The Kremlin is burning?

[urbanoid]

Also a 2014 interview with Yerofeyev:

Quote

In Russia it is like in Africa

I'll tell you a terrible thing: Putin and his team are more liberal than 80 percent of the Russian people. This means that if completely free elections were held now, we would get nationalists and fascists!

In Russia today, the prevailing belief is that everything in its history was good. Both Ivan the Terrible and Metropolitan Philip, who was killed on his orders, are viewed positively. The same is true of Stalin and the Tsar's family, who were murdered by the Bolsheviks. Everything somehow got mixed up.

People who are involved in politics here do not need to read books that discuss complex, highly ambiguous issues of our history. And when they do, they choose books in which history is constructed according to their patterns. In Russia, we create history for ourselves depending on the regime, our worldview, disputes and struggles between ideologies. But we know very little about our own history, precisely because everything here is ideologized, starting with Nikolai Karamzin's "History of the Russian State," who actually wrote for the Romanov dynasty. And later on, everything was also written for some system.

I: But Karamzin judges Ivan the Terrible harshly, and today some in Russia would like to canonize this tsar.

Ivan the Terrible did not belong to the Romanov dynasty, so he could still be criticized... I think that in Russia history works for the state, not the state for history. The etatism that was once characteristic of a small part of French history has transformed in Russia into the dominant of the entire historical process. The state is always right here, and the one who rules it is not only the tsar but also the master of history.

I: History as the study of the past?

As sciences and as the "flow of time", i.e. history itself. We have a completely different idea of time than Europe, and also of history itself. The greatest conflict between Poles and Russians is visible where attempts are made to understand the meaning of history. Poles know history well and value their own very much. For them, rational knowledge of the Cartesian type is important. For a Russian, on the other hand, what counts most is "passionarity", passion in mutual contacts, ardor... These are things that are completely untranslatable, and if we do translate them, they are not understandable to a European. The border between Europe and the East runs along the tiny Bug River, which I have crossed by car so many times. And I can say quite objectively that thinking is completely different here and there. For Russians, the concept of the meaning of life is more important than the concept of history.

I: Is there a place for the human person in this "meaning of life"?

There can be anything here. A human person and their absence. And God and atheism... But history itself, as a consistent order of explaining history, does not interest a Russian very much. And that is where the scandal comes from, our history is a scandal in general. You have observed well that Stalin can be liked or disliked here. Half of the country likes him now and half does not. All these people live together, and yet there is no dialogue between them.

Does this mean that there are two Russias?

Oh no, there are even more Russias, there are several Russias... The biggest problem is the disintegration of people. During all our historical upheavals we have lost a great many different values. In 1917, classical values collapsed, and in many ways organic to Russia, not always good, not always bad... But then the whole wall collapsed. And in 1991, with the end of the Soviet Union, other values collapsed - for some they were important, for others they were not.

I: But you didn't cry when the Soviet Union fell?

I didn't cry, but I had to admit that these values also shaped me.

I: What values have you lost?

For me, these values had primarily a negative dimension, it was pseudo-socialism, a pseudo-state, because behind the entire facade of the USSR the same autocracy (samoderzhaviye) was still hidden, only even more radical.

I: Did you also regret in 1991, like Alexander Solzhenitsyn, that Ukraine was leaving?

No, I did not regret it. On the contrary, I thought it was a move in a positive direction. And I still think so now. I root for Ukraine to leave Europe, because I see that if it leaves imperial Russia, we will lose all chances of repeating the Soviet Union and the empire. And I am a completely non-imperial person, even anti-imperial.

I: Now the authorities in Russia often criticize Lenin, putting Stalin on a pedestal instead. The rulers say that Lenin destroyed the empire, and the good Stalin rebuilt it. In this way of thinking, Boris Yeltsin is the successor of the bad Lenin, and Putin is the disciple of the good Stalin. The cult of Stalin unites here with the cult of the Romanov empire, thus a connection is born between Putin's Russia, the USSR of Stalin's period, and Tsarist Russia of the St. Petersburg era. In Poland, we often treat this as a dangerous attempt to revive the Russian-?-Soviet empire, which has already enslaved us twice, and now perhaps would like to do so for the third time.

When the worlds collapsed twice in the 20th century, people were left without values, tsarist and Soviet. And each of them gathered these values back for themselves... So now it is impossible to find two people in Russia who are similar to each other and have the same values. Russians are having an endless conversation, and it never ends because they lack common foundations. In Poland, you can defend different positions, but a common attitude still exists. And here it does not exist, it has been shattered. This has created an opportunity for the authorities to present things to people in the way the current rulers like. Of course, in such conditions, people are very easy to manipulate. That is why the biggest problem in Russia is not the authorities, but the people. The political immaturity and archaic values of the nation are easily manipulated at the level of the concepts of the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries, as one pleases... So now we are dealing not so much with the revival of Stalinism (because Stalinism was also transformed into a specific myth), but with the revival of that autocracy with the Black Hundreds, with hatred of liberalism. This hatred dates back to the 19th century. It was reworked under Alexander III, and its foundations are the era of Nicholas I. All this therefore constitutes a pre-Soviet matrix.

I: So where is Stalin?

Stalin fits in here as a god, a national, Russian god. A Georgian as a Russian god is of course a paradox, but that is how he fits in. He is not subject to the authority of our court, because he saved the country from his teacher Lenin and led the state to flourish. Then he saved the country during the Second World War, transformed it into a state that others fear... And that we be feared is very important for archaic thinking: "So that people fear us, so that our neighbors fear us, so that we can pass on our worldview, the best in the world, to various peoples, even all those Ukrainians."

I: Did this happen after the annexation of Crimea or earlier?

This has always concerned about 85 percent of people, and now it has increased even more. 15 percent here think in a European way, and 85 percent in an atavistic way. These are basically nice people, there in the countryside they will entertain you with vodka, heat up the bath and on the whole you will be satisfied... But you absolutely cannot talk politics with them, because then they will turn out to be Stalinists and terrible critics of the West.

I: Good Stalin and good Stalinists?

Stalin is the purest god for them. True, they push aside the year 1937, the year of terror, as they do everything that is connected with real history. They leave only that which is connected with greatness and divinity.

I: With the victory over Germany in World War II?

Of course, but not only that. The problem of the nation is also important. Behind the scenes of the clash between Russia and Ukraine is the European system of values. It came from the West and reached all the way to eastern Ukraine – that is where the spark, the war, was ignited. I have always been in conflict with the Russian emigrants and the local liberals, because they were all Narodniks. They believe that the nation was enslaved. And they imagined it, for example, as nice, hard-working Poles or Western Ukrainians.

I: There are no such people in Russia?

There are very, very few of them here! Usually, you have to deal with chaos and dullness. This is a critical mass, which neither liberals nor conservatives nor communists see.

I: So is there a need for a revolution from above again?

Yes, reform should come from above. To put it brutally, a Peter I should come who will transform Russia. But this is not possible, because Putin – for the first time in Russian history – has understood that he must “clean everything up” in case of his death. That is why he is banning all political initiatives. And he is a very clever tactician... However, Russia is capable of being reborn at unexpected moments. This has both a sentimental and metaphysical dimension. It is reminiscent of an African village, only under the snow, in the taiga... I have been to Africa many times, my father was the ambassador of the Soviet Union in Senegal. I have long been very interested in this continent. And it seems to me that there is a lot in common between Russia and Africa, which should not be an insult to anyone. An archaic nation has what modern nations have lost. However, when John Kerry tells Putin that we live in the 21st century and we must not act as Russia does with Crimea, for example, he forgets that the Russian people now live in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries. After all, the concept of time does not exist in our country. It is exactly the same in the countryside. African, among Africans we have contact with spirits and the belief that they are better than us. When in Mali I had serious conversations with people who represented the spiritual culture of Africa, they began to hate me... Because as a European I can hold conversations with them. And I was there as a Russian, not a European.

I: As a European, wouldn't you have the right?

Yes, I would not have the right, because I would be worse. They think that Europeans are rich, have material goods, but are empty people, only robots. And when a white man comes and starts talking in their language, to understand the meaning of their affairs, the Africans feel threatened. After all, they too, with all their poverty, AIDS, toothless, with pierced noses, consider themselves better than us, because they have a religion that works directly, they have contact with spirits and magic. And with us, with Europeans, all this has been lost.

I: Why do people in Russia think so about themselves, for what merits, again because of the victory in the Great Patriotic War?

There are many reasons. Remember what I write in "Akimudy" - in a family, when a child is born, people are afraid of the charm, they do not allow to take pictures for half a year, etc. In this new book I also write about the Russian rebellion, where it can lead. It is neither a final nor a pre-final judgment, but an eternal, newly born judgment on Russia.

I: Cycle?

Yes, a cycle. It is precisely into such a metaphysical being that the Russian people, who know the truth, are transformed, just like the African peoples. Some people are offended that Yerofeyev compared the Russians to an African village, what a horror! But there is nothing offensive here, and this is what I think, and so do the European ambassadors who come here, who for practical purposes were previously ambassadors in small African countries, and then in slightly larger ones in Asia... And they, too, often compare the African village to Russia. Unfortunately, Europe does not understand this. Europe has lost its living metaphysics.

I: Do you mean contemporary Europe?

Yes, modern. It lives only on inertia. And from generation to generation it will get worse. Nothing new is created in place of these religious philosophies and ideas. Instead, bureaucrats from Brussels come and deal exclusively with the "philosophy of security" - you can't do that, you can't smoke, you can't drink too much... Put on condoms and helmets for safety, fight aggression. Modern Europe practically gives us nothing except the principle of non-aggression and security. And this means that a kind of collective, state security is being created in reverse - there the KGB, and here it's European security. No one in Europe sees it, no one likes to talk about it. When I write critically about Russia for the West, everyone prints me. But as soon as I start writing about the problems of Europe, because I spend a lot of time in Paris myself, they don't want to print it. They say that I wrote with an intonation that they don't like. And I look at Europe with compassion, because European civilization is closer to me, even my everyday life is connected with European semiotics. What is European is also mine. But the basis of today's Europe is "there", that is, in the past.

I: So those Russians who criticize Europe so much are right?

No, because they are criticizing it from the wrong perspective. They are wrong, because these European values have to be collected and somehow forced into action. They still work, but weakly. When I come to Holland, its inhabitants start explaining to me how terrible it is in Russia. And I tell them: "And what are you doing against it?" They answer somehow funny that they want to fight for freedom for homosexuals, and they want to do all this together with the Russians. They do not understand that for us today the concept of "homosexuality" means above all prison, destruction and death, and not freedom of love and marriage. So it is like this, that we are clashing with different parts. In the 90s, Russia turned to the West with its European face, Gaidar, Chubais, Nemtsov... And it covered up its dark, "Asian" face... And now this "Asian" part has revealed itself again, when everyone is so universally happy about the annexation of Crimea.

I: And what will happen to the Russian "volunteers", the leaders of "Novorossiya", such as Igor Girkin (Strelkov) or Alexander Borodai, who have already learned to fight and kill in the name of the empire? When they are forced to return to their homeland, will they not want to conquer a little in Russia itself?

I was recently riding in a taxi and the driver turned on the radio station Komsomolskaya Pravda, which is even more reactionary than the Internet channel Deen. I said to him: "Why are you listening to this, it's already yesterday. Putin and Poroshenko are getting along." And he said: "What? What? Getting along with fascists and Bandera supporters?" This means that the government has already gone very far with its propaganda...

I: So ordinary people now go further than those in power?

Yes, they went further. Today at the airport in Montenegro, from where I just flew to Moscow, I saw many nice Ukrainians from Kharkov. A healthy Russian, as they say, from the Black Hundreds, approached them. He asked: "So what's the situation like from the inside? Will you join us or will you secede from Ukraine?" An open Russian fighter... And they calmly say: "No, everything is fine in our city."

I: Why is there such a "Russian fighter" in Montenegro?

You can travel there without a visa. There are lots of Russians there, everyone is resting. I was in Tivat on the Adriatic, on the border with Croatia, not far from Dubrovnik, there is an airport there. And this "Russian fighter" at the airport in Tivat in Montenegro came up with the idea that all Ukrainians from the East want to go to Russia, but they are being held there by force in Kharkov. This is Soviet-type propaganda, and the Kharkov Ukrainians responded to it so calmly. They reminded me of Poles from 1980, who also responded so calmly to Brezhnev's propaganda. After all, values are moving from the West to the East, not the other way around. Russia cannot oppose this.

I: So what awaits Russia in the next two to three years? Will Putin remain in power, as he will be?

Nothing can be predicted. That they will take Crimea could only be imagined virtually. The future of this country cannot be predicted. It is held together by one man. The only thing that is clear is that Putin will no longer get closer to the West, because the West has lost trust in him forever.

If Putin stays, will we have a cold war in Europe? In Russia, he still feels the danger from the right. Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin and other people from his entourage would like to continue pushing this cart towards war. But Putin doesn't want that, why does he need it? And that's why he will isolate them all a little. When you came, Russian television was here. Now they are starting to come, and not long ago, when I signed a letter against the annexation of Crimea, no one - neither from radio nor television - came to me for two months. Simply silence. And recently, after Poroshenko's election, it started...

I: A thaw?

A micro-scale thaw. They probably understood that they need people with whom they will conduct some kind of dialogue. They did not need such people before, because there was an army that went and took Crimea. It is possible that we have already passed this summit. But there, in eastern Ukraine, blood will continue to flow for a long time. It will not be stopped, because it is not easy for these "people with weapons" to surrender. And they will not let them all go to Russia either, because there will be a disaster.

I: What is Russia doing with the bodies of its people who died in eastern Ukraine?

And we don't know that. They disappeared like those who died in Georgia during the war in 2008...

I: Is there no gratitude from the state?

This comes only later... Here, it is believed that only enemies die in war. Exactly the same tactics were used in World War II. They hid all losses and only later did it become clear what a huge number of people died.

I: What is the greatest misfortune for Russia today?

I think that power is only the second problem. In Russia, the greatest misfortune has always been with the population... This is a difficult case! If you do not give the nation political education, if you suppress its political instincts, then on the one hand, moral decay occurs, loss of values, and on the other hand, this decay is also of a purely physical nature, vodka, drunkenness is terrible... Our nation is in terrible shape, but the government draws its alibi from this. I know people who are close to the Kremlin, and even those in the Kremlin, who say that we are not Chinese. Here - they believe - ordinary people do not know how to work, everything is falling apart. That is why a firm hand is needed here, a Russian firm hand.

I: Is this some kind of justification for the cruelty of the authorities in Russia? Are they needed because the nation is like that?

Yes, they are needed because – as they say – they defend, for example, the borders. There is no need to give up the Caucasus, the Kuril Islands, this or that...

I: Does this mean that deep down they despise the nation they rule?

All Russian conservatives despised the nation.

I: But if you are also so critical of the Russian people, then maybe Putin is right and he controls everything with an iron fist?

I don't think so. The Russian people were also in a hopeless state before the reform of Peter I. But Peter I came and with his firm hand turned Russia towards Europe for two centuries. That is why I do not think that if we have such a problem with the people, then nothing can be done for Russia at all. But here Peter I simply should have come.

I: Not Putin?

Putin is not Peter I, and he is no tsar. He is just a clever tactician, not a strategist. But the misfortune is that the people are even more ignorant than Putin. This is also true now, after the taking of Crimea, after this great amount of Kremlin, state lies about the situation in Ukraine. I will tell you a terrible thing: Putin and his team are more liberal than 80 percent of the Russian people. This means that if completely free elections were held now, we would get nationalists and fascists!

Viktor Yerofeev is a writer and publicist, a leading contemporary Russian prose writer, known for numerous provocations and scandals. In the USSR, he was active in the underground circulation, at that time he was banned from printing. Among his books published in Poland were "Encyclopedia of the Russian Soul", "Good Stalin", "Akimudy"

https://www.rp.pl/plus-minus/art12318931-w-rosji-jest-jak-w-afryce

[Stefan Kotsch]

1 hour ago, urbanoid said:

Putin and his team are more liberal than 80 percent of the Russian people. This means that if completely free elections were held now, we would get nationalists and fascists!

This gives Roman's narrative meaning. That would be even more terrible than I thought.

[urbanoid]

9 minutes ago, Stefan Kotsch said:

This gives Roman's narrative meaning. That would be even more terrible than I thought.

You know, I've been learning Russian* privately since I was 8 and until the end of high school when I was 19, I had the same tutor for all this time. When she recognized that I'm somewhat interested in politics, we started analyzing articles about Putin, Duma elections and the like (that was in high school). With my observations, judging simply by who was most represented right after Putin's One Russia (an almost exemplary big tent 'party of power') in Duma - as a general rule the communists and Zhirinovsky's (neither) Liberal (nor particularly) Democratic Party of Russia, I reached similar conclusions as both Yerofeyev and the Polish professor I mentioned. 

Then came Georgia and... well, I changed my mind. Not about the conclusions themselves, but about how they should be applied. The idea to 'let Putin get away with X or worse guys will come' wasn't particularly appealing to me.

At this point I don't think we can understand each other with the Russians, the universe of discourse is just different. We may speak the same words but they have different meanings. The West, like most of Russian 'liberals' (well, they have the Western ear, so...) generally has some weird belief that it's this bad 'Putin' holding a whip over 'misguided' Russians, each of whom are deep down 'just like everyone else' (i.e. 'us') and if it wasn't for 'Putin' their internal American/European/universal everyman would prevail. The Russians OTOH generally barely even pretend to care about the same values the West does, some don't even do that. The West would like to be 'liked', the Russians want to be respected - and even 'respect' has different meaning here, it means the others should fear them.

*it's very rusty now, as it was barely used in 15+ years

[Roman Alymov]

Kirov incident: the time of scoundrels is ending

No sooner had its military operation ended than President Putin's main political program, "Time of Heroes," about a new managerial elite of veterans of the military, received a hole below the waterline in the Kirov region. Moreover, the circumstances of the "Gorelov case" do not leave a chance for an accident: Governor Alexander Sokolov is not a boy who was mistaken from unaccustomed habits, but an advanced Administration of President (AP) political technologist, a former employee of the Department of Internal Affairs of the AP, who had every opportunity to "jump off" the topic, but decided to "put the squeeze on" and take full responsibility personally. But rock hit the hard place and the sparks fly to the Kremlin, risking setting "someone" untouchable on fire (S.V.K.).

At Sokolov's suggestion (https://t.me/aleksandrsokolov43/4979 In October of this year, Nikita Gorelov, a fighter of the SVO, became the head of the city of Sosnovka. To do this, he was pulled out from frontline, where he had been serving (on mobilization) for 2 years, with promise to resolve all issues with the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation according to the law, as long as he agreed and the governor could report to Moscow - the "Time of Heroes" in the Kirov region has already started. Tsargrad (https://tsargrad.tv/news/slova-putina-o-novoj-jelite-stanovjatsja-realnostju-boec-svo-stal-gorodskim-glavoj_1070620/nsk) and other patriots happily reported with cheerful headlines: "Putin's words about the new elite are becoming a reality: A fighter of SVO became the city head."

But Kirov officials did not take into account that the veteran could seriously believe in new times and start a war against corruption and chaos in earnest, taking advantage of the new communication situation - telegram, where Gorelov started a tg channel (https://t.me/glava_sosnovka/253 ) and he began to write everything there as it is, fearlessly, openly and honestly, as at the frontline. And, of course, the Augean stables of the local government, which had not been cleaned for decades (or the "opened abscess," as Gorelov himself called it), opened up to the new head in all its glory. 

And so, too quickly, two months later, they decided to send Gorelov back to where they took him from, like an overly persistent tin soldier, back into a box. Gorelov was ordered to return to his duty station. And the story of the "mayoralty" should be forgotten like a terrible dream.

But that was not the case. The front-line soldiers did not fear this. Gorelov accepted the fight, deciding to go to the end (under Psalm 26 (https://t.me/glava_sosnovka/275 😞 "The Lord is my enlightenment and my Savior: whom will I fear?").
"Why was I recalled from Donbass? If in order to write off everything to an honest man and a patriot of the city and then write him off, then we misunderstood each other on the shore. This will not happen," Gorelov addressed the Governor of the Kirov region, Alexander Sokolov.

The people are standing up for Gorelov now. Sosnovka residents write petitions  Bloggers stand up for him (https://t.me/Alekhin_Telega/12591 ), the news was picked up by the Telegram (https://t.me/rostov_glavniy/104407 ), you can't sweep this under the carpet anymore. The story is so clear and flashy that the administrators of the situation had to completely lose their adequacy and break away from the "realities on earth" in order to allow this. 

But the threat that officials felt in Gorelovo turned out to be truly existential. It literally smelled cold, the chill of reckoning. And they stood in its way, regardless of the cost. Well, it's really beautiful.: That's how history works. Literally out of nothing, a domino falls from the very bottom, as if by accident. And there's no one to stop her?

This is a reference point, a bifurcation point for Putin's all-important personnel program, Time for Heroes. The PR games are ending. There are real, fearless heroes, fighters for the truth. And there's power in her. And someone will have to give up their seats. Gorelov addressed his governor as follows:
If you think that the "Time of Heroes" is coming for nothing, then it's not. For it to happen, the "Time of Scoundrels" must end.

From https://t.me/vizioner_rf/10491

[seahawk]

Seems like the war, has improved Russia already. And hopefully it will wash away the corrupt pro-western elite and help to make Russia pure again.

[Roman Alymov]

17 hours ago, urbanoid said:

That's as much of a madness as your foreign policy. 

   It is not madness but very logical policy if you look at it from the standpoint of pro-Western comprador elite of Russian Federation, who see ethnic Russian movement as grave danger  - more grave than conflict with their "respected parthners" from NATO.

17 hours ago, urbanoid said:

Doesn't 'Rossiyanin' mean the 'non-ethnic Russian citizen of RF' and wasn't/isn't it used alongside 'Russkiy', not instead of it? At least that's what I was taught in uni.

No, your professor was not correct here: 'Rossiyanin' is blanket word to address all citizens of Russian Federation without mentioning their ethnic background (so "Russians"/"Russky" included). The word itself is in no way derrogatory, but became sort of considered like this in pro-Rus circles due to overuse of Yeltsin and Co. 

17 hours ago, urbanoid said:

The professor who told us about it wasn't 'anti-Russian' in the least, he actually lived and breathed Russian history and culture and was a Russlandversteher extraordinaire, condemning Polish 'Russophobia' (actually the Russorealism to which I personally subscribed even then, since Georgia actually) etc. Actually I kinda feel sorry for him, as you could tell that for most of his life he believed Russia can be reasoned with and can liberalize, become a normal country and a good neighbour. Even then, in my early 20s, I was probably far too cynical to hold such beliefs myself. 

I'm sort of sorry for your professor but as for me he was to some extent "tilting at windmills" as legendary Polish 'Russophobia' is more of the thing originally limited to upper class of Poland (for very logical reasons for them - they have lost to competition for regional dominance to Russian upper class), while grassroots (peasants etc.) were not supporting all this uprisings (as they were to great extent nobiles thing). Of course it was long ago, and as media and public education were controlled by people from upper class - it was to some degree spreaded to wider population. Still, it is not always correct to see entire nation through upper class. It reminds me the story told, as far as i remember, by Konstantin Simonov in his memoirs: On Khalkhin-Gol he, young war reporter, asked Japanese soldier -prisoner of war - why he surrendered despite of Samurai ethics. The soldier smiled and answered something like "I do not care what Samurais do, my father is shopkeeper and i gave him promise to come back home alive". 

[Roman Alymov]

17 hours ago, urbanoid said:

*a word game, 'pacan' in Polish, unlike in Russian, means 'fool', although it has two meanings in Russian as well, this is about the other one (thug, gang member)

No idea why you (and many others) belive "pacan" is "thug, gang member". Originally it is Jewish (Yiddish) word for penis, that became South Russian argo for, originally, "street boy" and, later, any "boy" or "young man" ("lad"). Of course gang members could address to each other like "lads" but it is not making it meaning "gang member, thug".

[urbanoid]

1 minute ago, Roman Alymov said:

  I'm sort of sorry for your professor but as for me he was to some extent "tilting at windmills" as legendary Polish 'Russophobia' is more of the thing originally limited to upper class of Poland (for very logical reasons for them - they have lost to competition for regional dominance to Russian upper class), while grassroots (peasants etc.) were not supporting all this uprisings (as they were to great extent nobiles thing). Of course it was long ago, and as media and public education were controlled by people from upper class - it was to some degree spreaded to wider population. Still, it is not always correct to see entire nation through upper class. It reminds me the story told, as far as i remember, by Konstantin Simonov in his memoirs: On Khalkhin-Gol he, young war reporter, asked Japanese soldier -prisoner of war - why he surrendered despite of Samurai ethics. The soldier smiled and answered something like "I do not care what Samurais do, my father is shopkeeper and i gave him promise to come back home alive". 

He was indeed tilting at windmills, but not in the way you suggest. He's a progressive liberal and he honestly believed that Russia could liberalize and become 'European'.

Our current (for 100+ years) values were not shaped by the peasants, but by the nobility. Ok, sure, in the 19th century the uprisings were mostly an 'upper class thing', but after then and before independence a gigantic, educational work with the grassroots has been made, by both socialists and nationalists. Our way generally is not to bring those from the top down, but to extend upper class privileges and worldview downwards - even the last attempts at reforming the country before it disappeared from the map were not about abolishing noble privileges, but to uplift the lower classes so they become more equal). The other of my professors told us about a dialogue between a Polish and Czechoslovak diplomat in the interwar period, the latter said that it's easier for them Czechs, as a 'peasant nation' to talk to the Soviets, while Poles deep down are an 'aristocratic nation'. The attitudes of the nobility have become the attitude of the masses.

[Roman Alymov]

P.S. Re "That is why I usually ask Polish students another "provocative" question during the first lecture: "Is a Chechen a Russian?" - i'm sure professor in Russian affairs is aware of Rasul Gamzatov (Rasul Gamzatov - Wikipedia) quote: ""In Dagestan, I am an Avar, in Russia I am a Dagestani, and abroad I am a Russian"

   Another popular way to define "Russian" is "Russian is one who is called Russian by enemies"

[Roman Alymov]

3 minutes ago, urbanoid said:

Our current (for 100+ years) values were not shaped by the peasants, but by the nobility. Ok, sure, in the 19th century the uprisings were mostly an 'upper class thing', but after then and before independence a gigantic, educational work with the grassroots has been made, by both socialists and nationalists. Our way generally is not to bring those from the top down, but to extend upper class privileges and worldview downwards - even the last attempts at reforming the country before it disappeared from the map were not about abolishing noble privileges, but to uplift the lower classes so they become more equal). The other of my professors told us about a dialogue between a Polish and Czechoslovak diplomat in the interwar period, the latter said that it's easier for them Czechs, as a 'peasant nation' to talk to the Soviets, while Poles deep down are an 'aristocratic nation'. The attitudes of the nobility have become the attitude of the masses.

 I'm not sure it is good thing as Polish nobiles with their specific mindsert were the class who have ruined medieval Poland to the extent it wanished from the map for long time (despite it was originally much more powerful state than Russia/Moskovia). Yes medieval Russia - and even Russian Empire except for historically brief period between 1762 (when nobiles were relieved from mandatory state service) and 1861 (end of serfdom) - was "peasant" state where both peasants and nobiles were parts of self-defence mechanism (nobiles are obligated to serve as horseback professional/semiproifessional militia defending the state against both nomads from South/East and all sortsd of Europeans from West, while peasants are obligated to feed and equip them, and all classes report to Tsar and Patriarch) while in Poland every nobleman was Tsar for his peasants (even allowed, as far as i remember, to kill them without any limitations - while in Russia peasants were "valuable state property" only given to nobile in temporary conditional use). Anyway, it is remarkable how georgaphy and foreign heritage (Greek in Russian case, Lathin in Poland case) have over time formed two different nations from almost the same original ethnic background.

[ink]

14 hours ago, urbanoid said:

The West, like most of Russian 'liberals' (well, they have the Western ear, so...) generally has some weird belief that it's this bad 'Putin' holding a whip over 'misguided' Russians, each of whom are deep down 'just like everyone else' (i.e. 'us') and if it wasn't for 'Putin' their internal American/European/universal everyman would prevail. 

 

An aside:

My feeling is that this narrative is a natural byproduct of the general Western universalist approach that took shape during the Cold War. The necessity of integrating migrant and minority populations into Western societies in the context of the Cold War gave rise to a sort of liberal political correctness transmitted through society via the media. When it came to post-Cold War international military adventures, it became impolitic to represent them as "us" against "them" and so they naturally became "us" against "their regime". How many times have we heard Western politicians proclaim that "we have nothing against the people of country X, we are opposed to their regime"?

Following that logic, it becomes impossible, in the Western worldview, to be against the people of a place - for that would be prejudiced or even racist. Therefore, the only option available is to direct the ire at the government of said country.

At the very most, it was possible to say that the policies of that regime had resulted in a culture of [insert something bad here].

Of course, most of that changed in 2022 (if it was ever that strict*), and all things Russian became or are becoming a priori bad.

And that too might change when Oceania goes to war with Eastasia.

 

* Certain groups or nationalities were always fair game to one extent or another.

[urbanoid]

10 minutes ago, ink said:

 

An aside:

My feeling is that this narrative is a natural byproduct of the general Western universalist approach that took shape during the Cold War. The necessity of integrating migrant and minority populations into Western societies in the context of the Cold War gave rise to a sort of liberal political correctness transmitted through society via the media. When it came to post-Cold War international military adventures, it became impolitic to represent them as "us" against "them" and so they naturally became "us" against "their regime". How many times have we heard Western politicians proclaim that "we have nothing against the people of country X, we are opposed to their regime"?

Following that logic, it becomes impossible, in the Western worldview, to be against the people of a place - for that would be prejudiced or even racist. Therefore, the only option available is to direct the ire at the government of said country.

At the very most, it was possible to say that the policies of that regime had resulted in a culture of [insert something bad here].

Of course, most of that changed in 2022 (if it was ever that strict*), and all things Russian became or are becoming a priori bad.

And that too might change when Oceania goes to war with Eastasia.

 

* Certain groups or nationalities were always fair game to one extent or another.

And that also resulted in 'let's establish democracy in Iraq/Afghanistan/whatever'. It's like rejecting the very concept of difference, deep down everyone just HAS TO be the same, there's no other way.

[Roman Alymov]

6 minutes ago, urbanoid said:

And that also resulted in 'let's establish democracy in Iraq/Afghanistan/whatever'. It's like rejecting the very concept of difference, deep down everyone just HAS TO be the same, there's no other way.

In its turn the concept of "deep down everyone just HAS TO be the same, there's no other way" is sideeffect of declaring "our way is the best way". 

[urbanoid]

14 minutes ago, Roman Alymov said:

 I'm not sure it is good thing as Polish nobiles with their specific mindsert were the class who have ruined medieval Poland to the extent it wanished from the map for long time (despite it was originally much more powerful state than Russia/Moskovia). Yes medieval Russia - and even Russian Empire except for historically brief period between 1762 (when nobiles were relieved from mandatory state service) and 1861 (end of serfdom) - was "peasant" state where both peasants and nobiles were parts of self-defence mechanism (nobiles are obligated to serve as horseback professional/semiproifessional militia defending the state against both nomads from South/East and all sortsd of Europeans from West, while peasants are obligated to feed and equip them, and all classes report to Tsar and Patriarch) while in Poland every nobleman was Tsar for his peasants (even allowed, as far as i remember, to kill them without any limitations - while in Russia peasants were "valuable state property" only given to nobile in temporary conditional use). Anyway, it is remarkable how georgaphy and foreign heritage (Greek in Russian case, Lathin in Poland case) have over time formed two different nations from almost the same original ethnic background.

Well, not technically medieval, they didn't have that much to say in medieval Poland. Sure, the origins of 'noble democracy' are in late medieval period, but they were working great at the time and for some time after the middle ages ended too. Ruining a country had almost nothing to do with the treatment of peasants (I'm not aware about them being killed at will) and almost everything with legal and systemic paralysis, with the impotence of the royal rule and also finances. One of the worst aspects of noble democracy, the liberum veto (one deputy could prevent the laws from being passed) was originally meant to be a shield against the tyranny of the majority, ultimately it became a tyranny of the minority (of one) and blocked many attempts to reform the state. Actually it's kinda impressive that liberum veto was used so many decades after it became law (some 70-80 years IIRC).

Then again it's not those attitudes that were adopted, more of a 'freedom, baby!' and 'don't fucking tell me what to do' approach.

[ink]

16 minutes ago, urbanoid said:

And that also resulted in 'let's establish democracy in Iraq/Afghanistan/whatever'. It's like rejecting the very concept of difference, deep down everyone just HAS TO be the same, there's no other way.

Yes indeed. And that approach is not without some merits - even if the cons may outweigh them in certain geopolitical circumstances. My personal opinion is that by trying desperately to avoid focussing on differences between peoples or races, there is/was a failure to identify differences in culture.

But by focussing on differences in culture, one could easily fall into the trap of concluding that the differences are permanent or fixed - when in fact culture can turn on a dime.

It's all a bit of a mess.

One comfort Westerners can take away from all this is that this approach appears to be a thing of the past, and that the narrative is quickly evolving into something new now that the geopolitical shape of the world has definitely changed.

[Stefan Kotsch]

1 hour ago, Roman Alymov said:

"Russian" is "Russian is one who is called Russian by enemies"

Without enemies, somewhere in the universe, couldn't the Russians be happy? And when an evil enemy is declared again, the Russians are unhappy again. 🙄

As far as I'm concerned, do as you please. But let the neighbors live in peace.

(In German, like in Russian, a distinction is made between Russians and Russlander [Russländer = Citizens of the country of Russia]. Russlander include all nations in Russia.)

[Stefan Kotsch]

29 minutes ago, Roman Alymov said:

In its turn the concept of "deep down everyone just HAS TO be the same, there's no other way" is sideeffect of declaring "our way is the best way". 

Freedom to express one's political opinion against the government and work towards policy change through democratic means is undeniably the better way. Nobody likes people who always want to be right and stay stuck in their chairs.

This is one of the roots of the war against Ukraine. Putin thought that the West was just a valueless gang of gangsters with whom a Yalta V.02 was being negotiated among equals, disregarding the interests of the 'dwarf states'. And these dwarf states have no voice and have to submit. For all the contradictions of the West, Putin was fatally mistaken.

[urbanoid]

2 minutes ago, Stefan Kotsch said:

Freedom to express one's political opinion against the government and work towards policy change through democratic means is undeniably the better way. Nobody likes people who always want to be right and stay stuck in their chairs.

This is one of the roots of the war against Ukraine. Putin thought that the West was just a valueless gang of gangsters with whom a Yalta V.02 was being negotiated among equals, disregarding the interests of the 'dwarf states'. And these dwarf states have no voice and have to submit. For all the contradictions of the West, Putin was fatally mistaken.

But both sides are projecting. Just like we assumed that the Afghans or Iraqis are interested in a Western style democracy, just like many of us assume that deep down the Russians want to be 'us', Putin assumed that he'll just make a 'statement' (quick victorious war), say how the spoils will be divided and that would be it - it HAD TO BE, since deep down everyone else is a thug too, just not as cunning and smart as him.

[seahawk]

What people always forget, is that democracy is a rather new system. A society needs to be ready for it and for that imho it needs a line of benevolent autocrats. Democracy does not work in a state, in which people will kill each other because they belong to different tribes or different religions. 

Sadly the west is actually developing backwards, by allowing and respecting even the most damaging of ideas.

[sunday]

3 hours ago, urbanoid said:

Freedom to express one's political opinion against the government and work towards policy change through democratic means is undeniably the better way. Nobody likes people who always want to be right and stay stuck in their chairs.

Kind of ironic to see a German writing that, considering what is happening with the AfD party.

Quote

Putin assumed that he'll just make a 'statement' (quick victorious war), say how the spoils will be divided and that would be it - it HAD TO BE, since deep down everyone else is a thug too, just not as cunning and smart as him.

It is very likely the Ukrainian situation resolves in a similar manner, but with some hundreds of thousands fatalities added to the mix.

That would be the good outcome.

Among the bad ones, Thermonuclear Global War is a distinct possibility.

[ink]

1 hour ago, seahawk said:

What people always forget, is that democracy is a rather new system. A society needs to be ready for it and for that imho it needs a line of benevolent autocrats. Democracy does not work in a state, in which people will kill each other because they belong to different tribes or different religions. 

Sadly the west is actually developing backwards, by allowing and respecting even the most damaging of ideas.

Democracy isn't that new... Only the capitalist+liberal Western form of democracy is new. But that's maybe only around a hundred years old and has ebbed and waned quite a lot in that time. Sure does look like oligarchy+population management is coming along to displace it, doesn't it?

If that happens, Russia's Putin style of government will have been ahead of the curve. Shame really.

[sunday]

Quote

in which people will kill each other because they belong to different tribes or different religions. 

That could be an illustration of certain prerequisite to have a successful democracy, i.e. an absence of some kinds of diversity within the country, or some other means to overcome what LKY said about people voting not according to the common good of the nation:

Quote

"In multiracial societies, you don't vote in accordance with your economic interests and social interests, you vote in accordance with race and religion."
— Lee Kuan Yew

 

Edited December 23, 2024 by sunday
Incorrect quote attribution

[Stefan Kotsch]

54 minutes ago, sunday said:

... considering what is happening with the AfD party.

No house search by the tax office. Nobody fell out of the window. No tea cups.  

What is happening with the AfD party?

Edited December 23, 2024 by Stefan Kotsch

[mkenny]

41 minutes ago, ink said:

Democracy isn't that new... Only the capitalist+liberal Western form of democracy is new. But that's maybe only around a hundred years old and has ebbed and waned quite a lot in that time. Sure does look like oligarchy+population management is coming along to displace it, doesn't it?

If that happens, Russia's Putin style of government will have been ahead of the curve. Shame really.

Democracy started to disintegrate when the stupid people realised that they could organise with other stupid people and vote in stupid politicians to represent them AND THEM ALONE. 

[seahawk]

1 hour ago, sunday said:

That could be an illustration of certain prerequisite to have a successful democracy, i.e. an absence of some kinds of diversity within the country, or some other means to overcome what LKY said about people voting not according to the common good of the nation:

 

I would not cal it the absence of diversity, but the dedication to common basis. Which in most cases is the nation state. And in those you people learned to be from different regions and have different religions, yet to put the common elements over the dividing ones.

This is a trend that has been reversed in the West in the last 2 decades, where the left now puts the dividing, individual elements over the common elements of society. People do no longer have to adjust to society, society has to adjust for them. This is the imho the end of democracy.