You mean the war in which; — Isaac

I mean: The Russian government began massive allocation of Russian passports to the residents of Abkhazia and South Ossetia in 2002 without Georgia's permission; this 'passportization' policy laid the foundation for Russia's future claim to these territories (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Georgian_War#Russian_interests_and_involvement )
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/how-soft-power-works-russian-passportization-and-compatriot-policies-paved-way-for-crimean-annexation-and-war-in-donbas/

Oh, and do you even reslise how absurd it is to include Chechnya in your list of evidences of imperialist expansion? — Isaac

I talked about geopolitical ambitions (obvious in the Caucasian region) and arguably a case also for "Russian imperialism" since the Chechen war was a war for independence against "Russian imperialism" and perceived as such not only by the West (About 15,000 Caucasians and their supporters demonstrated in Ankara Sunday. Addressing the rally, Nationalist Movement Party leader Alparslan Turkes said, ``We support the independence of our Chechen brothers. We want the world to stop Russian imperialism.'' https://www.csmonitor.com/1994/1227/27071.html). Interestingly here is the view of Ukrainians about it:
The Chechnya crisis was condemned by the entire cross-section of Ukrainian political parties immediately after the launch of the covert war to topple President Dudayev in summer 1994. To centre right national democrats (Rukh, Union of Ukrainian Officers, Ukrainian Cossacks and the Congress of National Democratic Forces), writers and intelligentsia as well as the radical right nationalists (Ukrainian National Assembly and the Congress of Ukrainian Nationalists) it is a question of 'we told you so' about Russia's long-standing imperialist intentions which will sooner or later turn against Ukraine. 'In this situation the signing by Ukraine of a Treaty on Friendship with Russia will be regarded by the world community as moral support for Moscow's imperial policies', the Democratic Coalition 'Ukraine' believed. 'Russia demonstrated to the world its inability to renounce forceful dictatorship and armed intervention in deciding political problems', Rukh's leader, Viacheslav Chornovil, said. The Congress of Ukrainian Nationalists applauded the Estonian example of wishing to recognize Chechnya's independence. The Communist Party of Ukraine also condemned 'any forcible resolution of any kind of conflict' , The communist head of the parliamentary committee on foreign affairs, Borys Oliynyk, described Russia's military intervention in Chechnya as 'aggression' and its tactics as 'genocide'. The socialist chairman of parliament, Oleksandr Moroz, also came out against the use of force in Chechnya. Moroz's Socialist Party believed that, 'The Russian democrats are reaping the fruits of their own anti-national policy on the Soviet Union's collapse’.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02634939508400925?journalCode=ccas20

@Isaac try harder, you have all my humanitarian support!

, but I thought the thread established that everyone's bad long ago? Everyone has a rap sheet.
This isn't particularly about East West North South, at least my comment wasn't.
Kyiv wouldn't be checked much to join the international drug trade, yet it remains that

Ukraine would be subject to transparency and standards to join the EU, for example

And joining Putin's Russia has come up as well. :D (They're in the process of being joined.)
The Ukrainians chose.

^{The President took part in the final plenary session of the 19th meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club (Oct 27, 2022) • Full text of Putin speech and answers at Valdai Discussion Club (Oct 28, 2022) • Hear Putin warn the world faces 'most dangerous' decade since WWII (Oct 28, 2022)}

Good grief.

So, anyway, what avenues remain possible?

The Turkish Daily Sabah wrote:
‘Ukraine, Russia have moved away from diplomacy, peace process’ (Oct 11, 2022)
The Turkish government has made some attempts.

Oh, and do you even reslise how absurd it is to include Chechnya in your list of evidences of imperialist expansion? — Isaac

It would be more accurate to call it a case of imperial retention as the independence movement came from the slow recovery from when "The Stalinist regime fallaciously accused the Chechens (and the Ingush) of massive collaboration with the German invaders, and then deported them en masse on February 23, 1944."

This might be why some people get nervous when Putin starts calling them Nazis.

Various folks. — Olivier5

So why would you need any more specific an answer in the case of Poland, the Baltic states, Hungary, Slovakia, Romania, the Czech republic? Might the answer not likewise be "various folks"?

arguably a case also for "Russian imperialism" since the Chechen war was a war for independence against "Russian imperialism" — neomac

Brilliant. Russia was 'imperialistically' retaining territory already within its borders. Some of the stuff you come up with is priceless. But Ukraine, I take it are not 'imperialistically' retaining Donbas? Their right to their borders being different, of course, because they're the good guys.

It would be more accurate to call it a case of imperial retention — Paine

Why 'imperial' retention. Are the UK 'imperialistically' retaining Northern Ireland?
Are Spain 'imperialistically' retaining Catalonia?

Is Russia entitled to any land at all? Or are we just going to say anything more than a shed outside Moscow is just rampant empire building?

It's frightening how easily narratives get shored up against all odds, even to the point of redefining the language to make it fit.

So, anyway, what avenues remain possible? — jorndoe

Fewer and fewer, thanks mainly to the war cheerleading we're seeing such shining examples of here.

As I said before, I think unsanctioned back channels are our main hope now.

Why 'imperial' retention. Are the UK 'imperialistically' retaining Northern Ireland?
Are Spain 'imperialistically' retaining Catalonia? — Isaac

It would not be a redefinition of language to note an important difference between your examples and a "retention" involving the Massacre of Civilians in order to preserve this "entitlement."

Should the Ukrainians be consulted over whether Russia is entitled to their lands?

Russia was 'imperialistically' retaining territory already within its borders. — Isaac

After the collapse of Soviet Union one could question that Chechnya was within Russian borders.
The First Chechen War took place from 1994 to 1996, when Russian forces attempted to regain control over Chechnya, which had declared independence in November 1991. Despite overwhelming numerical superiority in men, weaponry, and air support, the Russian forces were unable to establish effective permanent control over the mountainous area due to numerous successful full-scale battles and insurgency raids. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chechnya

Putin has more or less consistently spoken in terms of larger conflict (almost like implicitly wanting international escalation), while his Russia is the victim, and, meanwhile, generously flattening :fire: Ukraine.
As noted, when Ukrainian territorial integrity is brought up (victims), the Kremlin turns the headset off (and continues the bombing), which makes negotiations harder. :/
Turkey has tried with little success, though they seem in a fair position to do so; maybe they could do another round, inviting China to apply pressure against the destruction. :up:

It would not be a redefinition of language to note an important difference between your examples and a "retention" involving the Massacre of Civilians in order to preserve this "entitlement." — Paine

Of course it would. Entitlement to the integrity of a country's borders is not predicated on the means by which they execute such entitlement.

Should the Ukrainians be consulted over whether Russia is entitled to their lands? — Paine

Which Ukrainians? The ones living in Lvov 600 miles away from Donetsk? Why the hell ought they have any say? Why not the people of Rostov, a mere 50 odd miles away? Nationalism is bullshit. There's no such entity as 'the Ukrainians' to even ask.

After the collapse of Soviet Union one could question that Chechnya was within Russian borders. — neomac

One could question that Crimea was in Ukrainian borders.

Are we really going to rehash the whole 19th jingoism? I suppose that would go well with our rush to world war three, rampant nationalism did a good job of warmongering back then, its got a good track record.

Using what exactly would one go about 'questioning' the properness of a border?

Ought we test the genetic stock of the population either side?

If the Ukrainians don't exist, you need to get out there and tell them. They have not received your testimony.

If Nationalism is bullshit, what is the principle supporting this claim:

Is Russia entitled to any land at all? Or are we just going to say anything more than a shed outside Moscow is just rampant empire building? — Isaac

One could question that Crimea was in Ukrainian borders. — Isaac

Sure one can! Borders are matter of international recognition. And indeed: At first Crimean authorities attempted to claim that it was a sovereign Republic albeit with a relationship with Ukraine. On 5 May 1992, the Crimean legislature declared conditional independence, but a referendum to confirm the decision was never held amid opposition from Kyiv. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Crimea_(1992%E2%80%931995) )
So in the end the control was restored without war.

Are we really going to rehash the whole 19th jingoism? I suppose that would go well with our rush to world war three, rampant nationalism did a good job of warmongering back then, its got a good track record.

Using what exactly would one go about 'questioning' the properness of a border?

Ought we test the genetic stock of the population either side? — Isaac

Your pointless blabla doesn't take into consideration that I was talking about perceived threats, and Russia was perceived as a threat by the West and not only. I'm not committed to any specific way in which different actors understood the Russian imperialistic threat, nor ground my reasoning based on the specific case of Chechnia. But if playing dumb makes you happy, keep enjoying, by all means.

If the Ukrainians don't exist, you need to get out there and tell them. — Paine

And how would I tell 'them'. There's 40 million. Do you really imagine 'them' to be one homogeneous mass with a single opinion?

It's patently absurd to think that some lines on a map drawn by a few men in a gilt-laden hotel room decades ago somehow captures a gestalt that emerged from nature.

How exactly do you propose we identify a 'Ukrainian' in a way that isn't racist? Living there? That would strip citizenship of all refugees. Family there? That would strip immigrants of their citizenship in their new home. Passports? Accents? Feelings?

What criteria would you like to use to distinguish a 'Ukrainian' who has a right to be asked about the future of Dombas (even if they live 600 miles away and have never been there) from a Russian who has no right to be asked even if they live a stone's throw away on the border?

They are loudly telling themselves. The question of those who don't see it that way is a reasonable one. But that issue is different from you stating without qualification:

There's no such entity as 'the Ukrainians' to even ask. — Isaac

They are loudly telling themselves. — Paine

'They' are not. Some people are, others aren't. It's you who are reifying such a situation into a 'they'.

Otherwise, answer the question. By what criteria are you identifying the Ukrainian from the Russian by such a means as confers on the Ukrainian a right to a say over the future of a piece of land they've never seen but denies it of the Russian living and working within spitting distance.

So why would you need any more specific an answer in the case of Poland, the Baltic states, Hungary, Slovakia, Romania, the Czech republic? Might the answer not likewise be "various folks"? — Isaac

I answered your question with specific threats for Tajikistan and Armenia. But you and Mikey Mouse here cannot answer my question.

Honestly, the answer is obvious and you know it. Central European states have been oppressed by the USSR and its servants for so long. They joined NATO, an anti-USSR alliance, as soon as they had a chance, and they did so to seek protection from Russia. You know that it is true.

Nationalism is bullshit. — Isaac

Yeah. :/
That's the language of both attacker and defender though, and most others.
Maybe some day...

That's the language of both attacker and defender though, and most others. — jorndoe

Indeed. But less commonly the language of unrelated bystanders, which is what's different here. We might expect those living in Ukraine to be nationalistic (it's a common enough narrative). We might similarly expect the attackers to be nationalistic in their desire to see the territorial lines re-arranged. What's weird (and more than a little distasteful) is the degree to which people who've never had even the slightest connection to either Ukraine or Russia are affecting this sudden passion for the integrity of either party's borders. On what possible grounds would we care?

I use "they" in the hope they are reporting what they think in polls such as these.

I imagine you will dismiss it as fake news. But it is by means of gathering reports in some way that we will learn the answer.

I use "they" in the hope they are reporting what they think in polls such as these.

I imagine you will dismiss it as fake news. But it is by means of gathering reports in some way that we will learn the answer. — Paine

They just beg the question because the polls already have decided who to ask and who not to ask.

Why did they not ask the Russians who live on the border of Donbas? Why did they ask the population of Lvov 600 miles away? What does it mean that a pre-stratified sample shows exactly the results you'd expect from the very act of stratification?

The point is not "If we pick an arbitrary grouping, what would they, on average, think?" the point is "why are we asking that arbitrary grouping and not this other?"

By what means does the view of the average citizen of Lvov gain any legitimacy whatsoever on the question of the future of Donbas, but the view of the average citizen of Rostov not?

The head of state stating any attempt at NATO expansion to Russian borders is seen as a direct threat is crystal clear language. You asked for evidence for Russia's perception of NATO as a threat, and I've provided it.

Your entire argument is based on taking snippets and tying them together into a construed narrative, while you're ignoring or denying what is blatantly obvious.

You don't know what methods were used. There was an attempt to canvass the eastern oblasts. I figure that has to be very difficult to do in the state of war with so many refugees and deported people. I am interested in how many supporters of the 2014 invasion still support the Russian state after they have gotten a taste of their love.

But I didn't bring up the poll to argue for a proper resolution of the conflict but to point out that there are enough self-identified Ukrainians around to undermine your claim:

There's no such entity as 'the Ukrainians' to even ask. — Isaac

I didn't bring up the poll to argue for a proper resolution of the conflict but to point out that there are enough self-identified Ukrainians around to undermine your claim:

There's no such entity as 'the Ukrainians' to even ask. — Paine

That's exactly the claim I was addressing. The poll didn't rely only on self-identified Ukrainians it pre-stratified the sample. It didn't ask a random selection from the population of the world and then proceeded to identify jenks breaks or something. It determined in advance a group of people to ask on the grounds of their being 'Ukrainian'. It begged the question of whether such a natural grouping exists by asking only what they already thought that group was.

Notwithstanding the methodological problem. You've not addressed the issue of the ground on which any such self-identified group has a right to whatever territory it believes it possesses.

↪neomac
The head of state stating any attempt at NATO expansion to Russian borders is seen as a direct threat is crystal clear language. You asked for evidence for Russia's perception of NATO as a threat, and I've provided it. — Tzeentch

You are confused. And probably you didn't follow the reasoning which you tried to address.

One has to distinguish the evidence about threat perception from the evidence that support threat perception. The evidence about threat perception is e.g. statements by the head of state that "any attempt at NATO expansion to Russian borders is seen as a direct threat" the evidence that support the idea NATO expansion to Russian borders is a direct threat is e.g. placing nuclear strategic missiles in Ukraine. I asked the latter (What were the evidence to support the perceived threat from NATO expansion by Putin prior 2014? And now that “the West is trying to destroy Russia”? ) you now offered me the former.
The reason I asked for evidence that support threat perception is not because I believe there is none, but because whatever evidence is going to be offered, is still questionable as to its geopolitical implications, especially within a security dilemma where players read aggressive intentions in other player's deterring moves. That's why it's a hopeless endeavor to question threat perception when it's grounded in historical mistrust.

, why "more than a little distasteful"? Happens all the time, just check periodical condemnation of Israel. I can see why you might think so if you reject nations altogether; we're not quite there, though.

Admittedly, I haven't seen much here on the Uyghur situation. Maybe most just agree more on that, don't know. (I've only come across one person arguing in favor of the Chinese government, and that's a good while back.)

Say, the old Canadian Indian residential school system has received fair attention, albeit not so much here on the forums. That's historical, though.

These two ↑ came to mind because of the uncanny parallels with the annexations.

The requisite quote spam ...

^{"The penalty good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men."
— paraphrasing Plato (-429 — -347) *
"A peace may be so wretched as not to be ill exchanged for war."
— Tacitus (56 — 120)
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
— paraphrasing Edmund Burke (1729 — 1797) *
"Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing."
— John Stuart Mill (1806 — 1873)
"First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me."
— Martin Niemöller (1892 — 1984), 1946
"People cannot be free unless they are willing to sacrifice some of their interests to guarantee the freedom of others."
— Saul Alinsky (1909 — 1972), 1971 via archive, openculture, influencewatch, also check Article IV here (1789)
"Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented."
— Elie Wiesel (1928 — 2016)}

Hindustan Times' summary of Putin's Valdai ra...speech:

https://content.jwplatform.com/previews/rHtgB1YE

^{Putin rules out use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine amid war; ‘Dangerous’ (Oct 28, 2022)}

Turkey has tried with little success, though they seem in a fair position to do so; maybe they could do another round, inviting China to apply pressure against the destruction. :up:

Chances aren't looking great. :/

, , anyone, I'd like to know what existential threat NATO was/is to Russia.
A fair assessment can (ought to) take place without going by any one particular person's story (Putin, Biden, Mearsheimer, Stoltenberg, Zelenskyy, and Winnie-the-Pooh came to mind while typing).
Whatever that may be (if any) would be put in context with the observed bombing killing destroying shamming threats re-culturation efforts.
Or, maybe, if sufficiently unclear, this could be a topic to clarify?

Vagueness is key here. The term "existential threat" is not analytical but evocative and it echoes Putin's mantra that the West wants to destroy Russia. In that expression Putin can project all his own fears (to lose his power, his reputation, his life) that he hopes to share with his base. Anyways I found his speech at the Valdai Discussion Club dubbed in English: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wi24CBaqI5w let's see if there is something else to find out.

, I don't think it's that unclear. Say, it could be the end of any of these, at least in any way that matters: Russia (country, nation); Russians (people); Russian (identity, culture, language); Russians doing Russian in Russia. Something along those lines.

I just wanna say: this is the outcome of playing hardball. Any sign of a lack of resolve on the part of NATO would have encouraged whistle britches over there to use tactical nukes.

Say, it could be the end of any of these, at least in any way that matters: Russia (country, nation); Russians (people); Russian (identity, culture, language); Russians doing Russian in Russia. Something along those lines. — jorndoe

Sure. Add also the fear of losing the "alleged" status of great power. My point wasn't to deny we can figure out ways to disambiguate it, the point is that vague expressions like this have a rhetorical force both for mass propaganda and at the negotiation table, and can blend well with Putin's own personal fears.