3 ms·

I have to admit, I've never been persuaded by this western idea that if you get rid of Putin, everything will be better. I'm not sure what part of Russian hist

by bilbo0s 10mo ago

I have to admit, I've never been persuaded by this western idea that if you get rid of Putin, everything will be better. I'm not sure what part of Russian history, or contemporary Russian society, gives people confidence in this idea? I'm not being anti-Russian here either. I feel the same way about our nation here in the US. Even if we were to rid ourselves of Trump for instance, we would still have serious issues with a large body of people who support Trump-like policies. A wise Europe would still be obliged to be on guard against us. Every nation has belligerent elements. Russia is no different. While, say, Putin, may be an expression of that belligerent element, I'm unconvinced that he is the belligerent element itself. I think it's foolish, potentially fatal, to make that assumption.

lostlogin 10mo ago
> I have to admit, I've never been persuaded by this western idea that if you get rid of Putin, everything will be better. I’m mangling a quote from someone, but extreme environments breed extreme leaders. To rise, Putin had to be better than his rivals. Presumably they were ruthless, clever, calculating etc. I’m not sure we want to hear from his successor.
- breppp 10mo ago
  In this kind of regimes the failed rivals usually disappear due to unnatural circumstances and the leader is surrounded by less impressive people. E.g. Stalin's successors
Gibbon1 10mo ago
My learning experience was when Idi Amin was overthrown people thought that now he was gone things would get better for Uganda. Did not.
breppp 10mo ago
During World War 2 it was believed that the Germans will never change and will always be a source of conflict in europe (or worse). There were wild ideas like the Morgenthau Plan to completely dismantle any German ability to wage war. But it turns out a very militarized nation can become completely pacifist after suffering a complete utter defeat, suffering and destruction. Culture can change, just like 1990s Russia was a break from past and future Russia. However the 1990s were a disaster and thus the culture changes went to the opposite side
- bilbo0s 10mo ago
  >after suffering a complete utter defeat, suffering and destruction And if you were willing to be utterly destroyed in order to utterly destroy Russia, then maybe this would work? But at that point you've succumbed to exactly what you were trying to prevent. Ie - Your own destruction. What we, at least we in the US, want is to figure out how to turn Russia towards peace without being utterly destroyed. That's what the difficulty is. We, on this side of the pond, prefer ideas that don’t involve national suicide.
  - brabel 10mo ago
    Before the 2014 conflict in Donbas and annexation of Krimea, things were going in the right direction with Europe and Russia being big commercial partners. The Ukrainian revolution is seen as good by most Westerners, but that was really what started the open hostilities with Russia. Russia had a deal with the Ukrainians and that deal was undone by the revolution in favor with a deal with the EU, not to mention the 2008 Bucharest Memorandum that said Ukraine was to become part of NATO eventually together with Georgia. The Russians immediately invaded Georgia to prevent that from happening and that should have made it clear Ukraine could be next… but the US didn’t care and went ahead with openly supporting the Maiden. The writing was on the wall and the war was just a matter of time after that. Both sides keep escalating since then. I’m quite sure that if Trump doesn’t manage to stop this war , it will spill into Europe very soon and as in world war 2, everyone will lose almost everything before any good comes of it.
    - mopsi 10mo ago
      There was no such thing as 2008 Bucharest Memorandum, you are probably confusing it with the 1994 Budapest Memorandum. But NATO did hold a summit in Bucharest in 2008. Ukraine and Georgia hoped to get invitations to join NATO. Under Russian pressure, they were denied entry, and that was the end of it. This left Georgia and Ukraine outside NATO's protective umbrella and enabled Russia to invade both without triggering a response from the entire alliance. The "eventually" you are referring to was nothing more than a polite "no", issued in the final statement of the summit as a consolation (one day we will invite you), after allies had made their negative decision.

by bilbo0s 10mo ago

lostlogin 10mo ago

> I have to admit, I've never been persuaded by this western idea that if you get rid of Putin, everything will be better. I’m mangling a quote from someone, but extreme environments breed extreme leaders. To rise, Putin had to be better than his rivals. Presumably they were ruthless, clever, calculating etc. I’m not sure we want to hear from his successor.

breppp 10mo ago
In this kind of regimes the failed rivals usually disappear due to unnatural circumstances and the leader is surrounded by less impressive people. E.g. Stalin's successors

Gibbon1 10mo ago

My learning experience was when Idi Amin was overthrown people thought that now he was gone things would get better for Uganda. Did not.

breppp 10mo ago

During World War 2 it was believed that the Germans will never change and will always be a source of conflict in europe (or worse). There were wild ideas like the Morgenthau Plan to completely dismantle any German ability to wage war. But it turns out a very militarized nation can become completely pacifist after suffering a complete utter defeat, suffering and destruction. Culture can change, just like 1990s Russia was a break from past and future Russia. However the 1990s were a disaster and thus the culture changes went to the opposite side

bilbo0s 10mo ago
>after suffering a complete utter defeat, suffering and destruction And if you were willing to be utterly destroyed in order to utterly destroy Russia, then maybe this would work? But at that point you've succumbed to exactly what you were trying to prevent. Ie - Your own destruction. What we, at least we in the US, want is to figure out how to turn Russia towards peace without being utterly destroyed. That's what the difficulty is. We, on this side of the pond, prefer ideas that don’t involve national suicide.
- brabel 10mo ago
  Before the 2014 conflict in Donbas and annexation of Krimea, things were going in the right direction with Europe and Russia being big commercial partners. The Ukrainian revolution is seen as good by most Westerners, but that was really what started the open hostilities with Russia. Russia had a deal with the Ukrainians and that deal was undone by the revolution in favor with a deal with the EU, not to mention the 2008 Bucharest Memorandum that said Ukraine was to become part of NATO eventually together with Georgia. The Russians immediately invaded Georgia to prevent that from happening and that should have made it clear Ukraine could be next… but the US didn’t care and went ahead with openly supporting the Maiden. The writing was on the wall and the war was just a matter of time after that. Both sides keep escalating since then. I’m quite sure that if Trump doesn’t manage to stop this war , it will spill into Europe very soon and as in world war 2, everyone will lose almost everything before any good comes of it.
  - mopsi 10mo ago
    There was no such thing as 2008 Bucharest Memorandum, you are probably confusing it with the 1994 Budapest Memorandum. But NATO did hold a summit in Bucharest in 2008. Ukraine and Georgia hoped to get invitations to join NATO. Under Russian pressure, they were denied entry, and that was the end of it. This left Georgia and Ukraine outside NATO's protective umbrella and enabled Russia to invade both without triggering a response from the entire alliance. The "eventually" you are referring to was nothing more than a polite "no", issued in the final statement of the summit as a consolation (one day we will invite you), after allies had made their negative decision.