#some bomb like Putin | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

notaplaceofhonour · 6 months

Text

it’s october 7th. you hear about the attack by seeing people you followed glorifying the terrorist attack—a massacre, a pogrom—as victory & justified resistance, glorifying a terrorist group that was founded with the explicit intent to kill your entire people

you make a post in which you make it clear you support palestinians and oppose the ways israel has wronged them, explaining that the terrorist group is still not good. you know you will probably get some flacc from the pro-Hamas side, but naively underestimate how much.

you get thousands of notifications on that one post, the majority of them hateful comments.

some of the response is positive. multiple messages thank you for the post, expressing bafflement that it’s controversial.

a few Israelis are upset at the loaded language in your post, but explain their problems with it civilly. you called Israel “apartheid”. they ask you what apartheid laws Israel has. you admit you honestly don’t know.

your inbox is flooded with anonymous hate from anti-Israel leftists.

over the course of a few weeks you have received hundreds of death threats, a dozen rape threats. people accuse you of being pro-genocide. you’re a literal Nazi. you’re racist, you thirst for the blood of Palestinians. you’re brainwashed by propaganda, a shill for The Zionist Entity. a few of the hate messages are from literal Neo-Nazis; the overwhelming majority are from leftists, many of them queer.

you are considering suicide.

you see footage of the october 7th attacks. you see footage of the bombings in gaza. you see footage of a Jewish man being murdered at an anti-Israel rally.

a popular creator you follow posts in support of an antisemitic hate group that masquerades as a Jewish organization. this organization regularly posts blood libel and other antisemitic rhetoric, works with groups that are even more explicitly antisemitic, including celebrating October 7th, holocaust inversion, blood libel, “Khazar theory” and others. more than one of the orgs they work with is pro-Putin.

your former roommate liked the post.

graffiti appears on a street you frequent that says “#freepalestine” and “end settler colonialism”

the boyfriend of the friend you spent most of the summer with makes his first post about the war. it’s a reposted comic that mocks and downplays the october 7th attack.

you doubt he’ll be receptive to criticism. he’s shared leftist memes about “monied elites” pulling all the strings and evangelicals being modern day “pharisees” in the past, and getting him to understand why that was antisemitic was like herding cats. you try anyway.

another of his Jewish friends also pushes back. he smugly dismisses her, tells her she’s falling for Zionist propaganda and uses several antisemitic tropes. you go off on him. he just deletes your comment.

you give up. you’re done. you block him.

you see anti-Israel posters and billboards around town

you mention what happened with the guy you went off on to his girlfriend—the friend you’ve grown very close to, who you’ve been listening to as she unburdens her fears for the future and complains about her bf’s BS over the last year. she doesn’t respond to you.

a friend of a friend shares posts tokenizing fringe groups that spread blood libel and have collaborated with holocaust deniers. you know they don’t know what you know, so you explain what those groups are. they seem somewhat receptive, apologize, and take it down

the next day they share several more posts that dip into antisemitic tropes. you mention this to your mutual friend, that you’re worried about them being radicalized. you’re not sure how receptive they’ll be to continued criticism

you have a confrontation with the foaf. in the meantime they’ve shared even more antisemitic posts. they say they didn’t mean to cause you distress but instead of stopping they effectively block you.

the “end settler colonialism” vandalism has been counter-vandalized with the words “commie propaganda” in place of “settler colonialism”. you don’t know if this is an improvement.

a month passes. the friend whose bf you went off on still hasn’t spoken to you. you see she shared a post defending an SJP chapter that posted Nazi cartoon caricatures of Jews repurposed in “Anti-Zionist” memes. you unfriend her on all social media platforms but you can’t bring yourself to block her number.

you see a friend of someone whose couch you surfed when you were homeless harassing Jewish celebrities with “Free Palestine” comments. you block them.

you’ve lost count of how many people you’ve unfollowed or blocked, or who’ve blocked you. friends, content creators.

when a friend takes an unusually long time to respond you worry if it’s because of your posts about antisemitism.

most of the podcasts, youtube channels, and other content creators you regularly engaged with no longer feel safe. you wonder who will be next

a couple friends wish you a happy hanukkah. you don’t celebrate much aside from lighting the hanukkiah and making some latkes.

you see posts about a destroyed chabad menorah, antisemitic comments on Jewish celebrities’ Hanukkah posts.

your neighborhood is covered in pro-Palestine & anti-Israel posters. some are seemingly innocuous, some are JVP “not in our name” posters. some call for intifada. “globalize the intifada” “Zionists fuck off!” “solidarity means attack!”

a man kills himself shouting “free palestine”. you learn about his suicide by seeing posts from several popular accounts you followed glorifying it.

you follow a bunch of jewish accounts on social media and commiserate with them about everything happening

your jewish friends post screenshots of the dead man’s antisemitic, pro-Hamas views. you look at his reddit and find even more horrific shit: anti-Ukraine posts. mocking Zelensky. “elites” are “lizard people”; the only named individual he calls a lizard person is Jewish. you start to notice a pattern: a lot of the people he dislikes just so happen to be jews.

several people you know share a post glorifying this man’s suicide. most are acquaintances, one is someone incredibly important to you.

you wonder how they would respond to your suicide.

you tell the close friend that shared this post how it scares you. you show them the receipts of the man’s antisemitism. their response is a single sentence. they didn’t know about the antisemitism.

they don’t apologize.

you notice none of your irl friends, even your closest ones, interact with your posts about antisemitism. you are able to vent to a couple friends, but no one has reach out to you

you try not to read into it. you try not to take it personally.

you haven’t slept well in months. you’ve always been an insomniac but not like this. you’re not sleeping until 4am, 6am, even 9am. even when you get to bed at a decent hour and get a full night’s rest it takes you hours to get out of bed.

a few weeks go by. the friend with the single sentence response shares a post saying they’re excited and proud to join a group to help palestinians. you’re excited and proud for them.

a couple days later, they share a post about a fundraiser to help a palestinian family get out of gaza. you note to yourself this is a much more effective & less concerning form of activism than the pro-suicidal antisemite post.

your friend shares another post about the fundraiser. it’s a joint post between their group and another group.

you open the other group’s page

the page is just a wall of signs from rallies. you swipe through one after another: “from the river to the sea”, “by any means necessary”, justifying/denying the atrocities of october 7th, calling for violent revolution. anything done in the name of resistance can’t be terrorism, all Israelis are terrorists. Jews aren’t indigenous; they’re white colonizers. holocaust inversion. other vile, thinly veiled violent rhetoric

you feel sick to your stomach imagining talking to your friend about it.

you already feel like you’re burdening the few friends you can talk to about this. you already feel like you think about it too much, talk about it too much. but you can’t not think about it; it affects every aspect of your life.

you’ve filtered out relevant keywords on more than one social media site to avoid the worst of it. some still manages to leak through.

there isn’t a single friend you regularly interact with that you don’t fear the moment when they will switch from listening to your concerns to seeing you as the evil zionist or indoctrinated hasbaranik they’ve been warned about.

it’s not an irrational fear. it keeps happening. you knew it would then, and you were powerless to do anything about it before, and you continue to be as it happens again and again.

you don’t know what to do about any of it.

#idk just kinda wanted to document what this has been like all back to back #I know some of these on their own might come across as not that big of a deal but all together #they add up #tw for the all of it #cw trauma dump #antisemitism #i/p #tw suicide #tw suicidal ideation #tw death threats #tw rape threats #tw october 7th #tw terrorism

1K notes · View notes

alwida10 · 4 months

Text

Ugh. I hate getting political, so have some bullet points.

- Putin laments the fact that the Soviet Union has vanished. One of his major goals is to re-establish it. This has been said openly.

- the Soviet Union included regions young people from today know only as autonomous countries, including Armenia, Aserbaidschan, Estland, Georgia, Kasachstan, Kirgisien, Lettland, Litauen, Moldawien, Tadschikistan, Turkmenien/Turkmenistan, Ukraine, Usbekistan, Belarus. (Countries in bold are the countries I remember evidence of Russia has tampered with. Might be more, since my memory sucks.)

- to ensure the comeback of the Soviet Union, Putin (Russia) uses war tactics to destabilize, control and manipulate the countries to make it more likely to re-unite with Russia. Remember how Belarus’s elections have been tampered with and the bloody crushing of the protests? Moldavia has been calling for help regarding the Russian troops in their country. If you haven’t heard about Ukraine, this post isn’t for you.

- if you are able to read Russian, it’s easy to find the war plan Russia has developed to ensure this goal, including the annexation of Ukraine, Moldavia up to attacks on Poland and east-Germany.

- the biggest problem for Russia to reach this goal is the NATO, and that mostly because the USA had the NATO’s back.

- as long as the nato stands together it’s almost impossible for Putin to reach his goal.

- “devide and conquer”

-by now it’s well documented that Russian involvement led to Trump’s victory.

- the same people, who organized Trump’s campaign, later campaigned for the pro-Brexit side.

- Trump (being right wing) wanted the US to leave the NATO. Brexit has weakened the cohesion in the EU.

- the right wing parties have been growing in Europe. Italy and Netherland have already elected right wing parties as their leadership. The right wing party in Germany is most likely the second strongest party in the eu elections right now. (Yes, the modern day Nazis. Yes, Nazis.)

- right wing parties are more likely to say “what do I care about my neighbors getting bombed? I’m caring about MY people.” They support getting big (hence powerful) positions such as the NATO getting divided into smaller, easier to beat fractions. Poland does not stand a chance against Russia on its own. The NATO does.

- both Iran (because of the conflict in the Middle East) and China (because of their intend to annex Taiwan) love and support Putin’s tactic to divide and weaken the NATO. The USA are madly powerful, but not even they are able to take on three nuclear powers at the same time.

——

k, why am I talking about this?

-> if you come across anti-Biden, anti-EU, anti-democrat, pro-segregation posts or opinions you NEED to ask yourself if this might be political manipulation to weaken your country. It had been the young voters who put Trump out of office. It’s the young voters Russia and other manipulative powers have on their radar now. YOU are the target to reach their goals.

-> yes, this includes pro-Palestine messaging if it leads into a “don’t vote for Biden” narrative.

#us politics #eu politics #Putin #war in Ukraine e

251 notes · View notes

georgescitadel · 7 months

Text

Interviewer: Do you think it's possible to have a dragon and live a benevolent life? Or would you inherently get pulled into using that power?

George: That's an interesting question… It's often been said that the dragons are the nuclear weapons of my imaginary world. They are the most devastating weapon and they cause great destruction and massive loss of life… This is part of Dany's storyline in the original novels. Dany has three dragons, but that doesn't mean she can necessarily rule cities like Meereen, where she finds herself Queen, easily, without destroying them… I'm a baby boomer, born in 1948, and, growing up in the 50’s, there was always the spectre of nuclear war. I lived through the Cuban Missile Crisis and Khrushchev and saber-rattling and there were all these books about the nuclear Holocaust or about Armageddon... We were worried about that, but these nuclear weapons have only been used twice in all of history on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Afterwards there was a long period where only America had nuclear weapons, nobody else in the world had them, and there were always these concerns about “well, we can win any of these wars”. MacArthur and some other people wanted to use the atomic bomb in the Korean War. When China invaded, the thought process was “why are we letting them do that? We could win the war!”… Barry Goldwater, in the 1964 election, also thought “Why are we fighting this war in Vietnam? Let's just drop a nuke on Hanoi.”… But we never did it, we always refrained. We were the dragon riders that would only use our dragons to intimidate… but now as more and more countries have that, I think the danger becomes greater and greater and someday someone is going to use them. Right now the danger is very high, if Putin starts losing the war in Ukraine is he going to resort to nukes? And then the question becomes “if Putin does resort to nukes, does America unleash it’s dragons or do we not and let him get away with it?”. These are profound questions, we could debate this for an hour with a panel of political scientists, but there’s not an easy answer.

- George R.R. Martin, A Conversation with George R R Martin

#Dragons #Daenerys Targaryen #House Targaryen #Ruling #George R.R. Martin #ValyrianScrolls #ASOIAF

277 notes · View notes

k-s-morgan · 9 months

Text

This is a belated post where I wanted to briefly address the outcomes of 2023!

While Ukraine mostly faded from the stage of world's news, unfortunately, the situation didn't get better for my people. Every day Russia kills, maims, and ruins everything it can touch. Every day civilians die from its imprecise missiles, random shootings and artillery, and outright executions. I often see that those living in other countries call this Putin's war, but it really isn't. This is the war sponsored by Putin and his regime, true, but first and foremost, this is the war of Russian people. It's hundreds of thousands of Russian people who arm themselves and go kill our defenders and our civilians. It's Russian people who fire from tanks and other deadly weapons to ruin the Ukrainians' homes, to scorch our land, to leave nothing but destruction instead of cities and villages. It's Russian people who build the missiles, load their bombers, and fly for 5+ hours to direct them at our cities, homes, factories, and even empty fields.

This is me during one of the latest massive attack that took place on January 2. At first, at night, 35+ Russian-Iranian drones bombed us. Then Russian people sent about 100 missiles at us, mainly at my city Kyiv.

Our air defense system managed to intercept the majority of them, but while it sounds like interception is an entirely positive thing, it might have terrible consequences. Because the parts of the missiles fall down randomly. They can kill any human or creature walking down the street; they can collapse on top of a residential building. There is no escape, no way to feel safe even with the best air defense systems surrounding the city. Here's one of many disastrous results of this attack.

Dead and injured people and animals. Damaged and lost apartments.

On December 29, another attack killed over 30 people in Kyiv alone. You can see their faces below. They deserve to be seen and remembered.

This is a short story of just two latest attacks that took place just within one week, just in one city. Imagine how many of them me and my people lived through during the entire year? How many more we will have to experience?

Actually, we lived through another one before I finished writing this post. It happened on January 8, and it killed even more civilians.

I know that there are good, sane, compassionate Russians. I have some relatives among them. One of them, my aunt, can't keep herself entirely silent: she's deeply religious, and a few weeks ago, in a church, she risked saying that killing Ukrainians is bad. Another man told her that she's scum and that if she dares to open her mouth again, he will report her to authorities. The headmaster of a school where my aunt teaches was imprisoned for 7 years for refusing to hold a Z-event among students. Living there must be a torture of another kind, where you are surrounded by zombies who openly promote terrorism and bless missiles sent to kill other human beings. The problem is that sane and compassionate Russians are the minority - the vast majority is happy to either kill us or they support those who kill us. Or they simply don't care, trying to claim that everything is complicated when in reality, there is nothing complicated about it at all. Russia is a terrorist state and the world allows its people and its government to keep being monsters.

Seeing the indifference and impotence of seemingly powerful countries makes me increasingly concerned and depressed. At this point, I don't think I'm simply affected by my experiences: the world is rapidly going to hell, with terrorist countries like Russia being allowed to revel in their blood-thirstiness and the other terrorist countries, like North Korea, or potential offenders like China, observing and taking notes. When a criminal sees that no one is punished for a crime, they escalate. More criminals appear. This is what I feel is going to start happening more and more, until half of the planet is plunged into death and destruction. I'll be so very glad to be wrong.

On a personal note, I lost my most beloved pet pigeon Daikiria in 2023. I love her and miss her so much that I still cry whenever I think of her. In turn, I acquired a red nightmare of a rabbit who eats everything, including my feet, and two more pigeons. Taking care of them brings me joy - I only hope that my effort will actually benefit them.

Here's a pigeon that I named Noveria the day I found her, in a video I made for my vet. Attacked by a cat, bleeding all over, with broken ribs and a missing piece of her wing, with no tail:

Here is she now. She is feeling much better, although unfortunately, she got sick because of her weakened immune system.

My kitties continue to be adorable dorks. Here's me sleeping with my cat Tom after one of the attacks - he's really scared of loud sounds, so he sleeps like a rock afterward, just like me.

My family stays strong, and I hope we will remain to be so.

Writing stories remains a huge source of relief and distraction to me, and your support, love, and care give me strength even when I feel like I'm about to run out of it.

Thank you to those who support me on Patreon and give me a chance to have a safety net shielding me from some of the horrors and insecurities - thanks to you, I can rest sometimes when I would have to work instead; I can afford some more distractions and to write more as a result. Thank you to those who leave comments, kudos, asks; thank you to my friends who never fail to message me with questions about my well-being. I love and I appreciate you tremendously, and despite all my fears and worries, I hope that we will get to see a better future still.

#personal #ukraine #kyiv #kiev #russia is a terrorist state #my fics #thank you

151 notes · View notes

suratan-zir · 4 months

Note

Hi. I wanted to ask how you have those among Ukrainians who believe in russian propaganda. I just met one refugee from Kharkov, and he told me that Putin is fighting for the Russian world, and it was the United States that started the war. He reasons that since he speaks Russian, he should support Russia's actions. And this despite the fact that his city was bombed, and he and his family were on the verge of life and death.

Hi. I can't really answer this. I mean, I can try, but I'm not good at answering vague questions. I'm not well-spoken enough.

How come so many USAmericans worship Trump and see him as a savior of the poor when he's the exact opposite? How come far-right parties all across Europe gain more and more popularity, with people believing that fascists in power will resolve all their problems? Hell, we can take it a step further and ask how come people become anti-vaxxers and flat Earth believers? The answer is only one - propaganda. People fall under the harmful influence.

Russian propaganda has been extremely active in the southeast of Ukraine basically since we gained independence. Russia has been spending millions upon millions on brainwashing Ukrainians. The propaganda became more and more aggressive since the Orange Revolution. It was everywhere in the Donbas, you couldn't even wear a piece of orange clothing without risking being beaten up.

I was only a middle-schooler, but I remember it in detail. Propaganda materials such as leaflets were distributed everywhere. I remember one with Viktor Yushchenko (pro-European presidential candidate) against the background of the US flag and Uncle Sam who's saying, "Yushchenko is our pResident." I remember asking my mother what it meant, and she said it means that Yushchenko is a very bad person. This stuff was wild. And it only got wilder.

Russian propaganda claims over the years varied from the statement that "Donbas feeds the entire Ukraine" to "pro-European politicians and the US will make concentration camps in the Donbas for the Russian-speakers and will populate the territory with people from the West instead." I don't know how, but people believed in this purely artificial conflict. Not only were there never any persecutions against the Russian-speakers, but you would actually feel more comfortable speaking Russian in Ukraine. In most regions, the Ukrainian language was considered a "redneck" language and would get you nowhere. Of course, the Ukrainian government is also to blame for letting Russia control the narrative. But for most of these independent years, Ukraine was basically externally managed by Russia. During Yanukovych's presidency, we were like Belarus is now - a false "president" taking instructions straight from the Kremlin. So the brainwashing was getting worse and worse.

I told this story several times, and I'll tell it again. Before the "referendum" in Donetsk, most people laughed at the idea of the "republic." It was supported by some local lunatics, but mostly the whole thing was done by russian mercenaries and russian military. During this time, my aunt told me that those who support this are crazy and they're calling war into our homes. She was a reasonable person. She had a job, a nice apartment of her own, a happy family, and a bright future ahead. In 2015 they fled from Donetsk to russia, along with my grandmother. Why to russia? Propaganda. Then they got russian citizenship and used it to vote for putin. I asked how they could vote for him after what he did to them, after they lost it all. "We're thankful he gave us a home, gave us citizenship," was the answer. At first, he took everything from you, ruined your life, then let you restore a tiny bit of it - and you're grateful. I don't know how this works. It's not like they were welcomed in russia, they faced a lot of prejudice and oppression for being from Donetsk. To the point that my cousin was bullied at school for being from the Donbas, not only by kids but by teachers, despite being an excellent student and graduating with honors. Russians are outraged that their state "rescues" and "helps" those Donbas khokhols instead of helping "true" russians.

In the second month of the full-scale invasion, my grandmother proposed that I move to them, to the moscow region of russia. "This is the country that is trying to kill us all, how can you ask me to move there?" "What difference does it make which country to live in? It's safe here." So along with pro-putin brainrot comes also apoliticalness, passivity.

I'm rambling at this point. I don't want to go on about this forever, like I know I can. Let's leave it at this.

#ask #anon #ukraine #russian propaganda #war in ukraine

70 notes · View notes

ketrindoll · 1 year

Text

List of russian lies in the UN or during diplomatic speeches:

1. In January-February of 2022 russia claimed in the UN that they will not invade Ukraine, that they have no plans to invade Ukraine, and evidence of upcoming invasion are lies made by the US or others.

End of the same month russia launched a full-scale invasion.

2. Russia claimed in the UN that the reason they attacked Ukraine was to fight some "local nazis" and that they are indeed good guys fighting Ukrainian hatred. That, however, does not explain why: a) russia opposed the grain deal until Turkey threatened to make it work one way or the other, showing their intention to starve hundreds of millions of people in neutral countries for no reason whatsoever, b) russia refused to allow UN or Red Cross etc to observe the conditions of POWs or to open humanitarian corridors for people to escape from Mariupol or other conflict zones, with thousands of witnesses reporting abductions, filtration camps, and shelling of retreating civilians, c) russia claimed to only want to protect local russian population, yet completely destroyed whole cities in majorly-russian-speaking Eastern Ukraine, like Mariupol (satellites showing mass graves), and bombing mainly civilian targets - schools, hospitals, theatres, a shopping mall during peak hours, a train station where people waited for evacuation, apartment buildings, etc. Currently we can see that there is no effort on the russian-controlled side of Dnipro river to help people in flooded areas, with videos and citizen testimonies reporting shelling of all disaster aid attempts, d) russia claimed that they only hate the "nazi" Ukrainian government, yet they openly shelled Ukrainian power grids during winter, for no other reason than to leave innocent civilians with no gas or electricity.

3. Russian state TV, public figures like Solovyov, former President and Prime Minister as well as head of security council of russia Medvedev openly stated either on national TV or in their social media pages that they want to "exterminate" Ukrainians. That the whole country should not exist, that Ukrainian language is fake, etc etc. This is genocidal speech and it is not limited to Ukraine either. The Baltic States, Poland, etc also received such claims - that they "do not exist" that they "belong to russia" or that they "should be invaded". Makes it very obvious who the imperialistic, colonist aggressor actually is. Medvedev also repeatedly threatened Western European countries with missile or even nuclear attack, yet they claim to only be "defending themselves".

4. Lavrov got laughed at during a summit in India for claiming that "russia was invaded by Ukraine". Do I even need to explain why this is a lie? If I do, check 1st point again. Or just turn on your brain.

5. Then there's more sci-fi nutjobby official russian claims (or lies) about - bioweapons in Ukraine, pidgeons carrying disease or weapons to russia, Ukraine having some super-soldiers, or even dark magic, as indicated by russian Ministry of Defense changing the goal of their "special military operation" from "denazification" to "desatanization".

And that's just a few of the main ones. More is discussed in the latest UN meeting, you can watch the video on their official website.

So, knowing all of this, why the fuck would you believe ANYTHING they say? Especially about the destruction of dam?

Russia has repeatedly shown aggressive attitude towards neighbouring countries, claimed their wish to occupy them, russian officials called for extermination of whole nationalities, and both President putin and Belova have enough evidence against them for ICC to issue a warrant for them for GENOCIDE AND WAR CRIMES.

If you still believe in russia, despite anything they themselves say, you're either a genocide-supporter or unbelievably stupid.

#russia #un #the united nations #ukraine #russia is a terrorist state

378 notes · View notes

qqueenofhades · 7 months

Note

Last anon here -- I'm sorry for sending that message through. I don't know what is and isn't true anymore.

I deleted what I presume was your first ask (the one accusing me of not condemning the Gaza genocide and calling me a "DNC shill and a liar") because it was rude, uncalled for, and I couldn't see any good to come of engaging with it. However, because you've returned and apologized and sent this followup, I am willing to answer it, because I am aware that we can all do stupid things (especially on the internet) that we regret. So there is that.

Once again: I have strictly limited my posts/reblogs on this topic because it is so inflammatory, there are reams of people willing to attack you on every side, and none of it is actually constructive (this is the blue hellsite where we have two whole jokes about Ea-Nasir and color theory in children's hospitals. We are not doing important social justice work here and expecting this to be the main/only forum in which we post the Correct Opinions is not going to work out for anyone). But I would like, for the record, to point out that I have condemned the situation in Gaza and explicitly called it a genocide and Netanyahu and co. war criminals. Often and repeatedly:

Ask from October 28, 2023:

What’s happening to the Gazans right now is no qualification or equivocation, a genocide. It should rightfully be opposed and called what it is. But unfortunately, I have spent too much time around Western Online Leftists to believe they actually care a whit about stopping genocide as a fundamental principle, and only want to be seen to loudly care about what their Ideology has told them to care about. [...] To put it bluntly, those genocides are being committed by nation-states that Online Leftists like for being “anti-Western,” and therefore their activities are actually fine and should even need to be defended.

Another post from December 2023 explicitly calling out Netanyahu and his cabinet, while also pointing out that Tumblr's response now mostly consisted of antisemitic dogwhistles and rampant political misinformation:

[...] the way Netanyahu is personally a genocidal maniac with a far-right cabinet of war criminals and is bent on continuing the war in order to escape his own criminal prosecutions (and yes, he is HIGHLY affiliated with Trump and Putin) but this somehow still does not remotely justify or excuse the rampant frothingly mindless and generalized anti-Semitism seen everywhere on leftist spaces these days [....]

An ask from January 10th, 2024 (worth probably reading in full) where I once more say that nobody wants this to be happening, but that once again, the criticism in Western leftist forums (particularly Tumblr/Twitter) is not made equally or in good faith :

Nobody of basic good sense and decency wants to see Gaza leveled while the Israeli state continues to apply a number of violently cruel collective punishments even outside the actual daily bombing of civilians. But for the love of god, let’s get rid of the idea that the continued mindless violence doesn’t benefit Hamas (because it does; unsurprisingly, sympathy for their cause has soared in Gaza) as much as it does Israel, or that Hamas is some kind of benevolent peacemaker that is being thwarted by the cruel imperialist US/West.

This post, also from January 2024, explains why the kind of stunt-trick "pro Palestinian" activism that just relies on publicly hassling Jews is a) antisemitic and b) actively harming the people of Gaza, while once again pointing out whose fault this whole mess actually is:

If these people actually wanted to advocate constructively for Palestine in a good-faith way and not just punish random Jews or people who might have once met a Jew (which they don’t), they would take a look at that, go “hmm, this isn’t really getting the right result” and listen to the people who are telling them that by generating this bad publicity, they are doing far more harm to the cause than good. They are going to make the cause look foolish, they will drive away anyone who isn’t already radicalized, they will shut down any possibility of discussion and dialogue, and their efforts will be picked up in the Israeli nationalist right-wing media/Netanyahu and his war criminal advisors to insist to left-wing or anti-zionist Jews that (one of the, you know, big fucking reasons Israel was founded in the first place) they aren’t safe in any other country in the world, and they need to support the Israeli government’s actions, no matter how heinous.

A follow-up from January 31, 2024, discussing (again) the problems with insisting that Biden personally/the American power apparatus is just giving Israel a blank check and therefore Biden Iz Bad And This is All His Fault:

Once again: I strongly disagree with the idea of just giving Israel/Netanyahu a blank check to keep committing atrocities, but I also need to repeatedly point out that Biden isn’t doing that. His initial unconditional support of Israel after October 7 (which at the time was the correct response) has shifted to a much more measured and conditional approach where he has muted the overtly pro-Israel statements and started talking about a two-state solution and the need to protect the lives of civilians and trying to keep a lid on what could become a REALLY bad situation with all kinds of war-hungry powers eager to jump into the Middle East and blow it completely to hell.

I am a historian. This does not mean that I always know The Greatest Things Ever, but it does mean that I default toward long, cautious, and qualified responses where I try to consider multiple perspectives and nuances, rather than just posting pithy soundbites or black-and-white statements. (Yes, I know; I am doomed on social media.) Thus when I do discuss the situation, I tend toward trying to put it in broader context, to push back sharply against the idea that being "pro Palestine" is just being wildly antisemitic on social media and nothing else, and to call out those bad actors who are using this situation to continue to imperil American democracy and deliberately try to get Trump (who openly hankers to be a genocidal fascist dictator for everyone, not just Israel/Palestine) back into office.

I know that this is a situation which provokes (to say the least) strong emotions from everyone. I know that it's infuriating to feel totally helpless and just to have to watch it from afar. I know that we all wish we could stop it and that leads us to create meaning or assign importance to our own actions where there actually is none. But that does not mean that people have total liberty to spread antisemitic conspiracy theories, wild political misinformation, narratives designed whether unwittingly or deliberately to help Trump and other far-right fascists, and otherwise anonymously dogpile on people who haven't Posted The Correct Opinion on Tumblr (once again, Tumblr, where we get our news via Destiel meme). So I hope this has helped you, if this is what you wanted to get out of contacting me today, and hope also that you'll continue to think about what to do and how to act. It's hard, I know, and you have my sympathy. But so it is for us all.

#anonymous #ask #history #politics for ts #israel hamas war

121 notes · View notes

noxxmyosotis · 5 months

Text

750 Days and more of Never-Ending Terror: Understanding the Unending Ukraine War | Full Text

Full video in the following link:

youtube

Please like, comment and subscribe if you are interest in the content I made!

My other social media links: bit.ly/m/noxxmyosotis

Introduction

Since 2014, the Russo-Ukrainian War has been a time bomb for the security of Europe, causing a great deal of suffering for the residents of Eastern Ukraine. In February 2022, Russia decided to escalate the conflict by invading Ukrainian territory, making it one of the largest scale hostilities to occur in Europe since World War II (Walker, 2023).

Despite initial hopes that the war would end quickly on both sides, it is still ongoing at the time the script was written (December 2023), which means that there is still constant bombing and threat within Ukraine's borders, causing daily suffering to both Ukrainian and Russian civilians. Although both sides claim that the other cannot hold out for much longer, there appears to be no end in sight. According to some news sources, Russia's local economy has become more precarious due to the departure of foreign investment, and the living conditions and welfare of its citizens have become more uncertain as a result (McHugh, 2023).

The situation raises two important questions: why does Russia continue to prolong the invasion war when they are not necessarily receiving any benefit from the war itself? and how is Russia able to sustain itself in a state of war, going against international communities, tarnishing its reputations, suffering intense scrutiny, and creating a chaotic political state externally and internally? Were Putin's one-man show and lunacy the only factors propelling the war forward, or were there additional structural reasons for the war to continue, despite its lack of success?

Through this essay, I wish to explore the situation of the Ukraine War through the following areas:

The causes of war and their current impact.

The impact of the war on the internal politics of Russia.

The societal conditions of Russia that allowed the war to be prolonged.

The future of the conflict and the conditions needed to end the war.

Classical and contemporary theories related to sociology of war and violence, political sociology, including the framework of organized violence will be examined. I will also consider the current account of Russian history, the unique structure of Russian society, and the theoretical frameworks, to answer the question: why the conflict has not ended?

The Prelude of Invasion Part I: The Crimean Invasion

Before the invasion towards the mainland Ukraine happened in 2022, it is important to remember the war has already been happening since 2014, when Russia annexed Crimea, a majority ethnically Russian area with a strong pro-Russian separatist force exist (Walker, 2023). At the time, most international organizations and nations took a relative neutral stance on the incident, stating that the primary cause of the annexation was local civil unrest and that Russia, and Putin in particular, should be condemned for failing to de-escalate the conflict, but not for launching an invasion.

There are several social reasons why pro-Russian ideology is particularly prominent within the region. The most significant and obvious is related to the ethnicity of the Crimean people. Despite the predominant Russian population in Crimea, the region has historically accommodated various minority communities, such as Ukrainians and Crimean Tatars. Prior to the Russian conquest in the 1700s, the Crimean Tatars constituted the majority ethnic group. Consequently, the historical context reveals a dearth of unequivocal legitimacy regarding territorial claims (Dawson, 1997).

The intricate ethnic makeup of the Crimean region emerged as the primary catalyst for tension and political turmoil inside the area. The Crimean region is characterised by a complex political landscape, consisting of three distinct factions. Firstly, there are Ukrainian-aligned parties that advocate for the further integration of Crimea into Ukraine. Secondly, there are Russian-aligned parties that aim to reduce Ukraine's influence in Crimea and increase dependence on support from Russia. Lastly, the Crimean Tatars aspire to establish an independent and legitimate ethnic state. Each faction actively pursues strategies and tactics to advance their respective goals while simultaneously discrediting the objectives of the other factions (Dawson, 1997).

Such complications are further entrenched through the fall of the Soviet Union. Following the Ukrainian parliament's declaration of independence, a significant number of individuals residing in the Crimean region expressed discontentment with the ensuing economic decline experienced by the country. These individuals drew comparisons between their situation and the more prosperous Russian economic reforms, leading them to believe that aligning with Russia would bring greater economic prosperity to both the region and its inhabitants (Dawson, 1997).

It is important to note, however, for the following decade, there is evidence where both the ethnic tension and political dissatisfaction within the region has decreased over the years. The economic situation of Crimea also significantly improved since the initial downfall from USSR by the time 2010s rolls around, and majority of the media consumed within the region were Ukrainian affiliated, with many young people stop identifying themselves as Russian and affiliate themselves with Russian culture, rather supporting a newly formed Crimean identity, while even some of the most radical Russian supporters suggest a strong preference for peace over war (Knott, 2018; O’Loughlin & Toal, 2019).

However, narratives that propose Crimea not only belongs to Russia, but would also benefit from joining Russia, hold considerable sway within mainland as well. Russian mainstream media extensively highlights the plight of individuals in Crimea, emphasising the necessity of rescuing them from both economic destitution and the unlawful occupation of their land by the government, which also discriminates against their fellow Russians while promoting an unjust agenda in the region (ForPost, 2013; Pravda, 2013; Shurkhalo, 2013).

The historical and ethnic tensions in Crimea were further intensified by the wider political situation in Ukraine during the early 2010s. This occurred as the public became divided over problems concerning the relationship between the Ukrainian government and the European Union (EU). The pro-EU movement, known as the "Euromaidan movement" after their large-scale protest in 2013, advocates for a stronger economic and social connection with mainland Europe. They also advocate for social progress and reforms, such as the inclusion of ethnic minorities and queer individuals. (Kvit, 2014). Meanwhile, the counter-EU movement, referred to as "Anti-Maidan" in reference to their oppositional protest in 2013, mostly centred around traditional orthodox doctrines, including portraying queer imagery as "western propaganda" and displaying a fervent inclination towards bolstering Russian supremacy and embracing imperialist aspirations (Makarychev & Yatsyk, 2018; Shekhovtsov, 2014).

It is important to highlight the role of social media propaganda played in pushing the agenda of the Anti-Maidan movement further. During this period, various websites, such as Facebook and Twitter, disseminated specific advertisements endorsed by the Russian government under Putin's leadership to sway Crimean voters towards supporting independence from Ukraine. Additionally, numerous counterfeit accounts and social groups were established to propagate deceptive information and construct a false narrative that portrays the interests of Western nations as inherently corrupt and incompatible with Russian identity (Demartino, 2021; NATO Stratcom, 2015).

While ethnicity and culture are important factors, the Russian government's involvement extends further. Throughout the past two decades, it actively promotes the broader ideology of the "Russian World" to counter western influences, not only to destabilise the Crimea region and other regions within eastern Ukraine, but also to shape the perception of the government and stabilise internal power structures within the mainland. Through creating a narrative that there exists an inherent Russian world that are incompatible to the west, incorporating both Ukraine and Belarus, highlighting the common past exist between the nations, while establish the need for Russia to be the centre of the hierarchy within this world, the government is able to successfully leverage its people in supporting more aggressive actions within its borders, gaining soft powers domestically to support its following imperialistic actions (Feklyunina, 2016).

In late 2013, civil unrest broke out following a prolonged period of growing tension in the local area and wider political scene, driven by Russia's clear intention to disturb the region. The disturbance was further instigated by the former President Yanukovych's rejection to ratify agreements with the EU because of Russian influence. Over the subsequent months, there were confrontations between Euromaidan and Anti-Maidan organisations across southern and eastern Ukraine, with occasional instances of violence (Euronews, 2014; Salem et al., 2014). Shortly thereafter, Russia opted to intensify the situation by deploying its military to bolster the independence movement in Crimea, thereby commencing the initial phase of its continuing incursion into Ukraine, marked by the annexation of the Crimea area.

The Prelude of Invasion Part II: From “Russian World” to “Russia’s World”

The annexation of Crimea prompted swift and unfavourable reactions towards the Russian government from Western countries, notably the United States and the European Union. These responses primarily involved two actions: firstly, bolstering the alliances among NATO nations and enhancing NATO's military capabilities along the eastern border; and secondly, imposing economic sanctions on Russia (Pifer, 2015).

However, both efforts have only been resulting in limited success. The annexation of Crimea cast shadow on the previous efforts and the overall effectiveness of NATO, while highlighting the failure of NATO to actually provide regional stability to the eastern Europe, allowing the general public to cast doubt on the necessity of NATO and military actions while being fearful of further Russian retaliation (Gardner, 2014; Simmons et al., 2015). Meanwhile, Western firms have shown tepid support for the sanctions, either seeking loopholes or openly defying its implementation. Moreover, the validity of the penalties is routinely contested in international courts. Meanwhile, Russia has chosen to enhance its collaboration with its eastern allies, including China and ASEAN nations (Paul, 2017).

Although Russia is less affected by exterior influences, the internal political landscape rapidly changed following the crisis. Within the dominant demographic, who are swayed by the state-controlled media and constant exposure to official propaganda, there is a significant level of endorsement for the annexation of Crimea. This has consequently bolstered Putin's popularity and solidified his reputation as a formidable leader who is unyielding in the face of adversaries (Stoycheff & Nisbet, 2017). In the meantime, the response from the west has also been framed as a deliberate attempt to delegitimise the Russian identity, allowing Putin to rally individuals to overlook the potential economic problems and humanitarian issues posed by the act of annexation (Gerstel, 2016).

During the same time frame, Russia's official position on matters concerning Ukraine underwent a significant and abrupt change. Initially, the Russian officials advocated for safeguarding the rights of Russians within Ukraine's borders, while also acknowledging the autonomy and choices of other Ukrainians. However, following the invasion of Crimea, the Russian officials swiftly portrayed Ukrainians as consistently hostile towards Russia and individuals who identify as Russian, emphasising the religious and cultural differences between them (Strycharz, 2022). Even the most severe critics acknowledged that the annexation of Crimea is not fundamentally erroneous, but rather questioned the methods employed by Putin to obtain it, leading to minimal dispute regarding the legitimacy of the annexation inside Russia as a whole (O’Loughlin & Toal, 2019).

As support for the integration of Crimea strengthens, the internal politics of Russia are becoming more cohesive. However, tensions within mainland Ukraine have been escalating since the occurrence. The supporters of the recently established government comprise various fragmented factions. Most of these supporters align with the left-wing of the political spectrum, advocating for political and personal rights. Nonetheless, there is a significant minority of far-right individuals who sympathise with Neo-Nazi ideologies and endorse the dominance of Ukrainian culture to counteract the influence of Russian identity. The friction between these two groups escalated rapidly as the latter exhibited growing hostility and alienation, frequently leading to hate crimes. This became a major issue for numerous ethnic minorities residing inside the borders of Ukraine (Saluschev, 2014).

Meanwhile, many anti-Ukrainian government organisations, predominantly situated in Eastern and Southern Ukraine, observed the triumph of the Crimea's annexation, and subsequently initiated the formation of their own armed forces. The Donbas region experienced significant protests in March 2014, triggered by the annexation of Crimea and the inclusion of members from the anti-Russian Svoboda party in the new government. The Svoboda party openly identifies as Neo-Nazi, causing concerns about potential discrimination against the large population of ethnic Russians and Russian speakers residing in the area (Clarke, 2016).

The Russian government took advantage of the turmoil in Ukraine and the widespread support for the annexation of Crimea to quickly provide military assistance to the independent movements in the Donbas region, thus starting the Donbas war. By endorsing these initiatives, Russia rapidly consolidates its position as the saviour against Ukraine and the West, advancing the agenda of the "Russian World" even further (Matveeva, 2016).

It is crucial to acknowledge that the Russian government at that point of time had minimal or no intention of launching a full-scale war against Ukraine. Instead, they are exploiting the existing instability in the region. This is evident from their initial decision not to immediately use military force in the Donbas region. Even when they did engage, most of their forces were involved in intelligence and communications activities rather than direct combat (Robinson, 2016).

The war of Donbas, which officially concluded in early March 2015, resulted in a temporary cessation of hostilities in the region. Nevertheless, even after the signing of official treaties and the agreement on peacekeeping measures, there were ongoing minor conflicts in the region. It has been speculated that many Russian militants have become integrated into independent movements in the region, thereby enabling Russian forces to perpetuate instability. (Robinson, 2016).

While the major conflicts had been resolved and would not resume until five years later, the circumstances of the Crimea and Donbas regions were permanently altered. The economic conditions in the affected areas were severely damaged, leading to the destruction of profitable industries like mining and oil. Additionally, many refugees were compelled to leave their hometowns and seek shelter in either Ukraine or mainland Russia. Unfortunately, these refugees faced challenges on both sides. In Ukraine, they were often viewed as potential threats to national security, while in Russia, they were frequently used as political pawns to reinforce the narrative of Russia's superiority over the West (Giuliano, 2018; Rimpiläinen, 2020).

How it all started: War as an intentional act of Russia

While the Donbass and Crimea territories played a significant role in the hostilities and offered valuable historical and cultural context, they were not the only causes of the full-scale invasion that took place years after the initial peace treaty was ratified. In the western media, the primary attribution for the invasion is frequently assigned to Putin himself, along with his inner circle of political and military confidants. Putin was widely perceived as the mastermind and prominent figure behind the invasion, and his absence would have had a profound impact on the situation in the Russo-Ukraine region.

Undoubtedly, Putin exerts significant influence on the invasion, driven by his personal motives and strategic calculations. Putin's previous experience in the Kremlin has shaped him into a perpetually power-hungry individual who constantly seeks to tighten his control over everything. Through long-term propaganda efforts, he has been portrayed as a strong leader, effectively suppressing critics and independent media outlets; the political infrastructure established during his presidency also ensures that people prioritise appeasing Putin's personal beliefs and emotions above all else (Rochlitz, 2015).

Nevertheless, the invasion cannot be only attributed to Putin's insanity, but rather stems from the intricate workings of the Russian state. As previously shown, Russian attitudes towards Ukrainians have undergone a notable transformation. Initially focused on Crimea and the well-being of Russians within the area, these attitudes now encompass a broader perception of Ukraine as a symbol of the West and a source of existential anxiety for Russian national identity. Although the state's top-down propaganda may partially account for it, this explanation alone is inadequate to justify why the war was widely regarded as the preferred solution to the cultural clash, without considering the active role of the Russian population and their impact on the state's decisions.

To look for reasons beyond personal and cultural reasons, one theoretical framework we can investigate is the theory of organisational materialism. Charles Tilly, a prominent scholar who developed the theory, stated that war is a vital component of the state's function within the framework of organisational materialism, as it serves as an effective mechanism for social control, state expansion, capital accumulation, and resource extraction (Tilly, 2012). Furthermore, organisational materialism scholars argued that modern state-building is a consequence of war, where the distinction between allies and enemies is defined by national borders, while it also leads to cultural changes through war-related activities and promotes the development of institutions like legal systems and financial structures, which enable the state to consolidate power (Malešević, 2010).

Such principles can be easily observed through the actions of Russia, particularly in relation to Ukraine. Throughout the years, as Russia grew larger interest within the Crimea region, the need to distinguish between what is Russian (i.e., those who live and shall live under Russian rulings with the centralised Russian state) and Ukrainian (i.e., those who are opposing the Russian state) through national borders signified, hence the birth of the concept "Russian World," opposing the idea of the "Western World." The annexation of Crimea and the invasion of Donbass further push the idea that the Russian state has a legitimate monopoly of violence over the ethnic Russians, consolidating cultural power with the political power that the institutions hold over the people within the region.

In addition to expressing military power and consolidating political power through the explicit demonstration of violence, it is important to be reminded that the legitimacy of the state often comes also through economic activities and ideology supremacy over the individuals (Malešević, 2010). Sociologist Michael Mann has argued that modern statehood is established through a process he calls "social caging," in which the state imposes restrictions on individual freedom in return for economic stability and military protection, which leads to long-term social stratification and institutional centralisation (Mann 1982, as cited in Malešević, 2010).

The process of social caging can be easily observed within Russian society after the invasion of Crimea. Immediately after the annexation, the West quickly responded by imposing sanctions against the Russian economy. However, instead of pushing extra pressure against the Putin government, it was able to spin the narrative that the sanction is meant to "humiliate and weaken Russia," rallying people to fear the existential dread that is the EU (Gerstel, 2016). Seeking protection from the external threat, the approval rating of Putin increased in the immediate months after the annexation, which in turn allowed policies that strongly restricted the rights of individuals in terms of freedom of speech, immigration around the border, and military conscriptions, as well as increased military actions and plans within the western end of the border.

Nonetheless, organisational materialism could partially explain why war is an ideal method for social control and reinforcement of the power of the state but lacks justifications as to why many individuals within Russian society are enthusiastic about the war and willing to sacrifice themselves, hence legitimising war as a strategy. Hence, beyond recognising the coercive nature of the state, it is also important to recognise how citizens within the state internalise such ideas and form cohesive ideologies that they believe in.

The connection between ideology and war is frequently described as a "manifestation of consensus," where individuals associate their habits, customs, and traditions with the communities and institutions around them. This leads to labelling those who do not follow these actions as "others" outside the community, giving institutions and communities the authority to use violence and oppose change in the name of self-defence. Moreover, modern warfare was further legitimised through the breakdown of traditional communities and media sensationalism, where individuals often feel extra vulnerable, needing protection from a greater force, and the connections transcend their personal experiences, allowing the rise of nationalism and exceptionalism within the boundaries of the state (Trepanier, 2018).

The ideologies of the Russian state are hard to define, but it is easy to identify why individuals associate with them in the events leading up to the invasion. The remanent of the cold war from the USSR times still lingers amongst the elder generations, blaming the downfall of a once glorious empire on the influence of the west, while the "western-centric" worldviews constantly defy their own cultural upbringings and understanding of normality, pitting them to believe that the westerners were the "others," and within an environment where social stability often could not be guaranteed, in particular after the long stagnation of economic situations since the 2008 financial crisis, all making individuals vulnerable to ideological propaganda that proposes the west against Russia and the need to establish a "Russian world".

From then on, support for the war was born. In the simplest summary, beyond Putin’s personal will, the need for stability and structure in an unstable time allowed individuals to give in their personal freedom towards the state, which further legitimised the acts of violence that the institution committed, allowing the state to push war onto those who were “others” and consolidate resources to benefit itself. The war is beyond a coincidence or a madman’s choice, but a rational and intentional choice of the state to preserve itself at the cost of people both seen as others and individuals who belonged to the state.

The Red Square Never Falls: The Never changing Russia.

Earlier, we explored how the geopolitical climate contributes to the likelihood of conflict and Russia's intentions in supporting the war prior to its initiation. However, it is crucial to analyse why Russia has not altered its attitude while facing external pressures like sanctions, public censure, and internal political turmoil to answer the question: Why is the war still going on?

Western countries responded to the invasion in three ways: providing direct military assistance in the region, imposing economic restrictions on Russia's economy, and engaging in information warfare on online media platforms. Although these factors influence the war to some extent, none of them can significantly create a powerful enough force to change the conditions of the war to the point where Russia would agree to a ceasefire.

The direct military assistances perhaps were the easiest to argue why it failed to become the tipping point for the end of the war. While countries within NATO, particularly the US, UK and Poland have provided supports in terms of both spendings and machinery towards Ukraine, the response from Russia resulted in extra militants, including Syrian mercenaries and the Chechen troops, to further engage in direct combat against the western support (Singh, 2023). Though many speculate that Russia has been draining all its military power in dealing with the Ukrainian army supported by the west, it is important to note that the support has also been in the danger of drastically decreasing due to both the domestic political contention within both the US and the UK and the normalisation of the issue over the years, meaning less awareness channel and political support for future Ukrainian aid (Chivvis, 2024; Kaarbo et al., 2023).

Even from a historical perspective, military aids rarely became the factor that drastically deescalate the status of the war. Previously in Iraq, the continuous military backing provided by the US to the government led by former Prime Minister Maliki resulted in heightened oppression of the Sunni ethnic minority, leading to further uprisings in Sunni majority areas. Boutton (2021) argued that military aid often creates incentives for regimes to rely on the military aids to survive the fallout, and become more aggressive in their own actions, leading to more instability and insecurity for individuals.

In the Ukrainian war, military aid has been beneficial in resisting the Russian invasion, but it is unlikely to be the decisive factor in altering Russia's strategy. The clear attitude of Putin is that the war should be prolonged, regardless how grand the cost is, as it serves justice in resisting the western control over the "Russian World". As previously identified, the people's support for the war is influenced more by cultural and ideological factors rather than by belief in Russia's military capability. Therefore, Ukraine's military strength has limited impact on popular opinion about the war currently.

The sanctions and pulling out of companies seemingly have an impact on the Russian economy at least. According to Ahn & Ludema, (2020), the companies of Russia, especially those that are in industries that are targeted, have a significant loss in terms of both revenue and assets. In addition, the sanction has also been projected to stagger the long-term growth of Russia, while Russian retaliation has shown limited effect in countries outside its immediate neighbours and could hurt themselves more than other countries (Hosoe, 2023).

However, despite the negative effect of western sanctions, it is unclear that sanctions contributed to the anti-war sentiment in the Russian society. Historically, sanctions have often been framed as a tactic used by an "evil external aggressor," and the inner opposition can then be prosecuted as the supporters of the aggressor. In addition, the economic effect of the sanction is often transferred to the already economically stricken, further fuelling their anger towards the opposition (Pala, 2021). Connecting such sentiment with the strong, ideological belief that the "Western World" is an inherent opposition against the "Russian World," it would not be hard to understand why many believed that the purpose of the sanction was to weaken Russia and hence curate more support for the government in its strong stance.

In addition, the sanctions could not be useful so long as the Russian government believed that they would not be sustained, and there are alternatives to circumvent the issues that the sanctions will cause. Since the initial sanction has been in place, Russia has been active in funding independent financial institutions and actively drawing funding from alternative sources to counter the influence of the US and EU (Ashford, 2016). At the same time, the popularity of the sanction has also decreased over the years, with many people, though they still broadly support Ukrainian causes, now hesitant to support the sanction as concerns about cost and priorities emerged (Chivvis, 2024).

Beyond direct military conflict and economic sanctioning, social media emerges as the new battlefield of information between the West and Russia. Even before the annexation of Crimea, Russia has been purposefully spreading propaganda in online social media spaces such as Facebook, Twitter (now X), and regional medias such as VTontakte and Odnoklassniki (Demartino, 2021). Since the annexation, the Russian government has been purposefully curating narratives within social media spaces through awarding Kremlin-aligned media posts, fabricating false news events, and controlling Internet trolls to contaminate legitimate discussions (NATO Stratcom, 2015).

In the meantime, the West has been employing tactics to counter the narratives of the Russians. The way narratives spread in the west, in contrast to Russian media, has been largely decentralised, mostly with individuals who do not share apparent relationships with the government, sharing their personal stories, and creating genuine connections with their audience to illicit emotional and empathetic responses. In addition, as the Ukrainian president Zelensky previously worked within the entertainment industry, the experience has also allowed him to be naturally appealing on camera, generating apathy amongst the viewers (Ciuriak, 2022).

The social media stories have been effective in influencing the decisions of people on both sides. The narratives pushed forward by pro-Russian media, including those that defame the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the EU, and the current Ukraine government, have been shown to have a strong correlation with showing a neutral or negative attitude towards policies supporting Ukraine, though whether the narratives are the direct cause of support is unclear. (Maschmeyer et al., 2023). Simultaneously, using platforms such as Facebook groups, people from the west are able to bond through the traumatic experiences and heal mental health through verbal expression (Zasiekin et al., 2022).

Though the high visibility of information generated awareness of events across the world, whether social media can generate crucial momentum changing the direction of war is unclear. Social media, despite being vast and diverse, is a highly segregated space where people share similar sentiment often only view, comment and share information which reaffirm their previous beliefs, creating strong echo-chambers (Cinelli et al., 2021). Even when interactions happened, they have often resulted in arguments which strengthens their own belief that the opposing party often is unreasonable and irrational, further polarise the online communities apart (Gillani et al., 2018).

Within the context of the Ukraine war, with many individuals within Russia already supporting the Putin-led government and the right-wing sentiment surrounding the narratives proposed, in addition to the language barrier, they are more likely to stay within the information bubble filled with Russian propaganda rather than interacting with stories from the perspective of the west in a rational and open-minded manner. Furthermore, as the war has been intrinsically linked to the national identity of individuals, many of the communities have actively blocked the existence of potential outsiders who do not partially or completely identify with said group, further locking away opportunities to engage (Abramenko et al., 2024).

Worsening polarisation is the censorship, either by the Russian government directly or by the self-censorship of the Ukrainian supporters within Russia. Through threats, forceful blocking of certain sites, and criminal charges, individuals are often forced to silence their voice to protect their safety and that of those who are around them (Rudnik, 2020). Many of these supporters then subsequently migrated out of Russia, further preventing them from voicing their opinions from within the country.

With most tactics failing to change the status of the war, it is natural to wonder: Will the war ever end? Especially after 10 years of never-ending back-and-forth with no mutual agreement in sight. Will the war be a perpetual state that individuals within Ukraine, particularly those who live in Donbass and Crimea, must endure?

The Light at the End of the Tunnel: The Future of the war

Though it is easy to be pessimistic as negative news constantly pops up on media channels, there are some optimistic aspects to the situation in the war. In recent history, most wars ended with a peace agreement or a ceasefire after a certain period, and often, the weaker actors ended up being victorious in defending themselves against the stronger actors. In the meantime, peace agreements and ceasefires often last for a sustainable period, where the tensions between parties eventually cool down and resume normal (Lieven, 2022).

The prerequisites for achieving peace can be categorised into three levels: the systemic level, the society level, and the individual level. The framework, called the levels-of-analysis framework, argues that these levels are interconnected and can influence each other during the process of ending a war, though the incentive to reach peace on one level does not necessarily lead to a positive outcome on another (Levy, 1998).

From a systematic standpoint, as previously said, the war was started because the advantages that come with it are greater than the advantages of peace, such as the consolidation of power and the exploitation of natural resources by the Russian government. Military capability is often seen to stabilise existing coalitions that were disrupted by outside forces, and war is needed for the system to restore equilibrium (Levy, 1998).

Through this point of view, peace can be achieved, or at the very least anticipated, when it ceases to function as a stabilising force and instead actively contributes to instabilities inside a nation, both internally and externally. As time went on, the return of war became increasingly marginal in contributing to the stability of the Russian government. The direct financial cost of the war, compounding with the decrease in oil prices and western sanctions, means that the war has become increasingly expensive over time, while Russia is expected to enter a recessionary period soon (Liadze et al., 2023).

In addition, the events related to the betrayal of the Wagner group, alongside the assassination of Navalny, all reinforce the existing fear and instability within the society as a direct consequence of war. Compounding with the fact that Russia has yet been successful in capturing Ukraine at the rate they expect, with many towns and cities recaptured by Ukraine, individuals are increasingly afraid of getting drafted by the military, generating negative attitude towards the government (Nechepurenko et al., 2023). Meanwhile, the immediate rise of government support due to the initiation of war has traditionally died off over time, as people losing trust in the ability of the government in protecting them, and increasingly traumatised by the war itself (Hong & Kang, 2017).

Beyond the structural implications of war being unsustainable over a long-term period for Russia, the societal attitude of the elites has also been shifting since the start of the war. As previously seen, the initiations of war were often the result of scapegoating and othering of a certain group, creating a divisive force amongst individuals. However, Snyder (1991) has argued that the elites, who perpetuate the divisive wars, often have different interests in mind, and if the regime tried to overexpand their power, the internal collision would fall apart as many of them stopped benefiting from the over-expansionist policies with the resources they ought to provide.

We could observe such a fall of grace in action in the event of the betrayal of the Wagner group. For a long period of time, the Wagner group and Prigozhin functioned as a part of the Russian army in exchange for political favour from Putin and lucrative monetary incentives the invasion provided. However, as time went on, the mercenary group could not see the war end in sight, causing a significant increase in the cost of providing people. In addition, Prigozhin has become increasingly frustrated with the Russian government bureaucracy, even going as far as directly clashing with the Ministry of Defence himself. Subsequently, as the benefit of participating the war on Putin’s side became increasingly marginal, Prigozhin decided to turn on Putin, hoping the war could be ended sooner with his actions (Gurbanov, 2023).

Although the insurrection ended with Putin successfully rising to power and being able to prevent the coup with the help of Belarusian President Lukashenko, it did demonstrate that the Russian elites do not have a uniform view on the status of war, and should the war drag on, the more likely Putin is to face infighting amongst his own cabinet, which creates factions that generate instability within society.

With instabilities and infighting on both structural and societal level, it is hence easy to observe individuals changing their position in what is best for their interest. As time went on, the enthusiasm of war on Ukraine has died down domestically, with increasing amount of young individuals being sceptical of the Putin regime, and vast majority of the individuals oppose a second wave of mobilisation in military actions (Milov, 2024).

It is crucial to note that war is often unpredictable, and geopolitical tensions can change drastically within the span of months or even weeks. However, there is hope, as though the war is currently sustaining itself; whether it could sustain itself in the longer term seems increasingly questionable as it drags longer.

Conclusion: When the Snow Stops

The war has been going on for two years, or around ten years, depending on what you define as the starting point. Countless individuals lost their lives in the process, and countless more were traumatised, forced out of their communities, lost their ability to conceptualise the horror and grief they face, and altered their life trajectory forever.

There is no real way to heal unless the horror stops. Regardless of where you are or who you are, being constantly reminded of a war that seemingly has no end does not bring hope. It is easy to open social media and wonder, "What is wrong with the current world? Will the world ever be normal again?"

In the essay, I have investigated the historical and cultural reasons behind the war, the sociological reasons that allowed the war to be initiated and prolonged, and most importantly, whether there could be an end to the war. Through this, I seek to provide insights that not only help people rationalise what they see and hear about the Ukraine war but also provide hope. The hope that the war one day will end, and there is a glimpse of a light on the horizon, and a chance that the world can resume to normal, at least in relation to the Ukraine war.

There needs to be hope because it is hard to fight without any hope. However, even with only a glimpse of hope, people will continue to fight against injustices and make a better life for themselves and those around them. This is no less true for people at wartime. I hope the essay is beyond informative, but also provides hope to those who may have lost it, to say to them "Keep on fighting."

There is nothing better to end the essay than a poem by Ukrainian poet Lesya Ukrainka. Composed in the 1890, it illustrated the author’s strength, despite her unfortunate political persecution and bodily circumstances. It is one of the most hopeful and beautiful pieces of poetry, and I hope it grants you strength.

Thoughts away, you heavy clouds of autumn!

For now springtime comes, agleam with gold!

Shall thus in grief and wailing for ill-fortune

All the tale of my young years be told?

No, I want to smile through tears and weeping.,

Sing my songs where evil holds its sway,

Hopeless, a steadfast hope forever keeping,

I want to live! You thoughts of grief, away!

On poor sad fallow land unused to tilling

I'll sow blossoms, brilliant in hue,

I'll sow blossoms where the frost lies, chilling,

I'll pour bitter tears on them as due.

And those burning tears shall melt, dissolving

All that mighty crust of ice away.

Maybe blossoms will come up, unfolding

Singing springtime too for me, some day.

Up the flinty steep and craggy mountain

A weighty ponderous boulder I shall raise,

And bearing this dread burden, a resounding

Song I'll sing, a song of joyous praise.

In the long dark ever-viewless night-time

Not one instant shall I close my eyes,

I'll seek ever for the star to guide me,

She that reigns bright mistress of dark skies.

Yes, I'll smile, indeed, through tears and weeping

Sing my songs where evil holds its sway,

Hopeless, a steadfast hope forever keeping,

I shall live! You thoughts of grief, away!

Lesya Ukrainka (1890), translated by Vera Rich (2009)

#sociology #galacticlibrarian #videoessay #academia #ukrainewar #education #vtuber #vtuberen #vtuber uprising #indie vtuber #Youtube

59 notes · View notes

ukranianacearo · 2 months

Text

I find it ironic and hypocrite that people (that have privilege) complain about other people not speaking up about certain things going on in the world like Sudan, Congo, Palestine, etc, but they never spoke about Ukraine, share the Russian propaganda, use Russian sounds, play Russian songs (either somehow glorifying Russia or from a Russian) and (this is more of my own life experiences) make bad jokes or even bully people because of the war.

I know that my account is, mostly, not that serious at a first glance and all, but I feel that I NEED to speak up about things that people seem to forget. The war in Ukraine is still going. People are still dying from it. Just a few days ago Russia bombed a children hospital. And I say 'Russia', because it's not only Putin. All of them know what they're doing. And this isn't the first time. Look up any period of time that comes to your mind in Ukraine history. I guarantee you that it is very likely that in that period of time we were enslaved, killed, tortured, you name it, by Russians and probably some more people. It is very hypocrite of you to say "We're not free until all are free" of you never even so much mention what is going on in Ukraine. This is genocide, and it's clear.

I'm tired of people being not educated and not wanting to educate themselves and correct themselves. I understand if you didn't know prior due to some reason, but if you get called out for it and still don't change your behavior then it's on sight. It's Kyiv, not Kiev. It's Zaporizhya, not Zaporozhe. It's Kharkiv, not Kharkev. It's Mykola Hohol, not Nikolai Gogol. Malevich is Ukrainian. And I could go on. Because even if it's not about Ukraine, Russian acts go on to Syria, Kazakhstan, Georgia (Sakartvelo), the Balkans, if I'm not wrong, every Eastern European Country and even more. It even goes on to China and Japan. All that the russians know to do is to steal and bring harm, even if not directly. Do you know how much through I, on a person level, went through just for being Ukrainian? People don't take me serious, I'm called 'exotic', people always assume I'm not that smart enough, people make fun of me, and the list goes on. And that's just me in the 21st century. Learn about Holodomor, learn about the protest of the year 1907, read about how we were treated in the Russian empire, learn how degraded our lives were, learn about who were the kripaki and how they lived. Learn the fucking history before saying anything about it or worse, trying to dismiss us because "you're white", well guess what, it did not fucking help us at all.

In 2022 and 2023, my classmates made fun of me by shouting "Slava Russia" (Which to begin with, isn't even fucking correct to say), "Gloria a Putin" (Glory to Putin), made bomb sounds as in to mock me, asked me inappropriate questions and more stuff. From all the teachers who heard that, and it almost every fucking teacher I had, only one (1) of them said something about it, which I'm grateful for.

I appreciate if you have curiosity for my culture or history and ask me questions, but when you ask questions because you want to provoke me and have a fight or see me in no control it's disrespectful and I will not hold back and ask questions that are just as bad as those.

I don't want any "but they're civilians, they can't do nothing about it!🥹🥹😭😭💔" or some shit like that, because no. They can do it. There around 140k of them there, don't tell me they can't overthrow the president or make the government change the rules when Ukrainians and Georgians did with much less population than that.

I don't have compassion or empathy for russians. We will not forget nor forgive. Never again.

#anime_s talks #ukraine #holodomor #1907 #ua #russia is a terrorist state #fuck russia #aromantic #asexual #never again #We won't forgive nor forget

30 notes · View notes

mariacallous · 1 year

Text

From the seventh floor at Kherson State University, Oleksandr Khodosovtsev and Ivan Moisienko had a clear view of the enemy. It was a cool December morning, and the Russian troops that had occupied the Ukrainian city of Kherson since the earliest days of Moscow’s full-scale invasion had recently retreated east across the Dnipro River. Mushroom clouds hung over the horizon as they gazed through the rattling floor-to-ceiling windows of the botany department. The explosions, they thought, were likely coming from the tanks less than 5 kilometers away from where they stood.

That morning, the pair—both professors of botany—had arrived on the train from Kyiv and made their way through the partially ruined streets of Kherson to reach the university. The city was still being shelled, and to access their laboratory meant scaling a spiraling stairwell lined with stained-glass windows looking out over the Dnipro River, towards the enemy.

Their mission was to rescue a piece of history: the Kherson herbarium, an irreplaceable collection of more than 32,000 plants, lichen, mosses, and fungi, amassed over a century by generations of scientists, some from thousand-kilometer-long treks across remote areas of Ukraine. “This is something like a piece of art,” says 52-year-old Moisienko. “It’s priceless.”

Herbaria like the one in Kherson, a port city in the south of Ukraine, are about more than just taxonomy. They serve a vital role in the study of species extinction, invasive pests, and climate change. Though it's by no means the world’s largest—the Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle in Paris has 9,500,000 specimens—Kherson’s herbarium is, Moisienko says, valuable because of its unique contribution to the field. Rare species found only in Ukraine, some of which are at risk of extinction, are documented on its shelves.

When Russian tanks rolled into Ukraine on February 24, 2022, they threatened not only the thousands of dried, pressed, and preserved specimens stored at the university, but the land where those samples had been collected. In the more than 17 months since Vladimir Putin declared his “special military operation” in Ukraine, millions of acres of land—about 30 percent of the country’s protected areas—have been maimed by indiscriminate bombing, burning, and military maneuvers. Russian troops have scorched tens of thousands of hectares of forests and put more than 800 plants at risk of extinction, including 20 rare species that have mostly vanished from elsewhere, according to the non-profit Ukraine Nature Conservation Group (UNCG).

The Ukrainian government estimates that a third of the country’s land has been contaminated by mines or other unexploded ordnance. Large swathes of the countryside could remain inaccessible for decades to come. That means it could be a long time before scientists like Khodosovtsev and Moisienko can go back out to collect samples.

The pair weighed up these considerations last fall, as they contemplated returning to the hollowed-out city of Kherson. Russian forces had been pushed out of the city in November but continued to bombard it. Between May and November, at least 236 civilians were killed by shelling, according to regional officials. Regardless, Khodosovtsev and Moisienko decided to go in.

“There is no need to risk anyone's life to save some equipment or a building,” Moisienko says, noting with passing remorse how he’d been pained to leave behind one of his prized microscopes. “For this collection, when it's gone, it's gone. There is no way to get it back.”

As the pair began mapping out the evacuation, they determined that in order to mitigate risk on the ground they needed to limit both the number of people and time spent inside the besieged city. There would never be more than three team members—Khodosovtsev, Moisienko and one of their two colleagues—on a trip, and each venture would last no more than 72 hours. The power grid went down regularly, and there was a citywide curfew of 4 pm, meaning they had hard deadlines to get in and out of their lab. And there was bureaucracy. “During the wartime, even to get around the country, you need to have some substantiation, like documents,” said Khodosovtsev, 51.

That got even more complicated when, on their first trek back to the university that December, they discovered that Russian troops had taken up residence in four of the rooms storing part of the plant collection.

Besides the deep sense of violation the botanists felt, this also posed a procedural problem. The “sitters”—a common expression for enemy soldiers who have occupied a Ukrainian building—had changed the locks on all but one of the doors, and the spaces now needed to be documented; a mandatory procedure typically carried out by the local police. Thankfully, their logistics team pulled some strings and got the process expedited. In just a few weeks, the locks had been changed again, and the rooms had been photographed for the official records.

In video footage capturing that first, largely fruitless trip, Khodosovtsev can be seen celebrating the return of one of the 24 more valuable boxes with a kind of enthusiasm typically reserved for the football pitch. “Collemopsidium kostikovii is saved!” he cheers as he raises his fist over his head. “To the sound of explosions!” he adds, as the rumble of mortars interrupts his brief moment of self-congratulation.

Limited resources, another knock-on effect from the ongoing conflict, also threatened to upend the men’s carefully laid plans. While Moisienko drove around to dozens of Kyiv’s home hardware stores in search of plastic boxes to transport the collection’s vascular plants, Khodosovtsev returned to Kherson equipped with little more than a headlamp strapped across his brow and a backpack filled with the same household tools you might use to move apartments.

On this second trip, the magnitude of the task became clear to Khodosovtsev. He had 700 boxes to evacuate. On his first incursion, it had taken him 15 minutes—and way too much tape—to wrap, stack, and rope together half a dozen boxes of samples. At this rate, the botanist said, he’d be blowing past the three days earmarked for this section of the herbarium. Never one to be discouraged, the scientist settled into familiar territory and began doing what he does best: calculating.

“Just two wraps of sticky tape and one roll of rope,” he said, beaming as he reveled in how he’d managed to shave his box-stacking time to just “three and a half minutes.”

This kind of methodical precision proved to be a helpful distraction from the realities of what was going on just beyond the paned glass. A mere 24 hours before Moisienko returned for his third and final trip on January 2, he learned the building where he planned to scoop up the last portion of the herbarium was hit by shelling. Instead of this news derailing his mission, it only seemed to harden him. “We are focused on [the herbarium] so much that you just ignore everything, all these shellings that [are] going on around you,” he said.

Even so, as he worked methodically, packing plant after plant, he started to contemplate how the glass windows of the lab could become deadly projectiles if a shell went off nearby; and how far it was down to the ground floor. At eight stories tall, the academic building sticks out. “The chance the Russians would hit the university building [was] really high,” he says.

He tried to treat the nearby rumbling as white noise, though one day, a shell landed just outside the window as he was packing a sample.

By January 4, Moisienko had finished loading up the last boxes of the collection into the back of a truck. It traveled west for nearly two days, covering approximately 1,000 kilometers, before reaching Vasyl Stefanyk Precarpathian National University in Ivano-Frankivsk in Western Ukraine, the institution that has served as a university in exile for the staff and students of Kherson State University for more than a year.

It’s a kind of safety. But, as Moisienko points out, only as safe as anything or anyone can ever be in a country where missiles fall out of the sky on a near daily basis. “Nowhere in the country is 100 percent safe,” he says.

On January 11, Kherson State University was once again struck by shelling, this time only blocks away from where Moisienko had been working less than a week earlier. “That building remains [in] danger, and it's still dangerous to be in Kherson as it’s shelled still now on a daily basis,” Moisienko says. “We've done the right thing.”

232 notes · View notes