Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[martinuzz]

The nuke Putin dropped on the Hague today was so small no one noticed.
It's larger parts did not make it past the trade embargo.

[Owlbread]

I think that the main point where I disagree with you is that maximum segregation creates stability and peace. Without any mean forces to control'em, small national states are about to conflict each other due to the competitive part of human's nature. Like, in order to show who is the boss.

But when we look at the break-up of Yugoslavia into its component parts, I know that the actual process was a nightmare scenario, but if we look at things now following the secession of even Montenegro things are looking, in my opinion, much better than they were pre-Yugoslav wars.

I know there's still too much poverty and there's still tension (you could say they're still not done yet with the Bosnian Serbs and Albanians elsewhere) but it almost seems like what the region really needed was to break up and get that out of its system so it can move on. From my perspective, admittedly that of an observer, it has.

[Mephansteras]

Americans in general are kinda like this, though. Many of us have very mixed heritages, and the United States is the only thing we really have as a proper national identity anymore. For me the idea of the United States splintering is just...weird. Sure, there are regions that it could be broken up into, but it'd always feel a bit artificial. Especially since the past few generations have been extremely mobile and you have a lot less of the 'My family has lived in this town for hundreds of years' sort of thing. I mean, my own family (aunts, uncles, cousins) are scattered all across the US and I myself have lived in 4 different states covering 3 of the 4 corners of the country. I don't even properly identify with a region of the US, let alone a specific state.

I don't know if the USSR had much mobility like that, but if it did I can see how some people would find grabbing onto any single national identity to be difficult.

I think the main difference is that the USA is a very artificial state constructed on land literally taken from the Natives. Even though there's been talk of a Republic of Lakotah, it would be very difficult for the remaining Native Americans to attempt anything like that, and most prefer to fight for their rights within the USA. Or so it seems to me.

The Russian Federation on the other hand, even though most of it is constructed on land stolen from natives just like in the USA, is explicitly a federation of entities including ethnic "Republics", almost like little statelets with "titular nationalities". That is very different from the USA where New York or Oregon wouldn't have something like a "titular nationality". There's no "State of Lakotah", for instance.

This means though that in Russia there are actually little European-Style "nations" with their own governments. Toothless, but the illusion is there.

Very true. Sad as it is, the majority of people with any real claim to the lands have been wiped out or thoroughly displaced. And of course even the well-intentioned attempts to rectify the situation have been of the 'don't break the status quo too much' variety. Personally, I'd support a more widespread effort to restore the native tribes to lands that traditionally belonged to them, but after so long it's a legitimately sticky issue. You can't just Eminent Domain a bunch of land owned by people and give it to someone else without expecting a giant uproar, even if the Government actually was paying a fair price for it.

Gogis, I am sure you are. I know many Scots that are proud to be British. As I have already explained though my political ideology is such that I think the world would be best reduced to its component nations in order to create peace and stability.

I think the only problem with your plan is the US. For exactly the reasons we've been discussing, it's pretty much solid as a Nation and wouldn't be easy to break apart even if people were so inclined. And having the US stomp around as the lone giant has already been proven to be...unadvised. Maybe if groupings like the EU had more teeth?


This does bring to mind an interesting question for gogis, though. What's your opinion on Russia being so large and extending so far East? A lot of the regions in the Russian Federation are hardly ethnically or culturally Russian. What would you think about those regions trying to break off into their own proper nations?

[Comrade P.]

By the way, я понимаю немного русского языка и я могу использовать "Google Translate". Если вам трудно говорить по-английски, писать на русском, и мы можем перевести.

I'd bet you are a bit discomforted by absence of Russian layout on your keyboard, but you're still awesome .

[Owlbread]

Very true. Sad as it is, the majority of people with any real claim to the lands have been wiped out or thoroughly displaced. And of course even the well-intentioned attempts to rectify the situation have been of the 'don't break the status quo too much' variety. Personally, I'd support a more widespread effort to restore the native tribes to lands that traditionally belonged to them, but after so long it's a legitimately sticky issue. You can't just Eminent Domain a bunch of land owned by people and give it to someone else without expecting a giant uproar, even if the Government actually was paying a fair price for it.

I agree with this, though perhaps the key is if modern, white farmers and residents in former Native American lands (like maybe a cattle rancher or something) could be convinced that living in a Native-American majority state isn't actually a bad thing for them. Maybe they wouldn't protest so strongly at concepts like Native American "states" rather than just reservations. Like new Oklahomas.

I think the only problem with your plan is the US. For exactly the reasons we've been discussing, it's pretty much solid as a Nation and wouldn't be easy to break apart even if people were so inclined. And having the US stomp around as the lone giant has already been proven to be...unadvised.

I have often thought about the USA and Canada and even Australia. The old colonial states. Africa is a different kettle of fish too; oftentimes the old European model of "statehood" just doesn't work and can't be superimposed onto tribes. I still need to work this part out.

Maybe if groupings like the EU had more teeth?

Yes, now you see why I am quite in favour of multinational entities like the EU. The trouble is that it's hard to judge exactly how much "teeth" they should have.

I'd bet you are a bit discomforted by absence of Russian layout on your keyboard, but you're still awesome .

I used to have a Russian keyboard somewhere and I managed to learn how to touch type in Cyrillic, unfortunately now though I am very slow. I have to use Google Translate to check my mistakes.

[miljan]

I think that the main point where I disagree with you is that maximum segregation creates stability and peace. Without any mean forces to control'em, small national states are about to conflict each other due to the competitive part of human's nature. Like, in order to show who is the boss.

But when we look at the break-up of Yugoslavia into its component parts, I know that the actual process was a nightmare scenario, but if we look at things now following the secession of even Montenegro things are looking, in my opinion, much better than they were pre-Yugoslav wars.

I know there's still too much poverty and there's still tension (you could say they're still not done yet with the Bosnian Serbs and Albanians elsewhere) but it almost seems like what the region really needed was to break up and get that out of its system so it can move on. From my perspective, admittedly that of an observer, it has.

Ehh, that is not correct, I assure you things are not better but few times worse than when it was one country. And it should not be a surprise, together you are strong, individually, everyone can do with you what they want.

The worst thing is that the quality of life dropped for normal people a lot.

So no, there is no benefit from more smaller countries (in this case anyway, but i think also for any case)

[Owlbread]

Ehh, that is not correct, I assure you things are not better but few times worse than when it was one country. And it should not be a surprise, together you are strong, individually, everyone can do with you what they want.

The worst thing is that the quality of life dropped for normal people a lot.

So no, there is no benefit from more smaller countries

Are you sure that the quality of life dropped because the countries broke away, or is it because of the wars and the shift away from a Socialist system?

I really want to discuss Yugoslav issues and why you think things are worse now but I'm unsure if they'd come under the "post-USSR politics" topic. I know Yugoslavia was very much of its own bloc, having cut most of its ties to the USSR, but surely it's not coincidental that they collapsed at around the same time as the Warsaw Pact states became free. Perhaps we should continue in Sheb's thread.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

Mephansteras, you know... I think USA found that great balance between staying one country and giving the states just enough power to get benefits of splitting up.

But just copypasting USA system to Europe(China, Africa, whenever else)  will not work because each part of the world understand words "ethnicity" "nationality" "compatriot" and others in very different ways

[Helgoland]

Owlbread, what do you think is the ideal size for a country?
I'd say Germany is fine, but they shouldn't get much bigger. And as you know I'm a great fan of true European integration...

[miljan]

Ehh, that is not correct, I assure you things are not better but few times worse than when it was one country. And it should not be a surprise, together you are strong, individually, everyone can do with you what they want.

The worst thing is that the quality of life dropped for normal people a lot.

So no, there is no benefit from more smaller countries

I really want to discuss Yugoslav issues and why you think things are worse now but I'm unsure if they'd come under the "post-USSR politics" topic. I know Yugoslavia was very much of its own bloc, having cut most of its ties to the USSR, but surely it's not coincidental that they collapsed at around the same time as the Warsaw Pact states became free.

The things are worse simply because people live worse now, than back than (not talking when it started all to fall apart, as back then everyone lived very bad). Individual countries can never ever be better than a bigger one, that is a common logic. Now I am mostly talking about economy, the most important thing (thats why we are in EU now). 

[Owlbread]

Owlbread, what do you think is the ideal size for a country?
I'd say Germany is fine, but they shouldn't get much bigger. And as you know I'm a great fan of true European integration...

Well, it does depend on a lot of things. In some respects it's not so much the physical "size" of the country that's important as how it just divides naturally and by nature that tends to be "smaller" than the previous bloc that was there. The natural size of Catalonia for instance is smaller than Spain but it is much bigger than Ireland. Within Catalonia itself though, given its size, I would divide it further along a Federal basis.

The things are worse simply because people live worse now, than back than (not talking when it started all to fall apart, as back then everyone lived very bad). Individual countries can never ever be better than a bigger one, that is a common logic. Now I am mostly talking about economy, the most important thing (thats why we are in EU now).

But is that necessarily true? I'm drifting away from the former USSR here (self consciously) but are the Scandinavian states themselves worse off as independent states than as a wider Union? Are countries like Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan worse off now with all the foreign investment and interest that came with independence?

[Max White]

Owlbread, what do you think is the ideal size for a country?
I'd say Germany is fine, but they shouldn't get much bigger. And as you know I'm a great fan of true European integration...

I would say population is a better metric than geographical size. Too small and economies of scale is working against you, but too big and they are harder to administrate. Plus when nations with roughly equal populations vote, it means each person being represented has roughly the same weight.

[GlyphGryph]

About Third Reich, I might have too little info about it, but as far as I know, this point stands. Maybe during my further learning my opinion will change in a radical way.

Suffice to say that even without the ethnic cleansing and warmongering, it was a still a nation that advocated the suppression of political dissent through violence, established national propaganda to bolster persecution of any who diverged from "acceptable" views, who ruled their country by intentionally instilling a sense of fear and paranoia that turned neighbour against neighbour.

Even without the jingoism and racial persecution, it was, from everything I've read, a pretty horrible dictatorship, with little chance of improving if left to its own devices.

Owlbread
What do you think of strong federal systems like the US, though? In essence, the US is what you *get* from a strong organization like the EU, isn't it? Where individual members can pretty openly flout federal law (like the marijuana stuff) and they operate with their own budgets and own laws except where superceded by central legislation. I imagine under the sort of situation you'd imagine, the US wouldn't really "break up" so much as our federal component would be weakened?

The things are worse simply because people live worse now, than back than (not talking when it started all to fall apart, as back then everyone lived very bad). Individual countries can never ever be better than a bigger one, that is a common logic. Now I am mostly talking about economy, the most important thing (thats why we are in EU now). 

This just doesn't hold. There are a great many smaller countries that are MUCH better to live in than similar larger countries. I'd rather live in any of the Scandinavian countries than the much larger Russia, US, or China.

[Mephansteras]

Mephansteras, you know... I think USA found that great balance between staying one country and giving the states just enough power to get benefits of splitting up.

But just copypasting USA system to Europe(China, Africa, whenever else)  will not work because each part of the world understand words "ethnicity" "nationality" "compatriot" and others in very different ways

Indeed. It is also one of the reasons that the US is so abysmal when it comes to predicting the internal politics of most nations. Americans just flat out don't 'get' the mindset of a lot of the world and end up making really disastrous assumptions. The biggest one being 'It works great in America, so it must work great everywhere else too!'

[Owlbread]

Owlbread
What do you think of strong federal systems like the US, though? In essence, the US is what you *get* from a strong organization like the EU, isn't it? Where individual members can pretty openly flout federal law (like the marijuana stuff) and they operate with their own budgets and own laws except where superceded by central legislation. I imagine under the sort of situation you'd imagine, the US wouldn't really "break up" so much as our federal component would be weakened?

I respect the American system and at one point in my life I actually favoured it as a model for a reformed UK. There are flaws in this system though - even if the Federal Government does not represent majority of the desires/views of a particular nation/state (Idaho/Utah vs Federal Government for example), that Federal Government would be the same government that could bring that nation into war or impose laws on them they don't want.

I'm sure the majority of Ukrainians would have been very unhappy with the USSR declaring war on Afghanistan on their behalf, just as many in Scotland were unhappy with the same thing taking place on our end 20 years later.