[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: comprehending the heart's nationalism
On 07/08/2016 08:36 PM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 10:47:33PM -0300, juan wrote:
>> On Sat, 9 Jul 2016 10:50:40 +1000
>> Zenaan Harkness <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 09:24:24PM -0300, juan wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 9 Jul 2016 09:45:52 +1000
>>>> Zenaan Harkness <email@example.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 05:23:16PM -0300, juan wrote:
>>>>>>> Instead all we get is endless repetition of the western MSM
>>>>>>> meme "Russia illegally annexed Crimea".
>>>>>> They did.
>>>>> How is a "legal" secession to happen, for it to be classified as
>>>> People who want to join russia, join russia. People who
>>>> don't want to, don't. And sane people who don't want to be governed
>>>> by any mafia are left alone and 'stateless'. And this last
>>>> kind of secession is the only meaningful one by the way.
>>> So then, why was the referendum in Crimea and the apparrently
>>> overwhelming "want" of the people of Crimea to secede from Ukraine
>>> and "join Russia", somehow "illegal"?
>> Was there an option to not join any state?
> I suspect not, but in the context, I think that would literally have
> been suicide. Or endless civil war as we see since then (the last two
> years) in eastern Ukraine.
I find it hard to imagine how anarchist societies could develop in our
currently state-dominated world. Anarchist societies have survived
through isolation, and some still do. But how does that work in places
under active state contention?
Also, anarchy seems to work best when everyone is more-or-less equally
powerful. Everyone has the same weapons, for example. In science
fiction, anarchist societies typically depend on some new technology
that eliminates states' power monopoly. Maybe it'll be the Singularity.
>> Or even create an
>> 'indepenent' state? Rhetorical question of course...
> Supported by themselves?
> Again, I think contextually, they sought the support of mother Russia -
> we humans crave the perceived (correctly or incorrectly) safety of our
> 'parent' nation state. See subject.
>> Plus, 97% voted "yes"? That's very hard to believe.
Yes. But Russia has been exporting ethnic Russians to Crimea for
centuries. And for other ethnic groups, voting against joining Russia
would have indeed been voting for civil war, on the minority side. You
can't vote your conscience when there's a gun to your head.
> May be so, and some reports that the Crimean parliament reps were
> 'encouraged' to vote for secession, but that's a miniscule percentage of
> the population.
> The Crimean population, who now have overwhelming gratitude for the
> "polite green men" who kept them safe from the Nazi Banderites who
> wanted to bring their "peace train" to Crimea - I assume you've seen
> -that- particular documentary - the voice of the Crimean average person
> appears to be strong, consistent, and certainly not "coerced" in any way
> by 'mother Russia'. As I see it, they were in genuine fear for their
> lives, families, homes and stability of "state", and as such it is no
> wonder to me that they voted overwhelmingly for secession from the new
> 'illegitimate' at that point in time "sovereign Ukraine". They tried
> (asked Russia for support for such a referendum) numerous times in the
> past, and were rejected every prior time.
That's just another gang, the one that NATO helped build. And sure, they
also have grievances going back centuries.
> In fact, in the actual context of that point in time, it is in hindsight
> inconceivable that the people of Crimea would -not- have voted
> significantly for the protection of union with Russia - most of them are
> Russian after all, Ukraine was a very artificial 'state' created by the
> USSR at the height of its empire, when it would have been almost
> impossible to imagine the breakup of the USSR.
> And that internal war of the new Ukraine govt against its own people in
> the Donbass, still goes on, and Europe still turns a blind eye, not
> wanting to legitimize "federalist" secession tendencies in Europe, and
> irrationally wanting to keep 'pressure' on Russia for its multi polar
> intentions. Shows how 'democratic' the "West" is...
>> Plus, crimea was annexed by the russian empire in ~1780. That
>> looks like a precendent of sorts...
> Don't know that history yet - but we're talking here of course about the
> recent annexation, not that original one. Notwithstanding, there is
> interesting history for what it's worth:
> Count Alexander Bezborodko, then a close advisor to the Empress, wrote
> in his diary that Russia was "forced" to annex Crimea:
> The Porte has not kept good faith from the very beginning. Their
> primary goal has been to deprive the Crimeans of independence. They
> banished the legal khan and replaced him with the thief Devlet Giray.
> They consistently refused to evacuate the Taman. They made numerous
> perfidious attempts to introduce rebellion in the Crimea against the
> legitimate Khan Şahin Giray (Sahin Giray). All of these efforts did not
> bring us to declare war... …The Porte never ceased to drink in each drop
> of revolt among the Tatars... …Our only wish has been to bring peace to
> Crimea…and we were finally forced by the Turks to annex the area.
Look, Russian governments have always needed an ocean port that's not
frozen for much of the year. The rest of it is just bullshit.