6 ms·

Police raid mosque in Moscow, forcibly take worshippers to enlistment office

60 points by 0xDEF 3y ago

brutusborn 3y ago
I always find it interesting when people talk about their rights in these contexts. If the government can legally conscript you, surely you don’t have any rights? As far as I know the US is the only country with enumerated rights for citizens. “Human rights” are discussed in international contexts but don’t seem to have any legal basis on the local level.
- MattGaiser 3y ago
  Canada has enumerated legal rights. Not as strong as American ones, but they are there. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and... And the USA has legal conscription as well (at least could), even with enumerated rights.
- baybal2 3y ago
  [dead]
- mathieuh 3y ago
  If some fascist gets to be in charge of the US, can’t they just change the rules, ignore them entirely, or just use the media to change the truth and make people actually support their actions? You almost had this happen in 2021. Let alone any extra-judicial actions that governments take in the name of national security. I firmly believe that if even any so-called democratic government wants to do something nominally illegal to you they will find a way. Maybe in a so-called democratic country decades later you’ll be exonerated or the perpetrators will be punished but that won’t be much help to you.
  - Guy_w_Keyboard 3y ago
    No. That's why we have these things called "separation of power," and "checks and balances." No single branch of government is all powerful. In fact, it is a testament to the strength of the constitutional republic the founders built, that even with a man like Donald Trump abusing his powers and a media bolstering his lies, ultimately he was forced to step down, and though justice is slow, he is finally seeing justice for his many crimes.
    - dartos 3y ago
      The judicial branch is pretty much all powerful. The Supreme Court rulings can’t be contested except by the Supreme Court.
      - bsder 3y ago
        And if the executive branch decides to ignore the ruling, there isn't anything the Supreme Court can do about it. See: Worcester v. Georgia This is one of the problems with a Supreme Court that is making rulings that the majority of people don't agree with. If the Supreme Court loses its legitimacy and the other branches simply start ignoring it, it will take a lot of work to get any power back.
        Guy_w_Keyboard 3y ago
        You guys aren't wrong. I believe it was Ben Franklin who famously said, when asked of the new government in the US, what kind it was, he replied, "A republic, if you can keep it." Any democracy is, obviously, only as just or as free as its electorate. As George Carlin pointed out in one of his standups, "If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're going to get selfish, ignorant leaders. Garbage in, garbage out." My point is, however, that one man alone cannot be strong enough to bring it all down. There is enough distribution of power for the system to be robust. By irony, the very political tribalism which is ubiquitously hated and lamented by pundits itself creates a sort of political competition; there is very high incentive to hold the other party or incumbent(s) accountable when they abuse their power or make mistakes, as this benefits themselves politically. Of course, the downside to this system, as we've witnessed in recent years, is that both parties are quick to criticize the other side for their sins, but once in power they commit the very same sins with no self-awareness of the hypocrisy. Although, I wonder how much of that is due to McConnell and the GOP's loose morals, vs. the GOP itself being nigh unrecognizable from what it once was. The party of Reagan, Bush, and Romney is no more; the latter of which I was just reading, described in the press as a "pariah within his own party."
  - 3seashells 3y ago
    No. The people are armed and believe in democracy. Facist would have to do what they suck the most at.. Fighting.
    - pjmlp 3y ago
      Which would be a civil war, if the democracy would uphold depends pretty much of its outcome. Imagine how US would have looked like if South had won the previous civil war.
      - 3seashells 3y ago
        The facists always loose, they are cruel but also to emotional If the raid fails, the default for the tribe is always in fighting?
        pjmlp 3y ago
        After how many years, though? Last time in Portugal it took from 1926 to 1974.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- enasterosophes 3y ago
  Well, there is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights#Legal_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human..., which is to say, it's complicated. Notice USSR did not vote against the proposed universal declaration, implying they were willing to go along with whatever everyone else decided. So, the person quoted in the article has at least some grounds for arguing about human rights, although you might consider the grounds fairly weak. I furthermore claim that the only compassionate response is to agree even if the person isn't on the strongest ground in a formal legal sense where someone might actually be able to do something about it.
- readthenotes1 3y ago
  That's actually only sorta true. A genius of the US Constitution is that it states unequivocally that citizens grant rights to their government, not the other way around.
  - KingMob 3y ago
    Which is great de jure, if de facto, unfortunately.
  - userinanother 3y ago
    Rights are great but who is going to enforce them? If your local sheriff doesn’t believe in said rights good luck suing your way to get them… By the time you get to the appropriate courts it will be years and millions of dollars in legal fees
    - ivanb 3y ago
      And that's assuming independent judicial system. Such a precious thing should not be taken for granted.
  - darthrupert 3y ago
    You just recently had an event that almost overthrew the executive branch. The US Constitution is literally paper thin and the only thing actually protecting it are the institutions and people behind them.
    - anon373839 3y ago
      Agree about the “paper-thin” part, because laws only mean something if they are supported by institutions and people. But I don’t think we can say the executive branch was “almost” overthrown. That’s hyperbole.
    - jemmyw 3y ago
      I'm not sure that the events of 2021 were seriously endangering the executive branch or any part of the US government. Yes a riot put lawmakers in physical danger, but if the rioters had actually taken over that building that wouldn't make them the lawmakers. It'd probably make them dead. More concerning was the electors thing, but I reckon the most likely outcome would have been a lawsuit and the tightening of the laws around electors.
- darthrupert 3y ago
  US Constitution etc were certainly revolutionary when they were written, but many countries have adapted similar or improved policies when it comes to basic human rights.
- gizmo686 3y ago
  The US also has forced conscription. It hasn't been used since the 70s, but the legal/constitutional ability of the government to do so is pretty much undisputed (although there is some surprisingly recent controversy about the male only aspect). The rights being discussed in the article sounds like rights nominal protected by Russian law. So really the question is 'do rights the government grant you count, if that government ignores them?'. In a properly functioning liberal democracy, the answer is 'yes, because there is a co-equal branch of the government (the judiciary) that will not ignore them'. In a country where all aperatasus of the government agree not to respect those rights, then all you have is paper.
  - LinuxBender 3y ago
    although there is some surprisingly recent controversy about the male only aspect It's back on the table for discussion [1] but it would probably take a serious event to push this in one direction or the other I think. Probably nudging it in the requirement direction is the lack of physically qualified candidates. I have no idea what direction this will ultimately go. I have proudly served along side women in the US military and witnessed them performing all the duties expected of them not in combat. How random male and female conscripts would be allocated in warfare by the US remains to be seen and I do not know to what extent they have tested this idea. I have sparred with female fighters outside of the military and would be afraid to meet them in battle but these were not random conscripts and in my humble opinion are not very common. [1] - https://www.military.com/daily-news/2022/06/27/requirement-women-register-draft-back-table-annual-defense-bill.html https://www.military.com/daily-news/2022/06/27/requirement-w...
    - gizmo686 3y ago
      In 2021, the Supreme Court declined to hear a case challenging the constitutionality of it, in part because the court found that Congress was activly looking into it. According to the court, in 2020 a congressional commission tasked with looking into it advised eliminating the male only selective service. Congress almost did so, to the point where both houses of Congress approved a draft bill that would; however the provision was dropped before a final version was agreed to. For a country that has not had a draft in half a century, that is a suprising level of controversy. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20-928_new_i4ek.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20-928_new_i4ek....
- RichEO 3y ago
  > As far as I know the US is the only country with enumerated rights for citizens. I appreciate that you prefaced this with a disclaimer about your ignorance, but it has a weird tone of American exceptionalism to it, and it’s not even close to true. There are quite a lot of countries with “bills of rights”. There’s even a Wikipedia article that attempts to enumerate them. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_rights https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_rights
  - eesmith 3y ago
    Neat! Some of the enumerated rights in the Finnish constitution from https://finlex.fi/en/laki/kaannokset/1999/en19990731.pdf https://finlex.fi/en/laki/kaannokset/1999/en19990731.pdf : > Everyone has the right to life, personal liberty, integrity and security. > No one shall be sentenced to death, tortured or otherwise treated in a manner violating human dignity. > Everyone's private life, honour and the sanctity of the home are guaranteed. > The secrecy of correspondence, telephony and other confidential communications is inviolable. > Everyone has the freedom of religion and conscience. > Everyone has the freedom of expression. > Everyone has the right to arrange meetings and demonstrations without a permit, as well as the right to participate in them. > Everyone has the freedom of association. > Those who cannot obtain the means necessary for a life of dignity have the right to receive indispensable subsistence and care.
  - pasabagi 3y ago
    Was the US the first nation with a Bill of Rights, though? (I'm aware there are many medieval documents that could be construed as such, but I'm talking about universal rights in the modern sense).
    - pliftkl 3y ago
      If you're really talking about universal rights in the modern sense, that really didn't happen in the US until the 1960's in practice (unless you were white and had the correct chromosomes). Women couldn't vote until the early 20th century, and you could not marry interracially in some states until the 1960's.
  - 3y ago
- jltsiren 3y ago
  Do people then have any rights in the US? Because conscription is one of the powers the Constitution explicitly grants to the Congress. The historical background is that serving in the military is what able-bodied male citizens do in a republic. Conscription is not supposed to be something that the government does but what the citizens do by the virtue of being citizens. If there is no conscription, you don't have a republic in the traditional sense, because warfare is no longer a public matter.
- __rito__ 3y ago
  India also has something called "Fundamental Rights" that are enumerated and clearly laid out. But they can be suspended during statutory emergencies.
- tguvot 3y ago
  >I always find it interesting when people talk about their rights in these contexts. If the government can legally conscript you, surely you don’t have any rights? there are rules in russia about how conscription/etc works. medically fit, mentally stable, etc. ever since they started mobilization they just rubber stamp paperwork that says that they are fit without any medical examination just an example
  - 3seashells 3y ago
    Legality mimicry. And it only works cause the average Russian expects it's the same cynic affair in the west.
    - tguvot 3y ago
      nea. it works because they are been told that if you don't sign documents you go from here to prison. and from prison to army into first line assault teams but without salary.
- klyrs 3y ago
  Men (citizens and immigrants) aged 18-25 are required to register with the Selective Service. Should the US declare war, conscription could start again. The Constitution doesn't forbid it -- to the contrary, it outlines the process to declare martial law and suspend its ordinary protections. https://www.sss.gov/ https://www.sss.gov/
- graemep 3y ago
  I think most constitutions have an equivalent. What is unusual about the US is the extent to which there is judge made legislation through re-interpretation and extension of those rights. THis is not just true in the west. Here is the Sri Lankan constitution: https://www.parliament.lk/files/pdf/constitution.pdf https://www.parliament.lk/files/pdf/constitution.pdf - take a look at Chapter III. It is common for cases to be brought under these provisions. There are international treaties that are incorporated law - e.g. the European Convention on Human Rights. How effective they are varies with national governments (Russia and Turkey are both ECHR, for example). The big variable is whether a country has an independent judiciary that will enforce those rights. There are definite rights listed in very old laws such as the Magna Carta - and I have read that much of what it granted was already accepted in common law.
KingMob 3y ago
I feel like I'm missing basic context. Are these Russian men supposed to be enlisted, or are they ineligible? Is it unusual they targeted a mosque, or is this just one of hundreds of places press gangs have targeted? My deepest sympathies to any Russians trying to avoid the war on Ukraine, though.
- cvccvroomvroom 3y ago
  Forcible conscription means all of the volunteers are occupied or dead. Putin is pressing criminal prisoners and disliked minorities into service with little training or logistics as bodies to feed monsters of war on the western front, and continue the carnage until he incorrectly believes interest in aid to Ukraine will subside. At the endpoint of when Putin will eventually have to conscript muddle-class Muscovites, teenagers, and elderly men, that horse hair holding the Sword of Damocles over his head is more likely to give way. A substantial number of Russian men of fighting age have already hidden themselves or fled the country.
  - lostmsu 3y ago
    It's an optimistic theory, but if it were the case, they wouldn't have started with Moscow.
    - thomasz 3y ago
      They would start with undesirables like political opponents and minorities first.
    - benterix 3y ago
      It's not actually Moscow but a town nearby, the title is misleading.
      - filoleg 3y ago
        It isn’t misleading, Kotelniki (the place in the article) is as much a part of Moscow oblast as Khimki or Domodedovo. And people routinely just refer to those areas as Moscow all the time. Beyond that, Moscow subway transit system goes to Kotelniki as well, I just doublechecked that. Here is an analogy that might help those familiar with the US: it is kind of like Yonkers is to NYC, Chicago suburbs are to Chicago the city, or Burbank is to Los Angeles.
3seashells 3y ago
There is more? They plan to raid the troll farms formerly owned by prigoshin?

60 points by 0xDEF 3y ago

I always find it interesting when people talk about their rights in these contexts. If the government can legally conscript you, surely you don’t have any rights? As far as I know the US is the only country with enumerated rights for citizens. “Human rights” are discussed in international contexts but don’t seem to have any legal basis on the local level.

MattGaiser 3y ago
Canada has enumerated legal rights. Not as strong as American ones, but they are there. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and... And the USA has legal conscription as well (at least could), even with enumerated rights.
baybal2 3y ago
[dead]
mathieuh 3y ago
If some fascist gets to be in charge of the US, can’t they just change the rules, ignore them entirely, or just use the media to change the truth and make people actually support their actions? You almost had this happen in 2021. Let alone any extra-judicial actions that governments take in the name of national security. I firmly believe that if even any so-called democratic government wants to do something nominally illegal to you they will find a way. Maybe in a so-called democratic country decades later you’ll be exonerated or the perpetrators will be punished but that won’t be much help to you.
- Guy_w_Keyboard 3y ago
  No. That's why we have these things called "separation of power," and "checks and balances." No single branch of government is all powerful. In fact, it is a testament to the strength of the constitutional republic the founders built, that even with a man like Donald Trump abusing his powers and a media bolstering his lies, ultimately he was forced to step down, and though justice is slow, he is finally seeing justice for his many crimes.
  - dartos 3y ago
    The judicial branch is pretty much all powerful. The Supreme Court rulings can’t be contested except by the Supreme Court.
    - bsder 3y ago
      And if the executive branch decides to ignore the ruling, there isn't anything the Supreme Court can do about it. See: Worcester v. Georgia This is one of the problems with a Supreme Court that is making rulings that the majority of people don't agree with. If the Supreme Court loses its legitimacy and the other branches simply start ignoring it, it will take a lot of work to get any power back.
      - Guy_w_Keyboard 3y ago
        You guys aren't wrong. I believe it was Ben Franklin who famously said, when asked of the new government in the US, what kind it was, he replied, "A republic, if you can keep it." Any democracy is, obviously, only as just or as free as its electorate. As George Carlin pointed out in one of his standups, "If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're going to get selfish, ignorant leaders. Garbage in, garbage out." My point is, however, that one man alone cannot be strong enough to bring it all down. There is enough distribution of power for the system to be robust. By irony, the very political tribalism which is ubiquitously hated and lamented by pundits itself creates a sort of political competition; there is very high incentive to hold the other party or incumbent(s) accountable when they abuse their power or make mistakes, as this benefits themselves politically. Of course, the downside to this system, as we've witnessed in recent years, is that both parties are quick to criticize the other side for their sins, but once in power they commit the very same sins with no self-awareness of the hypocrisy. Although, I wonder how much of that is due to McConnell and the GOP's loose morals, vs. the GOP itself being nigh unrecognizable from what it once was. The party of Reagan, Bush, and Romney is no more; the latter of which I was just reading, described in the press as a "pariah within his own party."
- 3seashells 3y ago
  No. The people are armed and believe in democracy. Facist would have to do what they suck the most at.. Fighting.
  - pjmlp 3y ago
    Which would be a civil war, if the democracy would uphold depends pretty much of its outcome. Imagine how US would have looked like if South had won the previous civil war.
    - 3seashells 3y ago
      The facists always loose, they are cruel but also to emotional If the raid fails, the default for the tribe is always in fighting?
      - pjmlp 3y ago
        After how many years, though? Last time in Portugal it took from 1926 to 1974.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
enasterosophes 3y ago
Well, there is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights#Legal_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human..., which is to say, it's complicated. Notice USSR did not vote against the proposed universal declaration, implying they were willing to go along with whatever everyone else decided. So, the person quoted in the article has at least some grounds for arguing about human rights, although you might consider the grounds fairly weak. I furthermore claim that the only compassionate response is to agree even if the person isn't on the strongest ground in a formal legal sense where someone might actually be able to do something about it.
readthenotes1 3y ago
That's actually only sorta true. A genius of the US Constitution is that it states unequivocally that citizens grant rights to their government, not the other way around.
- KingMob 3y ago
  Which is great de jure, if de facto, unfortunately.
- userinanother 3y ago
  Rights are great but who is going to enforce them? If your local sheriff doesn’t believe in said rights good luck suing your way to get them… By the time you get to the appropriate courts it will be years and millions of dollars in legal fees
  - ivanb 3y ago
    And that's assuming independent judicial system. Such a precious thing should not be taken for granted.
- darthrupert 3y ago
  You just recently had an event that almost overthrew the executive branch. The US Constitution is literally paper thin and the only thing actually protecting it are the institutions and people behind them.
  - anon373839 3y ago
    Agree about the “paper-thin” part, because laws only mean something if they are supported by institutions and people. But I don’t think we can say the executive branch was “almost” overthrown. That’s hyperbole.
  - jemmyw 3y ago
    I'm not sure that the events of 2021 were seriously endangering the executive branch or any part of the US government. Yes a riot put lawmakers in physical danger, but if the rioters had actually taken over that building that wouldn't make them the lawmakers. It'd probably make them dead. More concerning was the electors thing, but I reckon the most likely outcome would have been a lawsuit and the tightening of the laws around electors.
darthrupert 3y ago
US Constitution etc were certainly revolutionary when they were written, but many countries have adapted similar or improved policies when it comes to basic human rights.
gizmo686 3y ago
The US also has forced conscription. It hasn't been used since the 70s, but the legal/constitutional ability of the government to do so is pretty much undisputed (although there is some surprisingly recent controversy about the male only aspect). The rights being discussed in the article sounds like rights nominal protected by Russian law. So really the question is 'do rights the government grant you count, if that government ignores them?'. In a properly functioning liberal democracy, the answer is 'yes, because there is a co-equal branch of the government (the judiciary) that will not ignore them'. In a country where all aperatasus of the government agree not to respect those rights, then all you have is paper.
- LinuxBender 3y ago
  although there is some surprisingly recent controversy about the male only aspect It's back on the table for discussion [1] but it would probably take a serious event to push this in one direction or the other I think. Probably nudging it in the requirement direction is the lack of physically qualified candidates. I have no idea what direction this will ultimately go. I have proudly served along side women in the US military and witnessed them performing all the duties expected of them not in combat. How random male and female conscripts would be allocated in warfare by the US remains to be seen and I do not know to what extent they have tested this idea. I have sparred with female fighters outside of the military and would be afraid to meet them in battle but these were not random conscripts and in my humble opinion are not very common. [1] - https://www.military.com/daily-news/2022/06/27/requirement-women-register-draft-back-table-annual-defense-bill.html https://www.military.com/daily-news/2022/06/27/requirement-w...
  - gizmo686 3y ago
    In 2021, the Supreme Court declined to hear a case challenging the constitutionality of it, in part because the court found that Congress was activly looking into it. According to the court, in 2020 a congressional commission tasked with looking into it advised eliminating the male only selective service. Congress almost did so, to the point where both houses of Congress approved a draft bill that would; however the provision was dropped before a final version was agreed to. For a country that has not had a draft in half a century, that is a suprising level of controversy. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20-928_new_i4ek.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20-928_new_i4ek....
RichEO 3y ago
> As far as I know the US is the only country with enumerated rights for citizens. I appreciate that you prefaced this with a disclaimer about your ignorance, but it has a weird tone of American exceptionalism to it, and it’s not even close to true. There are quite a lot of countries with “bills of rights”. There’s even a Wikipedia article that attempts to enumerate them. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_rights https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_rights
- eesmith 3y ago
  Neat! Some of the enumerated rights in the Finnish constitution from https://finlex.fi/en/laki/kaannokset/1999/en19990731.pdf https://finlex.fi/en/laki/kaannokset/1999/en19990731.pdf : > Everyone has the right to life, personal liberty, integrity and security. > No one shall be sentenced to death, tortured or otherwise treated in a manner violating human dignity. > Everyone's private life, honour and the sanctity of the home are guaranteed. > The secrecy of correspondence, telephony and other confidential communications is inviolable. > Everyone has the freedom of religion and conscience. > Everyone has the freedom of expression. > Everyone has the right to arrange meetings and demonstrations without a permit, as well as the right to participate in them. > Everyone has the freedom of association. > Those who cannot obtain the means necessary for a life of dignity have the right to receive indispensable subsistence and care.
- pasabagi 3y ago
  Was the US the first nation with a Bill of Rights, though? (I'm aware there are many medieval documents that could be construed as such, but I'm talking about universal rights in the modern sense).
  - pliftkl 3y ago
    If you're really talking about universal rights in the modern sense, that really didn't happen in the US until the 1960's in practice (unless you were white and had the correct chromosomes). Women couldn't vote until the early 20th century, and you could not marry interracially in some states until the 1960's.
- 3y ago
jltsiren 3y ago
Do people then have any rights in the US? Because conscription is one of the powers the Constitution explicitly grants to the Congress. The historical background is that serving in the military is what able-bodied male citizens do in a republic. Conscription is not supposed to be something that the government does but what the citizens do by the virtue of being citizens. If there is no conscription, you don't have a republic in the traditional sense, because warfare is no longer a public matter.
__rito__ 3y ago
India also has something called "Fundamental Rights" that are enumerated and clearly laid out. But they can be suspended during statutory emergencies.
tguvot 3y ago
>I always find it interesting when people talk about their rights in these contexts. If the government can legally conscript you, surely you don’t have any rights? there are rules in russia about how conscription/etc works. medically fit, mentally stable, etc. ever since they started mobilization they just rubber stamp paperwork that says that they are fit without any medical examination just an example
- 3seashells 3y ago
  Legality mimicry. And it only works cause the average Russian expects it's the same cynic affair in the west.
  - tguvot 3y ago
    nea. it works because they are been told that if you don't sign documents you go from here to prison. and from prison to army into first line assault teams but without salary.
klyrs 3y ago
Men (citizens and immigrants) aged 18-25 are required to register with the Selective Service. Should the US declare war, conscription could start again. The Constitution doesn't forbid it -- to the contrary, it outlines the process to declare martial law and suspend its ordinary protections. https://www.sss.gov/ https://www.sss.gov/
graemep 3y ago
I think most constitutions have an equivalent. What is unusual about the US is the extent to which there is judge made legislation through re-interpretation and extension of those rights. THis is not just true in the west. Here is the Sri Lankan constitution: https://www.parliament.lk/files/pdf/constitution.pdf https://www.parliament.lk/files/pdf/constitution.pdf - take a look at Chapter III. It is common for cases to be brought under these provisions. There are international treaties that are incorporated law - e.g. the European Convention on Human Rights. How effective they are varies with national governments (Russia and Turkey are both ECHR, for example). The big variable is whether a country has an independent judiciary that will enforce those rights. There are definite rights listed in very old laws such as the Magna Carta - and I have read that much of what it granted was already accepted in common law.

KingMob 3y ago

I feel like I'm missing basic context. Are these Russian men supposed to be enlisted, or are they ineligible? Is it unusual they targeted a mosque, or is this just one of hundreds of places press gangs have targeted? My deepest sympathies to any Russians trying to avoid the war on Ukraine, though.

cvccvroomvroom 3y ago
Forcible conscription means all of the volunteers are occupied or dead. Putin is pressing criminal prisoners and disliked minorities into service with little training or logistics as bodies to feed monsters of war on the western front, and continue the carnage until he incorrectly believes interest in aid to Ukraine will subside. At the endpoint of when Putin will eventually have to conscript muddle-class Muscovites, teenagers, and elderly men, that horse hair holding the Sword of Damocles over his head is more likely to give way. A substantial number of Russian men of fighting age have already hidden themselves or fled the country.
- lostmsu 3y ago
  It's an optimistic theory, but if it were the case, they wouldn't have started with Moscow.
  - thomasz 3y ago
    They would start with undesirables like political opponents and minorities first.
  - benterix 3y ago
    It's not actually Moscow but a town nearby, the title is misleading.
    - filoleg 3y ago
      It isn’t misleading, Kotelniki (the place in the article) is as much a part of Moscow oblast as Khimki or Domodedovo. And people routinely just refer to those areas as Moscow all the time. Beyond that, Moscow subway transit system goes to Kotelniki as well, I just doublechecked that. Here is an analogy that might help those familiar with the US: it is kind of like Yonkers is to NYC, Chicago suburbs are to Chicago the city, or Burbank is to Los Angeles.

3seashells 3y ago

There is more? They plan to raid the troll farms formerly owned by prigoshin?