Ukraine has become a dictatorship, it's official

[Magic Man]

So then what you are saying is that Russia is no different than any other country. I would agree with that because Russia does what countries do, and like any country they react to what other countries do, and there is no reason to get morally smug over what they do vs what any other country does.

Nope. They're like any other country in that when they expand, they do it to increase their power and reach. There's also no reason to get morally smug. But obviously what they're doing right now is wrong, and it's fine to call that out and not pretend that, just because other countries do stuff wrong too, we shouldn't call this wrong thing out.

 

[Magic Man]

You've said it multiple times, but you haven't really offered any evidentiary support.

Just because you don't want it to exist doesn't mean it doesn't. If you had actually been reading posts all along, instead of just writing treatises that missed the point, you'd have seen the evidence I already posted.

It's not to increase their land and power, since they already have enough land.

Ah, so they can only do it to increase land and power, when you personally say they don't already have enough. I didn't realize you were the official arbiter of such things.

 

[Magic Man]

Saying that Russia is imperialist and declaring that they're morally wrong does carry that kind of connotation. I don't think you've pointed out any actual facts that I've stated which were wrong. However, you seem to be questioning my conclusions regarding those facts.

Carries what kind of connotation? Saying that Russia is imperialist is just pointing out a fact. Saying invading another sovereign country simply to take it over is wrong is not exactly going out on a limb. You even agreed with it.

The "fact" you stated that was wrong is the idea that Russia has always just expanded for defensive purposes and to establish a buffer zone. That's the entire point of me posting here, to point out that that is completely wrong.

 

[Revoltingest]

Russia....such a large population on such a tiny country.
Oh, wait. A small population on the largest country on
Earth by a large margin. They must destroy & occupy
their neighbors for safety.

 

[Stevicus]

Just because you don't want it to exist doesn't mean it doesn't. If you had actually been reading posts all along, instead of just writing treatises that missed the point, you'd have seen the evidence I already posted.

Oh, I've been reading the posts. Obviously, I had to read them in order to respond to them. I'm just not sure if you're bothering to read my posts, or if you're just handwaving them away as "treatises."

Ah, so they can only do it to increase land and power, when you personally say they don't already have enough. I didn't realize you were the official arbiter of such things.

I just don't see it as a plausible explanation to say that they're doing this because they want more land, when they already have more than enough land. Since they don't need more land, there must be some other explanation for why they're doing this.

 

[Stevicus]

Carries what kind of connotation? Saying that Russia is imperialist is just pointing out a fact.

Well, no, not really. "Imperialism" is just being used more euphemistically, in a figurative sense. It's more in the realm of opinion, not fact. "Imperialism," as a term, carries no official meaning here and is mainly used as a way of painting a country or its government in a negative light.

Saying invading another sovereign country simply to take it over is wrong is not exactly going out on a limb. You even agreed with it.

It's still a comment on the morality of another country or its government. So, to suggest that there isn't some kind of moral crusade behind the West's stated position would be inaccurate.

The "fact" you stated that was wrong is the idea that Russia has always just expanded for defensive purposes and to establish a buffer zone. That's the entire point of me posting here, to point out that that is completely wrong.

I think that you're mistaken on this point.

 

[Magic Man]

Oh, I've been reading the posts. Obviously, I had to read them in order to respond to them.

No, you don't. You have written paragraphs that went off on tangents and never actually addressed what I said. That's why I keep replying reiterating the actual point here.

I'm just not sure if you're bothering to read my posts, or if you're just handwaving them away as "treatises."

I'm dismissing them because they're not actually addressing anything I say. I have pointed out that your "Russia only expands for defensive purposes and in order to establish buffer zones" is completely wrong with examples of them expanding through aggression and explanations that you don't become an empire for defensive purposes. And you just keep writing paragraphs that say other things.

I just don't see it as a plausible explanation to say that they're doing this because they want more land, when they already have more than enough land. Since they don't need more land, there must be some other explanation for why they're doing this.

Yes, no person or country has ever tried to gain more land or power when they already had enough... Again, I didn't realize you were the worldwide arbiter of what is enough and that leaders and countries had to abide by your personal determination.

I'd say $10 billion is more than enough money to have. And yet plenty of people work very hard to gain more than that. I'd say 3 houses is more than enough for any person to have, and yet plenty of people buy more than that.

You're trying to impose a standard that doesn't exist. What you consider enough doesn't matter to most people. Russia isn't concerned with whether you think they have enough land or power. Putin isn't concerned with your opinion. Whether or not they "need" more land is irrelevant. Them already having a lot of land in no way means they would only try to gain more for defense.

 

[Kathryn]

I'd like to hear Putin's side of things. I mean, very few people wake up and say "I think I'll be a jerk today." Hitler and his henchmen might have but I would still like to hear Putin's side of things and how he sees things. Knowledge is power after all.

 

[Magic Man]

Well, no, not really. "Imperialism" is just being used more euphemistically, in a figurative sense. It's more in the realm of opinion, not fact. "Imperialism," as a term, carries no official meaning here and is mainly used as a way of painting a country or its government in a negative light.

None of this makes sense.

You claimed Russia has only ever expanded for defensive purposes. I pointed out that they established an empire, and you don't do that for defensive purposes. It is 100% a fact that they did that. It's history. It's not in dispute. It's not an opinion, it's not euphemistic or figurative. You can't just claim something and then pretend it's true.

This has absolutely nothing to do with painting a country in a negative light. It has to do with you attempting to paint a country in an inaccurately positive light. "Hey, I know they took over large tracts of land and expanded into an empire and then the Soviet Union, but it was all defensive. All they were trying to do is defend themselves against the mean old West, who just kept invading them. I mean, that's perfectly understandable."

All I'm doing is pointing out how completely wrong that is.

It's still a comment on the morality of another country or its government. So, to suggest that there isn't some kind of moral crusade behind the West's stated position would be inaccurate.

Ah, yes, the whataboutism again. You agree what Russia is doing is wrong. And yet, that's not good enough. You have to go further and say "but what about other countries!?" And then use ridiculous terms like "moral crusade".

Look, invading other countries just to take them over is wrong. That's what Russia is doing right now. That's all. Whether other countries have done that is a separate topic.

I think that you're mistaken on this point.

Your incorrect assertion is noted (and has been debunked several times now).

 

[Magic Man]

I'd like to hear Putin's side of things. I mean, very few people wake up and say "I think I'll be a jerk today." Hitler and his henchmen might have but I would still like to hear Putin's side of things and how he sees things. Knowledge is power after all.

I wouldn't mind hearing his side, but we already have a pretty good idea of it. And whether or not very few people do that is irrelevant, since we already know Putin has done horrible things. It's already been made clear why he's doing this and why he's done so many other things. He's a dictator who likes power. That's why he uses propaganda and illegitimate elections.

 

[Kathryn]

I wouldn't mind hearing his side, but we already have a pretty good idea of it. And whether or not very few people do that is irrelevant, since we already know Putin has done horrible things. It's already been made clear why he's doing this and why he's done so many other things. He's a dictator who likes power. That's why he uses propaganda and illegitimate elections.

I'd like to hear his justifications to his people, who are the ones fighting.

 

[lukethethird]

I wouldn't mind hearing his side, but we already have a pretty good idea of it. And whether or not very few people do that is irrelevant, since we already know Putin has done horrible things. It's already been made clear why he's doing this and why he's done so many other things. He's a dictator who likes power. That's why he uses propaganda and illegitimate elections.

I think you would mind hearing his side because you have already formed an opinion that Putin is evil personified. Personally, I fail to see a nickel's worth of difference between him and almost any given president or prime minister, but I see where you get your ideas, western politicians and western mainstream media has been demonizing Russia for a hundred years, possibly longer. You're just a maintainer of the status quo and you like to point out that Russia is wrong as a display of your moral superiority, and don't try to claim that you are not trying to claim the moral high ground like so many other posters on this forum. The good vs evil mentality is played out and on full display here which in turn explains why all we get from you is that Russia is an evil empire and Putin is their evil master.

 

[lukethethird]

I'd like to hear his justifications to his people, who are the ones fighting.

Quoting Putin on this forum will get you branded as a Putin sympathiser. Facts, as opposed to western propaganda, are frowned upon.

 

[Stevicus]

No, you don't. You have written paragraphs that went off on tangents and never actually addressed what I said. That's why I keep replying reiterating the actual point here.

I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you. The fact that you handwave it away and dismiss what I say as "tangents" is an indication that you didn't bother to understand the historical connections and the causes and effects which make the history which led us to where we are now.

You're trying to compress centuries of history into oversimplified neat little boxes, but that's a highly superficial and insufficient explanation as to what's going on. You keep wanting to isolate the entire discussion to a singular point you're trying to make, but that's not a game I'm willing to play.

I'm dismissing them because they're not actually addressing anything I say. I have pointed out that your "Russia only expands for defensive purposes and in order to establish buffer zones" is completely wrong with examples of them expanding through aggression and explanations that you don't become an empire for defensive purposes. And you just keep writing paragraphs that say other things.

But it's not wrong, and you haven't shown me thing one which refutes that, other than vague assertions about a desire for land and power as the motivation behind every military action ever taken. You're not talking in specifics here.

Yes, no person or country has ever tried to gain more land or power when they already had enough... Again, I didn't realize you were the worldwide arbiter of what is enough and that leaders and countries had to abide by your personal determination.

I'd say $10 billion is more than enough money to have. And yet plenty of people work very hard to gain more than that. I'd say 3 houses is more than enough for any person to have, and yet plenty of people buy more than that.

You're trying to impose a standard that doesn't exist. What you consider enough doesn't matter to most people. Russia isn't concerned with whether you think they have enough land or power. Putin isn't concerned with your opinion. Whether or not they "need" more land is irrelevant. Them already having a lot of land in no way means they would only try to gain more for defense.

Aren't you attempting to set yourself up as the worldwide arbiter of what is imperialism and making claims about what Russia's intentions are in this?

 

[lukethethird]

I'd like to hear Putin's side of things. I mean, very few people wake up and say "I think I'll be a jerk today." Hitler and his henchmen might have but I would still like to hear Putin's side of things and how he sees things. Knowledge is power after all.

RT, (Russia Today) quotes Putin and other Russian ministers. Many of the articles are submitted by western journalists because apparently RT does not tell them what they can and cannot write about. There is quite a wide spectrum of views.

 

[Magic Man]

I'd like to hear his justifications to his people, who are the ones fighting.

We've heard those justifications. He claims it's to "denazify" Ukraine and protect the Russian language and for defensive purposes.

 

[Kathryn]

We've heard those justifications. He claims it's to "denazify" Ukraine and protect the Russian language and for defensive purposes.

I don't think that's the only justifications but those are true to a certain extent.

 

[Magic Man]

I think you would mind hearing his side because you have already formed an opinion that Putin is evil personified.

I'd be happy to hear his side, but he is indeed a very bad person. That's not an opinion. It's based on his actual actions. Let's not pretend it's some kind of bias on my part. He's a brutal dictator who holds sham elections and has political opponents killed.

Personally, I fail to see a nickel's worth of difference between him and almost any given president or prime minister,

Then I'd suggest you look a lot closer.

but I see where you get your ideas, western politicians and western mainstream media has been demonizing Russia for a hundred years, possibly longer. You're just a maintainer of the status quo and you like to point out that Russia is wrong as a display of your moral superiority, and don't try to claim that you are not trying to claim the moral high ground like so many other posters on this forum. The good vs evil mentality is played out and on full display here which in turn explains why all we get from you is that Russia is an evil empire and Putin is their evil master.

Well, that sure was a lot of words to try to defend Russia. Let's go ahead and debunk them as the ridiculous nonsense they are.

I get my ideas from actual facts.

There's no question there has been a campaign in the west to make Russia look bad for a long time. But that doesn't change the fact that they have been pretty bad for a long time. The Soviet Union was a corrupt mess. Putin is a brutal dictator maintaining a stranglehold on his power through nefarious means.

I'm definitely not a "maintainer of the status quo", but thanks for the silly accusation.

I didn't even post here to point out that Russia is wrong. I pointed out that the opposite claim was untrue. The claim I replied to was that poor old Russia just kept getting invaded, so of course they had to aggressively invade nearby countries for...defense, you know, to create a buffer zone. It's straight out of Putin's propaganda. Pointing out that they haven't expanded for defensive purposes is not saying that Russia is evil.

Nothing I've said has anything to do with moral superiority, but nice try.

I am not trying to claim the moral high ground. That's a simple fact.

There is no "good vs. evil mentality" here.

You're bringing in all these other ideas to distract from the facts. Let's go over them:

Russia invaded Ukraine simply for land and power. They make excuses, of course, as all people doing bad things do.

Whether or not other countries including the U.S. have also done bad things is irrelevant. This is just an attempt to "both sides" the topic and dismiss legitimate criticism. It's part of the whole point I'm debunking. Saying "Poor Russia just needs a buffer zone because they always get invaded" is just an attempt to defend their wrong actions. Saying "but other countries have done bad things too!" is just an attempt to defend Russia too.

Pointing out that Russia has not expanded their land for defensive purposes in no way implies that "Russia is evil, and the west are perfect and moral".

 

[Magic Man]

I don't think that's the only justifications but those are true to a certain extent.

There are probably others. And yes, they're true in that they are used as justifications. They are false in that they are in no way the actual reason for the invasion. They have zero interest in "denazification". That's just to make it sound good to outsiders. They don't need to invade another country to "defend themselves". And they don't need to "defend the Russian language" in other countries. It's all propaganda.

 

[Stevicus]

None of this makes sense.

You claimed Russia has only ever expanded for defensive purposes.

Actually, I checked back to that claim, and what I actually said was this (post #442):

Historically, Russia has generally adopted a defensive posture, as they've been invaded and overrun numerous times from all sides. Their terrain is flat, with few natural barriers to slow down an invading army, so their national security perceptions involved creating buffer zones as a defensive measure. Their expansionism was mainly a consequence and result of other countries attempting to conquer them.

I don't think they ever wanted to conquer Europe, but they've always felt threatened by Europe (and by extension, the U.S.).

Funny how you interpret "Russia has generally adopted a defensive posture" into a claim that "Russia has only ever expanded for defensive purposes." I didn't actually say that, although I did point out that the key periods of Russian expansion came about in the aftermath of defensive wars they had won. I cited the period after the collapse of the Mongol Empire, as well as the conditions agreed to by the victorious powers after the Napoleonic Wars and WW2.

I pointed out that they established an empire, and you don't do that for defensive purposes. It is 100% a fact that they did that.

You accuse me of acting as a "world arbiter," and yet you make these grandiose sweeping statements. "It is 100% a fact"? Really?

On what basis would you argue that "you don't establish an empire for defensive purposes"? If other nations around you are establishing empires and acting aggressively, then couldn't it be argued that establishing an empire is simply a matter of national survival?

It's history. It's not in dispute. It's not an opinion, it's not euphemistic or figurative. You can't just claim something and then pretend it's true.

Again, you're making sweeping statements as if you think you're the final word on this.

This has absolutely nothing to do with painting a country in a negative light. It has to do with you attempting to paint a country in an inaccurately positive light. "Hey, I know they took over large tracts of land and expanded into an empire and then the Soviet Union, but it was all defensive. All they were trying to do is defend themselves against the mean old West, who just kept invading them. I mean, that's perfectly understandable."

All I'm doing is pointing out how completely wrong that is.

You're attempting to do so, but you're doing it in a very heavy-handed manner, ostensibly believing that it will somehow bolster your arguments. Maybe it works at convincing some people, but I've studied extensively the history of the region in question.

"Imperialism" is not a factual term. It is a pejorative. That doesn't stop people from using it, but it's generally regarded as an opinion based on an individual perception. It is not an objective "fact" like 2+2=4 or a general recitation of physical events and dates. When attempting to ascribe causes and motivations, that is no longer in the realm of objective fact, but more into speculation and opinion. There's certainly nothing wrong with that, unless you somehow lose the ability to tell the difference.

I never denied that they established an empire. My only point was that they didn't have much of an empire prior to their territorial gains from the Napoleonic Wars.

Ah, yes, the whataboutism again. You agree what Russia is doing is wrong. And yet, that's not good enough. You have to go further and say "but what about other countries!?" And then use ridiculous terms like "moral crusade".

Look, invading other countries just to take them over is wrong. That's what Russia is doing right now. That's all. Whether other countries have done that is a separate topic.

But that wasn't the point being made here. In post #490, you wrote: "(Hint: Nothing I said could be construed as "Russia is evil" or anything about a "moral crusade NATO is on".)"

But when you say what they're doing is wrong, then isn't that a moral statement? A lot of people have been saying that, including many US politicians and NATO leaders. This has been the standard rhetoric that I've been hearing from numerous people and seeing it all over the media and the internet. It's fairly common, actually.

As I said earlier, I'm used to hearing the "Russia is evil" viewpoint for a long time now, so it's not something that shocks me all that much. I understand where it comes from and why so many Westerners believe in and embrace that particular mindset. I just find it interesting that there's no room for disagreement on this. If I don't agree that "Russia is evil," somehow, some people react with hostility and anger. Just because I don't think Russia is as evil as they do.

That said, I actually do agree with you that what they're doing is wrong. Where I differ is in the assumptions about the causes and motivations. I actually believe that this could have been avoided if the West had acted with more foresight and understanding in the decades prior to this. That isn't "whataboutism," but looking at the larger picture, something you seem averse to doing. You want to just focus on one tree, and one tree alone. I'm looking at the entire forest.

Your incorrect assertion is noted (and has been debunked several times now).

Debunked? I don't think so.