Russia-Ukraine

[Yoused]

Rule of law......standards....

Which is also problematic. In Russia, Vlad defines what "rule of law" means, and the world is still on edge about the big flash-booms that Russia has (we cannot assume that they are as defective as the rest of their military).

 

[Colstan]

@Eric and @Cmaier the both of you need to calm your tits. This is what pisses me off most about libs; they won't hesitate to eat their own. You guys barely even disagree on this, yet here you are jumping on someone over disagreement with your own emotional reactions to this conflict.

This isn't about team sport politics. I'm not a liberal, but I support the war in Ukraine, because it's the right thing to do. Telling Eric and Cliff to "calm down" because it's not in the best interest of the tribe is a wrongheaded way of seeing this.

 

[Deleted member 215]

This isn't about team sport politics. I'm not a liberal, but I support the war in Ukraine, because it's the right thing to do. Telling Eric and Cliff to "calm down" because it's not in the best interest of the tribe is a wrongheaded way of seeing this.

It’s more that they’re being dicks, but sure.

And supporting the war is not the same as thinking the assassination of Putin would solve everything.

 

[Eric]

Here is the problem: Hitler is a martyr. There are thousands of Americans who think he has been treated poorly by history, and that is partly because he was allowed to do the right thing by killing Hitler. Imagine if we had had chance to see him do the walk of shame, to be locked up in a dungeon for 25 years to share his food with rats and roaches, to be utterly humilialed and degraded. But, instead, he died his way out of shame, and so a segment of the population still reveres him. Lunatics with lots of guns.

Killing the bad guy is ingrained in our psyches, in part because we want this bad thing (whatever it may be) to be over. It is the visceral and facile answer to our frustrations and desire for recompense, but in the end, it always comes back to bite us in the ass.

I mean, I fully understand the anger, and have been caught up in the bloodlust myself. But H.L.Mencken said that for every problem we have, there isa solution that is clean, simple and wrong. In this case, very wrong. It might solve our problem right now, but our descendants will be coping with the repercussions, and those will almost certainly be worse. But, at least we all will be pushing up daisies ourselves by then, so that much will be not our problem.

Yoused, the man killed 6 million Jews and here you are accusing us of bloodlust for wanting him dead? Making it sounds like the alternative could be worse is insane, again 6 million Jews died in the most heinous of ways. No, it could not have possibly been any worse with him dead, get real. Sorry but you guys sound like sympathizers when you defend him this way.

 

[Eric]

It’s more that they’re being dicks, but sure.

And supporting the war is not the same as thinking the assassination of Putin would solve everything.

We're only being dicks because we're defending a position you don't support, get off the name calling.

 

[sgtaylor5]

I found these very helpful:
https://informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/left-vs-right-us/ and
https://informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/left-vs-right-world/
From The 5000-Year Leap by Skousen: both ways of thinking are needed to govern: Without the right, we'd go broke. Without the left, we wouldn't have empathy for others.

---

What kind of world do we want to live in? Do we even have a choice? I think we do. But, it takes commanding vision to get there.

I have been consumed with thoughts of getting rid of those that I see as opposed to my way of thinking in the US national sphere. I also know that is a wrong and potentially evil way of thinking and I oppose that in my mind when it comes up. Doesn't hurt that there is no way to accomplish anything I think of. But, there are those who do have the power, and I fear for my country when I see those people on the rise to power.

Countries gain in moral authority when they do the right things and suffer when they do the wrong things.

The Unites States has done many great things:

• showing the world how to run a free, democratic country (until lately)
• humanitarian efforts, public and private, around the world
• keeping the peace (but I wish we hadn't been so ham-handed about it recently (Iraq, Afghanistan))

but suffers when doing wrong:

• manifest destiny (destruction of native Americans)
• slavery and how to think about blacks in general
• empire-building (not in our general charter)
• the intentional destruction of countervailing power structures against big business and the super rich.

Israel did right when, instead of a Mossad hit, they successfully captured and tried Adolf Eichmann. I personally think they lost their moral mandate after Labour lost it's long running mandate after the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin and Likud took over. Netanyahu has been as corrosive to Israeli politics as Trump has been to ours.

South Africa did right and better by turning governance over to the blacks and setting up a Truth and Reconciliation Commission to right long standing wrongs to the majority of the population. I wish we had one of those here.

Can the world do better? I do think that in the long run it would be better if Putin was brought to justice in a legal manner into the International Court of Justice rather than in a power manner via assassination. The US doesn't like the International Court of Justice, because some of their national deeds were evil. Fine. let those that were and are guilty suffer. Empire doesn't suit the American character and I'd like to see this country last longer than 300 years.

It took the help of an rightly inflexible graveyard cashier when I worked at the Park N Jet to show me that the invasion of Iraq was a grievous injustice and that we should have been in Afghanistan as a lightning stroke to get Bin Laden and nothing else. That really started me on the path from the right to the left. We can change our minds; I'm living proof.

 

[Alli]

Advocating assassination is disgraceful, and you (and others here) would be the first to howl with outraged venom were others to advocate such an approach to dealing with an American president who was impervious to the rule of law and invaded other countries committing war crimes with abandon.

But, he could be handed over.

One cannot compare the recommendation of assassination of a specific dictatorial monster to a what-if scenario of assassinating a random country leader. OTOH, if the US or England found themselves with someone in charge who decided to invade Monaco (example), bomb all the homes and businesses, rape anyone now left on the streets, and send the remaining living children off to live in Texas…then yes, that leader needs to be dealt with as well. And how the hell do you think said leader (Putin or the imaginary one) is going to get to The Hague? Handed over? Seriously.

 

[Deleted member 215]

We're only being dicks because we're defending a position you don't support, get off the name calling.

No, I'm saying it because of the way you berated scepticalscribe and accused anyone who disagrees with your position of being a Putin supporter/Russian propagandist. My criticism is of your tactics and behavior, not your political position.

 

[Macky-Mac]

We're only being dicks because we're defending a position you don't support, get off the name calling.

"bing a dick" is just "being a dick".......you can argue for your position without it

 

[Eric]

No, I'm saying it because of the way you berated scepticalscribe and accused anyone who disagrees with your position of being a Putin supporter/Russian propagandist. My criticism is of your tactics and behavior, not your political position.

You're free to disagree but if you continue with the these attacks you'll be getting a break, so chill out.

 

[Colstan]

It’s more that they’re being dicks, but sure.

You called them out for not sticking to the liberal standard that you expect, but sure.

And supporting the war is not the same as thinking the assassination of Putin would solve everything.

I agree with the left-leaning folks here on perhaps 50% of issues. On the 50% we don't agree on, we may find compromise, or just remain in disagreement. In this case, I'm with Alli, Eric and Cliff that Uncle Putin needs to get the Mussolini treatment. Nobody says it would solve everything, so stow the straw man, but it would change the dynamic of having a murderous dictator doing as he pleases with his neighbors, while blackmailing the world with his threats.

 

[Cmaier]

EDIT: Since the post I cited was deleted for name-calling multiple forum members, I am removing the citation below.

[Removed]

Name-calling is the last refuge of those who have no merits to argue. This discussion started by saying we were bloodthirsty animals merely for suggesting killing murderous dictators like Hitler and Putin, who between them have murdered many millions of people, initiated wars against numerous countries, targeted civilians in war, used rape as a tool of war, committed genocide, taken tens of thousands of children from their parents, etc. Etc. Right off the bat it was name-calling instead of ”here’s the counter-argument.” You guys are pretty disappointing.

 

[Macky-Mac]

You're free to disagree but if you continue with the these attacks you'll be getting a break, so chill out.

Moderators shouldn't be participating in threads they're moderating.......when things get heated, it's obviously difficult for a moderator to moderate without getting overheated themselves.

Any sense of "fairness" disappears

 

[Alli]

Moderators shouldn't be participating in threads they're moderating.......when things get heated, it's obviously difficult for a moderator to moderate without getting overheated themselves.

Any sense of "fairness" disappears

Easier said than done on a small forum with few moderators.

 

[Macky-Mac]

Easier said than done on a small forum with few moderators.

not really......moderators just have to resist participating in threads they're moderating. That's just part of the task.

 

[lizkat]

You called them out for not sticking to the liberal standard that you expect, but sure.

I agree with the left-leaning folks here on perhaps 50% of issues. On the 50% we don't agree on, we may find compromise, or just remain in disagreement. In this case, I'm with Alli, Eric and Cliff that Uncle Putin needs to get the Mussolini treatment. Nobody says it would solve everything, so stow the straw man, but it would change the dynamic of having a murderous dictator doing as he pleases with his neighbors, while blackmailing the world with his threats.

An assassination might not "change the dynamic" in an appreciably better way.

One could not be sure of anything going forward after Putin had initiated the invasion of Ukraine. Even the best of military advisers acknowledge that with the first shot fired, what happens and what was planned begin to diverge.

We don't really know what level of support Putin truly had then or truly retains now. If someone were to assassinate Putin, no one could foretell what would then ensue, either with respect to conclusion of Russia's aggression in Ukraine, or regarding political / military / social upheaval in Russia. In any case there would remain the grotesque economic burdens Putin has brought down upon his country by persisting in a military operation that only five countries in the world don't condemn him for. He is able to continue this assault upon Ukraine only because everyone fears escalation to use of nuclear weapons.

The destruction of life and infrastructure in the Russia-Ukraine conflict is horrendous. There is no guarantee that it would cease upon the assassination of Putin. No assurance of effective regime change either. No assurance that whoever seized power would not threaten to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine. Doubtless one result would be a fast spreading conspiracy theory that Ukrainians somehow managed the assassination. It would serve every Kremlin insider working meanwhile to gain enough power to take over.

There is no succession plan right now except that the prime minister steps in as acting president for a maximum of three months, after which elections shall be held. Who gets to stand is determined behind the scenes by elites and the upper house of the parliament. Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin is a technocrat, an economist, a tax guy and a supremely bland politician, which is the only reason there even is someone in that slot, else Putin would have done away with it in one of his unending assaults on the efficacy of Russian government checks and balances over the years. It's not clear he'd become the favorite, and it's not clear who would have enabled that behind the scenes either.

Foreign Affairs ran a piece earlier this year about potential power struggles when Putin ceases to lead Russia (for whatever reason).

The Power Struggle After Putin

Russia’s inevitable succession crisis

www.foreignaffairs.com

Most autocracies are surprisingly durable. Even after authoritarian leaders die in office, their regimes often survive for years or even decades. According to the political scientists Andrea Kendall-Taylor and Erica Frantz, who analyzed all succession events in authoritarian countries between 1946 and 2012, 87 percent of autocratic regimes were still in place one year after a leader’s death, and 76 percent were still in place after five years.

But not all forms of authoritarianism are equally durable. Kendall-Taylor and Frantz found that compared with monarchies, single-party regimes, and military juntas, personalist autocracies such as the one Putin has built are the most vulnerable to regime change. Seventy-eight percent of them were still in place a year after a leader’s death, but that number declined to just 44 percent after five years. In many cases, such as Syria under Hafez al-Assad and North Korea under Kim Il Sung, power passed directly to a family member, helping ensure the survival of the regime. But in Russia, Putin’s daughters are not being groomed for rule; the media are strongly discouraged from even talking about them.

Recent Russian history provides some clues as to what it might look like if things go off the rails. In 1993, a power struggle between Yeltsin and the leftover Soviet parliament yielded two weeks of “dual power” in Russia that ended with tanks firing on parliament. In 1999, the transition from Yeltsin to Putin coincided with the resumption of war in the breakaway region of Chechnya and a series of mysterious bombings in Moscow apartment complexes that killed hundreds. When Putin had to temporarily step away from the presidency in 2008 due to term limits, rival factions orchestrated the arrest of key figures from each other’s ranks—a form of political hostage taking aimed at gaining leverage in the succession struggle. In short, leadership transitions in Russia have the potential to be very messy.

So how can one think an assassination of Vladimir Putin would serve anyone's interests? It will not bring back the dead. It offers no guarantee of stopping the dreadful slaughter and mistreatment of civilians in Ukraine. And... the very question of who would do such a thing certainly circulates amongst those inside Russia who already wish Putin were no longer head of state, but the fact that no one has done it during the extension of this debacle suggests that the man is not without effective support even now. All that killing Putin would do would be to insert a new level of apprehension about how the conflict in Ukraine will finally come to an end.

 

[Alli]

not really......moderators just have to resist participating in threads they're moderating. That's just part of the task.

If someone is not following the thread, how will they know if moderation is needed?

Police officers just have to resist driving on the same roads where they hand out tickets?

 

[Eric]

An assassination might not "change the dynamic" in an appreciably better way.

One could not be sure of anything going forward after Putin had initiated the invasion of Ukraine. Even the best of military advisers acknowledge that with the first shot fired, what happens and what was planned begin to diverge.

We don't really know what level of support Putin truly had then or truly retains now. If someone were to assassinate Putin, no one could foretell what would then ensue, either with respect to conclusion of Russia's aggression in Ukraine, or regarding political / military / social upheaval in Russia. In any case there would remain the grotesque economic burdens Putin has brought down upon his country by persisting in a military operation that only five countries in the world don't condemn him for. He is able to continue this assault upon Ukraine only because everyone fears escalation to use of nuclear weapons.

The destruction of life and infrastructure in the Russia-Ukraine conflict is horrendous. There is no guarantee that it would cease upon the assassination of Putin. No assurance of effective regime change either. No assurance that whoever seized power would not threaten to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine. Doubtless one result would be a fast spreading conspiracy theory that Ukrainians somehow managed the assassination. It would serve every Kremlin insider working meanwhile to gain enough power to take over.

There is no succession plan right now except that the prime minister steps in as acting president for a maximum of three months, after which elections shall be held. Who gets to stand is determined behind the scenes by elites and the upper house of the parliament. Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin is a technocrat, an economist, a tax guy and a supremely bland politician, which is the only reason there even is someone in that slot, else Putin would have done away with it in one of his unending assaults on the efficacy of Russian government checks and balances over the years. It's not clear he'd become the favorite, and it's not clear who would have enabled that behind the scenes either.

Foreign Affairs ran a piece earlier this year about potential power struggles when Putin ceases to lead Russia (for whatever reason).

The Power Struggle After Putin

Russia’s inevitable succession crisis

www.foreignaffairs.com

So how can one think an assassination of Vladimir Putin would serve anyone's interests? It will not bring back the dead. It offers no guarantee of stopping the dreadful slaughter and mistreatment of civilians in Ukraine. And... the very question of who would do such a thing certainly circulates amongst those inside Russia who already wish Putin were no longer head of state, but the fact that no one has done it during the extension of this debacle suggests that the man is not without effective support even now. All that killing Putin would do would be to insert a new level of apprehension about how the conflict in Ukraine will finally come to an end.

Lots to unpack here but just wanted to address this point:

So how can one think an assassination of Vladimir Putin would serve anyone's interests?

This is a very unpopular war, not just around the world but also within the Russian government. Without Putin there to drive it I think they pull the plug on it, same goes for Hitler. It's not about vengeance or bloodlust, it's about preventing more unnecessary deaths going forward.

 

[Macky-Mac]

An assassination might not "change the dynamic" in an appreciably better way.

One could not be sure of anything going forward after Putin had initiated the invasion of Ukraine. Even the best of military advisers acknowledge that with the first shot fired, what happens and what was planned begin to diverge.

....

indeed.....setting aside the moral, and emotional issues, there's a very practical question of whether such an action would improve the situation or just make things worse

 

[shadow puppet]

The thing I worry about in the event of an assassination (and trust me, I have wondered why no one has made an attempt on Trump, MTG and the like), is that it would turn them into martyrs. Which in turn, could and most likely would, create an even worse situation.