_______________________________
There is a certain type of Russian liberal, who holds to particular beliefs with the same stubborn commitment as followers of a religious sect do. For these liberals, three such beliefs are paramount and to question them is heresy. The liberal catechism is as follows:
- V V Putin is Lucifer’s Viceroy on Earth. Everything he does is evil. Therefore, everyone who opposes him, almost by definition, is good.
- The USA is God. Its actions are wise and good especially when targeting Putin, the embodiment of evil.
- Mikhail Khodorkovsky is God’s representative in Russia; he’s a saintly figure, martyred for his beliefs.
Of these three, the third is the strangest. Khodorkovsky is an unlikely hero. Through a series of ruthless manipulations, he managed to capture control of a large part of the Russian oil industry, becoming Russia’s richest man. His methods included setting up an intricate web of companies through which, according to the Russian courts, he defrauded his investors and minority shareholders. Besides this, according to both the Russian courts and the European Court of Human Rights, he systematically cheated the Russian state of billions in unpaid taxes. There were darker rumours as well… of methodical bribery and intimidation of officials and parliamentary deputies and even of contract killings, although since these remain unproven in court, perhaps, it’s better to avoid placing weight on them. After all, the proven facts are bad enough.
In itself, that Russian liberals ever rallied to the cause of this man is a sign of their blindness to reality. That they persisted in doing this, whilst the European Court of Human Rights opposed him is testimony both to the fanaticism of their beliefs and to the extent of their blindness. Given the extent to which liberal belief in Khodorkovsky stands reality on its head, however, it was inevitable following his release at the end of last year that his actions would test this belief system to the breaking point.
Firstly, Khodorkovsky dismayed his liberal followers by saying that he didn’t intend to engage in politics. However, he then appeared to contradict himself when in March he turned up at Kiev’s Maidan Square and made a vitriolic speech supporting the seizure of power that had just happened there. Therefore, Russian liberals seem to contend that the Euromaidan movement was good, despite what the facts might say, just as they contended that Mikhail Saakashvili, the pathologically Russophobic former President of Georgia who launched the American-backed 2008 South Ossetia War, was also good for the same reason.
In March and September, Russian liberals marched through Moscow waving Ukrainian flags and chanting their support for the present Ukrainian régime. Of course, for such people, we must blame Putin, not the Maidan movement, for the Ukraine’s problems, despite what the facts might say; after all, the USA says that he is. Having pleased his Russian liberal followers by supporting the Maidan movement, then, Khodorkovsky pleased them further by announcing that he was going to involve himself in Russian politics after all.
The subsequent horror for these same Russian liberals when Khodorkovsky, in a series of tweets, that first avoided giving a straight answer, and then categorically confirmed that he wouldn’t hand over the Crimea to the Ukraine, is easy to imagine. God’s representative in Russia, the martyred Khodorkovsky, contradicted God, i.e., the USA, and appeared to side with Putin and evil against Maidan and good. Khodorkovsky’s refusal to return the Crimea makes perfect sense. The Crimea is a historic Russian land that only found itself part of an independent Ukraine because of an accident. Crimeans overwhelmingly consider themselves Russians, and they overwhelmingly want to be in Russia. The vast majority of Russians agree and support the Crimea’s reunification with Russia. No political figure, not even Khodorkovsky, who wants the world to take Russia seriously, can argue otherwise.
If one thing has however become abundantly clear, it’s that Russian liberals simply don’t think in a serious political way. In order to remain firm in their beliefs, however factually wrong or even absurd they may be, and however much this distances them from the Russian people, is always more important. More important still, is retaining the favour of the USA, whose good opinion is of immeasurably greater value to them than is that of their own people, whom they hold in contempt.
Therefore, what this bizarre episode shows is the difficulty even Khodorkovsky would have if he tries to reach out beyond his liberal core supporters by challenging their beliefs. Since Khodorkovsky’s actual chances of attracting widespread support are in fact non-existent, the probability is that he’d fall back onto his liberal supporters and that they’d forget this “lapse”. That Russian liberals can’t accept reality even as it stares at them in the face, even when someone like Khodorkovsky tries to point this out to them, shows why they’re doomed to remain a politically isolated marginal force. This episode also teaches an important lesson for the USA and for the West. If even someone like Khodorkovsky realises that the handover of the Crimea to the Ukraine is an impossibility, then it’s never going to happen. That’s the simple truth, and the sooner the USA, the West and Kiev accept it, the better.
5 November 2014
Alexander Mercouris
Sputnik International
http://sputniknews.com/columnists/20141017/194223592.html
Editor:
”Liberal” in the Russian context means ”conservative” in the Anglosphere. That is, it denotes a belief in privatisation, deregulation, and unbridled laissez-faire crapitalism. A Russian “liberal” is an American “conservative”… they’re closer to Ted Cruz and Rod Dreher than they are to Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. “Liberal” means someone who puts money and power above people and morality… true conservatives such as Bismarck, Stolypin, Ike, and Diefenbaker would disavow the Ted Cruzs and Rod Drehers of this world as ignorant grasping selfish peasants. Compare Ike’s Military Industrial Complex speech to the shit purveyed in the American Conservative. Ike or Pat Buchanan? Which do YOU prefer?
BMD
Voices from Russia 
Malankara Patriarch Calls Upon Government to Ensure Religious Freedom
Tags: Christian, Christianity, church-state relations, corruption, India, Malankara Church, Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church, moral, moral stance, morality, morals, Oriental Orthodox, Oriental Orthodoxy, Orthodox, Orthodoxy, political commentary, politics, Religion, Religion and Spirituality
______________________________
Catholicos Baselios Mar Thoma Paulose Paul, head of the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church, underscored the need for the authorities to take steps to ensure constitutionally given religious freedoms to uphold communal amity and secularism in India. On Friday, he talked to the media here to announce the valedictory of the 50th anniversary observance of the death of his predecessor Catholicos Baselios Gheevarghese Kallaserri, the pontiff said that while incidents of forced reconversion attempts and burning of churches reported from north India upset him, he viewed them as isolated incidents. The Catholicos, who had courted controversy by praising then-Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi for his administrative acumen during the run-up to the last general elections, said that he still stood by his earlier stance on Mr Modi.
He said that the important thing was for the government to put things in order and rein in the extreme fringes who engaged in such activities. He thought that unless those in power take steps to ensure the confidence of all sections of society, they wouldn’t be able to put the developmental agenda into practise. Reacting to a question, the Catholicos said that corruption pervaded society and the political leadership had to take corrective measures, noting, “People are losing faith in their leaders and the nation witnesses a major crisis on account of the leadership vacuüm, not only in politics, but in all sections of society”.
He observed that there was a dire fall in adherence to values and that unbridled consumerism had led to a scramble to make money at any cost. He believed that the political leadership wasn’t insulated from this trend, so they had to address the issue and take steps to regain the confidence of the people. Referring to the schism in the Church, the Catholicos said that he hadn’t received any information from the Patriarch of Antioch (Mar Ignatius Afram al-Tani Karim) regarding any peace moves. Reacting to a question, he said that the Orthodox Church thought that the government was moving back from its avowed policy on the liquor issue.
13 December 2014
The Hindu
http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/kerala/ensure-religious-freedom-catholicos/article6688817.ece?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS&utm_campaign=RSS_Syndication
Editor:
The Oriental and Eastern Orthodox form one sociological family. No, we’re not in communion, but we’re related, and far closer than we are with the papists. Russian Orthodox have always been friendly with Oriental Orthodox… much closer than the Greeks are. We wish them well… so should you…
BMD