Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
Russian Violence, & How Responsible Is The West For What Is Happening?
'Why?”, a German friend asked me, as she looked in horror at pictures of the Bucha massacre. “Why are they doing it?”'
If you want to know more, read this article which should be available if you haven't already been into the TLS archive recently:
https:/
If you want to know more, read this article which should be available if you haven't already been into the TLS archive recently:
https:/
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Khandro. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
erm got up to the bit
where she says the Russians are doing the same as the Red Army did in germany in 1945
which I knew from personal testimony from DPs in the fifties
Does she cover why the german chancellor is luke warm over the russian menace?
Salli Mali er of mali ( union afrique I think) has gone to Putin and said - do not starve Africa, we will all DIIIIIIEEEEE
and Putin in his wisdom has said 'I am not starving Africa'
I mean whadda guy !
and the Russians go on liberating Sverdonsk ( ie flushing it darn da bog)
where she says the Russians are doing the same as the Red Army did in germany in 1945
which I knew from personal testimony from DPs in the fifties
Does she cover why the german chancellor is luke warm over the russian menace?
Salli Mali er of mali ( union afrique I think) has gone to Putin and said - do not starve Africa, we will all DIIIIIIEEEEE
and Putin in his wisdom has said 'I am not starving Africa'
I mean whadda guy !
and the Russians go on liberating Sverdonsk ( ie flushing it darn da bog)
Part of her thesis is that Russia is always on the side of the victims, not condemning the oppressors out of fear, -she quotes a lot of Russian literature including Dostoyevsky which highlights this. Putin is a tyrant & follows on from Stalin.
The West has been guilty of turning a blind eye to Putin & has failed to read his ambitions. Though she doesn't mention it, I personally place much blame for cosying up to him at the door of Angela Merkel & a few others since 2014, a year after which she arranged for the pipeline, which Putin viewed through different eyes.
The West has been guilty of turning a blind eye to Putin & has failed to read his ambitions. Though she doesn't mention it, I personally place much blame for cosying up to him at the door of Angela Merkel & a few others since 2014, a year after which she arranged for the pipeline, which Putin viewed through different eyes.
// I personally place much blame for cosying up to him at the door of Angela Merkel & a few others since 2014,//
well in the English press, Angela has been credited with saying " I admit - I got it wrong for 20y"
last time it came up, I recollected that Czar Nicholas II at his last audience 1917 asked ( for the last time altho he was given to asking before) : Have I been wrong for 25 y ?
and the British and American Ambassadees said
yes your majesty....
( a little historical pensee for the dements and subnormals to foo about)
well in the English press, Angela has been credited with saying " I admit - I got it wrong for 20y"
last time it came up, I recollected that Czar Nicholas II at his last audience 1917 asked ( for the last time altho he was given to asking before) : Have I been wrong for 25 y ?
and the British and American Ambassadees said
yes your majesty....
( a little historical pensee for the dements and subnormals to foo about)
I'm entering the centre part in a different way by using cut/paste & an OCR.
......... in which people only breathe under water and have a banal hatred for those who have lungs instead of gills. It is also difficult for Westerners to imagine that this is not simply an aberration that can be cor-rected by "democratic reforms". That an entire country can be in the grip of this underwater breathing. That the monologue dictated from the top can become so dominant that it embraces landscape, architecture, language, ideology; produ-ces identical cities, streets and monuments, films and television programmes; one giant prison cell ruled by a brutal hierarchy. That the egg laid by Stalin's USSR in North Korea (and the Russian Feder-ation has been laying those little eggs unobstructed in Europe for thirty years, since the collapse of the Soviet Union, from Transnistria and Abkhazia to the "Donbas republics") could hatch, three generations later, into a ready-made model for the televised vir-tual reality of a new Stalinism that would embrace (for, the time being at least) all of Russia, with the addition of Belarus. That Bucha was not an excess, but an inevitability. One could name dozens of reasons for the West's blindness to Russian totalitarianism. The most obvi-ous are, of course, the unlearnt lessons of the USSR, and most of all the deceptive discourse around the Second World War, in which all crimes against humanity were ascribed, by silent consensus, to the vanquished totalitarianism. Meanwhile, the victori-ous totalitarianism spent almost fifty years becom-ing more entrenched and bloated, subject to no legal judgement, so that when Russia ultimately had appointed as its leader an officer of the KGB - an organization that, since 1918, had been responsible for some of the largest-scale and longest-lasting crimes against humanity in modern history -nobody in the West was horrified as they might have been if it had been a former Gestapo officer. Nobody, to my knowledge, considered the fact that, after four generations of state terror, Russian society would be ready to accept it as the norm, because four generations is already longer than the span of living memory ("It's always been this way!"). The West was neither morally nor intellectually ready for this challenge. We are still awaiting a com-plete study of how the Kremlin systematically, over decades, corrupted the West, much as Dmitry Nekh-lyudov defiles Katyusha Maslova in Tolstoy's Resur-rection. And here I mean not only the instances of collaboration recorded in the FSB's closed archives, but also something more subtle - the long-term blur-ring in Western culture of the boundaries of what is acceptable, the gradual shift from the European rationalization of evil to the Russian normalization of it. One of Tolstoy's observations is that human consciousness is pliable and expertly skilled at self-justification. When Katyusha becomes a prostitute, her image of the world changes in such a way that giving her body to men to rape for money is, if not quite honourable, then at least a completely normal choice. This, in fact, is a model for all Russian litera-ture, which is still considered European and human-ist: Russian literature has, for 200 years, painted a picture of the world in which the criminal is to be pitied not condemned. ...... cont.
......... in which people only breathe under water and have a banal hatred for those who have lungs instead of gills. It is also difficult for Westerners to imagine that this is not simply an aberration that can be cor-rected by "democratic reforms". That an entire country can be in the grip of this underwater breathing. That the monologue dictated from the top can become so dominant that it embraces landscape, architecture, language, ideology; produ-ces identical cities, streets and monuments, films and television programmes; one giant prison cell ruled by a brutal hierarchy. That the egg laid by Stalin's USSR in North Korea (and the Russian Feder-ation has been laying those little eggs unobstructed in Europe for thirty years, since the collapse of the Soviet Union, from Transnistria and Abkhazia to the "Donbas republics") could hatch, three generations later, into a ready-made model for the televised vir-tual reality of a new Stalinism that would embrace (for, the time being at least) all of Russia, with the addition of Belarus. That Bucha was not an excess, but an inevitability. One could name dozens of reasons for the West's blindness to Russian totalitarianism. The most obvi-ous are, of course, the unlearnt lessons of the USSR, and most of all the deceptive discourse around the Second World War, in which all crimes against humanity were ascribed, by silent consensus, to the vanquished totalitarianism. Meanwhile, the victori-ous totalitarianism spent almost fifty years becom-ing more entrenched and bloated, subject to no legal judgement, so that when Russia ultimately had appointed as its leader an officer of the KGB - an organization that, since 1918, had been responsible for some of the largest-scale and longest-lasting crimes against humanity in modern history -nobody in the West was horrified as they might have been if it had been a former Gestapo officer. Nobody, to my knowledge, considered the fact that, after four generations of state terror, Russian society would be ready to accept it as the norm, because four generations is already longer than the span of living memory ("It's always been this way!"). The West was neither morally nor intellectually ready for this challenge. We are still awaiting a com-plete study of how the Kremlin systematically, over decades, corrupted the West, much as Dmitry Nekh-lyudov defiles Katyusha Maslova in Tolstoy's Resur-rection. And here I mean not only the instances of collaboration recorded in the FSB's closed archives, but also something more subtle - the long-term blur-ring in Western culture of the boundaries of what is acceptable, the gradual shift from the European rationalization of evil to the Russian normalization of it. One of Tolstoy's observations is that human consciousness is pliable and expertly skilled at self-justification. When Katyusha becomes a prostitute, her image of the world changes in such a way that giving her body to men to rape for money is, if not quite honourable, then at least a completely normal choice. This, in fact, is a model for all Russian litera-ture, which is still considered European and human-ist: Russian literature has, for 200 years, painted a picture of the world in which the criminal is to be pitied not condemned. ...... cont.
Thanks khandro.
And here are observations from Timothy Snyder that Macron and co would do well to reflect on:
"It is senseless to shelter Putin from the sense that he is losing. He will figure that out for himself, and he will act to protect himself.
Russians are not cornered. The Russian army is not cornered. It is an invading force. When defeated, units just retreat across the border to Russia.
Putin rules in virtual reality, where there is always an escape route. He cannot be cornered in Ukraine, because Ukraine is a real place
It is hard for people in other societies to grasp that Putin is a dictator who controls his country's media. He rules by changing the subject.
Putin changes the subject all the time. The last time Russia invaded Ukraine, its media changed the subject to Syria from one day to the next, and Russians went along
When Russia invaded Ukraine this February, the media quickly adjusted from saying that invasion was impossible to saying it was inevitable. Russians went along
If defeated in reality, Putin will just declare victory on television, and Russians will believe him, or pretend to. He does not need our help for that.
It is senseless to create an "off-ramp" in the real world, when all Putin needs is one in a virtual world he completely controls. Talking of "off-ramps" just gives Russian leaders something to laugh about in what are otherwise difficult times.
To be sure, Putin might err and wait too long to declare victory in the virtual world. In that case he loses power. We cannot save him from such a misjudgment, and it is misguided to try.
Putin's power over media will be complete until the moment when it ceases. There is no interval where our actions in the real world will make a difference. Either our off-ramps are unnecessary or they are irrelevant.
It is grotesque to ask the Ukrainians to make decisions about the war for the comfort of Russian television producers, who don't take direction from the real world anyway.
Misunderstanding Russia through clichés of "cornering" and "off-ramps" will make the war last longer, by distracting from the simple necessity of Russian defeat.
Ukraine is a very different story. Zelensky, unlike Putin, is democratically elected, feels responsible for his people, and governs in a world where others matter.
Ukraine has a press that the government does not direct. Zelensky cannot simply change the subject. He has to bring his people along on any major decision.
Unlike Putin, Zelensky has to make a case to his people to end this war. He therefore does need help, both to win the war and in telling Ukrainians what comes next
Unlike Russian soldiers, Ukrainians have nowhere else to go. They cannot just go home. The war is fought in their country. They will return to their homes and rebuild.
Ending the war means thinking more about the Ukrainian people and their future, and and worrying less about problems that Putin does not in fact have."
And here are observations from Timothy Snyder that Macron and co would do well to reflect on:
"It is senseless to shelter Putin from the sense that he is losing. He will figure that out for himself, and he will act to protect himself.
Russians are not cornered. The Russian army is not cornered. It is an invading force. When defeated, units just retreat across the border to Russia.
Putin rules in virtual reality, where there is always an escape route. He cannot be cornered in Ukraine, because Ukraine is a real place
It is hard for people in other societies to grasp that Putin is a dictator who controls his country's media. He rules by changing the subject.
Putin changes the subject all the time. The last time Russia invaded Ukraine, its media changed the subject to Syria from one day to the next, and Russians went along
When Russia invaded Ukraine this February, the media quickly adjusted from saying that invasion was impossible to saying it was inevitable. Russians went along
If defeated in reality, Putin will just declare victory on television, and Russians will believe him, or pretend to. He does not need our help for that.
It is senseless to create an "off-ramp" in the real world, when all Putin needs is one in a virtual world he completely controls. Talking of "off-ramps" just gives Russian leaders something to laugh about in what are otherwise difficult times.
To be sure, Putin might err and wait too long to declare victory in the virtual world. In that case he loses power. We cannot save him from such a misjudgment, and it is misguided to try.
Putin's power over media will be complete until the moment when it ceases. There is no interval where our actions in the real world will make a difference. Either our off-ramps are unnecessary or they are irrelevant.
It is grotesque to ask the Ukrainians to make decisions about the war for the comfort of Russian television producers, who don't take direction from the real world anyway.
Misunderstanding Russia through clichés of "cornering" and "off-ramps" will make the war last longer, by distracting from the simple necessity of Russian defeat.
Ukraine is a very different story. Zelensky, unlike Putin, is democratically elected, feels responsible for his people, and governs in a world where others matter.
Ukraine has a press that the government does not direct. Zelensky cannot simply change the subject. He has to bring his people along on any major decision.
Unlike Putin, Zelensky has to make a case to his people to end this war. He therefore does need help, both to win the war and in telling Ukrainians what comes next
Unlike Russian soldiers, Ukrainians have nowhere else to go. They cannot just go home. The war is fought in their country. They will return to their homes and rebuild.
Ending the war means thinking more about the Ukrainian people and their future, and and worrying less about problems that Putin does not in fact have."
Let me pose a hypothetical question. Argentina has decided to take a dislike to Mexico in a big way. The bombard them, they chuck rockets on them and they send many troops into the Country having totally dismantled their infrastructure. Eventually Argentina flattens Mexico and calls it Mexintina and flies the blue and white flag over it's capital.
At what point, if any, does the Western world intervene as a standalone State is removed from the map??
Discuss, using Ukraine as an analogy.
At what point, if any, does the Western world intervene as a standalone State is removed from the map??
Discuss, using Ukraine as an analogy.
The west is not responsible for what is happening. It is because of one man, and whatever it is that's going on in his head.
Of course there's an argument to say that if you know there's a warmonger around but do nothing to curb his warmongering ambitions when you have the chance you bear some responsibility when he starts a war.
It's basically Putin's responsibility though.
Of course there's an argument to say that if you know there's a warmonger around but do nothing to curb his warmongering ambitions when you have the chance you bear some responsibility when he starts a war.
It's basically Putin's responsibility though.
perhaps the point about Mexico is that it shares a border with the USA? Proximity does play a part in people's wish to get involved: the US might be more worried about Mexico than about Paraguay. We've previously avoided intervening in a "quarrel in a far away country, between people of whom we know nothing"; that went badly, but it does seem to be an understandable response.
Sorry I don't get it at all
What is the point of discussing a completely hypothetical situation which is not going to happen? How does it help us understand the war in Ukraine? The US IS involved in the Ukraine war, as are lots of other countries: there's a coalition of 40 countries from all over the world meeting regularly to discuss military and economic aid. So I don't really get the "proximity" or "non-intervention" bit at all.
We all know that the main rwason there are no "boots on the ground" is because everyone is scared of nuclear powers clashing directly, which would not be the case if Guatemala invaded Mexico or whatever (incidentally there already is a war in Mexico can kills thousands every year: it's the drugs war).
What is the point of discussing a completely hypothetical situation which is not going to happen? How does it help us understand the war in Ukraine? The US IS involved in the Ukraine war, as are lots of other countries: there's a coalition of 40 countries from all over the world meeting regularly to discuss military and economic aid. So I don't really get the "proximity" or "non-intervention" bit at all.
We all know that the main rwason there are no "boots on the ground" is because everyone is scared of nuclear powers clashing directly, which would not be the case if Guatemala invaded Mexico or whatever (incidentally there already is a war in Mexico can kills thousands every year: it's the drugs war).
Actually, I thought Paul 221128 (?) made quite a telling point. It may not stand up to direct scrutiny - but it certainly brings the situation into sharp focus for anyone thinking 'Ukraine? Eastern Europe? Eh?' There will be a lot.
In all honesty many of the UK's citizens, whilst shocked and aware that a war is going on in Europe, cannot really identify with or focus on the magnitude of the threat.
Mexico is more immediately identifiable and the analogy would be effective.
Sorry Ich., but I think I'm correct in my observations re. a lot of the UK population.
In all honesty many of the UK's citizens, whilst shocked and aware that a war is going on in Europe, cannot really identify with or focus on the magnitude of the threat.
Mexico is more immediately identifiable and the analogy would be effective.
Sorry Ich., but I think I'm correct in my observations re. a lot of the UK population.
Ich - I feel to be groping in the dark a bit, but something tells me that I am right. Everyone is familiar with the map of the USA and Mexico just below it. Most people would be hard-pressed (or would have been) to place Ukraine accurately on a map of Europe. I suspect that a lot still are, sadly.
Mexico is/has been a major and common/aspired to holiday destination for many. I doubt if the majority of holidaymakers to Mexico know much about drugs or wars in Mexico.
That is why I feel the analogy may be effective.
It shouldn't be necessary. I'm sorry, but it could help to make people more aware.
Mexico is/has been a major and common/aspired to holiday destination for many. I doubt if the majority of holidaymakers to Mexico know much about drugs or wars in Mexico.
That is why I feel the analogy may be effective.
It shouldn't be necessary. I'm sorry, but it could help to make people more aware.
I'm baffled by that I must say. Ukraine has comparatively close links to the UK, certainly compared to Mexico: and I think people here know very well the situation and are shocked by it. There are Ukrainian flags on display everywhere, charity events, and there's 24/7 news, twitter, telegram, you name it, for those that want to keep up. What do you think is missing exactly? I don't understand the point of any of this.
I take your points, Ichkeria, but..... to be horrified and to put up a flag is easy. To understand .... isn't.... and Ukraine has not previously entered that much (very little in fact) to the general flow of life in the UK.
A while ago I was paying at the till in Lidl (Covid was still prevalent) and I mentioned that Sir Keir had caught it. The 20-something lady asked 'Who?' I repeated my comment and explained that he was the leader of the Labour party. "Oh! I vote Labour," was the response.
This may seem extreme, but after a lifetime of teaching I was not at all surprised.
Does that help? I wish I were wrong, but I can understand why the Mexico analogy could be very effective. :)
I could, of course be barking up an entirely wrong tree and wasting your time. If so, sorry. :)
A while ago I was paying at the till in Lidl (Covid was still prevalent) and I mentioned that Sir Keir had caught it. The 20-something lady asked 'Who?' I repeated my comment and explained that he was the leader of the Labour party. "Oh! I vote Labour," was the response.
This may seem extreme, but after a lifetime of teaching I was not at all surprised.
Does that help? I wish I were wrong, but I can understand why the Mexico analogy could be very effective. :)
I could, of course be barking up an entirely wrong tree and wasting your time. If so, sorry. :)
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.