The State of Affairs in Russia

[Berkut]

Let's look at how the West does in preserving democracy and not dividing further,

One of the reasons we are dividing further is because we aren't willing to actually come together and state that our system is better. Full stop.

They are.

[Jacob]

It is also not the same as "fine".  Putin and Trump and those assholes that Duck keeps touting in France are all the same thing.  A wave of fascism assailing the world.  A victory by Putin weakens democracy across the west and emboldens fascists here.  Yesteryear it was Spain and Cable street.  Today it is Ukraine and the US capitol.

Fair.

We are under threat. We are, however, not losing.

[The Brain]

We are losing. The only question is if we're losing more slowly than Russia.

[Razgovory]

It is also not the same as "fine".  Putin and Trump and those assholes that Duck keeps touting in France are all the same thing.  A wave of fascism assailing the world.  A victory by Putin weakens democracy across the west and emboldens fascists here.  Yesteryear it was Spain and Cable street.  Today it is Ukraine and the US capitol.

Fair.

We are under threat. We are, however, not losing.

We are here.

[Sheilbh]

You keep asking for "our example" and I posted several data sources that made it clear that in fact the data show that since the end of the Cold War, there has been *radical* improvement in the standards of living, education, political freedom, and an actual switch globally in the number of countries that are authoritarian versus democratic.

And you just absolutely ignore it.

You demand "examples" and then ignore them because you are so committed to this idea that the West has been this epic failure, when the reality is that that is totally untrue.

I've explained why I don't think the standards of living, education etc are relevant - though it would be interesting to see how much is the transformation of China to split that out in the figures. Which goes to my point of where is our development model?

And my view isn't that the West has been an epic failure - I think the post-war construction of the West was an extraordinary achievement. I think post-war reconstruction that went with it was too, as was winning the cold war. I'd still add the eastern expansion of the EU though it's obviously a little more complicated now. My point is it's been a while. The challenges are still as big and I'm not seeing much ambition or delivery.

I don't think the answer is a return to 90s triumphalism not least because I think it's bogged in formalism and process rather than what democracy's actually about. I think it's stultifying. Rather I think we need an examination of where that led us and how to fix it.

Nobody is claiming we should "sit on our laurels". Who has said that? We should keep striving to keep the momentum going, keep preaching the value of our system and how it has suceeded in driving down poverty, despotism, and increased the quality of life of people *without* the need for authoritarianism!

We should be arguing that our system actually works, and should not be afraid to come right out and say so without fear of others who claim to want the same things saying "Gosh, that is so black and white! The reality is all grey, and really, we kind of suck actually! Russia amasses 100k troops and threatens to invade Ukraine, but you know...the US has contingency plans for invading Canada, so is that really any different?"

You keep complaining about how bad we are at messaging, and yet YOUR MESSAGE is one of complete pessimism and touting how fucking awesome China has done instead.

I don't think faith and preaching the old religion is good enough and I don't think message is more important than reality as experienced by voters. I don't really buy the "war of ideas" point, I think that's always second to reality and material facts.

I've said what I think western leaders across various political familes have called out as their priorities - we need to deliver on that. And we might, it may be that the old, in my view rather ossified, tea ceremony version of democracy that we have will deliver that. It's a possibility.

But based on the last thirty years I don't have much basis for thinking that. We've failed almost all the other big things and crises that have come our way in the last thirty years. And as we fail to deliver the appeal of movements that just want to overturn the entire system will grow. Whether it's Trump, the about 50% of French voters who look like they're going for the far right or the far left, the 55% of Italian voters who  are voting for far right and anti-system parties. The reason that's happening is because so many voters don't think this system is delivering for them and it's not enough to just tell them they're wrong or stupid or need to look at the data or explain it to them. We need to actually make it work and deliver on some of those goals.

And I look at those examples and they remind me of Eastern European politics. For a very long time I think the assumption was that CEE would become more like Western Europe. I think if we keep the disappointment and disillusion growing then we'll get the same results and actually the future may well be Poland or Czechia: parties/movements flaring up and disappearing, persistent anti-system parties, billionaires running for office etc. It's still democracy just not as we've practiced it before.

[crazy canuck]

The west really is doomed if this is what the *defenders* of the western liberal ideal think is rational argument in the context of opposing Russian aggression into sovereign states. Shelf and Zoupa basically coming to the defense of Putin.

If Western Liberal Democracy has become so weak as to not be able to withstand a more nuanced view than the one you espouse then yes, it is truly compromised.

There is nothing nuanced about your views here. It is childishly assinine to compare invading the USSR or Russia with dropping some bombs on Libya in a desperate attempt to stop a civil war.

Not to mention just letting someone claim that Lithuania joining NATO of their own free will is the same as NATO just invading Lithuania and conquering them. That passes without comment, of course. Because you are just so concerned with nuance.

I never made that comparison, so I have no idea why "your views" refers to.  I have read the views of Shelf and Zoupa though, and you have not done a very good job understanding what they are posting. 

[Zanza]

@Sheilbh: I am with Berkut here and don't get why we need a "development model". The West is literally "on top of the world" in just about every statistic that matters.

The only thing that can topple Western leadership is as you say distrust in our own system and turning to authoritarianism,I.e. becoming more like e.g. China or Russia.

[crazy canuck]

@Sheilbh: I am with Berkut here and don't get why we need a "development model". The West is literally "on top of the world" in just about every statistic that matters.

The only thing that can topple Western leadership is as you say distrust in our own system and turning to authoritarianism,I.e. becoming more like e.g. China or Russia.

The main threats I see to Liberal Democracy is that it has been undermined from within by the right starting in the Reagan/Thatcher years so that now we have societies with dramatic wealth and income disparity combined with declining social mobility. 

The thing that can topple Western leadership is the policies and politics of the West and the damage those things do to the West.

[viper37]

The us had a contingency plan to invade Canada to protect itself from the uk up until the 30s. So yeah I think America's history might have clouded its view of the uk after that you got nukes and world power status o less of an issue

France was invaded 3 times by Germany in less than a century.  I don't think there's still a Maginot line standing in eastern France.
However, there is a lot of resentment from French people toward Germany, for various reasons, but no one is fearing an imminent invasion.

[Eddie Teach]

The US and UK went from boring to laughable in less than a generation. Winning.

As opposed to Sweden saving the world with 150 troops?

[crazy canuck]

The us had a contingency plan to invade Canada to protect itself from the uk up until the 30s. So yeah I think America's history might have clouded its view of the uk after that you got nukes and world power status o less of an issue

France was invaded 3 times by Germany in less than a century.  I don't think there's still a Maginot line standing in eastern France.

Right, there is NATO and the EU without which there could well be a need.

[crazy canuck]

It is also not the same as "fine".  Putin and Trump and those assholes that Duck keeps touting in France are all the same thing.  A wave of fascism assailing the world.  A victory by Putin weakens democracy across the west and emboldens fascists here.  Yesteryear it was Spain and Cable street.  Today it is Ukraine and the US capitol.

Fair.

We are under threat. We are, however, not losing.

"We"?

Have you looked South lately? 

[Zanza]

@Sheilbh: I am with Berkut here and don't get why we need a "development model". The West is literally "on top of the world" in just about every statistic that matters.

The only thing that can topple Western leadership is as you say distrust in our own system and turning to authoritarianism,I.e. becoming more like e.g. China or Russia.

The main threats I see to Liberal Democracy is that it has been undermined from within by the right starting in the Reagan/Thatcher years so that now we have societies with dramatic wealth and income disparity combined with declining social mobility. 

The thing that can topple Western leadership is the policies and politics of the West and the damage those things do to the West.

Agreed. I would add two grassroots trends: a) distrust in science and facts as presented by "elites" and b) the filter bubble in media consumption. Those exacerbate the top-down policies you mention.

[Sheilbh]

@Sheilbh: I am with Berkut here and don't get why we need a "development model". The West is literally "on top of the world" in just about every statistic that matters.

The West is also a small part of the world and its population. It's a limited part of the world constituted largely of former and current imperial powers and superpowers of their day who have a head-start, and countries that were basically entirely re-built after the war.

I think we're competing China on a more global scale - so I think part of that is we need a model that works for the rest of the world. How do you get from low-income to even middle income? How do you get from century of humiliation or post-colonial state to participating in the west with a voice and vote? And I think if we don't have that offer for the rest of the world - and especially if China is able to help others develop - then we will find ourselves less able to shape the world order because that will follow power and economic power especially and we either rage against the dying of the light while the world is made safe for autocrats or we do something really stupid.

I think a lot about that Laurence Summers question:  "Can the US imagine a viable global economic system" in which it is no longer the dominant player? Could an American "political leader acknowledge that reality in a way that permits negotiation over what such a world would look like?... Can China be held down without inviting conflict?"

To me the best way of avoiding that is by expanding the west as that will allow us to keep pace and entrench the economic system more broadly - and part of that absolutely means we need a development model that lifts countries out of poverty without the normal military dictatorship stage from the only other examples I can think of. But also I think it's a moral imperative - it's a bit like "in the long run we're all dead". If we don't have a model for countries that aren't already part of the West - then what's it for in the face of countries and societies desperate to develop and make the leap that China has?

The only thing that can topple Western leadership is as you say distrust in our own system and turning to authoritarianism,I.e. becoming more like e.g. China or Russia.

I think the size of the economy and market matters. I think we're already seeing this with climate - there is no solution to climate without China and China will not participate in the way the West does which is broadly under American leadership. It wants an equal voice - and in terms of impact on climate and global economy, China deserves that.

The main threats I see to Liberal Democracy is that it has been undermined from within by the right starting in the Reagan/Thatcher years so that now we have societies with dramatic wealth and income disparity combined with declining social mobility. 

I agree but it's not just the Reagan/Thatcher years - it's the last forty years of depoliticisation, moving policy areas out of democracy in the name of a liberal "consensus", "whatever works" v politics.  I think that's a huge driver of issues.

[The Brain]

The US and UK went from boring to laughable in less than a generation. Winning.

As opposed to Sweden saving the world with 150 troops?