I used the definitions given by the article, and expanded on what you had cut off. When you displayed a separate article trying to give analysis, not just a definition, I explained how using the definition you gave, the analysis is incorrect. The reason I bothered with letting you cherry pick a definition is because you are correct about one thing, that changing the name of something doesn’t change the actions. That’s why I’ve focused on proving your own definition inapplicable, and asked you over and over again:
Do you support the rights of Donetsk and Luhansk to escape ethnic cleansing, and establish their own territory?
I take it you don’t at this point, it seems you’re in favor of Kiev’s stance that they have the right to ethnically cleanse the Donbass region of ethnic Russians.
They aren’t cut off in the literal sense, I misspoke, they are just not expanded upon, like the concept of maintaining an Empire. At this point though, it’s clear that you think ethnic cleansing is legitimate.
“Imperialism focuses on establishing or maintaining hegemony and a more formal empire.”
This is what you ignored, over, and over, and over, and over, and over again, and which I answered over, and over, and over, and over, and over again. Russia isn’t establishing or maintaining hegemony or a more formal empire, you focus on the fact that the Donbass voted to join Russia as evidence of their “expansionism,” and stopped thinking there when that’s not even the focus of imperialism or what constitutes it.
These “analysts” are wrong, as I’ve explained already. Wikipedia doesn’t even try to pretend these are facts, but accusations. Why are you so insistent on Wikipedia, and defending ethnic cleansing?
I know you disagree with the analysts. I was just posting this to show that maybe the view on Wikipedia doesn’t align with you after all, in actual words or in “cut off” extra definitions.
Wikipedia is a very popular site that usually uses very common definitions as their basis. That’s why I originally used it.
I’ve already explained, using the definition Wikipedia gives, Russia does not fit that. Wikipedia is not written by a single person, nor do the analysts that claim Russia is imperialist write the definitions given by Wikipedia as their claimed definition. It’s also possible for someone to give a definition, have that definition not apply to something, yet still have that same person incorrectly apply it. Moreover, Wikipedia is saying some analysts, not even taking a definitive stance itself.
Wikipedia is indeed popular in the west. So is Fox News and CNN, NYT, etc. That doesn’t mean they are correct or valid.
Why do you dodge the question of sovereignty for Donetsk and Luhansk?
I used the definitions given by the article, and expanded on what you had cut off. When you displayed a separate article trying to give analysis, not just a definition, I explained how using the definition you gave, the analysis is incorrect. The reason I bothered with letting you cherry pick a definition is because you are correct about one thing, that changing the name of something doesn’t change the actions. That’s why I’ve focused on proving your own definition inapplicable, and asked you over and over again:
Do you support the rights of Donetsk and Luhansk to escape ethnic cleansing, and establish their own territory?
I take it you don’t at this point, it seems you’re in favor of Kiev’s stance that they have the right to ethnically cleanse the Donbass region of ethnic Russians.
You could post the “cut off” parts here so we can see that they are indeed in the articles as requirements and not additions as I’ve said.
They aren’t cut off in the literal sense, I misspoke, they are just not expanded upon, like the concept of maintaining an Empire. At this point though, it’s clear that you think ethnic cleansing is legitimate.
So they are not in the articles but you just feel like those are included, even though they don’t actually include it in words.
“Imperialism focuses on establishing or maintaining hegemony and a more formal empire.”
This is what you ignored, over, and over, and over, and over, and over again, and which I answered over, and over, and over, and over, and over again. Russia isn’t establishing or maintaining hegemony or a more formal empire, you focus on the fact that the Donbass voted to join Russia as evidence of their “expansionism,” and stopped thinking there when that’s not even the focus of imperialism or what constitutes it.
Russia is clearly trying to create a local hegemony and using rhetoric from their imperialistic history. Well put here:
These “analysts” are wrong, as I’ve explained already. Wikipedia doesn’t even try to pretend these are facts, but accusations. Why are you so insistent on Wikipedia, and defending ethnic cleansing?
I know you disagree with the analysts. I was just posting this to show that maybe the view on Wikipedia doesn’t align with you after all, in actual words or in “cut off” extra definitions.
Wikipedia is a very popular site that usually uses very common definitions as their basis. That’s why I originally used it.
I’ve already explained, using the definition Wikipedia gives, Russia does not fit that. Wikipedia is not written by a single person, nor do the analysts that claim Russia is imperialist write the definitions given by Wikipedia as their claimed definition. It’s also possible for someone to give a definition, have that definition not apply to something, yet still have that same person incorrectly apply it. Moreover, Wikipedia is saying some analysts, not even taking a definitive stance itself.
Wikipedia is indeed popular in the west. So is Fox News and CNN, NYT, etc. That doesn’t mean they are correct or valid.
Why do you dodge the question of sovereignty for Donetsk and Luhansk?