Putin on communism

On Monday, Vladimir Putin followed up last week’s denunciation of Lenin with a long exposition on what he thought of communism. Given that Putin’s political ideology is a matter of considerable, often ill-informed, speculation, his answer to a question about Lenin at the regional forum of the All-Russian Popular Front in Stavropol is a really important ideological statement. So below is my (somewhat quick and rough) translation of the key segment.

My own interpretation of this statement is that Putin:

  • approves of socialist ideas (equality etc) in the abstract, but feels that communism failed to put them into practice.
  • disapproves of Soviet methods of government, particularly political and religious repression, and definitely doesn’t like Lenin.
  • sees some advantages in state intervention in the economy, but not on the scale practised by communism. He comes across as favouring a European-style mixed economic system.
  • is willing to countenance limited regional autonomy, but nothing more, and is strongly opposed to confederal ideas of a state made up of equal members. He strongly opposes regional secession.
  • regards Ukraine as an artificial construct.
  • puts a great emphasis on the state and the harm that communism did to it in Russia. Again and again, Putin returns to the state and the idea of statehood (gosudarstvennost’). A strong state emerges as a primary value.

Anyway, this is what Putin had to say:

[When I worked in the KGB] I wasn’t one of those who became a party member because I had to, but I can’t say either that I was an ideological party member, my attitude towards it was one of caution. Unlike many public servants I wasn’t a public servant with a party point of view. But unlike many of them I didn’t throw away my party card, I didn’t burn it. … It’s still lying around somewhere.

I liked a lot, and still like, communist and socialist ideas. If you look at the Code for the building of communism, which was widely distributed in the Soviet Union, it strongly resembles the Bible. This is not a joke, it’s like an excerpt from the Bible. The ideas are good: equality, brotherhood, happiness, but the practical embodiment of these remarkable ideas were far from those laid out by socialist utopians like [Henri de] Saint Simon and [Robert] Owen. Our country did not resemble the City of the Sun.

Everyone accused the Tsarist regime of repressions. But what did the establishment of Soviet power begin with? Mass repressions. I won’t talk about the scale, but simply of the most appalling example: the destruction and shooting of the Imperial family together with their children. Perhaps there was some idea that it was necessary to eradicate, as it were, any possible heirs. But why kill Doctor Botkin? Why kill the servants, people generally of proletarian origin? For what purpose? In order to cover up the crime.

Remember, we didn’t use to think about this much. Very well, they fought against people who resisted Soviet power with arms in their hands, but why kill the priests? In 1918 alone, they shot 3,000 priests, and in ten years 10,000 of them. In the Don region, they threw hundreds under the ice. When you start to think about it, and you get new information, you evaluate many things differently.

Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, in one of his letters to Molotov, I think, wrote – I can’t quote him exactly – that the more reactionary representatives of the bourgeoisie and the priesthood we shoot, the better. You know, this approach doesn’t tally with some of our former ideas about the essence of power.

And the role of the communist, Bolshevik party in the collapse of the front in the First World War is well known. What was the result? We lost to a country which lost, since several months later Germany surrendered, and we ended up losing to losers, a unique occurrence in history. And for what purpose? For the sake of seizing power. How should we, knowing this today, evaluate this situation which brought enormous, simply colossal, losses to the country.

And then there’s the economy. Why did they move to the New Economic Policy (NEP)? Because the existing requisitioning of farm produce wasn’t working, it couldn’t. It couldn’t supply the large towns with food. So they moved to a market economy, then quickly got rid of it.

You know, what I am saying now are my personal deductions, my own analysis. A planned economy has definite advantages, it allows general state resources to be concentrated to fulfil very important tasks. In this way, health care questions were resolved – an undoubted service of the communist party of that time. So also were questions of education solved – an undoubted service of the communist party of that time. So were decided questions of defence industrialization. I think that without this concentration of general state resources, the Soviet Union could not have prepared for war with Nazi Germany. And there was a great probability of defeat with catastrophic consequences for our statehood, for the Russian people and for the peoples of the Soviet Union. So these are all definite pluses. But in the final analysis, insensitivity to changes, insensitivity to technological revolutions, to new technological structures led to economic collapse.

And finally, the most important thing, which is why I said that we must look in a different way at the ideas which the then leader of the Soviet Union, Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, formulated. What were we talking about? What was I talking about? About how a mine was placed under the building of our statehood. What did I mean? This: I had in mind the discussion between Stalin and Lenin about how to build the new state, the Soviet Union.

If you are a historian, you should know that Stalin formulated the idea of a future Soviet Union based on autonomy. In accordance with this idea, all the subjects of the future state should join the USSR on the basis of autonomy with broad powers. Lenin criticized Stalin’s position and said that it was inopportune and incorrect. Moreover, he promoted the idea of the entry of all the future subjects of this state – and there were then four: Russia, Ukraine, Belorussia, and southern Russia, the Caucasian Federation as it was called, you know better than me.

So he, Lenin, said that the state, the Soviet Union, should be formed on the principle, as he said (I may be mistaken, but the idea is clear), of complete equality with the right of secession from the Soviet Union. And this was a slow-acting mine under the building of our statehood. Moreover, the ethnicities of a multinational but in essence unitary state were given boundaries and territories, and these boundaries were drawn completely arbitrarily, and in general without any foundation. Take Ukraine. Why was it given Donbass? To increase the percentage of proletarians in Ukraine, in order to have social support there. It’s such gibberish, you understand? And it’s not the only example, there are many more.

Cultural autonomy is one thing, autonomy with broad state powers is another, and the right to secede is a third. In the final analysis, this combined with ineffective economic and social policies led to the state’s collapse. And this is a slow-acting mine. And what is it if it is not a slow-acting mine? That’s exactly what it is. And bearing in mind the possibilities of today, we must simply attentively analyze everything which happened in the past. But one can’t smear everything which happened in the past with black paint or look at everything which happens today in bright colours. One must attentively and objectively analyze it in order not to repeat the mistakes of the past, and to build our state, economy, and society in such a way that the state only gets stronger.

Advertisements

91 thoughts on “Putin on communism”

  1. For what it is worth, I too thought that this statement by Putin was very informative and agree with your interpretation. The one extra comment that I would make is that it is further evidence that Putin is quite the consummate politician, in that I hope this will diffuse much of the emotion regarding his initial “gaffe” regarding Lenin. Moreover, it is in Russia’s interest that there be some half serious discussion about this period of the country’s history.

    Like

  2. Vladimir Vladimirovich should find a time in his schedule to read some text-books on history. Becouse I can go on and on “myth-busting” his ideas about Evul Bolsheviks starting from paragraph 3 onward.

    Instead, I’d like to show you all this:

    This is a map of European Russia c. 1917. Pleas, show me here “Ukraine”. That’s adressing the topic of the modern Ukraine beign an artificial creation – about which Putin says nothing in that text.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Actually, Putin did mention Ukraine in the section in which he spoke of boundaries being drawn arbitrarily. He then complained about the Bolsheviks giving Donbass to Ukraine.

      Like

      1. But Putin contradicts himself about “arbitrary” boundaries. Because he then goes on to say that the Bolsheviks wanted to beef up the proletarian component of “the Ukraine”, and that was their rationale for “delierately” (not “arbitrarily”) including Donbass into that entity. Without Donbass, the Ukraine would have been more peasant and less proletarian. Hence, more anti-communist and more pro-Western. Therefore Putin’s assumption sounds plalusible at least. Sort of like political “gerry-mandering”, like using Donbass miners to beef up their own natural electorate.

        It might be more complicated than that, though. Even in the days before computers, Bolsheviks used formulas and algorithms to decide where to draw natural boundaries. Formulas included such factors as rivers, ports, natural resources, trying to be fair and giving everybody a slice of cake that included some icing. Also factoring in ethnicity, language and dialects, religion, etc. Stalin was said to be a master of this line-drawing process and was actually quite good at it, although he made a couple of obvious blunders. (Obvious later, maybe not at the time.) Maybe Donbass was such a mistake, maybe not.
        I have argued on other forums that Khrushchev maybe wasn’t such a bonehead when he used a similar formula to “give” Crimea to the Ukraine. In his case, I don’t think it had anything to do with political gerry-mandering, or even about Khrushchev’s supposed ethnic loyalties, but more about the gas pipes, the waterways, and electricity pylons, the fact that Crimea is separated from Russian mainland by a body of water. As subsequent events have shown, it actually kind of made sense for Crimea to be under same reporting structure along with Ukrainian SSR.

        In any case, it is easy to be critical in hindsight of somebody else’s work. Why not give the Bolsheviks the benefit of the doubt and assume that in their own way they were trying, in good faith, to solve some geographical, political, economic, and ethnic problems, according to a set of ideas and formulas which they had developed during many years and much discussion before they ever came to power?

        Like

      2. Apologies, as this is to Yalensis. I tried to post a comment about Putin’s statement on “Awful Avalanche” but repeated efforts were unsuccessful…
        MK Bhadrakumar has an interesting and surprisingly emotional blog on Putin’s statement- “The unpleasant truth is that Putin and socialism do not mix.” I cannot say I am on Bhadrakumar’s wavelength and, generally, I remain a little surprised how emotional some people are about events that occurred nearly one century ago. (My guess is that most Russians have moved on, and are not that uptight about this period- most people are just not that interested in politics, let alone history.) For my part, I would be much more interested to learn how Putin sees more recent events and personalities. (Why does he wear expensive watches?)
        http://blogs.rediff.com/mkbhadrakumar/

        Like

      3. Dear David:

        OMG, my apologies.
        I just liberated your comments from the “spambox” on my blog.
        They are visible now.

        I don’t know why your comments went into spam, some links get flagged by WordPress, others don’t.

        From the POV of the commenter, it must be frustrating, because you don’t see your comment, and you don’t even get a message, like “under moderation”, or anything like that.

        Very poor customer service!

        It is incumbent on me, as the blog administrator, to check my spambox on at least a daily basis and “liberate” unfairly incarcerated comments.

        Unfortunately, I forget to do this sometimes, and I still haven’t worked out a good system to remind myself.
        I will try to do better.

        Like

    2. Another brain dead comment from Lyttenburgh! Where is Ukraine? Yeah, interesting. What’s your point? But where is Russia? Where is Poland? Where is Georgia? Where is Belarus? I don’t see Finland, Latvia, Lithuania or Estonia either. Wow!! These are ALL ARTIFICIAL creations!!! And if we look at a European map of 1917, we won’t see Czechoslovakia, Croatia, Macedonia, Bosnia & Herzegovina etc. So, these are ALL artificial creations??? Buddy, you seriously need to educate yourself past Grade 3. Do the Kurds have a country? And if they get a country one day will it be “artificial”?
      Now as for Ukraine, why is it that you haven’t shown us a map of 1918 “Russia” where an independent Ukraine exists? And by the way, that independent Ukraine included parts which are now part of Russia and, of course, Lugansk and Yuzivka (Donetsk). So, as always, Putin the imbecile isn’t asking the right questions. The question isn’t why the Donbas is part of Ukraine but why those parts of the Ukraine National Republic are now part of Russia? Also, Putin should ask why the Kubanskaya Oblast was made part of Russia? According to the 1897 Russian Empire Census (Первая всеобщая перепись населения 1897. You easily can find this on the internet in scanned pdf format), there were more Ukrainians in the Kuban than Russians (47.36% Ukrainians (Malorossy) compared to 42.56% Russian (Velikorussy). For that matter, Putin should ask and complain about why Koenigsberg, Karelia and the Kuril Islands are part of Russia? And he should do the right thing and correct historical wrongs and give them back to their rightful owners. After all, he wouldn’t want anyone criticizing Russia for being “artificial”, now would he?
      But back to Ukraine, Lenin and the Donbas. In the Russian Empire census of 1897, Yekaterinoslavskaya Gubernia, which includes Lugansk and Donetsk, is composed of 68.90% Ukrainians (Malorossy) and 17.27% Russians (Velikorussy). So, if Putin actually knew something about the history of his country, he would know that the reason that the Donbas is part of Ukraine is because the MAJORITY of people who live there have ALWAYS been UKRAINIANS!! And this is also why these territories were part of the Ukrainian National Republic. Lenin recognized that the Donbas was overwhelmingly Ukrainian, which is why Lenin made it part of the Ukrainian SSR after he destroyed independent Ukraine. By the way, Donetsk and Lugansk oblasts voted OVERWHELMINGLY in favour of Ukrainian independence in 1991, which is not a surprise to anyone who knows anything about Ukraine. What is “artificial” is the “Donetsk People’s Republic” and the Lugansk People’s Republic” which were created by Putin in the Kremlin and have absolutely NO attachment to history or the desires of the local population.
      As for more proof that Lenin gave certain regions to Ukraine and others to Russia largely, though not solely, based on ethnicity, have a look at the Tavricheskaya Gubernia. Which, by the way, Lyttenburgh, is another place you won’t find on a 1917 map: Crimea. There was NO “Crimea” in the Russian Empire in 1897. Crimea was “artificially” created by the Bolsheviks. According to the 1897 Census, Ukrainians made up 42.2%, Russians – 27.9% and Crimean Tatars – 13%. So, Putin should be complaining why Lenin broke up the Tavricheskaya Gubernia and gave parts of it to Russia!! But, of course, Putin is an imperialist moron who doesn’t know his history!! But hopefully you, Lyttenburgh, now know a little bit more history and will stop writing such garbage. I think I’ve written enough for now, and I’m going to sleep. But stayed tuned because tomorrow I’ll give you my take on what Putin blabbered at his press conference.

      Like

      1. “Another brain dead comment from Lyttenburgh!”

        And good day to you, kind sir! 🙂

        “Where is Ukraine? Yeah, interesting. What’s your point? But where is Russia?”

        Open your eyes. Its on the map.

        “Where is Poland? Where is Georgia? Where is Belarus? I don’t see Finland, Latvia, Lithuania or Estonia either”.

        See Czarstvo Polskoye? See guberniya with a center in Tiflis? See the Grand Duchy of Finland? These are the easiest ones to spot, ‘cause they have the greatest claim to the be sovereign countries in the first place. As for the rest – yea, they are (like yet non-existing Ukraine) are just a bunch of gubernias, with different ethnic composition.

        “Wow!! These are ALL ARTIFICIAL creations!!!”

        Glad that you’re admitting this

        “And if we look at a European map of 1917, we won’t see Czechoslovakia, Croatia, Macedonia, Bosnia & Herzegovina etc. So, these are ALL artificial creations???

        Yes – as the result of A) Versailles peace treaty B) The violent dissolution of Yugoslavia, civil war and the Western recognition of them. Artificial, nonetheless.

        “Do the Kurds have a country? And if they get a country one day will it be “artificial”?

        Yes, it will. It will be as artificial as Israel.

        Now as for Ukraine, why is it that you haven’t shown us a map of 1918 “Russia” where an independent Ukraine exists?

        Which one? Western Ukrainian Republic, constantly pwned by the Poles and local “separatists”? Or the German puppet regime of hetman? Or the Red Ukrajina? Or the White Armies zone of control?

        “The question isn’t why the Donbas is part of Ukraine but why those parts of the Ukraine National Republic are now part of Russia?”

        Because the Ukrainian nationalists lost the war. Vae victus

        Also, Putin should ask why the Kubanskaya Oblast was made part of Russia? According to the 1897 Russian Empire Census (Первая всеобщая перепись населения 1897. You easily can find this on the internet in scanned pdf format), there were more Ukrainians in the Kuban than Russians (47.36% Ukrainians (Malorossy) compared to 42.56% Russian (Velikorussy).

        According to the same Census there were no Ukrainians in Odessa. Ready for a swap?

        “For that matter, Putin should ask and complain about why Koenigsberg, Karelia and the Kuril Islands are part of Russia?”

        By the right of the victor.

        “But back to Ukraine, Lenin and the Donbas. In the Russian Empire census of 1897, Yekaterinoslavskaya Gubernia, which includes Lugansk and Donetsk, is composed of 68.90% Ukrainians (Malorossy) and 17.27% Russians (Velikorussy). So, if Putin actually knew something about the history of his country, he would know that the reason that the Donbas is part of Ukraine is because the MAJORITY of people who live there have ALWAYS been UKRAINIANS!!”

        According to the same Census the ethnic disposition of Lugansk was the following: 12 907 Russians, 3902 Ukrainians, 1449 Jews, 716 Byelorussians. But want a real zrada, Dave from Kiev? Do you know what was the ethnic composition of Kiev in 1917? 54,7% – Russians, 19% – Jews and only 12,2% – Ukrainians.

        And this is also why these territories were part of the Ukrainian National Republic. Lenin recognized that the Donbas was overwhelmingly Ukrainian, which is why Lenin made it part of the Ukrainian SSR after he destroyed independent Ukraine.

        Independent Ukraine has been destroyed several times a year by practically everyone who decided to participate in the Civil War. Not a big achievement.

        “As for more proof that Lenin gave certain regions to Ukraine and others to Russia largely, though not solely, based on ethnicity, have a look at the Tavricheskaya Gubernia. Which, by the way, Lyttenburgh, is another place you won’t find on a 1917 map: Crimea.”

        What, you want to give Mykolaiv oblast as well to Russia? Golly, you are to generous, Dave from Kiev!

        “I think I’ve written enough for now, and I’m going to sleep. But stayed tuned because tomorrow I’ll give you my take on what Putin blabbered at his press conference.”

        No need to tell us about minutiae of your exciting life, Dave from Kiev. Your… writing is so dense, that its barely readable, even bouts of hysterical claims don’t disperse it.

        Like

  3. It’s amazing how everything is immediately converted into ‘what Putin wants’, ‘what Putin thinks’, or ‘what Putin is afraid of’.

    This is, I believe, a true cult of personality. But what’s ironic here is that not a single Russian I know exhibits any sign of this obsession. Far as I can tell, they don’t talk or think about Putin. The disease only affects westerners and pro-western Russian liberals.

    Interesting phenomenon. I was watching one Mr. Venediktov recently, the owner (co-owner) of Ekho Moskvy, and Putin was the only topic he could talk about: what he likes, what he doesn’t like, how he prefers to approach different issues, to the smallest details. He was jealous when others dared to suggest their theories of Putin’s MO: ‘no-no, this is not how likes to do it, this is not how he thinks!’. Fascinating.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I’ve talked at length about this phenomenon months ago at Kremlin Stooge blog, but by now its buried in the comments section.

      “My theory (i.e. – you all can just ignore it) is that all of them (Russian liberasts plus, to some extent, the Western elites and punditocracy) are neo-Cathars (Albigensians). You know – The Pure Ones.

      Now, think about it! All of them treat Russian State/Government/Head of the State like God. They ascribe to him the Omnipotence and Omniscience. For them – Russian State is some super-human structure surely capable of all sort of incredible feats. And the current Head of the State serves as it’s Embodiment.

      The fact that such Super-Capable and All-Knowing person can’t make a life better (primarily – for the blessed and handshakable “Eloi”) could mean only one thing – that this Embodiment of Divinity is Evil and Maligned. That’s why any of “demiurges” of Russia are treated basically the same way by the Pure Ones. It doesn’t matter whom we are talking about here – Putin, Stalin, Lenin, Peter I, etc. All of them are EVIL in their worldview. And, because they were EVIL, everything created by them is equally evil. Be that cities (where a lot of the Pure Ones still live), infrastructure (like Metro, houses, powerstations and hospitals, which our Neo Cathars “had to” use), the fact that USSR won The Great Patriotic War (“Not due to – but in spite of Stalin!!!11!111!!!”) or even the present borders of Russia – they are still EVIL. And by using all these products of the “Satanic Demiurge” our Cathars suffer greatly. Really. Deep down in their souls. They hate every single aspect of it and are not shy about preaching about it’s evils to people around them.

      So, according to these Neo Cathars the Great Satanic Demiurge has already won. All “created World” (in our case – Russia and environs) bears His Unholy Seal. There is no Hope for them. In our Pure Ones worldview there is no place for a Savior. They, and only they can “resists” this “Evil Empire” by staying Pure, upholding Ideals, Values, treasuring their Dignity and Conscience. ‘Cause, obviously, they are better then all those Slaves to Darkness surrounding them. Their Ideal truly belongs not to the Material World (even to parts untouched by the Satanic Demiurge), but to the Ideal Plane as it only exists in the heads of the Pure Ones.

      And the leaders of the Free World themselves are openly exposing such Manichean views – so, why wondering at “deaitifaction” of Putin?”

      Like

      1. This is actually interesting.

        What most people don’t understand about medieval world is that religion was not about “do you believe in God or not?” or even “what God do you believe in?”. The real questions of religion were “what is this world we live in?” and ’how it works?”

        In modern secular Western (in a broadest sense) societies God is dead, and questions on world mechanics are answered by political theories. Liberal, conservative, socialist worldview etc. In essence they are not different from lutherans and catholics of 16-17th century or any other mainstream religious movements or s smaller sects of Medieval world. They need faith of the flock, without faith liberalism (or communism) is just as dead as white god.

        Human psychology hasn’t really changed that much. So dynamics are the same as in times of Albigensian crusade or Thirty Years War. People from Venediktov’s flock are no different from skoptsy or judaizers of old, may Mani save them.

        Like

    2. Given that Putin is the chief of state in a critical country during a critical time in its history, interest in his ideas should hardly be surprising. Putin’s willingness to engage publicly in unscripted intellectual discourse is also rare among chiefs of state. It’s not like the scripted preachy pablum we get from the political mainstream in the west.

      Like

      1. Well, Putin is a politician. I know in the US politicians are treated as celebrities, marketed like brands, toothpaste or detergent. Their speeches (written by someone else), their mannerisms, are carefully analyzed, etc.

        Putin sounds unscripted, doesn’t look as lifeless, zombie-like as most western politicians, so maybe this is the reason, I don’t know. Otherwise, I don’t really see a good reason to listen what a politician says about some events from a hundred years ago. You can’t believe a single word from their mouths anyway.

        Like

  4. There is no surprise in these comments by Putin, as his overall negative assessment of communism has been a matter of public record for quite a long time. Consider this statement, made as far back as 1999:

    “It would be a mistake not to see and, even more so, to deny the unquestionable achievements of [Soviet] times. But it would be an even bigger mistake not to realize the outrageous price our country and its people had to pay for that Bolshevist experiment. […] Communism and the power of Soviets did not make Russia a prosperous country with a dynamically developing society and free people. Communism vividly demonstrated its inaptitude for sound self-development, dooming our country to a steady lag behind economically advanced countries. It was a road to a blind alley, which is far away from the mainstream of civilization”

    This was from his so-called “Millennium Speech,” which you can find in full (in English translation) here:

    http://pages.uoregon.edu/kimball/Putin.htm

    Like

    1. Thanks for that, Estragon. It makes the outrage from some circles about how VVP dared to insult our beloved Ilyich all the sillier. Weren’t they paying attention before?

      Like

      1. Dear Paul:

        Of course “we” were paying attention. (Using the “royal we” to include sovoks and vatniki types.)

        “We” knew that Putin was an anti-Communist. He made that clear a thousand times from Day #1. What with the Tsar, Denikin, being Yeltsin’s heir, a’ that. Well, maybe some people preferred to be in denial and think Putin was some random virgin from a convent who came to Yeltsin’s attention and just got shoved into the job against his will. But most of “us” were pretty sure that Yeltsin put him there for a reason, that the two men had an ideological understanding of what “needed to be done” to root out Communism.

        As time went by, many Russians, the around 49% or so who still support Lenin, were willing to let bygones be bygones, especially with Putin doing some good things, like re-integrating Crimea and fighting ISIS in Syria.

        Then Putin chose to rub it in “our” faces even more with the Yeltsin Library, and finally the Pasternak poetry-slam scandal. Hence, “our” outrage. Because Putin decided openly to be a “divider” instead of a “uniter” of Russian society.

        The only idiots who didn’t know this history were the Western politicians and media who thought Putin was a Commie all along. They are the deluded ones, not people like me.

        Like

  5. The numbers of priest deaths sound ugly, but the unfortunate reality was that the Russian Orthodox Church and the Czarists formed a church-state combine that was more typical of the Medieval era than the Twentieth Century. Lots of Catholic priests espousing the Divine Right of Kings were killed during the transition from feudalism to capitalism as well. A politically neutered version of Orthodox was embraced by Stalin, himself trained as an Orthodox priest, during the Soviet Union’s darkest days in 1941. Apparently his Orthodox revival was authentic.

    Putin is on the money that bribing Ukrainian leaders with the Donbas to win their loyalty to the Russian Revolution was a mistake. The Ukrainian state is a Frankenstein monster created by bureaucrats and only viable as a political unit by the influence of outside power. That power used to be the Soviet Union; now advocates of a Ukrainian state are seeking the power of the EU and NATO to fill that role. Their ability to do so is dubious at best. The slide towards becoming the Somalia of Europe seems all but inevitable.

    Like

    1. Spanish revolutionaries – socialist, anarchists – in the 1930s civil war executed thousands of priests. This is a normal (well, historically speaking) characteristic of Red Terror; priests are, typically, the second highest stratum in the hierarchy…

      Like

    2. Blame the Imperial Russian state and not the Russian Orthodox church which was forced by the former to abandon all of its autonomy for that.

      Like

  6. So tell me, Paul, why is it that you have so conveniently avoided the 2 most important pieces of Russian news this week: the Litvinenko enquiry which found that Putin “probably” order the nuclear attack and death of Litvinenko and the BBC Panorama documentary where the US official in charge of sanctions clearly states that the US has known for a long time that Putin is a corrupt crook? It’s very telling that you have avoided this news. What, you don’t want to upset your buddy Putin?

    Like

    1. I suppose even noticing either the ~300 pages report on Litvinenko or BBC document would be received as “russophobic” here because Russia is Putin and Putin is Russia. Just as would be commenting on the scathing criticism of Russian political system, yet another obvious manifestation of the hideous Jewish-liberal fifth column, the latest Putin’s speech on the same All-Russian National Front (ONF) that Paul has quite selectively commented here. In the congress halls I have even seen a large poster demonstrating how journalists are repressed in various Russian regions, but as this is a systemic opposition congress this obviously was fitted into the “bad boyars vs good tsar” narrative.

      Like

    2. Because, quite frankly, neither story interests me very much, I don’t think that they really qualify as news, and I don’t have anything interesting or original to say. The Litvinenko case is ten years old. Nothing new has been revealed. Loads of other people have gone over it with a fine tooth comb. What could I usefully add? Nothing really. As for the BBC story, allegations about Putin’s wealth are also nothing new, but the sources are hardly reliable. It’s not substantial enough to warrant wasting my time on. Maybe it’s true, maybe not, but I have no special knowledge or analytical tools which would enable me to say anything different from anybody else.
      The ideology of Putin and ‘ Putinism’ (if there is such a thing) is something I’ve been writing about for years. Analysis of it is something to which I like to think I have made an original contribution (my American Conservative article ‘Putin’s Philosophy’ has been cited/footnoted in a number of recent books), and so when I see something which sheds light on the subject it piques my interest and I write about it.
      So there are no sinister political motives, whatever you might think.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. I’m sorry that you feel that way since it would be an interesting and lively discussion. What’s important about this news isn’t that the world didn’t know that Putin ordered the death of Litvinenko or that he is a corrupt crook, but the fact that these two things have been officially announced and in the same week, nonetheless. This is important and signals a new dimension in relations between the West and Putin.

        Like

    3. Dave from Kiev.

      Mr. Robinson has a day job as a professor in the University to which he devotes a significant amount of time. Day job is a thing, where you have actually to work to be given money afterwards, Dave. I’m saying it, in case you already forgot what it is.

      Writing a blog is not a paid work for Mr. Robinson – he does this in his pare time. He writes, as any un-paid bloggers, about things that he deems interesting. Looks like he decided that he owes neither Her Majesty’s government, nor the teeming masses of the salofites already discussing these 2 “breaking” news in their various media anything significant to write about such trite subject.

      And you, Dave from Kiev, are behaving yourself rather impolite and discourteous by accusing our gracious host and talking in such a tone. Make an effort over yourself and try to behave properly.

      P.S. Whoever told you that adding multiple exclamation of question marks will make your posts look more pleasing to the eye and/or intelligent was probably jesting.

      Like

  7. From what I got from associates in Moscow, the “Litvinenko report” is such obvious bullshit that the consenus is that both sides have something to hide.

    The “Western take” goes like this:
    Putin (who, as a number of dead Chechens can attest, has people who are pretty good as assasinations) randomly orders to kill a pretty unimportant marginal figure with a totally harebrained scheme, and the would be assassin who is transporting the deadly polonium does so while driving around with his family, including his teenage daughter.

    Unless Putin went something like “Let us murder Litvinenko in the most unprofessional way ever, then noone will expect us because we are far more professional then that”, this reasoning is patently absurd.

    The Russian take goes like this:
    Litvinenko and his shady Oligarch Associates were employs of the MI6 (which is actually true) and have been engaged in a dastardly plot to steal Polonium from mother Russia for their no doubt nefarious plots! But then, sheer incompetence struck, and the vile plotters mishandled the stolen Polonium (Russian sources never say from where it was stolen), contaminated themselfs and this resulted in Litvinenkos dead! To cover up, the heinous press organs of the demonic western press poceeded to unleash an avalanche of bullshit on the Rodina and Putin, so that the TRUTH may never be known!

    While it actually could be possible, some things are curiously missing:
    1: From where in Russia did Litvinenko steal the Polonium
    2: Why did Russia know pretty early apperantly that this Polonium was stolen?

    My pet theory, which has the (pretty easy to meet) virtue of being less harebrained then either the official western and Russian account, goes like this:

    In the 90s, the MI6 pretty regularly engaged in what they called “Sting operations” to acquire Russian fissile materials. The stated rationale was that these operations were not actually against Russia, but that the UK wished to know how and where someone else could gain access to Russian nuclear material.
    The Russians saw this as either a blatant threat, or as unwelcome concern trolling on the highest level. Being also dismayed about the MI6s protecting hand on a quite motley assortment of various Russian exiles in London, they devised an incredibly cunning and really smart plan. They would “sting back”, meaning that the merry exiles would be made an offer to procure Polonium, with or without the direct knowledge of their MI6 masters, and the last moment, the transaction would be busted in Britain. Ideally, this would put quite a number of the exiles behind English bars, all of them under immense public suspicion, and, apart from having to awnser why MI6 agents like Litvinenko were transporting fissile materials through London and stuff perhaps even realize the greatest fear of the MI6.
    I am not talking about a suitcase nuke in London, but about being subjected to actual meaningfull parliamentary control.

    So, when Litvinenko contaminated himself (that there were several contaminations is apperantly not even disputed anymore by the British. It is also telling that they still keep the autopsy of Litvinenko secret), the British went into “cover story in an avalanche of Bullshit” mode, while Russia was running around like a recently decapaciated chicken, and took quite a while to get its Propaganda ducks in order.

    The bullshit was (and still is) often of such low quality, that I am pretty sure that the Brits were surprised as well, which is why I dont buy the “MI6 killed Litvinenko because he became a liability” story.

    Like

    1. Very intelligent theory, Andrej!

      I would add to this my own personal theory (backed by few facts, just intelligent hunches) that Lugovoy was indeed an FSB agent.
      My theory goes that Lugovoy was assigned to infiltrate Berezovsky’s inner circle in London, this being the reason why he ended up meeting with Litvinenko, passing himself off as just another businessman.

      Corroboration, such as it is, being that on his return to Russia, Lugovoy was treated in similar way to many busted spies. Like, being put into Duma so he would have some immunity, that sort of thing.

      Like

  8. “Cultural autonomy is one thing, autonomy with broad state powers is another, and the right to secede is a third.”
    I wish Putin had expanded on this point a little more, particular in terms of how he evaluates each of the three things mentioned. Obviously, he’s against the right to secede, and presumably (because he’s drawing the contrast) in favour of “cultural autonomy”. However, where “broad state powers” would stand with him, I’m not sure. He’s often portrayed as a fairly strong centralist, but I think the situation in Chechnya could serve as an important counter-example. Putin seems to be content to leave a fair bit of power in Chechnya to the Kadyrov government, although I suppose it’s open to question whether he’s really happy with the arrangement, or just accepting it as the best available in the current circumstances. The question strikes me as an important one, since Putin is often accused of hypocrisy for pushing Ukraine to decentralize while opposing decentralization in Russia. Whether there’s any merit in the accusations depends, I think, on precisely what kind of “decentralization” it is that Putin actually opposes.

    Like

    1. The “cultural autonomy” and political centralism is key part of the eurasian movement’s vision of the state as laid in “The foundations of the geopolitics” by Dugin. Same for “we don’t care about the borders” from the last Bild interview.

      Obviously, no one apparently notices the sheer absurdity of Putin “strongly opposing regional secession” and “confederal ideas of a state” applied to Russia while constantly feeding the confederal ideas in neighboring Ukraine. Oh, but wait – he considers Ukraine to be “artificial” which explains everything. Not that someone might consider USSR or Russia to be an artificial construct as well…

      Speaking of Donbass, there was a very interesting interview with Sergey Gulyayev, one of the veteran commanders of separatist forces who speaks about the recent purges among top figures of the Novorossiya movement.

      Like

      1. Cortez, compare this (Bild tabloid):

        “BILD: Since you are talking about a great challenge: is Crimea, by comparison, really worth damaging Russia’s relationship with the West that severely?

        Putin: What do you mean by “Crimea”?

        BILD: The one-sided movement of borders in a Europe that is based, in particular, on respecting state borders.

        Putin: For me, it means: human beings.

        BILD: Human beings?

        Putin: The nationalists’ coup in the Ukrainian capital of Kiev in February 2014 has hugely scared 2.5 million Russian people living on Crimea. So what did we do? We have not gone to war, we have not fired, not a single person was killed. Our soldiers have merely prevented the Ukrainian troops on Crimea from impeding the freedom of expression of the people. In the referendum – which was still decided to take place by the Crimea’s old parliament – the majority of citizens voted for belonging to Russia. This is democracy, the people’s will

        BILD: But one cannot simply challenge European state borders.

        Putin: For me, it is not borders and state territories that matter, but people’s fortunes.”

        And the original:

        “Вопрос: Я хотел бы высказать мнение, что сегодня вызовы борьбы с исламским терроризмом настолько остры, что могли бы свести Россию снова воедино с Западом в этой борьбе, но возникает проблема Крыма. Действительно ли Крым стоит того, чтобы ставить на карту совместное сотрудничество с Западом?

        В.Путин: Что Вы подразумеваете под словом «Крым»?

        Вопрос: Изменение границ.

        В.Путин: А я под этим понимаю людей ‒ 2,5 миллиона человек. Это люди, которые испугались переворота, надо прямо сказать, были встревожены государственным переворотом на Украине. И после переворота в Киеве, а это было не что иное, как государственный переворот, как бы его ни приукрашивали, крайне националистически настроенные силы, которые приходили тогда к власти и отчасти, в значительной степени пришли к власти, они просто впрямую начали угрожать людям. И русским людям, и русскоязычным людям, проживающим на Украине вообще и в Крыму в частности, потому что там концентрация русских и русскоговорящих больше, чем во всех других частях Украины.

        Что мы сделали? Мы не воевали, не оккупировали никого, нигде не стреляли, ни один человек не погиб в результате событий в Крыму. Ни один! Мы использовали Вооружённые Силы только для того, чтобы сдержать находившихся там двадцать с лишним тысяч военнослужащих Украины от вмешательства в свободное волеизъявление людей, проживающих там. Люди пришли на референдум и проголосовали. Они захотели быть в составе России.

        Вопрос: что такое демократия? Демократия ‒ это воля народа, люди захотели жить так, как они проголосовали. Для меня важна не территория и не границы, а судьбы людей.”

        Do you see a difference? Are yor knowledge of Russian adequate enough to understand that? Need some help?

        Also – are you opposed to democracy, cortez? You know – to the will of the people?

        Like

      2. Oh, that’s some progress already because in the last thread you skipped the “важна не территория и не границы, а судьбы людей” piece and pretended it was “creatively translated” by Bild (“not a word about people’s fortunes” you wrote).

        Also, your definition of “democracy” is very unusual. The mainstream definition of democracy includes freedom of speech, independent media, rule of law, respect for minority opinions and only then comes election by majority of voters.

        None of these exists in Putin’s Russia so your definition of democracy rather resembles the “people’s democracies” whose resemblance to actual democracy is as an electric chair resembles a chair.

        Like

      3. Oh, that’s some progress already because in the last thread you skipped the “важна не территория и не границы, а судьбы людей” piece and pretended it was “creatively translated” by Bild (“not a word about people’s fortunes” you wrote).

        Don’t lie, cortez – this is unbecoming. I stand on what I’ve said – turning “судьбы людей” into “people’s fortune” (among other things) IS “creative” mistranslation.

        The article cuts a lot of content while leaving only this one phrase put of the context. It’s the equivalent of the creative edition of the phrase: “Only fanatical Neo-Nazis or the people who don’t know the history would claim, that Hitler’s actions were good” leaving only “Hitler’s actions were good”, followed by the obligatory screeching and finger-pointing.

        Also, your definition of “democracy” is very unusual. The mainstream definition of democracy includes freedom of speech, independent media, rule of law, respect for minority opinions and only then comes election by majority of voters.

        None of these exists in Putin’s Russia so your definition of democracy rather resembles the “people’s democracies” whose resemblance to actual democracy is as an electric chair resembles a chair.

        And what is this “mainstream definition of democracy”? Who decided what definition of democracy is the only “correct one”? There are (and were… and will be) many forms of democracy. Athenian slave-owning democracy. The tribal democracy of the ancient Germans and other barbarians of the later Roman and early Medieval period. Communis, cortez, is also a form of democracy.

        What you have listed here – such sweet-sweet things like “freedom of speech, independent media, rule of law, respect for minority opinions” – are just superficial secondary attributes of one particular type of democracy – the so-called “Western Liberal Democracy”. It’s not Culturally or racially superior to any other forms. In fact, given that you, cortez, put the right of the people to decide things via voting is rather telling.

        Tell me, cortez – what action did Putin implement against the will of the majority of Russian citizens?

        Like

      4. Yeah, ‘democracy’ is usually defined as ‘rule by the people’. Should the people want to tell someone to shut up, shutting him up would be perfectly democratic. In fact, the role of various constitutional protections is precisely to limit democracy, often derided, by the ruling elites, as “tyranny of the majority”, “the mob rule”.

        What they are usually talking about is called “liberal democracy”. That thing has now evolved into something almost completely opposite of ‘democracy’, namely the rule of entrenched technocratic elites, who know better.

        Like

      5. If the democratic majority is going to make optimal voting decisions, they need to be well informed about both successes and wrongdoings of the current authorities. This is why you can’t have a democracy without freedom of speech (and especially freedom of press) by the very definition of democracy, not by any “liberal ideology”. If freedom of speech is restricted, the ruling party can continuously hide its failures, theft or abuse, invent non-existent threats and otherwise influence the preferences of the voters. This is why what is going in Russia since early 2000’s (takeover of NTV etc) has nothing to do with democracy. Hundreds of volunteers rushing to Donbass to fight with imaginative fascists crucifying imaginative 3-years old boys and organising imaginative pogroms of Russian-speaking population, all existing purely in Russian TV narratives, can be called anything but democracy.

        Like

      6. “If freedom of speech is restricted, the ruling party can continuously hide its failures, theft or abuse, invent non-existent threats and otherwise influence the preferences of the voters.”

        And when “freedom of speech” is not restricted, then oligarchs, foreign and domestic – who, of course own the media – brainwash the masses into supporting their – oligarchs – interests.

        The government at least has a stake in well-being and stability of its country. Oligarchs, especially foreign oligarchs loyal to foreign governments, often have the opposite interests.

        Like

      7. Oh yes, this one I cannot agree more – the authorities are definitely very interested in THEIR well-being – just look at these mansions and watches of Shoigu, Yakunin, Peskov etc, honestly earned from their humble salaries. As for the freedom of speech – you seem to be able only to think in bipolar schemes: either government has monopoly in media, or the oligarchs (or Whites, or trotskyites, or Ukrops, or whoever is currently the evil one). The point of freedom of speech is that no one has monopoly and everyone is free to present their own arguments, thus countering any brainwashing. If you assume for a second that Russian authorities might at some time decide to brainwash Russians – who would counter it? How come people in Europe can freely watch Russia Today, Sputnik and Al Jazeera on public TV or Internet and in Russia all TV channels are controlled by the government?

        Like

      8. No, I think the real point of “freedom of speech” is that the rich have the monopoly.

        As for government controlling the media, if that concerns you, I think you’d do well turning your attention to the British government and its mega-media-conglomerat named BBC. I don’t believe anything the Russian government does is anywhere near that level of monopolizing…

        Like

      9. “If the democratic majority is going to make optimal voting decisions, they need to be well informed about both successes and wrongdoings of the current authorities. This is why you can’t have a democracy without freedom of speech (and especially freedom of press) by the very definition of democracy, not by any “liberal ideology”.”

        No – once again, you are trying to supplant a general definition of the term (Democracy) with the definition of one of its sub-types (Liberal Democracy). Was the Athenian Democracy – a Democracy, cortez? Them poor Ancient Greeks had to vote for their candidates without having BBC or CNN.

        “If freedom of speech is restricted, the ruling party can continuously hide its failures, theft or abuse, invent non-existent threats and otherwise influence the preferences of the voters. This is why what is going in Russia since early 2000’s (takeover of NTV etc) has nothing to do with democracy.”

        Hey, cortez – I have a much more better quote for you right here:

        “Why are you guys so anti-dictators? Imagine if America was a dictatorship. You could let 1% of the people have all the nation’s wealth. You could help your rich friends get richer by cutting their taxes. And bailing them out when they gamble and lose. You could ignore the needs of the poor for health care and education. Your media would appear free, but would secretly be controlled by one person and his family. You could wiretap phones. You could torture foreign prisoners. You could have rigged elections. You could lie about why you go to war. You could fill your prisons with one particular racial group, and no one would complain. You could use the media to scare the people into supporting policies that are against their interests.”
        – Sasha Baron Cohen, “Dictator” (2012).

        “Hundreds of volunteers rushing to Donbass to fight with imaginative fascists crucifying imaginative 3-years old boys and organising imaginative pogroms of Russian-speaking population, all existing purely in Russian TV narratives, can be called anything but democracy.”

        But, of course, cortez! Because, as everybody knows it ™, there are no fascists in Ukraine and no one is pogroming Russians

        Like

  9. “what kind of “decentralization” it is that Putin actually opposes”

    Well, he’s a professional politician, not public intellectual. A good measure of inconsistency, hypocrisy even, is in the job description, it comes with the territory.

    As a politician he seems to be doing well, judging by the favorable sentiment of the domestic public, and hysterical reaction of the geopolitical opponents. There is, imo, absolutely no reason to also perceive and judge him as an intellectual (‘sage’ as lurkmore would call it), other than as a joke.

    Liked by 1 person

  10. As a matter of fact, assuming that Putins favored political position on the “centralization-decentralization” slide is “more centralized then current Russia, but less centralized then current Ukraine” (and that is probably an accurate description, given that Ukraine even refuses “some cultural autonomy”), him moving towards more centralization in Russia, and going for less centralization in Ukraine are not contradictory.

    Like

  11. Political talk-show “Duel” hosted by V. Solovyov

    Topic – Putin’s comments on Lenin and Lenin as historical figure. Timeless leader of the LDPR Vladimir Volfovich Zhirinovskiy (quite typically for himself) totally supports Putin’s words about Lenin and then turns them up to 11 in his attacks on the Soviet government.

    His opponent, journalist, writer and publicist Alexander Prokhanov OTOH defends Lenin and his legacy.

    P.S. We are told repeatedly that KPRF is a party of “babushkas, rabid Stalinists and Soviet-wankers”, which is actually not a real opposition and that their numbers are dwindling rapidly. We are also told about Kremlin’s complete control over nearly all Russian Media and about “zombification” of the population, so that it would support Putin’s party line 100%

    Then how can you explain the results of this duel?

    Like

      1. Yeah? I clicked some link and it said Zhirik won, with 60-something percent. It said Zhirik has never lost (which I find easy to believe), and for Prokhanov this is his first defeat.

        Like

      2. “Yeah? I clicked some link and it said Zhirik won, with 60-something percent. It said Zhirik has never lost (which I find easy to believe), and for Prokhanov this is his first defeat.”

        [blink-blink]

        wat?

        Actually, Zhirinovkiy did lost several debates in the past – not many, but on very important issues. It’s one thing when Zhirik is verbally annihilated so-called liberals – there the audience sympathies are clearly on his side no matter what outrageous things he says or how buffonish he behaves. But if he is pitte against some heavyweight like Prokhanov – his ass is grass.

        For comparison, here are 2 “Vanilla Duels” with Zhirinovski participating (with eng subs):

        1) Zhirinovsky vs Raihelgauz. On Gorbachev, august putch and the dissolution of the USSR. Raihelgauz – a typicall old-school memebr of the soviet artistic intilligentsia, i.e. rabid anti-Sovietists and pro-liberal. Original air date – 30/05/2013.

        2) Zhirinovsky vs Bortko. On the October Revolution of 1917. Bortko – famous Soviet and Russian film director (Bulgakov’s the “Dog’s Heart” adaptation is his), member of the KPRF. Original air date – 08/11/2012.

        Guess which one Zhirik lost.

        Like

  12. A paper on the far left in Germany, Junge Welt, also commented on this debate with the following take here:
    https://www.jungewelt.de/2016/01-30/032.php

    Short summary in English:

    Putin is actually, in his criticism of Lenins nationality politics, echoing Rosa Luxemburg who, when writing on that topic, wrote:
    “While Lenin and his comrades apperantly expected that, as fighters for national freedom, they would gain Finland, Ukraine, Poland, the Balts as allies we now see the opposite act, one after the other of this new nations uses its newfound freedom to join the Germans and become a mortal enemy of the Russian revolution.” (on the Russian revolution)

    The author then goes into some detail, arguing that the Bolsheviks didnt have a lot of other options due to their weakness during the revolution, and that they frankly had a choice between losing Poland quickly or losing Poland after a futile expenditure of resource trying to keep it. He also calls Putin also accuses Putin of some hypocracy because his erstwhile Mentor Yeltsin was responsible for blowing up the Soviet Union in the first place, but still admits that Putins has a pretty nuanced view on the topic overall, and has a better grasp on the reality of Soviet history then Zjuganov, who is compared to Putin unfavorably.

    Like

    1. Lenin and Rosa fought many hard duels against each other in the years leading up to the October Revolution.
      Rosa had a negative attitude towards ethnic self-determination, seeing it as not much different from nationalism itself.
      What she said about Finland, Ukraine and Balts – sounds like she had a point!

      Like

  13. This reply is for the commenter who calls himself cortes:

    Hundreds of volunteers rushing to Donbass to fight with imaginative fascists crucifying imaginative 3-years old boys

    Cortes, you are just repeating the standard meme that the crucifixion story was a fake.
    People on your side of the aisle think that if they just keep mocking and deriding the “so-called” death by crucifixion of a child in Slavyansk, at the hands of the Ukrainian army and neo-Nazi brigades, then everybody will assume that the story has been properly fact-checked and debunked.

    But in fact the story has NOT been either fact-checked or debunked, and the probability of it being true is actually greater than the probability that it was made up.
    Unless you also consider the Odessa massacre to be “imaginary”.

    A claim was made by an eye-witness, that she witnessed Ukrainian soldiers, led by Colonel Heletei, punish a family (in which the father was a Rebel) by nailing the toddler to a poster sign and then murdering the mom as well.

    It sounds on the surface like outlandish bullshit, but the fact remains: This was reported by an eye-witness, whose credibility was later partially affirmed. This was not an anonymous witness. The witness gave her actual name (=Galina Pyshnyak). She turned out to be exactly who she said she was, her biography checked out. She was an ethnic Ukrainian who married an ethnic Russian Ukrainian, the family became rebel supporters in the Slavyansk area. Galina was present on the day when Ukrainian soldiers re-took Slavyansk from the rebels.

    In any normal judicial system, an accusation like this, made by a reliable witness, would bear some weight, or at least be investigated.
    It’s not enough for the other side to continue to repeat the words “fake” as if Galina’s story had actually been debunked.

    Now I personally don’t know if Galina was telling the truth or not. But don’t you think this would warrant some inquiry?
    Do you personally, Cortes, have some facts at your disposal to debunk Galina’s story and prove that she lied about it?
    If so, then please share them. Otherwise please shut up and stop calling these Ukrainian fascists “imaginative”.

    Like

  14. @Mao Yes, “media conglomerate”, BBC… and still in UK you can view Russia Today and Al Jazeera on public, free TV channels. In Russia you cannot. And Lyttenburg finds that right and just because he doesn’t watch anything but Rossiya 1 (and maybe ANNA News, when he prefers an alternative view). And just in case he felt tempted (we’re only humans) he prefers that government actively blocks access to websites that could contaminate his mind – such as Grani.ru.

    @Lyttenburg Yes, I know “alternative” definitions of widespread concepts are now popular in Russia. I have recently read one of the Eurasians proposing a new “conservative science”. Sounds exciting and very scientific indeed.

    Like

    1. “And Lyttenburg finds that right and just because he doesn’t watch anything but Rossiya 1 (and maybe ANNA News, when he prefers an alternative view). And just in case he felt tempted (we’re only humans) he prefers that government actively blocks access to websites that could contaminate his mind – such as Grani.ru.”

      User cortez, how do you know what I watch? Are you spying on my day and night? Or did you hire a PI to do that? How do you know?

      I didn’t make any baseless (whatever likely) assumptions about you. I didn’t claim that you worship Ekho Mosckvy, Meduza, RBK, DO\\\D’ and Novaya Gazeta. How do you know what I watch?

      And, for the record, the only TV channel that I watch is indeed a State Channel. Kremlin controlled. It’s Kultura channel. Yesterday’s Vienesse concert was actually a form of totalitarian propaganda 😉

      Like

      1. Cortes is a mind-reader with psychic abilities.
        He knows what TV channels Lyttenburgh watches, and he also knows that Galina Pyshnyak was lying about what happened in Slavyansk.
        All without the assistance of webcams or lie detectors.

        Like

      2. @Lyttenburg, I’m no mind-reader. I just could have a friend in police who could check your phone calls or Internet browsing habits for a beer. Or a small fee. Russia has its advantages, some things are simpler, just like in Mexico or Columbia. But I still prefer to live in Europe, and I’m not really worried about all the warnings about being flooded by gays, immigrants and general collapse as presented by Russian media. What is even more interesting, majority of rich Russians – including Putin himself – aren’t really scared about these stories either and prefer to keep their savings and families in Europe as well. The понятия are good at home, but in long term the European rule of law has its advantages too.

        @yalensis Galina said that hundreds of people have seen the crucifixation. So there should be hundreds of witnesses speaking to every single TV in the world, showing thousands of photos and movies from the crucifixation, the boy’s body etc. But there are none. No photos, no bodies, no witnesses. Just Galina’s single oral statement for Russian TV.

        “Now I personally don’t know if Galina was telling the truth or not. But don’t you think this would warrant some inquiry?”

        I do believe. And there was plenty of inquiries – which is both amazing and annoying that dozens of people spent hundreds of hours to investigate one bullshit invented by some bored teenager from Olgino factory by a morning coffee. But there are plenty of people witnessing in all world media that the liberation of Slavyansk was actually peaceful and welcomed by the civilians. One Russian journalist wrote that while he was standing in the middle of the central square in Slavyansk he was listening to Russian radio which was just reporting about “atrocities and mass shootings” allegedly happening on the very square where he was standing with other journalists…

        Like

      3. “I’m no mind-reader. I just could have a friend in police who could check your phone calls or Internet browsing habits for a beer. Or a small fee. “

        Just a moment here, cortes. You claimed – simply stated in fact – that I, userperson Lyttenburgh, “doesn’t watch anything but Rossiya 1…”. I take it that you indeed have frined in police, who checked my phone calls and my net-history – right? Othervise you wouldn’t be claiming anything about me in such a categorical tone, would you? And that you have done all this – bribed some unknown but very capable cop – while living in the blessed Europe – right? Othervise – why would you claim that?

        That’s what you are claiming, cortes? You bribed Russian official to spy on my phone calls and internet history, and, based on this data, deducaed that I watch Rossiya 1 and (on a rare occasion) Grani?

        Or are you talking out of your ass, cortez, and everything you’ve written just now was a lame attemtp to move goalposts from your screw up to a traditional “whataboutism” targeting “lawless Russia”?

        It’s good that you decided to mention “понятия”, cortes. Guess you are well versed in them. So I ask you, cortez, – “пиздаболу в рот нассым”?

        Like

  15. To Cortes:
    Very interesting that you post the Feldman video as any kind of “proof” that the murder of the mother and child in Slavyansk never happened. I have watched this video many times, and this reaction of the townspeople was one of the things that convinced me that Pyshnyak was probably telling the truth. Just because of their body language and the number of people who cover their faces and refuse to talk to Feldman.

    The journalist Feldman is interviewing some distressed and traumatized people in the town square of Slavyansk, after the Ukrainian army and neo-Nazi militias have “liberated” them from the rebels. Feldman has his point of view. He wants to prove to the world that Pyshnyak was lying, and so he approaches these people for confirmation that the incident in question never actually happened. His attempt is on the same level as, say, an apologist of some bloody dictatorship visiting political prisoners rotting in jails and reporting back that they “are being treated well”. This stinks in other words, and yet inadvertently Feldman taps into some authenticity.

    I draw your attention to the woman at 1:32 minutes in. “Can I speak with you?” She shakes her head and covers her face.

    2:00 minutes in – watch the older lady on the right of the screen. The one with a scarf on her head. When Feldman asks about the alleged murder of the mother and child, this woman’s face turns down into the classic expression of deep sadness. Combined with nervousness. She doesn’t really know what to say or do. But she follows the lead of the other ladies, including the chatty one, who “refutes” the story. But check out the one in the yellow blouse. This woman turns her head away, and it’s like she doesn’t want to have anything to do with this farce.

    3:07 minutes in: “Can I ask you….” They gesture, No, go away.
    The woman on the right even covers her face with a cushion. As if she just wants to blot herself out from this world.

    4:09 minutes in: Woman in blue blouse gives the most information about the entrance of the Ukrainian army into the town. The woman to her left covers her face with her hands. Blue blouse’s companion has the stricken look of trauma on her face. And by the way, Blue Blouse almost inadvertently confirms a key moment of Galina Pyshnyak’s story. When she mentions that the Ukrainian soldiers “gathered” several people into the town square. And made them check their bags. She goes on and on, this chatty Cathy, and accidentally burbles out some interesting facts, like Colonel Heletei’s presence in the town square on that day.

    7:02 minutes in — as she gets chattier and chattier and reveals more and more details (like the policemen who had been rounded up and had their hands tied behind their backs), a man in a striped shirt comes to sit next to her. Camera pans over to look at his face.

    7:12 minutes in – the man turns and looks directly at the camera. There is possibly some menace in that look. Who is he? A minder, possibly? Or just a regular guy? He looks prime army age.

    8:15 minutes in – the woman in the colorful dress praises the “Angel-LIberators” of the Ukrainian army. The women sitting to her left maintain stony faces.

    8:42 minutes in – the motley woman who praised the “angel-liberators” lets slip the fact that bodies were found in a nearby lake.

    In conclusion, do you honestly believe that these frightened and traumatized people, most of whom hide their faces, are actual credible witnesses to the fact that the atrocity claimed by Pyshnyak, did NOT and could NOT have happened?

    Compare their testimony to Galina’s herself. In her own interviews with Russian TV, made after she ESCAPED from the Ukraine, Galina speaks calmly and rationally, only rarely showing glimpses of emotion. Galina is either telling the truth, or she is an Oscar-calibre liar.

    Whereas the testimony of the Slavyansk residents, perhaps I should call them “hostages”, made under the spotlights of army “minders” and for the benefit of a pro-Ukrainian journalist, is highly suspect, to say the least, and should be treated with suspicion, as the kind of testimony given under duress.

    Like

    1. @Lyttenburg I must have touched a nerve, haven’t I – you don’t really feel safe living in Russia apparently. Rest assured that I have never did any surveillance on you nor I would ever do for the sake of Internet discussion. Determining your viewing habits was simple deduction: if you support Putin’s government, you must support the centralisation and government control over media, Internet censorship and the “extremism” laws. This doesn’t really leave many alternatives for the choice of programs you could be watching, if you’re really a patriot. As for the illegal surveillance bit I was inspired by this story. By the way, what do you think about your future prime minister?

      Like

      1. @yalensis If – as Galina said – hundreds of people witnessed the murder, where are they? Where are the photos and movies? Because even Russian journos weren’t able to find any. Not a single one, except for Galina. But I’m not really surprised – in-depth investigations aren’t really their modus operandi. They just prefer to find a really scary gossip, pitch it and escalate as much as possible, and then move on to another one. Such as the 13 years old raped Lisa story, also proven to be a fake and cynically pitched by Russian media.

        Like

      2. So you are admitting to lie and/or employing faulty logic. You have never entertained a thought that I might not watch the TV or read any news online.

        Excellent.

        It seems, that instead of analyzing facts, cortes, you just employ strawmanning. You apparently don’t care what I say – you already know all the answers. What if I tell you that no, I feel safe living in Russia nowadays, compared to the uber-democratic 90s, heavy with the sweet smell of FreeDoom.

        I seems impossible for your brain to imagine, that people could support their government and be truly patriotic without subscribing to their policiy 100%. Or, what, should any given government pass a law with which you don’t agree, then that’s a reason to stage a Maidan?

        How would you, cortes, like to be on the receiving end of your impeccable logic? Should we assume that you, in your disgust to Russia and Russian government, watch exclusively Russophobic and extremist Media – like KavkazCenter? Or maybe you were one of those few subscribers to the radio VoiceOfChaliphate (my condelences, in that case)?

        You are calling Ramzan Akhmadovich Kadyrov a “future prime minister” of Russia. But you are lying – again. You have absolutely no proof and instead you post edgy, rantish and pathetic things hoping for some sort of reaction. And you’ve been doing this since you began commenting here, cortes. No improvement, no even a judicial application of imagination on your part.

        Like

      3. if you support Putin’s government, you must support the centralisation and government control over media, Internet censorship and the “extremism” laws.

        I have a better “logical deduction”, namely:
        If one talks like a douche, then one must be a douche.

        You don’t even know what you’re talking about, cortes. You have no clue about the nuances of people’s political philosophies. As a matter of fact, Lyttenburgh just wrote a post for my blog (which will probably go up tomorrow), in which he is critical of Vladimir Putin.

        And even if he WERE a committed Putin supporter, it would NOT necessarily follow that he supports government censorship. That’s a “logical deduction” which you simply made up. Go back and read Aristotle. People with low IQ’s are not allowed to invent their own rules of logic!

        Like

    2. @yalensis And you quasi-psychological analysis of people’s reaction in the movie – all that has one very single explanation. These people just went through a war. First, they heard that nazis took over Ukraine and Russia is coming to liberate them. Then, the Girkin’s “liberators” came who were more like regular gangsters with their трофейный approach. Then the new Ukrainian army came which has to yet earn people’s trust and, even worse, you can’t be sure that Girkin’s ogres won’t return any time soon. These people are just scared and don’t trust anyone, so no wonder they don’t want to talk publicly. Rybak did talk, so Girkin killed him – everyone remembers this lesson in Donbass.

      Like

      1. This is nonsense, what you’re saying. Girkin came to Slavyansk, organized resistance to the authorities and regular military forces, and held the city for months. I saw videos with old ladies blocking roads, taking military vehicles and handing them to the rebels.

        And now suppose Girkin would go to a city in Galicia instead. A place where locals turn their back as soon as they hear you speaking Russian. How long would he be able to defend that city? About 10 minutes, I presume?

        Do you see the point? The east rejected the putsch in Kiev. Whether it was Girkin or Schmirkin who organized the resistance is a very minor detail. Without Girkin someone else would.

        Is this so difficult to comprehend?

        Like

      2. Please check your calendar Mao, because your memory does not serve you well. Initially the only resistance in Donbass were marches and people protesting on the streets. Most importantly, NO ONE WAS KILLED on either side. No one was killed even when SBU pushed protesters out of administration buildings on 7 April, on 11 April Yatsenyuk was visiting Donetsk and there were BOTH pro-Russian and pro-Ukrainian marches in all these cities! Then on 12 April Girkin’s group crossed the border, took over administration building and started to kill anyone who protested, beginning from Rybak. This is precisely when any pro-Ukrainian protests stopped (guess why) and the actual war started.

        Like

      3. I don’t know who killed that Rybak guy and his driver, and neither do you. Could have been his (or his drivers’) lover’s jealous husband for all we know.

        In any case, taking, for the sake of argument, your story as a given: if the intensity of the confrontation is such that one murder starts a civil war, then civil war it’ll be. At this point a civil war is unavoidable, because murders happen every day.

        Like

      4. You are changing your story, cortes. First you cited StopFake as the source of truth that Galina Pyshnyak is lying. But StopFake didn’t prove that Galina lied. They showed a movie featuring scared mostly elderly people, some of whom cover their faces and don’t want to talk to a man who asks them bluntly: “Did you see a child being crucified in the town square?” And some of whom answer eagerly about how great it was to be liberated by the angelic Ukrainian army and Right Sektor, while a watchful minder looks on intently.

        Put the shoe on the other foot: Walk into a town in North Korea and asked the people in the town square how they feel about their President, and whether it is true that he had people executed.

        Also, don’t forget that StopFake’s main argument goes something like, “If the Ukrainian soldiers had murdered a child, then somebody would have captured this act on their cell phones.” And yes, Blue Blouse gives the game away when in her chattiness she inadvertently discloses that Ukrainian authorities, when gathering the “grateful liberated” people into the square (possibly to witness an act of retribution or some other atrocity), forced them to check their bags first.

        Also factor in, that Right Sektor and official Ukrainian government, along with their army, regard Stepan Bandera as a hero. And that Bandera’s people, during Volhynia Massacre, were known to perform acts such as nailing (Polish) babies to walls.

        Later factor is worth maybe not so much, just a few percentage points. It would be unfair to accuse modern “Banderites” of the type of cruelty performed by their hero in the past. I just think it merits a mention. Because people do sometimes attempt to emulate their heros. Well, it’s just another brick in the construction of a narrative which I think is more likely than unlikely. Especially given Pyshnyak’s testimony.

        You still have not proved that she lied.

        Like

  16. Here’s a discussion on tvc: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3foE3gATsw0

    Note that all segments (far as I can tell) – communists, patriots (sovereignists), liberals, and others (I don’t know who to characterize Mr. Veller – anti-government populist?) – are all allowed to speak, no one is ridiculed. Show me a communist on any mainstream US show. If this indicates the absence of “freedom of speech”, please, I want more of it.

    Like

    1. Mikhail Iosifovich Veller (מיכאל א ולר) is UkrSSR born Russian writer with double (+Estonian) citizenship. During the totalitarin reign of the KPSS and KGB in This Country, Veller successfully simulated madness, to get one year off in his Institute (he got that – and became closely acquainted with the Soviet psychaiatry).

      – He is famous to be absolutely hypocritical liar. He supports “Lukashenko model”, hates (on public) Gaidar and his reforms while praising the Soviet Union. Meanwhile in his country of residence he is strangely silent about this – maybe has something to do that in Estonia communism is offically viewed to be worse than the Nazism.

      – He is a friend of Yekaterinbugh’s mayor Roizman. Also Veller became infamous in the liberast circles for writing a book “Seryozha Dovlatov’s knife”, where he dares to diss this famous anti-Sovietist.

      – He forced the meme “бабы новых нарожают” (“women gonna birth more of them”) which he attributed (falsely) to G. Zhukov.

      – In august 2012 he predicted the collapse of the “regime” in Russia… in 2014.

      Like

      1. “To me he sounds like an old crank” – that’s basically what he is. He’s a popular novelist and satirist, who likes to spout off in public. I don’t know how good his work is from a literary standpoint, but he sells a lot of books.

        By the way, I think he hasn’t lived in Estonia for many years now. He supposedly relocated permanently to Moscow some time in the last decade.

        Like

  17. @Yalensis

    “As a matter of fact, Lyttenburgh just wrote a post for my blog”

    Oh, so Lyttenburg must be the one on the left, right?

    “And that Bandera’s people, during Volhynia Massacre, were known to perform acts such as nailing (Polish) babies to walls.”

    One sentence, two proofs of ignorance. First, during Volhynia massacres (1943) Bandera was in German concentration camp (1941-1944). Second, the photo of Polish children hanged (not nailed) on a tree (not wall) is from 1923 and has nothing do to with Ukraine. The massacres were initiated by Dmitro Klychkiwski and caused significant conflicts even inside UPA. Bandera was responsible for numerous murders of Polish-Ukrainian unionists in early 30’s so he was a bastard anyway, but there’s no evidence for his inolvement in Volhynia.

    Like

    1. Dear cortes:
      Putting aside your feeble attempt to whitewash Bandera and absolve him of the Volhynia massacres (which were carried out by his followers in UPA):
      My main point was that Bandera and his people had proved that they were fully capable of murdering children in heinous ways.
      Ordinary people are not capable of such acts, but the Banderites were and are.
      And not just murdering, but slicing and dicing them, and hammering axes into them and nailing them to various objects.

      This is an important, if small, corroboration of Pyshnyak’s “child crucifixion” story. In that it answers those sceptics who claim, that the very notion of nailing a child to something is so beyond the pale, that the possibility of such an atrocity occuring, is ridiculous by definition and deserves only mockery as a valid response.

      Confession of Nadezhda Timofeena Vdovichenko, this link has been published on many historical sites:

      “I, the undersigned, Nadezhda Timofeevna Vdovichenko, native of Volhynia… I beg you to grant me and my family forgiveness posthumously, because as you read this I will be no more (I trust my best friend with the mission to deliver my testimony).

      We were five siblings in the family—all of us ardent Banderites: my brother Stepan, myself, my sisters Anna, Olya and Nina. We all joined Bandera. In the daytime we rested in our huts; during the night we would drive or walk to neighbouring villages. We were given an assignment to strangle anyone who was harbouring runaway captured Russians, as well as those Russians. But it was a man’s task. We girls just sorted the clothes and household goods, took care of the livestock of those killed—slaughtered the animals, skinned and butchered them, cooked, salted, packed them… Once during a single night in the village of Romanovo, they strangled eighty-four human beings. Well, they strangled the adults and elderly, but children—we would simply pick them up by their legs, swing them against the wall—and finished, time to go. We felt very sorry for our men—they were so overworked with such a hard task, the daytime was barely enough for them to regain their strength and resume the killings the next night. There were those who tried to hide. If we did not find any men we would start with the women.

      In the village of Verkhovka, the wife of Tilimon Kovalchuk refused to tell us where he was hiding. She did not even want to open the door to us but we threatened her and she had to let us in. We told her: “We just need to chat with your husband, we are not going to harm you.” She said that he was hiding in a haystack. We dragged him out and beat him up until he expired. They had two children, very nice kids—Stepan and Olya were their names, twelve and fourteen years old…. The young girl, we just tore her in half. It spared us the effort of killing her mother—she died of a heart attack on the spot. We took strong healthy guys in our ranks—strangling is no easy task. Two brothers Levchuki from the village of Verkhovka, Nicolay and Stepan, refused to strangle people, ran away and returned home. We condemned them to capital punishment. When we came to their house to pick them up for execution, their father said, “If you are taking my sons, take me too.” Kalyna, his wife, stepped forward and said, “If you are taking my husband, take me too.” We took an entire family; led them away. On the way Nicolay’s sister, Nadya, pleaded with us to let him go. Nicolay answered her, “Don’t plead, Nadya, don’t humiliate yourself, Bandera never showed mercy to anyone.” We killed Nicolay, his father, mother, Nadya. We kept Stepan alive, and took him along; he was imprisoned for two weeks—it was winter time—in an unheated barn, with no clothes other than underwear, severely beaten daily with iron ramrods; we wanted him to tell us where the other members of the family were hiding. But he was strong-willed, he did not betray them. The last evening, after we beat him yet again, he asked to go to the outhouse. The guard took him, but there was a huge blizzard; the outhouse was made from straw, Stepan broke through the straw and escaped from our clutches. All the information was given to us by Verkhovka locals: Petro Rimarchuk, Zhabsky, Puch.

      …We were informed that in the village of Novoselki, Rivne oblast, there was a girl who had joined the Komsomol. Motrya was her name. We took her to Verkhovka. The old man Zhabsky pulled the heart out of the still living girl, with a stopwatch in his other hand—to measure how long the heart would keep beating in his hand. Later, after the Russians had come, his sons wanted to set up a monument to him, saying he had fought for Ukraine.

      There was a Jewish girl, with a little child—she had run away from the ghetto. We ambushed her in the forest, butchered her and buried her right there… One of our Banderite guys befriended some Polish girls. When the news got out, he was ordered to kill them. He obeyed the order by drowning them in a stream. Their mother came, crying, asking if anybody had seen her girls who had gone missing. I told her, “No, not really. But let’s go look for them together.” I took her to the same place where her daughters had been drowned and pushed her into the stream as well. We were given orders to kill all Jews, all Poles, all Russians, any runaway prisoners of war and those who aided them. Kill them all—without mercy. We went after the Severin family, strangled them all. But their daughter was away—married, she was living in another village. She soon returned and, wailing over her dead parents, she proceeded to unearth the valuables her family had hidden underground. The Banderites came, took away the unearthed goods, put her in the same box she had just dug out and buried her alive in it. She left two small children at home. If she would have taken them along, the children would have ended up in the same box. There was someone in our village named Kublyuk. He was sent [by the Soviet authorities -ed.] to the town of Kotov, in Kivertsy district, to work. He had not completed his first week in the new job when his head was chopped off. The guy next door, Vasily, very much in love with Koublyuk’s daughter Sonya, protected her. He was given the order from the Banderites to kill her, or else… Vasily said to Sonya, “I am going to the forest to chop some wood. Come with me.” She did. He brought her back dead. His explanation was that she was killed by a falling tree.

      There was a very ancient man in our village, named Timofey Oytsyus. People honoured him as God’s prophet, for he was never wrong in his predictions. When the Germans arrived, the fame of this clairvoyant reached even them. They would visit him respectfully, asking him to prophesy about their future. He replied, “I don’t dare to find out because what if it is bad—are you going to kill me?” Via the translator, the Germans promised that no harm would be done to him whatever he might say. Then the old man meditated and told them, “You will reach Moscow very quickly, but you will run from Moscow even quicker.” The Germans kept their world and let him be. But when the old man told the Banderites that their slaughter of innocent Ukrainians would not bring them victory they savagely beat him until he passed away.

      Now I want to talk about my family. My brother Stepan was an ardent follower of Bandera, but I did not lag behind and fought for the Banderites even though I was married. When the Russians came, they started arresting people, sending them into exile. Our family was proscribed too. My sister Olya made a deal with the Soviets before the departure, agreeing to cooperate with them. The Soviets let her go but the same night the Banderites came and strangled her. My father, mother and sister, Nina, ended up in Russia. My parents were already old and weak, my sister, Nina, the only able-bodied member of the family, flatly refused to work “for Russians”. They even offered her a good clean secretarial job but she said that she would never hold anything Soviet—even a pen—in her hand. They were still trying to make her relent, saying “Okay, you don’t want to work—fine. We can let you go back home—but only if you agree to cooperate with us and bring the murderers to justice.” She signed the deal, without even thinking very hard (and without intending to abide by it). The moment she set foot back in her village, the Banderites were waiting for her. They called a secret meeting and at that meeting they condemned her to die, “to show everyone what awaits the traitors.” Until this day I do not know what they did to her.

      All my life I have carried a heavy burden in my heart—I trusted Bandera, I could have killed anybody who said one wrong word about the Banderites. Cursed people, may they be damned by God and by humankind for eternity! How many innocent lives did they destroy? And now they demand to be called “the defenders of Ukraine”? From whom they were “defending” Ukraine? From their own kin? Soulless bastards! How much blood is on their hands, how many did they bury alive? Even those who were back then sent into exile—they do not want to return to this accursed land of Bandera.

      I implore you, people, forgive my sins.”

      Like

  18. @Lyttenburg

    “I feel safe living in Russia nowadays”

    And this is why you’re posting your criticism of Putin anonymously on an a blog of a foreign citizen (also anonymous)?

    “that people could support their government and be truly patriotic”

    Yes, I can imagine you being truly patriotic even without elections.

    “without subscribing to their policiy 100%”

    But if you don’t subscribe to your government’s policy in 100% then what? Are you allowed to criticize it publicly? But that’s precisely what “true patriots” (maybe truer than you?) call 5th column.

    Or to avoid раскол общества you are allowed not to subscribe, but at least stay silent in such case? But that’s what Dugin in turn calls 6th column. Who is not with us, is against us, after all. And it has a very practical consequences – my friends who are teachers are forced to go marching on streets for Putin, or they lose their jobs (and I hear this is the same in most of the public sector).

    “any given government pass a law with which you don’t agree, then that’s a reason to stage a Maidan”

    Maidan wasn’t really about the EU law. They were protesting against all kind of lawless abuse, corruption, broken promises, inequality and economic collapse. Countless cases like Oksana Makar, covering brutal crimes of police and government officers, extertions, company raids and reket. They were sitting on Maidan since October 2013 before the EU law was dismissed by Yanukovych, breaking one promise too much.

    So I’m just wondering, what does a truly patriotic Russian do you do if you’re under constant opression, being exploited and abused for years?

    Like

  19. “And this is why you’re posting your criticism of Putin anonymously on an a blog of a foreign citizen (also anonymous)?”

    […]

    Sorry, but the only thing coming to my mind after such burst of perverse logic on your part, cortez (something tells me this is not your real name) is this:

    Lets start with one simple thing. I owe you (or anyone else) nothing. I can post my articles whenever I can and want under whatever nickname I like. A lot of people do this – even in the Free West. Surely, a longtime sausage émigré like you, cortez, should now that.

    Next – if you think that no one in Russia criticized Putin openly for saying what he said – then you are either uninformed ignoramus or (and we have seen previously all the evidence supporting that) a liar. I’m not even considering an option that you are delusional paranoid, honestly believing in what you post here – no one can be that deranged and still be allowed access to the net.

    “Yes, I can imagine you being truly patriotic even without elections.”

    I can imagine a lot of things about you. Doesn’t mean that I will post them here. Doesn’t even mean they might be true.

    Sorry, what were you trying to say? Or was it just another useless edgy passage?

    “But if you don’t subscribe to your government’s policy in 100% then what? Are you allowed to criticize it publicly? But that’s precisely what “true patriots” (maybe truer than you?) call 5th column.”

    If you can’t be happy for your country’s accomplishements and be happy when the people are happy, when all you say is just dissing your country, your people and your history, when you just copy-paste western butthurt Russophobic rants – then, yes – you are Fifth columnist, no matter whether you take money or not. Also, about “not allowing criticize publicly” – wake me up, when either fed up people or the government decides to hang “Ekho Moscvy” or Novaya Gazeta journos on the lampposts.

    “Or to avoid раскол общества you are allowed not to subscribe, but at least stay silent in such case? But that’s what Dugin in turn calls 6th column. Who is not with us, is against us, after all. And it has a very practical consequences – my friends who are teachers are forced to go marching on streets for Putin, or they lose their jobs (and I hear this is the same in most of the public sector).

    Never was forced to “march for Putin”. Neither my friends or relatives. My word against your’s. Also, looks like you are the only one who has his panties in a knot over Dugin.

    “Maidan wasn’t really about the EU law. They were protesting against all kind of lawless abuse, corruption, broken promises, inequality and economic collapse. Countless cases like Oksana Makar, covering brutal crimes of police and government officers, extertions, company raids and reket. They were sitting on Maidan since October 2013 before the EU law was dismissed by Yanukovych, breaking one promise too much.”

    And now, surely, they have PREVAILED over all of these injustices! Oh, wait…

    “So I’m just wondering, what does a truly patriotic Russian do you do if you’re under constant opression, being exploited and abused for years?”

    Good for me that I’m not under constant opression, being exploited and abused for years :). And because I’m a truly Patriotic Russian I think that I’m I no position to advise other nations how should conduct their internal policies. But, granted, Yanukovitch “regime” was hardly worse then the current one.

    And now, let me list all dirty tricks that you, userperson cortes, have employed so far:

    – Strawmanning
    – Slippery slope arguments.
    – Moving goalposts.
    – Riding on liberast bandwagon
    – Forcing black and white worldview
    – Using anecdotal cases as basis for wider extrapolation
    – Whataboutism
    – Mistaking what you really, really want to be true for the truth itself.
    – False analogies

    P.S. Oh, and btw – get your mouth ready, cortes. You proved yourself to be пиздабол after all.

    Like

    1. But wait, there’s a new twist!
      “Cortes” is actually “Kortezza” – see his comment on Paul’s latest post “Patriotism is enough” – timestamped.
      Feb. 4, 1:55 PM

      Like

      1. “Cortes” is actually “Kortezza”

        Oh, I see now! Well, given the fact that userperson cortes/Kortezza proved to be gender-(and e-mail)-fluid person, from now on I will use only gender neutral pronouns sothat not to trigger zhe.

        Like

  20. “if you think that no one in Russia criticized Putin openly for saying what he said”

    Yes, many did – incidentally, many of them are listed on the List of journalists killed in Russia. They were killed in your “scary 90’s”, they were killed during Putin’s round, they are being killed now. And government’s approach to those killing that were politically motivated suggests that either the government is very weak, or it’s covering them intentionally. Right now we’re watching the ridiculous investigation of Nemtsov murder where key witnesses cannot be questioned because they live in Chechnya, which declaratively is the most loyal republic in Russian Federation but at the same time openly ignores the federal laws on every occassion.

    “when you just copy-paste western butthurt Russophobic rants”

    People listed above did not “copy-paste”. They investigated government-related crimes, theft and abuse of law by high ranking government officials. This is precisely why I asked you why a “patriotic Russian” should do in such cases. From your response it looks like you chose “I don’t see any abuse and if I see I don’t talk about it”.

    Like

    1. Yes, many did – incidentally, many of them are listed on the List of journalists killed in Russia. They were killed in your “scary 90’s”, they were killed during Putin’s round, they are being killed now.

      Let me guess – every single one of them had been offed by Putin, right :)? There were investigations that proved, without any doubt, that? Can we now accuse the current head of any state of being responsible for the death of all journalists during his/her term?

      You are employing cheap tactic reeking of pathos – you are saying about journalists “killed now”. Are you honestly expecting anyone here to fall to that trick? When you have no proof or sources about something taking place right now you just appeal to emotion. How miserable!

      “And government’s approach to those killing that were politically motivated suggests that either the government is very weak, or it’s covering them intentionally. Right now we’re watching the ridiculous investigation of Nemtsov murder where key witnesses cannot be questioned because they live in Chechnya, which declaratively is the most loyal republic in Russian Federation but at the same time openly ignores the federal laws on every occassion.”

      [yawn]

      Everyone in the Internet is suddenly an expert who knows things better than officials. Also, everyone in the Internet does not believe in the venerable Western Value of the Presumption of Innocence, when the Russia is a target. Simply marvelous.

      Cortes, are zhou still a citizen of Russian Federation? Why you are frothing with indignation about the inner politics of a country where you don’t live anymore?

      Like

      1. Ruslan Geremeev was initially appointed a witness. But he was in Chechnya. Chechen police refused to interview him on the orders of Moscow police, breaking the Russian law for the first time. Then Geremeev became a suspect and Chechen police refused to arrest him, breaking the law for the second time. And nothing happened. Moscow police just retracted. If you call this “presumption of innocence” then you’re getting the concept fundamentally wrong. This is better called legal impotence. But it’s very selective, at the same time – in case of Sentsov or Savchenko the police comes up with contradictory, false and completely absurd “evidence” and court happily proceeds with these, sentencing them to 20 years in prison. In case of Vasilyeva on the other hand, she was proved a grand theft and convicted, but then did not spend even a day in prison. Again, if you call this “Western values” then you’re again getting this completely wrong.

        Like

      2. “an expert who knows things better than officials”

        You don’t need to be an expert. You can just listen to the officials and read the official documents. For example, look at case of Savchenko – on June 18 all DNR and LNR media started boasting about her capture in the ATO zone. On June 19 they posted a video of her interrogation in Donetsk. On July 9 the Investigative Committee announced she’s held in Voronezh, suspected in killing Russian journalists.

        A year has passed and Investigative Committee came up with a completely new version: she covertly crossed the border into Russia and prepared diversion acts in Voronezh, freely moving in Russia until 30 June (!) when she was arrested by local police.

        Like the DNR arrest, interrogation in Donetsk and the whole series of events after June 18 never happened. Do you really need an expert to see your beloved officials came up with utter nonsense?

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s