"Why Don't Russians Just Protest?"

[Debater Slayer]

A recent Reddit post that someone sent me today had around 27,000 upvotes. It was about Russians fleeing the country after Putin's announcement of mobilization, and a lot of the comments were blaming Russians because "surveys show that most of them support the war" and "Putin just does what most Russians want."

Aside from the disturbing lack of empathy for anti-war Russians who are now fleeing the country and being considered traitors by their country's government on the one hand and demonized by non-Russians on the other, I find it quite a naive view that surveys carried out in such a heavily dictatorial country are in any way reliable or representative of the population. It seems to me that some people are venting out their understandable frustration at Russian citizens who have no more power over what's happening than the rest of us watching from the sidelines.

The idea that some online commenters know so much about the view of "most Russians" to the point where they feel comfortable demonizing them for fleeing such an abusive regime is reprehensible. Americans, who are safe to protest and voice their opinions in ways that Russians can only dream of, are still grappling with their own hawkish politicians at home. George W. Bush won a second term after launching two wars, and Trump is still not off the table for a 2024 win despite his litany of legal and anti-democratic issues.

Yet we're supposed to shame Russians who are fleeing because they have no other option under Putin's autocratic, brutal regime because "why don't they just protest"? Apparently, it escapes some that toppling a regime like Putin's requires either immense organization of protests and significant turnout or a spontaneous breakout of such and, again, a significant number of protesters—quite possibly in the millions.

Are we supposed to shame a Russian person for feeling helpless that they can't just go out with their group of friends and acquaintances in a small protest that would almost surely be pointless and only cause them to be arrested, tortured, or killed?

Sometimes I get the impression that some people in relatively democratic countries have become so sheltered and disconnected from the reality of living under a dictatorship that they engage in such idealistic, unempathetic theorizing from the safety of their homes without considering the practical ramifications thereof. I have seen a lot of this ever since the start of the invasion, and it strikes me as extremely counterproductive and narrow-minded.

The Russians fleeing Putin's regime are potentially among the most important voices against his regime's crimes right now. Instead of lumping them in with warmongers and invaders, I think it would be much better to encourage them to speak out and support them in their own struggle against said regime.

What are your thoughts? Do most Russians really deserve condemnation and shaming, or are we unable to accurately gauge their sentiments and should, in the meantime, support those fleeing Putin's regime?

 

[Orbit]

They just know what they're told (news=propaganda). Protest is illegal, so I can't see blaming them for not protesting.

 

[Debater Slayer]

They just know what they're told (news=propaganda). Protest is illegal, so I can't see blaming them for not protesting.

It should be noted that major social media sites are also blocked there, which makes organizing any protests or reading opinions from outside sources even more difficult. In some cases, blaming an average Russian citizen for what is happening seems to me to make as little sense as blaming a North Korean for what Kim Jong-un's regime is doing.

 

[Brickjectivity]

A recent Reddit post that someone sent me today had around 27,000 upvotes. It was about Russians fleeing the country after Putin's announcement of mobilization, and a lot of the comments were blaming Russians because "surveys show that most of them support the war" and "Putin just does what most Russians want."

Aside from the disturbing lack of empathy for anti-war Russians who are now fleeing the country and being considered traitors by their country's government on the one hand and demonized by non-Russians on the other, I find it quite a naive view that surveys carried out in such a heavily dictatorial country are in any way reliable or representative of the population. It seems to me that some people are venting out their understandable frustration at Russian citizens who have no more power over what's happening than the rest of us watching from the sidelines.

The idea that some online commenters know so much about the view of "most Russians" to the point where they feel comfortable demonizing them for fleeing such an abusive regime is reprehensible. Americans, who are safe to protest and voice their opinions in ways that Russians can only dream of, are still grappling with their own hawkish politicians at home. George W. Bush won a second term after launching two wars, and Trump is still not off the table for a 2024 win despite his litany of legal and anti-democratic issues.

Yet we're supposed to shame Russians who are fleeing because they have no other option under Putin's autocratic, brutal regime because "why don't they just protest"? Apparently, it escapes some that toppling a regime like Putin's requires either immense organization of protests and significant turnout or a spontaneous breakout of such and, again, a significant number of protesters—quite possibly in the millions.

Are we supposed to shame a Russian person for feeling helpless that they can't just go out with their group of friends and acquaintances in a small protest that would almost surely be pointless and only cause them to be arrested, tortured, or killed?

Sometimes I get the impression that some people in relatively democratic countries have become so sheltered and disconnected from the reality of living under a dictatorship that they engage in such idealistic, unempathetic theorizing from the safety of their homes without considering the practical ramifications thereof. I have seen a lot of this ever since the start of the invasion, and it strikes me as extremely counterproductive and narrow-minded.

The Russians fleeing Putin's regime are potentially among the most important voices against his regime's crimes right now. Instead of lumping them in with warmongers and invaders, I think it would be much better to encourage them to speak out and support them in their own struggle against said regime.

What are your thoughts? Do most Russians really deserve condemnation and shaming, or are we unable to accurately gauge their sentiments and should, in the meantime, support those fleeing Putin's regime?

Vlad Vexler explains very well why it is that Russians are reticent to protest. They would be imprisoned for years. To imagine that we would protest in the face of years in a prison? That is pure imagination. Protest works when your media works and when you can use leverage. It works when you choose not to use the physical force that you have. It does not work when you have no leverage -- except that in the future you can say "I warned you. I told you to change course, but you didn't listen."

Leverage is the key to a successful protest. Why was Ghandi's fasting so effective? It was effective precisely because his life was holding back a violent uprising. What makes a protest successful is a powerful population: not poor people, not people with no guns, not people who will not be missed. Its people with power, with skills and with reputations and who cannot be dumped into prison without mercy. They can protest. In Russia very few people have that kind of protection and influence.

 

[sun rise]

demonized by non-Russians on the other,

Where? Is that something a lot of people are doing? Is there a reputable site / survey?

I find it quite a naive view that surveys carried out in such a heavily dictatorial country are in any way reliable or representative of the population.

Of course it isn't.

My parents left Russia at about the time of the revolution there. They got out while the getting was good and I'm grateful they did because they might have been killed otherwise and I would not be writing this.

I consequently have a very biased pro-refugee view whether they be refugees from Russia, Venezuela or any nation where their lives are at risk for any reason including having "heretical" views of Islam, for example.

 

[PureX]

We protest here in the U.S. all the time and it does nothing. Our politicians have no shame and no concern whatever for the needs or desires of the people. So why would we expect Russian politicians to care, when they could have the whole crowd of protesters sent off to work camps for the next decade?

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

A recent Reddit post that someone sent me today had around 27,000 upvotes. It was about Russians fleeing the country after Putin's announcement of mobilization, and a lot of the comments were blaming Russians because "surveys show that most of them support the war" and "Putin just does what most Russians want."

Aside from the disturbing lack of empathy for anti-war Russians who are now fleeing the country and being considered traitors by their country's government on the one hand and demonized by non-Russians on the other, I find it quite a naive view that surveys carried out in such a heavily dictatorial country are in any way reliable or representative of the population. It seems to me that some people are venting out their understandable frustration at Russian citizens who have no more power over what's happening than the rest of us watching from the sidelines.

The idea that some online commenters know so much about the view of "most Russians" to the point where they feel comfortable demonizing them for fleeing such an abusive regime is reprehensible. Americans, who are safe to protest and voice their opinions in ways that Russians can only dream of, are still grappling with their own hawkish politicians at home. George W. Bush won a second term after launching two wars, and Trump is still not off the table for a 2024 win despite his litany of legal and anti-democratic issues.

Yet we're supposed to shame Russians who are fleeing because they have no other option under Putin's autocratic, brutal regime because "why don't they just protest"? Apparently, it escapes some that toppling a regime like Putin's requires either immense organization of protests and significant turnout or a spontaneous breakout of such and, again, a significant number of protesters—quite possibly in the millions.

Are we supposed to shame a Russian person for feeling helpless that they can't just go out with their group of friends and acquaintances in a small protest that would almost surely be pointless and only cause them to be arrested, tortured, or killed?

Sometimes I get the impression that some people in relatively democratic countries have become so sheltered and disconnected from the reality of living under a dictatorship that they engage in such idealistic, unempathetic theorizing from the safety of their homes without considering the practical ramifications thereof. I have seen a lot of this ever since the start of the invasion, and it strikes me as extremely counterproductive and narrow-minded.

The Russians fleeing Putin's regime are potentially among the most important voices against his regime's crimes right now. Instead of lumping them in with warmongers and invaders, I think it would be much better to encourage them to speak out and support them in their own struggle against said regime.

What are your thoughts? Do most Russians really deserve condemnation and shaming, or are we unable to accurately gauge their sentiments and should, in the meantime, support those fleeing Putin's regime?

It was reported shortly after the draft was announced that some of the protestors were being arrested and immediately taken as 'recruits' by the Russian military. I have not seen or heard any more on this.

 

[Stevicus]

What are your thoughts? Do most Russians really deserve condemnation and shaming, or are we unable to accurately gauge their sentiments and should, in the meantime, support those fleeing Putin's regime?

I don't think they deserve condemnation and shaming as a people, at least not any more than any other nationality would be condemned for the actions of a few at the top.

However, I also understand how some people might argue that, theoretically, a people does have the power to change their government - even if they live under a dictatorship. Also, the rights to protest and vote are hardly a guarantee that the government will do what the people want.

Since 1905, there have been four revolutions in Russia - all under regimes where protest and free speech were not allowed. U.S. allows protest and free speech, yet there have been no revolutions or even any significant changes in power.

So, perhaps it's easier to change a government that's a dictatorship than a democracy?

 

[sun rise]

We protest here in the U.S. all the time and it does nothing. Our politicians have no shame and no concern whatever for the needs or desires of the people. So why would we expect Russian politicians to care, when they could have the whole crowd of protesters sent off to work camps for the next decade?

In the US over my long life I've observed and been a part of protests. The civil rights movement is an example of where they were done right and which changed history. Vietnam era protests helped stop the war.

Protests need to be peaceful, have a simple, clear message people can relate to, be part of a larger effort including voting and lobbying and be ready to deal with all sort of propaganda and violent opposition in response.

The vast majority of the time one or more of those conditions don't exist.

 

[Revoltingest]

A recent Reddit post that someone sent me today had around 27,000 upvotes. It was about Russians fleeing the country after Putin's announcement of mobilization, and a lot of the comments were blaming Russians because "surveys show that most of them support the war" and "Putin just does what most Russians want."

Aside from the disturbing lack of empathy for anti-war Russians who are now fleeing the country and being considered traitors by their country's government on the one hand and demonized by non-Russians on the other, I find it quite a naive view that surveys carried out in such a heavily dictatorial country are in any way reliable or representative of the population. It seems to me that some people are venting out their understandable frustration at Russian citizens who have no more power over what's happening than the rest of us watching from the sidelines.

The idea that some online commenters know so much about the view of "most Russians" to the point where they feel comfortable demonizing them for fleeing such an abusive regime is reprehensible. Americans, who are safe to protest and voice their opinions in ways that Russians can only dream of, are still grappling with their own hawkish politicians at home. George W. Bush won a second term after launching two wars, and Trump is still not off the table for a 2024 win despite his litany of legal and anti-democratic issues.

Yet we're supposed to shame Russians who are fleeing because they have no other option under Putin's autocratic, brutal regime because "why don't they just protest"? Apparently, it escapes some that toppling a regime like Putin's requires either immense organization of protests and significant turnout or a spontaneous breakout of such and, again, a significant number of protesters—quite possibly in the millions.

Are we supposed to shame a Russian person for feeling helpless that they can't just go out with their group of friends and acquaintances in a small protest that would almost surely be pointless and only cause them to be arrested, tortured, or killed?

Sometimes I get the impression that some people in relatively democratic countries have become so sheltered and disconnected from the reality of living under a dictatorship that they engage in such idealistic, unempathetic theorizing from the safety of their homes without considering the practical ramifications thereof. I have seen a lot of this ever since the start of the invasion, and it strikes me as extremely counterproductive and narrow-minded.

The Russians fleeing Putin's regime are potentially among the most important voices against his regime's crimes right now. Instead of lumping them in with warmongers and invaders, I think it would be much better to encourage them to speak out and support them in their own struggle against said regime.

What are your thoughts? Do most Russians really deserve condemnation and shaming, or are we unable to accurately gauge their sentiments and should, in the meantime, support those fleeing Putin's regime?

Russian draft dodgers are my kind of people.
That's why I only want the invaders to die.
And to be a war protester there is a brave
& noble calling.

 

[JustGeorge]

My heart goes out to both sides, at least when it comes to the civilians.

I doubt most of the Russian population has a clear picture of what's going on. Those that aren't dodging probably don't understand, or are too fear filled to disobey orders. Those who are fleeing are figuring it out.

 

[PureX]

In the US over my long life I've observed and been a part of protests. The civil rights movement is an example of where they were done right and which changed history. Vietnam era protests helped stop the war.

Protests need to be peaceful, have a simple, clear message people can relate to, be part of a larger effort including voting and lobbying and be ready to deal with all sort of propaganda and violent opposition in response.

The vast majority of the time one or more of those conditions don't exist.

Back in the 1960s and 70s when a politician was caught cheating on his wife, or his taxes, or taking a bribe he would immediately resign in shame, and be prosecuted if possible. Now days any politician caught doing anything dishonest or illegal just claims it's "fake news" and a "witch hunt" and keeps right on lying, cheating, and stealing. They have no shame, no integrity, and no concern whatever for the public. And odds are they'll be re-elected. So why would they?

 

[Revoltingest]

Back in the 1960s and 70s when a politician was caught cheating on his wife, or his taxes, or taking a bribe he would immediately resign in shame, and be prosecuted if possible.

I recall that news media caught JFK behaving badly,
but they cooperated in the cover-up. So politicians
getting their comeuppance was a hit-or-miss thing.
JFK wasn't alone, either, eg, J Edgar Hoover.
Things changed when Matt Drudge exposed Clinton
when other media were covering it up. But did he
suffer any legal sanction? No.

At least the age of media self-censorship about
politicians' mis-deeds is over. Now we have full
view of partisan hypocrisy, eg, feminists defending
Clinton's misogynism, MAGAs defending Trump's
many misdeeds.

 

[PureX]

I recall that news media caught JFK behaving badly,
but they cooperated in the cover-up. So politicians
getting their comeuppance was a hit-or-miss thing.
JFK wasn't alone, either, eg, J Edgar Hoover.
Things changed when Matt Drudge exposed Clinton
when other media were covering it up. But did he
suffer any legal sanction? No.

At least the age of media self-censorship about
politicians' mis-deeds is over. Now we have full
view of partisan hypocrisy, eg, feminists defending
Clinton's misogynism, MAGAs defending Trump's
many misdeeds.

Back in the day male sexual misconduct was considered by an overwhelmingly male press as being nobody's business. And so was often not reported on. But if it was brought to light, the subject would be shamed out of office, and out of politics. By the time Clinton's sexual behavior was 'outed', however, the public was no longer so outraged by sexual misconduct. And now days we'll re-elect even the most outrageous criminals.

 

[Stevicus]

Back in the day male sexual misconduct was considered by an overwhelmingly male press as being nobody's business. And so was often not reported on. But if it was brought to light, the subject would be shamed out of office, and out of politics. By the time Clinton's sexual behavior was 'outed', however, the public was no longer so outraged by sexual misconduct. And now days we'll re-elect even the most outrageous criminals.

I think the press were somewhat more provincial back then, where such stories were considered too lurid for a family newspaper, and were generally relegated to tabloids and gossip rags. As standards started to loosen in that regard, news media became more comfortable with the innuendos and rumors. And of course, JFK was pretty well-liked in a lot of influential circles, far better than Nixon.

So, I guess that's the dilemma. JFK was an adulterer, but he also supported civil rights, equality, social justice, and other liberal reforms to make life better for the poor and working people. Nixon was not an adulterer, but he was flawed in so many other ways.

 

[PureX]

I think the press were somewhat more provincial back then, where such stories were considered too lurid for a family newspaper, and were generally relegated to tabloids and gossip rags. As standards started to loosen in that regard, news media became more comfortable with the innuendos and rumors. And of course, JFK was pretty well-liked in a lot of influential circles, far better than Nixon.

So, I guess that's the dilemma. JFK was an adulterer, but he also supported civil rights, equality, social justice, and other liberal reforms to make life better for the poor and working people. Nixon was not an adulterer, but he was flawed in so many other ways.

Even MLK, himself. No one is morally perfect. Yet on the other hand, we shouldn't just accept total depravity in one's personal life and assume that it won't bleed over into their professional life, either. Or worse yet, accept it because they're on "our team", and pushing "our agenda". Which is what most voters are doing, these days.

 

[Stevicus]

Even MLK, himself. No one is morally perfect. Yet on the other hand, we shouldn't just accept total depravity in one's personal life and assume that it won't bleed over into their professional life, either. Or worse yet, accept it because they're on "our team", and pushing "our agenda". Which is what most voters are doing, these days.

I suppose it depends on the individual and whether they can keep their professional life separate from their private life. As voters, we're essentially hiring a politician to do a job for us. If they can do the job to our satisfaction, then their private life is their own affair. Of course, part of the job might mean maintaining a certain public image of dignity, restraint, and morals, so they can't go around like some kind of drunken lech.

 

[PureX]

I suppose it depends on the individual and whether they can keep their professional life separate from their private life. As voters, we're essentially hiring a politician to do a job for us. If they can do the job to our satisfaction, then their private life is their own affair. Of course, part of the job might mean maintaining a certain public image of dignity, restraint, and morals, so they can't go around like some kind of drunken lech.

Here is where I see this issue really coming to a head: let's take a fundamentalist Christian that wants to run for public office. If the voters give him that responsibility, is he going to serve his God (religion) when he goes to work each day? Or is he going to serve his constituents? What if his constituents want abortion to be available to women in the first trimester of a pregnancy and this "public servant" considers abortion at any time to be a sin against God and humanity?

It's for this reason that, as voters, or even as employers, we should never vote for or hire a fundamentalist Christian (or of any religion) for a public service position unless they are willing to fully commit to the fulfillment of their service responsibilities when they're on the job. Like a pharmacist that thinks birth control is a sin, etc., but that nevertheless fulfills his responsibility as a pharmacist when he's on the job.

Unfortunately, as voters, there are too many of us willfully voting to put people in public office that are NOT willing to serve the public as the office demands. And instead they want to serve only their God and their religion or their own selfish concepts of morality. These people are not fit for public service, by their own admission, yet we keep giving them those positions, anyway, because too many of us don't understand public service as being anything other than authoritarian rule.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

I think the press were somewhat more provincial back then, where such stories were considered too lurid for a family newspaper, and were generally relegated to tabloids and gossip rags. As standards started to loosen in that regard, news media became more comfortable with the innuendos and rumors. And of course, JFK was pretty well-liked in a lot of influential circles, far better than Nixon.

So, I guess that's the dilemma. JFK was an adulterer, but he also supported civil rights, equality, social justice, and other liberal reforms to make life better for the poor and working people. Nixon was not an adulterer, but he was flawed in so many other ways.

The turning point seemed to be Senator Hart, who essentially dared to the media to go public with his affair...after which he got in the car with his girlfriend and drove off for a private weekend away from his wife...

Okay, maybe it didn't happen just that way, but it was sure close...