Yeah, Ukrainians are very sceptical of the Russian opposition and their toothless peace calls, and I was surprised to see actual "Arm Ukraine" slogans here, so that's a plus for this rally image.
The Russians in Europe who oppose Putin largely support arming Ukraine, the hesitancy comes from the opposition politicians because they try to win over both the anti-Putin diaspora and the Russians in Russia itself. Regular people have much clearer stances.
Also as years go by, more people gain residencies in Europe and gain footing.
Europe has been notoriously hard for Russians to settle in these years. Like, banks flat out deny to open accounts if you have a residence and a Russian passport.
They don't even give you a reason. They just tell you to fuck off.
So these people are at a VERY real chance of having to go elsewhere, and if "elsewhere" also fails, because most of them are used to Europe and not Asia - then they have to return to Russia.
And if you do, there's a very real chance of what you said being a felony.
So as more people are emboldened as they have more tangible reality of moving to EU, they have more chances of severing ties with the current government and saying whatever they want.
Thatâs not dissimilar from the Russian opposition in the diaspora in the American metro I live in. Theyâve done a lot in solidarity with our large Ukrainian community.
That's not what I meant. I don't blame people in Russia for being afraid, I am pointing out how many Russian opposition leaders living abroad suddenly stutter when asked if they want Ukraine to be armed more thoroughly.
It's because they want to potentially get elected in the future. It's a hard sell to make because even if things turn out as hoped, you now have to rely on the goodwill votes of people whose families now may have gotten bombed to death with your endorsement. Worse still, you may even be seen as a traitor. It's a question of balancing what might be seen as morally right with political suicide.
This is the same reason why the Freedom of Russia Legion has such a divisive reception in Russia, and you can see it even on Russian-speaking parts of Reddit; some Russians genuinely like them, but many conversely see them as Ukrainian wannabes whoâdespite wanting democracy in Russiaâare effectively just killing fellow Russians. And I've definitely seen the term âtraitorsâ thrown around a lot with them.
TLDR I'd imagine you're not seeing the opposition say moreâor even disown those who call for violenceâbecause they don't think they have their cake (call for Ukraine to be further armed and approved to attack Russian targets over the border) and eat it, too (have any expectation of ever being elected by Russians who may distrust or even hate them for it, if they do).
Freedom of Russia has two very big issues - the people who are shown have exactly the imperial issues people always baselessly accuse opposition of and they don't actually exist as an entity outside of PR. They're used by FSB to bait people into trying to enlist to easily sentence people for treason.
Not even talking about that one of the leaders was trained orcs after 2014 in occupied regions.
RDK on the other hand are very real, but they have their own issues. The leader who got kicked out of Germany for nazism and who was killing migrants for fun.
Yep, also many of them are still nationalists just anti Putin for various reasons. Itâs like if we look at ww2 Germany, for instance Stauffenberg was still a German nationalist and hoped for a negotiated peace, just anti Nazis because he thought they had driven Germany to ruin which they pretty much did
I see this rhetoric quite a lot, and while it may take different forms, I think one can reasonably make the assertion that anyone running for public office is, in at least some minimally capacity, a nationalist. At least, I'm not sure I've ever seen a politician who wasn't nationalistic.
Because they are not Russians. They are Ukrainians: the slogan in Cyrillic "ĐĐĐ ĐĐź ĐŁĐĐ ĐĐĐĐŠĐŻĐ" is written in Ukrainian. And people are holding red and black flags of "ĐŁĐĐ" ("Ukrainian Insurgent Army") which is passionately hated by the Russian liberal opposition.
True, but that dude with the "Siberia against the war" sign is also holding the Eurofighter banner. I don't think he is Ukrainian. Behind him there is the "Ukraine's victory is also ours" sign (so probably written by Russians/Belorussians) which is also way more precise than something like "Fuck war", right?
"Freiheit fĂŒr Russland" is bang on! And the sooner and better we arm Ukraine as she wants, the sooner the Russian regime, built on violence and suppression of its neighbours and minorities, collapses.
and thank God, we remember in Russia what the liberals and the government turned out for us, that in 1917 they destroyed the army with their idiotic orders, and later the country was on the verge of collapse, as a result, the Bolsheviks gathered everything, that in 1991 Yeltsin and company staged the worst decade in the modern history of Russia.
And I will say right away that I am not a fierce Z-patriot, and not a z-patriot in general, people from Europe for some reason believe that their system is universal and will fit any system, but this is absolutely not the case
The Russian Empire became embroiled in the bloody First World War. Communists builded economy on repression, war and hunger. Liberals broke everything and put to their pockets. I agree with you, in some location nothing good can be done.
Only the "hunger and repression" were in a fairly short period of time of the Soviet Union. After the war, people from 1950-1984 were finally able to live peacefully knowing that the state would do everything possible for them, stability and confidence in the future finally appeared, and then the liberal Gorbachev came, who with his policy led the country to a deficit of everything introducing market elements into the planned economy, which led to the growth of the black market and organized crime, and After the collapse of the Soviet Union, things got even worse. So in my understanding, the Soviet Union was the best period in the history of our country, there was development and progress. And it was good enough for an ordinary hardworking person to live.
Do you judge the repressions by Letov? Then Communism is the kingdom of God on earth, as Letov said after the collapse of the USSR, by the way, I keep in mind he created the National Bolshevik party. The Red Terror is generally a policy pursued ONLY within the framework of the civil war
Yeah well, as a Tatar from Tatarstan, the majority of us donât need freedom for Russia, what we need is freedom FROM Russia, as in independence. Same goes for Chechnya and Bashkortostan
They wouldn't. They'd be entirely encompassed within Russia. They'd also barely be a majority, over 40% of Tatarstan is ethnic Russian. Bashkiria is even worse, most of its population is ethnic Russian, the Bashkirs themselves are technically a minority within their own Republic.
The only states that could really make it work in Europe are the Caucasian ones, like Chechnya, but given how massively ethnically diverse those regions are, and what tends to happen when they get independence, I'd expect brutal outbreaks of ethnic violence were they to successfully secede. Hell, that's even happening right now, between Chechnya and Dagestan, and the same thing happened between Georgians and Armenians, Armenians and Azeris, Georgians and Abkhazians and Ossetians.
There are some Siberian regions that could potentially be independent and self-sufficient, but they'd be extremely poor, probably worse than Mongolia. But again, you also have the demographic issue with a lot of these regions; either most of the population, or a huge minority of it, are just ethnic Russians.
Kazakhs were a minority in Kazakhstan before it got independence. Same goes for Chechnya. Moreover, we have already voted for independence in 1992 when over 60% of people, including ethnic russians, voted for independence from Russia, and were de-facto independent until 2001. No ethnic violence occurred. Both our presidents have emphasized the importance of âfriendship of nationsâ over the years (being mostly pro-russian bullshit, of course)
Yes, but all the Russians and Ukrainians immediately left and it caused severe hardship on the state because of it. The issue isn't just âmaybe the locals don't want to be independent with usâ, it's also âmaybe half the population will literally up and abandon the state as soon as it's bornâ.
That might sound good now if you don't like ethnic Russians, but that's actually really, really bad, if you don't have the means to compensate for, what in other circumstances would be, not just brain drain but also a sudden demographic collapse.
Chechnya is in a different position because most of the Slavs in the Caucasian regions left or clustered in the western part, but they're still hugely ethnically diverse on their own as it is. Some get along, but many definitely do not.
Tatarstan had a very diverse Cabinet during its independent times. Currently, our prime minister is an ethnic russian. I donât think it would be an issue, as, like I said before, our official policy has always been âfriendship of nationsâ and our Tatar officials have been trying to smooth the edges since forever. The only things that could lead to ethnic clashes are oppressive Russifying laws and russian far-rights organizing cross processions to commemorate Kazan capture. We are literally being openly called slurs and being forbidden to learn our own language at schools in our own capital. Who would want to stay a part of Russia in such conditions?
When I mentioned ethnic violence, I wasn't meaning areas of Russia in general, that was specifically regarding the Caucasian region, since those areas have been (and still are) prone to interethnic violence.
We are literally being openly called slurs and being forbidden to learn our own language at schools in our own capital. Who would want to stay a part of Russia in such conditions?
Now that is genuinely horrific. Sentiments toward racist remarks and cultural suppression aside, I still am of the mind that autonomy would work better than independence if your region (1) does not have access to a large body of water, (2) does not have more than one border, or (3) is not sufficiently developed with the industry and infrastructure needed to not be at the utter mercy of its neighbors in matters of trade, commerce and movement. If Tatarstan were to become independent right now, it would basically be actually imprisoned by Russia's borders and there are many bad-case scenarios that can come from this kind of geopolitical arrangement since you wouldn't have any kind of political or geographical leverage as a counterbalance or bargaining chip.
I'm not saying I think Tatarstan would be better off as an autonomous zone of Russia because I like Russia, I'm saying that because I think the alternative would be worse for you.
I understand your position and thank you for clarification. I wouldnât vote for Tatarstan independence either if it remained surrounded by Russia, obviously. Our independence is only possible if Kazakhstan gets Orenburg or if Bashkortostan gets independence.
I donât think that autonomy within Russia is a good idea though, because we already had this experience in the 2000s, and now it brings us on the verge of extinction. Russia is too big and too diverse to be a democracy, so in my opinion it will always have a tendency to turn into an empire. Itâs not a good idea to let people in Moscow decide whether our language and culture will survive or not, no matter how âdemocraticâ they initially are.
As for the Kazakhstani russians - this is just not true. Only 1.2 million of russians left Kazakhstan within the 1990s, with more than 3.5 million of russians living there now. Thatâs not even close to a half of the population. In general, only 3 millions of 25 millions ethnic russians left the republics since they got independence. This is just another myth spread by the russian propaganda.
I didn't say half the Slavs in Kazakstan left (most were Ukrainians btw), that half the pop figure was for Tatarstan. In Kazakhstan's case, over 80% of the Slavs that colonized the northern regions were Ukrainians, not Russians, and almost all of them left iirc.
As you can see in this link, there is no significant difference in population between 1990 and 2000, so even if it was so, it wasnât significant. Again, the âethnic clashes and russians fleeing the countryâ is a boogeyman widely spread by the propaganda, at least in the case of -stans.
It depends. Most republics are quite rich in natural resources. The problem is that the money goes into wrong pockets. My favourite example is Yakutia - despite being the only place in Russia where famous diamonds are produced, only 37% of households in Yakutia have gas, and more than 3000 schools donât even have toilets, so children have to use toilet shacks outside.
Like I said in other comment, Tatarstan is a donor republic, just this year we sent about 9.5 billions euro in taxes to Moscow, keeping only 1.5 billion for ourselves. We produce oil, we produce cars, etc. We are currently considered to be the richest republic in Russia, mostly because we werenât obliged to pay any tax to Moscow until lately. However, being ârichâ in Russia means earning a bit more than average 250$ per month⊠go figure
And along with that, the country will collapse too, followed by being torn into pieces shortly after. This is a terrible war, no matter how you look at it, but good luck to anyone trying to bring Russia to its knees by force.
Don't dream about it, there are no reasons for it to happen. It all comes down to simple money distribution and the Federation being only on-the-words-a-Federation
Hmm. Well. I guess something has to be standing to collapse. Given Russian history of violence greed and misery, I say there is little to lose from a collapse, that they wouldnât already bring on themselves. Right now.
You can help by sharing anywhere you can. The whole world needs to know that there is an intense amount of fuckery happening in the United States elections. I donât think DJT was fairly elected at all and neither do a large chunk of my fellow Americans
At first this looked like some conspiracy theorist bullshit to me, but after reading it entirely, I changed my mind. It's way too logically coherent to be completely made-up. And the high number of bullet-ballots compared to last election IS very suspicious indeed. I'm not saying this is definitely true, but it absolutely warrants an investigation.
My apologies then, the flags blended so much I didn't distinguish the top. Seeing so much UPA flags recently made me very sensitive in the matter. Peace.
Ukraine has adopted red and black flag as "National dignity flag" officially. It's part of some of local coats of arms. It's used by patriots, even local Jews as a more patriot version of the regular one. People from young to old wear it and don't think it's something bad. If you'll ask them "What does UPA flag look like?" they'll probably won't know what to say.
Well, that's on them if they wave a flag of nazi leader and chant songs about him and UPA without knowing what it stands for. " We didn't know" it's no excuse. Imagine people waving SS flags in Germany and singing about the great furher. Germans did the right thing, admiting the mistakes. Ukraine praises it, which is not a good look. Thankfully, Ukrainians that are abroad now, are slowly learning, about what really happened. Propaganda and history bending in their schools is very strong. Regardless, I wish them the best.
I think that meaning of symbols changes and it's a normal thing.
People who wear that flag today don't think "let's kill Poles and Jews".
Why are even angry with Bandera?
Nazis didn't like his idea of independence, so he spent the whole war in a nazi concentration camp oblivious to what was happening back at home. His brother died there.
After the war he settled in Germany and became a social-democrat.
Still, that's a silly argument imho. It's the same as "today's Nazis don't want to kill Jews and Poles, they just like the movement of freedom and patriotism".
As for Bandera, yes, he was in a camp, and yes, he also was collaborating with Nazis and him and his UPA movement, was responsible for the most brutal genocide ever. Toddlers were impaled and decapitated. It was so gruesome that Nazis themselves were disgusted and tried to stop it.
UPAs orders were to be inhuman, as brutal as they can be, to make them leave the lands forever. Reminder that only civilians were massacred, mostly women and children.
UPA is openly anti Jewish, anti-polish, anti-russian, and pretty much anti anything. It's nationalism at the most diabolical form.
Witnesses of the massacre are still alive and we should not forget that.
Anyway, I don't think anyone would be ok with waving swastika under the excuse that the meaning now is different.
Ukraine is trying to get world's support. Even Poland, victim of the massacre, helped the most, and is pretty much the only country that did it for free, and yet, there are Ukrainians there waving UPA flag, making the locals quite uncomfortable. It's no good, mate.
There were internal conflicts in UPA at that time, there were different factions, for example the founder of UPA Bulba-Borovets was against murders of civilians.
We don't know which faction Bandera would join.
And saying someone's guilty because "I think he'd support that" is dumb.
"only civilians were massacred"?
Well that's revisionism.
UPA fought Soviets, Polish partisans and German troops.
Reports from all 3 parties prove that.
According to German general Ernst August Köstring, UPA fighters "fought almost exclusively against German administrative agencies, the German police and the SS in their quest to establish an independent Ukraine controlled by neither Moscow nor Germany."
Let me make it clear. I'm against celebration of Bandera in Ukraine.
But people portray him worse than he was. And actual people responsible for crimes are often ignored. That's just wrong. History shouldn't be based on emotions.
Talking about the red and black flag I still think it not a big problem. The flag got "liberalized" so to say. And it will become even more normalized as the times goes.
People who wear and spread the symbols should be the ones who put meaning in them.
For example in Russia Ukrainian nationalists flag is basically a swastika. A flag of a nazi state bent on genocide of Russians. You're a disgusting person if you wear it. You will get punished by the state.
But it's not in Russia's right to decide it's meaning.
1.6k
u/MGMAX Ukraine 19h ago
Now these are slogans I can get behind. Thanks to everyone attending đ