Russian forces enter the Crimea

[-:Undertaker:-]

It's pretty clear to me that you have no idea what you're talking about. As I have already said, this isn't an east versus west issue. The vast majority of Ukrainians support these protests, even Russian speaking Ukrainians in the east and south.

Where is your evidence for this? The evidence suggests otherwise. I have not seen any polling that suggests otherwise, indeed it was because of the East that the deposed President was elected in the first place.

I am hearing and reading now that Ukraine military bases along with the Ukraine naval forces are deserting in favour of Russian forces..... the takeover of Crimea seems to have happened without a fight. The lack of any resistance and the reluctance of the Ukrainian armed forces to make a move suggests to me that there's a lack of support for Ukraine and Kiev on the ground. Those Russian tricolours aren't being raised across the East of Ukraine for nothing.

Ukraine is not in need of a split, nobody in Ukraine, Russia, the EU or the US wants that. You are being too simplistic; you see that some people (mostly in Crimea and the far east of Ukraine) want to be closer with Russia so you're imagining the whole eastern half of the country wants to break away from the west, this is not the case.

I have never claimed everyone, however it does appear to be the majority OR THAT the majority in the east at least do not want to support the new regime in Kiev. Either way, separation is inevitable.

How would you define a 'proper country'?

One that has a single monoculture that is strong enough to make the people of that state a single people.

EG: Britain, America, Sweden, Norway, Portugal, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Chile and Argentina for example are proper countries unlike Belgium, Spain(?), the former Sudan, Somalia, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iraq, Syria, Nigeria or Libya which are not.

False countries only really ever hold together when they are under a dictatorship. Once that hardman is removed - as we've seen in countless examples including in Europe with Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia - the country falls apart as you cannot have a functioning democracy without a demos (a single people).

[Okeanos]

Where is your evidence for this? The evidence suggests otherwise. I have not seen any polling that suggests otherwise, indeed it was because of the East that the deposed President was elected in the first place.

I am hearing and reading now that Ukraine military bases along with the Ukraine naval forces are deserting in favour of Russian forces..... the takeover of Crimea seems to have happened without a fight. The lack of any resistance and the reluctance of the Ukrainian armed forces to make a move suggests to me that there's a lack of support for Ukraine and Kiev on the ground. Those Russian tricolours aren't being raised across the East of Ukraine for nothing.

The Ukrainian people (from all regions) are my evidence, if you bothered to read and listen to what they are saying rather than repeating what you hear on RT or Sky News then you might be better informed.

There is resistance in Crimea, 25% of its population is Ukrainian after all. That said, it is hardly surprising that most people in the Crimea support Putin - it was part of Russia until the 50s after all. The Ukrainian armed forces have been instructed to do nothing because that is exactly what Putin wants - the age old Soviet tactic of provokatsiya is being employed to try and force the Ukrainians to respond militarily so the Russians can use that as an excuse come down hard.

I have never claimed everyone, however it does appear to be the majority OR THAT the majority in the east at least do not want to support the new regime in Kiev. Either way, separation is inevitable.

The pro-Russian people in the East are not a majority and separation certainly is not inevitable.

One that has a single monoculture that is strong enough to make the people of that state a single people.

EG: Britain, America, Sweden, Norway, Portugal, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Chile and Argentina for example are proper countries unlike Belgium, Spain(?), the former Sudan, Somalia, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iraq, Syria, Nigeria or Libya which are not.

False countries only really ever hold together when they are under a dictatorship. Once that hardman is removed - as we've seen in countless examples including in Europe with Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia - the country falls apart as you cannot have a functioning democracy without a demos (a single people).

Completely wrong, seriously where do you get this rubbish? I can't think of a single country which has a 'monoculture', the UK certainly doesn't - after all there are more than ten indigenous languages spoken in Britain today and we are and have always been an ethnic and cultural blend going right back to pre-Roman times.

Explain why Britain, America, Sweden, Norway, Portugal, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Chile and Argentina are 'proper' countries but Belgium, Spain, North and South Sudan, Somalia, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iraq, Syria, Nigeria and Libya are not? I bet you can't. Your belief in a 'single people' is facile, every country in the world has at last one minority group - there is no such thing as a country where everyone is ethnically, culturally and linguistically the same.

[-:Undertaker:-]

The Ukrainian people (from all regions) are my evidence, if you bothered to read and listen to what they are saying rather than repeating what you hear on RT or Sky News then you might be better informed.

I have been watching the pro-western BBC AND Sky News too as a matter of fact.

Do not accuse me of bias, just watching BBC is a form of bias too. I watch and read all the channels.

There is resistance in Crimea, 25% of its population is Ukrainian after all. That said, it is hardly surprising that most people in the Crimea support Putin - it was part of Russia until the 50s after all. The Ukrainian armed forces have been instructed to do nothing because that is exactly what Putin wants - the age old Soviet tactic of provokatsiya is being employed to try and force the Ukrainians to respond militarily so the Russians can use that as an excuse come down hard.

Well yes, I don't dispute that.

The pro-Russian people in the East are not a majority and separation certainly is not inevitable.

The areas in the East where there is a majority of Russian people then, you'd force them to remain a part of the Ukraine even if they wish not to be? Aaaaahhh democracy western style, aslong as the people are siding with the west then that's okay then. You keep claiming that the majority in the East do not want seperation, yet where is your evidence for this? No polls have been taken so there's no way of knowing for sure other than looking at the situation on the ground which is that government buildings are hoisting up the Russian tricolour.

Do you agree with the notion of a referendum being held on whether the East should remain with the Ukraine?

Completely wrong, seriously where do you get this rubbish? I can't think of a single country which has a 'monoculture', the UK certainly doesn't - after all there are more than ten indigenous languages spoken in Britain today and we are and have always been an ethnic and cultural blend going right back to pre-Roman times.

That is some of the biggest bullcrap ever told about Britain and i'm sick of it. I didn't mention ethnic background but that's certainly one characteristic of a nation - and Britain has experienced, until the 1950s, very little immigration apart from an invasion or two in a thousand years. Britain is actually ethnically one of the most untouched nations in history owing to it's status as an island nation much like Japan. This kind of garbage you have spouted is routinely repeated in support of mass immigration and it's simply not true. You can see a debunking of this argument in this video from 2:25 to 3:40......



In terms of culture, yes the United Kingdom is a monoculture. Sure there are different sub regional cultures from Yorkshire to Wales, but broadly enough people believe in Britishness enough for it to remain under the same political and legal system. That is why it works, it survives by consent. There are signs of this breaking down mind you with Scottish independence, but broadly speaking it remains a monocultural state for the time being.

Explain why Britain, America, Sweden, Norway, Portugal, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Chile and Argentina are 'proper' countries but Belgium, Spain, North and South Sudan, Somalia, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iraq, Syria, Nigeria and Libya are not? I bet you can't. Your belief in a 'single people' is facile, every country in the world has at last one minority group - there is no such thing as a country where everyone is ethnically, culturally and linguistically the same.

The countries I mentioned which are proper nation states contain a people within that consider themselves a part of one another, culturally similar enough to operate within the same political & legal system. This is very strong in France and the same in Germany (which unified late on) as well as the others I mentioned. Those which I said could not be considered proper countries are not proper countries for the reason that most of their borders were imposed by politicians and are purely artificial to mark long gone spheres of influence. The badly drawn borders between Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Turkey, Iran, Jordan and Saudi Arabia are a key example of this whereby the British and French drew invented borders across the map. Iraq and Syria are the worst, being drawn directly across the dividing line between Shia Islam and Sunni Islam. With the fall of Saddam Hussein in Iraq and the weakening of the Assad family in Syria, what I am saying is coming into fruitation: they are disintegrating states.

Follow any of the political crisises in these countries and you'll come to see what I am saying.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007%E2...litical_crisis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011%E2...abian_protests
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...us-region.html
http://www.smh.com.au/world/as-viole...215-32slz.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...tegration.html

Yugoslavia is the key example of how throwing people together in false countries can go horribly wrong, as after WWI politicians threw the diverse states of the Balkans together in a new 'Kingdom of Yugoslavia' (totally invented) and left them to get along with it..... with disasterous consquences: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yugoslavia It's often said that Yugoslavia is a prototype of a federal Europe, and I agree. Belgium is another example of a fake state that was created after a war, and although it's survived for a couple of hundred years it is on it's last legs as even with a federal system it's at breaking point.

Borders and countries are not simply invented as many on the left may think in line with their internationalism, they [borders] are there to reflect dividing lines between differing cultures as if one if rational you can see that a parliament drawn from both the UK and Saudi Arabia wouldn't work as we are complete opposites. Of course though, when borders are invented it turns out to be a disaster rather than the utopia that was intended.

[The Don]

You keep explaining why Russia are doing this, that's simply the reasoning behind it and does not excuse their behaviour but merely explains it.

[-:Undertaker:-]

You keep explaining why Russia are doing this, that's simply the reasoning behind it and does not excuse their behaviour but merely explains it.

I have explained why I think Russia is acting rationally. A friendly pro-Russian government has been violently overthrown on it's borders and within it's sphere of influence. The new government is pro-western which could mean an end to Russian naval bases in the Crimea. The new situation in Ukraine could lead to a Civil War between the Russian population of Ukraine and those in the west of Ukraine. The new government in Kiev has voided laws which allowed the use of Russian as an official language in Russian areas. The west and the new government in Kiev seem to not want to have a referendum held on independence for the Crimea/Eastern Ukraine.

Whether you agere with Russia going in or not - again, I personally am indifferent provided it benefits Great Britain - that's the reality of the situation. The US, UK and EU pushed this situation in Ukraine and it hasn't worked out how they hoped as Russia has now stepped in. Tough luck.

[The Don]

I have explained why I think Russia is acting rationally. A friendly pro-Russian government has been violently overthrown on it's borders and within it's sphere of influence. The new government is pro-western which could mean an end to Russian naval bases in the Crimea. The new situation in Ukraine could lead to a Civil War between the Russian population of Ukraine and those in the west of Ukraine. The new government in Kiev has voided laws which allowed the use of Russian as an official language in Russian areas. The west and the new government in Kiev seem to not want to have a referendum held on independence for the Crimea/Eastern Ukraine.

Whether you agere with Russia going in or not - again, I personally am indifferent provided it benefits Great Britain - that's the reality of the situation. The US, UK and EU pushed this situation in Ukraine and it hasn't worked out how they hoped as Russia has now stepped in. Tough luck.

No, the new government has repealed laws and restored the previous constitution. You're lying about the referendum (where are your sources for this?) If our government started implementing laws that the previous Ukraine one did I would hope there would protests here (as in Ukraine), are you suggesting the protestors are wrong for removing the president? The corrupt man who stole a ridiculous amount of money from Ukraine citizens and ordered the murder of unarmed protestors. I would say they did what was best for Ukraine, not Russia which is what they should've done. Either way, as I've said plenty of times, this does not justify Russia invading, Crimea was pretty peaceful before Russia stormed in (and no, russian flags being raised still doesn't make this acceptable).

[-:Undertaker:-]

No, the new government has repealed laws and restored the previous constitution. You're lying about the referendum (where are your sources for this?) If our government started implementing laws that the previous Ukraine one did I would hope there would protests here (as in Ukraine), are you suggesting the protestors are wrong for removing the president? The corrupt man who stole a ridiculous amount of money from Ukraine citizens and ordered the murder of unarmed protestors. I would say they did what was best for Ukraine, not Russia which is what they should've done.

...and the previous constitution did not allow for Russian to be used as a language. Even western politicians have been criticising this repeal.

As for the referendum claim, that's the impression I am getting. Hague and others have stated that the Ukraine must have it's territorial borders maintained, and the central government in Kiev is refusing to co-operate with the regional government in the autonomous Crimea. If Kiev won't co-operate, then where does that leave the Russians in the Ukraine?

As for the President, again you mistake me as a supporter of his. Whoever gets in in the Ukraine is going to be corrupt and despotic, that's the way the country is. That's the way Russia is and always has been. It's nothing new. This strange utopianism you support following the violent revolution in Kiev reminds me very much of the Arab Spring how you all thought that by overthrowing these corrupt and dictatorial governments, western democracy was going to come flooding into the Middle East and simply fall from the sky. It doesn't work like that. I guarantee that Ukraine will be just as corrupt and backward in 5 years times, by which time you lot will have moved onto another country in supporting their 'uprising' which will again result in failure and disappointment just as the Arab Spring has done.

Either way, as I've said plenty of times, this does not justify Russia invading, Crimea was pretty peaceful before Russia stormed in (and no, russian flags being raised still doesn't make this acceptable).

Crimea is peaceful now. They've de facto handed themselves over to Russia it appears.

[The Don]

Excluding Egypt how did the Arab Spring movement leave those countries worse off? If Ukraine tries to join the EU it will have to meet a certain criteria which will remove most of the corruption, which has happened in other countries.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Excluding Egypt how did the Arab Spring movement leave those countries worse off?

Libya is now a fragmented state that is ruled by tribal factions and is split between the west and the east. Al-qaeda is rife in Libya now. Syria is now a warzone along ethnic and religious lines with Al-qaeda in control of huge swathes of the country. Iraq is continuing down the path of a failed state with Al-qaeda increasingly active and Iran exercising control over the Shia areas of Iraq. Bahrain remains in a state of protests and conflicts with the government even more paranoid than ever before - and the same applies to Saudi Arabia. Egypt is becoming a failed state with the military back in control as the country is incapable of being a democracy.

The only good thing in my opinion about the Arab Spring has been the breakdown of the false borders in the Middle East and the potential for a long-needed Kurdish state to be declared over the next few years. The Middle East however will still remain controlled by despots, the military and corruption and brutal government tactics will remain rife.

If Ukraine tries to join the EU it will have to meet a certain criteria which will remove most of the corruption, which has happened in other countries.

Which we will have to pay for which is exactly what I do not want.

In any case, Ukraine joining the EU will simply mean the swapping of rule from Moscow to rule from Berlin and Brussels. And yet ironically 'sovereignty' is what Hague and other western leaders keep banging on about.

[The Don]

Libya is now a fragmented state that is ruled by tribal factions and is split between the west and the east. Al-qaeda is rife in Libya now. Syria is now a warzone along ethnic and religious lines with Al-qaeda in control of huge swathes of the country. Iraq is continuing down the path of a failed state with Al-qaeda increasingly active and Iran exercising control over the Shia areas of Iraq. Bahrain remains in a state of protests and conflicts with the government even more paranoid than ever before - and the same applies to Saudi Arabia. Egypt is becoming a failed state with the military back in control as the country is incapable of being a democracy.

The only good thing in my opinion about the Arab Spring has been the breakdown of the false borders in the Middle East and the potential for a long-needed Kurdish state to be declared over the next few years. The Middle East however will still remain controlled by despots, the military and corruption and brutal government tactics will remain rife.



Which we will have to pay for which is exactly what I do not want.

In any case, Ukraine joining the EU will simply mean the swapping of rule from Moscow to rule from Berlin and Brussels. And yet ironically 'sovereignty' is what Hague and other western leaders keep banging on about.

If you define rule as follow some legislation then sure. Ukraine would undeniably be better off moving towards the EU, you only need to look at the graph i posted on your profile the other day about employment rates to see that.