Reading a dictator’s text without a commentary feels like looking at a Rorschach picture; everyone will make a different conclusion, based on what they already believed. (“Yes, he is obviously right about X, why don’t people listen to him more?” “Lol, he keeps repeating his transparent lies about X.”) So, here is my commentary:
The West is accused of escalating the situation by invading Ukraine and destabilizing global food markets. Uhm, is perhaps this the thing they call projection?
I agree with the part about destabilizing energy markets. Technically, any major change is destabilizing, and some countries are trying to change their current dependence on Russia’s oil.
The West “denies the sovereignty of countries and peoples, their identity and uniqueness, and tramples upon other states’ interests.” Uhm, projection again? Unless he only refers to Russia and its interest in expansion; that unique part of Russian identity has indeed been recently trampled upon very insensitively.
“He who sows the wind will reap the whirlwind, as the saying goes.” Upvoted. The problem is, Putin does not seem to realize how the recent popularity of kicking Russia might be related to Russia’s own behavior during the last hundred years. The most belligerent attitudes do not come from USA but from Poland. One might wonder why.
“I am convinced that sooner or later both the new centres of the multipolar international order and the West will have to start a dialogue on an equal footing about a common future for us all, and the sooner the better, of course.”
This is a fascinating framing, not just in this speech, but when listening to Russia’s apologists in general. The world where countries get rid of Russia’s yoke (such as the former Warsaw Pact members) is described as a dark totalitarian world with no choice and no freedom. On the other hand, stronger Russia is a good thing, because it makes the world more diverse, pluralistic, multipolar, which is inherently a good thing. (I am almost imagining Putin waving a giant rainbow flag when he says this.)
“Over a thousand years, Russia has developed a unique culture of interaction between all world religions. There is no need to cancel anything, be it Christian values, Islamic values or Jewish values. We have other world religions as well. All you need to do is respect each other.”
Note that this was said about a culture that produced The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, had a military pact with Nazi Germany; where the patriarch of Russian Orthodox Church is a former KGB agent who supports Putin and the invasion of Ukraine, blaming the conflict on Catholics and the Ukrainian Orthodox Church; where 250000 Chechens were killed recently, officially as a response for a staged terrorist attack. I can hardly imagine a more respectful behavior towards Jews, Christians, and Muslims.
“At one time, the Nazis reached the point of burning books, and now the Western “guardians of liberalism and progress” have reached the point of banning Dostoyevsky and Tchaikovsky.” Projection again? Russian armies currently destroying museums and monuments in Ukraine. (It is also weird that Putin chose Tchaikovsky as an example of Russian culture, considering Tchaikovsky’s Ukrainian ancestry.)
“I am referring to the explosions on the Nord Stream gas pipelines. This actually amounts to the destruction of the common European energy infrastructure. This is being done, although, to put it mildly, these methods are doing colossal damage to the European economy and are seriously impairing the quality of life for millions of people.” Greetings from Europe! Thank you for your concern, we are doing fine.
“Ukraine was almost immediately turned into a testing site for military biological experiments”. Wow.
“We also know about their plans to use a so-called “dirty bomb” as a provocation.” According to the recent news, Putin was strongly advised to drop this “Ukraine, stop hitting yourself with dirty bombs” line, and he obeyed. Now sure if all his fans got the memo.
It is also weird that Putin chose Tchaikovsky as an example of Russian culture, considering Tchaikovsky’s Ukrainian ancestry.
I would expect that the elite Russian audience that Putin speaks to knows that. I don’t think ancestsry is a problem for Putin, it fits into his idea that Ukraine is really Russian.
This particular statement is extremely low-epistemics, but it’s also a broader problem throughout this comment and throughout modern civilization as a whole. I definitely owe you this explanation (since you taught me the dark truth of math a couple months ago): the human race is even worse at teaching human history than teaching math,
Classrooms can’t teach fake math, certainly not for 10 consecutive years. Sure, they can’t torture young children with history the way they do with math, but if someone can’t perform basic calculations then that gets noticed and solved pretty quick. With history, nobody ever learns any of the basic calculations unless from an outside source.
The nice thing about history education is that, unlike math education. you can actually undo most of the losses with a couple hours of reading interesting books. These are the books that are most recommended, they are only two chapters each.
The first two chapters of Schelling’s Arms and Influence (1966), which is on JSTOR. It explains the strategic logic of why being willing to escalate makes your side stronger, even if the aggression is ramped up to a deranged extent.
The first two chapters of Mearshimer’s Tragedy of Great Power Politics (2014), which is not on JSTOR. It explains the strategic logic of why countries choose aggressive and violent foreign policies in the first place, and how much they value strength relative to risking self-destruction.
Would you be willing to summarize the point you’re making at the object level? Is it something like “the Soviets had to make the Molotov Ribbentrop pact, and that doesn’t say anything meaningful about their cultural approach to the interaction of world religions”? I don’t want to put words in your mouth or anything, I just want to understand the “extremely low-epistemics” bit.
It’s something I’m not really comfortable talking about with anonymous people on the internet. I’m really sorry for the inefficiency, but I’ve done as much as I can to share as much as I can.
I think it’s understandable not wanting to talk about present conflicts openly. I’m more surprised about your feeling that you can’t openly talk about what happened more than 50 years ago.
Can you say more about why you believe it’s hard to talk about history?
Reading a dictator’s text without a commentary feels like looking at a Rorschach picture; everyone will make a different conclusion, based on what they already believed. (“Yes, he is obviously right about X, why don’t people listen to him more?” “Lol, he keeps repeating his transparent lies about X.”) So, here is my commentary:
The West is accused of escalating the situation by invading Ukraine and destabilizing global food markets. Uhm, is perhaps this the thing they call projection?
I agree with the part about destabilizing energy markets. Technically, any major change is destabilizing, and some countries are trying to change their current dependence on Russia’s oil.
The West “denies the sovereignty of countries and peoples, their identity and uniqueness, and tramples upon other states’ interests.” Uhm, projection again? Unless he only refers to Russia and its interest in expansion; that unique part of Russian identity has indeed been recently trampled upon very insensitively.
“He who sows the wind will reap the whirlwind, as the saying goes.” Upvoted. The problem is, Putin does not seem to realize how the recent popularity of kicking Russia might be related to Russia’s own behavior during the last hundred years. The most belligerent attitudes do not come from USA but from Poland. One might wonder why.
“I am convinced that sooner or later both the new centres of the multipolar international order and the West will have to start a dialogue on an equal footing about a common future for us all, and the sooner the better, of course.”
This is a fascinating framing, not just in this speech, but when listening to Russia’s apologists in general. The world where countries get rid of Russia’s yoke (such as the former Warsaw Pact members) is described as a dark totalitarian world with no choice and no freedom. On the other hand, stronger Russia is a good thing, because it makes the world more diverse, pluralistic, multipolar, which is inherently a good thing. (I am almost imagining Putin waving a giant rainbow flag when he says this.)
“Over a thousand years, Russia has developed a unique culture of interaction between all world religions. There is no need to cancel anything, be it Christian values, Islamic values or Jewish values. We have other world religions as well. All you need to do is respect each other.”
Note that this was said about a culture that produced The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, had a military pact with Nazi Germany; where the patriarch of Russian Orthodox Church is a former KGB agent who supports Putin and the invasion of Ukraine, blaming the conflict on Catholics and the Ukrainian Orthodox Church; where 250000 Chechens were killed recently, officially as a response for a staged terrorist attack. I can hardly imagine a more respectful behavior towards Jews, Christians, and Muslims.
“At one time, the Nazis reached the point of burning books, and now the Western “guardians of liberalism and progress” have reached the point of banning Dostoyevsky and Tchaikovsky.” Projection again? Russian armies currently destroying museums and monuments in Ukraine. (It is also weird that Putin chose Tchaikovsky as an example of Russian culture, considering Tchaikovsky’s Ukrainian ancestry.)
“I am referring to the explosions on the Nord Stream gas pipelines. This actually amounts to the destruction of the common European energy infrastructure. This is being done, although, to put it mildly, these methods are doing colossal damage to the European economy and are seriously impairing the quality of life for millions of people.” Greetings from Europe! Thank you for your concern, we are doing fine.
“Ukraine was almost immediately turned into a testing site for military biological experiments”. Wow.
“We also know about their plans to use a so-called “dirty bomb” as a provocation.” According to the recent news, Putin was strongly advised to drop this “Ukraine, stop hitting yourself with dirty bombs” line, and he obeyed. Now sure if all his fans got the memo.
I would expect that the elite Russian audience that Putin speaks to knows that. I don’t think ancestsry is a problem for Putin, it fits into his idea that Ukraine is really Russian.
The background seems to be https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/mar/09/cardiff-philharmonic-orchestra-removes-tchaikovsky-over-ukraine-conflict and https://www.mic.com/culture/dostoevsky-banned-russia-ukraine .
This particular statement is extremely low-epistemics, but it’s also a broader problem throughout this comment and throughout modern civilization as a whole. I definitely owe you this explanation (since you taught me the dark truth of math a couple months ago): the human race is even worse at teaching human history than teaching math,
Classrooms can’t teach fake math, certainly not for 10 consecutive years. Sure, they can’t torture young children with history the way they do with math, but if someone can’t perform basic calculations then that gets noticed and solved pretty quick. With history, nobody ever learns any of the basic calculations unless from an outside source.
The nice thing about history education is that, unlike math education. you can actually undo most of the losses with a couple hours of reading interesting books. These are the books that are most recommended, they are only two chapters each.
The first two chapters of Schelling’s Arms and Influence (1966), which is on JSTOR. It explains the strategic logic of why being willing to escalate makes your side stronger, even if the aggression is ramped up to a deranged extent.
The first two chapters of Mearshimer’s Tragedy of Great Power Politics (2014), which is not on JSTOR. It explains the strategic logic of why countries choose aggressive and violent foreign policies in the first place, and how much they value strength relative to risking self-destruction.
Would you be willing to summarize the point you’re making at the object level? Is it something like “the Soviets had to make the Molotov Ribbentrop pact, and that doesn’t say anything meaningful about their cultural approach to the interaction of world religions”? I don’t want to put words in your mouth or anything, I just want to understand the “extremely low-epistemics” bit.
It’s something I’m not really comfortable talking about with anonymous people on the internet. I’m really sorry for the inefficiency, but I’ve done as much as I can to share as much as I can.
I think it’s understandable not wanting to talk about present conflicts openly. I’m more surprised about your feeling that you can’t openly talk about what happened more than 50 years ago.
Can you say more about why you believe it’s hard to talk about history?
Both of the books are on lib gen. I would expect that this matters for more people than JSTOR.