I fail to see the word “America” anywhere in the first couple of sentences in the first paragraph of the OP, never mind any justifications there for American past actions.
If you’re that focused on misreading the intent of the thread (which is to explore the various rationalizations seen in other media sources) then I can’t help you.
I am absolutely baffled by this response. The first few sentences of the OP don’t remotely come close to saying what you say they do - like, to the extent that I am curious if you were inadvertently referring to the OP of a different thread.
So, cite these “other media sources” that have Americans saying their past aggressions are justified when Russia’s are not.
Totally agree. The removal of repressive authoritarianism anywhere is a net positive. The Slavic-nationalist flavor of it is especially nasty and deserves to be pushed over the cliff of history.
But since this thread is about examining whether Russia has any kind of justification for its invasion, it behooves us to start with their argument, their perspective, their rationalization, to understand it fully, and then examine whether or not it holds any water.
I totally get that they’re angry and frustrated at having lost the cultural battle. Anyone in their position would feel the same, and that’s legitimate, as far as it goes. But them’s the breaks, historically speaking. They took their shot, they didn’t measure up, and now they’re lashing out in what the rest of the world hopes is a last, lingering gasp.
Have they lost the “cultural battle” though? Or should I say, “Had they lost it before they invaded Ukraine?” As I see it, they lost the political battle. Almost every country that used to be under the control of the USSR or the Warsaw Pact decided they preferred at least some kind of democracy over the repressive nature of Russia’s government.
But is “Repressive government” an expression of Russian culture? Even in Ukraine, we’ve seen people who still identified with Russian culture, even as they were politically Ukrainian citizens, who wanted an independent Ukraine. In other countries, even as Russia’s government become increasingly oppressive the last decade or so, we still had people wanting to travel to Russia to explore its nicer cities and historical sites. I’ve got friends who did just that a few years ago, many of whom lament the fact that Putin’s increasing paranoia have made additional visits to Russia a bad idea.
So as I see it, the Russian culture is doing just fine, and its international influence would likely increase if the Russian government would stop trying to bully everyone around them, and just chill out for a few years.
I’d say that culture and type of government are two completely different things.
Japan didn’t lose Japanese culture when they moved from a pre-war authoritarian/militaristic government to a democratic government and a modern society. The French didn’t lose French culture after the French revolution, etc.
Ukraine didn’t lose their Slavic/Orthodox culture when they became a democracy, and neither would Russia lose its culture if it ever became a fully modernized democratic state.
That’s why I referenced Slavic nationalism. It’s true that culture and politics get tangled up, and they perceive their culture as being under attack when it’s merely their political ambitions that have been blunted. But again, in the spirit of the thread, from their perspective, they’re losing the cultural battle because they have failed to export their way of doing things to any meaningful degree, and indeed alien cultures (to them) are encroaching on their space and threatening to supplant elements of their society. That’s what I’m getting at. Yes, it’s a tangled mess. No disagreement.
Putin has made it clear that what he really wants is a restoration of the Tsarist Russian Empire in some form. Everything else is just an excuse.
I’d say that it is. Of course there are many aspects of culture. Food, music, literature, art, etc. It’s meaningless to compare different aspects. When it comes to the form of government, I can’t think of when the last time Russia had one that wasn’t a repressive authoritarian regime, other than the later Gorbachev years. Maybe Peter the Great? The times before the czars?
Sure. Open invitation to consider that nobody has suggested otherwise.
Yes, correct. What if you do. Then you might say something like “Russia is engaging in war crimes. Also, the US should not…”
None of these is an example of what I described.
When the United States threatened Cuba, it was over an issue involving Cuba. The same is true when the United States threatened Nicaragua and sent troops to Vietnam; these actions were taken in response to situations in those countries. Our actions may not have been justifiable for other reasons but they were directed at the right place geographically.
You’re missing the key point. Even if America did commit a war crime, it does not mean that Russia is now allowed to commit the same war crime.
So if Russia makes the argument that it’s only doing the same wrong thing America has done, then even if their accusations against America are true, they are admitting that what they are doing is wrong.
I think he’s responding to @Strawman.
Stranger
You’re right of course - major changes should require a supermajority. Divesting from a country is a big thing, and people should be really sure about it. But in principle, decisions about who’s in charge of a region belong to the people who live there, and getting back to Ukraine in that case it’s not even close
Whataboutism.
What the US did in the past cannot justify what Russia is doing today.
You are correct, but Russia isn’t trying to win a formal debate. Pointing out Western hypocrisy is very likely to score points with the only two audiences he cares about: the people of Russia, and the government of China. It doesn’t make Putin right, but I don’t think that being a logical fallacy detracts from it’s usefulness.
Here is the “funny” thing. Putin claims there are many ethic Russians in parts of Ukraine. Yes, that is true.
But do you know why they are there?
Holodomor.
In an activity many have called Genocide, Stalin starved around 4 Million Ukrainians to death in the 1930s, then moved in ethnic Russians.
Putin claiming he wants to protect the ethnic Russians is like the man who murdered his parents and then threw himself on the mercy of the court as he was an orphan.
Note also that Ukraine was briefly an independent nation in 1917. Stalin of course killed just about every Ukrainian leader who had anything to do with their brief independence, just like Putin will do if he wins.
Regardless of all your drivel (you might add Ukrainian Nazi like ambition its fictitious chemical weapons research program), Ukraine, Belarus, and the Baltic Republics have been recognized by the United Nations, and Russia too, as independent, sovereign nations on December 8, 1991. Link to CIS
This is Putin’s War, and he should be exposed as a fraud. Link to Putin
Welcome aboard! So, to whom are you speaking?