Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Peroxidation)
    What Russian threat?

    The Kremlin has repeatedly said that we're not dealing with soviets anymore, we're dealing with Russians and that they have no interest in expansion. I know you'll then leap onto the subject of the Crimea, but from Russia's point of view that wasn't an annexation at all. 90% of Ukrainians are ethnically Russian and Russia takes it's duty to protect it's people very seriously. During the Ukrainian civil war, you had the EU supported rebels who made up that remaining 10% and the Russians who made up that 90%. Russia went in to try and stabilize the region in an attempt to protect that 90%, while the EU were supporting that 10% and forcing back Russia. They ended up successfully toppling the Ukrainian government ME style and prevented the Russian peace measures from going any further than the Crimea. The people of the Crimea then voted for independence from Ukraine and became the Republic of Crimea. They then opted to re-join the Russian Federation. That's not quite the same as the West's story of Russia conquering the Crimea.
    Just under 20% of Ukraine's population are ethnic Russians actually. Not sure where you're getting 90% from.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alcibiade)
    As an American, I believe that my country has wallowed in a sense that we are unique, in particular because of our "founding principles". We think that our ideas are better, less self-interested than those from others, and worthy of emulation by everyone. A lot of this was heightened by the strange religious movements (evangelicalism) that grew in large part because of our isolation and lack of involvement in the world in the 19C - God had ordained it, and our growing industrial power proved our righteousness. It is largely nonsense, of course, but not entirely - to a large extent, we were a force for the good in the 20C. When we erred, as we did in Vietnam and Iraq, the failure and catastrophe were as out of proportion as our conception of ourselves and our destiny.

    Unfortunately, it is natural for Americans to imagine that we can go forward on our own way and that we have a right to impose our ideas on others, all the while seriously underestimating the costs. Trump represents an extreme and wholly ignorant version of all this. He sees no nuance, knows little history, and thinks in terms of zero-sum real estate deals - there is no room for ambiguity or goals that do not equate with profit, i.e. he has no understanding of diplomacy or outcomes that are not clear "winners".

    If he is elected, it will only hasten America's decline, which is relative to the other powers that are necessarily rising with their own industrializations. I am deeply ashamed of him and fear the consequences in the (still unlikely) event of his election.
    If you can read the Declaration Of Independence and not see it as a unique document your an idiot. Especially considering when it was written.
    The document is more than a declaration; it's also a mission statement of our goals and the Constitution that follows lays out as perfect a list of freedoms,(or rights), as the founders could come up with to help us achieve the goals set for us in the Declaration Of Independence.
    Thats why Americans should NEVER give up ANY of those rights; especially for a little security. It's just not worth the risk.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Globalism is Americanism. It is an American idea that has been imposed on Europe by military force.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by oldercon1953)
    If you can read the Declaration Of Independence and not see it as a unique document your an idiot. Especially considering when it was written.
    The document is more than a declaration; it's also a mission statement of our goals and the Constitution that follows lays out as perfect a list of freedoms,(or rights), as the founders could come up with to help us achieve the goals set for us in the Declaration Of Independence.
    Thats why Americans should NEVER give up ANY of those rights; especially for a little security. It's just not worth the risk.
    Yeah, but it's derivative French Enlightenment rhetoric. It is certainly eloquent. What I can't get past is Jefferson's essential hypocrisies. I wish we could have a difference of opinion without resorting to personal insults.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alcibiade)
    Yeah, but it's derivative French Enlightenment rhetoric. It is certainly eloquent. What I can't get past is Jefferson's essential hypocrisies. I wish we could have a difference of opinion without resorting to personal insults.
    My apologies. The word idiot was used as a generality and not a personal attack.

    Your 1st. sentence; It would have been difficult for the rhetoric to have been wholly American. There was no America and the ideas behind the Declaration were founded mostly in the French Enlightenment. I don't see a problem.

    Your 2nd. sentence; Considering what the Declaration did, which was in essence,
    to compare what many could view as a Utopian world with the actions and beliefs of men who were a part of the real world. It would have been difficult for anyone to undergo a comparison like that and come through unscathed. I think Jefferson saw these " essential hypocrisies " but realized the Revolution wasn't about him.
    These contradictions would have stopped another man from following through.
    I admit I am wholly biased.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    Globalism is Americanism. It is an American idea that has been imposed on Europe by military force.
    Maybe it was imposed on the U.S. by a Europe whose socialist economies didn't and still don't afford it's citizens an acceptable standard of living and an adequate defense.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)

    The day that the west at large no longer sees itself as the defenders of the free world is a day that most people should weep at.
    Ignoring when the defenders of the free world help orchestrate a couq against your democratically elected government.
    • Community Assistant
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    Ignoring when the defenders of the free world help orchestrate a couq against your democratically elected government.
    Western expansion is in our self interest and most instances took place in the Cold War which is something you conveniently put aside.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by oldercon1953)
    Maybe it was imposed on the U.S. by a Europe whose socialist economies didn't and still don't afford it's citizens an acceptable standard of living and an adequate defense.
    How could a continent that "didn't and doesn't afford... an adequate defence" militarily impose a philosophy on the world's most powerful country?

    In 1939 the US was the most socialistic democracy. The socialism of the European continent is the socialism of the US power elite circa 1933-1945.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    How could a continent that "didn't and doesn't afford... an adequate defence" militarily impose a philosophy on the world's most powerful country?

    In 1939 the US was the most socialistic democracy. The socialism of the European continent is the socialism of the US power elite circa 1933-1945.
    It wasn't imposed on us militarily.

    The Marshall Plan was expensive so we were simply protecting our investment. We were certain Europe wouldn't. Europe failed to maintain an adequate standing army, even while Germany re-armed. I realize the world was sick of war but that wasn't enough to stop an aggressor nation than and it's not enough now and Europe is still not paying it's fatr share.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by oldercon1953)
    It wasn't imposed on us militarily.

    The Marshall Plan was expensive so we were simply protecting our investment. We were certain Europe wouldn't. Europe failed to maintain an adequate standing army, even while Germany re-armed. I realize the world was sick of war but that wasn't enough to stop an aggressor nation than and it's not enough now and Europe is still not paying it's fatr share.
    Your position is incoherent. You began by saying that Europe imposed globalism on the US (which makes no sense) and are now defending American occupation of Europe, something I never opposed and which is beside the point.

    I have said that the American occupation of Europe is what has led to globalism in Europe. The least globalist countries in Europe (former Warsaw Pact, followed by Britain) are simply the ones with the most historic independence from America. "European" globalism is American state ideology circa 1945.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    If Americanism were in any way American, the American elite wouldn't be going crazy with hostility to Trump.

    Americanism is old Toryism. It is as much American as Empire Loyalism is British.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    Your position is incoherent. You began by saying that Europe imposed globalism on the US (which makes no sense) and are now defending American occupation of Europe, something I never opposed and which is beside the point.

    I have said that the American occupation of Europe is what has led to globalism in Europe. The least globalist countries in Europe (former Warsaw Pact, followed by Britain) are simply the ones with the most historic independence from America. "European" globalism is American state ideology circa 1945.
    "... American occupation of Europe..." Who told you we occupied Europe? Are you suggesting the Marshall Plan was a form of occupation? After WWll we left. We did occupy Japan. I hope you see the difference .

    You are claiming something the U.S. did in Europe in 1945 mirrors what is happening in Europe today; something I say never happened.

    I think we have different definitions for some key words. What so you mean by " globalization or globalism and " occupation
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    If Americanism were in any way American, the American elite wouldn't be going crazy with hostility to Trump.

    Americanism is old Toryism. It is as much American as Empire Loyalism is British.
    You shouldn't drink on a week night. Bad habit.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    The US does this already. It's foreign policy today and throughout history has been based on securing American interests across the globe. For the most part this has coincided with global interests too. The issue is that some Americans do not see or know what those interests are. They see a carrier fleet in the gulf and see it as Americans protecting foreigners, not the US ensuring the free flow of oil to secure it's economic well being and that of its trade partners.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    This post is amazing.
    If I'm reading it right, your butt-hurt because America isn't in the gulf just to secure the free flow of oil for our trade partners but also to protect our own interests. And, because our motives aren't pure like the calvary galloping into the fray without a thought for their own safety, their sole purpose being the defense of the wagon train, the act of lending aid becomes a selfish self serving act. Then, your even more butt-hurt because the deluded Americans can't see it for what it really is and then what, despise our evil Gov. as much as you do?
    • Community Assistant
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by Observatory)
    Your position is incoherent. You began by saying that Europe imposed globalism on the US (which makes no sense) and are now defending American occupation of Europe, something I never opposed and which is beside the point.

    I have said that the American occupation of Europe is what has led to globalism in Europe. The least globalist countries in Europe (former Warsaw Pact, followed by Britain) are simply the ones with the most historic independence from America. "European" globalism is American state ideology circa 1945.
    I'm not sure that i consider Britain nor the eastern block to be among the least globalist countries (only in immigration really). Can you elaborate on why you think that the UK is less globalist than Germany or France for example.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RF_PineMarten)
    Just under 20% of Ukraine's population are ethnic Russians actually. Not sure where you're getting 90% from.
    Depends how you count it, but an actually analysis of the stats demonstrates how hair-splitting it is. Only 17% say they are ethnic Russians, but 30% claim that Russian is their native language, and 30% say they follow the Moscow rather than the Kiev Patriarchate of the Orthodox Church (nearly 15% claim adherence to the Greek Orthodox Church as well).

    A particularly interesting case study in language in Kiev. When asked what their native language is, over 70% say Ukrainian. When asked what they speak most on a daily basis (even at home), however, just over 50% say Russian. In reality, what this essentially reveals is the dialectical continuums between the two languages - what many if not most of them are actually speaking is known as 'Surzhyk' - a range of dialects mixing the two to various degrees.
    • Community Assistant
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    Depends how you count it, but an actually analysis of the stats demonstrates how hair-splitting it is. Only 17% say they are ethnic Russians, but 30% claim that Russian is their native language, and 30% say they follow the Moscow rather than the Kiev Patriarchate of the Orthodox Church (nearly 15% claim adherence to the Greek Orthodox Church as well).

    A particularly interesting case study in language in Kiev. When asked what their native language is, over 70% say Ukrainian. When asked what they speak most on a daily basis (even at home), however, just over 50% say Russian. In reality, what this essentially reveals is the dialectical continuums between the two languages - what many if not most of them are actually speaking is known as 'Surzhyk' - a range of dialects mixing the two to various degrees.
    The thing that really matters is whether a majority of the population want unification with the EU rather than Europe.

    While Russia has got those eastern regions that rebelled, it seems that the west has won most of Ukraine.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: July 27, 2016
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.