Many see NGOs as a bunch of ultra-privileged Westerners focused on satisfying their ego without any regard for the cost they inflict on the people they're supposed to "help". This view is unfair. It's too generalising. But the @amnesty report is playing to the worst stereotypes🧵
To start with, an argument about "Ukrainian forces putting civilians in harm’s way" by defending ignores the objective reality. Which is: it's the Ukrainian retreat that is putting civilians in harm's way. On the Russian occupied territory they'll be subject to unhinged violence
It is the Ukrainian retreat that made the worst atrocities of this war possible. Once the Ukrainian army retreats, civilians are at the mercy of the Russian military & the paramilitary. No wonder that they become victims of indiscriminate violence
Russian record in Ukraine is typical. It's just a common Russian way of waging wars, not much different from what we've seen in Syria or Chechnya. Mariupol shared the fate of Aleppo and Grozny. Ukrainians suffer in Russian hands much like Syrians did novayagazeta.ru/articles/2019/…
The same Wagner mercenary company that turned the torturous execution of a Syrian into their proud symbol is now fighting in Ukraine. Their leader Prigozhin is now touring Russian prisons to recruit new soldiers, reportedly focusing on those jailed for murder or armed robbery
Cut off head and hands of a Ukrainian POW put on stakes in the Russian-occupied Popasna very much resemble the Syrian war scenes. This behaviour is so typical for the Russian military that I have no idea why the world had ignored it before. Good thing they finally noticed
It is not the Ukrainian defence that endangers civilians, it is their retreat. With every new town ceded, more and more civilians remain with no protection against the Russian army and paramilitary. They'll be at their mercy and nobody will come to help
Furthermore, a line between civilians and combatants may be blurry. Russian pro-war journalist reported that in occupied Lisichansk he saw only one young person. Literally all the youth in the city left with the Ukrainian army. Almost all were involved in the territorial defence
I find this Russian Z-activist's testimony highly valuable, especially because Lisichansk he is describing is located in Donbass that Russians are supposed to "liberate". These are the people that @amnesty wants to leave one on one with the Russian army
That's what @amnesty report misses completely: the stance of local population. Russian sources give the picture of the locals' extreme hostility to the invaders and the will to resist. Locals are not necessarily the hapless victims as amnesty would portray them
The war that doesn't put civilians in the harm's way is the rich man's delusion. If you believe in such absurdity you probably never fought against a much stronger invader with a propensity for extreme violence. You probably can't even imagine yourself in such situation
Much of anger against @amnesty and their kind comes from them ignoring objective reality. What is worse, they find a moral high ground in ignoring reality, unaware that their ability to ignore it derives from their position of ultra privilege
Staying in the position of ultra-privilege, being carefully sheltered from the real world consequences of their actions, @amnesty dares to preach to those who face existential risks daily and indeed risk losing everything, should they miscalculate only once
Worst of all, @amnesty has actively endangered the Ukrainian civilians. Russian authorities endorse their messages because it helps them to avoid responsibility for shelling the Ukrainian residential quarters. Amnesty International just gave them the free pass to do so
I disagree. I would insist that the victim has the absolute right and in this case even the moral obligation for self defence, whatever the ultra-privileged may preach. End of🧵
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I have recently read someone comparing Trump’s tariffs with collectivisation in the USSR. I think it is an interesting comparison. I don’t think it is exactly the same thing of course. But I indeed think that Stalin’s collectivisation offers an interesting metaphor, a perspective to think about
But let’s make a crash intro first
1. The thing you need to understand about the 1920s USSR is that it was an oligarchic regime. It was not strictly speaking, an autocracy. It was a power of few grandees, of the roughly equal rank.
2. Although Joseph Stalin established himself as the single most influential grandee by 1925, that did not make him a dictator. He was simply the most important guy out there. Otherwise, he was just one of a few. He was not yet the God Emperor he would become later.
The great delusion about popular revolts is that they are provoked by bad conditions of life, and burst out when they exacerbate. Nothing can be further from truth. For the most part, popular revolts do not happen when things get worse. They occur when things turn for the better
This may sound paradoxical and yet, may be easy to explain. When the things had been really, really, really bad, the masses were too weak, to scared and too depressed to even think of raising their head. If they beared any grudges and grievances, they beared them in silence.
When things turn for the better, that is when the people see a chance to restore their pride and agency, and to take revenge for all the past grudges, and all the past fear. As a result, a turn for the better not so much pacifies the population as emboldens and radicalises it.
The first thing to understand about the Russian-Ukrainian war is that Russia did not plan a war. And it, most certainly, did not plan the protracted hostilities of the kind we are seeing today
This entire war is the regime change gone wrong.
Russia did not want a protracted war (no one does). It wanted to replace the government in Kyiv, put Ukraine under control and closely integrate it with Russia
(Operation Danube style)
One thing to understand is that Russia viewed Ukraine as a considerable asset. From the Russian perspective, it was a large and populous country populated by what was (again, from the Russian perspective) effectively the same people. Assimilatable, integratable, recruitable
In 1991, Moscow faced two disobedient ethnic republics: Chechnya and Tatarstan. Both were the Muslim majority autonomies that refused to sign the Federation Treaty (1992), insisting on full sovereignty. In both cases, Moscow was determined to quell them.
Still, the final outcome could not be more different. Chechnya was invaded, its towns razed to the ground, its leader assassinated. Tatarstan, on the other hand, managed to sign a favourable agreement with Moscow that lasted until Putin’s era.
The question is - why.
Retrospectively, this course of events (obliterate Chechnya, negotiate with Tatarstan) may seem predetermined. But it was not considered as such back then. For many, including many of Yeltsin’s own partisans it came as a surprise, or perhaps even as a betrayal.
The single most important thing to understand regarding the background of Napoleon Bonaparte, is that he was born in the Mediterranean. And the Mediterranean, in the words of Braudel, is a sea ringed round by mountains
We like to slice the space horizontally, in our imagination. But what we also need to do is to slice it vertically. Until very recently, projection of power (of culture, of institutions) up had been incomparably more difficult than in literally any horizontal direction.
Mountains were harsh, impenetrable. They formed a sort of “internal Siberia” in this mild region. Just a few miles away, in the coastal lowland, you had olives and vineyards. Up in the highland, you could have blizzards, and many feet of snow blocking connections with the world.