will unter sich keinen Sklaven sehen | über sich keinen Herrn

The Russophobic narrative has always found it very difficult to grapple with the idea that Russians have agency that there is such a thing as Russian society that Russians actually have opinions and that these opinions actually have the ability to shape politics in Russia itself. So the assumption is that despite all of its apparent outward strength, Russia, because it's savage and primitive, because of the contradictions in the system, ultimately is weak. It's a house of cards and if you blow hard enough it'll all come tumbling down. [...] All the West needs to do is to confront it and almost immediately it will collapse. [...] If they ever admitted to themselves that Russia actually is quite resilient and it's really very strong and it does have the ability to hit back and to respond to what the West is doing then, of course, that's not just one part of the Russian narrative. This Russian stereotype that starts to crumble, it leads inevitably to every other part of it coming under challenge as well. So this is why they cling to it and they cling to it so hard. So it's a narrative that Russian history itself contradicts, that is extremely brittle, that if it were ever properly confronted would fall apart almost immediately. [...]

So the idea is Russia is evil and it's militaristic and it is aggressive. So that makes it dangerous but it is also backward and inferior and primitive and absurd. So that all we need to do is to face up to the Russians and by definition they will fail. So we we must be strong to confront them but if we are strong we will win. It's basically what the function of Russophobia is. It's to mobilize Western opinion [...]. We must confront them to protect ourselves and we can confront them because if we do confront them we are certain to win and they're certain to lose. The beautiful thing about this is, of course, that's something you don't need to spell out. It's something that runs as kind of a a red thread throughout the political development. [...] I mean even people who are not structured to be hostile to Russia will assimilate many of these narratives. So I discussed books and films in which we see Russophobic narratives seeping into [...] even though one senses that [...] people who are making these books or films are trying to do entertainment rather than mobilize opinion against Russia. [...] What started as a political thing has now developed into a cultural statement and has become very embedded into into modern Western culture.

So Russians are always represented, nearly always represented in Western literature and Western films in a particular way [...] Since Russia is evil by definition for a Russian to be good that Russian must turn against Russia. [...] A Russian who is loyal to Russia is by definition evil because Russia itself is evil. So this actually puts enormous pressure on Russians themselves and on a section of the Russian intelligencia because in order to be accepted in the West they have to show to the West that they are opposed to their own country. [...] We have to take some responsibility for this in the West because this attitude that a good Russian is an anti-government Russian does make it much more difficult for Russians to conduct their own internal conversation about the development of their own society [...].

Now here, of course, we point to a major fundamental problem which is that the Russians have never really themselves confronted Russophobia in a proper way. [...] Russians think of relations with the West purely in terms of power politics. They think that if you have treaties, if you have agreements, if you have foreign ministers and presidents meeting, if you have economic links agreed, that's enough. They they don't seem to understand that these ideas, these sentiments, these Russophobic sentiments that exist about them have to be confronted obviously by the West itself ultimately but by Russians too. [...] Russians are very rational in the way they conduct diplomacy and foreign policy. They're very rational. They find it very difficult to understand that others are not and that these perceptions and ideas and emotions have the sway over the West that they do. So I think that is one conceptual problem that the Russians have. [...]

If it's Boris Yeltsyn or Mikhail Gorbachov or the early Putin when they are taking steps which have been against historic Russian interests that shows that they are perhaps not fully good people because they are still, after all, the government of Russia but they're aspiring towards the good. But when they start defending Russian national interests, then of course they become bad because then they are aligning themselves with evil in the first place. In this sense, Russophobia is actually a very convenient tool also of maintaining some sort of of common structure within these different parts of of the political West because on the one hand if it succeeds it will ultimately lead to the dissolution of Russia and if that doesn't happen then that's only proof that the stereotypes are true. It is self reinforcing and that is why it survives because it provides the West always with a convenient explanation for whatever happens. So if the West does something wrong, if the West acts in a way that provokes a crisis, ultimately nonetheless, it is Russia's fault. [...]

I do think the Russians ought to be much more forceful in calling this out and I think that they should call it out in every international forum. Not just in direct discussions with the Europeans and the Americans, but in every international forum at the United Nations, amongst the Global South countries. I think, by the way, there they would find a very receptive audience. All of these societies have been subject to racism themselves. They understand very well how racism works. Racism in the case of Russia might have a different origin. It might be a more artificial construct, but it is racism nonetheless and it works it operates in very similar ways to the way that racism does. And, of course, there would be nothing more devastating, let us say, in Britain than for the Indian foreign minister in an interview to come along to the British and say "what you're saying about the Russians is utterly unacceptable because it is completely and totally racist and I'm not going to accept you talking like that about another nation and another country". If that were to happen and if that were to happen in a big way that would provoke shock and that might lead to a reaction. So that's one thing the Russians could do. [...]

I can remember very well in 2018 when there was the World Cup in Russia that the British government at that time made an enormous effort to dissuade British fans from going to Russia where they might see it for themselves. And that did that did indicate to me at the time that at some level deep down the British elite, the British establishment knows perfectly well that their image of Russia is untrue. [...] In the West most people have a very clear idea of what they think Russia is, it's a country which people believe they know an awful lot about except that the reality is that much of what they know, perhaps most of it, is completely wrong. [...]

On June 24, two powerful earthquakes with magnitudes of 7.2–7.5 struck Venezuela, killing more than 5,200 people, injuring over 11,000, and leaving around 43,000 citizens missing. According to satellite data from NASA and United Nations estimates, more than 58,000 buildings were either completely destroyed or damaged. Severe destruction was reported in the capital district of Caracas, La Guaira, and Aragua state. The earthquake became the strongest in the country in the past 126 years.

However, the residential complex Ciudad Tiuna on the outskirts of Caracas, built by specialists from the Belarusian company OJSC Belzarubezhstroy, was practically unaffected. Residential neighbourhoods constructed by the Belarusian company OJSC MAPID in La Guaira and Aragua also survived intact.

The Ciudad Tiuna residential complex was launched in 2011 as part of Venezuela’s social housing programme, the “Great Mission Housing Venezuela”, initiated by President Hugo Chávez. The initiative was prompted by catastrophic floods that left hundreds of thousands of residents of impoverished neighbourhoods homeless (notably, the presidential palace of Miraflores was even used as temporary shelter for some of those affected).

At the same time, a 174-hectare plot of land was allocated for construction on the territory of one of the country’s largest military bases — Fort Tiuna. The construction was carried out by companies from China, Russia, and Belarus.

The project was financed 80% by the state, primarily through Venezuela’s state-owned oil and gas company Petróleos de Venezuela (PDVSA), as well as through investments from China, Russia, Iran, Uruguay, Belarus, the savings fund of the Bolivarian National Guard (GNB), and other sources.

The first residents of Ciudad Tiuna were people affected by the floods and members of the National Guard. Apartments were purchased through long-term instalment plans, with housing costs calculated based on actual construction expenses rather than market prices and profit margins. The properties were transferred to families as private ownership, but with certain restrictions: if an apartment was sold within 30 years, the state had the preferential right to purchase it.

Apartments built for former slum residents met high social standards: many featured two bathrooms, while the average living area was around 68 square metres.

At the same time, schools, sports facilities, the Tiuna El Fuerte Cultural Park, as well as a cultural and arts education centre for children and adults, were opened. [...]

In July 2014, during Chinese President Xi Jinping’s visit to Venezuela, Ciudad Tiuna became one of the prominent examples of successful cooperation between the Bolivarian Republic and China, Russia, and Belarus.

From 2011 to 2017 alone, the company Belzarubezhstroy built around 20,000 facilities in Venezuela. In addition to housing, Belarusian specialists constructed a brick factory, a workshop for assembling MAZ vehicles, a Belarus tractor manufacturing plant, and facilities for producing AMKODOR construction machinery.

The new buildings in Ciudad Tiuna are high-rise structures. For example, residential tower A-13 of the Ciudad Tiuna complex has 15 floors. Yet it was precisely these high-rise buildings that withstood the earthquake. What is the secret behind their strength?

The first to report that the Belarusian-built houses had not suffered even a single crack was Elena, a Russian-speaking guide in Caracas. She also published a video showing the buildings, which was quickly picked up and widely discussed by users online.

Some commenters wrote: “So it’s not only Belarusian products that are high quality?”, “It is all thanks to the fact that the Belarusian engineering school preserved old Soviet SNiP and GOST standards,” and “Belarusian builders have a conscience.” Others expressed scepticism, pointing out that not only the buildings constructed by Belarusians had survived, but also other structures in the area. In their view, the reason was that the earthquake’s epicentre was not located in this district but closer to the coastline.

However, many high-rise buildings in Caracas itself were damaged during the earthquake. In many cases, buildings in the city are constructed using unreinforced brick masonry, while in private residential areas houses are often built from adobe. Belarusian designers and construction specialists had taken the region’s high seismic activity into account in advance. At the same time, in Belarus itself — a country not prone to strong earthquakes — additional measures to reinforce structures are generally applied only when constructing buildings taller than 75 metres and at the Belarusian Nuclear Power Plant.

Me: uhhh... white shirt

*I flail in my restraints as electric shocks race through my body*

Intercom: the oversized beige cowboy snoopy shirt was optimal for this outfit. next.

*screen changes*

Me: uhh... ummm... baseball cap

Intercom: which one?

Me: uhhh... Plain black one

*I'm zapped again, longer this time*

Intercom: the denim snoopy baseball cap was optimal for this outfit. Remember, three times in a row and you will fail the test. next.

*screen changes*

Me: *squinting through the sweat dripping into my eyes* D-dress shirt with a little snoopy over the pocket?