Ukraine has become a dictatorship, it's official

[Stevicus]

Do you have an example?

"the drunken, violent moron that is Russia"

 

[Tomef]

The people living there were Russians.

Rus, not Russians. Scandinavians who migrated south, in the same way Angles, Saxons and Jutes migrated across the water to Britain, at more or less the same time. Why the Rus have this special status in these kinds of discussions I’m not sure. No-one outside of some odd far right groups, afaik, thinks of England and Germany sharing the same kind of mythical bond, or at least not to the same maudlin degree. Ethnicity doesn’t determine some kind of parallel development. The culture, eventual ethnic mix, language and other elements of what constitutes a nationality of the Rus who settled in the area later called Kyivan Run, and those who settled in Muscovy, are within the same bounds of difference as between Celts, Angles, Turkic peoples and so on. There’s nothing Russian about Ukraine any more than there’s anything German about England, it’s all just vague rhetoric based on very little. The Hungarian speaking minorities here in Romania are not Hungarian, they are Romanians who speak a dialect of Hungarian - their culture is not the same as Hungarian culture beyond a few superficialities, the rest is myth. There’s no difference between that and the divergence of Ukraine and Russia, they are two separate nationalities. The Russian Federation itself is not really a country, just a confederation of partners with varying degrees of willingness. But somehow this notion that Ukraine is Russia has spread.

 

[Tomef]

"the drunken, violent moron that is Russia"

Fair point, but in this context I think picturing the former soviet states as the abused ex-wives of a violent drunk is a pretty accurate analogy. Decades of Russian brutality to enforce its will are well-documented, as are the corrosive effects of Soviet trained and influenced rulers. That doesn’t, however, single out 'Russia out as the only bad guy in the history of that region’ though, just that the Russian state was an extremely brutal and dehumanising force in human affairs for much of the 20th century. That other states have done some pretty nasty things too doesn’t alter that.

 

[Tomef]

That was an internal administrative decision made by the Soviet government at the time.

Yes, but not for no reason. Lenin needed the agreement of the Ukrainian people’s Republic, and so bowed to what was already there out of necessity (he didn’t create it, as Putin claims). Ukrainian identity is still a loose thing, but one that has like any of the other pretty new countries in Europe the right to find it’s own path. This whole ‘historically Russian lands’ schtick is just an exaggerated version of the same simmering grievances over supposed natural rights to a bit of land on some more or less dubious historical pretext that exist in other parts of Europe. For reasons more to do with the imperialist Russian mindset than anything else, they seem to have more weight, but they don’t, not in any legal or historical sense.

It didn't matter at the time, since everything was ruled from Moscow anyway.

That isn’t completely true, tensions and disagreements, and a greater degree of latitude that is usually assumed to be the case, at least in matters of detail, existed between Moscow and its satellite states. Only when a national govt was on the brink of collapse would the Russians roll out the tanks.

 

[Estro Felino]

@Tomef

I will explain the point with another example: South Tyrol.

South Tyrol is a province in Italy where most people speak German. As you can clearly see in this map.
It's a German-speaking province in Italy. Where people don't need to learn Italian, because German is the official language.
So German-speaking people can speak German anywhere: at school, in the university, in the Town Hall, etc...

If someday the Italian Government forbade South-Tyroleans from speaking German, it's normal that separatists would rise up and protest en masse.
And it's natural that Austria and Germany (but Austria in particular) would support them.
If the Italian soldiers massacred the separatists, it's normal that Austria would invade Italy to rescue them.



So what part isn't clear to you?

Russia did exactly the same thing. It invaded Donbas people to help separatists because they were being massacred by the Kievan government, because they were forbidden from speaking Russian.

 

[Tomef]

@Tomef
This is my last attempt. Since I don't speak Arabic, but English, I guess you will understand, this time.
I will explain the point with another example: South Tyrol.

South Tyrol is a province in Italy where most people speak German. As you can clearly see in this map.
It's a German-speaking province in Italy. Where people don't need to learn Italian, because German is the official language.
So German-speaking people can speak German anywhere: at school, in the university, in the Town Hall, etc...

If someday the Italian Government forbade South-Tyroleans from speaking German, it's normal that separatists would rise up and protest en masse.
And it's natural that Austria and Germany (but Austria in particular) would support them.
If the Italian soldiers massacred the separatists, it's normal that Austria would invade Italy to rescue them.



So what part isn't clear to you?

Russia did exactly the same thing.

No-one forbade Russian speakers from Speaking Russian in Ukraine. It’s still the main language spoken in most of Ukraine East of Kyiv. I travelled up and down the whole area from North to South, as I said, from Odessa to Kharkiv, parallel with the front lines earlier this year and Russian is spoken everywhere, all the time. Again - please provide some sort of evidence for this idea you have that people were forbidden to speak Russian in Ukraine. What are you basing it on, apart from an imaginary rendering of a single sentence in a 2 minute video? When was this decree passed, when, by whom?

 

[Tomef]

@Tomef
This is my last attempt. Since I don't speak Arabic, but English, I guess you will understand, this time.
I will explain the point with another example: South Tyrol.

South Tyrol is a province in Italy where most people speak German. As you can clearly see in this map.
It's a German-speaking province in Italy. Where people don't need to learn Italian, because German is the official language.
So German-speaking people can speak German anywhere: at school, in the university, in the Town Hall, etc...

If someday the Italian Government forbade South-Tyroleans from speaking German, it's normal that separatists would rise up and protest en masse.
And it's natural that Austria and Germany (but Austria in particular) would support them.
If the Italian soldiers massacred the separatists, it's normal that Austria would invade Italy to rescue them.



So what part isn't clear to you?

Russia did exactly the same thing. It invaded Donbas people to help separatists because they were being massacred by the Kievan government, because they were forbidden from speaking Russian.

On what evidence are you claiming a massacre of separatists in the Donbas? When, where and by whom? Based on what evidence do you believe it happened?

 

[Estro Felino]

No-one forbade Russian speakers from Speaking Russian in Ukraine. It’s still the main language spoken in most of Ukraine East of Kyiv. I travelled up and down the whole area from North to South, as I said, from Odessa to Kharkiv, parallel with the front lines earlier this year and Russian is spoken everywhere, all the time. Again - please provide some sort of evidence for this idea you have that people were forbidden to speak Russian in Ukraine. What are you basing it on, apart from an imaginary rendering of a single sentence in a 2 minute video? When was this decree passed, when, by whom?

In an International Courtroom that video is evidence.

 

[Tomef]

@Tomef
This is my last attempt. Since I don't speak Arabic, but English, I guess you will understand, this time.
I will explain the point with another example: South Tyrol.

South Tyrol is a province in Italy where most people speak German. As you can clearly see in this map.
It's a German-speaking province in Italy. Where people don't need to learn Italian, because German is the official language.
So German-speaking people can speak German anywhere: at school, in the university, in the Town Hall, etc...

If someday the Italian Government forbade South-Tyroleans from speaking German, it's normal that separatists would rise up and protest en masse.
And it's natural that Austria and Germany (but Austria in particular) would support them.
If the Italian soldiers massacred the separatists, it's normal that Austria would invade Italy to rescue them.



So what part isn't clear to you?

Russia did exactly the same thing. It invaded Donbas people to help separatists because they were being massacred by the Kievan government, because they were forbidden from speaking Russian.

Presumably you are talking about Russian allegations of ‘genocide’ in the Donbas, carried out by Ukrainian forces against separatists? Ukraine took this accusation to the ICJ, you can read their findings (spoiler - there was no evidence whatsoever of ‘genocide’ or massacre) here: https://icj-cij.org/case/182

perhaps you can explain what it is you think they missed?

 

[Tomef]

In an International Courtroom that video is evidence.
You are just denying the evidence.

Evidence of what? In the video Zelnsky says Russia speakers should have the right to speak Russian. Your imaginary interpolations of some hidden meaning are only evidence of your determination to avoid dealing with reality.

 

[Estro Felino]

On what evidence are you claiming a massacre of separatists in the Donbas? When, where and by whom? Based on what evidence do you believe it happened?

The evidence is held by so many international lawyers who are ready to crush the Kievan regime like a cockroach before a International Court of Justice.
Testimonies, pictures, videos.

 

[Tomef]

The evidence is held by so many international lawyers who are ready to crush the Kievan regime like a cockroach before a International Court of Justice.
Testimonies, pictures, videos.

As above, it has already been before the ICJ. So..... where is this evidence? We started this discussion some hours ago. Far from producing any evidence, you have ignored the clear evidence that you are completely mistaken.

 

[Estro Felino]

Evidence of what? In the video Zelnsky says Russia speakers should have the right to speak Russian. Your imaginary interpolations of some hidden meaning are only evidence of your determination to avoid dealing with reality.

You didn't answer the question: "who is he addressing to, when he says Leave them alone".

 

[Tomef]

In an International Courtroom that video is evidence.
You are just denying the evidence.

It's exactly as if someone was caught red-handed by a video camera and said to the judge: it wasn't me.

Why on earth do you think that video contains anything about people being forbidden to speak Russian? It says exactly the opposite.

 

[Mock Turtle]

The evidence is held by so many international lawyers who are ready to crush the Kievan regime like a cockroach before a International Court of Justice.
Testimonies, pictures, videos.

So, just showing your Russian bias again - or love affair with Putin perhaps.

 

[Stevicus]

No so easy, though. The underlying assumption that Russia would develop into a modern nation, as a fair chunk of its population would like, was until recently an indelible mark on the western psyche. I don’t think anyone involved really took Putin’s medieval rhetoric about ‘values’ seriously as in there was always some underlying assumption that he or his kind would eventually see reason (as the western politicians saw it) and starting aiming to modernise Russia, or just disappear as democracy took hold. I mean, it’s not like Putin lives up to those values he expounds himself, but hypocrisy seems to be part of the package with these old school religious types.

But it's not just with Putin, though.

I guess the thing that really gets to me when it comes to the Cold War mentality and the conduct and decisions of our policymakers over the past 80 years is that they could never really formulate any coherent or consistent policy - at least based on the apparent goal of defending democracy and the free world from communism.

If they really thought the Soviets and the Communist Bloc were that bad, they should have just sent in Patton and MacArthur from the outset. At least for a few years, we had a far superior air force and navy, along with sole possession of the atomic bomb. Right-wingers were incensed that FDR and Truman gave away so much to the Soviets, and they may have had a point - if the Soviets were as bad as all that. We missed a golden opportunity, especially since we were in a much stronger and more advantageous strategic position at the time.

But, on the other hand, being in the stronger position also meant that we could show ourselves to be honorable and gracious and come to a fair agreement with them where both sides could benefit and achieve a lasting peace. But it didn't turn out that way. Too much intrigue and underhanded stuff, along with ignorance and incompetence on both sides. I think a lot of what drove US policymakers was raging paranoia coupled with Russophobia. But on the other side of the same coin were those who saw a power vacuum in the world which could be exploited, which is where our leadership really went off the deep end.

Another less common view of US foreign policy is that it was never really about naive goals about "protecting freedom," but more a quasi-imperialistic approach towards furthering our national interests in the post-colonial world. But the Soviets were competition, as their socialist and liberationist philosophy gained strong appeal among the oppressed peoples of nations which were either colonies of the West or strongly fell under the thumb of US hegemony (such as Latin America). Unfortunately, this led to numerous proxy wars, coups, civil wars, and support of murderous, atrocious regimes throughout the world.

If we had made a deal with the Soviets, at least a mutual hands-off agreement regarding the rest of the world, then we could have left all these countries alone and able to decide for themselves what kind of government they wanted. But no, that did not suit our leaders at the time, so now we still have lingering problems to deal with.

Ultimately, I think we need to approach geopolitics smartly, with attention to and understanding that other nations can be expected to try to advance their national interests. That also means having a realistic understanding of who we're dealing with. That doesn't necessarily mean psychoanalyzing Putin or trying to discern his possible mindset, but the thing is, the West's philosophy regarding Russia has always been this kind of "take a tough stance" approach. In geopolitical terms, they're trying to intimidate and cow Russia, in the hopes that they'll stand down and pull out. That doesn't seem to be working, and neither does the West appear to be willing to back down either. In the middle is Ukraine, still at war and facing death and devastation.

In the background to all of this are both sides having rather extensive nuclear arsenals which keep everyone somewhat "restrained." Putin has threatened a few times, but if he launches any nukes, it's all over.

At this point, it looks like they're in a stalemate at this point. They ought to just cut their losses and call it quits.

 

[Tomef]

You didn't answer the question: "who is he addressing to, when he says Leave them alone".

But you won't answer again. You keep pleading the fifth.

Who do you think he is addressing? You may think you are making a point here; points in a discussion are not however the same thing as figments of imagination.

People who want to speak Russian should be granted the right to, leave them alone - what do you think it means? You appear to interpret this to mean there was some gang intent on massacre; why? What, other than your imagination, leads you to think that?

I can tell you what I think it means if that is what you are after. The same expression exists here in Romania - a lasa in pace - to leave in peace. In this context it would mean don’t bother them, let them do what they want. Presumably there were people who, given the increasing tension fomented by Putin’s agitators in that region in the early 2010s, were making noises about the impropriety of Ukrainian citizens speaking the language of an aggressor state. If you have some evidence that was the case, please present it. My assumption, which has the advantage of lacking the need for an active imagination, would be that his meaning, expressed in imperfect English, is the same. I don’t see any reason to think otherwise - and you haven’t provided one.

 

[Tomef]

They ought to just cut their losses and call it quits.

That doesn’t seem like a viable option, unfortunately.

 

[Estro Felino]

Who do you think he is addressing? You may think you are making a point here; points in a discussion are not however the same thing as figments of imagination.

People who want to speak Russian should be granted the right to, leave them alone - what do you think it means? You appear to interpret this to mean there was some gang intent on massacre; why? What, other than your imagination, leads you to think that?

I can tell you what I think it means if that is what you are after. The same expression exists here in Romania - a lasa in pace - to leave in peace. In this context it would mean don’t bother them, let them do what they want. Presumably there were people who, given the increasing tension fomented by Putin’s agitators in that region in the early 2010s, were making noises about the impropriety of Ukrainian citizens speaking the language of an aggressor state. If you have some evidence that was the case, please present it. My assumption, which has the advantage of lacking the need for an active imagination, would be that his meaning, express in imperfect English, is the same. I don’t see any reason to think otherwise - and you haven’t provided one.

No...he is addressing to the Kievan government, because the Government had passed a law forbidding Donbas people from speaking Russian.
And yes, there is so much evidence about this.
In Ukrainian language, of course.

 

[Tomef]

The evidence is held by so many international lawyers who are ready to crush the Kievan regime like a cockroach before a International Court of Justice.
Testimonies, pictures, videos.

Here’’s a more detailed breakdown of the existing case:

https://icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/182/182-20240202-sum-01-00-en.pdf

What do you think they missed? What evidence can you provide to support what you think?