There will be no dialogue. Why do the Russians not understand Ukrainians
After all, they are a foundation for discourse that Russia accepts through its propaganda machine, and which still (and often, unfortunately, successfully) limits our ability to defend our country's position in external and even internal discussions.
These attitudes are not as obvious as the "Guards" or "Adinnus", but they are more insidious, because in order to identify them, the Russian mentality should be understood more deeply (I understand the non -scientific term, but it is illustrative, so I will further replace the term national culture). Understanding these settings shows that a direct dialogue with the Russians is a waste of time at any level.
But the disclosure of their thinking to Europe, which slowly and in places releases the "stunning" Russian culture - a fully implemented task. Video Day Observance due to Violence is the norm. Russia is a vertical collectivistic country where the group's interest in the group, not the person, and the dominance of the "vestibule" - automatic and does not require the adoption of the leader by the group.
And if in Ukraine (also partially vertical and collective) everyone defends their interests within the common interests of the group, then in Russia it is expected that you will give way to your interest for the sake of the group-or you will be forced. An effective leader is able to seek obedience quickly and (usually) through oppression and violence. Not to explain, but to force, not to agree, but to "push" your position at any expense.
Conclusion for us: attempts to persuade Abuzer to negotiate and limit his attraction to Abius - a naive and waste of time, because Russia only understands power. Timothy Snyder writes that in order to have a ghostly chance to become a normal country, Russia has to lose this war painfully. Country without essence and meaning. Various cohorts of scientists and analysts, about 10 years ago, came to the conclusion that Russia is one of the most disparate societies in the world.
In fact, it is not a nation - a territory with a population that hates the elite and has no national idea as such. And the fact that the top of the years "sell" is the imperial gluttony and the past, which must be "returned". And ask the average Russian that he/her from that "greatness" will not be able to explain from a practical point of view.
The conclusion for us: the Russians do not have extensive experience in defending their independence or agency, the lion's part of their population is still not in fact, because he does not decide anything (without influence and pressure) in his life. Therefore, their sympathy in some places is superficial and empty, because they have no understanding of how it is, voluntarily and at risk of fighting for their country.
Snyder writes that as the population of the "selfish empire", the Russians are unable to even stop putting themselves in the empathy center of Ukraine and whine about their suffering when Ukrainians actually suffer from their hands. Man and his life is not value, but material. It seems to be so visible from the former "first army of the world" and as described by "Malenka Celovek" in Roslit. And in Russian history, examples of mass and futile deaths of ordinary people are just a cloud.
And yet, there are still those who think that the Russians can reach. Snyder writes about the filigree spent mechanism of dehumanization of "ungulates" in Russia on the example of the use of the word "Nazis" and "Nazis" - when these words are a kind of label for labeling outsiders, which will then be destroyed. Conclusion for us: the Russians do not apply to our examples of inhuman actions of their army, because for them Ukrainians are not people, but "Bandera", "Nazis" and "Khokhli".
Therefore, all their "liberals" and "sympathy" break about the issues of visas for the Russians ("And for us?" Therefore, Russian friends, acquaintances and relatives are silent. And even to those who are ashamed of the war, at the same time a pity of Russians who do not give a visa (here is the key word "as if"). Lack of life experience is not in dictatorship.
Researchers of authoritarian regimes have come to the conclusion that when a country does not have significant periods of life in the dictatorship, society does not grow "or fully atrophies autonomous thinking and agency. In simple words - decisions are made "up" and descended "down", where they are executed or sabotage. Protest attempts (in the number at the level of statistical error) are condemned massively domestically and, themselves supplied.
But most importantly, researchers write, the Russians do not have to absorb the non-aggressive, immutable and open format of relations, because all institutions in the country are vertical and punishment. Conclusion for us: freedom in the sense of "will" is not value for the Russians, it is dangerous and incomprehensible to them, because it causes obedience to consent, and not on the "formal feature of the head" - without taking into account human qualities.
Therefore, when the Russians tell how they "support" and "empathize", they do not have a green concept, for what freedom Ukrainians fight - they do not know what it is. And for the top of Russia, the will is a completely murderous phenomenon, because it gives the masses an example that it was possible. Therefore, the conclusions of "intelligent Russians" about any social phenomena are initially based on their, limited historical experience, thinking, and Ukrainians are completely irrelevant.
Therefore, direct dialogues with the Russians on public sites are "default" of the conversation of the blind with the deaf and there is no meaning in it. "Your" = "Russian" and it is not for sure. Cross-cultural studios give an interesting and at the same time a crazy profile of the Russian mentality. It is a culture with established xenophobia (constant and incurable suspicion of foreigners) and rapidly different from the majority of peoples of the world of communication "trust-control".
"No Russian" - a label of unreliability and often hostility, because "Russian" means for them, it means chosen, more moral, "incomprehensible to strangers", not like everyone else. In most mentality, trust and control are mutually exclusive states: the higher the trust, the less control and vice versa. The Russians have trust and control - they coexist, therefore, they are not only incapable of fully partnerships, control from below seek no less than from above.
Because without agency, no one will take responsibility from below - let the chief think. Conclusion for us: any arrangements with Russia and the Russians, not supported by force and dominance over them-not worth the time and paper spent on them. Russia despises and hates not specific countries, but the concept of democracy and a "collective event", and is in constant mental "counter -".
And those who talk about the "reconciliation" of Ukrainians and Russians are right now, they undoubtedly broadcast the Russian narrative and consent it (let's leave it aside or really believe in it) already says a lot about these people and whose Side they are on. It is not a mistake, but an agreement - that is, it is normal for a person to call. Freedom is unpunished dominance over others.
Freedom is a key value for 80%+ Ukrainians, according to various sociological research over the last 5 years. It is more important to us than equality, justice and even responsibility. More important than freedom for us was only security, but the war made adjustments to this belief. However, for the Russians, freedom is the right to unpunished oppression and the use of violence to those who are lower in the food chain.
And this is granted the right to the heads of the ruling group to those who prove that they are worth such trust - because of the demonstration of the ability to dominate and the disposal of orders. That is why, according to authoritarian regimes, only approximately 12% of dictators lose power within two years after the war loss, and most often it is due to death or revolution.
Conclusion for us: Ukrainians and Russians radically interpret the concept of freedom: for us it is a "will" (agency in decision -making about their lives), for them it is "dominance" (the ability to achieve obedience "tender" through pressure). Therefore, at the definitions we and they are talking about two different "freedoms".
And so they believe in "special operation", and who does not believe, it is still difficult to understand why Ukrainians do such resistance, because our freedom is something that is unclear and even frightening to them. Because if the need for vertical control suddenly disappears in a culture with an indissoluble connection of trust and control - the whole system will "pour".
After all, 140 million people without agency and without a common sense are a large and poorly controlled crowd, so not in the interests of the Russian top, so that their population can see our version of freedom, it is better to die somewhere there.
Why is this Longrid? Every time we are invited to a "dialogue with the Russians", or it seems to us that this "sophisticated" Russian will be definitely useful to readers, listeners or audiences, or "who was damaged" by that Russian creator whose symbols stand on our streets , we wondered - there is no better way to make our efforts.
Because Ukraine will not be able to take its place in the international community, history and public discourse without squeezing Russia from there, where it now sits through the appropriation of our artists, writers and even exploits (World War II). Therefore, on our part on the information front will only work through a precision discourse, not attempts to "speak" and "negotiate" with them.