Well, it's badly translated, it's hard to follow, it has a good deal of "inside baseball" stuff, and if the tone of the English is faithful to the original, it reads like old Soviet communiques. I do not think that coups d'etat in general are a good idea, but I also don't think that Russia has clean hands here.
> Eh, neo-Nazis to call to armed struggle against the state? That's just bullshit.
Why do you think it's bullshit? Have you seen those images from Kiev of people throwing cobbles and Molotov cocktails at police, and some firing guns? That's armed struggle against the state. Do you know that these people (not babushkas and pretty girls waving flags) belong to political parties or paramilitary groups confirmed as neo-Nazi in Europe (not just in Russia)?
Because you are repeating Russia propaganda. Svoboda is not neo-Nazi, neither it's fascist. It's a nationalistic party, yes, but it's far far far away from being neo-Nazi. Pravyj Sektor is not neo-Nazi either, on 27 February the leader of Pravyj Sektor Yarosh met with ambassador of Israel in Ukraine, and Yarosh explained that they are against antisemitism or xenophobia. Do you think it will be possible would they be neo-Nazi? Read for example "Open letter of Ukrainian Jews to Russian Federation President Vladimir Putin." [1]
> They have tried to scare us (and are continuing their attempts) with “Bandera followers” and “Fascists” attempting to wrest away the helm of Ukrainian society, with imminent Jewish progroms. Yes, we are well aware that the political opposition and the forces of social protests who have secured changes for the better are made up of different groups. They include nationalistic groups, but even the most marginal do not dare show anti-Semitism or other xenophobic behavior. And we certainly know that our very few nationalists are well-controlled by civil society and the new Ukrainian government – which is more than can be said for the Russian neo-Nazis, who are encouraged by your security services.
Or read "All-Ukrainian Jewish Congress: Antisemitism Not on the Rise" [2]. Or read articles on the website of Association of Jewish Organisations and Communities of Ukraine [3]. It observes antisemitic forces in Ukraine for decades, however I didn't find a single article that saw some threat from Maidan forces. But there are a lot of articles against Putin propaganda that exaggerates "neo-Nazi" threat. Neo-Nazi hazard from protesters in Ukraine is nothing more than an invention of Russian propaganda. If there is a fascist danger in Ukraine, it originates from Russian and pro-Russian forces that attack peaceful demonstrations, kill people, intimidate journalists, kidnap and shot in activists, invade foreign countries with intention to annex them.
I obviously won't change your opinions, but here are some facts that may be relevant.
Ukrainian Jews seek urgent help from Israel Director-general of European
Jewish Association urges Prime Minister Netanyahu and Defense
Minister Moshe Ya'alon to send security forces to Jewish communities
in Ukraine due to 'growing wave of anti-Semitic attacks.'
> I obviously won't change your opinions, but here are some facts that may be relevant.
No, they are not relevant, that's one more piece of disinformation. Your quote:
> Ukrainian Jews seek urgent help from Israel Director-general of European Jewish Association urges Prime Minister Netanyahu and Defense...
inside the article
> Rabbi Menahem Margolin, has asked Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Moshe Yaalon...
Biography of Rabbi Menahem Margolin:
> Rabbi Menachem Margolin was born in Israel. After graduating from elementary studied he studied in Yeshivot in Bnei Brak and Kiryat Gat, and then in New York. From the U.S.A he left for a mission of a year to the Jewish community in Hungary and helped the local Rabbis to fulfill their rules. From Budapest he left for a mission of several months to Bangkok, Thailand. During these years he received his rabbinical ordination. In 2004 he was appointed as Program Director of the Rabbinical Centre of Europe (RCE) A year later he was appointed as the Secretary General of the organization and two years later was appointed as the General Director.
Yes, that guy has exactly zero to do with Ukraine. Funny that all this hysteria about neo-Nazies taking over the country is being spread from non-Ukrainian sources, while Ukrainian sources don't see a problem.
> But there is another way to look at it, and it is that Russian views are correct from the outset: The Ukrainian coup that deposed a legitimately elected president has been spearheaded by neo-nazi paramilitaries.
Enemy invaders deposed legitimately elected leader spearheaded by antisemitic communist forces. That's one more way to look at WWII. The problem of course that this view has nothing common with reality. Jews, Russians, Georgians, and plenty other minorities actively participated on Maidan -- something that absolutely impossible in a neo-nazi coup. And sorry, your views are not Russian views, those are views promoted by Putin propaganda.
> They now control key positions in the government, intimidate their political opponents, including what has remained of the Ukrainian parliament.
Andriy Parubiy, the new secretary of Ukraine's security council, was a co-founder of the Neo-Nazi Social-National Party of Ukraine (SNPU), otherwise known as Svoboda.
I admit I did not know about the letter from the Ukrainian Jews to Putin. I do not know what motivated them to write such a letter. It could be Bandera followers standing over them, or something else. You can't really deny the neo-Nazi character of the leaders of the rioters. Have a look here, it's an non-Russian source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-hughes/the-neo-nazi-qu...
Some quotes:
For starters, Andriy Parubiy, the new secretary of Ukraine's security council, was a co-founder of the Neo-Nazi Social-National Party of Ukraine (SNPU), otherwise known as Svoboda. And his deputy, Dmytro Yarosh, is the leader of a party called the Right Sector which, according to historian Timothy Stanley, "flies the old flag of the Ukrainian Nazi collaborators at its rallies."
The Svoboda party has tapped into Nazi symbolism including the "wolf's angel" rune, which resembles a swastika and was worn by members of the Waffen-SS, a panzer division that was declared a criminal organization at Nuremberg. A report from Tel-Aviv University describes the Svoboda party as "an extremist, right-wing, nationalist organization which emphasizes its identification with the ideology of German National Socialism."* Notice how Tel-Aviv Jews do not seem to agree with the Ukrainian ones.
According to this BBC news clip two Svoboda parliamentarians in recent weeks posed for photos while "brandishing well-known far right numerology," including the numbers 88 -- the eighth letter of the alphabet -- signifying "HH," as in "Heil Hitler." This all makes Hillary Clinton's recent comments comparing Putin to Hitler appear patently absurd, as Stanley adeptly points out: "After all, in the eyes of many ethnic Russians, it is the Ukrainian nationalists -- not Putin -- who are the Nazis."
Last week Per Anders Rudling from Lund University in Sweden, an expert on Ukrainian extremists, told Britain's Channel 4 News: "A neo-fascist party like Svoboda getting the deputy prime minister position is news in its own right." Well, except in the U.S.
There are WAY too many unambiguous images and videos on the internet where the rioters sport Nazi or neo-Nazi symbols to ignore or dismiss as Russian propaganda like you do. Just google for "nazi ukraine" for images. You'll see Tyagnibok (one of the 3 leaders of the "peaceful protesters") there among the top results.
> the Russian neo-Nazis, who are encouraged by your security services.
Incidentally, this is anti-Russian propaganda. There are neo-Nazis in Russia, but they have nothing to do with Putin or Russian security services. In fact, Russian neo-Nazis would be offended by this statement.
> I admit I did not know about the letter from the Ukrainian Jews to Putin. I
Sure, you didn't, because you get your information from garbage sources by useful leftist idiots from Huffington Post and like.
> I do not know what motivated them to write such a letter. It could be Bandera followers standing over them, or something else
That's just so pathetic that is not even funny. You ignore opinion of the most authoritative Jewish organizations in Ukraine, two chief rabbis of Ukraine and opinion of the Congress of national minorities of Ukraine for the sole reason that they don't agree with your agenda formed on poor quality sources.
> Tel-Aviv Jews, ... from Lund University in Sweden
Yeah, apparently guys from Tel-Aviv and from Sweden see the situation better than people who actually live in Kiev and closely observe folks from Svoboda for decades. Sorry, no, Svoboda is not neo-Nazi, not even nearly. It's a legit party that got 10.5% on elections in 2012 that gets more and more moderate over time.
> the Russian neo-Nazis, who are encouraged by your security services.
> Incidentally, this is anti-Russian propaganda.
They are probably talking about Russian nazis in Ukraine. People like this one: http://imgur.com/a/QeuZp, who is directly supported by Kremlin propaganda. Or like these thugs who attacked peaceful pro-Ukrainian demonstration in Donetsk and killed 2 yesterday. Or like those thugs who killed 2 in Kharkov today.
> from garbage sources by useful leftist idiots from Huffington Post and like.
I appreciate your level-headed unbiased approach. You prefer Fox News, I presume?
> That's just so pathetic that is not even funny. You ignore opinion of the most authoritative Jewish organizations in Ukraine.
> Yeah, apparently guys from Tel-Aviv and from Sweden see the situation better than people who actually live in Kiev and closely observe folks from Svoboda for decades.
So, for you, Russian sources are propaganda, and EU and Israel sources are misinformed (apparently by the Russians), and only Ukrainian pro-Maidan sources matter. That is indeed ridiculous. Did you ever wonder why the Ukrainian parliament, where Yanukovich's Regions Party had the majority, adopted anti-Maidan laws on January 16th, but in February was already unequivocally pro-Maidan? Do you think the armed masked "peaceful demonstrators" storming government buildings might have something to do with it?
I think those armed masked people are the reason why the Ukrainian Jews wrote such a letter. I don't see how Jews can possibly tolerate the Nazi symbols and slogans of the Right Sector (see above for images).
Here is what a chief Ukrainian rabbi has to say about "peaceful protesters" [1]:
"I told my congregation to leave the city center or the city all together and if possible the country too," Rabbi Azman told Maariv. "I don't want to tempt fate," he added, "but there are constant warnings concerning intentions to attack Jewish institutions."
> I appreciate your level-headed unbiased approach. You prefer Fox News, I presume?
What an amazing argument, because there are only two media outlets in the world -- Fox News and Huffington Post. No, I prefer Völkischer Beobachter obviously.
> So, for you, Russian sources are propaganda, and EU and Israel sources are misinformed (apparently by the Russians), and only Ukrainian pro-Maidan sources matter.
EU is generally ok, nobody supports Putin, except few marginal media outlets (or marginals inside of mainstream outlet), so you need to mine for a good quote -- Russian propagandists even had to leak taped Paet conversations to mine good for them quote.
> and only Ukrainian pro-Maidan sources matter.
Good sources matter (like independent journalists reporting facts), authoritative opinions matter (like opinion about local antisemitism by local Jewish community). Opinions of some leftie guy from the different part of the Earth, who decided to mine some quotes for one side and call that "analysis" -- no, sorry, thing like these don't matter.
> Do you think the armed masked "peaceful demonstrators" storming government buildings might have something to do with it?
This has everything to do with the president who at first stole billions, then decided to shot in his own citizens killing almost 100, and then fled away cutting all communications, including communications with his own party.
> I think those armed masked people are the reason why the Ukrainian Jews wrote such a letter.
Nice conspiracy theory. Strangely, people like Joseph Zisels were not afraid to speak out in the Soviet Union (where Zisels was held in prison for some years for his anti-Soviet views), but now they are so scared that even write panegyrics about neo-Nazis.
> Here is what a chief Ukrainian rabbi has to say about "peaceful protesters" [1]:
Oh, jeez. You just can't not to bring here all the pro-Russian lies? Haaretz lied. See "How newspaper Haaretz distorted words of Ukrainian Rabbi" [1]. Long story short -- 1) Haaretz chronologically moved the statement by the rabbi. Reuven Azman told about it on 20 February, the day when snipers killed more than 50, so it made sense in context. Haaretz published it on 22 February, when Yanukovich already fled and the situation was stable. So Azman talked about the danger _from Yanukovich_, not from protesters. 2) Haaretz misquoted Azman, his statement was not about all Jews, but only women and children. Extended to all Kiev's Jews by Haaretz. 3) And then Haaretz claimed that Azman had connections with Kremlin -- and that was the claim Azmad actually considered to sue them for.
Now Rabbi Reuven Azman just like everybody else denies Russian lies about neo-Nazism [2] -- "Chief Rabbi of Kyiv and Ukraine: There is no Ethnic or Religious Hatred in Ukraine".
> What an amazing argument, because there are only two media outlets in the world -- Fox News and Huffington Post. No, I prefer Völkischer Beobachter obviously.
To call a news source "leftist idiots" to contradict what they say was an amazing argument. Very convincing.
> Russian propagandists even had to leak taped Paet conversations
It would be very wrong to hide them. Who hired the snipers to shoot policemen and protesters is a hugely important question.
> Good sources matter (like independent journalists reporting facts), authoritative opinions matter (like opinion about local antisemitism by local Jewish community). Opinions of some leftie guy from the different part of the Earth, who decided to mine some quotes for one side and call that "analysis" -- no, sorry, thing like these don't matter.
You have a very complex system of criteria which news source to trust, which somehow allows you to ignore the obvious. Still, you have to convince me the paramilitary groups in Maidan are peaceful, do not wear Nazi symbols, and do not chant Nazi slogans, and their leaders are not now in the government.
> Nice conspiracy theory.
Yeah, very feasible.
> all the pro-Russian lies ... Haaretz lied.
So Haaretz (Israel's oldest daily newspaper) is a pro-Russian news source? Do you realize you insult any news source that is not pro-Maidan and then call it pro-Russian? I find it ridiculous.
Whatever Azman said and why he said that, it is not possible to take this seriously (text from your link):
There is no anti-Semitism in Ukraine’, was Azman’s comment to the Russian propagandists’ claims
if you saw this [1] or this [2] or this [3] or this[4] or this [5] or this[6].
I actually feel sorry for him - something or someone forced him to say this obvious nonsense.
Haaretz verifiable provable lied, but it doesn't matter for you, because it's the oldest Israel newspaper. 3 chief Rabbis of Ukraine and the Association of Jewish Communities of Ukraine say there is no neo-Nazi threat from Ukrainians while it exists from Russians, but it doesn't matter for you, because you found few photographs of neo-Nazis in 1 million crowd. OK. I don't know, at this point the discussion as constructive as discussion with 9/11 truther, quite frankly.
Really, your photoset is hilarious. [1], [2], [3], [4] are photographs from 2013. [4] is especially funny -- Tyagnibok uses his _left_ hand to point to something, but you are trying misrepresent it like he is making a Nazi salute. If you want to find a fake Nazi salute photograph, at least find one where the target uses their _right_ hand. Like Merkel on this photo: http://westsidetoastmasters.com/resources/book_of_body_langu... On [5], [6] there is one guy with old Svoboda symbol it dropped 10 years ago and one guy with 14/88 on his shield. Not much, considering the fact there were 1 million of persons with very different background on Maidan. Look, of course there were neo-Nazis on Maidan -- there were 1 million with plenty of radicals. But it was an extreme minority, and it wasn't supported even by the leaders of notable nationalistic forces like Svoboda and Pravyj Sektor. There were very few antisemitic incidents recorded on Maidan -- most notable one was when one poetess recited antisemitic poem from the Maidan tribune (btw she was banned from tribune for that). And it was the most notable one. Compare it with Gubarev, the _leader_ of pro-Kremlin forces in Donetsk, guy completely supported by Russian propaganda, who was real neo-Nazi from RNE: http://imgur.com/a/QeuZp Compare it with Crimean Russians, who attack women for wearing Ukrainian flags [1] and old ladies [2], who kidnap journalists and shot in peaceful Ukrainian activists.
The fact the photos are from 2013 or someone at Maidan was wearing an old Nazi symbol of Svoboda does not justify the statements "There is no anti-Semitism in Ukraine" and "Svoboda has nothing to do with Nazis". Rather the opposite.
I have no problem recognizing Gubarev is/used to be a Nazi. But this does not mean the "peaceful activists" at Maidan had nothing to do with Nazis.
> I really don't see what every media outlet that isn't Russian state-controlled would have to gain from distributing "biased" journalism.
That's in theory. In reality, I see a very clear bias in Russian as well as non-Russian major media outlets. And it's not just my observation, either. Have a look at this Guardian article, for example: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/10/ukraine-and-wes... The author tries to explain why this is so.
A quote: The one thing we know for sure is that we don't know what's going on. The situation is volatile and murky. But that doesn't stop western politicians jumping in feet first. We don't know exactly what forces are at play, but we still desperately want to pin our naive "goodies" and "baddies" labels on to somebody.
My impression from reading Russian blogs on LiveJournal is that there are two kinds of people in Russia right now: those extremely anti-Putin and those extremely pro-Putin, in about 50/50 proportion. No one is "too afraid" or "silenced".
Until one day those antiPutinities are mysteriously rounded up and sent to Siberia, heres a thought for you if Putin did that tomorrow what would the "West" do? the answer will be nothing, nada, zero
If I was in Russia now i would shut up and plan my exit strategy, as most of those who could afford did so.
Here you are thinking about Russia in your Western categories. Those who did exit did so not because they want to be able to speak up against Putin, but for economic or professional reasons. Also Anti-Putinites are so many on the Internet you can't possibly round them up. Russians have been venting their political views on the Internet ever since the Internet has become available, I don't see how this can ever be stopped. Also Siberia is not such a bad place :) Also, the "West" doesn't need to do anything in Russia, unless it wants a mess just like in Ukraine, only with lots more of unhinged nationalists/patriots/communists/liberals and with nuclear weapons getting involved. It's not going to be nice pro-Western people against a horrible totalitarian regime.
I was born in the USSR,
my birth cert has the hammer and sickle,
so please don't lecture me on "the Russian way of thinking"
What has risen in the last ~15 years is a much more cynical, evil, ugly and nastier version of what USSR was.
Hell my parents still watch Russian channels and it doesn't take long to realise that there is some sort of mass psychosis taking place in the old country, fuelled by state controlled media.
I actually feel very much sorry for those brave souls that do speak out, seeing as to what happened to all those journalists that did so, you are right ending up in a Siberian gulag aint the worst outcome.
Also this: "publish or perform any benchmark or performance tests or analysis relating to the Service or the use thereof without express authorization from AlchemyAPI;"
Suppose I am evaluating their service, before I decide to buy. I would be breaking these ToS, I guess.
If it's a personal preference, then this has to do with culture, not biology. If it's a cultural thing, then you should realize there are different cultures out there, and one culture has no right to impose itself on others. As they say, when in Rome do as they Romans do.
I can confirm that there are gay artists, filmmakers, etc in Russia and it is common knowledge that they are gay, and they are not persecuted in any way. They are just not holding gay parades or teaching 6 year olds about gay sex. So as long as the gay athletes are not doing that, they will be perfectly fine.
For many Russians, teaching young children about gay sex is a problematic element, and I think you should respect their view when it comes to THEIR children.
> "If it's a personal preference, then this has to do with culture, not biology"
I didn't say personal preference, I said preference. It's not a choice you make, but it is an orientation. Why do you prefer members of the opposite sex? Did you choose this?
> "teaching 6 year olds about gay sex"
I doubt that actually ever happens.
> "For many Russians, teaching young children about gay sex is a problematic element, and I think you should respect their view when it comes to THEIR children"
So I should moderate my reasonable behaviour because you feel awkward explaining it to your kid? Your communication problems mean I shouldn't hold hands with or kiss someone of the same gender, in case they see it?
> I didn't say personal preference, I said preference. It's not a choice you make, but it is an orientation.
Straight sexual orientation is clearly biological. So it's not a question of choice. As far as I can tell, there is no such clear view on homosexuality - i.e. personal choice may be a big factor there. Even if it is largely biological, there are different ways in which a particular culture deals with certain biological functions. E.g., women may have to cover their hair in public in some cultures, while in others not covering their breasts is normal. The same issue is with Russia: open demonstration of your gay orientation is just not acceptable in the Russian culture. The West has to just live with it, in the same manner as it lives with the fact that Muslim women wear headscarves in their home countries.
> So I should moderate my reasonable behaviour because you feel awkward explaining it to your kid? Your communication problems mean I shouldn't hold hands with or kiss someone of the same gender, in case they see it?
Remember, it's reasonable in your culture, not in mine. My culture is not a communication problem.
> "Remember, it's reasonable in your culture, not in mine."
It's not really, Ireland is as backwards as anywhere else on the issue.
> "My culture is not a communication problem"
Your culture is not an excuse for discrimination any more than it might be an excuse for enforced dress codes or genital mutilation. It's all disgraceful behaviour, no matter how you might like to dress it up as your culture or tradition (and therefore somehow deserving more respect).
"Tradition" and "culture" simply translate to "fear of change". If your culture is a culture of repression then no, I do not have to respect it.
> genital mutilation. It's all disgraceful behaviour, ... If your culture is a culture of repression then no, I do not have to respect it.
Right there, you violated a human right, freedom of religion. Would Orthodox Jews, for example, agree that circumcision is "repression", "disgraceful behaviour" and "fear of change", "dressed up" like a tradition?
Which is even more worrying, you are trying to enforce these views not only in your own country, but in countries foreign for you.
A while ago there was news about a couple in Germany who had sex on a parking lot near a supermarket, and who were arrested for that. Was that "repression", "fear of change", or "discrimination"?
> Right there, you violated a human right, freedom of religion
I did no such thing. Your rights end where mine begin. No matter how core it is to your religion, you may not injure or kill me.
> A while ago there was news about a couple in Germany who had sex on a parking lot near a supermarket, and who were arrested for that. Was that "repression"
Nobody is arguing for that, nobody wants to see you have sex. Maybe some day we'll be perfectly accepting of sex in public, but I feel you are trying to conflate different arguments.
I want the right for informed, consenting adults to be able to have sex in the privacy of their own homes should they so desire, and to not be cast as demons in the society they live in - this talk of corrupting youth is archaic garbage. Sure, your culture loves it, but that's because it has some growing up to do.
> No matter how core it is to your religion, you may not injure or kill me.
Well, you should respect my religion or at least be sensitive about it (if you want to have some dialog). When I come to your country, I won't make a fuss seeing gays kiss. When you come to my country, do not go protesting the fact there no gays kissing in public.
> Maybe some day we'll be perfectly accepting of sex in public, but I feel you are trying to conflate different arguments.
It's the same thing. Having sex in public is not dangerous to anyone, it's someone's natural function. It is simply in the Western culture, when done in public, it produces a cultural shock. Kissing gays produce a similar shock in Russia.
> this talk of corrupting youth is archaic garbage.
Is the prohibition to have sex in public archaic garbage? How about smoking marijuana? I accept that it may be ok for Dutch people and it may not be ok in US. I also have my own views on that, but I am not imposing them on these countries.
> Sure, your culture loves it, but that's because it has some growing up to do.
You are suggesting my culture is inferior to yours, and you are allowed to teach me about that. How nice is that? My feeling is that it's not just your view, it's a common view in the West, and that's the main problem in the West vs. Russia dialog.
> You are suggesting my culture is inferior to yours
I am doing no such thing. I am stating that any culture which discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation is broken. That includes my culture, your culture and many other cultures. Remember I said "Ireland is as backwards as anywhere else on the issue"?
> West vs. Russia
I'm a boat trip and a long walk away, not that far west.
Ok, it's well-meaning EU vs. corrupt Russia. Culturally, Ukraine seems to be much closer to Russia than to EU. So I think the end result will be similar to what happened with Arabic Spring revolutions, when the West hoped to see Western standards of democracy implanted into foreign cultures that could not possibly adhere to them (although they declared so initially). So I doubt very much that after the association with EU Ukraine will resemble even Poland or Hungary - in terms of economy or levels of corruption. I guess EU realizes that, too, and it's all about geopolitical games with Russia, after all.
No, democracy is not like making Ukranians or Egyptians love baseball, bullfighting and bratwurst. It's not some oddity from western cultures. It means rule of the people as opposed to the rule of some small group of thugs with guns (aristocracy, apparatchiks, the mafia, military dictators, religious leaders, etc). Everyone, everywhere in the world understands that by now.
What is specific to western cultures is that we don't expect the thugs to always prevail. All that talk about democracy as a foreign implant is a glaringly obvious and self serving attempt by the ruling thugs to present the status quo as an inevitability so they can keep lining their pockets without interference by the people. Let's not fall for it.
You seem to think that democracy is some God-given quality, universal to all people, and you can introduce it into any country just by invading it or inducing a regime change in some other way.
I think it is a social institution that can evolve over long time, and only in certain societies, which do not suffer of civil wars, foreign invasions, ethnic or religious conflicts, poor economy, etc. A country that does not have these democratic traditions will not be able to suddenly accept them, simply because there are different traditions of making things work.
As to the slogan "democracy is rule of the people as opposed to a small group of thugs concerned only about their pockets", I assure you that Stalin, for example, subscribed to that, too. It is a very abstract phrase, and you can hide almost anything behind it.
I don't think democracy is God-given, but I think the idea is now deeply ingrained in (almost) all cultures on earth. Not necessarily as a reality, but as a possibility. It's not foreign to Ukraine, that's for sure.
In many countries that are now solid democracies, democracy has not evolved over a long time. It came with a bang and that was possible because the idea was already widespread.
Invading a country for whatever reason is a whole different matter. That's very rarely a good idea and certainly not to enforce or introduce democracy.
But if you find "rule of the people" too abstract then then I can remind you that "culture" is no less abstract. In a globalized information and media society with massive global migration it's not even clear what "foreign culture" really means any more.
By democracy I mean principles like a multi-partite political system, free speech, commitment to securing human rights. I am not talking about freedom as such - surely the idea of freedom is "deeply ingrained" in every person, regardless of culture.
My point was that these principles cannot be just implanted in a country where traditions are very different (e.g, tradition to give some political power to religious leaders), and where the circumstances are very different from the West (e.g., poor economy).
> democracy has not evolved over a long time. It came with a bang and that was possible because the idea was already widespread.
So it was God-given?
> it's not even clear what "foreign culture" really means any more.
On the internet, probably not. But when it comes to actually running a country, factors such as family clans, nepotism, ethnic or religious factions, are still very strong in many countries, and I don't think the internet is going to change this any time soon.
Is all sudden change an act of God in your opinion? I'm talking about revolutions, not miracles. The _idea_ of democracy has evolved over a long time, but most countries did not have a long local tradition of applying it or building institutions at time it became political reality. Britain and the U.S are not typical examples of how democracy is introduced.
In many cases it was an idea that took hold in the minds of a smallish group of political activists and thinkers who observed what happened elsewhere and adapted it. In fact, one of the most pressing problems of those activists has always been how to get "the people" interested in it at all. And most of the time it wasn't democratic principles that got people interested but economic interests.
In other words, the introduction of democracy was rarely very democratic or purely homegrown or very principled or very peaceful or free of foreign influence. The old powers were often toppled under rather chaotic and opportunistic circumstances. That slow cultural process you're describing, which supposedly only works when there are no civil wars, foreign invasions, ethnic or religious conflicts or poor economy, is the exception, not the rule.
Also, the whole concept of "foreign" is flawed when it comes to ideas. Picking up "foreign" ideas and applying them somwehere else has always been part of every culture on this planet, and that has nothing to do with any gods.
Ok, so you don't mean it's the God suddenly introduced democracy in new countries, but revolutions; the revolutions started because the population was unhappy - not about the lack of democracy, but about poor economy. I agree with that. I can also add that the countries where the democratic principles developed slowly and organically (US and Britain) happen to be rich (strong economy is a condition where people can start to think about democracy and human rights, poor economy is where people think about basic security) and it was these countries that induced the democratic changes in other countries (e.g., post-WW2 Germany), using their wealth to stabilize their economies, and eventually transplanting their own democratic traditions to these new countries.
So this works fine as long as the revolution-inducing country is rich enough to sponsor the economy of the country where the revolution is taking place. In addition to economy, there are other factors, such cultural norms (e.g., family clans), that will need to be overcome, but this worked as long as the cultures are not too different (US and Germany, or Western Europe and Central Europe, for example).
So basically, we seem to agree that Western-style democracy is not something that can now be organically implanted in Ukraine, not without massive amounts of money poured into it by the West (which is problematic given the size of the country), and even then this will be difficult because of huge differences in traditions to run a country.
I am not sure about that. Yes, they are oriented towards the West, but they too were in the Russian Empire and Soviet Union for a long time, except Western-most regions that were part of Poland until WW2.
> It was heaven for Russians, because a nation that has been historically at the bottom of the ladder, got to play in the big leagues. Who cares if your standard of living sucks? It always sucked.
For anyone interested what Ukrainian nationalists have to do with this, this is an example of their thinking.
