Ukraine has become a dictatorship, it's official

[Estro Felino]

An observation of loyalty to the cause.

The cause =
to conquer Russia and to seize all its resources... raw materials worth...
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

 

[Stevicus]

This is a very weird way of defining "invading countries and annexing territories".

Any reasonable human being would call that imperialism.

Incidentally, Hitler didn't desire world conquest either. He just wanted to create a central European "buffer zone" to protect his "volk". Perfectly analogous.

That was referring to situations where other countries were the aggressors and Russia was defending itself. Both Napoleon and Hitler were the instigators of hostilities and clearly wanted to build their own empires. Russia was merely defending itself.

As I wrote in the same post, "I'm not saying that it's morally right, but, in and of itself, it can't be used as evidence of any intrinsic desire to form an empire or take over a world." Any reasonable human being should be able to understand this.

 

[Stevicus]

Don't you mean "the U.S/NATO buffer zone"?

Well, yes, U.S. leaders might justify it that way. They often used a different set of terms, such as "containment," "leader of the free world," and "making the world safe for democracy."

At least Russia never bragged about "ruling the seas." Now, there's some real imperialism for ya.

 

[Magic Man]

The point is, there was a lot of aggression and invading going on already, and Russia was merely responding to the world as it was. Russia had been invaded numerous times and, because of the terrain and the strategic vulnerability they were in, the only defensive measure they could possibly take was by expanding and building up a larger buffer zone. This fits in with their general war strategy of giving up land in order to gain strategic position and require the enemy to have longer supply lines, etc.

Whether or not they were officially considered an "empire" or just "a country" is beside the point. It wasn't really until after the Napoleonic Wars that they were considered a great power which other powers felt the need to reckon with. Britain, for example, felt threatened by Russia's enmity with the Ottoman Empire over Constantinople, which is why they intervened on Turkey's side in the Crimean War.



That's because they couldn't, although France did take Alsace-Lorraine back from the Germans. Poland was slightly different, as Russia took part of their lands in the east, while giving them German lands along Poland's western frontier (including a portion of East Prussia). Considering the devastation Russia faced during the war, taking the lion's share of casualties in the defeat of Hitler and the situation they were facing leading up to the war, it's perfectly understandable for them to establish a buffer zone. Considering what they had just gone through and the treachery of the German invaders (and their Eastern European allies), one can hardly blame them for wanting to take measures to protect their homeland.



So, if a country uses military force against another country, you consider that evidence of an intrinsic desire to form an empire? I would say that's insufficient evidence. There's no evidence of any such desire, and moreover, there's no real motive for doing so. As Putin's Russia is often compared to Hitler's Germany, the key difference is that, unlike Russia, Germany had no resources to feed their growing industrial needs - something that they were desperate for. Germany's motive was that their national survival depended upon building and expanding a global empire. Russia has generally faced the opposite problem, as they have plenty of raw resources, but their technology and industrial capabilities were lagging.

Germany and Japan needed more territory in WW2, but Russia never really did. All they ever needed to do was keep what they already had. Russia has no need to expand for empire or resources. However, the close proximity of Ukraine could be seen as a threat to Russia if they get too friendly with the West.

It's really the U.S. which has been empire-building, not only by expanding NATO, but throughout much of the world, from Panama to Somalia to Southeast Asia and beyond. The U.S. empire is everywhere.

That was a lot of words to still be entirely wrong.

Look, you don't expand into an empire and a Soviet Union as a defensive move. Russia expanded the same way all other kingdoms and empires did, to increase their land and power. It is not at all understandable to establish a "buffer zone". You don't take over other lands to "establish a buffer zone".

Whether or not the U.S. has built an empire is irrelevant. That's just whataboutism. We're talking about Russia. They did not expand for defensive purposes or to "establish a buffer zone". They expanded to increase their land and power.

 

[Magic Man]

The cause =
to conquer Russia and to seize all its resources... raw materials worth...
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Whose cause is that? How do you equate "defending against Russian aggression" with "wanting to conquer Russia"?

 

[Magic Man]

That was referring to situations where other countries were the aggressors and Russia was defending itself. Both Napoleon and Hitler were the instigators of hostilities and clearly wanted to build their own empires. Russia was merely defending itself.

Yes, in those two situations Russia defended itself. You're speaking much more broadly, though. Russia was the aggressor in The Great Northern War, for instance, which helped establish the land that came to house St. Petersburg.

As I wrote in the same post, "I'm not saying that it's morally right, but, in and of itself, it can't be used as evidence of any intrinsic desire to form an empire or take over a world." Any reasonable human being should be able to understand this.

Any reasonable human should be able to understand that establishing an empire is 100% evidence of an intrinsic desire to form an empire. I mean, that's like saying "playing professional baseball can't be used as evidence of an intrinsic desire to play professional baseball". They literally did the exact thing you're referring to.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

That was referring to situations where other countries were the aggressors and Russia was defending itself. Both Napoleon and Hitler were the instigators of hostilities and clearly wanted to build their own empires. Russia was merely defending itself.

And it did so by engaging in imperialism. It's still imperialism.

As I wrote in the same post, "I'm not saying that it's morally right, but, in and of itself, it can't be used as evidence of any intrinsic desire to form an empire or take over a world."

I would say annexing territory is a pretty good indication of an intrinsic desire to annex territory.

Any reasonable human being should be able to understand this.

Any reasonable human being would understand "annexing sovereign territory" is still imperialism.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Well, yes, U.S. leaders might justify it that way. They often used a different set of terms, such as "containment," "leader of the free world," and "making the world safe for democracy."

You have something in common, then. The difference being that they can justify it more than you can, because NATO membership is at least notionally voluntary. Being subsumed by a foreign military isn't.

At least Russia never bragged about "ruling the seas." Now, there's some real imperialism for ya.

Are you perhaps referring to the British Buffer Zone? That sure was a big buffer zone. Even bigger than the Mogol Buffer Zone, the Russian Buffer Zone and the Holy Roman Buffer Zone.

 

[Stevicus]

That was a lot of words to still be entirely wrong.

Opinion noted.

Look, you don't expand into an empire and a Soviet Union as a defensive move. Russia expanded the same way all other kingdoms and empires did, to increase their land and power. It is not at all understandable to establish a "buffer zone". You don't take over other lands to "establish a buffer zone".

Keep in mind that these are just observations of the mechanisms by which this world has worked. Geopolitics is not some oversimplified parlor game of sanctimony and moral judgment. It's complicated. It's easy for Westerners to sit in comfortable, luxurious, insular bubbles and pass judgment and believe they're superior to the rest of the world.

Whether or not the U.S. has built an empire is irrelevant. That's just whataboutism.

Is it? We're talking about geopolitics, and the U.S. has been an active player for quite some time. Our actions can have an impact upon and influence other countries' actions. You can't compartmentalize the world and pretend that the U.S. has been nothing but a disinterested bystander. Things and events connect to each other - cause and effect. It's not a series of disconnected incidents.

We're talking about Russia. They did not expand for defensive purposes or to "establish a buffer zone". They expanded to increase their land and power.

How do you know what their motives are?

I mentioned earlier that Russia has been invaded numerous times over the past 1000 years or so. Doesn't it stand to reason that such a long-term history can have an effect on the perceptions of the people living there, instilled into them, generation after generation? Americans don't really have that kind of historical memory, so they can't really understand it. Same for the British, as they haven't been invaded since 1066. Similarly, people who have had a shared historical memory of oppression might also perceive and react to the world in ways which might appear similar to their oppressors.
I don't know if there's any absolute, clear-cut, definitive moral answer to these kinds of questions. I think we have to look at the larger picture (and let's not forget that Russia is a nuclear-armed nation). I don't believe we can sit back and judge what other nations do, as if we're setting ourselves up as some kind of moral guardian.

Also, we're not just talking about Russia, but also the U.S. and Western response and our own actions as well.

 

[Magic Man]

Opinion noted.



Keep in mind that these are just observations of the mechanisms by which this world has worked. Geopolitics is not some oversimplified parlor game of sanctimony and moral judgment. It's complicated. It's easy for Westerners to sit in comfortable, luxurious, insular bubbles and pass judgment and believe they're superior to the rest of the world.




Is it? We're talking about geopolitics, and the U.S. has been an active player for quite some time. Our actions can have an impact upon and influence other countries' actions. You can't compartmentalize the world and pretend that the U.S. has been nothing but a disinterested bystander. Things and events connect to each other - cause and effect. It's not a series of disconnected incidents.




How do you know what their motives are?

I mentioned earlier that Russia has been invaded numerous times over the past 1000 years or so. Doesn't it stand to reason that such a long-term history can have an effect on the perceptions of the people living there, instilled into them, generation after generation? Americans don't really have that kind of historical memory, so they can't really understand it. Same for the British, as they haven't been invaded since 1066. Similarly, people who have had a shared historical memory of oppression might also perceive and react to the world in ways which might appear similar to their oppressors.
I don't know if there's any absolute, clear-cut, definitive moral answer to these kinds of questions. I think we have to look at the larger picture (and let's not forget that Russia is a nuclear-armed nation). I don't believe we can sit back and judge what other nations do, as if we're setting ourselves up as some kind of moral guardian.

Also, we're not just talking about Russia, but also the U.S. and Western response and our own actions as well.

No, we're talking about Russia. What the U.S. has done and whether or not they're an empire is irrelevant.

You still haven't gotten around the fact that Russia expanded the same way every other country/nation/empire has ever expanded. It never had anything to do with defense or buffer zones. Expansion of this kind is always about increasing land and power.

And yes, there is a clear cut definitive moral answer. You don't invade other countries and try to take them over. No matter what your excuse is, even if you claim it's for "defensive purposes". It would be wrong for America to invade Mexico or Canada to "establish a buffer zone". It's wrong for Russia to invade Ukraine. It was wrong for Germany to invade Poland. Etc.

 

[Estro Felino]

Whose cause is that? How do you equate "defending against Russian aggression" with "wanting to conquer Russia"?

I think that even cats here have understood that the US hate Russia because of exclusively economic reasons.

 

[Stevicus]

Yes, in those two situations Russia defended itself. You're speaking much more broadly, though. Russia was the aggressor in The Great Northern War, for instance, which helped establish the land that came to house St. Petersburg.

Oftentimes, it's merely a matter of perception and point of view as to "who started it" or whose grievance should take precedence.

Any reasonable human should be able to understand that establishing an empire is 100% evidence of an intrinsic desire to form an empire. I mean, that's like saying "playing professional baseball can't be used as evidence of an intrinsic desire to play professional baseball". They literally did the exact thing you're referring to.

If all you're trying to do is convince me that "Russians have done a lot of bad things," then there's no need for that. I already knew this. I just think that we need to look at it in more realistic terms, not like some kind of comic-book melodrama filled with archvillains and superheroes.

 

[Magic Man]

I think that even cats here have understood that the US hate Russia because of exclusively economic reasons.

We are not that stupid.

Actually a lot of Americans have come to like Russia. Trump has cozied up to them because he wants to be a dictator like Putin, and so his base has followed suit. The same people who used to be so dead-set against Russia and communism now support Putin.

And economic reasons have never been why there is animosity between Russia and America.

 

[Magic Man]

Oftentimes, it's merely a matter of perception and point of view as to "who started it" or whose grievance should take precedence.

Not really. The vast majority of the time it's very clear.

If all you're trying to do is convince me that "Russians have done a lot of bad things," then there's no need for that. I already knew this. I just think that we need to look at it in more realistic terms, not like some kind of comic-book melodrama filled with archvillains and superheroes.

I'm just pointing out that your whole "Russia only expanded for defensive reasons and to have a buffer zone" is simply false.

 

[Stevicus]

You have something in common, then. The difference being that they can justify it more than you can, because NATO membership is at least notionally voluntary. Being subsumed by a foreign military isn't.

Sometimes, politics is about being practical and taking the lesser of two evils. It's the same with geopolitics. In a way, though, the U.S. does see Europe as a "buffer zone" of sorts, or at least, it has been used to justify U.S. military intervention and interference on that continent. The fear in the U.S. was that, if a country like Germany or Russia were to gain control over the entire continent, they would be able to build up a strong enough force to threaten North America.

Are you perhaps referring to the British Buffer Zone? That sure was a big buffer zone. Even bigger than the Mogol Buffer Zone, the Russian Buffer Zone and the Holy Roman Buffer Zone.

I sense your sarcasm here, but there's really no need for this. When it comes to the workings and the relations between the nations of the world, I observe that it tends to be a power game, where nations and factions are angling for position and prestige. I didn't create the situation; it's pretty much how humanity and human nations operate.

I'm not too concerned about the word "imperialism" since it's really just a word. I see it more as nationalism, although the two terms can kind of go together at times.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Sometimes, politics is about being practical and taking the lesser of two evils. It's the same with geopolitics. In a way, though, the U.S. does see Europe as a "buffer zone" of sorts, or at least, it has been used to justify U.S. military intervention and interference on that continent. The fear in the U.S. was that, if a country like Germany or Russia were to gain control over the entire continent, they would be able to build up a strong enough force to threaten North America.

This is about you falsely equating invading and annexing foreign countries with "creating a buffer zone", and suggesting that this is a perfectly reasonably (though not moral) thing to do.

I sense your sarcasm here, but there's really no need for this. When it comes to the workings and the relations between the nations of the world, I observe that it tends to be a power game, where nations and factions are angling for position and prestige. I didn't create the situation; it's pretty much how humanity and human nations operate.

Could you please explain to me why you selectively refer to some military expansionism as "creating a buffer zone" rather than what it actually is: imperialist expansionism? And why you, comparatively, equate US foreign interests and NATO expansion as explicitly imperialist despite the fact that they are, at least, nominally voluntary? Seems obvious you're deliberately attempting to downplay Russian imperialism and exaggerate western imperialism.

I'm not too concerned about the word "imperialism" since it's really just a word.

Then why did you attempt to downplay it by evoking the phrase "creating a buffer zone" when doing so is explicitly imperialism?

I see it more as nationalism, although the two terms can kind of go together at times.

I see imperialism as imperialism. Why did you refer to it as "creating a buffer zone" and suggest it's perfectly reasonable, and why are you now desperately backtracking from that position?

 

[Stevicus]

No, we're talking about Russia. What the U.S. has done and whether or not they're an empire is irrelevant.

We're actually talking about the current conflict involving Russia and Ukraine and the historical background, causes, and possible motivations of those engaging in it and/or supporting it. If all you want to do is put Russia on trial and trot out a laundry list of "bad things the Russians have done," then, at the very least, you might want to take a more realistic view of why a country does the things that it does. They don't just decide to "turn evil" as if they're some kind of comic book villain. The real world doesn't work that way.

It's also not a question of "justifying" either. It's more a matter of making an attempt to understand the causes and effects of why things happen the way they do.

You still haven't gotten around the fact that Russia expanded the same way every other country/nation/empire has ever expanded. It never had anything to do with defense or buffer zones. Expansion of this kind is always about increasing land and power.

Look, all I can really say is that history has happened the way it has happened. Every nation has its own history and its own way of looking at things. Realistically, though, fear has also been a powerful motivator in driving the actions of humans and nations, as much as or even more so than greed at times (although I acknowledge that greed is also a powerful motivator).

In a world where rival factions and governments are vying for position, there seems to be a mentality of "if we don't do it them, they'll do it to us." Yes, it's also true that they're going for more land and power, but that only tells part of the story. I'm only saying that, in Russia's case (at least recently), they haven't any physical need for more land or power. That's why I believe their postwar hostility is/was more likely motivated by fear than anything else.

And if fear is their primary motivation here, then we have to look at what they might be afraid of.

And yes, there is a clear cut definitive moral answer. You don't invade other countries and try to take them over. No matter what your excuse is, even if you claim it's for "defensive purposes". It would be wrong for America to invade Mexico or Canada to "establish a buffer zone". It's wrong for Russia to invade Ukraine. It was wrong for Germany to invade Poland. Etc.

Well, of course it's wrong, but the question is, what should we do about it? What is the moral choice to make here? For one thing, neither Ukraine nor Russia is U.S. territory, so does the U.S. have any moral imperative to interfere in a matter between two other sovereign nations?

But if we set that question aside and look at it from a practical standpoint, what appears evident here is that they've reached a standoff and stalemate, and it's come down to a war of attrition that Ukraine can not win. Moreover, their country has already sustained extensive physical damage and loss of life that will take decades to recover regardless of how this thing turns out. People are still being killed, so as we stand here in the West, we can either choose to embark on a policy where more people will get killed, or we can instead push for a cease-fire and at least try to negotiate. It may be an imperfect solution, but more lives could be saved that way. Don't you see that as a moral option?

 

[stvdv]

Odd sexual references and winking faces don't really help. Only fools, fascists and the deluded think Russia just held a free and fair democratic election.

You can't ever proof your claims, hence useless claims, and very unfriendly too, which tells us more about you then about those you call deluded and fools

 

[Magic Man]

We're actually talking about the current conflict involving Russia and Ukraine and the historical background, causes, and possible motivations of those engaging in it and/or supporting it. If all you want to do is put Russia on trial and trot out a laundry list of "bad things the Russians have done," then, at the very least, you might want to take a more realistic view of why a country does the things that it does. They don't just decide to "turn evil" as if they're some kind of comic book villain. The real world doesn't work that way.

It's also not a question of "justifying" either. It's more a matter of making an attempt to understand the causes and effects of why things happen the way they do.



Look, all I can really say is that history has happened the way it has happened. Every nation has its own history and its own way of looking at things. Realistically, though, fear has also been a powerful motivator in driving the actions of humans and nations, as much as or even more so than greed at times (although I acknowledge that greed is also a powerful motivator).

In a world where rival factions and governments are vying for position, there seems to be a mentality of "if we don't do it them, they'll do it to us." Yes, it's also true that they're going for more land and power, but that only tells part of the story. I'm only saying that, in Russia's case (at least recently), they haven't any physical need for more land or power. That's why I believe their postwar hostility is/was more likely motivated by fear than anything else.

And if fear is their primary motivation here, then we have to look at what they might be afraid of.



Well, of course it's wrong, but the question is, what should we do about it? What is the moral choice to make here? For one thing, neither Ukraine nor Russia is U.S. territory, so does the U.S. have any moral imperative to interfere in a matter between two other sovereign nations?

But if we set that question aside and look at it from a practical standpoint, what appears evident here is that they've reached a standoff and stalemate, and it's come down to a war of attrition that Ukraine can not win. Moreover, their country has already sustained extensive physical damage and loss of life that will take decades to recover regardless of how this thing turns out. People are still being killed, so as we stand here in the West, we can either choose to embark on a policy where more people will get killed, or we can instead push for a cease-fire and at least try to negotiate. It may be an imperfect solution, but more lives could be saved that way. Don't you see that as a moral option?

We're actually talking about your assertion that Russia's expansion has always been defensive in nature and an effort to establish a "buffer zone". The U.S. and its potential empire are irrelevant to that claim.

You admit here that it's wrong to invade other countries and try to take them over. Before you said you offered no moral judgement on Russia invading and taking over other countries. So, at least we've resolved that.

Russia has not expanded for defensive reasons. They haven't sought to create a "buffer zone". They have expanded the same way every other country/land/nation/state/etc. has ever expanded, through conquest meant to increase their power and land.

 

[Stevicus]

This is about you falsely equating invading and annexing foreign countries with "creating a buffer zone", and suggesting that this is a perfectly reasonably (though not moral) thing to do.

All I'm really pointing out here is that there are explanations as to why nations act as they act which often are complex and go beyond simplistic positions which were often proffered during the Cold War era. I never said the Russians were good or that they were a bunch of choir boys, but I also never bought into the whole "evil empire" routine either. It's just too far over the top and seems too oversimplified when discussing highly complicated and interconnected issues.

One thing I would say is this: They did suffer a lot during WW2 and the Axis onslaught, which wasn't just Germany either. As an American, I do not see that we have anything in our historical memory which comes even close to the kind of devastation faced by Russia. It was truly horrific. They certainly wanted their pound of flesh when it was over, but more than that, they wanted to ensure that such a thing could never happen again. It's difficult to imagine what they might have felt after that whole atrocity was over, but it seems reasonable that they would be angry and want to take steps to protect themselves - even if it means forming a buffer zone.

The other side of that question is why they felt the need for such a buffer zone after their primary enemy, Germany, was defeated, occupied, and devastated?

Could you please explain to me why you selectively refer to some military expansionism as "creating a buffer zone" rather than what it actually is: imperialist expansionism? And why you, comparatively, equate US foreign interests and NATO expansion as explicitly imperialist despite the fact that they are, at least, nominally voluntary? Seems obvious you're deliberately attempting to downplay Russian imperialism and exaggerate western imperialism.

I suppose the only answer I can give here is that we're different people and we look at the world and events from a different point of view. I don't see that I'm "deliberately attempting to downplay Russian imperialism and exaggerate western imperialism." You may see it that way, but from my standpoint, I'm just pointing out pertinent historical facts and how nations and their actions can connect to each other.

The main position I've taken - not just now, but even back during the Cold War - was that we should have tried to come to some sort of amicable peace arrangement with them. That could have saved lives and a great deal of misery throughout the world. But if we decide that they're just irredeemable and icky that we just can't make a deal with them, then I don't think we can expect them to respond with kindness and roses.

We don't trust them, but they also have their own reasons for not trusting us. Is our government trustworthy? Are they willing to negotiate in good faith to end this thing?

Then why did you attempt to downplay it by evoking the phrase "creating a buffer zone" when doing so is explicitly imperialism?

I just didn't think it was the right context, but my only point is that I'm not going to get bogged down in a big argument over a word.

I see imperialism as imperialism. Why did you refer to it as "creating a buffer zone" and suggest it's perfectly reasonable, and why are you now desperately backtracking from that position?

"Desperately"? My goodness.

I try to look at the actual events themselves. How we choose to characterize them, what words we use - that gets into semantics, which is a different issue than simply examining the facts and events as they happened. Of course, that doesn't mean that words aren't important and that we shouldn't pay attention to word choice, context, and how they're used. But all within a certain perspective.

We can use language which paints the Russians as evil, deplorable, irredeemable villains, based on their actions as they have unfolded. Or we might use language which is more explanatory which might suggest that there might have been reasons for why they did what they did. No one is expected to agree that they were good reasons or anything like that.

There are some positions I've observed in discussions over this event which involves a focus on blaming, justifying, judgement, but I would prefer a more explanatory and analytical approach.