I have this rule that if you aren't sure where a famous German was born, it was Austria, and if you aren't sure where a famous French person was born, it was Belgium. Maybe I can add a Russia/Ukraine pair to that?...
Quite possibly; Ukraine was a major scientific and engineering hub in USSR. Many of the things we recognise USSR for came from Ukraine, from Mriya to much of the space program.
Also, Ukraine is where the civilised part of the Russian civilisation originates - Kyiv is much older than Moscow. I found Kamil Galeev a great resource on all things Russia, see eg https://twitter.com/kamilkazani/status/1553786725025079297 for a random thread.
There's a fundamental difference between "Kyiv is mother of all Russian cities and thus its superior culture needs to be preserved" and "Kyiv is mother of all Russian cities and thus must be destroyed so that the bastardised Russian derivatives don't look too bad in comparison".
Also, you don't see a problem with using a name promoted by the regime ("Kiev") instead of the proper one?
'So you'd be fine with people using names like Koenigsberg, or Theodorichhafen, or Ostland?'
You seem to be confused.
Kyiv and Kiev are different spellings of the same name. Kiev is traditional for English and Russian, Kyiv -- for Ukrainian language.
Ironically, "a 2015 study by the International Republican Institute found that the languages spoken at home in Kyiv were Ukrainian (27%), Russian (32%), and an equal combination of Ukrainian and Russian (40%)" [0].
And going back in time: "According to the census of 1897, of Kyiv's approximately 240,000 people approximately 56% of the population spoke the Russian language, 23% spoke the Ukrainian language." [0]
What you’re quoting was true before the invasion. Now Russian is obviously associated with Rashists, and so even Russian-speaking Ukrainians are switching away from invaders language.
As far as I can tell from this clipped fragment, these two talk about absorbing the Ukraine into Russia (or splitting it with Poland and Hungary, this idea is occasionally aired too) and 'denazification'. If you object to calling neo-Nazis 'helminth', I'd agree because no human should be dehumanized.
So, unless you really find a call for the destruction of the Ukrainian cities, please don't make me watch any propaganda.
'Bucha and Mariupol didn't commit themselves.'
Bucha wasn't destroyed and Russian propaganda worked hard to convince Russian population that Bucha is fake news.
The extent of the damage done to Mariupol (a city with 95% of Russian speakers, btw) was hidden by propaganda for some time and then they started showing the city and talking how Russia would rebuild it.
Mariupol was held hostage by infamous neo-Nazi Azov regiment [0] which like other Ukrainian forces operating in the Eastern Ukraine use civilians as human shield:
'Ukraine: Ukrainian fighting tactics endanger civilians
Military bases set up in residential areas including schools and hospitals
Attacks launched from populated civilian areas' [1]
> Mariupol was held hostage by infamous neo-Nazi Azov regiment [0] which like other Ukrainian forces operating in the Eastern Ukraine use civilians as human shield:
I don't see any information in your link about your claim. Can you source a link fort your actual claim that "Mariupol was held hostage."
> 'Ukraine: Ukrainian fighting tactics endanger civilians Military bases set up in residential areas including schools and hospitals Attacks launched from populated civilian areas' [1]
I'd avoid using this link if you want to look credible, this report has been so panned and the backlash so strong that Amnesty International is getting a external review done of it.
> What do you think happens when you put your military bases in the city and put you forces in residential areas?
This sounds more like what the Russians are doing, but the Russians also commit genocide and force Ukrainians to fight for them via conscription in the Donbas Luhansk regions.
> It doesn't make it wrong though, does it? Truth hurts.
Just because someone writes something doesn't make it true thought? The backlash was harsh because the report was crazy and ignored a number of different people trying to provide feedback and context around what was happening.
> So you just dismiss any facts if they don't align with Western propaganda?
You have yet to establish them as facts, and id be more wary of Russian propaganda than anything else, its a good thing its become so transparent now.
That Mariupol was empty of Ukrainian forces and Russians just shelled it because... what? Or that Russians had entered undefended Mariupol and then Ukrainians shelled it?
How do you explain that Mariupol suffered so much damage?
"Just because someone"
Amnesty isn't 'someone' and their previous reports condemning Russian actions were considered credible.
"its a good thing its become so transparent now"
If you define anything that doesn't align with Western propaganda as 'Russian propaganda' then, yes, it's very transparent and simple.
Kvochur was born in the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Russian by ethnicity, and Soviet and now Russian by nationality. And he is a Russian test pilot who has worked for Sukhoi and MIG.
I get that we all don't like Russia because of the war but this propensity to try and remove the attribution of anything remotely positive from them is incredibly annoying.
Well, even long before the war I saw how on the BBC World News three British journalists talked about British astronaut flying to the ISS without even once mentioning that he got there on the Russian rocket. They mentioned Kazakhstan though and showed the rocket flying up.
Before which war? Because while it took the genocide in Ukraine for the world to realise Russians become literal nazis, it's been Russian modus operandi for quite a while now.
Also, see how you just called it a "Russian rocket" despite the fact that things like guidance were Ukrainian? It wasn't Russian - it was Soviet, from back when USSR consisted of a number of republics, including Russia and Ukraine.
Yeah, right, Russians are 'literal Nazis' but somehow even Reuters publishes picture captioned 'A local resident inspects a damaged van following a military strike' and it shows a thug with Swastika on his arm (pic. #4) [0].
If you use the word 'genocide' now, why didn't you use it when Ukrainian nationalists burned alive 42 pro-Russian Ukrainians [4]?
'it's been Russian modus operandi for quite a while now'
I think this bold statement deserves to be elaborated.
"things like guidance were Ukrainian"
The only thing that was Ukrainian-built was the Kurs guidance system[2].
It was developed by the Research Institute of Precision Instruments (Moscow) before 1985 and manufactured by the Kiev Radio Factory[1]. In 2016 that Soviet analog system was replaced by modern Russian Kurs-NA[3].
There are - or were - a few nazis in Ukraine, sure. But in case of Russians all of them are nazis, because that's their state ideology: to destroy a (clearly superior, if you look at the history, eg the achievements over the past two decades) Ukrainian nation.
>If you use the word 'genocide' now, why didn't you use it when Ukrainian nationalists burned alive 42 pro-Russian Ukrainians
Because the offenders turned out to be pro-Russian, and quite a few of the victims turned out to be Russian-sponsored operatives. Killing own people for propaganda purposes seems standard in Russia, see the Theatre crisis. And even if it hadn't turned out that way, there would be a fundamental difference between a random terrorist attack and a planned genocide.
No, it's just that while USSR was a proper country with a diverse and often beautiful culture, the main achievement of post-USSR Russia was selling off things inherited from USSR. Can you quote any other major post-1990 Russian achievements? Of course I'm asking about those that actually exist, not vaporware like the Armata tank, or Su-57, or "Sotnik".
>Now please quote any achievements of post-Soviet Ukraine.
How about establishing a country its citizens care for? Ukrainian army is revered; compare this to Russians who consider (not without a point) their army to be a bunch of losers and criminals; nobody goes to army in Russia unless they got no other options (cf https://twitter.com/kamilkazani/status/1499377671855292423 and other threads there). Same about the military industry; let me remind you Russia can’t manufacture tanks anymore - and not because of electronics, but metallurgy.
"How about establishing a country its citizens care for?"
What does it even mean? Try googling the pre-war numbers of Ukrainians who left the country to work abroad.
"Ukrainian army is revered"
Yeah, so much that the Ukraine immediately banned Ukrainian men from leaving the country [0] and Ukrainian ministry of Defense wanted to disallow movement of potential conscripts around the country [1].
"Russians who consider (not without a point) their army to be a bunch of losers and criminals; nobody goes to army in Russia unless they got no other options"
That was true 20 years ago in Eltsin's time and right after him, your information is seriously outdated. Please don't post the links to random people on twitter, post links to polls instead.
"Russia can’t manufacture tanks anymore - and not because of electronics, but metallurgy"
Russia is forcing conscripts into being contract soldiers and signing up people from prisons because their army is so good and everyone wants to be a soldier.
You are misrepresenting a couple of isolated cases in the beginning of the war and what looks like fake news as full picture.
Meanwhile in the Ukraine: "According to a July 11 report in Ukrainian media, Ruslan Onishenko, commander of the now-disbanded Tornado Battalion, was freed as part of President Zelensky’s scheme to release prisoners with combat experience. Along with an unwavering commitment to fascism, Onishenko is known as a psychopathic sadist who was involved in sexually assaulting children, brutally torturing prisoners, and murder.
Onishenko’s release follows a February 27 order by Zelensky to free other convicted former Tornado members like Danil “Mujahed” Lyashuk, a fanatic from Belarus who has openly emulated ISIS and boasted of torturing captives for sheer enjoyment. According to Zelensky‘s decree, prisoners with combat experience would be allowed to “compensate for their guilt” by fighting in the “hottest spots.”" [0]
I’d avoid using the gray zone as a source they are effectively just used to relabel RT and other Russian propaganda.
And unless you seriously believe that Ukraine has genetically engineered super soldiers and black magic battalions you’d be a bit of a fool to believe what RT says.
But if your fine to use the gray zone I’ll be happy to use RFERL and they are reporting that hundreds of people are being recruited from Russian prisons[0].
Vice is also reporting that Russian conscripts are being forced into contract soldiers because you cannot send conscripts to Ukraine[1].
Doesn’t sound like a couple isolated cases to me, sounds like a country in a meat grinder that’s desperate for soldiers.
I'd recommend to follow the links in the article and read Ukrainian reporting through google translate[0] and the dailymail reporting too.[1]
"genetically engineered super soldiers and black magic battalions"
What?
I have no problem with RFERL if it cites its sources and I can judge their credibility. I'd recommend you do the same instead of picking the news source you like and blindly believing any bs it feeds you.
"they are reporting that hundreds of people are being recruited from Russian prisons"
There is no support for these numbers in the article and in the materials it links to. But it's possible that it is happening, the source (gulagu.net) is somewhat famous for exposing torture and rape in Russian prisons and deserves not to be rejected out of hand. It may be unwittingly retranslating disinformation anonymously reported to it, or it may be true.
"Vice is also reporting that Russian conscripts are being forced into contract soldiers"
That is an article from the first weeks of the war describing those isolated episodes.
"a country in a meat grinder"
It is meat grinder there, there is war there in case you haven't heard. Since there is no mobilization in Russia, Putin is conducting the special operation with contract soldiers and shady private military.
That is what RT unironically posts, the gray zones hires a lot of people who work / worked for RT.
> There is no support for these numbers in the article and in the materials it links to. But it's possible that it is happening, the source (gulagu.net) is somewhat famous for exposing torture and rape in Russian prisons and deserves not to be rejected out of hand. It may be unwittingly retranslating disinformation anonymously reported to it, or it may be true.
We just got today screen shots from a Russian telegram account that says nearly 200 people from a prison in Moscow have been killed in the war in Ukraine (2 are left, injured).
> That is an article from the first weeks of the war describing those isolated episodes.
Why do you think its changed? if Russia is already trying to get lots of prisoners (easily over 200) into the war why do you think they'd stop trying to force conscripts?.
Theres reports that there is tonnes of pressure from the conscription officers[1] and we know that 'volunteer' brigades have been made up from cities[2].
Yes a large amount of this war is broadcast on telegram primarily
> Because there was a huge scandal and reportedly many officers involved in sending conscripts into the Ukraine were punished.
Your trying to tell me that the army that rapes and loots with impunity is having their officers punished for pressuring conscripts into being contract soldiers and going to Ukraine?, I find that hard to believe.
> Why did you put volunteer into quotes? A lot of people in Russia has been pissed by the Ukrainian 'anti-terrorist operation' in the Donbass.
Maybe if Russias little green men and FSB officers didn't enter Donbas, shoot down a civilian airliner and start a civil war there wouldn't have to be fighting in Donbas.
"Maybe if Russias little green men ... there wouldn't have to be fighting in Donbas"
Yes, of course. Just like if the US hadn't 'mid-wifed' a coup in the Ukraine [1], [2], [3].
It's a spiral of escalation which was started by the US which was increasing its military influence in the Europe through NATO expansion and bilateral military agreements.
It could've been stopped at any moment by any side. It can be stopped even now if we don't want to risk a nuclear war.
> It's a spiral of escalation which was started by the US which was increasing its military influence in the Europe through NATO expansion and bilateral military agreements.
There’s a reason Russia considers the expansion of a defensive alliance a threat, because it threatens there ability to go empiring again like they are trying to in a Ukraine.
> It could've been stopped at any moment by any side. It can be stopped even now if we don't want to risk a nuclear war.
I know that it is in vogue for supporters of Russia to blame everyone but Russia for the invasion but the truth is, the responsibility lies solely with Russia.
Russia choose to start the civil war with there FSB and GRU officers, Russia choose to shoot down the civilian airliner and Russia choose by themselves to invade Ukraine and commit genocide.
No one forced their hand, the usual excuse of using the maiden revolution(it lacks certain aspects to be a coup I’m afraid) is totally false.
The reason they invaded is because massive natural resources where found in Crimea and Donbas and Russia saw that as a threat to their ability to hold the world hostage with oil and gas.
> It could've been stopped at any moment by any side. It can be stopped even now if we don't want to risk a nuclear war.
The only side capable of stopping this is Russia, no one else. If Russia gives up and leaves the war is over.
I suspect due to Russias inability to make themselves adhere to past agreements (like the Budapest agreement where Russia promised to never invade or threaten the territory of Ukraine) will mean that Ukraine will be in some sort of mutual defense pact with a western country or someone like Poland if this ends diplomatically.
From whom was NATO defending itself in Serbia and Lybia[0]?
"it is in vogue for supporters of Russia to blame everyone but Russia"
You even quoted me: "It could've been stopped at any moment by any side". Do you read what you quote?
"Russia choose to shoot down the civilian airliner "
No more than the US chose to shoot down Iranian airliner [1]. Americans who killed 290 civilians in one shot even got medals [1].
"The reason they invaded"
Usually people say that the shining success of the Ukrainian democracy was threatening Putin's regime. This one is new for me. The problem is you'll fail to substantiate it with numbers.
'The only side capable of stopping this is Russia, no one else.'
Obviously it's not true.
Kiev and its Western patrons explicitly told that there won't be peace negotiations and it's unlikely that Putin will leave all the Russia supporters in the Crimea and Eastern Ukraine to the mercy of the Ukrainian nationalists. That would be hugely unpopular.
"Russias inability to make themselves adhere to past agreements"
The Budapest memorandum was not legally binding and the situation since it was signed had changed dramatically -- the whole idea of common security for all of Europe including Russia (explicitly described in the Annex of the Memorandum) was thrown away by NATO expansion.
"Ukraine will be"
I'm afraid there won't be Ukraine when it ends. Many more people will die in the process.
It's not "technically correct" but I don't think it's far from the truth to think of the USSR as Russia and the land they annexed. Plus, was it "Ukranian" or was it built by Russians with Russian money on the order of Russians in Ukraine?
Like, were Americans killed by Jewish bullets in WW2 because it was Jews in the Nazi factories?
>It's not "technically correct" but I don't think it's far from the truth to think of the USSR as Russia and the land they annexed.
Not land - countries. Differently from, say, British colonialism, you can’t claim with a straight face that Russia brought with it the technology or culture. In fact it was pretty much the opposite.
>Plus, was it "Ukranian" or was it built by Russians with Russian money on the order of Russians in Ukraine?
It was Ukrainian, that’s the point: the brains part came from Ukraine, not Russia.
Yes, most (all?) land belongs to countries. You're being weirdly pedantic. But then, once it's annexed, it's just part of the USSR. Remember how we don't say "the Ukraine" anymore? The reason why we _used_ to say that is because it _used_ to be accurate because there wasn't a country, it was a region of the USSR.
> you can’t claim with a straight face that Russia brought with it the technology or culture
That's not really the claim I'm making. The claim I'm making is that the USSR space program being called a "Russian" space program isn't really egregious (and, I think, colloquially true). The technology that space program developed is appropriately called Russian, even if each individual working on it isn't Russian, even if every component wasn't made by Russia. The program is a Russian effort and the result was a Russian rocket.
> the brains part came from Ukraine, not Russia
NASA doesn't only employ natural born Americans. The guy who developed the Russian guidance system was Ukrainian. It's still Russian.
But countries are more than land. It's not that Ukrainian land was part of USSR - the Ukrainian nation was part of USSR. Same with Russian nation.
>The program is a Russian effort and the result was a Russian rocket.
No, that's the point: the program was Soviet, and the result was a Soviet rocket. Russia was just one part of that. And if you look at the last two decades, you'll see what while Ukraine was able to build a functioning country, Russia failed to achieve anything apart from selling out what's left by USSR and oil/gas extraction using foreign-bought technologies.
Russia has built new types of aircraft, new rocket, new nuclear icebreakers and power stations, its own internet search engine that can stand up to Google, and what not.
>Russia has built new types of aircraft, new rocket
This would be a valid argument six months ago. Now we know those "new types of aircraft" were vaporware, and missiles work really fine only if you can claim that a random barn is a valid military target. Some of the things that did materialize - like the new military telecom system - turned out to be rebranded Chinese products.
>new nuclear icebreakers
Which were co-developed with Ukraine. Btw, do you know Russia's only aircraft carrier was literally stolen from Ukraine?
>its own internet search engine
This one is actually true, but on the other hand Ukraine had wider success with Whatsapp.
WhatsApp was created by two American programmers, one of whom is Jewish and was born in the Ukraine. If you insists that WhatsApp is Ukrainian software, please count Google as Russian, because Sergei Brin is of Russian origin.
Korolev was born in the Ukrainian SSR and let me quote wiki [0]:
"His father, Pavel Yakovlevich Korolev, was born in Mogilev to a Russian soldier and a Belarusian mother. His mother, Maria Nikolaevna Koroleva (Moskalenko/Bulanina), was a daughter of a wealthy merchant from the city of Nezhin (now Nizhyn, Ukraine), with Ukrainian, Greek and Polish heritage."
There is something very indecent in talking about nationality or ethnicity of great people as if it really matters. Please stop it, okay?
The BBC journalists uttered neither 'Russian' nor 'Soviet', and arguing that a rocket made in Russia 25 years after the fall of the Soviet Union cannot be called 'Russian rocket' is just silly.
Given that Russia can’t even manufacture ordinary cars (or phones, or computers…), I’m not convinced about this “modern” replacement. They probably just figured how to replace custom technology with COTS stuff bought from the West. Especially given Russian fakes like the Sputnik vaccine (“clinical tests” were made up), or their hypersonics (which are just a plane-launched ballistic missiles), or drones.
