On good russians

As I mentioned in one of my previous posts on this topic, I consider russians to be rather a viral mindset than a nation: they don’t have clearly defined territory (as they consider they whole world to be it), they have no own culture (it’s either stolen or for-display set pieces that get no relation or acceptance with russians; well, you can argue that their widespread prison subculture is their own but how does that make things any better?), they lack human qualities like compassion required in this age (i.e. a millennium or two ago russians would be no different from many other nations but the times have changed), and the worst of all—they try to convert everything they come in contact with into russia (either by conquering the territories and committing cultural and actual genocide or by demanding that the other countries do everything their way because it’s too hard for russians to learn other country language and customs). And yet there are naïve people believing that there are “good” russians even that’s an oxymoron. Usually that comes from a belief that if russian say they’re against war and current government that implies they’re against other things as well. Here I’ll try to stratify russians by their empathy and activity:

  • plankton—like the namesake those russians have almost no will of their own and are merely flowing with the currents. If you ask them about their position, it will be more “for all good and against all bad” and they never take interest in politics. They’re always supporting the government but when it changes they’ll support the new government equally half-heartedly (just remember what happened in Rostov during the laughable coup attempt). The sad thing is that they’ll readily resort to violence if they’re permitted by the authorities. They have no compassion (there’s enough evidence how they’ll cheer to the war crimes their army commits and to the spectacle of the same war criminals dying as long as it’s a good show). Slave-owners and dictators may call them good but since I’m neither I can’t;
  • moths—those are almost the same as the previous category but they can have their own opinion not fully in line with the mainstream one and even—gasp—be against the government. The only problem is that they don’t act on their words, saying that they’re mere moths and can’t do anything. Of course they’ve never tried to find it out if they can actually do anything or not. For those I have only mild despise because they don’t deserve a strong emotion;
  • sell-outs—not originally russians but who became ones usually by being seduced with russian money. You might’ve heard about russian actors like Steven Seagal or Gérard Depardieu. There’s nothing wrong with coming to another country in pursuit of better work opportunities. But there’s a difference between selling your skills and selling your dignity and calling such people good is like calling a native advertisement a good article;
  • chameleons—those russians actually have a position, the problem is that it changes depending on circumstances and who asks about it. To give a concrete example, in the first days of February 24th some propagandists from russian television said to their friends that they wear their half-swastika symbols but mean it as a hidden support for Zelensky. Obviously they may voice support for anything but in reality they’re concerned only about their own well-being. Somebody not familiar with that feature may call them good, not knowing that the words they heard were empty, I call them disgusting;
  • white coats—that is a semi-official term for those who put themselves over the others like in the famous scene from Monty Python and the Holy Grail: —Must be a king. —Why? —He hasn’t got shit all over him (I vaguely remember a russian joke about somebody first spraying shit over others and then appearing in a clean white coat, that must be the origin). Such people pose themselves as morally superior to others, impartial judges and so on—forgetting they have no ground for that or trying to proactively evade the possible blame. As with the previous category, somebody naïve enough to believe their words without checking their background may believe they’re good but they should know better;
  • armchair Napoleons—those do not even try to hide their ambitions. In the “worst” case they want russian army to be better equipped and fighting (forgetting that russian traditions like stealing and corruption prevent it), in the “best” case they want russia to conquer all of the world. Or if it all fails they’re fine with russia nuking the rest of the world. You need to be a psychopath to call them good (again, search elsewhere);
  • and finally russians with human faces. Those pretend to be actual humans and often serve as an example of “good russians” in the West. In reality though sooner or later they show their real russian face. They might be against the current government but what are they going to do? There’s a post by some random russian that sums it up the best: “This regime will fall, Navalny will become a president and restore the country. And then we’ll get back at you, Ukrainians!” You can dismiss it as being just a single deviant voice, but in reality prominent figures from russian “opposition” demonstrated the same behaviour and chauvinism as the officials (like spreading the false claims about blown up Kakhovka HPP or not understanding why not everybody would like to interact with russians in general). To me it seems that they try to maintain the usual russian imperialism by keeping up ties with other countries (so when russia has more strength it can come there “in order to protect oppressed russian-speaking citizens”). So they’re about as good as telemarketers are your friends.

If you think this does not apply to somebody specific, try to get the honest answers for the following questions: are you against the current war? are you against the war just because it inconveniences your life (with sanctions and possible partial mobilisation)? do you think only the russian government is responsible for starting the war? do you think that russia should be held responsible for the war crimes it committed (e.g. paying reparations)? do you think that Crimea belongs to russia? do you think that russia should withdraw its forces from all occupied areas (Abkhazia, Armenia, Belarus, Ossetia, Syria) as well? do you think that something substantial should be done about russia in order not to make this scenario repeat again? do you consider the idea of dissolution of russia in order to make national republics acceptable? do you understand that russian writers often followed imperialistic agenda and thus other nations have reasons to ban their works? and finally, do you agree that russians are not superior to other nations? Hint: not all of those yes-no questions have “yes” as the right answer so you need to think before answering them.

russians usually give themselves away by starting to cry that Crimea is russian, always has been and giving it to Ukraine was a historical mistake as the existence of Ukraine itself. On the other hand, if somebody passes the test perfectly then probably you’re not dealing with a russian at all.

Meanwhile the only real good russians are mentioned in reports like this one:

Comments are closed.