It's thought policing to label someone who acts like an authoritarian an authoritarian? Huh. I would argue that taking a moral stance on an issue is often times a good thing, Sam. What's interesting is you were able to do so with the Ukraine War, arguing that it was both right and just. Just not able to do it with Putin, though, it appears, despite ample evidence of his bad acts over the years.Sam Lowry said:You're thought policing instead of thinking.Mothra said:"As much as we pride ourselves on our supposedly free elections and economy, they have their disadvantages."Sam Lowry said:Much of what is now considered Russian propaganda was part of mainstream thinking among American politicians and diplomats a few years ago. They understood that Russia wanted better relations and was not inherently a threat to the West. They understood that expanding NATO and abrogating our arms control agreements would lead to conflict. And so it has.Mothra said:There are plenty of news sources that parrot Russian talking points. Hell, even Western sources parrot them. See Tucker Carlson. Which of the non-Western sources are you referencing?Sam Lowry said:What's telling is that you assume my information could only come from Russian talking points. Evidently you yourself haven't looked far beyond Western corporate media, most of which might as well be state-owned when it comes to foreign policy.Mothra said:Didn't say he banned all non-state media. I said the "private" media owned by the oligarchs are essentially state run, and he has banned pretty much any reporting he deems critical of the govt. or Russian armed forces. He's also banned pretty much all outside media:Sam Lowry said:I'm pretty sure he didn't outlaw all non-state media or criticism of the government. I haven't dug much into the details, but Russia has always been relatively authoritarian compared to the US. Even Europe and Canada don't have all the protections we have. Specific laws and customs are less important than the rule of law itself. Trump is particularly dangerous to our republic because of his disregard for our traditions and way of government.Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:I assume so. You're the one who's obsessed with Putin. I don't defend him apart from correcting some of the more obvious exaggerations.Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:There you go conflating again. Some people consider FDR an authoritarian but still justify our involvement in WW2. I suspect you may be one of them. It's called separating issues.Mothra said:LOL. I certainly understand why you don't want to address the fact you support an actual authoritarian.Sam Lowry said:But again, this is all beside the point.Mothra said:
I am not sure about transsexual communist Sith lord from Mordor, but I do think authoritarian aptly describes Putin.
I mean, how else would you describe a guy who had done the following:
- within a year of taking office, precipitated the takeover by oligarchs loyal to him of all independent television and media in Russia to where all Russian news channels are now state-run;
- restructured Russia's political system to abolish regional elections, turning regional governors and officials into appointed positions;
- amended the constitution on numerous occasions to allow him to essentially be cemented as Russia's leader, indefinitely;
- cracked down on what would be First Amendment expression if it were the US, outlawing public demonstrations and gatherings unless sanctioned by the state;
- putting laws in place outlawing criticism of himself and the Russian govt.;
- jailed or disqualified numerous political opponents;
- passed strict laws banning assembly for numerous religious groups; and
- invades surrounding countries when he doesn't like the leaders they elect.
I think any reasonably unbiased individual would call that classic authoritarianism at best. Hell, you've labeled Trump an authoritarian for merely issuing executive orders.
Perhaps if Putin were American...
I suppose if I had repeatedly defended FDR, as you have with Putin, you might have a point. But I haven't.
To be clear, it's your position that Putin is in fact an authoritarian?
So you've already judged that Trump is an authoritarian, but you're still just not sure about Putin?
https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/03/07/russia-criminalizes-independent-war-reporting-anti-war-protests
https://www.politico.eu/article/kremlin-russia-bans-over-eu-80-media-outlets-on-its-territory-counter-restrictions/
The more interesting thing about your post, however, is the admission you haven't felt the need to look into these issues a little closer. I suspect reasonable people would agree that it's a good idea to look into the credibility of an information source before parroting what are essentially state talking points regarding the War in Ukraine and Russia's motivations. You've been parroting them for more than a year on this thread, and yet you didn't think it might be a good idea to look into Russia and Putin's conduct and veracity for truthfulness?
What a telling admission.
To be clear, since you now seem to be hedging, do you believe Putin to be an authoritarian or not? Do you believe he's lied about anything? And do you believe being an authoritarian might affect one's credibility?
Do you believe the list of examples I posted several posts ago regarding his authoritarian polices are inaccurate? Which of his positions have you independently confirmed to be accurate?
I would say your examples are generally misleading at best. Corrupt Russian oligarchs were more powerful under Yeltsin, which is one of the reasons we liked him. They were happy to do business on terms highly favorable to the West, which meant stripping Russian industry and resources to the bone. Putin curtailed much of their activity and channeled the rest of it in ways that were more beneficial to the national interest (and, it must be admitted, beneficial to Putin himself in terms of the loyalty he demanded).
Putin has always claimed to want closer ties with the West, and his actions have borne that out. His military doctrine and limited interventions in neighboring countries, far from evidencing imperial ambitions, have been defensive in nature. He has opposed a return to Soviet-style governance and advocated gradual democratization. But there are significant internal and external obstacles to reform, chief of which has been the increasing hostility of the West.
Russia was in an extremely precarious position at the end of the Cold War -- poor, vulnerable, and politically unstable. Unlike most great powers, they voluntarily negotiated their own retirement from imperial status. They relied on help and cooperation from the West which turned out not to be forthcoming. They had democratic dreams but no real tradition of democracy. They had a long history of being rebuffed by Europe. This is not even to mention the rising tide of Islamism in the region, or the rival power of China on Russia's border. Topping it all off, there was NATO intervention in Yugoslavia, the US invasion of Iraq, new missile installations in Europe, and the threat of regime change in Russia itself. It was in this context that Russia saw the Maidan revolution and the possibility of nuclear weapons in Ukraine, despite Ukraine's previous relinquishment of such weapons and its pledge of neutrality.
For all these reasons, Putin's priorities were more pragmatic than idealistic. As much as we pride ourselves on our supposedly free elections and economy, they have their disadvantages. Putin's long tenure in office allowed him to spend a decade or more preparing for Western sanctions. His control of Russian industry allowed for rapid expansion of arms production. These weren't necessarily things he wanted to do, but the circumstances required it. At least some of his restrictions on foreign influence, protest, and proselytizing exist for the same reasons. Every country regulates public expression in some way, but Russia has the added problem of dealing with active subversion by a rival superpower.
I can't say that being authoritarian affects Putin's credibility with regard to the United States. I consider Biden less authoritarian than Trump, and his dealings with his domestic public were somewhat more credible than Trump's. On the other hand, I don't think Biden had any credibility whatsoever in his dealings with Russia. I would probably trust Trump or Putin more than Biden or Clinton on matters of foreign policy.
I would say Putin is more authoritarian than most American leaders. He's also less authoritarian than most Russian leaders. The label is relative and doesn't necessarily tell you all you need to know. Medieval monarchs were authoritarian by today's standards, but many of them were wise and trustworthy rulers. Justice, the right interests of the people, and faithfulness to the law are more important than outward forms and labels.
This kind of says all we need to know right here. Wow.
Certainly, we've made some mistakes, no question. But the idea that Putin's authoritarian policies - of which there are many - were a direct response to NATO hostility is revisionist history at best. It's actually more the other way around - NATO hostility increased as it learned Putin was not the reformer we hoped for, and as he began to gradually rid Russia of the democratic reforms instituted after Yeltsin took office. Let's not pretend at this point Russia is any semblance of a democracy. It is a dictatorship, plain and simple.
There was a way for Putin to chart a course that could have led to much better relations with the West. But his desire for power, and Cold War beliefs, led Russia in another direction. In short, there was plenty of blame to go around.
But there's no question to any reasonable observer that Putin is, in fact, an authoritarian and dictator. Your inability to say that without caveats or hedging, speaks volumes. It also takes away what little credibility you have when you call Trump an authoritarian, or claim Russia is fighting a just war at this point.
It is a fact that Russia has significant unused factory space and under-employed labor which it can use to rapidly increase production of military equipment. We can increase ours, given enough time, but the realities of profit and politics make it more difficult. That doesn't mean our system is worse than Russia's. It just happens that our Founders designed it for peace, trade, and friendship, not rushing headlong into war at the drop of a hat. Our people are also more accustomed to freedom and prosperity, not so much the discipline and sacrifice that go with commitment to a major war. The neoconservative agenda has failed, in part, because our society isn't built for it.
Being able to recognize all of this doesn't take away from my credibility. You might prefer that Russia modeled itself on the US, but that is really none of our business. When the conditions of peace and stability exist, more open economies and societies will tend to follow. That has been Russia's desire. Unfortunately the West has not opened the way for them. The truth is that we don't really want the competition.
But as we know, you really don't have a problem with authoritarianism, as you admitted above.
Here is when it becomes our business. When a country invades a democratic ally, it becomes our business. It affects us all, to an extent.
