Russia mistakenly posted post-war article about Ukraine joining Russia
web.archive.org
web.archive.org
It puts to rest this rubbish about 'denazification' etc. and it's consistent with the chauvinist Russian view of the world and their power.
It also should be contemplated that the Russian population would likely agree enthusiastically to this, and be complicit with Ukraine becoming a vassal, much like Belaurus.
This article should probably go to the MSM, I hope they pick up on it.
Oh no - people really do believe the propaganda. Russian citizens are told that Zelensky regime are 'Nazis and drug addicts' and the the population hates them.
The Russian propaganda narrative has many, many believers around the world, and it has partial momentum in America.
Certain elements of the right have very cynically been using it as wedge issue - notable Tucker Carlson. I don't think he really believes what he was saying about Russia, he's just a liar in it for the money (of course, everyone in the press is playing a game, but he takes it a notch higher than even his Fox or even MSNBC colleagues). While nobody in the press actually believes it, it does have an affect as those talking heads are all quite influential.
On comments section in YouTube and TikTok I see regular plebes from around the world making the 'NATO/border security' case etc., I think unwittingly rehashing the canard arguments of Putin. Not necessarily taking their side but rather rehashing the false justification.
It's literally an invasion and they don't realize it. Putin is using the term 'limited military operation' to 'liberate Ukraine' effectively from a 'Nazi, drug addict corrupt leadership' - and they buy it. It's the only source of information they have.
It's really easy to mislead people if you can control they information they receive.
I don't think Russians quite support the 'incursion' but they'd be fine with the outcome, and probably wouldn't think of the puppet/client state leader as being subjugated.
Putin murders his political opponents and journalists, but because he can't be implicated or investigated, the citizenry just goes on roughly believing the propaganda at least to a certain degree.
Regular people don't have the time to parse through this complex world. 'Good' news is so important.
I wouldv'e said he is a drug addicted puppet with no political experience and money in UK's fiscal heaven. But nazi? That doesn't seems right.
Hopefully it doesn't end like Makhnov did. "History doesn't repeat itself, but sometime it rhyme" (Mark Twain i guess?)
It's an emotional/rhetorical ploy -- an appeal to WW2-era patriotism, and the relative sense of greatness and prosperity that flourished in the SU after the sacrifices made in that war, specifically.
It's not supposed to be rational or correct or make any other kind of sense.
As everyone's noticed, the situation in Ukraine is complicated. Yes, Putin's claim that he's invading Ukraine to denazify it is clearly bs. BUT, Ukraine has a Nazi problem, largely due to the internal alliances the government has to make in order to stand a chance against Russia. If Putin managed to get Ukraine's military to coup their government and then negotiate with him, that coup would probably be from the neonazis. Luckily for Ukraine, it turns out so far that its White Nationalists still care about the "nation" part.
I think to counter such narratives and honest acknowledgment is necessary. Then you can highlight how an invasion of a country dwarfs these tendencies.
Ever since then the memory of this “betrayal” has been kept alive in Russian culture. There’s no greater enemy than nazis, so the image of a Nazi Ukrainian oppressing Russians is a powerful one. Utter and complete bullshit propaganda of course, but it’s not an accident that Putin uses this particular image.
The fact that Zelenskiy is a Russian speaking Jew is, I guess, either not widely known in Russia or not considered sufficient proof of his innocence…
I think the arguments about NATO are plainly correct. It does not warrant an invasion, but you have to be quite ignorant if you believe that it cannot be seen as a form of aggression. They wanted to install missiles in eastern Europe a while ago. They wanted Georgia and Ukraine associated. You just have to look at a map and see the developments after WW2. Acknowledging that fact does not mean you agree with an invasion. It means that there needs to be better heads at NATO or we need other alliances.
Ultimately the country invading is responsible for doing so of course. It is only right to protest against the war.
> I think unwittingly rehashing the canard arguments of Putin.
I wonder why he even tries to seek a justification. But anyway that should not be your concern. NATO did expand in eastern Europe, quite aggressively at times. I am not sure who is driving the wedge if you deny the fact that there are now many countries in NATO east of Germany. Even without any contractual obligation, you can still behave aggressively. Bush trying to be a strong man just like Putin tries now made him force the association with Georgia and Ukraine because of the war on terror. It is what it is. Any deescalation with Russia will put that on the table. The sooner we can acknowledge this fact, the sooner the conflict can end again.
NATO is not a material threat to Russia.
NATO is a defence pact - not a cohesive military unit. NATO does not have the ability in terms of material and equipment, coordination, and certainly political backing to do such a thing, and they never have.
They have never threatened Russias borders. There is no advantage, gain or benefit from invading Russia. Nobody in the world believes that NATO could take and hold any meaningful parts of Russia.
There is a bit of legitimacy in Russia not wanting NATO on it's borders, after all, why would it want that - but I don't think it changes the equation that much.
"I wonder why he even tries to seek a justification. But anyway that should not be your concern."
Because 'hearts and minds' matter a lot. The reason European leaders are joining the fight is because there is 'net momentum' to do so. European politicians are watching the coverage, they see what is happening. They are moved.
Particularly in Ukraine - it is not a united country. They definitely know they have cultural resonance with Russia. They are not united in joining the EU. There was every possibility that Ukranians just 'kind of gave up and accepted joining Neo Russia'. Propaganda matters.
" NATO did expand in eastern Europe, quite aggressively at times. I am not sure who is driving the wedge if you deny the fact that there are now many countries in NATO east of Germany."
It's not 'aggressive' to join a defence pact.
I'm not 'denying' anything.
"Bush trying to be a strong man just like Putin tries now made him force the association with Georgia and Ukraine because of the war on terror."
No - there is no comparison. There was literally a 'war on terror'. 9/11 happened. Islamic terrorism was a global threat. The world adapted in a lot of ways to overcome that issue.
All of this is becoming moot as Ukranians are mutilating Russian forces on the ground in Ukraine, it's exposing the Russian Army as a paper tiger: bad gear, little support, poor planning, unable to mount a truly effective coordinated campaign against a fairly weak enemy.
No need to go to YouTube or TikTok, those comments are made right here on HN as well.
https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=pydry
https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=dukeofdoom
https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=kkfx
https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=freebuju
And quite a few others, and that's before we get to the people that are quite literally wishing for Ukraine to roll over and capitulate so they can get on with their lifestyle.
- the scale of the western sanctions
- the level of Ukrainian resistance
It's a difficult realization, in some ways, to understand that the messages we receive may often have already been prepared before events take place in our perception of time.
My understanding is that there was an alternative message[1] prepared in case the Apollo 11 mission did not succeed, for example.
It's notable to some extent that the message you've posted here was made public by accident. But those possible-future messages are out there -- and in some ways, knowing their contents would allow us to learn a lot more about where we are geopolitically.
Given the state of data security nowadays, I'd even guess that some "fake" future announcements may be drafted to mislead snoopers. Even without the ability to know for certain what was prepared with authenticity and integrity, the contents could still allow useful inference.
[1] - https://web.archive.org/web/20120724221032/https://watergate...
I also saw that with sports topics.
I get the feeling that most people (Russia & elsewhere) thought that the invasion would be a bit of a white-wash: a sort of Blitzkrieg operation where the Ukrainian army was rapidly overpowered/evaporated (kinda like Afghanistan) by overwhelming force, and so there would be Russian tanks patrolling an occupied Kyiv within 48 hours or so, so schedule this post to go live 4 or 5 days after the start etc.
instead there is a new Ukrainian battle cry, frequently mentioned on their TV (without any beeping) and everywhere, "The Russian Navy vessel, go f&ck yourself." - that is the response given by the defenders, most of whom died in the fight that ensued, of the Snake island to the threat by a Russian Navy missile cruiser to bomb the island if they don't give up the island.
Ukrainians are really pissed off. On TV channel 5 they promote an initiative to post photos of killed Russian soldiers on Google Maps so that the soldiers' mothers, wives, etc. were able to see it there.
In totalitarian regimes (and those strongly on the spectrum of totalitarian), sure -- you can bet this happens all the time.
Otherwise? It's basically unheard of. Yes, it has happened as in the case of the Apollo mission (and in niche areas like sporting events) - but by no means does it happen "often".
Aside from obituaries, we were talking about.
I know Australian government departments regularly prepare media releases that never happen (from friends in those departments).
News agencies, we were talking about. Not public relations departments.
>Russia is "restoring its unity" and providing a "solution to the Ukrainian question" in its invasion of Ukraine, reads an opinion piece that was seemingly published by accident by Russian news agency RIA Novosti before being quickly taken down. The article was recorded by the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine before it was taken offline.
>"A new world is being born before our eyes," wrote Petr Akopov in the article. "Russia's military operation in Ukraine has ushered in a new era — and in three dimensions at once. And of course, in the fourth, domestically. Here begins a new period both in ideology and in the very model of our socio-economic system."
Well, at least they got that part correct.
It’s not war only in Ukraine vs Russia but in between two worlds.
This could be higher escalation possibility as new alignment would be necessary.
Russia can conquer the whole world, but nobody will ever like it, because internally it is a broken, corrupt, dictatorial system. If Russia doesn't change its internal political system to a free and democratic one it is simply doomed to fail, no matter how many tanks and nuclear bombs they produce.
(And the same is true for China)
The headline seems to be misleading in a "post-war" part, since the language refers to hypothetical future events.
Technically 'it's own country' but absolutely under the thumb of Russia in all terms.
This is not like the 'US and Canada' or Mexico, or some smaller S. American state where the US has obvious influence.
Belarus is the other example cited and they are 100% under the control of the Russians, it's the most anti-democratic place in the Western world, it's a straight dictatorship.
The article is essentially saying that Ukraine will become 'another Belarus'.
It's deeply chauvinistic because in the Russian worldview - the 'big powers' naturally control and oppress the small ones and for some reason they seem to believe that their totalitarian control of Belarus is somehow analogous to the US/Canada relationship or something like that.
It also absolutely and completely denies Ukranian agency, as though the Ukranians themselves have no say in the matter, it's not even worth mentioning.
There is definitely legitimacy to the notion of historical relationship between Ukranians and Russians, there's no doubt there, but those ties exist in other parts of the world.
The implication however that Ukraine should be subject to Russian rule makes this effectively a modern day Mein Kampf.
That's what the term "vassal state" means. It doesn't "deny statehood", technically. What it indicates is that in practical terms, a state (or the regime running it) can become so dependent on the resources of a superior state (indeed owing its very existence to it) -- that it is fair to say that it is independent in name only.
Which pretty much describes the relationship of Belarus vis-a-vis Russia, after the events of 2020.
It may have been deleted to avoid antagonizing Ukrainian ceasefire negotiators...?
The oldies yearn for a world that is so far removed from today's reality. Said oldies also use the country's resources for their fantasy good ol days.
In this case, Putin and buddies yearn for a good ol world with Russia, Belarus and Little Rus, completely out of touch with where the modern world is. The resistance in Ukraine clearly shows that Ukrainians don't want to be a vassal of Russia.
Same happened in America with Trump and voters yearning for good ol days, disregarding the new world order.
Maybe oldies should be barred from political and government positions altogether.
I've heard this called the "Golden Age Fallacy". A belief in restoring the world to some past glory, usually of the subject's sentimental youth. E.g., Nigel Farage's love of pubs and public smoking, or Trump's love of coal and Playboy magazine.
Geez.
To Whoopi, it's just white folk killing each other.
How are we here in the 21st Century?