7 ms·

Putin is a particularly deranged type of fascist though, much like Bush, who is okay making the poor calculation of a Ukrainian invasion for the benefit of a wa

Putin is a particularly deranged type of fascist though, much like Bush, who is okay making the poor calculation of a Ukrainian invasion for the benefit of a wartime economy. Even German ambassadors in Ukraine were caught off guard having to leave that night. Modi is a different type of beast, he's a long term political power that doesn't need a wartime economy, and is still establishing his internal power. He's going to have to deal with the insane SS brigade he's fostered eventually. Also while Putin and others thought that Ukraine would fall like Afghanistan (quickly), zero people think that Pakistan is going anywhere within this eon. While it's not the graveyard of empires, it's definitely the hospice.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
sofixa 1y ago
> Putin is a particularly deranged type of fascist though, much like Bush, who is okay making the poor calculation of a Ukrainian invasion for the benefit of a wartime economy While Putin is undoubtedly deranged, I think his goals with invading had much more to do with delusions of grandeur and trying to rebuild the Russian/Soviet empire than wanting the "benefit" of a "wartime economy". Russia was drastically unprepared for a long war, and its economy, heavily reliant on export of raw materials and import of finished goods, has suffered.
- krainboltgreene 1y ago
  I agree with most of this except maybe the "soviet empire" bit. His recent mentions of it (within the last 3 years) has been about how the fall of the Soviet Union broke up the "historical russian" borders. For Ukraine specifically he compared himself to Russian Czar Peter the Great. A long time ago he lamented the fall of the Soviet Union which is especially hilarious as he was very likely involved in and vultured on the remains of it's demise. > Russia was drastically unprepared for a long war He, much like all of military officials in NATO at the time, assumed it was going to be over after they landed in Kiev. I also contest that the economy has suffered: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russian-economy-shows-solid-growth-despite-ukraine-war-sanctions-2024-08-28/ https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russian-economy-shows-s... The only exception is the pipeline, but then who could have expected that the US would sabotage an ally's ability to heat it's citizens? (assuming you ignore the last 100 years of american doctrine)
  - WillPostForFood 1y ago
    4.6% growth, 10% inflation, and interest rates at 21% is not great.
    - jajko 1y ago
      But its far from bottom of how much general russian population is willing to suffer before next bloody revolution happens. I don't talk about wealthy educated people from moscow or st petersburg (at least those that didn't leave), they are on purpose less targeted by whats happening, but rather permanently subjugated populations from poor regions whose lives changed comparatively little compared to cold war. Prigozhin had a last real chance, you could see how much common folks and most of army immediately aligned with them. But when they took hostages whole families of his mercenary group leaders, they backed down with predictable results. Interestingly not all aligned generals were executed, I expected bigger purge. Maybe he would be much worse though.
      - krainboltgreene 1y ago
        The Russian citizens approval of the war mirrors America’s own approval ratings of the invasion of Iraq as well.
    - codedokode 1y ago
      The stores have food on the shelves and nobody is dying from hunger. As for GDP, Russian GDP year-to-year growth is 4.6% and USA GDP growth was 2.8%.
      - ahoka 1y ago
        Broken window fallacy.
  - navane 1y ago
    The economy seems to be working still (numbers go up), because its a full on war-economy. You eat your country from the inside out, everything you produce explodes, and there's no way to transition out of it except by winning the war.
- aa-jv 1y ago
  >delusions of grandeur How do you come to this conclusion - have you been studying Putins' speeches in the last 3 years, or analysed some of the policies that led to this conclusion? Did you see his recent interview on Croatian TV where he discusses this specifically? EDIT: hey downvoters - is it not valid to study world leaders' directly rather than going through a third party .. ?
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > have you been studying Putins' speeches in the last 3 years, or analysed some of the policies that led to this conclusion? Yes. By his ex ante metrics, his war has thoroughly backfired. By the current aims, it's absolutely delusionally revanchist.
    - aa-jv 1y ago
      >ex ante metrics So, based on potential future events, you've come to this conclusion. But I don't see any current evidence to support the claim. Can you clarify your position? You saw his interview on Croatia TV recently? His statements refute your position.
      - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
        > based on potential future events, you've come to this conclusion No. I'm saying by the goals he set out before the war, he has failed. > You saw his interview on Croatia TV recently? His statements refute your position Putin is sort of like Trump in that he messages multiple messages. We cannot know what is in his mind. But Putin has repeatedly made revanchist nonsense statements about Russia's sphere of influence and imperial downfall. He's also said that's not what Russia wants. But that's (a) recent and (b) unsubstantiated by the facts ont the ground.
        aa-jv 1y ago
        >No. I'm saying by the goals he set out before the war, he has failed. Fine, but what were those goals, where/when did he set them out and what is the current status? I'd like to study this issue myself - so any sources you can provide? >We cannot know what is in his mind. Yet you claim to know, which is why I'm interested - if you don't believe his words, what basis do you have to make the assertion that you know his real intentions? As far as I can tell (and I am merely hours away from the Ukraine border), the land he has occupied is precisely what he set out to achieve, and it doesn't look like that is about to change any time soon. So please, share your references. I'd quite like to understand how you can make such conclusions with such certainty, while doubting the words of the very individual responsible for it. I remain unconvinced you've observed any of his recent public statements with regards to Russia's position with Europe.
- dmos62 1y ago
  There's as many theories about why Putin and Kremlin did what they did as there are war analyst books on it. Some of them are more right than others, but at the end of the day, if I'm honest, I'm as confused as I was in 2014. Which is a problem not only for my curiosity: if Western policymakers are as confused as me, it's difficult to craft a good policy: we're effectively playing half-court tennis (to quote Sarah C. Paine).
  - lostlogin 1y ago
    > it's difficult to craft a good policy This is a choice though. The decisions aren’t as hard as leaders are making them. Pulling support or giving support would end the war. Neither has actually occurred and support has been drip fed, bleeding both countries.
    - dmos62 1y ago
      > The decisions aren’t as hard as leaders are making them. Is there a statement that is more "armchair-policy-maker"? In all seriousness, I have a similar sentiment about support for Ukraine, but I'm saying that it's difficult to have a robust policy (especially when it involves so many parties) when you struggle to understand the opponent's perspective.
  - foobarian 1y ago
    I think it still makes sense to me that they were too used to just rolling in and assuming power like happened many times after WW2. Czechoslovakia, Hungary, post-Berlin interventions like in Georgia, then Crimea most recently. I think they expected Kiev to be the same. The real question is why did the latest intervention turn out different? What changed?
  - dboreham 1y ago
    Usually the answer to why a crazy country leader did something odd has to do with "not waking up dead tomorrow".
  - wbl 1y ago
    The beauty of destroying invading armies is you don't need to ask a lot of questions about why there are there.
- matheusmoreira 1y ago
  I thought he invaded because of historical and not at all unfounded fears of western encirclement. Ukraine was getting pretty close to NATO, after all. I don't doubt that there were imperialist intentions, I'm just saying there is also a certain strategy and logic to the invasion. Hopefully this will finally teach the nations of the world they can't rely on the likes of the US for their protection. If they want to survive and keep their sovereignity, they should really start developing missile technology and stockpiling nukes. If they don't, they will simply get steamrolled by nuclear armed opponents while the US does pretty much nothing about it despite promising to because they're not actually willing to risk global thermonuclear war with Russia over some eastern european country.
graemep 1y ago
Putin is not a fascist. He is a Russian nationalist/imperialist dictator. Far more like Catherine the Great than like Hitler or Mussolini.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

sofixa 1y ago

> Putin is a particularly deranged type of fascist though, much like Bush, who is okay making the poor calculation of a Ukrainian invasion for the benefit of a wartime economy While Putin is undoubtedly deranged, I think his goals with invading had much more to do with delusions of grandeur and trying to rebuild the Russian/Soviet empire than wanting the "benefit" of a "wartime economy". Russia was drastically unprepared for a long war, and its economy, heavily reliant on export of raw materials and import of finished goods, has suffered.

krainboltgreene 1y ago
I agree with most of this except maybe the "soviet empire" bit. His recent mentions of it (within the last 3 years) has been about how the fall of the Soviet Union broke up the "historical russian" borders. For Ukraine specifically he compared himself to Russian Czar Peter the Great. A long time ago he lamented the fall of the Soviet Union which is especially hilarious as he was very likely involved in and vultured on the remains of it's demise. > Russia was drastically unprepared for a long war He, much like all of military officials in NATO at the time, assumed it was going to be over after they landed in Kiev. I also contest that the economy has suffered: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russian-economy-shows-solid-growth-despite-ukraine-war-sanctions-2024-08-28/ https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russian-economy-shows-s... The only exception is the pipeline, but then who could have expected that the US would sabotage an ally's ability to heat it's citizens? (assuming you ignore the last 100 years of american doctrine)
- WillPostForFood 1y ago
  4.6% growth, 10% inflation, and interest rates at 21% is not great.
  - jajko 1y ago
    But its far from bottom of how much general russian population is willing to suffer before next bloody revolution happens. I don't talk about wealthy educated people from moscow or st petersburg (at least those that didn't leave), they are on purpose less targeted by whats happening, but rather permanently subjugated populations from poor regions whose lives changed comparatively little compared to cold war. Prigozhin had a last real chance, you could see how much common folks and most of army immediately aligned with them. But when they took hostages whole families of his mercenary group leaders, they backed down with predictable results. Interestingly not all aligned generals were executed, I expected bigger purge. Maybe he would be much worse though.
    - krainboltgreene 1y ago
      The Russian citizens approval of the war mirrors America’s own approval ratings of the invasion of Iraq as well.
  - codedokode 1y ago
    The stores have food on the shelves and nobody is dying from hunger. As for GDP, Russian GDP year-to-year growth is 4.6% and USA GDP growth was 2.8%.
    - ahoka 1y ago
      Broken window fallacy.
- navane 1y ago
  The economy seems to be working still (numbers go up), because its a full on war-economy. You eat your country from the inside out, everything you produce explodes, and there's no way to transition out of it except by winning the war.
aa-jv 1y ago
>delusions of grandeur How do you come to this conclusion - have you been studying Putins' speeches in the last 3 years, or analysed some of the policies that led to this conclusion? Did you see his recent interview on Croatian TV where he discusses this specifically? EDIT: hey downvoters - is it not valid to study world leaders' directly rather than going through a third party .. ?
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > have you been studying Putins' speeches in the last 3 years, or analysed some of the policies that led to this conclusion? Yes. By his ex ante metrics, his war has thoroughly backfired. By the current aims, it's absolutely delusionally revanchist.
  - aa-jv 1y ago
    >ex ante metrics So, based on potential future events, you've come to this conclusion. But I don't see any current evidence to support the claim. Can you clarify your position? You saw his interview on Croatia TV recently? His statements refute your position.
    - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
      > based on potential future events, you've come to this conclusion No. I'm saying by the goals he set out before the war, he has failed. > You saw his interview on Croatia TV recently? His statements refute your position Putin is sort of like Trump in that he messages multiple messages. We cannot know what is in his mind. But Putin has repeatedly made revanchist nonsense statements about Russia's sphere of influence and imperial downfall. He's also said that's not what Russia wants. But that's (a) recent and (b) unsubstantiated by the facts ont the ground.
      - aa-jv 1y ago
        >No. I'm saying by the goals he set out before the war, he has failed. Fine, but what were those goals, where/when did he set them out and what is the current status? I'd like to study this issue myself - so any sources you can provide? >We cannot know what is in his mind. Yet you claim to know, which is why I'm interested - if you don't believe his words, what basis do you have to make the assertion that you know his real intentions? As far as I can tell (and I am merely hours away from the Ukraine border), the land he has occupied is precisely what he set out to achieve, and it doesn't look like that is about to change any time soon. So please, share your references. I'd quite like to understand how you can make such conclusions with such certainty, while doubting the words of the very individual responsible for it. I remain unconvinced you've observed any of his recent public statements with regards to Russia's position with Europe.
dmos62 1y ago
There's as many theories about why Putin and Kremlin did what they did as there are war analyst books on it. Some of them are more right than others, but at the end of the day, if I'm honest, I'm as confused as I was in 2014. Which is a problem not only for my curiosity: if Western policymakers are as confused as me, it's difficult to craft a good policy: we're effectively playing half-court tennis (to quote Sarah C. Paine).
- lostlogin 1y ago
  > it's difficult to craft a good policy This is a choice though. The decisions aren’t as hard as leaders are making them. Pulling support or giving support would end the war. Neither has actually occurred and support has been drip fed, bleeding both countries.
  - dmos62 1y ago
    > The decisions aren’t as hard as leaders are making them. Is there a statement that is more "armchair-policy-maker"? In all seriousness, I have a similar sentiment about support for Ukraine, but I'm saying that it's difficult to have a robust policy (especially when it involves so many parties) when you struggle to understand the opponent's perspective.
- foobarian 1y ago
  I think it still makes sense to me that they were too used to just rolling in and assuming power like happened many times after WW2. Czechoslovakia, Hungary, post-Berlin interventions like in Georgia, then Crimea most recently. I think they expected Kiev to be the same. The real question is why did the latest intervention turn out different? What changed?
- dboreham 1y ago
  Usually the answer to why a crazy country leader did something odd has to do with "not waking up dead tomorrow".
- wbl 1y ago
  The beauty of destroying invading armies is you don't need to ask a lot of questions about why there are there.
matheusmoreira 1y ago
I thought he invaded because of historical and not at all unfounded fears of western encirclement. Ukraine was getting pretty close to NATO, after all. I don't doubt that there were imperialist intentions, I'm just saying there is also a certain strategy and logic to the invasion. Hopefully this will finally teach the nations of the world they can't rely on the likes of the US for their protection. If they want to survive and keep their sovereignity, they should really start developing missile technology and stockpiling nukes. If they don't, they will simply get steamrolled by nuclear armed opponents while the US does pretty much nothing about it despite promising to because they're not actually willing to risk global thermonuclear war with Russia over some eastern european country.

graemep 1y ago

Putin is not a fascist. He is a Russian nationalist/imperialist dictator. Far more like Catherine the Great than like Hitler or Mussolini.