|
|
|
|
|
by scyzoryk_xyz
1575 days ago
|
|
I love how it’s basically 99% history lecture. Very little concern for what actual Ukrainians think or feel. Which makes sense, since this guy thinks that what everyone else thinks is a result of plans within plans of other countries and states and their devious anti-Russia schemes. |
|
It's obviously absurd - he didn't have to attack Ukraine and ruin relations with the West; but by distracting with cherry-picked historical facts it creates an air of deep knowledge and sophistication. He chose to perpetuate the cycle of confrontation.
It is not a 100% honest belief, as the Kremlin has a long tradition of falsifying history to fit its agenda. And given the importance of "history", controlling the past is an attempt to control the present and future. One classic example of how history is changed to fit narratives is Zhukov's memoirs. You would think they wouldn't change much, but they have 12 editions that contradict each other. Each edition claims that his daughter has found new sheets of paper or that they've simply restored what the previous editors had removed.
It is really frustrating how uncritically these views of history are accepted, critical thinking out of the window. Western historians are more often worse than reading Russian historians as the former stick to extremely biased 'official sources'.
In the Groundhog Day eventually the main character learns something and breaks out the cycle. I wonder how many times it has to repeat for that to happen in our case, but I know for sure no rethinking of the past and future is possible under Putin.