4 ms·

I don't think those are it. 1) Massive Natural Resources (carbon fuels) which mean they don't have to do anything productive and can make huge money. 2) Total

I don't think those are it. 1) Massive Natural Resources (carbon fuels) which mean they don't have to do anything productive and can make huge money. 2) Totalitarian with Kleptocracy. The population accepts it over anything else, Putin keeps all competitors at bay. This means a single cabal can make big decisions. 3) Cultural Chauvinism. 30% are 'totally cool' with wiping out their neighbours in the vein of some cooked up rubbish. Even when they know it's 'cooked up'. I think they are definitely product I don't think they see themselves as 'ubermench' I think it's a kind of 'superiority from an inferiority' complex. They also lack empathy compared to most other places, not on an individual level, but on a cultural level. There are no leaders who speak of hope, togetherness, prosperity - those are viewed as 'weak'. (Paradoxically their 'strong' people are just incompetent killers). So with Money, Control, and Cultural Chauvinism - you have potentiality for big things. Like war. 'Security Council' is not that important. Nukes are actually not important - but they do provide an 'umbrella' of cover, in that, NATO would already be in Ukraine otherwise. So they can be decisive. Their 'former empire' is not relevant other than in the jingoistic psyche of Putin and some of the plebes.

skissane 4y ago
> 3) Cultural Chauvinism A very common thing for humans to have. US, UK, France, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Germany, Belgium, Netherlands, Japan, China – to list just a few countries which have a lengthy history of it, there are many more–and some will question whether some of the countries I have listed have really moved beyond it. (I'll even say my own country, Australia, has a decent amount of it – even if the form it takes looks rather different from that of some other countries.) > 'Security Council' is not that important. > Nukes are actually not important > Their 'former empire' is not relevant I think all these things tie into national attitudes and culture. Many Russians remember when their country was one of the most powerful countries in the world (at the height of the Cold War, arguably second only to the United States, and the Soviets even managed to beat the Americans at some things); even for those too young to remember it, it was a large chunk of the life of their parents/grandparents. The degree to which their country has fallen is rather obvious to all, and things like the permanent UN Security Council membership and the nuclear arsenal serve as enduring reminders of that past "glory". Many Russians have no interest in going back to the "glory" days, but a substantial chunk of the population do, and there are many more who may be susceptible to propaganda promoting the idea – and that makes them open to supporting, or at least not overtly opposing, government policies aimed at doing that. By contrast, there are many other countries who either have never had that kind of history, or else for which the days of "imperial glory" are much more distant, well beyond the memory of the living–and citizens of those other countries are far less likely to acquiesce in imperial designs, especially when those designs start to impose costs on everyday life.
- jollybean 4y ago
  The things that I have seen over the last two months (a lot of social media coming out of Russia, street interviews, phone calls, public statements) make me believe that Russia is completely different than elsewhere in the West. The number of people who'd be easily willing to just murder a bunch of people for an invented reason is much greater than elsewhere. Americans can get 'nationalist' but they are absolutely not like that, beyond a smaller group, Americans are by default positive and gregarious. I believe Russia's dark past, their permanent oppression, total lack of hope for something to change makes them amenable to this. Basically, institutionalized cynicism. I believe that even Putin himself, former counter espionage is the most cynical it gets, like Machiavellian without recognizing that 'hope and prosperity' are actually legitimate things. He sees everything as a cynical game of power. The Americans 'can't possibly be acting in good faith' because 'there is no such thing as good faith' - but even worse - not even knowing what 'good faith' is because he's never been exposed to it. 'People who smile are fools, unserious, they can't be competent!' etc. not able to just recognize a basic common joy. The contrast between attitudes and motivations by Ukrainians these days is just unbelievable, which is interesting because despite historical similarities, it's almost as if 'modern Ukrainian identity' is formed out of the hope that arises when coming out of that rubble. Even regular Ukrainians, farmers seem to be on a different wavelength.
  - wara23arish 4y ago
    Americans are gregarious and positive but they simply do not know about what goes on abroad. Either they do not know or do not care. That signals that they too miss a pretty basic level of empathy. The number of countries ravaged/destroyed by americans and their decisions is countless.
    - jollybean 4y ago
      The lack of empathy for the destruction of some places wrought by American power is evident, yes, but on the whole there's almost always a positive impetus. "number of countries ravaged/destroyed by americans and their decisions is countless. " - this is rubbish. The argument could be made for Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, but even then, those are uneven arguments and motivations were righteous if flawed. In Afghanistan for example, did not actually spend much time at all bombing Afghanistan infrastructure proper, there are no 'cities levelled' by Americans and there are layers of bureaucracy to try to avoid civilian damage if necessary, they have operating procedures for it, there is even some transparency though it's never perfect. They didn't consistently destroy strategic facilities like 'Oil Refineries' or 'Factories, they spent 10's of Billions investing in Afghanistan, trying to build infrastructure, schools, trying desperately to get little girls to be able to attend schools, trying desperately for some semblance of basic civility. The indifference, lack of basic civil foundation, mass corruption (Afghan leaders funnelling billions into Dubai etc.) made it an impossible task even over 20 years, though plausible with a few more decades. Despite that, there's overwhelming goodwill otherwise.

skissane 4y ago

> 3) Cultural Chauvinism A very common thing for humans to have. US, UK, France, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Germany, Belgium, Netherlands, Japan, China – to list just a few countries which have a lengthy history of it, there are many more–and some will question whether some of the countries I have listed have really moved beyond it. (I'll even say my own country, Australia, has a decent amount of it – even if the form it takes looks rather different from that of some other countries.) > 'Security Council' is not that important. > Nukes are actually not important > Their 'former empire' is not relevant I think all these things tie into national attitudes and culture. Many Russians remember when their country was one of the most powerful countries in the world (at the height of the Cold War, arguably second only to the United States, and the Soviets even managed to beat the Americans at some things); even for those too young to remember it, it was a large chunk of the life of their parents/grandparents. The degree to which their country has fallen is rather obvious to all, and things like the permanent UN Security Council membership and the nuclear arsenal serve as enduring reminders of that past "glory". Many Russians have no interest in going back to the "glory" days, but a substantial chunk of the population do, and there are many more who may be susceptible to propaganda promoting the idea – and that makes them open to supporting, or at least not overtly opposing, government policies aimed at doing that. By contrast, there are many other countries who either have never had that kind of history, or else for which the days of "imperial glory" are much more distant, well beyond the memory of the living–and citizens of those other countries are far less likely to acquiesce in imperial designs, especially when those designs start to impose costs on everyday life.

jollybean 4y ago
The things that I have seen over the last two months (a lot of social media coming out of Russia, street interviews, phone calls, public statements) make me believe that Russia is completely different than elsewhere in the West. The number of people who'd be easily willing to just murder a bunch of people for an invented reason is much greater than elsewhere. Americans can get 'nationalist' but they are absolutely not like that, beyond a smaller group, Americans are by default positive and gregarious. I believe Russia's dark past, their permanent oppression, total lack of hope for something to change makes them amenable to this. Basically, institutionalized cynicism. I believe that even Putin himself, former counter espionage is the most cynical it gets, like Machiavellian without recognizing that 'hope and prosperity' are actually legitimate things. He sees everything as a cynical game of power. The Americans 'can't possibly be acting in good faith' because 'there is no such thing as good faith' - but even worse - not even knowing what 'good faith' is because he's never been exposed to it. 'People who smile are fools, unserious, they can't be competent!' etc. not able to just recognize a basic common joy. The contrast between attitudes and motivations by Ukrainians these days is just unbelievable, which is interesting because despite historical similarities, it's almost as if 'modern Ukrainian identity' is formed out of the hope that arises when coming out of that rubble. Even regular Ukrainians, farmers seem to be on a different wavelength.
- wara23arish 4y ago
  Americans are gregarious and positive but they simply do not know about what goes on abroad. Either they do not know or do not care. That signals that they too miss a pretty basic level of empathy. The number of countries ravaged/destroyed by americans and their decisions is countless.
  - jollybean 4y ago
    The lack of empathy for the destruction of some places wrought by American power is evident, yes, but on the whole there's almost always a positive impetus. "number of countries ravaged/destroyed by americans and their decisions is countless. " - this is rubbish. The argument could be made for Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, but even then, those are uneven arguments and motivations were righteous if flawed. In Afghanistan for example, did not actually spend much time at all bombing Afghanistan infrastructure proper, there are no 'cities levelled' by Americans and there are layers of bureaucracy to try to avoid civilian damage if necessary, they have operating procedures for it, there is even some transparency though it's never perfect. They didn't consistently destroy strategic facilities like 'Oil Refineries' or 'Factories, they spent 10's of Billions investing in Afghanistan, trying to build infrastructure, schools, trying desperately to get little girls to be able to attend schools, trying desperately for some semblance of basic civility. The indifference, lack of basic civil foundation, mass corruption (Afghan leaders funnelling billions into Dubai etc.) made it an impossible task even over 20 years, though plausible with a few more decades. Despite that, there's overwhelming goodwill otherwise.