Cineva tocmai a făcut un inventar. Chestii care umblă ‘folcloric’ – adică din gură-n gură, pe internet.
Omul acela, destul de destupat la minte de felul lui, a ajuns să se îndoiască de propria sa capacitate analitică.

Există câteva narațiuni pe care nu le pricep sub nici un chip…

N-am citez inventarul cu pricina. Până citiți voi postarea asta, oricum va fi caduc.
Dacă vă interesează, sau dacă vreți să vedeți cât de bine le demontează „omul acela”, click pe citatul de mai sus și gata. Sunteți în pâine.

Dar o explicație mică…

Propaganda lui Putin funcționează mult mai bine decât armata pe care a trimis-o să-i învețe minte pe Ucraineni!
Pentru că e mult mai ușor să stai la calculator, la căldurică, și să vii cu metode cât se poate de creative prin care să zăpăcești de cap oameni care au un interes secundar cu privire la problemă. Oameni pe care nu-i aleargă nimeni dar care au deja un bagaj de sentimente și prejudecăți. Sentimente și prejudecăți numai bune de exploatat!
Pe ‘câmp’, în schimb, când și ceilalți trag în tine… iar tu știi, în adâncul sufletului tău, că ei sunt cei care au, de fapt, dreptate…

Și, poate chiar mai important, pe internet ajunge o măciucă la un car de oale!
E destul ca cineva priceput la băgat limba-n ureche să vină cu o chestie suficient de credibilă… că Gică Contra care să răspândească jumătățile de minciună… se găsesc gârlă!

Uite-așa, o jumătate de minciună ici… o jumătate colea… te trezești cu cozi la benzină și cu o frumusețe de criză de ulei.

Chiar mai important, te trezești cu o masă captivă de oameni dispuși să creadă aproape orice.

‘Rusia nu a atacat Ucraina, doar vrea să protejeze niște Ruși nevinovați de abuzurile săvârșite de Ucraineni’.
Spitalul era dezafectat iar cei din poze erau actori…

“After the bombing of the hospital, Twitter removed two posts by the Russian embassy in London which claimed the attack had been faked.
The embassy’s tweets made unfounded claims that the hospital was not operational at the time and that injured women pictured at the scene were actors.”

Și, ca să nu rămâneți cu impresia că am explicații pentru toate cele, hop și eu cu o nedumerire proprie.

Ăia care se pricep la băgat limba-n ureche, cei care vin cu toate ‘trăsnăile’ astea, cum pot să doarmă noaptea? Să-și sărute copiii pe frunte? Să facă dragoste?
Oameni inteligenții fiind – mult peste medie, nu-și dau seama unde duc eforturile lor?

Lasă că mor oameni… poate că stau prost cu empatia!
Dar nici măcar la pielea lor nu se gândesc?
Cât o să mai stea ‘Putin’ la putere?

Pe veci?!?
Iar ei, cei care sunt acum în grațiile lui ‘Putin’, vor rămâne tot acolo… Pe întreaga durată a domniei lui!
Păi da, dictatorii sunt cei mai fideli oameni din lume…
Se duc la următorul?
Și cât o să mai țină povestea asta?

Sper să nu mă luați acuma cu libertatea cuvântului!!!

The internet is full of articles attempting to understand Putin’s motives starting from what he had said about the subject.

Here’s but the last I’ve read.
Why has Russia invaded Ukraine and what does Putin want?

Nothing special inside but it illustrates well enough the point I’m trying to make.

At first, Putin’s words are summarized and then proven ‘wrong’. Misleading. Or plain false.
In the next section of the article, the author – Paul Kirby, like many more before him, attempts to divine what Putin will do. Starting from the same words which have just been proven false and/or misleading.

?!?

No, the author is not ‘dense’.
He simply does what he was trained to do.

We, here in the land of democracy, understand language as a medium for negotiation.
And negotiation as an exchange where we let our needs be known, in earnest. As an exchange where we ‘trade’ information with the goal of finding the best mutually acceptable solution for whatever problem we attempt to solve.
In this sense, a negotiation is a form of cooperation. And compromise is something which both sides find beneficial.

For people conversant in ‘dictatorian’, ‘compromise’ is something to be shoved down the throat of the weaker side. The bigger the power differential, the harder to swallow becomes the ‘compromise’.

Doesn’t make much sense?
To us, democrats?
Because we know that shoving things down the throat of now weaker people doesn’t work on the longer time frame?

‘Assuming’ is the worst thing a negotiator may make.

We keep assuming that dictators are rational. Even worse, that they follow the same ‘ratio’ as we do.
That we – as in we and them, see the same world and have ‘slightly’ different goals.
And express those different goals in the same manner. Using the same kind of language.

We are wrong.

We, the democratically minded, are trained – conditioned is a truer word, to consider ‘the other’ as being equivalent to us.
At least some of the others, but that’s another discussion.
We actually ‘know’, in our bones, that we cannot ‘do’ anything by ourselves. That we exist only in cooperation with those around us. That everything we have ever accomplished was the result of a common effort.

People conditioned in dictatorial regimes see things rather differently.
They don’t cooperate, they just obey.
Their existence does not stem from the common effort but from following orders.
Language is not at all a medium where information is being passed between equivalent agents but a two way conduit. Orders are flowing from top to bottom and acknowledgments crawl from bottom to the top.

‘And what about ‘information’?!?
How does it travel among those people?’

Piecemeal.
Exclusively on a ‘need to know’ basis.
Nobody ‘volunteers’ any information unless expressly asked about it by a superior.

This is why dictatorships end up crumbling under their own weight.

That’s why we don’t understand, for real, what Putin attempts to communicate.
That’s why he is extremely annoyed right know.

Putin no longer understands what’s going on.
Let aside the fact that nobody around him dares to volunteer any information – which would be contrary to what Putin wants to hear.
My point being that Putin had been accustomed to having his way.

I’m not going to enumerate all the things he had done. Things we should have reacted against…
As in ‘reacted’, not meowed meekly.
As a consequence, he had grown accustomed to shoving things down our throats…

Suddenly, we have stopped swallowing!
Without giving him a ‘reasonable’ reason…
A reason he could understand!

Do you remember what I’ve told you?
A few moments ago? That dictators don’t care about those who are weaker? Nor about the long term consequences of their decisions?
That dictators are concerned exclusively with their own survival?

Savvy?

De astăzi, gata.
Am scăpat! (Doar unii dintre noi, adică cei încă prezenți, dar asta e altă discuție)

Se renunţă în primul rând la utilizarea măştii atât în spaţiile exterioare, cât şi în cele interioare nu va mai fi obligatorie, ea este necesară

Alexandru Rafila, Ministru al Sănătății, vorbind
„în contextul ridicării restricţiilor”.
Adevărul, 8 Martie, 2022

‘Se’ indică diateza reflexivă.

Nu prea mai țin eu minte cum venea cu diatezele astea dar sigur era cu ‘pe sine se’.

Adică, de exemplu, ‘Eugen Ionescu se spală pe dinti’. Adică se spală ‘pe sine’!
Eugen Ionescu își spală dintii săi!

In sensul asta, nu pricep deloc cum vine treaba cu ‘se renunțarea’ la mască.

Se renunță masca pe sine? Cu toate că rămâne necesară?

Renunțăm noi la mască? Cu toate că rămâne necesară?!?
Și de ce mai avem nevoie de ‘se’?

Renunțăm noi la noi înșine?
Și atunci ce mai contează masca…

Am citit pe undeva că SARS Cov 2 poate produce nu știu ce efecte asupra creierului.
Pierdere de materie cenușie, markeri care indică o îmbătrânire accelerată…

Nu mai continui că l-a luat durerea de cap pe săracu’ Ionescu!
Care n-are nici o vină… el doar a ‘inventat’ Absurdul…

El doar ne-a avertizat de existența lui. A absurdului!
Ne-a învățat cum să recunoaștem că suntem ‘înăuntru’…

Noi, în schimb, ne-am rătăcit!
Ne-am rătăcit, noi pe noi înșine, înlăuntrul cercului nostru strâmt.
Din ce în ce mai strâmt…

Iar steaua aia nu mai răsare dracului odată!

Discută unii pe net.
‘Putin a reușit să întoarcă Rusia cu 32 de ani înapoi.
McDonald a deschis primul restaurant din lanțul rusesc în 1990 și închide acum 850 de locații în întreaga Rusie.’

‘Păi da bă, da’ ăștia nu pleacă pentru că au ceva cu Putin… Pur și simplu și-au dat seama că rușii n-or să mai aibe bani să dea pe chestii din astea. Că economia Rusiei o să se ducă de râpă! Ăsta fiind motivul pentru care au plecat și celelalte multinaționale…’

După o scurtă căutare pe net, aflu că McDonald va continua să-și plătească angjații din Rusia și din Ucraina.

Acuma că ne-am liniștit, relativ, cu privire la cei 62 000 de angajați McDonald din Rusia, hai să gândim un pic mai adânc.

McDonald e un operator economic. Prima lui responsabilitate este față de proprietarii săi. Față de acționari.
Treaba lui McDonald este să facă profit. Și să-l facă în așa fel încât tot procesul să fie sustenabil!
Adică treaba lui McDonald este să se asigure că va putea face profit și peste 100 ani. Nu doar în Rusia ci și în restul lumii!

Acum am să fac o pauză și am să vă spun o poveste.

Sunt suficient de bătrân să-mi aduc aminte discursul lui Ceașcă din ’68. Nu atât discursul în sine, aveam doar 7 ani, cât sentimentul de mândrie pe care îl aveau părinții mei. Sentiment împărtășit de aproape toți cei din jurul nostru.

Ceașcă tocmai se opusese, vehement, intervenției sovietice împotriva Primăverii de la Praga.

„Pătrunderea trupelor celor 5 țări socialiste în Cehoslovacia constituie o mare greșeală și o primejdie gravă pentru pacea în Europa, pentru soarta socialismului în lume! Nu există nici o justificare și nu poate fi acceptat nici un motiv pentru a admite numai o clipă ideea intervenției militare în treburile unui stat socialist frățesc!”
Uraaaa!

România era pe val. Recunoscută de toate puterile vremii. Magazinele erau pline. Pușcăriile politice tocmai fusesera golite. Trai pe vătrai…

Singura chestie nasoală era decretul cu interzicerea avortului. Și faptul că nu puteai călători liber. De vorbit… încă mai puteai vorbi, cu anumite limite.

În doar 20 de ani, toate chestiile bune au dispărut. Fără să fi plecat nici o multinațională din țară!

Doar datorită stilului din ce în ce mai dictatorial adoptat de ‘conducerea de partid și de stat’.
Din cauza cărui stil, din ce în ce mai mulți dintre cei care știau despre ce era vorba au fost marginalizați.
Din cauza cărui stil, ‘factorii de decizie’ – din ce în ce mai puțini, au rămas înconjurați de sfătuitori din ce în ce mai nepricepuți. Și mai proști.

Da, socialismul în general, și cel românesc în particular, s-a prăbușit din cauză că decidenții – adică și Ceaușescu, practic nu mai știau pe ce lume trăiau. Adică din ‘cauza’ ‘consilierilor’ lor.

Doar că vina le aparține decidenților! Adică lui Ceaușecu.

Decidenții au fost cei care au dat tonul!
Decidenții au creat ‘stilul’. Dictatura a fost instaurată de dictatori!
Într-adevăr, cu concursul ‘cozilor de topor’ și cu acceptul, tacit – și de cele mai multe ori inconștient, al populației.
Dar la inițiativa și datorită ‘eforturilor neprecupețite’ ale dictatorilor înșiși!

Să revenim la subiect.
La hamburgherii de la care am plecat.

Indiferent de calculele făcute de multinaționale, cauza plecării lor e aceiași.
Indiferent de moțivația fiecăruia dintre decidenți care au ales ‘închiderea prăvăliei’, fie ea și temporară, vinovatul este unul singur.

Putin a fost cel care ales să invadeze Ucraina!

Și, de fapt, ‘Putin’ a fost cel care a ales sa guverneze într-un mod din ce în ce mai dictatorial.

Chiar dacă nu invada Ucraina, în cele din urmă Putin tot ar fi reușit – într-un fel sau altul, să ducă Rusia de râpă.

Iar toate astea s-au întâmplat la doar 30 de ani de la căderea întregului lagăr socialist.
Din motivele pe care le-am explicat mai sus.

Dacă eu am înțeles toate astea, Putin de ce le ignoră?
Avem aproape aceiași vârstă iar el are o experiență de viață mult mai vastă…

Să trecem peste acest moment poate prea personal!

Ca lucrurile să fie cât se poate de clare – adică mură-n gură, pe mine nu mă interesează pedepsirea vinovaților.
Asta e o activitate de care ne vom ocupa după aceea.
Adică după ce oamenii vor înceta să mai moară mult prea devreme.

Iar pentru asta, trebuie să ne concentrăm pe cauze!
Pe locul unde putem rupe cercul vicios.

Ceaușescu a căzut abia după ce oamenii rămași în jurul lui – așa prost aleși cum erau, și-au depășit condiția de yes-meni.
După ce oamenii rămași în jurul lui au realizat către ce dezastru erau conduși. Împreună cu restul țării!

Oamenii aflați în acest gen de poziții trebuie ajutați.
Întâi să înțeleagă.
Și apoi să facă.

Din momentul acesta, rolul lui ‘Putin’ practic a încetat.
Rămâne cu vinovăția acumulată până acum, bineînțeles, doar că de acum încolo vinovăția pentru cele ce se vor întâmpla în viitor se va acumula în contul celor care continuă să-l ajute.
Pentru simplul motiv că a continua să ajuți personaje de tip ‘Putin’, după ce aceștia și-au dat arama pe față, este o formă de sinucidere.
Nu doar de crimă!

Vorbeam mai devreme despre datoria decidenților McDonald față de acționarii lor.
Despre nevoia lui McDonald ca afacerea să fie condusă într-un mod sustenabil.
Ca afacerea să fie în stare să genereze profit pe termen nederminat. Adică cât mai lung….

Oare când or să înțeleagă dictatorii că modelul lor de business nu e sustenabil?
Și, poate chiar mai important, când or să înțeleagă cozile de topor că modelul lor de business este sinucigaș?

This beautiful – but almost empty, park is in Bucharest.
In Bucharest, Romania.

By the look of it, by how empty it is, it could have been anywhere in Ukraine.

Which reminds me of Churchill’s words.

Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few.

Currently, the Ukrainian people defend not only their freedom but that of the entire Europe.
And that of the Russian people!

Who now have the opportunity to conquer theirs!

Ever since Putin had ordered his army to invade Ukraine, I keep hearing about what drove Putin to do it.
About his dreams of rebuilding the old Russian Glory. About his drive to become the most important Russian personality. About NATO ‘pushing itself’ closer and closer to Russia’s borders. About…

The map above is the last argument I came by. And the last straw…
The person who posted the map doesn’t agree with Putin. Not at all.
But cannot ‘forget’ the fact that at one time Kiev did belong to Russia.

Well… I’ll be blunt about it!

This person, along with many others, tries to explain what is going on in a rational manner. They attempt to find an objective reason for a subjective decision.

Putin is flattening out Ukraine because he is afraid.

The Soviet Union had survived 1956 Hungary, 1968 Prague, and 1980 Solidarnosc. All of these ‘movements’ had been, somehow, quashed. Dealt with.

The Soviet Union had, finally, crumbled under its own weight after Afghanistan. After a people didn’t cave in. After a people, an entire people, found it in themselves how to resist. How to say no!

Putin had successfully quashed Yeltsin’s oligarchs, the Chechen rebellion, the first Orange revolution, dealt with Saakashvili, helped Lukashenko save his throne and put a lid upon the recent Kazahstani attempt at making a small step towards democracy.
And was contemplating the Western Europe planing to give up burning gas and oil.

‘His’ gas and oil…

He had to do something. Otherwise ‘his’ people were going to throw him out.

If Ukraine was allowed to continue on the self determination path, who was going to stop the Russians from following suit?

So yes, the circumstances described by that map are valid.
But it is Putin who bears the entire responsibility for what’s going on.
And for creating the circumstances in which ‘next’ is going to happen.

Can you imagine what’s going on in these children’s souls?

Circa 840, “three noble brothers” of Viking origin – Rurik, Sineus and Truvor, established “what came to be called Kievan Rus”.

“Rus,” which is where the name “Russia” comes from, purportedly derives from an old Nordic word for “men who row.”

882. Oleg the Prophet captures Kyiv and moves the capital of the Viking kingdom from Novgorod to Kyiv.
Thus the Rus becomes Kievan.

1703. Peter the Great of Rus-sia established Sank Petersburg as a bulwark against the Swedish Kingdom.
The city served as Russia’s capital from 1712 to 1918

1941. Hitler breaks the German Soviet Non Aggression Pact and starts a war against the Soviet Union.
Leningrad – the city formerly known as Sankt Petersburg, had been put under siege from September 8, 1941 to January 27, 1944

2022. February 24. Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, the present day ruler of Rus-sia, in complete defiance of the Budapest Memorandum, started a “special military operation” meant to achieve the “demilitarization and denazification of Ukraine,”

Kyiv hasn’t been besieged yet but has already been under heavy bombardment.

I’m Romanian.
Romanians don’t have very fond memories of what had happened to their country whenever the Russian soldiers had come by to ‘visit’.
As a teenager I read The 900 Days The Siege of Leningrad, 1968, by Harrison Salisbury

And wept.

Now, an already old man, I check out, on the Internet, what’s going out in Kyiv – the former capital of the Kievan Rus.

And weep.

Homo homini lupus has become a massive understatement.

My late mother used to quote a co-worker:

After you get used to it, being hanged becomes bearable.

Let me give you some context.

I live in Romania. You know, that country which shot its dictator, Nicolae Ceausescu, on the Christmas Day 1989.

I was drafted to the army in October 1980. When I left home, you could still find food to buy. Soap, chocolate, washing powder, toilet paper… you name it. Nothing fancy but life was ‘normal’.
Nine months later, in July 1981, food was already scarce.

In 1985, things were already bad. You had to queue up for anything you needed. For all of the above mentioned items.

By 1988, things had become even worse. On top of what I had already mentioned, rolling blackouts were common. Those of us who lived in apartments connected to central heating were ‘enjoying’ running hot water for only a few hours a day/a few days a week. And shivered during the entire winter.

I’m telling you all these because in December 1989 most of us were hugely surprised when communism had fallen. With a bang.

We’d become so accustomed with what was happening to us that we were convinced our lives were ‘normal’.

Compare that to what you see below.
Oh, I forgot to tell you that we had only 1 (one) TV channel. Which was on for 2 hours each working day from Monday to Saturday and 12 hours on Sunday. And 80% of what was churned out was pure propaganda.

1. Sow doubt.
2. Drop a loud fact. Or two… This will simultaneously ‘water’ the previously planted seed and act as a ‘foot in the door’ for your next move.
3. ‘Miss-interpret’ another fact.
4. Mention an universal human emotion, inviting your audience to identify itself with the ‘victim’.
5. Squarely state what you want your audience to believe.

1. ‘The Soviet Union didn’t crumple under its own weight. It was dissolved by Yeltsin so that Gorbachev’s position would disappear.
Leaving Yeltsin as the top dog of the day. Even if at the helm of a little smaller empire…’

2. ‘After the Cold War had ended, the West should have treated the ‘defeated’ as Germany, Italy and Japan had been treated after WWII. The West should have helped the Soviet Union to overcome the transition hurdles by extending to it an equivalent of the Marshall Plan.
Instead of that, the Americans had come up with the Wolfowitz – later Bush, Doctrine.’

3. ‘Gorbatchev was told by James Baker that NATO will not move an inch eastward’

4. “…1998, Yeltsin, late Yeltsin: ‘you promised not to do this! So, how do we trust you, if you make a promise?’ “

5.1. Vladimir Putin has been created by the United States.
5.2. The so called free media in general – and New York Times in particular, cannot be trusted to provide honest information.

Pozner’s discourse is far more ‘byzantine’ than the ‘stream-lined’ version I used to illustrate what skillful propaganda looks like. Skillful maskirovka, more likely?

This post has become long enough. Let me wrap it up.

The main question here being ‘did he actually say it? Did Baker actually promised Gorbachev that “NATO will not move an inch eastward” ‘?

Having met with Genscher on his way into discussions with the Soviets, Baker repeated exactly the Genscher formulation in his meeting with Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze on February 9, 1990, (see Document 4); and even more importantly, face to face with Gorbachev.
Not once, but three times, Baker tried out the “not one inch eastward” formula with Gorbachev in the February 9, 1990, meeting. He agreed with Gorbachev’s statement in response to the assurances that “NATO expansion is unacceptable.” Baker assured Gorbachev that “neither the President nor I intend to extract any unilateral advantages from the processes that are taking place,” and that the Americans understood that “not only for the Soviet Union but for other European countries as well it is important to have guarantees that if the United States keeps its presence in Germany within the framework of NATO, not an inch of NATO’s present military jurisdiction will spread in an eastern direction.”

‘So he actually said it!’…

the Americans understood that “not only for the Soviet Union but for other European countries as well it is important to have guarantees that if the United States keeps its presence in Germany within the framework of NATO, not an inch of NATO’s present military jurisdiction will spread in an eastern direction.”

The Soviet Union is long gone, all the states which have been admitted into NATO are ‘in’ because they had asked themselves to join – and are now extremely glad to be protected by the famous 5th article – … while the only (frustrated) ‘agent’ who ever cried foul was Putin.
Not only cried foul but eventualy acted out his frustrations!

But Putin is not exactly alone…

Putin’s Munich speech was the first explicit warning of serious trouble if the West did not abandon its increasingly aggressive posture toward Russia; the Kremlin’s latest demands for security guarantees and a NATO military pullback from Russia’s borders may be the last warning. The United States and its allies are backing Russia into a corner, and that is profoundly unwise if the goal is to avoid war with a heavily armed great power.

Ted Galen Carpenter, Senior Fellow, Cato.org January 24, 2022

Trump: “How smart is that?”
Pompeo: “I have an enormous respect for him!”

Pozner seems to be somewhat right, after all.
His arguments don’t stand – as he had framed them – but he does have an inkling…

And yes, you can – and actually should, analyze my post following the steps I already mentioned.
Then please read this:

Manipulation: useful tool, mortal sin or what?!? April 27, 2015
‘Causing’ Circumstances March 1, 2022

There’s chess and there’s bridge.

There’s managing your resources – on your own, while trying to outsmart – out, in the open, your opponent.

And there’s team-work. An attempt to make the most of what lady-luck had put on the table by exchanging information. With your partner and in the presence of the competing team. This time only the conversation is out in the open, the resources themselves remain hidden. During the initial phase of the competition and, partially, during the end game.

Until WWI, war was more like chess than anything else. Resources were, more or less, out in the open. The soldiers had no other role but to do and die. The whole responsibility belonged to the guys who called the shots. One for each side…

WWI had ended indecisively. Hence WWII.

Each of the winning parties – there had been two victors, had learned something different from the experience.
The Western allies had learned the value of cooperation while the Eastern ‘block’ had reached the conclusion that brute force trumps everything.

The Americans had started playing bridge with the Brits and taught the game to the rest of the world.
The Russians had honed their skills at playing chess. Something they were already very good at.
For a while, the Americans have tried to compete with the Russians. Remember a guy named Fischer? Bobby Fischer?

Soon, too soon, the Americans had given up.
After building a computer smart enough to outsmart all human chess players…

The even worse part was that the Americans had given up bridge too!
And forgot the most important lesson of WWI and WWII. That the victor needs to take care of the vanquished if they want to enjoy peace. To actually win the peace process after they had already won the war.

Which brings us to the end of the Cold War.

Communism – and practically all communist states, had crumpled under its own weight.
The westerners assumed it was something they had done themselves. Declared victory.
And the end of history

Having already given up bridge, they forgot to take care of the vanquished… and allowed Russia – the party who had taken most of the blame over their shoulders, for reasons to be discussed some other time, to slide down the slope inaugurated by post WWI Germany.
Did I mention that Russia was still fond of chess? Very much in love with brute force? And not very fond of respectful cooperation?

Now, that we all try to peek into the future – attempting to figure out how the current aggression ordered by Putin will end up, we need some people to learn about bridge.

Putin cannot launch by himself the nuclear missiles he had been brandishing lately.

Now, can those around him reset the chess board on which they are but pawns into a bridge table?
And invite the rest of the world into the game?

Will the rest of us understand the invitation?
If, and when, it will come?