolution which allowed European empires to exploit nationalism against the communists in the first place.[/quote] Is this real? Like, do you actually believe this, or is this some kind of really clever satire? I can attest to you from my family members that Polish people were treated almost like vermin. Poles were starved, forcibly moved to Kazakhstan, over 20,000 were shot in Katyn, millions were relocated, the religion and culture was suppressed, and then finally my family left their homeland entirely. And that's just one single ethnicity. Latvians, Lithuanians, Estonians, Ukrainians, Crimean Tatars, Jews, etc. The list goes on and on. Nazis committed many crimes, so too did the Soviets. [quote]Which implies the revolution not happening and Russia still existing, and therefore Novorossiya still existing and being an outpost of White Russian chauvinism/imperialism. That doesn't work either.[/QUOTE] The revolution happened before Ukraine became independent. Ukraine was a nation ready for independence and self-determination in 1917.
Is "cultural significance" really a good justification for military intervention? What's stopping the Kremlin from saying "countries X, Y, & Z are culturally Russian and being oppressed. Send in the troops"? That's why the rest of the world has reacted so harshly to Russia's actions in Ukraine. This war has already killed 6000+ including a commercial airliner that was flying overhead. That sort of contradicts the political cartoon of the Russian bear protecting Ukraine from the U.S reaper.
[QUOTE=MuffinZerg;48343631]Well, Churchill caused the Bengal Famine ([url]http://yourstory.com/2014/08/bengal-famine-genocide/[/url]) so there are your 4 million killed by a western master. And US wrecked a lot of countries and engineered many coups, which while subjectively not as bad as a genocide is a sign that should cause mistrust.[/QUOTE] People don't really attach emotions to events that do not effect them. It's why there's a huge outcry about the pro-Russian rebels shooting down an airliner with citizens from a bunch of Western countries, but hardly anyone in the West gives a shit about that time the US shot down an Iranian airliner. "[url=http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AMillionIsAStatistic]A million is a statistic[/url]", so to speak. People usually [I]don't care[/I] that the US shot down Soviet planes or executed Filipinos or firebombed Tokyo, because it doesn't effect [I]them[/I]. So someone in Ukraine may know of those atrocities, but there is no real emotion associated with it, whereas on the other hand they have suspiciously well armed rebels firing artillery at them; even knowing that the West isn't all sunshine and rainbows, the West looks better than the mean guys shooting at them. Thailand, for example, has a surprising industry dedicated to the Nazis. They didn't suffer under Nazi occupation and let the Japanese army pass through Thailand to avoid the whole "maim kill burn" routine Japan was practicing in Manchuria. So the Thai don't have the vile disgust of a German or Polish (or really, [I]any[/I] European) person seeing the monetization of Nazi tourist trash. However, I think most people realize that the USA/UK/whatever isn't going to start running death squads in 2015 in continental Europe (hyperbole but whatever). The USA and the rest of the Western Bloc has been pretty good in their dealings with post-Soviet countries, because they want to bring them into the fold of NATO. Poland and the other former Soviet puppet states have prospered from trade with the West and East, and they are enjoying the more egalitarian ideals (self rule, freedom of expression, some government transparency, etc) that the West usually sponsors.
[QUOTE=MuffinZerg;48343852]Different situations. Centralisation works fine in Russia atm and there is no sight of it going away. Russia doesn't have an ancient nationality conflict too. [/QUOTE] ya i'm sure native siberians don't have any qualms with how they've been treated over the years, or how much the Chechen love being beaten to death
This thread is a rather nice example of quality discussion, although a bit stretched out toward history debates - anyhow, what is more interesting is how ongoing Right Sector Protests clashes would coup with negotiations, since they are basically proposing distrust to Poroshenko and few contoroversal "we want self-rule aswell" actions picked up in west Ukraine.
[QUOTE=Sableye;48344778]ya i'm sure native siberians don't have any qualms with how they've been treated over the years, or how much the Chechen love being beaten to death[/QUOTE] I dont even know what you are talking about. No, you don't even know what you are talking about. You just took a stand for an Al Queda backed islamic state in Chechnya. Because the only separatist chechens are radical islamists and terrorists at that point. Others are too busy milking Russia and building skyscrapers.
This will accomplish nothing, they won't listen and will continue the war
ignore this
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.