If you are Russian in Russia right now I'd love to hear what the majority public sentiment in the country is.
Humans have been burying their dead for 100,000 years, living in cities for 12000 years, organizing states for 5700 years (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copper_Age_state_societies), and organizing nation-states for 200 years. That is, for roughly the first 94000 years of humanity, there were no cities and no states; for the first 6000 years of cities, there were no states; and for the first 5500 years of states, there were no nation-states.
Even today, many people live in non-nation-state countries like the United States, Bolivia, and India.
It's not "natural", it's not "just the way it is", we probably don't benefit from it, and it's probably not even technologically determined.
Nation-states were by far the dominant political entities up until the age of exploration, around the 15th century. Name any ancient society, with the stark exception of the Romans they are all nations or nation-states. The Egyptians, the Hebrews, the Ethiopians, the Persians, the Chinese, the Greeks, all nations or nation-states.
Today, it is fashionable to pretend that race doesn't exist as an effort to remove racial barriers. The goal is noble, but the rewriting of history is profane.
I called them nations because they were a people of a common race. For instance, the ancient Greeks have described the features of the Perisans whom they fought at Marathon - and from this description it is clear that a Greek could identify another person as Greek or Persian. Hence, they are different nations. And even today the Ethiopians retain very distinct features. My country (Israel) has many Ethiopians, I believe that we are the only Western nation to welcome African immigrants as equals. And would any Westerner argue that the Chinese have physical features distinct from those with European heritage? Does that not qualify - for you - as a different race?
If you are referring to the Proto-Indo-Iranian ancestors, then I counter that their descendants have diverged.
If you meant something else, I am always grateful for corrections or enlightenment.
I agree that the Greeks who fought at Marathon were a nation, but they were not a state; they came from Athens and Plataia, which were different states, allied with the Lakedaimonians, another state, also of the Greek nation but missing in action that day. The Persians, by contrast, were a state but, as you surely know, they included many nations: Datis was Median, Artaphernes ruled the Lydians (though he himself was also Median), and Hippias was actually Greek; the Persian forces also included Thracians, Mysians, Phrygians, Hebrews (!), Macedonians, and so on, though I don't know if they were present at Marathon. You can surely forgive Herodotus for not dwelling on the internal ethnic divisions among the Persian troops his interviewees were facing. (However, he did mention the Sakai alongside the "Persians" (Persai), Simonides called the Persian force the "army of the Medes" (Medon), and Aiskhylos also spoke in his epitaph of facing the Medes (Medos) at Marathon rather than the "Persians".)
So that's the sense in which neither Greece nor Persia was a nation-state at the time: Greece was a nation but not a state, while Persia was a state but not a nation. Or, rather, there was a Persian nation, but the plurinational Persian state was immensely larger than the Persian nation to which its rulers belonged.
If we consider Homeric Greece instead, the Greeks look more like the Persia that fought at Marathon: Homer's Akhaioi are, perhaps, all ruled from Mykenai by Agamemnon, but they worship different gods, speak different (but related) languages, and have different descent. And, although we know many things in Homer are historically wrong, modern archaeology does back up this plurinational picture of the Akhaioi. So Mycenaean Greece, like the Persian empire of Darius, was a state but not a nation.
As I understand the situation, we can make similar arguments about most of the ancient history of the Hebrews: beginning with ethnic and religious unity with neighboring Canaanite peoples subjugated by Egypt (despite the later invention of myths like Abraham and the Exodus, which are not supported by the archaeological evidence) and proceeding through many historical political divisions --- not just the division between Israel and Judea of which the Torah makes so much, but also, at various times, Samaria, various city-states in Palestine, the Maccabee state, and the Phoenician cities, as well as subjugation by the Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Macedonians, and finally Romans. The Torah narrative of 117 years of a united monarchy preceding the Israel/Judah split is generally not accepted by modern scholars, though the debate is certainly open, but even in the Torah most of the historically plausible action happens at times when the Hebrew nation was either divided into separate kingdoms or suffering under the yoke of foreign powers.
So I don't think it's accurate to describe any of the ancient Israelite states as nation-states.
I don't know how diverged e.g. the Scythians were from the Amyrgians (of whom I'd never heard of until yesterday), but it is clear that they distinguished one from another. However, would an Athenian distinguish between them? Would a Scythian distinguish between a Spartan and an Athenian?
It seems to me that there are no clear boundaries between "peoples" or "nations". For me a Han and a Manchu are both Chinese, but they might see a Polish Jew as no different than a Lithuanian Jew. And yet the Polish Jew from Loz will see his identity distinct from the Jew from Warsaw.
So back to the conflict at hand, from the perspective of Slavic history there is merit to considering the Ukrainian and Russian peoples as the same people or nation. From the perspective of wishing to live under different systems of values and authority, there is also merit to considering them as distinct. Note that the gift of Crim to Ukraine during the 1950s was "a gift from the Russian people to the Ukrainian people" so at that time the Russians were making a distinction between the two.
As usual when considering human relationships, it's complicated )). There's an old joke about the Irishmen talking about how close they are - until the end. You've probably heard it.
It's true that I'm an extreme liberal! But I think the Wikipedia article gives a neutral point of view.
Shouldn't this opinion be a hint that maybe the article is liberal too? ;-)
Race exists but not nearly relevant as you claim and has nothing to do with nation-states. I don't claim to side with the parent but you are not nearly correct either. IF there is a footnote to a source, you better read it next time. Wiki is not authoritative but not complete junk either.
However, I don't agree with some of the distinctions you're making. Tribes are nations. Like, literally, "nation" is the Latin word for tribes that weren't one of the the three tribes of Rome. "Race" is another synonym; Webster defines "nation" as "A part, or division, of the people of the earth, distinguished from the rest by common descent, language, or institutions; a race; a stock." If a tribe or a race is roughly coextensive with a state, that state is a nation-state. So race has everything to do with nation-states; this is one of the main reasons I think it's important to point out that countries like the United States are not nation-states, despite the efforts of groups like the Ku Klux Klan, and that nation-states are something we can do away with.
Consider ancient Greece. Classical Athens was considered to consist of four tribes, and the state of Athens only governed a tiny minority of Greeks, so the political division into states just didn't coincide with a division by common descent, language, or institutions even very roughly; and Greece remained divided into such city-states until being conquered by the Romans. Mycenaean Greece was far more politically unified, but much more diverse in terms of ethnicity, language, and institutions; archaeological evidence confirms Homer's hearsay on this count. Biblical Israel was classically divided into twelve tribes, and the myths of Abraham and the Exodus was used to falsely claim a common descent for what archaeological evidence tells us were Canaanite people who spoke the same Semitic language as their neighbors but began to distinguish themselves by the cult of Yahweh; and we have both documentary and archaeological evidence of their subsequent divisions and reunions, continuing through the intertestamental period.
> You are confusing tribes with nations.
> Nation: ...directly from Latin nationem "... race of people, tribe,"
> - https://www.etymonline.com/word/nation > in American usage, the meaning of the word “nation” has largely
> shifted to mean the (entire) state or the country
In any case, no matter how Americans call their political entities, the word "nation" in the term "nation-state" has a clear, unambiguous meaning, referring to a race/tribe/nation.
Certainly there was technological progress thousands (and tens of thousands) of years ago: tools for hunting and later farming, making fire, the wheel, and so on. But could a society organized like that eventually progress to discovering how to generate electricity from nuclear fission? Could they ever have built rockets and traveled to the moon? I'm skeptical...
> Even today, many people live in non-nation-state countries like the United States, Bolivia, and India.
For the purposes of this particular discussion, I think "nation-state" and the slightly looser-organized nations you describe can be lumped together in the same category.
Moreover, the particular way in which the United States discovered how to generate electricity from nuclear fission and traveled to the moon with rockets crucially depended on it not being a nation-state: it was consequently able to assimilate foreign immigrants like Fermi, von Braun, von Neumann, and Einstein.
Certainly it's possible for a nation-state to make such advances in theory, but in practice they seem to depend on the kind of diversity of intellectual and cultural traditions that is anathema to nation-states. Neither the Soviet Union nor the United States nor the countries of the European Space Agency were or are nation-states.
Still, I think the US is better understood as a multiethnic, profoundly racist society, not a single tribe: 41 million people (12% of the population) speak Spanish, another 13% speak AAVE, and 2% belong to various Native American and Alaskan Native nations. In all cases most speakers also speak the language of the dominant GA-speaking tribe, and there are identifiable musical, culinary, religious, political differences associated with their varying descent, along with striking segregation in housing, schooling, and education. Subsequent to the initial English colonization there was also substantial immigration from Ireland (9% of the current population), Scotland (8%), Germany (15%, already 9% by the first census in 01790), the Netherlands (1%), Italy (5%), and Poland (3%), China (1.5%), India (1%), France (3%), as well as other countries. Some of these immigrants were also Romani (0.3%) or Jewish (3%). But, in the US system of racism, these differences are largely submerged in generalized "[non-Hispanic] white American" and "Asian American" (7%) ethnic identities.
Since only 62% of the US population belongs to its hegemonic "non-Hispanic white" nation, which is as you say built out of immigrants from various European countries, I don't think it's reasonable to describe the USA as a nation state. It's not even officially white supremacist, although its historical foundations are in genocide and slavery, and in practice its government treats its ethnic minorities very badly indeed even today. It's at least two more major genocides away from becoming a nation state, although Obama's horrifying mass deportations of "illegal immigrants" and their weaker continuation under Trump were a significant step in that direction, as is the ongoing GULAG-scale mass imprisonment of mostly African-Americans, many of whom are enslaved in prison.
The majority public sentiment hasn't formed yet. The war started in early morning, and many people are still hung-over due to yesterday holiday (the Russian Army day, BTW).
My prediction is that there won't be a patriotic hysteria. People will be wary of possible consequences, which -- and I think everyone understands that -- may be severe. Medical drug prices will certainly go up, due to the fact that most drugs are imported. A high-tech / chip / electronics exports to Russia may be restricted. An oil & gas embargo may be imposed, which means that we're back to the 90's (though I think that Europe will be difficult to get on board, due to their dependency on Russia's energy).
My personal current sentiment is that we may get completely isolated from the west, and that we'll have to form a closer alliance with China -- which I don't like.
(A small consolation prize is that our corrupt "elites" will finally get what they deserve -- I expect heavy personal sanctions and foreign asset seizures).
You could also stop discussing and leave?
Of course, the prospect of personal enrichment is more important than millions of people losing their homes, homelands, loved ones and lives.
Which is why you stopped using any product coming from a country engaged with war, murder and torture?
I think that is hard to do.
It is also hard to punish a company for the actions of their government.
From some of my own relatives, I can attest that at least some people sincerely believe this.
Вижу горы и долины, вижу реки и поля.
Это русские картины, это родина моя.
Вижу Прагу и Варшаву, Будапешт и Бухарест.
Это русская держава - сколько здесь любимых мест!
Вижу пагоды в Шри Ланке, и Корею, и Китай.
Где бы я ни ехал в танке, всюду мой любимый край!
Вижу речку Амазонку, крокодилов вижу я.
Это русская сторонка, это родина моя!
Недалече пирамиды, Нил течёт — богат водой,
Омывает русский берег! Русь моя, горжусь тобой!
Вижу Вашингтон в долине, Даллас вижу и Техас
Как приятно здесь в России выпить вкусный русский квас!
Над Сиднеем солнце всходит, утконос сопит в пруду.
Репродуктор гимн заводит; с русским гимном в день войду!
Вот индейцы курят трубку, и протягивают мне -
Все на свете любят русских, на родной моей земле.Now the behavior of Naryshkin is more clear. He knows they have to deal with a madman and sees no way out.
I don't know how to explain all this to my kids. And how to keep them safe. I feel really sorry for everyone involved on all sides.
The general sentiment in this country for the past few decades is "it's not for me to decide".
Many people do agree however that while this kind of solution is not really a great one and likely not in our best interest - something has to be done regarding the NATO problem.
Because Russia just took Crimea a few years ago and NATO refused to allow them to join. And Russia has agreed Crimea was part of Ukraine as recently as 1994.
Again. Reason is something one has in this mind. You may find no reason where a different person sees one.
No need to justify any of that, because it all sucks and is ultimately utterly pointless. It does help so, to understand the other side. Because it makes it easier to find a solution that doesn't lead to all out war between nuclear powers. And no, I don't consider just handing Ukraine to Putin to be that solution. Or Taiwan to China, as far as that is concerned.
I think the inevitable result is war. I think the west should've decisively defeated the soviets when they broke apart, and prevented this, but instead, the optimism that an autocratic state would not do so is the true reality. But of course, it doesn't have good optics at the time to do this. I guess the future will tell if this war escalates.
That wouldn't have been feasible given military realities (nukes, the total impossibility of invading and occupying Russia), and even if it had been what would it have achieved? The age of imperialism is over. The west has won allies by respecting the right of their populations to self-determination. (And when it hasn't respected self-determination, it has often lost ground.)
The war that is on the horizon is not about the "good" vs. the "evil". It is about one revisionist, power hungry leader going toe-to-toe with another power-hungry block over territorial dominance. And about those people just wanting to live in peace caught in the middle.
Those countries became allies, not through force, but because we were able to devise a mutually beneficial relationship.
Cold war is much more likely than hot war, I’d expect.
The way imperial japan died, replaced by a semi-client state. I would say they're more prosperous today because of it!
But there's still Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia to consider. These aren't Slavic, but they are of interest to both NATO and Russia. Well, Armenia is pretty firmly aligned with Russia for historical reasons and some semblance of security against Azerbaijan and Turkey. But the other two are already Western-oriented, and Georgia has applied for NATO membership in the past.
As far as Slavic affinity, it's a bit more complicated. For example, Bulgarians are Slavic, and Eastern Orthodox even, but being on the wrong side of WW1 and then WW2 vis a vis Russia/USSR overrides that. OTOH with Ukrainians, many Russians outright deny that they even are a separate nation or ethnicity, and claim that it's just a sub-branch of Russians who speak a dialect of Russian. From that perspective, occupying Ukraine is described as "re-unifying" Russia.
(Source: am Russian)
Germany makes deals with Russia to get their gas (NS1 and NS2) and only recently they declined NS2.
Basically we (EU) are giving Russia money to create army, instead of ditching their gas, oil etc. and buying one from Scandinavia and US (now when Russian gas prices are higher than the ones form the mentioned countries). And destroying NS1 and 2.
On one hand - NATO protects its members from our possible aggression, on the other hand Russia sees NATO's assets (lets say AA systems) as means to degrade country's capabilities to respond in case of attack from the West (no matter how are the chances of such an attack).
Has Russia perhaps thought for a moment why are countries making an alliance to defend against Russia? Why aren't countries in NATO worried about being attacked by other countries in NATO? Because *all the countries there don't want war*.
NATO is not to attack Russia, but to defend against it. The idea of protecting against counter attack from the West is like saying "I can't leave my house to protect against the possibility of a meteorite against my head."
Yeah, there's a lot of rhetoric coming from Russia denouncing "NATO expansion". NATO isn't some belligerent expanding force, annexing territory; countries are actively asking to join NATO. Perhaps Russia should ask themselves why all these countries feel safer being aligned with NATO and the West than with Russia.
The West isn't even defending Ukraine from a Russian attack. Did Russia think the West would defend Ukraine? If so, why did Russia still attack? If not, then why would Russia think there's any chance the West will attack Russia unprovoked?
Russian grand strategy is defensive. Their primary threat is a large-scale invasion. It happened once in the 19th century and at least twice in the 20th century. Maybe three times if you count Russian Civil War.
To counter the threat of a potential invasion, Russia tries to maintain a buffer zone of friends, puppets, and occupied territories. This is a continuous process, as politics change. Today's friends may be tomorrow's enemies, revolutions may overthrow puppets, and the costs of military occupation may prove too high. Russia fights wars and organizes coups to maintain the buffer zone. The rights of their neighbors don't matter to them when national security is at stake.
Russia fears NATO, because NATO has the capability to project power. They fear that NATO could be the next invader. The fact that NATO has no intention of doing so is irrelevant to them, because politics change. It's the military capabilities they are afraid of.
If there is going to be a change, it must come from inside. Russia must stop being afraid and become a member of the international community connected by trade. There was a chance of that in the 80s and 90s, but the chance was lost. Another chance may come after Putin, or the next leader and the next regime could be more of the same.
When I look long term, I cannot wonder how Russia will ever leave Crimea. Does that mean that Russia is the next Iran with "forever" sanctions? I cannot see another story, unless Putin leaves and the next leader is more centrist, like Medvedev.
The change is not in politics - for decades post-Soviet Russia wasn't worrying about NATO. Actually, no - even the point that Russia is afraid isn't correct - it's Putin who's afraid. NATO problem doesn't really exists.
NATO had the local armies of the Baltics, Poland, Slovakia and so on the Russian border (by definition). NATO had the US forces in Germany reasonably close to the Russian border. NATO had the forces supporting the war in Afghanistan on Russians southern border None of that was, as far as anyone not informed about secret NATO planning, can tell geared against Russia. If your neighbor patrols his fence with a huge axe while your children are playing in the backyard, so, you would be worried I assume. Even if it was just to cut wood. Especially if you have bad history with that neighbor.
During the cold war, both NATO and the Warsaw pact conducted war games about invasions of the other side. War Games, because they needed something build their defensive strategies on. As it turned out, both sides, NATO and the Warsaw Pact, never had any real invasions plans for Europe, instead both side focused purely on defense against such an invasion. Turns out that this fear of the other side never died.
Since all that lies in the past, the question where we (as in the West) draws the line. NATO, and the US, kept a ton of unresolved territorial disputes in check since the end of the cold war. Most of those conflicts have the potential to turn really, really bad. If Russia gets away with their attack on Ukraine, others will, potentially rightly so, think they can do the same. And then the World-as-we-know-it might pretty much just end. Well, it might as well if NATO goes to war with Russia over Ukraine as well. Only bad choices it seems.
I see this tendency within many, if not most countries that have seen a decline in national power over some period, and were nationalists wanted to "Make <their country> Great Again".
Examples: - Germany under Hitler - Italy under Mussolini - France after WW2, when they were quite nationalistic for decades, and certainly did NOT like that English had become the "Lingua Franca" - Britain under Margaret Thatcher - Russian under Putin - MAGA - And most important of all: China under Xi Jinping
Some of these movements were relatively harmless, some were (and are) very dangerous
And even then, they only did it half-heartedly, and the French pretty much threw away their weapons when the first German panzers arrived. Hitler knew that he had the stronger will to fight. Had it not been for a few other factors (Churchill, Russian winter, and the Hitler's obsession with the jews), he could have taken the whole of Europe.
Russia does not care about Ukraine's self-determination as long as NATO's systems are not there.
https://mobile.twitter.com/jmkorhonen/status/149604763196923...
I read that thread and found it very persuasive. I took his advice and read some of the translations of Putin's rhetoric, and I found his characterizations accurate.
We have fools believing the Kremlin is actually afraid of NATO, the defensive alliance, when Russia has NUKES. Kremlin isn't even afraid of NATO confrontation when they're invading another country, because of nukes. They're sure as hell not concerned about NATO confrontation in their own territory. The whole argument is schizophrenic.
Again, why would Russia be concerned about NATO imposing themselves on Russia, when NATO won't even defend a Ukrainian invasion?
Does that justify Putin's invasion of Ukraine? No, absolutely not. Does it mean NATO could have been a tad more cautious when it comes to Russians security interests? Yes. Now it's to late for that so. And as usual it is innocent people, just wanting live their lives in peace, that pay the price.
But isn't the real threat against Putin that the ideas of democracy spread via word of mouth?
I think problem with Ukraine is that Ukrainians and Russians have close ties and if Ukraine succeeds in becoming a western country their relatives in Russia will want to do so to.
One cannot ignore the Orange Revolution in Ukraine in this whole mess so.
Ok, so when Putin finds out NATO won't confront an invasion, then the Kremlin will back off their aggressions now, right? Now that they've found out there's no way NATO threatens the motherland? Does that sound right to you?
I'll make a guess. I've been on side "Russian invasion is imminent" for the past four months. I've been hearing a whole lot of "nothing to see here. Russia has no plans to invade. Just military drills. West should stop being threatening." for months. They were all dead wrong (sooo many on this site as of just days ago). So I'm inclined to believe I'm a bit more prescient on these issues.
Putin still won't back off, knowing Russia is safe from NATO, because that's not the issue.
War crimes and abhorrent nonetheless. I hope at least this time the responsible end up in The Hague.
The only reason Putin hates NATO is that it stops him from invading any country he wishes.
I don't really want to change anyone's mind and give a lecture. It's just that world is not as simple as it may seem.
After all they still have around 200 000 Russian troops at their borders. (6 feet under the ground but still very alive in their memories.)
For anyone who isn't aware:
- The Finnish are the ones who said - as Kremlin sent a million poor troops towards them - we are only a small country, were should we bury them all?
- The "Molotov cocktails" started as a Finnish joke about their practical invention to stop Russian vehicles. Russian diplomat Молотов (Molotov) had started the wittiness by telling that their bombing raids were just friendly Russians dropping suppplies.
Putin is clear that he wants to go back to 1917.
In 1917 Russia ruled in Finland.
IMHO, appeasement never worked with people like Putin (or Bush sen. & jun. or Napoleon,...). Thing is that war seems to be the only alternative. And most don't want that. At least not a shooting war against an opponent that can actually shoot back immediately.
Unfortunately, this means misery for the citizens, and nobody sane wants that. Ukrainians want to have an independent modern country, not to be Kremlin slaves.
NATO does not have "systems". NATO is a cooperation office between militaries of member countries, despite relentless Russian propaganda that makes it sound as if tanks and missiles magically pop up after signing the membership agreement.
It's funny how hard it is for Russia(ns) to get their head around the concept of self-determination: It's none of Russia's fricking business what alliances other countries join; and it's none of Russia's fricking business which countries other alliances accept as members.
See? It's not really all that hard.
> Russia does not care about Ukraine's self-determination as long as NATO's systems are not there.
Russia obviously does not care about anyone's self-determination except their own. (And even that only if "self" is defined along the "one man, one vote" principle: The dictator is The Man, and The Vote is his. The only people with any appreciable degree of "self-determination" are the dictator's cronies, and even that is fraught with risk.)
All that is water under the bridge so. I think if the "free" West (I mean that non-ironically, just to acknowledge that there are various ways to define freedom, not all of which are compatible with Western views. And that the West usually doesn't have problems ignoring those freedoms when needed (Saudi, China, UAE, Turkey,...)) doesn't act now, we will have to either roll over later against an aggressor or react much harsher then we would have to now. If Putin can redraw the maps now, China will be next to try. Followed by any other large country that has territorial interests against a smaller one.
https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/taiwan-says-must-...
> Speaking in Beijing, Foreign Ministry spokesperson Hua Chunying dismissed any link between the issues of Ukraine and Taiwan.
> "Taiwan is not Ukraine," she said. "Taiwan has always been an inalienable part of China. This is an indisputable legal and historical fact."
That's exactly what Putin has been saying about Russia and Ukraine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Historical_Unity_of_Rus...
> In the essay, Putin argues that Russians and Ukrainians, along with Belarusians, are one people, belonging to what has historically been known as the triune Russian nation. To support the claim, he describes in length his views on the history of Russia and Ukraine, concluding that Russians and Ukrainians share a common heritage and destiny.
> The essay denies the existence of Ukraine as an independent nation...
Well, not officially and certainly not effectively.
The US would have invaded Cuba during the Cuban missile crisis, if Khrushchev hadn’t backed down.
Putin is just another authoritarian ruler, a dictator. He will use any excuse he wants to invade; in this case he is using NATO membership and separatist movements.