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
Reading Tess of the d'Urbervilles. Set in southwest England, somewhere in the late 1800s. And the first thing you need to know is that Tess is bilingual. He speaks a local dialect she learnt at home, and the standard English she picked at school from a London-trained teacher
So, basically, "normal" language doesn't come out of nowhere. Under the normal conditions, people on the ground speak all the incomprehensible patois, wildly different from each other
"Regular", "correct" English is the creation of state
So, basically, the state chooses a standard (usually, based on one of the dialects), cleanses it a bit, and then shoves down everyone's throats via the standardized education
Purely artificial construct, of a super mega state that really appeared only by the late 1800s
There's a subtle point here that 99,999% of Western commentariat is missing. Like, totally blind to. And that point is:
Building a huuuuuuuuuuge dam (or steel plant, or whatever) has been EVERYONE's plan of development. Like absolutely every developing country, no exceptions
Almost everyone who tried to develop did it in a USSR-ish way, via prestige projects. Build a dam. A steel plant. A huge plant. And then an even bigger one
And then you run out of money, and it all goes bust and all you have is postapocalyptic ruins for the kids to play in
If China did not go bust, in a way like almost every development project from the USSR to South Asia did, that probably means that you guys are wrong about China. Like totally wrong
What you describe is not China but the USSR, and its copies & emulations elsewhere
What I am saying is that "capitalist reforms" are a buzzword devoid of any actual meaning, and a buzzword that obfuscated rather than explains. Specifically, it is fusing radically different policies taken under the radically different circumstances (and timing!) into one - purely for ideological purposes
It can be argued, for example, that starting from the 1980s, China has undertaken massive socialist reforms, specifically in infrastructure, and in basic (mother) industries, such as steel, petrochemical and chemical and, of course, power
The primary weakness of this argument is that being true, historically speaking, it is just false in the context of American politics where the “communism” label has been so over-used (and misapplied) that it lost all of its former power:
“We want X”
“No, that is communism”
“We want communism”
Basically, when you use a label like “communism” as a deus ex machina winning you every argument, you simultaneously re-define its meaning. And when you use it to beat off every popular socio economic demand (e.g. universal healthcare), you re-define communism as a synthesis of all the popular socio economic demands
Historical communism = forced industrial development in a poor, predominantly agrarian country, funded through expropriation of the peasantry
(With the most disastrous economic and humanitarian consequences)
Many are trying to explain his success with some accidental factors such as his “personal charisma”, Cuomo's weakness etc
Still, I think there may be some fundamental factors here. A longue durée shift, and a very profound one
1. Public outrage does not work anymore
If you look at Zohran, he is calm, constructive, and rarely raises his voice. I think one thing that Mamdani - but almost no one else in the American political space is getting - is that the public is getting tired of the outrage
Outrage, anger, righteous indignation have all been the primary drivers of American politics for quite a while
For a while, this tactics worked
Indeed, when everyone around is polite, and soft (and insincere), freaking out was a smart thing to do. It could help you get noticed
People don’t really understand causal links. We pretend we do (“X results in Y”). But we actually don’t. Most explanations (= descriptions of causal structures) are fake.
There may be no connection between X and Y at all. The cause is just misattributed.
Or, perhaps, X does indeed result in Y. but only under a certain (and unknown!) set of conditions that remains totally and utterly opaque to us. So, X->Y is only a part of the equation
And so on
I like to think of a hypothetical Stone Age farmer who started farming, and it worked amazingly, and his entire community adopted his lifestyle, and many generations followed it and prospered and multiplied, until all suddenly wiped out in a new ice age