4 ms·

It's Finland, so not that much to do with Iraq either. Instead, Finland has a lot of experience about being in the USSR sphere of influence (see Finlandization)

It's Finland, so not that much to do with Iraq either. Instead, Finland has a lot of experience about being in the USSR sphere of influence (see Finlandization), and thus I wholeheartedly support Ukraine's right to choose their own alignment. > When you join a criminal gang for protection I think we agree that in this context you choose to join a gang, and the opposing gang doesn't get to prevent you from leaving them. Nobody has promised NATO membership to Ukraine. However, they are free to align with Western values and apply for any membership they wish, be it EU or NATO. And when they join, yes that membership comes with certain obligations too.

pydry 4y ago
>thus I wholeheartedly support Ukraine's right to choose their own alignment. I would agree but I would also argue that unless you also wholeheartedly support Crimea and the Donbass's right to choose their alignment (something Kiev and the west both publicly reject), you are probably somewhat halfhearted in your belief in people's right to self determination. This is the litmus test of whether you are just flashing a geopolitical gang sign or demonstrating an actual commitment to democracy. Most Westerners will do the former, and are, for example, enthusiastic supporters of a (NATO) troop presence acting as an enabler for Kosovo's referendum.... while simultaneously supporting Kiev's position of "Crimeans dont get to choose".
- distances 4y ago
  I'm no expert in Ukrainian demographics so I won't weigh in too much on that. I will however say this much: what makes the situation of any Russian neighbour difficult is the Russian history of forced relocations and genocide, Russian imperialism and irredentism, and their lack of any resemblance of fair elections and referendums. Russian modus operandi is forced russification. So if you move enough ethnic Russians to Crimea so that they have majority over native Tatars, you can simply annex it at will? I definitely understand if there are opinions to both directions on that topic.
  - pydry 4y ago
    >So if you move enough ethnic Russians to Crimea so that they have majority over native Tatars, you can simply annex it at will? If it happened in the 19th century I think so. At some point you have to simply accept that the democraphics changed and the sins of the ancestors arent the sins of the descendants and the descendants are just as deserving of democracy as anyone else. A group of Serbs rather famously didnt subscribe to this view and committed genocide on Bosnians in the 90s to avenge what the ottomans "did to them" in, like, the 1700s. To be consistent with the notion that historical lands belong to historical residents you'd have to cancel democracy and give back the United States to the native americans (or mexicans, even). Do you believe in just handing back the United States to the people whom they genocided when they took it over and letting them rule? I suspect not. I dont. Most people dont. The awkwardness of this double standard on closer inspection underscores the fact that what you espouse here is less of a moral principle and more of a geopolitical gang sign, even though you might not realize it.

pydry 4y ago

>thus I wholeheartedly support Ukraine's right to choose their own alignment. I would agree but I would also argue that unless you also wholeheartedly support Crimea and the Donbass's right to choose their alignment (something Kiev and the west both publicly reject), you are probably somewhat halfhearted in your belief in people's right to self determination. This is the litmus test of whether you are just flashing a geopolitical gang sign or demonstrating an actual commitment to democracy. Most Westerners will do the former, and are, for example, enthusiastic supporters of a (NATO) troop presence acting as an enabler for Kosovo's referendum.... while simultaneously supporting Kiev's position of "Crimeans dont get to choose".

distances 4y ago
I'm no expert in Ukrainian demographics so I won't weigh in too much on that. I will however say this much: what makes the situation of any Russian neighbour difficult is the Russian history of forced relocations and genocide, Russian imperialism and irredentism, and their lack of any resemblance of fair elections and referendums. Russian modus operandi is forced russification. So if you move enough ethnic Russians to Crimea so that they have majority over native Tatars, you can simply annex it at will? I definitely understand if there are opinions to both directions on that topic.
- pydry 4y ago
  >So if you move enough ethnic Russians to Crimea so that they have majority over native Tatars, you can simply annex it at will? If it happened in the 19th century I think so. At some point you have to simply accept that the democraphics changed and the sins of the ancestors arent the sins of the descendants and the descendants are just as deserving of democracy as anyone else. A group of Serbs rather famously didnt subscribe to this view and committed genocide on Bosnians in the 90s to avenge what the ottomans "did to them" in, like, the 1700s. To be consistent with the notion that historical lands belong to historical residents you'd have to cancel democracy and give back the United States to the native americans (or mexicans, even). Do you believe in just handing back the United States to the people whom they genocided when they took it over and letting them rule? I suspect not. I dont. Most people dont. The awkwardness of this double standard on closer inspection underscores the fact that what you espouse here is less of a moral principle and more of a geopolitical gang sign, even though you might not realize it.