I didn't see this before, but I would like to reply.

The Dalai Lama has had direct experience with this when China annexed Tibet when he was a young man, and the Buddhists had to flee the country and settled in India, which by the way was largely responsible for bringing the teachings of Buddhism to the western world. Prior to that, it was mainly isolated to Tibet.  So I wanted to see what he said about war.

Just briefly, he has said different things at different times, depending on different circumstances, whether to flee/walk away or whether to defend. But the bottom line in whatever you choose, is hatred.

In Buddhism, it is the level of hate you have for offenders that you have to let go of. Hatred is the most destruction of emotions, and it will never repair what you have lost or provide the right solutions.

Also remember Gandhi brought down the powerful British empire through peaceful resistance. This may be a different situation, but there are lessons to be learnt from it: �If this Empire seems an evil thing to me, it is not because I hate the British, I hate only the Empire.� 

For me personally, I believe its politics and megalomaniacs who cause wars, and they should be the targets (to fix or eliminate, often through the dissemination of truth to the people. The people have so much power.) but not to hate a whole country just because they were manipulated into believing what these leaders told them.

But can you defend your country through love for your country and not hate the other side? That is the difficult part - but something we should all aim for.

It is also worth noting that Gandhi wasn't a universal pacifist. The situation with the British Empire was a unique one.

The British were ruling via what has been dubbed Liberal Imperialism. Gandhi was a very intelligent man and saw that contradiction was something he could leverage. The pacifism laid bare the lie of the British that they were paternal benevolent rulers and forced the British to expose the violence which they ruled by in contrast.

I heard a historian discussing Gandhi's letters to people who had asked him for help with their own struggles, and he actually had recommended violent resistance or self-defence in some circumstances.

I believe it was in that interview, and several times subsequently, that I have heard the Indian struggle for independence contrasted very specifically with Russia. To the effect that in Russia the Indians nonviolently protesting would simply have been murdered to the last man. Jallianwala Bagh led to all kinds of hand ringing and an enquiry. Russia levelled Chechnya and is levelling Ukraine without the Russian state batting an eye. When it comes to the effectiveness of pacifism, Russia is the most frequent textbook counter example to India.

The British were trying to appear like a civilising force, Russia has been recruiting from prisons by saying "we particularly want mass murders, we can use your talents in Ukraine".

EDIT: Rereading my post it could sound like I am saying the British were somehow less bad. The British empire was mind bogglingly brutal and it's legacy isn't over. The full extent of the horrors will probably never be known as they were also very thorough in covering it up both at the time and during the collapse. It ran one of the biggest propaganda machines in history. Highly recommend Caroline Elkins' recent work. I am just pointing out that the empire's unique contradictions made pacifism the ideal tool.

In Buddhism, it is the level of hate you have for offenders that you have to let go of. Hatred is the most destruction of emotions, and it will never repair what you have lost or provide the right solutions.

Also remember Gandhi brought down the powerful British empire through peaceful resistance. This may be a different situation, but there are lessons to be learnt from it: �If this Empire seems an evil thing to me, it is not because I hate the British, I hate only the Empire.� 

but not to hate a whole country just because they were manipulated into believing what these leaders told them.

But can you defend your country through love for your country and not hate the other side? That is the difficult part - but something we should all aim for.

�If this Empire seems an evil thing to me, it is not because I hate the British, I hate only the Empire.�

Annie needs to come to Ukraine, to the line of fire. Very quickly Annie will forget what Buddhism is.

I know that in 1050 Moscow was a forest when Kyiv was among the largest European cities, with over 40k inhabitants.
You already mentioned it yourself on multiple occations.

Just pay attention to what I wrote. This not propaganda, but science.

I specifically said that russian and Ukrainians are NOT the same people.
The map above is cropped, but on Eupedia.com you can find wider maps for each haplogroup.

Below is the Finno-Uralic/Siberian haplogroup, present in russians, but not that much in Ukrainians.

Check also the spread of all slavic haplogroups combined.

Both Ukrainians and russian have slavic components in their genome, but the Poles have the most. 
I also said that Ukrainins have a significant amount of Mediterranean greco-roman ancestry, while russians have less.

Maybe you can better understand that while most modern nations have their specific mix, they also have A LOT in common, especially first tier neighbors. This is only normal because of migration and intermarriage throughout history.

No nation is "pure" anything.

https://www.eupedia.com/europe/maps_Y-DNA_haplogroups.shtml

PS. Also note that these maps are correctly showing Crimea as part of Ukraine. 

Zero Talent, if we are talking about the nationality and race of Russians, then we need to decide who these Russians are and where they live. This is what I wrote about. Russia is an empire and Russians by nationality are only a part of this empire. Therefore, I think that in your original map, the nationality of the Russians and the percentage of other nationalities in it was not determined correctly. Most of russia is inhabited by Asians, who are unlikely to have Slavic blood in their blood. In the territories previously owned by Kyivan Rus', there will be more people in whose blood there is more of the Slavic race. But on the territory of the former Moscovia, mostly Russians by nationality lived and live. And only on the territory of Moscovia you need to look at what genes are in the blood of those people (these will be Russians by nationality).
If you can use these maps to determine what is there by genes in the territory of the former Moscovia, publish the results.