This is the correct way to proceed. I think the correct thing is to engage in discussion that is worth wile. If some have problems to see the real picture from their anti-Americanism or somehow feel that some facts seem for them to be too "pro-US" (starting from the fact that this war was indeed of Putin's making) or whatever, it's their problem.

Russia has likely far more political prisoners now that it had during the late Soviet era and the policies of Putin are making it a larger police state. His fear of "colour revolutions" in Russia won't make it easier. Things are now getting only worse there and the war will continue as Russia simply doesn't have today the ability for a new determined push Ukraine. It might take weeks before that happens. — ssu

It's funny how criticism and disagreement is immediately set aside as informed by ideology. That way you don't have to engage. Kissinger, Mearsheimer and Chomsky are anti-american now? Sorry but this is just a cop out for people incapable of dealing with the inconvenient truth geopolitics isn't that simple. Quite disappointing coming from you to be honest.

I also see exactly zero reason to applaud someone who purposefully states he's only here to share his opinion and not actual analysis and debate.

I also see exactly zero reason to applaud someone who purposefully states he's only here to share his opinion and not actual analysis and debate. — Benkei

:up:

"I'm just here to express my moral indignation and repeat verbatim the lines fed to me by most Western media"

"That is right take!"

Fun fact, if and when Germany will now put it's defense spending at 2% of GDP, it's spending will be more than what Russia has in previous years spent. And let's not forget that 100 billion euro additional spending:



Then more arms to Ukraine. Now likely Germany will be the second largest supplier of arms to Ukraine.

Germany is considering to send €300 million ($335 million) worth of additional arms and military equipment to Ukraine, local media reported on Wednesday.

The Defense Ministry’s plan includes delivery of 2,650 anti-tank weapons, 3,000 night vision devices, thousands of protective vests and helmets, radar systems, 18 reconnaissance drones, and various armored vehicles, the Sueddeutsche Zeitung newspaper reported.

Likely Ukraine can form new infantry units or replace previous losses with such aid. Just the size of this aid makes it important.

It's funny how criticism and disagreement is immediately set aside as informed by ideology. — Benkei

If the criticism is going with the lies of Putin, it does reek of ideology. If the arguments are informative and respectful, I'm sure it's beneficial to engage in a discussion.

I also see exactly zero reason to applaud someone who purposefully states he's only here to share his opinion and not actual analysis and debate. — Benkei

To give just an example, that Putin's objective was a quick takeover of Ukraine is to my view good analysis. There aren't good counterarguments to think that somehow this wasn't the objective at the start of the war. That it didn't go the way he thought it would go should be obvious. What happens next isn't clear, of course.

I also see exactly zero reason to applaud someone who purposefully states he's only here to share his opinion and not actual analysis and debate. — Benkei

You and others here have made any conversation impossible by constantly insulting the other side, page after page, and by showing only contempt for us.

Calm down. Stop insulting people. Show respect and pay attention. Read. Then maybe you will be worth talking to. Or you can go back to sucking bears, for all I care.

"Stop being mean to Western imperialists waaaaa"

A respectful and moderate tone is desirable as it's the most likely to foster serious and productive discussion. Having said that, you may express yourself strongly as long as it doesn't disrupt a thread or degenerate into flaming (which is not tolerated and will result in your post being deleted).

-- TPF guidelines

My view is simply that the Russian invasion of Ukraine is unjustifiable, unwarranted and fundamentally criminal. It has resulted in thousands of deaths already, massive destruction of cities and homes, and the displacement of millions of people. That is not 'western propaganda' ... — Wayfarer

I agree. I'd guess that Street and Benkei pretty much agree too (though they may have something to say about "criminal"), but their focus and priorities are different.

nor is the war a consequence of western foreign policy meddling - it came about solely because of Putin's resentment at the demise of the USSR and his vain attempts to restore elements of it into a greater Russia. — Wayfarer

The idea that the war happened "solely because of Putin's resentment" is unconvincing and I won't address it. What I'd like to look at is the oft-repeated idea that Putin mourns the end of the USSR. My point in a nutshell is that he probably mourns the loss of his country's power, but that he neither aims to recreate the USSR nor has any commitment to communism or socialism.

It mostly stems from this quotation: "Above all, we should acknowledge that the collapse of the Soviet Union was the major geopolitical disaster of the century."

How many of those who make conclusions based on this snippet have read the whole speech or know when this speech was made? Very few, probably, even on this forum.

I think it's worth looking at the speech to put the quotation in context.

The full speech, made in 2005, is in English on the Kremlin website: http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/transcripts/22931

I consider the development of Russia as a free and democratic state to be our main political and ideological goal. We use these words fairly frequently, but rarely care to reveal how the deeper meaning of such values as freedom and democracy, justice and legality is translated into life.

[...]

Above all, we should acknowledge that the collapse of the Soviet Union was a major geopolitical disaster of the century. As for the Russian nation, it became a genuine drama. Tens of millions of our co-citizens and compatriots found themselves outside Russian territory. Moreover, the epidemic of disintegration infected Russia itself.

Individual savings were depreciated, and old ideals destroyed. Many institutions were disbanded or reformed carelessly. Terrorist intervention and the Khasavyurt capitulation that followed damaged the country's integrity. Oligarchic groups – possessing absolute control over information channels – served exclusively their own corporate interests. Mass poverty began to be seen as the norm. And all this was happening against the backdrop of a dramatic economic downturn, unstable finances, and the paralysis of the social sphere.

[...]

In those difficult years, the people of Russia had to both uphold their state sovereignty and make an unerring choice in selecting a new vector of development in the thousand years of their history. They had to accomplish the most difficult task: how to safeguard their own values, not to squander undeniable achievements, and confirm the viability of Russian democracy. We had to find our own path in order to build a democratic, free and just society and state.

When speaking of justice, I am not of course referring to the notorious "take away and divide by all" formula, but extensive and equal opportunities for everybody to develop. Success for everyone. A better life for all.

In the ultimate analysis, by affirming these principles, we should become a free society of free people. But in this context it would be appropriate to remember how Russian society formed an aspiration for freedom and justice, how this aspiration matured in the public mind.

Above all else Russia was, is and will, of course, be a major European power. Achieved through much suffering by European culture, the ideals of freedom, human rights, justice and democracy have for many centuries been our society's determining values. — Putin

NOTE: This is the Kremlin's official English translation and it has "the collapse of the Soviet Union was a major geopolitical disaster of the century", whereas most English renderings I've seen have "the major geopolitical disaster". Since Russian has no articles (no the or a) I don't know how the different senses in English are conveyed in Russian. My feeling is that the better translation is "the", because "the collapse of the Soviet Union was a major geopolitical disaster of the century" is subtly not conventional English. We might say, "the collapse of the Soviet Union was one of the major geopolitical disasters of the century", but that's not what he said.

From the same speech:

In my opinion a third important task is to pursue vigorous policy in promoting liberalization in private enterprise.

[...]

Stability of the right to private property is the alpha and omega of any business. The rules to which the state adheres in this sphere should be clear to everyone, and, importantly, these rules should be stable. This enables people developing their business to plan normally both this business and their own lives. This allows citizens to feel comfortable and conclude, without any apprehensions, contracts on such vital issues as the acquisition of housing or its privatization, which has already been almost completed in our country. In general, this encourages people to buy property and expand production.

[...]

And finally, one more crucial problem: Russia is extremely interested in a major inflow of private, including foreign, investment. This is our strategic choice and strategic approach.

[...]

I also wanted to raise another, very specific, issue here today, namely, what must be done to ensure that national television fully takes into account Russian civil society’s most relevant needs and protects its interests. We need to establish guarantees that will ensure that state television and radio broadcasting are as objective as possible, free from the influence of any particular groups, and that they reflect the whole spectrum of public and political forces in the country.

The speech is interesting in many ways. What's most striking is how his views have changed, and how absurd it is now to see his celebration of democracy, press freedom, and so on. It's also important to see how focused the speech is on Russia alone, not some possible union of formerly Soviet nationalities, which are barely mentioned, and never mentioned by name. And there is no accompanying claim of hegemony or pre-eminence over the Soviet republics, which, taken at face value, indicates that his regret about how the USSR fell apart is not at the same time a desire for its recreation.

To a Russian audience, the quoted line is simply an acknowledgement that the USSR fell apart chaotically and did a lot of damage to Russia. Gorbachev, a committed Leninist, is very unpopular in Russia for this reason.

But the central point I want to make is that if one takes the "geopolitical disaster" quote to mean that Putin was expressing a desire to return to the Soviet Union in a speech that sets out a plan for the consolidation of Russian capitalism and liberal democracy, one is taking it out of context and thus distorting its meaning, to put it mildly.

If one thinks he was serious about liberal democracy and capitalism, the "geopolitical disaster" quote couldn't have expressed a desire to bring back the USSR, but if one thinks he was lying, just telling people what they wanted to hear or justifying the enrichment and power of the elite, why then would one take seriously the bit about the "geopolitical disaster"?

I happen to think it was a bit of both, but mostly the former.

When the Soviet Union was dissolved, most of us didn't even have the feeling that the country was falling apart. We thought we would continue with our lives as in the past, but as good neighbors. Of course, we also believed that the West loved us and would help us, and that we'd be living like the Europeans in ten years. But everything turned out to be more complicated — Vladislav Surkov, former personal advisor to Vladimir Putin, in 2005

https://www.academia.edu/26869581/A_matter_of_honor_Russias_reaction_to_Western_sanctions

On the other hand, those who say that Putin wants to rebuild the USSR might mean only that he wants to re-create an empire, not that he's any kind of communist. But even this is doubtful, and pretty much dismissed as an impossibility by all sides within Russia, even the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, I think. A sphere of influence is not the same thing as an empire.

There is more to say, so it's just possible that I'll follow up this post with a part 2, but I probably won't.

To be fair I don't think many of those who repeat the 'return to the USSR' line mean much by it other than a certain kind of ~vibe~, something vaguely meaning 'powerful bad guy with grey brutalist architecture and red hammer and sickle flags also very repressive'. As an explanation of Putin's actions that is concerned solely with ideology and vague psychological desires, it just so happens to have the advantage of ignoring, totally, any need for analyzing politics, economics, history or society at large. It plays the role of comforting Western minds even while fulfilling its alarmist duty. The 'actual' USSR is more or less irrelevant. The 'return to the USSR' people sure as hell don't mean collectivization, the liquidation of the Kulaks, rapid industrialization and 5 year plans, or the support for the internationalization of communism abroad.

Agreed. I thought it was worth putting it in context anyway, because it's thrown around so much by people who seem to have little knowledge of Russia or the Soviet Union--nor, sometimes, an understanding of the difference. (I don't specifically mean you @Wayfarer).

So, the celebrated 'freedom' of Russians in the 90's, let's take a look at that: — StreetlightX

We could also add...

after 1990, a bad health situation got worse. As the society collapsed so did life expectancy. In the 10 years after the collapse of the Soviet Union, there were somewhere between 3 million and 7 million excess deaths. — https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(17)33322-6/fulltext

...but at least they voted first. I'm sure they all died happy in the knowledge that their preferred colour of tie was on the autocrat feeding their bodies into the profit mill.

I think the correct thing is to engage in discussion that is worth wile. If some have problems to see the real picture from their anti-Americanism or somehow feel that some facts seem for them to be too "pro-US" (starting from the fact that this war was indeed of Putin's making) or whatever, it's their problem. — ssu

This is a discussion forum, not a blog. If you just want to talk to people who agree with you then, I suggest you start a forum to that end. Please don't waste time on a forum designed for debate posting about how you don't want debate.

You and others here have made any conversation impossible by constantly insulting the other side, page after page, and by showing only contempt for us. — Olivier5

Fascinating. Is it the last 'all in' of the inveterate gambler? Or have you so thoroughly re-invented the narrative that you actually believe this?

Do you think that a trawl through the last few hundred pages is going to reveal a stream of insults from our side and a Gandhi-esque model of respectful patience from you?

Do you want me to provide quotes? You surely can't have forgotten your excesses so readily, they must be buried back in your mind there somewhere.

Do you think that a trawl through the last few hundred pages is going to reveal a stream of insults from our side and a Gandhi-esque model of respectful patience from you? — Isaac

Yes, I do.

The speech is interesting in many ways. What's most striking is how his views have changed, and how absurd it is now to see his celebration of democracy, press freedom, and so on. — jamalrob

So what is the point of reproducing that? Is it the 'Russian side' of the argument? What if he never meant all these noble-sounding catch phrases in the first place, that they were always meant to lull the rest of the world into believing that he was genuinely interested in democracy, when what he was really doing was re-introducing Stalinism and lining the pockets of himself and his cronies. I mean, 'by their fruits', and all. This is a man who has sanctioned or ordered the murder of any legitimate political opposition, ruthlessly destroys anyone who questions him, who has destroyed the free press and embarked on a campaign to destroy a neighbouring democracy.

Had Ukraine mounted a guerilla campaign against Russia, blowing up buildings and killing its citizens, in an attempt to bring down the Russian government, then I might be interested in 'the Russian side of the story'. But that is not what has happened. As it is, I know enough about Russia to know that, as I already said, this campaign is utterly unjustified and unwarranted, and that it is a crime against humanity. And I remain hopeful that the campaign will collapse and the Putin regime along with it.

There are people just like us in Urkaine - parents with families, wage-earners, people just trying to get along, make a living, live their lives, whose homes are destroyed, loved ones killed, families separated, cities in ruins. And for what? Let's not forget that.

Yes, I do. — Olivier5

Practically your first response to me in this thread...

Only Trump and Isaac do that kind of obscenity. I trust the rest of us have some decency left. — Olivier5

Shall I quote the section where you and @frank do your little skit about me being raped?

Please do

But then, I recall you're actually located in RU. I guess we had better watch what we say, I wouldn't want to get you in trouble.

That is a very weird response. I showed you the courtesy of presuming you were actually interested in a discussion. But anyway, I was really just using your comment as a prompt to talk about a quotation that has been thrown about a lot in the media recently.

You seem to be implying that I quoted the speech as some kind of defence or mitigation of Russia's actions. This is an ugly and stupid accusation, if that's what you meant. Perhaps I should go back to staying out of this thread.

I was explicit in saying that I wanted to put the quotation in context to reveal its meaning, and also to argue against the conclusion that some people draw from it, namely that Putin wants to recreate the USSR. It's important to try to understand the motivations of the Russian state if you want to understand the geopolitics. You can go on reminding everyone about the horrors of the invasion if you like, but please don't try to present me or others as defenders or deniers of this horror without evidence.

There are people just like us in Urkaine - parents with families, wage-earners, people just trying to get along, make a living, live their lives, whose homes are destroyed, loved ones killed, families separated, cities in ruins. And for what? Let's not forget that. — Wayfarer

Is this addressed to me? The patronising ignorance and sanctimony is insufferable. I and my wife have several Ukrainian friends both in Russia (whose families are in Ukraine) and in Ukraine who have been affected by this war, forced to leave their homes or to spend half their time in bomb shelters. And you lecture me about it? I confess I'm tempted to resort to StreetlightX-style invective at this point, but I won't.

We have all seen the news. This discussion, on the other hand, can be about geopolitics, history, and so on, if that is what certain members like me want to focus on. Don't accuse these members of defending Russia just because they're not interested, like you, in displaying their moral outrage.

As it is, I know enough about Russia to know that, as I already said, this campaign is utterly unjustified and unwarranted, and that it is a crime against humanity. And I remain hopeful that the campaign will collapse and the Putin regime along with it. — Wayfarer

"A nuclear power is waging war in another country. I don't need to know what they have to say at all, or consider motivation or interest. This is a very intelligent way to approach world events. I really care about Ukranians".

It must be so nice to be so comfortable in the warm glow of one's own moral recritute that ignorance becomes a virtue. Like having peed in a pool.

Please do — Olivier5

The question was rhetorical. If you want to repost your gross indecency you do so, but I will flag it a second time. I was perfectly prepared to tolerate it once, as 'high jinx' I'm not going to tolerate a deliberate repeat as if you were proud of it.

You seem to be implying that I quoted the speech as some kind of defence or mitigation of Russia's actions. This is an ugly and stupid accusation, if that's what you meant. — jamalrob

I read it again. I'm not accusing you of anything. What I said was that Putin's noble sentiments about democracy and liberalisation haven't been at all mirrored in his actions. So I think he was lying when he waxed eloquent about 'the importance of democracy' - in any case that's how it seems in hindsight. So I don't see the purpose of quoting that speech in light of what has happened since. What perspective does it provide? He hasn't demonstrated any real commitment to democracy or liberalisation. And if his ambitions in conquering Ukraine are not imperialist, then what are they?

Is this addressed to me? — jamalrob

No, it was an attempt not to lose sight of the actuality on the ground, for those living through it, which seems rather more important than a lot of the bickering going on in this thread.

So I guess where I disagree with your analysis, is that I do believe that Putin is solely responsible. He is, after all, a dictator. He's dictated this conflict, written the script, which has not turned out at all as planned. I also don't see the collapse of soviet communism as necessarily being a disaster, although Putin is doing a damned fine job of making one out of it.

I guess, what I can be accussed of, is being highly intolerant of what I interpret to be a rationalisation of what Russia is doing. That might lead to intemperate remarks on my part, I shall try and be more careful.

it was an attempt not to lose sight of the actuality on the ground, for those living through it, which seems rather more important than a lot of the bickering going on. — Wayfarer

Important to what end?

You've been far more obscene than me.

I read it again. I'm not accusing you of anything. What I said was that Putin's noble sentiments about democracy and liberalisation haven't been at all mirrored in his actions. — Wayfarer

As I think you didn't miss, I made that very point.

So I think he was lying when he waxed eloquent about 'the importance of democracy' — Wayfarer

As I said, it's likely a bit of both. I think he really did at one time expect and desire that Russia go down the route of liberal democracy in the style of Western Europe. The difference in his explicit position on these issues between then and now is striking, and important to understand.

What perspective does it provide? He hasn't demonstrated any real commitment to democracy or liberalisation. — Wayfarer

He has shown commitment to economic liberalization, in that he has not significantly reversed the chaotic transition to capitalism that happened in the nineties, except for his authoritarian control of the oligarchs. But anyway, the perspective that it provides is, among other things, to put the widely distributed snippet of the speech in context, which was exactly what I wanted to do.

It also gives an insight into what he thought was important to convey to the Russian people and governing elite at the time, which says something about the political and social environment in 2005. There is much more to be drawn from it to enrich your perspective, but I won't bother going on. I get the feeling you genuinely don't want to know. Like a child with hands over his ears, you seem to hate seeing any reasonable-seeming words by someone you want to see only as a monster. But if you feel you have to falsify, or to hide or ignore important information, to make your point, that just detracts from the point.

And if his ambitions in conquering Ukraine are not imperialist, then what are they? — Wayfarer

I'm not saying his ambitions are not imperialist in some sense, but it's a complex question. My point was that the recreation of the USSR is a fantasy mostly of the Western media; that his mourning for the USSR was a conciliatory acknowledgement that Russia suffered in the nineties because of the bad handling of the Union's dissolution, rather than a clue to imperial ambitions. The context makes it clear that even if he does now have imperial ambitions, that quotation has nothing to do with it, i.e., it is not the seed of his later change of direction or of his secret plans.

No, it was an attempt not to lose sight of the actuality on the ground, for those living through it, which seems rather more important than a lot of the bickering going on. — Wayfarer

That we shouldn't lose sight of what's happening doesn't mean that's all we should be discussing, because there are geopolitical and historical aspects to it as well. You don't seem to have anything to say except to repeat the news, as if nobody else has seen it, and to express your outrage. I don't understand that. I mean, fair enough, carry on--but don't pretend that everyone who you might regard as not being on your side is denying what is happening in Ukraine.

I think you want to say that quoting a reasonable-seeming speech by Putin is supporting Putin, but you can't say it because deep down you know it's bollocks.

I didn’t mean to say that, and I’m sorry if it came across that way.

:cool:

I'd guess that Street and Benkei pretty much agree too (though they may have something to say about "criminal"), but their focus and priorities are different. — jamalrob

It's all that. My problem is the blindspot of the role of the US and NATO getting us here. Think of it as contributory negligence.

quoting a reasonable-seeming speech by Putin — jamalrob

'Reasonable-seeming' is a rather low bar, as it depends on how hard one looks at what seems. A more ambitious criteria would be 'reasonable'. The speech you posted includes this contradiction you highlight between nostalgia for the USSR and aspirations to democracy. That makes it less than reasonable, I think. It most probably is just another propaganda piece.

To the extent that studying propaganda is interesting, a review of all his speeches and the evolution of his rhetoric over the years would be more instructive than just focussing on one speech.

And then, one could compare the rhetoric to facts on the ground. Never lose sight of reality when studying professional liars, least you start to believe their lies.

I guess, what I can be accussed of, is being highly intolerant of what I interpret to be a rationalisation of what Russia is doing. — Wayfarer

I can strongly sympathise with such an intolerance. What I have far less sympathy for is your (and other's) refusal to accept any fallibility whatsoever in the latter part.

That, having interpreted comments as being supportive of Russia's actions, you respond intemperately is not at issue. What is at issue is that, despite repeated explanations to the contrary, you continue with the interpretation leading there despite having abundant reason to believe it is erroneous.