The Russians Are Coming, The Russians Are Coming!

[Box Ox]

100% of Americans do speak American.

No bud, it's called English. Ttku son....

No, bud, it's called American.

 

[vantexan]

If the Ukrainians are a legitimately recognized ethnic group in your mind, why do you want them to have imperial governance over another recognized ethnic group?

Why do you want to break apart their country?

 

[vantexan]

So the Donbass separatists aren't Ukrainians?

So why don't you just let Russia have it? It's not Ukraine, right?

What, exactly, is the supposed difference between an "ethnic Russian" (your term) and a Ukrainian?

lol.

Well let's see. We think of China as Chinese. But 92% are the biggest ethnic group, the Han. 8% doesn't sound like a lot left but in China that 8% represents some ethnicities that are 10,000,000 or more. We've all heard of the Uyghurs, the Muslim minority being oppressed in China. They aren't even the largest minority by a long shot. In many countries there are different ethnic groups that have shared histories and often similar physical traits.

The Ukrainians and Russians are Slavs or Slavic peoples. They have shared characteristics as do many other people throughout that region. Serbs are Slavs for example as well as Poles. Would you argue that the Polish are the same as Russians? The Ukrainians have a separate language from the Russians. Just because they were dominated by Russians for centuries doesn't mean they are Russian.

What is the biggest ethnic group in the world without their own country? The Kurds. Are the Kurds in Turkey Turkish? In Syria Syrian? Only by nationality. But they are a separate ethnicity. Russians in Ukraine are Ukrainian nationals. But they are ethnic Russians and ethnic Ukrainians are a separate ethnic group with their own language. Would you classify all groups in Scandinavia as Scandinavian? Of course. But would you also break them down into Norwegians, Swedes, Danish? Of course. In Belgium there's the Flemish (Dutch dialect) and the Walloons(French speaking). Two very different ethnic groups united as Belgians. The English, Welsh, Scottish, and Northern Irish are all citizens of the United Kingdom but are different ethnic groups who still to some extent speak their original languages but are united by the language of their conqueror England. Could go on but I think(hope) you get the picture.

 

[wilberforce15]

Well let's see. We think of China as Chinese. But 92% are the biggest ethnic group, the Han. 8% doesn't sound like a lot left but in China that 8% represents some ethnicities that are 10,000,000 or more. We've all heard of the Uyghurs, the Muslim minority being oppressed in China. They aren't even the largest minority by a long shot. In many countries there are different ethnic groups that have shared histories and often similar physical traits.

The Ukrainians and Russians are Slavs or Slavic peoples. They have shared characteristics as do many other people throughout that region. Serbs are Slavs for example as well as Poles. Would you argue that the Polish are the same as Russians? The Ukrainians have a separate language from the Russians. Just because they were dominated by Russians for centuries doesn't mean they are Russian.

What is the biggest ethnic group in the world without their own country? The Kurds. Are the Kurds in Turkey Turkish? In Syria Syrian? Only by nationality. But they are a separate ethnicity. Russians in Ukraine are Ukrainian nationals. But they are ethnic Russians and ethnic Ukrainians are a separate ethnic group with their own language. Would you classify all groups in Scandinavia as Scandinavian? Of course. But would you also break them down into Norwegians, Swedes, Danish? Of course. In Belgium there's the Flemish (Dutch dialect) and the Walloons(French speaking). Two very different ethnic groups united as Belgians. The English, Welsh, Scottish, and Northern Irish are all citizens of the United Kingdom but are different ethnic groups who still to some extent speak their original languages but are united by the language of their conqueror England. Could go on but I think(hope) you get the picture.

That's a whole lot of words trying to explain why some groups deserve self-government and others don't.

 

[wilberforce15]

Why do you want to break apart their country?

Because their country doesn't recognize the desired self-government of its component people groups.
Peoples should be quite free to confederate with one another under common governance if they wish.
And if they cease to desire that, they should be free to govern themselves and withdraw from any previous confederations.

This is a natural, human right to self-government.

I want to break apart their fake country because their fake country violates the natural right to self-government of the people of Donbass.

 

[Box Ox]

Because their country doesn't recognize the desired self-government of its component people groups.
Peoples should be quite free to confederate with one another under common governance if they wish.
And if they cease to desire that, they should be free to govern themselves and withdraw from any previous confederations.

This is a natural, human right to self-government.

I want to break apart their fake country because their fake country violates the natural right to self-government of the people of Donbass.

You should think about going up to Quebec to see if you can help their own nationalist fanatics finally break away from Canada so they can "self-govern."

 

[wilberforce15]

You should think about going up to Quebec to see if you can help their own nationalist fanatics finally break away from Canada so they can "self-govern."

I would support them in that. The rest of Canada doesn't want them, and they don't want the rest of Canada.
Why are they fanatics for wanting to govern themselves?

Is that a radical thing now?

 

[Box Ox]

I would support them in that. The rest of Canada doesn't want them, and they don't want the rest of Canada.
Why are they fanatics for wanting to govern themselves?

Is that a radical thing now?

Bitching about your government is not a radical thing. A willingness to take up arms and kill fellow citizens because you just don't feel like you fit in with your country and don't feel like being governed by your government is a radical thing.

 

[wilberforce15]

I think y'all are really fighting another battle here.

If you admit I'm right, you have to admit the South had every right to leave the union without being attacked for it.

 

[vantexan]

Because their country doesn't recognize the desired self-government of its component people groups.
Peoples should be quite free to confederate with one another under common governance if they wish.
And if they cease to desire that, they should be free to govern themselves and withdraw from any previous confederations.

This is a natural, human right to self-government.

I want to break apart their fake country because their fake country violates the natural right to self-government of the people of Donbass.

So all other former Soviet republics, many of which have Russian minorities, are fake countries? Russia is the only true country in the region and it alone gets to decide what is done in these smaller, "fake" countries? It gets to threaten other countries like Finland and Sweden for considering joining NATO just because they're in close proximity to Russia? And what you're proposing, breaking off and forming a new country because you're dissatisfied with your current government, has a name. Anarchy. All through history people have broken free from their current government but it usually involved considerable violence. Right off hand in recent memory I can only think of one peaceful breakup of a single country, Czechoslovakia. You're insisting on calling the Ukrainians and their country fake because you're a Russophile. You claim otherwise but you keep coming back to supporting the Russians and defend their actions. Sad.

 

[wilberforce15]

Bitching about your government is not a radical thing. A willingness to take up arms and kill fellow citizens because you just don't feel like you fit in with your country and don't feel like being governed by your government is a radical thing

The aggressor is the one coming in from the outside to impose governance, not the people fighting for their own governance.

 

[wilberforce15]

So all other former Soviet republics, many of which have Russian minorities, are fake countries? Russia is the only true country in the region and it alone gets to decide what is done in these smaller, "fake" countries? It gets to threaten other countries like Finland and Sweden for considering joining NATO just because they're in close proximity to Russia? And what you're proposing, breaking off and forming a new country because you're dissatisfied with your current government, has a name. Anarchy. All through history people have broken free from their current government but it usually involved considerable violence. Right off hand in recent memory I can only think of one peaceful breakup of a single country, Czechoslovakia. You're insisting on calling the Ukrainians and their country fake because you're a Russophile. You claim otherwise but you keep coming back to supporting the Russians and defend their actions. Sad.

Correct. Peaceful breakups basically never happen. It always takes a war.

We weren't allowed to separate from England without one.

The South wasn't allowed to separate from the union without one.

Tyrants always want to fight to prevent self-government.

What's new about that?

 

[Box Ox]

The aggressor is the one coming in from the outside to impose governance, not the people fighting for their own governance.

Small chunks of countries don't get to break away and govern themselves just because they feel like it. If they did the US would likely be in many pieces.

 

[vantexan]

The aggressor is the one coming in from the outside to impose governance, not the people fighting for their own governance.

The aggressor=Russia.

 

[Box Ox]

The aggressor=Russia.

Surely shouldn't take a rocket surgeon to figure that out.

 

[wilberforce15]

Small chunks of countries don't get to break away and govern themselves just because they feel like it. If they did the US would likely be in many pieces.

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

 

[wilberforce15]

Surely shouldn't take a rocket surgeon to figure that out.

This is a discussion of Donbass and Ukraine.

In that matter, Ukraine is the aggressor.

 

[Box Ox]

This is a discussion of Donbass and Ukraine.

In that matter, Ukraine is the aggressor.

What are the causes that impel them to armed insurrection in an attempt to separate from Ukraine?

 

[vantexan]

Correct. Peaceful breakups basically never happen. It always takes a war.

We weren't allowed to separate from England without one.

The South wasn't allowed to separate from the union without one.

Tyrants always want to fight to prevent self-government.

What's new about that?

You're always assuming the ones trying to hold the country together are the tyrants. Not necessarily. The Confederacy for example was clinging to slavery. There's really nothing more tyrannical than that. And they were willing to kill for it.

 

[wilberforce15]

What are the causes that impel them to armed insurrection and separation from Ukraine?

If their right to their land is recognized, there is no fight at all.
Ukraine refused to recognize taht right, and started the fight to make them submit.