Guest speaker Yana Gorokhovskaia’s talk was incredibly informative and has inspired me to write about the Ukraine crisis and the Russian relationship with the West in particular. Having always had a generally ‘Western’ viewpoint on the matter (pro-Ukraine and EU integration, anti-Russian aggression), Yana’s insights as well as the article by John J Mearsheimer have provoked me to pursue the other side of the story. It will be an interesting exercise on seeing a different perspective on something about which I’ve had a relatively solid opinion. In this post, I will argue in favour of Russia and their actions regarding Ukraine and their foreign policy. Geopolitical issues are often very complicated and difficult to resolve, and Russia-Ukraine is no exception to this. The fact that there are many active pro-Kremlin Ukrainians coupled with the sizable population of ethnic Russians living in Ukraine and support joining Russia shows that there really is a desire for at least some reform to occur. If it is at all possible, large regions of pro-Russian Ukraine should somehow be annexed or allowed to maintain alignment. The offensive into Ukraine has been said to be at the aid of Russians who legitimately called out for help, so there is some cause to believe that Putin is genuinely reaching out to people who depend on this. Mearsheimer used the analogy that if China formed strategic alliances with Canada and Mexico, the US would possibly act in a similar, if not even more belligerent, manner as Russia did. There is historic precedence in the reason why Russian is acting to powerfully maintain their territory, and I believe that the international community needs to be more sensitive to this reality. It can be argued that the link between Russian and the West has not necessarily been resolved; not in the way, comparatively, that German WWII attitudes have all but disappeared and international relationships are stronger than ever. If NATO and EU were to pursue anything forcefully, it would be to try to resolve, repair, and renew their relationship with Russia. Maybe then there could be a fresh start for new policy and foreign affairs discourse between two parties that are more level with each other. It is always important to try to see the two sides of a story, regardless of whether or not you believe it. And though I am not convinced that such aggressive military action is necessary, these are the reasons why Russia’s actions should be tolerated and understood.

Yesterday’s much-anticipated Scottish referendum on independence has come to a close, and the No side has won. But it has certainly not yielded definitive answers. In fact, many questions and points of contention have come to the forefront, and mark the beginning of new terrain for Scottish politics.

There was only one question on the ballot for Scots who, as early as 16, were to vote on whether or not Scotland should be an independent country. The referendum came to fruition when the Scottish National Party won a majority in the last Scottish election and sought to pose this question to the electorate. The results were, of a very high 84.6% turnout, 55.3% voting No and 44.7% voting Yes.

David Cameron has since introduced a new devolution plan for Westminster to transfer more sovereignty to Scotland. As the current distribution of power has Scotland already holding a fair amount, this could mean an almost-working definition of Scottish independence.  Subject to the magnitude (or lack thereof) of Cameron’s upcoming policy, there could be some change in Scotland’s favour, irrespective of a No vote.

42% of a very high voter turnout choosing in favour of Scottish independence is not something to ignore. It shows that a considerable amount of people, at the very least, believe that there are benefits to being a sovereign state, and at most have deep seated qualms about how the current state of government is working.

As Canadians, we shared a similar experience with the 1995 Quebec referendum. There is, was, and will always be a current of nationalism in Quebec, as well as Scotland, because of the intrinsic differences they have with Canada and England, respectively. The presences of cultural, lingual, and historical traditions that perpetually clash or misalign are an inevitable cause for future dispute.

However, the length in which both entities (Canada and the United Kingdom) have been in existence show that, in one way or another and in varying degrees over time, it is possible for such coexistence to occur. But the fact remains that Scotland has a long road ahead of them in order to achieve the independence they desire.

Welcome to UBC Blogs. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!