The load-bearing pillar of the Russian identity is the idea that we are a nation of defenders, who fought off the biggest invasion in history. We defend, not intrude.
If you remember history, there was another guy who attacked a slavic country, in the morning, without declaring war, hoping for a blitzkrieg. We are that guy now.
I thought about renouncing my Russian nationality. I may have Russian origins, and I may speak Russian, and I may live in Russia – but my nationality would be blank. Null. Nothing. Empty string.
I decided against that. By renouncing my nationality I would also renounce Lomonosov, Dostoyevsky, Tolstoy, Tchaikovsky, Vavilov, Surikov, Vrubel, Tarkovsky, Korolyev, and Gagarin. I refuse to let a single tyrant tarnish the Russian contribution to human civilization.
And I'm pretty sure Lomonosov and Dostoyevsky don't care about what passport if any you have, please renounce it already and stop this soppy drivel.
> I'm sorry but you can't tell me you weren't aware of wars in Afganistan or Chechnya?
Nonsense. Russian history is full of invasions. That is how empires are created, and that is their mode of existence.
I don’t know how it’s taught in Russia but for what it’s worth, the major points of Russian history I learned prior to the 20th century was basically the Mongols and Napoleon invading and the brutal conditions of serfdom. Clearly there were other wars but even a Cold War enemy’s educational curriculum tended to emphasize the aspects mentioned prior to around 1950 so I’d have no trouble believing this is how Russians want to see their history.
1. Identity is an internal belief, which may or may not correpsond to the facts.
2. Factually, Russia never was a country of peaceful defenders (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_Russia).
3. During the post-WW2 Soviet era, the main focus of internal propaganda was Peace and Victory over the nazi Germany. It is during that time the identity of a "peaceful defender" was formed and ingrained into the Soviet psyche (and it survived Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan). Later, this identity was reinforced by Putin.
4. I still know a lot of people in Russia who hold that identity. I would still call it a national identity.
5. After the Ukraine war that identity can no longer be held without denial or serious cognitive dissonance.
6. Many people will go into denial, and many people will have an identity crisis.
7. However, "That which can be destroyed by the truth, should be".
Look at how the Russian empire formed: it was Moscow re-taking all the Kyivan Rus lands that were conquered by Muslim invaders. Or all the European countries that attacked/invaded Russian lands: Great Britain, France, Germany, Austria-Hungary, Poland-Lithuania and I'm probably forgetting some.
So yes, it's fairly apt to say that, more often than not, Russia was defending its own lands.
The fact that Russia is wrong today doesn't mean that it hasn't been wronged many, many times before. A parallel is that many abusers were once abused themselves (and yes the cycle needs to end).
Also, Ukraine's unfortunate history: they were the part of Rus/Russian lands that almost always were passed back and forth. The name "Ukraine" itself suggests that...
Then Russians cried foul when the bigger bully betrayed them. Unfortunately allies could not let Nazis overrun Soviets because with access to oil fields Nazis could make Europe their fortress.
And so Soviet crimes were overlooked in the name of greater good.
Don't despair: this idea of a "peaceful defender" was never an objective truth to begin with. I suspect a lot of countries feed similar sentiment to their children. My country (South Korea) certainly did.
A country needs good people who fight to keep it straight. Maybe Russia needs people like you.
https://www.facebook.com/100058234413220/posts/3780988174745...
The letter reads:
"Sir, Richard Morrison is right to question the wisdom of banning all Russian artists on the basis of their nationality ("Ban Gergiev and Netrebko, but don't cancel all Russian artists".)
In August 1968, the day after Soviet tanks had rolled into Prague to crush the lenient rule of Alexander Dubcek, the great Russian cellist Mstislav Rostropovich played at the BBC Proms with the USSR State Symphony Orchestra.
With the greatest irony the work he was scheduled to perform was the Czech composer Antonin Dvorak's magnificent Cello Concerto. I was there: the extraordinary intensity of Rostropovich's performance, together with the tears visibly pouring down his cheeks as the concerto neared its end, spoke more than any number of words.
Julian Lloyd Webber
London SW7"> By renouncing my nationality I would also renounce Lomonosov, Dostoyevsky, etc.
No you wouldn't. Culture transcends flags and borders, but you're putting the nation ahead of it. You can still appreciate your Russian culture without having to buy wholesale the whole Russian (or any other) nationality. The Russian people have created beautiful things like everybody else on Earth has done. There is nothing unique about its uniqueness. You can appreciate it without having to drape yourself in the Russian tricolour, what you call "identity".
Patriotism and sense of nation is, among other things, what causes people to invade and prove themselves better than their neighbours. Patriotism is just thinking your tribe is better than the others. It's an idea worth eschewing if we want to make our planet a better place.
It's imperialism that you should be worried about : when indeed you get the idea that you're better than others, give up on the idea of nation, and try to have a multicultural country, ruling different ethnicities using separate laws - and some of them always end up more equal than others.
And you ask me why I love her
Through wars, death and despair
She is the constant, we who don't care
And you wonder will I leave her, but how?
I cross over borders but I'm still there now
We have been shown the strength of our culture, and the fragility of our institutions, in this era of super-power authoritarianism.
I don't know what the world will be like in ten years. Post-Trump, post-Putin, and hopefully still able to support human life.
This is because Russian history curriculum conveniently completely skips 1939-1941 period. Russia was the Aggressor in WW2. They turned sides only after being attacked by their ally in crime - Hitler.
>If you remember history, there was another guy who attacked a slavic country, in the morning, without declaring war, hoping for a blitzkrieg. We are that guy now.
Yes, he was called Stalin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_of_Poland
But more seriously, Z was for Zapad troops which were from the Western military regions (Belgorod, Rostov barrack setc), others had V for Vostok from the Siberian troops (Novosibirsk, etc). The O is for LDPR/DNR/Crimea troops IIRC.
sorry for my broken English, hopefully you understand what I’m trying to say…
Well, before that there was another war (the Red Army vs. the Ukrainian nationalists around 1920); and Stalin killing millions of Ukrainians in the man-made famine in the early 1930; followed by the mass repressions in the late 1930s, with hundreds of thousands executed. It's never been a happy marriage, not really.
I like the idea of using the OP as a metaphor to help everyone understand the dynamics. It doesn't mean that in practice it really exists.
Central to Putanism specifically and even Russia now generally, there is a strong belief that Russia beat the Nazis, Russia can beat anyone, and Russia is superior. Limitless expansion of its borders is considered Russia's right, ergo anyone who doesn't want to be Russified is a Nazi, and Ukraine rejecting Russia means they are Nazis.
I think Western media has been too dismissive of the Russian belief Nazis are running rampant, portraying it mainly as divorced from reality. And not making the connection just how totally incompatible this worldview is in the post-WW2 and U.N. charter system to which Russia is a signatory. I seriously think we are witnessing the end of that post-WW2 era, back to "might makes right".
The first reason Russia invaded Ukraine is because Ukraine joining NATO(in before "but Ukraine could never have joined NATO!!" - yes it would have and NATO was pursuing that, look it up) would be catastrophical for Russia's defense. At that point the only option for defense from any invasion would have been nuclear armageddon - if say in 20 years NATO comes back and decides to annex Crimea would it be an easy choice for whoever's responsible to press the big red button or would it be nicer to defend it through conventional means?
Secondly, Ukraine has found natural oil/gas reserves that would have competed with Russian exports.
Thirdly, Ukraine has turned off water supply going from Dniepr river to Crimea making it very difficult for Russia to supply water to that area.
I'm not saying that this justifies the invasion - war is a terrible thing and people on both sides are suffering, but would we also be surprised if USA invaded Mexico or Canada to stop it getting aligned with China? I wouldn't.
And, no, Ukraine was not joining NATO. If you have evidence otherwise, supply something more than "look it up".
"Ukraine clearly outlines its ambitions to obtain a NATO Membership Action Plan and looks forward to comprehensive politico-military support for such a decision at the next NATO Summit in 2021. This was stated today during the briefing on “Defence aspects of Ukraine’s Euro-Atlantic integration: main achievements and tasks for the future” by the Minister of Defence of Ukraine Andrii Taran.
"Please inform your capitals that we are looking forward to your full political and military support for such a decision at the next NATO Summit in 2021. This will be a practical step and a demonstration of commitment to the 2008 Bucharest Summit," said the Minister of Defence of Ukraine, addressing the ambassadors and military attaches of NATO member states, as well as representatives of the NATO office in Ukraine.
According to him, the current Ukraine’s course towards full membership in NATO is enshrined in the Constitution of Ukraine. And the rapid adoption of the NATO Membership Action Plan is a goal set out in Ukraine’s recently adopted National Security Strategy. Over the past seven years, Ukraine has firmly defended not only its own independence, but also Europe’s security and stability, and has been a powerful outpost on NATO’s eastern flank.
OTAN was a coalition built to protect its members from the USSR. After 1991, it had no real use until September 11. And then it was again there without true need. Last year, the French president publicly wondered what was OTAN was for... Well, "thanks to" Putin, we all know for sure that we need OTAN to protect us from Putin's imperialism. Otherwise, this costly organization would have slowly sunk into limbs.
If Ukraine wanted to join NATO, it was for protection after Russian's grabs of parts of its territory. Ukraine was obviously right to ask to join. The NATO members were far from wanting that, because they did not want to be directly implicated in an Russia / Ukraine war.
The whole notion that Russia would need buffer countries between itself and NATO is ridiculous. Russia has had several direct frontiers with NATO (Poland, Baltic countries) for the last 30 years (!) without any threat.
The EU was build to avoid wars between its members. We don't want wars anymore, hot or cold. Russia has absolutely nothing to fear on its western frontier. Which European country would be nowadays stupid enough to try to invade Russia??? As if France or Poland would by itself try to attack Russia? Oh, the USA? Well, I can't imagine it but even so, that would not be coming from Europe. Don't think for one second that other European countries would join a common attack from the USA allied to Poland. I'm trying here to find a plausible scenario that could justify your fear to be attacked on its western frontier. None is plausible.
This "Russian fear" has no rational ground. Citing Napoleon and Hitler doesn't work either. They both failed, remember??? The one lesson from History is "do not attack Russia in any case, you will be defeated". To retain from the past that an invasion from the West is always possible is just a justification for prevention attacks TO the west. What about Germany, you could ask. Well, precisely: 9 out of 10 Nazi soldiers were killed by the Red Army. Yes, sorry John Wayne and valiant Englishmen, but most of the work was done by the USSR.
The two last arguments are just atrocious. So Ukraine has found fossil fuels and you fear competition. Poor you... France produce only 1% of its petrol and 3% natural gas'/consumption. But France GDP is the 6th or the 7th in the world and Russia is only 12th with many more people. So... get to work and stop thinking like Putin that you are all like Emiratis that are rich without working. And please stop crying about yourselves: your school system is at least as good as the French one. You are not an African country. Russia was flying in space and exploding nuclear bombs ten years before France. Your problem is Putin and his kleptocracy. It's time to stop fantasies about a nonexistent threat from the West and start a revolution: it's time for democracy in Russia, so that you can develop your economy properly. If your leaders stopped stealing hundreds of billions from the Russian people and making wars without reason, Russia's economy would grow very fast. Look at South Korea: in 50 years they went from poverty to super high way of living. Russia is today far far more advanced than South Korea in 1953 (e.g. after the Korean war). In 20 years, Russians could have the same GDP per inhabitant as France or even better (thanks to fossil fuels, huge agriculture, super good IT sector etc).
Your fear of the West is a way to hide the terrible reality: Russians are afraid of Putin and his regime. I would be too, if I was Russian, believe me. Stop deflecting your internal issues into aggressiveness towards the West.
And, by the way, Russia has the nuclear bomb! Well, more exactly about 4,000 nuclear heads (like the USA more or less). And you need Ukraine to protect your territory? This is so ridiculous in all cases because there is absolutely no military threat from European countries. The only threatening power to your territory is ... China.
Do you still think the USA is interested in invading Russia? What for? California alone as the same GDP as France. They have plenty of petrol and natural gas, plenty of land. Nothing to gain. The USA is in competition with China in the middle term. Yesterday, Russia asked China for military assistance... meaning that the invasion of Ukraine is:
1/ a military failure already (Russia may win the battles but its military weakness has been proven: 17 days into thr war and you don't own the air yet? Nobody could have imagined Russia army being so little operational, and today everybody knows.
2/ OTAN is revived for the next 50 years and will probably enlarge to Sweden and Finland. And also Ukraine when Russian troops will finally retreat, having totally erased all Ukraine's cities, making Kiyv and Karkhiv look like Grozny or Alepo, a large cemetery of concrete. You'll call that a victory, because you'll keep some parts of it (maybe) but without seeing the contradiction of calling Ukrainians your own blood and killing a few tens or hundred of thousands of them - and erasing from Earth some of the most beautiful cities in the world. But victory it is, yeah.
3/ Russia will become a vassal of China or... will lose the Ukrainian war. Because that war is going to last not months but years, simply because the Ukrainian people won't submit and that the West will provide them with weapons and money. Like we did in Afghanistan. Like the USSR and China did in Vietnam to defeat the US army. No army can defeat a people that won't submit. That's one of the few things that History teaches.
So China will become your first client for petrol and natural gas, and agriculture etc. And everything you'll want to import from the West will have to come through China. And as China is more and more on an imperialist path, you'll have to fight along them in wars that are no direct concern to you.
So keep on fantasizing on the western threat and keep lying to yourselves that you are your own enemy. Putin and his regime are of course responsible for this war. I don't think that the Russian people wanted this war, even if I have doubt's after reading you, really. In all cases, at the end, one people is responsible for not revolting against its dictators. Democracy is a never-ending process. Historians say that the French Revolution started in 1789 but really reached its goal, a parliamentary democracy, in 1875. So start organizing and demonstrating in the streets of Moscow. We French are still very regularly demonstrating against our government. The USA's democracy is in a poor state, with a very polarized society - and yes, Trump almost succeeded in its coup, and he will try again, with Russian money once again (and Chinese in 2024 for sure).
Democracy is not a well of petrol you find one day. A political regime is possible only when democratic values are really deeply integrated in a people way of thinking. The Maidan protest had shown that Ukrainians are globally a democratic people ; whatever happens in this war won't change that because it takes tens of years. That's why the USA failed very predictably in trying to impose democracy to Iraq. The Iraqis are not a democratic people yet. We thought that Russia was on its way, then Putin came to power.
So no, Russia and Ukraine is not a "divorce", that is stupid, but finding rationality to Ukraine's invasion in security reasons and petrol & water reasons is just ... I don't have words, really. My point is not to vex you by using bad words - just to try and make you understand that your perception of reality is very difficult to understand for a French American living in France for most of his life.
To tell you the truth, I'm ashamed by my own French president, the young and bright and good-looking Macron. To me, he is not a true democrat. He has not defended democracy in the French political system but has rather diminished it - making it much more like a presidential regime than a parliamentary regime. More like the USA except that the Congress has much much more power in the USA that the French Congress (meaning House + Senate). The police in France has turned violent, racist. About two-third of the police force vote for the far-right. Democracy is not going that well in France either.
You have to fight for democracy in Russia. You should let Ukrainians decide for themselves what is good for them, even if you don't like it: that's the basis of democracy. And I have to fight for democracy both in France and in the USA - by democratic means of course.
To each his own fight. Stop deflecting your collective weakness towards Putin's regime into fear and aggressiveness to Central and Western Europe - and even the USA (which military hubris is a problem, I reckon). Do your "homework". Leave other countries, especially infant democracy like Ukraine alone. Most of European countries have no issues with the Russian people. Really. Well, there is resentment in Central Europe that was jailed by the Soviet Iron Curtain, of course. But time goes by. Look at us, French and German: there is no resentment anymore. It has taken 40 years after WWII.
History teaches the lessons you decide to retain from it.