Russians Seem Interested in My Book About How Dictatorships End
almendron.com
almendron.com
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/26/opinion/russia-putin-dict...
By someone, I believe you mean the author (of opinion, blog & referenced book).
> Objectively — though it’s awkward to say — the book has become a bit of a phenomenon. But the book, “The End of the Regime: How Three European Dictatorships Ended”, is not about Russia or Vladimir Putin. It’s about three dictatorships — those of Francisco Franco in Spain, Antonio Salazar in Portugal and the colonels in Greece — and how those countries became democracies, returning to the global fold. A large number of Russians haven’t suddenly taken an interest in the history of 20th-century Southern Europe. Rather, discussions of the book have common themes: How do prolonged right-wing dictatorships end? And can Russia become a democracy?
Only the young 'children of summer' generation who did not witness 1991 fallout would root for immediate uncontrolled regime change via revolution. Hence it is not a very popular point, and many of its adherents have fleed the country.
And if you're not rich/powerful, you still need their support to be leader, and give them a quid-pro-quo and be nice to them. Just like in many democracies...
I wonder if one of them will take a chance at being a benevolent dictator who sets up a democracy rather than do the usual since the typical dictator seem to have a 50/50 chance of enjoying a retirement vs dying horribly.
Setting up a democracy and slowly releasing power would increases the chances of having a nice retirement considerably.
In principle I agree (reporting for Radio Eriwan), cynical me wonders how that would work, the leader would have to cooperate with the West -- because the populace's support seem to depend a lot on how they think their future is looking -- but Western leaders usually visit with business leaders, who say (or tell their puppets ^W elected officials to say) "You want X? We want Y in return.".
He also has no official family, his suspected relatives are quite well off but nothing spectacular. And it's hard to explain why a kleptocrat would want to start a war which will make his funds actively sought after all across globe and confiscated wherever found.
Whatever cuckoo bananas framework of State government Galkovsky has, it sounds more believeable than naive Navalnist "con men and thieves" with regards to Putin. The other people you've mentioned may fit the kleptocrat profile perfectly, but it's hard to argue how the war would benefit their prospects of keeping that money.
That's also the weak link of Navalnist's "Putin builds his palace" narrative - it's obvious that for any palace built, Putin does not get to enjoy it now and he certainly is not going to enjoy it afterwards, so it can't be his palace.
Assuming your question is not rhetorical, some Russians may not want an end of Putin's regime because they perceive that something worse than Putin is possible, and even likely. A lot of Russians experienced the lawlessness of the 90's, and Putin was perceived as the one who brought a semblance of order and stability. If he is eliminated, or simply dies of natural causes (he's rumored to have cancer), then who will follow him? Is there any guarantee that the new regime is going to be better? There were plenty of bad strongmen around the world who were toppled, only to be replaced by even worse guys.
And just to be clear, I'm 100% against Putin. I read every single day about the war in Ukraine, and hope every day that Ukraine will win. I'm quite optimistic that the spring counteroffensive will be a great success (knock on wood).
That said, I just answered your question. I can see why some Russians will be ok with Putin staying in power.
Everyone can see how much billionaires in the US decide who even gets to run for office, what kind of influence do you think oligarchs and the russian mob will have over any supposed democracy there? It's silly to presume that everyone wants democracy, communists also believe everyone in the west except the rich want a pro-worker communist regime where everyone equally prospers and they would use the poverty and homelessness in america, the richest democracy, as an example of how bad democracies are. Even if the educated class pick american style democracy, even America's founders were very concerned about the less informed and educated masses would be influenced by a demagogue to vote against their own interests (and lo and behold trump fulfilled their prophecy).
There are many considerations, including how much blood to spill and whose child will spill it when you talk about regime changes like that. Let the people who have to endure the carnage of such change figure out what they want and what fits their cultures and beliefs best.
Ultimately, this "everyone loves democracy" sentiment in my opinion is rooted in the arrogant belief that "everyone must share my ways and beliefs and would like the world I live in"
(&ya, the fact that democracies are imperfect, billionaires and would-be oligarchs often corrupt politicians is NOT the same. Self-determination and democracy are not binary, but on a scale. One scale is how well power is spread across the institutions of government and society, the legislative, judicial and executive branches, the institutions of press, academy, industry, religion, society... are they independent, or all bent to serve the executive, and now many and how much?)
> One scale is how well power is spread across the institutions of government and society, the legislative, judicial and executive branches, the institutions of press, academy, industry, religion, society... are they independent, or all bent to serve the executive, and now many and how much?
That's nice, but let a country figure that out on their own. You don't get to decide that measurement for the billions of humans who are barely surviving. Look at China, so long as the economy is good the people mostly support the CCP, outside of its handling if covid lockdowns one could even argue the CCP had more popular support than either parties ever had in the US in the last 20+ years! That's what upsets me about you people, i don't care about autocracies and dictators or democracies but you freaking claim to give a shit about what the people think but when they disagree with your way of life you pretend the measurement or polling must be incorrect. Ideologies are cheap, people care about results, they want food, shelter and security before ideology and for many they would not trade their identity and sovreignity for imported ideology. Why you all can't focus your energy here at home where many of your fellow citizens are suffering I would never know.
Yea, democracy and sovreignity are not mutually exclusive but they become mutually exclusive if foreign forces manipulate domestic media and fund or sabotage different elemnts in a country. Even saying a country would be better off with democracy is propaganda and an attempt to influence domestic matters of a foreign country. Look at how many people died in the arab spring because if this same propaganda spread by western clueless people or what's happening in Iran, your propaganda worked, your interference coninues to cause chaos, your assumptions and unwillingness to respect a nation's sovreignity causes harm!
1) Freedom to live a self determined life, under a self-determined government is a most fundamental human desire, and right.
2) Neutrality ALWAYS favors the aggressor, the abuser, the autocrat. It allows them to continue aggressing, abusing, and dictating without interference, and provides only hopelessness to the victims of aggression, abuse, and autocracy.
3) Anyone who wants to live a self-determined life under a self-determining government must be better armed and prepared to fight for that right. Without being better armed and prepared, the abusers or autocrats WILL, and sooner rather than later, take their lunch and their government.
You argue to: >>let a country figure that out on their own Nonsense
Lacking the power to overthrow a dictatorship is NOT the same thing as choosing that person/party as a leader.
Once a group of abusers or autocrats has succeeded in the aggression to take over the government, that does NOT mean that it is permanently decided. Claiming so does nothing but help the abusers.
Just look at the Iran regime who came to power 40+ years ago. The regime has murdered hundreds of people and imprisoned and tortured thousand simply for daring to speak out against them by not wearing a scarf. Literally millions risk their lives to protest. It is obvious that the regime is not desired by the people, yet you claim that nothing should be done to help them, not even subtle things to undermine the regime's power. Disgusting.
You argue that: >>you pretend the measurement or polling must be incorrect Nonsense
Any presumption that polling about the popularity of an autocracy inside that autocracy is simply preposterous.
First, the polling sample is already pre-selected. All vocal opponents have been removed form the sample. Anyone even remotely connected to them has learned that speaking out has very negative consequences, either long-term imprisonment and torture or death. On top of that, all media and information is tightly controlled, so people cannot even get information about, much less discuss, alternatives. And you propose that polling under those circumstances is accurate? Oblivious, to be kind.
>>Ideologies are cheap Fully agree. Ideologies are nothing but bullshit covering for autocracy. It doesn't matter what kind of -ism you're talking about, communism, Marxism, Naziism, fascism, Trumpism, whatever; it is all noise to cover up the will to autocracy by those using it. As the -isms fall apart and away, we can see the fight for what it is - self-determination vs autocracy.
>>You assume too much. Nope, there are only a few choices for people who support autocracy. They (and sadly, you) are arguing to keep people essentially (and often literally) enslaved because they lack the power to force their will for self-determination on their oppressors.
The only reason someone would do that is 1) they are a dictator themselves, 2) they are in the ruling party and thus enjoy the benefits of a kleptocracy hoarding the wealth of a nation, or 3) they enjoy a privileged life in a democracy such that they can engage in abstract concepts that ignore the reality of millions and play the role of Vladimir Lenin's Useful Idiots.
The only other option is that you are somehow personally aggrieved because of some specific past action by the democratic nations affected you or your relatives, you are certainly avoiding that topic, and are also constructing an entirely false narrative to avoid direct discussion.
I will not argue that there are some if not many instances where actions of democratic nations were mistaken or misguided, and caused real damage and death. But contract the maximum total of that damage and death against the literally hundreds of millions killed by dictators (either by direct action or starvation by their policies) in just the last century (Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, Un family, etc.+++), and the misery of billions more living under their regimes. Or just compare the economies and relative well-being of North vs South Korea, a controlled experiment. SK is wealthy, comfortable, and self-determining, while millions literally starve today in NK.
There is no debate. Stop defending it. It is abhorrent.
While levels of democracy were bad (i.e., higher autocracy) in the early years, the trend has certainly been towards democracy, and growth has been solid under both conditions, and steadier in the last few decades.
Sure, trading with the US and ER is also a factor, but that is also a benefit of being a democracy, instead of being an autocracy and relying on international criminal activities for currency, as does NK.
And while these factors may account for some of the difference it certainly doesn't count for all of it. While they're on two halves of the same patch of land, NK should also have some advantages with their direct land connections to China an Russia. Yet, NK residents are literally kept ignorant and starving, while SK is one of the most prosperous nations in the world. It would be extreme paternalism to argue that even if they had good information and the means to make a self-determining government, that they would not do so. In fact, parts of the experiment have already been done in NK — while any type of private enterprise was absolutely banned, it still sprung up all the time, and in one of their earlier famines, the govt relented and it was allowed because it did help better distribute resources. Just because people who don't like what thy have and are powerless to change it, does not mean that they want it or it is best for them.
[0] https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/KOR/south-korea/gdp-gr...
How bad was it? Did any of those countries become modern states without a ton of bloodshed?
https://kniga.lv/en/shop/konec-rezhima-kak-zakonchilis-tri-e...
I thought Putin was long past the point of being restrained by the law. Can't he just order the law to be changed? Or use a bunch of fancy spy stuff to figure out who owns the book, and arrange for them to fall out of windows?
Unless you get a bunch of Russian generals to defect, the people don’t stand a chance.
Not anymore.
The Russian Army in WW1 was considerably larger, and conquered considerably more land, too. Yet they got Kerensky, and eventually, Lenin.
With regards to dictators of Spain, Portugal and Greece. These countries could get rid of autocrats and fall back to Europe's safety net. But in case of Russia it is not an option, as nobody wants Russia and especially the EU, which was mostly built on the basis of confrontation with Russia. There's nowhere that Russia could 'return' to.
The EU was build to avoid another World War were Germany/UK/France start fighting. Once all European countries are tied economically for any of them to benefit of starting a war is very difficult.
And, of course, there is also the idea that a bigger economic area will create more opportunities and make Europe more competitive.
If anything projects like Nordstream prove that countries inside the EU were willing to increase their ties with Russia. If Russia had not initiated another war, Crimea was given a pass, there will be closer ties.
Russia has nobody else to blame from breaking ties with Europe but themselves.
It does sound strange if you claim to want to avoid a new war in Europe but systemically exclude the largest country in Europe from that equation. Meanwhile trying to integrate their direct neighbours into your sphere of influence.
The real countries in reduce war equation were Germany and France, not Russia.
On the other side, I suspect that none of the existing EU members would be happy with having a new one that's so much larger in population than any of the others that it'd gain effectively a veto power over everything, to say nothing of the domestic political issues with potential east-to-west migration.
It could, however, by 2013 have massive students exchange, Schengen visa waiver programme for short visits, cultural exchange, etc. None of that happened. EU just wanted oil & gas and unilaterally accept some of the brighter students into their universities, ideally having them pay for that privilege.
EU also wanted to "euroassociate" our neighbour countries, where they will get no guarantees or support of being EU member, but would open their markets to the EU and half-shut their markets, and borders, towards Russia. That was a directly hostile move towards Russia, who was completely shut off these arrangements.
EU and USA were also openly nagging Ukraine to boot Russian naval base from Crimea. A directly hostile move which backfired quickly and led to the whole war thing in the end.
That phrase is a relic of a long ago era. The EU would be more effective if it had more influence on its member states, but it reached a level where it does appear to dramatically reduce the chance of war, but from there, further integration has asymptoted.
I can’t say that colonialism is completely obsolete but influence has become so diffuse and information spread so widespread that even an analysis from that stance is no longer useful.
There are always two sides to every story, and it’s not that hard to find credible western foreign policy experts who are more than willing to point out that decisions by the west going back to the fall of the Soviet Union played a big role in where we are today[0]. Geopolitics, just like everything else, has nuance.
I think you have the EU and NATO confused. The two overlap a lot but they are far from coextensional.
Likewise, Ukraine’s prewar economy was so small (midway between Hungary and Slovakia) that it would have been economically irrelevant to the EU but, as we have seen, important in the anti war basis.
The economic size of the Eurasian Economic Union is quite small and I doubt it plays into the planning of anyone but its members and some of its immediate neighbors.
I am from a small country with an economy roughly the size of Russia’s (Australia) and it’s clear that the EU has little interest, positive or negative with trade with Australia. Conversely I have literally never seen mention of the Eurasian version in an Australian newspaper.
If the situation is that you can't invite everybody in, then the plan is defective from the start.
If you crash your own party with some people that don't fit in, you will cause the guests you wanted to have to leave.
Any countries not in the EU don't want to be in the EU. And that's fine.
And looking at what the EU does you don't have to be scared if you don't join. It's a defensive union first and foremost.
Switzerland isn't scared about the EU invading despite largely uncontrolled borders.
This is not how human rights and democracy should look like.
No wonder the US did everything to save the nazi collaborator responsible for the massacre of ~100k Poles in Eastern Galicia from a post-war tribunal justice.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mykola_Lebed#Post-war_activiti...
That's basically the situation in Russia with Putin after the USSR.
I'm not faulting Russia for their position, just pointing out the thing you are claiming should have happened did indeed happen.
But I will point out that Australia is as rich as Russia yet has not started any wars (except against its own aboriginal population, true of Russia as well) so there is no anti-Australia alliance. Two of the three largest war-mongers in Europe (Germany, France, and until recently UK) have been restrained in a web of agreements and alliances, not seeing them as a threat but as a reassurance. If Russia feels encircled, it should start by looking in the mirror.
STANAG and interoperability standards meant that the Russian gear would have to change, and the Russian weren't willing to give up the control of their national policy, or put their industry at risk.
It was a non-starter for a lot of reasons.
I mean, I haven't seen any rumor of war between the EU and Switzerland, or Turkey, or the United Kingdom, or really any other of its neighbors other than Russia.
Or did I misunderstand what you wrote?
But, the fact is that expansion of EU and EU influence in Ukraine were conductive of that war instead of being a deterrent.
Correct.
> Soviets did, by appending Donetsk Krivorozhye Republic to Ukraine SSR.
No, the Russian Federation did, by launching an unprovoked war of aggression against Ukraine.
Is that a US point of view? As a european, it is the first time I heard this.
(Edit: I mean yes, it was founded under the assumption of soviet threat, but it was not constructed especially against russia, which is how I read your comment)
The NATO was constructed against communist russia.
But the reasons for the founding of the EU are more complex, but mostly they were for .. europa. Not to become dependant on russia, nor USA. Stand on its own. Interconnecting economically, to not have a big war again.
And large parts of europe would actually love to get back to also freely trading with russia. Eastern europe (starting in east germany) had tight industrial relationships with russia and were therefore also hit hard by the sanctions.
Now it seems hard, to imagine going back while Putin is in power, but 15 years ago, it all looked very different. With a radical change of leadership in russia, it would look different again.
Russia is huge and has lots of ressources, they would be welcomed back for sure.
And as long as a really great war with china remains possible, a "injust" peace with russia might be preferable, compared to a "just" war, with the NATO against the combined east.
This is laughably misinformed. What the E.U. was built on has absolutely nothing to do with Russia. There have been ups and downs over the last couple of centuries, but neither France nor Germany are particularly russophobe.
For a while Putin's Russia actually looked a bit like that. In early 2000s, USA was the warmongering religious asshole idiot of the world and Russia started to look respectable and honest in contrast. But somehow all that crumbled away. In retrospect, perhaps it was just a facade.
Even funnier is another comment where Russians should risk their lives to overthrow their government and (implicitly) betray millions of their compatriots in order to supply Europe with their cheap 'ressources'. Using Molotov cocktails. Where's the carrot?
there is a Romanian saying about Romania but it applies to Russia too, "poor rich country" not sure if it translates well... the country is rich but the people are poor and suffering because of the small number of parasites.
My theory is that when you have same persona ndparty in power for decades then they can't hide their incompetence and failures on a party from opposition and they start inventing bad guys somehere outside (like UK invented the EU bad guy and ended up with Brexit( so Putin invented a big conspiracy about the west, LGBTQ , Israel and blame all his failures on them. Now he is gone old and senile and he believed his propaganda.
With regards to "respect for other nations", Russians know how Russian minority is treated in Baltic states and that Russian speakers are treated like 3rd class citizens in Ukraine (even before 2014). Russia treated other nations way better than those other nations treated Russians when on their own turf.
I believe you are confusing Putin with e.g. Orban because Putin is actually BFF with Israel, and even the fact that they are mildly supporting Ukraine didn't dent that.
I am not sure what you want from EU, we are not USA to democratize them with force. The western EU thought that with economy they can prevent idiotic wars, this work for EU, we no longer have wars here and the population is very anti -war.
Not sure what happens in Baltic states but please don't fucking tell me Ruzzian propaganda on how well URSS or Russia is treating minorities, the fucking bastards of Putin and his gang are not respecting nationalities living in their own independent countries.
I know that Ukraine is almost as bad as Russia so pushing propaganda on how bad Ukraine is just pushes Russia even lower.
So for Romanians Russians or FSB trolls should not waste their time, maybe you can fool some westerner with how well you love minorities.
TLDR easter europe knows Russia well, Putin played EU and Germany but he made a bet and his dice did not favored him, but he will push this stupid SMO to the his death.
* Also expecting them to lose a war voluntarily, agree to trillion of reparations and divide their country to dozens of strifing principalities.
Russian opposition is very self discredited. Compared to them, any version of patriot is super sane and non brainwashed.
This has absolutely nothing in common with wanting the USSR back. Russians do contempt modern Ukraine and Baltic states, but they are not universally fans of USSR. Some are, but they're being overly romantic.
Eastern Europeans are pathetic people who only saw like 10% of hardships of Communism and came out whining like they saw 500% of those. Now you have a different good lord to whom you sing praise like you did to Soviet communists just 35 years back. Don't consider yourself to be like Russians because we are not the same.
We are not the same, I wrongly thought that we might be more similar since we shared some trauma, but as i said I was wrong. I need to re-evaluate all the Russians I know online and try to figure-out if they in fact are imperialists/fascists that think God chose their nation to rule Eastern Europe or if they are the smarter/human Russians.
We did not share anything, the USSR breastfeeded the Eastern Europe for a few decades while starving its own Russian population like the proverbial reverse colony which siphons wealth from its core, and you came out really entitled. Of course, they were all so bad at economy that nobody was feeling exactly well off, but I'm not sure why you would blame that on Russians specifically, who are the main victims of the whole marxist hodge podge.
Also For example, the Soviet Union forced Eastern European countries to sell their natural resources, such as coal, timber, and minerals, to the USSR at below-market prices. The Soviet Union also imposed production quotas on these countries, requiring them to produce certain goods and send them to the USSR. The Soviet Union often used military force to maintain control over Eastern Europe and ensure compliance with these economic policies.
Additionally, the Soviet Union controlled the banking systems and foreign trade of Eastern European countries, making it difficult for them to trade with other countries and develop their own economies. The Soviet Union also used Eastern Europe as a market for its own goods, flooding these countries with cheap Soviet-made products that undercut local industries and businesses.
Russian Empire does not exist anymore, orphaned and its own gold being stolen, I would recommend you going to UK and France (allies of Russian Empire at the time) for the compensation.
I pity for your loss, I really do, but given how the Russian Empire has suffered a horrible demise I just do not understand why any money should be taken from my pocked and put into yours in the century XXI.
The rest of your comment does not sound like a description of a horrible crime. Moreover, it does sound like an entitlement.
One of the points, that the Soviet Union also sold oil and gas to Eastern Europe at below market prices. That you chose to withhold that fact highlights the whiny, intellectually disingenous attitude of Eastern Europeans.
What happened is URSS planed and forced the economy of it's satellites, because they did not like Romania they tried to not allow us to have an industry and forced us to sell them resources and they would sell us stuff. Luckily we had some competent leaders with diplomatic skills(btw is diplomacy looked down upon in Russia?... ) and Romania managed to get away from URSS planned control, we even prepared for an URSS invasion and had the USA president visit, but it took decades to kick Russians out from our country and our business.
About the gold, other countries returned the gold, and it is not only gold, Russia is keeping documents, artwork , from Bulgaria too(aren't Bulgaria your brothers? ). I am sure the gold is in Putin palace but did he used the documents to fill his library too? The art might be on the walls of his palace, bunkers and yachts but if you have prove that our art, gold, documents is in UK let me see it.
Israel has been only mildly helping Ukraine in part to buy Russian acquiescence to Israeli attacks on Iranian targets in Syria, where Russia has a substantial presence (though over time getting less, as material and personnel have been shifted to Ukraine.)
Putin isn’t Israel’s BFF despite Israel’s mild support for Ukraine; the Russian presence in Syria is a constraint on Israeli policy that results in it only mildly supporting Ukraine.