Putin has said he wants to rebuild the Soviet empire

No, he has not. Source.

If a person uses a term you don’t think fits them you should ask them about their definition of it. It’s not up to you to decide what labels people are allowed to apply to themselves. At best your complaint is about people not using a word “correctly” even though that’s not how words work.

Language is a cooperative process, and if you use words in an incoherent or misleading way, it can create needless confusion and a breakdown of communication. At some point, “creative use of labels” can verge into just lying. If you tell me you’re a Christian but then later I find out that you meant you’re the type of Christian that worships Satan, then I don’t know how I’m supposed to interpret that other than as a lie. Just because language can change over time doesn’t give you license to just say whatever.

For example, you call yourself a Communist but appear to be supporting the government of Russia in their actions by attempting to discourage Ukraine from defending itself and its citizens. Communism is anti-state by definition, do I get to tell you you’re not an actual communist? Or would it be better for me to ask you about your definition and get to understand the nuances of your position?

I’d be happy to get into the reeds of communist theory and explain how my positions on the subject are influenced by Lenin’s writings, for example, his concept of “Revolutionary Defeatism” in the context of WWI. I could also cite his works on the role of the state, which is in turn based on the writings of Marx and Engles.

Also, just find it kind of odd to say that discouraging someone from fighting is supporting the other side, in a discussion about pacifism where that criticism has frequently been used historically as a way to attack pacifists. What was that Goebbles quote?

“All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.”

Do the people drafted to go across a border and bomb civilians and the people drafted to stay in their country and defend it against an opposing army have the same morality behind it? Can you understand how one of those actions might be more justified than the other?

Sorry, which war are we talking about where only one side bombed civilians? Because Ukraine was shelling cities in Donbass before Russia entered the war. So then, crossing borders, well, there’s all sorts of assumptions baked into that. If, purely hypothetically, you considered the separatists as the legitimate government of the disputed territories, then Russia would be there by invitation while Ukraine is crossing their borders. So that means it’s necessary to determine what makes a government legitimate. And it seems to me that whatever political philosophy we employ to determine the legitimacy of a state is going to determine when violence is acceptable, which is a whole big can of worms. So on one side, Ukraine is defending their historical territorial borders, but on the other hand, the separatists are claiming to represent the popular will of the people who live there.

And there’s the problem with this whole thing is that virtually nobody comes out and says, “I’m the aggressor, I’m taking this land because I want it.” Every side in every conflict claims to be defending, or seeking long term peace. When the US invaded the Middle East, what did they say? They said it was a “Preemptive war” and that “if we don’t fight them over there, we’ll be fighting them over here.” Of course, they could also point to 9/11 to show that the other side bombed civilians. Of course, what did bin Laden say? He said that he was responding to US actions, bombing civilians in the Middle East.

Here’s a challenge: give me any side in any conflict and I will justify it from a “Pacificist” perspective.

If your county was invaded by what you see as a great evil because of their actions against civilians (I’m just going to assume the US would fit that from your perspective) would you say it was immoral to fight back in the hopes of lowering civilian deaths and injustice after the land is taken?

I live in the US, so it’d be a bit hard for it to invade.

It’s possible to generate a hypothetical in which I would fight against an invading force, but that doesn’t mean that that hypothetical reflects any real world situation.

But fine, they are not technically the same country.

I thought you had conceded the point. Guess I misunderstood.

Let me take a step back and use an example. Suppose a Native American reservation puts out a document talking about how, historically, the land that the US was founded on was stolen from Native tribes. Now, hypothetically, someone could use that argument to delegitimize the US and claim all of its territory, if, like, this reservation had a massive army somehow. But just saying that would all still be theoretical.

If I say, “Taiwan claims territory occupied by the PRC” (or vice versa) I am making an objectively true statement, because they’ve made those claims formally and explicitly. But when you say that Russia is claiming all of Ukraine, that’s just your opinion about Putin’s opinion, it’s speculation. If you say that he claims Donbass, that’s a fact, because that’s something that’s formalized. But when he’s talking about history, of course his goal is to delegitimize Ukraine, but unless it’s explicitly applied to the present day, it’s not an actual claim.

Since Belarus is a Russian vassal state?

That’s also not true.

Sorry, I’m talking about things that are actually formalized. Maybe that’s where the confusion is? Russia has never (to my knowledge) claimed any part of Belarus.

Just saying, like, “I think we have a common heritage” is not the same as saying, “All your territory belongs to me and I intend to take it.” The distinction is enormous.

It’s literally not.

In the essay, Putin argues that Russians and Ukrainians, along with Belarusians, are one people, belonging to what has historically been known as the triune Russian nation.

Do you think he’s also claiming Belarus?

Putin claimed there is “no historical basis” for the “idea of Ukrainian people as a nation separate from the Russians”

There’s your evidence. Don’t know what else to tell you. He could try to use that argument to claim all of Ukraine’s territory, but he has not claimed all of Ukraine’s territory, the quote simply does not show him doing that.

He’s making a claim about history that seeks to delegitimize the Ukrainian government, but that is not the same thing as saying that all Ukrainian territory belongs to Russia. At present, it’s just a theoretical argument.

You’re making another giant leap again. His essay just questions Ukraine’s national identity, that’s not the same the same as asserting a right to all of Ukraine’s territory. I have not lied, and I won’t continue either unless you apologize for that false accusation.

I don’t consider the Palestinian genocide to be a comparable situation.

What I said is that Russia is willing to negotiate and doesn’t demand full annexation, as you claimed. This is objectively true, as evidenced by the link where they offered a ceasefire along current lines. I’ve yet to see you admit to being wrong about that.

The essay you linked does not show your false claim about demanding nothing less than full annexation to be true.

If you’re not even a pacifist, then maybe defer to them to define it.

This is nonsense. Suppose I eat meat, but I call myself a vegan. If you’re not a vegan, then should you defer to me on how to define what a vegan is?

If pacifism does not mean opposition to war, then sure, I’m a pacifist, why not. We’re all pacifists. It means literally nothing.

Your first link actually provides a neat little term for people who want to tell everyone how much they love peace while supporting war - “Pacificism.” “A useful term to describe those who prefer peaceful conditions to war but who accept that some wars may be necessary if they advance the cause of peace.” I don’t think I’ve ever met a single person in my life who doesn’t meet that description - except, I suppose, actual pacifists. Dick fucking Cheney is a “Pacificist.” Completely meaningless.

Your second source I can’t access beyond the first page. Your third source does raise a valid point, I stand corrected.

I do not support the war in Ukraine, not because I’m a pacifist, but because I’m a communist. There is substantial overlap between the two, but the main difference is that I make an exception for wars along class lines, which this isn’t. The common people are being drafted against their will to fight a pointless war over which reactionary government controls a patch of land.

A ceasefire along current lines is a hell of a lot more realistic than demanding a full withdrawal as a precondition for talks.

It seems like just a bit of a leap to go from an essay challenging the idea of Ukrainian nationhood to saying that Putin will reject all negotiations and won’t accept anything less than full annexation.

Neither part of that is remotely true. Putin has not claimed all of Ukraine, and he has offered to negotiate. For example.

It’s Ukraine and the US that have refused to negotiate.

Russia isn’t going to accept those terms, it’s unrealistic.

What’s your plan for getting Putin to agree to such a proposal?

it’s hard to say what would have happened if the central powers prevailed, whether they would have decided to expand into Russia or not care enough to press that front.

Then why is it so easy to say that modern Russia would continue expanding forever? Isn’t it possible that Putin is more like Kaiser Wilhelm than Adolf Hitler?

But again, the WWI Russian experience of maybe fighting in a conflict where they didn’t actually have a horse in the race doesn’t apply here, where the combatants are Ukranians, who have no option offered of just being left alone for the sake of peace.

They do though. They could negotiate peace at the cost of territorial concessions, the same way the Soviets did. It’s not that the Soviets didn’t have a dog in the fight, they surely would’ve preferred a better treaty that preserved more of their territory, but they prioritized peace instead.

Russia giving back all the territory they took would also be a framework for lasting peace.

Yes, it would be. Assuming the civil war was also resolved. The problem is that getting there requires throwing a ton of more lives into the meat grinder, which is worse for the Ukrainian people than accepting territorial concessions.

You condensed at least 100 years of discussion by philosophers

Then provide me with a source to these pacifist philosophers who support war.

Also, 100 years seems way short. In the Bible, Jesus taught, “turn the other cheek,” and “be good to those who hurt you,” and chided one of his followers when he attacked a Roman and is said to have healed his wound. If pro-war pacifism counts as part of the tradition, then surely that would as well.

(and likely thousands of years of discussion from Asian religious groups that have “do no harm” as a tenant)

Do you mean, for example, the Jains? Because they also belong to the type of pacifism that is opposed to war.

Are you arguing that things would be better if every country invaded by another rolled over and accepted the aggression of the other?

No, because I’m not a pacifist. I just know what the word means.

My point that any peace agreement will contain the possibility of future conflict, so pointing that out is not a valid criticism of a specific hypothetical peace agreement.

Yes, if Ukraine agrees to some territorial concessions, it won’t guarantee peace for a thousand years. If they reclaimed all their territory, it wouldn’t do that either. But it would stop the killing and could provide the framework for a lasting peace. That’s a better deal for the average Ukrainian that being drafted and thrown into a warzone to reclaim some rubble.

Exactly my point.