5 ms·
Ok, name them. But remember Russia has never involved itself where it does not have deep cultural ties. Or where it's actually been invited, like Syria.
by a0-prw 5y ago
Ok, name them. But remember Russia has never involved itself where it does not have deep cultural ties. Or where it's actually been invited, like Syria.
- reducesuffering 5y agoBoth Georgia and Ukraine "invite" (plead really) NATO and the US to help them. They know that unless they have a Putin lapdog as head of state, they will face and have faced brutal consequences.
- a0-prw 5y agoA significant proportion of Ukraine's population does not want Nato or the West. They want Russia... so much so that there is an ongoing civil war in Ukraine, and there are self-proclaimed republics in the East of Ukraine
- CRConrad 5y ago> and there are self-proclaimed republics in the East of Ukraine "Self-proclaimed"... With some help from a bunch of little green men.
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago> Russia has never involved itself where it does not have deep cultural ties On that basis NATO could legitimately support a military intervention by Kiev into Moscow. It was originally the Kievan Rus, after all.
- pope_meat 5y ago>Kievan Rus' (Old East Slavic: Роусь, romanized: Rusĭ, or роусьскаѧ землѧ romanized: rusĭskaę zemlę, "Rus' land") or Kyivan Rus',[2][3] was a loose federation of East Slavic and Finno-Ugric peoples in Eastern and Northern Europe from the late 9th to the mid-13th century,[4][5] under the reign of the Rurik dynasty, founded by the Varangian prince Rurik.[5] The modern nations of Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine all claim Kievan Rus' as their cultural ancestors Copied from the Wikipedia, so if anything that suggests we need to bring back the USSR and reunite all the Slavs under one flag. роусьскаѧ землѧ literally translates to "Russian land"
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago> if anything that suggests we need to bring back the USSR and reunite all the Slavs under one flag Okay, taking that at face value, nothing says Moscow has to be in charge. And the Mongols once controlled Russian territory. Speaking of which, Moscow hasn't controlled its eastern territories for long--should we dissolve Russian influence east of the Urals? Returning "historical" lands is the casus belli of every dictator. It's arbitrary, empty and infinitely extensible.
- pope_meat 5y agoI was thinking of St Petersburg as the capital of the unified Russia, for historical reasons.
- JumpCrisscross 5y agoI like it. Maybe with a German-born Empress for some Ekaterinian flare—Angela Merkel, perhaps?
- pope_meat 5y agoI don't think that's going to fly, the Germans really soured the relationship in 1941.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- kodah 5y agoI served with some Georgians. The Russians invaded and stole half of their country while they were helping us in Iraq/Afghanistan.
- a0-prw 5y agoThey were helping you to commit war crimes in Iraq/Afghanistan. They should have stayed at home, and cultivated a healthy relationship with Russia instead.
- a0-prw 5y agoInteresting that the US fled from Kabul, leaving Ukrainian and Georgian mercenaries, but taking service dogs with them. But, by all means, continue to believe in American good will. Anyone who continues to believe in the US is an idiot. Get real.
- lostlogin 5y ago> deep cultural ties Those are some ties. It was less than 100 years ago that genocide was Russian policy. The Holodomor murdered 3.3-7.5 million Ukrainians. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor
- a0-prw 5y agoNo. It was Stalin's policy (his word was law). Stalin was a Georgian.
- CRConrad 5y agoHe ruled the Soviet Union, which A) Consisted mainly of Russia and Russians, and B) is claimed as predecessor by the current Russian regime. It's not as if Georgia ever claimed Crimea, Siberia, and the Baltic states on the premise that "They were once ruled by Stalin, a Georgian, so they belong to us". It's hard to say if your desperate non-sequiturs in defense of the kleptocratic Russian goon regime are more funny than pathetic or more pathetic than funny.
- aksss 5y agoI would probably agree with the broader outcome of your argument, but I don’t think rationalizing the violation of territorial sovereignty through “cultural ties” is a very strong foundation. If the rule of law is to exist, borders have to be respected - they are known, measurable. Cultural ties has a long history of rationalizing invasion, and is demonstrably (from historic examples) a very nebulous and qualitative argument that can be molded to fit needs of the invader. Just because we speak the same language or have a similar hat style doesn’t mean I want your government controlling my town and its resources.
- tomc1985 5y ago> But remember Russia has never involved itself where it does not have deep cultural ties What a convenient way of excluding entirely relevant points of argument. Ukraine suffered the first forced change of national borders in Europe since World War II Heavy cultural ties does not grant anyone a right to annex the territory of another sovereign nation