Let's Invade Russia!

[barbos]

It did not get back Karelia or rather did not get territories which Stalin offered in exchange for it because they lost in WW2. To the victors goes spoils.

Oh and also north Manchuria should go back to the PRC, along with pretty much all of Tartaria to Mongolia

Tatars are not mongols,

with all of the Ethnic Russians being relocated to Kievian Rus,

Ethnic Russians are not related to Kievian Rus that much, if we are talking about gene pool that is.

with new nations carved out for those such as the Bolghars, Permese, Turkish Crimeans, and Mordvinians.

Indeed, Moscovy Rus was a busy little bee during the early modern period.

Also technically the lands you mentioned wouldn't go to Poland. If anything, they'd go to Lithuania who owned them first before the political union that resulted in The Commonwealth.

No, it would go to Poland, and then Litvinians can demand it back from Poland.

So you see where are we going with this? Hence this demand of frozen borders is stupid.

1. So you deny then that The USSR declared a war of aggression against Finland to annex their territory?

Technically yes, but Stalin offered territory exchange before that.

2. "Tartaria" Is the western name for the territory owned by the turko-mongol empire and includes almost everything north-east of the caspian sea stretching to the Pacific.

So?

3. But it is where the Rus Slavs originate from, not from Moskva or Novgorod.

We don't know that for sure, could be Klingons too.

4. I don't actually subscribe to any of this lunacy, just pointing out how if we applied it extreme enough, The Russian state would simply cease to be since almost all of its territories are the result of conquest and subjugation.

It's 100% true for any state.

1. If you're just going to wage war against someone who declines your offer and take it anyway then it was never a choice, only an ultimatum. Stalin's offer of territory that the Fins were under ZERO obligation to accept does nothing to make this any better.

Where are you going with this?

2. So your previous point doesn't mean anything. The fact that "Mongols are not Tatars" Doesn't matter. ESPECIALLY when you consider the historical context behind the word "Tartar" such as:

I disagree, You suggested to give Russia to Mongolia. I notified you that tartars are not mongols, the fact that they language is in turkic family of languages means nothing. By your logic Russia should get most of Eastern Europe because they speak slavic language there

The Tatars (Russian: татары); (Tatar: татарлар) are Turkic-speaking people[1] living in Asia and Europe. The name "Tatar" first appears in written form on the Kul Tigin monument as ������������������ (TaTaR). Historically, the term "Tatars" was applied to a variety of Turco-Mongol semi-nomadic empires who controlled the vast region known as Tartary. More recently, however, the term refers more narrowly to people who speak one of the Turkic[1] languages.

Bolding is mine

You are giving a lecture to a guy who is most probably 10-20% tartar (most russians are) and who has relatives who are 100% tartar.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tatars

3. We have a pretty good idea of it actually. Its commonly accepted that the Rus people originate from further west than Moskva, a region which was historically populated by Mordvids and baltic peoples.

No, I think it was Klingons.

4. Not -Every state- But certainly the ones who's current borders are the result of past conquests.

Every state is a result of land grab or invasion of some sort.

 

[LordKiran]

It did not get back Karelia or rather did not get territories which Stalin offered in exchange for it because they lost in WW2. To the victors goes spoils.

Oh and also north Manchuria should go back to the PRC, along with pretty much all of Tartaria to Mongolia

Tatars are not mongols,

with all of the Ethnic Russians being relocated to Kievian Rus,

Ethnic Russians are not related to Kievian Rus that much, if we are talking about gene pool that is.

with new nations carved out for those such as the Bolghars, Permese, Turkish Crimeans, and Mordvinians.

Indeed, Moscovy Rus was a busy little bee during the early modern period.

Also technically the lands you mentioned wouldn't go to Poland. If anything, they'd go to Lithuania who owned them first before the political union that resulted in The Commonwealth.

No, it would go to Poland, and then Litvinians can demand it back from Poland.

So you see where are we going with this? Hence this demand of frozen borders is stupid.

1. So you deny then that The USSR declared a war of aggression against Finland to annex their territory?

Technically yes, but Stalin offered territory exchange before that.

2. "Tartaria" Is the western name for the territory owned by the turko-mongol empire and includes almost everything north-east of the caspian sea stretching to the Pacific.

So?

3. But it is where the Rus Slavs originate from, not from Moskva or Novgorod.

We don't know that for sure, could be Klingons too.

4. I don't actually subscribe to any of this lunacy, just pointing out how if we applied it extreme enough, The Russian state would simply cease to be since almost all of its territories are the result of conquest and subjugation.

It's 100% true for any state.

1. If you're just going to wage war against someone who declines your offer and take it anyway then it was never a choice, only an ultimatum. Stalin's offer of territory that the Fins were under ZERO obligation to accept does nothing to make this any better.

Where are you going with this?

2. So your previous point doesn't mean anything. The fact that "Mongols are not Tatars" Doesn't matter. ESPECIALLY when you consider the historical context behind the word "Tartar" such as:

I disagree, You suggested to give Russia to Mongolia. I notified you that tartars are not mongols, the fact that they language is in turkic family of languages means nothing. By your logic Russia should get most of Eastern Europe because they speak slavic language there

The Tatars (Russian: татары); (Tatar: татарлар) are Turkic-speaking people[1] living in Asia and Europe. The name "Tatar" first appears in written form on the Kul Tigin monument as ������������������ (TaTaR). Historically, the term "Tatars" was applied to a variety of Turco-Mongol semi-nomadic empires who controlled the vast region known as Tartary. More recently, however, the term refers more narrowly to people who speak one of the Turkic[1] languages.

Bolding is mine

You are giving a lecture to a guy who is most probably 10-20% tartar (most russians are) and who has relatives who are 100% tartar.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tatars

3. We have a pretty good idea of it actually. Its commonly accepted that the Rus people originate from further west than Moskva, a region which was historically populated by Mordvids and baltic peoples.

No, I think it was Klingons.

4. Not -Every state- But certainly the ones who's current borders are the result of past conquests.

Every state is a result of land grab or invasion of some sort.

- - - Updated - - -

It did not get back Karelia or rather did not get territories which Stalin offered in exchange for it because they lost in WW2. To the victors goes spoils.

Oh and also north Manchuria should go back to the PRC, along with pretty much all of Tartaria to Mongolia

Tatars are not mongols,

with all of the Ethnic Russians being relocated to Kievian Rus,

Ethnic Russians are not related to Kievian Rus that much, if we are talking about gene pool that is.

with new nations carved out for those such as the Bolghars, Permese, Turkish Crimeans, and Mordvinians.

Indeed, Moscovy Rus was a busy little bee during the early modern period.

Also technically the lands you mentioned wouldn't go to Poland. If anything, they'd go to Lithuania who owned them first before the political union that resulted in The Commonwealth.

No, it would go to Poland, and then Litvinians can demand it back from Poland.

So you see where are we going with this? Hence this demand of frozen borders is stupid.

1. So you deny then that The USSR declared a war of aggression against Finland to annex their territory?

Technically yes, but Stalin offered territory exchange before that.

2. "Tartaria" Is the western name for the territory owned by the turko-mongol empire and includes almost everything north-east of the caspian sea stretching to the Pacific.

So?

3. But it is where the Rus Slavs originate from, not from Moskva or Novgorod.

We don't know that for sure, could be Klingons too.

4. I don't actually subscribe to any of this lunacy, just pointing out how if we applied it extreme enough, The Russian state would simply cease to be since almost all of its territories are the result of conquest and subjugation.

It's 100% true for any state.

1. If you're just going to wage war against someone who declines your offer and take it anyway then it was never a choice, only an ultimatum. Stalin's offer of territory that the Fins were under ZERO obligation to accept does nothing to make this any better.

Where are you going with this?

2. So your previous point doesn't mean anything. The fact that "Mongols are not Tatars" Doesn't matter. ESPECIALLY when you consider the historical context behind the word "Tartar" such as:

I disagree, You suggested to give Russia to Mongolia. I notified you that tartars are not mongols, the fact that they language is in turkic family of languages means nothing. By your logic Russia should get most of Eastern Europe because they speak slavic language there

The Tatars (Russian: татары); (Tatar: татарлар) are Turkic-speaking people[1] living in Asia and Europe. The name "Tatar" first appears in written form on the Kul Tigin monument as ������������������ (TaTaR). Historically, the term "Tatars" was applied to a variety of Turco-Mongol semi-nomadic empires who controlled the vast region known as Tartary. More recently, however, the term refers more narrowly to people who speak one of the Turkic[1] languages.

Bolding is mine

You are giving a lecture to a guy who is most probably 10-20% tartar (most russians are) and who has relatives who are 100% tartar.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tatars

3. We have a pretty good idea of it actually. Its commonly accepted that the Rus people originate from further west than Moskva, a region which was historically populated by Mordvids and baltic peoples.

No, I think it was Klingons.

4. Not -Every state- But certainly the ones who's current borders are the result of past conquests.

Every state is a result of land grab or invasion of some sort.

1. Your excuse for Stalin's invasion is pathetic, he was a warmonger looking to secure the interests of his people at the expense of others, pure and simple. That's where I am going with this.
2. The fact that you can't get past "Tartaria" Not being specifically related to the modern Tatars is your own shortcoming, not mine.
3. Sure, but not every state is in itself responsible for those land grabs. I don't recall the Nepali ever taking over India, nor do I recall the Irish ever expanding into Britannia .

 

[barbos]

1. Your excuse for Stalin's invasion is pathetic, he was a warmonger looking to secure the interests of his people at the expense of others, pure and simple. That's where I am going with this.

That's a stupid thing to say. First of all I was not giving excuses, I merely informed you of the facts. Second of all, (I am informing you again) Stalin was many bad things but he was not a warmonger. Going back to Finnish war, it was an attempt to secure Leningrad from likely invasion of Hitler. Stalin offered more than generous exchange, but Finland which was tilting toward Germany at that time declined it.

2. The fact that you can't get past "Tartaria" Not being specifically related to the modern Tatars is your own shortcoming, not mine.

Again, You suggested that present day Mongolia has some kind of relation to "Tartaria", which is ridiculous to say the least. If anything it's Russia who should own Mongolia by that logic. Because Russia as is a direct descendant of said "Tartaria"

3. Sure, but not every state is in itself responsible for those land grabs. I don't recall the Nepali ever taking over India, nor do I recall the Irish ever expanding into Britannia .

Irish most certainly invaded the isle. The fact that they came before these other guys is no excuse.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Every state is a result of land grab or invasion of some sort.

Yes. And there has been continual war for 30 000 years over land and expanding one's tribe. The resulting mess is that everybody has a historical claim to everything. Do you like war? Does anybody like war? No. So what's the solution? It's to accept the current arbitrary borders and everybody agree to keep them that way. That was the whole point of the UN, EU and NATO. That was the fundamental underpinning idea of all of them. To stop imperialists trying to expand their borders, no matter what flag or reason.

Stalin just behaved like any minor medieval king. A constant push to expand borders. Lenin was all about uniting the international workers of the world. Stalin had no patience with any of that. He just wanted to be a potentate with as much power as possible. Stalin was the worst thing that could have happened to the USSR.

 

[barbos]

Every state is a result of land grab or invasion of some sort.

Yes. And there has been continual war for 30 000 years over land and expanding one's tribe. The resulting mess is that everybody has a historical claim to everything. Do you like war? Does anybody like war?
No.

There is no war in Crimea. People seems to be content with their voting results.

So what's the solution? It's to accept the current arbitrary borders and everybody agree to keep them that way. That was the whole point of the UN, EU and NATO.

Kosovo! And no, that's not the point of NATO. The point of NATO is protection from possible Soviet invasion which never came.

That was the fundamental underpinning idea of all of them. To stop imperialists trying to expand their borders, no matter what flag or reason.

Stalin just behaved like any minor medieval king. A constant push to expand borders. Lenin was all about uniting the international workers of the world. Stalin had no patience with any of that. He just wanted to be a potentate with as much power as possible. Stalin was the worst thing that could have happened to the USSR.

I don't think you are well versed in Soviet history. Stalin was an isolationist, and Lenin truly believed in communism crap and expected revolution all over the world coming any day now. that's why he let Finland go.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Yes. And there has been continual war for 30 000 years over land and expanding one's tribe. The resulting mess is that everybody has a historical claim to everything. Do you like war? Does anybody like war?
No.

There is no war in Crimea. People seems to be content with their voting results.

A take over is a take over. The threat of war is sometimes as effective as an actual war. Without the Russian army to back the coup up there's no way it would have succeeded.

The vote was total bullshit. It was rushed through with one side prepared and ready to spring into action, while the other side hadn't even picked leaders. A vote like that takes years to plan if it is free and fair. There's just no way in hell it could have been. Russia also isn't a democracy. It doesn't have free press.

So what's the solution? It's to accept the current arbitrary borders and everybody agree to keep them that way. That was the whole point of the UN, EU and NATO.

Kosovo! And no, that's not the point of NATO. The point of NATO is protection from possible Soviet invasion which never came.

I think you are correct. The USSR was the biggest threat to European peace so therefore NATO. Perhaps a Soviet invasion never came because of NATO. Ever think of that? The Crimea take over came when USA was tied up in Iraq and Afghanistan. Already weary of war. The timing was too good not to have been orchestrated by Russia. This was Putin's one chance to grab Crimea and he went for it.

The point of NATO is to protect members states. Kosovo was not a member. So what's your point? The UN did their best. So did the EU. There's just so much you can do in a conflict. But it was a civil war. An internal conflict. The Ukrainian civil war wasn't a civil war. It was an undercover invasion by Russia. Like so many proxy wars in history

I don't think you are well versed in Soviet history. Stalin was an isolationist,

So communist take-overs behind the iron curtain didn't happen, or what? Are you high? Stalin was NOT an isolationist. You should perhaps look up what that words means.

 

[barbos]

There is no war in Crimea. People seems to be content with their voting results.

A take over is a take over. The threat of war is sometimes as effective as an actual war. Without the Russian army to back the coup up there's no way it would have succeeded.

Without russian army, there would have been war there. Crimeans would have been fighting ukrainian Nazis. And from the looks of it nazis had no chance. So end result would have been a bunch of dead nazis and Crimea going back to Russia one way or another.

The vote was total bullshit.

Unfortunately it was not.

It was rushed through with one side prepared and ready to spring into action, while the other side hadn't even picked leaders. A vote like that takes years to plan if it is free and fair.

Usually it's true but in this case the fact that Crimea ended up in Ukraine was a mistake and they really were waiting for opportunity to leave Ukraine.

There's just no way in hell it could have been. Russia also isn't a democracy. It doesn't have free press.

Russia is crappy democracy, but again, in this case free press or not free press, result would have been the same.

So what's the solution? It's to accept the current arbitrary borders and everybody agree to keep them that way. That was the whole point of the UN, EU and NATO.

Kosovo! And no, that's not the point of NATO. The point of NATO is protection from possible Soviet invasion which never came.

I think you are correct. The USSR was the biggest threat to European peace so therefore NATO. Perhaps a Soviet invasion never came because of NATO. Ever think of that?

USSR had no plans of invasion, unless US strikes first. And US had plans of first strike. That's a now known fact.

The Crimea take over came when USA was tied up in Iraq and Afghanistan. Already weary of war. The timing was too good not to have been orchestrated by Russia. This was Putin's one chance to grab Crimea and he went for it.

Complete and total bullshit. Crimea "take over" happened when US and EU orchestrated illegal coup and installed extremely hostile toward Russia regime. It was done in order to undermine Russian security and economy which was highly integrated with Ukraine.

The point of NATO is to protect members states.

Yes, by eliminating all possible threats.

Kosovo was not a member. So what's your point?

My point is, Serbia was the only one remaining ally of Russia in Eastern Europe, some say the only reason all that shit happened was a result of that.

The UN did their best. So did the EU. There's just so much you can do in a conflict. But it was a civil war. An internal conflict. The Ukrainian civil war wasn't a civil war. It was an undercover invasion by Russia. Like so many proxy wars in history

Oh, they have a civil war alright.

I don't think you are well versed in Soviet history. Stalin was an isolationist,

So communist take-overs behind the iron curtain didn't happen, or what? Are you high? Stalin was NOT an isolationist. You should perhaps look up what that words means.

Again, you don't know this shit, which is the very usual with you

 

[DrZoidberg]

Complete and total bullshit. Crimea "take over" happened when US and EU orchestrated illegal coup and installed extremely hostile toward Russia regime. It was done in order to undermine Russian security and economy which was highly integrated with Ukraine.

Yanukovych was a Russian puppet and stooge. I'd say that Yanukovych and Putin were hostile to the Ukrainian people. Since they decided what was legal, of course any uprising against it would be illegal. The fact that it is illegal, doesn't make it bad. The Ukrainian people clearly needed outside help if they were to be able to escape Russian oppression. At the fall of the Iron Curtain Ukraine was seen as the most likely to succeed. It all turned to shit because of corruption and Russian meddling. I have a hard time seeing how close ties to Russia has been a benefit to the Ukraine?

Western meddling led to Poland becoming free. It led to East-Germany joining West Germany. There's a lot of good that has come from western meddling in Eastern Europe. I can't see how you have any argument?

The point of NATO is to protect members states.

Yes, by eliminating all possible threats.

But Russia IS a threat. Which it's take-over of Crimea proved. They needed protection from Russia. Which they failed to provide.

Kosovo was not a member. So what's your point?

My point is, Serbia was the only one remaining ally of Russia in Eastern Europe, some say the only reason all that shit happened was a result of that.

I'm pretty sure it happened the way it happened because of Tito. He used ethnic animosity as a tool to control people. Just like Saddam did in Iraq. the following civil war was pretty predictable.

You sound like a paranoic. I don't think the UN, NATO and EU got involved to fight Russia. I think they had a genuine interest to create peace. Russia has since the Tsars been imperialist. They haven't stopped. The rest of Europe have stopped being imperialist. Since Russia continues to test what they can get away with, the appearance is that the west is against Russia. But they're not. They are just for stability and peace.

So communist take-overs behind the iron curtain didn't happen, or what? Are you high? Stalin was NOT an isolationist. You should perhaps look up what that words means.

Again, you don't know this shit, which is the very usual with you

All the countries in the East-Bloc (except Albania) were Soviet puppet states. That could not have happened if Stalin was isolationist. The evidence is against you.

 

[LordKiran]

That's a stupid thing to say. First of all I was not giving excuses, I merely informed you of the facts. Second of all, (I am informing you again) Stalin was many bad things but he was not a warmonger. Going back to Finnish war, it was an attempt to secure Leningrad from likely invasion of Hitler. Stalin offered more than generous exchange, but Finland which was tilting toward Germany at that time declined it.

2. The fact that you can't get past "Tartaria" Not being specifically related to the modern Tatars is your own shortcoming, not mine.

Again, You suggested that present day Mongolia has some kind of relation to "Tartaria", which is ridiculous to say the least. If anything it's Russia who should own Mongolia by that logic. Because Russia as is a direct descendant of said "Tartaria"

3. Sure, but not every state is in itself responsible for those land grabs. I don't recall the Nepali ever taking over India, nor do I recall the Irish ever expanding into Britannia .

Irish most certainly invaded the isle. The fact that they came before these other guys is no excuse.

1. So if someone doesn't give you what you want you can just go in and take it? Guy was a warmongering asshat. Finland was (For the final time) under zero obligation to give Stalin THEIR sovereign soil. So he went and just took it. Stop trying to defend Stalin's warmongering.

2. Because it does. Tartaria is the name westerners gave to their empire. There is no direct relation between the region of Tartaria and modern Tatars.

3. So you can point to Irish kingdoms established on Britannia?

 

[barbos]

Yanukovych was a Russian puppet and stooge.

As opposed to current puppet and stooge?

I'd say that Yanukovych and Putin were hostile to the Ukrainian people.

You would, but that would not be an accurate description of reality.

Since they decided what was legal, of course any uprising against it would be illegal. The fact that it is illegal, doesn't make it bad.

Don't be dense. I said West orchestrated a coup.

The Ukrainian people clearly needed outside help if they were to be able to escape Russian oppression.

Bullshit

the fall of the Iron Curtain Ukraine was seen as the most likely to succeed. It all turned to shit because of corruption and Russian meddling. I have a hard time seeing how close ties to Russia has been a benefit to the Ukraine?

Western meddling led to Poland becoming free. It led to East-Germany joining West Germany. There's a lot of good that has come from western meddling in Eastern Europe. I can't see how you have any argument?

The point of NATO is to protect members states.

Yes, by eliminating all possible threats.

But Russia IS a threat. Which it's take-over of Crimea proved. They needed protection from Russia. Which they failed to provide.

Kosovo was not a member. So what's your point?

My point is, Serbia was the only one remaining ally of Russia in Eastern Europe, some say the only reason all that shit happened was a result of that.

I'm pretty sure it happened the way it happened because of Tito. He used ethnic animosity as a tool to control people. Just like Saddam did in Iraq. the following civil war was pretty predictable.

You sound like a paranoic. I don't think the UN, NATO and EU got involved to fight Russia. I think they had a genuine interest to create peace. Russia has since the Tsars been imperialist. They haven't stopped. The rest of Europe have stopped being imperialist. Since Russia continues to test what they can get away with, the appearance is that the west is against Russia. But they're not. They are just for stability and peace.

So communist take-overs behind the iron curtain didn't happen, or what? Are you high? Stalin was NOT an isolationist. You should perhaps look up what that words means.

Again, you don't know this shit, which is the very usual with you

All the countries in the East-Bloc (except Albania) were Soviet puppet states. That could not have happened if Stalin was isolationist. The evidence is against you.

Everything you say is total bullshit

 

[barbos]

That's a stupid thing to say. First of all I was not giving excuses, I merely informed you of the facts. Second of all, (I am informing you again) Stalin was many bad things but he was not a warmonger. Going back to Finnish war, it was an attempt to secure Leningrad from likely invasion of Hitler. Stalin offered more than generous exchange, but Finland which was tilting toward Germany at that time declined it.

Again, You suggested that present day Mongolia has some kind of relation to "Tartaria", which is ridiculous to say the least. If anything it's Russia who should own Mongolia by that logic. Because Russia as is a direct descendant of said "Tartaria"

3. Sure, but not every state is in itself responsible for those land grabs. I don't recall the Nepali ever taking over India, nor do I recall the Irish ever expanding into Britannia .

Irish most certainly invaded the isle. The fact that they came before these other guys is no excuse.

1. So if someone doesn't give you what you want you can just go in and take it?

Depends on the context.

Guy was a warmongering asshat. Finland was (For the final time) under zero obligation to give Stalin THEIR sovereign soil. So he went and just took it. Stop trying to defend Stalin's warmongering.

Afghanistan was under no obligation to hand Ben Laden to US.

2. Because it does. Tartaria is the name westerners gave to their empire. There is no direct relation between the region of Tartaria and modern Tatars.

You are talking nonsense.

3. So you can point to Irish kingdoms established on Britannia?

What?

 

[bilby]

Every state is a result of land grab or invasion of some sort.

Yes. And there has been continual war for 30 000 years over land and expanding one's tribe. The resulting mess is that everybody has a historical claim to everything. Do you like war? Does anybody like war? No. So what's the solution? It's to accept the current arbitrary borders and everybody agree to keep them that way. That was the whole point of the UN, EU and NATO. That was the fundamental underpinning idea of all of them. To stop imperialists trying to expand their borders, no matter what flag or reason.

Stalin just behaved like any minor medieval king. A constant push to expand borders. Lenin was all about uniting the international workers of the world. Stalin had no patience with any of that. He just wanted to be a potentate with as much power as possible. Stalin was the worst thing that could have happened to the USSR.

OK; so if you think that keeping the current borders is the best option, then why are you advocating an invasion?

You seem to want to keep, not the current borders, but the borders as they were a few years ago.

How did you decide on a date at which to fix these borders? How can you expect any agreement on a given choice of date, when a different choice would be hugely advantageous to so many interested parties?

It's a nice idea; but how can it be made to work?

If you pick a date in the past, people will demand a date that's further in the past, then others will demand a date that's further still, and you will never get agreement.

If you pick a date in the future, to allow time to get everything set up, then everyone will immediately go on an orgy of land-grabs, in the hope of having the biggest share when the music stops.

If you pick today, right now, this minute, then how do you even know where the borders of areas currently in dispute are? And how do you get the news out to everyone? If it takes a week for the news to reach a disputed territory, the guys who hold it a week from now are not going to be happy to hand it back to the guys they just spent a week being shot at by to get it.

Perhaps you could hold a lottery and draw a (recent) historical date from a hat; but I can't see many governments agreeing to a deal where they don't know if they might lose some territory that they consider particularly valuable or important.

 

[DrZoidberg]

As opposed to current puppet and stooge?

Poroshenko is a nationalist. If he was a puppet, he wouldn't have been a nationalist. He was also elected in a proper election that was considered free and fair by international observers. Are you fucking insane? Obviously he's not anybody's stooge. He's the leader that the Ukrainians elected. Too fucking bad for Russia that he agrees with the west that Russia is Ukraine's biggest threat. Which he's probably absolutely correct in thinking IMHO.

I'd say that Yanukovych and Putin were hostile to the Ukrainian people.

You would, but that would not be an accurate description of reality.

Sometimes you say the darndest things. Yanukovych sold out his own country to Russia and let it pick it clean. What more evidence do you need?

Since they decided what was legal, of course any uprising against it would be illegal. The fact that it is illegal, doesn't make it bad.

Don't be dense. I said West orchestrated a coup.

I'm not going to disagree. But that still doesn't make it bad. The west helped topple the dictatorship to allow the Ukraine to get to chose the leaders they want. The fact that the west supported the uprising and helped topple Yanukovych doesn't mean that they had any hand in picking the replacement. I think it's pretty clear that Poroshenko is not in any way a stooge of the west. That guy's nationalist policies is making most of Europe very uncomfortable.

Everything you say is total bullshit

Lol... are you perhaps out of arguments?

 

[DrZoidberg]

Yes. And there has been continual war for 30 000 years over land and expanding one's tribe. The resulting mess is that everybody has a historical claim to everything. Do you like war? Does anybody like war? No. So what's the solution? It's to accept the current arbitrary borders and everybody agree to keep them that way. That was the whole point of the UN, EU and NATO. That was the fundamental underpinning idea of all of them. To stop imperialists trying to expand their borders, no matter what flag or reason.

Stalin just behaved like any minor medieval king. A constant push to expand borders. Lenin was all about uniting the international workers of the world. Stalin had no patience with any of that. He just wanted to be a potentate with as much power as possible. Stalin was the worst thing that could have happened to the USSR.

OK; so if you think that keeping the current borders is the best option, then why are you advocating an invasion?

You seem to want to keep, not the current borders, but the borders as they were a few years ago.

How did you decide on a date at which to fix these borders? How can you expect any agreement on a given choice of date, when a different choice would be hugely advantageous to so many interested parties?

It's a nice idea; but how can it be made to work?

If you pick a date in the past, people will demand a date that's further in the past, then others will demand a date that's further still, and you will never get agreement.

If you pick a date in the future, to allow time to get everything set up, then everyone will immediately go on an orgy of land-grabs, in the hope of having the biggest share when the music stops.

If you pick today, right now, this minute, then how do you even know where the borders of areas currently in dispute are? And how do you get the news out to everyone? If it takes a week for the news to reach a disputed territory, the guys who hold it a week from now are not going to be happy to hand it back to the guys they just spent a week being shot at by to get it.

Perhaps you could hold a lottery and draw a (recent) historical date from a hat; but I can't see many governments agreeing to a deal where they don't know if they might lose some territory that they consider particularly valuable or important.

Of course it's arbitrary. But the borders at the end of WWII is as good as any. Which has been the de facto mission of the UN. Whenever there's a civil war things get messy. But once the smoke has cleared that is then the new borders. Any invasion is seen as illegal, and later rectified.

It's not a perfect system. But it's not going to be fair and just. So there's no point striving for it. Better to just aim for peace. And that means coming down hard on anybody trying to fight an aggressive war. I think the world failed Crimea. I think we should all feel shame about it.

 

[bilby]

OK; so if you think that keeping the current borders is the best option, then why are you advocating an invasion?

You seem to want to keep, not the current borders, but the borders as they were a few years ago.

How did you decide on a date at which to fix these borders? How can you expect any agreement on a given choice of date, when a different choice would be hugely advantageous to so many interested parties?

It's a nice idea; but how can it be made to work?

If you pick a date in the past, people will demand a date that's further in the past, then others will demand a date that's further still, and you will never get agreement.

If you pick a date in the future, to allow time to get everything set up, then everyone will immediately go on an orgy of land-grabs, in the hope of having the biggest share when the music stops.

If you pick today, right now, this minute, then how do you even know where the borders of areas currently in dispute are? And how do you get the news out to everyone? If it takes a week for the news to reach a disputed territory, the guys who hold it a week from now are not going to be happy to hand it back to the guys they just spent a week being shot at by to get it.

Perhaps you could hold a lottery and draw a (recent) historical date from a hat; but I can't see many governments agreeing to a deal where they don't know if they might lose some territory that they consider particularly valuable or important.

Of course it's arbitrary. But the borders at the end of WWII is as good as any. Which has been the de facto mission of the UN. Whenever there's a civil war things get messy. But once the smoke has cleared that is then the new borders. Any invasion is seen as illegal, and later rectified.

It's not a perfect system. But it's not going to be fair and just. So there's no point striving for it. Better to just aim for peace. And that means coming down hard on anybody trying to fight an aggressive war. I think the world failed Crimea. I think we should all feel shame about it.

At the end of WWII, the Soviet Union covered all of the area we are discussing; there were no international borders at all.

Internal administrative borders are assuredly not the same thing as international borders, and have a vastly different impact on the people who live and work near to them.

Further afield, are you proposing to forcibly reunite Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia; and to forcibly separate Germany into East and West, in accordance with the fixed borders at the end of WWII?

 

[DrZoidberg]

Of course it's arbitrary. But the borders at the end of WWII is as good as any. Which has been the de facto mission of the UN. Whenever there's a civil war things get messy. But once the smoke has cleared that is then the new borders. Any invasion is seen as illegal, and later rectified.

It's not a perfect system. But it's not going to be fair and just. So there's no point striving for it. Better to just aim for peace. And that means coming down hard on anybody trying to fight an aggressive war. I think the world failed Crimea. I think we should all feel shame about it.

At the end of WWII, the Soviet Union covered all of the area we are discussing; there were no international borders at all.

Internal administrative borders are assuredly not the same thing as international borders, and have a vastly different impact on the people who live and work near to them.

Further afield, are you proposing to forcibly reunite Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia; and to forcibly separate Germany into East and West, in accordance with the fixed borders at the end of WWII?

You're not listening. When the USSR fell apart Crimea ended up in Ukraine. That makes it part of Ukraine for ever. it doesn't matter what the borders were at the end of WWII if there's a civil war/dissolution of an empire following it. Why would I want to forcibly reunite any countries who doesn't want to? As far as I remember there was a popular movement regarding uniting East and West Germany, in both countries. So I can't see you have an argument.

It would be one thing if there was a civil war in the Ukraine and it fell apart, making Crimea separate. And then after peace they voted about becoming part of Russia in a free and fair election. But that's not what happened at all. Russia grabbed the Crimea using Russian soldiers in civilian clothing posing as Ukrainians. The whole Ukrainian civil war was fought like that. It was a Russian invasion. And nothing else. And we shouldn't give Putin the benefit of the doubt.

 

[bilby]

At the end of WWII, the Soviet Union covered all of the area we are discussing; there were no international borders at all.

Internal administrative borders are assuredly not the same thing as international borders, and have a vastly different impact on the people who live and work near to them.

Further afield, are you proposing to forcibly reunite Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia; and to forcibly separate Germany into East and West, in accordance with the fixed borders at the end of WWII?

You're not listening. When the USSR fell apart Crimea ended up in Ukraine. That makes it part of Ukraine for ever. it doesn't matter what the borders were at the end of WWII if there's a civil war/dissolution of an empire following it. Why would I want to forcibly reunite any countries who doesn't want to? As far as I remember there was a popular movement regarding uniting East and West Germany, in both countries. So I can't see you have an argument.

It would be one thing if there was a civil war in the Ukraine and it fell apart, making Crimea separate. And then after peace they voted about becoming part of Russia in a free and fair election. But that's not what happened at all. Russia grabbed the Crimea using Russian soldiers in civilian clothing posing as Ukrainians. The whole Ukrainian civil war was fought like that. It was a Russian invasion. And nothing else. And we shouldn't give Putin the benefit of the doubt.

There's a popular movement in Crimea to separate from Ukraine and join Russia. Of course Russia supports it; just as West Germany supported East Germany's popular movement in favour of reunification.

There were plenty of people in East Germany (and West Germany too for that matter) who opposed reunification. It was popular, but far from unanimous.

I am listening, but what I am hearing is inconsistent, contradictory, and oversimplified.

I don't disagree with you because I don't understand your idea; I disagree with you because I think you are wrong.

 

[DrZoidberg]

You're not listening. When the USSR fell apart Crimea ended up in Ukraine. That makes it part of Ukraine for ever. it doesn't matter what the borders were at the end of WWII if there's a civil war/dissolution of an empire following it. Why would I want to forcibly reunite any countries who doesn't want to? As far as I remember there was a popular movement regarding uniting East and West Germany, in both countries. So I can't see you have an argument.

It would be one thing if there was a civil war in the Ukraine and it fell apart, making Crimea separate. And then after peace they voted about becoming part of Russia in a free and fair election. But that's not what happened at all. Russia grabbed the Crimea using Russian soldiers in civilian clothing posing as Ukrainians. The whole Ukrainian civil war was fought like that. It was a Russian invasion. And nothing else. And we shouldn't give Putin the benefit of the doubt.

There's a popular movement in Crimea to separate from Ukraine and join Russia. Of course Russia supports it; just as West Germany supported East Germany's popular movement in favour of reunification.

There were plenty of people in East Germany (and West Germany too for that matter) who opposed reunification. It was popular, but far from unanimous.

That's perfectly fine. Then they should have have had a referendum about it, in peacetime. A proper election, where both parties were given a chance to make their case. The way they did it was just a land grab. Not to mention that Ukraine under Yanukovich was horrendously mismanaged and corrupt, because of Russia. Pensions were higher in Russia than Ukraine. It could just as well have been a question of money rather than national identity. There's just so much wrong with the way it happened.

The problem with problematising the German reunification is that there was virtually no opposition to it in Germany. They have free press. Whatever voices against it we would have heard. The opposition to it, I think it's just in your head. I remember it clearly. The only debate was how, not if.

Crimea... not so much. They don't have free press. That means that we can't trust anything that comes out of that place.

I am listening, but what I am hearing is inconsistent, contradictory, and oversimplified.

I don't disagree with you because I don't understand your idea; I disagree with you because I think you are wrong.

I think your position is dangerous. Obviously Putin is just going to keep going. How much are you going to allow Putin to grab before you're willing to get a backbone and defend democratic freedoms? The harder we say no, the quicker Putin will drop whatever imperial plans he harbors.

 

[barbos]

Poroshenko is a nationalist.....

OK, we are done here. You clearly can not be educated.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect
It's about you, in case you were wondering.

 

[barbos]

At the end of WWII, the Soviet Union covered all of the area we are discussing; there were no international borders at all.

Internal administrative borders are assuredly not the same thing as international borders, and have a vastly different impact on the people who live and work near to them.

Further afield, are you proposing to forcibly reunite Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia; and to forcibly separate Germany into East and West, in accordance with the fixed borders at the end of WWII?

Hey, some here are advocating reinstatement of Mongol Empire. Do I have to remind you that Australia was not discovered yet?