Skip to main content

UK: The Telegraph Facebook Page – Russia

Stephen John Goldthorp

There's absolutely no guarantees that Putin will stop his warmongering afterwards.

Ned Ma
Stephen John Goldthorp you need to explain why.

Stephen John Goldthorp
Ned Ma I already have under the reply to Edward Iley who beat you to that question. Suffice to say. Putin's demands are geared towards making future invasions even easier. Not towards Peace. Putin's previous record gives doubt that anything he says can be trusted. But he has sunk serious investment into trying to conquer Ukraine and failing.

Ned Ma
Stephen John Goldthorp “Putin's demands are geared towards making future invasions even easier.” You haven't explained why. Why did Putin invade Ukraine and why doesn't want 'peace'?

Stephen John Goldthorp
Ned Ma why is hard, maybe Putin isn't as smart as he thinks he is or as smart as everyone else makes him out to be. Putin doesn't seem to be able to form trusting relationships either on a personal level or with other countries. He has utter contempt for Liberal Democracy and seems to believe that all governments are either really just Aurocracies or that democracies will crumb into Dictatorships. His foreign policy has been to fund more Authoritarian/extremist fringe parties across Europe in order to push his beliefs along. He grew up in the USSR when it was a Superpower and held much of Eastern Europe under its control. He isn't an ideological Communist, despite being a party member (everyone was). But he does appear to be salty about its break up. So quite a lot of his foreign and domestic policy seems to be based around trying to make Russia 'Great Again'. Albeit more along Ultraconservstive/Ultranationist/Reactionary/Authoritarian/Fascist lines. His attitude towards other human people is one of indifference or killing them if they seem a threat. So he lacks compassion, empathy and respect for human rights.

Ned Ma
Stephen John Goldthorp 90% of you explanation is about the individual. No context, no political economy, no sociology, i.e. Russian political economy and the social dynamic inside Russia since at least 2014. Even in political science courses they don't treat the subject in that way. Although individuals play a role in influencing and direcring policies, they do not act outside a context, local and global.

Stephen John Goldthorp
Ned Ma You said why. Why is Personal motivation and psychological. Putin is an Autocrat and he runs the country as such. Since alot of his decisions are how the country are run. In the past, the decision aspect of government ground to a halt when he was either ill or on holiday. There's a lot more weight that can be given to Putin's mental state, which is what the Why question is mainly focused about.
From a country point of view, given Russia's aging population and Rippling high and low birth rates by generations due to past trauma (Russian Civil War, WWI, WWII, Collapse of the USSR), have all left troughs in the next generation of births. 
The population decline might provide an incentive for Putin to go to war now, giving Russia's declining and aging population has not been offset by immigration.
However, it seems like the absolute worst thing to inflict upon Russia is more losses of young people of soldier/conscription age. 
Unless he underestimated the resistance of Ukraine and thought it would be a cake walk.
From an individual point of view, perhaps it might create a 'now or never' psychological effect on Putin. Very similar to how past dictators or Monarchs have engaged in a war out of fear of decline.
Putin's reasons for gravitating more towards Authoritarian Right Wing (i.e. Fascism) would be due to the collapse of 'Communism' (not very communist in practice, more state capitalist) and the disasterous impact of the chaotic Neoliberal shock capitalism of the 90s for Russia.
Both of these creating less favourable ground for support, than Ultranationalist approaches of trying to unity the country with social cohesion.
Economically, both the current Russian Federation and the former USSR are/were both heavily dependent on Oil/Gas exports for a source of government income, about 30% to 33% of its income is derived from these Exports to lucrative markets in Europe. Putin's pipelines to Europe as created a form of influence on country's like Germany, threaten to cut them off and plunge Europe into economic hardship from lacking those resoruces.
Of course, reliance on Exports is a double edged sword. If your customers decide to embargo and go elsewhere and are prepared to take the hit to their economy. Then Russia is in trouble. Part of the reason for the collapse of the USSR, was a low in Oil/Gas which impacted the ability for the government to pay its way.
Ukraine undermines Putin's strategy for dominanting Europe's Oil/Gas supplies.
Since it's independence means it could undercut Russia and sell cheaper.
Much of Putin's early terms were spent bullying Ukraine on occassion. Turning off supplies and then trying to double or triple, etc. the price of supply.
So resource wise, Putin might have some motivations there, his alliance with Right wing parties who are usually more anti-green energy and more pro-fossil fuels, could show some insight.
Again, war doesn't make sense due to risk of embargos, unless Putin just felt that the West wouldn't, couldn't take the risk.

Ned Ma
Stephen John Goldthorp The authoritarian aspect. China's state/regime is also authoritarian. Why has not China been invading other countries? Iran too is authoritarian. Population decline? Japan has much poulation decline than Russia. Is it thinking of invading other countries? Russia is 'dependent on Oil/Gas exports for a source of government income, about 30% to 33% of its income is derived from these Exports to lucrative markets in Europe.'. 38% of Russian hydrocarbons go to China. Here, you have started touching on the structural instead of the one-dimentional approach. 'The ability for the government to pay its way'. Pays its way into what? Needs explanation. “War doesn't make sense due to risk of embargos, unless Putin just felt that the West wouldn't, couldn't take the risk.” Are you speaking in the past, conditional or future. Your sentence is not clear. Have you explored that prolonging the war is crucial for the Russian economy today unlike pre-invasion, and that has created a new strategy aligned with a new section of the elite around Putin. You sound you are still in the pre-invasion time.

No more replies from Stephen.

Related





Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Qarmatians (Al-Qaramita)

By Nadeem Mahjoub Documentary film-makers G. Troeller and M. C. Defarge once asked a cabinet minister in South Yemen, why socialistic ideas were so readily acceptable in that part of the Arab world. He replied: “Because we have been communists for a thousand years! My mother was Qarmatian.” Official Muslim scholars and clerics, and many so-called moderates (whether individuals or groups) oppose sedition ( fitna ). Tensions and contradictions in society should be solved peacefully and even if the ruler was unjust and impious, it is generally accepted he should still be obeyed, for any kind of order is better than anarchy and sedition. “The tyranny of a sultan for a hundred years causes less damage than one year’s tyranny exercised by the subjects against one another.” Revolt was justified only against a ruler who clearly went against the command of God and His prophet.” 1 Here we look at not what happened in the minds of people who call for calm, oppose dissent and preach the re...
"If you don't attack the economic power of the elite, soon or later it will attack you." That's what the Arab uprisings, for instance, were unable/failed to do. K for Karl – Revolution (episode 3)
"A second position argues against transition, which is transitology itself. It is well known—especially among economists—as the sudden mobilization of a considerable mass of experts who are generally foreigners,generally Western, who come to preach the good word and to propose ready-made models of democracy. The science of the transition has become a financial windfall, a market. And the word transition has of course become a reflex of language, a term of reference, a call for tenders ( appel d’offres ) to which the whole society was supposed to respond.  Consequently, the reticence that one can express is the following: our history is framed, transition is a heteronomy. Every democratic revolution is henceforth supposed to take a unique, imposed path, which is, at the same time, indistinctly democratic and liberal (or neoliberal). A more or less non-“negotiable” package.  It is necessary to highlight the imposed character (and imposed from the outside) of this coming to t...
"In the same way that Robinson [Crusoe] was able to ob­tain a sword, we can just as well suppose that [Man] Friday might appear one fine morning with a loaded revolver in his hand, and from then on the whole relationship of violence is reversed: Man Friday gives the orders and Crusoe is obliged  to work. . . . Thus, the revolver triumphs over the sword, and even the most childish believer in axioms will doubtless form the conclusion that violence is not a simple act of will, but needs for its realization certain very concrete preliminary con­ditions, and in particular the implements of violence; and the more highly developed of these implements will carry the day against primitive ones. Moreover, the very fact of the ability to produce such weapons signifies that the producer of highly developed weapons, in everyday speech the arms  manufac­turer, triumphs over the producer of primitive weapons. To put it briefly, the triumph of violence depends upon the pro­duction of a...

UK

"We are all in it together" A letter from a doctor to Boris Johnson published a few months ago: ' Johnson has contributed to thousands of deaths ' Related 'The greatest global science failure for a generation' 'Herd immunity' or lockdown

US

 Written in June: The candidate who emerged from this jumble of discontent was the man who promised to do the least. His party is now preparing to give us a national election that will be little more than a referendum on the hated Donald Trump. Finally we have a climate in which the American public would unquestionably choose dramatic change were it offered to them, and the party of change has contrived to ensure that it will not be offered. Instead our choice is between two elderly and conservative white men, both with a history of stretching the truth, both with sexual harassment accusations hanging over them, and neither representing any possibility of energetic democratic reform. The old order has been miraculously rescued once again. Such is the climate of opinion in America that, with the right leader, remarkable things would be possible. Instead we are presented with Joe Biden, an affable DC veteran with a hand in many of the defining disasters of the last 30 years: worker-c...

Against Authoritarianism and Neoliberalism in Venezuela

“The current confrontation in Venezuela today is not between left and right.” “We are witnessing the transition from a government with authoritarian tendencies to a dictatorial regime.” “This is not a government ‘backed’ by the military, but, as Maduro himself has said, the government is led by a ‘civilian-military-police alliance’. “Those who continue to support Maduro, including parties and movements of the Sao Paulo Forum or the spokespersons of Podemos in Spain, are causing severe damage to the left in the region and the world. They are damaging anti-capitalist struggles in the broadest sense.” The US embargo is ‘in violation of international law’. This is a useless statement repeated a million times, and it has come back again during the ongoing Israel’s genocidal war. “[A]fter the failure of the current, self-defined “socialist” governments, Venezuelan society tends to associate any reference to socialism or the left with the corruption and authoritarianism of the Maduro governme...