Unanimity is dangerous

Honorary Professor of the History of Montreal University Yakov Rabkin in the publication "Russia in Global Policy" writes :

“Fifty years ago, I left the Soviet Union for one single reason: the desire for freedom. I was converted by unanimity, which was supported by the prohibition of foreign publications and the mocking of Western radio stations. The obedient, hesitated along with the line of the media party, pushed me and mixed me. Fear of the authorities (even when they were already much more “vegetarian” than in Stalin's times) limited the frank discussion of the “cuisine” policy, in other words, a narrow circle of trusted friends. <...>

(In Canada - Polit.ru) most of all I was struck in the newspapers and on television a variety of opinions. Letters to the editorial office proposed a wide range of points of view, a number of them not only represented criticism of the Western policy, but also offered alternatives. Very little time passed, and I began to express my opinion, first in letters to the editor, and then in articles. I was pleased with the opportunity to participate in free political debate, to contribute to them a citizen and scientist. After all, society has created the conditions for me so that I could share the results of my research and observations with it.

Today, when it comes to some important issues of international policy, the freedom of discussion is significantly limited.

One of these issues is Israel. A considerable courage is required to freely criticize him, without fear of being accused of anti -Semitism. <...>

An even more important issue that disappeared from rational discussion is a policy against Russia. This question is therefore more important that Russia has the largest arsenal of nuclear weapons in the world. Long before February 2022, the majority of NATO countries (as well as Ukraine) limited access to the Russian media, which did not happen in the West even during the Cold War. Just as the Soviet authorities justified the jamming of Western radio programs with the need to protect against “ideological sabotage”, in recent years many institutions have been created under the auspices of NATO and the states included in it to protect citizens from “Russian misinformation”. <...>

Freedom of speech is not only democratic law. This is also a way to determine and weigh alternatives. When the conflict turns into an epic struggle between good and evil, the rational approach is replaced by moral condemnation and noble indignation. This undermines all diplomacy and, in turn, exacerbates the danger of a nuclear war, the inevitable consequence of which, as the American military strategists were determined back in 1962, Mutally Assured Destruption (mutual guaranteed destruction; adopted reduction of this concept, MAD, means “crazy.” Completely thought not only denies freedom of speech. It threatens the survival of mankind. ”