I'm sorry if you took offense.
No, I didn't actually. It's the Internet, so any time I post anything I am prepared to that it may be mocked or its meaning may be twisted or people may have their fun of it any other way they like. So it's OK. Not pleasant, but OK.
Anyway, apology accepted. BFF
And you should know that other people from the former USSR, especially those who are not Russian, probably do not share your sentiments.
Yeah, I'm aware of that. It's probably similar to how people in Russia do think Moscow is suppressing its vicinities inhibiting their development, but often fail to explain the exact mechanism of it. The explanation is usually limited to
"Hey, isn't it obvious? What's to explain there?" So, yes, I can imagine there are beliefs of just any kind out there.
Russia's adventurism serves as a bad precedent for all the other imperialist, revisionist states that want to grab a bit of land from their neighbors. My own country is threatened by just such a country, who will probably be emboldened by Russia's good example, and the lack of a strong international response to it thus far.
Well, first, Russia is neither imperialist, nor revisionist, although it of course may be considered to be both by some. Second, if you look at the map, you'll see that there is no shortage of land in Russia, so it's hard to imagine this whole thing is about landgrab. Third, I don't want to point fingers, but if you look around you can spot another big and strong country openly invading other countries in a casual manner, and yet, strangely enough to my mind, not being considered imperialist whatsoever.
The point here is that if your particular neighboring country is searching for an emboldening example, Russia is not the only one and not the best one out there, imo. So, your particular neighbor can grow offensive regardless of what the Russian politics is actually. But with the current experience of Russia being blamed for whatever happens, I'll not be surprised if some crackpots indeed justify their offensive with Russian example, and everyone around readily support that idea.
I really doubt this somehow. First that they are few (how few is a "few", half a million?) and secondly that they are hated.
The trickiest part here is the proportion ratio. Half a million seems to be a great number if it stands alone. But being mixed into the 143.7 mln population it yields 0.3%, which means that in 300 Russians you can find 1 of these particular idiots per 299 normal reasonable people. Far from being a sizable part, right? Baltic countries have far worse ratio actually.
The flip side of it is that you can actually find thousands (and even hundreds of thousands) of any kind of crackpots, nuts and freaks you can think of, and probably even some kinds of them you couldn't have imagined. None of them would present any substantial part of the overall population, but because crackpots, nuts and freaks tend to be loud and eye-catching, it really delivers an impression that Russians consist of no one but them.
Now, if we agree that 299 of 300 Russians are not ultranationalists but civilized normals, it is easy to imagine that Russian normals tend to look at Russian ultranationalists similar to how normals look at ultranationalists all over the civilized world. And that is not very supportive.
I said "the sentiment of a good number of Russians", not you personally. Maybe you agree with that sentiment, maybe you don't. Now, I'll share with you a quote from another Russian on the Ukraine crisis thread outlining this sentiment, so that you cannot accuse me of making stuff up.
Right. I see what you're referring to, but here's the point: anyone who speaks of "the subconsciousness of the majority" either has done one hell of a sociology survey, or is making stuff up trying to sell his own position as the overall position. And you'll be fooled if you buy it. Reasonable?
I've bolded the part I want you to pay attention to. Apparently, most Russians, whether consciously or subconsciously, do not really consider Ukraine a separate, sovereign country. And that is how their annexation is justified. Ukrainians are just treacherous relatives - brilliant! Based on that, my original statement about how Russians consider Ukrainians to be "Russians in denial who need to be brought back into the fold" is quite accurate.
Yes, I see the point. Can't support it though, as it is a mixture of true and false components which guides to an overall wrong conclusion.
It is true that Ukrainians are relatives. Literally indeed, as I am myself 1/4 Ukrainian (my mother's mother is from the vicinities of
Rivne), and my great-grandfather still lives in Odessa. The old man is 96 now, and not in a perfect health state (bedridden actually), so he refused to be transported to us although he bitterly takes what happens there (being a WWII hero with his chest full of medals contributes to that) and is frightened indeed.
However, the false part is that relatives must necessarily be taken back home at any cost, especially against their will and by brutal force, especially if they cause more problems and rivalry than pleasure and family-love warmth. However yet, the whole ATO thing conducted by UA gov seems to be quite about that indeed. Similar to the Chechen wars actually. I didn't support Russia then, I don't support Ukraine now.
Here's the comparison:
On one hand there is Crimea, which was bloodlessly (a.k.a. brutally) annexed (actually accepted on request to join after they declared independence) by Russia. No shooting civil war, no civil disorders, no street protests reported from there even by western media who would be happy to find something like that to report I reckon.
On the other hand there are Luhansk and Donetsk, which were not annexed by Russia although they also filed their request after they proclaimed independence. Moreover, Putin has officially revoked the permission to use Russian troops outside Russian national borders granted to him by the Federal Council. This means that he currently has no right to do it no matter how much he wants to, not only under the international law, but also under the domestic law. Intelligence and volunteers don't count, because that's how intelligence operates and both sides use hired guns from all over the world. Not a single Russian soldier officially is (and will be) there to officially call it an invasion. And yet there is a full-scale war there with tanks, heavy artillery, salvo missile systems and aviation used.
Now if you ask me where I would like my relatives to be, what do you think I would answer?
This person I'm quoting has also said things like this, which go a long way towards explaining the Russian mindset:
Another misguiding mixture of true and false components.
It is true that Kiev is a significant part of Russian history of X - XIII centuries. That significance faded since the beginning of the occupation by the Golden Horde in XIII century and till Russia lifted the occupation in XV century under the leadership of Moscow. The Kiev guys than told the Moscow guys like "Well done fellas, now hand it over and we'll be in charge again." And the Moscow guys replied sort of "Like hell you will," and they hate each other ever after. Kidding.
The true point here is that, yes, it is history, but it is a history so old that bringing it up into the modern politics is as ridiculous as it would be if modern Italians still were seriously furious with the modern Spanish and Germans because Rome fell to West Goths in 410 and to Vandals in 455.
However, given my point above that Russian population does contain crackpots of any sort, I am pretty confident that it is possible to find a group of people thinking exactly this way.
Another interesting thing is that apparently, even Russians who are not fond of Putin support him as far as the Ukraine issue is concerned. Which is even worse IMO.
And that would be me. I voted for Putin only once in his 3 elections, and that once was because other options presented in that particular election were even worse. However, with the overall attitude here I do seem a radical pro-Putin character. An odd and creepy feeling in fact.
It could just be that Russia was not willing at the time to take the international condemnation (and sanctions) for annexing Georgia (or just South Ossetia and Abkhazia). Anyway, there's always next time.
Don't see how it's different from the Ukrainian situation. Specifically, don't see how someone happens to be
willing to take international condemnation (and sanctions), and don't see why the "there's always next time" concept can't be applied here as well.
Even if I allow that the annexation of Crimea was the moral thing to do (since Russians are actually the majority in Crimea at least), how does it become moral in eastern Ukraine?
No how. And it is exactly why the eastern Ukraine has not been
annexed accepted to be members of the Russian Fed as you might have noticed, even though they filed a request to be, which request was officially declined.
This can be changed however, given how UA gov behaves there, in case they win their war of independence, which seems dubious at the moment.
Here's what I think:
Currently, Donetsk and Luhansk are being bombed back into the stone age by the UA gov claiming it's their territory and their people in their cities.
Now,
If Donetsk and Luhansk ultimately succeed in their splitoff, I would expect my gov to provide any assistance (money, machinery, materials, specialists, etc. whatever is needed) to help them rebuild infrastructure and get running ASAP.
If Donetsk and Luhansk will be ultimately suppressed to stay within the Ukraine, I would expect my gov to not care for even a second about how the Ukraine gov is going to clean up the mess it has caused.
