I'm not sure that transition of power is a 'taboo': Yekaterina Shulman have been discussing this topic for a few years for a wide popular audience. It's just that there was never any satisfactory answer to that one.
With regards to dictators of Spain, Portugal and Greece. These countries could get rid of autocrats and fall back to Europe's safety net. But in case of Russia it is not an option, as nobody wants Russia and especially the EU, which was mostly built on the basis of confrontation with Russia. There's nowhere that Russia could 'return' to.
> especially the EU, which was mostly built on the basis of confrontation with Russia
The EU was build to avoid another World War were Germany/UK/France start fighting. Once all European countries are tied economically for any of them to benefit of starting a war is very difficult.
And, of course, there is also the idea that a bigger economic area will create more opportunities and make Europe more competitive.
If anything projects like Nordstream prove that countries inside the EU were willing to increase their ties with Russia. If Russia had not initiated another war, Crimea was given a pass, there will be closer ties.
Russia has nobody else to blame from breaking ties with Europe but themselves.
Russia did not see any important integration with Europe countries even before 2014. Yes there were hydrocarbon pipelines but that's that. Amenities such as visa waiver travel, student exchange programmes, cultural exchange and economic integration were practically nonexistent.
It does sound strange if you claim to want to avoid a new war in Europe but systemically exclude the largest country in Europe from that equation. Meanwhile trying to integrate their direct neighbours into your sphere of influence.
Putin made some comments in the early 2000's to the effect that Russia sees itself as part of the European culture and might like to be part of the EU, but it wants its own viewpoint on things to be respected. I suspect the latter is a crucial caveat. Presumably he'd never be okay with implementing a liberal democracy to EU standards or signing up to EU defence policy.
On the other side, I suspect that none of the existing EU members would be happy with having a new one that's so much larger in population than any of the others that it'd gain effectively a veto power over everything, to say nothing of the domestic political issues with potential east-to-west migration.
I think that's oversimplified. The European Commission is the executive, not a legislative body. The EU has effectively a bicameral legislature formed by the Parliament and the Council. The Parliament has direct elections with seats apportioned to member states roughly corresponding to population. The Council represents member states directly, but they only sometimes have equal weight, because many things use qualified-majority voting (QMV) where a majority of states and represented population is required. Most things either need to pass through both of these legislatures, or if they're exclusive to the Council, are covered by QMV. The number of things covered by QMV has only grown with time and lots of these would be considered important. There are of course still some matters that require unanimity among states though.
Actually, during the Medvedev presidency, there were serious efforts to negotiate visa-free travel and reduced tariffs (which is the essence of what everybody wants, not full integration). If these things were granted, the revolution / civil war in Ukraine, primarily motivated by one part of the country mostly trading with Russia and the other with the EU, probably wouldn't have happened.
That doesn't account for how eastern Ukraine has a much larger percent of ethnic Russians than western, nor Russia's invasions andntakeovers of other former Soviet territories.
Putin's view on Russia in the EU was essentially that he never wanted Russia to be on the same level as the member states. He wanted Russia to be at the same level as the EU as a whole if not greater. It stems from a combination of nostalgia for the Soviet Union and a sense of Elitism endemic in parts of the culture.
This is absurd notion since the question of accepting Russia into the EU was never raised even remotely, therefore we have no idea what specific conditions will be negotiated by the parties in this nonexistent scenario. I don't really think Russia could be included in the EU in any form.
It could, however, by 2013 have massive students exchange, Schengen visa waiver programme for short visits, cultural exchange, etc. None of that happened. EU just wanted oil & gas and unilaterally accept some of the brighter students into their universities, ideally having them pay for that privilege.
EU also wanted to "euroassociate" our neighbour countries, where they will get no guarantees or support of being EU member, but would open their markets to the EU and half-shut their markets, and borders, towards Russia. That was a directly hostile move towards Russia, who was completely shut off these arrangements.
EU and USA were also openly nagging Ukraine to boot Russian naval base from Crimea. A directly hostile move which backfired quickly and led to the whole war thing in the end.
That phrase is a relic of a long ago era. The EU would be more effective if it had more influence on its member states, but it reached a level where it does appear to dramatically reduce the chance of war, but from there, further integration has asymptoted.
I can’t say that colonialism is completely obsolete but influence has become so diffuse and information spread so widespread that even an analysis from that stance is no longer useful.
I think Russia has done a wonderful job of that itself. Why would Germany ever want to depend on Russian gas again, if it's just another lever for extortion?
> Russia has nobody else to blame from breaking ties with Europe but themselves.
There are always two sides to every story, and it’s not that hard to find credible western foreign policy experts who are more than willing to point out that decisions by the west going back to the fall of the Soviet Union played a big role in where we are today[0]. Geopolitics, just like everything else, has nuance.
West of Europe were not confrontational with Russia, they were dreaming that Russia can be controlled with diplomacy and economy. Sure East Europe knew better what is the discourse in Russia and what Russians will do for their supreme leader.
So you are dreaming to 'control' another country and surprised when the country in question refuses to be controlled. What's in for them in that arrangement?
Even funnier is another comment where Russians should risk their lives to overthrow their government and (implicitly) betray millions of their compatriots in order to supply Europe with their cheap 'ressources'. Using Molotov cocktails. Where's the carrot?
Nah, they dream they could bring Russia to the modern age, democracy, human rights, respect for other nations , collaborations . Nobody in EU wants to steal Russians resources, too bad the Russian oligarchs are doing it.
there is a Romanian saying about Romania but it applies to Russia too, "poor rich country" not sure if it translates well... the country is rich but the people are poor and suffering because of the small number of parasites.
My theory is that when you have same persona ndparty in power for decades then they can't hide their incompetence and failures on a party from opposition and they start inventing bad guys somehere outside (like UK invented the EU bad guy and ended up with Brexit(
so Putin invented a big conspiracy about the west, LGBTQ , Israel and blame all his failures on them.
Now he is gone old and senile and he believed his propaganda.
I don't remember EU doing anything in Russia that was conductive to democracy, human rights, respect for other nations, etc. The only positive influence I can think of, is European Court for Human Rights. But especially, EU didn't do anything when Putin decided to stay in power after 2008, they did not have much cultural integration with Russia, so it seems they expected to sit on the bank and expect democracy in Russia float past.
With regards to "respect for other nations", Russians know how Russian minority is treated in Baltic states and that Russian speakers are treated like 3rd class citizens in Ukraine (even before 2014). Russia treated other nations way better than those other nations treated Russians when on their own turf.
I believe you are confusing Putin with e.g. Orban because Putin is actually BFF with Israel, and even the fact that they are mildly supporting Ukraine didn't dent that.
> Putin is actually BFF with Israel, and even the fact that they are mildly supporting Ukraine didn’t dent that.
Israel has been only mildly helping Ukraine in part to buy Russian acquiescence to Israeli attacks on Iranian targets in Syria, where Russia has a substantial presence (though over time getting less, as material and personnel have been shifted to Ukraine.)
Putin isn’t Israel’s BFF despite Israel’s mild support for Ukraine; the Russian presence in Syria is a constraint on Israeli policy that results in it only mildly supporting Ukraine.
I am talking about Ruzzians === the Z patriots. They are so brainwashed that they actually believe the LGBTQ and Israel and other evil gangs are up to pervert Russia. The Z-eds are also proud of Putin's crimes and the dictatorship, they even try to explain why democracy is bad. This failled empire needs to fail from inside like URSS did and the other communist countries, and time needs to pass so tne non brainwashed generations can grow.
I am not sure what you want from EU, we are not USA to democratize them with force.
The western EU thought that with economy they can prevent idiotic wars, this work for EU, we no longer have wars here and the population is very anti -war.
Not sure what happens in Baltic states but please don't fucking tell me Ruzzian propaganda on how well URSS or Russia is treating minorities, the fucking bastards of Putin and his gang are not respecting nationalities living in their own independent countries.
I know that Ukraine is almost as bad as Russia so pushing propaganda on how bad Ukraine is just pushes Russia even lower.
So for Romanians Russians or FSB trolls should not waste their time, maybe you can fool some westerner with how well you love minorities.
TLDR easter europe knows Russia well, Putin played EU and Germany but he made a bet and his dice did not favored him, but he will push this stupid SMO to the his death.
Losing the war and Ukraine is unavoidable, the new generation is a hope we have for the Russians. Before this war I was stupidly thinking that most young Russians are more similar with us Easter Europeans then Americans, I was wrong, we have a shared experience of the terrible communist era but for some reason Russians what the URSS back (but they think this time it will be better)
When push comes to shove, Ukraine runs out of Ukrainians much sooner than that is true for Russia. This is an unfortunate turn of events, but if you say "we're ruin your military wise and invade you by force", molon labe.
This has absolutely nothing in common with wanting the USSR back. Russians do contempt modern Ukraine and Baltic states, but they are not universally fans of USSR. Some are, but they're being overly romantic.
Eastern Europeans are pathetic people who only saw like 10% of hardships of Communism and came out whining like they saw 500% of those. Now you have a different good lord to whom you sing praise like you did to Soviet communists just 35 years back. Don't consider yourself to be like Russians because we are not the same.
How are you so sure you understand how much eastern european suffered? I am sure your Russian history has a giant bias and omits all the shit URSS stole, all the crimes they did in eastern Europe.
We are not the same, I wrongly thought that we might be more similar since we shared some trauma, but as i said I was wrong. I need to re-evaluate all the Russians I know online and try to figure-out if they in fact are imperialists/fascists that think God chose their nation to rule Eastern Europe or if they are the smarter/human Russians.
I'm not sure who stole your shit because I've never seen it around here, so it must have landed somewhere else - maybe you should go look elsewhere. When you talk about "crimes", I don't feel that you've even began to understand what a Communist regime can do to a country. Read about Collectivization one day, or about Solovki camps.
We did not share anything, the USSR breastfeeded the Eastern Europe for a few decades while starving its own Russian population like the proverbial reverse colony which siphons wealth from its core, and you came out really entitled. Of course, they were all so bad at economy that nobody was feeling exactly well off, but I'm not sure why you would blame that on Russians specifically, who are the main victims of the whole marxist hodge podge.
Also For example, the Soviet Union forced Eastern European countries to sell their natural resources, such as coal, timber, and minerals, to the USSR at below-market prices. The Soviet Union also imposed production quotas on these countries, requiring them to produce certain goods and send them to the USSR. The Soviet Union often used military force to maintain control over Eastern Europe and ensure compliance with these economic policies.
Additionally, the Soviet Union controlled the banking systems and foreign trade of Eastern European countries, making it difficult for them to trade with other countries and develop their own economies. The Soviet Union also used Eastern Europe as a market for its own goods, flooding these countries with cheap Soviet-made products that undercut local industries and businesses.
"sent to Moscow for safekeeping during World War I in 1916"
Russian Empire does not exist anymore, orphaned and its own gold being stolen, I would recommend you going to UK and France (allies of Russian Empire at the time) for the compensation.
I pity for your loss, I really do, but given how the Russian Empire has suffered a horrible demise I just do not understand why any money should be taken from my pocked and put into yours in the century XXI.
The rest of your comment does not sound like a description of a horrible crime. Moreover, it does sound like an entitlement.
One of the points, that the Soviet Union also sold oil and gas to Eastern Europe at below market prices. That you chose to withhold that fact highlights the whiny, intellectually disingenous attitude of Eastern Europeans.
We had oil, so maybe you sent it to some brother nation.
What happened is URSS planed and forced the economy of it's satellites, because they did not like Romania they tried to not allow us to have an industry and forced us to sell them resources and they would sell us stuff. Luckily we had some competent leaders with diplomatic skills(btw is diplomacy looked down upon in Russia?... ) and Romania managed to get away from URSS planned control, we even prepared for an URSS invasion and had the USA president visit, but it took decades to kick Russians out from our country and our business.
About the gold, other countries returned the gold, and it is not only gold, Russia is keeping documents, artwork , from Bulgaria too(aren't Bulgaria your brothers? ). I am sure the gold is in Putin palace but did he used the documents to fill his library too? The art might be on the walls of his palace, bunkers and yachts but if you have prove that our art, gold, documents is in UK let me see it.
"and especially the EU, which was mostly built on the basis of confrontation with Russia"
Is that a US point of view? As a european, it is the first time I heard this.
(Edit: I mean yes, it was founded under the assumption of soviet threat, but it was not constructed especially against russia, which is how I read your comment)
The NATO was constructed against communist russia.
But the reasons for the founding of the EU are more complex, but mostly they were for .. europa. Not to become dependant on russia, nor USA. Stand on its own. Interconnecting economically, to not have a big war again.
And large parts of europe would actually love to get back to also freely trading with russia. Eastern europe (starting in east germany) had tight industrial relationships with russia and were therefore also hit hard by the sanctions.
Now it seems hard, to imagine going back while Putin is in power, but 15 years ago, it all looked very different. With a radical change of leadership in russia, it would look different again.
Russia is huge and has lots of ressources, they would be welcomed back for sure.
If there is to be any post-war justice it will involve serious Russian reparations with their economy already significantly weakened. Add to that the lessons learned by EU member states and I don't see any rapprochement for a very long time.
Yes, "justice" can be a dangerous concept in the geopolitical context. There is lots of injustice happening all the time and if you really want justice, you would have to be consequent on all sides, I think. Starting with Iraq, Kashoggi, Assange, Snowden, Turkey, Armenia, Syria, Jemen, ...
And as long as a really great war with china remains possible, a "injust" peace with russia might be preferable, compared to a "just" war, with the NATO against the combined east.
> nobody wants Russia and especially the EU, which was mostly built on the basis of confrontation with Russia
This is laughably misinformed. What the E.U. was built on has absolutely nothing to do with Russia. There have been ups and downs over the last couple of centuries, but neither France nor Germany are particularly russophobe.
The EU is primarily a trade bloc, and it is in natural competition with the Eurasian Economic Union: countries can have tariff-free trade with either one bloc or the other, but not both at the same time. The current scramble over Ukraine is primarily motivated by the EU and the EAEU economically benefiting from the country being in their respective trade zone.
The EU is in origin and execution a political entity in which trade is one of its tools. The value of adding, say, Romania to the EU was hardly economic, but important for the anti-war mission. The integration of Turkey would be economically quite significant and valuable, but (sadly) lacks impetus on the political side. It is a NATO member.
Likewise, Ukraine’s prewar economy was so small (midway between Hungary and Slovakia) that it would have been economically irrelevant to the EU but, as we have seen, important in the anti war basis.
The economic size of the Eurasian Economic Union is quite small and I doubt it plays into the planning of anyone but its members and some of its immediate neighbors.
I am from a small country with an economy roughly the size of Russia’s (Australia) and it’s clear that the EU has little interest, positive or negative with trade with Australia. Conversely I have literally never seen mention of the Eurasian version in an Australian newspaper.
The elephant in the room is that if you invite everybody in your anti-war club, but one country, that remaining country will get really nervous and you might as well get a war (what we are seeing).
If the situation is that you can't invite everybody in, then the plan is defective from the start.
The EU is quite liberal in accepting countries to the anti-war club, but they need to adhere to some standards regarding human rights, trade, and democracy.
If you crash your own party with some people that don't fit in, you will cause the guests you wanted to have to leave.
Any countries not in the EU don't want to be in the EU. And that's fine.
And looking at what the EU does you don't have to be scared if you don't join. It's a defensive union first and foremost.
Switzerland isn't scared about the EU invading despite largely uncontrolled borders.
> The US has Confederacy parades, and also has criminal sentences for being an unregisteres agent of a foreign power.
No wonder the US did everything to save the nazi collaborator responsible for the massacre of ~100k Poles in Eastern Galicia from a post-war tribunal justice.
NATO discussed bringing Russia in during the 1990s, and Russia was invited and did join some NATO regular meetings until relatively recently, but wasn't that interested in joining.
I'm not faulting Russia for their position, just pointing out the thing you are claiming should have happened did indeed happen.
But I will point out that Australia is as rich as Russia yet has not started any wars (except against its own aboriginal population, true of Russia as well) so there is no anti-Australia alliance. Two of the three largest war-mongers in Europe (Germany, France, and until recently UK) have been restrained in a web of agreements and alliances, not seeing them as a threat but as a reassurance. If Russia feels encircled, it should start by looking in the mirror.
The Russians didn't want to play 2nd fiddle to the US, and had significant domestic arms production -- a non-trivial amount of industry and GDP -- to look after.
STANAG and interoperability standards meant that the Russian gear would have to change, and the Russian weren't willing to give up the control of their national policy, or put their industry at risk.
I mean, I haven't seen any rumor of war between the EU and Switzerland, or Turkey, or the United Kingdom, or really any other of its neighbors other than Russia.
That seems to be deviating quite a lot from the concept of the existence of EU causing wars, as you suggested in the message I answered. By a few decades for North Cyprus (or 100+ years, depending from your definition of that conflict) a few centuries in the case of North Ireland.
Ukraine did not control Crimea, Donetsk and Lugansk for almost a decade. The north cyprus / north ireland situation existed before the war, which does look idiotic to me presently.
I cannot speak for the whole continent, but as a single European who lives quite close to Russia, I say that a sane Russia would be the best thing that has happened to this planet in a long time. I truly want that.
For a while Putin's Russia actually looked a bit like that. In early 2000s, USA was the warmongering religious asshole idiot of the world and Russia started to look respectable and honest in contrast. But somehow all that crumbled away. In retrospect, perhaps it was just a facade.
If this is true, it suggests many Russians actually want their country to become a democracy:
> Objectively — though it’s awkward to say — the book has become a bit of a phenomenon. But the book, “The End of the Regime: How Three European Dictatorships Ended”, is not about Russia or Vladimir Putin. It’s about three dictatorships — those of Francisco Franco in Spain, Antonio Salazar in Portugal and the colonels in Greece — and how those countries became democracies, returning to the global fold. A large number of Russians haven’t suddenly taken an interest in the history of 20th-century Southern Europe. Rather, discussions of the book have common themes: How do prolonged right-wing dictatorships end? And can Russia become a democracy?
Russians are of course allowed to post on HN. We don't exclude people because of their country.
In fact we don't exclude any population, not only (or even primarily) for ethical reasons but because it would be bad for intellectual curiosity, which is what we're trying to optimize for (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...).
Your mythical "site rules", don't prevent people here to justify terrorism inside Russia, call to violence against Russian people, or insults of ethnic character. Just as they don't prevent people from doing it on any other major western public forum.
What they do prevent, on the other hand, is expressing point of view which is not aligned, at least partially, to the "point of view" of your state department. There might be no offensive speech in the comments you block, they are just politically unacceptable.
I don't know what you are on, I admitted in multiple comments on HN over the past year that I was russian. Never got any "calls to violence" or "insults of ethnic character" or heard people justifying terrorism inside russia in replies.
The few attempts at insults against russians that I've seen on HN (not even against me, but somewhere in deep down in random related threads) were either extremely downvoted or flagged.
If you said "on reddit", that would have been a different story, especially on their large frontpage subs. But reddit comments in general tend to be extremely moronic at times on all sides, so that's not really a surprise.
You're right - rules don't prevent people from breaking the rules. I'm just telling you what the rules are, and what their intended spirit is. I'm not telling you that every commenter conforms to them—that's definitely not the case, as you're describing.
There's another aspect. HN can't be immune from macro trends (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...). Although HN is a highly international site (only 50% US if not less), its demographics are majority Western, so discourse here will inevitably be dominated by Western views regardless of how we moderate. Moderation power is limited.
That puts users with non-Western views in a delicate position. All I can tell you is that as moderators, we're on the side of including minorities, not excluding them. I've defended countless minority users when the majority is ganging up on them, and that will be the case for as long as I'm moderating HN, whenever I see it happening.
But we need users from those groups to do their part as well. What happens all too easily and often is that users from the minority groups, feeling stung by the majority, lash back aggressively in a way that breaks the rules. This puts the moderators in a double bind: we can't condone breaking the rules, and we also don't want to exclude minority users, making the minority even smaller.
The only solution I know is to persuade you (i.e. you personally and others in this position) that it isn't in your interest to break the rules like that. Your reasons for doing it, and the emotions behind it, are understandable—but the effect of such posts is to discredit your own views (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...). This marginalizes you even further—it just gives the majority fresh confirmation that you're wrong and they're right. This doesn't improve your position.
What you should do instead—though I know it is not easy—is strictly, scrupulously, meticulously stick to the rules while laying out your position. Let others be the ones to become aggressive and call names and flame. Who knows, maybe they won't! and then you can have the respectful conversation that HN is supposed to be for. But if they do, at least it will be they who are discrediting their own position, rather than you.
Russians do indeed want to have some different regime eventually, but usually not at cost of losing the war, having their economy destroyed or getting their country torn apart, etc.
Only the young 'children of summer' generation who did not witness 1991 fallout would root for immediate uncontrolled regime change via revolution. Hence it is not a very popular point, and many of its adherents have fleed the country.
Interesting keyword, "regime". Seems like many dictatorships fell in the last decade, in the Arab world, to be replaced by other tyrannical leaders or civil war. Russia seems to have a lot of people in good seats to be a Putin replacement, of course most of them with the same goal of Putin's, i.e. self-enrichment. And to be in such a seat you're usually rich and powerful...
And if you're not rich/powerful, you still need their support to be leader, and give them a quid-pro-quo and be nice to them. Just like in many democracies...
I don't think you're interpreting the case of Vladimir Putin clearly. It's quite obvious he will not have any chance to actually use his money that he may have stowed away. Autocrats don't get to retire.
He also has no official family, his suspected relatives are quite well off but nothing spectacular. And it's hard to explain why a kleptocrat would want to start a war which will make his funds actively sought after all across globe and confiscated wherever found.
Whatever cuckoo bananas framework of State government Galkovsky has, it sounds more believeable than naive Navalnist "con men and thieves" with regards to Putin. The other people you've mentioned may fit the kleptocrat profile perfectly, but it's hard to argue how the war would benefit their prospects of keeping that money.
That's also the weak link of Navalnist's "Putin builds his palace" narrative - it's obvious that for any palace built, Putin does not get to enjoy it now and he certainly is not going to enjoy it afterwards, so it can't be his palace.
> Russia seems to have a lot of people in good seats to be a Putin replacement, of course most of them with the same goal of Putin's, i.e. self-enrichment. And to be in such a seat you're usually rich and powerful...
I wonder if one of them will take a chance at being a benevolent dictator who sets up a democracy rather than do the usual since the typical dictator seem to have a 50/50 chance of enjoying a retirement vs dying horribly.
Setting up a democracy and slowly releasing power would increases the chances of having a nice retirement considerably.
> Setting up a democracy and slowly releasing power
In principle I agree (reporting for Radio Eriwan), cynical me wonders how that would work, the leader would have to cooperate with the West -- because the populace's support seem to depend a lot on how they think their future is looking -- but Western leaders usually visit with business leaders, who say (or tell their puppets ^W elected officials to say) "You want X? We want Y in return.".
So? The French had to try a few times before Democracy stuck around. Germany and Japan had some... unfortunate... experiences with elections as well, but arguably they're actual democracies now, too.
Democracy is not a one size fits all solution. Even the US endured a civil war while trying to do democracy, it isn't that simple and democraric nations shouldn't be pushing it down everyone's throats. Every country needs to figure out what works for them. Some even debate id countries with two party options like america are even an actual valid democracy and others debate if China is really communist because of it's embrace of market economy and even the D in DPRK stands for democraric. "Follow our ways or else" is b.s. , if well informed citizens of a country, without coercion or exceccisve influence by outside forces decide to have a republican representstive democracy with market economy and federalist government structure then so be it.
Everyone can see how much billionaires in the US decide who even gets to run for office, what kind of influence do you think oligarchs and the russian mob will have over any supposed democracy there? It's silly to presume that everyone wants democracy, communists also believe everyone in the west except the rich want a pro-worker communist regime where everyone equally prospers and they would use the poverty and homelessness in america, the richest democracy, as an example of how bad democracies are. Even if the educated class pick american style democracy, even America's founders were very concerned about the less informed and educated masses would be influenced by a demagogue to vote against their own interests (and lo and behold trump fulfilled their prophecy).
There are many considerations, including how much blood to spill and whose child will spill it when you talk about regime changes like that. Let the people who have to endure the carnage of such change figure out what they want and what fits their cultures and beliefs best.
Ultimately, this "everyone loves democracy" sentiment in my opinion is rooted in the arrogant belief that "everyone must share my ways and beliefs and would like the world I live in"
Spoken like someone who has never lived under nor seriously studied the consequences and conditions of living in an autocracy (or who has, and wa part of the ruling class). Disgusting
(&ya, the fact that democracies are imperfect, billionaires and would-be oligarchs often corrupt politicians is NOT the same. Self-determination and democracy are not binary, but on a scale. One scale is how well power is spread across the institutions of government and society, the legislative, judicial and executive branches, the institutions of press, academy, industry, religion, society... are they independent, or all bent to serve the executive, and now many and how much?)
> One scale is how well power is spread across the institutions of government and society, the legislative, judicial and executive branches, the institutions of press, academy, industry, religion, society... are they independent, or all bent to serve the executive, and now many and how much?
That's nice, but let a country figure that out on their own. You don't get to decide that measurement for the billions of humans who are barely surviving. Look at China, so long as the economy is good the people mostly support the CCP, outside of its handling if covid lockdowns one could even argue the CCP had more popular support than either parties ever had in the US in the last 20+ years! That's what upsets me about you people, i don't care about autocracies and dictators or democracies but you freaking claim to give a shit about what the people think but when they disagree with your way of life you pretend the measurement or polling must be incorrect. Ideologies are cheap, people care about results, they want food, shelter and security before ideology and for many they would not trade their identity and sovreignity for imported ideology. Why you all can't focus your energy here at home where many of your fellow citizens are suffering I would never know.
Yea, democracy and sovreignity are not mutually exclusive but they become mutually exclusive if foreign forces manipulate domestic media and fund or sabotage different elemnts in a country. Even saying a country would be better off with democracy is propaganda and an attempt to influence domestic matters of a foreign country. Look at how many people died in the arab spring because if this same propaganda spread by western clueless people or what's happening in Iran, your propaganda worked, your interference coninues to cause chaos, your assumptions and unwillingness to respect a nation's sovreignity causes harm!
1) Freedom to live a self determined life, under a self-determined government is a most fundamental human desire, and right.
2) Neutrality ALWAYS favors the aggressor, the abuser, the autocrat. It allows them to continue aggressing, abusing, and dictating without interference, and provides only hopelessness to the victims of aggression, abuse, and autocracy.
3) Anyone who wants to live a self-determined life under a self-determining government must be better armed and prepared to fight for that right. Without being better armed and prepared, the abusers or autocrats WILL, and sooner rather than later, take their lunch and their government.
You argue to:
>>let a country figure that out on their own
Nonsense
Lacking the power to overthrow a dictatorship is NOT the same thing as choosing that person/party as a leader.
Once a group of abusers or autocrats has succeeded in the aggression to take over the government, that does NOT mean that it is permanently decided. Claiming so does nothing but help the abusers.
Just look at the Iran regime who came to power 40+ years ago. The regime has murdered hundreds of people and imprisoned and tortured thousand simply for daring to speak out against them by not wearing a scarf. Literally millions risk their lives to protest. It is obvious that the regime is not desired by the people, yet you claim that nothing should be done to help them, not even subtle things to undermine the regime's power. Disgusting.
You argue that:
>>you pretend the measurement or polling must be incorrect
Nonsense
Any presumption that polling about the popularity of an autocracy inside that autocracy is simply preposterous.
First, the polling sample is already pre-selected. All vocal opponents have been removed form the sample. Anyone even remotely connected to them has learned that speaking out has very negative consequences, either long-term imprisonment and torture or death. On top of that, all media and information is tightly controlled, so people cannot even get information about, much less discuss, alternatives. And you propose that polling under those circumstances is accurate? Oblivious, to be kind.
>>Ideologies are cheap
Fully agree. Ideologies are nothing but bullshit covering for autocracy. It doesn't matter what kind of -ism you're talking about, communism, Marxism, Naziism, fascism, Trumpism, whatever; it is all noise to cover up the will to autocracy by those using it. As the -isms fall apart and away, we can see the fight for what it is - self-determination vs autocracy.
>>You assume too much.
Nope, there are only a few choices for people who support autocracy. They (and sadly, you) are arguing to keep people essentially (and often literally) enslaved because they lack the power to force their will for self-determination on their oppressors.
The only reason someone would do that is 1) they are a dictator themselves, 2) they are in the ruling party and thus enjoy the benefits of a kleptocracy hoarding the wealth of a nation, or 3) they enjoy a privileged life in a democracy such that they can engage in abstract concepts that ignore the reality of millions and play the role of Vladimir Lenin's Useful Idiots.
The only other option is that you are somehow personally aggrieved because of some specific past action by the democratic nations affected you or your relatives, you are certainly avoiding that topic, and are also constructing an entirely false narrative to avoid direct discussion.
I will not argue that there are some if not many instances where actions of democratic nations were mistaken or misguided, and caused real damage and death. But contract the maximum total of that damage and death against the literally hundreds of millions killed by dictators (either by direct action or starvation by their policies) in just the last century (Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, Un family, etc.+++), and the misery of billions more living under their regi...
I'm not convinced that South Korea is the best example - much of its economic growth(until 1987) occurred under what Wikipedia describes as dictatorial then despotic rule and I'd be tempted to attribute some of the difference to having the US as an ally instead of the collapsing Soviet Union.
Sure, maybe not the best example off the top of my head. But not bad either.
While levels of democracy were bad (i.e., higher autocracy) in the early years, the trend has certainly been towards democracy, and growth has been solid under both conditions, and steadier in the last few decades.
Sure, trading with the US and ER is also a factor, but that is also a benefit of being a democracy, instead of being an autocracy and relying on international criminal activities for currency, as does NK.
And while these factors may account for some of the difference it certainly doesn't count for all of it. While they're on two halves of the same patch of land, NK should also have some advantages with their direct land connections to China an Russia. Yet, NK residents are literally kept ignorant and starving, while SK is one of the most prosperous nations in the world. It would be extreme paternalism to argue that even if they had good information and the means to make a self-determining government, that they would not do so. In fact, parts of the experiment have already been done in NK — while any type of private enterprise was absolutely banned, it still sprung up all the time, and in one of their earlier famines, the govt relented and it was allowed because it did help better distribute resources. Just because people who don't like what thy have and are powerless to change it, does not mean that they want it or it is best for them.
Assuming your question is not rhetorical, some Russians may not want an end of Putin's regime because they perceive that something worse than Putin is possible, and even likely. A lot of Russians experienced the lawlessness of the 90's, and Putin was perceived as the one who brought a semblance of order and stability. If he is eliminated, or simply dies of natural causes (he's rumored to have cancer), then who will follow him? Is there any guarantee that the new regime is going to be better? There were plenty of bad strongmen around the world who were toppled, only to be replaced by even worse guys.
And just to be clear, I'm 100% against Putin. I read every single day about the war in Ukraine, and hope every day that Ukraine will win. I'm quite optimistic that the spring counteroffensive will be a great success (knock on wood).
That said, I just answered your question. I can see why some Russians will be ok with Putin staying in power.
"The press review "Tribuna Libre" is part of the educational and research project of the non-profit Cultural Association "Almendrón". It is a virtual newspaper library, with free access, which offers the full text of the main opinion articles published in various media."
> Nevertheless, there is no legal way for the authorities to ban it.
I thought Putin was long past the point of being restrained by the law. Can't he just order the law to be changed? Or use a bunch of fancy spy stuff to figure out who owns the book, and arrange for them to fall out of windows?
103 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 166 ms ] threadWith regards to dictators of Spain, Portugal and Greece. These countries could get rid of autocrats and fall back to Europe's safety net. But in case of Russia it is not an option, as nobody wants Russia and especially the EU, which was mostly built on the basis of confrontation with Russia. There's nowhere that Russia could 'return' to.
The EU was build to avoid another World War were Germany/UK/France start fighting. Once all European countries are tied economically for any of them to benefit of starting a war is very difficult.
And, of course, there is also the idea that a bigger economic area will create more opportunities and make Europe more competitive.
If anything projects like Nordstream prove that countries inside the EU were willing to increase their ties with Russia. If Russia had not initiated another war, Crimea was given a pass, there will be closer ties.
Russia has nobody else to blame from breaking ties with Europe but themselves.
It does sound strange if you claim to want to avoid a new war in Europe but systemically exclude the largest country in Europe from that equation. Meanwhile trying to integrate their direct neighbours into your sphere of influence.
The real countries in reduce war equation were Germany and France, not Russia.
On the other side, I suspect that none of the existing EU members would be happy with having a new one that's so much larger in population than any of the others that it'd gain effectively a veto power over everything, to say nothing of the domestic political issues with potential east-to-west migration.
It could, however, by 2013 have massive students exchange, Schengen visa waiver programme for short visits, cultural exchange, etc. None of that happened. EU just wanted oil & gas and unilaterally accept some of the brighter students into their universities, ideally having them pay for that privilege.
EU also wanted to "euroassociate" our neighbour countries, where they will get no guarantees or support of being EU member, but would open their markets to the EU and half-shut their markets, and borders, towards Russia. That was a directly hostile move towards Russia, who was completely shut off these arrangements.
EU and USA were also openly nagging Ukraine to boot Russian naval base from Crimea. A directly hostile move which backfired quickly and led to the whole war thing in the end.
That phrase is a relic of a long ago era. The EU would be more effective if it had more influence on its member states, but it reached a level where it does appear to dramatically reduce the chance of war, but from there, further integration has asymptoted.
I can’t say that colonialism is completely obsolete but influence has become so diffuse and information spread so widespread that even an analysis from that stance is no longer useful.
There are always two sides to every story, and it’s not that hard to find credible western foreign policy experts who are more than willing to point out that decisions by the west going back to the fall of the Soviet Union played a big role in where we are today[0]. Geopolitics, just like everything else, has nuance.
0: https://youtu.be/JrMiSQAGOS4
Even funnier is another comment where Russians should risk their lives to overthrow their government and (implicitly) betray millions of their compatriots in order to supply Europe with their cheap 'ressources'. Using Molotov cocktails. Where's the carrot?
there is a Romanian saying about Romania but it applies to Russia too, "poor rich country" not sure if it translates well... the country is rich but the people are poor and suffering because of the small number of parasites.
My theory is that when you have same persona ndparty in power for decades then they can't hide their incompetence and failures on a party from opposition and they start inventing bad guys somehere outside (like UK invented the EU bad guy and ended up with Brexit( so Putin invented a big conspiracy about the west, LGBTQ , Israel and blame all his failures on them. Now he is gone old and senile and he believed his propaganda.
With regards to "respect for other nations", Russians know how Russian minority is treated in Baltic states and that Russian speakers are treated like 3rd class citizens in Ukraine (even before 2014). Russia treated other nations way better than those other nations treated Russians when on their own turf.
I believe you are confusing Putin with e.g. Orban because Putin is actually BFF with Israel, and even the fact that they are mildly supporting Ukraine didn't dent that.
Israel has been only mildly helping Ukraine in part to buy Russian acquiescence to Israeli attacks on Iranian targets in Syria, where Russia has a substantial presence (though over time getting less, as material and personnel have been shifted to Ukraine.)
Putin isn’t Israel’s BFF despite Israel’s mild support for Ukraine; the Russian presence in Syria is a constraint on Israeli policy that results in it only mildly supporting Ukraine.
I am not sure what you want from EU, we are not USA to democratize them with force. The western EU thought that with economy they can prevent idiotic wars, this work for EU, we no longer have wars here and the population is very anti -war.
Not sure what happens in Baltic states but please don't fucking tell me Ruzzian propaganda on how well URSS or Russia is treating minorities, the fucking bastards of Putin and his gang are not respecting nationalities living in their own independent countries.
I know that Ukraine is almost as bad as Russia so pushing propaganda on how bad Ukraine is just pushes Russia even lower.
So for Romanians Russians or FSB trolls should not waste their time, maybe you can fool some westerner with how well you love minorities.
TLDR easter europe knows Russia well, Putin played EU and Germany but he made a bet and his dice did not favored him, but he will push this stupid SMO to the his death.
* Also expecting them to lose a war voluntarily, agree to trillion of reparations and divide their country to dozens of strifing principalities.
Russian opposition is very self discredited. Compared to them, any version of patriot is super sane and non brainwashed.
This has absolutely nothing in common with wanting the USSR back. Russians do contempt modern Ukraine and Baltic states, but they are not universally fans of USSR. Some are, but they're being overly romantic.
Eastern Europeans are pathetic people who only saw like 10% of hardships of Communism and came out whining like they saw 500% of those. Now you have a different good lord to whom you sing praise like you did to Soviet communists just 35 years back. Don't consider yourself to be like Russians because we are not the same.
We are not the same, I wrongly thought that we might be more similar since we shared some trauma, but as i said I was wrong. I need to re-evaluate all the Russians I know online and try to figure-out if they in fact are imperialists/fascists that think God chose their nation to rule Eastern Europe or if they are the smarter/human Russians.
We did not share anything, the USSR breastfeeded the Eastern Europe for a few decades while starving its own Russian population like the proverbial reverse colony which siphons wealth from its core, and you came out really entitled. Of course, they were all so bad at economy that nobody was feeling exactly well off, but I'm not sure why you would blame that on Russians specifically, who are the main victims of the whole marxist hodge podge.
Also For example, the Soviet Union forced Eastern European countries to sell their natural resources, such as coal, timber, and minerals, to the USSR at below-market prices. The Soviet Union also imposed production quotas on these countries, requiring them to produce certain goods and send them to the USSR. The Soviet Union often used military force to maintain control over Eastern Europe and ensure compliance with these economic policies.
Additionally, the Soviet Union controlled the banking systems and foreign trade of Eastern European countries, making it difficult for them to trade with other countries and develop their own economies. The Soviet Union also used Eastern Europe as a market for its own goods, flooding these countries with cheap Soviet-made products that undercut local industries and businesses.
Russian Empire does not exist anymore, orphaned and its own gold being stolen, I would recommend you going to UK and France (allies of Russian Empire at the time) for the compensation.
I pity for your loss, I really do, but given how the Russian Empire has suffered a horrible demise I just do not understand why any money should be taken from my pocked and put into yours in the century XXI.
The rest of your comment does not sound like a description of a horrible crime. Moreover, it does sound like an entitlement.
One of the points, that the Soviet Union also sold oil and gas to Eastern Europe at below market prices. That you chose to withhold that fact highlights the whiny, intellectually disingenous attitude of Eastern Europeans.
What happened is URSS planed and forced the economy of it's satellites, because they did not like Romania they tried to not allow us to have an industry and forced us to sell them resources and they would sell us stuff. Luckily we had some competent leaders with diplomatic skills(btw is diplomacy looked down upon in Russia?... ) and Romania managed to get away from URSS planned control, we even prepared for an URSS invasion and had the USA president visit, but it took decades to kick Russians out from our country and our business.
About the gold, other countries returned the gold, and it is not only gold, Russia is keeping documents, artwork , from Bulgaria too(aren't Bulgaria your brothers? ). I am sure the gold is in Putin palace but did he used the documents to fill his library too? The art might be on the walls of his palace, bunkers and yachts but if you have prove that our art, gold, documents is in UK let me see it.
Is that a US point of view? As a european, it is the first time I heard this.
(Edit: I mean yes, it was founded under the assumption of soviet threat, but it was not constructed especially against russia, which is how I read your comment)
The NATO was constructed against communist russia.
But the reasons for the founding of the EU are more complex, but mostly they were for .. europa. Not to become dependant on russia, nor USA. Stand on its own. Interconnecting economically, to not have a big war again.
And large parts of europe would actually love to get back to also freely trading with russia. Eastern europe (starting in east germany) had tight industrial relationships with russia and were therefore also hit hard by the sanctions.
Now it seems hard, to imagine going back while Putin is in power, but 15 years ago, it all looked very different. With a radical change of leadership in russia, it would look different again.
Russia is huge and has lots of ressources, they would be welcomed back for sure.
And as long as a really great war with china remains possible, a "injust" peace with russia might be preferable, compared to a "just" war, with the NATO against the combined east.
This is laughably misinformed. What the E.U. was built on has absolutely nothing to do with Russia. There have been ups and downs over the last couple of centuries, but neither France nor Germany are particularly russophobe.
I think you have the EU and NATO confused. The two overlap a lot but they are far from coextensional.
Likewise, Ukraine’s prewar economy was so small (midway between Hungary and Slovakia) that it would have been economically irrelevant to the EU but, as we have seen, important in the anti war basis.
The economic size of the Eurasian Economic Union is quite small and I doubt it plays into the planning of anyone but its members and some of its immediate neighbors.
I am from a small country with an economy roughly the size of Russia’s (Australia) and it’s clear that the EU has little interest, positive or negative with trade with Australia. Conversely I have literally never seen mention of the Eurasian version in an Australian newspaper.
If the situation is that you can't invite everybody in, then the plan is defective from the start.
If you crash your own party with some people that don't fit in, you will cause the guests you wanted to have to leave.
Any countries not in the EU don't want to be in the EU. And that's fine.
And looking at what the EU does you don't have to be scared if you don't join. It's a defensive union first and foremost.
Switzerland isn't scared about the EU invading despite largely uncontrolled borders.
This is not how human rights and democracy should look like.
No wonder the US did everything to save the nazi collaborator responsible for the massacre of ~100k Poles in Eastern Galicia from a post-war tribunal justice.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mykola_Lebed#Post-war_activiti...
That's basically the situation in Russia with Putin after the USSR.
I'm not faulting Russia for their position, just pointing out the thing you are claiming should have happened did indeed happen.
But I will point out that Australia is as rich as Russia yet has not started any wars (except against its own aboriginal population, true of Russia as well) so there is no anti-Australia alliance. Two of the three largest war-mongers in Europe (Germany, France, and until recently UK) have been restrained in a web of agreements and alliances, not seeing them as a threat but as a reassurance. If Russia feels encircled, it should start by looking in the mirror.
STANAG and interoperability standards meant that the Russian gear would have to change, and the Russian weren't willing to give up the control of their national policy, or put their industry at risk.
It was a non-starter for a lot of reasons.
I mean, I haven't seen any rumor of war between the EU and Switzerland, or Turkey, or the United Kingdom, or really any other of its neighbors other than Russia.
Or did I misunderstand what you wrote?
But, the fact is that expansion of EU and EU influence in Ukraine were conductive of that war instead of being a deterrent.
Correct.
> Soviets did, by appending Donetsk Krivorozhye Republic to Ukraine SSR.
No, the Russian Federation did, by launching an unprovoked war of aggression against Ukraine.
For a while Putin's Russia actually looked a bit like that. In early 2000s, USA was the warmongering religious asshole idiot of the world and Russia started to look respectable and honest in contrast. But somehow all that crumbled away. In retrospect, perhaps it was just a facade.
> Objectively — though it’s awkward to say — the book has become a bit of a phenomenon. But the book, “The End of the Regime: How Three European Dictatorships Ended”, is not about Russia or Vladimir Putin. It’s about three dictatorships — those of Francisco Franco in Spain, Antonio Salazar in Portugal and the colonels in Greece — and how those countries became democracies, returning to the global fold. A large number of Russians haven’t suddenly taken an interest in the history of 20th-century Southern Europe. Rather, discussions of the book have common themes: How do prolonged right-wing dictatorships end? And can Russia become a democracy?
In fact we don't exclude any population, not only (or even primarily) for ethical reasons but because it would be bad for intellectual curiosity, which is what we're trying to optimize for (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...).
We do ask HN users, from any country or population, to stick to the site rules (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html) and in particular not to post in the flamewar style.
Your mythical "site rules", don't prevent people here to justify terrorism inside Russia, call to violence against Russian people, or insults of ethnic character. Just as they don't prevent people from doing it on any other major western public forum.
What they do prevent, on the other hand, is expressing point of view which is not aligned, at least partially, to the "point of view" of your state department. There might be no offensive speech in the comments you block, they are just politically unacceptable.
The few attempts at insults against russians that I've seen on HN (not even against me, but somewhere in deep down in random related threads) were either extremely downvoted or flagged.
If you said "on reddit", that would have been a different story, especially on their large frontpage subs. But reddit comments in general tend to be extremely moronic at times on all sides, so that's not really a surprise.
When we see comments breaking the rules, we ask them not to (and ban users who don't stop). But we only see a small minority of what gets posted to HN (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...).
There's another aspect. HN can't be immune from macro trends (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...). Although HN is a highly international site (only 50% US if not less), its demographics are majority Western, so discourse here will inevitably be dominated by Western views regardless of how we moderate. Moderation power is limited.
That puts users with non-Western views in a delicate position. All I can tell you is that as moderators, we're on the side of including minorities, not excluding them. I've defended countless minority users when the majority is ganging up on them, and that will be the case for as long as I'm moderating HN, whenever I see it happening.
But we need users from those groups to do their part as well. What happens all too easily and often is that users from the minority groups, feeling stung by the majority, lash back aggressively in a way that breaks the rules. This puts the moderators in a double bind: we can't condone breaking the rules, and we also don't want to exclude minority users, making the minority even smaller.
The only solution I know is to persuade you (i.e. you personally and others in this position) that it isn't in your interest to break the rules like that. Your reasons for doing it, and the emotions behind it, are understandable—but the effect of such posts is to discredit your own views (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...). This marginalizes you even further—it just gives the majority fresh confirmation that you're wrong and they're right. This doesn't improve your position.
What you should do instead—though I know it is not easy—is strictly, scrupulously, meticulously stick to the rules while laying out your position. Let others be the ones to become aggressive and call names and flame. Who knows, maybe they won't! and then you can have the respectful conversation that HN is supposed to be for. But if they do, at least it will be they who are discrediting their own position, rather than you.
Only the young 'children of summer' generation who did not witness 1991 fallout would root for immediate uncontrolled regime change via revolution. Hence it is not a very popular point, and many of its adherents have fleed the country.
And if you're not rich/powerful, you still need their support to be leader, and give them a quid-pro-quo and be nice to them. Just like in many democracies...
He also has no official family, his suspected relatives are quite well off but nothing spectacular. And it's hard to explain why a kleptocrat would want to start a war which will make his funds actively sought after all across globe and confiscated wherever found.
Whatever cuckoo bananas framework of State government Galkovsky has, it sounds more believeable than naive Navalnist "con men and thieves" with regards to Putin. The other people you've mentioned may fit the kleptocrat profile perfectly, but it's hard to argue how the war would benefit their prospects of keeping that money.
That's also the weak link of Navalnist's "Putin builds his palace" narrative - it's obvious that for any palace built, Putin does not get to enjoy it now and he certainly is not going to enjoy it afterwards, so it can't be his palace.
I wonder if one of them will take a chance at being a benevolent dictator who sets up a democracy rather than do the usual since the typical dictator seem to have a 50/50 chance of enjoying a retirement vs dying horribly.
Setting up a democracy and slowly releasing power would increases the chances of having a nice retirement considerably.
In principle I agree (reporting for Radio Eriwan), cynical me wonders how that would work, the leader would have to cooperate with the West -- because the populace's support seem to depend a lot on how they think their future is looking -- but Western leaders usually visit with business leaders, who say (or tell their puppets ^W elected officials to say) "You want X? We want Y in return.".
Everyone can see how much billionaires in the US decide who even gets to run for office, what kind of influence do you think oligarchs and the russian mob will have over any supposed democracy there? It's silly to presume that everyone wants democracy, communists also believe everyone in the west except the rich want a pro-worker communist regime where everyone equally prospers and they would use the poverty and homelessness in america, the richest democracy, as an example of how bad democracies are. Even if the educated class pick american style democracy, even America's founders were very concerned about the less informed and educated masses would be influenced by a demagogue to vote against their own interests (and lo and behold trump fulfilled their prophecy).
There are many considerations, including how much blood to spill and whose child will spill it when you talk about regime changes like that. Let the people who have to endure the carnage of such change figure out what they want and what fits their cultures and beliefs best.
Ultimately, this "everyone loves democracy" sentiment in my opinion is rooted in the arrogant belief that "everyone must share my ways and beliefs and would like the world I live in"
(&ya, the fact that democracies are imperfect, billionaires and would-be oligarchs often corrupt politicians is NOT the same. Self-determination and democracy are not binary, but on a scale. One scale is how well power is spread across the institutions of government and society, the legislative, judicial and executive branches, the institutions of press, academy, industry, religion, society... are they independent, or all bent to serve the executive, and now many and how much?)
> One scale is how well power is spread across the institutions of government and society, the legislative, judicial and executive branches, the institutions of press, academy, industry, religion, society... are they independent, or all bent to serve the executive, and now many and how much?
That's nice, but let a country figure that out on their own. You don't get to decide that measurement for the billions of humans who are barely surviving. Look at China, so long as the economy is good the people mostly support the CCP, outside of its handling if covid lockdowns one could even argue the CCP had more popular support than either parties ever had in the US in the last 20+ years! That's what upsets me about you people, i don't care about autocracies and dictators or democracies but you freaking claim to give a shit about what the people think but when they disagree with your way of life you pretend the measurement or polling must be incorrect. Ideologies are cheap, people care about results, they want food, shelter and security before ideology and for many they would not trade their identity and sovreignity for imported ideology. Why you all can't focus your energy here at home where many of your fellow citizens are suffering I would never know.
Yea, democracy and sovreignity are not mutually exclusive but they become mutually exclusive if foreign forces manipulate domestic media and fund or sabotage different elemnts in a country. Even saying a country would be better off with democracy is propaganda and an attempt to influence domestic matters of a foreign country. Look at how many people died in the arab spring because if this same propaganda spread by western clueless people or what's happening in Iran, your propaganda worked, your interference coninues to cause chaos, your assumptions and unwillingness to respect a nation's sovreignity causes harm!
1) Freedom to live a self determined life, under a self-determined government is a most fundamental human desire, and right.
2) Neutrality ALWAYS favors the aggressor, the abuser, the autocrat. It allows them to continue aggressing, abusing, and dictating without interference, and provides only hopelessness to the victims of aggression, abuse, and autocracy.
3) Anyone who wants to live a self-determined life under a self-determining government must be better armed and prepared to fight for that right. Without being better armed and prepared, the abusers or autocrats WILL, and sooner rather than later, take their lunch and their government.
You argue to: >>let a country figure that out on their own Nonsense
Lacking the power to overthrow a dictatorship is NOT the same thing as choosing that person/party as a leader.
Once a group of abusers or autocrats has succeeded in the aggression to take over the government, that does NOT mean that it is permanently decided. Claiming so does nothing but help the abusers.
Just look at the Iran regime who came to power 40+ years ago. The regime has murdered hundreds of people and imprisoned and tortured thousand simply for daring to speak out against them by not wearing a scarf. Literally millions risk their lives to protest. It is obvious that the regime is not desired by the people, yet you claim that nothing should be done to help them, not even subtle things to undermine the regime's power. Disgusting.
You argue that: >>you pretend the measurement or polling must be incorrect Nonsense
Any presumption that polling about the popularity of an autocracy inside that autocracy is simply preposterous.
First, the polling sample is already pre-selected. All vocal opponents have been removed form the sample. Anyone even remotely connected to them has learned that speaking out has very negative consequences, either long-term imprisonment and torture or death. On top of that, all media and information is tightly controlled, so people cannot even get information about, much less discuss, alternatives. And you propose that polling under those circumstances is accurate? Oblivious, to be kind.
>>Ideologies are cheap Fully agree. Ideologies are nothing but bullshit covering for autocracy. It doesn't matter what kind of -ism you're talking about, communism, Marxism, Naziism, fascism, Trumpism, whatever; it is all noise to cover up the will to autocracy by those using it. As the -isms fall apart and away, we can see the fight for what it is - self-determination vs autocracy.
>>You assume too much. Nope, there are only a few choices for people who support autocracy. They (and sadly, you) are arguing to keep people essentially (and often literally) enslaved because they lack the power to force their will for self-determination on their oppressors.
The only reason someone would do that is 1) they are a dictator themselves, 2) they are in the ruling party and thus enjoy the benefits of a kleptocracy hoarding the wealth of a nation, or 3) they enjoy a privileged life in a democracy such that they can engage in abstract concepts that ignore the reality of millions and play the role of Vladimir Lenin's Useful Idiots.
The only other option is that you are somehow personally aggrieved because of some specific past action by the democratic nations affected you or your relatives, you are certainly avoiding that topic, and are also constructing an entirely false narrative to avoid direct discussion.
I will not argue that there are some if not many instances where actions of democratic nations were mistaken or misguided, and caused real damage and death. But contract the maximum total of that damage and death against the literally hundreds of millions killed by dictators (either by direct action or starvation by their policies) in just the last century (Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, Un family, etc.+++), and the misery of billions more living under their regi...
While levels of democracy were bad (i.e., higher autocracy) in the early years, the trend has certainly been towards democracy, and growth has been solid under both conditions, and steadier in the last few decades.
Sure, trading with the US and ER is also a factor, but that is also a benefit of being a democracy, instead of being an autocracy and relying on international criminal activities for currency, as does NK.
And while these factors may account for some of the difference it certainly doesn't count for all of it. While they're on two halves of the same patch of land, NK should also have some advantages with their direct land connections to China an Russia. Yet, NK residents are literally kept ignorant and starving, while SK is one of the most prosperous nations in the world. It would be extreme paternalism to argue that even if they had good information and the means to make a self-determining government, that they would not do so. In fact, parts of the experiment have already been done in NK — while any type of private enterprise was absolutely banned, it still sprung up all the time, and in one of their earlier famines, the govt relented and it was allowed because it did help better distribute resources. Just because people who don't like what thy have and are powerless to change it, does not mean that they want it or it is best for them.
[0] https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/KOR/south-korea/gdp-gr...
Assuming your question is not rhetorical, some Russians may not want an end of Putin's regime because they perceive that something worse than Putin is possible, and even likely. A lot of Russians experienced the lawlessness of the 90's, and Putin was perceived as the one who brought a semblance of order and stability. If he is eliminated, or simply dies of natural causes (he's rumored to have cancer), then who will follow him? Is there any guarantee that the new regime is going to be better? There were plenty of bad strongmen around the world who were toppled, only to be replaced by even worse guys.
And just to be clear, I'm 100% against Putin. I read every single day about the war in Ukraine, and hope every day that Ukraine will win. I'm quite optimistic that the spring counteroffensive will be a great success (knock on wood).
That said, I just answered your question. I can see why some Russians will be ok with Putin staying in power.
How bad was it? Did any of those countries become modern states without a ton of bloodshed?
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/26/opinion/russia-putin-dict...
By someone, I believe you mean the author (of opinion, blog & referenced book).
Unless you get a bunch of Russian generals to defect, the people don’t stand a chance.
Not anymore.
The Russian Army in WW1 was considerably larger, and conquered considerably more land, too. Yet they got Kerensky, and eventually, Lenin.
I thought Putin was long past the point of being restrained by the law. Can't he just order the law to be changed? Or use a bunch of fancy spy stuff to figure out who owns the book, and arrange for them to fall out of windows?
https://kniga.lv/en/shop/konec-rezhima-kak-zakonchilis-tri-e...