Interesting read. The underlying point here is what many of us have been saying since the beginning of the conflict.
Putin is not some crazy drugged up megalomaniac. Morality aside, his moves are clearly rational and shows a high level of sophistication.
A small window of opportunity opened up just after covid. Russia got a chance to make its last stand against the rapid decline of its sphere of influence and sovereignty.
Many people don't seem to realise how existential this is for Russia. Being surrounded by Nato on side and China on the other whilst rapidly declining as a nation (economy, birth rates, military etc etc) is really not good.
Navalny has always maintained that Crimea should be part of Russia, as did Yeltsin, so there goes your theory that the cause of the war is the idea that Putin is an especially bad leader.
Claiming? That's talk. Taking it then allows indeed begs pushback that need not recognize any normality or consistency in any russian claims. Russia also decided Ukraine should be its own country then changed their mind. So ... so much for that
the reason their economy, birth rates, and military go into the toilet is because of their shitty rulers stole the money and spent it on whores and cocaine instead of education and infrastructure, not because they lost territory or sovereignty or any of this shit. if putin was rational and sophisticated his country would not be flushing itself down the toilet.
russia used to be a mathematical, scientific, technological pioneer, also with major contributions to humanities, literature, and the arts. they kicked all those people out of the country for being un-macho nerds and now they have redneck oil idiots running the place and brainwashing the uneducated rural population into dying by the 100,000 alongside rapists and murderers in human wave attacks into an innocent country that never attacked them.
That's a good question to think about actually. I don't think they handled it the way Russia is handling it now (assuming that this is in fact what's happening with Russia).
Actually the big European powers gave up their empires fairly quietly. Yes they sometimes fought wars to keep them on a case by case basis, but I don't think any of them launched large scale campaigns of invasion as a response.
I am sorry but Ireland, Kenya, the Malayan emergency, the Indian mutiny, the Vietnam war, Portugal’s wars, Algeria, Suez, Spain from 1820s+…
I would not call any of that quiet. And Suez was definitely an invasion.
Hell, US hegemony was challenged by Al-Qaeda and they invaded Iraq.
Russia is different in that rather than being a seaborne empire they were a land based empire. The Austro-Hungarians invaded Serbia when their Balkan ambitions were looking like being thwarted.
There were also significantly counter-culture movements against anti-imperialism similar to the russian anti-woke-culture war (after all it discredits imperialism) and thus dissolves the russian empire if looked at through this lense. They were just discredited after hitler dialed imperialism up to eleven.
The British empire peacefully transferred power to their descendents/cousins, this is a success story. Speaking english. Christian. Shared ancestry.
Besides, we are not talking about breaking up the empire. That already happened with the dissolution of the USSR. We are talking about the extinction of a nation.
It would be like if the UK was split into Scotland, a puppet of the EU. Wales, a quasi independant state with strong ties to Scotland. England, a former power center. Finally Ireland becomes whole.
Do you really think the brits will be cool with this, especially if lets say Russia/China was working behind the scenes to make it happen and the so called ally EU was all too happy to gain all this new power and influence...
The article's analysis focuses on a rivalry between Russia and Poland. At least in my book, being stuck on a rivalry to the point of your own destruction is the exact opposite of "clearly rational" and having "a high level of sophistication".
If Poland has gained this newfound strength by shoring up its western border through cooperation and trade, and Putin is worried about Ukraine just being able to do so as well, it begs the question of why Russia could not have done the exact same thing. And well it probably could have, if not for its wealth being squandered on a kleptocracy as touched in a few sibling comments. The resource curse strikes again.
Putin tried to do that at the beginning of his presidency. He was talking a lot about joining NATO and even EU, but that didn’t go anywhere. Russia is much more valuable to the EU as a fossil colony.
The largest, most resource-rich, nuclear-protected country in the world with the decent education cannot advance without raping its neighbors, because checks notes neighbors wanted to trade fossils with it?
Russia has demographic problems. They still have fewer citizens than in 1989.
Russia’s economy was thoroughly fucked by the collapse of the USSR.
Putin’s campaigns in Ukraine have been barbaric and I don’t pretend to understand the logic but Russia’s natural resources cannot make up for their problems.
Ultimately neither will imperial expansion. They are not solving their problems, they just loot weaker neighbors and blame everyone but themselves. In reality Russia got maybe the best hand on this planet, so they definitely as a society could choose a path to prosperity instead of replaying medieval conquests, squandering whatever demographics they have left. Stolen Ukrainian kids are also a limited resource after all, when they run out, what will Russians do?
Right, but like the article says, in Poland westernisation was set as a return to Europe. “Europe” has for centuries defined itself against Russia. The last time Russia looked to the west, rather than inwards, they got shock therapy.
Beyond that Russia’s hand is so good because of the very imperialism we are all decrying.
You’re arguing that the Russian body politic should shrug off its distinct characteristics and submit to the west.
Hard to see any of that happening with anything short of revolution.
If Russians don't see that their ways ultimately lead to nowhere, it does not mean that others should accept Russian logic as rational. It is logical, but axioms the system is built upon are garbage.
Many people don't seem to realize how existential this is for Russia
What was existential for Russia? If they had of just remained peaceful and sold resources to the rest of the world, nothing would've happened to them, there was nothing existential about it.
Maybe Putin is a paranoid lunatic and thinks people were out to get him, but there is no way there was some secret western plot to invade Russia or anything like this? In fact, Europe and the rest of the world was trading with them just fine. All we hear about on here was how Germany is completely dependent on Russia.
The truth is, countries side with NATO for a reason, because they have something to offer. If Russia had something better to offer, was trustworthy and Putin supported democracy, maybe less countries would be interested in partnering with the west and happy to form stronger ties with the autocracy. It doesn't mean anyone was about to invade Russia though.
It is not existential for Russia, it's just yet another barely consistent concept Russian apologists are throwing around in hope it sticks. I vividly remember how there were dozens of comments on this website defending the lunatic conspiracy theory about "NATO biolabs below Azovstal" during week 3 of the invasion, so HN is just another social media "zone" which Russians and their Western sympathizers try to "flood with shit", quoting one of their ideologues.
No one was about to invade Russia, not today. But NATO is by definition an alliance created against Russia, and it has a long history of trying to initiate regime changes in its enemies.
You have to remember that Russia is a federation, one with much deeper internal divides than the USA. The closer we are to Russia, the easier it is for us to fund, train, and arm Russia's separatist elements.
If NATO was officially present if Georgia, do you think it would ignore any pleas for help from chechen separatists trying to defend themselves from the butcher running them? Or would we actively work to try to make Chechenia an independent country, over the next 10-20 years?
And Chechenia is far from the only vulnerable place.
Note that I am not saying this would be a bad thing for the people of Chechenia. It is quite likely what a lot of them want. But if Russia were funding, arming, and training the IRA, or Texas's secessionist fringe, would the USA or UK be happy to allow this? No, empires are fundamentally built out of people who try to maintain their empire.
and it has a long history of trying to initiate regime changes in its enemies.
1. A regime change would not be existential for Russia, it would be existential for Putin. Maybe that's why he panicked or something, but if one man has the power to take a country on an idiotic war like that, then maybe a regime change is a good idea.
2. You’re not really presenting a lot of evidence there was a by real risk of this actually happening?
3. How does anything you’ve said justify invading Ukraine?
Regardless it’s all failing spectacularly if the goal was to create distance between Russia and NATO. Finland is now in NATO and is on the border.
> 1. A regime change would not be existential for Russia, it would be existential for Putin.
Regime change means your enemies controlling who runs your country. It is an existential threat for the whole state, even if it would be better for the populace.
When the USA suspected Russia of influencing their elections, no one said (and rightfully so) "that is only existential for Hillary, not for America, why should we care?".
> 2. You’re not really presenting a lot of evidence there was a by real risk of this actually happening?
The constant talk of the necessity of changing Putin and the EU and US support for Navalnyi make it obvious that NATO powers want regime change in Russia.
Whether they would actually spend resources to actually work for it is not something I could possibly bring evidence for. But several EU countries and the USA have often initiated or supported regime change in smaller countries when they were able to. Quite recently unsuccessfully in Venezuela and Syria. And more saliently, they did so in Ukraine in 2008, helping the Ukrianian people get rid of Yanukovich.
> 3. How does anything you’ve said justify invading Ukraine?
Invading Ukraine prevents it from joining NATO, which it was on a very clear path towards (they had had joint military exercises just one year prior, with NATO troups in Ukraine). The same happened with Georgia, but they Georgia acceeded to the Russian demands more readily.
Even if they fail to conquer Ukraine, they will keep it in a state of frozen conflict that will likely delay any further rapproachment for a decade or two.
Also, none of this makes what Russia did any less monstrous and detrimental to the Ukrianian people (nor to their own soldiers). There is no question whatsoever that it is highly immoral and a condemnable act, and a clear case of breaking international law, a clear act of aggression, the international crime for which most of the nazi leadership was hanged.
I'm just arguing it was a rational calculated decision, not some insane power play motivated by historical revisionism.
So if a more radical nationalist imperialist than Putin were to win open free elections, do you think NATO would be happy?
Not to mention, by all accounts, Putin would probably win fully free elections even today. The opponents he's suppressing or killing are not extremely popular today, they are people who he fears might become popular if left unchecked.
Well, NATO is a defensive alliance and so not too worried if no one is invading anyone. But I think if Russia had a normal democratic situation with freeish press and lack of jailing or killing opponents they would be unlikely to continue the present kind of war which is a terrible deal for ordinary Russians. I remember the faces of the other Russians in the room when Putin announced the invasion and everyone looked horrified but scared to say anything.
> Putin is not some crazy drugged up megalomaniac. Morality aside, his moves are clearly rational and shows a high level of sophistication.
Nothing rational or sophisticated about trying to build a 19th century style land empire in the 21st century. The mindless quest for a sphere of influence is madness in our modern word, something that can only come from the mind of a crazy megalomaniac who thinks of sovereignty not in regards to modern borders, but in regards to a historic empire of his dreams. He believes Ukraine (and Belorussia, and Georgia, ...) are part of Russia, so anytime one of those stops playing the part (stop being a puppet/satellite) he invades (Georgia 2008, Ukraine 2014 and 2022).
>Many people don't seem to realise how existential this is for Russia.
I, being Russian, can not understand how is that an existential threat to a country that has the largest nuclear arsenal in the world, has insane amount of natural resources, and enjoys a virtually exclusive access to the best demographic reservoir in the world (except for Haredim, but it's not like they're planning to move anywhere, so yeah, the best one actually).
Over the span of three decades your nation went from being a global superpower with immense economic, political and military power to a rapid declining shell of its former self.
Your economy is more comparable to an American state like Florida than a powerful country. You're nation is a political pariah with fleeting influence even among former ussr members. You capability to exert military power outside of your own borders have been effectively disabled having being surrounded by NATO and with a heavily depleted military.
All of this combined with the natural resources and land you mentioned is exactly why its open season on Russia to be carved up by actors with higher economic, military and political power.
If I was in your shoes, I would either give up and move or do anything and everything I can to improve the odds of the terrible hand your nation has been given..
Btw going to back to my op, this is exactly what Putin has been doing by working on hypersonic missiles. Taking Crimea. Trying to forcefully bring Ukraine back to Russia's sphere of influence.. etc
I'm not saying I condone his actions. I'm saying his actions are rational and strategic.
Putins choices were either leave a legacy of a slowly declining Russian federation until there isn't one or make massive gambits like this reverse Russias fortune.
The thing is, such gambits carries the risk of accelerating the current fate..
If I was ever put in a similar situation, my god I pray to have the balls and conviction to pull the trigger on such moves. It would be so much easier to just put up the appearances of normalcy by moving the chairs of the titanic while it sinks..
He has plenty of other choices, actually. Even now.
It's just that they involve some combination of letting go of his expansionist fantasies, relaxing his absolute grip on power, or watering-down his so-called legacy. So of course he won't pursue them.
>global superpower with immense economic, political and military power
I seen it from inside - you've bought into a Potemkin's village.
When it was a "global superpower" (on paper) it was a much, much worse country by any measure.
>You're nation is a political pariah with fleeting influence even among former ussr members.
When the war has started that's exactly where I moved to. Turns out you're very wrong about it (didn't know it myself)
> But we rarely think about ethnic imperialism — an empire trying to gobble up neighboring polities because of linguistic and cultural similarity, so that it can be the ruler of a specific cultural sphere. (In fact, the British conquest of Ireland, the Japanese conquest of Korea and China)
Uh no. The Yamato people wanted these countries for land and resources. Japan was never interested in extending their culture, nor proactively assimilating other ethnic groups into their own, with the exception of maybe the Ryukyuan on Okinawa. If this were the case, you’d seen it in Taiwan. They didn’t want to assimilate the Koreans who already in their country for generations, either. I can only presume author is a white person, because the cultural affinity of Japan bifurcated from China a millennial ago. Speaking of which, the other motivation was to prevent and buffer Japan from being controlled and humiliated by a white colonizers, as was the case with China.
Japan's colonial policy on Korea varied over time, but they were consistently hostile against educating people in the Korean language (I mean, they wanted low wage workers for the empire, so obviously they would want them to speak passable Japanese), and toward the end it became a full attempt at erasing Korean identity, with banning the Korean language in classrooms, forcing Shintoism on Koreans, and even forcing every Korean to abandon their own name and pick up a Japanese name [1].
> Speaking of which, the other motivation was to prevent and buffer Japan from being controlled and humiliated by a white colonizers, as was the case with China.
I mean, yeah sure, that's what Japan claimed. In the same sense Hitler was defending the great German Lebensraum from evil intruders.
Yes? Japan only controlled Taiwan from 1895 to 1945, and only started really ramping up assimilationist policies towards the end of that period, but the influence of Japanese culture was nonetheless quite great, with many locals becoming bilingual in Japanese.
Then the ROC took over, instituted Mandarin as the official language while suppressing all others, and after losing control of the mainland retreated to Taiwan together with a large influx of Mandarin speakers. Now Mandarin is the dominant language, despite not being present before the end of Japanese rule.
So when you don't see many obvious Japanese influences in Taiwan today, don't forget that more time has passed since the end of Japanese rule than Taiwan was controlled by Japan in the first place.
I think this is all a bit of an irrelevant academic discussion. If Russia were to cross into Poland, it would essentially pit the world against Russia.
If you're on board with the article and believe Putin is on a historically motivated crusade of sorts, and of sound mind, it's difficult to imagine he'd initiate an invasion he has no chance of winning.
The fact that Poland can't muster an armed force as sizeable as Russia's is entirely beside the point in this scenario, especially considering he would be pitting his now somewhat depleted military resources against all of NATO, and potentially even more.
Before that happened I could not even rationally imagine a major European nation will be invaded, and to a great extent overrun, in 2022 and the world would just say - “Tough luck. We feel bad. And yes of course we condemn it. Please let us know if we could be of any help. I am sure better things are waiting for you after this”.
This is the specialty of China and Russia. Keep pushing the buttons, keep testing the limits. One inch at a time, one border at a time and then, well, push a little more.
People proclaiming ‘an attack on Poland will go nuclear’ are probably blissfully choosing to ignore that nuclear war is mutual destruction without discrimination and with a sense of finality.
The Russian's don't have enough troops to invade and hold Ukraine, they'd need twice as much to invade and hold Poland. The US should have had at least 300k soldiers on the ground to prevent the chaos that enveloped Iraq after the dissolution of the Iraqi government.
I love this quote in the tweet linked to (through another tweet) in the article:
If Tucker was a real journalist he would have pushed back on this literal debunked Nazi propaganda, but Tucker isn't a journalist, and this wasn't an interview, but one big KGB brainwashing circus.
The actual Putin quote (that it displays in turn) is extremely telling, and finally explains what he really means when he says -- and he does seem to really believe what he says -- that he was "forced" to start the special operation against Ukraine, due to their reluctance to accept their natural place in the greater political order in Europe.
The author forgot to mention Soviet offer (to Poland) to defend Czechoslovakia. It's completely understandable why they would not permit Soviet troops on their territory but them grabbing up a piece of Czechoslovakia while Hitler was helping himself with Sudentenland is not.
Putin might want to invade Poland but he cannot because of Article 5. He invaded Ukraine because he believed he could get away with it (lacking Article 5) and that "Russia" (he) was "entitled" to it. Just another corrupt, strongman, megalomaniac dictator. Nothing new.
I was and still am very irritated by the Carlson's Putin interview. Not a fan of censorship in general but offering a platform to an autocrat to rewrite history and rationalize his imperial ambitions is a net loss for humanity in general. If only for the reactions and the firehose of horseshit which will come as either a reaction or a derivative work to the interview. This specific type of poppycock is very dangerous especially when a large swath of the world's population is not educated in the history of WW2 or the monstruous previous expansions of the Russian empire.
Case in point this article which assumes that Putin is a sophisticated rational actor and a relentless crusader with a historical goal. Let's just say if all world leaders start a wave of revisionism and 'historical claims' the world as we know it will end. If everyone in Europe will work for reconquering their territories at the peak of their history, we'd need 2-3 more Europes for everyone to be happy and nobody to die.
I wonder how much garbage this interview will end up creating in the world. And I do realize my comment is part of said garbage.
62 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 110 ms ] threadPutin is not some crazy drugged up megalomaniac. Morality aside, his moves are clearly rational and shows a high level of sophistication.
A small window of opportunity opened up just after covid. Russia got a chance to make its last stand against the rapid decline of its sphere of influence and sovereignty.
Many people don't seem to realise how existential this is for Russia. Being surrounded by Nato on side and China on the other whilst rapidly declining as a nation (economy, birth rates, military etc etc) is really not good.
It is very rare to see this level of sophistication and depth from the people he shares his political believes with.
It was, and has always been a war to maintain a kleptocratic autocrat.
russia used to be a mathematical, scientific, technological pioneer, also with major contributions to humanities, literature, and the arts. they kicked all those people out of the country for being un-macho nerds and now they have redneck oil idiots running the place and brainwashing the uneducated rural population into dying by the 100,000 alongside rapists and murderers in human wave attacks into an innocent country that never attacked them.
that sounds like Texas politics to me
Actually the big European powers gave up their empires fairly quietly. Yes they sometimes fought wars to keep them on a case by case basis, but I don't think any of them launched large scale campaigns of invasion as a response.
I would not call any of that quiet. And Suez was definitely an invasion.
Hell, US hegemony was challenged by Al-Qaeda and they invaded Iraq.
Russia is different in that rather than being a seaborne empire they were a land based empire. The Austro-Hungarians invaded Serbia when their Balkan ambitions were looking like being thwarted.
For the UK, France, Spain, Portugal it was overseas empires
Besides, we are not talking about breaking up the empire. That already happened with the dissolution of the USSR. We are talking about the extinction of a nation.
It would be like if the UK was split into Scotland, a puppet of the EU. Wales, a quasi independant state with strong ties to Scotland. England, a former power center. Finally Ireland becomes whole.
Do you really think the brits will be cool with this, especially if lets say Russia/China was working behind the scenes to make it happen and the so called ally EU was all too happy to gain all this new power and influence...
If Poland has gained this newfound strength by shoring up its western border through cooperation and trade, and Putin is worried about Ukraine just being able to do so as well, it begs the question of why Russia could not have done the exact same thing. And well it probably could have, if not for its wealth being squandered on a kleptocracy as touched in a few sibling comments. The resource curse strikes again.
Russia’s economy was thoroughly fucked by the collapse of the USSR.
Putin’s campaigns in Ukraine have been barbaric and I don’t pretend to understand the logic but Russia’s natural resources cannot make up for their problems.
Beyond that Russia’s hand is so good because of the very imperialism we are all decrying.
You’re arguing that the Russian body politic should shrug off its distinct characteristics and submit to the west.
Hard to see any of that happening with anything short of revolution.
What was existential for Russia? If they had of just remained peaceful and sold resources to the rest of the world, nothing would've happened to them, there was nothing existential about it.
Maybe Putin is a paranoid lunatic and thinks people were out to get him, but there is no way there was some secret western plot to invade Russia or anything like this? In fact, Europe and the rest of the world was trading with them just fine. All we hear about on here was how Germany is completely dependent on Russia.
The truth is, countries side with NATO for a reason, because they have something to offer. If Russia had something better to offer, was trustworthy and Putin supported democracy, maybe less countries would be interested in partnering with the west and happy to form stronger ties with the autocracy. It doesn't mean anyone was about to invade Russia though.
Edit: Down voters, let's hear your counter.
You have to remember that Russia is a federation, one with much deeper internal divides than the USA. The closer we are to Russia, the easier it is for us to fund, train, and arm Russia's separatist elements.
If NATO was officially present if Georgia, do you think it would ignore any pleas for help from chechen separatists trying to defend themselves from the butcher running them? Or would we actively work to try to make Chechenia an independent country, over the next 10-20 years?
And Chechenia is far from the only vulnerable place.
Note that I am not saying this would be a bad thing for the people of Chechenia. It is quite likely what a lot of them want. But if Russia were funding, arming, and training the IRA, or Texas's secessionist fringe, would the USA or UK be happy to allow this? No, empires are fundamentally built out of people who try to maintain their empire.
1. A regime change would not be existential for Russia, it would be existential for Putin. Maybe that's why he panicked or something, but if one man has the power to take a country on an idiotic war like that, then maybe a regime change is a good idea.
2. You’re not really presenting a lot of evidence there was a by real risk of this actually happening?
3. How does anything you’ve said justify invading Ukraine?
Regardless it’s all failing spectacularly if the goal was to create distance between Russia and NATO. Finland is now in NATO and is on the border.
Regime change means your enemies controlling who runs your country. It is an existential threat for the whole state, even if it would be better for the populace.
When the USA suspected Russia of influencing their elections, no one said (and rightfully so) "that is only existential for Hillary, not for America, why should we care?".
> 2. You’re not really presenting a lot of evidence there was a by real risk of this actually happening?
The constant talk of the necessity of changing Putin and the EU and US support for Navalnyi make it obvious that NATO powers want regime change in Russia.
Whether they would actually spend resources to actually work for it is not something I could possibly bring evidence for. But several EU countries and the USA have often initiated or supported regime change in smaller countries when they were able to. Quite recently unsuccessfully in Venezuela and Syria. And more saliently, they did so in Ukraine in 2008, helping the Ukrianian people get rid of Yanukovich.
> 3. How does anything you’ve said justify invading Ukraine?
Invading Ukraine prevents it from joining NATO, which it was on a very clear path towards (they had had joint military exercises just one year prior, with NATO troups in Ukraine). The same happened with Georgia, but they Georgia acceeded to the Russian demands more readily.
Even if they fail to conquer Ukraine, they will keep it in a state of frozen conflict that will likely delay any further rapproachment for a decade or two.
Also, none of this makes what Russia did any less monstrous and detrimental to the Ukrianian people (nor to their own soldiers). There is no question whatsoever that it is highly immoral and a condemnable act, and a clear case of breaking international law, a clear act of aggression, the international crime for which most of the nazi leadership was hanged.
I'm just arguing it was a rational calculated decision, not some insane power play motivated by historical revisionism.
Not really. The push has been towards democracy where who runs the country would be decided by the Russian people.
Not to mention, by all accounts, Putin would probably win fully free elections even today. The opponents he's suppressing or killing are not extremely popular today, they are people who he fears might become popular if left unchecked.
Nothing rational or sophisticated about trying to build a 19th century style land empire in the 21st century. The mindless quest for a sphere of influence is madness in our modern word, something that can only come from the mind of a crazy megalomaniac who thinks of sovereignty not in regards to modern borders, but in regards to a historic empire of his dreams. He believes Ukraine (and Belorussia, and Georgia, ...) are part of Russia, so anytime one of those stops playing the part (stop being a puppet/satellite) he invades (Georgia 2008, Ukraine 2014 and 2022).
I, being Russian, can not understand how is that an existential threat to a country that has the largest nuclear arsenal in the world, has insane amount of natural resources, and enjoys a virtually exclusive access to the best demographic reservoir in the world (except for Haredim, but it's not like they're planning to move anywhere, so yeah, the best one actually).
Your economy is more comparable to an American state like Florida than a powerful country. You're nation is a political pariah with fleeting influence even among former ussr members. You capability to exert military power outside of your own borders have been effectively disabled having being surrounded by NATO and with a heavily depleted military.
All of this combined with the natural resources and land you mentioned is exactly why its open season on Russia to be carved up by actors with higher economic, military and political power.
If I was in your shoes, I would either give up and move or do anything and everything I can to improve the odds of the terrible hand your nation has been given..
I'm not saying I condone his actions. I'm saying his actions are rational and strategic.
Putins choices were either leave a legacy of a slowly declining Russian federation until there isn't one or make massive gambits like this reverse Russias fortune.
The thing is, such gambits carries the risk of accelerating the current fate..
If I was ever put in a similar situation, my god I pray to have the balls and conviction to pull the trigger on such moves. It would be so much easier to just put up the appearances of normalcy by moving the chairs of the titanic while it sinks..
It's just that they involve some combination of letting go of his expansionist fantasies, relaxing his absolute grip on power, or watering-down his so-called legacy. So of course he won't pursue them.
I seen it from inside - you've bought into a Potemkin's village. When it was a "global superpower" (on paper) it was a much, much worse country by any measure.
>You're nation is a political pariah with fleeting influence even among former ussr members.
When the war has started that's exactly where I moved to. Turns out you're very wrong about it (didn't know it myself)
Uh no. The Yamato people wanted these countries for land and resources. Japan was never interested in extending their culture, nor proactively assimilating other ethnic groups into their own, with the exception of maybe the Ryukyuan on Okinawa. If this were the case, you’d seen it in Taiwan. They didn’t want to assimilate the Koreans who already in their country for generations, either. I can only presume author is a white person, because the cultural affinity of Japan bifurcated from China a millennial ago. Speaking of which, the other motivation was to prevent and buffer Japan from being controlled and humiliated by a white colonizers, as was the case with China.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C5%8Dshi-kaimei
> Speaking of which, the other motivation was to prevent and buffer Japan from being controlled and humiliated by a white colonizers, as was the case with China.
I mean, yeah sure, that's what Japan claimed. In the same sense Hitler was defending the great German Lebensraum from evil intruders.
Yes? Japan only controlled Taiwan from 1895 to 1945, and only started really ramping up assimilationist policies towards the end of that period, but the influence of Japanese culture was nonetheless quite great, with many locals becoming bilingual in Japanese.
Then the ROC took over, instituted Mandarin as the official language while suppressing all others, and after losing control of the mainland retreated to Taiwan together with a large influx of Mandarin speakers. Now Mandarin is the dominant language, despite not being present before the end of Japanese rule.
So when you don't see many obvious Japanese influences in Taiwan today, don't forget that more time has passed since the end of Japanese rule than Taiwan was controlled by Japan in the first place.
If you're on board with the article and believe Putin is on a historically motivated crusade of sorts, and of sound mind, it's difficult to imagine he'd initiate an invasion he has no chance of winning.
The fact that Poland can't muster an armed force as sizeable as Russia's is entirely beside the point in this scenario, especially considering he would be pitting his now somewhat depleted military resources against all of NATO, and potentially even more.
Maybe not if Trump is president.
This is the specialty of China and Russia. Keep pushing the buttons, keep testing the limits. One inch at a time, one border at a time and then, well, push a little more.
People proclaiming ‘an attack on Poland will go nuclear’ are probably blissfully choosing to ignore that nuclear war is mutual destruction without discrimination and with a sense of finality.
If Tucker was a real journalist he would have pushed back on this literal debunked Nazi propaganda, but Tucker isn't a journalist, and this wasn't an interview, but one big KGB brainwashing circus.
https://twitter.com/Dispropoganda/status/1755904802368700535
The actual Putin quote (that it displays in turn) is extremely telling, and finally explains what he really means when he says -- and he does seem to really believe what he says -- that he was "forced" to start the special operation against Ukraine, due to their reluctance to accept their natural place in the greater political order in Europe.
Much like, in Putin's view, Poland in 1939.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish%E2%80%93Czechoslovak_...
Case in point this article which assumes that Putin is a sophisticated rational actor and a relentless crusader with a historical goal. Let's just say if all world leaders start a wave of revisionism and 'historical claims' the world as we know it will end. If everyone in Europe will work for reconquering their territories at the peak of their history, we'd need 2-3 more Europes for everyone to be happy and nobody to die.
I wonder how much garbage this interview will end up creating in the world. And I do realize my comment is part of said garbage.