I would maintain that the biggest reason for the Russian invasion of the Ukraine now is the change in US Federal administration, and would have thought that obvious to almost anybody. I would also similarly and equally obviously note that the previous US administration was persistently warning of this likelihood and possibility, promoting a less Russia-reliant energy path forward for years, along with a stronger and better funded European military/funding to reduce dependence on the US. All of which has proven to be correct.
The current US Federal Administration is closer to an autocracy when compared to the last, and has only been properly beaten back by the courts… which makes us in the US very happy to live under a form of government specifically intended to defeat autocracy. I would add too that an autocratically minded doddering fool in the White House (as is currently the case) is good for nobody, regardless of your opinion of the previous administration’s soft-sell skills.
I’m not sure I see how Germany has had anything to with the current Ukraine situation except by remaining almost irrelevant to its own defense, and by taking a Pollyanna approach to its own energy security, not even publicly admitting it had a problem with energy security and instead cloaking the issue in quasi-religious Climate Change rhetoric. France did better for sure, in both defense and nuclear etc. energy, but hasn’t exactly led in the pan-European arena either.
Notwithstanding the Yugoslavian wars, 1989-2019 was a good 30 years in Europe, I certainly enjoyed it, but Europe remains a powder keg in which violence erupts every few decades, and which is intrinsically prone to autocracy. The last two years have just been a return to its roots.
And the USA isn’t? Although I suppose it’s internal.
It is more and more clear @Silvaire that you live a world view diametrically opposed to mine for one.
So Trump had a better idea about Russia? Let’s see. He is a declared “fan” of Putin, likes him and calls him a genius when Putin declares part of a sovereign country independet? And a guy who openly risks civil war in his own country by incensing his followers to storm the nations capital, refuses to acknowledge election results and openly admires Putin for the strong hand he leads Russia with is less of an authocrat than the current administration? A guy who openly attacks the press every single time something critical is written about him? The way it looks he would gladly do the same in the US and install himself as de facto lifetime president with total control over the press and a “strong hand” meaning unlimited power. I don’t know what you call this but I call it authocracy or even worse. And I shudder to think what will happen in 2024 if he is re-elected into the office, which for half of the population will be totally unacceptable.
Putin wanted Trump in the WH because he knew he can play him with flattery and “negotiation” about just about everything. His political goals for the US and Europe (well practically anywhere) was always to divide and conquer. He has tried to do this in Europe quite successfully until his attack unified the EU in a way not much has done before and he has done it in the US by supporting Trump’s election to the WH and by helping spread discord and outright hate via his media channels and open or hidden support for extremist groups.
Up to the attack on Ukraine, he reached this goal almost perfectly. The US is divided up to the point where the Republican and Democrat world views do no longer have any possibility of bi-partisanship or consensus. In Europe, the EU suffered massive setbacks such as Brexit as well as the emergence of several pro-Putin right wing groups and some leaders who would gladly submit to Putin’s “protection” of their own power such as Bulgaria’s Radev or Hungary’s Orban (not to talk of the Serbia who is openly pro Russia in this conflict). So much more it was a huge miscalculation on his part that the Invasion of Ukraine would simply be a walk in the park, but instead it has mostly smashed his “work” of the last two decades in weakening western resolve and spreading discord.
But the real problem in the US is similar to the one we have in Europe regarding politicians in many countries: If Trump vs Biden is the best the US can offer to it’s people in the form of candidates for the highest office, then there is quite a lot amiss. The same goes in many countries in Europe as well. And I think this was why Merkel had appeal to the Germans: She is a humanist who promised stability in a time when Germany was under pressure from both right- and left wing radical political parties. She had the capability to run a “grand coalition” out of conservatives and socialists and has done that for some years quite successfully, which is as much “across the aisle” as possible. Sure she made mistakes and it turns out that her tactics on Russia were not working with hindsight, but the general idea of getting Russia to behave itself by integrating it into the economic system as much as possible (which was btw also supported by Trump) was one which may yet prove an incentive for those forces in Russia who don’t want their country economically ruined to step in.
Silvaire wrote:
Europe remains a powder keg in which violence erupts every few decades, and which is intrinsically prone to autocracy. The last two years have just been a return to its roots.
The last two years referring to the pandemic, I suppose? While the US had shut it’s borders totally and lost millions of people due to inaction and denial under Trump? Europe at least tried. Not very successful in many ways as they were shy to implement measures like Taiwan, New Zealand and Australia, and hampered by the same groups who now cheer for Putin. And if the way it was handled here was too autocratic for you then I suggest you stay away from Asia.
And the USA isn’t? Although I suppose it’s internal.
I suggest nobody takes this bait (along with many others) otherwise this thread will become completely ridiculous.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
It is more and more clear @Silvaire that you live a world view diametrically opposed to mine for one.
I thought the same thing. It’s amazing how you can understand what’s happening in the world in totally opposite ways. Or Silvaire is just trolling us. Sometimes I really do wonder.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
If you look at some of the so called “World leaders” who emerged over the last decade or so, we really have to ask ourselves, are those people really the best there is? Why are we faced with “the lesser evil” in many many elections rather than the choice between good women and men who understand the position they aspire to as service to their country instead of establishing their own power base and stroke their egos?
Good question.
Years ago I was fortunate to work with someone whom I very much respected for his intellect and many talents. I once even told him that he should become prime minister because the country would benefit more than from what he was doing at that time. His answer, which showed his diplomatic talents as well, “Aart, if you want to be Pope, you have to be a Catholic”.
So I think it that what MD asks himself has to do with the fact that potentially good leaders do not wish to burn their behinds in the snake-pit or circus called politics. Especially not given how politics have evolved over the years. And how the world has evolved over the years. I believe that we have created a world that is way too complex to be effectively run. In other words, Darwin did not keep up.
The brilliant, ethical people with leadership skills are much better off in their environment of business, academics or whatever area where they at least have some sort of a level playing field, see some tangible results and are treated with respect. Also, really talented people often do not crave the limelight at all.
Sorry for the thread drift.
Airborne_Again wrote:
I thought the same thing. It’s amazing how you can understand what’s happening in the world in totally opposite ways. Or Silvaire is just trolling us. Sometimes I really do wonder.
No, I don’t think so. I know more people who think that way, some of them close friends in the US. I think this is the key to understanding why things happen the way they do. It’s not merely “I don’t like the other party” anymore, it’s more than that. Fundamental difference. And that is what’s scary.
aart wrote:
So I think it that what MD asks himself has to do with the fact that potentially good leaders do not wish to burn their behinds in the snake-pit or circus called politics. Especially not given how politics have evolved over the years. And how the world has evolved over the years. I believe that we have created a world that is way too complex to be effectively run. In other words, Darwin did not keep up.
True. It should not be forgotten that bejond the power and “luxury” it is a very tough job and in many regards, if understood correctly, the highest duty one can exercise. If you see how many of those people age in 4 or 8 years, that is one indicator just how stressful it can be. Those who do crave this kind of limelight often do so for the entirely wrong reasons.
From here (a good daily update on the situation)
Zelensky: Withdrawal of Russian troops to Feb. 23 positions would be victory, for now. President Volodymyr Zelensky said during a group interview with several Ukrainian journalists on April 5 that fighting for the territories of the Donbas occupied since 2014 would be too costly. “It would cost 50,000 or 60,000 of our best trained people, and the enemy would return next month,” Zelensky said.
Silvaire wrote:
but Europe remains a powder keg in which violence erupts every few decades, and which is intrinsically prone to autocracy. The last two years have just been a return to its roots.
As I see it, Europe is a patchwork of different states and cultures and languages. There is always some tension. Every now and then a “strong man” rises to power and try to conquer its neighbors. Every single time that “strong man” is nothing but a complete lunatic, a tyrant with the ability to get people aroused and support him, partly with lies and deception. AFAIK there are 44 countries in Europe, many more languages and cultures. Let’s say each country “erupts” (for some reason or another) every 500 years on average. 500 years is a very long time, twice as long as the USA has existed, and it has already had a civil war. For Europe that means on average one country “erupts” every 11 years, which probably isn’t that far off.
LeSving wrote:
Let’s say each country “erupts” (for some reason or another) every 500 years on average.
Interesting idea. The English Civil War finished in 1651, which means we are due another go in 2151 – but lots of other exciting European eruptions due before then! Some must have a greater tendency to erupt than others – probably by dint of their location and what goes on around them?
At least by 2151 we should have a four-seat electric aeroplane with an endurance of two hours ;-)
