9 ms·

Hi, Russian here, located in Moscow. I don’t root for our president and current operation in UA is not something I like. I had to say words above, sorry, and th

Hi, Russian here, located in Moscow. I don’t root for our president and current operation in UA is not something I like. I had to say words above, sorry, and that words are true since I am mostly committed to western values. Facebook would be restricted in Russia because they don’t allow gov to publish their views, opinion and their “truth”, like any other gov can. There are also intentions to block youtube and any other platform, which have many russian users and which block different “zvezda”-like channels/accounts. I also think no any real user watches “zvezda”-channel on youtube or any other internet-platform. Additionally, I think that “if you own a house, you could no be required to allow anyone to live with you”

netXten 5y ago
And I forgot to ask a question. Why do you think that we all should feel pain of sanctions? Because we are not able to stand against gov? Well, we are not able. And I think noone would be able if there is such a law and permissions of authorities. And for sure we, who know English(ok, not as good like any EU-person knows) and not working in gov-structures are the most small part of russians who have different opinion
- eganist 5y ago
  > Why do you think that we all should feel pain of sanctions? Because we are not able to stand against gov? Well, we are not able. Every person can. That's why sanctions exist: to incentivize a government to focus on its people and isolate a violent government from the world, or conversely, for a people to hold their government accountable. What would you propose the world do instead of sanctions when diplomacy alone has clearly failed?
  - coward-guy 5y ago
    It's too late... Where were US and Europe with their sanctions when riots on Bolotnaya square happened? https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Bolotnaya_Square_case https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Bolotnaya_Square_case When Navalny was incarcerated? Do you think it is easy to stay against government with army? Look at Ukraine, there's the same Russian army there.
  - tehjoker 5y ago
    Collective punishment is against the laws of war and the UN charter. My preferred resolution would be NATO backing off and agreeing to Ukraine as a neutral buffer state with Russia withdrawing troops. The American foreign policy instinct is always for unrelenting brutality.
    - Jcowell 5y ago
      Yes YOUR preferred resolution The people of Ukraine however would probably approve of the sanctions as the ongoing conflict persists.
    - eganist 5y ago
      > Collective punishment is against the laws of war and the UN charter. There's nuance that you're missing (e.g UN not empowered to sanction war crimes by a veto-power state), and your broad interpretation doesn't align with accepted practice. A relevant analysis: https://www.epw.in/engage/article/do-sanctions-violate-international-law https://www.epw.in/engage/article/do-sanctions-violate-inter...
      - dragonwriter 5y ago
        > UN not empowered to sanction war crimes by a veto-power state The UN has had a structure for dealing with veto-power obstructionism since 1950. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_377 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assem...
  - int_19h 5y ago
    Did sanctions ever achieve this? If the West actually wants to defend Ukraine, it needs to intervene militarily. If it doesn't, then it shouldn't try to placate its conscience with meaningless token gestures.
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      > Did sanctions ever achieve this? Governments have changed behavior after sanctions regimes were put in place. The degree and mechanisms of any causal relationship are infinitely debatable, because it's near impossible to falsify them conclusively. > If the West actually wants to defend Ukraine, it needs to intervene militarily. If it doesn't, then it shouldn't try to placate its conscience with meaningless token gestures. The government of Ukraine, who is both better positioned to evaluate the value of interventions and whose leaders have quite a bit personally at stake, doesn't seem to have this attitude of “intervene militarily or fuck off”, and has indeed been calling for sanctions and specific enhancements to them.
      - int_19h 5y ago
        The only clear case I can think of is South Africa, but even that had its own internal movement; sanctions merely sped things up. Besides, Russia knew of all the possible sanctions way in advance, and proceeded to invade anyway - which already tells you how much the government there is worried about them in practice. Biden is absolutely correct: sanctions couldn't and won't prevent anything. What he's not saying, but what follows directly, is that military force is the only option that'll work.
- dtx1 5y ago
  > Why do you think that we all should feel pain of sanctions? We want Russia to stop their criminal war on Ukraine. Either by government action, open revolt or a population starving in the streets. The only other option is nuclear holocaust.
  - osigurdson 5y ago
    I don't want to see anyone starving on the streets but massive civil disobedience or a nation-wide strike by the Russian people would be incredible to see.
    - jacquesm 5y ago
      That's what got Poland its freedom. The one thing any dictator really fears is a mass uprising.
      - yeellow 5y ago
        Sorry, you keep repeating that linking strikes in 1980, but the freedom came 10 years later (after Soviet union collapse). Those protests gave us (I mean as a consequence, not to say they were not justified) martial law and so called "lost decade". Miserable time. I also hope for a big change in Russia after some revolution, but it is not that simple under a strict dictatorship.
        jacquesm 5y ago
        Yes, it took a years, so what? Poland showed the way for all of the USSR satellite states and was instrumental in the collapse of the union. I know that America likes to take credit for this through their financing and support of Afghanistan during the Russian-Afghan war but I am pretty sure that that does not properly credit all of the players. The protests gave you martial law and the lost decade, but they also gave you the foundation of what came after: the best performing ex sovbloc country. I'm sure proximity to Germany helped here, a lot of money got dumped into Poland but at the same time Poland worked extremely hard to get where it is today. And without those protests all that might have never happened, or it might have happened much later. > I also hope for a big change in Russia after some revolution, but it is not that simple under a strict dictatorship. This is true, and Russia has far bigger problems than Poland had, in spite of being plundered for decades. I'm under no illusion that such a process would be either quick or easy.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- 13415 5y ago
  The victims are the people in Ukraine, not you. People are dying there and the country has been dragged into chaos. Russia is 100% the aggressor in this case. If you don't want to feel the pain of sanctions, you better do something to change your government. This might not appear fair to you and certainly isn't easy, but don't forget that life is currently even less fair to the Ukrainians who die defending their country.
  - droptablemain 5y ago
    It's not that simple. What about the 14,000 killed in the DPR and LPR over the past years?
    - 13415 5y ago
      His posts reeks of unreflected self pity and all you can offer is whataboutism?
      - droptablemain 5y ago
        Yes, because I don't appreciate complex geopolitical issues being boiled down to "Russia bad, poor Ukraine." It's complicated and messy. Don't pretend like it's black-and-white.
        13415 5y ago
        Contrary to what you're insinuating, this is one of the clearest cases in recorded history of conflicts. Russia is the aggressor and started a territorial war against Ukraine - already in 2014, now turned into a full-scale invasion. You need to check your moral compass and brush up your knowledge of international relations and history.
        droptablemain 5y ago
        Not true. This has been eight years in the making. Civil War at Russia's borders. A fascist, neo-Nazi military terrorizing ethnic Russians. 14,000 dead in Donbas. Your "clear case" is missing quite a bit of information.
- jacquesm 5y ago
  > Because we are not able to stand against gov? But you can. > Well, we are not able No, you won't. That's fine but don't make it seem like there is no choice, there is plenty of evidence of people in Russia protesting and they have made a different choice than you. And "current operation" is distancing language. It's an invasion or a war, not an operation.
  - willcipriano 5y ago
    Just vote harder guys, and make pithy signs. Protests don't even work in the west, how can they work in Russia?
    - jacquesm 5y ago
      Protests work: if they are large enough.
      - willcipriano 5y ago
        That's sort of a no true scottsman. Occupy wall street resulted in nothing, BLM protests were huge to no lasting effect, massive anti war protests in the early 2000's resulted in a couple decades of war. What ones recently were big enough? Million man march? That was just LBJ buying votes if you ask him about it privately.
        jacquesm 5y ago
        None of those resulted in crippling the country, which is the level you need. Without Russia propping him up Lukashenko would be out by now. Think Solidarity, not BLM and get the whole country to grind to a halt. That will make a difference. By the time the police and the army have to decide if they want to open fire on their family it can be won. But for that to happen something major will have to change in Russia first.
        willcipriano 5y ago
- NikolaNovak 5y ago
  >> Why do you think that we all should feel pain of sanctions? I feel bad for people in Russia who don't want that war either, sanctions will hurt. But: 1. Sanctions are a way to exert pressure and say "don't DO that". They're supposed to hurt. The other effective way to send that message is to use actual force. I'm sure people of Russia would prefer that less. 2. As a kid from Sarajevo, I feel Ukrainan's pain a LOT more today than yours, because they ARE being shelled and bombed and besieged and starved. You are not. Count your lucky stars. 3. As others pointed, there are choices. At this point, mostly shitty choices, all around, for all involved. I for one ran the fuck away from that part of the world. That was a personal, selfish choice (well, in reality, made by my parents, but I sure as heck supported them). Others protest secretly. Others, braver and less selfish and more idealistic, protest loudly. Yet others take up arms. Much as Canadians let alone world like to find things to complain about US (often validly), they did hash these things in a rebellion and a Civil war and again in the violent protests of the 70's... and they seem poised to be hashing them out violently again. Point being, it's not easy ANYwhere to get things even remotely right or fair or just or peaceful. I'm not selfless enough to die fighting a government; but I recognize it is an option and a choice. So what I'm saying is, today, people of Russia are not at top of my personal priority list of people to feel sorry for. You're not absent from it, but everything is a limited resource. Sorry :-/
  - int_19h 5y ago
    Sanctions that hurt the general populace are not an "effective message" for the simple reason that said general populace is not in charge of "DOING that".
    - NikolaNovak 5y ago
      My statement (about sanctions being a message or behaviour modifier) is no more of an oversimplification than yours (about populace not being in charge / not being able to modify their country's behaviour) At any rate, if we want to engage in a productive discussion, let us enumerate alternatives and rank them. I'll start * Sanctions * Military Engagement * Assassination * Covert policy, government, elections influence What other means does the world have to say "please don't do that"? Which are preferred over / should come before sanctions, and why? I don't mean this to sound antagonistic. I'm tremendously frustrated because I agree sanctions are weak, mis-targeted and won't drive sufficient change fast enough. But while I can rail against them, I don't genuinely know what else is left on the plate. One participant is acting like a violent bully. At that point, once discussion/education/negotiation has failed, there's really no good options for anybody left.
csee 5y ago
Why do you use the Putin propaganda euphemism "current operation" and not just call it an invasion or war of aggression.
- LAC-Tech 5y ago
  Because people tend to copy the terminology of the regime they live in, even if they don't agree with it. We do the same thing. IE on English Wikipedia there's an article 2011 military intervention in Libya. I can't remember many prestigious western news sources calling it an "invasion" - so neither do most of us.
  - InitialLastName 5y ago
    From that article: > The intervention did not employ foreign ground troops. I'm no military theorist, but "foreign boots on the ground" is the lay-person's definition of an "invasion". Absent that, it could have been a war, a police action, a military intervention, or a bombing campaign, but it wasn't an "invasion".

netXten 5y ago

And I forgot to ask a question. Why do you think that we all should feel pain of sanctions? Because we are not able to stand against gov? Well, we are not able. And I think noone would be able if there is such a law and permissions of authorities. And for sure we, who know English(ok, not as good like any EU-person knows) and not working in gov-structures are the most small part of russians who have different opinion

eganist 5y ago
> Why do you think that we all should feel pain of sanctions? Because we are not able to stand against gov? Well, we are not able. Every person can. That's why sanctions exist: to incentivize a government to focus on its people and isolate a violent government from the world, or conversely, for a people to hold their government accountable. What would you propose the world do instead of sanctions when diplomacy alone has clearly failed?
- coward-guy 5y ago
  It's too late... Where were US and Europe with their sanctions when riots on Bolotnaya square happened? https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Bolotnaya_Square_case https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Bolotnaya_Square_case When Navalny was incarcerated? Do you think it is easy to stay against government with army? Look at Ukraine, there's the same Russian army there.
- tehjoker 5y ago
  Collective punishment is against the laws of war and the UN charter. My preferred resolution would be NATO backing off and agreeing to Ukraine as a neutral buffer state with Russia withdrawing troops. The American foreign policy instinct is always for unrelenting brutality.
  - Jcowell 5y ago
    Yes YOUR preferred resolution The people of Ukraine however would probably approve of the sanctions as the ongoing conflict persists.
  - eganist 5y ago
    > Collective punishment is against the laws of war and the UN charter. There's nuance that you're missing (e.g UN not empowered to sanction war crimes by a veto-power state), and your broad interpretation doesn't align with accepted practice. A relevant analysis: https://www.epw.in/engage/article/do-sanctions-violate-international-law https://www.epw.in/engage/article/do-sanctions-violate-inter...
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      > UN not empowered to sanction war crimes by a veto-power state The UN has had a structure for dealing with veto-power obstructionism since 1950. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_377 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assem...
- int_19h 5y ago
  Did sanctions ever achieve this? If the West actually wants to defend Ukraine, it needs to intervene militarily. If it doesn't, then it shouldn't try to placate its conscience with meaningless token gestures.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > Did sanctions ever achieve this? Governments have changed behavior after sanctions regimes were put in place. The degree and mechanisms of any causal relationship are infinitely debatable, because it's near impossible to falsify them conclusively. > If the West actually wants to defend Ukraine, it needs to intervene militarily. If it doesn't, then it shouldn't try to placate its conscience with meaningless token gestures. The government of Ukraine, who is both better positioned to evaluate the value of interventions and whose leaders have quite a bit personally at stake, doesn't seem to have this attitude of “intervene militarily or fuck off”, and has indeed been calling for sanctions and specific enhancements to them.
    - int_19h 5y ago
      The only clear case I can think of is South Africa, but even that had its own internal movement; sanctions merely sped things up. Besides, Russia knew of all the possible sanctions way in advance, and proceeded to invade anyway - which already tells you how much the government there is worried about them in practice. Biden is absolutely correct: sanctions couldn't and won't prevent anything. What he's not saying, but what follows directly, is that military force is the only option that'll work.
dtx1 5y ago
> Why do you think that we all should feel pain of sanctions? We want Russia to stop their criminal war on Ukraine. Either by government action, open revolt or a population starving in the streets. The only other option is nuclear holocaust.
- osigurdson 5y ago
  I don't want to see anyone starving on the streets but massive civil disobedience or a nation-wide strike by the Russian people would be incredible to see.
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    That's what got Poland its freedom. The one thing any dictator really fears is a mass uprising.
    - yeellow 5y ago
      Sorry, you keep repeating that linking strikes in 1980, but the freedom came 10 years later (after Soviet union collapse). Those protests gave us (I mean as a consequence, not to say they were not justified) martial law and so called "lost decade". Miserable time. I also hope for a big change in Russia after some revolution, but it is not that simple under a strict dictatorship.
      - jacquesm 5y ago
        Yes, it took a years, so what? Poland showed the way for all of the USSR satellite states and was instrumental in the collapse of the union. I know that America likes to take credit for this through their financing and support of Afghanistan during the Russian-Afghan war but I am pretty sure that that does not properly credit all of the players. The protests gave you martial law and the lost decade, but they also gave you the foundation of what came after: the best performing ex sovbloc country. I'm sure proximity to Germany helped here, a lot of money got dumped into Poland but at the same time Poland worked extremely hard to get where it is today. And without those protests all that might have never happened, or it might have happened much later. > I also hope for a big change in Russia after some revolution, but it is not that simple under a strict dictatorship. This is true, and Russia has far bigger problems than Poland had, in spite of being plundered for decades. I'm under no illusion that such a process would be either quick or easy.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
13415 5y ago
The victims are the people in Ukraine, not you. People are dying there and the country has been dragged into chaos. Russia is 100% the aggressor in this case. If you don't want to feel the pain of sanctions, you better do something to change your government. This might not appear fair to you and certainly isn't easy, but don't forget that life is currently even less fair to the Ukrainians who die defending their country.
- droptablemain 5y ago
  It's not that simple. What about the 14,000 killed in the DPR and LPR over the past years?
  - 13415 5y ago
    His posts reeks of unreflected self pity and all you can offer is whataboutism?
    - droptablemain 5y ago
      Yes, because I don't appreciate complex geopolitical issues being boiled down to "Russia bad, poor Ukraine." It's complicated and messy. Don't pretend like it's black-and-white.
      - 13415 5y ago
        Contrary to what you're insinuating, this is one of the clearest cases in recorded history of conflicts. Russia is the aggressor and started a territorial war against Ukraine - already in 2014, now turned into a full-scale invasion. You need to check your moral compass and brush up your knowledge of international relations and history.
        droptablemain 5y ago
        Not true. This has been eight years in the making. Civil War at Russia's borders. A fascist, neo-Nazi military terrorizing ethnic Russians. 14,000 dead in Donbas. Your "clear case" is missing quite a bit of information.
jacquesm 5y ago
> Because we are not able to stand against gov? But you can. > Well, we are not able No, you won't. That's fine but don't make it seem like there is no choice, there is plenty of evidence of people in Russia protesting and they have made a different choice than you. And "current operation" is distancing language. It's an invasion or a war, not an operation.
- willcipriano 5y ago
  Just vote harder guys, and make pithy signs. Protests don't even work in the west, how can they work in Russia?
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    Protests work: if they are large enough.
    - willcipriano 5y ago
      That's sort of a no true scottsman. Occupy wall street resulted in nothing, BLM protests were huge to no lasting effect, massive anti war protests in the early 2000's resulted in a couple decades of war. What ones recently were big enough? Million man march? That was just LBJ buying votes if you ask him about it privately.
      - jacquesm 5y ago
        None of those resulted in crippling the country, which is the level you need. Without Russia propping him up Lukashenko would be out by now. Think Solidarity, not BLM and get the whole country to grind to a halt. That will make a difference. By the time the police and the army have to decide if they want to open fire on their family it can be won. But for that to happen something major will have to change in Russia first.
        willcipriano 5y ago
NikolaNovak 5y ago
>> Why do you think that we all should feel pain of sanctions? I feel bad for people in Russia who don't want that war either, sanctions will hurt. But: 1. Sanctions are a way to exert pressure and say "don't DO that". They're supposed to hurt. The other effective way to send that message is to use actual force. I'm sure people of Russia would prefer that less. 2. As a kid from Sarajevo, I feel Ukrainan's pain a LOT more today than yours, because they ARE being shelled and bombed and besieged and starved. You are not. Count your lucky stars. 3. As others pointed, there are choices. At this point, mostly shitty choices, all around, for all involved. I for one ran the fuck away from that part of the world. That was a personal, selfish choice (well, in reality, made by my parents, but I sure as heck supported them). Others protest secretly. Others, braver and less selfish and more idealistic, protest loudly. Yet others take up arms. Much as Canadians let alone world like to find things to complain about US (often validly), they did hash these things in a rebellion and a Civil war and again in the violent protests of the 70's... and they seem poised to be hashing them out violently again. Point being, it's not easy ANYwhere to get things even remotely right or fair or just or peaceful. I'm not selfless enough to die fighting a government; but I recognize it is an option and a choice. So what I'm saying is, today, people of Russia are not at top of my personal priority list of people to feel sorry for. You're not absent from it, but everything is a limited resource. Sorry :-/
- int_19h 5y ago
  Sanctions that hurt the general populace are not an "effective message" for the simple reason that said general populace is not in charge of "DOING that".
  - NikolaNovak 5y ago
    My statement (about sanctions being a message or behaviour modifier) is no more of an oversimplification than yours (about populace not being in charge / not being able to modify their country's behaviour) At any rate, if we want to engage in a productive discussion, let us enumerate alternatives and rank them. I'll start * Sanctions * Military Engagement * Assassination * Covert policy, government, elections influence What other means does the world have to say "please don't do that"? Which are preferred over / should come before sanctions, and why? I don't mean this to sound antagonistic. I'm tremendously frustrated because I agree sanctions are weak, mis-targeted and won't drive sufficient change fast enough. But while I can rail against them, I don't genuinely know what else is left on the plate. One participant is acting like a violent bully. At that point, once discussion/education/negotiation has failed, there's really no good options for anybody left.

csee 5y ago

Why do you use the Putin propaganda euphemism "current operation" and not just call it an invasion or war of aggression.

LAC-Tech 5y ago
Because people tend to copy the terminology of the regime they live in, even if they don't agree with it. We do the same thing. IE on English Wikipedia there's an article 2011 military intervention in Libya. I can't remember many prestigious western news sources calling it an "invasion" - so neither do most of us.
- InitialLastName 5y ago
  From that article: > The intervention did not employ foreign ground troops. I'm no military theorist, but "foreign boots on the ground" is the lay-person's definition of an "invasion". Absent that, it could have been a war, a police action, a military intervention, or a bombing campaign, but it wasn't an "invasion".