That was kinda cool! Thanks :)
Tuuktuuk
joined 2 months ago
That's a good reply!
Yeah,
An Internet meme or meme, is a cultural item that is spread via the Internet,
So: True, a meme does not need to be a recaptioned image that alters it meaning.
In any case that up there a nice text snippet, yeah :)
Is any microblog post automatically a meme?
Thanks. I don't have anything meaningful to say about this. I know the arguments that Russia is financing all, even the Ukrainian Nazis, but there is also German media pushing the AfD and other shady stuff. I can't yet settle to believe that it is all Russian
Hm, there were articles in the Finnish newspapers around year 2005 or 2004 when Putin started financing the neo-nazi organizations in the Russia and countries closely coöperating with the Russia, to do his dirty work. I tried going to the library of Pasila in Helsinki, where they have every newspaper published in Finland since 1880's on microfilm, but their microfilm reader was broken at that point. And the next time I tried again. I've also tried sending email to the newspaper, Helsingin Sanomat, that wrote those articles back then, asking them to send them to me because they are extremely relevant now, but I never got a reply from them.
I'm far too overwhelmed with stuff in my children's life at the moment to really have the energy to go dig through those 20-year-old newspapers on the microfilms (even though I've always enjoyed going through the rolls at that library!), as I've had burnout episodes already as it is, but maybe I still should. (Meh.)
I guess there must have been articles about in other countries as well, but just like it's difficult to find a Finn who understood the gravity of the articles back than and therefore has any recall of them having ever been written, I haven't found any central Europeans who would remember what kind of articles were written about it, and by what papers.
Hm, I once wrote a long text about the word "höhlä" in Finnish. Its existence and etymology alone tell a lot about the centuries of trying to get rid of Ukrainians.
But, there are 39 Finno-Ugric languages. You might know of Finnish, Estonian and Hungarian. And then there are 10-ish Sámi languages. But who are the rest? Why do you never hear of them? And only a part of the nations colonized by the Russia are Finno-Ugric. There are the Aleutian, there are the Altaic, there are the Turkic and there are the various Caucasian cultural groups I understand much worse than the four other groups I've mentioned. (Except that I'm currently learning Ingushetian and have learned it's very close to Ichkerian, a.k.a. "Chechnyan")
And yeah, people don't often understand the history of place names such as the name of the "Novorossijsk". That translates literally to "Newrussia-town". They named it that way because it was founded when those lands were taken from the nation that lived there previously and assimilated under the Russian culture. Those were the "New lands", or in Russian: "Novorossija". Go to Youtube and find about the Kubanskaya Balachka. Its speakers vehemently say it's not Ukrainian, but a form of Russian, but being able to speak both Ukrainian and Russian, I find the case absolutely unambiguous. But indeed: Those families who were able to say with straight face "no, we are absolutely Russians and nothing else!" were the only ones who weren't disappeared to Siberia. And that's what they say to this day. But Russians cannot understand that "dialect", while Ukrainians don't even recognize it as not being Ukrainian, unless explicitly told they are not listening to Ukrainian but Kubanskaya Balachka.
In the 1920's and 1930's USSR formed Ukrainian-language youth choirs in the area of Novorossija in the Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic, RSFSR. Soon after, all children that had enrolled to those choirs, plus their siblings and parents, were sent to work camps in Siberia.
But Ukrainians were not really special in that regard. The Russian Empire, and later USSR, was constantly doing the same stuff to all nations within the territory controlled by it.
But, to answer this:
What is happening besides Ukraine?
Just take a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_in_Russia . Look at the sheer number of names of nations listed there. Each of those was a full-fledged nation of its own just a bit over 100 years ago. Only the construction of the Trans-Siberian Railway truly expanded the Kremlin influence further than some 500 km from Moscow. Until that, those lands were parts of the Russian empire basically only on paper. Without a connection neither by railway or by sea, there was no sensible way of ruling those lands. The only way to move about was along "roads", that were rather paths than anything we would contemporarily call "roads". There was no infrastructure like the Swedish network of gästgiveri establishments, so the only way to get anywhere more than a day's riding trip from home was to pack your own tent and have some seriously good survival skills. And that's not something the Czars were doing. Going to some place in eastern Siberia to give orders to the locals would have been an endeavour akin to what Marco Polo did. Until the construction of the Trans-Siberian railway most of those nations were just living their life. Some maybe paid tax to Moscow, most didn't. And now they are a list of nation names feeling endlessly long, and you have almost never heard of any of them. What did your mother tell you about the Mordvins? Or the Soyot? Or the Sakha? Those tens and tens of nations have fallen into nothingness in our minds, even though in the end of 1800's they were thriving. Their disappearance is what is happening besides Ukraine. And it's an ongoing process. In Finland we keep reading news about what is happening to the rights of the Finno-Ugric nations because they are cultures similar to ours, speaking language more or (much) less similar to ours, and following traditions of our old pre-christian religion, but for central Europeans those news are of as much interest as news on some tribes in Nigeria or Ethiopia. For us it means loss of our own roots, because for us those nations are similarly close as the Spanish and Greek, French and Czech are for each other. When you more people in your own family, you understand your own nuclear family much better than you otherwise would. Of course, the Soyot and Sakha not being Finno-Ugric, we don't really read much anything about them in Finland, either. But it's easy to check that their plight is very analogous to that of the Finno-Ugric nations, so we also have an understanding of their situation.
Russia is an empire. The problem for Russia is that they can't dissolve and regroup like the EU or with the EU because the US would grab everything and treat it like South America.
Here, BTW, I want to ask you:
Why do you think the situations of the nations colonized by the Russia would be any worse under US rule? I mean, if they are ever liberated from the Russian rule, I would strongly oppose anything else happening to them than them getting full sovereignty, like for example Algeria did. But even if you are right and they do end up under US, rule, why would that be any worse for the locals than the current Russian rule? I believe it would still be very bad, but much less bad than now. USA was behaving the same towards its colonized native populations some century or 1½ centuries ago as the Russia is behaving to its native populations now, and the native Americans' situation in contemporary USA is definitely not something to celebrate, but the contemporary USA is nevertheless definitely treating the locals better (or maybe you'd prefer the phrasing: less badly) than the Russia is treating the native populations of territories ruled by it. And I really do think that the US would treat the colonized Siberians much nicer than it treats native Americans
If the Russian colonies somehow end up from Russian rule under US rule, then that's very sad, but it's still an improvement for their rights. Why, precisely, are you actually arguing against that?
In which of those countries is the native population now under 5% of the country's population because of US actions committed at least somewhat recently? For example in the Hanty-Mansi Autonomous Okrug 1,5 % of the population is Khanty, 0,9% of the population is Mansi.
Or, you can just look at the contemporary map of Finno-Ugric languages:
You can see the big gap east of Finland. Think about why that area is not coloured as having speakers of Finno-Ugric languages anymore.
Or just look at the population of Finland, which is about 5,6 million. Or that of Estonia, some 1,2 million. And compare it to the number of Karelians in the Republic of Karelia, right across the border: 25,901 people. 86% of the population there are Russians, only 5.5% are locals. That is what it would now look like in Finland if we had not stopped the Russia in 1939-1940. US has done a lot of evil (Hawa'ii...), but nowhere have they done within the last century what the Russia is contemporarily doing in its colonies. And yes, USA has been doing some bad shit, but it absolutely pales in comparison the Russian colonialism. The only difference is that nobody seems to care of the Siberians like they care of Africans.
Here's a map that shows France and England, and also the size of their colonial empires:
And here's a map that shows the Russia (marked with bright yellow), and also the size of its colonial empire:
And yes, people did say "but come on, all of that is France, you can't say that France is just that small part there!", and people have also been saying "but comeone, all of that is the Russia, you can't say that the Russia is just that small part there!", but it still holds that the colonized territories are colonized territories that need to be free.
But really, none of the those countries you listed have a situation a tenth as bad as that of the plethora of nations colonized by the Russia. Horrors have happened, absolutely, but not at the level of the current colonial Russia.
I think Europe was still spending more than Russia before. We should have been able to repell Russia already. To me, the increased spending means that we are preparing to escalate and beat Russia.
At least here it says that in 2021 the Russia's military spending was 4% of its GDP.
The only country that was somewhat prepared for repelling the Russia before 2022 was Finland. In school I was taught this about our military strategy: "Finland's defence doctrine is based on the concept of Credible Defence. It means that the Russia would be able to overrun this country, but we are able to cause them such a high level of material losses that they would lose more than they would gain, because of which they will never attack."
This is what all Finns considered true, until around end of March 2022. By then it was clear to Finns that the Russia should by all logic withdraw from its attack and find a way out of the war without losing its face, but also that it will not do that. Which meant that the core principle of our defence doctrine was moot. If the Russia ignores economical sensibility of waging a war, then our strategy of "yeah, they could take conquer us, but it would be economically idiotic" won't be of any use to us. Therefore, we had to look for another solution, and Finns' opinions moved from 65 % anti-NATO to 80 % pro-NATO during March and April 2022. Putin's closest friends, such as Rotenberg, spend a lot of time in Finland and speak Finnish, so he was aware of this.
But yeah: Our new military strategy is that it's not enough to stop the Russia if it attacks. We must be able to decisively beat them. Otherwise they will attack.
the EU and the US are preparing to take them apart.
The US is. Now in 2025, I wish EU was, as well. But it is not. Which is idiotic. As long as the Russia is in one piece, it will attack again.
I was comparing newer times. Otherwise you have to look at native Americans. My impression is that they had it worse.
About the same as native Siberians have it now. The behaviour of USA towards indigenous Americans some centuries ago absolutely does fulfil the criteria of genocide. The only difference is that the Russia really got going on that stuff once the railway was built in the native's lands, in the early 20th century, so it's an ongoing disaster, not something where the worst parts were done in the past.
in comparison the US looks worse.
This is surprising. Could you care to explain how?
People believe in American freedom
Who are these "people"? I don't think those are half as many as you think.
People ignore recent American atrocities while they remember all the Russian ones.
Please show recent-ish American atrocities that are at least on the same level as the Russian ones. (Hirošima and Nagasaki do count, but they are not things that people ignore). For the purposes of this conversation it would be good if they were from this century, or at the very latest from 1990's. When looking at what the Russia is doing now, whatever took place more than half a century ago is not very descriptive by itself, even if it does explain contemporary reactions of people in countries bordering the Russia.
Of course that doesn't justify any genociding.
Happy to hear that. You are not an .ml-ie ❤️
What countries did US make spend 4% of their GDP for military readiness? Many countries have had to increase their defence spending either because they are directly threatened by the Russia or because they are in EU and countries in EU that are crucial to their wellbeing are threatened by the Russia. So, those had to increase their defence spending anyway and naturally will be excluded from your list. So, what are the countries you are talking about?
If the US wanted to stop China from gaining the Russian resources, it would make sure the war in Ukraine stops ASAP, even if that means their ally will lose the war. Because each month the war is prolonged means China getting a stronger foothold on the resources in the Russia. Now they are not doing that, but are putting all the pressure on Ukraine instead.
Here you are again talking about USA wanting the Russia and then somehow skipping from that to Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland (and maybe Sweden). Any such attack would happen with their involvement.
The original peace plan in 2022 included Ukraine sending its army home and the Ukrainian leadership resignating.
But yeah: You are linking to a Wikipedia page that tells what we know: USA has always wanted the Russia to fall. But you do that in a context where you say that Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and/or Poland "wants to conquer Russia" without telling anything about why we in these five countries would want to conquer the Russia. Your link gives no answers to that and without answering that question your argument is missing a crucial core part, without which it cannot function.
You say it's the Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland that want the Russia and that USA is willing to help. You really need to tell why the hell we five would want to conquer the Russia? With or without help from USA.
view more: next ›
Yeah, I noticed already yesterday that it looks similar to the ethnic map of the Russia. But the difference is that USA has toned down its behaviour, the Russia a has not. Shooting the buffalos to starve a nation to death is pretty much Holodomor.
First Chechen war killed 35 000 to 50 000 civilians, the second one something like 25 000 to 35 000. And civilians and soldiers altogether, they were about 150 000 to 300 000 dead in the two Chechen wars. Plus a lot of wounded, and Groznyi got completely levelled in the way Bakhmut was.
And then there are of course the victims of Mariupol, who number in 15 000 to 25 000.
USA's war in Iraq cost lives of about 25 000 human lives, most of which were civilians. If we add all excess mortality caused by the war, then we get very much higher numbers for both Iraq and Ukraine.
Then, the Russian ones beside these actual big-scale slaughters in Russian-type warfare, there's the ongoing genocides where people are not murdered, but cultures are eradicated. They were ongoing already in 1990's, not only now.
But also: There is no good reason in caring about whether USA's numbers are bigger than those of the Russia. Your neighbour rob and kill five people does not mean you are allowed to rob and kill one person.
USA has done a much smaller amount of evil deeds in the last century or half a century, but even if it had done more, that's irrelevant. A big bad thing done to bystanders does not mean a smaller bad thing done to bystanders is suddenly okay.
I don't mean all comments coming from .ml. A lot of people start there and then change for instances where human rights have a meaning. A person is not automatically bad just for being on .ml. If they were, they would be bad even after moving elsewhere, would they not?
But you don't need to write many times in a community on .ml to notice that their admins' and moderators' values are strongly opposed to human rights. I obviously do not appreciate people who support opposers of human rights. I believe in that our thoughts align.