Translated material
Hitler's accomplice
Mr. Yavlinsky erupted in a large article , once again calling for an immediate cessation of fire. All verbal equilibrics, all “humanistic” lamentations and frankly fraudulent manipulations need Mr. Yavlinsky for the sake of a single phrase: Putin Russia cannot fail, because it will not stop at anything.
And what will Putin's Russia not stop before? Yes, everyone understands that this refers to the use of nuclear weapons. If there is a direct threat of defeat. And what is a "defeat" for Putin's Russia? So, too, everyone understands. This is the loss of captured Ukrainian territories. That is, we translate Mr. Yavlinsky further: Putin Russia cannot lose the captured territories.
And why are Mr. Yavlinsky's reasoning after this that after the ceasefire is needed a long and complex process of diplomatic settlement of territorial disputes? Putin will discuss the “territorial issue” with someone after they can’t throw him out of the captured territories by force? He will not say once again "the question is closed"? Mr. Yavlinsky holds us for idiots?
Not really. Mr. Yavlinsky sets in the reasoning that we should strive for such a world in which formal affiliation does not matter at all. Like in a modern European Union. What is the significance of, who is now formally owned by Alsace and Lorraine? Here it is. What is the significance of, who formally belong to Putin's Ukrainian territories? Yes, leave them to Putin, and will be on them like in the European Union.
In short, give Putin everything he wants, and everyone he wants, otherwise he will abandon the atomic bomb. After all, if he can throw an atomic bomb due to the captured Ukrainian territories, he can quit it because of some other unsatisfied Wishlist. Yes, because of any. Mr. Yavlinsky does not remember what Putin wanted NATO to collect manat and hide the borders of the 97th year? And all that is to these borders is him. Mr. Yavlinsky is ready to give Putin all nations to the borders of NATO 97?
It looks like ready. And then vague doubts arise involuntarily. If you recall how restrained Mr. Yavlinsky has always spoke about the essence of the current global conflict of Putin's Russia with the "collective West." He carefully avoided laying all responsibility for this conflict exclusively to Putin's Russia. As if hinting that the West also bear its share of responsibility.
In the background of the current conflict of Putin’s Russia with the West lies the non -recognition of the West of the “right” of Putin Russia to be a “master” of adjacent peoples. So, maybe this is what Mr. Yavlinsky sees the West’s guilt in the conflict? Maybe he considers it normal and fair to the desire of Putin Russia to have in the neighboring countries the zone of its "exceptional interests" and "exclusive control"? Maybe the whole point is that the elderly thinker, wise with life experience, considers the project of the world order, in which people live without a master, hopeless utopia, like a communist one?
However, we will not immediately suspect Mr. Yavlinsky of such vile thoughts. Perhaps everything is much simpler. Just Mr. Yavlinsky agrees to live in a world in which any scum can do everything that she wants, threatening to throw an atomic bomb in case of resistance, because life is more expensive.
And this is normal. There are always people who are ready to submit to any rapist, because their own skin is more expensive than human dignity. And there are other people who are ready to die, but do not submit to the rapist. Those and others always did not love each other. They accused each other of trying to decide for them. And this is true, because the fate of others largely depends on the decisions of some.
This dispute can hardly lead to something. A person who is inconceivable to submit to the rapist will not be convinced in the opposite of any arguments, even the most “humanistic”. Equal and vice versa. This dispute is not solved by voting. It is decided exclusively by will. By the will of some, he can not submit to the rapist, no matter what, and the will of others to save his skin regardless of anything. But in connection with this dispute, at least two more questions arise.
Question one. What is more useful for the progress of civilization: “The adaptive ability of some to adapt to any abominance or the ability of others to say“ no ”to the rapist, whatever it costs? The question, how is it fashionable to say, is ambiguous. But the second, most“ practical ”question for us. And what, in fact, is this very“ progress of civilization ”?
Apple slander of Mr. Yavlinsky love to talk about the fact that the world has changed. And now there are no values in it than the value of human life. And here the dispute, which is leading Mr. Yavlinsky with his "opponents", acquires a truly epic character worthy of an ancient Greek tragedy. He rises to the level of high philosophy, to the "Platonic discussion."
This is a dispute about what "beautiful new world" we want to build and what is its radical difference from the world of the old. Until recently, some individual supporters of progress naively believed that in the "New World" to which humanity is moving, no one would be allowed to humiliate the weaker. No one will be allowed to be a "master" over others. The elderly thinker, wise with life experience, explains to them that they were mistaken. In the world that we build, nothing will have values except for the salvation of our own skin. Neither the formal affiliation of territories, nor human dignity.
How much is human life today, Putin just showed us all. She costs nothing. And this is the new reality in which we already live. It is impossible to restore the value of human life without destroying those who have just depreciated it. Who has already killed hundreds of thousands of people. Aliens and their own, by the way, too. Which, too, is sorry deeper.
About this about this in another setting, probably, could be attached to Mr. Yavlinsky. But we have a military time, and the Platonic discussion on these topics is somehow not very appropriate. It is much more appropriate to say that Mr. Yavlinsky is an accomplice of the new Hitler, who is no different from the accomplices of Hitler of the Old.