Kiss an ass for long enough, its owner will become god. And start behaving accordingly…
We all know that no communist regime has ever worked. For long… Some of us have noticed that all empires, all imperial regimes, eventually collapsed. Under their own weight. Under the weight of accumulated errors…
The mechanism is simple. Lord Acton was convinced that “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely”. Frank Herbert, looking from the other direction, argued: “It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible”. My experience suggests that both were right. Power is magnetic to the corruptible and when enjoying it those in power are subjected to innumerable ‘temptations’. Already corruptible, most of them indulge themselves…
Democracy is nothing but a weeding mechanism. “The People”, realizing that (some of) those in power have become too corrupted, have the necessary tools to weed them out. To replace those corrupted politicians peacefully. With other politicians, not – as yet, anyway – as corrupted as those sent away.
Imperial regimes, the communist ones included, do not have such mechanisms. The already corruptible, once in power, sink deeper and deeper into corruption. Become more and more impervious to any advice. More and more confident in their own infallibility. More and more prone to making bigger and bigger errors. The consequences of which errors keep pilling one on top of the other. Until nothing works anymore…
Which is why all reasonable political regimes have limits. Elections are organized on a timely manner. And no more than two presidential mandates, for example.
Given all of the above, I’m afraid. Petrified, actually. Two people are going to meet, in a short time, pretending to solve… The entire planet seems mesmerized! Two people are going to determine the fate of billions!?!
“Russia’s U.N. Ambassador Vassily Nebenzia acknowledged “constructive changes” in the U.S. position on the conflict. He told the council the resolution was “not an ideal one,” but “a starting point for future efforts towards peaceful settlement.””
By sending the Red Army to invade Ukraine, Putin had crossed a red line. The rest of the world noticed.
Some played possum. ‘Let’s stay out of it. And maybe, maybe, get something for ourselves’. The majority said “No! This is too much.”
Russia does have veto-power in the UN Security Council. Hence the dead-lock.
The Biden led US and the EU had chosen to support Ukraine. And to sanction the Putin regime.
Every day, people are being killed. Soldiers on the front and civilians under aerial bombardment. Reasonable individuals want the fighting to stop.
Easier said than done. Putin might say: ‘My bad!’ and tell his soldiers to go home. Ukraine might agree, on its own volition, with enough of Putin’s demands. And, hopefully, get at least a respite. Or those helping Ukraine might say: ‘We had enough. From now on, you’re on your own.’
Putin is not yet ready to back off. Ukraine is not yet ready to cave in. ‘Somebody’ is getting ready to act as a mediator.
What are the immediate consequences?
Putin is back. No longer an outcast!
Is the rest of the world ready? For it to go back? Back to what was going on before WWI but on a far wider scale?
I’m convinced Putin still believes he might get away with it. With whatever he wishes to accomplish…
Why? Because he is convinced that the only thing which might prevent him from achieving his goal is ‘the West’. You see, he is adamant that without the ‘western influence’ he would have imposed his will upon Ukraine a very long time ago. After all, he’d already done that in Russia, didn’t he? And the West seems to be loosing its focus….
A lot of ‘distraction’. Trump is indicted on 37 counts, mainly for mishandling highly sensitive information, while Boris Johnson quits his MP chair claiming he is the victim. ‘I did mislead the Commons but I didn’t do it on purpose’.
According to Putin’s book, there’s no difference between him and these two guys. All three of them have nothing in their mind but their own interest. In this respect, Putin is absolutely right. What he fails to realize is that Trump being indicted and Johnson being investigated by the Commons are signs of strength. The US and Britain, respectively, seem to have came back to their senses. And started cleaning up their act.
He, Putin, also fails to realize that the Western help might come in handy. For the Ukrainians. But what keeps them fighting is their will. Their quest for freedom!
The very same thing had happened during WWII. The West did carry huge amounts of weaponry to the former USSR. Which weapons had helped the Red Army resist – and then defeat – Hitler’s attempt to enlarge the German Lebensraum. But without the ordinary Russians putting up with the war… all western help would have been lost! Same thing is happening under our own eyes. The arms beefing up Ukraine’s army might come in handy but it’s the Ukrainian determination to lead their own, independent, life which will eventually douse Putin’s ambition.
One final thing. Nazi Germany had ultimately failed because it was an ‘imperium’. A socio-political arrangement where all decisions were made in a highly centralized manner. Where mistakes accumulated and eventually made it impossible for the arrangement to survive. Because unsolved past mistakes make it impossible for a system to evolve. To solve present day challenges.
Any resemblance to what’s going on in present day Russia is nothing but yet another proof that failing to understand history forces you to repeat the lesson.
The problem with this approach being that this understanding degrades war to a simple instrument.
Something used by a decision maker towards the achievement of certain ‘goals’.
The problem with this approach being that it obliterates the decision power of all other people involved in it. Of everybody else but of those calling the shots. Pun intended!
All analysts commenting Putin’s ‘special military operation’ babble on about Putin’s goals. ‘Ukraine will never be able to crush Russia, militarily, so we need to understand what’s going on in Putin’s mind. In order to be able to ‘bribe’ him into ending the war. Or to black mail him. Only we need to understand first what will constitute a too big of a price for him to pay.’
On the other hand, Putin seems to be thinking along the same lines. ‘I need to preserve my position. MY power. Ukraine is a bad example for the Russian people. They have shifted their ‘allegiance’ and want to build a real democracy. I cannot allow this to happen, otherwise I’ll be next. Now, how much pain do I have to inflict in order to achieve my goal? Directly, upon the Ukrainians and indirectly, upon the rest of the world?’
Meanwhile, the rest of those involved in this situation bear the brunt of the war. Directly and indirectly.
Some of them understand what’s going on and some don’t.
My point being that not all instruments are born equal. While all are nothing but mere ‘sticks’ in the hands of the agents wielding them, choosing to use a certain instrument among the available alternatives speaks volumes about the agent making the choice.
What are we, reasonable creatures, to understand when an agent chooses an instrument which debases all other creatures to the role of ‘kill or be killed’? For whatever reason and under whatever pretext? Is that agent ever going to stop? To stop setting ‘goals’, further and further away?
Specially after having the ‘first installment’ safely tucked under the belt…
7 years after the accord had been signed, and never implemented, Putin had ordered his army to invade, again, Ukraine. Using Lukashenko’s Belarus as a springboard.
As of now, all five people who had signed the accord had failed. In more ways than one. None of their stated goals have been achieved. The three democratically elected leaders had failed in the sense that they had not been able to prevent the escalation of the conflict. The two dictators have not, as of yet, been able to fulfill their ‘promises’.
For almost a year now, Ukraine had been able to defend itself against the Russian aggression. In the first days of the ‘special operation’, Ukraine had managed to do this alone! Only after the initial surprise had given birth to hope, the ‘west’ had started to send in meaningful assistance. Which strongly suggests that a people which is in control of its own fate – as in ‘democratically decides its own future’ – has a greater ability to fight than a people sent to the battle field at the whims of a dictator.
One by one, the democratically elected signatories of the Minsk agreement had been replaced. One way or another, all of them peaceful. Not necessarily as a consequence of this particular failure but, nevertheless, they are no longer able to make any other hugely significant mistake. The two dictators continue to dictate. To make mistakes and to defend their previous mistakes. To cause misery.
Looking at the whole thing from a distance, the situation is simple.
Unfortunately, things are even worse. Not only that power is magnetic to the corruptible but also most ‘ordinary’ people tend to have a hard time acknowledging mistake. Once committed, even by the most incorruptible person, a mistake gets a life of its own. And works hard at convincing the perpetrator to ‘hide’ it. Hence to commit even worse mistakes.
Now, why is power magnetic for the corruptible? Because power makes it possible for the ‘agent’ to ‘hide’ a lot of mistakes!
The way I see it, people have a knack for learning on the run. The shape of the learning curve and the duration of the process depends on the particulars of each situation but all people eventually get there. Those who survive to that point, of course…
What’s to be learned from all this?
The obvious, my dear Watson!
All those five powerful agents in the picture above have failed. Yet the French and the Germans fare a lot better than the Russians and the Belorussians while the Ukrainians fight better than the Russians.
What’s the main difference between those two ‘sides’?
Those who fare better change their leaders more easily and more often? Before their mistakes pile up? And become ‘too big to fail’?
War and chess have a lot in common. Most strikingly, the different manners in which both of them end.
The king is captured. Or the other side gives up.
A tie is nothing but the prelude for an encore, not a real end.
Even the roads to the end are very similar in both cases. While at the start of the game/’joust’ everything is ‘possible’ – nobody knows what the other side might be doing next, as the end nears each of the combatants are more and more limited in their currently available choices by the consequences of their previous decisions. By the very path they had followed since the beginning. Which path becomes more and more evident for everybody present. Opponent as well as spectators.
Finally – but not the least important, the similarities go even further. Deeper? The king is the most ‘important’ piece but not the most powerful. In fact, the king cannot do much by itself. It can help the other pieces achieve their common goal but when left alone it is basically powerless. The only thing it can do is run. But only as far as the board allows it to go… A pawn, if it manages to reach the eight rank, gets to be promoted. To become the new ‘right hand’ of the king. The new ‘most powerful member of the team’.
‘OK. And the real point of your post is?’
Putin cannot win this war – cause war it is, by himself. Hence he needs to preserve the loyalty of his henchmen, to instill enough fear into his opponents to make them quit and to convince the ‘spectators’ that their efforts to help Ukraine are too expensive.
Now! Are we smart enough to understand that we, each of us, are ‘next’? That each time a bully gets his way, all other (would be) bullies present become even more bullish? Are we smart enough to understand that the most meaningful thing we can do in this situation is to separate Putin from his power base? From the ordinary people who see no other alternative and from those who, for various reasons, continue to support Putin’s misconstrued ‘vision about the world’? Are we smart enough to understand that no matter how hard it is for us, the Ukrainians have it ten times harder?
Democracy is about every body having the opportunity to speak up their minds. To speak up their minds, not to kill their neighbors under the pretext that there is a difference of opinion between them!
“We didn’t invade Ukraine,” he claimed. “We declared a special military operation because we had absolutely no other way of explaining to the West that dragging Ukraine into Nato was a criminal act.” “Russia is not squeaky clean. Russia is what it is. And we are not ashamed of showing who we are.”
Are you trying to figure out what’s the real meaning of Lavrov’s words? Let me translate for you this fine example of NewSpeak.
‘We – those who are currently running Russia, will do whatever we need to do in order to preserve our power. In order to achieve that, we first and foremost need to convince the ordinary Russians to continue to obey our orders. In order to achieve that, we need to convince the ordinary Russians that you are the enemy and that their only chance lies with us, their current masters. Hence each time we destroy an Ukrainian apartment block and any of you says ‘Russians are savages’ we’re one step closer to our goal. Each and every time any of you declares ‘Russia has to pay for what it has done in Ukraine’ we tell them, the ordinary Russians, ‘See? This is what they plan to do to you once we’re are gone’.
WWI had lasted until 1945. We have the opportunity to end the Cold War now. The war in Ukraine will reach a conclusion. Let’s make it so that after the war will have ended, Russia will fold in the family of ‘civil’ nations.
Those nations that choose to live in peace! Not because they cannot win wars but because they have learned that winning wars it’s not enough. Those nations which have learned, the hard way, that war has but one winner while for peace to last every body must be a winner.
An embassy is a conduit. It brings information back and forth between the ‘host’ and the ‘sender’.
A spy ring is (intended to be) a ‘one way pipe’. It gathers information about the ‘host’ and transports it to the sender.
They have in common the fact that the bulk of the information is gathered from ‘open’ sources. From the media, that is. Newspapers, TV, radio, internet…
Imagine now the following situation. There is this planet. Let’s say ours. Inhabited by us, the human people. And you have some other people. One or more species capable of interplanetary travel. Who have found out about this planet and want to learn more about us before making contact. Since they haven’t yet conquered us – as per our knowledge, and since there’s no evidence of any galaxy wide conflict raging on we may presume the aliens are fundamentally peaceful. Either naturally ’empathic’ – hence in no need whatsoever of being governed, or having such a ‘natural’ form of government that they’re very happy with it. In their attempt to learn about us and to understand our situation before engaging in any way with us, the aliens have sent an ‘undercover’ fact-finding mission on Earth.
Right now! When a country capable of yielding almost half the (self) destructing power available on Earth ‘happens to be’ at loggerheads with a coalition of countries which controls most of the other half of the destruction power already mentioned above.
The local agent employed by the fact-finding mission compiles two news articles which, in his opinion, summarize perfectly what’s going on on the planet.
“Medvedev alleged that some in the West would like to “take advantage of the military conflict in Ukraine to push our country to a new twist of disintegration, do everything to paralyze Russia’s state institutions and deprive the country of efficient controls, as happened in 1991.” “
Meanwhile, on the other side of the ‘planetary divide’,
So. Forget, if you can, about the war in Ukraine and about the US mid-term elections. Let’s pretend you’re the head of the alien fact-finding mission. What recommendation would you send back to those calling the shots in your organization after reading the two articles I mentioned above?
The difference between a scientific paper and a piece of ‘mere’ literature. And what can be learned by analyzing a message.
I’ll start with the second.
A message has two layers of meaning. The ‘prima facie’ and the ‘deeper levels’.
When somebody asks ‘What time is it, please!’, the first thing you do is to check your watch. Most of the time, it’s the proper way to react in this situation. But not always! Sometimes, the guy only wants to find out what kind of watch you’re wearing. To determine if it’s worth the effort. To steal it from you!
If looked at from the proper angle, most messages speak volumes. The first volume is always about what the ‘speaker’ wants to convey to their audience. The next ones are about the speaker. About their ability to speak, about their manner of thinking… and so on. When speaking, the speaker wants to convey a limited amount of information. The intended message. When listening, an attentive listener may learn more about the speaker than about the issue at hand!
A scientific paper starts by stating a conclusion. And continues by listing the arguments. An ‘ordinary’ piece of literature builds a ‘scaffolding’. Introduces a series of ‘things’ and leads the reader towards a conclusion. Which is more likely suggested rather than imposed.
Should I continue? About what I learned by reading the Amnesty International report?
The most important issue here – for Amnesty International, being the fact that “Ukrainian fighting tactics endanger civilians”. As if Ukraine was the big bully. Who had enough resources to carefully select ‘tactics’!
“Attacks launched from populated civilian areas”. Hello!!! Ukraine itself is a populated country! Mostly by civilians… This is not a joust. Which may be organized ‘out there’, on an open field. If both sides agree… This war, like almost all others, is about conquering, and defending, populated areas!
“Such violations in no way justify Russia’s indiscriminate attacks, which have killed and injured countless civilians“ Finally!
But shouldn’t this be the ‘main course’ of the Amnesty International report?!? After all, it was Putin who had ordered the Russian army to invade Ukraine… It had been his orders which had started this mayhem!
And what takes place there has consequences all over the planet.
The first two world wars had been fought by soldiers from almost every corner of the Earth. Almost all countries have declared war on each other, even though not all of them have participated in military operations. The third world war – the Cold One, had been fought ‘virtually’. And was the first to divide the world into three. The ‘liberal-democratic’ camp, the ‘popular democracy’ camp and the non-aligned camp. As always, World War III had been lost by the least flexible among the combatants. By the more dictatorially run camp. By the camp, which, precisely because of the authoritarian manner in which its decisions were adopted, had failed to mobilize all the resources it had, potentially, at its disposal.
I’ll make a parenthesis. Any act of aggression is an idiocy. Regardless of the short-term, medium-term and long-term outcome, the aggressor has more to lose than the victim. This does not need to be demonstrated. The most perfunctory glance at history is eloquent enough. Here I’m concerned about war as an ‘ongoing phenomenon’, I am not trying to integrate it into the narrative. Any war, any act of aggression, is initiated under certain conditions determined by the history spent until then and will be, at some point, integrated into the history written afterwards. And the way it will be integrated into history will determine the conditions under which the next war will be initiated. Or not…
Let’s go back to the present moment. This, the fourth one, is the first mixed world war. The first ‘lukewarm’ war. The consequences are felt around the globe, almost all states take part in it – also divided into three camps, while the act of ‘actual’ aggression is somewhat limited. The reactions to this act of aggression – the way in which those who have to bear its consequences relate to the conflict, constitute the beginning of the way in which this episode of physical aggression will be integrated into history. The liberal-democratic camp is helping the victim as much as it can – this could be the subject of a very long discussion. The authoritarian-populist camp helps the aggressor. As far as it can, lest it shows its true colours… The self declared ‘non-aligned’ camp claims it is one of the victims and urges negotiations.
Here’s the place where I need to make another parenthesis. The aggressor is ‘Putin’. A collective character that has at its center the current Kremlin ‘gate-keeper’. The fact that the collective character known as ‘Putin’ is currently leading Russia’s destinies is a matter of history. It has to do with Russia and the Russian people indeed, but placing all the responsibility for the atrocities which are taking place in Ukraine on Russia’s shoulders would be a mistake. A mis-diagnosis which would lead to a ‘counterproductive’ treatment. Many of the analysts and commentators who write on this subject are ‘mesmerized’ by the ‘master of disaster’. By Putin. Some ‘highlight’ his actions and others want to distract us from what Putin is doing by trying to argue that Putin was forced to do what he had done because the ‘others’ had acted as they had done. As if the mistakes already committed could provide any justification for future atrocities…
Back to the subject. The main idea which emerges from the ‘messages’ we are bombarded with – regardless of the motivations attributed to Putin, is that any surrender to the aggressor’s claims will be eventually ‘underwritten’ by all those involved. For the simple reason that Putin will interpret the smallest crumble ceded by the victim of the aggression as a personal victory. Victory that will be attempted again, sooner rather than later. Meanwhile, all the other Putins in this world, all those animated by authoritarian whims, will feel encouraged by any shred of victory which Putin will have enjoyed.
‘Are we stupid?!? He pulled it through, didn’t he? We should try it too!’
Well, so far, so simple. Putin is not the first dictator to be scrutinized by psychologists. Or by political scientists. ‘Nothing new under the sun’ and no original contribution. Almost everything Putin had ever ‘accomplished’ has already been analyzed and can be explained away with the help of quotes pulled from more or less famous authors. Sun Tzu, Clausewitz, Marx, Ivan Ilyin. Unfortunately – or fortunately? – Putin is ‘transparent’. He becomes more than ‘obvious’ after the briefest analysis. And, in fact, dictators – all dictators, are very ‘simple’. Single minded individuals effectively enslaved by a single thought. Concentrated exclusively on how to obtain and preserve absolute power. Everything else about them is bullshit. Make belief and propaganda.
Personally, I’m interested in something else than ‘what drives Putin to…’ Putin does what he does because he has the opportunity. Because he ‘enjoys’ a set of circumstances in which he can act his ‘fantasies’. And Putin got into this situation because those around him – those who could have done something about ‘this thing’, did not understand at the time what was going on before their eyes. I can understand that! ‘Temporary blindness’ is not an ‘exceptional’ thing. But still. From a certain point onward – after ‘the milk spilled over’ and after reality had slapped you over your face, to continue with your head buried in sand… to remain ‘temporary blind’ only because you ‘enjoy’ your current position and/or your current paycheck… without realizing that you are being led to the abyss…
‘Putin’ doesn’t take prisoners. Even if you considered yourself his ally, or his faithful servant, and no matter how many promises he has made to you, when he no longer needs you…. you’re toast! When he no longer needs you, you become a cost. And in their world, in the world of dictators, costs must be cut! No other arguments will ever be considered. Aside from the fact that you have a good chance of getting sacked as Putin becomes more and more powerful/callous, associating yourself with this kind of people is dangerous by definition. No matter how strong they seem to be at any given point, all ‘things Putin’ end up badly. The more powerful the Putin becomes, and the higher they get, the worse they fall. They along with those who ‘waited’ on him!….
Does anyone know a dictator who ended up on the throne? Lenin?Stalin? Khrushchev? Brezhnev? Andropov? Is this what we want?!?
The conclusion drawn by some observers, “In the end the outcome has only two valences: Putin loses or Putin wins” is valid only for the short term. Very short! In the long run, Putin loses. In the longer run Putin has always lost. And it was us who had to endure! The ‘excesses’ committed while the dictator was at the helm and the ‘vagaries’ of the ‘transition period’ which followed. The point being that the more we endure ‘it’ – for the sake of momentary comfort or out of fear for what might happen, the more we will have to pull. In the near future!
As for the five dictators enumerated above, yes, four of them did die on their throne. Khrushchev had been deposed and lived for a while under ‘close supervising’. But after each of them had ‘transitioned’, their ‘close associates’ had been thoroughly ‘epurated’.
What happened to Russia during their ‘tenure’?
Whence my question. Do we really want to take part, any part, in anything even remotely similar?
These people no longer communicate. As in no longer care to understand what the other has to say… Mind you, not ‘agree with’, just understand. Just develop a ‘mere’ understanding of what the other feels/thinks/has to say about a subject.
The consequence?
Both sides have become so focused on contradicting each-other on no matter what subject that both of them have lost the ability/exercise to look for the real issue.
The Ukrainians have enough AK-47s. They don’t have any use for any AR-15s. What they need is howitzers. And HIMARSs! As for the 2nd amendment…
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”
Given the Ukrainian experience, should we read the 2nd Amendment in such a manner that ordinary people would be able to keep and bear howitzers? Or HIMARSs?
Or should we focus our attention on the notion of ‘a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State’…? Meaning that without a well kept and well trained Army, the State, any state, would soon loose its sovereignty?
After all, the Ukrainians fight, together, against an invader. They cooperate in order to defend their State. Meanwhile, many of those clamoring about the 2nd Amendment are more preoccupied about using their guns to defend their individual freedom against the State than about cooperating with their fellow citizens towards defending the State against any aggression.
Counter-protesters Kenya Stevens, left, of District Heights, Md., Steve Tidwell, of Arlington, Va., and a protester who asked not to be named, shout their support for gun rights across from a protest of gun control advocates next to Realco Gun Shop in District Heights, Md., on Tuesday, Aug. 28, 2007. The protest of gun control advocates was part of the Rev. Jesse L. Jackson Sr.’s National Day of Protest. The gun store, located very near the border with Washington, is a large source of guns used in crimes in the nation’s capital, according to District officials. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)
In these circumstances, am I allowed to remind you that Putin – the guy who had initiated/ordered the invasion of Ukraine, is a “genius”?!? According to Trump…
nicichiarasa 