[mopsi]

> For Russians, the 1990s are as coupled to territorial losses and new borders as they are to economic hardships. So tearing down these borders is a case of recovery.

No, I am not speaking about the mythical 1990s as they exist in the mass conscious in the present day, warped by a huge dose of Soviet nostalgia. I am speaking about the 1990s that people actually lived through. Hyperinflation, shortages, poverty, crime. Breakdown of social order. Life's savings losing value almost overnight. Wages going unpaid for months and months. Abandoned kids sniffing glue and no-one caring. Few people had the luxury to care about issues beyond their immediate survival. Knew a family that had collected enough money for a house. Money lost value in such a short time that they managed to get only an ugly floor lamp by the time reality hit them. Nobody gave a shit where borders ran or if they even existed.

Massive spending on completely non-productive activities like the war against Ukraine while the world pivots away from you in disgust is a solid strategy for reaching such socio-economic deterioration again.

And it's important to stress that the 1990s were not seen as separate chapter at the time, but as the natural endgame of USSR's deep internal rot and failure to provide even bare sustenance to its population. Somehow you managed to run a resource-rich country into the ground during peacetime, and dragged down with you the European nations that you had enslaved during the WWII. And yet, for some reason, you think you've suffered a great injustice and still deserve an empire. Why? You can't run a normal country.

[thriftwy]

> I am speaking about the 1990s that people actually lived through. Hyperinflation, shortages, poverty, crime. Breakdown of social order. Life's savings losing value almost overnight.

I can see that happening easily if Putin loses his war, and all of the options I've ever saw coming from the West drooling with saliva converge to Russia losing.

As Sukhov once said, "I'd prefer to suffer a bit".

> still deserve an empire.

Not sure about Putin, but I don't want one. A nation state would suffice. Crimea is populated by Russians. Everybody speaks Russian in Lugansk, Donetsk and Mariupol. I don't see any utility in a border which separates them from the rest of Russia, or any excuse for it to be where it is. I'm not against any borders at all, just these particular ones.

[mopsi]

> I can see that happening easily if Putin loses his war

Putin lost the war a long time ago when the attack on Kyiv failed, Ukraine managed to maintain unified government and military command, and found allies. Countries representing the majority of the world economy are now behind Ukraine and that seals the deal for Russia as much as it did for Nazi Germany. Putin has no path to victory and cannot retreat for domestic reasons. The plan was apparently "3 days to Kyiv" and Plan B does not seem to exist. He is stuck as Ukraine is grinding away the huge inheritance of USSR's weapons that make up the bulk of Russian army to this day. Again, great irony - in the end, it's Russia who is demilitarizing. Ukraine has destroyed over 8000 tanks. By most estimates, only 1100-1500 of old stock remain for refurbishment from graveyards. New production is 120-150 tanks per year. I guess that's why we didn't see a trace of the famous Brezhnev-era armadas on May 9th parade anymore. All the new tanks are gone and patched up rustbuckets from the 1960s would be nothing less than another humiliation.

> I don't see any utility in a border which separates them from the rest of Russia, or any excuse for it to be where it is.

I don't see any utility in a border which separates Finno-Ugric people in Russia from the rest of them in Europe, especially considering the abysmal state of human rights there. When can I expect the return of Karelia to Finland?

[thriftwy]

Why then do you preach to me instead of just waiting for your victory to realize?

Karelians has never made dominant part of the population of what is now republic of Karelia. The problem here is that the name Karelia comes first and Karelians are an ethnicity of people who also happen to live in Karelia alongside larger nations. Which, ironically, included a lot of Finns and even Swedes before the Revolution.

Currently, ethnic Karelians make up 6% of the population of the republic. So the fact they've got a republic with some support for local culture shows the deep left-leaning woke organization of Russian Federation. But that's the most what they can ever have with 6%.

Meanwhile, Crimea was what, 80% Russian? Donbass was between 60% and 95% Russian speaking depending on the metrics?

In short, you could keep these lands

[mopsi]

> Karelians has never made dominant part of the population of what is now republic of Karelia.

Nor did Russians form the majority in Donetsk or Luhansk or Mariupol before the war, yet you have no issue making territorial claims. This is just another invented excuse. Why was Kherson oblast officially annexed by Russia when barely 14% of Kherson's population identifies as Russian? Who invited you?

[thriftwy]

Kherson oblast, unfortunately, is spoils of war and a bargaining chip.

The part that Russia now holds is essentially an empty steppe with, IDK, perhaps ~150k population in total and most of its territory evacuated.

[mopsi]

> Kherson oblast, unfortunately, is spoils of war and a bargaining chip.

And thus crumbles another excuse.

> The part that Russia now holds is essentially an empty steppe with, IDK, perhaps ~150k population in total and most of its territory evacuated.

A great example of the kind of misery Russia brings to the world. Shit country with trash people.