How Odd Is Putin's Russia?

[Stevicus]

Sort of, but there are no comparisons of absolutes, only of degree. Lobbying in the US for example is a kind of legalised bribery, and bungs and backhanders, and favours etc, happen everywhere. Russia is, though, at the extreme end, to the point that it puts serious limits on the ability of the country to function and develop. Check out the Sochi mess, for example,

The point with Russia’s Silicon Valley is the different conception. Imagine if members of congress gave themselves jobs running the various tech companies, skimming off most of the profit for themselves, hired favourites for many of the roles, exploited the brightest and made random decisions about the direction of R&D based on what they see as short term gain for themselves. Then you’d have something comparable.

One key difference is that the West moved gradually into industrialism, and due to a variety of factors, became more technologically and industrially advanced than most of the rest of the world. Russia was caught behind, still mostly an agrarian society on the eve of World War I. Stalin wanted to industrialize almost literally overnight, and that obviously had its own severe consequences. Without the gradual change from agrarianism to industrialism, when countries try to do it instantly and quickly, it can have unfortunate side effects. I can see why they would do it. I've noted that in the developing world, there have been those want to modernize and industrialize to build a better life for their people. But it's a matter of how they do it and the conditions they face. It's difficult to establish a successful enterprise in countries facing continual political turmoil.

What you seem to be describing Russia as, is that it's some kind of princely society where only those of noble birth or highborn have privilege, which is how it was under Tsarist times. My impression of the Soviet period was that Stalin ran a somewhat Darwinian ship, where everyone was expected to make themselves useful, but could fall out of favor almost overnight. After Stalin, none of his successors had the same level of absolute power that Stalin had. They got rid of Beria lickity-split.

I've heard some say that the reason Russia's governments tend to be authoritarian and autocratic was because that, if they didn't do that, Russia would become ungovernable. I'm not sure how true that is today, but if it's like what you describe, they're heading for a hard fall. But then, they still have nukes, so that thought is somewhat disconcerting. The rise in nationalism is also a bad sign. Even in the rest of Europe and the U.S., we can see signs of that (although perhaps not enough to comprise an electoral majority, thankfully).

Obviously, corruption has its limits. If they've gotten so bad that their factories, technology, and war machines don't work anymore because they've been gutted and pilfered, well, then, they're going to have some problems. I agree that it hasn't gotten that bad in the West, although we've been slowly heading more and more in that direction.

 

[Stevicus]

Well, you do understand that if they want or don't want an empire, it is not decided by whether it makes sense to you or not.
That is the problem I have with some of your reasoning. It is based on how it makes sense to you and don't take into acoount that it can make sense differently to other people. That is how I understand some of your posts and yes, you can understand that differently.

Well, I was speaking in the context of the way the world is currently structured and how it has worked. Whether it makes sense to me personally makes no difference, but the question still stands: Why would a national leader, in this day and age, want to "build an empire," and what does one expect that will look like once it is built? You're mistaken if you believe that I don't take into account that it can make sense differently to other people, and that's part of the reason I ask the question.

 

[Stevicus]

Lots of things don't make sense lol. MAGA might be a bit of a side show in the US, in Russia it's the whole deal, for Putinists at least. There is no 'great' Russia without Ukraine, and once Ukraine is free the whole house of cards is likely to fall. The most unfortunate thing is that Russia won't give up its imperial identity without a long and bloody fight.

Imagine if Germany began making noises about its sphere of influence, and its near abroad? Threatening and intimidating neighbouring countries? I should imagine most people would find that alarming. But when Russia does it, somehow it is seen as a victim.

Germany did do that in the last century. Twice. It did seem to raise quite a bit of alarm. Russia was involved, of course. I don't think Russia is a victim, but I don't think everything can blamed on them either. That's too one-sided. I think there's enough blame to go around on all sides, but my main point here was that we don't live in the 19th or early 20th centuries anymore. The world doesn't operate that way anymore. Even if some throwback nationalist or imperialist wanted to go back to the "old order" as it was back in the day, it would be absolutely impossible.

Regardless of whatever they might believe, I know the Russians do understand chess. They know what the chessboard looks like.

 

[Tomef]

Germany did do that in the last century. Twice. It did seem to raise quite a bit of alarm. Russia was involved, of course. I don't think Russia is a victim, but I don't think everything can blamed on them either. That's too one-sided. I think there's enough blame to go around on all sides, but my main point here was that we don't live in the 19th or early 20th centuries anymore. The world doesn't operate that way anymore. Even if some throwback nationalist or imperialist wanted to go back to the "old order" as it was back in the day, it would be absolutely impossible.

Regardless of whatever they might believe, I know the Russians do understand chess. They know what the chessboard looks like.

I’m not talking about cannons and horses. Russian empire in the modern sense means retaining control over countries it considers to belong to it in some sense, through compliant governments and the occasional murder or jailing of opposition figures if possible, via instigating and maintaining frozen conflicts if not. Although it seems transparent that this is because the people in those countries would, given free choice of leadership, free access to information, a free press, real elections and so on, would choose to ally themselves loosely or otherwise with democratic states, the Kremlin chooses to see this as a battle against western ‘meddling’.

 

[Tomef]

I've heard some say that the reason Russia's governments tend to be authoritarian and autocratic was because that, if they didn't do that, Russia would become ungovernable. I'm not sure how true that is today, but if it's like what you describe, they're heading for a hard fall. But then, they still have nukes, so that thought is somewhat disconcerting. The rise in nationalism is also a bad sign. Even in the rest of Europe and the U.S., we can see signs of that (although perhaps not enough to comprise an electoral majority, thankfully).

The Chinese govt uses that as a justification too, the threat of the chaos that might ensue if they didn’t rule with an iron fist. Probably there’s something to that, I suppose it’s a question of what might be considered a better outcome between avoiding a period of chaos and the eventual possibility of greater freedom across that region, or maintaining the status quo, which inevitably means curtailed freedoms. Of course it could turn out even worse, with a return to some sort of semi-feudal system, as in Kazakhstan. What people, especially the conspiracists, forget is that the US tried hard to avoid to much freedom too quickly among former Soviet states, out of fear that the whole region might devolve into chaos without Russia’s brutal but effective grip on seats of power.

The best but still possible outcome, I think, would be Ukraine and Georgia managing to break away entirely from Russian dominance and choosing their own way forward. There isn’t any way the Kremlin would allow that, however, without the leverage NATO backing can bring. For that to happen, Russia has to be defeated in Ukraine, if that is still possible. But those are the two states where the desire of the majority of the population to be aligned with the West is unambiguous. The other republics and the Stans allied with Russia having ruling dynasties, family or crony based, that would be very hard to dislodge, and will certainly never allow fair elections. But the Russian Federation might hang together well enough without Ukraine and Georgia, long enough to be absorbed into China’s orbit as a kind of vassal, in which case perhaps total chaos and the risk of nuclear war might be avoided.

 

[Tomef]

Obviously, corruption has its limits. If they've gotten so bad that their factories, technology, and war machines don't work anymore because they've been gutted and pilfered, well, then, they're going to have some problems. I agree that it hasn't gotten that bad in the West, although we've been slowly heading more and more in that direction.

What they do have is volume. So if the incompetence and indifference of the officer class means huge attrition rates, they can just throw more men into the fight, and if a lot of the shells are duds they just up the volume and use huge glide bombs to destroy and kill indiscriminately. Stalin make a lot of dumb mistakes, but he was right about the quality of sheer numbers. I think Russia could probably stagger on for years, decades, with the poorest and least educated bearing the brunt of it while the top tier live well, in a slightly less bonkers version of NK.

 

[Tomef]

Germany did do that in the last century. Twice. It did seem to raise quite a bit of alarm.

Yes, I mean if they were to do that now, given the history, few people would jump on a Germany is the victim here bandwagon. What is often forgotten is that Stalin and Hitler made plans to carve up East Europe between them, and millions died as a direct result. But within Russia to mention this is practically a crime.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Well, I was speaking in the context of the way the world is currently structured and how it has worked. Whether it makes sense to me personally makes no difference, but the question still stands: Why would a national leader, in this day and age, want to "build an empire," and what does one expect that will look like once it is built? You're mistaken if you believe that I don't take into account that it can make sense differently to other people, and that's part of the reason I ask the question.

An empire would be the actual in effect political and military control over a piece of land. That is at least what Putin is trying to do in (parts of) Ukraine.
And did in Georgia in part and in Chechnya in full.

An empire is general in the broad sense understood as one culture controlling a lot of other cultures and their land.

 

[Stevicus]

I’m not talking about cannons and horses. Russian empire in the modern sense means retaining control over countries it considers to belong to it in some sense, through compliant governments and the occasional murder or jailing of opposition figures if possible, via instigating and maintaining frozen conflicts if not. Although it seems transparent that this is because the people in those countries would, given free choice of leadership, free access to information, a free press, real elections and so on, would choose to ally themselves loosely or otherwise with democratic states, the Kremlin chooses to see this as a battle against western ‘meddling’.

In a way, it's kind of how the U.S. has managed Latin America over the past 100-150 years.

 

[Stevicus]

The Chinese govt uses that as a justification too, the threat of the chaos that might ensue if they didn’t rule with an iron fist. Probably there’s something to that, I suppose it’s a question of what might be considered a better outcome between avoiding a period of chaos and the eventual possibility of greater freedom across that region. Of course it could turn out even worse, with a return to some sort of semi-feudal system, as in Kazakhstan. What people, especially the conspiracists, forget is that the US tried hard to avoid to much freedom too quickly among former Soviet states, out of fear that the whole region might devolve into chaos without Russia’s brutal but effective grip on seats of power.

The best outcome, I think, would be Ukraine and Georgia managing to break away entirely from Russian dominance and choosing their own way forward. There isn’t any way the Kremlin would allow that, however, without the leverage NATO backing can bring. For that to happen, Russia has to be defeated in Ukraine, if that is still possible. But those are the two states where the desire of the majority of the population to be aligned with the West is unambiguous. The other republics and the Stans allied with Russia having ruling dynasties, family or crony based, that would be very hard to dislodge, and will certainly never allow fair elections. But the Russian Federation might hang together well enough without Ukraine and Georgia, long enough to be absorbed into China’s orbit as a kind of vassal, in which case perhaps total chaos and the risk of nuclear war might be avoided.

It appears that they're heading in that direction, where they would end up as a satellite or even a vassal of China. That would be a big gain for China, and with Central Asia and possibly Iran as part of it, they could form a rather formidable Eurasian power bloc. They might also be able to find allies in Africa or Latin America. That would not be beneficial to Western interests. The main reason the West prevailed in the Cold War was because they were able to capitalize on the Sino-Soviet rift, but if that's patched up and they become fast friends now, then we will be at a disadvantage.

 

[Stevicus]

Yes, I mean if they were to do that now, given the history, few people would jump on a Germany is the victim here bandwagon. What is often forgotten is that Stalin and Hitler made plans to carve up East Europe between them, and millions died as a direct result. But within Russia to mention this is practically a crime.

Actually, an entire series of events leading up to WW2 often gets forgotten, starting with WW1.

I don't think either Germany or Russia are victims, although if we're looking at the belligerents in conflicts, one can discern which side is wealthier and which side is poorer. A lot of wars seem based in an ongoing conflict between the haves and the have nots. For similar reasons, poor neighborhoods have a higher rate of crime and violence than economically affluent neighborhoods.

 

[Magic Man]

I hope they continue.
So there is an European revolution and the elitist EU is dismantled like a Lego building.

I'm just glad the majority strongly disagree with you.

 

[Magic Man]

You still deny that his senility is a reality.

You: Biden is a Snake in the grass.
Child predator, politically corrupt, financially corrupt.
And is senile to top it off.

Me: The good news is this type of ridiculous anti-reality rhetoric is useless now, since Biden is not running again.

You: (the above)

Obviously, yes, that's the main thing I was objecting to, not the child predator, politically corrupt, financially corrupt and snake in the grass thing.

 

[Tomef]

It appears that they're heading in that direction, where they would end up as a satellite or even a vassal of China. That would be a big gain for China, and with Central Asia and possibly Iran as part of it, they could form a rather formidable Eurasian power bloc. They might also be able to find allies in Africa or Latin America. That would not be beneficial to Western interests. The main reason the West prevailed in the Cold War was because they were able to capitalize on the Sino-Soviet rift, but if that's patched up and they become fast friends now, then we will be at a disadvantage.

Yes, it looks bad whatever happens. There’s less appetite for war in China, and with Russia as the junior partner it could just mean that Russia becomes China’s problem to contain, another NK. Georgia and Ukraine becoming unequivocally part of the West could bring some long term advantages, though, for both them and us. Maintaining good relations with India will be a another major factor.

I suppose the possibility that Russia might actually become a modern state with a reasonable, functioning, democratic government still exists, but it seems very unlikely. The country is in the grip of not only corrupt old men, but delusional fanatics.

 

[Tomef]

In a way, it's kind of how the U.S. has managed Latin America over the past 100-150 years.

Yes, quite similar, at least up until the 80s/90s or so.

 

[Estro Felino]

Yes, quite similar, at least up until the 80s/90s or so.

...or maybe until Kissinger's death. Who knows...

 

[Stevicus]

Yes, it looks bad whatever happens. There’s less appetite for war in China, and with Russia as the junior partner it could just mean that Russia becomes China’s problem to contain, another NK. Georgia and Ukraine becoming unequivocally part of the West could bring some long term advantages, though, for both them and us. Maintaining good relations with India will be a another major factor.

I suppose the possibility that Russia might actually become a modern state with a reasonable, functioning, democratic government still exists, but it seems very unlikely. The country is in the grip of not only corrupt old men, but delusional fanatics.

That's why I believe the West needs to be more realistic and pragmatic about foreign policy. You were speaking of Russian myths earlier, but I think our main problem here in the West is that we embrace too many of our own myths that we casually accept as fact. There also appears to be a certain insular complacency which seemingly makes Americans believe that we are invulnerable, invincible, and indestructible. I believe this to be a dangerous and reckless line of thinking which could come back to bite us (as it already has a few times).

 

[Tomef]

That's why I believe the West needs to be more realistic and pragmatic about foreign policy. You were speaking of Russian myths earlier, but I think our main problem here in the West is that we embrace too many of our own myths that we casually accept as fact. There also appears to be a certain insular complacency which seemingly makes Americans believe that we are invulnerable, invincible, and indestructible. I believe this to be a dangerous and reckless line of thinking which could come back to bite us (as it already has a few times).

I’m not sure if this is what you mean, but having preconditions of the sort involving pre-banning nations from applying to join NATO would cede too much to Russia. It would be a denial of something so fundamental to western society, the right to choose associations, which Russia agreed to in the Helsinki Accords, that it would represent a total moral capitulation.

Putin is many things, as you said earlier, as Berezovsky said too, he is part street-thug. He does outrageous things, waits, and when he doesn’t get a response, he does something more outrageous. He had naturalised British citizens murdered on British soil, to virtually no response. Georgia, barely a whimper. Annexes Crimea, nothing. He has no reason to stop. A total military defeat and humiliation is the only thing that would stop the current conflict from dragging on and on, so it would be better for Ukraine if the West were to give Ukraine the tools it needs to finish the job. Safer, although worse for Ukrainians, would be for the war to drag out indefinitely into the sort of entrenched and pointless conflict Russia got itself into in Afghanistan. That way, the push against Putin might come from within Russia, whereas a total humiliation on the battlefield might actually help him consolidate power. If there’s one thing that can unite Russians, it’s the victim narrative. If it can be seen, with time, that he made a huge judgement of error in getting the country involved in a long and intractable conflict, that might create enough pressure to force him to find a face-saving end to it.

 

[Stevicus]

Yes, quite similar, at least up until the 80s/90s or so.

Yes, when Bush declared his "new world order," which wasn't really that much different from the old world order.

Our trouble now is that Americans can't seem to decide whether to be a powerful and great nation ("again"), the "leader of the free world," or if we want to be some kind of cross between Dudley Do-Right and Mother Theresa. That's the quandary the West has been in for the past several decades. The West has enjoyed the comforts of modern living in relatively safe and secure societies for generations, and obviously people want this to continue. But we also want the world to think of us as "good" and "enlightened," and that we hold the moral high ground over everyone else.

 

[Tomef]

Yes, when Bush declared his "new world order," which wasn't really that much different from the old world order.

Our trouble now is that Americans can't seem to decide whether to be a powerful and great nation ("again"), the "leader of the free world," or if we want to be some kind of cross between Dudley Do-Right and Mother Theresa. That's the quandary the West has been in for the past several decades. The West has enjoyed the comforts of modern living in relatively safe and secure societies for generations, and obviously people want this to continue. But we also want the world to think of us as "good" and "enlightened," and that we hold the moral high ground over everyone else.

Nobody’s perfect . With great freedom comes great craziness, I suppose. I think one of the keys is recognising one’s own faults, as a nation in this instance, which is what makes MAGAs so scary, i.e. they want their fantasy world so badly they’ll overturn an election for it. Putin lives in a world where it is true that the CIA somehow made Ukrainians want to be independent, even if he knows that isn’t actually true. That’s what I was getting at earlier, with the kind of inverse truth commission of the 1920s. The idea that the party makes the truth represents an integral part of how someone like Putin thinks, he has a very different relationship with truth than the bog-standard dissembling politician, more along the lines of someone like Trump, the difference being that Putin creates ’truth’ as a strategic tool whereas Trump does it on the fly for personal gain.

Countries doing bad and stupid things is pretty much ineluctable. I’d much rather live under powers that as a bare minimum allow people to criticise them openly and that occasionally admit wrongdoing, or make a reasonable stab at trying to justify themselves at least, than under some idiotic ‘strong leader’ whose own brain is full of delusional nonsense. People who want that kind of a leader want them because they feed them a happy lie, a narrative of their own rightness and greatness. We have at least partially moved away from that kind of basic stupidity in the West, although Trump and his ilk are doing their best to revive it.