Fake priest: Russian "liberals" - the largest enemy of Ukraine after Putin

Do you sympathize with Russian mobilized? What did you do to save them? Actively disrupted mobilization, coordinated attempts against war in Ukraine? "Good Russians" try to explain that they sympathize with the Russian mobilized purely human. After all, these people deserve sympathy: they are forcibly driven into the army and thrown out of almost without food, clothing and equipment. Therefore, they are assisted, they say, a natural manifestation of compassion and universal values. Let's deal with.

Context liga. net. In Latvia, a license for the broadcasting of the Russian "opposition" Putin regime "Rain" was canceled because of the threat of national security and public order. The reason is the scandal from December 1.

The host of the TV channel Alexei Korostelov urged the Russians to write them about violations during the mobilization of the war against Ukraine and told that the channel helps to provide the occupiers: "We hope that many military personnel have been able to help, for example, with equipment and simply elementary amenities on the front. " The channel management released him and tried to prove that the words of the presenter seemed to be misunderstood.

Korostolov himself does not regret what was said. First, there is a legal side of the case. Aggression is the "mother of war crimes", all the rest. There would be no aggressive invasion - there would be no killings of civilians, rapes, looting, etc. From a legal point of view - an order to participate in the act of aggression - is a criminal order, the execution of which cannot be explained at the household level "I was told, I ran.

" International legislation condemns aggression and considers any assistance to the aggressor army complicity in a crime. Second, there is a moral side of the case. The war switches the front morality into black and white. All who on the side of weapons are military criminals whose kill correctly and from the point of view of morality, not just rights. As the Russian publicist Oleksandr Osovtsov emphasized, the concept of pre -war or post -war times is not suitable for war.

You have to choose who you sympathize with - the soldiers of the aggressor army or the soldiers and the civilian country that was the victim of the aggressor. Do you sympathize with soldiers? And the civilians, who were tortured, did not sympathize? And for the children who were abducted from their families? Very selective compassion, and it reveals the essence well: you sympathize with the Russian mobilized, because they are "their own", not through universal values.

Third, there is a practical side of the case. Do you sympathize with the Russian mobilized because they are sorry, they die for the soul? And what did you do to save these people? Maybe he actively disrupted the mobilization, explained how to hide and run? Maybe he coordinated attempts from protests? No? Then it's just a false priesthood. Here you guys, knitted socks, you will die with warm legs.

The reasons for this behavior are clear: the media does not want to lose the audience, and the audience still supports the war. And here we reach the main thing - to the moment of moral choice. If you are a journalist, editor, publisher, you have a moral choice. Take a rigid anti -war position (it's not so scary from emigration) by losing audience. Or dance with a tambourine around your auditory, realizing that sooner or later your dance leads to the fact that this Avilletoria will die.

But it will be then. As the prison culture says, "you dream today and I'm tomorrow" (integral dynamics experts remember that the red paradigm is devoid of time). So, you can take people out of Russia, but it is much more difficult to remove Russia (namely prison culture). I have repeatedly urged to divide the Russians not into good or bad, but on useful, harmful and unimportant. Independent media journalists are generally useful. But don't look for good ones.