"("Hard to be a God") but my reading is that this is done in order to debunk it"
I read it in the late seventies, and my impression was that it was a justification for Soviet propaganda and interference in other countries, that were "stuck in capitalism". They believed that Soviet Russia had "superior technology and knowledge" to make things better, but "the wheels of history must do their job", and the wise Soviet agents could only save some outstanding personalities to make them believe in the communist revolution, that is inevitable.
But I can be wrong, I have to read it again now. I still have it on my bookshelf.
I read it in the late 80s, or maybe even after the 1989 transition. My impression was completely different, that Arkanar stood for the Soviet Union, with its unwashed (literally) and violent masses. Don Reba's coup d'etat was the October Revolution and the Grays were possibly the communist cadres, feared but ultimately replaceable in a purge by the Blacks, i.e. CheKa/KGB. I only couldn't place Don Rumata - was he a Saviour figure representing the civilised West?
Don Rumata in the book was explicitly a Russian from Communist Earth, delegated by a KGB- or GRU-like organization to move Arkanar society in the "right" direction (in the long term, of course).
It is very difficult to "reinterpret" that.
And it is very easy for Girkin, to identify with this character.
I interpret Girkin's little short story as being in direct opposition to Strugatsky's original. Don Rumata is nowhere, the message is "we don't need Don Rumatas, we need Don Reba to finally do his job".
Don Rumata might have been a Communist in the book - of course, he would have to be. But Strugatskys are reputed to have been nearly banned in the 80s, with the reason, quoting a Ministry of Culture official, being: "The books that they have written are indeed Communist, but they are anti-Soviet...."
I cannot stop thinking about this Girkin's comment - his interpretation of the book must be similar to mine. He could believe that he is a "better Don Rumata", without all these "rules of contact" restrictions, bringing progress to the planet of Donbass.
I read it again in the last few days, so I can give good answers:
In the book, the noble Don Rumata got drunk with Baron Pampa. Even though he took some medicine that would allow him to drink without losing control, he couldn't remember what he did that night. It wasn't described in the book, but his girlfriend was very scared and tried to believe, it was just a bad dream. Don Rumata's only explanation was "it wasn't a dream", and everything was fine. None of his superiors cared.
At the end of the book Don Rumata gets mad about his girlfriend's death and kills a lot of people. He is evacuated (please note the massive use of sleep-inducing gas, as in the 2002 Moscow theater hostage crisis), but he is not punished. The problem is more, that he may not be able to work as an agent anymore. (Of course, this is just my reading).
Why should Girkin have any problem believing that he is a Don Rumata of the Donbass? I think, this book could be a mandatory reading in the KGB/FSB/GRU.
Гиркин рассказал, что в результате прихода на Донбасс русского мира в 2014 году там начался голод. И многие пенсионеры умирали в своих квартирах от нехватки еды и лекарств.
При "фашистской Украине" от голода никто не умирал, но потом Россия решила "спасти Донбасс" и началось...
Translated from Russian by
Girkin said that as a result of the arrival of the Russian world in the Donbass in 2014, famine began there. And many pensioners were dying in their apartments from lack of food and medicine.
Under "fascist Ukraine" no one died of hunger, but then Russia decided to "save the Donbass" and it began ...
Thanks. This is actually supporting CMOS hypothesis. I'm reading Girkin for some time now - I think I could run in a trivia quiz about him! - and I think he is (a) aware of all the evil he caused, including death of many innocent civilians, (b) strongly convinced it was all for the greater good, because no matter who died where, Russia regained Crimea and large chunks of Donbas. So yes, he sees himself as Don Rumata, sometimes truly worried by all that carnage and all, yet convinced he is pushing history in the right direction, all things considered.
I must confess to a sort of unhealthy – how shall I put it? – fascination(?) with Girkin. Judging from the comments of other viewers of the Andromeda channel on YouTube, where many of his videos and posts are translated into Polish, I'm not the only one.
One obvious reason is that he's always pessimistic about how the events will turn out for Russia, and much of what he says seems believable. This obviously cheers us up.
But there is something more. Let's put it this way: I can easily imagine an alternative reality in which Girkin is a good guy standing on the right side. On the other hand, I find it hard to imagine the likes of Soloviev, Putin or Prigozhin as good guys, even in very different circumstances.
What's more, much of what he says seems to be right on the money, and sometimes I have to remind myself that I'm listening to a ruthless war criminal.
Of course, every now and then he says something utterly ridiculous, which reminds me that his views are crazy after all. One of the most recent things that I remember was his belief that Poland would be ready to invade western Ukraine if given the chance. That's obviously nonsense on many levels.
But sometimes he says things that almost seem as if he actually prefers Western values to Russian values. For example, he often worries that a lot of things in Russia are not done according to the law. Like, come on, a Russian imperialist who wants his czar to be constrained by the law??? And in one of the latest videos he argues why Russian government officials should take public transport to work instead of riding in their luxury cars. And he concludes that unfortunately this won't happen, because Russia is not Sweden.
It's almost as if he's just one step away from discovering that instead of wasting everything on stupid territorial expansion, Russia could have adopted a political and economic system based on Western values, and lived in prosperity and peace. Of course, Girkin is wanted in The Hague, so there's no way he'll come to such a conclusion in this timeline. But, perhaps, as I said, in an alternate timeline...
Do you have similar impressions? Or have I been taken in by a fake persona that he's created?
Girkin shot down a civilian airliner with hundreds of passengers on board. He wouldn't be under any circumstances a "good guy". He's an evil bastard, just is just more and better outspoken than most of his kind.
I know that he shot it down, I did write that he is wanted in The Hague. That's why I wrote about an alternate timeline. I think what I was trying to say is that Girkin seems to be "lawful evil", and that makes him unusual in Russia, which is full of "chaotic evil" characters.
And the operator of BUK, whoever he or she was, thought that he or she was aiming at a Ukrainian military target (at least that's the only reasonable explanation). That means that neither of them committed murder. The operator of BUK committed involuntary manslaughter, and Girkin – gross negligence resulting in death.
"at least that's the only reasonable explanation" - not really. This is Russia, so the only reasonable explanation is THEY DID NOT CARE. As the leader of the 2014 Donbas invasion, Girkin is responsible for all the consequences, including the legendary "8000 victims of genocidal shelling". He knew people will die because of what he did, and he just DID NOT CARE. So yes, it is appropriate to call him a "murderer".
I'm not a lawyer, but it also occurs to me that operating under a false flag ("green men", "uniforms like that can be bought in any military surplus store" etc.) might violate some international laws and make them criminals in even more ways than this.
If it was a war crime, Zelensky could also be tried in The Hague for authorizing a false flag operation in the Belgorod region. It's hard to imagine that he didn't know about it. I doubt that he would be tried for it, even if his knowledge of it was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
We already know that the 2014-2022 war was a false flag war. Soldiers of one army pretending to belong to another.
What evidence do you have that the Belgorod incursion was performed by Ukraine's army only pretending to be the Liberty of Russia Legion and the Russian Volunteer Corps?
Maybe he could, but for some very peculiar reason, Russia does not cooperate with ICC or other international bodies and does not provide them with evidence allowing them to start persecution.
IANAL, but I think the really criminal thing would be for the RU troops to fight without any uniforms, pretending to be civilians. Russian troops pretending to be non-Russian is duplicituous, but IDK if - on its own - criminal.
That is exactly what I said – they did not care, therefore it is gross negligence, not murder. Murder is when you actually care about killing someone and succeed in doing so.
It depends on his aims. If he intends to kill anyone, no matter whom, then he achieves that goal by killing random victims, and is therefore a murderer. If he intends to kill some specific people, but misses and kills some random victims instead, then he can be charged with murder attempt and involuntary manslaughter, but not with murder.
"thought that he or she was aiming at a Ukrainian military target (at least that's the only reasonable explanation)" - why is it the only reasonable explanation? an equally reasonable explanation is "shoot down a civilian airliner and blame it on the Ukrainians to sour their relations with the West".
"("Hard to be a God") but my reading is that this is done in order to debunk it"
I read it in the late seventies, and my impression was that it was a justification for Soviet propaganda and interference in other countries, that were "stuck in capitalism". They believed that Soviet Russia had "superior technology and knowledge" to make things better, but "the wheels of history must do their job", and the wise Soviet agents could only save some outstanding personalities to make them believe in the communist revolution, that is inevitable.
But I can be wrong, I have to read it again now. I still have it on my bookshelf.
I read it in the late 80s, or maybe even after the 1989 transition. My impression was completely different, that Arkanar stood for the Soviet Union, with its unwashed (literally) and violent masses. Don Reba's coup d'etat was the October Revolution and the Grays were possibly the communist cadres, feared but ultimately replaceable in a purge by the Blacks, i.e. CheKa/KGB. I only couldn't place Don Rumata - was he a Saviour figure representing the civilised West?
Don Rumata in the book was explicitly a Russian from Communist Earth, delegated by a KGB- or GRU-like organization to move Arkanar society in the "right" direction (in the long term, of course).
It is very difficult to "reinterpret" that.
And it is very easy for Girkin, to identify with this character.
I interpret Girkin's little short story as being in direct opposition to Strugatsky's original. Don Rumata is nowhere, the message is "we don't need Don Rumatas, we need Don Reba to finally do his job".
Don Rumata might have been a Communist in the book - of course, he would have to be. But Strugatskys are reputed to have been nearly banned in the 80s, with the reason, quoting a Ministry of Culture official, being: "The books that they have written are indeed Communist, but they are anti-Soviet...."
For me, Don Rumata is the narrator, but of course you can have a different interpretation.
I cannot stop thinking about this Girkin's comment - his interpretation of the book must be similar to mine. He could believe that he is a "better Don Rumata", without all these "rules of contact" restrictions, bringing progress to the planet of Donbass.
That would explain a lot.
How can he believe it? He was in Donbas. He knows how the Russians plundered it and exploited the population.
I read it again in the last few days, so I can give good answers:
In the book, the noble Don Rumata got drunk with Baron Pampa. Even though he took some medicine that would allow him to drink without losing control, he couldn't remember what he did that night. It wasn't described in the book, but his girlfriend was very scared and tried to believe, it was just a bad dream. Don Rumata's only explanation was "it wasn't a dream", and everything was fine. None of his superiors cared.
At the end of the book Don Rumata gets mad about his girlfriend's death and kills a lot of people. He is evacuated (please note the massive use of sleep-inducing gas, as in the 2002 Moscow theater hostage crisis), but he is not punished. The problem is more, that he may not be able to work as an agent anymore. (Of course, this is just my reading).
Why should Girkin have any problem believing that he is a Don Rumata of the Donbass? I think, this book could be a mandatory reading in the KGB/FSB/GRU.
Of course, one should never underestimate the strength of other peoples' conviction that they're the good guys.
And then: https://twitter.com/den_kazansky/status/1675813074312347649?t=qVlnm7zibqZMDKWcSGh6fg&s=19
Денис Казанський
@den_kazansky
Гиркин рассказал, что в результате прихода на Донбасс русского мира в 2014 году там начался голод. И многие пенсионеры умирали в своих квартирах от нехватки еды и лекарств.
При "фашистской Украине" от голода никто не умирал, но потом Россия решила "спасти Донбасс" и началось...
Translated from Russian by
Girkin said that as a result of the arrival of the Russian world in the Donbass in 2014, famine began there. And many pensioners were dying in their apartments from lack of food and medicine.
Under "fascist Ukraine" no one died of hunger, but then Russia decided to "save the Donbass" and it began ...
Can you post a screenshot - as long as Twitter is still running?
I don't know how :( but I added the text version.
Thanks. This is actually supporting CMOS hypothesis. I'm reading Girkin for some time now - I think I could run in a trivia quiz about him! - and I think he is (a) aware of all the evil he caused, including death of many innocent civilians, (b) strongly convinced it was all for the greater good, because no matter who died where, Russia regained Crimea and large chunks of Donbas. So yes, he sees himself as Don Rumata, sometimes truly worried by all that carnage and all, yet convinced he is pushing history in the right direction, all things considered.
I must confess to a sort of unhealthy – how shall I put it? – fascination(?) with Girkin. Judging from the comments of other viewers of the Andromeda channel on YouTube, where many of his videos and posts are translated into Polish, I'm not the only one.
One obvious reason is that he's always pessimistic about how the events will turn out for Russia, and much of what he says seems believable. This obviously cheers us up.
But there is something more. Let's put it this way: I can easily imagine an alternative reality in which Girkin is a good guy standing on the right side. On the other hand, I find it hard to imagine the likes of Soloviev, Putin or Prigozhin as good guys, even in very different circumstances.
What's more, much of what he says seems to be right on the money, and sometimes I have to remind myself that I'm listening to a ruthless war criminal.
Of course, every now and then he says something utterly ridiculous, which reminds me that his views are crazy after all. One of the most recent things that I remember was his belief that Poland would be ready to invade western Ukraine if given the chance. That's obviously nonsense on many levels.
But sometimes he says things that almost seem as if he actually prefers Western values to Russian values. For example, he often worries that a lot of things in Russia are not done according to the law. Like, come on, a Russian imperialist who wants his czar to be constrained by the law??? And in one of the latest videos he argues why Russian government officials should take public transport to work instead of riding in their luxury cars. And he concludes that unfortunately this won't happen, because Russia is not Sweden.
It's almost as if he's just one step away from discovering that instead of wasting everything on stupid territorial expansion, Russia could have adopted a political and economic system based on Western values, and lived in prosperity and peace. Of course, Girkin is wanted in The Hague, so there's no way he'll come to such a conclusion in this timeline. But, perhaps, as I said, in an alternate timeline...
Do you have similar impressions? Or have I been taken in by a fake persona that he's created?
Girkin shot down a civilian airliner with hundreds of passengers on board. He wouldn't be under any circumstances a "good guy". He's an evil bastard, just is just more and better outspoken than most of his kind.
I know that he shot it down, I did write that he is wanted in The Hague. That's why I wrote about an alternate timeline. I think what I was trying to say is that Girkin seems to be "lawful evil", and that makes him unusual in Russia, which is full of "chaotic evil" characters.
However, Reddit seems to disagree ;) https://www.reddit.com/r/NonCredibleDiplomacy/comments/yo7q1e/russian_opposition_alinement_chart/
Girkin didn't shoot down MH370 nor did he order shooting it (why would he?). His guilt is that he "did nothing to stop the use of the Buk missile": https://nltimes.nl/2022/11/17/three-convicted-sentenced-life-prison-downing-flight-mh17-one-acquitted
And the operator of BUK, whoever he or she was, thought that he or she was aiming at a Ukrainian military target (at least that's the only reasonable explanation). That means that neither of them committed murder. The operator of BUK committed involuntary manslaughter, and Girkin – gross negligence resulting in death.
"at least that's the only reasonable explanation" - not really. This is Russia, so the only reasonable explanation is THEY DID NOT CARE. As the leader of the 2014 Donbas invasion, Girkin is responsible for all the consequences, including the legendary "8000 victims of genocidal shelling". He knew people will die because of what he did, and he just DID NOT CARE. So yes, it is appropriate to call him a "murderer".
I'm not a lawyer, but it also occurs to me that operating under a false flag ("green men", "uniforms like that can be bought in any military surplus store" etc.) might violate some international laws and make them criminals in even more ways than this.
If it was a war crime, Zelensky could also be tried in The Hague for authorizing a false flag operation in the Belgorod region. It's hard to imagine that he didn't know about it. I doubt that he would be tried for it, even if his knowledge of it was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
We already know that the 2014-2022 war was a false flag war. Soldiers of one army pretending to belong to another.
What evidence do you have that the Belgorod incursion was performed by Ukraine's army only pretending to be the Liberty of Russia Legion and the Russian Volunteer Corps?
Maybe he could, but for some very peculiar reason, Russia does not cooperate with ICC or other international bodies and does not provide them with evidence allowing them to start persecution.
IANAL, but I think the really criminal thing would be for the RU troops to fight without any uniforms, pretending to be civilians. Russian troops pretending to be non-Russian is duplicituous, but IDK if - on its own - criminal.
That is exactly what I said – they did not care, therefore it is gross negligence, not murder. Murder is when you actually care about killing someone and succeed in doing so.
So you mean if someone just unloads their AR-15 into a crowd, killing random victims - he's not a murderer?
It depends on his aims. If he intends to kill anyone, no matter whom, then he achieves that goal by killing random victims, and is therefore a murderer. If he intends to kill some specific people, but misses and kills some random victims instead, then he can be charged with murder attempt and involuntary manslaughter, but not with murder.
"thought that he or she was aiming at a Ukrainian military target (at least that's the only reasonable explanation)" - why is it the only reasonable explanation? an equally reasonable explanation is "shoot down a civilian airliner and blame it on the Ukrainians to sour their relations with the West".