|
Paladinus posted:They are not doing anything they haven't done before, and the goal is not an open invasion. The last time they did a move like this they invaded Georgia.
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 17:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 20:35 |
|
|
CommieGIR posted:The last time they did a move like this they invaded Georgia. Nah the last time they did a move like this they invaded Ukraine. The military threat to Ukraine and the negotiating demands to NATO are so asymetric that it's just incredibly difficult to see through it all. If the negotiations are real then threatening Ukraine is actually a pretty bad way to get NATO to agree to anything. If the intent towards Ukraine is real then it comes at a cost of hardening NATO resolve significantly. And if this is all 5d chess playing by Putin to get water rights access for Crimea... well it's come at a bit of a cost.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 18:05
|
|
|
I wonder if he regrets not invading while Trump was president. I think Trump would have sanctioned Russia too, but there definitely wouldn't be this level of US-led opposition by a unified NATO.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 18:10
|
|
|
cinci zoo sniper posted:That was subsequently debunked by Finnish posters, the country has a steady domestic supply of nuclear energy, and is further expanding it. I was referring to Germany and thought the original poster was doing the same.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 18:14
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Nah the last time they did a move like this they invaded Ukraine. Even though Russia did invade Ukraine, they were less overt than this. I was more referring to overt "Openly identified Russian forces"
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 18:20
|
|
|
nurmie posted:excuse me, but have you considered drat, I miss them so much after I moved from my hometown (North-Eastern Poland), just can't find any good (or basically any at all) kartacze here (I think they're basically the same as zeppelins). I only ate the meat version though, but wiki mentions cottage cheese as an option which sounds great too. Edit: the wiki mentions Lithuania obviously as the country that cooks them - are they visible in other Baltic countries though? mmkay fucked around with this message at 18:33 on Jan 27, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 18:29
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/Tortokhod/status/1485530046173487104
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 18:56
|
|
|
I don’t remember where I saw that initially, but someone has been shitposting from that numbers station for at least a week. Including poop emoji and troll face spectrogram generation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 19:10
|
|
|
cinci zoo sniper posted:I don’t remember where I saw that initially, but someone has been shitposting from that numbers station for at least a week. Including poop emoji and troll face spectrogram generation. It's likely not coming from the station. Someone else closer to the receiver is just spamming the same frequency because he knows that people are listening.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 19:16
|
|
|
the slow buildup and probative diplomacy seem logical if one is 1) deeply uncertain about the actual degree of unity in the European alliance, esp with new governments in Germany, Britain busy with Brexit, etc., and 2) deeply uncertain about domestic support for a potentially really bloody and impossible-to-censor war amongst Russians themselves maybe spending a few weeks probing whether France and Germany would veto any action like in 2008 re: Georgia is worth the delay in increasing the diplomatic temperature? That particular evolution and military buildup took from April to August anyway. ronya fucked around with this message at 19:24 on Jan 27, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 19:19
|
|
|
If Putin really intends to invade, I don't see how wasting time is helping him. It's just giving everyone else time to agree on sanctions. If he only wanted to see how the rest of the world would react to Russia's threats, he has some pretty expensive hobbies.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 19:25
|
|
|
Military action is also incredibly risky: Georgia was wildly successful, but it was Russia vs a ridiculously smaller and poorer nation. 2014 was a panic move following the sudden collapse of Moscow's most powerful client state. The Russian government's support is very brittle, it can't absorb a military slog even on par with Chechnya. It can probably overrun the Ukrainian military quickly, but that probably is very important. And if it does, then it needs to extract value either by taking or holding territory or through negotiating for political concessions (probably both), both of which are going to be further challenges.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 19:26
|
|
|
I think we should define 'rapid'. In Iraq 2 the US spearheads were advancing ~20km per day, and that was for large stretches of zero opposition. In Ukraine that still implies a campaign that takes several weeks, even if every advance doesn't have to deal with a few javelins being lobbed at it every time it passes a ridge.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 19:30
|
|
|
If Bad Apple saves Ukraine I don't know what reality is anymore.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 19:33
|
|
|
BoldFace posted:If Putin really intends to invade, I don't see how wasting time is helping him. It's just giving everyone else time to agree on sanctions. If he only wanted to see how the rest of the world would react to Russia's threats, he has some pretty expensive hobbies. Haven't people mentioned in here that there's a fleet on route to the Black Sea? I don't know if Putin has reached the "wasting time" stage yet, he's still setting the board. Which brings up a genuine question out of ignorance: what obligations, if any, does Turkey have in allowing Russian ships through the Bosphorus? I figure denying them entry would cause a major diplomatic incident, but as I've asked about earlier I can't imagine Erdogan is super thrilled about a growing Russian military presence in the Black Sea.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 19:51
|
|
|
TipTow posted:Haven't people mentioned in here that there's a fleet on route to the Black Sea? I don't know if Putin has reached the "wasting time" stage yet, he's still setting the board. 30s Montreaux treaty between USSR and Turkey.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 19:54
|
|
|
cinci zoo sniper posted:30s Montreaux treaty between USSR and Turkey. Very interesting, have some reading to do this afternoon, thanks
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 20:00
|
|
|
mmkay posted:drat, I miss them so much after I moved from my hometown (North-Eastern Poland), just can't find any good (or basically any at all) kartacze here (I think they're basically the same as zeppelins). I only ate the meat version though, but wiki mentions cottage cheese as an option which sounds great too. i've never encountered them outside the lithuanian / belorussian-to-an-extent context, and this is like the first time i'm hearing they're present in Polish cuisine too lol. it totally makes sense for cepelinai to be a thing in and around podlasie/suvalkija though (at least, i assume that's what "north-eastern poland" refers to  )
nurmie fucked around with this message at 20:08 on Jan 27, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 20:06
|
|
|
nurmie posted:i've never encountered them outside the lithuanian / belorussian-to-an-extent context, and this is like the first time i'm hearing they're present in Polish cuisine too lol. it totally makes sense for cepelinai to be a thing in and around podlasie/suvalkija though (at least, i assume that's what "north-eastern poland" refers to Yea, I'm from Podlasie. They're not really too much of a thing outside of that area, I think (I saw an offering in a bar in Gdańsk like once when I was studying there but they were already sold out  ).
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 20:20
|
|
|
nurmie posted:i've never encountered them outside the lithuanian / belorussian-to-an-extent context, and this is like the first time i'm hearing they're present in Polish cuisine too lol. it totally makes sense for cepelinai to be a thing in and around podlasie/suvalkija though (at least, i assume that's what "north-eastern poland" refers to They’re a thing here too, my parents would make them frequently. Called exactly the same as well, cepelīni. cinci zoo sniper fucked around with this message at 21:23 on Jan 27, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 20:29
|
|
|
Interesting how its going to develop now. Previous scenarios for Russia backing down included the west throwing russia a bone for Putin to save face in front of domestic public, some sort of win of whatever nature. Latest statement shows that every one is tired enough they'll let him dig his own way out of poo poo he created.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 20:47
|
|
|
nurmie posted:but pig ears on their own is a pro choice as an appetizer to go with beer
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 20:49
|
|
|
BoldFace posted:If Putin really intends to invade, I don't see how wasting time is helping him. It's just giving everyone else time to agree on sanctions. If he only wanted to see how the rest of the world would react to Russia's threats, he has some pretty expensive hobbies. Look at the progression of diplomacy. We went from we will stand with Ukraine no matter what to "well a small invasion wouldn't be something we worry about". Europe/US will continue to trip on it's own words until it says "putins in the right for liberating Odessa" .. I would also go as far to say that Based on what I have seen, the ukranians are dug in at the donetsk and luhansk borders they aren't so established in the northern border with Russia troops 200KM from Kyiv. I don't see any reason that Russia would experience resistance it can't just walk or drive past. I mean the Ukrainians are utilizing trenches and guess what trenches were proven strategically unsound tanks a literal century ago.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 21:44
|
|
|
Ukrainian authorities have been working on various defensive scenarios for Kyiv since last December. Journalists are mostly discussing just the mobile territorial defence groups for fighting diversions inside Kyiv, but their MoD is saying that they’re working on multiple defence levels there. I imagine they’re trying to keep their work at least somewhat under wraps.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 21:54
|
|
|
cinci zoo sniper posted:Consider being very delicate with your commentary on how much of a borsch’s volume should be taken up by vegetables. Otherwise you’ll wake up to 50 people from Ukrainian territorial defence forces trying to tell you in broken English that it’s only borsch if a spoon can stand in it. TIL my grandfather is an Ukrainian.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 22:18
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/HamdiAlkhshali/status/1486822661456113672?s=20&t=lziEtipBsjM2ri9DrfusJA https://twitter.com/marquardta/status/1486821462338064392?s=21 FishBulbia fucked around with this message at 23:39 on Jan 27, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 23:35
|
|
|
FishBulbia posted:https://twitter.com/HamdiAlkhshali/status/1486822661456113672?s=20&t=lziEtipBsjM2ri9DrfusJA to be clear, the different sides were: https://twitter.com/NatashaBertrand/status/1486781657520685058 and https://twitter.com/MarquardtA/status/1486821462338064392 e: ah, you edited your post
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 23:39
|
|
|
WAR CRIME GIGOLO posted:Look at the progression of diplomacy. We went from we will stand with Ukraine no matter what to "well a small invasion wouldn't be something we worry about". Europe/US will continue to trip on it's own words until it says "putins in the right for liberating Odessa" Not to go too milchat but limited fighting positions(battalion and down) still have their place in mobile defense. Either as a turning or blocking position, a defense in depth or a real protective line. Russians have scary artillery so some sort of earthworks is necessary at some point. Speaking as a U.S. Army engineer officer, thinking about surviving superior Russian artillery is what keeps me up at night.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 23:53
|
|
|
Weird how these sources around Zelensky keep saying poo poo that embarrasses the US.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2022 00:41
|
|
|
At this point we should also start considering that anonymous Ukrainian official could be some SVR colonel dialling in.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2022 00:43
|
|
|
cinci zoo sniper posted:At this point we should also start considering that anonymous Ukrainian official could be some SVR colonel dialling in. Well, given CNN's knowledge of Geography, they could have identified themselves as calling from Tula and they would decide they self-identified as Ukrainian.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2022 03:17
|
|
|
cinci zoo sniper posted:I’d like to chime in about NATO expanding into former Warsaw Pact and Baltics. I don’t know the WP details, but Baltics basically bankrolled their own armies from 0 in early 90s, paid for Danish advisors, and then sent them dressed in Adidas and hand-me-down equipment to die Balkans to buy ourselves a shot at joining NATO, which was a day 1 priority when the Soviet Union fell. I find it rather disingenuous to bring us up as an example of NATO actively encroaching upon implied passive Russian hinterlands. TipTow posted:It's not disingenuous. I understand there's several EE posters in here (including you) and of course y'all's perceptions of what's going on wrt the Ukrainian crisis are going to be informed by your own countries' history with Russia. As they should! That's perfectly reasonable. I even understand why, from the Baltics' point of view, joining NATO was a wise move. But I also understand why NATO expansion would be seen as threatening to Russia. What did the U.S., France, Turkey, et al. gain from the Baltics joining? Just because the Baltics wanted in doesn't mean NATO was obligated to bring them in. Nenonen posted:Why do you think Nato exists if not to bring stability to Europe? Isolationism didn't work out that well for USA one hundred years ago. It would be silly to dismantle it all just because the sort of bully the system was designed to protect its members from demands so. I keep seeing posts that revolve around the idea of what is NATO expansion for, why Russia is just a paranoid bear, and how Putin is just trying to restore the evil USSR. These views see Russian behavior in purely a moralistic western viewpoint and unfortunately fails to see things through Russian eyes. It is also instructive to remember that Vladimir Putin is entering his third decade as the primary political leader in Russia whereas administrations in the West have come and gone since then and it appears that our leaders, and we along with them, have forgotten things that have happened that Putin clearly still remembers. I decided to take the past few days to review the past two decades (I was just entering post-secondary schooling when Putin took power) and it reminded me a lot of what I had forgotten and how it must look from the Russian viewpoint. I am going to take a stab at presenting a view on the situation on how Russia sees things. This includes reading articles written back in the early 2000s and reviewing the situation as the writers saw it at that time rather than looking at the past through the tinted lens of today's events. Let me preface this by stating that the Russian viewpoint is classic 19th-century balance of power politics. The moral and just thing to do would be to allow the Ukrainians to decide for themselves who to look to, but we don't live in a moral or just world and I think it is only realistic and prudent for Russia, just like every other nation, to look after its own interests even at the expense of others. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union and the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, there was a vacuum of power effectively occupied by the Russians, historically a great power nation since the late 18th Century under the reign of Catherine the Great. The term 'sphere of influence' has been interpreted by many in this thread to be a negative thing and when viewed specifically within the framework of a sphere of influence impeding the freedom of action of a sovereign nation, it is indeed an obstacle. Spheres of influence though are also beneficial in that they lay out predictable and accepted ground rules and boundaries for conflict resolution both between members within a sphere of influence and members in opposing spheres of influence. In such ways, core interests are clearly identified and protected, and the pathway to resolution is more likely predictable and mundane. Gorbachev, Yeltsin and the rest of Russia understood that after 1989, Russia was no longer a great power but with the ideological divide now gone, the Russians felt that a new system of European security could be forged with the US, Europeans, and Russia bound within a new set of rules that would respect the interests of each nation. Gorbachev called it the "Common European Home", and the Russians expected with the dismantling of the Warsaw Pact, NATO would soon follow and a new security arrangement could be reached in which Russia would join the club of European nations and have both a seat and a relatively powerful say in European affairs and that Russian interests would be respected in this framework. Yeltsin expressed many times in the 90s that the expansion of NATO, when it failed to dissolve could only be viewed as simply keeping Russia out of the club and when Clinton moved forward with the "Partnership for Peace" initiative, there is some evidence to suggest that Washington assured them that Russia too, like the former states of the WP which were being eyed for inclusion into NATO, would soon get its seat at this table. Indeed Yeltsin is said to have viewed the Partnership for Peace as the 'alternative' to NATO expansion and part of the process by which NATO would transform from a military alliance into a political framework for dispute resolution on the continent. Indeed when Putin entered his first Presidential term in 2000, shortly after 9/11 the concept of a pan-European security arrangement (ie sphere of influence) was still largely on Russian minds. Despite open invitations to NATO expansion in the late 90s, the Russian reaction was relatively muted and always seemed to indicate that they were waiting their turn for integration into the system. When the 1997 invitations to the Poles, Czechs, and Hungarians to join, another agreement was made with Russia (Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security) in which NATO promised not to station permanent forces or redeploy nuclear weapons on to the territory of its new members (sounds suspiciously like the recent Russian demands no?). The Adapted Conventional Armed Forces in Europe Treaty was another failed experiment in which only Russia and 3 other Soviet Bloc countries ratified the treaty despite NATO members signing it. The breakdown of Yugoslavia and the NATO intervention in Kosovo with no meaningful consultation with the Russians who had Serbia as an effectively a client state was one of utter humiliation for the Russians. The promise of integrating Russia into a pan-European security arrangement seemed to be forgotten and soured Moscow on their naivety of expecting to be treated like a partner. Yet their efforts to integrate into Western Europe did not stop. George Robertson who led NATO in 1999-2003, indeed related a story recently where he says Putin talked to him and asked him point-blank when they could expect their invitation to NATO. In June of 2001, Putin openly expressed talk of joining NATO as a preferable 2nd alternative if the expansion of NATO continued. In the wake of 9/11, Putin met Bush, and despite continued talk of NATO expansion Putin was willing to play ball and the Russia-NATO Council was formed. But none of this seemed to matter. No meaningful attempt was made to integrate the Russians. Instead, from the Russian perspective, everything was done to antagonize them. In 2002, G W Bush pulled out of the ABM missile treaty which the Russians saw as an attempt to undermine their nuclear deterrence. At the same time in 2002, agreements were made to accept all the Baltic States and Romania among others into NATO. No meaningful consultations were made with Putin with these expansions. No assurances or suggestions were made that Russia would ever be included. Indeed it saw the 2004 revolutions in Ukraine and Georgia saw the toppling of governments that were friendly Russia and instead installed pro-western regimes that were openly declaring their intention of joining NATO - a club that Russia expressed interest in joining and was effectively cold-shouldered from. The Bush administration's decision to place ballistic missile defense systems in Poland (a new NATO member) infuriated the Russians and when Georgia invaded separatist South Ossetia with what they thought was a NATO green-lit affair, it can sympathize that Russia's only conclusion at that point was that NATO was slowly strangling it by installing friendly regimes, granting it NATO membership and then installing weapons that undermined Russian deterrence. Keep in mind when Serbia invaded the breakaway Kosovo in what Russia viewed as a similar situation, NATO intervened on the side of Kosovo (separatists). It can be argued that when viewed from the Russian perspective, the rules and principles that NATO/US/The West claimed to operate by are simply a sham of an excuse to intervene and pursue its own interests and a flimsy shield by which to lecture Russia with when Russia attempt to secure its own interests. Public speeches made by Putin back in 2007 and far more recently can only confirm that this is how he now views the NATO, a club that Russia tried on multiple attempts to join and were rebuffed. Putin 2007 speech Munich Conference "But what is happening at the same time? Simultaneously the so-called flexible frontline American bases with up to five thousand men in each. It turns out that NATO has put its frontline forces on our borders, and we continue to strictly fulfil the treaty obligations and do not react to these actions at all. I think it is obvious that NATO expansion does not have any relation with the modernisation of the Alliance itself or with ensuring security in Europe. On the contrary, it represents a serious provocation that reduces the level of mutual trust. And we have the right to ask: against whom is this expansion intended? And what happened to the assurances our western partners made after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact? Where are those declarations today? No one even remembers them." Putin at his end of year Presser is even more explicit "But the matter at hand concerns security, not history, but security guarantees. This is why it is not the negotiations themselves but the results that matter to us. We remember, as I have mentioned many times before and as you know very well, how you promised us in the 1990s that [NATO] would not move an inch to the East. You cheated us shamelessly: there have been five waves of NATO expansion, and now the weapons systems I mentioned have been deployed in Romania and deployment has recently begun in Poland. This is what we are talking about, can you not see? We are not threatening anyone. Have we approached US borders? Or the borders of Britain or any other country? It is you who have come to our border, and now you say that Ukraine will become a member of NATO as well. Or, even if it does not join NATO, military bases and strike systems will be placed on its territory under bilateral agreements. This is the point. Fundamentally, his opposition to NATO expansion, especially in Ukraine is less about restoring Imperial Russian borders but about obtaining a measure of control over a security situation that Russia, himself, has tried over two decades resolve; first by attempting to join the club, then attempted detente with the club, and now taking a hardline stance against further encroachment by the club. A club that in Russian eyes is every expanding around its borders, providing new bases from which to stage offensive weapons and having a deleterious effect on Russia's own ability to mount a credible deterrence over a time period (especially in the 90s and 00s) where Russia has simply made no substantial offensive moves of its own and over that same time period has been seen that its cultural, political, and strategic interests have been totally ignored by the West. Anytime Russia sought to act to protect its interests, it feels like it is picked on by NATO countries and slammed with the usual human rights and self-determination principles while those same principles are ignored whenever the West feels it needs to act unilaterally and without consultation from Russia. http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/transcripts/67438 http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/transcripts/24034 https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_8439.htm https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/why-nato-has-become-flash-point-russia-ukraine https://www.theguardian.com/world/from-the-archive-blog/2019/jul/10/gorbachev-vision-for-a-common-european-home--july-1989 https://www.cairn.info/revue-politique-etrangere-2009-5-page-107.htm?contenu=article https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/04/ex-nato-head-says-putin-wanted-to-join-alliance-early-on-in-his-rule https://www.brookings.edu/research/nato-enlargement-moving-forward-expanding-the-alliance-and-completing-europes-integration/?amp
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2022 05:39
|
|
|
MikeC posted:These views see Russian behavior in purely a moralistic western viewpoint and unfortunately fails to see things through Russian eyes. Exactly why should Ukrainians bear burdens of Russian safety. Because Russia enslaved their forefathers? Because it tried to destroy their language and culture? Because it starved them to death? Because millions of them died fighting off Nazis driving tanks constructed and fueled with the help of the Muscovite government?
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2022 05:59
|
|
|
OddObserver posted:Oh, yes, moralistic "Western" viewpoint that Russia murdering 13,000 Ukrainians and forcing millions from their homes is bad and they shouldn't do even more. Did you.....actually read the post?
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2022 06:32
|
|
|
MikeC posted:Did you.....actually read the post? I read enough.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2022 06:40
|
|
|
MikeC posted:I keep seeing posts that revolve around the idea of what is NATO expansion for, why Russia is just a paranoid bear, and how Putin is just trying to restore the evil USSR. These views see Russian behavior in purely a moralistic western viewpoint and unfortunately fails to see things through Russian eyes. It is also instructive to remember that Vladimir Putin is entering his third decade as the primary political leader in Russia whereas administrations in the West have come and gone since then and it appears that our leaders, and we along with them, have forgotten things that have happened that Putin clearly still remembers. Saying this will always start arguments ITT but I hold that Putin never would have happened if NATO had kept their promises; ultra-conservative nationalists clinging to Yevraziystvo and skeptical of Western intentions didn't happen in a vacuum. Furthermore, Putin himself was basically Yeltsin's handpicked successor and the West guaranteed the '96 election, so a great irony is Putin by and large exists in his current political capacity because of the US intervention in Russian elections. NATO itself could also claim to be a purely defensive alliance before the Yugoslav interventions, but absent a coherent peer-level threat to challenge it it morphed into this club pushing a weird amalgam of Western policy goals, and so Russian leadership concerns about expansion can't truly be said to be off the mark.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2022 06:49
|
|
|
OddObserver posted:Because Russia enslaved their forefathers? Because it tried to destroy their language and culture? Because it starved them to death? Because millions of them died fighting off Nazis driving tanks constructed and fueled with the help of the Muscovite government? For what it's worth, prior to 2014's annexation of Crimea, Ukranians were far more inclined to say that the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the switch to a Democratic system, and the adoption of a market economy harmed Ukraine more than it helped. https://news.gallup.com/poll/166538/former-soviet-countries-harm-breakup.aspx https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2011/12/05/confidence-in-democracy-and-capitalism-wanes-in-former-soviet-union/ These numbers sharply skewed in the opposite direction after Russia's beligerence towards Ukraine: https://www.pewforum.org/2017/05/10/views-on-role-of-russia-in-the-region-and-the-soviet-union/ Obvious caveats; modern Russia is not the USSR by any stretch of the imagination (though Ukraine also had very high favorability towards modern Russia prior to the annexation of Crimea), the loss of Crimea and Donbass would likely cause any modern polling of Ukraine sans those territories to be even more skewed against both the USSR and Putin's Russia, and this in no way excuses Russia's actions. I simply find it interesting how this grievance-nationalism was...not too prevalent eight years ago.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2022 07:12
|
|
|
OddObserver posted:Because Russia enslaved their forefathers? Because it tried to destroy their language and culture? Because it starved them to death? Because millions of them died fighting off Nazis driving tanks constructed and fueled with the help of the Muscovite government? drat Ukrainian communists who are now Russians?? The National framework is a historical narrative, but it isn't actually accurate to history. FishBulbia fucked around with this message at 07:30 on Jan 28, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2022 07:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 20:35 |
|
|
Neurolimal posted:For what it's worth, prior to 2014's annexation of Crimea, Ukranians were far more inclined to say that the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the switch to a Democratic system, and the adoption of a market economy harmed Ukraine more than it helped. Yeah. It only takes a few years to come up with new historical narratives. Look how Stalinism has been ressurrected in Russia for example. You can just make new narratives whenever it fits. In Russia it went from "Yay Russian Nationalism" to "Stalin was the Hero of Russia, not the USSR, but the Russian Nation" in about ten years. They can say this all while waving flags that would've had them labeled as enemies under Stalin. Constantly destroying and remaking the past, which is erronously thought to be a fixed thing, is a very fundamental part of human behavior. FishBulbia fucked around with this message at 07:31 on Jan 28, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2022 07:26
|
|