Ryan_047

Yes, that's true, and I tried very hard to keep my bias away. However, I wasn't talking about how the leader should or shouldn't be viewed, I was talking about how power is transferred to the leader from the common folk. Power dynamics, not culture. You can be a leader only if others let you be a leader (either actively or passively) or choose you. If the Russians know that Putin rose to power because they were passive or not it's up to them. I think the only organization of humans where this doesn't apply are small tribes. I'm not trying to argue for libertarianism. Leo and his admins have administrative powers over this forum because we are "voting" for it by the very fact that we are using this forum and adhering to the rules. If nobody used this forum, it would cease to exist and in this particular context, Leo couldn't lead anything. Hitler rose to power because: 1. Some people believed and voted for him (this includes his party) 2. His party killed or scared political opponents (be it communist or republican/democrat) 3. (most important) many people were passive by either not voting at all, or not opposing his directives (I know there is more to that, please don't bash me) We are giving power to authority without even knowing.. parents, teachers, politicians, partners, and the list goes on. We don't always acknowledge that because we didn't thought deeply about it, or realizing this dynamic could result in dire consequences. Imagine being a farmer tied to a vassal in the middle ages, and your entire world was only a parcel of land. Imagine realizing one day that "Hey, I'm actually choosing to be a slave to my master." At that point you either settle for slaving away your life and the life of your partner and children, in which case you may fall into a desperate powerless depression... or you kill your master and free yourself. Yeah, not pretty at all. Reality is brutal, and if tomorrow the president of my country suddenly started a genocide, I would be responsible for that, because I'm part of the collective that paid taxes and voted for this guy. Sure, if I didn't vote for him, you could argue that my responsibility is not that big, but I'm still responsible. If I was a Chinese during Mao's rule I'd still have a little tiny bit of responsibility of why people are starving and killing one another, because I'm part of the collective and I worked/fought for that bigger Chinese collective. The alternative means death, yes. I'm not demonizing such people in any way, because it's a doomed if you do doomed if you don't scenario, and survival trumps all in the end. Even if the consequences are not that extreme such as death or losing a loved one, we need to be empathic and understand that it's not easy to cut your losses for a higher goal. This is (a reason) why collective human development is slow.

Ultimately the citizens give power to politicians, not the other way around. We are the boss of our leader, be it democratic or a dictator. The problem is that the common citizen doesn't know that they are giving their power away, it's done unconsciously. The same goes for the person in power, and that's when stuff goes wrong. You won't steal stuff from your office and shit on the floor whenever it feels good to do so, if you know you're gonna be fired by your boss. I don't deny the leadership skills, charisma or intelligence needed in order to become a leader, but you can't change a thing if you can't move masses.

As a disclaimer, it is my personal opinion that at certain times in history, totalitarianism is beneficial, as it can save a nation from its very destruction and its loss of identity. With that out of the way, it is my opinion that this does not apply to Russia at this point in time. I'll explain in a bit why I think that. The true POV comes from both Putin's oligarchy survival needs and from Russia's common folk survival needs. The question is, are they in alignment? When should one trump the other? Putin was initially popular in the 2000s because he had brought stability to a downwards spiraling Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union. He stopped USA's economic abuse of the country, eased the corruption by putting his own people in charge, and put the country on a track forward. It is true, Russia's internal situation was very bad, as multiple factions were fighting locally for supremacy (don't know the exact details though). Putin stopped that. It's no wonder some older Russians see him as a good leader. Yes, his methods were unorthodox, but it worked. His fear of Western encroachment on Russia is valid. The story with Belarus is different, but still similar to a certain degree. The difference is that Belarus became a buffer state for Russia because of Lukashenko's relationship with Putin. He actually played both EU and Putin for advantages, but in the last few years he was isolated by the EU. However, is the current West the same as the West of today? Would the EU and NATO turn Russia into a underpaid slave like-nation and economically abuse it? We can't know for sure as we don't know what Biden and Ursula want, but I personally think not. The current West is not the 90s West which fought against communism for 50 years and wanted to put Russia in its place. Also the conception of the average folk in Europe changed to a considerable degree of Russians. They no longer see them as violent animals who kill, rape, steal and drink vodka. There is a whole lot more compassion for them, even when this war is raging on. You can see this compassion even spill into politics. EU at least made economic deals with Russia, which benefited both (more or less). Stuff got worse once Russia intervened in Georgia and Ukraine. The politicians of today are not the politicians of 30 years ago. Especially the younger Russians are more inclined towards the West, as they study, work and even permanently move there. Putin's Russia cannot offer what the West can, and it's not because that the West is intellectually superior in any way, it's because of the mess and corruption the local oligarchy has created. You can see how the "elite" group directly goes against the survival needs of the common Russian. It creates narratives in which Europe and USA want to destroy and dismantle Russia, but is this really the truth? Maybe, but we don't know for sure, and Russia "respecting their current survival agenda" by being a fascist oligarchy has become way more toxic than beneficial, for quite some time now. I personally think that the solution for Russia are free elections and progressive but slow integration with the West in order to avoid possible abuses. The same goes for Belarus, with the notable exception that the people in Belarus have suffered way more and I think they should join EU asap. As I've said to Leo, I think we need a strong just Russia to keep USA in check, geopolitically. Coming back to the true POV of a nation, when the leadership tends to become corrupt and greedy, it goes against the true needs of the people and thus it's not the true POV. When the people of a nation are too ignorant or weak, a strong leadership can act in their best interest even if that means adopting very unpopular measures. There are examples in history of when change was forced, and it was for the better even though there was massive resistance to it. Basically, whatever causes development is the true POV. Yes, it sounds idealistic and maybe silly, but was the true POV of Germany in WW2 that the Jews had to be exterminated? I'd argue not, because they posed no threat whatsoever. It was all propaganda, and in our case, Ukraine wronged Russia by aligning herself with the devilish West. There is a rift between what Putin wants and thinks it's best for Russians, and what they themselves want and need. And I don't think Putin is some genius who'll throw Russia into stage green-yellow, but instead be keeps it stuck in red-blue (and poverty) refusing change. Also the more outlandish the propaganda is, the less validity its underlying message really has. In our case, fighting against the devilish West that wants to disintegrate Russia and eliminating the Nazis in Ukraine. Putin's actions can only be justified to maintain his elite order in Russia, it can't be justified as defending Russia.

@tsuki You still have to concretely address my points instead of pointing your finger and say that "I'm projecting" and subtly suggest that I'm trying to spread an agenda. You were quite serious and thoughtful in your responses that validated your worldview to other users, yet when you lost an argument with me, you started trolling by saying this instead of engaging in details and prove that I'm wrong or how I'm myopic. But hey, if this is indeed your way of having fun in the world, who am I to judge. If this is what I truly wanted I'd go to Reddit on r/ukraine and farm karma points. Yet, I'm here. You can continue being passive aggressive or engage in detail with me (which observe, you didn't actually address any of my points by hiding under the umbrella of "I'm just joking bro, look at this dumbass who is taking things so seriously lol"). If this is not your wish (and by the looks of it, it's not), I'll no longer engage with you. But all I've said in a nutshell is that many users on this forum fall into the trap of regurgitating Putin's propaganda and calling it the true Russian point of view, you included. It's the same sin as regurgitating Western propaganda and taking it as absolute truth and justice. The pendulum was just swung from one extreme to the other. Today's political spectrum's extremes are not so "extreme" as we think (aka Nazi or UK colonial era), and thus things are not so easy to judge.

You are just suiting words to fit your narrative. That's not the definition of government, nor the definition of country. These are 2 separate terms for a good reason. Then prove you actually know more about the subject other than Russian propaganda, cause I haven't asked anything personal about you, I'm interested in your knowledge regarding this subject and its derivates. Taking Putin's words for truth is the same as taking's Joe Biden's words for truth. Taking Russia Today too seriously is the same as taking CNN too seriously. Many people here out of pure spite for the West (and by the way, lots of spite should be had against the West, don't get me wrong) took the words of Putin way too seriously and thought that they are smart, and that they understand the Russian pov fully and concluded that what Putin is doing is justified. It's no different than the people that think EU and NATO are the ultimate good and that Russia should be ultimately crushed financially. I don't want to compare Putin to Hitler, because I genuinely think they are not the same (consequently their regimes) once you know their backgrounds and upbringing. However, I'm going to draw a brutal and exaggerated parallel just so you understand what I think many people on this forum are actually doing (which I also think stems a lot from what Leo said weeks ago about Putin, how he is calculated, rational and how Russia was abused and whatnot. Many people here just found ways to align with his view instead of actually trying to study the history and motives behind all this.). Imagine you are living in the generation of your grandparents or grand-grandparents. Nazi Germany invades Poland in 1939 - people here: "Look, nobody in the West are saying how the Nazis had a good casus belli for the war, the Poles attacked a German radio station for no reason! They also promised Polish independence in WW1, and they got it afterwards!" Nazi Germany invades Benelux and France in 1940 - people here: "Yeah, but France always was a dick to Germany/old German states and you just don't want them to go directly against the Maginot line, that would cause too many casualties. They had to go through Belgium so that they could avoid too many casualties! Look, Goebles points out all of the abuses that Germany endured because of the Versailles Treaty, there has to be some truth in what the Propaganda Minister says." "The Allied cause is covered too much by the media, let's see what valid motives the Nazi regime has to murder and abuse millions by taking seriously their lunatic leader and their propaganda papers!" (this is not to say that there is/was no propaganda on the other side btw) I could go on and make so more exaggerated comparisons but you get the idea. I'm also not attacking you, and I apologize if you bad in any way. I'm talking against propaganda, misinformation and bad interpretations of past events.

This right here shows you don't know anything about Belarus. The people of Belarus have fought Lukashenko's dictatorship for a long time now. I recommend the book: Belarus: The last European Dictatorship. Also Ukraine had a pro Russian leadership before 2014. The only difference between Ukraine and Belarus, is that the Ukrainians actually managed to throw out Putin's puppet regime in Ukraine and actually have free elections, while the Belarus people did not succeed.

How did the Ukrainians perceive their neighbors (Russia, Moldova, Poland, Romania) before this war? I mean politically, culturally and whatnot.

C'mon man... there are videos on websites that show the uncensored version of war (which I cannot list here) where some Russian soldiers are deliberately murdering civilians. There are videos with un-exploded missiles/shells in apartment buildings and on the streets. Yesterday a tv tower was hit, today the Babi Yar memorial was hit. Yesterday a city hall was hit and almost evaporated. Do you really think that with modern military equipment and training, all of these residential targets were hit by mistake and civilians fleeing the combat zone were shot with bullets by aliens? There are lots if instances where the Ukrainian army is mistreating (a light word by the way) the Russian POWs, but don't kid yourself by "being multi-perspectival". It's a cold, hard, concrete, clear as the bright of day fact that the Russian military targeted civilian neutral places (such as even hospitals, mind you).

And that's how egos act when they lose an argument.

Then don't comment. War is a severe subject that requires pragmatism, history and political analysis, not memes and "unserious" comments. Let newer generations in 20 years joke about this war. If not, nobody stops you from creating a separate meme unserious thread.

@tsuki You haven't responded to anything I've said. Observe how you're projecting a pro NATO fanatic image on me. You can play smart ass all you want and point out all the abuses NATO has done (which there were plenty, I dare you to find any comment in which I've denied abuses committed by this military alliance), but that doesn't justify the fact that a random country can just join a military alliance, without being compatible to it, just because it asked without previously stating the intention nor taking any procedures to do so. It's just a political declaration, there were never pragmatic actions took by Russia to join NATO. It always took political distance from the alliance.

@tsuki Don't put words into my mouth and stop thinking so black and white. Point out to me a fascist oligarchy in NATO. The only NATO members that took steps towards a more dictatorial rule are Hungary (due to Russian influence by the way) and Turkey (which entered NATO sometimes in the 1950s, and it wasn't a dictatorship back then). Not one of those countries look like Putin's regime, nor do their people live as badly as in Russia. You don't enter a military alliance just because you want to, there are values and geopolitical standards which you need to adhere to. Remember when the Soviet Union asked to join Axis?

Surely NATO would've accepted a fascist oligarchy into their ranks.

So the only solution for Russia is to be an oligarchy ruled by a Putin like figure? Cause if some major shake up will not happen, nothing will ultimately change in Russia. I'm really curios if the current riots in Russia will brutally fuck up Putin and his oligarchs' regime. The current level of corruption in Russia is similar to the Eastern European countries after the fall of communism. Their major shake up was bashing communism out (sometimes violently) and joining EU, and not even all of them succeeded. The corruption in those countries is still quite high, but nowhere as bad as it was or compared to Russia. I'm not saying that they should necessarily join EU (though I would be extremely happy if they did), but I don't see how having a fascist dictator is longer beneficial to an increasingly progressive movement in Russia's youth (a considerable percentage of them even migrating to EU and US). Even the middle aged people start to find him repulsive. There needs to be a change otherwise Russia will surely continue to fall economically long term, and thus suffer even more. Don't throw the "USA raped Russia in the 90s" argument my way. Yes, it did and did it badly. But that doesn't mean that the same would happen today (way different circumstances) and that EU and US would throw Russia into the grave by robbing it. We need a strong and just Russian Federation which could efficiently keep USA in check, not this sad joke-fascist oligarchy that is supporting extreme populist right-wing parties/movements across Europe just to cause instability and promote the "EU bad cause stage green" narrative. Many, many people though that the Zionist movement will ultimately fail, and yet we have a Jewish state today (yes, I know the implications and consequences of that, it's just an example). It's not impossible for Russia to move into stage orange-green and be a just force geopolitically or even surpass Europe and the USA in development. For that, Putin is not suited. I said it before and I'll say it again, and I know it's against your opinion, but in my opinion Putin's Russia survival agenda IS NOT Russia's survival agenda. A bit idealistic sure, but it's realistic. What do you think Russia has to do next?

Sure, check out Front National (France), AUR (Romania), The Legionnaire Romanian movement, Jobbik (Hungary) + you can clearly see that Viktor Orban in Hungary and his party are pro Putin, Order and Justice Party (Lithuania), AFD (Germany), most political parties before the 2020 election in Moldova Republic, Ataka (Bulgaria), UKIP (remember Brexit?), Golden Dawn (Greece) and I can 100% guarantee you can find many, many more such political projects that have failed if you look deep enough into any EE country in the last 30 years. There are probably more groups I forgot to mention, which receive in any way funding from Russia through intermediates. All of the above groups have some things in common: they are promoted by international Russian propaganda outlets such as Sputnik as well as local Eastern European pro Russian (and funded) news agencies (this is 100% verifiable, go check), hinder progress, create instability, promote toxic blue national values (one very common example is promoting the era in which the respective country was at full territorial expansion). I guess you also don't know about FSB assassinations throughout Europe either. Many Russian intellectuals who turned in any way against Putin's oligarchy that fled Russia, were murdered by FSB agents who were later promoted and praised by Putin. Do your research on the subject if this is new to you as well. They are not meant to fight Russia, they are meant to cause artificial instability and act as a casus belli for Russia, hence why Putin wants to "de-nazify Ukraine". This is a classic KGB technique, and it's no coincidence that Putin is an ex KGB officer. You can find likewise scenarios in Russia, all Caucasian countries and in most EE countries, ever since the birth of the Soviet Union. It's all history. It a nutshell it boils down to this: create an artificial enemy, and pose as a rescuer. In this case with Ukraine, Putin is saving the Russian minority from genocide and Nazis in Ukraine. He didn't say those things just out of thin air. He acted the same with the invasion of Georgia, but he was "rescuing" the Abhazian and South Osetian minorities. The list goes on and on the further back you go in history up until the Bolshevik revolution which was saving Russia from capitalism and Jews.

Funded by Putin's Russia. This is not something new, Russia has funded extremist groups and far right political parties in Europe for years now. This can especially be seen in Eastern European countries.

If you don't want to stick around for the coming hardships (probably the fall of Putin and actual democracy who knows + economic sanctions) I'd advise leaving. You can always come back if you wish to, but right now physical safety is more important.

The other topic was about donating to the Ukrainian army. This is humanitarianism.

Yes, we move to stage yellow by parroting Russian propaganda and thinking we are smart listening to other sources, without having proper historical knowledge as to judge if the source is good. This is clearly a myopic anti western bias. Being against the current doesn't necessarily mean we are nuanced, as @Husseinisdoingfine fancies.

Lies: 1. NATO making promises to Russia that they won't expand in Eastern Europe. Someone on this forum already dismounted this myth. 2. "The Russians found Ukraine to be corrupt and troublesome, so granted it independence in 1991." Dumb lie, the Soviet Union collapsed and could no longer afford to keep their satellite states in their sphere of influence. Like the Soviet Union would abandon influence only because a state they were fully controlling (through appointing politicians of their liking) was too corrupt. C'mon. It's like saying that the United Kingdom gave up their colonies because it was no longer profitable robbing them and enslaving them. 3. US military presence in Ukraine. There were never US troops in Ukraine before 2014. There were military exercises along the border in NATO countries, but not in Ukraine. 4. "Russians and Ukrainians co-existed peacefully, until the American Empire promoted Ukrainian nationalism." Look, I don't argue against the fact that Americans subtly manipulate when it's in their geopolitical interest, but this statement is myopic. Ukrainian nationalism existed ever since the Tsarist Empire collapsed, and they fought back against the Red army, Polish army and Romanian army after WW1. They fought 3 powers at once in order to have their own country. Saying that there was no nationalism before (which is what that dumb dude is saying with that statement) is just false. 5. "Russians were blamed for Ukraine's economic problems." No. Russians in Ukraine were not blamed for economic problems, Putin's Russia which prevented them from exploiting their own resources in the maritime basin owned by Ukraine in the Black Sea. This is one on the reasons Crimea was forcefully annexed. Up until the Maidan protests, there was a pro Russian government which didn't care to exploit those natural resources, which would've considerably weakened Russia' economic position in Europe. 6. American funded NGO's funded the Maidan Protests. No, actually get your head out of your ass and study the Euro Maidan protests instead of watching a 10 minute video and blaming it on a millionaire who funded education after the fall of the Soviet Union in ex Warsaw Pact nations and ex-SU satellites nations. By the way, George Soros is used as a negative propaganda figure in Eastern Europe by the Russian media (cough cough Sputnik, Russia Today and the alike). Basically, whenever there is a political crisis in any of ex Warsaw Pact member states, the blame goes to George Soros. 7. 5:45 in the video. Those are some bold accusations. I'm not saying no to those, but he hasn't even provided any evidence for it. He just showed a picture of Ukrainian and American politicians and said "The Americans decided on the prime minster of Ukraine." 8. "... and passed out snacks to do protests before the coup" Yes, those snacks were baked with mind controlling cocaine. 9. "Ukrainian premier refused to order troops to fire on the mobs." @hello1234 That's a flat out lie, any Ukrainian can prove that the reverse was the case. 10. "Absorbing Ukraine would weaken European security and provide no economic benefit." I'm laughing out loud, this contradicts all of EU's economic history. Take a look at the latest country that joined EU and compare the living standards with Ukraine's post 2014 living standards. Also it would boost NATO's security (remember article 5?) because they would have a big ass knife at Russia's throat, if the Kremlin decided to do anything funny. 11. "Russia did not want to rule Ukraine, since it granted independence." Haha, no. USSR disintegrated because it was weakened by the Cold War. 12. "Khrushchev gave Crimea to Ukraine to promote Soviet solidarity." This is still debated by historians, there being many takes on the subjetc, and this guy is making it seem like it was the reason. Considering that stuff he'd said earlier, he's not a historian. 13. "Russia accepted a request by the Republic of Crimea to re-join Russia after 94% of its citizens voted in favor." If anyone actually believes that, I encourage you to learn about the post WW2 communist regimes in Eastern Europe. Putin being an ex KGB officer, it's painfully obvious this is false. 14. "Adding Ukraine to NATO remains attractive to the American Empire, since it's the 2nd largest nation in Europe by area." Lol, didn't he just say that absorbing Ukraine into NATO (which by the way, is majoritively composed of European nations) would weaken European security? Why would USA and Europe weaken their defensive capabilities on purpose? I'd add capitalist to that. Putin's Russia is a fascist oligarchy, so it's not like Russia has the moral high ground and it's a victim. I'm not saying USA is the purest good and Russia is the purest evil, but be aware of where you take your info from. Parroting and promoting Russian propaganda is not being multi perspectival, it's being manipulated. A random unknown dude with no qualifications and a clearly "objective and impartial" username on YouTube won't give you proper historical context and knowledge so to understand the Ukraine-Russia subject. In a nutshell, wanting to maintain the oligarchy around Putin, blunt refusal to implement true democracy, economical domination in Europe regarding gas, nostalgia of the glory and power of the Soviet Union, and the unwillingness of integrating with the rest of Europe. I'm not saying these reasons are justified/good or not, but this is what is driving Russia at this point in time, in my opinion.

This is proof right here that you haven't actually studied what happened in Ukraine post 2014 and before Crimea was annexed, and talk about this subject without proper context and knowledge. Parroting Russian propaganda is not understanding the Russian point of view or being relative. Read my recent replies regarding this subject in the threads created, and you'll see what I think of this conflict. If you find any errors in the cold facts and opinions that I've stated, please quote me and let's have a chat. I don't want to repeat myself again and again.

Yes, let's ignore all the stuff Russia has done to Ukraine since the fall of the Soviet Union and blame the start of the war on Zelinsky. Putin was so mad that Zelinsky bad mouthed him that he decided to invade. *facepalm* Yes, lots of Russians and Ukrainians died in the Donbass region, but answer me this... Who artificially created the pro-Russian Donbass separatist region? The only semi-valid point you make is the missiles on the border problem.

EU and NATO won't accept new states unless there are no border disputes with any of its direct neighbors. That means dropping the claim on Crimea and the 2 new artificially created republics in eastern Ukraine, which won't happen. Also, by federalizing Ukraine, there would be pro Russian federations which will stop Ukraine from taking steps into getting into NATO. Ukraine hasn't joined NATO because some member states opposed it, and because Putin's Russia actively stopped them. Even if Russia stopped being a dick tomorrow, Ukraine couldn't instantly join the alliance. It's more complicated than that.

Hahaha, that's funny. Parroting Russian propaganda is not understanding the Russian point of view by any stretch of the imagination.@Breakingthewall you also haven't responded concretely to any of my arguments as to prove why they're wrong. Please do so. Be it Zelinsky or any other Ukrainian leader, they are forced to integrate with EU. Take a look at the Maidan protests. Do you really think that post Crimea annexation would the majority of the population accept a non Western leaning leader? Edit: My take on the Russian pov is in my previous reply to Leo.

If you think that continuously letting Ukraine being bullied by Russia is a good solution, there's no helping you in understanding the severity of this subject and the harsh reality of the current geopolitics. Could you please expand on what is rash and stupid about what the Ukrainian leadership has done? People here mistake being "multi perspectival", with taking the part and justifying the actions of a dictatorship that has bullied not only its own people, but the neighbors who organically and genuinely chose a different path. This dictatorship refuses change and I think this invasion will dramatically backfire and force change internally in Russia.