Europe at War

[BasilValentine]

How long can propaganda, suppression of free media, police bullying, and defenestration of critics keep Putin in power?

History would suggest it will keep him in power until he dies. Worked for Stalin.

[71 dB]

Well, according to Wikipedia, some Finnish historians and political journalists considered Kekkonen a power hungry autocrat who clung to Presidency for as long as he could and he considered resigning only after his health began to seriously deteriorate, and even so, he did not resign until quite a while after prim-minister Mauno Koivisto dealt him a mortal political blow by claiming that, constitutionally, the government were responsible to the Parliament, not the President. Kekkonen asked Koivisto to resign, which the latter refused. Both things were unprecedented in Finnish politics and precipitated Kekkonen' resignation. In this light, to claim that Kekkonen resigned because he really saw himself unfit to be the democratic President of Finland is an overstatement. He resigned because he was cornered and had no other option. Which is, imnsho, the only circumstance in which a politician resigns, be it in a democracy of a dictatorship.

Also from Wikipedia:

Kekkonen's authoritarian behavior during his presidential term was one of the main reasons for the reforms of the Finnish Constitution in 1984–2003. Under these, the powers of Parliament and the prime minister were increased at the expense of presidential power. Several of the changes were initiated by Kekkonen's successors.

    Presidential tenure was limited to two consecutive terms.
    The President's role in cabinet formation was restricted.
    The President was to be elected directly, not by an electoral college.
    The President could no longer dissolve Parliament without the support of the Prime Minister.
    The Prime Minister's role in shaping the foreign relations of Finland was enhanced.

Honestly, he doesn't seem to me like having been a principled democratic politician (to his credit, though, it must be noted that I know of no such a person in the whole history of mankind).

He was re-elected multiple times. I was like 10 years old when this happened so...I was li--what I mean I did not know he hold to power that much because i was young I can't express myself today.
Anyway, maybe I WAS WROOOOOOONG AND THINGS ARE EVEN WORSE than I imagined!!!!  Alarming if this is how it is even in democracies, but at least in a country like Finland people can be replaced in elections if need be, or so I have believed, but then again the world turned out super-crazy

[Madiel]

News here today: Australia is buying an American missile system after the Ukrainians gave it rave reviews.

[71 dB]

Anyway, Putins cancer has been cancerous to the world. Much more cancerous than the dementia of Kekkonen I would dare to say...

[Fëanor]

The war will have a negative impact on Russia.  It already has.  You need to define what you mean by profound.  It is unlikely that Crimea will be returned to Ukraine, for instance.  Russia will face no diminution of territory recognized under international law.  It is exceedingly unlikely that its form of government will be changed - and it certainly will not be changed by The West.  It will not be removed from the UN Security Council.  Its partnerships with certain countries (eg, China, India, Iran) will not be eliminated.  It will be allowed to sell increased amounts of oil and natural gas after some period of time after the war.  Russia will continue to enjoy direct communication with the US on some security matters.  It may face reparations, but since the US will oversee settlement negotiations, there will be no European revenge a la the Treaty of Versailles.  Maybe some people face war crimes trials, but it is very unlikely that Putin will. 

In fact there is very little here I disagree with.  But the other fact is that Putin's actions have only been harmful to the Russian Federation.

Typically war is costly and ultimately not worth it to the initiator;  the Ukraine war is not exception.  More broadly speaking Russian would be better off integrating with the rule-of-law world, (e.g. pursuing EU membership).  The alternative of trying to befriend ruthless, criminal opportunist countries can work only in the shortest term.  China for example will crush Russia underfoot when ever it suits the CCP/Xi's strategy.

Remember that the Russian Federation is NOT a great power; only its nuclear capability makes it any sort of threat.  Putin's dream of reconstituting the Soviet (or Tsarist) empire is futile and counterproductive for the Russian population.

[Fëanor]

History would suggest it will keep him in power until he dies. Worked for Stalin.

A valid point, but OTOH, the condition of Europe is much different today than was at the time of Stalin's death.

The USSR' decline after Stalin's death was long and slow BUT consider that there was a peace throughout between it and the USA & NATO.

[Todd]

More broadly speaking Russian would be better off integrating with the rule-of-law world, (e.g. pursuing EU membership).

This once again demonstrates blinkered Eurocentrism.  First, international law is a fiction.  It is selectively enforced.  Some powers can violate it with impunity.  The US does so all the time.  Look at the now twenty-year history of Gitmo, for instance.  Second, the legalistic framework benefits those countries that established the existing (and decaying) international system.  It hems in other countries like Russia, China, and India.  By design.  It is entirely unreasonable to assert that Russia would be better off joining the EU.  Asserting that requires a belief in the objective superiority of Western systems, morals, and goals and necessarily ignores Russian interests and history.

Remember that the Russian Federation is NOT a great power; only its nuclear capability makes it any sort of threat.

Russia is a great power.  Its nuclear arsenal; its conventional military capacity, which while obviously not sufficient to conquer a US backed Ukraine, is sufficient to cause immense harm in a variety of strategically critical regions of Eurasia; its space capabilities; its energy resources; its membership in international organizations; and its political relationships make it a great power.  Neither the US nor China have the military or economic capacity to dominate Russia, and each must factor in Russia when considering geopolitical policy.  It is utter foolishness to pretend Russia is not a great power.

[drogulus]

Yes well I imagine he can also get good deals from India and China. Meanwhile, his chief concern ought to be a war he's fighting with Ukraine.

    The US is mindful of Russian nukes, so it will allow Russia to exist in a weakened state. The deal is the US continues to withhold "Moscow go boom" weapons and Russia leaves Ukraine on terms that are not exactly surrender and not exactly not either. The US guarantees Russia is not dismembered from a westerly direction. They get to drink themselves to death in peace, providing there's no "Last Hurrah" Chinese invasion.

    Russia may not want its enemies to guarantee its existence. It's humiliating for a former great power to be reduced to such a deplorable state, to "please make my tiny little brother stop hitting me!".

    Russia is now threatening a million Russians who left the country in the past year with some kind of punishment if they come back. Dig that hole!! Jump right in!!

[drogulus]

     Not for nothing but I watched a vid from 1420, a Russian dude who goes around asking Russians on the street naughty questions. He asked several people "do you own anything made in Russia?". What a prick!

     

[Florestan]

Not for nothing but I watched a vid from 1420, a Russian dude who goes around asking Russians on the street naughty questions. He asked several people "do you own anything made in Russia?". What a prick!

     

If you think this is funny, then guess what --- it's not.

[drogulus]

If you think this is funny, then guess what --- it's not.

     What if I think it's sad? I'm not sure if I would have the moral fortitude to answer "Tsar Bomba, asshole!".

[Fëanor]

This once again demonstrates blinkered Eurocentrism.  First, international law is a fiction.  It is selectively enforced.  Some powers can violate it with impunity.  The US does so all the time.  Look at the now twenty-year history of Gitmo, for instance.  Second, the legalistic framework benefits those countries that established the existing (and decaying) international system.  It hems in other countries like Russia, China, and India.  By design.  It is entirely unreasonable to assert that Russia would be better off joining the EU.  Asserting that requires a belief in the objective superiority of Western systems, morals, and goals and necessarily ignores Russian interests and history.

Apparently you share similar delusions to Putin.

Russia today as an autoritarian kleptocracy with Putin as chief kleptocrat.  For purposes of comparison there is no need to whitewash the USA or the West:  what ever their failings they are an order of magnitude superior to Putinian Russia.

I absolutely believe in the objective superiority of Western systems, morals, and goals versus Russia or China.  They would be in Russia's interests;  consist with Russia's and the Soviet Union's history, admittedly not.

Russia is a great power.  Its nuclear arsenal; its conventional military capacity, which while obviously not sufficient to conquer a US backed Ukraine, is sufficient to cause immense harm in a variety of strategically critical regions of Eurasia; its space capabilities; its energy resources; its membership in international organizations; and its political relationships make it a great power.  Neither the US nor China have the military or economic capacity to dominate Russia, and each must factor in Russia when considering geopolitical policy.  It is utter foolishness to pretend Russia is not a great power.

Certainly Russia as the capacity to do a lot of harm;  but how much good is it able to do?  That has gone untested so far, to say the least.

The USA doesn't have the intend to "dominate" Russia in anything like the way you are thinking of domination.  As for China, that remains to be seen, but it is much more likely in the medium term.

[Madiel]

The US is mindful of Russian nukes, so it will allow Russia to exist in a weakened state. The deal is the US continues to withhold "Moscow go boom" weapons and Russia leaves Ukraine on terms that are not exactly surrender and not exactly not either. The US guarantees Russia is not dismembered from a westerly direction. They get to drink themselves to death in peace, providing there's no "Last Hurrah" Chinese invasion.

    Russia may not want its enemies to guarantee its existence. It's humiliating for a former great power to be reduced to such a deplorable state, to "please make my tiny little brother stop hitting me!".

    Russia is now threatening a million Russians who left the country in the past year with some kind of punishment if they come back. Dig that hole!! Jump right in!!

Way to miss the point. Like Todd, you seem confused about who is actually fighting this war.

The weapons that the USA supplies to Ukraine are primarily a matter between the USA and Ukraine.

The war is being fought between Ukraine and Russia.

Both of those relationships have a country called Ukraine on them. A country you are conspicuously leaving out of the discussion. Stop treating it as just a geographical location and recognise that it has a government. Bloke called Zelenskyy is in charge.

[Todd]

Apparently you share similar delusions to Putin.

Incorrect. 

For purposes of comparison there is no need to whitewash the USA or the West:  what ever their failings they are an order of magnitude superior to Putinian Russia.

I suspect Iraqis, Libyans, survivors of the destruction of Raqqa, and many Yemeni would disagree.  Probably some Serbians would disagree.  Maybe some Sudanese.  Possibly some people from every Central American country.  Or maybe not.

I absolutely believe in the objective superiority of Western systems, morals, and goals versus Russia or China.  They would be in Russia's interests;  consist with Russia's and the Soviet Union's history, admittedly not.

This is merely more blinkered Eurocentrism.

Certainly Russia as the capacity to do a lot of harm;  but how much good is it able to do?

That is an irrelevant rhetorical question.

The USA doesn't have the intend to "dominate" Russia in anything like the way you are thinking of domination.

You do not know how I am thinking of the word domination.

[Madiel]

Todd accuses people of Eurocentrism in a thread about Europe while persistently trying to make it a thread about the USA.

Jesus wept.

[drogulus]

Way to miss the point. Like Todd, you seem confused about who is actually fighting this war.

The weapons that the USA supplies to Ukraine are primarily a matter between the USA and Ukraine.

The war is being fought between Ukraine and Russia.

Both of those relationships have a country called Ukraine on them. A country you are conspicuously leaving out of the discussion. Stop treating it as just a geographical location and recognise that it has a government. Bloke called Zelenskyy is in charge.

    I don't see that I'm leaving anything out. If I'm not mistaken the US says what I say. Russia must deal with Ukraine. That's the only way the US will deliver safety to Russia, at least from the west. Safety from China is not in the cards.

    I'm mystified that NATO security is somehow culturally offensive to Russians. Russia has tendencies of the "better to rule in hell" variety, to be sure. It's just that it seems a little bit stereotypish to treat Russia is incorrigibly Duginist.

[drogulus]

     Putin wants his invasion to be a war against the West and the chief devil and potential rescuer the US. I say no security guarantees should be given until Russia grants the Ukes their humble request to get the fuck out of their country or die in mass quantities. It seems fair to me.

[milk]

I can't agree that liberal democracy isn't better than the alternative examples in question. We are all educated enough to be familiar with the litany of horrors perpetrated on the world by liberal democracies (I hope). Does that mean that free speech, free expression, individual rights are only good for some? Where Todd has got me thinking is the question of what good there is in imposing anything on anyone or to what degree one should try to do such a thing (or save anyone in the name of anything if these aren't ever just smokescreens). There definitely were times and places we can name but they seem few and in between (if those justifications can even be taken at face value). There's an arrogance factor that comes into play and there's the question of the MIC that Eisenhower spoke about. What is this game really about? Really? But there's a lot to weigh and, yes, it's complicated. I can't say Russia is better off joining the EU, especially seeing what a mess the EU has become. It's one more thing in which I no longer have such strong confidence. I do think it'd be better if Russia evolved into a liberal democracy of sorts but I don't think that's what this is about. The more I think about the EU as a suggestion, the more ridiculous it seems.
This war just seems like it can't have a good outcome. Can Russia lose AND be on a friendlier trajectory vis a vis the west? I certainly don't want it to "win" whatever that means. But I don't want it to be a desperate loser in disarray and confusion either. I don't know what winning and losing is but I hope it doesn't involve a more dangerous world.

[Madiel]

Where Todd has got me thinking is the question of what good there is in imposing anything on anyone or to what degree one should try to do such a thing (or save anyone in the name of anything if these aren't ever just smokescreens).

Excuse me? You think that someone is trying to impose liberal democracy on Ukraine? Or Russia?

I'm sure it's an interesting question in the abstract. But it's very hard to see how it has any relevance to the current situation.

[Jo498]

What is this game really about?

The game is about weakening Russia and (collaterally) weakening Europe (economically and replace dependence on evil Russian gas with dependence on natural, clean, environmentally friendly LNG from the US). To save limited resources for the coming conflict with China. This already succeeded. Maybe someone will some day deservedly reap the whirlwind for this but maybe not.

This war just seems like it can't have a good outcome. Can Russia lose AND be on a friendlier trajectory vis a vis the west? I certainly don't want it to "win" whatever that means. But I don't want it to be a desperate loser in disarray and confusion either. I don't know what winning and losing is but I hope it doesn't involve a more dangerous world.

Russia cannot lose. (Just like the US could not lose a fictitious war around Texas or New Mexico or a northern Mexican state with a Russian/Soviet supported Mexico.) They will rather lay the whole of Ukraine waste. The only chance for a not completely disastrous outcome would be negotiations with the Crimea, Donbass etc. staying with Russia and the rest of Ukraine in some quasi-neutral status East of full NATO membership. This must be done with both Russia and Ukraine/West saving at least some face. Otherwise it would only be a brief respite because the casus belli for Russia would remain.
Or Russia weakened thus that it would collapse but I don't think this will happen (I fear we'd get to full WW III before that) and it would certainly be even worse for everyone in Europe/Asia.