Russia begins moving troops into eastern Ukraine

[Dill]

(03-18-2022, 06:16 PM)hollodero Wrote: It could be that he changed drastically and "lost it" so to say, I just don't really see it, I rather see someone finally following through on long-held plans and goals.

Which, btw. is a counter-argument to your idea he fell into this dictator trap. He's in power for 23 years, seems like he did well in avoiding the ultimate consequences of said trap so far. Of course there are hints that his system has severe flaws; for example it seems like he was grossly uninformed about the actual state of the military and the apparently vast amounts of investment that oozed in someone's pocket and no one dared to tell him. One can see that as manifestation of said trap.

But then again, I'm a bit sceptical about the absoluteness of your article's conclusion. Often it seems to me as if journalist's opinion pieces are too reliant on inductive inferences, meaning if I see ten white sheep I can claim that every sheep is white. Putin is a special sheep though.

Part III  I know you don't want to "flood the thread," but this post deals with application of theory, and I already had it worked up, so I'm going to post it anyway.
............................................................................................................................................
Yes, Putin’s behavior NOW aligns with indications of a “dictator trap.” It wasn't there in 1999 or even 2007 because the trap must be created over time. When generals and the like can publish public criticisms of Putin, as they could during his first two terms, and Putin must respect constitutional term limits, the “trap” is not yet there. Rather the “trap” aspect of his immediate environment seems to have become a factor post 2014.  

Can you cite some evidence of expansive tendency, in Putin's statements or behavior pre-2007?

Is there an alternative to reliance on “inductive inferences” in policy and diplomacy?  You’d be relying on such yourself were your contention that Putin is exceptional also supported with specific observations; that it is not so supported is not a strength. If Putin is a “special” dictator/sheep in this case, then you need to offer some evidence he is not like the other ten.  

(03-18-2022, 06:16 PM)hollodero Wrote: Dill Wrote: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.

That might have been a propaganda choice though. Putin has discovered the war against terrorism as a wonderful reason to lead his own battles like in Chechnya. It might appear harder to sell these lines if one on the other hand hinders actions taken in the name of said war against terror.

“Might” have been a what??? Why isn’t “Terrorism” itself as the Atlantic West defines it, a “wonderful reason” to seek alliance in dealing with the international problem? Remember that Chechens actually invaded nearby Dagestan in 1999, and Chechnya was already subdued before Putin sought the Bush alliance. Remember the Moscow apt. bombings of 1999 and the Moscow Theater massacre of 2002. To think of this alliance as a “propaganda choice” negates recognition of this violence as a real, serious problem, challenging the stability of a Russian state with some 20 million Muslims inside its borders, armed and some with cultural affiliation to the Taliban and other nefarious groups, not to mention the risk to former Soviet states still counted as part of the Russian “near abroad.”