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: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.

I would say 3 centuries is pretty deep

Not really, hardly any actually Russians even lived there. Most ethnic Russians living there today are maybe only 1 or 2 generations deep at best.

That’s hardly a case for Ukraine you know.

Crimea was legally and peacefully transferred by the USSR to Ukraine 70 years ago. Russia took it violently and illegally, going against the UN charter.

DP. To be completely fair, before Stalin's 1932-33 holodomor and subsequent 1943-44 ethnic migration / genocidal purge (whatever you want to call it), I think there were far fewer Russians in that area.

In the 18th and 19th centuries, the term “White Russian” described ethnic Russians living in the area between Russia and Poland (Lithuania, Ukraine, Belarus, Latvia and Moldova). The Black Sea region were primarily Volga Germans and several non-Slavic nationalities of the Crimea and the northern Caucasus: Crimean Tatars, Kalmyks, Chechens, Ingush, Balkars, Karachays, Meskhetian Turks, Bulgarians, Crimean Greeks, Romanians, and Armenians. Specifically, the North Caucasus and Crimea were mainly Chechens, Ingushi, Karachai, Balkars, Kalmyks, Meskhetian Turks, and Crimean Tatars. In 1943-44, approximately 2 (up for debate) million people were removed by the NKVD.

"Effectively, the whole Black Sea coastal region was cleared of ethnic minorities."

https://holodomorct.org/holodomor-information-links/maps-and-demography/
https://holodomor.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Kulchytsky_monograph-Text-GreyScale-no-margins.pdf
https://soviethistory.msu.edu/1943-2/deportation-of-minorities/
https://www.languagesoftheworld.info/russia-ukraine-and-the-caucasus/stalins-ethnic-deportations-gerrymandered-ethnic-map.html

So when the Russians argue that the Crimea and North Caucasus are "predominantly Russian", I guess you could say that's true.. today.. thanks to the 1944'ish genocidal bloody purges by Stalin and company?

What? Look. I mean I know most Americans can't find North Caucasus on the map. I forgive you. But, the "entire Crimea and North Caucasus area"? That's rather sweeping even in current terms. Out of the kindness of my heart, here is the list of ethnicities subjected to total deportation in the 1942-1943:

Kalmyk
Ingush
Chechens
Karachay
Balkar
Crimean Tatars
Meskhetin Turks
Pontian Greeks
Koreans
Germans
Finns

Dozens, no, hundreds of North Caucasus ethnicities would be surprised to hear that you think the area was "primarily" settled by the Chechen, Ingush, Karachay and Balkar. Really? Like, really? So, I see that your particular vision of the North Caucasus does not include huge Dagestan, with its dozens of ethnic groups (Avar, Dargin, Lak, Tat, Dargin, Kumyk, Lezgin..), who outnumber the Chechens by a large measure. There is no Ossetia, either. There is no Kabardin, no Circassians. What a nice little package you've made out of this wonderful, highly diverse area!

lol!!! I was laughing so hard I could barely type this!!! Thanks for making my sunday!!!! You got this from the UNHCR website. But it is true that UNHCR reports these numbers:

The eight deported nations Volga Germans: Sept 1941 366,000 Karachai: Nov 1943 68,000 Kalmyks: Dec 1943 92,000 Chechens: Feb 1944 362,000 Ingush: Feb 1944 134,000 Balkars: Apr 1944 37,000 Crimean Tatars: May 1944 183,000 Meskhetians: Nov 1944 200,000
Subtotal: 1,442,000

Some other major groups forcibly transferred 1936-1952 Poles: 1936

Ukraine > Kazakstan 60,000 Koreans: 1937
Vladivostok > Kazakstan / Uzbekistan 172,000 Poles/Jews: 1940-41
Ukraine & Belarus > N. Siberia 380,000 Other Soviet Germans: 1941-52
Saratov, Ukraine > Central Asia 843,000 Finns (Leningrad region): 1942
Leningrad > Siberia 45,000 Other N. Caucasus groups: 1943-44
North Caucasus > Central Asia 8,000 Other Crimean groups: 1944
Crimea > Central Asia 45,000 Moldovans: 1949
Moldova > Central/East Siberia 36,000 Black Sea Greeks: 1949
Black Sea region > Kazakstan 36,000 Other Black Sea groups: 1949
Black Sea region > Kazakstan 22,000 Subtotal: 1,647,000 Grand Total: 3.1 million

https://www.unhcr.org/en-us/publications/refugeemag/3b5555124/unhcr-publication-cis-conference-displacement-cis-punished-peoples-mass.html

It was Stalin's bloody purges that changed the demographics of North Caucasus and Crimea regions. Just as there was ambiguity of "white" Russians (accurate historical data is difficult to come by), there was similar ambiguity of what constitutes current Russians. Example - just as everyone thinks Simonyan is Russian, she's not.

"Simonyan was born in the southern Russian city of Krasnodar, into an Armenian family. Both her parents are descendants of Armenian refugees from the Ottoman Empire. Her father's family, originally from Trabzon, settled in Crimea during the Armenian genocide of 1915."

There are ethnicities and there are nationalities, and it's easy to get the distinctions mixed up in the fervor of whipping up a war (oops, I meant Special Operation) story, and U.S. journalists / diplomats / policymakers / Trumpers / Republicans often don't know the difference as well.

But thanks for helping me prove my original point (despite the distractors) is still valid. The claim that this very ethnically diverse area was EVER "predominantly (red) Russian" would be a false claim. You might try to argue that Russia "conquered" the region by Stalin from a nationality standpoint, but it was never ethnically Russian. Since this part of history is never taught to Russians (yet people affected may remember and pass down to generations), Russian propagandists often trip themselves up by making statements they believe are true, but the locals / natives know are not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
But thanks for helping me prove my original point (despite the distractors) is still valid. The claim that this very ethnically diverse area was EVER "predominantly (red) Russian" would be a false claim. You might try to argue that Russia "conquered" the region by Stalin from a nationality standpoint, but it was never ethnically Russian. Since this part of history is never taught to Russians (yet people affected may remember and pass down to generations), Russian propagandists often trip themselves up by making statements they believe are true, but the locals / natives know are not.

No one EVER argued the North Caucasus was ever predominantly Russian, dumbass.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

It was Stalin's bloody purges that changed the demographics of North Caucasus and Crimea regions. Just as there was ambiguity of "white" Russians (accurate historical data is difficult to come by), there was similar ambiguity of what constitutes current Russians. Example - just as everyone thinks Simonyan is Russian, she's not.
.

What???

Look, moron. I don't know what backward hicksburg Russian studies department you came out of.

No one - NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON IN RUSSIA - thinks that "Simonyan" is a Russian last name. Like, not one person. I don't know why you claim something that's so obviously wrong but anyone in Russia would know that last names that end in -yan, -yantz, -etnz, -unz, and Russianized version of their roots are, in fact, Armenian, always have been, always will be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
But thanks for helping me prove my original point (despite the distractors) is still valid. The claim that this very ethnically diverse area was EVER "predominantly (red) Russian" would be a false claim. You might try to argue that Russia "conquered" the region by Stalin from a nationality standpoint, but it was never ethnically Russian. Since this part of history is never taught to Russians (yet people affected may remember and pass down to generations), Russian propagandists often trip themselves up by making statements they believe are true, but the locals / natives know are not.

Are you going to admit you made a booboo when you claimed the North Caucasus was "predominantly" Chechen, Ingush, Karachay and Balkar?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

But thanks for helping me prove my original point (despite the distractors) is still valid. The claim that this very ethnically diverse area was EVER "predominantly (red) Russian" would be a false claim. You might try to argue that Russia "conquered" the region by Stalin from a nationality standpoint, but it was never ethnically Russian. Since this part of history is never taught to Russians (yet people affected may remember and pass down to generations), Russian propagandists often trip themselves up by making statements they believe are true, but the locals / natives know are not.

Stalin's deportations are common knowledge. I was in high school in the late eighties and it was part of the history curriculum.

You are a propagandist, rewriting reality and claiming things that are obviously, provably wrong.

Still laughing over your stupid claim that "everyone thinks Simonyan is Russian". Like who? Your moron Russian studies professor?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now it appears that Ukraine is going to violently and legally retake their land with a little help from some friends.

Because friends stand up for underdogs who are being bullied.

Lol right

Of course you wouldn't understand. Russians and republicans side with the person doing the bullying

You are so cute.

Fact that bears repeating:

Of course you wouldn't understand. Russians and republicans side with the person doing the bullying

Calling it "cute" isn't going to change anything.

That explains SO much. Like the American commitment to Israel, Iraq, Libya etc. Clearly protecting the victim from the bully there. Tsk tsk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DP. I want $1K and will never get it. These were the chances that Ukraine would join EU any time soon. This is a very superficial explanation of why Russia invaded and what Ukrainian Maidan leaders wanted.

Superficial? I'd suggest some superficiality on your part to casually ignore that the Verkhovna Rada voted on the Ukraine-EU agreement and it passed with a solid majority, before Yanukovich unilaterally scuttled the deal and announced that Ukraine would instead pursue closer ties with Russia.

The EU would not have signed it without significant changes and it was heavily conditioned on a number of things
Honestly I am surprised Russia seemed so upset by it. Europe was trying to lure Ukraine in but it wasn’t going to make it easy
But of course Ukraine shouldn’t have angered the bear without any real chances of getting anything
I don’t believe they didn’t know it was all illusion and they had a long way ahead of them
There must have been something else. Like maybe politicians just using some popular gimmicks to stay in power

Well, that's quite a take. I certainly don't think everyone that was pro-Maidan was as pure as the driven snow, but I also don't think it's a real stretch to believe that the relatively young population of Ukraine wanted something different than to be a Putin puppet state. If anyone overplayed their hand here, it's Putin, time and again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

But thanks for helping me prove my original point (despite the distractors) is still valid. The claim that this very ethnically diverse area was EVER "predominantly (red) Russian" would be a false claim. You might try to argue that Russia "conquered" the region by Stalin from a nationality standpoint, but it was never ethnically Russian. Since this part of history is never taught to Russians (yet people affected may remember and pass down to generations), Russian propagandists often trip themselves up by making statements they believe are true, but the locals / natives know are not.

Stalin's deportations are common knowledge. I was in high school in the late eighties and it was part of the history curriculum.

You are a propagandist, rewriting reality and claiming things that are obviously, provably wrong.

Still laughing over your stupid claim that "everyone thinks Simonyan is Russian". Like who? Your moron Russian studies professor?

Hmm. Since you're Russian, you probably need to directly discuss the matter directly with Simonyan. I'm sure you two would hit it off.

But if not, maybe you could watch this in the meantime?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyYqWFLqeBg

Simonyan: "The fact that I work and the way I feel, I serve Russia when my Motherland, my nation sees fit. Many thanks, I bow my head. I'm still trying to earn my first medal, much less my fourth. If they see fit to give me an award, then I see it's fit to say, "I serve Russia". I say it with pride."

Commentator: "During the press conference the following day, I heard of a new goal orientatiom which [Putin] spoke about the intrical unity of Russian people which w ehave to achieve without fail. It was voiced for the first time, that all of our activities pertaining to Ukraine are mainly or largely determined through this goal. Do you see this as an advancement in our common and governmental world view, or am I exaggerating?"
Simonyan: "To me, this is not an advancement, but a more sincere and more public acknowledgement that this was always the goal. I'm sure you have no doubt that even 20 years ago Putin wanted to gather the Russian world to defend Russians and to have this opportunity. [..] Russians must be unified, or at least under protection."

Simonyan: "I think this is exactly what [Putin] meant. If we are able to defend the interests not only of Russia withim it's geographical boundaries, not only the interests of a map, but the interests of our people, the way many other nations do it; for example, the way the Jews do it, then we should use those abilities and we should expand those abilities. What do we consider the interests of Russian people? I believe this is a UN rule on nationality and ethnicity. It is not determined by blood. Have you ever tried a DNA test?"
Commentator: "I did. I was interested to see what kind of blood is in me.
Simonyan: "It's very funny, really funny what's in there. A real windbreak."
Commentator: "I often get into arguments over my wording that I will continue to use: "multinational Russian people." This is the wording that I use. I'm being attacked from both sides about this, but I believe that this is the essence of our people."
Simonyan: "There is an internationally accepted expression, it might be a UN expression, I would have to check. You're very close to it. Ethnicity* is defined by two factors: the first one is self-determination, as to whom you consider yourself and the second characteristic is the language. What is your native language. Whoever you think you are and what is your language, that is your nationality, even if you are a [black-skinned person - I can't write what she really said here since it's offensive]."

* = initially she said "ethnicity" then later changed to "nationality", so unclear which she actually meant? The funny part is look at the reactions and expressions of the other guests at the end of the clip.

Again, proves the point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

But thanks for helping me prove my original point (despite the distractors) is still valid. The claim that this very ethnically diverse area was EVER "predominantly (red) Russian" would be a false claim. You might try to argue that Russia "conquered" the region by Stalin from a nationality standpoint, but it was never ethnically Russian. Since this part of history is never taught to Russians (yet people affected may remember and pass down to generations), Russian propagandists often trip themselves up by making statements they believe are true, but the locals / natives know are not.

Stalin's deportations are common knowledge. I was in high school in the late eighties and it was part of the history curriculum.

You are a propagandist, rewriting reality and claiming things that are obviously, provably wrong.

Still laughing over your stupid claim that "everyone thinks Simonyan is Russian". Like who? Your moron Russian studies professor?

Hmm. Since you're Russian, you probably need to directly discuss the matter directly with Simonyan. I'm sure you two would hit it off.

But if not, maybe you could watch this in the meantime?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyYqWFLqeBg

Simonyan: "The fact that I work and the way I feel, I serve Russia when my Motherland, my nation sees fit. Many thanks, I bow my head. I'm still trying to earn my first medal, much less my fourth. If they see fit to give me an award, then I see it's fit to say, "I serve Russia". I say it with pride."

Commentator: "During the press conference the following day, I heard of a new goal orientatiom which [Putin] spoke about the intrical unity of Russian people which w ehave to achieve without fail. It was voiced for the first time, that all of our activities pertaining to Ukraine are mainly or largely determined through this goal. Do you see this as an advancement in our common and governmental world view, or am I exaggerating?"
Simonyan: "To me, this is not an advancement, but a more sincere and more public acknowledgement that this was always the goal. I'm sure you have no doubt that even 20 years ago Putin wanted to gather the Russian world to defend Russians and to have this opportunity. [..] Russians must be unified, or at least under protection."

Simonyan: "I think this is exactly what [Putin] meant. If we are able to defend the interests not only of Russia withim it's geographical boundaries, not only the interests of a map, but the interests of our people, the way many other nations do it; for example, the way the Jews do it, then we should use those abilities and we should expand those abilities. What do we consider the interests of Russian people? I believe this is a UN rule on nationality and ethnicity. It is not determined by blood. Have you ever tried a DNA test?"
Commentator: "I did. I was interested to see what kind of blood is in me.
Simonyan: "It's very funny, really funny what's in there. A real windbreak."
Commentator: "I often get into arguments over my wording that I will continue to use: "multinational Russian people." This is the wording that I use. I'm being attacked from both sides about this, but I believe that this is the essence of our people."
Simonyan: "There is an internationally accepted expression, it might be a UN expression, I would have to check. You're very close to it. Ethnicity* is defined by two factors: the first one is self-determination, as to whom you consider yourself and the second characteristic is the language. What is your native language. Whoever you think you are and what is your language, that is your nationality, even if you are a [black-skinned person - I can't write what she really said here since it's offensive]."

* = initially she said "ethnicity" then later changed to "nationality", so unclear which she actually meant? The funny part is look at the reactions and expressions of the other guests at the end of the clip.

Again, proves the point.

It doesn't prove anything but your stupidity and inability to read the reality.

Simonyan=ethnic Armenian. End of story.

But then again, like your ignorant ilk, you seem unable to distinguish between citizenship and ethnicity.

Please go ahead and tell Palestinian Israelis they are Jewish, I'd love to see that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now it appears that Ukraine is going to violently and legally retake their land with a little help from some friends.

Because friends stand up for underdogs who are being bullied.

Lol right

Of course you wouldn't understand. Russians and republicans side with the person doing the bullying

You are so cute.

Fact that bears repeating:

Of course you wouldn't understand. Russians and republicans side with the person doing the bullying

Calling it "cute" isn't going to change anything.

That explains SO much. Like the American commitment to Israel, Iraq, Libya etc. Clearly protecting the victim from the bully there. Tsk tsk.

Eh?
Israel was bullied by Arab neighbors, who literally wanted to wipe them off the face of the map (some of whom still threaten this) but was then built up to defend and fight back.
Do they now bully Palestinians? Yes, and problematic, but that doesn't take away prior history of being the target of bullying

Iraq: Bullied by Shia sectarianism from Iran, fought back. Hussein also became a bully (Remember Kuwait? Remember how badly he treated his own people?) and was smacked down for it.

Libya: Bully, supported and exported terrorism. Bullied and threatened genocide against his own people. Got smacked down for it.

Maybe your own view of history leaves a lot of that out, but either way, whatever point you were trying to make didn't quite fly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now it appears that Ukraine is going to violently and legally retake their land with a little help from some friends.

Because friends stand up for underdogs who are being bullied.

Lol right

Of course you wouldn't understand. Russians and republicans side with the person doing the bullying

You are so cute.

Fact that bears repeating:

Of course you wouldn't understand. Russians and republicans side with the person doing the bullying

Calling it "cute" isn't going to change anything.

That explains SO much. Like the American commitment to Israel, Iraq, Libya etc. Clearly protecting the victim from the bully there. Tsk tsk.

Eh?
Israel was bullied by Arab neighbors, who literally wanted to wipe them off the face of the map (some of whom still threaten this) but was then built up to defend and fight back.
Do they now bully Palestinians? Yes, and problematic, but that doesn't take away prior history of being the target of bullying

Iraq: Bullied by Shia sectarianism from Iran, fought back. Hussein also became a bully (Remember Kuwait? Remember how badly he treated his own people?) and was smacked down for it.

Libya: Bully, supported and exported terrorism. Bullied and threatened genocide against his own people. Got smacked down for it.

Maybe your own view of history leaves a lot of that out, but either way, whatever point you were trying to make didn't quite fly.

Shia are a majority in Iraq, you dumbass, and they don't have to stay slaves to the Sunni minority just because the US prefers to deal with the Sunni regimes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now it appears that Ukraine is going to violently and legally retake their land with a little help from some friends.

Because friends stand up for underdogs who are being bullied.

Lol right

Of course you wouldn't understand. Russians and republicans side with the person doing the bullying

You are so cute.

Fact that bears repeating:

Of course you wouldn't understand. Russians and republicans side with the person doing the bullying

Calling it "cute" isn't going to change anything.

That explains SO much. Like the American commitment to Israel, Iraq, Libya etc. Clearly protecting the victim from the bully there. Tsk tsk.

Eh?
Israel was bullied by Arab neighbors, who literally wanted to wipe them off the face of the map (some of whom still threaten this) but was then built up to defend and fight back.
Do they now bully Palestinians? Yes, and problematic, but that doesn't take away prior history of being the target of bullying. The US supports Israel's occupation and continued oppression of Palestinians.

Iraq: Bullied by Shia sectarianism from Iran, fought back. Hussein also became a bully (Remember Kuwait? Remember how badly he treated his own people?) and was smacked down for it. Along with half a million dead Iraqis after the American invasion - awesome job fighting bullies.

Libya: Bully, supported and exported terrorism. Bullied and threatened genocide against his own people. Got smacked down for it. Turned into a terrorism haven once the Americans did their seagull thing - flew in, shat, and flew out.

But then again, I know brown casualties aren't really human to you unless they were blue-eyed blondes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DP. I want $1K and will never get it. These were the chances that Ukraine would join EU any time soon. This is a very superficial explanation of why Russia invaded and what Ukrainian Maidan leaders wanted.

Superficial? I'd suggest some superficiality on your part to casually ignore that the Verkhovna Rada voted on the Ukraine-EU agreement and it passed with a solid majority, before Yanukovich unilaterally scuttled the deal and announced that Ukraine would instead pursue closer ties with Russia.

The EU would not have signed it without significant changes and it was heavily conditioned on a number of things
Honestly I am surprised Russia seemed so upset by it. Europe was trying to lure Ukraine in but it wasn’t going to make it easy
But of course Ukraine shouldn’t have angered the bear without any real chances of getting anything
I don’t believe they didn’t know it was all illusion and they had a long way ahead of them
There must have been something else. Like maybe politicians just using some popular gimmicks to stay in power

Well, that's quite a take. I certainly don't think everyone that was pro-Maidan was as pure as the driven snow, but I also don't think it's a real stretch to believe that the relatively young population of Ukraine wanted something different than to be a Putin puppet state. If anyone overplayed their hand here, it's Putin, time and again.

It's also quite a stretch to think that millions of Ukrainians were brainwashed by the CIA. Was Nuland gifted a magic CIA brainwashing wand, made by the Hogwarts Goblins of Langley, she just waves it around and says some pseudo-latin thing like "Cerebri Lavatio" and millions of previously Putin-loving Ukrainians all woke up zombified, chanting "ALL HAIL THE EUROPEAN UNION! REJECT THE SATAN THAT IS RUSSIA!"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

But thanks for helping me prove my original point (despite the distractors) is still valid. The claim that this very ethnically diverse area was EVER "predominantly (red) Russian" would be a false claim. You might try to argue that Russia "conquered" the region by Stalin from a nationality standpoint, but it was never ethnically Russian. Since this part of history is never taught to Russians (yet people affected may remember and pass down to generations), Russian propagandists often trip themselves up by making statements they believe are true, but the locals / natives know are not.

Stalin's deportations are common knowledge. I was in high school in the late eighties and it was part of the history curriculum.

You are a propagandist, rewriting reality and claiming things that are obviously, provably wrong.

Still laughing over your stupid claim that "everyone thinks Simonyan is Russian". Like who? Your moron Russian studies professor?

Hmm. Since you're Russian, you probably need to directly discuss the matter directly with Simonyan. I'm sure you two would hit it off.

But if not, maybe you could watch this in the meantime?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyYqWFLqeBg

Simonyan: "The fact that I work and the way I feel, I serve Russia when my Motherland, my nation sees fit. Many thanks, I bow my head. I'm still trying to earn my first medal, much less my fourth. If they see fit to give me an award, then I see it's fit to say, "I serve Russia". I say it with pride."

Commentator: "During the press conference the following day, I heard of a new goal orientatiom which [Putin] spoke about the intrical unity of Russian people which w ehave to achieve without fail. It was voiced for the first time, that all of our activities pertaining to Ukraine are mainly or largely determined through this goal. Do you see this as an advancement in our common and governmental world view, or am I exaggerating?"
Simonyan: "To me, this is not an advancement, but a more sincere and more public acknowledgement that this was always the goal. I'm sure you have no doubt that even 20 years ago Putin wanted to gather the Russian world to defend Russians and to have this opportunity. [..] Russians must be unified, or at least under protection."

Simonyan: "I think this is exactly what [Putin] meant. If we are able to defend the interests not only of Russia withim it's geographical boundaries, not only the interests of a map, but the interests of our people, the way many other nations do it; for example, the way the Jews do it, then we should use those abilities and we should expand those abilities. What do we consider the interests of Russian people? I believe this is a UN rule on nationality and ethnicity. It is not determined by blood. Have you ever tried a DNA test?"
Commentator: "I did. I was interested to see what kind of blood is in me.
Simonyan: "It's very funny, really funny what's in there. A real windbreak."
Commentator: "I often get into arguments over my wording that I will continue to use: "multinational Russian people." This is the wording that I use. I'm being attacked from both sides about this, but I believe that this is the essence of our people."
Simonyan: "There is an internationally accepted expression, it might be a UN expression, I would have to check. You're very close to it. Ethnicity* is defined by two factors: the first one is self-determination, as to whom you consider yourself and the second characteristic is the language. What is your native language. Whoever you think you are and what is your language, that is your nationality, even if you are a [black-skinned person - I can't write what she really said here since it's offensive]."

* = initially she said "ethnicity" then later changed to "nationality", so unclear which she actually meant? The funny part is look at the reactions and expressions of the other guests at the end of the clip.

Again, proves the point.

It doesn't prove anything but your stupidity and inability to read the reality.

Simonyan=ethnic Armenian. End of story.

But then again, like your ignorant ilk, you seem unable to distinguish between citizenship and ethnicity.

Please go ahead and tell Palestinian Israelis they are Jewish, I'd love to see that.

Um. Again I think you proved my point? The analogy you used ("please go ahead and tell Palestinian Israelis they are Jewish")? Replace the word "Palestinian Israeli" with Ukrainian, and "Jewish" with the Word "Russian" and you get..

Please go ahead and tell Ukrainians they are Russian, I'd love to see that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now it appears that Ukraine is going to violently and legally retake their land with a little help from some friends.

Because friends stand up for underdogs who are being bullied.

Lol right

Of course you wouldn't understand. Russians and republicans side with the person doing the bullying

You are so cute.

Fact that bears repeating:

Of course you wouldn't understand. Russians and republicans side with the person doing the bullying

Calling it "cute" isn't going to change anything.

That explains SO much. Like the American commitment to Israel, Iraq, Libya etc. Clearly protecting the victim from the bully there. Tsk tsk.

Eh?
Israel was bullied by Arab neighbors, who literally wanted to wipe them off the face of the map (some of whom still threaten this) but was then built up to defend and fight back.
Do they now bully Palestinians? Yes, and problematic, but that doesn't take away prior history of being the target of bullying. The US supports Israel's occupation and continued oppression of Palestinians.

Iraq: Bullied by Shia sectarianism from Iran, fought back. Hussein also became a bully (Remember Kuwait? Remember how badly he treated his own people?) and was smacked down for it. Along with half a million dead Iraqis after the American invasion - awesome job fighting bullies.

Libya: Bully, supported and exported terrorism. Bullied and threatened genocide against his own people. Got smacked down for it. Turned into a terrorism haven once the Americans did their seagull thing - flew in, shat, and flew out.

But then again, I know brown casualties aren't really human to you unless they were blue-eyed blondes.

US has, many times, condemned Israel for its behavior against Palestinians. US has repeatedly sided with the UN in condemning Israel over violations of UN codes and violations of deals made. I disagree with the US dumping money into Israel as long as they continue that behavior. And here's the thing, unlike Russians, we are allowed to disagree with our government, and with Israel's policies, without going to jail for disagreeing. You can't do that in Russia.

As for Iraq and Libya, it is a fact that the overwhelming majority of deaths were not at the hands of Americans, but at the hands of their own countrymen. Maybe you forgot about events like when lunatic ISIL ideologues murdered 796 Yazidi civilians in a single day on August 12, 2007?

I certainly didn't see anyone else actually stepping up with better solutions and certainly not providing the resources. Its awful easy to sit in an armchair and navelgaze, pontificate and cast blame without actually ever doing anything to fix anything.

Likewise, it's dishonest and lazy thinking to claim "this is all solely the fault of the US" ignoring the generations and generations of sectarianism, racism, tribal rivalries and other things going back hundreds of years. The US created a power vacuum, yes - but those tensions and hostilities were always there this whole time, long before the US even got involved. And let's be honest, any attempts at stabilizing and rebuilding where thwarted by a general lack of basic humanity and civilization, given corruption, dishonesty and betrayal, plus ISIS and other violent, homicidal, genocidal lunatic groups in the mix. And again, I didn't see any of the self-righteous critics of the US coming up with any better solutions.