Sorry, but the reality is quite different than what you're trying to portray when you look at the actual process. The EU Association Agreement offered to Ukraine was voluntary, not coercive. It was transparent, negotiated over years, and part of a long time strategy aimed at bringing post Soviet countries closer to open markets, rule of law, and political reform. Something consistently thwarted by Russia. There was no ultimatum, no military threat, no secret deal, just a standing offer that Ukraine could accept or reject on its own terms. The full text of the agreement was public, and Ukraine had years to deliberate it. That is not coercion, that's diplomacy.Sam Lowry said:It's not necessarily a different deck of facts, but you're only dealing with about half the deck. You talk about economic "coercion," but you don't mention Russia's efforts to negotiate over Ukraine or the West's even more coercive conduct over the EU deal. You talk about extra-national excursions, but you don't mention the various forms of pressure from the US and its allies (despite our treaty agreements, it's true that Ukraine is a de facto ally) or the gradual and restrained nature of Russia's response. You describe Russia as increasingly isolated, but you don't mention their relations with the global majority or the increasing importance of BRICS. Between the policies of Biden and Trump, we're effectively trying to isolate the whole world. At some point we have to realize that it's ourselves we're isolating. I would guess you of all people would be sensitive to that.ATL Bear said:I'm not sure we're dealing from the same deck of facts. While he may have moved away from the Wild West days of early privatization, Russia has definitely been less secure as a nation, and their economic success, what little there has been, has typically revolved around sporadic oil booms, and has been focused on certain urban or resource areas and not to the broader population.Sam Lowry said:This is where we disagree. What he's doing has improved Russia's economic and security situation. Living standards have improved, unlike Ukraine for example, which has stagnated under its agreements with the West. Putin's conduct as a domestic leader is no more a sign of expansionism than Yeltsin's -- or the Saudi Arabian ally you mentioned, one of the most corrupt and oppressive regimes on earth. What's textbook is the pattern of demonizing foreign leaders that we want to get rid of. First they nationalize their industry or take some other action that we don't like. Then we hear relentless, sometimes dubious accusations of "totalitarianism" and human rights abuses, leading inevitably to the conclusion that they are the new Hitler and will invade the world if we don't attack them first. It's a big non sequitur based on a stereotype, and it's belied by Russia's efforts to make peace and coexist for several decades now.ATL Bear said:I won't deny the West has inconsistencies and has overreached at times. But what Putin is doing isn't a principled "Pro-Russia"alternative, it's a system where state power serves personal wealth, dissent is crushed, borders are optional, and the law is whatever the regime needs it to be. Invading neighbors, jailing opponents, and assassinating critics abroad aren't acts of defiance against Western overreach, they're textbook authoritarianism with expansionist objectives.Sam Lowry said:Yeltsin did a lot more than just tolerate the oligarchs. Enormous volumes of state assets were privatized and awarded to his friends. It was the economic "shock therapy" advocated by the West that enabled this kind of thing. Khodorkovsky became the wealthiest man in Russia as a result of his corrupt deals with Yeltsin. Men like him were already deeply entrenched in the political system by the time Putin took power. Those who pledged loyalty were allowed to keep their wealth in exchange for supporting Putin and his agenda, or at least staying out of his way.ATL Bear said:Unbelievable, these benevolent autocrat stories. Yeltsin had oligarch issues, but Yeltsin wasn't an oligarch. Putin is. Where Yeltsin tolerated their rise, Putin subsumed them. Early in his tenure, he consolidated power within the Kremlin by surrounding himself with a loyal circle of siloviki and began muscling into Russia's strategic industries. The turning point was the takedown of Yukos and the imprisonment of Mikhail Khodorkovsky, signaling to the business elite that loyalty not legality would determine survival.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.
Putin systematically placed trusted confidants atop Russia's key sectors, energy, defense, banking blurring the lines between state power and personal enrichment. But controlling Russia wasn't enough. Realizing that economic expansion required navigating inconvenient international legal frameworks, Putin shifted gears. In his 2007 Munich speech, he threw down the gauntlet to the West. NATO was his rhetorical target, but the real threat was the European Union and its rules based economic order, one incompatible with the authoritarian crony capitalism he was constructing.
Putin has long sought control over Europe's energy gateways, recognizing that oil and gas are potent weapons for his aspirations. His playbook has involved everything from Gazprom backed leverage to Nord Stream entanglements, gas cutoffs, price wars, all designed to make select (and more vulnerable) European economies reliant and politically hesitant. You believe the invasions of Georgia and Crimea were NATO resistance, but they weren't just military operations, they were extensions of this strategic doctrine to dominate the near abroad, fracture the West, and erode democracy from the edges inward.
You can try to minimize it all you want, but domestically he's choked off any flicker of dissent. Independent media have been shuttered, opposition leaders jailed or assassinated, and Russian society ground under the weight of surveillance and propaganda. Rule of law has been replaced with rule by loyalty.
And now nearly 25 years in, Putin doesn't merely govern, he reigns. And we're just now understanding how far he will go, and the cost of having looked the other way for two decades.
The agenda was basically to tap the brakes on privatization, save companies like Gazprom from rampant corruption and asset-stripping, and stop the hemorrhaging of profit from Russian resources. The only energy gateways Putin really controls are those coming from Russia itself. Of course selling Europe the energy it needs at a price it can afford is an intolerable offense from our point of view. We want Russia to join the free world economy, but only on our terms. Anything else is subversion of the "rules-based" order.
"Security" under Putin has seen the past two decades edging closer and closer to conflict with the West not away from it through a multitude of extra national excursions and a rise in cyber attacks and economic coercion, not to mention the assassinations and sanction regimes they've been under for well over a decade now. None of that added to Russia's security, it made Russia increasingly isolated, economically fragile, diplomatically toxic, and heavily reliant on coercive power rather than partnership.
And I'm not suggesting Putin is "the new Hitler." I'm saying he's a kleptocratic authoritarian who systematically uses force, economic coercion, and disinformation to expand his personal and regime power at the expense of Russia's own long term stability, and at the expense of neighboring states' sovereignty. Recognizing that doesn't require hysteria or moral panic. It just requires an honest look at the track record.
The real coercion came from Putin and Russia. Starting all the way back during the Yushchenko administration, when Ukraine was trying to align economically more with the EU and eventually leaned toward signing the Association Agreement, Russia responded with explicit threats, like cutting off gas supplies, slapping trade embargoes on Ukrainian goods, meddling in national and regional politics, warning of economic collapse, etc. They didn't offer Ukraine a better deal, they threatened Ukraine with punishment if it moved closer to Europe. That's textbook economic coercion, and nothing "restrained" about it. It was this effort and back door dealings that ultimately lead to the last minute change in direction. it was Russia not the EU that insisted Ukraine "choose" between the two. The EU made clear that Ukraine could maintain its existing economic ties with Russia while deepening its relationship with Europe. It was Russia that demanded exclusivity, using economic blackmail and political pressure to force Ukraine into abandoning the EU pathway entirely. And then when it didn't go their way, they invade Crimea with zero diplomatic effort. They just took it. Then moved troops into the Donbas. Whatever pretexts of words or opinions you have, those are the facts of action.
And the idea that the U.S. is becoming more isolated than Russia is completely detached from reality. The U.S. remains the central hub of global finance, innovation, military alliances, and international influence (despite Trump's efforts to alter that order), while Russia has been severed from the world's most advanced economies and relegated to selling discounted oil to China and India just to survive. BRICS is often paraded as evidence of strength, but in truth, Russia's role within it is shrinking, not growing. Russia isn't leading anything, it's becoming a junior partner to China, increasingly dependent and unable to dictate terms. Beyond that, its closest friends now are Iran and North Korea, isolated pariah states with collapsing economies and no real global clout. Aligning with rogue regimes isn't evidence of global ascendancy, it's a clear sign of geopolitical collapse. Russia hasn't outmaneuvered the West, it's locked itself into a future of dependency and sanctions. That's the "security" Putin's authoritarian and economic pursuits have pushed his country into.