#russia ukraine history explained | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

mariacallous · 2 months ago

Text

When most Americans think of fascism, they picture a Hitlerian hellscape of dramatic action: police raids, violent coups, mass executions. Indeed, such was the savagery of Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, and Vichy France. But what many people don’t appreciate about tyranny is its “banality,” Timothy Snyder tells me. “We don’t imagine how a regime change is going to be at the dinner table. The regime change is going to be on the sidewalk. It’s going to be in your whole life.”

Snyder, a Yale history professor and leading scholar of Soviet Russia, was patching into Zoom from a hotel room in Kyiv, where the specter of authoritarianism looms large as Ukraine remains steeped in a yearslong military siege by Vladimir Putin. It was late at night and he was still winding down from, and gearing up for, a packed schedule—from launching an institution dedicated to the documentation of the war, to fundraising for robotic-demining development, to organizing a conference for a new Ukrainian history project. “I’ve had kind of a long day and a long week, and if this were going to be my sartorial first appearance in Vanity Fair, I would really want it to go otherwise,” he joked.

But the rest of our conversation was no laughing matter. It largely centered, to little surprise, on Donald Trump and how the former president has put America on a glide path to fascism. Too many commentators were late to realize this. Snyder, however, has been sounding the alarm since the dawn of Trumpism itself, invoking the cautionary tales of fascist history in his 2017 book, On Tyranny, and in The Road to Unfreedom the year after. It’s been six years since the latter, and Snyder is now out with a new book, On Freedom, a personal and philosophical attempt to flip the valence of America’s most lauded—and loaded—word. “We Americans tend to think that freedom is a matter of things being cleared away, and that capitalism does that work for us. It is a trap to believe in this,” he writes. “Freedom is not an absence but a presence, a life in which we choose multiple commitments and realize combinations of them in the world.”

In an interview with Vanity Fair, which has been edited for length and clarity, Snyder unpacks America’s “strongman fantasy,” encourages Democrats to reclaim the concept of freedom, and critiques journalists for pushing a “war fatigue” narrative about the Russian invasion of Ukraine. “There’s just something so odd about Americans being tired of this war. We can get bored of it or whatever, but how can we be tired?” he asks. “We’re not doing a damn thing.”

Vanity Fair: The things we associate with freedom—free speech, religious liberty—have been co-opted by the Republican Party. Do you think you could walk me through how that happened historically and how Democrats could take that word back?

Timothy Snyder: Yeah. I think the way it happened historically is actually quite dark there. There’s an innocent way of talking about this, which is to say, “Oh, some people believe in negative freedom and some people believe in positive freedom—and negative freedom just means less government and positive freedom means more government.” And when you say it like that, it just sounds like a question of taste. And who knows who’s right?

Whereas historically speaking, to answer your question, the reason why people believe in negative freedom is that they’re enslaving other people, or they are oppressing women, or both. The reason why you say freedom is just keeping the government off my back is that the central government is the only force that’s ever going to enfranchise those slaves. It’s the only force which is ever going to give votes to those women. And so that’s where negative freedom comes from. I’m not saying that everybody who believes in negative freedom now owns slaves or oppresses women, but that’s the tradition. That’s the reason why you would think freedom is negative, which on its face is a totally implausible idea. I mean, the notion that you can just be free because there’s no government makes no sense, unless you’re a heavily drugged anarchist.

And so, as the Republican Party has also become the party of race in our country, it’s become the party of small government. Unfortunately, this idea of freedom then goes along for the ride, because freedom becomes freedom from government. And then the next step is freedom becomes freedom for the market. That seems like a small step, but it’s a huge step because if we believe in free markets, that means that we actually have duties to the market. And Americans have by and large accepted that, even pretty far into the center or into the left. If you say that term, “free market,” Americans pretty generally won’t stop you and say, “Oh, there’s something problematic about that.” But there really is: If the market is free, that means that you have a duty to the market, and the duty is to make sure the government doesn’t intervene in it. And once you make that step, you suddenly find yourself willing to accept that, well, everybody of course has a right to advertise, and I don’t have a right to be free of it. Or freedom of speech isn’t really for me; freedom of speech is for the internet.

And that’s, to a large measure, the world we live in.

You have a quote in the book about this that distills it well: “The countries where people tend to think of freedom as freedom to are doing better by our own measures, which tend to focus on freedom from.”

Yeah, thanks for pulling that out. Even I was a little bit struck by that one. Because if you’re American and you talk about freedom all the time and you also spend all your time judging other countries on freedom, and you decide what the measures are, then you should be close to the top of the list—but you’re not. And then you ask, “Why is that?” When you look at countries like Sweden, Norway, Denmark, France, Germany, or Ireland—that are way ahead of us—they’re having a different conversation about freedom. They don’t seem to talk about freedom as much as we do, but then when they do, they talk about it in terms of enabling people to do things.

And then you realize that an enabled population, a population that has health care and retirement and reliable schools, may be better at defending things like the right to vote and the right to freedom of religion and the right to freedom of speech—the things that we think are essential to freedom. And then you realize, Oh, wait, there can be a positive loop between freedom to and freedom from. And this is the big thing that Americans get a hundred percent wrong. We think there’s a tragic choice between freedom from and freedom to—that you’ve got to choose between negative freedom and positive freedom. And that’s entirely wrong.

What do you make of Kamala Harris’s attempt to redeem the word?

It makes me happy if it’s at the center of a political discussion. And by the way, going back to your first question, it’s interesting how the American right has actually retreated from freedom. It has been central for them for half a century, but they are now actually retreating from it, and they’ve left the ground open for the Democrats. So, politically, I’m glad they’re seizing it—not just because I want them to win, but also because I think on the center left or wherever she is, there’s more of a chance for the word to take on a fuller meaning. Because so long as the Republicans can control the word, it’s always going to mean negative freedom.

I can’t judge the politics that well, but I think it’s philosophically correct and I think we end up being truer to ourselves. Because my big underlying concern as an American is that we have this word which we’ve boxed into a corner and then beaten the pulp out of, and it really doesn’t mean anything anymore. And yet it’s the only imaginable central concept I can think of for American political theory or American political life.

Yeah, it’s conducive to the joy-and-optimism approach that the Democrats are taking to the campaign. Freedom to is about enfranchisement; it’s about empowerment; it’s about mobility.

Totally. Can I jump in there with another thought?

Of course.

I think JD Vance is the logical extension of where freedom as freedom from gets you. Because one of the things you say when freedom is negative—when it’s just freedom from—is that the government is bad, right? You say the government is bad because it’s suppressive. But then you also say government is bad because it can’t do anything. It’s incompetent and it’s dysfunctional. And it’s a small step from there to a JD Vance–type figure who is a doomer, right? He’s a doomer about everything. His politics is a politics of impotence. His whole idea is that government will fail at everything—that there’s no point using government, and in fact, life is just sort of terrible in general. And the only way to lead in life is to kind of be snarky about other people. That’s the whole JD Vance political philosophy. It’s like, “I’m impotent. You’re impotent. We’re all impotent. And therefore let’s be angry.”

Did you watch the debate?

No, I’m afraid I didn’t. I’m in the wrong time zone.

There was a moment that struck me, and I think it would strike you too: Donald Trump openly praised Viktor Orbán, as he has done repeatedly in the past. But he said, explicitly, Orbán is a good guy because he’s a “strongman,” which is a word that he clearly takes to be a compliment, not derogatory. You’ve written about the strongman fantasy in your Substack, so I’m curious: What do you think Trump is appealing to here?

Well, I’m going to answer it in a slightly different way, and then I’ll go back to the way you mean it. I think he’s tapping into one of his own inner fantasies. I think he looks around the world and he sees that there’s a person like Orbán, who’s taken a constitutional system and climbed out of it and has managed to go from being a normal prime minister to essentially being an extraconstitutional figure. And I think that’s what Trump wants for himself. And then, of course, the next step is a Putin-type figure, where he’s now an unquestioned dictator.

For the rest of us, I think he’s tapping—in a minor key—into inexperience, and that was my strongman piece that you kindly mentioned. Americans don’t really think through what it would mean to have a government without the rule of law and the possibility of throwing the bums out. I think we just haven’t thought that through in all of its banality: the neighbors denouncing you, your kids not having social mobility because you maybe did something wrong, having to be afraid all the damn time. African Americans and some immigrants have a sense of this, but in general, Americans don’t get that. They don’t get what that would be like.

So that’s a minor key. The major key, though, is the 20% or so of Americans who really, I think, authentically do want an authoritarian regime, because they would prefer to identify personally with a leader figure and feel good about it rather than enjoy freedom.

You mentioned the word banality, which makes me think of Hannah Arendt’s theory of the “banality of evil.” What would the banality of authoritarianism look like in America?

So let me first talk about the nonbanality of evil, because our version of evil is something like, and I don’t want to be too mean, but it’s something like this: A giant monster rises out of the ocean and then we get it with our F-16s or F-35s or whatever. That’s our version of evil. It’s corporeal, it’s obviously bad, and it can be defeated by dramatic acts of violence.

And we apply that to figures like Hitler or Stalin, and we think, Okay, what happened with Hitler was that he was suddenly defeated by a war. Of course he was defeated by a war, but he did some dramatic and violent things to come to power, but his coming to power also involved a million banalities. It involved a million assimilations, a million changes of what we think of as normal. And it’s our ability to make things normal and abnormal which is so terrifying. It’s like an animal instinct on our part: We can tell what the power wants us to do, and if we don’t think about it, we then do it. In authoritarian conditions, this means that we realize, Oh, the law doesn’t really apply anymore. That means my neighbor could have denounced me for anything, and so I better denounce my neighbor first. And before you know it, you’re in a completely different society, and the banality here is that instead of just walking down the street thinking about your own stuff, you’re thinking, Wait a minute, which of my neighbors is going to denounce me?

Americans think all the time about getting their kids into the right school. What happens in an authoritarian country is that all of that access to social mobility becomes determined by obedience. And as a parent, suddenly you realize you have to be publicly loyal all the time, because one little black mark against you ruins your child’s future. And that’s the banality right there. In Russia, everybody lives like that, because any little thing you do wrong, and your kid has no chance. They get thrown out of school; they can’t go to university.

We don’t imagine how a regime change is going to be at the dinner table. The regime change is going to be on the sidewalk. It’s going to be in your whole life. It’s not going to be some external thing. It’s not like this strongman is just going to be some bad person in the White House, and then eventually the good guys will come and knock him out. When the regime changes, you change and you adapt, and you look around as everyone else is adapting and you realize, Well, everyone else adapting is a new reality for me, and I’m probably going to have to adapt too. Trump wants to be a strongman. He’s already tried a coup d’état. He makes it clear that he wants to be a different regime. And so if you vote him in, you’re basically saying, “Okay, strongman, tell me how to adapt.”

Yeah, we could talk about Project 2025 all day. This new effort to bureaucratize tyranny—which was not in place in 2020—could really make the banal aspect a reality because it’s enforced by the administrative state, which is going to be felt by Americans at a quotidian level.

I agree with what you say. If I were in business, I would be terrified of Project 2025 because what it’s going to lead to is favoritism. You’re never going to get approvals for your stuff unless you’re politically close to administration. It’s going to push us toward a more Hungary-like situation, where the president’s pals’ or Jared Kushner’s pals’ companies are going to do fine. But everybody else is going to have to pay bribes. Everyone else is going to have to make friends.

It’s anticompetitive.

Yeah, it’s going to generate a very, very uneven playing field where certain people are going to be favored and become oligarchs. And most of the rest of us are going to have a hard time. Also, the 40,000 [loyalists Trump wants to replace the administrative state with] are going to be completely incompetent. When people stop getting their Social Security checks, they’re going to realize that the federal government—which they’ve been told is so dysfunctional—actually did do some things. It’s going to be chaos. The only way to get anything done is to have a phone number where you can call somebody at someplace in the government and say, “Make my thing a priority.” The chaos of the administration state feeds into the strongman thing. And since that’s true, the strongman view starts to become natural for you because it’s the only way to get anything done.

You’ve studied Russian information warfare pretty extensively. A few weeks ago the Justice Department indicted two employees of the Russian state media outlet RT for their role in surreptitiously funding a right-wing US media outfit as part of a foreign-influence-peddling scheme, which saw them pull the wool over a bunch of right-wing media personalities. Do you think this type of thing is the tip of the iceberg when it comes to Russian information warfare?

Of course. It’s the tip of the iceberg, and I want to refer back to 2016. It was much bigger in 2016 than we recognized at the time. The things that the Obama administration was concerned with—like the actual penetration of state voting systems and stuff—that was really just nothing compared to all of the internet stuff they had going. And we basically caught zilcho of that before the election itself. And I think the federal government is more aware of it this time, but also the Russians are doing different things this time, no doubt.

I’m afraid what I think is that there are probably an awful lot of people who are doing this—including people who are much more important in the media than those guys—and that there’s just no way we’re going to catch very many of them before November. That’s my gut feeling.

While we’re on Russia, I do want to talk about Ukraine, especially since you’re there right now. I think one of the most unfortunate aspects of [the media’s coverage of] foreign wars—the Ukraine war and also the Israel-Hamas war—is just the way they inevitably fade into the background of the American news cycle, especially if no American boots are on the ground. I’m curious if this dynamic frustrates you as a historian.

Oh, a couple points there. One is, I’m going to point out slightly mean-spiritedly that the stories about war fatigue in Ukraine began in March 2022. As a historian, I am a little bit upset at journalists. I don’t mean the good ones. I don’t mean the guys I just saw who just came back from the front. [I mean] the people who are sitting in DC or New York or wherever, who immediately ginned up this notion of war fatigue and kept asking everybody from the beginning, “When are you going to get tired of this war?” We turned war fatigue into a topos almost instantaneously. And I found that really irresponsible because you’re affecting the discourse. But also, I feel like there was a kind of inbuilt laziness into it. If war fatigue sets in right away, then you have an excuse never to go to the country, and you have an excuse never to figure out what’s going on, and you have an excuse never to figure out why it’s important.

So I was really upset by that, and also because there’s just something so odd about Americans being tired of this war. We can get bored of it or whatever, but how can we be tired? We’re not doing a damn thing. We’re doing nothing. I mean, there’s some great individual Americans who are volunteering and giving supplies and stuff, but as a country, we’re not doing a damn thing. I mean, a tiny percentage of our defense budget—which would be going to other stuff anyway—insead goes to Ukraine.

And by the way, Ukrainians understand that Americans have other things to think about. I was not very far from the front three days ago talking to soldiers, and their basic attitude about the election and us was, like, “Yeah, you got your own things to think about. We understand. It’s not your war.” But as a historian, the thing which troubles me is pace, because with time, all kinds of resources wear down. And the most painful is the Ukrainian human resource. That’s probably a terribly euphemistic word, but people die and people get wounded and people get traumatized. Your own side runs out of stuff.

We were played by the Russians, psychologically, about the way wars are fought. And that stretched out the war. That’s the thing which bothers me most. You win wars with pace and you win wars with surprise. You don’t win wars by allowing the other side to dictate what the rules are and stretching everything out, which is basically what’s happened. And with that has come a certain amount of American distraction and changing the subject and impatience. I think journalists have made a mistake by making it into a kind of consumer thing where they’re sort of instructing the public that it’s okay to be bored or fatigued. And then I think the Biden administration made a mistake by not doing things at pace and allowing every decision to take weeks and months and so on.

What do you think another Trump presidency would mean for the war and for America’s commitment to Ukraine?

I think Trump switches sides and puts American power on the Russian side, effectively. I think Trump cuts off. He’s a bad dealmaker—that’s the problem. I mean, he’s a good entertainer. He’s very talented; he’s very charismatic. In his way, he’s very intelligent, but he’s not a good dealmaker. And a) ending wars is not a deal the way that buying a building is a deal, and b) even if it were, he’s consistently made bad deals his whole career and lost out and gone bankrupt.

So you can’t really trust him with something like this, even if his intentions were good—and I don’t think his intentions are good. Going back to the strongman thing, I think he believes that it’s right and good that the strong defeat and dominate the weak. And I think in his instinctual view of the world, Putin is pretty much the paradigmatic strongman—the one that he admires the most. And because he thinks Putin is strong, Putin will win. The sad irony of all this is that we are so much stronger than Russia. And in my view, the only way Russia can really win is if we flip or if we do nothing. So, because Trump himself is so psychologically weak and wants to look up to another strongman, I think he’s going to flip. But even if I’m wrong about that, I think he’s incompetent to deal with a situation like this. Because he wants the quick affirmation of a deal. And if the other side knows you’re in a hurry, then you’ve already lost from the beginning.

145 notes · View notes

mightyflamethrower · 1 year ago

Text

“Name me a single objective we’ve ever set out to accomplish that we’ve failed on. Name me one, in all of our history. Not one!”

-President Joe Biden, August 16, 2023

Joe Biden in one of his now accustomed angry “get off my grass” moods dared the press to find just one of his policies/objectives that has not worked. Silence followed.

Perhaps it was polite to say nothing, given even the media knows almost every enacted Biden policy has failed.

Here is a summation of what he should instead apologize for.

Biden in late summer 2021 sought a 20th anniversary celebration of 9/11 and the 2001 subsequent invasion of Afghanistan. He wished to be the landmark president that yanked everyone out of Afghanistan after 20 years in country. But the result was the greatest military humiliation of the United States since the flight from Vietnam in 1975.

Consider the ripples of Biden’s disaster. U.S. deterrence was crippled worldwide. China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea almost immediately began to bluster or return to their chronic harassment of U.S. and allied ships and planes. We left thousands of allied Afghans to face Taliban retribution, along with some Western contractors.

Biden abandoned a $1 billion embassy, and a $300 million remodeled Bagram airbase strategically located not far from China and Russia, and easily defensible. Perhaps $50 billion in U.S. weaponry and supplies were abandoned and now find their way into the international terrorist mart.

All our pride flags, our multimillion gender studies programs at Kabul University, and our George Floyd murals did not just come to naught, but were replaced by the Taliban’s anti-homosexual campaigns, burkas, and detestation of any trace of American popular culture.

Vladimir Putin sized up the skedaddle. He collated it with Biden’s unhinged quip that he would not get too excited if Putin just staged a “minor” invasion of Ukraine. He remembered Biden’s earlier request to Putin to modulate Russian hacking to exempt a few humanitarian American institutions. Then Russia concluded of our shaky Commander-in-Chief that he either did not care or could do nothing about another Russian invasion.

The result so far is more than 500,000 dead and wounded in the war, a Verdun-stand-off along with fortified lines, the steady depletion of our munitions and weapon stocks, and a new China/Russia/Iran/North Korean axis, with wink and nod assistance from NATO Turkey.

Biden blew up the Abraham accords, nudged Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States over to the dark side of Iran, China, and Russia. He humiliated the U.S. on the eve of the midterms by callously begging the likes of Iran, Venezuela, Russia, and Saudi Arabia to pump more oil that he had damned as unclean at home and cut back its production. In Bidenomics, instead of producing oil, the president begs autocracies to export it to us at high prices while he drains the nation’s strategic petroleum reserve for short-term political advantage.

Biden deliberately alienated Israel by openly interfering in its domestic politics. He pursued the crackpot Iran Deal while his special Iranian envoy was removed for disclosing classified information.

No one can explain why Biden ignored the Chinese balloon espionage caper, kept mum about the engineered Covid virus that escaped the Wuhan lab, said not a word about a Chinese biolab discovered in rural California, and had his envoys either bow before Chinese leaders or take their insults in silence—other than he is either cognitively challenged or leveraged by his decade-long grifting partnership with his son Hunter.

Yet another Biden’s legacy will be erasing the southern border and with it, U.S. immigration law. Over seven million aliens simply crossed into the U.S. illegally with Biden’s tacit sanction—without audits, background checks, vaccinations, and COVID testing, much less English fluency, skills, or high-school diplomas.

Biden’s only immigration accomplishment was to render the entire illegal sanctuary city movement a cruel joke. Given the flood, mostly rich urban and vacation home dwellers made it very clear that while they fully support millions swarming into poor Latino communities of southern Texas and Arizona, they do not want any illegal aliens fouling their carefully cultivated nests.

Biden is mum about the 100,000 fentanyl deaths from cartel-imported and Chinese-supplied drugs across his open border. He seems to like the idea that Mexican President Obrador periodically mouths off, ordering his vast expatriate community to vote Democratic and against Trump.

Despite all the pseudo-blue collar dissimulation about Old Joe Biden from Scranton, he has little empathy for the working classes. Indeed, he derides them as chumps and dregs, urges miners to learn coding as the world covets their coal, and studiously avoids getting anywhere near the toxic mess in East Palestine, Ohio, or so far the moonscape on Maui.

Bidenomics is a synonym for printing up to $6 billion dollars at precisely the time post-Covid consumer demand was soaring, while previously dormant supply chains were months behind rebooting production and transportation. Biden is on track to increase the national debt more than any one-term president.

In Biden’s weird logic, if he raised the price of energy, gasoline, and key food staples 20-30 percent since his inauguration without a commensurate rise in wages, and then saw the worst inflation in 40 years occasionally decline from record highs one month to the next, then he “beat inflation.”

But the reason why more than 60 percent of the nation has no confidence in Bidenomics is because it destroyed their household budgets. Gas is nearly twice what it was in January 2021. Interest rates have about tripled. Key staple foods are often twice as costly—meat, vegetables, and fruits especially.

Biden has ended through his weaponized Attorney General Merrick Garland the age-old American commitment to equal justice under the law. The FBI, DOJ, CIA, and IRS are hopelessly politically compromised. Many of their bureaucrats serve as retrieval agents for lost Biden family incriminating laptops, diaries, and guns. In sum, Biden criminalized opposing political views.

Biden has unleashed the administrative state for the first time in history to destroy the Republican primary front runner and his likely opponent. His legacy will be the corruption of U.S. jurisprudence and the obliteration of the American reputation for transparent permanent government that should be always above politics, bribery, and corruption.

If in the future, an on-the-make conservative prosecutor in West Virginia, Utah, or Mississippi wishes to make a national name, then he has ample precedent to indict a Democrat President for receiving bad legal advice, questioning the integrity of an election, or using social media to express doubt that the new non-Election-Day balloting was on the up-and-up, or supposedly overvaluing his real estate.

The Biden family’s decade-long family grifting will likely expose Joe Biden as the first president in U.S. history who fitted precisely the Constitution’s definition of impeachment and removal—given his “high crimes and misdemeanors” appear “bribery”-related. If further evidence shows he altered U.S. foreign policy in accordance with the wishes from his benefactors in Ukraine, China, or Romania, then he committed constitutionally-defined “treason” as well.

Defunding the police, and pandemics of exempted looting, shoplifting, smashing, and grabbing, and carjacking merit no administrative attention. Nor does the ongoing systematic destruction of our blue bicoastal cities, Los Angeles, New York, Portland, San Francisco, Seattle, and Washington, D.C. All that, along with the disasters in East Palestine or Maui are out of sight, out of mind from a day at the beach at Biden’s mysteriously purchased nearly 6,000 square-foot beachfront mansion.

Biden ran on Barack Obama-like 2004 rhetoric (“Well, I say to them tonight, there is not a liberal America and a conservative America — there is the United States of America).”

And like Obama, he used that ecumenical sophistry to gain office only to divide further the U.S. No sooner than he was elected, we began hearing from the great unifier eerie screaming harangues about “semi-fascists” and “ultra-MAGA” dangerous zealots, replete with red-and black Phantom of the Opera backdrops.

What followed the unifying rhetoric was often amnesties and exemptions for violent offenders during the 120 days of rioting, looting, killing, and attacks on police officers in summer 2020. In contrast, his administration lied when it alleged that numerous officers had died at the hands of the January 6 rioters. In addition, the Biden administration mandated long-term incarceration of many who committed no illegal act other than acting like buffoons and “illegally parading.”

The message was exemptions for torching a federal courthouse, a police precinct, or historic church or attempting to break into the White House grounds to get a president and his family—but long prison terms for wearing cow horns, a fur vest, and trespassing peacefully like a lost fool in the Capitol.

Finally, Biden’s most glaring failure was simply being unpresidential. He snaps at reporters, and shouts at importune times. He can no longer read off a big-print teleprompter. Even before a global audience, he cannot kick his lifelong creepy habit of turkey-gobbling on children necks, blowing into their ears and hair of young girls, and squeezing women far too long and far too hard.

His frailty redefined American presidential campaigning as basement seclusion and outsourcing propaganda to the media. And his disabilities only intensified during his presidency. Biden begins his day late and quits early. He has recalibrated the presidency as a 5-hour, 3-day a week job.

If Trump was the great exaggerator, Biden is our foremost liar. Little in his biography can be fully believed. He lies about everything from his train rides to the death of his son to his relationship with Biden-family foreign collaborators, to vaccinations to the economy. Anytime Biden mentions places visited, miles flown, or rails ridden, he is likely lying.

Biden continues with impunity because the media feels that a mentally challenged fabulist is preferable to Donald Trump and so contextualizes or ignores his falsehoods. Never has a U.S. president fallen and stumbled or gotten lost on stage so frequently—or been a single small trip away from incapacity.

So, yes, Biden’s initiatives have succeeded only in the sense of becoming successfully enacted—and therefore nearly destroying the country.

539 notes · View notes

jh-newman-opn · 1 month ago

Text

The Moscow Fiasco

At the prodding of @quonunc, here is a quick overview of the incident I fondly referred to as "the Moscow fiasco" in a previous ask about the difference between Catholicism and Orthodoxy. It's a subject dear and horrifying to my heart after I wrote my undergrad dissertation on it.

In short: this is to do with how the Moscow Patriarchate (Russian Orthodox Church, hereafter ROC) is entirely in bed with the Russian government, and how Patriarch Kirill (of Moscow and All Russia) has been responding to the ongoing situation in Ukraine (and former Soviet lands more generally). Picture will make sense lower down the post.

The slightly longer short answer is that Patriarch Kirill is entirely in favour of the Ukraine war, and the ROC clergy are under significant pressure to support that as an official church stance-- my dissertation topic started to germinate when, completely by accident, I came across a 10-minute video of a ROC priest explaining very slowly and carefully that when he met the Pope, he did not talk about Ukraine. Will link this video if I can find it again, but at present it's proving elusive. (EDIT: found it!!! It was the Metropolitan Hilarion of Budapest and Hungary. This video looks like a hostage video honestly £10 says there's someone behind the camera holding a gun to this man's head for legal reasons this is a joke).

The foundation for this belief is obviously completely political (and the history of how the ROC and Russian state are completely entwined is long and complicated to say the least!), but officially the ROC stance is that it's about reclaiming the historic Slavic spiritual unity founded on the Baptism of Rus' in the year 988 by Vladimir the Grand Prince of Kievan Rus' when Slavdom become Orthodox. Proponents of this "Russian World" theory (Russkiy Mir') basically argue that it's the influence of the West that has fractured the unified Slavic people into different, opposing nations, and that by "liberating" Ukraine of this alien ideology of nationhood, the Slavic Orthodox world will regain its historic unity under the common banner of Orthodoxy. All I will say on this is that these people have a very rosy view of Kievan Rus', but that's a post for another day.

This has obviously caused friction within the Orthodox world. Ukraine now has two Orthodox churches-- the Orthodox Church of Ukraine, which is in communion with the Ecumenical Patriarch in Constantinople, and the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, which is in communion with the Russian Patriarchate. They are not in communion with each other, and Constantinople's decision to grant autocephalous status to the OCoU caused Moscow to schism with Constantinople. Constantinople is also accusing Moscow of heresy (specifically, ethno-phyletism). Moscow obviously denies this. Obvious question for the Catholics among us-- does this mean Russian Orthodox christians are no longer Orthodox? No, because schisms between Orthodox churches are not particularly unusual, and they remain within the general cloud of Orthodox communion links.

The whole mess is then immortalised in the absolute monstrosity that is the Main Cathedral to the Russian Armed Forces, which is what I wrote my diss on. The YouTube video linked there is promotional material from Russian military-themed TV channel Звезда, and is one of the better sources of info on it-- a lot of English-language sources contain a lot of incorrect information on it-- either because they don't understand the cultural background, or just straight up lies from the Russian govt propaganda arm--, so take anything they say with a grain of salt. Kirill then gives televised sermons from this cathedral in which he talks about the glorious Russian martyrs of the Ukraine invasion, does his best to harmonise Stalinism and Orthodoxy, and oversees military parades for national holidays. This cathedral has a huge amount of weird symbolism and imagery, and I am super happy to talk more about the mosaics and propaganda going on there, because it's a lot (to say the quiet part out loud: pLEASE ask me more about this cathedral because the more I think about it the more scream-worthy facts about it I remember).

You may have seen memes with this picture of the Virgin Mary (below). Yeah that's from this cathedral. And it's a really really fucked up image. Like, more fucked up than you may think. Could have written my entire diss on this image alone and how shockingly awful it is. western orthobro converts who keep reblogging it as if it's somehow cool and macho are just showing how little they know and it's embarrassing.

The militarism of the ROC since this whole thing has also gone bonkers and there's a huuuuuge amount of corruption and weird stuff going on. The tension between the clergy and the laity has been extremely high for decades, and has spilled over most notably in Pussy Riot's Punk Prayer stunt, an exhibition called Осторожно, религия! (beware, religion!), and some shenanigans in church-building more generally. On this particular incident I would point to the blessing of nuclear weapons and the canonisation of a patron saint of long-range nuclear missiles as key moments. The cathedral also has matching mosaics of Putin and Stalin, a fact that the Russian government very much wants you to think never happened (officially the mosaics were removed, but they absolutely were not-- muggins here found them and has the pictures to prove it).

The main takeaway from this topic is that situation is obviously complicated and the repercussions for everyone involved-- particularly Russian and Ukrainian laypeople-- are unpleasant to say the least. It gives something of a window into the Putin regime and its propaganda arm (Epiphany swim, topless horseriding pictures, Soviet-style policies, I could go on) more than anything else, because the situation inside the ROC is still quite obscure. From talking to people who know Kirill personally, it's not clear quite what he thinks is going on or why he's involved the way he is. Either way. Fiasco.

#russian orthodox #patriarch kirill #main cathedral to the russian armed forces #christianity #askjhn #idk what else to tag bc honestly who even is reading this #certainly not russians #they're not allowed on the internet anymore #orthodox #orthodoxy

64 notes · View notes

tanadrin · 1 year ago

Text

This series of four videos on Ukraine and the Russia-Ukraine conflict is very interesting. The first is basically just a narrative political history of Ukraine from about 2000 to 2014, talking about different political factions that were relevant in the country in the period, and how different internal and external pressures shaped politics. It's very helpful for understanding the Ukrainian political context, including just how recent and just how shallow the supposed tensions between monolingual Russian and bilingual Ukrainian-Russian speakers was in 2014.

The second video is an overview of the Donbass war from 2014-2022, which you might have been vaguely paying attention to at the time. But it's very helpful to have it all laid out in chronological order with the benefit of hindsight, especially due to the obfuscation of Russian operations at the time that made it hard to work out what, exactly, was going on. It's a combination of a good old 19th century-style filibuster (the military expedition, not the parliamentary maneuver), Fox News-style propaganda, and some (rather badly failed) attempts at astroturfing civil unrest--why Russia thought that would work becomes important in Part 4.

Part 3 is just an extended argument that NATO expansion is not relevant to the 2022 invasion of Ukraine, and while I already agreed with that assessment, it's nice to have it laid out in detail. The very very short version is that by NATO's own public criteria, Ukraine was simply not a candidate to join NATO, and had given up on joining NATO, and that had been painfully obvious since at least the Obama administration. Even more frustratingly, there were multiple points where Russia had an offramp to escalation, where it had gotten everything it could have possibly wanted from the conflict in Donbass, and it refused them all.

Part 4 is the author's attempt to explain why it refused them. The very short explanation is that Russia's government is led by idiots, who are very enamored of a flavor of conspiracy theory that has its origins in the LaRouche movement, and which has been bubbling in both left-wing and right-wing circles since 2000. In this worldview, the US government acting through the CIA (or the British royal family, or George Soros, or Jewish bankers, or whoever your bogeyman of choice is) has an almost supernatural ability to overthrow any government on earth by funding performance art groups (seriously), civil society NGOs, and protestors, and that almost every revolution, actual or so-called, since 1989 has been their direct work, from the post-Soviet revolutions, to Euromaidan, to the Arab Spring.

This belief, in its more overt or fragmentary forms, is incredibly popular, spurred on no doubt by historical instances of CIA malfeasance and actual aggressive wars waged by the Bush administration. But the problem is, it's bunk. During Russia's initial moves against Ukraine in 2014, they tried essentially the same playbook in the Donbass, and of course it failed miserably--you cannot actually astroturf a popular uprising. (The CIA has preferred to stage coups and assassinations, which are a different animal from color revolutions.) The separatists in the Donbass eventually had to be supported by a few thousand Russian troops and direct military aid.

But Putin, driven by his own paranoid misunderstanding of world events, the clique of yes-men he has embedded himself in, and his fear of gay Nazi Jewish CIA agents, simply got Russia in over its head. There is no offramp because Russia cannot articulate what its goals are, and because "stop trying to use George Soros to overthrow the Russian government" is not something the US can agree to, since they are not doing it. The only thing that might have prevented Putin fucking with Ukraine in the first place was maybe if rigging the parliamentary election in 2011 hadn't resulted in protests, in which Putin saw the specter of the hand of the CIA--but of course the US and NATO and the EU had nothing to do with that!

And to cap it all off, since the 2010s the LaRouche movement and its theory of color revolutions has been making inroads in China, so we have that to look forward to in coming decades.

275 notes · View notes

aristotels · 2 years ago

Text

so WHAT is croatia doing on esc???

ok i see lots of people not understanding the song so lemme explain!

1) the band is called let 3 and theyre a leftist band from rijeka, croatia. pro-women rights, pro-lgbtq rights, anti-catholic church, etc. as you can see, this song featuring men in makeup and dresses has made lots of conservative croats very angry.

2) croatia has gone through the same situation as in ukraine but in 90es, though without help of foreign countries. it’s no surprise that they chose to portray song about ridiculousness of war and destruction of it. its something very fresh in croatian history and minds of people. ive seen people saying its “making fun” of ukraine situation when its the very opposite thing. the entire band lived through war in croatia and knows what its like.

3) the song is very anti-war, and was not written for esc - its written as a piece of anti-war rock opera. thats why its performance is theatrical and flashy. its supposed to be performed in theatre.

4) meaning of the song:

- at first the song seems v nonsensical and silly, but its actually a really layered song with a strong anti-war, anti-fascist message.

- centerpiece of the song is tractor. thats bc belarus is a manufacturer of tractors AND a brand of tractor; and as well, last year, lukashenko gifted a tractor to putin for his birthday to ‘sew new future’. tractor in the song refers to belarus, so when you hear the lyrics “mom bought a tractor”, it refers to “russia bought belarus”. similarly, “armageddon nona” means “armageddon grandmother”, aka, soviet union.

- “mom loved a moron” is obviously about putin.

- Š is 25th letter of croatian alphabet and Č is 4th. together they make 29th letter - letter Z, the symbol of russian occupators.

- the guy holding the nukes has NJINLE written on his forehead, which in “šatrovački” reads as lenjin.

- theyre dressed as 4 bringers of armageddon - war, plague, death, and hunger.

p.s. if the singing sounded kinda wonky in the first semi-finals... thats bc the main singer caught a cold lmao.

anyway yes consider voting croatia in GF ;P

#esc 2023 #eurovision 2023 #croatia #vote croatiaaa pls yay yay #i want us to land high to make all the conservative croat cunts mad #mama šč!!!!!!!!!

436 notes · View notes

anastasiareyreed · 11 months ago

Text

all russians are guilty and let me explain why.

make yourself comfortable, it's gonna be a long ride.

you might notice that every time, if russians appear in a movie, series or documentary, they have either done something criminal, are doing it or are planning to do it. because the entire history of russia's existence is built on crimes, wars, genocides and occupations — Ukraine, Syria, Georgia, Chechnia and many more.

russia unleashed the most frequent genocidal attacks against Ukraine. occupation of Ukrainian lands and enslavement of Ukrainians, constant persecution and murder of speakers of the Ukrainian language, Ukrainian poets, writers, teachers — the entire nation, any Ukrainian figures of culture or politics. And, of course, the awful Holodomor (if you more into visualization, watch the movie about the Holodomor — «Mr Jones».)

no matter who is in power, throughout its existence, russia has been trying to destroy Ukraine and everything related to Ukrainian culture and history.

first of all, I think the terms «guilty» and «bad» must be separated here. I'm not saying all russians are bad, because «bad» is quite subjective and vague term. just like term «good». a person can be good in relations with neighbors, good at their job or good meaning polite. but what happens to a «good» person who stands by when other people are killed, tortured and raped in front of this person's eyes and on this person's behalf? this person becomes guilty. and many can and DO have the right to call and consider this person bad.

what exactly you are doing when you write «not all russians support the war»? you tell Ukrainians that THIS TIME there are definitely good russians, good guys among the people who constantly repressed Ukrainian people. but let me tell you this. if ten people stand in front of me and tell me that only one of them probably is not a murderer, I WILL NOT trust that person. I won't risk my life, and I'm sure you won't either.

I, like many Ukrainians, had friends or relatives in russia. but all of us were betrayed by these people, because it is in their DNA to put themselves above Ukrainians. and it's quite unreasonable in the digital age to justify their position about war by the fact that they don't know anything and totally drowned in propaganda. do they not know how to search for information, use their phones, computers or brain?

when you say that right now not all russians are against Ukraine or Syria, you cannot be sure that a russian who writes «I don't support the war» is telling the truth. that this person is not trying to maintain their public image and avoid condemnation. how can we believe the word of the representatives of the nation that every decade wage a war? the presumption of innocence doesn't apply here, hundreds of thousands of victims of russia are proof of that.

my favorite topic that people like to manipulate is how can we blame russian children. sure, we are in our right mind, so we don't say that a russian child is as guilty as an adult russian man who raped Ukrainian children and tortured Ukrainian women and men. we say that the russian child must know and feel collective responsibility from an early age, so that in the future the child doesn't take the place of that adult russian man.

while other countries honor the memory of their heroes and victims of the WWII on the day of victory over the fascists, only the russians proudly and joyfully said every year that they could repeat and start another war. which they did. that's why russian children should see that the world associates russia only with death, crimes and wars. that the world doesn't tolerate russian products, art, culture or people. this is the only way children will be able to realize from an early age that this way of russia's lifestyle is condemned by the world and must be radically changed.

Ukrainian and Syrian children, who are currently suffering from russia's actions, grew up too early and lost their childhood, they know what war is, know that it's evil and russia is a terrorist state. russian children should know this as well, so that the changes in the russian mentality — that the world has been waiting for several centuries in a row — have come.

you say russian children are not guilty, sure, but they are taught that war is branded, powerful, cool and solid. Ukrainian and Syrian children are not guilty, but they are taught how to act if their parents are killed by a russian missile. you say russian youth are not guilty and shouldn't risk their future to protest against the war. Ukrainian and Syrian youth are not guilty, but every day they give their lives for the freedom that the russians are trying to take away.

russian soldiers who went to kill Ukrainians and Syrians. russians who are relatives, friends or colleagues of these soldiers. russians who openly support wars in Ukraine & Syria or show their passivity. russians who volunteer to support the russian army. russians, who for centuries raised their children with imperialist views and contempt for other nations and races. and, as history shows, will continue to raise in the same way, no matter how the war ends. if russia loses they will raise children ready for another revenge. if russia wins they will raise children with mindset that Ukrainians are an inferior nation. russians have hundreds of years of experience in it. ask how the peoples that russia once occupied live today.

imagine what those hundreds of thousands of russian soldiers would achieve not on peaceful Ukrainian streets, killing people, but somewhere in a square in moscow, protesting against the war. soldiers, their relatives, friends and neighbors. eight years ago, Ukrainians protested against the dictator, dying for their principles and freedom.

Iranians went against a real dictator, dying for their principles and freedom. because this is the only way to achieve change.

the only «protest» action of russians is to post a picture somewhere online or to stand peacefully for half an hour in a small group of people, passively holding «no war» piece of paper and leaving before dark, because tomorrow they have to go to work or universities. russians support the war or simply don't care, because it's easier to live that way. if they chose collective indifference, they must face collective responsibility.

your «not all russians are guilty» is based on your assumptions about the good faith of russians, a naive idea of what this nation really is. my «all russians are guilty» is based on hundreds of years of history of relations between russia and Ukraine. on the number of wars russia has waged in the past and is waging now, the number of nations it has destroyed and the number of evil actions the world has forgiven the russians, hoping that THIS TIME everything will definitely be different.

156 notes · View notes

queenwille · 23 days ago

Note

So Russia doesn't owe anything to anyone either. And I don't need to explain or prove anything to anyone either. European Nazis killed my people during World War II. You Jews always downplay the huge role of Russians in winning World War II. Where would you be now, Jew, if Hitler had won? Why did your Americans and British only join the war at the end of the war? Why are you deaf and do not hear that the Russians do not want to see American bases near their borders. Americans wanted a NATO base in Crimea, Ukrainians they got a war. Soon a Maidan will begin in Georgia, just like in Ukraine, and all this will be arranged by the USA and the hypocritical West, and this is disgusting and vile!!!

first of all, don’t call me a jew in that tone, you effing twat. i am a proud jew and you do not get to use it in a degrading tone.

second, did i ever say the russians owe me anything? we don’t downplay it, we simply know we were not in their interests, like at all. i don’t have the time or patience to give random uneducated people history lessons online, but basically the only reason the red army joined the war was because hitler and nazis completely lost it and broke their agreement with them and invaded russia/soviet union.

why did the americans and brits join at the end? well, they ended it, so… but i guess you’re asking why it took so long? idk why it took so long, i don’t have the answers to everything, maybe it was easier to ignore, maybe they didn’t know, maybe they didn’t want to know idk, i didn’t have a family in the holocaust tbh

regarding your inquiries about americans/ukrainians/georgians. i’m neither, so, again, i don’t know. i’m a jewish argentinan with few russian, romanian and belarusian roots, but 80% polish. my great grand parents from both sides left europe post war world one and settled in argentina. my father’s side in a new jewish community near buenos aires, my mother’s side simply in buenos aires, making her promise as a child to never step foot on polish soil in her life, as it is soaked with jewish blood.

and where would the jews be if hitler would have won? he probably would have never won because he was very greedy and just wanted more and more and more like breaking his agreement with the soviet union, so there’s no need to dwell in that. ah look, i ended up giving you a little lesson after all ;)

#ask #anon #antisemitism #wwii #history #red army #russia #soviet union #hitler #jumblr

29 notes · View notes

truth4ourfreedom · 1 month ago

Text

ONE POSSIBLE WWIII OUTCOME: THE DESTRUCTION OF THE UNITED STATES???

Posting by Julian Assange WikiLeaks

-----------------------------------------------

The Destruction of the United States

Projected by our Computer

I have often been asked why the media never runs a story on our computer, the ONLY Artificial Intelligence computer with a real track record of over 40 years, predicting every major shift in the world economy and even targeting Ukraine years in advance. The truth? The media is bought and paid for. They aren't interested in actually helping society or seeking the truth. They are pawns for the agenda.

The media refuses to discuss Socrates because it goes against their narrative. I’ve warned those in power about the impending chaos, but they ignore it. I have to accept the future and prepare. The truth is, the American Neocons always want war. They've taken control of the Democratic Party, which explains why Republican Neocons are endorsing Kamala Harris, including figures like Dick Cheney. Make no mistake, this isn’t about party politics—it's about power and control.

The West will lose this war. Just as WWI moved the financial capital from Britain to New York, WWIII will move it to Beijing. The United States will shatter into regions because the media has driven such hatred between the LEFT and the RIGHT. There is no longer any unity.

Biden has consulted with Israel about attacking Iran's nuclear facilities—a move that could spark a catastrophe far beyond expectations. Russia and China will respond, and if you needed any more proof that war is imminent, just look at Dick Cheney endorsing Kamala. These people want war and they have lost every single one since WWII. Washington is too corrupt; nobody will stop them because they’re all lining their pockets with blood money.

The Neocons belong on trial for their crimes. These so-called Republicans have no qualms about sending Americans to die for their vendettas. The 2024 election isn’t about leadership—it’s about World War III. Adam Kinzinger, who was kicked out of office, endorsing Kamala Harris only confirms it. This is a power play, and it will be the last true election. They will do anything to keep control—open borders, lawsuits against Trump, keeping RFK Jr. off the ticket. This is the endgame.

Biden was never going to be the candidate. The media put on a show to prove his incompetence, paving the way for Kamala. For the first time, we have a candidate who was never elected by the people. Kamala is a puppet, the Neocons’ choice to sign whatever they put in front of her.

We’ve already seen two assassination attempts on Trump. The second would-be assassin survived, but the government will ensure no trial ever happens. Just like JFK, secrets buried forever. The media has sold our country down the tubes, dividing the population to the point where nothing can be salvaged. This country has crossed the red line.

The LEFT always paints themselves as victims, but they are out for total control. History shows that when they seize power, they use it to destroy their enemies. They don’t run countries for the people, they run them for power. That’s why civilizations rise and fall. We can never have extended peace under these conditions.

The LEFT wants to change everything—the courts, the laws, the very foundations of our country. They hate capitalism but don’t mind using corporate power to crush dissent. They are anti-religion, and their obsession with abortion and control shows their rejection of any higher morality.

The media has poisoned this country. They have created such hatred between both sides that there’s no resolution. This isn’t just politics—this is the collapse of America. It’s happening before our eyes, and the Marxist ideas that are being pushed will destroy us from within. There is no uniting this country anymore. Prepare for what's coming.

Join and share my channel immediately: https://t.me/JulianAssangeWiki

#the great awakening #government corruption #wef #world economic forum #democrats #fjb #joe biden #illegal immigration #bill gates #donald trump #Kamala Harris #election 2024 #2024 presidential election #us elections #jd vance #tim walz

24 notes · View notes

ohsalome · 11 months ago

Text

Ivan and Phoebe by Oksana Lutsyshyna

Ivan and Phoebe is a novel about a revolution of consciousness triggered by very different events, both global and personal. This is a book about the choices we make, even if we decide to just go with the flow of life. It is about cruelty, guilt, love, passion – about many things, and most importantly, about Ukraine of the recent past, despite or because of which it has become what it is today.

The story told in Oksana Lutsyshyna’s novel Ivan and Phoebe is set during a critical period – the 1990s. In the three decades that have passed since gaining independence, Ukraine has experienced many socio-political, economic, and cultural changes that have yet to be fully expressed. The Revolution of Dignity in 2014 marked a pivotal moment in the country’s history, as it signaled a shift towards European integration and a strong desire to distance itself from Moscow. Prior to this, Ukrainian culture had remained overshadowed by Russian influence, struggled to compete for an audience and was consequently constrained in exploring vital issues.

77 days of February. Living and dying in Ukraine

"77 Days," is a compelling anthology by contributors to Reporters, a Ukrainian platform for longform journalism. The book, published in English as both an e-book and an audiobook by Scribe Originals.

"77 Days'' offers a tapestry of styles and experiences from over a dozen contributors, making it a complex work to define. It includes narratives about those who stayed put as the Russians advanced, and the horror they encountered, like Zoya Kramchenko’s defiant "Kherson is Ukraine," Vira Kuryko’s somber "Ten Days in Chernihiv," and Inna Adruh’s wry "I Can’t Leave – I’ve Got Twenty Cats." The collection also explores the ordeal of fleeing, as in Kateryna Babkina’s stark "Surviving Teleportation '' and "There Were Four People There. Only the Mother Survived."

It also highlights tales of Ukrainians who created safe havens amidst the turmoil, such as Olga Omelyanchuk’s "Hippo and the Team," about zookeepers safeguarding animals in an occupied private zoo near Kyiv, and one of Paplauskaite’s three pieces, "Les Kurbas Theater Military Hostel," depicting an historic Lviv theater turned shelter for the displaced, including the writer/editor herself.

In the Eye of the Storm. Modernism in Ukraine 1900’s – 1930’s

This book was inspired by the exhibition of the same name that took place in Madrid, at the Museo Nacional Thyssen-Bornemisza, and is currently at the Museum Ludwig, located in Cologne, Germany.

Rather than being a traditional catalogue, the publishers and authors took a more ambitious approach. Rather than merely publishing several texts and works from the exhibition, they choose to showcase the history of the Ukrainian avant-garde in its entirety – from the first avant-garde exhibition in Kyiv to the eventual destruction of works and their relegation to the "special funds" of museums, where they were hidden from public view.

These texts explain Ukrainian context to those who may have just learned about the distinction between Ukrainian and Russian art. Those "similarities" are also a product of colonization. It was achieved not only through the physical elimination of artists or Russification – artists were also often forced to emigrate abroad for political or personal reasons. Under the totalitarian regime, discussing or remembering these artists was forbidden. Archives and cultural property were also destroyed or taken to Russia.

"The Yellow Butterfly" by Oleksandr Shatokhin

"The Yellow Butterfly" is poised to become another prominent Ukrainian book on the themes of war and hope. It has been listed among the top 100 best picture books of 2023, according to the international art platform dPICTUS.

The book was crafted amidst the ongoing invasion. Oleksandr and his family witnessed columns of occupiers, destroyed buildings, and charred civilian cars. Shatokhin describes the book’s creation as a form of therapy, a way to cope with the horrors. "During this time my vision became clearer about what I wanted to create – a silent book about hope, victory, the transition from darkness to light, something symbolic," he explains.

Although "The Yellow Butterfly" is a wordless book, today its message resonates with readers across the globe.

A Crash Course in Molotov Cocktails by Halyna Kruk

A Crash Course in Molotov Cocktails is a bilingual poetry book (Ukrainian and English) about war, written between 2013 and 2022, based on Halyna’s experience as an author, volunteer, wife of a military man and witness to conflict.

The Ukrainian-speaking audience is well-acquainted with Halyna Kruk – a poet, prose author and literature historian. Kruk is increasingly active on the international stage, with her poetry featured in numerous anthologies across various languages, including Italian, French, Swedish, Norwegian, Portuguese, Spanish, Polish, English, German, Lithuanian, Georgian and Vietnamese.

For an English-speaking audience, her poetry unveils a realm of intense and delicate experiences, both in the midst of disaster and in the anticipation of it. The poems are succinct, direct, and highly specific, often depicting real-life events and individuals engaged in combat, mourning, and upholding their right to freedom.

#ukraine #ukrainian stuff #ukrainian literature #books #book recommendation #ukrainian culture

133 notes · View notes

dontforgetukraine · 2 months ago

Text

TIFF: And so it continues... 2

Headline from news site The Globe and Mail: "Russians at War is an exceptional documentary and needs to be seen" written by Marsha Lederman (Source)

This is the opinion piece about the film "Russians at War" that gave me incredible psychic damage. Let's explore it, shall we?

Marsha first describes the film as a "brave and exceptional documentary. It shows, unvarnished, the horrors of the war". She then explains the latest situation with TIFF canceling the film. (It's actually suspended, Marsha, according to TIFF, but this inaccuracy is the least of my concerns compared to the rest of the bullshit you wrote.)

While TIFF obviously must keep audiences safe, the anger around this film is unjustified. It is a cowardly move to work to suppress this courageous film. And it is a mistake. This documentary in no way glorifies Russia or its army or its war effort. This film in no way demonizes Ukraine or its people.

Marsha just spat in the faces of Ukrainians everywhere. She doesn't explore why there is outrage over this film or what the Russian propaganda points are (Again, the points are in the damn trailer!). Apparently Ukrainian anger is unjustified, despite the Russian subjugation, imperialism, and propaganda they have suffered, including this film. Ukrainian anger is unjustified despite how they constantly have to fight against Russia's narratives about them.

Protesting something this egregious is not cowardly. Ukraine's fight against Russia and its narratives is not cowardly. This film is not free speech but paid speech. And this film is not courageous. Marsha clearly didn't look into the director, how she has 11 films with RT, how she lied about coordinating with the command to get a military uniform so she wouldn't get shot by the Russians (hmmm, why would they shoot her, I wonder?), or how she illegally crossed the internationally recognized borders of Ukraine and probably violated Canadian sanctions. :)

Also, from everything I have read, not much sympathy is given for the Ukrainians. But what is expressed is nostalgia for a time when Ukraine was denied the right to exist. There is no remorse or examination of war crimes that happened elsewhere, nor is there remorse for invading.

Btw, Marsha missed the part about Russians calling Ukrainians fascists and Nazis, which is one of the major justifications for Russia entering the war.

Propaganda? Please. Triumph of the Will this is not. This is eye-opening and gutting. The only “propaganda” this documentary serves up is an anti-war message that should be delivered as far and wide as possible. The experience of watching the film has something in common with war: you can’t wait for it to be over. It is excruciating.

IT'S IN THE DAMN TRAILER!!!

Marsha is either in on it or is too ignorant and uninformed to recognize it. The end result is the same. She didn't even bother to look up what the propaganda points are! They are so easily to find! Ask an expert like Timothy Snyder for fuck's sake before you post this irresponsible drivel. You fell for the Kremlin's propaganda like how a snake eats an egg! You swallowed it whole without question!

-"Russia and Ukraine have always been inseparable. I miss the brotherly union."

This is nostalgia for an era when the Ukrainian nation state was denied the right to exist.

This is part of the narrative that Ukraine cannot exist without Russia.

Putin has stated this narrative too, saying Ukraine is inseparable from Russian history and culture.

-"An order was given, we went in."

Seriously, where have we heard that line before, I wonder...

The director suggests the Russian soldiers are just tools in a larger political game.

This is part of the narrative that it's Putin's war and his alone. Ordinary Russians are innocent and should not be punished. Ordinary Russians committed war crimes willingly. They've been rewarded with money, medals, and awards. Ordinary Russians invaded Ukraine. To shift the blame to a higher command is to absolve them of their crimes.

The supposed "oppositionists" to Putin that were exchanged recently even parroted how ordinary Russians shouldn't be punished and how sanctions should be lifted.

-"If I'm fighting in a fight, I always need to know that i'm right." ; "I came today so that my kids don't go tomorrow"

This is the narrative that Russia was right all along to invade Ukraine in order to fight NATO's expansion and encroachment on its sphere of influence.

Furthermore, the narrative ignores the reason why countries that have experienced Russian imperialism and aggression want to join NATO in the first place. Sovereign nations should be able to decide what to do with their futures. NATO isn't encroaching on anything.

There's a scene where Russian soldiers are talking to their families on the phone, thus promoting Russians are fighting for their families and children while ignoring the fact they are the aggressors who came to Ukraine to kill Ukrainians and Ukrainian children and seize their territory.

-"Whataboutism" from the classic Russian propaganda playbook.

Russia amplifies supposed neutral voices that are "asking questions" such as the director, but might not necessarily want clear cut and defined answers.

This derails clear cut moral cases to distract and confuse people from the actual problem of Russia being the aggressor and invading. This is done to promote inaction and indecision to the problem.

"I saw no war-crimes" is an attempt to excuse and white-wash war crimes. To cast doubt on culpability.

-The director stated she saw no war-crimes committed.

The director doesn't examine the idea that any war-crimes may have been screened from being put in the film

The director doesn't examine that they have occurred in other places at other times.

No mention about victims, witnesses, or survivors.

-Aggressive Victimhood

Humanizing the aggressor diminishes the will to assist in fighting back against the aggressor.

"Russians at War" is a manipulation of public perceptions of the war made by professional propagandists.

This is done to perpetuate Russian violence and aggression towards Ukraine.

-According to people that have seen the film, there is:

No discussion on how the war started, or who started it.

Denial of documented war crimes committed in Bucha

Russian soldiers express they are tired of the war, but no discussion of Russia starting it or how to end it.

No sympathy for Ukrainians that a Russian soldier attacked and whose land he invaded.

A Russian soldier promoted narratives about a coup and armed rebellion in Kyiv being carried out by the US in 2014.

The narrative that Russians never want war, they never attack, and they only end wars.

Ukrainians are called fascists and nazis, which is a core justification for Russia starting the war.

The Russian military makes a statement, "Holiday is victory." This goes unchallenged and with no commentary. This of course means for Ukrainians a Russian victory is subjugation and annihilation.

A dead civilian is shown in occupied Donetsk but without context. The Russians use Donetsk's residential areas as a shield to shell the Ukrainian army and they hide behind locals. Thus, locals get killed from the return fire, which fuels more propaganda of "Ukrainians killing their own people."

A Russian occupier says this land is historically Russian.

Obviously, there's more. A great breakdown video about the film is here. It's 27 minutes long, but hits everything about the film and Russian propaganda. Much of it is also listed above, but there is plenty I didn't mention in this post.

youtube

---

But let's get back to Marsha's article.

The feature film All Quiet on the Western Front, which also humanized the “wrong” side of the First World War with its devastating portrayal of a young German soldier’s experiences, won four Academy Awards last year, including best international feature film. Russians at War, which dispels the myth that there is any glory involved in war whatsoever, deserves similar recognition. It certainly deserves a chance to be seen.

Is Marsha seriously comparing "All Quiet on the Western Front" to "Russians at War"? These films and situations are not similar at all.

I won't speak for the rest of the world, but on "my side of the pond", we are so far removed from World War I, the only time we think about it is in a history lesson, a textbook, or a movie. We can look back on it with hindsight and safely explore different aspects of the war without sparking outrage and traumatizing anyone. Most if not all of the discontent I saw that came from "All Quiet on the Western Front" was due to historical inaccuracy, how the weapons were portrayed to be used in certain situations, and how scenes with the trenches and barbed wire were set up. There is emotional distance.

Let's not forget, the original book is a piece of fiction based on the collective experiences of WWI soldiers and the author. The characters are fiction.

This is reality with real people suffering from Russia's aggression. it is absolutely ludicrous to compare "All Quiet on the Western Front" to "Russians at War". Ordinary Russians are committing horrendous, inhumane, and evil crimes, so much so that it is hard for the human mind to comprehend the scale, quality, and magnitude of it all.

I don't need Russian soldiers to be humanized, because we have already seen what humans can do both in history and the here and now. There is a great capacity to do immense good and to do incredible harm. Instead of protesting the war and the government, Russians have chosen to support the war. Ordinary Russians have joined the war for money or to have their prison sentences cleared. Ordinary Russians have willingly posted their crimes on Telegram with pride. Ordinary Russians have tortured and killed Ukrainians, subjugated them in occupying lands, kidnapped and trafficked Ukrainian children, and so many other atrocities. It is a choice they made, and they should not be absolved of it.

Of course, Russians is much more sensitive. It is a documentary to begin with, but also because this catastrophe is happening right now. It is bringing agony to Ukrainians at this very moment. Nobody should have to experience what Ukrainians are suffering through at the hands of Russia.

You ignorant little shit, you literally wrote "the anger around this film is unjustified" in the beginning. You dismissed the anger people feel about this film and you have the audacity to only now knowledge the pain Ukrainians feel? Your words. "Propaganda? Please." Fuck off.

Russian fighters – some drafted, some indoctrinated, some there to keep their families fed back home or a friend company at the front, some there because they don’t know why – are also victims of this war. As one notes in the film, they are at war with themselves. “Slavs against Slavs.”

Oh, look, Marsha! Another piece of Russian propaganda that you have confirmed is in the film! Now, it can be explained for those that don't know (which includes you apparently! :D).

Russia has co-opted the term "Slav" to mean Russian and only Russian. They do this to deny the existence of other Slavic ethnicities, such as Ukrainians, and subjugate them. This further fuels the narrative that Ukraine cannot exist without Russia, that Ukraine is inseparable from Russian history and culture, that Ukrainians and Russians are one and the same and that Ukrainians don't exist. Hope that helps. :)

And a talented filmmaker, without an official posting or even a press pass, followed them almost all the way to the front so that we could know about it. And be outraged. Not at the film; at the war. Censoring art is never a good idea. But keeping this film under wraps is denying the public of more than the experience of seeing an excellent movie. It is restricting access to a vital message: an unforgiving indictment of war. Peace.

The Russian army has restricted soldiers from being able to use phones. There is no way in hell the director could waltz in with sophisticated camera equipment, sit with a bunch of Russian soldiers for MONTHS, and film whatever she wanted without the FSB and GRU knowing. Canadian organizations that funded this fell for the lies. TIFF fell for the lies. And you, Marsha, fell for the lies.

So, you want to be outraged at war? Fine. Of course, war is horrific. But make sure you damn well know who the aggressor is in this war. It is Russia and Russia only. There is no both sides-ing this.

It takes millions of people to support a genocide and millions more to commit it. It is not Putin's war but Russia's war.

No matter what, this propaganda film is a win-win for the Kremlin. It's a win if it is shown, using the West's cultural centers, festivals, and institutions to spread its narrative, and a win if it is not shown to further fuel its propaganda.

But I think Kate Tsurkan from the Kyiv Independent said it best.

"It is our responsibility to categorically reject any attempts to excuse or rehabilitate the Russian war crimes being committed in Ukraine, and to ensure that the suffering of Russia’s victims is neither forgotten nor minimized — it’s the very least we can do for the tens of thousands of Ukrainians whose lives they stole and destroyed."

This isn't the first time Russia has pushed its propaganda pieces through cultural festivals, nor will it be the last.

Know who the enemy is.

Remember who they are.

#Ukraine #russia is a terrorist state #russian propaganda #Canada #Toronto #TIFF #russians at war #article in link #toronto film festival #toronto international film festival #video #long post #this turned out to be longer than I expected #but there was so much bullshit packed into a tiny article #I listened to Ukrainians. It aint hard #Youtube #screen reader friendly

33 notes · View notes

mariacallous · 2 months ago

Text

Today, Aug. 31, Estonians and Latvians celebrate 30 years since the departure of Russian troops from their territories, which ended half a century of occupation. The ongoing war in Ukraine is a daily reminder for Russia’s neighbors that their freedom must not be taken for granted. History suggests that Russians only withdraw from occupied territories for one of two reasons: Either they are driven out by force or their own cost-benefit calculus compels them to leave. In the latter case, the only major territorial withdrawals in Russian history have happened when regime collapse has radically changed this cost-benefit calculus. If Washington fails to recognize this long-established pattern and continues to severely constrain Kyiv’s defense in hopes for some future reset in relations with Moscow, the next wave of Russian aggression is all but ensured.

The Russian empire—whether the tsarist or Soviet variant—collapsed twice in the 20th century: in 1917, when a communist coup dethroned the tsar, and in 1991, when another, unsuccessful coup was the final death knell for the Soviet Union. Both events created a window of opportunity for many smaller nations to break free. Moscow withdrew from many of its non-Russian territories not because it no longer wanted to have an empire, but because it no longer had the means to keep these territories under its control.

Russia is currently occupying more than 42,000 square miles—about the size of South Korea—or approximately 18 percent of Ukraine’s territory. Ukrainians aim at regaining all of it and see full restoration of their territorial integrity as an essential component of a just peace. Yet their hopes to reconquer much of their land have withered, not least due to strict limitations imposed, mainly by the United States, on the Ukrainians’ use of Western weapons. Ukraine’s surprise incursion into Russia’s Kursk region and quick capture of about 500 square miles of Russian soil has changed the outlook: Now, an exchange of territories may become an element of eventual negotiations. Russian leader Vladimir Putin’s calculus is still in favor of continuing the war, but the Ukrainians are finding new ways to increase the cost to Moscow and upend the narrative that Russia is marching towards an inevitable victory.

The historical experience of Russia’s neighbors provides some clues to Ukraine’s chances to regain occupied territories or achieve peace through territorial concessions.

The last Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, decided to let the Soviet satellite states in Central and Southeast Europe go and allowed an unprecedented degree of openness within the Soviet Union. But even the great reformer Gorbachev was unwilling to give up any of the Soviet republics, including the three Baltic states. A leader of the Estonian national movement at the time, Marju Lauristin, recalled a personal conversation with Gorbachev, in which she explained Estonia’s aspirations for independence and received a straight reply. He could not give away what the Russian nation had gained, she recalled him saying.

The Baltic states grasped the chaos and aftermath of the 1991 Soviet coup to restore their independence, but that was followed by a tense three-year struggle to achieve the withdrawal of Russian troops. Diplomatic efforts took place in parallel with the departure of Moscow’s forces from the former satellite states, including more than 330,000 soldiers leaving East Germany by 1994. As we know, Russia’s withdrawal from Germany was a most humiliating experience for the young Putin, who was traumatized by the East Germans’ peaceful uprising against their communist regime while he was stationed there as a KGB agent.

Estonia was the last European country to secure the departure of Russian troops through a July 1994 agreement between the two countries’ presidents at the time, Boris Yeltsin and Lennart Meri. Both leaders took considerable risks by agreeing to a deal that was unpopular in their respective countries. Many in the Russian opposition, diplomatic establishment, and security services were highly critical of Yeltsin’s decision. On the Estonian side, the deal involved painful concessions, notably allowing retired Soviet military personnel and their families, altogether more than 10,000 people, to stay in Estonia and enjoy social benefits. Similar unpopular conditions were also accepted by Latvia. Although the departure of occupying troops was a dream come true for Estonians, Meri faced criticism at home for the concessions. It took great diplomatic skills and political courage to achieve the final stage of de-occupation, which paved the way for Estonia’s accession to NATO and the European Union.

The motive for Yeltsin was most probably his wish to maintain good relations with the West—especially the economic and financial support on which Russia depended at the time—while the United States and Germany put friendly pressure on him to withdraw his forces from the Baltic states. Any such motive is utterly irrelevant for the current Russian leadership; there is no chance that Western countries could persuade the Putin regime to deliberately leave Ukraine in hopes of improved relations or economic benefits such as sanctions relief.

For some of Russia’s neighbors, giving up territory was the price to pay for independence. However, territorial concessions without being prepared to resist further Russian demands has not been a recipe for stability. In 1939, then-independent Estonia gave in to Soviet demands to establish military bases on its territory in the vain hope of avoiding war. The concessions did not help, and the Baltics were soon occupied and annexed. Finland refused similar demands for the stationing of Soviet troops and was attacked by the Red Army. Yet eventually, Finland sustained its independence after fiercely fighting for it. The Baltics learned a bitter lesson. Today they are prepared to fight back from the first moment of aggression.

Finland gave up one-tenth of its territory as a result of its two wars with the Soviet Union, but it would be wrong to present this as an example of trading land for peace. The Soviet Union did not stop fighting because it was content with the concessions; it stopped because it was unable to defeat the Finns and conquer more land. The Red Army became too exhausted to carry on, not least because it was also fighting on other fronts of World War II.

As part of the armistice agreement that ended the Soviet-Finnish fighting in September 1944, Finland leased to the Soviet Union the strategically valuable Porkkala peninsula, located just 20 miles from Helsinki. Although the lease was set for 50 years, the Soviets returned Porkkala in 1956, which looks like a rare example of a voluntary Russian withdrawal. The decision was part of the thaw under Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev, who succeeded Joseph Stalin in 1953. The case shows that a new leader who is critical of his predecessor may sometimes be favorable to new openings.

However, in subsequent years the Kremlin continued attempts to subsume Finland under tighter Soviet control, successfully interfering in its domestic politics and forcing it to align much of its foreign policy with Russia’s but failing to push the country closer to defense cooperation. Finland achieved Soviet recognition of its neutral status only as part of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe held in Helsinki in 1975.

Another Russian neighbor, Japan, has also learned that Moscow does not give up territories under its control as a gesture of goodwill. Under former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, Japan made extensive efforts in the 2000s and 2010s to foster friendly and mutually beneficial relations with Putin’s regime. Abe aimed to finally settle the two countries’ territorial dispute over the four southernmost Kuril Islands, annexed by the Soviet Union at the end of World War II. In the hope of splitting the difference and regaining two of the islands, Japan went to great lengths in courting Putin and avoiding any criticism of Russia, including after Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea and the start of the war in eastern Ukraine. In March 2022, Russia announced that it did not intend to continue the talks and practically ruled out giving up any of its territories, with Russian Security Council Deputy Chairman Dmitry Medvedev stating that “negotiations about the Kurils always had a ritualistic character”.

So far, the West has been surprised by Russia’s ability to bear the heavy cost for its invasion of Ukraine. In Western societies, human life is priceless; in Russia, it is cheap. The Russian regime has been able to rely on seemingly endless waves of expendable soldiers and a harsh redirection of its economy to defense production in ways that would be far too costly for any democratic leader. What can be fatal for a Russian leader, however, is any perceived weakness and the failure to uphold Russia’s greatness. Most Russians want to live in a great country that dominates others, and they are ready to accept sacrifices for this cause, as documented in detail in books by Svetlana Alexievich, Jade McGlynn, and others.

Western leaders have talked a lot about the need to raise the cost of Russian aggression. But they have failed to effectively implement economic sanctions and have still not allowed Ukraine to use Western long-range weapons to attack military targets on Russian territory. By bringing the war to Russia nonetheless, Ukraine has proven that there is space to be bolder and more innovative in making the Russians pay a painful price for their desired greatness—a greatness that is built on invading and occupying other nations.

Russia is not going to withdraw from Ukraine unless it is forced to go—or to pay an unbearable price to stay. There is absolutely nothing in Russian history or recent behavior that suggests Moscow could be expected to negotiate in good faith to reach a compromise. Some territorial concessions from Ukraine may eventually be the price worth paying for peace and freedom—but this remains moot until Russia first gets to the point where it believes that further aggression can bring no gains.

Full restoration of Ukraine’s territorial integrity will likely require another collapse of the Russian empire. It may be years ahead, but Russia’s historical trajectory suggests that it will happen at some point, as the country has shown itself to be incapable of correcting course through evolution rather than revolution. A Western “reset” with the current regime will not be possible without sacrificing Ukraine’s independence and the core principles of the European security order, including the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity.

Whether losing Ukraine will be the final death toll for the Russian empire, only time will tell. And even then, Russia’s neighbors will always have to be prepared for its violent imperialism to rebound.

37 notes · View notes

mylight-png · 1 year ago

Text

You know what absolutely baffles me about the pro-Hamas/anti-Israel movement?

If you ask the people who consider themselves part of that movement whether they would ever choose to align themselves with the Taliban, ISIS, Al Qaeda or Chinese government, or Russian government, or North Korea, or Erdogan (of Turkey), or Maduro (of Venezuela) then the answer would be a resounding "No!"

Because all of those people, groups, and regimes are notorious for their violations of human rights. Everyone knows of how Russia treats queer people and their actions in Ukraine (and in history in general). Everyone, or at least most people, are aware of China's mistreatment of the Ughyrs. Most wouldn't hesitate to recognize and often condemn ISIS and Al Qaeda as violent terrorist groups with negative intent. Maduro and Erdogan (and Putin) are known to be problematic and oppressive and backwards. And do I even need to explain North Korea?

So I'm fairly sure we can agree, most reasonable people would not align themselves with these groups.

Well let me tell you something. Russia and China have shown support for Gaza/Hamas in the current war. Erdogan's regime siphons money to Hamas. There have been remnants of North Korean weapons found where Hamas has attacked, indicating North Korean support as well. ISIS has repeatedly helped Hamas, and their flag was found in one of the places where Hamas invaded. Hamas's attack on Israel has been repeatedly compared on the scale of 9/11 for a reason, the two groups share ideologies and goals as well. Hamas has established an Islamist state in Gaza comparable to the rule of the Taliban, going so far as having the death penalty for being queer.

I think we can all agree that those groups/governments/leaders are awful and horrible. (Gov, not people.)

So why are people who are always so quick to condemn those groups are also quick to support Hamas in the war against Israel? Even though Hamas literally goes against everything those people stand for?

I don't really have an answer, but I have a few guesses. Let's just say the main reason starts with "anti" and ends with "semitism".

Even if the people at the pro-Hamas rallies would never claim to be antisemites, their views are shaped by the antisemitism so constant in our culture. As I've said before, the propaganda we're seeing is nothing new, it's just been reworded to fit the modern political world.

It's the same blood libel and slander we've been facing since we've began existing.

And yet, I am still baffled by the willful and selective ignorance of those who oppose Israel right now.

I'll be honest, I will most frequently assume benevolent intent. These people often believe that they are actually doing the right thing, actually helping people. But they align themselves with groups and individuals who definitely do not have benevolent intent. And I find the willful blindness appalling and confusing.

#jewish #jumblr #judaism #jew #opinion #proud israeli #israel solidarity #discourse #hamas is isis #denounce hamas #am yisrael chai #fuck antisemitism #fuck hamas #antizionism is antisemitism

117 notes · View notes

merrymorningofmay · 7 months ago

Note

I saw your post about how hard things have been lately and I was wondering if having people boost not just war/survival related things, but also positivity would help? Ukraine has such a rich and beautiful culture; I'd love to know if there are good tags for finding information and examples to boost to show people that and if you think that would be genuinely helpful?

Sorry if this is worded oddly. I hope you and your family stay safe and that this ends in victory for your people soon. <3

thank you for the kind words and support!!

as for your question: it's not odd at all, but i have kind of mixed feelings on the matter, so this is gonna be long i'm sorry....

first i'll say this: celebrating and promoting ukrainian culture is always, unambiguously, a good idea, because historically it's been largely underrepresented and understudied (and appropriated and/or miscredited by. Some Country. anyway). i like to think it's also helpful to our plight, however marginally, because people are more likely to sympathise with someone familiar and relatable, and engaging with ukrainian culture/boosting ukraine's presence anywhere can help bridge that gap.

as for online sources to share, i can definitely recommend ukr_arthistory (ukrainian art) and old_ukr_books (vintage book illustrations) on twitter, and also vintage-ukraine here on tumblr. if you'd like to help promote ukrainian artists on here as well as on twitter, #украрт, #укркрафт are the tags you wanna check out. living artists could always use some engagement/commissions

this list is quite short, to my shame, but again, fellow ukrainians are very welcome to add their own suggestions! (guys, please do)

i have my own reservations, though. see, there isn't a single aspect of ukrainian culture, art, life that hasn't been affected or retroactively reframed by the current war or by the long gruesome history of russia's colonialism in ukraine. the war is a part of us, it's a part of me, and any attempt by a non-ukrainian to draw a neat line between the two feels. unearned and violating? somehow? (again, these are just my feelings; e.g. i never trigger tag my war posts because nobody gets to have the fun parts of me and filter out the war part of me. other ukrainians may have different feelings)

and especially now, when the political and battlefield situation is at its bleakest yet and ukraine has been making less and less headlines, hearing non-ukrainians praise the resilience of the ukrainian people or repeat the comforting "kyiv in three days" platitude makes me feel bitter more than anything, because like. we shouldn't have to be this resilient! we're resilient because our allies are failing us and our only other choice is death! sure they didn't take kyiv in three days, but if they take it in three years instead i'll be just as dead in the end! you feel me?

this, of course, isn't to imply you did/were about to do any of that; i'm just trying to explain why i can't just answer "yes, by all means" to your (respectful and valid) question.

i guess the bottom line is: sure, do share and celebrate the beautiful, joyful, fascinating things about ukraine, as long as you also share and engage with the serious stuff. unfortunately, the bad news are the priority right now. i sincerely hope we live to see the day they won't be.

#rereading this i realise that the whole paragraph about resilience had nothing to do with your question and i could've omitted it altogether #uhh. consider that one a rant tangent i'm sorry #mari asks

41 notes · View notes

justinspoliticalcorner · 4 months ago

Text

Joan E Greve and Helen Sullivan at The Guardian:

Joe Biden addressed the nation Wednesday to explain his historic decision to withdraw from the presidential race, delivering a reflective and hopeful message about the need to begin a new chapter in America’s story.

“I believe my record as president, my leadership in the world, my vision for America’s future all merited a second term, but nothing – nothing – can come in the way of saving our democracy. That includes personal ambition,” Biden said in the Oval Office. “So I’ve decided the best way forward is to pass the torch to a new generation. It’s the best way to unite our nation. You know, there is a time and a place for long years of experience in public life. There’s also a time and a place for new voices, fresh voices – yes, younger voices. And that time and place is now.” The speech came three days after Biden stunned the country with the announcement he would abandon his presidential campaign less than four months before election day. As he contemplated the legacy of his five decades in public life, Biden pledged to keep working to better Americans’ lives as he concludes his first – and now only – term as president. Some Republican lawmakers have suggested Biden should resign rather than finish out his term, but the president firmly rejected those calls on Wednesday.

“Over the next six months, I’ll be focused on doing my job as president,” he said. “That means I’ll continue to lower costs for hard-working families [and] grow our economy. I’ll keep defending our personal freedoms and our civil rights – from the right to vote to the right to choose.” Biden specifically vowed to “keep working to end the war in Gaza, bring home all the hostages and bring peace and security to the Middle East”. Hours before Biden’s speech, Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, delivered a divisive address to a rare joint session of Congress in which he called for “total victory” in the war. Biden cited his own leadership on foreign policy, including his staunch support for Ukraine amid its war against Russia, as one of his proudest accomplishments. He reminded voters about the legislation he has signed to tackle the climate crisis, reduce gun violence and expand healthcare access. Harkening back to the day of his inauguration in 2021, weeks after the January 6 attack on the Capitol and less than a year into the start of the coronavirus pandemic, Biden marveled at how far the country had come in such a short time.

“We were in the grip of the worst pandemic in the century, the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, the worst attack on our democracy since the civil war,” Biden said. “We came together as Americans. We got through it. We emerged stronger, more prosperous and more secure.” After withdrawing from the race on Sunday, Biden endorsed his vice-president Kamala Harris, who has already consolidated the support of enough delegates to capture the Democratic nomination next month. In his speech, Biden reiterated his praise of Harris and underscored the immense choice facing voters this November. “I’d like to thank our great vice-president, Kamala Harris,” Biden said. “She’s experienced, she’s tough, she’s capable. She’s been an incredible partner to me and a leader for our country. Now the choice is up to you, the American people.”

[...] “America is an idea, an idea stronger than any army, bigger than any ocean, more powerful than any dictator or tyrant. It’s the most powerful idea in the history of the world,” Biden said. “That idea is that we hold these truths to be self-evident. We’re all created equal, endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights: life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. We’ve never fully lived up to it, to this sacred idea, but we’ve never walked away from it either, and I do not believe the American people will walk away from it now.” It was a message that echoed Biden’s campaign slogan in 2020, which framed the election against Trump as a “battle for the soul of the nation”. That battle remains ongoing, Biden said, and it will now be up to the American people to decide how it will end. “The great thing about America is here, kings and dictators do not rule. The people do,” Biden said. “History is in your hands. The power is in your hands. The idea of America lies in your hands. You just have to keep faith – keep the faith – and remember who we are.”

President Joe Biden gave an excellent Oval Office address on the topic of ending his re-election bid and handing the baton to Vice President Kamala Harris. Biden has announced that he is staying to complete his term.

Let’s get some herstory made and elect a Momala to the White House! #Harris47 #Harris2024