Russian Discussion Thread I

[Czervenika]

Well, I don't really think many Christian values are compatible with modern western values either, but that's another topic entirely. With Islam it's just more visible since secularism is not really a thing in Islamic countries (likely for the reasons you stated).

The words "Islamic" and "Secular" do not go together. I am personally not a Christian or very knowledgeable on Christianity, so I won't comment on whether or not it's compatible with secularism.

It's not. I was a Christian for awhile. I eventually became an apostate because it just wasn't compatible with my core values.

[Novus America]

The also support the PRC

And?

and are actually on good terms with Israel and Saudi Arabia

Doesn't matter whether or not they're on "good terms". Russia supports Iran and Assad, and various other resistance movements, actively. If nothing else, they don't call them terrorists 24/7 and that's good enough for me.

Russia supports those who benefit it, regardless of what their view of Islam is.

I still don't care. It mutually benefits us both, and I'm happy with the way Russia is acting towards us. I'm not saying Russia does anything it does out of love for Islam or for God or anything, I know what their real aims are. It just happens to be the same as ours.

I mean Russia also supports the far right in Europe which generally is not know for its love of Islam…

Muslims shouldn't be in Kuffar countries. I couldn't care less if it was the far-left or the far-right; let them say whatever they want about us. All Muslims should live in Muslim countries; Islam does not fit in with secularism.

The PRC treats Muslims very poorly and is demolishing old mosques.

I mean I get seeing Russia as an ally of convenience in cases your goals coincide, but they are obviously not doing it out of love of Muslims and can and do execute policies you might not support when it helps them.
But as long as you acknowledge that, okay I guess? You like some of their foreign policy.

But their aims are not to advance Islam, simply use it where it benefits them. And also they aim to keep on good terms with Saudi Arabia and Israel as they can and do get benefits from them.

[Ansarullah]

The PRC treats Muslims very poorly and is demolishing old mosques.

Source for this?

I mean I get seeing Russia as an ally of convenience in cases your goals coincide, but they are obviously not doing it out of love of Muslims and can and do execute policies you might not support when it helps them.
But as long as you acknowledge that, okay I guess? You like some of their foreign policy.

But their aims are not to advance Islam, simply use it where it benefits them. And also they aim to keep on good terms with Saudi Arabia and Israel as they can and do get benefits from them.

Never claimed they did it out of genuine care for Muslims. They do it because it gives them more power, that's foreign policy 101.

[Samudera Darussalam]

The PRC treats Muslims very poorly and is demolishing old mosques.

Source for this?

The Xinjiang business

Researchers at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute estimated in 2020, after a survey of 900 Xinjiang locations, that 16,000 mosques had been partially or completely destroyed over the previous three years.

Signs outside the Xinqu Mosque, with the crumbling minarets, said a housing development would soon be built on the site.

“For ethic unity, build a beautiful Xinjiang,” a sign read.

[Lady Victory]

The words "Islamic" and "Secular" do not go together. I am personally not a Christian or very knowledgeable on Christianity, so I won't comment on whether or not it's compatible with secularism.

It's not. I was a Christian for awhile. I eventually became an apostate because it just wasn't compatible with my core values.

Unless you're a Fascist, a hyper capitalist, or just excessively hedonistic then Christianity shouldn't incompatible with your "core values", certainly not secularism.

[Keira]

It's not. I was a Christian for awhile. I eventually became an apostate because it just wasn't compatible with my core values.

Unless you're a Fascist, a hyper capitalist, or just excessively hedonistic then Christianity shouldn't incompatible with your "core values", certainly not secularism.

Try being a Christian "transbian" woman in Eastern Europe and you'll quickly discover how Christianity there is incompatible with a lot more things.

[Lady Victory]

Unless you're a Fascist, a hyper capitalist, or just excessively hedonistic then Christianity shouldn't incompatible with your "core values", certainly not secularism.

Try being a Christian "transbian" woman in Eastern Europe and you'll quickly discover how Christianity there is incompatible with a lot more things.

Fortunately Christianity is not defined by how Christians behave.

[Republic Of Ludwigsburg]

Try being a Christian "transbian" woman in Eastern Europe and you'll quickly discover how Christianity there is incompatible with a lot more things.

Fortunately Christianity is not defined by how Christians behave.

Now, if your gonna argue in the Russia thread about Christianity, please go the Christianity discussion thread.

[The North Polish Union]

"Kyiv" is simply the modern English transliteration. During Soviet times when Russian (and not Ukrainian) was used for Ukrainian(!) place names, the common English transliteration was "Kiev". Once again, there is not a single correct method of transcription for Cyrillic to Latin alphabets.

No fucking Ukrainian pronounces it like Kijów [ˈkijuf], as is done in Polish. It is not a transcription, because it's not the same sounds being used (btw, you're now saying transliteration, which is different but also wrong). You have no reason to call it this other than some weird extension of whatever irredentist fantasies you might harbor. Ukrainian has had its own official transcription since 1991.

I am not sure of the difference between "transcription" and "transliteration". I have been using them to mean the same thing, if this is not the case then I will try to use only one for consistency.

As for "irredentist fantasies" I have already said that I am not an irredentist, and support Prometheism and Intermarum concept. These are not irredentist theories, and cooperation such as the Visegrád Group and recently-signed Lublin Triangle are steps in this diresction and are not Polish-centered. Dmowski led the nationalist faction during the II Rzeczpospolita, and the difficulties between him and the more international-thinking Piłsudski led to many of the foreign-policy failings of the II Rzeczpospolita that worked against Intermarum federation.

As for "Kaliningrad", I refuse to refer to the city by the name of a genocidal war criminal who was responsible for the Katyń slaughter. Would you prefer the Lithuanian "Karaliaučius"?

The guy was basically a figurehead with no real power whose own wife was targeted in the Great Purge. There are worse people in history to have had cities named after them.

The fate of his wife does not excuse his crimes. We have also renamed cities such as "Stalingrad" and "Karl Marx Stadt".

I have looked at your source. It is interesting how while it asserts that Russians are Slavs, much of it and the references do little to support this. The articles says studies "uphold the traditionally held genetic differentiation between Northern and Southern Russians, with the decisive ethnic element being the Finnic one, more important in the north, the southern population having substantial - generally unacknowledged in historical debates about Russian ethnogenesis - Germanic influence." So it appears that northern Russians descend from the Finnish tribes, while only the southern Russians are from the Viking Rus'; either way that does not make the Russians Slavs. It is unfortunate that the article it is citing is behind a paywall.

Let's look at another of the sources for the Wikipedia article, source 7. The study says that "one can conclude that we were not able to find any specific combinations of unique mtDNA haplotypes and their subclusters
clearly distinguishing Russians [...] from the neighboring European populations such as Germans and Finns. This trend was also noted in a previous study on the HVS I-RFLP variation in Russians in comparison with Western and Eastern European populations (Malyarchuk & Derenko, 2001)."

Differently, when comparing Russians and Poles it says "In the present study, we have found that Poles and Russians are characterized by the same West Eurasian mtDNA haplogroups which describe at least 95% of mtDNA variations in Europe and the Near East (Torroni et al. 1996; Richards et al. 1998, 2000)."

This is very curious, it seems that Russians are not different from Germanic and Finnic peoples but the only similarity Poles share with Russians are also shared with Lebanese (do you think Lebanese are Slavic?). Hmmm.

I mean, even aesthetically, Russians look pretty Slavic. They mostly look like a Germanic-Finnic-Slavic mix, a lot like the neighbouring Balts. The main difference is that there's quite a bit of Turkic and Caucasian admixture as well. Still, they're not too different from Poles, so I don't get why you're arguing about this. Just because Kievan Rus was founded by Nordic folk and ruled by them for a while, doesn't mean that the populace suddenly became genetically 100% Nordic.

Do you think Poles are somehow purely genetically Slavic? The first time I saw Greta Thunberg, I genuinely thought she was Polish. I'm so used to seeing Poles in UK who share 99% of her facial structure, I couldn't believe she was Swedish. It seems northern and western Poland has a lot of Germanic admixture. Some of your folk also look Baltic, meaning a Slavic-Finnic mix is present, too. And, of course, don't forget the massive Ashkenazi Jewish genetic heritage.

What do you mean by "aesthetically"? It looks like you are talking about their physical features, but those do not define "Slavicness". Unless you desire to base "German-ness" on whether one has blonde hair and blue eyes?!

[Keira]

I mean, even aesthetically, Russians look pretty Slavic. They mostly look like a Germanic-Finnic-Slavic mix, a lot like the neighbouring Balts. The main difference is that there's quite a bit of Turkic and Caucasian admixture as well. Still, they're not too different from Poles, so I don't get why you're arguing about this. Just because Kievan Rus was founded by Nordic folk and ruled by them for a while, doesn't mean that the populace suddenly became genetically 100% Nordic.

Do you think Poles are somehow purely genetically Slavic? The first time I saw Greta Thunberg, I genuinely thought she was Polish. I'm so used to seeing Poles in UK who share 99% of her facial structure, I couldn't believe she was Swedish. It seems northern and western Poland has a lot of Germanic admixture. Some of your folk also look Baltic, meaning a Slavic-Finnic mix is present, too. And, of course, don't forget the massive Ashkenazi Jewish genetic heritage.

What do you mean by "aesthetically"? It looks like you are talking about their physical features, but those do not define "Slavicness". Unless you desire to base "German-ness" on whether one has blonde hair and blue eyes?!

Yes, I am talking about physical features. If someone's genetically Slavic, you can see that in their facial structure (that is if you're familiar enough with European faces to be able to discern). And it's not as basic as just looking at eye and hair colour. So, no, blue eyes and blonde hair is not what a genetic German makes.

I wasn't sure what you were talking about. I thought you meant genetics and physical features, but I guess not. So, then, what do you mean when you say Russians aren't Slavic? In what way aren't they Slavic?

[The North Polish Union]

What do you mean by "aesthetically"? It looks like you are talking about their physical features, but those do not define "Slavicness". Unless you desire to base "German-ness" on whether one has blonde hair and blue eyes?!

Yes, I am talking about physical features. If someone's genetically Slavic, you can see that in their facial structure (that is if you're familiar enough with European faces to be able to discern). And it's not as basic as just looking at eye and hair colour. So, no, blue eyes and blonde hair is not what a genetic German makes.

I wasn't sure what you were talking about. I thought you meant genetics and physical features, but I guess not. So, then, what do you mean when you say Russians aren't Slavic? In what way aren't they Slavic?

The initial claim that was made (not by you) is that genetic studies show that Russians are Slavs. I explained that the claimed articles do not show that is true. Then you moved to saying that physical features are proof of the Slavic genetic origin of Russians, but this is just the discarded racial science of 100 years ago. The DNA studies do not show proof that Russians are Slavic and we cannot rely on outdated theories that led to genocide.

My point is that Russians are not Slavic. Even though there are some cases of cultural influence because of proximity, these influences also exist for the Romanians who nobody claims are Slavs.

[Keira]

Yes, I am talking about physical features. If someone's genetically Slavic, you can see that in their facial structure (that is if you're familiar enough with European faces to be able to discern). And it's not as basic as just looking at eye and hair colour. So, no, blue eyes and blonde hair is not what a genetic German makes.

I wasn't sure what you were talking about. I thought you meant genetics and physical features, but I guess not. So, then, what do you mean when you say Russians aren't Slavic? In what way aren't they Slavic?

The initial claim that was made (not by you) is that genetic studies show that Russians are Slavs. I explained that the claimed articles do not show that is true. Then you moved to saying that physical features are proof of the Slavic genetic origin of Russians, but this is just the discarded racial science of 100 years ago. The DNA studies do not show proof that Russians are Slavic and we cannot rely on outdated theories that led to genocide.

My point is that Russians are not Slavic. Even though there are some cases of cultural influence because of proximity, these influences also exist for the Romanians who nobody claims are Slavs.

Different genes lead to different looks, I don't know what else to tell you. It's not outdated in any way. Just how your own family looks alike, people bounded by national borders, culture, linguistics, geography, etc. are going to look alike.

So the original conversation was about how genetically Slavic Russians were. Now, for some reason, you're talking about culture. What are you even doing here? It's like you're desperate to exclude Russians from the greater category of "Slavic" in any way you can. If you wanna talk genetics, talk genetics and don't bring up culture (or anything else). If you want to discuss how Slavic Russians are in all departments, then you're going to lose when it comes to linguistics.

Romanians aren't considered Slavic because they don't speak a Slavic language. That's the only reason AFAIK. If they spoke a Slavic language, they'd be as Slavic as Serbs and Bosnians.

I'm too lazy and not super invested in this to do any additional research. However, here's some related stuff from my personal archives. Hopefully it helps in some way.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R1a

[Czervenika]

It's not. I was a Christian for awhile. I eventually became an apostate because it just wasn't compatible with my core values.

Unless you're a Fascist, a hyper capitalist, or just excessively hedonistic then Christianity shouldn't incompatible with your "core values", certainly not secularism.

I'm a Marxist. That should tell you something about how Christianity didn't really mesh with my core values. I'm also very much a utilitarian and pragmatist, philosophically.

[Duvniask]

I am not sure of the difference between "transcription" and "transliteration".

Clearly you need to stop talking out of your ass and not use words you don't understand.

Look, use the proper names instead of Polonizing everything. You have no more claim to Kyiv than the Russians, who actually make up a sizeable part of the city's population. To say nothing of Veliky Novgorod, Kalinigrad or Belarus.

As for "irredentist fantasies" I have already said that I am not an irredentist, and support Prometheism and Intermarum concept. These are not irredentist theories, and cooperation such as the Visegrád Group and recently-signed Lublin Triangle are steps in this diresction and are not Polish-centered. Dmowski led the nationalist faction during the II Rzeczpospolita, and the difficulties between him and the more international-thinking Piłsudski led to many of the foreign-policy failings of the II Rzeczpospolita that worked against Intermarum federation.

So why are you using Polish names for places that are not Polish, exactly like how an irredentist does it?

The fate of his wife does not excuse his crimes. We have also renamed cities such as "Stalingrad" and "Karl Marx Stadt".

Congrats on missing the point. The guy had no power, so he couldn't even save his own wife from the purge. He was a figurehead who performed only ceremonial functions - so much so that other Soviet leaders, like Khrushchev, remarked that they felt sorry for him.

[Ansarullah]

Source for this?

The Xinjiang business

Researchers at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute estimated in 2020, after a survey of 900 Xinjiang locations, that 16,000 mosques had been partially or completely destroyed over the previous three years.

Signs outside the Xinqu Mosque, with the crumbling minarets, said a housing development would soon be built on the site.

“For ethic unity, build a beautiful Xinjiang,” a sign read.

Reuters, a Western media source.
Very reliable.
I'm not going to deny China is an atheist state that's not friendly towards religion, but I can't take the propaganda about Uyghurs seriously.
I saw a BBC article that said they "snuck in" once ffs. The only proof they ever have that anything they say is true is their word against China's.
Plus it's illogical anyways. Why expend resources to exterminate a minority group within a province that's one of the least populated in the entire country?

[Czervenika]

The Xinjiang business

Researchers at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute estimated in 2020, after a survey of 900 Xinjiang locations, that 16,000 mosques had been partially or completely destroyed over the previous three years.

Signs outside the Xinqu Mosque, with the crumbling minarets, said a housing development would soon be built on the site.

“For ethic unity, build a beautiful Xinjiang,” a sign read.

Reuters, a Western media source.
Very reliable.
I'm not going to deny China is an atheist state that's not friendly towards religion, but I can't take the propaganda about Uyghurs seriously.
I saw a BBC article that said they "snuck in" once ffs. The only proof they ever have that anything they say is true is their word against China's.
Plus it's illogical anyways. Why expend resources to exterminate a minority group within a province that's one of the least populated in the entire country?

I don't doubt that China has done some shady things, but the Uyghur thing really doesn't add up in a lot of ways. Plus the timing. It seems oddly convenient that China began abusing one of its minority populations as soon as the country was seen as a direct threat to the West.

[Ansarullah]

I don't doubt that China has done some shady things, but the Uyghur thing really doesn't add up in a lot of ways. Plus the timing. It seems oddly convenient that China began abusing one of its minority populations as soon as the country was seen as a direct threat to the West.

Completely agreed. Not like Western media is above lying about their enemies to justify actions against them, either. They made up WMDs in Iraq to justify that, they made up Assad having chemical weapons, one time they literally launched their OWN chemical attack in Syria then blamed Assad for it, etc. Why should I think this is any different?

[Czervenika]

I don't doubt that China has done some shady things, but the Uyghur thing really doesn't add up in a lot of ways. Plus the timing. It seems oddly convenient that China began abusing one of its minority populations as soon as the country was seen as a direct threat to the West.

Completely agreed. Not like Western media is above lying about their enemies to justify actions against them, either. They made up WMDs in Iraq to justify that, they made up Assad having chemical weapons, one time they literally launched their OWN chemical attack in Syria then blamed Assad for it, etc. Why should I think this is any different?

Oh yea, I get it completely the distrust in western media that a lot of Middle Eastern people have. Basically all those wars were justified on lies.

[Ansarullah]

I get it completely the distrust in western media that a lot of Middle Eastern people have.

Ironically I'm not even Middle Eastern. I live in the deep South and I'm about as white as you can be.

[Czervenika]

I get it completely the distrust in western media that a lot of Middle Eastern people have.

Ironically I'm not even Middle Eastern. I live in the deep South and I'm about as white as you can be.

Ah. Convert to Islam?

[Lady Victory]

Reuters, a Western media source.
Very reliable.

It literally is lmao. Some of the least biased and most fact-based reporting in journalism. This isn't hard to figure out unless you only trust conspiracy theorists and state-run media, in which case you have my pity.

[Ansarullah]

Convert to Islam?

Getting off topic now but yes. Converted in June and I've had an interest in it since last December.

[Czervenika]

I feel like if we want to discuss China then that should be taken to another thread anyway. I feel like we're diverging off-topic.

[Ansarullah]

It literally is lmao. Some of the least biased and most fact-based reporting in journalism. This isn't hard to figure out unless you only trust conspiracy theorists and state-run media, in which case you have my pity.

"least biased and most fact-based reporting in journalism"
Source: either itself or other, conveniently Western-based sources

This isn't hard to figure out unless you only trust conspiracy theorists and state-run media, in which case you have my pity.

I'd honestly trust a conspiracy theorist like Richard Medhurst over Reuters any day. Or any news outlet for that matter.

[Ansarullah]

I feel like if we want to discuss China then that should be taken to another thread anyway. I feel like we're diverging off-topic.

Does the "CCP Discussion Thread" even exist?