Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

I was listening to a Pakistani fella who's a Dean at Boston University - Adil Najam https://www.bu.edu/pardeeschool/profile/adil-najam/

He reckons a lot of countries are too interlinked to multiple world powers to take a side. Even in the case of US/China, he reckons that both need each other - US homes are full of Chinese goods and Chinese pockets are full of American dollars.

This is why I don't expect a large scale conflict. Everyone has too much to lose over a small part of Ukraine.
 
Mciahel Goodman said:
The US supported Bolsonaro and most right wing South American leaders. It has little to do with authoritarianism because Sisi and the house of Saud are absolutely authoritarian (as are most of the emirate states, too). These are "allies" within the international system as it stands. So that distinction simply doesn't hold. If it did, you would see consistency. America would not back any authoritarian states rather than single out Russia as the one authoritarian state to be despised. The truth is that the US backs whatever authoritarian states they see as beneficial to their interests and condemn others they view as working against their interests. Those interests have to do with economic and military control, not "democracy".

As someone said, the "rule-based order" refers to a hegemonic world within which the US gives the orders. It isn't about democracy. It's about ensuring the US does not take orders. As a counterpoint, note that China economically supports both democracies and dictatorships (exactly what the US does, externally).
Click to expand...

As I said in an earlier post, the US doesn't have an issue with these states and where possible, often does business with them. The difference here is that Putin is challenging existing systemic norms, which is why there is pushback from the US and NATO, and tepid support from other authoritarians. Long term, authoritarianism in larger states can't survive because of the influence of technology on global norms.
 
Raoul said:
As I said in an earlier post, the US doesn't have an issue with these states and where possible, often does business with them. The difference here is that Putin is challenging existing systemic norms, which is why there is pushback from the US and NATO, and tepid support from other authoritarians. Long term, authoritarianism in larger states can't survive because of the influence of technology on global norms.
Click to expand...

This systemic/global norms theory doesn't work for me. If the state is powerful and authoritarian enough, it'll simply subvert technology (see China. Xi is arguably more authoritarian than Mao) There's also evidence that both peaceful and violent protest against such leaders has become less effective in recent years.

I don't think the US/Nato particularly cares about their internal politics, or mistreatment of their citizens. It's purely geopolitical for me.
 


The way the second explosion cuts off cleanly make this look like one of the staged videos Western intel agencies had warned about.
 
owlo said:
This systemic/global norms theory doesn't work for me. If the state is powerful and authoritarian enough, it'll simply subvert technology (see China. Xi is arguably more authoritarian than Mao) There's also evidence that both peaceful and violent protest against such leaders has become less effective in recent years.

I don't think the US/Nato particularly cares about their internal politics, or mistreatment of their citizens. It's purely geopolitical for me.
Click to expand...

But even so, technology will prevail and information will still get in and gradually erode the system from the inside. Even Kim can't keep South Koreans from smuggling in usb sticks with news, information, and movies from the outside - either through balloons or human smugglers. Russia and China can nationalize technology to their hearts content, but long term, it won't be able to stop information from seeping in. This is why imo, these tactics are doomed to fail in the long run and will eventually lead to restructuring of the entire international system as we know it.
 
Raoul said:
It could be in the near term, especially if Putin is allowed to operate unchecked.
Click to expand...

I don't think Russia is anywhere near the biggest challenge for democracy, really. China is the biggest one, obviously, but there's also the threat of current and rising democracies sliding into authoritarianism. Brazil, India, etc. Even the US isn't immune.
 
nimic said:
I don't think Russia is anywhere near the biggest challenge for democracy, really. China is the biggest one, obviously, but there's also the threat of current and rising democracies sliding into authoritarianism. Brazil, India, etc. Even the US isn't immune.
Click to expand...
Biggest challenge to world democracy is what happens in US, November 2024
 
Zlatattack said:
This is why I don't expect a large scale conflict. Everyone has too much to lose over a small part of Ukraine.
Click to expand...

Think most people would agree; however the danger is when the 'Sabre-rattling' stops and the Sabre's are drawn and are seen being wielded at head height... someone forgets to duck... and the s**t hits the fan!
 
owlo said:
I don't think the US/Nato particularly cares about their internal politics, or mistreatment of their citizens. It's purely geopolitical for me.
Click to expand...
I agree with this. I don't think US/NATO cares about anyone's internal politics, just so long as it makes sense in terms of maintaining their control over world affairs. That's almost too factual to be controversial at this point.

The Firestarter said:
Biggest challenge to world democracy is what happens in US, November 2024
Click to expand...
That's what they said last time. The biggest challenge to world democracy is making at least one of the two American parties (democratically) mirror what people (in America) actually care about and then implementing it when they have a majority.

Raoul said:
But even so, technology will prevail and information will still get in and gradually erode the system from the inside. Even Kim can't keep South Koreans from smuggling in usb sticks with news, information, and movies from the outside - either through balloons or human smugglers. Russia and China can nationalize technology to their hearts content, but long term, it won't be able to stop information from seeping in. This is why imo, these tactics are doomed to fail in the long run and will eventually lead to restructuring of the entire international system as we know it.
Click to expand...
The Chinese aren't living under the kind of North Korean totalitarianism people think. They are the world's largest exporter of tourists. They have business operations and diaspora communities around the world. They know what America and Europe are about and they know what China is about. There's not an awful lot going on in China that Chinese people don't know about (much like the US, the propaganda model doesn't work in terms of suppressing knowledge but in terms of framing the spectrum of discourse around what is and isn't legitimate).

Raoul said:
As I said in an earlier post, the US doesn't have an issue with these states and where possible, often does business with them. The difference here is that Putin is challenging existing systemic norms, which is why there is pushback from the US and NATO, and tepid support from other authoritarians. Long term, authoritarianism in larger states can't survive because of the influence of technology on global norms.
Click to expand...
I just wonder what are the existing systemic norms. I read those norms as American hegemony in matters economic, military, and diplomatic (as a consequence). Or, remember the Google scandal in China? Now the West is doing much the same thing in terms of blocking access to avenues of information which it disagrees with (one for the fact-checking thread). That information is still there, but you have to work to find it because it isn't made available via the usual state broadcasters and popular internet platforms.
 
Mciahel Goodman said:
I agree with this. I don't think US/NATO cares about anyone's internal politics, just so long as it makes sense in terms of maintaining their control over world affairs. That's almost too factual to be controversial at this point.


That's what they said last time. The biggest challenge to world democracy is making at least one of the two American parties (democratically) mirror what people (in America) actually care about and then implementing it when they have a majority.


The Chinese aren't living under the kind of North Korean totalitarianism people think. They are the world's largest exporter of tourists. They have business operations and diaspora communities around the world. They know what America and Europe are about and they know what China is about. There's not an awful lot going on in China that Chinese people don't know about (much like the US, the propaganda model doesn't work in terms of suppressing knowledge but in terms of framing the spectrum of discourse around what is and isn't legitimate).


I just wonder what are the existing systemic norms. I read those norms as American hegemony in matters economic, military, and diplomatic (as a consequence). Or, remember the Google scandal in China? Now the West is doing much the same thing in terms of blocking access to avenues of information which it disagrees with (one for the fact-checking thread). That information is still there, but you have to work to find it because it isn't made available via the usual state broadcasters and popular internet platforms.
Click to expand...

My fathers current wife is a chinese communist. You have No ideal what they are willing to be ignorant about. My father on the same note had to match his family friends be strangled to Death by the red guard.
 
Gehrman said:
You have No ideal what they are willing to be ignorant about.
Click to expand...
I do. I'm familiar with the modern Republican party and some parts of other such parties and it's the exact same thing. A belief system in each case. If you read Chinese state news, it isn't much different to American media except it inverts the American position so that America is the problem (instead of China for the Americans).

As for the Red Guard. Yeah, China is more authoritarian than the US. No one really argues against that. However, the idea that Chinese people aren't aware of their own state's authoritarian tendencies is ridiculous. I.e., a technological revolution isn't going to bring China down. There's nothing you can tell them that they don't already know and either disagree with or refuse to believe. Very similar to the most polarized in the US.
 
Mciahel Goodman said:
I do. I'm familiar with the modern Republican party and some parts of other such parties and it's the exact same thing. A belief system in each case. If you read Chinese state news, it isn't much different to American media except it inverts the American position so that America is the problem (instead of China for the Americans).

As for the Red Guard. Yeah, China is more authoritarian than the US. No one really argues against that. However, the idea that Chinese people aren't aware of their own state's authoritarian tendencies is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

There is free press at least
 
Gehrman said:
There is free press at least
Click to expand...
I think there is freedom for dissent. Which is a better distinction because it underscores the genuinely democratic part of the US framework whereas "free press" requires a lot of qualification ("freedom of speech/assembly" works better imo).
 
Mciahel Goodman said:
I just wonder what are the existing systemic norms. I read those norms as American hegemony in matters economic, military, and diplomatic (as a consequence). Or, remember the Google scandal in China? Now the West is doing much the same thing in terms of blocking access to avenues of information which it disagrees with (one for the fact-checking thread). That information is still there, but you have to work to find it because it isn't made available via the usual state broadcasters and popular internet platforms.
Click to expand...

Its simply the commonly accepted norms among nations where information flows freely, which also happen to comprise a vast majority of global GDP. When people in these areas socialize with one another (such as for example here at Redcafe or on hundreds of other platforms) new rules and norms eventually take shape. Nations that limit political speech internally are also not exempt from this since they often allow their citizens to communicate with people on the outside as long as that speech doesn't foment internal dissent. This is why China and Russia will struggle long term with controlling information and cracking down on speech, protests, and pro-democracy movements, because the norms that are driving them are innately human (a desire to be free and achieve group recognition), which is supranational.
 
Raoul said:
Its simply the commonly accepted norms among nations where information flows freely, which also happen to comprise a vast majority of global GDP. When people in these areas socialize with one another (such as for example here at Redcafe or on hundreds of other platforms) new rules and norms eventually take shape. Nations that limit political speech internally are also not exempt from this since they often allow their citizens to communicate with people on the outside as long as that speech doesn't foment internal dissent. This is why China and Russia will struggle long term with controlling information and cracking down on speech, protests, and pro-democracy movements, because the norms that are driving them are innately human (a desire to be free and achieve group recognition), which is supranational.
Click to expand...
I think that's a sensible analysis but it has more chance of working in Russia than it does in China (I think there's a sizable section of Russians, a silent minority, who don't particularly care about Putin but see him as the lesser of two evils, where Yeltsinnomics is the second). The Chinese have large labour unions and they often do protest (within the framework of the state overall, but that is a big distinction from Russia where large labour groups protesting could easily shift to a more harmful form of internal dissidence relative to the state). Which, again, is why I see the US sanctions as an attempt to force this kind of internal dissent on a largescale.

And to play Devil's advocate for a moment, I think that US policy will backfire. Biden/Trump have given Putin everything he wants. He doesn't have to manufacture a threat when he can freely disseminate US media which actively threatens Russia. In turn, that gives Putin an almost legitimate source of propaganda which has the opposite effect of what the US intends. The US is willing to play bogeyman for Putin and Putin happily accepts it.
 
Last edited:
i’m not saying that this is what’s happening but if i was a russian plant, pretending to be a noble westerner, i’d probably give myself a name like “michael goodman” too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mciahel Goodman
I’m losing hope that this would solve itself out without an actual conflict :(
 
rimaldo said:
i’m not saying that this is what’s happening but if i was a russian plant, pretending to be a noble westerner, i’d probably give myself a name like “michael goodman” too.
Click to expand...
In case you're trolling, I'd suggest you stop.
 


:lol: Amateur hour over there, but it doesn't really matter since they'll use it as casus belli regardless.

Seems to be a car blown up in an empty parking lot with no victims or damage other than the car.
 
harms said:
I’m losing hope that this would solve itself out without an actual conflict :(
Click to expand...

If he doesn't ultimately plan to invade, I don't think there's much more he can do to pretend he's going to... Can we even begin to speculate on the bodycount should he pull the trigger? All down to one complete cnut.
 
Sir Matt said:


:lol: Amateur hour over there, but it doesn't really matter since they'll use it as casus belli regardless.

Seems to be a car blown up in an empty parking lot with no victims or damage other than the car.
Click to expand...


Hybrid ops don't work so well when another country is releasing intel of what will happen the day prior.
 
Last edited:
harms said:
I’m losing hope that this would solve itself out without an actual conflict :(
Click to expand...
It’s not a conflict and very counterproductive to call it like that, it’s russian aggression/invasion towards the helpless state.
 
Simbo said:
If he doesn't ultimately plan to invade, I don't think there's much more he can do to pretend he's going to... Can we even begin to speculate on the bodycount should he pull the trigger? All down to one complete cnut.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I’m not sure if the evacuation of DNR & LNR population as well as this explosion in Donetsk look like a continuation of his negotiation strategy, looks like a cause for the upcoming retaliation
 
Raoul said:
But even so, technology will prevail and information will still get in and gradually erode the system from the inside. Even Kim can't keep South Koreans from smuggling in usb sticks with news, information, and movies from the outside - either through balloons or human smugglers. Russia and China can nationalize technology to their hearts content, but long term, it won't be able to stop information from seeping in. This is why imo, these tactics are doomed to fail in the long run and will eventually lead to restructuring of the entire international system as we know it.
Click to expand...

The recent technological breakthrough actually allows me to see the US for what they really are, in the 80s/90s I used to think they're the good guys, but looking at the BLM issue, congressional shenagigans, US Politics threads, Trump, Biden, D vs. R, makes me shudder.

And Russian/China isn't actually contained, they can access the internet pretty much fine, no facebook doesn't mean they can't access cnn etc. Most of them have travelled outside and see forthemselves, they're not North Korean.

I'd say between the Chinese/Russian vs the US, the later are in more risk of implosion from the inside with your bipartisanship.
 
harms said:
Yeah, I’m not sure if the evacuation of DNR & LNR population as well as this explosion in Donetsk look like a continuation of his negotiation strategy, looks like a cause for the upcoming retaliation
Click to expand...
Indeed. Seems like we’re on the precipice for real this time.
 
Rajma said:
It’s not a conflict and very counterproductive to call it like that, it’s russian aggression/invasion towards the helpless state.
Click to expand...
Not my point but fair enough. I don’t think that if whatever happens happens anyone on here would have any trouble separating an aggressor from a victim.

You can speculate on the role that different countries had played in the the situation that preceded this whole mess, as we did a lot in this thread, but if violence breaks up, it’s on Putin.
 
harms said:
Yeah, I’m not sure if the evacuation of DNR & LNR population as well as this explosion in Donetsk look like a continuation of his negotiation strategy, looks like a cause for the upcoming retaliation
Click to expand...

Deciding to carry out nuclear triad exercises right now seems like a pretty clear indicator that the retaliation will be soon. The exercises will be a distraction and concern for NATO to monitor. The evacuation of people in DNR/LNR will also help reduce the number of eyes watching to dispute Russia's claims.

 
Raoul said:
But even so, technology and information will still get in and gradually erode the system from the inside. Even Kim can't keep South Koreans from smuggling in usb sticks with news, information, and movies from the outside - either through balloons or human smugglers. Russia and China can nationalize technology to their hearts content, but long term, it won't be able to stop information from seeping in. This is why imo, these tactics are doomed to fail in the long run and will eventually lead to restructuring of the entire international system as we know it.
Click to expand...

They can't, but they can control public opinion and apathy. I think China do this quite successfully, portraying things as 'hit jobs' and 'fake news' (like the tennis player). Imo these regimes are here to stay, they may just have to be more inventive.

harms said:
Not my point but fair enough. I don’t think that if whatever happens happens anyone on here would have any trouble separating an aggressor from a victim.

You can speculate on the role that different countries had played in the the situation that preceded this whole mess, as we did a lot in this thread, but if violence breaks up, it’s on Putin.
Click to expand...

Did you ever honestly think it wouldn't/that he wouldn't make a play for Donbas? If not now, then soon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.