How perfect. How do you find them?

Shine, the weather's fine.
I hear ya'.
:hearts:

Meat Loaf - You Took the Words Right Out of Mouth (Hot Summer Night)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wO8toxinoc

:kiss:

Did you ever wake up with a song, not in your heart but running through your head...?
The tune just fine but the words...

This morning it was, "I can't stand the pain. On my window. Rain"

The song:
I Can't Stand the Rain - Ann Peebles (1974)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A09GZeORYlo

And then I thought about previous themes on this thread. Love. Weather. Whatever.*

The Hollies - Rain On The Windows
"RAIN ON THE WINDOW" is a song from the 1967 album "Evolution".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cz-rIM_KKbs

When I hear pitter-patter the rain on the window
Reminds me of her
When I hear pitter-patter the rain on the window

It was raining hard
The trees looked bare the night I met her
She was wet her hands were cold
The wind blew through her hair

Though I'd known her quite a long time
We were just good friends
So it didn't seem so strange
Inviting her back home

We sat by the fire
The flames brought out something in her
Melting all the cold
Projecting warmth I never knew

As the rain beat on my window
Did she understand
That in the glow of dying embers
Everything was planned

When I hear pitter-patter the rain on the window
Reminds me of her
When I hear pitter-patter the rain on the window

Pitter-patter pitter-patter pitter-patter pitter-patter
Pitter-patter pitter-patter pitter-patter pitter-patter
Pitter-patter pitter-patter pitter-patter pitter-patter
Pitter-patter pitter-patter pitter-patter pitter-patter

We made love later on that night
While the rain beat on my window
I can't forget the things that happened
While the rain beat down on my window

Next time I saw her
I knew she didn't want to know me
If I disappointed her
I think she should have told me

Can't she understand
I only tried to be a man
She made me feel so ashamed
Of everything I am

When I hear pitter-patter
The rain on the window
Reminds me of her

When I hear pitter-patter
The rain on the window
Reminds me of her

When I hear pitter-patter
The rain on the window
Reminds me of her

Songwriters: Graham Nash, Tony Hicks, Allen Clarke. For non-commercial use only.

*
Thanks for all your continuing hard work.
Introducing new songs, experiences and persevering in stormy weather.

Me? I'm staying well out of the heat.
Chillin' :cool:

Because it is not you usual ballet, it "quotes" or includes elements of European cabaret culture, Broadway musicals à la Cats and Hollywood musicals. — Olivier5

Yes, I got that it was out of the ordinary. Not your traditional.

What I meant was that I received a strong impression in the first video of an American musical but I couldn't think which one.
See 2.01 to 2.08.
Perhaps West Side Story...

I am not a fan of Cats but I do appreciate how the feathers quivered here.
The backstage footage was quite cheeky as it charmed.

The show was filmed onstage during COVID (I think) so~ it's a different feel than your usual TV ballet: the dancers are filmed up close and they look into the camera. It takes some getting used to. — Olivier5

Ah, thanks for pointing that out. Yes, I see it now. Thanks.

I'm sure I have heard this song since when it was new on my transistor AM radio at summer camp. :sparkle: :clap:

Another oldie from that era ...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/680466 — 180 Proof

:smile:
Yeah, I know, I know, I know, I know...
Some songs bear repeating :cool:
If only for the memories...

From the sublime to the...

Bellamy Brothers - Let Your Love Flow (1976)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQQj2rQBFvA

:hearts:
There's a reason for the sunshine sky
And there's a reason why I'm feelin' so high
Must be the season
When that love light shines all around us

So let that feelin' grab you deep inside
And send you reelin' where your love can't hide
And then go stealin'
Through the moonlit nights with your lover

Just let your love flow like a mountain stream
And let your love grow with the smallest of dreams
And let your love show
And you'll know what I mean, it's the season

Let your love fly like a bird on a wing
And let your love bind you to all living things
And let your love shine
And you'll know what I mean, that's the reason

There's a reason for the warm sweet nights
And there's a reason for the candle lights
Must be the season
When those love rites shine all around us

So let that wonder take you into space
And lay you under its loving embrace
Just feel the thunder as it warms your face
You can't hold back
...

Songwriters: Larry E. Williams. For non-commercial use only.
Data From: Musixmatch

Welcome anyway! And no offense, but that could fit any and all TPFer... Me included! — Olivier5

Thank you for the welcome words, images and sounds. Fantastique :cool:
Fortunately, you are quite wrong about my description fitting other TPF participants.
In a way, we dance around in a kind of hierarchy, some more fit and flexible than others.
We play our parts, don't we?

In your honor, a teaser from a production of Tchaikovsky's Swan Lake by the Monte Carlo Ballets. This show is highly recommended if you can find it. The story is about a girl beloved by prince Siegfried, but who turns into a swan at night due to being under a sorcerer's spell.

Somebody like you, I guess. Personally I turn into a pig at night. — Olivier5

It's been some time since I attended any ballet or big stage production
This version of Swan Lake takes a minute to adjust to. Great find!

Apart from enjoying the scenes and choreography - why did one part remind me of an American musical? - we could, if we wanted to, bring in the philosophical element.
To engage with identity and change. Or the tensions between good and evil.

When is a swan not a swan?
A pig is a pig is a pig.

Ah no, just sit back and let the music and dance of life flow :flower:
Yup :smile:

Amity!!! You're back? — Olivier5

Well, yeah-ish.
In a semi-comatose, vague kinda hand-waving way :roll:
Part of me wants to be here, the other three-quarters and a half not so much :confused:

Sorry for the deletion. I think it was 'All Things Must Pass'.
And then I thought, "Nah, don't start..."
See what I mean?

Thanks for askin' :sparkle:

...

Don't linger on the word "near." — TiredThinker

Don't worry, I don't :smile:

I only linger on the subject because I suffer from chronic pain that makes most days useless
[ ... ]
But ultimately, it's not a pointless question to ask what's next since quality of life isn't promised to anyone. And philosophy is the subject that must be open to all things. — TiredThinker

Of course, philosophy is open to consider all kinds of things to all kinds of people, ideas and beliefs.
So many theories, speculations, so little time...
We need to work out how best to spend the limited time we have in whatever circumstances we find ourselves.
But to linger on the question of life after death...when there is no real evidence, that is more a matter of faith, isn't it?
You can either find comfort in that faith, or not.
If you continue to search for the answer, then I fear that you can only give yourself more stress.
More pain...

Those who wish to live long, or for eternity, do not always prosper...
You are right, quality not quantity of life is important.
Consider what that means.

You are very patient :sparkle:

Agree. The clue is in the word 'Near'.
I note that this topic has been discussed previously.
So, still digging for 'evidence' and finding a PN article, written in 2006!

But how little appreciation we have for life, in a world where a futuristic outlook such as soylent green is conceivable? The vanishingly small chance of intelligent life is matched only by the monstrous tragedy of self-denial, abuse and destruction it spawns. — Enrique

Hello Enrique
It is because we attend to life with all its possibilities that people, such as yourself, can imagine different outlooks. Or even backlooks by inlooks.
This is intelligent life. The ability to learn, understand and communicate. Amongst other things.
For sure, it can spawn negative destruction, at any level you care to think of.
But the opposite is also true. Creative destruction. Restructure. Whatever.
The stories tell us so.

I recognised your name from the Short Stories event.
The title of your story - not so short! - chimes well in this thread.
'Earth: A Tall Tale of Morality'.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/13185/earth-a-tall-tale-of-morality-by-enrique

[ I didn't participate in comments this year but I've since had a quick look. There are some beautiful words, thoughts, and processes in yours. The origins and ethics of language for one! The ongoing tensions. So many of the stories used dreams...]

Sorry if my post was a bit discordant, but I'm getting so f'ed up I'm barely able to function, so thanks for the brief diversion anyways. You're probably doing better than me, trust me aargh! — Enrique

How was it discordant? And what's wrong with that, anyway?
We don't all bend to the same bells.
I don't think this needs to be a 'brief diversion'. It can be more, depending on our state of mind.
But yes, I too thank @TiredThinker for starting a thread that can lead almost anywhere. Not just the scientific...

Is this more an argument that sentient life is special and valuable or insignificant and an anomaly? Or neither? The universe never fails to humble us, but rarely seems to lift us up. Lol. — TiredThinker

Why would we expect the universe to lift us up? And what's funny about it...

Perhaps this:

We talked and talked for decades until we had touched upon every conceivable meaning and were even able to invent new languages ourselves. Then one day we all finally paused. I took the lead and said to the ruler spirit, “we’ve mastered language, but what are we supposed to do next?”

The ruler spirit replied, “I suppose you’d erupt a volcano or tool around on Neptune, but you can’t move.” — Enrique

Depends on how you measure significance.
Or do you suppose there is a way to measure significance empirically? — Yohan

Or it depends on what you mean by 'significance'.
A simple answer would be something is significant if it is important enough to warrant special attention.

Life, and how we experience it, is high on the list of human considerations.
In a particular sense, life's importance is determined by our perceptions, values, beliefs and culture.

Some look at life, our place in it and judge how effectively we exist within our ecosystem.
Perhaps that might partly answer your question as to measurement?

With reference to bacteria and viruses,
They are one of our biggest challenges. As we are to them.
How effectively we manage the environment would seem to be significant, no?
How would you measure that?

It is my understanding that life in general was impossible in the universe for the strong majority of time and will be impossible again. Maybe 0.00001% or less of time is when life can exist, and sentient life is even fewer and farther between. — TiredThinker

That sounds about right. But what do we know?
How much time and effort do we spend in wonder?
I was intrigued by your questions:

Is this more an argument that sentient life is special and valuable or insignificant and an anomaly? Or neither? The universe never fails to humble us, but rarely seems to lift us up. Lol. — TiredThinker

How does the universe humble us? In its sheer existence, immensity?
If some even stop to consider this, then it can overwhelm or excite with its awesomeness.
Bring down or lift up. It can provide perspective.

This morning, I read this Aeon article which has something to say about significance:
https://aeon.co/essays/think-about-it-your-existence-is-utterly-astonishing

The emotion of astonishment at our existence. Why don't we see the specialness of who we are?
Even this little effort at communication; we take it for granted, sometimes not even valued.
Just another brick in the wall?
Not really.

Like your thread, I enjoyed this article for making me think again.
About the way we are. How we think or progress, this or that way. Our crossing paths.
The importance of cultivating the right emotions.

Sometimes, we are so entangled in deep knots of confusion that it's difficult to see why we even bother.
@TiredThinker - Life can look bleak and wearisome.
But I can imagine the hellishness of WWI and the fact that both my grandfathers survived.
And so, here I am. Astonished.

The thrill has not yet gone. Stay cool.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SgXSomPE_FY

Thanks - please I don't want to detract further from this thread.
I regret making my decision public.
I will respond to you and any others by PM :sparkle:

I have been advised to take a break from all the acrimony in this thread.
But I'm sick of it all.
The worst offender (neither of you) jumps in without even taking a breath to attack those he perceives as an 'enemy'. Hostile doesn't even begin to cover it.
Even @jamalrob is keeping out of this thread, so toxic has it become.

I've asked for my account to be closed.
My 'resignation' refused for the time being.
Usually, I wouldn't make this public but I'm beyond caring.
Take care all.

Please see PM I've sent you.

I would presume that people on a Philosophy Forum would back up those who are against authoritarianism and imperialism. — ssu

The unfolding war in Ukraine has taken a backseat to petty point-scoring arguments by some.

A war of words on TPF is nothing new but this latest round has taken it to another level.

:up:
I agree that change, as difficult as it will be, has to come from within, with support.
Views of protestors from inside Russia.
Posted in the Shoutbox.

29dys ago, from @jamalrob:

I posted this in the Ukraine discussion but it's now lost in the propaganda war that's going on there, so I'll post it here, just because I think it's good to see this reaction to the invasion from inside Russia.

Russian Celebrities, Public Figures Speak Out Against Ukraine War

(The Moscow Times is an independent Moscow-based English language newspaper that's often highly critical of the regime)
— jamalrob

***

An update from me 25/03/2022:
Likewise posting this here instead of the lengthy Ukraine Crisis discussion.
It's good to see increasing Russian voices speak out in this way. Dangerous to them, no doubt.

Russian activists sign open letter calling for end to war in Ukraine
Campaigners write manifesto in broadest anti-war statement by Russian human rights community
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/25/russian-activists-sign-open-letter-calling-for-end-to-war-in-ukraine

“Russian citizens are being involved in military operations on the territory of Ukraine, where they become accomplices in war crimes and die themselves,” a draft statement says. “Our first goal is to help them avoid this, relying on the constitution and Russian legislation, and to assist all those who are illegally forced to participate in hostilities.”

The activists’ second goal is to provide legal assistance to the families of Russian military personnel who “find themselves in an information vacuum”.

“There is no official updated information about the dead, about the transfer of bodies to families, about prisoners, about their release or exchange,” the letter says. “It is difficult or impossible for relatives to find out what has become of their sons and husbands, or to get the bodies of the dead.”
----

In the letter the activists write that the war in Ukraine was a consequence of a culture of impunity for human rights.

“The war that has broken out in the centre of Europe is a consequence and continuation of Russia’s long-term refusal to protect the rights and freedoms of its citizens and all those under its jurisdiction – once again recalled the unlearned lesson of the second world war: a state that grossly and massively violates human rights within its borders sooner or later becomes a threat to peace and international security,” the letter says.

“The lack of a proper reaction of the international community to these processes during the post-Soviet decades also contributed to the tragic development of events.”

I'm too tired - physically and mentally - to continue the discussion I started.
Thanks to all who participated. It's been a learning experience.

Sorry, I don't have anything to contribute to this discussion. — SophistiCat

Like I said to @Count Timothy von Icarus, I can't respond fully today.
However, both you and @baker have contributed to this discussion in thought-provoking ways.
The article for me was a starting point.
There are clearly more perspectives and issues to be explored.
For example, the religious ideology you hint at.
Also the philosophy of what, if any, actions can or should be taken.

I haven't heard that proverb before:
"Do what you ought, come what may".

I think it is ambiguous. What does it mean, to and for you?
Does it reflect a particular philosopher's theory/practice?

Excellent points in a substantive, thought-provoking post.
Unfortunately, I don't have time to read and respond carefully right now or tomorrow.
Hope others can give feedback, thanks! :up:

To @Shwah

I think you know very well what I'm trying to do here.
And doing your very best to thwart that.
I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.
Please desist. — Amity

Apologies for this.
I have edited my OP accordingly, thanks :sparkle:

A quick nod in agreement :smile:
Poverty is relative.
A basic standard of life and health...that would help to resolve some problems but not all.
Violence and greed will always be with us. The need for power.
And who is it that tends to be that way and why...

Complexity rules.
Bye for now :sparkle:

And any closer to a solution? — Benkei

Yes, I have a better idea of the problems now - and that is a good place to start.
Both you and @Shwah have concentrated on the economic side; the systems and sanctions.

If the government sets it up and it offers a tax break (since redistribution is build into the system) it might actually just work within the existing system. — Benkei

Introducing social credit system as an economic system of value or even promoting digital currencies may help but we have to see this completely as a failure of the west or the west loses the right of hegemony as a superpower (which it's already had chipped away). The sanctions are further arguing against any proper western hegemony.
For history this will be viewed less as "Putin's war" and more as a continual fall of western hegemony that started with its domestic issues, went through afghanistan and the covid conspiracies and finally here. — Shwah

Not sure about the last paragraph in the last quote. However, will move on...
Thoughts about money and values reminded me of this clip from Ch4 News which I can't forget:

https://www.channel4.com/news/youre-asking-me-to-choose-which-children-live-and-which-children-die-says-wfp-head

A roughly remembered quote from the 3min segment:
" No child should die from starvation today, given the 430 trillions of dollars around the world".

It was a heartfelt plea with statistics from David Beasley, Executive Director, World Food Programme.
The dire lack of dwindling funds and the exact figure required to solve the problem was set out so that any oligarch, queen or corrupt politician should squirm on their golden thrones.

So tempting to think of Revolution. But what would we revolve to?

How do we deal with that?
— Amity
Through revolutions, like we did in the past — Olivier5

Perhaps cutting off their collective heads through 'sanctions'; not just for the wicked, war-mongering.
I note some non-UK royal figures have opened up their property to refugees.
I don't see that happening anytime soon here.
For where would it end...removal of their crowns, glory and riches; their God-given right to rule?
They salve their conscience by donating some money all the time visiting and receiving extravagant gifts from the likes of the Saudis.
If Princess Anne's attitude is anything to go by:
"The poor will always be with us". They really don't give a damn.

The poor (not just in money) and the public are filled full of propaganda and beliefs about what it is to be a success. Who are the winners in life that take it all and fight so hard to keep more wealth than they can ever spend?

So, yes - a more equitable distribution of funds, education about all of life's aspects. And so on.
Dealing with human drives, met and unmet. The way we think and feel. The way to deal with problems of emotion and self.

In philosophy or psychology - a practical process to learn so that it becomes second nature.
A step back to critical thinking. However, I don't think even this works in the way described below:

Self-criticism. This is my way. If a person practices self-criticism, that person cannot be so destructive, because that person will continuously ask to herself: “What am I doing? Is it good? Is it intelligent? Will it help progress?”. If Hitler had a habit of self-criticism, he would have thought, every second of his life: “What am I doing?”. — Angelo Cannata

For people with delusions or paranoia - mad or bad, it is not possible to reason like this.
They have no reason to.

OK, that's my early morning rant.
Going out now. To find some peace and balance in a world seemingly gone mad.

Yes, sorry for not staying too much on topic. I guess the intricacies of these issues push me into abstractions even further without a clear way to get there. — Benkei

No worries. The intricacies have given me a headache.
Time for some fresh air and a walk on the wild side :cool:

Thank you for your considered response.
I appreciate your sharing and it has given me even more food for thought.

I think it's been over-said that your conversation topic being limited to the 5 essays will never answer your question and that you should've been clear you wanted no more answer than what the 5 essays professed. — Shwah

For me, and possibly others, the reading of the article provided 5 different perspectives on 'a problem like Putin'. For consideration and comment to improve understanding.

I admit it was difficult for me to focus on this alone; given further questions arising along the way.
As to 'professed' answers; I saw most as suggestions and open, in that any list was not perfect.

I recognised, in my last post, that there could have been a more interesting way to look at this.
So, if you have a different way - perhaps more interesting philosophically - then I would be pleased to hear it.

'm less concerned with fixing Russia before my own country and the EU are fixed. — Benkei

Understood and understandable.

The article is about 'a problem like Putin' with a focus on his war.
We are concerned because of the wider repercussions and implications.
That includes our own countries.
Putin presents the biggest and most present danger not only to Ukraine...

I think an intermediary step that is getting traction more widely is a stakeholder capitalism. — Benkei

Thanks. I don't know enough about economics to discuss this. Or even where or how it is getting traction. Perhaps I'll look further, later. *
I agree that anything which leads to less corruption of power in politics can only be better than whatever Putin brings to the table. But perhaps any system has inherent human flaws no matter what.
Competing philosophical and economic theories abound...it's how they work in practice...

***
Perhaps my original title would have been more interesting from a philosophical standpoint?
Pragmatism. What say you @Ciceronianus?

Your title is "How to solve a problem: like Putin" and I thought it may be about the different archetypes of "problem-solving" using Putin as a stand-in for an archetype and as a case study. — Shwah

***

I think more economic and tax justice in our own countries will mean they are less prone to abuse by foreign oligarchs as well. — Benkei

Again, yes. But if we are already in the grip of those aligned with oligarchs, what chance?

I hope you agree that the article did its job in delivering different perspectives to the problem.
I enjoyed the final one by Peter Pomerantsev.
I look forward to hearing from @SophistiCat who knows more about him and his work.


* I did find this for future reference, I am sure there's more out there:
https://mainstreetcrypto.com/articles/what-is-stakeholder-capitalism/

In a nutshell, declare "action taken", general population applauds, no extra money or effort just a few letters added to laws we don't really enforce, no change.

If we want to be serious about change, the change needs to be fundamental, which means more, better and more effective democracy, not just political but especially economical. — Benkei

Totally agree. But how or where to begin...

This is further complicated by hero worship having shifted to business men. We look to oligarchs for answers in fields they don't know anything about. — Benkei

There might be some hero worship of oligarchs in that they are owners of football clubs and have all the trappings of success. And yes, if mega-rich businessmen are in charge of the economy or the state, then we can be sure they are in it for themselves and their friends. Not for the good of the public, even if they claim that is the case.

In the UK, we have Rishi Sunak* who during the covid pandemic urged us all to "Eat Out to Help Out".
This appears to have accelerated Covid cases. And so on...

My main concern has always been that there are no long-term commitments to any important areas, like Health and Education. The uncertainty and bias of continual changes according to party ideologies.
Ministers being in charge of and taking decisions in fields they know anything of.
The unwillingness to take on board any of the Reports commissioned, if not toeing the line.
They set these up, after an outcry, so as to 'learn lessons' from their mistakes.
The thing is, these 'mistakes' should not have been made in the first place.
Think Grenfell Tower tragedy, amongst many others.

So we need political, cultural and economic change and these changes need to be fundamental. The incremental or technocratic tweaking of liberals and democratic socialists is never going to be good enough. — Benkei

Absolutely.
How does that change happen in electoral systems 'tweaked' and manipulated by the likes of Putin?

--------
*

As a finance minister of UK or Chancellor of the Exchequer, Rishi Sunak will get salary around £71,090 so if we make prediction then his net worth would be around £2 million. Apart from this, he is also a director of the investment firm owned by his father in law named Catamaran Ventures.

Essay 5/5
Peter Pomerantsev: ‘Solving the problem means confronting the psychological grip he has on people’

An interesting start to the essay:
the senior news producer who waved the anti-war placard on prime-time Russian state television. This was a brave act, given the new law passed by Putin where you get 12 years in jail for mentioning the word “war”.

She described her act as a desperate attempt to cleanse her conscience for having “zombified” the Russian people.

No matter if you think it's a little bit too late, at least it's a start.
How many people saw that and could minds have been changed?
The problem: Putin's psychological grip.

The mental model of Putinism, the worldview it constructs with propaganda of word and deed to keep Russians under control, is built on several foundations: it appeals to nostalgia; it projects a conspiratorial perspective and it insists that Putin can get away with anything, that there is no alternative to Putin.

Again, the continuing thread is about the need to communicate. What and How?
Some can use virtual private networks or satellite TV but not all.
And how would it cut through any deep-seated anger and other emotions.

The nostalgia narrative allows the Kremlin to transfer its own brutality on to a shadowy outside “enemy”, and then help people relieve their pent-up anger through aggression. The abusive, sadistic tone of Putin’s speeches, and the ones of his leading TV propagandists such as Vladimir Solovyov, give people an emotional path to articulate and validate their darkest and most violent feelings. It’s OK to be vicious and mean, this propaganda implies, it’s all history’s fault.

This narrative is not Putin's alone. If his mission has been to “bring Russia off its knees”, then consider Trump's “make America great again”. The UK's Brexit slogan: 'Take back control'.

Looking forward:
Does Putin have a positive vision for the future, apart from his own maintenance of power?

Thinking about the future means concentrating on political reforms, cleaning up the courts, abolishing corruption – all things Putin cannot achieve, as they will put his own system in danger...

Media and communication with the Russian people needs to focus on these questions about the future. Both on the personal level, but also in terms of the future of the country.

Again, the way forward involves keeping the door open:

...a group of Russian academics led by historian Alexander Etkind propose to create a university in the Baltics that will bring students from Russia and its neighbours to work on common challenges such as the environment.

This is balanced with sanctions.
They might kick in if and when people experience and see the gap between the elite and themselves.
How might that be revealed by investigative journalism not allowed in Russia?

They will have to rely on tracing documents and open-source investigations. We will need a whole new iteration of what the Russian journalist and editor Roman Badanin, founder of the investigative online media outlet Agentstvo, calls “offshore journalism”: exile media that uses modern tools to stay as close to the home country as possible.

The problem:

Putin will turn to the power ministries to use oppression rather than ideas. This has always been his final argument: that he can carry out any crimes at home, any invasion abroad, any war crime from Grozny to Aleppo, and get away with it.

I think that Trump would call this 'genius' and has already said he could get away with anything.
Beware America. Be alert. Do you want a dictatorship?
This is scary. The argument that he is strong, the opposition weak.

In Ukraine, Putin is purposefully targeting humanitarian corridors, bombing refugees and hospitals in order to break the will of the people. It’s a message to the world that all statements about humanitarian values, the UN’s “responsibility to protect”, “safe zones” is guff.
His argument is that might is right, and in the futureless new world the ones who are most ruthless, from Beijing to Riyadh and Moscow, will flourish.

Even with all the crimes against humanity, there is some controversy over the next suggestion:

One small, first, but hopefully important step has been taken by the human rights lawyer and author Philippe Sands, who is trying to create a Nuremberg-style tribunal for those who began this war, not merely for war crimes but for having started a completely unprovoked invasion in the first place.

Who would you begin with?
Putin is not alone. And he wouldn't even recognise the right of the tribunal to so try him....

Essay 4/5

Ruth Deyermond: ‘Closing contact will confirm Putin’s narrative that the west wants to destroy Russia’

Based on the view that Putin will stay in power. The question then is:
How western states respond to a Putin-led Russia and how they organise their relationships with one another.

Their (still) corrupt politics with close ties to Putin meant a blind eye was turned to Russian aggression to Ukraine in 2014 ( and others previously).
So, what to do now?

The problem: the grave risk of escalation to a wider Europe, involving nuclear possibilities.
How can other countries be protected, if possible.
Nato is seen as a defensive military alliance; not so by Russia, threatened by its expansion.
Putin seems to have been triggered by mixed messaging from Nato over Ukraine's potential membership.

Neutrality is largely in the eye of the beholder, and if the Kremlin regards states as de facto allies of the US, lack of Nato membership is unlikely to protect them from whatever forms of aggression it will be capable of after Ukraine.

The way forward is related to Nato and EU decision-making and communication about future membership and relationships with the remaining post-Soviet states.
Most importantly:

However hostile the relationship between Russia and the west becomes, dialogue on nuclear matters needs to be maintained.

Finally, the author concentrates on how we engage with ordinary Russian society.
Closing contacts, as per some sanctions, is not helpful.
It gives Putin more ammunition in his narrative of the West as the enemy intent on destroying Russia. We need to avoid an easy slip into becoming anti-Russian.
There should remain the possibilities of exchange of ideas; study and culture.

So, it's about keeping doors open. Even if Putin wants them tightly shut with no light shining in.

Essay 3/5
Oliver Bullough: ‘We can deprive him and his cronies of access to their wealth’

Otherwise known as sanctions, already being carried out to some degree or other, depending on what suits e.g. the corrupt UK Tory party.

Useful background to an old yet modern 'problem':

Putin himself calls the Ukrainians Nazis, as if this unprovoked aggression is somehow a rerun of the Soviet people’s self-defence in the second world war. That accusation is disgusting, but it’s harder to dismiss the parallels between Putin’s own behaviour and those of the dictators of the mid-20th century.

He is driven by a perverse misreading of history to deny his neighbours’ humanity. Russian officials and politicians are aggressive in their patriotism. The orange-and-black striped medal ribbon became the nationalist symbol when Putin invaded Ukraine in 2014, and the air-recognition-mark “Z” has rapidly morphed into an equivalent for this new war.

Putin is a bully who invades his neighbours and kills his critics, and whose government lies compulsively, even about facts that are so self-evidently true that denying them seems self-defeating...

...The Russian elite’s patriotism and anti-western posturing is performative...

The gap between words and reality.
Perhaps they even begin to believe their own lies as they indulge in the luxuries.
Moving their wealth out of Russia to serve their own desires.
How patriotic. The evergrowing gap between the rich and the poor.
Everywhere. And yet, where are the revolutions, the outcry for a necessary change?
Protests, even where allowed, are not listened to.
Perhaps only when votes are needed. Never the case in a dictatorship.

If the problem can only be solved by the Russians, then what?
If they don't see that there is a problem...

:smile:
Great!
I look forward to your thoughts.
I'm struggling a bit.

Corrected the title of the thread to that of the article:
'How do we solve a problem like Putin? Five leading writers on Russia have their say'.

Essay 2/5
Catriona Kelly: ‘We must try to understand the complex history of Russian imperialism’

I'm not sure how many really have the motivation or capability to do that.
However, reading on...

Much as I share Tolstoy’s scepticism about the individual’s impact on history, to a significant extent this is Vladimir Putin’s war. Determined to reverse the entropy for which he blames Gorbachev, Putin believes in the transhistorical unity of Great Russia, Little Russia and White Russia. Ukraine as such does not exist.

So, the problem: Putin's determination to 'defeat and purge independent Ukraine'.
And yes, it's not necessarily the case that a rational solution would appear if Putin and his gang were removed.

As the author says, many in Russia still support him. Those who hold prejudices about Ukraine, fear the West and so on.

The suggestions for 'what may be achievable' include:

Listening to voices from the region. A good place to start is Ukrainian activist and historian Taras Bilous’s essay, A Letter to the Western Left from Kyiv (published recently on openDemocracy), which corrects many of the British media cliches about insuperable linguistic, cultural, historical and geographical divides and the influence of the far right...

... Rather than ostracising works of art, try to understand the complex history of Russian imperialism. Pushkin’s To the Slanderers of Russia (1831) told western critics that Russia’s repression of Poland was a family affair. But Evdokiya Rostopchina’s The Forced Marriage (1845) presented Russia and Poland as an abusive husband and defiant wife – provoking outrage in Nicholas I.

A worthwhile read; instructive and informative.

Why has this been placed in the Symposium, under Short Stories?
Anyone?

They only reference the kleptocracy of russia in the first essay (and once in the third) and never "kleptopia" (which is a much larger discussion).
So you just mean how to solve kleptocracy as detailed in the first essay (business elites get passing mention in the second)? — Shwah

So, you did a word search? And you still got it wrong.
I'm taking it one essay at a time.

I think you know very well what I'm trying to do here.
And doing your very best to thwart that.
I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.
Please desist.

Thanks for your response.
You are right. Following a reading of the first essay, suggesting possible ways forward, I asked "How do we deal with that?" in relation to the rise of Kleptopia, a term new to me.

It was a throw-away line of thought, a question arising...perhaps not meaningful to you.
You see limits to any 'way' or 'solution', I agree.

Does that mean that the discussion can't proceed with regard to the article and essays?
Again, your response suggests that you haven't even read it.
You are trying to steer it in another direction:

The question is more what's happening — Shwah

Not the focus of this discussion.

[ I note you have edited your post to further explain your confusion. The title is now changed ]

Under discussion is the article; the 5 essays within and relevant comments.