Responding to me without actually responding to me doesn't count, your "parallel" with Hitler is just an irrelevant but convenient example for you. You have not actually done much to defend your stance on Putin except "silly people" and I'm sorry but if that's the best you can do then you aren't avoiding "black-and-white thinking" but perhaps just avoiding thinking altogether? I gave you reasons backed up by facts, what have you offered? But you nonetheless ascribe my position as "being a slave to propaganda". Putin's PR campaign and Russia's propaganda machine gives exactly the same messages, word for word, that you have offered. That Putin is a strong leader who has Russia's best interests at heart. What is "Russia"? I have to assume you mean geopolitically because obviously the people of Russia are being suppressed and manipulated by the state. Geopolitically, Russia supports rogue states like Syria and Iran, Putin is insistent on acting like the superpower his country cannot afford to be and what has Russia gained in return? Prestige? Influence?

Look at the former USSR states and compare nations by those which joined NATO and those who stayed in the Russian sphere. Russia is being outdone economically by the resource lacking Baltic states, Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic and certain types of people within Russia enjoy persecution and political imprisonment. At least stability should be something an ex-kgb officer can provide, if not through good governance then through brutality.

Where is the "grey" here? Your characterisation of Putin is merely listing the few accommodating and nice things you can say about him. I don't know your motivation but you're actually talking about virtue signalling here? Agreeing on the obvious isn't a virtue, you can say good things about Putin on a specific note but if you only have 3-4 sentences to describe him, do you think it's fit for those 3-4 lines to be singing his praises and justifying his leadership?

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/sep/27/bombing-war-europe-richard-overy-review

I'm pretty sure I got this part right. Hitler hoped for a truce so didn't want to attack civilian targets. There were civilian deaths of course but as collateral damage and I think only a few bombing runs went (purposefully?) wrong. The Blitz still targeted docks and war effort manufacturing. It was Churchill who went for the jugular.

Thank you for explaining your position. I don't think I sang Putin's praises or justified his leadership. I just want to understand what's going on. You seem to have an axe to grind. Me, I confess that the anti-Russian propaganda in the US and the UK seems to me significantly stupid, but that doesn't mean I reject all criticism of the Russian regime. I would like to see some intelligent and informed discussion. Nothing hinges on who wins this argument. Nothing. So we may as well be fair and honest. What is your problem? What have I said that you think is false?

I don't think we're going to get very far trading bombing intensity, or targets. It was a complex situation. I'm not well read on the 2nd world war, but it is common knowledge in the UK that the Germans carpet bombed a number of city centres in the UK. Notable examples were Coventry and Sheffield along with a great deal of bombing in the centre of London. They took out the docks in London resulting in a massive firestorm. Also Hitler had singled out buildings of special architectural merit which were not to be bombed as they were to be important buildings for use by The Third Reich following the invasion. Hitler may have sought an alliance with the UK in the beginning, but he was clearly delusional and a megalomaniac by the time he got into power.

the oligarchs are still around.

There are quite a few oligarchs in London, where they have infiltrated the social circles of the Conservative party, have made large donations and may even have compromised leading politicians. Some people think there may have been some involvement in Brexit. Indeed we have had a report into this which pointed the finger at Russian interference in the referendum and the Conservative party. Which was largely redacted by government representatives. And is regarded as a whitewash.

I don't know why you feel the need to ask these questions as I feel they are sufficiently answered already but here's a recap. You offered a characterisation of Putin in response to others characterising him as a "gangster" and said this:

Putin is a ruthless authoritarian who (1) sincerely believes that what he's doing is best for Russia and is dedicated to the Russian state, which he sees as a continuous and almost unbroken line of strong rulers going back centuries (this is not necessarily a recommendation, but it's far from mere gangsterism), (2) is genuinely popular, because (2i) he brought stability, security, and some economic improvement following the traumatic disaster of shock therapy in the nineties, and (2ii) he prevented the breakup of Russia by making an example of Chechnya. — jamalrob

So what's the problem here? Firstly, this is an almost entirely positive characterisation and secondly, it's really quite objectionable. Let us imagine that you rephrased this exact same statement as "well, here are some positive things about Putin" then we can solve the first part and you can say "well, here are some positive things about Stalin" or whoever else you want and I won't care.

Unless they're just questionable characterisations which brings us to part two. Imagine any other leader in the world, they're extraordinarily corrupt, they repress their own people, they control the press, they create laws granting themselves immunity from prosecution and describing this politician as "sincerely believing that they are doing what is best for their country and is dedicated to their state". The popularity of a leader in an authoritarian state cannot be treated seriously. Dissenters are punished, information is controlled, education is lopsided and it's not exceedingly rare to see popular dictators for these reasons.

Looking at Russia and Putin's direction, it seems ridiculous not to factor in Putin's aim to preserve power for himself in his actions. To see him as someone who is dedicated to the Russian state while not disputing his net worth of $70b and those are low estimates. Putin puts Putin first and "Russia" if we're talking about Putin's chess game with the West, second, and then Putin creating the type of Russia he prefers culturally and religiously, maybe the wellbeing of the Russian people factor in somewhere I don't know.

To see him as someone who is dedicated to the Russian state while not disputing his net worth of $70b and those are low estimates. — Judaka

I did not dispute his personal enrichment.

So what's the problem here? Firstly, this is an almost entirely positive characterisation and secondly, it's really quite objectionable. Let us imagine that you rephrased this exact same statement as "well, here are some positive things about Putin" then we can solve the first part and you can say "well, here are some positive things about Stalin" or whoever else you want and I won't care. — Judaka

But I was trying to explain what is important to Russian people. I explicitly said, he is, or has been, genuinely popular because... and went on to attempt a really basic explanation. Do you know better?

The popularity of a leader in an authoritarian state cannot be treated seriously. — Judaka

That's war talk, nothing more. It's a justification for rejecting any views from Russia that you don't like. Do you think the Russian people are oppressed and want the help from outside powers? The very idea, even among opponents of Putin, is laughable and contemptible.

I did not dispute his personal enrichment. — jamalrob

Yep and that's what I just said.

That's war talk, nothing more. It's a justification for rejecting any views from Russia that you don't like. Do you think the Russian people are oppressed and want the help from outside powers? The very idea, even among opponents of Putin, is laughable and contemptible. — jamalrob

There are all kinds of ideological hubs on the internet which demonstrate what should be pretty obvious, you're in the position to do the very same thing on this site here. If you started banning people who disagreed with you politically, penalising people for criticising you openly, what kind of effect do you think that would have? In this hypothetical case, which isn't as extensive as what occurs in Russia, how do you think people should treat the ideas espoused within the forum? Should your forum be considered the "the general opinion of philosophers" and your ideology "very popular among philosophers"?

Russia is one of the most poorly rated countries in the world when it comes to the freedom of the press, there's obviously limited political freedom as well. The question is not "what do the Russian people really want" but "should we pretend the state is totally ineffective in controlling public opinion". Should we pretend that Putin doesn't have a say in how Russians are educated, what they see on TV, what they read online?

I'm not saying this doesn't happen in the West, I think issues like the Vietnam war were made complicated by how much misinformation the US government gave its people, how do you judge public opinion of Vietnam when the US public has a generally factually incorrect understanding of the war? The Afghanistan war is not all that different. These are worthwhile criticisms, we cannot always take approval rating at face value.

The West couldn't invade Russia even if they wanted to, so that doesn't even matter. However, talking about the popularity of authoritarian leaders, Putin or anyone else should be taken with a grain of salt. Also, you did not say "this is from the perspective of the Russian people" and you might've gotten a different tone from me if you said that but you didn't. Different again if you said, "here are some positive things about Putin from the perspective of the Russian public" or whatever you now seem to be veering towards.

But what did I say that was false? Lay it out concisely: what is the problem?

No, of course it doesn't. I don't understand this black and white thinking, on a philosophy forum of all places. Are we just slaves to propaganda, or can we discuss things rationally and imaginatively? It's as if you guys are not satisfied until I do the correct virtue signalling, like saying Putin is a monster or whatever. It's just dumb. — jamalrob

I'm not doing the black and white thinking - I was saying that both a) Putin is a skilled leader who has successfully advanced Russian interests in many cases and retains popularity and b) Is likely a criminal and is responsible for terrible human rights abuses - are both true and both statements should be acknowledged in any account of Putin.

It's not about virtue signaling for me. It's just about the facts. I think we're on the same page here?

Primarily the issue isn't about true/false, it's that you were asked to give an alternative characterisation of Putin and offered only positive comments and justifications. Then you responded to criticism as propaganda and virtue signalling, brought up your comments about silly people and black-and-white thinking. I think you have equal explaining to do about exactly what your problem is. My initial problem has already been summed up.

Agreeing on the obvious isn't a virtue, you can say good things about Putin on a specific note but if you only have 3-4 sentences to describe him, do you think it's fit for those 3-4 lines to be singing his praises and justifying his leadership? — Judaka

You say you're not singing his praises and justifying his leadership but I don't see how that is a reasonable interpretation, Putin would be very happy with what you wrote. You only dug your hole deeper when you started giving resistance to alternative characterisations of Putin and generally lamenting about Western propaganda.

you must understand that @jamalrob seems to have been afflicted with a particularly serious bout of putin-based Stockholm syndrome.

It's common knowledge among historians that the British like to believe that fairy tale. Just read the link reviewing the book.

But what did I say that was false? lay it out concisely: what is the problem? — jamalrob

You said stuff that a belligerent moron with no reading comprehension might interpret as you endorsing Putin. Shame on you, sir!

In my defence, it's an easy mistake to make around here.

@Benkei@SophistiCat@jamalrob

In total, how many rubles are you three currently pocketing per month?

Дерьмо. Мы разоблачены. Пора бежать, товарищи.

Ok, everyone chill out, have a cup of tea.

Which bit is a fairy tale, the destruction I pointed out, or the myths about Hitler?

Well, you're certainly belligerent, you sound like a moron and I'm pretty convinced your reading comprehension skills are selective at best but you make it sound like you're talking about me? I'm certainly going to reflect on my actions.


monkey

None of the staff pocket rubles, we give our generous KGB funding to anti-Russian internet troll farms to undermine the legitimacy of Western democratic institutions. It's a signal boost for the Kremlin at the same time as an invitation for us plants to appear neutral and reasonable defenders of Putin's regime.

We're so dastardly.

the only mod I now trust is @andrewk

What could any of us do to change your mind that we're not Russian plants?

align yourselves more with @andrewk and less with putin

I am going to state for the record that I have absolutely no idea what you're on about.

Typing insults really just does nothing for me and since that's all this thread has to offer, I'm out, nobody @ me pls. Actually, can a mod just delete this entire page?

Judaka is right: It's been entertaining but let's stop being silly. I'll start deleting anything that's not a serious and thoughtful contribution to the discussion.

I think aliens would say, "Those creatures kill each other pretty much continuously, and not very efficiently. They bumble around exhausting enormous resources to do it.

"Meanwhile their climate is changing rapidly and they're just sitting there." — frank

Maybe the aliens can get off their butts and beam us plans for an economical fusion reactor along with the wormhole machine, instead of just judging us from afar. *Borat voice* Assholes aliens.

beam us plans for an economical fusion reactor along with the wormhole machine — Marchesk

Maybe they're actually doing that, but at a leisurely pace.

Which bit is a fairy tale, the destruction I pointed out, or the myths about Hitler? — Punshhh

That Germany ever carpet bombed in the UK indiscriminately before the British did - and I'm now even certain they did so in retaliation after Churchill did. The Germans totally bombed the shit out of industrial centres (like Sheffield) and plenty of collateral damage but they didn't target civilians. Even the second great fire of London avoided residential areas, which was a standing order from Hitler (directive 17). Terrorist bombings (eg targeting civilians) were prohibited based on the view of international law at the time in Germany.