|
Alchenar posted:Yeah but all of Eastern Europe did some form of shock therapy and while lots of them created problematic oligarchies only Russia and its remaining client states decided to rapidly reconsolidate the state monopolies under oligarch control and give up on actual market liberalisation entirely. I don't think it's fair to say that "Russia and its remaining client states" made any such decisions. I think it would be much more accurate to say, "Russia's oligarchs decided to rapidly reconsolidate the state monopolies under their control, and Yeltsin et al. were powerless to stop it, for fear of losing IMF loans and Western support." Nelson Mandingo posted:Yeah, absolutely. And I said as much in my post responding to that. Nearly every nation is trying to screw the other over in some way for their benefit. But I feel like blaming the West for Russia's aggression or territorial decisions post 90's is putting blame on NATO that doesn't jive to me. These are fundamentally choices that people in power of Russia have made, that led to this moment. No one here, at least as far as I can see, is denying that Putin has set Russia's course for the past couple of decades, including its increasingly aggressively irredentist foreign policy. But the post I was responding to claimed, "Russia choosing to transform into an authoritarian kleptocracy with imperial delusions was fundamentally a choice." I think that's a serious oversimplification. Majorian fucked around with this message at 21:26 on Mar 27, 2022 |
#
?
Mar 27, 2022 21:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 08:15 |
|
|
https://twitter.com/ignis_fatum/status/1508088846218674184 apparently the MP is talking about Shoguis(MOD rear end in a top hat who may be out nows) plans. so yeah going for all the greatest hits.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2022 21:25
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I don't think it's fair to say that "Russia and its remaining client states" made any such decisions. I think it would be much more accurate to say, "Russia's oligarchs decided to rapidly reconsolidate the state monopolies under their control, and Yeltsin et al. were powerless to stop it, for fear of losing IMF loans and Western support." Yeltsin supported, helped with, and benefited from the reconsolidating of the state monopolies under Oligarchic control.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2022 21:25
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Yeah but all of Eastern Europe did some form of shock therapy and while lots of them created problematic oligarchies only Russia and its remaining client states decided to rapidly reconsolidate the state monopolies under oligarch control and give up on actual market liberalisation entirely. Also Belarus didn't do shock therapy and it's not like they became a beacon of democracy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2022 21:25
|
|
|
Yudo posted:Where do you think those oligarchs came from?
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2022 21:26
|
|
|
Yudo posted:Where do you think those oligarchs came from? Local government, state-owned factory, and organized crime elites, IIRC.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2022 21:29
|
|
|
Nelson Mandingo posted:In another timeline, there is no need for NATO after the 90's. Which is why the entire world had to impose drat near nation-killing sanctions on Russia for proving a generation later that the prosperous nations of Europe needed to stockpile Russian-killers for the sake of defense. Authoritarian dictators keep betting and winning until their luck runs out and the body count is in the five to seven figures. Putin is a perfect example of this.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2022 21:30
|
|
|
marxismftw posted:Yeltsin supported, helped with, and benefited from the reconsolidating of the state monopolies under Oligarchic control. He did indeed; my point is, even if he didn't want the state monopolies to fall under oligarchic control, the choice had pretty much already been made by the oligarchs anyway.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2022 21:31
|
|
|
I read some books about Putins Russia and from what I understand. Putin created the Oligarchs as we know them today by distributing publicly owner resources for them to exploit in exchange for their support. They gain wealth and power, but their ownership of those resources is only legitimized through Putins government. And so they have to use that wealth to support his rule. Or risk a future government taking back those resources.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2022 21:32
|
|
|
Majorian posted:He did indeed; my point is, even if he didn't want the state monopolies to fall under oligarchic control, the choice had pretty much already been made by the oligarchs anyway. poo poo would have been way easier if the Soviet Union had just cleaned up their act like China, huh.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2022 21:32
|
|
|
mmkay posted:Eastern Military District's main base of operations is near Manchuria, Western one seems to at least be primary working in their nominal area. Oh I see. Well, that should squash the idea of the miracle battalion of tanks waiting in the wings I suppose, if they were sent in from that far out.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2022 21:35
|
|
|
E Depois do Adeus posted:- unless things are under wraps at an unprecedented level, I would expect to see the results of espionage operations in cities such as Paris and Vienna. 1) https://twitter.com/maxseddon/status/1508044270694973441 2) Ukrainian government later said he was a Ukrainian CIA employee who died “in line of duty”.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2022 21:35
|
|
|
Nessus posted:So if I'm reading you right, Yeltsin was in a situation where he would have had to, probably literally, fight the oligarchs and quite likely lose at that point? Yeah probably, although the USSR wasn't in much of a position to do that by the late 80s anyway. But it would be fun to see a historical timeline in which Gorbachev had some proto-Xi Jinping thought embedded in his policies.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2022 21:36
|
|
|
PederP posted:I think you incorrectly identify 'the West' in this. I have seen some claim that the West is enabling Ukrainian resistance (through weapons, intel and sanctions) and that the West is therefore able to decide when this war ends, either by ending support or by pressuring the Ukrainian government into accepting a particular peace accord. I am not sure if it is a similar position you are intimating here - but there is at least part of a such framing in how you phrase this point. You make some excellent points in this post. Just to clarify though: Would it be wrong to say then that the bulk of the sanctions are U.S. led? The threat of secondary sanctions is also a factor. Even if you don't like the term "economic warfare" I think the U.S. is the leader on actions that have damaged the Russian economy? My point is not so much that the "west" can decide whether or not this war ends, but it may exert influence on when the war ends if there is a possibility of a treaty or an armistice, because the US (a non-belligerent) has leverage over the aggressor, in a scape that is caused by, but only weakly influenced by, the kinetic war. PederP posted:European countries would continue to assist Ukraine even if the US dials down help. Public opinion in many European countries is so overwhelmingly pro-Ukraine that this is not just some old-school proxy war to be ended at a peace accord by Russia and the US, when circumstances evolve to a point where this is acceptable and/or unavoidable for both parties. Is a treaty/accord/ territorial concession out of the question then? Seems to me that Ukraine was already unable to defend itself in the separatist territories and I can't see that front working out better for them against Russian regulars, especially not if the Ukrainians are on the offensive. I am not trying to argue that the U.S. and E.U. are currently extending this war unless you count giving a democracy tools with which to resist a fascist war of aggression. My point is that these parties are significantly damaging one of the belligerent parties and it is likely that Russia will consider reversing this damage as part of a hypothetical peace agreement; I may be wrong but I don't think the Ukrainian government has much influence on that decision. PederP posted:Russia is incapable of occupying Ukraine even in the absence of this assistance. All of Ukraine, yes, thankfully. Their plan C of taking territory in the east and south has not yet been defeated as far as I can tell. PederP posted:To summarize: Russia is not a great power and framing this war in cold war terms does not represent reality. There is no quick end to the war unless Russia withdraws. The US and Europe are not extending this war. There consequences of the war are terrible - but this is purely a war of aggression, and the only way this ends is through Russian withdrawal or Russian defeat. Thus, any support given to Ukraine is effectively acting to shorten the war by accelerating the defeat or withdrawal of Russia. All good points, especially the role of Europe, but again, this highlights the desire to punish Russia for launching a war of aggression. It may get in the way of a hypothetical RU-UA treaty if Russia considers removal of sanctions as a prerequisite and Ukrainian decision makers find themselves with little influence on that decision. That said, this is hypothetical, not tied to military aid, and you seem to think that the war will end clearly on the battlefield, so it doesn't contradict what you said.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2022 21:39
|
|
|
Kurzon posted:When the communist state collapsed, Russia began privatizing its industries and a few guys managed to take control over the energy sector. America didn't install them. America's Harvard Boys, US political interference and the IMF directly shaped what the post soviet economy became. Additionally, the US may not have installed individual oligarchs, but the guy they propped up (Yeltsin) sure as poo poo did.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2022 21:44
|
|
|
Kurzon posted:* The economic sanctions against Russia has reminded everyone of just how powerful the US economy and the US dollar are. There is simply no competition. If you piss off the Americans, they can beat you down without even firing a shot. Ah, the Ankh-Morporkian approach to military might.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2022 21:44
|
|
|
E Depois do Adeus posted:Would it be wrong to say then that the bulk of the sanctions are U.S. led? The threat of secondary sanctions is also a factor. Even if you don't like the term "economic warfare" I think the U.S. is the leader on actions that have damaged the Russian economy? Absolutely. At the start of the war, Europe responded more quickly, more decisively, and with a broader array of sanctions than the U.S. did. https://graphics.reuters.com/UKRAINE-CRISIS/SANCTIONS/byvrjenzmve/
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2022 21:47
|
|
|
Mystic Mongol posted:Absolutely. At the start of the war, Europe responded more quickly, more decisively, and with a broader array of sanctions than the U.S. did.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2022 21:49
|
|
|
Majorian posted:He did indeed; my point is, even if he didn't want the state monopolies to fall under oligarchic control, the choice had pretty much already been made by the oligarchs anyway. Ok sure, and then he elevated Putin in order to protect his own involvement. A canoe floats down a river, but it can also be paddled and steered. I guess personally, I have a hard time understanding the perspective that the West should have supported and assisted in helping Russia regain their Empire. I don't understand it either by a moral or geo-political perspective. I don't get how you expect to sell that position to the voters of Western democracies, or how Russia being part of NATO would have prevented, rather than encourage, their military adventurism.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2022 21:53
|
|
|
I was worried racism and fygm would make European support for Ukraine tepid and half-assed, particularly regarding refugees. To the extent that it's actually been surprisingly eager, at least as of yet, I'm actually pretty fine with that. That is, Ukraine, and Ukrainians, receiving help does not make me angry
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2022 21:53
|
|
|
It feels weird not having to worry about the course of the war (mostly escalations) for once.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2022 21:54
|
|
|
marxismftw posted:Ok sure, and then he elevated Putin in order to protect his own involvement. A canoe floats down a river, but it can also be paddled and steered. Who's saying the West should have helped Russia "regain their Empire"?
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2022 21:54
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I don't think it's fair to say that "Russia and its remaining client states" made any such decisions. I think it would be much more accurate to say, "Russia's oligarchs decided to rapidly reconsolidate the state monopolies under their control, and Yeltsin et al. were powerless to stop it, for fear of losing IMF loans and Western support." I don't think it matters at this point if NATO/US were involved because Putin is not acting out some long planned vengeance over it: This is entirely about his delusions around rebuilding the Russian empire. I don't see how, at this point with what we know, we can even entertain that any of this is even remotely the Wests fault. Putin is entirely at fault for this war and dressing it up as a concern around western expansion. Putin continued and encouraged the Oligarchy and client state ideal that a lot of ex-Warsaw Pact wanted to avoid, its not like being economically or defensively aligned with Russia looked great to most of them because Russia was its own sort of corruption that wasn't attractive to nations looking to modernize. They'd end up like Belarus, basically a satellite state with a hand picked puppet at the helm. Its part of why the Maiden revolution happened at all: The vast majority of Central and Western Ukrainians didn't want to be more closely aligned with Russia. Any idea that Warsaw Pact nations found the EU/NATO more attractive than the same old under Putin is practically entirely Putin's fault. Imagine if Putin had actually cleaned up the Oligarchy and corruption, maybe some of those Warsaw Pact nations might've found it attractive to align with Russia instead. And even now: Its old history. Putin's goals are dead. He's achieved the opposite of everything he'd hoped for: Ukraine is ever more belligerent, will not be demilitarizing, will likely fully align with the EU, and will likely remain fiercely independent of Russian economic alignment
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2022 21:58
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Yeah probably, although the USSR wasn't in much of a position to do that by the late 80s anyway. But it would be fun to see a historical timeline in which Gorbachev had some proto-Xi Jinping thought embedded in his policies. Ukraines been through enough genocide thanks
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2022 22:00
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Who's saying the West should have helped Russia "regain their Empire"? That's been the principle aim of Russian foreign policy for 30 years. If Russia is in NATO, do they not go into Chechnya or Georgia? Or to put it more bluntly, does NATO membership restrain their actions or led a venire of credibility to them?
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2022 22:04
|
|
|
marxismftw posted:That's been the principle aim of Russian foreign policy for 30 years. If Russia is in NATO, do they not go into Chechnya or Georgia? Or to put it more bluntly, does NATO membership restrain their actions or led a venire of credibility to them? If Russia had wanted to keep its empire in the early-to-mid 1990s, I'm not sure they'd have allowed the USSR to dissolve. And as we've seen plenty of times with US activities, NATO would not restrain Russia from anything it wanted to do, even if Russia had been in NATO, so long as Russia poo poo out the appropriate cover story.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2022 22:09
|
|
|
Majorian posted:It's not. I didn't argue anything of the sort. I argued that the road Russia has gone down wasn't entirely its own choice, not that the West 100% made it for them. The reason why 10 people invariably jump to your throat every time you post about this, which is almost the only topic you post about here, is that you never clarify why is it crucial to take a stop during the current events and recognise that the West has non-negative responsibility for… some characteristics of current day Russia? It therefore simply ends with some people perceiving you as the “but the West” crypto-apologist. Concerned Citizen posted:in the 90s? do you mean the chechen war? because that is substantially more complicated than just russia invading its neighbor. it was certainly a bad idea and the russian army was in absolutely no shape to actually carry out such a war, but it was nothing like the invasion of ukraine. Their point is that it was qualifying for an obstruction towards “liberal ascension”. Kurzon posted:Has anyone heard of Peter Zeihan? Mr. Zeihan may need a history lesson or five. Deteriorata posted:The odds are about 90% that the Ukrainian people would reject any referendum conceding land to Russia. Do they then restart the war? No one is going to agree to terms like that. It’s all he can do, constitutionally. Nail Rat posted:Wait how is the Western MD Grouping the one in the east and the Eastern MD Grouping the one in the west. Did Russia really gently caress everything up that bad Western MD is the most populous, and so you see their troops in every single open front. FishMcCool posted:Yes, terms like that might be incredibly divisive. I get that they have to look for a solution, but a Ukrainian civil war based on terms too unpalatable for too many would only play into Russia's hands. He said in the same interview that it will take a year minimum to organise a referendum, due to refugee logistics not in the least, and that Russian troops must be gone from the country before they start preparations.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2022 22:12
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:apparently the MP is talking about Shoguis(MOD rear end in a top hat who may be out nows) plans. so yeah going for all the greatest hits. He’s alive and kicking, we have 3 days old footage, and 2 days old Azerbaijani account of talking to him about Nagorno-Karabakh. Feliday Melody posted:I read some books about Putins Russia and from what I understand. Putin created the Oligarchs as we know them today by distributing publicly owner resources for them to exploit in exchange for their support. It’s a bit more involved. He bought or got rid of the 90s oligarchs, which were actual free range capitalists. The current crop is entirely his, correct. E Depois do Adeus posted:Would it be wrong to say then that the bulk of the sanctions are U.S. led? Yes, it’s EU mauling them. Sanctions on dollar are huge, don’t get me wrong, but US is not the leader here, because their economy is much less integrated with Russia’s E Depois do Adeus posted:Seems to me that Ukraine was already unable to defend itself in the separatist territories and I can't see that front working out better for them against Russian regulars, especially not if the Ukrainians are on the offensive. Those were Russian regulars back then already. Ukraine’s garbage-tier 5000 people army of 2014 was mopping the floor with the bandits, and it took an naked Russia intervention to establish frontline on the border of their proxies.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2022 22:24
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I don't think history shows that the Russian people willingly chose shock therapy, tanking their own standard of living and allowing robber barons to buy up formerly-government-held services and industries. What it does show is that many of the old Warsaw Pact and former Soviet nations were given chances to integrate into the Western liberal order. Russia was not given nearly as many chances to do so. Do you honestly think they wouldn't have joined the EU in the 90s if it were actually on the table? Joining the EU would have theoretically given the Poles an effective veto over Russian state action, and you know that would be intolerable to every stripe of Muscovite government. Russia decided it’d rather be a Great State with the concomitant right to imperial ambitions as a mutually exclusive alternative to subordinating its sovereignty to the EU.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2022 22:28
|
|
|
Mystic Mongol posted:Absolutely. At the start of the war, Europe responded more quickly, more decisively, and with a broader array of sanctions than the U.S. did. Thank you. I have clearly been wrong about the role of the U.S. in this matter. The SWIFT ban influenced my perception of who was doing what. Not to be too flippant or delve into Clancychat but the Kremlin's patronage network seems to have taken a severe hit. Azerbaijan is testing the waters. Anatoly Chubais has allegedly fled to Turkey. The positions of certain oligarchs are suddenly unsteady. So where are the bodies?
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2022 22:28
|
|
|
cinci zoo sniper posted:Those were Russian regulars back then already. Ukraine’s garbage-tier 5000 people army of 2014 was mopping the floor with the bandits, and it took an naked Russia intervention to establish frontline on the border of their proxies. I mean this kicked off in part because that intervention still couldn't prop up the massive fail that is the puppet micro-states.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2022 22:30
|
|
|
SourKraut posted:If Russia had wanted to keep its empire in the early-to-mid 1990s, I'm not sure they'd have allowed the USSR to dissolve. The Russian leadership of the 90s were not same people as the leadership of the Soviet Union in the late 1980s.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2022 22:30
|
|
|
It's easy to believe that bad things happen because people made bad choices, but there's the structural economic factors to consider aswell. While Russia still had a huge extractive economy to profit off, the ruling class of Russia - whoever they ended up being - had an incentive to become an autocratic state. You don't need popular participation or a well-educated workforce to run a oil industry after all - you need a small handful of foreign experts and enough physical security the pipelines stay safe, and the rest of the country can go to rot . Regardless of what the US does or doesn't do in the 90s, this remains true, and becomes a major counterweight to actually making Russia a democratic country tied into the EU like much of the rest of the soviet block. See how the formally world-class russian educational system and scientific expertise has been run into the ground for the last 30 years - they aren't needed for you to profit, and might cause problems otherwise when they point out you're looting the country blind.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2022 22:36
|
|
Feliday Melody posted:I read some books about Putins Russia and from what I understand. Putin created the Oligarchs as we know them today by distributing publicly owner resources for them to exploit in exchange for their support. Has Putin (or the oligarchs themselves) been visibly grooming someone to succeed him and keep the arrangements going once the inevitable happens (he gets forced out and/or dies in office)?
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2022 22:39
|
|
|
Regalingualius posted:Has Putin (or the oligarchs themselves) been visibly grooming someone to succeed him and keep the arrangements going once the inevitable happens (he gets forced out and/or dies in office)? Nope! It's gonna be a cool zone experience!
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2022 22:40
|
|
|
E Depois do Adeus posted:Not to be too flippant or delve into Clancychat but the Kremlin's patronage network seems to have taken a severe hit. Azerbaijan is testing the waters. Anatoly Chubais has allegedly fled to Turkey. The positions of certain oligarchs are suddenly unsteady. So where are the bodies? I think it's ultimately quite Clancy to expect their spy network to go on a murder spree. Against whom, and how would that help them now or in the future? Regalingualius posted:Has Putin (or the oligarchs themselves) been visibly grooming someone to succeed him and keep the arrangements going once the inevitable happens (he gets forced out and/or dies in office)? No. Medvedev was a failed attempt.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2022 22:45
|
|
|
ISW's assessment for today:quote:Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment, March 27 Most of the maps I'm following are showing the Russian presence completely evaporating in the Sumy - Kharkiv area, like this one. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2022 22:47
|
|
|
Regalingualius posted:Has Putin (or the oligarchs themselves) been visibly grooming someone to succeed him and keep the arrangements going once the inevitable happens (he gets forced out and/or dies in office)? I actually asked about this shortly before the invasion kicked off and I think the consensus at the time was that he'd keep any potential ideas for a successor very close to his chest to avoid any potential incentive for the heir apparent to stage a coup. Obviously this was before certain... issues with the competency of Russia's leadership became much more apparent so I'm not sure what the answer would be now. MechanicalTomPetty fucked around with this message at 22:52 on Mar 27, 2022 |
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2022 22:48
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:I don't think it matters at this point if NATO/US were involved because Putin is not acting out some long planned vengeance over it: This is entirely about his delusions around rebuilding the Russian empire. I don't see how, at this point with what we know, we can even entertain that any of this is even remotely the Wests fault. Putin is entirely at fault for this war and dressing it up as a concern around western expansion. Putin continued and encouraged the Oligarchy and client state ideal that a lot of ex-Warsaw Pact wanted to avoid, its not like being economically or defensively aligned with Russia looked great to most of them because Russia was its own sort of corruption that wasn't attractive to nations looking to modernize. They'd end up like Belarus, basically a satellite state with a hand picked puppet at the helm. Its part of why the Maiden revolution happened at all: The vast majority of Central and Western Ukrainians didn't want to be more closely aligned with Russia. It’s kind of amazing most fan scenario briefings for Harpoon, Steel Panthers II, or Command Modern Operations, are far far more thought out and we’ll planned then Russia actually did. I was joking in the GBS thread about how if this was a computer game people would lose their poo poo at the performance of Russia’s AI. Someone actually typed out some hilarious patch notes for Russia. quote:Patch Notes for Russia-Ukraine War Scenario:
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2022 22:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 08:15 |
|
|
cinci zoo sniper posted:The reason why 10 people invariably jump to your throat every time you post about this, which is almost the only topic you post about here, is that you never clarify why is it crucial to take a stop during the current events and recognise that the West has non-negative responsibility for… some characteristics of current day Russia? It therefore simply ends with some people perceiving you as the “but the West” crypto-apologist. The post I was initially responding to said the following: quote:Russia choosing to transform into an authoritarian kleptocracy with imperial delusions was fundamentally a choice. That is why we are having this discussion. I did not bring this up out of nowhere. waydownLo posted:Joining the EU would have theoretically given the Poles an effective veto over Russian state action, and you know that would be intolerable to every stripe of Muscovite government. Russia decided it’d rather be a Great State with the concomitant right to imperial ambitions as a mutually exclusive alternative to subordinating its sovereignty to the EU. I don't think the actual record suggests that this is how Russia viewed itself as a state in the 90s. I've already given an example of Yeltsin expressing his belief that Russia joining the EU was both attainable and desirable.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2022 22:54
|
|