Russo-Ukrainian War 2014-25

[Sheilbh]

In what way is Putin's regime meaningfully different from the bona fide fascists of the past?

Is it the fact that Russia is still formally a democracy, even if in practice or is not? Or is the some other key difference?

I think as Raz says the lack of mass mobilisation - if anything Putin's the opposite, demobilising/depoliticising people. I don't think there's an ideological or aesthetic project really.

I think Putin's regime is basically like a military authoritarian regime but the secret services in place of the military.

But I think people around Putin, like Patrushev, are basically pushing for the creation of a fascist regime and Putin hasn't gone down that route. He balances them off against technocrats and (in recent reshuffles) seems to have sidelined that group. Honestly I think it's the mass mobilisation stuff that puts Putin off - I think he's too much of an old KGB agent who spent the collapse of the Soviet bloc in Germany. I think he is very suspicious of anything that looks like politicising the public (even in favour of the regime).

I'd add to that a mythology that idealizes a past that was lost/torn away by enemies but could be reclaimed (Make Italy Great Again!)through fierce struggle with would simultaneously purify and strengthen the national spirit.  OTOH, I don't think that Mussolini's version of fascism had racial/ethnic elements, so I agree with you in keeping them out of the definition.

Yes but fascism is Janus-faced - it is idealising and reclaiming a great past but also a radical break with the immediate past and future looking. I think there is something to the reactionary modernism line. I think that's a key part of the difference between, say, the Nazis and the German military establishment. Both agreed on the reclaiming a great past but I think the military (which I think is more like Putin) by going back, the Nazis by radically breaking with the past and moving into a future. I think it's also tied to the common fascist myth of youth.

Also I agree on keeping racial/ethnic elements out of a definition of features - but I think it is an essential part of the context in which fascism emerges. It's not just fascist states but the whole stew of social Darwinism, panics in liberal democracies like America, France and Britain about the risk to their "race", the fear of the rise of Japan particularly and Asia in general. With the exception of some socialists that stuff is larded through every ideology in the late-19th/early-20th century and is, I think, an essential part of why you need to Make Italy Great Again. The social Darwinism and view that it's a dog-eat-dog world of racial competition is I think really core.

Edit: One other thought - probably more from the Marxist school - is that I think war is really important to fascism. Not just ideologically but as a shared experience of young men who form bonds with comrades and have emotional, exciting experiences fighting and then return to the quotidian civilian life (particularly if they lost or the economy immediately collapses). I think it's a really important part of the paramilitary side of fascism like the squadristi or brownshirts. But also I think it informs and shapes their ideology.

[Jacob]

Yeah, some fair points.

At first blush, it does seem Putinism lacks mass mobilization. Certainly, he occasionally cracks down on or otherwise discourages independent but ostensible regime aligned ideologues. Putin definitely seems wary of fervour. At the same time, though, we definitely saw some Z manifestations with populist/ institutional tinges at time, and they still have their WWII martyrdom day etc. But yeah, there's definitely something different in the flavour - it's almost a Potemkin-village style fascism.

On the anti-communism thing, I don't think that matters as much. Communism isn't really a going concern anymore, so being anti-communism is irrelevant. Putinism is strongly "anti-woke", and I think that serves the same purpose.

On being totalitarian... yes, Putin's Russia is not totalitarian as a matter of explicit ideology, but isn't it essentially totalitarian in practice?

While I guess it doesn't matter that much whether Putinism is fascist or not, I personally see it as at the very least fascist-like, as it has the following traits:

- Ostensibly capitalist, but capital is subjugated to the ruling party and state.

- Explicitly nationalist, with several classes of "subhumans" cast as enemies - internally and externally. Is ethnically/ culturally chauvinist.

- Uses religious language and arguments to control (part of) the population and define the national mission, yet the religious hierarchy is completely under control of the state.

- Rhetorically engaged in a state of perpetual war. Celebrates death and martyrdom in service of the national mission.

- Relies heavily on reactionary values to provide morality, and posits itself in opposition to degenerate decadence as a means of shoring up legitimacy.

- Valorizes strength and despises weakness.

- Has a grand mythological nationalist/ civilisional narrative at the centre of its moral core. The individual citizen exists to support this mission of the state, rather than the state existing to improve the conditions and happiness of its citizens.

- Is authoritarian, with a clear big man leader in charge of everything. He represents "the people" and is the state because he was "democratically elected", though democratic opposition is completely impossible (and anyone who poses any real risk to the regime is immediately neutralized and punished).

In my eyes these are commonalities with Fascism. There may be enough points of distinction that Putinism should properly be called something other than Fascist, but IMO there's enough similarity that I think Putinism is clearly related and is clearly evil.

[Sheilbh]

I suppose it's also the question of what the line is between fascist and right-wing authoritarian dictatorship. For example, I'd be reluctant to call the Latin American right-wing dictatorships in the Cold War fascist - though obviously they are very, very bad (and I think Putin is more in line with them).

From what I've read of Russia specialists Russia is still very much not totalitarian. It's clamped down with the war, but even with that it's still very different from the Soviet days or (possibly) China.

I'm not sure religion is necessarily anything to do with fascism. If anything fascism tends to be anti-religion: "everything in the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state" (admittedly that's early Mussolini and it changes). I think it intends not to strengthen religion but replace it - I think this possibly ties to the reactionary modernism angle of looking back to a lost golden age (in the distant past), but being future-oriented in the present. I think it's suborned under Putin but, to an extent, I think that's been true of the Russian Orthodox Church in one way or another basically forever.

I'm also not sure on the individual existing to support the state. Putin's legitimacy comes from "ending" the chaos of the 90s. Russia became stable and more of a normal country, corruption and crime in daily life were reduced to a tolerable level, people's living standards improved, there were social services etc. A lot of that is being undermined by the war and, from what I've read, it's seen as a problem for Putin because it goes to the core of his "purpose" as a leader. It is striking that in recent re-shuffles he's mainly been promoting the "technocrat" wing which I think is exactly to try and make sure the state's "offer" to the people is maintained.

But I think you're right there is a continuum and there are people around Putin, like Patrushev, who are making what is, I think, a fundamentally fascist case. That Russia needs to fully mobilise, become a total war society, put the people at the service of the state - that's a voice in Putin's court. But it's not the only (or the dominant one). It also raises the rather scary thought that, while we should back Ukraine to victory and want Putin to fall, what comes next could be worse. You can easily see the shape of that: corrupt (occasionally Jewish) oligarchs and politicians, brave fighting soldiers undermined by people skimming off the supply, a war not fought a l'outrance, fifth column of anti-war/pro-Ukraine types, a political order at the service of a decadent Moscow elite not the people (think of the naked rapper who was prosecuted for attending that party which was, I think, thrown by the daughter of a minister or the famous Instagram accounts of children of the elite partying in Dubai) - and potentially a radicalised group of thousands of veterans who feel let down.

[Solmyr]

Mass mobilization doesn't necessarily mean activating the population politically. After all, Russia has one of the most active propaganda machines in the world, with TV brainwashing the citizens constantly. It's just not aimed at activating them, but at keeping them complacent and believing in the greatness of Mother Russia.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

I wouldn't say there's no mobilization going either. Russian society is being remodeled to face a very long and hard war.
In the meantime... the west is still dripfeeding the Ukrainians materiel instead. It's as if we don't want them to win

[Josquius]

Ukraine are apparently pissed off the F16s are taking so long.
Meanwhile the impact they'll have, already expected to be low has been quite left behind by the war moving on.
It's a mystery what they'll do and how they'll survive.

[Tamas]

It's a mystery what they'll do and how they'll survive.

There's lots of indirect and direct evidence that the Russian economy is breaking down. I see far fewer evidence (maybe they are just better hidden) that Ukraine is nearing collapse. Until then I'll keep assuming we are having a stalemate.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mX54GEqQAHs&ab_channel=UkraineNewsTV

look at about the 10 minute mark for a 'da fuq' moment.

[grumbler]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mX54GEqQAHs&ab_channel=UkraineNewsTV

look at about the 10 minute mark for a 'da fuq' moment.

We knew that phase was coming.  Let's skip ahead to the "shots himself in his bunker" phase.

[Norgy]

That water-purification system looks at best as a very poorly made still for making booze.

[The Minsky Moment]

It's the Russian Navy, the winner of the extremely competitive and hotly contested award for most incompetent Russian military service arm.

[Josquius]

It's a mystery what they'll do and how they'll survive.

There's lots of indirect and direct evidence that the Russian economy is breaking down. I see far fewer evidence (maybe they are just better hidden) that Ukraine is nearing collapse. Until then I'll keep assuming we are having a stalemate.

I meant the F16s not Ukraine overall.
Even with most down time being outside Ukraine they still need to refuel and de/re arm on the ground in Ukraine, and with current Russian spy drone successes and the fact they'll be desperate to hit these for propeganda purposes....

[Norgy]

I wonder what will happen when Stoltenberg is no longer NATO general secretary. Rutte is a bit of a letdown. But I think this is the first time in a 100 years anyone's thought "Good thing Germany is re-arming again".

[The Minsky Moment]

Rutte is not the right kind of guy for that job IMO.  But a decent insurance policy if Trump gets elected.

[Norgy]

Rutte is not the right kind of guy for that job IMO.  But a decent insurance policy if Trump gets elected.

Stoltenberg was rather adept at handling Trump. I'd say he was a fairly decent prime minister here. Rutte seems to have some of the same qualities in being able to work with minority governments and dealing with some sinister types like Wiilders.

I think Biden and Stoltenberg really got along well.
And before you mention it, Stoltenberg really spoke much better English in private than during press conferences. It was one of the many methods he used to make himself seem a little less sharp-minded than he is.

And now, back to you Vlad, how is that special military operation going? Not so well?