cont

If you somehow actually manage to see it so extra-naive-simplifying way - well, you surely could do better after youll do some research work on a subject. And no, surely not everything there is "dark magic", but if youll concentrate on the stuff you started to initially deny - "invasion" (e.g. moving of personnel and armor through artificial border), you have to go to conclusion what it is in that narrow case. Or, worse, what "artificial construct" Russia is so artificial, so it cannot handle and control own military, so local commanders or simply random people can move anything military they have in theyr disposal anywhere they want, and use it anyway they feel to. And central government unable\dont want\dont care to control them. In this case it lead to a way more urgent situation, as you probably should see.
Again, where have I defended anything Russia is doing or has been accused of doing? It's not even the point I was making. It's simply that nations exist for a reason, because they share a common identity, culture, language or whatnot, they have real national unity and it would be nigh impossible to make them start killing each other without a very good reason. If the idea of nationality means nothing and is just some lines on a map, well you shouldn't surprised when it doesn't work in reality.
You're not defended them (hm, ok), you denied some statement, then came with another one, what should be used instead, despite the facts, then started to discuss some distant global ideas about "artifitial, real, etc". Up to surreal idea of "nations, what have a reason, because they share something", some new word in social sciences for sure. France have a nation, right? French one. What is reason of French nation? French nation in 9, 13, 17, 20 centuries share a "common identity, culture, language or whatnot". Or they are different nations? What French nation is closer to French_Nation_Reason, from 13 century, what is closer to some modern Africa states than to modern one, or modern one, what looks much more America, than old-school (say Loui's ) France? But stop, how come it deny some certain invasion, oh?

"but the idea that they can just make people go out of their homes, get guns and start fighting and risking their lives". No, idea there was slightly different. You come with a mobile group, neutralize possible opposition, and then deliver the guns to ones, who will decide to join your cause. If you send mobile groups from abroad - it makes rather a difference there.
Again, you use big phrases but you still can't explain to me why a person is going to go out and fight and possibly die if they don't have a good reason for doing so. Do Russians have mind-control rays now?
Err, you want me to describe you a whole aspect of human behavior in few lines? People wrote a papers on it, and send them to journals usually, not to forums. In short people can do it for illusions, money, theyr life, to have a fun from, ideals etc. But stop, it cant be news for you, right? I described there the actual way of infiltration on some certain land spot in some certain land, its not an universal way. But we're here about certain case, again.

If you went to mind experiment, lets continue that. Suppose what you, and your neighbors indeed was able to resist a luring opportunity, but 3 families of Polish emigrees next street - not. Moreother, what some drug smugglers also picked them, and joined Poles-next-street cause. Assuming PAF involvement stated here from start, question here is - would you call it Australian civil war, in case of some clashes to go, especially if theyll be able to take an airfield in some initial confusion, so PAF planes can land there with volunteer troops and cargo?
This is the stupidest thing I've heard all day.
Then you should'nt try to go into mind experiments yet. Simply not your.

I don't think that anybody who does not live in Europe can understand how it is here regarding different national minorities and you made good examples with above countries. If anything above from Crosmando were true then every region or local area would be each own state. For example my country has Hungarian and Italian minorities and they could announce their anschluss to each own native country. Also Hungary and Italy both have slovenian minorities which could also decide to go to Slovenia when they wanted to if any of that were true. Its not possible to make a border based on language or any other above discribed criteria that's what all the WWI and WWII were about.

Well, to be fair, in the context of the Third Reich this logic only applied to the annexation of Austria and the occupation of the Netherlands. The whole Lebensraum im Osten thing, however, was about claiming the lands while exterminating or Germanizing the inhabitants. Not quite the same thing.

Well partly it was yes but war always come around if minorities wan't to make their own state or wan't to become part of the minorities language native country in this case Russia (speaking about today's Ukraine). Also it was not only Austria and Netherlands you forgot german East Prussia which is Russia today and might be something else in the future again since it seems to change landlords constantly. And not to forget the Sudets with a large german minority in Slovakia at that time. But yes the main thing later was push against the east after that (Drang nach Osten). Every war is usually justified by an excuse that some minorities are being unjustly treated.

Indeed.

Compare like with like. The newest of those countries is Belgium, and it's close to two centuries old. Next oldest is what, just under 500 years? As opposed to Ukraine which is just over twenty years and had its borders tinkered with for purely political reasons by Krushchev and Stalin- or Lebanon and Syria or Iraq which are to practical purposes about 70 years old and had their border's drawn by Sykes-Picot solely with the purpose of defining spheres of influence for Britain and France. It is most definitely telling that the most artificial and recent of those countries you listed is also the one under greatest threat of actually breaking up due to its rather artificial nature, Norway split out of its union with Sweden and even Scotland and England which have been practically united for 4 centuries and legally so for three, have a proposed split too. Then there's Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia etc etc.

You may not like the implications of the argument but he's certainly correct, countries ultimately require the consent of those living within in them to be legitimate. Even non arbitrarily drawn borders aren't sacrosanct, there's certainly no intrinsic reason for arbitrary ones to be.

What you were arguing about here is very Interesting but has only secondary importance to the Ukraine.. Soviet Union was master in arbitrary drawn borders to disturb and split populations into different countries so that they would never have the ability to rebel. When the SU fell apart so did the entire construction of it's unstable nations borders. The various eastern wars and splits (especially North Caucasus, but also Bosnia) were based on this.

This is however not what happened here. Normally when various very different regions are part of 1 nation you make the governance system one of federal states, so that the governing state has only specific rights in those regions, military and taxes are however one of those. So when the Russians attacked Ukrainian military bases in the Crimea they triggered this problem we have now in the Ukraine.

However when 2 different population groups lived long together in peace only a very small minority will usually want independence, and the only reason this is a full blown war is because Russia is supplying arms and training, and likely personal too...

And when you look at European nations I find it hilarious to read we Germans are 1 nation. Germany is 16 nations. And when you look at history it's a wonder the Holy Roman Empire and Prussia ever even worked. These 16 nations that Germany is based on since 1990 lead WARS and enormous conflicts against with and about each other in old history. That's what the Russians didn't understand back before the fall of the wall. Germany is not 1 nation. Heck, even Bavaria (1 state within the state now) was 2 kingdoms during HRE times.

Point is. Europe is based largely on federal states exactly because there isn't 1 group of people anywhere. Ukraine wants to do federal state too, but the REBELS refused.

To underline your point:
I refuse to see Bavaria and Baden-Württemberg as part of the same country and so do many others in the north.
I'd never wage war against them though, too much better stuff to do...have to defeat my backlog instead and GoG doesn't stop throwing deals at me. :P
Ba-Wü is invading Berlin for years heavily though in a very nasty way.

Yeah, this is something non Germans rarely if ever understand ;) I think for most Germans Bavaria is about as much part of Germany as Austria is. (Funny historical link there too)

I think the borders are slowly blurring though, except when it comes to Bavaria.

Ps.: You can invade them too ;P

O.o
You got this situation in completely wrong way. Rebellion is for federalisation, because they are the main source of income for Ukraine, but never see the money.

Well, of course... I've been to Bavaria once, after all ;P You probably find that hilarious, but Poland at the German border is MORE German than Bavaria is. That's how alien that federal state is to MANY Germans. ;) And yes, including a language barrier, Bavarian language isn't German.

Federalization does not work like that ;) If you take up arms against the majority of a nation you are not fighting for unification, you are fighting for secession. Federal states are unified under 1 nation with more or less own laws in certain areas, however this EXCLUDES -MILITARY- and -POLICE- as well as the -LEGAL SYSTEM- and all federal states need to agree on the terms too. The rebels refused this process (or why else are they still shooting?).

By your argumentation logic the Ukraine government is the one in the right too. Because only a central government can institute federal states. (not legally but practically)

I'm German, so I know. I also often humorously say that Bavaria isn't Germany. Still, admittedly I don't have enough knowledge of Bavaria's history or culture to discuss this topic properly, so I'll leave it at that. :P

I understand about the same amount of Bavarian as I understand Polish: Near to nothing, but technically you are still in Prussia and still many people there are able to speak understandable German which can not be said about the Bavarian countryside.

I was at a party of my old German community once. People from all corners of Germany were present and there was one Bavarian (from the deep countryside, ergo hardcore). Online everybody liked him and communicated a lot with him but in real life no-one, literally NO-ONE understood a word from him and he was extremely secluded.

It's always strange to see Bavarians as a stereotype for Germans in older movies and series (like the Simpsons), but what is there to be surprised about when some people still think Arnold Schwarzenegger is German although he is Austrian.

The last war between and [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bavaria]Bavaria was happening a long time ago though, I imagine.

If you're still saying that these 2 regions of the country are the main source of income, then you have absolutely no idea about which regions of Ukraine are actually able to sustain themselves. This myth could barely hold under soviets, not to mention modern times.
A popular and never getting old tactic of Russia - instigate a so-called "rebellion" and come to "rescue" and "support" with weaponry and mercenaries. Or the more simple and straightforward way - shell your own side and point at the other party. Go look up russian-finnish war for a change. Nothing changed in Russia after all these decades and centuries.