These things can and do change.
“Russian liberalism stops at the border of Ukraine”
Arguably it was actually Robespierre losing is head that had to happen to stop the madness (Terror) in France, or at least create the conditions for it to stop eventually.
I don't know what has to happen in Russia. It is possible for autocratic states, that have always been autocratic, to transition to liberal democracy. It did happen in France, but even after the end of the Terror it still went through a long phase of imperial autocracy. It takes time to develop institutions strong enough to resist autocracy.
Think about what war really is, it’s almost always a bunch of powerful people who have a disagreement with a bunch of other powerful people, who then have to trick a bunch of less powerful people to fight on their behalf. If you feel like fighting you’ve been tricked. When the rich wage war it’s the poor who die.
You can't blame the population as a whole. But I suspect it's uncommon for the government to be completely disconnected from (some portion of) the population's sentiments.
However, that sentiment is shaped by the media available to the citizens, and in places like Russia, that means primarily by the government itself. So it's not so clear cut what the sentiment would have been had it not been for the governments propaganda.
(In the US we have the same overall situation, but the propaganda seems to mostly be driven by rich people who own media companies...)
Globally, it's pretty much oligarchs all the way down.
And yes, this means that in a democracy, the opposition's voters are screwed because they share in the responsibility, even if they were right. Why? Because they were unable to convince the majority of the wrongness of the majority vote.
But it's not as a practical matter in the US, or even in legalistic practice. Most legalistic factions in the US plainly treat the constitution itself (and/or its authors) as the source of its own authority.
That is the literal first paragraph of the US constitution. I cannot imagine a valid legalistic argument that ignores that. When first establishing the constitution, it also didn't appear in a vacuum, the pre-existing states and confederation were already democratic for some time. So all authority/validity/legitimacy the US constitution has comes from the population, back then. And through continuing use, participation and broad acceptance until present.
And of course, as a practical matter in a representative democracy, between elections, the people do have far less of an influence. They can basically only voice their opinions, threaten to vote differently in the next election, or start a revolution. But that doesn't absolve them of their responsibility on election day.
Exactly, back then. But those people are dead to a man. They are no longer people of the United States. Even if you count them as such, they would be extremely outnumbered by currently living people of the United States, and thus, democratically they can no longer confer any legitimate authority to the constitution. If they do confer any authority, it isn't democratic authority, because it has to be based on something else than the people.
> And through continuing use, participation and broad acceptance until present.
I think that's a pretty tenuous argument, all the time people constantly point to the constitution itself as authority for why they accept the constitution, rather than pointing to themselves as they should if they truly believed in the people's authority as opposed to gods, kings and holy texts. But even accepting that argument, at the very least you'd have to agree that if the people decided to change the constitution through means other than those the constitution propose, then that could still be perfectly democratic.
Yes, of course. If the voters, or at least their democratically elected representatives, decide that a new and different constitution is necessary, that's totally fine and expected. Some more modern constitutions even point this out explicitly.
I'm not sure what part of Russian history, or contemporary Russian society, gives people confidence in this idea?
I'm not being anti-Russian here either. I feel the same way about our nation here in the US. Even if we were to rid ourselves of Trump for instance, we would still have serious issues with a large body of people who support Trump-like policies. A wise Europe would still be obliged to be on guard against us.
Every nation has belligerent elements. Russia is no different. While, say, Putin, may be an expression of that belligerent element, I'm unconvinced that he is the belligerent element itself. I think it's foolish, potentially fatal, to make that assumption.
I’m mangling a quote from someone, but extreme environments breed extreme leaders.
To rise, Putin had to be better than his rivals. Presumably they were ruthless, clever, calculating etc.
I’m not sure we want to hear from his successor.
E.g. Stalin's successors
Did not.
But it turns out a very militarized nation can become completely pacifist after suffering a complete utter defeat, suffering and destruction.
Culture can change, just like 1990s Russia was a break from past and future Russia. However the 1990s were a disaster and thus the culture changes went to the opposite side
And if you were willing to be utterly destroyed in order to utterly destroy Russia, then maybe this would work?
But at that point you've succumbed to exactly what you were trying to prevent. Ie - Your own destruction.
What we, at least we in the US, want is to figure out how to turn Russia towards peace without being utterly destroyed.
That's what the difficulty is.
We, on this side of the pond, prefer ideas that don’t involve national suicide.
The "eventually" you are referring to was nothing more than a polite "no", issued in the final statement of the summit as a consolation (one day we will invite you), after allies had made their negative decision.
Georgia and Ukraine hoped to receive an invitation to NATO and begin membership negotiations. Today, almost two decades later, they still haven't received an invitation nor started negotiations.
[0] https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/document/33711-document-3-memorand... page 5
My point is that culture can change, being aggressive in eastern europe is not the essence of Russia just like being aggressive in central europe turned out not to be the essence of Germany.
A fascist regime promises war, victory and glory, when that collapses the regime also collapses
Which was not really Germany's case. It was going to be, see the Morgenthau plan, but then the US realised they needed someone to help contain the Communists, and Germany become integrated into the wider West, not even 10 years after Hitler. Something that was willfully not allowed to Russia in the 1990s. (And thank Kohl for that, wouldn't want to be containing China!)
Regarding Germany, as opposed to 1918, defeat was not something they could escape, complete and utter destruction of cities, mass rapes, ethnic cleansing, POWs and occupation.
The strict contrast with the fascist promises of victory is the real engine of denazificatiom imo
The government for all of the reasons you say.
The people because they have fallen for and accepted propaganda. Thereby leading them to support the government and its toxic narratives.
I base this opinion mostly on seeing how Russian propaganda has poisoned my mother-in-law's mind. Many media reports and various other sources have verified that she is not an isolated example, most Russians accept the same propaganda narratives.
OK, let's play this game. The logical fallacy here is the relationship between regime change in Ukraine and Russia. These are two distinct countries. It's like saying someone wanted to influence the outcome of the election in the USA to cause regime change in Canada. (I use this example because we know Russians were influencing the elections in the USA.)
A simply more unsettling conclusion from this narrative is that if there is a causal link indeed, and Ukraine taking a pro-EU direction can cause a regime change in Russia, it means that the basis of the latter is very weak - so weak it has to start the war to prevent its fall.
Would the US not be forced to react in some way if a pro-china party took over in Canada with the help of chinese influence? And China had the goal of integrating Canada into its military alliance?
That's your second strawman in this thread now by the way I think the legal limit is three so you're allowed one more.
Remember how mainstream media was reporting in 2003 that Powell is obviously lying? How the whole debacle about Iraqi WMDs was little more than a thinly veiled excuse to finish the war Bush Sr had started? Maybe that didn't happen in your country, but it was the reality in many Western countries.
Consider the business as usual in the EU. Whatever the EU is trying to do, there are always some countries that oppose it. Then there are negotiations, and some kind of compromise is ultimately reached, but nobody is truly happy about it. That's what decentralization does to you.
Or maybe consider Russia just before the invasion of Ukraine. Some countries and factions in the West considered Russia an important trading partners, while others saw it as an adversary and wanted to cut ties with it. There was no unified Western policy on anything related to Russia.
I’m not sure we will ever know the complete answer, but some of this change seems to involve Russia too.
My feeling is that your perspective, likely shared by people like Bomber Harris or Netanyahu, does not match most peoples intuition nowadays.
So it doesn't matter if the Russian people is the enemy in the sense of supporting their mafia government. They're not doing anything you wouldn't have done. Condemning them is condemning yourself and does no one any good.
There were good Germans. There were also Germans that pretended not to notice and then there were bad Germans. The ones in the middle are collectively just as guilty because they allowed the bad ones to do their thing. You don't get to stand by while such stuff unfolds and then claim innocence.
Right now, inside Russia there are Russians who are putting their lives on the line to help stop this war before it consumes their country. Their the 'Good Russians'. And then there are those in the middle - and plenty who have fled abroad - who pretend this isn't their problem. But they're enabling the rest and should be rightly condemned for it.
It took Germany a generation or more to really get it (and even now, some don't get it but that seems to be a factor just about everywhere, the bad will always attempt to take root again).
The country that I'm from still hasn't properly accepted the mountain of skulls and the rivers of blood that our wealth is founded on. In that sense Germany is now ahead, but with the afd it remains to be seen whether they can maintain that lead for much longer.
That said, this message shows terrible ignorance:
> They're not doing anything you wouldn't have done. Condemning them is condemning yourself and does no one any good.
The first part might be very well true. My grandparents and their siblings have been mostly perpetrators and bystanders, some where tagging-along, very few were opposed and none of them openly, just in 'inner exile'. I am lucky for the 'mercy of the late birth' that saved me from having to proof many of the virtues that I hold dearly under real pressure. But not condemning the wrongs my grandparents did, and not holding oneself to higher standards than I would hold others, doesn't do any good. Are you sure you are incapable of doing things in another place and another time that would make your today's self condemn you and your actions?
And you aren't. Or at least, we as a group aren't, compared to them as a group.
In the end, I don't criticize Russian war criminals so that they stop being war criminals. That has nothing to do with a lack of authority, but with a lack of naïvity: that's what weapons are made for. I criticize the leadership of the West that they don't do enough to stop them. That's where we can use words, luckily.
So yea, it's not just the government.
Crimea is a special situation. I won't reiterate its complex history here since there is plenty of written here, but I'd like to point out that one could have a view where Crimea is Russian and yet decry the invasion of Ukraine as illegitimate.
If anything for practical reasons: only 7% of its population is Ukrainian. It would be very a source of continuous ethnic tensions.
Hard Russian nationalism is much more than that
Such people claim that the entirety of Ukraine is just Russia and they mock them for otherwise being Polish. This narrative is an explicit outcome of an Imperial mindset
But that's the reason why using this "who does Crimea _belong to_" framing of the question is misleading. You will find many people who will say Russia and yet not necessarily subscribe to the imperialistic stance that Russia is employing.
Contradiction right there
Kruschcev transferred the crimean oblast as a symbolic gesture.
Pointing this fact out does not contradict one's desire to not have Russia acquire more territory and behave in an imperialistic manner today
I have a good dozen of friends from Crimea despite visiting Crimea just a few times as a little kid – thousands of young people were forced out of their homes.
The russian logic is very perverted, yet completely predictable. If you are a national minority (even if your 7% claim was true) surrounded by russians, you should leave, and all your belongings should be redistributed among russians. But if you are a russian minority surrounded by different nations, then everyone around you should learn russian language, respect russian culture, otherwise russian tanks will come. Or maybe they won't, but only for the sake of global stability (otherwise it's justified)
And that's why there is a problem with the mentality of the Russian population. Literally NONE is able to say Crimea belongs to Ukraine, NONE. And that while internationally, it is part of Ukraine.
So no, my question is not misleading. When at least some Russians would say that Crimea actually belongs to Ukraine, I might have some hope. But right now, sorry, no.
I posit that the crimean question will also unnecessarily put in the same cohort all those people who do recognize the distinct culture of Ukraine and their right of self determination but also consider the past and present situation of crimea to be more nuanced.
EDIT: some Russians may recognize that Ukrainians have right to self determination but they may also recognize that today Crimea is populated by a vast majority of Russians and thus there giving that land back to Ukraine would lead to further bloodshed. And yes I have heard actual Russians having that position (I'm not Russian fwiw)
You might think this is normal, I don't. And because of that, I don't agree with statements like "it's not the Russian people, only the Russian government".
You didn't mention any Russian that sees it differently, and you confirm everything what I say. Except for the fact that you think it's normal and I don't.
Edit: What I said above is not correct and I apologize for that. After the annexation of Crimea, there was a protest in Russia with thousands of protesters. Some prominent politicians also openly opposed it.
Perhaps it's because they are few of them (fair enough mine is just personal experience, not a poll)
Or perhaps it's because you consider everybody who believes that Crimea is now populated mostly by Russians (and thinks that giving it back now will create more trouble than solve) as people who CHEERED the annexation.
I don't think it logically follows.
But I understand your feeling since there are so many people (even outside of Russia) that literally cheer for Russia getting their empire back. Unfortunate their noise surpasses any ability to have a nuanced conversation about this.
I wished humanity headed towards a peaceful resolution of conflicts where people can seek self determination and autonomy (basque, Catalan, Kurds, Palestinians, ...) instead of resolving such issues with invasion and pandering to imperialistic visions
So I don't understand how anybody can support "international agreement" by default. I certainly don't. Regarding Crimea I don't have an opinion, because I don't live there.
Germany was split into two by "international agreement", just as an example.
Reminds me a bit of another leader around that same period. He also made his countrymen feel superior. That one is not beloved today anymore, and maybe that's the reason why that population was able to transform into a normal democratic country.
I completely disagree. I know anecdata is useless but since you are generalizing I can as well add that all Russians I met, without exception, are normal people who just want to live a normal life, not to kill. And then there is the smaller violent part that is happy to mug, beat, and kill others, including their own people. What I can agree is that Russia has quite a problem with this "pat B" of their population because of systemic issues. But generalizing it like this, on the whole nation, is just like saying that violence has gender, rich people are bad and so on.
Next time you meet a Russian again ask about what they think about Russian Empire. Or who gets to keep Crimea.
Have a look what normal Russians are saying:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LuZEvNlpKxg
It's by a guy who works for BBC and basically translates bits of Russian papers on his channel everyday.
It would be very hard to notice the difference between 10% and 9% by just meeting people. You'd have to meet and evaluate 1000s to measure it accurately enough. But you sure do notice the difference as a neighboring country when the tanks roll in.
So you do sometimes have to say things about nations despite it only reflecting a statistically small difference in people.
Whenever there's trouble, Russia's history demands a strong leader. When one arises, the strong leader soon becomes the trouble.
By ‘strong’, do you mean violent dictator?
Maybe some of the provinces that are held by force should be allowed self determination. Maybe less violence would then be ‘needed’.
If you force a Tatar to somewhere close to the Chinese border he will be perceived as "Russian" by the indigenous community, and their rejection will eventually make him identify as "Russian" himself, to bond with his peer displacees from other corners of the empire, and with locals who accept the empire. The exact same mechanism works in all directions, e.g. when some of those locals are displaced to somewhere near the Finnish border. The most important weapon of the Russian empire isn't the tank or the AK-47 or hard winters or sheer distance or vast amounts of mineral resources, it's industrial scale deportation for eradication of regional identity.