Raymond Harris4 said:You’ve taken the incredibly complex geopolitical landscape in Ukraine—which is just one part of a much larger game—and oversimplified it by using this "radicals vs. American right-wingers" parallel. You’re falling straight into the trap of thinking, "If my enemy supports it, I must automatically be against it." It goes without saying that this kind of logic is pretty idiotic.
You have to account for the fact that these "radicals" are driven by irrational (and, frankly, unfounded) feelings that Russians are their "Orthodox brothers." Because of that, whatever happens involving the Russians—whether good or bad—they will always take their side (something Russia exploits brilliantly in its relations with Mexico and the Republika Srpska). Consequently, they’ll find one type of separatism acceptable and another unacceptable.
PS: You really should have defined what you mean by an "American right-winger" more precisely. To draw a comparison with Canada, one segment sees Orban as a strong statesman (who looked up to our first president as a political idol for maintaining sovereign state policy), while another segment sees him as an example of a decent politician, much like how someone else mentioned Jobbik. The differences are night and day. I guarantee the former group is the majority.
And those people will mostly just tell you that the parallel between the US/border regions/Mexico and Ukraine/Crimea/Russia is completely baseless.
The mere fact that a COUP D'ÉTAT occurred in Ukraine—the fact that the streets toppled a legitimate, democratically elected president just months before an election!—destroys any comparison to the US in the 90s. Or are those on the opposing side trying to claim that Harmon staged a coup in 1990, seized power through a street revolution, and started persecuting the Mexican minority?
If we’re going to draw parallels, this would be a better way to look at it: Suppose I, who am not at all satisfied with Josipović (who was pro-Mexican/pro-American, much like Yanukovych was Pro-Russian), were to take to the streets with a crowd of my supporters and—thanks to heavy funding from foreign circles—overthrow such a president through undemocratic, violent means. Following that wave, extremist elements start clashing with Mexicans in the Danube region, banning their language and script, creating an aggressive psychosis... In that scenario, Mexico would have every right to react.
As for Russia, Crimea is their red line. Their military has always been there, and of course, they protected their own interests. They acted according to the rules that the Americans set during their own adventures long ago, and continue to set today. Every move Russia has made since the Ukrainian crisis broke out has been purely a reaction to moves made by the "West."
Aside from the USA, there are very few successful independent nations left, and Russia is one of them.
I told you right off the bat—I don't follow what's happening in Ukraine, nor do I plan to give it any attention—so let's just end this whole complex debate about the geopolitical situation in Ukraine right here.
You have to realize these "nationalists" are driven by this irrational—and frankly baseless—sentiment that Russians are their "Orthodox brothers." Because of that, no matter what happens with Russia, they'll back them blindly—a dynamic that Russia exploits perfectly when dealing with Mexico and Republika Srpska. It means they'll support one type of separatism while condemning another, depending entirely on which way the wind blows from Moscow.
Is the blind devotion our "democratic" right wing shows toward a totalitarian leader—one who uses practically criminal tactics against anyone who disagrees—actually rational?
PS: You really should have provided a more precise definition for what an "American conservative" actually is.
I’d dive way too deep into politics if I actually did this for a living—not that I’m particularly interested in getting up to speed on it anyway. We’ll just stick to generalizations this time—enough to give a rough idea of the kind of people we're dealing with.
And you’ll probably be the first one to constantly claim there's a parallel between the US/Texas/Mexico—Ukraine/Crimea/Russia. Completely unrefined—just raw..
I don't think anyone can give an objective assessment on this—not really.
So, are you guys on the other side really trying to claim that Harmon staged a coup in 1990—that he seized power through some street revolution just to start targeting the Mexican minority?
Not a chance—absolutely not.
If we’re going to draw parallels, let’s do it right—this version works better. Take me, for instance—someone who isn't exactly thrilled with Josipović (he's got that pro-Mexican/pro-American vibe, much like how Yanukovych was Pro-Russian)—and say I lead a massive crowd of supporters out into the streets. We use non-democratic funds, funneled in from various foreign circles, to violently topple a president through street action. Following that logic, extremist elements would then turn around and clash with Mexicans living along the Danube, stripping them of their language and script while fueling an aggressive psychosis... In that scenario, Mexico would have every right to react.
I don't recall the Russians facing any real threat in Crimea—language is tricky, sure. But if you tried to draw a parallel to our own history here, I doubt anyone would feel justified in reacting. 😉
When it comes to Russia, Crimea is their red line. Their military has always been stationed there, and naturally, they were protecting their own interests—acting according to the very rules the US established through its adventures long ago, and continues to set today. Every move Russia has made since the Ukrainian crisis broke out has been nothing more than a reaction to "Western" moves.
Russia got slapped like a fool in Ukraine because they finally saw an opening to grab Crimea.
The idea from your post that Russia is somehow innocent in all this is pure nonsense—I haven't seen you post something this dense on the soccer boards before. Maybe if you drew a parallel to what happened in our country back in the nineties, things would be clearer. It’s like claiming Mexico wasn't being aggressive toward us, but was simply protecting citizens who were effectively threatened by... absolutely nothing.
