Timeline for Why do some people support Russia's war in Ukraine?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
20 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 9 at 0:41 | comment | added | Obie 2.0 | Let us continue this discussion in chat. | |
| Sep 9 at 0:40 | comment | added | sfxedit | do you believe that there's a plot to split Russia up - Sure, why not? It's typical superpower politics. If you were a superpower, why wouldn't you want your rival to be weakened? As a westerner, do you honestly believe that the west's hostility to Putin is only because he is an authoritarian / undemocratic leader? There are umpteen examples of the west supporting dictators and authoritarians - so what makes Putin so special? The key difference in whether the west panders to a dictators are not is solely based on whether they support / further the western political goals or not. Right? | |
| Sep 9 at 0:34 | comment | added | Obie 2.0 | I generally respect your answers and Indian media analysis of foreign affairs in general. I do think that Russian theories about a conspiracy to divide Russia are basically just that (now, Ukraine being divided is a very plausible outcome of the war, because Russia might well retain the Donbas region in a hypothetical peace deal). And while I was in fact one of the most adamant believers that Russia would easily conquer Ukraine in the first week or so, there is no longer such reason for confidence (current maps, two years later, show Russia far from controlling most of Ukraine). | |
| Sep 9 at 0:30 | comment | added | sfxedit | @Obie2.0 I wasn't aware you had deleted the comment - I will delete mine too as my aim was only for self-introspection and self-moderation. I understand that the answer above isn't great - it is opinionated and without sources. It is still reasonably insightful because these are the kind of views (or "propaganda") that I see in our media (it's actually more balanced - TV news in India is more pro-western, while indian newspapers tend to be pro-russian / chinese), which is exactly what the Q was asking about, while your comment was "disparaging" it because it clashed with your worldview. | |
| Sep 9 at 0:16 | comment | added | Obie 2.0 | OK, you can take at least the first one of my original comments as applying to you, then. Since you insist upon it. | |
| Sep 9 at 0:15 | comment | added | sfxedit | and the west (or any other power) will be able to forcefully gain control over its natural resources. That is what most Russians refer to, when they talk about western aim to "colonise" Russia. The Gorbachev - Yeltsin post-soviet era is a stark preview example of that to the Russians, and important lesson for everyone of us (non-westerners) that you don't need to be militarily colonised to exploit a country today. | |
| Sep 9 at 0:13 | comment | added | sfxedit | (Iraq, Iran and Venezeula are also good examples of how the west reacts when they are denied control over those natural resources). The breakup of USSR highlighted how easily the smaller breakaway soviet countries become politically vulnerable to the world and thus can be easily influenced or exploited by any emerging power or superpower. Another similar breakup of Russia will present a similar situation, like the post-soviet era. But as long as Russia has a smart politician at his helm that can sustain a working economy capable of maintaining its powerful military another breakup of Russia | |
| Sep 9 at 0:12 | comment | added | Obie 2.0 | @sfxedit - I deleted my comments because I had thought better of getting into an argument with you, but since you really seem to want it, do you believe that there's a plot to split Russia up, or that it's justified for Russia to invade Ukraine because other countries have gotten away with it in the past? If so, then fine, you can take my original comments as applying to you. If not, you're arguing with me for little reason. | |
| Sep 9 at 0:11 | comment | added | sfxedit | You are also deliberately oversimplifying and twisting the views you want to put down - for e.g. Russia is known to have more than $80+ trillion of oil and mineral resources. Various western trade barriers and economic sanctions are currently what restricts Russia from being able to exploit it to enrich their nation. It is typical superpower political to ensure that they have total control over these resources - we can already see this in oil rich resource countries like Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Venezuela, Africa etc, where the western companies manage and control production of these resources. | |
| Sep 9 at 0:09 | comment | added | sfxedit | I still support the right to militarily defend yourself, if you realistically can. (The keyword here being realistically). To me Zelensky is a criminal and a stupid leader for fighting a war they cannot realistically win (unless NATO boots join the fight). A war that has caused so much human loss and will end in the decimation of the UA military. The west knows this but doesn't seem to care. Are my moral views inferior to yours? Or are my political reasoning flawed because the indian generals who say Ukraine cannot realistically militarily defeat Russia are "feeding me propaganda"? | |
| Sep 9 at 0:04 | comment | added | sfxedit | @Obie2.0 remove the ... the moral qualities and reasoning of the people who hold these positions - That, is the whole point of the Q (and this A) - it doesn't ask for the strategic reasons but the other political and moral reasoning that "Russian" supporters have based on their political reality. So yes, it is clear you do mean what you said - you are indeed calling everyone else who does not subscribe to your "enlightened" views as a "mean and ignorant fool" for the political and moral views they hold.For example, as someone who leans morally towards pacifism, | |
| Sep 8 at 22:35 | history | edited | sfxedit | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
formatting; minor edits
|
| Sep 8 at 22:11 | comment | added | sfxedit | @Obie2.0 It is rather doubtful, however, that many of these positions could be held by (as you put it), people who are intelligent, kind, and well-informed. Apparently, according to you, people who believe (partly or fully) in the answer above are not only fools, but also mean and ignorant? You do know that you are just resorting to sly name calling here rather than offering any helpful insights to improve the answer? | |
| Sep 15, 2023 at 19:45 | history | edited | vsz | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 29 characters in body
|
| Sep 15, 2023 at 4:20 | comment | added | vsz | @Obie2.0 : "nor consider that the interested behavior of others could justify the same" - it doesn't mean they agree with Putin or think all his actions were justified. It's just that they don't view him as the only guilty party, or that they believe (whether they're mistaken or not) that Ukraine conceding the disputed territories would be a net benefit for mankind in general (or just be a lesser of two evils), in contrast with continuing the war with possible further escalation. We are free to agree or disagree with them, but that's beyond the point of this question and answer. | |
| Sep 15, 2023 at 4:16 | comment | added | vsz | @Obie2.0 : my only point with that was that people holding these positions are not necessarily doing it out of sheer evilness. About kindness: I've heard many who were genuinely concerned about so many people dying in vain for what they think are frivolous causes (e.g. reconquering Crimea). Still, even my disclaimers at the beginning and the end didn't stop some serial downvoters. How dare I present opposing views as they are, instead of presenting them as always chaotic evil strawmen? | |
| Sep 15, 2023 at 0:10 | comment | added | Obie 2.0 | A person who was kind would not consider hypocrisy a justification for injustice, nor consider that the interested behavior of others could justify the same. | |
| Sep 15, 2023 at 0:08 | comment | added | Obie 2.0 | This answer is not wrong about the reasoning that some people use. It is rather doubtful, however, that many of these positions could be held by (as you put it), people who are intelligent, kind, and well-informed. A person who was both intelligent and well-informed would not likely believe (for instance) that there was a real chance of Russia being split apart to take its resources or that Russia only is interested in conquering small regions of Ukraine. | |
| Sep 14, 2023 at 23:30 | history | edited | vsz | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 5 characters in body
|
| Sep 14, 2023 at 23:24 | history | answered | vsz | CC BY-SA 4.0 |