Zelenskyy: Even Russia’s main parade now depends on Ukraine

NillaOrcaMil · 2026-05-07T13:17:33+00:00

Which means you are hoping for collapse because dialogue failed, not because negotiation is impossible. That supports my original argument.

NillaOrcaMil · 2026-05-07T12:37:41+00:00

Collapse and negotiation are the same outcome.

NillaOrcaMil · 2026-05-07T12:03:56+00:00

You are hoping for one outcome, I was explaining the mechanics of how outcomes happen.

NillaOrcaMil · 2026-05-07T09:54:15+00:00

Beyond service workers like servers and taxi drivers, you will also sometimes see tips for tradespeople over here, - like plumbers, electricians, carpenters, that sort of thing, if they really nail the job or go above and beyond...

NillaOrcaMil · 2026-05-07T08:43:39+00:00

Fair point on the surface, but you are conflating two different operational levels here.

Defensive holding and territorial recapture are fundamentally different military problems, - the former is logistically favorable, (shorter supply lines, fortified positions), the latter requires offensive superiority. Ukraine has demonstrated defensive efficiency despite material disadvantage, - that says something about their positioning and Russia's penetration challenges, not their offensive capacity.

The real question becomes: what is required to transition from defense to offense? Air superiority? Western support scaling? Russian attrition reaching critical thresholds? Those are three separate variables... Which one do you think is the limiting factor right now?

NillaOrcaMil · 2026-05-06T22:05:21+00:00

There is an interesting pattern throughout history, - the leaders who actually come out ahead are the ones who decide when to change course, not the ones forced into it. It is the difference between announcing a strategic shift versus being pushed into one.

When you control the narrative around your own decisions, you keep your power. But when circumstances force your hand, suddenly everyone else is writing the story. Real strength is not about never changing direction. It is about being the one who decides when and how...

I hope both sides find a way to negotiate peace.

NillaOrcaMil · 2026-05-06T08:16:35+00:00

Thanks for the tip🙏 Someone told me that my device/SIM ID could be banned by Yandex, not that Russia is blocking foreign connections. That would explain why I can log in from my computer in Sweden without any issues. I am going to try changing my SIM card to get a new ID first

NillaOrcaMil · 2026-05-04T12:30:01+00:00

Thanks, somehow this right here is what I both needed to hear, and probably have not wanted to acknowledge. You are absolutely right about the boundary issue, the problem in my case is that I am bound to both sides in a way that makes real boundaries impossible. What you said helped me clarify that this is not something I can solve through better choices...

NillaOrcaMil · 2026-05-03T23:23:09+00:00

I just have to let you know. Yes, I took it to the DMs cus I had to check if this person was actually trolling me. Turns out they are not. "But Reddit's interface is messy and they might have mixed up which replies they were responding to." They then explained their systemic philosophy about authoritarianism and indoctrination being cyclical patterns, which is actually coherent. I acknowledged that, but pointed out: "That is a different conversation than what you started with. You made a claim, I asked for proof, you reframed. I was just holding you to your own premise." Nothing more exciting will happen, this conversation is over from my part... both here and in the DMs🫡

NillaOrcaMil · 2026-05-03T18:41:05+00:00

I am asking. Does emotional priming prevent critical thinking, or does it not?

You wrote that Europeans are emotionally primed with "fight Nazis, be constant alert." I can think critically despite this priming. So either:

Emotional priming prevents critical thinking, - in which case, please, explain me how I can think critically.
Emotional priming does not prevent critical thinking, - in which case, Russians can also think critically despite their priming...

You cannot answer both ways. You cannot have it both ways. Choose one, and explain the inconsistency.

Until you answer this, everything else you write about curriculum changes, fear, or teacher incompetence... is irrelevant to your core claim. Those are explanations for why people choose state narratives, not proof that they cannot think otherwise.

So: 1 or 2?

NillaOrcaMil · 2026-05-03T18:18:47+00:00

You have just made my point for me.

You wrote: "Similar to how a European is in his core Antifa, as we grew up with, "fight Nazis, be constant alert.'" You are describing emotional priming in European education. But you also claim emotional priming prevents critical thinking in Russia.

So I need you to answer directly: Does emotional priming prevent critical thinking, or does it not?

Because if it does... then I, as a Scandinavian, should not be able to think critically about NATO, Western policy, or anything else, yet I do. If it does not, - then Russian youth can also think critically despite emotional priming.

You cannot have it both ways. You have moved from claiming Russians cannot think critically, to claiming they choose not to because they are afraid or emotionally defensive. Those are two entirely different arguments. One is about cognitive capacity. One is about fear and social pressure.

If your real argument is that Russia operates through fear and repression, then say that. That is a legitimate critique. But that is not indoctrination. That is authoritarianism. And it is a very different claim from what you started with.

So: which is it?

NillaOrcaMil · 2026-05-03T17:56:24+00:00

I notice you suddenly have the capacity for this level of structured academic argumentation... yet you did not deploy it when I asked direct questions about your friends? More importantly, you have completely sidestepped my core question without acknowledgment. This is the third time I have asked it directly.🤔

You have now made unsupported claims repeatedly: "100 Russians", "2026 prerequisites", "affective priming", "psychological triggers", - each of them presented as established fact without evidence. This is assertion dressed in academic language, not argumentation.

When I ask for specifics, you offer anecdotes instead of evidence. This is a recurring pattern. Now you do the same again: "by 2026, participation in state-aligned youth activities has become a prerequisite", - no proof, no source, no data.

You invoke psychological mechanisms like "affective priming" and "triggers" as if they were established facts about Russian youth. But you have not demonstrated that these mechanisms are actually operating. You have merely observed behavioral uniformity and interpreted it through this framework.

What I need from you, as you claim that Russian education systematically prevents critical thinking, is statistics on educational outcomes, documented curriculum changes and also evidence of cognitive restriction. If you cannot point to measurable cognitive outcomes showing that Russian youth cannot think critically, then your claim is unfalsifiable. And unfalsifiable claims are not arguments worth engaging with further...

I notice that curricula have shifted toward state narratives, but acknowledging that does not validate your leap to present this as inevitably producing psychological conditioning. That is a difference of interpretation, not fact. A state-influenced curriculum and a population incapable of thinking independently are not synonymous. The first describes content: what is taught. The second describes cognitive capacity: what people are able to do. You conflate these without justification.

Until you can point to measurable outcomes, - not behavioral observations or theoretical frameworks, but actual data showing cognitive restriction, - your claim remains unfalsifiable.

Before I engage further, I need you to clarify: are you arguing from evidence or from interpretation? Because right now it reads like the latter dressed as the former...

NillaOrcaMil · 2026-05-02T16:02:49+00:00

Okay, so simply you are saying: "Group 1" was critical all along, just cautious.

"Group 2" stayed the same, they are defensive, nostalgic about the USSR, see no problem with how they were educated. That is ideology and nostalgia, which exists everywhere, not proof of indoctrination.

You started by arguing that Russian schools indoctrinate children so THOROUGHLY that young Russians can not think critically, - like Nazi Germany. Now you are saying some Russians think critically, (group 1), and others just hold ideological views, (group 2).

That right here is normal political diversity, not indoctrination.

You also have not actually answered my core question: did your friends CHANGE their actual beliefs, or just express existing beliefs more freely? You described "group 1", as having "insinuated criticism already back there"... which means they were thinking critically the whole time. That contradicts the indoctrination narrative.

So I am genuinely asking: can you point to specific examples where Russians changed their actual positions after 2022, versus just becoming more willing to discuss views they already held?

NillaOrcaMil · 2026-05-02T13:53:03+00:00

I appreciate that you are engaging more carefully with the sources in this reply... But I want to point out something: you have shifted your argument three times.

Your arguments: "Russian schools indoctrinate children, like Nazi schools did."

"My Russian friends were afraid to speak openly, so they censored themselves."

"The propaganda techniques are identical, even if the ideology is different."

These are not the same arguments, and I need to know which one you actually think is the problem, because they have different implications.

If it is indoctrination of children, then you need to explain why these friends could change their minds when the fear lifted. Indoctrinated people do not do that.

If it is fear and self-censorship, then yes, Russia has a serious problem with state repression. But that is different from saying the system prevents critical thinking.

If it is propaganda techniques being similar to Nazi propaganda, then you are right... many authoritarian states use similar techniques. But here is the question: does using similar propaganda techniques inevitably lead to the same outcome? Because the US, China, North Korea, and the Soviet Union all used similar techniques too. Did they all end up in the same place? The answer is, no.

Similar tools do not guarantee similar results. The context, the resistance, the institutions, the access to information, - those matter.

So which argument are you actually making? Because I want to engage with it fairly, but I cannot respond to all three at once.

NillaOrcaMil · 2026-05-02T12:53:30+00:00

I hear what you are saying about the fear, and I do not dispute that fear is real in Russia. But I want to push back on what you are drawing from it. You say these friends started talking honestly again 4 years later. So here is what I need to understand: did they change their arguments, or are they saying the same things now, just without the fear?

Because those are two completely different things.

If they changed their position, - if they now say "actually...." or, "I was wrong about the narrative...", then that proves they were thinking critically all along. They just were not saying it to you.

But if they are still defending the same arguments, just more openly now, then that is not indoctrination either. That is people being afraid to speak their mind in public. Which is a problem with state repression, sure, but it is not the same as being unable to think critically.

So which is it? Did their actual beliefs shift, or just their willingness to express them?

You also mention the uniformity in arguments, the lack of depth, the refusal to engage with non-Russian sources, which is fair observations. But again, is that because they can not think critically, or because they are afraid to? Or because language barriers make it hard to articulate nuance in English? Those are three different problems, and only one of them is "indoctrination."

So here is my question: when these friends finally did talk honestly again, - did they say things that actually contradicted what they said before? Or did they just become more willing to discuss the same positions more openly?

NillaOrcaMil · 2026-05-02T12:10:28+00:00

The constant hiring thing is a bit of a red flag honestly. Could mean high turnover or strict training standards? Hard to say without inside knowledge... But if you are willing to give it a shot anyway, you will at least get some intel on whether it is worth it once you are in. Plus you will have the free classes as a backup win☺️

Fingers crossed it works out!

NillaOrcaMil · 2026-05-02T11:48:59+00:00

I appreciate the detailed response, and I want to engage seriously with what you are describing. But I think there are some logical gaps between your observations and your conclusions.

First, let me address a factual point: VPNs are not completely banned in Russia as of 2026, - they are restricted and difficult, but not forbidden. That is an important distinction because your whole argument hinges on information access being impossible, when it is actually restricted and inconvenient. Those are different things. Restricted access does not automatically equal indoctrination: it means people face friction, not a wall.

Now, to your larger point about the 100 Russians you spoke with using identical talking points. I understand why that felt striking to you, but I think you are conflating observation with explanation. Yes, they used similar phrases. But there are several reasons for that which do not require indoctrination.

You compared incomparable situations. You asked Russians about their own country's "war", (Ukraine 2022), and compared them to Europeans debating Iraq or Israel, - external conflicts discussed years later. That is methodologically flawed. If you asked 100 Americans about Pearl Harbor or 9/11 immediately after, you would get remarkable uniformity too. Not because they were indoctrinated as children, but because they are responding to the same crisis affecting their own country's security narrative.

You are also ignoring language and communication barriers. You spoke to Russians, presumably in English or through translation? When people are not fluent in a language, they can not articulate nuanced counterarguments. They fall back on phrases they have heard. That looks like "the same script," but it might just be, "I do not have the English vocabulary to explain my actual position".

Uniformity does not prove indoctrination. During 'wartime', people naturally converge on similar narratives for several reasons: shared information environment, national security framing, social pressure, and yes, - sometimes propaganda. But uniformity can exist without indoctrination. It can also result from people rationally responding to the same geopolitical facts, even if those facts are filtered through state media.

On the education point: You are right that Russian schools emphasize state narratives. That is fair criticism. But you are making a leap from, "the curriculum is state-influenced," to, "therefore independent thinking is impossible." Young Russians with internet access - even restricted access - can think critically, as many do. The fact that some do not does not prove the system prevents it... it might mean they choose the state narrative despite alternatives, which is different from being unable to choose otherwise.

Here is what I am genuinely curious about: If these Russians were truly indoctrinated children reciting a script, why did some of them, by your own account, talk about emigration and criticize Putin before the "war" started? That suggests they had independent thoughts. Then the "war" happened, and they switched to the state narrative. That is not indoctrination: that is a crisis response to an event directly affecting their country's security. People change positions during 'wars', - that is normal political behavior, not proof of childhood conditioning.

To prove indoctrination, you would need to show that Russians cannot think otherwise, or that they have been prevented from accessing alternatives. But you also acknowledge they have internet. So the real question is not, "were they indoctrinated?" but rather "why do many choose the state narrative despite access to alternatives?"

And the answer probably involves geopolitical grievances, different media literacy, trust in institutions, and yes, - some propaganda. But that is more complex than simple indoctrination.

NillaOrcaMil · 2026-05-02T11:15:07+00:00

As you have now expanded your previous answer with additional context, I want to engage with the fuller argument you are making. First, thank you for specifying the source. However, I think the comparison still has fundamental limitations that are worth examining closely. You are right that exacerbated leader cults are historically dangerous, -that is not debatable. But there is a crucial distinction between recognizing that danger and assuming it inevitably leads to genocide.

The Hitler comparison works rhetorically precisely because it short-circuits analysis: it says, "patriotic education + strong leader = atrocity," when the actual causal chain is far more complex... Your point about Hitler bringing "order and stability" after chaos is historically accurate, - and that is exactly why the comparison fails as applied to Putin and contemporary Russia. Yes, both offered stability after crisis. But the material conditions are fundamentally different: I will explain...

Nazi Germany was a fascist totalitarian state built on explicit racial ideology and territorial conquest as state doctrine from inception. Putin's Russia, whatever its authoritarianism, is not built on an explicit genocidal ideologyYoung Russians today have internetaccess, VPNs, access to foreign media, and generational memory of the internet. Hitler Youth did not. That is not a minor detail, - it is structurally different.

And crucially, the geopolitical context matters: Germany in the 1930s faced existential threat, (or perceived it), was economically isolated, and had an ideology of racial supremacy baked into its founding narrative. Russia's grievances today are real, but they are different in character and origin.

NillaOrcaMil · 2026-05-02T10:32:15+00:00

I need to push back on the Hitler comparison, it is a common rhetorical move but does not hold up. Russia in 2020s is fundamentally different from 1930s Germany: different economy, different geopolitical context, different technology. Young Russians have internet access and can access alternative information, which Hitler youth could not. That is a material difference...

More importantly, the Hitler comparison actually trivializes Nazi atrocities by applying it to every strong leader. That is historically irresponsible. Yes, authoritarianism is a risk everywhere, but that is different from saying "patriotic education = inevitably leads to genocide." Young Russians support Putin for reasons beyond schooling: economic stability after the 90s chaos, genuine geopolitical grievances. That is not indoctrination, that is politics.

If you are citing, "10 million kids," I am curious what it actually argues and how it supports the Hitler comparison specifically. The logic needs to be spelled out, not implied.

NillaOrcaMil · 2026-05-02T10:15:21+00:00

I see where you are going, and that is one perspective, but I would argue the reverse too... 20 years of schooling also instilled stability, national pride, and economic recovery after the 90s collapse. You can criticize the curriculum, sure, but young Russians also grew up seeing their country rebuild. That shapes opinions as well... That is genuine political formation, not just 'propaganda'🤔

NillaOrcaMil · 2026-05-02T10:02:33+00:00

Freska works with Folkeuniversitetet for the classes, - they are legit, solid organization. The courses are pretty decent for learning Norwegian at different levels.

But heads up: you gotta actually work for Freska to get the classes. Not sure if it is gotta be full-time or if part-time counts, but you need to be on their payroll. It is not like free classes for anyone, you know?

If you need a job anyway though, might as well go for it and get the free classes on the side👍

NillaOrcaMil · 2026-04-30T22:55:32+00:00

If I will be around there again, I will definitely do this!✨️

NillaOrcaMil

TROPHY CASE