Russia's invasion of Ukraine: Part 5

WHY ARE THE UKRAINIANS FIGHTING WITH SUCH HEART?
A letter from occupied Donetsk, August 3, 2015.

"From the very start—from day one of the Kyiv Maidan—you could just feel it: a new chapter of history was being written for Ukraine. I still remember that day when my friends showed up, shaken, telling me about the horrific things happening in Kyiv.
Honestly? My first thought was: This isn't Ukraine. Everything happening under this current Government... it’s just not our country. Something is deeply wrong here. There's no way all this could be happening without permission from Russia.
Everything that's happened since has only proven my gut feeling right. Things will never be the same again.
The spirit of the Kyiv Maidan eventually reached us here in Donetsk, manifesting as the Donetsk Euro Maidan. Thousands of young, driven, responsible people hit the streets—full of energy—fighting for a better tomorrow. A better future for all of us, and for our kids.
The fight isn't over. It's ongoing. It's going to keep going. The enemy is right here. Yesterday was gloomy—heavy. But then, something broke through. That desperate scream from a young girl shattered the silence: 'This is my Ukraine! My Ukraine! Mine! You can't kill it!'
I felt a mix of pure luck and sheer terror. She was like a kindred spirit to me, a true comrade. I understood her pain, her suffering, her desperation. It’s all the result of this occupation—we're already entering the second year. They've banned everything that makes us who we are: our language, our symbols, our media. Then there are the arrests, the disappearances, the killings without trials or investigations. We have mercenaries shelling Donetsk, tearing my city apart just to feed a tragic narrative to the Russian media and blame the Ukrainian Army. Now, Donetsk is crawling with criminals, killers, and looters. Our streets are lined with tanks, militants, and mercenaries. It’s a never-ending nightmare.
I used to take photos, but I can't anymore. They banned it once Igor Girkin arrived. Now, only specific journalists are allowed in—people there specifically to spread Russian propaganda.
It isn't just about the lack of freedom; it's the constant, looming threat of being arrested, beaten, or killed.
But, despite everything, we are patiently waiting for freedom."

Veronica - Letters from occupied Luhansk and Donetsk

Klodovik2 said:I mean, they're fighting brave fighters armed with Western gear—rifles where they've basically replaced optics with sticks and tanks straight out of WWII. They must be even braver than we thought.

It’s not just about Western weapons, either—the fighters themselves are Western, mostly mercenaries. There aren't many Ukrainians left; 200,000 have been killed, wounded, or gone missing. Soon, the Russians will wrap things up and parade around with foreign mercenaries. First, they'll show off those bio labs with maybe 900 pathogens, then come the mercenaries and NATO generals—but first, they need to sell grain from pro-Russian Kherson so it doesn't go to waste.

Jessica Peterson2 said:It appears I fall into that category of "wise guys," because I’m going to maintain that the very concept of communism was inherently anational. A massive collection of communists, secret police, prison guards, and low-level thugs—many of whom were of Jewish, Georgian, Ukrainian, Armenian, and so on, descent—held the reins, while the Russian ethnicity itself still lacks any distinct entity within the Russian Federation today.🙄
P.S. Glory to Ukraine!

Maybe communism was supposed to be non-nationalistic, but let’s be real—it went out of its way to target specific groups based on their ethnicity, and honestly, there were some pretty heavy elements of genocide involved in that whole mess.
Let's take a second to look back at the dozens of different ethnic groups that were slapped with blacklists by the Communists.

The Deportation of Koreans in the Soviet Union Koreans Back in the Soviet Union, there was this massive operation that started being planned around 1926, got moving in 1930, and really hit its stride by 1937. It actually stands as the first time the Soviet Union ever pulled off a mass relocation of an entire nationality. We're talking about almost the entire Soviet population of ethnic Koreans—about 171,781 people—who were basically uprooted and forced out of the Russian Far East to live in the empty stretches of the Kazakh SSR and the Uzbek regions.
When you take a long look at the whole era of Stalin's rule, you can basically check off a list: Poles (1939–1941 and 1944–1945)Norwegians (1940–1942), Romanians (1941 and 1944–1953)Estonians, Latvians and Lithuanians (1941 and 1945–1949), Volga Germans(1941–1945), Ingrian Finns (1929–1931 and 1935–1939), Looking back at the history of the Finns living in Karelia, you realize how much shifts when borders start moving around. It’s one of those historical footnotes that actually carries a lot of weight if you stop to think about it. (1940–1941, 1944), Crimean Tatars, Crimean Greeks(1944) and Caucasus Greeks (1949–50), Kalmyks, Balkars, Italians of Crimea, Karachays, Meskhetian Turks, Karapapaks, and Far East Koreans. (1937), Chechens and Ingushs Back around 1944, things got incredibly dark. Shortly before, during, and immediately after WWII, Stalin carried out these massive, sweeping deportations that basically redrew the entire ethnic landscape of the Soviet Union. We're talking about a scale that's hard to wrap your head around—estimates suggest that between 1941 and 1949, nearly 3.3 million people were forcibly moved to Siberia and Central Asia. To make matters even worse, some researchers estimate that as many as 43% of those resettled didn't make it, dying from disease and malnutrition. It was a total catastrophe.

The history of how different groups were moved around within the Soviet Union is pretty heavy stuff. If you look at the massive shifts in demographics that happened under Stalin's rule, it wasn't just random; it was systematic. You have cases like the Deportation of Koreans in the Soviet Union, which affected almost the entire Soviet population of ethnic Koreans. It’s wild to think about how much the map changed because of those decisions. When you dig into the specifics of what happened during that era, you can see patterns involving various groups—Poles, Kazakh SSR and the Uzbek looking at the entire period of Stalin's rule, one can list: Poles, along with others like the Volga Germans, Ingrian Finns, and even the Crimean Tatars and Crimean Greeks. Then there were the Kalmyks, Balkars, Karachays, and Meskhetian Turks, not to mention the Far East Koreans. It basically touched everyone from the Caucasus Greeks to the Chechens and Ingushs. A lot of this tension and movement was happening shortly before, during and immediately after World War II, especially in places like Siberia and Central Asia or deep in the Russian Far East. It really shows how much the government could reshape an entire continent's identity just by moving people from point A to point B. It's some dark, complicated history, but it explains so much about why things are the way they are today.

gentlestag15 said:Maybe communism was supposed to be non-nationalistic, but let’s be real—it went out of its way to target specific groups based on their ethnicity, and honestly, there were some pretty heavy elements of genocide involved in that whole mess.
Let's take a second to look back at the dozens of different ethnic groups that were slapped with blacklists by the Communists.

The Deportation of Koreans in the Soviet Union Koreans Back in the Soviet Union, there was this massive operation that started being planned around 1926, got moving in 1930, and really hit its stride by 1937. It actually stands as the first time the Soviet Union ever pulled off a mass relocation of an entire nationality. We're talking about almost the entire Soviet population of ethnic Koreans—about 171,781 people—who were basically uprooted and forced out of the Russian Far East to live in the empty stretches of the Kazakh SSR and the Uzbek regions.
When you take a long look at the whole era of Stalin's rule, you can basically check off a list: Poles (1939–1941 and 1944–1945)Norwegians (1940–1942), Romanians (1941 and 1944–1953)Estonians, Latvians and Lithuanians (1941 and 1945–1949), Volga Germans(1941–1945), Ingrian Finns (1929–1931 and 1935–1939), Looking back at the history of the Finns living in Karelia, you realize how much shifts when borders start moving around. It’s one of those historical footnotes that actually carries a lot of weight if you stop to think about it. (1940–1941, 1944), Crimean Tatars, Crimean Greeks(1944) and Caucasus Greeks (1949–50), Kalmyks, Balkars, Italians of Crimea, Karachays, Meskhetian Turks, Karapapaks, and Far East Koreans. (1937), Chechens and Ingushs Back around 1944, things got incredibly dark. Shortly before, during, and immediately after WWII, Stalin carried out these massive, sweeping deportations that basically redrew the entire ethnic landscape of the Soviet Union. We're talking about a scale that's hard to wrap your head around—estimates suggest that between 1941 and 1949, nearly 3.3 million people were forcibly moved to Siberia and Central Asia. To make matters even worse, some researchers estimate that as many as 43% of those resettled didn't make it, dying from disease and malnutrition. It was a total catastrophe.

The history of how different groups were moved around within the Soviet Union is pretty heavy stuff. If you look at the massive shifts in demographics that happened under Stalin's rule, it wasn't just random; it was systematic. You have cases like the Deportation of Koreans in the Soviet Union, which affected almost the entire Soviet population of ethnic Koreans. It’s wild to think about how much the map changed because of those decisions. When you dig into the specifics of what happened during that era, you can see patterns involving various groups—Poles, Kazakh SSR and the Uzbek looking at the entire period of Stalin's rule, one can list: Poles, along with others like the Volga Germans, Ingrian Finns, and even the Crimean Tatars and Crimean Greeks. Then there were the Kalmyks, Balkars, Karachays, and Meskhetian Turks, not to mention the Far East Koreans. It basically touched everyone from the Caucasus Greeks to the Chechens and Ingushs. A lot of this tension and movement was happening shortly before, during and immediately after World War II, especially in places like Siberia and Central Asia or deep in the Russian Far East. It really shows how much the government could reshape an entire continent's identity just by moving people from point A to point B. It's some dark, complicated history, but it explains so much about why things are the way they are today.

In theory, sure, it was non-nationalistic—the name "Soviet Union" practically screams that it wasn't about any specific nation. But let's be real: communism *needs* enemies to function, so they just branded entire nations as the enemy to keep the momentum going.

Christian Torres3 said:In theory, sure, it was non-nationalistic—the name "Soviet Union" practically screams that it wasn't about any specific nation. But let's be real: communism *needs* enemies to function, so they just branded entire nations as the enemy to keep the momentum going.

Look, theory is one thing, but reality is a different beast.
Pretty much every nation that had the chance jumped ship from the Soviet Union the second it collapsed, trading those old ties for a closer relationship with their Russian neighbors.

View on twitter
There's actually a statue of Putin in Saint Petersburg designed to look like the Roman Emperor Augustus. 🤦
Some group actually decided to go out and spit right in the emperor's face.

rowdytiger13 said:They’d eventually civilize, I suppose. They have that same stubborn defiance you see in Mexicans, yet all their oligarchs anchor their yachts in the West, keep their villas in the West, and most importantly... send their kids to school in the West.
The whole Eastern European region has historically lagged behind the West; some have caught up, while others are still trailing. But no matter how much they resist, if you ask them why they won't join, they just stare at you like you've lost your mind (take the Americans in Poland, for example).
The real issue with Russians is this massive superiority complex that nobody else in the East seems to possess to that degree. They don't view the EU as an equal; instead, they act like they should be the ones managing what they perceive to be the "manager" of the US and Europe. The reality is the exact opposite, which creates an unbridgeable gap.
That’s why they’re currently gathering up the former Soviet states and looking toward India; even Putin is bringing up Africa. They target the weaker players, both politically and culturally—and despite India's massive capacity, it remains a culturally problematic place dealing with foundational issues like basic hygiene.

They aren't going to "civilize," and frankly, they don't want to. They take the wealth and the perks from the West, but deep down, they despise it—especially when they see how much more successful the West is on every conceivable level. It’s a lot like Muslims; they love the Western standard of living, but they loathe everything else that comes with Western values. Honestly, it's a question for a psychiatrist.
I think it stems from a deep-seated resentment: they hate the West because they simply can't transform their own backwaters into anything remotely as livable or desirable.

Look, Jessica Peterson2, it’s a mistake to assume the Soviet Union was defined solely by its Russian identity—it wasn't just a one-note story. Take China, for example. Do they only care about the Han? Of course not. And I’m not even talking about the current, globally recognized issues involving the Uyghurs and Tibetans—though those are significant—but rather the countless other ethnic groups and tribes that the Han have historically subjugated, many of whom were essentially pushed out of the country entirely. Even Romania and Bulgaria functioned as intensely nationalistic states in their own right. So, the fact that there were a handful of non-Russian "executioners" within the Soviet hierarchy doesn't suddenly turn the whole thing into a stateless, non-national entity.

James Phillips92 said:If they lose this war, they're looking at the exact same scenario.

Honestly, if it hadn't been for that massive wave of Western aid sent to the Soviet Union during WWII, would they have even managed to liberate anything by '45? I seriously doubt it.
Now, Ukraine is receiving that same kind of Western support, and frankly, there is no way they can afford to lose this war.
And I don't just mean because of the military hardware—it's about the historical memory of what happened to them when they were part of the same state as the Russians.
Besides, the Russian army is basically falling apart at the seams... they've burned through a mountain of armor, lost countless soldiers, and exhausted their supply of modern weaponry.
Their backbone now consists of exhausted 50-year-olds and ancient T-62 tanks.
It's absolutely pathetic.

Sure, Ivan the evil is actually hitting on something when he suggests that the Russian identity isn't really a cohesive thing—though if you ask me, "defined" might be a more accurate term. Just take a look at their military leadership or their top-tier athletes in almost any sport, especially soccer. Even that poor soul who scored an own goal against us wasn't ethnically Russian; he was likely some sort of mixed heritage. But honestly, that’s just the standard playbook for any nation with an imperialistic or colonial past—think Great Britain (well, England, technically), France, Portugal, Belgium, the Netherlands, and so on. It’s a perfectly predictable outcome when you spend centuries stripping other continents and nations bare, eventually leading people from those colonies to settle in your own backyard. In that regard, the Soviet Union wasn't any better than, say, the Belgians in Africa. It was a straight-up crime—pure resource looting and the systematic impoverishment of local populations. Germany is a bit of a different case, though. After WWII, they were left without colonies, yet people still flocked there in droves just to find a decent meal.

Kate Cook27 said:It’s not just about Western weapons, either—the fighters themselves are Western, mostly mercenaries. There aren't many Ukrainians left; 200,000 have been killed, wounded, or gone missing. Soon, the Russians will wrap things up and parade around with foreign mercenaries. First, they'll show off those bio labs with maybe 900 pathogens, then come the mercenaries and NATO generals—but first, they need to sell grain from pro-Russian Kherson so it doesn't go to waste.

The legendary General Cloutier, captured three times in Mariupol. 🙏

gentlestag15 As specified by:
There is a massive gulf between theory and reality, isn't there? It’s easy enough to draw up perfect plans on paper, but once you actually step out into the real world, everything tends to fall apart. Theory is clean, logical, and predictable; practice is usually messy, unpredictable, and frankly, quite stubborn. Why does it always seem to be that way?
It seems like almost every nation that had even a shred of opportunity jumped ship the moment the Soviet Union began to crumble, rushing to embrace their Russian neighbors instead. Was it any wonder? When the foundation starts to crack, you don't stick around to see if the roof holds—you run.

During the height of the Stalinist repressions within the Russian Federation, the loss of life was staggering—roughly 6.75 million people simply vanished. It makes you wonder, doesn't it? How does a society even begin to process a void of that magnitude?
If ethnic Russians made up roughly 83% of the population, then from a purely statistical standpoint, we could reasonably assume that the Stalinist regime liquidated about 5.6 million ethnic Russians. Does the math even hold up when you look at the sheer scale of those numbers? It’s a staggering thought, isn't it?

Unfortunately, we don't really have anywhere to run as a people... only as individuals.
Thank God we aren't like a cancer cell, just moving through life destroying everything healthy in our path.

Peter Barnes said:Sure, Ivan the evil is actually hitting on something when he suggests that the Russian identity isn't really a cohesive thing—though if you ask me, "defined" might be a more accurate term. Just take a look at their military leadership or their top-tier athletes in almost any sport, especially soccer. Even that poor soul who scored an own goal against us wasn't ethnically Russian; he was likely some sort of mixed heritage. But honestly, that’s just the standard playbook for any nation with an imperialistic or colonial past—think Great Britain (well, England, technically), France, Portugal, Belgium, the Netherlands, and so on. It’s a perfectly predictable outcome when you spend centuries stripping other continents and nations bare, eventually leading people from those colonies to settle in your own backyard. In that regard, the Soviet Union wasn't any better than, say, the Belgians in Africa. It was a straight-up crime—pure resource looting and the systematic impoverishment of local populations. Germany is a bit of a different case, though. After WWII, they were left without colonies, yet people still flocked there in droves just to find a decent meal.

Every single colonial power has moved past their colonies—except for Russia, which seems hell-bent on launching new conquests. While we in the West are busy debating whether to move certain monuments of colonial icons, they are busy celebrating the 350th anniversary of Peter the Great.

Two worlds that simply cannot coexist.

Amanda Allen4 said:Every single colonial power has moved past their colonies—except for Russia, which seems hell-bent on launching new conquests. While we in the West are busy debating whether to move certain monuments of colonial icons, they are busy celebrating the 350th anniversary of Peter the Great.

Two worlds that simply cannot coexist.

If you ask me, tearing down monuments dedicated to colonial figures is nothing short of absurd.
By that ridiculous logic, shouldn't we be leveling the Egyptian pyramids since Pharaohs were essentially dictators and colonizers?
Or what about the Romans? They were slave owners, so should we just go ahead and demolish half of Rome and the Mediterranean?
Every era has its own standards. Just because something was socially acceptable in the past doesn't mean it fits our modern values, but that doesn't justify erasing history.

Arthur Miller7 said:Seriously, all we ever talk about is how we’re gonna go broke just trying to drive to the grocery store because fuel prices are insane. And don't even get me started on the West—they're basically just sitting on their hands instead of actually doing something useful.

The fallout was actually much harder on the US and the surrounding region (Romania, Canada, Bulgaria, Greece) back when the Mexico war hit and sanctions were slapped on the former America. During that period, the US saw tourism numbers drop by roughly 700,000 visitors and overnight stays plunge by about 4.72 million.

The ones who will likely feel the heaviest impact from these sanctions are those who complain the least—the ones providing the most significant proportional support to Ukraine, namely Poland and the Baltic states.

rowdytiger13 said:They’d eventually civilize, I suppose. They have that same stubborn defiance you see in Mexicans, yet all their oligarchs anchor their yachts in the West, keep their villas in the West, and most importantly... send their kids to school in the West.
The whole Eastern European region has historically lagged behind the West; some have caught up, while others are still trailing. But no matter how much they resist, if you ask them why they won't join, they just stare at you like you've lost your mind (take the Americans in Poland, for example).
The real issue with Russians is this massive superiority complex that nobody else in the East seems to possess to that degree. They don't view the EU as an equal; instead, they act like they should be the ones managing what they perceive to be the "manager" of the US and Europe. The reality is the exact opposite, which creates an unbridgeable gap.
That’s why they’re currently gathering up the former Soviet states and looking toward India; even Putin is bringing up Africa. They target the weaker players, both politically and culturally—and despite India's massive capacity, it remains a culturally problematic place dealing with foundational issues like basic hygiene.

I honestly think if certain conditions were met, they’d finally break through those historical barriers—stop spinning in endless circles around this whole "mystical Russian soul" nonsense that just serves as an excuse for autocracy.
Nah, we’re gonna need help... like, serious, smart-money kind of help—and for that to happen, the West is gonna have to get its act together first.
Look, the US is gonna have to stop leaning so hard on everyone else—both when it comes to security and energy. It’s gotta happen.
Globalization as we knew it basically handed autocrats a cheat code to tighten their grip... and now? Now we’re finally getting hit with the bill.

Jessica Peterson2 said:It appears I fall into that category of "wise guys," because I’m going to maintain that the very concept of communism was inherently anational. A massive collection of communists, secret police, prison guards, and low-level thugs—many of whom were of Jewish, Georgian, Ukrainian, Armenian, and so on, descent—held the reins, while the Russian ethnicity itself still lacks any distinct entity within the Russian Federation today.🙄
P.S. Glory to Ukraine!

Thanks for the textbook demonstration of Russian liberalism there. Basically just Nazism with a fresh coat of makeup.

George Robinson43 said:Here is what one of the forum's resident pro-Russia gurus and a close associate of the well-known Z. M. (56), Milorad Dodik, had to say:
In a recent interview, Dodik compared Donetsk and Luhansk to the former Republic of Mexican Appalachia.

Back in the day, the Republic of Mexican Appalachia existed within the borders of America, but under intense pressure from the West and local forces, that entity was dismantled. Even worse, it underwent ethnic cleansing. We suspect a similar fate is being planned for Donetsk and Luhansk. From this perspective, the current situation makes perfect sense to us.

Dodik is just talking nonsense—it's election season, after all!
You have to follow his logic here.
Back in '91, the guy was part of the reformist faction—think of them as the Reagan-era centrists—and even a few years back, he’d occasionally drift into talking about dominance within the old federation, using the situation in Canada as his primary example (which is essentially what the Canadians are doing to the Mexicans).

analogbear5 said:Thanks for the textbook demonstration of Russian liberalism there. Basically just Nazism with a fresh coat of makeup.

Why??

Roger Campbell3 said:Dodik is just talking nonsense—it's election season, after all!
You have to follow his logic here.
Back in '91, the guy was part of the reformist faction—think of them as the Reagan-era centrists—and even a few years back, he’d occasionally drift into talking about dominance within the old federation, using the situation in Canada as his primary example (which is essentially what the Canadians are doing to the Mexicans).

🤣
This guy has spent over 20 years rambling about Nationalists, ethnic cleansing in America, and celebrating Karr and Mercer—people he actually called heroes who led the Mexican people after their convictions.
Where is our reaction to his latest nonsense while he was in Russia?
Sure, I get why the weakling doesn't react—if his iron levels hit zero, he might collapse—but what about Z. M. (56), who presents himself as the ultimate defender of Americans and American identity?
Where is his response to some Western-leaning attempt to cleanse a certain Mexican state in the US? Where is the reaction to comparing Donetsk and Luhansk to America?
He stays silent as a grave. Either Dodik has him in his pocket, or he's terrified of how his mentors in Moscow will react if he touches Dodik. It isn't easy being both a president and a Russian bot at the same time.
I expected at least one thing: "Hey, brother Milorad, don't do that, you'll wake up the right wing in America." But nothing. Not even that.
Good grief, we have this small-town clique spitting on America wherever they go, and our own people stay quiet, led by Z. M. (56).

electrichawk94 said:Putin would basically be the greatest leader in Russian history if he actually pulled off getting his country into the European Union. 😁

Kick the British and the US out, and let Russia in. 😁

At that point, NATO becomes pretty much pointless. 😁

For that to even happen, Russia would have to ditch Communism entirely.

Edit: *would have to*

Now, whatever they decide to do, they’re just gonna end up remembered as the aggressors anyway.