6 ms·

While reading it it felt like the author of this article had an axe to grind. His bitterness towards Havel felt palpable, and some quick googling shows that he'

While reading it it felt like the author of this article had an axe to grind. His bitterness towards Havel felt palpable, and some quick googling shows that he's definitely not a neutral party: As far back as 2014, when he was _First Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs_ he was criticizing Havel and his policies from a policy standpoint: https://www.praguepost.com/czech-news/czech-foreign-policy-abandons-havel https://www.praguepost.com/czech-news/czech-foreign-policy-a... He pitches the issues between Havel and Kundera as ideological, and representative: Their exchange reflected the fault line between democratic-socialist and liberal intellectuals: Kundera argued for a new model of society that would be free and fair, avoiding the vices of both Western capitalism and Eastern European authoritarianism; Havel defended Western capitalism as the only desirable model, needing fine tuning, but no major revision. And his position on the ideological battle is quite clear in the book he published titled Budoucnost Levice bez Liberalismu_ (The future of the left without liberalism). This isn't to say the article isn't accurate or interesting. (I loved both Kundera's The Unbearable Lightness of Being; and Havel's Summer Meditations). But I think it's useful context, and I'm definitely taking its contents with a pinch of salt, and double checking the falsifiable claims therein.

purple_elephant 3y ago
> While reading it it felt like the author of this article had an axe to grind. In the last sentences of the article, the author shows his true colors and advocates for a "multipolar world", which is basically a politically-correct way of saying "we should get closer to Russia". And indeed, if you look him up, you might learn that he signed a petition calling for an end to support for Ukraine[1] and he frequently speaks out against NATO and defends Russia[2][3] [1] - https://voxukraine.org/en/russian-disinformation-narratives-in-czech-republic-in-january-2023-policy-brief-within-kremlin-watchers-movement-project https://voxukraine.org/en/russian-disinformation-narratives-... [2] - https://ct24.ceskatelevize.cz/svet/3439336-valka-neni-v-ruskem-zajmu-tvrdi-drulak-macron-s-putinem-ale-shodu-nenalezli-hodnoti https://ct24.ceskatelevize.cz/svet/3439336-valka-neni-v-rusk... [3] - https://tass.com/world/1460895 https://tass.com/world/1460895
- boffinAudio 3y ago
  >"multipolar world" Its more of a polite way of saying a great deal of the rest of the world does not want to live in a unipolar world run by the USA and its allies. So, not quite the dialectic that one would suppose. Russia is but one party to that ideology - there are many, many more, and thats what makes it multipolar.
  - lajosbacs 3y ago
    No, it is a hidden way of saying that small countries have no choice of their own and they have to belong to some pole. And as luck would have it, the closest pole to central Europe would be Russia! How can someone not want that?
    - boffinAudio 3y ago
      Nonsense. That's an entirely pro-American-centric way of looking at the multipolar proposition. You've gotten too used to the hegemony. Other nations are sick of American/Western influence in their politics - which is vast and extensive, and: undeniably corrupt. A Multipolar World is one in which the sovereign rights of nations are respected and not superseded/subjugated by extra-national entities/agencies which do not answer to the democracies or indeed legislature of the nation involved. A unipolar world is one where a single nation can call up a collective cabal to form an imperial army and invade and destroy countless other nations around the world, and not a single other nation can stand against that cabal and bring its war criminals to justice. A Multipolar world is one in which small countries do have a choice of their own - and they can thus choose to eschew American hegemony. That is happening across the globe in spite of all attempts by America's hegemonic organs to maintain the iron grip they have had for decades over the worlds poor. Thankfully.
      - lajosbacs 3y ago
        wow But ok, I'll give you that -- I prefer a unipolar world with US hegemony or whatnot rather than a multipolar world where I have to live in the Russian part (which by the way absolutely never respected the nations that it had subjugated, convince me that I'm wrong).

purple_elephant 3y ago

> While reading it it felt like the author of this article had an axe to grind. In the last sentences of the article, the author shows his true colors and advocates for a "multipolar world", which is basically a politically-correct way of saying "we should get closer to Russia". And indeed, if you look him up, you might learn that he signed a petition calling for an end to support for Ukraine[1] and he frequently speaks out against NATO and defends Russia[2][3] [1] - https://voxukraine.org/en/russian-disinformation-narratives-in-czech-republic-in-january-2023-policy-brief-within-kremlin-watchers-movement-project https://voxukraine.org/en/russian-disinformation-narratives-... [2] - https://ct24.ceskatelevize.cz/svet/3439336-valka-neni-v-ruskem-zajmu-tvrdi-drulak-macron-s-putinem-ale-shodu-nenalezli-hodnoti https://ct24.ceskatelevize.cz/svet/3439336-valka-neni-v-rusk... [3] - https://tass.com/world/1460895 https://tass.com/world/1460895

boffinAudio 3y ago
>"multipolar world" Its more of a polite way of saying a great deal of the rest of the world does not want to live in a unipolar world run by the USA and its allies. So, not quite the dialectic that one would suppose. Russia is but one party to that ideology - there are many, many more, and thats what makes it multipolar.
- lajosbacs 3y ago
  No, it is a hidden way of saying that small countries have no choice of their own and they have to belong to some pole. And as luck would have it, the closest pole to central Europe would be Russia! How can someone not want that?
  - boffinAudio 3y ago
    Nonsense. That's an entirely pro-American-centric way of looking at the multipolar proposition. You've gotten too used to the hegemony. Other nations are sick of American/Western influence in their politics - which is vast and extensive, and: undeniably corrupt. A Multipolar World is one in which the sovereign rights of nations are respected and not superseded/subjugated by extra-national entities/agencies which do not answer to the democracies or indeed legislature of the nation involved. A unipolar world is one where a single nation can call up a collective cabal to form an imperial army and invade and destroy countless other nations around the world, and not a single other nation can stand against that cabal and bring its war criminals to justice. A Multipolar world is one in which small countries do have a choice of their own - and they can thus choose to eschew American hegemony. That is happening across the globe in spite of all attempts by America's hegemonic organs to maintain the iron grip they have had for decades over the worlds poor. Thankfully.
    - lajosbacs 3y ago
      wow But ok, I'll give you that -- I prefer a unipolar world with US hegemony or whatnot rather than a multipolar world where I have to live in the Russian part (which by the way absolutely never respected the nations that it had subjugated, convince me that I'm wrong).