Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky has said the death of Yevgeny Prigozhin – the Russian mercenary leader whose plane crashed weeks after he led a mutiny against Moscow’s military leadership – shows what happens when people make deals with Russian leader Vladimir Putin.
As Ukraine’s counteroffensive moves into a fourth month, with only modest gains to show so far, Zelensky told CNN’s Fareed Zakaria he rejected suggestions it was time to negotiate peace with the Kremlin.
“When you want to have a compromise or a dialogue with somebody, you cannot do it with a liar,” Volodymyr Zelensky said.
A ‘Treaty of Versailles’ type solution is not a good idea for durable peace though, harsh reparations, despite any sense they might be ‘fair’, seldom lead to both countries returning to be prosperous democratic countries (and to be clear, neither is a capitulation by Ukraine - that would be seen by Putin as locking in its current gains, with no real incentive not to try again for more despite what the treaty might say).
The best outcome for everyone is if Russia ends up being a genuinely pluralistic democracy (i.e. anyone in Russia can have political views, and the public selects its leadership in free and fair elections). Then Ukraine can normalise relations with Russia, and Russia stops being a threat to democratic institutions across the world as a whole.
I think the best way of thinking about it is not that Ukraine has a Russia problem, but rather that Ukraine and Russia have an oligarch problem (with Putin chief amongst them). Therefore, in a fair world, the oligarchs, and not the Russian people, would pay. It is true that Russians (and indeed some Ukrainians in occupied regions) have been radicalised by the oligarchs, so some kind of deradicalisation would be needed even if the oligarchs disappeared.
Solutions that look to negotiate how to reduce corruption and authoritarianism in Russia from the top are therefore the most likely to succeed long term. Shorter term solutions could include a negotiated end to hostilities coupled with agreements for Ukraine to join a defensive alliance that the oligarchs wouldn’t consider provoking - which could be followed up by a carrot approach to easing sanctions in exchange for progressive movements towards genuine Russian democracy. This might give oligarchs enough push to take off ramps to cash in what they have plundered already, and slowly be replaced by less corrupt alternatives going forward.
Recovery from oligarchy for Russia might also by costly for Russia though - essential assets plundered from the USSR are now in private hands through crony capitalism; the best solution would be for many of the major ones to go back to or be rebuilt under state ownership, under genuine democratic leadership. But that is likely easier said than done given the state of Russia.
This may be true but the negotiations are with a dictator. It’s not like Putin is going to step down so that the problem is resolved peacefully.
Yep. The only way to make progress on that front is to serve Putin some polonium tea…
That won’t work, it’s not just Putin doing this alone you know. You’d need a powerful (the most powerful, actually) faction inside the Russian state apparatus that want to just give up, and there’s no real reason to think there is such a group. And no anti-war opposition has enough support to do a coup or win elections.
No defeatist is getting into power. It’s not going to happen unless Lenin rises from the dead.
I bet if they had a real option, they’d love to stop sending their kids to die.
Saying as much now gets you thrown in jail.
Socialism worked in Russia: it dragged hundreds of millions of people out of subsistence farming and turned the USSR into an economic powerhouse. Of course, the collapse of the USSR showed the failings of an aggressively socialist state, but the funny thing is that China already has the solution: a market-based economy with strong state control. Putin doesn’t dare piss off the oligarchs though, so we’re stuck with this crony bullshit.
China’s also showing the problem of that. The state control is too susceptible to corruption. That’s how they have a whole industry if fake construction, fake goods etc… And why they’re on the brink of a massive Construction bond related crash.
| Socialism worked in Russia:
Bullshit. Prosperity advanced much more in the west than in the Soviet Union, or anywhere in the soviet bloc. Corruption was rampant. Lying was rampant. People were miserable. Cultural genocide was the name of the game. Subjugated people hated it, and have fared significantly better since getting out. The only people who seem to be nostalgic about the USSR is the Russians, because they lost the ability to benefit from the slave labor of conquered vassal states.
In what universe have corruption and lying not been rampant in “the west” over the last hundred years? Did you just pull this comment out of a book titled “Red Scare Propaganda?”
Lol. Nice whataboutism. The USSR literally collapsed due to corruption.
It shouldn’t be surprising that prosperity advanced much more in the already advanced and industrialised west than in a former semi-feudal peasant economy country. The point is that that former semi-feudal peasant economy rose rapidly to become at least a perceived competitor to the west, even with the most destructive war ever waged on a large part of its most fertile and productive land.
Also, corruption and lying? That isn’t specific to the USSR. People are and were miserable in the west too, cultural genocide was and is happening in the west too. Comparing like for like, socialism worked well for the USSR. It was able to heavily industrialise, house populations, create a space program and compete with the USA on the international stage.
| It shouldn’t be surprising that prosperity advanced much more in the already advanced and industrialised west than in a former semi-feudal peasant economy country.
If the Russians wanted to industrialize, then good for them. But they did it off the back of the slave labor of other countries obtained through violent conquest.
Many European countries were decimated in the aftermath of WWII, not just Russia. West Germany, case in point. The West Germans had it significantly better than the East Germans under socialism. France had it better than Poland under socialism. etc… Socialism made peoples lives miserable.
To whit: 85% of Poles think positively of the change to a multiparty system and market economy. 85% and 83% (respectively) of East Germans. 82% and 76% of Czechs. 70% and 69% of Lithuanians. 74% and 71% of Slovaks. The only people who see it as a negative are the Russians. Go figure.
| Also, corruption and lying? That isn’t specific to the USSR.
True, but I never claimed it was. It’s about degree. I’ve heard first hand stories from former soviet residents of how the only way to get a doctor to treat you with anything more than an asprin was to bribe them. That’s an absolutely fucked level of corruption. The idea that that sort of corruption existed in the west at the same time is laughable.
| People are and were miserable in the west too.
Claiming that there are some miserable people in the west misses the point. There are miserable people everywhere, but what % of the population are they?
Research (you know, data), shows that people in South Eastern Europe, Central Eastern Europe and the Baltic states are significantly happier than they were at the fall of the USSR. The only region where this is not true for all countries in the region is the former CIS, which surprise, surprise, includes Russia.
| cultural genocide was and is happening in the west too
Where? Show me a country in the west where your mother tongue is banned? Show me a country in the west where you can be sent to prison for practicing your cultural rituals (assuming you aren’t hurting others ofc)? Don’t compare the mixing of cultures due to increased levels of mobility and the internet to Russiafication, because that’s bullshit.
| socialism worked well for the USSR. It was able to heavily industrialize, house populations, create a space program and compete with the USA on the international stage.
Socialism worked well for a small number of people and only compared to the rest of the soviet bloc. Gorbechev ordered his motorcade to stop at some random small supermarket in the USA to see what it was really like and was initially convinced it was some elaborate CIA setup because he couldn’t believe that the average American had access to a wider range of high quality produce than the party elite in the USSR. American’s weren’t special in that regard. Everyone in the west had the same. Occupied countries would have been just fine with industrialization and housing their populations. All the USSR did from your list was create a space program which did almost nothing for the average person of the USSR, and it was so inept that Vladimir Komarov insisted on an open-casket funeral to force the point.
Ok, so the West Germans and France, who received economic aid from the US who wasn’t ravaged by war, fared better economically than those countries being supported by the Nazi devastated USSR.
I’ve heard first hand accounts from people from the west who talk about the only way to avoid disproportionate targeting by police and other state actors was to be not black or other minority. Not to mention the institutionalised corruption of over the top corporate lobbying. That’s an absolutely fucked level of corruption too.
Of course people are happier now than at the fall of the USSR. The collapse of a nation has a massive and in this case negative instant impact on people’s lives. The fact that things if gone up from there is not surprising.
Black people and Native Americans are still dealing with past and current displacement and discrimination, including a push to eliminate their culture and language. Canada is currently dealing with the results of their very recent genocidal attempts on their First Nations people.
That 'only a small number of people’s argument really doesn’t wash when you factor in the alternative that is capitalism. The very system that is increasing inequality faster and faster since the fall of its former main ideological enemy. It’s true that light industry in the Soviet Union was underdeveloped, people didn’t have as much choice in things like food products or consumer goods, but they were building from a completely different set of conditions. The ability of the west to produce so much that then gets wasted while still having starving, homeless, and undereducated people living in it is not a ringing endorsement of the system.
| Ok, so the West Germans and France, who received economic aid from the US who wasn’t ravaged by war, fared better economically than those countries being supported by the Nazi devastated USSR.
You seem to have forgotten that the point that I am disputing is that socialism worked in the USSR. The USSR was offered aid (the Marshall Plan) but refused it. That’s on socialism.
The simple truth is that the USSR failed its citizens. Non-russian slave nations would have been much better off being autonomous and free to pursue their own ideals and prosperity. Ethnic Russians…well who knows. It’s a messed up culture and that’s hard to break free from, but you could imagine a timeline where they dumped the idea that grinding others under your boot heel was the way to success.
| I’ve heard first hand accounts from people from the west who talk about the only way to avoid disproportionate targeting by police and other state actors was to be not black or other minority. Not to mention the institutionalised corruption of over the top corporate lobbying. That’s an absolutely fucked level of corruption too.
This is whataboutism and actually supports my point. Which was, again, was that socialism did not work in the USSR. If the west had all that ‘fucked up level of corruption too’, then it still out-performed socialism on pretty much all metrics. But regardless, selecting a disadvantaged minority in one country and then trying to create a false equivalence to the majority in the USSR is exactly that, a false equivalence.
| Of course people are happier now than at the fall of the USSR. The collapse of a nation has a massive and in this case negative instant impact on people’s lives. The fact that things if gone up from there is not surprising.
Oh, they were unhappy then! I have family who lived through it, and they HATED being part of the USSR. It was a miserable time of poverty, fear and suffering for them. The USSR was an authoritarian, totalitarian, one-party, state that had Orwellian propaganda, a cult of personality and in which the Russian ethic group had an overbearing sense of racial superiority. The state also carried out repression, torture and purges on scales that were genocidal. All of these traits are common with fascism, but the Russians claim to be anti-fascist. It’s odd.
Non-russians much prefer being free and out from the Russian fascist boot heel.
| Black people and Native Americans are still dealing with past and current displacement and discrimination, including a push to eliminate their culture and language. Canada is currently dealing with the results of their very recent genocidal attempts on their First Nations people.
I never claimed that other countries were perfect, I just did a comparison and found the USSR to be severely wanting in terms of whether it worked. I think it’s a good thing that First Nations people are finally getting their language, culture and rights recognised and respected. Maybe Russia could contemplate doing the same and leaving the Ukrainians alone; as opposed to, for example, the Russian man who recently THREW A 10 YEAR OLD UKRAINIAN CHILD OFF A BRIDGE for speaking Ukrainian in Germany.
| That 'only a small number of people’s argument really doesn’t wash when you factor in the alternative that is capitalism. The very system that is increasing inequality faster and faster since the fall of its former main ideological enemy. It’s true that light industry in the Soviet Union was underdeveloped, people didn’t have as much choice in things like food products or consumer goods, but they were building from a completely different set of conditions. The ability of the west to produce so much that then gets wasted while still having starving, homeless, and undereducated people living in it is not a ringing endorsement of the system.
I’m not claiming capitalism is perfect, far from it and I think the USA goes too way far the other way. But the point (again!) is that Socialism did not work in the USSR. People suffered, literally starved by the millions, and did not have autonomy, the freedom to speak either their language or their thoughts. People were abducted by the state never to be seen or heard of again, connections to community and land were broken, and countries other than russia were worse off than if they had been free to pursue their own path under a democratically elected government.
If you want to see a state where socialism has worked, look at Norway, not Russia.
I appreciate your in depth responses, but I think we are talking past each other or perhaps differing on the understanding of our points. I bring up these failings in the west to show that they are not an inherent part of socialism, and using them to dismiss socialism is not correct.
The siege socialism mentality taken on by the Soviet Union did have many negatives for those living in it, including lack of choice in products and lack of freedom of travel. It was not perfect, just as the USA is not perfect. However as a system it raised the living standards of its people of what once was the backwater of Europe to an actual modern standard in a large part of the country. It did this in spite of its conditions following the revolution, which were much worse than those of the USA, and despite a destructive war fought in its borders which cost millions of its citizens lives.
The fact is socialism did work for the USSR, whether or not free market capitalism would have worked for it given its starting conditions is debatable, but I doubt it.
I also differ in the opinion of whether Norway is socialist. I do not see it as such, instead I see it as a capitalist system with better welfare than some other states.
It’s not about absence or presence of these failings, it’s about the degree of them, and socialism (USSR style) has very serious levels of these failings. Western societies have failings too, but on balance, and on average, they represent a better outcome for the citizens.
| The siege socialism mentality taken on by the Soviet Union did have many negatives for those living in it, including lack of choice in products and lack of freedom of travel.
It’s not just about lack of products or the ability to have a holiday in France, it’s about the freedom to disagree, the freedom to express your ideas, beliefs and ideals in whatever language you want, or through whatever culture you want, and to expect fairness from those around you. The USSR failed in this and killed, imprisoned or tortured those who did not comply with often toxic cultural norms. It was traumatic for those who had to live through it.
| However as a system it raised the living standards of its people of what once was the backwater of Europe to an actual modern standard in a large part of the country. It did this in spite of its conditions following the revolution, which were much worse than those of the USA, and despite a destructive war fought in its borders which cost millions of its citizens lives.
Russia may have been a backwater of Europe, but other countries it conquered were flourishing and prospering nations (WWII damage notwithstanding). Just look at what those states have achieved since being freed from the USSR. The USSR wasn’t some rising tide, it was a huge deadweight on the peoples conquered by the russians. The rush to join NATO demonstrates this. They weren’t forced or tricked into joining NATO, they WANTED to join NATO. Think about why that might be? It’s because they saw the USSR as such a horrific, traumatic period that they never wanted to be forced to participate in anything like it again. Ever. Period.
| The fact is socialism did work for the USSR, whether or not free market capitalism would have worked for it given its starting conditions is debatable, but I doubt it.
It may have lifted the standards of living for peasant russians further than they might. have otherwise expected, but vassal states were actually held back by the USSR. I’m old enough to remember the USSR, which I suspect you are not. I’ve spoken with family who were forced to live in the USSR. They disagree with your perspective. Vehemently.
deleted by creator
Is the “commie” in the room with you now? This is an unhinged level of angrv to get over a really quite tame comment.
deleted by creator
Ukraine itself is not a “genuinely pluralistic democracy” despite appearances, it’s almost as corrupt and authoritarian as Russia.
It’s not the case where only Russia has to become more democratic cause democracies usually don’t fight each other.
But for Russia to stop being a threat it’s sufficient to just lose this war finally. It won’t recover its ability to attack anyone anytime soon, and when it will, the process of recovery itself is going to naturally ensure that it’s not interested in attacking Ukraine.
So yes, you are right about oligarchs and the general structure of the societies.
Essential assets you are talking about are what exactly? If you mean factories and plants, then actual equipment in most of them was obsolete even in 1991, and through the 90s and 00s has mostly been scrapped.
There are some remaining and even functioning, yes, but whether state ownership is going to prevent those from slowly crumbling due to growing obsolescence, irrelevance and lack of expertise, I’m not sure.
Basically industrial capacities are something to be created from scratch mostly.
What would be the definition of “losing” in this case? Countries tend use all the weapons at their disposal in order not to “lose”, in the case of Russia that would include its nuclear arsenal.
Sounds like a better outcome for everyone would be for Russia to get a civil war, and just “forget” about Ukraine.
All weapons which make sense for Russia’s leadership. Nukes are not that, they want to still rule over something when this ends.
Chemical weapons are possible, I think.
If we go far enough up the command chain, there are fallout shelters and
slavessubordinates to rule over.But you’re right, chemical and biological are likely lower on the “let’s fuck every treaty” scale.
I suspect they are getting second thoughts there about those fallout shelters and how different they are from wow hypersonic missiles and wow radioelectronic warfare and other kinds of wow they considered real.