Russia shows no sign of retreat on invading Ukraine

[Milo]

What I saw in Libya, Syria and Ukraine; was the ideals of those who practice international law.

International law people are largely academics, with all the prejudices that entails. One might ask me to cite certain things to back things up but the fact is that those who practice IL typically have no legal basis for what they say, and so base things on what they all agree with when they hold symposia.

One of the better examples was the rather strident denunciations of the Crimean referendum on independence. Holding this referendum so quickly, said the IL types, violated international law. When should it be held then, might any sensible person say? No answer to that. Given the demographics of Crimea, how would it make any difference to hold it later? No answer to that either. But it definitively violated IL, the 'experts' say so!

The Obama administration obviously took a lot of advice from these IL twits.

The Responsibility to Protect is the rubric this all falls under. It is some vague wish that every time something bad happens in one state, other states will swoop in and stop it. It places itself above calculation, such that stopping Gaddafi from possibly killing a bunch of people was the priority, without considering the harm from overthrowing him, which has killed far more people than he ever would have killed had we left him alone. The harm resulting from provoking Russia over Ukraine, and the harm resulting from backing religious nuts against Assad, ditto.

In Biden’s pullout from Afghanistan and very measured containment of Putin, it seems these fools are sidelined for now. They will try again. They actually view the nation state as inherently evil and so love when these things fail. It’s another facet of the critical studies/woke school.

[Sertorio]

What I saw in Libya, Syria and Ukraine; was the ideals of those who practice international law.

International law people are largely academics, with all the prejudices that entails. One might ask me to cite certain things to back things up but the fact is that those who practice IL typically have no legal basis for what they say, and so base things on what they all agree with when they hold symposia.

One of the better examples was the rather strident denunciations of the Crimean referendum on independence. Holding this referendum so quickly, said the IL types, violated international law. When should it be held then, might any sensible person say? No answer to that. Given the demographics of Crimea, how would it make any difference to hold it later? No answer to that either. But it definitively violated IL, the 'experts' say so!

The Obama administration obviously took a lot of advice from these IL twits.

The Responsibility to Protect is the rubric this all falls under. It is some vague wish that every time something bad happens in one state, other states will swoop in and stop it. It places itself above calculation, such that stopping Gaddafi from possibly killing a bunch of people was the priority, without considering the harm from overthrowing him, which has killed far more people than he ever would have killed had we left him alone. The harm resulting from provoking Russia over Ukraine, and the harm resulting from backing religious nuts against Assad, ditto.

In Biden’s pullout from Afghanistan and very measured containment of Putin, it seems these fools are sidelined for now. They will try again. They actually view the nation state as inherently evil and so love when these things fail. It’s another facet of the critical studies/woke school.

For once I can agree with most of what you wrote. But, although I am no jurist, I would like to make some comments on international law.

1. I believe that international law is exclusively based on international treaties, but only in respect of those countries which have ratified them.
2. International treaties include the Charter of the United Nations and the various conventions on human rights.
3. On what concerns human rights, they are so important that I believe an obligation to respect them under international law will apply even for non-signatories.

[neverfail]

I'm not quite sure what you're asking. I agree that Yeltsin and Putin are very different. I wouldn't describe Russia as "going places" unless you mean Abkhazia, Crimea, and Donetsk, but I agree that Putin has played the geopolitical cards he was dealt with unparalleled skill.

Steve, my opinion was formed based the chart of Russia's economic performance since 1990 as published (above) by Sertorio. Please take a good second look at them:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Russia

The figures from the period 1990 to 2000 coincide with the Yeltsin years. These are abyssmal for with a shrinking GDP (both in absolute terms and also per-capita) combined with out-of-control inflation year after year the 1990's would have been a very bleak decade for all Russians.

It remains to be said that the Soviet command economy was ill structured to withstand econonic shocks and to restructure it would have taxed the genius of a man better endowed with economics nous than Boris Yeltsin. Having acknowledged that, it would still seem with hindsight that Yeltsin grossly mishandled the reform.

Putin's performance is not unflawed either but tracking the rise in both GDP (absolute and per capata) and better inflation figures it is patently clear which of the two will be remembered as the better manager of his country's affairs.

If Russians are like normal people in other parts of the World they would be more impressed by their government's acheivements on the home front rather than from its foreign policy gains abroad.

[neverfail]

What I saw in Libya, Syria and Ukraine; was the ideals of those who practice international law.

International law people are largely academics, with all the prejudices that entails. One might ask me to cite certain things to back things up but the fact is that those who practice IL typically have no legal basis for what they say, and so base things on what they all agree with when they hold symposia.

One of the better examples was the rather strident denunciations of the Crimean referendum on independence. Holding this referendum so quickly, said the IL types, violated international law. When should it be held then, might any sensible person say? No answer to that. Given the demographics of Crimea, how would it make any difference to hold it later? No answer to that either. But it definitively violated IL, the 'experts' say so!

The Obama administration obviously took a lot of advice from these IL twits.

The Responsibility to Protect is the rubric this all falls under. It is some vague wish that every time something bad happens in one state, other states will swoop in and stop it. It places itself above calculation, such that stopping Gaddafi from possibly killing a bunch of people was the priority, without considering the harm from overthrowing him, which has killed far more people than he ever would have killed had we left him alone. The harm resulting from provoking Russia over Ukraine, and the harm resulting from backing religious nuts against Assad, ditto.

In Biden’s pullout from Afghanistan and very measured containment of Putin, it seems these fools are sidelined for now. They will try again. They actually view the nation state as inherently evil and so love when these things fail. It’s another facet of the critical studies/woke school.

Thanks Milo,

That insight is so profound that reading it left me feeling humbled.

[Milo]

What I saw in Libya, Syria and Ukraine; was the ideals of those who practice international law.

International law people are largely academics, with all the prejudices that entails. One might ask me to cite certain things to back things up but the fact is that those who practice IL typically have no legal basis for what they say, and so base things on what they all agree with when they hold symposia.

One of the better examples was the rather strident denunciations of the Crimean referendum on independence. Holding this referendum so quickly, said the IL types, violated international law. When should it be held then, might any sensible person say? No answer to that. Given the demographics of Crimea, how would it make any difference to hold it later? No answer to that either. But it definitively violated IL, the 'experts' say so!

The Obama administration obviously took a lot of advice from these IL twits.

The Responsibility to Protect is the rubric this all falls under. It is some vague wish that every time something bad happens in one state, other states will swoop in and stop it. It places itself above calculation, such that stopping Gaddafi from possibly killing a bunch of people was the priority, without considering the harm from overthrowing him, which has killed far more people than he ever would have killed had we left him alone. The harm resulting from provoking Russia over Ukraine, and the harm resulting from backing religious nuts against Assad, ditto.

In Biden’s pullout from Afghanistan and very measured containment of Putin, it seems these fools are sidelined for now. They will try again. They actually view the nation state as inherently evil and so love when these things fail. It’s another facet of the critical studies/woke school.

Thanks Milo,

That insight is so profound that reading it left me feeling humbled.

High praise NF, thank you.

[SteveFoerster]

I'm not quite sure what you're asking. I agree that Yeltsin and Putin are very different. I wouldn't describe Russia as "going places" unless you mean Abkhazia, Crimea, and Donetsk, but I agree that Putin has played the geopolitical cards he was dealt with unparalleled skill.

Steve, my opinion was formed based the chart of Russia's economic performance since 1990 as published (above) by Sertorio. Please take a good second look at them:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Russia

Yes, I saw them. They show that in the last decade, Russia's growth has contracted twice and has only grown more than 2% once. That's what one would expect from a well developed economy, not a developing one.

If Russians are like normal people in other parts of the World they would be more impressed by their government's acheivements on the home front rather than from its foreign policy gains abroad.

And yet they themselves don't seem to feel that way. Maybe that's because Russia has almost the highest GINI coefficient in Europe, so what gains are being made they don't really see?

(And to preempt the inevitable whataboutism, yes, I'm aware this is also a problem in the U.S., although there being so much greater wealth overall mitigates the effects.)

[Sertorio]

If Russians are like normal people in other parts of the World they would be more impressed by their government's acheivements on the home front rather than from its foreign policy gains abroad.

And yet they themselves don't seem to feel that way. Maybe that's because Russia has almost the highest GINI coefficient in Europe, so what gains are being made they don't really see?

Let's look a little deeper into this:

Do you approve of the activities of Vladimir Putin as the president (prime minister) of Russia?

Russia (1).JPG (51.55 KiB) Viewed 90 times

https://www.statista.com/statistics/896 ... ng-russia/

It does fluctuate, but it always well above 50%.









https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2 ... the-world/

As usual Steve bases his opinion on fiction, not facts. But who cares? All he wants is to give the impression that he thinks about the issues...

[SteveFoerster]

In a country where it's unsafe to criticise the strongman, polls showing support for him are meaningless.

[Sertorio]

In a country where it's unsafe to criticise the strongman, polls showing support for him are meaningless.

So you prefer to rely on your crystal ball, isn't it?...

[neverfail]

In a country where it's unsafe to criticise the strongman, polls showing support for him are meaningless.

Steve, I notice that one of the questions was about the breakup of the USSR. Two thirds of Russian respondants answered that they considered the breakup of the USSR has been bad for Russia.

I have reason to believe that that answer was the genuine article and not a bi-product of Putin government propaganda.

Try to see things their way. While the USSR w3as still intact their general living standards might have been globally poor - but at least they could get by on them. Then the chaotic collapse of Communisn and the coincidental breakup of the USSR with its high inflation and unemployment rates caused Russian living standards to plunge. Among the effects was that Russian average life expectancy went backward by several years.

Though the parting of the non-Russian republics from mother Russia may not have contributed any to Russian hardship (that was coincidental, not causal) the Russian public would not know that. Can you see therefore how in relation to the experience that Russians over the age of 30 must have lived through during the Yeltsin years of the 1990's why Russian majority opinion would have drawn that conclusion?

(One thing about which I am certain: regardless of whether ruled by Tsars, Communists or post-Communist autocrats Russia remains a nation of losers )