|
|
|
|
|
|
by osacial
1765 days ago
|
|
|
Maybe, but so far there is no World government and every nation should deal with their own corruption(or cease to exist) - Venezuelans, Russians and Afganis are RESPONSIBLE for their own problems and if the most of Afganis want Taliban rule(and have accepted them peacefully) or if the most of Russians want mafia state, then it is not up to others to correct them - maybe just bar them off and let them enjoy what they dream of. At least US has done one sensible thing, that they are leaving Afganistan - even if that does not look good - they did everything by the book what other empires did by not allowing to form nationalistic states based on ethnicity, like it happened in Europe 100 years ago(all in the name if current mantra of keeping all borders as they are). Maybe divided Afganistan would have chance to develop their own way, but now it is Pakistani expansion of taliban/paki(for those unaware, paki means pure) ideology. Navalny is not speaking for all Russians, even if he is on the same path as Nelson Mandela. Besides, there is slight problem, that even Navalny does not comprehend as a naturally chauvinistic and also naturally imperialisticly minded Russian, who thinks about keeping as much as possible remnants of Russian empire - corruption free Russia can't exist in current borders - actually, a corruption free Russia is oxymoron, because Chechnya without corrupted Russia would not be part of Russia - they exist there, because Putin is giving them support and money. And if Chechnya is let to go, then borders of Russia will shrink very quickly to what was Muscovite state. That would be a catastrophe to Russians and that is why most of Russians intuitively does not agree to what Navalny is offering. Russians want Tzar - not eradication of corruption and possibly destruction of Russia and erasing of Russian identity. |
|
|
You seem to be saying "Sure, maybe things are bad under Putin, but if Russia had a less corrupt leader then it would fall apart into chaos overnight." You may genuinely believe that, but it sounds a lot like the sort of propaganda that a corrupt leader would try to indoctrinate his populace with, preying on the sort of psychological biases that give rise to Stockholm Syndrome and emotionally manipulative relationships.
For comparison, I believe that the Chinese government convinces much of its population that multi-party democracy leads to chaos and civil unrest, so having a one-party state is the only way to deliver unity and prosperity. Other authoritarian countries settle for pointing at a common enemy to convince people that the leader shouldn't be challenged and free speech should be suppressed.
> Venezuelans, Russians and Afganis are RESPONSIBLE for their own problems
That's a really unhelpful thing to say. You are correct to the extent that the people in a country have the collective duty to fix their problems, but it's unfair to suggest that they are morally culpable for all the disasters that occur in those countries. Firstly there are natural disasters which occur in countries, and historic problems which pre-date the birth of most citizens, but also we can't assume that a government reflects the will of the people if there is electoral manipulation (or no elections at all).
To give just one example, you say "if [] most [] Russians want [a] mafia state", but in the 2011 legislative elections, Putin's party won less than 50% of the vote, despite widespread cheating in their favour. To suggest that most Russians wanted that outcome is blaming the victim, and ignoring the huge power imbalance that makes it very hard to effect change in that country, or even to be accurately informed about that government's failings.