Russian Invasion of Ukraine

[SMfan]

However, going back to this topic, I'm not sure exactly who drew Ukraine's borders. Was it originally the Russians?

It was Khrushchev who gave Crimea to Ukraine (The Ukrainian Soviet Republic that is).

 

[ITCC_Andrew]

How was Ukraine split in 1899? I think it should almost revert back to the way it was split back then.


Wait, no...

I'm quite glad that is not the case.



...After researching, I've just realized, that Ukraine has never really been split, and that it's even younger than many, many other nations.

 

[Dotini]

local governments could more effectively cater to the needs of locals.

One of the most durable, successful and evolutionary systems of small, local governments was the feudal shire system of England. Brits could please comment. From the Dark Ages through the Enlightenment, the feudal shire with its rights and dues, stabilized with its landed knights, lords and castles, provided a reliable system for the building of freedom, exploration and global trade.

 

[ITCC_Andrew]

Or constitutional monarchies with puppet monarchies. Basically, a simple constitution.

 

[Rage Racer]

How was Ukraine split in 1899? I think it should almost revert back to the way it was split back then.


Wait, no...

I'm quite glad that is not the case.



...After researching, I've just realized, that Ukraine has never really been split, and that it's even younger than many, many other nations.

It was Lenin who put Ukraine on the world map as Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. Ironically, the rebels now demolite the monuments to him as symbols of "Soviet occupation".

And Stalin was the man who has taken some lands of the modern-day Western Ukraine from Poland (e.g. Galicia). The cultural center of Western Ukraine - Lviv - used to be Lwow when it was a Polish city. But Ukrainians curse Stalin for his repressions and the questionable Holodomor.

 

[Keef]

Or constitutional monarchies with puppet monarchies. Basically, a simple constitution.

Or constitutional republics divided into states and townships. Same idea - a country united under a simple constitution, divided into progressively smaller cultural regions in order to provide fine-turned service to match local needs.

 

[Liquid]

@Dotini

I would contend that the feudal system was not a shining light in terms of the freedoms and liberty of the people, as per serfdom and the definition of a freeman we discussed in another thread (maybe a few pages back in this one, can't remember for sure), but as I understand yes, the system did foster a genuine small, decentralised governance for several hundred years.

From my GCSE history I remember it as being:

King

The eponymous head honcho.

Barons

Had control of the individual shires and counties. This is precisely why mediaeval Dukedoms and Earldoms were named geographically. The Duke of Northumberland had authority in Northumberland, the Count of Chester had authority in Cheshire and so on.

Knights

Swore allegiance to the barons and were in turn given strips of land for which they were responsible.

Peasants

They were the drones who worked for and under the knights.

That is, of course, a very basic introduction into it but this was small goverment mediaeval style. For a long time English counties had significant amounts of authority. Far more than today.

 

[TenEightyOne]

One of the most durable, successful and evolutionary systems of small, local governments was the feudal shire system of England. Brits could please comment. From the Dark Ages through the Enlightenment, the feudal shire with its rights and dues, stabilized with its landed knights, lords and castles, provided a reliable system for the building of freedom, exploration and global trade.

Actually that system was abandoned and the legislators who would bring it back anew mostly left the country, about 200 years after the system finally petered out south of the border (still exists in parts of the North*). Those legislators took their dream of sub-state, constituted government to, erm, where was it now?

Feudal systems (more common in the South/West of England, personally I'm from Viking Yorkshire where Riding-thirds were kept even after the Romans) were very effective for Monarchs and anyone in power. Understandably conditions at the bottom of the pile were very very grim indeed. Arguably that doesn't change, just the relative grimness

*Okay, the Highlands are much more complex than that but it's the closest remaining system to Tithe.

 

[Dotini]

Human settlement in Ukraine dates back to 32,000 BC. Since then, waves of tribes and empires have rolled back and forth.

 

[ITCC_Andrew]

I thought it was a part of Austro-Hungary before WWI, and broke free on its own in the 1890s. I wonder which nation I am thinking of.

Either way, I was hoping that there was a time when Ukraine's borders were split, as in Canada, USA, etc., that could be reverted to... But, nope. No luck.

 

[SMfan]

It was Lenin who put Ukraine on the world map as Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. Ironically, the rebels now demolite the monuments to him as symbols of "Soviet occupation".

It was still a part of the Soviet Union, so not really what they wanted, huh.

And Stalin was the man who has taken some lands of the modern-day Western Ukraine from Poland (e.g. Galicia). The cultural center of Western Ukraine - Lviv - used to be Lwow when it was a Polish city. But Ukrainians curse Stalin for his repressions and the questionable Holodomor.

I too curse Stalin for all these things, however calling Holodomor an exclusively Ukrainian event is just factually wrong. The whole Union was in deep s:censored:t then.

 

[Rage Racer]

and that it's even younger than many, many other nations.

You probably mean they didn't have their own country for a very long time. Because the Ukrainian nation isn't young.

 

[ITCC_Andrew]

You probably mean they didn't have their own country for a very long time. Because the Ukrainian nation isn't young.

If we're talking about a constitutionalized nation of Ukraine, it is. Much like Canada (again, just a fair comparison) existed for millions of years, was "discovered" by vikings in 800s, and was officially formed - with a constitution - in 1867.


Ukraine has a rich history which also goes back in time way beyond its constitution. I understand that. But, my point is that it's impossible to "revert" things back to how they were a few years ago - like I think is what happened in former Yugoslavia and Korea. 💡

...But it doesn't work in Ukraine, which, as far as I know, has been similarly sized/shaped since its constitution was written.

 

[eran0004]

...But it doesn't work in Ukraine, which, as far as I know, has been similarly sized/shaped since its constitution was written.

Crimea was a republic for little over a year, from February 1991 to May 1992. So that could perhaps be one possible solution. They're a semi-autonomous region anyway so the step wouldn't be that big.

I suppose it would be somewhat similar to Quebec breaking out of Canada.

 

[ITCC_Andrew]

I told you it was similar to the Canadian situation. It's just, in the Ukrainian side of things, it's way more involved because one country will lose access to the seaport on the Black Sea.

 

[eran0004]

I told you it was similar to the Canadian situation. It's just, in the Ukrainian side of things, it's way more involved because one country will lose access to the seaport on the Black Sea.

Also, I don't think Canada has a nazi party in it's government (Ukraine has, scince about a week now)

 

[Rage Racer]

Also, I don't think Canada has a nazi party in it's government (Ukraine has, scince about a week now)

Nazi party, lolwut?

It was still a part of the Soviet Union, so not really what they wanted, huh.

At least they were given the right for self-determination, unlike in the Russian Empire with the forced Russification policy. They had their language promoted to the public life (see Ukrainization).

I too curse Stalin for all these things, however calling Holodomor an exclusively Ukrainian event is just factually wrong. The whole Union was in deep s:censored:t then.

Stalin was a very controversal person. In one hand, he made the poor peasant Russia an industrial superpower that managed to resist the Nazis and crush them by 1945, but in other, there were too many unnecessary victims and so many bloody mistakes.
And this is what I mean about the Holodomor, too - Russia suffered the famine in 1932-33 too, and it was not a genocide of Ukrainians (or Russians, lol). But it still may be a crime of the Stalin's regime.

 

[ITCC_Andrew]

Nazi?


I give. I thought Canada's Communist party and Bloc Québecois were weird. Ukraine, stop out-doing Canada's weird political parties.


On-topic, I would completely understand why people could idolize Stalin and Lenin - but only before 1945. Thank you for stopping the Nazis, you did not have to purge the government and exile/purge/eliminate as many people as you did, Bolsheviks.

 

[Dennisch]

N
On-topic, I would completely understand why people could idolize Stalin and Lenin - but only before 1945.

Stalin was quite the busy cleansing bee before 1945 also.

 

[eran0004]

Nazi party, lolwut?

Nazi?

Svoboda, they have four ministers in the government. Was founded in 1995 as the Social-National Party of Ukraine, an intended reference to Hitler's Nazi party in Germany. Their chief ideologist, Yuriy Mykhalchyshyn, is an eager translator of books written by Nazi ideologists and has called the holocaust a "golden age" in the history of Europe.

Until 10 years ago, this was their symbol:

From 2003 they started to distance themselves from the most extreme groups (such as the paramilitary force they founded).

 

[ITCC_Andrew]

Stalin was quite the busy cleansing bee before 1945 also.

I do't doubt this, but I'm still certainly glad he was able to lead USSR to victory. I just wish that the people he eliminated on his way to power, and in order to maintain power could've understood, and I also wish they were better remembered.


And, they have four ministers in the government? who voted for them? Who elected them? What?!

 

[Azuremen]

I do't doubt this, but I'm still certainly glad he was able to lead USSR to victory. I just wish that the people he eliminated on his way to power, and in order to maintain power could've understood, and I also wish they were better remembered.


And, they have four ministers in the government? who voted for them? Who elected them? What?!

I would imagine they are regionally elected, seeing the discussion on the Crimean Prime Minister versus what is happening Kiev, etc.

I'll take a book from your card and talk about my government for a second so you can grasp how different structures can be for government. We have 50 state Governors, 100 Senators (2 per state), 435 Representatives. Mind you, these are elected positions, and the Senate, House of Representatives, and President all vote and decide on national policy. Having 4 regional boss men (Ministers) seems pretty straight forward to me in comparison.

So stop taking that page from your book where everything revolves around Canada, because nothing revolves around Canada. Except jokes about hockey and polar beers.

With this developing situation, it has been interesting to hear reactions from my Ukrainian and Russian friends, which tend to split a bit down the ethnic lines as we are seeing in the Ukraine. The situation there is oddly relevant here because the area has a large concentration of Ukrainian immigrants, to the extent Russian is the preferred second language when looking for jobs and is used on some signage and adverts.

 

[ITCC_Andrew]

The Nazi party* has 4 ministers.

"Svoboda, they have four ministers in the government. Was founded in 1995 as the Social-National Party of Ukraine, an intended reference to Hitler's Nazi party in Germany." - eran0004 posted that. In response, I asked who voted/elected the Nazis.

Otherwise, the only time I discussed Canada in this thread was relevant because of the ongoing discussions of Quebec sovereignty. The same thing with the British/Irish people who were discussing the Irish sovereignty (or whichever term you prefer for the Republicans vs. Unionists.)


Everyone will try to make sense of something by the way it happened in the past. The continual reports of discussions of Quebecois sovereignty are a parallel of what's happening in Ukraine, except that what's happening in Ukraine is happening at an alarming pace, and in an alarmingly important part of the world. So, then the sovereignty movement among some - in both Quebec and Ukraine - will have supporters and opponents, both internally and externally. But, Canada's sovereignty movement in Quebec happened at a slow enough rate for the government, and citizens from all provinces to have their say. In the end, the movement did not have sufficient support to satisfy the requirements the government laid out.


On the other hand, Ukraine's movement ousted the previous government because of its support. It's moving so quickly, I doubt the right decisions will be made at first. Comparing the two, Canada's movement moved slowly (29 years and still nothing has changed,) and Ukraine's moved perhaps too quickly, with something similar to a peaceful coup d'etat occuring in a few months.


There are numerous comparisons that can be made:

-1 person has died in Quebec/Canada during the sovereignty discussions. (It was the result of a guy who hadn't taken his medication in a while)
-95 people already dead in Ukraine, during the protests/riots

-Canada: 29 years, no changes
-Ukraine: 2/3 months, new government

-Canada: peaceful discussion in parliament results in small changes to regional laws in Quebec, on a provincial level
-Ukraine: new government quickly moves to separate itself from Russia and buddy-up with European Union.

Canada: maintains all diplomatic freedoms and such, and has no other nation involved in the sovereignty talks
Ukraine: has possibly been annexed by Russian troops



Clearly, the idea of Ukraine gaining its independence is there - and I support it - but I'm worried that it's moving too quickly, and in a direction which may or may not be ideal.

 

[Joel]

There are numerous comparisons that can be made:

-1 person has died in Quebec/Canada during the sovereignty discussions. (It was the result of a guy who hadn't taken his medication in a while)
-95 people already dead in Ukraine, during the protests/riots

-Canada: 29 years, no changes
-Ukraine: 2/3 months, new government

-Canada: peaceful discussion in parliament results in small changes to regional laws in Quebec, on a provincial level
-Ukraine: new government quickly moves to separate itself from Russia and buddy-up with European Union.

Canada: maintains all diplomatic freedoms and such, and has no other nation involved in the sovereignty talks
Ukraine: has possibly been annexed by Russian troops

So basically there's almost nothing in common between the two situations.

 

[ITCC_Andrew]

So basically there's almost nothing in common between the two situations.

What's common in between the two, is that there are areas which want sovereignty and autonomy.


The differences are more troubling than the similarities.

 

[SagarisGTB]

-1 person has died in Quebec/Canada during the sovereignty discussions. (It was the result of a guy who hadn't taken his medication in a while)
-95 people already dead in Ukraine, during the protests/riots

That's not quite true. You should read up on the FLQ and the October crisis, get to know your country a little better.

 

[ITCC_Andrew]

I forgot about that...


👍 for reminding me.

 

[Lizard]

To be honest I don't see what the west can do. If we went to war with Russia it would quickly turn into the worst decision ever made. Unfortunately I think Realism is right on this, America might be stronger than Russia but Russia is strong enough to leave an apocalyptic mess at its funeral even if it doesn't turn to nuclear weapons. Also it will be a logistical nightmare getting troops to the Crimea as everything would need to be airlifted very fast. We don't have an answer as far as I see it.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Clearly, the idea of Ukraine gaining its independence is there - and I support it - but I'm worried that it's moving too quickly, and in a direction which may or may not be ideal.

There's a vague conceptual relevance when you compare Canada (almost endlessly it seems)to Ukraine.

Ukraine was already independent though, it's been independent since before you were born.

And just saying Russia has "annexed" them is a little more complex when they are, even now, legally entitled to have 25,000 troops there, not necessarily confined to base there.

 

[Ryanswannell]

Would someone be willing to explain this whole situation to me? I'm interested to know what it's all about as it seems to be in the news a bit, but I don't really know what is happening.
Also, does this really involve the UN, America or whoever else is involved?

An explanation would be really appreciated 👍