> don't usually complain about downvotes, but WTH people, what did I say that's controversial?

Sorry, I incorrectly read your statement as blaming "both sides" - I assume I might have been not the only one.

Huh, ok, odd, I didn't think I was ambiguous at all.

It's that opening statement that invokes memories of how the ruscist regime justifies the mass murder. It's the first thing the reader sees and it sets the tone/perception. I was confused as well, had to reread the thing.

> Nationalism is one hell of a drug.

I completely agree. Slava Ukraini!

> > Nationalism is one hell of a drug.

> I completely agree. Slava Ukraini!

Do you see the contradiction? ;-)

He's implying that ukrainians got into this predicament by being nationalistic and not because they were invaded

I hope you're not referring to my comment, that was not my intent at all.

The Russian sociopolitical culture is very imperialist, which is no surprise given that the country is one of the few remaining colonial empires in the most traditional sense (i.e. the metropole milking vast occupied territories), and it cannot really exist as a single entity without this kind of politics.

That said, leadership does matter. These kinds of ideas find support in Russian society when they are put front and center, but without someone to actively do that, people just grumble about "them not respecting us as they used to" etc.

At the same time, Putin does not represent the most radical manifestation of this ideology, either. Someone like e.g. Strelkov could truly go all in on "gathering the lands", as Russian historiography usually describes re-occupation.

*> Putin does not represent the most radical manifestation of this ideology, either

This is my concern. I'm no expert on Russia, but I can see this from a distance, and it's scary. A way of talking about the world that sounds so 19th century, but seems to be making a comeback.

(FWIW I think American imperialism as we saw in Iraq is terrible as well, and I condemn both.)