3 ms·
The positive: he calls it a war - which is a very clear distancing from Moscow. The more questionable: “all victims”. The correct call would be to clarify that
by alkonaut 5y ago
The positive: he calls it a war - which is a very clear distancing from Moscow.
The more questionable: “all victims”. The correct call would be to clarify that all victims are on the Ukrainian side. That would have made an even clearer message against Putin too.
- sharikous 5y agoI don't get why we are so concerned with the purity of his heart. As I see it it pales near to his gesture and the simple fact that he (a Russian man, a friend of Putin, a person with a lot of personal and business connections to Russia) is doing it. I feel he is already beyond all expectations.
- alkonaut 5y agoI'm not that concerned about the purity of his actions but I'm concerned that e.g. something is claimed to be a charity and ends up actually being pouring every penny into the russian war machine as e.g. "help to russian veterans". I'm not saying that's the case, but I'm not exactly going to give an oligarch the benefit of the doubt.
- unmole 5y ago> all victims are on the Ukrainian side. So, a Russian conscript, beaten into submission and then sent off to fight a war against people who might as well be his cousins. If this conscript is killed in action, is he not a victim?
- alkonaut 5y agoCould be, but he shouldn't be helped in Russia in that case. They should be given incentives to surrender (as is already the case - but it needs to be extended). Providing those who return from the war in russia, no matter how poorly informed or treated they were with any support sends the completely wrong signal.