The State of Affairs in Russia

[Sheilbh]

Berk - I think the basic issue is that we both think the other is underestimating the threat of authoritarianism as a model and authoritarian regimes, just in different ways

To you I sound like, at best, a useful idiot if not an active supporters of authoritarian regimes - and that's the real risk in your view.

To me you sound like an Edwardian Brit looking back on a period of great and growing material prosperity and interconnectedness (and, until recently, the peak of globalisation), or Churchill in 1945 thinking we can just go back to the status quo ante (which did, after all, just win) - and that's the real risk in my view.

[Berkut]

I don't understand that at all since I've never once suggested that I am looking back at anything as a desirable place "to go back to".

Indeed, my entire stance on the point that the West, in direct contrast to your claim that they've basically done nothing since the Cold War is that the West has accomplished a LOT since the cold war ended, and we should keep on doing the amazing things (and do them even better).

This is very much a forward thinking view.

And no, I do not think at all that you are an active supporter of authoritarianism. But I definitely think that there are people who are actively in opposition to authoritarianism who cannot seem to see how their reactionary embrace of conservatism is empowering authoritarianism (oh woe is us! the mainstream media is so pro-liberals/anti-conservative!) from te right, or their angst-ridden navel gazing at the horrors of the western liberal philosophy from the left (down with the colonial powers and their capitalist pig systems!) seems to make them incapable of recognizing that they are losing the fight (and sometimes actually encouraging and empowering) those who are very much fighting to destroy western liberalism. And it isn't to replace it with better western liberalism, but actual authoritarianism.

To belabor my analogy some more, it is like watching Churchill and Chamberlain fighting with each other over control of the the UK, and then seeing Hitler wander over and say "Yeah, your country is so screwed up! I agree with you guys that the UK is a disaster! I think I will just bomb it to rubble...." and having Churchill say "Well, you know, he has a point...you did screw up the country..."

[Sheilbh]

Why would Russia invade Ukraine, in the first place? What possible strategic objective would make this necessary?

Russia has already secured its old military base in Crimea. It has made the gas pipeline through Ukraine irrelevant, so it can't be held hostage by this ancient, outdated infrastructure. What else is there to justify a full scale invasion? I can't think of anything at all.

[...]

I honestly rule out this invasion threat at this stage. Too much to lose for unclear gains.

On a rational level the only thing I can possibly think of is if there was a concern that Ukraine was getting its act together, pulling the East with it and orienting to the West. I'm not sure any of those are true.

So the only possible reason I can think of - and to be clear I don't think this is what's happening - is Putin's ego. That time is running out on him, on Russia's (current) economic model, possibly on this period of European weakness (though I wouldn't bet on that one), on the US's focus being distracted/primarily on the Pacific and on China not, yet, being able to exert decisive influence. If he'd left the stage in 2008 I think globally he'd be spoken of as an enormous world leader - but he hung around and so now he isn't just the guy who presided over the recovery from the 90s, but also over the stagnation of the 2010s. Plus the risk that people get tired of him and he has to outright falsify results. So faced with that combination the temptation for one last roll of the dice and possible chance to cement his place for more than stagnation and eventual decline. I think it hangs together - but I don't think it's what's happening.

In Georgia, it was a response (assessed as disproportionate) to the Georgian aggression. This isn't a Russian "truth" but the conclusion by a EU-backed commission:

https://www.google.ch/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSTRE58T4MO20090930

Yeah - that's what I mean. I think if Russia wanted to invade Ukraine (just for a permanent presence in the East) the easiest way would surely be to lure the Ukrainians into Luhansk and then go in as a "peacekeeper".

My wild ideas are that this list of public demands has something to do either with Russia's role in the US-China confrontation, or with Russia's own play at coercive diplomacy, as you say.

The Russia-China angle is really interesting and I've no idea what I think. At the most provocative I think about Adam Tooze's point that for all the talk of China's stated challenge to American hegemony, Putin's speech at the first was the first comprehensive state challenge to that. And there's a bit of me that wonders if there's a UK-US angle of Russia realising its relative decline, but is instead becoming an ally with the rising power not based purely on convenience or economic power or coercion but on a shared ideological view - in this case challenging American hegemony while for the British it was getting the American's to build it (and, ideally, step into our shoes please).

[Berkut]

Why would Russia invade Ukraine, in the first place? What possible strategic objective would make this necessary?

Russia has already secured its old military base in Crimea. It has made the gas pipeline through Ukraine irrelevant, so it can't be held hostage by this ancient, outdated infrastructure. What else is there to justify a full scale invasion? I can't think of anything at all.

[...]

I honestly rule out this invasion threat at this stage. Too much to lose for unclear gains.

On a rational level the only thing I can possibly think of is if there was a concern that Ukraine was getting its act together, pulling the East with it and orienting to the West. I'm not sure any of those are true.

So the only possible reason I can think of - and to be clear I don't think this is what's happening - is Putin's ego. That time is running out on him, on Russia's (current) economic model, possibly on this period of European weakness (though I wouldn't bet on that one), on the US's focus being distracted/primarily on the Pacific and on China not, yet, being able to exert decisive influence. If he'd left the stage in 2008 I think globally he'd be spoken of as an enormous world leader - but he hung around and so now he isn't just the guy who presided over the recovery from the 90s, but also over the stagnation of the 2010s. Plus the risk that people get tired of him and he has to outright falsify results. So faced with that combination the temptation for one last roll of the dice and possible chance to cement his place for more than stagnation and eventual decline. I think it hangs together - but I don't think it's what's happening.

In Georgia, it was a response (assessed as disproportionate) to the Georgian aggression. This isn't a Russian "truth" but the conclusion by a EU-backed commission:

https://www.google.ch/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSTRE58T4MO20090930

Yeah - that's what I mean.

<boggle>

[Sheilbh]

I don't understand that at all since I've never once suggested that I am looking back at anything as a desirable place "to go back to".

Indeed, my entire stance on the point that the West, in direct contrast to your claim that they've basically done nothing since the Cold War is that the West has accomplished a LOT since the cold war ended, and we should keep on doing the amazing things (and do them even better).

This is very much a forward thinking view.

And no, I do not think at all that you are an active supporter of authoritarianism. But I definitely think that there are people who are actively in opposition to authoritarianism who cannot seem to see how their reactionary embrace of conservatism is empowering authoritarianism (oh woe is us! the mainstream media is so pro-liberals/anti-conservative!) from te right, or their angst-ridden navel gazing at the horrors of the western liberal philosophy from the left (down with the colonial powers and their capitalist pig systems!) seems to make them incapable of recognizing that they are losing the fight (and sometimes actually encouraging and empowering) those who are very much fighting to destroy western liberalism. And it isn't to replace it with better western liberalism, but actual authoritarianism.

To belabor my analogy some more, it is like watching Churchill and Chamberlain fighting with each other over control of the the UK, and then seeing Hitler wander over and say "Yeah, your country is so screwed up! I agree with you guys that the UK is a disaster! I think I will just bomb it to rubble...." and having Churchill say "Well, you know, he has a point...you did screw up the country..."

I'm not looking back - I just thing we've done really well in the last 30 years if people would just look at the data

In terms of policy objectives - from where I'm sitting the West (or parts of it) have failed in two wars, failed to manage the financial system/global economic system they built, failed to manage a public health crisis and have failed to defend their own democratic values. Either that's because of bad leaders or because the institutions/systems aren't working as they should. In my view it's the latter - they're not fit for purpose for the 20th century any more than the liberal order of the 1930s was no longer fit for purpose in the post-war era.

I don't think it's navel-gazing I think it's justified. As I said before - I don't think it's a coincidence that the cold war was also the peak of social democracy, that re-built states on utterly new models from the liberal past and brought in new organisations with powers like the unions. That doesn't mean we go back to some imagined social democratic utopia - what we need is something new, but we need to capture that bold imagination and innovation. Not even because of competition with China - but because of the recent failures on their own terms.

[Eddie Teach]

the Georgian aggression.

Those wolverines had it coming. 

[Valmy]

We know how to handle Georgian aggression

[Gaijin de Moscu]

You guys do realise that I'm quoting an independent investigation, and you know there had been a bloody civil war in Georgia in the 90s? Which is why the UN-sanctioned peace keeping force was there.

I was actually there in Georgia in the 1990s and I witnessed a small part of that civil war. It was a confusing mess. My unit was delivering food and water to small Georgian villages in the mountains where only women and children remained. One of the most powerful moments in my life was when those Georgian women fed us with the very food we brought. They couldn't let us go without giving something in return.

[Eddie Teach]

We know how to handle Georgian aggression

Nice job, Tex.

[Valmy]

Nice job, Tex.

Ok so maybe 'we' was a bad choice of pronouns there

[Berkut]

I don't understand that at all since I've never once suggested that I am looking back at anything as a desirable place "to go back to".

Indeed, my entire stance on the point that the West, in direct contrast to your claim that they've basically done nothing since the Cold War is that the West has accomplished a LOT since the cold war ended, and we should keep on doing the amazing things (and do them even better).

This is very much a forward thinking view.

And no, I do not think at all that you are an active supporter of authoritarianism. But I definitely think that there are people who are actively in opposition to authoritarianism who cannot seem to see how their reactionary embrace of conservatism is empowering authoritarianism (oh woe is us! the mainstream media is so pro-liberals/anti-conservative!) from te right, or their angst-ridden navel gazing at the horrors of the western liberal philosophy from the left (down with the colonial powers and their capitalist pig systems!) seems to make them incapable of recognizing that they are losing the fight (and sometimes actually encouraging and empowering) those who are very much fighting to destroy western liberalism. And it isn't to replace it with better western liberalism, but actual authoritarianism.

To belabor my analogy some more, it is like watching Churchill and Chamberlain fighting with each other over control of the the UK, and then seeing Hitler wander over and say "Yeah, your country is so screwed up! I agree with you guys that the UK is a disaster! I think I will just bomb it to rubble...." and having Churchill say "Well, you know, he has a point...you did screw up the country..."

I'm not looking back - I just thing we've done really well in the last 30 years if people would just look at the data

Of come on, now you are just being obtuse.

You claimed that the West has failed to do anything since the Cold War, in contrast to how awesome Russia and China have claimed to be doing.

When I counter by pointing out actual data on what has actually happened since the end of the Cold War, you accuse me of "looking back" as if I am some kind of luddite, "Back in my day...." type? How the hell else can someone respond to a claim (a false claim based on fact) about what has happened in the past?

[Admiral Yi]

You guys do realise that I'm quoting an independent investigation, and you know there had been a bloody civil war in Georgia in the 90s? Which is why the UN-sanctioned peace keeping force was there.

I do not.  Your link's conclusion was that "Georgia started the fighting."  You said "Georgian agression."  That's not a quote, that's spin.

[DGuller]

You guys do realise that I'm quoting an independent investigation, and you know there had been a bloody civil war in Georgia in the 90s? Which is why the UN-sanctioned peace keeping force was there.

I was actually there in Georgia in the 1990s and I witnessed a small part of that civil war. It was a confusing mess. My unit was delivering food and water to small Georgian villages in the mountains where only women and children remained. One of the most powerful moments in my life was when those Georgian women fed us with the very food we brought. They couldn't let us go without giving something in return.

If we are to be completely fair, we should mention that Russians were not just neutral observers in that war.  They were on the side of anyone who was against Georgia, which included the perpetrators of ethnic cleansing in Abkhazia.

[grumbler]

In Georgia, it was a response (assessed as disproportionate) to the Georgian aggression. This isn't a Russian "truth" but the conclusion by a EU-backed commission:

The "Georgian agression" was directed at separatists within their own borders.

I'm not going to argue opinions. I've linked to the internationally recognised, EU-chartered report.

The report you cite does not claim that Georgia was the aggressor, merely that its actions triggered the war (rather than a new Russian invasion, as Georgia claimed).  Countries acting to suppress rebellion are not generally considered the aggressors.  Countries that support breakaway states are considered aggressive.  Russia would certainly consider a Georgian that moved troops into Chechnia in support of a rebellion to be the aggressor.

[jimmy olsen]

Anyone here have access to the full article?

https://worldview.stratfor.com/situation-report/russia-ukraine-russian-forces-redeploy-westward-european-security-talks-falter

Russia, Ukraine: Russian Forces Redeploy Westward as European Security Talks Falter
MIN READJan 12, 2022 | 20:20 GMT

Echelons and equipment from all four armies of Russia's Eastern Military District are being transported west from the Russian Far East, presumably to areas near the Ukrainian and Belarusian borders,