Russia begins moving troops into eastern Ukraine

[Dill]

(03-13-2022, 02:57 PM)hollodero Wrote: Well, it might be a matter of interpretation. Also, it might appear easy for me to say now "I knew it all along" and be Captain Hindsight about all things Putin. But to me, he always was pretty close to the cliche of a KGB man. Cynical and patriotic and having little to no ethical boundaries. That's how he always acted. And he always appeared to have plans for a new greater Russia. He called the end of the Soviet union the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20. century, for one. He does not mean the end of communism, but the end of the Russian-led power bloc. He also underlined that he sees Russians and Ukrainians as one people, he always wanted to expand his power to the neighboring former Soviet republics, bey all means at his disposal, to lead Russia, his Russia, to glory once again. I always saw him as that kind of person.

Taking countries militarily, imho, was just not possible for him. Not before the western alliances are broken up, anyway. Which I'd say was his whole master plan. Bring down Nato, the EU with widespread propaganda campaigns, sawing distrust, strenghening nationalists and so on. So when he finally can move to recreate the Russian empire, there will be little response, and no coordinated one, from the estranged western countries and he can just move along. In a few days, possibly, Ukrainians want to be Russians under his rule anyway. Something he might actually have believed. 
All of which are plans that to me appear megalomaniac, in that he overestimated what he and his oligarch clan can actually achieve.

Sorry for the late response.  I have not been online much lately.

Regarding the bolded, remember what I am questioning is whether Putin was "always" what he is now, and always aiming to expand Russia to former Tsarist dimensions or whatever. Most of the bolded matches statements and behavior since 2014. Certainly not pre-2007. 

But I don't think that behavior was there when he allied himself with the US against Al Qaeda and gave the US flyover rights and accepted a "temporary" base in Tajikistan without objection. This alliance with the US was not welcomed by all. 18 retired generals signed a letter of protest, in the belief it was to Russia's strategic advantage NOT to help the US. Putin went against them.

In 1999, I don't think he aspired to national leadership, as he apparently thought that his war in Chechnya would ruin his political future. He was surprised it had the opposite effect.

By the way, there is an article in the recent Atlantic you might like. Remember last year when I was arguing for the broader dissemination of knowledge about authoritarian politics? Some journalists are doing that.

Vladimir Putin Has Fallen Into the Dictator Trap
by Brian Klaas  https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/vladimir-putin-has-fallen-into-the-dictator-trap/ar-AAV7Lky

...How did he miscalculate so badly?

To answer that question, you have to understand the power and information ecosystems around dictators. I’ve studied and interviewed despots across the globe for more than a decade. In my research, I’ve persistently encountered a stubborn myth—of the savvy strongman, the rational, calculating despot who can play the long game because he (and it’s typically a he) doesn’t have to worry about pesky polls or angry voters. Our elected leaders, this view suggests, are no match for the tyrant who gazes into the next decade rather than fretting about next year’s election.

Reality doesn’t conform to that rosy theory.

Autocrats such as Putin eventually succumb to what may be called the “dictator trap.” The strategies they use to stay in power tend to trigger their eventual downfall. Rather than being long-term planners, many make catastrophic short-term errors—the kinds of errors that would likely have been avoided in democratic systems. They hear only from sycophants, and get bad advice. They misunderstand their population. They don’t see threats coming until it’s too late. And unlike elected leaders who leave office to riches, book tours, and the glitzy lifestyle of a statesman, many dictators who miscalculate leave office in a casket, a possibility that makes them even more likely to double down....

...despots rarely get told that their stupid ideas are stupid, or that their ill-conceived wars are likely to be catastrophic. Offering honest criticism is a deadly game and most advisers avoid doing so. Those who dare to gamble eventually lose and are purged. So over time, the advisers who remain are usually yes-men who act like bobbleheads, nodding along when the despot outlines some crackpot scheme.
Even with such seemingly loyal cronies, despots face a dilemma. How can you trust the loyalty of an entourage that has every reason to lie and conceal its true thoughts? 

To solve this problem, despots create loyalty tests, ghoulish charades to separate true believers from pretenders. To be trusted, advisers must lie on behalf of the regime. Those who repeat absurd claims without blinking are deemed loyal. Anyone who hesitates is considered suspect.

In Kim Jong Un’s North Korea, for example, the lies have gotten progressively more ridiculous. Once a lie becomes widely accepted, the value of that individual loyalty test declines. Once [i]everyone knows that Kim Jong Un learned to drive when he was just 3 years old, a new, more extreme lie must emerge for the test to serve its purpose. The cycle repeats itself, and a cult of personality is born.

Plenty of people around Putin understood that dynamic, which is why they were willing to parrot Putin’s outlandish claim that the Jewish president of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelensky, is presiding over a “neo-Nazi” state. (Such mythmaking can happen in democracies too, if you have an authoritarian-style leader. Just consider how many Republicans have fallen over one another to endorse Donald Trump’s lies about the 2020 election in order to prove their MAGA bona fides.). . . .
[/i]