Putin to Make Equating Stalin, USSR to Hitler, Nazi Germany Illegal

[snpol]

As I said earlier, if you knowingly participate in a mud-slinging contest, you cannot complain if you get mud on your clothes. Taking this analogy to its absurd extreme, would you think it OK for said colonel to dress up in his uniform to go mug someone? And if the prospective mugee fights back, should the law prosecute the person being mugged for striking back at a mugger just because he chose to dress up in a uniform?

It is a strange question with obvious answer. Any person has right for self defence against uniformed or not uniformed attacker.

[gebhk]

They in Poland could call him invader or occupant but here is Russia such estimates, expressions are insulting. Likely you are unable to imagine how huge were sufferings of people in the Soviet union during WW2 and how insulting are certain estimates and comparisons.

I can imagine it very well, because my family was deeply affected, like pretty much every family in Poland. The place I was born, England, clearly reflects that. However, you should also accept that much of the suffering in Poland during WW2, was inflicted by the Soviet Union. The two (suffering in the Soviet Union and in Poland) are not mutually exclusive nor is the one a justification for the other.

[gebhk]

Russian law forbids use of Russian analogs of 4-letter words publicly and hooligans could be fined. And it is not limit freedom of speech.

With respect, it ipso facto is. Whether it is justified is another matter and one for another debate.

I repeat it. Mr.Navalny could name people whom he regard as traitors and paid lackey or say that all except respected veteran are traitors and paid lackey. There would be no any problem.

I am sorry, but I think you are missing the point entirely. There is a problem if a man can avoid censure for what he says and does merely because he is a veteran and/or dons a uniform. Even MPs of the House of Commons - to return to your example - are not exempt from the consequences of what they say or do that relates to matters outside their parliamentary business. Was the colonel's appearance on the Putin propaganda show part of his military business or duties? If it was not, then there is little justification for him to invoke the privileges that wearing that uniform entails. Hence my 'strange' question. If it was, then on balance, that would be even more disturbing!

I think we all take on board what you say the Russian Law is in these matters. Where some of us differ is in the belief that it is bad and pernicious law, evidently open to gross abuse.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi snpol,

I looked at the video. It is worse than I thought. It appeared to include a serving member of the Russian Navy! The use of the armed forces in partisan politics is a complete NO-NO in a democratic society.

What were these "insults"? From what I can see, the words used were arguably facts.

You post, "Russian law doesn't defend people against such public insults. But the veterans are defended." Then not only is Russian democracy deficient, but so is its legal system! Whatever happened to "equality before the law" in Russia?

I am in favour of politeness at all times, in Parliament or out. However, to prosecute someone for telling what is arguably a fact, or to protect some sectors of society from legitimate criticism, is an extreme over reaction and oppressive of personal freedom of speech.

And who decides what is an "insult"? Whether one feels insulted varies from person to person. Some would consider it insulting to be described as a nationalist. Others would wear it as a badge of honour. Some might not be insulted because they don't value the opinion of the insulter. Others might be hypersensitive to criticism.

You post, "Many Russian intellectuals now fear that political unrest could produce Western puppet as a ruler of Russia surrounded by Washington's lackeys." So they would rather see Putin sell out to an economically dominant China? Russia is drifting into a position relative to China analogous with that of Mussolini's Italy to Nazi Germany - increasing dependency. Russia is becoming a primary resource supplier to the Chinese economy and a market for Chinese manufactures. Its freedom of action is beginning to disappear. I would rather see Russia return nearer to its roots in the West, but then I am not a Russian.

No, we do not have "in Ukraine exactly this picture". Russia has pushed Ukraine from a position balanced between Russia and the West into the arms of the West by invading its territory without warning and without making any prior territorial demands. In these circumstances, where is Kiev meant to turn to for support? Moscow?

You ask, "I repeat my question - what Western leader could be regarded as a model for ideal Russian president? Clinton, Bush, Obama, Trump, Biden?" None of them are eligible so the question has no value. The problem for Russia is not whether any of these men might make a good alternative Russian President to Putin, but whether any talented Russian will ever be able to challenge Putin for the post.

You post, Navalny "tried to be elected as Moscow mayor but lost". Again, democracy is not just about allowing people to put ballots in a box. The election has to be held on a level playing field, which Russian elections are not. I don't know whether Navalny would have won a free and fair mayoral election or not, but I do know he wasn't operating on a level playing field.

Navalny seems to have done well in the Moscow mayoral elections. Even with so much against him, he still got over half as many votes as the winner. And there were questions against the narrowness by which the pro-Putin winner narrowly avoided a run off against Navalny, which would probably have been much closer.

You post, "Navalny's supporters (if he is indeed very popular) could win parliamentary elections." I doubt it. Their leader has barely survived an assassination attempt and is now in jail. His party offices have been closed and their views are being equated with terrorism. The state dominates the media, interferes with election observers and counts the votes. How, in those circumstances, are Navalny's supporters going to win parliamentary elections?

Russia can only change for the better from within, but again in its history, this is being prevented by autocratic government.

Cheers,

Sid.

[snpol]

However, you should also accept that much of the suffering in Poland during WW2, was inflicted by the Soviet Union.

I don't accept it.
From my point of view much of the suffering in Poland during WW2 was inflicted by nazi Germany.
About 3 mln. of Polish Jews became victims of the Holocaust along with about 3 mln other Polish citizens who died as a result of war.
Hundreds thousands of Poles were conscripted in German army (2% of Wehrmacht were the Poles). Many were killed as a result. The Poles faught against the Nazis in the West and along with the Red army. Many were killed. And what country was responsible?

[snpol]

Russian law forbids use of Russian analogs of 4-letter words publicly and hooligans could be fined. And it is not limit freedom of speech.

With respect, it ipso facto is. Whether it is justified is another matter and one for another debate.

I repeat it. Mr.Navalny could name people whom he regard as traitors and paid lackey or say that all except respected veteran are traitors and paid lackey. There would be no any problem.

I am sorry, but I think you are missing the point entirely. There is a problem if a man can avoid censure for what he says and does merely because he is a veteran and/or dons a uniform. Even MPs of the House of Commons - to return to your example - are not exempt from the consequences of what they say or do that relates to matters outside their parliamentary business. Was the colonel's appearance on the Putin propaganda show part of his military business or duties? If it was not, then there is little justification for him to invoke the privileges that wearing that uniform entails. Hence my 'strange' question. If it was, then on balance, that would be even more disturbing!

I think we all take on board what you say the Russian Law is in these matters. Where some of us differ is in the belief that it is bad and pernicious law, evidently open to gross abuse.

Like you it or not, the Law in Russia defends veterans in any situation. Uniform in this context is irrelevant. Mr.Navalny was aware that one of the people in the video is veteran. Nethertheless he called him (along with others) as a traitor. It is not acceptable. It is not freedom of speech but merely disrespect to the veteran and to society.
From my point of view mr.Navalny had to bring sincere apologies.

[gebhk]

You are clearly missing the point, I'm afraid. No one is arguing that that is not the law in Russia. I think we all take on board what you say the Russian Law is in these matters. The discussion is whether the law is a good or bad one. Where some of us differ is in the belief that it is bad and pernicious law, evidently open to gross abuse.

[gebhk]

From my point of view much of the suffering in Poland during WW2 was inflicted by nazi Germany.

No one denies that (except for neo-Nazi apologists and some conspiracy nuts). However, the two are not mutually exclusive nor does one excuse the other. This is precisely the sort of whataboutism that does Russia no credit. The 'Smith did it too' defence is pathetic even in the schoolyard and certainly not worthy of a great nation.

[gebhk]

It is not freedom of speech but merely disrespect to the veteran and to society.

Which neatly brings us back to the proposition that this is a law that belongs to the same family as the laws on blasphemy and like them, more often than not, to be used in the interests of supressing dissent rather than protecting the tender sensibilities of the public. QED in this case.

[snpol]

Hi Sid.

I looked at the video. It is worse than I thought. It appeared to include a serving member of the Russian Navy! The use of the armed forces in partisan politics is a complete NO-NO in a democratic society.

So mr.Navalny called naval officer in uniform a traitor and paid lackey. Is it acceptable in democratic society?
Russia has own customs. Servicemen are not allowed to be in political parties, to be elected in Parliament or local councils. But they have to take the oath on the Constitution. The officer just sounded a fragment from the Constitution - big deal. I don't see here anything wrong.

What were these "insults"? From what I can see, the words used were arguably facts.

In Russian the word 'traitor' is very insulting especially for servicemen acting or former.

You post, "Russian law doesn't defend people against such public insults. But the veterans are defended." Then not only is Russian democracy deficient, but so is its legal system! Whatever happened to "equality before the law" in Russia?

Yes, not all citizens in Russia are equal before the law. President, MPs, ministers, other high ranked officials are defended much better than ordinary people.

I am in favour of politeness at all times, in Parliament or out. However, to prosecute someone for telling what is arguably a fact, or to protect some sectors of society from legitimate criticism, is an extreme over reaction and oppressive of personal freedom of speech.

There is a very simple solution - to be polite, avoid insults towards anybody, in any situation, use neutral terms. It is not so hard thing.

And who decides what is an "insult"? Whether one feels insulted varies from person to person. Some would consider it insulting to be described as a nationalist. Others would wear it as a badge of honour. Some might not be insulted because they don't value the opinion of the insulter. Others might be hypersensitive to criticism.

It is up to the judge to decide using linguistic expertise.

You post, "Many Russian intellectuals now fear that political unrest could produce Western puppet as a ruler of Russia surrounded by Washington's lackeys." So they would rather see Putin sell out to an economically dominant China? Russia is drifting into a position relative to China analogous with that of Mussolini's Italy to Nazi Germany - increasing dependency. Russia is becoming a primary resource supplier to the Chinese economy and a market for Chinese manufactures. Its freedom of action is beginning to disappear. I would rather see Russia return nearer to its roots in the West, but then I am not a Russian.

Hardly the Russians will be happy to see if our natural resources will be under control of international corporations, if foreigners will own our industry and lands. Many in Russia suspect that the West tries in implant own puppet at power in Moscow. China is the biggest trading partner of Australia and the country is dependent from the state of Chinese economy. Australia supplies China with ores (including iron ore), commodities, fuel (including natural gas), meat, wood. By contrast Russia along with oil and gas supplies built nuclear power stations in China, sells jet-fighters and other high-tech products.

No, we do not have "in Ukraine exactly this picture". Russia has pushed Ukraine from a position balanced between Russia and the West into the arms of the West by invading its territory without warning and without making any prior territorial demands. In these circumstances, where is Kiev meant to turn to for support? Moscow?

In fact Washington controls Ukrainian politics. The Russians are not happy to be in the same position.

You ask, "I repeat my question - what Western leader could be regarded as a model for ideal Russian president? Clinton, Bush, Obama, Trump, Biden?" None of them are eligible so the question has no value. The problem for Russia is not whether any of these men might make a good alternative Russian President to Putin, but whether any talented Russian will ever be able to challenge Putin for the post.

I strongly doubt that any real candidate will be able to contest Putin at least in the near future. And at the same time I suppose that future Russia's president could be much 'worse' than mr.Putin from Western point of view.

[snpol]

The discussion is whether the law is a good or bad one. Where some of us differ is in the belief that it is bad and pernicious law, evidently open to gross abuse.

From my point of view the law is not good, not bad. It is on many points senseless as the law that forbids rehabilitation of Nazism was passed long ago. The new law contains just more details and the punishment is more serious. It is apparently politically motivated legislative act rarely used in real life.
Only 3 were sentenced according to the previous law in 20202 and 2 in 2019. Sentenced people as a rule just reposted doubtful pseudo-historical articles found in internet.
For scientists, historians the law is not an obstacle.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi sn[ol.

You ask."So mr.Navalny called naval officer in uniform a traitor and paid lackey. Is it acceptable in democratic society?" Yes, especially if true. I am surprised you felt the need to ask.

You post, "Russia has own customs. Servicemen are not allowed to be in political parties, to be elected in Parliament or local councils." So far, so good.

However, you go on, "But they have to take the oath on the Constitution. The officer just sounded a fragment from the Constitution - big deal. I don't see here anything wrong." Again I am surprised that you see nothing wrong in a serving member of the armed forces going on video in uniform, aboard a warship, in a political presentation designed to change the very Constitution he has sworn to uphold.

You post, "In Russian the word 'traitor' is very insulting especially for servicemen acting or former." It is insulting pretty much everywhere and to everyone. So why should veteran ex-servicemen, who are just civilians like the rest of us, be immune from such criticism?

You post, "Yes, not all citizens in Russia are equal before the law. President, MPs, ministers, other high ranked officials are defended much better than ordinary people." Do you think this is right, or is it another case of "Russia has own customs"?

You post, "There is a very simple solution - to be polite, avoid insults towards anybody, in any situation, use neutral terms. It is not so hard thing." Ideally, yes, but what if you consider them a lackey and a traitor? If you can't call real lackeys or traitors out, they will continue with impunity.

You post, "It is up to the judge to decide using linguistic expertise." So, even if I do not feel insulted, or don't wish to pursue the matter, the judge can over rule me and decide that I was insulted regardless of my personal preferences? Ridiculous!

You post, "Hardly the Russians will be happy to see if our natural resources will be under control of international corporations, if foreigners will own our industry and lands." That is fine, but in that case Russia should not contract foreign debts that it later defaults on.

There is a difference between Russia and Australia. Russia, thanks to Putin's adventurism, has found itself put under increasing sanctions and has been forced to turn towards an increasingly dominant China, which is already clearly the dominant partner. Russia has the begging bowl, not China.

The fact that Russia no longer controls Ukrainian politics does not mean that the USA does.

You post, "I strongly doubt that any real candidate will be able to contest Putin at least in the near future." I agree, because none of them will be granted a level playing field.

You post, "And at the same time I suppose that future Russia's president could be much 'worse' than mr.Putin from Western point of view." Yup, they could be. Not only that but, bad as Putin is for Russia at present, they could be much worse for Russia in the future.

Russia has more natural resources than any other country, yet since 1991 comparitively little of the benefit of this has filtered down to the Russian people. They deserve better.

Cheers,

Sid.

[David Thompson]

Let's move off discussions of current politics.

[snpol]

Hi Sid,

However, you go on, "But they have to take the oath on the Constitution. The officer just sounded a fragment from the Constitution - big deal. I don't see here anything wrong." Again I am surprised that you see nothing wrong in a serving member of the armed forces going on video in uniform, aboard a warship, in a political presentation designed to change the very Constitution he has sworn to uphold.

Putin's agitprop is not that primitive as one may think. And the whole army of professional politologists and polit-technologists doesn't contain idiots. The story with the amendments to the Constitution demonstrates typical tricks used by ruling elites in Russia to remain at power. On the first stage proposed amendments contained only right from the first glance declarations. Many including me that time didn't understand why the amendments were ever needed. Mr.Navalny himself on the first stage didn't express any form of opposition to the amendments. However on the certain stage an interesting amendment was proposed that now is unacceptable in the West - that marriage is a union between man and woman. Well, I naively thought that this amendment is the central point to show the West that Russia has own customs, own position and it will be reflected in the Constitution. Agitprop videos - to vote for the amendments appeared namely on the first stage. People didn't see reasons not to support the amendments. So many didn't see anything wrong just to read on camera fragments from the proposed text of the constitution.
The situation changed dramatically when mrs.Tereshkova, MP and the first woman in the space proposed to allow acting president to be elected twice additionally. From this point the purpose of the amendments became absolutely clear. Proposed common declarations were just a smoke-screen. Liberal part of Russian society (including mr.Lebedev who is seen in the video) protested loudly but in vain. Putin's agitprop outlets continued to promote the common declarations and were keeping silence about in fact the key amendment.
According to the law the servicemen must act according to the Constitution and it is not forbidden for them to sound the Constitution in public.
If the naval officer would say something like - I support the president and reckon that he should be given right to be elected twice additionally - then it would be unacceptable. But he just narrated a part of the Constitution. At least from formal point of view it doesn't contradict to the law.
Of course the video in question is an agitprop piece but RT positions it as just information. It is hard sometimes to separate information and propaganda produced by Putin's agitprop machine. Frequently carefully arranged information in fact appeared to be propagandist attack being from formal point of view just information.

You post, "In Russian the word 'traitor' is very insulting especially for servicemen acting or former." It is insulting pretty much everywhere and to everyone. So why should veteran ex-servicemen, who are just civilians like the rest of us, be immune from such criticism?

The WW2 veterans are very old people frequently with undermined health. At time they contributed a lot to the victory in the war. There was real prospect that Russian people ceased to exist. So I believe it is right to have the law that protect the veterans from insults.It is just a form of respect by modern generations that Russia still exists as a country. I see that maybe it is hard to understand but for the Russians WW2 was special, exceptional, outstanding historical period while for the UK or the USA it was just a war - one of many.

You post, "Yes, not all citizens in Russia are equal before the law. President, MPs, ministers, other high ranked officials are defended much better than ordinary people." Do you think this is right, or is it another case of "Russia has own customs"?

In Russia policemen on duty are defended from insults and it is right from my point of view. Also article 319 of the Criminal code defends officials on duty the same way. Is it right or wrong? I don't know. For me it is irrelevant. I'm against use of abusive language toward anybody. Fair critic from my point of view should say what wrong this or that official has done instead of insults.

You post, "There is a very simple solution - to be polite, avoid insults towards anybody, in any situation, use neutral terms. It is not so hard thing." Ideally, yes, but what if you consider them a lackey and a traitor? If you can't call real lackeys or traitors out, they will continue with impunity.

From my point of view it is possible to say what wrong has been done without use of abusive words and expressions. i reckon that insults really undermine position of critic, make his accusations vulgar. I believe that it is possible to avoid in politics ad hominem remarks, insults. I doubt that insults are frequently being used during political debates on US TV. Correct me if I'm wrong.

You post, "It is up to the judge to decide using linguistic expertise." So, even if I do not feel insulted, or don't wish to pursue the matter, the judge can over rule me and decide that I was insulted regardless of my personal preferences? Ridiculous!

The lawsuit from the insulted or his lawful representative is needed anyway.

You post, "Hardly the Russians will be happy to see if our natural resources will be under control of international corporations, if foreigners will own our industry and lands." That is fine, but in that case Russia should not contract foreign debts that it later defaults on.

FYI, Russian sovereign debt now is on very low level - in fact microscopic especially in comparison with huge US debt. Russia declared default in 1998 - long ago. Now Russia has significant gold and hard currency reserves.

There is a difference between Russia and Australia. Russia, thanks to Putin's adventurism, has found itself put under increasing sanctions and has been forced to turn towards an increasingly dominant China, which is already clearly the dominant partner. Russia has the begging bowl, not China.

Maybe for other reasons but Australia also has to turn towards an increasingly dominant China. And do you suggest that it would be better for Russia to turn towards dominant US?

The fact that Russia no longer controls Ukrainian politics does not mean that the USA does.

Washington controls politics of many countries - partially or completely including its European allies/puppets. Ukrainian politics is controlled by Washington in significant degree.

You post, "I strongly doubt that any real candidate will be able to contest Putin at least in the near future." I agree, because none of them will be granted a level playing field.

Exactly. No one real candidate would be allowed to run for presidency. Russian ruling elites will not allow it not to lose power.

You post, "And at the same time I suppose that future Russia's president could be much 'worse' than mr.Putin from Western point of view." Yup, they could be. Not only that but, bad as Putin is for Russia at present, they could be much worse for Russia in the future.

Future Russian president (God forbid) could begin with Israel, could supply Syria with sinister shooting toys that Russia has a lot. As a result (under threat of unacceptable damage) Israel could agree with peace conditions formulated in Moscow (including peace agreement with the Palestinians). Future Russian president could cooperate with Iran and instigate unrest, revolutions in ME dictatorships. As a result ME oil resources could be under control of Russia and Iran. And of course future Russian president could supply China with cruise missiles with good profits (financial and political).
Mr.Putin in this context could be recalled as moderate politician inclined to cooperation with the West.
Maybe Putin is very bad from point of view of the West. But there are much more worse alternatives.

Russia has more natural resources than any other country, yet since 1991 comparitively little of the benefit of this has filtered down to the Russian people. They deserve better.

Absolutely agree. There is obvious solution - wide nationalization but ruling thieving elites will fight for their right to rob Russian. Mr.Platoshkin - socialist politician - whom I mentioned proposes namely this way - nationalization. But he was kept almost a year under home arrest and recently has been sentenced for 5 years suspended term. Remarkably, Western politicians, MSM hardly mentioned mr.Platoshkin while he is apparent victim of political persecutions and is not allowed to take part in elections.By contrast mr.Navalny is in the center of attention. But he doesn't propose any form of nationalization. So I make a conclusion that he being elected will be just a new servant, paid lackey of ruling elites.

[gebhk]

I would suggest we are rapidly spinning into off-tops in modern politics which will get this rather interesting thread closed. And by rather interesting, I mean the manipulation of history to serve modern needs that is an inevitable part of history. And as it is a historical forum, I would suggest how history is perceived and the reasons for it are valid areas of debate. However I would suggest we steer clear of the relative merits of modern Russian politicians, the current Russian economy and perhaps consider the other big off-top here - the Navalny affair - exhausted or at least to move it to another more appropriate area because a discussion of the merits or otherwise of criminalisation of 'insult' is an interesting topic in itself.