Russia - General Discussion.

Somewhat off-topic, random find rom 2001


I guess he changed his stance on that.

Did he? Is Russia's position that the current annexations are the best way to solve the problem they have? Or would they take the stance that this is far from the best way, but the best way didn't work or wasn't an option? One could argue that the best way for Putin would be to have someone like Lukashenko in charge. But if that's not possible, then other options are on the table. In general of course Putin & Co. have come a long way since the early 2000's and their view on Russia's relationship with the west and on the international order today are very different from what they were back then.
 
Did he? Is Russia's position that the current annexations are the best way to solve the problem they have? Or would they take the stance that this is far from the best way, but the best way didn't work or wasn't an option? One could argue that the best way for Putin would be to have someone like Lukashenko in charge. But if that's not possible, then other options are on the table.

that reading turns it into "i wouldnt do it if i had a better option", which is true of literally every decision anyone ever makes. which means the statement would have not meant anything at all. which is a plausible reading.

but it also assumes there was a problem that needed solving urgently. ukraine not having a lukashenko isnt urgent, its just something they didnt like. living with that was always an option.
 
Last edited:
that reading turns it into "i wouldnt do it if i had a better option", which is true of literally every decision anyone ever makes. which means the statement would have not meant anything at all. which is a plausible reading.

Remember what Russia was dealing with in 2001 - a Chechen separatist insurgency. Of course you don't want borders to change. And this was before Kosovo. It's always interesting to see how opinions change over time, and I don't think this is a statement Putin would have made today.

but it also assumes there was a problem that needed solving urgently. ukraine not having a lukashenko isnt urgent, its just something they didnt like. living with that was always an option.

So if we take that 25 year old statement in today's context it would mean "it was a worse option then having Lukashenko in charge but a better option than simply living with a western-oriented Ukraine".
 
Yeah, 100%, saying borders shouldn't change was clearly just a useful thing to say given the circumstances, and not a principle. Which I guess is pretty normal for a politician.

And honestly I don't think anyone should be held to something they said 25 years ago as some eternal yardstick. I mostly just thought it was a curiosity.
 
We want to see Russia weakened to the degree that it can’t do the kinds of things that it has done in invading Ukraine. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, 25 April 2022.

That is the obvious reason for Russia to trust NATO. What nation wouldn.t be happy to be forced into that situation by other countries? If a future Polish leader decides that Kaliningrad belongs to Poland (we heard about Greenland, right?), why shouldn't be Russia in a position where its only option is nuclear war?
Russia should start disarming right now, better even without nuclear weapons.
 
We want to see Russia weakened to the degree that it can’t do the kinds of things that it has done in invading Ukraine. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, 25 April 2022.

That is the obvious reason for Russia to trust NATO. What nation wouldn.t be happy to be forced into that situation by other countries? If a future Polish leader decides that Kaliningrad belongs to Poland (we heard about Greenland, right?), why shouldn't be Russia in a position where its only option is nuclear war?
Russia should start disarming right now, better even without nuclear weapons.

We should seek by all means in our power to avoid war, by analysing possible causes, by trying to remove them, by discussion in a spirit of collaboration and good will.

It is unwise and dangerous and, indeed, impossible to keep in permanent inferiority a nation of so many people.
 
It wasn't kept in inferiority before 2022. It's not kept in inferiority now.

Actions have consequences. Russia is currently experiencing the consequences of stupidly invading Ukraine & threatening other European countries, just as the USA (unfortunately not alone) is experiencing consequences from stupidly attacking Iran.
 
It wasn't kept in inferiority before 2022. It's not kept in inferiority now.

Actions have consequences. Russia is currently experiencing the consequences of stupidly invading Ukraine & threatening other European countries, just as the USA (unfortunately not alone) is experiencing consequences from stupidly attacking Iran.

I was joking, these are quotes of Chamberlain and MP Culverwell in 1938. Their ideas seem to become popular again.
 
Last edited:
With some previous discussion on the Bots I thought this article might be interesting ,years ago I did communicate with one of these people who justified it claiming N.A.T.O also used this and refered me to such an advertisement that did not look convincing
 
Talking of AI instead of bots...
I was trying, really annoying, to read the transcript of that:

So I went to AI instead. Anyone has been using AI in Russian or a Russian AI? I cannot use KIMI at work. The Google answers seem to be extremely biased (Western media version?), unless you are very specific with the details of the question.
The point of the article was that those war-winning aged F-16 frames are glorified AAG.
 
I would expect both sides have had heavy material losses from their original stocks,other countries have provided Ukraine with such materials to enable them to fight on ,certainly North Korea to a much lesser extent has for Russia ,ground based air defence systems were not designed for anti drone warfare and have suffered losses , also Russia has likely had to bring back from frontlines much to protect Moscow ,I would expect replacing those losses in in complicated assets is slow ,I cant speak for the effectiveness of the F-16 but neither side seems to send jet aircraft over areas that may be contested from the ground when drones and missiles are so effective from a distance
 
Imagine being this stupid:

IMG_7465.jpeg

Imagine Chechnya, Dagestan, ingushetia, Kabardino-Balkaria, et al joining into “Kalmykia” and living happily ever after. That is probably the funniest one from the ludicrous map.

I genuinely have no idea what the hell people are thinking about? Sure “click-bait” and whatnot, but this is a popular “idea”. This is probably the dumbest representation that I have seen though. People can use AI to produce most probable hypothetical scenarios and outstanding graphics. Not shitty slops.
 
I wonder what prompts these people use to get their results (and what ai are they using). My question to Grok:

Consider a hypothetical scenario where Russia breaks up into smaller parts. What would be the most realistic sustainable breakdown into “countries”? Draw a map.

The result:

IMG_7471.jpeg

Didn't follow up much to preserve the original hypothetical breakdown, only asked about the population of Sakha. The answer was about 1M. Clearly unsustainable, which I asked about. Grok agreed and divided Sakha between Siberia and Far Eastern Republic. Only then I noticed that Sakha was a potential or a hybrid addition in the original write up (yet added to the map anyway). The only other thing I asked it to break down the population by ethnicity in each resulting “country” (copy-paste):

1. Muscovy (Core Russia / European Russia)​

  • Ethnic Russians: ~85–92%
  • Other major groups: Tatars (scattered, especially Volga edges), Ukrainians, Armenians, smaller Finno-Ugric and other minorities.
    Heavily Slavic/Russian-majority heartland. Highest Russian share of any large unit.

2. Kaliningrad​

  • Ethnic Russians: ~80–91% (2021 figures often cited around 78–91% depending on whether non-declared are excluded)
  • Ukrainians ~1–1.4%, Belarusians ~1–1.3%, Armenians ~0.8–1%, Lithuanians ~0.4–0.5%, Germans ~0.4%, others small.
    Strong Russian majority; post-WWII resettled population.

3. Ural Republic​

  • Ethnic Russians: ~80–90%
  • Tatars and Bashkirs form notable minorities in southern/western parts (especially near Bashkortostan/Chelyabinsk), plus smaller groups.
    Industrial Russian-majority region with some Turkic presence.

4. Idel-Ural (Tatarstan–Bashkortostan centered)​

  • Ethnic Russians: ~35–45%
  • Tatars: ~30–40% (dominant in Tatarstan ~52–53%)
  • Bashkirs: ~15–25% (strong in Bashkortostan ~30–36%)
  • Smaller: Chuvash, Mari, Udmurt, etc. if included.
    Most mixed of the larger units; clear Turkic plurality overall when combining the core republics.

5. North Caucasus Confederation​

  • Ethnic Russians: typically <5–15% overall (much lower in core republics)
  • Chechnya: ~96% Chechen, ~1% Russian
  • Ingushetia: ~93–96% Ingush, ~1% Russian
  • Dagestan: ~3–5% Russian; multi-ethnic (Avars ~30%, Dargins ~16–17%, Kumyks ~15–16%, Lezgins ~13%, plus Laks, Tabasarans, Azeris, etc.)
  • Other republics (Kabardino-Balkaria, Karachay-Cherkessia, North Ossetia, etc.): titular groups (Kabardians, Karachays, Ossetians, etc.) form majorities or pluralities, Russians often 15–30% or lower.
    Strongly non-Russian; highly diverse internally, especially in Dagestan.

6. Siberia​

  • Ethnic Russians: ~80–90%+ in most areas
  • Notable minorities: Buryats (in Buryatia areas), Ukrainians, Germans, Tatars, indigenous Siberian groups (Evenks, etc.) in smaller shares.
    Broadly Russian-majority resource region; indigenous shares higher in some northern/remote districts.

7. Sakha (Yakutia)​

  • Sakha (Yakuts): ~47–55%
  • Ethnic Russians: ~28–38% (share has declined over decades)
  • Evenks ~2–3%, Evens ~1.5–2%, smaller groups (Ukrainians, Kyrgyz, Buryats, etc.).
    One of the few large units where the titular non-Russian group forms a plurality or near-majority.

8. Far Eastern / Pacific Republic​

  • Ethnic Russians: ~80–90%
  • Smaller shares of Ukrainians, indigenous peoples (e.g., in Magadan/Chukotka/Kamchatka areas), Koreans, Chinese (migrant/urban), Buryats (if border areas included).
    Russian-majority with sparse indigenous populations in the far north and east.
I settled there. Time spent was 3-5 minutes. I then asked ChatGPT the same, except I did not ask it to draw a map right away. It proposed 9 states and a whole bunch of analysis and what it thinks it should do next. I said ok and a few oks after. It led itself to the conclusion that Russia as it is today is the most sustainable outcome that is likely to remain post-Putin and potential “troubles”. I wanted to get some break-up, so I made a few prompts to get me the result I want (some break up it thinks is reasonable) and draw it on the map. It eventually came up with this:

IMG_7480.png

I stopped here, with a messed up map, lol, because time spent was already over 15 minutes with CharGPT basically debating with itself. It noted that the breakdown is likely not sustainable and it will basically all turn to Russia again. Kaliningrad is a problem though.

I am actually interested in this now and will try a real conversation or two with ai and see what it can come up with based on the real data, my ideas, etc. If I proceed with this plan, I will post the results.
 
I wonder what prompts these people use to get their results (and what ai are they using). My question to Grok:

Consider a hypothetical scenario where Russia breaks up into smaller parts. What would be the most realistic sustainable breakdown into “countries”? Draw a map.

The result:

View attachment 55973

Didn't follow up much to preserve the original hypothetical breakdown, only asked about the population of Sakha. The answer was about 1M. Clearly unsustainable, which I asked about. Grok agreed and divided Sakha between Siberia and Far Eastern Republic. Only then I noticed that Sakha was a potential or a hybrid addition in the original write up (yet added to the map anyway). The only other thing I asked it to break down the population by ethnicity in each resulting “country” (copy-paste):

1. Muscovy (Core Russia / European Russia)​

  • Ethnic Russians: ~85–92%
  • Other major groups: Tatars (scattered, especially Volga edges), Ukrainians, Armenians, smaller Finno-Ugric and other minorities.
    Heavily Slavic/Russian-majority heartland. Highest Russian share of any large unit.

2. Kaliningrad​

  • Ethnic Russians: ~80–91% (2021 figures often cited around 78–91% depending on whether non-declared are excluded)
  • Ukrainians ~1–1.4%, Belarusians ~1–1.3%, Armenians ~0.8–1%, Lithuanians ~0.4–0.5%, Germans ~0.4%, others small.
    Strong Russian majority; post-WWII resettled population.

3. Ural Republic​

  • Ethnic Russians: ~80–90%
  • Tatars and Bashkirs form notable minorities in southern/western parts (especially near Bashkortostan/Chelyabinsk), plus smaller groups.
    Industrial Russian-majority region with some Turkic presence.

4. Idel-Ural (Tatarstan–Bashkortostan centered)​

  • Ethnic Russians: ~35–45%
  • Tatars: ~30–40% (dominant in Tatarstan ~52–53%)
  • Bashkirs: ~15–25% (strong in Bashkortostan ~30–36%)
  • Smaller: Chuvash, Mari, Udmurt, etc. if included.
    Most mixed of the larger units; clear Turkic plurality overall when combining the core republics.

5. North Caucasus Confederation​

  • Ethnic Russians: typically <5–15% overall (much lower in core republics)
  • Chechnya: ~96% Chechen, ~1% Russian
  • Ingushetia: ~93–96% Ingush, ~1% Russian
  • Dagestan: ~3–5% Russian; multi-ethnic (Avars ~30%, Dargins ~16–17%, Kumyks ~15–16%, Lezgins ~13%, plus Laks, Tabasarans, Azeris, etc.)
  • Other republics (Kabardino-Balkaria, Karachay-Cherkessia, North Ossetia, etc.): titular groups (Kabardians, Karachays, Ossetians, etc.) form majorities or pluralities, Russians often 15–30% or lower.
    Strongly non-Russian; highly diverse internally, especially in Dagestan.

6. Siberia​

  • Ethnic Russians: ~80–90%+ in most areas
  • Notable minorities: Buryats (in Buryatia areas), Ukrainians, Germans, Tatars, indigenous Siberian groups (Evenks, etc.) in smaller shares.
    Broadly Russian-majority resource region; indigenous shares higher in some northern/remote districts.

7. Sakha (Yakutia)​

  • Sakha (Yakuts): ~47–55%
  • Ethnic Russians: ~28–38% (share has declined over decades)
  • Evenks ~2–3%, Evens ~1.5–2%, smaller groups (Ukrainians, Kyrgyz, Buryats, etc.).
    One of the few large units where the titular non-Russian group forms a plurality or near-majority.

8. Far Eastern / Pacific Republic​

  • Ethnic Russians: ~80–90%
  • Smaller shares of Ukrainians, indigenous peoples (e.g., in Magadan/Chukotka/Kamchatka areas), Koreans, Chinese (migrant/urban), Buryats (if border areas included).
    Russian-majority with sparse indigenous populations in the far north and east.
I settled there. Time spent was 3-5 minutes. I then asked ChatGPT the same, except I did not ask it to draw a map right away. It proposed 9 states and a whole bunch of analysis and what it thinks it should do next. I said ok and a few oks after. It led itself to the conclusion that Russia as it is today is the most sustainable outcome that is likely to remain post-Putin and potential “troubles”. I wanted to get some break-up, so I made a few prompts to get me the result I want (some break up it thinks is reasonable) and draw it on the map. It eventually came up with this:

View attachment 55974

I stopped here, with a messed up map, lol, because time spent was already over 15 minutes with CharGPT basically debating with itself. It noted that the breakdown is likely not sustainable and it will basically all turn to Russia again. Kaliningrad is a problem though.

I am actually interested in this now and will try a real conversation or two with ai and see what it can come up with based on the real data, my ideas, etc. If I proceed with this plan, I will post the results.
Kaliningrad is always interesting to me, it is ethnically Russian since colonisation and forced removal of the earlier population post ww2 but otherwise it's history is entirely Western European.
 
Russia and Ukraine have a schism over their respective Orthodox religion with Ukraine no longer accepting the authority of the Russan church normally it would not be commented on but there is a heavy backing of the Russian Orthodox Church for Russia and many of the religous places of worship destroyed and many priests killed , It suggests that this was done on someones behest as you would not think these military targets
 
Kaliningrad is always interesting to me, it is ethnically Russian since colonisation and forced removal of the earlier population post ww2 but otherwise it's history is entirely Western European.

Kaliningrad has a largely German and Prussian past, but its present population has not, it's firmly Russian. Even setting that aside, decades of Russian rule have left its economy in shambles. I doubt Germany would want Kaliningrad back, or that Poland or Lithuania would want to take it on, even if offered. It would be an economic money pit. Eastern Germany still hasn’t fully recovered of Russian rule, and was very costly for West Germany, even 36 years after reunification. Kaliningrad has been under Russian rule much longer, and much more direct, so I don’t see anyone gaining from another change of hands.
 
Last edited:
Kaliningrad is always interesting to me, it is ethnically Russian since colonisation and forced removal of the earlier population post ww2 but otherwise it's history is entirely Western European.
Entirely Western? It was East European, inhabited by Balts speaking dialects close to Lithuanian & Latvian, until it was invaded by mostly German crusaders (the Old Prussians (were pagan) in the 13th century. Chaucer refered to it in the Canterbury Tales. Their language was extinct by the 18th century, & they were dead, fled, or assimilated into the German population which settled on the lands of the Prussians, & took their name.
 
Entirely Western? It was East European, inhabited by Balts speaking dialects close to Lithuanian & Latvian, until it was invaded by mostly German crusaders (the Old Prussians (were pagan) in the 13th century. Chaucer refered to it in the Canterbury Tales. Their language was extinct by the 18th century, & they were dead, fled, or assimilated into the German population which settled on the lands of the Prussians, & took their name.
Heretics, not pagans.
That's why a Crusade was so useful, you can do whatever you want with them; pagans, you are supposed to convert. Years before, some priests got lost over there. From Decline and Fall (of the Roman Empire).
 
Heretics, not pagans.
That's why a Crusade was so useful, you can do whatever you want with them; pagans, you are supposed to convert. Years before, some priests got lost over there. From Decline and Fall (of the Roman Empire).
Pagans. Not any kind of Christian, so not heretics. Lithuania was the last pagan country in Europe, until Grand Duke Jogaila was bribed to convert in 1386, with the offer of Queen Jadwiga of Poland & her kingdom. The Prussians & Latvians worshipped the same gods as the Lithuanians until they were converted by force, but the Lithuanians were too strong militarily for that.

You may be confused by the competition between the Orthodox & Catholic churches to convert the Lithuanians, & the view at the time of the conversion of Jogaila as a specifically Catholic victory, a score against the Orthodox, rather than a more general Christian one.
 
Back
Top