One can say Russians didn't pay enough for WW2. They started as an ally of Hitler, helping out in his campaign and only turning against him because he backstabbed them like the military genious he was. Yet they got to create the new world order after WW2, and seize political control over half the Europe, despite many leaders rightfully pointing out that at this point the West is creating its own next great enemy.
It's going to be a much greater mistake if after this conflict Russia will be allowed to return to its status quo. It would just be an invitation for them to try again in the future. In this case a barbaric state should feel the loss to the point of at the very least be afraid of doing the same shit again.
Perhaps, but it's a bit hard to punish the victor...
What would you suggest then? the situation isn't exactly easy, I agree russia needs to be made to see the error of it's ways and the status quo is not an option but without risking a big war with big booms russia is not going to disintegrate soon. Perhaps we should just let nature take it's course and see how much damage demographics can do. (seriously, that population pyramid is unhealthy.)It's going to be a much greater mistake if after this conflict Russia will be allowed to return to its status quo. It would just be an invitation for them to try again in the future. In this case a barbaric state should feel the loss to the point of at the very least be afraid of doing the same shit again.
@Iphie
You are severely underestimating just how many peoples russia has oppressed and forced under the russian federation banner.
Putin Goners doesn't guarantee Russian mentality to be goners, he's most likely a symptom of it, a part of the post-KGB spiderweb that has the real power in Russia. Removing a leader (which can mean anything from retirement to public killing) after he lost (or even "didn't win") a war might lead to leaders that are better at winning wars, not necessarily not starting them.
Remember that Putin was absolutely fine playing the economic game for years, and only now "suprised" half the EU by starting a war of barbaric conquest. Studying why he found it necessary to abandon the clearly superior diplomatic route that gave him money and influence over the EU in order to start fighting Ukraine might be a key here. Not just to figuring out Putins next moves but the mentality of the Russian state as a whole.
Status quo would also be a mistake. We just simply cannot expect to tell Russia what to do and expect it to happen long term.
I obviously do not have the answe, but repeating the treaty of versailles would be a grave mistake, as would the "help" Russia received in the 90's from the West.
They're obviously stuck in their "Russia STRONK WW2 WINNER YAY" mentality, which serves no purpose whatsoever. The fact that their leaders are a product of the cold war does not help either. Putin and his gang is clearly not the ones anyone would negotiate with, but in the end it would be useless without China onboard aswell.
There already is a form of civil unrest. Pretty much every day there's someone new declared a "foreign agent" due to their actions. Just recently Alla Pugacheva demanded that she be declared one after her husband Maxim Galkin was due to his condemnation of the war (and she herself called out sending our people to die for illusory goals in her post). She is a woman about whom the joke "Leonid Brezhnev (or other politician) is a minor political figure from the era of Alla Pugacheva" was made, so we shall see how Putin measures up to her stature.
Just an aside, but Ivan IV's epithet of "Grozny" being translated as "the Terrible" is an incredible misunderstanding of its true meaning. It literally means "of the Thunderstorm" and means more "awesome", "great", "just", or "God's judge on Earth" (during his time those who dies due to a lightning strike were seen as saints). It also wasn't applied to him until after he dies and became a subject of folk songs.
Terrible in it's more archaic usage as a play on nicknames of past rulers holds a meaning closer to the word powerful in modern English, that one feels kinda sketchy for a man that will have served to stunt Russia for decades from what it could've been.
- - - Updated - - -
I wouldn't say it's a huge mistranslation so much as that the meaning of the word has just shifted. It used to be a lot closer to the Russian meaning than it is now.
"There is a pervasive myth that making content hard will induce players to rise to the occasion. We find the opposite. " -- Ghostcrawler
"The bit about hardcore players not always caring about the long term interests of the game is spot on." -- Ghostcrawler
"Do you want a game with no casuals so about 500 players?"
While Japan proper were never invaded forcefully, the allies did occupy it in it's entirety after the Japanese capitulation for a few years.
That rehabilitation happened because the US were actually in a position to force the systemic changes necessary to their society at a core level. It's not comparable to what an eventual Russian defeat could ever realistically lead to.