Ukraine has become a dictatorship, it's official

[Magic Man]

I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.

You can explain your inaccurate claims to me, yes. I can understand them on my own, which is why I then point out that they're wrong.

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.

The fact that you think all of the extra words you've spent that don't actually address what we're talking about are somehow relevant is an indication that you haven't actually understood what we're talking about.

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 sorry. You're the one saying "They have only ever done this for defensive purposes". You've pointed to 2 invasions as if they're representative of 1,000 years of history.

And then you're going to claim I'm the one trying to compress centuries of history into oversimplified neat little boxes? Yes, you're right, that's a highly superficial and insufficient explanation as to what's going on. That's my entire point. You came up with this narrative that sounded good based on a couple small data points and decided to claim it as some broad sweeping historically accurate fact.

I'm not the one simplifying here. I'm pointing out that your simplification is completely wrong and unsupported by actual facts. You have done absolutely nothing to counter that.

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.

Yet again, you're the one not talking in specifics here. "Russia expands for defensive purposes and to create a buffer zone." That's vague with no specifics. The only specifics you've offered are "look at WWII and Napoleon". Which obviously doesn't actually support your claim.

Meanwhile I've pointed to multiple specific examples of Russia expanded for non-defensive purposes, the most obvious of which is the Great Northern War.

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?

Nope, and this isn't even a nice try. I'm pointing out what an empire actually is. That's factual. I'm not saying "well, I think they have enough land already". I'm saying "Hey, this thing that is universally called an empire was an empire". You're trying to handwave your way out of that.

You're trying to make up what Russia's intentions are. I'm pointing out that they make no sense and don't align with everything we know about the world and history.

 

[Kathryn]

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.

Well, they did fight a really big fight against nazification. Just for starters.

 

[Magic Man]

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



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.



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?



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



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.

So much wrong here. First, "Russia has generally adopted a defensive posture" isn't meaningfully different from what I said. You're claiming their actions historically are for defensive purposes. They have never been about defense.

Yes, it is 100% fact that they established an empire. That's not up for debate. It was called an empire by them and everyone else. That's not a grandiose sweeping statement, just a matter of fact.

I point out that you don't establish an empire for defensive purposes on the grounds that that's a fact. The best way for you to understand this would be to study a little bit of history. By definition an empire is aggressive and not defensive. You say you've studied history extensively. So, one wonders why you'd try to paint it inaccurately just to defend Russia.

"Imperialism" is a factual term, even though I never actually used that. It's also not a pejorative. It's kind of weird that you're trying to argue this.

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.

Saying that Russia's invasion of Ukraine is not at all the same as saying "Russia is evil" and is not remotely saying anything about a "moral crusade NATO is on".

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.





Debunked? I don't think so.

You're muddying the waters. I'm not sure if it's intentional or not. This isn't about whether Russia is evil. This is about your claim:

Russia expands its empire for defensive purposes and to create a buffer zone.

You and other keep bringing up tangents in order to distract from this point. The fact remains Russia has always expanded for non-defensive purposes. You don't create an empire "for defense" or for a "buffer zone". You have yet to actually support your claims, only trying to pass off responsibility to me to support my pointing out that you're wrong.

The fact remains Russia doesn't expand for defensive purposes. It never has. That's a justification people and state use for their aggressive actions.

 

[Magic Man]

Well, they did fight a really big fight against nazification. Just for starters.

They did not. Just for starters.

 

[Kathryn]

They did not. Just for starters.

Well, they actually did. WW2 anyone? At least 9 million dead military alone. They were our allies in fact. At least 20 million dead overall.

 

[Magic Man]

Well, they actually did. WW2 anyone?

I'm sorry. I didn't realize you were referring to something that happened 80 years ago to justify the current invasion of a country that had nothing to do with WWII. Yes, 80 years ago they fought Nazis because after they agreed to a peaceful pact with Hitler he betrayed them.

Now back to Putin's justifications for the current invasion 80 years later. They did not fight a really big fight against Nazis regarding Ukraine.

 

[Kathryn]

I'm sorry. I didn't realize you were referring to something that happened 80 years ago to justify the current invasion of a country that had nothing to do with WWII. Yes, 80 years ago they fought Nazis because after they agreed to a peaceful pact with Hitler he betrayed them.

Now back to Putin's justifications for the current invasion 80 years later. They did not fight a really big fight against Nazis regarding Ukraine.

See my edited post with numbers. I know it may seem like a long time ago to you but it's not to me or many other people who grew up around WW2 veterans.

 

[Magic Man]

See my edited post with numbers. I know it may seem like a long time ago to you but it's not to me or many other people who grew up around WW2 veterans.

It's not that it seems like a long time ago, it's that it was a long time ago. My grandparents fought in the war. It also has nothing at all to do with Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Putin used "denazification" for his invasion in an effort to seem moral, but it's just propaganda. And pointing to what Russia did 80 years ago in a war doesn't change that.

 

[lukethethird]

Well, they did fight a really big fight against nazification. Just for starters.

Yes, they most certainly did. Growing up in a German community (outside of Germany) and of German ancestry I am unfortunately all too well aware of Nazis and neo-Nazis of following generations. Ukraine nazis are definitely a force to this day and so is western media's whitewashing of that reality.

 

[lukethethird]

It's not that it seems like a long time ago, it's that it was a long time ago. My grandparents fought in the war. It also has nothing at all to do with Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Putin used "denazification" for his invasion in an effort to seem moral, but it's just propaganda. And pointing to what Russia did 80 years ago in a war doesn't change that.

You being totally unaware of the reality of Nazis in Ukraine and the history thereof doesn't dismiss the facts that can't be denied, well except by the whitewashing by western media and your parroting of western propaganda.

 

[Stevicus]

You can explain your inaccurate claims to me, yes. I can understand them on my own, which is why I then point out that they're wrong.

They're not "wrong" just because you declare it to be so. That's not how it works.

The fact that you think all of the extra words you've spent that don't actually address what we're talking about are somehow relevant is an indication that you haven't actually understood what we're talking about.

This thread is 27 pages and over 500 posts. "We" have been talking about many different things in this thread, even including some tangential and peripheral topics. Why don't we try to go back to the beginning and you tell me exactly what you want to talk about?

I'm sorry. You're the one saying "They have only ever done this for defensive purposes". You've pointed to 2 invasions as if they're representative of 1,000 years of history.

I cited examples which coincided with their most significant territorial acquisitions. I'm not going to write an entire dissertation on the subject just to satisfy you. You can look it up for yourself. The history is there, and you're free to look up the numerous times Russia has been invaded and overrun. I'm not sure if you were aware of this or not. A lot of Westerners aren't aware of these things and have scant knowledge of world history.

So, you don't agree that they did what they did for some defensive purpose, for the sake of national survival - even though there were multiple instances of other nations attempting to invade and occupy them? All you've said (repeatedly) is that "you don't become an empire for defensive purposes," as if that's the final word on it and using that alone to declare my point "debunked." You consider that a factual statement that can be objectively proven?

And then you're going to claim I'm the one trying to compress centuries of history into oversimplified neat little boxes? Yes, you're right, that's a highly superficial and insufficient explanation as to what's going on. That's my entire point. You came up with this narrative that sounded good based on a couple small data points and decided to claim it as some broad sweeping historically accurate fact.

It was more of an observation based on discernable historical trends.

I'm not the one simplifying here. I'm pointing out that your simplification is completely wrong and unsupported by actual facts. You have done absolutely nothing to counter that.

Again, you're using sweeping statements like "completely wrong" and "absolutely nothing" as if you either believe that yourself and/or you expect me to believe it. This seems more like bickering than anything else.

I have written a lot throughout this discussion, but you just handwave it away and then claim I've done "absolutely nothing."

Yet again, you're the one not talking in specifics here. "Russia expands for defensive purposes and to create a buffer zone." That's vague with no specifics. The only specifics you've offered are "look at WWII and Napoleon". Which obviously doesn't actually support your claim.

That's your opinion.

Meanwhile I've pointed to multiple specific examples of Russia expanded for non-defensive purposes, the most obvious of which is the Great Northern War.

Yes, you mentioned the Great Northern War a few times, although who is to say who is the "rightful ruler" of the Neva River region? The Russians and Swedes had been fighting over that region since the days of Alexander Nevsky (who was also the Grand Prince of Kiev from 1246–1263, in addition to his other titles). I guess it's a toss up as to which side you wish to declare as "wrong" and which side as "right."

Peter the Great wanted to build a city (St. Petersburg) to be his "window on the West," which was a major milestone in Russian history. You say it was for non-defensive purposes, but even that can be argued. There are no absolutes here.

Nope, and this isn't even a nice try. I'm pointing out what an empire actually is. That's factual. I'm not saying "well, I think they have enough land already". I'm saying "Hey, this thing that is universally called an empire was an empire". You're trying to handwave your way out of that.

You're trying to make up what Russia's intentions are. I'm pointing out that they make no sense and don't align with everything we know about the world and history.

Okay, fine, whatever. I'm not going to argue over every little obscure point here. This discussion is getting too unwieldy as it is. Let's just go back to the beginning and tell me what your position is and what your disagreement with me is about?

 

[Stevicus]

So much wrong here.

So much opinion wrapped up in one sentence.

First, "Russia has generally adopted a defensive posture" isn't meaningfully different from what I said. You're claiming their actions historically are for defensive purposes. They have never been about defense.

We've been over this already. They live in a land which mostly a flat plain. They have vast lands, but without any natural defenses, which has made them vulnerable to numerous invasions. They were ruled by the Mongol Empire for three centuries. Are you suggesting that they were morally wrong to establish a defensive posture and formulate a strategy for the sake of their own national survival?

Yes, it is 100% fact that they established an empire. That's not up for debate.

Oh my, angels and ministers of grace defend us. When you say things like this in such a way, it makes me wonder if you're really interested in a reasonable discussion on this matter.

It was called an empire by them and everyone else. That's not a grandiose sweeping statement, just a matter of fact.

Yeah, but you're still missing the point.

I point out that you don't establish an empire for defensive purposes on the grounds that that's a fact.

"It's a fact because I say it is." Now, there's a convincing argument.

The best way for you to understand this would be to study a little bit of history.

There is some irony here, especially since I've already cited a fair bit of history which you yourself declared as "irrelevant" before handwaving it away. How convenient.

By definition an empire is aggressive and not defensive. You say you've studied history extensively. So, one wonders why you'd try to paint it inaccurately just to defend Russia.

By definition, huh? Why don't we check that?

Definition of EMPIRE

a major political unit having a territory of great extent or a number of territories or peoples under a single sovereign authority; especially : one having an emperor as chief of state; the territory of such a political unit… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

empire​

1 of 2

noun​

em·pire ˈem-ˌpī(-ə)r

Synonyms of empire
1
a(1)
: a major political unit having a territory of great extent or a number of territories or peoples under a single sovereign authority
especially : one having an emperor as chief of state
(2)
: the territory of such a political unit
b
: something resembling a political empire
especially : an extensive territory or enterprise under single domination or control

2
: imperial sovereignty, rule, or dominion

3
capitalized [Empire State, nickname for New York] : a juicy apple with dark red skin that is a cross between a McIntosh apple and a Red Delicious apple

Empire
2 of 2

adjective​

Em·pire ˈäm-ˌpir ˈem-ˌpī(-ə)r
: of, relating to, or characteristic of a style (as of clothing or furniture) popular in early 19th century France

Yes, I have studied history, although you're addressing an issue of semantics here, not history, per se. I don't think I ever said that Russia didn't form an empire, so I'm not sure why you keep emphatically pressing this "fact" that I haven't even disputed. But as we can see here from Webster's dictionary, the word "empire" does not "by definition" automatically connote aggression or expansion.

The word "imperialism" is a completely different kettle of fish.

"Imperialism" is a factual term, even though I never actually used that. It's also not a pejorative. It's kind of weird that you're trying to argue this.

I've seen it used in this discussion. Perhaps it was someone else, but seriously, this whole digression into semantics is getting pointless.

Saying that Russia's invasion of Ukraine is not at all the same as saying "Russia is evil" and is not remotely saying anything about a "moral crusade NATO is on".

It isn't meaningfully different from what was said.

You're muddying the waters. I'm not sure if it's intentional or not. This isn't about whether Russia is evil. This is about your claim:

Russia expands its empire for defensive purposes and to create a buffer zone.

Was that exactly what I said? I don't recall now. But just to be clear, this is the claim you take issue with, and you believe that I have not sufficiently explained this or supported it with historical fact.

You and other keep bringing up tangents in order to distract from this point. The fact remains Russia has always expanded for non-defensive purposes.

This is where your entire position goes south, since now you're the one making a claim as "fact" that Russia has "always expanded for non-defensive purposes."

"Always." Not "sometimes" or "a few times." "Always." Is that your claim here? Do you have any support for this claim, other than telling me to "study a bit of history"? I've already done quite a bit of that already. Now, if you think that I'm wrong or if I'm drawing the wrong conclusions, then you're at liberty to show me where and explain it to me (and please be sure to show your work).

You don't create an empire "for defense" or for a "buffer zone". You have yet to actually support your claims, only trying to pass off responsibility to me to support my pointing out that you're wrong.

I'm simply flabbergasted here. You're saying I'm wrong just because I'm wrong. You say that I have not supported my claims, yet you handwave most of what I've written and declare it to be "irrelevant" - just because you say so.

Maybe if you had more to counter with other than "just because I say so," we might be able to move towards something resembling a reasonable discussion. I don't know what your background is, but I've encountered this viewpoint before, during the Cold War. I am largely aware of where it comes from and how most Westerners have formulated their opinions and impressions about Russia.

If you wish to talk about a specific claim that You don't create an empire "for defense" or for a "buffer zone", then we can examine that in a generic sense, because it's a claims which ostensibly applies to nation-states in general. If it's more a matter of "rules for thee but not for me" while attempting to dodge behind the shroud of "whataboutism," then that's a different matter entirely.

The fact remains Russia doesn't expand for defensive purposes. It never has. That's a justification people and state use for their aggressive actions.

Just repeating the same thing over and over.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

All I'm really pointing out here is that there are explanations as to why nations act as they act

This is increasingly tedious.

All I want is an explanation as to why you deliberately misrepresent Russian Imperialism as "creating a buffer zone" which is "perfectly reasonable" and downplay it as "defensive" despite the fact that it involved conquering and annexing multiple sovereign territories, but call the expansion of NATO (a voluntary defensive organisation) "U.S imperialism".

No lecture, no obfuscation. I want an explanation, not waffle.

I'll await another rambling, meaningless lecture.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

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

This is perhaps the most bewilderingly naive statement in relation to global politics I have ever heard.

The fact that you think you can lecture literally anyone on imperialism, world history or politics when you genuinely believe statements like the above is baffling.

 

[Estro Felino]

Still no support for the claim.

Ok...
if I have understood correctly, let's sum it all up:

While I want the war to terminate today because I want no more Ukrainians to die, and no more Russians to die....


you, on the contrary want this war to continue, because you enjoy the fact that Ukrainians kill Russian soldiers, right?

Correct me if I am wrong.

 

[Revoltingest]

Ok...
if I have understood correctly, let's sum it all up:

And I understand that you make
claims you cannot support.

 

[Estro Felino]

And I understand that you make
claims you cannot support.

Denial (Freud) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Revoltingest]

Denial (Freud) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I don't leap to belief in unsupported claims.
But then....I'm an atheist, & you believe in a
sky fairy. Don't believe every comfortable
whim that pops into one's head.

 

[Estro Felino]

I don't leap to belief in unsupported claims.
But then....I'm an atheist, & you believe in a
sky fairy.

Exactly...and I will glad to meet them in the afterlife.
They will tell me everything about Ukraine and Russia. Who did what and why.

 

[Revoltingest]

Exactly...and I will glad to meet them in the afterlife.
They will tell me everything about Ukraine and Russia. Who did what and why.

Faith is strong in you.
But I like evidence & reason.