Putin now says Russia fighting to reclaim "historical lands"

[EMNofSeattle]

Okay.

And?



This whole tangent is just a figment of your imagination. It's completely nonsensical to argue that the far right, which you claim was instrumental to Maidan happening at all,

Which you agreed with

suddenly then completely failed to appear in the polls and in the government at all,

It’s totally not relevant. You’re hyper fixated on that. I don’t care about election results. None of my argument depends on those

and you claim they were really a shadow government that ruled from the side

No, this is you strawmanning the argument

only to then be incorporated into the armed forces.

Which is evidence they are powerful, since they should have always been disarmed

 

[Fledermaus]

so wait. not expanding a hostile military alliance would have reduced the chances of war.
But you'd rather increase that by expanding a hostile military alliance, which made war more likely?

Face it. all you care about is winning a potential war, not even trying to stop them to begin with?
You are beyond Russiaphobic, you are literally a warmonger in terms of policy decisons

NATO expansion is due the Russian/USSR actions.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

NATO expansion is due the Russian/USSR actions.

No it’s not. There’s no Russian action that precipitated Poland and Baltics joining NATO, other then that insignificant countries will always take a deal that involves a free military defense by a superpower that they don’t have to do anything for

 

[ralfy]

Russia is gonna run outa money long before it's gonna reclaim anything

From what I heard, everyone is running out of money. However, the U.S. can borrow more money as long as the dollar is used as a reserve currency. The same debt is needed to finance its very expensive military and passed on to the public.

The major problem is what needs to be purchased with that money. In the case of the U.S., it outsourced a significant bulk of its manufacturing base to countries like China, and at best can stockpile to meet its own needs, and which it has to sacrifice to arm Ukraine. Various countries rely also on China for various raw materials needed to make more armaments.

Meanwhile, support for sending aid to Ukraine has been dropping, with polls indicating that the country is now split into two. It's possible that U.S. media isn't reporting on protests in NATO countries that involve not only stopping military aid but also pulling out of NATO.

In addition, it looks like most Americans and citizens of NATO countries don't want to serve, conscription, or send troops to Ukraine. Half would rather let Ukrainians do the fighting or send only economic aid. Both Ukrainians and Russians, which have low birth rates, are facing attrition, with Ukrainians bearing the brunt of it: probably a thousand men dying daily. Around a fourth of their population are now located outside Ukraine, with most in Europe and some in Russia, and they don't want to return. And it's probably because something like 40 pct of the Ukrainian industrial base has been decimated, and more being destroyed as the war drags on, which means there will be only little for them left, both in terms of Ukrainian resources and Ukrainians.

This might explain why politicians are trying to push at least NATO troops into battle. The same NATO countries are, like the U.S., facing economic distress, and in various cases, worse. At the same time, when more countries become involved, then WW3 may take place.

Finally, countries like China attempted peace deals, but the U.S. rejected them, so any hope for an end to the war is probably over. If China believes that it will be the next target if Russia loses, then it will likely provide arms to Russia using the same manufacturing base that was outsourced to it by richer countries years ago.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

myself, the Russian gentleman and @Juin Have provided extensive evidence and arguments.

You have made a few vague references to "cultural genocide" and some general comments about Ukraine's "oppressive" language laws (which you appear to know nothing about), but when pressed with specific details, you provide absolutely nothing.

You’re obsessed with electoral share in a single election and choose not the accept anything else as evidence.

I have quoted the same thing in various threads, many times in this thread, and several times directly to you.

This is what I posted:

Far-right politics in Ukraine - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In the 2019 Ukrainian elections, the far-right nationalist electoral alliance, including Svoboda, National Corps, Right Sector, Azov Battalion, OUN, and Congress of Ukrainian Nationalists, under-performed expectations. In the presidential election, its candidate Ruslan Koshulynskyi received 1.6% of the vote, and in the parliamentary election, it was reduced to a single seat and saw its national vote fall to 2.15%, half of its result from 2014 and one-quarter of its result from 2012.

You’re obsessed with electoral share in a single election and choose not the accept anything else as evidence.

This is incorrect. I accept the general idea that there has been ethnic conflict between Russians and Ukrainians, what I am suggesting to you is that this rivalry, this conflict, it just does not justify a full-scale invasion by the Russian government.

You keep making the argument -- without any specific supporting evidence (just merely repeating vague, general accusations found in Russian media) -- that the situation for ethnic Russians in Ukraine was so bad that it required the intervention of the Russian government.

I ask Juin for evidence and he gives me ...streets... named after Bandera.

I ask you for evidence and you give me language laws and the Azov Regiment (formed after Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014).

I ask Fabiusbile for evidence and he gives me a chaotic street brawl where both sides were being as equally vicious, and also a promise that Russia will one day conquer all of Ukraine.

So, you tell me, where is this evidence? Where is this evidence that justifies wiping out Ukrainians, individual, and as an ethnic group, and turning them into "fertilizer" as you suggest?

 

[Jredbaron96]

Which you agreed with

[Citation needed]

It’s totally not relevant on those

Its completely relevant, but as usual you're ignoring it because it doesn't fit your argument.

No, this is you strawmanning the argument

Don't be mad at me that your argument is ****ing dumb; you're the one who invented it.

Which is evidence they are powerful, since they should have always been disarmed

No, you don't disarm combat formations with tested leadership and troops when you're in need of both.

 

[ralfy]

NATO expansion is due the Russian/USSR actions.

According to Kennan and others, NATO was set up to counter the Soviet Union, but when the latter fell apart, there was no reason for its existence, as both Russia and Ukraine (a co-founder of the Union) were very weak. What gave reason was the idea of neoconservatism, where there can only be one world power, i.e., the U.S., the single beacon of "freedom and democracy" worldwide, and the only one who could protect the "freedoms" of the world against tyranny.

According to right-libertarians, the idea of neoconservatism is a sham because its purpose is to allow the U.S. to dominate over others and maintain its own empire. It's similar to neoliberalism, or the belief that all economies should be like that of the U.S., with "free markets" and deregulation, and that should be enforced through loans or financial aid with strings attached: policies forcing borrowers to open up their economy to free trade. The actual goal is to open them up for exploitation by stronger economies.

 

[ralfy]

Fascism and Communism have been the largest totalitarian movements of the 20th century. Their combined evils killed up to 100,000,000 people, and the widespread demise of both systems in all but a few states by the end of the 20th century was thought to be the end of it.

Unfortunately, in the 21st century totalitarian fascism has arisen to replace communism, this neo fascist ideology dictating the political futures of both Russia and China and making the democratic world unsafe, even for those nations who merely aspire to become full democracies. In retrospect such was inevitable, because in the history of all totalitarian systems, the very existence of any democracy anywhere is a threat to elite autocratic rule; a potential color revolution, a Tiananmen Square, an "Arab spring", or a Gdansk, is always looming. And once more the free world is faced with totalitarian enemies.

One should not use the word fascism carelessly, as does the Russian propaganda mills. Fascism is a form of extreme populism and nationalism, it is a kind of ongoing mass movement - a loyalty only to the state and over any other institution, civic group, and social relationship. It rejects: the idea of natural rights for individuals, the principle of political democracy, and that there are limits to state power. It is absolutist, chauvinistic, and reactionary, appealing providing "self esteem" and pride as a member of a special people who have been wronged and denied their place in the sun. And It's core value is hate of the other, a need for retribution and revenge against all they imagine who stand in their way to greatness.

It is also a system of corporate stateism, a melding of a few political and police state elites who distribute state owned and privately owned economic resources to feed themselves. It is, at its base, a kleptocracy and Mafia state who sells "health insurance" to the masses they exploit.

Finally, it is also a paradox in that the more ruthless and elitist it is, the more popular this kind of fascism becomes. It is a system in which the elites hold a kind of cultural power over the masses, convincing the bulk of the masses to ignore their own lack of democratic power and their elites theft, to give consent (or at least acquiescence) to the ruling strata, and to accept deference as a “subaltern” because it is necessary to the greater good of "Russia" and protection of "the great Russian people".

Is this not Putin and his inner circle? Is this not the bargain he makes everyday, especially with Russia older generation? Is he not promising greatness in conquest and the glorification of Russia, in return for their consent?

So yes, Russia is a fascist state. How can it be defined as otherwise?

Given the point that one of the major trading partners of the U.S. is China (not to mention an ally of countries like Saudi Arabia), and that the U.S. has also supported various authoritarian groups worldwide, if not funded them, i.e., from right-wing dictatorships to Islamic fundamentalist terror groups, then one should see these terms in another light, especially given kleptocracy, e.g., both Democrats and Republicans promoting neoconservatism and neoliberalism to support the U.S. rich which owns something like 70 pct of the wealth of the country.

It's like that Chinese expert who was asked to give one difference between China and the U.S. He answered by saying that China is ruled by the Communist Party and the U.S. by Wall Street.

 

[ralfy]

Acting like a dictator?

"Banned [r]eligious organizations, media outlets, and opposition groups that oppose him." Right libertarians should recognize those things, because that's what rightwing dictators supported by the U.S. did in other countries. Examples include Pinochet and Marcos.

In addition, he's been making deals with the BlackRock, J.P. Morgan, and Goldman Sachs. Right libertarians should be able to recognize those firms, too, as several of them caused the U.S. to crash financially and then received trillions in unaudited bailouts from the government later. It also shows that that aid sent to Ukraine isn't free.

Time for you to change your political leaning? Neocon is more appropriate. Throw in some neolib, too.

 

[Fledermaus]

No it’s not. There’s no Russian action that precipitated Poland and Baltics joining NATO, other then that insignificant countries will always take a deal that involves a free military defense by a superpower that they don’t have to do anything for

You are, as usual, wrong.

NATO expansion is due the Russian/USSR actions.

 

[Fledermaus]

"Banned [r]eligious organizations, media outlets, and opposition groups that oppose him." Right libertarians should recognize those things, because that's what rightwing dictators supported by the U.S. did in other countries. Examples include Pinochet and Marcos.

In addition, he's been making deals with the BlackRock, J.P. Morgan, and Goldman Sachs. Right libertarians should be able to recognize those firms, too, as several of them caused the U.S. to crash financially and then received trillions in unaudited bailouts from the government later. It also shows that that aid sent to Ukraine isn't free.

Time for you to change your political leaning? Neocon is more appropriate. Throw in some neolib, too.

Guess who is at war.

 

[maxparrish]

...What gave reason was the idea of neoconservatism, where there can only be one world power, i.e., the U.S., the single beacon of "freedom and democracy" worldwide, and the only one who could protect the "freedoms" of the world against tyranny.

According to right-libertarians, the idea of neoconservatism is a sham because its purpose is to allow the U.S. to dominate over others and maintain its own empire. It's similar to neoliberalism, or the belief that all economies should be like that of the U.S., with "free markets" and deregulation, and that should be enforced through loans or financial aid with strings attached: policies forcing borrowers to open up their economy to free trade. The actual goal is tmo open them up for exploitation by stronger economies.

I am very aquatinted with the simple minded perceptions of neo conservatives, most of it written by individuals without a thimble of exposure to its intellectual history, let alone its relevancy to American political thought. That anyone even comments on it these days is due solely to the simple minded alt right, that needs 'good guy and bad guy' conspiracy blaming animus as a lynchpin to their oddball world views.

It is fair to say neoconservatism WAS an intellectual movement whose roots date back to the 1930s and 1940s, and the first communists and their fellow travelers whose disenchantment with Stalinism created an "anti communist left", particularly among New York and often Jewish popular intellectuals. By the later half of the 1950s the contrarian writing on the left (eventually to be labeled neo conservative as a derogatory label) began to transform liberal political journals like Commentary. By the end of the 60s it was well established and its power lay in its deep knowledge of communism and socialism making its domestic critiques all the more searing.

It was never an ideology, nor uniform in its advocacy. Many of those characterized as members rejected the label as inaccurate. It's "godfather" Irving Kristol called it a "persuasion", practical, anti utopian, and anti communist. It's most innovative impact was in domestic policy and it's social insights, providing whole new ways of examining the war on poverty, race relations, education, and urban planning. It gave mainstream traditionalist conservatism, its flagship being National Review, a new energy...expanding the intellectual depth and scope of conservatism in general. A neoconservative was, in the words o Irving Kristol, "A liberal mugged by reality".

Today much is written about "neo conservativism" by its enemies, focusing on its support of an interventionist foreign policy. What is forgotten was that it's support of interventionism was predicated on the cold war against communism, a belief shared by both liberals and conservatives that communism was a threat to the west, and had to be contained. It stood in contrast to the New Left and the communist appeasing progressive fellow travelers who defended North Korea, Cuba, and North Vietnam. The neo conservative was no different, in this respect, than Harry Truman, John Kennedy, or democratic Senator Scoop Jackson (a cold war liberal). And in fact, even a few democrats (Senator Patrick Moynihan) were categorized as neo conservative scholars in their academic work.

Now the source of right wing animus to neo conservatism is rooted in the history of the right. Prior to WW2, isolationism was the dominate outlook of the GOP, as opposed to FDR's internationalist perspectives. After WW2, the GOP right rallied around anti communism, and got on board with the need to shed the US of its isolationist impulses and fight an existential war against communism. Mainstream conservatism (eg National Review) and Wall Street conservatism were already established when neo conservatives added to their voices, the GOP leaving old folks like isolationist Taft (and later "libertarians" and the paleo conservatives) to stew in their isolationist fever swamps.

And yes , with the fall of the Soviet Union, neo conservatism no longer had a communist enemy to fight, its domestic policies lost their innovative idealism, and it became largely irrelevant to the current context. The residual belief in supporting democratic and trade unionist movements continued, but such has already been a mainstream position.

In short, the fear of neo conservatism is the construction of a fake enemy for the alt right isolationists (and libertarians) to beat upon, a "boogyman" and a label that has become meaningless. Yes, the dividing lines remain and Ukraine is the latest example. There are those of us, including most mainstream conservatives, who support Ukraine and there is the old isolationist right (and libertarians) who don't. You don't need to be a self described neo conservative to support Ukraine, and in fact most of us who do support Ukraine ARE NOT.

 

[maxparrish]

Given the point that one of the major trading partners of the U.S. is China (not to mention an ally of countries like Saudi Arabia), and that the U.S. has also supported various authoritarian groups worldwide, if not funded them, i.e., from right-wing dictatorships to Islamic fundamentalist terror groups, then one should see these terms in another light, especially given kleptocracy, e.g., both Democrats and Republicans promoting neoconservatism and neoliberalism to support the U.S. rich which owns something like 70 pct of the wealth of the country.

It's like that Chinese expert who was asked to give one difference between China and the U.S. He answered by saying that China is ruled by the Communist Party and the U.S. by Wall Street.

The word "has" is past tense, and conflating support of authoritarians in the cold war against totalitarians (communism) is irrelevant to today's context. TODAY we know Russia is a fascist kleptocracy and Mafia state; meaning that vast public and party assets were literally stolen by the first generation of oligarchs, and then restolen by Putin and the second generation till today - with certain transactions routinely forced by scores of hit jobs over the last 15 to 20 years.

Nothing like this bloody and fascist system exists in the west. If it does, I invite you to prove it, giving us something more than a vague denunciation.

 

[Rogue Valley]

No, I said Ukraines refusal to recognize Donbas independence and their creation of a massive offensive army was justification for a full scale invasion

You have a terrible grasp of Ukraine and its legalities.

In Ukraine and Crimea (2014 for Crimea) their respective Constitutions required that any change in the status of a region/oblast needed to be approved by a national referendum.

Crimea (or any oblest) belongs not just to the people who live there, but to all Ukrainians.

Naturally, the pro-Russia separatists of Crimea altered the Constitution of ARC as soon as they held their sham annexation referendum.

Armed and masked Russian soldiers guarding the Crimean parliament during the takeover in March of 2014.

 

[Juin]

You have a terrible grasp of Ukraine and its legalities.
In Ukraine and Crimea (2014 for Crimea) their respective Constitutions required that any change in the status of a region/oblast needed to be approved by a national referendum.

Crimea (or any oblest) belongs not just to the people who live there, but to all Ukrainians.

A declaration of independence renders all the above null and void. Correctly so. The consent of abudive husband should not be a condition barring the abused spouse from leaving. The thirteen colonies declared independence, and it didnt matter what King George III or the rest of Britannia thought. Donbass is on its way out. Good luck to Stepan Andriyovich Bandera, he will have to go seek new victims, Crimea is gone.

 

[Rogue Valley]

A declaration of independence renders all the above null and void.

Sorry bub.

Any declaration under military occupation is null and void.

 

[Juin]

Sorry bub.

Any declaration under military occupation is null and void.

Who did Crimeans consider the occupier?

 

[Rogue Valley]

Who did Crimeans consider the occupier?

The occupiers are armed Russian soldiers.....

 

[anatta]

A declaration of independence renders all the above null and void. Correctly so. The consent of abudive husband should not be a condition barring the abused spouse from leaving. The thirteen colonies declared independence, and it didnt matter what King George III or the rest of Britannia thought. Donbass is on its way out. Good luck to Stepan Andriyovich Bandera, he will have to go seek new victims, Crimea is gone.

yes. this idea Kyiv has to approve Donbas referendum is anathema to self rule -especially since Donbas is much closer to Russia
then Kyiv in terms of economy, culture and language

Kyiv could have given the region autonomy.. it clung to ruling over Donbas instead..and here we are

 

[W_Heisenberg]

You don’t, virtually all liberal democracies, and certainly the ones I’m familiar with, provide extensive protections of minority rights

You are introducing a new term, "Minority Rights," to the discussion. I have not used this term. The phrase I used to describe your argument concerning Ukrainian Language Laws was "Group Rights." In my opinion, there is a difference between Minority Rights and Group Rights.

While there is some overlap between the two concepts, group rights tend to focus more on the collective rights of a group as a whole, while minority rights focus on the individual rights of members of that group.

Group Rights refer to the special privileges that are recognized and protected for a particular group of people based on their identity or characteristics. These characteristics may include ethnicity, race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, language, or culture. Group rights are typically conferred upon groups that have historically faced discrimination or marginalization, and they are meant to ensure that these groups are treated fairly and have equal opportunities.

Minority Rights, on the other hand, refer to the rights of individuals who belong to a minority group within a society. This could include individuals who belong to a minority ethnic group, a religious minority, a linguistic minority, or any other group that is marginalized or underrepresented in society. Minority rights are often seen as a means of protecting the rights and interests of individual members of minority groups.

While there is some overlap between the two concepts, group rights tend to focus more on the collective rights of a group as a whole, while minority rights focus on the individual rights of members of that group.

The concept of minority rights is central to the philosophy forming the basis of liberal democracies because liberal democracies are founded on the principle of protecting the rights and freedoms of all individuals, including those who belong to minority groups. Liberal democracies are based on the belief that individuals have inherent rights and freedoms that must be protected from the power of the government and the majority.

In a liberal democracy, minority rights are protected through a system of laws and institutions that ensure that all individuals are treated equally under the law, regardless of their race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or any other characteristic. This includes protections for freedom of speech, assembly, and religion, as well as protections against discrimination and unequal treatment.

However, the concept of group rights is not central to the philosophy forming the basis of liberal democracies. While liberal democracies do recognize the importance of protecting the rights of minority groups, they do not grant special rights or privileges to these groups as a whole. Instead, liberal democracies focus on protecting the rights of individual members of minority groups, rather than the group as a whole.

This approach is based on the belief that individuals have inherent rights and freedoms, and that these rights should not be dependent on their group membership. In a liberal democracy, all individuals are equal under the law, and are entitled to the same rights and freedoms regardless of their race, religion, or any other characteristic. While the government may take steps to address historical injustices and promote equality, a liberal democracy does not cease being a liberal democracies merely because it does not grant special privileges or rights to certain groups over others.

And, within the context of your argument about Ukrainian Language Laws, you are mostly referring to the loss of special privileges afforded to ethnic Russians -- as a group -- in Ukraine.

 

[Chagos]

Who did Crimeans consider the occupier?

Sophie of Anhalt-Zerbst, aka Catherine II

 

[W_Heisenberg]

what some philosopher said doesn’t matter

On the contrary, philosophy is central to what's happening in Ukraine, to everyday politics, and to all of the discussions we are having on this forum. And I think you make a grave mistake by poo-pooing the role philosophers play in the daily practice of politics, how our laws are created, and in our institutions are structured. Philosophy is important as it concerns the practice of politics in the real world. Politics is fundamentally concerned with questions of power, justice, morality, and human behavior, all of which are central concerns of philosophy.

Political philosophy provides a theoretical framework for understanding the nature of political power and the relationship between the individual and the state. This framework informs the design of political institutions, policies, and practices, and helps to guide decision-making in the political realm.

Philosophy also helps to identify the principles and values that underlie political systems, and provides a means for assessing whether these systems are just, fair, and effective.

It also plays an important role in shaping political discourse and public opinion. Philosophical ideas and arguments can be powerful tools for persuading people to adopt certain political positions or support particular policies.

Logic and philosophy help to promote critical thinking in the practice of politics. It encourages politicians and citizens alike to question assumptions, challenge established ideas, and seek new political perspectives.

Lawyers, judges, lawmakers, and politicians are always borrowing from philosophers' works, and going back to the well, so to speak. American politicians, for example, have been borrowing from the work of Enlightenment-era philosophers before, during, and after the American revolution.

And as time has passed, philosophers and intellectuals have advanced political thought, and politicians in liberal democracies, in general, have continued to borrow from the works of philosophers. Part of your arguments, for example, about Group Rights are derived from the work contemporary intellectuals and academics.

Philosophy is essential to politics in the real world because it provides the intellectual tools and theoretical frameworks needed to understand, evaluate, and improve political systems and practices.

When we are discussing Ukraine on this Debate Politics we concern ourselves mostly with matters of philosophy. We consider things like the following: is Russia justified in invading Ukraine? Was the Maidan Uprising justified? What are the beliefs of the people who support Bandera. Is the U.S. an inherently good nation even though it sometimes acts contrary to its stated values? And so on, and so forth.

In short, Philosophy matters.

So, no, I'm sorry you're wrong, when you write "what some philosopher said doesn't matter" you have no ****ing idea what you're talking about.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

If liberal societies protect minority rights in practice and Ukraine doesn’t then Ukraine is not such a society.

There is an overlap between the concept of Minority Rights and Group Rights, and while I would consider Minority Rights to be central to the project of creating and perpetuating liberal democracies, I do not consider the concept of Group Rights to be central to liberal democracies. A lack of special recognition or the refusal to grant special privileges to ethnic groups or cultural groups does not necessarily indicate a government is not a liberal democracy. And to the list of things I would categorize as a Group Right, I would throw in your notion of language privileges for minority ethnic groups.

I can give an example for language. France has created a language law that protects and promotes the French language to the exclusion of all other ethnic groups (the French language must be used in all business activities, for example), to the extent that minor languages of other ethnic groups in France are dying out, and to the extent that non-French speakers in France are put at a severe disadvantage when applying for jobs. It's such a problem that the European Union frequently complains about France's language laws. Now, are you going to tell me that as a result of France stubbornly insisting that everyone use French in government communications and in business, is not somehow a liberal democracy? There are many liberal democracies, aside from France, such as Germany, that have only one official language, are those countries not liberal democracies because they emphasize one language over all others?

I gave you an example earlier of where liberal democracies come down when forced to make a decision between Individual Rights and Group Rights when I brought up the topic of female genital mutilation. In modern, liberal democracies in the West, despite the fact that some ethnic groups engage in the practice of female genital mutilation, liberal democracies have decided that the individual rights of women are more important than the privileges liberal democracies might afford an ethnic group that engages in the practice.

I'll give you a theoretical example. Imagine a theoretical example of a liberal democracy that has only one ethnic group and is not faced with the political problem of resolving disputes between ethnic groups. Is this theoretical liberal democracy not a liberal democracy because it has no ethnic enclave or group for which feels compelled to protect or for which it feels no need to construct an alternate political arrangement?

What I am trying to convey to you is the act of granting special privileges to ethnic groups, while common in liberal democracies, is not what defines a liberal democracy.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

And I really doubt anyone in the Ukranian regime is at all familiar with English enlightenment writers anyway.

I simply don't know to what degree Ukrainians are familiar with thinkers like John Locke. I think it's safe to assume the average Ukrainian has far less familiarity with John Locke than the average American (I remember learning about Locke in high school). However, that doesn't mean educated Ukrainians, or Ukrainian politicians are completely unfamiliar with Enlightenment-era philosophers. Ukraine has universities, and its universities have philosophy departments. And it's not like Ukraine hasn't had access to Western literature since the fall of the Soviet Union. And it's not like Ukrainians haven't had access to the internet. It's not like Ukraine suddenly became a country yesterday, and was just freshly birthed from the Russian womb. For centuries Ukrainian thinkers have been borrowing from Western philosophers, and it's part of the reason why Ukrainian national identity began to be expressed with great vigor a few hundred years ago. When Ukraine first began to insist on its national identity, they weren't referencing Russian literature.

Also, based on the way the Ukrainians fight, and the way they speak, and how they react, the Ukrainians appear to me to have adopted, to a very great extent, Western culture and thinking, and to this I would include their practice of politics.

The Ukrainians fight like Americans, with a greater emphasis on decentralized decision-making, rather than the top-down approach employed by the Russian army.

The Ukrainians act like Americans by insisting on their freedom and independence.

The Ukrainians also have made a concerted effort over the years to become a Western country. This appears to have been a conscious, deliberate effort.

Also, I must say that it appears you don't think Ukrainians are very advanced. But I'd like to remind you that it's the Russians that are stealing toilets from the Ukrainians, not the other way around.

So, I think it's terribly unfair for you to refuse Ukraine the possibility of being or becoming a western, liberal democracy.

 

[Hamish Howl]

yes. this idea Kyiv has to approve Donbas referendum is anathema to self rule -especially since Donbas is much closer to Russia
then Kyiv in terms of economy, culture and language

Kyiv could have given the region autonomy.. it clung to ruling over Donbas instead..and here we are

None of that matters.

Since Donbass decided to ignore their constitution, this is now nothing but a question of force.