He and his parents were among the last in their village to take a Russian passport, but the pressure was becoming unbearable.
By his third beating at the hands of the Russian soldiers occupying Ukraine’s Kherson region, Vyacheslav Ryabkov caved. The soldiers broke two of his ribs, but his face was not bruised for his unsmiling passport photo, taken in September 2023.
It wasn’t enough.
In December, they caught the welder on his way home from work. Then one slammed his rifle butt down on Ryabkov’s face, smashing the bridge of his nose.
“Why don’t you fight for us? You already have a Russian passport,” they demanded. The beating continued as the 42-year-old fell unconscious.
“Let’s finish this off,” one soldier said. A friend ran for Ryabkov’s mother.
Russia has successfully imposed its passports on nearly the entire population of occupied Ukraine by making it impossible to survive without them, coercing hundreds of thousands of people into citizenship ahead of elections Vladimir Putin has made certain he will win, an Associated Press investigation has found. But accepting a passport means that men living in occupied territory can be drafted to fight against the same Ukrainian army that is trying to free them.
Have you read that I said “of course they should condemn putin …”?
What I’m doing is not relativizing the invasion, but the opinions about it.
It’s a meta level. I’m not talking about nuances of the war, but nuances of political views. The article and the discussion is on that level.
I agree with your call for clear (and plain coherent/realistic) condemnation of the war. Nevertheless this should not be confused with analyzing how many and how and why people don’t see it that way.
Otherwise we give up a better understanding of what people think, which we need in order to find strategies to influence the discours on realities terms. (Reality meaning the reality of conciousness(es) about the war, not the war. That part we already agree on)
Read it back. It kinda seems like all you said was we should criticize both sides, you just listed out leaders instead and hid behind the word, nuance.
You’re not really saying anything of substance. You’re at risk of being so open-minded your brain’s almost falling out.
Maybe, you could’ve just said there were very fine people on both sides
Ok imma try to get my point across one more time: There are two different layers of reality about the war.
Both layers contain meaningful information.
A bit of info in layer 1: The war is bad.
A bit of info in layer 2: Not all people see that.
We agree on both. Now my point is: We should understand the nuances on layer 2.
Your answer is: “Layer 1 has no nuances”
The war is not the same thing as the opinions about the war.
To influence the discourse, i.e. opinions, it’s better to understand the opinions specifically (“in nuances”).
To close the discrapancy between misguided public opinion and actual reality, we need to understand the opinions, not confuse its object with its (ideologically structured) representation.
