And you’re cherry-picking your observations to support cheesy multiculturalism, which in this case supports Russian-empire building and Putin autocracy. That’s how you confirm your own bias. Here are a few observations: 1) If fighting for something made it what people want, then we’d have to assume the French wanted to be conquered by the Nazis. They only fought for six weeks during the invasion. You assume that all who are conquered shared the values of those who conquer them using this logic. 2) Many other nations were quickly rolled over. Did they not want to be free of the Nazis? 3) The most belligerent people on the planet right now are the Islamists fighting for sharia law and the return of the Caliph. Do you that because they are among the most willing to fight for it that that’s what most people in the world also want? 4) For about 75 years in the 20th Century communist worldwide fought to spread their one-party rule. Most were supported by the Soviet Union. Do you believe because of their willingness to fight that most people wanted to be communists? Do you recall that when the Soviet Union collapsed most of these insurgencies throughout the world also went away? Coincidence? 5) In many places and times in the last 100 years, a militant minority of men with guns have taken over with guns and violence (the vanguard of the proletariat, the fascists parties in Europe). Did these minorities truly represent the desire of the people? 6) Using a willingness to fight for something as proof of anything about the general will of the people only supports Mao’s opinion that power comes out of the barrel of a gun.
Oh Lord, we're headed down this path? Oh well. Obviously I've said nothing supporting multiculturalism, mainly because our discussion has nothing to do with multiculturalism, which happens to be the belief that a culture is strengthened by being a mosaic of other cultures and rests on the underlying premise that all cultures are equal.
...which in this case supports Russian-empire building and Putin autocracy.
I've said nothing supporting Russian-empire building or Putin's autocracy. I've simply stated that the majority of the Russian people support Russian-empire building and Putin's autocracy. Confusing the two helps your argument appear to be on the higher ground, but it is a straw man. You are arguing against a position I never took, because its easier than arguing against the position that I did take.
Here are a few observations: 1) If fighting for something made it what people want, then we’d have to assume the French wanted to be conquered by the Nazis. They only fought for six weeks during the invasion. You assume that all who are conquered shared the values of those who conquer them using this logic.2) Many other nations were quickly rolled over. Did they not want to be free of the Nazis?
The French fought,and lost over 100,000 men, in 1940. That supports my statement. I said nothing about ability to fight, just the will. But a better case would be Poland. Poland fought harder than France and large numbers of Poles escaped to continue fighting. But what were they fighting for? Poland was not a free country. The government in 1939 was a strong man who espoused Polish nationalism. What the Poles were fighting for was the right to have their strong man instead of a foreign strongman in charge. And they Poles were right, their strongman was much better for their welfare than Hitler and Stalin.
3) The most belligerent people on the planet right now are the Islamists fighting for sharia law and the return of the Caliph. Do you that because they are among the most willing to fight for it that that’s what most people in the world also want?
Its clearly what the Islamists want, and the vast majority of muslims want it. Note that given a democratic choice, the Iraqis have established an islamic state. In Egypt, the Brotherhood wasn't the popular brand of autocracy, but they haven't rejected an islamicly based constitution. Let's cross our fingers and hope, but history doesn't suggest a rosey outcome.
For about 75 years in the 20th Century communist worldwide fought to spread their one-party rule. Most were supported by the Soviet Union. Do you believe because of their willingness to fight that most people wanted to be communists? Do you recall that when the Soviet Union collapsed most of these insurgencies throughout the world also went away? Coincidence?
In every one of those insurgencies in South America, Africa, and Asia, you had supporters of one autocracy fighting the supporters of another autocracy. When the people were generally happy their own autocrat, they won out over the communists, see Chili, when the people were mainly unhappy (or ambivalent) about their own autocrat, they lost out to the communists, see Vietnam. In some cases, our involvement was very positive and successfully introduced that third option of no-autocrat (Taiwan and South Korea being two such examples), "yea for us!".
5) In many places and times in the last 100 years, a militant minority of men with guns have taken over with guns and violence (the vanguard of the proletariat, the fascists parties in Europe). Did these minorities truly represent the desire of the people?
Does might make right? No, but that's off topic, as I never said it did.
What do most people want? To be left alone to live their lives in peace. But that doesn't translate into a willingness to pick up arms and make it happen, so strong men win out, and those same people make pragmatic choices. If an autocrat isn't bothering them, and is improving their lives, they see that as a good thing and prefer the stability of keeping him, over the risks taken in replacing him. You and I can see that they have a third option, but they reject the risks that come with that option, and they don't really even accept that the option exists.
6) Using a willingness to fight for something as proof of anything about the general will of the people only supports Mao’s opinion that power comes out of the barrel of a gun.
Generally speaking, power does come from the barrel of a gun. To argue that it doesn't is to argue with reality. Free peoples control who holds the gun, and ultimately they do so by threat of force.
You don't have to look far from home to find people who willingly vote for less freedom in exchange for a government that provides for their needs. When Obama runs on a platform of class warfare and socialist freebies, are his supporters choosing to be free, or are they choosing a strong man who they think will take away from others and make their condition better?
"The Road to Serfdom" is a wonderful book detailing the willing decisions people make to trade freedom for autocracy.
Lot's of Englishmen took personal satisfaction in the glory of the British Empire and of Queen Victoria's little wars. Russians are no different today with Putin.
Your mistake is in thinking that because I point something out, that I'm advocating it. That's more than a bit insulting. People disappoint me in the historical sense.
If you are going to effectively deal with Russian expansion, you'd better at least understand what their real pressure points are, and pointing out to Russians that Putin is an autocrat isn't one of them.