⚖️ Zero. I listen to both sides — and it drives me crazy
Personal. About how I've been living for four years now, when the people closest to me demand I pick a side.
"A country is not a football club."
You can love it and disapprove of much that happens in it.
In my circle there are people who fully support Russia in everything, and people who fully don't. Before, these same people could talk to each other just fine. They're sane and smart — but they hold radically different views. For a long time this gave me cognitive dissonance.
This piece is about how I've been living with that for four years.
So you understand where I'm coming from: I'm for my country. You could call me a patriot. That's not negotiable and not the subject of this article. I've made up my mind — and that's precisely why I have something to say to those arguing around me.
I'm not trying to convince anyone. The hardcore pro-government will write that I'm "not pro-enough." The hardcore opposition — that I'm "for killing people." I'm not trying to please either side. What follows will be uncomfortable.
First. Both sides want similar things
Paradoxically, people on both sides share one goal — justice. They just sit in different information bubbles with different inputs, and so they draw logical but opposite conclusions. Both want good for their country, family, kids. But they look through different sources — and get different answers.
Then a principle kicks in that once changed how I see the world:
"Your friend is the one who mostly notices your strengths. Your enemy is the one who mostly notices your flaws."
It transfers onto a country. Some people read negative news and see: Russia is terrible, the West is great. Others read pro-Russian sources — and see the mirror image. Each side sees only the other's flaws. And that's how everyone stays convinced they're right.
Second. To love is not to agree with everything
I'm generally for systemic opposition, and there are things in Russia that personally trigger me:
- The underdevelopment of regions and the gap between Moscow and the rest of the country.
- Isolation from international scientific and cultural exchange — it hits the future.
- Brain drain, which the state loses without ever learning to retain talent.
- The cult of money as the main measure of success.
I disagree with these. And I'm a citizen of this country and its patriot. That doesn't make me a traitor — it makes me not indifferent.
"Either fully for or fully against," pushed from every direction now, is the biggest trap. A country isn't a football club. You can love it and disapprove of much of what happens in it at the same time.
Simple question: do you distinguish between the country and the state? Or, say, between religion and faith? If they're the same thing to you — bad news. You'll be sold a simplified reality. And you'll probably buy it.
Third. A story from childhood
This isn't an analogy or an argument. It's about a feeling.
I was 7 when my parents split. Before and after the divorce they screamed at each other in the worst words. My father told me what an awful mother I had. My mother — the same in reverse. And they demanded I pick.
I loved them both. And when the people closest to you call each other names and force you to pick a side — it literally drives you crazy.
Today, when I hear the "opposition vs. flag-wavers" conversation, the same feeling rises in me. Not as a logical argument — as body memory. Even though these are all citizens of my own country.
Fourth. What I don't like on either side
Getting paid for journalism is fine. What I don't like is when the funding source is hidden from the audience. That's a question of transparency.
Another thing upsets me: singers, actors and writers become the mouthpieces of both sides. Their fans don't realize that being good at one thing doesn't automatically make you an expert in everything else. Where I live, every other person now is a political analyst and geopolitician rolled into one. And the media is to blame too — happily inviting these folks to discuss topics where they're no smarter than any guy in a kitchen.
Radical opposition
80% is "everything is awful." At best 20% of grounded, constructive proposals. Tons of hate without a single concrete suggestion. That moves the world no-where.
Radical pro-government
Any criticism of the authorities equals betrayal of the country. The same mistake — just mirrored. Good-faith criticism is a contribution to development.
And on both sides there's one common disease — not wanting to hear.
Is it OK to emigrate? Yes. It's your life. Is it OK to stay no matter what? Also. Is it OK to criticize your country without radicalism? Yes. To defend it? Also. A living country is made of that diversity.
Fifth. A simple test for propaganda
If a media outlet, month after month, shows only upsides of a country and leaves out the downsides — that's propaganda. Only the bad with no good — also propaganda. It doesn't mean there's no truth in the source. It means you're being shown one side of the coin. Pick up the coin, flip it.
A good conversation is one where they invite not only one position but the opposite as well — and let them argue by the rules. On our public platforms, almost nothing like that exists from either side. That's a big problem.
A tool I use (no links, find it yourself): ground.news. It shows how the same event is covered by left, right, and center media. Pick any news that's bothering you today and look at it through different outlets. In ten minutes the picture shifts.
Sixth. A new dividing line
When I look at people now, I no longer split them into flag-wavers and opposition. I split them by another marker — who is willing to hear the other point of view, and who has locked themselves in their info bubble.
If you let yourself see the world only through the "us vs. them" lens, you lose a huge chunk of reality. The world becomes flat, convenient — and 100% wrong. Science moves forward precisely because of scientific skepticism: questioning established theories is the norm.
On both sides of the barricades there are people who want good. Probably with the same top-level values. But they're in different info streams — so they hate each other. And we can never meet.
The "us vs. them" picture has one big upside — it gives energy. Replace it with "it's complicated," and there's less energy. That's the price of leaving the dichotomy. To me, it's a fair price.
Don't deny the other side humanity and meaning in advance. When you allow yourself to hear them, your own view becomes deeper. Not weaker. Deeper.
We're on the same path if two things land for you. One — you want a decent future for your country and its next generations. Two — you're willing to listen to people you disagree with. If both ring true — welcome.
If even one person, after this, pauses in their next argument and thinks "maybe the person I'm arguing with has their own truth too" — then it was worth writing.
A big hug to all. 🤗
Frequently asked questions
📚 Read Also
💬Comments (0)
Be the first to comment!