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.

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.

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).

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.

I agree with Tobias. If you're interested in the philosophy of sex:

https://iep.utm.edu/sexualit/
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sex-sexuality/

'Cat's pajamas' is a figure of speech. — Bitter Crank

I've just realized that "the cat's pyjamas" means the same as "the dog's bollocks".

I think it's a conceptual metaphor. Another example is talking of time in terms of space: move the meeting forward to next week. In calling these conceptual, the claim is that this is not only how we talk--a set of convenient outward expressions--but also how we think.

The most famous theorist of this stuff is George Lakoff, who (with Mark Johnson) wrote Metaphors We Live By.

Here's a paper by Lakoff and Johnson (PDF): Conceptual Metaphor in Everyday Language. It gives an idea of how deeply metaphorical our language (and our thinking) is.

I see what you mean. But a propagandist aims to do more than get people to agree with him; he wants to make you do something, or go along with something. And surely it's also about the simplicity of the communication, its rhetorical, sloganeering nature?

Anyway, I'm not going to fight hard for the "neutral" definition. It just seems to work for the things I commonly regard as propaganda.

I don't think presenting only one side of the story, or trying to influence behaviour and gain support for a cause, are always bad, and in that sense the definition is neutral, as opposed to the pejorative definition under which propaganda is always bad.

Whether propaganda is always deceptive in some sense, I'm not sure. Groups of people fight for their interests, and part of that effort is spreading their agendas, without spreading those of their enemies. This is inescapable in societies that allow contestation. Of course, we might expect that, for example, journalists who are covering these conflicts should present both sides and avoid propaganda.

Ideally, education equips you with a wide range of knowledge and opinion, allowing you to make up your own mind. Propaganda is always one-sided. Of course, educational institutions and education policy can be used for propaganda purposes as well.

Yeah it's really weird and surprising to me how many people on this forum cannot set out their paragraphs properly. All it takes is an extra hit on the Return key.

I prefer the neutral definition of propaganda, under which it is not necessarily about spreading falsehoods, but is primarily meant to change minds, influence behaviour, or gain support. Public health campaigns fit under this definition. I find this anti-alcohol poster quite effective:



What shame! He got drunk, swore, smashed a tree and now he's ashamed to look people in the face

Although it's not spreading falsehoods, it does present only one side of the story.

In the current state of the term ‘propaganda’ it is a fair assessment to state that ‘propaganda’ in colloquial terms is general framed as something intrinsically tied to patriotism/nationhood? — I like sushi

Propaganda promotes a political view or a movement, and not all of those are nationalist or patriotic, so the term commonly also refers to the art, slogans, and rhetoric of revolutionary internationalist movements. The Russian Revolution and early Soviet Union, for example, are famous for their propaganda posters, many of which were specifically aimed against nationalism. If most propaganda is tied to nationalism, it's because most political movements have been and still are tied to nationalism.

Here is some propaganda:


Consolidate the dictatorship of the proletariat and the international unity of the proletariat!


Pioneer makes friends with children from all the world's countries


We are for friendship and peace! Our ardent greeting is flying around the world! We stand for friendship and peace!


Lenin in our hearts

Regarding the poster above, today we'd be tempted to question why the blond white guy is at the front [EDIT: now that I look again, he looks quite central Asian, so the following point might be less relevant]. This indicates that there's a patriotic element to some of these posters, that ethnic Russians were the target audience and that they were being encouraged to be proud of leading the cause of internationalism. And some of the others could be seen as claiming the world for communism as against the capitalist West, and you might see that as nationalist in some sense.

Ah, appeasement. I did take objection to that, yes, because it seemed to be part of the simplistic and hysterical likening of Putin to Hitler that I’d been seeing in the media. That was back in the good old days when I didn’t think Russia would invade, so what do I know?

People like jamalrob became offended when we brought this up earlier in the thread. What were they thinking? — frank

Not me, as far as I recall.

IMHO, I believe Putin and those that support him in Russia would be more than happy to reintegrate any and all former Warsaw Pact (that are currently on less then friendly terms with Russia) back into the "loving" arms of mother Russia and for all of them and Russia to create a USSR 2.0. — dclements

The Warsaw Pact was an alliance between the USSR (aka the Soviet Union) and several countries that were never in the Soviet Union, even if they were expected to submit to its wishes. Do you mean the former Soviet republics (Ukraine, Georgia, Belarus, Uzbekistan, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia) or are you actually saying that Putin wants to somehow integrate the Warsaw Pact countries (Albania, Bulgaria, Czechia, Slovakia, Hungary, Poland, Romania, and the eastern part of Germany) into a single country along with Russia and presumably all the former Soviet republics as well?

They were talking about a bombing in Moscow as if it was the only one. In fact, there were a total of four apartment bombings in ten days, two of them in Moscow. But the incidents that are thought to provide the strongest evidence for the conspiracy theory were the bombings that didn't happen. You can read more about them in the Wiki article and elsewhere. Yet somehow Thomas and Aimen appear to be completely unaware of any of this context. — SophistiCat

Yeah, I noticed that. Maybe they'd forgotten.

Otherwise, it's just an hour about geopolitics so it's inevitable it'll be somewhat superficial and make things look like "a game between Russia and the big Western powers". This is how some of the participants see it anyway, and that's significant.

This is why the act of trying to prevent as much of your own biases and fallacies as possible when arguing is the only way to speak as truthfully as possible for a human being. — Christoffer

So I guess if we're to look for a reason why your own posts are such garbage, we have to look at something aside from bias?

We must confront Russian propaganda – even when it comes from those we respect

I don't always agree with George Monbiot but I think he's right here. Pilger really is just a tankie these days, soft on anything that positions itself against the US.

Among the worst disseminators of Kremlin propaganda in the UK are people with whom I have, in the past, shared platforms and made alliances. The grim truth is that, for years, a segment of the “anti-imperialist” left has been recycling and amplifying Putin’s falsehoods. This segment is by no means representative: many other leftists have staunchly and consistently denounced Russian imperialism, just as they rightly denounce the imperialism of the US and UK. But it is, I think, an important one.

Yeah I've seen that before. I think they're Chechen sufis.

Good luck.

I want to offer my services to write an algorithm to prevent morons from posting — SkyLeach

I'm interested.

Stay on-topic please, or just come out with a point, if you have one.

Russia were simply not a threat at the time of NATO expansion. They were crippled and crumbling further. — Isaac

I think this is right. I just saw a tension between that and the following:

You're saying Putin's a threat, I'm saying yes, and if we knew this all along why the hell did we treat him as if he wasn't. — Isaac

You're saying Putin's a threat, I'm saying yes, and if we knew this all along why the hell did we treat him as if he wasn't. — Isaac

The purpose of the NATO expansion was surely always about the Russian threat, no?

At least Grozny seems reasonably stable (at the moment), as far as I know anyway. — jorndoe

Since the war, Russia has put a lot of money into Chechnya to re-develop it (Grozny, at least) and to enrich the local elite, thus buying the support of the Sufis (and their brutal leader Kadyrov, who earlier fought against Russia) and neutralizing the Salafist-led jihad, all to ensure Russian hegemony and stability in the North Caucasus.

Now, Grozny is a gleaming city with gigantic new mosques, and Chechen warriors are fighting for Russia in Ukraine and Syria.

The latest episode in the Conflicted podcast is very interesting on the history and geopolitical background.

Borderline Post-Soviet Disorder

Incidentally @ssu, in previous episodes Aimen Dean dismisses the inside job conspiracy theory about the Russian apartment bombings, and he's a person who knows a lot about the North Caucasian jihad.

Talking of the French, Putin's friend Gerard Depardieu, who has been a Russian citizen for a few years, has just declared his opposition to the war: https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2022/03/01/french-actor-depardieu-objects-to-fratricidal-war-a76686

:up:

Yep, was mainly just making the point that those numbers apply to the Soviet Union as a whole, that very large numbers of them were not Russian.

Lenin and Stalin killed 20 million Russians — frank

I think you mean Soviet citizens, many of whom died in the famine in Ukraine. I don’t think there’s a consensus on whether that was genocide.

Well, I thought that comment of Isaac's was fair, and not unprovoked, but what do I know?

Clear and succinct summary, thanks. — Amity

You're very welcome. It should also be understood that the conditions for the possibility of such naked military aggression were to an important degree the responsibility of the West. Ensuring peaceful relations and partnerships with Russia in its recovery after 1991 was the most important task for the big powers at the time. It was possible, but they failed, and continued to fail in the same way as the decades went by, despite the many voices warning them they were taking the world in a dangerous direction. See Street's post above.

And if you really are implying that @Christoffer is not "playing out Top Gun fantasies", I think you need to look again at his posts.

The Denazificatiom claim of Putin is valid. The Azov battalion is a neo-nazi right wing militia and an actual unit of the Ukrainian national guard. In the eastern Ukraine, the neo nazi battalion was deployed without reservation to quell pro Russian sympathizers and by "quell", l mean torturing separatist, killing children, forcing people to speak Ukrainian and spreading Russophobia. — Eskander

None of that makes the denazification claim valid, because those neo-Nazis are not representative of the people, of the elected government, or even of the military, and yet it is the people, the government, and the country as a whole that is being attacked. The claim is a pretext for aggressive domination, with a view to extending Russia's hegemony in the region, in competition with the EU and NATO. The idea (perhaps not held by you but nonetheless widespread among defenders of the Russian state's line) that the invasion is humanitarian or moral is naive. Those are never the motivations for Russian military action. What the Russian rulers care about is power in the region and on the world stage, and they use force to establish it. They're old-fashioned that way.

Good stuff, thanks.

I see. Cool plan!

The best scenario would be to remove him, let's say eliminate him and the oligarchs. Then seize their money to a fund for rebuilding both Ukraine and changing Russia's political landscape. Next step would be to remove state propaganda sources, shut down media with state ties and give the void to independent media outlets to become official. Then, seize all nuclear weapons to remove the risks of rogue nukes. Then, initiate a republic leader, a president that has support from a large portion of the people of Russia. So far, that would be freeing Navalny and install him as the president. This is a temporary solution in order to build-up a proper democratic function. This is always a problem in nations that didn't have ideas of freedom and democracy within the population, but a large portion of Russia's people want to have a proper democracy, Navalny wouldn't have the support he had if there wasn't an underlying will to have this kind of state. Over the course of a few years, the development will be monitored by the world in order to push down anyone who sees the void after Putin as an invite to do the same — Christoffer

Who do you see carrying out this magnificent plan?

Agreed

Thanks for clarifying. I’ll leave it to others to further hound you if they feel (possibly rightly) that you haven’t sufficiently corrected yourself, or repented.