The State of Affairs in Russia

[Zoupa]

My personal vibe I get from your posts Gaijin is that you don't seem to consider protests/revolution as legitimate. Do you not think grassroots movements are possible?

We can argue about collateral damage to security forces and property and nobody wants that of course, but uprisings have happened throughout history and they usually always have legitimate concerns to redress.

When regular people take to the streets and risk life and limb, it means shit's real bad basically. Every natural instinct tells us to avoid danger and hope the shitty stuff just passes you by. Going against that takes a lot.

[Malthus]

The fundamental divide, and why many Russians side with Putin despite knowing full well he's an authoritarian bully, is this: differing views of what Ukraine actually is.

People in the west tend to see Ukraine as a sovereign nation, with all the same rights other sovereign nations have; they tend to see Ukrainians as a separate ethnic-nationality.

Many I have talked to in Russia just don't see it that way. They see Ukraine as, basically, a breakaway bit of Russia, and Ukrainians as essentially Russians. To them, Ukraine is only a country with particular borders because of accidents of Soviet-era administration. Hence, taking "back" bits of what was Ukraine is no violation of sovereignty, and neither is forcing Ukraine into Russia's sphere of influence.

If Ukrainians feel like being a different nation, or imagine that they are a separate ethnic nationality, that must perforce be because they have been propagandized by "the West", which hates all things Russian, and has for centuries in various ways been undermining Russia. Russians will point to the fact that many Ukrainians speak more Russian than Ukrainian, that both Russians and Ukrainians share a common heritage based on the Kievian Rus, that Ukraine was only rarely a separate nation, that it's very name meant "borderlands" (it used to be called "the" Ukraine), etc.

Thing is that many Russians genuinely believe this, even if they strongly dislike Putin. No amount of historical crimes committed against Ukrainians by Russia affects this analysis - for example, if Stalin had millions of Ukrainians starved age killed, well he had millions of Russians starved and killed as well ...

I think this perception is the fundamental problem. Putin can tap into a genuine feeling on the part of many Russians. It's an excellent distraction from his pillaging of the Russian economy, his government's wretched performance during the pandemic, and many other sources of domestic discontent.

[Berkut]

I still want to know how he squares his claim that this is all about Putins deep and abiding concern and respect for the UN Charter with his cheerleading Russian forces in the Crimea?

[Admiral Yi]

One of the ironies of history is that at least part of the reason Ukraine has an  independent existence post USSR is that they maintained the fiction that Ukraine (and even more implausibly, Belorussia) were independent states so they could grab two more (worthless) General Assembly seats.

[Gaijin de Moscu]

One of the ironies of history is that at least part of the reason Ukraine has an  independent existence post USSR is that they maintained the fiction that Ukraine (and even more implausibly, Belorussia) were independent states so they could grab two more (worthless) General Assembly seats.

Yep, that's true. Stalin somehow managed to push this through, IIRC.

[Gaijin de Moscu]

My personal vibe I get from your posts Gaijin is that you don't seem to consider protests/revolution as legitimate. Do you not think grassroots movements are possible?

We can argue about collateral damage to security forces and property and nobody wants that of course, but uprisings have happened throughout history and they usually always have legitimate concerns to redress.

When regular people take to the streets and risk life and limb, it means shit's real bad basically. Every natural instinct tells us to avoid danger and hope the shitty stuff just passes you by. Going against that takes a lot.

From what I know, that Maidan was not legitimate. It was a violent, unconstitutional coup.

Would it have been constitutional if the trumpist protesters burned down the US Capitol and installed Trump back into power?

Same here.

Anyway, Ukraine is a permanent Maidan these days. The "Ukrainian Truth" reports on the return of Poroshenko (wanted for high treason) to Ukraine, take a look at the pics:

https://www.pravda.com.ua/news/2022/01/17/7320605/index.amp

Groundhog Day all over again. The crowd is chanting "Zelya out" (meaning the now-pres Zelensky), they call him a "dick-tator", etc.

The circus must go on.

[Berkut]

Delicious!

Maiden was not legitimate, and Ukraine is "permanent Maiden these days".

You can see the propaganda justification for violence happening right in front of us, in real time.

[Gaijin de Moscu]

Delicious!

Maiden was not legitimate, and Ukraine is "permanent Maiden these days".

You can see the propaganda justification for violence happening right in front of us, in real time.

No that's your assumption. I said specifically the 2014 Maidan was not legitimate.

I see all these non-stop maidans as a permanent circus in the country I used to love, but no longer recognise. Poor, poor people over there, caught in this ongoing disaster.

Edit: also, I've always maintained that Russia won't invade this country, so why would I "justify" the invasion I don't believe will happen? That's your talking point, not mine. Which is why I didn't even think about.

[Solmyr]

I think the only way you can look at the expansion of NATO as "threatening" to Russia is if you insist on looking at Russian security from the eyes of the mid 20th century.

And while it is reasonable to look and note that historically, Russia was invaded twice from the West (well...once really, but from Russians perspective...) in the space of two generations....well, does anyone actually buy that as a credible threat, NOW?

People raised during the Cold War are currently running Russia. So yes, they totally do think like that.

I don't believe it. Hell, I don't actually think even Soviet Cold Warriors thought there was ever a credible threat of NATO sending tanks into the USSR.

It was about their ability to send tank into the West, not "defense" against attack. That was just the excuse. And you can tell from the force makeup that that was the case.

What I mean is that these people's entire world view is based on confrontation between Russia and the West. So expecting them to not view NATO as the Enemy is wishful thinking.

That is not at all my point.

My point is that I don't believe they see any credible threat that the West is going to actually attack Russia. Their "security" is not actually at risk at all, and they know that, and have known that for a very, very long time.

They pretend like they have some kind of worry about about NATO attacking Russia ala June 6th, 1941. They have no such concern.

We are their enemy because we don't want to let them bully and attack their neighbours, not because they actually have any fear that Russia will be attacked.

Well, I think there are signs that Russian leadership is starting to believe its own propaganda, and I'm not the only one thinking that (there are Russian commentators who write more in-depth analysis of that). But from the West's point of view it doesn't matter too much, since we couldn't give in to Russian demands either way.

[jimmy olsen]

I think the only way you can look at the expansion of NATO as "threatening" to Russia is if you insist on looking at Russian security from the eyes of the mid 20th century.

And while it is reasonable to look and note that historically, Russia was invaded twice from the West (well...once really, but from Russians perspective...) in the space of two generations....well, does anyone actually buy that as a credible threat, NOW?

People raised during the Cold War are currently running Russia. So yes, they totally do think like that.

I don't believe it. Hell, I don't actually think even Soviet Cold Warriors thought there was ever a credible threat of NATO sending tanks into the USSR.

It was about their ability to send tank into the West, not "defense" against attack. That was just the excuse. And you can tell from the force makeup that that was the case.

What I mean is that these people's entire world view is based on confrontation between Russia and the West. So expecting them to not view NATO as the Enemy is wishful thinking.

That is not at all my point.

My point is that I don't believe they see any credible threat that the West is going to actually attack Russia. Their "security" is not actually at risk at all, and they know that, and have known that for a very, very long time.

They pretend like they have some kind of worry about about NATO attacking Russia ala June 6th, 1941. They have no such concern.

We are their enemy because we don't want to let them bully and attack their neighbours, not because they actually have any fear that Russia will be attacked.

Eh... the USSR panicked over Able Archer and thought it was the preparation for WWIII. So, clearly at some points in time the Soviets were truly concerned about this.

[Berkut]

I think the only way you can look at the expansion of NATO as "threatening" to Russia is if you insist on looking at Russian security from the eyes of the mid 20th century.

And while it is reasonable to look and note that historically, Russia was invaded twice from the West (well...once really, but from Russians perspective...) in the space of two generations....well, does anyone actually buy that as a credible threat, NOW?

People raised during the Cold War are currently running Russia. So yes, they totally do think like that.

I don't believe it. Hell, I don't actually think even Soviet Cold Warriors thought there was ever a credible threat of NATO sending tanks into the USSR.

It was about their ability to send tank into the West, not "defense" against attack. That was just the excuse. And you can tell from the force makeup that that was the case.

What I mean is that these people's entire world view is based on confrontation between Russia and the West. So expecting them to not view NATO as the Enemy is wishful thinking.

That is not at all my point.

My point is that I don't believe they see any credible threat that the West is going to actually attack Russia. Their "security" is not actually at risk at all, and they know that, and have known that for a very, very long time.

They pretend like they have some kind of worry about about NATO attacking Russia ala June 6th, 1941. They have no such concern.

We are their enemy because we don't want to let them bully and attack their neighbours, not because they actually have any fear that Russia will be attacked.

Eh... the USSR panicked over Able Archer and thought it was the preparation for WWIII. So, clearly at some points in time the Soviets were truly concerned about this.

I think they are concerned about a nuclear attack - they would be crazy not to.

That isn't what I am talking about though.

The idea that the West would, under any conceivable circumstances, invade Russia is ridiculous, and they know that as well as we do.

[Berkut]

That is not at all my point.

My point is that I don't believe they see any credible threat that the West is going to actually attack Russia. Their "security" is not actually at risk at all, and they know that, and have known that for a very, very long time.

They pretend like they have some kind of worry about about NATO attacking Russia ala June 6th, 1941. They have no such concern.

We are their enemy because we don't want to let them bully and attack their neighbours, not because they actually have any fear that Russia will be attacked.

Well, I think there are signs that Russian leadership is starting to believe its own propaganda, and I'm not the only one thinking that (there are Russian commentators who write more in-depth analysis of that). But from the West's point of view it doesn't matter too much, since we couldn't give in to Russian demands either way.

I think it is important, and does matter. And I think the West mostly does know, and acts accordingly.

Just like it is important to not spend too much time arguing about whether or not the election was actually stolen from Trump. The people you are arguing with don't actually believe it either. So A) Don't waste much time arguing about it, and B) Recognize that you are dealing with someone who is not actually discussing real matters in good faith, and C) If you find someone who really DOES believe that, realize that they are almost certainly not very bright, and have bought into pure propaganda.

[crazy canuck]

The fundamental divide, and why many Russians side with Putin despite knowing full well he's an authoritarian bully, is this: differing views of what Ukraine actually is.

People in the west tend to see Ukraine as a sovereign nation, with all the same rights other sovereign nations have; they tend to see Ukrainians as a separate ethnic-nationality.

Many I have talked to in Russia just don't see it that way. They see Ukraine as, basically, a breakaway bit of Russia, and Ukrainians as essentially Russians. To them, Ukraine is only a country with particular borders because of accidents of Soviet-era administration. Hence, taking "back" bits of what was Ukraine is no violation of sovereignty, and neither is forcing Ukraine into Russia's sphere of influence.

If Ukrainians feel like being a different nation, or imagine that they are a separate ethnic nationality, that must perforce be because they have been propagandized by "the West", which hates all things Russian, and has for centuries in various ways been undermining Russia. Russians will point to the fact that many Ukrainians speak more Russian than Ukrainian, that both Russians and Ukrainians share a common heritage based on the Kievian Rus, that Ukraine was only rarely a separate nation, that it's very name meant "borderlands" (it used to be called "the" Ukraine), etc.

Thing is that many Russians genuinely believe this, even if they strongly dislike Putin. No amount of historical crimes committed against Ukrainians by Russia affects this analysis - for example, if Stalin had millions of Ukrainians starved age killed, well he had millions of Russians starved and killed as well ...

I think this perception is the fundamental problem. Putin can tap into a genuine feeling on the part of many Russians. It's an excellent distraction from his pillaging of the Russian economy, his government's wretched performance during the pandemic, and many other sources of domestic discontent.

Good point about the ambiguity of what the Ukraine is Malthus.  When my maternal Ukrainian great grandparents immigrated it was not from a country known as the Ukraine.  It was from the Austria-Hungarian empire. 

One disagreement with you though - the Ukrainians were not just another victim of bad policy.  While farm collectives were certainly bad policy - the effect on the Ukrainian population was made deliberately worse.  Here is a good book if you wish to learn more.

In Red Famine , Anne Applebaum argues that more than three million of those dead were Ukrainians who perished not because they were accidental victims of a bad policy but because the state deliberately set out to kill them. Applebaum proves what has long been suspected: after a series of rebellions unsettled the province, Stalin set out to destroy the Ukrainian peasantry. The state sealed the republic's borders and seized all available food. Starvation set in rapidly, and people ate anything: grass, tree bark, dogs, corpses. In some cases, they killed one another for food. Devastating and definitive, Red Famine captures the horror of ordinary people struggling to survive extraordinary evil. Today, Russia, the successor to the Soviet Union, has placed Ukrainian independence in its sights once more.

https://www.thriftbooks.com/w/red-famine-stalins-war-on-ukraine-1921-1933_anne-applebaum/18236351/item/29644886/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI46m9_qu59QIVyxmtBh2KGgNNEAQYAiABEgIcIvD_BwE#idiq=29644886&edition=13523863

[The Brain]

Red Famine is a nice book.

[Berkut]

The fundamental divide, and why many Russians side with Putin despite knowing full well he's an authoritarian bully, is this: differing views of what Ukraine actually is.

People in the west tend to see Ukraine as a sovereign nation, with all the same rights other sovereign nations have; they tend to see Ukrainians as a separate ethnic-nationality.

Many I have talked to in Russia just don't see it that way. They see Ukraine as, basically, a breakaway bit of Russia, and Ukrainians as essentially Russians. To them, Ukraine is only a country with particular borders because of accidents of Soviet-era administration. Hence, taking "back" bits of what was Ukraine is no violation of sovereignty, and neither is forcing Ukraine into Russia's sphere of influence.

If Ukrainians feel like being a different nation, or imagine that they are a separate ethnic nationality, that must perforce be because they have been propagandized by "the West", which hates all things Russian, and has for centuries in various ways been undermining Russia. Russians will point to the fact that many Ukrainians speak more Russian than Ukrainian, that both Russians and Ukrainians share a common heritage based on the Kievian Rus, that Ukraine was only rarely a separate nation, that it's very name meant "borderlands" (it used to be called "the" Ukraine), etc.

Thing is that many Russians genuinely believe this, even if they strongly dislike Putin. No amount of historical crimes committed against Ukrainians by Russia affects this analysis - for example, if Stalin had millions of Ukrainians starved age killed, well he had millions of Russians starved and killed as well ...

I think this perception is the fundamental problem. Putin can tap into a genuine feeling on the part of many Russians. It's an excellent distraction from his pillaging of the Russian economy, his government's wretched performance during the pandemic, and many other sources of domestic discontent.

Good point about the ambiguity of what the Ukraine is Malthus.  When my maternal Ukrainian great grandparents immigrated it was not from a country known as the Ukraine.  It was from the Austria-Hungarian empire. 

One disagreement with you though - the Ukrainians were not just another victim of bad policy.  While farm collectives were certainly bad policy - the effect on the Ukrainian population was made deliberately worse.  Here is a good book if you wish to learn more.

In Red Famine , Anne Applebaum argues that more than three million of those dead were Ukrainians who perished not because they were accidental victims of a bad policy but because the state deliberately set out to kill them. Applebaum proves what has long been suspected: after a series of rebellions unsettled the province, Stalin set out to destroy the Ukrainian peasantry. The state sealed the republic's borders and seized all available food. Starvation set in rapidly, and people ate anything: grass, tree bark, dogs, corpses. In some cases, they killed one another for food. Devastating and definitive, Red Famine captures the horror of ordinary people struggling to survive extraordinary evil. Today, Russia, the successor to the Soviet Union, has placed Ukrainian independence in its sights once more.

https://www.thriftbooks.com/w/red-famine-stalins-war-on-ukraine-1921-1933_anne-applebaum/18236351/item/29644886/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI46m9_qu59QIVyxmtBh2KGgNNEAQYAiABEgIcIvD_BwE#idiq=29644886&edition=13523863

SO basically Ukraine had color revolutions, and Russia went in and suppressed them. How is this a bad thing? Isn't that what the UN Charter says should happen?

I am sure we could have a EU comittee look at this and note that the famine was triggered by Ukrainian peasants bitching and moaning, so it was their own fault.