It isn’t about things being better or worse. After being cut off from the rest of the world, China’s financial system is the only other option. So, instead of looking for the best partner, it’s about working with any partner.
And this was predictable — who else could they turn to? But even though they have a new trading partner, the fall in the value of the ruble will extend to these new transactions. This all serves to reinforce the asymmetry in the relationship between China and Russia.
But again, the Russians don’t have many choices here.
I think that is shaping up right now. This whole thing is bigger than Ukraine and Russia in the sense that it's really about autocracy vs. democracy. Forces in America like Peter Thiel, who say that they “no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible”, would love nothing more to set up an autocratic regime here where they are in charge, the way Putin has control in Russia, or Xi has control in China. 2016-2020 saw much of the political establishment here in the US side with authoritarian ideals, to the point where the President and Senators were even parroting Russian state propaganda straight from the Kremlin. There's a whole lot of people here in America who believe what Putin is doing is smart and savvy, and they would love nothing more to have the kind of unilateral power that he has, but with the American government, economy, and military at their whim. There are groups in Germany, France, and the UK who have the same feeling about democracy. This is truly the test of our generation.
I hope so.
I share your concern about Trumpism and Kremlin-sympathizing in the United States, but it's a mistake to think that authoritarianism is exclusively a right-wing phenomenon considering the last decade saw unprecedented attacks on free speech, racial egalitarianism (i.e., what the left pejoratively refers to as "colorblindness"), and unjustifiable overreach with respect to COVID protocols (and prior to 2021-01-06, left-wing groups had a monopoly over anti-democratic, revolutionary rhetoric).
Moreover, populism on the left and especially on the right is a symptom and not a cause in and of itself, and we should tread lightly so as to not exacerbate the root cause and inadvertently create more populists (e.g., by trying to "crack down" on populism). Personally, I think we need to re-establish our "civic religion" with respect to western democratic values and anti-authoritarianism and to emphasize an American identity rather than racial or partisan identities. For those of us on the left, this probably implies a course correction from hyperbolic criticisms of the US and the West toward a narrative which acknowledges that for all its faults, we could do a lot worse than western democracy and egalitarianism. For both sides, we need to stop looking at "the other side" as the cause of all our woes and start building bridges or western superpowers will become too weak to keep authoritarian superpowers in check.
I think we have to draw a distinction between authoritarianism and illiberalism. The American left is highly illiberal, which is one thing. But I don't think they are authoritarian yet because they don't have their own Trump -- authoritarianism revolves around the authoritarian. Joe Biden isn't a Trump and neither is Bernie Sanders for that matter. Even AOC. They have a more pluralistic message even if it is illiberal. The message of the authoritarian is "I alone can fix it". I think Trump unironically said literally those exact words. I mean, he sang all the authoritarian tunes including such hits as "the media is the enemy of the people" and "what you're seeing and what you're reading is not what's happening", quotes that could have come straight from Stalin and 1984. It's not subtle. For this reason, I don't see the left as an authoritarian threat right now. The right has metastasized and has all the elements necessary to go the rest of the way.
> Personally, I think we need to re-establish our "civic religion" with respect to western democratic values and anti-authoritarianism and to emphasize an American identity rather than racial or partisan identities.
Yes, I'm with you there.
Fair enough. I'm less sure about the specific technical distinctions, and I'm more concerned about the magnitude of the illiberalism rather than the particular way it is organized. I.e., I'm not convinced that one illiberal president is worse than the institutional illiberalism in the media, the academy, entertainment, public education, etc. So long as we can maintain liberal, democratic norms, the checks on the President's power remain robust; however, the left and the right both frequently work to degrade those norms.
However, I am pretty sure that (while it wasn't always this way) right-wing illiberalism is largely a response to left-wing illiberalism for the last decade or so. The left sets the precedent and the right responds in kind, often with years of delay (although I think the lag time is decreasing quickly). I'm thinking of things like:
* January 6th couldn't have happened if politicians, the media, celebrities, etc hadn't breathlessly defended, justified, and/or fanned BLM riots for the better part of a decade.
* The ranks of far-right groups didn't swell until woke race ideologies were preached for years in the media, classrooms, DEI departments, etc
* "cancel culture"[^1] was a left-wing innovation before the right eventually (and half-heartedly) adopted it
Note that this isn't to ascribe guilt to the left, but rather to observe how the system works because it hints at some solutions. Off the top of my head:
1. Work to restore the aspirational neutrality and objectivity of epistemological institutions
2. Hold the left accountable to liberal standards, just like we hold the right accountable
3. Denounce narratives which seek to deprecate our American identity in favor of racial, sexual, religious, or political identities.
[^1]: Cancel culture: campaigns to petition someone's employer to terminate the employment relationship (and thus access to income, healthcare, etc) for speech which the in-group finds objectionable, but which is otherwise well-within the Overton Window. Especially with respect to ordinary people (as opposed to celebrities and others who are mostly symbolic targets).
Yea these this ping pong back and forth. The recent surge of the left was a response to years of drug wars and don’t ask don’t tell. We got our win with gay marriage and just kept going, so we need to go back now a little. And we will and we will go too far back only to turn around yet again.
The difference between institutional authoritarianism is at least we know institutional authoritarianism, and at least that is more stable and rational. Like, you might not agree with people who want to restrict your speech, but under institutional authoritarianism they at least try to justify it. And if you don’t like it you can work in the system to change it. Like, change does happen. Jim Crow did end for example, without some dictator having to keel over and die. Apartheid die end in South Africa lawfully and by choice of the government.
When authoritarianism is organized under a single man, everything becomes about assuaging his ego. It’s a fundamentally unstable proposition because the ego of a narcissist is never assuaged. The enemies list always grows longer and the list of grievances is unending and always the number one priority - even at the expense of national security.
You want to know how Jan 6th could have been prevented? If one man hadn’t instructed his followers to be there and to stop the activities going on at the Capitol. That’s the danger of an ego right there. He did that for selfish reasons, and it hurt us all. Seriously stop blaming BLM for what happened that day. It was planned far in advance by people who want what Putin has in Russia to come here to America. BLM has nothing to do with that. Think long and hard about this, because he told us he wants (President for life) and he told us Putin is a genius for what he’s doing in Ukraine. Think about that. Do you want that man near power again? He wants it.
What BLM did over the summer was awful but you can’t use that as an excuse anymore after what the 1/6 committee has uncovered so far.
I strongly disagree with you there. Plenty of the right-wing illiberalism is a direct response to left-wing liberalism, e.g.
* LGBT rights
* Obama being president (including the birther lie, the muslim lie, and general racial reactionary behavior)
* Planned Parenthood
All of these things "swelled the ranks" of increasingly far-right groups long before BLM or "woke" hysteria. The majority of Republicans to this day think that Obama was a Muslim, I don't see how your mental framework explains this.
I do think the two sides feed on one another, in general. I just don't think that broadly blaming the left for the existence of the illiberal right makes any sense at all.
The right had always been somewhat illiberal, but they had been kept in check by principled liberals and progressives. When right-wing racists was the norm in the 60s (and earlier), liberal colorblind antiracism overcame. When the right tried to censor ideas in the 70s and 80s, liberal free-speech ideals changed the landscape.
Liberalism effectively moderated right-wing racism for decades, and nothing significantly changed in right-wing illiberalism which could explain left-wing illiberalism.
Putin literally represents the last great hope. And even soon enough, liberals will be disillusioned by liberal policies - you can see this happening in places like San franscisco.
where you can buy a luxury apartment, but have tents and human shit at your front gate. Soon enough, a fascist will come around and they will say I will fix all your problems - from looting, excessive taxes, nimby laws etc if you allow to me chip at some laws / regulations getting in the way. Libertarians like Peter Thiel mixed with fascists is a complete disaster. And remember libertarians run rampant in SV circles. Trump wasn't smart enough to get it done. But he's provided the playbook.
I'm a liberal leaning black dude. But I can see what's coming a mile away.
I think it's dangerous to believe being a good fascist/authoritarian takes smarts. What it really takes is cunning, a huge ego, lack of a conscience, and the ability to make a million people follow you while plugging their eyes and ears to anything else except the words of the authoritarian. Being smart has nothing to do with it. Well, maybe that can play into it but the worst authoritarians in the world's history were narcissistic psychopaths, not smart, rational tactical geniuses. The West's biggest mistake with Putin was buying into his own propaganda, that he's a tactical genius rather than an abject psychopath. Being a psychopath, he may make moves that seem tactical to others, but really they are just never considered because those moves are so psychopathic; good people with consciences don't do what Putin does because they're dumb, but because they have souls. People like Putin and Trump see that restraint as a character flaw and a sign of weakness. It's why everyone was so sure he would never invade Ukraine. And then he did, leaving them dumbfounded. "But it's such tactical mistake!" Yeah, because it was never about tactics, it was bout killing Ukrainians and feeling like a big boy while he does it. That's the whole goal.
Lying your ass off and then being ruthless when people believe you is the name of the game. I was hoping the the whole idea that "Oh sure, Trump is crazy but he's not that dangerous because look how dumb he is" would have died on 1/6. On that day we were perilously close to Trump kicking off his authoritarian ambitions.
Smarter people usually don't have the charisma or lack of conscience to pull authoritarianism off. A charismatic authoritarian is far more dangerous than a smart one.
Having said that I don't think they have a plan really. They just do what they can and see how it goes. I believe there are going to be two trends: one of sanctions slowly gaining in effect, and another one of Russia adapting to sanctions. We'll see which one is stronger.
Also as I understand many in Russian government believe that current hard sanctions are due to Ukraine's pressure and intel, and once it's gone (which they hope to be solved with military) sanctions will become weaker and/or easier to circumvent.
Obviously false.
> in fact I wonder if the US even cares about Europe at all at this point
Your bias is showing.
> Leave a mess in Europe while they pivot to Asia.
The mess in question is something created by Europe. What's happening with Ukraine is a vestige disease of former European empire & conquering mentality, the ideology of past centuries that used to be omnipresent among the major powers and their cultures, and is now an ideology primarily only prevelant in Russia (although Macron pines for the French empire a bit as an extension of his egomania).
The US has spent 3/4 of a century holding the line against Russia in Europe. It's a very expensive line and it shouldn't be our responsibility.
Very obviously it's time for the Europeans to pick up more of that burden (I'm glad Germany is maybe finally waking up to that need, it's in their own self-interest to do so). The US should remain a core part of NATO and should continue to participate, just with the Europeans carrying more of that security burden and the US carrying less.
What are Italy and Spain doing at present to stop Russia? Not much (insert comment about how, but but but Italy waved their hands in the air furiously and Spain sent 27 tank busters to Ukraine and they agreed to sanctions, wow). Those are major EU+NATO nations, let them deploy a hundred thousand soldiers along NATO's eastern flank, instead of the US having to do it this time (at the peak the US had 400,000+ soldiers protecting the rest of Europe from the USSR in the late 1950s). See how they like the cost and stress it puts on their societies. Few countries will be willing to tolerate those very long-term deployments and costs.
Maybe the EU can build a significant defense force so the US doesn't have to play that role again. It's a nice thought. The Europeans are not going to like the cost of it all (which, given the net zero economic growth in the EU over the past 15 years, the increased military cost will come directly in the form of a lower standard of living and weaker social safety net for the people, which is where the social rebellion against an EU defense apparatus begins).
The ressentiment is mostly from Chinese ultranationalists that have been censored by the government.
That is good to know, thank you! I'd like to say though that until recently annexing Crimea not to say bombing Kyiv was something only ultranationalists in Russia would call for. And as far as I can see from the outside, official rhetoric in China is getting more heated and nationalist, pretty much like it was in Russia.
It's one thing before you close the deal, another one after.
Let's see how cooperative they will be once this is their only choice
what's the alternative? does the West care about Russia?
Why should it?