Anyone who thinks Putin’s public appearances are signs of mental derangement has forgotten who Putin is: former KGB officer trained in interrogation and psychological warfare. Nothing is accidentally shown, particularly in scripted video. If you notice something in his demeanor or actions, it’s because he wanted you to notice it.
And look how well it’s worked. We’re spilling ink wondering whether Putin has lost his marbles and will be deposed soon. Or maybe he’ll just nuke us if he gets pissed off; we’d better be careful in how we respond. (Yes, we must be careful, but not because Putin is crazy. WE must be careful because he’s not crazy, and a putbull backed into a corner is extremely dangerous.)
It is not beyond the bounds of reality that Putin is on steroids – and maybe also immunosuppressants. That makes him more dangerous and yes, mad in a way.
I agree that it is possible. But I think it is foolish to presume that to be the case. Which is more likely:
2 years of COVID and some kind of drugs have made Putin so loony he’s afraid to sit closer than 20 feet from people, while still retaining enough faculties to restate the exact same red-lines about NATO expansion that he always has…
or Putin is in complete control of his faculties and the 20 foot table is about making his adversaries think he’s crazy, while he does exactly what he said he would do to enforce his red lines over NATO expansion.
I believe the second. Mostly because while his public behavior appears deranged, his actual actions (of his government) have been what would be expected from a man who truly believes NATO expansion is an existential threat to his nation.
I read somewhere that he is highly medicated, probably taking steroids. If true then he isn’t himself; he’s pumped up. KGB or not, he must be exhausted.
Nah he’s the Norwegian Blue of mad dictators – left the territory, lost the plot, etc etc.
You can stand behind that counter with your beige work tunic of authority, trying to convince us with your weasel Palinesque salesman’s words that he’s really sane – but we know now, he’s a bampot, a dead parrot.
He needs to be transferred to the Ministry of Funny Russian Walks as soon as.
They used to be called liars , people who made up stuff, and there are always plenty of people lazy enough to make up stuff… now they’re some kind of artist?
Mike Stimpson
2 years ago
Was this written with the aid of the “nudge unit”?
James Chater
2 years ago
[One of] the best piece[s] I’ve read so far on UnHerd.
‘Watching sycophants* crawl along marble floors confirms his deep suspicion: human beings are low creatures.’
*We are all susceptible. Certainly the (‘Boris’) Johnson phenomenon is a textbook case-study of the perils of sycophancy. A Cabinet of the ‘dangerously incompetent’.
Last edited 2 years ago by James Chater
Zaph Mann
2 years ago
Very nicely written. . I do wonder though if it’s really not those whose wealth is built off of the manufacture of ever more hideous weapons and indeed the manufacture of never ending wars.
Fred Sculthorp
2 years ago
‘You only needed to read a sentence of Kapuściński to know he was more than a journalist: he was an artist. He had to allow himself more. His ultimate creation was himself.’
This is interesting. How much of this has inspired the current mold of foreign reporter?
This is the problem- the West is imperfect and unfair. Therefore there is no difference to Russia? Last time I checked Johnson hasn’t tried to poison Starmer or ordered him to a hell hole prison with a sentence to be increased at Johnson’s whim. This argument from abstract perfection doesn’t work.
No, but Trudeau did seize the bank accounts of his fellow citizens simply for protesting his actions. Much like we’re seizing the bank accounts of Russian citizens for not protesting Putin’s actions.
You’re right, the two systems are not morally equivalent. But they’re also not as different as people imagine. Rysard Legutko (former Polish MP who helped transition his country from communism to liberalism) wrote a great book about the unexpected similarities called “The Demon in Democracy”.
When Russia attacks Ukraine, they did so (contrary to the Western press stories about Vlad resurrecting the Warsaw pact) because they are rightfully paranoid about NATO in Ukraine, and warned about it for years. Still doesn’t justify war, of course.
When Britain attacked Iraq, it wasn’t just without cause, based on a lie, and with no attempt to avoid war. There was causus Belli, no strategic reason, nothing that would harm Western interests if there were no war.
You launched a brutal war on a defense less country, destroyed their infrastructure, left them ravaged – just because you could.
Animals that kill to eat versus those that kill for pleasure. Only human beings, especially from the West, fall into the latter category.
And yes, Britain is a democracy. democracies are nicer for their own people and opposition leaders. Which is why deposing democratically elected leaders such as Allende or Mosaddegh and replacing them with autocratic wasn’t a great idea. But then, if you didn’t have double standards you wouldn’t have any standards.
Yes, but…. Putin is taking the Ukraine to keep it. NATO is a smoke screen; as long as the Donbas remained in break away mode, Ukraine could never, ever join NATO.
The West has done some revolting things in the recent past and maybe one or two leaders have tried, in their heads, to step on the ‘Despot’ continuum-ladder, but I am not sure anything can compare to this.
” I am not sure anything can compare to this”
I am keen to understand the big difference between what’s Putin’s war and the various wars initiated by the West, and how the latter were morally superior
As we know, Putin has invaded without any provocation, an adjacent (‘sister/brother’) nation with deep historical and personal/familial connections to Russia, but which is nonetheless now independent. He is the direct cause of what will be a protracted, terrifying feud between Ukrainian nationals and Russia. He will be responsible for the deaths and grieving of thousands of Russians and Ukrainians. He is mis-using History, to destroy another nation, in cold blood.
The reasons for the attacks on Iraq and Libya, for example, though not arguably, ‘morally superior’, were in the context of much more complex and involved circumstances (accepted, with hindsight, a prime argument for not launching the attacks – the West didn’t attempt to foresee what might happen, ergo, Daesh and their land-grabbing…). The motives were different.
To go back to the original comment.The ‘aversion’ to ‘despots in the West’ is not ‘new’. I accept it is selective, though.
Thank you for your long and considered response.
I think that’s the fundamental issue here- a lack of appreciation of recent events and Russian view of the world
“without any provocation”
Expanded NATO East against verbal promises in 1999-2004 when Russia was no threat
Hinted at Georgia and Ukr joining NATO in 2008
Funded and instigated a coup that overthrew the pro Russian leader of Ukraine
Repression of the Russian minority in Ukraine and elevation of neo Nazis
And the final straw was refusing to rule out Ukraine joining NATO, which would mean reaching the very border of Russia, ballistic missiles a few minutes from Moscow,and loss of key Russian naval bases
No provocation at all?
And in contrast:
“The reasons for the attacks on Iraq and Libya,.. in the context of much more complex and involved circumstances”
There was no real strategic reason for either war.
None.
The reason cited in Iraq (WMDs) was am utter, brazen lie.
If the West had not attacked those countries, they would not have descended to anarchy, and there would be close to zero impact on NATO.
If Russia had not attacked Ukraine, their strategic position would have become catastrophic.
Halabjah? 1988? That’s where and when more than 5 thousand Kurdish townsfolk were gassed to death in Northern Iraq.
Iraq had Chemical Ali then. Ukraine has comic Zelensky in charge – so Russia has only imagined threats from Ukraine. The only real threat to Russia is Russia itself: Russia attacking the environs of a nuclear power plant.
Putin has initiated a fantasy ‘re-conquest/civil war’. He has knowlingly started what will be protracted feuding. No one ‘wins’ at all. To remove Hussein and Gaddafi were arguably ‘morally’ and strategically ‘wrong’. However, the motives for initiating the West’s ‘regime change’ and Putin’s ‘special operations’ were entirely different.
I’m not so sure, James. 20 years ago, I would have agreed with you. I totally wrote off the “blood for oil” narrative. But then I watched my country’s politicians and flag military officers lie through their teeth for years about Iraq and Afghanistan. The Afghanistan Papers have proven our elites knew they were lying. The Panama Papers have proven many of our elites were enriching themselves along the way.
Were Libya and Iraq and Syria really moral crusades? I’m less certain now. Is Yemen a moral crusade? We’re supplying the arms for it. Meanwhile, when we’re sanctioning Russia but asking the House of Saud to pump more oil for us, I wonder how moral our foreign policy really is.
I’m not saying we shouldn’t do some of these things. Nations have interests, and it may well be within ours to overthrow Ghaddafi or the Taliban or Assad. But we should be clear-headed about why, instead of hiding behind a cloak of “our drone strikes are more moral than yours”.
What happened in Iraq was largely Iraqis killing Iraqis, even Shias killed Shias( Al Sadr had Al Khoei killed). Al Quaeda killed everyone who not part of their group. Did anyone predict the slaughter of Iraqis by Iraqis ?
All that would not have happened if not for the US invasion.
Saddam was a brutal dictator but why don’t you ask some Iraqis if they preferred his regime or what came after?
‘..some Iraqis’ indeed! You would have to be very selective about who you asked if you wanted a favourable view of Saddam. The southern Marsh Arabs and the northern Kurds weren’t so keen, for a start.
Depends upon the Iraqi. In 1990 Saddam was not removed and some Iraqis complained. The Shias rose up and were slaughtered by Saddam.
If a window in a building is broken one cannot use this as an excuse to steal. People have free will, which includes being free not to kill. Just because there are no Police in the street that does not allow one to kill a neighbour one dislikes. There is the concept in British law of proportionality and self control.
Perhaps in many countries freedom and democracy do not work: therefore there is a need for a strong leader to stop people killing each and prevent rampant corruption. Perhaps the people lack emotional maturity which brings about , self control, a sense of perspective, proportionality, balance and an ability to laugh at oneself.
The concept of a king being chosen and ruling through consultation and consent goes back to 500 AD in England. The first rules by which which a kingdom was to be governed by laws goes back to Aethelbert of Kent in about 650AD; then there is The Charter of Liberties of 1100 AD, Magna Carta 1215 AD and a fully functioning Parliament with House of Commons and Lords by 1295AD. Perhaps the emotional maturity which means individuals take responsibility for their actions, takes centuries to develop. Perhaps if peoples have a psyche dominated by pride and honour then it is difficult persuade them to desist from killing each other other slights. Perhaps the phrase ” No offence meant ” and the reply ” None taken ” can only occur amongst people relaxed in their knowledge of their proven abilities.
Many Russians want a strong person to rule; perhaps because they lack the emotional maturity required by individuals to take responsibility for their lives required for a free and democratic country. After all, Russia had serfdom until 1860 and Communism from 1917 to 1991.
This is my issue with the war in Ukraine. While Putin is obviously awful the Uk and Us lost the moral high ground in 2003 when they defied the UN and acted unilaterally in invading Iraq. In both Ukraine and Iraq, the populations of the invading countries were broadly against military action. Blair and Campbell have a lot to answer for!
Putin is a kleptomaniac grabbing Ukraine for keeps. For what ever reason the West intervenes, it pulls out eventually – even if the withdrawal is a shambles!
“I am keen to understand the big difference between what’s Putin’s war and the various wars initiated by the West, and how the latter were morally superior”
The wars were not and morals don’t come into it, but the systems that generated those wars are not locked in stasis – the populations of the West could turf out any of Bush, Blair etc after a few years. That they chose not to and instead re-elected them, is a different matter, but there’s no accounting for the tastes of populations – the Canadians willingly chose Trudeau, as did the New Zealanders, Arden, but we must allow for eccentricities in different populations.
Try turfing out Putin, and it’s thirty years in a Siberian prison, or worse.
You are confusing two different questions.
The sanctimonious reaction to the war in the West is a different matter to your view on Putin.
Putin is a dictator, and a rather ruthless one who has curtailed freedoms.
However, If instead of Putin, you had some other, softer, more democratic leader, NATO would still be advancing towards Russia (the first wave happened in 1999, Putin was just about to come to power, the Russian military and economy was in tatters)
And hence the strategic reasons for Russia to draw a red line, their antagonism to US backed “regime change” and loss of the Ukrainian ports, would remain.
If this was some other leader instead of Putin, if he cared for Russia’s long term interests, this war would happen.
If a free nation wishes to join NATO, it is entitled to do so if it meets certain conditions. How dare you suggest that Russia has any moral right to hold a large stick to use against such countries? The advance of NATO is with the consent of free nation’s choices. Perhaps you should consider just why they are so keen to join the Treaty? It cannot be comfortable living adjacent to a mafia state. We should not, must not, pander to Putin’s insecurities.
Firstly, those noble symptoms about “free nations” seem to be absent when it suits the West.
How dare you spout such talk with a track record that includes Cuba, Vietnam, Chile, Iran?
Secondly, do have Poland etc have good reason to fear Russia?
Of course.
Does Russia have reason to fear a rapidly advancing and powerful NATO alliance?
Also true.
So, you could try and arrive at s compromise, with Ukraine neutral but free.
Or you could refuse to pander to “Putin’s insecurities” and treat Russia’s valid security concerns with utter contempt.
Russia need have no fear of NATO because it is a DEFENSIVE alliance – not a bullying expansive one as Russia/USSR. Putin’s fear of NATO is merely the usual paranoia of the bully – and you cannot pander to a bully’s paranoia – because as proved over and over again (see this essay) that paranioa and its viciousness is endless – cf Stalin anyone – so why why why start crumbling in the face of this murderous scumbag ???? and defending his so-called justifications for invading the Ukraine – there is absolutely NO JUSTIFICATION and to attempt one appears weak and appeasing – just like Chamberlin…
Agreed – and the clear question would be – why would those countries WANT to join NATO if they felt secure and safe etc. Russia can always create ‘buffer states’ by being supportive vs coercive – bullying has its results whether the playground or internationally – and the advice against the playground bully is ALWAYS stand your ground and join up with others as support. Any other rationalization is what allows bullies to flourish in the first place !! eg soft sanctions on Hitler etc etc . Not noble sentiments just simple truths !
“advice against the playground bully is ALWAYS stand your ground and join up with others’
I think China, India, and some of the bigger Mid East countries like Saudi and UAE have got that message.
China needs a 5% growth rate to keep the masses supporting the CCP, any economic downturn could threaten that. The CCP is so scared of any group growing to a size which could threaten it that it arrested the leaders of Falung Gong and wants to chose RC bishops. India has to be wary of Chinese expansion and Saudi Arabia and UAE biggest threat is Iran, hence the Abraham Accord with Israel. The USA is the country whom they desire to support them in time of need.
Um, but you cant criticise him unless you have 15 spare years – oh puleeeeze.
Neven Curlin
2 years ago
Let’s just have it over with and call Putin ‘Big, Bad Wolf’ from now on.
Just imagine how much better the first paragraph looks:
The absurdly long table Big, Bad Wolf sits at, whether with Emmanuel Macron last month, or his terrified subordinates now, was the giveaway. There is stately furniture, then there is 20 feet of thuddingly symbolic paranoia. Isolated during the pandemic, padlocked in a “health bubble”, reading far too much history, writing (at length) zany polemic, Big, Bad Wolf is no longer a dictator. He is a despot.
Anyone who thinks Putin’s public appearances are signs of mental derangement has forgotten who Putin is: former KGB officer trained in interrogation and psychological warfare. Nothing is accidentally shown, particularly in scripted video. If you notice something in his demeanor or actions, it’s because he wanted you to notice it.
And look how well it’s worked. We’re spilling ink wondering whether Putin has lost his marbles and will be deposed soon. Or maybe he’ll just nuke us if he gets pissed off; we’d better be careful in how we respond. (Yes, we must be careful, but not because Putin is crazy. WE must be careful because he’s not crazy, and a putbull backed into a corner is extremely dangerous.)
Even a trained KGB officer makes mistakes when he gets old and the power goes to his head.
Or maybe especially a ‘trained’ KGB agent?
Probably a good point.
The steroids, remember the steroids. And steroid rage, a medical condition.
It is not beyond the bounds of reality that Putin is on steroids – and maybe also immunosuppressants. That makes him more dangerous and yes, mad in a way.
I agree that it is possible. But I think it is foolish to presume that to be the case. Which is more likely:
2 years of COVID and some kind of drugs have made Putin so loony he’s afraid to sit closer than 20 feet from people, while still retaining enough faculties to restate the exact same red-lines about NATO expansion that he always has…
or Putin is in complete control of his faculties and the 20 foot table is about making his adversaries think he’s crazy, while he does exactly what he said he would do to enforce his red lines over NATO expansion.
I believe the second. Mostly because while his public behavior appears deranged, his actual actions (of his government) have been what would be expected from a man who truly believes NATO expansion is an existential threat to his nation.
I read somewhere that he is highly medicated, probably taking steroids. If true then he isn’t himself; he’s pumped up. KGB or not, he must be exhausted.
Nah he’s the Norwegian Blue of mad dictators – left the territory, lost the plot, etc etc.
You can stand behind that counter with your beige work tunic of authority, trying to convince us with your weasel Palinesque salesman’s words that he’s really sane – but we know now, he’s a bampot, a dead parrot.
He needs to be transferred to the Ministry of Funny Russian Walks as soon as.
From one die-hard Monty Python fan to another… well done. Now will you read me Ethel the Aardvark, please?
Kapuściński sounds like someone who would have made a fine, run-of-the-mill, graun columnist
His work was brilliant. I believed every word of it.
They used to be called liars , people who made up stuff, and there are always plenty of people lazy enough to make up stuff… now they’re some kind of artist?
Was this written with the aid of the “nudge unit”?
[One of] the best piece[s] I’ve read so far on UnHerd.
‘Watching sycophants* crawl along marble floors confirms his deep suspicion: human beings are low creatures.’
*We are all susceptible. Certainly the (‘Boris’) Johnson phenomenon is a textbook case-study of the perils of sycophancy. A Cabinet of the ‘dangerously incompetent’.
Very nicely written. . I do wonder though if it’s really not those whose wealth is built off of the manufacture of ever more hideous weapons and indeed the manufacture of never ending wars.
‘You only needed to read a sentence of Kapuściński to know he was more than a journalist: he was an artist. He had to allow himself more. His ultimate creation was himself.’
This is interesting. How much of this has inspired the current mold of foreign reporter?
Wonderfully written article. Thanks Will.
Agree – great piece of writing – many thanks
So the obscene despotism of the WEF and the NWO is OK, then??
Amazing, this new found aversion to despots in the West.
This is the problem- the West is imperfect and unfair. Therefore there is no difference to Russia? Last time I checked Johnson hasn’t tried to poison Starmer or ordered him to a hell hole prison with a sentence to be increased at Johnson’s whim. This argument from abstract perfection doesn’t work.
No, but Trudeau did seize the bank accounts of his fellow citizens simply for protesting his actions. Much like we’re seizing the bank accounts of Russian citizens for not protesting Putin’s actions.
You’re right, the two systems are not morally equivalent. But they’re also not as different as people imagine. Rysard Legutko (former Polish MP who helped transition his country from communism to liberalism) wrote a great book about the unexpected similarities called “The Demon in Democracy”.
I will always upvote a post that promotes Legutko’s excellent book. In the same vein, Kenneth Minogue’s The Servile Mind is a good read too.
I get great book recommendations from Unherd readers. I’ve got it on hold from the library. Thanks.
You are right, the West is different.
When Russia attacks Ukraine, they did so (contrary to the Western press stories about Vlad resurrecting the Warsaw pact) because they are rightfully paranoid about NATO in Ukraine, and warned about it for years. Still doesn’t justify war, of course.
When Britain attacked Iraq, it wasn’t just without cause, based on a lie, and with no attempt to avoid war. There was causus Belli, no strategic reason, nothing that would harm Western interests if there were no war.
You launched a brutal war on a defense less country, destroyed their infrastructure, left them ravaged – just because you could.
Animals that kill to eat versus those that kill for pleasure. Only human beings, especially from the West, fall into the latter category.
And yes, Britain is a democracy. democracies are nicer for their own people and opposition leaders. Which is why deposing democratically elected leaders such as Allende or Mosaddegh and replacing them with autocratic wasn’t a great idea. But then, if you didn’t have double standards you wouldn’t have any standards.
Yes, but…. Putin is taking the Ukraine to keep it. NATO is a smoke screen; as long as the Donbas remained in break away mode, Ukraine could never, ever join NATO.
The West has done some revolting things in the recent past and maybe one or two leaders have tried, in their heads, to step on the ‘Despot’ continuum-ladder, but I am not sure anything can compare to this.
” I am not sure anything can compare to this”
I am keen to understand the big difference between what’s Putin’s war and the various wars initiated by the West, and how the latter were morally superior
As we know, Putin has invaded without any provocation, an adjacent (‘sister/brother’) nation with deep historical and personal/familial connections to Russia, but which is nonetheless now independent. He is the direct cause of what will be a protracted, terrifying feud between Ukrainian nationals and Russia. He will be responsible for the deaths and grieving of thousands of Russians and Ukrainians. He is mis-using History, to destroy another nation, in cold blood.
The reasons for the attacks on Iraq and Libya, for example, though not arguably, ‘morally superior’, were in the context of much more complex and involved circumstances (accepted, with hindsight, a prime argument for not launching the attacks – the West didn’t attempt to foresee what might happen, ergo, Daesh and their land-grabbing…). The motives were different.
To go back to the original comment.The ‘aversion’ to ‘despots in the West’ is not ‘new’. I accept it is selective, though.
Thank you for your long and considered response.
I think that’s the fundamental issue here- a lack of appreciation of recent events and Russian view of the world
“without any provocation”
Expanded NATO East against verbal promises in 1999-2004 when Russia was no threat
Hinted at Georgia and Ukr joining NATO in 2008
Funded and instigated a coup that overthrew the pro Russian leader of Ukraine
Repression of the Russian minority in Ukraine and elevation of neo Nazis
And the final straw was refusing to rule out Ukraine joining NATO, which would mean reaching the very border of Russia, ballistic missiles a few minutes from Moscow,and loss of key Russian naval bases
No provocation at all?
And in contrast:
“The reasons for the attacks on Iraq and Libya,.. in the context of much more complex and involved circumstances”
There was no real strategic reason for either war.
None.
The reason cited in Iraq (WMDs) was am utter, brazen lie.
If the West had not attacked those countries, they would not have descended to anarchy, and there would be close to zero impact on NATO.
If Russia had not attacked Ukraine, their strategic position would have become catastrophic.
Do the people of Ukraine have any say in what they wish?
As much as the people of Chile, Vietnam and Cuba I would assume.
Halabjah? 1988? That’s where and when more than 5 thousand Kurdish townsfolk were gassed to death in Northern Iraq.
Iraq had Chemical Ali then. Ukraine has comic Zelensky in charge – so Russia has only imagined threats from Ukraine. The only real threat to Russia is Russia itself: Russia attacking the environs of a nuclear power plant.
Putin has initiated a fantasy ‘re-conquest/civil war’. He has knowlingly started what will be protracted feuding. No one ‘wins’ at all. To remove Hussein and Gaddafi were arguably ‘morally’ and strategically ‘wrong’. However, the motives for initiating the West’s ‘regime change’ and Putin’s ‘special operations’ were entirely different.
I’m not so sure, James. 20 years ago, I would have agreed with you. I totally wrote off the “blood for oil” narrative. But then I watched my country’s politicians and flag military officers lie through their teeth for years about Iraq and Afghanistan. The Afghanistan Papers have proven our elites knew they were lying. The Panama Papers have proven many of our elites were enriching themselves along the way.
Were Libya and Iraq and Syria really moral crusades? I’m less certain now. Is Yemen a moral crusade? We’re supplying the arms for it. Meanwhile, when we’re sanctioning Russia but asking the House of Saud to pump more oil for us, I wonder how moral our foreign policy really is.
I’m not saying we shouldn’t do some of these things. Nations have interests, and it may well be within ours to overthrow Ghaddafi or the Taliban or Assad. But we should be clear-headed about why, instead of hiding behind a cloak of “our drone strikes are more moral than yours”.
What happened in Iraq was largely Iraqis killing Iraqis, even Shias killed Shias( Al Sadr had Al Khoei killed). Al Quaeda killed everyone who not part of their group. Did anyone predict the slaughter of Iraqis by Iraqis ?
All that would not have happened if not for the US invasion.
Saddam was a brutal dictator but why don’t you ask some Iraqis if they preferred his regime or what came after?
‘..some Iraqis’ indeed! You would have to be very selective about who you asked if you wanted a favourable view of Saddam. The southern Marsh Arabs and the northern Kurds weren’t so keen, for a start.
Depends upon the Iraqi. In 1990 Saddam was not removed and some Iraqis complained. The Shias rose up and were slaughtered by Saddam.
If a window in a building is broken one cannot use this as an excuse to steal. People have free will, which includes being free not to kill. Just because there are no Police in the street that does not allow one to kill a neighbour one dislikes. There is the concept in British law of proportionality and self control.
Perhaps in many countries freedom and democracy do not work: therefore there is a need for a strong leader to stop people killing each and prevent rampant corruption. Perhaps the people lack emotional maturity which brings about , self control, a sense of perspective, proportionality, balance and an ability to laugh at oneself.
The concept of a king being chosen and ruling through consultation and consent goes back to 500 AD in England. The first rules by which which a kingdom was to be governed by laws goes back to Aethelbert of Kent in about 650AD; then there is The Charter of Liberties of 1100 AD, Magna Carta 1215 AD and a fully functioning Parliament with House of Commons and Lords by 1295AD. Perhaps the emotional maturity which means individuals take responsibility for their actions, takes centuries to develop. Perhaps if peoples have a psyche dominated by pride and honour then it is difficult persuade them to desist from killing each other other slights. Perhaps the phrase ” No offence meant ” and the reply ” None taken ” can only occur amongst people relaxed in their knowledge of their proven abilities.
Many Russians want a strong person to rule; perhaps because they lack the emotional maturity required by individuals to take responsibility for their lives required for a free and democratic country. After all, Russia had serfdom until 1860 and Communism from 1917 to 1991.
This is my issue with the war in Ukraine. While Putin is obviously awful the Uk and Us lost the moral high ground in 2003 when they defied the UN and acted unilaterally in invading Iraq. In both Ukraine and Iraq, the populations of the invading countries were broadly against military action. Blair and Campbell have a lot to answer for!
Putin is a kleptomaniac grabbing Ukraine for keeps. For what ever reason the West intervenes, it pulls out eventually – even if the withdrawal is a shambles!
“I am keen to understand the big difference between what’s Putin’s war and the various wars initiated by the West, and how the latter were morally superior”
The wars were not and morals don’t come into it, but the systems that generated those wars are not locked in stasis – the populations of the West could turf out any of Bush, Blair etc after a few years. That they chose not to and instead re-elected them, is a different matter, but there’s no accounting for the tastes of populations – the Canadians willingly chose Trudeau, as did the New Zealanders, Arden, but we must allow for eccentricities in different populations.
Try turfing out Putin, and it’s thirty years in a Siberian prison, or worse.
You are confusing two different questions.
The sanctimonious reaction to the war in the West is a different matter to your view on Putin.
Putin is a dictator, and a rather ruthless one who has curtailed freedoms.
However, If instead of Putin, you had some other, softer, more democratic leader, NATO would still be advancing towards Russia (the first wave happened in 1999, Putin was just about to come to power, the Russian military and economy was in tatters)
And hence the strategic reasons for Russia to draw a red line, their antagonism to US backed “regime change” and loss of the Ukrainian ports, would remain.
If this was some other leader instead of Putin, if he cared for Russia’s long term interests, this war would happen.
If a free nation wishes to join NATO, it is entitled to do so if it meets certain conditions. How dare you suggest that Russia has any moral right to hold a large stick to use against such countries? The advance of NATO is with the consent of free nation’s choices. Perhaps you should consider just why they are so keen to join the Treaty? It cannot be comfortable living adjacent to a mafia state. We should not, must not, pander to Putin’s insecurities.
Firstly, those noble symptoms about “free nations” seem to be absent when it suits the West.
How dare you spout such talk with a track record that includes Cuba, Vietnam, Chile, Iran?
Secondly, do have Poland etc have good reason to fear Russia?
Of course.
Does Russia have reason to fear a rapidly advancing and powerful NATO alliance?
Also true.
So, you could try and arrive at s compromise, with Ukraine neutral but free.
Or you could refuse to pander to “Putin’s insecurities” and treat Russia’s valid security concerns with utter contempt.
And, here we are as a consequence of that path.
Russia need have no fear of NATO because it is a DEFENSIVE alliance – not a bullying expansive one as Russia/USSR. Putin’s fear of NATO is merely the usual paranoia of the bully – and you cannot pander to a bully’s paranoia – because as proved over and over again (see this essay) that paranioa and its viciousness is endless – cf Stalin anyone – so why why why start crumbling in the face of this murderous scumbag ???? and defending his so-called justifications for invading the Ukraine – there is absolutely NO JUSTIFICATION and to attempt one appears weak and appeasing – just like Chamberlin…
Agreed – and the clear question would be – why would those countries WANT to join NATO if they felt secure and safe etc. Russia can always create ‘buffer states’ by being supportive vs coercive – bullying has its results whether the playground or internationally – and the advice against the playground bully is ALWAYS stand your ground and join up with others as support. Any other rationalization is what allows bullies to flourish in the first place !! eg soft sanctions on Hitler etc etc . Not noble sentiments just simple truths !
“advice against the playground bully is ALWAYS stand your ground and join up with others’
I think China, India, and some of the bigger Mid East countries like Saudi and UAE have got that message.
China needs a 5% growth rate to keep the masses supporting the CCP, any economic downturn could threaten that. The CCP is so scared of any group growing to a size which could threaten it that it arrested the leaders of Falung Gong and wants to chose RC bishops. India has to be wary of Chinese expansion and Saudi Arabia and UAE biggest threat is Iran, hence the Abraham Accord with Israel. The USA is the country whom they desire to support them in time of need.
Please see my comments above.
You can literally vote against Putin. And people do.
Um, but you cant criticise him unless you have 15 spare years – oh puleeeeze.
Let’s just have it over with and call Putin ‘Big, Bad Wolf’ from now on.
Just imagine how much better the first paragraph looks: