2. Bulletproof vest producing workshop. An individual set of a vest + a tactical belt costs $544
Wire:
Name : Serhii Marchenko
Beneficiary: IBAN UA153348510000026207116880688
SWIFT/BIC: FUIBUA2X
FIRST UKRAINIAN INTERNATIONAL BANK
Details of payment: NON-COMMERCIAL TRANSFER
3. Thermal weapon sights
PayPal
gleb.parfenov95@gmail.com
Wire:
PARFONOV HLIB
Account: 26204329575932
IBAN: UA403220010000026204329575932
Swift : UNJSUAUKXXX
JSC UNIVERSAL BANK
12. Help Ukraine Today. Helping both the military and civilians of the occupied areas. Wire, Card Payment, PayPal and Crypto all available on their website
With all due respect to Yashin, I think that framing the situation in terms of "Putin vs Russia" dichotomy would be disingenuous. Putin is not a foreign conqueror. He is a legitimate heir, appointed by the previous monarch. Putinism is an organic continuation of Yeltsinism
Once you agree that Putin is not an external force, but rather an organic element of the Russian system, you start seeing overfocusing on Putin's personality ("it's him! he's the only one who's guilty!") as disingenuous. As an attempt to save the system intact, basically
"Ruler vs people" argument can be made for Chechnya, where Kadyrov's rule was imposed by the bloody foreign invasion. Kadyrov is largely an external force for most of his subjects, so his reign is based upon the continuous mass terror. Putin however, is *not* an external force
FYI: When you see Russian elite members "acting mad", be aware they are acting 100% rationally. It's smart to play mad. Mutually exclusive, collectively exhaustive, you can:
a) Play the "voice of reason" -> Putin destroys you
b) Play "mad" -> Putin keeps you
c) Keep silence🧵
You won't get why Medvedev is "acting so deranged" without taking into account the consequences of not acting deranged
"Nazi drug addicts"
"Pigs"
"We'll retaliate using weapons of any kind"
This is not a signal to you. It is a signal to Putin:
"I am not a danger. Leave me be"
Same with Lavrov's "Jewish Hitler" remarks. I think it is very smart and well thought behaviour. He is purposefully playing "antisemitic" to maximise the damage to his personal reputation in the West. The worse, the better. Non-terrible standing in the West = liability in Moscow
American discourse is "anthropological". Broadly speaking, you are classified according to how you look (White vs Black)
Russian discourse is "culturalist". Sharing the common cultural memes, having a Russian first name and speaking without accent pretty much makes you Russian
This is the first approximation of course. Both discourses are in practice idiosyncratic. In America very anthropological "White" and "Black" coexist with a 100% culturalist "Hispanic" category. Add to that a geographically defined "Asian" and you get a total idiosyncratic mess
On the other hand, culturalist Russia also has the racialised discourse which can be weaponised whenever deemed necessary for reasons that have nothing to do either with race or with culture. The most obvious example is - political disagreements. They are constantly racialised
Even if an author cites his/her sources, it may be difficult to verify if he/she represented their content correctly, due to:
1. Sources being undigitized 2. Language/palaeography barrier 3. Sources simply being too difficult to understand *correctly*. E.g. much of Rosstat data
For example some Russian official statistics may not be necessarily "wrong". It's just that they are represented in a way that a layman is 100% guaranteed to misinterpret them, unless he/she conducts a special research on what does Rosstat mean exactly by this or that figure
Imagine you are trying to estimate Russian import dependency in light swords. The obvious solution would be to look up Rosstat data on
1. Import/Export 2. Domestic production
of light swords and compare them
It would be totally wrong though and will lead to absurd conclusions
Why did this story produce so much wow-effect? Well, because it portrays Taliban ex-fighters as humans with ordinary human problems relatable to a Westerner. Since we are used to reading absolutely dehumanizing narratives, the *slightest* humanizing perspective may be shocking
This is not so much about the Taliban as about the arbitrariness of story-telling. Humanization/dehumanization is an author’s choice. And whichever angle you choose, you can always find enough factual material to present you (arbitrary) perspective as the objective reality
Paradoxically, humanizing the absolutely dehumanized may be very easy. Choose their experiences that your audience can relate with, and discuss them in meticulous details:
“Wow, they’re almost like us!”
That’s conditional ofc. In this case conditional upon Taliban having won
Many observers see Putin as an aberration, some unfortunate deviation from normality. I disagree. Watch this excerpt from Yeltsin - Jiang Zemin meeting in Beijing, December 1999. You can see:
- Nuclear blackmail
- "Multi-polar world" rhetorics
- Attempted alignment with China
Putin is not deviation from normality. He is just another stage of *return* to normality that started before him. Modern Russian regime was shaped to its current form around 1996-1997:
- Restoration of state security
- Re-militarization
- Crony oligarchy
Return to normality
In pretty much of its worst aspects the Putin's rule is only continuing the trends that had been set before and were very much visible by 1996-1997. Putin is just the logical continuation of late Yeltsin. Putin has been only perfecting the model casted long before his ascension