Ukraine discussion

[Chilloutman]

 

Yep that I understand, but they always can move rather then stole Ukraine teritory. If I want to be part of next state I have to move, not claime my Town be part of that state, its hilariouse.

But Ukraine is just rebelled province of our Empire and we have moral right to make reconquista and punish these traitors. :3

 

because people like you Russian people have bad reputation in world.

[Shallow]

 

If you believe in the infallibility of territorial sovereignity, then Ukraine, along with a ****load of Eastern Europe and Central Asia must reunite with Russia to restore the Soviet Union, if you don't believe in the infallibility of territorial sovereignity, then you oughta approve of the eastern half of a nation seceeding, especially after an undemocratic coup, elections where no pro-russia candidates were able to run without being attacked, and the capital arming rightwing nationalists who want to wipe you out with weapons and sending them into your portion of the country when large portions of you decide you feel like rebelling. The argument of territorial soveriegnity i silly in ex Soviet lands, we also wouldn't be in this whole situation if the west had honored their agreement with Gorbachov and not expanded nato in an attempt to dominate as much of the globe as possible.

Eh what why? States in soviet union didnt want to be its part, they where occupied. I dont understand why yhey have to be part of it again because of infallibility of territorial sovereignity. Also i agree that coup was kind of undemocratic, however president was elected because he promise that he will sign EU treaty but then he rejected it so he didnt follow part of his deal with his own people. I dont understand why soveriegnity would be silly there were states before Soviets occupy them. No comment on NATO, states are not forced to be part of it

 

Eastern Ukraine also doesn't want to be a part of modern Ukraine, the coup and the violence during the election sorta removed their ability to have a say in the matter. Because, if borders have a magic right to never be altered despite what the people living along said borders feel, then despite the fact that people wanted out of the Soviet Union, they have to stay in it. I don't personally believe this should be the case, but I do consider consistency important. You're right in that there were states before the Soviet Union came to be, but the borders of those states were still quite different from what we have now, and if you argue that those borders are the borders that should exist because they existed at some point and borders shouldn't change, then Crimea becomes a part of Russia, which is something I doubt you consider just.

The way I see it either large regions of a nation should be allowed to seceede if a massive majority of the populace seeks to do so, and if (provided the region recieved more state benefits than they payed in taxes in the last decade) any benifits the greater government payed them during the last decade should be given back. But we could return to the earliest borders defined in the history of mankind despite how little sense they make in the current situation. And sure you can say, if you want to be a part of Russia go join Russia, but the Russian speaking majority in the East lived in Ukraine before Ukraine even became a state, it's not like they migrated there and then decided they'd claim the land for themselves.

 

Obama also didn't exactly follow through on a lot of his promises either, doesn't mean a tiny minority of USA would have the right to force him to resign and set up their own government until the next elections. And in regards to NATO, sure states aren't forced to be a part of it, but still, the one thing Gorbachov demanded when he backed out of Germany was that NATO doesn't expand in his direction, you can't blame Russia for wanting a buffer zone against an organization whose sole purpose was to limit Russias power, especially when the head of NATO (USA) was involved in Georgia.

[Chilloutman]

 

 

If you believe in the infallibility of territorial sovereignity, then Ukraine, along with a ****load of Eastern Europe and Central Asia must reunite with Russia to restore the Soviet Union, if you don't believe in the infallibility of territorial sovereignity, then you oughta approve of the eastern half of a nation seceeding, especially after an undemocratic coup, elections where no pro-russia candidates were able to run without being attacked, and the capital arming rightwing nationalists who want to wipe you out with weapons and sending them into your portion of the country when large portions of you decide you feel like rebelling. The argument of territorial soveriegnity i silly in ex Soviet lands, we also wouldn't be in this whole situation if the west had honored their agreement with Gorbachov and not expanded nato in an attempt to dominate as much of the globe as possible.

Eh what why? States in soviet union didnt want to be its part, they where occupied. I dont understand why yhey have to be part of it again because of infallibility of territorial sovereignity. Also i agree that coup was kind of undemocratic, however president was elected because he promise that he will sign EU treaty but then he rejected it so he didnt follow part of his deal with his own people. I dont understand why soveriegnity would be silly there were states before Soviets occupy them. No comment on NATO, states are not forced to be part of it

 

Eastern Ukraine also doesn't want to be a part of modern Ukraine, the coup and the violence during the election sorta removed their ability to have a say in the matter. Because, if borders have a magic right to never be altered despite what the people living along said borders feel, then despite the fact that people wanted out of the Soviet Union, they have to stay in it. I don't personally believe this should be the case, but I do consider consistency important. You're right in that there were states before the Soviet Union came to be, but the borders of those states were still quite different from what we have now, and if you argue that those borders are the borders that should exist because they existed at some point and borders shouldn't change, then Crimea becomes a part of Russia, which is something I doubt you consider just.

The way I see it either large regions of a nation should be allowed to seceede if a massive majority of the populace seeks to do so, and if (provided the region recieved more state benefits than they payed in taxes in the last decade) any benifits the greater government payed them during the last decade should be given back. But we could return to the earliest borders defined in the history of mankind despite how little sense they make in the current situation. And sure you can say, if you want to be a part of Russia go join Russia, but the Russian speaking majority in the East lived in Ukraine before Ukraine even became a state, it's not like they migrated there and then decided they'd claim the land for themselves.

 

Obama also didn't exactly follow through on a lot of his promises either, doesn't mean a tiny minority of USA would have the right to force him to resign and set up their own government until the next elections. And in regards to NATO, sure states aren't forced to be a part of it, but still, the one thing Gorbachov demanded when he backed out of Germany was that NATO doesn't expand in his direction, you can't blame Russia for wanting a buffer zone against an organization whose sole purpose was to limit Russias power, especially when the head of NATO (USA) was involved in Georgia.

 

As I stated before, east Ukraine is mostly russian now because Stalin put original population into gulags and moved russian citizens in to force obedience, Milions of people die because of it and yet Russians doesn have enough self-realisation about it. Hack there are still monuments to those dictators and tyrans with blood of milions innocent people on their hands. Can you imagine that there would still be statues of Hitler in germany now? Such hypocrisy.

[obyknven]

 

 

Yep that I understand, but they always can move rather then stole Ukraine teritory. If I want to be part of next state I have to move, not claime my Town be part of that state, its hilariouse.

But Ukraine is just rebelled province of our Empire and we have moral right to make reconquista and punish these traitors. :3

 

because people like you Russian people have bad reputation in world.

 

Why we must worried about this? Sucessful people are most hated people, losers hate everyone who greatest than they, it's normal. Everyone hate Jews, Russians, Chinese - but these nations rule the world.

Edited September 3, 2014 by obyknven

[Chilloutman]

 

 

 

Yep that I understand, but they always can move rather then stole Ukraine teritory. If I want to be part of next state I have to move, not claime my Town be part of that state, its hilariouse.

But Ukraine is just rebelled province of our Empire and we have moral right to make reconquista and punish these traitors. :3

 

because people like you Russian people have bad reputation in world.

 

Why we most worried about this? Sucessful people are most hated people, losers hate everyone who greatest than they, it's normal. Everyone hate Jews, Russians, Chinese - but these nations rule the world.

 

Go on, show us in which way you are successfull oby? I think I seen some of you 'models' from 3DSmax, and they were awefull so in which way you are successful?

[HoonDing]

oby is one of those oligarkh bodyguard babes

[Barothmuk]

Eh what why? States in soviet union didnt want to be its part, they where occupied.

Incorrect.

 

Red Army forces operated alongside national communist parties (whom were quite popular as they were often the dominant resistance against the fascists) who were democratically elected either fully into power or as part of coalition governments.

 

The Red Army itself, contrary to what many believed, evacuated the areas quite quickly and were basically entirely gone by the early 50's.

Edited September 3, 2014 by Barothmuk

[Chilloutman]

 

Eh what why? States in soviet union didnt want to be its part, they where occupied.

Incorrect.

 

Red Army forces operated alongside national communist parties (whom were quite popular as they were often the dominant resistance against the fascists) and were democratically elected either fully into power or as part of coalition governments.

 

The Red Army itself, contrary to what many believed, evacuated the areas quite quickly and were basically entirely gone by the early 50's.

 

ehm

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Pact_invasion_of_Czechoslovakia

 

Some of you guys were not paying attention in history class (if you are not from Russia, otherwise I understand that they dont teach that there)

Edited September 3, 2014 by Chilloutman

[Malcador]

Probably semantics but you don't invade a place you occupy.

[obyknven]

 

 

 

 

Yep that I understand, but they always can move rather then stole Ukraine teritory. If I want to be part of next state I have to move, not claime my Town be part of that state, its hilariouse.

But Ukraine is just rebelled province of our Empire and we have moral right to make reconquista and punish these traitors. :3

 

because people like you Russian people have bad reputation in world.

 

Why we most worried about this? Sucessful people are most hated people, losers hate everyone who greatest than they, it's normal. Everyone hate Jews, Russians, Chinese - but these nations rule the world.

 

Go on, show us in which way you are successfull oby? I think I seen some of you 'models' from 3DSmax, and they were awefull so in which way you are successful?

 

Wat? I talk about successfull nations. Jews owe US and Europe, Russians and Chinese confront with them for rule the World.  It's obvious but this cause butthurt for you ( probably because you are not belongs to these powerful ones nations ) and you try change talking from global things to talking about my person... by this you again show greatness of Russians (lol i more important than even some minor nations).

[Barothmuk]

ehm

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Pact_invasion_of_Czechoslovakia

You do realise how fallacious it is suggesting this invasion means ALL STATES WERE OCCUPIED AND DID NOT EVER WANT TO BE PART OF THE UNION.

 

I'm by no means condoning the Soviet's aggression here, I'm just pointing out the silliness of your assertion.

 

Some of you guys were not paying attention in history class

(for some extra historical wankery) The shift right-ward in Czech politics was largely thanks to Khrushchev's expulsion of the "dogmatic" Stalinist hardliners in favour of promoting more lenient market friendly leaders such as Dubček.

 

It's only natural leaders such as this would shift their alliances west-ward.

Edited September 3, 2014 by Barothmuk

[Gromnir]

 

 

Eh what why? States in soviet union didnt want to be its part, they where occupied.

Incorrect.

 

Red Army forces operated alongside national communist parties (whom were quite popular as they were often the dominant resistance against the fascists) and were democratically elected either fully into power or as part of coalition governments.

 

The Red Army itself, contrary to what many believed, evacuated the areas quite quickly and were basically entirely gone by the early 50's.

 

ehm

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Pact_invasion_of_Czechoslovakia

 

Some of you guys were not paying attention in history class (if you are not from Russia, otherwise I understand that they dont teach that there)

 

some of the naivety regarding the ussr is understandable. most folks only learn through history classes. Gromnir were hardly any kinda expert, but at least we went to former soviet russia during late 80s and early 90s... saw empty shelves in stores and had folks offering us a car for sony walkman cassette player. if we had brought more condoms with us, and colda' figured a way to smuggle them out o' russia, we coulda' earned a small fortune in diamonds. also, we got to see first hand just how much the Poles loved the soviet back in the 80s.  that being said, for many folks, this is history... is something that happened in the past that they only hear 'bout from teachers or books. get some wacky professor at a fringe university, or read a book written by some kook and perhaps you got a rationale for believing craziness. it once were that publishing a book included expense that only a company with significant capital could think to embrace. it is a good thing that any private citizen can publish dozens or hundreds o' books and sell 'em on amazon, but there is also far less fact checking o' published works compared to the past... there is also less meaning to being published as is no longer something only reserved to the elite academic. "publish or perish" were the oft repeated refrain o' folks trying to make a career in academia. no more. 

 

any nut with a theory can publish a book, and not every college history professor is teaching history. for folks who only know o' ussr through books and professors, their education may be sadly but understandably lacking.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Chilloutman]

 

ehm

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Pact_invasion_of_Czechoslovakia

You do realise how fallacious it is suggesting this invasion means ALL STATES WERE OCCUPIED AND DID NOT WANT TO BE PART OF THE UNION.

 

I'm by no means condoning the Soviet's aggression here, I'm just pointing out the silliness of your assertion.

 

Some of you guys were not paying attention in history class

(for some extra historical wankery) The shift right-ward in Czech politics was largely thanks to Khrushchev's expulsion of the "dogmatic" Stalinist hardliners in favour of promoting more lenient market friendly leaders such as Dubček.

 

It's only natural leaders such as this would shift their alliances west-ward.

 

I dont know if all, but Poland definetely didnt want to as well. I put before you fact and you counter it with assumption. I dont even mention political processes which put most other political leaders into death sentences.

[Barothmuk]

I dont know if all, but Poland definetely didnt want to as well.

That's 2, and no not initially.

 

Poland was liberated by a joint Polish-Soviet effort, which was followed by a series of agricultural reforms wherein land was redistributed to the peasants which proved to be extremely popular. Furthermore Poland also received “15,000 tons of petroleum products, 2 million tons of iron ore, 569,000 tons of aluminium, 250,000 tons of manganese ore, and 155,000 tons of cotton which naturally encouraged Soviet support and helped redevelop the nation.

 

Of course as we all know relations eventually soured.

 

I put before you fact and you counter it with assumption.

Haha, no.

 

You post a Wikipedia link of a single event and assert this is proof that every state was in a permanent state of occupation and wanted no part of it. I assert relations between the Soviet states were dynamic and gradually changed.

[Shallow]

As I stated before, east Ukraine is mostly russian now because Stalin put original population into gulags and moved russian citizens in to force obedience, Milions of people die because of it and yet Russians doesn have enough self-realisation about it. Hack there are still monuments to those dictators and tyrans with blood of milions innocent people on their hands. Can you imagine that there would still be statues of Hitler in germany now? Such hypocrisy.

Whilst Russian ethnicity in the area greatly increased in the area during Stalins reign, due to the **** Stalin did as well as the general effects of ww2, the 1897 Russian Empire census however shows the Russian language already strongy dominating in the cities of Easternmost Ukraine. If you look at modern statistics you'll also find large portions of the ethnic Ukrainians in Eastern Ukraine supporting prorussian policies.

 

Of course portions of the USSR wanted out, and were kept in against their will, but that doesn't mean everyone hated the Soviet Union, a prime example is the easternmost side of Moldavia starting a civil war over the region leaving the Soviet Union.

Edited September 3, 2014 by Shallow

[Chilloutman]

 

I dont know if all, but Poland definetely didnt want to as well.

That's 2, and no not initially.

 

Poland was liberated by a joint Polish-Soviet effort, which was followed by a series of agricultural reforms wherein land was redistributed to the peasants which proved to be extremely popular. Furthermore Poland also received “15,000 tons of petroleum products, 2 million tons of iron ore, 569,000 tons of aluminium, 250,000 tons of manganese ore, and 155,000 tons of cotton which naturally encouraged Soviet support and helped redevelop the nation.

 

Of course as we all know relations eventually soured.

 

I put before you fact and you counter it with assumption.

Haha, no.

 

You post a Wikipedia link of a single event and assert this is proof that every state was in a permanent state of occupation and wanted no part of it. I assert relations between the Soviet states were dynamic and gradually changed.

 

 

I am exhausted by this disscusion. Final word on that - ask people in post soviet block how they feel about them - 90% of people will tell you how much they sux, how they have to hide their own opinions, how families were persecuted because some member was in english/american/french army. How there secret police control your every move. How shops got empty shelfs. How Soviets destroy economies of working countries. How you were unnable to travel. How everyone was poor. How commies stole property from farmers. Its hard to argue with someone who cant see it. But yeah we got petroleum. Huzah

[BruceVC]

 

 

I dont know if all, but Poland definetely didnt want to as well.

That's 2, and no not initially.

 

Poland was liberated by a joint Polish-Soviet effort, which was followed by a series of agricultural reforms wherein land was redistributed to the peasants which proved to be extremely popular. Furthermore Poland also received “15,000 tons of petroleum products, 2 million tons of iron ore, 569,000 tons of aluminium, 250,000 tons of manganese ore, and 155,000 tons of cotton which naturally encouraged Soviet support and helped redevelop the nation.

 

Of course as we all know relations eventually soured.

 

I put before you fact and you counter it with assumption.

Haha, no.

 

You post a Wikipedia link of a single event and assert this is proof that every state was in a permanent state of occupation and wanted no part of it. I assert relations between the Soviet states were dynamic and gradually changed.

 

 

I am exhausted by this disscusion. Final word on that - ask people in post soviet block how they feel about them - 90% of people will tell you how much they sux, how they have to hide their own opinions, how families were persecuted because some member was in english/american/french army. How there secret police control your every move. How shops got empty shelfs. How Soviets destroy economies of working countries. How you were unnable to travel. How everyone was poor. How commies stole property from farmers. Its hard to argue with someone who cant see it. But yeah we got petroleum. Huzah

 

 Its amazing how people who live in the USA  and were born there tell you how great the USSR was. Yet you live in an ex-communist country. You think you would know more about life within the USSR

[Barothmuk]

I am exhausted by this disscusion. Final word on that - ask people in post soviet block how they feel about them - 90% of people will tell you how much they sux,

Despite the "economic stagnation" of the Brezhnev years and the imperialist relationship between Russia and many of the Republics most people today actually miss the union or at the very least perceive the break-up to have been negative.

 

E.g.

 

 

With that said this is irrelevant to the original argument. You incorrectly stated the Soviet republics did not want to be part of the union and were occupied. I assert the much more sensible claim that relationships between Russia and the other Soviet states varied but in general their was popular support and collaboration between the regimes.

Its amazing how people who live in the USA and were born there tell you how great the USSR was. Yet you live in an ex-communist country. You think you would know more about life within the USSR

Amusing how what is deemed correct is not based on facts but on whether or not what is stated fits with pre-existing notions.

 

If a Westerner acknowledges there existed popular support this shows their ignorance; if someone from the East acknowledges support this shows their "indoctrination".

Edited September 4, 2014 by Barothmuk

[Zoraptor]

Amusing how what is deemed correct is not based on facts but on whether or not what is stated fits with pre-existing notions.

 

 

If that really amuses you you should check out his back catalogue, there's plenty more there. I just wish he'd change up his shtick.

[BruceVC]

No you guys are right, all the ex countries that were part of the USSR are desperate to return to that situation. Communism really benefitted all countries. The West was wrong to  oppose the spread of this ideology, you can see how well various economies did under the USSR and how they are doing now  Go Russia and the return of Russian hegemony

 

"sarcasm off "

[Chilloutman]

 

I am exhausted by this disscusion. Final word on that - ask people in post soviet block how they feel about them - 90% of people will tell you how much they sux,

Despite the "economic stagnation" of the Brezhnev years and the imperialist relationship between Russia and many of the Republics most people today actually miss the union or at the very least perceive the break-up to have been negative.

 

E.g.

 

 

With that said this is irrelevant to the original argument. You incorrectly stated the Soviet republics did not want to be part of the union and were occupied. I assert the much more sensible claim that relationships between Russia and the other Soviet states varied but in general their was popular support and collaboration between the regimes.

Its amazing how people who live in the USA and were born there tell you how great the USSR was. Yet you live in an ex-communist country. You think you would know more about life within the USSR

Amusing how what is deemed correct is not based on facts but on whether or not what is stated fits with pre-existing notions.

 

If a Westerner acknowledges there existed popular support this shows their ignorance; if someone from the East acknowledges support this shows their "indoctrination".

 

These are states which were in bad state before becoming part of soviet union, where is Polad? where is Czechoslovakia? where is East Germany in that, where is Jugoslavia? Skipped to not ruin your statistics? xD

Edited September 4, 2014 by Chilloutman

[BruceVC]

I am exhausted by this disscusion. Final word on that - ask people in post soviet block how they feel about them - 90% of people will tell you how much they sux,

Despite the "economic stagnation" of the Brezhnev years and the imperialist relationship between Russia and many of the Republics most people today actually miss the union or at the very least perceive the break-up to have been negative.

 

E.g.

 

 

With that said this is irrelevant to the original argument. You incorrectly stated the Soviet republics did not want to be part of the union and were occupied. I assert the much more sensible claim that relationships between Russia and the other Soviet states varied but in general their was popular support and collaboration between the regimes.

Its amazing how people who live in the USA and were born there tell you how great the USSR was. Yet you live in an ex-communist country. You think you would know more about life within the USSR

Amusing how what is deemed correct is not based on facts but on whether or not what is stated fits with pre-existing notions.

 

If a Westerner acknowledges there existed popular support this shows their ignorance; if someone from the East acknowledges support this shows their "indoctrination".

 

lol even in your breakdown its clear most people say harm, and not to mention these are states which were in bad state before becoming part of soviet union, where is Polad? where is Czechoslovakia? where is East Germany in that? Skipped to not ruin your statistics? xD

 

 

In fact the better question is where are the countries that have significant economies nowadays and are Democracies that use to the part of the USSR? None of these countries like the ones you mentioned would ever want a return to a USSR style government

[obyknven]

Ukrainian propaganda make people mad.

 

Brittish media about Ukrainian soldiers.

Yeah, Ukrainian soldiers are dirty and stinking. It's what Europeans think about Ukrainians - stereotypic dirty savages from lands of new European colony, pathetic ones who can't even protect yourself without help of godlike European warriors in shining armors.
This is perfectly explain why East Ukrainians fight against European colonialism, and against European puppets in Kiev, it's just typical war against imperialists, war for national liberation. East Ukraine and Crimea play role of internal colonies to Kiev, because of this here all 23 years of Ukrainian history exist resistance against this (separatism in Crimea and attempts of East Ukrainians take power in Kiev during president elections). But when EU and US overthrow East Ukrainian president and colonial oppression increased dramatically (West even don't hide own predatory actions here now - Baiden, Shell, Mobil etc) - people stop be patient and begin armed resistance against colonialism.

[Gorth]

"sarcasm off "

I know you meant it sarcastically, but don't underestimate the human need for identity and to belong to something. The Feeling of vulnerability and insecurity following a sudden Stripping away of identity as well as the time until you start building a new identity is very real.

 

People are funny like that sometimes, preferring the devil they know over the ones their imagination create.

[Chilloutman]

Ukrainian propaganda make people mad.

 

Brittish media about Ukrainian soldiers.

Yeah, Ukrainian soldiers are dirty and stinking. It's what Europeans think about Ukrainians - stereotypic dirty savages from lands of new European colony, pathetic ones who can't even protect yourself without help of godlike European warriors in shining armors.

This is perfectly explain why East Ukrainians fight against European colonialism, and against European puppets in Kiev, it's just typical war against imperialists, war for national liberation. East Ukraine and Crimea play role of internal colonies to Kiev, because of this here all 23 years of Ukrainian history exist resistance against this (separatism in Crimea and attempts of East Ukrainians take power in Kiev during president elections). But when EU and US overthrow East Ukrainian president and colonial oppression increased dramatically (West even don't hide own predatory actions here now - Baiden, Shell, Mobil etc) - people stop be patient and begin armed resistance against colonialism.

Yeah european colonisation haha, nothing about Russian imperialism? Its funny how in soviet era west was called imperialist, while ironicaly soviet union was imperium rather than federation