4 ms·

Political independence for a minority group will never be allowed. The political boundaries drawn 70-150 years ago must remain perpetually.

analpaper 7y ago
"perpetually" lol
avar 7y ago
Montenegro, Slovakia and a long list of other countries would like a word with you[1]. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_by_date_of_formation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_by_da...
- rossdavidh 7y ago
  One major difference between the former Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia, is that in the latter I am led to believe that a majority of the public wanted to stay one country. The split seems to have been a way to create more posts for national elites. Ordinary Czechs and Slovaks who I have talked to (admittedly a very small and anecdotally collected group) don't seem to have had a problem with staying part of Czechoslovakia. In the former Yugoslavia I have no direct knowledge of anyone's opinions on the matter, but I am led to believe that a majority of several of the new countries was solidly in favor of splitting up.
  - levosmetalo 7y ago
    In former Yugoslavio the split is again "enforced" or "allowed" based on the arbitrary criteria from the past. The only "rule" here were "rule of armed force" and "interest of the mighty". Some ethnic group were allowed to have their right to decide in which country they want to live, some never got that right. In the end that injustice is what led to the whole bloody conflict.
- nostrademons 7y ago
  I'd read the grandparent post as sarcasm, but perhaps Poe's Law strikes again.
- linuxftw 7y ago
  Slovakia was allowed to leave, the Czechs and the federal government approved it. There was no recognition of the right of self-determination. That's only done with blood.
CorruptedArc 7y ago
A perpetual treaty isn't much of a treaty at all. An expired treaty carries about as much weight as a "perpetual" one.

analpaper 7y ago

"perpetually" lol

avar 7y ago

Montenegro, Slovakia and a long list of other countries would like a word with you[1]. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_by_date_of_formation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_by_da...

rossdavidh 7y ago
One major difference between the former Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia, is that in the latter I am led to believe that a majority of the public wanted to stay one country. The split seems to have been a way to create more posts for national elites. Ordinary Czechs and Slovaks who I have talked to (admittedly a very small and anecdotally collected group) don't seem to have had a problem with staying part of Czechoslovakia. In the former Yugoslavia I have no direct knowledge of anyone's opinions on the matter, but I am led to believe that a majority of several of the new countries was solidly in favor of splitting up.
- levosmetalo 7y ago
  In former Yugoslavio the split is again "enforced" or "allowed" based on the arbitrary criteria from the past. The only "rule" here were "rule of armed force" and "interest of the mighty". Some ethnic group were allowed to have their right to decide in which country they want to live, some never got that right. In the end that injustice is what led to the whole bloody conflict.
nostrademons 7y ago
I'd read the grandparent post as sarcasm, but perhaps Poe's Law strikes again.
linuxftw 7y ago
Slovakia was allowed to leave, the Czechs and the federal government approved it. There was no recognition of the right of self-determination. That's only done with blood.

CorruptedArc 7y ago

A perpetual treaty isn't much of a treaty at all. An expired treaty carries about as much weight as a "perpetual" one.