Russian security concerns magically disappear and, bizarrely, they disappear even as pertaining to statements made by Russia and its leadership: Matt not only tells us that Russia faces no security threats but also that we have never heard Putin or representatives of the Russian government say that Russia is responding to security threats, not in this interview nor anywhere else!
At the same time Matt invents statements never made and informs us that in the interview Putin explained that he does not regard any of Ukraine or its independence as legitimate, that he does not consider 'Ukrainian' a valid identity and that he does not want to reach any agreement with the West!
The war, according to Parrott, is all about Russian 'imperialist revanchism', seeking the wholesale termination of the Ukrainian state, menacing other neighbors too, fueled by resentment and vengefulness, despotic urges, and of unlimited scope and ambition.
As for Matt's 'personal hope' that 'the Ukrainians' might try to reach some compromise, unfortunately he says nothing (and therefore tacitly approves) of the policy of his own country of endlessly fueling the war and blocking peace talks as an unacceptable compromise that would endanger the 'liberal world order'.
I have made my position clear that America should not be involved.
Putin did describe the entire ukrainian identity as illegitimate and made plain that his goals go well beyond addressing credible security threats.
NATO and America do pose a credible threat to Russia. Russia has legitimate reasons for the military operation. This is all standard western nationalist paleocon talking points, the "tuckerite" position. But Putin distanced himself quite clearly from that position.
I am in the company of Dugin and numerous other experts in concluding that Putin made a broader case for Russian regional power than merely challenging nato creep and rescuing russian communities improperly placed in ukrainian territory.
Criticizing a national identity and pointing out possibly pathological elements and false narratives in its structure doesn't imply a desire to extinguish it, let alone an active plan for this purpose.
Putin focuses on what he sees as a negative, 'anti-Russia' identity with its proximate historical reference point being a revisionist history of ww2.
When Tucker asked him how does he plan to address this issue given that he does not control Ukraine, Putin said that in the sabotaged Istanbul negotiations there were relevant legislative provisions, that similar legislation exist in every country, and that, again, this matter can be resolved through negotiations.
So it's an issue about the legal protection of Russian minority rights and culture, and also prohibitions regarding revisionism, war crimes denial, symbol displaying, etc.
Nothing dramatic here.
2.
As for territories, he certainly thinks that the regions that used to comprise 'Novorussia' (which is basically the east and the south, not the entire Ukraine) can be rightfully claimed by Russia but he didn't say that it's an objective of the war to do so.
Even regarding Crimea he said that it would have remained part of Ukraine and that Russia "would have never consider to even lift a finger" if not for the circumstances arising after the maidan.
The point is that he expressed regret that all instances of negotiations had collapsed and said that Russia has always been, and still is, willing to reach a negotiated settlement.
This means that there is no strategic objective for Russia to absorb more territories than those it already controls.
3.
There's no reason to multiply causes.
The thing is that as the war goes on and Russia finds itself in possession of Ukrainian territories, easily understood and overwhelming practical considerations make it necessary for these territories to be claimed as Russian after some period of time.
If Putin didn't have these historical narratives he would have to invent them.
Security-concerns-only would produce exactly what we see.
4 (and most importantly).
Whatever the 'objective meaning' of your article is, it appears within a 'discoursive context' and produces an 'effective signaling'.
You saw that the subversive GAE stooges that infest our community immediately came out with their scripted spin on the interview:
"Putin didn't mention NATO or security threats and admitted that the war is about territorial conquest and the destruction of the Ukrainian nation as we have been saying all along. Total L for Russia apologists in the D.R. who have been bothering us with nonsense about security threats".
I think we have to read a bit more between the lines here. I think all the history and talk of Ukrainians really being Russians are essentially just justification to the people of Russia, with the threats posed by Ukraine possibly joining NATO being the real reasons. Yeah the Russian people don't like NATO, but that alone just wouldn't do it for them. Russians are used to fighting wars that are viewed as existential in nature. And thus, the Kremlin has framed it as such not in boring geopolitical terms, but in historical and cultural terms. Propaganda 101. Like you said, Putin doesn't care about justifying this war to the world, and even less to western right wingers, he cares about justifying it to his people. And it's smart. If anything this should be emulated. Viewing things in terms of historicism is essential.
Pure neocon article adopting all the MSM lies.
Russian security concerns magically disappear and, bizarrely, they disappear even as pertaining to statements made by Russia and its leadership: Matt not only tells us that Russia faces no security threats but also that we have never heard Putin or representatives of the Russian government say that Russia is responding to security threats, not in this interview nor anywhere else!
At the same time Matt invents statements never made and informs us that in the interview Putin explained that he does not regard any of Ukraine or its independence as legitimate, that he does not consider 'Ukrainian' a valid identity and that he does not want to reach any agreement with the West!
The war, according to Parrott, is all about Russian 'imperialist revanchism', seeking the wholesale termination of the Ukrainian state, menacing other neighbors too, fueled by resentment and vengefulness, despotic urges, and of unlimited scope and ambition.
As for Matt's 'personal hope' that 'the Ukrainians' might try to reach some compromise, unfortunately he says nothing (and therefore tacitly approves) of the policy of his own country of endlessly fueling the war and blocking peace talks as an unacceptable compromise that would endanger the 'liberal world order'.
I have made my position clear that America should not be involved.
Putin did describe the entire ukrainian identity as illegitimate and made plain that his goals go well beyond addressing credible security threats.
NATO and America do pose a credible threat to Russia. Russia has legitimate reasons for the military operation. This is all standard western nationalist paleocon talking points, the "tuckerite" position. But Putin distanced himself quite clearly from that position.
I am in the company of Dugin and numerous other experts in concluding that Putin made a broader case for Russian regional power than merely challenging nato creep and rescuing russian communities improperly placed in ukrainian territory.
1.
Criticizing a national identity and pointing out possibly pathological elements and false narratives in its structure doesn't imply a desire to extinguish it, let alone an active plan for this purpose.
Putin focuses on what he sees as a negative, 'anti-Russia' identity with its proximate historical reference point being a revisionist history of ww2.
When Tucker asked him how does he plan to address this issue given that he does not control Ukraine, Putin said that in the sabotaged Istanbul negotiations there were relevant legislative provisions, that similar legislation exist in every country, and that, again, this matter can be resolved through negotiations.
So it's an issue about the legal protection of Russian minority rights and culture, and also prohibitions regarding revisionism, war crimes denial, symbol displaying, etc.
Nothing dramatic here.
2.
As for territories, he certainly thinks that the regions that used to comprise 'Novorussia' (which is basically the east and the south, not the entire Ukraine) can be rightfully claimed by Russia but he didn't say that it's an objective of the war to do so.
Even regarding Crimea he said that it would have remained part of Ukraine and that Russia "would have never consider to even lift a finger" if not for the circumstances arising after the maidan.
The point is that he expressed regret that all instances of negotiations had collapsed and said that Russia has always been, and still is, willing to reach a negotiated settlement.
This means that there is no strategic objective for Russia to absorb more territories than those it already controls.
3.
There's no reason to multiply causes.
The thing is that as the war goes on and Russia finds itself in possession of Ukrainian territories, easily understood and overwhelming practical considerations make it necessary for these territories to be claimed as Russian after some period of time.
If Putin didn't have these historical narratives he would have to invent them.
Security-concerns-only would produce exactly what we see.
4 (and most importantly).
Whatever the 'objective meaning' of your article is, it appears within a 'discoursive context' and produces an 'effective signaling'.
You saw that the subversive GAE stooges that infest our community immediately came out with their scripted spin on the interview:
"Putin didn't mention NATO or security threats and admitted that the war is about territorial conquest and the destruction of the Ukrainian nation as we have been saying all along. Total L for Russia apologists in the D.R. who have been bothering us with nonsense about security threats".
Your article reinforces their message.
I think we have to read a bit more between the lines here. I think all the history and talk of Ukrainians really being Russians are essentially just justification to the people of Russia, with the threats posed by Ukraine possibly joining NATO being the real reasons. Yeah the Russian people don't like NATO, but that alone just wouldn't do it for them. Russians are used to fighting wars that are viewed as existential in nature. And thus, the Kremlin has framed it as such not in boring geopolitical terms, but in historical and cultural terms. Propaganda 101. Like you said, Putin doesn't care about justifying this war to the world, and even less to western right wingers, he cares about justifying it to his people. And it's smart. If anything this should be emulated. Viewing things in terms of historicism is essential.