Mediaboss Marketing

What is the difference between NATO enlargement and the expansion of Russia?

While the first takes place on voluntary terms and with the agreement of its members for the sake of defending democratic countries, the second shows an authoritarian nuclear power in the grip of nostalgia for its empire trying to extend its influence through a brutal breach and self-serving interpretation of international law.

In all this, Russia has not been provoked by the enlargement of NATO, which has created a peaceful and stable neighbourhood around the Russian borders, but rather by the pain of losing a totalitarian empire and witnessing the success of its former vassals in building democratic and free societies. And that poses an existential threat to the authoritarian regime in Russia.

Some days ago, between meetings in Moscow, I took a moment to lay flowers on the spot where one of the best known democrats of modern Russia Boris Nemtsov was killed on Bolshoi Moskvoretsky Bridge in the shadow of the Kremlin.

Boris had been a good friend of mine and we had always had fascinating discussions about the present and the future of Russia. His absence is profoundly felt in Russia today. The authorities are doing everything they can to erase Nemtsov from the popular memory because a country with totalitarian leanings cannot allow the existence of freedom of expression or debates about alternative routes to development among its citizens.

Through the decades, Russia has painted democratic Western countries as scary enemy figures trying to obtain access to its riches and destroy its thousand year old civilisation.

People have been told since childhood that the United States and NATO are trying to surround Russia on all sides and annihilate its nationhood. This lie has been used to manipulate millions at home and abroad to justify Russias aggressive foreign policy vis--vis the democratic West.

Historical parallels offer us food for thought. Just like in the 1930s, Russia has come to the realisation that the situation in Europe is ripe for changing the current status quo.

In addition to restoring its empire, totalitarian Russia dreams of forcing its rules on the democratic West, setting up new zones of influence, and marginalizing the role of the United States in global politics. To this end, even the nuclear button is not out of bounds, at least in words.

One question has been asked repeatedly of late: Why is Russia ramping up the tension now of all times?

Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergey Lavrov said at a press conference last year that it is all the fault of the West, which has set out to destroy the architecture of international relations based on the Charter of the United Nations, with no consideration for Russias security fears or honouring its own promises.

Lavrov reiterated the Kremlin narrative of how NATO had broken its promise and enlarged, and how the coup in Ukraine was a threat to Russias security. As expected, he said not a word about Russias own aggressiveness, using force to move borders, or neutralising internal democratic institutions and dismantling civil society, which pressured Russias democratic neighbours into seeking a security guarantee by joining NATO.

Those who have witnessed the advance of the Russian war wagon with their own eyes, are probably keenly aware that it cannot be stopped by gentle words alone.

As a young journalist covering the first Chechen war from 1994-1996, I learned what Russian authorities were capable of. The carpet bombing of Grozny killed thousands upon thousands of citizens. For what? To stop the empire from disintegrating and the free will of the people from becoming the norm.

Just as the destruction of the Chechens benefited from the mass dehumanisation campaign of the entire nation back then, current propaganda is attempting to obliterate Ukrainian independence and nationhood. The Kremlins appetite has only grown in 30 years and has not been thwarted by Western diplomacy, which is built on good will and hope for peaceful coexistence.

In all of this, NATOs enlargement has not been directed against Russia, but against threats to use total force and surround us on all sides. Russian society has been taken hostage by its own history and has not succeeded in breaking free for objective or subjective reasons from the repressive grip of the deeply rooted authoritarian regime.

As the Kremlins intention to destroy a democratic Ukraine is only a part of its quest to erode European security architecture, it makes it particularly hard to find even a somewhat sustainable modus vivendi in the relations between Russia and the West.

Russias leaders seem prepared to escalate tensions to the maximum. This is done through war and use of force, as well as by permitting a public belittling rhetoric towards ones partners in diplomacy.

What is to be done? Russian authorities are fully aware that NATO is not a threat. Just like no democratic neighbouring country is a threat to Russias security or territorial integrity.

Absolutely no country can have the right to hegemony in Europe, nor a veto on how security of the continent is shaped. European security architecture has withstood the test of time well and there is no good reason to bring it down. Instead, there are always opportunities to fortify it.

The views expressed in opinion pieces do not necessarily reflect the position of The Moscow Times.

Follow this link:
Russia Feels Provoked by Democracy and Loss of Empire - The Moscow Times

Editors Note: This guest editorial was published early Thursday in the independent, online publication Ukrainian Pravda (Ukrainian Truth) in response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

I am Ukrainian!

On Feb. 24, at 5 a.m. Kyiv time, we woke up to a new Ukraine and a new world.

A world that was imposed on us. A world that lives not by laws, but by the concepts of thugs with nuclear weapons.

The territory of Ukraine is clearly visible on the map of this world.

It is a map of the missile strikes that Russia has carried out from Lugansk to Ivano-Frankivsk, from Sumy to Kharkiv, from Kherson to Kolomyia, from Kryvyi Rih to Lutsk.

Today we are united by love and hatred love of freedom and hatred of Putins Russia together with its dictator, obedient majority and spiritual crosses.

Our only fault is that we want to be masters of our own house to find a way, to make mistakes, to correct mistakes, to build a future without regard to the phobias and complexes of our northern neighbor.

For eight years now, Ukraine has been in the club of countries that have felt the fraternal embrace of Russia.

By 5 a.m. on Feb. 24, this embrace was awkwardly disguised as hybridism and ikhtamnet (they are not there).

By now, the masks have been thrown off.

Evil has shown its unconcealed grin of peace. Only those who have completely lost the ability to see and analyze can talk about not everything is so clear-cut today.

What to do when missiles fall on our cities?

Recall British Prime Minister Winston Churchills speech on May 3, 1940, after Britain entered World War II.

You will ask me, what is our political course? I answer: to wage war at sea, on land and in the air, with all the power and strength that God gives us; to wage war against a terrible tyranny that surpasses any human crime. This is our course.

What, you may ask, is our goal? I can answer in one word: victory, victory at any cost, victory in spite of all horror, victory no matter how long and difficult the road may be; because without victory there will be no life.

At 5 a.m. on Feb. 24, along with the first Russian missiles falling on Ukrainian territory, the era of post-truth ended for the world.

Along with its hybrid worries, understatements and non-binding phrases.

Today everything is clear. It is a time of utmost simplicity and honesty.

Freedom will never become slavery.

The war unleashed by Russia is a crime against humanity and humanity, even if it is called a thousand times special operation, denazification and peace enforcement.

Dictatorship and democracy have nothing in common.

And if the world does not realize this even now well, so much the worse for the world.

On June 26, 1963, in front of the Schneberg Town Hall in West Berlin, then U.S. President John F. Kennedy gave a speech that went down in history as I am Berliner.

Kennedy flew in to be with the people of that city, who have been cut off from the world since Putins spiritual advisors erected the Berlin Wall.

May the speechwriters of the American president forgive us. We will replace just a few words in this text.

Here is a snippet of this speech, written seemingly today and specifically for us.

For 2,000 years a winged phrase has been I am a citizen of Rome. Today, in the free world, it should sound like this: I am Ukrainian.

There are many people in the world who really dont understand, or say they dont understand, what is the biggest problem between the free world and Russia.

Let them come to Kyiv.

There are those who say Putins Russia is the idea of the future.

Let them come to Kyiv.

And there are those who say that both in Europe and anywhere else we can cooperate with Russia.

Let them come to Kyiv.

And there are even those who say that yes, Putins Russia is an evil system, but this doesnt prevent us from cooperating with it in economy.

Let them come to Kyiv.

All free people, no matter where they live, are citizens of Ukraine.

Therefore, as a free man I proudly declare: I am Ukrainian!

We are making critical coverage of the coronavirus available for free. Please consider subscribing so we can continue to bring you the latest news and information on this developing story.

See the original post:
Guest editorial | Dictatorship and democracy have nothing in common - TribDem.com

By PTI

KOLKATA: Are media trials a curse for democracy? Or are the pillars of India's democracy best served by the trials being conducted by the country's media? Media personalities, politicians, legal luminaries and eminent physicians debated whether "Trial by the Media is a Curse of our Democracy,"at an annual debate organised by the nearly two-century-old Bengal Club here Saturday.

Eminent journalist and Editor of The Wire Siddharth Vardarajan pointed out that failure of the other three pillars of the "Taj Mahal of democracy"has made the task of the fourth estate even more difficult.

"Can any of us doubt that these pillars are crumbling?"Vardarajan asked as he pointed out that passing of laws by legislatures without adequate debate, cases of judicial delay in important federal issues, and bureaucratic overreach were undermining democracy.

"We in the media are trying to shine a light on topics that those in authority would not like light to be shone on,"he said, pointing to among other issues, media reportage on the alleged Pegasus phone surveillance.

Jawhar Sircar, former civil servant turned Rajya Sabha MP pointed out that media trails were usually tempered by a sense of mission, such as reportage on Jessica Lal murder, Nirbhaya killing in Delhi or the killing of Rizwanur in Kolkata, which in turn helped unravel those cases and brought culprits to book.

"People get demoralised when nothing happens. Someone has to shake them (system) out of a stupor, to get justice done,"Sircar said, adding that he felt it was the "incumbent duty of the media to take up trials to clean up the nation to serve democracy."

Defending the motion, eminent neuro-surgeon Sandip Chatterjee pointed out that the media at times lowers its standards by passing judgement "on everything and everybody", causing an unevenness of the platform of democracy.

"There is one thing worse than an uninformed person with power and that is an uninformed person with power who does not know when to stop using his power,"Chatterjee said.

He warned that the race for TRP rating as well as media bias was a cause for concern which could undermine the country's democratic polity.

Read the original post:
Media trials curse or boon for democracy? The jury is still out - The New Indian Express

Socialism is, broadly speaking, a political and economicsystem in which property and the means of production are owned in common, typically controlled by the state or government. Socialism is based on the idea that common or public ownership of resources and means of production leads to a more equal society.

General Socialism

In defining socialism, it's imporant to first define capitalism. Capitalism is based on private ownership of resources and means of production, and individual choices in a free market. Thisis in contrast to socialism. According to socialist philosophy, these features of capitalism lead to inequalities in wealth and hence power, and the exploitation of workers. According to socialism, notions of individual freedom and equality of opportunity are available only to those who control the means of production. In a capitalist society, this means a few rich capitalists hold power at the expense of the working class. In a socialist system, however, it is argued that since everyone controls the means of production, everyone is free.

Communism

Communism is a form of socialism based on the writings of German philosopher and economist Karl Marx. In a fully realized communist society, all property and goods are commonly owned by a society without government or class divisions. In such a society, production and distribution of goods is handled, according to Karl Marx, From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.

Democratic Socialism

Democratic socialism is a form of socialism which emphasizes that both the economy and society should be run democratically, and that the goal is to meet the needs of all the people, not just a rich few. Some socialists argue that socialism does not necessarily require the government to run everything. Instead, business institutions should be run by those workers and consumers that are affected by them. This could be implemented, for example, as worker-run cooperatives or publicly owned enterprises managed by workers and consumer representatives.

Read more:
Socialism | National Geographic Society

Capitalism, socialism, and communism are three key concepts in social studies, with complex definitions and complicated histories. Explaining these concepts in the classroom is muddled even more by how these words are used in modern media. The meaning is often obscured by political alliances and deliberate attempts to mislead.

The words capitalism, socialism, and communism describe different economic systems. A simple and effective way to present these key concepts in the classroom is through the economic continuum illustrated by the chart below. Students are much more likely to grasp the key differences if these concepts are first presented separate from political systems such as autocracy, theocracy, or democracy.

Capitalism, socialism, and communism are also easier to understand and remember when the histories of the words are explored.

Photo: iStock by Getty Images

Capitalism and socialism first came into use in the 1830s. Capitalism described an economic system in which wealth (or capital, another word for wealth) was owned by individuals for their personal profit. The British policy of government regulation of trade called mercantilism was being abandoned by the 1830s, and the free market (not the government) determined the production and distribution of goods. The word capitalism was a product of the changing economy of Great Britain during the Industrial Revolution.

The word socialism also began to be used in the 1830s, to describe a system different from capitalism. Socialism held that groups of people should own and regulate the economy for the benefit of all the members, not just a few. Early nineteenth-century socialists were often disturbed by the economic and social changes caused by the Industrial Revolution. In the first half of the nineteenth century, socialist ideals inspired utopian communities such as the transcendentalists Brook Farm, Robert Owens New Harmony, and the Oneida Community. An even older ideal of Christian socialism described in the Bible inspired religious socialist communities such as the Shakers, Rappites, Amana Colonies, and Hutterites. Even the term social studies alludes to how a community or wider society benefits from shared knowledge.

Communism was first a French word, coined in the 1840s, to describe a system of collective ownership in which individuals did not own private property and worked together for the benefit of all community members. This new French word described ideals similar to the English concept of socialism and derived from the word common, meaning something is free or open to everyone.

The word communism was adopted by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels in the 1850s to describe their ideology of opposing industrial capitalism. Marxist communism sought the overthrow of governments supporting a capitalist economy. By 1918, communism was the ideology of Russias Bolshevik Revolution and was associated with a single authoritarian political party. The combined economic and political ideology of modern communism was implemented in the Soviet Union (1922), the People's Republic of China (1949), North Korea (1948), North Vietnam (1945), and Cuba (1965).

Photo: iStock by Getty Images

Today, the historical words capitalism, socialism, and communism do not fully capture the economic systems of nations. New words are also used to describe economic systems: free market system; mixed economy; command economy. But these modern words can still lead to confusion because, in reality, modern nations are not purely free market capitalist or purely command/communist. In recent years, communist China and Cuba have loosened economic restrictions and allowed free market activities. On the other hand, the United States regulates many aspects of its economy and owns and manages very socialist enterprises such as public schools, public transportation, and public libraries.

In other words, communism, socialism, and capitalism are a continuum, with modern national economics falling somewhere in the middle, or mixed, zone. In American politics, those aligned to the right of the political spectrum are more likely to support free market policies, and those to the left are more likely to support government intervention in the economy. Recent polls by the Pew Research Center demonstrate how the political alliances of Americans influence perceptions of these words.

Ultimately, nations and citizens of nations must decide how much government regulation of the economy is appropriate. Therefore, a clear understanding of the historical developments, meaning, political associations, and synonyms of these three words is essential in social studies.

Communism

Socialism

Capitalism

Government owns/regulates all aspects of the economy.

Government owns/regulates some parts of the economy for the benefit of the whole nation;

and

Individuals and private businesses also their own make their own economic decisions, keeping the profits and accepting the losses.

Individuals and private businesses own everything and make economic decisions free from government regulation, keeping the profits and accepting the losses without intervention.

Also known as:

Command Economy

Also known as:

Mixed economy

Also known as:

Free Market Economy or Free Enterprise

Usually aligned to the political left

Usually aligned to the political right

Cynthia W. Resor is a social studies education professor and former middle and high school social studies teacher. Her dream job? Time-travel tour guide. But until she discovers the secret of time travel, she writes about the past in her blog,Primary Source Bazaar. Her three books on teaching social history themes feature essential questions and primary sources:Discovering Quacks, Utopias, and Cemeteries: Modern Lessons from Historical Themes;Investigating Family, Food, and Housing Themes in Social StudiesandExploring Vacation and Etiquette Themes in Social Studies.

Read more here:
Capitalism, Socialism, Communism: Distinguishing Important ...