Восстановим ГРАНИЦЫ СССР. 100 тысяч ИСТЦОВ против Горбачева,

Post Reply New Topic

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3h4FA_JeEf4

I know many Russians dream of restoring their empire... they don't accept nations not wanting to be parts of it ever again.

Ukraine wants to be their own country.

They have different traditions than the Russians.

It would not be in the best interest of most or all NATO nations if Russia wins the Ukraine.

They have the same traditions: it used to be Kievlian Rus.

Before the 1917 revolution, it was the same country. Then after the revolution they sub-divided Soviet Union into different republics; two of them were Russia and Ukraine. Note that they didn't invade other countries; rather they subdivided what used to be one country into many parts. Big difference.

If you claim that Russia invaded Ukraine before Soviet Union formed, please give me the dates (BEFORE the formation of Soviet Union) of when that supposed war took place. It never did because Russia and Ukraine were never separate countries, until Soviet Union collapsed that is.

Now, I am not denying that there were countries that Soviet Union DID invade. Poland is one example. But those were not part of Soviet Union. Rather they were what is called "satellites". And as far as satellites go, I agree: they shouldn't be forced to be in that position. But that link that I shown didn't talk about satellites. It talked about the countries that actually were part of soviet union. And those are the countries that used to be part of Russia proper before the revolution.

As someone whose ancestors are from Belorus, you should know all this.



Don't you find it ridiculous that NATO nations have any interest at all? But, as you just said yourself, they do have interest. Therefore, by your own words, they are not impartial. Which is precisely why its so ridiculous that they keep interfering.

What is even more ridiculous is that they are accusing Russia of ALLEGIDLY interfering with US election. So if its okay for NATO to interfere in internal affairs between Russia and Ukraine, why is it not okay for Russia to interfere in US election (IF it ever did, that is)?

And, last but not least: when Soviet Union did collapse, part of the agreement was that the NATO won't expand itself beyond their current border. Yet they did. Now, that agreement was verbal and not in writing. So it was foolish of Russia not to ask to put it in writing. But it was also manipulative of NATO to take advantage of Russia's simple-mindedness in this particular way.

According to my very limited research into this situation, around half the population in many areas of Eastern Ukraine seems to identify as ethnic Russian, and around 80% of people in these areas have Russian as their first language. The cities of Donetsk and Luhansk are run by pro-Russian administrations who have no loyalties or commitments to Ukraine, and would apparently be happy for their cities and adjoining regions to be absorbed into Russia.

It would be interesting to know how much opposition there is to the present administrations in these areas, and what living conditions there are like for the general population.

It's much more complex than that.

Yes, Kievan Rus is the common ancestor of Russia, Belarus and Ukraine alike.
However, through later history, they developed different political cultures.

Kievan Rus fell apart into many duchies, which was something quite common in that time. Parts of it fell into: Mongol Empire, Poland and Lithuania. They all kept their Russian language, religion and culture as neither of the three minded it, but for next centuries, they evolved in very different political situations.
Oh, and there was pretty independent, Norse-influenced Novgorod Republic, which developed yet another political culture within Russian religious and linguistic unity.

Then, there was raise of Moscow.
Until 15th century, Moscow was just another Russian duchy, not more important than any other one, dependent on Mongol Empire. Then, it started to raise and conquer other Russian duchies, claiming "Third Rome" and "Panrussia". They got a lot of Mongol influence in their political culture, being quite brutal. Ivan the Terrible massacred Novgorod because of his irrational fear of treason, brutally removing the major alternative to politics of tsardom.

Now-Ukraine and Belarus remained parts of Poland-Lithuania and did not join Moscow. Kiev elites negotiated Union of Brest because up to raise of Moscow, they considered themselves under the patriarch of Constantinopole and when this was no longer viable, they prefered Rome to Moscow.

In Moscow narrative, the "evil West" - in this case Poland-Lithuania - stood on the path to "uniting" the "Panrussia". This narrative is still alive.
But the other point of view is - tsardom or other forms of Moscow Empire is just one of possible political cultures in the Ruthenian world. Republican Novgorod was massacred but Kiev survived, mainly because of its allegience to Poland in the crucial time.

Now, take Lviv. It's Ukraine now. After partition of Kievan Rus, it landed in Poland and then remained there until the Partition of Poland, when it became... Austrian. Lviv has less historical ties to Moscow than Warsaw has - and if you spoke Russian in Lviv, you could earn a punch in the face - real story, one of my friends almost got one for simple "spasibo". Polish-Ukrainian history is complex and often painful but from Lviv' perspective, not as oppressive as living memory of Soviet times in Western Ukraine.

Ukrainians I know still remember family stories of Holodomor and Soviet prisons. They want Western-like freedoms and democracy, not dependence on Moscow and Moscow's methods.

Especially in places like Kyiv and the western part of the Ukraine, they don’t think of themselves as being Russian.

There’s, of course, resentment over how the Soviet state treated the Ukrainian breadbasket….and how collective farming methods played a considerable role in the 20s-30s famine which killed millions of people.

Of course, there’s an historical resentment felt by Ukrainians for how Muscovy sublimated the Kievan state.

I would just prefer it if Russia left Ukraine alone. Geopolitically, Russia winning Ukraine would be disastrous for NATO.

If I were a Russian nationalist, of course I would be all for the glory of the Tsars and the USSR to return.

But I’m an American, so I think from the viewpoint of an American.

I happen to enjoy Russian history, and have met some nice Russian people. But I don't believe Putin has the best intentions. Putin wants to return to the glory days of the Tsars and the Soviet state. Especially under the Tsars, the lot of the "common person" wasn't decent at all. Under the Soviet state, if one "played ball," one usually did all right. But any person with a broadened perspective would chafe under being a mere proletarian in a society where the leaders, purportedly proletarian themselves, are decidedly of the Elite.

I would be interested in hearing from someone who is knowledgeable about the situation in Eastern Ukraine. The pro-Russian administrations in the Donbas region (Donetsk and Luhansk) have been in power for the better part of a decade, and probably could not have remained so without a good deal of popular support.

Of course it's always possible that they have maintained their authority by using repressive methods, but I haven't encountered any claims that this is so, even from sources sympathetic to Western interests or the Ukrainian government.

Why isn't this in the PPR section, by the way?

No matter what----from a NATO perspective---it wouldn't be good if Ukraine became part of Russia.

There is heavy propaganda war going on but I believe "Republic of Donetsk" has considerable popular support among the locals - I think the main thing "little green men" had to do, apart from actual fighting, was blocking possible negotiations for special status within the Ukrainian state.

Some of my distant relatives used to live there... and they had to fly because of death threats from the separatists. But things are shady, no official policy, just threats.

When Maidan and the war started, Ukraine suffered from unbelievable corruption and, in consequence, widespread poverty. People traveled aboard and experienced better realities - those who travelled to the West learned what life in EU looks like and wanted the same, but those who travelled to Russia also experienced improvement compared to the level of corruption in Ukraine back then.

The two groups, largely differentiated geographically, had different views on how to improve their homeland. Maybe they could have worked some consensus if annexations and annexation attempts didn't start.

I still remember at the time of annexation of Crimea, Zhirinovsky suggested Poland should regain Lviv and Romania regain other lands... that's how Moscow loves and supports Ukraine

Putin likely intensely hates the idea Ukraine joining NATO. As long as the Donbas conflict is not resolved, it would be against the NATO founding policy. So it's in his interest, if he can't regain the whole Ukraine, to keep the conflict alive.

From the Russian perspective: If Ukraine joins NATO, it would be quite similar to the Ukraine becoming part of Russia from a NATO perspective.

Кущев сказал: «Мы тебя похороним!» . . . тогда посмотрите, что произошло.

Worse - NATO is ethnicity-neutral but Russians expect Ukraine to be loyal to them for ethnic reasons. Choosing the other side would feel like treason to them.

^Of course that makes sense!

Don't you see how this very statement invalidates what you are trying to say. So you are saying that things should be best for NATO, as opposed to either Russians or Ukrainians?! Why does the interest of countries other than the ones directly involved should count? The very fact that "it is best for NATO" to do X is what makes me want to do the *opposite* to X, just out of principle.

Because the link in OP is in Russian. So the foreign language links should be posted on this section as far as I understand.