Regime change: Russia.
— Benjamin Wittes (@benjaminwittes) February 27, 2022
For the benefit of anyone who is actually confused, rather than shilling for Putin, I do not believe in US military involvement in the conflict in Ukraine and have never advocated anything of the kind—much less for the US engaging in forcible regime change in Russia.
@Leonid_Gozman: "\u0412\u043b\u0430\u0434\u0438\u043c\u0438\u0440 \u041f\u0443\u0442\u0438\u043d \u0443 \u0432\u043b\u0430\u0441\u0442\u0438, \u043c\u0438\u0440\u0430 \u043d\u0435 \u0431\u0443\u0434\u0435\u0442. \u0415\u0433\u043e \u043e\u0442\u0441\u0442\u0430\u0432\u043a\u0430 \u2013 \u043d\u0435\u043e\u0431\u0445\u043e\u0434\u0438\u043c\u043e\u0435 \u0443\u0441\u043b\u043e\u0432\u0438\u0435 \u043f\u0440\u0435\u0434\u043e\u0442\u0432\u0440\u0430\u0449\u0435\u043d\u0438\u044f \u043f\u0435\u0440\u0435\u0445\u043e\u0434\u0430 \u0432\u043e\u0439\u043d\u044b \u0441 \u0423\u043a\u0440\u0430\u0438\u043d\u043e\u0439 \u0432 \u0422\u0440\u0435\u0442\u044c\u044e \u041c\u0438\u0440\u043e\u0432\u0443\u044e."
— Anders \xc5slund (@anders_aslund) February 27, 2022
This has to be the policy now
— Dr Alina Polyakova (@apolyakova) February 27, 2022
Don\u2019t think it\u2019s wise to signal existential threat to country with vast army and nuclear weapons. https://t.co/JS7sMign4O
— Murtaza Hussain (@MazMHussain) February 27, 2022
It is remarkable how Putin apologists don\u2019t like my tweet suggesting that he should not be president of Russia any more. https://t.co/PHQEu6sEHy
— Benjamin Wittes (@benjaminwittes) February 27, 2022
More from All
You May Also Like
As someone\u2019s who\u2019s read the book, this review strikes me as tremendously unfair. It mostly faults Adler for not writing the book the reviewer wishes he had! https://t.co/pqpt5Ziivj
— Teresa M. Bejan (@tmbejan) January 12, 2021
The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x
Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x
The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x
It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x