We explore real-life reformation here in this informed, online community.
After the big interview, I said to my wife, "I wish I could have briefed Putin before the interview on how best to connect with Americans and what to be sure not to leave out."
I think he missed an opportunity to document some of the most critical information on Ukrainian war crimes committed against Russia prior to The Special Military Operation of 2022.
But perhaps President Putin would have replied to me, "Mr. Botkin, thank you for your advice, but you fail to understand just how irrelevant America has become in serious discussions about foreign policy and world affairs. My interest is not in "connecting" with Americans, but in speaking to the hundreds of millions in those nations which did not join the West in sanctions against Russia. They listen carefully to what I say, even my lengthy history lessons."
This reality may have been best summarized by the writer SIMPLICIUS in the following post:
SIMPLICIUS Ѱ @simpatico771
"Westoids complaining about Putin's interview being too pedantic have an inflated sense of self-worth: they assume the interview is primarily designed to appeal to them. Little do they know the West has become so irrelevant that it's no longer even necessarily the chief intended audience for Putin's transmissions.
"For instance, many of Putin's statements go viral in China, generating hundreds of millions or even billions of views/impressions on sites like Weibo, vastly larger engagements than the entire population of most of the West combined. In the east, where the citizenry is learned, historically-literate, etc., Putin's longueurs are actually appreciated, dissected, and discussed. This is particularly the case in China, where the majority of people are not only history buffs, but have a sacred respect for history and tradition.
"In the West, Putin's words may fall on deaf ears and be drowned out by illiterate popculture noise, but the West is no longer relevant to the world. In other places, Putin's words will reverberate, consummating their intended effects."
11:06 PM · Feb 8, 2024
Rod Dreher asks, "I don’t understand why the government doesn’t deploy the army and shoot rioters until they stop. Philippe Lemoine, a Frenchman, says it’s not that simple."
Excerpt:
"We have let things rot for so long that, at this point, relying primarily on force to restore order would require a degree of violence far greater than what people realize and what is politically feasible.
It's possible to contain a riot using only moderate force when the number of police officers is high relative to the number of rioters, but when riots are so widespread and involve so many people because you have allowed this kind of things to happen for so long, that's just not possible and you have to use extreme violence to make up for the lack of manpower.
I know people on the Internet will say that it doesn't matter and that we should just do it, but the reality is that most of the people in charge are not prepared to use that kind of force and neither would most ordinary people if they saw ...
Even Marine Le Pen’s recent statements track this line: personal Islamic practice is compatible with the Republic; replacing French law with Sharia is not. French Muslims who are simply citizens practicing their "religious faith" “have no reason to worry” about a Le Pen election victory.
But can one be a practicing Muslim without demanding and practicing Sharia?
