What's "Right" in Russia Now Being Defined By Multiple Parties.

Is the Chef Saucerer defining what's "normal" and "conventional" now, or is the Chief Sorcerer Putin?

"Can we criticise the fact the Ruschist security forces seem powerless to halt the Russian separatists' occupation of "Bilhorod"?

"Or, do we see the Chef Saucerer as a traitor?

"Can we now critique the military, as the Chef Saucerer's doing, without being imprisoned?"

Two weeks ago Putin defined what were the "Right" answers to these questions.

Today it's unclear who has a monopoly on declaring what is "Right" and on enforcing that right through Disinfolklore propaganda and the security state.

State and Wanger Nazi Chef's Disinfolklore operations had embedded what was "Right."

Everyone knew what was proper to believe, and what was right to say: "War in Ukraine is Right."

Now, the war is in Bilhorod.

Wanger, Ruschist army, Akmat, Legion, .... are all competing to define a version of what's "Right."

Deep Fakes now further muddy the waters - so the monopoly definer of "Right" (Peskov) continues to explain what is "Right" (Russia's genocide in Ukraine).

But Peskov is struggling to convince Russians of what is not-Right - Deep Fakes of Putin declaiming plausible "Right" things (mass evacuation).

The Chef Saucerer is now claiming Ruschist Army IN Russia has no "Right" to constrain his Wanger Nazi army - so Chef Saucerer holds captive a Ruschist officer, as does the Legion...

Of such struggles to define what is "Right" and how to enforce it, ALL civil wars emerge.

The Centre (Putin, Moscow, Peskov) may speak, but the power to enforce its "Writ" is growing smaller by the hour.

Anyone now in Russia can credibly claim what's "Right," but only those who can enforce this by Writ (e.g. violence via control over armed forces or security services) have real power.

Since WWII the legal framework introduced after the war (Nuremberg, universal human rights accepted as law, Genocide Convention, UN Charter (territorial integrity, self-defence)),...) has been the determinant of what is "Right."

The "Right" in Russia and its enablers elsewhere (Trump, Far Right parties, anti-woke Cultural War campaigners) have weakened the content of what's "Right."

The legal consensus is still clear - post-WWII legal architecture.

But anti-immigrant, misogynist (anti-abortion), and anti-equality campaigns (anti-lgbtiq+, anti-trans) have purposefully misrepresented this legally enforceable consensus as a "debate" or merely "cultural" (e.g. "Cultural War" branding for attempts to hack what is ours by "Right" and Law).

We in the West have become a little bit unmoored in our minds from what is legally defined as "Right" (e.g. human rights protected by law).

We should look to Russia today to see what happens when what is "Right" becomes 100% unmoored from the post-WWII legal consensus.

Until two weeks ago in Russia ONE authority declared what was "Right."

Today, as civil war unfurls, multiple competing authorities are declaring what is "Right."

Water cooler conversations about these matters by convention-following stability-providing civil servants (and those ahead of them, and below them in the power vertical) can only be avoided for so long.

Tensions wrought by these questions themselves provoke tensions, and feed a self-powering destabilising entropic dynamic characteristic of all civil wars.

Whereas two weeks ago everyone in the power vertical could agree that occupying Ukraine was the "right" thing to do.

Now, those with power don't know what's "right" because there are now multiple distinct forces defining what's right:

Chief Sorcerer Putin, his Chef Saucerer Apprentice, the Legion, etc are competing for the *Reg (rod) that symbolises the power to declare what is "Right."

They unleashed a war in Ukraine where the political system and population has NEVER doubted who holds the rod that determines what's "Right."

Now, in Ruschia all is up in the air.