4 ms·

What happens in the ensuing power vacuum? See: The US in Iraq, Libya post-Ghaddafi, etc It also sends a very strong message to Putin that the US may not want t

What happens in the ensuing power vacuum? See: The US in Iraq, Libya post-Ghaddafi, etc It also sends a very strong message to Putin that the US may not want to send

baybal2 5y ago
> What happens in the ensuing power vacuum? What a heck is that "power vacuum?" I never managed to comprehend the mechanics of Western thought process arriving to that philosophical concept. > It also sends a very strong message to Putin that the US may not want to send You want to send this message. You want Putin to be intimidated, and scared, and not laughing at you in the face. Very massive intimidation. Gaddafi's intimate encounter with a bayonet type of one. It will be also a message of unity, for the world to see that the West can still Desert Storm any Hitler wannabe like was in time when the West was big, and menacing, and not the other way around.
- zozbot234 5y ago
  > What a heck is that "power vacuum?" I never managed to comprehend the mechanics of Western thought process arriving to that philosophical concept. It's called a "vacuum" by analogy with physics, because unscrupulous folks will rush in to fill it. This kind of chaos is not something you actually want, since it lets the worst guys around win easily. You want to give Mr. Dictator the best opportunity to establish well-founded transition/succession mechanisms (including respect for fundamental rights, which is even more important than democratic voting norms!) and then step down willingly and orderly, with a golden parachute to sweeten the deal. The West has gotten this stuff horribly wrong as of late, even as recently as the latest wars in the Middle East, but that's no reason to do even worse.
  - baybal2 5y ago
    That's a really fucked up thought process
    - quickthrowman 5y ago
      History has shown that it isn’t, though. ISIS rising up and capturing actual land area and oil infrastructure was a direct result of the US ousting Saddam Hussein. There’s a whole lot more examples of this in history. Here’s an example from the end of Habsburg Spain: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Spanish_Succession https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Spanish_Successio... This guy rose to power after Tsar Nicolas II and his family were machine-gunned: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Lenin https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Lenin Then, Stalin rose to power from the chaos after Lenin’s death, and then when Stalin died, Malankov was ‘in charge’ until Khrushchev took power from him, and so on. There are counter examples of course, Nicolae Ceausescu being executed in Romania, for instance.
      - anigbrowl 5y ago
        This guy rose to power after Tsar Nicolas II and his family were machine-gunned Well, Lenin (with peers like Trotsky and to some extent Stalin) was the architect of the Russian revolution that got rid of the Tsars. Rather than being a lucky opportunist he was dedicated to that project for a long period, motivated significantly by the execution of his brother. I don't think it's a great example of a power vacuum so much as the payoff for a singular focus on a specific goal. On the other hand, Lenin's debilitation and death following being shot in an assassination attempt and then suffering a series of strokes did create a power vacuum, and Stalin had cleverly positioned himself to fully exploit it and push aside his rival Trotsky - arguably a more capable military and political leader, but one so dedicated to his cause that he failed to defend his own position.
      - Anthony-G 5y ago
        I’ve upvoted your comment because you’re correct that history is full of examples of power vacuums leading to negative outcomes for the general population (such as war or other chaos before a new leader or group eventually consolidates power), e.g., I only learned about the bloody War of the Spanish Succession when I visited Barcelona a few years ago. However, I don’t think the Russian Revolution is a particularly good example as it was more complex series of events and historical forces resulting in the displacement of the existing power structure (Russian Empire). After the Tsar was forced to abdicate as a result of the spontaneous, popular and bottom-up February 1917 Revolution, his government was replaced by a provisional government led by Kerensky which tried to incorporate all political classes and factions in Russian society. However, the provisional government was both weak and unstable – vulnerable to a coup by monarchists in the army while being effectively dependent on the co-operation of the Soviets (workers’ councils / citizen assemblies) of the more industrialised cities, particularly St. Petersburg. Just as important, they had been unable to extricate Russia from the disastrous and unpopular war with Germany (Eastern front of the First World War) and had been unable to resolve much of the material conditions (food shortages) that precipitated the February Revolution. The Bolshevik party had been organising as a revolutionary party (previously a faction of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party) since the turn of the century. Unlike orthodox Marxists, they weren’t content to wait for the capitalist class to become powerful enough to institute modern, industrialised capitalism in Russian society and they believed it was their role to revolutionise Russian society, by-passing the capitalist stage of development. By 1917, the Bolsheviks had become a well-disciplined and effective political force. They successfully worked towards gaining the support of the majority of the working class in St. Petersburg and Moscow (but not the peasants). After they gained control of the Soviets, they were strong enough to carry out their own coup d’état (known as the October Revolution) and become both the “de facto” and “de jure” ruling party. The Tsar and his family were executed (horribly, by both bayonet and gunshot) only after the Bolsheviks had consolidated their power in order to prevent monarchist/counter-revolutionary forces (known as the “Whites”) from rescuing them.
  - anigbrowl 5y ago
    It's not even that it lets the worst people seize power (although this is often the case). It's just that someone will seize power; it's less than obvious who that will be to any outside intervenor; and considerable positional/ temporal advantage is likely to be lost during the interregnum. tl;dr Better the devil you know, in most cases.

What happens in the ensuing power vacuum? See: The US in Iraq, Libya post-Ghaddafi, etc It also sends a very strong message to Putin that the US may not want to send

baybal2 5y ago

> What happens in the ensuing power vacuum? What a heck is that "power vacuum?" I never managed to comprehend the mechanics of Western thought process arriving to that philosophical concept. > It also sends a very strong message to Putin that the US may not want to send You want to send this message. You want Putin to be intimidated, and scared, and not laughing at you in the face. Very massive intimidation. Gaddafi's intimate encounter with a bayonet type of one. It will be also a message of unity, for the world to see that the West can still Desert Storm any Hitler wannabe like was in time when the West was big, and menacing, and not the other way around.

zozbot234 5y ago
> What a heck is that "power vacuum?" I never managed to comprehend the mechanics of Western thought process arriving to that philosophical concept. It's called a "vacuum" by analogy with physics, because unscrupulous folks will rush in to fill it. This kind of chaos is not something you actually want, since it lets the worst guys around win easily. You want to give Mr. Dictator the best opportunity to establish well-founded transition/succession mechanisms (including respect for fundamental rights, which is even more important than democratic voting norms!) and then step down willingly and orderly, with a golden parachute to sweeten the deal. The West has gotten this stuff horribly wrong as of late, even as recently as the latest wars in the Middle East, but that's no reason to do even worse.
- baybal2 5y ago
  That's a really fucked up thought process
  - quickthrowman 5y ago
    History has shown that it isn’t, though. ISIS rising up and capturing actual land area and oil infrastructure was a direct result of the US ousting Saddam Hussein. There’s a whole lot more examples of this in history. Here’s an example from the end of Habsburg Spain: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Spanish_Succession https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Spanish_Successio... This guy rose to power after Tsar Nicolas II and his family were machine-gunned: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Lenin https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Lenin Then, Stalin rose to power from the chaos after Lenin’s death, and then when Stalin died, Malankov was ‘in charge’ until Khrushchev took power from him, and so on. There are counter examples of course, Nicolae Ceausescu being executed in Romania, for instance.
    - anigbrowl 5y ago
      This guy rose to power after Tsar Nicolas II and his family were machine-gunned Well, Lenin (with peers like Trotsky and to some extent Stalin) was the architect of the Russian revolution that got rid of the Tsars. Rather than being a lucky opportunist he was dedicated to that project for a long period, motivated significantly by the execution of his brother. I don't think it's a great example of a power vacuum so much as the payoff for a singular focus on a specific goal. On the other hand, Lenin's debilitation and death following being shot in an assassination attempt and then suffering a series of strokes did create a power vacuum, and Stalin had cleverly positioned himself to fully exploit it and push aside his rival Trotsky - arguably a more capable military and political leader, but one so dedicated to his cause that he failed to defend his own position.
    - Anthony-G 5y ago
      I’ve upvoted your comment because you’re correct that history is full of examples of power vacuums leading to negative outcomes for the general population (such as war or other chaos before a new leader or group eventually consolidates power), e.g., I only learned about the bloody War of the Spanish Succession when I visited Barcelona a few years ago. However, I don’t think the Russian Revolution is a particularly good example as it was more complex series of events and historical forces resulting in the displacement of the existing power structure (Russian Empire). After the Tsar was forced to abdicate as a result of the spontaneous, popular and bottom-up February 1917 Revolution, his government was replaced by a provisional government led by Kerensky which tried to incorporate all political classes and factions in Russian society. However, the provisional government was both weak and unstable – vulnerable to a coup by monarchists in the army while being effectively dependent on the co-operation of the Soviets (workers’ councils / citizen assemblies) of the more industrialised cities, particularly St. Petersburg. Just as important, they had been unable to extricate Russia from the disastrous and unpopular war with Germany (Eastern front of the First World War) and had been unable to resolve much of the material conditions (food shortages) that precipitated the February Revolution. The Bolshevik party had been organising as a revolutionary party (previously a faction of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party) since the turn of the century. Unlike orthodox Marxists, they weren’t content to wait for the capitalist class to become powerful enough to institute modern, industrialised capitalism in Russian society and they believed it was their role to revolutionise Russian society, by-passing the capitalist stage of development. By 1917, the Bolsheviks had become a well-disciplined and effective political force. They successfully worked towards gaining the support of the majority of the working class in St. Petersburg and Moscow (but not the peasants). After they gained control of the Soviets, they were strong enough to carry out their own coup d’état (known as the October Revolution) and become both the “de facto” and “de jure” ruling party. The Tsar and his family were executed (horribly, by both bayonet and gunshot) only after the Bolsheviks had consolidated their power in order to prevent monarchist/counter-revolutionary forces (known as the “Whites”) from rescuing them.
- anigbrowl 5y ago
  It's not even that it lets the worst people seize power (although this is often the case). It's just that someone will seize power; it's less than obvious who that will be to any outside intervenor; and considerable positional/ temporal advantage is likely to be lost during the interregnum. tl;dr Better the devil you know, in most cases.