Thread by @kamilkazani

Yes. There's another thing. Do you *personally* feel the danger or not? If you do, you'll be genuinely interested in what's happening. If not, you'll engage into abstract rhetorical exercises. That may explain the difference between Western vs Eastern Europe's attitude to the war

https://twitter.com/Operation_Ryan/status/1560310557894447106

There's a lot of hatred towards the Western media/NGO in the Third World. Their negative image is too generalised and often unfair. But if I had to summarise this common feeling, I'd say:

"They don't give a damn of what's happening. They're busy with their rhetorical exercises"

When a Western journalist or consultant talks about the "principles", locals might not say anything. But their blood will be boiling. Because the fucker is committed the virtue signalling, no matter the cost for them. He won't have to deal with the consequences. They will have to

@amnesty is a vivid example illustrating a common behavioural pattern of NGO/media:

1. Hold massive power
2. Enjoy zero responsibility
3. When dealing with the very real deaths and suffering of others, focus on your rhetorical exercises and virtue signalling

That's very typical

Same very often goes for the economic consultants. At home their hands are pretty much tied by a system of checks and balances. In the Third world though they may be free to experiment and apply their theories no matter the cost for others. Massive power, zero accountability

1. Massive power. Locals are often in no position to argue
2. Zero accountability. You won't live here and deal with consequences
3. Extreme hypocrisy. You may deny you have power (=responsibility) publicly and point out to it privately to enforce compliance

Recipe for disaster

The end