Ssu’s implicit claim came after you solicited him and he clarified on what grounds he made his claims. At the first round, your response seemed to me something like: Putin did not commit imperialist acts, therefore Putin didn’t have imperialist motivations. Were this the case, then you too in the end were making an implicit knowledge claim on Putin’s motivations, just you took Putin’s acts as more relevant evidence than Putin’s words to assess imperialist motivations.
But then at a second round you wrote “I'm not addressing the motivations here; I'm addressing the act. Those are not the same things”, so you are addressing just “the act”. And you wrote “when Russia extends greatly beyond the Donbass and begins regularly taking resources from that area and its citizens, then I will consider it imperialism”, so what I understood so far is that you can assess Russian imperialism based on such acts, independently from whatever Putin’s declared motivations were. I take such acts to be broadly “non-speech acts” because such acts are not talking and writing. So yes you were grounding your claims on non-speech acts actually or hypothetically committed by Russia, while ssu was arguing based on what was written and said by Putin, so broadly Putin’s speech-acts, to legitimise what Putin did (invading and annexing Ukrainian territories). — neomac

This is all supposition, and you admit it is. You cannot make a logical claim based on "it seems" and "what I understood" and assert it as fact. That is not just analytically incorrect, it is syllogistcally so. You must provide factual premises to synthesize a factual claim..and you don't do that here. Also, you clearly don't know what "speech act" means.

The point here is that your claims are implicit knowledge claims grounded on certain evidences relevant for your understanding of “imperialism” as much as ssu’s implicit knowledge claims are grounded on other evidences relevant for his understanding of “imperialism”. And as long as one just expresses one’s beliefs to illustrate one’s own implicit assumptions to an interlocutor who doesn’t necessarily share them there is nothing really challenging about it, one is simply talking past each other. — neomac

The one who needs to heed this admonishment is you, as you have been doing what you admonish against here this whole discussion, and you do it in the sentence right above. You make another false claim against me without supporting it in any way, which is not philosophical at all. Remember, what is asserted without proof or evidentiary support can be refuted without such

The point is that if I misrepresented them, maybe it’s because I didn’t understand them and need to question your claims to understand them better, after all you do not seem to understand my claims either. — neomac

This is not an excuse for misrepresentation. You should only claim, particularly in a philosophical discussion, your interlocutor is doing or saying something if you actually think they are. If you are not, you should either say "I think you are doing/saying this" or "i think you are doing saying this, could you clarify if you are or are not." Otherwise you are being unfair to your interlocutor and degrading the discussion

All right, can you give me your definition of “selfishness” as a general characteristic that is not about motivations and psychologies? Because after a quick check on wikipedia — neomac


Yes: the quality or condition of being selfish...from Merrian-Webster. As I said, it's a characteristic
— Jack Rogozhin

Sure a psychological characteristic concerning people’s motivations. — neomac

Your inference here makes no sense syllogistically or syntactically; motivations is neither mentioned nor implied. Again, you are imposing your erroneous belief and acting like it is a correct inference.

First, yes it is controversial for one reason or the other, again you just recently joined the thread, and I’m not here to keep you up-to-date on what has been discussed in this thread. Just as an example, what you call “the Maidan coup” has sparked some controversy in this thread at least 7 months ago (https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/776025), use the search function. Also the alleged Ukrainian war crimes sparked some controversies in this thread. — neomac

It is controversial for those who deny the facts, such as the US sending CIA agents to Ukraine right before the coup, and Gloria Nuland and our ambassador to Ukraine discussing who should replace the deposed democratically-elected leader...as if they have substantial say. The fact Nuland recently visited Niger to sway events there shows she hasn't changed her spots

Second, I didn’t claim that “the notion citizens have to abide by their country's rules no matter what”. My claim wasn’t about moral assessments of laws and related citizens’ attitude, it was about what Russia can claim as a legitimate threat against Russia — neomac

Ukrainian ethnic Russians and Russophone are still Ukrainians and must abide by Ukrainians rules — neomac

You did claim this and you did not just say that about Russia...you said what you said above, proving me right.

Even if Ukraine is repressing or oppressing a minority of its own citizens, that doesn’t seem to be a threat against Russia (so much so that Russia needed to distribute Russian passports into annexed territories to have a convenient pretext that Ukraine is threatening Russian citizens) — neomac

Actually it is a threat against Russia and their people as it is fomenting violence and murder right at their border, which can spill into their own territory. And it is being done against their own ethnic people who were citizens of their country only thirty years ago. If Mexico had annexed San Diego 30 years ago and started slaughtering the Americans within their new borders, the US certainly--and rightly--would militarily step in

And you must certainly disapprove of all of the US's military border crossings/bombings since WWII. I agree with you there.

If China tortures, imprisons, and persecutes Chinese muslim Uyghurs that doesn’t count as a legitimate threat against muslim states either. Right? BTW Russia too oppresses minorities up until now (like the Crimean Tatars which were occupying Crimea way before the Russians) that doesn’t make it a legitimate threat against other states (other than Ukraine of course, since Crimean Tatars are Ukrainian citizens too within Ukrainian territories), or does it? — neomac

This is a terrible analogy. Firstly, this action against the Uygures is still in dispute; the UN admits they have no evidence of such a persecution. Secondly, the Uyghurs are not ethnically Russian and the posited persecution is neither at the Russian border or involving shellings at that border

Ukraine's government and media have been caught many times spreading lies about supposed Russian war crimes:

https://www.globalresearch.ca/ukrainian-official-admits-she-lied-about-russians-committing-mass-rape-convince-countries-send-more-weapons/5783014

Yeah, none of this comes off as objective or supported either

And it not being the first report doesn't change that. There were lots of reports about the "Ghost of Kiev"--which was a total hoax--and Russian bounties in Afghanistan, which didn't make that true either

Ukrainska Pravda is hardly an unbiased, definitive source...no more than RT

Whatever happened to the Ghost of Kiev and the Snake Island "massacre"?

I wouldn't presume to know his actual motivations. I don't know him and I'm not a psychologist.
— Jack Rogozhin
You don't have to be. A good start is to read what Putin has said and written. There's bound to be some links to his actual motivations on what he has written or what speeches he has given. — ssu

First, your name in the quotation came from the quotation function not from me — neomac

As you can see, that quote couldn't have come from the quote function as it was SSU's quote responding to me. To willfully misrepresent that is either a mistake or dishonest; i'll assume it was the former

I didn’t formulate my question appropriately. I was wrong in using the word “accusation” there. Mea culpa. What however I noticed is that ssu didn’t make any explicit knowledge claim first, it was you to introduce it while commenting his claims, to question ssu implicit knowledge claim. I didn’t find it fair because “if you can ground your claims about Russian imperialism on non-speech acts — neomac

SSU did make a knowledge claim about how I could know things. I, on the other hand didn't "ground my claims on Russian imperialism on non-speech acts" and you didn't show I did. Also you are mixing up two discussions here, try to stick the one that was at hand

Forth, to be clear, if I don’t understand your reasoning or your assumptions, and I feel like questioning them, then I’ll question them. I've been doing this for several hundred pages before you joined the thread and nothing could change it. That’s a philosophy forum after all. — neomac

I never said you can't question my reasonings...I made no assumptions. I said you can't misrepresent my reasoning and arguments as you are doing now. This is a philosophy forum after all

Unless your glibly usage of the verb “to show” shows otherwise. — neomac

My usage of the verb "to show" wasn't glib; it was accurate

I didn’t say that one has “to distinguish imperialism motivations from non-materialist motivations when one does so with imperialist and non-materialist acts”. — neomac

You did say that.

I took as premises your distinctions between motivations and acts, between imperialist acts and non-imperialist acts, and between imperialist motivations and non-imperialist motivations, and then concluded that also imperialist motivations and imperialist acts are distinct. If set M (set of motivations) is distinct from set A (set of actions), M is constituted by subsets M1 and M2 (e.g. imperialist and non-imperialist motivations), and A is constituted by subsets A1 and A2 (e.g. imperialist and non-imperialist acts), then M is distinct from A subsets as much as A is distinct from M subsets as much as M subsets are distinct from A subsets. This conditional must be logically true if we understand the notion of “distinction” in the same way. If not, I literally do not understand what you are claiming. — neomac

So what is your point here? I literally do not understand what you are claiming

Your final balance sheet of what you succeeded in showing and I failed at every round doesn't impress me and, worse, it shows nothing more than your lack of self-confidence to me. — neomac

This is just ad hominem and projection. It shows nothing more than your lack of self-confidence to me. And what do you mean by "final balance sheet"? It's a bizarre phrase for a philosophical discussion

All right, can you give me your definition of “selfishness” as a general characteristic that is not about motivations and psychologies? Because after a quick check on wikipedia — neomac

Yes: the quality or condition of being selfish...from Merrian-Webster. As I said, it's a characteristic

You see, there is a lot more to unpack in your “evaluating acts on their own to a great degree”. Each example of “immediate and primary causes” you listed is controversial and can be used to argue the opposite, namely that the alleged coups and their consequences were “immediate and primary causes” for Ukraine to look for Western support against a foreign power messing up within its territory, and discounting the fact that Ukrainian ethnic Russians and Russophone are still Ukrainians and must abide by Ukrainians rules. — neomac

No, nothing I said was controversial. You keep making claims without backing them up, and that is not appropriate for a philosophical conversation. Also, the notion citizens have to abide by their country's rules no matter what is both wrong and anti-Humanist. According to you, American slaves and Native Americans needed to bow to its country's rules of slavery and oppression, and Japanese Americans would have been wrong to defy the US' internment of them...and all rebels, including the American Revolutionaries were inherently wrong. This is pure authoritarianism. Poroshenko literally said Russian Ukrainians of the Donbas would be cut off from state benefits and their own language and you want them to sit like good dogs and take it...because rules?

The fact you are still denying they were coloinies of France, and are still being treated as such by France is bizarre.
— Jack Rogozhin
I absolutely didn't say that. — ssu

LOL...Mali, Niger, and Burkina Faso were colonies (not allies) of France
— Jack Rogozhin
The African countries have been allies in the War on Terror (that curious war that started with 9/11, you remember). Operation Serval was widely appraised... and then things turned south (as usual they do). But back in 2013: — ssu

You did say that. I pointed out Niger was a French colony and you countered by saying they were allies. But at least we both agree Niger was a French colony and is still being treated as one

And no, Russia's corruption wasn't worse
— Jack Rogozhin

By that list I quoted it is. — ssu

That list is neither exhaustive nor the authority on the matter. But at least we can agree both Ukraine and Russia are corrupt

It does not contradict my claim; you've confused my use of "regularly" again

And you don't get to decide what questions are asked and answered, and you don't get to be the only one who asks questions and have them answered

I will continue discussing this subject with others whom--while we disagree--do not engage in such bad faith. Have a good weekend

What exactly do you think NATO was going to do with Ukraine for defense once it became member? — Jack Rogozhin

I have answered all of your questions...and shown you to be wrong. You have still not answered my one question above. It is time for you to start answering my questions, starting with this one

What exactly do you think NATO was going to do with Ukraine for defense once it became member? — Jack Rogozhin

And you never answered the question above. Do you really think NATO just sends money to its member countries? :grin:

And I just said what I meant by "regularly" is they regularly do it, not do it on a regular basis. You need to read better

And yes my link backed it up as it did not show they stopped doing that in the 1950s. So, you're just wrong or lying. I'll give you the credit for the former

"I wouldn't presume to know his actual motivations. I don't know him and I'm not a psychologist.
— Jack Rogozhin
You don't have to be. A good start is to read what Putin has said and written. There's bound to be some links to his actual motivations on what he has written or what speeches he has given."
— Jack Rogozhin

The reason why I talked about “accusation” is that in the passage you just quoted ssu is arguing about a link between Putin’s motivations and what he said. So if you can ground your claims about Russian imperialism on non-speech acts (like invading and annexing Donbas and Crimea) others can ground their claims about Russian imperialism on speech acts (like denying Ukrainian identity as distinct from the Russian, talking about denazifying Ukraine) made to legitimate certain non-speech acts. — neomac

That second quote isnt mine (it's SSU's). So, I still made no accusation and you haven't shown I have. I also made no speech acts and you haven't shown I have. Also, you don't get to tell me how I make my arguments, just as I don't get to tell you how you make yours. Let's actually discuss the issue

Where did I distinguish between imperialist acts and imperialist motivations? Where did I say the invasion was an imperialist act, and how do you draw that suggestion from the first premise? You're making a lot of unfounded assumptions here
— Jack Rogozhin

Dude, chill down, I’m still exploring your assumptions with some questions. You distinguish acts from motivations (“I'm not addressing the motivations here; I'm addressing the act. Those are not the same things”). And then you distinguish imperialist acts from non-imperialist acts (“when Russia extends greatly beyond the Donbass and begins regularly taking resources from that area and its citizens, then I will consider it imperialism”). Therefore you must distinguish imperialist motivations (if also some motivations can be qualified as imperialist) from imperialist actions too, that’s logic.
I didn’t say nor implied that you said “the invasion was an imperialist act”. I’m aware you are trying to argue against it. — neomac

I am and was chill, and my quote you posted shows that. So, you need to chill a bit yourself. I made no assumptions. As I showed, you have and did. And no, one does not have to distinguish imperialism motivations from non-materialist motivations when one does so with imperialist and non-materialist acts, and I already showed that. Your saying otherwise is just an assumption, not logic. Show otherwise if you can

OK when you are talking about selfish leaders (selfishness here is about leaders' psychology and motivations, right?) you do not mean to address particular motivations or psychologies but general ones. — neomac


No, selfishness is a characteristic, not a motivation. If a hot-headed person yells at someone because they are hot-headed, that doesn't mean they are motivated by hot-headedness. Again, you are drawing unfounded conclusions.
— Jack Rogozhin

I didn’t mean that selfishness is a motivation, but that when you talk about leaders’ selfishness you are talking about psychology and motivations of such leaders. Indeed, it’s hard for me to even understand what you mean by “selfishness” without referring to people’s motivations. — neomac

I showed why this you're wrong here in the quote you quoted of mine above. I'm sorry your understanding of "selfishness" is limited as such

If ordinary peoples’ judgments of politicians are just a reflection of their own bias, then every ordinary person’s judgement of Putin would just be their bias, not an objective judgment. I'm surprised you believe that
— Jack Rogozhin

First, my claim was generic about ordinary people’s bias, I didn’t say every ordinary person is biased about politicians’ selfishness. Generic generalisations should not be conflated with universal generalisations. The bias I’m referring to can be read in different ways: e.g. avg politicians may be prone to selfish reasoning no more than avg ordinary people, “selfish” reasoning may not always be a bad thing as much as ordinary people would assume.
Second, concerning Putin, he may hold some nationalist motivations (and I don’t take nationalism to be a form a selfishness) besides worrying about his own political or material survival (which would be a more selfish motivation). — neomac

Generic and universal work the same here; universal is just more extreme. You made a claim about how ordinary people are biased towards politicians, and I correctly showed how that would apply to their (including your) view of Putin as well

I asked you the same question by mistake. Indeed my second question should have been “was Russia a legitimate threat to Ukraine before after the invasion of Crimea?”. I’m not making “the presumption Russia just invaded Crimea out of the blue without taking into account the factors preceding and causing that” (assumed it makes sense). On the contrary I’m reasoning from your own assumptions. You yourself claimed “histories are important, but we still have to evaluate acts on their own to a great degree” (like all the declarations against Ukraine joining NATO) and “a legitimate threat to the security of a nation and its borders, and the safety of its people, is a legimtiate threat”. So If NATO could be perceived as a legitimate threat by Russia, why couldn’t Russia be perceived as a legitimate threat by Ukraine prior the invasion of Crimea and/or after? — neomac

Yes, and evaluating acts on their own to a great degree includes immediate and primary causes, with less (but not no) attention given to older history. That would include the Maidan coup, the burning alive of the Crimean anti-coup protesters in the trade house building, Kiev's shelling of the Donbass Ukrainians, and Kiev's admitted (Merkle admits this too) breaking of the Minsk Accords

I answered your final question in my last post. You're repeating your questions again

I didn't mean they do it on a regular basis. I meant it's what they do with their NATO partners and my link I posted backs that up

What exactly do you think NATO was going to do with Ukraine for defense once it became member?

And, as to my knowing NATO keeps missiles in NATO countries without knowing the exact amount, here's an excerpt from that piece, supporting my claim:

"The United States and its NATO allies do not disclose exact figures for its European-deployed stockpiles."

I never said that and what I DID say is not self-contradictory; you have to back that unfounded claim up. And do you not think America puts missiles in its NATO bases? Really?

Here is some info for you if you don't

https://armscontrolcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/NATO_NSNW_factsheet.pdf#:~:text=In%202021%2C%20it%20is%20estimated%20that%20there%20are,Base%20in%20the%20Netherlands%2C%20and%20Incirlik%20in%20Turkey.

The fact you are still denying they were coloinies of France, and are still being treated as such by France is bizarre. It goes against the facts. Feel free to show how they have not been colonies. You haven't yet
The fact France worked with friendly governments--like the recently overthrown one-- at times doesn't change that, particularly since France has, along with the US, worked with those same jihadists who have terrorized Niger

And no, Russia's corruption wasn't worse, but at least we both agree Ukraine and Russia have been corrupt way before the invasion

And yeah, you said it, not me. Really :grin:

I didn't accuse others. He said he knew Putin's motivations beforehand
— Jack Rogozhin

Where did he say it? Can you quote him saying this verbatim? — neomac

Here you go:

"I wouldn't presume to know his actual motivations. I don't know him and I'm not a psychologist.
— Jack Rogozhin
You don't have to be. A good start is to read what Putin has said and written. There's bound to be some links to his actual motivations on what he has written or what speeches he has given."

By distinguishing imperialist acts and imperialist motivations, are you suggesting that non-imperialist acts can have imperialist motivations and that imperialist acts have no imperialist motivations? If so, do you have historical examples to illustrate your point? — neomac

Where did I distinguish between imperialist acts and imperialist motivations? Where did I say the invasion was an imperialist act, and how do you draw that suggestion from the first premise? You're making a lot of unfounded assumptions here

OK when you are talking about selfish leaders (selfishness here is about leaders' psychology and motivations, right?) you do not mean to address particular motivations or psychologies but general ones. — neomac

No, selfishness is a characteristic, not a motivation. If a hot-headed person yells at someone because they are hot-headed, that doesn't mean they are motivated by hot-headedness. Again, you are drawing unfounded conclusions

Talking generally about motivations and psychologies , I suspect that the difference between politicians and ordinary people in terms of "selfishness" may be biased in favor ordinary people when the judgement comes from ordinary people. — neomac

If ordinary peoples' judgments of politicians are just a reflection of their own bias, then every ordinary person's judgement of Putin would just be their bias, not an objective judgment. I'm surprised you believe that

Was Russia a legitimate threat to Ukraine before the invasion of Crimea? If so when did it start to become a legitimate threat to Ukraine? If not, was Russia a legitimate threat to Ukraine before the invasion of Crimea? — neomac

You ask the same question twice here and you make the presumption Russia just invaded Crimea out of the blue without taking into account the factors preceding and causing that, so the question is a loaded one. Also, if by threat, you mean actually threatening Ukraine,I would say no

If you accuse others
you think you know Putin's motivations
— Jack Rogozhin — neomac

I didn't accuse others. He said he knew Putin's motivations beforehand

why are you so confidently expressing the following?
This isn't an issue of imperialism at this point. It is a security and territorial dispute. You can argue its a wrong one on Russia's part, but this isn't--at least not yet--an act of imperialism. — neomac

Because I'm not addressing the motivations here; I'm addressing the act. Those are not the same things

why are you so confidently expressing the following?

I would say every leader's--including Biden's, Zelensky's, Macron's, and Xi's--are primarily selfish and self-centered. I do, however, think sometimes a leader's self-interest can alighn with his country's. I don't think Putin was primarily acting out of his country's interests, but Ukraine and NATO created a legitmate threat against his country and himself when Ukraine refused to remain neutral and NATO refused to not put missiles in Ukraine. — neomac

I'm not addressing motivations or psychologies here. I'm addressing general characteristics...and most leaders' today, particualry the ones Ilisted, are greatly driven by self interest....as many firemen/women are greatly driven by wanting to help people. You think otherwise?

OK let's not talk about Putin's, Biden's, Zelensky's, Macron's, and Xi's motivations, or simply assume they are selfish and self-centered. Let's talk about "legitimate threat against the country and himself", what makes a threat perception (NOT based on leaders' actual motivations because we do not know that other than assuming they are selfish) but on potential and precedent (like placing NATO missiles on the border between Ukraine and Russia that could kill Russian people and trigger a regime change in Russia) "legitimate"? And what would need to happen for you to believe that is an act of imperialism yet? — neomac

A legitimate threat to the security of a nation and its borders, and the safety of its people, is a legimtiate threat. What do you think a legitimate threat is? And when Russia extends greatly beyond the Donbass and begins regularly taking resources from that area and its citizens, then I will consider it imperialism

Lol.

Just as Mali, Niger, Burkina Faso were allies with France ...until a change in leadership! And the huge protests against Lukashenko earlier (until Russia sent help) and that some Belarussians are fighting for Ukraine show that all is not fine and dandy in Belarus. Many Belarussian commentators have been worried that Russia will take over their country for a long time. — ssu

LOL...Mali, Niger, and Burkina Faso were colonies (not allies) of France---and France clearly thinks Niger still is. You must think Haiti and Algeria were France's allies and India was Britain's...:) And Belarusians not liking Russia doesn't keep them from being their ally. Many europeans hate America; that doesn't mean their countries aren't America's allies

What is naive is totally dismissing how the organization actually works. — ssu

And I didn't do so...you and others should stop doing so, though

Again, you should give reasons just why you ignore the reasons Putin has given for his annexations of territory. I don't get that. — ssu

I didn't ignore those reasons. I correctly said they alone don't constitute his motivations. You should stop ignoring that

I wonder if Russia making a large scale attack on Ukraine has had an effect on just why Ukraine has it so bad now... — ssu

Ukraine's corruption level was terrible way before the invasion

Glorious Russia going from triumph to triumph!!! Hail Putin!!! — ssu

You said it, not me

If you think what I said was a fallacy then show how. Just linking to a random fallacy and not doing so is neither philosophical or adequate. I look forward to your doing so and responding

No, it's not a fallacy. I know this is a philosophy forum and your claim what i said was a fallacy is philosophically wrong:grin:

↑ This would be a common fallacy.

It's been a while since Crimea was a part of Russia. It's been a legitimate part of Ukraine for a while. In 2014 Putin's Russia launched the land-grab. The UN concurs. "Period" (to use your word). But of course human rights should be respected in Crimea. And in Russia, Belarus, etc. Ukraine has to fulfill this and a few other things to be accepted into the EU. From memory, Ukraine has to be a transparent democracy to be accepted by NATO. Putin's Russia has regressed, Ukraine has progressed some (barring PTSD). Putin's supposed NATO-phobia has also been discussed (not sure I'm up to digging it all out). — jorndoe

No, it's not a common fallacy; it's not a fallacy at all. It has not been a legitimate part of Ukraine for a while; it has been a part of it for a short while compared to how long it has been part of Russia. It's like saying if Kruschev gave Ukraine to Belarus for the same amount of time, Ukraine would legitimately be part of Belarus...it wouldn't

Putin's Russia has not regressed, their economy is going strong, Brics is going well, and it looks like they're getting the Donbass...and they're now China's number one pal. Ukraine hasn't progressed. They've had civil war and strife since the Maidan coup, they've been consistently listed among the most corrupt countries in Europe, they've lost hundreds of thousands of their citizens--and probably the Donbass--and NATO and US are losing patient with them.

France and it's former colonies should have another thread, but France isn't annexing it's former colonies back! — ssu

France has miltary bases in Niger the country wants out, they have half their financial reserves in their bank, and they are crossing into Niger's airspace. That is imperialism and disrespect of borders, period. Anyone OK with that has no place complaining about Russia

The perfect example in this case is Belarus compared to Ukraine. Russia has (also) aspirations for Belarus, it has troops in the country, close ties yet it hasn't annexed territories of Belarus or questioned it's sovereignty. And nobody is openly complaining about this, because Belarus a sovereign state. — ssu

No, this is a terrible analogy. Belarus and Russia are allies with shared ethnic groups. France is a racist white colonizer of Niger, a country like all the countries they have inhabited--they have brutalized and robbed of their resources

Nonsense.

Russian imperialism has been, all the time in history, about security and territory. Yeah, there's no large oceans separating Russia from what isn't Russia, but in their place Russia just has a huge steppe. Hence Russian imperialism has always been about going as far as possible you can go, no matter how un-Russian these Asian or European territories have been. Catherine the Great put it quite aptly when she said: "“I have no way to defend my borders but to extend them.”

That is in the heart of Russian imperialism. — ssu

No. Great sense

Sorry, but the history of Russian imperialism can't compete with that of the NATO countries like the US, Spain, Germany, the UK and France. So, if you'r going back to Catherine the Great--love Elle Fanning by the way--then we have to discuss all of theirs. Yes histories are important, but we still have to evaluate acts on their own to a great degree. This invasion needs to be evaluated with history in mind, but not as the determinant. Same with the US and France's imperialist actions in Niger

Not their exact motivations, but do you then totally dismiss what they state for their reasons for the actions they do? If you do so, you should explain why. Because what Putin says about Ukraine does matter. Just as important as is his opposition to NATO. — ssu

No I dont' and I never did. You seem to treat them like gospel, though and that is in error

Again, what "NATO missiles" in Ukraine are you talking about? — ssu

The missiles NATO regularly puts in their NATO countries, many of them pointing to Russia. If you think the US has made public what exact missiles they put in, that would be naive, no?

And the fact is that NATO is an international organization where the US doesn't decide everything and new members have to be accepted by all members. Just look at how difficult the road for Sweden has been. Hungary openly opposes NATO membership of Ukraine (see here) and there's not much the US can do. Remember how many times the US and it's presidents have been disappointed in NATO. — ssu

Thinking the US doesn't control NATO is just naive. They spend the most money, have the most bases, and they are the only country who starts their own wars and drag evereyone else into it, bossing around the other NATO countries as they do. Hungary and Orban are outliers and they already want him out, just like they got out Imran Khan

Notice that this thread started before February 24th 2022. Hence the name of the thread is Ukraine crisis, not Ukraine war. And we aren't talking about the US invasion of Cuba or the US-Cuban war. — ssu

The Cuban Missile crisis is extremely relevant, both historically and strategically. So, I used it as analogy. That's how discourse often works

And this just shows how weak the argument is that it was all about NATO expansion that made him do it, because obviously when listening to Putin it wasn't. Sure, NATO was one perfect reason especially for the anti-US propaganda, but forgetting other reasons (Crimea, Novorossiya) is simply wrong. If Ukraine would have a constitution like Moldova with forbids NATO membership, it's still likely that Putin's Russia would have started this war. Crimea being the best example of this. — ssu

So it doesn't show how weak this argument is or that it is weak at all. Again, you think you know Putin's motivations; I don't get that. And correctly crticizing the US is not anti-US propaganda. I coordinated protests of the Iraq war...lot of people called that criticism "anti-US propagana too." And no, they wouldn't have started it. Ukraine had been a country for almost 25 years before Maidan, many of those years run by Putin. There was no conflict before Maidan

Yes, "rightly" is a bit too pat. However, and the ethnic cleansing was wrong, the will of the Crimeans, the Russian history of Crimea, and the Poroshenko/Zelensky treatment of Crimea does make it best for the Crimeans to stay in Russia. If, after all this, they choose to move to Ukraine, I would support that

In similar fashion dozens of countries ought to have the "right not to consider" other countries and territories similarly. But once you acknowledge the independence of a country and it's borders, be it Ukraine, Ireland or Finland, you don't make statements of that country being "artificial" or that it's independence was an error or accident. Or that the borders are wrong. — ssu

They almost all do, or at least act as if they have that right. Look what's going on in Niger; France and USA are threatening and terrorizing it as if its their country. The US currently has bases there and in Syria, which they bombed as if it was their territory, and are stealing their oil. They did it to Iraq, Libya, and Afghanistan, too, and with the NATO--a supposedly defensive alliance's--help. They bombed Yugoslavia and cut Kosovo out of it with no respect for those borders at all. So we clearly have no set rules about border respect. And again, Crimea was never part of Ukraine proper but part of it when it was a territory for 40 years, after being part of Russia for hundreds. Even if there is a rule about borders, it wouldn't quite apply here

The insanity of Russian imperialism would perhaps be more clear to people if some other country would start similar rhetoric about their neighbors. — ssu

The insanity of Russian imperialism would perhaps be more clear to people if some other country would start similar rhetoric about their neighbors — ssu

This isn't an issue of imperialism at this point. It is a security and territorial dispute. You can argue its a wrong one on Russia's part, but this isn't--at least not yet--an act of imperialism. Also, there's no "insanity" here, unless you think France and the US are acting insane now in Niger

It is also the reason why NATO has enlarged itself as it has, because Finland and Sweden would have never, ever, joined NATO and would happily have good relations with Russia if it wasn't for the 2022 invasion. — ssu

You don't have to be. A good start is to read what Putin has said and written. There's bound to be some links to his actual motivations on what he has written or what speeches he has given. — ssu

Actually, you do. Do you actually think Putin, or any somewhat functional world leader, tells us their exact motivations? I'm no Putin fan, like Biden, Macron, Zelensky, Trump, and Obama, he is an oppressive, neoliberal Capitalist leader who has robbed his own people. That being said, I don't think it's wise to assume leaders you don't like are stupid. Putin may be a lot of things, but he hasn't survived in Russia for so long by being stupid

What missiles are you talking about? Besides, Ukraine wouldn't have become a NATO member. It wouldn't have been just the countries like Hungary that would have opposed this, it actually would have been Germany. But then February 24th 2022 happened. Ukraine's path to NATO would have been blocked just the way Turkey's EU membership is off and no way happening, but theoretically (hypocritically) possible. — ssu

NATO missiles. And none of this is true. It is fact the US refused to take Ukraine membership off the table; considering NATO's spread, that rightly threatened NATO and Russia. It is fact Ukraine refused to promise NATO neutrality, meaning they would have been fair NATO territory for NATO missiles, weapons, and soldiers. This also rightly threatened Putin and Russia

It's cliche by now, but remember the Cuban Missile Crisis. Was Kennedy wrong to feel threatened

OK. Have they and the claims against them be resolved? Judging by the discourse around the topic, and the changing support for US funding of the war. I imagine they haven't.

What is the rule here? Are positions only allowed to be said once?

I wouldn't presume to know his actual motivations. I don't know him and I'm not a psychologist. I would say every leader's--including Biden's, Zelensky's, Macron's, and Xi's--are primarily selfish and self-centered. I do, however, think sometimes a leader's self-interest can alighn with his country's. I don't think Putin was primarily acting out of his country's interests, but Ukraine and NATO created a legitmate threat against his country and himself when Ukraine refused to remain neutral and NATO refused to not put missiles in Ukraine. I think the US and Ukraine created a legitimate border threat to Russia (and Putin's power) with the Maidan coup and the subsequent shelling and terrorizing of the Russian Donbass ukrainians who lived there peacefully before the coup. Ukraine breaking the Minsk Accords exacerbated this

So, I think Putin did this for Putin, but it was also a smart, beneficail move for his country as a NATO-member Ukraine could wipe out the Donbass Russians with NATO's full backing and The US could use Ukraine to continually attack Russia through their NATO base. And does Putin care about the Donbass Russians? Probably not. But Russians do and certainly wouldn't want them erased

Putin is Russia? I'm asking this to make this clear, were Dubya or Trump "America" and is Zelensky "Ukraine"?

What do you mean by "Russia"? What would you mean by "America" if you asked "Why did America invade Iraq and why is America spending hundreds of billions on Ukraine?"

As to resistance, nobody doubts Ukraine's soldiers' grit and courage, although many, rightly, have no desire to be in a grinder their courage can't surpass. That's not cowardice; it's intelligence. It came out last week that US/NATO were disappointed Ukraine wasn't willing to sacrifice more men for a more aggressive approach. The Ukrainian military leader, to his great credit, said "why don't they come fight then."

Russia rightly doesn't consider Crimea taken land. It had been Russian territory for centuries until Ukrainian Kruschev gave it to Ukraine in a narcissistic, ceremonial move not anticipating the Soviet Union's breakup...Kruschev wasn't a brainiac. Also the majority of Crimeans have made it clear they don't want to live under Ukrainian rule, which had cut off their water source and now have likely cut off another with the dam

The ICC arguing a case does not make it true. The fact the ICC has made no cases against the US for Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, or Libya shows them to be heavily biased for NATO/US and against Russia. So taking an ICC case as fact would be absurd

As to propaganda, there has been loads coming from both sides. The fact Russia has made clear only the Donbas is not on the table, and they would be free to negotiate without taking anymore does give some weight to the fact the Donbas was/is their goal....not proof, but weight.

And simplistic charts hardly express real human ambitions and/or realpolitik. It completely ignores the US-backed Maidan coup that overthrew a democratic election greatly backed by the citizens of the Donbas, the rise of the AZovs following the coup whose crimes against Donbas Ukrainians were chronicled by Amnesty international, and Poroshenko's banning of the Russian language...all leading to Donbass calls for independence Putin told them not to do. Do you have any sympathies for these Russian Ukrainians or do you just see them as vile separatists Ukraine can treat however they like. I would imagine it's the former

Have these Russification programs and kidnapping of children been established? I know they said they moved chlldren orphaned by the post-Maidan and post-invation conflicts. That, could be true even without the asserted benign intent. Of course, Russia could have done those problems and kidnappings. I just haven't seen the evidence.

I know many disagree, but I believe the Donbass--which Russia certainly hasn't captured--was their territorial goal. I less have faith Russia could end this by actually capturing and holding it than I have little faith Ukraine could recapture it without losing an irrevocable amount of their people

Newcomer here, so tell me if I'm repeating. Is there any other feasible outcome at this point than Russia keeping the Donbass, with all Ukrainians unhappy with that moving West.

It just doesn't seem like Ukraine can take it back...without getting destroyed in the process...and the Russian Ukrainians of the Donbas want to stay part of Russia