Oh, here's something else: as I said, Russia failed to modernize economically since 1991 (or indeed, the USSR failed since about 1973).
This is actually not that bad of a take given how British foreign relations view the same affair (if they are actually see anything at all), but the problem with this is complete ignorance to any development in the internal and especially external policies since 2008, and maybe even since 2000. Like the new prime minister, with very strong fiscal background and his very fundamental economic policies (as opposed to liberal banking cohort).
I didn't really mention Foundation for nothing in previous post, and I need to empathize at least my idea of what Putin as a person has been doing since then.
"What do you think? Those three merchant ships we lost in their space sector weren't knocked over with compressed-air pistols. Jael, they're getting ships from the Empire itself. Don't open your mouth like a fool. I said the Empire! It's still there, you know. It many be gone here in the Periphery but in the Galactic center it's still very much alive. And one false move means that it, itself, may be on our neck. That's why I must be mayor and high priest. I'm the only man who knows how to fight the crisis."
Jael swallowed dryly, "How? What are you going to do?"
"Nothing."
Jael smiled uncertainly, "Really! All of that!"
But Mallow's answer was incisive, "When I'm boss of this Foundation, I'm going to do nothing. One hundred percent of nothing, and that is the secret of this crisis."
Another words, Putin doesn't need to do anything and hasn't been doing absolutely nothing to this day, except absolutely minimal effort required to secure the safety of borders and vital interests of his country. What his enemies understand or don't understand has nothing direct influence on his actions, and in fact, all conspiracy theorists may continue to eat their own tails and fool themselves and everybody around them into a false narrative all they want. They may be blabbing about their "salami tactic" or "covert infiltration" or some other "hybrid" bullshit. This has no influence on the bankruptcy they are pushing themselves into with increased effort.
JBS @539:
The 7 Rules of Russian Nationalism:
Hey, I have a counteroffer here, how about the newest and most shiny European security policy you can use all you want (after all, if you can follow it for 3 months, you can also follow it for years). All of the following has to be true, of course:
And of course don't forget of the 0th rule (simple and not convoluted at all): "Everything in the world belongs to America."
Greg Tingey @543:
Given where the phrase Short, victorious War came from - & the result... you would think he knew better...
It's too bad he really does know better because the origin of the phrase is in fact from "splendid little war" term coined in Spanish-American war, years before the reference (as revealed by many sources). After all, if a Russian Empire minister from 120 years ago has better education in international affairs than any acting diplomats in modern "democratic world" this not as futile of resistance after all.
]]>Oh, rather like "Liberating Sudetenland", eh?
Somebody has to learn better from history, since occupation of Sudetenland has been a joint operation perfumed by both German and Polish regimes, and followed by decisive action of Hungary in Slovakia, another known friend of a peaceful world.
It is also worth noting that reaction of "democratic world" at the time is better described as "room temperature" since any active embargoes has been enforced only after the start of war.
Paul @2180:
Or in the immortal words of Oliver Hardy, "Now look what you made me do!".
Absolutely correct, as I noted @1910, this has been the most fundamental principle behind NATO expansionism in Europe.
]]>Russia invaded Georgia & displaced thousands of people
We prefer to use term "peace enforcement". Peace has been enforced 3 more times since then - fortunately, it didn't require a major displacement. Unfortunately, all of these incidents are direct and undeniable consequences of NATO expansionism.
Russia, now, appears to be acting just like the USA did 1910 - 32: Invading weak neighbours, bullying them mercilessly, conducting coups & take-overs, whilst lying their arses off.
More important question, has anything changed since then?
]]>I guess it's like the way I like to insist on the word "capitalist" being used to refer to practitioners of capitalism (small c) while Capitalism is what you get when you put your capitalists in charge of everything (which, spoiler, I think is a kind of totalitarianism). Spoilerino, it's called Fascism. Or used to be called back in the days regardless of modern usage.
Hegemony is what you get when the capitalists who control your Capitalist state don't need the state to be an empire (or at least any more than it already is), but need their own empire to expand into. To people at the sharp end, it's not the same as being invaded by people with guns and weird priests, but it's still a matter of finding oneself exploited, sometimes brutally, for the benefit of strange people far away. This is literally a description of imperialism without actually naming the word. The process that was described by Lenin in his program works like "Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism", little over century ago. Kind of ironic that we come back to it as if nothing has happened since - that is the price of ignorance.
ilya187 @2139: Don’t think, feel. Ah, very well said. As formulated several years ago, it is a primary message that globalist elites direct at their subjects to bypass logic and reason, in a similar manner to how fraudsters fool the unsuspecting citizens in giving them money and property.
And, other than sleepingroutine and Elderly Cynic, are any of you really willing to say with a straight face that a Russian-led or Chinese-led global order would, from a human rights standpoint, be an improvement? As bad as the U.S. is, all the probable alternatives are worse.
Somebody hasn't been paying attention to Putin's Munch conference speech (of 2007) for last 15 years. Not China, nor Russia have been looking for establishment of New World Order with them in the center of it, precisely the opposite solution to global problems has been proposed, multiple times, regionally and globally. The answer to such speech was, unfortunately, an armed conflict to 2008, a diversion against Russian security in vital region of Caucasus. And not only that, every other attempt towards more secure world since then, every attempt to stabilize the situation since then has been met with ignorance, panic, misunderstanding, and finally, hysterical saber-rattling, terror threats and bomb-throwing.
The reason for this is relatively simple to understand from position of miserable, unscrupulous, money-grabbing, pearl-clutching, decrepit regime of US oligarchy and globalist capital. There cannot be absolute security for anyone for everyone at once because nobody will be able to do anything. And absolute security and dominance for the one country means absolute insecurity and misery for absolutely everyone else. Therefore, as long as domination and hegemony of US is there, absolutely everyone who opposes it will live under threat of indiscriminate destruction.
Damian @2158: I'd actually go further and suggest that non-aggression is the quintessentially human trait. Non-human animals who hang around humans over time become less aggressive to each other and to other animals, as well as less aggressive to humans.
Or you can also argue that less aggressive animals appear as a result of humans eradicating all aggressive population, selectively leaving only tame and submissive population. We should never forget about that, it's the same as distinction as between "peaceful" and "harmless".
One should put clear distinction between violence and aggressiveness. I myself prefer the aggressive application to many things, including my own assumptions and thoughts, but that doesn't meant I propose or encourage indiscriminate violation of thought, reason or feelings. Life isn't only about cooperation, lest it becomes complacent, stale and colorless, useless in the face of many coming wonders and dangers. Many people don't like it, become appalled by this revelation, it's too bad they're missing the point of life itself.
]]>This is an old document - if anyone knows of a more recent document and status, pls post.
Well it seems like the proposal was rather toothless attempt at saving dying languages across the world, which certainly cannot be said of a language that holds around 6th to 8th number of speakers worldwide (by different estimations). Luckily for us, the same article links to number of other conventions, signed by all interested countries, which encompass many more ethnicity issues beside language one - those that I, of course, didn't forget to mention.
- Declaration on the Rights of Persons belonging to National, Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities
European Convention on Human Rights
European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages
Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
Universal Declaration of the Collective Rights of Peoples
And if it isn't enough, there's another bunch rather important discussions like Responsibility to Protect, or Right for Self-determination vs Principle of Territorial Integrity. Too bad, all of it goes out the window again.
Greg Tingey @2018:
"Russification" - with language - was also pushed in Estonia. This needless to say provoked an immediate backlash at the fall of the Sovunion.
Isn't it then a whole lot of miracle that isolationist, nationalistic, self-governing body has instantly appeared in every single new country that was granted independence by goodwill, connivance or incompetence of USSR leadership? Isn't it strange that in absence of central leadership of USSR most of these countries didn't immediately degrade into decades-long squabble for the power (unlike former colonies of more "civilized" countries)? Doesn't seem like very hard push to me really, not compared to more successful attempts in recent history.
And generally speaking, if there's so much talk of what happened in the past, why wouldn't we just talk about how these republic were made in first place, how their borders were demarcated, and how their industry, infrastructure and governance was introduced there in the first place? Isn't that supposed to be more important historical issue than nationalistic bullocks pushed by political radicals from all parties? Oh no, we certainly don't want to talk about that, it's better deal to just push for bigger slice of (a pelt of) a bear that hasn't been shot yet.
Very fortunately, it didn't last long, mainly I think, because a lot of the Ru-speakers were semi-exiles to Estonia, again because their local KGB wasn't quite as nasty as the Ru one next door.
I don't remember it lasting "long" instead of "to this day" because nationalistic attitude of these countries has been steadily progressing from "willing to learn from mistakes of the past" to "ravaging self-harming apeshit". I would be very glad if you would provide me a document that would officially confirm that rights of Russian-speaking people in those countries are upheld and respected as integral part of functioning democratic government, but it's not going to happen because such thing doesn't exist even in the wildest dreams.
Yeah, it's complicated.
You don't say. The problem here is very simplistic view that is pushed by US an it's allies consistently as a matter of law of nature. They only follow those treaties and arguments that seem to benefit them, and ignore all others, and if let's say the treaty stops benefiting them they get rid of it. This is what is often called "rules based order" aka "the might makes right". Blabbing about Budapest Memorandum and ignoring Montreux Convention that's almost 60 years older, etc.
I have seen enough, though. I have seen people blaming USSR for (among the usual things) nationalism, fascism, chauvinism, colonialism, militarism and expansionism, religious dogmatism and mystical occultism. Another words, every single thing that it's has been fighting tooth and nail, against through all it's history, as written in the pillars of the state and the law. And when US speakers accuse "regime" of attempting to rebuild USSR, I know exactly what they want. There's not a word that comes from the other side that can really surprise me.
P.S. After years of negligence, I just finished reading a certain novel named "Foundation", we can all hope that what is written there is true.
]]>Way to jump to a conclusion about my mind set.
There's no need to conclude much about mindset of average NATO supporter because it is the same mindset that is all too familiar to people in Europe or nearby - if you don't agree with that assessment, I invite you to disprove it by at least facing the important questions.
As such: do you (your mindset, that is) suggest that the methods of ethnic cleaning has any right to be applied to a population just on the sole basis of "respect of borders"? How such "respect of borders" should overwrite the fact that these borders have changed over many centuries and are upheld by agreements. What to do if such agreements are broken, ignored and overruled?
My point is that these populations are a total hashed stew of things that don't make any historical sense. There are some borders. Respect them or no one will ever be happy. Everyone will have a grievance about who really belongs "here".
Yeah, well, this seemed to be a very popular mindset of people in eastern half of Ukraine between years 1991 and 2014. Everybody thought that brotherhood of the two neighboring peoples are so strong and that no amount of foreign money, nationalistic bigotry or empty promises can possibly result in a conflict, much less an armed one with thousands dead. And yet here we are - those who are capable of learning from history and those who are not.
Saying the ethnic Russians have a right to be in "Russia" is like the mess that Yugoslavia turned into and will be most likely for a very long time.
Do "ethnic Russians" have the right to speak their language, receive education on their culture and share ties with their friends and family across the border? Most of NATO-controlled republics in Eastern Europe think otherwise, especially in the light of "impending Russian invasion" that has been endlessly toted around since... well, since forever, actually.
Just to iterate: NATO is, and remains, basically a military alliance, part of whose purpose is the protection of Europe against Russian invasion., year is 2001, arguably about the highest point of mutual agreement.
More importantly, how these same people reserve right to not bend over for the chaotic, nationalistic, militarist regime that seeks to deprive them of basic necessities like water, food or electricity just for supporting wrong side. How should these people in situation that even a slight suspicion of sympathising the wrong side will result in them being hunted or prosecuted for treason?
These are very important questions, and yet, I do not expect to receive any answers, not anymore.
There may have been some public disagreements about purpose and goal of existence of such aggressive, corrupt, genocidal, militaristic alliance that patronizes such dire situation of human rights everywhere it steps in. Even after 1999 and partition of Yugoslavia there were much talk to talk about. After all these years, however, there's is no reason left to talk about anything, if you've been following the news, there is not meaningful talks in progress.
I don't think people here appreciate the seriousness of situation, being born and raised in places largely devoid of scars of conflict. The questions isn't about the goals of people who perpetuate the situation, it's about whether they are capable of carrying them out.
That's all I have here to say.
]]>to Paul @1501:
But half way through I accidentally closed the tab I was working in, and I can't be bothered any more. sleepingroutine is welcome to go off and believe what he wants.
Seems like be a generous present on your side but I doubt this will be the last time this talk happens.
to Heteromeles @1510:
There's also Paul Linebarger's point (in Psychological Warfare) about people who think that everything's propaganda are paradoxically easier to influence with propaganda.
It is, so to say, a slippery slope of psychology of projection. I have seen it sometimes in people, when they just become suddenly agitated and attack for no rational reason (to score some points maybe), and then assume they are attacked back (regardless of what actually happened), and become paranoid, and it doesn't matter what you do, they will say it's your fault and start pulling in other people too. It is called a "destructive behaviour", either it destroys humans, or humans prevail and destroys it.
It is impossible to understand it, impossible to prevent it in a good will. We Russians keep good relationships and economical ties with our neighbours, while at the same time their leaders lash at us and blame all of their trouble on us becasue they think we are stronger. They keep demanding more and keep threatening us with their "powerful friends" and "strong ties". And our government still thinks it is possible to negotiate, to mitigate, to agree. Our bureaucrats are still soft on opposition. Our country still doesn't want to see itself powerless, surrounded by enemies. And just so it won't be like that, no matter how our rivals want it.
Sleepingroutine has nothing to fear posting on here, he is literally posting Russian propaganda.
So you say that I channel Russian "propaganda" and yet it seems, you have never read anything of it beyond same MSM headlines. You have no idea what the real propaganda looks like. You have no idea what you are asking for, do you? Do you think you are immune to wrongdoing? Do you think you don't make mistakes?
to Elderly Cynic @1591:
it makes no sense for it to do so now, when the USA/NATO has been arming Ukraine up to the teeth.
More than that, it makes no sense to arm Ukraine either. NATO is arming them, since they assume there will be any sort of resistance or force, but it is known for anybody who is not delusional about military, that not only it will not help, it is a waste of resources. Aka self-harm. The "Collective West" does not understand that by providing all sorts of "assistance", "support", by keeping the corrupt and idiotic regime in power, they've been doing much more damage to that nation than Russia could have ever hoped to do - if it ever really wanted to. And they don't understand, refuse to understand that idea.
Speaking of self-harm, my usual rubric about situation in that country is to count how many times for last week there have been an incident with grenades exploding (a lot of news are still in Russian despite the hard push against it). It is never less than one (per week). Never. Maybe there are exceptions or lack of reports sometimes, but I check it regularly and every time I am impressed - it's been going on for EIGHT YEARS.
to Greg Tingey @1585:
If you compare Ru vs NATO forces, the Ru have more men, concentrated on the ground, but a smaller number of them in total. Their tank numbers are also less than NATO.
If you're wandering why there are still no "solution" to these conflicts, it probably also has to do with NATO being a useless burden on average taxpayer which is thoroughly incapable of preventing a slightest internal or external conflict by itself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Jersey_dispute
P.S. "Nato will not put boots on the ground in Ukraine" - seems to be strictly in the same line: do nothing, demand everything.
]]>That is a very fascinating story but the assumption that it "failed" comes from the idea that the goal of that program was a development or modernization of economy. This, by coincidence, was a declared purpose, which is also an integral part of the plan to keep the hopes going in the gap between boom and bust.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulture_capitalist
From the point of view of of IMF and their cronies in international banking system, the program was another total success and all the problems of course could be easily written off to those cargo cult monkeys, who think they've earned any right to be rich and powerful.
This article by the IMF has a retrospective on the whole thing.
Yeah let's just ask the main governing body behind the whole system if they're thinking they've done anything wrong.
Rich: lets compare GDP per head:
Great observation but there's two things you missed:
In the 20 years since, Putin has not tried to tackle this fundamental problem. Instead he exploits it to remain in power.
Take your time to look and note the 20 year gap of "successful capitalist model" which has, by some estimations, resulted in more ruin and death than deadliest war in history (in ex-USSR alone that is). I am beginning to wonder if "fundamental problem" that you are talking about... is a bit different than you think it is.
I think the governments of China and Germany might beg to differ.
Germany is still occupied by US forces hosting US nuclear weapons. As for China, it wasn't under Deng that it earned it's fame of world's business leader, rather it was a biggest sweatshop. This is a rather wide interpretation of success.
I'm beginning to wonder.
Well the imperial practice to send people "to colonies" is not unlike putting people on other planet (rather than putting them behind the bars or barbed wire), so it might as well be a good metaphor.
]]>It may also come as not-news that this point of view has been gaining traction in Eastern Europe as well - idk about E. Germany or Balkans, but certainly among US/NATO allies against Russia. Steadily, for last three decades, and there's no sign of it to slowing down.
to JBS @1451: World War II was started by Adolph Hitler. But he wouldn't have invaded Poland without the assurances provided by the secret protocol from the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.
I think it's pretty clearly established in history that he wouldn't consider invasion anywhere if League of Nations members provided enough safety guarantee for everyone and not only for themselves. My point being, unfortunately for said history, current mainstream narrative is that "both Hitler and Stalin are equally responsible for the war", AND I don't expect it to stay it in this position for too long.
to Greg Tingey @1448: Why not ask those who have experienced both? Like, um, err Estonia, Latvia & Lithuania, who NEVER, EVER want to see or experience that obsessive cruelty & repression again, at all. Or Rumania, with the ongoing ghastly example of "Moldova/Transnistria" & I wonder why that might be?
You might as well ask them directly if you earn yourself an opportunity. I don't think people who use "obsessive cruelty & repression" to perpetuate their regime forward, especially towards vulnerable minority, would like to experience any of it again. But it is not the point of making a difference.
]]>This is all too familiar of an argument I've been hearing since 00s. "It wasn't real capitalism" and "it's not our failure". I'm sorry, this is absolute bull. The constitution of the country was written in tight cooperation with the US advisors. The internal politics was intertwined with foreign funds and NGOs. The entire economy was shaken up to fit western standards. Even the bank system remains strictly liberal, to this day.
https://www.reuters.com/article/russia-cenbank-euromoney-idUSL5N11M1X420150916
This rhetoric is but a fig leaf to cover the usual failure of Liberal Order to implement what it has promised. Some people say that Russian state is a different form of capitalism from western countries. Some say it is not a capitalism at all. I argue that not only it is the same as western system, it is an integral part of the system and it's failure and attempts to get rid of it is only a part of general strategy hypocrisy, rejection and exploitation.
I should add that my country is not entirely innocent in all of this.
See, my government also argues that it's not a failure of Russian government, it is quite the opposite, a success when we are able to detach from western corruption and concentrate on domestic goals.
Really? Here are some counter-examples: Japan, Taiwan, West Germany, South Korea, China under Deng, Finland. More recently Eastern Europe, although much of that is still a work in progress.
A lot of things in this world is nothing but an illusion. They are not strong, neither they are rich (especially since they are extremely dependent on other strong and rich countries like US). Mind you, Japan was prothesized to be a leader of the new world, and yet it took US to string their monetary reins to send them in stagnation spiral for entire generation. As for the Finland, I consider them being a case of smart neutralist politics and Russia would appreciate them staying the same.
I'm not aware of any serious theories of WWII that don't put the bulk of the blame squarely on Hitler, but they also acknowledge that he had enablers too.
Well you are now in for a big surprise because it is all has been heading in the direction where all fault for WW2 is going to be put squarely on USSR and all honor of winning it assigned to the US.
http://www.andrewlownie.co.uk/authors/sean-mcmeekin/books/stalins-war-a-new-history-of-world-war-ii
"Hitler’s genocidal ambition may have helped unleash armageddon, but as McMeekin shows in Stalin’s War, the war which emerged from the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of August 1939 was the one Stalin wanted, not Hitler. So, too, was the Pacific war of 1941-1945 the direct result of Stalin’s non-aggression Pact with Tokyo of April 1941, which had the goal of unleashing the furies of war between Japan and the “Anglo-Saxon powers.”"
I don't think if it needs any more direct implication, considering that stops a little short of the line drawn by Reich Ministry of Propaganda (I'm sure you know about that one).
Its a belief system I am sadly familiar with: my parents were convinced that the EU was merely an anti-British conspiracy run by the French.
Well there's a huge gaps of difference between actually wanting/trying to do something and being able to do so. The UK was preparing to bomb USSR into oblivion with nuclear bombs and yet generations later there are people who say "SURELY it was only a plan, SURELY they were never really going to do that".
Somehow we manage to deal with them without a giant system of forced labour camps in which vast numbers of people die of cold, disease and starvation.
Um, are we, like, on the same planet or something?
]]>I don't like the whole gulag system... but then, I don't like the literal genocide the US used against the Native Americans. And then there were the slaves... and before I can criticize Putin... I've read that 10% of all Black men in the US spend some time in jail. How much difference is there?
For "genocide" against Indians, there's unfortunately a semi-free pass that partially lies within the fact that this wasn't for the most part a planned extermination (for what I know) and it happened at the times when the human rights weren't strictly defined. What it doesn't extend to is treating their descendants as inferior people. What lies in the past should be left in the past.
I particularly invoke that because there's history of Russian conquest of Siberia (and several other territories) where the nations that lived there were conquered as well, and they did suffer some (to much lesser extent) of the issues of "colonial" past. But the positive side of that that it has all came to past and they are just the regular people who enjoy the same rights ands the same life we all do. How could that have been achieved without a solid goal in mind?
to Pigeon @1412:
The Great Terror and the Gulag are not emblematic of Communism, they're basically just same old same old but someone's changed the pattern on the flag.
People who particularly stick to those events usually ignore similarities to the other signs of the same time, i.e. other labor and penal colonies of the world, revolutions, terror, etc, etc. As if when people suffered catastrophic events and inhumane conditions in one country, everywhere else on Earth there was a peace, love and agreement.
For example, a lot of newer historians who have the chance to look into newly opened archives, have been changing the rhetoric of The Great Terror since it was vastly more complex than it's presented by classic Cold War era stories and myths. They're not going as far in their narrative as to claim that the reign of Stalin has put an end to any or all terror, but even simplest glance indicates that there were people in government who genuinely understood the problems of their time and applied maximum effort to solve them in the most humane manner possible. It is of course far from the classic images of absolute evil. Attributing every evil deed to "them" while reserving every good deed for "us" is a standard selfish human psychological behaviour that has no place in historical analysis.
to Greg Tingey @1427:
we are NOT "out to wipe Russia off the map & eradicate its culture"
There are unfortunately people that are directly supported by that "we". Not that I expect everyone to see through that after all that happened, but it never goes away.
What's your take on a genuine Russian, who loathed the Soviet system, yet who clearly wanted a truly Russian approach - & who was strongly tending towards (religious) Russian-Orthodoxy when he died.
It isn't strictly a religious Orthodoxy, but entire movement which is a bit similar in motif. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Village_Prose
Here's the things that I know: 1) He wasn't the only one in his profession or attitude towards USSR. There is a plethora of other authors that were more known in their homeland but didn't get to known internationally. 2) He wasn't the best one too. Unfortunately his writing has deteriorated during his lifetime (a usual satellite of success). I have read two of his books but the rest of them didn't attract my attention at all. 3) He would never be able to attain his known position without strong partnership from within the government. These were the signs of times where struggle within party was very important, but hidden part of life. 4) His disillusionment with Western countries is unfortunately well hidden from peers because it breaks his image of stern supporter of Western values.
Most of the public consider him a traitor nowadays for his fame. But frankly his story isn't an enviable one.
]]>That's because for US/UK/EU (and most of Canada too) the travel is pretty cheap and the weather is pretty mild. Most transmission happen when people go to work or stay in public transport, but traditionally like 80% people prefer to stay at home or visit their relatives or friends at best. Hopefully this will slow down the transmission rates in combination with other lockdown measures, especially because such measure would never really stop anyone who really wants to go where they want. In any case, it's been successful in the past.
]]>"poor secret police, evil prisoners"?
I'm going to have to write it down.. for future reference.
to Paul @1387: So arguing against official policy is still dissent even if discussion of it is not forbidden.
Well, the fact that policy is already official means that you can't overrule it with simple arguments. It is what's forbidden here. What is also forbidden usually is to dissuade official policy from being executed, engage in corruption and ignore the law.
The second seems the most appropriate, but the first is also relevant because rule of law and human rights are key components of the LIO; governments are expected to respect the rule of law and human rights.
The caveat here is that they are also to expected to respect what LIO says and how it defines this rule of law and those human rights. This is unfortunately all too similar to the difference between Tenets of Communism and their practical realization in many communist regimes. In the past.
What do you think of these propositions:
There cannot be any freedom of speech, or rule of law, or whatever of justice if there are no consent, if there are no agreement. Unfortunately, there is no consent, or agreement, or any sort of balance or consistency in LIO, only order, dictate and punishment.
So I'm going to educate you on the fact that Russia represents a dissent to Liberal Order and faces repressions for it's criticism.
In the past, Russia has been following Liberal Order and taking it to heart for more than decade and the Order has tried to make it poor and weak, and as a matter of fact, have never stopped doing so since then.
The act of opposing the LIO will make Russia richer and stronger, because adhering to Liberal Order rather than their declared tenets will never lead for anyone to become strong and rich.
The reason the Russian government opposes the LIO is not because it will be good for someone or better for someone else, but because the end goal of LIO is complete destruction of a Russia, it's history and identity (further on that down below).
If strong and rich countries encourage Russia to join the LIO, they are lying. They need not anyone to become strong and rich, for these positions are already taken.
The Gulag system of prison camps was probably a crime against humanity; it was a widespread and systemic attack on a civilian population which led to the deaths of around 1.5 million people.
This point of view seems to completely ignore existence of any other forms of crimes in the USSR, such as murder and robbery, stealing and looting, fraud and corruption, sabotage and terrorism. It also completely ignores the crime of abusing of authority itself (the crime that leads to conviction of innocent people). It simply defines the entirety of USSR through 75 years of its existence as a criminal syndicate incapable of single act of justice.
So you ask "what could a list of victims achieve"? It helps to memorialise the victims, and provide comfort to their relatives. It counters revisionist attempts to claim that the history books are exaggerations or fables.
It unfortunately has never stopped any revisionist attempts, or exaggerations, or fables when they were aimed against USSR. For pure propaganda purposes, of course. I could search and post those, but they're too disturbingly "fabled" for civil discussion.
We don't know who were actually criminals, who were really political dissidents imprisoned under the guise of criminal allegations, and who were just innocent people abducted to make up the numbers.
Surely we know that, with rather little room for error, too. It may not be a widespread knowledge of the West, but processes like 20th Congress of the Communist Party, destalinization and many others has been done by USSR and the Communist party itself through decades. The archives has been opened, the sentences reviewed, the documents has been presented to public (within the limits that do not disturb civil society and do not lead to acts of revenge or destruction).
Why is that never considered is a very big question. There may be a wide range of opinions about the meaning of those actions and their end goal, but I have constructed my own simplified explanation for the sake of clarity here.
What Memorial and other members of Liberal Order are proposing is not about memory, comfort and justice. They look to criminalize the entirety of USSR, and to invalidate all and any signs of justice within it. They look to restart the process of reviewing crimes against humanity and also look to assign a blame for starting the World War to it, no less. They look to invalidate any achievement of USSR in prevention of crimes against humanity, too.
If you go to Google and ask about USSR in WW2: When World War II started, the Soviet Union was effectively an ally of Nazi Germany in a relatively conventional European interstate war.
I don't need to ask Putin what it means, he's a busy man for his own policy, everything that I need to know is presented by people, rent free, and on regular basis. If it isn't a freedom of speech, then I don't know what is.
If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you.
It's going to be a very big bridge because, as mentioned above, Liberal Order does not believe in the right of sovereignty. It is, IMHO, does not believe in right of my country to exist.
Really? And how do you know that? 19 out of 1,500,000 seems a pretty low rate of error to me.
This is because, as I said, it is not an error. Nor is there any goal to correct any errors. Nor there are any attempts to issue apologies. It is absolutely clear as day that a number of known people with known crimes are being represented as innocent victims of evil regime.
Here is the original article btw, word to word (in Russian). If you read it, you may even notice that author describes vehement attempts to defend these names.
http://www.isrageo.com/2021/08/26/etone426/ "Poor secret police, evil prisoners" indeed.
]]>No, it is you who are talking about OW. I'm talking about static image. OW is about dynamic image which cannot be considered without static balance of opinions.
Whenever the executive wing of a government starts declaring that certain topics are not up for discussion and backing any attempt to raise them with the power of the law, you can be certain that the government will use this power to suppress dissent.
The dissent cannot form in the first place if there are no forbidden topic to discuss. As cannot any consent form unless there are agreed terms and conditions. Whether to support consent and/or suppress dissent, every government makes decision individually for each case. But most governments agree that some sort of action is required.
What parts of this do you think are incorrect?
They are all correct, and furthermore, as an "Order", seems like it implies that it has no limits and is free to act on it's own volition to further it's sacred goal. Well, I'm pretty sure it isn't as strict as religious order just yet but it verges upon it regularly.
Do you have any evidence for any of this? Your link doesn't provide it: it seems that Memorial published a list of almost 1.5 million names of "victims of political terror".
Besides the fact that NOBODY, NOWHERE has been incriminating them following their primary declared goals of keeping the memory and "defending rights", I would like to note that publishing names of people, their criminal records, their accusers and informants, their prosecutors and other SENSITIVE topics is by all means HUGE and INSURMOUNTABLE amount of responsibility. Memorial, it's members, and it's supporters, simply ignore all of such responsibility to the last drop of it. The government, on behest of which such actions can be partaken, cannot ignore it under any circumstances.
A quote from FT article, if you will:
Memorial has also combed through archives to create searchable databases of the prison and death records of the Soviet era’s many millions of victims — but also of the names of more than 41,000 perpetrators from the NKVD secret police.
So yeah, a rhetorical question, what could possibly such list achieve, especially when the people on their duty of protecting the country are called "perpetrators"? What "human rights", "memories" and "history" can such people receive, not to talk about their descendants? What is the goal of calling every criminal in the system as "a victim" regardless of their record? Etc, etc.
Memorial apologised for the error and removed those names from its list.
It did not (and it never does). At least I haven't seen any indication of it anywhere. What it said is "there was an error and it was corrected", nothing more. But we all know that it wasn't an error.
So if the Russian government wants to label someone who speaks about politics as a "Foreign Agent" it merely has to send them some money via a cut-out in a foreign country, and hey presto, they are now legally a Foreign Agent.
Speaking about politics and having a political influence is rather different activity. Everybody speaks about politics and many people receive the money from abroad in sufficient quantities, but it is natural that government has no resources nor goals to get every person under criteria behind the bars. The goal is to limit foreign influence to internal politics and defend constitutional right of sovereignty and it will be achieved through that law and through many others.
]]>Does that count as shouting "fire in a crowded theater"? Should it be protected speech?
It turns out, even though World War has major historical importance in nation, there's really no need to dig that far to actually touch upon nerve of many people. In fact, it comes along as a borderline comedy, really. Everybody understood what has been said. Everybody half-expected there will be an uproar, a scandal, maybe a repression, but nothing really happened, they all forgot it after a week.
https://thebell.io/en/talk-of-north-caucasus-secession-angers-putin/ https://english.pravda.ru/news/russia/149843-putin_sokurov/
]]>