Latest Ukraine/Russia Thread

[mykolka]

Here is an overview of the war from a Ukrainian guy, who applies Spiral Dynamics on the matter.

 

[PurpleTree]

decent talk

 

[Husseinisdoingfine]

⚠️CONTENT WARNING: GRAPHIC VIOLENCE⚠️

Russian Soldiers assault Ukrainian controlled village in Kursk Oblast.

VIDEO ONE:  https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/comments/1idgqdo/ru_pov_gopro_footage_armored_vehicles_land/

VIDEO TWO: https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/comments/1idgxg1/ru_pov_gopro_footage_armored_vehicles_land/

 

Shell strikes Russian Soldiers, leaving GoPro operator blind.

https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineWarVideoReport/comments/1idvokd/shell_strikes_russian_soldiers_during_assault_on/

Russian invader films 'forest belt of death'.

https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineWarVideoReport/comments/1idz98u/a_russian_invader_filmed_a_video_calling_it_the/

Ukrainian team fighting hard in SouthWest Donetsk.

https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineWarVideoReport/comments/1idw9l1/a_team_in_southwest_donetsk_fighting_hard_put/

Russian teacher documents school assemblies during the war.

https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineWarVideoReport/comments/1ieebm3/a_russian_teacher_documented_school_assemblies/

Edited January 31 by Husseinisdoingfine

[AION]

I'm not easily shaken but this one is so real..

 

[zazen]

If it wasn’t so clear before - Denmark just gave Russia permission to carry out patch up work on Nord Stream 2.

https://www.offshore-energy.biz/denmark-gives-permission-for-preservation-work-on-damaged-nord-stream-2-pipeline/

If Russia really blew up its own multibillion dollar energy infrastructure, why would it be scrambling to preserve what’s left of it? And why would Denmark, a NATO member, sign off on it?  The silence from Germany, Sweden, and Denmark about their investigations into the sabotage only makes it more obvious who was really behind it.

If even a tiny piece of evidence pointed to Russia, they’d have no issue shouting about it, as they already do so against Russia actions regarding Ukraine.

Instead, they’re staying quiet because the truth points in a direction they’re too scared to confront: Washington.

This in the backdrop of tensions over Greenland. Europe is finally realising where the true disorder is coming from: across the Atlantic.

[PurpleTree]

57 minutes ago, zazen said:

If it wasn’t so clear before - Denmark just gave Russia permission to carry out patch up work on Nord Stream 2.

https://www.offshore-energy.biz/denmark-gives-permission-for-preservation-work-on-damaged-nord-stream-2-pipeline/

If Russia really blew up its own multibillion dollar energy infrastructure, why would it be scrambling to preserve what’s left of it? And why would Denmark, a NATO member, sign off on it?  The silence from Germany, Sweden, and Denmark about their investigations into the sabotage only makes it more obvious who was really behind it.

If even a tiny piece of evidence pointed to Russia, they’d have no issue shouting about it, as they already do so against Russia actions regarding Ukraine.

Instead, they’re staying quiet because the truth points in a direction they’re too scared to confront: Washington.

This in the backdrop of tensions over Greenland. Europe is finally realising where the true disorder is coming from: across the Atlantic.

It was already in the news months ago that it was Ukrainians and not Russians who blew up the pipeline.

 

Edited February 2 by PurpleTree

[zazen]

@PurpleTree They aren't conclusive or confirmed by the German prosecutor. First vid from 1:55 sec on wards, as the guy says - it's a development that may get them closer to the truth. Seems more like a scapegoat to avoid facing the reality of the situation.

We have to look at the motive, means and incentive.

- They lack the incentive: their survival hinges on Western support - especially NATO of which Germany is a major player. Meanwhile, the US weakens Russia’s economic leverage over Europe, forces the continent to pivot to American liquefied natural gas, and tighten NATO’s stance against Russia who they want to weaken.

- They lack the motive: Why would Ukraine risk alienating one of its most important backers in the middle of an existential war. Meanwhile, Biden had openly threatened to “end” Nord Stream 2 if Russia invaded Ukraine, making the US motive more clearer and more transparent.

- They lack the means: The pipelines buried deep beneath the Baltic Sea and closely monitored. Ukraine doesn't have the stealth capability, specialized diving teams, or precise coordination to avoid detection in waters patrolled by NATO allies like Denmark, Sweden, and Germany. Especially not in the middle of a brutal land war where their resources are stretched.

The CIA is exactly the kind of organization specialized in covert operations like this. Sabotage, subterfuge, and destabilization are in the agency’s DNA.

 

[PurpleTree]

4 minutes ago, zazen said:

@PurpleTree They aren't conclusive or confirmed by the German prosecutor. First vid from 1:55 sec on wards, as the guy says - it's a development that may get them closer to the truth. Seems more like a scapegoat to avoid facing the reality of the situation.

We have to look at the motive, means and incentive.

- They lack the incentive: their survival hinges on Western support - especially NATO of which Germany is a major player. Meanwhile, the US weakens Russia’s economic leverage over Europe, forces the continent to pivot to American liquefied natural gas, and tighten NATO’s stance against Russia who they want to weaken.

- They lack the motive: Why would Ukraine risk alienating one of its most important backers in the middle of an existential war. Meanwhile, Biden had openly threatened to “end” Nord Stream 2 if Russia invaded Ukraine, making the US motive more clearer and more transparent.

- They lack the means: The pipelines buried deep beneath the Baltic Sea and closely monitored. Ukraine doesn't have the stealth capability, specialized diving teams, or precise coordination to avoid detection in waters patrolled by NATO allies like Denmark, Sweden, and Germany. Especially not in the middle of a brutal land war where their resources are stretched.

The CIA is exactly the kind of organization specialized in covert operations like this. Sabotage, subterfuge, and destabilization are in the agency’s DNA.

 

Yea it was maybe a CIA, Ukraine joint project. Probably even some Germans knew about it. 
 

It was an issue that Germany was quite dependent on Russian gas. Because that way Russia holds leverage over Germany and thus over the EU and NATO.

[zazen]

[Nemra]

I don't understand why Zelenskyy praises Trump.

Does he honestly believe that Trump is a good president, or he just doesn't want to hurt Trump's ego?

Edited February 4 by Nemra

[PurpleTree]

1 hour ago, Nemra said:

I don't understand why Zelenskyy praises Trump.

Does he honestly believe that Trump is a good president, or he just doesn't want to hurt Trump's ego?

Yea obviously he needs Americas help. And Trump is seemingly a narcissist so you got to cuddle his ego and make him look good.

[Nemra]

23 minutes ago, PurpleTree said:

Yea obviously he needs Americas help. And Trump is seemingly a narcissist so you got to cuddle his ego and make him look good.

It's dangerous playing with a double-edged sword. He's popular and is portrayed as a hero or anti-hero.

However, it's his decision.

[PurpleTree]

21 minutes ago, Nemra said:

It's dangerous playing with a double-edged sword. He's popular and is portrayed as a hero or anti-hero.

However, it's his decision.

Well he and the people with him are playing with peoples lives for his ego that’s dangerous. Also if the US doesn’t help Ukraine countries like Taiwan, Philippines, Japan, Korea, Poland will not feel that the US is a reliable ally.

[Nemra]

@PurpleTree, it's not as if they would like to live under Putin's rule. I don't think it's too much about power other than defending themselves as of now.

It's not that Ukrainians are eager to leave Ukraine, maybe for some it doesn't matter, which is also absolutely fine for me.

Also, he has tried to talk with Putin as I'm aware of. However, Putin doesn't want to negotiate.

[PurpleTree]

17 minutes ago, Nemra said:

@PurpleTree, it's not as if they would like to live under Putin's rule. I don't think it's too much about power other than defending themselves as of now.

It's not that Ukrainians are eager to leave Ukraine, maybe for some it doesn't matter, which is also absolutely fine for me.

Also, he has tried to talk with Putin as I'm aware of. However, Putin doesn't want to negotiate.

Yea as long as Putin has China on his side he isn’t going to stop. He is in his mind fighting for the survival of Russia and prevent the downfall. Which he might accelerate or not we’ll only be able to really tell in hindsight.

Edited February 4 by PurpleTree

[zazen]

From 6-8min below: Ex Finance Minster Yanis Varoufakis talking about Europe being a vassal of the US and the US / Ukraine being behind Nord Stream sabotage, to which the Germans just look the other way:

 Brilliant take on the state of the world from Colonel Douglas McGregor from the 8 min mark below:

No wonder he got multiple applauses from the audience compared to others on the panel parroting empire talking points.

Edited February 5 by zazen

[mykolka]

I've posted a video above, but unfortunately it didn't gain any discussion dynamics. I think, the issue is in the format.
Below is a textual article that follows the flow and details of the original video as closely as possible.
I hope it sparkles some discussion on the matter. Any criticism or support?

Quote

Introduction 

So my task is to make all ends meet.

I would say my task is really complicated. Should we explore the key to ending the war and ensuring sustainable peace so that there will be no more wars—at least on this continent? This will be the last one, and I will offer you two keys—two things that we must overcome together. First, I will use the language of Integral Theory and sometimes refer to the colors of Spiral Dynamics. I’m sure everybody knows what I mean, but if not, I will use other words to describe it. In short, we face two challenges: unhealthy postmodernism and colonial optics. Let's think about that together.

The Integral View of War

  Let's start by asking a question: why has the second most powerful army in the world been unable to win? A war is waged not only by armies but also by societies. The flat view of war is that soldiers on one side kill soldiers on the other. But this is a simplistic view—we need an integral view. This flat view represents only one quadrant of the model. A war is much more integral; it includes political systems, economics, propaganda, power struggles, values and virtues, spirituality, culture, language, imaginative communities, and shared dreams. That is the integral view.

Evolution and Social Development  

We know from evolution theory that social development is like personal human development: there are evolutions and breakthroughs—waves that roll over each other, where one disappears as diversity increases. All previous waves can be found, and that means that human beings are living in various realities. This is a very good illustration, but I will use a model that is easier to understand—a traditional model of these bubbles—and something new is emerging.

The Divergent Paths of Ukraine and Russia  

Where are we? We are here. Ukraine is moving toward modernity, while Russia is moving back—returning to its roots. Let’s explore what that means. What is forward? What is today? We have already seen this picture: Ukraine is moving toward the future, while Russia is moving toward the past.

• Where are we coming from? Ukraine and Russia left the Soviet Union, which practically disappeared in 1991 on the same level of political, economic, social, cultural, and mental development.
• Where are we going? Then came ten hard years of social trauma for both societies because the entire social order—of Soviet life, which was totalitarian—totally disappeared.
• Why are we going? In such a society, there was no free will; no part of your life truly belonged to you. This social trauma was healed by Ukraine moving forward into modernity, while Russia heals its trauma by moving back to its roots. There are two different strategies to cope: the disappearance of social order.  

The Role of Culture: The Blue Order

Why are they going different ways? The answer lies in the cultural realm—the lower left quadrant. In this realm, the cultures of Ukraine and Russia began to diverge. European and American researchers have asked whether this divergence started in 1991 or should be traced back to the early 20th century, perhaps even to 1917—or maybe something else. One argument is that a pivotal moment occurred when political cultures diversified in Kyiv and Moscow, a process that accelerated after 2014. This development brought us to what some have called the "final solution" to the Ukrainian question—a phrase that echoes Hitler’s reference to the “final solution of the Jewish question” and is even quoted by Putin.  

So, what is the blue, traditional order? It is characterized by colonial extractive economies, paternalistic politics, a strong emphasis on order and stability, and ethnic identity. It distinguishes between citizens and subjects, establishing a hierarchical social pyramid of privileged classes and rent-seekers. In short, that is fascism, socialism, oligarchy—many other forms of traditional blue social order.

The Emergence of Modernity

Modernity, which emerged a few centuries ago, brought about the nation-state, inclusive economies, accountable governance, modern values, and national identities. It is about citizens, not subjects. Not all of Ukrainian society is modern yet, but the essential part is there. This means that the Ukrainian army is not only facing the Russian army—which is much stronger—but also contending with an entire fabric of society. Ukrainian society is fighting with a wide-scale network of civil movements for supply, rescue, assistance, diaspora support, guerrilla warfare, nonviolent protests, volunteer information resistance, and enormous local support. Millions, even billions, of horizontal networks create and ensure resilience.

The Problem of Authoritarianism  

Now, consider authoritarianism. It is much stronger than democracy because it quickly gathers resources and directs them toward its objectives. But in the long run, authoritarianism produces extremely low-quality solutions because information is inadequate and the management culture of autocracy cultivates lies, fear, personal loyalty, hypocrisy, and so on.  

The Four-Quadrant Model: Multiple Realities

This brings us to the integral view of the war and the four-quadrant model of the world. We need to look deeply at different levels of reality and mental evolution. I have spoken with postmodernists in Europe and America, and I often hear statements such as “both parties need a dialogue” when discussing the war. Is that correct? Sure—for example, “Seas of Fire, stop the war.” There is room for compromise in any conflict, as both sides bear some guilt. But how can we be sure that we know the truth? That is the normal postmodern perspective—green reality—but green reality is not the only reality; there are many.

The Orange Level of Modernity

At the orange level, modernity tells us that there are facts, that there is a truth, and that facts can be established. When we know the truth, the opposite is a lie. There is no “post-truth” or “alternative truth”—there is one truth, and its opposite is a lie. There is no symmetry between, for example, a rapist and the victim of rape.  

The Traditional Blue Reality  

Traditional blue reality teaches us that there is a clear difference between good and evil; they cannot be mixed or mistaken, and your soul knows the difference.

The Red and Purple Levels

At the red level, our inner self tells us that whoever exchanges freedom for security loses both. And at the deepest level—the purple level—we find a truth known for thousands of years: if someone comes to kill you, kill him first and leave your family alone; and if someone expresses a desire to kill you, take immediate action.

  The Red Challenge Versus Green Postmodernism  

This presents a red challenge—not in terms of a military Red Army, but in the context of Spiral Dynamics. The red archaic challenge is something that green postmodernism fails to address because it focuses on long-term consequences and negotiation. Red, on the other hand, is about immediate responses. For example, when a postmodernist elephant meets a very red tank, green postmodernism fails because it sees war merely as a conflict between two evils, where good people suffer on both sides of the front line. Western media often portrays it that way, suggesting that both sides suffer and therefore dialogue should begin immediately, regardless of the atrocities. However, this misses the point: this is a fight for life, freedom, and independence. Unfortunately, green postmodernism mistakenly believes that when television stops showing the war, the war is over.

Today, as Alexandra noted, green is lost—green postmodernism is lost in the face of red archaic aggression. Green advocates solely for peace and harmony, yet unwittingly nurture a habit of powerlessness by knowing nothing beyond peace mantras.

Transitioning to Healthy Green  

So what do we need to do? We need to transition from green failure to green flourishing. Modernists say to forget postmodernism because it is a total failure, but we have an integral view. We need everything—we need green just as we need red, blue, orange, and purple.

How do we replace unhealthy green?

We replace it with healthy green. It is possible to let green remain in the deepest parts of our being. For those who speak German, “grün Empathie” can transform experience. But this green is integral—it is not pure green; it includes red strength, a blue moral compass, and an orange personality with creativity. That is integral green: healthy green, which is resilient, decentralized, antifragile, and vulnerable. We see examples of this even if Ukraine is not entirely healthy green today—it may simply be experiencing a peak emotional state triggered by unprecedented circumstances. As Alexander said, ordinary people do extraordinary things. Yet we know that we cannot remove red from our life because red is essential—it serves life and resonates with our hearts. Since we have unhealthy red, we need healthy red to counterbalance it.

A Case Study: The Young Lady and the Dogs

Consider a famous picture of a young lady who cared for a hospital for dogs. Unable to let the dogs run free, she gathered them and tried to evacuate them from the occupation zone. That is an example of healthy green. Healthy green includes horizontal networks, crowdfunding, crowdsourcing, open-source cooperation, collective leadership, or—as M put it—situational leadership with open access and empathy for all. As proponents of red often quote Putin: “Where are the centers of volunteer movements? We should destroy them. Where is the center of green networks? Nowhere. Where is the center of the internet? The internet was designed without a center.”

The Need for Integral Healing  

In the upper right quadrant, soldiers kill soldiers and vice versa. Yet, the war was born in the lower left quadrant—through systems and societies. Some say that reconciliation and forgiveness are the answers; these belong in the upper left quadrant. But is that enough? No. We, as integral practitioners, know that healing one quadrant is not sufficient; if we heal one, the other three remain unhealthy. We must heal all quadrants, all levels. Forgiveness alone is locked into one quadrant while the others remain unhealed, and that is a problem.

Conclusion and the Second Part  

That was the first part of my intervention. The first key was to replace unhealthy postmodernism—that is, unhealthy green—with healthy green. This is the key to stopping the war, ensuring sustainable peace, and preventing future wars.

The second key addresses the multidimensional nature of the war: how to stop it, ensure peace, and prevent it. I quote Isaiah, who predicted that one day all wars would be over. How do we achieve this? We need to examine how the war became possible—there are ten reasons why it became possible. The war became possible under the influence of institutions like the United Nations, the Red Cross, and others.  

• Imperialism: You’ve heard a lot about this.
• Authoritarianism: A system with no balances, no checks, no free elections, and no free media—nothing.
• Archaization: A return to integral degradation—a cult of war, violence, and death. A photo by Radio Freedom shows small children in Second World War uniforms, a stark reminder of the motto “never again.” The Russians once said, “We can repeat ‘never again’ on one hand; on the other, who wins?”
• Oil and Gas: Indeed, oil and gas create authoritarianism. One Russian intellectual managed to offer a picture of the future to the Russian nation—a future that was really a rehash of the past, as offered by Putin. Then came imperial influence through media, politicians, bribes—of intellectuals, hackers, and business as usual—pumping the war with Western money. All missiles launched in recent days include hundreds of American components that were recently produced, bought, delivered, and mounted into missiles aimed at you and me.

The Failure of International Institutions  

This is also a failure of international organizations—from the United Nations to UNESCO, the Red Cross, and even postmodernism. Sometimes postmodernism claims, “You hear about this in banks; maybe it was Ukrainians who killed people, or perhaps it was actors who just lay there, making films claiming they killed themselves.” This failure is not only on the part of Russian intellectuals but also world intellectuals—from Jurgen Habermas to feminist and ecological leaders, to post-Russian and postcolonial studies—a total loss of moral compass. All these factors, these ten reasons, produced the war. Oil and gas are important because they are linked to climate change, COVID, environmental challenges, and efforts to stop renewable energy. Oil and gas support democracy; oil and gas support autocracy. Plain and simple, the major reason for the war has been repeated many times today: imperialism and colonialism, or re-imperialization.  

On Historical and Non-Historical Nations  

As V. Moleno said, “Who is guilty?” We try to find the guilty. The first guilty, according to some, is zero. Do you know him? It’s Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, who said 200 years ago that there are historical nations and non-historical nations—the concept of historical idealism. I do not mean to say that Hegel should be punished for that; he was just a philosopher. But an incorrect use of his ideas does not make one a Nazi. Similarly, Hegel and K.L. Marx may not be as guilty as Lenin and Stalin were. Some argue that there are historical nations and non-historical nations. This was the background for imperialism and colonialism because historical nations always have more rights and a louder voice than colonial societies. Postcolonial societies are not heard.

A few days ago, a Ukrainian theater scholar and director—now a drone pilot for the armed forces, Miss Olena Abel—published an article in German arguing that postcolonial voices are never heard by post-imperial societies. In my experience, Ukrainians could tell us about Russians. We Americans have studied Russian affairs for 60 years; we know everything about Russians, yet you know nothing about Russians. When I say, “Okay, we have Russian studies,” they reply, “Oh, you’re traumatized. That’s normal.” You remain too emotional. They say, “You know Russians only from the outside; we know Russians only from the outside. But inside, we were part of the empire.” They dismiss your trauma, leaving you with nothing to offer.

If we have 60 years of Russian studies, then what does “Russian status” mean? It means including Ukrainians, Estonians, Georgians, and so on—but it excludes Ukrainians. It also includes Bashkirs, Tatars, Yakuts, Chukchi, and others. Today, many prominent Ukrainian philosophers have told you about Ukrainian history and stories—about figures like Myko, Father Andre, Vadim, and Yan. I dare say these stories could equally be told by Tatars, Chukchi, Yakuts, Kik, and others.

Historians and philosophers, if they could join us here, would find that this postcolonial, post-imperial story is always the same, with some cultural differences—Muslim groups from the Caucasus, Buddhist groups from the Caspian, Yakuts from Siberia—who have preserved their old religions. Many nations would tell very similar stories, so you can easily replace the word “Ukrainian” with “Bashkir” or “Engush” or something else.

The Western Blind Spot  

Now we see the blind spot of the West: numerous violations of human rights—people’s rights, women’s rights, minority rights, ecological problems, and other risks—are overlooked by scholars and NGOs. My feminist friend told me that although she is welcome in the feminist community, when she spoke about women’s rights in Russia, nobody greeted her, much like the ecologists or human rights defenders. This is due to ideological templates. Many postmodernist leftists claim that the Soviet Union was anti-colonial, while Europe and America were colonial. That is why you cannot say that Russia is an empire. Russia is—and the Soviet Union was—a subject of Russian studies, Russian money, Russian propaganda, and Russian culture—a specific way of life, as the West admires the culture of something like 500 families in a huge barbarian country. Lech Tota described in his novels the lifestyle of 500 families; it is nothing like that. You could say that about Poland with its 10% nobility and pervasive fear.

The Consent of the West and Colonialism  

So, how do we stop the war? These days it’s all about “weapon and money.” Leaders come to Biden with weapons and money, then to Harris, then to Trump. Money and weapons are important, but I dare say the main issue today is not money or weapons—it is the consent of the West to defeat Russia. We have no such consent. That is why the risk of Ukraine’s defeat is much higher: because Russia is a historical nation, according to Hegel, and Ukraine is not. And Bashkirs, Yakuts, Chukchi, etc., are not historical. Historical nations cannot be defeated. Indeed, if historical Russians were defeated, who would manage those non-historical nations? They cannot manage themselves. Who will manage them? They can manage themselves.  

This is pure colonialism—a form negated by the UN Declaration of Freedom for colonized nations and territories in 1960, which was the basis for decolonization in Africa, Latin America, the Middle East, and Asia. Nobody can say that the United Nations’ basic document states that some nations are not ready for freedom. In fact, the roots of that statement are, in a way, religious, because we believe that all people have the same rights and were created equal. Who will manage? They will manage themselves. Who will manage Ukraine? In the 1991 “Chicken Kiev” speech, they asked, “Who will manage Ukraine?” Ukraine is not a failed state. Historical nations have much more rights; leaders of historical nations could be persecuted—today you persecute Putin, tomorrow we persecute Clinton. No—this is not possible. Bush Sr., Bush Jr.—never persecute leaders of historical nations. You can persecute leaders of non-historical nations, but never leaders of historical nations. We should not overthrow Putin’s regime. American leaders talk about confiscating assets of historical nations; today we confiscate Russian assets, tomorrow American assets—but no, never. A historical nation cannot be expelled from the United Nations Security Council. Today we expel Russia; tomorrow they will expel America. Historical nations cannot be treated like that. They cannot be embargoed. The myths persist: historical nations are always right, non-historical nations are always guilty, and historical nations indeed have a right to pursue their own interests. Take the Chinese view: we support the territorial integrity of all countries, including Ukraine, but we also support the idea that every big nation has its own zone of exclusive interest. How can these things be combined? Only the Chinese can do it. For example, we support the territorial integrity of Ukraine, but we are against the withdrawal of Russian troops from its territory. So, who will ensure militarization, delocalization, and all the necessary measures to ensure sustainable peace? I could tell you many stories about oppressed minorities—or rather, majorities in their respective countries that have lost their independence.

The Post-Russian World and Sustainable Peace  

Thus, the real map of the post-Russian world is like that, and it does not bring unacceptable risks such as the proliferation of nuclear humanitarian crises. The Chinese, among others, are strengthening this, and I would like to share with you the Sustainable Peace Manifesto. I will send you a link—I am proud to be part of the team that produced it, a team that shows us the way to sustainable peace and to prevent any future war on this continent.

The Need for Integral Healing  

Now, two things must be overcome: unhealthy postmodernism and colonial (or postcolonial) optics, which have separated historical nations with more rights from non-historical nations with no voice. This is not true. If you look at the roots of any armed conflict over the last 30 years—or even go far back into history—you will see the same roots: imperialism and colonialism. We must change the Western optics to overcome that. And if I have my glasses on my nose—I always forget that they are here because I’m so used to them—sometimes, even if I lose my glasses, I fail to realize that I have lost something. Others should tell me, “Oh, maybe you forgot your glasses somewhere, or perhaps you have changed them.” If your glasses provide you with an incorrect view, then we have a totally distorted view of this war and other wars around the world, wars that were produced by colonial optics and unhealthy postmodernism.  

We must replace unhealthy postmodernism with healthy postmodernism. I have described how to do this—to make it integral—and we must also replace colonial optics with a healing, idealistic view of history, one that sees history as the story of different nations, groups, and peoples who are equal and have the same rights. There should be no specific category such as “historical nation” with more rights versus “non-historical nation” with no voice. I tried to make many ends meet—maybe I failed—but I tried to pack everything into one.

  

Thank you so much.

The video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8CeMG_-LGs

Authors FB: https://facebook.com/valerii.pekar 

Edited February 6 by mykolka

[Basman]

 

[PurpleTree]

 

[Basman]

1 hour ago, PurpleTree said:

 

So many Germans seem to be scared of instantly turning into Nazis the moment the put a uniform on. Like their an addict around alcohol. They need to chill. Germany today is nothing like Germany then.

Edited February 7 by Basman