you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

specifically that you are not also applying these requirements the other way around.

Invading another country is to undermine another culture and their integrity.

That's what Russia is doing to Ukraine right now. Resisting them IS protecting their own independence.

Once again, Finland, Poland, Sweden don't want to be controlled by Russia. They continue to practice their own separate laws, languages and beliefs that form separate cultures. They are just as willing to defend their uniqueness via military alliance and force.

[–]NeoRail 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

What are you talking about? What does that have to do with anything I said? My point is that Poland, Finland, Sweden, and almost every other European state indisputably do not at all care about the native culture and do nothing to uphold it - therefore, by your own definition, those would not be "independent" states. What's so hard to understand about this? Why can't you just be coherent for once? The sheer disregard you show for what other people say almost makes me think that you are a bot sometimes.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

European state indisputably do not at all care about the native culture and do nothing to uphold it - therefore, by your own definition, those would not be "independent" states.

That's incorrect. They care enough that they told Russia not to directly interfere or cross into their territory.

Their native culture still exists and isn't going to disappear for a long time unless they get invaded or mass migrants enter their country and disrupt their politics.

[–]NeoRail 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Those states still fall short of your definition of independence because they do not uphold their own native culture, therefore, according to your own definition, they cannot be considered independent.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Of course they uphold their own culture.

Who is promoting the Polish language, Poland or Russia? Answer: Polish government.

https://www.gov.pl/web/canada-en/promotion-of-poland-and-the-polish-language

If a Polish person wants to renew their citizenship, who do they run to? The Polish embassy (found in every country) or a Russian one?

If Poland ceases to exist, all these protections are gone.

[–]NeoRail 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I am tired of your laziness and incoherence so this is the last thing I will say. Language may be a part of culture, but it is not culture itself - having an official language does not also mean a given state is committed to preserving a given culture. The same applies to citizenship. Russia does not even factor into these considerations, because what is important here - according to your own definition - is the nature of the state itself, not its international position or context.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

having an official language does not also mean a given state is committed to preserving a given culture.

In this scenario, they are.

Russia does not even factor into these considerations

They clearly do if they ever tried to invade them and disrupt their way of life. Once again, it's why Poland is in NATO.

is the nature of the state itself, not its international position or context.

Ever since the dawn of history, a culture or nation cannot survive if it's not willing to do the basic thing and defend themselves. Why would this be the case, if they weren't independent? Answer that please.