|
|
Post by Mari on Mar 7, 2014 22:01:18 GMT
Like there aren't any dramaz in Russian politics. Oh no, wait, there aren't, because people get locked up before they get a chance to start any dramaz. It doesn't matter that many people speak and are and feel Russian there. Just as many speak and are and feel Ukranian. It's a rotten pretext. (NB: not reacting to you, WG, but to Russia  ) |
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Mar 7, 2014 22:22:47 GMT
If Crimea has a referendum, which I doubt, it's not certain the majority will vote to be annexed by Russia. They want autonomy, which is what most people want. They don't want to be ruled by Europhiles who speak another language, or by descendents of Stalin, they want control of their own destiny. 58% of the Crimean people are ethnic Russians, 24% are ethnic Ukrainians whilst 12% are ethnic Crimean Tatars. (Crimean Tatars suffered terribly during Stalin's regime. The whole population of Crimean Tatars were deported en masse, in a form of collective punishment, on 18 May 1944 and nearly half of them died. So although they speak Russian with non-Tatars, their affinity will probably be to either Ukraine or Turkey.) Belgium has nothing on this  |
|
|
|
Post by whollygoats on Mar 7, 2014 23:08:16 GMT
Oh, I'm pretty sure that Russia would be willing to grant them all sorts of autonomy....*wink, wink, nudge, nudge*
|
|
|
|
Post by spaceflower on Mar 9, 2014 2:39:47 GMT
About the protests and demonstrations on Maidan in Kiev. Some Swedes went there but not to defend democracy. They wanted to defend White Power: Now a group of European neo-Nazis are traveling to Ukraine to save the white race www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/02/28/the-swedish-neo-nazis-of-kiev.htmlYes, how proud I am of these countrymen - not. The Nazis take advantage of chaos. And Russian propaganda now say that Nazis were behind the uprising. |
|
|
|
Post by spaceflower on Mar 9, 2014 2:56:58 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by jayme on Mar 9, 2014 3:07:29 GMT
I hope there aren't pockets of Russian speakers living in Belarus, the Baltic States, Finland, Azerbaijan, Kazhakstan, & etc. For some reason this reminds me of the beginning of WW2.
|
|
|
|
Post by spaceflower on Mar 10, 2014 1:26:57 GMT
There are ca 27% Russians in Latvia. But there are also many Russians living in east Ukarina, outside of Crimea. Yes, it reminds of Sudetenland: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_occupation_of_CzechoslovakiaNobocy stopped Hitler then, and nobody will stop Putin now. Russia will now open a military base at Alakurtti, near the Finnish border and 300 kilometres from Sweden. There is high time to stop the disarmament of the Swedish defence. Russia can take Gotland any time. If Russia wanted to prevent Nato troops from using Gotland as a base if defending the Baltic states if Russia turns on them. |
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Mar 11, 2014 11:32:25 GMT
I hope there aren't pockets of Russian speakers living in Belarus, the Baltic States, Finland, Azerbaijan, Kazhakstan, & etc. Ethic groups do not observe national boundaries. There are Russians all over Europe many of whom do not actually live within Russian borders. There are ca 27% Russians in Latvia. But there are also many Russians living in east Ukraine, outside of Crimea. You're concerned Russia might invade Latvia because 27% of the Latvian population are ethnic Russians. If Latvia engages a programme of ethnic cleansing in Latvia, as the Georgian army did in South Ossetia in 1991 and threatened to do in 2008, then we could well expect Putin to invade Latvia... and in the name of humanity, we should welcome it. We must not forget that eastern Europe is a maelstrom of ethnic cleansing. In 1991-92, "approximately 1,000 people died and about 100,000 ethnic Ossetians fled the territory and Georgia proper, most across the border into North Ossetia. A further 23,000 ethnic Georgians fled South Ossetia and settled in other parts of Georgia." And in 2008, following a process of ethnic cleansing the population, the nearby state of Abkhazia was reduced from 525,000 to 216,000. More than half the population were ethnically cleansed! Mari makes the point that sovereign territory should not be violated, and I agree. But what does sovereign territory mean and who decides? There are disagreements throughout the world about who owns which piece of land. Argentina and Britain disagree on the Falkland Islands, China and Japan believe they both have the rights to a group of islands in the South China Sea. Cyprus is split across the middle with an invisible 'Berlin Wall' preventing movement from the north to the south. Greece and Turkey used to fight over a rock in the Aegean Sea until recently. Canada and Denmark similarly. There are hundreds of disputed territories. We regard Russia's invasion of Crimea as an unforgiveable hostile act. It just depends on whose side you're on. In ancient times, Rome was fiercely protective of its Roman citizens. 'Civis Romanus sum' was sufficient to protect a Roman citizen anywhere within the Roman empire. You didn't mess with Rome. Likewise, today, America is fiercely protective of its citizens. If a far eastern state, let us say Burma, rounded up its many thousands of American citizens, burnt their homes and threatened to expel them, as Georgia did in South Ossetia in 1991, I'm sure America would do everything it could to protect them, and wouldn't hesitate to invade the country. The South Ossetia war was a hugely significant event. I want to consider two parallel events, the first (A) in the real world, the second (B) in a parallel universe: A. South Ossetia declares its independence from Georgia B. Taiwan declares its independence from China A. Georgia invades South Ossetia and threatens to burn down Russian homes B. China invades Taiwan and threatens to burn down Japanese homes A. Russia invades South Ossetia to protect its ethnic Russians B. Japan invades Taiwan to protect its ethnic Japanese In these two situations, we condemn Russia but applaud Japan, do we not? It just depends whose side you belong to. But you say, China would never do that and I agree. And so, coming back to the possible invasion of Latvia to protect its 500,000 ethnic Russians, I will suggest that if Latvia embarks on a programme of ethnic cleansing of Latvian Russians, or threatens to embark on a programme of ethnic cleansing, then Putin will invade Latvia to protect his people. And we should applaud his move because people matter far more than territory. |
|
|
|
Post by charliebrown on Mar 11, 2014 12:01:10 GMT
Steve, about China, the possibility of China invading Taiwan if Taiwan declares independence is not small. China has to set an example to Tibet and XinJiang which is making a lot of trouble recently with its separatist movement. On the other hand, it would be ridiculous for Japan to 'invade' Taiwan on the pretext of protecting ethnic Japanese, because there are basically no ethnic Japanese Taiwanese; on the other hand, there are many ethnic Chinese who live in Taiwan now.
My reason to dislike Russia and China is very simple, they are totalitarian governments. I know no government is perfect, but I prefer a democratic one.
|
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Mar 11, 2014 15:08:57 GMT
Sorry, I assumed there would be ethnic Japanese in Taiwan. Anyway, it was just an example.
I take your point about China keeping control of Tibet and XinJiang. And Russia has been brutal over its control of Chechnya. I think, though, there are too many differences between Tibet, Chechnya, Taiwan and eastern Europe for parallels to be drawn.
|
|
|
|
Post by whollygoats on Mar 11, 2014 16:26:48 GMT
Hmmmm...This discussion set me off to Google 'Taiwan ethnicity' and, as CB notes, 98% of the population of Taiwan is listed as 'Han Chinese'. However...there are subsequent 'ethnic' divisions, evidently based upon linguistic background and from where one's male ancestors migrated to Taiwan. The terms 'Aboriginal', 'Hoklo', 'Hakka', 'Fuzhuo', and 'Mainlander' all seem to have specific meanings and can be related to specific communal groups. As I understand it, 'Hoklo', which represents the majority of residents of Taiwan, trace their ancestry to migrants from Fujian, which is directly across the straits from Formosa. These migrants, almost exclusively male, fleeing the Manchu invasion and subjugation of China, settled and intermarried with the native 'Aboriginal' women beginning in the 17th century. As I understand it, the groupings are the result of successive waves of migrants from the Chinese mainland.
Perhaps CB would expand upon these categories of Taiwanese residents.
Oh...I'd guess that there are at least some Japanese descendants on Taiwan, considering they ruled Formosa from 1898 to 1945. It probably is not a large community, though.
The analogy of Taiwan and Ukraine would be if China (PRC) threatened to invade Taiwan and used the rationale that they needed to protect the Han Chinese on Taiwan from the depredations of the Aboriginal peoples. But, of course, this is preposterous because the Aboriginal peoples are such a tiny minority, compared to more than 98% of the rest of the populace, that they are no threat. With relative ethnic populations closer in size to each other, like the Ukraine, the possibilities of disruptive misunderstandings grows accordingly.
This could probably be lifted and utilized to start a new thread on Taiwan.....feel free.
|
|
|
|
Post by charliebrown on Mar 11, 2014 18:39:24 GMT
Please keep this discussion here. I feel it's relevant.
Most of the people living on Taiwan are Han Chinese, some of them moved to Taiwan a few hundred years later: like my father, who moved to Taiwan when he was a boy after the mainland China was taken by the communist party (Mao). People like my father are called "out-of-province persons" and compose 12% of the Taiwanese population. On the other hand, majority of Han Chinese on Taiwan have their roots there for over 4 to 5 hundred years, and they have formed a distinctive identity. That's why they prefer to call themselves Taiwanese not Chinese (it has to do with the fact that Taiwan was under Chiang Kai-shek's and subsequently his son's nationalistic one party rule; the Taiwanese were resentful of the authoritarian rule and fought for democracy and finally changed the one party rule in year 2000 as the pro-independence party won the election).
That's part of the reason why we don't want to be re-united with mainland China; we feel that we are different from Chinese in many ways. And we are a de facto country, we have a well defined territory, our own army and currency. Even many people like my father who moved to Taiwan later feel that they are more Taiwanese than Chinese.
However, in the past 20 years, many women from mainland China marry Taiwanese men. They might not have the Taiwanese identity and prefer to be part of China. But I don't know, most of them 'escape' from the mainland China to seek better life in Taiwan. And they belong to a minority too.
What is relevant to the situation in Crimea is that I consider Russian move an invasion of sovereign country. Chinese army needs only one reason to invade Taiwan, that is Taiwanese independence. My people are careful enough not to enrage the red China. But if they go insane they can use propaganda as the Russia does and claim that Taiwan is heading towards independence and they need to take preemptive action. The fact is that the 2nd largest party in Taiwan is pro-independence and they might be in power after the coming election. Personally I don't think China wants to trouble themselves with Taiwan now. But if Russia sets a bad example, they might feel their hands free whenever they feel the need to take Taiwan.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mari on Mar 15, 2014 13:28:27 GMT
Re: the referendum: apparently there are only 2 choices in it, 1) separate from the Ukraine or 2) join Russia. Remaining part of the Ukraine isn't even an option. Many people, like the Tartars who are a minority and have suffered greatly under Russian hands will therefore not vote.
If they'd wanted to give this referendum even the tiniest hint of legitimacy, they really should have had that 3rd option to remain part of the Ukraine IMO.
|
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Mar 15, 2014 21:07:26 GMT
Really? That's ridiculous.
|
|
|
|
Post by whollygoats on Mar 15, 2014 23:39:13 GMT
Agreed. It sounds like a plebiscite constructed by a Republican party functionary.
|
|
|
|
Post by spaceflower on Mar 16, 2014 1:41:55 GMT
I hope there aren't pockets of Russian speakers living in Belarus, the Baltic States, Finland, Azerbaijan, Kazhakstan, & etc. Ethic groups do not observe national boundaries. There are Russians all over Europe many of whom do not actually live within Russian borders. There are ca 27% Russians in Latvia. But there are also many Russians living in east Ukraine, outside of Crimea. You're concerned Russia might invade Latvia because 27% of the Latvian population are ethnic Russians. If Latvia engages a programme of ethnic cleansing in Latvia, as the Georgian army did in South Ossetia in 1991 and threatened to do in 2008, then we could well expect Putin to invade Latvia... and in the name of humanity, we should welcome it. We must not forget that eastern Europe is a maelstrom of ethnic cleansing. In 1991-92, "approximately 1,000 people died and about 100,000 ethnic Ossetians fled the territory and Georgia proper, most across the border into North Ossetia. A further 23,000 ethnic Georgians fled South Ossetia and settled in other parts of Georgia." And in 2008, following a process of ethnic cleansing the population, the nearby state of Abkhazia was reduced from 525,000 to 216,000. More than half the population were ethnically cleansed! Mari makes the point that sovereign territory should not be violated, and I agree. But what does sovereign territory mean and who decides? There are disagreements throughout the world about who owns which piece of land. Argentina and Britain disagree on the Falkland Islands, China and Japan believe they both have the rights to a group of islands in the South China Sea. Cyprus is split across the middle with an invisible 'Berlin Wall' preventing movement from the north to the south. Greece and Turkey used to fight over a rock in the Aegean Sea until recently. Canada and Denmark similarly. There are hundreds of disputed territories. We regard Russia's invasion of Crimea as an unforgiveable hostile act. It just depends on whose side you're on. --- And so, coming back to the possible invasion of Latvia to protect its 500,000 ethnic Russians, I will suggest that if Latvia embarks on a programme of ethnic cleansing of Latvian Russians, or threatens to embark on a programme of ethnic cleansing, then Putin will invade Latvia to protect his people. And we should applaud his move because people matter far more than territory. Why should Latvia embark on ethnic cleansing? Totally irrelevant imo. Ukrainians on Crimea have not tried to cleans out Russian. But after the referendum, I fear that Ukrainians and Tatars will be discriminated against. The Tatars have already experience ethnic cleansing under Stalin. www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/05/tartar-ukraine-sunni-muslims-threat-russian-rule-crimea?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487If Russia wants to use the pretext of "protecting the Russians", there are many nations who can worry: Estonia has 25% -russians, Lithuania 6%, Belarus 8%, Ukarina 17%, Moldavia 8%, Kazakstan 24%, Kirgizistan 13%, Uzbekistan 6%. Disputes should be resolved by negotioations, not by military threats. I can't belive tha people can think there are two minds about that. Of course, once Crimea is a part of Russian, there will be refugees from Crimea. Who will pay for that? Ukraine is more or less bankrupt. EU will have to pay, it will be a support like Greece has received. |
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Mar 16, 2014 10:30:02 GMT
Why should Latvia embark on ethnic cleansing? They won't. That's the whole point. You are worried that Russia might invade Latvia. It won't happen unless Latvia introduces a programme of ethnic cleansing, as Goergia did in South Ossetia. Since Latvia has no intention of ethnic cleansing, your worries about Russia invading Latvia are completely groundless. You say no ethnic cleansing has occurred in Crimea. Why should Putin wait for that to happen? Why should he wait for Russians to be killed before taking action? Since that's what east Europe does and has done from the beginning of time, we can be sure one side or another will be ethnically cleansed. Come on, look at history, look at what happened in South Ossetia in 1991. The White House has admitted that Crimea has problems (The Telegraph, 4 March, my emphasis): Looking at what has happened in east Europe in the past, for example in Bosnia, it would be incredibly naive to think that protection of ethnic Russians can be accomplished around the negotiating table. |
|
|
|
Post by spaceflower on Mar 16, 2014 18:11:24 GMT
Why should Latvia embark on ethnic cleansing? The Russians of Crimea were in no danger of getting killed. They whined about having to learn to speak Ukrainian, that's all. With the same logic, Mexico would have the right to invade USA b/c US citizens of Mexican descent were forced to learn English. Or Sweden would have the right to invade Finland b/c Finnish citizens of Swedish descent would have to learn Finnish. And Hitler was of course right in invading Czechoslovakia to "protect" the Germans in Sudetenland. Invading a country is against Jus gentium, against UN and in this case also against the treaty between Russian and Ukraine from 1994. And I think you are naive to believe in Putin's propaganda. |
|
|
|
Post by spaceflower on Mar 17, 2014 1:28:15 GMT
Swedish Foreing minister twittered about Viktor Yanukovich: sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=2054&artikel=5799719The reason Bild was so undiplomatic is of course that he knows that Yanukovih has no political future, whatever happens in the future. One reason that I'm so obsessed with what happens in Ukraine is that I am reminded of WWII, the Winter War and the Continuation War and Finland's loss of Karelia etc. |
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Mar 17, 2014 9:15:29 GMT
The Russians of Crimea were in no danger of getting killed. They whined about having to learn to speak Ukrainian, that's all. Where on earth did you get that idea from? I've not seen any news report or commentary that says Putin invaded Crimea because the Crimeans were being forced to learn Ukrainian. That being the case, your projection that Mexico has the right to invade the USA is pure fantasy (strawman). And did you miss the fact that South Ossetians were being ethnically cleansed in 1991? Or that more than half the population of the parallel district of Abkhazia were killed or lost their homes in 2008? Or that Bosnia suffered horrendous ethnic cleansing in 1995? Who told you that Crimeans were in no danger of being killed? Do you think the White House was lying when it said that Russia had concerns "that its nationals would face persecution?" It wouldn't surprise me if Kiev encouraged or forced Crimeans to speak Ukrainian. The Georgian government did that in South Ossetia and they hated it. But that wasn't the reason Russia invaded South Ossetia. The Georgian government's actions caused South Ossetia to push for independence. Georgia responded by invading South Ossetia and continued their horrific ethnic cleansing that began in 1991. I think you can see a parallel with Crimea except that Putin nipped it in the bud before it got nasty. That's not to say it isn't going to get nasty. It's going to get very nasty indeed, in my opinion, but Putin has ensured that ethnic Russians will be relatively safe. |
|
|
|
Post by spaceflower on Mar 17, 2014 12:57:14 GMT
The Russians of Crimea were in no danger of getting killed. They whined about having to learn to speak Ukrainian, that's all. Where on earth did you get that idea from? I've not seen any news report or commentary that says Putin invaded Crimea because the Crimeans were being forced to learn Ukrainian. That being the case, your projection that Mexico has the right to invade the USA is pure fantasy (strawman). And did you miss the fact that South Ossetians were being ethnically cleansed in 1991? Or that more than half the population of the parallel district of Abkhazia were killed or lost their homes in 2008? Or that Bosnia suffered horrendous ethnic cleansing in 1995? Who told you that Crimeans were in no danger of being killed? Do you think the White House was lying when it said that Russia had concerns "that its nationals would face persecution?" It wouldn't surprise me if Kiev encouraged or forced Crimeans to speak Ukrainian. The Georgian government did that in South Ossetia and they hated it. But that wasn't the reason Russia invaded South Ossetia. The Georgian government's actions caused South Ossetia to push for independence. Georgia responded by invading South Ossetia and continued their horrific ethnic cleansing that began in 1991. I think you can see a parallel with Crimea except that Putin nipped it in the bud before it got nasty. That's not to say it isn't going to get nasty. It's going to get very nasty indeed, in my opinion, but Putin has ensured that ethnic Russians will be relatively safe. I've got my information form Swedish media. They have foreign correspondents reporting from Crimea, Kiev and Moscow. Nobody believes that Putin is really "concerned", he just wants to get Ukraine under Russian influence and away from EU. Putin did say "The breakup of the Soviet Union was the greatest geopolitical tragedy of the 20th century." Crimea has been part of Ukraine since 1991, so I don't see the demand of crimeans to learn the Ukrainian language as a proof of "ethnic cleasning". Just like demands that US citizens learn English, whatever their mother tongue. If Estonia demands that the Russian minority learns Estonian, is that grounds for invasion of Estonia by Russian troops as well? The Tartars speak Russian but they don't want Crimea to be a part of Russia anyway. I don't know if the White House is tanken in by Putin's pretext or if they just pretend to be for diplomatic reasons. And I don't see the parallell with Bosnia at all. |
|
|
|
Post by spaceflower on Mar 17, 2014 15:32:58 GMT
About Abchazia and South Ossetia, remember that the first victim of war is the truth. Is the reason for the Russian invasion and help to Abchasia and South Ossetia that Putin wanted to protcct the Russians there? I think the main reasons were:
- control of gas and oil
- preventing Georgia from being a member of EU and Nato
Russia could have pleaded to UN but they did not. Why did Stalien make Abchazia and South Ossetia to autonomous regions in the first place? Divide et impera. The situation is messy, hard to get a grip on and there were atrocities on both sides. But Russia as the knight in shinging armour coming to the rescue? I don't believe that for a minute.
|
|
|
|
Post by whollygoats on Mar 17, 2014 15:41:12 GMT
So...spaceflower...You seem unsatisfied with the events as they are unfolding and blame Russia entirely. What is it you think should happen here? I see you as wanting some other power to confront Russia, but not wanting any hostilities. Is that right? If so, then your whole approach is internally inconsistent. What is it that Sweden is doing? If Sweden is not your country, then what is your country doing? What is it that you think other nations can do, any way? And..."since 1991"? Wow...Crimea has been part of Ukraine, like, forever... I can see why the Ukraine is so eager to hold on to it, with such a long and illustrious history as part of Ukraine.
*facepalm*
|
|
|
|
Post by spaceflower on Mar 18, 2014 0:10:39 GMT
What do you mean? Of course it is Putin's fault! Sweden is part of EU, it is EU and USA who can do anyting. Economic sanctions. That's all they can do but I fear it will cost EU too, so they may back down.
But what I protest against here on this forum is how people can buy Putin's propaganda and make excuses for Russian troops taking over in Crimea. I don't know where all of you live. But I live close to the Baltic and I know people there feel insecure. Who knows exactly how Putin thinks and what he will do?
I give my arguments and you give me facepalm?
Have I broken some unwritten rule that it is not ok to be upset and worried about international affairs?
|
|
|
|
Post by jayme on Mar 18, 2014 5:03:32 GMT
It might be because people are getting their news from different sources. I've been listening to a 3-hour block of National Public Radio every day at work, and I'm thinking and feeling much the way you seem to be about this situation, Spaceflower. But the others may be hearing different details about this if they are watching their local news, CNN, MSNBC, etc. And it is very ok to be upset about international affairs. It would be weird not to. |
|
|
|
Post by jayme on Mar 18, 2014 7:15:01 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by charliebrown on Mar 18, 2014 7:38:49 GMT
I live in Poland and I can see there are Poles who fear the imperialistic Russia more and Poles who hate the Ukrainian nationalists more. I believe their point of views are influenced by the gruesome Polish/Ukrainian/Russian historic memories. I don't have such historic baggage. I know about the history but not in a very personal way. My personal baggage is my views on Chinese/Taiwanese/Japanese relations.
Anyway, on Crimea, what I care is the principle of sovereignty. It might not be a sacred cow, but once the principle is infringed, it's like opening the Pandora's box: tragedies followed elsewhere, sooner or later.
|
|
|
|
Post by charliebrown on Mar 18, 2014 12:54:48 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by charliebrown on Mar 18, 2014 12:59:55 GMT
Putin tells parliament that Crimea always was and is an "inseparable part of Russia".
The communist China says so about Taiwan too.
|
|
|
|
Post by whollygoats on Mar 18, 2014 13:17:00 GMT
Y'know...The first thing I think is that the US should stay out of it entirely. Everybody rightfully gets on their high horse about how the US is meddling in everybody else's business, but now that the Russians are doing something that others don't happen to like, it's suddenly the US business to straighten it out. Well, screw that....figure out your own business and leave us out of it.
Look...I'm no fan of Russian expansionism and I certainly am no fan of Putin, but what is happening there is part and parcel of the disintegration of the Soviet empire. The Crimea was part of Russia within the Soviet system and was 'gifted' to Ukraine during the Soviet system, within the lifetimes of those now living. It's the result of 'border-jiggling' within the Soviet system which is still being played out thirty years later. I don't think it is worth military conflict....if you, or your country wish to engage in military conflict, then YOU do it. Don't come whining to the US to be the "police". And...I don't think that Sweden is part of any supra-national military/diplomatic organization in Europe...it's not part of NATO, nor the European Union, the last I heard. And, since the collapse of the Soviet empire, Sweden has been reducing it's military and thus it's 'preparedness' for such events. Now, they want somebody else to protect them? The US? Then they need to become part of the program, rather than always 'going it on their own'.
And, from what I understand from the Finns, the Swedes have not been particularly friendly about borderlands and Swedish speakers in neighboring nations. Perhaps we should fear them, too?
|
|
)
