Quote from latest @meduzaproject newsletter:

The filmmaker describes her own views as pro-peace, though she says “choosing a side” in Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is ultimately a pro-war position.

There’s an important semantic nuance here, which largely escapes the Western audience who automatically associated word like “peace” with some kind of ceasefire and peace treaty. But just like in the Soviet times, #Russia political language uses common words and phrases in its own private meaning:

“pro-peace” means end of fighting as result of full defeat of Ukraine, that is absence of armed clashes achieved by full occupation of Ukraine and physical extermination of everyone resisting that occupation or even demonstrating discontent - this is literally how Russia achieved “peace” not only on the occupied territories of Ukraine during 2014-2022, but also in Chechnya (2000) and previously Poland (1946), East Germany, Baltic states etc.

This is literally how many Russians I’ve talked to understand the word “peace” - for them personally, the “peace” would come when Ukraine surrenders and their main complaint Ukrainians just didn’t surrender immediately, thus “making” Russia continue its violent invasion, killing people and destroying towns. This is likely how Trofimova understands it, too, and this is the only politically correct use of the word “peace” in Russia today.

As we’re talking of “private meaning” of phrases, here’s another one:

“Russia’s security concerns” - Putin and Lavrov had been using this phrase since at least 2008, presenting strictly defensive steps taken by its neighbours as a “security concern”. Poland’s placement of “Patriot” air defense systems was presented as a “security concern” by Russia, defensive alliances or Ukrainian border trenches and fortifications were all “threatening” Russia too.

This also stems from a paradigm of Russian security policy which is incompatible with how Western audience understands it - for Russians the right to harass and invade its neighbours is seen as some kind of natural entitlement, part of its “security architecture”. Therefore, any initiatives of its potential targets that prevent or make an attack more difficult, are obviously “concerns” for Russians.

Of course, all these “private meanings” are entirely incompatible with UN Charter and other fundamental documents Russia had formally committed to. But the amount of people in the West who justify Russia’s “security concerns” defined as above testifies to the sad observation, that Russia’s dialectical and flexible use of these terms was somewhat successful.