Greetings from Russia! Allow me to make corrections from the field.
Russian society does not look patriotic at all right now. Yes, there are no open protests -- because those who protest or even speak out against the government have been actively persecuted for 15 years at least. But there is no active support for the war either, as the few Russian pro-war enthusiasts constantly complain about.
Recently a Russian propaganda movie "Witness" was released about the preconditions of this war. The occupancy of the halls is practically zero, movie distributors put it on the most inconvenient sessions, because no one goes to see it. A total box office failure.
Thank you very much for your report from the ground. It is very much appreciated.
My understanding of the average Russian opinion is that it is something along the lines of: "We did not want this war, but now that we are in it we have to win it." But it might be that deep down Russians are more peaceful than that.
Thank you for the film tip. I will try to get hold on it. I need some counter-propaganda after watching the Ukrainian film Sniper - White Raven.
"I see it in the comments - not here, on my more mainstream pages. In the first weeks, readers who disagreed with my position (I must say, there were always not so many of them) wrote me something about the Nazis, NATO and the children of Donbass. About "they are bombing themselves" and "it's okay, we will soon liberate." Then there was a period of "we do not know everything, not everything is so simple." In recent months, the main leitmotif: "don't talk about it, why are you bringing these topics up?"
<...>
The Russians had no, no reason at all to consider this war righteous, their own, necessary, and everyone feels it. Even those who make some small profit on it.
Support, as it was, melts away, everything turned out to be difficult, long and ugly. And the question "What for?" already hanging in the air like a drone."
Thank you for giving me a snapshot of Russian society I would otherwise have missed.
But, tell me, is is risk-free to write this kind of anti-war rhetoric on Facebook? I noticed that Ludmila Petranovskaya also has a well-used page on VKontakte, which was clinically free from war-related topics. I also know that Facebook is blocked in Russia. But does this mean that you can write more or less what you want on Facebook?
I'm not sure that Lyudmila Petranovskaya is currently in Russia. At least this spring, she gave lectures to anti-war émigrés in one of the post-Soviet countries. As you probably know, after the war there was a massive wave of emigration from Russia, not seen since the days of the USSR. And then another one, when the mobilization took place.
But anyway, it's a good question!
I know that even before the war, the number of criminal cases for posts on Vkontakte and other social networks varied significantly. Facebook, Instagram and Twitter were much safer places to speak up. After they were blocked, they became even safer. I have heard of at least one case where the Russian police rejected a denunciation of an anti-government posting on Facebook on the grounds that Facebook was blocked and therefore it was impossible to post anything there.
If Russians can speak more or less freely on Western internet platforms they can in a sense live a Western life even though they physically remain in Russia. Sort of a detachment of intellectual life from material fundamentals.
This is of course very good for the individual Russians who create some breathing space for themselves. But I wonder what it does to society at large, especially long-term, if a not insignificant part of the population simply is not there, intellectually speaking.
But the one who is in prison is absent from the intellectual space in a more serious sense, and this is exactly what threatens anti-war Russians at the moment.
In fact, even the pro-war Russians, who do not support the war in the way the government would like, are threatened. A few months ago, Igor Strelkov, the man who literally started the war in Donbas in 2014, was arrested. His criticism of the government and the president turned out to be unacceptable. Interestingly, he was an enemy of Yevgeny Prigozhin, called to judge him even before the coup, they mutually insulted each other in social networks, Prigozhin threatened him. However, this did not help him in any way.
Thank you for your very impressive "amateur" report. My interest in politics and military conflicts isn't much but I was thoroughly engaged reading this. I hope you follow it up with more installments.
What a timely post! I was just wondering about the war. And your analysis - though it might of course have made some key mistake - is convincing. I recall reading years ago that Hitler would have rather not have rushed into war, but was terrified of losing support back home.
More interesting is the way militarism is itself a cultural difference. Many countries seldom involve themselves in military matters, while others are always fighting. I like a moderately peaceful stance - willing and able to fight, but regarding war as a situation of last resort, and actively pursuing other options.
> "Russians attacked Kiev using two trusts, one smaller from Belarus that moved on the western side of the river Dnieper, and one larger trust covering a greater distance from Russian territory to arrive at the Ukrainian capital from the east."
trust --> thrust
Your ancestors should really never have abandoned the voiceless dental fricative; it's a cool sound.
Old Norse had its own letter, ᚦ, for the voiceless dental fricative. But the letter disappeared with Latinization and the sound must have disappeared sometime after that. The ᚦ became a T and pronunciation followed. That is why thing is ting in modern Scandinavian.
Yep. It lasted longer in English as thorn, þ, because we could tell how cool it sounded.
Also you might take notice of Clarence Wilhelm Spangle, whom I've just banned at Things to Read for being spammy. I guess you should be flattered that he likes your blog, too!
Swedish has enough "cool" sounds as it is. For example the voiceless palatal-velar fricative (yes, I had to look that one up), usually known as the sj-sound (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sj-sound) which is a misnomer since the sound can be spelled sj, sk, stj, skj without much regularity.
I am very flattered by being discovered by a real fairy tale beast. Although I am a bit concerned over his lack of coherence I would not want to ban anyone for a one-time infringement. But if he persists I guess I will have to look for suitable tools to handle the situation.
The palatal and/or velar fricatives are very important for a well-rounded language! English has that phoneme in some dialects (read: the way I've always spoken English since childhood) in a few words, like "huge" or "kill." Something like "sjuge," and "ksjill" I suppose.
I've heard some speakers who don't use it, but they have to enunciate the initial h and k very carefully to avoid the fricative sound in those two words. Speaking this way is a terrible mistake - whenever a person has even some excuse, they should really not pass up the opportunity to make the sj sound, any more than they should pass up on the opportunity to make the th sound, or pass up on the opportunity to have a slice of apple pie.
Nato – en antivit och familjefientlig institution . . .
Efter apokalypsen 1945 har som bekant en rad globala organisationer bildats med syfte att upprätthålla och expandera den totalitära liberalismen. En av de tidigaste organisationer som bildades i detta syfte var krigsalliansen ”Nordatlantiska fördragsorganisationen”, eller Nato, som kan ses som globalismens militära gren.
Förutom att försäkra att Washington alltid har internationellt stöd för sina militära kampanjer är Nato som institution uttalat antivit och uttryckligen dedikerad till ”raslig rättvisa” för rasfrämlingar som bor i vita länder. Redan 1999 författade Nato rapporter där man skyller en rad moderna problem på nationalister och varnar för nationalismens inflytande.
Under 2023 höll krigsalliansen ett toppmöte på högkvarteret i Bryssel om ras där krigsalliansens ledare bedyrade att bekämpa ”homogena attityder” och att man skulle använda Natos ”kollektiva underrättelseinformation” för ändamålet.
Faktum är att Nato är så dedikerat till sin antivita agenda att man öppet förespråkar att institutioner måste omformas för att bli ”inkluderande”, med andra ord omstruktureras för att bli mer antivita och bestå av färre vita anställda och chefer.
Thank you for your reply. Although I must admit I do not fully understand your reasoning.
You say that the president of Ukraine is an Israeli operative. I do not know if you mean he is Jewish or something else. What more, I do not know what importance that detail has for the larger picture. Throughout this conflict Israel has been one of the most scrupulously neutral countries in the world. Being neutral, it should not make any difference if any of the protagnonists is on Israel's side. Your argument therefore makes no sense and if you want to be taken seriously you will have to explain your reasoning in more detail.
You seem to be a slave under your feelings. And that, unfortunately, means that no reasonable person can ever have a discussion with you. I hope you find a place for yourself where your feeling are appreciated. Here they are not.
Great summary and analysis of the conflict so far! Not bad for an amateur 😉.
What do you make of the Realist's (like Mearsheimer) analysis of the causes of the conflict; chiefly that it's the Wests fault and The US and NATO in particular?
Personally I find your assessment more plausible. It's not uncommon for authoritarian regimes to create conflicts abroad in order to steer the populace away from it's internal failings and problems.
Not being American, my impression is that the 'Realist's' are a school with a deep seated belief in USA imperialism and view everything that happens in this world through such a filter, and includes both those who are for and against such imperialism. Hence the curious combination of rightists and leftist in USA who both believe the USA instigated Russia's war against Ukraine. Personally, I think they are fools.
YOU'RE A KIKESUCKING ZIONIST ASS-WHORE . . . FIGHT YOUR OWN WARS . . .
NATO = NORTH ATLANTIC TRANSGENDER ORGANIZATION
After the apocalypse of 1945, a number of global organizations have been formed with the aim of maintaining and expanding totalitarian liberalism. One of the earliest organizations formed for this purpose was the war alliance "North Atlantic Treaty Organization", or NATO, which can be seen as the military wing of globalism.
In addition to ensuring that Washington always has international support for its military campaigns, NATO as an institution is explicitly anti-white and explicitly dedicated to "racial justice" for racial aliens living in white countries. As early as 1999, NATO authored reports blaming nationalists for a number of modern problems and warning against the influence of nationalism.
In 2023, the war alliance held a summit at its headquarters in Brussels on race where the alliance's leaders pledged to fight "homogeneous attitudes" and to use NATO's "collective intelligence" for the purpose.
In fact, NATO is so dedicated to its anti-white agenda that it openly advocates that institutions must be reshaped to be "inclusive," in other words, restructured to be more anti-white, and consist of fewer white employees and executives.
I think the foreign policy realists, like Mearsheimer, have the same fundamental problem as Russia: They do not understand soft power.
When reading Russian media and Russian bloggers it is more or less clear that they do not have a very good understanding of the concept of soft power, or even of the related concept of free will. When Russian commentators see a neighboring state turning away from Russia (like Ukraine previously or the likes of Armenia right now) they do not ask themselves what is wrong with us? Why do other nations not want to be friends with us? Instead they make up elaborate and sometimes conspiratorial theories of how dirty tricks from other powerful states cheated Russia of its rightful position. This unwillingness to see soft values at play forces them to see the world in terms of hard confrontations. And hard confrontations sooner or later lead to physical confrontations, in other words, war.
Well done! From a much worse amateur. Thanks for the OSCE graphic, I had tried to read their reports but those are not written for the uninitiated. - I agree with all, just not that sure about the Russians really into gathering around the flag right now - though it may look like that on telegram. ;/ See pic: https://twitter.com/Biz_Ukraine_Mag/status/1506311026400272396 To add: The Ukranians becoming much more suspicious of Kremlin's ORT happened 2014 - In Yanukovich territory votes went mostly to Selensky in 2019. Wikipedia is correct in having the war starting in 2014 not 2022. - Also: In 2017, the EU opened its borders to visa-free travel for Ukrainians (and Poland was open with work-visas before). Which turned "the west" into a real alternative (my step-son went from Melitopol to Russia to earn more. He returned when wizz-air was about to offer EU-flights from Zaporozhye. To end up in the occupied area. Hopefully keeping his head low.)
One thing I can not completely get my head around is Russia's thinking of Zelensky. As you say Zelensky swept the Russian-speaking areas of east and southern Ukraine, he was very much the Russian candidate in the last presidential election. But he also campaigned on the theme of cooperation and unity, which made him sort of a mediation candidate.
I do not exclude the possibility that Zelensky himself was the reason for the invasion. The Russians probably liked Poroshenko, his predecessor, much better. Poroshenko was a west Ukrainian chauvinist who could be counted on to keep the conflict going. With Zelensky at the helm it was much more uncertain and a worst-case scenario probably involved some sort of sudden peace agreement between Ukraine and the Donbas republics.
You actually know someone personally in occupied Ukraine? That is so cool, although cool is clearly an inappropriate word to use under the circumstances. I wish your step-son all the best, something that he, unfortunately, might need, Melitopol is already within Himars range from the Ukrainian lines.
Hard to get into Putin's head. As for Zelensky, he was doing lots of political comedy highly critical of Russia, esp. its theft of Crimea, gas-blackmail each winter and the Russian view of "silly Ukrainians with their useless 'democracy' ". And all else. Very funny, actually. His role in "servant of the people" was also not exactly "friendly" to Putin's Russia. - That said, in 2019 he was not playing the revanchist or nationalist card, but "let us try to life in peace with our Russian ... brati ... (as there is no choice, really)". As there was no choice.
Obviously, all cynics assumed he would be a puppet for the oligarch who gave him the role "servant of the people". Maybe he was. This did however not lead to him to cozy up to Putin - and as you showed: Putin might not have seen any need for this. Maybe Zelensky was really just too peaceful and friendly? (Though Poroshenko was not really a warmonger either, exporting his chocolate to Russia.) Anyways, not a puppet and not going to abandon the EU/NATO-course the country took after 2014. And as a person, many things Putin is not (both are kinda short, though. 167 cm). - I'd say, the 2022 invasion would have happened with or without Zelensky. As would the defence of Ukraine. But good he was there and is still around. His speeches in Ukrainian are on par with Churchill's, and my Ukrainian friends are amazed how well he speaks the language now. Hope he will be alive in the year I'll sit in the train to liberated Melitopol. And hope many of the people there will be. This war. So sad. I am proud of the Ukrainian people - but I can not make myself say "Slava Ukraina" or "Ukraine wins" with all those lifes lost. That said: Of course, I do donate for weapons. Losung: Budmo! PTN PNX.
YOU'RE A KIKESUCKING ZIONIST ASS-WHORE . . . FIGHT YOUR OWN WARS . . .
PROTOCOLS OF THE MEETINGS OF THE LEARNED ELDERS OF ZION . . . Protocol No. 7 – World-Wide Wars
❝We must be in a position to respond to every act of opposition by war with the neighbors of that country which dares to oppose us: but if these neighbors should also venture to stand collectively together against us, then we must offer resistance by a universal war.❞
Greetings from Russia! Allow me to make corrections from the field.
Russian society does not look patriotic at all right now. Yes, there are no open protests -- because those who protest or even speak out against the government have been actively persecuted for 15 years at least. But there is no active support for the war either, as the few Russian pro-war enthusiasts constantly complain about.
Recently a Russian propaganda movie "Witness" was released about the preconditions of this war. The occupancy of the halls is practically zero, movie distributors put it on the most inconvenient sessions, because no one goes to see it. A total box office failure.
Fight your own wars, you filthy lying kike . . . FUCK YOU AND YOUR JEWISH GOD . . .
Zelensky, Biden, Satanism, War, Greed, Theft, Propaganda, Domestic Spying, International Intrigue, Treason, Sedition, FTX, Ukraine, Israe . . .
https://cwspangle.substack.com/p/zelensky-biden-satanism-war-greed
Thank you very much for your report from the ground. It is very much appreciated.
My understanding of the average Russian opinion is that it is something along the lines of: "We did not want this war, but now that we are in it we have to win it." But it might be that deep down Russians are more peaceful than that.
Thank you for the film tip. I will try to get hold on it. I need some counter-propaganda after watching the Ukrainian film Sniper - White Raven.
Here is a post by Lyudmila Petranovskaya, a Russian anti-war psychologist and educator, on the same topic:
https://www.facebook.com/lv.petranovskaya/posts/pfbid02yzZjJ7hF5UUcikZuJwUf4ASXRxSCNuW3xvbbgbBSkmkmWBFt3wNs679qTPrfErcNl
"I see it in the comments - not here, on my more mainstream pages. In the first weeks, readers who disagreed with my position (I must say, there were always not so many of them) wrote me something about the Nazis, NATO and the children of Donbass. About "they are bombing themselves" and "it's okay, we will soon liberate." Then there was a period of "we do not know everything, not everything is so simple." In recent months, the main leitmotif: "don't talk about it, why are you bringing these topics up?"
<...>
The Russians had no, no reason at all to consider this war righteous, their own, necessary, and everyone feels it. Even those who make some small profit on it.
Support, as it was, melts away, everything turned out to be difficult, long and ugly. And the question "What for?" already hanging in the air like a drone."
Thank you for giving me a snapshot of Russian society I would otherwise have missed.
But, tell me, is is risk-free to write this kind of anti-war rhetoric on Facebook? I noticed that Ludmila Petranovskaya also has a well-used page on VKontakte, which was clinically free from war-related topics. I also know that Facebook is blocked in Russia. But does this mean that you can write more or less what you want on Facebook?
I'm not sure that Lyudmila Petranovskaya is currently in Russia. At least this spring, she gave lectures to anti-war émigrés in one of the post-Soviet countries. As you probably know, after the war there was a massive wave of emigration from Russia, not seen since the days of the USSR. And then another one, when the mobilization took place.
But anyway, it's a good question!
I know that even before the war, the number of criminal cases for posts on Vkontakte and other social networks varied significantly. Facebook, Instagram and Twitter were much safer places to speak up. After they were blocked, they became even safer. I have heard of at least one case where the Russian police rejected a denunciation of an anti-government posting on Facebook on the grounds that Facebook was blocked and therefore it was impossible to post anything there.
This is all very interesting on several levels.
If Russians can speak more or less freely on Western internet platforms they can in a sense live a Western life even though they physically remain in Russia. Sort of a detachment of intellectual life from material fundamentals.
This is of course very good for the individual Russians who create some breathing space for themselves. But I wonder what it does to society at large, especially long-term, if a not insignificant part of the population simply is not there, intellectually speaking.
But the one who is in prison is absent from the intellectual space in a more serious sense, and this is exactly what threatens anti-war Russians at the moment.
In fact, even the pro-war Russians, who do not support the war in the way the government would like, are threatened. A few months ago, Igor Strelkov, the man who literally started the war in Donbas in 2014, was arrested. His criticism of the government and the president turned out to be unacceptable. Interestingly, he was an enemy of Yevgeny Prigozhin, called to judge him even before the coup, they mutually insulted each other in social networks, Prigozhin threatened him. However, this did not help him in any way.
Thank you for your very impressive "amateur" report. My interest in politics and military conflicts isn't much but I was thoroughly engaged reading this. I hope you follow it up with more installments.
What a timely post! I was just wondering about the war. And your analysis - though it might of course have made some key mistake - is convincing. I recall reading years ago that Hitler would have rather not have rushed into war, but was terrified of losing support back home.
More interesting is the way militarism is itself a cultural difference. Many countries seldom involve themselves in military matters, while others are always fighting. I like a moderately peaceful stance - willing and able to fight, but regarding war as a situation of last resort, and actively pursuing other options.
> "Russians attacked Kiev using two trusts, one smaller from Belarus that moved on the western side of the river Dnieper, and one larger trust covering a greater distance from Russian territory to arrive at the Ukrainian capital from the east."
trust --> thrust
Your ancestors should really never have abandoned the voiceless dental fricative; it's a cool sound.
Old Norse had its own letter, ᚦ, for the voiceless dental fricative. But the letter disappeared with Latinization and the sound must have disappeared sometime after that. The ᚦ became a T and pronunciation followed. That is why thing is ting in modern Scandinavian.
So yesterday I found this on substack without looking for it - just clicked Explore:
https://substack.com/browse/recommendations/post/136973529
Evidently thorn lasted so long in English it's still in use!
Yep. It lasted longer in English as thorn, þ, because we could tell how cool it sounded.
Also you might take notice of Clarence Wilhelm Spangle, whom I've just banned at Things to Read for being spammy. I guess you should be flattered that he likes your blog, too!
Swedish has enough "cool" sounds as it is. For example the voiceless palatal-velar fricative (yes, I had to look that one up), usually known as the sj-sound (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sj-sound) which is a misnomer since the sound can be spelled sj, sk, stj, skj without much regularity.
I am very flattered by being discovered by a real fairy tale beast. Although I am a bit concerned over his lack of coherence I would not want to ban anyone for a one-time infringement. But if he persists I guess I will have to look for suitable tools to handle the situation.
The palatal and/or velar fricatives are very important for a well-rounded language! English has that phoneme in some dialects (read: the way I've always spoken English since childhood) in a few words, like "huge" or "kill." Something like "sjuge," and "ksjill" I suppose.
I've heard some speakers who don't use it, but they have to enunciate the initial h and k very carefully to avoid the fricative sound in those two words. Speaking this way is a terrible mistake - whenever a person has even some excuse, they should really not pass up the opportunity to make the sj sound, any more than they should pass up on the opportunity to make the th sound, or pass up on the opportunity to have a slice of apple pie.
Nato – en antivit och familjefientlig institution . . .
Efter apokalypsen 1945 har som bekant en rad globala organisationer bildats med syfte att upprätthålla och expandera den totalitära liberalismen. En av de tidigaste organisationer som bildades i detta syfte var krigsalliansen ”Nordatlantiska fördragsorganisationen”, eller Nato, som kan ses som globalismens militära gren.
Förutom att försäkra att Washington alltid har internationellt stöd för sina militära kampanjer är Nato som institution uttalat antivit och uttryckligen dedikerad till ”raslig rättvisa” för rasfrämlingar som bor i vita länder. Redan 1999 författade Nato rapporter där man skyller en rad moderna problem på nationalister och varnar för nationalismens inflytande.
Under 2023 höll krigsalliansen ett toppmöte på högkvarteret i Bryssel om ras där krigsalliansens ledare bedyrade att bekämpa ”homogena attityder” och att man skulle använda Natos ”kollektiva underrättelseinformation” för ändamålet.
Faktum är att Nato är så dedikerat till sin antivita agenda att man öppet förespråkar att institutioner måste omformas för att bli ”inkluderande”, med andra ord omstruktureras för att bli mer antivita och bestå av färre vita anställda och chefer.
https://nordfront.se/nato-en-antivit-och-familjefientlig-institution
Volodymyr Zelensky is an Israeli operative, the Ukrainian parliament is full of Jewish apparatchiks.
Ukraine’s Azov Regiment Visits Israel: ‘Mariupol is our Masada’ . . .
https://nationalvanguard.org/2022/12/ukraines-azov-regiment-visits-israel-mariupol-is-our-masada/
Thank you for your reply. Although I must admit I do not fully understand your reasoning.
You say that the president of Ukraine is an Israeli operative. I do not know if you mean he is Jewish or something else. What more, I do not know what importance that detail has for the larger picture. Throughout this conflict Israel has been one of the most scrupulously neutral countries in the world. Being neutral, it should not make any difference if any of the protagnonists is on Israel's side. Your argument therefore makes no sense and if you want to be taken seriously you will have to explain your reasoning in more detail.
You seem to be a slave under your feelings. And that, unfortunately, means that no reasonable person can ever have a discussion with you. I hope you find a place for yourself where your feeling are appreciated. Here they are not.
Unfortunately a lot of people in the west buy this narrative too.
Great summary and analysis of the conflict so far! Not bad for an amateur 😉.
What do you make of the Realist's (like Mearsheimer) analysis of the causes of the conflict; chiefly that it's the Wests fault and The US and NATO in particular?
Personally I find your assessment more plausible. It's not uncommon for authoritarian regimes to create conflicts abroad in order to steer the populace away from it's internal failings and problems.
Not being American, my impression is that the 'Realist's' are a school with a deep seated belief in USA imperialism and view everything that happens in this world through such a filter, and includes both those who are for and against such imperialism. Hence the curious combination of rightists and leftist in USA who both believe the USA instigated Russia's war against Ukraine. Personally, I think they are fools.
YOU'RE A KIKESUCKING ZIONIST ASS-WHORE . . . FIGHT YOUR OWN WARS . . .
NATO = NORTH ATLANTIC TRANSGENDER ORGANIZATION
After the apocalypse of 1945, a number of global organizations have been formed with the aim of maintaining and expanding totalitarian liberalism. One of the earliest organizations formed for this purpose was the war alliance "North Atlantic Treaty Organization", or NATO, which can be seen as the military wing of globalism.
In addition to ensuring that Washington always has international support for its military campaigns, NATO as an institution is explicitly anti-white and explicitly dedicated to "racial justice" for racial aliens living in white countries. As early as 1999, NATO authored reports blaming nationalists for a number of modern problems and warning against the influence of nationalism.
In 2023, the war alliance held a summit at its headquarters in Brussels on race where the alliance's leaders pledged to fight "homogeneous attitudes" and to use NATO's "collective intelligence" for the purpose.
In fact, NATO is so dedicated to its anti-white agenda that it openly advocates that institutions must be reshaped to be "inclusive," in other words, restructured to be more anti-white, and consist of fewer white employees and executives.
https://nordfront.se/nato-en-antivit-och-familjefientlig-institution
I think the foreign policy realists, like Mearsheimer, have the same fundamental problem as Russia: They do not understand soft power.
When reading Russian media and Russian bloggers it is more or less clear that they do not have a very good understanding of the concept of soft power, or even of the related concept of free will. When Russian commentators see a neighboring state turning away from Russia (like Ukraine previously or the likes of Armenia right now) they do not ask themselves what is wrong with us? Why do other nations not want to be friends with us? Instead they make up elaborate and sometimes conspiratorial theories of how dirty tricks from other powerful states cheated Russia of its rightful position. This unwillingness to see soft values at play forces them to see the world in terms of hard confrontations. And hard confrontations sooner or later lead to physical confrontations, in other words, war.
Well done! From a much worse amateur. Thanks for the OSCE graphic, I had tried to read their reports but those are not written for the uninitiated. - I agree with all, just not that sure about the Russians really into gathering around the flag right now - though it may look like that on telegram. ;/ See pic: https://twitter.com/Biz_Ukraine_Mag/status/1506311026400272396 To add: The Ukranians becoming much more suspicious of Kremlin's ORT happened 2014 - In Yanukovich territory votes went mostly to Selensky in 2019. Wikipedia is correct in having the war starting in 2014 not 2022. - Also: In 2017, the EU opened its borders to visa-free travel for Ukrainians (and Poland was open with work-visas before). Which turned "the west" into a real alternative (my step-son went from Melitopol to Russia to earn more. He returned when wizz-air was about to offer EU-flights from Zaporozhye. To end up in the occupied area. Hopefully keeping his head low.)
One thing I can not completely get my head around is Russia's thinking of Zelensky. As you say Zelensky swept the Russian-speaking areas of east and southern Ukraine, he was very much the Russian candidate in the last presidential election. But he also campaigned on the theme of cooperation and unity, which made him sort of a mediation candidate.
I do not exclude the possibility that Zelensky himself was the reason for the invasion. The Russians probably liked Poroshenko, his predecessor, much better. Poroshenko was a west Ukrainian chauvinist who could be counted on to keep the conflict going. With Zelensky at the helm it was much more uncertain and a worst-case scenario probably involved some sort of sudden peace agreement between Ukraine and the Donbas republics.
You actually know someone personally in occupied Ukraine? That is so cool, although cool is clearly an inappropriate word to use under the circumstances. I wish your step-son all the best, something that he, unfortunately, might need, Melitopol is already within Himars range from the Ukrainian lines.
Hard to get into Putin's head. As for Zelensky, he was doing lots of political comedy highly critical of Russia, esp. its theft of Crimea, gas-blackmail each winter and the Russian view of "silly Ukrainians with their useless 'democracy' ". And all else. Very funny, actually. His role in "servant of the people" was also not exactly "friendly" to Putin's Russia. - That said, in 2019 he was not playing the revanchist or nationalist card, but "let us try to life in peace with our Russian ... brati ... (as there is no choice, really)". As there was no choice.
Obviously, all cynics assumed he would be a puppet for the oligarch who gave him the role "servant of the people". Maybe he was. This did however not lead to him to cozy up to Putin - and as you showed: Putin might not have seen any need for this. Maybe Zelensky was really just too peaceful and friendly? (Though Poroshenko was not really a warmonger either, exporting his chocolate to Russia.) Anyways, not a puppet and not going to abandon the EU/NATO-course the country took after 2014. And as a person, many things Putin is not (both are kinda short, though. 167 cm). - I'd say, the 2022 invasion would have happened with or without Zelensky. As would the defence of Ukraine. But good he was there and is still around. His speeches in Ukrainian are on par with Churchill's, and my Ukrainian friends are amazed how well he speaks the language now. Hope he will be alive in the year I'll sit in the train to liberated Melitopol. And hope many of the people there will be. This war. So sad. I am proud of the Ukrainian people - but I can not make myself say "Slava Ukraina" or "Ukraine wins" with all those lifes lost. That said: Of course, I do donate for weapons. Losung: Budmo! PTN PNX.
YOU'RE A KIKESUCKING ZIONIST ASS-WHORE . . . FIGHT YOUR OWN WARS . . .
PROTOCOLS OF THE MEETINGS OF THE LEARNED ELDERS OF ZION . . . Protocol No. 7 – World-Wide Wars
❝We must be in a position to respond to every act of opposition by war with the neighbors of that country which dares to oppose us: but if these neighbors should also venture to stand collectively together against us, then we must offer resistance by a universal war.❞
https://cwspangle.substack.com/p/protocol-no-7-world-wide-wars