Anonymous wrote:Comment: Libya was never a "number 1 terrorist state", and if it became a haven for ragtag terror groups, then the blame finger for that points squarely at the US, whose illegal intervention destroyed a stable regime in that country. Another page in the American "seagull management" style - fly in, shit all over, and leave.
Response: Between 1969 and 1987 Libya was the world's leading sponsor of gobal terrorism. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/muammar-qaddafi-and-libyas-legacy-of-terrorism/

But, if you believe that Libya was a 'stable regime' under Qaddafi, my guess is that you consider North Korea a 'stable regime' as well?

Since Libya is off the terrorist list, if you're worried Americans left Libya, don't worry - they can just renew their visa now. https://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=1965753&page=1

Comment: Do you think the Ukrainians in Crimea objected to Russian takeover?
Response: Yes, I think the dead ones did.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War#:~:text=Casualties%20in%20the%20Russo%2DUkrainian,2022%20Russian%20invasion%20of%20Ukraine.

Comment: Well the US IS trying to put on trial and imprison Julian Assange, isn't it? It's all fun and games and "freedom of press" when it's some other guy's secrets on the front page. But when the same relentless scrutiny turns toward America, then it's all like "national secuuuurity!"
Response: Versus assassination in the name of "national secuuuurity!" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_journalists_killed_in_Russia. Strange that you don't take up that as an issue?

Comment: I'm not making an argument that Russia is as bad as Al-Saud; the Al-Saud is in fact much worse. I'm simply pointing out, to your predictable squealing, that when Mrs. Sikorski tells a tale of "global implications" of the world split into democracies and autocracies, it's not entirely inappropriate to point out that the world's largest democracy is heavily invested in supporting, arming and squashing dissent for the world's largest block of autocrats.
Response: Your dogma is very narrow. Anyone quoting Radek Sikorski needs a Life. Get out more. Seriously. I don't even know what you're going on about now.

What you should be more concerned about this this:
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/russias-wagner-boss-threatens-ukraine-pullout-citing-starving-forces-of-ammunition

Once Prigozhin outlives his usefulness, who will Putin turn on.. er.. turn to next? SVD? FSB? GRU? Better pack your bags - you may be headed to the 'Russian Front' at Bakhmut!

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:

Doesn't anyone ever ask how does NATO/UA know how many Russian casualties there are?

They don't know. It's just informed guessing, if that.

They are using NATO models for estimating casualties. Obviously, it's impossible to have a 100 percent accurate count in a war of this scale where more than a 1000 soldiers on both sides are dying every day. Ukraine has admitted to presently having more than 7500 MIAs, presumably dead. God knows how many Russians are presently fertilizing Ukrainian land.

But I think Ukraine has a pretty good internal sense of what the true casualty count is. That being said, I would take their public statements with a grain of salt. I believe they're publicly stating that roughly 195,000 Russian soldiers have been killed. That's probably not quite true. 195,000 total Russian casualties - killed and injured - is probably more accurate. 1:2 KIA vs injured is probably a reasonable ratio since Russian battlefield medical is nonexistent and without air superiority they can't do air medevacs. Given that the Russians started with an invading force of 200,000 this has been an absolute catastrophe for them. Of course, it's been awful for Ukrainians too but they are fighting for their families and their homes and they will endure it until the last man standing. It's a grim war and it's only going to get worse in the months ahead.

I hate to break it to you but there is a chunk of Ukraine that doesn't care who rules it, as long as the shooting stops. Independence is a goal for many Ukrainians but not all.

You are very wrong about that. This war has changed everything, even among the Russian speakers in Ukraine. No one in Ukraine will accept Russian domination at this point. Too much has changed. Too much death. Too much destruction. Too many war crimes. There are many, many native Russian speaking Ukrainians fighting with the AFU. As for the circa-2014 separatist fighters from Donetsk and Luhansk, they're all dead now.

EVERYONE in Ukraine is a Russian speaker. What is this "Russian speakers" in Ukraine, as if there is any such thing as a non-Russian-speaking Ukrainian.

There's a difference between speaking Russian, and it being your native language. The majority of Ukrainians consider Ukrainian as their native language.

But, the Russian invasion burned away any delusions anyone might have had that they could live peacefully with Russia, even if they considered themselves ethnically Russian. The Russians invaders were happy to murder, rape and loot their way through Russian-speaking areas in eastern Ukraine.

This is correct. There are some oblasts in the east that were predominantly native Russian speakers but the remainder is predominantly Ukrainian speaking, and in places like Kharkiv, though native Russian speaking, they no longer have much of any sympathy or allegiance or sense of brotherhood to Russia, due to the war. Russian conduct since the invasion has brought them nothing but anger and resentment. Also remember that in in 1991, in EVERY oblast, including Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk, overwhelmingly voted to split and become an independent and sovereign Ukraine, and did not want to be part of the Russian Federation.

The post wasn't about native Russian speakers or sympathy or allegiance to Russia. It mentioned Russian speakers, full stop. The fact of the matter is that an overwhelming majority of Ukrainians (meaning citizens of Ukraine, not ethnic Ukrainians) speak Russian and are therefore Russian speakers. That is an actual fact.

Yes, they speak Russian because they had to take it in school as a standard part of the curriculum and that makes your argument kind of pointless. The far more relevant fact is that a majority of Ukrainians do not consider Russian to be their mother tongue and less than 30% of Ukrainians speak Russian at home.

Then why didn't you lead with a "far more relevant fact"? The original post said, "this war has changed everything, even among the Russian speakers in Ukraine." But EVERYONE in Ukraine is a Russian speaker. It's virtually impossible to find Ukrainians who do not speak Russian.

DP. By that logic, does everyone who speaks Spanish belong to Spain?

What a clown.

LMAO! See the slowly moving goalposts... We went from an assertion above that a huge chunk of Ukrainians simply wouldn't care if Russia came in to dominate them to "does everyone who speaks Spanish belong to Spain?"

No, certainly they do not belong to Spain, but additionally, most of them are probably also not interested in having some hostile foreign power, even Spain, violently invade them, destroy their schools, churches, hospitals and homes, leaving nothing but rubble, death and destruction everywere they go.

Clown? That'd be you.

Um. Not sure how to break this to you. "DP" means "Different Poster".

I'm not the one who make the assertion that "a huge chunk of Ukrainians simply wouldn't care if Russia came in to dominate them" and that argument is an analogy akin to "anyone who speaks Spanish belongs to Spain.."

Please keep up.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We went from an assertion above that a huge chunk of Ukrainians simply wouldn't care if Russia came in to dominate them to "does everyone who speaks Spanish belong to Spain?"

Do you think the Ukrainians in Crimea objected to Russian takeover?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Peace is possible; let’s reject extremist positions that don’t engender peace.

Peace, unfortunately, is not possible until Russia has been thoroughly defeated and is no longer an existential threat to its neighboring countries - Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia. This is very much a conflict between imperialism and authoritarianism on one side and democracy and freedom on the other. There is no middle ground. There cannot be a ceasefire that allows Russia to rearm. Anne Applebaum has a great article in this month's Atlantic Monthly where she goes into the global implications of this conflict - from Wagner's heavy presence in Africa to the rise of authoritarian rule in Venezuela to the challenges of establishing a free society in Iran, one of Russia's few remaining allies. Well worth a read

LOL Anne Applebaum. Poland's great, unpaid, unacknowledged mouthpiece.

Isn't this exactly what they said about Iraq? That it's a conflict between authoritarianism and democracy? It worked out so well!

I understand this little cheat sheet (democracy: good! must fight authoritarianism! it is bad!) works for the yokels who make up the readership of Anne Applebaum. Unfortunately, there is just too much information out there about how the self-appointed masters of democracies support, arm and patronize authoritarian, imperialistic regimes when it suits their purposes. I mean who do you think keeps Al-Saud, Al-Khalifa and Al-Sabah in power? Popular will? Or American made arms and good friends in Washington? Who rained fire on Bahrain's popular uprising that wanted democracy? Who deposed democratically elected prime minister in Iran and replaced him with the western puppet? Who supported authoritarian, brutal regimes in LAC? Enough already with the "challenges of establishing free society" bullshit. I mean, look how close to our military bases these tyrants put their country!

Ahh the ole "lets deflect with whataboutism about all these other authoritarians" and "lets deflect with whataboutism about some thing that happened a decade plus ago"
Just don't pay attention to the authoritarian who's doing bad things right now... Anything to deflect away from THAT.

You just don't want to deal with counterarguments. If Anne Applebaum is making a case that the world is locked in a black & white tension between democracies and authoritarian regimes, why wouldn't it be relevant to point out that the largest democracy in the world is a passionate supporter of authoritarian regimes in the Gulf? Global implications and whatnot? What democracy has built up the Al-Saud? Wasn't Russia you know. I'm afraid the U.S. doesn't get to preen here.

DP. Having read Ms. Applebaum's articles, the broad brush you paint is the only 'black and white' I see. Much of what she states / reports is after-the-fact. If you have a specific issue you'd like to argue, then cite fact - not opinion.

The argument that Russia is as bad as Al-Saud is not something to preen about either. Further arguing that if the U.S. is a 'passionate supporter' (not true, but using your own words to make a point) of one authoritarian regime then it should support all, is also not preen-worthy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Peace is possible; let’s reject extremist positions that don’t engender peace.

Peace, unfortunately, is not possible until Russia has been thoroughly defeated and is no longer an existential threat to its neighboring countries - Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia. This is very much a conflict between imperialism and authoritarianism on one side and democracy and freedom on the other. There is no middle ground. There cannot be a ceasefire that allows Russia to rearm. Anne Applebaum has a great article in this month's Atlantic Monthly where she goes into the global implications of this conflict - from Wagner's heavy presence in Africa to the rise of authoritarian rule in Venezuela to the challenges of establishing a free society in Iran, one of Russia's few remaining allies. Well worth a read

LOL Anne Applebaum. Poland's great, unpaid, unacknowledged mouthpiece.

Isn't this exactly what they said about Iraq? That it's a conflict between authoritarianism and democracy? It worked out so well!

I understand this little cheat sheet (democracy: good! must fight authoritarianism! it is bad!) works for the yokels who make up the readership of Anne Applebaum. Unfortunately, there is just too much information out there about how the self-appointed masters of democracies support, arm and patronize authoritarian, imperialistic regimes when it suits their purposes. I mean who do you think keeps Al-Saud, Al-Khalifa and Al-Sabah in power? Popular will? Or American made arms and good friends in Washington? Who rained fire on Bahrain's popular uprising that wanted democracy? Who deposed democratically elected prime minister in Iran and replaced him with the western puppet? Who supported authoritarian, brutal regimes in LAC? Enough already with the "challenges of establishing free society" bullshit. I mean, look how close to our military bases these tyrants put their country!

Ahh the ole "lets deflect with whataboutism about all these other authoritarians" and "lets deflect with whataboutism about some thing that happened a decade plus ago"
Just don't pay attention to the authoritarian who's doing bad things right now... Anything to deflect away from THAT.

You just don't want to deal with counterarguments. If Anne Applebaum is making a case that the world is locked in a black & white tension between democracies and authoritarian regimes, why wouldn't it be relevant to point out that the largest democracy in the world is a passionate supporter of authoritarian regimes in the Gulf? Global implications and whatnot? What democracy has built up the Al-Saud? Wasn't Russia you know. I'm afraid the U.S. doesn't get to preen here.

DP. Having read Ms. Applebaum's articles, the broad brush you paint is the only 'black and white' I see. Much of what she states / reports is after-the-fact. If you have a specific issue you'd like to argue, then cite fact - not opinion.

The argument that Russia is as bad as Al-Saud is not something to preen about either. Further arguing that if the U.S. is a 'passionate supporter' (not true, but using your own words to make a point) of one authoritarian regime then it should support all, is also not preen-worthy.

If you want a good counterargument, does that mean that the U.S. is free to arrest and put on trial reporters from Russia Today for reporting on the U.S.?

Anonymous wrote:We went from an assertion above that a huge chunk of Ukrainians simply wouldn't care if Russia came in to dominate them to "does everyone who speaks Spanish belong to Spain?"

Anonymous wrote:Dmitry Medvedev, Deputy Secretary of the Russian Security Council, has said that nuclear weapons are a "staple" for Russia ["spiritual staples" – a phrase that became popular after Putin used it in 2012, meaning spiritual unity and values of Russian society. From then on, it was used quite often by Russian officials – ed.].
"For Russia's existence as the world's largest state, nuclear weapons are of inescapable importance... But nevertheless, we understand that in today's world, nuclear weapons for our country are the very ‘staple’ that holds the state together."
https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/medvedev-claims-russia-nuclear-values-091700431.html

I think they meant "connection", "binding" or "cement"?
Это духовная скрепа, соединяющая людей. Ex. It is a spiritual cement that unites people.

The point is that any country who's leaders make dangerous threats like this are a menace to world peace and stability.

But this is also why Russia is a dying, failing State. It's not a matter of 'if' anymore; it's a matter of 'when' and how bloody it will be.

Remember Libya - the 'number 1 terrorist state'? Hear much about it anymore? Hear a lot about conflicts there? It's quieted down a lot, hasn't it? I wonder why?

Things can change - it's a matter of what Russian sheep continue to follow the wolves to slaughter.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Peace is possible; let’s reject extremist positions that don’t engender peace.

Peace, unfortunately, is not possible until Russia has been thoroughly defeated and is no longer an existential threat to its neighboring countries - Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia. This is very much a conflict between imperialism and authoritarianism on one side and democracy and freedom on the other. There is no middle ground. There cannot be a ceasefire that allows Russia to rearm. Anne Applebaum has a great article in this month's Atlantic Monthly where she goes into the global implications of this conflict - from Wagner's heavy presence in Africa to the rise of authoritarian rule in Venezuela to the challenges of establishing a free society in Iran, one of Russia's few remaining allies. Well worth a read

LOL Anne Applebaum. Poland's great, unpaid, unacknowledged mouthpiece.

Isn't this exactly what they said about Iraq? That it's a conflict between authoritarianism and democracy? It worked out so well!

I understand this little cheat sheet (democracy: good! must fight authoritarianism! it is bad!) works for the yokels who make up the readership of Anne Applebaum. Unfortunately, there is just too much information out there about how the self-appointed masters of democracies support, arm and patronize authoritarian, imperialistic regimes when it suits their purposes. I mean who do you think keeps Al-Saud, Al-Khalifa and Al-Sabah in power? Popular will? Or American made arms and good friends in Washington? Who rained fire on Bahrain's popular uprising that wanted democracy? Who deposed democratically elected prime minister in Iran and replaced him with the western puppet? Who supported authoritarian, brutal regimes in LAC? Enough already with the "challenges of establishing free society" bullshit. I mean, look how close to our military bases these tyrants put their country!

Ahh the ole "lets deflect with whataboutism about all these other authoritarians" and "lets deflect with whataboutism about some thing that happened a decade plus ago"
Just don't pay attention to the authoritarian who's doing bad things right now... Anything to deflect away from THAT.

You just don't want to deal with counterarguments. If Anne Applebaum is making a case that the world is locked in a black & white tension between democracies and authoritarian regimes, why wouldn't it be relevant to point out that the largest democracy in the world is a passionate supporter of authoritarian regimes in the Gulf? Global implications and whatnot? What democracy has built up the Al-Saud? Wasn't Russia you know. I'm afraid the U.S. doesn't get to preen here.

Because the topic is the Russia Ukraine conflict. Nothing in this entire thread is about American soldiers going to Ukraine to fight for freedom. Anne Applebaum has been a well respected essayist about Eastern and Central Europe for decades. If you don't care for her opinions, that's fine. If you don't care for US foreign policy in the Middle East, that's also fine. Not many people do. But in this context you are simply deflecting and engaging in whataboutism. It's boring and it's lazy. Save your thoughts about Bahrain for elsewhere. It'd be nice to keep this thread focused.

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:

Doesn't anyone ever ask how does NATO/UA know how many Russian casualties there are?

They don't know. It's just informed guessing, if that.

They are using NATO models for estimating casualties. Obviously, it's impossible to have a 100 percent accurate count in a war of this scale where more than a 1000 soldiers on both sides are dying every day. Ukraine has admitted to presently having more than 7500 MIAs, presumably dead. God knows how many Russians are presently fertilizing Ukrainian land.

But I think Ukraine has a pretty good internal sense of what the true casualty count is. That being said, I would take their public statements with a grain of salt. I believe they're publicly stating that roughly 195,000 Russian soldiers have been killed. That's probably not quite true. 195,000 total Russian casualties - killed and injured - is probably more accurate. 1:2 KIA vs injured is probably a reasonable ratio since Russian battlefield medical is nonexistent and without air superiority they can't do air medevacs. Given that the Russians started with an invading force of 200,000 this has been an absolute catastrophe for them. Of course, it's been awful for Ukrainians too but they are fighting for their families and their homes and they will endure it until the last man standing. It's a grim war and it's only going to get worse in the months ahead.

I hate to break it to you but there is a chunk of Ukraine that doesn't care who rules it, as long as the shooting stops. Independence is a goal for many Ukrainians but not all.

You are very wrong about that. This war has changed everything, even among the Russian speakers in Ukraine. No one in Ukraine will accept Russian domination at this point. Too much has changed. Too much death. Too much destruction. Too many war crimes. There are many, many native Russian speaking Ukrainians fighting with the AFU. As for the circa-2014 separatist fighters from Donetsk and Luhansk, they're all dead now.

EVERYONE in Ukraine is a Russian speaker. What is this "Russian speakers" in Ukraine, as if there is any such thing as a non-Russian-speaking Ukrainian.

There's a difference between speaking Russian, and it being your native language. The majority of Ukrainians consider Ukrainian as their native language.

But, the Russian invasion burned away any delusions anyone might have had that they could live peacefully with Russia, even if they considered themselves ethnically Russian. The Russians invaders were happy to murder, rape and loot their way through Russian-speaking areas in eastern Ukraine.

This is correct. There are some oblasts in the east that were predominantly native Russian speakers but the remainder is predominantly Ukrainian speaking, and in places like Kharkiv, though native Russian speaking, they no longer have much of any sympathy or allegiance or sense of brotherhood to Russia, due to the war. Russian conduct since the invasion has brought them nothing but anger and resentment. Also remember that in in 1991, in EVERY oblast, including Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk, overwhelmingly voted to split and become an independent and sovereign Ukraine, and did not want to be part of the Russian Federation.

The post wasn't about native Russian speakers or sympathy or allegiance to Russia. It mentioned Russian speakers, full stop. The fact of the matter is that an overwhelming majority of Ukrainians (meaning citizens of Ukraine, not ethnic Ukrainians) speak Russian and are therefore Russian speakers. That is an actual fact.

Yes, they speak Russian because they had to take it in school as a standard part of the curriculum and that makes your argument kind of pointless. The far more relevant fact is that a majority of Ukrainians do not consider Russian to be their mother tongue and less than 30% of Ukrainians speak Russian at home.

Then why didn't you lead with a "far more relevant fact"? The original post said, "this war has changed everything, even among the Russian speakers in Ukraine." But EVERYONE in Ukraine is a Russian speaker. It's virtually impossible to find Ukrainians who do not speak Russian.

DP. By that logic, does everyone who speaks Spanish belong to Spain?

What a clown.

LMAO! See the slowly moving goalposts... We went from an assertion above that a huge chunk of Ukrainians simply wouldn't care if Russia came in to dominate them to "does everyone who speaks Spanish belong to Spain?"

No, certainly they do not belong to Spain, but additionally, most of them are probably also not interested in having some hostile foreign power, even Spain, violently invade them, destroy their schools, churches, hospitals and homes, leaving nothing but rubble, death and destruction everywere they go.

Clown? That'd be you.

Anonymous wrote:Dmitry Medvedev, Deputy Secretary of the Russian Security Council, has said that nuclear weapons are a "staple" for Russia ["spiritual staples" – a phrase that became popular after Putin used it in 2012, meaning spiritual unity and values of Russian society. From then on, it was used quite often by Russian officials – ed.].
"For Russia's existence as the world's largest state, nuclear weapons are of inescapable importance... But nevertheless, we understand that in today's world, nuclear weapons for our country are the very ‘staple’ that holds the state together."
https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/medvedev-claims-russia-nuclear-values-091700431.html

I think they meant "connection", "binding" or "cement"?
Это духовная скрепа, соединяющая людей. Ex. It is a spiritual cement that unites people.

The point is that any country who's leaders make dangerous threats like this are a menace to world peace and stability.

But this is also why Russia is a dying, failing State. It's not a matter of 'if' anymore; it's a matter of 'when' and how bloody it will be.

Remember Libya - the 'number 1 terrorist state'? Hear much about it anymore? Hear a lot about conflicts there? It's quieted down a lot, hasn't it? I wonder why?

Things can change - it's a matter of what Russian sheep continue to follow the wolves to slaughter.

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:

Doesn't anyone ever ask how does NATO/UA know how many Russian casualties there are?

They don't know. It's just informed guessing, if that.

They are using NATO models for estimating casualties. Obviously, it's impossible to have a 100 percent accurate count in a war of this scale where more than a 1000 soldiers on both sides are dying every day. Ukraine has admitted to presently having more than 7500 MIAs, presumably dead. God knows how many Russians are presently fertilizing Ukrainian land.

But I think Ukraine has a pretty good internal sense of what the true casualty count is. That being said, I would take their public statements with a grain of salt. I believe they're publicly stating that roughly 195,000 Russian soldiers have been killed. That's probably not quite true. 195,000 total Russian casualties - killed and injured - is probably more accurate. 1:2 KIA vs injured is probably a reasonable ratio since Russian battlefield medical is nonexistent and without air superiority they can't do air medevacs. Given that the Russians started with an invading force of 200,000 this has been an absolute catastrophe for them. Of course, it's been awful for Ukrainians too but they are fighting for their families and their homes and they will endure it until the last man standing. It's a grim war and it's only going to get worse in the months ahead.

I hate to break it to you but there is a chunk of Ukraine that doesn't care who rules it, as long as the shooting stops. Independence is a goal for many Ukrainians but not all.

You are very wrong about that. This war has changed everything, even among the Russian speakers in Ukraine. No one in Ukraine will accept Russian domination at this point. Too much has changed. Too much death. Too much destruction. Too many war crimes. There are many, many native Russian speaking Ukrainians fighting with the AFU. As for the circa-2014 separatist fighters from Donetsk and Luhansk, they're all dead now.

EVERYONE in Ukraine is a Russian speaker. What is this "Russian speakers" in Ukraine, as if there is any such thing as a non-Russian-speaking Ukrainian.

There's a difference between speaking Russian, and it being your native language. The majority of Ukrainians consider Ukrainian as their native language.

But, the Russian invasion burned away any delusions anyone might have had that they could live peacefully with Russia, even if they considered themselves ethnically Russian. The Russians invaders were happy to murder, rape and loot their way through Russian-speaking areas in eastern Ukraine.

This is correct. There are some oblasts in the east that were predominantly native Russian speakers but the remainder is predominantly Ukrainian speaking, and in places like Kharkiv, though native Russian speaking, they no longer have much of any sympathy or allegiance or sense of brotherhood to Russia, due to the war. Russian conduct since the invasion has brought them nothing but anger and resentment. Also remember that in in 1991, in EVERY oblast, including Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk, overwhelmingly voted to split and become an independent and sovereign Ukraine, and did not want to be part of the Russian Federation.

The post wasn't about native Russian speakers or sympathy or allegiance to Russia. It mentioned Russian speakers, full stop. The fact of the matter is that an overwhelming majority of Ukrainians (meaning citizens of Ukraine, not ethnic Ukrainians) speak Russian and are therefore Russian speakers. That is an actual fact.

Yes, they speak Russian because they had to take it in school as a standard part of the curriculum and that makes your argument kind of pointless. The far more relevant fact is that a majority of Ukrainians do not consider Russian to be their mother tongue and less than 30% of Ukrainians speak Russian at home.

Then why didn't you lead with a "far more relevant fact"? The original post said, "this war has changed everything, even among the Russian speakers in Ukraine." But EVERYONE in Ukraine is a Russian speaker. It's virtually impossible to find Ukrainians who do not speak Russian.

DP. By that logic, does everyone who speaks Spanish belong to Spain?

What a clown.