The future of Russia. Any foreign policy experts want to weigh in?

[Anonymous]

I’m a 1980’s music expert, not a Russia expert, so I’ll quote Mike and the Mechanics:

Swear allegiance to the flag
Whatever flag they offer
Never hint at what you really feel
Teach the children quietly
For some day sons and daughters
Will rise up and fight while we stood still

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And this is what I was referring to

At 1:30, incredibly based.

Honestly, Dudaev shouldn't be the one to talk.

Where is the lie, though?

You may not like it, but President Dzhokhar Dudayev said more truth in the 1995 interview than the inbred kozyol “president” has said in a decade. I’m not even a Dudayev Stan as many diaspora people are. Nor was I a supporter, I was literally six. I’m just saying, he was entirely right about Russia’s expansionist policy.


It’s not all the false equivalencies and whataboutisms. Putin is wrong and NATO has done wrong but one side is clearly more wrong. I’m not a foreign policy advisor and I don’t even work in the field (that’s probably good), but I honestly would. Not. Care. If the Russian Federation fell apart. I’m certainly not advocating for it but if their dysfunctional and aggressive government pushed things too far, like the ant to the flame like Dudayev said, and they fell apart into splintered republics I would say they had it coming. Why should we care about Russia’s territorial integrity since there are basically no redeeming qualities to Russian society anymore. And there once was, that’s too bad.

Kadyrov lies but everyone knows he lies, and he himself knows he lies.

Dudaev says crap like this and acts like a total believer. I don't know if I should spell it out, but if not for "Russism", then someone like Dudaev would have never advanced as far as he did, would have never become a four-star or whatever general, and he would also speak the language that only, like, three people understand (in a global context). His entire platform existed because of the USSR's military machine. Dudaev presided over total lawlessness and thuggery that ruled Chechnya in the late eighties and earlier nineties. He did nothing to stop crime and stood by as non-Chechen minorities in Grozny were hunted down, dispossessed, killed or displaced. He set in motion the forces that made the republic the hotbed of crime and money laundering, which it remains today, by the way.

None of that is to say Russia behaves well, but if you look down memory lane, the proclamations like "once we become independent, we'll live like Switzerland!" were in the hundreds back in the day, and guess what, very very few of them ended up like Switzerland. The republics that are left to splinter know they can't survive by themselves without becoming non-entities.

You know, I'm not even denying that. That's what I said earlier, Dudayev did not know how to set up a government and Chechnya would have failed in the 90s regardless. My family is half North Caucasian, I was originally referring to people who were pro-Dudayev (and continue today, like the battalion in Ukraine) because they have no actual connection or they are a generation removed from, too young to remember the Chechen Republic Ichkeria, or they grew up in Turkey, you name it. My three reasons for even fixating on this are

1. Dudayev was not the hero some people make out to be but he HAD A POINT especially about Russia and Ukraine,
2. Russian control is NOT objectively better, for example Don GonDon Kadyrov is worse, he literally tortures people
3. The whole point of this discussion of Chechnya is DIRECTLY related to the current situation in Ukraine, it is Russia taking what isn't theirs and doesn't want to be, not accepting no for an answer, and expending lives including this own and creating a humanitarian disaster, out of some imperial revanchist pipe dream. At least now the West has been involved with support, partially because Ukrainians are white and Christian but I digress. Russia is playing by 18th century rules, but it's having 21st century consequences, and I'm not going to evaluate Russia on a curve here and say that it's actions are at all justified.

North Caucasus is a veritable patchwork of different ethnicities; I'm not aware of one that's called "North Caucasian".

In what way Russia is taking what isn't theirs in the context of Chechnya, which has been a part of the USSR/Russian empire since forever? Was it conquered by force originally? maybe. At that point of time in history, what wasn't? Why was it OK for Ukraine to shell the separatist parts of East Ukraine in the name of territorial integrity but not OK for Russia to shell Chechnya - who no one questions is a part of Russia, and who no one WANTS to be independent anyway?

My mother is from Turkey her family is Circassian, with distant Karachay ancestry, at least based on family lore
I have been interested in the Caucasus region since I was a child

Why do you believe Russian Propaganda about Ukraine "shelling the separatist East Ukraine" first? It's okay that Russia sent Little Green Men to East Ukraine, to Crimea, and manipulated their so-called elections? Yeah sure, I believe 90% of Eastern Ukraine wants to be with Russia just like I believe that 106% of Chechens support Putin and Kadyrov not under duress.

Maybe the better question is why does Russia need more territory? Russia can't even function as is. And Russia HAD potential. Imagine given the choice, either try to develop an actual economy beyond oil & gas, or just steal more land that isn't yours (for more oil & gas)... Wow, let's choose the second option and become an international pariah and have brain drain instead of innovation! But yay, more Oil & Gas, drill baby drill!

Yep - starting in 2014 when Yanukovich was overthrown (and before, as Russia was funding Yanukovich and other corrupt Ukrainian officials to try and soften Ukraine politically for takeover long before 2014) Russia sent FSB, guys like Strelkov and others into the eastern parts of Ukraine, along with Russian regulars camouflaged as civilians, Wagner mercenaries by the thousands into Donbass to create a fake "separatist" movement, bribing, assassinating or otherwise outright taking over local governments. Billions were given by Putin to fund influence operations and other things. This is why Russia thought "Special Military Operation" would only take 3 days, and that Russians would be welcomed with open arms. Putin underestimated the corruption of his own guys, who stole the billions for influencing and bribing and bought themselves yachts and dachas and private planes and other things.

That Eastern part of Ukraine was historically leaning toward Russia isn't really a matter of discussion. It's also a matter of record that they resented a switch to Ukrainian as the official language, and the squeezing of their customary Russian out of the public sphere. No matter how the separatist movement came about, it is unquestionable that Ukraine responded with violent means to try and keep Eastern Ukraine Ukrainian, with a significant casualty count. And they were praised for it as defenders of territorial integrity. I don't think you can argue with that.

So why would Putin be reviled for defending his "territorial integrity" in Chechnya? If territorial integrity is a thing above all others, then he was justified to use violence in Chechnya, wasn't he?
The question

No matter how the separa

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Maybe the better question is why does Russia need more territory? Russia can't even function as is. And Russia HAD potential. Imagine given the choice, either try to develop an actual economy beyond oil & gas, or just steal more land that isn't yours (for more oil & gas)... Wow, let's choose the second option and become an international pariah and have brain drain instead of innovation! But yay, more Oil & Gas, drill baby drill!

Hey, it works for Israel and no one really minds, least of all the US.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And this is what I was referring to

At 1:30, incredibly based.

Honestly, Dudaev shouldn't be the one to talk.

Where is the lie, though?

You may not like it, but President Dzhokhar Dudayev said more truth in the 1995 interview than the inbred kozyol “president” has said in a decade. I’m not even a Dudayev Stan as many diaspora people are. Nor was I a supporter, I was literally six. I’m just saying, he was entirely right about Russia’s expansionist policy.


It’s not all the false equivalencies and whataboutisms. Putin is wrong and NATO has done wrong but one side is clearly more wrong. I’m not a foreign policy advisor and I don’t even work in the field (that’s probably good), but I honestly would. Not. Care. If the Russian Federation fell apart. I’m certainly not advocating for it but if their dysfunctional and aggressive government pushed things too far, like the ant to the flame like Dudayev said, and they fell apart into splintered republics I would say they had it coming. Why should we care about Russia’s territorial integrity since there are basically no redeeming qualities to Russian society anymore. And there once was, that’s too bad.

Kadyrov lies but everyone knows he lies, and he himself knows he lies.

Dudaev says crap like this and acts like a total believer. I don't know if I should spell it out, but if not for "Russism", then someone like Dudaev would have never advanced as far as he did, would have never become a four-star or whatever general, and he would also speak the language that only, like, three people understand (in a global context). His entire platform existed because of the USSR's military machine. Dudaev presided over total lawlessness and thuggery that ruled Chechnya in the late eighties and earlier nineties. He did nothing to stop crime and stood by as non-Chechen minorities in Grozny were hunted down, dispossessed, killed or displaced. He set in motion the forces that made the republic the hotbed of crime and money laundering, which it remains today, by the way.

None of that is to say Russia behaves well, but if you look down memory lane, the proclamations like "once we become independent, we'll live like Switzerland!" were in the hundreds back in the day, and guess what, very very few of them ended up like Switzerland. The republics that are left to splinter know they can't survive by themselves without becoming non-entities.

This is the Colonizer/White Saviour narrative that people say about Americans. Whether it's Africa, Central Asia, Latin America you name it, atrocities are acknowledged but they are always oh so much better off under the influence of the colonial power, right?

News flash, we don't know how any small or nonwestern nation would look in the 21st century were it not for colonialism and imperialism, because the were not given the chance to thrive alone. The third world countries today are "third world" because they were exploited, not because they are genetically inferior.

It's weird that some people in these third world African countries celebrate Russia as some kind of anti-colonialist liberator who will lift them up and give them independence. They seem oblivious and ignorant to the fact of Russia colonizing a huge part of Asia, and that their lack of colonies in Africa was definitely not for lack of trying. Russia invested a great deal of effort trying to gain influence and control over African nations during the Cold War and continues to do so in the current day, Wagner PMC for example has thousands of troops across more than a half dozen countries in Africa and Russia has been involved in coup attempt after coup attempt, repeated attempts to destabilize, cause civil wars and strife, arming terror groups and warlords, et cetera. And look at how Russia's current colonies live - many in Ingushetia, Dagestan and other parts of Russia, they live in poverty, barely have paved roads, many don't even have indoor plumbing or other modern amenities. Chechens as well. And now they are being exploited for cannon fodder for this stupid and pointless war in Ukraine.

Yes, by all means, tell these ignorant people in "these third world African countries" how to feel, I'm sure you know better!

Africa doesn't celebrate Russia as a liberator. Not at all. Africa is simply fed up with being told how to feel and who to support, and it is tired of putting a premium on conflicts where victims are white. By the casualty count, the Ukraine war is a modest endeavor, compared to some other recent conflicts where victims were black or brown, yet see how it is dominating the headlines and commanding support? Where was this indignation and billions in public aid when African countries were hurting?

Don't talk about coups and civil wars and strife, the US has been hands deep in this in Africa since forever. Now you want to cry foul when other countries are trying their hand in it?

The fondness many Africans have for Russia comes from the history of humanitarian aid and thousands of Africans educated in Russian universities, free of charge. The aid USSR provided was seen as benevolent because what people remember is free education, roads and hospitals built by their hands and labor.

As for your comment on Ingushetia and Dagestan, let's just agree that there are many forms of colonial rule, and at least people in Ingushetia and Dagestan are citizens of their country like any other with equal rights. Unlike, say, colonized Palestinians who can't even use general roads and airports in the country that colonizes them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And this is what I was referring to

At 1:30, incredibly based.

Honestly, Dudaev shouldn't be the one to talk.

Where is the lie, though?

You may not like it, but President Dzhokhar Dudayev said more truth in the 1995 interview than the inbred kozyol “president” has said in a decade. I’m not even a Dudayev Stan as many diaspora people are. Nor was I a supporter, I was literally six. I’m just saying, he was entirely right about Russia’s expansionist policy.


It’s not all the false equivalencies and whataboutisms. Putin is wrong and NATO has done wrong but one side is clearly more wrong. I’m not a foreign policy advisor and I don’t even work in the field (that’s probably good), but I honestly would. Not. Care. If the Russian Federation fell apart. I’m certainly not advocating for it but if their dysfunctional and aggressive government pushed things too far, like the ant to the flame like Dudayev said, and they fell apart into splintered republics I would say they had it coming. Why should we care about Russia’s territorial integrity since there are basically no redeeming qualities to Russian society anymore. And there once was, that’s too bad.

Kadyrov lies but everyone knows he lies, and he himself knows he lies.

Dudaev says crap like this and acts like a total believer. I don't know if I should spell it out, but if not for "Russism", then someone like Dudaev would have never advanced as far as he did, would have never become a four-star or whatever general, and he would also speak the language that only, like, three people understand (in a global context). His entire platform existed because of the USSR's military machine. Dudaev presided over total lawlessness and thuggery that ruled Chechnya in the late eighties and earlier nineties. He did nothing to stop crime and stood by as non-Chechen minorities in Grozny were hunted down, dispossessed, killed or displaced. He set in motion the forces that made the republic the hotbed of crime and money laundering, which it remains today, by the way.

None of that is to say Russia behaves well, but if you look down memory lane, the proclamations like "once we become independent, we'll live like Switzerland!" were in the hundreds back in the day, and guess what, very very few of them ended up like Switzerland. The republics that are left to splinter know they can't survive by themselves without becoming non-entities.

This is the Colonizer/White Saviour narrative that people say about Americans. Whether it's Africa, Central Asia, Latin America you name it, atrocities are acknowledged but they are always oh so much better off under the influence of the colonial power, right?

News flash, we don't know how any small or nonwestern nation would look in the 21st century were it not for colonialism and imperialism, because the were not given the chance to thrive alone. The third world countries today are "third world" because they were exploited, not because they are genetically inferior.

It's weird that some people in these third world African countries celebrate Russia as some kind of anti-colonialist liberator who will lift them up and give them independence. They seem oblivious and ignorant to the fact of Russia colonizing a huge part of Asia, and that their lack of colonies in Africa was definitely not for lack of trying. Russia invested a great deal of effort trying to gain influence and control over African nations during the Cold War and continues to do so in the current day, Wagner PMC for example has thousands of troops across more than a half dozen countries in Africa and Russia has been involved in coup attempt after coup attempt, repeated attempts to destabilize, cause civil wars and strife, arming terror groups and warlords, et cetera. And look at how Russia's current colonies live - many in Ingushetia, Dagestan and other parts of Russia, they live in poverty, barely have paved roads, many don't even have indoor plumbing or other modern amenities. Chechens as well. And now they are being exploited for cannon fodder for this stupid and pointless war in Ukraine.

Yes, by all means, tell these ignorant people in "these third world African countries" how to feel, I'm sure you know better!

Africa doesn't celebrate Russia as a liberator. Not at all. Africa is simply fed up with being told how to feel and who to support, and it is tired of putting a premium on conflicts where victims are white. By the casualty count, the Ukraine war is a modest endeavor, compared to some other recent conflicts where victims were black or brown, yet see how it is dominating the headlines and commanding support? Where was this indignation and billions in public aid when African countries were hurting?

Don't talk about coups and civil wars and strife, the US has been hands deep in this in Africa since forever. Now you want to cry foul when other countries are trying their hand in it?

The fondness many Africans have for Russia comes from the history of humanitarian aid and thousands of Africans educated in Russian universities, free of charge. The aid USSR provided was seen as benevolent because what people remember is free education, roads and hospitals built by their hands and labor.

As for your comment on Ingushetia and Dagestan, let's just agree that there are many forms of colonial rule, and at least people in Ingushetia and Dagestan are citizens of their country like any other with equal rights. Unlike, say, colonized Palestinians who can't even use general roads and airports in the country that colonizes them.

LOL you think people from Ingushetia and Dagestan are treated equally in Russia. LOLOL. Are you kidding me, did you seriously just say that

And I AGREE with you on Palestine. Absolutely, and I think America has a censorship problem when you can't even make a mild criticism of the Israeli government without being called an anti-Semite, but that's not a whataboutism to say Russia is correct

But Russia likes to point fingers at America for so many reasons, including racism and mistreatment of minorities.... have you ever even been to Russia? The level of racism there is absolutely insane, it makes Red State America look woke. Including towards its "own" citizens that it was so hell bent on keeping in their territory.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And this is what I was referring to

At 1:30, incredibly based.

Honestly, Dudaev shouldn't be the one to talk.

Where is the lie, though?

You may not like it, but President Dzhokhar Dudayev said more truth in the 1995 interview than the inbred kozyol “president” has said in a decade. I’m not even a Dudayev Stan as many diaspora people are. Nor was I a supporter, I was literally six. I’m just saying, he was entirely right about Russia’s expansionist policy.


It’s not all the false equivalencies and whataboutisms. Putin is wrong and NATO has done wrong but one side is clearly more wrong. I’m not a foreign policy advisor and I don’t even work in the field (that’s probably good), but I honestly would. Not. Care. If the Russian Federation fell apart. I’m certainly not advocating for it but if their dysfunctional and aggressive government pushed things too far, like the ant to the flame like Dudayev said, and they fell apart into splintered republics I would say they had it coming. Why should we care about Russia’s territorial integrity since there are basically no redeeming qualities to Russian society anymore. And there once was, that’s too bad.

Kadyrov lies but everyone knows he lies, and he himself knows he lies.

Dudaev says crap like this and acts like a total believer. I don't know if I should spell it out, but if not for "Russism", then someone like Dudaev would have never advanced as far as he did, would have never become a four-star or whatever general, and he would also speak the language that only, like, three people understand (in a global context). His entire platform existed because of the USSR's military machine. Dudaev presided over total lawlessness and thuggery that ruled Chechnya in the late eighties and earlier nineties. He did nothing to stop crime and stood by as non-Chechen minorities in Grozny were hunted down, dispossessed, killed or displaced. He set in motion the forces that made the republic the hotbed of crime and money laundering, which it remains today, by the way.

None of that is to say Russia behaves well, but if you look down memory lane, the proclamations like "once we become independent, we'll live like Switzerland!" were in the hundreds back in the day, and guess what, very very few of them ended up like Switzerland. The republics that are left to splinter know they can't survive by themselves without becoming non-entities.

This is the Colonizer/White Saviour narrative that people say about Americans. Whether it's Africa, Central Asia, Latin America you name it, atrocities are acknowledged but they are always oh so much better off under the influence of the colonial power, right?

News flash, we don't know how any small or nonwestern nation would look in the 21st century were it not for colonialism and imperialism, because the were not given the chance to thrive alone. The third world countries today are "third world" because they were exploited, not because they are genetically inferior.

It's weird that some people in these third world African countries celebrate Russia as some kind of anti-colonialist liberator who will lift them up and give them independence. They seem oblivious and ignorant to the fact of Russia colonizing a huge part of Asia, and that their lack of colonies in Africa was definitely not for lack of trying. Russia invested a great deal of effort trying to gain influence and control over African nations during the Cold War and continues to do so in the current day, Wagner PMC for example has thousands of troops across more than a half dozen countries in Africa and Russia has been involved in coup attempt after coup attempt, repeated attempts to destabilize, cause civil wars and strife, arming terror groups and warlords, et cetera. And look at how Russia's current colonies live - many in Ingushetia, Dagestan and other parts of Russia, they live in poverty, barely have paved roads, many don't even have indoor plumbing or other modern amenities. Chechens as well. And now they are being exploited for cannon fodder for this stupid and pointless war in Ukraine.

Yes, by all means, tell these ignorant people in "these third world African countries" how to feel, I'm sure you know better!

Africa doesn't celebrate Russia as a liberator. Not at all. Africa is simply fed up with being told how to feel and who to support, and it is tired of putting a premium on conflicts where victims are white. By the casualty count, the Ukraine war is a modest endeavor, compared to some other recent conflicts where victims were black or brown, yet see how it is dominating the headlines and commanding support? Where was this indignation and billions in public aid when African countries were hurting?

Don't talk about coups and civil wars and strife, the US has been hands deep in this in Africa since forever. Now you want to cry foul when other countries are trying their hand in it?

The fondness many Africans have for Russia comes from the history of humanitarian aid and thousands of Africans educated in Russian universities, free of charge. The aid USSR provided was seen as benevolent because what people remember is free education, roads and hospitals built by their hands and labor.

As for your comment on Ingushetia and Dagestan, let's just agree that there are many forms of colonial rule, and at least people in Ingushetia and Dagestan are citizens of their country like any other with equal rights. Unlike, say, colonized Palestinians who can't even use general roads and airports in the country that colonizes them.

LOL you think people from Ingushetia and Dagestan are treated equally in Russia. LOLOL. Are you kidding me, did you seriously just say that

And I AGREE with you on Palestine. Absolutely, and I think America has a censorship problem when you can't even make a mild criticism of the Israeli government without being called an anti-Semite, but that's not a whataboutism to say Russia is correct

But Russia likes to point fingers at America for so many reasons, including racism and mistreatment of minorities.... have you ever even been to Russia? The level of racism there is absolutely insane, it makes Red State America look woke. Including towards its "own" citizens that it was so hell bent on keeping in their territory.

I was born and raised in Grozny.

There is prejudice toward people from the Caucasus in Russia proper but there is no legal discrimination on the books. In the eyes of the law, there is no difference between them and any other Russian citizen. Certainly enough of them have advanced to dizzying heights in Russia proper in business, politics and the military! Compare this to legal differences and treatment of the colonizer/colonized in Israel, Latin America, colonial Britain etc. What rights does the law in Russia deny to the ethnic Dagestanis?

There is no "insane" level of racism in Russia at all, no.

I'm just going to let this hang here: Chechnya and Ingushetia residents account for every fourth subsidized mortgage loan in Russia.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And this is what I was referring to

At 1:30, incredibly based.

Honestly, Dudaev shouldn't be the one to talk.

Where is the lie, though?

You may not like it, but President Dzhokhar Dudayev said more truth in the 1995 interview than the inbred kozyol “president” has said in a decade. I’m not even a Dudayev Stan as many diaspora people are. Nor was I a supporter, I was literally six. I’m just saying, he was entirely right about Russia’s expansionist policy.


It’s not all the false equivalencies and whataboutisms. Putin is wrong and NATO has done wrong but one side is clearly more wrong. I’m not a foreign policy advisor and I don’t even work in the field (that’s probably good), but I honestly would. Not. Care. If the Russian Federation fell apart. I’m certainly not advocating for it but if their dysfunctional and aggressive government pushed things too far, like the ant to the flame like Dudayev said, and they fell apart into splintered republics I would say they had it coming. Why should we care about Russia’s territorial integrity since there are basically no redeeming qualities to Russian society anymore. And there once was, that’s too bad.

Kadyrov lies but everyone knows he lies, and he himself knows he lies.

Dudaev says crap like this and acts like a total believer. I don't know if I should spell it out, but if not for "Russism", then someone like Dudaev would have never advanced as far as he did, would have never become a four-star or whatever general, and he would also speak the language that only, like, three people understand (in a global context). His entire platform existed because of the USSR's military machine. Dudaev presided over total lawlessness and thuggery that ruled Chechnya in the late eighties and earlier nineties. He did nothing to stop crime and stood by as non-Chechen minorities in Grozny were hunted down, dispossessed, killed or displaced. He set in motion the forces that made the republic the hotbed of crime and money laundering, which it remains today, by the way.

None of that is to say Russia behaves well, but if you look down memory lane, the proclamations like "once we become independent, we'll live like Switzerland!" were in the hundreds back in the day, and guess what, very very few of them ended up like Switzerland. The republics that are left to splinter know they can't survive by themselves without becoming non-entities.

You know, I'm not even denying that. That's what I said earlier, Dudayev did not know how to set up a government and Chechnya would have failed in the 90s regardless. My family is half North Caucasian, I was originally referring to people who were pro-Dudayev (and continue today, like the battalion in Ukraine) because they have no actual connection or they are a generation removed from, too young to remember the Chechen Republic Ichkeria, or they grew up in Turkey, you name it. My three reasons for even fixating on this are

1. Dudayev was not the hero some people make out to be but he HAD A POINT especially about Russia and Ukraine,
2. Russian control is NOT objectively better, for example Don GonDon Kadyrov is worse, he literally tortures people
3. The whole point of this discussion of Chechnya is DIRECTLY related to the current situation in Ukraine, it is Russia taking what isn't theirs and doesn't want to be, not accepting no for an answer, and expending lives including this own and creating a humanitarian disaster, out of some imperial revanchist pipe dream. At least now the West has been involved with support, partially because Ukrainians are white and Christian but I digress. Russia is playing by 18th century rules, but it's having 21st century consequences, and I'm not going to evaluate Russia on a curve here and say that it's actions are at all justified.

North Caucasus is a veritable patchwork of different ethnicities; I'm not aware of one that's called "North Caucasian".

In what way Russia is taking what isn't theirs in the context of Chechnya, which has been a part of the USSR/Russian empire since forever? Was it conquered by force originally? maybe. At that point of time in history, what wasn't? Why was it OK for Ukraine to shell the separatist parts of East Ukraine in the name of territorial integrity but not OK for Russia to shell Chechnya - who no one questions is a part of Russia, and who no one WANTS to be independent anyway?

My mother is from Turkey her family is Circassian, with distant Karachay ancestry, at least based on family lore
I have been interested in the Caucasus region since I was a child

Why do you believe Russian Propaganda about Ukraine "shelling the separatist East Ukraine" first? It's okay that Russia sent Little Green Men to East Ukraine, to Crimea, and manipulated their so-called elections? Yeah sure, I believe 90% of Eastern Ukraine wants to be with Russia just like I believe that 106% of Chechens support Putin and Kadyrov not under duress.

Maybe the better question is why does Russia need more territory? Russia can't even function as is. And Russia HAD potential. Imagine given the choice, either try to develop an actual economy beyond oil & gas, or just steal more land that isn't yours (for more oil & gas)... Wow, let's choose the second option and become an international pariah and have brain drain instead of innovation! But yay, more Oil & Gas, drill baby drill!

Yep - starting in 2014 when Yanukovich was overthrown (and before, as Russia was funding Yanukovich and other corrupt Ukrainian officials to try and soften Ukraine politically for takeover long before 2014) Russia sent FSB, guys like Strelkov and others into the eastern parts of Ukraine, along with Russian regulars camouflaged as civilians, Wagner mercenaries by the thousands into Donbass to create a fake "separatist" movement, bribing, assassinating or otherwise outright taking over local governments. Billions were given by Putin to fund influence operations and other things. This is why Russia thought "Special Military Operation" would only take 3 days, and that Russians would be welcomed with open arms. Putin underestimated the corruption of his own guys, who stole the billions for influencing and bribing and bought themselves yachts and dachas and private planes and other things.

That Eastern part of Ukraine was historically leaning toward Russia isn't really a matter of discussion. It's also a matter of record that they resented a switch to Ukrainian as the official language, and the squeezing of their customary Russian out of the public sphere. No matter how the separatist movement came about, it is unquestionable that Ukraine responded with violent means to try and keep Eastern Ukraine Ukrainian, with a significant casualty count. And they were praised for it as defenders of territorial integrity. I don't think you can argue with that.

So why would Putin be reviled for defending his "territorial integrity" in Chechnya? If territorial integrity is a thing above all others, then he was justified to use violence in Chechnya, wasn't he?
The question

No matter how the separa

Check the 1991 results, when they voted to leave Russia. To try and claim they (and even Crimea) were somehow overwhelmingly pro-Russia is historically false. Also, the "switch to Ukrainian as official language" didn't happen until 2017, and was a direct result of, and pushback against, Russian hostility toward Ukraine, so you are a bit out of sequence on your history there as well. Likewise, Ukraine responded with violent means to Russian violence. Had Russia never sent its "little green men" in 2014, had Russia never meddled in Ukrainian politics prior to that, there never would even have been any violence in eastern Ukraine. it's all on Russia.

So yes, we CAN in fact argue it. All of it. Your version is revisionist spin.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And this is what I was referring to

At 1:30, incredibly based.

Honestly, Dudaev shouldn't be the one to talk.

Where is the lie, though?

You may not like it, but President Dzhokhar Dudayev said more truth in the 1995 interview than the inbred kozyol “president” has said in a decade. I’m not even a Dudayev Stan as many diaspora people are. Nor was I a supporter, I was literally six. I’m just saying, he was entirely right about Russia’s expansionist policy.


It’s not all the false equivalencies and whataboutisms. Putin is wrong and NATO has done wrong but one side is clearly more wrong. I’m not a foreign policy advisor and I don’t even work in the field (that’s probably good), but I honestly would. Not. Care. If the Russian Federation fell apart. I’m certainly not advocating for it but if their dysfunctional and aggressive government pushed things too far, like the ant to the flame like Dudayev said, and they fell apart into splintered republics I would say they had it coming. Why should we care about Russia’s territorial integrity since there are basically no redeeming qualities to Russian society anymore. And there once was, that’s too bad.

Kadyrov lies but everyone knows he lies, and he himself knows he lies.

Dudaev says crap like this and acts like a total believer. I don't know if I should spell it out, but if not for "Russism", then someone like Dudaev would have never advanced as far as he did, would have never become a four-star or whatever general, and he would also speak the language that only, like, three people understand (in a global context). His entire platform existed because of the USSR's military machine. Dudaev presided over total lawlessness and thuggery that ruled Chechnya in the late eighties and earlier nineties. He did nothing to stop crime and stood by as non-Chechen minorities in Grozny were hunted down, dispossessed, killed or displaced. He set in motion the forces that made the republic the hotbed of crime and money laundering, which it remains today, by the way.

None of that is to say Russia behaves well, but if you look down memory lane, the proclamations like "once we become independent, we'll live like Switzerland!" were in the hundreds back in the day, and guess what, very very few of them ended up like Switzerland. The republics that are left to splinter know they can't survive by themselves without becoming non-entities.

You know, I'm not even denying that. That's what I said earlier, Dudayev did not know how to set up a government and Chechnya would have failed in the 90s regardless. My family is half North Caucasian, I was originally referring to people who were pro-Dudayev (and continue today, like the battalion in Ukraine) because they have no actual connection or they are a generation removed from, too young to remember the Chechen Republic Ichkeria, or they grew up in Turkey, you name it. My three reasons for even fixating on this are

1. Dudayev was not the hero some people make out to be but he HAD A POINT especially about Russia and Ukraine,
2. Russian control is NOT objectively better, for example Don GonDon Kadyrov is worse, he literally tortures people
3. The whole point of this discussion of Chechnya is DIRECTLY related to the current situation in Ukraine, it is Russia taking what isn't theirs and doesn't want to be, not accepting no for an answer, and expending lives including this own and creating a humanitarian disaster, out of some imperial revanchist pipe dream. At least now the West has been involved with support, partially because Ukrainians are white and Christian but I digress. Russia is playing by 18th century rules, but it's having 21st century consequences, and I'm not going to evaluate Russia on a curve here and say that it's actions are at all justified.

North Caucasus is a veritable patchwork of different ethnicities; I'm not aware of one that's called "North Caucasian".

In what way Russia is taking what isn't theirs in the context of Chechnya, which has been a part of the USSR/Russian empire since forever? Was it conquered by force originally? maybe. At that point of time in history, what wasn't? Why was it OK for Ukraine to shell the separatist parts of East Ukraine in the name of territorial integrity but not OK for Russia to shell Chechnya - who no one questions is a part of Russia, and who no one WANTS to be independent anyway?

My mother is from Turkey her family is Circassian, with distant Karachay ancestry, at least based on family lore
I have been interested in the Caucasus region since I was a child

Why do you believe Russian Propaganda about Ukraine "shelling the separatist East Ukraine" first? It's okay that Russia sent Little Green Men to East Ukraine, to Crimea, and manipulated their so-called elections? Yeah sure, I believe 90% of Eastern Ukraine wants to be with Russia just like I believe that 106% of Chechens support Putin and Kadyrov not under duress.

Maybe the better question is why does Russia need more territory? Russia can't even function as is. And Russia HAD potential. Imagine given the choice, either try to develop an actual economy beyond oil & gas, or just steal more land that isn't yours (for more oil & gas)... Wow, let's choose the second option and become an international pariah and have brain drain instead of innovation! But yay, more Oil & Gas, drill baby drill!

Yep - starting in 2014 when Yanukovich was overthrown (and before, as Russia was funding Yanukovich and other corrupt Ukrainian officials to try and soften Ukraine politically for takeover long before 2014) Russia sent FSB, guys like Strelkov and others into the eastern parts of Ukraine, along with Russian regulars camouflaged as civilians, Wagner mercenaries by the thousands into Donbass to create a fake "separatist" movement, bribing, assassinating or otherwise outright taking over local governments. Billions were given by Putin to fund influence operations and other things. This is why Russia thought "Special Military Operation" would only take 3 days, and that Russians would be welcomed with open arms. Putin underestimated the corruption of his own guys, who stole the billions for influencing and bribing and bought themselves yachts and dachas and private planes and other things.

That Eastern part of Ukraine was historically leaning toward Russia isn't really a matter of discussion. It's also a matter of record that they resented a switch to Ukrainian as the official language, and the squeezing of their customary Russian out of the public sphere. No matter how the separatist movement came about, it is unquestionable that Ukraine responded with violent means to try and keep Eastern Ukraine Ukrainian, with a significant casualty count. And they were praised for it as defenders of territorial integrity. I don't think you can argue with that.

So why would Putin be reviled for defending his "territorial integrity" in Chechnya? If territorial integrity is a thing above all others, then he was justified to use violence in Chechnya, wasn't he?
The question

No matter how the separa

Check the 1991 results, when they voted to leave Russia. To try and claim they (and even Crimea) were somehow overwhelmingly pro-Russia is historically false. Also, the "switch to Ukrainian as official language" didn't happen until 2017, and was a direct result of, and pushback against, Russian hostility toward Ukraine, so you are a bit out of sequence on your history there as well. Likewise, Ukraine responded with violent means to Russian violence. Had Russia never sent its "little green men" in 2014, had Russia never meddled in Ukrainian politics prior to that, there never would even have been any violence in eastern Ukraine. it's all on Russia.

So yes, we CAN in fact argue it. All of it. Your version is revisionist spin.

So you agree that countries are allowed to respond with violent means to any threats to their territorial integrity?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And this is what I was referring to

At 1:30, incredibly based.

Honestly, Dudaev shouldn't be the one to talk.

Where is the lie, though?

You may not like it, but President Dzhokhar Dudayev said more truth in the 1995 interview than the inbred kozyol “president” has said in a decade. I’m not even a Dudayev Stan as many diaspora people are. Nor was I a supporter, I was literally six. I’m just saying, he was entirely right about Russia’s expansionist policy.


It’s not all the false equivalencies and whataboutisms. Putin is wrong and NATO has done wrong but one side is clearly more wrong. I’m not a foreign policy advisor and I don’t even work in the field (that’s probably good), but I honestly would. Not. Care. If the Russian Federation fell apart. I’m certainly not advocating for it but if their dysfunctional and aggressive government pushed things too far, like the ant to the flame like Dudayev said, and they fell apart into splintered republics I would say they had it coming. Why should we care about Russia’s territorial integrity since there are basically no redeeming qualities to Russian society anymore. And there once was, that’s too bad.

Kadyrov lies but everyone knows he lies, and he himself knows he lies.

Dudaev says crap like this and acts like a total believer. I don't know if I should spell it out, but if not for "Russism", then someone like Dudaev would have never advanced as far as he did, would have never become a four-star or whatever general, and he would also speak the language that only, like, three people understand (in a global context). His entire platform existed because of the USSR's military machine. Dudaev presided over total lawlessness and thuggery that ruled Chechnya in the late eighties and earlier nineties. He did nothing to stop crime and stood by as non-Chechen minorities in Grozny were hunted down, dispossessed, killed or displaced. He set in motion the forces that made the republic the hotbed of crime and money laundering, which it remains today, by the way.

None of that is to say Russia behaves well, but if you look down memory lane, the proclamations like "once we become independent, we'll live like Switzerland!" were in the hundreds back in the day, and guess what, very very few of them ended up like Switzerland. The republics that are left to splinter know they can't survive by themselves without becoming non-entities.

This is the Colonizer/White Saviour narrative that people say about Americans. Whether it's Africa, Central Asia, Latin America you name it, atrocities are acknowledged but they are always oh so much better off under the influence of the colonial power, right?

News flash, we don't know how any small or nonwestern nation would look in the 21st century were it not for colonialism and imperialism, because the were not given the chance to thrive alone. The third world countries today are "third world" because they were exploited, not because they are genetically inferior.

It's weird that some people in these third world African countries celebrate Russia as some kind of anti-colonialist liberator who will lift them up and give them independence. They seem oblivious and ignorant to the fact of Russia colonizing a huge part of Asia, and that their lack of colonies in Africa was definitely not for lack of trying. Russia invested a great deal of effort trying to gain influence and control over African nations during the Cold War and continues to do so in the current day, Wagner PMC for example has thousands of troops across more than a half dozen countries in Africa and Russia has been involved in coup attempt after coup attempt, repeated attempts to destabilize, cause civil wars and strife, arming terror groups and warlords, et cetera. And look at how Russia's current colonies live - many in Ingushetia, Dagestan and other parts of Russia, they live in poverty, barely have paved roads, many don't even have indoor plumbing or other modern amenities. Chechens as well. And now they are being exploited for cannon fodder for this stupid and pointless war in Ukraine.

Yes, by all means, tell these ignorant people in "these third world African countries" how to feel, I'm sure you know better!

Africa doesn't celebrate Russia as a liberator. Not at all. Africa is simply fed up with being told how to feel and who to support, and it is tired of putting a premium on conflicts where victims are white. By the casualty count, the Ukraine war is a modest endeavor, compared to some other recent conflicts where victims were black or brown, yet see how it is dominating the headlines and commanding support? Where was this indignation and billions in public aid when African countries were hurting?

Don't talk about coups and civil wars and strife, the US has been hands deep in this in Africa since forever. Now you want to cry foul when other countries are trying their hand in it?

The fondness many Africans have for Russia comes from the history of humanitarian aid and thousands of Africans educated in Russian universities, free of charge. The aid USSR provided was seen as benevolent because what people remember is free education, roads and hospitals built by their hands and labor.

As for your comment on Ingushetia and Dagestan, let's just agree that there are many forms of colonial rule, and at least people in Ingushetia and Dagestan are citizens of their country like any other with equal rights. Unlike, say, colonized Palestinians who can't even use general roads and airports in the country that colonizes them.

LOL you think people from Ingushetia and Dagestan are treated equally in Russia. LOLOL. Are you kidding me, did you seriously just say that

And I AGREE with you on Palestine. Absolutely, and I think America has a censorship problem when you can't even make a mild criticism of the Israeli government without being called an anti-Semite, but that's not a whataboutism to say Russia is correct

But Russia likes to point fingers at America for so many reasons, including racism and mistreatment of minorities.... have you ever even been to Russia? The level of racism there is absolutely insane, it makes Red State America look woke. Including towards its "own" citizens that it was so hell bent on keeping in their territory.

I agree about Russian racism.. I've been on forums where Russians have posted the most vicious, nasty and disgusting things about Moroccans (comparing them to monkeys), Turks, and others.

But there's a HUGE difference between criticizing Netanyahu policy and having some random jerk on the internet trying to bully you by disingenuously calling you an "anti-semite" yet you are still heard, versus saying something critical about the Russian regime, or even just holding up a blank sign, and being immediately arrested by police, threatened by officials, et cetera. Not to mention that all of the Russian media is completely censored. There are routinely reports, books, articles and op-eds in mainstream American publishing that are critical of Israeli policy that are not at all censored.

Complete apples and oranges.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m a 1980’s music expert, not a Russia expert, so I’ll quote Mike and the Mechanics:

Swear allegiance to the flag
Whatever flag they offer
Never hint at what you really feel
Teach the children quietly
For some day sons and daughters
Will rise up and fight while we stood still

This song makes me cry. It's a combination of remembering what it felt like when that song came out and now having children of my own.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And this is what I was referring to

At 1:30, incredibly based.

Honestly, Dudaev shouldn't be the one to talk.

Where is the lie, though?

You may not like it, but President Dzhokhar Dudayev said more truth in the 1995 interview than the inbred kozyol “president” has said in a decade. I’m not even a Dudayev Stan as many diaspora people are. Nor was I a supporter, I was literally six. I’m just saying, he was entirely right about Russia’s expansionist policy.


It’s not all the false equivalencies and whataboutisms. Putin is wrong and NATO has done wrong but one side is clearly more wrong. I’m not a foreign policy advisor and I don’t even work in the field (that’s probably good), but I honestly would. Not. Care. If the Russian Federation fell apart. I’m certainly not advocating for it but if their dysfunctional and aggressive government pushed things too far, like the ant to the flame like Dudayev said, and they fell apart into splintered republics I would say they had it coming. Why should we care about Russia’s territorial integrity since there are basically no redeeming qualities to Russian society anymore. And there once was, that’s too bad.

Kadyrov lies but everyone knows he lies, and he himself knows he lies.

Dudaev says crap like this and acts like a total believer. I don't know if I should spell it out, but if not for "Russism", then someone like Dudaev would have never advanced as far as he did, would have never become a four-star or whatever general, and he would also speak the language that only, like, three people understand (in a global context). His entire platform existed because of the USSR's military machine. Dudaev presided over total lawlessness and thuggery that ruled Chechnya in the late eighties and earlier nineties. He did nothing to stop crime and stood by as non-Chechen minorities in Grozny were hunted down, dispossessed, killed or displaced. He set in motion the forces that made the republic the hotbed of crime and money laundering, which it remains today, by the way.

None of that is to say Russia behaves well, but if you look down memory lane, the proclamations like "once we become independent, we'll live like Switzerland!" were in the hundreds back in the day, and guess what, very very few of them ended up like Switzerland. The republics that are left to splinter know they can't survive by themselves without becoming non-entities.

You know, I'm not even denying that. That's what I said earlier, Dudayev did not know how to set up a government and Chechnya would have failed in the 90s regardless. My family is half North Caucasian, I was originally referring to people who were pro-Dudayev (and continue today, like the battalion in Ukraine) because they have no actual connection or they are a generation removed from, too young to remember the Chechen Republic Ichkeria, or they grew up in Turkey, you name it. My three reasons for even fixating on this are

1. Dudayev was not the hero some people make out to be but he HAD A POINT especially about Russia and Ukraine,
2. Russian control is NOT objectively better, for example Don GonDon Kadyrov is worse, he literally tortures people
3. The whole point of this discussion of Chechnya is DIRECTLY related to the current situation in Ukraine, it is Russia taking what isn't theirs and doesn't want to be, not accepting no for an answer, and expending lives including this own and creating a humanitarian disaster, out of some imperial revanchist pipe dream. At least now the West has been involved with support, partially because Ukrainians are white and Christian but I digress. Russia is playing by 18th century rules, but it's having 21st century consequences, and I'm not going to evaluate Russia on a curve here and say that it's actions are at all justified.

North Caucasus is a veritable patchwork of different ethnicities; I'm not aware of one that's called "North Caucasian".

In what way Russia is taking what isn't theirs in the context of Chechnya, which has been a part of the USSR/Russian empire since forever? Was it conquered by force originally? maybe. At that point of time in history, what wasn't? Why was it OK for Ukraine to shell the separatist parts of East Ukraine in the name of territorial integrity but not OK for Russia to shell Chechnya - who no one questions is a part of Russia, and who no one WANTS to be independent anyway?

My mother is from Turkey her family is Circassian, with distant Karachay ancestry, at least based on family lore
I have been interested in the Caucasus region since I was a child

Why do you believe Russian Propaganda about Ukraine "shelling the separatist East Ukraine" first? It's okay that Russia sent Little Green Men to East Ukraine, to Crimea, and manipulated their so-called elections? Yeah sure, I believe 90% of Eastern Ukraine wants to be with Russia just like I believe that 106% of Chechens support Putin and Kadyrov not under duress.

Maybe the better question is why does Russia need more territory? Russia can't even function as is. And Russia HAD potential. Imagine given the choice, either try to develop an actual economy beyond oil & gas, or just steal more land that isn't yours (for more oil & gas)... Wow, let's choose the second option and become an international pariah and have brain drain instead of innovation! But yay, more Oil & Gas, drill baby drill!

Yep - starting in 2014 when Yanukovich was overthrown (and before, as Russia was funding Yanukovich and other corrupt Ukrainian officials to try and soften Ukraine politically for takeover long before 2014) Russia sent FSB, guys like Strelkov and others into the eastern parts of Ukraine, along with Russian regulars camouflaged as civilians, Wagner mercenaries by the thousands into Donbass to create a fake "separatist" movement, bribing, assassinating or otherwise outright taking over local governments. Billions were given by Putin to fund influence operations and other things. This is why Russia thought "Special Military Operation" would only take 3 days, and that Russians would be welcomed with open arms. Putin underestimated the corruption of his own guys, who stole the billions for influencing and bribing and bought themselves yachts and dachas and private planes and other things.

That Eastern part of Ukraine was historically leaning toward Russia isn't really a matter of discussion. It's also a matter of record that they resented a switch to Ukrainian as the official language, and the squeezing of their customary Russian out of the public sphere. No matter how the separatist movement came about, it is unquestionable that Ukraine responded with violent means to try and keep Eastern Ukraine Ukrainian, with a significant casualty count. And they were praised for it as defenders of territorial integrity. I don't think you can argue with that.

So why would Putin be reviled for defending his "territorial integrity" in Chechnya? If territorial integrity is a thing above all others, then he was justified to use violence in Chechnya, wasn't he?
The question

No matter how the separa

Check the 1991 results, when they voted to leave Russia. To try and claim they (and even Crimea) were somehow overwhelmingly pro-Russia is historically false. Also, the "switch to Ukrainian as official language" didn't happen until 2017, and was a direct result of, and pushback against, Russian hostility toward Ukraine, so you are a bit out of sequence on your history there as well. Likewise, Ukraine responded with violent means to Russian violence. Had Russia never sent its "little green men" in 2014, had Russia never meddled in Ukrainian politics prior to that, there never would even have been any violence in eastern Ukraine. it's all on Russia.

So yes, we CAN in fact argue it. All of it. Your version is revisionist spin.

So you agree that countries are allowed to respond with violent means to any threats to their territorial integrity?

Ukraine absolutely does have every right to use violence to repel a foreign invasion and threat to their territorial integrity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And this is what I was referring to

At 1:30, incredibly based.

Honestly, Dudaev shouldn't be the one to talk.

Where is the lie, though?

You may not like it, but President Dzhokhar Dudayev said more truth in the 1995 interview than the inbred kozyol “president” has said in a decade. I’m not even a Dudayev Stan as many diaspora people are. Nor was I a supporter, I was literally six. I’m just saying, he was entirely right about Russia’s expansionist policy.


It’s not all the false equivalencies and whataboutisms. Putin is wrong and NATO has done wrong but one side is clearly more wrong. I’m not a foreign policy advisor and I don’t even work in the field (that’s probably good), but I honestly would. Not. Care. If the Russian Federation fell apart. I’m certainly not advocating for it but if their dysfunctional and aggressive government pushed things too far, like the ant to the flame like Dudayev said, and they fell apart into splintered republics I would say they had it coming. Why should we care about Russia’s territorial integrity since there are basically no redeeming qualities to Russian society anymore. And there once was, that’s too bad.

Kadyrov lies but everyone knows he lies, and he himself knows he lies.

Dudaev says crap like this and acts like a total believer. I don't know if I should spell it out, but if not for "Russism", then someone like Dudaev would have never advanced as far as he did, would have never become a four-star or whatever general, and he would also speak the language that only, like, three people understand (in a global context). His entire platform existed because of the USSR's military machine. Dudaev presided over total lawlessness and thuggery that ruled Chechnya in the late eighties and earlier nineties. He did nothing to stop crime and stood by as non-Chechen minorities in Grozny were hunted down, dispossessed, killed or displaced. He set in motion the forces that made the republic the hotbed of crime and money laundering, which it remains today, by the way.

None of that is to say Russia behaves well, but if you look down memory lane, the proclamations like "once we become independent, we'll live like Switzerland!" were in the hundreds back in the day, and guess what, very very few of them ended up like Switzerland. The republics that are left to splinter know they can't survive by themselves without becoming non-entities.

This is the Colonizer/White Saviour narrative that people say about Americans. Whether it's Africa, Central Asia, Latin America you name it, atrocities are acknowledged but they are always oh so much better off under the influence of the colonial power, right?

News flash, we don't know how any small or nonwestern nation would look in the 21st century were it not for colonialism and imperialism, because the were not given the chance to thrive alone. The third world countries today are "third world" because they were exploited, not because they are genetically inferior.

It's weird that some people in these third world African countries celebrate Russia as some kind of anti-colonialist liberator who will lift them up and give them independence. They seem oblivious and ignorant to the fact of Russia colonizing a huge part of Asia, and that their lack of colonies in Africa was definitely not for lack of trying. Russia invested a great deal of effort trying to gain influence and control over African nations during the Cold War and continues to do so in the current day, Wagner PMC for example has thousands of troops across more than a half dozen countries in Africa and Russia has been involved in coup attempt after coup attempt, repeated attempts to destabilize, cause civil wars and strife, arming terror groups and warlords, et cetera. And look at how Russia's current colonies live - many in Ingushetia, Dagestan and other parts of Russia, they live in poverty, barely have paved roads, many don't even have indoor plumbing or other modern amenities. Chechens as well. And now they are being exploited for cannon fodder for this stupid and pointless war in Ukraine.

Yes, by all means, tell these ignorant people in "these third world African countries" how to feel, I'm sure you know better!

Africa doesn't celebrate Russia as a liberator. Not at all. Africa is simply fed up with being told how to feel and who to support, and it is tired of putting a premium on conflicts where victims are white. By the casualty count, the Ukraine war is a modest endeavor, compared to some other recent conflicts where victims were black or brown, yet see how it is dominating the headlines and commanding support? Where was this indignation and billions in public aid when African countries were hurting?

Don't talk about coups and civil wars and strife, the US has been hands deep in this in Africa since forever. Now you want to cry foul when other countries are trying their hand in it?

The fondness many Africans have for Russia comes from the history of humanitarian aid and thousands of Africans educated in Russian universities, free of charge. The aid USSR provided was seen as benevolent because what people remember is free education, roads and hospitals built by their hands and labor.

As for your comment on Ingushetia and Dagestan, let's just agree that there are many forms of colonial rule, and at least people in Ingushetia and Dagestan are citizens of their country like any other with equal rights. Unlike, say, colonized Palestinians who can't even use general roads and airports in the country that colonizes them.

LOL you think people from Ingushetia and Dagestan are treated equally in Russia. LOLOL. Are you kidding me, did you seriously just say that

And I AGREE with you on Palestine. Absolutely, and I think America has a censorship problem when you can't even make a mild criticism of the Israeli government without being called an anti-Semite, but that's not a whataboutism to say Russia is correct

But Russia likes to point fingers at America for so many reasons, including racism and mistreatment of minorities.... have you ever even been to Russia? The level of racism there is absolutely insane, it makes Red State America look woke. Including towards its "own" citizens that it was so hell bent on keeping in their territory.

I agree about Russian racism.. I've been on forums where Russians have posted the most vicious, nasty and disgusting things about Moroccans (comparing them to monkeys), Turks, and others.

But there's a HUGE difference between criticizing Netanyahu policy and having some random jerk on the internet trying to bully you by disingenuously calling you an "anti-semite" yet you are still heard, versus saying something critical about the Russian regime, or even just holding up a blank sign, and being immediately arrested by police, threatened by officials, et cetera. Not to mention that all of the Russian media is completely censored. There are routinely reports, books, articles and op-eds in mainstream American publishing that are critical of Israeli policy that are not at all censored.

Complete apples and oranges.

Great now do a comparison to criticizing Netanyahu policy by a Palestinian in Israel.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And this is what I was referring to

At 1:30, incredibly based.

Honestly, Dudaev shouldn't be the one to talk.

Where is the lie, though?

You may not like it, but President Dzhokhar Dudayev said more truth in the 1995 interview than the inbred kozyol “president” has said in a decade. I’m not even a Dudayev Stan as many diaspora people are. Nor was I a supporter, I was literally six. I’m just saying, he was entirely right about Russia’s expansionist policy.


It’s not all the false equivalencies and whataboutisms. Putin is wrong and NATO has done wrong but one side is clearly more wrong. I’m not a foreign policy advisor and I don’t even work in the field (that’s probably good), but I honestly would. Not. Care. If the Russian Federation fell apart. I’m certainly not advocating for it but if their dysfunctional and aggressive government pushed things too far, like the ant to the flame like Dudayev said, and they fell apart into splintered republics I would say they had it coming. Why should we care about Russia’s territorial integrity since there are basically no redeeming qualities to Russian society anymore. And there once was, that’s too bad.

Kadyrov lies but everyone knows he lies, and he himself knows he lies.

Dudaev says crap like this and acts like a total believer. I don't know if I should spell it out, but if not for "Russism", then someone like Dudaev would have never advanced as far as he did, would have never become a four-star or whatever general, and he would also speak the language that only, like, three people understand (in a global context). His entire platform existed because of the USSR's military machine. Dudaev presided over total lawlessness and thuggery that ruled Chechnya in the late eighties and earlier nineties. He did nothing to stop crime and stood by as non-Chechen minorities in Grozny were hunted down, dispossessed, killed or displaced. He set in motion the forces that made the republic the hotbed of crime and money laundering, which it remains today, by the way.

None of that is to say Russia behaves well, but if you look down memory lane, the proclamations like "once we become independent, we'll live like Switzerland!" were in the hundreds back in the day, and guess what, very very few of them ended up like Switzerland. The republics that are left to splinter know they can't survive by themselves without becoming non-entities.

You know, I'm not even denying that. That's what I said earlier, Dudayev did not know how to set up a government and Chechnya would have failed in the 90s regardless. My family is half North Caucasian, I was originally referring to people who were pro-Dudayev (and continue today, like the battalion in Ukraine) because they have no actual connection or they are a generation removed from, too young to remember the Chechen Republic Ichkeria, or they grew up in Turkey, you name it. My three reasons for even fixating on this are

1. Dudayev was not the hero some people make out to be but he HAD A POINT especially about Russia and Ukraine,
2. Russian control is NOT objectively better, for example Don GonDon Kadyrov is worse, he literally tortures people
3. The whole point of this discussion of Chechnya is DIRECTLY related to the current situation in Ukraine, it is Russia taking what isn't theirs and doesn't want to be, not accepting no for an answer, and expending lives including this own and creating a humanitarian disaster, out of some imperial revanchist pipe dream. At least now the West has been involved with support, partially because Ukrainians are white and Christian but I digress. Russia is playing by 18th century rules, but it's having 21st century consequences, and I'm not going to evaluate Russia on a curve here and say that it's actions are at all justified.

North Caucasus is a veritable patchwork of different ethnicities; I'm not aware of one that's called "North Caucasian".

In what way Russia is taking what isn't theirs in the context of Chechnya, which has been a part of the USSR/Russian empire since forever? Was it conquered by force originally? maybe. At that point of time in history, what wasn't? Why was it OK for Ukraine to shell the separatist parts of East Ukraine in the name of territorial integrity but not OK for Russia to shell Chechnya - who no one questions is a part of Russia, and who no one WANTS to be independent anyway?

My mother is from Turkey her family is Circassian, with distant Karachay ancestry, at least based on family lore
I have been interested in the Caucasus region since I was a child

Why do you believe Russian Propaganda about Ukraine "shelling the separatist East Ukraine" first? It's okay that Russia sent Little Green Men to East Ukraine, to Crimea, and manipulated their so-called elections? Yeah sure, I believe 90% of Eastern Ukraine wants to be with Russia just like I believe that 106% of Chechens support Putin and Kadyrov not under duress.

Maybe the better question is why does Russia need more territory? Russia can't even function as is. And Russia HAD potential. Imagine given the choice, either try to develop an actual economy beyond oil & gas, or just steal more land that isn't yours (for more oil & gas)... Wow, let's choose the second option and become an international pariah and have brain drain instead of innovation! But yay, more Oil & Gas, drill baby drill!

Yep - starting in 2014 when Yanukovich was overthrown (and before, as Russia was funding Yanukovich and other corrupt Ukrainian officials to try and soften Ukraine politically for takeover long before 2014) Russia sent FSB, guys like Strelkov and others into the eastern parts of Ukraine, along with Russian regulars camouflaged as civilians, Wagner mercenaries by the thousands into Donbass to create a fake "separatist" movement, bribing, assassinating or otherwise outright taking over local governments. Billions were given by Putin to fund influence operations and other things. This is why Russia thought "Special Military Operation" would only take 3 days, and that Russians would be welcomed with open arms. Putin underestimated the corruption of his own guys, who stole the billions for influencing and bribing and bought themselves yachts and dachas and private planes and other things.

That Eastern part of Ukraine was historically leaning toward Russia isn't really a matter of discussion. It's also a matter of record that they resented a switch to Ukrainian as the official language, and the squeezing of their customary Russian out of the public sphere. No matter how the separatist movement came about, it is unquestionable that Ukraine responded with violent means to try and keep Eastern Ukraine Ukrainian, with a significant casualty count. And they were praised for it as defenders of territorial integrity. I don't think you can argue with that.

So why would Putin be reviled for defending his "territorial integrity" in Chechnya? If territorial integrity is a thing above all others, then he was justified to use violence in Chechnya, wasn't he?
The question

No matter how the separa

Check the 1991 results, when they voted to leave Russia. To try and claim they (and even Crimea) were somehow overwhelmingly pro-Russia is historically false. Also, the "switch to Ukrainian as official language" didn't happen until 2017, and was a direct result of, and pushback against, Russian hostility toward Ukraine, so you are a bit out of sequence on your history there as well. Likewise, Ukraine responded with violent means to Russian violence. Had Russia never sent its "little green men" in 2014, had Russia never meddled in Ukrainian politics prior to that, there never would even have been any violence in eastern Ukraine. it's all on Russia.

So yes, we CAN in fact argue it. All of it. Your version is revisionist spin.

So you agree that countries are allowed to respond with violent means to any threats to their territorial integrity?

Ukraine absolutely does have every right to use violence to repel a foreign invasion and threat to their territorial integrity.

Then Putin had every right to use violence in Chechnya as its desire to secede was a threat to Russia's territorial integrity. If you disagree, you're a hypocrite.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And this is what I was referring to

At 1:30, incredibly based.

Honestly, Dudaev shouldn't be the one to talk.

Where is the lie, though?

You may not like it, but President Dzhokhar Dudayev said more truth in the 1995 interview than the inbred kozyol “president” has said in a decade. I’m not even a Dudayev Stan as many diaspora people are. Nor was I a supporter, I was literally six. I’m just saying, he was entirely right about Russia’s expansionist policy.


It’s not all the false equivalencies and whataboutisms. Putin is wrong and NATO has done wrong but one side is clearly more wrong. I’m not a foreign policy advisor and I don’t even work in the field (that’s probably good), but I honestly would. Not. Care. If the Russian Federation fell apart. I’m certainly not advocating for it but if their dysfunctional and aggressive government pushed things too far, like the ant to the flame like Dudayev said, and they fell apart into splintered republics I would say they had it coming. Why should we care about Russia’s territorial integrity since there are basically no redeeming qualities to Russian society anymore. And there once was, that’s too bad.

Kadyrov lies but everyone knows he lies, and he himself knows he lies.

Dudaev says crap like this and acts like a total believer. I don't know if I should spell it out, but if not for "Russism", then someone like Dudaev would have never advanced as far as he did, would have never become a four-star or whatever general, and he would also speak the language that only, like, three people understand (in a global context). His entire platform existed because of the USSR's military machine. Dudaev presided over total lawlessness and thuggery that ruled Chechnya in the late eighties and earlier nineties. He did nothing to stop crime and stood by as non-Chechen minorities in Grozny were hunted down, dispossessed, killed or displaced. He set in motion the forces that made the republic the hotbed of crime and money laundering, which it remains today, by the way.

None of that is to say Russia behaves well, but if you look down memory lane, the proclamations like "once we become independent, we'll live like Switzerland!" were in the hundreds back in the day, and guess what, very very few of them ended up like Switzerland. The republics that are left to splinter know they can't survive by themselves without becoming non-entities.

You know, I'm not even denying that. That's what I said earlier, Dudayev did not know how to set up a government and Chechnya would have failed in the 90s regardless. My family is half North Caucasian, I was originally referring to people who were pro-Dudayev (and continue today, like the battalion in Ukraine) because they have no actual connection or they are a generation removed from, too young to remember the Chechen Republic Ichkeria, or they grew up in Turkey, you name it. My three reasons for even fixating on this are

1. Dudayev was not the hero some people make out to be but he HAD A POINT especially about Russia and Ukraine,
2. Russian control is NOT objectively better, for example Don GonDon Kadyrov is worse, he literally tortures people
3. The whole point of this discussion of Chechnya is DIRECTLY related to the current situation in Ukraine, it is Russia taking what isn't theirs and doesn't want to be, not accepting no for an answer, and expending lives including this own and creating a humanitarian disaster, out of some imperial revanchist pipe dream. At least now the West has been involved with support, partially because Ukrainians are white and Christian but I digress. Russia is playing by 18th century rules, but it's having 21st century consequences, and I'm not going to evaluate Russia on a curve here and say that it's actions are at all justified.

North Caucasus is a veritable patchwork of different ethnicities; I'm not aware of one that's called "North Caucasian".

In what way Russia is taking what isn't theirs in the context of Chechnya, which has been a part of the USSR/Russian empire since forever? Was it conquered by force originally? maybe. At that point of time in history, what wasn't? Why was it OK for Ukraine to shell the separatist parts of East Ukraine in the name of territorial integrity but not OK for Russia to shell Chechnya - who no one questions is a part of Russia, and who no one WANTS to be independent anyway?

My mother is from Turkey her family is Circassian, with distant Karachay ancestry, at least based on family lore
I have been interested in the Caucasus region since I was a child

Why do you believe Russian Propaganda about Ukraine "shelling the separatist East Ukraine" first? It's okay that Russia sent Little Green Men to East Ukraine, to Crimea, and manipulated their so-called elections? Yeah sure, I believe 90% of Eastern Ukraine wants to be with Russia just like I believe that 106% of Chechens support Putin and Kadyrov not under duress.

Maybe the better question is why does Russia need more territory? Russia can't even function as is. And Russia HAD potential. Imagine given the choice, either try to develop an actual economy beyond oil & gas, or just steal more land that isn't yours (for more oil & gas)... Wow, let's choose the second option and become an international pariah and have brain drain instead of innovation! But yay, more Oil & Gas, drill baby drill!

Yep - starting in 2014 when Yanukovich was overthrown (and before, as Russia was funding Yanukovich and other corrupt Ukrainian officials to try and soften Ukraine politically for takeover long before 2014) Russia sent FSB, guys like Strelkov and others into the eastern parts of Ukraine, along with Russian regulars camouflaged as civilians, Wagner mercenaries by the thousands into Donbass to create a fake "separatist" movement, bribing, assassinating or otherwise outright taking over local governments. Billions were given by Putin to fund influence operations and other things. This is why Russia thought "Special Military Operation" would only take 3 days, and that Russians would be welcomed with open arms. Putin underestimated the corruption of his own guys, who stole the billions for influencing and bribing and bought themselves yachts and dachas and private planes and other things.

That Eastern part of Ukraine was historically leaning toward Russia isn't really a matter of discussion. It's also a matter of record that they resented a switch to Ukrainian as the official language, and the squeezing of their customary Russian out of the public sphere. No matter how the separatist movement came about, it is unquestionable that Ukraine responded with violent means to try and keep Eastern Ukraine Ukrainian, with a significant casualty count. And they were praised for it as defenders of territorial integrity. I don't think you can argue with that.

So why would Putin be reviled for defending his "territorial integrity" in Chechnya? If territorial integrity is a thing above all others, then he was justified to use violence in Chechnya, wasn't he?
The question

No matter how the separa

Check the 1991 results, when they voted to leave Russia. To try and claim they (and even Crimea) were somehow overwhelmingly pro-Russia is historically false. Also, the "switch to Ukrainian as official language" didn't happen until 2017, and was a direct result of, and pushback against, Russian hostility toward Ukraine, so you are a bit out of sequence on your history there as well. Likewise, Ukraine responded with violent means to Russian violence. Had Russia never sent its "little green men" in 2014, had Russia never meddled in Ukrainian politics prior to that, there never would even have been any violence in eastern Ukraine. it's all on Russia.

So yes, we CAN in fact argue it. All of it. Your version is revisionist spin.

So you agree that countries are allowed to respond with violent means to any threats to their territorial integrity?

Ukraine absolutely does have every right to use violence to repel a foreign invasion and threat to their territorial integrity.

Then Putin had every right to use violence in Chechnya as its desire to secede was a threat to Russia's territorial integrity. If you disagree, you're a hypocrite.

Do you think Putin had the right to target civilians and completely level towns and cities?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And this is what I was referring to

At 1:30, incredibly based.

Honestly, Dudaev shouldn't be the one to talk.

Where is the lie, though?

You may not like it, but President Dzhokhar Dudayev said more truth in the 1995 interview than the inbred kozyol “president” has said in a decade. I’m not even a Dudayev Stan as many diaspora people are. Nor was I a supporter, I was literally six. I’m just saying, he was entirely right about Russia’s expansionist policy.


It’s not all the false equivalencies and whataboutisms. Putin is wrong and NATO has done wrong but one side is clearly more wrong. I’m not a foreign policy advisor and I don’t even work in the field (that’s probably good), but I honestly would. Not. Care. If the Russian Federation fell apart. I’m certainly not advocating for it but if their dysfunctional and aggressive government pushed things too far, like the ant to the flame like Dudayev said, and they fell apart into splintered republics I would say they had it coming. Why should we care about Russia’s territorial integrity since there are basically no redeeming qualities to Russian society anymore. And there once was, that’s too bad.

Kadyrov lies but everyone knows he lies, and he himself knows he lies.

Dudaev says crap like this and acts like a total believer. I don't know if I should spell it out, but if not for "Russism", then someone like Dudaev would have never advanced as far as he did, would have never become a four-star or whatever general, and he would also speak the language that only, like, three people understand (in a global context). His entire platform existed because of the USSR's military machine. Dudaev presided over total lawlessness and thuggery that ruled Chechnya in the late eighties and earlier nineties. He did nothing to stop crime and stood by as non-Chechen minorities in Grozny were hunted down, dispossessed, killed or displaced. He set in motion the forces that made the republic the hotbed of crime and money laundering, which it remains today, by the way.

None of that is to say Russia behaves well, but if you look down memory lane, the proclamations like "once we become independent, we'll live like Switzerland!" were in the hundreds back in the day, and guess what, very very few of them ended up like Switzerland. The republics that are left to splinter know they can't survive by themselves without becoming non-entities.

You know, I'm not even denying that. That's what I said earlier, Dudayev did not know how to set up a government and Chechnya would have failed in the 90s regardless. My family is half North Caucasian, I was originally referring to people who were pro-Dudayev (and continue today, like the battalion in Ukraine) because they have no actual connection or they are a generation removed from, too young to remember the Chechen Republic Ichkeria, or they grew up in Turkey, you name it. My three reasons for even fixating on this are

1. Dudayev was not the hero some people make out to be but he HAD A POINT especially about Russia and Ukraine,
2. Russian control is NOT objectively better, for example Don GonDon Kadyrov is worse, he literally tortures people
3. The whole point of this discussion of Chechnya is DIRECTLY related to the current situation in Ukraine, it is Russia taking what isn't theirs and doesn't want to be, not accepting no for an answer, and expending lives including this own and creating a humanitarian disaster, out of some imperial revanchist pipe dream. At least now the West has been involved with support, partially because Ukrainians are white and Christian but I digress. Russia is playing by 18th century rules, but it's having 21st century consequences, and I'm not going to evaluate Russia on a curve here and say that it's actions are at all justified.

North Caucasus is a veritable patchwork of different ethnicities; I'm not aware of one that's called "North Caucasian".

In what way Russia is taking what isn't theirs in the context of Chechnya, which has been a part of the USSR/Russian empire since forever? Was it conquered by force originally? maybe. At that point of time in history, what wasn't? Why was it OK for Ukraine to shell the separatist parts of East Ukraine in the name of territorial integrity but not OK for Russia to shell Chechnya - who no one questions is a part of Russia, and who no one WANTS to be independent anyway?

My mother is from Turkey her family is Circassian, with distant Karachay ancestry, at least based on family lore
I have been interested in the Caucasus region since I was a child

Why do you believe Russian Propaganda about Ukraine "shelling the separatist East Ukraine" first? It's okay that Russia sent Little Green Men to East Ukraine, to Crimea, and manipulated their so-called elections? Yeah sure, I believe 90% of Eastern Ukraine wants to be with Russia just like I believe that 106% of Chechens support Putin and Kadyrov not under duress.

Maybe the better question is why does Russia need more territory? Russia can't even function as is. And Russia HAD potential. Imagine given the choice, either try to develop an actual economy beyond oil & gas, or just steal more land that isn't yours (for more oil & gas)... Wow, let's choose the second option and become an international pariah and have brain drain instead of innovation! But yay, more Oil & Gas, drill baby drill!

Yep - starting in 2014 when Yanukovich was overthrown (and before, as Russia was funding Yanukovich and other corrupt Ukrainian officials to try and soften Ukraine politically for takeover long before 2014) Russia sent FSB, guys like Strelkov and others into the eastern parts of Ukraine, along with Russian regulars camouflaged as civilians, Wagner mercenaries by the thousands into Donbass to create a fake "separatist" movement, bribing, assassinating or otherwise outright taking over local governments. Billions were given by Putin to fund influence operations and other things. This is why Russia thought "Special Military Operation" would only take 3 days, and that Russians would be welcomed with open arms. Putin underestimated the corruption of his own guys, who stole the billions for influencing and bribing and bought themselves yachts and dachas and private planes and other things.

That Eastern part of Ukraine was historically leaning toward Russia isn't really a matter of discussion. It's also a matter of record that they resented a switch to Ukrainian as the official language, and the squeezing of their customary Russian out of the public sphere. No matter how the separatist movement came about, it is unquestionable that Ukraine responded with violent means to try and keep Eastern Ukraine Ukrainian, with a significant casualty count. And they were praised for it as defenders of territorial integrity. I don't think you can argue with that.

So why would Putin be reviled for defending his "territorial integrity" in Chechnya? If territorial integrity is a thing above all others, then he was justified to use violence in Chechnya, wasn't he?
The question

No matter how the separa

Check the 1991 results, when they voted to leave Russia. To try and claim they (and even Crimea) were somehow overwhelmingly pro-Russia is historically false. Also, the "switch to Ukrainian as official language" didn't happen until 2017, and was a direct result of, and pushback against, Russian hostility toward Ukraine, so you are a bit out of sequence on your history there as well. Likewise, Ukraine responded with violent means to Russian violence. Had Russia never sent its "little green men" in 2014, had Russia never meddled in Ukrainian politics prior to that, there never would even have been any violence in eastern Ukraine. it's all on Russia.

So yes, we CAN in fact argue it. All of it. Your version is revisionist spin.

So you agree that countries are allowed to respond with violent means to any threats to their territorial integrity?

Ukraine absolutely does have every right to use violence to repel a foreign invasion and threat to their territorial integrity.

Then Putin had every right to use violence in Chechnya as its desire to secede was a threat to Russia's territorial integrity. If you disagree, you're a hypocrite.

Do you think Putin had the right to target civilians and completely level towns and cities?

How many civilians do you think are too many to kill in the name of preserving territorial integrity?