How naive of you. There’s always something to cut, be it the price of natural resources being exported… and even if there wasn’t, a nice loan will make sure that IMF and friends own the country for the time being. There is no such thing as “no strings attached”.
3 Likes
You haven’t been paying attention. Look at Syria and Lybia and tell me a cold war is not already being fought.
1 Like
Seems to me that POTUS is giving it a solid as a clandestine war leader. That it is pointless and stupid, well that is what cultural blinders do.
Will Russia engineer a breakaway Crimea?
Will Russia re-install the deposed Yanukovych?
Will the “ultranationalist militants” who won the security and military leadership roles be able command the Ukrainian Army?
No, Yes and No.
Looks like the R2P clique in the White House will be very, very, sad.
This is different to the classic late 20thC “cold war” threat. There’s a more pragmatic recognition of the delicate meshing of mutual interests and competition over resource. It’s more interlaced, rather than being purely border vs border.
1 Like
Here’s the troubling part: the Ukrainian-nationalist opposition is both made up of the best and worst aspects of the opposition.
Some are babushki seeking fairer treatment and their pensions, using non-violent resistance (like the iconic mirror demonstrations). However, estimates put a third of the opposition at various points of the conflict in neo-nazi ranks with white supremacist slogans.
One must be careful in characterizing either side in being the good or bad one, the right or wrong–especially since these both sides coalitions, not united fronts.
Far from running apologetics, one needs to understand that Ukrainian politics are very intricate, like any free state that had to separate from the former USSR. Look at the Polish Solidarity movement or Serbia’s Optfor for examples where central and eastern european politics may have appeared as one homogeneous group to the West (Catholic, Youth Vote, etc.)
These binary narratives bar us from really understanding politics and from recognizing the “other” as sovereign over their nationhood.
/end-rant
4 Likes
Those are NOT Russian civilians in the Crimea region. They are Ukrainians that identify themselves as “ethnic Russians”. It would be like Italy invading New York because some “ethnic Italians” live there.
It is 60% of the Crimea who identify themselves as ethnic Russian, not a minority group. The region as a whole voted 70% in favour of the now-ousted government - you can understand they might not be as caught up in the revolution as the Kiev protesters.
4 Likes
First of all, a facebook commenter brought up an important point: BoingBoing needs to be clear about what that photo shows and where and when it was taken. So much misinformation is being spread through traditional and new media on the back of often horrific photos and videos that are in fact unrelated to the stories they supposedly illustrate. I’m not saying that this is the case here, but especially for stories like these where propaganda abounds from all sides the conscientious consumer needs to ask about this, and the media needs to provide the proper information.
Secondly, if this is going to end reasonably peacefully we have to watch the rhetoric and calm the fuck down before we end up goading ourselves into something that has no chance of ending non-horribly. The only reasonable avenue towards a resolution that doesn’t end in civil or international war is for everybody to take a deep breath and start to compromise instead of sabre rattling. So, yeah, Putin is a bully and it isn’t fair, but we got to suck it up a bit, because there’s absolutely nothing we can hope to do about it right now. If the new Ukrainian government is willing to guarantee the protection of the Russian majority, some measure of self-determination for the people of Crimea, and make an effort towards regaining a proper democratic mandate for the central government, I’m confident that the wind will be taken out of Putin’s sails. And while the Russian gunboat democracy deserves scorn and disapproval, giving in to bullies isn’t always the wrong thing to do. It sure as hell beats civil war.
I don’t think anyone here is using “The Ukraine” s a descriptor of a general geographical region; they’re using it to refer to the country known as Ukraine. I suppose along those lines Canada could properly be referred to as America’s Hat (ignoring the multiple questions that arise from using “America” to refer to the USA), since that’s a pretty good description, too.
And your linguistic justification for this usage not only simplifies the issue and glosses over the contested meaning of the word, but totally ignores the right of people to determine their name.
Why Ukraine Isn’t ‘The Ukraine,’ And Why That Matters Now
Except that in all of these examples the official name includes “the”: Kingdom of the Netherlands, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Republic of the Philippines, Republic of the Maldives, etc.
Ukraine has clearly and intentionally made the shift from being known as the SSR of The Ukraine to being known as the independent state of Ukraine. Whether or not you agree with it, that shift has political implications. It also seems fundamentally decent to call people how they want to be called, and not how it seems convenient for you to call them. So far as I know, none of the countries you’ve listed have objected to the use of the definite article “the” in their name. Ukraine has. If you’re unwilling to respect it because you think you know better than them how they should be called, that’s fine, but don’t try to pretend you’re doing anything else.
The President, while elected, was deposed entirely within the legal system by other elected officials, acting within their legal powers. It’s no more a coup than Nixon’s removal was.
Seriously, if you’re going to be a pedant, at least be consistant.
If you insist on dragging the Official Names of countries into the equation, then you should go full hog and demand everyone use the entire official name of a country, and never anything less. By your logic, using “The Ukraine” is just as offensive as using anything other than “The Democratic Republic of the Congo”.
And if we take your complaint about “calling people what they want to be called” and apply it evenly across the board, then really we ought to be using the language of the place in question to refer to the nation - it’s “Koninkrijk der Nederlanden”, not “Kingdom of the Netherlands”, you insensitive, offensive jerk!
Honestly, get off your high horse and stop taking offense in the name of other people over absolutely nothing. Language is mutable and imperfect, and the point of language is to adequately express concepts. “The Ukraine” does this perfectly well, so what’s the big deal? It’s not like “The Ukraine” is somehow derogatory - if it were, you might have a point. But you’re just getting offended over the smallest little niggling nonsense.
As for your comparison to Canada as America’s Hat, you’re comparing apples to oranges. No one seriously refers to Canada that way - it’s a joke name, like referring to The Atlantic Ocean as “The Pond” which so many of us are colloquially across in reference to one another.
A better analogy might be someone saying “the North American member of the British Commonwealth”, or something of that kind.
Or perhaps if we’re willing to choose a less troublesome nation to compare to, a more proper analogy might be using “Holland” to refer to the entirety of The Netherlands, despite the fact that it technically only refers to two specific provinces of the country. No one would see this as offensive - it’s just one more quirk of language, a largely accepted usage in English with a convoluted history and not an ounce of malice or intended offense nestled within it.
I’m just astounded that you’re wasting so much time getting so caught up on such an innocent phrase. We’ve got more important topics to discuss - like an actual military invasion, maybe?
1 Like
From what I understand, the parliamentary majority that supported Yanukovich basically had to flee. So these “elected officials” were passing acts in a Parliament missing more than half the representatives, and it shows: a lot of new ministers are now direct emanation of those far-right extremist groups (Svoboda and Pravyi Sektor) who had taken over Kiev with their paramilitary forces.
I’m afraid any parallel with Nixon is seriously misplaced.
4 Likes
It’s more like US forces taking over the Toronto area because it’s full of “Americans”, in a situation where Ottawa has been overrun by Russia-supported French neonazi intent in banning English and forbid US forces from using Canadian airspace.
All these comparisons don’t really convey the strict links between Crimea and Russia. Ever since having a powerful navy became imperative, Russia has owned Crimea. It’s where their sailors and admirals would retire. It was “the” Russian door to the Mediterranean long before the USSR block came into existence. Without Crimea, the Black Sea Fleet might as well disband.
Ukraine as a whole is a more complex matter, but still, it’s right on Putin’s doorstep. A US-backed neonazi government in Kiev is disastrous from a security standpoint. Remember how JFK freaked out at the idea that Cuba (a sovereign nation) could have a couple of missiles? Imagine if the whole of Canada was taken over by the USSR… that’s the sort of scenario Putin is currently facing.
5 Likes
You’re going to have to provide a citation for that, otherwise I’m going to assume those who fled did so to avoid prosecution in the ICC as Yanukovich did, not any threat of violence.
The parallel with Nixon actually fits rather well, as he also ordered the murder of protesters.
Most sources reported the vote that “toppled” Yanukovich was 328-0, but the full house is composed by 450 representatives. This in a situation where the local Police had also fled, leaving government building unguarded. I think in that situation I would have voted for GWB as Emperor of All Continents, if I were a local MP.
I wasn’t born when Nixon was ousted, but I don’t remember reading about balaclava-clad snipers being pictured among protesters, and Russian-sponsored neonazi groups fighting guerrilla in Washington with the help of IDF reservists. You might have better sources on that.
1 Like
So even if the MPs that “fled” had been present, it still would have been passed 328-122?
You don’t seem to have any sources at all for what you’re accusing the opposition of, so I’m not particularly inclined to believe you.
I think maybe we were supposed to let them win at Hockey.
1 Like
Crimea is Turkish. Always has been, always will be.
There’s nothing inconsistent with noting that some countries’ official names have the definite article in them, regardless of the language. And there’s nothing inconsistent with using a shorter version of the name when there is no chance of ambiguity (and, for the record, most people would say “The DRC” since there is possible confusion over simply saying “The Congo”). And there’s certainly nothing inconsistent with saying that you should respect peoples’ wishes about what they want to be called. When is the last time anyone complained about English speakers not using the Dutch name for the Netherlands?
The Ukraine certainly is seen as derogatory by many, which was kind of the point of the link provided in my last post. And take a look at one of your earlier justifications for using the definite article: that it is appropriate because we are simply talking about a geographic area (as opposed to an independent nation with definite and arbitrary borders that don’t strictly correspond to geographic features).
The words Burma and Myanmar both “adequately express concepts,” but the choice of which term to use is laden with meaning. Regardless of what you think, choice of words does matter. It may not matter to you, but it does matter.[quote=“Glitch, post:92, topic:24467”]
I’m just astounded that you’re wasting so much time getting so caught up on such an innocent phrase. We’ve got more important topics to discuss - like an actual military invasion, maybe?
[/quote]
Hey, you were in on this whole debate about the propriety of “The Ukraine” well before me, and with multiple posts about it to boot.
I read this and thought you were making fun of Russia’s invasion, because as a Canadian in the US it sounds absolutely ridiculous to think that the US would ever invade a sovereign Canada under any circumstances (leaving aside for a moment the entire Neo-Nazi thing).
Then I read this and find out you were actually arguing for why such an invasion would be legitimate. And the US supports Neo-Nazis now? That suggestion makes as much sense as the tripe I read on a blog linked to in this thread saying that Israel and former IDF members might be supporting these supposedly Neo-Nazi insurrectionists because a Neo-Nazi government would force Ukrainian Jews back to the Israeli homeland.
The ex-Israeli soldier who led a Kiev fighting unit - Ha’aretz: http://www.haaretz.com/news/world/1.577114
Protesters with guns - Daily Mail: http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/02/18/article-2561895-1B9BE57200000578-189_964x657.jpg (I’ve seen better pics but I can’t find them now, they’ve been washed away by the Crimea move)
3 Likes
