The USA has a history of replacing popular democratically elected government with puppet government through various overt and covert approaches. Long ago, it even supported capitalist dictatorships against socialist democracy.

Or to put it a different way - the US took the lead in winning the Cold War. Something which the whole world should be thankful for. If you have any complaints about how the US acted during the Cold War you should take it up with Mr Marx.

War crimes committed during invasion of Iraq are enough to disqualify US from being a global moral authority.

No. Any war crimes committed by rogue US soldiers result in the US soldiers being charged and jailed in accordance with the US's democracy.

Frankly speaking, no one is above other in terms of moral authority and every country is sovereign.

This "moral equivalence" that some stated existed between the US and USSR is also being applied to the US and Saddam's Iraq?

How can Americans trust their government after reading the history behind foreign intervention in the interest of Democracy.

They can trust their government because it is an open democracy, usually reflecting the will of the people.

Czars were usually power brokers. I wonder if that's Putin's role among the oligarchs.

The defence spending being high is simply a fact, it's the third-highest in the world and higher than the US when calculating as a percentage of GDP. As for Russia's imperialistic ambitions, both geopolitically in terms of keeping former USSR states within Russian sphere of influence as well as in terms of actual wars, which Russia is up there with the US as one of the contemporary warmongers. Ukraine is the best example, with Russian interference in the Ukrainian democracy, their eventual invasion and annexation of Crimea, none of this is imperialistic according to you? Your justification of Putin is what is silly, do you disagree that nearly exactly the same argument you made for Putin could be made for every Fascist government of the Axis? Erdogan? Iran? the CCP? Your characterisation of him is flattering and accommodating, you didn't have to post it but you did anyway. Avoiding commentary about your opinions would have been easy, simply don't post them publicly? If you don't want a response then don't reply.

Yes. Many Russians repeat Putin's half-truth that he reasserted state control over the oligarchs and took back the country's assets, but of course, the relationship is not so simple. As you suggest, it's more like the Tsar with the boyars in medieval times: the oligarchs are still around.

You're right. I think the reason I misremembered is because Hitler was still careful not bomb civilian targets in the UK at first, hoping for an alliance, and Churchill being the first to carpet bomb indiscriminately in Germany.

Talking to these cold warriors is like this:

silly person: Hitler invaded Poland and the Soviet Union so he could kill more Jews and steal their gold!
jamalrob: That is a misrepresentation of the Nazi project, and it makes it look as if Hitler was just a greedy sado-racist. His invasion was a form of colonialism based on the principle of Lebensraum, or "living space" for the German people. With the Nazis, this principle, which went back to the late nineteenth century, took on a more virulent form, combined as it was with the notion of the Aryan master race and the assumed inferiority of the Slavic and Jewish peoples. Hitler's territorial expansion Eastwards, and the extreme measures considered necessary to ensure its success, were thus based on and justified by the racialist dehumanization of the local populations. So killing the Jews, rather than the Nazis' central aim, was merely a means to the end of German and Aryan hegemony.
silly person: Hitler apologist!

...it makes it look as if Hitler was just a greedy sado-racist. His invasion was a form of colonialism... — jamalrob

Maybe it was both? I really don't know much about it, but it seems like a fine distinction to draw between killing Jews because he wanted to, and killing Jews because he wanted to make more room for the Aryan race by having less Jews.

Oy vey

On the other hand, I could interpret you as saying that the parallel case is true, namely that Putin is both corrupt--the top silovarch who has used his power to become mega-rich--and dedicated to the security, stability, and prosperity of his country, as he sees it.

Sounds about right. Unless you've read back over the past couple of pages, it's unlikely you did mean that, but it's a good angle nonetheless. And it's actually implied in what I wrote: "makes it look as if Hitler was just a greedy sado-racist", and "the idea that Putin is merely a gangster out for himself".

On the other hand, I could interpret you as saying that the parallel case is true, namely that Putin is both corrupt--the top silovarch who has used his power to become mega-rich--and dedicated to the security, stability, and prosperity of his country, as he sees it. — jamalrob

It would not surprise me.

Unless you've read back over the past couple of pages — jamalrob

Not in any great detail.

it's actually implied in what I wrote — jamalrob

Sorry for any misinterpretation.

:cool:

Or to put it a different way - the US took the lead in winning the Cold War. Something which the whole world should be thankful for. If you have any complaints about how the US acted during the Cold War you should take it up with Mr Marx. — Paul Edwards

The US and the USSR put the entire planet at risk with their nuclear arms race. Luckily, none of the close calls triggered an actual launch. One could argue that nukes have prevented a third world war, because it's too terrible a price for the major powers to pay. But even so, it's a big gamble, and one we still live with, because who knows what could escalate matters in the future.

I have not read the replies, but in reply to your initial question...

I suspect that Biden will continue Obama-precedent imperialism.

And it is a bad thing.

I think Iranians are also wondering whether to invade the US or not, to help Americans get rid of their fascist regime.

You're right. I think the reason I misremembered is because Hitler was still careful not bomb civilian targets in the UK at first, hoping for an alliance, and Churchill being the first to carpet bomb indiscriminately in Germany. — Benkei

If remember correctly, Hitler responded to a tiny force of British bombers bombing Berlin by starting massive bombings of London. The idea that nations can lose their will to fight and can be demoralized by bombing their cities was the theory of Douhet. The opposite appears to be the reality with conventional bombing. Yet politicians are sensitive to these kind of issues and many times the response if more about politics than military necessity.

Once Germany started bombing the UK with V-1 flying bombs, a thick wall of anti-aircraft artillery was deployed all along the southern coast of England. When the bombing with V-2 rockets started, which didn't cause much damage (more prisoner labor died manufacturing the rockets than were killed by them), the whole strategic bombing effort was diverted for some time just to bomb the known manufacturing plants.

Similar issue happened during the Gulf War. When Saddam Hussein fired few Scud missiles to Israel in order to get the country to respond (and hence get popular support from the Arab street), the Americans diverted a huge number of aircraft and special forces to look for the mobile units in the vast deserts of Iraq. Few if any were found.

The idea that nations can lose their will to fight and can be demoralized by bombing their cities was the theory of Douhet. The opposite appears to be the reality with conventional bombing. Yet politicians are sensitive to these kind of issues and many times the response if more about politics than military necessity. — ssu

Brutalizing civilian population on enemy-controlled territory still seems to be the standard tactic in modern conflicts, from soldiers and rebels slaughtering villagers in sub-Saharan Africa, to Russian special forces burning villages in Chechnya, to government forces bombing tenement buildings, markets and hospitals in Syria and Yemen. The only difference now is that perpetrators routinely deny their war crimes. The times during WWII and before were, in a way, more honest, but hardly more brutal than they are now.

Yes. Many Russians repeat Putin's half-truth that he reasserted state control over the oligarchs and took back the country's assets, but of course, the relationship is not so simple. As you suggest, it's more like the Tsar with the boyars in medieval times: the oligarchs are still around. — jamalrob

If Russians are playing out a pattern over centuries, maybe it comes from who they are.

Same with westerners, especially those influenced by British culture. There's an almost irrational fear of tyranny among some of them, so Putin is kind of like Sauron, trying to bring torment and suffering to the world.

Is Russia pretty liberated from their horrendous 20th Century experience, or are they still scarred?

Is Russia pretty liberated from their horrendous 20th Century experience, or are they still scarred? — frank

Among the people I know and their parents, there's a lot of nostalgia and affection for Soviet times, but WW2 still leaves scars, because most families lost a few members.

But the most immediately painful scars are from the 1990s. Nobody wants to go back to that, and that's partly why Putin has been popular. Pro- and anti-Putin often agree that he did what had to be done in his first years in power. Anti-Putin people differ now in thinking, come on, that's enough, time to go.

Well, have to say that some progress has happened. For example the US hasn't relied on the ancient Roman tactic of "Deal with an insurgency by creating an artificial desert" like the Soviet Union did in many places in Afghanistan. Creating millions of refugees is a war strategy.

The statistics tell something:

Civilian casualties during Soviet invasion of Afghanistan (9 years): 562 000 - 2 000 000 civilians killed

Civilian casualties during US invasion of Afghanistan (19 years): 38 480+ civilians killed

The US might have hesitantly understood that just killing enemy combatants may not lead to victory as an 60 000 strong Taliban, with the safe haven of Pakistan, can be formed from a population of 32 million.

(The next generation getting ready to fight the foreign occupiers.)

Anti-Putin people differ now in thinking, come on, that's enough, time to go. — jamalrob

How much experience to they have with democracy? Are local decisions made democratically? Are judges elected?

Yes, in fact it's a nicely concise way of saying what Marchesk and I subsequently said, about the messy and disastrous realities of intervention. — jamalrob

I can agree with part of this. There is sometimes confusion contextualizing other people's problems and in some areas there is moral ambiguity. There are other times, though, when we can clearly and accurately identify evil and we can rightly say the world would be better off with its elimination. Where I'd agree with you, though, is that sometimes the cure turns out being worse than the disease and the joy we intend to bring doesn't come close.

If I could tinker with the analogy then, I'd say if I were to see a woman being physically assaulted by her husband, intervention that brings about the end of that abuse seems in order, including perhaps arrest and at least probation and maybe incarceration. What then if that arrest leads to his loss of employment and the financial deprivation of the children? It's complicated, but not by virtue of the fact that I can't decipher the good from the bad, but by the fact that a sledge hammer doesn't solve all problems.

As you noted, many Russians don't want America to free them of anything, and I don't think that most Russians remember the times soon following the dismantling of the USSR to be particularly pleasant or a time of spiritual renewal. It was much the opposite so I'm told. But to the question of whether the totalitarian regime during the USSR years was good or evil (should we be left with that limited dichotomy), I'd say evil, standing in opposition to the values many of us hold so dear. I don't think the sledge hammer to the wall fixed much though.

I'd also like to point out my initial use of the figurative sledge hammer followed by my then literal use of the sledge hammer was a nice literary device by me.

Putin has also rolled back liberalization and Democratic reforms, and he could very well be the richest man in the world all on a $133,000/year salary if we're going by the Kremlin. His net worth has been estimated at around $70 billion.

But he's also a savvy leader, no denying that. He could very well be doing what he believes is in the best interest of Russia as a state. But does that preclude someone from being a criminal?

But the most immediately painful scars are from the 1990s. Nobody wants to go back to that, and that's partly why Putin has been popular. Pro- and anti-Putin often agree that he did what had to be done in his first years in power. Anti-Putin people differ now in thinking, come on, that's enough, time to go. — jamalrob

Some of that fear of the "chaotic 90s," as well as the nostalgia for the good old days of the Soviet rule has been helped along by state propaganda. So is the idea of Putin riding in to save the day in 1999. A lot of the economic recovery during 2000s can be quite simply accounted by the booming oil prices and the accompanying rise in Russia's oil and gas production.

Well, have to say that some progress has happened. — ssu

Yes, you are right, if you look at the numbers, the good old times were pretty terrible compared to now. State and even some non-state actors have become more shy about committing atrocities, although often that just means that they lie about it (not caring very much about whether anyone believes their lies).

Some of that fear of the "chaotic 90s," as well as the nostalgia for the good old days of the Soviet rule has been helped along by state propaganda. So is the idea of Putin riding in to save the day in 1999. A lot of the economic recovery during 2000s can be quite simply accounted by the booming oil prices and the accompanying rise in Russia's oil and gas production. — SophistiCat

Yes. And yes, Putin was lucky.

But he's also a savvy leader, no denying that. He could very well be doing what he believes is in the best interest of Russia as a state. But does that preclude someone from being a criminal? — BitconnectCarlos

No, of course it doesn't. I don't understand this black and white thinking, on a philosophy forum of all places. Are we just slaves to propaganda, or can we discuss things rationally and imaginatively? It's as if you guys are not satisfied until I do the correct virtue signalling, like saying Putin is a monster or whatever. It's just dumb.

How much experience to they have with democracy? Are local decisions made democratically? Are judges elected? — frank

@SophistiCat could probably give better answers than me. Before I married a Russian I knew about Russia from 1890 to the 1940s, but not much else. SophistiCat's knowledge of Russian society and culture seems much deeper.

But for what it's worth, there isn't much democratic choice locally, like in Moscow, than there is nationally. I can't speak for other regions. I don't know much about the judiciary.

A lot of the economic recovery during 2000s can be quite simply accounted by the booming oil prices and the accompanying rise in Russia's oil and gas production. — SophistiCat

You know what is a real genuine reason why the Soviet Empire collapsed?

Gorbachev tried to take the vodka bottle away from the Russians. He thought that it was really bad that the Soviet male was dying in his mid 50's. Yet Russians need the vodka bottle to endure the system posed on them. So it didn't work. Soviet Union collapsed. Same thing was tried earlier with similar outcome by only one Russian ruler, and that was Nicholas II. Revolution happened back then and the Tsardom was history. Now you might smile at this, but it's really a genuine reason. Putin made it sure that vodka was cheap and plentiful. Unfortunately, the younger generations of Russian don't drink so much vodka as before. Bad thing for someone like Putin.

And just think what would happen to the US if the supply of all drugs were stopped: from weed to opioids and everything in between?

But to the question of whether the totalitarian regime during the USSR years was good or evil (should we be left with that limited dichotomy), I'd say evil, standing in opposition to the values many of us hold so dear. — Hanover

I agree, but I didn't actually see that question come up. Did it?

Otherwise, it was a beautifully crafted post and I enjoyed reading it.

I think aliens would say, "Those creatures kill each other pretty much continuously, and not very efficiently. They bumble around exhausting enormous resources to do it.

"Meanwhile their climate is changing rapidly and they're just sitting there."

BTW, Biden is going to pressure Australia to improve their carbon footprint. How weird is that? Is that imperialism?