4 ms·

Instead of engaging in amateur psychoanalyzing of your educated acquaintance because he dares praise Putin's speech, you could have also chosen to read it yours

by pdx 10y ago

Instead of engaging in amateur psychoanalyzing of your educated acquaintance because he dares praise Putin's speech, you could have also chosen to read it yourself. Here, let me help you. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/09/28/read-putins-u-n-general-assembly-speech/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/09/28...

kafkaesq 10y ago
Thanks, but I read it when it first went around. Like a lot of things he says, it was indeed cogent and thoughtful -- but also, at its base, fundamentally warped.
- throwanem 10y ago
  That's quite a bold statement. Would you like to elaborate on it?
  - kafkaesq 10y ago
    Well, considering the text itself (and leaving apart one's feelings about the person speaking it): it does contain some valid points and interesting ideas -- about leveraging the "Yalta system" and the "anti-Hitler coalition"; and about the need to get beyond "bloc thinking" -- and raises valid criticism about American-led efforts to support various insurgencies in the region (and the damage caused by going outside, rather than through the international system). One could almost imagine some peaceful, alternate universe with the leader of genuinely democratic and non-aggressive (but still not necessarily western-oriented) Russia saying such things to the General Assembly, in so many words. But this is Vladimir Putin we're dealing with, after all, and the current historical context matters greatly. And it all unravels pretty quickly, for example on line 3: But I remind you that the key decisions on the principles guiding the cooperation among states, as well as on the establishment of the United Nations, were made in our country, in Yalta, at the meeting of the anti-Hitler coalition leaders. Right there, he's basically "gaslighting"† us -- blatantly attempting to fuck with our minds by asking us to accept that Yalta is a part of his nation's territory, completely side-stepping the issue of its forceful annexation less than 2 years previously, and the rather profound insult to the international system and the concept of rule of law that action caused -- while attempting to lecture on the importance of respecting established precedent and working through the international system. So like, right there -- a huge, steaming pile of WTF, right there on the Assembly floor. But rather than stop there, he keeps piling it higher and deeper: Whatever actions any state might take bypassing [UN] procedure are illegitimate. Like for example own pet insurgency movement in a certain neighboring country whose name starts with the letter U, the existence of which he also continues to attempt to deny most of the time (except when he obliquely praises it). With all the completely unnecessary and avoidable bloodshed and other human suffering that has gone with it. (to be continued) † https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting
  - kafkaesq 10y ago
    As to the other main thrust of what he's saying (supporting Assad as the lesser of evils... like you know, back in the good old days of the anti-Hitler coalition): let's just say things are "a bit more complicated" than the way he presents it. And that he's side-stepping some very important things -- the atrocious human rights record of the regime he'd like us all to throw our weight behind [1]; (this is time-traveling a bit, but) the conduct of own armed forces[2] in that country since that speech (for example, their use of cluster munitions, against those some UN conventions he claims to hold so sacrosanct); and this little bit of unpleasantness [3] (NSFW). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_violations_during_the_Syrian_Civil_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_violations_during... -- especially the part about "According to various human rights organizations and the United Nations, human rights violations have been committed by both the government and the rebels, with the "vast majority of the abuses having been committed by the Syrian government". [2] "Russian airstrikes have killed around 3800 civilians, about a quarter of them children" -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_military_intervention_in_Syria https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_military_intervention_... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghouta_chemical_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghouta_chemical_attack [NSFW]

by pdx 10y ago

kafkaesq 10y ago

Thanks, but I read it when it first went around. Like a lot of things he says, it was indeed cogent and thoughtful -- but also, at its base, fundamentally warped.

throwanem 10y ago
That's quite a bold statement. Would you like to elaborate on it?
- kafkaesq 10y ago
  Well, considering the text itself (and leaving apart one's feelings about the person speaking it): it does contain some valid points and interesting ideas -- about leveraging the "Yalta system" and the "anti-Hitler coalition"; and about the need to get beyond "bloc thinking" -- and raises valid criticism about American-led efforts to support various insurgencies in the region (and the damage caused by going outside, rather than through the international system). One could almost imagine some peaceful, alternate universe with the leader of genuinely democratic and non-aggressive (but still not necessarily western-oriented) Russia saying such things to the General Assembly, in so many words. But this is Vladimir Putin we're dealing with, after all, and the current historical context matters greatly. And it all unravels pretty quickly, for example on line 3: But I remind you that the key decisions on the principles guiding the cooperation among states, as well as on the establishment of the United Nations, were made in our country, in Yalta, at the meeting of the anti-Hitler coalition leaders. Right there, he's basically "gaslighting"† us -- blatantly attempting to fuck with our minds by asking us to accept that Yalta is a part of his nation's territory, completely side-stepping the issue of its forceful annexation less than 2 years previously, and the rather profound insult to the international system and the concept of rule of law that action caused -- while attempting to lecture on the importance of respecting established precedent and working through the international system. So like, right there -- a huge, steaming pile of WTF, right there on the Assembly floor. But rather than stop there, he keeps piling it higher and deeper: Whatever actions any state might take bypassing [UN] procedure are illegitimate. Like for example own pet insurgency movement in a certain neighboring country whose name starts with the letter U, the existence of which he also continues to attempt to deny most of the time (except when he obliquely praises it). With all the completely unnecessary and avoidable bloodshed and other human suffering that has gone with it. (to be continued) † https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting
- kafkaesq 10y ago
  As to the other main thrust of what he's saying (supporting Assad as the lesser of evils... like you know, back in the good old days of the anti-Hitler coalition): let's just say things are "a bit more complicated" than the way he presents it. And that he's side-stepping some very important things -- the atrocious human rights record of the regime he'd like us all to throw our weight behind [1]; (this is time-traveling a bit, but) the conduct of own armed forces[2] in that country since that speech (for example, their use of cluster munitions, against those some UN conventions he claims to hold so sacrosanct); and this little bit of unpleasantness [3] (NSFW). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_violations_during_the_Syrian_Civil_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_violations_during... -- especially the part about "According to various human rights organizations and the United Nations, human rights violations have been committed by both the government and the rebels, with the "vast majority of the abuses having been committed by the Syrian government". [2] "Russian airstrikes have killed around 3800 civilians, about a quarter of them children" -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_military_intervention_in_Syria https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_military_intervention_... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghouta_chemical_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghouta_chemical_attack [NSFW]