It’s remarkable what people will do in the name of principle. Walk into police batons. Accept a death in prison. Raid Harper’s Ferry and see your sons perish. Stand in front of an advancing tank. Most of us haven’t, most of us won’t. What makes those people so intransigent? Is it their circumstances? Are they doing what any honest person would do, or are they driven further, by something else?
I knew from the outset that I would be imprisoned for life—either for the rest of my life or until the end of the life of this regime.
Regimes like this one are resilient, and the most foolish thing I could do is pay attention to people who say, “Lyosha, sure, the regime is going to last at least another year, but the year after that, two at most, it will fall apart and you will be a free man.” And everything along those lines. People write that to me frequently.
The U.S.S.R. lasted seventy years. The repressive regimes in North Korea and Cuba survive to this day. China, with a whole bunch of political prisoners, has lasted so long that those prisoners grow old and die in prison. The Chinese regime does not relent. It releases no one, despite all the international pressure. The truth of the matter is that we underestimate just how resilient autocracies are in the modern world. With very, very rare exceptions, they are protected from external invasion by the U.N., by international law, by the rights of sovereignty. Russia, which right now is waging a classic war of aggression against Ukraine (which has increased tenfold the predictions of the regime’s imminent collapse), is additionally protected by its membership in the U.N. Security Council and its nuclear weapons.
Navalny's statements about minority groups, which he later came to a regret, are a matter of the past. But here in the present moment -- for some reason, you are spreading objectively false narratives which are helpful to no one.
Strange bedfellows. The non-binary and LGBTQ activist is apparently able to look beyond the “cockroaches” comment. Such nuance we are able to discover when we need to circle the wagon on the West’s anti-Russian regime symbol.
Like many of us, Russians, Navalny was subject to the innate imperial mindset, and his political views were right-wing (not something that I personally agree with). Nevertheless, he was the one who recognised the evil nature of Putin's regime very early on, in fact much earlier than 2014, when Russia launched its aggression against Ukraine. Perhaps, if the world listened to the warnings by Navalny and others in Russian opposition, we could have avoided this tragedy.
As a non Russian Im surprised Navalny fate isn’t talked about more in the west, including this being flagged on HN. When it comes to his political views even if Im not aligned I understand where he was coming from. He certainly didn’t diserve to be killed.
The Western coverage of Navalny is basically “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”.
Outside the haze of political motives and propaganda, we can see clearly that one person being bad does not imply that their enemies are good. But this is curiously hard to understand on this topic.
> Russia is so far gone that even the opponents of the current leaders in Russia are crazy by western standards.
This is all well and good, but somehow fascist Israeli leadership (not just Netanyahu but even Israeli "opposition") are totally fine according to "western standards" and receive western weapons and diplomatic support.
The double standard that US in particular has with providing Israel with weapons and protection vs withholding defense and capabilities with Ukraine is frankly disgusting.
(And by western standards I do not mean US standards. By western standards the genocide that Israel is committing is also horrid.)
Don't bother. Humans always need a good and evil, and by nature the enemy of evil has to be good.
I've had this conversation many times, it doesn't lead to anything. If Hamas is bad, then anything that Isreal does in order to eliminate Hamas, has to be good. If Russia is bad, than anything that Ukraine does, has to be good. If Putin is bad, than Nawalny has to be good. If Erdoğan is bad, than İmamoğlu has to be good.
This is obviously just as true vice versa, so it's not like the "other side" is any more reasonable to have a discussion with.
I think my main issue is this modern need for "heros" to be beacons of all virtual who from birth never said or did anything that anyone in the future of humanity will ever disagree with. And if they fail at that they are scum.
I don't think "crazy by western standards" applies here considering the West' treatment of Muslims. Our right wing is just as insane, uncaring, and racist.
“ Ah, the guy who referred to muslims as "cockroaches" and advocated for their extermination”
Religious affiliation, as opposed to race or nationality, is a conscious and deliberate choice. If you choose to hitch a ride on a hateful, nihilistic, fatalistic, genocidal, and invariably uncompromising ideology that insists on complete supremacy and subjugation of non-believers, then don’t be surprised when those non-believers, in a tit for tat common sense sort of way, say untoward things about you.
Sometimes you come across a comment so wrong and hateful that I guess most people don't know what to say and close the tab and go outside when they read it.
https://archive.md/S5MmA
It’s remarkable what people will do in the name of principle. Walk into police batons. Accept a death in prison. Raid Harper’s Ferry and see your sons perish. Stand in front of an advancing tank. Most of us haven’t, most of us won’t. What makes those people so intransigent? Is it their circumstances? Are they doing what any honest person would do, or are they driven further, by something else?
[flagged]
[flagged]
I'm afraid this whatouboutism is bit weak here since, unlike Assange, Navalny was killed.
[flagged]
And then fully reversed itself on that decision just a few months later (May 7 2021):
https://archive.md/dpF0MNavalny's statements about minority groups, which he later came to a regret, are a matter of the past. But here in the present moment -- for some reason, you are spreading objectively false narratives which are helpful to no one.
Why is that?
I simply stated two facts. There is no narrative except the one you are extrapolating. I'm sorry if you don't like reality but it's not my fault.
But hey, the post itself was flagged. I'm glad that glorification of fascists isn't openly accepted on HN.
Your other comments being flagged is not a good reason to just post the same thing again.
It's hilarious how facts are flagged here. And you think it's being flagged for a good reason? Who's the fascist now?
[flagged]
[flagged]
Masha Gessen on this topic: https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/the-evolution-...
Strange bedfellows. The non-binary and LGBTQ activist is apparently able to look beyond the “cockroaches” comment. Such nuance we are able to discover when we need to circle the wagon on the West’s anti-Russian regime symbol.
Like many of us, Russians, Navalny was subject to the innate imperial mindset, and his political views were right-wing (not something that I personally agree with). Nevertheless, he was the one who recognised the evil nature of Putin's regime very early on, in fact much earlier than 2014, when Russia launched its aggression against Ukraine. Perhaps, if the world listened to the warnings by Navalny and others in Russian opposition, we could have avoided this tragedy.
As a non Russian Im surprised Navalny fate isn’t talked about more in the west, including this being flagged on HN. When it comes to his political views even if Im not aligned I understand where he was coming from. He certainly didn’t diserve to be killed.
Certainly pro Russian propaganda wants him dismissed like this and compared to murderers for comments made over 15 years ago.
I'm sure those comments justify all that happened to him and discredit everything he subsequently did... /s
The Western coverage of Navalny is basically “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”.
Outside the haze of political motives and propaganda, we can see clearly that one person being bad does not imply that their enemies are good. But this is curiously hard to understand on this topic.
You can look at it the other way:
Russia is so far gone that even the opponents of the current leaders in Russia are crazy by western standards.
The same is true for the critics of the Ukrainan invasion. They dont want it to stop, they want to attack Ukraine even harder.
> Russia is so far gone that even the opponents of the current leaders in Russia are crazy by western standards.
This is all well and good, but somehow fascist Israeli leadership (not just Netanyahu but even Israeli "opposition") are totally fine according to "western standards" and receive western weapons and diplomatic support.
The double standard that US in particular has with providing Israel with weapons and protection vs withholding defense and capabilities with Ukraine is frankly disgusting.
(And by western standards I do not mean US standards. By western standards the genocide that Israel is committing is also horrid.)
Don't bother. Humans always need a good and evil, and by nature the enemy of evil has to be good.
I've had this conversation many times, it doesn't lead to anything. If Hamas is bad, then anything that Isreal does in order to eliminate Hamas, has to be good. If Russia is bad, than anything that Ukraine does, has to be good. If Putin is bad, than Nawalny has to be good. If Erdoğan is bad, than İmamoğlu has to be good.
This is obviously just as true vice versa, so it's not like the "other side" is any more reasonable to have a discussion with.
I think my main issue is this modern need for "heros" to be beacons of all virtual who from birth never said or did anything that anyone in the future of humanity will ever disagree with. And if they fail at that they are scum.
I don't think "crazy by western standards" applies here considering the West' treatment of Muslims. Our right wing is just as insane, uncaring, and racist.
The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward realpolitik.
“ Ah, the guy who referred to muslims as "cockroaches" and advocated for their extermination”
Religious affiliation, as opposed to race or nationality, is a conscious and deliberate choice. If you choose to hitch a ride on a hateful, nihilistic, fatalistic, genocidal, and invariably uncompromising ideology that insists on complete supremacy and subjugation of non-believers, then don’t be surprised when those non-believers, in a tit for tat common sense sort of way, say untoward things about you.
Sometimes you come across a comment so wrong and hateful that I guess most people don't know what to say and close the tab and go outside when they read it.
...or just downvote in the hopes that the algorithm will de-amplify their future posts.