kregasaurusrex 2 days ago | prev | next |

How the family found out about satellites is very interesting to me- such an unexplained phenomena wouldn't make sense to some groups (ie, flat-earthers deny their existence altogether), where they would have observed Sputnik zooming across the sky while only being visible at dawn and dusk. With such perfect recurrence the Lykovs would have been able to deduce that the object followed ordinary orbital mechanics against the backdrop of the celestial cosmos rather than being a supernatural object, especially that Sputnik was only in the sky for a couple months in 1957. Later ones would have have likely indicated they were a product of man; I'd personally ascribe it to being supernatural in origin!

dmitry-vsl 2 days ago | root | parent | next |

I think this is a fabrication by the journalist. Overall, it seems to me that there was an ideological agenda behind this story. In the USSR, no topic could cause a stir in major media outlets without an ideological directive.

HarryHirsch a day ago | root | parent |

The family would have heard about airplanes, they were from Perm Oblast, which isn't exactly remote. It isn't exactly a big leap to think that what they were seeing was the lights of airplanes. Ships carry lights for safe navigation, and if you fly at night you also carry lights for safety.

croisillon a day ago | root | parent | prev |

i sometimes wonder what it was to live in early human times and make sense of everything: time, phenomena etc. i am not religious but i guess back then i would have ascribed anything to gods

_def a day ago | root | parent | next |

You would need to come up with the concept of gods first though

Cthulhu_ a day ago | root | parent |

I'm no anthropologist but religion must've started in parallel with verbal communication, storytelling, various degrees of higher level thinking.

That said, cave paintings, which are arguably the earliest "documentation" we have of human activity and their thoughts, depict pretty tangible things; pictures of animals, hand prints, people hunting animals, plants? that kind of thing. The earliest religious symbols may have been venus statues, but it seems that it cannot be concluded definitively whether they were objects of worship / depictions of deities. That said, there's clear signs of shamanic religion dating from the upper paleolithic, 50.000 years BC and onwards. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehistoric_religion is a good read.

Anyway, ~52.000 years ago is still fairly recent, given homo sapiens emerged ~300.000 years ago and the earliest stone tools were from ~3.3 million years ago.

Personally, I think religion / the concept of gods or a higher power has been a part of humanity for as long as we've had the ability to think smort thoughts and communicate with one another. Some would be grounded in reality - good weather means good times - but others in myth, like the stars/moon, thunderstorms, etc.

grecy 6 hours ago | root | parent | prev |

Spending a few months in Iceland it was really easy to see why they have so many gods and mythical beings in their history. The place is MAGICAL.

kunley 2 days ago | prev | next |

Very Russian story: must-have big drama, old grudges, extreme distances and overwhelming sadness.

degun 2 days ago | root | parent |

[flagged]

filoleg 2 days ago | root | parent | next |

I am Russian, and the grandparent comment rings very true to me. To me, personally, it reads less like snark and more like just a pretty existential comment on banality of how dynamics like this seem to have been always so prevalent in Russian culture.

wruza 2 days ago | root | parent |

I see it as a self-sustaining stereotype only prevalent in what people tend to read. Who wants to read about a normal life of a normal russian, frankly? It’s likely not a snark, but it is nothing more than just a complex sort of klukva^ either. Subj is a completely non-standard story of a single person from early 20th century. You can find similar hopelessness in London, Hemingway, Le Guin. The prevalent dynamics in Russian culture is that you get education, skip draft, go to work, have kids, buy some things and die from bad healthcare at 60-70. Pretty normal shit that is too boring for a narrow-font-magazine headline.

Personally it doesn’t offend me, but it’s just cringe(?) most of the time. Off, odd, klukva. Nothing rings true to me in this subthread, which is just a pile of stereotypes. I think that these “and american, but american” comments come from the fact that people can and get tired of it but cannot express it clearly.

^ en: cranberry, an absurd stereotype about russians

ashoeafoot a day ago | root | parent | next |

Yeah,we laughed about the stereotypes, but then a genocidal dictator jumped a neighboring country and Russian society very stereotypical just went not only along with it bit danced in the streets . The old stories of everyone dreaming the same western dreams, they are collapsing in front of observable reality .

ZoomZoomZoom a day ago | root | parent | next |

Could you please remind me of historical cases the civil society prevented their rulers waging a war?

Also, "society danced in the streets", uh-huh, right.

Typical Russian wants the usual things even now: mostly economical stability and being left alone. Not so far from "western dreams".

moktonar a day ago | root | parent | prev |

Yeah and also he did it for no reason at all, not that the west tried for decades to expand war on the east, that's totally made up.

ethanwillis a day ago | root | parent | next |

So the best course of action to get back at the "evil west" was to attack a country that was neutral. Solid plan. Especially when you can't project your military power a few hundred km over your own border. Genius!

moktonar a day ago | root | parent | next |

_was_ is the keyword

edit: it became non-neutral well before the war when it decided to join NATO

ethanwillis a day ago | root | parent |

What do you expect when you murder civilians and level cities with artillery? More genius rhetoric. Keep it up!

edit for above edit: A mutual defense alliance is neutral. Don't attack and you won't have to deal with it.

Edit for below edit: Well we're far past that. Ukraine will be joining NATO and there's nothing you can do about it.

Another edit for below: This is what you don't get for your last edit. It simply doesn't matter. The world where Russia can act with impunity with nuclear sabre rattling isn't a world worth living in. I know that makes you so very upset, but you're just going to have to accept it.

And yet again edit: Correct, the state reserves the right to violence.

moktonar a day ago | root | parent |

>What do you expect when you murder civilians and level cities with artillery? More genius rhetoric. Keep it up!

see above

> edit for above edit: A mutual defense alliance is neutral. Don't attack and you won't have to deal with it.

edit cubed: you logic leaks everywhere, don't join NATO and you will not have to deal with it

> Edit for below edit: Well we're far past that. Ukraine will be joining NATO and there's nothing you can do about it.

edit for the edit games: if so, we are past world-end then, and there's nothing you can do about it...

> Another edit for below: This is what you don't get for your last edit. It simply doesn't matter. The world where Russia can act with impunity with nuclear sabre rattling isn't a world worth living in. I know that makes you so very upset, but you're just going to have to accept it.

edit for the last edit: Funny because, USA is the _only_ country that _actually_ used nukes with impunity... twice

> And yet again edit: Correct, the state reserves the right to violence.

I guess that's true for every state in the world...

If you don't want to live in such a world, go ahead, but you can't think everyone will follow you.

ben_w a day ago | root | parent | prev | next |

> Especially when you can't project your military power a few hundred km over your own border.

Quite a lot of western commentators were just as surprised as Putin to discover that Putin commanded a force that managed to lose its own tanks to local farmers.

The difference is we got out the popcorn, and he got filmed anxiously gripping his own desk for 12 minutes.

Since then Putin has put his country into a war economy, and now it is a war of attrition because Ukraine is given just enough support to not lose but not enough to win either — Biden is both afraid of Russia winning and also of Russia escalating it if they lose too hard.

This war will go on until the west gets tired of supporting Ukraine or decides that escalation is a risk they're willing to take or Russia collapses under the weight of the war economy or Ukraine develops nukes; but I don't mean "the USA" when I say "the west" despite the fact that most current support comes from the USA, as many European countries have been building up their militaries both in reaction to what Putin did and in anticipation of Trump taking the US out of NATO.

moktonar a day ago | root | parent |

You base your logic on the assumption the Putin will never use the nukes. Funny because the USA is the _only_ country that used nuke until now.

ben_w a day ago | root | parent |

I count that under "decides that escalation is a risk they're willing to take". We can all see the claims and threats made by the Russian government, we know they want us to fear their nukes, that's why the US government has been concerned about escalation.

I personally think there's a 75% they can't use any of their nukes and a 92% they can't use a strategically decisive number of nukes.

But I'm doing armchair analysis here, and even if I wasn't those odds are only sufficient for me privately to not worry, they're not enough for a government to not plan for the worst. I'd be more worried if the US was more hawkish and cavalier about this.

moktonar 20 hours ago | root | parent |

1 in 10 is not a low probability…

ben_w 17 hours ago | root | parent |

Low, just not low enough.

Though that's even assuming Putin (etc.) actually tries to use them — as I said, Biden's deliberately not given enough aid for Ukraine to win hard precisely because he doesn't want to risk it.

He's limiting support to enough to not lose, which is different than winning; he doesn't want Russia to keep rolling tanks to the line of the old Iron Curtain either.

tim333 a day ago | root | parent | prev | next |

They didn't expand a war to the east, they expanded democracy, human rights and a defensive alliance to the east.

grugagag a day ago | root | parent | next |

That’s an existential threat to Russia. If Ukraine succesfully made a change more Russian sattelites would get the idea that it’s possible to escape the Russian grip. Second is the power projection on the Black Sea Russia was set to lose.

tim333 a day ago | root | parent | next |

Well, more an existential threat to the current regime running the place. I imagine the Russian people would be quite happy to have a regular democracy. Which is one reason Putin isn't very keen on one in Ukraine.

selivanovp a day ago | root | parent |

Ukraine never had any glimpse of regular democracy. For 30 years it was just a state when one or the other oligarchical clan was able to install its puppet on the throne to decide who's looting the majority of profits in their pockets.

Right now Zelensky totally usurped power, his political opponents were either killed of forced to flee the country, total mass media control installed, everyone who tried to argue were raided and taken under control or had to flee the country, religion rights are taken away, churches are raided and the right people are getting installed. Borders are crossed and mined, everyone who's trying to flee the country are getting hunted and killed if there's no way to catch them to send in trenches. Russian language, that is the mother tongue for 80% of population and Zelensky himself is forbidden in schools, and any other public services. We have a classic case of nationalists dictatorship being installed and turned the country in the same shit hole that Germany became in the late 1930's with storm troops having population under control by force. That's why Putin isn't very keen on what's going on in Ukraine.

libertine a day ago | root | parent | prev | next |

> That’s an existential threat to Russia.

This is repeated over and over again, but doesn't make it true: it is an existential threat to a corrupt regime, not to Russia.

Russia will be fine without the regime. It may have some rough times, but in the long run, it will be fine. Putin's regime isn't Russia, and Russia isn't Putin's regime.

Just like the propaganda narrative: "Oh Russia tried democracy for a couple of years and it was awful! Democracy doesn't work in Russia!"

Reforming institutions and culture isn't something you do in a few years. Look at the process Ukraine is going through to join the EU. It takes time, and thankfully, we have frameworks for what works nowadays.

selivanovp a day ago | root | parent |

>Look at the process Ukraine is going through to join the EU.

Let me guess, you're observing this marvelous process outside of Ukraine borders?

libertine a day ago | root | parent |

Why does it matter where I'm observing this from?

What matters is that the EU has the mechanisms, frameworks, controllers, and auditors that monitor this process.

It has worked well for most European countries, with the only exception being Hungary, which, from the looks of it, won't last much longer in the EU.

Joining the EU isn't a theatrical display of a man singing a piece of paper, that has no value, at a big table with all the state-controlled media cameras pointing at him.

But now it's my turn to guess... you're observing Ukraine from the Russian side, and you think you know the process better than the Ukrainian... and the EU... while not living in a democracy or knowing what it takes to make a democracy work properly.

It's quite a bold statement from you.

selivanovp a day ago | root | parent |

>Why does it matter where I'm observing this from?

Because the processes that are happening in Ukraine has nothing to do with democracy, human rights, religious freedoms, rights for private property, courts independence etc. And yes, I'm well aware that EU propaganda tells beautiful stories of how all of the above prospers in Ukraine, but reality on the ground is total opposite.

>But now it's my turn to guess... you're observing Ukraine from the Russian side, and you think you know the process better than the Ukrainian... and the EU... while not living in a democracy or knowing what it takes to make a democracy work properly.

Man, I have relatives living in Odessa since Soviet times. I have multiple friends in Ukraine that I studied in University with, that are living in Kiev and Kharkov. I've been in Ukraine many times over the 43 years of my life, and while I haven't been there since 2022 for obvious reasons, I have a good clue of how life there looks like if you're actually there, not listening to your local propaganda. What's going on there has nothing to do with democracy or human rights, and it's a pain for me for every day this war keep going.

libertine 21 hours ago | root | parent |

> Because the processes that are happening in Ukraine has nothing to do with democracy, human rights, religious freedoms, rights for private property, courts independence etc. And yes, I'm well aware that EU propaganda tells beautiful stories of how all of the above prospers in Ukraine, but reality on the ground is total opposite.

And you know this because your... propaganda told you so?

You're accusing me of being gullible for the EU ascension process, which enrolled 27 countries, many of them thriving. But we should believe you because of anecdotes of someone who apparently doesn't know the institutions and functions of a democracy.

Or you're expecting a country that is being annexed in a genocidal war, with Martial Law in place, to be thriving? +10 million Ukrainian refugees.

> I have a good clue of how life there looks like if you're actually there, not listening to your local propaganda.

Of course, you know - and Russia knows what's best for Ukraine - everyone else, including Ukrainians, doesn't know?

voytec a day ago | root | parent | prev |

Poland joining NATO was "an existential threat" to Soviet Russia, too. It's bullshit. The CCCP pretty much collapsed on its own.

There's no "threat" now. Putin is just desperately trying to rebuild what Gorbachev already lost.

grugagag a day ago | root | parent |

Well, yes, Putin is attemptng to revive the whole shebang and these countries don’t want it any longer. The threat is more countries breaking apart from the sphere of influence and Putin’s plan falling apart completly.

Had there been another plan, make prosperity by other means then yes, this whole thing would not be any threat, they’d have embraced it and played along and won on different fronts: they almost had the entire Europe dependent on gas. But then Mr Putin blew it.

libertine a day ago | root | parent | prev |

What war has the West tried to expand east are you referring to?

Or you're just going to ignore the fact that former soviet states only started to ask to join NATO after Russia restarted invading its neighbors?

moktonar 20 hours ago | root | parent | next |

Or maybe it was the other way around? Exactly like in Ukraine? Who knows… If NATO is not against Russia then why Russia is the only “soviet” state that NATO refused to accept? Divide Russia in many equivalent regions: how many of them can join NATO before NATO refuses to let them join? Or is it that only regions that are not under filo-Putin leaders’ control are accepted?

ethanwillis 19 hours ago | root | parent |

Russia never applied. The USSR did 3 quarter of a century ago and was denied. Russia asked when it would be asked to join. It doesn't work like that.

Show us where Russia applied to join NATO and got rejected.

moktonar 17 hours ago | root | parent |

Would NATO accept Russia into NATO if it did? Because that would definitely settle the Russia-Ukraine war...

ethanwillis 17 hours ago | root | parent |

Well instead of applying Russia invaded a sovereign country. So, I guess we won't know will we? Probably something to do with their post soviet inferiority complex.

selivanovp a day ago | root | parent | prev |

[flagged]

libertine 21 hours ago | root | parent |

Please do correct me: the wars in Georgia, Moldova, and Chechnya never happened?

1991–1993 - Georgian Civil War / 1991–1992 - South Ossetian War / 1992–1993 - War in Abkhazia / 1992 - Transnistria War / 1999 - War of Dagestan /

... so conflicts where Russia occupied territory, shouldn't be of concern to any former Soviet states? You don't think played a role in the decision to defend themselves from a neighbour known for their invasions and genocide?

The writing was on the wall:

2008 - Georgia / 2014 - Ukraine / 2022 - Ukraine

Who's next, Khazkstan will need to be identified?

How are my "facts" factually wrong?

dvfjsdhgfv a day ago | root | parent | prev |

I see your point but my Russian teacher had taught me exactly the same. She made me watch Skazka Skazok which won many awards (and I loved it btw) and read stories that also had this feeling. I'm happy that today Russia is not the same as before and there is also hope in people's lives, not only sadness. Or so it seems.

bdjsiqoocwk 2 days ago | root | parent | prev |

Now this TRULY is a very Russian comment. Anything you say about Russia gets the response "but America..."

d1sxeyes a day ago | root | parent | next |

This phenomenon has its own Wikipedia page:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_you_are_lynching_Negroes

pydry a day ago | root | parent |

"Whataboutism" is when you say "what about them?" not when you say "what about us?"

The Soviet dissident Andrei Sakharov, for example, did not treat every atrocity as identical-he had nothing to say about American atrocities. When he was asked about them, he said, "I don't know anything about them, I don't care about them, what I talk about are Soviet atrocities." And that was right-because those were the ones that he was responsible for, and that he might have been able to in­fluence. It's a very simple ethical point: you are responsible for the predictable consequences of your actions, you're not responsible for the predictable consequences of somebody else's actions.

He could have joined the Soviet protests against American Jim Crow laws like a good little model Soviet citizen, shaming that other empire but instead he bravely stood up to his own.

d1sxeyes a day ago | root | parent | next |

I think the point OP was making is that a response to “this is a very X attitude to things” does not find a direct response in a follow up which is “this is a very Y attitude to things”, and completely fails to address the X.

psychlops a day ago | root | parent | prev |

Whataboutism also has its own wikipedia page where it doesn't make such a distinction:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

pydry a day ago | root | parent |

>Accusing an interlocutor of whataboutism can also in itself be manipulative and serve the motive of discrediting, as critical talking points can be used selectively and purposefully even as the starting point of the conversation (cf. agenda setting, framing, framing effect, priming, cherry picking). The deviation from them can then be branded as whataboutism.

^^ pay special attention to this bit, it refers directly to us.

hamstergene 2 days ago | root | parent | prev |

It's because the current state propaganda pressures people with constant "they are same bad just hide it better" rhetoric, which itself is copied from Cold War era whataboutism.

My parents and relatives say the phrase "America has all the same..." literally every time anything political comes up, which is a pretty odd thing to say for people who aren't even able to read English-language media, least of all been here, which they admit but the next time say it again anyway. It intensified after 2013-2014 and hasn't been true at all during ~1995-2010.

It clearly comes from Putin's government insecurity about their comparative performance, rather than from any Russian cultural trait.

selivanovp a day ago | root | parent |

[flagged]

bdjsiqoocwk a day ago | root | parent | prev |

Yeah but. Why the USA? If I say "Russia invaded Ukraine", why do I always get the response "but the USA.." and now any one of many other countries that also invade. What is the connection? The USA has nothing to do with this.

No, let me explain to you what is actually going on. What's going on is that Russians have a chip on their should the size of Texas. A deep rooted sentiment of inferiority, that triggers every time you say something bad about their country, which they hate, and respond by attacking the country they admire but can't admit.

Without looking at polls, what do you think is the percentage of the Russian population that answered Yes to the question: if given the chance to move to the USA, would you? If you believe what you're saying, you probably think this is a very small number.

selivanovp a day ago | root | parent | prev |

>Yeah but. Why the USA?

Because 1. It's an easy and the most glaring example of lecturing people to do one thing, but doing the opposite themselves. 2. It was actually the country, that Russia wanted to be like during 80s and 90s, USA was a role model, but turned out to be full of shit. And the waking call happened, when USA bombed and shred to pieces Yugoslavia.

>If I say "Russia invaded Ukraine", why do I always get the response "but the USA.."

Once again, reasons are obvious if you're aware of the history.

1. USA can't lecture anyone about invading or annexing other countries, as USA invades one country after another just in the last few decades, and right now occupies Eastern part of Syria that's full of oil, and publicly brags that it's their oil. BTW, not o hard to notice a recent rhetoric in USA mass media and among politicians, that it's all about Ukraine resources and who gonna get what depending on the outcome of the war.

2. The war in Ukraine is a direct result of USA meddling in their elections in 2004 and 2013-2014, and desire to bring their military bases after the puppet government was installed. Russia was fine with sovereign Ukraine, even with a puppet like Yushchenko we were able to negotiate and live more or less peacefully, but military bases idea, kicking Russia out of Sevastopol is what spiralled this into violence.

>A deep rooted sentiment of inferiority, that triggers every time you say something bad about their country, which they hate, and respond by attacking the country they admire but can't admit.

Russians do have some sentiment on inferiority, and that's why we actually really glad when some respected and knowledgeable foreigner arrives and intend to cooperate, even teach us. For centuries such people were getting really rich working in Russia, even if they were mediocre back in their countries. But you're totally misguided on the attack part. Attack or self defense phase initiated only in the case of demonstratively refusal to make any reasonable compromise and direct hostile actions. Russian history is full of wars, we do not enjoy violence and know very well the cost in lives.

Coming back to Ukraine, it's not so hard to remember, that Putin tried really hard to avoid this war. Crimea was peacefully annexed specifically to block any attempt to bring Ukraine into NATO legally, and secure our interests in the Black Sea, after it was obvious, that newly installed puppets gonna do exactly this (later Ukraine changed their constitution and replaced their intention to be a sovereign and neutral state to be a NATO member). Then Minsk agreements were introduced, for Ukraine government to get in touch with reality, but as we know now, from public admissions, USA, Germany and France intentionally sabotaged these agreements, pushing Ukraine into a military resolution (and at the same time they were introducing more and more sanctions towards Russia, lying that we do not respect our part of the deal). Then, Ukraine finally started to move their heavy equipment to Donbass in the early Autumn of 2021, and Zelensky publicly announced, that he won't respect Minsk agreements (it meant escalation in Donbass). Putin then spent several month in the Winter of 2021-2022 trying to make a deal with USA, to prevent direct war. But USA declared, that they can do whatever they want, build their bases wherever they can etc. So, we got an initial invasion of Feb 2022, when Russian army pushed to Kiev and Putin immediately proposed just another plan of how to stop all this. Ukraine government was ready to sign it, but Boris arrived and told them that they have to fight (also a public knowledge now, with multiple admissions of people involved in the process). It's not so hard to notice, that up to this day, Putin is ready to negotiate and stop this violence, it's Ukraine and the NATO countries behind their back are refusing to. And it's very easy to target USA and Western propaganda in general, that publicly lies up to this day, that "mad Vlad just woke up and invaded a sovereign country without any reason, because he's evil".

>Without looking at polls, what do you think is the percentage of the Russian population that answered Yes to the question: if given the chance to move to the USA, would you? If you believe what you're saying, you probably think this is a very small number.

I don't know if it's a very small number, small number or anything else. What I do know, is that there's still a myth in some countries, that Russia is some country that is behind an Iron Wall, that is hard to escape. Reality is different. Russia is open to the whole world, you can buy a ticket to fly to any country. We have millions of foreign tourists and migrants for decades. Anyone who really wanted to leave Russia did it already, or can do it today, for example. And a lot of people who did, returned already, because they learnt, that what they thought about some countries is not equal to how life there actually is. Reality is, that in the last 20 years Russia made a huge leap in quality of life in every sphere, and for me personally there's no desire to live in any other country, because I like it here.

ethanwillis a day ago | root | parent | next |

It's interesting to me how you say "war" here on an English speaking and mostly American website.

But what is the official Russian position on it? Can it be called a war there? It can but with repercussions. Why don't you use the official terms for it or would that not play over so well when trying to drum up support for what this really is. Aggressive Russian expansion.

The "peaceful" annexation of Crimea also came with Russian funding of separatist groups in eastern Ukraine and the shooting down of civilian aircraft. How peaceful is that?

pydry a day ago | root | parent | next |

Ive seen RT call it a war. When Russian propaganda calls it an "SMO" it's not because theyre allergic to the word "war" but because they legally didnt declare war.

This is not unusual. The US, for instance, didnt declare war on Iraq when it launched its unprovoked invasion.

>The "peaceful" annexation of Crimea also came with Russian funding of separatist groups in eastern Ukraine and the shooting down of civilian aircraft. How peaceful is that?

Not very, but neither was the Andrey Parubiy led terrorist attack from Hotel Ukraina which kicked off this civil war.

Kiev could have put him in prison for taking a sniper rifle to the top of the hotel and committing mass murder against peaceful protestors but instead he was elected to the Rada.

The Ukrainian war hero Nadia Savchenko who identified him - she is still, ironically, the only person to be convicted and imprisoned in relation to the terrorist attack which kicked off this civil war.

ethanwillis a day ago | root | parent |

RT is a propaganda organization. They say war because it's intended for an English speaking audience. Notice I haven't said anything about Ukraine being or not being "perfect."

And the US didn't shy away from calling it a war in their media when talking to their own public.

The topic being discussed is Russia's motives.

selivanovp a day ago | root | parent | next |

>RT is a propaganda organization.

RT is no more propaganda than CNN or any other Western mainstream media. It's just different people who set the narratives.

>And the US didn't shy away from calling it a war in their media when talking to their own public.

Once again, so called SMO is called war in Russia, just not in official documents and announcements, because juridically it's not a war, at least up to this day.

pydry a day ago | root | parent | prev |

>RT is a propaganda organization.

Hence if they use the term war, that must mean it's probably not illegal to use the term war.

>And the US didn't shy away from calling it a war in their media when talking to their own public.

Putin is notorious for being a stickler for legalisms.

As for why legally declaring war seems to have become passe in both Russia and the US, I encourage you to read this: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4hu7hc/the_u...

ethanwillis a day ago | root | parent |

> I encourage you to read this More whataboutism telling me the US is bad which is supposed to distract me from what Russia is doing.

It's probably illegal or is illegal? Be honest, does the Russian government arrest people for holding a sign that says "No War" or even signs that are blank? Pieces of paper that are blank?

RT using the term war for English speaking audiences is allowed because it is state sanctioned propaganda so you can come here and point to how they say it. Well, they also come here and pay people like Tim Pool to say things too that they won't say in Russia.

pydry 6 hours ago | root | parent |

>It's probably illegal or is illegal?

Not illegal in the slightest.

>Russian government arrest people for holding a sign that says "No War" or even signs that are blank?

Yep, but coz theyre protesting against the war not coz theyre calling it a war.

It's exactly like that time British police threatened protestors in London with arrest for holding up a blank sign. They were threatened with arrest for the expression of their implied beliefs as well, at precisely a time that the government was feeling overly sensitive.

There are certain specific things that can happen in most countries that really bring out the authoritatian side of the government.

ethanwillis 2 hours ago | root | parent |

How can you protest something that's not officially happening? It's just an SMO after all. Honestly you and all your bot account friends should just go crawl back into whatever kremlin gutter you came out of.

Maybe one day you'll learn to get off your knees.

pydry an hour ago | root | parent |

Somehow I managed to protest the war in Iraq despite war never being declared.

Ill let you figure out the details.

selivanovp a day ago | root | parent | prev |

>But what is the official Russian position on it? Can it be called a war there?

Of course it can and is called war in Russia. You just missing the point: war is a juridical term. Technically neither Russia nor Ukraine are in war with each other. That's why officially it's called "Special Military Operation", and in Ukraine it was for years "Antiterrorists Operation", and recently rebranded as "armed aggression of Russian Federation against Ukraine sovereignty".

>The "peaceful" annexation of Crimea also came with Russian funding of separatist groups in eastern Ukraine and the shooting down of civilian aircraft. How peaceful is that?

Your should learn some history and geography. Crimea is a peninsula in Black Sea, majority of population are ethnic Russians. Russian special forces entered Crimea after the coup in Kiev, and peacefully blocked Ukrainian military there and let referendum happen, so it was annexed. Most of Ukrainian soldiers stayed in Crimea and were from Crimea, got Russian citizenship just like all the other population. Those who refused were peacefully allowed to return to Ukrainian territory.

Donbas is an Eastern region of Ukraine. First of all, how coup in Kiev happened? Ukrainian nationalists, driven by the idea of Ukraine dropping sovereignty and joining EU and NATO, attacked multiple military and police headquarters, got armed, entered Kiev, and after several weeks of riots in the capital that ended with mass shooting there, managed to force elected President of Ukraine and his government to flee. If you're unaware, this president was installed mostly by people in the Eastern Ukraine, opposing to previous one, that was voted in by Western part of Ukraine. So, basically, Western oligarchs (Ukraine during its 30+ years of independence was ruled by several oligarch clans originating from either Western (agricultural) or Eastern (industrial) part of Ukraine), their nationalists backed by USA embassy and Viki Nuland herself seized power in Ukraine. So Donbas with some help from remaining Eastern oligarchs started the uprising in Donetsk and Lughansk, and declared, that they want their rights for their language, religion etc be preserved (Most of Eastern Ukraine population are ethnic Russians and basically was part of Russia until 1922 or so, when Lenin gifted this territory and people to Ukrainian SSR). These people also started to raid police and military bases, got armed. So, coup government in Ukraine, instead of talking to these people, announced "antiterrorists operation" and moved army to get Donbass under control, and they started from bombing Lughansk. That's basically how it turned to war.

As to civilian plane, it was shot down many weeks after direct confrontation started, and it's up to this day very arguable who actually shot it down, as the court in Netherlands turned this case into the same farce as investigation of Nord Stream sabotage, where they were using only facts that suits their version, and ignored everything, that didn't fit the picture.

aguaviva a day ago | root | parent | next |

Technically neither Russia nor Ukraine are in war with each other.

Then the "technical" distinction is obviously irrelevant.

That's why officially it's called "Special Military Operation"

And the official justification is pure hogwash, of course. The real reason they call it that is simply, and obviously, to mess with your head.

ethanwillis a day ago | root | parent | prev |

I'm not missing the point at all and I know the difference between Crimea and other parts of Ukraine.

So let me make sure I understand your story perfectly. Russia was so concerned about Ukrainian sovereignty that they sent their military into Crimea. And instead of allowing Crimea to exist as a sovereign state with what Russia viewed as the rightful president/government of Ukraine... it instead annexed it and said this is Russia now?

Quite interesting. It's almost as if Russia didn't care about the "integrity" of the elections and just wanted more land for itself.

selivanovp a day ago | root | parent |

>So let me make sure I understand your story perfectly. Russia was so concerned about Ukrainian sovereignty that they sent their military into Crimea.

Not really. Russian military was already in Crimea. If you're unaware, Sevastopol is a major Russian fleet base since 18th century, and both marines and regular soldiers were stationed there based on signed agreement with Ukraine government.

>And instead of allowing Crimea to exist as a sovereign state with what Russia viewed as the rightful president/government of Ukraine... it instead annexed it and said this is Russia now?

Those people, who Nuland and K installed as government of Ukraine after the coup were declaring as their political goal to kick Russia out of Crimea, broke the 50 years long deal and turn Sevastopol to a NATO fleet base. So yes, as soon as they were installed and declared by the West as the legitimate government of Ukraine, Putin annexed Crimea, to create a territorial dispute, that will not allow NATO to legally accept Ukraine.

>Quite interesting. It's almost as if Russia didn't care about the "integrity" of the elections and just wanted more land for itself.

Another interesting fact to you: Crimea was an Autonomous Republic, and it actually tried to separate from Ukraine in the 90's to rejoin Russia by referendum, but Kiev government sent troops there and rewrote Crimean constitution to prevent any separation.

aguaviva a day ago | root | parent |

Russian military was already in Crimea.

They had a lease at, and were restricted to a specific military base there.

They were definitely not "in the Crimea", in terms of the peninsula at large, as you are perfectly aware. To suggest, in response to someone pointing out the 2014 invasion, that it's "not really" an invasion because they were "already in the Crimea" -- is just weird semantic head games.

bdjsiqoocwk a day ago | root | parent | prev |

Let's imagine a thought experiment. Imagine you tell an american "the USA did X", what's he gonna respond. I know what he won't, he won't say "but Russia...". That's because Russia is a culturally irrelevant country.

selivanovp a day ago | root | parent |

It has nothing to do with culture. Reading USA news you can find all kinds of "Russians did it" to explain any kind of fuck up.

tsimionescu 2 days ago | prev | next |

I remember watching a documentary about them, without much context. The old lady who is still living alone out there was talking a lot about how the Patriarch (an Orthodox equivalent of the Pope, more or less) corrupted their old faith, and she was cursing his name a lot. By the way she was speaking, I thought she was talking about some events that must have happened during her father's life, maybe his childhood - I assumed she was upset about some communist era Patriarch who probably was too friendly with the regime or something.

Looking it up later, I realized she was an Old Believer, and the Patriarch she was cursing was in fact Nikon, who corrupted their faith in 1652... I found it deeply fascinating how powerful and alive this almost 400 year old grudge was to this woman.

kgeist 2 days ago | root | parent | next |

It's basically Old Believers' entire identity - opposition to the official church.

Muromec 2 days ago | root | parent |

Not to the official church, but to Ukrainians bringing it into the alignment with the common Orthodox canon at the time. What happened isn’t purely lithurgical change, they imported a lot of monks who can read canonical greek texts with them.

It’s a repeated historical pattern — top down reforms brought by “enlightened” leader to make the country more European, more Orthodox or more communist.

This was even before Peter cutting beards of the entrenched nobility and was sold on the orthodoxy, autocracy and nationalism thing by the usual suspects.

kgeist a day ago | root | parent |

One of the reasons for the reforms was to "go back to the old roots", because the Greeks peformed some rituals differently from Russians, and the opinion was that the Russian rituals were "corrupted" but, interestingly, some of the "restored" canon was actually later Greek innovations while the Russian Church preserved the older ways. For example, they started to cross themselves with 3 fingers instead of 2 fingers in Constantinople only in the 13th century. In my opinion, an unnecessary and misguided reform.

tsimionescu a day ago | root | parent | next |

Funnily enough, this obscure dispute may have been the inspiration for a very modern work of art.

In the game Elden Ring, there are mysterious entities known as the Two Fingers and the Three Fingers. The Two Fingers are well known and respected parts of the church of that land, while the Three Fingers are a secret, heretical cult.

And the Two Fingers is in fact a literal set of two fingers, which seem to be the index and middle finger, corresponding to the fingers used in the Old Believers version of the rite; while the Three Fingers is also a set of fingers, with a thumb, index, and middle finger, also corresponding to the fingers used in the modern rite. It's somewhat likely that they are inspired by exactly this huge dispute in Eastern Orthodox's history.

Muromec 20 hours ago | root | parent | next |

That's a different schism chef. It's all schisms all the way down. They were unhinged from the beginning you may say.

082349872349872 a day ago | root | parent | prev |

I tried watching "Ivan Vasilievich Changes Profession" (1973) to see which way they had Ivan IV (the Terrible) crossing, but the director very cleverly has the actor's back to the camera during that moment in the elevator...

JacobThreeThree 2 days ago | root | parent | prev | next |

Give them some smartphones with social media and it'll be forgotten in a generation.

Dr_Birdbrain 2 days ago | root | parent | next |

Or, it will be amplified, and will become the basis of a religious-nationalist movement.

blooalien 2 days ago | root | parent | next |

> "Or, it will be amplified, and will become the basis of a religious-nationalist movement."

^^^ If history is any indicator, this is the much more likely outcome. ^^^

pj_mukh 2 days ago | prev | next |

“You can’t breathe. There are cars everywhere. There is no clean air. Each car that passes by leaves so many toxins in the air. You have no other option but to stay at home.”

Mmm, stay in a forest for 40 years and come back out a New Urbanist. Typical.

aziaziazi a day ago | root | parent | next |

Haha not bad but that would be more funny to me if I didn’t experience it every Holliday back. One week in the mountains is enough to reset my tolerance and get bitter tickle as soon as back in urban home.

grecy 6 hours ago | root | parent | prev |

I’m walking the Camino in Spain. After A single day out in the wilderness the smell of traffic is terrible and very noticeable.

Flying from my home in the Yukon to LAX is like landing in Mordor. The air is disgusting, the brown smudge, etc.

hnthrowaway0328 2 days ago | prev | next |

I wish I could do that in Canada. Not totally isolated but a few kms from a main road with a chalet and something. Solar for power, Starlink for network and I can die in that chalet.

But building and maintaining are going to be hell because I know exactly zero about those.

cgh 2 days ago | root | parent | next |

Literally the only things stopping you from doing this are money (to buy a rural lot somewhere, tools, a truck and so forth) and time. You can learn most of your skills with YouTube and practise, not kidding. Thanks to YouTube, we renovated a borderline crappy house, built outbuildings, landscaped, etc. with essentially no construction experience. I am still kind of amazed by this.

Cthulhu_ a day ago | root | parent | next |

I know someone from the internet that ended her 20 year relationship and went with someone else that she's known for at least that long too, they decided to buy a plot of land and build their homestead from scratch. They're struggling though because everything costs a lot of money and time, like buying an old bulldozer that of course needs a lot of repairs and work. They were hoping to have a cabin up before winter but due to all the setbacks they're forced to rent something for over the winter now. They also have a baby on the way.

idgi, I kinda get the drive for homesteading, but at the same time it's a luxury lifestyle choice. That said, they chose the hard way and build their own stuff from locally sourced wood, instead of buying a plot of land with a cabin already on it.

Personally I wouldn't mind retreating into the woods for a couple of weeks, but at the moment I like home comforts too.

Loughla 2 days ago | root | parent | prev | next |

I'll add, there are also databases of home improvement projects available through your local library. That way you can fully evaluate the YouTube video to see if the creator is wildly unsafe or something.

bn-l 2 days ago | root | parent |

Hey what would I search / ask to find this? Thanks.

Loughla 2 days ago | root | parent |

I think the main database is home improvement source. Again, your local public library should prove access to that with their subscription to ebsco.

hnthrowaway0328 2 days ago | root | parent | prev |

Yeah, it's half money and time and half kid.

A more realistic option is to just buy a chalet in a relatively remote area so I have access to some sort of plumbing system. But then again it's tough to find a stable remote job and a good school for my kid. (Again money can probably solve both)

scottyah 2 days ago | root | parent | prev | next |

In Norway they have a bunch of chalets like that, the key is to build and stock them in the summer. Don't pull a Chris McCandless, but plenty of people have survived the arctic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hy-4NxJRxNQ

082349872349872 a day ago | root | parent |

It boggles my mind that people don't read Chris McCandless' story and notice that in his previous adventures, he'd also fucked up, but always got bailed out by other people. Then he got the brilliant idea of going someplace where there were no other people...

scottyah a day ago | root | parent |

I think that was a big draw. Being dependent on his dad whom he grew to hate was a big push to his adventures, and he just wanted to be able to try himself against nature. People kept bailing him out, so he could never get the answer of whether or not he could really survive on his own.

It's unfortunate that most of the easily inhabitable world is inhabited, so you have to go to desert or very cold places where the chance of survival is so low.

If there was real untamed wilderness in Southern California, he'd probably still be alive. Or he would have just push on to a harder survival experience...

timonoko a day ago | prev | next |

Nobody ever mentions this area was wilderness, because the invading Muscovites totally decimated indigenous population known as Hakassi.

For various reason, the Finnish version of wikipedia is more informative. https://fi-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/Hakassit?_x_t...

cpursley a day ago | root | parent | next |

I hate to tell you this, but most of the major powers did all sorts horrible things during that time period. Especially my people group, who were arguable the most effective at it.

And fwiw, the late Soviets tried to course correct regarding ethnic groups. My wife (half ethnic Komi, another Finnish group), was taught that language in school.

Don’t get me wrong, the Finish and Finnish ethnic groups (and many others) got a raw deal, but it’s no reason for the blanket Russophobia that we see on hn so often.

tim333 a day ago | root | parent | next |

>blanket Russophobia

Sure most major powers did horrible things in the past. But now? How many other major powers are launching bloody invasions of their neighbors?

tharmas a day ago | root | parent | prev | next |

The USA has 700 military bases world wide. Russia, China, India have 15 bases. Who's spreading their tentacles around the world?

Iraq invasion? Syria ongoing occupation? WMDs? Assisting Israel's War in Gaza? Come on. Please stop this Western bias nonsense.

And the Ukraine Conflict didnt start in Feb 2022.

LunaSea a day ago | root | parent | next |

> Syria ongoing occupation?

Russia did so too.

> WMDs?

Russia has those.

> Assisting Israel's War in Gaza?

Russia is assisting Hamas and Houthis.

> And the Ukraine Conflict didnt start in Feb 2022.

No, it did in 2014 when ... surprise, surprise, Russia invaded Crimea, a part of Ukraine.

tharmas an hour ago | root | parent | next |

Russia is in Syria at request of Syrian regime. USA still occupies the oil fields in Syria. Not at all comparable in intent is itm

Crimea is Russian. The people who live there are Russian and were glad to be part of Russia.

Surely you know the history of Ukraine?

Do you know why Zhelensky was elected leader of Ukraine in the first place and what happened afterward?

aguaviva a day ago | root | parent | prev |

The USA has 700 military bases world wide

128 actually.

The 700-1000 numbers are disinformation, but people like to copy-paste them around endlessly, anyway.

cpursley 19 hours ago | root | parent |

That's 127 too many.

aguaviva 19 hours ago | root | parent |

All countries' bases are infinitely too many, everywhere.

But if one prefers to carry on with an image, or a number in their mind that differs greatly from the physical reality on the ground -- that's their own lookout.

AvocadoPanic a day ago | root | parent | prev |

Odd description of intervening in a civil war manufactured by western war mongers to support ethnic Russians.

tim333 a day ago | root | parent |

Dunno. See "Russia's Igor Strelkov: I Am Responsible for War in Eastern Ukraine" https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2014/11/21/russias-igor-strel...

AvocadoPanic a day ago | root | parent |

See

https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08MOSCOW265_a.html

2008 Classified Cable describing potential future

Experts tell us that Russia is particularly worried that the strong divisions in Ukraine over NATO membership, with much of the ethnic-Russian community against membership, could lead to a major split, involving violence or at worst, civil war. In that eventuality, Russia would have to decide whether to intervene; a decision Russia does not want to have to face.

tim333 20 hours ago | root | parent | next |

Your source says the Americans were aware the Russians would be upset by Ukraine joining NATO. Partly as a result I guess Ukraine did not join NATO and was not invited to.

The Girkin article basically says he started the war in eastern Ukraine as an imperialist who thought eastern Ukraine should be part of Russia. I see no mention western warmongers in that. If you can fault the west it seems to me that they caused the war more by forcing Ukraine to give up its nukes in return for promises to defend it from Russian invasion and then not bothering to do so.

aguaviva 20 hours ago | root | parent |

So what did the West promise to Ukraine and when, in this regard?

tim333 18 hours ago | root | parent |

It was kind of vague to be honest:

>The Budapest Memorandum consists of a series of political assurances whereby the signatory states commit to “respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine”. But the meaning of the security assurances was deliberately left ambiguous. According to a former US diplomat who participated in the talks, Steven Pifer, it was understood that if there was a violation, there would be a response incumbent on the US and the UK. And while that response was not explicitly defined, Pifer notes that: “there is an obligation on the United States that flows from the Budapest Memorandum to provide assistance to Ukraine, and […] that would include lethal military assistance”.

aguaviva 18 hours ago | root | parent | prev |

Exactly - "an obligation that flows from [it]" is quite vague, and in any case wasn't the language of the Memorandum itself.

LunaSea a day ago | root | parent | prev | next |

> Russia would have to decide whether to intervene;

Why would they have the right to intervene? Ukraine is an independent country.

> a decision Russia does not want to have to face.

I'm sure that Russia conquered Crimea against their hearts wish lol.

dvfjsdhgfv a day ago | root | parent | prev |

Ah OK, that settles it - Putin is innocent.

tharmas a day ago | root | parent | next |

Ok, we won't confuse you with the facts, as your mind is already made up.

You've a victim of Western propaganda. Can't you see that?

tharmas a day ago | root | parent | prev |

Bye the way, so you don't get offended, I used to think just like you. In 2014 I was all anti Putin viz-a-viz Ukraine, Crimea etc. That was because I consumed a lot of Western main stream news media. It's all propaganda.

LunaSea a day ago | root | parent |

> That was because I consumed a lot of Western main stream news media. It's all propaganda.

Now you consume Russian propaganda and all is well.

tharmas 3 hours ago | root | parent |

I don't consume Russian propaganda. The information i get is from US Military personnel. And also written records by US and Western Officials over the last 20 years.

How do u know u haven't been duped by Western propoganda.

aguaviva 3 hours ago | root | parent |

The information i get is from US Military personnel.

Tell us more about what you've been hearing, please.

Especially as regards this topic.

mindslight a day ago | root | parent | prev |

What is the origin of this word "Russophobia" ? It seems like a recent invention trying to take advantage of the general western progressive concern of xenophobia to encourage weakness, similar to how their propagandists have re-purposed and abused general anti-war sentiment stemming from the Iraq debacle.

But I'm curious to know if it's even older and was perhaps used as some kind of powertalk during Soviet times when a new area was being subjugated. "You just don't want us here because you're scared of us".

cpursley a day ago | root | parent |

Goes back a while, there's even a book on the topic: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/34237648-creating-russop...

aguaviva a day ago | root | parent | next |

And people write nonsense books about nonsense topics all the time.

cpursley 16 hours ago | root | parent |

Have you read the book? Or you simply don’t like the premise because it might challenge your existing world-view?

aguaviva 16 hours ago | root | parent |

Not every book is worth reading, nor is every worldview that comes along worth considering.

We definitely aren't going to agree on this, nor is there any reason we should.

cpursley 6 hours ago | root | parent |

Yes, every data point is worth taking a look at and considering. That's not the same as agreeing. And yes, there's a long history of Russophobia - especially in Western Europe that goes back to "uncivilized hordes from the east", to the Great Game competition (why the British in particular are so vapidly anti-Russian), then the more recent anti-soviet/communist mentality (excluding the current modern Putin era).

aguaviva 3 minutes ago | root | parent | next |

I suppose you're the type to spend at least 10 minutes talking to everyone on the street who hands you a flyer, or makes some other approach to you suggesting that you join their church, cult or whatever it is they're trying to get you to be a part of. And if they give you a book to read, you'll take that home and read it cover to cover.

Because every data point is worth taking a look at and considering.

mindslight a day ago | root | parent | prev |

> First published January 1, 2016

That's quite recent, and the lead-in's focus on Putin "hysteria" is suspicious. The whole meme just feels an awful lot like the "American" neofascists' persecution complex, and that book seems right in line.

Most certainly there is anti-Russia bias in the West that waxes and wanes - like during that entire Cold War. But extrapolating this general difference of perspective to some narrative that it's all unjust "phobia" is just disingenuous.

riehwvfbk a day ago | root | parent | prev | next |

Your link does not say what your summary says. The Wiki article just says the Hakassi joined the Soviet revolution (presumably happily) and moved from nomadic to modern livelihoods. No mention of a massacre.

Now, I am not saying that a massacre didn't happen. But it also didn't happen they way you are implying. This wasn't "the Communists oppressed poor tribesmen" but rather "imperialistic 18th century power steamrolls some natives". I can name a few more imperialistic powers of the period that did the same or worse.

Also, the Hakassi culture is descended from Mongols, not Finns. Why are they more Finnish than Russian? That's right, because they are not. In fact, Hakassia is nowhere near Finland (it's in the middle of Siberia), but linking to the Finnish Wikipedia makes it seem like another little European country attacked by the Ogre Horde.

Lastly, you say that tiny Finnish stub article has more details than the Russian Wikipedia, and that is simply not true. In addition to the main article, there is a link from it specifically to a standalone article about Hakassia's inclusion into Russia, which is described as "painful": https://ru.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%.... The events are covered in great detail starting with the 1600s.

Does this explain why your comment is mostly Russophobia?

dingdingdang 2 days ago | prev | next |

This story sure has done the rounds. I like it both in the particular and thematically speaking so perhaps there's a good non-tragic variation* on it out there to be found..?

fuzztester 2 days ago | prev | next |

Reading the post title, the film Dersu Uzala by Akira Kurosawa comes to mind.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dersu_Uzala_(1975_film)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akira_Kurosawa

renewiltord 2 days ago | root | parent | prev |

Well, that brought up a memory from childhood. My parents borrowed this on a tape and my brother and I would go about calling the Sun “a very great man” and the Moon “another great man” because that’s what the character says about them.

alexey-salmin 2 days ago | prev | next |

> When in recalling the “first world war” with Karp Osipovich the geologists engaged him in conversation about the last one, he shook his head: “What is this, a second time, and always the Germans. A curse on Peter. He flirted with them. That is so.”

It's almost the "which one, first or second?" joke but IRL

cgh 2 days ago | root | parent |

"Always the Germans". My Dutch friends will laugh pretty hard at this. It fits in with yelling "Hey, where's my bike?" at German tourists (the Nazis confiscated Dutch bicycles in WW2 to limit movement) and referring to people from the eastern part of the country as "spare Germans".

usrnm 2 days ago | root | parent | prev |

Yeah, but Peter actually flirted with the Dutch, not Germans. Nobody just sees any difference ;)

kgeist 2 days ago | root | parent |

Back in Peter the Great's times the Dutch and Germans were called with the same word in Russian. I think it was the case in English, too. IIRC that's why they call it Pennsylvania Dutch, even though it's German.

082349872349872 a day ago | root | parent | next |

Fun local wikipedia: https://pdc.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haaptblatt

I'd have to imagine the intersection of Pennsylvania Dutch speakers and internet-active wikipedia-editing people must be small, but it's obviously not nonexistent!

https://pdc.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsilfaanisch_Deitsch

> S'menscht vun die Schwetzer sinn heit Amische un Fuhremennischte, wu Deitsch aa heit noch schwetze zu ihre Kinner, awwer's hot aa en latt Luthrische un Reformierte un Leit vun en Wisch annre Gmeeschafte, wu die Mudderschprooch noch gschwetzt henn, dieweil ass sie Kinner waare.

the5avage 2 days ago | prev | next |

I was always fascinated by siberia. Pretty sad that visiting it will be off the table for many years now.

ivan_gammel a day ago | root | parent | next |

It's relatively safe for foreigners to visit Russia at the moment. Just stay away from military objects and rare public protests, and don't do generally stupid things, like praising Ukraine in a restaurant full of people (you may get both support and a visit by police). You will also need a lot of cash.

grecy a day ago | prev | next |

Every time this story comes up I ask.

How did they light fire, and what vessels did they use to boil water?

I ask this after years of adventure is the Yukon wilderness, where we play the game “if the canoe flipped and we lost everything, could we survive?”. Often the answer is “not unless we luckily rescue our rifles or lighters or gps beacon. Maybe we could walk out in a month. Maybe.

Tor3 a day ago | root | parent |

I'm not sure what the answer is, but for the record whenever I spent a few weeks in the mountains as a younger person, I never brought rifles, lighters, or gps beacons (or any other electronics). I did have matches though, in a waterproof bag. But I also had steel and flint. Knife. And a fishing rod. In fact the most useful modern society thing I brought would be soap.. if you have it you don't think much about it, if you don't then you realize how very useful it is.

grecy a day ago | root | parent |

I’m impressed!

What did you boil water in?

Just eat with your fingers?

Tor3 4 hours ago | root | parent |

I brought a pot.. metal, made for this.. I thought that was a given. It would easily last forty-fifty years (re the original article). Not that I would need the pot all the time, fish I would grill in various ways, e.g. on a stick on a fire, or just leaving them on a flat rock close to the fire. The pot was for soup of some kind which I didn't eat very often. As I don't drink coffee when I'm on a mountain hike I wouldn't bring a coffee pot. A knife is a must, if I didn't already mention that. The main point is that I wouldn't need a rifle, a lighter, or a GPS. I wouldn't even have thought of it. Not that there was much GPS around when I was a teenager. A paper map though, that's useful sometimes.

harikb 2 days ago | prev | next |

Well... Not that being connected to the world has helped others...

> According to Google Trends, searches for "Did Joe Biden drop out" started spiking around 6 a.m. on election day and continued to rise over the course of the day until reaching its peak at midnight.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oS4vphcHGmo

leshokunin 2 days ago | prev | next |

Those poor people missed TikTok, Tiger King, and all the other amazing things we have to offer.

Glad they lived what they wanted

drdaeman 2 days ago | root | parent | next |

My first thought was rather that they missed modern medicine, balanced diet and even basic kitchen utensils. Not some entertainment.

And I'm not even sure they truly wanted to live that way. I'm no psychologist, but it reads like they were severely traumatized by their religious zeal. While I respect their agency, I suspect their behavior was much less voluntary than they believed.

I don't know how I should feel about it, but I'm not glad they had to suffer, even if it was voluntary (or "voluntary"). It's so fucked up. The only thing I'm sure is that [unregulated] religion can sometimes be such a memetic cancer.

It's somewhat comparable to those modern-day homeless that are scraping by on the streets but refuse to do anything about it. (I don't really know what to make of those people either.)

beedeebeedee 2 days ago | root | parent | next |

> I'm no psychologist, but it reads like they were severely traumatized by their religious zeal.

You seem to have missed the part where they were fleeing the bolsheviks

> It's somewhat comparable to those modern-day homeless that are scraping by on the streets but refuse to do anything about it.

You're missing some things there too

drdaeman 19 hours ago | root | parent |

> You seem to have missed the part where they were fleeing the bolsheviks

I have not. A lot of people fled from oppressive governments (myself included), but those people intentionally picked a deliberately self-harming way. And kept to it even after they certainly knew it's harming them.

I think attributing self-harm to religious zeal as the primary cause is pretty obvious here.

> You're missing some things there too

Like what?

Acting against of one's own best long-term interests because of inability to get through the short-term problems (be it religion abuse or substance abuse) is common in both situations. There are certainly myriad of differences, of course - I would not argue that the comparison is quite a stretch.

(Disclaimer: this comment is not about religion, rather the focus must be put on zealotry. A non-religious belief cranked up to 11 could be equally harmful.)

ivan_gammel 2 days ago | root | parent | prev |

When I was 6 years old I was confused just like you about the age of things.

I mean, they were discovered before the Digital Age and missed only The Beatles and TV.

leshokunin 2 days ago | root | parent |

I suppose the lazy ad hominem could be met with: and to this day, you are confused by things like sarcasm.

Have a great day

ivan_gammel a day ago | root | parent |

Your sarcasm was factually incorrect to the point where it did not make sense. First, you chose the wrong tech for it. As a matter of fact, the only survivor from that group is in active contact with modern civilization - even being personally informed about certain space launches. She isn’t on TikTok, of course, but she is not different from many other people.

Second, they didn’t live the life they wanted. They were refugees fighting for their survival in a very harsh environment. It‘s ethically questionable to say that they have chosen this life over TikTok.

idunnoman1222 2 days ago | prev |

All the kids died of pneumonia caught from the visiting geologist. What a cute story.

nighthawk454 2 days ago | root | parent | next |

> In the fall of 1981, three of the four children followed their mother to the grave. According to Peskov, their deaths were not, as some have speculated, the result of exposure to diseases to which they had no immunity. Both Savin and Natalia suffered from kidney failure, most likely a result of their harsh diet. But Dmitry died of pneumonia, which might have begun as an infection he acquired from his new friends.