Discussion Separatism in Ukraine and double standards.

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,232
7,291
136
A land belongs to its people. This must be codified not only in principle, but by our actions and acts of war to make firm this human right.
There should be a political mechanism whereby a territory inside a country may vote to swap flags to their adjacent neighbor.
However, this should primarily exist between peaceful partners, among a Union of sorts. Such as territories inside the US or the EU.

Such recognition needs to be part of our Unions' laws and our people's customs. So that we may honor the declaration we made in 1776.
It would be good to do so.

None of this has anything to do with Russia's genocidal conquest and attempt at erasing the Ukrainian people from existence.
By not defending the line of conflict, but by committing ethnic cleansing against the entirety of their neighbor, Russia violates every notion of humanity, or laws of justice, and of what this topic purports to speak for.

To honor this topic, we must first declare AND MAKE GOOD on the next line. Death to Orcs.
 

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
12,846
7,786
136
By this logic, the US is justified to invade Alberta because they speak English and not French, and are not keen on the central Canadian govt, so sayeth the activists we promote publicly to speak for all Canadians...

Well you _did_ try and invade Canada. Granted, quite a long time ago now, and it didn't go well.
 

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
12,846
7,786
136
A land belongs to its people. This must be codified not only in principle, but by our actions and acts of war to make firm this human right.

I didn't know Woodrow Wilson had an account here!

(That principle didn't work out all that well when he tried to push it the first time - too many different peoples, living too interleaved with each other)
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
110,437
28,988
146
I agree, I'm being sarcastic towards the op.

But I'm not sure I'd agree even a simple vote by the seceding territory or state is acceptable. The rest of the country has a say as well. A compact has been entered, and a break up is destructive to the whole and can't be unilateral.

I can't realistically think of an scenario where a state, or county even, voted to secede the greater country would allow it. Even if it was Florida.

We'd send in the troops and put down the rabble rousers.
whatever it is, once the orcs are all killed and sent back to Russia completely, perhaps the Ukrainians of Donetsk and Luhansk--the ones that weren't murdered by fucking orcs--should be polled again to see what they think about Russia or potentially living under Russian rule.

Seems fair.
 

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
12,846
7,786
136
But I'm not sure I'd agree even a simple vote by the seceding territory or state is acceptable. The rest of the country has a say as well. A compact has been entered, and a break up is destructive to the whole and can't be unilateral.

I don't think many Scots Nats would agree that Scottish independence requires the agreement of the rest of the UK.

It also raises the question of what happens when the rest of the country wants you to become independent whether you want it or not. Can a region be expelled from a country?
 

Leeea

Diamond Member
Apr 3, 2020
3,565
5,307
106
Ok, so HOW EXACTLY, is this different from republics of Donetsk and Luhansk seeking independence from Ukraine?!

If I shoot your husband, rape your kid, kidnap your child, and then drive a rifle barrel down your throat and demand you vote to join the Holy and Sanctified republic of Leeea, would you consider your vote to be freely given?

Would you want everyone else to consider your vote to be freely given and an expression of your true desire to join the most Holy and Sanctified republic of Leeea?

Or would you refuse to cooperate and join the mass grave just outside of town?


-----------------------------------------------

I do not know how closely you have been following this war, because the Russian Federation is implementing all of the above. Major media from all factions shows mass graves, rape, kidnapping of children, etc.


ex:

mass grave site in a village outside the besieged southern city of Mariupol could contain as many as 9,000 bodies
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Drach

cytg111

Lifer
Mar 17, 2008
22,844
12,522
136
When we have peace long enough borders fade. Trade and ever stronger cross border collaboration, mixed unison citizenships, free flow of jobs and workforce, common currency so on and so forth.
Its only war mongering and conflict obsessed vlads that cry over strong borders. Truth is if you did governing right, for the people and by the people, it wouldnt be necessary… It’d just be a dotted line on a map, nothing less nothing more. BUT where is the personal gain and profit for The King in that?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: Vic and Drach

tweaker2

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
14,384
6,763
136
Scotland is free and can vote to remain or stay. Shouldn't be on the list.


I recall somewhere how Scottish independence would give them a whole lot of oil reserves in the North Sea(?) that England is now in possession of. Wouldn't that be a hoot.
 

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
12,846
7,786
136

I saw the wiki page already but the table is in cyrillic so I don't know what it says!

As far as I understand it (I could be wrong) the vote was a national one, not region-by-region.

I don't know how these things are decided on the level of general principle - maybe there's an argument that those in those regions who want to join Russia have lost the right to do so, by siding with Putin's aggression. Maybe they are in the same position as the Sudatenland Germans?

The historical reality is national minorities in Europe couldn't fully excercise 'self determination', because it destabilised nations and led to a patchwork of tiny nations that couldn't defend themselves - that's one of many reasons why Woodrow Wilson was a fool (another reason was that it didn't occur to him that his principles should also apply to colonialised peoples outside of Europe - though that was as much due to him being a racist as being a fool).

In practice a lot of those problems were "solved" via mass-expulsions and forcible population-exchanges.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
35,705
27,248
136
I know I risk a lot of hate, and being called Putin's bot, whataboutist, and whatnot, but let's just TRY and be civil here. Let's try some objectivity instead of bias. And yes, I admit I may not know enough about history to make my arguments.

So, I was thinking... Remember the dissolution of the Soviet Union? All those little guys that weren't happy with the way they were managed? Poland split. Then Georgia... Then many others. Kazakhstan, Ukraine... So many of them. They all split away. Why did they split? Because they weren't happy. They did not want to live like this. They wanted to make their own rules.

Ok, so HOW EXACTLY, is this different from republics of Donetsk and Luhansk seeking independence from Ukraine?!

I heard the arguments before. Donetsk and Luhansk are a part of Ukraine and have no right to separate! Well, if you think about it like this, Poland had "no right" to separate from USSR either, no? Why did everyone support one thing, and so vehemently rejecting the other?

I mean, it's not without reason these separatists want to split! Both republics used to be a part of USSR once. Their native language is Russian. Not Ukranian. So is their way of life. You can argue that these people should just get the F out, if they don't like the new Ukranian way of life. But that's exactly what they are trying to do. They are trying to separate, along with their lands, just like Poland did back in the day.

When Ukraine split from USSR, its government slowly started appeasing Ukranian nationalists more and more. First, it was the overall anti-Russian sentiment (which is understandable, given past history), but then words turned into actions. They outlawed Russian is schools, they started forcing people to speak exclusively in Ukranian. There were even occasional attacks on Russian speakers just for speaking Russian. Eventually there was a horrific event in the Ukranian city of Odessa, where some pro-Russian demonstrators were attacked by nationalists, and chased into a large building. This building was then torched, and the pro-Russians were burned alive, while the nationalists were waiting under the windows for people to jump out just to shoot them in the head or beat them to death. This is historical fact, not some made up pro-Putin BS. Here's the link: Ukrainian rightists burn alive 39 at Odessa union building (peoplesworld.org)

You can't just ignore Ukraine's past history, and "outlaw" Russian language and Russian customs, any more than you can outlaw Spanish in United states. Trying to kill people in Ukraine for wanting to live the Russian way while remaining on their native land is wrong.

Now, PLEASE, don't confuse my arguments, with supporting Putin's war, and annexing large swaths of land! It's one thing for some people trying to split, and a whole other thing to start a full-scale war over all this and use that as an excuse for the incursion into a separate country. There were other tools at Russia's disposal to support those they wanted to support.

The main point of my post is to discuss how the separatists in Ukraine are different from the separatists anywhere else in the world, and why they are deemed to be "in the wrong" by the world while others just like them are "in the right".

Just imagine we discover the terrorists that attacked the capital on Jan 6 with their attempted coup and murder of sitting politicians were funded by Russia. In addition to their actions being illegal and illegitimate being funded by a foreign country makes it more so.

The troops who mysteriously appeared in places like Donetsk and Luhansk in their nondescript green uniforms smells of a top down insurrection not a grass roots uprising
 

feralkid

Lifer
Jan 28, 2002
16,312
4,346
136
Just imagine we discover the terrorists that attacked the capital on Jan 6 with their attempted coup and murder of sitting politicians were funded by Russia. In addition to their actions being illegal and illegitimate being funded by a foreign country makes it more so.

The troops who mysteriously appeared in places like Donetsk and Luhansk in their nondescript green uniforms smells of a top down insurrection not a grass roots uprising
Smells a bit like Wagner, no?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pohemi

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,102
46,631
136
I saw the wiki page already but the table is in cyrillic so I don't know what it says!

As far as I understand it (I could be wrong) the vote was a national one, not region-by-region.

I don't know how these things are decided on the level of general principle - maybe there's an argument that those in those regions who want to join Russia have lost the right to do so, by siding with Putin's aggression. Maybe they are in the same position as the Sudatenland Germans?

The historical reality is national minorities in Europe couldn't fully excercise 'self determination', because it destabilised nations and led to a patchwork of tiny nations that couldn't defend themselves - that's one of many reasons why Woodrow Wilson was a fool (another reason was that it didn't occur to him that his principles should also apply to colonialised peoples outside of Europe - though that was as much due to him being a racist as being a fool).

In practice a lot of those problems were "solved" via mass-expulsions and forcible population-exchanges.
I think this one is pretty clear. First, those regions had a majority vote for independence when it came up. Second, I think the principle of self determination could and should apply everywhere BUT there has never been a single credible referendum that indicates those areas actually wanted to separate from Ukraine. It's all Russian sham election bullshit.

I think if they had a free and fair independence referendum then it should be respected. Until that point - absolutely fucking not. I also suspect those areas have had quite enough 'liberation' by Russia to put it mildly.
 

Pohemi

Diamond Member
Oct 2, 2004
8,368
10,317
146
While we await commentary, here it is sans paywall https://archive.is/2z4Vn

Summary I got is: we shouldn't help Ukraine, and shouldn't encourage their independence (from Russia).

Much of Kennan's info was out of date though with the major predictions he made over half a century ago (not surprisingly, things change). He was the authority in the mid 20th century, but he was already being brushed aside before the turn of the millenium.
 
Last edited:

ralfy

Senior member
Jul 22, 2013
485
53
91
The article explains that Kennan warned the U.S. about NATO expansion during the late 1990s, arguing that it would lead to aggression on part of Russia. Clinton proceeded with that, and that's what eventually happened.

Kennan came up with the idea of containment, which is in no way outdated. In fact, by the 1990s it became part of a grand chessboard strategy, employed by the U.S., which according to Carter is the most warlike country in modern history:


and has been at war with one country or another throughout much of its history:


and part of it involves decades of attacking, destabilizing, and intervening in various countries:


Part of that warmongering involved the containment strategy that Kennan was talking about, but with the fall of the Soviet Union became illogical. Why, then, did the U.S. pursue the same in the form of encirclement, which included using 400 out of over 700 bases to encircle countries like China?


The reason has to do with two ideologies: neoconservatism and neoliberalism.

The first argues that the U.S. is the sole superpower of the world and the beacon of freedom and democracy. All countries, therefore, but follow it, and those that do not are considered a threat to freedom and democracy and must thus undergo coercion, destabilization, or even intervention in order to implement regime change.

Ukraine experienced that through Vicky Nuland and co.

Neoliberalism argues that the U.S. economic system, which is free market capitalism, is the only way to ensure prosperity, and thus avoidance of conflict. That means all countries that do not follow the same are subject to structural adjustment, and thus their economies must be pried open.

Ukraine is about to experience that through Zelensky's deals with Wall Street:


Why are these ideologies important? Because they make countries dependent on the U.S. and on the dollar, and the U.S. needs that because of the Triffin dilemma: the creator of the currency used as a global reserve eventually experiences chronic trade deficits because its exports become too expensive and imports too cheap. With that, in order to maintain spending, it has to borrow continuously, which is what the U.S. has been doing since the early 1980s:


saupload_public_and_private_debt_burden.jpg


This explains why Kennan's containment became Clinton's encirclement. This also shows that that encirclement is part of a long history of warmongering by the U.S., leading to neoconservatism starting after WW2 then followed by neoliberalism, all needed to keep the dollar propped up, and with that endless borrowing and spending. That endless borrowing, in turn, is dependent on everyone else using the dollar, and to do that they must be kept weak and dependent on the U.S., which in turn has to remain the sole superpower of the world.

The problem is that the same Triffin dilemma has led to increased wealth for the Global South: Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa (BRICS) and forty emerging markets. They are now answering back at the U.S. and NATO, forming new bilateral and multilateral relations, and slowly moving away from the dollar. You can read about it in the news today: Brazil, China, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Russia, India, Mexico, and more, now planning to buy and sell oil and trade using various currencies.

In conclusion, what is now emerging is a multipolar world, and that should be the perspective of separatism in Ukraine and more, especially given the point that Ukraine, which the West was pushing to be part of NATO and to trade only with EU, is part of the same Global South:



Of course, there will always be counter-arguments to this, especially from the chicken hawks and neocons who argue that these are "nothingburgers," that it's impossible for such countries to take over because they're corrupt or authoritarian or evil, etc., similar to what one NATO adviser said:


That is, the future is a "liberal, post-modern life," and that the only ones who can experience that are "Europeans." Everyone else is hopeless, and thus must be dealt with.
 

brycejones

Lifer
Oct 18, 2005
25,709
23,357
136
The article explains that Kennan warned the U.S. about NATO expansion during the late 1990s, arguing that it would lead to aggression on part of Russia. Clinton proceeded with that, and that's what eventually happened.

Kennan came up with the idea of containment, which is in no way outdated. In fact, by the 1990s it became part of a grand chessboard strategy, employed by the U.S., which according to Carter is the most warlike country in modern history:


and has been at war with one country or another throughout much of its history:


and part of it involves decades of attacking, destabilizing, and intervening in various countries:


Part of that warmongering involved the containment strategy that Kennan was talking about, but with the fall of the Soviet Union became illogical. Why, then, did the U.S. pursue the same in the form of encirclement, which included using 400 out of over 700 bases to encircle countries like China?


The reason has to do with two ideologies: neoconservatism and neoliberalism.

The first argues that the U.S. is the sole superpower of the world and the beacon of freedom and democracy. All countries, therefore, but follow it, and those that do not are considered a threat to freedom and democracy and must thus undergo coercion, destabilization, or even intervention in order to implement regime change.

Ukraine experienced that through Vicky Nuland and co.

Neoliberalism argues that the U.S. economic system, which is free market capitalism, is the only way to ensure prosperity, and thus avoidance of conflict. That means all countries that do not follow the same are subject to structural adjustment, and thus their economies must be pried open.

Ukraine is about to experience that through Zelensky's deals with Wall Street:


Why are these ideologies important? Because they make countries dependent on the U.S. and on the dollar, and the U.S. needs that because of the Triffin dilemma: the creator of the currency used as a global reserve eventually experiences chronic trade deficits because its exports become too expensive and imports too cheap. With that, in order to maintain spending, it has to borrow continuously, which is what the U.S. has been doing since the early 1980s:


saupload_public_and_private_debt_burden.jpg


This explains why Kennan's containment became Clinton's encirclement. This also shows that that encirclement is part of a long history of warmongering by the U.S., leading to neoconservatism starting after WW2 then followed by neoliberalism, all needed to keep the dollar propped up, and with that endless borrowing and spending. That endless borrowing, in turn, is dependent on everyone else using the dollar, and to do that they must be kept weak and dependent on the U.S., which in turn has to remain the sole superpower of the world.

The problem is that the same Triffin dilemma has led to increased wealth for the Global South: Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa (BRICS) and forty emerging markets. They are now answering back at the U.S. and NATO, forming new bilateral and multilateral relations, and slowly moving away from the dollar. You can read about it in the news today: Brazil, China, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Russia, India, Mexico, and more, now planning to buy and sell oil and trade using various currencies.

In conclusion, what is now emerging is a multipolar world, and that should be the perspective of separatism in Ukraine and more, especially given the point that Ukraine, which the West was pushing to be part of NATO and to trade only with EU, is part of the same Global South:



Of course, there will always be counter-arguments to this, especially from the chicken hawks and neocons who argue that these are "nothingburgers," that it's impossible for such countries to take over because they're corrupt or authoritarian or evil, etc., similar to what one NATO adviser said:


That is, the future is a "liberal, post-modern life," and that the only ones who can experience that are "Europeans." Everyone else is hopeless, and thus must be dealt with.

LOL, guzzle it up shit for brains.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,232
7,291
136
the point that Ukraine, which the West was pushing to be part of NATO and to trade only with EU, is part of the same Global South:

You think Ukraine belongs to you and not its people. So you act to kill them all and push them off their land.
I'll simply repeat the line I said about Orcs.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,232
7,291
136
What did Russia do when Chechnya tried to seek independence from it?
Compare and contrast with what the Ukraine did to Donetsk after "8 years" of bombing

Perhaps the "global south" would implore us to be more like the Russians. And in a conflict, they would like us to demonstrate the Russian solution first hand.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,102
46,631
136
You think Ukraine belongs to you and not its people. So you act to kill them all and push them off their land.
I'll simply repeat the line I said about Orcs.
Also Ukraine is at essentially the same latitude as France and the northernmost reaches of the United States, lol.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pohemi

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
35,705
27,248
136
The article explains that Kennan warned the U.S. about NATO expansion during the late 1990s, arguing that it would lead to aggression on part of Russia. Clinton proceeded with that, and that's what eventually happened.

Kennan came up with the idea of containment, which is in no way outdated. In fact, by the 1990s it became part of a grand chessboard strategy, employed by the U.S., which according to Carter is the most warlike country in modern history:


and has been at war with one country or another throughout much of its history:


and part of it involves decades of attacking, destabilizing, and intervening in various countries:


Part of that warmongering involved the containment strategy that Kennan was talking about, but with the fall of the Soviet Union became illogical. Why, then, did the U.S. pursue the same in the form of encirclement, which included using 400 out of over 700 bases to encircle countries like China?


The reason has to do with two ideologies: neoconservatism and neoliberalism.

The first argues that the U.S. is the sole superpower of the world and the beacon of freedom and democracy. All countries, therefore, but follow it, and those that do not are considered a threat to freedom and democracy and must thus undergo coercion, destabilization, or even intervention in order to implement regime change.

Ukraine experienced that through Vicky Nuland and co.

Neoliberalism argues that the U.S. economic system, which is free market capitalism, is the only way to ensure prosperity, and thus avoidance of conflict. That means all countries that do not follow the same are subject to structural adjustment, and thus their economies must be pried open.

Ukraine is about to experience that through Zelensky's deals with Wall Street:


Why are these ideologies important? Because they make countries dependent on the U.S. and on the dollar, and the U.S. needs that because of the Triffin dilemma: the creator of the currency used as a global reserve eventually experiences chronic trade deficits because its exports become too expensive and imports too cheap. With that, in order to maintain spending, it has to borrow continuously, which is what the U.S. has been doing since the early 1980s:


saupload_public_and_private_debt_burden.jpg


This explains why Kennan's containment became Clinton's encirclement. This also shows that that encirclement is part of a long history of warmongering by the U.S., leading to neoconservatism starting after WW2 then followed by neoliberalism, all needed to keep the dollar propped up, and with that endless borrowing and spending. That endless borrowing, in turn, is dependent on everyone else using the dollar, and to do that they must be kept weak and dependent on the U.S., which in turn has to remain the sole superpower of the world.

The problem is that the same Triffin dilemma has led to increased wealth for the Global South: Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa (BRICS) and forty emerging markets. They are now answering back at the U.S. and NATO, forming new bilateral and multilateral relations, and slowly moving away from the dollar. You can read about it in the news today: Brazil, China, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Russia, India, Mexico, and more, now planning to buy and sell oil and trade using various currencies.

In conclusion, what is now emerging is a multipolar world, and that should be the perspective of separatism in Ukraine and more, especially given the point that Ukraine, which the West was pushing to be part of NATO and to trade only with EU, is part of the same Global South:



Of course, there will always be counter-arguments to this, especially from the chicken hawks and neocons who argue that these are "nothingburgers," that it's impossible for such countries to take over because they're corrupt or authoritarian or evil, etc., similar to what one NATO adviser said:


That is, the future is a "liberal, post-modern life," and that the only ones who can experience that are "Europeans." Everyone else is hopeless, and thus must be dealt with.
Putin would have moved on his campaign of aggression Nato expansion or not. He once said the breakup of the USSR was the most shameful moment in his countries history and vowed to fix it.
 
  • Love
Reactions: Pohemi

Pohemi

Diamond Member
Oct 2, 2004
8,368
10,317
146
Putin would have moved on his campaign of aggression Nato expansion or not. He once said the breakup of the USSR was the most shameful moment in his countries history and vowed to fix it.
NATO expansion has always been a convenient rationalization for Putin to justify aggression (and expansion) into countries and land to the west of Russian borders.

He wants to rebuild the old USSR, and has plainly stated as much. NATO is just a scapegoat for him.
 

Leeea

Diamond Member
Apr 3, 2020
3,565
5,307
106
Ok, so HOW EXACTLY, is this different from republics of Donetsk and Luhansk seeking independence from Ukraine?!
Well, because in Donetsk and Luhansk a bunch of green men who were recently in the service of the Russian military, equipped with gear that was recently property of the Russian military, came over and pointed a gun in their face and proclaimed they are now an independent republic.

Quite a lot of people disagreed with these green men. They were buried in large trenches outside of town.


That is the difference.
 

Leeea

Diamond Member
Apr 3, 2020
3,565
5,307
106
I heard the arguments before. Donetsk and Luhansk are a part of Ukraine and have no right to separate! Well, if you think about it like this, Poland had "no right" to separate from USSR either, no? Why did everyone support one thing, and so vehemently rejecting the other?
Well, remember the part about Poland separating the moment they could? Well before Poland separated from the USSR they had these big protests and the USSR ran tanks through the protests and turned a bunch of people into hamburger.

Didn't change anyone minds. Poland still wanted to separate and took the first opportunity to do so.


You see, it seems the Russia's penchant of turning Poles into hamburger did not persuade the polish people into the merits of being ruled by the USSR.