Russia - General Discussion.

[Ananda]

For Ukraine the conflict with Russia raised the opposite trend. So my comment was related to that.

Again why the Russian Ethnic that has to move. Those land are theirs and should not be part of Ukraine if not due to Lenin decision. This is what I mean from my earlier post. Ukraine at the present form is a nation that build not on national identity but more on USSR administrative decision.

Federal division will not make them one people, but only try to maintain Ukraine border while taking consideration of Ethnic divide. They will never become one homogenous culture. The ethnic divide and suspicion already too big.

One mostly Catholic and one Ortodox, this divide already happen centuries ago. Perhaps once they are one people, but that ship already sailed away.

So either they divide Ukraine peacefully by enthic lines to keep still in one loose federation, or it will be done by force. However seems the difference is just too big now, after the Ethnic Ukrainian push out elected Ethnic Russian President, with West turn blind eyes on that.

The trend is move to other direction on separation not due to Russia alone but due to West and Russia together. Thus both West and Russia that have to sort it out. Both of them share similar responsibility.

 

[swerve]

Those land is Ethnics Russian from beginning not Ethnics Ukraine. Why should the Ethnics Russian that has to migrate ?

Not really. The distinction between Russian & Ukrainian didn't exist 1000 years ago. They (& the Belarussians) were either all one people or a lot of different peoples speaking different dialects. There was a dialect continuum in which everyone would understand the next lot over, but not necessarily the lot beyond them. A few literary forms developed, e.g. mediaeval Lithuania used a slavic dialect for record-keeping (Lithuanian wasn't written at the time) which was part of the group ancestral to Belarussian & Ukrainian, & clearly distinct from the Muscovite dialect ancestral to modern written Russian.

Ukrainian & Belarussian (later) identity gradually formed over centuries. The people who now call themselves Ukrainian used to call themselves different things, with 'Ruthenian' (Rusyny in their speech, IIRC) being the most common, I think

Before the Mongol invasions there were many "Russian" principalities, & the rulers of each spoke their local dialect. The Mongols smashed a lot of them, facilitating the expansion of both Lithuania & Muscovy southwards as Mongol power ebbed. The "Ukraine" shown in Ananda's map was a borderland (that's what Ukraine means) between Poland-Lithuania (they'd united under a Lithuanian prince in the late 14th century) & the wild steppe into which Ruthenians were expanding. Muscovy was also expanding into it, further east, especially down the Volga. What's now eastern Ukraine was an area into which they both spread, as was Kuban, which is now pretty much entirely Russian but used to have almost equal numbers.

Look at the 1897 census of the Russian Empire. Every governorate which is now within the internationally recognised borders of Ukraine, including Taurida (which included Crimea), had more people who have their first language as "Little Russian" (i.e. Ukrainian) than "Great Russian"). In Crimea, the largest single group was the Tatars, with Russians (33%) just behind - & that was after over 100 years of Russian settlement & the expulsion of much of the Tatar population. Crimea was overwhelmingly Tatar before the Russians conquered it.

The non-Crimean part of Taurida was 61% Ukrainian & 25% Russian. Kherson (which included Odessa, one of the empire's chief cities & Russia's main Black Sea port & naval base) was 53.5% Ukrainian & 21% Russian. Yekaterinoslav (SE Ukraine) was 69% Ukrainian & 17% Russian. Donetsk district (then in Don-Voisko governorate) had a Russian majority, but Lugansk was more Ukrainian than Russia.

And consider Kuban, none of which is now in Ukraine: 48% Russian & 43% Ukrainian in 1897. Where are those Ukrainians now?

There was a significant swing from Ukrainian to Russian-speaking & self-identity in central, southern & eastern Ukraine & the NW Caucasus in the 20th century, due to population movements, differential mortality in famines & warfare, & assimilation. The idea that the region was Russian before it was Ukrainian is false except in Crimea (where it was Tatar) & maybe the far east, around Donetsk. But even there Russians had been moving in to work in industry in the 19th century.

 

[swerve]

Again why the Russian Ethnic that has to move. Those land are theirs and should not be part of Ukraine if not due to Lenin decision. This is what I mean from my earlier post. Ukraine at the present form is a nation that build not on national identity but more on USSR administrative decision....

I'm afraid this is Russian propaganda, apart from Crimea, where Russians forcibly removed most of the Tatars who used to be most of the population. See my post above.

 

[Steinmetz]

Good insights and viewpoints from everybody. In my view, Russia knows that there'll never be another Soviet Union. That those days are over. They'll try their best to keep what remaining influence they have and maximize what power they've retained. I think the west misplayed the 90's in regards to Russia and as Feanor pointed out there has been a drift since the early 2000's that has grown to what it is today. Even earlier than that, after what Russia saw happened in Yugoslavia, Yevgeny Primakov started changing the way Russia conducted diplomacy. He was a proponent of multilateralism and against American hegemony. Lavrov has used his playbook, the "Primakov Doctrine" ever since. Russia doesn't want world domination, China doesn't either. I believe they're closer than we think and have been pushed closer together. They want to reduce American hegemony and by extension America's alliances worldwide. Strengthen their own alliances and partnerships. We see China doing this more pro-actively across Arica and the Middle East currently. It can be alluring for dictators and countries with non western values to side against the west. Because they won't be sanctioned or intervened against for their actions. All in all it's about maintaining spheres of influence and stopping anything what they view as "American expansionism" by means of proxies, color revolutions, ect. Retaining a Multipolar world order.

Multipolar World - Russia's Primakov Doctrine in the Middle East

As for Ukraine, very complicated. Putin may believe he misplayed 2014, and that he should've sent intervention to Kiev right when the chaos was occurring. I really don't think they want any Ukrainian territory. There is a lot of corruption within and it would be a money trap. However this time around, if they do go in, I don't see them stopping short of Kiev. I think strategically it would make a lot more sense to control the entire Dniper and reach Transnistria. Then they can leave a chunk of Western Ukraine, as a corridor for people to flee to, the ones that won't stay during Russian occupation. The problem isn't defeating Ukraine militarily, it's holding on to the territory. It's certainly a big risk. I do fear the outcome of such a conflict, and sanctions. If Russia is disconnected from SWIFT per say, what could Russia do? Medvedev said that's tantamount to war. I think the CYBER realm is extremely overlooked. Who's to say they can't take SWIFT down completely? We've reached a point where I don't think either side will back down and that's dangerous. Dangerous things can happen at anytime.

 

[Feanor]

Feanor, underlying much of this seems to be a believe that Russia is at risk of invasion from "the West". However It's a nonsense. I don't believe there is anybody in 'the west' who seriously envisages invading Russia. We all saw how that went for Hitler and Napoleon, who commanded armies that had dominated Europe but failed dismally in Russia. So it's written in western DNA - do not invade Russia. In no circumstances invade Russia. So do Russians really believe the west is going to invade?

There's several aspects to this. Consider how far west the border was for Hitler and Napoleon, and yet they both made it to Moscow, though Hitler didn't manage to take it. Today the border is much further east and gains in technology make it far more feasible. That having been said, I don't think the main fear is Barbarossa 2.0. Instead consider the Russian Civil War where iirc over a dozen foreign countries, including most major western powers intervened directly inside former Russian Empire lands. In the last century Russia went through two periods of weakness and humiliation. There's no guarantee that Russia won't have another such cycle, and if it occurs, is it impossible that a certain foreign power, using "democracy promotion" stirs up Yakut or Chechen, or Dag, or Tatar, nationalist movements that attempt to forcibly secede? And if this occurs and the Russian government cracks down on it, not very effectively, messily, and with civilian casualties, that gets played up in western media as "genocide" (however inaccurately), is it inconceivable that a US-led military intervention occurs? If Russia retains control of a robust nuclear arsenal, and would credibly use it, and western BMD isn't enough to stop it, then such an intervention would be extremely risky at best. And if on top of that neither the US nor NATO has the infrastructure to conduct such an intervention, the possibility is off the table. But if Russian nuclear capabilities shrink, western BMD capabilities grow to a certain critical point, and the infrastructure is there for even a limited direct intervention, it becomes far more likely.

I think the example of Yugoslavia is far more relevant here then Hitler or Napoleon.

I appreciate the difference between fear of invasion and fear of a diminishing spheres of influence, however as earlier posters have pointed out, much of Russian behaviour has been counter productive by pushing ex soviet countries towards Europe for safety, because they have become concerned for their survival. I accept your points about the hypocrisy of the West regards the very foolish second Iraq war, the unexpected consequences of that war reverberating still today. I am reminded of the old saying 'Two wrongs don't make a right. I also find there is a very strong thread of victimhood in the Russian narrative. Its always someone else's fault.

Are you asking for my opinion or for the narrative of the Russian government? If it's me, I agree Russia has made quite a few errors in foreign policy over the past 30 years. If it's the stance of the Russian government being unwilling to take responsibility for those things, well... the US isn't tripping over its feet to take responsibility for the grand mess they made in the Middle East. I suspect a lack of responsibility is an aspect of politics rather than something particularly unique to Russia. I wouldn't even be surprised if behind closed doors Russian leadership acknowledges some of their errors, but sees no benefit in admitting this publicly. And you're correct, two wrongs don't make a right. But there is a system of international relations, and there is a narrative being actively pushed on Russia that this is a system of rules and laws where certain things are unacceptable, all while some countries are allowed to do what's unacceptable using whatever convenient excuse gets used. So Russia isn't buying it, regardless of right and wrong. And in general, politics are rarely about right and wrong. They are generally about achieving objectives. There's a reason why some countries, like China or RoK or Israel, or India, find it possible to deal profitably with Russia. And there's a reason why the US is having such a tough time of it.

 

[seaspear]

I have included an article from the Journal of Eurasian studies as it suggests that Russia and the Eurasian Economic Union may be under some stress and perhaps President Putin wants to expand this organisation at the E.Us expense? It might be that the E.U which Ukraine is wishing to join is considered more a serious rival than N.A.T.O

Eurasian Economic Union: Evolution, challenges and possible future directions

Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Russia formed the Eurasian Economic Union (EEU) with the aim of fostering closer economic cooperation amo…

www.sciencedirect.com

 

[Feanor]

@Feanor Russian integration with the west is more than just peaceful intentions. The west, as a bloc, is based not on mutual interests or any single military alliance, but on a cultural affinity. That's why Saudi Arabia is treated the way it is, some even imposing an embargo on it - because it's an ally to some, which is more than can be said about some western countries in that regard. But it is kind of oppressing women and homosexuals and basically anyone that can be oppressed so the west obviously will keep cold relations with them.
Russia improved after the fall of the Soviet Union, but it didn't become a western-standard safe haven for pluralistic thought and a liberal democracy.

But these cultural things don't form in a vacuum. They are the result of certain political-economic and social factors. Again I think the key here is economic development and the rise of a middle class. Until this occurs, Russia will likely remain authoritarian, and a stable authoritarian that doesn't get too nasty at home or too aggressive abroad might be preferable to a flimsy democracy easily swayed by populists because the population is impoverished.

If Russia retains the status quo, resentment to it in Ukraine will persist and increase, leading to yet another enemy that will grow in capability with time, sufficient to either deter or pose a threat.
Its conflict with Ukraine will also persist via the Donbass and possibly Crimea in the future, becoming warzones.
If it invades Ukraine to occupy its cities, it will rule over an unruly population, increasing general opposition. Ukraine will be set back decades, but eventually it will achieve its independence, with Russia taking a net loss throughout the whole process.

The Ukrainian economy doesn't support this growth in capabilities, so this growth can only come with increasing foreign aid primarily from the US. This is a part of why Russia is discussing the fate of Ukraine with America. Time is also not on Ukraine's side demographically (Ukraine's population is shrinking rapidly). Finally the longer this goes on, the more the Donbass separates itself from Ukraine internally. Right now someone who was 10 when this war broke out, a kid, is 18. They've grown up with Ukraine as the enemy, Russia as the ally. And unlike Soviet times, currently the situation in the LDNR is very much an active assimilation project.

A EU-affiliated Ukraine that would grow economically and modernize, would be beneficial to Russia far more than having it as an enemy.

Given the existing Ukrainian elites, is there any scenario that would lead to this? In real-world practical terms, how do you suggest this happen? Remember this whole mess goes back to the Minsk Accords. Will Ukraine implement them? If not, what do you suggest Russia should do? And what about Crimea? It's pretty obvious, to me at least, that Russia has no intention of returning that province.

 

[Feanor]

Russia is ripe for democracy and a liberal western lifestyle. I won't say I'm 100% sure, so let's say 90% sure of it.

I wanted to answer this part in particular. Russia has a structure of elites that are heavily disconnected from most of the population, and you're correct, the internet has done a lot to change Russia from the inside. I think Russia is ripe for instability and demands of democratization from the bottom, a large politically active youth. However I suspect that given the extremely complex foreign situation Russia finds itself in, and the inevitable threat that any period of domestic instability within Russia might be capitalized from abroad, Russian elites will be very willing to crack down on this pro-democracy movement. Even in Belarus, which is some ways very similar to Russia (not all ways, but some) Tikhanovskaya quickly found herself shaking hands with thoroughly disreputable foreign agents raising the question of whether someone like that can be trusted with political leadership. And in Russia this internet-bred active youth is largely common in the biggest and most prosperous urban centers, but the situation in the provinces, and even major provincial cities, isn't the same. It's not inconceivable that a fully democratic election in Russia could bring someone far worse then Putin & Co. into power. I suspect that Russia is at least a generation of relatively stable economic development away from being ready for democracy. The current internet-bred youth need to grow up, take positions of political and economic power within the country, and the trend for urbanization and greater prosperity needs to make them and people like them more common, a bigger segment of the population. Because gopniks from Novokuznetsk aren't going to make for a liberal democracy. But they sure might make for an attractive strong man on a platform of Russian nationalism.

 

[denix56]

The problem isn't defeating Ukraine militarily, it's holding on to the territory. It's certainly a big risk.

You are right. For the LDNR there was /is a fair amount pro-Russian population that is ready to support it. However, the rest part of Ukraine is noticeably less pro-Russian (even Dnipro / Kharkiv) and during last years the amount of doubting people drastically reduced, as they became more pro-Western, or, at least, anti-Russian. I can assess it myself from my friends / relatives from different regions.
It will be hell of a job to control population of N millions people, considerable part of which does not support you, especially the young ones.

 

[Feanor]

One poster commented that they have turned capitalist, which indeed they have, but it must be remembered that Russia has been a capitalistic society for ~ 90% of its history and the communist non capitalist period was an aberration.

This isn't true. For almost it's entire history Russia was a feudal society, built on the back of bonded serfs. Even the waterwheel factories of Urals, that cradle of Russian industry, was built by serfs. The Russian Empire only entered capitalism in the second half of the 19th century. Ruthenian tribes were in a pre-feudal, even pre-slave run societal state when Varalingian warrior-princes arrived and forcibly built a feudal society, putting the Ruthenians and all their descendants in for ~1000 years of feudalism. The Ruthenian-Varalingian empire, Kievan Rus, was built on two major trade routes, the Varalingian to the Greeks and the Varalingian to the Persians (the great Volda trade route through Bulgar and Khazar lands). When the significance of these trade routes declined Kievan Rus collapsed into typical feudal dukedoms, and because of the extremely harsh climate and poor soil (harvests in the famous black earth regions were to the tune of 1:5, whereas places like northern France could expect 1:9, and in Italy 1:11 were not unheard of. Coupled with the lack of good trading ports and and lack of resources (Russia didn't even have reliable sources of iron until Peter the Great industrialized the Urals), the region was always economically backward. The Netherlands and England entered capitalism in the 1600s, Italy arguably even sooner with their trade and banking, but the Russian empire only got there by the mid 1800s. This isn't necessarily anyone's fault, rather it's a consequence of objective factors. The Russian Empire, not having the resources for intensive development, instead resorted to extensive development, spreading far a wide, and using it's ability to bring overwhelming resources to bear as a means of overcoming the backwardness of the economy and people. Starting with Ivan the Great (Ivan III) Muscovy set down that road with the acquisition of Novgorod. The traces of this economic and technological backwardness remain to this day, and the geographic problems still persist, just consider the position of the Russian Navy and the vulnerability of Russian trading ports. China can be blockaded by the first island chain but Russia is already effectively blockaded out of pretty much every major outlet.

So for Russia capitalism is relatively new, and after ~60-70 years of it the Russian Empire promptly collapsed because the ossified elites were not ready for a shift, and the traditional nobility was pretty firmly alienated from the ruling house since the advent of capitalism brought them ruin. The emerging business class and middle class were not yet strong enough to take over, and certainly had no interest in supporting the monarchy. However instead of a republican capitalist government, a state socialist government emerged and conducted a grand experiment that ultimately ended in failure and the in fall of the Soviet Union. With this came a return to capitalism. It shouldn't come as a surprise that Russian capitalism today looks like early capitalism with it's unbridled corruption, authoritarian power politics, imperialist ambitions, and willingness to resort to direct use of force both internally and externally. When capitalism was this young in England and the Netherlands they colonized and enslaved large portions of the world. Obviously Russia is behind the curve, and it's easier to move forward when you're behind the curve, so it likely won't take as long to get there. Especially if they learn from history and from other countries.

 

[ngatimozart]

@Feanor I was aware of the feudal system that existed in Russia basically up until the beginning of the 20th Century, but I assumed that it was capitalist because all the capital was with the crown, nobles, and merchants. My assessment was that they owned the land, assets and wealth, with business transactions occurring between them.

 

[Feanor]

@Feanor I was aware of the feudal system that existed in Russia basically up until the beginning of the 20th Century, but I assumed that it was capitalist because all the capital was with the crown, nobles, and merchants. My assessment was that they owned the land, assets and wealth, with business transactions occurring between them.

Capitalism is among other things about the ability of demand for labor to direct labor where it's most productive. In a serf-based feudal system this isn't necessarily the case. And the nobility were on the one hand extremely protective of their privileges. Look at the ups and downs of Ural industry and the ruinous work the nobles did there. It was distinctly not capitalist.

 

[Meriv]

Exactly here is where Italy step into capitalism, after the black plague labor demand was so strong that allowed for first time manual labor mobility. Something that a Serf cannot do.

P.s. Very good analysis Feanor.
Edit2: "One mostly Catholic and one Ortodox, this divide already happen centuries ago."

Don't want to Nick pick but only 7-8% of Ukraine is catholic. One could do the distinction to which orthodox church they answer but not Catholic vs orthodox like for Croatia/Serbs.

 

[ngatimozart]

Capitalism is among other things about the ability of demand for labor to direct labor where it's most productive. In a serf-based feudal system this isn't necessarily the case. And the nobility were on the one hand extremely protective of their privileges. Look at the ups and downs of Ural industry and the ruinous work the nobles did there. It was distinctly not capitalist.

Thanks Feanor. Us Maori had a simpler approach. We just enslaved our conquered enemy and ate their warriors. Worked quite well until the Christian missionaries and the British arrived with their strange morals. Trading we did understand and took to quickly selling anything and everything for muskets. Those muskets we put to good use. We became capitalists real quick.

 

[Feanor]

Thanks Feanor. Us Maori had a simpler approach. We just enslaved our conquered enemy and ate their warriors. Worked quite well until the Christian missionaries and the British arrived with their strange morals. Trading we did understand and took to quickly selling anything and everything for muskets. Those muskets we put to good use. We became capitalists real quick.

There's a great two part book on the Urals, not sure if it's ever been translated, by Aleskey Ivanov. Part 1 is called The Backbone of Russia, and Part 2 is called The Mountain-Factory Civilization. It's a great collection of photography and articles on the history and development of Russian industry and the Urals.

 

[swerve]

Thanks Feanor. Us Maori had a simpler approach. We just enslaved our conquered enemy and ate their warriors. Worked quite well until the Christian missionaries and the British arrived with their strange morals. Trading we did understand and took to quickly selling anything and everything for muskets. Those muskets we put to good use. We became capitalists real quick.

Yeah - The Musket Wars

Your lot cottoned on to the latest military technology bloody fast, & soon got very good at using it.

 

[Vivendi]

Regarding Minsk II -- Russia could have implemented it's parts, but have chosen not to. This is an old text, but still relevant for the discussion:

If the Kremlin wanted to end the fighting, it could do so. Russian military officers control most separatist units. The Russians could force any reluctant separatist groups to accept the ceasefire by cutting off the flow of funding, weapons, ammunition, and supplies on which they depend.

Why hasn’t Moscow moved to implement the ceasefire and withdraw heavy weapons away from the line of contact? Doing so would increase the prospects that sanctions on Russia would be lifted and would place Kyiv in a potentially difficult dilemma.

Perhaps Moscow worries that Kyiv could deliver and implement the actions that it must take. If all sides fulfilled the Minsk II provisions, a degree of peace and normalcy would return to the Donbas.

And that precisely may be the problem for the Kremlin. A quiet Donbas no longer would serve as a means for Moscow to put pressure on Ukraine, in order to make it more difficult for Poroshenko and his government to implement needed reforms, grow the economy, and implement the Ukraine-European Union association agreement. At present, Russia does not appear prepared or willing to give up that leverage over Kyiv.

Minsk II at two years (brookings.edu)

Another old analysis, however still relevant observations:

The Minsk I and II agreements of September 2014 and February 2015, respectively, could never be fully implemented because of built-in sequencing problems around security and elections. But none of the parties or their backers has any interest at this stage in reopening the process.

The self-proclaimed people’s republics of Luhansk and Donetsk are a suitcase without a handle for Moscow. Russia is having to provide them with significant financial and military support but does not want to take full responsibility for them. Kyiv is lukewarm about reintegrating these territories in view of the political and economic costs involved. For Russia, they remain an instrument for weakening Kyiv’s rule and influencing Ukraine’s overall orientation by making the provision of a special status for them the sine qua non of reintegration.

Judy Asks: Can the Minsk Agreement Succeed? - Carnegie Europe - Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

 

[Vivendi]

Microsoft has concluded that in addition to the widely communicated cyberattack against Ukraine last week, there was another much more damaging attack executed at the same time:

Microsoft security specialists have discovered malware on dozens of Ukrainian government computers that could prove more destructive than originally thought, the US company said late on Saturday.

A Microsoft blog post said that the malware was first detected on Thursday, coinciding with an attack that took down some 70 government websites.

The malware was disguised as a blackmail program, but its true purpose may be to destroy data at the hackers' command, Microsoft said.

Ukraine: Microsoft reports destructive malware after cyberattack | News | DW | 16.01.2022

Open letter from Germany:

Over seventy German academics and foreign policy experts published an open letter on January 14 demanding that Germany’s Russia policy be fundamentally changed from tacit encouragement to open resistance of Vladimir Putin’s expansionist designs.

Many German intellectuals have consistently criticized Berlin for its willingness to pursue normal relations with an increasingly authoritarian Russian regime that wholeheartedly rejects the values and behaviors Germany and its European allies claim are at the heart of the European project. This new statement is different: not only does it offer a sustained critique and insist on radical change; it has also been signed by some of Germany’s and Austria’s leading East Europeanists.

The letter begins with a damning overview of the Putin regime’s domestic brutalities and acts of foreign aggression. The authors then proceed to skewer Germany’s tolerance of Russian misbehavior. “As the largest European economic power, Germany has viewed these goings-on for more than three decades critically, but mostly passively.”

Germany’s reaction to Russia’s “many revanchist adventures” hasn’t been “appropriate,” the open letter notes. Indeed, the experts say, Berlin’s policies have actually contributed to weakening East European non-nuclear states and to strengthening an “increasingly expansionist atomic superpower.”

Calls grow within Germany for tougher stance towards Putin’s Russia - Atlantic Council

I fully agree. Most western European countries, and in particular Germany has been too complacent and defensive with regards to Russia. It's incomprehensible that Europe has not pushed harder back on Russia in particular when it comes to all the attempts on interfering with and weakening democratic processes in Europe, sowing discord, spreading disinformation, and supporting anti-democratic forces. Another area is the cyberattacks that Russia has repeated launched against several countries in Europe. These are things that we simply should not let Russia get away with, again and again.

In Bulgaria anti-vaxxers rallied by a party supported by Russia is trying to storm the Bulgarian parliament -- most of the pro-Russian MPs from that party are vaccinated of course.
Anti-vaxxers try to storm Bulgaria’s parliament – EURACTIV.com

Also in other European countries "anti-vaxxers" are supported directly or indirectly by Russia. Russian troll factories have been very active in this respect, however it has backfired:

Social network analysis company Graphika reported last month how Russia-aligned troll factories have recently been focusing on mandatory vaccination campaigns in the West seeking to undermine the effort to cajole more people to get jabbed. The U.S. Department of State last year started to warn that Russia-based propagandists were using social media platforms to spread conspiracy theories and to promote doubts around vaccinations.

Russian Anti-Vaccine Disinformation Campaign Backfires (voanews.com)

An insider from a Russian troll factory tells how they work:

The money wasn’t bad, but the work was demanding: posting up to 120 comments a day, over an 11-hour shift -- in chat rooms, on websites, and in social-media profiles belonging to specific Russian-language news outlets such as the independent newspaper Novaya Gazeta and RFE/RL’s Russian Service.

“There were people who really flew at [the work] with enthusiasm, and then some who came to work just realizing that all they were doing was nonsense,” Sergei K., a former employee of a Russian company that became known as the “Russian troll factory,” told RFE/RL in an interview.

Such was life at the St. Petersburg firm whose registered name used to be the Internet Research Agency and which earned its moniker by pumping out conspiracy theories, half-truths, trolling social-media posts, and other misinformation.

“Masquerading as Americans, these operatives used targeted advertisements, intentionally falsified news articles, self-generated content, and social-media platform tools to interact with and attempt to deceive tens of millions of social-media users in the United States,” a follow-up report by the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee said.

https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Report_Volume2.pdf
Inside The 'Propaganda Kitchen' -- A Former Russian 'Troll Factory' Employee Speaks Out (rferl.org)

Examples of Russian cyber attacks: Lithuania 2004, Estonia 2007, Ukraine 2014, 2016, 2022, German parliament 2015, France 2015, US 2016, Lithuania 2020, Norway 2020. There are many more, these are just a few examples.
Russia political meddling alleged in 27 countries since 2004 (usatoday.com)
Report: Russian hackers exploit Lithuanian infrastructure | AP News
Norway blames Russia for cyber attack | The Independent Barents Observer (thebarentsobserver.com)
Hack, disinform, deny: Russia's cybersecurity strategy - France 24

Although Russia is not waging a traditional war on Western Europe and the US, these are very serious attack on democracy and the Western societies. Europe must start to become more assertive and firm when dealing with Russia. More resources must be allocated to fight against Russia in this hybrid war, that Russia already initiated many years ago. Things are finally starting to change, for instance Sweden is putting together a team of 45 people to fight disinformation, mainly from Russia:

Sweden’s new Psychological Defense Agency to combat disinformation, fake news - The Washington Post

 

[Ananda]

The idea that the region was Russian before it was Ukrainian is false except in Crimea (where it was Tatar) & maybe the far east, around Donetsk. But even there Russians had been moving in to work in industry in the 19th century.

afraid this is Russian propaganda, apart from Crimea, where Russians forcibly removed most of the Tatars who used to be most of the population.

What is definition of ethnic Ukraine ? There's many definition on that but seems most historian agree the origin of this ethnicities are west of dnieper river. By that definition the Ukrainian Etnics are those that in Western Ukraine.

Present Ukrainian regime also put counter Propaganda that saying those in Ukraine are indentifying themselves as Ethnic Ukraine, including those in East. So it is Ukraine Propaganda against Russian Propaganda which basically both of them are similarly questionable.

For that I see 3 things that really shown what ethinicities they are:
1. What is their mother language,
2. How they are political tendencies (where they vote goes),
3. Where those teritory actually originated from.

By those three definition, the Eastern Ukraine are Russian ethnicities. They talk Russian, Politically they consistently vote for Russian Ethnic President (Yanukovich), and until USSR time their teritory not belong to Ukraine.

If we go to history, then most of the teritory in the black sea coast of that area is belong to Tartar. The Turks say those teritory is Part of Otoman area. That's why what matter is whose that now resides on that teritory.

I'm not going to support either Moscow or Kyiev. In my opinion both of them are equally responsible on this mess. However by looking on their voting patern those in West and East Ukrainian are definitely already on seperate ethnic thinking.

West always said Moscow enforce their will on people in Donbas and Crimea, but same thing can be said with Kyiev now with ethnic Russian in East.

That's why I agree with some assesment in the West (those maps that I put not coming from Russian sources, but Western ones), that ethnic government power division on Ukraine has to be set. Just like what already been done in Yugoslavia. It's the safest way to ensure Ukraine border as it is.

Russia behaviour basically is to counter Yanokovich ousting by Pro Western Ukrainian ethnics. I only point out when there too much ethnics divide, it will become a powder keg, just like what happen in Yugoslavia and Cyprus and in some sense also Syria.

Why Western governments can accept ethnic divide in Bosnia and Kosovo but will not accept same thing in Ukraine ? The Kyiev regime now shown hard to the West that there's no ethnic divide in Ukraine. How they can said those in East is ethnic Ukranian when they talk Russian and vote Russian Ethnics ?

Add:
With Russian Ethnic federal power in East, basically each ethics group govern themselves. It's not pretty solution, but either that, or some area in East will definitely separating from Ukraine. That's what powder keg that waiting, which can be bigger then current rebellion in Donbas.

 

[Vivendi]

Last summer the Biden admin signaled that they are willing to enter a dialog using the Minsk agreement as a starting point. Russia did allude that they may be interested.

Biden’s support of Minsk accords during Geneva summit seen as Russia’s success — expert - World - TASS

Biden continued to voice support for negotiations based on the Minsk agreement also after Russia escalated the situation by amassing troops close to Ukraine, and after Russia presented their list of demands:

The U.S. leader additionally "expressed support for confidence-building measures to de-escalate tensions in Donbas and active diplomacy to advance the implementation of the Minsk Agreements."

Biden Tells Zelenskiy U.S. Will 'Respond Decisively' if Russia Invades Ukraine - The Moscow Times

Russia however has not been willing to start negotiations on this, or other aspects that NATO has expressed willingness to discuss (e.g. missile placements, troops in Eastern Europe, etc.).

Another thing I have mentioned before is the urgency in Russia. Diplomacy and negotiations normally take months and in complex cases like this, several years. After one week of meetings Russia has given another ultimatum to NATO. NATO must confirm in writing during this week that they will meet Russia's demands. This is in my book not a demonstration of willingness to negotiate and use diplomacy. Neither are cyber attacks for that matter.

Russia demands US, NATO response next week on Ukraine | NATO News | Al Jazeera

A reminder on one of the reasons why NATO / Russia dialog halted -- NATO concluded that a significant part of the Russian delegation to NATO were spies and expelled them. As a consequence, Russia decided to shut down their NATO office.

Nato has expelled eight Russian diplomats it says have been working secretly as intelligence officers.

The military alliance has also halved the size of Moscow's mission working at its Brussels headquarters to 10.
It is the first time Nato has taken such action against Moscow since it expelled seven Russian diplomats from the mission in the wake of the 2018 Salisbury spy poisonings.

Nato expels eight Russians from its mission for spying - BBC News

MOSCOW — Russia on Monday suspended its mission at NATO and ordered the closure of the alliance's office in Moscow in retaliation for NATO's expulsion of Russian diplomats.

Russia suspends its mission at NATO, shuts alliance's office - POLITICO

More info on Russian spies in at NATO:
Exposed: Who were Russia's spies at Nato HQ? (euobserver.com)