Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[EuchreJack]

This thread is about emotional takes, right?

Well, I am very annoyed by the Oscar given to the documentary film about Navalny (and this award has nothing to do with the quality of the documentary). It is normalization of Russian crimes. Presenting Russians in the light of poor people under the heel of an evil dictator.

Navalny's wife said something along the lines "I dream one day my husband and my country will be free" and it is... a manipulation.

Russia IS free to do exactly what it wants. It is not like it is occupied by a foreign occupying power that forces it to do something Russia doesn't want. She could say "I hope one day my country won't be a bloodthirsty evil empire" or something along those lines but she didn't.

Pretty sure some Ukrainians said the same shit about Zelenskyy prior to his "I'm not abandoning Kiev" moment.

Guy seems decent. Not everyone can toss Molotovs in the street.

Navalny is openly racist, openly Russian-imperialist. He's not "decent". He's the exact same shit.

My apologies, I didn't know.

[jipehog]

I am not sure that strongly worded condemnation from Hollywood is what is going to bring down a nuclear power, current within might.

Not it wouldn't. It has some modest effect on public opinion and it is a rather minor thing if taken in isolation. But I see a trend, a narrative that is harmful not only to my country but to the world.

Instead of saying "Russia is a deeply immoral society that needs some serious fixing." we are getting cartoonish "remove Putin('s regime) and all will be cool and good in no time!"

How does saying saying that "Russia is a deeply immoral society that needs some serious fixing" is beneficial to Ukraine or the world?

Otherwise we shouldn't look at it in isolation from other currents or Russia's status as nuclear power and its war that affect millions and kills tens of thousands every month with no indication its close to an end.

Navalny is a step in the right direction. He is against the war, acknowledged Crimea is Ukrainian not too far back. If that is an opposition figure that is palatable to Russians then so be it.

In the end the question becomes whether you want to make things better or wring out some personal emotional satisfaction. Russian society needs guidance and time to reform.

He's full of shit. The swerve about Crimea is too little, too late, and too convenient. In the past he defended the Russianness of Crimea. He's also ludicrously racist against Georgians and defended the military intervention in Georgia. He's really pretty bad

If he could end the war and pull Russia out of Ukraine completely. Do you think it would matter?

Because USA deals with a lot of bad people. We all know that dictators are bad, except, well.. when they're kind of OK. Even terrorist have become statesman as their abhorrent ideas and actions are white washed.  On the world stage some times you have to work with bad people as the only way to affect positive change and or maintain your interests.

[Il Palazzo]

Because USA deals with a lot of bad people. We all know that dictators are bad, except, well.. when they're kind of OK. Even terrorist have become statesman as their abhorrent ideas and actions are white washed.  On the world stage some times you have to work with bad people as the only way to affect positive change and or maintain your interests.

An argument can be made that perhaps one shouldn't. That this willingness to make deals with the devil to further your own cause is what's wrong with the world. When it happens on a small scale, one runs a risk of being branded corrupt or a collaborator. But if you're large enough, it's realpolitik.
The pragmatists will call this approach naive. Others may call it principled.

[KittyTac]

If he could end the war and pull Russia out of Ukraine completely. Do you think it would matter?

If my uncle had 3 balls, he'd be a pinball machine.

[Robsoie]

Interesting article about  Navalny
https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/the-evolution-of-alexey-navalnys-nationalism

[Strongpoint]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hT0tCSaWZ9Q

This old video will tell a few things about how non-racist Navalny was. It is not like I think people don't change but I don't remember actual apologies.

It is the equivalent of some American advocating for the right to bear weapons... implying that you need one should... hm... a member of a certain dark-skinned group become too aggressive.

[jipehog]

Because USA deals with a lot of bad people. We all know that dictators are bad, except, well.. when they're kind of OK. Even terrorist have become statesman as their abhorrent ideas and actions are white washed.  On the world stage some times you have to work with bad people as the only way to affect positive change and or maintain your interests.

An argument can be made that perhaps one shouldn't. That this willingness to make deals with the devil to further your own cause is what's wrong with the world. When it happens on a small scale, one runs a risk of being branded corrupt or a collaborator. But if you're large enough, it's realpolitik.
The pragmatists will call this approach naive. Others may call it principled.

That depends on what your goal is. The way to affect change is to engage, as unsavory dealing with dictators might seem it opens doors of opportunity for further engagement, and eventually dialogue and cooperation foster change. Otherwise the alternative on the global stage is using military force, and we have seen how USA's well intentioned attempt to play global policeman went in the middle east.. Meanwhile, USA relative power is diminishing and authoritarianism is on the rise as more countries look elsewhere.

Principled approach as the unwavering adherence to some higher ideal is appealing in that it simple and easy to understand/sell to the public, unlike the pragmatic "zigzag", but the simple truth is that if you are not at the table you have no influence, worse you could be seceding the table to actors with bad influence, so as with most things in life its about find a balance between the two.

[bloop_bleep]

I found this article in Georgia Today which I thought was very enlightening. https://georgiatoday.ge/navalny-a-legend-about-the-other-russia/

[Strongpoint]

https://youtu.be/LXuEZR83y8k

I find this game concept extremely amusing.

[Strongpoint]

Russian Defense Ministry will start a new recruitment campaign on April 1, aiming to conclude contracts with 400,000 professional soldiers



Heh, another wave of mobilization. My bet is that most of those will be conscripts who will sign contracts, "voluntarily".

[Strongpoint]

Poland arrested some guys who were attempting sabotage on Polish railways

[EuchreJack]

Poland arrested some guys who were attempting sabotage on Polish railways

Russian Agents successfully lobby for more supplies to Ukraine!
Good job guys!

[da_nang]

Poland arrested some guys who were attempting sabotage on Polish railways

Muscovite sabotage on Polish NATO soil?

[King Zultan]

Couldn't that make things really bad for Russia if it turns out Russia was behind it, or will people ignore it again like all that other shit Russia has done in the past?

[scriver]

I've actually been pondering doing a change of Russian etnonyn to something for a bit, since a few years ago the Swedish hivemind decided to change Belarus/-ian from Vitryssland/Vitryss (Ryssland = White Russia) to Belarus/Belarusier "to strengthen separation between the teobpeoples", which I hate and is stupid on so many levels, the two foremost being that it doesn't actually change the word from Russian, and that it actually reinforces Russia's narrative that there is only one Russia and they are it. Muscovites (muskoviter) was one of the options, I don't remember if that was influenced by something I read here or not.