Ukraine's European Revolution?

[Queequeg]

It was part of the Socialist Republic of Serbia inside Yugoslavia which is why it didn't automatically get independence during the early-mid 90s like Bosnia or Croatia. 

[Queequeg]

Also it's funny that so many parts of ex-Yugoslavia are named after a type of ruler.  Hercegovina comes from the German for Duke, Herceg, and Voivodina comes from Voivode, an old Slavic term for warlord.  It probably means something like 'march'. 

[crazy canuck]

Uh.  When in history has there ever been an independent Muslim Kosovo Albanian state? 

He said political unit, not an independent state.  Wyoming is a political unit but it has never been independent.

You never pass up a chance to take a shot at PDH do you.

[Valmy]

It was part of the Socialist Republic of Serbia inside Yugoslavia which is why it didn't automatically get independence during the early-mid 90s like Bosnia or Croatia. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo_Vilayet

[Berkut]

I absolutely hate the trite argument that just because in some case it might make sense to change borders based on something or other, therefore in ALL cases it must make sense.

Or hell, the argument that since the US intervened in some country somewhere, therefore it is ok for some other country to intervene somewhere else.

It is all so stupid, and *transparently* stupid.

The answer to any general question like "Is it ok for ethnicity A to consider seceeding/revolting/voting their way out of country X" is always....it depends.

The answer to any general question like "Is it reasonable/moral/legal/ethical for country A to invade/intervene/support/oppose/meddle/etc in country B" is, again, it depends.

This is obviously true, yet dumbshits trot out the argument that since one ridiculously general example happened once, therefore some other completely specific example with totally different circumstances must be countenanced as well.

[derspiess]

And, unlike Kosovo, there has never been the political unit of a Serbian Bosnia other than the 1992-95 war.

Republika Srpska still exists as a political unit.

[Malthus]

You are repeating the same mistake.  Why do you think Russia will stop at merely "detaching" Crimea.   It is much more likely that once this is done there will be assurances that Ukraine at the very least will follow the Finland model.  Which is why I find it so ironic that Finland is now reconsidering NATO as a result of what is occuring in the Ukraine.

Russia no doubt wants to terrorize Ukraine with the threat of taking more and more, but my point (which you seem determined not to get) is that such terrorization was not necessary, as Russia could almost certainly have got its way anyway. Ukraine is very dependant on Russia as it is.

Russia is trading an almost-sure thing for a policy that has unknown risks, and is almost-certain to lead to the sort of results you find "ironic". 

[crazy canuck]

Russia no doubt wants to terrorize Ukraine with the threat of taking more and more, but my point (which you seem determined not to get) is that such terrorization was not necessary, as Russia could almost certainly have got its way anyway.

Putin will be disheartened to learn all of this was completely unnecessary.

[Malthus]

I absolutely hate the trite argument that just because in some case it might make sense to change borders based on something or other, therefore in ALL cases it must make sense.

Or hell, the argument that since the US intervened in some country somewhere, therefore it is ok for some other country to intervene somewhere else.

It is all so stupid, and *transparently* stupid.

The answer to any general question like "Is it ok for ethnicity A to consider seceeding/revolting/voting their way out of country X" is always....it depends.

The answer to any general question like "Is it reasonable/moral/legal/ethical for country A to invade/intervene/support/oppose/meddle/etc in country B" is, again, it depends.

This is obviously true, yet dumbshits trot out the argument that since one ridiculously general example happened once, therefore some other completely specific example with totally different circumstances must be countenanced as well.

The issue here is that in a Europe filled with ethnic minorities that look to nation-states as their 'natural homes', allowing/encouraging one such example to be detatched has bad consequences all over the place. It encourages instability (as others beging to ask why they, too, should not be detatched likewise) and it encourages ethnic tensions (as majorities eye such minorities as possible targets for trouble).

[Malthus]

Russia no doubt wants to terrorize Ukraine with the threat of taking more and more, but my point (which you seem determined not to get) is that such terrorization was not necessary, as Russia could almost certainly have got its way anyway.

Putin will be disheartened to learn all of this was completely unnecessary.

Oh, I don't think so. It was very necessary - to show would-be protesters the consequences of protesting, particularly in Russia itself.

It just wasn't necessary for the reasons *you* cited. 

[The Minsky Moment]

I absolutely hate the trite argument that just because in some case it might make sense to change borders based on something or other, therefore in ALL cases it must make sense.
. . .This is obviously true, yet dumbshits trot out the argument that since one ridiculously general example happened once, therefore some other completely specific example with totally different circumstances must be countenanced as well.

The lazy accusation of hypocrisy ("look what Lincoln did in the Civil War") is always easier than making out one's own valid justification for violence on its own merits.

[derspiess]

The issue here is that in a Europe filled with ethnic minorities that look to nation-states as their 'natural homes', allowing/encouraging one such example to be detatched has bad consequences all over the place.

Cat's already out of the bag on that one.

It encourages instability (as others beging to ask why they, too, should not be detatched likewise) and it encourages ethnic tensions (as majorities eye such minorities as possible targets for trouble).

I think the Balkanization trend will reverse in a few decades, but in the short term I think we may as well come to grips with the reality that some nationalities are better off with their own independent state (or joining up with the 'mother country' if practical).  Several exceptions to the rule-- I agree with Berkut for the most part.

[Jacob]

A better theory is that, by cracking down hard, the real message is being sent to domestic would-be protestors.

I don't know if it's a better theory, but I think it's definitely valid. As I've said before, foreign policy is often driven primarily by domestic concerns. I don't know if sending signals to would be protestors is the motive, but I expect that one or more domestic political concerns have contributed to how Putin's dealt with this.

[Jacob]

Russia no doubt wants to terrorize Ukraine with the threat of taking more and more, but my point (which you seem determined not to get) is that such terrorization was not necessary, as Russia could almost certainly have got its way anyway.

Putin will be disheartened to learn all of this was completely unnecessary.

Malthus and I have both called, but so far we've only reached his voice mail

[crazy canuck]

Russia no doubt wants to terrorize Ukraine with the threat of taking more and more, but my point (which you seem determined not to get) is that such terrorization was not necessary, as Russia could almost certainly have got its way anyway.

Putin will be disheartened to learn all of this was completely unnecessary.

Oh, I don't think so. It was very necessary - to show would-be protesters the consequences of protesting, particularly in Russia itself.

It just wasn't necessary for the reasons *you* cited. 

Ah so your theory is the Russian intervention in the Ukraine had nothing to do with actual protestors in the Ukraine.  Now that is an interesting twist.