Why do we think that Putin's military invasion, which only he could authorize and only he can stop, revolves around Putin?
Sure, and it gets them jailed like Alexei Navalny who is the most prominent opposition politician to Putin. Even though he too is a Russian nationalist. What does he say about Putin and this war? Funny you ask. He puts the onus entirely on Putin rather than NATO or Ukraine: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... a-ukraine/
Thus, we can state the following:
The war with Ukraine was started and waged, of course, by Putin, trying to solve his domestic political problems. But the real war party is the entire elite and the system of power itself, which is an endlessly self-reproducing Russian authoritarianism of the imperial kind. External aggression in any form, from diplomatic rhetoric to outright warfare, is its preferred mode of operation, and Ukraine is its preferred target. This self-generated imperial authoritarianism is the real curse of Russia and the cause of all its troubles. We cannot get rid of it, despite the opportunities regularly provided by history.
Russia had its last chance of this kind after the end of the U.S.S.R., but both the democratic public inside the country and Western leaders at the time made the monstrous mistake of agreeing to the model — proposed by Boris Yeltsin’s team — of a presidential republic with enormous powers for the leader. Giving plenty of power to a good guy seemed logical at the time.
Yet the inevitable soon happened: The good guy went bad. To begin with, he started a war (the Chechen war) himself, and then, without normal elections and fair procedures, he handed over power to the cynical and corrupt Soviet imperialists led by Putin. They have caused several wars and countless international provocations, and are now tormenting a neighboring nation, committing horrible crimes for which neither many generations of Ukrainians nor our own children will forgive us.
In the 31 years since the collapse of the U.S.S.R., we have witnessed a clear pattern: The countries that chose the parliamentary republic model (the Baltic states) are thriving and have successfully joined Europe. Those that chose the presidential-parliamentary model (Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia) have faced persistent instability and made little progress. Those that chose strong presidential power (Russia, Belarus and the Central Asian republics) have succumbed to rigid authoritarianism, most of them permanently engaged in military conflicts with their neighbors, daydreaming about their own little empires.
In short, strategic victory means bringing Russia back to this key historical juncture and letting the Russian people make the right choice.
I generally do not put a lot of stock into what a neo-Nazi like Navalny thinks.Ken wrote: ↑Fri Oct 07, 2022 11:27 amSure, and it gets them jailed like Alexei Navalny who is the most prominent opposition politician to Putin. Even though he too is a Russian nationalist. What does he say about Putin and this war? Funny you ask. He puts the onus entirely on Putin rather than NATO or Ukraine: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... a-ukraine/
But apparently you put stock in what a neo-Nazi like Putin thinks.Josh wrote: ↑Fri Oct 07, 2022 11:31 amI generally do not put a lot of stock into what a neo-Nazi like Navalny thinks.Ken wrote: ↑Fri Oct 07, 2022 11:27 amSure, and it gets them jailed like Alexei Navalny who is the most prominent opposition politician to Putin. Even though he too is a Russian nationalist. What does he say about Putin and this war? Funny you ask. He puts the onus entirely on Putin rather than NATO or Ukraine: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... a-ukraine/
Josh,Josh wrote: ↑Fri Oct 07, 2022 9:21 am Another question is “why make everything revolve around Putin?”
A lot of Russian politicians and military officials disagree with Putin.
They think the Ukraine should have been invaded much more brutally and call for a much harsher war.
Putin is moderate, compared to the rest of the electoral slate.
Even left wing candidates in Russia would want to see a restoration of the USSR and see Western interference as illegitimate.
These people win substantial minorities in elections.
barnhart lectured:
.. Falco, if you want to understand the Anabaptist point of view, you must leave behind some presuppositions about authority, rule and power and start from a different foundation.
Anabaptism assumes that Jesus' kingdom is increased by becoming Christlike, not by ruling through coersion and violence. ..
Page 16 / http://forum.mennonet.com/viewtopic.php ... &start=150
Gravitas: “Elon Musk proposes peace plan for Ukraine and Russia” / -7minElon Musk @elonmusk
Ukraine-Russia Peace:
- Redo elections of annexed regions under UN supervision. Russia leaves if that is will of the people.
- Crimea formally part of Russia, as it has been since 1783 (until Khrushchev’s mistake).
- Water supply to Crimea assured.
- Ukraine remains neutral.
Elon Musk's peace plan for Ukraine has been described as 'pro-Russian' by western commentators.
What are the four main steps included in Musk's proposal?
How practical is it?
Do you know the definition of "aggressor" in the context of war? Russia is, in fact, the sole aggressor. Google it, if you want.Falco Underhill wrote: ↑Thu Oct 06, 2022 11:06 pm Russia is certainly not completely innocent here, but painting Russia as the sole aggressor here is both false and unlikely to lead to a diplomatic resolution of conflict, at least imo.
NATO is not threatening Russia or invading Russia. It is protecting some of Russia's neighbors so that they don't get invaded like Ukraine. I don't think that's the same thing as military aggression. Can you see why Ukraine wanted help against a Russian threat? I'm not about That Other Kingdom, I don't know what to advise nations who face this kind of threat, but military imperialism and blatant disregard for human life are real problems, not some silly politically-motivated fantasy.Falco Underhill wrote: ↑Thu Oct 06, 2022 11:06 pm NATO is also a real aggressor against Russia here, imo. Russia's invasion of Ukraine was the culmination of many acts of aggression by NATO going back decades. It was all explained by Putin at the beginning of this whole thing. Strange how so many Democrats forget that and only focus on Russia's current aggression.
This could have been avoided with diplomacy at the beginning, at least in my opinion, but that failed. NATO wasn't interested, imo.
U.S. and European officials blew through one red light after another.
I agree with the first paragraph of this:temporal1 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 07, 2022 3:35 pm More repetition ..
March 2022 / “The U.S. and NATO Helped Trigger the Ukraine War. It’s Not ‘Siding With Putin’ to Admit It”
But Moscow’s cruel overreaction deserves emphatic condemnation.
https://www.cato.org/commentary/us-nato ... n-admit-it
But people seem to be pushing back on the notion that Putin is doing something monstrous and blatantly wrong. And sometimes implying that Ukraine deserves what it gets. That doesn't seem like a good way to oppose warmongering.Vladimir Putin’s decision to launch a full‐scale invasion of Ukraine is a monstrous act of aggression that has plunged the world into a perilous situation. By any reasonable standard, his move was an over‐the‐top response to any Ukrainian or NATO provocations. However, that conclusion is different from saying that there were no provocations, as far too many policymakers and pundits in the West are doing now.
When liberals use nazi to mean, "anyone I don't like", the word tends to lose its meaning.