There is another abstract (and sorry for that) or say philosophical aspect of it. It is a battle between old and new. Where old is say soviet union and new is not yet defined. This battle was almost lost with a widespread stagnation, autocracy and rule of money (oligarchy) spreading. What comes clear is that in order to survive, UA has to discard everything old. But then in building new it seems to be forced to see clearly all the failures of the West in colours. So whether people would be ready to move forward, discarding both sides of the old is yet to be seen.
....where the old is the oligarchy - no matter where - insistent on maintaining the status quo, and thus dictating the politics to administer that way.
....in turn braking the progress for decades already...
Besides that, what I observe is critical lack of desire of many people to think for themselves, make their own observations, conclusions and decisions. While mind viruses are reigning.
"our systems are not an inch better than any other dictatorships out there"
I think they are an inch better, if only by an inch - however limited pluralism there is, it can still limit private and corporate interests to a degree, forcing them back at times. True dictatorships are much more likely to resort to open terror if their interests are unable to flow freely. But of course, the situation is far from being actually good.
As for those who consider the conflict as a proxy war, they should consider the Eastern Front of WWII as a proxy war, too. The USSR was well on the way to join the Axis, when some unfortunate events suddenly pitted it against Germany. Then, the evil West started stuffing them with war materiel out of their own selfish, nefarious interests, even though the Soviets could have just laid down their arms and then there would have been peace.
No, because Stalin would never surrender. The plants were relocated to Ural and Siberia, the people starved but worked. The mere size of the Soviet Union and its immense population were decisive factors.
"Economically, aid allows the USSR to mitigate its weak points: aluminum, high-quality steel, transportation equipment, additives for aircraft gasoline, chemicals, medicines, packaged food products (K rations, corned beef, concentrated milk). Without this aid, especially without the rails and locomotives (2,152 plus 14,380 wagons), the USSR would not have been able to continue to sacrifice its civilian economy as it did beyond the winter of 1942-1943. Militarily, American deliveries did not have a notable effect on the battlefields until the Battle of Kursk (summer 1943), with the exception of the munitions sector, the effect of which was already felt in Stalingrad. Its key elements were transport equipment (4x4 trucks, jeeps, tanks), transmissions (416,000 telephones and 28,700 radios), radars (60 stations), munitions, certain pieces of equipment (15 million pairs of boots). The equipment delivered assembled, such as Sherman tanks (5,400 delivered) or Airacobra fighters (6,700), however, had relatively little weight, even if Soviet soldiers appreciated them. Note the excellent general quality of the supplies, far superior to what Soviet industry was capable of providing. Marshal Zhukov recognized after the war the immense importance of American aid. It is not clear how the 6 armoured armies that tore the German front apart at will from February 1944 onwards could have operated without the 440,000 GMCs, jeeps, radio trucks, tractors (9,000) that equipped them, nor how the assault aviation could have carried out its support missions if its advanced terrain had not received 58,752 runway plates. It should be noted for comparison that US truck deliveries to the Soviet Union were greater than all German production since 1939."
Every educated person in Ukraine is well aware of this information. But it is also evident that all the deliveries from the Allies saved the lives of their soldiers.
I didn't know that, but it doesn't seem surprising to me given the number of trucks that were delivered to them. I guess at the time there were no restrictions on the use of the equipment...
Think, one needs to put him/herself into my shoes to fully understand that part of the answer. I'm 'too well' aware of all the oligarchy- and political pressure upon the media but to think we really do have something like 'clear pluralism'.
We do not have that. We have an advertising pluralism: if one is swimming with the mainstream and reporting what the 'selected few' like, fine. Whoever doesn't - is promptly sidelined. And if somebody goes too far, he/she is still made 'shorter by a head' - whether literally, or professionally.
From that point of view, I cannot but ask myself: OK, and where's then a difference to, say, such dictatorships like System Putin? As long as one is 'swimming with the mainstream' there, one is doing fine too. Indeed: even (literally) 'earning millions' (see Pudding's PRBS-industrialists). And if not... well, sure, the number of cases where people fell down the stairs or out of the window is 'slightly higher' on that side of the border, but on this side. But, that's about the only difference.
Ah, come on Tom. Why somebody like Jeff Bezos by the Washington Post? Only in a philanthropic way to safe the newspaper and not to buy influence.
The same with the guy that stood in front of Congress for forming a cartel, how was his name. Ah, Bill Gates. The expert on saving humanity with vaccines and speaking on this topic as an expert during the covid crisis, with no expertise in medicine whatsoever, but so much more philanthropic enthusiasm. Only for the good of humanity and definitely not in his own pocket, as he doesn't have one. Cause that got outsourced into a foundation with almost no taxes, but the right intention. Cause who needs a state, if you have philanthropists?
Paying taxes and let the electorate decide - really, that is so ancient....
And yes, that is all sarcastic as I have to go voting tomorrow and there is no party that would companies make pay real taxes and that is so frustrating.
.....I've found a small party: not entirely in agreement with all of their ideas, but better than the corruption morass presently pretending they would be working in anybody's interest but the 'top 100'...
Sidelining someone with a different opinion is a common human habit, unfortunately. Acting differently requires openness and empathy, which are uncommon qualities. The "mainstream" in turn becomes mainstream because it's beneficial to the rich/influential and convenient to everyone else, so they agree on it, even if it's harmful - and now both of them will be inclined to sideline those that say otherwise.
You're right that if the "West" is based on the Enlightenment, as it proudly boasts, then it should be able to push for a more diverse public discourse and somehow reward the better side of humanity. Systems like that of Putin tend to promote less discourse and reward the worst personality traits.
You are lucky to live in Austria and you cannot even imagine all the idiotism of Putler's regime. It exceeds by far the Soviet propaganda of post-Stalin years. Nobody in the West - maybe except some ambassadors etc. - really understands the nature of the so-called "society" in Russia and the constant brainwashing of the people.
What's really fun is to live on the US West Coast and have family members fall prey to the russian world delusion and actually move to it. All the while insisting that it's freer and so cheap to live (if you move there with Dollars in hand, that is).
The russian world really does have no borders. And so it must die, for the sake of people everywhere.
Our systems haven't degraded badly enough to feel the need to violently oppress us all the time. The potential is there so long as the sick ideology of the unchained State with a right to use violence within its borders as its regime chooses is allowed to persist.
I certainly don't buy the Chinese tale of "the more the state follows my every step, the safer I am, the better". Still,
- the privilege to use violence over a certain territory is the very definition of a state,
- areas with human population sufficient for civilization but without proper stately authority (i.e. lawless lands) tend to be much more violent,
- once an authority resorts to violence, only another authority can legally stop it.
So the state is chained only if it chains itself. Your solution in the US, with separate, overlapping, sometimes even conflicting statewide and federal authorities is probably as full of checks and balances as possible. How would you make a _reliable_ improvement to it?
The Su-25- and MiG-29-fleets are down by about 50%, the Su-27-fleet by around 30%. Only the number of operational Su-24s is steady, because there are enough stored airframes and replacements are constantly overhauled (though overhauling a single Su-24M frequently takes 5-10 months).
Thank you very much for the detailed answer to the first question.
I think it's great that you focus explicitly on the Ukrainian issue: it is above all a fight for freedom and independence by Ukrainians for Ukrainians: Their suffering, their courage, their fear.
But that is not necessarily a contradiction to the proxy war theory, illustrated by the fact that Ukraine is moving from one geopolitical sphere of influence to another, and powerful external political and military actors are therefore automatically involved. Unfortunately, there is no political, economical or military vacuum of power in the world.
Using the same logic, one could also argue that this European proxy war is already part of a global power struggle between the USA and China; perhaps undisclosed agreements between the two powers are responsible for somehow limiting the conflict so far, accordingly an escalation could mean greater involvement by both at various levels.
I don't know any of this and have no basis for making any well-founded assumptions. However, I have learned by experience to distrust my opinions, because it is always only a matter of time until it turns out that I was mistaken and not able to explain the world adequately. At first I was a little offended, but now I can live with it quite well because I have recognized that reality, with its natural authority, represents a remarkable and practicable compromise of innumerable factors, that I myself am not capable to manage. At most I try to understand it, but I am hesitant to redesign it notionally on a large scale according to my opinion.
I only emphasize this so much because your last sentence about our western 'dictatorship' likewise does probably not stand up to scrutiny. Our civilization, which undoubtedly reveals countless problems and is increasingly less capable of solving them satisfactorily and sustainably, is nevertheless the vibrant product of ongoing discourse and, through continuous adjustments, the best possible world available as a whole.
That does not mean that we should not criticize it and stop striving to improve it bit by bit; on the contrary, we have to intensify our efforts - but not in a contemptuous spirit even to the point of discarding it as a completely failed project. Instead we ought to try to better it responsibly and lovingly as our most precious asset.
Because one thing seems clear: Ukrainians would not fight this war of independence together with the West if they did not believe that it would be worthwhile and that they could evolve among us as a nation more freely and happily than hitherto.
Mirko, I like this term you used ->"contemptuous spirit". I do really feel something like that present in society. Some kind of "bad mood", that makes people doubt about whether they have a chance to make some positive impact. It is easier to build up all kinds of conspiracies in your head, as some kind of excuse, rather than to do an honest attempt to change things. In western, democratic society, if you are unhappy with how your country or society is managed, I guess logical solution for an individual should be to enter politics and try. But (at least my community, or how to call it) there really is this general "bad mood", that convinces almost everyone there's zero chance of succeeding. I don't know if it's like religious crisis, some general lack of hope for future, or we got too spoiled somehow, or this f*ing western individualism, that makes you think about yourself too much and then you're deadly afraid to risk and embarasse yourself ...
Anyway, I'd like to wish Tom and readers of this blog to be influenced by this "contemptuous spirit" as little as possible, and rather to be brave, not to fall for conspiracies but see things in their true colours.
There's zero chance of succeeding so long as we play by rules that were established by people whose main motivation was keeping themselves and their buddies living easy.
Building better alternatives is the only way, at whatever scale a group is able. Secure control over vital resources, hedge against wealth being siphoned away, and rebuild working democratic accountability mechanisms.
Primary issue: lack of resources at the scale needed to do this in many different places at once. Because they're hoarded by rich people. Solve that problem and ensure equitable distribution of proceeds, and you've got a chance.
And if the rich control the government, well, maybe it's time for some folks to get together and seize a few of those islands where they park their assets...
Every educated person in Ukraine is well aware of this information. But it is also evident that all the deliveries from the Allies saved the lives of their soldiers.
Thanks Tom. Excellent. I spent ten years in Brussels and I've seen first hand impotence of our national and EU level politicians. However, I think that your statement "‘kleptocracy with limited pluralism’, but by no means ‘democracy’" is too harsh. More over, I find it dangerous as it motivates people to support populists who are promise to "drain the swamp". think of a less emotionally charged way to describe our current system.
If 'emotionally charged' - then because it's infuriating to watch how many people must get killed while our politicians can't even realise that the very reason for what they call 'shift towards right' (thus putting all the blame on 'dumb voters') is what they are causing on their own. Systematically corrupt and incompetent governance is systematically corrupt and incompetent governance - and there is no way to call it any other way.
If you or anybody else thinks it's then me who's 'dangerous' and 'motivating people to support populists': so be it. Why start searching for mistakes from yourself?
I think the populists would wither and die reading your accounts of things. Marjorie Taylor Greene or Viktor Orban would not last 4 paragraphs. They would find it unbearable. Still, there's no use condemning the fruits of democracy because good intelligent people can gain ground, but so can craven corrupt sociopaths. That's life and why it's stressful. There's menace in the world and it's dangerous. But at least there's a game in town to contest ideas, and be alerted by unfavourable public response to failings. Instead of 30 years of the same preening bully.
Calling anyone who demands real democratic accountability a populist is a fun old elitist game. The beauty of the situation our wealthy masters have engineered is that anyone who demands change gets lumped in with the lunatics. Who themselves keep getting power because desperate enough people will take any alternative.
the deep state isn't real. Populists are real. Politicians are so bad not because of some sort of conspiracy, but because any talented person would rather work for a corporation than a state, it's far more rewarding.
Deep state? Who said anything about that old scam? Of course it isn't real.
There is literally peer-reviewed scientific work out there showing that just a few thousand people collectively control the boards that own the vast majority of global wealth. That's not a deep state, just an interest group with one over-arching goal: maintain the global status quo that's been in place since the 1990s. Because it's profitable.
No conspiracy, just a bunch of people who lucked out in life. What they don't realize is that they're cannibalizing the system that sustains their wealth. They cry "populism" whenever anyone points this out because addicts never want to change unless they've hit rock bottom. It's not a conspiracy, just a crowd reaction that has material power because these folks control so many resources that millions of people try to identify with them and join the pyramid scheme.
Until it crumbles, as it eventually does. That's the fate of empire. Of russia and the so-called "west" and China too, eventually.
That's the point! There is NO 'deep state'. That's a pipe-dream. Complete nonsense. (Except in form of 'deep state' as a website, of course.)
But, there is oligarchy. Starting with the best-organised crime ring one can imagine - banks and insurances - representatives of which are all wearing silk suits and latest ties. And they're so well-organised, the mafia is blushing ashamed.
Excellent piece. Closely matches my own views and motivations.
People who care about real democracy had better come to understand war, because you can be sure that the powers-that-be are waging one against us. They don't want Ukraine to win because they prefer endless frozen conflicts to anything resembling change.
Thank you for this analysis. I really like the answer in the beginning.
Thank you Tom!
There is another abstract (and sorry for that) or say philosophical aspect of it. It is a battle between old and new. Where old is say soviet union and new is not yet defined. This battle was almost lost with a widespread stagnation, autocracy and rule of money (oligarchy) spreading. What comes clear is that in order to survive, UA has to discard everything old. But then in building new it seems to be forced to see clearly all the failures of the West in colours. So whether people would be ready to move forward, discarding both sides of the old is yet to be seen.
....where the old is the oligarchy - no matter where - insistent on maintaining the status quo, and thus dictating the politics to administer that way.
....in turn braking the progress for decades already...
Besides that, what I observe is critical lack of desire of many people to think for themselves, make their own observations, conclusions and decisions. While mind viruses are reigning.
Great answers especially the first one
Very in-depth answers thank you for analysis!
"our systems are not an inch better than any other dictatorships out there"
I think they are an inch better, if only by an inch - however limited pluralism there is, it can still limit private and corporate interests to a degree, forcing them back at times. True dictatorships are much more likely to resort to open terror if their interests are unable to flow freely. But of course, the situation is far from being actually good.
As for those who consider the conflict as a proxy war, they should consider the Eastern Front of WWII as a proxy war, too. The USSR was well on the way to join the Axis, when some unfortunate events suddenly pitted it against Germany. Then, the evil West started stuffing them with war materiel out of their own selfish, nefarious interests, even though the Soviets could have just laid down their arms and then there would have been peace.
No, because Stalin would never surrender. The plants were relocated to Ural and Siberia, the people starved but worked. The mere size of the Soviet Union and its immense population were decisive factors.
Without ignoring the enormous sacrifices made by the population, in the Soviet Union as in Europe after the Second World War, the communist parties completely hid American aid. The great novel was the greatness of the Soviet Union and of Russia which practically single-handedly won the war against Nazism, a speech that Putin is repeating today. The reality is different, here is an interesting link but I am sure that there are many others : https://guerreshistoire.science-et-vie.com/questions-reponses/quelle-a-ete-la-contribution-de-l-aide-anglo-americaine-a-l-effort-de-guerre-sovietique-marc-breaud-1536
"Economically, aid allows the USSR to mitigate its weak points: aluminum, high-quality steel, transportation equipment, additives for aircraft gasoline, chemicals, medicines, packaged food products (K rations, corned beef, concentrated milk). Without this aid, especially without the rails and locomotives (2,152 plus 14,380 wagons), the USSR would not have been able to continue to sacrifice its civilian economy as it did beyond the winter of 1942-1943. Militarily, American deliveries did not have a notable effect on the battlefields until the Battle of Kursk (summer 1943), with the exception of the munitions sector, the effect of which was already felt in Stalingrad. Its key elements were transport equipment (4x4 trucks, jeeps, tanks), transmissions (416,000 telephones and 28,700 radios), radars (60 stations), munitions, certain pieces of equipment (15 million pairs of boots). The equipment delivered assembled, such as Sherman tanks (5,400 delivered) or Airacobra fighters (6,700), however, had relatively little weight, even if Soviet soldiers appreciated them. Note the excellent general quality of the supplies, far superior to what Soviet industry was capable of providing. Marshal Zhukov recognized after the war the immense importance of American aid. It is not clear how the 6 armoured armies that tore the German front apart at will from February 1944 onwards could have operated without the 440,000 GMCs, jeeps, radio trucks, tractors (9,000) that equipped them, nor how the assault aviation could have carried out its support missions if its advanced terrain had not received 58,752 runway plates. It should be noted for comparison that US truck deliveries to the Soviet Union were greater than all German production since 1939."
Every educated person in Ukraine is well aware of this information. But it is also evident that all the deliveries from the Allies saved the lives of their soldiers.
You are aware that the crimian tatars got deported in American Studebakers?
I didn't know that, but it doesn't seem surprising to me given the number of trucks that were delivered to them. I guess at the time there were no restrictions on the use of the equipment...
Couldn't check it anyway and there was a war to win.
Fun partis, that US help with logistics was essential for soviet victory and that is an important point why the failed in Ukraine.
I'll grant you 'half-an-inch'. ;-)
Think, one needs to put him/herself into my shoes to fully understand that part of the answer. I'm 'too well' aware of all the oligarchy- and political pressure upon the media but to think we really do have something like 'clear pluralism'.
We do not have that. We have an advertising pluralism: if one is swimming with the mainstream and reporting what the 'selected few' like, fine. Whoever doesn't - is promptly sidelined. And if somebody goes too far, he/she is still made 'shorter by a head' - whether literally, or professionally.
From that point of view, I cannot but ask myself: OK, and where's then a difference to, say, such dictatorships like System Putin? As long as one is 'swimming with the mainstream' there, one is doing fine too. Indeed: even (literally) 'earning millions' (see Pudding's PRBS-industrialists). And if not... well, sure, the number of cases where people fell down the stairs or out of the window is 'slightly higher' on that side of the border, but on this side. But, that's about the only difference.
....and that's no joke.
Ah, come on Tom. Why somebody like Jeff Bezos by the Washington Post? Only in a philanthropic way to safe the newspaper and not to buy influence.
The same with the guy that stood in front of Congress for forming a cartel, how was his name. Ah, Bill Gates. The expert on saving humanity with vaccines and speaking on this topic as an expert during the covid crisis, with no expertise in medicine whatsoever, but so much more philanthropic enthusiasm. Only for the good of humanity and definitely not in his own pocket, as he doesn't have one. Cause that got outsourced into a foundation with almost no taxes, but the right intention. Cause who needs a state, if you have philanthropists?
Paying taxes and let the electorate decide - really, that is so ancient....
And yes, that is all sarcastic as I have to go voting tomorrow and there is no party that would companies make pay real taxes and that is so frustrating.
.....I've found a small party: not entirely in agreement with all of their ideas, but better than the corruption morass presently pretending they would be working in anybody's interest but the 'top 100'...
Sidelining someone with a different opinion is a common human habit, unfortunately. Acting differently requires openness and empathy, which are uncommon qualities. The "mainstream" in turn becomes mainstream because it's beneficial to the rich/influential and convenient to everyone else, so they agree on it, even if it's harmful - and now both of them will be inclined to sideline those that say otherwise.
You're right that if the "West" is based on the Enlightenment, as it proudly boasts, then it should be able to push for a more diverse public discourse and somehow reward the better side of humanity. Systems like that of Putin tend to promote less discourse and reward the worst personality traits.
You are lucky to live in Austria and you cannot even imagine all the idiotism of Putler's regime. It exceeds by far the Soviet propaganda of post-Stalin years. Nobody in the West - maybe except some ambassadors etc. - really understands the nature of the so-called "society" in Russia and the constant brainwashing of the people.
What's really fun is to live on the US West Coast and have family members fall prey to the russian world delusion and actually move to it. All the while insisting that it's freer and so cheap to live (if you move there with Dollars in hand, that is).
The russian world really does have no borders. And so it must die, for the sake of people everywhere.
Our systems haven't degraded badly enough to feel the need to violently oppress us all the time. The potential is there so long as the sick ideology of the unchained State with a right to use violence within its borders as its regime chooses is allowed to persist.
I certainly don't buy the Chinese tale of "the more the state follows my every step, the safer I am, the better". Still,
- the privilege to use violence over a certain territory is the very definition of a state,
- areas with human population sufficient for civilization but without proper stately authority (i.e. lawless lands) tend to be much more violent,
- once an authority resorts to violence, only another authority can legally stop it.
So the state is chained only if it chains itself. Your solution in the US, with separate, overlapping, sometimes even conflicting statewide and federal authorities is probably as full of checks and balances as possible. How would you make a _reliable_ improvement to it?
Thank you Tom
Thanks Tom, does anyone know how many fighters/ fighter bombers the PSU have left?
The Su-25- and MiG-29-fleets are down by about 50%, the Su-27-fleet by around 30%. Only the number of operational Su-24s is steady, because there are enough stored airframes and replacements are constantly overhauled (though overhauling a single Su-24M frequently takes 5-10 months).
What Ukraine lacks in quantity it will gain in quality and creativity. At least we hope so.
Thank you very much for the detailed answer to the first question.
I think it's great that you focus explicitly on the Ukrainian issue: it is above all a fight for freedom and independence by Ukrainians for Ukrainians: Their suffering, their courage, their fear.
But that is not necessarily a contradiction to the proxy war theory, illustrated by the fact that Ukraine is moving from one geopolitical sphere of influence to another, and powerful external political and military actors are therefore automatically involved. Unfortunately, there is no political, economical or military vacuum of power in the world.
Using the same logic, one could also argue that this European proxy war is already part of a global power struggle between the USA and China; perhaps undisclosed agreements between the two powers are responsible for somehow limiting the conflict so far, accordingly an escalation could mean greater involvement by both at various levels.
I don't know any of this and have no basis for making any well-founded assumptions. However, I have learned by experience to distrust my opinions, because it is always only a matter of time until it turns out that I was mistaken and not able to explain the world adequately. At first I was a little offended, but now I can live with it quite well because I have recognized that reality, with its natural authority, represents a remarkable and practicable compromise of innumerable factors, that I myself am not capable to manage. At most I try to understand it, but I am hesitant to redesign it notionally on a large scale according to my opinion.
I only emphasize this so much because your last sentence about our western 'dictatorship' likewise does probably not stand up to scrutiny. Our civilization, which undoubtedly reveals countless problems and is increasingly less capable of solving them satisfactorily and sustainably, is nevertheless the vibrant product of ongoing discourse and, through continuous adjustments, the best possible world available as a whole.
That does not mean that we should not criticize it and stop striving to improve it bit by bit; on the contrary, we have to intensify our efforts - but not in a contemptuous spirit even to the point of discarding it as a completely failed project. Instead we ought to try to better it responsibly and lovingly as our most precious asset.
Because one thing seems clear: Ukrainians would not fight this war of independence together with the West if they did not believe that it would be worthwhile and that they could evolve among us as a nation more freely and happily than hitherto.
Mirko, I like this term you used ->"contemptuous spirit". I do really feel something like that present in society. Some kind of "bad mood", that makes people doubt about whether they have a chance to make some positive impact. It is easier to build up all kinds of conspiracies in your head, as some kind of excuse, rather than to do an honest attempt to change things. In western, democratic society, if you are unhappy with how your country or society is managed, I guess logical solution for an individual should be to enter politics and try. But (at least my community, or how to call it) there really is this general "bad mood", that convinces almost everyone there's zero chance of succeeding. I don't know if it's like religious crisis, some general lack of hope for future, or we got too spoiled somehow, or this f*ing western individualism, that makes you think about yourself too much and then you're deadly afraid to risk and embarasse yourself ...
Anyway, I'd like to wish Tom and readers of this blog to be influenced by this "contemptuous spirit" as little as possible, and rather to be brave, not to fall for conspiracies but see things in their true colours.
There's zero chance of succeeding so long as we play by rules that were established by people whose main motivation was keeping themselves and their buddies living easy.
Building better alternatives is the only way, at whatever scale a group is able. Secure control over vital resources, hedge against wealth being siphoned away, and rebuild working democratic accountability mechanisms.
Primary issue: lack of resources at the scale needed to do this in many different places at once. Because they're hoarded by rich people. Solve that problem and ensure equitable distribution of proceeds, and you've got a chance.
And if the rich control the government, well, maybe it's time for some folks to get together and seize a few of those islands where they park their assets...
Every educated person in Ukraine is well aware of this information. But it is also evident that all the deliveries from the Allies saved the lives of their soldiers.
Dear Tom, you may be interested in this (using browser translate): https://www.radiosvoboda.org/a/f-16-ukraine-holubtsov/32983173.html
Thanks Tom. Excellent. I spent ten years in Brussels and I've seen first hand impotence of our national and EU level politicians. However, I think that your statement "‘kleptocracy with limited pluralism’, but by no means ‘democracy’" is too harsh. More over, I find it dangerous as it motivates people to support populists who are promise to "drain the swamp". think of a less emotionally charged way to describe our current system.
If 'emotionally charged' - then because it's infuriating to watch how many people must get killed while our politicians can't even realise that the very reason for what they call 'shift towards right' (thus putting all the blame on 'dumb voters') is what they are causing on their own. Systematically corrupt and incompetent governance is systematically corrupt and incompetent governance - and there is no way to call it any other way.
If you or anybody else thinks it's then me who's 'dangerous' and 'motivating people to support populists': so be it. Why start searching for mistakes from yourself?
I think the populists would wither and die reading your accounts of things. Marjorie Taylor Greene or Viktor Orban would not last 4 paragraphs. They would find it unbearable. Still, there's no use condemning the fruits of democracy because good intelligent people can gain ground, but so can craven corrupt sociopaths. That's life and why it's stressful. There's menace in the world and it's dangerous. But at least there's a game in town to contest ideas, and be alerted by unfavourable public response to failings. Instead of 30 years of the same preening bully.
Calling anyone who demands real democratic accountability a populist is a fun old elitist game. The beauty of the situation our wealthy masters have engineered is that anyone who demands change gets lumped in with the lunatics. Who themselves keep getting power because desperate enough people will take any alternative.
the deep state isn't real. Populists are real. Politicians are so bad not because of some sort of conspiracy, but because any talented person would rather work for a corporation than a state, it's far more rewarding.
Deep state? Who said anything about that old scam? Of course it isn't real.
There is literally peer-reviewed scientific work out there showing that just a few thousand people collectively control the boards that own the vast majority of global wealth. That's not a deep state, just an interest group with one over-arching goal: maintain the global status quo that's been in place since the 1990s. Because it's profitable.
No conspiracy, just a bunch of people who lucked out in life. What they don't realize is that they're cannibalizing the system that sustains their wealth. They cry "populism" whenever anyone points this out because addicts never want to change unless they've hit rock bottom. It's not a conspiracy, just a crowd reaction that has material power because these folks control so many resources that millions of people try to identify with them and join the pyramid scheme.
Until it crumbles, as it eventually does. That's the fate of empire. Of russia and the so-called "west" and China too, eventually.
That's the point! There is NO 'deep state'. That's a pipe-dream. Complete nonsense. (Except in form of 'deep state' as a website, of course.)
But, there is oligarchy. Starting with the best-organised crime ring one can imagine - banks and insurances - representatives of which are all wearing silk suits and latest ties. And they're so well-organised, the mafia is blushing ashamed.
Excellent piece. Closely matches my own views and motivations.
People who care about real democracy had better come to understand war, because you can be sure that the powers-that-be are waging one against us. They don't want Ukraine to win because they prefer endless frozen conflicts to anything resembling change.