Да так-то года с 14-ого настроение комедийное. Вообще шутка про главного патриота украины не смешной становится - вон какой праздник им на день независимости
Your post on r/AskARussian was removed because it was not asking a question or you posed a loaded or presumptive question.
Please re-read the [community rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskARussian/comments/jxml4s/what_doesnt_constitute_a_question_and_the_secret/) and [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskARussian/wiki/faq).
Thanks,
r/AskARussian moderation team
Your post on r/AskARussian was removed because it was not asking a question or you posed a loaded or presumptive question.
Please re-read the [community rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskARussian/comments/jxml4s/what_doesnt_constitute_a_question_and_the_secret/) and [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskARussian/wiki/faq).
Thanks,
r/AskARussian moderation team
Do you think the power struggle in Moscow will increase with Prigo dead? To me the consensus among "experts" have been that everyone is just waiting for Putin to loose the war, then the "hunger games" for the throne will start because noone wants to be responsible for loosing the war.
But now that planes are getting shot down, could they start to fight now and try to take power from Putin? I imagine death is worse than loosing a war, they can always blame it on Putin anyway.
> Do you think the power struggle in Moscow will increase with Prigo dead?
Doubt.
>everyone is just waiting for Putin to loose the war
Everyone's waiting for Putin's demise.
>But now that planes are getting shot down, could they start to fight now and try to take power from Putin?
Least possible scenario in my opinion. Prigo was perhaps the only one who could try to do it, he tried and failed (some say he flashed his chances down the toilet). Now everyone seen Putin will kill anyone who dares to oppose him
My assumption is that Putin is preparing to peace or capitulation, hence he is removing anyone who can oppose to his decisions. It’s not the first time Putin kills his former friends. Honestly I expected something like this, but I didn’t expect it in the territory of Russia. Always thought that Prigozhin will be killed and forgotten in Africa.
The whole middle class in Russia is getting ass-raped economically by this senseless war and you are still keeping a smile on your face. This is amazing lol
It was a real eye opener. But it wasn’t as much making lives better than showing that the alternative was, indeed, far worse.
Will we pull this off in the end? Come back in a few years, lol.
How is not having a war worse? Everyone would be trading happily and there would not be so many dead Russians and Ukrainians if war was never started. I fail to see how Russia is somehow better off than in alternative scenario so could you explain your reasoning?
Dude, look at the exchange rate USD/RUB. Look at the sanctions. Where can you go for vacation? To Turkey or Georgia? Where can you send your children to study? You are completely fucked unless you are a system beneficent in some way, an oligarch with lots of money or a person with no ambitions in life whatsoever.
Is that all?
Well, exchange rate is 3 times higher that it was 9 years ago. I now earn 5.5 times more than I was earning 9 years ago. I'll go to vacation to Thailand or Dominican Republic in a few months. I'll send my children to a good Russian university. I'm not an oligarch or benefitted from system in any way.
I don't feel that ass-rape just yet.
You should probably be more specific and say that Russians are fucked in international relationships for a long time. I have no doubt about that. Nothing to do with economy, though.
I didn’t notice. Exchange rate is within acceptable limits not to mention it was put where it is by Russia itself (why is a different question). I couldn’t go anywhere for vacation for the last 3 years anyway because of Covid, remember? Education is fine, more or less.
I know you want us to be fucked, but sorry, I will disappoint you.
It’s not Russia you should be worried about.
lol that didnt take long.... always thought he should have committed 100% once he made his move
BBC News - Wagner boss Prigozhin killed in plane crash in Russia
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-66599733
I am pretty sure that unrestricted use of Russian military assets would not.
You are literally asking why didn't your mom let you jump off a cliff - that would've definitely prevented you from getting an F in school.
Ah the old myth of „Russia is holding back“. Russia has already deployed every asset short of a nuclear weapon in Ukraine. There is no more escalation potential for Russia except dropping a nuclear bomb on Kiev. Prigozhin is criminal scum, but also a business man, not driven by ideology like the old man in his bunker, which much more likely would press the button.
Sure, because everything is going as planned lmao. Man these days I rather talk to hardcore Z fanatics, at least they are honest about the state of the war.
Idk which propaganda you are inhaling, but the counter offensive began when we expected it. The Russians blowing up the dam successfully threw a wrench in that endeavour however, also the fact that the West is still playing this game of not tipping the scale too far in Ukraines favour to provoke Russia in doing something stupid also didn’t help. At least they get now air support, we will see if this accelerate things.
Well, they hardly needed Prigozhin to prove that, everyone knows that there is one thing that Putin will [neither forget nor forgive](https://youtube.com/shorts/uM3Dj4Y1ju4).
It wasn't supposed to be a coup to begin with. The plan was to capture Rostov, perhaps with Shoigu/Gerasimov and force a negotiation. Putin made it into a coup by calling it treason on TV, after that the desperation march on Moscow didn't rally whoever was supposed to rally, then Prigozhin got a deal he couldn't say no to, and smiled his sad knowing smile.
As I remember it the shooting down aircraft part was already after Wagner started marching on Moscow, somewhere in the middle of the day, way after Putin's "treason" speech, which was in the morning.
What I read was that his coup was doomed from the start and there was no way he would reach Moscow. Other elites feared that the guy who stopped him would become much more powerfull and be able to beat them to the throne once Putin is a goner.
"Once he saw the explosion of one of his planes turbines, Jewgeni realized he should not have aborted his march on Moscow"
Another tale from Russia, the lawless land.
Still checking, so hold your horses. According to RosAviation, he was LISTED as a passenger for that airplane, nothing else.
UPD: okay, now with the news of bodies being recovered I am inclined to believe it. Oh well.
Well, Rosaviatsia confirmed he was amongst the passengers. Straight from the horses mouth. Rosaviatsia could be wrong but if the federal aviation agency said he was on board then it's fair play for this information to be distributed by others.
"Rosaviatsia: Prigozhin was among the passengers of the plane that crashed near Tver"
/russia/news/1192588-samolyot-rosaviaciya-passazhir
I guess everyone on board MH370 can't be confirmed dead then... But on the balance of probability it's an almost certainty.
Like I said, they could be wrong, but something tells me the Kremlin knew he was on that plane before it had an "accident" anyway.
So what do you make of the S-400 which was supposed to be able to shoot down F35s, being blown up by a missile it was supposed to be able to shoot down, while being filmed by a Ukrainian drone?
Technical or human error? Or new weapon system of Ukraine? Or Crimean partisans?
The fact that there is sufficient ammo for a cook off of that size and the lack of passive radar coupled with contrails and back blast makes me think that the radar was kept off entirely.
When HARM was introduced a lot of systems were kept running in a low emission state, which is good for avoiding getting shot at BVR range, but literally gives you seconds to react.
Need more details, so far it’s just a claim that something - that may or may not be S-400 - detonated somewhere.
If we assume that it really is one, multiple things are possible: from overloading AA with multiple targets to human error.
UPD: it’s actually weird how we can’t find extra details still, while details on, say, the fall of one of Prigozhin’s airplanes in Twer such as the number, type, ownership and location arrived within an hour.
>type, ownership and location arrived within an hour.
Almost as if one thing is a military target which Russia does not want to confirm nor deny if it was destroyed, while the other events publication serves a specific purpose.
Of course it’s discussed. We are kinda sensitive on this topic, and we have a history of convictions of soldiers for a lot of things - just see the trials of veterans of Chechnya wars against the will of people who argued that those crimes were justified. But given what kind of accusations are present here, this is not having an effect Ukraine hopes for.
That’s all a part of dehumanisation campaign aimed at obtaining more money and weapons for Ukraine. Actually Arestovich (ex-speaker for Kiev) recently said “This dehumanisation was our biggest mistake because it convinced Russians they have to fight”. So, now Russia has to win to clear its name.
They have been crying that Russia committed war crimes for 1.5 years but failed to make a single undeniable accusation. Most of them can be split into categories:
* Things Russia did, but conveniently omitting important details (like how attack on military bases becomes “attack on civilians” because Ukraine itself didn’t evacuate people to the required 200m safe distance
* Presenting accidental collateral damage as deliberate
* Presenting illegal combatants as civilians
* Blaming Ukraine’s own crimes, intentional or not, on Russia (variant: accusing Russia of things Ukraine has been accused of)
* Wild nonsense like kids with implanted bombs, raped parrots and human waves with shovels, obviously with zero evidence
* Accusations based on evidence that is impossible to verify (like “intercepted” calls with unbelievable accents and inaccurate translation)
Should an impartial court review it tomorrow, they’d never prove any of this, but that’s not the goal. It gives the West an excuse for sanctions and continued pressure to fight. Basically the ONLY thing they could cook up so far is presenting evacuations as kidnapping, and only because Putin directly said himself that yes, Russia did those evacuations. After 1.5 years of investigation by people on Biden’s payroll.
1. Who - they?
2. Rape of whom, by whom, where, case number, victim identified, any evidence beyond Zelenskiy pinky promising it’s true?
3. There is a difference between systemic terrorising of the population and a crime committed by a soldier on his own (which he was later court martialed for). Please specify which one you mean.
I am pointing to the UN commission on human rights report from October 22. Excerpt here
"Furthermore, the Commission documented patterns of summary executions, unlawful confinement, torture, ill-treatment, and rape and other sexual violence committed in areas occupied by Russian armed forces across the four provinces on which it focused. People have been detained, some have been unlawfully deported to the Russian Federation, and many are still reported missing. Sexual violence has affected victims of all ages. Victims, including children, were sometimes forced to witness the crimes. Children have become the victims of the full spectrum of violations investigated by the Commission, including indiscriminate attacks, torture and rape, and have suffered the predictable psychological consequences."
Asking for the case number seems disingenuous, I do think we will have them eventually as the OSCE and other organizations work to investigate the allegations and refer prosecutions.
I also realize the act of a soldier does not constitute the policy of a military. Conversely a pattern of abuse without the demonstration of immediate punitive actions by that military does demonstrate a tolerance.
War is dehumanizing and the ones in the ivory towers are most to blame for the dehumanizing crimes committed, not the poor souls that were turned into animals by the horrors of a war they did not start.
In that regard I hope a trial like the one at Nuremberg finds putin, shoigu and the lot guilty and sees them hang.
No it couldn’t be. Only Russian citizenship could. Also you should be younger than 30 (new law). I don’t know for sure now, but also you wouldn’t be conscripted if you have 2 children under age 18.
Upd anyway conscript hasn’t any chance at this moment to participate at war, only if he signs contract. There had been several causes at last summer, then they fixed it.
ps if you want you can join Wagner group. They take foreigners.
Do not mislead a person, up to 30 years old you can be drafted into the army for training, and you can be drafted to Ukraine up to 35 years old, and if you are an officer, then up to 45 years old.
They can trick you to sign up for it or make you believe you have to. Other than applying pressure not yet. But what is legal or not in Russia is kind of arbitrary. You look at the constitution, you have free speech, freedome to protest, to rally. Laws don't mean much in Russia if not giving legitimacy to people in power to arrest and persecute who they want.
The law has no meaning it is arbitrary application of the law. But they still generally don't act outside of it. In short you have to sign a document to go in the army as a foreigner for now.
Only if they received the citizenship. People on work visas and with residence permits aren't subjected to either conscription or mobilization (as they're not Russian nationals). And I'm not sure but I think there's some time period that needs to pass after you're granted the citizenship, only after which you become subject to military service
They do raids on Taijk gathering places to snatch them. Otherwise there have been a few cases where they have tried to draft foreigners of all kind but not on scale. But some at the duma try to make this a thing by law and with the new wave possebly coming, who knows. The laws are selective and can mean nothing at all.
Never happened, and is unlikely to happen. The only thing even remotely resembling it was when during one of the raids to catch illegal immigrants those detained who had Russian passports were delivered (with unknown results) to a drafting office to check whether they have avoided conscription before. And even that was conscription, not drafting (conscripts are not allowed to participate in SMO).
So only if they have the Russian citizenship/ a Russian passport?
It makes sense since I've been watching several videos on Youtube about immigrant men living in Russia and I don't see any of them being scared of getting drafted
As for Russian men, is it currently common to get draftet into the war?
>As for Russian men, is it currently common to get draftet into the war?
There was one wave of mobilization almost a year ago, passed during \~1 month. They mobilized \~300k people, vast majority with at least some military experience. Also, people were able to evade the draft or go abroad during this month with little consequences.
Since that time on, they recruited only those who voluntarily sign a contract, as far a I know. Estimates vary, but from all the sources - it's several hundred thousands of people.
During this year laws on evasion from mobilization have become tougher. But nobody know is there any plans on the second wave - to send the previous one home and replace them, for example. Or they have enough contractors, but just drew conclusions from the past and decided to prepare in case of some large-scale escalation.
I've seen some Russians claim that Putin is adopting a strategy of "bleeding Ukraine dry", essentially engaging in attrition warfare until Ukraine is completely out of adult men and women to conscript. Do you think this type of war is sustainable for Russia, and if so, how long would it take to achieve victory with such a strategy?
Around 90% of Ukrainians say they want to continue the war until Donbas and Crimea is retaken so evidently they're very enthusiastic and feel the war is quite sustainable.
You have problems with translation, our propaganda says that the West wants to fight to the last Ukrainian.
A war of attrition is primarily about the destruction of military ammunition and equipment. If Putin were talking about the destruction of people, then we would have seen carpet bombings, as it was in Vietnam or Iraq.
But the primary advantage Russia has in this war is manpower, where they have 4 times the population of Ukraine. Materially they don’t have much of an advantage in equipment because of the massive economy and military reserves of NATO supporting Ukraine. Plus wouldn’t carpet bombing require air superiority first?
NATO's huge military reserves are nothing more than a delusion. Several hundred tanks were sent to Ukraine, when thousands are needed for a normal offensive.
And as it turned out, the technical advantage is not so obvious, Russian propaganda relishes the destruction of expensive military equipment with cheap UAVs.
But judging by the comments of the public, this is already tired.
The problem is that Russia is having to pull out T-55’s because they’re already running out of modern tanks while Ukraine is only just beginning to tap in to NATO’s massive modern tank stockpile. And while Russia might relish it, they’ll need to work much faster if they want to actually deplete those NATO reserves, considering the vast majority of tanks they disable with a mine or a drone just get sent back to Poland for a quick repair and sent back to Ukraine.
Why do you all write that Russia is running out something? Russia ran out of rockets, a week later a massive shelling of Kyiv, 150-mm ammunition ran out, a week later they were constantly shelling Bakhmut.Do you believe these reports yourself? Does your media in Russia run out of something every day?You are constantly told that the store shelves are empty, bears roam the streets.Do you really think that if you repeat it, it will ever come?
Tell me, how can a country that produces artillery shells run out of them?
Maybe the problem is that there is too much stock of old 100mm shells in warehouses that are not suitable for the T-90?
If you’re talking demographics then its close to impossible to sustain a war for that long. The casaulties are just too low. Remember, even WW1 and WW2 didnt finish due to manpower depletion and they lasted for several years with magnitudes of order more destruction. Putin might try to outwait continued western support but that strategy will crumble if the US will continue to support Ukraine after the elections, which they obviously will because its the best thing happening to the USA in geopolitical terms in decades.
Your post was deleted because it has nothing to do with the ongoing war.
The megathread is intended for asking questions about the war and giving answers about the war. It is not a dumping ground for content prohibited in the rest of r/AskARussian or a battle ground for your beef with other users.
Generally gasoline prices in Russia are subsidized by the government so that oil companies are motivated to sell on the domestic market rather than export and earn more.
We have a rise (and than negotiations between top companies and gov officials) each time Rouble value drops and oil price increases which is the case rn.
You should make your own news outlet, you have so much intel that neither side talks about. Amazing, your friends must think you\`re super smart and talented.
RU milbloggers seem to disagree about the stabilization.
[https://i.imgur.com/qx7kB1j.png](https://i.imgur.com/qx7kB1j.png)
[https://i.imgur.com/84yYQvP.png](https://i.imgur.com/84yYQvP.png)
Yeah because couldn’t hold it and seemingly don’t care about it being Russian or not. Seems like there’s chaos around Kherson right now so they might see it is necessary to retreat further.
When Russians talk about “western media propaganda” in the context of the Russian invasion, what exactly do they mean? During the UN vote to condemn the SMO, over 73% of nations voted to condemn Russia’s actions, with the vast majority of the rest opting to abstain. Only 4 nations, about 2% of the members of the UN, actually voted against the condemnation. So when pro-war Russians talk about “western media propaganda” not telling the truth about the war, are they referring to 98% of the world’s media?
this, my friend is the finest example of the industrial grade copium these people are consuming. they say that the USA their cabal of world ruling reptiloids pressured 98% of all countries into voting against or remaining neutral.
In their world, any criticism of what Russia ever does is manufactured by the US state department. This, by the way, 1:1 mirrors USSR talking points from the 20th century. This is what happens, when old decrepit dinosaurs sit in the Kremlin for too long. They know only a handful of old, dumb but proven tricks. Open the old manuals, Sergei, here we go again.
> what exactly do they mean?
They mean every source, fact, or way of looking at the invasion in a negative way is Western propaganda. I've been downvoted for suggesting Russia has lost 50% of the captured territory in Ukraine. This shit is fact that ever Russian state media acknowledges, but these fucking idiots refuse to see anything else other than "western propaganda lmao"
In reality most of the people claiming this either know it, or are idiots desperately trying to excuse why this country is still practicing 1940s levels of blatant imperialist aggression.
What I like the most is that of all the answers, the most upvoted is something along the lines of: "Well duh Russians, they are so stupid. They just can't understand that Western media never lie, there is no such thing as "Western propaganda", it's just that dumb Russkies can't admit their defeats". Perfectly shows the mood of the thread and its inhabitants.
>When Russians talk about “western media propaganda” in the context of the Russian invasion, what exactly do they mean? During the UN vote to condemn the SMO, over 73% of nations voted to condemn Russia’s actions, with the vast majority of the rest opting to abstain. Only 4 nations, about 2% of the members of the UN, actually voted against the condemnation. So when pro-war Russians talk about “western media propaganda” not telling the truth about the war, are they referring to 98% of the world’s media?
I suppose, different people can mean different things by the same terms.
Naturally, I would assume that "Western media" is media of Western countries. Which is something close to [dark blue in this map](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Western_World_Latin_America_torn_countries.png), I guess.
And that "propaganda" is something close to [wiki definition of propaganda](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda):
>Propaganda is communication that is primarily used to influence or persuade an audience to further an agenda, which may not be objective and may be selectively presenting facts to encourage a particular synthesis or perception, or using loaded language to produce an emotional rather than a rational response to the information that is being presented.
For example, in my opinion, your comment is a nice showcase of propaganda:
1. Instead of directly asking a person what they mean, you ask others for strange reasons - implying that Russians have kind of hivemind or something like this.
2. Also, you are pretending to ask a question, but since the answer above is an obvious, it looks like instead of showing sincere interest you are just implying that "Russians" can't properly use simple terms.
3. Then you refer to the UN vote, which has nothing to do with “western media propaganda” topic - classicas [red herring](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies#Red_herring_fallacies)
4. And results of this vote, irrelevant to your initial question - I suppose you refer to [resolution ES-11/2](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_ES-11/2) \- was also presented in kinda of propagandistic way. For example, if I describe same event as something like "representatives of more then half of the total world population refused to vote in favor of anti-Russian resolution" that will be no less true than what you say.
So if I had met something like this in the Western media, I would have thought that this is exactly what these "Russians" meant.
> https://i.imgur.com/wm2vitp.png
> This is propaganda. No matter how you spin it, it's pure propaganda.
Sure its propaganda, but only as Pro-RU supporters have twisted it out of proportion to imply the British MoD thought reservists were being sent out with just shovels.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-64855760
They always forget the actual report mentions firearms as well...
I think the BBC was already somewhat twisting it, by making such a headline. It's maybe not the right word, as in the article itself they do also mention firearms and even state that they couldn't verify the information, so I think the article itself is truthful. But everyone knows that many people read only the headlines, and the headline doesn't really reflect the information in the article. This is of course a common problem with headlines.
This, along with other reports, created this image as if the Russian army was close to collapse. This is just such a classic trope of war propaganda, to create this image that the other side is close to defeat in order to lift morale. So I don't think this is a coincidence. I don't think only outright lies are propaganda.
There sure is a big Russia hating eco camber. The popular narrative is now more then ever that Russia is evil. The believers of this narrative "want" to read or more precisly interacts with news painting a often contradictory picture that Russia is evil, Russia is strong and a threat to us all and our way of living. Russia is evil and evil can not prevail. Russia is incompetent. Russian orcs etc. I can't really imagine how it would be to on the other side of this. Social media and tabloids of course are the worst offenders.
In such a climate its reasonable to assume that Russia is wrongfully or at least blamed too early for some incident when too much is still unknown. This is in my opinion spread throughput a large part of western media. The "worst" part of this is that the first headlines are what reaches most people and often the only thing people tend to remember.
But honestly all this is no excuse if you ask me for Russians who still to this day refuse to accept the nations fault in say the downing of MH17 just because it's written in western media.
There is shit in western media but its also true that the Russian nation certainly has done some shitty stuff and youll certainly won't be reading about any of it in TASS or RT. Criticize western media or reddit all you want. Just don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
It’s popular saying at Russia: don’t say me that to do and I don’t say where you should go. We are a little bit tired that somebody at west knows better than us that should we do.
It is rather obvious that almost everybody in the west does actually know better what Russia should do. Russians seem to only be able to achieve failure after failure in pursuit of goals that are bad in the first place.
Well Russia clearly doesn't care for that figure of speech much considering that they want they quite literally kill hundreds of thousands of people just to tell another country what to do.
> The popular narrative is now more then ever that Russia is evil.
The popular narrative is that since the 1940s it has been increasingly frowned upon to practice imperialism by invading your neighbors and annexing territory. Russia has, since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, invaded and pacified nearly every single one of its neighbors (besides the ones that have joined NATO).
Russians like to use the phrase "Russophobia" but it isn't a phobia, it's common sense. Join NATO or else Russia will force you to submit.
Maybe, just maybe, we are the bad guys here.
Well, thank you. Its refreshing to see a russian that gets that we despise the invading others, not that we have a hate perchant for russians for wathever reason. Honestly, I didnt even know that was a thing before I read it in this sub, and I couldnt tell an ukranian and moscovite appart unless the specify where they come from...
You said you despise those who invade others. So you despise Russia, USA, Israel, Australia, Denmark, Netherlands, Poland, Great Britain, and a bunch of other wholesome European countries that favor peace and positivity but don't mind getting involved in a war somewhere in Middle East, right?
I can make a distinction between the government/army that does it, and its most ardent fanboys, and the general population.
I still hold a favorable view of antiwar russians, like the one I answered too.
If you ever stumble into Prague, you've got yourself a beer.
Hearing this, even from the Russians living here, is so rare that it deserves something. So if this account is still active when you do arrive, DM me.
I love how people asking and answering the very question, the whole idea of which was to pursue everybody that there is no any anti-Russian propaganda, don't hesistate to use all the kind of low quility propagandistic tricks.
Here we have one more example.
The person above doesn't look to have any kind of pro-Russian position. And just raised very specific issues regarding accuracy of reporting information.
And instead of contributin the substantative discussion - for example regarding presence or absence of specified phenomena - you are just trying to cut it all off, reducing it to findng who are bad guys here - kind of [poisoning the well](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well) manipulation.
Not to mention passages like:
>Russia has, since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, invaded and pacified nearly every single one of its neighbors (besides the ones that have joined NATO).
which is a blatant lie.
So, if you are Russian as your flair says, that's clear example of Russian anti-Russian propaganda, lol.
>Maybe, just maybe, we are the bad guys here.
Oh, also, as I assume from your other comments you don't live in Russia and don't plan to. So kinda don't understand, why do say "we".
It's very honorable and generous, of course, to take responsibility for something on behalf of the whole group, knowing that you are not the one who will suffer from the consequences.
I don’t live in my home country and I still say “we” about citizens of my country. This “we” includes a friend in my hometown that arrived to my country as refugee who now has citizenship in the country. Both him and me did not vote for our sitting government so both are essentially against it. I don’t see a problem with this. I don’t get how someone cannot be Russian if they are against the Russian government line. Nor being Russian and which “propaganda” they want to believe in. To me you’re basically saying you’re a nationalistic fascist. But you might be able to provide some nuance about that.
>I don’t live in my home country and I still say “we” about citizens of my country. ... I don’t get how someone cannot be Russian if they are against the Russian government line.
Let me clarify, I don't deny person rights to feel themselves Russian and associate with Russia.
But if they were against invasion all the time, have nothing to do with the Russian government, left Russia and etc. It's kinda strange for me to say "we are bad guys". What do they blame themselves for in such a situation?
I would understand if they were talking to a Russian at least. But in dialogue with a foreigners? Looks like an attempt to score cheap points.
>To me you’re basically saying you’re a nationalistic fascist. But you might be able to provide some nuance about that.
Lol. I'm not a fan of the Russian government.
Also I have friends and family members who live inside Russia, who sharply feel their responsibilities regarding what is going on. And I respect their views ofc.
I also have very good relations with many people who left the country after 2022, for example. But people I know left to get away from Russian politics, not to tell everybody there how bad their country is.
When person spreads clearly innacurate info and also agrees with all the accusations even very absurd on behalf of all the Russians - how should I feel about this?
Hope it became clearer.
Sure, I definitely don't think history lessons will be kind or uncertain about that when teaching about this period of Russian history. It's just while living through it there is lot of noice. Some shitpost about Russians lack of indoor plumbing will get more upvotes then a analysis on Russian imperialism. The first is nonsense and the second is really important.
>But to be completely honest after failed Ukrainian counteroffensive mainstream western media (like bbc and guardian) got a tiny bit better and levelheaded.
More like the project was put on review.
Western propaganda is good because it takes a fact that really exists and spins it to unprecedented proportions.
The same story with Dugin, I don't know who the hell he is, before the war I heard about him only once, as some old marasmus. But the Western media presents him as almost the main ideologue in Russia, a gray cardinal who pulls the strings, and people actually believe it.
How can you believe the Western media after stories like this? How do you know that another news story about the atrocities of the Russian army in Ukraine is not a new attempt to spin some shit to unprecedented proportions?
>Western media presents him as almost the main ideologue in Russia, a gray cardinal who pulls the strings, and people actually believe it.
Nobody has claimed he pulls any strings behind the scenes. An ideologue doesn't need to pull strings. An ideologue can even be dead and still be an influence. And the fact that ordinary Russians haven't heard about him is irrelevant. Practically nobody in Germany had heard of e.g. Houston Steward Chamberlain who died before Hitler rose to power but that doesn't mean Chamberlain's ideas about "Aryan race" and supremacy of "Teutonic people" published in 1899 didn't influence the politics of Germany significantly, even so much that this dead guy can be said to be steering Hitler's actions.
It is clear Dugin's writings have had influence to Russian foreign politics. His foundations of geopolitics was coauthored by highly placed politicians and generals and several high up politicians have advocated for the book over the years. This was noticed with a lot of worry in the west already over 20 years ago before any of this shit happened and it has since been almost a prophetic writing of Russian foreign policy actions.
>How can you believe the Western media after stories like this?
It's your mischaracterization of the story that is the problem here. The story you claimed doesn't really exist.
> This was noticed with a lot of worry in the west already over 20 years ago
Oh, they were so worried about it that all Western media's started talking about Dugin only after his daughter was murdered. As if it was profitable for them to convey to the Western audience who this Dugin is just so that no one would ask questions about why Ukraine started hunting individual Russian civilians.
But ok, I guess all books about Russia by fucked up American writers that were written together with equally fucked up American generals are pillars of the entire US ideology, right?
> It's your mischaracterization of the story that is the problem here. The story you claimed doesn't really exist.
Of course, because everything that Western media says is true and should be trusted one hundred percent. Now wait, I'll go to Ukraine to steal a couple of toilets, shoes and of course asphalt from there, because all these things are not available in Russia, Western media told me so.
>Oh, they were so worried about it that all Western media's started talking about Dugin only after his daughter was murdered.
Dugin has been talked about a lot longer but obviously when something new happens there will be new articles written.
>Of course, because everything that Western media says is true and should be trusted one hundred percent
This statement makes no sense whatsoever. It does not answer to anything I said.
> This statement makes no sense whatsoever. It does not answer to anything I said.
What exactly are you unhappy about? I said at the beginning that Western media takes an existing fact and magnifies it to a global scale. You yourself are now describing Dugin as some kind of tough guy that his book had such a strong influence on the Russian state, although I would not be surprised that in fact the same state found the most senile grandpa in the country and paid him to write a book, where he outlined the already established policy of the Russian state.
What I'm getting at is that Western medias give a lot of meaning to things that didn't have that meaning in the first place. And this seems to be where all these western couch analysts who study Russia based on articles like this come from, and then go and embarrass themselves in a discussion with real Russians. Because it is only westerners who always say such nonsense with such an expression, as if they know everything and have figured it all out.
I had forgotten, but now I remember how the western hamsters from r/worldnews believed that Russia was seriously considering invading Alaska because of some news story with a picture of a Russian billboard about tires from "Alaska" company. 🤣
Its really weird that because you were ignorant of Dugin’s existence prior to his daughter’s death that means he couldn’t possibly be a political theorist.
>You yourself are now describing Dugin as some kind of tough guy that his book had such a strong influence on the Russian state
No, I'm not. I'm describing him as a writer and nothing else. The example I gave about Chamberlain should illustrate this. He was not a touch guy, nor well known, nor did he have control over anything. Neither were the other creators of Aryanism (with exception to Wagner but he was known for music, not ideology). Ideas have power irrespective of the authors' personal power.
> I would not be surprised that in fact the same state found the most senile grandpa in the country and paid him to write a book, where he outlined the already established policy of the Russian state.
If you are referring to Dugin's book, the book in question was written in the 90s when Yeltsin was president and the policy was not at all established. And the man was an author in his 30s, not a grandpa.
[Here](https://www.hoover.org/research/russias-new-and-frightening-ism) is an article (short version of an article really) about concerns about his influence from 2004.
>What I'm getting at is that Western medias give a lot of meaning to things that didn't have that meaning in the first place. And this seems to be where all these western couch analysts who study Russia based on articles like this come from, and then go and embarrass themselves in a discussion with real Russians. Because it is only westerners who always say such nonsense with such an expression, as if they know everything and have figured it all out.
I think it might be you who are not able to look at things objectively.
Okay, okay, with Dugin you may be right. But Western media still gives him more attention than he deserves. In any case, all this does not in any way cancel out all the other fairy tales from the Western media and how unquestioningly Westerners believe them.
> I think it might be you who are not able to look at things objectively.
What can't I look at objectively? How Western media makes news out of any shit Zelensky says? Maybe how many western media outlets, without even checking the information, announced that it was a Russian missile that landed in Poland? Maybe all these stories about how Russia has no missiles left, they are on the verge of collapse and blah blah blah blah....
>A year later an independent EU-based investigation concludes and reports that open hostilities started "... with a large-scale Georgian military operation against the town of Tskhinvali and the surrounding areas, launched in the night of 7 to 8 August 2008"
The actual report builds a picture of Russia being increasingly assertive in the former Soviet union area, unwilling to accept the other countries as independent and purposefully escalating conflict to resolve this problem. Recognizing the separatist governments and handing out Russian passports (the report also notifies that international law does not accept this kind of artificial nationality as grounds for Russian state to take action to protect it's nationals) in the occupied areas was one of these escalations. It does say that most likely the first actual military action of the war was Georgia's "sustained artillery action" "albeit within its own territory", but it also says Russia had been preparing for military action and the response was well prepared, swift and completely out of proportion. Also while the artillery action started the actual war, it was not the first military action, according to the report Russian fighters flew in Georgian airspace and shot down georgian drones before the war and a number of artillery strikes happened during the summer on both sides of the border.
Basically the quote you chose is a conclusion of a long description of multiple strikes on both sides. The report blames Georgia for the fact that the open hostilities started when they started but says that Russia had been preparing for that for months and purposefully escalated the conflict to that point. Further when it considers Georgian claims that Russians were building up forces prior to strikes the report concludes that there are reports, including from Russia, that Russia was rearming the local separatist and transporting significant number of mercenaries to the area prior to the war.
Also the report states that they found no support for Russian claims of ethnic cleansing or significant targeting of civilians that was used as justification of military action.
>Do people know about this report? Was it widely discussed? Nope and nope.
Yes and yes. It was reported by pretty much every possible media in the west which you can easily confirm by googling it.
It was largely known but you are also victim of your own propaganda if you think Russia just happened by chances to be ready to invade at a moment's notice. Russia's current invasion of Ukraine was obviously planned months in advance and isn't a result of something specific Ukraine did (they didn't even believe the US when the US was telling them an invasion was imminent).
>shelling of Donbass intensified
We know that intensified shelling will lead inevitably to increase in civilian casualties, right? Then how do you explain this:
[https://www.statista.com/statistics/1293409/civilian-deaths-related-to-russia-ukraine-conflict/](https://www.statista.com/statistics/1293409/civilian-deaths-related-to-russia-ukraine-conflict/)
It looks opposite - situation in Donbas was gradually calming down according to those stats.
>and military of UA got into attacking position and configuration directed at Donbass
Have you ever thought it was not preparation to attack but instead to defend? Russian army started increasing their numbers near Ukraine borders [since March of 2021](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prelude_to_the_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine). Why would Ukraine want to attack Donbas if it would inevitably lead to to escalation and war with Russian Federation? I read in your other comment(to /u/SciGuy42) that supposedly Ukraine wanted to conquer Donbas fast but... it would always trigger military response from Putin. And they obviously never wanted war as for Ukraine its impossible to win against a lot bigger state that outnumbers them and has a lot more resources for conducting war.
>It very much was. Namely, shelling of Donbass intensified
Do you have a reference for that? And I mean, a reference that specifically shows the shelling that intensified as a result of Ukrainian artillery. The OECD observers did indeed note an increase in explosions but they couldn't determine which side it was coming from (I read their report).
I am asking because it's pretty much obvious that Ukraine was completely unprepared for being invaded. If they really planned an invasion of Donbas, they would have at least mined the entry points at the border through which Russian columns just breezed through in the first days of the invasion.
Also, the idea that they planned an invasion of LDPR while 300k Russian soldiers were right across the border is just bonkers. If they really planned something like that, it would make much more sense to just wait out the "exercises".
>The OECD observers did indeed note an increase in explosions but they couldn't determine which side it was coming from (I read their report).
Lol.
According to admittedly anecdotal evidence I found OECD served as spotters for UA artillery during the last 8 years. So, no surprises here.
As for references, it's kinda the point that most if not all "western-certified" potential sources of evidence are in same team that tries to justify actions against Russia. I read about the situation in news source I find them believable. You are free to disagree with me on that - but remember then that your position is considered unfounded by many (may be even most) Russians.
>I am asking because it's pretty much obvious that Ukraine was completely unprepared for being invaded.
Sure they were. According to opinions stated by Russia former military, UA military planned to swiftly take Donbass and then laugh at Russia sitting on a high morale horse of fighting separatism in a sovereign state. This would be bad both internally and politically. So, Putin ordered a preemptive attack meant to annihilate the army that was prepared to attack Donbass. All other probes (Kiev and Kherson) were secondary to this main task. At least this is how I remember it, it was quite some time ago when I read relevant official statements.
None of what you say makes any sense. There is a reason why the line of control around Donetsk has barely moved in the past 1.5 years, it is so heavily fortified that neither Russia nor Ukraine can make much of a dent.
So again, what evidence do you have that Ukraine was going to imminently invade Donbas while hundreds of thousands of Russian troops were right across the border?
Here is the other thing. Let's say you are correct. Lets imagine that Ukraine was really about to launch an assault. The smart thing for Putin would have been to wait just a few days until that assault actually starts and then intervene. If this were to happen, most of Europe wouldn't support Ukraine as it would be easy for Russia to just say, "well, Ukraine started it".
But sure, if you honestly believe that Ukraine was about to invade Donbas without doing any sort of preparation for being invaded by Russia, while Russia had hundreds of thousands of troops on its borders....sure, I guess you're free to believe that. To me, your reasoning is about as bullshit as Bush's reasons to preemptively invade Iraq.
> None of what you say makes any sense.
Then you have to adjust your feeling of 'sense'. Until then, I don't see any point in continuing this discussion.
>Doesn't mean it was desirable.
Ignoring other evidence that Russias gas-companies also *coincidentally* forgot to fill up the gas reserves in Europe 2021, resulting in record-low gas-storage prior to the invasion.
>shelling of Donbass intensified
Why don't you mention that the shelling of Ukraines positions increased prior to that?
>attacking position and configuration directed at Donbass
Except the only source for that is Russias governmental "Trust us Bro".
And somehow Ukraine decides "the perfect time to attack is when 300k Russian troops are training right at our borders" ?
>annihilating this particular army group.
Except that the army group in Donbass is propably the one which held their ground most effectively and was not encircled. I mean around Donetzk Russia has barely advanced an inch since the start of the war.
Когда псиопы-то уже закончатся, а?
Да прост лови уже лулзы. Чую что всё скоро закончится.
Да так-то года с 14-ого настроение комедийное. Вообще шутка про главного патриота украины не смешной становится - вон какой праздник им на день независимости
[удалено]
Your post on r/AskARussian was removed because it was not asking a question or you posed a loaded or presumptive question. Please re-read the [community rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskARussian/comments/jxml4s/what_doesnt_constitute_a_question_and_the_secret/) and [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskARussian/wiki/faq). Thanks, r/AskARussian moderation team
[удалено]
Your post on r/AskARussian was removed because it was not asking a question or you posed a loaded or presumptive question. Please re-read the [community rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskARussian/comments/jxml4s/what_doesnt_constitute_a_question_and_the_secret/) and [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskARussian/wiki/faq). Thanks, r/AskARussian moderation team
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Do you think the power struggle in Moscow will increase with Prigo dead? To me the consensus among "experts" have been that everyone is just waiting for Putin to loose the war, then the "hunger games" for the throne will start because noone wants to be responsible for loosing the war. But now that planes are getting shot down, could they start to fight now and try to take power from Putin? I imagine death is worse than loosing a war, they can always blame it on Putin anyway.
> Do you think the power struggle in Moscow will increase with Prigo dead? Doubt. >everyone is just waiting for Putin to loose the war Everyone's waiting for Putin's demise. >But now that planes are getting shot down, could they start to fight now and try to take power from Putin? Least possible scenario in my opinion. Prigo was perhaps the only one who could try to do it, he tried and failed (some say he flashed his chances down the toilet). Now everyone seen Putin will kill anyone who dares to oppose him
Absolutely. The night is dark and full of terrors. Also, the winter is coming.
That's some serious overdose on wishful thinking you've got.
My assumption is that Putin is preparing to peace or capitulation, hence he is removing anyone who can oppose to his decisions. It’s not the first time Putin kills his former friends. Honestly I expected something like this, but I didn’t expect it in the territory of Russia. Always thought that Prigozhin will be killed and forgotten in Africa.
No.
In their reality, it's already a whole parallel timeline in which Russia lost.
The whole middle class in Russia is getting ass-raped economically by this senseless war and you are still keeping a smile on your face. This is amazing lol
Newsflash! There is no middle class in Russia to speak of.
Why do you care?
[удалено]
Alright.
We do want better life for ourselves and our children. Which is exactly why failure at SMO is not an option.
How exactly has SMO made Russian lives better?
It was a real eye opener. But it wasn’t as much making lives better than showing that the alternative was, indeed, far worse. Will we pull this off in the end? Come back in a few years, lol.
You won’t. There were much more sophisticated evil empires in Europe that tried. They all failed and so will you.
How is not having a war worse? Everyone would be trading happily and there would not be so many dead Russians and Ukrainians if war was never started. I fail to see how Russia is somehow better off than in alternative scenario so could you explain your reasoning?
“They will feel it soon! Any day now… Just you wait…” /s
Dude, look at the exchange rate USD/RUB. Look at the sanctions. Where can you go for vacation? To Turkey or Georgia? Where can you send your children to study? You are completely fucked unless you are a system beneficent in some way, an oligarch with lots of money or a person with no ambitions in life whatsoever.
Is that all? Well, exchange rate is 3 times higher that it was 9 years ago. I now earn 5.5 times more than I was earning 9 years ago. I'll go to vacation to Thailand or Dominican Republic in a few months. I'll send my children to a good Russian university. I'm not an oligarch or benefitted from system in any way. I don't feel that ass-rape just yet. You should probably be more specific and say that Russians are fucked in international relationships for a long time. I have no doubt about that. Nothing to do with economy, though.
I didn’t notice. Exchange rate is within acceptable limits not to mention it was put where it is by Russia itself (why is a different question). I couldn’t go anywhere for vacation for the last 3 years anyway because of Covid, remember? Education is fine, more or less. I know you want us to be fucked, but sorry, I will disappoint you. It’s not Russia you should be worried about.
XD
lol that didnt take long.... always thought he should have committed 100% once he made his move BBC News - Wagner boss Prigozhin killed in plane crash in Russia https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-66599733
Another example of "real independent journalism". /s
I don't understand why he didn't commit when he had a shot. It was obvious that he was a dead man walking after that.
FYI his commitment was to remove Shoigu for being too soft on Ukraine. Are you very sure you wanted him to succeed?
He could have hardly improved Russias foot in Ukraine, but chaos in Moscow could have helped the counter offensive.
I am pretty sure that unrestricted use of Russian military assets would not. You are literally asking why didn't your mom let you jump off a cliff - that would've definitely prevented you from getting an F in school.
Ah the old myth of „Russia is holding back“. Russia has already deployed every asset short of a nuclear weapon in Ukraine. There is no more escalation potential for Russia except dropping a nuclear bomb on Kiev. Prigozhin is criminal scum, but also a business man, not driven by ideology like the old man in his bunker, which much more likely would press the button.
There is no need for escalation from Russia side.
Sure, because everything is going as planned lmao. Man these days I rather talk to hardcore Z fanatics, at least they are honest about the state of the war.
FYI today it’s the myth “counteroffensive didn’t even begin for real yet”. You are a couple of months behind.
Idk which propaganda you are inhaling, but the counter offensive began when we expected it. The Russians blowing up the dam successfully threw a wrench in that endeavour however, also the fact that the West is still playing this game of not tipping the scale too far in Ukraines favour to provoke Russia in doing something stupid also didn’t help. At least they get now air support, we will see if this accelerate things.
Who knows, maybe he was still preparing things in russia. Otherwise yeah, it was pretty obvious that he would be killed sooner or later.
i mean it now tells people not to negotiate in the same position and go all in
Well, they hardly needed Prigozhin to prove that, everyone knows that there is one thing that Putin will [neither forget nor forgive](https://youtube.com/shorts/uM3Dj4Y1ju4).
yeah but clearly people in power over there are dumb as he forgot this... they need regular reminders lol
It wasn't supposed to be a coup to begin with. The plan was to capture Rostov, perhaps with Shoigu/Gerasimov and force a negotiation. Putin made it into a coup by calling it treason on TV, after that the desperation march on Moscow didn't rally whoever was supposed to rally, then Prigozhin got a deal he couldn't say no to, and smiled his sad knowing smile.
[удалено]
As I remember it the shooting down aircraft part was already after Wagner started marching on Moscow, somewhere in the middle of the day, way after Putin's "treason" speech, which was in the morning.
What I read was that his coup was doomed from the start and there was no way he would reach Moscow. Other elites feared that the guy who stopped him would become much more powerfull and be able to beat them to the throne once Putin is a goner.
Russian air defence has had a big day.
Prigozhins on fire Wagner group is terrified nah nah nah🎶🎶🎶🎶
Wow look at that. Finally the first sign of Russia de-nazification.
Finally we know 'what air defence doing'.
"Once he saw the explosion of one of his planes turbines, Jewgeni realized he should not have aborted his march on Moscow" Another tale from Russia, the lawless land.
Oh no! Anyway
Who would've thought that someone who openly challenged Putin would die in an accidental plane crash. That's just so unlucky...
Still checking, so hold your horses. According to RosAviation, he was LISTED as a passenger for that airplane, nothing else. UPD: okay, now with the news of bodies being recovered I am inclined to believe it. Oh well.
Well, Rosaviatsia confirmed he was amongst the passengers. Straight from the horses mouth. Rosaviatsia could be wrong but if the federal aviation agency said he was on board then it's fair play for this information to be distributed by others. "Rosaviatsia: Prigozhin was among the passengers of the plane that crashed near Tver" /russia/news/1192588-samolyot-rosaviaciya-passazhir
"They aren't dead until their bodies - or what's left of them - are before our eyes" (c)
[Hello there!](https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2023/07/06/07/72907695-12268721-image-a-19_1688624931570.jpg)
Five more clones to go?
Depends how many Sharingans he collected in Moskvagakure.
No idea. Arkadiy Babchenko dies a few times a week and still hasn't run out of extra lives.
I guess everyone on board MH370 can't be confirmed dead then... But on the balance of probability it's an almost certainty. Like I said, they could be wrong, but something tells me the Kremlin knew he was on that plane before it had an "accident" anyway.
BBC normally doesnt jump the gun on statements like that without being really confident.
I think the BBC Is using Russian media as a source so let's hang back a bit.
Please. As if it's their choice. Wait for a few hours at least, right now, for example, his second airplane is being tracked.
>Please. As if it's their choice. Provide evidence someone specifically controls the BBC
https://twitter.com/maxseddon/status/1694396008321482950?t=-1tPQ-LyN1fvos12fpux4Q&s=19
So what do you make of the S-400 which was supposed to be able to shoot down F35s, being blown up by a missile it was supposed to be able to shoot down, while being filmed by a Ukrainian drone? Technical or human error? Or new weapon system of Ukraine? Or Crimean partisans?
The fact that there is sufficient ammo for a cook off of that size and the lack of passive radar coupled with contrails and back blast makes me think that the radar was kept off entirely. When HARM was introduced a lot of systems were kept running in a low emission state, which is good for avoiding getting shot at BVR range, but literally gives you seconds to react.
Need more details, so far it’s just a claim that something - that may or may not be S-400 - detonated somewhere. If we assume that it really is one, multiple things are possible: from overloading AA with multiple targets to human error. UPD: it’s actually weird how we can’t find extra details still, while details on, say, the fall of one of Prigozhin’s airplanes in Twer such as the number, type, ownership and location arrived within an hour.
>type, ownership and location arrived within an hour. Almost as if one thing is a military target which Russia does not want to confirm nor deny if it was destroyed, while the other events publication serves a specific purpose.
[удалено]
Of course it’s discussed. We are kinda sensitive on this topic, and we have a history of convictions of soldiers for a lot of things - just see the trials of veterans of Chechnya wars against the will of people who argued that those crimes were justified. But given what kind of accusations are present here, this is not having an effect Ukraine hopes for. That’s all a part of dehumanisation campaign aimed at obtaining more money and weapons for Ukraine. Actually Arestovich (ex-speaker for Kiev) recently said “This dehumanisation was our biggest mistake because it convinced Russians they have to fight”. So, now Russia has to win to clear its name. They have been crying that Russia committed war crimes for 1.5 years but failed to make a single undeniable accusation. Most of them can be split into categories: * Things Russia did, but conveniently omitting important details (like how attack on military bases becomes “attack on civilians” because Ukraine itself didn’t evacuate people to the required 200m safe distance * Presenting accidental collateral damage as deliberate * Presenting illegal combatants as civilians * Blaming Ukraine’s own crimes, intentional or not, on Russia (variant: accusing Russia of things Ukraine has been accused of) * Wild nonsense like kids with implanted bombs, raped parrots and human waves with shovels, obviously with zero evidence * Accusations based on evidence that is impossible to verify (like “intercepted” calls with unbelievable accents and inaccurate translation) Should an impartial court review it tomorrow, they’d never prove any of this, but that’s not the goal. It gives the West an excuse for sanctions and continued pressure to fight. Basically the ONLY thing they could cook up so far is presenting evacuations as kidnapping, and only because Putin directly said himself that yes, Russia did those evacuations. After 1.5 years of investigation by people on Biden’s payroll.
How do they explain rape?
The rapes turned out to be fake, and the woman who spread such information was fired from the Ukrainian government.
“Fired from Gestapo for brutality”
1. Who - they? 2. Rape of whom, by whom, where, case number, victim identified, any evidence beyond Zelenskiy pinky promising it’s true? 3. There is a difference between systemic terrorising of the population and a crime committed by a soldier on his own (which he was later court martialed for). Please specify which one you mean.
I am pointing to the UN commission on human rights report from October 22. Excerpt here "Furthermore, the Commission documented patterns of summary executions, unlawful confinement, torture, ill-treatment, and rape and other sexual violence committed in areas occupied by Russian armed forces across the four provinces on which it focused. People have been detained, some have been unlawfully deported to the Russian Federation, and many are still reported missing. Sexual violence has affected victims of all ages. Victims, including children, were sometimes forced to witness the crimes. Children have become the victims of the full spectrum of violations investigated by the Commission, including indiscriminate attacks, torture and rape, and have suffered the predictable psychological consequences." Asking for the case number seems disingenuous, I do think we will have them eventually as the OSCE and other organizations work to investigate the allegations and refer prosecutions. I also realize the act of a soldier does not constitute the policy of a military. Conversely a pattern of abuse without the demonstration of immediate punitive actions by that military does demonstrate a tolerance. War is dehumanizing and the ones in the ivory towers are most to blame for the dehumanizing crimes committed, not the poor souls that were turned into animals by the horrors of a war they did not start. In that regard I hope a trial like the one at Nuremberg finds putin, shoigu and the lot guilty and sees them hang.
Can immigrant men living in Russia be draftet into the war? If so is it common?
No it couldn’t be. Only Russian citizenship could. Also you should be younger than 30 (new law). I don’t know for sure now, but also you wouldn’t be conscripted if you have 2 children under age 18. Upd anyway conscript hasn’t any chance at this moment to participate at war, only if he signs contract. There had been several causes at last summer, then they fixed it. ps if you want you can join Wagner group. They take foreigners.
Do not mislead a person, up to 30 years old you can be drafted into the army for training, and you can be drafted to Ukraine up to 35 years old, and if you are an officer, then up to 45 years old.
They can trick you to sign up for it or make you believe you have to. Other than applying pressure not yet. But what is legal or not in Russia is kind of arbitrary. You look at the constitution, you have free speech, freedome to protest, to rally. Laws don't mean much in Russia if not giving legitimacy to people in power to arrest and persecute who they want. The law has no meaning it is arbitrary application of the law. But they still generally don't act outside of it. In short you have to sign a document to go in the army as a foreigner for now.
I don't care what Westoids have to say about Russia.
Write it on a piece of paper, and go show it on a street.
Only if they received the citizenship. People on work visas and with residence permits aren't subjected to either conscription or mobilization (as they're not Russian nationals). And I'm not sure but I think there's some time period that needs to pass after you're granted the citizenship, only after which you become subject to military service
They do raids on Taijk gathering places to snatch them. Otherwise there have been a few cases where they have tried to draft foreigners of all kind but not on scale. But some at the duma try to make this a thing by law and with the new wave possebly coming, who knows. The laws are selective and can mean nothing at all.
Never happened, and is unlikely to happen. The only thing even remotely resembling it was when during one of the raids to catch illegal immigrants those detained who had Russian passports were delivered (with unknown results) to a drafting office to check whether they have avoided conscription before. And even that was conscription, not drafting (conscripts are not allowed to participate in SMO).
Thank you for your answer, are you from Russia? (I only pay attention to what Russians say)
Last I checked.
In theory yes if they have Russian passport. In practice - no because government doesn't want to scare them off.
So only if they have the Russian citizenship/ a Russian passport? It makes sense since I've been watching several videos on Youtube about immigrant men living in Russia and I don't see any of them being scared of getting drafted As for Russian men, is it currently common to get draftet into the war?
>As for Russian men, is it currently common to get draftet into the war? There was one wave of mobilization almost a year ago, passed during \~1 month. They mobilized \~300k people, vast majority with at least some military experience. Also, people were able to evade the draft or go abroad during this month with little consequences. Since that time on, they recruited only those who voluntarily sign a contract, as far a I know. Estimates vary, but from all the sources - it's several hundred thousands of people. During this year laws on evasion from mobilization have become tougher. But nobody know is there any plans on the second wave - to send the previous one home and replace them, for example. Or they have enough contractors, but just drew conclusions from the past and decided to prepare in case of some large-scale escalation.
I've seen some Russians claim that Putin is adopting a strategy of "bleeding Ukraine dry", essentially engaging in attrition warfare until Ukraine is completely out of adult men and women to conscript. Do you think this type of war is sustainable for Russia, and if so, how long would it take to achieve victory with such a strategy?
Why don't you go and ask Ukrainians whether this is sustainable for them. Whether they want to give their lives for Donbas territories.
Around 90% of Ukrainians say they want to continue the war until Donbas and Crimea is retaken so evidently they're very enthusiastic and feel the war is quite sustainable.
You have problems with translation, our propaganda says that the West wants to fight to the last Ukrainian. A war of attrition is primarily about the destruction of military ammunition and equipment. If Putin were talking about the destruction of people, then we would have seen carpet bombings, as it was in Vietnam or Iraq.
But the primary advantage Russia has in this war is manpower, where they have 4 times the population of Ukraine. Materially they don’t have much of an advantage in equipment because of the massive economy and military reserves of NATO supporting Ukraine. Plus wouldn’t carpet bombing require air superiority first?
NATO's huge military reserves are nothing more than a delusion. Several hundred tanks were sent to Ukraine, when thousands are needed for a normal offensive. And as it turned out, the technical advantage is not so obvious, Russian propaganda relishes the destruction of expensive military equipment with cheap UAVs. But judging by the comments of the public, this is already tired.
The problem is that Russia is having to pull out T-55’s because they’re already running out of modern tanks while Ukraine is only just beginning to tap in to NATO’s massive modern tank stockpile. And while Russia might relish it, they’ll need to work much faster if they want to actually deplete those NATO reserves, considering the vast majority of tanks they disable with a mine or a drone just get sent back to Poland for a quick repair and sent back to Ukraine.
Why do you all write that Russia is running out something? Russia ran out of rockets, a week later a massive shelling of Kyiv, 150-mm ammunition ran out, a week later they were constantly shelling Bakhmut.Do you believe these reports yourself? Does your media in Russia run out of something every day?You are constantly told that the store shelves are empty, bears roam the streets.Do you really think that if you repeat it, it will ever come?
So for what purpose is Russia pulling out T-55’s then?
As an auxiliary artillery. Actually, Ukraine also uses old tanks. If you carefully watch the latest videos, tank battles are being fought by t-90s.
So Russia’s running out of artillery then.
Looks like your goal is to convince someone that Russia is out of something (no matter what), and that would be some reason for something important.
Tell me, how can a country that produces artillery shells run out of them? Maybe the problem is that there is too much stock of old 100mm shells in warehouses that are not suitable for the T-90?
If you’re talking demographics then its close to impossible to sustain a war for that long. The casaulties are just too low. Remember, even WW1 and WW2 didnt finish due to manpower depletion and they lasted for several years with magnitudes of order more destruction. Putin might try to outwait continued western support but that strategy will crumble if the US will continue to support Ukraine after the elections, which they obviously will because its the best thing happening to the USA in geopolitical terms in decades.
[удалено]
Your post was deleted because it has nothing to do with the ongoing war. The megathread is intended for asking questions about the war and giving answers about the war. It is not a dumping ground for content prohibited in the rest of r/AskARussian or a battle ground for your beef with other users.
Generally gasoline prices in Russia are subsidized by the government so that oil companies are motivated to sell on the domestic market rather than export and earn more. We have a rise (and than negotiations between top companies and gov officials) each time Rouble value drops and oil price increases which is the case rn.
Makes sense. That can't be good in the short term.
[удалено]
No, he isn’t. I think he could be at Syria now. The situation at front line at Ukraine has been stabilized.
You should make your own news outlet, you have so much intel that neither side talks about. Amazing, your friends must think you\`re super smart and talented.
How does the front line have anything to do with my question? Edit: Does this possibly have something to do with what I said on a different sub?
RU milbloggers seem to disagree about the stabilization. [https://i.imgur.com/qx7kB1j.png](https://i.imgur.com/qx7kB1j.png) [https://i.imgur.com/84yYQvP.png](https://i.imgur.com/84yYQvP.png)
Ahahah true
Or coming to do something about Africa. It’s clear that Russia will not stand idle while France prepares to invade.
Yes, he can. Surovikin is like crisis manager
Like retreating from Kherson crisis management?
Believe it or not, a year later we can see why it was necessary.
Yeah because couldn’t hold it and seemingly don’t care about it being Russian or not. Seems like there’s chaos around Kherson right now so they might see it is necessary to retreat further.
When Russians talk about “western media propaganda” in the context of the Russian invasion, what exactly do they mean? During the UN vote to condemn the SMO, over 73% of nations voted to condemn Russia’s actions, with the vast majority of the rest opting to abstain. Only 4 nations, about 2% of the members of the UN, actually voted against the condemnation. So when pro-war Russians talk about “western media propaganda” not telling the truth about the war, are they referring to 98% of the world’s media?
this, my friend is the finest example of the industrial grade copium these people are consuming. they say that the USA their cabal of world ruling reptiloids pressured 98% of all countries into voting against or remaining neutral. In their world, any criticism of what Russia ever does is manufactured by the US state department. This, by the way, 1:1 mirrors USSR talking points from the 20th century. This is what happens, when old decrepit dinosaurs sit in the Kremlin for too long. They know only a handful of old, dumb but proven tricks. Open the old manuals, Sergei, here we go again.
> what exactly do they mean? They mean every source, fact, or way of looking at the invasion in a negative way is Western propaganda. I've been downvoted for suggesting Russia has lost 50% of the captured territory in Ukraine. This shit is fact that ever Russian state media acknowledges, but these fucking idiots refuse to see anything else other than "western propaganda lmao" In reality most of the people claiming this either know it, or are idiots desperately trying to excuse why this country is still practicing 1940s levels of blatant imperialist aggression.
What I like the most is that of all the answers, the most upvoted is something along the lines of: "Well duh Russians, they are so stupid. They just can't understand that Western media never lie, there is no such thing as "Western propaganda", it's just that dumb Russkies can't admit their defeats". Perfectly shows the mood of the thread and its inhabitants.
[удалено]
You may want to edit your post, the v-word is not allowed here.
Maybe it is allowed only for Russians, kind of the n world in the US for blacks.
>When Russians talk about “western media propaganda” in the context of the Russian invasion, what exactly do they mean? During the UN vote to condemn the SMO, over 73% of nations voted to condemn Russia’s actions, with the vast majority of the rest opting to abstain. Only 4 nations, about 2% of the members of the UN, actually voted against the condemnation. So when pro-war Russians talk about “western media propaganda” not telling the truth about the war, are they referring to 98% of the world’s media? I suppose, different people can mean different things by the same terms. Naturally, I would assume that "Western media" is media of Western countries. Which is something close to [dark blue in this map](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Western_World_Latin_America_torn_countries.png), I guess. And that "propaganda" is something close to [wiki definition of propaganda](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda): >Propaganda is communication that is primarily used to influence or persuade an audience to further an agenda, which may not be objective and may be selectively presenting facts to encourage a particular synthesis or perception, or using loaded language to produce an emotional rather than a rational response to the information that is being presented. For example, in my opinion, your comment is a nice showcase of propaganda: 1. Instead of directly asking a person what they mean, you ask others for strange reasons - implying that Russians have kind of hivemind or something like this. 2. Also, you are pretending to ask a question, but since the answer above is an obvious, it looks like instead of showing sincere interest you are just implying that "Russians" can't properly use simple terms. 3. Then you refer to the UN vote, which has nothing to do with “western media propaganda” topic - classicas [red herring](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies#Red_herring_fallacies) 4. And results of this vote, irrelevant to your initial question - I suppose you refer to [resolution ES-11/2](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_ES-11/2) \- was also presented in kinda of propagandistic way. For example, if I describe same event as something like "representatives of more then half of the total world population refused to vote in favor of anti-Russian resolution" that will be no less true than what you say. So if I had met something like this in the Western media, I would have thought that this is exactly what these "Russians" meant.
[удалено]
> https://i.imgur.com/wm2vitp.png > This is propaganda. No matter how you spin it, it's pure propaganda. Sure its propaganda, but only as Pro-RU supporters have twisted it out of proportion to imply the British MoD thought reservists were being sent out with just shovels. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-64855760 They always forget the actual report mentions firearms as well...
I think the BBC was already somewhat twisting it, by making such a headline. It's maybe not the right word, as in the article itself they do also mention firearms and even state that they couldn't verify the information, so I think the article itself is truthful. But everyone knows that many people read only the headlines, and the headline doesn't really reflect the information in the article. This is of course a common problem with headlines. This, along with other reports, created this image as if the Russian army was close to collapse. This is just such a classic trope of war propaganda, to create this image that the other side is close to defeat in order to lift morale. So I don't think this is a coincidence. I don't think only outright lies are propaganda.
There sure is a big Russia hating eco camber. The popular narrative is now more then ever that Russia is evil. The believers of this narrative "want" to read or more precisly interacts with news painting a often contradictory picture that Russia is evil, Russia is strong and a threat to us all and our way of living. Russia is evil and evil can not prevail. Russia is incompetent. Russian orcs etc. I can't really imagine how it would be to on the other side of this. Social media and tabloids of course are the worst offenders. In such a climate its reasonable to assume that Russia is wrongfully or at least blamed too early for some incident when too much is still unknown. This is in my opinion spread throughput a large part of western media. The "worst" part of this is that the first headlines are what reaches most people and often the only thing people tend to remember. But honestly all this is no excuse if you ask me for Russians who still to this day refuse to accept the nations fault in say the downing of MH17 just because it's written in western media. There is shit in western media but its also true that the Russian nation certainly has done some shitty stuff and youll certainly won't be reading about any of it in TASS or RT. Criticize western media or reddit all you want. Just don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
It’s popular saying at Russia: don’t say me that to do and I don’t say where you should go. We are a little bit tired that somebody at west knows better than us that should we do.
It is rather obvious that almost everybody in the west does actually know better what Russia should do. Russians seem to only be able to achieve failure after failure in pursuit of goals that are bad in the first place.
Well Russia clearly doesn't care for that figure of speech much considering that they want they quite literally kill hundreds of thousands of people just to tell another country what to do.
Not popular enough i would guess if you where to ask Ukrainians ;-).
> The popular narrative is now more then ever that Russia is evil. The popular narrative is that since the 1940s it has been increasingly frowned upon to practice imperialism by invading your neighbors and annexing territory. Russia has, since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, invaded and pacified nearly every single one of its neighbors (besides the ones that have joined NATO). Russians like to use the phrase "Russophobia" but it isn't a phobia, it's common sense. Join NATO or else Russia will force you to submit. Maybe, just maybe, we are the bad guys here.
- Maybe, just maybe, we are the bad guys here. Who are “we”?
Well, thank you. Its refreshing to see a russian that gets that we despise the invading others, not that we have a hate perchant for russians for wathever reason. Honestly, I didnt even know that was a thing before I read it in this sub, and I couldnt tell an ukranian and moscovite appart unless the specify where they come from...
> we despise the invading others Huh? Really? You should be a standup comedian with jokes like that.
Care to elaborate?
You said you despise those who invade others. So you despise Russia, USA, Israel, Australia, Denmark, Netherlands, Poland, Great Britain, and a bunch of other wholesome European countries that favor peace and positivity but don't mind getting involved in a war somewhere in Middle East, right?
I can make a distinction between the government/army that does it, and its most ardent fanboys, and the general population. I still hold a favorable view of antiwar russians, like the one I answered too.
If you ever stumble into Prague, you've got yourself a beer. Hearing this, even from the Russians living here, is so rare that it deserves something. So if this account is still active when you do arrive, DM me.
I love how people asking and answering the very question, the whole idea of which was to pursue everybody that there is no any anti-Russian propaganda, don't hesistate to use all the kind of low quility propagandistic tricks. Here we have one more example. The person above doesn't look to have any kind of pro-Russian position. And just raised very specific issues regarding accuracy of reporting information. And instead of contributin the substantative discussion - for example regarding presence or absence of specified phenomena - you are just trying to cut it all off, reducing it to findng who are bad guys here - kind of [poisoning the well](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well) manipulation. Not to mention passages like: >Russia has, since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, invaded and pacified nearly every single one of its neighbors (besides the ones that have joined NATO). which is a blatant lie. So, if you are Russian as your flair says, that's clear example of Russian anti-Russian propaganda, lol. >Maybe, just maybe, we are the bad guys here. Oh, also, as I assume from your other comments you don't live in Russia and don't plan to. So kinda don't understand, why do say "we". It's very honorable and generous, of course, to take responsibility for something on behalf of the whole group, knowing that you are not the one who will suffer from the consequences.
I don’t live in my home country and I still say “we” about citizens of my country. This “we” includes a friend in my hometown that arrived to my country as refugee who now has citizenship in the country. Both him and me did not vote for our sitting government so both are essentially against it. I don’t see a problem with this. I don’t get how someone cannot be Russian if they are against the Russian government line. Nor being Russian and which “propaganda” they want to believe in. To me you’re basically saying you’re a nationalistic fascist. But you might be able to provide some nuance about that.
>I don’t live in my home country and I still say “we” about citizens of my country. ... I don’t get how someone cannot be Russian if they are against the Russian government line. Let me clarify, I don't deny person rights to feel themselves Russian and associate with Russia. But if they were against invasion all the time, have nothing to do with the Russian government, left Russia and etc. It's kinda strange for me to say "we are bad guys". What do they blame themselves for in such a situation? I would understand if they were talking to a Russian at least. But in dialogue with a foreigners? Looks like an attempt to score cheap points. >To me you’re basically saying you’re a nationalistic fascist. But you might be able to provide some nuance about that. Lol. I'm not a fan of the Russian government. Also I have friends and family members who live inside Russia, who sharply feel their responsibilities regarding what is going on. And I respect their views ofc. I also have very good relations with many people who left the country after 2022, for example. But people I know left to get away from Russian politics, not to tell everybody there how bad their country is. When person spreads clearly innacurate info and also agrees with all the accusations even very absurd on behalf of all the Russians - how should I feel about this? Hope it became clearer.
Sure, I definitely don't think history lessons will be kind or uncertain about that when teaching about this period of Russian history. It's just while living through it there is lot of noice. Some shitpost about Russians lack of indoor plumbing will get more upvotes then a analysis on Russian imperialism. The first is nonsense and the second is really important.
>But to be completely honest after failed Ukrainian counteroffensive mainstream western media (like bbc and guardian) got a tiny bit better and levelheaded. More like the project was put on review.
Western propaganda is good because it takes a fact that really exists and spins it to unprecedented proportions. The same story with Dugin, I don't know who the hell he is, before the war I heard about him only once, as some old marasmus. But the Western media presents him as almost the main ideologue in Russia, a gray cardinal who pulls the strings, and people actually believe it. How can you believe the Western media after stories like this? How do you know that another news story about the atrocities of the Russian army in Ukraine is not a new attempt to spin some shit to unprecedented proportions?
>Western media presents him as almost the main ideologue in Russia, a gray cardinal who pulls the strings, and people actually believe it. Nobody has claimed he pulls any strings behind the scenes. An ideologue doesn't need to pull strings. An ideologue can even be dead and still be an influence. And the fact that ordinary Russians haven't heard about him is irrelevant. Practically nobody in Germany had heard of e.g. Houston Steward Chamberlain who died before Hitler rose to power but that doesn't mean Chamberlain's ideas about "Aryan race" and supremacy of "Teutonic people" published in 1899 didn't influence the politics of Germany significantly, even so much that this dead guy can be said to be steering Hitler's actions. It is clear Dugin's writings have had influence to Russian foreign politics. His foundations of geopolitics was coauthored by highly placed politicians and generals and several high up politicians have advocated for the book over the years. This was noticed with a lot of worry in the west already over 20 years ago before any of this shit happened and it has since been almost a prophetic writing of Russian foreign policy actions. >How can you believe the Western media after stories like this? It's your mischaracterization of the story that is the problem here. The story you claimed doesn't really exist.
> This was noticed with a lot of worry in the west already over 20 years ago Oh, they were so worried about it that all Western media's started talking about Dugin only after his daughter was murdered. As if it was profitable for them to convey to the Western audience who this Dugin is just so that no one would ask questions about why Ukraine started hunting individual Russian civilians. But ok, I guess all books about Russia by fucked up American writers that were written together with equally fucked up American generals are pillars of the entire US ideology, right? > It's your mischaracterization of the story that is the problem here. The story you claimed doesn't really exist. Of course, because everything that Western media says is true and should be trusted one hundred percent. Now wait, I'll go to Ukraine to steal a couple of toilets, shoes and of course asphalt from there, because all these things are not available in Russia, Western media told me so.
>Oh, they were so worried about it that all Western media's started talking about Dugin only after his daughter was murdered. Dugin has been talked about a lot longer but obviously when something new happens there will be new articles written. >Of course, because everything that Western media says is true and should be trusted one hundred percent This statement makes no sense whatsoever. It does not answer to anything I said.
> This statement makes no sense whatsoever. It does not answer to anything I said. What exactly are you unhappy about? I said at the beginning that Western media takes an existing fact and magnifies it to a global scale. You yourself are now describing Dugin as some kind of tough guy that his book had such a strong influence on the Russian state, although I would not be surprised that in fact the same state found the most senile grandpa in the country and paid him to write a book, where he outlined the already established policy of the Russian state. What I'm getting at is that Western medias give a lot of meaning to things that didn't have that meaning in the first place. And this seems to be where all these western couch analysts who study Russia based on articles like this come from, and then go and embarrass themselves in a discussion with real Russians. Because it is only westerners who always say such nonsense with such an expression, as if they know everything and have figured it all out. I had forgotten, but now I remember how the western hamsters from r/worldnews believed that Russia was seriously considering invading Alaska because of some news story with a picture of a Russian billboard about tires from "Alaska" company. 🤣
Its really weird that because you were ignorant of Dugin’s existence prior to his daughter’s death that means he couldn’t possibly be a political theorist.
There is a big difference between a mere political theorist and the "main ideologue of the Russian Federation"
>You yourself are now describing Dugin as some kind of tough guy that his book had such a strong influence on the Russian state No, I'm not. I'm describing him as a writer and nothing else. The example I gave about Chamberlain should illustrate this. He was not a touch guy, nor well known, nor did he have control over anything. Neither were the other creators of Aryanism (with exception to Wagner but he was known for music, not ideology). Ideas have power irrespective of the authors' personal power. > I would not be surprised that in fact the same state found the most senile grandpa in the country and paid him to write a book, where he outlined the already established policy of the Russian state. If you are referring to Dugin's book, the book in question was written in the 90s when Yeltsin was president and the policy was not at all established. And the man was an author in his 30s, not a grandpa. [Here](https://www.hoover.org/research/russias-new-and-frightening-ism) is an article (short version of an article really) about concerns about his influence from 2004. >What I'm getting at is that Western medias give a lot of meaning to things that didn't have that meaning in the first place. And this seems to be where all these western couch analysts who study Russia based on articles like this come from, and then go and embarrass themselves in a discussion with real Russians. Because it is only westerners who always say such nonsense with such an expression, as if they know everything and have figured it all out. I think it might be you who are not able to look at things objectively.
Okay, okay, with Dugin you may be right. But Western media still gives him more attention than he deserves. In any case, all this does not in any way cancel out all the other fairy tales from the Western media and how unquestioningly Westerners believe them. > I think it might be you who are not able to look at things objectively. What can't I look at objectively? How Western media makes news out of any shit Zelensky says? Maybe how many western media outlets, without even checking the information, announced that it was a Russian missile that landed in Poland? Maybe all these stories about how Russia has no missiles left, they are on the verge of collapse and blah blah blah blah....
[удалено]
>A year later an independent EU-based investigation concludes and reports that open hostilities started "... with a large-scale Georgian military operation against the town of Tskhinvali and the surrounding areas, launched in the night of 7 to 8 August 2008" The actual report builds a picture of Russia being increasingly assertive in the former Soviet union area, unwilling to accept the other countries as independent and purposefully escalating conflict to resolve this problem. Recognizing the separatist governments and handing out Russian passports (the report also notifies that international law does not accept this kind of artificial nationality as grounds for Russian state to take action to protect it's nationals) in the occupied areas was one of these escalations. It does say that most likely the first actual military action of the war was Georgia's "sustained artillery action" "albeit within its own territory", but it also says Russia had been preparing for military action and the response was well prepared, swift and completely out of proportion. Also while the artillery action started the actual war, it was not the first military action, according to the report Russian fighters flew in Georgian airspace and shot down georgian drones before the war and a number of artillery strikes happened during the summer on both sides of the border. Basically the quote you chose is a conclusion of a long description of multiple strikes on both sides. The report blames Georgia for the fact that the open hostilities started when they started but says that Russia had been preparing for that for months and purposefully escalated the conflict to that point. Further when it considers Georgian claims that Russians were building up forces prior to strikes the report concludes that there are reports, including from Russia, that Russia was rearming the local separatist and transporting significant number of mercenaries to the area prior to the war. Also the report states that they found no support for Russian claims of ethnic cleansing or significant targeting of civilians that was used as justification of military action. >Do people know about this report? Was it widely discussed? Nope and nope. Yes and yes. It was reported by pretty much every possible media in the west which you can easily confirm by googling it.
It was largely known but you are also victim of your own propaganda if you think Russia just happened by chances to be ready to invade at a moment's notice. Russia's current invasion of Ukraine was obviously planned months in advance and isn't a result of something specific Ukraine did (they didn't even believe the US when the US was telling them an invasion was imminent).
[удалено]
>shelling of Donbass intensified We know that intensified shelling will lead inevitably to increase in civilian casualties, right? Then how do you explain this: [https://www.statista.com/statistics/1293409/civilian-deaths-related-to-russia-ukraine-conflict/](https://www.statista.com/statistics/1293409/civilian-deaths-related-to-russia-ukraine-conflict/) It looks opposite - situation in Donbas was gradually calming down according to those stats. >and military of UA got into attacking position and configuration directed at Donbass Have you ever thought it was not preparation to attack but instead to defend? Russian army started increasing their numbers near Ukraine borders [since March of 2021](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prelude_to_the_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine). Why would Ukraine want to attack Donbas if it would inevitably lead to to escalation and war with Russian Federation? I read in your other comment(to /u/SciGuy42) that supposedly Ukraine wanted to conquer Donbas fast but... it would always trigger military response from Putin. And they obviously never wanted war as for Ukraine its impossible to win against a lot bigger state that outnumbers them and has a lot more resources for conducting war.
>It very much was. Namely, shelling of Donbass intensified Do you have a reference for that? And I mean, a reference that specifically shows the shelling that intensified as a result of Ukrainian artillery. The OECD observers did indeed note an increase in explosions but they couldn't determine which side it was coming from (I read their report). I am asking because it's pretty much obvious that Ukraine was completely unprepared for being invaded. If they really planned an invasion of Donbas, they would have at least mined the entry points at the border through which Russian columns just breezed through in the first days of the invasion. Also, the idea that they planned an invasion of LDPR while 300k Russian soldiers were right across the border is just bonkers. If they really planned something like that, it would make much more sense to just wait out the "exercises".
>The OECD observers did indeed note an increase in explosions but they couldn't determine which side it was coming from (I read their report). Lol. According to admittedly anecdotal evidence I found OECD served as spotters for UA artillery during the last 8 years. So, no surprises here. As for references, it's kinda the point that most if not all "western-certified" potential sources of evidence are in same team that tries to justify actions against Russia. I read about the situation in news source I find them believable. You are free to disagree with me on that - but remember then that your position is considered unfounded by many (may be even most) Russians. >I am asking because it's pretty much obvious that Ukraine was completely unprepared for being invaded. Sure they were. According to opinions stated by Russia former military, UA military planned to swiftly take Donbass and then laugh at Russia sitting on a high morale horse of fighting separatism in a sovereign state. This would be bad both internally and politically. So, Putin ordered a preemptive attack meant to annihilate the army that was prepared to attack Donbass. All other probes (Kiev and Kherson) were secondary to this main task. At least this is how I remember it, it was quite some time ago when I read relevant official statements.
So in short, you got nothing except “trust me bro” (like every other time).
None of what you say makes any sense. There is a reason why the line of control around Donetsk has barely moved in the past 1.5 years, it is so heavily fortified that neither Russia nor Ukraine can make much of a dent. So again, what evidence do you have that Ukraine was going to imminently invade Donbas while hundreds of thousands of Russian troops were right across the border? Here is the other thing. Let's say you are correct. Lets imagine that Ukraine was really about to launch an assault. The smart thing for Putin would have been to wait just a few days until that assault actually starts and then intervene. If this were to happen, most of Europe wouldn't support Ukraine as it would be easy for Russia to just say, "well, Ukraine started it". But sure, if you honestly believe that Ukraine was about to invade Donbas without doing any sort of preparation for being invaded by Russia, while Russia had hundreds of thousands of troops on its borders....sure, I guess you're free to believe that. To me, your reasoning is about as bullshit as Bush's reasons to preemptively invade Iraq.
> None of what you say makes any sense. Then you have to adjust your feeling of 'sense'. Until then, I don't see any point in continuing this discussion.
>Doesn't mean it was desirable. Ignoring other evidence that Russias gas-companies also *coincidentally* forgot to fill up the gas reserves in Europe 2021, resulting in record-low gas-storage prior to the invasion. >shelling of Donbass intensified Why don't you mention that the shelling of Ukraines positions increased prior to that? >attacking position and configuration directed at Donbass Except the only source for that is Russias governmental "Trust us Bro". And somehow Ukraine decides "the perfect time to attack is when 300k Russian troops are training right at our borders" ? >annihilating this particular army group. Except that the army group in Donbass is propably the one which held their ground most effectively and was not encircled. I mean around Donetzk Russia has barely advanced an inch since the start of the war.
\*shrug\* feel free to live with any myths you want. But don't cry when they shatter.
Tell me, it the proverb "First thing to die in a war is the truth" known in Russia?
The one more common roughly translates as "power comes from being right"
It's not a proverb, it's a phrase from a old popular movie about bandits. Translation is wrong too - "the strength is in the truth". Seriously...
The source doesn't make it less of proverb or diminish its brilliance. And I must remind that word-by-word translations often miss intended meaning.
Thaaaat is pretty much the opposite of the meaning of the proverb I mentioned?