Print

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

[miljan]

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.

The problem is, it doesnt matter is the country big in it self or not, I did not mean in that way. But with economy, resources, industry, trade and several other things. Also, now that russia is expending and lets say they look at those sweet little  Scandinavian countries, what can they do? Nothing 

If there should be a divide in big countries, it should be done not depending on territory nor population, but economy if possible.

[Owlbread]

If there should be a divide in big countries, it should be done not depending on territory nor population, but economy if possible.

I often hear people suggesting things like that but if we go on an "economic" basis, you can't just circumvent all the old lines in the sand. You're dealing with emotional attachment on a massive scale. I maintain that we need to work through the old world problems of nationalism and getting these things out of our system before we can start looking at stuff like that.

[BlindKitty]

- I can't believe you so proponent towards bloodshed. Either indirectly or directly it's just sick even to read. Not like russians performed any atrocities justifiyng that position. Blood leads to more blood, what good about that?

I believe that bloodshed is unavoidable whatever Ukrainians will do. Not resisting the evil will lead to more blood but later. I never wanted blood in January when I started the thread, but I knew that it is unavoidable

A note first, as I think I haven't explicitly stated it before: I'm from Poland*
I just wanted to note, before going to bed, that this is something that (as I see, but I might be mistaken) is so much harder to understand for people in the West. Their most horrible collective memories are world wars, and they generally think that 'peace' as in 'lack of war' is better than war. The people who actually lived through 'peace' as in 'Soviet occupation' (or actually, 'German occupation' or even 'Austrian occupation'**) know that there are things worse than war. There is a person here, in Central Europe, we consider the stupidest politician in all the history. Neville Chamberlain. A man who thought that if a dictator asks for just a part of another country, he should be given it to avoid war...*** In Poland, we lost 20 times as much civilians as soldiers, despite being first to fight and fighting till the fall of Berlin (literally; there were Polish soldiers in that battle in quite a number, although under Soviet command). And many, many more were displaced and killed before and after war by Soviets (German didn't have that chance, actually). The war is not a nice thing, but it is sometimes better than the alternative. We found - hard way - that war with Russia is almost always better than the alternative****. I hope you, people of the West, won't find it hard way, too. This time, after fifty years of communism and another twenty - five of post-communism (we are far from both democracy***** and capitalism****** here), we probably won't send our pilots to protect London, our sailors to protect convoys from the US, our infantry to take Monte Cassino or our tankers (as in, people driving tanks) to blast through the Normandy; nobody here wants to die for Warsaw, let alone any place outside our borders.

*)Some of my ancestors were actually from Ukraine. Still, I don't like Bandera and his bands, but this is something to be talked about after the Russia is back in its place, probably.
**)It was back in times when Austria was quite huge. Also, it was by far the least horrible of the occupations.
***)Neat little anecdote: when Hitler ordered troops to march into Rhineland, he was asked by his generals what to do if the England and France call mobilization after this (as they should, given the treaties and stuff). His answer? "I will shoot myself, and of you will call the soldiers back." Would save the world quite a lot of trouble, wouldn't it?
****)I mean, obviously, situations like today with Crimea, not general time of life. It might (but also opposite may be true) be better idea to just coexist peacefully with Russia in periods when it is actually peaceful.
*****)I dislike democracy personally, especially what is called liberal democracy now (UR, it seems that we have plenty in common). Then again, I like the current situation even less.
******)I might have taken the asterisks things a bit too far, but anyway, I'm strong Laissez-faire capitalist, I dislike socialistic economy, and I would prefer living in Singapore or New Zeland, or in some states in USA (Texas comes to mind) than in Sweden or even Finland. What we have in Poland is actually standing in the middle of the road, with worst of both world and best of none.

EDIT: Veering off of the USSR politics, and into Owlbread - inspired idea of smaller countries; while the idea might be pretty nice, there is a problem of scale; most importantly, there are countries that would be pretty hard to divide; China, aside from USA, Canada and Australia would be an excellent example and the best to illustrate what I want to say. China is mostly Han Chinese; they are totally dominant in terms of population. China is additionally an autocracy, more or less. And if the world would be divided into smaller countries, it would be easier for major, non-democratic one to just swallow some of them, one after another. Would it happen? I don't know, but judging from what happened in Europe in late Middle Ages and beyond, up to Imperial Age... I think that the urge to just gobble a few neighbours might be too strong to resist for some big countries. And artificially dividing China isn't all that good of an idea either, I think.

[Knit tie]

A very fair point, Blind Kitty. Although I do not know if modern Russia's actions will be aggressive or dictatorial enough to compare them to those of the Soviet Union. I personally think that whtever's going on in Crimea is preferable to war, mostly because there aren't rampant repressions and political arrests, which are inevitable if the Ukrainians do fight back.

I am always for the path of the least bloodshed, you see. Letting modern Russia occupy Crimea has not caused any casualties so far, at least by the armed forces, so I'd say it's better this way, not because letting Putin do his landgrabbing spectacle is a nice thing, but because the alternative is much worse. But, of course, if it was the USSR taking over Crimea (let's assume that it's a NATO member in an alternative history), or if Russia begins to act like its murderous predecessor, then fighting to the death is infinitely preferable to letting the occupants have their way.

[miljan]

A note first, as I think I haven't explicitly stated it before: I'm from Poland*
I just wanted to note, before going to bed, that this is something that (as I see, but I might be mistaken) is so much harder to understand for people in the West. Their most horrible collective memories are world wars, and they generally think that 'peace' as in 'lack of war' is better than war. The people who actually lived through 'peace' as in 'Soviet occupation' (or actually, 'German occupation' or even 'Austrian occupation'**) know that there are things worse than war. There is a person here, in Central Europe, we consider the stupidest politician in all the history. Neville Chamberlain. A man who thought that if a dictator asks for just a part of another country, he should be given it to avoid war...*** In Poland, we lost 20 times as much civilians as soldiers, despite being first to fight and fighting till the fall of Berlin (literally; there were Polish soldiers in that battle in quite a number, although under Soviet command). And many, many more were displaced and killed before and after war by Soviets (German didn't have that chance, actually). The war is not a nice thing, but it is sometimes better than the alternative. We found - hard way - that war with Russia is almost always better than the alternative****. I hope you, people of the West, won't find it hard way, too. This time, after fifty years of communism and another twenty - five of post-communism (we are far from both democracy***** and capitalism****** here), we probably won't send our pilots to protect London, our sailors to protect convoys from the US, our infantry to take Monte Cassino or our tankers (as in, people driving tanks) to blast through the Normandy; nobody here wants to die for Warsaw, let alone any place outside our borders.

People need to understand some things. You do not/should not fight wars that you can not win something (because you will than lose both military, civilians and a lot more, industry, infrastructure, so if you want to talk for real, you lose 10 times more fighting and losing than not fighting and losing).

Also when it comes to ukraine, like it or not, crimea  has a pro rusian population that do not consider it a occupation. So its not the same thing, if population supports it.

[Helgoland]

miljan, there's that old saying "Es mejor morir luchando que vivir de rodillas." By Emiliano Zapato, a Mexican revolutionary. Not that he was successful...

[Frumple]

nenjin

*hackwrongnamecough* Probably, anyway.

[Knit tie]

nenjin, there's that old saying "Es mejor morir luchando que vivir de rodillas." By Emiliano Zapato, a Mexican revolutionary. Not that he was successful...

Depends entirely on the person. I know a fair amount of people who'd rather be alive than free.

[Chaoswizkid]

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.

The problem is, it doesnt matter is the country big in it self or not, I did not mean in that way. But with economy, resources, industry, trade and several other things. Also, now that russia is expending and lets say they look at those sweet little  Scandinavian countries, what can they do? Nothing 

False. Look at GDP. Norway ranks very, very high, higher than even the US. If you look at nominal GDP, Sweden and Denmark are also high up there and higher than the US. Finland ain't too shabby either. They are resource-rich and have excellent economies and are some of the best, if not flat-out the best, countries for quality of life.

Now, if you're instead saying "Now that Russia is expanding and it looks to gobble up the Scandinavian countries, what can they do?", you're also wrong about them not being able to do anything. Why? Diplomatic relations. Russia will not expand into those countries one-by-one, because if it tries the whole world is going to piss all over Russia's party. Sure, if Russia did face each country one-on-one, they might win (though it should be noted that the environment in Scandinavia is atrocious for waging an offensive war), but that is never a situation that will happen. Things haven't escalated into global war because everyone's hoping Putin will stop at Crimea and urges everyone to join collective defense treaties in order to prevent such things in the future.

People need to understand some things. You do not/should not fight wars that you can not win something (because you will than lose both military, civilians and a lot more, industry, infrastructure, so if you want to talk for real, you lose 10 times more fighting and losing than not fighting and losing).

That is an absolutely disgusting viewpoint. I'm sorry, but it is. "If you don't think you can win, just bend over for whoever wants to make you their slave!"
So by the same point of view, no one should ever fight against the US if the US just decided to take over the world?
Not only that, your comment is in response to World War 2, where you are especially saying that all of the countries should have just sat on their knees and allow the subjugation and mass-murder of their friends and family with no issue. Just take it on the chin.
That sentiment also completely ignores one of the key facets of war: make an objective so costly to the enemy that they hesitate at taking that objective or decide not to do it altogether. If everyone is simply to lay down, there is no cost, there is nothing preventing an enemy.

Also when it comes to ukraine, like it or not, crimea  has a pro rusian population that do not consider it a occupation. So its not the same thing, if population supports it.

Oh? And what do you think of the previous 3 years' worth of polls over the very same subject that show an absolutely overwhelming non-pro-Russia attitude, as well as the population demographics putting the ethnic Russians at less than 18%, with probably everyone else not willing to be on their side on the issue?
So when it comes to Ukraine, like it or not miljan, it sounds like the whole Crimean situation is absolutely saturated with Russian propaganda.

[olemars]

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.

The problem is, it doesnt matter is the country big in it self or not, I did not mean in that way. But with economy, resources, industry, trade and several other things. Also, now that russia is expending and lets say they look at those sweet little  Scandinavian countries, what can they do? Nothing 

If there should be a divide in big countries, it should be done not depending on territory nor population, but economy if possible.

The Nordic countries are a bit different there due to fairly recent history.
Norway learned its lesson in WW2, that neutrality and unalignment only works as long as the other players think you are worthless. So Norway (and Denmark, I guess) were a founding member of NATO.

Sweden never learned its lesson and are still technically neutral, as long as we ignore the EU membership. There is suddenly some talk of looking at NATO membership again though.

Finland has a tragic history, so they're unaligned because they haven't been allowed any other option. Everytime there's talk of joining NATO, Russia (and previously, USSR) goes "ahem", since apparently russian neighbors aren't entitled to any sense of security.

I'll also openly admit to being a huge NATO fanboy.

[scrdest]

Eh, I'm not sure if Russians would be so keen to try their luck at Finland again. Unless they bring ALL THE NUKES. Only way to be sure.

[scriver]

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!'

The EU has the same problem within it.

[Frumple]

False. Look at GDP. Norway ranks very, very high, higher than even the US. If you look at nominal GDP, Sweden and Denmark are also high up there and higher than the US. Finland ain't too shabby either.

You uh, missed a very important couple words in that statement. Those words being "per capita".

[Knit tie]

Eh, I'm not sure if Russians would be so keen to try their luck at Finland again. Unless they bring ALL THE NUKES. Only way to be sure.

We had a very, very shit army during the winter war, hence all the disaster. Right now it would be a much more fair battle, not that the Finns would be any less lethal.

[lemon10]

EDIT: Veering off of the USSR politics, and into Owlbread - inspired idea of smaller countries; while the idea might be pretty nice, there is a problem of scale; most importantly, there are countries that would be pretty hard to divide; China, aside from USA, Canada and Australia would be an excellent example and the best to illustrate what I want to say. China is mostly Han Chinese; they are totally dominant in terms of population. China is additionally an autocracy, more or less. And if the world would be divided into smaller countries, it would be easier for major, non-democratic one to just swallow some of them, one after another. Would it happen? I don't know, but judging from what happened in Europe in late Middle Ages and beyond, up to Imperial Age... I think that the urge to just gobble a few neighbours might be too strong to resist for some big countries. And artificially dividing China isn't all that good of an idea either, I think.

Yes, but assuming that all the countries were smaller, it would be much easier to band together to fight off a single same size aggressive neighboring country. This move on Russia's part would be impossible if Russia wasn't so much larger then Ukraine (especially if Moscow had to deal with St. Petersburg helping Ukraine defend themselves). Likewise the invasion of Iraq would have been impossible without the vast projection capacity the US has (at least partially) due to its size.
It wouldn't stop invasions all together of course, but it would make them all much more even.

Of course, that is assuming that somehow they all got broken up without causing massive political/ethnic/nationalism problems which isn't really possible.