Ukraine Today

[Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James]

I mean, that still is pretty imperialistic. It is fundamentally extending Russia's power, which is the baseline definition of Imperialism.

If extension of power is imperialism then every state or organisation of any kind is imperialist. My uncle's small business is imperialist. My neighbour's cat is imperialist. Voltaire is cumming in his grave.

The reason people are using the word "Imperialism" to refer to Putin is mostly just to paint him in a bad light. I mean fine, but it also obscures the reasons behind his actions behind just "he wants power" which is meaningless, childish, and impossible for anyone to ever negotiate with in the future, which is probably how this war is going to end.

When historians for the last 300 or so years use the word "Imperialism" they always meant the acquisition of resources. I mean you could argue that geopolitical space is a kind of resource, but it's not the same thing as when Gibbon was talking about Ancient Rome or Lenin was talking about the British Empire.

 

[Lord Grindelvald]

If extension of power is imperialism then every state or organisation of any kind is imperialist. My uncle's small business is imperialist. My neighbour's cat is imperialist. Voltaire is cumming in his grave.

Did your neighbours cat force its owners out onto the street, enslaved or entrapped them and then invited other cats inside the house to live there?

Or did the cat invade the house, pushed out its owners and then seated cat-friendly owners in the house, while changing the law to make sure the cat-friendly owners could stay in the house forever?

The reason people are using the word "Imperialism" to refer to Putin is mostly just to paint him in a bad light. I mean fine, but it also obscures the reasons behind his actions behind just "he wants power" which is meaningless, childish, and impossible for anyone to ever negotiate with in the future, which is probably how this war is going to end.

When historians for the last 300 or so years use the word "Imperialism" they always meant the acquisition of resources. I mean you could argue that geopolitical space is a kind of resource, but it's not the same thing as when Gibbon was talking about Ancient Rome or Lenin was talking about the British Empire.

The acquisition of resources was more colonial than imperial I believe.

 

[Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James]

Did your neighbours cat force its owners out onto the street, enslaved or entrapped them and then invited other cats inside the house to live there?

Or did the cat invade the house, pushed out its owners and then seated cat-friendly owners in the house, while changing the law to make sure the cat-friendly owners could stay in the house forever?

You'd be surprised. Jamaican cats are built different.

The acquisition of resources was more colonial than imperial I believe.

We're really just quibbling over definitions here, but in most of the 20th century Colonialism and Imperialism were mutually interchangeable terms. When people nowadays call America Imperialist they're not looking at formal territory they've annexed (almost none over the last 100 years) or wars of national security (a billion clandestine "special military operations" in South/Central America and the Caribbean). They're talking about the economic threats they use to control half the world. These often don't involve militaries at all.

The reason I think this, is because Russia is not an Empire. It doesn't premise its wars on conquest for its own sake. It has to first establish that there are Ethnic Russians living in the opposing belligerent, then incorporate that area as a normal national province. It would have been meaningless for the USSR (an actual empire) to do this, they didn't treat other countries as equal diplomatic partners, they didn't incorporate Poland or Czechoslovakia as equal territories, because an Empire is like a state of states and not just a single nation-state.

 

[Lord Grindelvald]

You'd be surprised. Jamaican cats are built different.



We're really just quibbling over definitions here, but in most of the 20th century Colonialism and Imperialism were mutually interchangeable terms. When people nowadays call America Imperialist they're not looking at formal territory they've annexed (almost none over the last 100 years) or wars of national security (a billion clandestine "special military operations" in South/Central America and the Caribbean). They're talking about the economic threats they use to control half the world. These often don't involve militaries at all.

The reason I think this, is because Russia is not an Empire. It doesn't premise its wars on conquest for its own sake. It has to first establish that there are Ethnic Russians living in the opposing belligerent, then incorporate that area as a normal national province. It would have been meaningless for the USSR (an actual empire) to do this, they didn't treat other countries as equal diplomatic partners, they didn't incorporate Poland or Czechoslovakia as equal territories, because an Empire is like a state of states and not just a single nation-state.

Hmh, yes.. But if the terminology has changed and now includes the economic power one country has over another, does that not include a whole lot of other countries as well? Hasn't China for example invested a metric ton of money into Africa, improving its infrastructure in exchange for influence (and resources)? Making it imperial in the way it gains control and power?

And correct me if i'm wrong, but if imperial in the modern sense of the word includes using military, monetary or political force to gain control, power or influence over another country, does that not include Russia?

 

[Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James]

I mean it could, but my point is that Russia doesn't really behave like an empire, just an aggressive nation-state, like Pilsudski Poland in the 1910s or Modern China. I also think the use of words like imperialist and dictator in the west are terrible at explaining non-liberal governments and their leaders. People tend to use those terms interchangeably with "evil villain" which is like an angry 2-year-old's worldview and doesn't help explain anything.

Hasn't China for example invested a metric ton of money into Africa, improving its infrastructure in exchange for influence (and resources)? Making it imperial in the way it gains control and power?

A lot of Africans would be very mad at you for saying that, lol. The Belt and Road Initiative isn't a unilateral government policy, it's an umbrella term for the shift of infrastructure investors from domestic (where there is less money now) to foreign. It's mostly corporations who sign these deals. For the most part these deals are mutually beneficial. To call this imperialism is basically saying that Africans are too stupid and weak to do infrastructure deals without getting exploited, which is basically the impression I get whenever commentators in the west talk about the BRI.

 

[Phantom425]

Crimea is peninsula, that was Greek (not modern Greece related!), then Tatar and just for last two centuries Russian/Soviet and last 30 years Ukrainian with Russian army presence and autonomy-heavy movement. It's pretty easy to say that it's contested territory, like Karabakh.

Crimea is something that the Russians consider their own land. Yeah, its contested, but that doesn't mean that the Russians will think that the land is contested.

I don't think Trump will be a viable candidate after the disappointing mid-terms.

The Primaries for the Republicans are gonna be tough. He is still shockingly popular enough that he might be able to do well during them. Extreme people vote during Primaries, not just your average joe.

If extension of power is imperialism then every state or organisation of any kind is imperialist. My uncle's small business is imperialist. My neighbour's cat is imperialist. Voltaire is cumming in his grave.

Yes. Almost all governments have been imperialistic at some point. Including your Uncle. We'll be seeing him at the Hague soon.

Jokes aside, Imperialism isn't just conventional land-grabs. It is expanding your own Sphere of Influence to make sure that nations go with your own. It can be invasions, sponsored coups, and countless other things.

When people nowadays call America Imperialist they're not looking at formal territory they've annexed (almost none over the last 100 years) or wars of national security (a billion clandestine "special military operations" in South/Central America and the Caribbean). They're talking about the economic threats they use to control half the world. These often don't involve militaries at all.

I know we're basically splitting hairs at this point, and boy the amount of times that has gotten me in trouble is immense, but on this point the first two reasons that you've given are reasons why the United States is called Imperialist. Its that, and also things like our control over the Philippines and Puerto Rico, along with Cuba. And all that is before Iraq. America was a proper Empire at one point, when that point ended is an entire other discussion.

Also I say this being a 100% Freeaboo. Democracy is non-negotiable.

 

[AoC]

I mean it could, but my point is that Russia doesn't really behave like an empire, just an aggressive nation-state, like Pilsudski Poland in the 1910s or Modern China. I also think the use of words like imperialist and dictator in the west are terrible at explaining non-liberal governments and their leaders. People tend to use those terms interchangeably with "evil villain" which is like an angry 2-year-old's worldview and doesn't help explain anything.

Oh boy, Piłsudski's Poland started in may 1926. His short term as head of state was from 7.11.1918 to 20.2.1919. You can't really assume that it in 1910s, and your understanding of Polish state is beyond naive and frankly insulting. Learn about it or shut the **** up.

Also, aggresive nation state? The only argument bolshevics know is power, there are no chances for any reasonic with them. Any other countries attacked? No, there wasn't any (except chechia, but they saw it coming as they stole Zaolzie during bolshevic-Polish war.).

 

[Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James]

I forgot the dates and had to search them on Chinese language internet with no Wikipedia (I'm in Beijing with no VPN), sue me. I was referring to the Polish-Ukrainian war which was the first ethnic revanchist war that came to mind.

 

[AoC]

I forgot the dates and had to search them on Chinese language internet with no Wikipedia (I'm in Beijing with no VPN), sue me. I was referring to the Polish-Ukrainian war which was the first ethnic revanchist war that came to mind.

What? War between two post-war entities ma na revanchist? In what form? Both parties claimed the territories inhabited by both nationalities in situation where there was no internationally recognized borders, and where later on Poland helped non-bolshevic Ukrainian state.

 

[Weaver]

Crimea is Russian land. If Russia, namely Putin, fears that Russian land is being threatened that is the state being threatened.

Crimea is Russian land exactly to the extent Kherson is Russian land.
Legally there is no difference. They move in the troops, hold a sham referendum, and amend the constitution to sort of legitimize it. When pushed, they withdraw their troops and don't know how to react further because they don't understand themselves what the Russian state is right now. That's why I think they're in trouble as a state.

I think calling it Imperialism is misleading, and paints Putin like some kind of warlord, which he isn't. He's not invading countries for their resources or to loot them, or even to recreate a past state. He wants geopolitical security against the West. If he could magically turn central asia and eastern europe into an impassible wasteland, he would probably do it. Which is probably why he's not too bothered that Ukraine is gradually turning into a forever war.

I think you're wrong. Nothing Putin has done so far with his military increased Russian security. On the contrary, he is taking massive security risks for the sake of geopolitical gains.
Calling this war imperialistic may not be exactly correct but its the closest definition. Lenin himself would exactly call it imperialistic.

 

[Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James]

I think you're wrong. Nothing Putin has done so far with his military increased Russian security. On the contrary, he is taking massive security risks for the sake of geopolitical gains.

I meant security in the long term geopolitical sense, i.e. strategic depth. I don't know what russian word putin uses but it often gets translated to security or "security concerns" in English.

Calling this war imperialistic may not be exactly correct but its the closest definition. Lenin himself would exactly call it imperialistic.

Lenin's definition of imperialism was as a cannibalistic end stage of capitalism (i.e. the title of the book) and was an attempt to explain WW1 using marxism. He probably wouldn't call this war imperialist by his definition, but who knows, the guy was a pragmatist and would probably write an entirely new essay with a new definition if he saw the modern world. Even the existence of Khrushchev probably would have blown his mind.

 

[Lord Grindelvald]

A lot of Africans would be very mad at you for saying that, lol. The Belt and Road Initiative isn't a unilateral government policy, it's an umbrella term for the shift of infrastructure investors from domestic (where there is less money now) to foreign. It's mostly corporations who sign these deals. For the most part these deals are mutually beneficial. To call this imperialism is basically saying that Africans are too stupid and weak to do infrastructure deals without getting exploited, which is basically the impression I get whenever commentators in the west talk about the BRI.

Interesting, thanks! I'll have to retract my statement since I do not know enough about the BRI to weigh in on it.

The Primaries for the Republicans are gonna be tough. He is still shockingly popular enough that he might be able to do well during them. Extreme people vote during Primaries, not just your average joe.

Hmh, well, that's gonna be interesting.

 

[Adorno]

Now 5 bombs. Presumably linked to Spain's support of Ukraine.

Spain letter bombs: Spanish PM targeted amid spate of explosive packages

A number of explosive packages have been sent to high-profile targets, including Pedro Sánchez.

www.bbc.com

(In other news, people still send mail).

 

[Phantom425]

Crimea is Russian land exactly to the extent Kherson is Russian land.
Legally there is no difference. They move in the troops, hold a sham referendum, and amend the constitution to sort of legitimize it. When pushed, they withdraw their troops and don't know how to react further because they don't understand themselves what the Russian state is right now. That's why I think they're in trouble as a state.

As said before, just because they're the same on paper doesn't make them the same in reality. Crimea has been Russian for a while, it is a sign of victory for the Russian government. They moved countless Russians there. It is Russian territory, not just something that they have taken in war. The Russian Military wouldn't just abandon Crimea like they did Kherson.

Them withdrawing is also probably more military then anything to do with a state. They don't have the men to waste on a costly defense is my best guess.

 

[Weaver]

I meant security in the long term geopolitical sense, i.e. strategic depth. I don't know what russian word putin uses but it often gets translated to security or "security concerns" in English

Strategic depth is actually getting worse, given that Finland joins NATO, with potential NATO bases basically on the doorstep of their 2nd largest city. Ukraine is now also potentially a NATO state, which was not the case before 2014. Basically, Putin's war on Ukraine is pushing NATO expansion, not the other way around despite his rhetoric.
On a different note, strategic depth is a rather out of place concept here. Given Russia, as a nuclear state, does not really expect a land invasion from Europe. I mean, come on.

Lenin's definition of imperialism was as a cannibalistic end stage of capitalism (i.e. the title of the book) and was an attempt to explain WW1 using marxism. He probably wouldn't call this war imperialist by his definition, but who knows, the guy was a pragmatist and would probably write an entirely new essay with a new definition if he saw the modern world. Even the existence of Khrushchev probably would have blown his mind.

I am admittedly not a scholar, but that is how we were taught to classify wars in the socialist paradigm.
A war that entails no just goal except for colonial expansion with the direct increase of one's territory. Of course, people with better education will be able to offer better classification.

As said before, just because they're the same on paper doesn't make them the same in reality. Crimea has been Russian for a while, it is a sign of victory for the Russian government. They moved countless Russians there. It is Russian territory, not just something that they have taken in war. The Russian Military wouldn't just abandon Crimea like they did Kherson.

Crimea is Russian territory to the same extent as Kherson as I've said. It is something they have taken by force as a part of a previous "special military operation". In exactly the same way. You don't know if there's any difference "in reality", why should there be?

Them withdrawing is also probably more military then anything to do with a state. They don't have the men to waste on a costly defense is my best guess.

Withdrawal is a military decision. Not reacting to it as a crossed red line is a political decision or the lack thereof.

 

[Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James]

Strategic depth is actually getting worse, given that Finland joins NATO, with potential NATO bases basically on the doorstep of their 2nd largest city. Ukraine is now also potentially a NATO state, which was not the case before 2014. Basically, Putin's war on Ukraine is pushing NATO expansion, not the other way around despite his rhetoric.
On a different note, strategic depth is a rather out of place concept here. Given Russia, as a nuclear state, does not really expect a land invasion from Europe. I mean, come on.

Judging whether a war is imperialist is in my eyes more about the initial justification rather than the actual emergent situation. Sure it's been a disaster for Putin's stated goals of pushing back NATO, but the fact that those were his goals in the first place, and the fact that he now has to faff around with referendums, has put a kind of ideological limit on what he can do. No such limits really existed with the USSR.

Also I do think in some respects Russia still behaves like it expects a land invasion from Europe. Even the way its military is organised, with a focus on tanks and anti aircraft coverage, is as if preparing for a NATO led invasion through the fulda gap like it's 1985. Russia is a nuclear state, sure, but it's not like North Korea where all their international leverage comes from nukes and the military is just for show.

 

[Weaver]

Judging whether a war is imperialist is in my eyes more about the initial justification rather than the actual emergent situation.

I agree. Would be curious to hear you dwell on this.

Sure it's been a disaster for Putin's stated goals of pushing back NATO, but the fact that those were his goals in the first place, and the fact that he now has to faff around with referendums, has put a kind of ideological limit on what he can do. No such limits really existed with the USSR.

Stated goals do not matter as they can shift within a blink of an eye and everyone will pretend the previous version was just mind games to con the west.
But actually, preventing NATO expansion was never a stated goal of this war. First it was "denazification and demilitarization" of Ukraine. Then it was "helping the people of Donbas". Then it was ****ing whatever, including preventing Russian moms and dads from turning into parent #1 and parent #2. I don't think the limits you're talking about are a reality in Russian internal discourse.

Also I do think in some respects Russia still behaves like it expects a land invasion from Europe. Even the way its military is organised, with a focus on tanks and anti aircraft coverage, is as if preparing for a NATO led invasion through the fulda gap like it's 1985. Russia is a nuclear state, sure, but it's not like North Korea where all their international leverage comes from nukes and the military is just for show.

Yes, it was built with the intention of clashing with NATO and countering their military doctrine. But wouldn't you say this looks suspiciously more like an invading army rather than a defending one? If not, please explain why.

 

[Phantom425]

Crimea is Russian territory to the same extent as Kherson as I've said. It is something they have taken by force as a part of a previous "special military operation". In exactly the same way. You don't know if there's any difference "in reality", why should there be?

The entire difference is that it has been Russian before the war. They didn't just take Crimea in this new conflict, they took it at the very beginning and Russians have all moved there. They are going to view it as more Russian then Kherson.

Withdrawal is a military decision. Not reacting to it as a crossed red line is a political decision or the lack thereof.

Bit confused, do you mind elaborating?

 

[Weaver]

The entire difference is that it has been Russian before the war. They didn't just take Crimea in this new conflict, they took it at the very beginning and Russians have all moved there. They are going to view it as more Russian then Kherson.

According to the Russian state, there is no war and there never was. There was a series of military operations. Crimea was annexed during the previous one. The order of precedence does not make it "more Russian".
You are talking about some "reality" that is different from "on paper" but I don't actually see any reality in your claim.

Bit confused, do you mind elaborating?

You insisted that withdrawals were "more military than anything to do with a state". I noted that while there is a military component, it is no less important to look at what happens in the political field. The lack of political reaction does have to do a lot with the state and shows that it itself does not fully understand what is and what is not Russian or "more Russian" territory at this point. There is no legal groundwork to support the way how Russia treats its newly claimed territories differently from its internationally recognized ones. So it's all completely arbitrary, they have a lot of room for maneuvre. And if thrown out of Crimea they can treat it exactly as Kherson. Or they may not. But there is no "reality" that you're talking about, no predictability. And the harder they lose, the less they would be inclined to escalate in my humble opinion. Although most commenters seem to think otherwise, like Putin is some kind of a cornered rat. No, he's not cornered and he has plenty of reasons and opportunities to not die on that hill.

 

[Phantom425]

According to the Russian state, there is no war and there never was. There was a series of military operations. Crimea was annexed during the previous one. The order of precedence does not make it "more Russian".
You are talking about some "reality" that is different from "on paper" but I don't actually see any reality in your claim.

If a nation annexes a part of a country and holds onto it, it is going to view that bit of land as more important then the strategic city that they took during a following war. Order of precedence does make it "more Russian". Along with the fact their entire line about oppressed Russians will be really strong in Crimea given the large Russia population there, and oddly fewer Crimean Tartars.

"more Russian"

Except they're not. Crimea is too important, its too, well, "Russian". Crimea has been Russian, while every other bit of taken territory started as Ukrainian this war. Russia isn't just going to let Ukraine take Crimea back, it is simply too important.

And the harder they lose, the less they would be inclined to escalate in my humble opinion.

No. The harder they lose the more likely they are to want to escalate. The harder they lose the more they'll think that their state is actually at risk. Putin is very much a cornered Rat at this point. Yeah, he could just end the war, but as stated before, he isn't very rational. He isn't going to accept a loss to Ukraine, a nation that he has said is much weaker, and honestly should be weaker. He is running an Authoritarian regime, whose life blood is its perceived strength. He losses that he losses Russia's importance. So, he'd escalate.