That became obvious when sanctions and disinvestments really bit in the late 1980s and pressure from within forced the government into reforms that ultimately ended apartheid and minority rule.
I see no reason why the same should not apply to Russia. Indeed, I think that's part of the hope by following the same sanctions plus disinvestment route.
It's about whether populations in cases like this can be said to be accountable, and be treated that way, rather than pretending it's only the elite who are making all the decisions and hold bad views.
Israelis, for instance, are certainly collectively responsible for the actions of their government. It's not all just Netanyahu and a few others calling the shots.
Should every American be held responsible for all the US war crimes and bombings
This is a straw man. Nobody said every single Russian, or American, or Brit should be held solely and individually responsible, but that the population collectively should be.
One does not imply the other. It can be "whataboutism" in that it doesn't respond to the Russian topic in this thread. And we needn't ignore it. Write an article about the misdeeds of the Western governments and we'll discuss them in that thread. But US war crimes and bombings don't excuse Russia's current invasion of Ukraine.
Like, if we were to look at the body count of our respective militaries over the last 20 years the US military is clearly dominant in that regard, yet the outrage over Russia seems disproportional to the harm...is there not a lot of truth here that people seem less enthusiastic to discuss in the aggregate?
The US invaded Afghanistan with pretty much full international support and the authorisation of a UNSC resolution.
The invasion of Iraq was far more murky, and nearly split the alliance between the US, UK, France, and Germany as a result. It also caused serious consequences to US power. But it wasn’t a reshaping of the world map, did not include annexation, and was rapidly regularised by UNSC resolutions because of the US’s commitment to allowing an independent government to be formed as well as elections it would not control.
Most importantly though, the US-led coalition had the faintest cover of legal plausible deniability in UNSC 1441, which could be read as having authorised force because of Iraq’s ongoing noncompliance. I disagree with that interpretation, but it has never been fully settled.
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was explicitly an annexation by force, and lacked even the pretence of any attempted justification under international law. Putin has also in speeches strongly implied that Ukraine is merely the first in his ambitions, that Russia had a ‘right’ to all the former frontier countries of both the USSR and the Russian Empire.
Where the invasion of Iraq was a bending of international law and the post-WW2 consensus, Russia’s is a complete break of it, and a statement that sovereignty of smaller countries as protected by international law doesn’t matter at all. That’s why it’s treated differently.
Have you any proof or at least evidence to substantiate this?
> The US invaded Afghanistan with pretty much full international support and the authorisation of a UNSC resolution.
Stated support - whether that was with zero aversion is unknown.
Also: while this is related to the specific questions I've asked, it is not answering those questions.
The questions I am asking are regarding the relative harm committed by our respective militaries, and whether our reactions and discussions are proportional to that harm.
> The invasion of Iraq was far more murky, and nearly split the alliance between the US, UK, France, and Germany as a result. It also caused serious consequences to US power. But it wasn’t a reshaping of the world map, did not include annexation, and was rapidly regularised by UNSC resolutions because of the US’s commitment to allowing an independent government to be formed as well as elections it would not control.
All very interesting, and important, but does not address the questions.
>Most importantly though, the US-led coalition had the faintest cover of legal plausible deniability in UNSC 1441, which could be read as having authorised force because of Iraq’s ongoing noncompliance. I disagree with that interpretation, but it has never been fully settled.
This is a matter of opinion. For some people, how many human beings were killed is more important than whether such actions have legal cover.
Do you remember a few years back when we were in the middle of a pandemic, and people dying was a super duper big deal? Do you remmber popular slogans like "Every life matters"? Isn't it interesting how flexible and dynamic humans are on their "bedrock, unequivocal, non-negotiable, just plain common sense" ethical axioms? Isn't it interesting how logically inconsistent and hypocritical people are, and how many people may die unnecessarily due to these strange cultural norms, that are enforced daily right here in "rational" forums like this?
> Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was explicitly an annexation by force, and lacked even the pretence of any attempted justification under international law.
Isn't it interesting how we always talk about this war from the prospect of "justification", rather than causality....and if someone was to inject the notion of causality into the conversation, a probabilistically predictable series of memetic "rebuttals/debunkings" would be likely to manifest?
Isn't it also funny how "international law" (or anything, really) is so important, when it serves our interests.
>Putin has also in speeches strongly implied that Ukraine is merely the first in his ambitions, that Russia had a ‘right’ to all the former frontier countries of both the USSR and the Russian Empire.
Surely. "Implied" is a very interesting word from a neuroscience/psychology/cultural perspective, because the way it is used suggests that the speaker is the only one involved in the implementation of "implied", when in actual fact each listener also plays a crucially important role in the implementation.
> Where the invasion of Iraq was a bending of international law and the post-WW2 consensus, Russia’s is a complete break of it...
Can you write out some pseudocode for isCompleteBreak() so I can better understand your intended meaning?
> and a statement that sovereignty of smaller countries as protected by international law doesn’t matter at all.
Who has committed this crime more in the last 20 years - Russia, or the US?
INB4: "whataboutism".
> That’s why it’s treated differently.
It is "treated differently" by millions of people. You do not have access to why each person treats it differently, thus you have imagined a reason....and due to living in a fantasy world being a (sometimes, and sometimes not) culturally acceptable and often encouraged behavior, no one finds it strange in the slightest. But if we were to change this topic from war to something like compilers and you made stuff up like this, it would no longer be culturally acceptable, you would get shredded in the comments.
Isn't this an interesting world we live in....if one is able to sustain a state of curiosity in one's mind, that is....unfortunately, the mind often seems to have a mind of its own...one whose behavior is subject to decades of social conditioning.
Gosh, I hope all of this is within the Overton Window of "things that are relevant to curious hackers", because it would be a shame if someone was to violate the Overton Window of what portions of reality are acceptable for discussion here and some people experienced a little psychological discomfort.
tl;dr: I asked specific questions, you did not even try to answer those questions.
Very few people disagree with the current state of affairs, it's "1984" with people just believing in whatever is being told to them. I'm saying this cause I've some distant families there, it's absolutely surreal. Either way, if you don't fall in line, you better leave the country (try to), or at best remain very, very quiet and keep your thoughts for yourself.
This is not just a "Putin" problem.
Putin played the classic "tough on crime" authoritarian tack, except the crime wave was genuine, and huge. The routine street crime and killings were brought to a stop, and ... unfortunately he's been riding the popularity wave from that for at least 20 years. I mean — he didn't solve the high-level corruption of basically having a mafia class run things, which robs the average people of opportunity, but he did slam down on street crime, at least.
Credit for this is a bit misplaced, but it is a reason why he was unusually popular for quite a while.
And potentially some domestic-terror false flag operations, who knows.
First, this is anything but simple.
Second, many Russians do care, but it is rational to stay quiet.
Third, your comment is one starting point for discussion but certainly not the end. Some follow up questions:
A. What would it take for more Russians to band together to oust Putin? Russians know the brutality of oppression and the long arm of state surveillance.
B. I take your point that this is not just a Putin problem. What happens after?
- The oligarchs have strong incentives to carry on similarly. They get so rich that they can buy loyalty “down the chain”. It becomes an issue of self interest to be corrupt, because it gets you a better quality of life. Sadly, a country with a high quality of life would be less susceptible.
- There will be some kind of selection process post Putin. It is unclear who might have the cunning, blackmail ability, and control of the military and intelligence forces. These levers make popular unrest almost futile.
Are you looking for broad “reasons” why history has unfolded the way it did?
What if Russia’s history is not improbable? What if “Western” {democracy + variants of capitalism + colonialism + etc} is actually more of a surprise, probabilistically?
Have you read various commentaries that draw associations and even causal links between natural resources and history? For example, extractable resources tend to correspond with countries that get exploited, either by outsiders or (autocratic or oligarchic) insiders.
(Opinion: Even democratic capitalist countries don’t share a region’s internal wealth very fairly. But it seems that this approach is better than capture by inefficient and corrupt command-and-control forms of government.)
In any case, geopolitical history rarely offers sample sizes large enough to proffer convincing statistical analysis. At best, historians point out convincing theories and evidence of how they play out.
P.S. I use curlies and parens for this crowd because it reduces ambiguity. :)
In this case, I am wondering if a culture other than the present would lead to different outcomes, and specifically wondering if there are significant after-effects of the long-ago Mongol domination. Of course it's near impossible to answer this with any scientific rigor, and I don't have much hope for it :)
It seems that the communist takeover in 1918 was not an obvious "done deal," and at several points things came very close to not happening that way (and going the way of the German social-democratic setup for example).
- relative cultural isolation of Russian, with the exception of the major cities near Europe
- a brutally tough existence due to the climate
- systemic repression
- high levels of distrust, leading to leaders capitalizing on fear
- low probability that an aspirational leader could shake the country free of its 20th century roots
I know relativity little about the Mongol influence. What suggests that it might be lasting and enduring?
——-
Let’s talk about the history of Russia. What factors contribute to the county’s “capture” by oligarchs? Why can’t the people topple the autocrats and get something better?
Please respond to my thoughts below. Correct me as needed. Offer contrasting views as appropriate. Agree if I get it right.
{I pasted my comment from above.}
——-
ChatGPT 4.0 responded with:
——-
Your analysis of Russia's history and the factors contributing to its capture by oligarchs is generally on the right track. I will elaborate on some of your points and provide additional perspectives.
Relative cultural isolation: While Russia's geographical location might have limited its interaction with the West, Russia has had a long history of cultural exchange with its neighbors in Asia and Eastern Europe. However, the isolationist policies of certain historical periods, such as during the Soviet era, contributed to this sense of cultural isolation.
Brutally tough existence: The harsh climate and economic systems have indeed played a role in shaping Russia's history. The centralized nature of the Soviet economy and the heavy emphasis on industrialization and military power at the expense of consumer goods and social welfare further exacerbated these issues.
No transformational economic gains from territorial gains: While Russia may not have experienced the same economic benefits as the United States did from territorial expansion, it did gain access to valuable resources and extended its geopolitical influence throughout Eurasia.
Systemic repression: Autocratic rule and repression have been recurring themes in Russian history, with leaders like Ivan the Terrible, Peter the Great, Joseph Stalin, and Vladimir Putin consolidating power and suppressing dissent.
Few alternative centers of power: The Russian Orthodox Church has historically been an influential force in Russian society, but it has often been closely aligned with the state, which limited its potential as an alternative center of power. Furthermore, the state has generally suppressed or co-opted other potential sources of power, such as independent media and civil society organizations.
High levels of distrust: The long history of autocratic rule and government surveillance has contributed to a culture of distrust in Russia. This makes it difficult for democratic movements to gain traction and for people to openly challenge the ruling elite.
Low probability of aspirational leaders: The concentration of power and repression of opposition make it difficult for transformative leaders to emerge within Russia. Even if an exiled leader were to build a reputation abroad, they would likely face significant obstacles upon returning to Russia, including potential arrest or assassination.
Regarding the Mongol influence, the Mongol Empire ruled over Russia in the form of the Golden Horde from the mid-13th century to the late 15th century. While the Mongol rule was oppressive and destructive, it also had lasting effects on Russian society and governance. The Mongols introduced new administrative and taxation systems, and their rule contributed to the centralization of power in Moscow. The legacy of the Mongol rule may have also influenced the development of autocratic rule in Russia, as Russian leaders sought to emulate the highly centralized and powerful systems of their former conquerors.
——-
What other points would you add?
Also, contrast Russia with other countries in similar positions?
——-
In addition to the points previously mentioned, the following factors have also played a role in shaping Russia's political and social landscape:
Ethnic and linguistic diversity: Russia is a vast country that spans multiple time zones and is home to over 190 different ethnic groups. This diversity has sometimes fueled tensions and has presented challenges to the central government in terms of maintaining unity and control.
Historical external threats: Throughout its history, Russia has faced various external threats, including invasions by the Mongols, Napoleon, and Hitler. These events have contributed to a national narrative of vulnerability and a desire for strong, centralized leadership to protect the country.
The Soviet legacy: The Soviet Union's collapse in 1991 had a profound impact on Russia's political, economic, and social fabric. The transition from a centrally planned economy to a market-based system led to widespread economic hardship, inequality, and the rise of the oligarchs. Additionally, the disillusionment with the failures of the Soviet system may have contributed to the public's skepticism of democratic institutions and processes.
When comparing Russia to other countries in similar positions, we can look at:
China: Like Russia, China has a long history of autocratic rule and a highly centralized political system. Both countries have experienced periods of isolation from the West and have pursued aggressive foreign policies in response to perceived threats. However, China's economic transformation and integration into the global market have led to more prosperity and stability than Russia has experienced in recent decades.
Ukraine: As a former Soviet republic, Ukraine has faced similar challenges in transitioning to a market economy and building democratic institutions. Ukraine has also struggled with corruption and oligarchic control, but unlike Russia, it has experienced a series of popular uprisings (such as the Orange Revolution in 2004 and the Euromaidan protests in 2014) that have led to changes in government and ongoing efforts to reform its political system.
Turkey: Turkey is another example of a country with a history of autocratic rule and a strong centralized government. While Turkey has experienced periods of democratization and integration with the West, its current political climate under President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has seen a return to more authoritarian practices, similar to those in Russia.
These comparisons show that while Russia shares some commonalities with other countries facing similar challenges, its unique historical context, geography, and cultural factors have shaped its distinct trajectory.
Can you think of similar examples where history seems to go the other way?
It has been argued that the later Persians and Medes were able to rule with a softer touch because by that time the peoples of Mesopotamia had been "broken into the yoke" - e.g. their local decision making traditions forgotten, decentralized civic structures abandoned.
Russia just popped into existence in 1547. It doesn't have anything to do with the peoples that lived in that region before that. Russia as a whole was brought to earth by aliens.
What exactly are you suggesting?
It's a country with pretty much some of the biggest landmass on earth, but very few of that landmass has been exploitable for resources. For most of history this has largely been due to its climate being rather hostile to humans - Russias more navigable areas are up north, which isn't great if you want to use it for things like farmland and other basic needs. The southern part of the country is on the other hand rather mountainous, which is also hard to grow resources on.
All of that has resulted in a country where most people congregate in big cities and an infrastructure that outside of those cities is just... barely existent.
The result is that anyone wanting to lead Russia will invariably end up gravitating towards concentrated leadership; the individual cities where most Russian citizens live don't have the resources around them to entirely sustain themselves independently, so all of them need to stay together. Combine that with a poor infrastructure and anyone looking for a power grab in the capital has an easy opportunity to do so if a vacuum ever arises[0].
[0]: The tsar was basically a monarch, which historically has been in general how countries operate. Lenin was specifically send to Russia by the Germans to attempt and disrupt the Russian front (and Stalin can be summarized as "Lenin but worse"). The between leaders after Stalin were trying to uphold the same beliefs as him. Putin's powergrab is the result of him taking advantage of the fact that Yeltsin screwed up the de-sovietization process and just dumped Russia into anarcho-capitalism overnight (there was basically no transition process between the Soviet model and neoliberalism, which resulted in anarcho-capitalism).
The barrier to Russians forming a coup is state repression. The FSB is good at routing out any coup before it can get far. Unless the upper ranks of the military fear for their lives under Putin, their calculus is that they're better off with the status quo than a coup.
Also, well, if we were serious about it, we could throw in enough resources to defeat them like we did it with Soviet Union. Except not recognise any successor states this time: everyone out, with hands up, and that's it.
Regime change is hard. Creating a functioning, not corrupt state in the aftermath is harder.