2 ms·
That makes sense, but what doesn't make sense is why it is presented in such a duplicitous way. It's one thing to say "When a country has this kind of internal
by daenz 5y ago
That makes sense, but what doesn't make sense is why it is presented in such a duplicitous way. It's one thing to say "When a country has this kind of internal turmoil, martial law is something that we need to watch out for." It's another thing to say "Unnamed official sees 'signs' on social media about martial law."
One way is transparent, re-enforces critical thinking, while the other way is "believe this because we told you."
- jacquesm 5y agoI see the same signs, I am thinking in the exact same direction as that unnamed official. Mostly because I lived under official 'martial law' for a while to understand what it means and when dictatorial governments reach for it: when they can no longer control the narrative. As soon as that becomes the danger martial law is on the menu, because it allows the government to crack down on the second order effects (since they can't do anything about the root cause, bad news is bad news). The main thing that right now seems to keep martial law at bay in Russia is because, besides being a tacit admission that not all is well and that there is an internal problem in Russia that that would require Putin to give the military more power, something that he is absolutely loathe to do because that very same power could be used against him. But if not for that I am pretty sure we'd already be there.