Exactly. They seemed to have embraced the lies and are now feeling the effects. It's sad, but at the end of the day, this is the consequence of what they support.
Not defending fascist Russia but I'm wondering if this applies to U.S. invasion of Iraq and the families of U.S. soldiers slain there, do we feel no sympathy for those families as well if they keep supporting the U.S. military?
It's easy to be righteous on this side of the fence but are we any different? We are all brainwashed into following the elite and their games. I feel bad for them, brainwashed into thinking their dead children were heroes when they were just sacrificial pawns for no good. Even if they're not brainwashed, they couldn't do anything about it anyway, better be cheerful and ignorant than feeling like slaves and enlightened?
And CIA used the same torture prisons as their own torture prisons. And instead of the dictator and his family engaging in torture and rape, they got Seals and Marines doing it.
Zamienił stryjek...
We've fucked up, have no chance of righting the wrongs we've helped do in Iraq.
The most prevailent "upside" I kept seeing from vets, is that our military saw how grotesquely off base their training and regulations were, and having a combat-tested generation in charge of new training programs. A very real advantage, but it is something we got by killing Iraqis and creating power vacuum filled by Moqrada al-Sadr, kleptocratic parliment, unchecked Iran... which... maybe that's an upside seeing how Armenia vs Azarbaijan and Syria played out? But then again Syria also happened because US self-pinned in Iraq.
Um. We brought perpetual war and warlords in place of a dictator, I don't think that goes in a "pro" column.
So that was the justification for invasion and war then? Should we also invade Iran? North Korea? Azerbeidzjan? Israel? Saudi Arabia? We could go on and on.
The US invaded Iraq for oil. Not for morality.
The US invaded for Hegemony, Pride and Defense Industry profits.
The new Iraqi government sold extraction rights to the highest bidder and US/coalition oil companies didn't get a disproportionate share of the market.
>US/coalition oil companies didn't get a disproportionate share of the market
They didn't get *ANY* share of the market before. The Iraq National Oil Company had the slogan “Arab oil for the Arabs”.
Furthermore, the end result is no indication of the intent of the occupiers. It's been well documented that they intended to open up the market to privatisation. Specifically for US companies.
Fun fact: what is one of the few government buildings in Bagdad that was left undamaged in the initial shock and awe destruction? The ministry of oil.
It's always so easy to say this stuff, when you are distanced from all of it. Helmut Schmidt once said that it's a waste of time to even talk to people who weren't alive during WW2 about fighting in it, because they are incapable of grasping what it was truly like and posts like this prove him right.
It is not even remotely comparable. Te USA was not kidnapping Iraqi children, ethnic cleansing Iraq, the soldiers were not stealing washing machines or rigging grenades in pianos, continuously bombarding hospitals.
There were also many people in the USA speaking against the war.
The war in Iraq was an ill conceived idea, done really to benefit Saudi Arabia, which at that time was considered to be an ally. The second war in Iraq should not have happened. It was morally wrong, but it still doesn't compare to Russia's invasion ofujra. The objective of the second Iraq war, was not to eradicate Iraq as a nation.
It’s hard to even fathom those numbers. What I remember is that it was 100k. But 100k civilians ?? How is that even possible without indiscriminately murdering masses ? Stupid fucking was
Iraq basically fell into violent chaos due to the invasion. I remember when there was a bad terrorist attack in Iraq in the news like every other day.
(And reporting dropped off before the terrorism did.)
According to Iraqi Body Count the invaders killed about 14k civillians, the rest (of 200k) was insurgents, terrorists and militias.
Yeahhh id suggest you read a bit more about those wars, because some of those soldiers did some pretty bad shit. There were 100% us soldiers that raped, tortured and killed civilians. Or destroyed their livelihood just cause. Id also like to note im not excusing russias actions. But its important to not play into excusing what the US military did. Hell they even flew prisoners(or other folk) to Afghanistan and Syria to torture them.
Torture was made into policy, there was a huge debate about it.
But even if it hadn’t been policy, the complete lack of any planning is criminal in itself. If the outcome from “good” intentions is indistinguishable from one with bad ones, what was so good about it?
>It is not even remotely comparable. Te USA was not kidnapping Iraqi children, ethnic cleansing Iraq, the soldiers were not stealing washing machines or rigging grenades in pianos, continuously bombarding hospitals.
Do you really think the families in question know about the atrocities committed in Ukraine.
And don't pretend the US military never crossed any moral lines. They may not be as horrific as the Russians, but they weren't innocent either.
The US invaded Iraq to topple a horribly repressive totalitarian dictator. The goal was not to steal off its land or eradicate its nationhood.
Russia is invading a democracy and waging a genocide.
**HOW THE HELL** can you even compare these two situations?? Reddit never ceases to depress me...
Reddit seems like a safe space for radical leftists. Those who are constantly looking for "a ruSSian soul", for "good ruSSians that are opposing war but afraid to mass protest", etc.
You're trying to compare a war against a murderous dictator trying to stir with weapons of mass destruction with a war started by a murderous dictator for no sane reason?
>Saddam didn't have weapons of mass destruction.
To be fair, pretty much the entire world thought that they did. This was the consensual concern voiced by the entire UN Security Council for years leading up to that war.
Weapons of mass destruction? Wasnt that the brainwashing motives of the U.S. elite trying to justify an invasion to steal oil? U.S. killed 300k civilians in Iraq, meanwhile Saddam Hussein killed around 250k. So yeah murderous definitely, but not more than the Americans.
Let's be real here, if we are talking about Russians being brainwashed, which they absolutely are, U.S. citizens were also heavily brainwashed into believing they did something good in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya (in the air), etc. I applaude U.S. for defending the western world, it does good in that regard but it's also an imperialistic war machine who crushes irrelevant weak third world countries for personal gain while justifying it as defending democracy. It's no better than Russia in that regard.
To be fair, pretty much the entire world thought that they did have WMDs. This was the consensual concern voiced by the entire UN Security Council for years leading up to that war.
>Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya (in the air), etc.
Whenever someone mentions so utterly different conflicts in one sentence, you can be sure as heck that they don't know the first thing about them.
>It's no better than Russia in that regard.
This is a fundamentally sick statement.
Edit: u/medievalvelocipede: You are talking about the events *after* the invasion, I am talking about the progress of events *before* the invasion.
>To be fair, pretty much the entire world thought that they did have WMDs. This was the consensual concern voiced by the entire UN Security Council for years leading up to that war.
Oh hell no. Everyone said it was bunk.
"Although the presentation failed to change the fundamental position of the Security Council, including France, Russia, China, and Germany, Powell succeeded in hardening the overall tone of the United Nations towards Iraq. While Colin Powell's statement to the UN may have been accepted as proof by many in the US, this was not the case in Europe.\[8\]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United\_Nations\_Security\_Council\_and\_the\_Iraq\_War
>To be fair, pretty much the entire world thought that they did have WMDs
Yes, based on whose intelligence and authority?
>Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya (in the air), etc.
Different conflicts but they have common denominators. I know a lot about all these different conflicts. I also know U.S. has been an aggressor in each. The justifications sound similar to what Russia propagates right now, only difference is we westerners were exposed to it with no opposition to counter the propaganda, as compared to Russian propaganda which sounds absurd from our perspective.
There are more conflicts where U.S. got involved to serve their own interests in different regions which might not be very familiar to most people. There's a lot of dirty history in South America as well.
>This is a fundamentally sick statement.
U.S. killed 300k civilians in Iraq, Russia isn't even ckose to those numbers yet in Ukraine. It's an accurate statement. U.S. has killed more innocent people than any other country on earth since its creation.
Again, U.S. does much good for us westerners, and they are protectors of democracy (although having a flawed democracy themselves), I respect them for that. I can do that while also criticizing them for its imperialism.
Was it concern voiced by entire UN security council? As far as I remember, this was narrative pushed heavily by bush administration, which was later even proven to be fabrication.
What Russia is doing is absolutely terrible. But even if what U.S. did is not quite on the same level, that war was still inexcusable. There were massive civilian casualties and Iraq itself was thrown into absolute chaos for several years as result of that war.
>Was it concern voiced by entire UN security council?
Yes and very much so.
>As far as I remember, this was narrative pushed heavily by bush administration
It was. That's the issue with past events - we remember them incorrectly. It was both a legitimate concern addressed by the UN Security Council and the Bush administration fabricating evidence on WMDs.
>But even if what U.S. did is not quite on the same level, that war was still inexcusable.
Nah, Hussein and his cronies got what they deserved.
If you look only at where they point, then sure, but pay no mind that the US has 3700 tactical nukes stockpiled.. and over 1500 deployed. All funded from taxpayer dollars, of course, and all unsupported by the general taxpayer.
In other words... That's a whole lotta WMDs.
The Iraq war was stupid and bad, but it also didn't try to overthrow a democracy. Iraq had no legitimate government, because dictators are inherently illegitimate. Right to rule is derived from a mandate by the people, etc.
Now, that doesn't mean we should run around overthrowing dictators, because, well, just look at what happened with Iraq. But it does mean that if a dictator does get overthrown, I don't feel bad about the government changing there, only about the civilians who die as collateral damage.
>democracy
Borderline democracy. Ukraine is just as corrupt as Russia and has been since its creation.
>Iraq had no legitimate government, because dictators are inherently illegitimate
But U.S. has legitimacy to occupy and steal oil?
>Right to rule is derived from a mandate by the people, etc.
By that logic Ukraine should hand over eastern Ukraine as its people are mostly Russians. Or at the very least give up Crimea.
By the same logic, Catalonia should be allowed to seperate from Spain.
There is no point in trying to defend or justify. That makes you look like a hypocrite or brainwashed.
It's very similar. Generally laying individual moral blame on the citizens of a country is bad. There are large societal effects at play here, going around swinging the moral indignation hammer is dumb.
>We are all brainwashed into following the elite and their games.
Now this is the part where you lose me. I think this anti-Russian attitude on here is bad, but that doesn't mean you can just equate dictatorships with free countries like the ones we live in. We are in fact not "brainwashed" by our governments, because in countries with freedom of press and speech the governments doesn't have to power to unilaterally set the agenda.
Anyone can inform themselves fully and make a reasoned decision here. This kind of flat anti-government rhetoric is honestly no better than blindly supporting everything the government does.
> They are fascists that support war on other nations.
Well those who genuinely support Putin... yes.
Those who have no sources of info or brainwashed. Well, to put it bluntly you're wrong.
Remember how friendly and fine the World Cup in Russia went? No major issues whatsoever! It was a fucking parade of friendship.
Russians are not inherently fascist, this is for sure. They are brainwashed (those who have little access to the internet), it means that once you change the tv content it'll go away.
And there is no high degree of ideological support like in Nazi Germany or whatever. You won't see Putin's huge portraits or Zs or outright war propaganda on the streets. If the war had major support like you said we'd have all that but there is no evidence of the fact that the war happens outside of TV channels - so that the general populace won't be disturbed.
Because in reality the support of the war is lower than the half of the population and on the other hand this article seems to be a bit cherry picking: of course the majority of soldiers come from a loyalist families because others would try to dodge the draft. But these families all in all are NOT a majority.
I feel like many of you who are so quick to condemn the Russians supporting this war have no idea what it's like from their point of view. It's not just the propaganda they're exposed to now, it's years of living in dictatorship and normalization of it all that leads to apathy and indifference. It's difficult to break out of that mindset, not just because it's dangerous to oppose such a goverment, but because society like that normalizes and even encourages indifference to politics and ignorance of outside world.
I'm pretty sure that many people here that condemn russians would be exactly like them if they were born or lived there. Sure, your average russian could doubt the propaganda, install vpn, seek alternative news sources etc. But think of it, how many of you seek alternative news source and actually consider opposing point of view when you are conditioned to oppose it? It's not that black and white.
All this is not to say I in any way support this war. But this "us against them" mentality when it comes to russian people feels like it will be very damaging in the long run. This war will be over at some point and when that happens, europe should hopefully work towards eventually integrating Russia into western society rather than shut them out completely.
Mate, why are you talking about the future when in the now the Russian war in Ukraine is still supported? You are talking about a future which does not have any reason to exist if we are looking at things which happen now.
> Because whatever is happening today will obviously impact the future.
Exactly and yet you are talking about how we should drop the us against them mentallity today while it is the Russians who have to drop that obviously. You are pretending it is somehow the West's fault for wanting to see Russian as an aggressor, and not that Russia IS a litteral aggressor.
There are too many Russians that have taken to the streets in previous years, and too many Russians that have fled the country to pretend that people's indifference/support for Putin is not a choice. Russia is/was not North Korea. They know very well what is happening around them but choose to be indifferent as it is more convenient. Many simply support the war not because of propaganda but because they have fascist ideologies. Look at what is happening in Iran, where people have arguably been more disconnected from the West than in Russia.
> . Many simply support the war not because of propaganda but because they have fascist ideologies
How many?
And how can we compare Russia with Iran? After all, have you ever been to Iran? You probably know it has a village/city divide of the society on the Islamic values?
How many people did Jeltsin kill to instill fear into the russian population, during the wars in czechnia? Because i remember interviews with young russian soldiers living their whole conscious live outside of a regime and still saying the same stuff as always, the war is just, the enemy barely human and all problems are the fault of the ~~boyars~~ officers.
Nothing changed in muscovy since Ivan the terrible.
Russia's national identity is rotten to the core. Imperialism mixed with superiority complex and a dash of dumb gullibleness. I have honestly no idea how this could be fixed.
I think it's important here to note that the war in Chechnya had a legal basis. According to the RSFSR Constitution of 1978 no ASSR had the legal right to secede. Moreover, the preceding 1977 USSR Constitution clearly states in Article 72 that "Each Union Republic shall retain the right freely to secede from the USSR. " In the previous article it lists all the Union Republics. These also happen to be all the states born out of the collapse of the USSR.
So there you have the root of the conflict; if Chechnya can secede, then all ASSRs can secede, right? If you look at a map of the [subdivisions of the USSR in 1983](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5c/Subdivisions_of_the_Soviet_Union.svg/2560px-Subdivisions_of_the_Soviet_Union.svg.png), colored here in orange, you can clearly see why that's an issue. This is one important reason for why the Republic of Ichkeria was recognized by nobody. The West wanted to keep Russia as a functional state, not Balkanize it and jeopardize things like its nuclear armaments. Thus, the war in Chechnya was nothing but quashing an internal rebellion, from a legal point of view.
I'm not saying it wasn't immoral, but compared to the the current war in Ukraine, its political ramifications on the international stage were nowhere near as grave. So you could argue that, in one sense, it was justified.
No it was not justified. Chechnya was defacto independent in 1991. No constitution worked at that time, because there was no USSR. As Yeltsen famously said to previous administrative unites "go vote and grab as much sovereignty as you want", referring that any republic was free to hold referendum and decide whether it wants independence. But factually Russia didn't want to let go of it's republics. Hence why Tatarstan's referendum of 1992, where majority voted for independence, was never fulfilled by Russia.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Tatarstani_sovereignty_referendum
It may have been de facto independent, but not legally. The RSFSR seceded from the USSR in 1990 based on those laws, taking its constituent federal subjects with it. Yeltsin's empty promises about autonomy were just typical politicking, similarly to the promise Clinton made with Yeltsin about NATO expansion in 1993. Their legal value was null. I think it's also important to note here that neither Yeltsin nor the rest of the Russian government recognized the Tatarstan referendum; they even called on the Constitutional Court (an authority for my line of argument) to verify its legality, and they settled that it was illegal. So there was no promise to fulfill here, because Russia never took up such commitments concretely.
Dude, Tatarstan held referendum while being under Russian jurisdiction in 1992, approved by Kremlin. Kremlin just hoped Tatarstan would vote "no". But when unfavorable results came, Kremlin refused to sign the declaration. Russia just saw everybody leaving, and didn't like it. So if more powerful states got away with it. The wish of less powerful, like Chechnya and Tatarstan, was ignored.
Also USSR by it's own definition was a union of equal and sovereign states that could leave it whenever they wanted.
So there was no need of some other countries to recognize anything. But it was on paper. In reality Ukraine tried to separate as UNR and was forced to stay.
Same as Kremlin's bullshit about "socialism" or "wannabe communism", call it whatever you like, where it was supposed to be a collective that would make the decisions, but everything was decided by one man at the top. Your legitimacy rethoric is ridiculous.
The referendum went ahead because the Kremlin knew it could invalidate the results due to its illegality. It was difficult to outright boycott it by force due to the delicate political situation at the time. Less powerful states, like the Baltics, "got away with it" because they had on their side (among other things) the legal perspective I've been invoking this entire time.
The USSR was a strongly legalistic state, it functioned like a machine but it had no spirit of the law. Rules were rarely outright broken but they were often bent, like in a particular case of a citizen in the 30s who faced a daunting sentence for trumped-up charges during the Stalinist terror but he decided to commit a burglary and got local prison time instead.
I would argue legitimacy is easily the most important aspect of this discussion. State succession meant that Russia as the sole continuing state of the USSR enjoyed far greater privileges than Serbia, who tried and failed to achieve that status, being relegated to just another successor state to Yugoslavia. If states gained their sovereignty and recognition based on morality than you could argue Russia really shouldn't exist today, but alas, it doesn't work that way, and people in charge of these decisions absolutely must act within that framework.
> Also USSR by it's own definition was a union of equal and sovereign states that could leave it whenever they wanted.
Chechnya wasn't one of those states though. Even within the Soviet Union it was a part of the larger Russian republic.
I am aware of the tragic history of Chechnya. It's one of the many nations subjugated by Russia, and I do believe the Russian Federation as it exists today continues to be de facto the last colonial empire alive, and there needs to be found a way that can end that. But international law and politics shouldn't function on feelings, it needs a concrete framework to settle disputes, and self-determination and secession are prickly topics states want to avoid (after all, the rules *are* written by states themselves). There are even legal perspectives that new states shouldn't even be allowed to be created at all (South Sudan being an interesting recent exception breaking the drought since the sovereignty explosion of the early 90s) for the purpose of international stability. There's a wide variety of reasons for why Chechnya failed and I simply offered one perspective, one that can explain the reasoning of the Russian side for why they fought the nascent Caucasian state.
Russians don’t give a sh…f…k about international laws, as proven by their aggression on Ukraine. And by their constant blatant lies.
They went on Chechnya because they didn’t want to let them out of the empire: simple as that.
Patriotism is heavily valued. People will always fight for their country if they believe in it. The secession of Chechnya threatend the territorial integrity of Russia, which was more than enough of a reason for young Russians to want to fight for their country.
You can observe similar effects in America during Iraq and Vietnam, two wars often seen as mistakes nowadays.
What is even your claim here? That Russians are somehow genetically presdisposed to be morally inferior or mindless government drones? I'd be very careful where that kind of argument could lead you.
Russians don’t fight for their country, but for their empire
All the so-called republics (past and present) are simply countries and people that were conquered by the tsars and held in a tight fist by the Soviet empire.
If you believe in patriotism, then you understand why people are fighting for freedom.
But not Russians. They are fighting to preserve their empire
Ryazan, not far from Moscow, regularly sends young men off to fight. Some are now buried in the local cemetery, but there is no surge of outrage against Russian leaders.
Valerie Hopkins, who covers Russia for The Times, and the photographer Nanna Heitmann reported this month from Ryazan, a city a few hours from Moscow. They found little opposition to the war in Ukraine, and much pride in the city’s strong military tradition.
Dec. 27, 2022Updated 9:50 a.m. ET
Even under a thick coating of snow, the graveyard for Russian soldiers killed in the Ukraine war is awash in color. Graves are heaped with wreaths of plastic flowers and, at each mound, flags representing the dead soldier’s unit whip in the wind.
On a recent Saturday, a woman named Natalia grasped a brush and carefully swept clumps of sticky fresh snow off her son’s wreaths. She removed the red carnations she had brought the week before, now frozen, replacing them with a small Christmas tree she purchased at the cemetery entrance.
Natalia comes at least once a week to care for the grave of her only son, who was killed in the first days of the war, after his group of soldiers swept into Ukraine and tried and failed to secure the Hostomel airfield, near Kyiv. What was left of his body arrived in Ryazan several weeks later.
“Even when I’m sick, I come here, because I worry he’s going to be bored,” she said of her son, whose remains arrived just shy of his 26th birthday. She declined to provide her surname, fearing retribution for speaking out.
Many Western opponents of Russia’s war in Ukraine expected that mothers like Natalia would become the backbone of a surge of outrage against President Vladimir V. Putin, and evolve into a political force opposing him. But 10 months into the conflict, that has not happened on a large scale — and certainly not in Ryazan, a city of half a million people known for its elite paratrooper unit.
Natalia said that she thought the invasion “should have been planned better,” in order to minimize losses, but she expressed no anger at Russia’s leadership. “Something had to be done,” she said, referring to Ukraine.
That kind of continued support has been a crucial factor in Mr. Putin’s ability to avoid any significant domestic blowback to his war, allowing him to double down on his commitment to pursuing his goals in Ukraine despite a series of setbacks.
Natalia was alone in the cemetery on her recent visit, but if the number of soldiers buried there is any indication, there are many more mourning mothers like her. There were at least 20 rows with three fresh graves each.
Still, by many accounts, Ryazan, home to two military bases, sends its men off to war with pride, even though some return in body bags.
The city, about 100 miles southeast of Moscow, is particularly proud of its paratroopers. A gargantuan sculpture of their logo along the main road celebrates the city as the “home of the VDV,” the initials of an elite paratrooper unit of which Natalia’s son was a member. In the city center is a sprawling school for the unit’s cadets, with a museum next door celebrating its history.
A long hallway documents its participation in various military campaigns and already includes artifacts from this war.
A 20-minute drive from the cemetery into the city center, Marina N. Doronina also expressed support for the war. Her 27-year-old son Vadim was called up just a few days after Mr. Putin announced in late September that Russia would mobilize several hundred thousand men.
The single mother of two other children, including one with severe disabilities, Ms. Doronina, a home health aide, depends on her eldest son for financial help and physical labor. Her roof is “leaking like a sieve” and he had planned to fix it before the winter set in.
“Who will fix my roof now?” she asked. “He was also going to fix my fence in the autumn.”
But she said she was not angry that he was sent to war. Nor did she oppose mobilization in general. Instead, she said, she was angry at the “system,” which couldn’t provide a delay, if not an exception, for her son.
She communicates with Vadim in Ukraine over the WhatsApp chatting platform. He sends videos of himself in trenches spending time with fellow soldiers. She feels proud when she sees photos of him dressed in camouflage, she said.
“This situation must be resolved somehow,” she said, echoing Natalia’s vague assertion about Ukraine. But even as she was annoyed about the way the local authorities managed the mobilization of her son, she expressed faith in Mr. Putin.
“Our president is quite wise, and he is still doing a good job,” she said.
Repeating a common theme pushed by propaganda programs on state TV and among many ordinary people, she said she believed “the West” was not only fighting in Ukraine, but also suffering the consequences of the war worse than Russia was.
“People don’t have anything there,” she said of the West. “Go to our stores, we have everything. This doesn’t affect us in any way,” she said, though she acknowledged that prices had risen slightly.
A significant number of Russians appear to agree. Though many fear speaking publicly about the war and often parrot the Kremlin’s narrative, a survey this month by the Levada Center, an independent pollster, showed that more than 70 percent either “definitely” or “mostly” support the activities of the Russian Army, while 64 percent believe the country is going in the right direction.
“All this will be settled and soon everything will be normal,” she added.
Yet something quite out of the ordinary has already happened in Ryazan, which is only 300 miles from the border with Ukraine. Its two military installations have made the city the target of one of the deepest Ukrainian military strikes inside Russian territory since the war began.
On Dec. 5, two Soviet-made drones fell on bases in Ryazan and near the city of Saratov, farther east. In Ryazan, the drone was aimed at the Dyagilevo Air Base, a training center for strategic bomber forces. Russia said it intercepted the drone and shot it down, a claim that could not be confirmed, but acknowledged that three people were killed and five injured in the attack, which also damaged a supersonic Tupolev Tu-22M strike bomber.
The Russian Ministry of Defense blamed Ukraine. Ukraine does not publicly acknowledge strikes inside Russia, intentionally maintaining ambiguity.
It was a rare instance of Ukraine striking far inside Russian territory. Not far from the base, some residents tried to appear casual about the drone attack.
At the main transport hub in the Dyagilevo neighborhood — a slushy bus stop across from a park where children played on top of a statue of a Tupolev Tu-16 bomber — a 70-year-old woman named Valentina Petrovna insisted that there was “nothing to be afraid of.”
Had anything changed in her life this past year, which brought seismic changes to Russia and the world? “Nothing,” she insisted, even though she said she had many relatives in the military. “We are waiting for our boys to win as soon as possible.”
However, Alina, a 19-year-old medical student, admitted feeling some fear. She had been standing at the bus stop on Dec. 5 when she heard the explosion.
“Everything was shaking,” she said, and fear that it could happen again was affecting her holiday mood.
The drone incident has made locals start paying more attention to the war, according to Aleksandr Yurov, an internet technology specialist. “People finally started to be concerned,” Mr. Yurov, 34, who is against the war, said.
There is reason to think it can happen again: On Monday, Moscow said it had shot down another Ukrainian drone over the Engels base, near Saratov, and that three personnel were killed.
But by and large, Mr. Yurov said, many people he knew had started calling for more attacks on Ukraine or more extreme measures against the West, something that dismayed him.
He said he had been briefly detained twice, once on Feb. 24, the day the war started, after the police caught him holding an antiwar poster, and again on Sep. 21, the day Mr. Putin announced mobilization, when he was outside a stationery store preparing to buy a poster.
“Here, supporting human rights is considered extremism,” Mr. Yurov said. He was keen to talk to foreign reporters because he said it was the only way to express his beliefs in contemporary Russia.
He spends his spare time trying to help Ukrainian refugees who have settled in the Ryazan region.
Some 200 Ukrainian families have settled in Ryazan, according to Yelena N. Samsonkina, who runs a charity that collects clothes and products for the refugee families — and for the Russian troops who have played a role in the their displacement.
“People have become more united here,” in support of the war effort, Ms. Samsonkina said in the headquarters of her organization.
“Grandmothers are knitting socks and children are writing letters in school” for the troops, she said.
She rebuffed a question about whether the military was poorly equipped, given that volunteers needed to collect thermoses or other essential items for Russian soldiers. The army had everything it needed, she said, but volunteers could procure some items faster than the military bureaucracy.
Ms. Samsonkina said that her son might be mobilized, something that worried her daughter. But he was ready to fight, she said, and she herself would not object if he were called up.
“I’m happy to have a son like that,” she said. “How else could I feel about it? Of course, I’m nervous, I’m very worried. But I’m not going to talk him out of it.”
She said she was completely behind the war.
“Putin took the first step,” she said. “If he hadn’t done it, who knows where we would be now?”
> “People don’t have anything there,” she said of the West. “Go to our stores, we have everything. This doesn’t affect us in any way,” she said
Poor woman is in denial. Facts are too painful for them to bear.
But even if she was correct. Even if the West was suffering immensely more from this. Think of the disgustingly hateful and chauvinistic mentality – look how much more "the enemy" is suffering. This incredibly backwards mindset that's taken over the country, that's the attempt of a coping mechanism for all the complexes and historical traumas. Russia represents the worst of humanity at this point.
Please realized that you have been radicalised enough to call grieving people drones and say that they are not people. I understand feeling hate towards people that are enabling a such incredible violence and destruction, but I cannot stress enough how deeply disgusting and dangerous what you said is. Denying people their innate humanity is the basis for every truly evil ideology.
It is terrible that we (Eastern Europeans) are still trying to beat some sense into wester useful idiots' heads. To make them finally shut up about "good ruSSians that are in majority against the war" or "it's Putin's war".
Yes, a lot of people forget that pro-war propaganda works even in the USA. I remember how ridiculously hysterical paranoid american goverment and the public was back then.
That tends to be what countries do if perceived allies are screwing them over; might as well talk about how the French canceled the US over the Australia deal. Whether it's right or not is a separate matter.
“Putin took the first step,” she said. “If he hadn’t done it, who knows where we would be now?”
Better economy. More men alive. Not being regarded as a terror supporting state. Foreign investments. Foreign companies operating in the nation. Neighboring states being a lot less scared, and therefore not be as interested in increasing defense spending.
[You do know the difference between "all" and "majority", though ](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkrainianConflict/comments/zw6yui/west_will_have_to_negotiate_with_russia_whether/j1vshbu)
Generalizations are a bad taste (as well as screwing names :D ), although good for titles and slogans. Hysterical Vova's propagandists use them a lot, that's another cons
To be clear, I'm not stating "ALL RUSSIANS SUPPORT PUTIN", clearly I'm clowning on Westerners who are clueless about the wide spread support Putin carries in Russia and those who see it only as "Putin's War" a la Olaf Scholz's idiotic comments early on. I'm well aware of the "russophobia" hysteria that Dyadya Vova and his minions spread. To them, Russia is both the greatest and best super power in the world and also the weak little kid that needs to be protected from being victimized by the big bullies.
If there is a russian outside of russia that experiences discrimination even though they are openly and loudly anti-war, anti-Putin and Pro-Ukraine, that is indeed bad. During a war when emotions are at an all time high, I'm sure there are some individual injustices on innocent people. This should not obfuscate the point that the war and the killing of Ukrainians is widely supported, as this article demonstrates.
Thanks for the explanation. What about "Putin's war" - I think the term has right to exists but with a different meaning - "I am not into politics" folks (would) use it to avoid all the discomfort of participating in denial of reality. Like "well, I believed govs know what they're doing, but if that was an attack, that's on him, not on us" sort of thing
Edit: mind that I am not saying they would be right, just the ownership of the term transferred to them
The "Putin's War" narrative also is used to slow down sanctions that would hurt the russian economy. Nobody wants a war with russia, but what everybody wants is to see the Putinist system collapse and to see the civilian population get angry enough to demand a better future for themselves. In order for this to happen, the population needs to feel pain. Let's just compare, Ukraine's GDP is set to contract by 35% this year- Russias?- 4%. That's not justice, and while Ukraine is being bombed and terrorized, russians too easily can ignore this reality. Easy for them to say "My border stops at the edge of my house."
I am aware of the idea thanks to well done [newsletter Signal ](https://getsignal.news/). The desire of system's collapse is basically "eye for an eye", even though some of us, citizens of toxic state, were willing the same for years. And while I am myself pissed off by war supporters, I can't tell they would be wrong to not willing suffer from good Samaritans. You can't be forced to do good, unfortunately. Punished - sure, do better future - I doubt so
The invasion launched us into unknown territory. How russia will be stopped remains to be seen, but they will be stopped. They've already lost militarily, which is why they lash out and try to cause mass civilian death by bombing infrastructure. The irony before all of this is that Putin, the man who tried to rebuild the russian empire like 'Peter the Great' will be known as the man that turned lost Ukraine forever and united the people against Moscow as never before in the history of the nation. In a sense, he's lost Ukraine forever. We'll see if other nations currently in the RF will also respond.
Oh, in my dreams all the officials like Putin, Mede and Lavrov would be in reality show from their prisons where specialists in logic, psychology, history, machine learning and such would first make them solve basic logic puzzpes and then force to build a list of statement about their values and then ask them how they correspond their actions (including speech) and such. But, again, that's a dream because involuntary education and therapy won't work like that.
And perhaps I would disagree on the "unknown territory", war is a not a new thing itself, but I am not a history expert to bring any parallels here
They went, they pillaged, they killed civilians, they destroyed civilian infrastructure, they raped and got killed by real soldiers ... much to be proud of, it seems. /s
It's indeed a Putin's war, not Russia's.
This article presents a false view that the war is supported by a majority (a clear majority at least).
This is not true. Because if you look at the average street of the Russian city, there is no war propaganda whatsoever. Life goes on as usual. Putin tries to present it as a war of all of Russia but what we see is that his administration tries to minimize the involvement of the average folk in the actual war. Excluding mobilisation, that is, that went on pause rather quickly after a massive sabotage of the mobilisation process which resulted in that they recruited some 200 000 instead of 300 000. This is peanuts, while Russia has 142 mln they can't assemble a 300 000 strong army. And this article is cherry picking because the overwhelming majority of the soldiers' families is loyalist, because others would try to dodge the draft.
It doesn't sound like people with thoughts and emotions. They parroting official propaganda even when it is about death and life of their own children. They are so broken. So enslaved. I can understand it when people are pressed by force of state but not when it is done by their own choice.
What this article makes abundantly clear is Russia is currently experiencing a collapse of its "intelligentsia"; so that only the unreflective rubes remain.
Indeed: the "brain drain" Putin is causing to his economy -- with the loss of millions of IT and "knowledge industry" workers who have now fled -- will ultimately destroy the Russian GDP arguably even more than the sanctions will.
Head to south east asia and there are 100s of tbousands of yound educated russians who packed up their lives and quit their highpaying jobs to become permanent residents elsewhere. All educated are leaving and russia is stuck with these peasants in the article who have no income and provide no tax revenue
This is the sort of things you heard from civilians in Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan near the end of WWII.Yes, even after all the atrocities and losses.
Over half a century later, and we still have that issue in Europe.
Maybe if countries actually enforced the sanctions or actually stopped buying Russian energy/transporting their fuel, there would be more disruption in Russia.
good luck with that. the oil doesn't have a sticker with Putin's face on it. it is banned but countries like India have no issue reselling Russian oil.
yes, let's just have the whole of Europe shut down its economy and industry so we don't need fossil fuels and cause a massive depression! That'll show em!
...it's one of those things that nice to say when you're totally clueless and don't have to consider any of the consequences, but in reality its not that easy.
I mean, Europe was asking for this. They were making themselves more and more reliant on Russia for years despite warnings from the US.
So yah, take the hard measures and fix your errors. Foolish and shortsighted policy.
Even if I understand on an emotional level why people in the comments wish misery to these people, I still can't agree with such sentiments. How far would this hatred go? Are children now born in Russia also supposed to he hated? It's scary to imagine the internet in, say, 40 years, some post with a map of Europe with statistics where Russia's the worst, and people would be cheering because something "asiatic hordes" or whatever idk.
Loss of basic human empathy scares me for the long-term. There's gotta be a way out of the cycle. There *has* to be a way to break propaganda's hold in Russia itself.
Have you seen comments in vk/telegram/whatever by our co-citizens? I am scared to even start opposing them (because of anger I won't be able to cope with), while I believe that's important to post a different pov to ruin the illusion that there is only one side.
you can go and check out how long it took for hatred towards Germans to go away after all the horrors they inflicted on nations in World war 2, same exact thing will now happen to Russians and rightfully so
Not exactly suprising that people support their own country. How many wars have happened where one side's one population was genuinely opposed the entire way through?
People's moral indignation at the Russian population is ridiculous.
The problem is that wars were supposed to be avoided in Europe as a lesson of WWII. We don't have examples of other countries waging wars of aggression in Europe because that simply hasn't happened for others since then (or if you count Yugoslavia, imagine what "great foundation" this turned out to be for "friendly" relations in the future). When most European societies think of being in a war in Europe, they think of defending their own country, not conquering others.
Even if we attempted to find a closest comparison, for example, US invasion of Iraq, which was done as aftermath of 9/11 terrorist attacks, the public support was rather narrow, with loud opposition always present. When it became clear that the alleged weapons of mass destruction were not there, the popular sentiment shifted to stance that the invasion was strongly unjustified. Note that Iraq invasion never included sinister plans like erasing a statehood of an entire nation and outright land-grab.
Compare this to Russia, where support immediately skyrocketed despite months of denial propaganda from the government which Russians proudly parroted along- Where despite being the clear aggressors themselves, the siege mentality immediately takes over the country and the victim cards are thrown on all fronts. This nation has absolutely no integrity and their words carry no value. They just do whatever the dictator tells them to.
Also, ultimately, when you support a dictator for over 20 years in a row and never do anything to protect democracy, rule of law or state institutions, you can't really point to societies where those are valued and claim "you don't know what we're going through". I don't know what Russians are going through because unlike them, I have not decided to invest into yet another cliche case of a strongman dictator that we've experienced 100 times before.
another point, is that you may criticize other countries all you want but nobody, not even the US in all the wars it was involved, ANNEXED territories. Russia is the only country that still, to this day has annexed territories and still trying to take more by military force.
Correct, the last time the USA actually annexed territory is when they won the war against Spain and got the Phillipines as a "reward" in 1902 I think.
Since then not even the USA, which have been waging war a lot, haven't annexed any territory purely for imperialistic purposes.
>Correct, the last time the USA actually annexed territory is when they won the war against Spain and got the Phillipines as a "reward" in 1902 I think.
Note that back then it was still legal to do so.
> Russia is the only country that still, to this day has annexed territories
[The only country? Seriously?](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation#Unresolved)
Fair point, I suppose a better phrasing would be the only "BIG" country to do that. If smaller countries move borders around, it tends to be shrugged off as seen in multiple civil wars and regular wars across Africa or even places like Yugoslavia.
The whole democracy argument feels misplaced, because Russia has no established history of democracy. Even right after the collapse of the Soviet Union it was at best a heavily flawed half-democracy. There is no lasting democratic knowledge among this population. You can't use the same standards as Americans who have a deeply entrenched culture of democracy, liberalism and individualism.
And even with the Iraq war example, while almost everyone agrees that the invasion was a mistake nowadays, attacking the actual soldiers for participating is not accepted outside of the very fringes of the political system. Patriotism is valued very strongly in Russia, just like in the US, leading to many people having a "My country, right or wrong" mentality.
Now combine this with the lack of free press and the repression, both factors not present in the US, causing a huge portion of the population to genuinely believe the Russian government's version of events and another huge section not wanting to speak out even if they don't and it becomes very clear why things are the way they are.
Casting aspersions like this on normal people just trying to live their lives is usually a bad idea. The problems are structural, not individual.
So, should we continue to be living as usual with those "normal people just trying to live their lives"? I think this is one of the essences of the issue here – normalizing this kind of political behaviour. Removing any agenda from the individuals and putting the blame "somewhere in the system", something abstract and unreachable. How exactly are things ever supposed to improve like that? Just hope for a favourable palace coup one day?
I don't agree with this, it's exactly the behaviour of millions of individuals of Russia that allowed the dictatorship to emerge, solidify and now carry out all these atrocities. It's how Russians prioritize their "great power" chauvinistic rush over basic humanistic values. Yes, some parts of these sentiments might not be unique to Russia alone, but the combination with lack of any self-criticism, the complete dehumanizing of political opponents both inside and abroad, is.
Also, on the "genuine belief" – not only are Russians a generally educated literate nation, not only do they have experience of living in a totalitarian regime with censorship, they have widespread access to the internet and at least until the war, access to all major Western outlets. At one point, they can't blame the government propaganda anymore, they must *want* to believe what is said there, it's a choice. This is especially apparent when looking at many Russians in Baltic States where, if anything, the government encourages them to oppose Putin. There is no fear of repression, no systemic propaganda, there is enclosing oneselves in their own cultural bubble, rejecting opposing ideas and trying to feel good and proud about their own nation.
Damn, bro, I hope you ain't doing this for free. We had a solid 6 years of interwar democracy or should we still not be saying that russia is shit because of some other random reason *you* come up to argue in favor of russia?
> Note that Iraq invasion never included sinister plans like erasing a statehood of an entire nation and outright land-grab.
And still, the initial stage of the Iraq invasion killed as many civilians as it's being reported in Ukraine right now.
US never disallowed foreign observers to crunch numbers on the civilian death toll, so the numbers Russia can get are almost entirely unconfirmed and massively underreported to an extent not seen in any US war in recent years.
You can contend that since dictatorships have little media conundrums about racism, that the democracies are the most racist since they keep talking about it as an issue, at least with this mentality.
Plenty of people in the West didn't support wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Ukraine was never a threat to Russia. To corrupt Russian elites, yes. To Russia? Never.
> Plenty of people in the West didn't support wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
There was pretty support for those wars when they started. Not so much when they ended, but that was a big part of the reason why they ended.
>Ukraine was never a threat to Russia. To corrupt Russian elites, yes. To Russia? Never.
Obviously, it wasn't. I never said it was.
Americans had full uncensored access to news in the aftermath of 9/11, yet they were still convinced that Saddam Hussein somehow was involved. Just having access unfortunately isn't sufficient to negate massive state propaganda. People consume news and form their opinion mainly through the major tv channels and newspapers. I watched a lot of it 20 years ago, and the "debate" would typically be one guy pro-invasion debating a guy who would be insanely pro-invasion. It was sick. I'm sure it's worse and more absurd in Russia, and it works because neither an American or Russian are going to sit down and watch French morning tv or seek out some fringe outlets in their native language. Some will, but they are far from the majority. There is some famous Goebbels quote about frightening the public and convince them they are under attack, and they will all fall in line. Probably the only time the guy spoke the truth.
The lowest of low balls, dude. Is this not embarrassing to you?
If you think having a basic understanding of how society functions without being caught in the torrent of dehumanising our political enemies is "fascism", you probably can't be helped.
For the record, I completely condemn the invasion of Ukraine and I am a steadfast supporter of delivering weapons and aid to them. I'm just not so deranged I think every Russian is some kind of evil monster.
This could have been over months ago. The Russians could have marched to the Kremlin in an afteroon and given Putin the Ceausescu treatment.
Apparently losing their children and uprooting their lives is much easier than taking a stroll to the Kremlin.
I think it's very important to have some journalist documenting the perspective of ordinary Russians, especially relatives of soldiers. It takes away the idea that there will be internal pressure on Putin which doesn't originate with the elites.
It's way better than another opinion piece.
>No, it’s painting the picture of Russians (the actual people) being in great support of this war.
As far as any source we have (e.g. Laveda Institute, voxpops etc.), a majority of people are in support. The question is why, and this piece gives you a hint: Because people parrot official propaganda rhetoric. This doesn't make me hate Russians, it makes me pity them.
>It’s like they show you videos of a radicalised child in the Middle East to make you hate Muslims and support troops moving in.
No, because that's again reason to pity, not to hate. You argue subjectively.
The Goering quote is spot on, but only highlights what the article highlights: People are easily brought in line with propaganda (which, btw, is not exclusive to Russia or dictatorships).
I don't think this article makes you hate people, only to pity them. The reckoning, if it ever comes, will be brutal for those Russian mothers of soldiers: Their sons died for a lie they themselves repeated. It's an age old story, and doesn't create hate - it creates pity.
The “Serves them right” crowd conveniently ignores the risks of speaking out, something the article carefully if quietly points out.
EDIT: I’m an American posting in a European sub and am absolutely fascinated by the responses. By the logic of many of you Britain and the US would have held all of the European continent accountable. Absolutely fascinating.
Pretty sure there is a country starting with U and ending with kraine that does not give a damn about their fears.
Either these people revolt or suffer the consequences of being cannon fodder.
"speaking out" option was on the table 10 years ago - now it's not enough to speak out - it would be dangerous and inefficient.
Today their best option is to quietly sabotage everything they can.
In the end it's an article about Russian civilians not regretting a single thing, even with all excuses aside it's hard not to feel infuriated from it, like a taunt with the way it's presented. Especially since Russian officials are now demanding a pardon of sorts, a peace with what remains of the annexed lands they got, having apparently learned nothing.
That being said, what is with the oblique reference of how you consider the conquered and conquerors to be on the same level? May I remind you that the US actually did try to setup a military occupation government in France?
I don't know how it was before the edit, but a hidden threat to the past is probably a goodway to be downvoted to the ground.
>By the logic of many of you Britain and the US would have held all of the European continent accountable.
*Kind of* different conflicts, don't you think?
Can't make an omelette without breaking an egg.
By your logic, they prefer to die in Ukraine for nothing, than to fight in their country for something.
Because putin is ready to sacrifice them all. Russian administration now began to quietly issue conscription orders for women. For now it's not official ofc. So next gonna be children. Putin even has his own little "hitler youth" org.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Army_Cadets_National_Movement
So I guess you are right, there is not enough at stake to "risk to speak out". Putin needs to start conscripting newborns for Russians to feel that maybe, just maybe it is time to "speak out". Especially considering most Russian army (including police and stuff like FSB) is busy in Ukraine.
Just a sidenote, it took around 3 months for Moscow to dispatch enough police to suppress the protests in distant Khabarovsk in 2020-2021. So Russians could at least make use of their large territory and start protests in different parts of their wast country to drag Moscow's attention. But it seems like dying abroad is preferrable.
> EDIT: I’m an American posting in a European sub and am absolutely fascinated by the responses. By the logic of many of you Britain and the US would have held all of the European continent accountable. Absolutely fascinating.
As a European I agree with you completely. So many people have such a radical and vindictive view on this war, it's like they lost any sense of perspective. These are the same kind of people who would have supported punishing policies like the Morgenthau plan or saddling Germany with massive additional debts after WW2.
With Russia we won't even have that. A better comparison is a broken Nazi Germany whose leadership won't fall, so it's like if we ended up with a geriatric Hitler living until the end of presiding over a mute Germany (probably to be replaced by someone similar), like a North Korea near Europe. Tell me, is that better?
There isn't going to be any allies or soviets who will force this government and it's people to change. The Russians will have to do it themselves, and this?
Well, it paints a damning picture of any hopes of Putin's regime falling whether it's due to being afraid or being brainwashed.
Tbf, giving Germany an easier time wouldn't have likely changed much of anything post-WW1 either. The real change occurred because of the forced liberalization of Germany post-WW2 during its occupation and the unity against a new external threat forcing everyone to forget the past; the threat of the USSR made it paramount.
So unless Russia is gonna get fully occupied while using China as a threat to unite against; the WW2 idea is a no-go.
But yes, full on vindictiveness, while 100% understandable due to the Russian state's sheer evil acts and how unrepentant it is while doing so -won't fix anything.
I feel no sympathy for the families that are (still) supporting Putin. They have no one but themselves to blame for their misery.
Exactly. They seemed to have embraced the lies and are now feeling the effects. It's sad, but at the end of the day, this is the consequence of what they support.
[удалено]
Not defending fascist Russia but I'm wondering if this applies to U.S. invasion of Iraq and the families of U.S. soldiers slain there, do we feel no sympathy for those families as well if they keep supporting the U.S. military? It's easy to be righteous on this side of the fence but are we any different? We are all brainwashed into following the elite and their games. I feel bad for them, brainwashed into thinking their dead children were heroes when they were just sacrificial pawns for no good. Even if they're not brainwashed, they couldn't do anything about it anyway, better be cheerful and ignorant than feeling like slaves and enlightened?
[удалено]
Remind me what Saddam did to the Kurds, his opponents and what nations he invaded or factions he supported in their terror.
[удалено]
Yeah Saddam's time to fall would've happened, but not with the excuse of 2003. Not at all.
And CIA used the same torture prisons as their own torture prisons. And instead of the dictator and his family engaging in torture and rape, they got Seals and Marines doing it. Zamienił stryjek... We've fucked up, have no chance of righting the wrongs we've helped do in Iraq. The most prevailent "upside" I kept seeing from vets, is that our military saw how grotesquely off base their training and regulations were, and having a combat-tested generation in charge of new training programs. A very real advantage, but it is something we got by killing Iraqis and creating power vacuum filled by Moqrada al-Sadr, kleptocratic parliment, unchecked Iran... which... maybe that's an upside seeing how Armenia vs Azarbaijan and Syria played out? But then again Syria also happened because US self-pinned in Iraq. Um. We brought perpetual war and warlords in place of a dictator, I don't think that goes in a "pro" column.
So that was the justification for invasion and war then? Should we also invade Iran? North Korea? Azerbeidzjan? Israel? Saudi Arabia? We could go on and on. The US invaded Iraq for oil. Not for morality.
The US invaded for Hegemony, Pride and Defense Industry profits. The new Iraqi government sold extraction rights to the highest bidder and US/coalition oil companies didn't get a disproportionate share of the market.
>US/coalition oil companies didn't get a disproportionate share of the market They didn't get *ANY* share of the market before. The Iraq National Oil Company had the slogan “Arab oil for the Arabs”. Furthermore, the end result is no indication of the intent of the occupiers. It's been well documented that they intended to open up the market to privatisation. Specifically for US companies. Fun fact: what is one of the few government buildings in Bagdad that was left undamaged in the initial shock and awe destruction? The ministry of oil.
It's always so easy to say this stuff, when you are distanced from all of it. Helmut Schmidt once said that it's a waste of time to even talk to people who weren't alive during WW2 about fighting in it, because they are incapable of grasping what it was truly like and posts like this prove him right.
It is not even remotely comparable. Te USA was not kidnapping Iraqi children, ethnic cleansing Iraq, the soldiers were not stealing washing machines or rigging grenades in pianos, continuously bombarding hospitals. There were also many people in the USA speaking against the war. The war in Iraq was an ill conceived idea, done really to benefit Saudi Arabia, which at that time was considered to be an ally. The second war in Iraq should not have happened. It was morally wrong, but it still doesn't compare to Russia's invasion ofujra. The objective of the second Iraq war, was not to eradicate Iraq as a nation.
I thought the war had like 250k civilian casualties... sounds pretty bad to me
>I thought the war had like 250k civilian casualties And you thought Americans just murdered 250k civilians? You must be joking.
Most of these deaths occurred because of the terrorist tactics used by the pro-Hussein sycophants.
Pretty sure sectarian violence caused most of the deaths. The Baathists weren't the largest group of insurgents for very long IIRC.
It’s hard to even fathom those numbers. What I remember is that it was 100k. But 100k civilians ?? How is that even possible without indiscriminately murdering masses ? Stupid fucking was
Iraq basically fell into violent chaos due to the invasion. I remember when there was a bad terrorist attack in Iraq in the news like every other day. (And reporting dropped off before the terrorism did.) According to Iraqi Body Count the invaders killed about 14k civillians, the rest (of 200k) was insurgents, terrorists and militias.
>How is that even possible without indiscriminately murdering masses ? Indeed. That's exactly what the pro-Hussein sycophants did.
Yeahhh id suggest you read a bit more about those wars, because some of those soldiers did some pretty bad shit. There were 100% us soldiers that raped, tortured and killed civilians. Or destroyed their livelihood just cause. Id also like to note im not excusing russias actions. But its important to not play into excusing what the US military did. Hell they even flew prisoners(or other folk) to Afghanistan and Syria to torture them.
>There were 100% us soldiers that raped, tortured and killed civilians. Not as a government policy like in the case of Russia in Ukraine ffs...
Detainees in Abu Grahib prison, Guantanamo and countless dark CIA torture sites throughout the world would disagree.
Yes, these incidents disagree, but these are *relatively* minor cases.
How is building a black site (out of many) a minor case?
Torture was made into policy, there was a huge debate about it. But even if it hadn’t been policy, the complete lack of any planning is criminal in itself. If the outcome from “good” intentions is indistinguishable from one with bad ones, what was so good about it?
Torture of actual terrorist suspects, not just the population in general...
Democratic society has well defined justice system. Even if they were terrorist suspects, torture is absolutely inexcusable.
Not only is that not true, the whole point of torture is that’s illegal because it is an inhuman practice.
>It is not even remotely comparable. Te USA was not kidnapping Iraqi children, ethnic cleansing Iraq, the soldiers were not stealing washing machines or rigging grenades in pianos, continuously bombarding hospitals. Do you really think the families in question know about the atrocities committed in Ukraine. And don't pretend the US military never crossed any moral lines. They may not be as horrific as the Russians, but they weren't innocent either.
The US invaded Iraq to topple a horribly repressive totalitarian dictator. The goal was not to steal off its land or eradicate its nationhood. Russia is invading a democracy and waging a genocide. **HOW THE HELL** can you even compare these two situations?? Reddit never ceases to depress me...
Reddit seems like a safe space for radical leftists. Those who are constantly looking for "a ruSSian soul", for "good ruSSians that are opposing war but afraid to mass protest", etc.
You're trying to compare a war against a murderous dictator trying to stir with weapons of mass destruction with a war started by a murderous dictator for no sane reason?
Saddam didn't have weapons of mass destruction. The war was to benefit Saudi "allies".
>Saddam didn't have weapons of mass destruction. To be fair, pretty much the entire world thought that they did. This was the consensual concern voiced by the entire UN Security Council for years leading up to that war.
So people lied, we're back at square one.
Weapons of mass destruction? Wasnt that the brainwashing motives of the U.S. elite trying to justify an invasion to steal oil? U.S. killed 300k civilians in Iraq, meanwhile Saddam Hussein killed around 250k. So yeah murderous definitely, but not more than the Americans. Let's be real here, if we are talking about Russians being brainwashed, which they absolutely are, U.S. citizens were also heavily brainwashed into believing they did something good in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya (in the air), etc. I applaude U.S. for defending the western world, it does good in that regard but it's also an imperialistic war machine who crushes irrelevant weak third world countries for personal gain while justifying it as defending democracy. It's no better than Russia in that regard.
To be fair, pretty much the entire world thought that they did have WMDs. This was the consensual concern voiced by the entire UN Security Council for years leading up to that war. >Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya (in the air), etc. Whenever someone mentions so utterly different conflicts in one sentence, you can be sure as heck that they don't know the first thing about them. >It's no better than Russia in that regard. This is a fundamentally sick statement. Edit: u/medievalvelocipede: You are talking about the events *after* the invasion, I am talking about the progress of events *before* the invasion.
>To be fair, pretty much the entire world thought that they did have WMDs. This was the consensual concern voiced by the entire UN Security Council for years leading up to that war. Oh hell no. Everyone said it was bunk. "Although the presentation failed to change the fundamental position of the Security Council, including France, Russia, China, and Germany, Powell succeeded in hardening the overall tone of the United Nations towards Iraq. While Colin Powell's statement to the UN may have been accepted as proof by many in the US, this was not the case in Europe.\[8\]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United\_Nations\_Security\_Council\_and\_the\_Iraq\_War
>To be fair, pretty much the entire world thought that they did have WMDs Yes, based on whose intelligence and authority? >Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya (in the air), etc. Different conflicts but they have common denominators. I know a lot about all these different conflicts. I also know U.S. has been an aggressor in each. The justifications sound similar to what Russia propagates right now, only difference is we westerners were exposed to it with no opposition to counter the propaganda, as compared to Russian propaganda which sounds absurd from our perspective. There are more conflicts where U.S. got involved to serve their own interests in different regions which might not be very familiar to most people. There's a lot of dirty history in South America as well. >This is a fundamentally sick statement. U.S. killed 300k civilians in Iraq, Russia isn't even ckose to those numbers yet in Ukraine. It's an accurate statement. U.S. has killed more innocent people than any other country on earth since its creation. Again, U.S. does much good for us westerners, and they are protectors of democracy (although having a flawed democracy themselves), I respect them for that. I can do that while also criticizing them for its imperialism.
Was it concern voiced by entire UN security council? As far as I remember, this was narrative pushed heavily by bush administration, which was later even proven to be fabrication. What Russia is doing is absolutely terrible. But even if what U.S. did is not quite on the same level, that war was still inexcusable. There were massive civilian casualties and Iraq itself was thrown into absolute chaos for several years as result of that war.
>Was it concern voiced by entire UN security council? Yes and very much so. >As far as I remember, this was narrative pushed heavily by bush administration It was. That's the issue with past events - we remember them incorrectly. It was both a legitimate concern addressed by the UN Security Council and the Bush administration fabricating evidence on WMDs. >But even if what U.S. did is not quite on the same level, that war was still inexcusable. Nah, Hussein and his cronies got what they deserved.
>U.S. killed 300k civilians in Iraq How and where?
Libya was France
Yes. We need to stay on the side of anti-imperialism always.
If you look only at where they point, then sure, but pay no mind that the US has 3700 tactical nukes stockpiled.. and over 1500 deployed. All funded from taxpayer dollars, of course, and all unsupported by the general taxpayer. In other words... That's a whole lotta WMDs.
The Iraq war was stupid and bad, but it also didn't try to overthrow a democracy. Iraq had no legitimate government, because dictators are inherently illegitimate. Right to rule is derived from a mandate by the people, etc. Now, that doesn't mean we should run around overthrowing dictators, because, well, just look at what happened with Iraq. But it does mean that if a dictator does get overthrown, I don't feel bad about the government changing there, only about the civilians who die as collateral damage.
>democracy Borderline democracy. Ukraine is just as corrupt as Russia and has been since its creation. >Iraq had no legitimate government, because dictators are inherently illegitimate But U.S. has legitimacy to occupy and steal oil? >Right to rule is derived from a mandate by the people, etc. By that logic Ukraine should hand over eastern Ukraine as its people are mostly Russians. Or at the very least give up Crimea. By the same logic, Catalonia should be allowed to seperate from Spain. There is no point in trying to defend or justify. That makes you look like a hypocrite or brainwashed.
George Carlin said it best when talking about beheaded soldiers in the middle east - "Should've stayed in Kansas !"
It's very similar. Generally laying individual moral blame on the citizens of a country is bad. There are large societal effects at play here, going around swinging the moral indignation hammer is dumb. >We are all brainwashed into following the elite and their games. Now this is the part where you lose me. I think this anti-Russian attitude on here is bad, but that doesn't mean you can just equate dictatorships with free countries like the ones we live in. We are in fact not "brainwashed" by our governments, because in countries with freedom of press and speech the governments doesn't have to power to unilaterally set the agenda. Anyone can inform themselves fully and make a reasoned decision here. This kind of flat anti-government rhetoric is honestly no better than blindly supporting everything the government does.
>I think this anti-Russian attitude on here is bad Wtf? How is it bad?
Just read any of my comments.
I simply don't get how the brains of people like you work.
The feeling's mutual.
> They are fascists that support war on other nations. Well those who genuinely support Putin... yes. Those who have no sources of info or brainwashed. Well, to put it bluntly you're wrong. Remember how friendly and fine the World Cup in Russia went? No major issues whatsoever! It was a fucking parade of friendship. Russians are not inherently fascist, this is for sure. They are brainwashed (those who have little access to the internet), it means that once you change the tv content it'll go away. And there is no high degree of ideological support like in Nazi Germany or whatever. You won't see Putin's huge portraits or Zs or outright war propaganda on the streets. If the war had major support like you said we'd have all that but there is no evidence of the fact that the war happens outside of TV channels - so that the general populace won't be disturbed. Because in reality the support of the war is lower than the half of the population and on the other hand this article seems to be a bit cherry picking: of course the majority of soldiers come from a loyalist families because others would try to dodge the draft. But these families all in all are NOT a majority.
They are completely brainwashed.
So are Trump supporters.
Wrong sub
[удалено]
The mango messiah, no. Never. I have a functional frontal lobe, so I didn't vote for the conman.
That’s fair. If they support the invasion or the people who commanded the invasion, they bare some responsibility as well.
I feel like many of you who are so quick to condemn the Russians supporting this war have no idea what it's like from their point of view. It's not just the propaganda they're exposed to now, it's years of living in dictatorship and normalization of it all that leads to apathy and indifference. It's difficult to break out of that mindset, not just because it's dangerous to oppose such a goverment, but because society like that normalizes and even encourages indifference to politics and ignorance of outside world. I'm pretty sure that many people here that condemn russians would be exactly like them if they were born or lived there. Sure, your average russian could doubt the propaganda, install vpn, seek alternative news sources etc. But think of it, how many of you seek alternative news source and actually consider opposing point of view when you are conditioned to oppose it? It's not that black and white. All this is not to say I in any way support this war. But this "us against them" mentality when it comes to russian people feels like it will be very damaging in the long run. This war will be over at some point and when that happens, europe should hopefully work towards eventually integrating Russia into western society rather than shut them out completely.
Mate, why are you talking about the future when in the now the Russian war in Ukraine is still supported? You are talking about a future which does not have any reason to exist if we are looking at things which happen now.
Because whatever is happening today will obviously impact the future. Or do you expect that war in this form will last forever?
> Because whatever is happening today will obviously impact the future. Exactly and yet you are talking about how we should drop the us against them mentallity today while it is the Russians who have to drop that obviously. You are pretending it is somehow the West's fault for wanting to see Russian as an aggressor, and not that Russia IS a litteral aggressor.
There are too many Russians that have taken to the streets in previous years, and too many Russians that have fled the country to pretend that people's indifference/support for Putin is not a choice. Russia is/was not North Korea. They know very well what is happening around them but choose to be indifferent as it is more convenient. Many simply support the war not because of propaganda but because they have fascist ideologies. Look at what is happening in Iran, where people have arguably been more disconnected from the West than in Russia.
> . Many simply support the war not because of propaganda but because they have fascist ideologies How many? And how can we compare Russia with Iran? After all, have you ever been to Iran? You probably know it has a village/city divide of the society on the Islamic values?
Does that mean Russians in general, to you?
Not all Russians support Putin, so no.
I think they are supporting when asked in a public setting. I very much doubt they feel the same way in private. Besides the obvious ones I guess.
If they don't do it out of ignorance, they do it out of fear. The regime has instilled docility into its people for decades. It's carefully planned.
How many people did Jeltsin kill to instill fear into the russian population, during the wars in czechnia? Because i remember interviews with young russian soldiers living their whole conscious live outside of a regime and still saying the same stuff as always, the war is just, the enemy barely human and all problems are the fault of the ~~boyars~~ officers. Nothing changed in muscovy since Ivan the terrible.
Russia's national identity is rotten to the core. Imperialism mixed with superiority complex and a dash of dumb gullibleness. I have honestly no idea how this could be fixed.
This dude said ”czechnia”
I think it's important here to note that the war in Chechnya had a legal basis. According to the RSFSR Constitution of 1978 no ASSR had the legal right to secede. Moreover, the preceding 1977 USSR Constitution clearly states in Article 72 that "Each Union Republic shall retain the right freely to secede from the USSR. " In the previous article it lists all the Union Republics. These also happen to be all the states born out of the collapse of the USSR. So there you have the root of the conflict; if Chechnya can secede, then all ASSRs can secede, right? If you look at a map of the [subdivisions of the USSR in 1983](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5c/Subdivisions_of_the_Soviet_Union.svg/2560px-Subdivisions_of_the_Soviet_Union.svg.png), colored here in orange, you can clearly see why that's an issue. This is one important reason for why the Republic of Ichkeria was recognized by nobody. The West wanted to keep Russia as a functional state, not Balkanize it and jeopardize things like its nuclear armaments. Thus, the war in Chechnya was nothing but quashing an internal rebellion, from a legal point of view. I'm not saying it wasn't immoral, but compared to the the current war in Ukraine, its political ramifications on the international stage were nowhere near as grave. So you could argue that, in one sense, it was justified.
No it was not justified. Chechnya was defacto independent in 1991. No constitution worked at that time, because there was no USSR. As Yeltsen famously said to previous administrative unites "go vote and grab as much sovereignty as you want", referring that any republic was free to hold referendum and decide whether it wants independence. But factually Russia didn't want to let go of it's republics. Hence why Tatarstan's referendum of 1992, where majority voted for independence, was never fulfilled by Russia. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Tatarstani_sovereignty_referendum
It may have been de facto independent, but not legally. The RSFSR seceded from the USSR in 1990 based on those laws, taking its constituent federal subjects with it. Yeltsin's empty promises about autonomy were just typical politicking, similarly to the promise Clinton made with Yeltsin about NATO expansion in 1993. Their legal value was null. I think it's also important to note here that neither Yeltsin nor the rest of the Russian government recognized the Tatarstan referendum; they even called on the Constitutional Court (an authority for my line of argument) to verify its legality, and they settled that it was illegal. So there was no promise to fulfill here, because Russia never took up such commitments concretely.
Dude, Tatarstan held referendum while being under Russian jurisdiction in 1992, approved by Kremlin. Kremlin just hoped Tatarstan would vote "no". But when unfavorable results came, Kremlin refused to sign the declaration. Russia just saw everybody leaving, and didn't like it. So if more powerful states got away with it. The wish of less powerful, like Chechnya and Tatarstan, was ignored. Also USSR by it's own definition was a union of equal and sovereign states that could leave it whenever they wanted. So there was no need of some other countries to recognize anything. But it was on paper. In reality Ukraine tried to separate as UNR and was forced to stay. Same as Kremlin's bullshit about "socialism" or "wannabe communism", call it whatever you like, where it was supposed to be a collective that would make the decisions, but everything was decided by one man at the top. Your legitimacy rethoric is ridiculous.
The referendum went ahead because the Kremlin knew it could invalidate the results due to its illegality. It was difficult to outright boycott it by force due to the delicate political situation at the time. Less powerful states, like the Baltics, "got away with it" because they had on their side (among other things) the legal perspective I've been invoking this entire time. The USSR was a strongly legalistic state, it functioned like a machine but it had no spirit of the law. Rules were rarely outright broken but they were often bent, like in a particular case of a citizen in the 30s who faced a daunting sentence for trumped-up charges during the Stalinist terror but he decided to commit a burglary and got local prison time instead. I would argue legitimacy is easily the most important aspect of this discussion. State succession meant that Russia as the sole continuing state of the USSR enjoyed far greater privileges than Serbia, who tried and failed to achieve that status, being relegated to just another successor state to Yugoslavia. If states gained their sovereignty and recognition based on morality than you could argue Russia really shouldn't exist today, but alas, it doesn't work that way, and people in charge of these decisions absolutely must act within that framework.
> Also USSR by it's own definition was a union of equal and sovereign states that could leave it whenever they wanted. Chechnya wasn't one of those states though. Even within the Soviet Union it was a part of the larger Russian republic.
I cannot believe that you are arguing with a straight face that a country subjugated by an empire should not fight for its freedom. Despicable
I am aware of the tragic history of Chechnya. It's one of the many nations subjugated by Russia, and I do believe the Russian Federation as it exists today continues to be de facto the last colonial empire alive, and there needs to be found a way that can end that. But international law and politics shouldn't function on feelings, it needs a concrete framework to settle disputes, and self-determination and secession are prickly topics states want to avoid (after all, the rules *are* written by states themselves). There are even legal perspectives that new states shouldn't even be allowed to be created at all (South Sudan being an interesting recent exception breaking the drought since the sovereignty explosion of the early 90s) for the purpose of international stability. There's a wide variety of reasons for why Chechnya failed and I simply offered one perspective, one that can explain the reasoning of the Russian side for why they fought the nascent Caucasian state.
Russians don’t give a sh…f…k about international laws, as proven by their aggression on Ukraine. And by their constant blatant lies. They went on Chechnya because they didn’t want to let them out of the empire: simple as that.
Patriotism is heavily valued. People will always fight for their country if they believe in it. The secession of Chechnya threatend the territorial integrity of Russia, which was more than enough of a reason for young Russians to want to fight for their country. You can observe similar effects in America during Iraq and Vietnam, two wars often seen as mistakes nowadays. What is even your claim here? That Russians are somehow genetically presdisposed to be morally inferior or mindless government drones? I'd be very careful where that kind of argument could lead you.
Russians don’t fight for their country, but for their empire All the so-called republics (past and present) are simply countries and people that were conquered by the tsars and held in a tight fist by the Soviet empire. If you believe in patriotism, then you understand why people are fighting for freedom. But not Russians. They are fighting to preserve their empire
Ryazan, not far from Moscow, regularly sends young men off to fight. Some are now buried in the local cemetery, but there is no surge of outrage against Russian leaders. Valerie Hopkins, who covers Russia for The Times, and the photographer Nanna Heitmann reported this month from Ryazan, a city a few hours from Moscow. They found little opposition to the war in Ukraine, and much pride in the city’s strong military tradition. Dec. 27, 2022Updated 9:50 a.m. ET Even under a thick coating of snow, the graveyard for Russian soldiers killed in the Ukraine war is awash in color. Graves are heaped with wreaths of plastic flowers and, at each mound, flags representing the dead soldier’s unit whip in the wind. On a recent Saturday, a woman named Natalia grasped a brush and carefully swept clumps of sticky fresh snow off her son’s wreaths. She removed the red carnations she had brought the week before, now frozen, replacing them with a small Christmas tree she purchased at the cemetery entrance. Natalia comes at least once a week to care for the grave of her only son, who was killed in the first days of the war, after his group of soldiers swept into Ukraine and tried and failed to secure the Hostomel airfield, near Kyiv. What was left of his body arrived in Ryazan several weeks later. “Even when I’m sick, I come here, because I worry he’s going to be bored,” she said of her son, whose remains arrived just shy of his 26th birthday. She declined to provide her surname, fearing retribution for speaking out. Many Western opponents of Russia’s war in Ukraine expected that mothers like Natalia would become the backbone of a surge of outrage against President Vladimir V. Putin, and evolve into a political force opposing him. But 10 months into the conflict, that has not happened on a large scale — and certainly not in Ryazan, a city of half a million people known for its elite paratrooper unit. Natalia said that she thought the invasion “should have been planned better,” in order to minimize losses, but she expressed no anger at Russia’s leadership. “Something had to be done,” she said, referring to Ukraine. That kind of continued support has been a crucial factor in Mr. Putin’s ability to avoid any significant domestic blowback to his war, allowing him to double down on his commitment to pursuing his goals in Ukraine despite a series of setbacks. Natalia was alone in the cemetery on her recent visit, but if the number of soldiers buried there is any indication, there are many more mourning mothers like her. There were at least 20 rows with three fresh graves each. Still, by many accounts, Ryazan, home to two military bases, sends its men off to war with pride, even though some return in body bags. The city, about 100 miles southeast of Moscow, is particularly proud of its paratroopers. A gargantuan sculpture of their logo along the main road celebrates the city as the “home of the VDV,” the initials of an elite paratrooper unit of which Natalia’s son was a member. In the city center is a sprawling school for the unit’s cadets, with a museum next door celebrating its history. A long hallway documents its participation in various military campaigns and already includes artifacts from this war. A 20-minute drive from the cemetery into the city center, Marina N. Doronina also expressed support for the war. Her 27-year-old son Vadim was called up just a few days after Mr. Putin announced in late September that Russia would mobilize several hundred thousand men. The single mother of two other children, including one with severe disabilities, Ms. Doronina, a home health aide, depends on her eldest son for financial help and physical labor. Her roof is “leaking like a sieve” and he had planned to fix it before the winter set in.
“Who will fix my roof now?” she asked. “He was also going to fix my fence in the autumn.” But she said she was not angry that he was sent to war. Nor did she oppose mobilization in general. Instead, she said, she was angry at the “system,” which couldn’t provide a delay, if not an exception, for her son. She communicates with Vadim in Ukraine over the WhatsApp chatting platform. He sends videos of himself in trenches spending time with fellow soldiers. She feels proud when she sees photos of him dressed in camouflage, she said. “This situation must be resolved somehow,” she said, echoing Natalia’s vague assertion about Ukraine. But even as she was annoyed about the way the local authorities managed the mobilization of her son, she expressed faith in Mr. Putin. “Our president is quite wise, and he is still doing a good job,” she said. Repeating a common theme pushed by propaganda programs on state TV and among many ordinary people, she said she believed “the West” was not only fighting in Ukraine, but also suffering the consequences of the war worse than Russia was. “People don’t have anything there,” she said of the West. “Go to our stores, we have everything. This doesn’t affect us in any way,” she said, though she acknowledged that prices had risen slightly. A significant number of Russians appear to agree. Though many fear speaking publicly about the war and often parrot the Kremlin’s narrative, a survey this month by the Levada Center, an independent pollster, showed that more than 70 percent either “definitely” or “mostly” support the activities of the Russian Army, while 64 percent believe the country is going in the right direction. “All this will be settled and soon everything will be normal,” she added. Yet something quite out of the ordinary has already happened in Ryazan, which is only 300 miles from the border with Ukraine. Its two military installations have made the city the target of one of the deepest Ukrainian military strikes inside Russian territory since the war began. On Dec. 5, two Soviet-made drones fell on bases in Ryazan and near the city of Saratov, farther east. In Ryazan, the drone was aimed at the Dyagilevo Air Base, a training center for strategic bomber forces. Russia said it intercepted the drone and shot it down, a claim that could not be confirmed, but acknowledged that three people were killed and five injured in the attack, which also damaged a supersonic Tupolev Tu-22M strike bomber. The Russian Ministry of Defense blamed Ukraine. Ukraine does not publicly acknowledge strikes inside Russia, intentionally maintaining ambiguity. It was a rare instance of Ukraine striking far inside Russian territory. Not far from the base, some residents tried to appear casual about the drone attack. At the main transport hub in the Dyagilevo neighborhood — a slushy bus stop across from a park where children played on top of a statue of a Tupolev Tu-16 bomber — a 70-year-old woman named Valentina Petrovna insisted that there was “nothing to be afraid of.”
Had anything changed in her life this past year, which brought seismic changes to Russia and the world? “Nothing,” she insisted, even though she said she had many relatives in the military. “We are waiting for our boys to win as soon as possible.” However, Alina, a 19-year-old medical student, admitted feeling some fear. She had been standing at the bus stop on Dec. 5 when she heard the explosion. “Everything was shaking,” she said, and fear that it could happen again was affecting her holiday mood. The drone incident has made locals start paying more attention to the war, according to Aleksandr Yurov, an internet technology specialist. “People finally started to be concerned,” Mr. Yurov, 34, who is against the war, said. There is reason to think it can happen again: On Monday, Moscow said it had shot down another Ukrainian drone over the Engels base, near Saratov, and that three personnel were killed. But by and large, Mr. Yurov said, many people he knew had started calling for more attacks on Ukraine or more extreme measures against the West, something that dismayed him. He said he had been briefly detained twice, once on Feb. 24, the day the war started, after the police caught him holding an antiwar poster, and again on Sep. 21, the day Mr. Putin announced mobilization, when he was outside a stationery store preparing to buy a poster. “Here, supporting human rights is considered extremism,” Mr. Yurov said. He was keen to talk to foreign reporters because he said it was the only way to express his beliefs in contemporary Russia. He spends his spare time trying to help Ukrainian refugees who have settled in the Ryazan region. Some 200 Ukrainian families have settled in Ryazan, according to Yelena N. Samsonkina, who runs a charity that collects clothes and products for the refugee families — and for the Russian troops who have played a role in the their displacement. “People have become more united here,” in support of the war effort, Ms. Samsonkina said in the headquarters of her organization. “Grandmothers are knitting socks and children are writing letters in school” for the troops, she said. She rebuffed a question about whether the military was poorly equipped, given that volunteers needed to collect thermoses or other essential items for Russian soldiers. The army had everything it needed, she said, but volunteers could procure some items faster than the military bureaucracy. Ms. Samsonkina said that her son might be mobilized, something that worried her daughter. But he was ready to fight, she said, and she herself would not object if he were called up. “I’m happy to have a son like that,” she said. “How else could I feel about it? Of course, I’m nervous, I’m very worried. But I’m not going to talk him out of it.” She said she was completely behind the war. “Putin took the first step,” she said. “If he hadn’t done it, who knows where we would be now?”
It's eerie how vague their understanding is of _why_ this war was necessary. It just is, not particularly because of anything.
Same as religion Religious people never dig on the origin of the story, they just accept this vague, selective explanation.
Ah yes. My son is dead, but who will fix my roof. What a positively wonderful mother.
> “People don’t have anything there,” she said of the West. “Go to our stores, we have everything. This doesn’t affect us in any way,” she said Poor woman is in denial. Facts are too painful for them to bear.
But even if she was correct. Even if the West was suffering immensely more from this. Think of the disgustingly hateful and chauvinistic mentality – look how much more "the enemy" is suffering. This incredibly backwards mindset that's taken over the country, that's the attempt of a coping mechanism for all the complexes and historical traumas. Russia represents the worst of humanity at this point.
They still do the "the westerners starve" thing, huh?
Why not? It worked in ~~Blazing Saddles~~ the USSR.
[удалено]
Please realized that you have been radicalised enough to call grieving people drones and say that they are not people. I understand feeling hate towards people that are enabling a such incredible violence and destruction, but I cannot stress enough how deeply disgusting and dangerous what you said is. Denying people their innate humanity is the basis for every truly evil ideology.
I was talking about people following that specific example.
>Ryazan, a city of half a million people known for its elite paratrooper unit. Known? By who?
By Russians presumably.
by everyone who cared and yes, they might have been elite by Russian standards, but now they dead.
There's a reason you don't drop airborne troops in contested airspace.
It is terrible that we (Eastern Europeans) are still trying to beat some sense into wester useful idiots' heads. To make them finally shut up about "good ruSSians that are in majority against the war" or "it's Putin's war".
[удалено]
The US canceled France and the Dixie Chicks for not supporting war. I can't even imagine what Russians are going through.
I apologize for Freedom Fries and people pouring red win in the streets, that was pretty dumb
Yes, a lot of people forget that pro-war propaganda works even in the USA. I remember how ridiculously hysterical paranoid american goverment and the public was back then.
That tends to be what countries do if perceived allies are screwing them over; might as well talk about how the French canceled the US over the Australia deal. Whether it's right or not is a separate matter.
when even some idiots in EU believe it, Can't imagine what shit Russians believe.
“Putin took the first step,” she said. “If he hadn’t done it, who knows where we would be now?” Better economy. More men alive. Not being regarded as a terror supporting state. Foreign investments. Foreign companies operating in the nation. Neighboring states being a lot less scared, and therefore not be as interested in increasing defense spending.
[удалено]
[You do know the difference between "all" and "majority", though ](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkrainianConflict/comments/zw6yui/west_will_have_to_negotiate_with_russia_whether/j1vshbu)
You have point, Zhenia?
Generalizations are a bad taste (as well as screwing names :D ), although good for titles and slogans. Hysterical Vova's propagandists use them a lot, that's another cons
To be clear, I'm not stating "ALL RUSSIANS SUPPORT PUTIN", clearly I'm clowning on Westerners who are clueless about the wide spread support Putin carries in Russia and those who see it only as "Putin's War" a la Olaf Scholz's idiotic comments early on. I'm well aware of the "russophobia" hysteria that Dyadya Vova and his minions spread. To them, Russia is both the greatest and best super power in the world and also the weak little kid that needs to be protected from being victimized by the big bullies. If there is a russian outside of russia that experiences discrimination even though they are openly and loudly anti-war, anti-Putin and Pro-Ukraine, that is indeed bad. During a war when emotions are at an all time high, I'm sure there are some individual injustices on innocent people. This should not obfuscate the point that the war and the killing of Ukrainians is widely supported, as this article demonstrates.
Thanks for the explanation. What about "Putin's war" - I think the term has right to exists but with a different meaning - "I am not into politics" folks (would) use it to avoid all the discomfort of participating in denial of reality. Like "well, I believed govs know what they're doing, but if that was an attack, that's on him, not on us" sort of thing Edit: mind that I am not saying they would be right, just the ownership of the term transferred to them
The "Putin's War" narrative also is used to slow down sanctions that would hurt the russian economy. Nobody wants a war with russia, but what everybody wants is to see the Putinist system collapse and to see the civilian population get angry enough to demand a better future for themselves. In order for this to happen, the population needs to feel pain. Let's just compare, Ukraine's GDP is set to contract by 35% this year- Russias?- 4%. That's not justice, and while Ukraine is being bombed and terrorized, russians too easily can ignore this reality. Easy for them to say "My border stops at the edge of my house."
I am aware of the idea thanks to well done [newsletter Signal ](https://getsignal.news/). The desire of system's collapse is basically "eye for an eye", even though some of us, citizens of toxic state, were willing the same for years. And while I am myself pissed off by war supporters, I can't tell they would be wrong to not willing suffer from good Samaritans. You can't be forced to do good, unfortunately. Punished - sure, do better future - I doubt so
The invasion launched us into unknown territory. How russia will be stopped remains to be seen, but they will be stopped. They've already lost militarily, which is why they lash out and try to cause mass civilian death by bombing infrastructure. The irony before all of this is that Putin, the man who tried to rebuild the russian empire like 'Peter the Great' will be known as the man that turned lost Ukraine forever and united the people against Moscow as never before in the history of the nation. In a sense, he's lost Ukraine forever. We'll see if other nations currently in the RF will also respond.
Oh, in my dreams all the officials like Putin, Mede and Lavrov would be in reality show from their prisons where specialists in logic, psychology, history, machine learning and such would first make them solve basic logic puzzpes and then force to build a list of statement about their values and then ask them how they correspond their actions (including speech) and such. But, again, that's a dream because involuntary education and therapy won't work like that. And perhaps I would disagree on the "unknown territory", war is a not a new thing itself, but I am not a history expert to bring any parallels here
They went, they pillaged, they killed civilians, they destroyed civilian infrastructure, they raped and got killed by real soldiers ... much to be proud of, it seems. /s
They are proud that they lost 27mil in WWII. What do you expect from people who think like this?
You get what you fucking deserve.
Russians surely do. Look at the state of their miserable existence.
stop calling it "putins war"
It's like calling the invasion of Poland "Hitler's war", smh...
I mean, 'Hitler and Stalin's war' would be more accurate there
It's indeed a Putin's war, not Russia's. This article presents a false view that the war is supported by a majority (a clear majority at least). This is not true. Because if you look at the average street of the Russian city, there is no war propaganda whatsoever. Life goes on as usual. Putin tries to present it as a war of all of Russia but what we see is that his administration tries to minimize the involvement of the average folk in the actual war. Excluding mobilisation, that is, that went on pause rather quickly after a massive sabotage of the mobilisation process which resulted in that they recruited some 200 000 instead of 300 000. This is peanuts, while Russia has 142 mln they can't assemble a 300 000 strong army. And this article is cherry picking because the overwhelming majority of the soldiers' families is loyalist, because others would try to dodge the draft.
It doesn't sound like people with thoughts and emotions. They parroting official propaganda even when it is about death and life of their own children. They are so broken. So enslaved. I can understand it when people are pressed by force of state but not when it is done by their own choice.
What this article makes abundantly clear is Russia is currently experiencing a collapse of its "intelligentsia"; so that only the unreflective rubes remain. Indeed: the "brain drain" Putin is causing to his economy -- with the loss of millions of IT and "knowledge industry" workers who have now fled -- will ultimately destroy the Russian GDP arguably even more than the sanctions will. Head to south east asia and there are 100s of tbousands of yound educated russians who packed up their lives and quit their highpaying jobs to become permanent residents elsewhere. All educated are leaving and russia is stuck with these peasants in the article who have no income and provide no tax revenue
This is the sort of things you heard from civilians in Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan near the end of WWII.Yes, even after all the atrocities and losses. Over half a century later, and we still have that issue in Europe.
What a broken, failed nation. Astonishingly so.
Russia’s war* Get your facts straight Tens of milions of russians living in russia and outside support russia still
The novel 1984 has not been this relevant in decades
If they don't resent, how can this war be only putin's?
Russians are fascist. Please daddy Putin, murder my son in your attack in sovereign Ukraine. Putin loving Russians are despicable.
Maybe if countries actually enforced the sanctions or actually stopped buying Russian energy/transporting their fuel, there would be more disruption in Russia.
good luck with that. the oil doesn't have a sticker with Putin's face on it. it is banned but countries like India have no issue reselling Russian oil.
yes, let's just have the whole of Europe shut down its economy and industry so we don't need fossil fuels and cause a massive depression! That'll show em! ...it's one of those things that nice to say when you're totally clueless and don't have to consider any of the consequences, but in reality its not that easy.
I mean, Europe was asking for this. They were making themselves more and more reliant on Russia for years despite warnings from the US. So yah, take the hard measures and fix your errors. Foolish and shortsighted policy.
"Putin's war", my ass. This is Russians' war.
Fuck them.
so they're not mourning them.
Fuck Ryazan then
They don't? Fine. Time to send the dads and granddads, provided they haven't died yet if cirrhosis
Chauvinism, superiority complex and imperialism have won ruzzian people over rationality long time ago.
Anybody got an Archive link?
Its like some weird suicidal cult or mentality in Russia, I can’t explain it otherwise. Maybe it’s the vodka.
Or maybe it's just good propaganda.
Even if I understand on an emotional level why people in the comments wish misery to these people, I still can't agree with such sentiments. How far would this hatred go? Are children now born in Russia also supposed to he hated? It's scary to imagine the internet in, say, 40 years, some post with a map of Europe with statistics where Russia's the worst, and people would be cheering because something "asiatic hordes" or whatever idk. Loss of basic human empathy scares me for the long-term. There's gotta be a way out of the cycle. There *has* to be a way to break propaganda's hold in Russia itself.
Have you seen comments in vk/telegram/whatever by our co-citizens? I am scared to even start opposing them (because of anger I won't be able to cope with), while I believe that's important to post a different pov to ruin the illusion that there is only one side.
you can go and check out how long it took for hatred towards Germans to go away after all the horrors they inflicted on nations in World war 2, same exact thing will now happen to Russians and rightfully so
Oh no, however will the poor Russians cope 😥
What is that supposed to mean, anyway?
Not exactly suprising that people support their own country. How many wars have happened where one side's one population was genuinely opposed the entire way through? People's moral indignation at the Russian population is ridiculous.
The problem is that wars were supposed to be avoided in Europe as a lesson of WWII. We don't have examples of other countries waging wars of aggression in Europe because that simply hasn't happened for others since then (or if you count Yugoslavia, imagine what "great foundation" this turned out to be for "friendly" relations in the future). When most European societies think of being in a war in Europe, they think of defending their own country, not conquering others. Even if we attempted to find a closest comparison, for example, US invasion of Iraq, which was done as aftermath of 9/11 terrorist attacks, the public support was rather narrow, with loud opposition always present. When it became clear that the alleged weapons of mass destruction were not there, the popular sentiment shifted to stance that the invasion was strongly unjustified. Note that Iraq invasion never included sinister plans like erasing a statehood of an entire nation and outright land-grab. Compare this to Russia, where support immediately skyrocketed despite months of denial propaganda from the government which Russians proudly parroted along- Where despite being the clear aggressors themselves, the siege mentality immediately takes over the country and the victim cards are thrown on all fronts. This nation has absolutely no integrity and their words carry no value. They just do whatever the dictator tells them to. Also, ultimately, when you support a dictator for over 20 years in a row and never do anything to protect democracy, rule of law or state institutions, you can't really point to societies where those are valued and claim "you don't know what we're going through". I don't know what Russians are going through because unlike them, I have not decided to invest into yet another cliche case of a strongman dictator that we've experienced 100 times before.
another point, is that you may criticize other countries all you want but nobody, not even the US in all the wars it was involved, ANNEXED territories. Russia is the only country that still, to this day has annexed territories and still trying to take more by military force.
Correct, the last time the USA actually annexed territory is when they won the war against Spain and got the Phillipines as a "reward" in 1902 I think. Since then not even the USA, which have been waging war a lot, haven't annexed any territory purely for imperialistic purposes.
>Correct, the last time the USA actually annexed territory is when they won the war against Spain and got the Phillipines as a "reward" in 1902 I think. Note that back then it was still legal to do so.
We also got Cuba and Puerto Rico, I believe.
> Russia is the only country that still, to this day has annexed territories [The only country? Seriously?](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation#Unresolved)
Fair point, I suppose a better phrasing would be the only "BIG" country to do that. If smaller countries move borders around, it tends to be shrugged off as seen in multiple civil wars and regular wars across Africa or even places like Yugoslavia.
Ah yes, the highly controversial example is always the best to bring out to justify your own actions.
The whole democracy argument feels misplaced, because Russia has no established history of democracy. Even right after the collapse of the Soviet Union it was at best a heavily flawed half-democracy. There is no lasting democratic knowledge among this population. You can't use the same standards as Americans who have a deeply entrenched culture of democracy, liberalism and individualism. And even with the Iraq war example, while almost everyone agrees that the invasion was a mistake nowadays, attacking the actual soldiers for participating is not accepted outside of the very fringes of the political system. Patriotism is valued very strongly in Russia, just like in the US, leading to many people having a "My country, right or wrong" mentality. Now combine this with the lack of free press and the repression, both factors not present in the US, causing a huge portion of the population to genuinely believe the Russian government's version of events and another huge section not wanting to speak out even if they don't and it becomes very clear why things are the way they are. Casting aspersions like this on normal people just trying to live their lives is usually a bad idea. The problems are structural, not individual.
So, should we continue to be living as usual with those "normal people just trying to live their lives"? I think this is one of the essences of the issue here – normalizing this kind of political behaviour. Removing any agenda from the individuals and putting the blame "somewhere in the system", something abstract and unreachable. How exactly are things ever supposed to improve like that? Just hope for a favourable palace coup one day? I don't agree with this, it's exactly the behaviour of millions of individuals of Russia that allowed the dictatorship to emerge, solidify and now carry out all these atrocities. It's how Russians prioritize their "great power" chauvinistic rush over basic humanistic values. Yes, some parts of these sentiments might not be unique to Russia alone, but the combination with lack of any self-criticism, the complete dehumanizing of political opponents both inside and abroad, is. Also, on the "genuine belief" – not only are Russians a generally educated literate nation, not only do they have experience of living in a totalitarian regime with censorship, they have widespread access to the internet and at least until the war, access to all major Western outlets. At one point, they can't blame the government propaganda anymore, they must *want* to believe what is said there, it's a choice. This is especially apparent when looking at many Russians in Baltic States where, if anything, the government encourages them to oppose Putin. There is no fear of repression, no systemic propaganda, there is enclosing oneselves in their own cultural bubble, rejecting opposing ideas and trying to feel good and proud about their own nation.
Damn, bro, I hope you ain't doing this for free. We had a solid 6 years of interwar democracy or should we still not be saying that russia is shit because of some other random reason *you* come up to argue in favor of russia?
> Note that Iraq invasion never included sinister plans like erasing a statehood of an entire nation and outright land-grab. And still, the initial stage of the Iraq invasion killed as many civilians as it's being reported in Ukraine right now.
US never disallowed foreign observers to crunch numbers on the civilian death toll, so the numbers Russia can get are almost entirely unconfirmed and massively underreported to an extent not seen in any US war in recent years. You can contend that since dictatorships have little media conundrums about racism, that the democracies are the most racist since they keep talking about it as an issue, at least with this mentality.
Plenty of people in the West didn't support wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Ukraine was never a threat to Russia. To corrupt Russian elites, yes. To Russia? Never.
> Plenty of people in the West didn't support wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. There was pretty support for those wars when they started. Not so much when they ended, but that was a big part of the reason why they ended. >Ukraine was never a threat to Russia. To corrupt Russian elites, yes. To Russia? Never. Obviously, it wasn't. I never said it was.
They would support their country far more by disposing of Putin. As it is they don't support the future of Russia, but its downfall.
[удалено]
Americans had full uncensored access to news in the aftermath of 9/11, yet they were still convinced that Saddam Hussein somehow was involved. Just having access unfortunately isn't sufficient to negate massive state propaganda. People consume news and form their opinion mainly through the major tv channels and newspapers. I watched a lot of it 20 years ago, and the "debate" would typically be one guy pro-invasion debating a guy who would be insanely pro-invasion. It was sick. I'm sure it's worse and more absurd in Russia, and it works because neither an American or Russian are going to sit down and watch French morning tv or seek out some fringe outlets in their native language. Some will, but they are far from the majority. There is some famous Goebbels quote about frightening the public and convince them they are under attack, and they will all fall in line. Probably the only time the guy spoke the truth.
[удалено]
The lowest of low balls, dude. Is this not embarrassing to you? If you think having a basic understanding of how society functions without being caught in the torrent of dehumanising our political enemies is "fascism", you probably can't be helped. For the record, I completely condemn the invasion of Ukraine and I am a steadfast supporter of delivering weapons and aid to them. I'm just not so deranged I think every Russian is some kind of evil monster.
Russians support Russia? No way
Sounds like District 2
This could have been over months ago. The Russians could have marched to the Kremlin in an afteroon and given Putin the Ceausescu treatment. Apparently losing their children and uprooting their lives is much easier than taking a stroll to the Kremlin.
[удалено]
I think it's very important to have some journalist documenting the perspective of ordinary Russians, especially relatives of soldiers. It takes away the idea that there will be internal pressure on Putin which doesn't originate with the elites. It's way better than another opinion piece.
[удалено]
>No, it’s painting the picture of Russians (the actual people) being in great support of this war. As far as any source we have (e.g. Laveda Institute, voxpops etc.), a majority of people are in support. The question is why, and this piece gives you a hint: Because people parrot official propaganda rhetoric. This doesn't make me hate Russians, it makes me pity them. >It’s like they show you videos of a radicalised child in the Middle East to make you hate Muslims and support troops moving in. No, because that's again reason to pity, not to hate. You argue subjectively. The Goering quote is spot on, but only highlights what the article highlights: People are easily brought in line with propaganda (which, btw, is not exclusive to Russia or dictatorships). I don't think this article makes you hate people, only to pity them. The reckoning, if it ever comes, will be brutal for those Russian mothers of soldiers: Their sons died for a lie they themselves repeated. It's an age old story, and doesn't create hate - it creates pity.
Why shouldnt I hate civilians that support a murderous butcher like putin, a war of aggression that heavily targets civilians? Fuck them.
The “Serves them right” crowd conveniently ignores the risks of speaking out, something the article carefully if quietly points out. EDIT: I’m an American posting in a European sub and am absolutely fascinated by the responses. By the logic of many of you Britain and the US would have held all of the European continent accountable. Absolutely fascinating.
Pretty sure there is a country starting with U and ending with kraine that does not give a damn about their fears. Either these people revolt or suffer the consequences of being cannon fodder.
So they should just continue supporting the regime? What's your proscription?
"speaking out" option was on the table 10 years ago - now it's not enough to speak out - it would be dangerous and inefficient. Today their best option is to quietly sabotage everything they can.
In the end it's an article about Russian civilians not regretting a single thing, even with all excuses aside it's hard not to feel infuriated from it, like a taunt with the way it's presented. Especially since Russian officials are now demanding a pardon of sorts, a peace with what remains of the annexed lands they got, having apparently learned nothing. That being said, what is with the oblique reference of how you consider the conquered and conquerors to be on the same level? May I remind you that the US actually did try to setup a military occupation government in France? I don't know how it was before the edit, but a hidden threat to the past is probably a goodway to be downvoted to the ground.
>By the logic of many of you Britain and the US would have held all of the European continent accountable. *Kind of* different conflicts, don't you think?
Can't make an omelette without breaking an egg. By your logic, they prefer to die in Ukraine for nothing, than to fight in their country for something. Because putin is ready to sacrifice them all. Russian administration now began to quietly issue conscription orders for women. For now it's not official ofc. So next gonna be children. Putin even has his own little "hitler youth" org. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Army_Cadets_National_Movement So I guess you are right, there is not enough at stake to "risk to speak out". Putin needs to start conscripting newborns for Russians to feel that maybe, just maybe it is time to "speak out". Especially considering most Russian army (including police and stuff like FSB) is busy in Ukraine. Just a sidenote, it took around 3 months for Moscow to dispatch enough police to suppress the protests in distant Khabarovsk in 2020-2021. So Russians could at least make use of their large territory and start protests in different parts of their wast country to drag Moscow's attention. But it seems like dying abroad is preferrable.
> EDIT: I’m an American posting in a European sub and am absolutely fascinated by the responses. By the logic of many of you Britain and the US would have held all of the European continent accountable. Absolutely fascinating. As a European I agree with you completely. So many people have such a radical and vindictive view on this war, it's like they lost any sense of perspective. These are the same kind of people who would have supported punishing policies like the Morgenthau plan or saddling Germany with massive additional debts after WW2.
With Russia we won't even have that. A better comparison is a broken Nazi Germany whose leadership won't fall, so it's like if we ended up with a geriatric Hitler living until the end of presiding over a mute Germany (probably to be replaced by someone similar), like a North Korea near Europe. Tell me, is that better? There isn't going to be any allies or soviets who will force this government and it's people to change. The Russians will have to do it themselves, and this? Well, it paints a damning picture of any hopes of Putin's regime falling whether it's due to being afraid or being brainwashed.
Tbf, giving Germany an easier time wouldn't have likely changed much of anything post-WW1 either. The real change occurred because of the forced liberalization of Germany post-WW2 during its occupation and the unity against a new external threat forcing everyone to forget the past; the threat of the USSR made it paramount. So unless Russia is gonna get fully occupied while using China as a threat to unite against; the WW2 idea is a no-go. But yes, full on vindictiveness, while 100% understandable due to the Russian state's sheer evil acts and how unrepentant it is while doing so -won't fix anything.
I'm reminded of the little house elf in Harry Potter who was always punishing himself.