I changed my mind on Putin

Post Reply New Topic

I used to like that he was trying to “undo” the mistake of losing Cold War. But now that he made nuclear threat, I can’t help but agree with everyone else that he is crazy and dangerous. I really hope it’s an empty threat but I am not sure. What do y’all think?

Quite frankly that was a shocker. Because in his youtube videos in the past he struck me as both calm and rational. I always enjoyed the combination of calm mood, sarcasm, and strong logic in how he handled the opposition. I would have never expected him to start lashing out as he does now.

I still wish Russia could “undo” its defeat. But I wish it was done by someone more sane.

I think that ship has sailed. Further, this seems like the long-term result of the Russian Empire's attempts at forcing non-Russians in territory conquered from Poland and Lithuania to view themselves as Russian. People tend to resist forced assimilation and as long as Russia has a government that feels entitled to treat those regions like they're also Russian there will exist grounds for conflict.

The calm, logical and rational ones are sometimes the ones you need to fear the most. They can control what they show, craft a narrative. That doesn’t mean it’s reality. There was good reason experts have long warned against him.

What are you referring to?



Ukraine is historically Russian because there used to be Kievlian Rus. In other words, Kiev used to be a capital of Russia.

He wasn't inventing any stories though. He was pointing to facts, all of which seemed logical.

One thing he was pointing to is how there was an agreement back in the 90-s that NATO won't expand by an inch, and they violated that agreement because it was verbal and not on paper. So he said they tricked Russia by not writing it on paper. This sounds like a valid grievance to me.

Like I said, I just wish he wasn't making nuclear threats. He used to be pretty rational up until recently.

Don't be alarmed.
pootin using the nuke card is like a progressive using the race card.
No one takes it seriously any longer. <satire>

But he didn't just "say" something. Instead, he actually "ordered" it to be put on high alert. So presumably they carried out that order. No?

pootin using the "high alert" card is like trump using the "fake news" card.
No one takes it seriously. <satire>

Fake news (Trump) or race (liberals) are just words. High alert is an actual order that is to be carried out.

Putin can't undo the result of the Cold War no matter what he does, anymore than a German leader could undo the results of WWII. What's done is done.



I'm familiar with the history of the Russian Empire. Your reasoning gives Ukraine more of a claim to Russia than the other way around.

Do you think all those ethnic groups that came under Russian dominion after the partition of Poland-Lithuania all considered themselves as Russian prior to that? Kyiv wasn't dominated by Moscow until after being conquered by the Russian Empire. The Grand Principality of Ruthenia wasn't Russian and only after generations of forced assimilation could the Russian Empire even pretend the area was ethnically Russian.

That gets back to my bigger contention, even outside of politics. I had situations in the past when I made social faux pas with a girl, she decided not to date me, then later I explained to her how I didn't mean what I did, she agreed that she was too shallow/judgemntal, yet she still didn't consider dating me. Why not? Becuse she already decided not to date me, and "whats done is done".

So "whats done is done" is one of the main concepts that I wish people were to rethink. My opinion is the opposite. I am a strong believer in "undoing" things. So if something was "done" that makes it a prime candidate to being "undone". Thats why I really wish Putin could "undo" the defeat in cold war.

As far as Germany, I don't think they "want" to undo the result of WW2 since they are opposed to nazism. However, I *would* say that it is unfair that Germany has limitations on how much arms it can have to this day. Since its governmnt isn't nazi any more, why all this distrust? And that also goes along the same lines of what I complained about earlier. I don't like the concept when low status is permanent.

If my own low social status wasn't permanent, then maybe I wouldn't be complaining so much on "Love and Dating" section of WP. So I sympathize with others who are suffering from permanent low status, such as Russia and Germany. And no I don't want likes of either Stalin or Hitler. So I am glad those regimes changed. But I don't want the countries to still have low status.



I agree that the concept of Kievlian Rus would imply that Ukrain should preside over Russia rather than the other way around.

However, that also proves that those people have common orgin. If you say they didn't, how did Kievlian Rus ever happen? And if Kiev was conquered by Russia, why would a city that been conquered become a capital?

Why would Kyiv suddenly become ethnically Russian just because it was brought under the control of the Russian Empire? Would the people have woken up the next day all suddenly Russian instead of Rutherian, or Lithuanian or the multitude of ethnic groups that existed the day before the Russians conquered it?

I mean, Scotland has been part of the United Kingdom for hundreds of years and Scots still retain a distinct identity. Why is it so hard to accept that this is also true for other peoples who live next to large empires?

But did it ever happen that Russians conquered Ukraine? If yes, then how could there have been Kievlian Rus? Why would they make a city that was conquered into a capital?

How does any of that make Ukranians Russians? If they were Russian they'd all identify as such. Clearly their separate identity exists for a reason and that reason is because that part of the world often hasn't been controlled by Russia and their identity isn't as Russians.

You're right to point out Kievan Rus as the core of the state Russians claim their state to be descended from, but that ignores that Russia is more directly descended from Vladimir and Moscowvy, meanwhile Kyiv's development was isolated from those places for centuries. They've had a separate and distinct identity from the time Russia conquered them to the end of the Russian Empire and they've had that distinct identity for the past over a century since then.

The official canon of Russian history might erase Ukrainians and others as separate peoples but the fact that their identities remain demonstrates Russia failed at that goal.

You still haven’t answered how Kievlian Rus is compatible with what you wrote.

I haven’t heard of Ukraine being conquered by Russia till you just mentioned it now. I always assumed they were the same country from the very beginning.

So, now that you told me something new, here is a history question. If Kiev was either a separate country or a conquered territory, how could it be a capital in either of these two cases? I mean, it did become a capital at some point. How was it possible, given what yiu just said?

Sorry, I assumed you were more familiar with the history of the region.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Kyiv

The city wasn't under Russian control from the time Russia emerged as an independent state (no, Kievan Rus doesn't count) until the late 1700s. Kievan Rus isn't Russia, it's merely the state from which the Russian people get their name. Russia needed (and continues to need) to overstate their connection to Kievan Rus in order to invalidate the identities of Ruthenian peoples who didn't wish to identify as Russian.

Kievan Rus is the shared common ancestor of Russia, Ukraine and Belarus but trying to reframe that as though it's the same as Russia isn't accurate and was done with the goal of assimilating people.