“Good Russians” are trying to explain that they sympathize with the Russian mobilized purely humanly. After all, these people deserve compassion: they are forcibly driven into the army and left to die with almost no food, clothes and equipment. Therefore, helping them, they say, is a natural inclination of compassion, a manifestation of universal human values. Why is this happening, wrote publicist, lecturer at the Kyiv-Mohyla Business School Valeriy Pekar.
“First, there is the legal side of the matter. Aggression is the “mother of war crimes” and all the rest follow from it. There would be no aggressive invasion - there would be no killing of civilians, rapes, looting, etc. From a legal point of view, an order to participate in an act of aggression is a criminal order, the execution of which cannot be explained at the everyday level “I was told, I ran.” International law condemns aggression and considers any assistance to the aggressor’s army as complicity in a crime. Secondly, there is the moral side of the matter. War switches front-line morality to black and white. All those on the other side with weapons are war criminals, and it is right to kill them from the point of view of morality, and not just law. The concepts of pre-war or post-war time are not suitable for war. You have to choose who you sympathize with - the soldiers of the aggressor’s army or the soldiers and civilian countries that fell victim to the aggressor. Do you sympathize with the soldiers? Did you not sympathize with the civilians who were tortured? What about the children who were abducted and separated from their families? Very selective sympathy, and this well reveals the essence: you sympathize with the Russian mobilized, because they are “ours”, and not universal values.”
Thirdly, the analyst believes, there is a practical side to the matter.
“If you sympathize with the Russian mobilized, because they are sorry, they die for nothing, then what did you do to save these people? Maybe he actively disrupted the mobilization, explained how to hide and run away? Maybe he coordinated protest attempts? Oh no? Well then it’s just a false priesthood. Here are knitted socks for you guys, you will die with warm feet. The reasons for this behavior are clear: the media does not want to lose its audience, and the audience still supports the war. And here we come to the main thing - to the moment of moral choice. If you are a journalist, editor, publisher, you have a moral choice. Take a tough anti-war stance, losing the audience. Or dance with a tambourine around her, realizing that sooner or later your dances will lead to the fact that this audience will start to die. But it will be later. As prison culture says, “you die today and I die tomorrow.” It is possible to take people out of Russia, but to take Russia out of them (namely, prison culture) is much more difficult. I have repeatedly called for dividing Russians not into good or bad, but into useful, harmful and unimportant. Independent media journalists are generally helpful. But don’t look for the good ones. Russian “liberals” are Ukraine’s biggest enemy after Putin.”
Recall that recently Valery Pekar wrote on a social network that Muscovy should be deprived of all the colonies that it had captured in 500 years.
See also: “Russia is hitting antifragility. They don’t understand anything,” an expert on the invincibility of the Ukrainian people
The materials posted in the “Blogs” section reflect the author’s own opinion and may not coincide with the position of the editors.
Source: Fakty
