But here you're showing your Westernized philosophical and cultural/spiritual bias, in that you make the assumption that the ''Enlightenment'' was such a good thing. Then, you switch gears and insist that the Russians were at the very forefront of the ''Enlightenment'' efforts during the Romanov era, hardly noticing that I'm in agreement with you on that, but not in agreement with you that it was a positive development.
It doesn't matter whether we agree if it was positive or negative, the fact is Russia is European, as European as any other European country. Let me remind you that your argument is not whether that's good or bad but you used that rather poor article to claim that you 're fundamentally different. Russia is not fundamentally different from another European country and has the same distance with other European countries as they have with each other.
annatar1914 wrote:As I said, the ''Romanovs'' were Westernizers, and that process of Westernization ultimately wound up costing them their Throne and in many cases, their lives.
Are you seriously claiming the communists were more "Russian" than the Romanovs? The same communists that killed Orthodox priests, imprisoned them, banned a whole bunch of Russian culture and tried to turn you into new atheist Soviet men?
Have you seriously gone there?
annatar1914 wrote:They preached Orthodoxy,
Actually they didn't, they preached both Orthodox and Catholic christianity as at the time the 2 churches were still 1. They were instructed to go to Russia by the Patriarch of Rome(aka Pope).
annatar1914 wrote:Unfortunately, from my perspective anyway.
Russia cut off her religious relations with the Greek Orthodox world because we recognised Ukraine as an independent Church. A recognition we have afforded to Russia, Bulgaria, Romania, Albania, Ethiopia and a whole host of national churches.
Do you think that is right on the behalf of the Russians to issue a decree for their people not to attend Greek Orthodox churches and services the world over?
Please answer directly to my question instead of trying to find round about ways to avoid it.
annatar1914 wrote:So I of all people am not ''scared'' of the vote of the Russian people. I think rather that the West should be ''scared'' of such a vote...
If you 're not scared, then why not support the bid of Navalny to run for office, unhindered, like normal?
Heisenberg wrote:You said he was an "angel", a "garden variety conservative", and the "Keir Starmer of Russia".
Compared to Putin, he is
. Putin is far worse on that particular regard
based on the articles that you yourself
brought forward. Compared to Putin, he is the centrist of Russia
. Unfortunately for you, this is not an abstract vacuum where entities merely flow in hyperspace. Navalny obviously needs to be viewed through the prism of Russian politics and in relation to the main antagonist, Putin just like all other politics like Biden/Trump, Trump/Hillary, Johnson/Corbyn or Starmer and so on and forth.
Heisenberg wrote:Yeah, this just isn't true. Here's an interview he did back in 2011 explaining why it's OK to collaborate with Nazis at those infamous "Russian Marches".
In case this still isn't enough to convince you that he isn't an "angel", here is an article on his blog talking about how "if Europe has an “orgy of tolerance” towards Islamists, in Russia it’s the Sodom & Gomorrah of lies, hypocrisy, corruption & direct encouragement of aggressive Islamism".
Both these articles are in Russian, the google translation extremely difficult to read. In the first article I tried to find the word "Nazi" somewhere in there and couldn't find it anywhere, in the second what am I supposed to be looking at? That he is accusing the Russian government of colluding with aggressive Islamism? What's his argument about?
Are you reading Russian now?
Once again, instead of actually posting any solid evidence, you are hoping that simply repeating your "neonazi" labels enough it may cause a shit stain on the windscreen of Putin's opponent, with what intent really?
This political personality has been tripped, imprisoned, poisoned and imprisoned again, now he returned to Russia and your sole contribution is to taint him with the "neo-nazi" label and draw parallels with euromaidan in order to taint him with the "CIA label" too, after all "the FT and Economist like him so he must be a repeat of Poroshenko" because that is a convenient narrative that may perhaps justify his treatment by Putin.
You can pretend all you like but your agitproping for Putin is transparent. The imprisonment, poisoning and general treatment is just "justice"; after all he is just a "neo-nazi and a "CIA stooge like Poroshenko".
Heisenberg wrote:A red flag that he is not necessarily the hero we are led to believe he is, or even the good guy.
Heisenberg: "I only mentioned the words 'nazi', 'neo-nazi', 'CIA', 'MI6', 'Poroshenko' for general education purposes and never intended to taint Navalny with these words I used. You have totally misrepresented me noemon, but I do stand by my words and I am also calling you a 'liar' for quoting the words I used to describe Navalny and his political 'revolution(which revolution?)' which I can see the writing on the wall of being a repeat of Ukraine. I am also calling you a 'liar' for saying that I think he is 'CIA-MI6 stooge', I clearly never said or implied any of that and only used these words to refer to Porosenko, nevertheless I will never say that I believe he isn't CIA or MI6, cause he smells like Poroshenko anyway."
Putin agitproping on the nth.
Heisenberg wrote:Since you are struggling to grasp the point, let me explain the parallel to Ukraine again: western liberal intervention often ends up unleashing forces that it can't control. This happened in Ukraine, when the United States and United Kingdom openly interfered in the "euromaidan" protests, including logistical support from the CIA. The plan was to install Petro Poroshenko as the "pro-western" figure, but they lost control of it and the "Right Sector" ended up making huge gains. I worry that the same thing will happen if the west backs Alexei Navalny - they may think he is a Yeltsin or Poroshenko type figure, but his connections and personal views suggest we could see a similar dynamic emerge. You can disagree all you like, even forcefully, but please, for the love of God, stop lying about what I've said.
How is that anyhow different than calling Navalny a "CIA-MI6 stooge"? You are saying Poroshenko had "CIA-MI6 support" and that Navalny is either Poroshenko or even worse than him a "neo-nazi" as well, that the west "may lose control of".
I am telling you the west has no control over him, the western press is not
"cheerleading" him in any way, yet another false claim of yours, gone awry.
You 're calling me a "liar" for understanding the point you are explicitly making, again.
Serious question, wasn't Yeltsin the guy who sold Russia to the west? Wasn't Yeltsin the Russian Poroshenko?
Isn't Putin the hand-picked successor of Yeltsin?
Isn't Putin the "neo-nazi" guy that the west lost control of and the guy who imprisoned the migrants(instead of those beating them) during the race-riots as per the article you brought forward to "prove" that Navalny is the "neonazi"?
Isn't Putin the guy who is unable to bring even basic democracy in Russia, the guy who cannot lift Russia out of poverty despite an enormous amount of natural resources, technology and minds? Isn't Putin the very definition of a failure? The kind of failure you expect from foreign interference to keep a country down?