Well, I thought that comment of Isaac's was fair, and not unprovoked, but what do I know? — jamalrob

Mutual provocation perhaps. Ain't that the way...
But @Isaac has repeatedly posted misrepresentations.
Even if he has made relevant points, this is what stands out...
OK, really going this time and won't reply further.

Thanks for all perspectives and information shared.
A useful discussion.

What the Russian rulers care about is power in the region and on the world stage, and they use force to establish it — jamalrob

I think we established all nations run after these things.

There isn't a Neoliberal Mastermind somewhere telling the US government what to do. — frank

You don't need a neoliberal mastermind when a generalized and entirely impersonal profit imperative - we call it capitalism - will do. That's the difference between idiot psychologizers who think politics functions like Harry Potter, and an understanding of state power in service of a dominant class structure with a century of entrenchment. You can equivocate between a literal single person and globally spanning empire with mutiple, recorded genocides on its hands if you like, but let's be clear that the equivocation is yours and yours alone.

The fantasy that the US is responsible for everything on earth — Olivier5

They think they are. The words "World's Policeman" mean something, especially the brutality.

What citation? I'm not writing to publish an essay here.
— Christoffer

The citations you should have provided to back up claims like

this is all Putin
— Christoffer

...especially if you're then going to go on to repeat over and over things like...

You still don't know what is going on right now.
— Christoffer

I've been refreshing my own knowledge of everything related to all of this and through this conflict, I have two-three news outlets going simultaneously while deep diving and researching any development that happens.
— Christoffer

Right. So it shouldn't be the least trouble to provide one of these sources concluding that

this is all Putin
— Christoffer

I could ask of you the same, where are your sources for the conclusions you make?
— Christoffer — Isaac

Fragmentational dilution of my writing like this becomes a childish way of discussing a topic. I won't fall for cheap tricks like this, ugh...

https://jacobinmag.com/2022/02/maidan-protests-neo-nazis-russia-nato-crimea
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/30/russia-ukraine-war-kiev-conflict
https://jacobinmag.com/2022/02/the-left-vladimir-putin-russia-war-ukraine
https://www.dsausa.org/statements/on-russias-invasion-of-ukraine/
https://www.mearsheimer.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Why-the-Ukraine-Crisis-Is.pdf — Isaac

Wait, are you using opinion pieces as sources? Not factual sources for your own inductional reasoning? If you're gonna use sources to argue a point, it becomes extremely skewed if the sources are merly opinion pieces or far-leaning political voices.

My sources for claims about far-right activism and US support for it back in 2014 are here https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/659557 and here https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/659771 — Isaac

Has nothing to do with the events today or the acts of Putin. The far-right neo nazis are an insignificant speck on the political spectrum in Ukraine today, but you use this event as some justification for Putin's denazification propaganda reasoning for invading Ukraine?

What is your point? What is your actual argument? Because all I see is you blasting biased sources without any connective lines through any kind of argument with any kind of conclusion that actually focuses on my core argument.

A number of complex interrelated factors, one of which is US foreign policy, one of which is EU central banking, one of which is arms industry lobbying, one of which is the influence of multinational financial instruments... — Isaac

Neither connected to Putin's reasoning for invading Ukraine, other than you falling for his propaganda machine.

As long as your media outlets are independent trustworthy sources, you can listen to a lot of eastern political scientists confirm exactly what I'm talking about here.
— Christoffer

No I can't because you haven't cited any. A search for "a lot of eastern political scientists" on Google remained frustratingly unspecific I'm afraid. — Isaac

Why must it be " ...not Putin"? Can you really not even conceive of more than one factor? — Isaac

Either you are just not mentally capable of doing internet research, or you don't know how Google works, or just try to rub my argument in the mud with an ill attempt at a childish response. Either way you only do research to fit your narrative, you don't bias-check.

The independent media outlets broadcasting live news with experts from the IRES Institute for Russian and Eurasian Studies, have a bit more validity to them than your biased opinion pieces that you linked to. If you then seek sources for what I write about Putin's true ambitions then what you should do in order not to have a biased and irrelevant point of view is to search for research papers published. Like this: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/european-review/article/abs/vladimir-putins-aspiration-to-restore-the-lost-russian-empire/C0099C205BCDBA970CB699AFD534CBE5

Then, if going with articles that are less opinion pieces: https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26769481

Meanwhile, the country was led by Yeltsin, an irascible drunkard in fragile health. The situation was desperate, but Putin had a plan.
"I cannot cover all the tasks facing the government in this speech. But I do know one thing for sure: not one of those tasks can be performed without imposing basic order and discipline in this country, without strengthening the vertical chain," he told the assembled parliamentarians."

He spoke the language of a man who yearned for the lost certainties, who longed for a time when Moscow was to be reckoned with. He did not say it explicitly, but he was clearly stung by Russia's failure to stop Nato driving the forces of its ally, Serbia, out of Kosovo just months previously.

His domestic policy was to restore stability, to end what he called the "revolutions", that had brought Russia low. His foreign policy was to regain Russia's place in world affairs.

Here's a quote from it that I firmly agree with since people don't listen in here:

Those two core aims have driven everything he has done since. If only people had been listening, none of his actions would have come as a surprise to them.

"I think it became absolutely clear when Khodorkovsky was arrested, that Putin was not going after the oligarchs to reassert the power of democratic civil society over these titans. He was doing it as part of building an authoritarian regime,"

"Putin has really painted himself into a corner by destroying every independent source of power in Russia. He now has only the bureaucracy to rely on, and must keep increasing its funding to keep ensuring its loyalty," says Ben Judah, the British author of Fragile Empire, a study of Putin's Russia.

Putin has succeeded in building a version of the country of his childhood, one that can act independently in the world, and one where dissent is controlled and the Kremlin's power unchallenged. But that is a double-edged sword, because the Soviet Union collapsed for a reason, and a Russia recreated in its image risks sharing its fate.

All of that from 2014. Which means that the events since then up until now have further pushed his impatience with building his empire. All of this is perfectly in line with what I've written about Putin's ambitions and his journey from the fall of the Soviet Union, his KGB roots up until now.

That NATO has expanded towards the east is also a false narrative based in the very fact of how NATO expands. Answer me this... how does NATO expand? Are they forcing themselves onto nations, invading them and establishing NATO bases? Or are they rather existing as an allience with open doors to nations wanting to join?

Since we all know that it is the latter, then why do people say that NATO "expand east and put pressure on Russia"? Isn't the true nature of such an expansion, an extension of each nation's will? So the question of expansion as an influence of US imperial influence makes no sense based on a simple fact of A) NATO is not US alone and B) Nations joining NATO do so by their own will, not NATO's. Why do Ukraine want to join NATO? To be a puppet state under the US? No, since NATO doesn't work like that. Do they then want to be part of NATO in order to be safe from Russia? Of course that is the reason. The same reason why Finland and Sweden has this option on their table as well: since Russia, or rather Putin, keeps acting aggressively towards us.

So any narrative of NATO being an aggressor or responsible for Putin's actions are just plain wrong. Putin acts to build his empire, NATO acts as a defense alliance. When nations close to Russia feel threatened by Putin, they lean towards or join NATO to be safe from Russian aggression. In Putin's mind, this is an obstacle to building his empire, which means he views NATO as a threat and spins his propaganda to talk about NATO as an offensive force rather than defensive.

And you've still not answered my very simple question.

What is the advantage of exculpating the US and Europe? Even if they're completely innocent (which has yet to be shown), what is gained by so passionately ensuring their innocence is made clear to all? They're all big boys, they can handle a bit of misapportioned culpability, so why the fervour? — Isaac

What is the advantage of blaming them for everything like you do? You aren't interested in any balanced view or multi-reason answer. You are only interested in concluding the West and US imperial ambitions to be the reasons for every bad thing.

The major thing that you never ever seem to understand is that I've never said anything of Europe or US being "innocent". I'm just saying that your invented guilt of "the west", with lose connections, biased opinion pieces etc. does not connect actions of the west with Putin's action in this conflict or his build-up of modern Russia.

You simply inflate the guilt of the west as being more influential and dismiss any notion of Putin's guilt. When every respectable historian of modern Russia keep concluding that Putin has built up a Russia that is entirely under his rule and authority, then how is it "movie villain" to pinpoint this conflict to be by the hands of one man: Putin?

There's something called logic, reasoning, deduction, induction. If the facts point in one direction, then I am fully capable of making my own conclusions based on the facts that I am gathering as long as I'm careful and minimizing biased sources. Those facts must also be directly connected to the things I'm talking about. The problem I have with people pushing opinions as you do, is that you demand that I find a source that writes out "the truth" in big large letters so it is impossible to dismiss them. Any kind of interpretation or any kind of analysis or inductional reasoning on my part is met by direct dismissal because you don't have those large big letters by a man called "truth teller". So, you don't engage with what I actually write, you don't read it carefully, you don't think about what I write before answering, which leads to a simple dismissal on your part and a parrot circular reasoning where you just re-iterate the same thing over and over. That is failed reasoning on your part.

So once again, answer me this:

What are Putin's intentions based on the history of his rule and rise to power? Why does he actually feel threatened by NATO? In practice, how does NATO expand itself? Does Ukraine not have rights to its own independence? Is Russia ruled by many or just one man (Putin), and if not one man, who shares the power and how?

I've answered all of that, many times. But I want you to answer those questions as well, because those are the key points in my argument that you need to counter in order to counter-argue my conclusions. Everything else you do is just noise with no relation to what I have actually argued.

You don't need a neoliberal mastermind when a generalized profit imperative - we call it capitalism - will do. — StreetlightX

If you're saying capitalism=neoliberalism, then we aren't talking about the same thing. I'm talking about Hayek.

That's the difference between idiot psychologizers who think politics functions like Harry Potter, and an understanding of state power in service of a dominant class structure. — StreetlightX

If you don't employ psychology, then you aren't going to understand the world around you.

I suspect that applying a little psychology might humanize Americans for you to the point that you can shovel your abyss of rage toward them. They need to be a Sauron-like It to serve your purposes.

You can equivocate between a literal single person and globally spanning empire with mutiple, recorded genocides on its hands if you like, but let's be clear that the equivocation is yours and yours alone. — StreetlightX

What are calling genocide? Lenin and Stalin killed 20 million Russians, and that was not a genocide. What are you calling genocide?

I want to have simple answers from you:

How does NATO expand? In practice, how does it expand? Are they forcing themselves into nations or are nations joining them?

And why are they joining NATO or want to join NATO?

If you're saying capitalism=neoliberalism, then we aren't talking about the same thing. — frank

Neoliberalism is what you get when capitalism roams free. If you don't understand that the former is the ideological complement and product of the latter, then you understand neither.

They need to be a Sauron-like It to serve your purposes. — frank

Except the entire point is that they don't. Literally the whole point.

What are calling genocide? — frank

Just about any US foreign intervention will do. In any case, off topic.

Just about any US foreign intervention will do. In any case, off topic. — StreetlightX

Nope. So Isaac has owned up to conscious intellectual dishonesty. All you lack is the admission.

Just about any US foreign intervention will do. — StreetlightX

Another question I want a simple answer to from you:

Can you pinpoint which foreign interventions that US has done that complies with the definition of genocide?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide

In 1948, the United Nations Genocide Convention defined genocide as any of five "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such." These five acts were: killing members of the group, causing them serious bodily or mental harm, imposing living conditions intended to destroy the group, preventing births, and forcibly transferring children out of the group. Victims are targeted because of their real or perceived membership of a group, not randomly.

Lenin and Stalin killed 20 million Russians — frank

I think you mean Soviet citizens, many of whom died in the famine in Ukraine. I don’t think there’s a consensus on whether that was genocide.

I think you mean Soviet citizens, many of whom died in the famine in Ukraine. I don’t think there’s a consensus on whether that was genocide. — jamalrob

An estimate from a British historian who spent two years in Russia looking at records is that there were about 37 million unnatural deaths from 1917 to the 1950s. I subtracted the 15 million who died during WW2.

The famine following the revolution was engineered by the government.

I would not call it genocide or attempted genocide. It was an attempt to crush opposition to communism.

Yep, was mainly just making the point that those numbers apply to the Soviet Union as a whole, that very large numbers of them were not Russian.

Yep, was mainly just making the point that those numbers apply to the Soviet Union as a whole, that very large numbers of them were not Russian. — jamalrob

You're probably right. I'm calling all Soviets Russians. Thanks for the heads up.

:up:

You keep saying this but I don't get it. As long as their naval base is secure what else would they want with a practically closed sea? — magritte

1. If Russia’s fleet is based in Crimea, where it has been for centuries, then giving Crimea to Ukraine (and NATO) would be a problem. This in addition to the fact that Crimea has never been Ukrainian.

2. The Black Sea is not a “closed sea”. Russia, Ukraine, and others use it for access to the Mediterranean via the Bosphorus and Dardanelles Straits.

3. The security threat to Russia is illustrated by Turkey, a NATO member, closing the straits to war ships.

Turkey Closes Bosphorus, Dardanelles Straits to Warships – US Naval Institute

Currently, Turkey has lukewarm relations with Russia. A more hostile Turkey ganging up with other NATO states against Russia would be a major security threat to Russia.

4. Russia does not threaten the West in the same way the West threatens Russia. It hasn't got military bases next door to England, France, or America.

I don’t think there’s a consensus on whether that was genocide. — jamalrob

I think it's probably best referred to as "democide":

democide - Wikipedia

Democide is a concept proposed by American political scientist Rudolph Rummel to describe "the intentional killing of an unarmed or disarmed person by government agents acting in their authoritative capacity and pursuant to government policy or high command."

Still an awful lot of dead people, though ....

it's not in the spirit of 'one family' that world religions or humanists for that matter talk about. — FreeEmotion

Of course the world should be 'one family'. The question is who should be the 'head' of that family. Not everyone wants to see America (or Wall Street) in that role.

This is why I'm saying that the best solution would be for each continent to be free and independent. But perhaps I'm being too idealistic.

This is why I'm saying that the best solution would be for each continent to be free and independent. But perhaps I'm being too idealistic. — Apollodorus

Yes yes, but isn't what is in their free and independent minds important? Suppose what they had in their heads was the brotherhood of man. That would be nice. It follows that anything else would not be nice.

This in addition to the fact that Crimea has never been Ukrainian. — Apollodorus

By this logic, all of Norway should just call themselves Swedes. Borders in the modern world are respected in another way than pre-world war eras and post-Soviet eras. When the Soviet Union fell, the borders began to be drawn. Crimea became part of Ukraine and any idea that Crimea belongs to Russia is just in line with the delusional imperial reasoning of Putin.

Borders in the modern world are redrawn based on democratic movements. If people want to break away or join another nation, that is a process of democracy where the people initiate a vote to redraw borders. This is what the Catalonia Parliament has been voting for, to be set apart from Spain. But that didn't happen.

To invade and claim a part of modern Ukraine on the idea that "it was ours to begin with" is a crime against modern international laws. It doesn't matter what delusional idea that formed such a decision, but the process should have been a democratic one. A functioning Russia would have asked the Crimean people if they want to be part of Russia or part of Ukraine, if the opinion was strong that they wanted that, they should have had a vote in order to pass something that was supported by the people. The problem is that Russia annexed Crimea, then offered voting choices that didn't reflect this kind of process, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Crimean_status_referendum
It was a sham, a theatre, a spectacle as usual from the Russian side, forcing them into an outcome that was not democratic in any sense of the word.

The security threat to Russia is illustrated by Turkey, a NATO member, closing the straits to war ships. — Apollodorus

That is due to the current conflict, NATO has never threatened Russia. Defensive actions aren't threats and Turkey can act on their own accord without it being an action made by NATO. It doesn't seem like you understand how NATO works. It's similar to Russia being part of the UN and your reasoning would be that the invasion of Ukraine is an act by UN because Russia is a member state.

Currently, Turkey has lukewarm relations with Russia. A more hostile Turkey ganging up with other NATO states against Russia would be a major security threat to Russia. — Apollodorus

Turkey's actions are their own. If they act with NATO, that is a decision among all members of NATO. Turkey can't act by itself under the flag of NATO without consent from NATO and NATO is still not an offensive alliance, so NATO would never approve of any offensive acts. You never seem to understand this, and all your reasoning is based on this imaginary NATO threat.

Russia does not threaten the West in the same way the West threatens Russia. It hasn't got military bases next door to England, France, or America. — Apollodorus

Are you actually delusional? What the fuck do you think Putin has been doing during this conflict? Every day he's threatening, with nuclear options, threatening anyone who aids Ukraine, threatening Sweden and Finland for even thinking of joining NATO. On top of that you say that "the west" threatens Russia, but all you have as a foundation for that is a grave misunderstanding of how NATO works.

Of course the world should be 'one family'. The question is who should be the 'head' of that family. Not everyone wants to see America (or Wall Street) in that role. — Apollodorus

Uhm... like Eu? Like UN? You do know there are forms of unions that are based on a mutual plural rule as a parliament. In which a mandate period is being held by a leader from different nations each time.

This is why I'm saying that the best solution would be for each continent to be free and independent. But perhaps I'm being too idealistic. — Apollodorus

You mean free like Ukraine? And what do you mean by continent? All of Africa is one giant union? That hasn't happened yet. And what about freedom to join a union of defense? Like Sweden and Finland joining NATO? Is that a free and independent choice by each of them? Or doesn't that count because of how you think NATO works, which is how exactly?

I want to have a simple answer from you:

How does NATO expand? In practice, how does it expand? Are they forcing themselves into nations or are nations joining them?

And why are they joining NATO or want to join NATO? — Christoffer

While Streetlightx is responding, may I add something here, since I have addressed this before?

How does NATO expand? Consider yourself facing a football team of 12 players. Upon invitation 18 more join the opposing team. Do you feel threatened? And this is after the game (cold war ) has ended.

If nations are joining them freely, then why did not Ukraine join them and put a stop to Putin's ambitions?
That was the purpose of NATO after all, to check Russian ambitions.

Do you deny that America and Russia are adversaries with one attempting to get the better of the other?

Why do they want to join NATO after the cold war ended? Same reason people join gangs, collective power for coercion on the international scene I would think.

This is what the Catalonia Parliament has been voting for, to be set apart from Spain. But that didn't happen. — Christoffer

Those fools only vote for their own selfishness. Trust me, the conflict between Russia and Ukraine are far away from Spain-Catalonia context. My country has always been so soft towards Catalonia

How does NATO expand? Consider yourself facing a football team of 12 players. Upon invitation 18 more join the opposing team. Do you feel threatened? And this is after the game (cold war ) has ended. — FreeEmotion

The world isn't a football game and there is no conflict with Russia like your analogy here describes. Most nations have had trade deals and good relations with Russia, up until Putin's aggressions started in 2014. If you view the world as a "we against them", which Putin seems to do, of course you are threatened. But that doesn't mean that you actually are threatened, it means you are delusional in thinking- and acting accordingly.

It is more rational to actually say it how it is. After someone threatens you with imperial ambitions, breaking national air and water borders, pushing you with military unknown intentions through this behavior (which is something Sweden has been dealing with for a long time), while annexing other places illegally, talking about imperial borders that would include nations that are considered free and independent to be part of that empire and so on. -Do you feel threatened by that behavior? Would you then consider joining a defensive alliance that would help defend your borders if this aggressor would ever make reality of those threats, those actions, those ideas and behavior... just as Russia has now done with Ukraine?

If nations are joining them freely, then why did not Ukraine join them and put a stop to Putin's ambitions?
That was the purpose of NATO after all, to check Russian ambitions. — FreeEmotion

We can also turn this around. If as many in here are arguing, NATO is interesting in just pushing east and threatening Russia, why didn't they just welcome Ukraine with open arms? It doesn't really fit with the "aggressive NATO" narrative many write about in here.

The thing is that Ukraine wanted to join NATO, but NATO doesn't allow unstable states.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/17767225/ukraine-nato-explained/

As of February 25, 2022, countries – Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, and Ukraine – are considered “aspiring members.”

This status is afforded to non-member nations that have “made significant contributions to Nato-led operations and missions," such as Australia and Sweden.

However, continued Ukrainian instability – including its proximity to war-hungry Russia – makes it unlikely that their request to join the organisation will be accepted any time soon.

Since NATO is a defensive alliance, they need to keep things within the realm of stability. An unstable region could automatically lead to conflict with NATO if that nation joins. On top of that, Ukraine has just begun to become a stable nation, actively working with anti-corruption efforts and stabilizing the nation. In a few years it could have become a member. This is also the reason why Russia never became part of NATO, which Putin wanted early on under his rule. He just wanted to join without adhering to the rules of the engagement, typical authoritarian standard for him. This doesn't fly with NATO.

But Sweden and Finland, we are within the parameters of joining and that has nothing to do with any bullshit US imperial ambition reasons. It's because our airspace and sea borders are being harrassed all the time by Russia while they keep indirectly threatening us. Are we not free as nations to seek defense alliances against that?

Also, NATO isn't specifically focused on Russia, it's just that Russia is a military superpower with an aggressive authoritarian leader who acts accordingly, which is a security threat and of course gets alot of attention. But let's say North Korea started bombing NATO members, that would mean all NATO members collaborate in dealing with that threat.

Do you deny that America and Russia are adversaries with one attempting to get the better of the other? — FreeEmotion

I don't think the US (America includes Canada) have any interest in "trying to be better". USA has an American exceptionalist problem, they think they're a world police, they think they have the role of fixing problems in the world, but that is not the same as trying to actively fight someone to show themselves better. They also have economical interests by heavy investment and influence in other nations, while conducting proxy wars in others to claim resources. This is still not to show how much greater they are, but instead an interest of a superpower to be an economic superpower. This is done by the US, Russia and China while smaller nations with power also tries to gain power through it. Everyone does it. The difference is that Russia has an authoritarian leader who openly speaks of the "empire", who by force tries to claim land and increase that empire's borders.

I think people are unable to see the difference of intentions, so they mix together everything as "the west against the east" with simplifications that are more in-line with the "off brand "Marvel-movie" reasoning that I've been blamed for. It's a pattern I see, people saying that me calling Putin an authoritarian leader in the same shape and form as Stalin or Hitler, being simplistic, while they themselves talk about "the West" with the same anti-capitalist simplifications in arguments as stoned homeopathic hippies.

Why do they want to join NATO after the cold war ended? Same reason people join gangs, collective power for coercion on the international scene I would think. — FreeEmotion

Really? So if you have a gang leader (Putin) who keeps harassing your house and family, saying that he owns your house and you should give it up to him. You don't want to have a security force guarding your safety? Especially when you know that you have nothing against his thugs if they started firing at you. Which is basically what this is. NATO is not acting as a gang, Putin acts as a "gang". It's why people even call Russia a mafia state. Have you ever seen the US threaten Sweden and Finland in the same way?

Those fools only vote for their own selfishness. Trust me, the conflict between Russia and Ukraine are far away from Spain-Catalonia context. My country has always been so soft towards Catalonia — javi2541997

You don't see the context I brought that up? It doesn't matter what the details are, the context was that if borders were to be redrawn under modern international laws, it has to be a democratic process supported by the people, made in an uncorrupt democratic way. Who cares what those fools want, that was not the point.

By this logic, all of Norway should just call themselves Swedes. — Christoffer

YOUR logic, not mine. :smile:

they should have had a vote in order to pass something that was supported by the people. The problem is that Russia annexed Crimea, then offered voting choices that didn't reflect this kind of process, — Christoffer

Have a vote? You mean like China did before annexing Tibet? :grin:

all you have as a foundation for that is a grave misunderstanding of how NATO works. — Christoffer

NATO works by constantly expanding and not giving a dime about anyone else. Plus, it was created by America, and it is run by America in America's interests. But maybe things look differently when seen from the Finnish outback .... :lol:

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. — baker

:100:^3% (=1M%, for all you humanities majors)

This is as true as true can be, and it does not only occur in Europe but also in the U.S. among the descendants of European immigrants. Tribalism among American whites has diminished, but when I was growing up, was yet a part of the mindset of those who descended from European immigrants in the mid 1800's through early 1900's. Of course, Germans, Irish and Italians were the largest of those groups, and slavic peoples less so. You can take it from me, that a young Polish boy growing up in anything but a Polish neighborhood "caught hell" on a daily basis, being continually assaulted with "dumb polack" and "ugly polack" jokes (it doesn't help that Polish surnames tend to be long, consonant-heavy, and sometimes incomprehensible). It had its cumulative effect on me, I can tell you. Of course, the English (the "WASPs") were untouchable. There weren't even any pejorative terms for them. There is definitely an ingrained belief among European peoples that slavs are "lesser". I feel certain that western Europeans hate the idea of a strong slavic country, as Russia potentially represents, since it challenges their ingrained bias.

Thank you, @baker. This post almost made me cry.

I agree with you here, and even more with your comments from a few days ago:

"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."

This applies not only within the European context, but among the descendants of Europeans within the U.S., where it is passed from father to son like a cultural legacy. Take it from me, growing up Polish in a largely Italian neighborhood (among tribalistic "white" Americans, you are what your surname is) was difficult in many ways, and the incessant "stupid Polack" and "ugly Polack" jokes (told in jest, but destructive nonetheless) took a cumulative toll on my self concept which I have yet to fully repair. Make no mistake, Western Europeans, as a cultural trait, hold Slavic people in no small amount of contempt (remember all the trash talk about "Polish plumbers" during the Brexit debates?), a contempt of which I have personally been a victim. I feel certain that the enduring spectacle of a strong Slavic nation like Russia continues as an affront to that sensibility, and that this contributes to continued anti-Russian sentiment.

Thank you, @baker, for giving voice to a suppressed truth. Your post which I quoted above effected me greatly.

:pray: :100: :up:

I hope people stop seeing this conflict as good vs bad. If anything, both sides are at fault for not reaching a compromise through dialogue/diplomacy — Eskander

So it's bad vs bad, they'll kill each other, therefore the conflict is good? The problem of course, is that the bad supports itself trough abuse of the good. So the conflict may be eternal, as the good suffer while the bad are forever in conflict. Whether the bad can kill each other without first annihilating the good, or if the good must resist the bad, is beyond comprehension, because we do not know how to distinguish "the good" from the bad. Maybe we're all bad.