I've never heard Putin say much in favor of either Bolshevism or Soviet command economics; other than how the collapse of the former resulted in a terrible situation for the post-soviet Russian economy.
This whole thread is very off topic for HN so I shouldn't even engage, but this comment just seems so bizarre that I feel weird not responding: The current leader of Russia is Vladimir Putin, who certainly can be described as an ex-Soviet, having begun his career working for the Soviet intelligence service. His inner circle mostly share that same background.
He worked for a Communist state, he was not personally invested in the ideology beyond what was necessary to succeed in his organization.
This describes many, many Russians.
I think "you can't call people who were in the KGB ex-soviets because they did not have strong attachment to communist ideology" is an indefensible assertion.
If these people were a farmers or factory workers or something, sure. But these were people who worked and fought for the soviet state, not just workaday citizens.
If the current government of the US collapses, and whatever government we end up with afterward is eventually run by a cadre of career CIA agents, it will be very fair to call them whatever the equivalent of "ex-soviet" will be, even if they don't ever talk about their ideological attachment to constitutional republics.
It's entirely defensible, in that I don't consider most people who used to have/could've had a USSR passport to be doctrinaire communists, or even in a position to make policy. The # of people who were politically committed Russians in the mid-80's who are even alive now is vanishingly small. It was always a gerontocracy.
Likewise, in 1986 there were close to 500,000 KGB employees. How many of them do you think were in leadership positions then, that are also in leadership positions in the FSB/GRU now?
I mean, we covered this in my Russian Politics class in detail. Even during soviet times, every non-russian soviet state had russian politicians working behind the scenes. And many of the leaders/powerful people in Russia today are the inheritors of the power structure of the immediate aftermath of the collapse of the soviet union. I suspect many people you think are ignorant are actually quite aware of the subtle relationship between the two.
“Inheritors of the power structure”; i.e. they had inherited authority in what was effectively a new state in economic & demographic collapse. Do you think that all of them believe, now as then, that the situation they found themselves in in 1992 was entirely exogenous to the Soviet system?
> The NYT report provides a slightly different description of the incident near Crimea than the one in the CNN report based on Isaacson's book. While the book reportedly says Musk ordered SpaceX engineers to preemptively disable Starlink's network in the area, the NYT report said that Musk "refused Ukraine's request last year to provide Starlink access near Crimea, the Russian-controlled peninsula, so it could send an explosive-filled maritime drone into Russian ships docked in the Black Sea."
While markedly less dramatic, the NYT version of events seems much more realistic and defensible.
I'm very pro-Ukraine and anti-Musk, but I do think it's interesting the difference in coverage this is getting compared to the Googlers walking out over the DOD contracts
There is a version of this where SpaceX, through a standard process, refused service for military purposes, as described in their ToS. And there is another version where a single individual unilaterally took a reactive action.
I think these are two very different stories and it's honestly not clear to me from the current reporting which is closer to the reality.
As a CEO, Musk is obliged to look out for the best interests of Starlink and Starlink's shareholders (mostly Americans), and not allow somebody to paint a target on Starlink's back. The Russians are very capable of blasting those Starlink satellites out of orbit.
23 comments
[ 4.8 ms ] story [ 62.6 ms ] threadSame people in charge. Soviet government officials are now Russian government officials.
Am I missing your point?
He worked for a Communist state, he was not personally invested in the ideology beyond what was necessary to succeed in his organization. This describes many, many Russians.
If these people were a farmers or factory workers or something, sure. But these were people who worked and fought for the soviet state, not just workaday citizens.
If the current government of the US collapses, and whatever government we end up with afterward is eventually run by a cadre of career CIA agents, it will be very fair to call them whatever the equivalent of "ex-soviet" will be, even if they don't ever talk about their ideological attachment to constitutional republics.
Likewise, in 1986 there were close to 500,000 KGB employees. How many of them do you think were in leadership positions then, that are also in leadership positions in the FSB/GRU now?
Strange world.
Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. He probably cares more about his shareholders' opinion of him than your opinion of him.
While markedly less dramatic, the NYT version of events seems much more realistic and defensible.
I'm very pro-Ukraine and anti-Musk, but I do think it's interesting the difference in coverage this is getting compared to the Googlers walking out over the DOD contracts
There is a version of this where SpaceX, through a standard process, refused service for military purposes, as described in their ToS. And there is another version where a single individual unilaterally took a reactive action.
I think these are two very different stories and it's honestly not clear to me from the current reporting which is closer to the reality.
https://www.starlink.com/legal/documents/DOC-1020-91087-64