1
The Inevitable Fall of Putin’s New Russian Empire (foreignpolicy.com)
submitted 3 years ago by [M] to c/statecraft@lemmy.cafe
8 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Archive.org fails to bypass firewall, ghostarchive fails altogether, archive.today is not happy with my work IP today. Would appreciate anyone posting an archive link of sorts for everyone as I've found the write up very interesting.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 3 years ago (6 children)

the process of decolonisation involved significant armed conflict, contrary to the article’s claim of a mostly peaceful withdrawal

This is a non sequitur. Significant armed conflict doesn't contradict a claim of mostly peaceful withdrawal.

There would only be a contradiction if the armed conflicts were in the majority. You've haven't shown that. Or even claimed it. I don't know why you're saying the armed conflicts were contrary to the article's claims.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 3 years ago (5 children)

    A peaceful withdrawal implies a process largely devoid of violence, where decolonisation is negotiated and implemented without significant armed resistance or warfare.

    However, the historical record demonstrates that armed conflicts during the British decolonisation were not merely sporadic or minor skirmishes, but rather substantial engagements with lasting consequences, such as those in Kenya, Malaya, Cyprus, and the violent partition of India and Palestine. These were not peripheral events but central episodes in the history of British decolonisation.

    The scale and intensity of conflicts in these key regions mean that the term ‘mostly peaceful’ is at best an oversimplification, if not a misrepresentation.

    I invite you to challenge the narrative of a predominantly peaceful withdrawal by highlighting that violence was a defining feature of the period, not a mere footnote. It is not just the number of conflicts but their intensity and impact that weigh against the claim of a ‘mostly peaceful’ process.

    Decolonisation was a complex tapestry of events, and its violent threads are too significant to be dismissed or understated.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 3 years ago (4 children)

    It is not just the number of conflicts but their intensity and impact that weigh against the claim of a ‘mostly peaceful’ process.

    I disagree. The word "most" is about quantity. There's no ambiguity.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 3 years ago* (3 children)

    The reduction of the British Empire’s end to a numerical game of ‘most’ territories withdrawing peacefully is an egregious simplification of history.

    The term ‘peaceful’ is fundamentally inadequate to describe the decolonisation of the British Empire when its demise was punctuated by massacres, uprisings, and partitions that led to millions of deaths and massive displacements. It’s not just about how many, but which territories experienced violence and the extent of that violence. The partition of India alone, with its absolutely massive death toll and refugee crisis, overshadows any attempt to label the process as ‘mostly peaceful.’

    The weight of these events in the historical balance is immense, and their legacy lingers in the affected regions to this day. The portrayal of British withdrawal as ‘mostly peaceful’ isn’t just a matter of poor semantics; it’s a distortion of history that disrespects the memory of those who suffered and fought against colonial rule.

    The scale of violence in key regions fundamentally challenges the integrity of your claim, and the insistence on the word ‘most’ as a defence is not only intellectually dishonest but morally insensitive.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    it’s a distortion of history

    Of course. But that doesn't change the fact that your criticism was wrong. You criticised the article by saying it was incorrect when that wasn't the case. It doesn't matter how egregious the article's content is, you were still making a straw man argument. Do better please.

    as a defence

    You're confusing my defence of reason for defense of the British Empire.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (1 child)

    It’s intellectually negligent to hide behind semantics when faced with the vivid realities of history. Your approach is not a defence of reason but an abdication of it.

    The article’s simplification is a disservice to historical accuracy and to those who deserve to have the full story of their past acknowledged.

    My criticism stands: the article’s content is not merely ‘egregious’ in its oversimplification—it’s irresponsible.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •