Yes, I'm sure it is not negligible, since it never is, even with the best-disciplined military. Adrenalin runs pretty high when people are trying their best to kill you and all your family, friends, and countrymen.
But we must also be sure to balance when a country such as Ukraine tries to uphold a moral standard as policy, and when they fail, prosecutes the offenders, vs a country like Russia which makes a standard practice of war crimes.
This notion of 'defending the homeland' is in many ways a modern concept.
Plebes did not view the local principality as 'theirs' - another prince coming to take over just means a 'choice between lords'.
Obviously, it's different if the Romans are coming into German tribal areas, but, 'state nationalism' as we undertstand it is a modern concept.
Invading people to 'spread an idea' was mostly an Islamic/Arabic thing, and then Napoloenic in modern era. Very rare in history.
And propaganda is usually pointless, it's obvious who is invading who - there is no 'media' to control the narrative within, obviously, the local folks in towns were instructed what to say but this is low-grade propaganda.
If Ukraine allowed men to leave their country, they'd have already collapsed. You have an army that's formed largely by trapping people in a country-sized cage and then dragging them in off the streets, in many cases - literally. There are some nationalists, but they make a negligible percent of all forces. It's a game of lords, as it nearly always is.
I'm not sure what the peak of state nationalism was, but I think we're well beyond it. There's not a country in this world that I'd die for, I don't feel even remotely bad about that, and I think this view is the norm. In the future all the borders and systems we know will be long since shuffled around. Why should I care about perpetuating any given state today? Give me a place where I can reasonably safely raise a family and earn a living, and I'm good to go. I couldn't care less if it's under El Presidente or Gandhian Democracy. I'd obviously prefer the latter, but not to the point that I'm willing to die to prevent the former.
I'd also add that I think we're probably beyond it on the order of centuries. Every war since (and including) the US Civil War has relied heavily on forced conscription. If the only way you can get people to fight for you is by force, then clearly there's no grand ideology anywhere but in the propaganda.
>>I'd obviously prefer the latter, but not to the point that I'm willing to die to prevent the former.
Well then you are just myopically stupid and willfully ignorant of history if you DGAF whether you live in a democracy where priorities are determined, at least attempted to be determined, by the people, vs by an autocrat.
And you obviously DGAF about your children, or the future of society.
Under Autocracy everything gets worse, down to the point where the people cannot tolerate the starvation and revolution is fomented.
Of course there is the occasional benevolent dictator, and those systems have the advantage of being able to do better long-range planning and mroe rapid changes of plans. But they are not stable and inevitably a malicious or greedy dictator or oligarchy takes over, and things start getting irretrievably worse, and the population starts dying of impoverishment.
Does it really matter if you die of impoverishment from the leader's stealing or war from the leaders' theft?
The only way forward for humanity is for democratic governments to ensure continued and improved democracy AND fight expansionist autocracies to contain and eventually eliminate or convert them.
If we fail to do that, it will be only years before life devolves into feudalism of a few lords and everyone else hopeless peasants. And no, you won't be one of the lords.
If you don't see that Western democracies are headed towards revolution, then I think you must be keeping your eyes closed. The system matters much less than the leadership. Macron is at 16% approval, watching Celine Dion concerns while France burns. I'm not fond of petty political jabs, but the imagery of such was just too perfect to not mention. Germany's Merz has managed an absolutely remarkable 10% approval rating. Like how do you even get 90% of people to think you're doing a bad job? It's remarkable in a way.
Then there's the UK - I'm not even sure of who their latest leader is. They go through PM's faster than some people change their underwear, and they all rather smell like shite. In democracy the whole ideal is that you can pick another direction with new leadership, but when it's always the same crap with a difference face - you're eventually going to see things go boom. In the US we tend to have popular leadership, relative to Europe, but the sides are becoming so antagonistic and divided that we're basically a powder keg waiting for some sufficiently tumultuous event to set it off.
In general I think Plato's views are highly insightful, and strongly recommend "The Republic." In his view, systems are inherently cyclical, and all will repeatedly end - often in a rather unpleasant way, and transition to another system, eventually cycling back where they began only to begin the process again. This class warfare nonsense is meaningless to me. I couldn't care less about being a lord or a peasant. I want to raise my family, have a roof over my head, and frankly I don't need all that much more to be relatively content. People who want will never stop wanting, no matter how much they have. I find it a very sad way to live, and hopefully can instill the same values in my children.
In general I'd agree, but I'd almost add #11 to the list from that book 'This time it's truly different.' This is always said, and I do genuinely believe in some instances there's a very strong argument for it to be true - like WW2. But in the overwhelming majority of wars, no it's not.
Again WW1 is such a great example of so many horrible things in the 'metagame' of the war itself. The propaganda there was framing it, genuinely, as 'The War to End All Wars.' It's easy to mock now, because not only did it end nothing, but led directly to the worst war in modern human history, but you have to keep in mind that the propaganda was making this literal claim, and you certainly had some significant chunk of people that believed that - perhaps some that even died for it. But alas, no 'this time was not different', as usual.
On the contrary, I think it's people that have never lived through much of anything that imagine outcomes that just aren't real at all. For instance China is literally a dictatorship, by the first line of their own constitution, a massive surveillance state, have widespread censorship, and at least pretend to be communist. Yet life there is, in general, quite good for most people.
And I've had the opportunity to live through far worse, yet life remained pretty decent throughout outside of times of violent conflict, which I've also gotten to live through. Such conflicts are probably unavoidable since it will always be the final way in which irreconcilable differences have one side impose its position, but should be terminated at the earliest reasonable point, and certainly kept as small scale as possible. But I think that once you get to experience the worst, you start to realize that all of the political stuff, though fun to debate about, is mostly just petty people politicking for power with perfidious propaganda.
This is not to say all systems are the same. They are not, and I do think some are better or worse than others. But they run far closer than most who have never experienced 'the other side' think. But I also do not think we should all just aim for the 'best' system, because all systems have their pros and cons, even more so when speaking of a given moment in time. And so having a diversity of different system is the best way to ensure we never end up as the worst of worlds in terms of outcomes, even if it also ensures that we'll never end up as the best of worlds.
What I find annoying is that I know how biased I am. And this list reaffirms everything I ever thought about this war, which is just more confirmation bias. Argh!
Just because a claim is used as propaganda, does not mean it can not be or is not true.
Start with "1. We don't want war, we are only defending ourselves!", and 2. Our adversary is solely responsible for this war!"
For this Russian invasion of Ukraine, both are 100% true.
Russia was a signer of The Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances in 1994 [0], in which it guaranteed to 1) Respect [Ukraine's] independence and sovereignty in the existing borders 2) Refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of [Ukraine] and undertake that none of their weapons will ever be used against these countries 3) Refrain from economic coercion of Ukraine, etc.
In the weeks and days leading up to the RUSSIAN INVASION of Ukraine, Putin himself as well as Lavrov and others repeatedly announced "these are just routine military training excerses and Russia has no intention to invade Ukraine".
Then Russia invaded Ukraine.
Ukraine did not invade Russia, or even provoke it in any way. What Russia claims as provocation is Ukraine making moves to join the EU, which Russia itself guaranteed as Ukraine's right in the Budapest memorandum.
And the situation now: If Russia stops attacking and withdraws from the Ukrainian lands it agreed to respect, the war ends instantly.
If Ukraine stops defending itself, Russia will invade the rest of Ukraine, and commit the same mass executions, rapes, tortures, and kidnappings it has already done in this war in Bucha, Mauripol, Kharkiv, and more. [1] Moreover, these atrocities are accelerating [2]. This is also consistent with Russian history such as the Holodomor [3] a massive man-made famine in Soviet Ukraine from 1932 to 1933 that killed millions of Ukrainians.
Russia has always invaded its neighbors, run a genocide, and then claimed "This was always Russia".
Moving on to 3: Ukraine is not making these claims
4: Ukraine does not claim this, beyond noting what the Baltic states also know inherently, if Ukraine falls, the front line moves to Europe, Russia will not stop, any more than it stopped at Ukraine's borders which it promised to respect in 2022, and Russia is already making kinetic attacks in the rest of the EU
5) We've already reviewed this above, Russia is deliberately targeting civilians EVERY DAY, and goes on "Human Safari" drone hunts against civilians in Ukraine, while Ukraine scrupulously targets military and dual-use targets. Russia's stated goal is to eliminate the very concept of Ukraine existing. Ukraine's stated goal is to retain it's territory and prevent Russian atrocities on it's soil.
6) Russia has repeatedly been documented, even with their own posted videos, using phosphorus and cluster bombs in civilian areas. Not so for Ukraine.
7) Documented by international organizations and even tracking only video evidence, this is true for Ukraine's fewer losses vs Russia's massive losses. This is also evidenced by Russia needing to bring in North Korean soldiers and recruiting by deception in Africa — Russia wouldn't need to take those humiliating steps if they weren't exhausting their own manpower supplies.
8, 9, 10), I do not see Ukraine making those claims, but Russia's Durgan "academic philosopher" constantly posts them
So NO, just posting a list of "these points are often used as propaganda" does not discredit the facts or make them propaganda.
But it does make more work for the people who must clean up the bullsh*t spewed by posters like you.
If you really feel so strongly about it, I suggest you move to Russia and see for yourself how great life under Putin is.
I don't even know where to begin with such a one-sided list, and I don't have time to track down citations, but just for (6), it is well-documented in Western media (though nearly buried at the time) that Ukraine fired butterfly mines into residential areas of Donetsk for at least several days--a clear war crime. I have seen video of this, but of course I recognize it could have been staged like much Russian propaganda. In this case, though, it was confirmed by multiple Western media outlets.
Sorry if I'm coming across as some kind of Russian apologist; I very much am not, and in fact during the early days of the war I donated several thousand dollars of my income to the Come Back Alive military charity. But the more I looked into what was going on on the ground (largely via Ukrainian and Russian Telegram channels) the more I realized I was being lied to by well-meaning Western media that were functioning as de facto propagandists. I think we all deserve to know the truth, and if you want to call that "both-sides-ism", so be it.
The fact remains, it was RUSSIA who INVADED Ukraine, and did so after emphatic public declarations it would not do so, and after signing treaties it would respect Ukraine's territory
It is RUSSIA and PUTIN in particular who has everything to gain from wiping out Ukraine — a successful and European Ukraine would be the source of revolution in his country, as Russians would see the contrast of a former Soviet state with relative wealth, success, and freedom.
Ukraine has respected every proposed cease fire until Russia violated it. Russia has violated every cease fire, often including this week literally violating it as it was being announced (the "Energy CF") oplitering power plants the same hour it was announced, while Ukraine held off all energy attacks for three days while it's power plants got pummeled.
Meanwhile, the ONLY thing Ukraine has to gain it it's own freedom. It would gain nothing from Russia's failure, beyond it's own stated goal of stopping the war.
Russia could unilaterally stop the war this minute. If Ukraine stops fighting, Russia has repeatedly proven it will overrun and obliterate Ukraine.
You have zero ability to cite how Ukraine started the war, or how it could stop the war without surrendering. If you really were initially for Ukraine, it is sad to see you now both-sides-ing it and falling for Russian propaganda.
If you can show a way for Ukraine to stop fighting without surrendering or being overrun, you will surely be up for the Nobel Peace Prize. However, we both know how Russia could stop the war this minute.
I don't believe there's a realistic solution to ending the war that doesn't essentially freeze the conflict along the line of contact like Korea. I don't think Putin wants all of Ukraine except as a pliable client state, but I do think that in the long run, in addition to the Donbas (which he already mostly occupies), he wants the entire Black Sea coast (as well as inland "Russian cities" like Mykolaiv, Dnipro, Zaporizhzhia, Kharkiv), and to turn Ukraine into an economically unviable landlocked rump state. That means that once a peace deal is signed, Ukraine will need to be permanently armed to the teeth, much like South Korea. That would ensure they can defend themselves without NATO membership. If Putin doesn't like that outcome, well he shouldn't have invaded in the first place.
There now, do I still sound like a Russia apologist?
Just to add to the sibling comment, Zelenskyy just publicly (again) stated on Fox news [0] he would accept exactly the deal you proposed — freezing the conflict on the current lines, and doing so in a way that prevents it from returning, i.e., your "Ukraine armed to the teeth", security guarantees, and sovereignty.
This is a manifestly unfair deal, rewarding Russia for open aggression in violation of every international law and its past agreements. Yet Ukraine is willing to do it (the President says so with confidence he will be backed by the other governmental bodies needed for approval and implementation).
Putin has already rejected those kinds of deals, and I have no doubt he will also reject this.
That is because the 100% cause of the war is Putin, his immediate desire to eliminate Ukraine as an independent and successful state, and his longer-term goal to reconstitute the Russian empire.
The sooner you recognize this reality, the sooner it will make sense to you.
Put yourself in the shoes of Russia for a moment. You're in a favorable position in a war and you're being offered a "deal" that is 'hey let's stop the war so i can rearm and reman. you can hold onto your claimed land for now, but only dejure - we'll have ourselves a little chat about who really owns it, later.' Why would 'you' even think of accepting this "deal"?
Imagine the roles were reversed, and somehow Ukraine managed to fully push back Russia, claimed a significant amount of land on the Russian border and was continuing to make very slow but steady advances all the while Russian forces seemed on the verge of collapsing due to manpower issues. And oh yeah Ukraine had up to something like 20 million more soldiers they could also mobilize into the war if necessary. Would you expect Ukraine to accept a ceasefire with no concessions besides Ukraine being 'allowed' to continue holding the land they already held, and only dejure at that, with Russia making completely clear its intent to rearm and reman?
This is not at all a effort genuinely intended to end the war. When you're at a disadvantage in war, ending it is going to require concessions that can be difficult to accept. The reason you make these concessions is because they'll be even more painful as your position further deteriorates.
Thank you for basically acknowledging Putin has zero interest in any peace other than Ukraine's full surrender.
Putin in the immediate term is trying to achieve by talking what he cannot achieve on the battlefield. And NO, Putin does NOT have millions more soldiers available. Russian daily KIAs are accelerating and he's already making deals for more NK troops.
The aggressive moves in Europe, ramping up every kind of hybrid warfare, active measures, and dezinformatsiya pressure they can muster shows the Ukrainians are winning with the deep strikes. Russia can not defend its many soft targets, is already in massive deficit and depleting it's sovereign funds, and will lose much more as Ukraine's new Flamingo missiles come online.
Requires concessions. Right. UKR already TODAY offered to give up 20% of their territory and condemn those Ukrainian residents to the torture and death offered by the Russians. You do not think that is a concession?
What concessions are the Russians making at the 'peace' tables? NONE. The Russians stick to their maximalist demands of taking ALL of the "annexed" oblasts they can not even take with the full might of their (declining) military, AND demand Ukraine basically disarm and become a vassal state.
Where are the Russian concessions? They do not exist.
This alone shows who is the aggressor and who is the defending victim.
I notice you refused to answer the question I asked. I won't pick on you beyond that observation. Though one fact I would hit on - yes, Russia does have many millions of more soldiers available. Russia has not even declared a general mobilization. Ukrainian estimates put their potential there at 20 million soldiers, 5 million already with military training. [1] That's a very conservative estimate, given that Russia has 143 million people and compulsory military training, but even if we roll with that estimate, it justifies my claim.
This is why Ukrainian propaganda always insists that Russia is on the verge of a general mobilization. This is a war that's not going well for Ukraine fighting with nearly all their forces, while fighting against an enemy fighting with a very small fraction of their potential forces. This is also why Ukraine is targeting oil. It has little chance of shifting the status of the war, at least not in the foreseeable future, and is damaging Ukraine's relation with the US. It's being done simply in an effort to try to change the nature of the conflict, regardless of the cost or efficacy. These types of actions are a frequent visitor in the latter stages of conflicts.
The question you asked (Positing UKR taking parts of RU, etc.) *inherently presumes* the counterfactual of Ukraine being an aggressive, expansionist dictatorship. Ukraine is zero of those things, and the question is irrelevant. But IF the actual UKR had taken significant RU territory, and was offered a peace deal allowing them their full sovereignty and territorial integrity, they would immediately take the deal.
Your mobilization numbers are fantasy, and Putin has held off declaring mobilization not because he thinks he does not need to but because it would require drafting people from the middle classes near Moscow instead of the rural impoverished territories that can be ignored politically. A full mobilization could end him. If he had enough people, he would not be getting soldiers from North Korea and deceiving Africans to put into their meat grinder
Yes, Ukraine has a manpower problems also. They are solving it through innovation. And it is working. Just look at the verified death counts from both sides
You really are a persistent apologist for Putin, not some kind of middle ground arbitor you hold yourself out as.
Shall I simply quote the propaganda patterns? "10. Whoever casts doubt on our propaganda helps the enemy and is a traitor." It's silly. And I think you're obviously not answering in good faith. Militaries who have the advantage in a conflict do not accept peace without significant concession. There's even a precedent for my hypothetical in this war. Early on in the conflict Ukraine was doing quite well, and it was Russia looking for a ceasefire, overtly to rearm and reman.
And at that time it was Ukraine rejecting any calls for a ceasefire without major concessions from Russia. They wanted the immediate and unconditional return of all land as a precondition to even beginning to negotiate, where they would have sought further concessions like reparations to agree to peace. And beyond that they were making statements, in public - let alone private, such as "[Russia] must be defeated, be subjected to a painful defeat, as painful as possible." [1] These are not the words or actions of a country that'd just agree to peace, without major concessions, if they were trending towards a potential absolute victory. But of course no country would. It's the nature of war. The side with an edge will expect significant concessions to end a conflict.
And, obviously a general mobilization would cause major backlash within Russia, but they'd almost certainly be just fine. They're not mobilizing because they don't need to. There's also no such thing as a "verified death count." Again going back to our propaganda list: "7. We suffer few losses, the enemy's losses are considerable." On top of both sides actively lying, they also likely don't even really know themselves, especially Ukraine. The overwhelming majority of their military is made up of forcibly conscripted people, many of whom would flee at the first opportunity. They certainly know the dogtagged KIA, but likely simply have no idea exactly how many of the missing are fertilizer, and how many managed to make their way to freedom. They also have a motivation to not know, to defer the KIA compensation payments.
> Ukrainian estimates put their potential there at 20 million soldiers
That is the theoretical maximum potential if you conscript absolutely everyone, every single male, in eg 20-45 age range: https://www.populationpyramid.net/russian-federation/2026/ By that measure, Ukraine has millions of soldiers available, too.
That is pratical only in the event of total societal breakdown like Nazi Germany in its final months when there was no economy left and institutions like schools, hospitals, factories and utilities had ceased to work. Everything was thrown to the front while the people in cities were malnourished, had no power nor running water, and died of minor diseases due to lack of medical supplies.
Putin is too afraid to even announce a regular mobilization and resorts to dirty tactics coercion of poor rural ethnic minorities to fill the ranks, because the backlash that would follow a general mobilization would be a major threat to Putin's grip on power. Look up the effect of soldiers' mothers movement during the Chechen wars, or how the forced conscription into the Soviet-Afghan war (620k people over a decade) contributed to the disintegration of the USSR. Educated middle-class people accustomed to European lifestyle won't go to the front to get slaughtered like IQ 80 villagers who are up to their necks in payday loans; they will resist and cause major disruption among the productive urban population that keeps the country running.
These millions of soldiers exist only on paper. The actual situation on the ground is pretty dire. Ukraine hit another all-time record yesterday, killing or disabling 2250 Russians in a single day. The entire month of October is trending to hit a record too, 50k casualties in a single month. Russian recruitment target is 34k per month.
The residents of the city of Oleshky in the Donbas, who have been literally starving to death under the Russian siege for months would like a word. The Pope managed to arrange a cease-fire long enough to provide food and evacuation, see how long it goes.
You ignore how much prevents Ukrainians from migrating or evacuating temporarily Russian-occupied territories. There is a river with many bridges out, the roads are mined, and the Russians run human safaris hunting civilians. But sure, everyone could have gotten out.
You are also just spewing the standard Russian concern-trolling line about "Russian speakers in Ukraine".
You may be fooling yourself about being some kind of "unbiased" observer, but you aren't fooling anyone else.
And in the latest news: Residents of occupied Oleshky who wish to escape to free Ukraine will not be allowed to cross the Dnipro River – which is less than 4 km away. They will be taken to occupied Crimea or to the Russian Federation, where they will be subjected to coercive measures.
NO, the sides are not even close to the same. Stop stanning for Russia
Except that Ukraine's position is not deteriorating, but it's significantly better than a year or two ago due to strike drones that became operational in March/April 2026, and expected to improve further when FP-7 and FP-9 ballistic missiles become operational in large numbers in late 2026/early 2027.
You are using some very poor sources if they have given you the idea that Russia has 20 million soldiers to mobilize. Russia is facing a severe shortage of manpower too, made worse by the fact that they rely on constant costly attacks by small groups of infantry that have very short lifespans, whereas Ukraine is increasingly automating the war and relying on unmanned weapons more and more. For example, Ukraine reached parity in drone strikes in early 2026 and is now carrying out more drone strikes than Russia. It's increasingly rare for Russian soldiers to meet any Ukrainians before they die; about 80% Russians die by drones as drones have become significantly more lethal. In 2024, drones killed about 1/3 of soldiers on impact. Now they kill about 2/3 of them.
Also, the "slow but steady advances" are a complete Pyrrhic victory if you look at the numbers. Russia has gained less than 1000 sq km this year at a cost of at least 100 000 lives. Ukraine is over 600 000 sq km in size. The daily number of casualties hit a new record a few days ago, exceeding 2000, about half of which are deaths. Russia has no hope reaching the territorial control it had 30 days into the war, let alone anything beyond that. It is by all objective measures one of the worst military disasters in the entire Russian history.
> That means that once a peace deal is signed, Ukraine will need to be permanently armed to the teeth, much like South Korea. That would ensure they can defend themselves without NATO membership. If Putin doesn't like that outcome, well he shouldn't have invaded in the first place.
Russia demands heavy restrictions on the size of the Armed Forced of Ukraine, essentially turning it into a small, lightly armed, and easily defeatable infantry force, with a veto on any foreign military assistance to Ukraine if Russia were to attack them again. The goal of this is cartoonishly obvious, and makes a peace deal unrealistic, too.
No, you just sound like someone who has become confused by all the noise (primarily generated by Russia and its apologists).
We agree: Putin does not like any reasonable outcome and shouldn't have invaded in the first place.
You have just described a deal that Zelenskyy has indicated he would accept and Putin has already repeatedly rejected — freeze the existing lines of conflict, and allow Ukraine to remain sovereign and fully arm itself.
Putin has repeatedly flat-out refused to allow Ukraine to have anything but a crippled military.
The obvious intent is to leave Ukraine so weak it can easily invaded again, so it will either bow to every Moscow demand or will simply be fully invaded and destroyed at a time of Russia's convenience.
Why?
Because Putin can NOT tolerate any condition under which Ukraine is free to be successful or independent, and especially to join NATO (which has proven for 3/4 of a century to be purely defensive).
Moreover, Putin is now stuck, as he has broken the tacit deal with the people that he can lead with corruption and adventurism as long as the people aren't obviously burdened and standards improve. Now, he's killed a half million men, the remainder are broken monsters he can't return to society without breaking it, and he can't just declare victory and end it and still keep his position (or likely his life).
Beyond those local goals, Putin has himself said his goal is to recreate the Russian Empire, beyond just the USSR territories. It is behind all his hours of lecturing on (twisted versions of) history. He will not merely stop at Donbas.
Putin also always follows Lenin's rule: "We probe with bayonets, where we find mush, we press on, where we find steel, we withdraw.".
The only actual solution is to push back so that Russian cannot economically or militarily continue, then arm Ukraine to the teeth (whatever border they end up with).
Autocrats like Putin do not stop unless they are forced to stop.
Turkey figured it out in 2015; a pair of Russian fighters violated Turkish airspace for less then two minutes; Turkey shot them down. Problem solved, hasn't happened since.
The problem is all the EU politicians are afraid of Russia breaking up, as if it will be somehow worse than Russia reasserting imperialism. EU only enforcing a no fly zone over UKR, applying the frozen RU assets to UKR rebuilding, and hard-sanctioning RU oil and isolating RU politically would do it. But they are all too politically chicken and want to kick the can down the road. Meanwhile Russia is already waging hybrid war to break up the EU.
Globally, and historically, the fight is always rule by the people or rule by the few.
If the rest of us fail to fight, everything WILL be taken from us by the few, the despots and the oligarchs. It may not be immediate and total, but it will be inevitable. Unless we fight at every step.
Dude, the guys in the Tornado Battalion, who were convicted of absolutely horrifying sexual violence and other atrocities during the 2014 war, were pardoned and released from prison shortly after the war started. What kind of signal was that supposed to send?
Not great, but are you equating the turmoil right after Yanukovych was deposed, Crimea was invaded and occupied by Russia, and there were serial interim governments with a the more stable govt that came after?
Again, is this a horrible exception, or is it the standard way they operate. For UKR it is the exception, for Russia, it is the way they operate, right up to human safari FPV drone hunting and killing of civilians posted on social media by the perpetrators.
Well since you enjoy whataboutism so much, russia sent all mass murderers it had in prisons that actually volunteered right into the battles (given their sentences vs 6 months of service its not illogical choice from certain perspective). And many of those (given, often just murderers, not mass murderers) that survived walked free after required service period. This reportedly included some cannibals.
Then one reads stories from russian newspapers how those folks continue their murdering hobby after coming back. Or how some are sent to primary schools to talk with small kids about the glory of war.
Making Ukraine seen on same moral level overall as russia is a classic russian propaganda trick and very far from truth for those who follow whats happening on the ground and higher up.
But we must also be sure to balance when a country such as Ukraine tries to uphold a moral standard as policy, and when they fail, prosecutes the offenders, vs a country like Russia which makes a standard practice of war crimes.