The more that this drags on and is more that I believe Putin has pushed "all in" and there will be no offramps or a brokered diplomatic solution to a withdrawal of those troops. I hold no hope for any diplomatic talks resulting in any breakthroughs or lasting cease-fires.
In my opinion the only hope for an end to this (and to try and stop additional suffering) is a mass uprising of the Russian populace leading to an overthrow of the government (highly unlikely) or an internally organized coup of those residing close to or within Putin's inner circle. I'm betting the latter scenario is probably more feasible and is the one that I (along with what I assume to be many) are probably hoping for.
Even if Putin gets his "win" in Ukraine... as long as Putin is in power... I don't see the raft of sanctions which are crushing the Russian economy being lifted. So if I am a high-ranking official in Russia considering the possibility of a coup, I have to understand that the first step to get Russia back on track is to remove Putin and begin the process of trying to rebuild the Russian economy and rebuild all of the fractured relationships with other nations... most immediately Ukraine. Ultimately there is no rebuild of Russia with Putin still in charge.
.. which also explains why autocratic regimes are terribly bad for global progress. Maybe the name Putin will enter the dictionary as a verb meaning to fuck up a functioning political system in an effort to revert to outdated and broken structures and thought patterns. What Ned Ludd* is for technological progress, Vladimir Putin is for political progress. He's such a perfect example of getting it all wrong and causing enormous harm to millions of people because his power is unchecked by any domestic controls and balances. *Who, in contrast to Putin, was apparently entirely fictional.
While I share the contempt for Putin I want to correct what looks like a misconception: that if Putin were out of the picture Russia would be a peaceful, prosperous nation. Putin is the strongman who emerged from the political and cultural swamp that is post-soviet Russia. If he were gone tomorrow that swamp would still be there, ready to breed another monster like him. Maybe we're lucky enough that he was unique, that the cultural and historical grievances that bred him were looking for exactly his personality and no other...but I wouldn't bet the safety of the world on that.
I think that post-Soviet swamp might not be quite as fetid as you imagine. It takes time, but cultures can develop/adapt surprisingly quickly. Russia could still take either path IMO. Downwards into local mafia governed economies or EU-style rules based economies. I don't know enough about Russia to say. Looks like all the closet fascists here are counting on the former. Just wish they would go and live there already.
.. which also explains why autocratic regimes are terribly bad for global progress.
Maybe the name Putin will enter the dictionary as a verb meaning to fuck up a functioning political system in an effort to revert to outdated and broken structures and thought patterns. What Ned Ludd* is for technological progress, Vladimir Putin is for political progress.
He's such a perfect example of getting it all wrong and causing enormous harm to millions of people because his power is unchecked by any domestic controls and balances.
*Who, in contrast to Putin, was apparently entirely fictional.
While I share the contempt for Putin I want to correct what looks like a misconception: that if Putin were out of the picture Russia would be a peaceful, prosperous nation.
Putin is the strongman who emerged from the political and cultural swamp that is post-soviet Russia. If he were gone tomorrow that swamp would still be there, ready to breed another monster like him.
Maybe we're lucky enough that he was unique, that the cultural and historical grievances that bred him were looking for exactly his personality and no other...but I wouldn't bet the safety of the world on that.
.. which also explains why autocratic regimes are terribly bad for global progress.
Maybe the name Putin will enter the dictionary as a verb meaning to fuck up a functioning political system in an effort to revert to outdated and broken structures and thought patterns. What Ned Ludd* is for technological progress, Vladimir Putin is for political progress.
He's such a perfect example of getting it all wrong and causing enormous harm to millions of people because his power is unchecked by any domestic controls and balances.
*Who, in contrast to Putin, was apparently entirely fictional.
I'd like to introduce you all to some historians whose work I enjoy (and support): Spartacus Olsen and Indy Neidel. They run a historical documentary operation called Timeghost, both as a YouTube channel and a stand-alone operation. Their day-by-day documentary approach to the recent history of Europe is timely and informative, and I recommend it highly. Here they counter a historical justification of the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
nice. the best bit being, every state is a made-up state.
Eventually, the Crimean Tatars became a minority in Crimea; in 1783, they comprised 98 per cent of the population,[19] but by 1897, this was down to 34.1 per cent.[20] While Crimean Tatars were emigrating, the Russian government encouraged Russification of the peninsula, populating it with Russians, Ukrainians, and other Slavic ethnic groups; this Russification continued during the Soviet era.[20]
The Russian invasion of Ukraine may put at risk a network of US-linked labs in Ukraine that work with dangerous pathogens, said Robert Pope, the director of the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program, a 30-year-old Defense Department program that has helped secure the former Soviet Unionâs weapons of mass destruction and redirect former bioweapons facilities and scientists toward peaceful endeavors.
"The broad narrative he conveyed to me is that they will continue their aggression until Ukraine meets their demands, and the least of these demands is surrender."
I'd like to introduce you all to some historians whose work I enjoy (and support): Spartacus Olsen and Indy Neidel. They run a historical documentary operation called Timeghost, both as a YouTube channel and a stand-alone operation. Their day-by-day documentary approach to the recent history of Europe is timely and informative, and I recommend it highly.
Here they counter a historical justification of the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Yeah, FUCK Putin. He initiated a war on another sovereign state and that war has included the deliberate targeting of civilians. On the other hand, the human nature of tribal, nationalistic bullshit continues to create circumstances wherein such insanity can be justified ("sovereign states"). As long as there are borders, there will be wars. Until humanity fully realizes that we are a single species living on a finite planet, this sort of obscene behavior will continue.
I agree
now can we keep that outrage for the situations in Yemen and Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan?
The cancellation of Russian cultural figures and products can be
understood as a successive step in this familiar choreography. âThis is
the globalization of moral outrage,â the Times columnist Thomas Friedman writes. âIt goes from watching a short video online showing Russian soldiers
firing on a Ukrainian nuclear energy facility to an employee posting
that video on his or her Facebook page to a group of employees emailing
their bosses or going on Slack â not to ask their C.E.O.s to do
something but to tell them they have to do something or they will lose workers
and customers.â
miamizsun wrote:Yeah, FUCK Putin. He initiated a war on another sovereign state and that war has included the deliberate targeting of civilians. On the other hand, the human nature of tribal, nationalistic bullshit continues to create circumstances wherein such insanity can be justified ("sovereign states"). As long as there are borders, there will be wars. Until humanity fully realizes that we are a single species living on a finite planet, this sort of obscene behavior will continue.
