

and it further does not mean that after the beginning of the Ukrainian Civil War, that these numbers did not dramatically change in favor of secession.
Well I guess they didn’t get a chance to conduct any further polls thanks to Russian bombs and bullets. But it certainly shows that before Russia started murdering people, there wasn’t support for secession among Russian speakers.
I both fail to see the relevance of the point nor do I think linking a Ukrainian-state affiliated source drawing on a poll based in Kiev is particularly compelling evidence.
And now I’ll just point back at my previous comment. I guess I was right, there is no evidence I can post that will successfully challenge your belief. Because if it doesn’t say what you want it to say, it’s not an acceptable source.
And you know what, at least I gave you the benefit of the doubt and took the effort to engage you with real sources and evidence. You couldn’t even give me the same courtesy.
I want to remain on speaking terms because I don’t believe you are acting in bad faith but I need a break from this thread so I’m going to bounce out. Wishing you a good day regardless.


I see where you’re going with this. It’s interesting to think about.
I think the crux of this argument isn’t the definition of imperialism, but of nation. Which if given the same scrutiny, could also be considered to be too vague a definition to be useful.
Asking a confederate, they probably would have said yes. Asking anyone else? Well, not a single other nation on earth recognized the confederacy, so probably no.
But I think the objective ambiguity you’re pointing at doesn’t make a word useless. A policeman shoots and kills someone. One side says murder, the other doesn’t. That’s the same fundamental ambiguity, but it’s resolved when we apply objectivity to it. Murder as a word isn’t useless, the same as imperialism.