• Skiluros@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    8 hours ago

    I guess counting of the votes was.

    The 2000 and 2004 elections in russia are generally considered free and fair (2004 perhaps less so, but I digress). That didn’t really have an impact later on.

    But the system is sufficiently rigged already, Russians just don’t bother with such complex mechanisms. Why, when you can just steal. After all, a different kind of people.

    While I agree in general, having lived in North America for a decade (including US) and russia for over a decade, you’d be surprised about the similarities in certain (emphasis on certain, not even close to all or even many) elements of “national thinking” in the US and russia. That being said, historically US has had a positive impact in the world. I can’t think of a single thing that russia has done that has had a positive effect (even their much fetishized celebration of WW2 victory is a ruse as the USSR initially sided with the Nazis to split up Europe).

    • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      7 hours ago

      The 2000 and 2004 elections in russia are generally considered free and fair (2004 perhaps less so, but I digress). That didn’t really have an impact later on.

      I meant 1996. Wide protests, the first election in independent Russia widely put in doubt, but in the West - lots of enthusiasm that the bad thing didn’t happen and those communists didn’t win.

      even their much fetishized celebration of WW2 victory is a ruse as the USSR initially sided with the Nazis to split up Europe

      I disagree. (Sorry for the very long elaboration that follows, but it’s needed, I think. Stalin’s USSR wasn’t nice, but what you said is usually part of the narrative most of which is plainly not true.)

      The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was a temporary (and very abrupt) change of policy and not what some common narratives make it seem. Soviet propaganda almost since 20s and till that short period actually portrayed Germans in some form as the main potential enemy.

      Those Baltic countries USSR swallowed were typical fascist regimes, just small. Military aggression is not nice, but the narrative people from the Baltics love now, about how USSR was “worse than the Nazis” - well, very few Baltic Jews survived, I guess that makes their position consistent with reality, but doesn’t sell it very well to me.

      Parts of Poland annexed were Western Ukraine and Western Belarus, and Wilno which is now part of Lithuania. And no, Polish Republic of that time wasn’t very minority-friendly. Again, not as clear-cut. There Soviet troops were really welcomed in 1939.

      Even the Winter War was preceded by repeated offers of similar or bigger amount of territory given to Finland by USSR in exchange for what it asked, and what it asked was the really necessary territory to make Leningrad defensible from the Finnish side. It was not as barbaric and aggressive as the common narratives say as well. Karl Gustav Mannerheim, if you know who that is, not only supported accepting the deal, but was in favor of some concessions more than the minimum that USSR demanded. And after the war, forcing its victory, USSR took no more than that.

      And Soviet Union did pay the biggest human cost of those fighting in Europe.

      The fetish is disgusting, of course, and also anachronistic - there were no regular parades initially in celebration of that war ending, only those on November 7, and of course nobody was enthusiastic about an opportunity to “repeat it”. It was a hungry ruined country with disabled veterans in poverty, gangs of orphans, years of darkness and despair, one can say. The years between end of the war and Stalin’s death are not really remembered for anything other than that.

      Actually for all the Cold War the USSR’s propaganda position was that it wants only peace and united humanity, and the people who want to “repeat” something are on the other side. I’d say that during the first Indochina war and even later this was, well, true.

      • Skiluros@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        7 hours ago

        I am Ukrainian. So let’s just say you won’t convince me of the uncle Stalin coming to liberate eastern Europe BS narrative. I would like to invite you and your family to try and speak Ukrainian in the occupied territories.

        A strong majority of russian are genocidal imperialists. Not because of any inherent qualities, it’s the choices they make.

        I will just add that the russians should take ownership of the outcomes in their history (not just 1996 election, but more generally). They are not children and they need to take responsibility without looking for scapegoats as they always do.

        • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          6 hours ago

          I am Ukrainian. So let’s just say you won’t convince me of the uncle Stalin coming to liberate eastern Europe BS narrative. I would you and your family to try and speak Ukrainian in the occupied territories.

          Ukrainian language was not in any way suppressed in the USSR at any point. My grandmother happens to be from Ukraine.

          It was less prestigious, because of technical education being given in Russian and the “distribution” system after university, where graduates were being directed to workplaces all over the union.

          If you mean these days, I don’t think there’s been a vote on invading Ukraine.

          A strong majority of russian are genocidal imperialists. Not because of any inherent qualities, it’s the choices they make.

          Well, since you’ve pulled some Ukrainian roots for your position, I’ll say that I’m Armenian and those Ukrainians I’ve met who’d open their mouth on Artsakh did not lead me to believe that Ukrainians make better choices (and they can stick whatever they call “international law” where sun don’t shine, if that set of rules in their opinion makes a land consistently Armenian since before Slavs made it into written history and till now to be Azeri, because in USSR someone decided so and some bastards “recognized” it as such).

          I will just add that the russians should take ownership of the outcomes in their history (not just 1996 election, but more generally). They are not children and they need to take responsibility without looking for scapegoats as they always do.

          Do you do the same in full for every identity you apply to yourself? If not, then why are you giving advice to Russians?

          • Stovetop@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            2 hours ago

            Ukrainian language was not in any way suppressed in the USSR at any point. My grandmother happens to be from Ukraine.

            That is just factually untrue. Ukrainization occurred in the early days of the USSR under Lenin, but Stalin shortly implemented bans on the Ukrainian language in education, government, and industry, as it was deemed “counterrevolutionary”.

          • Skiluros@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            6 hours ago

            I believe I was pretty clear when I said I am Ukrainian (living in Ukraine).

            Why in god’s name do you think I would buy into your white-washing of russian genocidal chauvinism?

            What’s the logic here?

            • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              6 hours ago

              Things I’ve said are factually true.

              Truth can’t be whitewashing.

              OK, so you live in Ukraine. This gives us what?