155
this post was submitted on 25 Dec 2023
155 points (100.0% liked)
Україна Ukraine
708 readers
1 users here now
Все про Україну Everything about Ukraine
founded 2 years ago
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That's the thing, how do you help people who are dead set against helping themselves? The only explanation I've been able to find out, both from personal experience and also written in texts that are many thousands of years old, is that you cannot.
The USA came within like an inch of becoming an outright ally of Russia, probably we would even have sent some weapons or something. Hell, that might still happen in as little as like a couple years. I've heard reports - with pictures, even videos - that in rural places widely scattered across the nation (south, midwest north, etc.) people are starting to see 3 flags put up in prominent places: one USA, one Confederate, and one Russian (might be Hungarian sometimes). That's right, some people hear about what Putin is doing and approve, while others don't believe that Ukraine is even being invaded at all.
Yeah, something similar someone told me (discussing MAGA heads): You can't convince someone they're in a cult if they're in a cult. Only two things reliably change someone's mind: time and death.
Fortunately there seems to be only ~11% of people on the extreme right side of the political divide, which is quite balanced against the ~11% on the extreme left end as well. That means then that there is ~88% of people somewhere in the middle... but bc of how our voting system works (it's electoral college, all the way down), they hardly matter.
Which is precisely the situation that occured in Nazi Germany as well, and their conquered nations, where the number of die-hards was quite small, but the enormous number of "collaborators" carried the day. As is happening now in Russia too.
The only thing required for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing (also in the Bible, Proverbs 24:11-12), but Russia definitely takes the situation to new heights when "doing nothing" means picking up a gun and shooting civilians in some nation other than your own (the normal phrases describing that sound more like "invasion" than "merely defending" yourself). I mean, at some point you move beyond mere "collaborator" into "active participant"... and it probably happened way before the physical picking up the gun, as in voting for Putin in the first place, even after he made his intentions quite clear with Crimea so long ago. Putin is not in charge so much as the entire country of Russia is backing him to do precisely what he has been doing?
Holly? Really? More than 1/5 (22%) of your country's population is considered extremist?
I did not mean do nothing; voting is key. I just meant there is no gain in fighting or focusing on these; either time will make them change, or they die with their conviction.
I get what you are saying, but that's exactly the reason we call it an autocracy (dictatorship) and not a democracy. There are many factors at play that make it nearly impossible for the population to have that kind of power. I understand that you can say they have a choice, but the choice then is between living a life or eventually dooming yourself and your family; the choice is not that hard for most, you don't even think about the bigger picture while making this choice. Sure, long term it will not get better, but the future has a weird place in these types of countries.
And the people who see through this and/or have the means will leave the country. Most of the time, it's the young and educated that leave, which leads to brain drain, resulting in even lower chances of real change happening because the people that stay are most likely not the ones starting a revolution.
Your beliefs are warranted and fair, but unfortunately, I think thats not the reality of the situation when we zoom in.
You can say the same thing about almost anything. I mean, if you take climate change, we all know it's going to be real bad for all of us and even worse for the generations that come after us. We even know what the main reasons for it are (fossil energy and reckless human activity). We've known this since at least the 1980s; the models predicted by scientists in the 80s are only a little off from our reality. And what did we do in all those years? We made it worse, much worse. But we all knew it was wrong. Depending on which scientist you ask, we are either at the start of the next big extinction event, or we are already in the middle of it.
I like your quote from the Bible, but I think there is a point of no return where even the best actions of the best people can do nothing to prevent the inevitable.
That's not quite what I said - I said they lie at the extreme ends of the spectrum. If there was a graph of people who like vanilla, chocolate, or a swirly mixture of both, the two "extreme" ends could be the pure vanilla on the one end and the pure chocolate on the other - i.e., "extreme" does not (always) imply a magnitude, only direction; whereas the word "extremist" does imply a very high magnitude.
That said however, many people in the USA do indicate that they would be okay to see violent overthrow and upheaval of the entire system of government. I do not know precisely how many, nor is there likely to be an accurate count b/c few may be willing to admit it in an official poll, unless it were anonymous and then people would abuse it (e.g. the same person could vote many times to inflate their particular viewpoint). It makes sense to me b/c:
At some point, it becomes a moral imperative to act, and violent overthrow becomes the correct action, IF the facts in question were accurate, e.g. to prevent an even greater harm to innocents.
But mostly my point was that the matters involved are quite complex - including some outright Sophie's choice material. If someone handed you a gun and told you to shoot a random stranger with it, and meanwhile they had people pointing guns at both your wife & child and said that they would kill both if you did not pull the trigger, would you do it? The trolly problem through and through: do you act against your conscience to murder someone you do not know, in order to potentially save some people that you are very close to? I say potentially b/c in the calm of this theoretical discussion we both can realize that it might be unlikely that any of your loved ones and/or you would be allowed to remain alive - why leave witnesses that could potentially come back to harm you in some way? So really you are likely dead no matter what you do... and yet, can you take that chance!? There may be a slim possibility of hope that this is some kind of "power demonstration" where they decide to let you live as an example to others that they can do as they please, and your story would strengthen their position by generating fear. On the other hand, they could just be having fun the whole time, your gun isn't even loaded, and when you pull the trigger they'll just laugh... and then kill your whole family anyway, and then you too.
This is EXTREMELY sick stuff to contemplate, and yet... Russia shows no sign of leaving the Ukraine anytime soon, i.e. they offer the latter populace no chance to avoid thinking along these lines, nor Russian troops either who are just as caught up in this as are the innocent victims of Russia's neighboring country, EXCEPT that the troops on the front-lines are not entirely as innocent as are the infants & children being raped & slaughtered in Ukraine. Some might even go so far as to argue that by remaining in Russia, propping up its economy and such - e.g. making the food that soldiers will eat, clothing that soldiers will wear etc. - that normal Russian civilians are all but actively participating in the slaughter of innocent Ukrainian ones? That is undoubtedly true, and yet does that mean that counter-attacks upon Russian civilian infrastructure should be allowed? The Bible does say that justice should be an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth... so wouldn't raping Russian 5-year-olds and razing entire cities to ashes be tit-for-tat? Or are there better ways of resolving conflicts, like at the very least Russia ceasing to actively conquer Ukraine, as well as beginning to make reparations to restore what was lost? But since that is not going to happen, what then will... or even should happen?
Anyway, how it relates to the USA (where I am from) is that one day very soon, we may have our second Civil War and face these issues inside of our own borders. In fact, that war has already started, though it is currently in its cold phase and has not yet erupted into a continuously blazing "hot" phase, except for the tragic (but blessedly brief) events on January 6, where one police officer was brutally crushed and others injured by the angry mob who were invited to storm the capital, after first being told to "prepare to fight like hell". The likelihood of the affairs in Ukraine and those in the USA being entirely unrelated seem about as likely as a prominent Russian official falling down a flight of stairs, and then shooting themselves in the back of the head, twice. And thus, they do not seem likely to merely go away with time, for at least as long as Putin remains alive, and likely much longer beyond that.
Yeah, I know what you meant, and you are right; extremist is the wrong word (English is not my main language, sorry). Still, almost 25% of the country is considered extreme by your own definition of the norm, which seems high, but of course, it depends on how these statistics were made and what questions were asked.
Oh no, don't misunderstand me; I am totally on your side, although not as well-read or versed as you are. I just want to say there is an increasing discrepancy between what we think the information and general situation, for example, the people in rural Russia where most people live, is like versus what it actually is. Change will come; it is inevitable, but it takes time and may cost many lives. You expect too much of the average folks who are not really connected or concerned about the "outside" world and rather are living in their own world, which may not adhere to your way of thinking.
Thank you for your explainations!
I don't know if I'm allowed to say this as a non-American, but how the heck did you end up in that situation? How do a large portion of you still vote and support the people who are actively dismantling the foundation of your country? (I'm not talking about the Biden admin; they are generally very well-received where I live, especially after Trump.) Yeah, I'm sure Russia and most likely other countries interfere with American politics, and/or some of your politicians are paid for by these outside actors, and it works like a charm. If I were Putin, I would try to interfere as much as I can and sow as much distrust and misinformation within the USA as possible
.
Absolutely I believe that, and similar in the USA too. If you've ever seen those pictures where they say like "find the predator", and you scan it for a LONG time even zoomed in but cannot find it, then you get a good understanding that death awaits prey at every moment, and that real predators do not announce themselves like dogs barking, but rather stalk silently until they make their move. For people that are not paying attention, a civil war in any country could spring up "unexpectedly" and seemingly at a moment's notice.
Then again, as you say, perhaps it's too much to expect of people to be wary all the time, and to act to prevent being eaten alive. Actually though, I don't expect that of the common man, but I do expect it of leaders. 1 Timothy 3:1-7. That said, "expectations" aside, the common man will be the ones suffering the most, from the decisions of those leaders. e.g., if a Russian rapes & kills a Ukrainian family, even though we know that the military commander encouraged him to do it and in fact would shoot him in the back if he did not do at least the latter act, and then lets say that another Ukrainian catches him in the act and does the same to him in return, who do we blame there? The Ukrainian for "murdering" the Russian? No b/c it was self-defense, on Ukrainian soil (though the latter fact would be called "contested" I am sure). The Russian soldier? That is the question but yes, how could we not, even if he was a simple farmer back home, a mere month prior and had never raped or killed anyone in his entire life...before that day anyway? The Russian commander certainly, though it's worth pointing out that he in turn has commanders behind him, and so on up the chain. And on and on up to Putin, who we are tempted to blame most of all and yet... Putin too has bosses. Those behind the scenes, and also the entire populace of Russia that promoted him to that position of authority, and continued electing him, over and over and over again, even after he kept invading Ukraine inch by inch (Crimea, the area west of Crimea, and then... this has been happening for a DECADE! and the Georgian pipeline stuff before that!) - and even knowing all of that, they continued to elect him. How are they not "responsible" then? Anyway, regardless, they will suffer from the results in any case - e.g. the sanctions impact the entire nation, guilty and entirely innocent alike. i.e., there are varying degrees of guilt, even if only by association, though the consequences will not be apportioned out according to guilt, but rather the poorest & least powerful will suffer the most and vice versa, as always.
And ofc the same is true of the USA as well, I do not mean to place blame one-sided there while not accepting any for my own. Similarly the UK has been known to be quite expansionistic too... plundering treasures from around the world, as too has pretty much every country that has ever existed for any length of time. It is not exclusively a "Russian" problem - it is a human one.
As for what can be done about it: if Russia were to elect someone other than Putin in the next election, then same as the USA that elected someone other than Donald Trump, it would undoubtedly change the course of each nation's future, as well as the future of the other impacted nations. Maybe (likely?) that is not possible, or maybe it is possible but will not be done, but I mention it as an option. I do not really know what could actually be done though - I merely enjoyed musing over the situation with you, as an exercise trying to think about the various issues involved.
As for how the USA got here... I have little idea about that, only that those outside agents seem to fund both sides of an area that is already contentious, thereby getting them to fight one another and therefore become less capable of working together against a common enemy from the outside. Also, to be clear, I do not even blame Russia for doing it (predators predate, it's just what they do, getting mad will not help one tiny bit): ofc it is strategic for them to do so, and we have been trying to do exactly the same to them and many other nations around the globe for decades now. What blows my mind is how easily it was done, especially on the side of the USA being receptive to it. I can only conclude that the obstruction of virtually all workings in the law-making (Congress) and judicial (Supreme Court) branches bodies of the government is serving the ends of the most powerful people not only in Russia, but inside the USA as well. Once upon a time, powerful corporations needed an educated populace in order to continue to exist, but with the advent of globalism and mechanization, that is no longer true.
Interesting. Thank you for your elaborations!
Hmm, I understand your reference, but how does it apply here? Can you explain? For those not expecting anything, most things are unexpected.
A civil war is likely not one of those things because if the majority of the population did not expect one and is therefore not involved, is it really a civil war (and not a putch?) I know it's a civil war in the sense of an inner conflict of power, but I mean the populace does not actually care who's winning because they are already too detached and not really invested in the conflict, as seen in some countries.
Brain drain is a real issue. Mostly "common" people are left, and the leaders now profit far more from the existing system and are more interested in preservation and personal gains than anything else. The few opposing "leading" people that are left got hit pretty hard; let's remember what happened with Navalny, the most notable of them. Also, I don't know why you think Russians actually have a choice in who they vote into office. At least in my understanding, they do not; I mean, it's a phantom choice. Russia is only on paper a democracy and a pretty bad one at that. They do not have real free elections, and you can definitely not compare it to the presidential election in the USA.
Again, I do not understand why you judge or have the same expectations of Russia as you would a Western democracy, but at the same time, acknowledging that they are definitely not. Since I am alive, I've known Russia as an autocracy/dictatorship with an oligarchy and Putin as an autocrat.
To whom do you think someone with a superior complex, all the money, and resources in the world answers? Sure, he's not alone; he has his accomplices and enablers, and Putin is not the root of the problem, but no one said that. No autocracy is working because there is one man who says, "I'm president now." It's working because of a complex structure that is there to support exactly one leader. If someone is behind the scenes and truly has more power than Putin, he/they would have replaced Putin a long time ago. As you said, real predators are not this stupid. I call it an autocracy supported by an oligarchy and definitely not a democracy (I mean the actual word definitions here, not what someone might connect with those words).
Yes, in a correct world, he will get arrested and put in front of a military court like it is happening sometimes in Ukraine. And yes, if a Ukrainian soldier executes a Russian because he caught him in the act of committing war crimes or for whatever reason, he should get arrested. Of course, I don't expect the judge to rule harshly in such circumstances, but yes, a war crime is a war crime, no matter how justified someone might think it is. But I know that's often not the reality.
That's maybe a stupid opinion of mine, but, for example, people in a free democracy are far more to blame if their elected leaders and their actions and intentions go sideways than the population of an autocracy. Because in the first, the leaders are an "extension" of the folk, and in the latter, the population is an "extension" of the leader. I don't know how to say it in English; I hope you understand what I mean.
Of course, I still expect them to do the right thing, but I fully understand that this is a losing battle as long as the leader can pacify the masses via whatever medium or can keep them distracted; they are safe. That's where sanctions (I know this is only one aspect of sanctions) come into play; you gradually chip away at what made the Russian oligarchy/autocracy so stable for a time. If it gets worse or even uncomfortable for the population and there is no real reason or they do not believe the reasons of the leaders why they are worse off, then you will see movement. This takes time but is our best shot to "wake up" the Russian population and make the situation harder to handle for the regime.
For example, if Putin gets "elected" in the next election, we laugh and sure, what else did you expect? If Americans elect Trump for the second time, we think, "WTF is wrong with you guys? Are you still sane?"
XD so basically, we go in the direction of cyberpunk, where corporations are more powerful than countries.