Heisenberg wrote:So the leaders in major western newspapers this week calling him a "Russian hero" whose "bravery needs backing" are irrelevant. Got it.
You 're a funny lad.
Within the last page alone when confronted with the reality that western media are not "cheerleading Navalny" which is what you explicitly claimed, you retorted with:
"but, but, they 're only just telling the truth!!!"
noemon wrote:Times: Alexei Navalny’s support wavers as nationalist link is exposed
The Atlantic: Navalny Liberal or Nationalist
Politico: Navalny Russian Nationalist
Spectator: Why Navalny may not be a friend of the West.
I sure do get the gist, do you?
When you posted the articles of the media simply calling a politician "brave" for going to Russia after being poisoned and threatened with imprisonment, you also said explicitly that western media are reporting the truth and that you agree with that characterisation.
Make up your mind please because going the obtuse denial route is boring.
Heisenberg wrote:Apparently he's a stooge for the west so that Europe can get a gas pipeline deal specifically against its own interests? Lol. Was the war with NATO-aligned Georgia in 2008 an inside job? Is Russian intervention in support of Assad in Syria secretly about advancing NATO's foreign policy goals? Maybe, as a foreign stooge, he had to call up Barack Obama to ask for permission to annex Crimea in 2014. It's quite an elaborate and self-defeating conspiracy, all things considered.
Evidently "western interests" are not monolithic as evidenced by several western states doing their own thing in all these things, quite unlike the black and white narratives that trolls in here are pushing forward.
The fact that Europe has gone out of her own way to prop up Putin with a pipeline that goes against European interests and by tacitly supporting Putin in Syria, Ukraine and Georgia by refusing to put any substantial sanctions on Russia says quite a lot indeed. Putin has been provided victories in all theatres he has challenged "the west" with western blessings and western media focusing more on the US than on Russia. While he commands a state with an economy the size of Italy.
Putin has imprisoned everybody who may challenge him and not a single peep is heard in western media.
annatar1914 wrote:@noemon ;
Having read them, it would be apparent to anyone that they hail from another civilization than the West's, among many others.
Having read them it is quite apparent that they belong to the tradition of European writers.
Now you are perhaps being disingenuous, refusing to see the clear links between Liberalism and the Marxism that sprang from it. Definite strawman argument, as the Westernization began in the 1700's and was resisted from time to time, as the radical consequences of radical ''Enlightenment'' thought began to take effect among the Russian upper classes. One of the later examples of a Russian leader who resisted to a degree would be Podbedonostyev Procurator of the Holy Synod...
You claimed that both the Czar Romanovs and the Communists were foreign traitors and that neither of them are representatives of 'Russianess'. You 're calling me 'disingenuous' for pointing out your own contradictions which is indeed the very height of being disingenuous.
Russia has maintained it's Orthodoxy to a greater degree than the West managed to for one thing. Whereas the West lost Orthodoxy ages ago.
The Ukraine has been under the spiritual jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Moscow since the 1600's, and so the unilateral action of the Phanar to grant an autocephaly to that local ''church'' (which basically exists anyway under Moscow's omphorion) was both uncanonical and a schismatic act, a form of Papism in which a spiritual leader exceeds their authority in the Church established by Jesus Christ for the salvation of mankind. You are looking at this from a political perspective, as is the Phanar and the soon-to-be Uniates of this breakaway body. You're looking at Orthodoxy from a political and ethnic perspective, a worldly perspective, instead of seeing It as the ''One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church'' mentioned in the Creed. You wanted to know what separates Russia from the West, and this degree of understanding or lack thereof is precisely it.
You see, you don't believe your own nonsense. You claim that Orthodoxy should be Ecumenical instead of national but you go against the Ecumenical Patriarchate because it is politically convenient to you. You believe that the Ukraine should be subject to the Russian priesthood instead of appointing its own priests to speak to its own people like Russia, Bulgaria, Albania and so many others do. You accuse me of seeing this "politically" when you see it from the perspective of a Russian imperialist.
If you saw it as "One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic church", you would not hate on your religious brethren for no actual reason nor would you defy the decisions of the Holy Synod, decisions made on the exact same principle
that made the Russian Church itself Autocephalous and Independent.
But most Russians are not like you, they defy these Russian nonsense and visit our churches every Sunday with no meat whatsoever. Russian ultra-nationalist/imperialist politics do not fracture our Church that has survived a lot more waves throughout the centuries.
Your petty nationalism means nothing, eventually Putin will go and his politics will go too, while our Church is eternal and the oldest religious organisation in continuous and unbroken existence. You 're just lost as a nation and it is clear why, you have not had the chance to have a proper national conversation for at least 100 years, your national wounds fester without resolution, you have gone from one tin-pot dictator to another and you believe that this is the right way for you instead of grabbing fate in your own national hands. It's sad.
EN EL ED EM ON
...take your common sense with you, and leave your prejudices behind...