Yes, I spoke too broadly on that. But my point is that what is shared is horror at what Russia is doing.

Arms dealers and elites profit off every military action since Noah's dog was a pup. They grease the tracks for war. Wars can't be distinguished from one another by pointing to this factor.

Interesting video by RAI News from Kherson region, of a Russian tank applying @Isaac's principles:

https://www.rainews.it/video/2022/10/carro-armato-russo-si-arrende-con-bandiera-bianca-intorno-a-kherson-c5bacdff-1fbc-4ab0-b6ae-07ba732ff681.html

my point is that what is shared is horror at what Russia is doing. — Paine

We all (hopefully) share a horror at what Russia are doing. My point was to distinguish between what may be the Ukrainian objectives and what ought be our objectives as concerned outsiders. The Ukrainians themselves may well have some nationalistic sentiment and consider their borders a priority (as well as their natural concern for the well-being of their citizens). As compassionate outsiders, our concern should solely be for the well-being of the people there. That means that we (the western world) and the Ukrainians may well be at odds as to which solutions we'd want to endorse. Where we might consider solutions which involve territorial changes, they might not.

As such it's not correct to say that we ought to support the Ukrainians in whatever they choose. We don't have any obligation to share their concern about their national identity, we do have an obligation to share their concern about their welfare.

This is relevant because if ceding territory to Russia ends the war and if there's no good reason to think that doing so will create a major loss in welfare, then we ought to support such a solution, even if the Ukrainians themselves don't.

The aim was not to distinguish. I agree that pretty much all wars serve this purpose

The aim was not to distinguish. I agree that pretty much all wars serve this purpose — Isaac

Think about what would have happened if Trump was president when Putin invaded. The US wouldn't have supported Ukraine. But we have Biden, so the US did.

In this case, the outlook of the US Commander in Chief is the deciding factor, not the lust of arms dealers, though yes, they are a material cause of the war, as their kind is for all wars.

If you're saying the US is particularly subject to the influence of war profiteers, you may be right. Still, they can't start wars all by themselves (usually).

Think about what would have happened if Trump was president when Putin invaded. The US wouldn't have supported Ukraine. But we have Biden, so the US did.

In this case, the outlook of the US Commander in Chief is the deciding factor, not the lust of arms dealers — frank

Your opinion of what would have happened in a hypothetical situation doesn't then constitute evidence for your theory. Evidence for theories comes from actual situations, otherwise the argument is circular (you think Trump wouldn't have supported Ukraine because your theory is that world leaders are instrumental in making such decisions). If we allow theory-informed hypotheticals, then I'd say Trump would have supported the war because his cabinet would have been sufficiently influenced by the arms lobby to see it as a politically astute move (after they explained to Trump what the word 'astute' means).

I don't think world events are significantly determined by world leaders because the world has continued on one almost unerring trajectory in terms of the concentration of wealth and power for decades and yet leaders come and go every four or five years.

If you're saying the US is particularly subject to the influence of war profiteers, you may be right. Still, they can't start wars all by themselves (usually). — frank

I agree here. The most the arms lobby can do is opportunistically take advantage of situations which present themselves. That's so far been sufficient, however, to keep the US almost permanently at war for the last hundred years, so they don't seem to be short of the requisite opportunity. Either that's enormous good luck or something is tipping the scales in their favour.

and if there's no good reason to think that doing so will create a major loss in welfare — Isaac

That's the sticky wicket there. How can the good faith be extended to the Russians in this regard when Putin has played so many for fools for doing it in the past?

How can the good faith be extended to the Russians in this regard when Putin has played so many for fools for doing it in the past? — Paine

I don't really see it as a matter of good faith so much as a pragmatic decision under uncertainty.

What we know is that Russia at war is truely awful. We have a little idea of Russian-occupied territory in this region from Crimea and even though the abuses there were unacceptable, they are less than the atrocities being perpetrated in the invasion.

We also know that territory held by Ukraine is also subject to unacceptable human rights abuses.

So the decision (for us) is whether a peace deal followed by occupation would likely yield fewer abuses than a war followed by a return to Ukrainian control (or worse, one of the freshly armed far-right militia from either side)

I don't think that yields an obvious answer, but human rights abuses are universally easier to deal with outside of a war zone than they are within one, so if whomever gets the territory does, in fact, continue the sorts of horrific crimes we've witnessed thus far, I don't see how we'll be any less capable of acting against them in Russian annexed territory than we would be in Ukrainian war zone.

I don't think world events are significantly determined by world leaders because the world has continued on one almost unerring trajectory in terms of the concentration of wealth and power for decades and yet leaders come and go every four or five years. — Isaac

I don't think events are always determined by lone individuals, but sometimes they are. I remember being a little shocked to learn how the whims of powerful people can profoundly impact the lives of millions of people. I didn't want to believe it at first, you know, you want to think there's planning and strategies and counter strategies.

In general, I agree that large scale events happen because of a soup of diverse agendas, some of which ally with each other.

The reason wealth continues to become concentrated is that some people are just acquisitive by nature. In any time they're born to, they'll discover how to become rich. Only a system that forces redistribution will keep them in check.

That's my two cents worth anyway. :nerd:

How does this pragmatic approach get started when one side is run by a man in a bunker calmly loading his revolver for the final scene? You make it sound like something his opponents could initiate by themselves.

The point, for anyone with a post-kindergarten level of interest in the subject, was that there's no good reason to believe that atrocities would continue at the same level in Russian controlled territories. — Isaac

And anyone with a post-kindergarten level of understanding Russian/Soviet actions understands that it will happen. Not perhaps with the ferocity as during the war, but still in a way that anyone clear headed would call it a war. The first the Russians will deny is the existence of a war or insurgency, if they can. I guess you have absolutely no idea how long the Lithuans fought against the Soviet invader after WW2, well into the 1950's. Or that the last "Forest Brother" were killed in 1970's in Estonia. Yet if there were a small number of insurgents, partisans, the Soviet response was quite chilling:

The repression of the population in Lithuania started on the first day of the Soviet occupation on 15th June 1940 and continued until the 31st of August 1993 when the Soviet-Russian Army finally returned home. The Soviet authorities carried out deportations, mass killings, imprisonment, and sovietification of the Lithuanian people and Soviet colonists were settled in Lithuania. Soviet-oriented historians have tried to justify the mass deportations by referring to Lithuanian partisan activity, but in fact the deportations were largely directed against the so-called enemies of the people of which a majority had never been partisans. The Soviets deported whole families; infants, children, women and elderly to Siberia. Altogether the Soviets deported 12 percent of the population. A rough estimate is that during the period 1940-1990 Lithuania lost one third of its population due to war, destruction and repression, as well as to emigration and deportations a total equal to about one million citizens.

Lithuanian Forest Brothers fighting Soviet troops in the 1950's:


And if well over 100 000 killed Chechens from a population less than two million doesn't make you see it, nothing will wake you up from your blissful ignorance. You won't be thrown out from here because you aren't an apologist to nazism, just making the points Putin does. And believing his stories of Nazis ruling Ukraine.

At least when it comes to your own country, the UK, they (the British Army) have had the decency to call afterwards the events in Northern Ireland an insurgency (if during the time it was referred to "The Troubles"). But the British at least upheld the common law and what the UK stands for, hence the IRA perpetrators of most deadly attack on the British armed forces were not charge because there wasn't enough evidence to prosecute them. The other one died later when compiling another bomb, yet the other one lived (or lives) as a free man. That is how a democracy fights an insurgency. Russia doesn't fight it that way. As @SophistiCat pointed, in Russia the war stops when the leader tells it stops, not when the fighting stops.

Russia is correct in stating that France, the US, U.K and others basically use human rights as toilet papers when it comes to the wars they participate in, — Manuel

I think that is an exaggeration. The counterfactual is that without some international checks and balances, like the Geneva Convention, their behaviour would be much worse.

And then there is the line between pragmatic and disciplined violence versus barbaric and indisplined.

Western violence is extreme - the democratic doctrine of total war - but it is also organised to be maximally effective. Torture and revenge are seen as wasteful and corrosive of achieving war aims.

Russian violence has never been as well organised. And the ill discipline shows.

None of them should ignore human rights, yet all of them do. — Manuel

I would ask the question of who really believes in human rights. It is a nice to have. And even - as I argue - important to the highly successful enlightenment model of human social organisation. But it is still a pragmatic and context dependent choice back in the messy real world.

An effective global system has to recognise pragmatism even if its bosses want to stand up making ringing moralistic speeches at the UN.

And yet, Saudi Arabia, Europe and the US are also at fault here, as you mention. And others too, China, India. Nobody comes clean here, though the moment of the war is tragic. — Manuel

Yep. To the degree the war could be foreseen, it should have been avoided. The issues involved were irrelevant in the larger scheme of things.

And now that there is war, where is the action to at least limit damage to the climate? Should Germany be financially bailed out because it at least was trying to lead a green transition even though it had neither good sun or wind resources, and it’s chemical industry depends on gas as its feed.

I mean it is fantasy. But what if wars had to be carbon neutral as a planetary bottom line? That could be quite funny. Imagine greenwashing the carbon footprint of an Abrams tank or any jet fighter.

And then nuclear war might come out differently as well. I’m sure there would be arguments about the geoengineering fringe benefits of filling the sky with dust clouds.

I joke. But only to show how much larger the perspective on the rights and wrongs of this particular war should be. And if folk can’t be honest about what is happening on the ground in Ukraine - all the whataboutism meant to deflect from serious analysis - then there is no hope of useful debate about the big picture geopolitics.

AT THE SAME TIME this war is happening, Afghanistan is starving to death due to the US not releasing the money they owe to the country. This is equally a crime, happening now and nobody is mentioning it. — Manuel

I wasn’t aware they “owed money”. I will have to google up some sources.

But I’m not defending state control of the news cycle. Believe me, I’ve spent my whole life dealing with that as a working journalist in a number of countries.

Ukraine is an example where the US and Ukraine are doing all they can at the official level to keep the media spotlight on the conflict. The use of social media has been exemplary. Those videos of drones dropping grenades on trenches and down hatches. The perfect narrative of the plucky underdog.

So Russia has the covert social media disinformation covered, and US/Ukraine have the overt gripping narrative - the gamer’s perspective. The later is the truth you can see with your own eyes. But as you say, it all amounts to information autocracy and a failure of true democratic ideals.

We live in a shitty copy of our dreams, no argument. And yet, as a journalist, I know there is still freedom to investigate in the Western system. It just takes a considerable effort.

The question is:
- Whether they were going to use it to land cargo planes, and the answer to that question is obviously no. — Tzeentch

Only “obvious” to you for some reason. I wonder what that reason is?

Meanwhile back in the real world where one would want to apply logic in navigating conflicting views, the central question remains. What is the military value of taking some random airfield and ringing it with troop protection?

As a feint, does that seem the wisest investment of that particular force? Please answer showing this was the obvious option above every other that was available in the Kyiv region that morning.

Then why does every media report find the airbridge story to be plausible? No one rules out the talk of establishing an early airbridge as “impossible” due to AA defences, just risky and likely another miscalculation like pretty much every other aspect of the Russian invasion.

So we continue to have the mystery of why secure a working airbridge in a forward area when there was never a desire to actually use it?

If you don’t realise how dumb your unsupported claim sounds, there are only two things that can explain your persistent refusal to answer that question directly.

If you're saying the US is particularly subject to the influence of war profiteers, you may be right. Still, they can't start wars all by themselves (usually). — frank

I’d like to see the analysis for military expenditure when your mission is to be the peace keeper rather than the war winner. A huge investment in a global standing army, navy and airforce - by the one client in the best position to pay the bill.

Making that the default US mission was surely more profitable for the US defence industry than promoting any particular wars?

Although the industry wins both ways. The game is rigged in favour of the house. :grin:

I think they are now realizing how self-defeating the 'official truth regime' is. The understand better now what some of us have spoken of here: that constant lies pollute the world view of the liars, detach them from reality and lead them to take very bad decisions. So on Russian TV, where they used to lambast the 'defeatists' who originally cautioned against the war, now they lambast those who report too rosy a picture, those who 'fail to take ful measure of the seriousness of the situation'. It's quite the U turn... :-) — Olivier5

Andrey Kartapolov, a senior Russian lawmaker called on military officials to tell the truth about developments on the ground in Ukraine following the string of bruising defeats.

Kartapolov, who is the chairman of the lower house of parliament's defence committee, told a journalist from state-run media that "we need to stop lying."

"The reports of the defence ministry do not change. The people know. Our people are not stupid. This can lead to loss of credibility," Kartapolov added.

------

This war may have at least one virtue, if it reconciles the Russian elite with the importance of telling the truth.

This war may have at least one virtue, if it reconciles the Russian elite with the importance of telling the truth. — Olivier5

Unfortunately this is instead in line with the standard practice of deflecting the blame away from Putin and towards all those who let the glorious leader down. It is time to make more examples of drunk and cowardly generals.

The official story is being adjusted so the public is moved in the direction of this framing.

The whole information autocracy thing is fascinating - Informational Autocrats - Sergei Guriev and Daniel Treisman - https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.33.4.100

It is a deliberate tactic that the Kremlin has dissonant voices and conflicting messages out in public so that the public is confused and seeking answers. Then they can be nudged towards the narrative that best protects the central power.

Vlad Vexler: “Putin’s propaganda doesn’t try to persuade you of an alternate reality that you should believe in. It tries to manipulate your sense of reality. It basically tries to saturate the informational environment with incompatible pictures of reality – and the aim isn’t to persuade you of anything. It isn’t to initiate you into a kind of political mobilization, into a kind of vision.
The aim is to de-politicize you to make you feel well this is too complex for me to engage in and make you feel that maybe there isn’t such a thing as an unqualifiedly stateable truth about anything.

Soviet propaganda was clear: this is the truth and if you don’t believe in that you’re wrong
Putin propaganda does not try to tell you we have the story here this is what you believe
Putin propaganda tries to tell you “Look, this is a very complex world,” and there are claims and counterclaims and then it tries to pump information at you from all directions and the idea is that you simply give up on politics that’s the key aspiration and it’s been working very tragically effectively.”

Making that the default US mission was surely more profitable for the US defence industry than promoting any particular wars? — apokrisis

No doubt. That mission was the fallout of the demise of the British Empire, which had the job of securing the infrastructure of global trade prior to WW2.

Sometime around 1949 a secret study was performed by the US govt to determine the cost of taking the place of the British. The study said the figure was uncountable, so they mulled over whether they could do the job of the British with nuclear weapons.

At the time, they thought the Russians were like some kind of super-efficient insect hive that would far outstrip the US in terms of production by the year 2000.

They were a little clueless, but anybody in their shoes probably would have been.

I think that is an exaggeration. The counterfactual is that without some international checks and balances, like the Geneva Convention, their behaviour would be much worse.

And then there is the line between pragmatic and disciplined violence versus barbaric and indisplined.

Western violence is extreme - the democratic doctrine of total war - but it is also organised to be maximally effective. Torture and revenge are seen as wasteful and corrosive of achieving war aims.

Russian violence has never been as well organised. And the ill discipline shows. — apokrisis

I think your first two sentences are true, but for different reasons, I don't think that it's necessarily the Geneva Convention that limits state behavior in war, but domestic populations, who have grown to see war as an evil. So the Vietnam War was much worse than Iraq, in terms of methods employed and war crimes, yet the Geneva Convention applied to both.

People just don't stand for these extremes as much, unless they are fed intense propaganda and even here, it's hard to justify chemical weapons. Sure, Israel and Syria use them, but it's very bad PR, not to mention criminal.

I don't know. I mean, Baghdad was shattered, Kiev is not (at least yet). What is better? Is the fact that Kiev still a running city a reason as to why the Russians are so violent? It's not so clear.

I joke. But only to show how much larger the perspective on the rights and wrongs of this particular war should be. And if folk can’t be honest about what is happening on the ground in Ukraine - all the whataboutism meant to deflect from serious analysis - then there is no hope of useful debate about the big picture geopolitics. — apokrisis

You are on to something here, to a large extent. Because even if we get out of this one "safely", we cannot keep playing the same high-risk games for ever, because a nuclear mistake will inevitably happen. And even if it doesn't, then the climate catastrophe will surely crush a good deal of the global population.

The "whataboutism" is tricky. It's quite true that it can be used as a diversion and serves to, for instance, justify crimes, such as Putin speaking of the precedent of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as a pretext to use a tactical bomb. Very misleading and dangerous.

But then there are cases which are illustrative. I mentioned the Afghan case, which you can look up. It illustrates to me the double standards "the West" has in its proclamations of "freedom and democracy". And since it is happening right now, it has an entry into the discussion, as does, say, Taiwan or several other conflicts which are as bad as Ukraine, some worse, like Yemen.

But I’m not defending state control of the news cycle. Believe me, I’ve spent my whole life dealing with that as a working journalist in a number of countries. — apokrisis

I had the impression you were a science guy - we talked briefly, or better stated, you gave me your views on Peirce. Very interesting job to have.

We live in a shitty copy of our dreams, no argument. And yet, as a journalist, I know there is still freedom to investigate in the Western system. It just takes a considerable effort. — apokrisis

Yes, it is surely better to be a journalist (and many other professions) in countries other than Russia or China and others now belonging to "the West". Then again, the propaganda system in our countries tend to be very sophisticated compared to authoritarian systems.

At least, that's how it looks to me.

For Tzeentch, the question of intent and planning seems to be on hold until the day documents and investigations can prove one view against the other. He has ruled out any reports presently available to us as being valid. Also, he has said that he is not providing a competing assessment of actual intent but only offering 'speculation' of what might be the purpose of the operation.

So, his or her claim that using airborne troops to secure an airport in order to establish an airbridge is simply inconceivable in this situation is not an argument for an alternate purpose. By the rules of evidence being demanded by him or her, that cannot be stated.

This is relevant because if ceding territory to Russia ends the war and if there's no good reason to think that doing so will create a major loss in welfare, then we ought to support such a solution, even if the Ukrainians themselves don't. — Isaac

so, your proposed "solution" to your question is to cease the foreign aid to Ukraine and see what happens

Evidently, the Ukrainians aren't giving away self-governance and sovereignty, and have had some successes in repelling the invaders. Their choice, as is their foreign affiliations. Staking a lot of people and future on such a reason (unjustified at the moment), speaking on their behalf, is a bit bold (perhaps presumptuous, especially if it's not your children that have to live with that decision), at least it seems that way to me. Think you can squeeze some guarantees out of Putin? Err...useless. :D Putin's (alleged) NATO fears would then become Moldova Poland Romania Hungary Slovakia's Putin fears; the nuclear threats and what-not don't help.

Peace would be achieved by following this ...

[To Ukrainians] go home — Putin · Feb 24, 2022

[To Russian combatants and such in Ukraine] Go home — Zelenskyy · Aug 30, 2022

;)

• The Ukraine War in data: Russia acknowledges nearly 6,000 war dead (the real figure is probably much higher) (Sep 22, 2022)
• Ukraine Situation Report: Advances Cripple Russian Efforts To Replenish Forces (Oct 5, 2022)

That mission was the fallout of the demise of the British Empire, which had the job of securing the infrastructure of global trade prior to WW2. — frank

To nit-pick, that would have been different – a forerunner model in terms of fleets and bases, but focused on protecting sea routes connecting the UK's own far-flung empire. But then there might have been "mission creep" as there was also the value in making the British pound the world currency. Confidence in the empire as a friend was a pragmatic goal.

The US wanted a stable world after WW2 more than the free trade, which it didn't really need. It was a way to hardwire a more peaceful set-up that could also pay for its own rebuild. The self-serving part of the deal was killing the pound and nixing an actual world currency, leaving the way clear for King Dollar.

But then also corporate America developed fast on the back of free flowing oil and the US baby boom. The US could replicate that part of the UK empire model on an even more planetary scale.

So yep, history repeats. Just on bigger scale. China's belt and road is the attempt to weave Asia and Africa into a sphere of influence in the "coming multipolar world", which seemed a thing even recently. The EU-Nato were going to be the third power as the US retreated back into its North American fortress under Trump and Biden.

Another geopolitical scenario that may have been derailed by Putin's existential gamble.

Sometime around 1949 a secret study was performed by the US govt to determine the cost of taking the place of the British. The study said the figure was uncountable, so they mulled over whether they could do the job of the British with nuclear weapons. — frank

Any source on that? I've read quite a bit about the UK to US power transition. It is quite fascinating as it was what was happening in real time when I was a kid in Hong Kong and Singapore. I got to feel the imperial oppression of two empires. Stereo instead of mono. That may explain something. :razz:

For Tzeentch, the question of intent and planning seems to be on hold until the day documents and investigations can prove one view against the other. He has ruled out any reports presently available to us as being valid. Also, he has said that he is not providing a competing assessment of actual intent but only offering 'speculation' of what might be the purpose of the operation. — Paine

Right. None of which makes any sense of his desire to participate in some random political thread on some random philosophy website.

But he does make bold claims, like AA making an airbridge "impossible", without documents or investigation. We are supposed to believe his personal authority as an anonymous "military expert" with a list of talking points.

I say, put up or shut up. But I also realise that is not how things work on the net.

So, his or her claim that using airborne troops to secure an airport in order to establish an airbridge is simply inconceivable in this situation is not an argument for an alternate purpose. By the rules of evidence being demanded by him or her, that cannot be stated. — Paine

Again, he did make a positive claim. AA always would have made the airbridge an impossibility. Hence we ought to believe "feint".

He just jumps back behind his "cautious" demands for "real evidence" when he gets pressed in an uncomfortable fashion.

The US wanted a stable world after WW2 more than the free trade, which it didn't really need. It was a way to hardwire a more peaceful set-up that could also pay for its own rebuild. — apokrisis

Most people in the US govt thought the British and French Empires were going to come back after WW2. It took a while for it to sink in that they weren't.

The idea started to take root that communism would grow until the British and Americans had no one to make a profit off of but each other. That was the genesis of the idea of the US taking the place of the British Empire.

Any source on that? — apokrisis

The Fifty Year Wound, Derek Leebaert

Yes, I see the dance between claims regarding particular circumstances. My point is only to say that once one has retreated from arguing what the actual planning happened to be by means of providing evidence for it, further discussion of what is conceivable or not is no longer germane to the original question.

And that problem of using the language of inconceivability reminds me of scenes in Princess Bride.

I don't think that it's necessarily the Geneva Convention that limits state behavior in war, but domestic populations, who have grown to see war as an evil. So the Vietnam War was much worse than Iraq, in terms of methods employed and war crimes, yet the Geneva Convention applied to both. — Manuel

Sure, that is true. It was once enough for a population simply to hear their leaders stand up and make the promises. Embedded journalists with camera evidence meant the population had to be actually seeing the promises were somewhat true on the ground.

The Vietnam images of little girls being napalmed certainly changed attitudes on Vietnam.

By Iraq, the US knew it had to get in first with its grainy video of precision munitions surgically taking out the tanks and trucks. The suitably distanced view that set the narrative of surgical strikes on anonymous targets.

Is the fact that Kiev still a running city a reason as to why the Russians are so violent? — Manuel

I earlier posted how Kyiv is rather sacred to the Russian people as their historic civilisational centre. It wouldn't play well with the home crowd.

Moscow’s ruling establishment feels so emotional because the first Russian state called Kievan Rus was established in Kiev 12 centuries ago. Even the name of Russia originated in the name of this loose confederation of Eastern Slavic, Baltic and Finnic nations.

Rurik, the founding leader of the Kievan Rus dynasty, has been considered one of the godfathers of the Russian state.

https://www.trtworld.com/magazine/why-ukraine-matters-to-russia-so-much-52281

But then there are cases which are illustrative. I mentioned the Afghan case, which you can look up. It illustrates to me the double standards "the West" has in its proclamations of "freedom and democracy". — Manuel

I guess I just take the double standards as already the well understood context. I haven't paid particular attention to what's been happening in Afghanistan after Biden's abrupt withdrawal as it seems only the everyday level of geopolitical dysfunction.

Although it would perhaps tell something of Biden's mind when it comes to dealing with crisis. Did he show his senility, or did he show hawkish judgement? Just drop the small problems. Focus on the big ones, like a chance to dissolve Russia back to its constituent particles for a second time running.

I had the impression you were a science guy - we talked briefly, or better stated, you gave me your views on Peirce. Very interesting job to have. — Manuel

I'm a science guy too. But I always knew how much fun being a journalist could be. And while doing science, I looked at my professors and decided I didn't want to be constrained to studying tiny slivers of the big picture the world has to offer. Journalism is training in being an outsider who gets to go inside anywhere. You can follow your curiosity endlessly. And get well paid. It was the ideal vehicle to get access to the whole of the human story.

Then again, the propaganda system in our countries tend to be very sophisticated compared to authoritarian systems. — Manuel

I posted above about information autocracy. Putin exists because the propaganda system has evolved on that side of game as well.

Dictatorship was based on fear. Totalitarians such as Hitler, Stalin, and Mao combined repression with indoctrination into ideologies that demanded devotion to the state. They tried to isolate citizens from the world with censorship, travel restrictions, and limits on trade.

Now a modified authoritarianism has been spreading. From Hugo Chávez’s Venezuela to Vladimir Putin’s Russia, illiberal leaders have managed to concentrate power without cutting their countries off from global markets, imposing exotic social philosophies, or resorting to mass murder.

Many of these new-style autocrats have come to office in elections and managed to preserve a democratic facade. Rather than jailing thousands, they target opposition activists, harassing and humiliating them, accusing them of fabricated crimes, and encouraging them to emigrate. When these autocrats kill, they seek to conceal their responsibility.

The key to such regimes, we argue, is the manipulation of information. Rather than terrorizing or indoctrinating the population, rulers survive by leading citizens to believe—rationally but incorrectly—that they are competent and public-spirited. Having won popularity, dictators score points both at home and abroad by mimicking democracy.

https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.33.4.100

:up:

Most people in the US govt thought the British and French Empires were going to come back after WW2. It took a while for it to sink in that they weren't.

The idea started to take root that communism would grow until the British and Americans had no one to make a profit off of but each other. That was the genesis of the idea of the US taking the place of the British Empire. — frank

Again, do you have a particular source? I'm genuinely interested.

The Fifty Year Wound, Derek Leebaert — frank

Same book?

Yep. It's an excellent book. He also explains the lengths the CIA went to to kill Castro. It's worth the read just for that.

You grew up in HK?

Is that the same book as The World After the War, also 2018? That’s what’s in my library.

You grew up in HK? — frank

Yep. Early 1960s. You have a connection?