11 ms·

But the dissolution of soviet union is not over yet. You can see this nowhere as clearly as in russias attack on Ukraine[0] where imperialistic russians that dr

• nivenkos 4y ago
  • me_me_me 4y ago
    > Imagine if Trump had really been a Russian agent and had returned Alaska to Russia, would you expect all subsequent administrations to just respect that it is Russian now? Huh? You mean: Imagine if Russia just annexed Alaska after they sent their green men over-there, to disrupt and takeover the region. Since when Ukraine just gave up on crimea? They were bullied off it and same with donbass. Their military was weak and disorganization so puting took advantage then.
    • nivenkos 4y ago
      No, I was referring to when Khrushchev just arbitrarily transferred the Crimea to the Ukrainian SSR. It had been independent / Tatar before, and Russification meant it was mainly populated by Russians. The issue is that Ukraine refuses to allow for the self-determination of the Crimea and Donbass since Euromaidan. Why can't they just allow internationally managed referendums to take place? This would be far better than warfare and paramilitary killings, etc. for both sides.
      • maltris 4y ago
        How do you see a referendum working out fairly when the population that sees itself as ukrainian has been forced out and forced to flee and only the russian locals will be able to vote? "Referendum" haha
        • nivenkos 4y ago
          This is a real problem - like how does this end? Even if Ukraine "wins"? Then what? What happens to the Russians in the Crimea? Do they just let Right Sector and the Azov Battalion carry out their persecution, and move Ukrainians in just like the RSFSR did to the Tatars? Likewise how do they control the DPR and LPR? They previously elected Yanukovych, the problem isn't just going to disappear.
      • notahacker 4y ago
        > The issue is that Ukraine refuses to allow for the self-determination of the Crimea and Donbass since Euromaidan. Why can't they just allow internationally managed referendums to take place? The internationally managed referendums Russia has never asked for and would never permit? Arguments that "real issue" with Russia repeatedly invading its smaller neighbours is that one of the neighbours won't grant something never asked for are not made in good faith.
        • nivenkos 4y ago
          I'm not pro-Russia either, I just don't understand why we're completely destroying our economies for a conflict that has nothing to do with us (post-USSR border division and nationalism).
  • tomohawk 4y ago
    Russia may not be the Soviet Union, but the Soviet Union was Russia. Russian ambitions and attrocities in the area go back to at least Catherine the Great. Russia has no moral or any other claim over Crimea. Their actions in starving millions of people to death in Crimea in the 20s, the ethnic cleansing by evicting Tartars and Cosacks, replacing them with Russians - these all go to the long term drive of Russian imperial ambitions in the area. Putin tried to take the whole of Ukraine and has tried several times to assasinate Zelensky, just like he has assasinated many others (and tried but failed to assassinate a previous Ukrainian president with poison). The internal politics of Ukraine are just a pretext that Putin is using to realize his ambitions. They are not a reason in any way for the war crimes and attrocities he has committed.
  • poushkar 4y ago
    Here we come again with the "Ukrainian nationalism" and "coup". So boring. Will you ever update your guide on Russian propaganda? Even the russian troll factory stopped using these arguments like 2 years ago.
    • nivenkos 4y ago
      I'm not pro-Russian. But here in Europe we've had 25% of our savings and purchasing power destroyed almost overnight, for a conflict that really has nothing to do with us (CIS borders and nationalism after the USSR). Why can't we just be neutral? We didn't do this for Georgia's claim in Ossetia or Armenia's claim with Azerbaijan (both similar scenarios), or the Iraq-Iran war, etc.
      • gjulianm 4y ago
        > But here in Europe we've had 25% of our savings and purchasing power destroyed almost overnight, for a conflict that really has nothing to do with us (CIS borders and nationalism after the USSR). Very weird to say those things - Inflation isn't just caused by the invasion. - Inflation is at ~9%, not enough for 25% purchasing power loss. - The conflict has a lot of things to do with Europe. Since when is Ukraine not an european country? Even if you mean just the EU, both Ukraine and Russia border several EU countries, and Russia has threatened some of them. - "Remaining neutral" doesn't mean "free of consequences".
        • nivenkos 4y ago
          The Euro has also crashed 20% in a year though. That's a massive loss in purchasing power considering most things are sold in USD (including oil). We didn't intervene in Armenia or Georgia, there's not much difference here.
          • simonh 4y ago
            The fact is we should have intervened in Armenia and Georgia. We should have intervened in Syria, at least to some extent. We should have imposed crushing sanctions on Russia after the annexation of Crimea in 2014. The fact that we did not is a causal direct line to this invasion. Since the gulf war the west has become averse to foreign adventurism. I understand that and why, but it's misconceived. Washing our hands of the rest of the world and letting countries like Iran and Russia (and Iraq under Saddam Hussein) do whatever they like doesn't work. It comes back to bite us every single time. Even if we say it's not our problem, it's not our responsibility, it always comes back and hurts us and our direct economic, political and humanitarian interests again and again. It leads to things like the rape of Kuwait and 9/11. Being fully engaged internationally is expensive in money and lives, it's messy, it's morally compromising. It's also unavoidable. We are part of the world and can't deny responsibility for playing our part in it. Or rather we can, but at a heavy price to ourselves and others.
  • caskstrength 4y ago
    What do all these trite propaganda lines about "UkRaiNian NazIs oPpreSsing RuzZiAn-sPeaKinG pEoPleS iN teh EaSt!!1" have to do with Russian army trying to occupy Kyiv or annex Kherson (while indiscriminately murdering civilians in the process)? Do you need my help to verify on the map that those places are not in eastern Ukraine or in Crimea? P.S. I'm a Russian-speaking Ukrainian.
    • nivenkos 4y ago
      Well of course, they are at war. Especially as weapons and money flood in from both sides, escalating the conflict further (long-range missiles from the USA that can hit Sevastopol, the economic conscription of the Chechens and Daghestanis in Russia, etc.) But do you think this conflict is worth it? Do you support the Ukrainian claim on the Crimea? Is it worth the bloodshed and economic destruction? It's as though we're stuck in a terrible local minimum because both sides are too stubborn to compromise for peace, and there is no real way of having a truly independent process and decision-making (e.g. from referendums in the DPR + LPR, etc.) - ideally this could have been resolved diplomatically a year ago.
      • caskstrength 4y ago
        > Well of course, they are at war. Especially as weapons and money flood in from both sides, escalating the conflict further Wait, so are they just protecting Russian-speaking people of the east from bloodthirsty Ukrainian Nazis or they are waging aggressive war with intention to topple Ukrainian government and annex significant portion of Ukraine outside eastern regions and Crimea? > But do you think this conflict is worth it? Worth it for whom? > Do you support the Ukrainian claim on the Crimea? AFAIK returning to status quo of pre-Feb 24 was proposed multiple times by Ukrainian side. That would imply Russia retaining control over Crimea indefinitely. You make it sound like Ukraine attacked Crimea first and Russia is just defending or something. > Is it worth the bloodshed and economic destruction? Of course not! I would prefer Russians to just pack their bags, leave and happily continue selling resources to Europe! They could even invite Angela Merkel to Gazprom board for bonus points! > It's as though we're stuck in a terrible local minimum because both sides are too stubborn to compromise for peace Ukrainian side offered peace with concessions multiple times (including neutral status, which is another usual bogeyman of Russian propaganda "we are just afraid of NATO nuking us from Ukrainian territory!"), but Russia didn't want to have any of that. It is almost like Russia is actually interested in something else besides securing oppressed Russian-speaking population of Ukraine and ensuring that no evil NATO nukes are installed on Ukrainian territory...
  • simonh 4y ago
    >And Ukraine is a complicated conflict, Crimea was granted to Ukraine by the Soviet Union which modern Russia considers to be an illegitimate act,... If they considered it illegitimate, why did they sign a treaty guaranteeing Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity? The answer is because at the time Ukraine was controlled by Russian stooges, and as long as Russia had control of Ukrainian politics it was all fine. What they couldn't stand is the idea of a genuinely free democratic Ukraine sat right next to an oppressive and kleptocratic Russia. The Russian regime sees all of Ukraine as their back yard, every last square inch of it. They have even said so many, many times. Putin wrote an essay about how Ukrainian sovereignty is "only possible in partnership with Russia", and if you think he means anything like an equal partnership I can't help you. Crimea and the Donbas are excuses, they're a foot in the door to Ukraine as a whole.
• BaculumMeumEst 4y ago
  > there is no reason to believe that they wouldn't rinse and repeat in.. Alaska No reason? I can think of 1365 reasons, if Wikipedia is up to date.
  • antifa 4y ago
    Even their source says "a random politician", so this is geo-politically equivalent to MTG hypothetically giving a throwaway comment about how we should take the Gulf of Texas back from Mexico.
• KingOfCoders 4y ago
  Small nitpick, "glory and borders of soviet union". Putin compares himself with the Tsar [1] and wants to reestablish Russia in it's imperial borders. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jun/10/putin-compares-himself-to-peter-the-great-in-quest-to-take-back-russian-lands https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jun/10/putin-compares...
• kunagi7 4y ago
  First of all, RIP Gorbachev. The Soviet Union ceased to exist in December 26, 1991 [0]. Russia is not the USSR, and it's almost impossible it will never be anything remotely close. Most of the former USSR industrial capabilities where either abandoned, razed or looted. Russia's modern industry (including military) depends heavily on European (now sanctioned and obtained via third countries) and Chinese imports. This means that most of their industrial machinery, oil/gas extraction sector, automotive industry, chips... is now strained. They've almost stopped producing cars. Russia is mostly burning the gigantic former USSR reserves until they dry out. And Ukraine is way bigger than Abkhazia, Ossetia or Transnistria so it has the largest burn rate since Afghanistan. Just look up at their modern attempts of modernization. The T-14 Armata was expected to have over 100 of them built before 2020 [1] but only a few experimental units can be seen in the wild. Even the Iskander is a USSR design. The "humiliation" is happening on both sides every day as we speak. No one will either "win" or "lose" the Russia-Ukraine war. It's just an endless attrition warfare [2] were both sides consume their huge military storage (Ukraine using a mix of exUSSR and NATO material and Russia using exUSSR material). [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissolution_of_the_Soviet_Union https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissolution_of_the_Soviet_Unio... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-14_Armata https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-14_Armata [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attrition_warfare https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attrition_warfare
  • distances 4y ago
    > Russia is mostly burning the gigantic former USSR reserves until they dry out. And Ukraine is way bigger than Abkhazia, Ossetia or Transnistria so it has the largest burn rate since Afghanistan. As far as I've understood it, the burn rate is way, way higher than in Afghanistan. Soviet-Afghan War took ten years. I don't think we've seen this burn rate anywhere in the industrialized world since WW2.
    • kunagi7 4y ago
      Sorry, I forgot about WW2! I referred to Afghanistan since it was the last big War the soviets fought before their country fell.
  • 4y ago
• danbruc 4y ago
  From your link [1]. He [Putin] became briefly close to President George W Bush - who even claimed to have glimpsed Putin's soul - until the Iraq War drove them apart. In Iraq, Putin insisted that international law must be upheld - no invasion could be allowed without approval from the United Nations Security Council, and that approval was not forthcoming. This is also Putin and it is not singular. If you listen to his speeches, he often demands that international laws and treaties should be upheld and he became increasingly frustrated over the years that this was not done. Maybe you can argue that this was his only option out of a position of weakness, but never the less he did this. Putin wanting to recapture and rebuild a past empire is a very new narrative without much supporting evidence over all those years.
  • V__ 4y ago
    > he became increasingly frustrated over the years that this was not done. This may be true, but I think it's more likely that he doesn't care about it at all. He is an opportunist, and back then the best opportunity was to criticize the U.S. and Europe by insisting on international law. Today, he is saying Europe is a fascist Nazi oppressor.
    • dghughes 4y ago
      > He is an opportunist And a manipulator. He's the person who gossips in the background. He tells someone that guy over there just called you a name, and then says the same to the first guy. He's the type of person we all hate.
      • dghughes 4y ago
        Putin I meant if that wasn't clear. Not Gorbachev.
    • ajvs 4y ago
      • V__ 4y ago