4 ms·

According to Fiona Hill, we’re already in it. She doesn’t really indicate when we crossed the rubicon, but I guess there doesn’t always have to be a Franz Ferdi

by rsfern 5y ago

According to Fiona Hill, we’re already in it. She doesn’t really indicate when we crossed the rubicon, but I guess there doesn’t always have to be a Franz Ferdinand moment? https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/02/28/world-war-iii-already-there-00012340 https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/02/28/world-war-...

zouhair 5y ago
If I learned anything about Tsars history, most of them do not get to have a natural death.
- lurquer 5y ago
  Most? Source? Nearly 9% of US presidents have been assassinated. Over a much much smaller timeframe. I would bet you would be less likely to have been assassinated as a Tsar than as a President.
  - wahern 5y ago
    According to Wikipedia, 5 of 14 Tsars (35%) were murdered. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emperor_of_all_the_Russias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emperor_of_all_the_Russias That seems substantial, at least compared to Presidents, especially considering the threat of assassination was a serious consideration given all the political intrigue. Whereas AFAIU U.S. Presidents didn't take the threat of assassination seriously until the 20th century, exposing themselves to the public in ways that would be unthinkable to Tsars; or monarchs and, later, autocrats generally for that matter. On the other hand, likelihood of death per year looks more comparable. For Tsars I get 2.1% (5 / (1917 - 1682)). For Presidents I get 2.3% (3 / (1917 - 1789)) or 1.7% (4 / (2022 - 1789)), depending on the range. These days autocrats don't invest themselves much in establishing national political legitimacy or institutional legitimacy, focusing almost exclusively on building and grooming a power base where everyone in power has a vested interest in keeping the leader alive. So Putin probably doesn't have much to worry about, excepting perhaps some patriot military General. EDIT: It's 27% of Tsars and 1.6% likelihood of death per year if starting from 1613, the start of the Romanov Dynasty. (Refreshing my Russian history as I go.) Numbers don't really change if we go back to 1547, Ivan the Terrible and first self-styled Tsar of Russia, as we add another intervening murder. And that's being charitable on the first metric given rapid succession and overlap during the Time of Troubles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Russian_monarchs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Russian_monarchs
    - lurquer 5y ago
    - mkr-hn 5y ago
      I think it's hard to divine trends from such small numbers. 14 Tsars, 45 presidents. It's not even enough to determine if the odds of one outcome or the other is better than a coin toss. This is before getting into confounding variables like availability and quality of medical care. How would the numbers change if they all had access to emergency care available to the next person to face an assassination attempt? Or if they all had the Secret Service looking out for them. The President flies around with a world class hospital with some of the world's best staff. My guess is both attempts and successes are fewer over time and will approach 0 until some structural change shocks increasingly complacent protections.
aiisjustanif 5y ago
According to Fiona Hill that is not the definition of a world war. World Wars have been defined by battles in multiples countries and continents. The Syrian civil war was over 15 countries and factions. War in Afghanistan over 5 countries, technically much more. None of these wars were consider WW3, and just because the war between Ukraine and Russia is in Europe doesn’t make it any different.
- newsclues 5y ago
  History of this era will be interesting. After 9/11 we had the GWoT mainly in the Middle East after the NYC attack. Global War on Terror, in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syrian, Yemen and Africa. The Eastern European conflicts 2008 Georgia, and the Ukrainian conflict since 2014.
- rsfern 5y ago
  Can you clarify? Like halfway down the politico interview, the interviewer prompts > There are people who are saying we’re on the brink of a World War III. And Hill responds “we’re already in it” Maybe you disagree, but I was surprised by that response and found it very thought provoking
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
xiphias2 5y ago
I agree with Fiona: the clear nuclear threat was over the line. Freezing the assets of the central bank of Russia was also unimaginable a month ago (they are not Venezuela). That's why I used the words containing/deescalating.
Izkata 5y ago
> but I guess there doesn’t always have to be a Franz Ferdinand moment? The official start of WWI was a month after Franz Ferdinand's assassination, even though it's so heavily identified nowadays as "the start of the war". It's entirely possible that in the future, the instigating event will be identified as something that already happened and it's just taking a while for the shooting to start as alliances solidify, and that people who think we're already in WWIII have the same "the instigating event is the start of the war" association. Russia's incursion into Ukraine near the end of February could, for example, end up being it.

by rsfern 5y ago

zouhair 5y ago

If I learned anything about Tsars history, most of them do not get to have a natural death.

lurquer 5y ago
Most? Source? Nearly 9% of US presidents have been assassinated. Over a much much smaller timeframe. I would bet you would be less likely to have been assassinated as a Tsar than as a President.
- wahern 5y ago
  According to Wikipedia, 5 of 14 Tsars (35%) were murdered. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emperor_of_all_the_Russias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emperor_of_all_the_Russias That seems substantial, at least compared to Presidents, especially considering the threat of assassination was a serious consideration given all the political intrigue. Whereas AFAIU U.S. Presidents didn't take the threat of assassination seriously until the 20th century, exposing themselves to the public in ways that would be unthinkable to Tsars; or monarchs and, later, autocrats generally for that matter. On the other hand, likelihood of death per year looks more comparable. For Tsars I get 2.1% (5 / (1917 - 1682)). For Presidents I get 2.3% (3 / (1917 - 1789)) or 1.7% (4 / (2022 - 1789)), depending on the range. These days autocrats don't invest themselves much in establishing national political legitimacy or institutional legitimacy, focusing almost exclusively on building and grooming a power base where everyone in power has a vested interest in keeping the leader alive. So Putin probably doesn't have much to worry about, excepting perhaps some patriot military General. EDIT: It's 27% of Tsars and 1.6% likelihood of death per year if starting from 1613, the start of the Romanov Dynasty. (Refreshing my Russian history as I go.) Numbers don't really change if we go back to 1547, Ivan the Terrible and first self-styled Tsar of Russia, as we add another intervening murder. And that's being charitable on the first metric given rapid succession and overlap during the Time of Troubles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Russian_monarchs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Russian_monarchs
  - lurquer 5y ago
  - mkr-hn 5y ago
    I think it's hard to divine trends from such small numbers. 14 Tsars, 45 presidents. It's not even enough to determine if the odds of one outcome or the other is better than a coin toss. This is before getting into confounding variables like availability and quality of medical care. How would the numbers change if they all had access to emergency care available to the next person to face an assassination attempt? Or if they all had the Secret Service looking out for them. The President flies around with a world class hospital with some of the world's best staff. My guess is both attempts and successes are fewer over time and will approach 0 until some structural change shocks increasingly complacent protections.

aiisjustanif 5y ago

According to Fiona Hill that is not the definition of a world war. World Wars have been defined by battles in multiples countries and continents. The Syrian civil war was over 15 countries and factions. War in Afghanistan over 5 countries, technically much more. None of these wars were consider WW3, and just because the war between Ukraine and Russia is in Europe doesn’t make it any different.

newsclues 5y ago
History of this era will be interesting. After 9/11 we had the GWoT mainly in the Middle East after the NYC attack. Global War on Terror, in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syrian, Yemen and Africa. The Eastern European conflicts 2008 Georgia, and the Ukrainian conflict since 2014.
rsfern 5y ago
Can you clarify? Like halfway down the politico interview, the interviewer prompts > There are people who are saying we’re on the brink of a World War III. And Hill responds “we’re already in it” Maybe you disagree, but I was surprised by that response and found it very thought provoking
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

xiphias2 5y ago

I agree with Fiona: the clear nuclear threat was over the line. Freezing the assets of the central bank of Russia was also unimaginable a month ago (they are not Venezuela). That's why I used the words containing/deescalating.

Izkata 5y ago

> but I guess there doesn’t always have to be a Franz Ferdinand moment? The official start of WWI was a month after Franz Ferdinand's assassination, even though it's so heavily identified nowadays as "the start of the war". It's entirely possible that in the future, the instigating event will be identified as something that already happened and it's just taking a while for the shooting to start as alliances solidify, and that people who think we're already in WWIII have the same "the instigating event is the start of the war" association. Russia's incursion into Ukraine near the end of February could, for example, end up being it.