Ukraine has become a dictatorship, it's official

[Magic Man]

Sorry, but I have lost interest in your rant.

You presented an untenable position, and so now instead of attempting to defend it or even just letting it go, you are responding anyway just to say you don't care and inaccurately frame my perfectly reasonable points as a rant. Don't blame me for your inability to support your points.

 

[Stevicus]

Did you think about the fact that obviously that would already have been tried?

If you're saying that it's too late and we're past the point of no return, then you may be right. But we can always hope, can't we? Do you really need to take this "all or nothing" stance?

Because it affects us as well as the rest of the world.

Then it would also behoove us to consider the effect that we have on the world.

I can't even begin to figure out what this is even supposed to mean or what it even refers to. If you want to rephrase so it is in reference to something I said and makes enough sense to parse, I'll respond.

Well, the way it currently is, neither of us are living in the countries currently at war. We are outsiders, viewing the situation from afar. We are not directly involved. I don't feel any strong compulsion to "root" for one side or the other, yet some in this thread are chiding me because they think that I'm "rooting" for the wrong side.

 

[Magic Man]

In your opinion.



In your opinion.



I believe I gave sufficient support to the general observation I made regarding trends regarding Russian history and the national security perceptions they have formulated over the centuries. I didn't say that they always followed the rules or that they were bunch of a nice guys or that they didn't act in their own interests when it suited them. They acted like any nation would act in that situation; that's just how the world works. Much of the time, it hasn't been nice. You don't have to like it, but don't blame the messenger for informing you about it.




In your opinion.

Nope. You can't just handwave things away as opinions. At this point if I said "2+2=4", you'd claim it was just my opinion. We're talking about verifiable facts here. An empire is 100% not defensive. That's a fact, not an opinion, no matter how much you want it to be.

And I'm sure you do believe you gave sufficient support, but you didn't. You haven't even presented an example of a defensive expansion. You haven't given any counter for the fact that building an empire is an offensive action, not defensive.

Then perhaps it's best that we focus on what's happening now, since your historical arguments about what they have "always" done aren't holding water.

I'd rather focus on your claim, so you can either admit it's wrong or at least let it go. And please stop with the completely ridiculously wrong claims. You made the wrong historical arguments. I just pointed out that they're wrong. Just saying "Nuh uh!" isn't a good way to debate. You actually have to support your claims, not baselessly claim the other person is wrong without offering any reasoning for it.

 

[Magic Man]

If you're saying that it's too late and we're past the point of no return, then you may be right. But we can always hope, can't we? Do you really need to take this "all or nothing" stance?

*facepalm*

You're talking about a practical solution to the problem right now. You suggested Ukraine just magically obtains a ceasefire without giving in to any demands or conditions. I pointed out how absolutely ridiculous that is, since, you know, that's not how this actually works. We already know Russia's demands for a ceasefire. That has already been broadcast.

You're the one talking about how "Russia's not just going to go home; we already know that". And now you're saying "well, let's hope they do this". If we're going to hope Russia does something, why not hope they give up and go home completely? Why hope for a much lesser outcome, if all we're doing is hoping? And then your "I'm just presenting a practical solution" thing goes out the window, if we're just talking about things we hope might happen.

And I have no idea what this "all or nothing stance" is supposed to refer to. My stance is that Russia should stop the invasion and go home. That's the proper outcome. My other stance is that for a ceasefire to happen, Ukraine would have to cede land to Russia and agree not to join NATO, which are nonstarters for obvious reasons. So, your "Ukraine should just, you know, do a ceasefire" suggestion doesn't work.

Then it would also behoove us to consider the effect that we have on the world.

I'm sure you thought this sounded great and even that it was meaningful and had some relevance here, but I'm not going to bother trying to figure out why.

Well, the way it currently is, neither of us are living in the countries currently at war. We are outsiders, viewing the situation from afar. We are not directly involved. I don't feel any strong compulsion to "root" for one side or the other, yet some in this thread are chiding me because they think that I'm "rooting" for the wrong side.

Wait, so let's make this clear:

You don't feel the need to root for either Ukraine or Russia.

Russia invaded Ukraine, just to take it over and/or depose its government. It's an open-and-shut case of one side in the wrong and the other side just defended itself against an invader.

Yet you don't feel the need to root for the victim.

And then you wonder why people point out that you're supporting Russia. "I didn't feel the need to "root" for one side or the other in WWII, yet some criticized me for "rooting" for the Nazis, just because I wouldn't root against them." I mean, yeah, when you consciously and deliberately choose not to root against the obvious bad guy or for the obvious good guy, people will rightly point out that that's essentially supporting the bad guy. As Desmond Tutu said:

"If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality."

 

[Kathryn]

But you said it wasn't "even a 'death camp' per se", as if there's a need for a distinction, despite tens of thousands of people dying there. And I appreciate you agreeing with me.

It wasn't a death camp per se, and certainly wasn't one for many years. But of course thousands and thousands died there due to squalid conditions, hard labor, etc.

 

[Magic Man]

It wasn't a death camp per se, and certainly wasn't one for many years. But of course thousands and thousands died there due to squalid conditions, hard labor, etc.

But what's the point of making that distinction?

 

[Kathryn]

It wasn't a death camp per se, and certainly wasn't one for many years. But of course thousands and thousands died there due to squalid conditions, hard labor, etc. CS Lewis once said, by the way, "If war is ever lawful, then peace is sometimes sinful."

 

[Kathryn]

But what's the point of making that distinction?

Why not? I've been to Dachau by the way, and it was horrible. I've also been to Baden whatever and it was horrible too. Bertchesgaden was also bad, maybe even the worst of the three I've been to. Never been to Auswitchz but it was in Poland and I wouldn't even spend the night in that country the last time I was there!

 

[lukethethird]

You presented an untenable position, and so now instead of attempting to defend it or even just letting it go, you are responding anyway just to say you don't care and inaccurately frame my perfectly reasonable points as a rant. Don't blame me for your inability to support your points.

yawn

 

[Stevicus]

Nope. You can't just handwave things away as opinions. At this point if I said "2+2=4", you'd claim it was just my opinion. We're talking about verifiable facts here. An empire is 100% not defensive. That's a fact, not an opinion, no matter how much you want it to be.

An "empire" is just a way of designating a nation-state (as opposed to "republic," "kingdom," "grand duchy," "federation," etc.). I already posted the definition upthread. Just like a nation-state, it exists, but in and of itself, it is neither "offensive" nor "defensive." It just is. Any nation-state can act aggressively, and they don't have to call themselves an "empire" to do it. Whether or not they're an "empire" or not is kind of immaterial, don't you think?

And I'm sure you do believe you gave sufficient support, but you didn't. You haven't even presented an example of a defensive expansion. You haven't given any counter for the fact that building an empire is an offensive action, not defensive.

Well, I have pointed out examples. There's a lot in this thread that I've written which you've overlooked and handwaved away. You think it's "irrelevant," but this is why I believe that you may be misunderstanding my meaning here. You're not even bothering to read or address most of what I say. All you keep doing is saying that I'm wrong, as if that's supposed to settle it.

I'd rather focus on your claim, so you can either admit it's wrong or at least let it go. And please stop with the completely ridiculously wrong claims. You made the wrong historical arguments. I just pointed out that they're wrong. Just saying "Nuh uh!" isn't a good way to debate. You actually have to support your claims, not baselessly claim the other person is wrong without offering any reasoning for it.

Why you don't take your own advice here?

Which claim did you want to focus on again? Can you quote the exact claim I made and cite the post number, please? (I think I've asked you to do this numerous times, yet you keep refusing.)

 

[Magic Man]

yawn

Indeed. I'd suggest typing that from now on. It has the same amount of value as your other posts but with many fewer words.

 

[Magic Man]

An "empire" is just a way of designating a nation-state (as opposed to "republic," "kingdom," "grand duchy," "federation," etc.).

Uh, no, no, it's not. Again, didn't you say you were knowledgeable about the world and world history? Here's one definition:

a major political unit having a territory of great extent or a number of territories or peoples under a single sovereign authority

In other words, it's when a state conquers other territories and peoples and rules over them. The Roman Empire, the Persian Empire, the Mongol Empire, the British Empire. Then the Russian Empire.

I already posted the definition upthread. Just like a nation-state, it exists, but in and of itself, it is neither "offensive" nor "defensive." It just is. Any nation-state can act aggressively, and they don't have to call themselves an "empire" to do it. Whether or not they're an "empire" or not is kind of immaterial, don't you think?

Nope. By its very nature it's offensive. It's a state taking over other states and ruling over them.

Well, I have pointed out examples. There's a lot in this thread that I've written which you've overlooked and handwaved away. You think it's "irrelevant," but this is why I believe that you may be misunderstanding my meaning here. You're not even bothering to read or address most of what I say. All you keep doing is saying that I'm wrong, as if that's supposed to settle it.

You haven't, though. I've read what you wrote. You keep accusing me of the exact things you're doing. It would be best not to do that. You made a claim and supported it by pointing to a couple of invasions, as if that meant Russian expansion was obviously defensive. Of course that's not how it works. You'd have to show that Russia's actions were defensive, not that they were invaded. You'd have to establish that expanding your state's land CAN be defensive in the first place. Then you'd have to establish that it was in Russia's case. Then you'd have to address the examples I used to show that their expansion hasn't been defensive.

Why you don't take your own advice here?

Which advice? I'm not giving you any advice that would apply to me, so this doesn't make sense.

Which claim did you want to focus on again? Can you quote the exact claim I made and cite the post number, please? (I think I've asked you to do this numerous times, yet you keep refusing.)

Good lord, I've said the claim about 3.2 billion times now:

Russia has expanded for defensive purposes and to create a buffer zone.

That's the claim. Please stop trying to obfuscate with this nonsense. You know the claim. You know what you've said, and you know what I've said. Either address it honestly or just go away.

 

[Stevicus]

*facepalm*

You're talking about a practical solution to the problem right now. You suggested Ukraine just magically obtains a ceasefire without giving in to any demands or conditions. I pointed out how absolutely ridiculous that is, since, you know, that's not how this actually works. We already know Russia's demands for a ceasefire. That has already been broadcast.

You're the one talking about how "Russia's not just going to go home; we already know that". And now you're saying "well, let's hope they do this". If we're going to hope Russia does something, why not hope they give up and go home completely? Why hope for a much lesser outcome, if all we're doing is hoping? And then your "I'm just presenting a practical solution" thing goes out the window, if we're just talking about things we hope might happen.

And I have no idea what this "all or nothing stance" is supposed to refer to. My stance is that Russia should stop the invasion and go home. That's the proper outcome. My other stance is that for a ceasefire to happen, Ukraine would have to cede land to Russia and agree not to join NATO, which are nonstarters for obvious reasons. So, your "Ukraine should just, you know, do a ceasefire" suggestion doesn't work.

I'm sure you thought this sounded great and even that it was meaningful and had some relevance here, but I'm not going to bother trying to figure out why.

Wait, so let's make this clear:

You don't feel the need to root for either Ukraine or Russia.

Russia invaded Ukraine, just to take it over and/or depose its government. It's an open-and-shut case of one side in the wrong and the other side just defended itself against an invader.

Yet you don't feel the need to root for the victim.

And then you wonder why people point out that you're supporting Russia. "I didn't feel the need to "root" for one side or the other in WWII, yet some criticized me for "rooting" for the Nazis, just because I wouldn't root against them." I mean, yeah, when you consciously and deliberately choose not to root against the obvious bad guy or for the obvious good guy, people will rightly point out that that's essentially supporting the bad guy. As Desmond Tutu said:

"If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality."

In the first part of your post, you claim you have no idea about this "all or nothing stance," yet look at what you write here in the bottom half of your post.

I agree in principle that Russia should just go home and so forth. Keep in mind that I didn't create the situation. There's no use getting mad at me about it. I'm just commenting on it.

I just don't think one can ignore the practical reality of the situation. They're stuck between a rock and a hard place. NATO can't send in any troops of its own and can't escalate the situation. We don't want to go to war with Russia. It doesn't seem as if Ukraine will be able to kick them out of there any time soon, so all that's left is "hold or die" - an "all or nothing" stance, as I mentioned. The Russians have larger population, along with the resources and infrastructure needed for sustained warfare. A war of attrition will be costly for both sides.

But even if the West's strategy is successful and they are able to beat back the Russians, Ukraine will be severely depleted and devastated, so they will be more heavily dependent upon Western aid to rebuild. Meanwhile, Russia will be in a weakened state and may be compelled to turn to China for assistance, which would strengthen relations between those countries. So, the new Cold War will continue, even if Ukraine achieves victory (but that's still a big "if" at this point).

 

[QuestioningMind]

Is that what this discussion is about? Who cares more about Ukraine or Russia? If that's the case, then why would you favor a plan which brings more death and destruction upon the people you claim to care about so much?

Think about who benefits from all this. Certainly not Ukraine, which will be depleted of population and physically devastated from all of this when it's over. Russia doesn't seem to be benefiting either. The only ones who benefit from this are the arms makers and the Western corporations who will undoubtedly "help" Ukraine rebuild after all this is over.

It's about who cares about the ultimate fate of the people of Ukraine. You're saying that as long as people stop dying in a bloody war, you don't care what happens to the people who were invaded and are being repressed by a violent occupier. The Russians could have avoided a bloody war by not starting a bloody war. The people of Ukraine are fighting for their rights to live as free individuals... clearly they are willing to sacrifice their lives in order to maintain their freedom. They BENIFIT by keeping their right to self determination. Why are the Russians willing to sacrifice their lives? In order to BENIFIT from the oppression of other people. If the Russians want to stop sacrificing their lives for that goal, they're welcome to do so at any time, by going back where they came from.

 

[lukethethird]

It's about who cares about the ultimate fate of the people of Ukraine. You're saying that as long as people stop dying in a bloody war, you don't care what happens to the people who were invaded and are being repressed by a violent occupier. The Russians could have avoided a bloody war by not starting a bloody war. The people of Ukraine are fighting for their rights to live as free individuals... clearly they are willing to sacrifice their lives in order to maintain their freedom. They BENIFIT by keeping their right to self determination. Why are the Russians willing to sacrifice their lives? In order to BENIFIT from the oppression of other people. If the Russians want to stop sacrificing their lives for that goal, they're welcome to do so at any time, by going back where they came from.

You are not the only one outraged by the fact that Russia attacked a sovereign nation. We are all outraged. Attacking sovereign nations was reserved for the US and for the UK to do. Now Russia wants to join that club, I don't think so. If Russia is allowed to join the club, then who's next?

 

[Stevicus]

Uh, no, no, it's not. Again, didn't you say you were knowledgeable about the world and world history? Here's one definition:

a major political unit having a territory of great extent or a number of territories or peoples under a single sovereign authority

In other words, it's when a state conquers other territories and peoples and rules over them. The Roman Empire, the Persian Empire, the Mongol Empire, the British Empire. Then the Russian Empire.

Well, there was also the Central African Empire, which never conquered other territories or peoples. I don't really see how the word "empire" is even at issue here. As I mentioned, a nation-state can be aggressive and expansionist without calling itself an "empire."

Nope. By its very nature it's offensive. It's a state taking over other states and ruling over them.

What if it's a state which was ruled by your enemy (another imperial power), and you want to make sure it can't be used by your enemy to attack you? What if it's a case where you realize that, "If we don't take over this territory, our enemies will"? So, it can be both offensive and defensive in a way. It's not always so black-and-white. I agree that it's not a nice thing to do, and I agree that it's morally wrong. But that's how the world has worked for millennia. Humanity sucks. I know enough about human history to realize that. What do you want from me?

You haven't, though. I've read what you wrote. You keep accusing me of the exact things you're doing. It would be best not to do that. You made a claim and supported it by pointing to a couple of invasions, as if that meant Russian expansion was obviously defensive. Of course that's not how it works. You'd have to show that Russia's actions were defensive, not that they were invaded. You'd have to establish that expanding your state's land CAN be defensive in the first place. Then you'd have to establish that it was in Russia's case. Then you'd have to address the examples I used to show that their expansion hasn't been defensive.

Who do you think you are, some teacher handing out an assignment? I gave sufficient support for what I said. If that's not good enough for you, then I suggest you move on, because you ain't gettin' any more.

Which advice? I'm not giving you any advice that would apply to me, so this doesn't make sense.

Good lord, I've said the claim about 3.2 billion times now:

Russia has expanded for defensive purposes and to create a buffer zone.

That's the claim. Please stop trying to obfuscate with this nonsense. You know the claim. You know what you've said, and you know what I've said. Either address it honestly or just go away.

I asked you to cite a post # where the post with this exact claim. You still have not done so.

 

[Magic Man]

In the first part of your post, you claim you have no idea about this "all or nothing stance," yet look at what you write here in the bottom half of your post.

I agree in principle that Russia should just go home and so forth. Keep in mind that I didn't create the situation. There's no use getting mad at me about it. I'm just commenting on it.

I just don't think one can ignore the practical reality of the situation. They're stuck between a rock and a hard place. NATO can't send in any troops of its own and can't escalate the situation. We don't want to go to war with Russia. It doesn't seem as if Ukraine will be able to kick them out of there any time soon, so all that's left is "hold or die" - an "all or nothing" stance, as I mentioned. The Russians have larger population, along with the resources and infrastructure needed for sustained warfare. A war of attrition will be costly for both sides.

But even if the West's strategy is successful and they are able to beat back the Russians, Ukraine will be severely depleted and devastated, so they will be more heavily dependent upon Western aid to rebuild. Meanwhile, Russia will be in a weakened state and may be compelled to turn to China for assistance, which would strengthen relations between those countries. So, the new Cold War will continue, even if Ukraine achieves victory (but that's still a big "if" at this point).

Yet again, you talk about "practical reality", but your proposed solution is for Ukraine to just magically obtain a ceasefire without concessions or giving in to demands. When I pointed that out, your response was that maybe the western powers and Ukraine should try to negotiate, as if they hadn't done that already. Then when I pointed that out, your response was "well, we can hope, can't we?".

And now you're back to pretending you're the one advocating for a "practical option". Ukraine has three options:

Surrender and let Russia win completely.
Agree to a ceasefire and Russia's demands, which means giving up significant territory and not joining NATO.
Keep fighting and trying to defend themselves.

The only "practical option" is for them to keep fighting, unless the pressure finally gets to Putin and he backs off. There is no "just sign a ceasefire with no conditions from Russia" option.

 

[lukethethird]

The presidential elections were scheduled for March 31st, but they will not be held.
And please, spare me the martial law thing: a wartime can even last twenty years. That would make twenty years of martial law.
And by the way, martial law is itself, dictatorship, because there is no democratic vote.

Look at Russia. They are at war, but they still held elections.

Who needs elections when all the opposition parties are outlawed? I suppose Zelensky could hold an election with his sole name on the ballot but there is a war going on in the easternmost provinces so why bother? Better to just stay the course and rule by default?

https://www.npr.org/2022/07/08/1110...-tv-outlets-and-dissolved-rival-political-par

 

[Magic Man]

You are not the only one outraged by the fact that Russia attacked a sovereign nation. We are all outraged.

Then why are you directing all of your anger at targets other than Russia?

Attacking sovereign nations was reserved for the US and for the UK to do. Now Russia wants to join that club, I don't think so. If Russia is allowed to join the club, then who's next?

Oh, brother. And you wonder why people point out that you're defending Russia. This is why. Your whataboutism is a defense of Russia.

 

[Magic Man]

Well, there was also the Central African Empire, which never conquered other territories or peoples.

Congrats on finding one instance of a ruler declaring his state an empire without it being one.

I don't really see how the word "empire" is even at issue here. As I mentioned, a nation-state can be aggressive and expansionist without calling itself an "empire."

The word "empire" is at issue here because you claimed Russia didn't expand for offensive purposes, so I pointed out that they were an empire before they turned into the USSR. You're right that a nation-state can be aggressive, but my point was that it was an empire, which by its very nature is aggressive and offensive, not defensive. An empire is one state conquering other states and ruling over them.

What if it's a state which was ruled by your enemy (another imperial power), and you want to make sure it can't be used by your enemy to attack you? What if it's a case where you realize that, "If we don't take over this territory, our enemies will"? So, it can be both offensive and defensive in a way. It's not always so black-and-white. I agree that it's not a nice thing to do, and I agree that it's morally wrong. But that's how the world has worked for millennia. Humanity sucks. I know enough about human history to realize that. What do you want from me?

It's still offensive. You're still taking over another state.

Who do you think you are, some teacher handing out an assignment? I gave sufficient support for what I said. If that's not good enough for you, then I suggest you move on, because you ain't gettin' any more.

You didn't give any real support. All you pointed out was a couple invasions. Just above is the very first time you even attempted to support the idea that taking over other states can be defensive in nature.

I asked you to cite a post # where the post with this exact claim. You still have not done so.

I explained to you that your tactics aren't going to work. You can't make a claim, have me point out that claim in post after post after post after post after post, and then once you've successfully caused the discussion to go on for pages, require me to go back and find the original post. That's dishonest. You made the claim. I replied to it, and then you kept this going for pages. If you want to refer back to the first post of this exchange, go find it.