-
Putin believes that Ukraine is historically part of Russia and it's independent existence is only tolerable if the country is firmly in Russia's sphere of influence.
-
He believes the CIA engineered a coup that overthrew the legitimate government of Ukraine and replaced it with a western puppet regime in 2014.
-
He believes the modern nationalist Ukrainian state draws from the legacy of Nazi collaboration during WWII and poses a direct threat to Russian national security. Removing this particular nationalist influence is a key goal of the military operation, which he seeks to achieve through negotiation.
-
Russia expressed interest in joining NATO during the Clinton administration but was rejected. This lead Russia to feel geopolitically isolated and cut off from the whole western project.
-
He believes the west is obsessed with weakening Russia as much as possible and that NATO is nothing more than an anti-Russian alliance.
-
Putin thinks China is now more powerful than the United States and more relevant.
-
He believes our government is controlled by an entrenched bureaucracy that cannot be changed through elections.
-
He believes the US and European Union are extorting taxpayers to fund Ukraine's war. He sees no reason why the US continues to support Ukraine.
Putin Interview Summarized
RUSSIAN SALT MINES 🇷🇺
Slyver is at it again with his hyper, self defeating skepticism about all of history
The philosophical assumption behind the statement "All of history has been rewritten" suggests a form of skepticism or epistemic uncertainty about the reliability of historical narratives. This assumption implies that there is no objective or accurate account of history available to us, as all historical records have been tampered with or manipulated in some way.
However, the statement also presents a paradox or self-defeating quality because if all of history has truly been rewritten, then the claim itself could be subject to the same skepticism. If all historical narratives are suspect, then the assertion that "all of history has been rewritten" is itself a historical claim and therefore subject to the same doubts about its accuracy and reliability.
for someone to confidently claim that all of history has been rewritten would require access to some sort of privileged perspective or objective truth about history, which seems contradictory given the assumption of widespread historical manipulation.
This is not the assumption. Indeed, I think most of what we have is true and I have stated that many times. Most lies, most propaganda, most of The Matrix are based on the truth. But history (as we understand the term) is not "the facts" in isolation. It is the facts and the connections between those facts that make up the story, the conclusions. "History" is the story we tell each other about those conclusions.
I think that most fuckery in our history is in what's left out, purposefully destroyed or otherwise silenced by shoving things down the memory hole, or through derisive ad hominem designed to keep certain facts quiet and not looked at, immediately dismissed because they are in "the bad box." Over the top of the box of facts that is allowed (''the good box"), with it's missing but essential context, is the overarching narrative that fills in the gaps and makes the connections in the incomplete and carefully crafted fact list. That is how history has been rewritten. That can be shown by showing facts that have been left out, and that there is sufficient evidence that it has been done intentionally.
If you click the link in my previous post you will see exactly such evidence, even though it is a tiny fraction of my research for that particular case of revision.
If you read my report, you will see an exhaustive case made for how such an historical revision develops (in a different context), and that it is intentionally done.
This is faulty logic. If all (or a meaningful portion) of history has been rewritten, all that would need to be done to make the case is provide evidence that there are substantial portions that have been removed, that their removal is intentional, and that the inclusion of those purposefully removed portions indicates that the overarching narrative that is presently accepted is false.
I'm not sure why you have tried to continuously make this argument, but it is fundamentally flawed, at least as formed.
While uncovering omitted or suppressed historical facts can certainly challenge prevailing narratives, it does not necessarily mean that all of history has been rewritten. It may indicate selective interpretations or biases within historical accounts, but it does not automatically validate the assertion that all historical narratives are suspect or fundamentally false.
In essence, while your argument correctly underscores the significance of critically analyzing historical narratives and considering omitted evidence, it does not fully resolve the logical paradox of claiming that "all of history has been rewritten" without appealing to a privileged perspective or objective truth.
Not to get into the wordplay, but you are touching on a point I try to make repeatedly: radical skepticism is the rejection of epistemology. If all history (or a huge part) is a lie, then any other account of history can also be a lie. Another way of putting it might be " 'Question everything' is fine so far as it goes, but if you cannot accept answers, it is a denial of everything."
But have fun with this. Interesting to watch.
Yes, precisely.
Logically this perspective ends up in some sort of Solipsism.
You are sticking on the word "all." Fine, I will concede that it was a poor choice of words. It is impractical and probably impossible to prove "all". As stated, "history" is a story. Showing that the conclusions of any particular story in a box of stories is false requires looking at each story in turn.
However, if it can be shown that numerous examples of "official history" are false by the methods I have described, and it can be shown that picking a story at random out of that "box of all" follows the same patterns, it naturally casts doubt on the conclusions (historical narrative) of the entire box.
If it can further be shown that all of what we today call "history" (the entire box of currently accepted stories) has the same source (same group doing all of the publishing of the allowed books of conclusions), that brings sufficient doubt to the entire box that making the statement of "all history" is not so far fetched, even if it can't necessarily be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Having said all that, none of my conclusions or statements of fact rely on this off-hand statement of "all," so I am not sure why you are so fixated on it. It is not an axiom for anything I've said, and no conclusion relies on it.