5 ms·

> "Ukraine" never was a country until last century. Nothing in the comment you replied to clashes with that. At all. The actual point, which stands unmoved, is

by musage 9y ago

> "Ukraine" never was a country until last century. Nothing in the comment you replied to clashes with that. At all. The actual point, which stands unmoved, is something for which both Russia/Ukraine and Turkey/Kurds are mere examples. > Maybe one of you down-voters could point out a Ukrainian state pre-1919 that identified as Ukrainian. Why would they have to? They gained independence 1991. That's the most significant bit, no?

Mikeb85 9y ago
> Nothing in the comment you replied to clashes with that. At all. The actual point, which stands unmoved, is something for which both Russia/Ukraine and Turkey/Kurds are mere examples. Except they really are all different situations. Turks and Kurds are completely different ethnic groups with different languages, origins and history. Kurds are closely related to Iranians, not Turks. > Why would they have to? They gained independence 1991. That's the most significant bit, no? Because there's revisionist history which states Ukrainians and Russians are different ethnic groups. They're not. They've shared the same history and culture for over a thousand years, they're the same ethnic group. Yes they're different nations now, but they're not different peoples.
- musage 9y ago
  > Except they really are all different situations. That's the point of analogies. You point out similarities, not that things are the same. They're not even possible between things that are the same. > Yes they're different nations now, but they're not different peoples. Yes, and? The comment you replied to goes "there's a popular line of thought that basically denies that Ukrainians are a separate nation". Which, seeing how they're a separate nation, is just valid as Turks wanting to lord it over the Kurds.
  - Mikeb85 9y ago
    It's a bad analogy. There are situations analogous to the Catalan quest for independence, and those aren't it. Maybe separatist feelings in Brittany, or in Quebec.

by musage 9y ago

Mikeb85 9y ago

> Nothing in the comment you replied to clashes with that. At all. The actual point, which stands unmoved, is something for which both Russia/Ukraine and Turkey/Kurds are mere examples. Except they really are all different situations. Turks and Kurds are completely different ethnic groups with different languages, origins and history. Kurds are closely related to Iranians, not Turks. > Why would they have to? They gained independence 1991. That's the most significant bit, no? Because there's revisionist history which states Ukrainians and Russians are different ethnic groups. They're not. They've shared the same history and culture for over a thousand years, they're the same ethnic group. Yes they're different nations now, but they're not different peoples.

musage 9y ago
> Except they really are all different situations. That's the point of analogies. You point out similarities, not that things are the same. They're not even possible between things that are the same. > Yes they're different nations now, but they're not different peoples. Yes, and? The comment you replied to goes "there's a popular line of thought that basically denies that Ukrainians are a separate nation". Which, seeing how they're a separate nation, is just valid as Turks wanting to lord it over the Kurds.
- Mikeb85 9y ago
  It's a bad analogy. There are situations analogous to the Catalan quest for independence, and those aren't it. Maybe separatist feelings in Brittany, or in Quebec.