41–50 of 63 posts
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish%E2%80%93Czechoslovak_...
> But we rarely think about ethnic imperialism — an empire trying to gobble up neighboring polities because of linguistic and cultural similarity, so that it can be the ruler of a specific cultural sphere. (In fact, the British conquest of Ireland, the Japanese conquest of Korea and China) Uh no. The Yamato people wanted these countries for land and resources. Japan was never interested in extending their culture, no…
Yes? Japan only controlled Taiwan from 1895 to 1945, and only started really ramping up assimilationist policies towards the end of that period, but the influence of Japanese culture was nonetheless quite great, with many locals becoming bilingual in Japanese.
Then the ROC took over, instituted Mandarin as the official language while suppressing all others, and after losing control of the mainland retreated to Taiwan together with a large influx of Mandarin speakers. Now Mandarin is the dominant language, despite not being present before the end of Japanese rule.
So when you don't see many obvious Japanese influences in Taiwan today, don't forget that more time has passed since the end of Japanese rule than Taiwan was controlled by Japan in the first place.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Many people don't seem to realize how existential this is for Russia What was existential for Russia? If they had of just remained peaceful and sold resources to the rest of the world, nothing would've happened to them, there was nothing existential about it. Maybe Putin is a paranoid lunatic and thinks people were out to get him, but there is no way there was some secret western plot to invade Russia or anything lik…
No one was about to invade Russia, not today. But NATO is by definition an alliance created against Russia, and it has a long history of trying to initiate regime changes in its enemies. You have to remember that Russia is a federation, one with much deeper internal divides than the USA. The closer we are to Russia, the easier it is for us to fund, train, and arm Russia's separatist elements. If NATO was officially p…
1. A regime change would not be existential for Russia, it would be existential for Putin. Maybe that's why he panicked or something, but if one man has the power to take a country on an idiotic war like that, then maybe a regime change is a good idea.
2. You’re not really presenting a lot of evidence there was a by real risk of this actually happening?
3. How does anything you’ve said justify invading Ukraine?
Regardless it’s all failing spectacularly if the goal was to create distance between Russia and NATO. Finland is now in NATO and is on the border.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No one was about to invade Russia, not today. But NATO is by definition an alliance created against Russia, and it has a long history of trying to initiate regime changes in its enemies. You have to remember that Russia is a federation, one with much deeper internal divides than the USA. The closer we are to Russia, the easier it is for us to fund, train, and arm Russia's separatist elements. If NATO was officially p…
and it has a long history of trying to initiate regime changes in its enemies. 1. A regime change would not be existential for Russia, it would be existential for Putin. Maybe that's why he panicked or something, but if one man has the power to take a country on an idiotic war like that, then maybe a regime change is a good idea. 2. You’re not really presenting a lot of evidence there was a by real risk of this actua…
Regime change means your enemies controlling who runs your country. It is an existential threat for the whole state, even if it would be better for the populace.
When the USA suspected Russia of influencing their elections, no one said (and rightfully so) "that is only existential for Hillary, not for America, why should we care?".
> 2. You’re not really presenting a lot of evidence there was a by real risk of this actually happening?
The constant talk of the necessity of changing Putin and the EU and US support for Navalnyi make it obvious that NATO powers want regime change in Russia.
Whether they would actually spend resources to actually work for it is not something I could possibly bring evidence for. But several EU countries and the USA have often initiated or supported regime change in smaller countries when they were able to. Quite recently unsuccessfully in Venezuela and Syria. And more saliently, they did so in Ukraine in 2008, helping the Ukrianian people get rid of Yanukovich.
> 3. How does anything you’ve said justify invading Ukraine?
Invading Ukraine prevents it from joining NATO, which it was on a very clear path towards (they had had joint military exercises just one year prior, with NATO troups in Ukraine). The same happened with Georgia, but they Georgia acceeded to the Russian demands more readily.
Even if they fail to conquer Ukraine, they will keep it in a state of frozen conflict that will likely delay any further rapproachment for a decade or two.
Also, none of this makes what Russia did any less monstrous and detrimental to the Ukrianian people (nor to their own soldiers). There is no question whatsoever that it is highly immoral and a condemnable act, and a clear case of breaking international law, a clear act of aggression, the international crime for which most of the nazi leadership was hanged.
I'm just arguing it was a rational calculated decision, not some insane power play motivated by historical revisionism.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
and it has a long history of trying to initiate regime changes in its enemies. 1. A regime change would not be existential for Russia, it would be existential for Putin. Maybe that's why he panicked or something, but if one man has the power to take a country on an idiotic war like that, then maybe a regime change is a good idea. 2. You’re not really presenting a lot of evidence there was a by real risk of this actua…
> 1. A regime change would not be existential for Russia, it would be existential for Putin. Regime change means your enemies controlling who runs your country. It is an existential threat for the whole state, even if it would be better for the populace. When the USA suspected Russia of influencing their elections, no one said (and rightfully so) "that is only existential for Hillary, not for America, why should we c…
I think this is all a bit of an irrelevant academic discussion. If Russia were to cross into Poland, it would essentially pit the world against Russia. If you're on board with the article and believe Putin is on a historically motivated crusade of sorts, and of sound mind, it's difficult to imagine he'd initiate an invasion he has no chance of winning. The fact that Poland can't muster an armed force as sizeable as R…
> it would essentially pit the world against Russia. Maybe not if Trump is president.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
and it has a long history of trying to initiate regime changes in its enemies. 1. A regime change would not be existential for Russia, it would be existential for Putin. Maybe that's why he panicked or something, but if one man has the power to take a country on an idiotic war like that, then maybe a regime change is a good idea. 2. You’re not really presenting a lot of evidence there was a by real risk of this actua…
> 1. A regime change would not be existential for Russia, it would be existential for Putin. Regime change means your enemies controlling who runs your country. It is an existential threat for the whole state, even if it would be better for the populace. When the USA suspected Russia of influencing their elections, no one said (and rightfully so) "that is only existential for Hillary, not for America, why should we c…
Not really. The push has been towards democracy where who runs the country would be decided by the Russian people.