Critics of the world

Both “parties of what cannot be called” turned out to be mentally similar. Why did the Nobel Prize winner of the Nobel laureates undergo obstruction

18+. This material (information) was produced, distributed and (or) sent by foreign agent Vishnevsky Boris Lazarevich or concerns the activities of the foreign agent Vishnevsky Boris Lazarevich.

Critics immediately responded to the letter of the Nobel laureates, including the immediate end of fire in Ukraine and conduct negotiations.

At the same time, many of the responses that are distributed from opposite sides are similar to the degree of mixing, and not for the first time: for a long time (and not only me) it is noted that both “parties of what cannot be called” mentally similar.

First of all, the willingness to go to the victorious end by the cost of strangers (in no case do yours!) Lives and neglect of their value.

And now, almost the same expressions, the opponents of Vladimir Putin and Kremlin propagandists criticize the same expressions: Alexander Plyushchev* and Sergey Mardan, Harry Kasparov* and Sergey Markov, Auder Mudsabaev* and Marina Akhmedova, Sergey Parkhomenko* and Marat Basharov.

Some argue that, they say, the presence of the Nobel Prize does not mean that “these people understand something in politics and world order” that the presence of the Nobel Prize “does not say that we are dealing with a smart or decent person”, that “45 great scientists full of idiots in politics have been signed”, that “laureates have long been a bonus, lost moral authority In the world, ”that the“ Prize discredited itself with a political choice of laureates ”...

In general, who, they say, are they, these Nobelians, to listen to them? (It is appropriate, of course, to ask how great the merits of the critics themselves are to humanity in order to listen to their opinion about the letter of the Nobelians).

Others accuse the Nobelians of non-self-stability, habitually seeing a kind of “alien hand” from the scene and assuring that "such letters themselves do not appear."

Only the descriptions of this “hand” are distinguished: some of the Nobeliats have either “wrote Yavlinsky” or “ordered the Kremlin”, or “it was compiled under the Kremlin dictation”, while others have a letter “prepared by American or Ukrainian political scientists”, and this, of course, “the operation of the special services of the USA and Ukraine”.

That is, Nobeliats not only understand nothing in politics, and they also obediently sign what they were ordered. Well, how is it possible, critics exclaim, seriously perceive their appeal? And nothing that among the 51 are a letter of nine, including Dmitry Muratov*, are the Nobel Laureates of the World. The better critics understand how much the world is sometimes given to the world ...

Still others are dissatisfied with the quality of the text, which is regarded as “author’s failure”. The fourth write about the “imaginary peacefulness”, “irresponsibility and vulgarity”, “infantilism” and “pacifism torn from reality”. The fifth discusses on the topic "Who is beneficial to the ceasefire?" And they confidently answer: of course, Putin! The old, old demagogy ... building up the production (or procurement) of weapons and the “accumulation of resources” for the third year in a row are carried out without any supposedly extremely necessary respite.

Finally, critics refer to all known historical analogies. On this thesis - since it occurs often - I will stop separately.

Historical analogies are not and cannot be a guide to action in the present, or a measure to evaluate the actions of today.

It is pointless to reason, today's proposals would make sense in a fundamentally different situation and in another time.

We know what we did then and what it led to.

How would events develop if other decisions were made then? It is unknown (I want to refer to the genre of alternative history and to reconstructors).

And by the way, why only these analogues? Why not the first world? And if in 1915 they signed an agreement on the ceasefire, would it be right? (Not being an alternative history specialist, I will assume that in this case the 1917 revolution in Russia could not have happened-with all the ensuing.) And if it were signed in the midst of the war of Russia with Japan? Or the Crimean War? And so on, until the invasion of Tatar-Mongols (however, see the previous paragraph) ...

So, today we must evaluate, reason and act based on the current, and not a historical situation. To think what to do here and now ”, and not to discuss whether it would be right in the last century ...

The purpose of the critical reviews described is understandable: to discredit and depreciate the message of the authors of the letter as much as possible, declaring it harmful and erroneous, and prevent the ceasefire.

This criticism - and especially today, when not only politicians and diplomats, but also the leaders of religious denominations call for the cessation of fire - is cynical and immoral. And she - this must be clearly understood - means a call to continue hostilities. Because the “Terzium Non DTU” is not given the third: either the fire is stopped, or it continues, and, therefore, the death of people continues. The call to the cessation of which is the critics of the nobeliat’s appeal reflex rejection: no, for nothing, it is necessary to continue, not considering nothing!

That's just in the list of potential losses this “party of someone else's blood”, and no matter what side is located on, he does not numerically numbers himself.

Others will die. Not they. They will demand to continue fighting, neither risking anything. They are ready to pay other people's lives and other people's blood for achieving the world order they wish, for their political goals.

“These people do not wake up with the question“ Will I stay alive? ”, The former“ Ekhovsky ”journalist who left Russia three years ago and who was in Mirny Vilnius and does not wake up with this issue reproaches.

As the vast majority of other critics of the Nobeliats of the Nobelians does not wake up with this issue: they, as a rule, are safe.

Nobelias treatment is a litmus piece of paper to determine who is on which side. On the side of preserving the lives of people - or on the side of the continuation of the military conflict.

The essence is simple: the decision to stop the deaths of people is made before negotiations. Without preliminary conditions.

Reality - and reality - this proposal is growing every day.

The readiness of Ukraine for negotiations aimed at “achieving a fair and strong world”, in a conversation with the Minister of Foreign Affairs of China Van and said the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine Dmitry Kuleb.

The Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew called for the cessation of fire during the Olympics - as earlier and Pope.

Every day of continuation of hostilities is new victims.

* Entered the Russian authorities in the register of "foreign agents"