Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: Russia clarifies Ukraine stance as Sergei Lavrov meets John Kerry in Paris. [View all]freshwest
(53,661 posts)80. Not openly threatening at this time. But that would be the result, as some in a Ukrianian Federation
might revolt against other parts of the country and decide to vote to join Russia. Sounds like a method to establish a patchwork of groups within nation states to have more civil wars and moving the lines on their territorial maps.
While it might logically end up as you say, I don't see his statement as 'openly threatening.' It was a confused stateement, perhaps it was translated badly. But the precedent could be replicated as was done in Crimea. I think the truth of the matter is Russia and many countries hold a lot of disparate groups together in their Federation or super state, often by conquest, which is a bad basis.
Russia and other nation states have forced groups to get along by force. Not unlike colonial powers did to consolidate land and resources with no regard of the will of the peoples forced to live with each other. It's a recipe for continuing conflict without a strong national vision that all would accept.
In lieu of that, the unifying power of religion is used to persuade all the groups to work together. This is what the Christian Natonalist movement in the USA is about. Or why nations are called 'the Islamic Republic of blank,' and why there was a 'Holy Roman Empire, and that religion was Roman Catholicism. Religion is the default when nations break up, and sometimes, it is the cause.
I am not in possession of all the facts in this, and I think most of us are not. As ugly as Nationalist groups are, they do unify enough people to oppress or eliminate those they dislike. It's hideous.
This conflict, like most of them over in that region, goes so far back in history Americans can't grasp who is right and wrong, other than what media tells us. We try to freeze time and say that the way we think of things with our less than 250 years of history is what the world should do. We are said to be a nation state of people who all voted to join into it, without allegiance to other countries such nations who have been invaded and conquered not just once, but many times like Ukraine.
In your view, is Putin really so dangerous and powerful that we should attack Russia?
I want our country to act with restraint on this matter. I don't think it's a TEOTWAWKI.
While it might logically end up as you say, I don't see his statement as 'openly threatening.' It was a confused stateement, perhaps it was translated badly. But the precedent could be replicated as was done in Crimea. I think the truth of the matter is Russia and many countries hold a lot of disparate groups together in their Federation or super state, often by conquest, which is a bad basis.
Russia and other nation states have forced groups to get along by force. Not unlike colonial powers did to consolidate land and resources with no regard of the will of the peoples forced to live with each other. It's a recipe for continuing conflict without a strong national vision that all would accept.
In lieu of that, the unifying power of religion is used to persuade all the groups to work together. This is what the Christian Natonalist movement in the USA is about. Or why nations are called 'the Islamic Republic of blank,' and why there was a 'Holy Roman Empire, and that religion was Roman Catholicism. Religion is the default when nations break up, and sometimes, it is the cause.
I am not in possession of all the facts in this, and I think most of us are not. As ugly as Nationalist groups are, they do unify enough people to oppress or eliminate those they dislike. It's hideous.
This conflict, like most of them over in that region, goes so far back in history Americans can't grasp who is right and wrong, other than what media tells us. We try to freeze time and say that the way we think of things with our less than 250 years of history is what the world should do. We are said to be a nation state of people who all voted to join into it, without allegiance to other countries such nations who have been invaded and conquered not just once, but many times like Ukraine.
In your view, is Putin really so dangerous and powerful that we should attack Russia?
I want our country to act with restraint on this matter. I don't think it's a TEOTWAWKI.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
99 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Russia clarifies Ukraine stance as Sergei Lavrov meets John Kerry in Paris. [View all]
dipsydoodle
Mar 2014
OP
"globalresearch.org" don't make me laugh. Thinly disguised Russian talking points
uhnope
Mar 2014
#42
The Ukrainian parliamentary election of 2012 took place on 28 October 2012
Duckhunter935
Mar 2014
#23
Yes that is true. And some members of Yanukovych's party, The Party of Regions,
snappyturtle
Mar 2014
#31
ppffff! that last line doesn't pass the laugh test. How many times does our government have to
yurbud
Mar 2014
#79
The table of ministers by party was updated 4 times in March - the last March 24.
karynnj
Mar 2014
#84
Here are links to a few articles on the subject. There are many more, of course.
another_liberal
Apr 2014
#89
In the end, the US will be lucky if they get to keep their puppet gov't in Kiev.
reformist2
Mar 2014
#6
Neither the US nor the rest of the world should accept a referendum held
TwilightGardener
Mar 2014
#15
The US will act militarily for US interests or NATO/defense pact necessity.
TwilightGardener
Mar 2014
#27
One small problem here: Ukraine is not a NATO country and if Lavrov has his way it won't be. nt
snappyturtle
Mar 2014
#35
Did I say it was? That's why we're not going to send troops to fight there.
TwilightGardener
Mar 2014
#45
I don't think we will. I don't see any scenario in which we put US/NATO troops
TwilightGardener
Mar 2014
#51
Yeah, yeah, we got Ukraine to protest its government and the Parliament
TwilightGardener
Mar 2014
#58
Didn't say it was, nor was going to be. By "sphere", I mean Ukraine wanting
TwilightGardener
Mar 2014
#48
incredible. Russia is openly threatening to take over south and east Ukraine. Can the dictator
uhnope
Mar 2014
#25
"Frankly speaking, we don't see any other way for the steady development of the Ukrainian state...
uhnope
Mar 2014
#36
Wrong....not a part of the Russian Federation but as a newly formed Ukraine Federation.
snappyturtle
Mar 2014
#43
Russian Army was "invited" to invade Czechoslovakia in 1968. Same tactics, different dictator
uhnope
Mar 2014
#44
American army was "invited" to invade Vietnam, too. Same tactics, different dictator...
Lars28
Mar 2014
#50
You're calling LBJ a dictator? Really? And admitting Putin is one & that Crimea parallels Vietnam...
uhnope
Mar 2014
#52
Wow, so every US President who had a war during conscription was a "dictator"? lol
EX500rider
Apr 2014
#96
Not openly threatening at this time. But that would be the result, as some in a Ukrianian Federation
freshwest
Mar 2014
#80
What happened in Ukraine is none of their business, it's a foreign country.
Benton D Struckcheon
Mar 2014
#60