This reveals everything. If you wish to think you really understand a controversy, it is necessary to understand both sides of it, including where the side that is ultimately wrong (if such exists) happens to be right in some aspect or other, and vice-versa.
You have no perception of the Russian point of view.
I, on the other hand, do get the Ukrainian one. I also get the ex-Soviet one.
The fact that you are unaware of the growing tension between two peoples, who had lived together in a mixed fashion for centuries, which accelerated between 2008 and 2014 with the increase of a more radical Ukrainian nationalism which sought the suppression of its Russian minority, including the forbidding of the use of the Russian language, hitherto always having been held to be normal, and what the expansion of NATO means for Russia (what does having your country surrounded by enemy bases mean?), proven by the solid denial and blocking of Russian membership in NATO, makes your position appear to be lopsided partisanism, not amenable to reason.
I’m not going to go 25 rounds on this. I WILL speak to the peanut gallery if necessary. You have to be able to convince people who honestly disagree with you, who are open to honest reconsideration of their own position. You cannot convince someone who is determined to hold a position regardless of any counter-considerations that might be raised. It’s a waste of time and not spiritually good for us to do so.
Why do you think I'm "unaware" of any of this? One can be completely aware of some position and still consider it completely insane. In fact, I didn't actually read "Mein Kampf", but by Klemperer's account ("
LTI – Lingua Tertii Imperii" Google and read it, great book), Nazi worldwiew actually had more internal logic than Russianworld (which didn't make it less insane, mind you). In fact, there are striking parallels.
In fact, one of the things I'm aware of is the fact public opinion was solidly against NATO membership - until, you can guess it - 2014. Or, that good portion of modern hard-right in Ukraine, including volunteer militia leadres, are actually Russophone in real life. (I remember reading an interview with Yarosh and Semenchenko, which were probably the most notorious ones. Yarosh fashions himself an ideologue in Bandera tradition and made a point to speak Ukrainian; Semenchenko didn't even bother. They're both from Donetsk region, industrial cities; people of their generation are Russophone there). For people paying attention who are nevertheless not in the radius of Russian "ballistic defense towers" (get the reference?), "forbidding of the use of the Russian language" and "surrounded by enemy bases" are completely paranoid tropes; the fact that over 86% of Russians and scarily substantial minority in Ukraine really think that way is unfortunate.
The point is, "political Russophone" community in Ukraine does not want to have rights of a minority; they want to keep privileges of the imperial titular nation. "Radical Ukrainian nationalists", meanwhile, want to continue to exist as a nation and a state. I lean pretty strongly to the latter position, and do not think Ukraine owes it to Russia to bend over backwards to cater to Russia's damaged psyche. Note that I use "radical Ukrainian nationalist" like Russians do; real far-right does exist there (as it exists in Russia); I think they just formed a "united" list for Parliament under Svoboda Party registration which just might crack 2% support this time (5% is the threshold). They're a bunch of phoneys and deserve to just fade away.
Macro point: there are four Orthodox nations in Russia's "near abroad" (Ukraine, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova). Since 1991, Russia invaded and destabilized 3 of them; Belarus avoids this fate (for now) by basically becoming a province of Russia. What does it tell you? Perhaps Russia was threatened by tiny Georgia and Moldova, right?
Also, I'm a post-Soviet immigrant and native Russian speaker. Just so you know.
