> Russians have never had any real individual rights

Russians had a real thing going in the 19th century. Turgenev [0], for example, wrote contemporaneously around when the serfs were freed [1]. Their history went in the direction of a series strongmen, similar to China today, but there was a balancing point when it could have been different.

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Sportsman%27s_Sketches

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fathers_and_Sons_(novel)

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipation_reform_of_1861

> Russians have never had any real individual rights.

To take a step back and think about things (not that I'm suggesting what I think)... in most places for most of history it's been about the group. The collective. Being heavily individualized is a modern and western thing.

So, why is one way right and another way wrong?

Note, I do not agree with what's going on with Russia. I'm simply bringing up the higher level question that's often assumed but rarely looked at.

Russia isn’t a country that’s about the group either though, it’s just a strong oligarchy. And not even an oligarchy that has roots in group based thinking like China, it’s very much an oligarchy born out of western individualism instead.

More generally, I’d say that group based thinking should not be enforced by the government. A society based around “the group is most important” can enforce itself just fine based on societal norms and their consequences (who people are willing to interact with and hire for work). What a government stepping in and saying what sort of talk is acceptable does is freeze the society to what the government enforces. Instead people should be able to try and change society norms if they believe there’s a better way, rather than government forcing it to stagnate.

In Russia, the rulers see any ideology as dangerous. You have to prove you are loyal the the rulers, not some ideology.

One way produces far more wealth for more people than the other. Wealth isn't just luxuries, it's technology. It's health. It's more time to do more things more efficiently. It's evolving and generally improving the human condition, as opposed to stagnation. Obviously not everyone agrees with the direction of evolution or the various philosophies involved, but the system provides flexibility such that we aren't constantly genociding each other just to get our way, which used to be the norm. Of course at the end of the day none of us know the meaning of existence, but I think most can agree taht "reducing fruitless suffering" is a better place to start than most.

Obviously there's a balance to be struck. 100% individualism is just anarchy. But history has proven that allowing people an above-historical-average level of individual freedom leads to a more productive and secure society.

That said it's debatable whether strong-man dictatorships are "collectivist" at all. They're extremely individualist, but only for a select group of elite individuals. Otherwise they'd try and make decisions to benefit the group, and as Putin has shown in Ukraine, they often don't. Never mind the strategic decision to invade which might have had some initial merit, you would expect a truly collectivist nation to prioritize competence in its military. As it stands a full NATO conventional intervention could end the war in a month, the only thing keeping Russia intact is brutal suppression of internal dissent and a nuclear arsenal that, if it's been maintained as badly as its regular military, might very well explode in its silos on launch.

That doesn't sound like a very effective collective to me. Maybe it would have been effective 300 years ago because that level of organization is all most nations had, but that's the point. It's an obsolete model.

> So, why is one way right and another way wrong?

There are conventions. That countries agree to uphold. In this case not upholding them is the "wrong" way. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_the_Rights_of_th...

So side stepped the context of my question (group vs individual) and answered to the context of the parent.

I was specifically responding to your comment: there are plenty of charters and conventions and when they refer to human rights they refer to individuals not groups. Russia and others have agreed to (for example) the UN CRC meaning they can have any feelings when it comes to society vs individual but the rights of the child still remain.

I don't think respect for basic humans rights and heavy individualization are necessarily related. They should be discussed separately.

This group-individual dichotomy has been the oldest source of conflict. As social construct, both the individual and the group cannot exists without each other. One can only be an individual when one can differentiate oneself from or within a group - otherwise there is no basis for comparison.

There is the tyranny of the group and the tyranny of the individual - we need to reject both.

On which way is right - I would say one should be able to choose the group and retreat from it if so desired.

You'd have a point if the Russian elites were actually on the front lines and not partying in Dubai and India.

Putin's regime is not communism.

That's how majority of the world lives though.

Yeah, and I wouldn't want to live in the majority of the world. Judging by immigration patterns, most people who live in the majority of the world don't want to either. It's one reason Russia's having issues with the T-14 tank, not only are a lot of its parts imported from the West, but anyone in Russia smart enough to help build a tank has almost certainly left for the West where they can have a better standard of living.

Democracies have decisively defeated dictatorships and oligarchies at every turn for the last century, the fact that dictatorships remain as a lesser category of nation is proof only that human potential has yet to be fully realized.

People who actually develop tanks usually have restriction for going abroad for 5 or more years even after they leave they job because they know classified information. So I don't think that they left the country.

Perhaps for those who start the job. But if you're a Moscow State University engineering graduate, why would you even start when there are better available living situations? Sure maybe some stick around for familial/patriotic reasons, but most are going to leave for greener pastures.

>"Sure maybe some stick around for familial/patriotic reasons, but most are going to leave for greener pastures."

Problem is that "greener pastures" allow very limited level of immigration.

> The Soviets were perhaps somewhat softer overlords on average

Most Russians in the Tzarist Russian empire could go years or decades without being actively oppressed — people out in rural villages could at least survive through benign neglect.

There was no benign neglect in the soviet union. You were a gear in the system and if you failed to fill that part, you were liquidated or sent to a prison camp.

> There was no benign neglect in the soviet union. You were a gear in the system and if you failed to fill that part, you were liquidated or sent to a prison camp.

Like you would be sent to a prison camp in the 80s? Just stop...

Late soviet union was pure benign neglect.

>"if you failed to fill that part, you were liquidated or sent to a prison camp."

I grew up in USSR. If you take late 70s and 80s (do not know how it was before) you would have to very actively open your mouth and be a dissident if you wanted to end up in prison camp even though it did not guarantee it. I left in 91 so have no idea how it later progressed from nearly absolute freedom at that time to what Russia has now with this maniac in power.

perhaps. but russians were always dicks to themselves first. however, ask the american natives and the blacks what they think about individual rights in the us

but then again, for sake of fairness, lest we forget that russia, as part of ussr, was a pioneer in workers, women and ethnic rights. so much so that during the 1920s if you were a trade unionist, a feminist or fighting for national liberation of your people you most certainly ran the risk of being labeled a russian agent.

A key difference being that American society has evolved over the last 200 years to largely outgrow the cultural elements that produced those abuses. We fought a very bloody civil war to get rid of slavery, and black people/women have had the right to vote for some time. We're also not massacring Native American villages anymore. Not saying the problems are 100% solved, but no one can argue it's night and day compared to 100 years ago.

Putin by contrast is a return to a 19th century Tsardom in everything but name.

> We fought a very bloody civil war to get rid of slavery, and black people/women have had the right to vote for some time

is that what gets taught in american schools these days? i wonder how the black and natives feel

> Putin by contrast is a return to a 19th century Tsardom in everything but name

what does tsardom mean? if anything putinism is a caricature of the russian government in Red Alert 2. by that i mean a mix of soviet and tsarist symbolism and orthodox church. its so bizzare

Better to be black in America than Russian in Russia. We got our problems over here, but at least we aren’t being conscripted and thrown into the meat grinder of a pointless war.

> being conscripted and thrown into the meat grinder

I will be labeled as a brainwashed ruskie and downvoted into oblivion if I point out that it isn't really true, right?

How come? Several of my friends' coworkers were conscripted and sent to the front (the friends themselves managed to leave the country the next day). I don't even need to believe what the newspapers are saying — it's straight from the horse's mouth.

The conscription has not reached Ukraine's levels yet, but only because 2024 is not far away, and Putin expects to get his 75% without too much trouble. After that, who knows.

i know plenty of ukranians that left ukraine in order to dodge conscription. although they hope russia looses they say they would not give their life for benefit of the corrupt elite. to me that is a smart decision. same for russians that leave russia in order to escape conscription. this war sucks as do all sides supporting it

russia is the only side supporting the war, russia can fuck off from Ukraine any time it wants and the war will be over immediately.

i don't think you speak for all ukranians though

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/4/21/whats-behind-pro-ru...

so you are saying that the so-called "separatists" form a different "side" from russia tho they both want the war to continue?

nothing "so-called" about them. by all definitions of the word, they are separatists, and ones who support russia's intervention. by their account, zelensky can end the war immediately by recognizing independence of donbas, or initiating a referendum

If the goal is to recognize Donbas then why the fuck were the tanks rolling towards Kyiv? Why was Odesa bombed? Why did the annexation involve two other regions?

Let alone that it is public knowledge that the "separatists" are and always have been under russian control. Little green men came from russia and made the war happen.

seperatists are eastern ukranians that dont want to be under central kiev government, run by ukranian nationalists with nazi sympathies. that they would rather see themselves as russian just goes to tell you how much of a failure the right wing policies of the ukranian government have been

Because the Ukraine signed the Minsk agreements in bad faith with no intention of implementing them.

"it is public knowledge"

I suggest you read Wikipedia about anti-Maidan unrest in the Eastern Ukraine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_pro-Russian_unrest_in_Ukr...

I suggest you read Budapest Memorandum [0]. After russia blatantly violated its commitments from there any pointing out to Minsk is just idiotic.

Any violation of Ukrainian internationally recognized borders has been highly illegal and no matter how much whitewashing you want to do you are shilling for genocide. Also you will remove any claim that it was putins war after Ukraine has won.

Pointing out random events 9 years ago somehow justifies mass murder of civilians now? Also you need to go that far back to find anything at all is quite telling.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum

its not that simple. ukranian nationalists overthrew an elected, internationally recognised government and as a consequence eastern ukranians revolted. its not very clear that budapest memorandum was violated at that point. no ammount of russia bashing can clarify that

"After the annexation of Crimea by Russia in 2014, Canada,[25] France, Germany, Italy, Japan,[26] the UK,[27] and US[28][29] stated that Russian involvement was a breach of its Budapest Memorandum obligations to Ukraine and in violation of Ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity."

Whats not clear about that?

for one, their authority and capacity to objectively judge. for two, their hypocricy

"Pointing out random events 9 years ago somehow justifies mass murder"

You are confused. You claimed that the sole reason of the war in 2014 was Russian meddling and I suggested you read how the events really unfolded. It's still not too late to do just that.

How cute that a russian justifying russian war of aggression and genocide is gaslighting others with statements like "You are confused".

but you are confused. ukranian nationalists broke international law first. not only that but one of the first things the nationalists did after illegaly overthrowing an elected government was tell russia they were not going to be paying any outstanding debts. their policies only brought about what the whole world knew was gonna happen. never mind the feigned shock in the media. even my grandmother on the other side of europe knew what was gonna happen. the us egged them on to piss russia off. the eu told them to stay put. the us told ukranian nationalists infamously to "fuck the eu". its all common knowledge

the people in the eu largely support ukraine because they dislike russia. but no one sees them as our freedom fighters. lol. everyone knows the us is behind it and when living standards accross europe deteriorate people will lose patience with both the ukraine and the us

You have drunk the Kremlin propaganda really hard to think like that.

You think in one thread that russia had the best revolution in the history and in an another you call Ukrainian revolution illegal.

Also even if you don’t like that another country shakes lose of autocrat cronies, how does any of that justify tanks and bombs and Bucha?

Your thinking is comparable to a common thug: you were speeding, therefore I can kill all your relatives, rape your wife and kids.

i think you are incapable of having a civilized conversation

read about the russian civil war for a historical lesson about what can happen when there is a revolution. not just the russian civil war, but the ukranian civil war that followed the bolshevik revolution, as well as the heroic ukranian figures like Nestor Makhno and other noble ukranians that faught for a free and independent ukraine. but for some reason the ukranian nationalists in charge today glorify the nazi Stepan Bandera and made themselves and ukraine a vassal of us imperial ambitions. this is not the ukraine i want to support

I don't see how giving a link to an article in the English language Wikipedia and suggesting you read it can be classified as gaslighting.

"russia can fuck off from Ukraine any time it wants and the war will be over immediately"

You mean leaving the people of the Crimea, DNR and LNR to the mercy of nationalistic Ukraine?

Saving the people of occupied territories from russian rape, murder, forceful deportation, looting of property, etc.

im sure ukranians are much better. just like serbs and croats, same sh* different flag

That's not how the life is in Crimea. Ukraine was 'saving' Crimeans by cutting water and electricity supply.

As for DNR and LNR, it's as meaningful as saying that Russia is saving people in Ukraine from being burned alive by Ukrainian nationalists [0].

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Odesa_clashes#Trade_Union...

You seem to conveniently omit the fact that the first victims in Odessa on 2 May were on the Maidan side, 2 activists, Andrei Biryukov and Igor Ivanov. And that victims of the burning themselves were armed with incendiary weapons: https://youtu.be/FWBGM9G4kF8

Classic victim blaming.

I'm Russian living in Russia and it is really true.

> Better to be black in America than Russian in Russia

you really think that russians are scared of police when they walk down the road? i mean im not surprised. this is a very common misconception about how societies in e. europe work

> but at least we aren’t being conscripted and thrown into the meat grinder of a pointless war

given how brave people seem to be online i dare say, "not yet"

> wonder how the black and natives feel

That they’re better off than being slaves.

sorry to break it to you but black men and women are born free. its just that americans put them in chains. im sure that today they are grateful for being treated as 2nd class citizens

> today they are grateful for being treated as 2nd class citizens

That isn’t what you said. You pushed back on the notion that people fought and continue to fight for others’ rights in America in a way they don’t in modern Russia (or China). That isn’t true, and it isn’t true that America Blacks or women are worse off today than they were two hundred years ago, as OP argued when you pushed back. Perfect is the enemy of good; you’re arguing against American values on a thread about modern Russia.

i just love reminding americans that the high pedistal they immagine they sit on when they lecture everyone is actually just a kitsch pigsty

So long as you acknowledge that our current pigsty is much cleaner than Russia's. The best you can point to is genocides and atrocities we committed 170 years ago, whereas Russia is attempting to commit similar genocides as we speak. And it's not the first time the Russians have committed genocide against Ukrainians. I guess when your nation doesn't change that much in 100 years it's hard to understand that other nations do, so calling up crimes from generations ago makes sense. I bet you berate the modern Mongolians for the crimes of Genghis Khan, and modern Italians for the many massacres committed by the Romans.

>The best you can point to is genocides and atrocities we committed 170 years ago, whereas Russia is attempting to commit similar genocides as we speak

russia's war in ukraine: 25,000+ civilians killed

number of civilian victims in Vietnam killed by US armed forces: 100,000+

number of civilian victims killed due to US dropping two atomic bombs on Japan: 200,000+

number of civilian deaths due to war in iraq: 200,000+

need i point out more?

as i said, kitsch pigsty. understand the evils committed by your own government before you lecture others. after all you have more freedom than russian people, hence more personal responsibility too. if people do this across the world, world would be a much happier place

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b7/My...

> russia's war in ukraine: 25,000+ civilians killed

> number of civilian victims in Vietnam killed by US armed forces: 100,000+

You do know the US involvement in Vietnam lasted 20 years, and Russia is barely past the 1 year mark in Ukraine, right?

those are statistics for 12 years of civilian deaths by the us military directly. they are not all the civilian deaths that occured during the vietnam war

during the same period, for a time span of 3 years, the us bombed cambodia and killed over 200,000 civilians as a result

> And it's not the first time the Russians have committed genocide against Ukrainians

im curious, when do you think was the first one? i mean there was the period of famine while ukraine was part of the ussr, but if thats what you mean lets get few simple facts straight

1) ukraine was an equal republic of the ussr

2) russia was a seperate republic of the ussr. russia had no authority about what goes on in ukraine

3) ussr at that time had a supreme ruler who was of georgian ethnicity

so even if we agree that systematic genocide did happen, it is very hard to argue that russia had anything to do with it

curiously, every time a russian ruled ussr, ukraine was rather well off. for example, under lenin ussr promoted ukranianization [1], under khrushchev ukraine got gifted crimea, while the ussr got a ukranian as its supreme leader [2]

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korenizatsiia

[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonid_Brezhnev

If you are referencing Holodomor, then it was not targeted at Ukraine. Yes Ukraine was hit hard by it, having half of total death toll from communist-induced famine. But other half were also Russians and Kazakhs. Bolsheviks while not being shy about ethnic-based genocide didn't really care about ethnicity of victims at that case.