But it wasn’t the Russians in WW2, there were everyone Soviet, from Ukrainians to Georgians, and Russians of course, but to give the Russians the mantle of only WW2 winners from Soviet side is wrong I think.

Yeah, Russians are responsible for bad things, real and invented. But if something good was done then it was done by Soviets.

Russians invade other countries because they are not capable to produce good things by themselves. They need someone to build advanced weapons, armor, ships, planes, rockets, goods for export. Good warriors are bad makers, usually.

For example, if you are incapable to build a house, then you need to hire someone to build it for you. If you have no money, but you have an army, then you can just enslave him instead. Russian Empire is the jail of nations.

Hmm, well, not sure, actually weapon-making in USSR was mostly constrained to Russia proper. The more advanced the weapons, the more they were constrained.

Much of the “allies” produced simple bits of kit, but the advanced parts of them, designing etc were generally kept in Russia just in case.

Ukraine is a bit of an exception, I guess because it was seen as more of an “insider”. This is why their weapons industry is actually so comprehensive (anti ship missiles, anti tank weapons etc).

2 of my Ukrainian great-grandfathers died in WW2, many other relatives that I do not know about. Were they Russians? Soviets did plenty of bad things, I don't get that jab. Many Russians now in Russia hate the Soviet moniker and look at the October Revolution as a catastrophe.

Only for Westerners Soviet == Russian, which puzzles me absolutely.

I think of the “Soviet block” as a Russian colonial empire. Like other such empires it drew ranks from different nationalities, ostensibly was ran for the benefit of all of its members, but really only for the Russians, though in a perverse way.

That way was the realisation (continuation?) of the “Great Russia” project. People may not have civil liberties, may be poor and terrorised, but the outside is terrified too.

Did the Ukrainians, Georgians and Estonians want nuclear standoffs with the US for its own sake? Did they want to invade Czechoslovakia in 1968?

Westerners are usually referring to the Russian leadership. There's a straight line of corruption from the Soviets to Putin.

Also, we're bad at geography, and "former soviet state" is easy / lazy.

Finally, I know lots of Ukrainians that grew up in Russia and vice versa, and can't really keep all the permutations straight. (As I can't for my colleagues from any continent.)

a bit of nitpicking — but the Soviet Union never really had predominantly Russian leadership, which would be disproportionate to the Russian part of the Soviet population. Lenin was from a Russian noble but ethnically diverse family. Stalin was a Georgian and spoke Russian with an incredibly thick accent to the end of his life. Khrushchev and Brezhnev were Ukrainians, and so on.

But I get your point, and now it makes more sense to me.

I see in Putin more of that monarchist strain — chauvinism from the times of Imperial Russia, which indeed was so much focused on that "RRR-Russian" identity, much more "blood and soil" ideology. And add to that Late Soviet state "efficiency".

The "great patriotic war" is Russian propaganda - they had to find a term to distance themselves from the fact they started the war together with Hitler and only turned against him when he decided to attack Russians. Otherwise Hitler and Stalin were great pals.