World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
I think that's more up to the Russian people than anyone in the west. Russians like strong men, it's a weakness in their society. Everyone outside Russia wanted it to continue to be a democracy, Russia even had a brief association with NATO while it was. But Yeltsin drank too much (alcoholism being another weakness in Russian society) and that allowed a guy like Putin to make himself a Czar.
This is some of the dumbest shit ive read on here. Shocked you aren't from .world
No, it's not any more a Russian weakness than an American one, even less than a Japanese or a Chinese one.
Especially unwise to judge Russians by American stereotypes of Russians.
How's that compatible with supporting Yeltsin in his 1993 coup and in stealing 1996 elections?
No it didn't. Yeltsin wanted that, yes, and Putin wanted that too. Both wanted to be a big, scary country accepted to NATO and with NATO weaponry. Like Turkey, but with nukes. What both didn't want is dropping the bullshit about spheres of influence and being an equal of the USA, apparently got told by NATO that beggars are not choosers. Also wanting an association with NATO has plainly nothing to do with being a democracy or not.
I think you skipped the part where I was educating you that Yeltsin made himself Czar in 1993 and just passed it on to Putin.
I don't really care that it breaks your narrative. Putin is a natural continuation of the western-supported and consulted regime in Russia installed in 1993. That Yeltsin presented himself as some liberator and Putin presented himself as ex Soviet intelligence are campaign pictures that mean nothing. All the trusted people around Putin are the same that Yeltsin had even before 1991. Including Putin himself.
Alcoholism is not a bigger weakness in the Russian society than in British ones or in Sweden or in Finland.
Gorbachev was the only rational guy they had during that period. He could have had a chance to do something if the West had supported him.
Russians don't have the "fuck the feds" grassroots rebelliousness of Americans, they don't have a honour/respectability culture like the Japanese not to mention that Russians have basically no civil society while Japan (as a stem family culture) has a very strong one, and unlike the Chinese Russians are fatalist AF, don't really have expectations about things becoming better for them. If the CCP had started this shit they would've lost the mandate of heaven quite a while ago.
But I agree, it's not so much a strong man fetish. It's an acceptance of might makes right combined with social acceptance of tyrannical behaviour on the individual level and, consequently, high distrust among individuals stopping the formation of a civil society.
Russian society hasn't fundamentally changed since the days of the Tsars, they've gone through various paint-coats while sticking to the same overarching organisational structure: Central power delegates exploitation of people, the environment etc to viceroys in exchange for loyalty, meanwhile acquisition of new colonial subjects is ongoing as, being built on terror, the imperial core can never feel safe and needs to bash something to distract itself from its vulnerability.
All wrong.
There's just one thing that Russians really lack - understanding of the importance of truth. It would seem the Orwellian amorphousness of mind is a legacy Russians have carried from the USSR, except one can see signs of it all over the Russian literature school course. Russians really love "grey morality", ambiguity and nihilism.
For an American or a German it takes belief in a propaganda device to follow it. For a Russian - just acceptance that it's likelier to be better in some way.
No. Just the belief that there's some deeper grey wisdom, a secret, and you'd be an idiot to just give yourself to some specific idea.
A whole country of cynics thinking they know better. Thus extremely skeptical about any initiative.
But that might not be wrong course of action too, Westerners don't seem to comprehend that today's Russia is not USSR, and that solving the problem of making Russians, say, rebel en masse is not going to achieve much. That rebellion will be predicted, easily disrupted and the people involved will regret they were born. It's probably perpetually happening - new and new people who'd eventually have done something finding yet another FSB trap and going to a secret jail silently before they would do anything.
It has and to the worse. Except, of course, back then the majority consisted of illiterate peasants.
No. That's not how central power functioned back then, and what happens now is a mafia group gratuitously using its vast human resources to just have fun. Their fun in this case is conquering Ukraine to feel themselves more powerful. Only it doesn't quite work out, but I think the feeling of being able to mobilize people and send them to the grinder is good enough.
Now that is a universal human trait.
Americans don't believe in, whatnot, manifest destiny, their exceptionalism, they live it. Germans certainly don't believe in classism, yet we're living it. Generally speaking: The stuff that people are actually following is not found on the propaganda level, but on a level below that, on a cultural carrier wave so to speak. Why propagandise something that people are doing, anyway? Doesn't make sense.
That's just bug-standard metamodernism collapsed into fascism, that is, regressed into modernism. Just to explains terms: Modernism is the age of grand ideas, "one true path to absolve humankind", while postmodernism is the "yo all that stuff is BS anyway we don't know shit". You see those forces oscillating throughout history, metamodernism means their co-existence.
That belief might very well what people are telling themselves, but it's a shallow analysis. The "deeper grey wisdom" (interesting that you used "grey" btw, "it must be ancient" -- why?) is Snokhachestvo, and not the practice itself but the cultural attitudes that enable(d) it. Russia made some progress overcoming that shit, e.g. normalising nuclear families instead of communal ones (the one crucial achievement of the USSR), but the underlying cultural beliefs stay uninterrogated, able to perpetuate themselves. Thus men do to their sons what their fathers did to them, think that's what being a man is all about, and if you don't use whatever power and might you have to be cruel, you're obviously gay. Like Europe.
That is what I meant with "a belief in might makes right".
Germany has 80 million national football team trainers. There seems to be a pattern here: Declaring universal human traits as specifically Russian. Those traits are true, no doubt, but they're not unique.
It didn't? The Tsar and the viceroys, plundering the country and living the good life. The General Secretariat or even Secretary and the Nomenklatura, plundering the country and living the good life. "Everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others". In either case, highly authoritarian societies, with varying levels of totalitarianism. Such a setup requires cruelty and ruthlessness, and there's no shortage of either because, according to Russian culture throughout the ages, good fathers make sure that their sons are strong men by raping the son's wife. Metaphorically speaking, at least: The "sons" might be subordinate soldiers, and the "wife" their pay checks and materiel. In the position of son, you're just expected to take it, otherwise you're weak, and the "father" will make sure that's an even worse fate. The Siloviki do indeed want to free Ukrainians -- so they bomb cities. Free them from their "European gayness", that is. Such is the perversity of the Russian psyche.
Or, differently put: You sure you're looking at the water you're swimming in? I'm not Russian, I only lived there, and I was able to see the water. Swimming feels quite a bit different in Russia than it does virtually everywhere else.
Snokhachestvo and the cultural approaches similar to it are prevalent in those people who are Russia's elite now, but generally seem very rare as far as I can see.
And that stuff about Europe and homosexuality seems for me a kind of "the hungry doesn't understand the full", more of jokes and separation than of really thinking that's true. It's just that there are people outside the prison and inside it, and those inside can't afford to behave freely. It's almost envy, except without even negative feelings. More like alienation - "they live so much easier that for them homosexuality is a real concern".
Also there's the criminal culture homosexuality, as a marker of status in the criminal hierarchy, which is demonstrably non-consensual, and one can see a psychological parallel between living freely in general inside a prison and being gay in a place where people get raped. A nonsensically careless behavior, something like that. And being nonsensically careless is weak.
They followed their own laws. If a law was too cumbersome to make, they didn't. It was an absolute monarchy, but if you compare today's Russia's judicial system to the imperial one - the latter seems very humane. By stats, by procedures, by stories of people who witnessed it.
The kind of peasant communes and huge families where such things happened wasn't actually natural. It was becoming the more common, the more people were becoming personal serfs. That is, there was that transition during Catherine where state serfs (which in practice meant almost a free man) were given to nobles en masse, she considered that a better arrangement. Sort of a privatization.
Nah, not that. If we make this comparison, for them it's the father's right, and you are subordinate. It's not about fear of punishment, it's about enduring for endurance's sake. Almost morality.
No, they don't. They want to kill and loot and subjugate.
People who you are maybe looking for here are not those who try to somehow explain the state's justifications for this war. It's those who think that this has to be finished anyway regardless of whether the war should have been started.
I haven't met such real people. OK, to be honest, probably I didn't realize but I have.
The point is - almost nobody really thinks that about gayness and what not, but everybody thinks it's smarter to play along, that's what I meant by the amorphousness of mind of Russians.
It does, but it's more of a culture of virtuous suffering, like doing your work the hard way instead of loosening up a bit and doing it better, but with less "honest labor" or something. And lies. The virtuous suffering thing is often stupid, but sometimes a strength. The lies however are usually stupid, yet Russians somehow always start with lies and then maybe work it up to saying the truth.
I'm talking about an underlying psychosexual current. Of course people don't believe in the literal truth of these kinds of things, it'd be like believing that dreams are literally true. But there's still a reason why you're having these particular kinds of dreams, and not different ones.
Do you think it's even constitutional for Putin to deputise people with presidential powers? That any court would challenge him? Law in Russia was, and is, subordinate to the powers that be.
That's the attitude of those considered strong, yes. You either become them or you break and end up with a tattoo saying "slave" on your forehead or something.
I'm not talking about the state's justification, but about the justification of the cultural psyche. Russia, as a psyche, doesn't want to see Ukrainians with forehead tattoos, it wants Ukraine to be part of it. Part of the same ethos, with maybe slightly different dances, clothing, and they can continue pronouncing things with h instead of g as long as they admit they're Russians, that they accept, as you put it above, the father's authority. And the only way that psyche knows how to convince the son of the father's authority is by cruelty.
It's not. It destroys social cohesion, it breeds neurosis. With true courage, it doesn't matter whether you live or die for the cause, as long as the cause is virtuous. This Russian strength, though, it only can ever make sense if you're dying for it, living for it indeed is stupid, at the same time its strength in dying for it is not stronger than that of true courage. It's precisely why Russians don't know where the fuck that cart is racing. But go, it must. Why. Why not make camp and have a party.
The reason is simple: Without the people neurotic, distrustful, and accustomed to bowing to authority, the central authority would fall, because people would actually be able to organise bottom-up. The central authority knows that, and thus does nothing to combat it, the people, well, it's Russia's only way to greatness, isn't it? Any alternatives?
Which brings me to Navalny's balls of steel, returning to Russia: Yes, that's impressive. That's strong, "virtuous suffering". But it's also accepting the status quo. You can't be a revolutionary against a system by holding onto the ethos that fuels it.