Thread by @kamilkazani

I disagree. It's not only about a threat of a criminal prosecution, which you always keep in mind when in Russia. You see, when you are trying to persuade people in whatever, it makes sense to use only those arguments which those you want to persuade (and not you) see as strong

https://twitter.com/alamalbert/status/1568030454921543683

Russian public opinion won't see "we are hurting others" as a strong argument. We hurt others? Well, fuck them. But "we are hurting ourselves"may be a strong argument to stop doing what you do. Therefore, politics-wise it makes sense to point to our losses than to abstract morals

Also, I am somewhat critical about the Moscow oppositional establishment. That's not because they're uniquely horrible people, but because they:

1) strive for the unlimited power over the empire
2) share the imperial ethos

Ergo, it is a shadow Tsar's Court which I won't support

I'm against handing the unlimited non-contractual power over the vast empire to the oppositional establishment of the imperial capital. But that doesn't mean that I see oppositional activists in general as hypocrites or potential criminals. Well, some of them are. Others are not

How do we understand which are and which are not? Well, the best thing to do is to judge them by their words and actions. If we know these guys did or proclaimed something awful, I'm all for making it a public knowledge. Do we though? I guess not

I'm all for publishing evidence against politicians when this evidence exists. But I'm against empty accusations when there's no evidence. And using only those arguments which your intended audience can comprehend is basic social intelligence, not an evidence of evil intentions

The end