Ukraine.... your predictions?

  1. Generally speaking, the fewer independent states there are in the world, the better.

  2. The nationalist theory is that every ethnocultural nation should have its own state – and only one, united state – encompassing all territory inhabited by people of that nation. East and West Ukrainians have their differences, but not enough to make them two distinguishable nations.

“Comrades, the peaceful nation of Russia has today sent its security forces into eastern Ukraine, to protect the independent peace-loving inhabitants from the counter-revolutionary hooligans who have been goaded on by the West to usurp the rights of the people. This is only a temporary measure [del]until we get our stooges back into power[/del] until a true people’s government can be elected.”

if only we could convince all those silly people out there who want one.

Uh, why?

I have to disagree. Russian speaking (Eastern) Ukrainians are culturally different from the native speaking (Western) Ukrainians. Both are slavic languages but they don’t see themselves (or each other) as having a common cultural background. I have a feeling the two sides will draw national lines.

The split isn’t neatly by language. Due to “Russification” policies under the Soviets, many who self-identify as ethnic Ukrainians speak Russian and not Ukrainian. While Eastern Ukraine has a greater proportion of both Ethnic Russians and monolinual Russian-speakers, the two are not necessarily the same.

For example, the recently-unjailed Ukrainian leader Yulia Tymoshenko - former Prime Minister and very much an “ethnic Ukrainian” - spoke only Russian growing up-she only later spoke Ukranian-allegedly, not until she was 36.

Cite: Yulia Tymoshenko - Wikipedia

True. More ethnic Ukrainians speak fluent Russian, than the other way around. It was required under Soviet control. But they never forgot that they were ethnically Ukrainian and most have returned to their ethnic roots in the years since.

More states = more possible international conflicts.

I know. Civil wars are much more palatable.

Some people seem to think a one world government is what we should all aspire to. Star Trek fans, mostly.

Wrong. The Muslim population is more like 500k in a country with about 48Mil people.

And T.H. White.

The Once and Future King

How silly of me to think the philosophy was based on Star Trek rather than Merlin the Magician.

Well, another aspect of the problem here is that the EU are actually quite ambivalent about whether they want Ukraine to join.

Why wouldn’t a world government be a reasonable goal in the long-term?

Rather, T.H. White versus Gene Roddenberry, which is a bit more of a contrast.

Why would it? Do you imagine an end to war? I think that’s cart before the horse.

Are you aware that Senator McCain and whatever Democrat he can find to go on these meddling junkets of his are not official US policy. McCain has no official authority to speak for the United States. I consider McCain to be a more a threat national
security and sane diplomacy because he had outlived any usefulness in that regard. I I believe teetering on the brink of senility and so full of bitterness for having lost to Obama. He is living way to far in the past.

You should erase the impression that McCain represents the USA on much of anything outside our borders.

Depends on how it is run. Would you be happy in a world ruled by a guy like Putin?

Also, aside from obvious concerns such as that, there is an advantage in having a diversity of political and economic approaches. We haven’t, as a species, worked out the best way of governing ourselves yet (though respect for rule of law, human rights, and the will of the governed seems pretty universal aspects of success). Having a diversity allows for a multiplicity of experiments along those lines.

The drawback of diversity is the potential for conflict. Rather than a world-government, perhaps it would be better to allow for any number of states, but with an alliance of those nations committed to respect for the rule of law, human rights, and the will of the governed, strong enough to deter aggression.

One world government is a fine ideal, but its constituent parts have to come together willingly. Before we get there, we need to undo (as much as possible) centuries of conquest and coercive annexation, which means in the short term it’s best to have *as many *countries as possible.s as possible.

The European Union shows the problems in trying to bring a large number of countries under the same framework of governance. What’s good for Germany today is not good for Spain, the interests of Sweden are very different from the interests of the UK.

Now, the EU is a relatively weak institution in an affluent region with small cultural differences. Try instituting a powerful government in a planet with huge economic and cultural variations, and you have a recipe for disaster.

How did we get from Ukraine to this, by the way?