Reader matt, if you have any more questions about Russia, please read this article. It’s by a fellow whose political views are very close to yours and, as much as I detest him, he’s right in what he says. Maybe he’ll be convincing where I wasn’t.
A Good Link on Russia
Clarissa's Blog 
\ as much as I detest him
Because of his other articles?
\ Under President Obama, the State Department really has pushed feminism and LGBT rights hard—including in Russia.
I find it hard to believe Obama could do anything about LGBT rights in Russia. On the contrary, persecution of gays has become more severe during Obama’s years.
LikeLike
“Because of his other articles?”
“I find it hard to believe Obama could do anything about LGBT rights in Russia. On the contrary, persecution of gays has become more severe during Obama’s years.”
LikeLike
\ No, because he accused me of being a Putin spy operating from Croatia.
At first, I thought you were joking, but then I remembered something like that. But not why is happened. Surely, Putin’s spy would not be so anti-Putin as you have always been, so I am surprised he found anything in your writing indicating such a thing.
LikeLike
I criticized him. And anybody who does that surely must be Putin’s spy. 😆😆😆
LikeLike
This article links to another article which mentions this:
\If Washington finds traditional Christianity so threatening abroad that it’s willing to spend taxpayer dollars to hire Social Justice Warriors to fight it, what do you think the future holds for traditional Christianity in our own country? You had better start preparing yourself, your family, and your community for the resistance. The New York Times today has a story about Iowa’s conservative Evangelicals trying to come to terms with their losses. It focuses in part on the Odgaards, an older couple who had to sell their business because they would not rent out the chapel inside it to a gay couple for a wedding. “It all flipped, so fast,” one of them said.
Here is the story of the Odgaards:
Torn Over Donald Trump and Cut Off by Culture Wars, Evangelicals Despair
LikeLike
Also, you previously said many religious people voted Trump because of fear of religious persecution (being forced to marry gays, sell them flowers, etc.), and offered to leave religious people alone a bit. I did not believe you, but now the article about the Odgaards says:
\ Many say that they have no genuine champion in the presidential race and that the country has turned its back on them. Americans are leaving church, same-sex marriage is the law of the land, and the country has moved on to debating transgender rights.
…
Long part of a reliable Republican voting bloc, many are appalled to find Donald J. Trump their only alternative to Hillary Clinton. They say he has taken positions all over the map on same-sex couples and abortion and does not have the character to be president.
…
Nevertheless, polls show that the vast majority of evangelicals are now coalescing around Mr. Trump, largely out of fear that a President Clinton will appoint liberal Supreme Court justices.
LikeLike
“Also, you previously said many religious people voted Trump because of fear of religious persecution (being forced to marry gays, sell them flowers, etc.), and offered to leave religious people alone a bit. I did not believe you, but now the article about the Odgaards says”
LikeLike
Regarding the Odgaard case, was the chapel operational as a religious space when they were sued? Because if it was, that seems wrong, even if the couple just wanted to rent the gallery and the hall. It seems too close to forcing a church to host a religious service contrary to their stated beliefs.
LikeLike
No, it was just their small business. It wasn’t an actual functioning church.
But again, what is the burning need to get a couple of Mennonites to host a gay wedding?
LikeLike
If Russia is uniquely different, how come much of the rhetoric quoted sounds an awful lot like certain Western religious conservative types?
LikeLike
Yes, I also think Joe Schindler is right on many points. At first my feeling was that he is overstating the influence of Orthodox faith, but then I stopped myself. Essentially I was making the same mistake the progressives made in the States – assuming that if a) I find something unimportant then it is equally unimportant for others and b) there are no such people in my circle of acquaintances (which I mostly crafted myself from the like-minded people 🙂 ) then this viewpoint must be statistically unimportant.
I suppose for an American there is an added difficulty believing his points – Americans must find it hard to believe that someone else seriously considers themselves a Guardian of the Christian Civilization, especially if these someones are the descendants of the “Godless Commies”.
A Russian Patriot (TM) would point out that Schindler’s comparison with Cuban missile crisis is totally backwards. When the Russians did deploy missiles to Cuba the US nearly went to war. Therefore, from the Russian perspective, as long as the Russians are not attempting a blockade of Baltic states or Poland, they are actually under-reacting to NATO advances. And nobody believes anyway that Russia had nothing to attack Poland with before moving several more missiles to Koenigsberg.
But even Schindler stops short of explaining how exactly “deterrence” should look like, especially how it should look like without proving to Russia that they have been right all along.
LikeLike
Do you think they will try to invade one of the Baltics now? Or is it fear-mongering?
I believe your prognoses because you always knew that an invasion of Ukraine was not out of the question.
LikeLike
Thank you, sometimes you remember things about myself that I do not remember…
As for the likelihood of attacking one of the Baltic States – mostly it is fear-mongering. But there are scenarios where Russia could invade some Baltic state. If and when Russia feels so threatened by something* that it perceives a dire need for a demonstration that the rest of the NATO will not go to war for one of its new members and for subsequent chaos and disarray within NATO. From that perspective it does not really matter which Eastern European country to attack, but Baltic States have an added benefit of “protecting the Russian minority”. And even in this case Russia will only take the areas with predominantly Russian population. “Baltic Peoples Republics”… It does not need territory, ports, or more disloyal people, but it may need a demonstration that NATO bluffed and Russia did not.
*That’s why I think your idea to switch Russia out of SWIFT from your previous post is very counterproductive… Read my earlier comments and imagine what the US would do to anybody switching them out of SWIFT. And Russia should do the same as a matter of self-respect. We may argue that it is a wrong kind of self-respect, but this is what will happen.
LikeLike
I can’t forget because at the time I thought you were being over dramatic. And when it turned out that I had been an idiot, I felt very ashamed.
At least, they could arrest the oligarchs’ and the state apparatchiks’ property and deport their families. That’s what Putin wants anyway.
LikeLike
Well, as far as I recall it, I did see the moods in Russia to be very anti-Ukrainian since… a very long time. But, frankly, I did not imagine a heavily Russia-sponsored armed separatist movement before it started… I thought all that bullshit will keep boiling inside Russia and smell a lot but not go outside in the armed form.
LikeLike
It’s not a separatist movement. It’s an invasion in its purest form.
LikeLike
I count everything in a very simple manner. If given person with a gun lived within the territory internationally recognized as Ukraine before 2014, this person is “internal”, even if perhaps he would not take a gun without some Russian encouragement. Russian military men “on vacation” and all kinds of Buryat mercenaries are of course “external”. As are the weapons that never existed in Ukraine before the war.
Counting all opponents as “external” is very good for wartime nation-state propaganda, but unfortunately completely obscures the need for self-reflection. (Or worse, is a manifestation of the conscious viewpoint that the country “belongs” only to those of certain ethnicity and/or worldview, not to all its people.) The same way, denying all opponents agency and free will and considering them the marionettes of the (outside) enemy is good for propaganda, but not so good for finding any permanent solution.
LikeLike
That’s not what I’m saying, though. I’m saying there is no separatist movement because nobody ever thought of separating and still isn’t. Even the leadership of the DNR is all about being taken back into Ukraine. It’s the Ukrainian government that’s resisting for dear life and refusing to take them. Their goal is not and was not to separate. They want to be federated within Ukraine.
LikeLike
OK, I partially agree. Indeed they do not want to be independent long-term. They say they want back to Ukraine because Putin wants them to say that. But my understanding is that they’d rather join Russia.
I guess I should call them irredentists instead…
LikeLike
Thank you for sharing!
LikeLike