Through the use of data visualizations, the Economist makes the case that Putin is uniquely evil because Russia is pursuing the tactic of a direct military invasion in Ukraine.
Here is where the propaganda comes in. The 3rd figure they use showcases the relative imperial nature of Russia as compared to other countries conveniently leaving out the US!
Evidently, the propagandists at the Economist thought that when it came to the last 200 years it would be more relevant to include data about total territory acquired through conquest by showcasing Italy and the Ottoman empire, rather than US.
The Economist leaves out the US for the obvious reason that it looks far worse than Russia when their own arguments are applied.
Let’s take a look at just a few conquests that the US was involved in over the last 200 years that led to gain of territories (not an exhaustive list):
- The numerous wars of western expansion against a variety of indigenous societies. A few examples: (Black Hawk War (1832), Second Seminole War (1835–1842), Texas Comanche Wars (1836–1875), Cayuse War (1847–1855), Apache Wars (1849–1924), Navajo Wars (1849–1866), Puget Sound War (1855–1856), Rogue River Wars (1855–1856), Great Sioux War of 1876 (1876–1877).
- Mexican–American War (1846–1848): Lead to the conquest of most of modern day Arizona, California, Nevada and Utah.
- Spanish–American War (1898): Lead to the conquest of Cuba
- Philippine–American War (1899–1902): Lead to the conquest of the Philippines
- United States occupation of Nicaragua (1912–1933): Lead to the conquest of Nicaragua, managed under a US controlled protectorate government.
- United States occupation of Haiti (1915–1934): Lead to the conquest of Haiti, controlled by US military regime.
- United States occupation of the Dominican Republic (1916–1924): Lead to the conquest of the Dominican Republic, controlled by US military regime.
- Occupation of Japan and west Germany in World War II (1941–1945): It can be argued that the USA conquered these territories for a number of years after the war with near total control.
- Occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan (recent history): Though a bit more fuzzy you can make a good argument that the USA conquered and had relatively near total control over these regions.
Interesting to find out what they mean by ‘conquest’, because colonial powers were quite creative when it came to explaining how they got their colonies, even way back when. And it may have been short-lived, but what was Britain doing in Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan since Mossadegh for it not to be counted as conquest?
It’s also strange to see ‘Russia’ listed as if it’s had a neat, straightforward history.
I wonder what this diagram would look like if it in any way explained that the USA and other settler states began as conquests for the other powers listed. (Starting at 1820 seems rather arbitrary.)
And Ottoman Empire? Why separate this from Turkey and exclude cypres? They’ll separate these but not Tsarist Russia from the USSR from the RF. Peak intellectual honesty.
That ‘other’ category is going a lot of work. Hello Israel.
It’s a good example of bourgeois thinking. A display of the idea that so much history can be neatly split into separate, unrelated chunks. Like, does it count as a conquest if Britain acquires a protectorate over land that France conquered?