You actually think Russia was a stagnant backwater until they dropped their pursuit of communism and opened themselves up to be mined for prostitution and mail order brides?

Son of the CIA indeed.

Heh. I see what you did there.

Have a nice day!

I know right. It was stagnant afterwards too.

90ss Russia I grew up in wasn't pretty, it was indeed dangerous. But still less dangerous than current Russia. It was free, full of hopes, developing.

By 00ss we got to much better life.

Last 10 years, while regime got worse and worse, people started to do interesting and succesfull projects in many areas. It was not just copy west as before, something unique started to happened.

So yes, USSR before it's fall was stagnant, hopeless swamp of misery. And it's gravitating to the same direction now.

Russia and US were political enemies.

> Russians were considered brutish, non-creative, and untrustworthy.

Russia and US stopped being political enemies.

> I started to see amazing creativity come from Russia.

Russia and US started being political enemies again.

> Russians are considered brutish, non-creative, and untrustworthy.

It's not really clear but I think I'm starting to see a pattern here.

Yeah one of the two is constantly brutalising its neighbours, while the other is busy building tech and defending smaller, but freedom loving, countries. Our grandparents told us stories about the russian army that many found hard to believe. And here we are proven that they were right all along.

>defending smaller, but freedom loving, countries

You mean America was doing the defending? That's hilarious.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in...

And then there's the horror show of American intervention in South East Asia, and then there's the meddle, I mean Middle East.

The US has been proven to meddle in democratic elections in every single continent, except Africa I think, at this point. But meddling in Africa will surely be made public at one point or another.

On the other hand, are we really comparing the leadership of Afghanistan and Iraq to Ukraine and deciding these things are the same?

Last I checked, Ukraine hadn't invaded its neighbors, gassed ethnic minorities, or taken freedom from its entire female population.

The US handled Afghanistan and Iraq poorly, and lied about reasons for going in, but there were actual underlying reasons.

Ukraine is only being invaded because Russia thinks it can.

Hell, Ukraine explicitly gave up its weapons of mass destruction... in exchange for security guarantees... from Russia.

Dont bother, it’s a waste of time. I’ve gotten used to the idea that some people are pure evil.

Yes, people that don't agree with you are pure evil.

Multiple actors can be horrible at the same time. The US is pretty horrible when it invades other countries, so is Russia.

As far as I know, Ukraine never had a military big enough to actually do any invasion of other countries, but if Ukraine was the size of the US with the military of the US, I wouldn't bet on them not being horrible when invading other countries.

Multiple actors can be horrible (<0 ethics), but that doesn't mean that their absolute ethics value is irrelevant, or their relative horribleness to others.

Russia is systematically deporting Ukrainian children to Russia and integrating them into Russian families as a matter of state policy.

They're also indiscriminately bombing civilian targets weekly.

Even during the worst days of Fallujah, the US and UK didn't pull back and just arbitrarily pound the city to dust with standoff munitions out of spite.

Ukraine inherited a substantial amount of Soviet materiel after the collapse of the USSR, as well as the personnel trained in its use, however this quickly deteriorated as the support industrial base was in tatters (in Ukraine and Russia).

But in the early 90s they absolutely could have made a very credible invasion against most of their neighbors. [0,1]

Especially, say, the Cobasna ammunition depot in Moldova that's right on their border with up to 20,000 tons of Soviet munitions. [2]

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

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nunn%E2%80%93Lugar_Cooperati...

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

It doesn't even compare. Countries unlucky enough to be invaded by Russia wished we were conquered by USA instead.

Uh, millions of dead Iraqis and Afghans are going to see your wish and say "sure, why not?"

> but if Ukraine was the size of the US with the military of the US, I wouldn't bet on them not being horrible when invading other countries.

It didn’t stop them from taking part in the invasion of Iraq:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5th_Mechanized_Brigade_(Ukrain...

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6th_Mechanized_Brigade_(Ukrain...

Actually, Ukraine was forcing an ethnic, language and religious cleansing on its people in the two regions that petitioned for sovereignty. Read about this several years ago before all this stuff blew up and propaganda made stuff murky. Their current leader was put in place by a coup. The old regime was corrupt but that doesn't mean the new one is better. Ukrain was already in a civil war.

By that standard, the UK, Spain and France are also in civil wars.

IMHO, once military forces reach rough parity, civil wars should never be a justification for external involvement, because it always ends badly.

Internal problems need internal solutions.

If Russia and NATO had both stayed out of Ukraine, it would have been better for all Ukrainians. But we zoomed past the Rubicon on that when Crimea was invaded with actual Russian troops.

Well, I'm basing my next statement on a statement from an ex military individual from Crimea, but he said that the Crimea business was a backend deal and that the military in Crimea was explicitly ordered to not engage under any circumstance. The Crimea government had no desire to stand. I do agree that Russia and Nato should keep their noses out, but then I also think so should we. Russia being bad guys doesn't make Ukraine good is the point I was trying to make.

“By that standard, the UK, Spain and France are also in civil wars.”

Nice try. How do these compare at all to the Ukraine Donbas conflict? During the span of 2014-2022, the war in Ukraine (pre Russian invasion) between Ukraine and Donbas region resulted in the following:

Ukraine troops 4,647 killed, 70 missing, 13,800–14,200 wounded

Donbas troops 6,517 killed, 15,800–16,200 wounded

3,404 Ukrainian civilians killed 14,200–14,400 Donbas killed 51,000–54,000 wounded overall

1.6 million Ukrainians internally displaced; over 1 million fled abroad

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Donbas_(2014–2022)

> During the span of 2014-2022, the war in Ukraine (pre Russian invasion)

The Russian invasion began in 2014.

How do you think these 'separatists' got Russian anti air equipment and Russian MBT's?.

By that definition, the US invasion began in 2014 too. Who do you think primarily supplied Ukraine with weapons and training?

https://www.npr.org/2019/12/18/788874844/how-u-s-military-ai...

No, Russia literally had military presence in Ukraine by 2014, see the occupation of Crimea.

> By that definition, the US invasion began in 2014 too. Who do you think primarily supplied Ukraine with weapons and training?

Im not sure what you think an invasion is, but wouldn't a foreign power, stationing their military in your country without your consent qualify?.

Where as when you invite another military to help you out its not really an invasion?.

wtf, this is just a lie. Have your looked at actual casualty numbers in 2016-2021? i.e after the initial bloodbath that Russians started in 2014 and that finished in 2015.

it's been around 100 killed per year (both civilians and army) for 5 years before the current war - still 100 more than should be, of course, but it's less than the number of DAILY casualties since February 2022. Also, what you call a "Ukrainian Donbass conflict" is called a Russian military aggression, if you're not a pro-putin shill

> Read about this several years ago before all this stuff blew up and propaganda made stuff murky.

No you didn’t, since the allegation is directed at the post-Maidan Ukrainian government and there has been no time since that government existed that it has not been the target of intense Russian propaganda (and, also, war, the Russo-Ukrainian war having been launched by Russia as a direct and immediate response to the Maidan Revolution.)

> But meddling in Africa will surely be made public at one point or another.

The french has most of africa on lockdown in that regard

> defending smaller, but freedom loving, countries

Lol.

> Our grandparents told us stories about the russian army that many found hard to believe. And here we are proven that they were right all along.

This is true for any military power, read stories about areas under occupation from "freedom loving" or "non-freedom loving" (?) military groups, and you'll find it is equally horrible no matter what country the groups are from.

Standards change though. I mean a lot of developed nations did atrocities a century or two ago but Russia is a bit behind the times.

I'm not sure if you count the US as developed or not, but in case you do, here are some highlights more recently than "a century or two ago":

- Haditha massacre

- Mahmudiyah rape and killings

- Abu Ghraib prison

- Enhanced interrogation techniques

- Sơn Thắng massacre

- Countless of others

All by US officials and/or military members.

Obviously unfortunate, but tiny, isolated and unintended incidents. Handful of victims. Widely condemned by the society. Meanwhile, Russia is bombing countries and killing millions as a strategy of conquest, while most Russian are clapping approvingly.

I'm not sure if "killing millions" is on purpose a exaggeration or not, but again, Russia is not alone in doing killing and bombing as a strategy (civilians be damned), the US is very familiar with that strategy. Do you think the initial night raid on Iraq was only targeting military targets? They were dropping random bombs on Baghdad. Multiple campaigns of Vietnam were just dropping a ton of bombs all over the country, no matter who it hit (Look up "Christmas bombings").

And lastly, don't forget about the only nuclear bombs that have been dropped have been dropped by the US military. That was indiscriminate killing at a scale never seen before, or since.

Look, Russia is horrible, the invasion is super fucked up, I wish they weren't do that and it'll take a long time before I'll ever forget about the horribleness that Russia put others through, as I've personally helped people being received from Ukraine into the country where I currently live. But that doesn't mean other military powers aren't as horrible as Russia, all of them are, it's their purpose so that's what they do.

Oh, since you had to go all the way to the Second World War to find some arguments, here in Eastern Europe we remember too. We remember the grandparents gone to Siberia never to return. The hunger. The Red Army atrocities. The Nomenklatura they left behind. The cleansing of anybody with the "wrong" past or connections. The tinpot dictators they propped up. The “wonders” of communism - more hunger. Chernobyl and atomic war rhetoric. Paying with blood to get rid of them in the 90s. The corruption they left behind. Then Georgia. Polonium tea. Novichok. MH17. Syria. Ukraine.

No, millions is not an exaggeration. It’s an understatement. The only thing we reproach the USA: that they didn’t intervene. They were no angels, but there is no comparison. They are not the same and any attempt to muddle the waters and make them all seem the same is a desperate strategy of a falling imperialist power to throw the blame around. But we are immune to this, we grew up with the KGB monitoring jokes and pillow talk. We know this dirty game and here in Eastern Europe your tricks don’t work anymore. We have eyes to see and we know who are the good guys making the unfortunate occasional mistake and who are the pure evil ones.

I'm glad it seems like we agree then, all military powers have abused their powers and hurt countless of others.

The fact that most of Latin America was or is under non-democratic, rightwing governments is unfortunately not tiny, not isolated, totally intentional, with lots of victims and ignored by society.

> I mean a lot of developed nations did atrocities a century or two ago

I wish those atrocities were just "a centrury ago" but they're in fact pretty recent.

You misquoted your source. Clever tactic.

Correlation is not causation. Russia’s political decisions have a great influence on both geopolitics AND the decisions of individual Russians on whether they stay in the country.

Did I miss the memo where we invaded Canada or Mexico?

I'm having a hard time parsing the parent quote, but if you're asking when the US invaded Canada and Mexico, here are some times.

Canda:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Invasion_of_Quebe...

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_of_1812&usesk...

Mexico:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_evolution_of_Mexic...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican%E2%80%93American_War

I think the problem is more along the lines of which particular Russians the Russian state allows to be considered ... and less changes in the individuals, either on the sending or receiving end of considerations.

Most of the brightest ones have left the country, so I do wonder if it might result in being a net positive for the world, moving a million brightest people from a decaying autocracy into the functional countries with good management, potential investors and a culture of innovation.

Russian culture in Russia might be done for though, at least for a while.

>> Most of the brightest ones have left the country

I feel like that needs to be qualified? Maybe ages 20-40 and of a certain social-economic class can leave fairly easily, but it’s gotta be much harder to leave if you’re too young, too old, too poor, have too few connections, or have aged parents, young children, etc.

Well, that's what I mean, a million of the 20-40 age group of a certain socioeconomic class, with relevant skills, a lot of ambition and not many dependents. Those are the exact group to start new things and do a lot of good, and my point was that maybe the world is better off with them in the more productive countries vs even the pre-war Russia.

You’re conflating a group of pro-western enterprise software developers - with little to no adulthood responsibilities aside their work, due to their age - with a group of the brightest folks.

> pro-western

What does being pro- or anti-West has to do with the topic? There are many Russian expats in Germany who openly manifest their support for Putin's war on the streets of Berlin. You can be anti-Western and at the same time pragmatically leave Russia to avoid draft and being killed for basically no reason.

That’s a fair point. I was trying to exemplify the conflation point between two groups with the assigned traits (“the brightest” vs “rest of them”) with bringing my own selection of people everyone would clearly disagree with to be a valid representation.

Software developers make up maybe a third of that wave, if that. There's also artists, scientists, teachers, journalists, political activists and all kinds of other folks that simply don't see the future in the country. A lot of them are families with kids, so it's often not the lack of responsibilities but a higher willingness to take the risk.

Political activists and journalists are hardly the brightest group of people either, so you’re just assigning the opposition group that you prefer to align with, with a token of “the brightest” because it makes you feel good about it. How about you look at the rest of the society who couldn’t or weren’t willing to leave the country and who still run projects in Russia despite the sanctions. Are they not the brightest because they work and associate their career within - let’s say for the sake of the argument - Rosatom? That’s just one hard science sector of the wast energy industry of the country, for starters.

There's lot of smart people left, that's no doubt, but there is an obvious filter that the ones left behind are on average less risk taking, more conservative, often older, often the ones with the national motto of "от нас ничего не зависит/there's nothing I can do", and the next google or the next scientific breakthrough is much more likely to come out of the young risk taking ones now living in a functional country and not from the aging engineers living in a dictatorship and working at a bureaucratic rosatom making "up to $720 a month" (actual number, I looked up their open engineering vacancies).

> but there is an obvious filter that the ones left behind are on average less risk taking

Where’s that clarity come from? The opposite could be argued as well: those who’ve left are seeking safety and safety isn’t associated with risk taking. There are fewer risks in leaving Russia than in staying in.

> breakthrough is much more likely to come out of the young risk taking ones now living in a functional country and not from the aging engineers living in a dictatorship and working at a bureaucratic rosatom making "up to $720 a month" (actual number, I looked up their open engineering vacancies).

Here, you did it again: “those who work at <this company> are less likely to make a breakthrough, because I don’t align with them, and therefore I assume that only aging engineers uncapable of breakthroughs would consider staying and working there. Look, even salaries prove that they are less likely to have it.”

>Where’s that clarity come from? The opposite could be argued as well: those who’ve left are seeking safety and safety isn’t associated with risk taking. There are fewer risks in leaving Russia than in stayin in.

It's not about safety, it's about agency. Because action > inaction. Staying put does not require anything, just making excuses why nothing can be done to either change things or move.

The ones that stayed and are trying to change things might be the brightest and bravest of all, but they are few and might not even survive that decision. Most other ones simply lack any agency and float down towards some not very bright future they have no control over, making excuses why nothing can be done and hoping to lay low and "авось пронесет". Those are less likely to accomplish much.

It’s the second time you’re deliberately avoiding answering where else is your clarity about the second group come from, except from your imagining things.

> It's not about safety, it's about agency. Because action > inaction. Staying put does not require anything, just making excuses why nothing can be done to either change things or move.

When a person has an option to leave but decides otherwise, they exercise their agency and the action is described as a conscious decision based on an act of volition. You are free to attribute it to - as you said - “making excuses” or “actually lacking agency”, but that would be the same biased simplification of reality that you’ve already done a few times in other comments.

I did not IQ test the million people on the border and I have no objective way to evaluate and compare the brightness of the people that have left vs the rosatom engineers, if that's what you're asking for.

"Biased simplification of reality" sounds like a description of essentially any opinion, we are all biased and reality is too complex to argue about without simplifications, so that's not a great argument. Anything outside of a few math formulas is a "biased simplification of reality".

I'm curious, what exactly are you arguing for? Do you really think that a loss of that million is insignificant and that the roskosmos/rosatom/rostech/etc will accomplish more than all the people that have left? If so, could you explain why you think that?

> we are all biased and reality is too complex to argue about without simplifications, so that's not a great argument.

However it's a good argument for distinguishing between simplifications introduced by feelings and the ones introduced by omission while trying impartial judgement, as these simplification premises would have different value to your listeners.

> Do you really think that a loss of that million is insignificant and that the roskosmos/rosatom/rostech/etc will accomplish more than all the people that have left? If so, could you explain why you think that?

We must first establish and agree on the dimension by which you're willing to evaluate that significance. What would be a unit of measurement of the significance that you're mentioning in your comments?

>However it's a good argument for distinguishing between simplifications introduced by feelings

It's not based on my feelings but on the personal experience and some research I did. All the smartest people I personally know and worked with have left the country. I also looked up the top 10 AI researchers at Yandex, and out of the ten I looked at only one was is still in Russia, that's a 90% loss for the top talent in the hottest industry at the (arguably) most innovative company in the country.

>We must first establish and agree on the dimension by which you're willing to evaluate that significance

Sure thing, let's take two, scientists and entrepreneurs as their accomplishments are the easiest to quantify. The unit of measurement would be the influential papers written for scientists (measured by the number of citations) and for the entrepreneurs the market cap of the companies they started, obviously both of those are not perfect metrics but they generally track with the value created.

Do you think the million people like the "MIPT, MSU and HSE graduates" that have left the country that the other guys are mentioning will do better on those dimensions versus the ones staying at rosatom/roskosmos/etc?

> It's not based on my feelings > All the smartest people I personally know > I also looked up the top 10 AI researchers at Yandex > in the hottest industry at the (arguably) most innovative company in the country.

All of that is actually based on your feelings that (1) the people you know are smart enough to be qualified and counted among the brightest, (2) the AI software research and the researchers you personally know are more relevant to the points you make, than other research and the researchers you haven't met in other industries that Russia is excelling in.

> Sure thing, let's take two, scientists and entrepreneurs as their accomplishments are the easiest to quantify. The unit of measurement would be the influential papers written for scientists (measured by the number of citations) and for the entrepreneurs the market cap of the companies they started.

I disagree with the market cap metric because it's useless to compare without other constraints on the kind of businesses we're allowed to compare directly. For starters, a hypothetical company involved in the derivatives market may easily be evaluated higher than a profitable energy-producing company purely because of a higher speculative capacity of the former, since the markets allow for derivatives to exist as assets in the books. I disagree with that premise purely on a basis of the 2008 crisis that showed that those had never been assets manifested in reality.

I disagree with the influential papers' citation count too, because that measure would be subject to interpretation of influence. Are AI papers influential? Are all AI papers influential? You could get thousands of meaningless citations for a parroting AI architecture for every single meaningful citation of Perelman's proof of the Poincare conjecture. Which one of those would you value as more influential? I assume no one could seriously suggest that citations for AI software papers would have the same nominal value as citations of the fundamental proofs in mathematics or physics.

> Do you think the million people like the "MIPT, MSU and HSE graduates" that have left the country that the other guys are mentioning will do better on those dimensions versus the ones staying at rosatom/roskosmos/etc?

You are conflating two groups again: the million people left aren't all the kind of "MIPT, MSU and HSE graduates". Not all of them are the Techies in the first place. The right question to ask would be if I think that those who left have better chances to excel at science and business (regardless of their qualifications) than those who stayed. My answer to that question is no, I don't think so, because there's no hard evidence for that. There only is a hint that they might be better off financially if they dedicate their lives to making money in the industries that are known for generating loads of cash, like finance and tech. That's about it. Switch the roles and try comparing artists and less technical folks in their respective places at home and abroad, and the odds are suddenly opposite.

Alright, if we're talking fundamental research, what about the number of the Fields medal recipients? I feel safe taking that bet, in the last 30 years for one Perelman there's 6 russian-born mathematicians that received it who are in the US or Europe.

I can disagree and question everything all day too, but you gotta nut up or shut up, pick an objective metric and I'll take a bet on it. Gdp, citations, number of patents, number of users of the product, number of Nobel prizes, anything measurable that would work for you? Literally anything measurable not based on your feelings.

How many emigrations have you done? Because if the answer is "zero" I'm not sure your opinion counts. Taking your entire life, your family, kids, urgently moving to another country at a time when your bank card don't work internationally, you can't reliably wire money out, and there are visa restriction placed on you even when you have a visa. Then learning how to live in a different country, where you understand nothing: from how to pay taxes to using their version of self-checkout kiosks.

Emigration is the ultimate risk-taking.

I now have friends who have a position ready for them in the US, in business and academia, yet they were put on administrative check and have spent almost a year just waiting for their visa. They put most people with technical education on this check.

People who left the country are not just software developers. We have seen the exodus of musicians, scientists etc, which after some very painful decision process just packed their things and took next flight anywhere. Many took their families.

Software engineers were a simple example of the conflation point. Those who left and those who’re the brightest aren’t the same group.

The groups are indeed not identical but what matters is that their intersection is big.

As a MSU CS alumni I can tell you, it is pretty clear the brighter, the more likely to leave.

Among my peers most left, even the ones that used to be relatively pro Puilo for whatever reasons.

> As a MSU CS alumni I can tell you, it is pretty clear the brighter, the more likely to leave.

How does your alumni status’ anecdotal evidence bring clarity on the matter of the predominant intellectual capacity of those who’re leaving Russia? Aren’t there any other MSU graduates who consider themselves as bright as your CS peers and yourself, and who are staying in? What’s the respective left/stayed ratio among them?

I can add one more data point to it as MIPT graduate. Number of people among MIPT, MSU and HSE graduates I know personally who emigrated in the past 12 months is remarkable. It’s somewhat similar to early 1990s when whole labs were relocating to the West.

What's the ratio of those who left to those who graduated and stayed?

Basically everyone (that would be 10+ people) I know who was still staying back left after Russia unleashed full scale war with the exception of the ones that have to care for very old relatives. There are two people who stayed for other reasons, and they aren't brighter than average peers.

Prior to the war maybe slightly under 50% stayed. Now it is under 10%.

> Prior to the war maybe slightly under 50% stayed. Now it is under 10%.

Just to clarify your point, are you suggesting that only 10% of MSU gradutes are staying in Russia after receiving their respective degrees, or are these the numbers among specific people with specific degrees you know personally?

Obviously I am talking about specific people mostly with CS degrees.

However, the same trend was also quite visible on the university-wide alumni forum.

For those that cannot afford going to the West, others have migrated to Turkey, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Armenia, etc..

In many ways, Russian culture has been preserved better outside of Russia than inside. Russians have had a tendency over last few hundred years to absorb other cultures rapidly, thus changing their own. French, Italian, English, now American. Watching Russian TV now by someone who left in the 1990s is quite strange because almost every other word is taken from English, while a different word was used in Russian 30 years ago.

I wonder if there are any specific examples of Russian culture that are preserved outside Russia but lost inside Russia.

Russia 30 years ago was a failed and miserable state with corresponding words choice. In the modern Russia not many actual people watch TV.

The russian old believers in Brazil is the first example that comes to mind https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17-3EGQ1aAw

The preservation of rural everyday culture, dress and habits is a nice thing, but Russians in general are an urbanized nation whose culture is in books, music sheets and moving pictures.

I doubt that Latin American Old Believers produce, or even retain, much of these.

You're referring to Soviet culture mostly, particularly in regards to film.

Russian food, language, and religion are better preserved by Russian communities outside Russia. Immigrants that left in 1990s as adults speak purer Russian than TV news people.

“Preserved” in the original state, like in museum - yes. Russian communities outside Russia rarely contributed anything new to it. Russian culture actively developed in last 30 years, against all odds and efforts of the state, which coincidentally wanted to freeze it or roll back in time too.

Russian language indeed borrowed a few words, but this is not a bad thing, it’s a common reflection of Zeitgeist that happened to the language before.

Russians outside Russia for the last 100 years have contributed literature, music, movies, and helped to introduce Russian cultural aspects to the West. In the past 30 years this only accelerated. Even before this war there were huge numbers of Russian intellectuals, artists, etc living in the West, but contributing to Russian culture.

I’ve been reading a lot of books in Russian, watched lots of movies and attended a lot of contemporary art exhibitions in Moscow and St.Petersburg. I’m struggling to find any traces of such contribution of emigrant communities in the last 30 years (well, maybe Akunin or Sorokin?). There are a few names from Soviet times, but they represent a fraction of what’s been happening and emigrants usually reflect on the past.

It is true that in the last 30 Russia has been absorbing American, particularly African American culture as far as music, movies, and dress are concerned. Russian culture in Russia is in decline generally.

Russian culture is whatever Russians are up to. It cannot be in decline while accepting and digesting new stuff at the same time.

As Russia opened more to the world, it indeed started absorbing elements of many other cultures (I do not know, why you focus on African American culture here and call its influence a decline - it sounds racist). However it does not mean it lost its unique identity and did not develop over the time. Probably, as an emigrant you just missed it and now so disconnected from the motherland that you have no idea what's actually going on there. It's much bigger than what you can find in TV news (who watches TV nowadays?!) or on a few YouTube blogs. How many contemporary Russian artists or writers do you know? What do you know about the modern internet culture of Russians, which is bigger than everything else? Do you know what modern Russians eat and where they go for a date? Are you familiar with TV ads that were so popular that they found their way into the language? Do you know what's going on on the roads and what part of life of modern Russian is dedicated to driving a car and everything around it? What do you know about national theatrical awards and have you ever seen any winning performance?

As opposed to the West were the national cultures are being preserved spotless

A three hour old name created to post "what about the west" - this is becoming practically a hacker news cliche.

That political opposition has a very high opinion of themselves.

Despite the gloomy predictions, Russia keeps doing fine on all dimensions.

War in Ukraine was not a good thing to happen, but Russia is not that badly managed, and the West is not that well managed.

Last quarter: -45% oil and gas revenue. $29 Billion deficit. Ruble losing ~1/3 its value. GDP is still doing somewhat fine with that booming war economy. I guess all those white ladas have to be build somewhere.

Thank you for that kind of words.

It's so rare nowadays.

While i agree with technology, art (painters, literature), dance (ballet), i didn't think Russia brings much to the worlds of music.

Curious what is in you iTunes rotation?

Mostly techno stuff.

Also, surprisingly, some really good flamenco guitar, and Arabic-inspired stuff.

Some might be from former Russian nations, but some is straight from St. Petersburg.

I’m not really in a position, at the moment, to find the various songs. I have a big library, and it takes a while to find stuff.

I have very eclectic tastes.

s/former Russian/former Soviet/

Good point. Thanks for the heads-up.

Also, Russian rock bands are really good if you know the language. The words are deep and emotional and far from banal standards.