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: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?

Why did Russia invade in 2014?

In 2014, Ukraine wanted to join the EU. But Putin didn't want this, so he had his corrupt, criminal puppet Yanukovich betray and derail them. Students began protesting, Yanukovich sent Berkut to violently beat them down, this violence made a lot of people upset causing the protests to escalate, ultimately resulting in Yanukovich's ouster. Putin invaded out of revenge for Yanukovich's ouster.

You mention violence but how can you not mention violence on the other side? The anti-Maidan protests? The arson in Odessa that burned dozens alive, which Zelensky promised to investigate and never did? Let's not make it sound like it was the doves of the EU trampled by the boots of evil Russia.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Why did Russia invade in 2014?

If you mean Crimea, it's because Russia saw it as historically a part of Russia (which it was until 1954).

"Part of Russia" - conquered by Russia in the late 1700s but still largely just rural Tatars sitting on a peninsula that was militarily strategic and fought over many times. Stalin had the native Tatars deported in the 1940s, after which it was resettled by some ethnic Russians. It was then transferred to Ukraine in 1954. Russians have never really had deep roots there other than on paper, as a military port, and as a beach vacation.

[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.

I mean sure,but how can you possibly mentioned Syria and omit the U.S?

Syria... Are you not aware of the fact that Assad, aided by Russia, has been responsible for 95% of civilian deaths in Syria? And that of the remaining 5% of civilian deaths, ISIS was responsible? EVERY independent human rights organization has collected the receipts to prove this. But sure, let's peddle the propaganda that the US is somehow the most horrible atrocity-causing power in Syria.

Right....it's not like the US ever sent weapons to Free Syria army that oops! surprise! ended up with Al-Nusra front.

That's not surprising though, the US has a terrible record of tracking where their weapons go, and it's like they don't even try.

Uh huh, sure. Just look at the most frequently seen arms wielded by just about any warlord, terror group in Africa, Latin America, Asia and other corners of the world, and what are they? American M-16s? Nope. They are AK-47s and Russian RPGs. Just mysteriously teleported themselves there, I suppose.

[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.

I mean sure,but how can you possibly mentioned Syria and omit the U.S?

Syria... Are you not aware of the fact that Assad, aided by Russia, has been responsible for 95% of civilian deaths in Syria? And that of the remaining 5% of civilian deaths, ISIS was responsible? EVERY independent human rights organization has collected the receipts to prove this. But sure, let's peddle the propaganda that the US is somehow the most horrible atrocity-causing power in Syria.

Right....it's not like the US ever sent weapons to Free Syria army that oops! surprise! ended up with Al-Nusra front.

That's not surprising though, the US has a terrible record of tracking where their weapons go, and it's like they don't even try.

Uh huh, sure. Just look at the most frequently seen arms wielded by just about any warlord, terror group in Africa, Latin America, Asia and other corners of the world, and what are they? American M-16s? Nope. They are AK-47s and Russian RPGs. Just mysteriously teleported themselves there, I suppose.

Right….and I guess the afghan mujahiddeen just sprang out of the earth like mushrooms , already armed to their teeth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

It’s clear you know nothing about all the traditions of the Caucasus some them bewildering
I mean racism is wrong but there is a reason why many ethnic Russians prefer to not associate with those from the North Caucasus

You mean like bridenapping? Why do Russians think men from the Caucasus will just come and randomly steal them as brides. Don't flatter yourselves Honestly, people were very respectful and never expected a foreigner to adhere to their traditions, just respect them. In Nalchik for example nobody even wears headscarves.

But see you are only proving my point. If cultures are so incompatible, then why do they need to be part of Russia? You don't even want to associate with Caucasians, so why did Russia fight so hard to keep their republics?

The answer to your question is "because no one gives anything up unless they have to."

From a Grozny native, from your bridenapping story, it's clear to me you have no idea why it is done and to whom. Russian women are never the target of bridenapping because a) Chechens almost never marry out, and b) Russians do not put a premium on virginity the way Chechens do.

But since you asked about bewildering traditions, what about:

- honor killings of women by any male relative who considers his honor stained by the behavior of his female relative

- absolute primacy of men, including young brothers over their older sisters

- unconditional custody to father in case of divorce. Children returned to husband's relatives in case a widow or a divorcee remarries. You have no idea of the heartbreak a divorced woman goes through when she's barred from seeing her kids by force.

- daughter-in-law expected to serve everyone in the house, starting with in-laws and ending with herself. You haven't lived until you saw a Chechen newlywed sweeping the floors at 6 am after her wedding because "that's tradition".

- total worship of virginity. The bride found to be nonvirgin is returned to parents the next day and in all likelihood will end up dead for shaming the family.

- absolute rejection of anything other than heterosexuality. Gay men and women at high risk of extrajudicial killing with total support of their families.

- women do not marry out ever. A woman married with no consent of her family is tracked down and forcibly returned home, likely killed if virgin at marriage.

DP, +1

I am also Russian and what you are saying is accurate. I’ve read the whole exchange. The PP is apparently Circassian but grew up in the West. Turkish Circassians are much different than Caucasus natives, especially Chechens, because they are more integrated since Ataturk. Often by force! Sometimes every other Turk can claim a Circassian grandmother somewhere down the line.

I understand the argument for saying, why bother hanging onto the Caucasus. What you are explaining is a very complex situation and structure that simply cannot be described with Western politically correct discourse. The closest I can say is that Russian influence in Chechnya is harm-reduction in the least

What does PP have to say, apparently?

Chechens are freedom fighters, Russians are racist, bridenapping is amusing, and Dzhokhar Dudayev was hot. 😳

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Why did Russia invade in 2014?

In 2014, Ukraine wanted to join the EU. But Putin didn't want this, so he had his corrupt, criminal puppet Yanukovich betray and derail them. Students began protesting, Yanukovich sent Berkut to violently beat them down, this violence made a lot of people upset causing the protests to escalate, ultimately resulting in Yanukovich's ouster. Putin invaded out of revenge for Yanukovich's ouster.

You mention violence but how can you not mention violence on the other side? The anti-Maidan protests? The arson in Odessa that burned dozens alive, which Zelensky promised to investigate and never did? Let's not make it sound like it was the doves of the EU trampled by the boots of evil Russia.

There was an escalation of violence - ultimately to include teams of pro-Yanukovich police firing at protesters, and nearly 100 protesters were shot and killed in the Maidan Square area, hundreds more wounded. Only 3 of the police officers were ever held accountable for those murders.

Yes, the fire in Odessa was horrible and anyone who can be held accountable should, but to suggest it's all just been covered up is false, and remember that not even all of the pro-Russia, pro-Yanukovich violence has had a full accounting under pro-Ukraine regimes. In Odessa it is also not a black-and-white situation, as both sides were there prepared and armed with weapons, both sides were seen throwing molotov cocktails, both sides had guns and other weapons. and when the building caught fire, many pro-Ukraine people worked hard to try and rescue people trapped inside rather than callously letting them burn alive as pro-Russia propagandists like to claim. And there is ample video and photojournalism evidence to prove all of this.

[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.

I mean sure,but how can you possibly mentioned Syria and omit the U.S?

Syria... Are you not aware of the fact that Assad, aided by Russia, has been responsible for 95% of civilian deaths in Syria? And that of the remaining 5% of civilian deaths, ISIS was responsible? EVERY independent human rights organization has collected the receipts to prove this. But sure, let's peddle the propaganda that the US is somehow the most horrible atrocity-causing power in Syria.

Right....it's not like the US ever sent weapons to Free Syria army that oops! surprise! ended up with Al-Nusra front.

That's not surprising though, the US has a terrible record of tracking where their weapons go, and it's like they don't even try.

Uh huh, sure. Just look at the most frequently seen arms wielded by just about any warlord, terror group in Africa, Latin America, Asia and other corners of the world, and what are they? American M-16s? Nope. They are AK-47s and Russian RPGs. Just mysteriously teleported themselves there, I suppose.

Right….and I guess the afghan mujahiddeen just sprang out of the earth like mushrooms , already armed to their teeth.

Ah yes, the mujahideen were all bred in vats like homonculi deep underground in a secret CIA lab, with their brains all programmed for anti-Russian hatred and then parachuted into Afghanistan. Afghan resistance to Russia was completely fabricated and entirely created by the CIA

[Anonymous]

Right and Zbiggie was there just on a rug shopping trip.

[Anonymous]

Spilled soup on your shirt? CIA plot!
Car won't start? CIA plot!
Cat stuck up a tree? CIA plot!

CIA PLOTS EVERYWHERE! 🤡

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Spilled soup on your shirt? CIA plot!
Car won't start? CIA plot!
Cat stuck up a tree? CIA plot!

CIA PLOTS EVERYWHERE! 🤡

Replace “CIA plot” with “Russia” and its like you’re reading DCUM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read the naiveté on these posts and sigh. I think that a lot of Americans just don't get it. They don't understand that there is no Amazon overnight in most of the world, and that yes, outhouses still exist. When this is your starting point, it's really, really difficult to have an intelligent conversation about Russia.

I see the word Solovyov and I know you're the one who doesn't get it bc no one in Russia seriously listens to that clown. But carry on with your bad self, Mr Russia expert.

Mmmm. No one? Really? Then you already know this..

"In late April, "Evening with Vladimir Solovyov" TV show .. took 4th place
Skabeyeva's "60 Minutes" .. in the first days of the war, it rose to the all-Russian top-5.
The talk show of Vladimir Solovyov and Olga Skabeyeva on the Russia-1 TV channel fell out of the top 10 programs by audience share
Solovyov's show fell to 17th place, and Skabeyeva's - to 13th"
https://ukranews.com/en/news/896154-russians-tired-of-propagandists-solovyov-and-skabeyeva-dropped-from-top-10-programs-on-tv

I believe this drop in rating is a significant event. I believe that this is an indicator of something very very dangerous happening over there. I believe there is only one thing more dangerous than a popular propaganda show; and that's an apathetic population unplugged from it.

""Mass Formation Psychosis" is when a large part of a society focuses its attention to a leader(s) or a series of events and their attention focuses on one small point or issue. Followers can be hypnotized and be led anywhere, regardless of data proving otherwise."

I think that's what Putin wants. An obedient population marching to his drum.

I would argue that what is happening now is a transition into "Mass Psychosis" (e.g. without attention to a leader). A mass psychosis is an epidemic of madness and it occurs when a large portion of a society loses touch with reality and descends into delusions. It's a huge difference, with very very consequential outcomes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09maaUaRT4M

But again, as you say, I'm not a "Russia Expert"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

It’s clear you know nothing about all the traditions of the Caucasus some them bewildering
I mean racism is wrong but there is a reason why many ethnic Russians prefer to not associate with those from the North Caucasus

You mean like bridenapping? Why do Russians think men from the Caucasus will just come and randomly steal them as brides. Don't flatter yourselves Honestly, people were very respectful and never expected a foreigner to adhere to their traditions, just respect them. In Nalchik for example nobody even wears headscarves.

But see you are only proving my point. If cultures are so incompatible, then why do they need to be part of Russia? You don't even want to associate with Caucasians, so why did Russia fight so hard to keep their republics?

The answer to your question is "because no one gives anything up unless they have to."

From a Grozny native, from your bridenapping story, it's clear to me you have no idea why it is done and to whom. Russian women are never the target of bridenapping because a) Chechens almost never marry out, and b) Russians do not put a premium on virginity the way Chechens do.

But since you asked about bewildering traditions, what about:

- honor killings of women by any male relative who considers his honor stained by the behavior of his female relative

- absolute primacy of men, including young brothers over their older sisters

- unconditional custody to father in case of divorce. Children returned to husband's relatives in case a widow or a divorcee remarries. You have no idea of the heartbreak a divorced woman goes through when she's barred from seeing her kids by force.

- daughter-in-law expected to serve everyone in the house, starting with in-laws and ending with herself. You haven't lived until you saw a Chechen newlywed sweeping the floors at 6 am after her wedding because "that's tradition".

- total worship of virginity. The bride found to be nonvirgin is returned to parents the next day and in all likelihood will end up dead for shaming the family.

- absolute rejection of anything other than heterosexuality. Gay men and women at high risk of extrajudicial killing with total support of their families.

- women do not marry out ever. A woman married with no consent of her family is tracked down and forcibly returned home, likely killed if virgin at marriage.

DP, +1

I am also Russian and what you are saying is accurate. I’ve read the whole exchange. The PP is apparently Circassian but grew up in the West. Turkish Circassians are much different than Caucasus natives, especially Chechens, because they are more integrated since Ataturk. Often by force! Sometimes every other Turk can claim a Circassian grandmother somewhere down the line.

I understand the argument for saying, why bother hanging onto the Caucasus. What you are explaining is a very complex situation and structure that simply cannot be described with Western politically correct discourse. The closest I can say is that Russian influence in Chechnya is harm-reduction in the least

What does PP have to say, apparently?

Chechens are freedom fighters, Russians are racist, bridenapping is amusing, and Dzhokhar Dudayev was hot. 😳

First, neither of you is taking a logical point or answering my question. It is a paradox: Russia has to control and hold onto the North Caucasus, but also, North Caucasus people are so different and incompatible with Russians? So which is it?
What you really are not explaining is how Russia is any different from any other old world colonialist. You think when the Spanish conquered indigenous people in South America that they were just oh so concerned with their rituals of human sacrifice? Give me a break.

Second, if you go back to what I said earlier, I was actually critiquing the perspective of diaspora populations as also flawed. I brought of Dudayev originally because 1) He made accurate predictions about Ukraine, and 2) to illustrate the alternate perspective of diaspora populations, which I also critiqued. My mother's family is diaspora Circassian, and for example they were very stridently against the 2014 Olympics in Sochi. However, when I visited the Caucasian republics around that time, most people were neutral to supportive of Sochi. The Chechens I knew from Turkey were also very openly pro-separatist and not in any realistic way, and they are the people sharing the viral Dudayev video.

Also, Russian PP contradicts herself when talking about Caucasus traditions. Yes, it's true that they, especially Chechens, almost exclusively marry their own. Since that's true, then why would a Russian be so worried? When I visited other Caucasus republics, I was treated very respectfully, as both a foreigner and someone with a common heritage, and especially since I chose to come and visit my ancestral land and showed interest. There was never any additional expectation of me as a young woman at the time. In fact, the ski instructor who was with us was ethnically Balkar, and a woman.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
First, neither of you is taking a logical point or answering my question. It is a paradox: Russia has to control and hold onto the North Caucasus, but also, North Caucasus people are so different and incompatible with Russians? So which is it?

It's both, and it's only incompatible in your own eyes. People can be different and still citizens of the same country. Russia is not a monoethnic state, and Chechens are an ethnic minority, one of hundreds, within it. There is nothing out there that says everyone within a country's border has to be a carbon copy of each other.

Anonymous wrote:
Also, Russian PP contradicts herself when talking about Caucasus traditions. Yes, it's true that they, especially Chechens, almost exclusively marry their own. Since that's true, then why would a Russian be so worried? When I visited other Caucasus republics, I was treated very respectfully, as both a foreigner and someone with a common heritage, and especially since I chose to come and visit my ancestral land and showed interest. There was never any additional expectation of me as a young woman at the time. In fact, the ski instructor who was with us was ethnically Balkar, and a woman.

Again, this is not a contradiction. Yes, Chechens only marry their own, and their traditions do not have to be a threat to the Russians to be repugnant. It's not like you're saying, well don't criticize them since they only torture their own? Or are you?

Finally, Balkars are not like Chechens, you were a tourist and what else is there to say? I mean there are tourists in Jeddah, does it mean the Saudi mores on women suddenly become enlightened?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

It’s clear you know nothing about all the traditions of the Caucasus some them bewildering
I mean racism is wrong but there is a reason why many ethnic Russians prefer to not associate with those from the North Caucasus

You mean like bridenapping? Why do Russians think men from the Caucasus will just come and randomly steal them as brides. Don't flatter yourselves Honestly, people were very respectful and never expected a foreigner to adhere to their traditions, just respect them. In Nalchik for example nobody even wears headscarves.

But see you are only proving my point. If cultures are so incompatible, then why do they need to be part of Russia? You don't even want to associate with Caucasians, so why did Russia fight so hard to keep their republics?

Well headscarves have become much more popular since 2012, or are you a different poster?
No I am not talking about bridenapping which who knows if it was even a thing since the 19th century
I mean treating Russian and Slavic women like prostitutes, rape and assault because they have no large clan behind them unlike any Caucasus woman. Even just smaller cases of harassment too.
I mean Chechen and other students in college dorms in Russia and how they behave
And of course territories are kept not for their “culture”, but for political influence, as a buffer, and for resources. It’s geopolitics 101.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

No, they don’t think that
They think Ukraine “started it” in 2014 under American influence. Have you heard of Nuland’s cookies? That’s what they think

To be quite fair, Nuland contributed rather a bit more than just cookies?

It’s a metaphor that has really caught on