Google translated and edited for clarity

Vladimir Putin's interpretation of globalization led to the war in Ukraine. This is what the Israeli Russia researcher Vera Michlin-Shapir says in an interview for Svenska Yle. For several years, Vladimir Putin was afraid that Ukraine, despite all its flaws, wanted to become a free society characterized by diversity, and a technologically progressive place with an open economy. So says Vera Michlin-Shapir, Russia researcher at King's College in London and expert on the impact of globalization in Russia.

Yes, that's the reason. That's literally the only reason, nothing else. You nailed it.

According to Michlin-Shapir, a Westernized Ukraine was not only a threat because of Ukraine's geographical proximity. It was also a threat that the Russian people could see a culturally related people choosing Europe over Putin's Russia.

Yes, choosing, by their own free will! Perhaps you don't get it, as the russian brainpan simply cannot comprehend superior Evropean freedom.

• Globalization has affected Russia very much. But the conclusions that Putin and the Russians have drawn do not fit together at all with the Western vision. In Russia, the global world is neither free nor democratic, but corrupt and hypocritical. What they experience is that everyone thinks only of themselves - leaders everywhere in the world want to get rich at the expense of others.

??? yes? where's the lie?

Michlin-Shapir, herself from Israel, does not dismiss these conclusions, but sees them as grossly simplistic.

• In the West, we also see equality, civil society, human rights and solidarity as essential parts of globalization. At least in principle, in practice globalization has not achieved what it should.

Ah yes, of course. Again, the Russian brainpan cannot comprehend such concepts. I also absolutely love that part about "in principle, but not in practice". A bug, not a feature, naturally. lol. lmao even.

In Russia, people appreciate a different freedom than that which the West offers A clear difference between Russia and the West, which is reinforced by globalization, is the view of what freedom means. This also applies to most Russians living abroad, says Michlin-Shapir.

• In Russia, freedom is something you can practice on your own. You can be against the war in your heart, in your home, around the kitchen table. Freedom is private. And maybe secret?
• Yes. As long as neither the state nor anyone else forces me to do anything, I am free. This is different from the West, where freedom is to leave the kitchen and go out and speak your mind.

Jesus fucking christ. I don't even know where to begin with this take. Sure, I'm fine with fascist death squads gunning down minorities in the streets, as long as I can leave my kitchen and go out and said "hey that's not very nice". The government really just lets me do that. Ah, sweet freedom.

It also contrasts with the democratic ideal where citizens are expected to act collectively when leaders do wrong.

A thing that happens regularly in the west and is effective at bringing about change. I'm sure the author is in full support of the palestinian people who act collectively when the leaders do wrong. or any other left-wing uprisings, for that matter. fuck off

Michlin-Shapir says that the Russian ideal of freedom simply stands in the way of an effective opposition. The regime has had no problem shoving aside the small minority that wants to bring it down.

That's right, here in the West we let small minorities of literal fascists do what they want, because Freedom.

On the other hand, for the same reason, the war is becoming a problem for Putin.

• The longer it goes on, and especially if there is another mobilization, the Kremlin has let it affect the freedom of Russians. Many Russians realize that things are not going well for the country.
• The Kremlin's authority is collapsing, but there is no one who can confirm to the people that it is happening.

Is it? Is it really?

Nor is there anyone who can offer an alternative that fits into the kind of isolationist and highly individualistic view of freedom that the Russians pursue.

• We see from the outside that Russia has already collapsed in many ways, but what holds the country together is the people's belief that the state still works. Russians feel that they are freer than people in the West despite the increasing repression, says Israeli Russia researcher Vera Michlin-Shapir from King's College in London.

Something something stones and glass houses, I can't remember the saying.

One of the biggest obstacles to Russia becoming a democratic society is the Russian victim mentality, says British Russia expert Keir Giles in an interview to Svenska Yle. According to Keir Giles, the fall of the Putin regime is not enough in the long run for Russian society to change. He believes it will take generations.

• In the Russian narrative, Russia is always a victim of the evil manipulations of the outside world, he says. It cannot be shaken by presenting historical facts. Giles is a Russia researcher at the British think tank Chatham House.

Hohoho, silly russians, what nonsense they believe in. oh shit, sudden pop quiz!!! What was the main reason NATO was founded?

• All the evidence will inevitably be twisted so that Russia is a victim. Indeed, there are several occasions when the West and several nations together have collectively helped Russia.
• In the Russian narrative, they have deliberately omitted facts, says Giles, such as that the West provided extensive financial support and food to the Soviet Union during glasnost in the 1980s.
• The USA and allies also provided food, money and war material in the years 1941 to 1945.

out of the kindness of our hearts. we just wanted to provide humanitarian aid to your suffering population.

It was during those years that Russia sacrificed so much to, together with its allies in the West, defeat Nazi Germany. The so-called Lend–Lease Act was adopted in 1941. In May 2022, US President Joe Biden signed a similar support package for Ukraine.

• In today's Russian historiography, the help the Soviet Union received has been turned into the West exploiting the Soviet Union, says Giles.

objectively false, as western aid has always been 100% no-strings-attached.

Giles on the Iron Curtain: Foreign influences have always been a direct threat to power

• Vladimir Putin's Russia has for a couple of decades built walls to keep foreign opinions and ideas out. This in itself is nothing new in Russian history, says Giles.
• The elite in the Kremlin have for centuries protected themselves by isolating the people from the outside world, he adds. Foreign influences have always been a direct threat to power.

we, the enlightened ones, the beacons of freedom, openness, and democracy. would never do such a thing.

The Kremlin's logic is inherently correct, a clueless people are easier to handle. This is also a conclusion foreign guests of the Kremlin have come to for hundreds of years.

• If the Russians learn what the outside world really looks like, and vice versa, says Giles, it leads to the fall of the government. And that's actually how it went in the 1980s.

fuckinggggggg, duuuuude, jesus christ, I'm gonna have a stroke

• In order for Western narratives to reach the Russian population and really convince the broad layers of the population, it takes much more than the fall of the Putin regime, says Giles.
• It requires a fundamental change of the entire Russian society. Such a change takes a long time. According to Giles, this is one reason why the ongoing conflict between Russia and the West cannot end soon.

Now he's saying that we are trying to destroy Russian society? Just not with nukes, but by ~~propaganda~~ non-violently enlightening them about the wonders of neoliberalism in the rational and objective marketplace of ideas.

We are talking about a conflict that takes generations, but is also waged between different generations within Russia.

• The Russia problem will not disappear in such a way as many think.

"The Russia problem", yes. That's not even google translate being wonky. What exactly is the Russia problem? That it exists in opposition to western hegemony? We're gonna have a lot more "problems" in the future then.

For example, it is said that a Ukrainian victory could be a miracle cure for Russia.

Many are saying it!

Although Giles believes that Ukraine must win on the battlefield, this does not necessarily mean that Russia will change.

• Russia is still on the way down and is in a historic phase that we have seen before. The oppression and aggressiveness get worse and worse until we approach a totalitarian state.

Something that is exclusively happening in russia right now, and nowhere else on earth (except in china, I'm guessing).

Ukraine cannot create a Russian revolution. History shows that the turning point is always a radical change inside Russia.

Sure dude I'd fucking love another bolshevik uprising in russia, hell yeah dude. I'm glad we agree on at least one thing: bring back the soviet union, am I right.

...right?

• A Ukrainian victory is only a catalyst in that change. It wouldn't even be the beginning of it. We have a long way to go.

Interesting take I haven't considered before: an ukrainian victory would be a catalyst for the next bolshevik uprising. These people are referring to a communist revolution when they say "change", right?

Is Russia's victim mentality Putin's strongest weapon?

• Russia's victim narrative is inviolable. It is part of the national myth.

yeah yeah yeah shut the fuck up, I'm done with this fucking garbage