Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
You buying into Russian propaganda doesn't dismiss the facts that can't be denied, well except by the Russian propaganda machine and your parroting of it.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Ukraine has become a dictatorship, it's official
- Thread starter Estro Felino
- Start date
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
Correct. They're wrong because they're wrong. I'm just pointing it out.
I already told you what I'm talking about several times. I replied to your post claiming that Russia only expands for defensive purposes and to create buffer zone. That's the point I addressed. You have since taken it in every other direction you can in order to distract from the fact that that claim was completely wrong.
Instead of pointing out how each of your many different points are wrong, I'll just restate the things you still haven't actually addressed.
Russia does not and did not expand for defense. It did not expand to create a buffer zone. Empires aren't formed for defense or buffer zones. There are many, many examples to show this. One big one is The Great Northern War.
You never provided any actual evidence of your claim. All you pointed to was "Napoleon and Hitler". You didn't even specify what exactly Russia did after those events to "create a buffer zone".
Invading another sovereign country just to take it over is wrong.
If you feel like actually addressing those things honestly, be my guest. If you just want to claim facts are opinions and make other points that only serve to distract from these points, I'd rather you didn't.
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
Yes, I understand facts and reasonable comments are not your strong suit, so this jumps out at you.
Russia formed an empire. That's a fact. Here's a good place for you to start your education on the matter:
Russian Empire - Wikipedia
For someone who says they've studied the history, you sure don't seem to have much knowledge of it.
This is all nonsense. It's you trying to claim I'm pointing out that you're wrong just because I say so. It's a dishonest tactic, and it would be great if you could stop. Your points are wrong. I've pointed that out. Either try to support your points with actual facts and evidence, or admit that they're wrong.Yeah, but you're still missing the point.
"It's a fact because I say it is." Now, there's a convincing argument.
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, 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 definitionwww.merriam-webster.com
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.
I've seen it used in this discussion. Perhaps it was someone else, but seriously, this whole digression into semantics is getting pointless.
It isn't meaningfully different from what was said.
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.
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).
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.
Just repeating the same thing over and over.
The fact remains Russia formed an empire. That's not defense. That's offense. It's always offense. Invading other countries and taking them over is offense. That's not an opinion. Now, if you really think your original claim is correct, try actually supporting it. Don't attack me, don't try to distract with paragraphs about other topics. Don't use dishonest tactics like saying an actual fact is just an opinion. Just support your claim.
I think you're out of line when you say "deliberately misrepresent" when it's simply a matter that my opinion and perception of events differs from yours. You're talking about semantics here, not actual history. You're not the voice of authority on how things should be characterized, and as far as I can tell, you are not qualified to declare that I have "deliberately misrepresented" anything.
Aye.
Such sincerity in support of Russian predation
is even worse than misrepresentation.
I've heard the warmongers' rhetoric for most of my life. I've heard it from anti-communists, McCarthyites, Birchers, Reaganites. They would often use the word "naive," as you have done here. As if they somehow have a handle on world events far and above that of everyone else. As if they can read the minds and know the plans of world leaders. I've talked to people who could barely write their own name, yet somehow fancied themselves as all-knowing oracles who knew what the Russians were planning. And they get really angry when called out on their BS.
I've been having this same discussion for nearly 50 years, so I doubt there's any argument or talking point you could come up with that I haven't heard 100 times before.
I oppose warmongering rhetoric which could lead the U.S. into war. Maybe you would like to go to war for frivolous reasons, but I would not.
Either way, war is favored.
The only question is whether
Russia or Ukraine is favored.
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
The way you frame things is not an opinion. It displays an intent to skew perception in one direction or another. It's a conscious decision you make to misrepresent history.
Then I want you to stop using semantics to hide your actual position and state it outright. Because right now it reads like your position is "America bad, any nation other than America good (or at least not as bad as America)". And to push this idea, you misrepresent Russian imperialism and overplay U.S imperialism.
Answer the charge. Don't obfuscate with essays and lectures. Make your position known and stop hiding behind waffle and semantic drivel.
Yes I am.
Yes I am.
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
(edited by me)
I don't care. You just made a wildly, insanely, embarrassingly naive argument that because a country has a lot of land in it, there can be no validity to the claim that it is trying to conquer more land or that it wants more territory.
No going back from that one, chum.
"They're wrong because they're wrong." That's a great argument.
First, I quoted my exact claim earlier, and you are misstating it here. Give me an exact quoted statement I made (and which post # it appears in), then tell me exactly, point by point, what you consider wrong with it (using historical, factual evidence).
If all you're going to respond with is some vague opinion that I'm "wrong," then you're not giving me much to work with. Nothing specific I can address or respond to. When that happens, I might go into a longer explanation to try to explain my reasoning and why I made the statements I have made - just for your sake, so you can understand. I thought you wanted to learn and to get an explanation.
I addressed your point about the Great Northern War. I also pointed out the terrain of Russia and the fact that they've been invaded numerous times in the past from all sides, which led to formation of the traditional Russian strategy of yielding land to the enemy as they invade. That's what they did with both Napoleon and Hitler.
I never said that it applied to each and every instance of military action committed by Russia (even though you appear to be claiming that I did).
I know that there were times when they were the aggressors trying to expand their empire, mostly against Turkey, with mixed results. I've observed that in wars where they are the aggressors, the Russians tend to do rather badly, as they did against Japan in 1905. So, yes, there have been quite a few times when they were attempting to expand aggressively, and mostly botched it, just as they're doing now. This is also something I predicted even before they invaded Ukraine, which is why I was surprised that they actually did it.
Their acquisition of Poland as agreed to by the victorious powers at the Congress of Vienna was the main thing they did after the Napoleonic Wars. Some might say that they were wrong to do that, and they'd be able to make a good case for that. One can say it was even "aggressive" in a way. But either way, it was clear that they wanted to secure their western frontiers, and having control of Poland (in addition to the Baltics and Finland) was designed to gain the strategic position necessary to fulfill that goal. They obviously didn't need Poland or the Baltics for any strategic resources (addressing your "land and power" argument) - but it was for strategic position on the chessboard that was Europe at the time.
After WW2, it was a similar situation, as the Russians wanted to ensure that they could neutralize and/or maintain positive control over the states bordering their country - because they wanted to protect their borders. But also, they wanted the strategic position necessary, just in case they had to go to war in Europe again. It's part of the historical record, so I'm surprised you never heard of any of this, you who told me that I should "study a bit of history."
Yes, this is true, and it has been agreed upon by the major powers in multiple agreements regarding the outlawing of aggressive warfare. Of course, that hasn't stopped countries from doing so just the same, but it involves some sort of plausible pretext or casus belli as a way of justifying an invasion. They can simply say that they're invading for some other reason, not "just to take it over."
Realistically, there's not much that other countries can really do, unless they're willing to put themselves on the line and go to war themselves - and with nukes in the mix - it becomes a deadly game indeed.
Ask me direct, specific questions, and I will answer them. If all you can offer are loaded rhetorical questions based on faulty premises, then I will respond differently.
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
It's not a matter of opinion, though. Your perception of events is different because you're promoting propaganda and ignoring facts. You're talking about semantics here, not actual history. You're the only one trying to be the "voice of authority" here. We're just pointing out facts that you then pretend aren't facts but opinions.
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
"I didn't like the rhetoric from Americans against communism/the USSR, so I decided to buy into Russian propaganda instead."
Maybe you've been having the same discussion for 50 years because everyone keeps pointing out you're wrong, and you keep refusing to listen.
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
I already pointed out why they're wrong. Take your own advice."They're wrong because they're wrong." That's a great argument.
"They're doing it for defensive purposes, because I say so." That's a great argument.
Now we're getting somewhere. I'm glad you finally agree that they don't expand their territory for defensive purposes or to create a buffer zone. That's all I was getting at.
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
I mean, this is just baffling. "They already have enough land, so there must be some other reason to invade another country." It's impossible to take anything else seriously, especially on the topic of geopolitics, after that. "Napoleon already has enough land, so he must have tried to invade Russia to create a buffer zone." "Britain already had enough land, so they must have colonized India for defensive purposes."
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
Well, of course! Because that's not imperialism. Remember, imperialism is only imperialism when it's done through trade agreements and voluntary, mutually beneficial defence treaties. Invading other countries and taking their land through overwhelming military force is nothing compared to the evils of mutually beneficial, voluntary agreements. That's where the real evil lies, you see.
Your way of expressing this would indicate a palpable degree of intolerance of other people's viewpoints. Just because I have a different perception and point of view regarding historical events, it's not for you to allege "misrepresentation." We can agree to disagree.
By telling me what "it reads" to you, you also give hints about your own position here, as much as you're trying to read into mine and make faulty assumptions.
Let's make one thing perfectly clear. You are not my judge, and I have no obligation to answer to you. Out of courtesy, I will answer your concerns, but please stop using this haughty, heavy-handed approach as if you're setting yourself up as some voice of authority.
Well, if you want me to make my position known, then I have to write it down and post it, don't I? If you're only going to handwave it away as "essays and lectures," then it kind of defeats the purpose, doesn't it?
Oh? What makes you think that?
Anyway, you want my position, I will give you my position.
First, a point of order: I don't really think "America bad." I am an American myself, even if I have made strong criticisms of our government. I'm not sure why it would be of any concern to a non-American anyway. In other contexts, I've heard folks from your part of the world make some rather pointed and harsh criticisms of America. Many Americans have done the same. And I've known British people to make harsh criticisms of their own government and its activities over the past few centuries. We criticize our own governments, and that's that. Let's not make any more out of it than it has to be.
But also, as an American, I believe that my sense of conscience should focus on the behavior of my own government and what they have done in my name, along with those around the world who have suffered from such warlike and other underhanded activities. When it comes to wars and upheavals in other countries, I don't believe in ignoring them, but I also recognize that we can't control everything that happens in this world, and we might have to try to use diplomacy instead of brute force from time to time.
So, my position is largely an America-centric one. That is, I can't tell the Ukrainians or Russians what to do. I have no standing in either country and no say in their government or political system. All I can do is offer my opinion as to what I think my own government should do.
What our government should not do is demonize Russia as they have been doing. I can sense a palpable Russophobia at work which I think is dangerous and uncalled for. I don't think this rhetoric or this position of "hold at all costs" is very productive.
My position is that they should make peace. Call a truce, or at least a temporary ceasefire. Ukraine is not going to win a war of attrition with Russia, and the Russians are obviously not going to leave the territories they're already occupying.
The only moral choice here is to make peace and save lives. The longer they keep fighting, the more lives lost and destruction they will face.
But as I said, I can't really tell them what to do, so it's up to them. What can anyone else do about it?
All I hear in response to that is that they can't make peace with Russia, since it is implied that it would be seen as a sign of weakness and encourage Russia to invade even more countries in Europe. Poland often gets mentioned frequently, even when there's not a shred of evidence of any secret plan or long-term intention towards conquest or world domination. This is all just comic book melodrama. It's not a realistic or accurate perception of contemporary geopolitics.
I don't believe that will happen, and I can tell you why based on historical precedent (which you dismiss as "lectures and essays," but at least I'm telling you my reasons). I don't believe that Russia will invade any further if they declare a cease fire now. The battle lines will probably become something akin to the border between North and South Korea.
It may not be an ideal solution, but I believe it's the most practical one under the circumstances and taking into consideration all other factors (including the uncertainty of China and the potential use of nuclear weapons).
I haven't seen much in the way of "fact" coming from either of you. It's more like bombastic badgering and faux outrage which is getting very tedious. All I see is sanctimonious, accusatory drivel, but not much in the way of historical fact.
But which choice would that be?
1) Have Ukraine surrender.
Russia would see that this tactic of expansion works.
It might continue, eventually causing WW3.
Or stopping Russian aggression.
2) Continue defending Ukraine.
Risk Russia escalating it to WW3.
3) ____________________________________
All have their risks.
Oh please. Don't give me this. I learned and studied about Russian history largely because of the Cold War. I was curious about them and wanted to find out why they were considered by many to be a dangerous adversary. I wanted to learn about the world around me, not just from our own point of view, but also what it looked like from the other side of the hill. I've read both sides, both points of view and how they look at the world, and I feel qualified to comment on both.
I can assure you that I haven't been the only American to form certain views of the American government and the propaganda techniques used to convince and persuade Americans to support the Cold War policies of global militarism and interventionism. Of course, there was the other side, the ones who, according to you, told me that I was "wrong." They were the warmongers. They were the ones who favored wars in places like Vietnam and interventions and interference all around the world.
The Soviets also did things like this, so I'm not letting them off the hook or buying into their propaganda either. You make a serious miscalculation when you say that I'm buying into somebody's propaganda.
I wasn't really looking at propaganda anyway, but rather pointing how they might see the world and how it differs from the commonly-held perceptions of the West. I think that, in order to coexist with other nations in this world, it's important and vital to understand how they see things and how they look at the world. It's important to understand and appreciate how they perceive us, as the United States.
I will not apologize or be told that I'm "wrong" when I demonstrate an honest understanding and attempt to know about another country and how they see the world. Even if you see them as an "enemy," then it's equally vital to know your enemy. Part of this means having an accurate and objective understanding of their perceptions and motivations.
I believe that we can make peace. Does that make me some kind of villain? Seriously, does it?