Hot topic political thing about thing currently happening

[Octavious]

Klaus, old chap, I appreciate you trying not to upstage brainbomb's satire in his own thread, but there was no need to aim quite so low.

Back at the start of the war saying Russia was not a dictatorship was a pretty mainstream view. That Berti describes it as absurd is rather odd and shows a lack of perspective. Since then Russia has moved further along the spectrum, for sure, but the country is not irredeemable

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

Klaus, old chap, I appreciate you trying not to upstage brainbomb's satire in his own thread, but there was no need to aim quite so low.

Back at the start of the war saying Russia was not a dictatorship was a pretty mainstream view. That Berti describes it as absurd is rather odd and shows a lack of perspective. Since then Russia has moved further along the spectrum, for sure, but the country is not irredeemable

Mainstream among whom lol?

Freedom of the world calls Russia a "consolidated authoritarian regime" in 2019: https://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/2021-08/FIW2019_book_jumbo-PDF.pdf

CATO ranks Russia as 114/162 countries in terms of freedom in 2019: https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/human-freedom-index-files/cato-human-freedom-index-update-3.pdf

The OSCE/ODIHR concluded that Russia’s 2016 State Duma election was marred by restricted political freedoms, misuse of state resources, biased media, and procedural irregularities that undermined competition and public trust: https://www.osce.org/files/f/documents/9/c/290861.pdf

You doubling down on this is wonderful self-satire

[Octavious]

Yes, Berti. Just because Russia not being a dictatorship was a mainstream view doesn't mean that Russia being a dictatorship wasn't also a mainstream view. Like how the Liberal Party winning in Canada doesn't stop the Conservatives from being a mainstream party. The mainstream contains a cornucopia of alternate and opposing views.

Honestly, for an intelligent man you come up with some pretty daft ideas at times

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

Yes, Berti. Just because Russia not being a dictatorship was a mainstream view doesn't mean that Russia being a dictatorship wasn't also a mainstream view. Like how the Liberal Party winning in Canada doesn't stop the Conservatives from being a mainstream party. The mainstream contains a cornucopia of alternate and opposing views.

Honestly, for an intelligent man you come up with some pretty daft ideas at times

I guess I'd ask again who didn't consider Russia a dictatorship back in 2019? No doubt a handful of politicians preferred a euphemism or two when the D word would have been awkward—doesn't the truth matter though?

[Klaus klauts]

Russia is and was always irredeemable, at least if you think of democracy as redemption. Russia is, and always has been, a colonial empire. Do not let yourselve be fooled by the fact, that they don't have colonies in Africa or somewhere not connected to their main land, like so many other colonial empires did.

Yes, Russia did a great deal of mass murder, mass deportation and cultural Russification to hide the fact, that they are a colonial empire. But that doesn't change anything.

The Muscovites ruling the country have always (at least for many of the past centuries) had the urge to build an empire, to gobble up ever more land. Even a FUCKING COMMUNIST REVOLUTION could not change this fact, even though ideological speaking, communism was very anti-imperialistic at that time, especially if you consider that this was the first revolution of that kind, so that there were many "true believers", who hence really believed in anti-imperialism.

Imperialism is not compatible with democracy.

But Imperialism is deeply ingrained in Russian society. The only known antidote is a major, clear-cut defeat. At least this did the trick with us Germans, but a success is not guaranteed.

How did you ever get the idea that Russia might be a democracy?

Lead by a KGB agent, that even after the fall of the wall tried (and failed) to install an espionage ring in Germany.
A president that staged a massive terrorist attack, where hundred of people died, so that he can continue the war against the Chechens (one of many people suppressed by the Muscovites)

(I just discovered a "fun" fact: In 1997 Putin completed his doctorate at the university state mining university of St. Petersburg, which is full of plagiarism, and some even claim that this thesis was not written by him, but by the rector of said university. Anyway: It explained how natural gas and crude oil are important tools to achieve important goals in foreign politics ...)

[Octavious]

Yes, Berti. Just because Russia not being a dictatorship was a mainstream view doesn't mean that Russia being a dictatorship wasn't also a mainstream view. Like how the Liberal Party winning in Canada doesn't stop the Conservatives from being a mainstream party. The mainstream contains a cornucopia of alternate and opposing views.

Honestly, for an intelligent man you come up with some pretty daft ideas at times

I guess I'd ask again who didn't consider Russia a dictatorship back in 2019? No doubt a handful of politicians preferred a euphemism or two when the D word would have been awkward—doesn't the truth matter though?

All those people who were saying that Russia was sliding towards dictatorship clearly didn't think they were yet a dictatorship

And of course you get people like Klaus who refuse to believe that Russia was and will be anything other than a dictatorship because he firmly believes that real democracy and human decency can only really be found in the properly European parts of Europe.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

All those people who were saying that Russia was sliding towards dictatorship clearly didn't think they were yet a dictatorship

Saying "Russia is sliding towards dictatorship" was never an endorsement that it was free or democratic — it meant it was already a tightly controlled authoritarian regime drifting even deeper into personalist rule. I'd accept evidence to the contrary if that's not in fact what people were saying in, say, 2019. But they would be factually incorrect to say Russia was not a dictatorship then.

And of course you get people like Klaus who refuse to believe that Russia was and will be anything other than a dictatorship because he firmly believes that real democracy and human decency can only really be found in the properly European parts of Europe.

I'm also unconvinced by Klaus' story. Essentialist narratives about what a country is are undoubtedly wrong. Russia could be a totally different place in 50 years.

[Octavious]

Saying "Russia is sliding towards dictatorship" was never an endorsement that it was free or democratic

I never endorsed Russia as free and democratic. It was clearly a deeply flawed democracy losing freedoms at a rapid pace. But I did not believe it was yet bad enough to be considered a dictatorship. Now I am perfectly fine with people taking the view that it was that bad, but what I object to is the arrogance of those people who declare any other view to be absurd

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

Saying "Russia is sliding towards dictatorship" was never an endorsement that it was free or democratic

I never endorsed Russia as free and democratic. It was clearly a deeply flawed democracy losing freedoms at a rapid pace. But I did not believe it was yet bad enough to be considered a dictatorship. Now I am perfectly fine with people taking the view that it was that bad, but what I object to is the arrogance of those people who declare any other view to be absurd

The evidence suggests the claim that Russia was not a dictatorship in 2019 was in fact absurd lol.

[Klaus klauts]

And of course you get people like Klaus who refuse to believe that Russia was and will be anything other than a dictatorship because he firmly believes that real democracy and human decency can only really be found in the properly European parts of Europe.

Have you even bothered to read my post?

I never said anything like that. I postulated that imperialism is incompatible with democracy, and especially, that Russia as we know it today will never be a democracy. There are very simple reasons for that:

Let's suppose Russia becomes a democracy tomorrow, and free elections are held. Everybody gets a fair vote, everybody shares their opinion freely and without fear. Everybody who want to get voted gets a chance to get voted, and the press is free.

What will happen?

19% of the population are ethnic minorities. This may not seem like much, i.e. in Germany 28,7% of the populations were migrants in 2022. But unlike in Germany, the minorities in Russia have very good reasons to positively hate the Russians. This will be very destabilizing, as many of them will elect politicians that will be very outspoken about their region getting independence from Russia. Surely, with only 19% of the population, probably less, on their side, there is no democratic way to leave Russia, but:

-- The minorities are capable of fighting. The soldiers of the Russian army are mostly recruited from these minorities, since they are poor, and are seen as "disposable". But: This leaves the ones who survive with fighting experience. The Chechens take the cake btw, they even have their own army.

-- The minorities are regionally concentrated, thus, while their voting power is not enough to majorly influence the central politics, they can act strongly at the local level, and make the Russian state uncapable to act that way.

Actually, the minorities do not even have the need to fight, as they will become the majority. It is projected that in 2050 half of the Russian population will be Muslim, since the ethnic Russian population declines, while parts of the Muslim population is growing rapidly.
It is impossible for me, a mere mortal, to measure the infinity of your delusion, but I think it utterly impossible that the ethnic Russians will just sit there and watch, how the Muslim population takes over. No, they would make sure to keep the upper hand, by committing some more atrocities, and therefore killing the democracy of.

Democracy has a property, that is often fatal to it: In order to work, the people it governs actually have to want to be part of the system. If they do not, the system collapses, even if it is just a strong minority who does not want to participate.

[Klaus klauts]

To get my point across, let me give some further explanation:

I also think, that the German Empire (around 1900), or the British Empire could have never become democracies, and they never have, since in the predeceasing statements I include the colonies. Sure, Germany and England are democracies now (despite Octavious now probably arguing otherwise just for the fun of it), but they are by no means the German Empire or the British Empire, as huge parts are now "lost".

So, when I say that the Russia we know will never be a democracy, I am not claiming that Russians are physically incapable to live in a democracy or something like that, but that it can not happen in a Russian state that is even remotely similar to the one We see today. The most tried out route would be, that the Russian state splits up, like so many colonial empires did, and we could then get a much smaller Russian state. But this will be a state that will look much different on the map of the world, a state that will be political and militarily insignificant.

[brainbomb]

Pussy Riot and Britney Griner would probably have solid arguments that Russia is a despotic shit hole

[Wusti]

This thread is mildly amusing - carry on.

[CaptainFritz28]

Yes, Berti. Just because Russia not being a dictatorship was a mainstream view doesn't mean that Russia being a dictatorship wasn't also a mainstream view. Like how the Liberal Party winning in Canada doesn't stop the Conservatives from being a mainstream party. The mainstream contains a cornucopia of alternate and opposing views.

Honestly, for an intelligent man you come up with some pretty daft ideas at times

I guess I'd ask again who didn't consider Russia a dictatorship back in 2019? No doubt a handful of politicians preferred a euphemism or two when the D word would have been awkward—doesn't the truth matter though?

I don't imagine it'll help Oct's case here if I chime in...

Nah, just kidding. In 2019 I didn't know enough about politics to know any more about Putin than that he was the leader of Russia.

[French_boi]

Dictatorship or not, four centers is simply too much. Just unfair.

[PRINCE WILLIAM]

To clarify something. By definition, a dictator is someone who takes power after a coup d'état or a civil war. Putin is a tyrant, and Russia lacks many things in terms of democracy, but he was elected. The same goes for others like Turkey's Erdogan or Israel's Netanyahu.
Spain's Franco was a dictator who took power after a civil war, and the junta in Greece came to power after a coup.
Here's a tricky one: Was Hitler a dictator or not? He was elected, but his party didn't have the majority of votes. The then-President, being deeply anti-communist, called him to form a government, then Hitler absolutised his power by legislation made to his needs.

[DiplomacyandWarfare]

its amusing how eager webdippers are to have complicated political and philosophical arguments
like this was originally a joke post and now its about... what a dictatorship is?

*eats popcorn*

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

To clarify something. By definition, a dictator is someone who takes power after a coup d'état or a civil war. Putin is a tyrant, and Russia lacks many things in terms of democracy, but he was elected. The same goes for others like Turkey's Erdogan or Israel's Netanyahu.
Spain's Franco was a dictator who took power after a civil war, and the junta in Greece came to power after a coup.
Here's a tricky one: Was Hitler a dictator or not? He was elected, but his party didn't have the majority of votes. The then-President, being deeply anti-communist, called him to form a government, then Hitler absolutised his power by legislation made to his needs.

There are competing definitions. Merriam‑Webster has "One holding complete autocratic control: a person with unlimited governmental power. One ruling in an absolute and often oppressive way." Cambridge has "“A leader who has complete power in a country and has not been elected by the people.” Several others do cite the need for a military coup (Oxford Learners: "A political leader who has complete power over a country, especially one who has gained it using military force."). I don't typically see colloquial use of the word make the coup distinction, but maybe that's just unique to my experience.

It's interesting thinking through Putin's rise to power. He was peacefully appointed to Prime Minister as the Soviet Union is collapsing and wins the 2000 election—probably the most fair election Russia has ever had.

But many historians and journalists argue that elements within the security services (FSB, which Putin had led) used influence, and possibly orchestrated incidents like the 1999 apartment bombings, to justify the second Chechen War and rally public support for himself. That rhymes with critiques of Thatcher and Bush II, but I strongly doubt they were as directly involved in the violent events that bolstered their popularity as Putin.

Putin's political power was quite quickly reinforced by state violence, including persecuting, expelling, or killing dissidents and adversaries. He didn't need a coup to get into power, but he needed this political violence to maintain it. Again, a parallel might be drawn to some US President's use of the FBI, but I feel those sorts of comparisons would really misstate the relative scale of the abuses.

Putin continues to win "elections" that are progressively less legitimate. Boosters say he would win even a fair election based on opinion polling, but they can't know because they can't know who his opponent would be or how Russians would feel if they had a free media. If he would win a fair election easily, why not have one?

I expect most modern people outside poli sci departments would readily apply the D word to Hitler and Putin, but again maybe I'm misperceiving how that word is used.

[Ernst_Brenner]

Dictatorship or not, four centers is simply too much. Just unfair.

French boi complaining about four centers when the French start with five.

[PRINCE WILLIAM]

Putin's first election was legal and, in the beginning, he was popular. While his foreign policy was always to expand Russia to the former USSR borders, in the interior, his policies had improved the living conditions of his people. Then, things changed with oppression, with the law amended to let him stay in office for multiple terms, and the rest is history.