4 ms·

I don't think you understand the history of the area nor what has taken place. Which is understandable if the lens is Western media. The British were after Cri

I don't think you understand the history of the area nor what has taken place. Which is understandable if the lens is Western media. The British were after Crimea 180 years ago. (see charge of the light brigade) It's a big prize. And it had been Russian from the 1700s until 1956. And now it is again. Likewise many of the breakaway republics (until 1920s). And what happened to Russia in the 90s. How the borders of Ukraine came to be. What happened in Kosovo. How American "imperialism" works, and what it is. That is not to excuse any Russian behavior either. They have traditionally been imperialistic and expansionist. Their neighbors have reasonable cause to fear them. But this is multiple parties instigating civil war, inserting puppet governments, creating propaganda, stirring up hate and taking sides, arming and providing intelligence for their own gain. It's not at all just "Evil Russia and we are helping democracy!" in reality. This sentiment, (targeted at the historical and event illiterate) is propaganda to get you to play along, pay for it, fight for it or at least not complain. And the same holds true with whatever Russian media is telling it's citizens. I'm sure it has a very good story about evil imperialists and the misdeeds of the CIA, so that's why the rich should get richer and you should put on army fatigues. It's an economic war. Like most, or even all wars are in reality. War is a racket. Always has been. The little people pay with blood, the big people stand to turn big profits and maybe if they are lucky the little people enjoy a favored economic position later at the expense of whomever they subjugated. It's frankly shocking to me that people don't understand this by now.

xorcist 3y ago
All of what you say could be factually correct, and it's still an imperialistic war instigated by Russia to subsume a neighbor. Accepting an Ukranian identity was never on the table. War may be a racket, but history is what it is and now we're here. There are several morally corrupt parties, but that does not make them equal. That is a fallacy. Civilians suffer, and they suffer tremendously. We mustn't lose sight of right and wrong even when we're deep in moral relativism.
- mythrwy 3y ago
  In this case it's hard for me to justify the forcing of republics that are largely Russian to belong to a union that has been turned decidedly anti-Russian including with a coup and NGOs and intelligence activity. There has been a lot of bloodshed, including of civilians before the "war" started and much of it was from the side that is now aggrieved. I understand the economic reasons for not wanting Russia to control so many resources and important trade routes, but in this case if there is a "more wrong" party in my opinion it is the meddlers from further off. This is only my opinion and I really think there isn't much of a "morally right" party in this sitution. Let me also put it like this. I don't necessarily control what bad people in other places do, but I expect my own society to not behave badly. To not overturn other societies and cause death and suffering and chaos for economic gain and then give me bullshit reasons and propaganda about "truth and justice and democracy". I believe if more people on all sides thought this way we would have less problems but as you say, here we are.
  - int_19h 3y ago
    Which "republics that are largely Russian" are you talking about? If you mean LNR & DNR, then that's just plainly not true. At most they were majority Russophone (depending on how you count "native language"), which is not at all the same thing. You might also want to look up what ethnic Russian citizens in e.g. Moldova or Latvia think about the perspective of Russia "helping" them the way it "helped" ethnic Russians in Ukraine.
    - mythrwy 3y ago
      I'm afraid you are misinformed on this count. The citizens of Crimea and Donetsk are largely both ethnically and linguistically Russian. Luhansk it is less, but still around half or more. And they have generally voted largely in favor of Russian leaning candidates. Never mind the declarations of independence after the 2014 coup, the taking up of arms, and the subsequent military resistance to the Ukrainian state.
      - int_19h 3y ago
        You are again conflating the linguistics and the politics with ethnicity. Most residents of Donbass self-identified as Ukrainian before Russia invaded in 2014, even those who predominantly speak Russian and voted for candidates like Yanukovich. And many people who voted for Yanuk back in 2012 are fighting back today. What most of them wanted was more language rights and a more Russian-centric foreign policy, not getting annexed by Russia. Crimea is a different story, but if we go there we'll also have to talk about things like why Crimean Tatars aren't the majority of the population there anymore.
vlovich123 3y ago
> It's a big prize. And it had been Russian from the 1700s until 1956. And now it is again. Except the USSR released it. Nothing to do with the US. And Russia trying to recapture it now has nothing to do with the fact that it’s been it’s own country for almost 50 years. Not to mention Ukraine has repeatedly sought entrance into NATO for exactly this fear and Russia has dissuaded NATO from considering it under threat of viewing it as a direct aggression against Russia. > It's an economic war. Like most, or even all wars are in reality. Whatever else I don’t think the war in Ukraine is an economic one. It seems more like a militarily and politically strategic one. Ukraine (specifically Crimea) is an extremely important naval base (at least that’s my impression). The US has also supported the pro-Western political factions within Ukraine which is a problem for Putin considering Ukraine’s proximity to the Russian border and Crimea. Additionally Putin regularly engages in acts of military aggression because it boosts his strongman image which helps him domestically, which, along with the political assassination, helps maintain his power over the political environment in Russia. Putin is already wealthy enough. His moves are about acquiring geopolitical power, not basic wealth.
- int_19h 3y ago
  Crimea does indeed make for a good naval base, but Russia has more options that aren't much inferior - Novorossiysk, for example. More importantly, Black Sea itself is strategically not very interesting for Russia because Turkey (a NATO country) controls the straits, and thus in any big war involving NATO the Russian fleet would be locked in anyway. No, it is largely a cultural thing. There's considerable evidence that Putin really believes all the tripe about "triune people" that was written in his 2021 essay [0], and genuinely sees independent Ukraine as a deliberately manufactured cultural "anti-Russia" that cannot be allowed to exist for that reason alone. [0] http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/66181 http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/66181
  - vlovich123 3y ago
    While Turkey is a NATO ally, I wouldn’t really rely on them, at least not under Erdogan: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/turkeys-erdogan-touts-special-relationship-with-putin-stands-by-his-refusal-to-impose-sanctions/ar-AA1bpVgR https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/turkeys-erdogan-touts-s... Sure, it’s unclear Erdogan would go so far as to violate NATO treaties, but I wouldn’t call Turkey the US’s unabashed ally. I don’t know that I buy the whole cultural angle when Putin very reliably acts squarely within the model of realpolitik power acquisition.
lisasays 3y ago
The British were after Crimea 180 years ago. (see charge of the light brigade) It's a big prize. And it had been Russian from the 1700s until 1956. If we're going to go back that far -- it was all part of the Crimean Khanate from 1443 up until 1783 (not 1700 as you know perfectly well), whose border extended up to the Dnipro, all around the Azaq deñizi (which later occupiers would call the Sea of Azov) and then some. So clearly none of the occupying powers since then have any legitimacy. That is not to excuse any Russian behavior either. No, you're just trying to minimize it, and use it as a wedge to get some emotional talking points in.
int_19h 3y ago
I grew up in Russia in the 90s, so yeah, I remember it all very well - the incessant rhetoric from the "patriots" that NATO is about to invade and dismember the country any day now, the purported NATO mercenaries fighting for Chechen separatists etc. It was usually peddled by the same people who believed that Dulles' Plan was a real thing. It's too bad that those same people now run Russia, and the war is the direct consequence of that.

xorcist 3y ago

All of what you say could be factually correct, and it's still an imperialistic war instigated by Russia to subsume a neighbor. Accepting an Ukranian identity was never on the table. War may be a racket, but history is what it is and now we're here. There are several morally corrupt parties, but that does not make them equal. That is a fallacy. Civilians suffer, and they suffer tremendously. We mustn't lose sight of right and wrong even when we're deep in moral relativism.

mythrwy 3y ago
In this case it's hard for me to justify the forcing of republics that are largely Russian to belong to a union that has been turned decidedly anti-Russian including with a coup and NGOs and intelligence activity. There has been a lot of bloodshed, including of civilians before the "war" started and much of it was from the side that is now aggrieved. I understand the economic reasons for not wanting Russia to control so many resources and important trade routes, but in this case if there is a "more wrong" party in my opinion it is the meddlers from further off. This is only my opinion and I really think there isn't much of a "morally right" party in this sitution. Let me also put it like this. I don't necessarily control what bad people in other places do, but I expect my own society to not behave badly. To not overturn other societies and cause death and suffering and chaos for economic gain and then give me bullshit reasons and propaganda about "truth and justice and democracy". I believe if more people on all sides thought this way we would have less problems but as you say, here we are.
- int_19h 3y ago
  Which "republics that are largely Russian" are you talking about? If you mean LNR & DNR, then that's just plainly not true. At most they were majority Russophone (depending on how you count "native language"), which is not at all the same thing. You might also want to look up what ethnic Russian citizens in e.g. Moldova or Latvia think about the perspective of Russia "helping" them the way it "helped" ethnic Russians in Ukraine.
  - mythrwy 3y ago
    I'm afraid you are misinformed on this count. The citizens of Crimea and Donetsk are largely both ethnically and linguistically Russian. Luhansk it is less, but still around half or more. And they have generally voted largely in favor of Russian leaning candidates. Never mind the declarations of independence after the 2014 coup, the taking up of arms, and the subsequent military resistance to the Ukrainian state.
    - int_19h 3y ago
      You are again conflating the linguistics and the politics with ethnicity. Most residents of Donbass self-identified as Ukrainian before Russia invaded in 2014, even those who predominantly speak Russian and voted for candidates like Yanukovich. And many people who voted for Yanuk back in 2012 are fighting back today. What most of them wanted was more language rights and a more Russian-centric foreign policy, not getting annexed by Russia. Crimea is a different story, but if we go there we'll also have to talk about things like why Crimean Tatars aren't the majority of the population there anymore.

vlovich123 3y ago

> It's a big prize. And it had been Russian from the 1700s until 1956. And now it is again. Except the USSR released it. Nothing to do with the US. And Russia trying to recapture it now has nothing to do with the fact that it’s been it’s own country for almost 50 years. Not to mention Ukraine has repeatedly sought entrance into NATO for exactly this fear and Russia has dissuaded NATO from considering it under threat of viewing it as a direct aggression against Russia. > It's an economic war. Like most, or even all wars are in reality. Whatever else I don’t think the war in Ukraine is an economic one. It seems more like a militarily and politically strategic one. Ukraine (specifically Crimea) is an extremely important naval base (at least that’s my impression). The US has also supported the pro-Western political factions within Ukraine which is a problem for Putin considering Ukraine’s proximity to the Russian border and Crimea. Additionally Putin regularly engages in acts of military aggression because it boosts his strongman image which helps him domestically, which, along with the political assassination, helps maintain his power over the political environment in Russia. Putin is already wealthy enough. His moves are about acquiring geopolitical power, not basic wealth.

int_19h 3y ago
Crimea does indeed make for a good naval base, but Russia has more options that aren't much inferior - Novorossiysk, for example. More importantly, Black Sea itself is strategically not very interesting for Russia because Turkey (a NATO country) controls the straits, and thus in any big war involving NATO the Russian fleet would be locked in anyway. No, it is largely a cultural thing. There's considerable evidence that Putin really believes all the tripe about "triune people" that was written in his 2021 essay [0], and genuinely sees independent Ukraine as a deliberately manufactured cultural "anti-Russia" that cannot be allowed to exist for that reason alone. [0] http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/66181 http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/66181
- vlovich123 3y ago
  While Turkey is a NATO ally, I wouldn’t really rely on them, at least not under Erdogan: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/turkeys-erdogan-touts-special-relationship-with-putin-stands-by-his-refusal-to-impose-sanctions/ar-AA1bpVgR https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/turkeys-erdogan-touts-s... Sure, it’s unclear Erdogan would go so far as to violate NATO treaties, but I wouldn’t call Turkey the US’s unabashed ally. I don’t know that I buy the whole cultural angle when Putin very reliably acts squarely within the model of realpolitik power acquisition.

lisasays 3y ago

The British were after Crimea 180 years ago. (see charge of the light brigade) It's a big prize. And it had been Russian from the 1700s until 1956. If we're going to go back that far -- it was all part of the Crimean Khanate from 1443 up until 1783 (not 1700 as you know perfectly well), whose border extended up to the Dnipro, all around the Azaq deñizi (which later occupiers would call the Sea of Azov) and then some. So clearly none of the occupying powers since then have any legitimacy. That is not to excuse any Russian behavior either. No, you're just trying to minimize it, and use it as a wedge to get some emotional talking points in.

int_19h 3y ago

I grew up in Russia in the 90s, so yeah, I remember it all very well - the incessant rhetoric from the "patriots" that NATO is about to invade and dismember the country any day now, the purported NATO mercenaries fighting for Chechen separatists etc. It was usually peddled by the same people who believed that Dulles' Plan was a real thing. It's too bad that those same people now run Russia, and the war is the direct consequence of that.