4 ms·

I’ll respond to this, once you answer this question and answer it directly without taking about America for paragraphs. Do you think that the Russian army shou

by _kbh_ 3y ago

I’ll respond to this, once you answer this question and answer it directly without taking about America for paragraphs. Do you think that the Russian army should withdraw from Ukraines internationally recognised borders, this includes Crimea. We are going to include all of the LPR and DPR fighters in that statement, but I’ll consider them surrendering the same thing.

EGreg 3y ago
Oh will you? Will you response be like the others — ignoring most of what I said — or will you address each point I made? Do I think the Russian army should withdraw from Ukraine’s internationally recognized borders, includint Crimea? I will answer it in depth. 1) First, the most one-dimensional and simplistic answer. With regard to everything except Crimea: yes of course, and the internationally recognized Minsk II agreements should have been implemented. Do you think that Ukraine should have allowed fresh water to flow to Crimea, and stopped bombing the people of Luhansk and Donetsk, give the degree of autonomy to the people of Donetsk and Luhansk that they are demanding, allow them to teach Russian, etc.? 2) If everyone kept their word, Russia would have never entered because Ukraine would have either put down the rebellion, and things would have gotten back to normal — or implemented the Minsk II agreements, and things would have gotten back to normal. According to your own article it declined to absorb Luhansk and Donetsk and pushed them to work things out with Kyiv and remain inside Ukraine. That shocked Strelkov and he committed himself to supporting the rebels and fighting the far-right nationalist battallions. 3) In a perfect world, Russia would have never entered, because USA would have never fomented a revolution, sponsored far-right extremist groups, installed a puppet regime in Ukraine, and destabilized the country with revolutionaries and counter-revolutionaries forming opposing brigades. But I won’t ask you the corresponding questions about whether you think USA should stay out of other countries’ business 3000 miles away, dozens of countries around the world, because you asked me not to. After all, that would be “whataboutism” and we are only after fantasy scenarios here, where one side (Russia) does all the accomodating to keep peace while the other side (USA) keeps expanding unchecked forever. 4) Regarding Crimea, I am aware that in 1954 it was gifted from Russian SSR to Ukrainian SSR without asking the people. In 1991 the people on the ground voted overwhelmingly (close to 100%) to break free of Ukraine and be independent. They were ignored. Then 54% voted to be part of Ukraine, but multiple times since then Crimea demanded autonomy and Kyiv signed concession agreements, which it broke repeatedly to assert its domininion over Crimea, force changes to its constitution etc. So it is unsurprising that they voted to be independent again in the 2014 referendum and I believe that, had OSCE or any others overseen it, the result would have been the same. Do I think the will of the people on the ground should be respected? Yes, and countries including Ukraine should grant such populations a degree of autonomy, to the point where membership in this or that country is a minor detail (as it was in 1954 when Crimea changed hands). 5) In the current world, I think the only vehicle by which nationalistic fervor can be tempered is being part of the same federation (eg the Republic of California is part of the USA) and breaking those ties can lead to more instability and violence. In an ideal world, countries would be unbundled into multiple services (police, roads etc) with agencies competing for the business of a city, neighborhood etc. peacefully competing on how well they serve the people. Rather than treating people as livestock to own that graze on your land, which is how you currently think of Crimeans or Luhansk people etc. You think of countries as the primary actors, and anthropomorphosize them, while people are m mostly fodder, or stand-ins for monolithic “political aspirations”. This is exactly what I encounter when I speak to other statists, including people who want to build a Palestinian state, or people who believe China owns this or that territory forever. I think the current system of “country borders and ownership” is an unfortunate tinderbox because demographics change and there should be better, more libertarian systems. We can see the tinderbox firsthand eg in Yugoslavia or in nearly all the countries set up by the Sykes-Picot agreement. Now answer my previous comment point by point as you promised to do.
- _kbh_ 3y ago
  > First, the most one-dimensional and simplistic answer. With regard to everything except Crimea: yes of course, and the internationally recognized Minsk II agreements should have been implemented. Why except Crimea?. Crimea was invaded just as much as the rest of Ukraine. So the answer of do you think Russia should withdraw is no then right?, cause withdrawing from Ukraine requires withdrawing from Crimea as Crimea is Ukrainian land. > 2) If everyone kept their word, Russia would have never entered because Ukraine would have either put down the rebellion, and things would have gotten back to normal — or implemented the Minsk II agreements. Russia had already entered Ukraine at that point, the Crimea annexation involved tanks, and soldiers. Not to mention that Strelkov said Russian soldiers were fighting in Luhansk and Donetsk in 2014. > 3) In a perfect world, Russia would have never entered, because USA would have never fomented a revolution, sponsored far-right extremist groups, installed a puppet regime in Ukraine, and destabilized the country with revolutionaries and counter-revolutionaries forming opposing brigades. Russia planned to annex Crimea before any 'puppet' regime was implemented. > After all, that would be “whataboutism” and we are only after fantasy scenarios here, where one side (Russia) does all the accomodating to keep peace while the other side (USA) keeps expanding unchecked forever. What peace has Russia kept, unless you think peace is a gun pointed at your back then where is the peace?. The USA isn't expanding, NATO is, because of Russias behaviour. If you had a neighbour that kept trying to rape and kill your family and your only option was to join an alliance to help you defend yourself you would do it wouldn't you?. > In 1991 the people on the ground voted overwhelmingly (close to 100%) to break free of Ukraine and be independent. In 1991, before Ukraine was an independent country they voted 94%ish to become an independent SSR in within the USSR. 54% voted to be part of Ukraine, after the collapse of the Soviet Union. > So it is unsurprising that they voted to be independent again in the 2014 referendum and I believe that, had OSCE or any others overseen it, the result would have been the same. Wow you think the 2014 vote, with Russian tanks, and soldiers overseeing it was actually legitimate?. If someone held a gun to your head the next time you voted do you think that would be a legitimate vote?.
  - EGreg 3y ago
    Are you going to keep your word? Go back and address my comment. You can do it in a sibling comment. > Why except Crimea?. Because I believe in people's self-determination. Like in Kosovo. Crimea is in Ukraine only because no one ever listened to them. They were already in Russian SSR but got transferred to Ukrainian SSR "as a gift". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Crimean_sovereignty_referendum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Crimean_sovereignty_refer... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Crimean_status_referendum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Crimean_status_referendum And not just that, but they fought for their autonomy the entire time since 1991, the Kyiv government even signed agreement with them for this autonomy but then renegged on it and forced them to change their constitution: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_Republic_of_Crimea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_Republic_of_Crimea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_status_of_Crimea#Autonomous_Republic_of_Crimea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_status_of_Crimea#Aut... Let me ask YOU. Right now, Crimea is relatively peaceful. Do you support bringing violence to Crimea, just so Ukraine can own it again? I am not a statist who believes that the rights of states to fly a flag over a territory trump the welfare of millions of people. States and corporations are useful concepts, but they are still temporary, and for most civilians there are more important things in life. This time lapse of Europe shows how silly it is to kill millions just so a specific color to be over a certain area for a few years or decades: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwcwGSFPqIo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwcwGSFPqIo I can understand many people don't feel that way, but I think it's because they've been brainwashed into supporting states and territory over humans welfare. Especially after 1950s or so, this fantasy came about that the borders of nation-states will be the same forever now. This creates dangerous tinderboxes, like all the countries established in the Sykes-Picot agreement (Shiites, Sunnis, Kurds, Christians, mixed into one). Or like in Yugoslavia, after they lost their organizing principle (socialism) they reverted to sectarian violence. NATO also doesn't always believe in immutable borders, since they violated international law and ignored the UN security council, bombed civilians, and carved off Kosovo from Serbia. But you don't say that they are "occupying Serbia" at the moment, or "invaded Serbia". That's to be expected. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo_independence_precedent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo_independence_precedent > The USA isn't expanding, NATO is, because of Russias behaviour. It's typical for each side to blame the other for its own aggressive expansion, calling it a mere defensive posture. NATO placing "defensive" installations in Romania and Poland were just the latest pre-emptive "defensive" measures. Somehow all this "defense" ends up in escalation. Statesmen know this. "BUT HE STARTED IT!" is an argument for kindergarteners. Our politicians on all sides need to grow up - and this includes Russian ones. > The USA isn't expanding, NATO is, because of Russias behaviour. Well, the USA has a long history of expanding, and renegging on all the agreements, since its founding. Go ask any native nations that used to be on this continent. More recently, go ask North Korea, Iran, Cuba, or whoever is on the OFAC list. They all had a deal with USA, but thanks to US representative democracy, the next admin killed it: North Korea: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agreed_Framework https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agreed_Framework Iran: https://www.vox.com/2015/3/10/8182063/tom-cottons-controversial-letter-to-iran-explained https://www.vox.com/2015/3/10/8182063/tom-cottons-controvers... Cuba: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/trump-hits-cuba-with-new-terrorism-sanctions-in-waning-days https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/trump-hits-cuba-with-n... (Really, Cuba has been a threat to USA?) Why would Russia trust USA? They promised no expansion to Gorbachev, Yeltsin: https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017... Clinton promised Yeltsin that NATO's expansion would be "in partnership" with Russia, Bush ruined it: https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2021-11-24/nato-expansion-budapest-blow-1994 https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2021... Clinton also gave the Three Nos to China, and now we are renegging on those too: https://www.jstor.org/stable/24590364 https://www.jstor.org/stable/24590364 I could go on, but USA's very representative democracy makes it so that it can't be trusted. Why should Russia trust it? > Wow you think the 2014 vote, with Russian tanks, and soldiers overseeing it was actually legitimate?. Legitimate as in accurately reflecting the will of the people? Sure, check out the 1991 referendum. Only 54% of Crimea ever voted to be part of Ukraine, and since then they had a tough time inside it. Why si it so hard to believe they wanted to be independent in 2014? Someone always has the monopoly of force while a referendum is taking place. If Ukraine had it, would that delegitimize the people's secret vote? Do you think Catalonia's vote for independence, amid Spain's tanks and soldiers was legitimate? Or Kurds in Iraq? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Catalan_independence_referendum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Catalan_independence_refe... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Kurdistan_Region_independence_referendum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Kurdistan_Region_independ... OSCE refused to participate SPECIFICALLY TO NOT GRANT IT LEGITIMACY. Had it been overseen, a result along the expected lines would have solidified that Crimea wants to be independent.

by _kbh_ 3y ago

EGreg 3y ago

Oh will you? Will you response be like the others — ignoring most of what I said — or will you address each point I made? Do I think the Russian army should withdraw from Ukraine’s internationally recognized borders, includint Crimea? I will answer it in depth. 1) First, the most one-dimensional and simplistic answer. With regard to everything except Crimea: yes of course, and the internationally recognized Minsk II agreements should have been implemented. Do you think that Ukraine should have allowed fresh water to flow to Crimea, and stopped bombing the people of Luhansk and Donetsk, give the degree of autonomy to the people of Donetsk and Luhansk that they are demanding, allow them to teach Russian, etc.? 2) If everyone kept their word, Russia would have never entered because Ukraine would have either put down the rebellion, and things would have gotten back to normal — or implemented the Minsk II agreements, and things would have gotten back to normal. According to your own article it declined to absorb Luhansk and Donetsk and pushed them to work things out with Kyiv and remain inside Ukraine. That shocked Strelkov and he committed himself to supporting the rebels and fighting the far-right nationalist battallions. 3) In a perfect world, Russia would have never entered, because USA would have never fomented a revolution, sponsored far-right extremist groups, installed a puppet regime in Ukraine, and destabilized the country with revolutionaries and counter-revolutionaries forming opposing brigades. But I won’t ask you the corresponding questions about whether you think USA should stay out of other countries’ business 3000 miles away, dozens of countries around the world, because you asked me not to. After all, that would be “whataboutism” and we are only after fantasy scenarios here, where one side (Russia) does all the accomodating to keep peace while the other side (USA) keeps expanding unchecked forever. 4) Regarding Crimea, I am aware that in 1954 it was gifted from Russian SSR to Ukrainian SSR without asking the people. In 1991 the people on the ground voted overwhelmingly (close to 100%) to break free of Ukraine and be independent. They were ignored. Then 54% voted to be part of Ukraine, but multiple times since then Crimea demanded autonomy and Kyiv signed concession agreements, which it broke repeatedly to assert its domininion over Crimea, force changes to its constitution etc. So it is unsurprising that they voted to be independent again in the 2014 referendum and I believe that, had OSCE or any others overseen it, the result would have been the same. Do I think the will of the people on the ground should be respected? Yes, and countries including Ukraine should grant such populations a degree of autonomy, to the point where membership in this or that country is a minor detail (as it was in 1954 when Crimea changed hands). 5) In the current world, I think the only vehicle by which nationalistic fervor can be tempered is being part of the same federation (eg the Republic of California is part of the USA) and breaking those ties can lead to more instability and violence. In an ideal world, countries would be unbundled into multiple services (police, roads etc) with agencies competing for the business of a city, neighborhood etc. peacefully competing on how well they serve the people. Rather than treating people as livestock to own that graze on your land, which is how you currently think of Crimeans or Luhansk people etc. You think of countries as the primary actors, and anthropomorphosize them, while people are m mostly fodder, or stand-ins for monolithic “political aspirations”. This is exactly what I encounter when I speak to other statists, including people who want to build a Palestinian state, or people who believe China owns this or that territory forever. I think the current system of “country borders and ownership” is an unfortunate tinderbox because demographics change and there should be better, more libertarian systems. We can see the tinderbox firsthand eg in Yugoslavia or in nearly all the countries set up by the Sykes-Picot agreement. Now answer my previous comment point by point as you promised to do.

_kbh_ 3y ago
> First, the most one-dimensional and simplistic answer. With regard to everything except Crimea: yes of course, and the internationally recognized Minsk II agreements should have been implemented. Why except Crimea?. Crimea was invaded just as much as the rest of Ukraine. So the answer of do you think Russia should withdraw is no then right?, cause withdrawing from Ukraine requires withdrawing from Crimea as Crimea is Ukrainian land. > 2) If everyone kept their word, Russia would have never entered because Ukraine would have either put down the rebellion, and things would have gotten back to normal — or implemented the Minsk II agreements. Russia had already entered Ukraine at that point, the Crimea annexation involved tanks, and soldiers. Not to mention that Strelkov said Russian soldiers were fighting in Luhansk and Donetsk in 2014. > 3) In a perfect world, Russia would have never entered, because USA would have never fomented a revolution, sponsored far-right extremist groups, installed a puppet regime in Ukraine, and destabilized the country with revolutionaries and counter-revolutionaries forming opposing brigades. Russia planned to annex Crimea before any 'puppet' regime was implemented. > After all, that would be “whataboutism” and we are only after fantasy scenarios here, where one side (Russia) does all the accomodating to keep peace while the other side (USA) keeps expanding unchecked forever. What peace has Russia kept, unless you think peace is a gun pointed at your back then where is the peace?. The USA isn't expanding, NATO is, because of Russias behaviour. If you had a neighbour that kept trying to rape and kill your family and your only option was to join an alliance to help you defend yourself you would do it wouldn't you?. > In 1991 the people on the ground voted overwhelmingly (close to 100%) to break free of Ukraine and be independent. In 1991, before Ukraine was an independent country they voted 94%ish to become an independent SSR in within the USSR. 54% voted to be part of Ukraine, after the collapse of the Soviet Union. > So it is unsurprising that they voted to be independent again in the 2014 referendum and I believe that, had OSCE or any others overseen it, the result would have been the same. Wow you think the 2014 vote, with Russian tanks, and soldiers overseeing it was actually legitimate?. If someone held a gun to your head the next time you voted do you think that would be a legitimate vote?.
- EGreg 3y ago
  Are you going to keep your word? Go back and address my comment. You can do it in a sibling comment. > Why except Crimea?. Because I believe in people's self-determination. Like in Kosovo. Crimea is in Ukraine only because no one ever listened to them. They were already in Russian SSR but got transferred to Ukrainian SSR "as a gift". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Crimean_sovereignty_referendum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Crimean_sovereignty_refer... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Crimean_status_referendum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Crimean_status_referendum And not just that, but they fought for their autonomy the entire time since 1991, the Kyiv government even signed agreement with them for this autonomy but then renegged on it and forced them to change their constitution: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_Republic_of_Crimea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_Republic_of_Crimea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_status_of_Crimea#Autonomous_Republic_of_Crimea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_status_of_Crimea#Aut... Let me ask YOU. Right now, Crimea is relatively peaceful. Do you support bringing violence to Crimea, just so Ukraine can own it again? I am not a statist who believes that the rights of states to fly a flag over a territory trump the welfare of millions of people. States and corporations are useful concepts, but they are still temporary, and for most civilians there are more important things in life. This time lapse of Europe shows how silly it is to kill millions just so a specific color to be over a certain area for a few years or decades: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwcwGSFPqIo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwcwGSFPqIo I can understand many people don't feel that way, but I think it's because they've been brainwashed into supporting states and territory over humans welfare. Especially after 1950s or so, this fantasy came about that the borders of nation-states will be the same forever now. This creates dangerous tinderboxes, like all the countries established in the Sykes-Picot agreement (Shiites, Sunnis, Kurds, Christians, mixed into one). Or like in Yugoslavia, after they lost their organizing principle (socialism) they reverted to sectarian violence. NATO also doesn't always believe in immutable borders, since they violated international law and ignored the UN security council, bombed civilians, and carved off Kosovo from Serbia. But you don't say that they are "occupying Serbia" at the moment, or "invaded Serbia". That's to be expected. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo_independence_precedent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo_independence_precedent > The USA isn't expanding, NATO is, because of Russias behaviour. It's typical for each side to blame the other for its own aggressive expansion, calling it a mere defensive posture. NATO placing "defensive" installations in Romania and Poland were just the latest pre-emptive "defensive" measures. Somehow all this "defense" ends up in escalation. Statesmen know this. "BUT HE STARTED IT!" is an argument for kindergarteners. Our politicians on all sides need to grow up - and this includes Russian ones. > The USA isn't expanding, NATO is, because of Russias behaviour. Well, the USA has a long history of expanding, and renegging on all the agreements, since its founding. Go ask any native nations that used to be on this continent. More recently, go ask North Korea, Iran, Cuba, or whoever is on the OFAC list. They all had a deal with USA, but thanks to US representative democracy, the next admin killed it: North Korea: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agreed_Framework https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agreed_Framework Iran: https://www.vox.com/2015/3/10/8182063/tom-cottons-controversial-letter-to-iran-explained https://www.vox.com/2015/3/10/8182063/tom-cottons-controvers... Cuba: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/trump-hits-cuba-with-new-terrorism-sanctions-in-waning-days https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/trump-hits-cuba-with-n... (Really, Cuba has been a threat to USA?) Why would Russia trust USA? They promised no expansion to Gorbachev, Yeltsin: https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017... Clinton promised Yeltsin that NATO's expansion would be "in partnership" with Russia, Bush ruined it: https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2021-11-24/nato-expansion-budapest-blow-1994 https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2021... Clinton also gave the Three Nos to China, and now we are renegging on those too: https://www.jstor.org/stable/24590364 https://www.jstor.org/stable/24590364 I could go on, but USA's very representative democracy makes it so that it can't be trusted. Why should Russia trust it? > Wow you think the 2014 vote, with Russian tanks, and soldiers overseeing it was actually legitimate?. Legitimate as in accurately reflecting the will of the people? Sure, check out the 1991 referendum. Only 54% of Crimea ever voted to be part of Ukraine, and since then they had a tough time inside it. Why si it so hard to believe they wanted to be independent in 2014? Someone always has the monopoly of force while a referendum is taking place. If Ukraine had it, would that delegitimize the people's secret vote? Do you think Catalonia's vote for independence, amid Spain's tanks and soldiers was legitimate? Or Kurds in Iraq? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Catalan_independence_referendum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Catalan_independence_refe... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Kurdistan_Region_independence_referendum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Kurdistan_Region_independ... OSCE refused to participate SPECIFICALLY TO NOT GRANT IT LEGITIMACY. Had it been overseen, a result along the expected lines would have solidified that Crimea wants to be independent.