7 ms·

that same kind of thinking encouraged Russia to go on a 3-day march on Kyiv. Ask an average participant of that march how that has gone for them. Oh wait

ossobuco 2y ago
Historical facts are not "thinking". I don't get your snark to be honest. These Russians, are they in the room with us right now?
- walterlw 2y ago
  it's about the difference between "was" and "is". Sure, a bunch of states were formally parts of the Russian Empire as well as the USSR. That doesn't mean you can reduce them to "it's just Russia", those lands and peoples had history prior to being invaded and some have been lucky to have had some independence since the fall of the USSR. Considering that there are people out there literally fighting to the death not to be a part of the next russian imperial project i'd politely ask you to be a bit more sensitive about the whole thing.
  - ossobuco 2y ago
    Personally I took that "in russia" like I would with "in europe...insert generalization here". As in Russia the general area, not specifically the country. Similarly we still refer to a good part of the Balkans as ex-Yugoslavia.
    - walterlw 2y ago
      Unlike Europe (which is not a state) or Yugoslavia (which no longer exists), Russia is a country actively trying to expand its borders by force. So using "in russia" as a geographic generalization seems inappropriate to me. Using ex-USSR or ex-Russian Empire would be factually correct, but bestowing "borderlessness" onto Russia is a harmful thing in my opinion.
    - alxlaz 2y ago
      The ex part there is a rather important distinction :-) and there is no "general area" called Russia.
- elefanten 2y ago
  Interesting to hide behind the defense you’re just stating facts while being so imprecise about everything else you’re saying. Some vague, associative geographic vibes you experience are totally irrelevant to the detailed discussion of what various alcohols are called across (present day) countries. And gp didn’t mention “Russians” in some vague accusatory sense, they clearly said “Russia” marched. A historical fact as it turns out. And the comparison was also precise: Russia’s pretense to march involved a wishful assertion of how many self-identified “Russians” inhabited the area.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

ossobuco 2y ago

Historical facts are not "thinking". I don't get your snark to be honest. These Russians, are they in the room with us right now?

walterlw 2y ago
it's about the difference between "was" and "is". Sure, a bunch of states were formally parts of the Russian Empire as well as the USSR. That doesn't mean you can reduce them to "it's just Russia", those lands and peoples had history prior to being invaded and some have been lucky to have had some independence since the fall of the USSR. Considering that there are people out there literally fighting to the death not to be a part of the next russian imperial project i'd politely ask you to be a bit more sensitive about the whole thing.
- ossobuco 2y ago
  Personally I took that "in russia" like I would with "in europe...insert generalization here". As in Russia the general area, not specifically the country. Similarly we still refer to a good part of the Balkans as ex-Yugoslavia.
  - walterlw 2y ago
    Unlike Europe (which is not a state) or Yugoslavia (which no longer exists), Russia is a country actively trying to expand its borders by force. So using "in russia" as a geographic generalization seems inappropriate to me. Using ex-USSR or ex-Russian Empire would be factually correct, but bestowing "borderlessness" onto Russia is a harmful thing in my opinion.
  - alxlaz 2y ago
    The ex part there is a rather important distinction :-) and there is no "general area" called Russia.
elefanten 2y ago
Interesting to hide behind the defense you’re just stating facts while being so imprecise about everything else you’re saying. Some vague, associative geographic vibes you experience are totally irrelevant to the detailed discussion of what various alcohols are called across (present day) countries. And gp didn’t mention “Russians” in some vague accusatory sense, they clearly said “Russia” marched. A historical fact as it turns out. And the comparison was also precise: Russia’s pretense to march involved a wishful assertion of how many self-identified “Russians” inhabited the area.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]