7 ms·

Chernyshevsky -> Lenin -> Solzhenitsyn -> Dugin This is the trajectory of the Russian intellectuals striving for the "better world".

benterix 2y ago
> Solzhenitsyn There is an interesting quote by him (regarding the so-called "NATO's expansion"): "This was especially painful in the case of Ukraine, a country whose closeness to Russia is defined by literally millions of family ties among our peoples, relatives living on different sides of the national border. At one fell stroke, these families could be torn apart by a new dividing line, the border of a military bloc."[0] Paradoxically, it wasn't NATO who did this 20 years later but his beloved Putin. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksandr_Solzhenitsyn#On_the_Holodomor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksandr_Solzhenitsyn#On_the_...
- brodouevencode 2y ago
  > systematic armed robbery of the harvests from both Russian and Ukrainian peasants...to bring back food for the starving urban population centers Holodomor sounds like a great justification for guarding against populism or even pure democracy.
- marcusverus 2y ago
  Putin caused the war, but the idea that NATO had no role in it is hard to justify. The Americans knew that NATO expansion into Ukraine could provoke Russian intervention, and they did it anyway.[0] What security benefits were to be gained that were worth risking this horrific outcome? The whole thing reminds me of the British security guarantee for Poland in '39. If it was intended to gin up an excuse to fight, it was masterful. If it was a good-faith attempt at securing the peace, it was asinine and catastrophically counterproductive. [0]https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08MOSCOW265_a.html https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08MOSCOW265_a.html
  - CamperBob2 2y ago
    "I only robbed your house because you threatened to join the neighborhood watch!" isn't the incisive argument you may have meant to advance.
    - ANewFormation 2y ago
      These sort of black and white, good and evil, analogs don't make any sense as NATO is, in large part, a proxy for the US. And we've overthrown, invaded, and destroyed more countries than literally anybody. Multiple of those invasions were also based on fabricated evidence/lies. And when international law, such as the UN, gets in the way - we simply ignore it. These are not the behaviours of a 'neighbourhood watch.'
      - discreteevent 2y ago
        > These sort of black and white, good and evil, analogs don't make any sense. Not black and white but worse and better. And Russia is so much worse (Its main offerings seem to be destruction and thievery) that nearly all of its neighbours tried to join NATO.
    - invalidOrTaken 2y ago
      I don't think this is an apt analogy. It would be more like "I only robbed your house b/c you threatened to join the neighborhood watch, after twenty years of explicit promises by the neighborhood watch that you wouldn't." And the "neighborhood watch" vs "crime" thing is stacking the deck a bit---in modern society we have a professionalized police force and a norm against vigilante first-strike violence, but sovereign countries can by definition go to war. This doesn't even mean I "want Russia to win" or whatever, but I definitely would like NATO to put on its adult pants.
      - CamperBob2 2y ago
        after twenty years of explicit promises by the neighborhood watch that you wouldn't You've been lied to. Instead of propagating the lie, please consider informing yourself. Begin by understanding the fact that any such promises were made to a state that no longer exists by people who were unauthorized to make them. Moving on, consider that nobody spends billions of dollars or Euros preparing to defend themselves against countries who are not a genuine threat to peace and stability, particularly those whose leaders have stated their revanchist goals publicly and unequivocally. Then, go back to the people who lied to you, ask them why they did so, and ask them not to do it again. Chances are, someone lied to them, too.
- konart 2y ago
  >Paradoxically, it wasn't NATO who did this 20 years later but his beloved Putin. 20? No, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belovezha_Accords https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belovezha_Accords were signed in 1991, much earlier.
  - benterix 2y ago
    Before Putin decided to start the war with Ukraine in 2014, the citizens of both countries used to visit the other one very often. There were many Russian tourists in Crimea. The families definitely were not "torn apart" - not even close to what is happening now during the war.
mjfl 2y ago
what does this mean? Solzhenitsyn was not a fan of Lenin and I don't understand how this is a coherent trajectory in any way.
- helge9210 2y ago
  He didn't agree with what communism did to him personally. On the other hand, he is totally for the Russian Empire.

benterix 2y ago

> Solzhenitsyn There is an interesting quote by him (regarding the so-called "NATO's expansion"): "This was especially painful in the case of Ukraine, a country whose closeness to Russia is defined by literally millions of family ties among our peoples, relatives living on different sides of the national border. At one fell stroke, these families could be torn apart by a new dividing line, the border of a military bloc."[0] Paradoxically, it wasn't NATO who did this 20 years later but his beloved Putin. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksandr_Solzhenitsyn#On_the_Holodomor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksandr_Solzhenitsyn#On_the_...

brodouevencode 2y ago
> systematic armed robbery of the harvests from both Russian and Ukrainian peasants...to bring back food for the starving urban population centers Holodomor sounds like a great justification for guarding against populism or even pure democracy.
marcusverus 2y ago
Putin caused the war, but the idea that NATO had no role in it is hard to justify. The Americans knew that NATO expansion into Ukraine could provoke Russian intervention, and they did it anyway.[0] What security benefits were to be gained that were worth risking this horrific outcome? The whole thing reminds me of the British security guarantee for Poland in '39. If it was intended to gin up an excuse to fight, it was masterful. If it was a good-faith attempt at securing the peace, it was asinine and catastrophically counterproductive. [0]https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08MOSCOW265_a.html https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08MOSCOW265_a.html
- CamperBob2 2y ago
  "I only robbed your house because you threatened to join the neighborhood watch!" isn't the incisive argument you may have meant to advance.
  - ANewFormation 2y ago
    These sort of black and white, good and evil, analogs don't make any sense as NATO is, in large part, a proxy for the US. And we've overthrown, invaded, and destroyed more countries than literally anybody. Multiple of those invasions were also based on fabricated evidence/lies. And when international law, such as the UN, gets in the way - we simply ignore it. These are not the behaviours of a 'neighbourhood watch.'
    - discreteevent 2y ago
      > These sort of black and white, good and evil, analogs don't make any sense. Not black and white but worse and better. And Russia is so much worse (Its main offerings seem to be destruction and thievery) that nearly all of its neighbours tried to join NATO.
  - invalidOrTaken 2y ago
    I don't think this is an apt analogy. It would be more like "I only robbed your house b/c you threatened to join the neighborhood watch, after twenty years of explicit promises by the neighborhood watch that you wouldn't." And the "neighborhood watch" vs "crime" thing is stacking the deck a bit---in modern society we have a professionalized police force and a norm against vigilante first-strike violence, but sovereign countries can by definition go to war. This doesn't even mean I "want Russia to win" or whatever, but I definitely would like NATO to put on its adult pants.
    - CamperBob2 2y ago
      after twenty years of explicit promises by the neighborhood watch that you wouldn't You've been lied to. Instead of propagating the lie, please consider informing yourself. Begin by understanding the fact that any such promises were made to a state that no longer exists by people who were unauthorized to make them. Moving on, consider that nobody spends billions of dollars or Euros preparing to defend themselves against countries who are not a genuine threat to peace and stability, particularly those whose leaders have stated their revanchist goals publicly and unequivocally. Then, go back to the people who lied to you, ask them why they did so, and ask them not to do it again. Chances are, someone lied to them, too.
konart 2y ago
>Paradoxically, it wasn't NATO who did this 20 years later but his beloved Putin. 20? No, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belovezha_Accords https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belovezha_Accords were signed in 1991, much earlier.
- benterix 2y ago
  Before Putin decided to start the war with Ukraine in 2014, the citizens of both countries used to visit the other one very often. There were many Russian tourists in Crimea. The families definitely were not "torn apart" - not even close to what is happening now during the war.

mjfl 2y ago

what does this mean? Solzhenitsyn was not a fan of Lenin and I don't understand how this is a coherent trajectory in any way.

helge9210 2y ago
He didn't agree with what communism did to him personally. On the other hand, he is totally for the Russian Empire.