Hi, I’m Russian. Ukraine and Russia is a story of a divorce
procedural.medium.comI feel that the Russian identity has been dealt a fatal blow.
The load-bearing pillar of the Russian identity is the idea that we are a nation of defenders, who fought off the biggest invasion in history. We defend, not intrude.
If you remember history, there was another guy who attacked a slavic country, in the morning, without declaring war, hoping for a blitzkrieg. We are that guy now.
I thought about renouncing my Russian nationality. I may have Russian origins, and I may speak Russian, and I may live in Russia – but my nationality would be blank. Null. Nothing. Empty string.
I decided against that. By renouncing my nationality I would also renounce Lomonosov, Dostoyevsky, Tolstoy, Tchaikovsky, Vavilov, Surikov, Vrubel, Tarkovsky, Korolyev, and Gagarin. I refuse to let a single tyrant tarnish the Russian contribution to human civilization.
I'm sorry but you can't tell me you weren't aware of wars in Afganistan or Chechnya?
And I'm pretty sure Lomonosov and Dostoyevsky don't care about what passport if any you have, please renounce it already and stop this soppy drivel.
I am. See my "untangle" response in this thread.> I'm sorry but you can't tell me you weren't aware of wars in Afganistan or Chechnya?Also Georgia, or Moldawia. Or come to think of it, a lot of the SU, including, btw, Poland (remember the Hitler Stalin Pact). Oh also, Finland. If you go further back, also Ukraine, and Krim and the East. Seems like Russian history is a long string of territorial expansion.
> a nation of defenders
Nonsense. Russian history is full of invasions. That is how empires are created, and that is their mode of existence.
I think the key part is the first part of the sentence you clipped: “the load-bearing pillar of the Russian identity”. Self-image is not an academic historical treatise and most nationalities have parts they like to emphasize more than others — for example, as Americans we love to talk about democracy and freedom a lot more than slavery / Jim Crow, or whether all of our military endeavors hold up as well as WWII.
I don’t know how it’s taught in Russia but for what it’s worth, the major points of Russian history I learned prior to the 20th century was basically the Mongols and Napoleon invading and the brutal conditions of serfdom. Clearly there were other wars but even a Cold War enemy’s educational curriculum tended to emphasize the aspects mentioned prior to around 1950 so I’d have no trouble believing this is how Russians want to see their history.
>as Americans we love to talk about democracy and freedom a lot more than slavery / Jim Crow, or whether all of our military endeavors hold up as well as WWII.
There are certainly dark corners that remain in the American psyche expressly because we keep kicking that can down the road. This is how the confederacy and southern identity became intertwined, because it wasn't and still isn't made completely socially unacceptable. Let's not forget the Northern states were damn racist, they just drew the line at slavery. And before all the bodies were buried, before the constitution amended to make slavery illegal, the top Confederates, traitors to the United States, were forgiven.
Instead of the United States completely destroying a mortal enemy that tried to destroy the United States, Lincoln, Grant, Johnson, forgave. Grant should not have sat in a chair with Lee at Appomattox. Robert Lee and Jefferson Davis should have been executed for treason. As well as the all of the officers. The constitution of the Confederacy unquestionably stated slavery to be a permanently protected institution in perpetuity. But let's face it, the North didn't have the moral character to do what was necessary. Northern states were too sympathetic to the ingrained national racism.
The fact is, black folks deserved then and still now the promise of a country that did not and does not exist. Only in some nascent sense does it hopefully exist today. But there has never been a reconciliation, and even in 2022 this country does not live up to its ideals, promises, laws - not to black Americans, and not to native Americans.
This is how you get a president of the United States in 2016 who maliciously and intentionally destroyed the livelihood of a black man who takes a knee to try and make white folks aware of the fact this country doesn't stand for everyone. And I am as shocked and appalled at how even NFL management and owners could just look the other way and go along with that, as I am shocked and appalled that signatories to the U.N. charter that insists only defensive wars against imminent attack are legal, and that wars of aggression to expand borders are the supreme international crime - I did trust Russia and China more than I should have. They're really looking like they're going to be outside the UN charter system of international law. That's really dreadful.
Okay, time to untangle.
1. Identity is an internal belief, which may or may not correpsond to the facts.
2. Factually, Russia never was a country of peaceful defenders (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_Russia).
3. During the post-WW2 Soviet era, the main focus of internal propaganda was Peace and Victory over the nazi Germany. It is during that time the identity of a "peaceful defender" was formed and ingrained into the Soviet psyche (and it survived Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan). Later, this identity was reinforced by Putin.
4. I still know a lot of people in Russia who hold that identity. I would still call it a national identity.
5. After the Ukraine war that identity can no longer be held without denial or serious cognitive dissonance.
6. Many people will go into denial, and many people will have an identity crisis.
7. However, "That which can be destroyed by the truth, should be".
To be fair, more often than not, Russia was on the receiving end of invasions. Even when they invaded others, it was often in response to being invaded first.
Look at how the Russian empire formed: it was Moscow re-taking all the Kyivan Rus lands that were conquered by Muslim invaders. Or all the European countries that attacked/invaded Russian lands: Great Britain, France, Germany, Austria-Hungary, Poland-Lithuania and I'm probably forgetting some.
So yes, it's fairly apt to say that, more often than not, Russia was defending its own lands.
The fact that Russia is wrong today doesn't mean that it hasn't been wronged many, many times before. A parallel is that many abusers were once abused themselves (and yes the cycle needs to end).
Also, Ukraine's unfortunate history: they were the part of Rus/Russian lands that almost always were passed back and forth. The name "Ukraine" itself suggests that...
I'm pretty sure that Russia didn't make it all the way to Vladivostok by "defending its own lands" or "re-taking all the Kyivan Rus lands".
What you say may be true in the west. It's not true of Russia's expansion east of the Urals.
If you remember history, there was a guy who attacked Sweden, unprovoked [1]. Who ended beating the crap out of the Swedish army at Poltava, and marked the beginning of the modern Russian Empire. I'm not sure what spin this was given to Russian kids in the history class to qualify it as defensive war.
That identity has already been built on a lie. Russia invaded Poland on September 17th 1939 after secret deal with Germany to split Polish territory they agreed on before the war even started.
Then Russians cried foul when the bigger bully betrayed them. Unfortunately allies could not let Nazis overrun Soviets because with access to oil fields Nazis could make Europe their fortress.
And so Soviet crimes were overlooked in the name of greater good.
That's true. Even more obvious aggression - Russia invaded Finland few weeks later on 30 November, 1939 even though Finland was a neutral country and to these days trying to be neutral country (is not part of NATO)
Not to mention Russia basically re-invading Poland as the Nazis were defeated and then establishing communism there. They also famously paused their army across the river while the Nazis razed Warsaw to the ground.
> The load-bearing pillar of the Russian identity is the idea that we are a nation of defenders, who fought off the biggest invasion in history. We defend, not intrude.
Don't despair: this idea of a "peaceful defender" was never an objective truth to begin with. I suspect a lot of countries feed similar sentiment to their children. My country (South Korea) certainly did.
A country needs good people who fight to keep it straight. Maybe Russia needs people like you.
A Facebook post, letter to the editor (London Times, I think):
https://www.facebook.com/100058234413220/posts/3780988174745...
The letter reads:
"Sir, Richard Morrison is right to question the wisdom of banning all Russian artists on the basis of their nationality ("Ban Gergiev and Netrebko, but don't cancel all Russian artists".)
In August 1968, the day after Soviet tanks had rolled into Prague to crush the lenient rule of Alexander Dubcek, the great Russian cellist Mstislav Rostropovich played at the BBC Proms with the USSR State Symphony Orchestra.
With the greatest irony the work he was scheduled to perform was the Czech composer Antonin Dvorak's magnificent Cello Concerto. I was there: the extraordinary intensity of Rostropovich's performance, together with the tears visibly pouring down his cheeks as the concerto neared its end, spoke more than any number of words.
Julian Lloyd Webber London SW7"> the Russian contribution to human civilization
> By renouncing my nationality I would also renounce Lomonosov, Dostoyevsky, etc.
No you wouldn't. Culture transcends flags and borders, but you're putting the nation ahead of it. You can still appreciate your Russian culture without having to buy wholesale the whole Russian (or any other) nationality. The Russian people have created beautiful things like everybody else on Earth has done. There is nothing unique about its uniqueness. You can appreciate it without having to drape yourself in the Russian tricolour, what you call "identity".
Patriotism and sense of nation is, among other things, what causes people to invade and prove themselves better than their neighbours. Patriotism is just thinking your tribe is better than the others. It's an idea worth eschewing if we want to make our planet a better place.
Yes, but patriotism/nationalism are also the condition of leaving the tribal stage, being strong enough to not get invaded in the first place. And plenty of nations do not go around invading others.
It's imperialism that you should be worried about : when indeed you get the idea that you're better than others, give up on the idea of nation, and try to have a multicultural country, ruling different ethnicities using separate laws - and some of them always end up more equal than others.
Your story remind me very much of a song in the musical chess where the Russian character tells the audience how while madness may take control of a nations leaders, the hearth of a nation is its people regardless if they stay within the borders.
And you ask me why I love her
Through wars, death and despair
She is the constant, we who don't care
And you wonder will I leave her, but how?
I cross over borders but I'm still there now
Even this is not really accurate. World War II started when the Germans invaded Poland, but the Russians also invaded Poland. In many ways this war seems to be Putin‘s attempt at bringing back spheres of influence and a greater Russian empire. That’s not exactly a new experience in Russian history. Russians will even point at napoleons invasion of Russia, and happily forget about all of the war of the coalitions that they were an part of before then. This ignorance of history isn’t a bug in Putins world view - Its a feature. It’s a lot easier to tell the story of napoleon without Austerlitz, and Hitler without Poland, Finland and the Holodomor. Russia is far from alone in this - but unlike others Putin seems to be committed to bringing back the existential wars of the 20th century….
Nothing wrong with being proud of your nation's accomplishments, and being appalled at its violence.
We have been shown the strength of our culture, and the fragility of our institutions, in this era of super-power authoritarianism.
I don't know what the world will be like in ten years. Post-Trump, post-Putin, and hopefully still able to support human life.
I'm American, and I'll go with you, my brother.
>The load-bearing pillar of the Russian identity is the idea that we are a nation of defenders, who fought off the biggest invasion in history. We defend, not intrude.
This is because Russian history curriculum conveniently completely skips 1939-1941 period. Russia was the Aggressor in WW2. They turned sides only after being attacked by their ally in crime - Hitler.
>If you remember history, there was another guy who attacked a slavic country, in the morning, without declaring war, hoping for a blitzkrieg. We are that guy now.
Yes, he was called Stalin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_of_Poland
As native speaker of Russian language, large part of my Russian identity was the fact, that I was raised in household of WW2 veteran(I was born and lived in one of the ex-Soviet republics, not in Russia). I always viewed Russian army as liberators. In the light of current events, this part of me took a huge blow and I'm not sure, I will ever reconcile. Russian army that is in Ukraine are bunch of untrained, uncoordinated thugs that have zero regards to human life and lead by war criminals. I have nothing but contempt for Russian Army. What up with the new "Z" Swastika ?
A response to the 2-in-1 superposed/slanted N-Z- of Azov I guess ? /s
But more seriously, Z was for Zapad troops which were from the Western military regions (Belgorod, Rostov barrack setc), others had V for Vostok from the Siberian troops (Novosibirsk, etc). The O is for LDPR/DNR/Crimea troops IIRC.
not really in favor of this characterizing countries thing. it’s like how China calls Hongkong it’s child and it finally was returned to its mother in 1997. Nowadays same terminology is applied to Taiwan, I’m just disgusted by this figure of speech, saying China is a mother and hongkong and Taiwan are her children just signals that you don’t want to treat them with respect in the first place. Same thing with this story, saying Russia is husband signals the bias in author’s mind: Ukraine is the weaker and smaller one thus the wife.
sorry for my broken English, hopefully you understand what I’m trying to say…
Ukraine was a part of the Soviet Union. They spoke Russian. They married Russians. It happened. But it's a history now. No one can force-continue the marriage.
You mean Ukraine was a part of Rus and Russian empires going back 1000 years. It goes way beyond the Soviet Union...
Yes there are ethnic ties between them. That doesn't mean they are identical, or that one should rule the other. Should Scotland rule Ireland (or vice versa) because they are both Gaelic peoples that were part of the British Empire?
I said nothing about 'should'.
Simply history. Ukraine was never a 'country' until briefly in the 20's then the 90's.
Ukrainians have been Rus, or Russians, or Ruthenians, etc... for most of their history. They were once a single people. That's just a fact.
The differences in identity are the fact that western Ukraine has at times belonged to Austria-Hungary or Poland. Or the fact the Cossacks carved out small states amidst foreign rule. And likewise Novgorod and Moscow had small states during Muslim domination which also contributed to a unique Russian identity.
It's not as simple as 'Ukraine was part of USSR for a generation.
My ancestors were Ukrainian, spoke Ukrainian, identified as Ukrainian but were from Austria-Hungary and officially were called 'Ruthenians'.
The same thing that separates Russia and Ukraine is what separates the Czech Republic and Slovakia. One people (ish), just different historical circumstances at times creating different identities and eventually states.
Ukraine should be its own country today. But not because of made up history, simply because today they want to.
Ruthenia was called Ruthenia because it was in the West, and part of the Polish-Lithuanian Empire, so went by the Latin name for Rus. Russia is derived from the Greek. Even centuries ago they were distinct.
And before then, before there were nation-states as we think of them now, the principality of Kyiv was distinct from the principality of Mosovy. Kyiv was not subordinated to Moscow until Peter, Elizabeth, and Catherine, in the 1600s and 1700s -- more than a millennium after Kyiv's founding.
The history is not made up.
I know about the history of Kyivan Rus... That's not what I'm referring to...
> It happened.
Well, before that there was another war (the Red Army vs. the Ukrainian nationalists around 1920); and Stalin killing millions of Ukrainians in the man-made famine in the early 1930; followed by the mass repressions in the late 1930s, with hundreds of thousands executed. It's never been a happy marriage, not really.
I agree. This is another reason to stop trying to make it happen, when it wasn't a happy marriage in the first place.
Yea Politicians use that language to try and convince political states and countries are things, but they are just ideas that people can either believe in or not.
I like the idea of using the OP as a metaphor to help everyone understand the dynamics. It doesn't mean that in practice it really exists.
Considering how mainland China (PRC) and Taiwan (ROC) are separated, they're more like siblings, with ROC being the elder one.
ROC is the original government of the whole of China (mainland plus Taiwan). PRC is the johnny-come-lately rebels. So I'd say that ROC is not only the elder, the PRC is the illegitimate half-brother.
Many Taiwanese see the ROC as invaders, they would rather have neither the PRC nor the ROC governing over them, and this is what the PRC is most against (at least if Taiwan is controlled by the ROC, it can still be seen as a civil dispute over who controls China, vs a question of an independent Taiwan).
Japan actually treated Taiwan more as a province rather than a colony, which led to a lot of distrust between the islanders and mainlanders when the ROC regained control of the island.
I am Ukrainian. Ukraine an Russia is a story of crazy imperial neighbor invading my country and killing my people.
I was thinking about writing something exactly from this perspective today. Based on what Putin said about Ukraine, how it use to be part of Russia. The fact that Ukraine has declared their independence from Russia is exactly like an abusive husband that won't let go of the relationship and he is willing to put everyone in jeopardy to get his selfish desire of grandiosity met. Everyone one around him sees that its over and nothing is going change that. No amount of violence is going to bring everything back to the glory days. Its over, move on.
Continuing the metaphor of the title: Russia is the abusive spouse that can't take no for an answer and is becoming a murderer, perhaps murder-suicide.
Central to Putanism specifically and even Russia now generally, there is a strong belief that Russia beat the Nazis, Russia can beat anyone, and Russia is superior. Limitless expansion of its borders is considered Russia's right, ergo anyone who doesn't want to be Russified is a Nazi, and Ukraine rejecting Russia means they are Nazis.
I think Western media has been too dismissive of the Russian belief Nazis are running rampant, portraying it mainly as divorced from reality. And not making the connection just how totally incompatible this worldview is in the post-WW2 and U.N. charter system to which Russia is a signatory. I seriously think we are witnessing the end of that post-WW2 era, back to "might makes right".
This is very cringe. To even imagine that the reason a country got invaded, knowing full well the repercussions that will follow, was because jealous old Putin got all shaky with impotent rage that his beautiful girlfriend called Ukraine with a blue dress and flaxen hair has left him.
The first reason Russia invaded Ukraine is because Ukraine joining NATO(in before "but Ukraine could never have joined NATO!!" - yes it would have and NATO was pursuing that, look it up) would be catastrophical for Russia's defense. At that point the only option for defense from any invasion would have been nuclear armageddon - if say in 20 years NATO comes back and decides to annex Crimea would it be an easy choice for whoever's responsible to press the big red button or would it be nicer to defend it through conventional means?
Secondly, Ukraine has found natural oil/gas reserves that would have competed with Russian exports.
Thirdly, Ukraine has turned off water supply going from Dniepr river to Crimea making it very difficult for Russia to supply water to that area.
I'm not saying that this justifies the invasion - war is a terrible thing and people on both sides are suffering, but would we also be surprised if USA invaded Mexico or Canada to stop it getting aligned with China? I wouldn't.
Yeah, about Crimea... you do remember that Russia took that earlier, right? Why do you have a problem with NATO (or Ukraine without NATO) taking it back?
And, no, Ukraine was not joining NATO. If you have evidence otherwise, supply something more than "look it up".
Er um https://www.kmu.gov.ua/en/news/ambiciyi-ukrayini-otrimati-pl...
"Ukraine clearly outlines its ambitions to obtain a NATO Membership Action Plan and looks forward to comprehensive politico-military support for such a decision at the next NATO Summit in 2021. This was stated today during the briefing on “Defence aspects of Ukraine’s Euro-Atlantic integration: main achievements and tasks for the future” by the Minister of Defence of Ukraine Andrii Taran.
"Please inform your capitals that we are looking forward to your full political and military support for such a decision at the next NATO Summit in 2021. This will be a practical step and a demonstration of commitment to the 2008 Bucharest Summit," said the Minister of Defence of Ukraine, addressing the ambassadors and military attaches of NATO member states, as well as representatives of the NATO office in Ukraine.
According to him, the current Ukraine’s course towards full membership in NATO is enshrined in the Constitution of Ukraine. And the rapid adoption of the NATO Membership Action Plan is a goal set out in Ukraine’s recently adopted National Security Strategy. Over the past seven years, Ukraine has firmly defended not only its own independence, but also Europe’s security and stability, and has been a powerful outpost on NATO’s eastern flank.
Sure, Ukraine was pushing for it. 0x737368 said that NATO was pushing for it. That's rather different.
it's not cringe to posit (yes, even in flowery language) that world leaders sometimes make decisions that don't resolve to pure dollars and cents. That mythos actually drives the hearts and minds of people all around the world including in Moscow.
That's partially true for propaganda used to drive population's support, politicians of that caliber don't get to their positions by being hopeless romantics and idealists.
I don't think the idea is that Putin is a hopeless romantic. It's that he's a deranged megalomaniac.
The reason you're thinking of him as "deranged" is because American propaganda would rather omit the reasons for going to war that I've listed in the parent comment because that would make NATO and therefore the US also partially to blame for what's happening in Ukraine.
I assure you - Putin is not deranged.
Reasons, sure. You can read what the man himself has to say: http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/66181
It is deranged megalomania run amok.
It's interesting to read you. Where did you get that idea that OTAN is menacing Russia? OTAN is a defensive coalition only. If the USA had the very unlikely idea to attack Russia, do you think that most of other NATO countries, situated in Europe, will join??? You think that OTAN as an empire, and more specifically as if it was the name of the American empire. It is not.
OTAN was a coalition built to protect its members from the USSR. After 1991, it had no real use until September 11. And then it was again there without true need. Last year, the French president publicly wondered what was OTAN was for... Well, "thanks to" Putin, we all know for sure that we need OTAN to protect us from Putin's imperialism. Otherwise, this costly organization would have slowly sunk into limbs.
If Ukraine wanted to join NATO, it was for protection after Russian's grabs of parts of its territory. Ukraine was obviously right to ask to join. The NATO members were far from wanting that, because they did not want to be directly implicated in an Russia / Ukraine war.
The whole notion that Russia would need buffer countries between itself and NATO is ridiculous. Russia has had several direct frontiers with NATO (Poland, Baltic countries) for the last 30 years (!) without any threat.
The EU was build to avoid wars between its members. We don't want wars anymore, hot or cold. Russia has absolutely nothing to fear on its western frontier. Which European country would be nowadays stupid enough to try to invade Russia??? As if France or Poland would by itself try to attack Russia? Oh, the USA? Well, I can't imagine it but even so, that would not be coming from Europe. Don't think for one second that other European countries would join a common attack from the USA allied to Poland. I'm trying here to find a plausible scenario that could justify your fear to be attacked on its western frontier. None is plausible.
This "Russian fear" has no rational ground. Citing Napoleon and Hitler doesn't work either. They both failed, remember??? The one lesson from History is "do not attack Russia in any case, you will be defeated". To retain from the past that an invasion from the West is always possible is just a justification for prevention attacks TO the west. What about Germany, you could ask. Well, precisely: 9 out of 10 Nazi soldiers were killed by the Red Army. Yes, sorry John Wayne and valiant Englishmen, but most of the work was done by the USSR.
The two last arguments are just atrocious. So Ukraine has found fossil fuels and you fear competition. Poor you... France produce only 1% of its petrol and 3% natural gas'/consumption. But France GDP is the 6th or the 7th in the world and Russia is only 12th with many more people. So... get to work and stop thinking like Putin that you are all like Emiratis that are rich without working. And please stop crying about yourselves: your school system is at least as good as the French one. You are not an African country. Russia was flying in space and exploding nuclear bombs ten years before France. Your problem is Putin and his kleptocracy. It's time to stop fantasies about a nonexistent threat from the West and start a revolution: it's time for democracy in Russia, so that you can develop your economy properly. If your leaders stopped stealing hundreds of billions from the Russian people and making wars without reason, Russia's economy would grow very fast. Look at South Korea: in 50 years they went from poverty to super high way of living. Russia is today far far more advanced than South Korea in 1953 (e.g. after the Korean war). In 20 years, Russians could have the same GDP per inhabitant as France or even better (thanks to fossil fuels, huge agriculture, super good IT sector etc).
Your fear of the West is a way to hide the terrible reality: Russians are afraid of Putin and his regime. I would be too, if I was Russian, believe me. Stop deflecting your internal issues into aggressiveness towards the West.
And, by the way, Russia has the nuclear bomb! Well, more exactly about 4,000 nuclear heads (like the USA more or less). And you need Ukraine to protect your territory? This is so ridiculous in all cases because there is absolutely no military threat from European countries. The only threatening power to your territory is ... China.
Do you still think the USA is interested in invading Russia? What for? California alone as the same GDP as France. They have plenty of petrol and natural gas, plenty of land. Nothing to gain. The USA is in competition with China in the middle term. Yesterday, Russia asked China for military assistance... meaning that the invasion of Ukraine is:
1/ a military failure already (Russia may win the battles but its military weakness has been proven: 17 days into thr war and you don't own the air yet? Nobody could have imagined Russia army being so little operational, and today everybody knows.
2/ OTAN is revived for the next 50 years and will probably enlarge to Sweden and Finland. And also Ukraine when Russian troops will finally retreat, having totally erased all Ukraine's cities, making Kiyv and Karkhiv look like Grozny or Alepo, a large cemetery of concrete. You'll call that a victory, because you'll keep some parts of it (maybe) but without seeing the contradiction of calling Ukrainians your own blood and killing a few tens or hundred of thousands of them - and erasing from Earth some of the most beautiful cities in the world. But victory it is, yeah.
3/ Russia will become a vassal of China or... will lose the Ukrainian war. Because that war is going to last not months but years, simply because the Ukrainian people won't submit and that the West will provide them with weapons and money. Like we did in Afghanistan. Like the USSR and China did in Vietnam to defeat the US army. No army can defeat a people that won't submit. That's one of the few things that History teaches.
So China will become your first client for petrol and natural gas, and agriculture etc. And everything you'll want to import from the West will have to come through China. And as China is more and more on an imperialist path, you'll have to fight along them in wars that are no direct concern to you.
So keep on fantasizing on the western threat and keep lying to yourselves that you are your own enemy. Putin and his regime are of course responsible for this war. I don't think that the Russian people wanted this war, even if I have doubt's after reading you, really. In all cases, at the end, one people is responsible for not revolting against its dictators. Democracy is a never-ending process. Historians say that the French Revolution started in 1789 but really reached its goal, a parliamentary democracy, in 1875. So start organizing and demonstrating in the streets of Moscow. We French are still very regularly demonstrating against our government. The USA's democracy is in a poor state, with a very polarized society - and yes, Trump almost succeeded in its coup, and he will try again, with Russian money once again (and Chinese in 2024 for sure).
Democracy is not a well of petrol you find one day. A political regime is possible only when democratic values are really deeply integrated in a people way of thinking. The Maidan protest had shown that Ukrainians are globally a democratic people ; whatever happens in this war won't change that because it takes tens of years. That's why the USA failed very predictably in trying to impose democracy to Iraq. The Iraqis are not a democratic people yet. We thought that Russia was on its way, then Putin came to power.
So no, Russia and Ukraine is not a "divorce", that is stupid, but finding rationality to Ukraine's invasion in security reasons and petrol & water reasons is just ... I don't have words, really. My point is not to vex you by using bad words - just to try and make you understand that your perception of reality is very difficult to understand for a French American living in France for most of his life.
To tell you the truth, I'm ashamed by my own French president, the young and bright and good-looking Macron. To me, he is not a true democrat. He has not defended democracy in the French political system but has rather diminished it - making it much more like a presidential regime than a parliamentary regime. More like the USA except that the Congress has much much more power in the USA that the French Congress (meaning House + Senate). The police in France has turned violent, racist. About two-third of the police force vote for the far-right. Democracy is not going that well in France either.
You have to fight for democracy in Russia. You should let Ukrainians decide for themselves what is good for them, even if you don't like it: that's the basis of democracy. And I have to fight for democracy both in France and in the USA - by democratic means of course.
To each his own fight. Stop deflecting your collective weakness towards Putin's regime into fear and aggressiveness to Central and Western Europe - and even the USA (which military hubris is a problem, I reckon). Do your "homework". Leave other countries, especially infant democracy like Ukraine alone. Most of European countries have no issues with the Russian people. Really. Well, there is resentment in Central Europe that was jailed by the Soviet Iron Curtain, of course. But time goes by. Look at us, French and German: there is no resentment anymore. It has taken 40 years after WWII.
History teaches the lessons you decide to retain from it.