全ての 60 コメント

[–]atrubetskoyЪ 16 ポイント17 ポイント

Posting this a little late, but I think instead of California and Spanish a better example might be Texas and a Texan language (current Texas dialect infused with slang and Spanish words).

Texas also gained independence from Mexico and asked to be annexed by the US, similar to Khmelnitsky's Cossack rebellion.

[–]MarxnEnglesBelarus[S] 5 ポイント6 ポイント

You are possibly right.

[–]DeifiedUnited States 31 ポイント32 ポイント

People in /r/russia will definitely give it a chance. It shows exactly how they see the conflict happening. I think most Americans in this sub are here in order to understand the Russian viewpoint in this conflict better. This post definitely helps with that in the form of showing exactly how Russians perceive this event.

However, this post is a gross oversimplification of what's happened, and the analogy doesn't hold up in most ways. At the same time, I respect you for writing it, because even if I don't fully agree with what's being expressed, I at least better understand a different perception than my own, so thank you for this.

[–]Vysotsky2 10 ポイント11 ポイント

Thanks for providing that parallel. While I agree with some of it, I believe the following would be a more accurate portrayal. For ease and consistency, I am going to respectfully reuse some of your stuff, and I will include Crimea in my narrative because I believe it is an essential part of the narrative that cannot be ignored even if the situation is unique.

Imagine it this way - lets pretend that 20 years ago, California peacefully split from the rest of the US because of political reasons. For this thought exercise, just accept that as fact. As a side note, the new Republic of California accepted both English and Spanish as its national languages, and still does tons of trade with the US, as well as with Mexico. The Republic of California is recognized internationally and holds some sway with the UN. In 1954, while Canada was still a part of the United States, the territory of Oregon was transferred to the Republic of Canada for political and administrative reasons.

Now fast forward to this year. The government of the Republic of California, as well as the US, had had a history of corruption during the past twenty years, but with some occasional civil unrest thrown in. Generally speaking, the south of the Republic of California largely identified itself as "Californian," while much of the northern public still refers to themselves offhandedly as "Americans" but still identify themselves as officially "Californian". Everyone of these people are by nationality "Citizens of the Republic of California".

The corruption hits a breaking point, protests, riots in LA again, general civil unrest. The president of the Republic of California is ousted, and flees to DC. The Sacramento and San Francisco regions are calling for referendum to set up a new government. Many people are grumbling that things weren't this messy when the Republic of California was still part of the USA. Other groups, mostly in the south, are crying out about how great California was Mexican, and that the American influence has done nothing but harm to this great independent state for the last century and a half, citing the starvation of 2.4 - 7.5 million people under America's gov't. These southern reactionary political groups receive constant encouragement and resources from Mexico, while the northern groups are being supported and funded by the US, with the latest Republic of California president considered by some a puppet of the US and being highly unpopular everywhere in California, including Northern California. With Mexico possessing a much bigger economy (6x) and, according to many south Californians, a possible dictatorship in the US materializing with the Obama being de facto in power for close to a decade in a half, many southern Californians are hopeful of signing an free trade agreement with Mexico in the hope of bettering relations and their stagnant economy.

During the sudden unrest, these groups muscle their way into power as government of the Republic of California. The Republic of California is a mess, it is almost bankrupt, it can't pay to import oil from the USA, and civil unrest is still widespread. Despite this, one of the first things the new government does is propose declare Spanish the ONLY national language, meaning immediate switching of all schools to use only Spanish, but that proposal never enters into law.

The USA, believing that Oregon, with a majority of ethnic Americans, historically belongs to the USA and only due to a historical mistake is part of the California takes the opportunity of the crisis to send in armed forces in Oregon, which the US President only later admits to doing (http://eng.kremlin.ru/news/7034). Oregon then holds a referendum that is considered illegitimate by 100 nations in the international community, and only nations like Syria or Belarus support the territorial status change of Oregon. The Republic of California considers the act an invasion but can't do anything about it because it has just gone through a revolution.

California soon has a presidential election where a candidate wins the election with overwhelming support after the first round, although some in north California could not vote because of the violence. The candidate, while corrupt, speaks both English and Mexican and had previously worked as the Minister of Foreign Affairs under previously ousted president during his first term in office, as well as other political parties. His family's preferred language is English and many voted him because they thought of him as a unifying figure. Obama recognizes him as the legitimate leader of California.

Some of the pro-American crowd in northern California organize a protest in Los Angeles. A crowd of pro-Mexican supporters attack the protesters, chase them into the City Hall, barricade the exits to trap them, and set the building on fire. 40+ people die. For neutrality sake, I am going to only post Wiki's description of incident: "On 2 May 2014, as part of the rising unrest in Ukraine in the aftermath of the 2014 Ukrainian revolution, clashes between pro-Ukrainian and pro-Russian groups broke out in multiple in the streets of Odessa.[2][15][16] These clashes culminated in a large skirmish outside the Trade Unions House, an Odessa landmark located on Kulikovo Field in the city centre.[1] That building then caught fire in unclear circumstances, resulting in the deaths of forty-two pro-Russian activists who had holed up in it.[9][13] Six other people died during the clashes in the streets.[12] The events were the bloodiest civil conflict in Odessa since 1918.[17]"

Throughout all this, America has been relentlessly calling the government in California fascists, Nazis, etc. Northern California declares independence holds a "referendum" (that even the USA does not recognize as being legitimate and that boasts an impossible 75% turn-out despite the fact that Northern California forces never controlled enough of the population to have a turn-out anywhere that amount) in two primary regions - San Francisco and Sacramento. There is much talk of these regions rejoining the USA, which sends some officials to assist the Autonomous Region of San Francisco (ARSF) and Autonomous Region of Sacramento (ARS). Many of the leaders of Northern California are American citizens who have ties to the CIA and FSB. The government of the Republic of California moves its armed forces north and begins assaulting the ARS and ARSF, fearing a repeat of the annexation of Oregon. Civilians are evacuating in droves to neighboring states. The ARS and ARSF fight back, but simply don't have the quantity of resources that the Republic of California has. USA starts supplying the ARS and ARSF with heavy weaponry. There are widespread videos of tanks and other military units with American flags. When California goes on the offensive to reclaim the territory and starts trying to control the border to stop the influx of American arms and American personnel, California troops start being shelled on Californian territory from America, which almost every other country in the world could consider an act of war. However, California fears a full scale military invasion so it refrains from responding or declaring war. America starts amassing a very large number of troops on the border of California, possibly to intimidate California, but California fears the America is gearing up to send in their "peacekeeping forces."

Meanwhile the international community - Europe, China, Russia, Brazil, India decry the USA, claiming it instigated the conflict, warn it that any military support towards the ARS and ARSF will not be tolerated. They enact sanctions against the US to stop what they see is another instance of American aggression.

A passenger plane flying from Nicaragua to Canada is shot down in the midst of the fighting, the remains are scattered from Santa Cruz to San Jose. The international community assumes that the USA is either directly responsible, or at least responsible in providing AA missiles to the ARS/ARSF, ... ...based on an overwhelming amount of evidence: including previously reliable rebel social media accounts claiming that they shot down a a Californian military transport plane, which was never shot down at same time as airliner was shot down, the fact that a multitude of California planes were being shot down by ARS/ARSF in same area for weeks beforehand (and afterward), pictures and videos taken of the alleged weapon being used to shoot down airliner being geolocated to rebel held territory, a rebel leader (John Khodakosky) admitting that they were in possession of the weapon, alleged leaked calls coming from rebels in which they talk about shooting down a plane at same time as airliner was shot down, damage of plane suggesting it was shot down by same kind of weapon, and just common sense since the ARS/ARSF has no air power and thus the Californian forces had no reason to shoot planes down. World leaders publicly denounce Obama for allowing this to happen, but Obama claims that California is responsible for whatever happens on its territory, begging the question whose fault terrorist attacks such as 9/11 were? Over the course of a week global opinion is that the ARS/ARSF armed forces unintentionally shot down the aircraft with armament provided by the USA, thinking it was a Californian military plane.

Addition: However, as crisis unfold, the world slowly forgets about the annexation of Oregon and the airliner being shot down as the attention shifts to the middle east. America continues to escalate its involvement, with a multitude reports of American regular soldiers admitting shelling California and claiming to be going to California. Obama believes that California is not a real country and that a good part of is actually "New America," which cannot be allowed to drift toward Mexico. However, in his shortsightedness, he fails to realize that had he not annexed Oregon and not launched a covert invasion of Ukraine through proxies, California would have almost certainly reverted back to USA as it has almost done every time. Instead, he has isolated the USA, but continues to blame Russia for all of his economic and political woes, and has practically guaranteed that California will never lean toward the USA for generations to come. As the crisis unfolds, America is becoming even more complicit in sending personnel from all over America, including Guam, Puerto Rico and other territories. The videos of the ARS and ARSF suggest that many of the fighters are American. Widespread reports of looting, robbing, and murder cause the civilian population that initially supported ARS/ARSF to second guess their decision, despite the American propaganda. Mass graves of civilians have been uncovered in previously ARS/ARSF territory suggesting that ARS/ARSF are complicit in executions and kidnappings. As the sanctions take a toll and Obama realizes he has nothing to lose, except his ego and his approval rating, and with the North California fighters losing ground, he decides to launch a full-scale invasion. The world leaders scream and yell, but are secretly glad that instability is stopped and ultimately accept Oregon and New America as being American territory, especially since they don't want to anger the supplier of their energy.

Edit: words.

[–]MarxnEnglesBelarus[S] 12 ポイント13 ポイント

Thanks.

I simplified it, yes, because I'm quite frankly tired of writing about the subject, explaining the cultural/ethnic differences, etc. Also because I didn't want to write a whole essay on the subject.

[–]rehtulx 1 ポイント2 ポイント

I'll admit, as an American, I did not know Crimea had been a part of Russia for so long (since 1783 apparently).

[–]DeifiedUnited States 3 ポイント4 ポイント

Oh yeah, I understand. I think this is probably the best way to convey the message anyway. One has to have a grasp on a simple concept before they can be opened up to more complexity.

[–]CatboyMac 0 ポイント1 ポイント

Yeah. I guess this is meant to see the Russian/Seperatist viewpoint? Because it leaves out the corrupt government head being ousted for repeatedly giving into [American] demands, or [America] ignoring a peace treaty to immediately move in and annex a chunk of the country when they see their national interests being threatened.

[–]lemurgirl 7 ポイント8 ポイント

I upvote this post. While it is oversimplified but I do believe it puts things in perspective for our non-Russian/non -Ukranian redditors. I truly hope for a meaningful discussion here and not just throwing insults at each other. Also, somebody here mentioned Texas as a better example, and I do agree with that. Thank you, for posting this.

[–]chewbacca81Pindostan 10 ポイント11 ポイント

You forgot the part where this Republic of California becomes so poor that neither USA nor Mexico would actually want it as part of their countries.

[–]mO4GV9eywMPMw3XrPoland 2 ポイント3 ポイント

Thanks for writing this, with Poland being partially in the Eastern and Western blocks, I like seeing efforts for mutual understanding.

[–]KistoulDonetsk People's Republic 4 ポイント5 ポイント

This... actually makes a ton of sense

[–]mousefire55Čechy 3 ポイント4 ポイント

Though clearly simplified, this is an excellent analogy for the conflict and an easy way to explain the conflict. D'you mind if I borrow this?

[–]AmericaTheHero1337United States 6 ポイント7 ポイント

In this scenario, we'd be illegally annexing Califronian land through force.

[–]BatyrsikRIDF 8 ポイント9 ポイント

Or simply securing parts of California from having their referendums suppressed by the pro-Mexicans. Specifically the parts of California that have been trying to rejoin USA since it separated.

[–]cbmuser 3 ポイント4 ポイント

The referendum in Crimea was illegal, no matter how you turn it. And with Putin having passed a law in 2013 that makes separatism in Russia punishable by the law and with all the blatant lies the Russia media is spreading about alleged facists killing civilians in Eastern Ukraine, this whole story is nothing but hypocrisy followed by ruthless acts of war.

The annexion of Crimea through force and the military support of the separatists will never be justifiable and Russia is already paying a high economic price for it.

I'm still shocked and surprised that there are still people who are falling for the stories of an alleged democracy movement initiated by the separatists and the Russian government.

[–]istinspringKamchatka Krai 0 ポイント1 ポイント

Wow. So strong claims. Have you ever been in Crimea, maybe you have relatives there?

[–]cbmuser -1 ポイント0 ポイント

Those are not claims, it's the truth. What do you think what would happen if Germany tried to annex Kaliningrad because it used to be German before the war. Do you think Russia wouldn't send troops to fight German separatists especially after Russia recently passed a law which made separatism illegal?

It absolutely doesn't matter whether Crimea used to be Russia or the minority of people living there is Russian, the territory is Ukraine. And when Russia blatantly starts disrespecting borders and international law, they have to live with the fact that most countries will condemn these actions and turn away from Russia.

Russia behaves like the evil imperialists that the communists in Soviet Russia always claimed to hate and fight.

[–]istinspringKamchatka Krai -1 ポイント0 ポイント

when someone says such kind of sentences my hand spontaneously take up the gun.

majority of people in Crimea are Russians or pro-Russia. Don't try to add ethnics in this it's shown your ignorance in subject pretty clear.

What do you think what would happen if Germany tried to annex Kaliningrad because it used to be German before the war. Do you think Russia wouldn't send troops to fight German separatists especially after Russia recently passed a law which made separatism illegal?

why not? it's not absolutely impossible thing. NATO and US would support it for sure.

[–]cbmuser 0 ポイント1 ポイント

If your answers to my arguments involve gun violence, you already lost the discussion!

Is that really all you have? Threatening to shoot me? That's really weak but it's in line with Russian policy. If you can't get what you want by diplomacy, you'll resort to violence, just as Russia did in Crimea.

Shame on you!

[–]istinspringKamchatka Krai -1 ポイント0 ポイント

It's a reference to quote.

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

"when I hear the word culture, I reach for my gun"

Feel the difference between educated Russians and people who understand everything straight moreover in black-white colors.

[–]BatyrsikRIDF 2 ポイント3 ポイント

The referendum in Crimea was illegal, no matter how you turn it.

Illegal by the standards of "Russia should be screwed over at every step." You'll have to excuse me if I don't consider those to be very applicable standards. Just remember, USA was just fine with illegal Kosovar separatism!

The annexion of Crimea through force

Nah, they voted.

Wait, is this your shtick? Say that we don't recognize the referendum therefore it was by force? Crimea voted to join Russia fair and square, and the only reason it's not recognized is because the USA's game plan doesn't exactly include fairness and democracy.

[–]AmericaTheHero1337United States 1 ポイント2 ポイント

"The United Nations General Assembly approved a resolution describing the Crimean referendum as illegal. One hundred countries voted in favour of approving a UN General Assembly resolution declaring the Crimean referendum illegal and affirming Ukraine's territorial integrity. Eleven nations voted against, with 58 abstentions."

Obviously America's doing

[–]LethargycUnited Kingdom -1 ポイント0 ポイント

[–]BatyrsikRIDF 4 ポイント5 ポイント

So democracy doesn't matter. I thought you were all about that stuff?

And while we're on that note, remember Kosovo? Nobody voted, the USA rolled in and said "Kosovo is independent. You don't like that? Fuck you, here's an airstrike." And now it hosts one of the largest American bases in Europe that they occasionally use as a smaller version of Gitmo.

[–]LethargycUnited Kingdom -4 ポイント-3 ポイント

So democracy doesn't matter. I thought you were all about that stuff?

And who do you think exactly believes you when you say that was a free, fair and open vote?

'Cus it doesn't appear to be anybody in this thread.

And while we're on that note, remember Kosovo? Nobody voted, the USA rolled in and said "Kosovo is independent. You don't like that? Fuck you, here's an airstrike." And now it hosts one of the largest American bases in Europe that they occasionally use as a smaller version of Gitmo.

You've ticked most of the boxes on the list, now tell me how Iraq excuses invading Crimea and stripping your citizens of their human rights. That should fill out your quota for tonight.

[–]BatyrsikRIDF 2 ポイント3 ポイント

It doesn't matter who believes it. The fact is... it happened, Crimeans voted to join Russia, and they're happy where they are. If you're pissed off - I don't give a shit :)

You've ticked most of the boxes on the list, now tell me how Iraq excuses invading Crimea and stripping your citizens of their human rights.

What, it's ok for the USA to invade countries, kill hundreds of thousands of civilians and deprive them of their human rights, but as soon as Russia accepts the Crimeans' vote we're bad guys who are violating human rights and "slaughtering fellow slavs?" Who exactly have we stripped of human rights?

And god forbid a Russian on reddit has a pro-Russian opinion. No, this can't be possible! There's no way anyone in the world can have a different opinion! Everyone who disagrees must be a Russian/Jewish/Ebola/lizard man shill! The funniest part is you come to help brigade the pro-Russian subreddit and you have the nerve to accuse people here of being shills... I can almost taste the irony.

Anyway, seek mental help and/or grow up, since you seem to be unable to handle dialogue without switching to personalities, insulting your opponent, and (I imagine) throwing temper tantrums. Cheeri-o!

[–]LethargycUnited Kingdom -3 ポイント-2 ポイント

It doesn't matter who believes it. The fact is... it happened, Crimeans voted to join Russia, and they're happy where they are.

Unfortunately for Russia it does matter who believes it. What it's temporarily gained in land (which it still hasn't properly invested in, produced a replacement water-supply for, or produced those umpteen-million tourists-per-month that Putin promised this summer) it's lost in political and diplomatic capital. The sanctions will grow and grow and the circle of friends shrink and shrink.

And that will continue. End of story.

If you're pissed off - I don't give a shit :)

Oh dear, I'm terribly frightened.

What, it's ok for the USA to invade countries, kill hundreds of thousands of civilians and deprive them of their human rights, but as soon as Russia accepts the Crimeans' vote we're bad guys who are violating human rights and "slaughtering fellow slavs?" Who exactly have we stripped of human rights?

Now you see, when you attempt to craft these strawmen for yourself you also admit that you've given up on reasoned debate as a defense. In this particular instance you've also accepted that Russia illegally invaded Crimea, so in future I'd advise that if you can't engage in reasoned debate on a point, either concede it gracefully or simply move on.

And god forbid a Russian on reddit has a pro-Russian opinion. No, this can't be possible! There's no way anyone in the world can have a different opinion! Everyone who disagrees must be a Russian/Jewish/Ebola/lizard man shill! The funniest part is you come to help brigade the pro-Russian subreddit and you have the nerve to accuse people here of being shills... I can almost taste the irony.

You are allowed your opinions, I am allowed mine, everyone in this thread is allowed their own. The only one complaining about the opinions of others is you.

As a side note I am getting rather tired of reading pro-Russian posters try to make Russia out as the victim in all this because of their immense negative political capital. That is to be expected for their actions. The same thing happened to the US when they invaded Iraq, the difference being there was more opposition in America to Bush then, than there is in Russia to Putin now.

People notice these things, and they are right to remark upon them. Man up and accept it.

Anyway, seek mental help and/or grow up, since you seem to be unable to handle dialogue without switching to personalities, insulting your opponent, and (I imagine) throwing temper tantrums. Cheeri-o!

Oh gracious.

[–]BatyrsikRIDF 3 ポイント4 ポイント

Unfortunately for Russia it does matter who believes it.

Yep, and both China and India think it's ok. Quite frankly, the West hasn't done anything good for us in the past hundred years or so. There's no reason we should bend over and take yet another beating. You haven't been friends to us since the 90s.

The sanctions will grow and grow and the circle of friends shrink and shrink.

Not really. Crimea actually resulted in a 13% opinion increase in China.

Now you see, when you attempt to craft these strawmen for yourself you also admit that you've given up on reasoned debate as a defense. In this particular instance you've also accepted that Russia illegally invaded Crimea, so in future I'd advise that if you can't engage in reasoned debate on a point, either concede it gracefully or simply move on.

Oh man, we have ourselves a master debater here. What's the matter, dearie? Trying to avoid the argument? Russia is always the bad guys? When we do it it's ok because [reasons]?

Why does the USA even get to say anything about this, seeing as they've just waltzed into the country and forcibly separated it? Crimea had an actual referendum, backed up by opinion polls. Recognition is just that - a formality. If you're saying that just because the Crimeans voted to separate they shouldn't get to - well, then you're not really supporting democracy, are you? You're supporting the "It's only OK when the USA says it's OK" version of it.

You are allowed your opinions, I am allowed mine, everyone in this thread is allowed their own. The only one complaining about the opinions of others is you.

Yet not 2 hours ago you were calling me a "Mr. No-Opinion Shill" and other names. How quickly opinions change. There might be hope for you yet!

Oh gracious.

You did sound like you were a 15-year old with severe paranoia. The superiority complex, tendency to go to insults instead of arguments and accusations of everyone being a Russian shill didn't exactly help.

[–]istinspringKamchatka Krai -4 ポイント-3 ポイント

Westerns are so brainwashed, exactly same as strongly-pro-kremlin-in-everything on russian social networks. Vast majority don't know shit about and just repeat same stamps and generalisations they heard from media.

No one is more of a slave than he who thinks himself free without being so.

JOHANN WOLFGANG VON GOETHE, The Maxims and Reflections of Goethe

[–]istinspringKamchatka Krai -2 ポイント-1 ポイント

Let me guess, you heard about "it was not free, fair and open" from Ukrainians?

http://pewglobal.org/2014/05/08/despite-concerns-about-governance-ukrainians-want-to-remain-one-country/

here is report from independent source.

#crimeaisours deal with it.

http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/052/812/Deal_with_it_dog_gif.gif

[–]lemurgirl 0 ポイント1 ポイント

Вот кстати да!

[–]cbmuser -3 ポイント-2 ポイント

Answer on simple question? Has the annexion of Crimea been recognized by the United Nations? If not, maybe try to think about why!

[–]BatyrsikRIDF 5 ポイント6 ポイント

Because the majority of Western nations have their foreign policy dictated by the US. The fact that Kosovo was recognized but Crimea wasn't should tell you something.

[–]AmericaTheHero1337United States -1 ポイント0 ポイント

So the best way to make sure the people are secure is to send in heavily armed guards, deny the very existence of those guards, and then annex the territory they were previously occupying?

[–]JCAPS766United States. 0 ポイント1 ポイント

No, you cannot simply do away with Crimea because it is fundamental to what has happened. Russia invaded and annexed part of another country and legitimised their actions with a farce of a democratic process.

This did poorly in /r/UkrainianConflict because it is bald-faced apologism for anschluss, war-mongering, and Russian imperialism. The US spent four years being wisely accommodating and respectful of the Kremlin's security concerns concerns, only for Vladimir Putin to turn to the West as a bogeyman in cover for his inability to sustain Russia's rise to prosperity and re-shape the country's utterly bankrupt and hollow culture of governance.

There was a time for understanding of the Russian perspective. I embraced it years ago. Vladimir Putin has blown that chance almost as much as he blew up Grozny in his campaign of nigh-genocidal slaughter. If there's a time for reconciliation between the US and Russia, it will only be when Vladimir Vladimirovich is gone from the Kremlin.

[–]mymra -1 ポイント0 ポイント

You don't want to understand the Russian perspective, fair enough, that's up to you. What you have to understand is that this is how this conflict is perceived by a great many people in the Eastern Ukraine and I'm talking the ordinary citizens who live in Eastern Ukraine. This is not a universal point of view there, but a great deal of people do support it. Personally I'd say the majority in Donbas and a big part of the people in the rest of the region. You can have long talks about Russian imperialism, you can condemn it, that's all fine, but don't overlook all those people in Eastern Ukraine.

You can't just screw over Eastern Ukraine just because you see Ukrainian national interests suffering form Russian interests. Think about how Eastern Ukrainians (mostly people from Donbas) see this situation.

I'm from a big city in Eastern Ukraine originally and live in the Netherlands now, never lived in Russia proper.

[–]cbmuser 1 ポイント2 ポイント

Well said, I agree. Add to that that Putin made separatists movements in Russia punishable by law meaning that all Russians cheering for the separatists are blatant hypocrites.

Russia's government would right out bomb everyone into hell who would be starting a separatist movement in Russia.

[–]feels_good_man 0 ポイント1 ポイント

There also needs to be a parallel with WWII and the earlier interwar period. History is really complicated: a lot of Galicians still carry the historical burden of Soviet occupation in their minds. Holodomor (whether you believe that it happened or not) plays a large role in the minds of the people there.

Rather than the Southern californians saying that they are "Mexican" (which I guess would be more like Poland?) it might be more accurate to say, they want to be part of Latin/Central America, not North America with a distinctly Californian identity.

Also, the corrupt leader who was ousted had very strong ties to the USA and DC, so his corruption is considered emblematic of everything that is wrong with the USA.

I appreciate what you did here, for true fairness we need someone on the other side of the issue (perhaps in r/ukraine) post a similar analogy. In the end though, it's really hard to get people who don't have a thousand years of history (read: Americans) to understand the mindset of those who do (read: everyone else in the world).

[–]jeanduluoz -1 ポイント0 ポイント

This isn't a great example. There's a common american joke - because california is seismically active, we joke that we wish california would just break off and sink into the ocean for being such a shitty state.

Edit: Mexican and American culture also aren't related. Russia is to the Ukraine as USA is to Canada. This is just a stupid comparison, Mexican culture is spanish.

[–]MarxnEnglesBelarus[S] 5 ポイント6 ポイント

See this is what I'm trying to get across, Russia is NOT to the Ukraine what the USA is to Canada, they are MUCH closer, which is why I used California as the analogy.

[–]cbmuser -3 ポイント-2 ポイント

You didn't read the news, did you? People in Eastern Ukraine start to turn away from Russia after it turned out how Russia has been lying about alleged facists killing civilians in Eastern Ukraine all the time.

Why on earth are you ignoring that? There is and never was a democracy movement, it's an act of war all built up on a house of lies.

Putin knows that and therefore he isn't fully stepping in t the help the separatists. Ukrainian army is gaining back more land in Eastern Ukraine and the last negotiations between the involved parties was actually held in Belarus where the separatists didn't even make any demands anymore. Everyone at the table already knows the separatists will surrender soon, it's just a matter of time.

[–]afranius 6 ポイント7 ポイント

I live in California, I'm from Russia, and I have relatives in Ukraine, so I feel like I'm reasonably well positioned to comment on this.

I think it's a great comparison. American and Mexican cultures aren't really all that different in the grand scheme of things, especially in the southwest, no matter how much certain Americans may hate anything Mexican. There are massive chunks of what is today regarded as "American" culture that was borrowed wholesale from Mexico, including most "quintessentially American" ideas about the western frontier.

And the only Americans who joke about California breaking off without a huge whiff of irony are redneck hicks.

[–]Douchebag_Alphamale 2 ポイント3 ポイント

California is one of the best states in the US by just about any metric. Don't really know what you're talking about if you say otherwise.