unless you hold PUTIN and his oligarch accountable, not likely to happen.
They should voice their concerns to their government.
Fuck Russia. And fuck the Russians that are against the war now that it’s affecting them.
They could apparently ignore civilians being murdered in the street, but since they’re slightly inconvenienced it suddenly becomes an issue. Absolute trash people.
Yeah look how different they are from the US Americans.
Thus is not at all how it is going with Iran.
Did I make that point or are you just talking out of your tankie ass?
My point is that humans are the same everywhere. It is easy to act like we would do it differently when we are not in the same situation.
Ah so you agree with me then.
I don’t think so because woulnd’t that mean “fuck everyone”?
I rather want to say: All humans have the capacity for evil under the wrong circumstances. So the problem are the broken systems that steer people.
In other words: Fuck the system.
Once again I didn’t say fuck everyone. I said fuck those Russians that put human suffering below a slight inconvenience to them.
I guess a good chunk of the pro-war ones are probably dead by now.
Fatigued by a war that officially doesn’t exist in Russia…
The war can end in the next hour if Russia decides to piss off behind their internationally recognised borders, still leaving them with more land than they’ll ever need.
Putin can’t back down. His strongman image wouldn’t survive it, and I’m pretty sure the rest of him wouldn’t either. He’ll have to be dragged out of this war kicking and screaming, and his people realising that somehow, after all this time, Ukraine still has options to escalate, is a chunky chip off that facade of strength.
That argument never convinces me. Look at Trump: he started a war and now ended up with a deal that is worse than before. Yet that doesn’t stop him of spinning that as a great success. He “stopped Iran that was just about to get nuclear weapons”, or whatever he’ll say to make it look good.
Same goes with Putin. He survived starting this war and ruining his country, he’ll survive stopping it, by making something up that can be told as a success. For example: “we made sure the Russian people in these areas are safe. Now we invite them to get to safety in Mother Russia and live a peaceful life. We protect our people”. Or whatever he seems fit. He can spin it however he likes, they’ll follow.
You may have a point.
I do think the systems of government and balances of power are different than the US, and Trump hasn’t had the same amount of time to solidify a personal regime centered on himself (and hopefully never will). He also hasn’t been waging a war that doesn’t exist for quite as long, and has a better track record with “special operations”.
If Trump, without changing the current system, sent the US down a road to a similar kind of trouble, the “democratic” mechanisms (or rather, the checks and balances that have let him run unchecked so far) would presumably intervene on behalf of the donor class before it got to the point Russia is at now. Either they’d get him to back off, or their puppets would suddenly find dirt and the political will to impeach, charge and remove him from office.
My suspicion (and I may well be wrong) is that Putin has dug his control so deep that nobody dares to defy him while his image holds, because everyone would be worried about becoming an example. There’s a certain psychology to power, where appearing powerful becomes self-fulfilling: People get the impression that others obey the leader, so they don’t dare to be the odd one out, their obedience further adding to the image of power.
If the tensions his tyranny has caused rise and that impression of him being in control starts cracking, e.g. because he has to make concessions in negotiations or runs noticeably low on resources to enforce his will, that might change. The concern here isn’t so much the common people as the other political players he’s kept down so far. I don’t know their motives and concerns, but he wouldn’t be the first ruler toppled by former cronies sensing weakness.
But maybe you’re right and he’ll somehow manage to save face. I don’t really care about being right here. I just hope for peace, sooner rather than later, for the sake of all humans involved.
This bloodshed should never have started in the first place, let alone gone on this long, and it’s a waste of lives, resources and time that could have been spent on better pursuits than the ambitions of a violent megalomaniac.
I absolutely get what you’re saying and there’s a lot of truth in it, imo.
However, whenever I stumble across the sentiment that Putin ‘cannot afford to look weak’ in order to survive, I can’t help but wonder how on earth he’s still president:
He led his country into a ‘3-day adventure’ that’s been ongoing for more than four years now - an end not at all in sight, on Crimea they have to pay 2,90€ per litre for fuel, if there’s some at all that is, while across the entire country, they wait in endless queues towards petrol stations. He wasted more than a million husbands, fathers, sons, friends of his people, leaving a gaping hole in an already troubled demographic development, the economy is only kept alive by defence spending, whereas the usual powerhouse of the company, the fossil-based energy sector is in shambles and Russia needs to import (!) fuel.
Summarising: he already is weak, unsuccessful and frail. If he really were that threatened by that, he’d been long gone. So I don’t buy it. He can end it whenever he pleases.
Not so fast!
What about reparation?
What about returning abducted people?Pissing off from anywhere in Ukraine (including Crimea ofc) is simply not enough.
Letting them off the hook this easy sends the message that anyone can invade random countries and in the worst case just doesn’t conquer any land.This is where things will get difficult: Of course you’re right and Ukraine would be entitled to reparations etc.
But the question is, who would actually enforce that, if anyone? The U.S.? Certainly not, since there’s a Putin puppet in the White House. China? Surely has absolutely no interest in punishing wars of aggression, given that they’ve more or less obviously set their sights on Taiwan? Europe? Would probably be happy to provide money for reconstruction, but won’t deploy its own soldiers to annex Russian territory as a substitute for reparations…
That leaves only Ukraine itself, and its soldiers are war-weary after years of conflict, even though they’re currently winning, as they should. I don’t believe Ukraine could justify an offensive against Russian territory, either domestically or in terms of foreign policy… especially since such an offensive would naturally entail greater losses than the successful defense of its homeland.
So in theory, you’re right, but in practice, I don’t know who would be able to enforce that, even if Russia withdraws from Ukraine. Being right and getting justice have been two different things for centuries, and for good reason.
Sadly I have to agree with you from the beginning to the end of your comment.
My comment wasn’t meant as a realistic scenario, but one that depicts how it should be.
It was in an effort to prevent normalizing wrong behaviour and unfair scenarios.As I said, I completely agree with you, and I understood your comment to mean that a withdrawal alone can’t really be enough after Russia has been wreaking havoc in Ukraine for years. I just wanted to share my thoughts on why this will likely be difficult to implement in practice.
Have a splendid day good Sir/Lady!
What about reparation?
We can start with all of their frozen assets abroad and see how much is left on the bill. Then we can transfer all of Ukraine’s debts that they’ve incurred throughout the war and hold the kremlin liable for paying for them. I suppose we can include on that tab whatever costs related to reconstruction are left over after using those frozen assets.
How countries are going to collect that debt from russia is anybody’s guess, but no sanctions should be lifted until they’re paid in full (only after reconstruction in Ukraine is finished, of course).
As for returning abducted people, yes, absolutely that should unconditionally be a part of the agreement. But getting russia to agree to that will be tricky. So you’re right, they don’t get to just back out and piss off back behind their borders without settling a few accounts.
But,
Letting them off the hook this easy sends the message that anyone can invade random countries and in the worst case just doesn’t conquer any land.
That’s… already happened. See Israel in Palestine; the US in Iran, Venezuela. The precedent has already been set. We’ve already shown chauvinist dictators what they can get away with.
The only way to undo that is to hold all three of them accountable. Which is honestly not likely without triggering a nuclear holocaust; at least until major internal changes of administration when it’ll all be swept under the rug anyway. The best we can hope for is for the individuals responsible to be held accountable. Heads of state as well as all their cronies.
They want the war to end now that is personally affecting them. Get fucked.
Where were they 12 years ago? And 4 years ago? Ah, yes, they wanted a quick adventure — 20 mins in and out. Welp… Fuck them.
Don’t you remember the repressions against anyone opposed to the war? Showing a blank piece of paper got you thrown into prison. What do you expect a normal person to do?
Something like they did in 1917 I guess? The oppression wasn’t any lighter back then.
But I guess most russians have grown soft in the same way Putin has claimed happened to europeans. Always reflection with these guys.
Weak argument. A revolution is invisible until it happens. You are only happy if it will have happened. So therefore you currently dismiss anything that people do since it was not enough.
However, if you --such as so many other people-- have no interest in helping people there get the means to do something, of course if will be harder.
I’ve supported Ukraine significantly.
In their defence it’s a heavily controlled state where speaking out can literally land you in the gulag. Doesn’t mean things are peachy, and I’m sure a fair few people are just drinking the coolaid, but it’s something to consider.
Heavily controlled state that kills or imprisons political opponents, and disappears or imprisons protesters even for holding a blank white paper on the streets. Russia has the same issue USA does. It’s a gigantic country with spread out cities, with most money going to Moscow and St. Petersburg. It’s extremely difficult to organize effective protests. Especially now that their internet is more walled off than the Great Firewall of China. It’s one thing to have centralized, effective protests in smaller countries where driving to the capital is a couple of hours.
When the war started, there where those in Russia that did protest the war. You could see them getting picked up and dragged away.
When USSR ended, Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus were in very similar situation, politically and economically. Belarus got Lukashenko from the very beginning, he immediately bought off police and squashed all dissent. Ukraine had a wannabe dictator Yanukovich, bur kicked him out.
Russia got a big window of opportunity between Yeltsin and Putin, they could totally do their own Maidan, plus storming Kremlin is a historical Russian tradition.
No one cared.
They got a taste of Europe and civilized world, the young people got tech jobs with lots of money. Instead of fixing their own government, they mostly emigrated, and now formed a diaspora instead of learning the language and blabbering about mysterious Russian soul and wanking on WW2 photos.
One of Putin’s fears is that Ukraine showed a clear scenario how to depose a dictator.
You know that somewhat famous story of the bridge being stolen?
Yeah, post Soviet Russia was a smash and grab dreamscape. If you could take it and keep it without getting shot, it became yours. A lot of oligarchs got started then. A lot more wannabes died in the process.
I don’t know that story, actually, but I am intrigued now
Couple dudes showed up with some trucks and some tools. Literally cut down a bridge, then sold it for scrap.
That kind of thing was happening everywhere in a less literal sense: as the government collapsed, government property was being rapidly taken control of by random people.
It’s like how the US government is being sold for scrap to rich people, but with a whole lot less control and a whole lot more violence.
A taste of civilized world? Russia is civilization now and has been for many thousands of years.
Not when you are forced to use dial-up internet when all your online friends had Ethernet or optic cable for years. That was the state of civilization between '90s and 2000.
Okay so by civilization we mean slightly more modern technology? That’s fine, I just got a bit ticked off because Europeans have a very long-lasting tradition to label everyone they don’t like as backwards savages, and it came off that way to me.
Harsh but true.
They need a vacation
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XSB2dxskVog&pp=ygUTcmljayBtb3J0eSB2YWNhdGlvbg%3D%3D
I wouldn’t be surprised if a lot of them are young and spent their teenage years fearing their inevitable turn in the meat-grinder. I also wouldn’t be surprised if those most on-board with the war already had their turn to fight and didn’t make it back home.
Though the page does say it was a “phone poll,” and if the youth in Russia are as averse to strange phone calls as many in the rest of the world, I’ll stand corrected.
Also, the ones making the decisions to fight these wars are not the ones fighting.
It would help if those who start a war are required to spend a portion of their time at the front lines. See how fast these boomers walk back their armies.
It would help if those who start a war are required to spend a portion of their time at the front lines. See how fast these boomers walk back their armies.
Not sure about that though. For a large portion of the (european) middle ages it was common and even expected from rulers to fight in battle. It’s not like that was an exceptionally peaceful time (nor was it exceptionally warlike though). Yet it should be mentioned that high ranking combatants like kings, knights and other nobles could expect to be captured and ransomed instead of being killed. But still, it was a risk and many a ruler were killed in battle.
For a large portion of the (european) middle ages it was common and even expected from rulers to fight in battle.
The critical issue is that they weren’t expected to fight “in the trenches” as it were, on foot in the front lines. They fought from horseback in the heavy cavalry that had the power of terror on their side because a thundering tide of heavy horse hoofbeats rolling towards you is kinda very fucking scary to the primitive part of the human brain.
They also typically wore heavier armour, funded from the surplus they forced the peasants to create, which was far more effective for survivability. The difference between a thick piece of laminated cloth, a shirt of interlinking metal rings that stops blades and slows spears and a metal sheet that movies never do justice to is staggering (as in: getting stabbed with a spear might leave you staggering instead of bleeding out, if the mail shirt held an converted the momentum into blunt trauma, or not wounded at all if it glanced off the curved metal sheet).
So between their battlefield role being half psychological and designed to shatter cohesion (rather than direct combat only) and their far more expensive, but far superior protective equipment, battle wasn’t nearly as scary for them. The “ransomed instead of killed” is just a cherry on top.
The fact that many did get killed in battle speaks to the volume of battles that took place. They weren’t as devastating in the pre-modern era, partially because guns massively increase lethality, partially because mass mobilisation wasn’t as easy. But given that fortune in battle is a great and clearly visible way to demonstrate divine favour, kings wanting to show that god was on their side had a good motivation to find reasons to wage war.
Besides, once battle begins, there isn’t a whole lot a commander of patchwork armies without modern communication can do. They don’t have aerial reconnaissance to give them a bird’s eye view of the battle, troop positions are harder to assess with the naked eye and getting messages out to the people doing the fighting is much slower if you need to first send a messenger to tell your duke what to to, who then has to despatch messengers to his own vassals and by the time the order trickles down and people get moving, whatever situation you might not have seen right in the first place, or maybe only spotted late in its development, might have shifted anyway and your order would be useless.
So might as well join battle, test that whole “God protects me” deal and trust the armour to make god’s work easier.
In a modern context, sending the people starting wars to fight with the infantry might have a different effect, but it also would be quite different in nature. Imagine feeding Trump MREs! The pampered cunt would choke and starve… Actually, that sounds like a better idea the longer I think about it. You wouldn’t even need war for it.
Well, yeah, but those were different times altogether
81%, according to the article
Doesn’t really matter much in a country where only 0.0000000612% of the population have a say in politics.
That’s the problem!
That doesn’t say in which favour the war should be ended. Would they accept russian defeat or do they think they could keep their occupied parts of Ukraine or even the entire regions of Ukraine?
Yeah… I’m guessing a lot of these 81% want the war to be over … with Ukraine’s unconditional surrender.
It would be illegal for russian people to say they want russia to lose, so a lot of people (and everyone in the poll) just say they want it to be over and the other side can guess which one that was
That means 19% are still in favor of invading neighbors and committing war crimes in Ukraine.
It’s not like the state media will honestly report on all the war crimes being committed.
I’d chalk it down to the majority of that 19% simply not being aware of what is going on UkraineYou can probably make a poll is almost any country and find ~20% in favour of a (hypothetical) war they think they are winning 🤷
20% of Cologne residents are open to starting a war with Düsseldorf over beer.
For once, I’m in favour of a war.
Drown the fuckers in their own Kölsch!*
(That’s a joke. Making people drink Kölsch is a war crime. Besides, you’d probably have to touch it for that.)
((That’s also a joke. Kölsch isn’t that bad. It’s a great beer to drink if you’re aiming for quantity over quality.))
*Beer from Cologne, the word itself basically meaning “Col’nian” as a local dialect version of “Colognian”
Nah. Many people in Russia have no problem with Putin starting the war, as long as he does it “competently”. They see Putin as a “mastermind” who is “playing the long game”. They are content as long as they can be convinced that Russia is winning (or at least not losing).
They don’t give a fuck about war crimes or human cost of war if it doesn’t directly affect their own lives.
It seems to be a propaganda news
And I doubt it makes any difference. I mean, I pray it does, but…
fuck them
However, Putin was in the 19%.
One man, one vote.
I consider it completely unimportant who in the party will vote, or how; but what is extraordinarily important is this—who will count the votes, and how.
It is too late losers, russia would have been fine if they exited the war a year ago, but now? It is WAY too late.
Why?
What’s stopping them?
They can still exit the war, but the collapse of the russian empire is a foregone conclusion now.
Russia has a record population again?
/s
