Unfortunately Russia needs to be broken. There was an uneasy acceptance of the 2014 annexation of lands. That was simply used as a launching off point for the current campaign.
There is no way to let them save face and nothing other than a full defeat can be trusted. At this point the wars in the main territory are only to hold on to Crimea and keep the fighting from the last warm water port for the Russian navy.
More than an embarrassment it would be a real and severe blow to the future of Russia for decades to centuries. Once the port falls, there will be no reason at all for Russia to care for Crimea.
This is even a bigger fuck up than it appears. Putin owns the biggest military failure since Germany invaded Russia.
All Putin had to do is put up a beach front villa in Crimea, trade with Europe and enjoy the ill-gotten gains of 2014. The western world would have accepted him with open arms. There is no victory to be won, only lesser losses to be groped at.
I believe that in the long run the breakdown of the Russian empire will be beneficial, leading to freedom, well-being and prosperity of people who live there. Any empire becomes suffocating at the end of its lifetime, and needs to be dismantled for new countries to develop.
Having seen this happen before, I believed that once.
Russia is going to break into pieces that will be seized by the most corrupt. The people of Russia just want a comfortable life and will follow the leader that gives them the closest approximation of that.
In the huge and aged empire, corruption can’t be eliminated due to sheer size and structure of the empire. Corrupt people can always evade real responsibility by moving to another region, and the reputation institute doesn’t quite work. Lateral anti-corruption checks are eliminated, while the corrupt officials fool the faraway central power. Colonial policy necessarily leads to oppression throughout the country, due to the Foucault’s boomerang.
However, when colonized people break free - like the Baltics states broke free from the USSR - politics get local, good reputation becomes essential, and there are powerful lateral anti-corruption checks. Central power can’t be fooled much in a country of normal size. Moreover, there’s necessarily more international cooperation, with international anti-corruption measures.
So the healthy nations of the empire are going to be on the right track fairly soon: https://freenationsleague.org/en/home.html Less healthy ones will also eventually transform for the better, simply because the countries will become smaller. Late Roman empire was also deeply corrupt, but the nations of it have eventually found their way.
Well, all the large empires were corrupt at the end of their life, and all have successfully transformed.
There is no gene of corruption - it’s rather a matter of prevalent culture, informed by socioeconomic factors. As these factors change, the culture has to change as well, even if this is painstakingly hard for local culture carriers.
By the way, it’s remarkable that some of best levels of wellbeing and democracy are achieved by small Nordic countries. So the small size isn’t a guarantee of happiness, but smaller countries are easier to govern in right direction.
Unfortunately Russia needs to be broken. There was an uneasy acceptance of the 2014 annexation of lands. That was simply used as a launching off point for the current campaign.
There is no way to let them save face and nothing other than a full defeat can be trusted. At this point the wars in the main territory are only to hold on to Crimea and keep the fighting from the last warm water port for the Russian navy.
More than an embarrassment it would be a real and severe blow to the future of Russia for decades to centuries. Once the port falls, there will be no reason at all for Russia to care for Crimea.
This is even a bigger fuck up than it appears. Putin owns the biggest military failure since Germany invaded Russia.
All Putin had to do is put up a beach front villa in Crimea, trade with Europe and enjoy the ill-gotten gains of 2014. The western world would have accepted him with open arms. There is no victory to be won, only lesser losses to be groped at.
I believe that in the long run the breakdown of the Russian empire will be beneficial, leading to freedom, well-being and prosperity of people who live there. Any empire becomes suffocating at the end of its lifetime, and needs to be dismantled for new countries to develop.
Having seen this happen before, I believed that once. Russia is going to break into pieces that will be seized by the most corrupt. The people of Russia just want a comfortable life and will follow the leader that gives them the closest approximation of that.
In the huge and aged empire, corruption can’t be eliminated due to sheer size and structure of the empire. Corrupt people can always evade real responsibility by moving to another region, and the reputation institute doesn’t quite work. Lateral anti-corruption checks are eliminated, while the corrupt officials fool the faraway central power. Colonial policy necessarily leads to oppression throughout the country, due to the Foucault’s boomerang.
However, when colonized people break free - like the Baltics states broke free from the USSR - politics get local, good reputation becomes essential, and there are powerful lateral anti-corruption checks. Central power can’t be fooled much in a country of normal size. Moreover, there’s necessarily more international cooperation, with international anti-corruption measures.
So the healthy nations of the empire are going to be on the right track fairly soon: https://freenationsleague.org/en/home.html Less healthy ones will also eventually transform for the better, simply because the countries will become smaller. Late Roman empire was also deeply corrupt, but the nations of it have eventually found their way.
I hope that you are correct. I feel different. Your hopeful attitude has a better chance at a positive outcome then mine.
Well, all the large empires were corrupt at the end of their life, and all have successfully transformed.
There is no gene of corruption - it’s rather a matter of prevalent culture, informed by socioeconomic factors. As these factors change, the culture has to change as well, even if this is painstakingly hard for local culture carriers.
By the way, it’s remarkable that some of best levels of wellbeing and democracy are achieved by small Nordic countries. So the small size isn’t a guarantee of happiness, but smaller countries are easier to govern in right direction.