1) This is not an 'extern' war, as it was > Soviet Union - Afghanistan (or USA -Vietnam; USA - Iraq) -
from which you could argue:
The population is going to be fed up with the war; the 'sympathy' ranking will decrease after a while.
Like it or Not -- if you look at all maps from the last 3-5 centuries, you will see that the eastern part of ukraine has always been under russian (zar) government / influence.
You won't see a decrease in popularity of the war among the civ. population.
Ruski’s comments, like Putin’s rambles, are historically selective to the point of being nonsense. They are designed to appeal to the contemporary Russian political mood rather than to convince anyone independent or objective. Why bother? Does Ruski think Muscovites read this blog?
History is a two edged sword. If we go back over the past two centuries, never mind 3 to 5, a lot of current Russian territory would belong to other countries that still demand it back. Vladivostok was only founded in 1860. Most Russian eastern territory, including Pacific naval bases, historically belonged to China or Japan.
None of this overrules Ukraine’s right to self determination. In legal and political terms, Ruski’s claims are nonsense.
Ruski’s comments highlight a basic problem with contemporary Russia in the modern world. Russia went through a revolution and a civil war. But Russia never really went through a renaissance or an Age of Enlightenment. Concepts of the rule of law and individual rights have yet to take hold. These are foundational to capitalism and democracy and explain why the latter failed. So 17th century notions of imperial borders still have currency.
Likewise Ukraine was not duped or bought off by western money. In fact, prior to this war Ukraine had received very little western aid (our mistake) as Germany in particular clung to the delusion that post cold war Russia could be bargained with.
Whereas post cold war Russia received tens of billions of dollars from Germany and USA to help stabilise the breakup of the Soviet Union. The money disappeared into a State that more resembles an organised crime syndicate than a national government.
I think this last point explains why Russia’s leaders have focused once more on foreign military adventurism. It is a distraction from domestic policy failure, especially on the economic front. Russia is a large but weak country, with an economy the size of Canada. For historical reasons it has a large stockpile of nuclear weapons and an expansionist political ruling clique. It needs to be dealt with in that light.
The west is in a second cold war, whether we like it or not.
