What they will tell you is -- up until the genocide against the Tatars (and other groups), the majority of its population was always solidly non-Russian.
And that its prior ownership by whichever colonial powers is entirely irrelevant to its current legal jurisdiction.
Which is unambiguously Ukrainian.
Which he's also not telling you, for some reason.
You are not the person I asked, why are you (non) answering?
The point of the exercise is that answer reveal something about the person providing the answer when they are a Russian asking "What's wrong with Russians?".
>No, sorry, with this I will lose reticence
Regain your reticence, this was a tongue-in-cheek remark alluding to two simple facts:
1. There are no elections in Russia, and never have been, and
2. Despite that, Russian government enjoys overwhelming approval of itself and its actions, including the invasion of Ukraine.
The second point is supported by numerous anonymous, reputable poll results, e.g[1].
We're talking "3 in 4 Russians support the war" kind of numbers as of 2024.
As someone who speaks Russian as their first language, and knows people in Russia personally (as well as good friends who left Russia after the war started), I can assure you that the polls are accurate.
You don't need to take my word for it though, you will not see a single indication, study, survey, vote, anything that would suggest that the invasion of Ukraine was not supported by the overwhelming majority (75%-85%) of the Russian population - and many studies, surveys, polls, and indication that it was.
Another data point is that Russian Armed Forces are not universally well-equipped to say the least. But they get by due to immense grassroots support from the Russian population (which mirrors that on Ukrainian side).
Except in Ukraine's case, it's helping the soldiers defend the motherland, and in Russia's, it's helping the soldiers die for the motherland.
While Ukraine is building sculptures to commemorate and give tribute to the Soldiers Returning From The Front Back Home[2], Russia is building ones that commemorate and glorify Soldiers That Suicide By Grenade In The Battlefield Having No Hope For Medevac[3].
Mind you, what you see in [3] is not critique of the government. It's a point of pride.
Russia is a death cult of which Putin is a representative ruler. Denying that will keep you detached from reality - in the same way that denying that Trump, today, does represent the US would.
You want to hope that Russians don't actually want Putin, and you want to hope that Americans don't actually want Trump, but the reality, sadly, disagrees with both of these statements - and closing one's eyes while screaming "la la la people are actually good" will do nothing but ensure these geriatric power grabs will stay in power longer.
[1] https://www.levada.ru/en/2024/03/27/conflict-with-ukraine-es...
[2] https://english.nv.ua/life/new-bronze-miniature-return-home-...
The «tongue-in-cheek remark» was not evident as such - also since I must confirm that there are people that actually believe that individuals holding passport of any Country exercising elections would be responsible for the actions of any fleeting government. (Have you ever met any? It took very many arguments to crack some.)
> Denying that will keep you detached from reality - in the same way that denying that Trump, today, does represent the US would. // You want to hope
Avoid '«you»', use 'people': the use of 'you' may seem to accuse your direct occasional interlocutor of holding those positions (which did not show).
But when you speak about «America» you seem to be provoking on the reticence-loosening point: when in some (hypothetical but still exemplary) place one third of the people declares to despise somebody with the highest contempt, while another third declares to support him with the highest admiration, you cannot confuse the two sets. So when you say "Americans want tacos" (or whatever), that is an improper use of 'Americans' that does not lead anywhere productive.
About Crimea, it seemed that the poster proposed a clear-cut situation, to which I replied with a prestigious example of disagreement: Gérard Chaliand. That has nothing to do with any nationalism. It just happen to be a position (an intellectual position) that some nationalists will appreciate more than others - but that is just a coincidence. The intellectual in question is French; the rebuttal from Aguaviva is appreciated.
The latter part of the post from Romwell, I honestly and not without some reason mistook for a statement that "if you are a citizen for nation N, democratic, then you are responsible for the actions of your governments". Being that a twisted idea, that Romwell in the end does not hold but as I also specified later some people do hold, I countered it. Again, this does not seem to be to be especially tied to nationalism.
It seems to me that we all discussed in very civilized manner - rhetoric aside. (From my post replying to Romwell on, I mean.)
If I am missing any detail (as I seem to be), please indicate.
Edit: Dang, are you simply afraid that people will "trigger"? If so, I think this branch proves otherwise... It seems to show that we are able to discuss quite rationally (well, with these members we have been lucky).
As I wrote in the other comment, my point of asking those questions was to get answers from the Russian person who asked what's wrong with them specifically, not from other people (as the subject I wanted to discuss was, ultimately, why people could see well meaning Russians as a threat based on responses to those questions).
But I didn't make it clear (and again, corrections on style were very welcome!), and the points mdp2021 brought up were valid.
As far as I can tell, we didn't disagree on anything.
mdp2021 lacked some of the context, but so would most people, including me prior to the 2022 invasion.
So, dang's reaction seems unwarranted.
Ask historians: you may get surprised.
> reasonable assumption that the actions of your democratically elected government reflect the will of the population
No, sorry, with this I will lose reticence: that above is plain insanity. NO, people are not "represented" by elected governments in their will in the way the user declares to have understood. It's not just that "spheroidal economic agents" cannot be accused of obesity - it is not just that gross models do not overlap reality: it is really a nonsensical model.