[javajosh]

You can vote yourself into authoritarianism, but you cannot vote yourself out. And when that authoritarian you love so much makes a major blunder, invading Europe for example, he takes everyone with him, and that's by design.

[jjtheblunt]

Romania voted out their authoritarian ruler with a firing squad back in the mid to late 80s.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolae_Ceau%C8%99escu

[m_fayer]

Russia has become totalitarian, not just authoritarian. That’s an important distinction, totalitarian societies have much less capacity for independent action.

[sterlind]

Romania was totalitarian. Ceausescu was a bloodthirsty dictator. Bucharest was wormed through with underground tunnels that the Securitate would use to move around. He'd murder political opponents by summoning them to a waiting room with a radiation source, giving them cancer and then letting them leave. He was overthrown only after he massacred a ton of students, mowing them down with machine gun fire during a protest.

[ymolodtsov]

Russia doesn't really fit this description yet, even though Putin wants to create this image.

Totalitarian states relied on masses and didn't have to forcibly get people to participate in their marches.

[xuhu]

It could be said that Europe collectively voted out communism at the end of the 80's.

[ymolodtsov]

Only when the USSR no longer had the means to stop this.

[ElectricalUnion]

s/communism/socialism/g

[BrandoElFollito]

As a French I wonder what your are talking about.

[Seb-C]

As a French living abroad, I totally understand what he means.

[BrandoElFollito]

Which is what?

[ajuc]

Usually you can't realistically vote the dictator out long before they invade somebody. For example Łukaszenko in Belarus made it impossible to vote him out in 90s already. Putin in early 00s.

Russians and Belarusians made their mistakes back then. Now it's just a consequence of not fighting for their democracy strongly enough when it was still possible.

This is the thing that kills democracy - it is taken away from you very slowly, step by step, and at any given moment it looks like it's not a big deal. And then when it's a big deal - you realize it doesn't matter what people think. You can't change anything.

In my country (Poland) the fight is still going on, but I'm not optimistic.

[ethbr0]

Let's not forget Hungary making it impossible to vote Orbán out ~2012.

[ymolodtsov]

Are you saying people Belarus didn't fight hard enough in 2020?

[0xDEF]

>a major blunder

On the contrary this war is Putin's multiyear bet on Russia's useful idiots in the West.

US Republicans overwhelmingly supported US military aid to Ukraine in the beginning of the war. However Tucker Carlson and other populists spend the next 12 months lowering that support to less than 40%.

The only reason Russia started this war is because they believed their useful idiots in the West will save them. They are yet to be proved wrong.

[phillipcarter]

> They are yet to be proved wrong.

I'm confused. Hasn't the US and EU given incredible military aide to Ukraine?

[ajuc]

Enough to defend. Not enough to win decisively. Timing matters. If EU and USA provided the help that they did but in the first 6 months - Ukraine would have already won. But the help is drip-fed to Ukraine, supposedly to "not escalate". The result is that the war that could be already over is dragging on, and eventually people will stop helping for one reason or another.

If we want a quick win for Ukraine we should send weapons much quicker and without silly distinctions like (offensive vs defensive weapons in 2022 or like long vs short range missiles now).

It's like instead of curing people with antibiotics in 2 weeks you split the pills into 1/64th parts and cured them for 1 year. You're not really curing them - you're growing antibiotic-resistant bacteria at that point.

[koonsolo]

You are wrong about your military assessment.

A quick win would mean Russia would hold on to a lot of military resources. By providing Ukraine just enough to deny Russia any wins, and Russia stupid enough to not pull out, they are basically draining Russia to death.

Right now Russia is sending T-54's to the battlefield. Their 'storm the front' tactics is killing their soldiers at a crazy rate.

Now this is the military standpoint, there is also a humanitarian side. Now on the humanitarian side, I agree a quick win would be better and save a lot of lives. I'm a proponent for NATO to control the skies, at least West from the Dnipro river.

But claiming it's a military failure on the Western side is just plain wrong. This right now is NATO's ideal military scenario.

[ajuc]

Russia has nukes, it doesn't matter how much we drain its military, it can just freeze the war, go back and rebuild. Let's say it takes 10 years. It's not solving the issue, just pushing it back to reappear later.

On the other hand a decisive win for Ukraine followed by western-integration success story there - would directly contradict Putin's core internal justification for keeping his power (west is lying ,democracy is bullshit, ruskie people are different and if we try democracy it would just be 90s again). If Ukrainians have democracy and are more successful than Russians (and Russians would know - they have families and travel) - this whole system (not only Putin - but all his FSB friends, oligarchs, orthodox church, state media etc) - break down.

Remember that they are constantly telling their people that Ukraine doesn't exist, Ukrainians are just Russians brainwashed into believing "western lies". If these western lies WORK - it's the end of putin & company.

This is the most likely road to a democratic, constructive Russia. Such Russia would be a massive boon for EU and NATO, both Russia and its neighbors wouldn't need to waste billions of dollars on weapons. And of course it would be a massive improvement for Russians. Actual rule of law. Local self-government with reinvestment of oil money into infrastructure & education. The possibilities are endless. But it would require Russia to go through the imperial cycle to its conclusion - decisively losing a colonial war, realizing we're the bad guys, dealing with the history, etc. You need the defeat for that.

If we keep Russia alive we're making this very hard. Much more likely it will become a big North Korea.

[koonsolo]

Why would a quick win of Ukraine suddenly change the political landscape in Russia? Russians don't protest now, so why would they suddenly start doing that?

However, a weak Russia cannot keep regions that want to break away. Russia as we know it now is not going to exist anymore. Not because they would suddenly overthrow the current government (which they won't). But because plenty of 'friendly' neighbor states might cut connections, and controlled regions might see a brighter future on their own. They are not going to nuke them because of this.

Russia turning into a new North Korea is unfortunately almost a given right now, since the Russian public doesn't seem motivated to protest and demand another government.

[denton-scratch]

> Not enough to win decisively.

It's often claimed that US policy is to take advantage of the war to grind down Russian military capability, and that the USA will fight to the last Ukrainian.

I must say, I find the reluctance to supply missiles that could be used to hit targets inside Russia seems to support that view. I mean, it's not as if Russia is hitting targets inside Ukraine, is it? /s

It's completely normal in war to attempt to disrupt enemy operations by targeting logistics behind enemy lines; which in this case is the border between Ukraine and Russia. Western vetoes on that activity, supposedly with the aim of "not escalating", look very cynical.

[ethbr0]

Ukraine could hit the Crimean Bridge from territory they control today with ATACMS, which if kept inoperable would make supplying Crimea untenable.

That's Ukrainian territory by international law, a valid military target, and minimal civilian casualties.

The US should have given them examples for that single purpose long ago.

It's not like Ukraine and Russia aren't already shooting SRBMs at each other.

[denton-scratch]

The Kerch Strait Bridge is seen by Ukrainians as a gross national insult; its destruction would be a huge morale booster for Ukraine.

I don't know how much reliance Russian forces in Crimea place on the bridge. It seems rather fragile to rely on that bridge to supply the entire peninsular. Crimea can be resupplied by sea; it has several ports, including a huge one at Sevastopol.

However Crimea lacks its own water supply; Crimean water supplies come by pipeline from the Dniepro. My guess is that Ukraine would love to control that pipeline.

[tiahura]

The Sec of Defense has said this several times. The primary goal is to degrade Russia’s war fighting capability so that it is no longer a threat to its other neighbors.

[0xDEF]

Realistically this war will continue for two more years. Russia's useful idiots are hard at work lowering Western popular support for Ukraine.

Will the West still be giving military aid to Ukraine in 2025?

[tjpnz]

The US is free to do whatever it likes, but Europe won't accept a Russian-ruled Ukraine.

[caskstrength]

> The US is free to do whatever it likes, but Europe won't accept a Russian-ruled Ukraine.

Won't accept in the sense they will continue with some sanctions indefinitely (significantly watered down by multiple parties) or in the sense that they will significantly and rapidly expand their production of ammunition and armored vehicles in order to fully sustain the Ukrainian military? Because if Biden loses they will need to have the production running in less than two years and I'm not sure they are _really_ prepared to invest the necessary resources.

[veidr]

More "some" than "incredible".

But the result is yet to be seen.

[ajuc]

We know for a fact that Putin thought it will take less than a month. There were russian propaganda articles posted russian state media accidently that celebrated the "succesfull take-over of whole Ukraine" stating that it only lasted few days.

So yes - it was a blunder.

And yes - they are counting on useful idiots in the west now, but that wasn't the plan, it's russians trying to save whatever they can after that initial blunder. You can know that by looking at how long it took for russian propaganda targeting the west to catch up after the start of the invasion in 2022. Usually they prepare the western audiences. This time they didn't bothered because it was supposed to be a quick thing and it was secret even for many russians in the government.

Also - useful idiots are in many countries, not just in USA. EU is hugely important in this war, especially Germany, and they were ruled by useful russian idiots for last 30 years. I'm not sure they stopped being them even now.

> The only reason Russia started this war is because they believed their useful idiots in the West will save them

This is just wrong.

[pixl97]

Putin was planning on the useful idiot in the oval office up unto the point he got replaced. Had Trump remained in office Ukraine would be a vassal state now.

[koonsolo]

> On the contrary this war is Putin's multiyear bet on Russia's useful idiots in the West.

It's not even that complicated. His bet was that the West would respond the same as we did with Georgia, Chechenya, and the Donbas/Crimean invasion of 2014.

It was 'safe' to assume that the West would react the same with a complete invasion of Ukraine. Seems like not.

If Putin was smart, he would have gracefully pulled out of this. But seems like he much rather want to turn his country into a new North Korea.