Granted, but the danger for me is the focus on psychology rather than strategy. Putin comes across as "mad" in some ways but then maybe that's what he wants us to think and, in the end, what does it matter? What matters, ultimately, is whether he's succeeding in advancing Russia's national interests because as Russia's leader that's surely the relevant criteria for judging him. If being "mad" helps with that, then the word loses its pejorative sense. So, yes, I agree we can describe it better but I don't think there's much to be gained in going that route until he does something truly self-destructive. Then we should be worried.

Yeah, right. Maybe you should read my comments first as I responded to that a long time ago! :grin:

I think it ought to be obvious that there is a difference between (1) “empire” in the sense of historical "Russian Empire" which was basically Czarist Russia, and (2) “empire” in the sense of expansionist system aiming to acquire territories beyond the original entity, e.g., the British Empire that kept expanding forever beyond the British Isles.

In other words, Russian Empire in sense (1) refers to an established, internationally recognized geographical area, whereas "Russian Empire" in sense (2) is an imaginary construct created by Western propaganda.

I think restoring some of the Russian Empire in sense (1) is legitimate. (Also, note that I said “some”.).

Creating an empire in sense (2) is (a) not legitimate and (b) unsupported by the evidence.

Hence my objection to the use of the phrase "Russian Empire" in sense (2).

Pretty clear and simple IMO .... — Apollodorus

If you still don't understand, do let me know and I'll explain it to you in greater detail .... :wink:

If you still don't understand, do let me know and I'll explain it to you in greater detail — Apollodorus

Oh I do understand. You cannot be more clear. I did try asking what you thought of the annexations and you have given a clear answer.

Granted, but the danger for me is the focus on psychology rather than strategy. — Baden

Psychology doesn't matter at all, actions do. Yet usually one has to take that what a person says is what he truly thinks. Of course he can lie for obvious purposes, just like saying Russia has no intention of invading Ukraine. And then, invasion. But the fact that NATO is out to get Russia and won't stop at anything can a thing that Putin genuinely thinks is true. Or any opposition that he faces is only implanted by the West and it's desire to instigate "Color Revolutions".

Similar event is actually the overdrive that democrats went with the Russian meddling in the elections. Yes, the Russians were active. But only up to a point. No, they didn't decide the elections.

Granted, but the danger for me is the focus on psychology rather than strategy. — Baden

But over time, I've come to suspect that a lot of big decisions come down to stuff that's pretty childish.

In the background of this is that what Putin is doing has been business as usual for at least 5000 years. Augustine said it: if you build a city, someone is going to come and try to take it, or corruption from within will break out in riots and destruction. Cities and deadly conflict go hand in hand.

We go to war because we love it.

So Finland is next?
— frank

I don't think so. Not at least in the same way. — ssu

Good.

We go to war because we love it. — frank

Except, it's gone out of fashion. Moving borders, getting influence etc. usually goes through democratic elections, corporate investments etc. This is the path China's been doing for many years; creating trading partners in the hundreds, invest in business within other nations etc. China has a lot more influence in the world today due to their trading and investing strategies than they would have ever had if they conducted military invasions and actions.

Of course, that would be ironic if they invade Taiwan, but the fact of the matter is that these kinds of invasions happen because of some other reasons than modern geopolitical ones. They stem from some "dream" of increasing the "empire" or that some political figures believe they have some "right" to some land.

Most of those reasons don't work today because they get shut down pretty fast through pretty strong alliances, far more than around the time of the world wars. So no one wants to try it if the intention is a long-lasting geopolitical change. Only lunatics like Putin do things like this, if he goes too far he will be killed like any other dictator who tried the same previously.

Most of those reasons don't work today because they get shut down pretty fast through pretty strong alliances, — Christoffer

Well, Putin is getting away with it. And I'm guessing he'll gain in stature for it. He'll seem strong.

Well, Putin is getting away with it. And I'm guessing he'll gain in stature for it. He'll seem strong. — frank

No one knows, but plenty speculates that even if he succeeds in defeating Ukraine, he will still not benefit from this. There's almost no "win" for him in any of this.

Nobody ought to say that a country of 44 million is "artificial" — ssu

People need to rethink whether traditional nation states are even viable if the people in them wish to live a first-world lifestyle.

One of the implied motivations for creating the European Union was precisely this insight: relatively small countries with limited natural resources cannot make it on their own to live a first-world lifestyle.

The EU is just implementing this in a way that helps the individual states save face. Which, however, is unfortunate, because people have lost sight of the value of natural resources and are taking them for granted.

EU's rhetoric about the motvations for joining should have been a lot more transparent.

If a more transparent discourse would be in place, it would be easier to understand what is going in the Ukraine.

hence I can annex territories from it.

Some formerly Ukraininan territories have separated themselves from the Ukraine. But very few acknowledge the will of these people. Why?

Is Putin Mad? — Wayfarer

Perhaps it should be described a bit better. That he is confined to a cabal that won't say anything against him. Now, if you don't have anybody challenging you, you really might go astray in your thinking. — ssu

Such plebeian reasoning.

This is a part of the problem: People talking about big issues and people in high places as if those were topics suitable for pub conversations, in that lowly manner.

This is an inevitable conflict, caused as much by Western provocation and puppet-mastery as it is by Russian lunacy and stubbornness. — Isaac

No, it's only the former.

Ever since I can remember, Slavic people have been put down by the West. In every international setting I have been, there was a palpable contempt for us. Online, as soon as people hear where I'm from, if they are Westerners, then 9 out of 10 times, they automatically adopt a negative, patronizing, bad-faithed attitude toward me. Like I'm automatically a second-class person because I'm from a Slavic nation.

This Western contempt and bad faith toward the Slavic people is so consistent and so grave that there is even a trend for Slavic people to despise themselves because of their national roots, to deny them, to reinvent the past (like some who say that we're not really Slavic, but an offshoot from the Italian group), and many adopt a Western identity.

The way many Western people have been talking about Putin is actually "just business as usual". There is an anti-Slavic nationalism that has become so deeply ingrained in Western culture, so normalized that most people don't even see it.

And, as I said before, if Russia loses, British and American corporations will be the first to get their hands on Russian resources, exactly as they did, or tried to do, in the 1990's after the collapse of the USSR. — Apollodorus

They've always had their claws set on Russian resources. That's always been clear.

Putin supporters tend to be quietists who seek stability. I don't see how they could reconcile this invasion with a concern for stability. — jamalrob

There comes a point when one has to decide between perishing on one's knees or die fighting.

But the fact is, this is not just about NATO enlargement. — ssu

No, it's about the normalization of bad faith, ill will, and dishonor.

I don't think so. Not at least in the same way. — ssu

@frank

Still...

"A spokesperson for the Russian foreign ministry has warned that the accession of either Finland or Sweden to the defence alliance Nato would spark a serious response from Moscow.

Speaking during a news briefing in Moscow, Maria Zakharova threatened if either Nordic country sought to join the security alliance it "would have serious military and political consequences that would require our country to take reciprocal steps", BBC reported quoting Russian news agencies.

"We regard the Finnish government's commitment to a military non-alignment policy as an important factor in ensuring security and stability in northern Europe," Zakharova said."

https://www.tbsnews.net/world/finland-or-sweden-joining-nato-would-spark-russian-response-russia-warns-376246

:up: I think ssu was saying that neither of them wanted to be in NATO anyway.

One of the implied motivations for creating the European Union was precisely this insight: relatively small countries with limited natural resources cannot make it on their own to live a first-world lifestyle. — baker

Unfortunately, that was only one of the motivations and not even the decisive one. The main motivation was the drive for hegemony that America imposed on Europe through a carrot-and-stick policy that combined the "Russian (read "communist") threat" with US "largesse" in the form of financial and technical assistance.

Like I'm automatically a second-class person because I'm from a Slavic nation. — baker

Not "second-class person", more like "sub-human species". In Britain, for example, there is widespread hatred of Germans and Russians who are constantly ridiculed and demonized in the media. "Don't be so Russian" is a standard expression referring to Russian people's alleged inferior ranking on the scale of civilization and evolution. Nazism and racism are alive and well.

Tom Tugendhat and the worrying rise of Russophobia - Spectator

Public life in Britain has taken a dark turn over the past 48 hours. Russia’s outrageous invasion of Ukraine has caused some people to lose their minds. War hysteria is everywhere. Jingoism is surging. Russophobia itself threatens to take hold in polite society. I can’t be the only person who feels deeply uncomfortable with the stifling, conformist and accusatory atmosphere that has descended on these isles in such swift order.

Truth is the first casualty of war, they say. In fact it’s more often freedom and reason. Especially freedom of conscience: the freedom to think differently to those banging the drums of war, or, in this case, those calling for a huge Western showdown with Russia. In recent years, the start of every war in which Britain has some role or some interest has been accompanied by a clampdown on free discussion, by the demonisation of those who dare to deviate, however slightly, from the mainstream narrative. And so it has been following Putin’s shock-and-awe in Ukraine.

Those of us who implacably oppose Russia’s invasion but who also believe that Nato played a key role in stoking the Ukraine crisis are being mauled as ‘Putin apologists’. ‘You love Putin’ is the infantile cry of laptop bombardiers who cannot believe that some of us have refused to join in their brave social-media campaign for 20-year-old working-class men to be packed off to Ukraine to fight the Russians.

Obviously, a lot of people are frustrated and angered because of the pandemic situation and all the inconveniences and problems it has caused and are looking for easy targets to take it out on. But it is the whole culture, encouraged by the US-dominated mass-media, that fans the flame of racial hatred for political ends.

Some British members of parliament are calling for war on Russia and the anti-Russian propaganda is escalating from day to day. IMO all the signs are pointing to Britain intending to engineer some "incident" in Eastern Europe or the Baltic as a pretext for war on Russia.

BTW, as a Slavic speaker, how would you interpret the word "Ukraine"? To me, it sounds very much like this was not the name of a people but of a geographical area, inhabited by a plurality of nationalities and controlled by various countries at different points in history. If so, Putin may have a point regarding the legitimacy of the "Ukrainian" state.

Crimea, in any case, has never been "Ukrainian". It was "given" to Ukraine by Soviet leader Khrushchev in 1954, but that was a matter of administration only, as Ukraine was part of the Soviet Union and no one at the time expected it to become not only a separate country, but actually hostile to Russia.

Do you have such evidence? — Isaac

Yes. The obvious evidence is that Russia has annexed Crimea. Case closed. — ssu

What? How is that evidence that Ukraine wouldn't have wanted to join anyway? We're not talking about whether Putin wants Ukraine, we're talking about whether he had any reason to, strategically.

We have a choice - what to do next. The only thing that matters is that choice, the consequences of it. — Isaac

And what do I get in response...?

the Baltic States did make a choice — ssu

More history. The question is what we should do, not what others did.

Those of us who implacably oppose Russia’s invasion but who also believe that Nato played a key role in stoking the Ukraine crisis are being mauled as ‘Putin apologists’. ‘You love Putin’ is the infantile cry of laptop bombardiers who cannot believe that some of us have refused to join in their brave social-media campaign for 20-year-old working-class men to be packed off to Ukraine to fight the Russians.

Good job a serious debating platform such as this wouldn't house such kindergarten-level analysis...

kindergarten-level analysis... — Isaac

:point:

IMO all the signs are pointing to Britain intending to engineer some "incident" in Eastern Europe or the Baltic as a pretext for war on Russia. — Apollodorus

Oh, and this...

BTW, as a Slavic speaker, how would you interpret the word "Ukraine"? To me, it sounds very much like this was not the name of a people but of a geographical area, inhabited by a plurality of nationalities and controlled by various countries at different points in history. If so, Putin may have a point regarding the legitimacy of the "Ukrainian" state. — Apollodorus

Let's analyze the name of your country to decide whether or not we can invade it and subjugate you. :chin: Comical.

Well yeah. There's a reason I hadn't responded to that particular poster thus far. But the comment quoted is still apposite regardless of the accompanying opinions held by the person quoting it. Stopped clocks and all...

True.

Let's analyze the name of your country to decide whether or not we can invade it and subjugate you — Baden

The issue was whether in historical terms "Ukraine" is (a) a separate state or (b) part of Russia. The evidence seems to be in favor of (b).

The question of "invasion" is a separate one.

Moreover, if we insist on Ukraine's right to independence from Russia, on what logical basis can we object to parts of Ukraine becoming independent from Ukraine?

Finally, my question was addressed to a Slavic person so we can have a broader range of views, not just Anglo-American ones. Or are they to be excluded from the discussion?

:zip:

Good job a serious debating platform such as this wouldn't house such kindergarten-level analysis... — Isaac

I agree. This particular debating platform seems ill-suited for some fact-based, objective analysis ....

The West is operating on the premise that people will do anything for money, for any amount of money.

Those who don't see the problems with this premise ... well, I don't know what to say.



It's also clear that the world at large isn't taking the situation in the Ukraine seriously, given that sports, fashion, and other entertainment events go on as usual, tv programs are only slightly changed, but the majority is entertainment as usual.

One would think that at a time like this, people would rethink their indulgence in enterntainment and luxury ... and one discovers that one was wrong.

Why Russia accuses Ukraine for being nazis as an argument?
Putin using false 'Nazi' narrative to justify Russia's attack on Ukraine, experts say
It is interesting. Don't you remember the Soviet Union propaganda back then?

I think we could finally get the world straightened out if we just learned what all the country's names mean and set up governments accordingly.

What does Figi mean?

It's also clear that the world at large isn't taking the situation in the Ukraine seriously, given that sports, fashion, and other entertainment events go on as usual, tv programs are only slightly changed, but the majority is entertainment as usual. — baker

War is entertainment. There's a reason it sells newspapers (or whatever the modern digital version of that expression ought to be).



Watch the whole thing. Genius.

China’s Xi speaks to Putin; calls for ‘negotiation’ with Ukraine

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/2/25/chinas-xi-speaks-to-putin-calls-for-negotiation-with-ukraine

Xi said on the call with Putin that it is important to “abandon the Cold War mentality, attach importance to and respect the reasonable security concerns of all countries, and form a balanced, effective and sustainable European security mechanism through negotiations”.....

... While most nations in Asia rallied to support Ukraine, China has continued to denounce sanctions against Russia and blamed the United States and its allies for provoking Moscow.

Beijing, worried about US power in Asia, has increasingly aligned its foreign policy with Russia to challenge the West.

“China feels very strongly that the United States is trying to encircle and contain it. Russia feels the same way. The combined pressure on both of them has pushed them together,” Einar Tangen, an analyst at the Taihe Institute, told Al Jazeera.

:up:

No one knows, but plenty speculates that even if he succeeds in defeating Ukraine, he will still not benefit from this. There's almost no "win" for him in any of this. — Christoffer

Which really begs the question why.

The idea of gaining physical territory is quite anachronistic. First it has huge political drawbacks and every nation that annexes something from somebody else will have a bad time with it. Be it country like Morocco, Israel, China among others. It's totally reasonable just why the international community doesn't accept annexations. Then comes the other issues.

A desert where nobody lives with a huge oil field or natural resources might be understandable. A region where majority of the population is favorable to you, even if the economy is a basket case, is still understandable. Hence annexation of Crimea was logical imperialism in the sense that Crimea was only an economic problem, not a security problem. Yet to take by war a region that is already poor with people very hostile towards you doesn't make any sense. Does Putin think that capturing Kiev and installing a puppet regime and things will be fine? Those troops have to stay and occupy a huge country of 44 million people.

But again, he made the intellectual journey already years ago with grand thoughts of Eurasia and with the thoughts of Aleksandr Dugin.