Russian and Ukrainian have similar roots, but are not "essentially the same language."
The "national origin story" (unless you mean the 1917 Revolution) is nothing like how the two countries were created.
Mexico and the US have "tons of families and other connections over the (sic) boarder as well."
The reason the elites treated the border between Ukraine and the Russian Federation as meaningless was because ex-Soviet cronies were running Ukraine to plunder its assets. Until the Maiden Revolution, these cronies were basically stooges controlled by Moscow.
The current conflict (2014 to now) is nothing like a civil war. Moscow uses some proxy forces from the Luhansk and Donetsk oblasts, but the majority of forces are from the Russian Federation. They control everything, supply all the equipment and determine goals and objectives. If you were to remove the Russian forces from these two oblasts (as well as Crimea and Zaporizhzhia) these proxy forces would collapse immediately.
Oh and regarding England and Scotland, well, many Scots would like to leave the UK. That wouldn't be a civil war either, but an independence movement. A civil war would be the more like the Hundred Years war...
I am talking about Kievan Rus when I am talking about the 'origin story'.
If we like it or not, national myths are and always have been an integral part to nationalism. So what different countries consider their origin myth does matter. Just as religion and language matter. And of course shared history.
> The reason the elites treated the border between Ukraine and the Russian Federation as meaningless was because ex-Soviet cronies were running Ukraine to plunder its assets.
This was literally my point. So you had the Soviet Union, witch was a country. And now different parts of that Union are fighting one another. Both countries were controlled by the former elites of the previous country.
The collapse of the Soviet Union literally was an Ukrainian/Russian independence movement based on the politics of the elites at the time. And the war now could be described as a independence war again.
My point here is that its simply isn't a strict defined what all these different things are. You can call it a civil war, and independence war or an imperial war. All of them are correct depending on how you look at it.
> The current conflict (2014 to now) is nothing like a civil war.
What we call things depends on how you look at it.
Consider the situation in Yemen for the past 35 years (the same amount of time as the Ukraine exists). You can call it a civil war, an independence war and many other things.
You seem to be attached to perfectly rigidly designed categories of what everything is. The real world just isn't that simple and fits nice into those categories. You seem to be against calling it a civil war between you interpreted what I sad as it being a 'Ukrainian Civil War' but you don't like that because the 'Ukrainian rebels' are outside supported and would normally not actually have a chance. Guess what, that is true in many civil wars.
But whatever, I wasn't even saying 'Ukrainian Civil War' anyway. I was just calling it a Civil War because of the extreme close historical connect, simply put for the last 400+ years what is now Ukraine and what is now Russia were one country. That to me is by far enough to consider it a civil war.
During the Soviet period, 'in theory' the different members were independent and just part of a voluntary union. But we know this wasn't the case because the communist elites really controlled both governments and the party was really in control of the whole thing. And while the Soviet Union went away formally, 'in theory' the two countries are now fully separated and independent, but in actual reality this was never really the case.
A civil war is not just a situation where you have a international recognized country as defined by the UN at the current moment, splitting into two groups fighting each other (with nobody from outside involved) until one wins and then are are reunified the same way.
> Oh and regarding England and Scotland, well, many Scots would like to leave the UK. That wouldn't be a civil war either, but an independence movement.
Speaking in actual realist terms England and Scotland don't actually exist, its one country called the UK who had a unified foreign policy for many 100s of years. If different parts of the UK fight each other for whatever reason, calling that a civil war is totally reasonable.
The Southern States were also an independence movement but yet somehow its called a Civil War. Independence movements often lead to civil wars. Literally a leading cause of Civil War. To say 'it wouldn't be Civil War but an Independence movement' makes no sense what so ever. Its would obviously be both.
Which dissolved itself peacefully enough and with no outside prodding of any kind on 26 December 1991. In the process, fully and unequivocally recognizing the complete sovereign independence of all of its constituent members at the time -- along with their inviolable borders -- including Ukraine.
End of story, full stop.
This idea you have that it's basically "still one country, hashing things out" is seriously misinformed nonsense.
Kievan Rus
And the idea that anyone, anywhere should be fighting a full-scale war in 2024 based on (or "explained" by) events of the 9th-13th centuries is, by all objective standards -- batshit crazy.
They're just spouting the various Russian justifications for the invasion. It gets tiresome when they can't even agree that Ukraine is a "real" country and that Russia is completely at fault.
Don't put words in my mouth. I have been studying Russian history as a hobby for decades. Ukraine is a fully independent country. I am against the Russian invasion of Ukraine. And I am pro-supporting Ukraine against Russia. That has nothing to with what I said.
I have been studying Russian history as a hobby for decades
If you've been studying the topic for "decades", and then you say things like "they speak essentially the same language" (in reference to Russians and Ukrainians) -- then I don't know what to tell you.
First of all, many people in Ukraine speak Russian. So those people very clear 'speak essentially the same language'.
Second, I am Swiss and Swiss German is quite different then High German with somewhat different historical routes. When I was in Ukraine we were talking about languages and how they differ from each other and came to the conclusion that Swiss German <-> High German was a reasonable comparison. In some way Swiss German is more different to German then Ukrainian to Russian.
I do consider Swiss German and High German 'essentially the same language' as well. Now if Germany invaded Switzerland I would likely also argue against the notion but that's just politics.
You can of course be nitpick and quibble with the term 'essentially', the fact is they are extremely close related languages.
There is a lot of interesting history of both nationalist movement trying to influence the language. Imperial Russian tried to make Ukrainian more Russian (generally promoting Pan-Slavic policy with Russia as the leader). Specially in the Pre-WW1 period when it became increasingly clear that Ukrainian nationalism was a potential disaster for Imperial Russia. Ukrainian nationalist did the opposite, tried to remove Russian influence and promote the differences. Language unification and dis-unification is an interesting aspect of all modern nationalist development and its always political.
If you were to remove the Russian forces from these two oblasts (as well as Crimea and Zaporizhzhia) these proxy forces would collapse immediately.
As would all of the so-called rebellions in the East from the very start (2014).
While there were indigenous elements - even their own leaders acknowledge they wouldn't have gotten anywhere without support (or at least the hope of support) from the Motherland.
Moscow uses some proxy forces from the Luhansk and Donetsk oblasts, but the majority of forces are from the Russian Federation.
What strange talk is this. They annexed them, period. 17 months ago.
If you were to remove the Russian forces from these two oblasts (as well as Crimea and Zaporizhzhia) these proxy forces would collapse immediately.
In 2024 (which is now) there is precisely one proxy force in this war. That would collapse immediately without support. You can’t spell its name without “rain”.
The "national origin story" (unless you mean the 1917 Revolution) is nothing like how the two countries were created.
Mexico and the US have "tons of families and other connections over the (sic) boarder as well."
The reason the elites treated the border between Ukraine and the Russian Federation as meaningless was because ex-Soviet cronies were running Ukraine to plunder its assets. Until the Maiden Revolution, these cronies were basically stooges controlled by Moscow.
The current conflict (2014 to now) is nothing like a civil war. Moscow uses some proxy forces from the Luhansk and Donetsk oblasts, but the majority of forces are from the Russian Federation. They control everything, supply all the equipment and determine goals and objectives. If you were to remove the Russian forces from these two oblasts (as well as Crimea and Zaporizhzhia) these proxy forces would collapse immediately.
Oh and regarding England and Scotland, well, many Scots would like to leave the UK. That wouldn't be a civil war either, but an independence movement. A civil war would be the more like the Hundred Years war...