A popular pro-Russian politician in #Poland once again amplifies the popular #Russia narrative about “languages spoken in #Ukraine”, trying to demonstrate that “majority of people speak Russian”.
But apart of using old and manipulated data, he distracts the debate from simple international law facts to vague “common sense” heuristics, where speaking a language automatically means belonging to some culture or country and - above all - gives those countries some moral or political right over other countries. Following this line, one would have to conclude that the US automatically has a right to the UK, Australia or Ireland (and anyone can come up with a dozen of such examples from their region). For starters, the fact that I speak fluent Russian does not imply that I’m culturally Russian or expect “protection” from Russia.
Ukraine’s defense against Russian invasion is 100% cultural and civilisation war between two competing models of governance - the archaic feudal-autocratic model of Russia, and the “democracy of peers” model which has been always widespread among Slavs in the form of veche assemblies.
@kravietz
There are two core logical errors with this line of thinking. First of all, Russia is not and never was a Russian nation state — and as such, it cannot act as an envoy of all Russians, "defending" them. It could take this turn during the last decade of Russian Empire, but failed — and Bolsheviks made it turn back to the feudal-autocratic model, effectively restoring the worst of tsarist practices.
@kravietz
And the second one is that it is implied that all Russians should support that feudal-autocratic model, that getting rid of that model means getting rid of all Russians. Being Russian, of course I do not agree with this and I do not support that model precisely because I think that Russians deserve better too — that does not make me an Ukrainian, I'm still Russian, but I'm culturally European.
@kravietz
Russia indeed sometimes likes to put on the nation state cloak and unfortunately it's not uncommon for westerners, including the media to be pulled into this game and call what's happening in Russia nationalism — they should take a step back and see that Russia only treats the nation as a resource it can exploit. Propaganda might've made them believe it, but in no scenario Russians have anything to gain at all from what's happening.
When I speak of “pro-Russian” or “Russian narrative” I mean the current Russian state, of course. Your position makes you of course just as incompatible with the culture of Putinism as most Ukrainians or Poles.
But your comments largely support fit my argument especially where you say “cannot act as an envoy of all Russians” - that’s precisely what I’m trying to say. Putin pretends his authority extends not only to all Russians (ethnic group) but almost to everyone speaking Russian or formerly citizens of USSR.
You don’t accept this manipulative and unsolicited authority, just as I do - nonetheless, many people in the West buy this “common sense” of “speaking Russian makes you Russian” and the screenshot is a good illustration of this fallacy.
@kravietz
Of course, and I'm not disagreeing with you. And I'm not shifting the responsibility here, I'm just elaborating a little on the logical fallacies this line of thinking is built on — the most important part of solving the core problem is identifying it. But even European politicians go for this because this makes the whole picture look simpler and therefore, might make their own agenda easier to sell.
@kravietz
I can't just claim that everyone doing this is in Kremlin's pocket — I don't have hard proof and I suspect that some might be doing that for a short term personal political gain, however doing so they only reinforce the position of official Russia and Kremlin's talking points — this shouldn't be tolerated.
Well, let’s take this statement: not everyone speaking Russian wants Putin’s model of governance. If we can agree on this, then we’re likely in agreement on everything else.
The confusion comes from the fact that we’re talking on several levels of abstraction.
For example, who are “Russians”? Someone uses this term in ethnic sense (a Russian living in Russia, Germany, Poland or Ukraine is still Russian). Someone else means only citizens and residents of Russian Federation. Ukrainian front line soldiers speak of “Russians” simply meaning their enemies, even if they include former Ukrainian citizens.
@kravietz
> For example, who are “Russians”?
This is the most important question — but a very complex one, and I think coming up with a correct answer might prevent catastrophes from ever happening again. I really want to elaborate on this, but every time I try, it turns into another unfinished article, maybe one day… 😂
@kravietz
Here is an interesting article somewhat related to the topic: https://www.moscowtimes.ru/2024/10/07/z-rusofagiya-ili-russkie-eto-prilagatelnoe-a144104
Not really my point and I don't agree with everything, but it still "vibes" with me — what makes it interesting is the last paragraph: the state indeed understands Russians as the property of Russia. This is wrong and should not be the case, but this explains a lot of things: if Russians are slaves, then Ukrainians are runaway slaves who, from the state's perspective should be brought back.
@kravietz
It might sound absurd — and that is exactly what they want, that is why they mess with semantics in the first place: first and foremost Russia is the greatest thread and is the enemy of Russians — not Ukraine or US or anyone else. None of what's happening now is in the interest of Russians. Just like with Nazis and Germany, beside foreign nations, the damage is being dealt to the future generations of Russians.