Navigating the Tensions in Ukraine: A Scientific Perspective

[artis]

This is how driving in Ukraine now looks like, it's like a real life game of "battleship" with guessing which path will leave you alive.


Now if what is true from the sources here locally, Zelensky himself is still in Kyiv despite the odds against him and his men, he films videos and uploads them occasionally to inform his men to stay loyal, well you got to ask yourselves do you know of any politician who would not run away? So far I must say I am somewhat surprised by Zelensky's bravery, he started out as a comedian and then became a politician , now he is a soldier effectively. An interesting career.

A tank seemingly on purpose drove over a civilian car in Kyiv, but the driver has survived it seems, and just when you thought miracles don't happen in real life


This is said to have been part of the group that stole Ukrainian armored vehicles and tried to pose as Ukrainians to perform a "Trojan horse" move, they were recognized and a shootout ensued

 

[artis]

To give you another aspect of this war, religion , yes religion, both Ukraine and Russia are historically orthodox and have been for many centuries, The Russian/Ukrainian orthodox tradition is more than 1000 years old, that is a huge cultural heritage both in terms of physical monuments and buildings as well as culture.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Russian_Orthodox_Church
Recently they have faced opposition. Now why does that matter you say? Because unlike in the west Russia and Ukraine are still very religious states, religion and God matters in this part of the world.
Historically in Russia, somewhat less so in Ukraine the church has been affiliated with the state , especially during the period of the USSR in fact it was only allowed to exist in a special form and most bishops and clergy men were actually agents of KGB they just preached gospel in the meantime while writing down the "confessions of sins" from the civilians they attended to.
Now lately the church has been under the blessing of the Kremlin, the Kremlin uses the Russian orthodox church as one of it's many intelligence arms and a PR stunt to show that Putin and the leaders of the GRU, FSB, etc are men of faith , this might seem laughable to those in USA or Europe as in USA, Europe hardly anyone would care whether the director of the CIA or NSA or NATO is a man of faith but in Russia to many it matters still that their leader is someone who protects the classical way of life and faith. This is partly also why Russian government has been so clearly against any western influence in terms of LGBTQ and other issues, two main reasons, first is that Russian mentality is mostly against such minority issues, allowing for same sex marriage as was done in the US would be seen as extreme perversion and also a political weakness.
These minority issues are also one of the reasons why US gets mocked and hated so dearly by many around the world from Russia to the middle east, your minority issues are essentially a fuel for the Kremlin and Islamic radicals alike to show how pathetic and weak/morally corrupt the west is (somewhat along the lines of the old Bolshevik story of the rotten west), it is just seen as something so obscene, but on the other hand, both of the mentioned entities do love your money and some of the goods produced so there is some irony in everything.

I will not even put in the links because if you wish you can just simply google " Kremlin Russian church" etc and there will be a plethora of articles to read in this regard.
Let's just suffice with a picture of Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin "kissing" the head of the Russian church - Patriarch Kirill

And Putin has also had his fair share of kissing Icons of the church (which he was advised against during the pandemic) and attending church. some photos of it in this link
https://www.oocities.org/capitolhill/parliament/5160/Putin/religion.html
https://www.google.com/search?q=put...HR4WA3oQ_AUoAXoECAEQAw&biw=1366&bih=615&dpr=1Now fast forward all is going well so far , Putin is in church, the candles are lit, the light is dim , the angels sing Carols...
and then a "mic drop", kind of "what the hell" moment, The Ukrainian orthodox church decides to split away from the Russian orthodox church and become "self -governing"

To reiterate what I said above about the importance of the church here, taken from the article in the link

KAKISSIS: So under the Soviet Union, the church that exists - that wasn't destroyed by the Kremlin, but the Kremlin did severely control and regulate it. Professor Brik, the religion expert, he said that though Ukrainians aren't particularly religious, they all go to church on Easter and Christmas. They baptize their kids because, you know, the church is just part of their culture.


BRIK: Ukraine is very similar to other Eastern European and post-communist countries in this respect. In our societies, religion is very much connected to the sense of national identity. So it is very important to think about yourself as an Orthodox if you want to say that you are truly Ukrainian.

So I can bet you somebody in Kremlin said "Oh hell no!" when this happened, and it became part of the deal ever since.
Some history in the links below.
https://religionnews.com/2022/02/09...reflects-historic-russian-ukrainian-tensions/

https://religiondispatches.org/make...ussia-and-ukraine-it-will-be-a-religious-war/

This same drama is being played out within Orthodox Christianity at this very moment. Just like Muslims, Orthodox Christians have spent the better part of the modern age in an uncomfortable dance with the West. Throughout this time, Orthodox Christians have disagreed about what their relationship should be to the liberal, secular, rationalist world

Read as "rotten, perverse, morally dead" world. I know orthodox Christians personally who already count the US as dying from within.
But more importantly

Modern Russia also has designs on Africa, where it seeks to compete with China and the Western powers for influence on a continent of natural resources and growing markets. And there’s little doubt that Russia has, in recent years, sought increasingly to use the Russian Orthodox Church as an instrument of foreign influence: in Ukraine, Serbia, Western Europe, and the United States. A tactic only made possible by the Patriarchate of Moscow’s desire to establish itself as the leader of the conservative Orthodox cause.

Now with Ukraine and Zelensky being "spoiled" and trying to brake away this cultural influence is under threat and so just adds to the anger in the Kremlin.
Oh and make no mistake!, the Russian government despite it's brutal and bloody past has always had a great deal of soft power in it's arsenal. Back in the Soviet times cultural workers and poets were among the most respected people who got to go abroad and publish their works even if they were mediocre as long as they had a sentiment about the "beautiful socialist reality" within them. Surely their trips and vacations were guarded by KGB agents wearing suits and pretending as fellow intellectuals but nevertheless, they were the pawns in the game to recruit intellectuals living in exile to join back to the Soviet cause.
I've read a book about one of my fellow countrymen, a man who was a KGB agent and did just this , he was sent to US to work as the coordinator for cultural visits and exchange.
He defected to the US in the 80's, later died from unknown causes, well as expected...

https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blo...inst-ukrainian-orthodox-independence-in-2020/So I've wrote a great deal, it took some time to gather up what I know, I hope my effort is useful to those seeking to understand the situation from a deeper more intellectual stance and not just the "flag waving" parade that is going on now online.

 

[artis]

Now to jump back to current events once more, look at this video , from my own viewpoint a very "on point" and precise summation of the current situation , definitely I'm impressed. This man has done his homework
You can take much of what he said "to the bank"!

 

[artis]

You've posted some opinions how you think Russian see things and how you think the West has played a role, and even some history related to those two countries, but you've largely skipped the most important point of view, which is Ukraine's point of view and the history of Russia and Ukraine relations.

That is true but not because I would want to be biased here rather because of the "overflow" of information from all sides given the sudden attack, no one here has had the time yet, including me, to think through the everyday Ukrainian experience, that being said I share both grief and sympathy for Ukraine as all former republics here share similar fate to some point.

the Soviet Union waged one of the largest genocides on Ukraine in history. Ukrainians hatred of the Soviet Union was so extreme, that when the Nazi's invaded they hoped they would be liberated from Moscow at first. Of course then they learned the hard lesson. They were sandwhiched by two sides both inflicting brutality on them. I honestly don't know how any Neo-Nazi's can exist now in Ukraine, especially considering the Nazi's had planned to exterminate all of the Slavic people eventually. But there are some apparently, and that is unfortunate.

Yes, the USSR under the rule of Stalin implemented collectivization policy which was to take away food from those that resisted being incorporated within the "Kolhoz" aka Collective farm system, this led to mass starvation. NKVD aka "cheka" agents seized grains and all food and shot those who resisted. Bodies of dead people were across streets and corners, people just crawled up and died wherever.
This led to what is known as "Holodomor" or Great famine,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor

Truly one of the most extreme human suffering (both in scope as well as cruelty) in the entire history of this planet. Something not that many know or understand in the west, so thanks @Jarvis323 for pointing out and reminding. Although I can't blame the people in North America espeically and west in general, they have enjoyed almost carefree life for nearly 1.5 centuries without a major war on their soil (North American case), unlike Europe especially eastern Europe which has seen bloodshed of unparalleled proportions.

As for your point about the Nazi sympathies, yes I can agree to an extent, indeed also here in Latvia many saw German troops more favorably then the Russian Red army ones, because it was general knowledge and also somewhat true that Germans had higher manners and were nicer in general than Red army soldiers and regime.
But The Jewish population on the other hand felt quite differently, I still know some older Jews who are soon to be 90, who still see Russia and the former USSR favorably even in spite of Soviet red terror, that is solely because the Germans the moment they came in they rounded up people and began separating Jews and taking them to prison camps where they were either shot or burned as in Auschwitz.

So there is more than one opinion and for different races the history also is different. But to do justice to this part I would need to write a book length of material here which is not feasible.
So pardon if I leave something out.

 

[Office_Shredder]

Although I can't blame the people in the west, they have enjoyed almost carefree life for nearly 2 centuries without a major war on their soil, unlike Europe especially eastern Europe which has seen bloodshed of unparalleled proportions.

Does your definition of the west not include Western Europe?

 

[artis]

Does your definition of the west not include Western Europe?

Well in case of Europe one would have to draw a line at multiple points because most of western Europe experienced war but for a short term and suffered smaller destruction, apart from Germany of course.
In the east "war" was already happening even before real war began in 1939. Ever since the October revolution and truth be told even before that (in 1905 for example) there were prosecutions and unrest only the sides changed, First it was the Czar doing that to the "workers" then it was the newly founded USSR doing that to everyone they got their hands on,
Here in the Baltics there was no peace, well for a short period maybe between 1920's up to 1939, when Stalin gave us an ultimatum to either accept their troops within our land (the excuse was to fight Germans) or suffer annihilation. We accepted and then WW2 started.
Both during the war in 1941 as well as after it , in 1949 there were mass deportations. Trains arrived mid night and soldiers rounded up the ones who were on "the list" as "enemies of the state" they with all their families were packed up into huge trains with railcars for animal transport and sent to Siberia. There in forced labor most died, some died in the journey as it took about 2 weeks.

I could go on and on so yes I think the east has suffered far more than the west if we are talking about Europe.
After all for the west Europe war ended with 1945, for us it only kind of ended in the 1960's and we fully regained something approximating independence in 1991.
The stories really differ by alot.
But technically you are correct Europe has had war on it's soil, even western Europe

 

[Office_Shredder]

You said two centuries, so you're also chucking out world war 1.

I do agree that despite that, and especially recently, Western Europe has had a relatively easy time as far as having its civilization destroyed by invading armies goes (and the US obviously even moreso).

 

[artis]

You said two centuries, so you're also chucking out world war 1.

I do agree that despite that, and especially recently, Western Europe has had a relatively easy time as far as having its civilization destroyed by invading armies goes (and the UD obviously even moreso).

Well that is a true point, damn I entirely forgot about WW1, yes truth be told I made a mistake I wrote west while actually thinking USA and North America, so my bad, let me change that

 

[wrobel]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heim_ins_Reich
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Agreement

The rest started on 9/1/39. We leap exactly 83 years and 5 months.

all dictatorships are similar and commit similar crimes

 

[fresh_42]

I really fail to see how you can claim the "insanity" part for Putin given all this comprehensive political strategy that is laid out before our eyes to see, well for those of us who understand it.

I refer to his state of mind thinking like a Czar and identifying himself with Russia as a whole. You may call it Napoleon complex, I call it F60.0. @russ_watters nailed it: "He didn't get the memo". And how do you justify that he is openly threatening to start a nuclear war? This alone is insane. And suffering hubris does not mean stupid.

 

[PeroK]

Well that is a true point, damn I entirely forgot about WW1, yes truth be told I made a mistake I wrote west while actually thinking USA and North America, so my bad, let me change that

You're also forgetting the US Civil War (160 years ago). You can't just "forget" WWI and expect us to take what you say seriously. Your analysis pays no attention to historical facts.

 

[Mike S.]

I see people have focused on religion here, and there is certainly some interesting material to consider. For Putin to call a Jew a Nazi is at once utterly absurd and false, but also not as fundamentally implausible as you might think. Look up the Continuation War between Finland and Russia. There were patriotic Jewish soldiers honorably defending their country ... for the Axis... against a Russian invasion conducted under the blind eye of the Allies ... and some of them were actually nominated for the Iron Cross! Yes, there were functioning synagogues behind Axis lines. If there's a moral to take from that, it's that war doesn't make sense, and if you can find the place where all logic and reason have broken down completely, that spot is the dead moral center of the war.

We should also see how things play out involving the Russian Orthodox Church and its apparent subservience to Putin's will, and how that all works in terms of ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_Canonical_Communion_with_the_Moscow_Patriarchate The U.S. has never been very comfortable with such issues - I remember even one of the recent Supreme Court nominees was being attacked for potentially being under the influence of the Pope, and this is a more 'interesting' case.

 

[fresh_42]

all dictatorships are similar and commit similar crimes

I am less referring to autocracies in general, more to the faintness of the observers allowing things to develop and sometimes end up in an absolute catastrophe.

For short: appeasement was and is never a valid means to stop a war.

 

[snorkack]

Yes, the USSR under the rule of Stalin implemented collectivization policy which was to take away food from those that resisted being incorporated within the "Kolhoz" aka Collective farm system, this led to mass starvation. NKVD aka "cheka" agents seized grains and all food and shot those who resisted. Bodies of dead people were across streets and corners, people just crawled up and died wherever.
This led to what is known as "Holodomor" or Great famine,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor

Truly one of the most extreme human suffering (both in scope as well as cruelty) in the entire history of this planet.

The problem with collectivization policy was that the people on the red side - which means, townspeople and soldiers, the people who were not directly involved in growing food but who were dependent on peasants growing food and parting with it, and who stood to starve if the peasants would not or could not, as they had during Civil War - were suspicious and distrustful of the peasants, and thought that the peasants would refuse to give food away if the peasants were not getting enough immediate reward, would hide food, make false claims about natural conditions causing bad harvest, and refuse to work hard and enjoy leisure if they thought their harvest would be taken without compensation. In the first years of collectivization, people survived, because the harvests were decent, but this set the expectations/norms. In 1932, weather was bad, but the townsfolk was unwilling to make as much allowance for it as necessary, and trigger-happy to accuse the peasants of cheating and exaggerating their losses.
So when people did starve, the townsfolk viewed them as deadbeats who were themselves at fault for not working well enough to feed the towns and themselves.
The effects of the famine seem to have been patchy - depending on how far the harvest ended up falling below expectations. Ukraine had largest number of dead, but not all regions of Ukraine equally. Kazakhstan had larger proportion of population dead, though fewer total than Ukraine. Russia was not safe - several regions of Volga, South Urals and South Siberia were affected.

 

[Mike S.]

The problem with collectivization policy was that the people on the red side ... were suspicious and distrustful of the peasants...

I think you need to go deeper. The USSR made bad decisions due to lack of information, but the lack of information was due to censorship. Wherever people are prevented from sharing their opinions as a free and open society, death follows. This occurs even when the deficit goes unnoticed or seems to have an explanation, like your workplace not telling you which people had Covid yesterday. But for a totalitarian state or a totalitarian planet, death is the mercy and the hope.

 

[fresh_42]

Please keep in mind that this thread is about current events. Try not to go into speculations, politics, or religion.

Whenever it is about Europe, history is automatically included. We appreciate those comments particularly from our Baltic members because they have insights and knowledge due to their own history. It is less meaningful if such comments come from corners of the world that did not have had similar history lessons at school like the ones who are concerned.

So please, keep in mind that we cannot reteach the entire European history, not even since the Crusades and the Knights Templar. But this is approximately the time window that must be considered to understand the present.

 

[artis]

And how do you justify that he is openly threatening to start a nuclear war? This alone is insane.

Just to make one point clear, I am not justifying anything nor anyone here. I am completely open to your diagnosis, all I said is that it seems to me there are lots of rational though cruel points he is trying to score that is merely it. I mean we both have more or less the same overall information I think, from there on it;s opinion.

You're also forgetting the US Civil War (160 years ago). You can't just "forget" WWI and expect us to take what you say seriously.

I did not "forget" WW1 as such, it would be hard for me to know the stuff before and after and then miss something like a 20 million death war in between don't you think?
I also am pretty informed about US Civil war and the reasons for it, I just made a error in my remark and I don't believe that is the reason to doubt the majority of what I have said for which I can provide ample references. You are more than welcome to take me up on anything I've said from history so far and I will give you references need be.

Your analysis pays no attention to historical facts.

I accept your statement but I myself would disagree.

I see people have focused on religion here, and there is certainly some interesting material to consider. For Putin to call a Jew a Nazi is at once utterly absurd and false

Not sure where is the focus here , I made a single post wishing to better describe what I think is less known about the state of affairs of religion and state in Russia as well as Ukraine.
That being said I agree with you, Zelensky is most definitely not a Nazi.
There have been elements within Ukraine's nationalist movement that are far right and would indeed fall under the "suspicion" and I already gave links to such instances.
The simple truth is you can find evidence for both in all countries including and especially so in former republics of the USSR. We have both far right as well as far left, it;s just that even if the majority of Ukrainians are not far right and I do think they are not (they just want a decent life and their own nation) some that are always get picked out and used for propaganda purposes by Kremlin.

The problem with collectivization policy was that the people on the red side - which means, townspeople and soldiers, the people who were not directly involved in growing food but who were dependent on peasants growing food and parting with it, and who stood to starve if the peasants would not or could not, as they had during Civil War - were suspicious and distrustful of the peasants, and thought that the peasants would refuse to give food away if the peasants were not getting enough immediate reward, would hide food, make false claims about natural conditions causing bad harvest, and refuse to work hard and enjoy leisure if they thought their harvest would be taken without compensation. In the first years of collectivization, people survived, because the harvests were decent, but this set the expectations/norms. In 1932, weather was bad, but the townsfolk was unwilling to make as much allowance for it as necessary, and trigger-happy to accuse the peasants of cheating and exaggerating their losses.
So when people did starve, the townsfolk viewed them as deadbeats who were themselves at fault for not working well enough to feed the towns and themselves.
The effects of the famine seem to have been patchy - depending on how far the harvest ended up falling below expectations. Ukraine had largest number of dead, but not all regions of Ukraine equally. Kazakhstan had larger proportion of population dead, though fewer total than Ukraine. Russia was not safe - several regions of Volga, South Urals and South Siberia were affected.

Well I'm not saying that this wasn't an issue, sure the history is complicated, but I am saying that essentially it was the Soviet policy that created this mess,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_famine_of_1932–1933
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_Holodomor

According to Simon Payaslian, a tentative scholarly consensus classifies the Soviet famine (at least in Ukraine) as a genocide,[20] whereas John Archibald Getty states that the scholarly consensus classifies the Holodomor as a policy blunder that affected many nationalities, rather than some genocidal plan.[21] Scholars say that it remains a significant issue in modern politics and dispute whether Soviet policies would fall under the legal definition of genocide

You see we can speculate all day about whether it was direct genocide or nature assisted genocide or else. I know a bunch of simple facts and one of them is far stronger than all others.
My own grandfather owned a rather large farm, he produced grain, meat and milk. He wasn't exactly a "Rockefeller" but he had decent income and was wealthy for all practical considerations. Many farmers that had been farming for many generations had acquired land resources and produced and sold goods.
When the Soviet collectivization came all such farmers were labeled "enemies of the state" or "kulaks"
Their land was taken from them and "nationalized" , as you would expect people robbed of their life's work at gunpoint had no real incentive to work or produce anything for anyone.
Without these policies even with bad weather there would be no such famine as there was I'm sure.
Truth be told the Soviet agriculture (of which Ukraine was a major part due to it's good large lands) really only ever picked up speed after WW2 with more modern equipment and lots of struggle before.
That is how I see it , given I have a somewhat personal "family" experience with Collective farms, at least their beginnings.
My father never got back the lands that were taken from my grandfather, I regained some of them but after 70+ years instead of farmland it had become a forest.
If you came here every other family could tell you a story of how something that they had was taken from them if they happened to be "above average" in terms of owning a property or having land.

 

[russ_watters]

Because with Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia in NATO , Putin then has no buffer zone. I don't question these three in NATO . I am imagining it is a problem for Putin. Especially since they were former USSR. I recall an earlier post of yours where you said this also.

But why does he need a buffer zone? "I need a buffer zone" is not a complete thought. The point of a buffer zone, presumably, is to protect against something. Protect against what?

As I said before, this reason is nonsense.

 

[fresh_42]

Note: I removed two posts because neither separation of state and church nor communism is the topic here.

 

[russ_watters]

It is indeed hypocritical what NATO and the involved governments practice here.

No it isn't. Again, one is a threat and the other is a defense against the threat.

 

[russ_watters]

I think it's a conflation of wants and needs, unwarrated in any way. Putin wants Nato to provide a buffer. Thus he attacks.

I would argue that it's not a buffer that he wants, since attacking removes the buffer. He wants Ukraine. The risk for NATO in Ukraine isn't losing the buffer its losing the opportunity to invade and seize.

He says "buffer" but means "places left unprotected so I cam invade them."

 

[PeroK]

No it isn't. Again, one is a threat and the other is a defense against the threat.

Precisely. The EU grows by countries applying to join! Not by being invaded! The EU didn't invade Poland, Romania and the Baltic countries - they applied to join the EU! Whereas, Ukraine did not apply to join Russia in an alliance. It was invaded to force it to comply with Russia's wishes by military force. This is the fundamental difference.

PS this was supposed to be the new world order post-1990. Voluntary alliances of nations; not empires.

 

[fresh_42]

No it isn't. Again, one is a threat and the other is a defense against the threat.

This is a bit of a biased view. Cuba could well justify a Russian military basis on its soil by the threat of the US. a) They have already landed in Cuba. b) They have massive sanctions in place against their current government.

Russia has been severely attacked twice in its younger history. They even had by far the most civilian casualties in WW II. To say NATO is no threat ignores these facts.

 

[PeroK]

Russia has been severely attacked twice in its younger history. They even had by far the most civilian casualties in WW II. To say NATO is no threat ignores these facts.

Sorry, I can't get my head round this way of thinking.

 

[geordief]

Is Putin going to seal Belarus ' fate?

Any support for the regime there will have to have diminished surely with their close up and engaged view of events

Is their time coming ?

 

[fresh_42]

Sorry, I can't get my head round this way of thinking.

I tried to describe the Russian position, and I know it is common there. I do not consider NATO a threat myself, but I have a totally different point of view. Russians have a different one, and I have no good argument why my assessment is more valid than theirs. They can always refer to 20,000,000 deads in the last century.

 

[russ_watters]

This is a bit of a biased view. Cuba could well justify a Russian military basis on its soil by the threat of the US. a) They have already landed in Cuba. b) They have massive sanctions in place against their current government.

Russia has been severely attacked twice in its younger history. They even had by far the most civilian casualties in WW II. To say NATO is no threat ignores these facts.

It's been 60 years(not that i concede relevant parallels). Does Putin really believe that's relevant today? Heck, our change in posture is largely what enabled Putin's advance.

 

[Mike S.]

The facts on the ground seemed meaningful here, but I never really understood. Russia had established "frozen war" and "passportization" in Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine (Abkhazia, Ossetia, Transnistria). It was obvious that Russia wouldn't attack NATO because that would be World War III and NATO wouldn't allow any of the frozen-war countries to join for the same reason. So the no-brainer would have been for NATO to publicly encourage those countries to negotiate for a "Finland-like status" where they would not have any foreign alliances and not have any foreign troops on their soil. I don't know if the Russians would have been willing to give up their toeholds for a deal, but why didn't NATO at least push for that idea? A buffer is no less convenient for NATO than for Russia - it's one less place for fighter jets to scrape the paint off each other - and Finland was still free to join the EU and be a Generally Nice Place To Live. Better than a lot of others in this world.

 

[snorkack]

Sorry if you feel that the explanation of the basis of communism was off-topic.
But while a lot of Ukrainians feel themselves as independent people, a large part of Russians feel them about like a civil war.
This means that the propaganda on the Russian side is effectively like a propaganda for Russians to go to a civil war. And the objections of a lot of Russian people to the war are much like objections to a civil war - they regard Ukrainians as their own people, therefore they are opposed to attacking.

 

[PeroK]

I tried to describe the Russian position, and I know it is common there. I do not consider NATO a threat myself, but I have a totally different point of view. Russians have a different one, and I have no good argument why my assessment is more valid than theirs. They can always refer to 20,000,000 deads in the last century.

We're supposed to be looking to the future; not digging up grudges from the past. I don't believe modern Russians generally think like that. This is the work of an isolated dictator.

The simple truth is that Putin is relying on the cowardice of the EU and NATO not to act. He can hardly rely on that and also think the same nations would contemplate an invasion of Russia.