Russia is threatening Wikipedia with a $49,000 fine if they don’t edit the Russian language article about the invasion.
(eye roll) Good luck enforcing that.
A Blueprint for Genocide:
There are several translations of this document published by the RIA Novosti which is absolutely chilling. It’s also pretty long. A lot of places only show excerpts but I found an English translation of the entire document here.
Here are the highlights:
It calls almost every Ukrainian a Nazi who deserves death. Anyone who opposed the Russians in any way. “Besides the top leaders, a significant part of the masses are guilty as accomplices of Nazism, the passive Nazis. They supported and indulged the Nazi power.”
It calls for an obliteration of culture. “De-Nazifying the population further consists in re-education through an ideological repression (suppression) of Nazi attitudes and strict censorship: not only in the political sphere, but critically, also in culture and education”.
It calls for the economic and political destruction of Ukraine. Even the name will be eliminated. “Their political aspirations cannot be neutral – the expiation of guilt before Russia for treating it as an enemy can transpire through relying on Russia in the processes of restoration, revival and development. No “Marshall Plans” should be allowed for these territories. There can be no “neutrality” in the ideological and practical sense, compatible with de-Nazifying.” and “De-Nazifying will inevitably also be a de-Ukrainizing, i.e., rejecting the large-scale artificial overblowing of the ethnic component in self-identification of the population of the territories of the historical Minor Russia and New Russia…[snip]…It must be returned to its natural boundaries and deprived of political functionality.”
Russia does not seem willing to tolerate a neutral Ukrainian buffer state, the architects of this plan want to permanently sever Ukraine from Europe. “Therefore, de-Nazifying Ukraine is also inevitably de-Europeanization.”
Civilians are to be punished because they are guilty and their suffering will be atonement for their “crimes”. “The social “swamp” that actively and passively supported the Bandera elite by action and inaction must survive the hardships of the war and get the experience as a historical lesson and atonement for its guilt.” (The author has a hard-on for this Bandera guy)
They want ALL of Ukraine, not just the so-called “breakaway” republics. The Western part is viewed as irredeemable and will be permanently occupied by Russia. The Eastern areas may, eventually, become part of Russia. “Over the alienation line, Ukraine will remain hostile to Russia but forcibly neutral and demilitarized, with Nazism formally banned. The Russian haters will go there…[snip]…The guarantee of the preservation of this residual Ukraine in a neutral state should be the threat of an immediate continuation of the military operation in case of non-compliance with the listed requirements…[snip]…From the alienation line to the Russian border there will be a territory of potential integration into Russian civilization.”
Some of the “necessary steps” to de-Nazify (i.e. obliterate Ukrainian culture, politics, history, identity, etc.) include:
- “liquidation” of all Ukrainian armed forces and fighters.
- installation of all new (and presumably pro-Russian) government and law structures
- “installation of the Russian information space” (wow, that’s a mouthful for “propaganda”)
- complete re-structuring of all educational systems to be in line with Russian viewpoint and program
- “mass investigative actions to establish personal responsibility for war crimes, crimes against humanity.” in other words, kangaroo courts for mass convictions and likely executions
There’s more acknowledging that Russia will have no allies in this and will be isolated. It portrays Russia as the last bastion of European civilization, culture, and values. It also claims that this “liberation” of Ukraine is also its “de-colonization”.
This is not some Facebook or Twitter post, it is a document published with the blessing of the Russian government. This is the official line for Putin. My take away is that the intention is to obliterate Ukraine as a nation. Why were civilians tortured and killed in Bucha and other places? Because anyone who doesn’t welcome the invading Russians with open arms is a collaborator and Nazi and is to be punished and killed. There is a LOT of talk here of guilt and punishment, and none of it on the Russian side. The Russian-speakers in the Eastern oblasts are contaminated but redeemable and need to be cleansed of “Nazi” (that is, Ukrainian) influence and notions at which point they can become real Russians. Those in the West are hopeless - the subtext being that most of them should be wiped out so Russia can start over in that area. Russia will not settle for a “neutral” Ukraine of any sort. This is genocide, this is the Russian equivalent of the Final Solution.
It explains what we’ve seen with the targeting of civilians, the executions, tortures, the rape and looting (the “collaborators” must be “punished” to “atone” for their crimes against Russia), the “humanitarian corridors” that are anything but that (because anyone trying to flee away from Russia is a collaborator or Nazi and thus fair game to be killed).
And at this point I’m going to go throw up for awhile.
It’s not just this author; Russian thinking on Ukraine is littered with references to Bandera. I addressed this briefly when I posted about the same “What Should We Do With Ukraine” essay yesterday.
That’s the key thing here, and it’s why Bandera is such a powerfully representative symbol in Russian thinking. You cannot have Ukrainian independence without Nazism. The one leads rapidly and inevitably to the other. For proof, just look at Bandera!
It’s deeply, offensively stupid and hateful, but hey, we’re talking about Russian political philosophy here, it comes with the territory. (Read up on Aleksandr Dugin, too, if you have the stomach.)
Edit to add: There is a good introduction to Dugin here, but you really need to dig deeper to see just how whacked-out the guy really is.
Wow. I remember reading that as a kid.
I have moved a bunch of posts about nuclear escalation to their own thread. They seemed political, and not on-topic in this breaking news thread.
You can find them here:
It’s dangerous to even visit Ukraine’s ports.
Ukraine needs anti-ship missiles. There’s probably only a couple Russian ships shelling the cosst.
Guardian live blog
At what point is that (as well as other atrocities) going to get a foreign response beyond sanctions and some light weaponry for Ukraine? It’s not the first time it has happened: As Ukraine evacuates trapped seafarers, foreign mariners count cost of war | Reuters
As of that article of 7 March, over 100 foreign vessels are in Ukrainian waters, they can’t leave, and it’s not safe to stay either. At least one sailor from Bangladesh was killed.
I checked and it looks like Russia expressed “condolences”, without actually apologising for, you know, murdering the guy. Russia Condoles Bangladeshi Sailor Killed in Missile Attack | Daily Star
Mine wasn’t political! Mine was a quote from Dr. Strangelove (the movie, not the poster), responding to another quote from Dr. Strangelove.
To be blunt and cynical - the West/NATO/Europe/US are just not as concerned with the death of third-world sailors as they are with the death and suffering of Europeans.
When the rest of the world decides that risking WWIII and possible NBC weaponry outweighs the cost of the current manner of opposing Russia.
Not to be argumentative or anything, but a genuine philosophical/moral (or something) question:
How much do we tolerate from Russia, at the risk of a nuclear exchange?
Well, yeah, that’s never been in doubt. But ze Germans have vessels in Ukrainian waters too, will it make a difference if one of those is hit? And do Moldovans not count as Europeans - a Moldovan ship (though apparently not Moldovan sailors) was hit too? Ukraine: German cargo ships stuck in conflict zone – DW – 03/02/2022
That’s my biggest problem with the international response here - the world is already risking WWIII and NBC weaponry anyway. Russia has threatened Finland and Sweden, and regularly violates Swedish airspace. Russia has been standing up its nuclear defences as sanctions and supplies to Ukraine are an “attack” on Russia. Russia already shelled a nuclear power plant - I was thinking at the time that this was Putin’s way of “escalating without escalating”, creating nuclear fallout in central Ukraine without technically detonating a nuclear weapon as such. (Fortunately that didn’t happen, of course.) Russia has been fabricating stories about NBC weapon development in Ukraine with the US to have an excuse for using NBC weapons in future.
What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Russia has been getting away with all his Ukrainian invasions on the basis of bullshit - a Crimean “referendum”, the “volunteer” “little green men” in Donbass. The west should play the same game. Oh, a batallion of soldiers with no uniform insignia who all speak Lithuanian fighting in Mariupol? Volunteers. That German tank batallion? Football hooligans, they got drunk and robbed an armory. Be a pal and let us know if you run into them so you can point them in the direction of the border. Lost a ship off Murmansk? Sorry to hear that, we don’t have any submarines in the area - must have hit an iceberg. Please keep us updated on all your navy’s locations so we can let you know about nearby hazards.
I’m not part of the “we” in this question, but to me the answer is not hard to see: “As long as Russia doesn’t menace the vital interests of other nuclear powers no direct action will be taken”.
The answer is hard to see though. Putin is unpredictable and he’s already made threats associated with Finland joining NATO, for example. Do we just dance to his tune every time he threatens something?
Until he threatens a vital interest yes.
So we just let him annex the Sudetenland?
So Putin, if he gets his way, can turn Ukraine into a country-sized concentration camp and we just stand by and let it happen, because our vital interests aren’t threatened?
Should we? Certainly not. But this leads into another thread that’s related regarding nuclear weapons-how far do we push Putin? How far do we allow him to push us, knowing he has nukes?
That’s what we essentially did between 1945 and 1991. It’s probably why we’re not all dead or living under rocks today.
But what was the “right” answer then may not be now, obviously. I say that not knowing exactly what the “best” answer to the problem might be in this case.