Print

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

[Darvi]

Funny how Crimea is a "headache" now. Shows that they never really considered Crimea to be a part of Ukraine proper.

I don't follow your logic.

[Knit tie]

Funny how Crimea is a "headache" now. Shows that they never really considered Crimea to be a part of Ukraine proper.

I don't follow your logic.

At first, Kyiv said that it's going to retake Crimea. Now UR says that Kyiv never wanted Crimea in the first place. Sergarr is attempting to rub this discrepancy in UR's face.

[Darvi]

Funny how Crimea is a "headache" now. Shows that they never really considered Crimea to be a part of Ukraine proper.

I don't follow your logic.

At first, Kyiv said that it's going to retake Crimea. Now UR says that Kyiv never wanted Crimea in the first place. Sergarr is attempting to rub this discrepancy in UR's face.

He didn't say that.

[Sergarr]

Funny how Crimea is a "headache" now. Shows that they never really considered Crimea to be a part of Ukraine proper.

I don't follow your logic.

You never give up the fight for something you consider the part of your nation. Since they appear to give up the fight for Crimea, they do not consider it to be a part of their nation. Since the attitudes about these things do not change significantly in the short periods of time, it means they haven't considered it to be a part of their nation for at least a decade or two. Which in regard to Ukraine means "never".

[Knit tie]

Funny how Crimea is a "headache" now. Shows that they never really considered Crimea to be a part of Ukraine proper.

I don't follow your logic.

At first, Kyiv said that it's going to retake Crimea. Now UR says that Kyiv never wanted Crimea in the first place. Sergarr is attempting to rub this discrepancy in UR's face.

He didn't say that.

You're right, actually, but he still said that, according to him, Kyiv doesn't want Crimea back any more.

[Mr. Strange]

I could perfectly understand it if the US and EU were equally condemning towards both Russian and Ukrainian violations of international law, but what we get is that while Russia gets opposed, Ukraine gets money and a pat on the head. Honestly, the whole situation kinda resembles the Chechen wars in reverse, regarding how the opposing sides are viewed by the Anglophone community.

Better analogy would be Israel-Palestine conflict, but you get points for making me laugh with "Anglophone community".

But seriously, you can't be so naive that you think anyone (other than Russia) would push for sanctions against Ukraine when they are in a middle of a war, that would be playing straight into Russian hand when those "rebels" are effectively outside the reach of any legal repercussions since they can get safe haven in russia if things take turn for the worst for them, just like Yanukovych did. There would be nothing "moral" in handicapping Ukraine in favor of Russia, unless your definition of "moral" is "what is good for Russia".

[Darvi]

Funny how Crimea is a "headache" now. Shows that they never really considered Crimea to be a part of Ukraine proper.

I don't follow your logic.

You never give up the fight for something you consider the part of your nation.

Maybe you wouldn't. Other people can be more pragmatic and write it off as a lost cause.

[miljan]

I could perfectly understand it if the US and EU were equally condemning towards both Russian and Ukrainian violations of international law, but what we get is that while Russia gets opposed, Ukraine gets money and a pat on the head. Honestly, the whole situation kinda resembles the Chechen wars in reverse, regarding how the opposing sides are viewed by the Anglophone community.

Better analogy would be Israel-Palestine conflict, but you get points for making me laugh with "Anglophone community".

But seriously, you can't be so naive that you think anyone (other than Russia) would push for sanctions against Ukraine when they are in a middle of a war, that would be playing straight into Russian hand when those "rebels" are effectively outside the reach of any legal repercussions since they can get safe haven in russia if things take turn for the worst for them, just like Yanukovych did. There would be nothing "moral" in handicapping Ukraine in favor of Russia, unless your definition of "moral" is "what is good for Russia".

Not a problem, just give conditions for getting financial support to change the thing that are wrong in ukraine. That should russia also do for pro russia rebels, as there are some idiots on high position that should not be there.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

Exactly. Ukrainian government will talk about regaining Crimea... But pragmatism says it is not worth it as it will bring no real benefits to anyone but Crimean Ukrainian patriots. Something our government will safely ignore caring more about money.

Crimea is a dirt poor region with no vitally important industry, resources or transit routes. Russians moved their economy into recession in exchange for very inferior territory that have a value as military base and nothing else. Now with American sanctions that will kill Banking and IT industry in Crimea, the area will become even better.

[Knit tie]

I could perfectly understand it if the US and EU were equally condemning towards both Russian and Ukrainian violations of international law, but what we get is that while Russia gets opposed, Ukraine gets money and a pat on the head. Honestly, the whole situation kinda resembles the Chechen wars in reverse, regarding how the opposing sides are viewed by the Anglophone community.

Better analogy would be Israel-Palestine conflict, but you get points for making me laugh with "Anglophone community".

But seriously, you can't be so naive that you think anyone (other than Russia) would push for sanctions against Ukraine when they are in a middle of a war, that would be playing straight into Russian hand when those "rebels" are effectively outside the reach of any legal repercussions since they can get safe haven in russia if things take turn for the worst for them, just like Yanukovych did. There would be nothing "moral" in handicapping Ukraine in favor of Russia, unless your definition of "moral" is "what is good for Russia".

Of course not! Everything that EU and US are doing right now is perfectly sane and rational with regards to their interests in external politics. Russia would've done the same if it were in their place. My argument is just that this perfectly sane thing to do is not a perfectly moral thing to do.

[Mr. Strange]

My argument is just that this perfectly sane thing to do is not a perfectly moral thing to do.

Unfortunately we live in reality where  perfectly moral things don't exist.

Most of what people do have negative consequences to someone, somewhere, and it's a moral responsibility to minimise them whenever it's possible. At best you have several "does mostly good" options where you have to try and choose one and hope you made the right choice in the long run.
Letting Ukrainians decide things for their own nation seems very moral thing to do for me, so opposing anyone trying to interfere or force that decision making seems moral thing to do as well. Especially when we consider the alternatives... Yanukovych 2.0 Berkut harder?

[Knit tie]

My argument is just that this perfectly sane thing to do is not a perfectly moral thing to do.

Unfortunately we live in reality where  perfectly moral things don't exist.

Most of what people do have negative consequences to someone, somewhere, and it's a moral responsibility to minimise them whenever it's possible. At best you have several "does mostly good" options where you have to try and choose one and hope you made the right choice in the long run.
Letting Ukrainians decide things for their own nation seems very moral thing to do for me, so opposing anyone trying to interfere or force that decision making seems moral thing to do as well. Especially when we consider the alternatives... Yanukovych 2.0 Berkut harder?

I have no problems with Ukrainians wanting to decide things for themselves. I have a problem with Poroshenko's government being a stereotypical tinpot dictatorship with all the media control, corruption, disappearances and other things such a name implies, and yet despite it all getting financial and political support from the USA and, to a lesser extent, the EU. Perfectly fine thing to do as far as politics go - "he's a son of a bitch, but he's our son of a bitch" and all that, everybody does it period - but a moral superiority over Russia such an attitude does not the West give.

[Sheb]

Well, what do you think would have been the moral thing to do? Ignore the conflict? Side with Russia? Build a ten-meters-wall around Ukraine, fill the inside with seawater and build resorts on the new coast?

The fact that there isn't a perfect moral option doesn't mean that you can't pursue the least bad option for moral reasons. The world  is full of situation where the moral option is to support unsavory people, because what would happen if you don't support them would be even worse: Think of supporting Iraq's government against ISIS, or Afghanistan's against the Talibans.

[Knit tie]

Well, what do you think would have been the moral thing to do? Ignore the conflict? Side with Russia? Build a ten-meters-wall around Ukraine, fill the inside with seawater and build resorts on the new coast?

The fact that there isn't a perfect moral option doesn't mean that you can't pursue the least bad option for moral reasons. The world  is full of situation where the moral option is to support unsavory people, because what would happen if you don't support them would be even worse: Think of supporting Iraq's government against ISIS, or Afghanistan's against the Talibans.

And here we cross into "Who's worse, Poroshenko or Putin?" territory, which I propose we do not venture into, as it is an extremely inflammatory and not in the least bit productive topic. You know my opinion, I know yours, let's just agree to keep them until I personally torture repentance out of you in the NKVD dungeons after the Neo-USSR's glorous conquest of Europe.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Speaking of perfectly moral choices, opposing both sides in the current conflict to various degrees as criminal and unlawful would be a perfectly moral choice for the West to make in the current situation, in my opinion. Not the least bit realistic, yes, but we are talking about unreachable ideals here.

[Sheb]

Well, even if Putin is a better man that Poroshenko, you can build a moral case for siding with Ukraine for that one based on the need to defend the principle that you should not invade your neighbors.