War: Russia vs. Ukraine?

[Humble Scribe]

You know China and India both have nukes and have been going at it over the border for a good little while now?

That's actually a good example of the opposite happening. In 1962 they fought a full scale war over the disputed border, but there hasn't been a conflict on that scale since nukes entered the equation. Last time things came to blows (in 2020) was literally that - two groups of men hitting each other with sticks, because firearms are now banned in the disputed area. Nukes haven't taken away the dispute, but they've made it in the interest of both governments to stop things getting out of hand.

[Dashenka]

For better and for worse, I think the picture of Russia a year from now is going to be a very dire one.

This is what I don't agree with. Destroying an entire nation just because of a leader being an idiot...

Look at Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, etc.. Biden and NATO are pushing Russia to that same level. A smoldering cesspool of rebels and poverty and instability. Except this cesspool will have nuclear weapons.

That is something I don't agree with. I think there are more elegant solutions.


On the other side it's hard to ignore what Biden and NATO have done for Ukraine. That's been impressive, it has to be said. But a war has two sides. Letting one country win by completely destroying the other, one way or another, for me, is not acceptable. Take out Putin and his cronies, not the Russians who want nothing to do with them.



I'd like to leave it at that. I don't feel comfortable enough to publicly debate my political views, especially not when it comes to this sensitive topic.

[TheGlyphstone]

What solutions are on the table to remove them? Diplomacy obviously hasn't worked, nor have sanctions. Outright invasion would also devastate Russia (and the rest of the world).

Are you suggesting the CIA try to have Putin assassinated? That's about the only way to remove him I can see left...and I suspect he's well-protected against that sort of thing.

[firepyre]

Maybe I'm overly pessimistic, but I really can't see any good outcomes from this. For anyone. The idea that removing putin from the equation would solve the problem seems just naive. I expect it'd take a lot more than that to change course now. Putin easy to pin the blame on, but there's a whole kremlin of cronies behind him.

Putin is fully committed. NATO really doesn't have much skin in the game just yet, so they have no reason to let up, or back off. Asia(china, but also india, pakistan, etc) is watching avidly to see how it all plays out to inform their own territorial/economic decisions. As terrible as it sounds, if putin uses nukes in Ukraine, I think it's mostly Ukraine that loses(and humanity as a whole). NATO is still safe enough on the sideline, and putin gets his win.

So in my mind this just boils down to the world's most idiotic game of chicken. Ukraine just had the misfortune to be caught in the middle. And I expect an awful lot more ordinary, undeserving people are going to suffer a great deal, on all sides, in the process.

If I was in a position to do so, I'd sneak a few nukes into Ukraine, hand them over to Zelensky, and then at least they've got something close to a level playing field. Not because I think it's anything other than a terrible idea, but because it appeals to my sense of fairness. Let them have some genuine hand in their fate. The Budapest Memorandum clearly isn't worth the paper it was inked on. What's worse, I think there's a very real chance of a new wave of nuclear powers coming as a direct consequence of this nightmare, as countries decide they'd rather not be reliant on non-committal big brother nuclear to have their backs.

[midnightblack]

As terrible as it sounds, if putin uses nukes in Ukraine, I think it's mostly Ukraine that loses(and humanity as a whole). NATO is still safe enough on the sideline, and putin gets his win.

There are a whole lot of issues with this that make things in the real world a lot more complicated than "press the nuclear button to  win":

1. Somewhat far-fetched, but does he even have a functioning nuclear arsenal anymore to begin with? Given the state of his army as a whole, it's not an impossibility to consider that things may be rather precarious on that front as well.

2. What kind of nuclear strikes are we talking about? Turning Ukraine into a radioactive crater? That is simply suicidal both for him and the Russian Federation as a whole. Nobody will put up with that and in any case it completely defeats his whole endeavor. He needs more than glowing dust in order to restore the glory of the Russian World.

3. Are we talking about tactical nuclear strikes? Again the issues are multiple here. He's already been given a clear message multiple times on behalf of NATO that the Black Sea fleet and all of his forces in Ukraine will be destroyed if he resorts to that. Let's assume he isn't impressed and that NATO is bluffing, but even then, does he have the capacity to perform tactical nuclear strikes and actually gain a battlefield advantage? In  order for these to work, Ukrainian forces have to be concentrated in a rather small perimeter that is affected by such an attack, but they've proven to be very mobile so far and have consistently outmaneuvered the Russians. Can he pull it off technically? Can his troops operate under radioactive conditions or other such hazards? Would he have to escalate in a manner that would bring us back to point  2?

It's always possible that he may resort to this, but given the way things are looking at present, I'd say there isn't any clear way out for him, at least not through this approach.

[Azuresun]

Look at Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, etc.. Biden and NATO are pushing Russia to that same level. A smoldering cesspool of rebels and poverty and instability. Except this cesspool will have nuclear weapons.

The only one pushing Russia to do anything is Russia. There is no bothsides.

[Oniya]

In  order for these to work, Ukrainian forces have to be concentrated in a rather small perimeter that is affected by such an attack, but they've proven to be very mobile so far and have consistently outmaneuvered the Russians. Can he pull it off technically? Can his troops operate under radioactive conditions or other such hazards? Would he have to escalate in a manner that would bring us back to point  2?

These points were actually key in the paper that Dyson et al. submitted (only fill in 'Vietnam' and 'Americans' where appropriate.) 

[firepyre]

There are a whole lot of issues with this that make things in the real world a lot more complicated than "press the nuclear button to  win":

1. Somewhat far-fetched, but does he even have a functioning nuclear arsenal anymore to begin with? Given the state of his army as a whole, it's not an impossibility to consider that things may be rather precarious on that front as well.

2. What kind of nuclear strikes are we talking about? Turning Ukraine into a radioactive crater? That is simply suicidal both for him and the Russian Federation as a whole. Nobody will put up with that and in any case it completely defeats his whole endeavor. He needs more than glowing dust in order to restore the glory of the Russian World.

3. Are we talking about tactical nuclear strikes? Again the issues are multiple here. He's already been given a clear message multiple times on behalf of NATO that the Black Sea fleet and all of his forces in Ukraine will be destroyed if he resorts to that. Let's assume he isn't impressed and that NATO is bluffing, but even then, does he have the capacity to perform tactical nuclear strikes and actually gain a battlefield advantage? In  order for these to work, Ukrainian forces have to be concentrated in a rather small perimeter that is affected by such an attack, but they've proven to be very mobile so far and have consistently outmaneuvered the Russians. Can he pull it off technically? Can his troops operate under radioactive conditions or other such hazards? Would he have to escalate in a manner that would bring us back to point  2?

It's always possible that he may resort to this, but given the way things are looking at present, I'd say there isn't any clear way out for him, at least not through this approach.

I think there's two main scenarios that are most likely to play out if putin takes the nuclear option.

1. A Hiroshima/nagasaki style attack intended to force capitulation through terror. Demonstrate ability and intent, then dictate terms. I suspect the main deterrent for Russia from taking this approach is probably how China and Russia's other friends might react. He's already on bad terms with NATO, short of outright going to war, I doubt he much cares how they react at this point.

2. A tactical nuclear war. I think the key point here is that wars are won with logistics, not bodies. Putin doesn't need to kill every Ukranian soldier. He needs to hit their supply lines, and command structures(like Ukraine has been doing so well with the help of western intel). Frankly, I don't think he has the quality of intelligence to pull this off. As for whether his troops can operate in radioactive conditions? I can't see him being too upset about a few more bodies. Irradiation is probably a minor consideration at most.

Unless things change radically in the near future, I think there's a genuine risk that putin will start with number 2, and then move quickly to number 1 if 2 fails to achieve results.

In either case, I think the important bit is that I don't think putin much cares about "a way out". That's just wishful thinking from a western perspective. Rather I think he's made it pretty clear that he's willing to keep escalating until he gets what he wants(something he can sell as a victory), or everyone loses. I think NATO would probably stop short of committing to a nuclear war. Hence why I think Ukraine has the most to lose, and the least to gain on the current trajectory. Pressing the nuclear button doesn't make any winners. Everybody loses. But Ukraine loses the most. And putin seems willing to accept the fallout.

[Vekseid]

Nielsen has some interesting points about the pipeline sabotage, and why he thinks the Russians did do it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hk-0qJXyido

Something notable he doesn't mention is the Russians have been working on undersea sabotage over the past decade.

[Dashenka]

And putin seems willing to accept the fallout.

What makes you say that? There is absolutely nothing to back up that claim.

Why would he accept the areas he worked hard to 'liberate' to be a nuclear wasteland. Or Russian cities to be?

It's unfounded claims like this that spread fear and anxiety to a lot of people.

[Beorning]

This is what I don't agree with. Destroying an entire nation just because of a leader being an idiot...

Look at Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, etc.. Biden and NATO are pushing Russia to that same level. A smoldering cesspool of rebels and poverty and instability. Except this cesspool will have nuclear weapons.

That is something I don't agree with. I think there are more elegant solutions.

On the other side it's hard to ignore what Biden and NATO have done for Ukraine. That's been impressive, it has to be said. But a war has two sides. Letting one country win by completely destroying the other, one way or another, for me, is not acceptable. Take out Putin and his cronies, not the Russians who want nothing to do with them.

Okay, let me comment on that. I know you might not reply to this, Dasha, but still...

You speak of "more elegant solutions". Which would be... what? If you don't like sanctions, then you obviously don't want NATO rolling into Russia and removing Putin by force, either. If not that, then what are the options? Assassinating Putin? That would only open the way for someone even worse to take power, with Putin's death being used as a rallying point.

If not that, either, then... NATO pushing Russian army out of Ukraine and leaving it at that? With sanctions lifted, so that Russia as a country doesn't suffer? That would mean only an intermission, with Russia going back to its warlike politics as soon as possible. So, that's not an option, either...

There is one other scenario for ending this: Russians actually rebelling about the autocrats ruling Russia, removing them from power themselves and creating a saner government. But you don't do it. There have been protests - and my heart goes out to all of courageous Russians who took part in them. But these were protests of thousands in a country of over 140 million people. The rest of your populations seems either unwilling to act or outright supporting the war. Or (as exemplified by one Russian sportsman recently, who admitted to such approach in an interview) deciding not to bother, not to think about all this situation and to blame all of this on your current "tsar".

Heck... even now, when as far as 1 million of Russians is threatened with being drafted and sent to die, the Russian society does nothing. Again, some brave Russians went out to protest. But the most popular reaction was simply to run and hope it all somehow sorts itself out.

And yes, I know - protesting in Russia is dangerous. I'm not saying *I* would be courageous enough to protest. But... drat, look at Iranians these days. They *are* protesting, even though their government uses lethal force against them.

And finally, if I may (and I know it will sound harsh): Putin's current actions don't come from nowhere. He's been leading Russia for 20 years now. How many Russians protested against his policies? And how many supported him? How many kept not being bothered all those years? Also, how many of you were looking critically at your history and your current foreign policies? How many of Russians kept idolizing Stalin and USSR, tolerated your society's racism against minorities, the genocide of Chechen people? All of this paved the way for what's happening now.

And so, honestly - the appeal not to hurt the whole Russia because of Putin just doesn't work. I feel for all the innocents in Russia suffering poverty, having to run etc. but... if the Russian society is opposed to this suffering, then guys... help us. Raise up and remove Putin and other nationalists from power. And try to become a healthier, less imperialistic and more tolerant society. If you don't do it, then we in the West will have to keep defending ourselves, even if it brings suffering to you. We simply won't have any other choice...

[Oniya]

I'm not sure you understand the kind of propaganda campaigns that are being run internally, Beorning.  Heck, if it weren't for seeing how Fox News wreaked havoc over here, I'm not sure I'd understand it.  The (mostly) younger Russians are dealing with their parents and loved ones who believe the state-sponsored news in the same way that many Americans are having to deal with parents and loved ones believing election-fraud lies.  Only on top of that, Putin has the entire machinery of the Russian government behind him instead of only the January 6 militia groups.

If they were going to try to overthrow Putin, they'd need a lot of organization and probably international aid.  Getting out (and in that manner, depleting the draft pool) is probably the most effective thing they can do, under the circumstances.

[Dashenka]

I'll try to explain. My records on this are a bit sketchy so bear with me.

Let me start by saying that unlike popular belief (and the dismay of one woman) I have no symphaty for the Russian people. None.


Secondly, this conflict didn't start in february 2022. It didn't even start in 2014 when Russia annexed Crimea and it didn't start in 2004 at the Orange Revolution. This goes back way longer than that. The regions in the eastern parts of Ukraine have been home to many ethnic Russians, even after the fall of the Soviet Union.

Reports are that Ukraine treated them worse than it did their own people because the Russians were symphatetic to Russia. So when Ukraine started to look west, these people felt ignored and oppressed. The 2004 elections, rigged or not, resulted in 'the west' seizing power and the new government, in order to keep the peace, told their military to shoot at the pro Russian protestors.

The Ukrainian army was ordered to shoot on their own citizens. Sure way to make those people hate you even more. Compare it to Trump ordering to storm the Capitol. Sure way to make your enemies hate you even more.

Now fast forward to today.

Ukraine is trying to liberate a piece of their country that A) doesn't want to be liberated and B) is shot to hell. So the question I asked myself is what are they fighting for? Yes in january it was still part of Ukraine but we don't live in the past, we live in the here and now. And here and now, the Luhansk and Donetsk area want nothing to do with Ukraine.


I've heard some of you claim that diplomacy had been tried already. Demanding shit is not diplomacy. Diplomacy is making concessions. Trying to find a way to make it work for both sides. Give Russia Donetsk and Luhansk and in return get Zaphorizha and Cherson and a full retreat of Russian forces. That would be a start.

If Ukraine liberates the entirety of the country with help of the west, then what? NATO congratulates them on their victory, takes their weapons back and stops sending money. The rebuilding of Ukraine is going to cost dazzling numbers and will start at cities like Kyiv, Charkov, Cherson and Mykolaiv. Who gets the worst deal again? Luhansk and Donetsk, not to even mention Mariupol. The Ukranian population that lived there have nothing to go back to. Their city is shot to hell and the people who still live there don't want them there. So they probably stay in the western parts of Ukraine.

The region around Donetsk and Luhansk will therefor continue to be ignored and will continue to be a breeding pit for Pro Russian rebels.

Is it really worth dumping and spending all that resources with that as the outcome? All the fear of nuclear weapons. The rising prices of gas and food. The instability of the economy. Everything. Is that all worth it to free a region that doesn't want to be freed?

Technically speaking, yes, it's land grab and stealing and all that and when this whole thing started I was blind with rage but I've stopped looking at in in black and white and trying to find a solution for both sides. Those sides being Ukraine and the Russian population in the eastern parts of Ukraine.


NATO and Biden are playing poker with Putin. And they are playing it with the stakes getting higher and higher because both sides are bluffing and bluffing until one of them has to call.

Stop the bluff, start the real diplomacy. The borders of Ukraine as they were pre 2014 are not realistic. They're a thing of the past and we don't live in the past. We live in the present.

[MetroFallout]

Absolutely not. Crimea is Ukraine's. Restore pre-2014 borders or be prepared for more Russian lives to be lost for Putin's imperialistic ambitions. Absolutely no room for this Neville Chamberlainian bullshit of appeasement with tyrants. Ceding Sudentenland to the Nazis did nothing to curb Hitler's genocidal expansionist ambitions and letting Putin keep Crimea at the end of all this will do the same.

The effect of letting Russia get off lightly with nuke threats during this war will result in out-of-control nuclear proliferation and emboldened despots pursuing nuclear programs of their own to commit acts of nuclear terrorism in order to blackmail the world to get their whims met.

Russia must answer for Bucha, Marioupol and various atrocities committed by their military on both civilians and prisoners of war.

[Azuresun]

Reports are that Ukraine treated them worse than it did their own people because the Russians were symphatetic to Russia. So when Ukraine started to look west, these people felt ignored and oppressed. The 2004 elections, rigged or not, resulted in 'the west' seizing power and the new government, in order to keep the peace, told their military to shoot at the pro Russian protestors.

"Reports Are"

Whose reports? Cite your sources. Actually, just say if the sources are Russian or not, so we know if they're bare-faced, self-serving lies.

I've heard some of you claim that diplomacy had been tried already. Demanding shit is not diplomacy. Diplomacy is making concessions. Trying to find a way to make it work for both sides. Give Russia Donetsk and Luhansk and in return get Zaphorizha and Cherson and a full retreat of Russian forces. That would be a start.

Again: there is no Bothsides here. This is just the standard Botski / Putin-sympathiser talking point that shunts all the responsibility and blame onto Ukraine for not working really hard to come to a both-side solution with the armed robber that is inside their house and actively looting it.

I'm going to dub this "Kraine-Splaining", where people who are not Ukranian pontificate on how Ukraine shouldn't be getting angry, or fighting TOO hard to defend themselves, because they might hurt Putin's fee-fees.

NATO and Biden are playing poker with Putin. And they are playing it with the stakes getting higher and higher because both sides are bluffing and bluffing until one of them has to call.

Oh hey, there's another very familiar Botski talking point, the "proxy war". Blame-shifting to the US for not letting Russia crush Ukraine uninterrupted. Because we must blame friggin' anyone but Russia for the war that Russia started.

[Dashenka]

This is just the standard Botski / Putin-sympathiser talking point that shunts all the responsibility and blame onto Ukraine for not working really hard to come to a both-side solution with the armed robber that is inside their house and actively looting it.

I've been called many things and I have thick skin but calling me a Putin-sympathiser is just plain idiotic, rude and hurtful and really shows how much you actually read about my posts in this topic.

Blame-shifting to the US for not letting Russia crush Ukraine uninterrupted. Because we must blame friggin' anyone but Russia for the war that Russia started.

I find it truly impressive that out of what I said, you somehow make up that I blame anyone but Russia and blame the US. In my post I never even mentioned the US. So yeah...


I have nothing else to say to you anymore.

Spoiler: Click to Show/Hide

Well I have, but I won't.

The effect of letting Russia get off lightly with nuke threats during this war will result in out-of-control nuclear proliferation and emboldened despots pursuing nuclear programs of their own to commit acts of nuclear terrorism in order to blackmail the world to get their whims met.

Says who? That is based on an assumption that more leaders are out of control mad like Putin is.

Russia must answer for Bucha, Marioupol and various atrocities committed by their military on both civilians and prisoners of war.

I 100% agree with this. Crimea is a different situation, I agree. But I was talking about Donetsk and Luhansk, not Crimea.

[MetroFallout]

Donetsk and Luhansk are Ukrainian. End of.

[firepyre]

What makes you say that? There is absolutely nothing to back up that claim.

Why would he accept the areas he worked hard to 'liberate' to be a nuclear wasteland. Or Russian cities to be?

It's unfounded claims like this that spread fear and anxiety to a lot of people.

It isn't a claim. It is my opinion. There was a seems in there. As for what gives me that impression... I'm inclined to take his rhetoric at face value. If he says he's willing to use nukes to protect (newly annexed) russian soil, I'm inclined to believe him. And I think a degree of fear and anxiety are absolutely called for.

I'm not going to requote it here, but I agree with the point made a bit further down that the history of the DPR/LPR thing goes further back. If I recall correctly, that area was resettled by ethnic russians due to the local population being wiped out by famine in stalin era soviet union. So there is definitely something to it why the inhabitants of that region of Ukraine have some differences to the rest of Ukraine.

However, I think it's a bit of a stretch to say putin is "doing it for the people" that's probably a factor, but if he was just looking to protect his people, surely helping them relocate would be a far preferable option to conscripting them to fight a war... AFAIK, there's no international laws against taking in refugees, and Russia certainly isn't short of underutilized land, and all that energy money could easily bankroll something like that.

I understand that there's history there. But I don't think that it has ever been the driving factor. I think putin is fundamentally a patriot(always dangerous). He wants a powerful Russia, one that "leads the world"... Because it's not like the USA is exactly doing a bang up job...  But anyway... to do that, Russia wants Ukraine as an ally, or vassal, not somebody else's ally. I really think Putin's primary motivation is a very dangerous form of patriotism, pure and simple.

I don't think putin really intended to start a war, but he definitely didn't want Ukraine getting closer to the west, and so he decided to toss out Zelensky. Mistakes were made, and everything since has basically been damage control for putin. He was pretty clear before the war started that Ukraine was his red line, but I worry that he'll soon move from coveting ukraine, to scorched earth. "If I can't have it, nobody can"

That's my take anyway. Don't read too much into it, I'm no expert, just sharing it as I see it, like everybody else here.

[midnightblack]

1. A Hiroshima/nagasaki style attack intended to force capitulation through terror. Demonstrate ability and intent, then dictate terms. I suspect the main deterrent for Russia from taking this approach is probably how China and Russia's other friends might react. He's already on bad terms with NATO, short of outright going to war, I doubt he much cares how they react at this point.

This can happen only with a vanishingly small probability and no happy ending for him. There are no parallels to be drawn between the USA/Japan situation in WW2 and Ukraine/Russia at present. Nobody will tolerate a genocidal maniac that drops nuclear weapons on top of cities.

2. A tactical nuclear war. I think the key point here is that wars are won with logistics, not bodies. Putin doesn't need to kill every Ukranian soldier. He needs to hit their supply lines, and command structures(like Ukraine has been doing so well with the help of western intel). Frankly, I don't think he has the quality of intelligence to pull this off. As for whether his troops can operate in radioactive conditions? I can't see him being too upset about a few more bodies. Irradiation is probably a minor consideration at most.

One of the reasons his initial thunder run failed was due to being completely incapable of eliminating anything significant out of Ukraine's defense capabilities. He's has the freedom to bombard the country for the last ~7 months with all sorts of artillery and guided rockets and he hasn't really achieved much of anything with that either aside of a mounting number of war crimes and other atrocities. How would tactical nuclear strikes solve this? He doesn't have the ability to learn where to strike and he cannot strike in any meaningful capacity without escalating things to the point where he is in direct conflict with NATO. Given how his army has handled the field so far, it's pretty clear where that would go in regard to the Russian military presence in Ukraine.

In either case, I think the important bit is that I don't think putin much cares about "a way out". That's just wishful thinking from a western perspective.

By "way out" I meant a way out of the situation where he's on the back foot and the ability to regain the initiative. It will not happen that way, or if you really wish to avoid absolute statements, consider once again that it will only happen with a vanishingly small probability.

Rather I think he's made it pretty clear that he's willing to keep escalating until he gets what he wants(something he can sell as a victory), or everyone loses. I think NATO would probably stop short of committing to a nuclear war. Hence why I think Ukraine has the most to lose, and the least to gain on the current trajectory. Pressing the nuclear button doesn't make any winners. Everybody loses. But Ukraine loses the most. And putin seems willing to accept the fallout.

I'm not a military expert, but with the way things have been going for the last months and with the way they are going at present, it looks to me like Ukraine has the most to win by pressing the attack and smashing the Russians. I don't know what their balance is and where they are with respect to the loses that would make settling for an agreement more beneficial. It looks to me like Putin's in need of either a great number of decently trained, equipped and well-motivated men to turn things around, which will still take months to achieve, assuming he can even pull it off to begin with, or something like a mass air-strike and efficient bombardments through conventional means (which I've been expecting from day 1 but I've yet to see for whatever reason). Nuclear attacks will in my opinion remain the very thing he's warned us they are not, namely a bluff. They are a self-defeating strategy.

[Azuresun]

I find it truly impressive that out of what I said, you somehow make up that I blame anyone but Russia and blame the US. In my post I never even mentioned the US.

NATO and Biden are playing poker with Putin.

[Beorning]

I understand that there's history there. But I don't think that it has ever been the driving factor. I think putin is fundamentally a patriot(always dangerous). He wants a powerful Russia, one that "leads the world"... Because it's not like the USA is exactly doing a bang up job...  But anyway... to do that, Russia wants Ukraine as an ally, or vassal, not somebody else's ally.

You're wrong. It's clear that Putin doesn't want Ukraine as an ally. At best, he wants Ukraine is a puppet state similar to Belarus (and note that Putin has long been making moves to gradually *absorb* Belarus into Russia). And various statements by Putin, his propagandists, Kiryl of Russia's Orthodox Church etc. since the war started make it clear that the current goal is to erase Ukraine and the Ukrainian national identity altogether.

As for history, it *is* Putin's driving goal. As in, he cannot accept the dissolution of USSR and the Soviet bloc. He wants all of it back. If he gets Ukraine, then the Baltic states will be next.

[Thufir Hawat]

You're wrong. It's clear that Putin doesn't want Ukraine as an ally. At best, he wants Ukraine is a puppet state similar to Belarus (and note that Putin has long been making moves to gradually *absorb* Belarus into Russia). And various statements by Putin, his propagandists, Kiryl of Russia's Orthodox Church etc. since the war started make it clear that the current goal is to erase Ukraine and the Ukrainian national identity altogether.

As for history, it *is* Putin's driving goal. As in, he cannot accept the dissolution of USSR and the Soviet bloc. He wants all of it back. If he gets Ukraine, then the Baltic states will be next.

Yeah, this.
He already stated that Ukraine was created by Russia during Soviet times, so I'll let you guess what he thinks about Ukrainians being a separate people.

[Beorning]

I'm really starting to like Finland's PM:

https://twitter.com/RikhardHusu/status/1578308226709590017

[Lustful Bride]

So...this is a thing now.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/russia-warns-citizens-about-black-gay-people-if-they-flee-country/ar-AA12IcRd?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=fdfff4f12212491196e391dd16bded71

[TheGlyphstone]

I always knew those vegetarians couldn't be trusted...they don't even like bacon!