“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?
The analysts are wrong, as I explained. Wikipedia does indeed refuse to take a stance on most things, it’s a terrible source for political history and current events. Sometimes the sources can be nice, but often they are terrible.
Why do you dodge the question of sovereignty for Donetsk and Luhansk?
“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?
You don’t think it fits, but the sources in the article certainly do.
Wikipedia uses that sort of wording pretty often
The analysts are wrong, as I explained. Wikipedia does indeed refuse to take a stance on most things, it’s a terrible source for political history and current events. Sometimes the sources can be nice, but often they are terrible.
Why do you dodge the question of sovereignty for Donetsk and Luhansk?
Your disagreement with the analysts and the articles has been noted. I don’t think there’s anything else to do here than agree to disagree.
Why do you dodge the question of sovereignty for Donetsk and Luhansk?