I feel like these takes are getting more unhinged with each passing month.
I feel like these takes are getting more unhinged with each passing month.
Maybe the medium Unhinged ones have realised (at least to some degree) that they are on the wrong path … therefore they shut up , leaving only the “True belivers” Maximum Unhinged ones left.
Is it the case that Ukrainians are returning to find their homes occupied by strangers? or is this user just imagining that Russia is 100% indistinguishable from Nazi Germany?
Seems like it’s liberal Ukraine Flag Emoji delusion.
I work with refugee charities, follow this stuff reasonably closesly, and have never seen anything on this except vague unattributed accusations of this from UK/US twitter libs. I’m sure there might be individual cases of people made homeless by the war squatting etc, but the UNHCR published the results of a study and survey on this month on the intentions of and challenges facing Ukrainian refugees to return home. There’s no mention of people’s homes being occupied or given to other people. In fact, more than 50% of refugees have returned to their homes for short periods to either see family who didn’t leave, get or update important documents, retrieve sentimental items etc.
I love deporting people with a butchered workforce, a birthrate of 1.0, and an emigration rate of a million people per year. Ukraine is literally depopulating worse than Lithuania, in 20 years russian will have to just walk in.
Every lib i’ve spoken to about Ukraine genuinely believes there were no Russians in eastern Ukraine and Crimea before the war and all the Russian civilians started occupying these regions after the Russians invaded.
Take this in good faith, as a person who is attempting to make a marxist analysis of anti-imperalism. What sort of analysis distinguishes this claim from settler colonies? Is it about what sort of reason/goals/sorts of actions there were which resulted in Russians being a majority in Crimea/Donbas? Your justification here can be applied to both, and justify support of Israelis, as the most common current example
did Russian speakers displace the locals? I’m not that familiar with this history - it’s a genuine question. if they’ve been there awhile, it’s kind of obvious how this differs from settler-colonialism - before the advent of nation states, it was pretty common for regions bordering a major power to speak the language of that power. people used to be a lot more free to move around and borders were largely theoretical.
No, the territory was in the hands of several nomadic tribes and then the Tatar Khanate of Krim, although there was a small slavic/greek/italian presence for a long time. After Muscovy conquered large parts of Ukraine from Lithuania (who claimed it as the new Kievan Rus) and later Poland, a process under Tsarina Elizabeth I saw the joint settlement by Russians, Ukrainians and several other European ethnic groups (germans, french, serbians) of the underpopulated lands back then known as the Wild Fields. The identity of modern Ukraine was not a unified project but a regional identity similar to Novgorod or Pskov. Ukrainian nationalism began when Poland and later Austria forced the orthodox population of western Ukraine to reconnect with the papacy and bind them to the state, the population was however still pro-russian before WWI.
