Paul Goble
Staunton, Aug. 22 – In response to a question about the postponement of elections in Kursk Oblast, a Russian official said that in that region, “territorial uncertainty will remain for a long time, and so it was decided not to have elections in which the victors might not be able to govern and represent the territories involved” (verstka.media/kurskaya-oblast-ediny-dien-golosovania-8-sentiabria-novosti-svo).
Clearly, independent anthropologist Aleksandra Arkhipova observes, talking about “territorial uncertainty” certainly “sounds much better than saying ‘we won’t be able to conrol the elections’ or ‘we don’t know what the fate of the voters there will be’” (t.me/anthro_fun/3063 reposted at echofm.online/opinions/territorialnaya-neopredelennost-starosti-novoyaza).
This use of the term is new: it has been applied by Russians at least 100 times in the period since 2004, the investigator says; but typically it has been applied in discussions of territorial disputes between countries over sovereignty such as the one between Russia and Japan over the political status of the Kurile Islands.
That it should be applied to Kursk likely says more about how officials in the Putin regime actually view the situation there and especially how long they think it may go on than do bombastic public comments that Russian forces will soon drive out the Ukrainian military units there which continue to advance.
No comments:
Post a Comment