3 ms·
If the goal is to give Russia maximum incentive to f-off this is not what you want to be doing. This moves the current situation further down the spectrum from
by dsfyu404ed 4y ago
If the goal is to give Russia maximum incentive to f-off this is not what you want to be doing.
This moves the current situation further down the spectrum from "minor expansionist war we can pull out of and keep our heads on our bodies" and closer toward "potential existential crisis" from the point of view of Putin and his close buddies.
The ICC is basically saying to Putin that any future successor can earn a few (more than they already would) brownie points with the west (or at least the parts of it that have the most interest alignment with the ICC) by turning him in. In practice this does nothing other than make Putin less likely (not that he was very likely to begin with) to ever voluntarily relinquish office except on his deathbed (see also: Fidel Castro).
Putin eventually stepping down in favor of someone who will at least marginally improve relations with the west (not hard to imagine, over the years plenty of dictators have given up power to "moderate" successors in order to head off potential power struggles) would be good. This makes that marginally less likely (not that it was particularly likely in the sort/medium term).
Edit: INB4 someone inevitably tries to construe any of this as being pro-russia, it's not.
- timdiggerm 4y ago>not that he was very likely to begin with I feel like this is over-stating the previous likelihood
- sjsdaiuasgdia 4y agoCounterpoint: marginally lower chance that Putin continues to run Russia through a hand picked stooge of a successor. It's always possible to come up with reasons to not act because acting might rock the boat. It's appeasement. Why should the ICC appease Putin?
- dsfyu404ed 4y ago>marginally lower chance that Putin continues to run Russia through a hand picked stooge of a successor. Your three options are Putin, Putin's Stooge and "whoever overthrows Putin" I think the middle option is valuable because it gives Putin's less expansionist and more trade inclined henchmen an opportunity to leverage fear of the third toward an outcome that is good for everyone but Putin but less bad than the third.
- sjsdaiuasgdia 4y agoI'm rooting for option 3 at this point. He's tainted everyone around him.
- sgjohnson 4y agoThe 3rd option also has to be divided in two. 3a - Someone western minded 3b - Someone even more expansionist. Like some ultra-nationalist. Or the head of the Wagner group.
- sjsdaiuasgdia 4y agoOk so we want to be careful about not offending the ultra-nationalist expansionist guy...because the next guy might be an ultra-nationalist expansionist? IMO, that still means you reduced the world by one ultra-nationalist expansionist who had sufficient connections and charisma to get into power. And that's still a win, even if there's still more of them out there.
- sgjohnson 4y ago> Ok so we want to be careful about not offending the ultra-nationalist expansionist guy...because the next guy might be an ultra-nationalist expansionist? That's not what I said. We shouldn't do any appeasement whatsoever. Just pointing out to the fact that if someone overthrows Putin, it's not necessarily going to be a guy who thinks that the war in Ukraine is stupid.
- sjsdaiuasgdia 4y agoNope, not necessarily. And not necessarily someone who thinks it is stupid. I'll take a dice roll at a new devil. We know the current one is pretty bad and isn't likely to improve on his own.
- dsfyu404ed 4y ago3b isn't a real option though if you're trying to head off a potential coup. You need to go with 3a in order to placate the oligarchs who want to go back to doing business as usual and placate the military who wants to go back to not being generally hated by the populace in order to reduce potential support for the coup you're scared of.