A circle jerk of factoids and propaganda is not a philosophical discussion.

You can say "Russia's bad" and "Russia could withdraw" all you want, but if there's no political or military plan to do so, what's the point.

And, the only person who has actually proposed a military "tough way" plan to "force" Putin to back down, is myself. Of course, that's not interesting to any pro-Ukrainian interlocutor, because the fantasy of supplying arms as literally "Standing with Ukraine" is so entertaining.

In a situation like this your arms dealer is the same as your drug dealer.

Feels good every hit.

I won't post the bat-shit insane things the neo-Nazi's have said, as I don't want to deal with Nazi apologetics just right now.

Maybe in a few days.

Still, after all these months, no one has actually answered the question of how many Nazis with power and influence would be too many Nazis with power and influence.

Valentina Matviyenko is the head of Saint Petersburg and chair of the Federal Council of Russia.

We believe in Russia (Jun 10, 2022; in Russian)

Russia has developed over the centuries as a multinational entity, where all world religions freely coexisted. Our people are one of the few who show concern not only for their own welfare, but also for the welfare of all people, humanity as a whole.

:brow:

In fact, Russia is fighting the notorious collective West, defending its very existence as a country, a people, a civilization.

We must constantly remember that Russophobia in Europe has deep roots. And what is happening today is not a sudden, short-term episode, but a constant component of the social and political life of the West.

That's odd. Sure, there was Sovietphobia in most or many places. After that, things changed, there was optimism, friendships, seeking trust. 2-3 decades ago, something like that, I personally know people that went to Russia, business and otherwise. But now, ironically, Putin and compadres stomped that out good and well. To the extent it's real, Matviyenko's "Russophobia" was/is like a self-fulfilling prophecy. Except, who has been wanting Russia to cease existing...? Will she be able to sell the persecution complex (or fear) to the Russian people (while Putin possibly creates a Ukraine of Russohaters)...?

In recent months, information, propaganda, psychological pressure on us has increased many times over. But attempts to erode the cohesion of Russian society, and even split it, to undermine the confidence of citizens in the authorities, as we see, have failed. This is convincingly evidenced by the social and political stability in the country, the high ratings of citizens' trust in President Vladimir Putin, and the approval of his activities.

A bit of irony and a bit of deceit/lying here. (Not going to keep repeating what's been posted.)

We are fighting on two fronts. On the one hand, with the ideas that the West seeks to introduce into the minds of Russian citizens, primarily young people. On the other hand, with neo-Nazism in its current, Ukrainian guise. The state and society simply cannot fail to respond to these challenges.

Right, the evil westerners are more or less accepting homosexuals, democracy, freedom of press, individual rights, ... And the Russian state must put a stop to that at home. The deNazification thing is a ruse, hypocrisy (be it the call for nationalism, actions taken, not looking in the backyard or at the employees, oppression of other voices, moves toward systematic indoctrination, or whatever), an excuse, a means to "collect the troops", another common enemy.

As you know, the Russian Constitution prohibits the recognition of any ideology as mandatory, but it does not prevent certain ideas from being perceived as basic, fundamental.

This request is answered by the adopted law, introduced by President Vladimir Putin, which fixed the establishment of a sense of patriotism and citizenship in the minds of people as the goals of education. I would also note the initiative to create a new all-Russian movement for children and youth, the proposal of the Ministry of Education to teach history in schools from the first grade.
I believe that some steps in this direction are overdue in higher education. In particular, it is worth thinking about updating the programs of the humanities studied at universities.

So, a sketchy justification for an authoritarian Russia, and a call for nationalism.

An exercise in propaganda, and (some) people will lap it up. Nothing new to see here.

Matviyenko did some good things for Saint Petersburg. What happened?

Russia takes upon itself the role of the shortest man in the gang. He's the one with the most to prove, and so is the most dangerous.

Again, no one is actually "standing" with Ukraine, except a few foreign fighters. — boethius

Except giving military and financial aid to Ukraine. Which actually rarely happens.

We see statements like this, but never see any evidence. — boethius

How isn't the ANNEXATION of Ukrainian territory clear evidence of this?

Or the Russification that Russia is doing in the occupied territories?

Or simply just what Vladimir Putin says?

How simply that isn't obvious evidence???

Except giving military and financial aid to Ukraine. Which actually rarely happens. — ssu

That's not "standing" with someone, it's supplying arms.

How isn't the ANNEXATION of Ukrainian territory clear evidence of this? — ssu

Because there's an important port in Sevastopol which an anti-Russian government supported by literal Nazi's would threaten, and Crimea was Russian not long ago and is filled with ethnic Russians.

Of course, you can argue Russia should not have annexed all of Crimea to protect a military base, but it's clearly a large and credible motivator and is not related to absorbing all of Ukraine.

Or the Russification that Russia is doing in the occupied territories? — ssu

Again, what's at issue here is that the idea that Putin and the Kremlin's goal is now, and has been all along, to annex all of Ukraine and destroy all of Ukrainian culture. That's the proposition being contested.

I'm pretty sure you've mentioned yourself several times that the preferred outcome of the first phase of the invasion was regime change to a government friendly to Russia, which is what fits the troops committed and the rolling tanks to the capital and soft hands on Ukrainian infrastructure.

A total war of annihilation would have looked very different.

And again, if Russia's goal was total destruction of Ukraine and Ukrainian culture it could easily use nuclear weapons to largely accomplish that.

If you retort that: ok, ok, ok Putin and the Kremlin's priority isn't the total destruction of Ukraine, as it has the tools to do that and has not done so, and there's all these other goals and conditions to consider ... but, but, but they'd still love to own Ukraine if they could by magic.

Ok sure, I'm sure Putin and the Kremlin would like to own the entire world if somehow it was magically feasible. However, in the real world, if you claim someone has an objective, they have the tools to achieve that objective, and they don't ... then that's clearly not their objective and speculating about what people would wish, or rather, or prefer if they could somehow magically have it, isn't very useful.

I'm sure Trump would have preferred to own the whole world too if it was magically feasible, but claiming that was Trump's objective as president is dumb.

, more realistically, Putin is out to grab as much of Ukraine as feasible.
Limiting factors include military resistance, domestic politics, resources, international responses, ...
The Feb 24 attempt on Kyiv failed, but Putin has time.
A moving target (likely).

Doubtful there's any explicit or particular goal to destroy Ukrainian culture.
More like the usual propaganda, Russification, doing away with resistance as needed.
Another (likely) moving target.

I'm sure he has Kremlin advisers, spies, strategists, generals, and such sweating, maybe running scenarios + contingencies or whatever.
A cynical chess game, control, incidentally bombing Ukrainians?

In fact, Russia is fighting the notorious collective West, defending its very existence as a country, a people, a civilization.
We must constantly remember that Russophobia in Europe has deep roots. And what is happening today is not a sudden, short-term episode, but a constant component of the social and political life of the West.

That's odd. Sure, there was Sovietphobia in most or many places. After that, things changed, there was optimism, friendships, seeking trust. 2-3 decades ago, something like that, I personally know people that went to Russia, business and otherwise. But now, ironically, Putin and compadres stomped that out good and well. To the extent it's real, Matviyenko's "Russophobia" was/is like a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Except, who has been wanting Russia to cease existing...? — jorndoe

Russia takes upon itself the role of the shortest man in the gang. — Banno

Wow. The pretense is astounding.

Russia takes upon itself the role of the shortest man in the gang. — Banno

I can't actually think of a single American film or tv series where I could say with certainty that it doesn't ridicule Russia or present Russians as anything other than stupid or hostile. Russophobia is pervasively present in American culture and has been for a long time.
And similar for other Western cultures.

Then US presidents, esp. the Democrats: all Russophobes to the bone.

I can't think of an EU politician who hasn't been a Russophobe. It's part of what counts for "being civilized" around here, and it's been like that for as long as I can remember, at least 30 years.

And to then hear someone claim that the Russians chose this negative image that Westerners have of them!

That's not "standing" with someone, it's supplying arms. — boethius

Except that usually arms are sold. Not given. That's the real difference here.

So I don't understand what your point is with this kind of rhetoric.

Because there's an important port in Sevastopol which an anti-Russian government supported by literal Nazi's would threaten, and Crimea was Russian not long ago and is filled with ethnic Russians. — boethius

Poor, poor Russians. Threatened by Nazi's.

I guess that Sevastopol base is the reason to start a war in the Donbas too. By denying the obvious imperialist aspirations of Russia, your position is quite clear.

I think the feeling is mutual with the Slavophiles in Russia.

They haven't ever liked the West and especially they haven't liked the westernizers, the Zapadniks. The divide goes far into history in Russia.

I think the feeling is mutual with the Slavophiles in Russia. — ssu

Why should the Western hatred of Russians (and Slavic people in general) be considered morally right?

So what are you going to do about it?

Yeah, @baker, what's with the Russophobia in Ukraine anyway?

I will continue to love free Slavs.

Yeah, @baker, what's with the Russophobia in Ukraine anyway? — jorndoe

It might be useful to remind @baker that Ukrainians are Slavs. In fact Ukraine, the region around Kyiv in particular, was historically the cradle of all Slavic nations. That's where the trade route from the Varangians to the Greeks ran. The Varangians were Vikings who came to rule a mix of folks living in those parts circa 8th century if memory serves. The word originally means "war gang" or "war party". They founded the Rurik dynasty, which ruled the Kievan Rus from the 9th to the 13th century. They waged wars against Constantinople and lost, but settled along the Danube and in the Balkans. And then they allied themselves and traded with the Eastern Roman Empire.

Hence the establishment of the highly profitable trade route from the Varangians to the Greeks, running through Kyiv. The Varangians or Rus traded with Byzance in fur, metals, but mostly slaves, as previous traders had done along this ancient route. The etymology of "slave" is "Slav".

Hence also the Slavs being generally Orthodox, because they forged a strong link with Byzance at that time. They even supplied the personal gard to the emperor: the Varangian Gard. The Varangian gard traveled wherever the emperor had to go, and they left runic inscriptions all over the empire.

The Slavs were born in Ukraine.

Why should the Western hatred of Russians (and Slavic people in general) be considered morally right? — baker

Why would any hatred of a large people or a country be morally right?

I think you should judge individuals by their actions. Regimes can be totalitarian or undemocratic, but why the hatred, especially of large people, be they American or Russian or anybody else? There's a lot of different people among them.

In wars some people find it easier to really hate the enemy. And of course personal experiences and those to your fellow people makes it totally understandable. Personally I don't have anything against Russians, I know that many of them don't at all support Putin, and some naturally do. I'm just not in that hating game. It's for the racists and xenophobic people.

I think that as far as Slavic people go, Ukrainians are better than Russians. The latter have always been slaves. — Olivier5

I don't think they are slaves, and haven't been for a long time. Sometimes you are just in a country where politics doesn't work so well as in other countries and you don't have democracy, rights of the individual and a justice state. Mexicans are nice people, but their government is terrible. I would say the same thing about Russia. We should remember that our countries could also lose our democracy if everything would go to hell in a handbasket. And then we are just awed how insane our society has become and how crazy our fellow citizens are.

Always "Slavs"?

I don't think it was a typo from @Olivier5 (but I could be wrong, of course).

Well, I'm not sure just when Russians weren't Russians. Or the time when Ukrainians weren't slavs (Ruthenians were considered slavs too). It's not as we Finns have been Finno-Ugrian and before weren't, but I guess with enough time we all trace back to Africa.

Point well taken. I was being polemical.

Btw, I was interested in figuring out who kept breaking the ceasefire of the Minsk accords. I've searched for about an hour and I can't find it. You'd think the OCSE would document that too but unless it's only in the daily reports (which I'm not going to check one by one) I couldn't find it.

While searching for it, some interesting notes are that messaging has definitely shifted. Russia sent "saboteurs" while the West sent "military consultants".
But really, they were doing the same.

And Fiona Hill seems to have totally changed her tune. Here is her 2014 real politik analysis: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/mr-putin-and-the-art-of-the-offensive-defense-ukraine-and-its-meanings-part-three/

This was a pretty good read as well. https://www.beyondintractability.org/casestudy/grover-minsk-II-accords#_ftn43

I've searched for about an hour and I can't find it. — Benkei

Classifed, top secret! You'll need to get security clearance to view these docs. :smile:

Russia sent "saboteurs" while the West sent "military consultants".
But really, they were doing the same. — Benkei

And disinformation had its humble origins in Moscow (dezinformatsiya). As per Wikipedia, Joseph Stalin coined the term in a way that sounded French so that the Soviets could say "you started this" to NATO nations.

we all trace back to Africa. — ssu

Genetics confirms your statement.

I guess with enough time we all trace back to Africa — ssu

:up: We're all African apes. If someone discriminates personally prejudicially by shoe size, place of birth, freckle count, melanin pigmentation, or some such, then they're a racist (and that's meant as an insult).

Have to look the articles.

I think that both sides did break the so-called cease fire. Before the February 24th assault, the Russian artillery intensified.

:up: We're all African apes. If someone discriminates personally prejudicially by shoe size, place of birth, freckle count, melanin pigmentation, or some such, then they're a racist (and that's meant as an insult). — jorndoe

As a Finn and as an European I just point out to my Mexican (Latin) wife that my skin is darker than hers. That's how stupid the whole race thing is.

Why would any hatred of a large people or a country be morally right? — ssu

Why should hatred be morally right?

This is what this whole Ukraine thing is about: the sanctity of hatred, the sacred right to hate, and the duty of the hated to kneel before the hater.

People just love to hate, and they will not let anyone question that.

I think that as far as Slavic people go, Ukrainians are better than Russians. The latter have always been slaves. — Olivier5

Complete the following sentence:

Because Russians have always been slaves, they should ....

... free themselves from slavery, at last?