The State of Affairs in Russia

[Zoupa]

They claim that the they are motivated not be the threat of not being allowed to meddle anymore, but rather by the threat that someone is going to actually invade Russia.

THAT is what I call bullshit on. They do not actually believe that there is ANY real threat that anyone is going to invade Russia.

You can repeat this as much as you want, it doesn't make it true.

[Berkut]

I'm coming from the point of view that US is essentially in a state of cold civil war, and that cold civil war can lead to some pretty catastrophic developments.  If US falls to Trump again, or someone of his ilk, what is the West going to do in the face of Russian/Chinese aggression?  I don't think that 150 Swedes without any tank destroyers are going to hold the line for the western civilization.  Maybe we're not losing yet, but IMO we're in a very precarious situation with no clear path out of it.

Yeah that I can agree with. A Trump victory could be catastrophic in many ways, including here. And I agree the West, as a whole, is not in top trim and things could are precarious. But that's not the same as losing. Not yet. Things can get a lot worse.

We are not losing, for sure.

What I find frustrating is that when you look at the data, we are doing pretty damn great (absent the climate which may make it all moot anyway).

But we are definitely losing the war of ideas, or at least it feels that way.

And when supposed defender of the western ideals say stuff like "The West has done nothing but fail since the end of the cold war while Russia and China seem to be winning everywhere", I think that attitude is *exactly* why we are losing the war of ideas while winning the war of actual, measurable outcomes.

[Berkut]

They claim that the they are motivated not be the threat of not being allowed to meddle anymore, but rather by the threat that someone is going to actually invade Russia.

THAT is what I call bullshit on. They do not actually believe that there is ANY real threat that anyone is going to invade Russia.

You can repeat this as much as you want, it doesn't make it true.

Thanks for that valuable contribution to the discourse, Vlad.

[Zoupa]

Insults and condescension. Thanks for your input. You're such a small man.

[Habbaku]

[Grey Fox]

We are not losing. We have already lost.

[DGuller]

I'm coming from the point of view that US is essentially in a state of cold civil war, and that cold civil war can lead to some pretty catastrophic developments.  If US falls to Trump again, or someone of his ilk, what is the West going to do in the face of Russian/Chinese aggression?  I don't think that 150 Swedes without any tank destroyers are going to hold the line for the western civilization.  Maybe we're not losing yet, but IMO we're in a very precarious situation with no clear path out of it.

Yeah that I can agree with. A Trump victory could be catastrophic in many ways, including here. And I agree the West, as a whole, is not in top trim and things could are precarious. But that's not the same as losing. Not yet. Things can get a lot worse.

I think stability of democracy factors into the definition of winning or losing.  If you can't be confident that your democracy will hold, that's not merely precarious, that's already a loss.  Anxiety about the future leads to a diminished experience of the present.

[Malthus]

I'm not sure what is being argued.

Is the argument about the sincerity of Putin's belief that Russia is under physical threat of invasion by the legions of the West? Because that is certainly not true - Putin must know that the West has neither the resources, the motivation, nor the coordination to physically attack Russia on its own initiative (indeed, the opposite appears to be true - that Russia believes that the West lacks the material and will to do anything directly military in response to a Russian invasion of non-NATO countries).

Is the argument about what the average Russian believes? There are certainly plenty online who will claim to be average Russians who believe this. Whether they are, or are in fact either paid trolls, non-Russian useful idiots, or actual Russians, can be hard to tell. No doubt there are lots of Russians who believe this, but then there are lots of Americans who believe Trump won the election. In the modern world it is apparently not difficult to get a significant portion of the public to believe anything, no matter how fact-free, with enough propaganda - though one suspects the sincerity of their "belief" in tribal shibboleths.

I remember reading in *The True Believer* how followers of various forms of authoritarianism have no difficulty in "believing" things that are absurd and contradictory. These beliefs can appear quite sincere. Maybe it is even symptomatic of a "true belief" to believe the absurd, if required to by the great leader.

However, I have trouble buying that Putin actually and sincerely believes the nonsense he spews. He's supposed to be a chess master of manipulation, not a lucky rube like Trump.

[Jacob]

I think stability of democracy factors into the definition of winning or losing.  If you can't be confident that your democracy will hold, that's not merely precarious, that's already a loss.  Anxiety about the future leads to a diminished experience of the present.

Concerns about the stability of (American) democracy are valid, IMO, but feeling anxiety != losing. Giving up prematurely may assuage anxiety by trading in uncertainty for certainty of defeat, but that doesn't make it correct nor the right thing to do.

[Sheilbh]

What I find frustrating is that when you look at the data, we are doing pretty damn great (absent the climate which may make it all moot anyway).

But we are definitely losing the war of ideas, or at least it feels that way.

And when supposed defender of the western ideals say stuff like "The West has done nothing but fail since the end of the cold war while Russia and China seem to be winning everywhere", I think that attitude is *exactly* why we are losing the war of ideas while winning the war of actual, measurable outcomes.

But I don't see the relevance of that data. You measure policy success based on the priorities and objectives were - and did it succeed. It would be nice and we'd be living in a far more pleasant world if, say, global infant mortality had been a state priority of Western governments over the last 30 years. But it hasn't. So I don't see how it's remotely relevant.

By contrast with Russia, Putin took over when Russia needed food aid from the UN. He set out to restore the Russian economy and improve living standards - which he did. And to restore Russia on the world stage - which he has. I mean even this, you know, the US has repeatedly stated that it wants to direct its focus to the Pacific and not be so involved in defending very rich allies - and yet for the last month or two Putin has the world revolving around Ukraine and what he'll do. I don't think it's sustainable for Russia because I don't think Putin has a growth model beyond oil and gas, similarly I'm not sure Erdogan has one beyond construction - for India and Hungary and Poland and other "illiberal democracies" I'm less sure.

China is even clearer - they have moved from a country with over 50% absolute poverty to less than 2% absolute poverty. From a low income to a middle income country in one generation. Because that's why African leaders, for example, find China compelling. Now they're talking about more shared prosperity (reducing inequality, getting rid of bubbles in the economy and investing in the "real" economy), decarbonisation and China "standing up" in the world so that's how we can see if they're succeeding.

And there's a policy I think the West needs an answer to: what's our development model? Where's our model that doesn't involve a period of rule by a military strongman for lifting a country out of poverty? It's easy to say that African leaders, for example, are tempted by the Chinese model because they want control and they can take a cut etc - and no doubt that's part of it - but I think the main reason is that China's gone from poor to middle income and they want that for their people. Again - where's our example? I think it should absolutely be a focus.

An example I think of an incredible achievement was Gordon Brown, one of his big focuses was child poverty and it fell all the time he was chancellor and when he was PM it continued to fall even after the crash which is very impressive - similarly his goal to hugely reduce debt for the developing world.

If you look at the big policy areas I think there have been too many failures for us to sit on our laurels and contemplate how wonderful our system is - rather than overhauling it because it has failed. Two wars, one global crash, ongoing climate crisis and growing social division/dissatisfaction with democracy (not just the US: France and Italy too have really alarming poll results for wanting an authoritarian saviour) - that's not a successful policy legacy against the stated objective of western leaders over the last three decades. Even the ones that haven't been catastrophes have been like, say, European strategic autonomy - a grand goal repeated many times and not one inch closer to being achieved.

Let's look at how the West does in preserving democracy and not dividing further, dealing with climate, addressing inequality, controlling big tech, plus the broader foreign policy/security issues that vary slightly by country - because those are the big issues western leaders have been talking about. Those are the issues we judge them on. Based on the record of the last thirty I'm not flushed with confidence - now that doesn't mean I think Russia or China would deal with them better, but they're not even in that conversation because they'll have different goals (though I think Chinese success on climate is essential for the world and it'll be interesting if they do manage to deal with some of the issues they've identified because there is more overlap there).

[DGuller]

However, I have trouble buying that Putin actually and sincerely believes the nonsense he spews. He's supposed to be a chess master of manipulation, not a lucky rube like Trump.

I don't believe it either, but I'm not that confident about it.  Solmyr may have a point, Putin may be getting high on his own supply.  One of the biggest occupational hazards of being a dictators is keeping your grip on reality, because with increased power and tenure there are fewer and fewer checks on confirmation bias.

[Sheilbh]

I don't believe it either, but I'm not that confident about it.  Solmyr may have a point, Putin may be getting high on his own supply.  One of the biggest occupational hazards of being a dictators is keeping your grip on reality, because with increased power and tenure there are fewer and fewer checks on confirmation bias.

You don't even need to be a dictator for that - there's a lot going on in British politics right now that I think is people getting high on their own supply.

[The Brain]

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

[Berkut]

What I find frustrating is that when you look at the data, we are doing pretty damn great (absent the climate which may make it all moot anyway).

But we are definitely losing the war of ideas, or at least it feels that way.

And when supposed defender of the western ideals say stuff like "The West has done nothing but fail since the end of the cold war while Russia and China seem to be winning everywhere", I think that attitude is *exactly* why we are losing the war of ideas while winning the war of actual, measurable outcomes.

But I don't see the relevance of that data. You measure policy success based on the priorities and objectives were - and did it succeed. It would be nice and we'd be living in a far more pleasant world if, say, global infant mortality had been a state priority of Western governments over the last 30 years. But it hasn't. So I don't see how it's remotely relevant.

By contrast with Russia, Putin took over when Russia needed food aid from the UN. He set out to restore the Russian economy and improve living standards - which he did. And to restore Russia on the world stage - which he has. I mean even this, you know, the US has repeatedly stated that it wants to direct its focus to the Pacific and not be so involved in defending very rich allies - and yet for the last month or two Putin has the world revolving around Ukraine and what he'll do. I don't think it's sustainable for Russia because I don't think Putin has a growth model beyond oil and gas, similarly I'm not sure Erdogan has one beyond construction - for India and Hungary and Poland and other "illiberal democracies" I'm less sure.

China is even clearer - they have moved from a country with over 50% absolute poverty to less than 2% absolute poverty. From a low income to a middle income country in one generation. Because that's why African leaders, for example, find China compelling. Now they're talking about more shared prosperity (reducing inequality, getting rid of bubbles in the economy and investing in the "real" economy), decarbonisation and China "standing up" in the world so that's how we can see if they're succeeding.

And there's a policy I think the West needs an answer to: what's our development model? Where's our model that doesn't involve a period of rule by a military strongman for lifting a country out of poverty? It's easy to say that African leaders, for example, are tempted by the Chinese model because they want control and they can take a cut etc - and no doubt that's part of it - but I think the main reason is that China's gone from poor to middle income and they want that for their people. Again - where's our example? I think it should absolutely be a focus.

An example I think of an incredible achievement was Gordon Brown, one of his big focuses was child poverty and it fell all the time he was chancellor and when he was PM it continued to fall even after the crash which is very impressive - similarly his goal to hugely reduce debt for the developing world.

If you look at the big policy areas I think there have been too many failures for us to sit on our laurels and contemplate how wonderful our system is - rather than overhauling it because it has failed. Two wars, one global crash, ongoing climate crisis and growing social division/dissatisfaction with democracy (not just the US: France and Italy too have really alarming poll results for wanting an authoritarian saviour) - that's not a successful policy legacy against the stated objective of western leaders over the last three decades. Even the ones that haven't been catastrophes have been like, say, European strategic autonomy - a grand goal repeated many times and not one inch closer to being achieved.

Let's look at how the West does in preserving democracy and not dividing further, dealing with climate, addressing inequality, controlling big tech, plus the broader foreign policy/security issues that vary slightly by country - because those are the big issues western leaders have been talking about. Those are the issues we judge them on. Based on the record of the last thirty I'm not flushed with confidence - now that doesn't mean I think Russia or China would deal with them better, but they're not even in that conversation because they'll have different goals (though I think Chinese success on climate is essential for the world and it'll be interesting if they do manage to deal with some of the issues they've identified because there is more overlap there).

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.

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.

[Razgovory]

I'm coming from the point of view that US is essentially in a state of cold civil war, and that cold civil war can lead to some pretty catastrophic developments.  If US falls to Trump again, or someone of his ilk, what is the West going to do in the face of Russian/Chinese aggression?  I don't think that 150 Swedes without any tank destroyers are going to hold the line for the western civilization.  Maybe we're not losing yet, but IMO we're in a very precarious situation with no clear path out of it.

Yeah that I can agree with. A Trump victory could be catastrophic in many ways, including here. And I agree the West, as a whole, is not in top trim and things could are precarious. But that's not the same as losing. Not yet. Things can get a lot worse.

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.