You could write that article, make the argument. The ability to do so does not imply equivalence, a balance of "completely right or completely wrong," in which

You could write that article, make the argument. The ability to do so does not imply equivalence, a balance of "completely right or completely wrong," in which no morally superior position is available. This piece makes the key point against this view: "Conspiracy has replaced ideology [in Russia], and for the most part that serves the Kremlin very nicely. You can argue back against an ideology through its own logic: Communist leaders could, at least in theory, be accused of failing to create the ideal society they promised. Conspiracy negates all criticism by accusing the critic of being a front." Even if one notices the hypocrisy of Western history in view of liberal ideology, one is still supposing that the latter exists to guide the former. This is true even if a conspiracy towards oligarchy exists! The earnest and shared belief in a consistent vision of just society creates the political consciousness prerequisite for revolution or reform. In contrast, to suppose that all actors' motivations are conspiratorial, all espoused values a sham for self-interest and power that cannot be acted upon, is to foreclose the possibility of reform - it is a false consciousness. The kleptomaniac & self-contradictory 'Russian values' quoted here from Russia's new strategy paper expect such conspiratorial thinking from Russian citizens. The text's internal hypocrisy - and its hypocrisy in view of Russian history - do not matter. The response to such criticism is singular, and you have said it: "[all ideologies] are retroactive justification for [oppression]." None have any meaning or application. Pomerantsev enlightens us by showing how this particular nonsense of 'Russian values' exists specifically to justify 'Information Sovereignty,' a euphemism for preventing Russians from hearing foreign ideas - an ancient tactic of oppression by enforced ignorance, dressed here in the finery of 'National Security.'