I can't say anything about the Mi-6, but its successor, the Mi-26, definitely isn't that loud. Definitely "huge transport aircraft" loud, but not "C-130 loud" (where, if you sit just behind the forward bulk head, kidney stone removal is an automatic benefit included with take-off)
You’ve had the opportunity to fly in both an Mi-26 and a C-130? I’d be curious to know more about your career, I can’t imagine there are many who have spent time in both.
Well, the C-130 has been pretty much everywhere pretty much forever -- not sure if anyone in the military in the last 5 decades or so has not been in and/or near them at some point?
My Mi-26 experience was as a staff tech (military, but as part of a humanitarian effort) airlifting medical trucks into a flood-struck area in India, like, 30 years ago or so, but as I understand it, they're still used pretty widely outside NATO, even today.
> Well, the C-130 has been pretty much everywhere pretty much forever -- not sure if anyone in the military in the last 5 decades or so has not been in and/or near them at some point?
Very true. I had the impression that the Mi-26 was considerably more niche, and that there wouldn't be a ton of overlap between operators of the C-130 and the Mi-26. However, I just checked the list of operators on wikipedia (not sure how accurate that is) and Algeria, Jordan, India, Mexico, Peru, and Venezuela all field both. There also seems to be civilian operators of the Mi-26.
A figure which stunned me:
Mi-26, the successor to the Mi-6 was involved in the deadliest helicopter crash, after being shot down during the second chechen campaign. It was carrying 142 passengers, 127 of which died.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Khankala_Mi-26_crash
>the helicopter crash-landed in a minefield that made up part of the federal military headquarters' perimeter defenses. Some of the survivors, attempting to abandon the wrecked Mi-26, are reported to have been killed by 'friendly' anti-personnel mine explosions
Not to dismiss either the "shot down", or loss of life - but that does illustrate why very large passenger helicopters are a bad idea. Too many lives at stake, and a helicopter is generally a far more fragile basket than a fixed-wing aircraft.
Well, it should be noted that the helicopter in question was designed to be used by an organization that couldn't care less about loss of life, as we have again seen in recent years. So I guess this aspect of human life wasn't a big concern to the designers, the military can always get new human resources from Siberia or whatever poor part of the country.
Yes, NATO countries have hollowed out their military-industrial complexes. Everyone is aware now that was a mistake but it will take time to rebuild the industrial capacity necessary to fight wars of attrition. And of course it's cheaper to manufacture artillery shells in Russia since the country has lower wages and is now running a partially mobilized command economy. But once you normalize for quality of the shells, the difference isn't quite as bad as it first looks.
Though my impression is that shell production is still a "meh, I guess we probably should do something..." priority in the great majority of NATO countries.
> The research on artillery rounds by Bain & Company, which drew on publicly available information, found that Russian factories were forecast to manufacture or refurbish about 4.5 million artillery shells this year compared with a combined production of about 1.3 million rounds across European nations and the US.
Rheinmetall intends to increase their annual production to 750k by 2025 and the US is aiming for 1 million annually by 2025. That's still much less than Russia and that's before considering they have access to the significant reserves and the factories in North Korea.
> Since August, Pyongyang has shipped about 6,700 containers to Russia, which could accommodate more than 3 million rounds of artillery shells or more than 500,000 rounds for multiple rocket launchers, according to the South Korean Defense Ministry.
NATO war doctrine doesn't use nearly as much artillery as Soviet (Russian)- preferring air superiority and bombs/missiles instead. While it isn't clear this is really better (and I hope we never find out), it does mean that having less production ability may not be an issue. Which is why the US Air force is the largest air force in the world, followed by US army, then US navy at 4, and US Marines at 7.
Where the problem is, is Ukraine is trained on the Soviet war doctrine but are getting backing from NATO - but without all the airplanes NATO would use (and it isn't clear if they could train pilots/crew fast enough if given, but they haven't been given much) they need something to fight with.
You cannot seriously think that you need 1:1 parity missile-to-shell in that paradigm. The overall result from the conflict is that the soviet doctrine underperfomed, with especially abysmal results for the IADS part of it.
Ukraine is doing well using mostly the soviet doctrine so long as they are 1:5 ratio of artillery with Russia, when they are worse than they they start to lose ground, when more they gain ground.
> You cannot seriously think that you need 1:1 parity missile-to-shell in that paradigm.
this argument would work if we could produce missiles in 1:1 parity with shells. However, for any reasonable ratio (say 1 missile for 10 shells) the situations with missiles is even worse! British government has ordered more NLAWs, and they will take 2 years to deliver.
> soviet doctrine underperfomed
That's exactly the scary part - Russian military is a mess, and even in these conditions our military industrial complex is barely holding it together. Mind you we spend 10x what Russia spends. NLAW costs more than a Tesla, takes longer to produce than a Tesla, and uses 90's technology. There is huge graft in the military complex!
Now what will happen if there is a conflict with an opponent that is competent, and is able to outproduce Russia 5 to 1? It will end in massive humiliation.
You can turn the frontline to dust with artillery, but actually advancing when anything from a guy on a push bike to a modern tank is disabled by a quad-copter with an anti-tank explosive cable tied to it makes taking territory difficult.
Hence why Russia has advanced very little since the initial invasion, even with the number of men they are willing to send to their death.
Ukraine has a problem taking their territory back as well, but for different reasons. They don't want to/can't send so many to their death, and have to rely on a large coalition of allies giving them weapons -- who have their own things to worry about domestically, so half-arse or delay support.
That's the point, no? Ukraine isn't NATO. Ukraine can't do NATO doctrine. So Ukraine also can't win against Russia if they're this behind on artillery supply. This is an issue for Ukraine. It's not for NATO. But we aren't talking about NATO, we're talking about Ukraine's ability to fight back.
[I get most of my information from Ukraine: The Latest] It seems to be that when Ukraine has even the below-necessary arms (be that artillery or air support or smarter, longer range weapons), Russia is unable to make significant gains.
Whether this is due to the impotence/utter incompetence of the Russian military or the inherent advantages of defensive fighting, I'm not sure Ukraine _can lose_ this war as long as NATO continues to the supply them with the tools.
Russia actually has a pretty strong tradition of pilot safety in the military. For example, the Ka-50 attack helicopter is one of very few such helicopters to be fitted with an ejection seat.
Pilots costs many years to train, the OC is commenting about the mobiks, the soldiers used for their meat not brains. There is evidence to support that Russia or better said the Putin regime still gives less almost zero value to human live.
What government that has an active military cares about the lives of their soldiers beyond their utility value? I don't see how the US is different in that regard.
That is the point, if you sacrifice the soldiers lives you should do it for something valuable, even using pro-Rus maps Russia is gaining at best something less then 1 square kilometer a day and has 1000+ dead or wooded, I am sorry for you disillusions with USA but in civilized countries nobody would think that 1 soldiers live is worth 5000 square netters of field. Sure probably they are sacrificed not for that land but for buying time for Putin, maybe Trump or other miracle move will save him. So from Putin's POV 1000 soldiers for 1 more day on the throne is a price he can pay, in a democracy this would have ended a long time ago.
By default, from now on Russia just retains the (formerly) Ukrainian lands it controls and integrates them in Russia. There's no deadline to that process, even if Russia stops gaining any land at all while still having to lose some number of people on the front line, basically indefinitely.
I can see that assertion in the Western media that Ukraine has an option to "not agree" to unfavorable terms, such as the ones voiced by Putin. The underlying assumption is that Putin has to disengage eventually, so the Ukraine can just wait it out. But unless some miracle saves the day for Ukraine, Russia is not getting out of these lands at all. After all, Russia is busy paving roads and issuing Russian citizenship in these areas.
I tend to agree with you. If what Putin has done so far doesn't cause a massive internal revolt, then selling what they've gained by now as a victory shouldn't be too hard either.
Attitudes (and apathy) of the Russian population is the most astonishing thing about this whole conflict, and something that should be remembered when dealing with the country in the future, even after Putin.
Russian people begin to realize that 1991 and the following decade was very unfair to their nation and (the current) country, and the amount of humiliation and loss during that period dwarfs the losses of Russo-Ukrainian war so far.
I don't say that fighting this war in the current state was a good decision, far from it. It is also kind of throwing out good money after the bad. Still, I don't see Russians parting with whatever paltry gains they just had in exchange for a lot of their spilled blood.
>Russian people begin to realize that 1991 and the following decade was very unfair to their nation and (the current) country
Post communism was hard for everyone else too, but we (Eastern Europe) do not invent conspiracies about Israel and CIA to explain the corruption and incompetence of our leaders. For our case the politicians could blame the previous guys but in a dictatorship it is hard to blame the previous guys since it means blaming yourself so dictators have no choice then blame soem external force like Israel, CIA,LGBTQ, Satan.
The only country in Eastern Europe in Russia-comparable situation is Hungary, and the humiliation in question is when it had lands with Hungarian people in them taken away from it in Treaty of Trianon. And as you can see it's the least happy camper right now.
That and, outside the EU, another troublemaker that is Serbia.
Russians do not see the existing borders and existing ex-Sovier political layout as fair or in any way beneficial to them.
>Russians do not see the existing borders and existing ex-Sovier political layout as fair or in any way beneficial to them.
And you agree with this Rusky? They do not like that other nations are not longer part of their empire ? Or that the countries East of Berlin are not under their evil influence ?
If yes, then I am sorry for you, maybe the next generation can find peace in the fact that empires and colonialism are history and could focus on their own country, they have resources they only need competent leaders and a better mentality.
Ukraines were dumb to not enter in NATO in EU with Poland, they were too pro Ruzzians now the stupidy costs them, look at Poland and look at Ukraine economy.
Russians do not think that fellow Russians stuck on the other side of a newly drawn state borders are "other nations".
Just as Hungarians do not consider Hungarians from Uzhgorod an other nation; ditto Serbs do not consider Serbs from Respublika Srpska another different nation.
Russians actually care very little about what all of the remaining Eastern Europeans are up to. They aren't of much interest. Why do you need Warsaw if you can fly to Paris non-stop.
Ah, I see . But they had some voting when USSR exploded and they signed some treaties about respecting borders. They changed their minds it seems and laws would not stop a Ruzzian.
Ruzzians are stuck in the past, we no longer start wars to grab lands where some people that speak same language as us live. Not all people that spek Russian are Zeds and want to be part of Ruzzia.
The hypocricy is strong with Zeds since they are doing the opposite in Moldova, they promote a Zetarded idea that Moldova is a different language, that Moldovans are a different nation and that they need to keep their independence and borders (until Putin can invade).
As you can see Romania, Poland or Hungary are not even considering invading Ukraine to grab lands or people, we are living in a different age , we can help our nationals in Ukraine without killing.
But i bet you are aware that the Russian speaking Ukrainians are not the reason Putin grabbed Crimea or the other lands, it is all geo politics and inteligent Zeds admit it.
"Some voting" is not good enough. "Signing some treaties" is also not good enough.
The only way people are going to respect some arrangement is if they believe it's good for them. Russians now believe "some voting" they had forced on them was catastrophic and "some treaties" are fundamentally unfair to them.
The geopolitics of Crimea are questionable. Black Sea Fleet turned out to be glass cannon of questionable utility. It's mostly about popular wishes and not about pragmatics. Before 2014, Putin was swimming in cash yet his approval ratings were Bidenesque.
> The only way people are going to respect some arrangement is if they believe it's good for them. Russians now believe "some voting" they had forced on them was catastrophic and "some treaties" are fundamentally unfair to them.
That is deeply delusional. The Soviet Union and its satellites in Eastern Europe were held together only by force. 50 years of Russian domination only led to severe economic stagnation, lack of freedom and prosperity. Half a century of lost progress. Russia does not have an unfairly lost empire. Europeans are not your slaves. You can't even run your own country properly, yet you somehow believe that the Americans should hand you on a silver platter an empire to run. How does that make any sense?
Nothing is going to get better before you get rid of this imperialist delusion.
Even USSR as it existed after WWII was not of your own making, but an unfortunate side-effect of massive American military aid provided under the lend-lease agreement, which allowed to roll over European nations after Nazis had been defeated, and keep them hostage for half a century.
Germans managed to snap out of their delusions. 30 years after Nazis brought them to a similar total collapse, Germans did not have a Gestapo officer as their president, did not decorate official events with swastikas, did not reurgitate Nazi propaganda, did not complain how the entire world as wronged them, did not demand the US to cut ties with the UK and France, and did not wage genocidal wars against neighbors in an attempt to reach the 1942 extent of Germany. Instead, 30 years later, they had become the cornerstone of pan-European cooperation towards peace, liberty and prosperity.
If anything, the mistake made in 1990s was not making Russians face the consequences of their actions to the same extent Germans were forced to and thus Russians have not internalized that the 1990s were the result of their own actions. Are you not old enough to remember the depth of Soviet mismanagement and the ножки Буша that saved the country from starvation? But KGB and CPSU leaders were not hanged, apprachiks were not banned from public life, nuclear weapons were not taken away and the country was not demilitarized, Russian imperialism and Soviet ideology were not rooted out in favor of universal humanist values.
Ironically, it looks like those who do not learn from history are indeed doomed to repeat it. Putin has put the country on the path of reliving the 1990s, this time with much less international sympathy. Do they grow chicken in North Korea?
Russians genuinely do not care about Eastern Europeans. Last time I've checked, the only Eastern Europeans living in Crimea were Russians, with some Crimean Tatars and Russian-speaking Ukrainians. Ditto for the "new territories" including the Donbass.
Actually, same for Kiev (add some Jewish minority in Odessa and Dnepropetrovsk). So you do not have anything to do with it.
The rest of advise is unwanted. It looks like Russia is not going to collapse in any of the modes you have described, and it's going to hold whatever lands it is holding, and that is how it's going to be.
> Russians genuinely do not care about Eastern Europeans.
That's not what actions say. Constant economic, political and social sabotage since the end of USSR, combined with hostile rhetorics from popular slogans like "The masters will be back!" to official demands to kick Eastern Europe out of NATO, leave little doubt. There is nothing people in Eastern Europe wouldn't like more than the luxury to focus on domestic issues and pretend that Russia doesn't exist at all, but Russian actions force us to divert considerable amount of resources towards ensuring that you stay where you are. Russia is the only reason why we need to have an army at all. Were Russia a normal country like Germany or Spain, we could disband the army tomorrow.
> It looks like Russia is not going to collapse in any of the modes you have described, and it's going to hold whatever lands it is holding, and that is how it's going to be.
Total delusion. Russian economy is already a dead man walking. The financial blockade keeps getting worse, and even the people from your central bank are saying: "Потому что [если] не будет нормальных расчетов за продукцию по внешнеэкономической деятельности, для нашей и экспортно, и импортно зависимой страны это просто все, это погибель". You can't run a modern country on Dogecoin or "import substitutions" hammered together by some Vanyas, that much is clear to everyone. This won't end in any other way than the previous time.
Likewise, Crimea is already lost. Every air defense system you set up there gets blown up by Ukrainians using weapons that cost a tiny fraction of their target. Without air defense, the remaining forces are sitting ducks. Russian ground forces will eventually either get destroyed, or pull out like they did from Kherson to save what's left. This is purely a matter of time. The navy has already abandoned Crimea.
Not to mention Eastern Ukraine. 10 000 Russians die every month just to keep the frontline where it is, and twice as many get wounded or crippled for life. It will only get worse as Soviet era stocks deplete and get replaced with older and older junk with every passing month while Ukraine keeps getting better and better new production as western arms factories gear up. At the start of the war, European factories were producing large caliber artillery ammo in batches of tens of thousands. This year they will produce over a million units, up to three million next year, going as far as it needs to go.
I wonder when will you finally wake up to the reality that Putin blundered the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to sell oil and gas while it still has any value, and use that flow of money to bring Russia to European level of prosperity. Gazprom is now in the red while Germany has produced 2/3 of all electricity this year from renewables. The window of opportunity is closing. Every Kinzhal blown up by Patriots somewhere in the skies over Ukraine costs as much as a modern schoolhouse, but instead of engaging in international trade and investing in schools that produce value for decades to come, you only get a loud bang. Putin is destroying your opportunity for a better life. Why do you choose to accept that?
> Russians don't care and don't think in such terms.
That's a lie and you know it. Variations of it like "We can show it again!" (that is, rape our way to Berlin) are in very widespread use among the Russian public and represent exactly the way most Russians think. Revanchism is the cornerstone of Putin's Russia, and that is also clearly present in your constant complaining how Russia has been humiliated and unfairly treated, and how it is entitled to anything more than it currently has, while the truth is that western nations spent a lot of money to relieve the humanitarian disaster that came from your own long-term mismanagement that you now try to pin on the Americans. You are - without any shame - biting the hand that fed you.
Hey, can you point to some live instances for these fun quotes ("The masters will be back!", "We can show it again!")? Particularly from anyone public and notable? Original Russian is fine; no need to translate.
As you can see, I am polite to you and you use that opportunity to invoke the most grave insults you can think of.
Russians did indeed win World War Two as a part of victorious Allied coalition. The "raped their way to Berlin" is represents a completely undeserved slur. The German army did not consist of fertile women but of seasoned and well-armed German males who invaded Russia previously (under Meth as we've just learned) and they had to be killed first.
The Germany after the atrocities that they have done was at complete mercy of winners, who in their wisdom and kindness has chosen to spare it. We didn't have to.
The only way Russians may care about Eastern Europe is extinguishing the sources of such unpleasant noises.
> The "raped their way to Berlin" is represents a completely undeserved slur.
It does not. The war memorial that Russians erected in central Berlin is still colloquially known as "the tomb of the unknown rapist". The number of people raped by Soviet forces is estimated between 1 and 2 million, among them many well-known people, such as the wife of Helmut Kohl, raped when she was 12. At least 100 000 people were raped in Berlin alone, aged "from 8 to 80", as one Russian war correspondent put it, and often died in the process due to blood loss, were murdered or committed suicide thereafter. Victims were not only German civilians, but also from Polish, Belarussian, Ukrainian and other nationalities who had been brought to Germany as slave labor. War correspondents like Vasily Grossman have recorded vivid descriptions of the gang rapes and other depravity; I believe it was Grossman who described a German village - whatever house he looked into, each had women on beds, dead, with dried pools of blood between legs.
And the typical response from Russians is that of yours: how they should be thankful that you didn't rape even more. You have the audacity to call it kindness.
And of course, anyone who dares to remind of this is making "unpleasant noises" and should be "extinguished". We can all see in Ukraine what that means. Murder, torture and systematic rape once again. A lot of elderly people in Europe are disturbed more than the rest by reports of Russian conduct in Ukraine because they remember it from their own youth. Despite their limited income, they are some of the most generous sponsors of aid to Ukraine.
> The number of people raped by Soviet forces is estimated between 1 and 2 million, among them many well-known people, such as the wife of Helmut Kohl, raped when she was 12.
No Russian would accuse their grand dad that has taken Berlin of anything, before walking in his shoes first. Walking to the Berlin obviously.
Around 2 millions of Russian civilians starved in Leningrad during the Nazi siege.
I'm honestly not sure which kind of a different response would one expect after murdering more than 20 million Soviet citizens in the four years before that. You do not want to ever bring this topic into conversation because you're going to look worse than the side you are accusing. "We said we are sorry" is not good enough, just like the post-Soviet borders. I believe Germans should start going around whacking annoying Eastern Europeans over the head when they try to dig out this hideous mass grave again. Extremely annoying behavior.
Still, our ancestors had to kill all of armed to the teeth German males first, and that was no small feat, that we are still proud of; and obviously they were 100% righteous in doing so. Then all the Eastern Europeans who we "set free" did their little ethnic cleansing against Germans. I've heard Czech has expelled circa 300,000 Germans, killing several tens of thousands in the process. Ditto Poland.
> I'm honestly not sure which kind of a different response would one expect after murdering more than 20 million Soviet citizens in the four years before that.
Ah yes, FOUR years, 1941-1945. Because the year 1939, when you signed a secret pact with Hitler dividing Europe, jointly invaded Poland and even held a joint military parade celebrating victory over Poland, didn't exist. Nor did 1940, when you invaded the Baltics and Romania, and supplied oil and other key materials in defiance of economic blockade to the Nazi war machine as German bombers were flying sorties over London, and your own were bombing Helsinki, with "bread baskets for starving Finns" as the propaganda put it (Finns invented the Molotov cocktail as a drink to go with that generous gesture). None of this happened. The war started in June 1941, right.
But no. The war didn't start for Europe in 1941 nor did it for Russians. Germans and Russians were the two main instigators of the Second World War and in cooperation invaded one country in Europe after another in the first two years of the war until there was no-one left but the two of them and the stage was set for the endgame.
Germans have recognized their responsibility and devoted to building a better Europe. Russia, let me check the news feed... another 5 civilians killed, 53 injured in today's drone and missile strike in the Ukrainian city of Dnipro. And god knows how many died on the frontlines defending their country, and in torture chambers on occupied territories.
There is no need to speak about digging out old graves when you are producing new ones every day.
> when you signed a secret pact with Hitler dividing Europe, jointly invaded Poland and even held a joint military parade celebrating victory over Poland
I didn't sign anything. And before that, Germany and Poland has jointly invaded Czechoslovakia and divided it between themselves. It was wild; still I don't understand why I would feel responsible for any of these events in history.
> Germans and Russians were the two main instigators of the Second World War
That is, like, just your opinion, man. I have a different one. We can agree to disagree here. Even if was just Germany and the Soviet Union fighting each other, the point about not wishing to dig up that mass grave persists. Most of the mutilated corpses there are, tragically, Russian.
> Germans have recognized their responsibility and devoted to building a better Europe
Great for them, but as a Russian I saw nothing useful coming from it my way. So why would I care.
> Russia, let me check the news feed... another 5 civilians killed, 53 injured on today's drone and missile strike in the Ukrainian city of Dnipro
So go sign some peace treaty with Putin, he has some fresh terms for it. People in Dnepropetrovsk and Kiev stop dying, but so are people in Donetsk and Belgorod and Sevastopol. After several deadly Ukraine's attacks against civilian targets in Russia, I grew tolerance to Ukrainian losses. I genuinely don't care mourning somebody other's dead when I have enough of my own.
Just don't expect us to cede any lands we paid in blood. We used to be that stupid, but I hope not anymore.
> It was wild; still I don't understand why I would feel responsible for any of these events in history.
> Great for them, but as a Russian I saw nothing useful coming from it my way. So why would I care.
> After several deadly Ukraine's attacks against civilian targets in Russia, I grew tolerance to Ukrainian losses
Excellent example of Russian mentality on full display. Don't understand, don't care, don't feel responsible.
This is how you differ from Germans. They have faced their past and developed a deeply internalized sense of duty not to repeat the past mistakes. They are a key contributor to the European Union, a major platform for peaceful cooperation in Europe and beyond. Despite long and violent history, they have mended relations with France and Poland and many others who have seen Germans as enemies for centuries. Since the 1960s, Germans have pursued the policy of Wandel durch Handel, hoping to bring positive change through mutually beneficial trade, including with Russia. They have provided aid and investments in billions and billions, and if anything has not reached you, then that's because Putin chose to spend the money earned through trade on missiles killing people in Ukraine instead of building better schools in Russia.
Your attitude towards the victims of the latest war is particularly vile. The only reason why anyone is dying, including Russian civilians caught in the crossfire, is because Russia started the war for which people like you keep inventing excuses out of imperialistic delusions and entitlement.
This is especially revealing:
> Just don't expect us to cede any lands we paid in blood. We used to be that stupid, but I hope not anymore.
You "pay in blood" only because you invaded another country, murdered and continue to murder people defending their homes and loved ones as you try to steal their property. There is nothing smart about thievery and murder. Germans are smart. They found a way to have a influence on the world without all that. You will continue to pay in blood until you leave Ukraine alone because that is fair and just.
> They are a key contributor to the European Union, a major platform for peaceful cooperation
Since it excludes Russia from the day one I also care very little, and for me that's a liability not a virtue.
> The only reason why anyone is dying, including Russian civilians caught in the crossfire, is because Russia started the war
Again, that's only your opinion with which I disagree. There's Crimea and LPR/DPR and Ukraine has started a civil war against LPR/DPR. They should've thought twice about that.
> you invaded another country, murdered and continue to murder people defending their homes
They should go to Putin and sign some ceasefire or peace treaty with him if they don't like it. Why come to me. I am not Putin and I didn't even vote for him.
They should go to Putin and sign some ceasefire or peace treaty with him if they don't like it. Why come to me. I am not Putin and I didn't even vote for him.
And yet - when someone corners you on the internet you run to stand behind him, like a big papa.
So in that sense, you very much are "voting" for him.
The emphasis here is not on Putin but on the negotiations. If you refuse to negotiate, you will get killed. Even if Putin is replaced tomorrow with Mutin or Agutin, it's not like you can skip the negotiations stage.
It was stupid for Ukraine to skip negotiations in 2014, it was stupid for them doing three coup attempts in 15 years, but it was also stupid for Putin to do what he did in 2022. That's past now, though, that is immutable, and the future can only be fixed by negotiations.
In Russia, most people put some part of the blame on the WWI winning coalition for humiliating Germany too much and then failing to keep its power in check, leading to a large, angry Germany in 1939.
The lands the USSR has occupied in 1939 are mostly Russian Empire lands, so USSR never really agreed to part with those. Neither was Germany committed to parting with its German Empire lands. You may argue they have both "signed something", right.
If you praise Germany for changing its strategy after 1945 to avert future wars, at the same time you should blame the US world order for failing to part with strategy which got them WWII after WWI, when dealing with post-Soviet Russia.
As they should have noticed by that moment, you do not get into stable, reciprocital relationship with someone you've either raped into signing a piece of paper or got them to sign for a $2.99 can of food or starve. I believe Soviet troops in 1945 Berlin did not have such expectations, but to my surprise, US and its thralls still do.
> Since it excludes Russia from the day one I also care very little, and for me that's a liability not a virtue.
There is nothing in the key treaties of the EU excluding Russian membership, provided that it meets the criteria, of which the rule of law and the respect for human rights are the largest concerns. Back when Gorbachev was seeking "Common European Home" with the EEC, European countries were quite open to the idea. Certainly no less than they were open to a good working relationship with Germany only five years after their citizens had been saved from concentration camps. In Central and Eastern Europe, everyone who set European integration as their goal reached it in 10-15 years, and it has been an incredible success for everyone involved.
But I believe we once already discussed that feeling of empowerment from being able to kill people across the world with impunity is more attractive to you than fishing quotas and other mundane things that the EU deals with most of the time to improve the lives of its citizens day by day.
> Again, that's only your opinion with which I disagree. There's Crimea and LPR/DPR and Ukraine has started a civil war against LPR/DPR.
There was no civil war in Ukraine. LPR/DPR are fiction created by Russia to mask their invasion. And this is not my opinion, but facts established by the European Court of Human Rights. A few years ago they had a case brought against Russia by countries whose citizens perished in the shot-down MH17 airliner. Russian representatives tried to spin the old lies about "separatists" in Ukraine being at fault (and thus absolving Russia of all responsibility), but the court found no facts to support that there had been any separatism worth mentioning in Ukraine. Those people were, from the start, like Girkin from Russian secret services, recruits from local criminal gangs working for them, or from the armed forces of Russia without proper insignia, all acting under Russian military command.
Pay attention to the reverse side of the Russian campaign medal awarded to the participants of the invasion of Crimea: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medal_%22For_the_Return_of_Cri... The start of the campaign is incribed as 20 February 2014. That was months before LNR/DNR "declared independence", and even predates Yanukovych running away from the country (the event gopniks call "CIA coup" that started it all).
The truth is that Russia invaded Crimea as Ukraine was in internal turmoil, and then made special operatives cosplay separatists in Donbas and used that as an excuse to invade Eastern Ukraine.
> They should go to Putin and sign some ceasefire or peace treaty with him if they don't like it.
All offers Putin has made so far can be summed up as "let me keep what I've stolen, and add a bit more". Anything less than a retreat from Ukraine is not a serious proposal. You are paying one Afghan war worth of killed every month for the stubborness to admit in the third year of the war that the three-day land grab has failed. The price is only going to rise as European arms factories ramp up production, and more of the fighting is carried over into Russia as restrictions on weapons get looser. The batch of fighter jets that the Netherlands signed over to Ukraine yesterday came without restrictions about their use over the skies of Russia.
> Why come to me. I am not Putin and I didn't even vote for him.
People like you are the reason why Putin has any impact in the world. Putin is not sitting behind a bench in a factory and milling artillery shells that reduce Ukrainian cities to rubble as if a nuclear weapon had gone off. He is not programming Ukrainian power plants into missile guidance systems to make Ukrainian cities unlivable. He is not the one sitting in a jet and dropping bombs on Ukraine. He is not the one tortu...
> Why does LPR/DPR militia fight the Ukrainian army then, from 2014 onwards? Because they totally do. They are among the most motivated troops.
There never was such a thing. The war in the east started on 12 April 2014, when Russian commandos led by Igor Girkin from FSB seized government buildings in Sloviansk. The ECHR did not find any evidence of a militia in Ukraine that wasn't manned, supplied and controlled by Russian armed forces. But you cannot admit any of this, because without the origin-myth of civil war in Ukraine, the whole justification for the invasion would collapse.
> Then more Ukrainians will die "defending their homes", as well as Russians of course.
That's the price many nations in Europe have had to pay for their freedom. It is not too common to see people throw away their freedom and willingly become serfs like Russians have under Putin. There is no greater indictment of modern Russia than the the fact that Ukrainians choose to go through this hell if it saves them from ending up with the kind of life you have.
> They just really don't like the state of Ukraine (and post-Soviet borders), but at the same time want Russia to win the war. It's simple.
Indeed. Simply a Russian version of Nazism. Delusional ideas about rearranging the world put forward by a paranoid dictator, with population that out of deep inferiority complex willingly believes his soothing lies and follows him blindly, united under Z-swastika, in murdering peaceful people across Europe by hundreds of thousands while erasing entire cities from existence. And then you wonder why no-one respects you and why Russia is increasingly seen as a curse on this world.
> DPR was already proclaimed by then, and I believe most of these comandos were on Ukrainian passports ATM.
Ukrainian citizenship doesn't prevent one from serving Russian interests. As the ECHR concluded after reviewing facts, there is no reason to consider the people who started the war in Eastern Ukraine as distinct from Russian armed forces. Russian government brought together the people, equipped them, gave them goals to fulfill, and supported them in any way they could. Likewise, the Freedom of Russia Legion is without any doubt a part of Ukrainian armed forces despite consisting mainly of defected Russians.
> Then why all the whining?
It's you and your Führer who are constantly whining how everyone humiliates and deceives you. Just a few days ago, he came up with a new sob story - that the assault on Kyiv failed not because of successful counterattacks at Hostomel and Irpin, but because western countries deceived Russia into a ceasefire that they dutifully followed. How can you listen to that and not think "what a moron"?
> No - that's just siding with your country and your people.
That's what Nazis and their supporters thought too when they rallied around Hitler. Hitler didn't act in Germany's best interests and nor does Putin act in Russia's best interests. The longer it takes you to recognize it, the deeper hole you will have to crawl out from. It's great irony that revenge has put you on track of repeating the 1990s.
For Russians, the 1990s are as coupled to territorial losses and new borders as they are to economic hardships. So tearing down these borders is a case of recovery.
> For Russians, the 1990s are as coupled to territorial losses and new borders as they are to economic hardships. So tearing down these borders is a case of recovery.
No, I am not speaking about the mythical 1990s as they exist in the mass conscious in the present day, warped by a huge dose of Soviet nostalgia. I am speaking about the 1990s that people actually lived through. Hyperinflation, shortages, poverty, crime. Breakdown of social order. Life's savings losing value almost overnight. Wages going unpaid for months and months. Abandoned kids sniffing glue and no-one caring. Few people had the luxury to care about issues beyond their immediate survival. Knew a family that had collected enough money for a house. Money lost value in such a short time that they managed to get only an ugly floor lamp by the time reality hit them. Nobody gave a shit where borders ran or if they even existed.
Massive spending on completely non-productive activities like the war against Ukraine while the world pivots away from you in disgust is a solid strategy for reaching such socio-economic deterioration again.
And it's important to stress that the 1990s were not seen as separate chapter at the time, but as the natural endgame of USSR's deep internal rot and failure to provide even bare sustenance to its population. Somehow you managed to run a resource-rich country into the ground during peacetime, and dragged down with you the European nations that you had enslaved during the WWII. And yet, for some reason, you think you've suffered a great injustice and still deserve an empire. Why? You can't run a normal country.
> I am speaking about the 1990s that people actually lived through. Hyperinflation, shortages, poverty, crime. Breakdown of social order. Life's savings losing value almost overnight.
I can see that happening easily if Putin loses his war, and all of the options I've ever saw coming from the West drooling with saliva converge to Russia losing.
As Sukhov once said, "I'd prefer to suffer a bit".
> still deserve an empire.
Not sure about Putin, but I don't want one. A nation state would suffice. Crimea is populated by Russians. Everybody speaks Russian in Lugansk, Donetsk and Mariupol. I don't see any utility in a border which separates them from the rest of Russia, or any excuse for it to be where it is. I'm not against any borders at all, just these particular ones.
> I can see that happening easily if Putin loses his war
Putin lost the war a long time ago when the attack on Kyiv failed, Ukraine managed to maintain unified government and military command, and found allies. Countries representing the majority of the world economy are now behind Ukraine and that seals the deal for Russia as much as it did for Nazi Germany. Putin has no path to victory and cannot retreat for domestic reasons. The plan was apparently "3 days to Kyiv" and Plan B does not seem to exist. He is stuck as Ukraine is grinding away the huge inheritance of USSR's weapons that make up the bulk of Russian army to this day. Again, great irony - in the end, it's Russia who is demilitarizing. Ukraine has destroyed over 8000 tanks. By most estimates, only 1100-1500 of old stock remain for refurbishment from graveyards. New production is 120-150 tanks per year. I guess that's why we didn't see a trace of the famous Brezhnev-era armadas on May 9th parade anymore. All the new tanks are gone and patched up rustbuckets from the 1960s would be nothing less than another humiliation.
> I don't see any utility in a border which separates them from the rest of Russia, or any excuse for it to be where it is.
I don't see any utility in a border which separates Finno-Ugric people in Russia from the rest of them in Europe, especially considering the abysmal state of human rights there. When can I expect the return of Karelia to Finland?
Why then do you preach to me instead of just waiting for your victory to realize?
Karelians has never made dominant part of the population of what is now republic of Karelia. The problem here is that the name Karelia comes first and Karelians are an ethnicity of people who also happen to live in Karelia alongside larger nations. Which, ironically, included a lot of Finns and even Swedes before the Revolution.
Currently, ethnic Karelians make up 6% of the population of the republic. So the fact they've got a republic with some support for local culture shows the deep left-leaning woke organization of Russian Federation. But that's the most what they can ever have with 6%.
Meanwhile, Crimea was what, 80% Russian? Donbass was between 60% and 95% Russian speaking depending on the metrics?
> Karelians has never made dominant part of the population of what is now republic of Karelia.
Nor did Russians form the majority in Donetsk or Luhansk or Mariupol before the war, yet you have no issue making territorial claims. This is just another invented excuse. Why was Kherson oblast officially annexed by Russia when barely 14% of Kherson's population identifies as Russian? Who invited you?
Why is it an excuse? USSR occupied Berlin in 1945 not because it wanted to annex it, but because that was obviously conductive to the victory.
Russia wants a land bridge towards its 2 million strong Crimea and that's why Genichensk is now a seat of government of Kherson oblast of Russian federation.
You should hear one day what Russians think about countries such as Latvia or Poland.
A man in Finland can take a bike and ride through Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Czechia and Austria to the southern tip of Italy, then head west to visit the westernmost point of Europe in Portugal, and return home following the Atlantic coast through Spain, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, Denmark and Sweden without being distrubed, stopped or questioned even once. No-one will ask who he is and what he carries in his pockets. He does not have to apply for visas, he does not have to get permits nor go through any ID checks. And not only can he bike through Europe, but he can also move to any place for work, study or leisure as if he was moving to another town in Finland. The Schengen agreement provides undisturbed travel across Europe, and European Union's four fundamental freedoms guarantee the unrestricted movement of people, goods, capital and services. Countless academic, business, cultural and other kinds of relations stand on these foundations. Foreigners from other European countries can even vote at local elections if they are permanent residents.
Russians never had anything comparable, nor will have anytime soon no matter how many people you sacrifice, because your Führer with his "land bridges" is an uneducated moron who doesn't understand how the world of the 21st century works. He has failed to take advantage of the opportunities it offers. He is a Soviet dinosaur who has literally never experienced any of it. Never took a free semester in another country under the Erasmus program, never held Eurail pass or backpacked through Europe as if national borders didn't exist.
The 30-something countries in Europe have achieved through peaceful cooperation much more than Russians ever had through violence, at any point in time.
I find it incredible how you take the stance that "In the 1990s, we were weak and stupid, but now we're smart and strong!" while still acting like total morons, incapable of developing past the ridiculously obsolete 19th century gunboat diplomacy that keeps the entire country retarded. Only complete losers talk about "land bridges" in 2024. Winners talk about AI, chipset designs, clean energy, electric vehicles and reusable rockets, and not of the kind that blow cancer-stricken children into tiny pieces as they rain down on hospitals.
For countries that are run by smart people who are good at diplomacy, national borders lost any real meaning a long time ago.
You could take a bike from St. Petersburg through Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, then enter Belarus, go over Ukraine, back into RSFSR, then bike through Sochi, Abkhazia AR, Georgia and into Armenia. Return home biking through Karabakh AR, Baku, Dagestan ASSR, and beyond.
Now you may feel the pain.
Russia had internal-ID based border crossing arrangement with Ukraine up and into 2014, but Ukraine circa 2000 has started talking about how it will cancel that arrangement and require passports and introduce visas and will banish Black Sea Fleet from Crimea, and did three coups against reasonably pro-Russian governments in Ukraine of various success, and now we have zero trust in such arrangements. See also: COVID. The only lands where you may be confident you are able to roam is one under that Russian tricolor flag.
So Russians will absolutely forfeit any kind of agreements and goodwill for having more land, because land is something definite and agreements can be canceled at any moment by the other party without further notice.
There were hopes that CIS will be EU-like commonwealth with USSR-like integration between parties without USSR-like command structure, but it quickly turned sour. Which showed to us the paramount importance of borders and where they're drawn.
> Never took a free semester in another country under the Erasmus program, never held Eurail pass or backpacked through Europe as if national borders didn't exist
Yeah, that is basic Russian experience of not having access to all that stuff. It does definitely highlight the idea that state borders are important, the access to the stuff beyond these borders is complicated and may be denied, so it totally makes sense to have as much useful stuff as possible within your own borders. States 101.
Russians did not care about borders that much in 1990 when you could cross any of these on your bike without noticing, but they definitely started to care a lot about borders in 1995 when they discovered that customs and border guards has now sprang up and the borders are major PITA. They have also started questioning why exactly these borders were drawn in the way they were.
Who are you trying to fool? The USSR had internal passport system and residency permits known as propiskas. People went as far as arranging fake marriages to get propiskas into major cities and settle there. Employers could only hire people with a valid propiska. Living without a valid propiska was a criminal offence. People were essentially serfs tied to the address in their propiska.
In 1990, as Soviet authorities were desperately looking for ways to reform the crumbling country, the Committee for Constitutional Supervision of the USSR had this to say about the system:
The Constitutional Supervision Committee of the USSR, having considered on its own initiative the issue of compliance of the legislation on registration with the provisions of the Constitution of the USSR, laws of the USSR and the international obligations of the USSR on human rights, found that the current provisions on registration significantly limit citizens' freedom of movement, choice of place of residence, work, education and exercise of other rights.
The introduction of restrictions on the rights of citizens to freedom of movement and choice of place of residence is associated with the establishment of rules that violate other fundamental rights of citizens. These rules include:
a) rules prohibiting the heads of enterprises, organizations and institutions from hiring persons who are not registered in the given locality;
b) rules prohibiting the admission to higher and secondary specialized educational institutions and vocational schools in Moscow and a number of other cities of non-resident citizens in a capacity greater than what they can be provided with hostels and living space from close relatives. These rules contradict the principle of equality of all citizens of the USSR in receiving education, enshrined in Articles 34 and 45 of the Constitution of the USSR and Article 4 of the Fundamentals of Legislation of the USSR and Union Republics on public education, as well as the principle of equal access to education recognized in international human rights instruments;
c) rules prohibiting the registration of spouses and members of their families in the living space of a spouse living in Moscow, Leningrad and Kyiv in a hostel, regardless of its nature, or as a temporary resident, or as a subtenant in the living space of another person. These rules, the application of which leads to long-term separation of families, contradict Article 53 of the Constitution of the USSR, Article 11 of the Fundamentals of Legislation of the USSR and Union Republics on Marriage and Family, as well as the relevant provisions of the International Human Rights Acts.
The system of propiskas was finally abolished in 1997 when the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation also found it in violation of human rights. And this is just about being able to freely move, work and study as a citizen inside your own country.
Visiting other countries, even puppets in the Eastern Bloc such as East Germany, was a total pipe dream that required official recommendation and characterization as a loyal commie from your place of employment and trade union, followed by KGB's border department digging through your personal history to ensure that you will not defect as soon as you can (and for that reason, families were not allowed to travel together). The entire process took months. And even then, KGB assigned their people into tour groups to keep an eye on Soviet citizens. During his time in East Germany, Putin was one of those people keeping a watch over Soviet tourists. For most people, this was irrelevant anyway, because the limited number of foreign travel permits went to those on the higher steps of the communist hierarchy and few people were able to leave the country even once in a lifetime.
I just don't see how that would prevent you from doing that bicycle trip of yours.
Remember that I didn't mention visiting any other countries, just the USSR, which totally did not have these domestic borders that would prevent the bicycle trip you have described. Propiska does not come into equation since you did not mention applying for work and settling permanently.
I wonder if you got the messages that Russians mostly view these borders as a nuisance that they were raped into accepting.
> you never had anything close to the cooperation Europe has established through peace and cooperation
I don't deny it, but then again, so what? I never had anything close to many things. A space trip. A Rolls Royce. A helicopter tour. "Coooperation that Europe has established" as well.
But you know what I do, one Crimea that you can buy a train ticket and visit, with no border controls deciding whether you are entitled to do so this week or no.
My point was that the freedom of movement is not only for trivialities such as riding a bike, but the same ease extends far beyond that, including being able to permanently move across Europe for work, study or leisure - which I did mention - without any obstacles, to the point where national borders do not have any meaningful impact on everyday lives of Europeans. Just pack your things and go and do whatever you want. The sad story about post-USSR borders keeping Russians apart is as dumb as it gets since Europe has already achieved much more through peaceful means than you ever did through violence.
You are choosing to go through another Afghan war every month, destroy the national economy, flush the last remnants of your reputation down the drain, and bring indescribable suffering to millions of people for something that you could get for free if you had smart people running the country.
There is no other way to describe it than a completely retarded behavior. The worst thing is that you cannot even imagine any alternatives to it. This is truly eye-opening for me. You come across like those dumbasses brainwashed by Nazism who committed suicide during the final days of the WWII because they couldn't imagine a future for Germany without the Third Reich.
> national borders do not have any meaningful impact on everyday lives of Europeans
At the same time they do have great impact on the lives of ex-USSR citizens.
We deal with it. That's what we have to do and that's what we do.
> for something that you could get for free
I don't remember a single moment after 1991 when this was an option.
I do remember that EU and USA had spent good amount of money and effort to undermine any attempts for Russian Federation to form such bonds with any of its neighbours, and to replace any Russian-sympathetic government of these countries. And now they say they want to further fracture Russia and set up more of these borders with more misery.
> The worst thing is that you cannot even imagine any alternatives to it.
I can easily imagine alternatives to it (I've obviously been to EU many times), I just see throughout my life that we are not admitted to any of these alternatives. We're not getting any of that stuff, not in the past and not in the future, so I would rather have Crimea. And Lugansk. And Mariupol. This is the reputation that we need now.
As for dumbass brainwashed yadda yadda, molon labe. Come and get it. The folks on the front line are seriously tired by now, but they have this precious experience and cohesion, so should any Eastern European chihuahuas show up there, you will be wasted good.
> At the same time they do have great impact on the lives of ex-USSR citizens.
No, that is not true at all. If we count all the people who lived directly in the USSR and in the Eastern Bloc dictatorships under Russian control, then that's about 100 million people who have gained the same rights and opportunities as the French, Italians and other European nations enjoy. Impacted are only those who never chose to participate in European initiatives that have brought people so closely together. It was Russia's choice to stay out of them and thus it's strange to see complaints that you feel left out.
> I do remember that EU and USA had spent good amount of money and effort to undermine any attempts for Russian Federation to form such bonds with any of its neighbours, and to replace any Russian-sympathetic government of these countries.
I trust the recollections of people who were actually at the helm of Russia over yours, for I doubt you were even born then. As the minister of the foreign affairs of the Russian Federation 1990-1996, Andrei Kozyrev was the top man in charge of restoring Russia's relations with the world, and he tells a quite different story. In short, KGB hardliners refused to accept loss of their special privileges and fought back against opening Russia up to the world. They wanted a hermit kingdom that would serve as their personal piggy bank with them at the top. By hook and by crook, they took over the entire Russian government and turned it into a dictatorship led by low-level KGB apparatchik.
According to Kozyrev, Europe and the US can only be blamed - if at all - for not intervening strongly enough to keep Russia on track of becoming a modern country. They could've done more to support people who tried to steer Russia towards freedom, peace and prosperity, but ultimately it is up to Russians to take care of their garden.
Fast-forward 25 years, and we have Putin and his gang in palaces and on superyachts while you have "precious social cohesion" dying under American missiles on the potato fields of Ukraine. How can you not feel robbed and made a fool?
And like stereotypical abusers, to isolate and manipulate you, Putin constantly feeds you lies that everyone else is out to humiliate and mistreat you. You have internalized it to such extent that you not only believe it yourself, but try to convince others that it is true. It is not true and it never was.
The door to Europe was open to you. It was literally official policy in many parts of Europe. You only had to take a step. At the critical point in history, you failed to make the right decision and take advantage of the opportunity.
You can spin coping stories about Crimea all you want if they comfort you and help to forget this gigantic blunder, but with a navy that ran away to avoid being wiped out, an army whose HQs and staging areas get blown up so often that news have stopped reporting them, and an air force that is unable to fly over Crimea without being shot down, the chances of victory over Ukraine look slimmer than ever. You aren't the first Nazis to invade Crimea and hold it for a while, with an illusion that it will last forever.
> never chose to participate in European initiatives
That's not true, Russian Federation did "participate in European initiatives"
> refused to accept loss of their special privileges and fought back against opening Russia up to the world
And how would that look like? Russia was widely open up to the world up and until 2014. It's more open to the world today that you care to admit.
It would be interesting to read Kozyrev directly if you've got a link, though.
> done more to support people who tried to steer Russia towards freedom
How would that even look like!?
> The door to Europe was open to you
That's false, it was never open. Just take a look what Turkey is doing now. They've spent decades on reading EU's cucumber party regulations and now they've got semi-dictatorship and no longer admissible because they frankly gave up some time around 2015.
And Turkey is an easy case compared to Russia. It's in NATO, not as big, does not have its own nukes, etc, etc.
That was never an option.
> You only had to take a step.
How would that even look like!??
You're talking all the time about Russia refusing some simple steps and not opening enough, but absolutely sounds like these "it's not you it's me" excuses from the friend zone to any Russian. Russians are not stupid as to not being to tell a relationship from a friend zone.
EU is officially declaring that it now has the optimal size, perhaps even too big, but definitely only accepting small countries such as maybe Montenegro in the future. So that is no go from the day one. The path that you are confidently showing as available just does not exist and it never did. Russians didn't even expect it. But there should be some framework dealing with Russian existence on the edge of Europe, and such framework was notoriously absent. We didn't even have short trips visa waiver in 2010. So when 2014 come, there was no carrot that EU could threaten to take away, and Russians are famously imprevious to sticks.
So no Erasmus, and the only back packing option available is in the military camouflage.
Too late for that stuff, anyway. No go win that war that you can't shut up about being winning.
> That's not true, Russian Federation did "participate in European initiatives".
Nowhere near the level of those did who eventually joined the EU (or even EFTA). Even preparing for accession was a major effort that required incredible amount of work to harmonize legislation and actual practices with European standards. We had very little money at the time and severe shortage of people who understood these things. Everything from stock market rules to patient data protection at medical facilities needed a total overhaul. When comparing this with Russia at the same time, it is very clear that while the idea of European integration was floated from time to time, it was never a serious goal with a full national effort behind it. This is what I meant when I said you never made the step.
In the last 30 years, Russia could've easily become a full member of the EU as did almost the entire Eastern Europe. Or if that was too much, then at least join the Schengen Area and European Free Trade Association and peacefully sell oil like Norwegians for good money and let pensioners spend that warming their bones on Mediterranean beaches instead of suffering through cold and dark winters while worrying if their grandchildren return from the war alive. Yesterday I saw statistics that adjusted wealth for the cost of living. In the span of a single lifetime, Norwegians have risen from poor farmers and fishers to the richest people on the planet. This could've been you. The suffering in the 1990s would've had a meaning then as a stepping stone towards much better future, as it's viewed in Central and Eastern Europe.
> It would be interesting to read Kozyrev directly if you've got a link, though.
> Russia was widely open up to the world up and until 2014. It's more open to the world today that you care to admit.
According to V-Dem indicies, which attempt to quantify the rule of law, civil liberties, fairness and freedom of elections, wide representation of interests (instead of narrow groups), and equal access to resources across various groups within a society, Russia was already at the bottom of global ranking in 2013. The way Medvedev was used to keep the seat warm for Putin's another term and protesters were treated in 2011-2013 leaves no doubt how and by whom Russia was run. Certainly not by the people for the people under rules that are equal for all.
> That's false, it was never open. Just take a look what Turkey is doing now. They've spent decades on reading EU's cucumber party regulations and now they've got semi-dictatorship and no longer admissible because they frankly gave up some time around 2015.
When it comes to Turkey, negotiations were always bound to become long and difficult due to unresolved issues around the Turkish invasion of Cyprus, the Kurdish-Turkish conflict, radical muslims in rural Turkey, and a long list of other difficult subjects. There is a fair bit more to chew on than only cucumbers.
Turkey's negotiations for joining the EU began in 2005. V-Dem shows Turkey gradually slipping into authoritarianism after 2008. Negotiations slowed down, stalled in 2016 after the coup attempt in Turkey, and were officially suspended in 2019. I think it is fair when the EU says that political instability and broken economy with 75% inflation rate makes Turkey a poor candidate at the moment. For Eastern Europe too, the main obstacles were economic and political stability criterias.
Last year, main Turkish opposition parties who represent 48% of the electorate reiterated intent to continue worki...
> rule of law, civil liberties, fairness and freedom of elections, wide representation of interests (instead of narrow groups), and equal access to resources across various groups within a society, Russia was already at the bottom of global ranking in 2013
I just don't see what essentially any Russian citizen can do about this. If you do not have free elections and no representation of interests, then by definition you cannot also fix that stuff in any fashion. "We think we can treat you poorly because your government also does" is an especially poor sell to Russians.
> negotiations were always bound to become long and difficult due to unresolved issues around the Turkish invasion of Cyprus, the Kurdish-Turkish conflict, radical muslims in rural Turkey, and a long list of other difficult subjects.
The point is, all of these issues also exist in Russia: Unresolved issues around Abkhazia and South Ossetia, as well as North Caucasus insurrections and its radical muslims. So if that didn't work for Turkey in 30 years, it will also not work for Russia. Case closed.
Getting into EU is comparatively easy for a small country, much harder for a larger one and for Russia (or Turkey) it is both impossible and infeasible. Real integration could only come in some other framework, which has never materialized, and as I can see nobody in EU even understands that it needed to be there. If you are an economic and defense bloc accepting new countries in, you should be very careful about countries you're not going to accept, as they rightfully see you as a threat.
Dude, read Ruzzian media. Kremlin always threatens us, those idiots are expert linguists, historians and they want us to do whatever they want. Not sure why they hate we entered NATO to defend ourselves if they do not plan to attack, the nukes still work so there is no chance Eastern Europe invades Ruzzia to liberate your from Putin, you are stuck with him.
I bet that Ruscist that controls all your media is the cause Ruzzians blame everyone else then a Putin and Ruzzian oligarchs for the hell in Ruzzia, replace the leadership , fight corruption and I guarantee that people will change, they will become more civilized and more optimists, I seen it in Romania. In regime like in Ruzzia where you can't blame the leader you are brainwashed to find others to blame.
Sure Moscow or St Parkersburg and nice to live if you are a Zed or apolitical and maybe is great if you are an violent abuser since now is almost legal to beat your family if you ensure you do not break their bones. Just ensure your kids do not say soemthing bad about the army or KGB then you might have to pay.
Did you do your mandatory military service or you bribed you way out of it ?
That information is 20 years out of date now, a random small town will be quite livable and often rich in culture and history.
Of course it is not comfortable to live in a country if you oppose the core value of its people. Just go to Ukraine if Zed makes you throw a fit. What holds you.
It is not free for Putin to keep this land, drones will fly and kill his men , destroy his refineries, infrastructure etc. Gazprom has giant loses for the first time, Putin also needs to protect himself from the oligarchs that he screwed over with his imperialistic dreams. Ruzzia's economy is not doing well, if you notice in all the demands for peace Putin includes "please, please remove the sanctions". From what I see onlyne Zeds fray to God that Trump will save their SMO from failure, hopefully there are still soem repuplicans with brains around to prevent any truly zetarded decision.
Generally the US does a pretty good job training and keeping their grunt soldiers alive, and evacuating them if wounded. Russia really hasn't done well in these aspects if we look at the Ukraine war, or any earlier wars for that matter. Their tactics tend to prefer quantity over quality.
But yes, as pointed out I'm sure Russia places some more value on lives of skilled, well trained personnel than the average poorly trained grunt soldier, simply due to higher utility value.
It just amazes me that Russian soldiers are able to fight against one of the most Western-armed countries in Europe [0] using ... shovels [1] ... and zombie-like meat waves [2] ?
Does it amazes you that they gain less then 1 square kilometers even with their Chinese bikes and turtle tanks?
not sure why everyone shits on Russian shovels, the RuZZian special forces recorded themselves how they train to fight close combat with shovels, a shovel is a weapon. Anyway the real quote was something like "weapons and shovels" but the Ruscists could only read the last part. The Zeds also claim they fight NATO, I say to all the Zeds please attack a NATO country then you can claim you fight NATO - because now you fight just your little brother that gas some old Western weapons and better intel, the difference is that Ukraine is not Chechnya so is harder to invade them, the drunk bear found a big enough adversary to break it's mouth.
Why does this remind me of that time the USA got defeated by some guerillas in the Vietnamese jungle? They succeeded in plucking some feathers from the arrogant eagle's tail. Perhaps those guerillas had some help?
"what about USA/Israel"
I am not a supporter of USA military operations so I did not study them,
but if youget reminded how USA lost then it means you know Ruzzia has no chance to actually really win (NATO is already larger, many Ruzzian fascists are dead, Ruzzia is getting demilitarized ... )
I think no party to the war has a chance to really win. The biggest tragedy though is that whatever happens and regardless if anyone wins militarily, for many years (decades) after the war people living in Ukraine will not feel like they won anything. You can be sure of that
In the sense that Ukrainians then get to invade Kazakhstan around 2040 on behalf of Russia, and film Tik Tok videos about how nasty of fighters they are?
Chechnya is/was very much a part of Russia and was not contested territory. Yes, it was acquired through conquest, a long time ago. If you are going to bring that up, then USA should give California back to Mexico.
I am concerned about people not lands or what empire has right to what land. The people wanted freedom and Putin created some false flag operations to start a second war, today those people instead of having their children live in peace are forced to see them fighting for the criminal that killed their parents.
Only imperialists bring historical claims to the discussion, for people in civilized countries is not a good argument that you claim you conquered and genocided some lands sometimes in the past, all the empires have fallen except the Russian one and there will be a time when the opressed people should get their freedom.
So dear comrade if Californians want to fight for their independence from an opressor I will support the people aand not the imperialistic coward old man that would want to genocide them again.
> The people wanted freedom and Putin created some false flag operations to start a second war, today those people instead of having their children live in peace are forced to see them fighting for the criminal that killed their parents.
A lot of those people that fought for freedom in Chechnya later went on to do great things, such as join ISIS or become drug dealers in Austria.
> I am concerned about people not lands or what empire has right to what land.
I wonder, does the same right of self determination of nations apply to people wanting self determination in NATO-allied countries? To Ukraine? Or is there fine-print included in your concern?
>I wonder, does the same right of self determination of nations apply to people wanting self determination in NATO-allied countries? To Ukraine? Or is there fine-print included in your concern?
I personally am for self determination, my country though is for respecting the UN laws and borders, Ruzzia is a GIANT hypocrite , when it is in their favor they want to split countries and grab lands like in Ukraine , when others want to split like Kosovo or Checnya then they apply the reverse and for some reason Kremlin and some Ruzzians are very invested in what Moldova is doing and they want to ensure that their self determination is exactly what Kremlin desires.
Actually when Western countries began recognizing the independence of Kosovo (independently of the UN) they warned that it will open up a pandora's box that will come back to bite them. But once again no one listened and kept studying Kremlinology. When Russia said that color revolutions on their borders are a concern no one listened and Nuland dealt free baked cookies in Kiev to Maidan protesters. These, by the way, turned out to be most expensive cookies in the world for Ukraine. Which is an important lesson: do not trust the US when it gives away things for free, even baked cookies
Don ot be extremly stupid like Ukraine and trust Ruzzia, if they would have entered EU and NATO with Poland and Romania they would be safe and rich, but they were too stupid to think Ruzzians are their brothers. This is 100% facts and no independent country should give a shit about some retarded old man wishes of imperialism, what a joke of a nation and you joke of an individual, we the Eastern Europe should give a shit of who we elect or what alliances we enter so we do not upset that nazis future invasion plans.
You never explain why no slavic country is sending help to Ruzzia? Serbia sells weapons to Ukraine and Belarus is a dictatorship so expaln please ? why slavs hate Ruzzia?
>Russia is fighting against the combined military intelligence apparatus of 40 countries
And is Russia's fault they are some assholes that only N Korea and Iran supports them, all their brothers slavic countries in Europe are supporting Ukraine, except the dictator in Belarus who is sitting and spectating.
Think about how much Netherlands is helping Ukraine, all because of MH17, some half competent non drunk Ruzzian diplomat would have done a better job in handeling this issue, probably they would have had to do something impossible for a Ruzzian , admit the truth that an incompetent drunk Ruzzian destroyed the airplane and send the guilty to be judged and punished.
So incompetent diplomacy, garbage external politics makes Ruzzia to have Zero supporters, this is an achivement and the credit goes to Putin and his gang.
You aren't seeing this from the perspective of the Russians at all.
In the 1990s Russia was weak and was promised by NATO that the military alliance would not encroach further east. This was a bold lie just like the Minsk agreements. There has always been a persistent effort by the West to subvert Russia and make it another colony of the US and UK intelligence apparatus. Everything you are seeing is a reaction to fighting against the pressure of 40+ western nations simulateneously trying to crush it and choke it to death.
You're too focused on the little things and you aren't seeing the big picture. In the grand scheme of sovereign state operations a few thousand dead is utterly insignificant. I don't think I need to remind you of the number of casualties in all recent wars started by all sides of the conflicts in the past twenty years.
There is no evidence NATO pro missed Ruzzia that they will not expand/
And why would the fallen USSR would have to barggen for that promise?
You Riussians have the mental inability to understand the Eastern Europe , why did your brothers slavs enter NATO, why is Seriba wanting in EU and not CSI, why Ukraine wanted in EU and Puttler started the conflict to stop them.
We explained this many time but it is impossible for Ruzzian to understand, I think is projection , you can't understand that we do not want your lands or resources, we the East entered NATO to ensure our children will not be killed not he front lines when Ruzzians will invade, opr be deported to Siberia again and replaced with Ruzzian colonists.
Compare Ukraine, Eastern Europe and Ruzzia, only Ruzzia was involved in many conflicts.
Not sure if repetition can help you guys, but let me try
"we do not give a shit about your land, resources or internal politics. We want to be safe so we entered NATO, the invasion in Ukraine is the proof that everyone except Ukraine was the smart ones to enter NATO, and Ukraine shows us that it was zetarded to trust Ruzzia"
Only Putin and his gangs of oligarchs are at fault you are a poor country with no perspective for a future, if you have followed Poland example and reform and bring democracy and stop getting involved in conflicts you would be an economic power and a trusty partner.
In the same clip, USSR's minister of defense says the same when journalists ask about it: don't know anything about it. Other people from USSR's top leadership have said the same and I've never seen anyone of equal weight dispute them.
The hoax doesn't even make sense, because not even American presidents can promise what their successors will do or will not do. It's up to the electorate to decide who will be the next president and what policies they will pursue. Gorbachev briefly touches upon this too by mentioning sovereignty.
While it's generally true that presidents can't promise what their successors will do, there might be rare exceptions or situations where a president could influence future actions through long-term policies or agreements.
Your statement implies that presidents have complete control over their policies. In reality, the implementation of policies often involves complex interactions with Congress, the judiciary, and other factors. It also suggests that the electorate has full control over who becomes president and what policies they pursue. This overlooks factors like the Electoral College system, party nominations, and the influence of various interest groups on policy-making. There's a slight tension between saying presidents can't promise future actions and then stating it's up to the electorate to decide future policies. This could imply that the electorate has more power to determine future actions than sitting presidents do.
Your question touches on the balance between governmental continuity and the potential for change that comes with each new administration. This is indeed a challenge in democratic systems.
While presidents have significant power, they are constrained by various factors like constitutional limits, legislative processes, judicial oversight, international agreements, bureaucratic inertia
Undoing everything is often not practical or desirable. Some policies become deeply entrenched and difficult to reverse. Rapid, wholesale changes can lead to instability, which is generally unpopular. Many policies have broad bipartisan support.
Drastic reversals of popular policies can lead to political backlash. Some policies and decisions have long-lasting effects that are difficult to reverse quickly. The system of checks and balances in many democracies is designed to prevent rapid, extreme changes. You're right that this potential for change can create challenges for long-term governance. However, it's also what allows democracies to adapt and respond to changing circumstances and voter preferences. The key is finding a balance between stability and the flexibility to implement new policies.
Public opinion is a big deal in democratic countries, which makes them very much averse to loss of soldiers lives. Much less so in a dictatorship like Russia. They are losing more in a month than the US lost in years or decades in active campaigns.
My grandfather flew in WWII and had many stories of both his planes and those in his group making it back with what mechanics would have thought was catastrophic damage.
Shooting down any aircraft with a rocket is likely to take anything down. Planes can handle damage much better from what I understand.
Anti-aircraft weapons have gotten better. In WWII the Axis didn't have proximity fuses so the shells would explode at a predetermined range and throw shrapnel.
Now anti-aircraft weapons explode at a very specific distance and create a rapidly expanding ring of metal which slices the aircraft in two.
And they are actively guided onto their targets. Even bullets are aimed by radar and a computer plotting a solution involving the trajectories of the target, your own aircraft, and the bullets themselves.
For sure. I wasn't raising 80 year old flights as a direct analog to today's weapons, I'm just pointing out a direct example I have of planes landing safely after some really serious damage. Helicopters aren't nearly as likely to make it back with similar levels of damage.
Survivorship bias is related to how you respond to the data though, in this case reinforcing the wrong parts of the plane based on where you saw holes in planes that returned.
I do believe it is still true that planes can take more damage and still land safely compared to helicopters.
I can't find any good data to support it now though, maybe someone going by here will have a good link to data that shows real world data either way.
An anecdote, but in 1983 an Israeli F-15 famously landed successfully with one of its wings almost completely sheared off after a midair collision during training exercises.
Flight 17 was shot down with a Buk missile. Wikipedia says 150 lbs. warhead.
Flight 655 was shot down with 2 SM-2MR missiles. Wikipedia is mum about warhead weight...but the missiles themselves would be over 3,000 lbs. (combined).
Vs. the helicopter was shot down with a 24 lbs. missile, with a 2.6 lbs. warhead.
One extremely clear lesson from WWII was that hitting a fixed-wing aircraft was very different from shooting it down. Size mattered. Once the combatants realized that, they replaced their start-of-war "you might get a hit in just the right spot" pea shooters with the heaviest AA weapons that they could use.
I think what they're saying is that you can't easily target a fixed-wing aircraft flying miles above ground with hand-held equipment like you would a helicopter
> So you're saying that fixed wing airliners are better than helicopter airliners because shooting them down requires larger missiles?
Yes, it not only increases the barrier to entry for attackers but airlines can install some defenses against MANPADS since they're easier to counteract than more advanced missiles. Some Israeli companies have developed and certified flare based anti-MANPADS systems like Flight Guard and laser based ones like C-MUSIC, though I don't think airlines have widely deployed them yet.
Once they're at cruising altitude, man portable AA can't bring them down.
These shoot downs are such uncommon events that it makes no sense to judge passenger aircraft by them. You may as well say that helicopters are better because, not using runways, they avoid a repeat Tenerife scenario.
Any consideration like this is completely washed out by practical/economic considerations; how much money can you make operating an airline with either kind of aircraft, and what kind of capabilities do they provide? This is why fixed wing aircraft are almost always better, except when the particular capabilities of helicopters invoke their use.
I'm saying that helicopters are more fragile, period. It doesn't matter whether you are testing that via consequences of weapons damage. Or counting the number of failure-critial moving parts. Or digging through flight-safety statistics. Or computer modeling the effects of the sudden loss of the outer 1/4 of one [wing|rotor blade]. Or getting quotes on life insurance for a career pilot. Or asking a savvy fortune teller.
Would it make sense to add the 'height' factor? An airplane reaches and does most of its course at 3km, while a helicopter at a much lower heights and thus well within the firing range of far more weapons.
Looks a fascinating piece of equipment out of Sci-Fi Anime...
Noticed something interesting from the first flight: "...A first flight on 27 June 1967 ended prematurely due to oscillations caused by control problems; one set of main wheels contacted the ground hard bursting a tyre and bending a wheel hub..."
The cause of the oscillations proved to be a harmonic amplification of vibrations in the cockpit floor feeding back into the control column when a roll demand was input into the cyclic stick
How would they go about diagnosing such a complex interaction in the Sixties?
Probably similar to now mechanically. They got the chinook and others up and going during the same time period. Although I guess the Chinook was quite a bit easier since its mass was distributed out toward the rotors instead of clustered between them.
The Mi-6 had some pretty horrible harmonics issues too, if you search on youtube there are videos of them attempting to start one that's at a museum, and several times they abort the startup because the whole helicopter is rocking backwards and forwards after starting the second engine.
Well obviously it's viable in the sense that it could fly. But aviation projects in the USSR were based more on the whims of Party leaders than on any sort of rational economic viability.
Current designs for eVTOL aircraft are very short ranged due to limited battery capacity. At most they'll be used by a few wealthy passengers for short hops within highly congested cities. And they won't be drones; it will be many years before the FAA even considers certifying drones for carrying paying passengers, especially in airspace where VFR aircraft operate ("see and avoid"). Human pilots will be in command.
What is wrong with a train for short trips? There is nothing wrong with 1825 ideas with some small modernization (electric trains are still 1800s technology - though these days I would add autonomy which is still 1990s technology in trains unlike most places where it is still science fiction)
The noise pollution that comes with trains is pretty ghastly too. Living next to a train track is just complete hell if you want to ever leave your windows open, cause every 30 minutes you won't be able to hear yourself think for about a minute. Road traffic is at least constant so you can sort of filter it out.
True, and the way it reverberates from surrounding buildings is so much worse than road noise. Source: live next to a 5 lane railway, plus bullet train, plus monorail).
Of course it's a staged publicly photo. That's nothing unusual. The "red stuff" is just regular turbine intake covers that are commonly used when certain aircraft are parked outside.
This is quite likely just a reflection of my biases in learning and taught history, but so much of what the Soviets worked on feels rooted in a sort of “that’ll show them!” inferiority complex.
I see similar things in North Korea and Russia too today where it’s almost like a lot of their efforts are based on a hypothetical checklist labelled “What Modern Nations Look Like”
I think whether or not there’s any truth to my perception, it’s why I find a lot of Soviet stuff to be so fascinating in a science fictiony kind of way.
First woman in space too, and a very long list of other firsts some of which remain untouched by anyone else (eg landing in the surface of Venus and sending digital pictures back). Valentina Tereshkova went to space in 1963, at a time when women in the US had to ask their husband’s permission to open a bank account.
My perception was that the Cold War was partly about exploiting this trait, forcing them into financial ruin by running races they couldn’t help but compete in.
A short and fun to read corrective is Kotkin's Armageddon Averted. The competition, inefficiency and the demands of its own power projections were a costly strain but nowhere close to leading to ruin or an irrecoverable state.
It's not entirely untrue and some of the cases where it is are famous but much of the time there were entirely pragmatic considerations and/or consequences of other policy decisions. A few things that come to mind are the many constraints on manufacturing capability and industrial capacity, 'dual use' goals, the size of the country (vs. the quantity of developed infrastructure), etc.
What you are describing is an attribute of command-based economies. The typical market-based feedback mechanisms are often non-existent, or dulled - is it economical, is there demand, etc. In USSR everything was produced by state-owned factories, where political leadership would pass down edicts poorly rooted in economic realities and wouldn’t pose questions such as “do we need to make a monster helicopter if 3 smaller helicopter are cheaper to manufacture and operate”.
In some ways today’s China is also guilty of the same kind of folly, hence high speed rail network that isn’t economical to operate so ideological justifications are needed. Or ghost cities. Etc.
Market capitalism has other downsides, such as externalized costs skewing economic calculations, but it’s a different conversation altogether.
184 comments
[ 2.3 ms ] story [ 226 ms ] threadMy Mi-26 experience was as a staff tech (military, but as part of a humanitarian effort) airlifting medical trucks into a flood-struck area in India, like, 30 years ago or so, but as I understand it, they're still used pretty widely outside NATO, even today.
Very true. I had the impression that the Mi-26 was considerably more niche, and that there wouldn't be a ton of overlap between operators of the C-130 and the Mi-26. However, I just checked the list of operators on wikipedia (not sure how accurate that is) and Algeria, Jordan, India, Mexico, Peru, and Venezuela all field both. There also seems to be civilian operators of the Mi-26.
Was on a beach a while ago and a coast guard helicopter was flying low and I didn't hear it until it was right over us
I think our Media is a great disappointment.
We’ve spent 20 years in the Middle East, but the general public didn’t learn anything,
The idea of local culture is as uninformed as it was at the start of the war. As a result we will make the same mistake again.
The reporting about war in Ukraine is the same - basically a caricature of reality.
Sidenote: population of Texas and population of Siberia is about the same. Russia has a cruel culture, but their population is only 1/4 of EU’s.
Articles that ask probing questions are only now starting to appear, but are extremely rare. For example:
“Russia is producing artillery shells around three times faster than Ukraine's Western allies and for about a quarter of the cost” https://news.sky.com/story/russia-is-producing-artillery-she...
That phrase sounds about right.
Though my impression is that shell production is still a "meh, I guess we probably should do something..." priority in the great majority of NATO countries.
Rheinmetall intends to increase their annual production to 750k by 2025 and the US is aiming for 1 million annually by 2025. That's still much less than Russia and that's before considering they have access to the significant reserves and the factories in North Korea.
> Since August, Pyongyang has shipped about 6,700 containers to Russia, which could accommodate more than 3 million rounds of artillery shells or more than 500,000 rounds for multiple rocket launchers, according to the South Korean Defense Ministry.
https://news.sky.com/story/russia-is-producing-artillery-she...
https://edition.cnn.com/2024/03/07/asia/north-korea-artiller...
https://www.rheinmetall.com/en/media/news-watch/news/2024/02...
https://www.army.mil/article/274905/munitions_for_ukraine_ob...
Where the problem is, is Ukraine is trained on the Soviet war doctrine but are getting backing from NATO - but without all the airplanes NATO would use (and it isn't clear if they could train pilots/crew fast enough if given, but they haven't been given much) they need something to fight with.
Are we able to produce millions of air to ground missiles if we cannot produce enough simple artillery shells?
Can we replace losses of aircraft in a timely manner?
this argument would work if we could produce missiles in 1:1 parity with shells. However, for any reasonable ratio (say 1 missile for 10 shells) the situations with missiles is even worse! British government has ordered more NLAWs, and they will take 2 years to deliver.
> soviet doctrine underperfomed
That's exactly the scary part - Russian military is a mess, and even in these conditions our military industrial complex is barely holding it together. Mind you we spend 10x what Russia spends. NLAW costs more than a Tesla, takes longer to produce than a Tesla, and uses 90's technology. There is huge graft in the military complex!
Now what will happen if there is a conflict with an opponent that is competent, and is able to outproduce Russia 5 to 1? It will end in massive humiliation.
Hence why Russia has advanced very little since the initial invasion, even with the number of men they are willing to send to their death.
Ukraine has a problem taking their territory back as well, but for different reasons. They don't want to/can't send so many to their death, and have to rely on a large coalition of allies giving them weapons -- who have their own things to worry about domestically, so half-arse or delay support.
Whether this is due to the impotence/utter incompetence of the Russian military or the inherent advantages of defensive fighting, I'm not sure Ukraine _can lose_ this war as long as NATO continues to the supply them with the tools.
Save Putin from what?
By default, from now on Russia just retains the (formerly) Ukrainian lands it controls and integrates them in Russia. There's no deadline to that process, even if Russia stops gaining any land at all while still having to lose some number of people on the front line, basically indefinitely.
I can see that assertion in the Western media that Ukraine has an option to "not agree" to unfavorable terms, such as the ones voiced by Putin. The underlying assumption is that Putin has to disengage eventually, so the Ukraine can just wait it out. But unless some miracle saves the day for Ukraine, Russia is not getting out of these lands at all. After all, Russia is busy paving roads and issuing Russian citizenship in these areas.
Attitudes (and apathy) of the Russian population is the most astonishing thing about this whole conflict, and something that should be remembered when dealing with the country in the future, even after Putin.
I don't say that fighting this war in the current state was a good decision, far from it. It is also kind of throwing out good money after the bad. Still, I don't see Russians parting with whatever paltry gains they just had in exchange for a lot of their spilled blood.
Post communism was hard for everyone else too, but we (Eastern Europe) do not invent conspiracies about Israel and CIA to explain the corruption and incompetence of our leaders. For our case the politicians could blame the previous guys but in a dictatorship it is hard to blame the previous guys since it means blaming yourself so dictators have no choice then blame soem external force like Israel, CIA,LGBTQ, Satan.
That and, outside the EU, another troublemaker that is Serbia.
Russians do not see the existing borders and existing ex-Sovier political layout as fair or in any way beneficial to them.
And you agree with this Rusky? They do not like that other nations are not longer part of their empire ? Or that the countries East of Berlin are not under their evil influence ?
If yes, then I am sorry for you, maybe the next generation can find peace in the fact that empires and colonialism are history and could focus on their own country, they have resources they only need competent leaders and a better mentality.
Ukraines were dumb to not enter in NATO in EU with Poland, they were too pro Ruzzians now the stupidy costs them, look at Poland and look at Ukraine economy.
Just as Hungarians do not consider Hungarians from Uzhgorod an other nation; ditto Serbs do not consider Serbs from Respublika Srpska another different nation.
Russians actually care very little about what all of the remaining Eastern Europeans are up to. They aren't of much interest. Why do you need Warsaw if you can fly to Paris non-stop.
Ruzzians are stuck in the past, we no longer start wars to grab lands where some people that speak same language as us live. Not all people that spek Russian are Zeds and want to be part of Ruzzia.
The hypocricy is strong with Zeds since they are doing the opposite in Moldova, they promote a Zetarded idea that Moldova is a different language, that Moldovans are a different nation and that they need to keep their independence and borders (until Putin can invade).
As you can see Romania, Poland or Hungary are not even considering invading Ukraine to grab lands or people, we are living in a different age , we can help our nationals in Ukraine without killing.
But i bet you are aware that the Russian speaking Ukrainians are not the reason Putin grabbed Crimea or the other lands, it is all geo politics and inteligent Zeds admit it.
The only way people are going to respect some arrangement is if they believe it's good for them. Russians now believe "some voting" they had forced on them was catastrophic and "some treaties" are fundamentally unfair to them.
The geopolitics of Crimea are questionable. Black Sea Fleet turned out to be glass cannon of questionable utility. It's mostly about popular wishes and not about pragmatics. Before 2014, Putin was swimming in cash yet his approval ratings were Bidenesque.
That is deeply delusional. The Soviet Union and its satellites in Eastern Europe were held together only by force. 50 years of Russian domination only led to severe economic stagnation, lack of freedom and prosperity. Half a century of lost progress. Russia does not have an unfairly lost empire. Europeans are not your slaves. You can't even run your own country properly, yet you somehow believe that the Americans should hand you on a silver platter an empire to run. How does that make any sense?
Nothing is going to get better before you get rid of this imperialist delusion.
Even USSR as it existed after WWII was not of your own making, but an unfortunate side-effect of massive American military aid provided under the lend-lease agreement, which allowed to roll over European nations after Nazis had been defeated, and keep them hostage for half a century.
Germans managed to snap out of their delusions. 30 years after Nazis brought them to a similar total collapse, Germans did not have a Gestapo officer as their president, did not decorate official events with swastikas, did not reurgitate Nazi propaganda, did not complain how the entire world as wronged them, did not demand the US to cut ties with the UK and France, and did not wage genocidal wars against neighbors in an attempt to reach the 1942 extent of Germany. Instead, 30 years later, they had become the cornerstone of pan-European cooperation towards peace, liberty and prosperity.
If anything, the mistake made in 1990s was not making Russians face the consequences of their actions to the same extent Germans were forced to and thus Russians have not internalized that the 1990s were the result of their own actions. Are you not old enough to remember the depth of Soviet mismanagement and the ножки Буша that saved the country from starvation? But KGB and CPSU leaders were not hanged, apprachiks were not banned from public life, nuclear weapons were not taken away and the country was not demilitarized, Russian imperialism and Soviet ideology were not rooted out in favor of universal humanist values.
Ironically, it looks like those who do not learn from history are indeed doomed to repeat it. Putin has put the country on the path of reliving the 1990s, this time with much less international sympathy. Do they grow chicken in North Korea?
Actually, same for Kiev (add some Jewish minority in Odessa and Dnepropetrovsk). So you do not have anything to do with it.
The rest of advise is unwanted. It looks like Russia is not going to collapse in any of the modes you have described, and it's going to hold whatever lands it is holding, and that is how it's going to be.
That's not what actions say. Constant economic, political and social sabotage since the end of USSR, combined with hostile rhetorics from popular slogans like "The masters will be back!" to official demands to kick Eastern Europe out of NATO, leave little doubt. There is nothing people in Eastern Europe wouldn't like more than the luxury to focus on domestic issues and pretend that Russia doesn't exist at all, but Russian actions force us to divert considerable amount of resources towards ensuring that you stay where you are. Russia is the only reason why we need to have an army at all. Were Russia a normal country like Germany or Spain, we could disband the army tomorrow.
> It looks like Russia is not going to collapse in any of the modes you have described, and it's going to hold whatever lands it is holding, and that is how it's going to be.
Total delusion. Russian economy is already a dead man walking. The financial blockade keeps getting worse, and even the people from your central bank are saying: "Потому что [если] не будет нормальных расчетов за продукцию по внешнеэкономической деятельности, для нашей и экспортно, и импортно зависимой страны это просто все, это погибель". You can't run a modern country on Dogecoin or "import substitutions" hammered together by some Vanyas, that much is clear to everyone. This won't end in any other way than the previous time.
Likewise, Crimea is already lost. Every air defense system you set up there gets blown up by Ukrainians using weapons that cost a tiny fraction of their target. Without air defense, the remaining forces are sitting ducks. Russian ground forces will eventually either get destroyed, or pull out like they did from Kherson to save what's left. This is purely a matter of time. The navy has already abandoned Crimea.
Not to mention Eastern Ukraine. 10 000 Russians die every month just to keep the frontline where it is, and twice as many get wounded or crippled for life. It will only get worse as Soviet era stocks deplete and get replaced with older and older junk with every passing month while Ukraine keeps getting better and better new production as western arms factories gear up. At the start of the war, European factories were producing large caliber artillery ammo in batches of tens of thousands. This year they will produce over a million units, up to three million next year, going as far as it needs to go.
I wonder when will you finally wake up to the reality that Putin blundered the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to sell oil and gas while it still has any value, and use that flow of money to bring Russia to European level of prosperity. Gazprom is now in the red while Germany has produced 2/3 of all electricity this year from renewables. The window of opportunity is closing. Every Kinzhal blown up by Patriots somewhere in the skies over Ukraine costs as much as a modern schoolhouse, but instead of engaging in international trade and investing in schools that produce value for decades to come, you only get a loud bang. Putin is destroying your opportunity for a better life. Why do you choose to accept that?
Ahem. WTF?
As I've already said, Russians don't care and don't think in such terms. No slogans.
The rest of the logorrhea invokes "не говори гоп, пока не перепрыгнешь". Don't do the stuff you peddle.
That's a lie and you know it. Variations of it like "We can show it again!" (that is, rape our way to Berlin) are in very widespread use among the Russian public and represent exactly the way most Russians think. Revanchism is the cornerstone of Putin's Russia, and that is also clearly present in your constant complaining how Russia has been humiliated and unfairly treated, and how it is entitled to anything more than it currently has, while the truth is that western nations spent a lot of money to relieve the humanitarian disaster that came from your own long-term mismanagement that you now try to pin on the Americans. You are - without any shame - biting the hand that fed you.
https://avatars.dzeninfra.ru/get-zen_doc/4600043/pub_623f227...
The problem is that it does not concern Eastern Europeans in any way.
Russians did indeed win World War Two as a part of victorious Allied coalition. The "raped their way to Berlin" is represents a completely undeserved slur. The German army did not consist of fertile women but of seasoned and well-armed German males who invaded Russia previously (under Meth as we've just learned) and they had to be killed first.
The Germany after the atrocities that they have done was at complete mercy of winners, who in their wisdom and kindness has chosen to spare it. We didn't have to.
The only way Russians may care about Eastern Europe is extinguishing the sources of such unpleasant noises.
It does not. The war memorial that Russians erected in central Berlin is still colloquially known as "the tomb of the unknown rapist". The number of people raped by Soviet forces is estimated between 1 and 2 million, among them many well-known people, such as the wife of Helmut Kohl, raped when she was 12. At least 100 000 people were raped in Berlin alone, aged "from 8 to 80", as one Russian war correspondent put it, and often died in the process due to blood loss, were murdered or committed suicide thereafter. Victims were not only German civilians, but also from Polish, Belarussian, Ukrainian and other nationalities who had been brought to Germany as slave labor. War correspondents like Vasily Grossman have recorded vivid descriptions of the gang rapes and other depravity; I believe it was Grossman who described a German village - whatever house he looked into, each had women on beds, dead, with dried pools of blood between legs.
And the typical response from Russians is that of yours: how they should be thankful that you didn't rape even more. You have the audacity to call it kindness.
And of course, anyone who dares to remind of this is making "unpleasant noises" and should be "extinguished". We can all see in Ukraine what that means. Murder, torture and systematic rape once again. A lot of elderly people in Europe are disturbed more than the rest by reports of Russian conduct in Ukraine because they remember it from their own youth. Despite their limited income, they are some of the most generous sponsors of aid to Ukraine.
No Russian would accuse their grand dad that has taken Berlin of anything, before walking in his shoes first. Walking to the Berlin obviously.
Around 2 millions of Russian civilians starved in Leningrad during the Nazi siege.
I'm honestly not sure which kind of a different response would one expect after murdering more than 20 million Soviet citizens in the four years before that. You do not want to ever bring this topic into conversation because you're going to look worse than the side you are accusing. "We said we are sorry" is not good enough, just like the post-Soviet borders. I believe Germans should start going around whacking annoying Eastern Europeans over the head when they try to dig out this hideous mass grave again. Extremely annoying behavior.
Still, our ancestors had to kill all of armed to the teeth German males first, and that was no small feat, that we are still proud of; and obviously they were 100% righteous in doing so. Then all the Eastern Europeans who we "set free" did their little ethnic cleansing against Germans. I've heard Czech has expelled circa 300,000 Germans, killing several tens of thousands in the process. Ditto Poland.
Ah yes, FOUR years, 1941-1945. Because the year 1939, when you signed a secret pact with Hitler dividing Europe, jointly invaded Poland and even held a joint military parade celebrating victory over Poland, didn't exist. Nor did 1940, when you invaded the Baltics and Romania, and supplied oil and other key materials in defiance of economic blockade to the Nazi war machine as German bombers were flying sorties over London, and your own were bombing Helsinki, with "bread baskets for starving Finns" as the propaganda put it (Finns invented the Molotov cocktail as a drink to go with that generous gesture). None of this happened. The war started in June 1941, right.
But no. The war didn't start for Europe in 1941 nor did it for Russians. Germans and Russians were the two main instigators of the Second World War and in cooperation invaded one country in Europe after another in the first two years of the war until there was no-one left but the two of them and the stage was set for the endgame.
Germans have recognized their responsibility and devoted to building a better Europe. Russia, let me check the news feed... another 5 civilians killed, 53 injured in today's drone and missile strike in the Ukrainian city of Dnipro. And god knows how many died on the frontlines defending their country, and in torture chambers on occupied territories.
There is no need to speak about digging out old graves when you are producing new ones every day.
I didn't sign anything. And before that, Germany and Poland has jointly invaded Czechoslovakia and divided it between themselves. It was wild; still I don't understand why I would feel responsible for any of these events in history.
> Germans and Russians were the two main instigators of the Second World War
That is, like, just your opinion, man. I have a different one. We can agree to disagree here. Even if was just Germany and the Soviet Union fighting each other, the point about not wishing to dig up that mass grave persists. Most of the mutilated corpses there are, tragically, Russian.
> Germans have recognized their responsibility and devoted to building a better Europe
Great for them, but as a Russian I saw nothing useful coming from it my way. So why would I care.
> Russia, let me check the news feed... another 5 civilians killed, 53 injured on today's drone and missile strike in the Ukrainian city of Dnipro
So go sign some peace treaty with Putin, he has some fresh terms for it. People in Dnepropetrovsk and Kiev stop dying, but so are people in Donetsk and Belgorod and Sevastopol. After several deadly Ukraine's attacks against civilian targets in Russia, I grew tolerance to Ukrainian losses. I genuinely don't care mourning somebody other's dead when I have enough of my own.
Just don't expect us to cede any lands we paid in blood. We used to be that stupid, but I hope not anymore.
> Great for them, but as a Russian I saw nothing useful coming from it my way. So why would I care.
> After several deadly Ukraine's attacks against civilian targets in Russia, I grew tolerance to Ukrainian losses
Excellent example of Russian mentality on full display. Don't understand, don't care, don't feel responsible.
This is how you differ from Germans. They have faced their past and developed a deeply internalized sense of duty not to repeat the past mistakes. They are a key contributor to the European Union, a major platform for peaceful cooperation in Europe and beyond. Despite long and violent history, they have mended relations with France and Poland and many others who have seen Germans as enemies for centuries. Since the 1960s, Germans have pursued the policy of Wandel durch Handel, hoping to bring positive change through mutually beneficial trade, including with Russia. They have provided aid and investments in billions and billions, and if anything has not reached you, then that's because Putin chose to spend the money earned through trade on missiles killing people in Ukraine instead of building better schools in Russia.
Your attitude towards the victims of the latest war is particularly vile. The only reason why anyone is dying, including Russian civilians caught in the crossfire, is because Russia started the war for which people like you keep inventing excuses out of imperialistic delusions and entitlement.
This is especially revealing:
> Just don't expect us to cede any lands we paid in blood. We used to be that stupid, but I hope not anymore.
You "pay in blood" only because you invaded another country, murdered and continue to murder people defending their homes and loved ones as you try to steal their property. There is nothing smart about thievery and murder. Germans are smart. They found a way to have a influence on the world without all that. You will continue to pay in blood until you leave Ukraine alone because that is fair and just.
Since it excludes Russia from the day one I also care very little, and for me that's a liability not a virtue.
> The only reason why anyone is dying, including Russian civilians caught in the crossfire, is because Russia started the war
Again, that's only your opinion with which I disagree. There's Crimea and LPR/DPR and Ukraine has started a civil war against LPR/DPR. They should've thought twice about that.
> you invaded another country, murdered and continue to murder people defending their homes
They should go to Putin and sign some ceasefire or peace treaty with him if they don't like it. Why come to me. I am not Putin and I didn't even vote for him.
And yet - when someone corners you on the internet you run to stand behind him, like a big papa.
So in that sense, you very much are "voting" for him.
It was stupid for Ukraine to skip negotiations in 2014, it was stupid for them doing three coup attempts in 15 years, but it was also stupid for Putin to do what he did in 2022. That's past now, though, that is immutable, and the future can only be fixed by negotiations.
Whoever the Russian deep state manages to run up the flagpole after Putin croaks -- we know you'll still be here.
Echoing his latest catchphrases, defending his every move.
However, I'm also no big fun of the state of Ukraine, but I'm quite fond of Crimea. Many Ukrainian cities as well, but Crimea in particular.
So, as Lenin has said, "one can't live in a society and be free of that society".
Very fond, I'm sure.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1939_German_ultimatum_to_Lithu...
Many Ukrainian cities as well
And the German soldiers were always so fond of Paris.
The lands the USSR has occupied in 1939 are mostly Russian Empire lands, so USSR never really agreed to part with those. Neither was Germany committed to parting with its German Empire lands. You may argue they have both "signed something", right.
If you praise Germany for changing its strategy after 1945 to avert future wars, at the same time you should blame the US world order for failing to part with strategy which got them WWII after WWI, when dealing with post-Soviet Russia.
As they should have noticed by that moment, you do not get into stable, reciprocital relationship with someone you've either raped into signing a piece of paper or got them to sign for a $2.99 can of food or starve. I believe Soviet troops in 1945 Berlin did not have such expectations, but to my surprise, US and its thralls still do.
There is nothing in the key treaties of the EU excluding Russian membership, provided that it meets the criteria, of which the rule of law and the respect for human rights are the largest concerns. Back when Gorbachev was seeking "Common European Home" with the EEC, European countries were quite open to the idea. Certainly no less than they were open to a good working relationship with Germany only five years after their citizens had been saved from concentration camps. In Central and Eastern Europe, everyone who set European integration as their goal reached it in 10-15 years, and it has been an incredible success for everyone involved.
But I believe we once already discussed that feeling of empowerment from being able to kill people across the world with impunity is more attractive to you than fishing quotas and other mundane things that the EU deals with most of the time to improve the lives of its citizens day by day.
> Again, that's only your opinion with which I disagree. There's Crimea and LPR/DPR and Ukraine has started a civil war against LPR/DPR.
There was no civil war in Ukraine. LPR/DPR are fiction created by Russia to mask their invasion. And this is not my opinion, but facts established by the European Court of Human Rights. A few years ago they had a case brought against Russia by countries whose citizens perished in the shot-down MH17 airliner. Russian representatives tried to spin the old lies about "separatists" in Ukraine being at fault (and thus absolving Russia of all responsibility), but the court found no facts to support that there had been any separatism worth mentioning in Ukraine. Those people were, from the start, like Girkin from Russian secret services, recruits from local criminal gangs working for them, or from the armed forces of Russia without proper insignia, all acting under Russian military command.
Pay attention to the reverse side of the Russian campaign medal awarded to the participants of the invasion of Crimea: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medal_%22For_the_Return_of_Cri... The start of the campaign is incribed as 20 February 2014. That was months before LNR/DNR "declared independence", and even predates Yanukovych running away from the country (the event gopniks call "CIA coup" that started it all).
The truth is that Russia invaded Crimea as Ukraine was in internal turmoil, and then made special operatives cosplay separatists in Donbas and used that as an excuse to invade Eastern Ukraine.
> They should go to Putin and sign some ceasefire or peace treaty with him if they don't like it.
All offers Putin has made so far can be summed up as "let me keep what I've stolen, and add a bit more". Anything less than a retreat from Ukraine is not a serious proposal. You are paying one Afghan war worth of killed every month for the stubborness to admit in the third year of the war that the three-day land grab has failed. The price is only going to rise as European arms factories ramp up production, and more of the fighting is carried over into Russia as restrictions on weapons get looser. The batch of fighter jets that the Netherlands signed over to Ukraine yesterday came without restrictions about their use over the skies of Russia.
> Why come to me. I am not Putin and I didn't even vote for him.
People like you are the reason why Putin has any impact in the world. Putin is not sitting behind a bench in a factory and milling artillery shells that reduce Ukrainian cities to rubble as if a nuclear weapon had gone off. He is not programming Ukrainian power plants into missile guidance systems to make Ukrainian cities unlivable. He is not the one sitting in a jet and dropping bombs on Ukraine. He is not the one tortu...
Why does LPR/DPR militia fight the Ukrainian army then, from 2014 onwards? Because they totally do. They are among the most motivated troops.
> Anything less than a retreat from Ukraine is not a serious proposal
Then more Ukrainians will die "defending their homes", as well as Russians of course. And have a good day.
> Without millions of people acting as his willing executioners
They just really don't like the state of Ukraine (and post-Soviet borders), but at the same time want Russia to win the war. It's simple.
There never was such a thing. The war in the east started on 12 April 2014, when Russian commandos led by Igor Girkin from FSB seized government buildings in Sloviansk. The ECHR did not find any evidence of a militia in Ukraine that wasn't manned, supplied and controlled by Russian armed forces. But you cannot admit any of this, because without the origin-myth of civil war in Ukraine, the whole justification for the invasion would collapse.
> Then more Ukrainians will die "defending their homes", as well as Russians of course.
That's the price many nations in Europe have had to pay for their freedom. It is not too common to see people throw away their freedom and willingly become serfs like Russians have under Putin. There is no greater indictment of modern Russia than the the fact that Ukrainians choose to go through this hell if it saves them from ending up with the kind of life you have.
> They just really don't like the state of Ukraine (and post-Soviet borders), but at the same time want Russia to win the war. It's simple.
Indeed. Simply a Russian version of Nazism. Delusional ideas about rearranging the world put forward by a paranoid dictator, with population that out of deep inferiority complex willingly believes his soothing lies and follows him blindly, united under Z-swastika, in murdering peaceful people across Europe by hundreds of thousands while erasing entire cities from existence. And then you wonder why no-one respects you and why Russia is increasingly seen as a curse on this world.
DPR was already proclaimed by then, and I believe most of these comandos were on Ukrainian passports ATM.
> That's the price many nations in Europe have had to pay for their freedom
Then why all the whining? I don't shed so much tears and complain to UN when opening my wallet.
> Delusional ideas about rearranging the world
No - that's just siding with your country and your people.
> why no-one respects you
Frankly, we don't care, because we do not respect you either anymore. And that one will be much harder to undo.
Ukrainian citizenship doesn't prevent one from serving Russian interests. As the ECHR concluded after reviewing facts, there is no reason to consider the people who started the war in Eastern Ukraine as distinct from Russian armed forces. Russian government brought together the people, equipped them, gave them goals to fulfill, and supported them in any way they could. Likewise, the Freedom of Russia Legion is without any doubt a part of Ukrainian armed forces despite consisting mainly of defected Russians.
> Then why all the whining?
It's you and your Führer who are constantly whining how everyone humiliates and deceives you. Just a few days ago, he came up with a new sob story - that the assault on Kyiv failed not because of successful counterattacks at Hostomel and Irpin, but because western countries deceived Russia into a ceasefire that they dutifully followed. How can you listen to that and not think "what a moron"?
> No - that's just siding with your country and your people.
That's what Nazis and their supporters thought too when they rallied around Hitler. Hitler didn't act in Germany's best interests and nor does Putin act in Russia's best interests. The longer it takes you to recognize it, the deeper hole you will have to crawl out from. It's great irony that revenge has put you on track of repeating the 1990s.
Other than that, molon labe.
No, I am not speaking about the mythical 1990s as they exist in the mass conscious in the present day, warped by a huge dose of Soviet nostalgia. I am speaking about the 1990s that people actually lived through. Hyperinflation, shortages, poverty, crime. Breakdown of social order. Life's savings losing value almost overnight. Wages going unpaid for months and months. Abandoned kids sniffing glue and no-one caring. Few people had the luxury to care about issues beyond their immediate survival. Knew a family that had collected enough money for a house. Money lost value in such a short time that they managed to get only an ugly floor lamp by the time reality hit them. Nobody gave a shit where borders ran or if they even existed.
Massive spending on completely non-productive activities like the war against Ukraine while the world pivots away from you in disgust is a solid strategy for reaching such socio-economic deterioration again.
And it's important to stress that the 1990s were not seen as separate chapter at the time, but as the natural endgame of USSR's deep internal rot and failure to provide even bare sustenance to its population. Somehow you managed to run a resource-rich country into the ground during peacetime, and dragged down with you the European nations that you had enslaved during the WWII. And yet, for some reason, you think you've suffered a great injustice and still deserve an empire. Why? You can't run a normal country.
I can see that happening easily if Putin loses his war, and all of the options I've ever saw coming from the West drooling with saliva converge to Russia losing.
As Sukhov once said, "I'd prefer to suffer a bit".
> still deserve an empire.
Not sure about Putin, but I don't want one. A nation state would suffice. Crimea is populated by Russians. Everybody speaks Russian in Lugansk, Donetsk and Mariupol. I don't see any utility in a border which separates them from the rest of Russia, or any excuse for it to be where it is. I'm not against any borders at all, just these particular ones.
Putin lost the war a long time ago when the attack on Kyiv failed, Ukraine managed to maintain unified government and military command, and found allies. Countries representing the majority of the world economy are now behind Ukraine and that seals the deal for Russia as much as it did for Nazi Germany. Putin has no path to victory and cannot retreat for domestic reasons. The plan was apparently "3 days to Kyiv" and Plan B does not seem to exist. He is stuck as Ukraine is grinding away the huge inheritance of USSR's weapons that make up the bulk of Russian army to this day. Again, great irony - in the end, it's Russia who is demilitarizing. Ukraine has destroyed over 8000 tanks. By most estimates, only 1100-1500 of old stock remain for refurbishment from graveyards. New production is 120-150 tanks per year. I guess that's why we didn't see a trace of the famous Brezhnev-era armadas on May 9th parade anymore. All the new tanks are gone and patched up rustbuckets from the 1960s would be nothing less than another humiliation.
> I don't see any utility in a border which separates them from the rest of Russia, or any excuse for it to be where it is.
I don't see any utility in a border which separates Finno-Ugric people in Russia from the rest of them in Europe, especially considering the abysmal state of human rights there. When can I expect the return of Karelia to Finland?
Karelians has never made dominant part of the population of what is now republic of Karelia. The problem here is that the name Karelia comes first and Karelians are an ethnicity of people who also happen to live in Karelia alongside larger nations. Which, ironically, included a lot of Finns and even Swedes before the Revolution.
Currently, ethnic Karelians make up 6% of the population of the republic. So the fact they've got a republic with some support for local culture shows the deep left-leaning woke organization of Russian Federation. But that's the most what they can ever have with 6%.
Meanwhile, Crimea was what, 80% Russian? Donbass was between 60% and 95% Russian speaking depending on the metrics?
In short, you could keep these lands
Nor did Russians form the majority in Donetsk or Luhansk or Mariupol before the war, yet you have no issue making territorial claims. This is just another invented excuse. Why was Kherson oblast officially annexed by Russia when barely 14% of Kherson's population identifies as Russian? Who invited you?
The part that Russia now holds is essentially an empty steppe with, IDK, perhaps ~150k population in total and most of its territory evacuated.
And thus crumbles another excuse.
> The part that Russia now holds is essentially an empty steppe with, IDK, perhaps ~150k population in total and most of its territory evacuated.
A great example of the kind of misery Russia brings to the world. Shit country with trash people.
Russia wants a land bridge towards its 2 million strong Crimea and that's why Genichensk is now a seat of government of Kherson oblast of Russian federation.
You should hear one day what Russians think about countries such as Latvia or Poland.
A man in Finland can take a bike and ride through Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Czechia and Austria to the southern tip of Italy, then head west to visit the westernmost point of Europe in Portugal, and return home following the Atlantic coast through Spain, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, Denmark and Sweden without being distrubed, stopped or questioned even once. No-one will ask who he is and what he carries in his pockets. He does not have to apply for visas, he does not have to get permits nor go through any ID checks. And not only can he bike through Europe, but he can also move to any place for work, study or leisure as if he was moving to another town in Finland. The Schengen agreement provides undisturbed travel across Europe, and European Union's four fundamental freedoms guarantee the unrestricted movement of people, goods, capital and services. Countless academic, business, cultural and other kinds of relations stand on these foundations. Foreigners from other European countries can even vote at local elections if they are permanent residents.
Russians never had anything comparable, nor will have anytime soon no matter how many people you sacrifice, because your Führer with his "land bridges" is an uneducated moron who doesn't understand how the world of the 21st century works. He has failed to take advantage of the opportunities it offers. He is a Soviet dinosaur who has literally never experienced any of it. Never took a free semester in another country under the Erasmus program, never held Eurail pass or backpacked through Europe as if national borders didn't exist.
The 30-something countries in Europe have achieved through peaceful cooperation much more than Russians ever had through violence, at any point in time.
I find it incredible how you take the stance that "In the 1990s, we were weak and stupid, but now we're smart and strong!" while still acting like total morons, incapable of developing past the ridiculously obsolete 19th century gunboat diplomacy that keeps the entire country retarded. Only complete losers talk about "land bridges" in 2024. Winners talk about AI, chipset designs, clean energy, electric vehicles and reusable rockets, and not of the kind that blow cancer-stricken children into tiny pieces as they rain down on hospitals.
For countries that are run by smart people who are good at diplomacy, national borders lost any real meaning a long time ago.
Russians had something comparable in 1990.
You could take a bike from St. Petersburg through Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, then enter Belarus, go over Ukraine, back into RSFSR, then bike through Sochi, Abkhazia AR, Georgia and into Armenia. Return home biking through Karabakh AR, Baku, Dagestan ASSR, and beyond.
Now you may feel the pain.
Russia had internal-ID based border crossing arrangement with Ukraine up and into 2014, but Ukraine circa 2000 has started talking about how it will cancel that arrangement and require passports and introduce visas and will banish Black Sea Fleet from Crimea, and did three coups against reasonably pro-Russian governments in Ukraine of various success, and now we have zero trust in such arrangements. See also: COVID. The only lands where you may be confident you are able to roam is one under that Russian tricolor flag.
So Russians will absolutely forfeit any kind of agreements and goodwill for having more land, because land is something definite and agreements can be canceled at any moment by the other party without further notice.
There were hopes that CIS will be EU-like commonwealth with USSR-like integration between parties without USSR-like command structure, but it quickly turned sour. Which showed to us the paramount importance of borders and where they're drawn.
> Never took a free semester in another country under the Erasmus program, never held Eurail pass or backpacked through Europe as if national borders didn't exist
Yeah, that is basic Russian experience of not having access to all that stuff. It does definitely highlight the idea that state borders are important, the access to the stuff beyond these borders is complicated and may be denied, so it totally makes sense to have as much useful stuff as possible within your own borders. States 101.
Russians did not care about borders that much in 1990 when you could cross any of these on your bike without noticing, but they definitely started to care a lot about borders in 1995 when they discovered that customs and border guards has now sprang up and the borders are major PITA. They have also started questioning why exactly these borders were drawn in the way they were.
Who are you trying to fool? The USSR had internal passport system and residency permits known as propiskas. People went as far as arranging fake marriages to get propiskas into major cities and settle there. Employers could only hire people with a valid propiska. Living without a valid propiska was a criminal offence. People were essentially serfs tied to the address in their propiska.
In 1990, as Soviet authorities were desperately looking for ways to reform the crumbling country, the Committee for Constitutional Supervision of the USSR had this to say about the system:
And so forth. Original source in Russian: https://base.garant.ru/183584/The system of propiskas was finally abolished in 1997 when the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation also found it in violation of human rights. And this is just about being able to freely move, work and study as a citizen inside your own country.
Visiting other countries, even puppets in the Eastern Bloc such as East Germany, was a total pipe dream that required official recommendation and characterization as a loyal commie from your place of employment and trade union, followed by KGB's border department digging through your personal history to ensure that you will not defect as soon as you can (and for that reason, families were not allowed to travel together). The entire process took months. And even then, KGB assigned their people into tour groups to keep an eye on Soviet citizens. During his time in East Germany, Putin was one of those people keeping a watch over Soviet tourists. For most people, this was irrelevant anyway, because the limited number of foreign travel permits went to those on the higher steps of the communist hierarchy and few people were able to leave the country even once in a lifetime.
As I sa...
Remember that I didn't mention visiting any other countries, just the USSR, which totally did not have these domestic borders that would prevent the bicycle trip you have described. Propiska does not come into equation since you did not mention applying for work and settling permanently.
I wonder if you got the messages that Russians mostly view these borders as a nuisance that they were raped into accepting.
> you never had anything close to the cooperation Europe has established through peace and cooperation
I don't deny it, but then again, so what? I never had anything close to many things. A space trip. A Rolls Royce. A helicopter tour. "Coooperation that Europe has established" as well.
But you know what I do, one Crimea that you can buy a train ticket and visit, with no border controls deciding whether you are entitled to do so this week or no.
You are choosing to go through another Afghan war every month, destroy the national economy, flush the last remnants of your reputation down the drain, and bring indescribable suffering to millions of people for something that you could get for free if you had smart people running the country.
There is no other way to describe it than a completely retarded behavior. The worst thing is that you cannot even imagine any alternatives to it. This is truly eye-opening for me. You come across like those dumbasses brainwashed by Nazism who committed suicide during the final days of the WWII because they couldn't imagine a future for Germany without the Third Reich.
At the same time they do have great impact on the lives of ex-USSR citizens. We deal with it. That's what we have to do and that's what we do.
> for something that you could get for free
I don't remember a single moment after 1991 when this was an option. I do remember that EU and USA had spent good amount of money and effort to undermine any attempts for Russian Federation to form such bonds with any of its neighbours, and to replace any Russian-sympathetic government of these countries. And now they say they want to further fracture Russia and set up more of these borders with more misery.
> The worst thing is that you cannot even imagine any alternatives to it.
I can easily imagine alternatives to it (I've obviously been to EU many times), I just see throughout my life that we are not admitted to any of these alternatives. We're not getting any of that stuff, not in the past and not in the future, so I would rather have Crimea. And Lugansk. And Mariupol. This is the reputation that we need now.
As for dumbass brainwashed yadda yadda, molon labe. Come and get it. The folks on the front line are seriously tired by now, but they have this precious experience and cohesion, so should any Eastern European chihuahuas show up there, you will be wasted good.
No, that is not true at all. If we count all the people who lived directly in the USSR and in the Eastern Bloc dictatorships under Russian control, then that's about 100 million people who have gained the same rights and opportunities as the French, Italians and other European nations enjoy. Impacted are only those who never chose to participate in European initiatives that have brought people so closely together. It was Russia's choice to stay out of them and thus it's strange to see complaints that you feel left out.
> I do remember that EU and USA had spent good amount of money and effort to undermine any attempts for Russian Federation to form such bonds with any of its neighbours, and to replace any Russian-sympathetic government of these countries.
I trust the recollections of people who were actually at the helm of Russia over yours, for I doubt you were even born then. As the minister of the foreign affairs of the Russian Federation 1990-1996, Andrei Kozyrev was the top man in charge of restoring Russia's relations with the world, and he tells a quite different story. In short, KGB hardliners refused to accept loss of their special privileges and fought back against opening Russia up to the world. They wanted a hermit kingdom that would serve as their personal piggy bank with them at the top. By hook and by crook, they took over the entire Russian government and turned it into a dictatorship led by low-level KGB apparatchik.
According to Kozyrev, Europe and the US can only be blamed - if at all - for not intervening strongly enough to keep Russia on track of becoming a modern country. They could've done more to support people who tried to steer Russia towards freedom, peace and prosperity, but ultimately it is up to Russians to take care of their garden.
Fast-forward 25 years, and we have Putin and his gang in palaces and on superyachts while you have "precious social cohesion" dying under American missiles on the potato fields of Ukraine. How can you not feel robbed and made a fool?
And like stereotypical abusers, to isolate and manipulate you, Putin constantly feeds you lies that everyone else is out to humiliate and mistreat you. You have internalized it to such extent that you not only believe it yourself, but try to convince others that it is true. It is not true and it never was.
The door to Europe was open to you. It was literally official policy in many parts of Europe. You only had to take a step. At the critical point in history, you failed to make the right decision and take advantage of the opportunity.
You can spin coping stories about Crimea all you want if they comfort you and help to forget this gigantic blunder, but with a navy that ran away to avoid being wiped out, an army whose HQs and staging areas get blown up so often that news have stopped reporting them, and an air force that is unable to fly over Crimea without being shot down, the chances of victory over Ukraine look slimmer than ever. You aren't the first Nazis to invade Crimea and hold it for a while, with an illusion that it will last forever.
That's not true, Russian Federation did "participate in European initiatives"
> refused to accept loss of their special privileges and fought back against opening Russia up to the world
And how would that look like? Russia was widely open up to the world up and until 2014. It's more open to the world today that you care to admit.
It would be interesting to read Kozyrev directly if you've got a link, though.
> done more to support people who tried to steer Russia towards freedom
How would that even look like!?
> The door to Europe was open to you
That's false, it was never open. Just take a look what Turkey is doing now. They've spent decades on reading EU's cucumber party regulations and now they've got semi-dictatorship and no longer admissible because they frankly gave up some time around 2015.
And Turkey is an easy case compared to Russia. It's in NATO, not as big, does not have its own nukes, etc, etc.
That was never an option.
> You only had to take a step.
How would that even look like!??
You're talking all the time about Russia refusing some simple steps and not opening enough, but absolutely sounds like these "it's not you it's me" excuses from the friend zone to any Russian. Russians are not stupid as to not being to tell a relationship from a friend zone.
EU is officially declaring that it now has the optimal size, perhaps even too big, but definitely only accepting small countries such as maybe Montenegro in the future. So that is no go from the day one. The path that you are confidently showing as available just does not exist and it never did. Russians didn't even expect it. But there should be some framework dealing with Russian existence on the edge of Europe, and such framework was notoriously absent. We didn't even have short trips visa waiver in 2010. So when 2014 come, there was no carrot that EU could threaten to take away, and Russians are famously imprevious to sticks.
So no Erasmus, and the only back packing option available is in the military camouflage.
Too late for that stuff, anyway. No go win that war that you can't shut up about being winning.
Nowhere near the level of those did who eventually joined the EU (or even EFTA). Even preparing for accession was a major effort that required incredible amount of work to harmonize legislation and actual practices with European standards. We had very little money at the time and severe shortage of people who understood these things. Everything from stock market rules to patient data protection at medical facilities needed a total overhaul. When comparing this with Russia at the same time, it is very clear that while the idea of European integration was floated from time to time, it was never a serious goal with a full national effort behind it. This is what I meant when I said you never made the step.
In the last 30 years, Russia could've easily become a full member of the EU as did almost the entire Eastern Europe. Or if that was too much, then at least join the Schengen Area and European Free Trade Association and peacefully sell oil like Norwegians for good money and let pensioners spend that warming their bones on Mediterranean beaches instead of suffering through cold and dark winters while worrying if their grandchildren return from the war alive. Yesterday I saw statistics that adjusted wealth for the cost of living. In the span of a single lifetime, Norwegians have risen from poor farmers and fishers to the richest people on the planet. This could've been you. The suffering in the 1990s would've had a meaning then as a stepping stone towards much better future, as it's viewed in Central and Eastern Europe.
> It would be interesting to read Kozyrev directly if you've got a link, though.
He wrote a book on that: https://www.amazon.com/dp/0822945924
> Russia was widely open up to the world up and until 2014. It's more open to the world today that you care to admit.
According to V-Dem indicies, which attempt to quantify the rule of law, civil liberties, fairness and freedom of elections, wide representation of interests (instead of narrow groups), and equal access to resources across various groups within a society, Russia was already at the bottom of global ranking in 2013. The way Medvedev was used to keep the seat warm for Putin's another term and protesters were treated in 2011-2013 leaves no doubt how and by whom Russia was run. Certainly not by the people for the people under rules that are equal for all.
See the table on page 58 and 1973-2023 time series on page 60: https://www.v-dem.net/documents/43/v-dem_dr2024_lowres.pdf
> That's false, it was never open. Just take a look what Turkey is doing now. They've spent decades on reading EU's cucumber party regulations and now they've got semi-dictatorship and no longer admissible because they frankly gave up some time around 2015.
When it comes to Turkey, negotiations were always bound to become long and difficult due to unresolved issues around the Turkish invasion of Cyprus, the Kurdish-Turkish conflict, radical muslims in rural Turkey, and a long list of other difficult subjects. There is a fair bit more to chew on than only cucumbers.
Turkey's negotiations for joining the EU began in 2005. V-Dem shows Turkey gradually slipping into authoritarianism after 2008. Negotiations slowed down, stalled in 2016 after the coup attempt in Turkey, and were officially suspended in 2019. I think it is fair when the EU says that political instability and broken economy with 75% inflation rate makes Turkey a poor candidate at the moment. For Eastern Europe too, the main obstacles were economic and political stability criterias.
Last year, main Turkish opposition parties who represent 48% of the electorate reiterated intent to continue worki...
I just don't see what essentially any Russian citizen can do about this. If you do not have free elections and no representation of interests, then by definition you cannot also fix that stuff in any fashion. "We think we can treat you poorly because your government also does" is an especially poor sell to Russians.
> negotiations were always bound to become long and difficult due to unresolved issues around the Turkish invasion of Cyprus, the Kurdish-Turkish conflict, radical muslims in rural Turkey, and a long list of other difficult subjects.
The point is, all of these issues also exist in Russia: Unresolved issues around Abkhazia and South Ossetia, as well as North Caucasus insurrections and its radical muslims. So if that didn't work for Turkey in 30 years, it will also not work for Russia. Case closed.
Getting into EU is comparatively easy for a small country, much harder for a larger one and for Russia (or Turkey) it is both impossible and infeasible. Real integration could only come in some other framework, which has never materialized, and as I can see nobody in EU even understands that it needed to be there. If you are an economic and defense bloc accepting new countries in, you should be very careful about countries you're not going to accept, as they rightfully see you as a threat.
So all the fuzz about "hell" izz mizzguided.
Sure Moscow or St Parkersburg and nice to live if you are a Zed or apolitical and maybe is great if you are an violent abuser since now is almost legal to beat your family if you ensure you do not break their bones. Just ensure your kids do not say soemthing bad about the army or KGB then you might have to pay.
Did you do your mandatory military service or you bribed you way out of it ?
Of course it is not comfortable to live in a country if you oppose the core value of its people. Just go to Ukraine if Zed makes you throw a fit. What holds you.
The latter.
But yes, as pointed out I'm sure Russia places some more value on lives of skilled, well trained personnel than the average poorly trained grunt soldier, simply due to higher utility value.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_aid_to_Ukrain...
[1] https://www.businessinsider.com/russian-troops-are-ordered-f...
[2] https://nypost.com/2024/01/23/news/moscows-meat-wave-tactic-...
not sure why everyone shits on Russian shovels, the RuZZian special forces recorded themselves how they train to fight close combat with shovels, a shovel is a weapon. Anyway the real quote was something like "weapons and shovels" but the Ruscists could only read the last part. The Zeds also claim they fight NATO, I say to all the Zeds please attack a NATO country then you can claim you fight NATO - because now you fight just your little brother that gas some old Western weapons and better intel, the difference is that Ukraine is not Chechnya so is harder to invade them, the drunk bear found a big enough adversary to break it's mouth.
In the sense that Ukrainians then get to invade Kazakhstan around 2040 on behalf of Russia, and film Tik Tok videos about how nasty of fighters they are?
(This might as well happen)
Only imperialists bring historical claims to the discussion, for people in civilized countries is not a good argument that you claim you conquered and genocided some lands sometimes in the past, all the empires have fallen except the Russian one and there will be a time when the opressed people should get their freedom.
So dear comrade if Californians want to fight for their independence from an opressor I will support the people aand not the imperialistic coward old man that would want to genocide them again.
A lot of those people that fought for freedom in Chechnya later went on to do great things, such as join ISIS or become drug dealers in Austria.
> I am concerned about people not lands or what empire has right to what land.
I wonder, does the same right of self determination of nations apply to people wanting self determination in NATO-allied countries? To Ukraine? Or is there fine-print included in your concern?
I personally am for self determination, my country though is for respecting the UN laws and borders, Ruzzia is a GIANT hypocrite , when it is in their favor they want to split countries and grab lands like in Ukraine , when others want to split like Kosovo or Checnya then they apply the reverse and for some reason Kremlin and some Ruzzians are very invested in what Moldova is doing and they want to ensure that their self determination is exactly what Kremlin desires.
Actually when Western countries began recognizing the independence of Kosovo (independently of the UN) they warned that it will open up a pandora's box that will come back to bite them. But once again no one listened and kept studying Kremlinology. When Russia said that color revolutions on their borders are a concern no one listened and Nuland dealt free baked cookies in Kiev to Maidan protesters. These, by the way, turned out to be most expensive cookies in the world for Ukraine. Which is an important lesson: do not trust the US when it gives away things for free, even baked cookies
Don ot be extremly stupid like Ukraine and trust Ruzzia, if they would have entered EU and NATO with Poland and Romania they would be safe and rich, but they were too stupid to think Ruzzians are their brothers. This is 100% facts and no independent country should give a shit about some retarded old man wishes of imperialism, what a joke of a nation and you joke of an individual, we the Eastern Europe should give a shit of who we elect or what alliances we enter so we do not upset that nazis future invasion plans.
You never explain why no slavic country is sending help to Ruzzia? Serbia sells weapons to Ukraine and Belarus is a dictatorship so expaln please ? why slavs hate Ruzzia?
Nonsense.
Reality disagrees , unless what we see is actually the best and brightest Ruzzia can find.
And is Russia's fault they are some assholes that only N Korea and Iran supports them, all their brothers slavic countries in Europe are supporting Ukraine, except the dictator in Belarus who is sitting and spectating.
Think about how much Netherlands is helping Ukraine, all because of MH17, some half competent non drunk Ruzzian diplomat would have done a better job in handeling this issue, probably they would have had to do something impossible for a Ruzzian , admit the truth that an incompetent drunk Ruzzian destroyed the airplane and send the guilty to be judged and punished.
So incompetent diplomacy, garbage external politics makes Ruzzia to have Zero supporters, this is an achivement and the credit goes to Putin and his gang.
In the 1990s Russia was weak and was promised by NATO that the military alliance would not encroach further east. This was a bold lie just like the Minsk agreements. There has always been a persistent effort by the West to subvert Russia and make it another colony of the US and UK intelligence apparatus. Everything you are seeing is a reaction to fighting against the pressure of 40+ western nations simulateneously trying to crush it and choke it to death.
You're too focused on the little things and you aren't seeing the big picture. In the grand scheme of sovereign state operations a few thousand dead is utterly insignificant. I don't think I need to remind you of the number of casualties in all recent wars started by all sides of the conflicts in the past twenty years.
And why would the fallen USSR would have to barggen for that promise?
You Riussians have the mental inability to understand the Eastern Europe , why did your brothers slavs enter NATO, why is Seriba wanting in EU and not CSI, why Ukraine wanted in EU and Puttler started the conflict to stop them.
We explained this many time but it is impossible for Ruzzian to understand, I think is projection , you can't understand that we do not want your lands or resources, we the East entered NATO to ensure our children will not be killed not he front lines when Ruzzians will invade, opr be deported to Siberia again and replaced with Ruzzian colonists.
Compare Ukraine, Eastern Europe and Ruzzia, only Ruzzia was involved in many conflicts.
Not sure if repetition can help you guys, but let me try
"we do not give a shit about your land, resources or internal politics. We want to be safe so we entered NATO, the invasion in Ukraine is the proof that everyone except Ukraine was the smart ones to enter NATO, and Ukraine shows us that it was zetarded to trust Ruzzia"
Only Putin and his gangs of oligarchs are at fault you are a poor country with no perspective for a future, if you have followed Poland example and reform and bring democracy and stop getting involved in conflicts you would be an economic power and a trusty partner.
In the same clip, USSR's minister of defense says the same when journalists ask about it: don't know anything about it. Other people from USSR's top leadership have said the same and I've never seen anyone of equal weight dispute them.
The hoax doesn't even make sense, because not even American presidents can promise what their successors will do or will not do. It's up to the electorate to decide who will be the next president and what policies they will pursue. Gorbachev briefly touches upon this too by mentioning sovereignty.
Your statement implies that presidents have complete control over their policies. In reality, the implementation of policies often involves complex interactions with Congress, the judiciary, and other factors. It also suggests that the electorate has full control over who becomes president and what policies they pursue. This overlooks factors like the Electoral College system, party nominations, and the influence of various interest groups on policy-making. There's a slight tension between saying presidents can't promise future actions and then stating it's up to the electorate to decide future policies. This could imply that the electorate has more power to determine future actions than sitting presidents do.
Your question touches on the balance between governmental continuity and the potential for change that comes with each new administration. This is indeed a challenge in democratic systems.
While presidents have significant power, they are constrained by various factors like constitutional limits, legislative processes, judicial oversight, international agreements, bureaucratic inertia
Undoing everything is often not practical or desirable. Some policies become deeply entrenched and difficult to reverse. Rapid, wholesale changes can lead to instability, which is generally unpopular. Many policies have broad bipartisan support. Drastic reversals of popular policies can lead to political backlash. Some policies and decisions have long-lasting effects that are difficult to reverse quickly. The system of checks and balances in many democracies is designed to prevent rapid, extreme changes. You're right that this potential for change can create challenges for long-term governance. However, it's also what allows democracies to adapt and respond to changing circumstances and voter preferences. The key is finding a balance between stability and the flexibility to implement new policies.
I would speculate the governments that rely on volunteers instead of conscripts for the military.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kramatorsk_railway_station_att...
overall i prefer any mode of transport that is not being shot at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMS_Lusitania
Funny anecdote, my first air travel was in an Mi-8 as a 6 year old being airlifted out of a war zone
Shooting down any aircraft with a rocket is likely to take anything down. Planes can handle damage much better from what I understand.
Now anti-aircraft weapons explode at a very specific distance and create a rapidly expanding ring of metal which slices the aircraft in two.
I do believe it is still true that planes can take more damage and still land safely compared to helicopters.
I can't find any good data to support it now though, maybe someone going by here will have a good link to data that shows real world data either way.
Flight 17 was shot down with a Buk missile. Wikipedia says 150 lbs. warhead.
Flight 655 was shot down with 2 SM-2MR missiles. Wikipedia is mum about warhead weight...but the missiles themselves would be over 3,000 lbs. (combined).
Vs. the helicopter was shot down with a 24 lbs. missile, with a 2.6 lbs. warhead.
One extremely clear lesson from WWII was that hitting a fixed-wing aircraft was very different from shooting it down. Size mattered. Once the combatants realized that, they replaced their start-of-war "you might get a hit in just the right spot" pea shooters with the heaviest AA weapons that they could use.
Either of these are such fringe scenarios, it doesn't make sense to judge either whole class of aircraft by this type of incident.
Yes, it not only increases the barrier to entry for attackers but airlines can install some defenses against MANPADS since they're easier to counteract than more advanced missiles. Some Israeli companies have developed and certified flare based anti-MANPADS systems like Flight Guard and laser based ones like C-MUSIC, though I don't think airlines have widely deployed them yet.
Once they're at cruising altitude, man portable AA can't bring them down.
Any consideration like this is completely washed out by practical/economic considerations; how much money can you make operating an airline with either kind of aircraft, and what kind of capabilities do they provide? This is why fixed wing aircraft are almost always better, except when the particular capabilities of helicopters invoke their use.
Look at the next generation of "helicopters" for the US military and their justifications for such.
That makes my point even stronger (planes vs helicopters and their reach-ability from the ground).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mil_V-12
Noticed something interesting from the first flight: "...A first flight on 27 June 1967 ended prematurely due to oscillations caused by control problems; one set of main wheels contacted the ground hard bursting a tyre and bending a wheel hub..."
The cause of the oscillations proved to be a harmonic amplification of vibrations in the cockpit floor feeding back into the control column when a roll demand was input into the cyclic stick
How would they go about diagnosing such a complex interaction in the Sixties?
Is there any hope that eVTOL drones can do what this was supposed to, namely hops between near cities and taking people places without large runways?
Current designs for eVTOL aircraft are very short ranged due to limited battery capacity. At most they'll be used by a few wealthy passengers for short hops within highly congested cities. And they won't be drones; it will be many years before the FAA even considers certifying drones for carrying paying passengers, especially in airspace where VFR aircraft operate ("see and avoid"). Human pilots will be in command.
Railroads however...
Subways and trams are get a pass though.
That said, can't say anything bad about LRT.
I see similar things in North Korea and Russia too today where it’s almost like a lot of their efforts are based on a hypothetical checklist labelled “What Modern Nations Look Like”
I think whether or not there’s any truth to my perception, it’s why I find a lot of Soviet stuff to be so fascinating in a science fictiony kind of way.
That's what the Cold War was about, innit? Same reason why the US went to the moon.
It's not entirely untrue and some of the cases where it is are famous but much of the time there were entirely pragmatic considerations and/or consequences of other policy decisions. A few things that come to mind are the many constraints on manufacturing capability and industrial capacity, 'dual use' goals, the size of the country (vs. the quantity of developed infrastructure), etc.
In some ways today’s China is also guilty of the same kind of folly, hence high speed rail network that isn’t economical to operate so ideological justifications are needed. Or ghost cities. Etc.
Market capitalism has other downsides, such as externalized costs skewing economic calculations, but it’s a different conversation altogether.