In your example above, it's not the bankruptcy laws offering the limitations on liabilities, but it's the corporate structure that creates the business as a separate entity and that shields the investors. — Hanover

Thanks. I thought I'd got that wrong.

the risk to the owner remains substantially higher than then the employee because the owner had a capital investment in the corporation the employee did not. That the owners risk is limited to his initial investment amount doesn't mean he has minimal risk. Often owners invest their life savings into their businesses. — Hanover

So the narrative I'm pushing back against is the idea that owners deserve the profits because the risk they take is higher. To satisfy this narrative the facts need to be a) relatively universal - we can't justify the majority by the circumstances of a minority, and b) proportionate - we're relating profit to risk, not just any reward, but the full profits of the company. I still contest both.

For the former - There's no class of down-and-out former business owner. A survey of homeless with the question "how did you get here" won't reveal a significant category of "I used to own a bank but it failed and I lost my initial investment".

For the latter - The bank's not going to lend with the mortgaged portion of a house as collateral, so whatever the owner's personal stake, it's part of their free capital, not their tied-up capital, so the risk in putting it up is manifestly different to the risk involved in an employee committing their labour to a company (in the hopes that it's successful enough to continue employing them). An employee's labour is an investment that's tied-up, they need the return on that investment to live. An owner's capital investment is capital that's not tied-up (we know this because the bank wouldn't allow it if it was) so their investment is less of a risk. Then there's the fact that the owner can hedge their risk, they can split their free capital between many investments. The worker cannot split their labour between many investments, so again the manifest risk of their investment is higher.

I think too much focus is on what happens when the business fails (employee walks away vs owner goes bankrupt) but that's not a proper assessment of risk, the proper assessment of risk needs to include a measure of likelihood. It's a not a sufficient comparison of the risks of walking the dog vs flying in a plane to say the plane is the higher risk because if it crashes everyone dies. It's not likely to crash, so the harms from walking the dog might be smaller but more likely to happen. Likewise with risk in investment it's not sufficient to say that because the owner potentially looses most if the business fails they take the higher risk.

Firstly, a business has to survive only a few years for the returns to cover the owner's original investment, so they quickly come out even. It has to continually thrive just for the employee to continue to come out even. Their investment of labour is only ever rewarded with an even cover of how much that labour is worth.

Secondly, when a business is failing the first thing that happens is that it lays off staff. That may be enough to turn it around, or for the owner to recover their costs. For the employee, however, their investment in labour has proven to be a loss early on.

Why would I increase access to money (or play time) for those who can't play the game very well? — Hanover

If access to profit were distributed according to talent in investing it then you'd have a good comparison. The several financial crises of the last few decades has made it abundantly clear that this is not the case. Corporations are protected against the fallout from high risk strategies so it inflates the apparent success of taking them (they reap the reward but the risk is taken on by the state). If we were all given £100,000 at birth and told to invest it wisely, I'd happily go along with your meritocracy where the wisest investors got the most returns to re-invest. But that isn't what happens.

I think the root of the debate is a profound difference in attitude toward conflict. Where there's a bully, you'll say it's the responsibility of the rest of the population to bow for the sake of peace.

The opposing view is that you have to smash the bully in the nose if you want peace.

Opposing strategies, same goal. — frank

That's brilliant.

Now extrapolate that to a world full of bullies and explain how one bully smashing the other bully in the nose brings about peace.

Because bullies learning to talk instead of fight certainly does.

Now do you see why the record of the US matters to the debate? Your whole theory only works if one side isn't a bully themselves.

My thought was simply that everything can be scaled up, the risks and rewards, but needn't be scaled up by the ratio of total wealth to total wealth. See how that works? I can bet more and win more, without risking my entire advantage relative to you, and the ratio of my wealth to yours will just keep growing. — Srap Tasmaner

I see, yes. So to get at what I was thinking it would be more like...

Split the population of gamblers into two groups {the poor} and {the rich}. If gambling had an equal payoff:risk ratio for each group then the sum gain for each group as a proportion of their investment, would be the same. So each group would, in sum, get x% richer. But that's not what we see, because the gap between the two groups even in relative terms, is getting bigger.

The only way I can see that happening is if the risk:return ratio for the wealthy is actually better than for the poor.

We can see it reflected economically in savings. If I invest £100 in a bank, not only do I get a lower return (because it's only £100), I get a lower rate of return (I'd be lucky to get 1%). If I invest £100,000 I not only get a higher return (because I put more in) I get a higher rate of return, maybe 5%.

So with a simple bank investment, the return on £100,000 isn't just higher by proportion (1% of 100,000 is bigger than 1% of 100), but it's bigger proportionally. Does that make sense?

it cannot be the case that starting a business is guaranteed by law to be risk-free, can it? — Srap Tasmaner

In our current society, yes. But we're the blind leading the blind here. I think the term I should be using is actually 'insolvency' since we're talking about corporations, but a quick glance at UK law doesn't seem to entail any personal risk https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/options-when-a-company-is-insolvent/options-when-a-company-is-insolvent.

Try walking through the example with gambling, one rich gambler and one poor, and see how it works out. — Srap Tasmaner

Isn't gambling notoriously a bad idea, house always wins and all that?

This is just equating owners with shareholders. It's obviously not the case for small businesses, partnerships and such. — Srap Tasmaner

Yeah, that's true. I think the 'small business' model is a bit different. It still seems that bankruptcy laws protect the small business owner from risk in the same way though. It's not like they're putting their homes up as collateral. The difference is that if the business fails they too probably lose their job. But that still gives them equal risk to their employees, but higher gains. Do bankruptcy laws work differently in the US? There seems to be a lot of presumption about personal financial risk for the small business owner, but that's just not really the case here.

I think you can grant the claim that owners may lose more in absolute terms, but less as a portion of their total wealth. Why not just say that? — Srap Tasmaner

I don't think it's that easy to quantify. If we're talking about shareholders, say the price of a share drops dramatically, have they actually lost money, in absolute terms? They've lost an opportunity to make money, but all that's happened is their investment isn't worth what they thought it was. If they're an actual investor (loan stock or similar) they'll be paid back preferentially by the receivers. I can certainly see some outlier cases where owner/investors might actually lose wealth, but they seem rare. Mostly its a loss in value rather than absolute wealth.

I'm no economist, but we simply don't see any significant number of owner/investors on their uppers. If the risk were genuinely matched to the reward they'd be, on average no better off as a group than they started. Yet the rich get consistently richer. They're not just lucky with the horses. They invest. They own more stuff, including businesses. So ownership must, on average, yield more than the risk.

you'll compete for workers with firms just offering burden-free salary. If the rewards are potentially great enough, people may be willing to enter into this more risky sort of employment arrangement. — Srap Tasmaner

I don't see it in terms of reward, I see it in terms of dignity. Workers deserve a say since their contribution to the enterprise is as vital as any. A corporation is a group of people collaborating to achieve a goal. The default should be that each member of that group gets an equal say in how it's run.

Whatever you think of Putin, it's with him you must negotiate, cause he's the one in power. That's a much lower standard than risking a nuclear Armageddon. — Manuel

Exactly. There's two options. 1) Negotiate a peace deal. 2) Defeat Russia so utterly they have no bargaining position.

For the first Ukraine needs a position - what they're prepared to give up. For the second there needs to be a plausible strategy whereby it might happen. Choosing the second over the first is only reasonable if fewer lives are going to be destroyed that way. I've yet to be given even a vague notion of how the second option, especially with the nuclear risk, could possibly involve less risk to human life.

Anything not directly addressing that decision is just theatrics.

My intuition is that national pride trumps everything else. — Manuel

I hate to say it, but I'm actually glad at this stage that the US, and I suspect Russia, are run by klepocratic opportunists. Their greed may be the only thing actually preventing this ridiculous Hollywood fantasy roleplay that seems so popular from escalating further.

I'm unclear on something: You mean bad economics inside the US or in Russia?

Russia seems to be surviving somehow. — Manuel

Both. Russia are more self sufficient than many of the larger economies, but those invested in the big industries (oil, fertilisers, wheat) still would rather their markets were viable - and, of course, let's not pretend any of the big players have been remotely effected by sanctions. Most wealthy Russians have a broad enough range of investments to benefit from whatever crisis is stoked as the latest excuse for profiteering.

I think our main saviour at the moment is that nuclear war would be bad economics. Whilst it behoves the American administration to whip up a social media frenzy to support their arms sales, it does them no good to go so far as to follow on when that mob starts baying for nuclear annihilation.

Whether Putin can be baited into doing it on the other side though remains open. I think he's unpredictable enough to do it if he's got nothing left. No one thought he'd invade the way he did in the first place. He's obviously got no scruples as far as humanity goes. So its a weigh up between his foreseeable economic losses vs his narcissism.

Ironic, given the recent focus on climate change that our obsession with oil/gas-fuelled materialism brought us much earlier to the brink of catastrophe because cheap gas was more important than a stable ex-superpower.

There needs to be dialogue. But how can dialogue be had when conditions are this dire? — Manuel

There was dialogue during the cold war (thank god). There was dialogue with Hezbollah, the Taliban... The problem is we're having politics by fucking Facebook, I just hope there's someone sane in each of the warring administrations who are actually talking to each other before we blow the entire fucking human race to kingdom come because it gives us more 'likes' than negotiating.

it does tell you things you need to know to keep a business from running long term loses and thus having to close. — Count Timothy von Icarus

It does, but what does that matter to the owners? They own a varied portfolio of stock and will often make as much running a company into the ground and fleecing its assets as they would making it super profitable. Very rarely do the owners own only that company so their interests are likely to extend well beyond that particular company's long term profitability.

As for Lehman Brothers, yes stockholders absolutely lost more financially in direct relation to the bankruptcy. Bondholders and other creditors get paid first in a liquidation, which if I recall did not meet all liabilities, so shareholders got wiped out. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Did they though? Can you point to major shareholders who were poverty stricken by the bankruptcy?

Again, owners have broad portfolios. Workers can't have a broad portfolio of jobs. Homeowners can't have a broad portfolio of mortgages. So the latter two lose out from any bankruptcy more than the first. So for a worker, to invest their labour in the success of a company is a far greater risk than for an owner to invest a small portion of their share portfolio. You say...

However, in general owners lose more when a company goes belly up — Count Timothy von Icarus

...but I see no evidence of this. I mean, generally owners are the rich and workers are the poor. So either owners are just better people or something about their position yields a greater net gain than net loss. It's not like 50% of bankers are rich and 50% poor at any one time. They're all rich. So how's that work if they're genuinely taking the bigger risk?

Mandating the the owners of firms turn over control of their firm as soon as they higher any help would create a powerful incentive for businesses not to expand, which isn't what you want. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Why? What's the mechanism you see happening here? If the owner is normally taking such a big risk, then there'd be as much incentive to cautiously share that risk as there would be to recklessly bet the house on it. Worker-owners would spread the risks. And again, presumably for the lawyer, the plumber, the company means more than just a high stakes bet, so it's objectives are more than just return on investment.

Bankruptcy laws protect owners/investors to a far greater extent than unemployment benefit protects workers.

looking at bailouts — especially in 2009 — shows that the wealthy really have no risks— they’re fine no matter what. They’re too big to fail. — Xtrix

Exactly. No matter the mechanism (though it's interesting nonetheless to talk about what that mechanism is) we can see that owners disproportionately get richer relative to workers. If they were taking a genuine risk they would (on average) be about the same, only more heterogeneous.

The logic behind workers not being entitled to profit necessarily is that they might not have a very good idea what the interests of the firm are. Managers are managers for a reason. Not everyone can read a balance sheet or revenue report competently. — Count Timothy von Icarus

This falsely assumes the interests of the firm are contained in a proper reading of a balance sheet. Firms may have social interests. There's no reason at all why those social interests might not trump the financial ones.

The other reason is that they have much less risk than the owner(s). If the form closes from misuse of profits, they might lose their job, but they won't be dealing with all the debts for the firm. — Count Timothy von Icarus

So would you hold that when, for example, Lehman Brothers went bankrupt in 2008 the major shareholders lost more than the employees or customers, who got away relatively unscathed?

I guess everyone can afford those basic fees... — javi2541997

There always will be people who can afford it. — javi2541997

I see we've descended into lunacy. Well, it was a pleasant chat...

And in the US...

Education = Private schools and universities are always there. You pay a fee to join such educational system. — javi2541997

What about those who can't afford the fee?

We can let some companies to build up the highways. They assume the management and administration. We the citizens only pay for this service whenever we use it. — javi2541997

What about those who can't afford the fee?

it is always better to let the real state companies to do so. — javi2541997

What about those who can't afford the price?

The markets and property don't exist in Cuba. — javi2541997

Looks like a market and some property to me

Which one do you think I have chosen? — apokrisis

I'm not playing 'get to know you in 20 questions', there's no need for me to guess. I've got a pretty clear idea of the narrative you prefer, but if that's wrong you can just say so.

I know it involves an imperialist Putin, I know it involves a weak Russian military (mistakes and poor morale/equipment). I know both those just happen to serve the US's agenda (the imperialist Putin to support the 'no negotiation' policy and the weak Russian army to support the 'just one more arms shipment ought to do it' policy), but whether supporting the US agenda is part of your narrative or not is unclear.

The options have been narrowed by batting away some of crazier views however. — apokrisis

If you're including in that any notion of Putin being opportunistic rather than imperialist, or any notion of the Russian army being capable of occupying large parts of Ukraine for long periods of time, then you've failed to provide sufficient evidence that such views are 'crazy'. All you've provided is evidence that your views are not. Evidence that your views are not crazy does not constitute evidence that alternative views are.

Positive laws based on taxation, the role of taxpayers, limits on the fees of each payer, compensations if they have personal issues (handicapped persons for example)
It is easy how they work. — javi2541997

Go on then... You've yet to connect any law by any mechanism to ensuring the provision of adequate healthcare, education, infrastructure, public transportation, and housing.

why do you assume all CEOs act viciously or against the law? — javi2541997

I don't. Drug use and illegal behaviour is nonetheless rife in those fields. You claimed that such people did not deserve adequate healthcare, education, infrastructure, public transportation, and housing. They nonetheless have such things, so a tax on those people would be just, no?

Plus you've neglected to answer the question about how the wealthy 'deserve' their inherited wealth when they haven't met your criteria of someone who...

works or studies hard, doesn't commit crimes, respect the authority, etc... everything what we should expect from a regular citizen in a democratic country. — javi2541997

But let's start with those laws. If you can show how a low tax government can ensure adequate healthcare, education, infrastructure, public transportation, and housing without taxing the rich then we're good. The rich can keep their money if everyone is adequately housed, fed and cared for.

Might I dare suggest that is at least a plausible suggestion and thus join you in evading all calls for credible support for anything I might happen to say at any point in these proceedings — apokrisis

Yes.

I have no issue at all with you claiming your preferred narrative is plausible. I completely agree.

As for evidence, the threshold to prove a narrative is plausible is very low and has already been amply met by the sources you've provided.

Now we can talk about the far more interesting question...

Given multiple plausible narratives which are under determined by the evidence, why have you chosen the one you have?

This level of analysis doesn't work. You start from an assumption that the meaning of a proposition can be questioned "X exists", but then you analyse the felicity of that meaning by assuming that another proposition " X is wrong" stands with a priori clarity.

If the meaning of "X exists" is in question, then the question cannot be resolved by assuming the meaning of "X is wrong" is not similarly in question.

You mean one side claims Kyiv was a feint, Russian forces have proved competent, Putin has strictly limited war aims. And the other side is meant to believe these implausible interpretations by unknown posters who can’t provide credible professional analysis to back up what they say. — apokrisis

No.

No one here has claimed that. People have suggested it is plausible.

And no one has given any indication that you ought to believe it either. In fact, I've specifically said the exact opposite.

It is you who are making the claim of implausibility. You have yet to provide a shred of evidence to support such a claim.

And I really shouldn't have to point out to someone of your calibre that showing people agree with your claim does not constitute evidence that the counter claim is implausible. Nor does reversing the burden of proof.

But I have been reading Treisman on interesting issues like Russia’s information autocracy. — apokrisis

Ah, so now he's a credible source. The moment he starts saying something you already agree with. And the others...?

I asked for actual articles or clips that present the case you want to make. — apokrisis

I'm not making a case. I'm criticising your claim that alternative narratives are "dumb" or "irrational", or uniquely "ideological". All I need to do to defeat such a claim is point to the fact that you've failed to meet the threshold of evidence required for such a claim (showing that there are literally no credible experts who oppose it). You can't seriously expect to get away with a claim of the form "all Xs are Y unless you prove otherwise".

I've given sources who disagree with your assessment, but even that is unnecessary since it is you who are making the claim that the alternative narrative is unsupported, so it's you who needs to present evidence to support that claim.

That makes absolutely zero sense on a debate forum.

Point here is to present analysis and then defend or reformulate it in light of critique and rebuttal. — boethius

Yeah. And I'd add to that the fact that the claims here are asymmetric. One side is merely claiming a position to be plausible, the other is claiming that no other position than theirs is plausible.

The threshold of evidence required to demonstrate a position is plausible is quite low.

The threshold of evidence required to demonstrate that all other positions are implausible is enormous.

Positive laws published in codes. — javi2541997

Which ones? And how do they work?

No. When I said I exclude them? — javi2541997

You said....

Not everyone can take part on it because not everyone deserves it. — javi2541997

... I asked...

Who would those be then? — Isaac

...you replied...

Convicted criminals, lazy people who spend their money in gambling and drugs, all of those who don't respect the basic laws and pillars of a democratic state. — javi2541997

...so I assume you include the majority of bankers stock traders and CEOs who use prostitutes and cocaine? Or engage in illegal trading, or tax avoidance, or insider trading, or any other illegal activity, yes?

You say we should prosecute billionaires for tax fraud but there are a lot of workers who would suffer the consequences. — javi2541997

Workers would also suffer consequences if we don't. So?

I don’t like how taxation is based so I will start to not paying it This sounds stupid right? — javi2541997

You do know where most tax avoidance comes from don't you?

Even if it is opinion, I prefer it from someone with a name and credible credentials. — apokrisis

What counts as 'credible' for the purposes of the points you're trying to make...

US intelligence? Are we seriously surprised that information from US intelligence supports the US government position?

Newspaper editors? I mean....seriously.

Bloggers? Of which there are thousands (and as many opinions)

What is this measure of credibility you're wanting to apply, because the only relevant one I can think of would possibly be experience or expertise in military strategy or foreign affairs. That would rule in people like Mearsheimer (whom you've dismissed), Treisman (whom you've also dismissed), Scholsberg (whom you also dismissed) and so on...

So show me a post where you gave a source after I requested it. Otherwise disinformation. — apokrisis

...

Great. You will have no problem providing expert sources arguing the opposite then. Look forward to it. — apokrisis


I've provided plenty of sources throughout my contributions, but on this particular issue (the motivation behind Russian foreign policy) there's academics like Daniel Treisman, experts such as Fyodor Lukyanov, Andrei Tsygankov, Richard Sawka, Marie Mendras... — Isaac

Uhuh. Likewise, you only have to check my posts to see the sources.

I have indeed googled to see where your talking points might be sourced. Strangely nothing respectable is turning up. So I can only continue to say either pony up or expect to be treated dismissively. — apokrisis

Yeah. Likewise, I also checked Google to see where your talking points might be sourced, but nothing respectable turned up either.

Funny how when one searches Google one always seems to find what one is expecting to find.

Respecting and keeping the law. Simple. — javi2541997

Go on... Which laws ensure adequate healthcare, education, infrastructure, public transportation, and housing and how do they do so?

Convicted criminals, lazy people who spend their money in gambling and drugs, all of those who don't respect the basic laws and pillars of a democratic state. — javi2541997

So most stock exchange workers, bankers, CEOs...where gambling, illegal prostitution and cocaine use are endemic?

All of those who inherited their wealth are just taking advantage of all the efforts did by their parents, grandparents — javi2541997

Are they? What about if those parents/grandparents merely inherited their wealth? And even if they didn't, the people in question are still taking advantage of someone else's hard work. That contradicts your statement that those deserving of adequate healthcare, education, infrastructure, public transportation, and housing are those who...

works or studies hard, doesn't commit crimes, respect the authority, etc... everything what we should expect from a regular citizen in a democratic country. — javi2541997

I am agree with you in this point. — javi2541997

So let's start there then. The volumes if money involved in white collar crime dwarf welfare payments by whole orders of magnitude. Why are taxes your target?

Judges, Courts, police officers, prosecutors, lawyers, military officers, and all the authorities who ensure the application of law. — javi2541997

Why?

Also I'm having trouble squaring...

respect the authority — javi2541997

...with...

I think it is abusive. Nonetheless, socialists say this is the right thing to do... because the rich and businessmen need to be solidary with the working class or the poorest (meanwhile those taxes always end up to cover the costs of minorities... But this is a subject of a different topic). My country is a example of what happens when political correctness is in power. — javi2541997

Doesn't sound very respectful of the authority. Or did you have a different authority in mind?

A consumers' co-operative could be a good mechanism. — javi2541997

Again, I didn't ask how it might happen. I asked how we ensure it actually does.

I consider unfair the fact of how many people who don't do anything for the state still consuming the benefits of it. — javi2541997

Who would those be then?

I guess someone is entitled to take advantage of education or infrastructure (for example) when he/she is a formidable citizen who works or studies hard, doesn't commit crimes, respect the authority, etc... everything what we should expect from a regular citizen in a democratic country. — javi2541997

So someone who inherited their wealth ought have it taken away, as they don't deserve it, yes?

Or someone who worked only moderately hard but got lucky should only get the keep the proportion of their wealth which reflects their work, but not their luck?

And all the white collar crime - the tax dodging, the insider trading, the backhand payments, shell companies, illegal trading.... Those people should all have their wealth taken away too, as they don't deserve it either?

....I think we might be beginning to agree.

Time to put the sourceless disinformation to bed. — apokrisis

Talking of Goebbels...

It's fascinating how native the suite of propaganda techniques have become... Dehumanise your opposition, choose to repeat your position rather than engage counterarguments....

Whether or not the various alternative narratives here have been sourced is easily checked, but I wonder how few will do so, or rather just assume your assertion is true because it's repeated.

Companies with big business or capital can provide qualitative infrastructures and goods. It is not impossible if we let the people acting with good faith to promote businesses — javi2541997

I'm sure they can. My question was what mechanism ensured they actually did.

Not everyone can take part on it because not everyone deserves it. Everyone having the right of taking part in those goods is a typical fallacy of socialism/Marxism ideologies. — javi2541997

I see. So what is it that entitles someone to adequate healthcare, education, infrastructure, public transportation, and housing?

Using their profits to build and invest in all of those infrastructures and needs. It is not so weird to let a company to run a hospital or build a bridge — javi2541997

We could let them sure, but what compels them? Or are you suggesting we leave it up to chance? If not, talk me through the mechanism which ensures everyone has adequate healthcare, education, infrastructure, public transportation, and housing via "wealthy companies and entrepreneurs".

By providing healthcare, education, infrastructure, public transportation, and housing for people. Plenty of work to be done. This creates jobs and growth too. — Xtrix


You would need wealthy companies and entrepreneurs to do so. — javi2541997

How?

Nobody thinks of making a landing deep in enemy territory and then just assume that they can be evacuated by air from the area if faced by a heavy counterattack. — ssu

I see. So the proof that Russia made a massive tactical error is that they wouldn't be so stupid as to make a massive tactical error.

I entered the debate disputing some dumb comments about Putin only making a feint at Kyiv, having goals limited to a chunk of ethniic borderland, and having no desire to continue on if it had won quick success in Ukraine. — apokrisis

Why dumb? What events are so incompatible with that narrative as to render it dumb. Your alternative might be equally plausible. You might even render an argument that it's slightly more probable, in a limited sense. But absolutely nothing you've presented so far has been any where near the level of confidence to render alternative narratives "dumb".

one can understand how oppressed he feels by US hegemony. But to push things as far as a war with a real chance of turning nuclear and creating Europe-wide disaster? — apokrisis

I think this aspect can be understood as a game of "chicken" (if you're familiar with the game). The first person to back down loses. To play the game successfully one has to be willing to go too far. Anything less won't win. If one only goes as far as a rational actor would then one will only ever match, but not beat, one's opponent.

If Putin had sat tight and continued his low grade trouble making, would anyone have tried to topple him or sanction him? — apokrisis

Many thought so, yes. The 'westernisation' of Ukraine and the colour revolutions we're considered a potential threat to Putin's regime.

If you then listen to Putin’s speeches, what comes through is the sense of humiliation and resentment. Something China also shares. Empires that feel it is their historical right to be empires, and also with bitter memories of how those empires kept getting formed and then broken up by outsiders. — apokrisis

Yes, I agree with this aspect. Putin comes across as being frustrated at his being left out from the big boys table. A dangerous game for the US and Europe to have played.

To risk so much for so little is ridiculous. — apokrisis

Don't assume much is risked, nor little gained. Putin's wealth is intact, he will be remembered by many as a daring hero of Russia even if he loses (including losing his presidency). The guillotines of the past are gathering dust. A lucrative chairmanship and probably a stunning book deal await the defeated Putin.

As to gains, Europe's a mess. The right wing are gaining ground in the chaos. Ukraine is bankrupt and he still has the most lucrative regions.

And there is still a need for an accurate assessment to predict how this continues of unfold. — apokrisis

Well yes, but that's best left in the hands of the strategists. What's up to us is who we lend our mandate to and how much we're willing to let them get away with unquestioned.

I'm not sure where the idea comes from that the Russian army is in such a poor condition. — Tzeentch

No, neither am I, but I don't have any trustworthy expert views either way, so the only way forward, it seems is to argue the hypothetical - if Russia's armies were in poor conditions, how would that fit the narrative of a powerful leader bent on imperial expansion?

Ukraine is of incredible strategic importance for the Russians, and they have consistently made clear the sensitivity of this region over the past decades. Ukraine is by far the most important region to Russia, outside of Russia proper. — Tzeentch

Exactly. I find the idea that we need some jingoistic explanation for why Russia invaded one of the most economically and strategically important areas in the region, frankly ridiculous. The question of whether Putin has some nationalistic (as opposed to self-centred) ideology is moot, but the idea that events can't rationally be explained without it is crazy. A mid-level bureaucrat in the foreign office would point to the four or five contested regions of Ukraine as strategic targets, it doesn't require a passion for the glory of Russia.

perhaps you are confusing yourself because you want to critique the US as an imperialist superpower rather than engage with the specific point — apokrisis

Is a psychological analysis of the factors clouding our judgments really a route you want to go down? Happy to, but it cuts both ways.

You seem to be arguing that Putin didn’t feel he needed a modernised army when he said he did, nor that he felt Nato wasn’t actually a threat, despite always acting like it was. — apokrisis

You seem to be arguing that the Ukraine invasion wasn't just a 'special operation' when he said it was. Come on! Since when have the things politicians say in their propaganda been indicators of anything other than what their advisors think the populace would want to hear?

So I’ve won the argument but now you want to bicker about the margin of my victory? — apokrisis

You know the difference between plausible and compelling, right? I've never argued that the opposing view to mine is not plausible, I'm not even interested in convincing you otherwise. I'm exploring the extent to which all other narratives are framed (as you have just done) as being ideologically motivated, or apologist, or just plain stupid... To justify those framings, your argument must be compelling (and pretty strongly so), merely plausible is not enough.

The puzzle at the centre of this is then that Putin seems a fierce imperialist — apokrisis

This is the part I've found no reason yet to believe. What is it about events you find difficult to view through the frame of a greedy opportunist? What of Putin's actions to date have not fitted that narrative (assuming the man is not infallible and so capable of mistakes)?

Folk are trapped in cages of their own making. They start out being successful in the terms the world has given them, but then get locked into that mode of success long past any apparent true purpose. — apokrisis

Now this is good, far closer to the sort of psychology I would assign to him (to almost anyone, in fact). We play out roles in stories rather than take well-planned steps logically directed toward rational goals. But the debate is around the extent to which 'fierce imperialist' is even part of Putin's story. I see him much more as a Bezos or a Murdoch, than a Kaiser or Tzar.

we were talking about the competence - the military structure, equipment, logistics, training, morale - of the Russian forces. The operational effectiveness of a system where criticism is suppressed. — apokrisis

Slightly different, I agree, but not a difference which automatically then constitute a demonstration of the theory.

Astore is describing a military which is not just insulated at a political level, but at an institutional one.

The difference that's being suggested here is an institutional or systematic one sufficient to explain why a moderately motivated US government has a very efficient fighting force, whereas a highly motivated autocrat is frustrated in his efforts. That's a very substantial difference.

What you've suggested is at best a moderate difference in the degree to which errors are reported up. In Russia, there's significant repression of that, in America slightly less so.

At best you've given a mechanism whereby an imperialist Putin might, despite his intentions, have only achieved a substandard army, but you're far from a compelling argument. Plausible, sure, but hardly a coup de grâce.

If the differences between the US and the Russian military were much, much larger, I might be more swayed, but not as things stand.

Ultimately, I've just got no reason at all to start from the assumption that Putin is a fierce imperialist, so I don't need to find ways to explain events through that narrative. If I start from the assumption that Putin is a greedy opportunist, nothing about the current events doesn't fit.

If you set up a top down system with the goal of diverting blame from the leader then that prevents the bottom up feedback that tunes the system to be effective. The system lacks the independent thought and truth telling it needs to function well. — apokrisis

Your assessment seems corroborated by those from within the military too

William J. Astore - military professor U.S. Air Force Academy says...

let me tell you this: honor code or not, you can’t win a war with lies...

... The military has, in fact, developed a narrative that’s proven remarkably effective in insulating it from accountability...

... Senior military leaders have performed poorly...

...there’s been no accountability for failure.

...military leaders wielded metrics and swore they were winning even as those wars circled the drain.

...the military and one administration after another lied to the people about those wars, they also lied to themselves, even though such conflicts produced plenty of internal “papers” that raised serious concerns about lack of progress.

...senior military and civilian leaders realized that war, too, was going poorly almost from the beginning, yet they reported the very opposite

...so much “progress” being made in official reports even as the military was building its own rhetorical coffin

Trouble is, he's talking about the US military...