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

[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:

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?

What Russia did in Chechnya, Syria, and now Ukraine, have gone far beyond military engagement and deeply into the realm of war crimes and atrocities.

[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:

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?

What Russia did in Chechnya, Syria, and now Ukraine, have gone far beyond military engagement and deeply into the realm of war crimes and atrocities.

You're saying there is a casualty count beyond which territorial integrity does not matter? What's the number?

[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:

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?

What Russia did in Chechnya, Syria, and now Ukraine, have gone far beyond military engagement and deeply into the realm of war crimes and atrocities.

You're saying there is a casualty count beyond which territorial integrity does not matter? What's the number?

One innocent civilian killed is too many. In Ukraine, as many as 40,000 civilians have already died due to Putin's war of choice.

[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:

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?

What Russia did in Chechnya, Syria, and now Ukraine, have gone far beyond military engagement and deeply into the realm of war crimes and atrocities.

You're saying there is a casualty count beyond which territorial integrity does not matter? What's the number?

One innocent civilian killed is too many. In Ukraine, as many as 40,000 civilians have already died due to Putin's war of choice.

LOL if that's your benchmark, then Iraq would blow through all the rankings, wouldn't it?

You didn't answer the question. How many is a country allowed to kill in the name of its territorial integrity?

[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:

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?

What Russia did in Chechnya, Syria, and now Ukraine, have gone far beyond military engagement and deeply into the realm of war crimes and atrocities.

You're saying there is a casualty count beyond which territorial integrity does not matter? What's the number?

One innocent civilian killed is too many. In Ukraine, as many as 40,000 civilians have already died due to Putin's war of choice.

LOL if that's your benchmark, then Iraq would blow through all the rankings, wouldn't it?

You didn't answer the question. How many is a country allowed to kill in the name of its territorial integrity?

It's not a good question. If you disagree and think it's a good question then maybe you should provide your own answer of what number you find to be acceptable.

[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:

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?

What Russia did in Chechnya, Syria, and now Ukraine, have gone far beyond military engagement and deeply into the realm of war crimes and atrocities.

You're saying there is a casualty count beyond which territorial integrity does not matter? What's the number?

One innocent civilian killed is too many. In Ukraine, as many as 40,000 civilians have already died due to Putin's war of choice.

LOL if that's your benchmark, then Iraq would blow through all the rankings, wouldn't it?

You didn't answer the question. How many is a country allowed to kill in the name of its territorial integrity?

It's not a good question. If you disagree and think it's a good question then maybe you should provide your own answer of what number you find to be acceptable.

Of course it's not. It's a terrible question! But it's very useful to demonstrate the hypocrisy of those who want Ukraine to defend its territorial integrity "until the last Ukrainian" in one breath, but then castigate Putin for killing scores of civilians in Chechnya in the name of Russia's territorial integrity in another. I mean territorial integrity is either important and worth fighting for, for all countries, or it isn't.

[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:

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?

What Russia did in Chechnya, Syria, and now Ukraine, have gone far beyond military engagement and deeply into the realm of war crimes and atrocities.

You're saying there is a casualty count beyond which territorial integrity does not matter? What's the number?

One innocent civilian killed is too many. In Ukraine, as many as 40,000 civilians have already died due to Putin's war of choice.

LOL if that's your benchmark, then Iraq would blow through all the rankings, wouldn't it?

You didn't answer the question. How many is a country allowed to kill in the name of its territorial integrity?

It's not a good question. If you disagree and think it's a good question then maybe you should provide your own answer of what number you find to be acceptable.

Of course it's not. It's a terrible question! But it's very useful to demonstrate the hypocrisy of those who want Ukraine to defend its territorial integrity "until the last Ukrainian" in one breath, but then castigate Putin for killing scores of civilians in Chechnya in the name of Russia's territorial integrity in another. I mean territorial integrity is either important and worth fighting for, for all countries, or it isn't.

I think you are drawing some faulty parallels

[Anonymous]

It is absolutely jawdropping how Ramzan Kadyrov does Moscow's bidding, after all of the horrific things that Russia has done to the Chechen people over the last 150+ years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is absolutely jawdropping how Ramzan Kadyrov does Moscow's bidding, after all of the horrific things that Russia has done to the Chechen people over the last 150+ years.

Moscow does his bidding too, and if you're Kadyrov, life is very good.

[Anonymous]

I'm the Caucasus poster from earlier.

Yes, absolutely Russia is racist, even if not officially racist.

I don't even have a forever grudge against Russia. I have visited there many times and things actually were decent in 2012 for foreigners, for the most part. I wanted to visit Adygea and Kabarda, where my family was from, but remember being told by Russians to not associate with "those people" and not visit the Caucasus. I then said, my mother is cherkeshenka, and they told me that Circassians/Kabardians are okay because they are "more like Russians" . But I don't look like a Caucasus person to them, I'm Circassian and German by heritage and have blonde hair. I went anyway and I had a great time, I got to see Mount Elbrus. Even so, the Russians there told me not to associate with the locals. And yet I found other North Caucasians to be more hospitable and less racist.

That was in 2012, I would never visit Russia again now.

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.

I am gathering that you are ethnic Russian and you left Grozny before the wars?

Tell me then, why do Russians want Chechnya to begin with? I'm assuming you didn't speak the language, had no affinity for the culture, based on the past statements and this attitude that the Chechens needed Russians to save them from themselves. And then Russians complain that they funnel so much money to the Caucasus, you know хватит кормить кавказ. Why not just let it go? Of course I would never want to live in Ramzan Kadyrov's kingdom, but Putin is his enabler. Maybe when he has no more money and support, he will be exposed as a charlatan and would be, removed by his own.

I just don't like the mentality that any small nation NEEDS Russia to "civilize" them.

And back to Ukraine, good luck to Russia on revitalizing the territories they destroyed. What is the end goal, to install more Kadyrovs? More fake potemkin villages?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And this is what I was referring to

At 1:30, incredibly based.

Spot on.

Remember this quote?
"NATO, despite all our protests and concerns, continued to steadily expand. The war machine is moving and, I repeat, it is coming close to our borders"

Ukraine is more of a spiritual battle for Russia. Ukrainians were once the most trusted of the Soviet satellite countries. They were trusted to operate nuclear weapons and were Russia's shield from the West. Instead, what happened? It's like how a mob boss turns against the disloyal. I think this is why Russian propagandists label Ukraine as an "existential threat".

Remember when Putin made the creepy "lie down" threat? I can't find the exact quote right now, but it referred to a really nasty story involving a dead woman? It gave a lot of insight into exactly how much political capital Putin was pouring into the Special Operation.

Well it's not quite that....the context of the conversation was Putin quoting Zelensky as not liking the Minsk accords and therefore not being inclined to follow them. (And it's true, Ukraine never did follow them). Putin referred to a popular ditty of "whether you like it or not, it's your duty, my beauty". Crass as it was, the context was that once the treaty is signed, you have to follow it whether you like it or not.

Of course, then Merkel had to open her big mouth and say that "we only signed the Minsk accords to buy time for Ukraine to grow its army." Gave extra fuel to Putin's claim that the West never acted in good faith.

Huh?

The cute bedtime story version:
Good Lord, are you the child?!) She puts it on and out you go. ‘If they like it, if they don’t. Change their bedtime? No, we won’t.

The incideous, evil version:
In her coffin lies my darling. I jumped in and started ***ing. She may like it, she may not. Sleep, my dearest, it’s your lot. Bear it, dearest, it’s your lot.

Which version do you think Putin was referring to when he said Ukraine is a beauty? How about when Russian soldiers went around raping and shooting civilians, which version do you think they understood he meant? When I say "F###ing id###", do you think I meant you're full of FULSOME IDEAS, or something else?

https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2022/02/11/a-russian-sleeping-beauty-a76338

Oh, and Merkel wasn't naive. She knew exactly what Putin was saying and provided a very public warning by saying Ukraine was ready.

And guess what happened then? She was right and the rest is history, so slighting her says an awful lot about your analysis skills.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And this is what I was referring to

At 1:30, incredibly based.

Spot on.

Remember this quote?
"NATO, despite all our protests and concerns, continued to steadily expand. The war machine is moving and, I repeat, it is coming close to our borders"

Ukraine is more of a spiritual battle for Russia. Ukrainians were once the most trusted of the Soviet satellite countries. They were trusted to operate nuclear weapons and were Russia's shield from the West. Instead, what happened? It's like how a mob boss turns against the disloyal. I think this is why Russian propagandists label Ukraine as an "existential threat".

Remember when Putin made the creepy "lie down" threat? I can't find the exact quote right now, but it referred to a really nasty story involving a dead woman? It gave a lot of insight into exactly how much political capital Putin was pouring into the Special Operation.

Well it's not quite that....the context of the conversation was Putin quoting Zelensky as not liking the Minsk accords and therefore not being inclined to follow them. (And it's true, Ukraine never did follow them). Putin referred to a popular ditty of "whether you like it or not, it's your duty, my beauty". Crass as it was, the context was that once the treaty is signed, you have to follow it whether you like it or not.

Of course, then Merkel had to open her big mouth and say that "we only signed the Minsk accords to buy time for Ukraine to grow its army." Gave extra fuel to Putin's claim that the West never acted in good faith.

Huh?

The cute bedtime story version:
Good Lord, are you the child?!) She puts it on and out you go. ‘If they like it, if they don’t. Change their bedtime? No, we won’t.

The incideous, evil version:
In her coffin lies my darling. I jumped in and started ***ing. She may like it, she may not. Sleep, my dearest, it’s your lot. Bear it, dearest, it’s your lot.

Which version do you think Putin was referring to when he said Ukraine is a beauty? How about when Russian soldiers went around raping and shooting civilians, which version do you think they understood he meant? When I say "F###ing id###", do you think I meant you're full of FULSOME IDEAS, or something else?

https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2022/02/11/a-russian-sleeping-beauty-a76338

Oh, and Merkel wasn't naive. She knew exactly what Putin was saying and provided a very public warning by saying Ukraine was ready.

And guess what happened then? She was right and the rest is history, so slighting her says an awful lot about your analysis skills.

Considering she said it in late 2022 when Ukraine was knee deep in war, the warning was a bit late, won't you say? Gave extra fuel to Putin who said the West never contracts in good faith. It doesn't take much insight to say "this guy will attack you" when this guy's fist has already made contact with your face, does it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am Russian but have lived in the US for over a decade
I still have family there so I visit regularly and have been going even after the invasion (it’s become much more expensive and cumbersome fyi)
My guess is that Russia will be Iran on steroids. A geriatric regime, extremely conservative and on the brink of dictatorship (but not to the extent of North Korea). The economy will be militarized (the so called mobilization economy), people won’t starve and will be able to move freely (finances permitting). However there will be no innovation and not much vibrancy if you know what I mean. However there is a rich legacy of kitchen cultural life from the soviet times, as well as post soviet cultural renaissance, so it not going to be all doom and gloom.
Yes there will be brain drain but also there will be a sufficient number of technically talented people who are believers and can keep the austere military economy afloat. And there is a certain taste for overcoming difficulties in the “genes” of the population.
As for the war, it will be a slow churn, one step forward and two steps back. I feel bad for the annexed regions and their population. They will suffer no matter the outcome.
Some parts of Russia might be under shelling too (some already are but I mean cities and not just Belgorod).
Basically, there will be life but no one without ties to Russia will want to live a life like that.

Interesting! Does your family have access to information or are they also blinded by the Russian propaganda machine? Do you enlighten them?
Also, do you think that the "overcoming difficulties" gene is still strong, especially after Western exposure and luxuries? Even with the youth? I'd think it'd be waning.

Family: it depends. None of them is totally blinded by the propaganda but they all think that Ukraine went too far in trying to be with the West and rejecting Russia, the Russian language, etc.
They don’t phrase it like that but that’s the essence.
None of them can face the fact that the war, the power struggle was a huge mistake. They think there is “something” to it. Even those who think Putin and his cronies are criminals etc
I tried to share my POV but while they are all respectful they clearly think I have been brainwashed
The “overcoming difficulties” gene is still there in a lot of people. One of the things that surprised me in connection with this war is how few people have actually been exposed to Western values and luxury beyond Burger King and such. And Chinese phones are preferred over Apple by and large

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am Russian but have lived in the US for over a decade
I still have family there so I visit regularly and have been going even after the invasion (it’s become much more expensive and cumbersome fyi)
My guess is that Russia will be Iran on steroids. A geriatric regime, extremely conservative and on the brink of dictatorship (but not to the extent of North Korea). The economy will be militarized (the so called mobilization economy), people won’t starve and will be able to move freely (finances permitting). However there will be no innovation and not much vibrancy if you know what I mean. However there is a rich legacy of kitchen cultural life from the soviet times, as well as post soviet cultural renaissance, so it not going to be all doom and gloom.
Yes there will be brain drain but also there will be a sufficient number of technically talented people who are believers and can keep the austere military economy afloat. And there is a certain taste for overcoming difficulties in the “genes” of the population.
As for the war, it will be a slow churn, one step forward and two steps back. I feel bad for the annexed regions and their population. They will suffer no matter the outcome.
Some parts of Russia might be under shelling too (some already are but I mean cities and not just Belgorod).
Basically, there will be life but no one without ties to Russia will want to live a life like that.

Interesting! Does your family have access to information or are they also blinded by the Russian propaganda machine? Do you enlighten them?
Also, do you think that the "overcoming difficulties" gene is still strong, especially after Western exposure and luxuries? Even with the youth? I'd think it'd be waning.

Family: it depends. None of them is totally blinded by the propaganda but they all think that Ukraine went too far in trying to be with the West and rejecting Russia, the Russian language, etc.
They don’t phrase it like that but that’s the essence.
None of them can face the fact that the war, the power struggle was a huge mistake. They think there is “something” to it. Even those who think Putin and his cronies are criminals etc
I tried to share my POV but while they are all respectful they clearly think I have been brainwashed
The “overcoming difficulties” gene is still there in a lot of people. One of the things that surprised me in connection with this war is how few people have actually been exposed to Western values and luxury beyond Burger King and such. And Chinese phones are preferred over Apple by and large

You'd have to be deaf, dumb and blind to be surprised by that...or to use the words "luxury" and "Burger King" in the same sentence..

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am Russian but have lived in the US for over a decade
I still have family there so I visit regularly and have been going even after the invasion (it’s become much more expensive and cumbersome fyi)
My guess is that Russia will be Iran on steroids. A geriatric regime, extremely conservative and on the brink of dictatorship (but not to the extent of North Korea). The economy will be militarized (the so called mobilization economy), people won’t starve and will be able to move freely (finances permitting). However there will be no innovation and not much vibrancy if you know what I mean. However there is a rich legacy of kitchen cultural life from the soviet times, as well as post soviet cultural renaissance, so it not going to be all doom and gloom.
Yes there will be brain drain but also there will be a sufficient number of technically talented people who are believers and can keep the austere military economy afloat. And there is a certain taste for overcoming difficulties in the “genes” of the population.
As for the war, it will be a slow churn, one step forward and two steps back. I feel bad for the annexed regions and their population. They will suffer no matter the outcome.
Some parts of Russia might be under shelling too (some already are but I mean cities and not just Belgorod).
Basically, there will be life but no one without ties to Russia will want to live a life like that.

Interesting! Does your family have access to information or are they also blinded by the Russian propaganda machine? Do you enlighten them?
Also, do you think that the "overcoming difficulties" gene is still strong, especially after Western exposure and luxuries? Even with the youth? I'd think it'd be waning.

Family: it depends. None of them is totally blinded by the propaganda but they all think that Ukraine went too far in trying to be with the West and rejecting Russia, the Russian language, etc.
They don’t phrase it like that but that’s the essence.
None of them can face the fact that the war, the power struggle was a huge mistake. They think there is “something” to it. Even those who think Putin and his cronies are criminals etc
I tried to share my POV but while they are all respectful they clearly think I have been brainwashed
The “overcoming difficulties” gene is still there in a lot of people. One of the things that surprised me in connection with this war is how few people have actually been exposed to Western values and luxury beyond Burger King and such. And Chinese phones are preferred over Apple by and large

They don't understand and accept that Ukraine moving to the West and rejecting Russia is a direct result of Russia's continual meddling and corrupting of Ukraine, their invasion in 2014?
They don't understand that it is Russia's own belligerent behavior that is also pushing Finland and Sweden into NATO?