It was so bad, some arseholes started a war at the end of the decade.
If you aren't adding to the discussion (e.g., by being obtuse) that's reason enough for a downvote. And underneath it all you're quite brashly making a false equivalence.
But if Russia really wants to stop being a pariah it can just give up its childish posturing, remove its troops from Ukraine and open up its economy, to the benefit of its own people. Sanctions aren’t reparations
Media murmuring isn't anything legally binding. Russia have plenty of leverage to sue for peace. Namely that this is a war of attrition and Russia has plenty of cannon fodder, exhausting Ukraine in the long run. If it means no more lives lost and the territory returns to pre-war borders, Ukraine would certainly sign without issuing debt.
But the Russian leadership has decided that it wants to usurp territory and be the villian, in full understanding of the consequences. After WWI, Germany had to pay ~550 billion dollars after being turned to rubble. That amount compounded with the depression generated enough unrest and bitterness to give Hitler a willing audience.
There really is no equivalence here.
And in any case, I think people really are failing to see the equivalence here, and it's scary. The suggestions to "just stop" (translation: "just lose") are actually serious. You'll have an economically crippled Russia with a wounded collective ego. Perfect setup for a rematch. Just like WW1 to WW2. But the normalizers have the majority opinion on their side at this point, and sadly nobody will stop them from making this tragedy a reality.
So: there really is an equivalence here, and sadly history teaches people nothing. This time they are right, dammit. With any luck, our grandkids will live to discuss how this was the biggest geopolitical miscalculation.
Don't think I have a point? Think about how everyone expected Russians to take to the streets and overthrow Putin back in 2022. The level of delusion is unreal.
Lose? You mean retreat to their own pre-war borders? To lose would be if they actually had to pay reparations or lost territory of their own. As I said, this would not be how the negotiations play out as Russia has the numbers to keep the war going as long as it wants.
But sure. Tell me what would be lost in Russia ending the war?
> Think about how everyone expected Russians to take to the streets and overthrow Putin back in 2022.
Who is going to try and overthrow the leader who disappears people? Everyone saw what happened to Prigozhin when he dissented. And of course, there are plenty of pro-war nationalists that would take Putin's place should he ever die. So I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here, or how it progresses your narrative of Russia as the victim in the conflict it started – at the economic and human cost to its own people – to take Ukraine territory.
To play devil's advocate: why doesn't the US stop now? There used to be a Ukraine entirely under Russia's control politically. Now there is a West Ukraine that is entirely dependent on the USA politically, has Black Sea access, has the oldest city in Russian history, has the oil and gas pipelines running through it (and so provides a way to continue to pressure Russia economically), and has a largely pro-West population. What is to be gained (other than pride) by forcing majority Russian-speaking lands that got accidentally attached to an entity named "Ukraine" to be part of this brave new world?
And before you go "but borders", let me point out that the reason behind many wars in Africa were borders that were arbitrarily drawn by the colonizers for their own convenience, and that often split up historically homogeneous tribes, or forced mortal enemies to be "the same country" (Harari has the details).
Finally, about the "who is going to try to overthrow Putin" point. It seems ridiculous now, but this is exactly what the media were selling back in 2022.
It was communism that fostered this independence movement of the eastern states, and it was the USSR that drew the arbitrary line soon after the revolution.
> What is to be gained (other than pride) by forcing majority Russian-speaking lands that got accidentally attached to an entity named "Ukraine" to be part of this brave new world?
If this really was Russia’s intent they wouldn’t have tried to take the entire country at the outset. And if this is some kind of liberation project for those long suffering Russian speaking minorities, I’m certain those being bombed aren’t welcome of it. There’s no noble intentions behind the inception of this war, but let’s say there was, those intentions seem to have since been contradicted by the human cost which Russia’s leadership has proven insensitive to
And who, pray tell, is dropping bombs on these people? (and has been since 2014). Hint: it is not Russia. So they absolutely do welcome the protection and make up the majority of the fighting force currently advancing on West Ukraine. What is actually happening is in effect a civil war.
Edit: to the downvoters: which is it that you disagree with? That a chunk of a population larger than 50% is not a minority, or that people don't generally bomb themselves?
Strawmanning again. That same census shows 17.3% of Ukraine identifies ethnically (or culturally) as Russian. But instead you want to split hairs.
> 58% in Crimea
Crimea is Russian in the pre-war border, and is irrelevant to this thread.
> whereas only 41% of those who identified as Ukrainian could actually speak Ukrainian
Kind of telling that non-Ukrainian speaking people are identifying as culturally as Ukrainian. It puts further doubt as to how much people inside the pre-war borders wanted to be 'liberated' by being usurped by Russia. Language != culture != nationality != support for annexation
All the same Sevastopol, which is the only majority Russian population in pre-war Ukraine that you mentioned, is not all of Ukraine. Very clearly Russia's play was for the whole country. The kind and noble angle you're presenting of Russia as liberator is either disingenuous, if you're trolling, or delusional, if you're being earnest.
> and make up the majority of the fighting force currently advancing on West Ukraine
Even if that's verifiable, there's no way of knowing how many are fighting by choice. Wouldn't be the first time Russians/USSR sent people to fight 'under pain of death'. And of course they aren't alone in this sort of conduct in war time.
> is dropping bombs on these people?
Both sides. Because of a war—I repeat once again—instigated by Russia. These populations wouldn't be caught in the crossfire of shifting battle fronts, if there was no... err.. battle.
So I'm done here. You aren't arguing in good faith, nor seem to yield to reason. Feel free to have the last reply.
America has done a good job at nation building in the New Ukraine. They built a new country in Israel's image: ethnocentric and very militarized, with a strong warrior ethos. But you just can't resist adding a Gaza Strip, can you?
This is like saying -- we just have to accept that England belongs to Italy because after all London was once known as Londinium and was one of the most important cities in the Roman Empire.
I also wasn't aware of any places named Kyivtown, Crimealand, or San Donetsko, and yet the US seems to have a claim to these places.
Does that mean it's still theirs essentially, and they're welcome to move back in any time they want to?
Second question: who did the wounding? Who do you think the average Russian thinks did the wounding?
Sure, that was my point.
> Second question: who did the wounding? Who do you think the average Russian thinks did the wounding?
It's... Hard for me to formulate a strong answer on this, but my impression is that Russia mostly did the wounding itself but the current average Russian probably blames either the reform attempts masking a power grab OR the west and the US for it's toils.
As for the second part, let me retell an anecdote. I was once at a party (in the US) with someone who participated in "helping" one of the post-Soviet republics with reforming their industry after perestroika. After too many drinks he began to brag about how "these corrupt businessmen thought they were hot sh... for grabbing all that stuff, little did they know they were just handing it to us". There were a ton of vultures feasting on the USSR's corpse. Now, the fact that it came to that in the first place is absolutely the Soviet leadership's fault.
And it is also ultimately the current Russian leadership's fault that Victoria Nuland even got around to handing out those cookies 10 years ago.
Keep in mind that Russia and the US are both nuclear powers, so that complicates things as neither Putin, Biden, or Zelensky want nukes being thrown around.
Between the US's actually functioning carriers, F-22s, modern tanks, and finally functional JSFs...I don't think Russia's untrained cannon fodder being supplied by civilian vans is going to win out.
That being said, the democratic countries in Eastern europe are tiny and most have a very small military presence. Without NATO, Russia could conceivably storm into those countries.
I don't think there is a good answer here. Either let Putin steamroll a chunk of Europe or spend a ton of additional taxpayer dollars. A little googling suggests the U.S. support for Ukraine is 1.5% of our federal budget, which is crazy high if you think about it.
Isolationism has its benefits and drawbacks of course.
Isn't it surprising how little this mountain of money achieves? It just slows down Russia at the unsustainable cost of Ukrainian lives.
Maybe US budget is so huge for other reasons than their military prowess? Maybe everything US does is just vastly overpriced for its value? Could American military be even more overpriced than American healtcare?
I think part of this is viewed as an ongoing expense where we're constantly giving someone weapons (Israel, Ukraine, whoever) in order to keep the Defense industry in business. It is a roundabout way to give our tax dollars to Raytheon and other firms without directly giving it to them.
Slowing down Russia at the cost of Ukrainian lives is a decision for them to make. You might feel differently if your country was being invaded. The US citizen should get a vote though if they're paying through taxes and inflation.
Overpriced? Almost certainly. Government isn't efficient. It's run much more efficiently than Russia or China though where much of the funding is siphoned off due to corruption. We don't appear to have that problem at least, although the Pentagon constantly failing audits is suspicious and something we do need to look into.
https://notesfrompoland.com/2023/07/21/poland-must-be-remind...
I could only find older expression of this sentiment towards Findland but I heard about it recently too, just didn't pinpoint the source and I can't find it now:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/vladimir-put...
In case of today's Russia, Ukrainian parade in NATO equipment on the Red Square should teach Russians clearly how hard they lost so their ambitions are crushed.
Putin started this because he thought Europe got defanged and is no longer a monster it used to be. But its demons were only asleep and Putin just woke up all of them.
It would be a great way to follow up on the success that was Afghanistan.
It was the effects of the Great Depression and internal politicking that gave power to Hitler. The Nazis hatred wasn't directed to the West that enacted that treaty, it was to the east for the Communists and the "subhuman" minorities.
No doubt Hitler had a lot of hate.
But this case is clearly a sign of revenge.
Besides the WWI loss they quickly attributed to "internal traitors" (Jews and leftists in general). Parades wouldn't change that.
Instead, after WWI it was pretty much business as usual and reparations felt like unfair toll of unfair, technical loss.
Giving away half of Germany to the Russians after WWII sent the right message.
That would be an ever greater insult. Instead of merely unfair, they'd be seen as both unfair and insulting - and threatening ("Our independency is at their mercy? Fuck them at the first opportunity we get!").
They lost a war, and got to suffer that as a consequence under postWW2 arrangments (and that was the light option, more like a slap on the wrist: they were also plans to fully deindustrialize and starve them to death https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgenthau_Plan ).
And they're building up a liking to fascism and national arrogance again in the last few decades. The Japanese too - which never repented for their attrocities to China either.
<https://archive.org/details/economicconseque00keyn/page/n5/m...>