ScottRoberts wrote: ↑Thu Apr 28, 2022 12:09 am
It could be that the pollsters in Russia are falsifying their results, But then, how can any of us know what the true results are? Where do you get the 50-50 split from? I would just point out that if you live "among the people" in a US blue state, and there were no accurate polls, would you have a good idea of the national distribution of opinions? Or wouldn't there be a difference if the people you live among are mostly professionals, or mostly working class?
You are exactly right, it much depends on the region where you conduct the polls. The population in Russia is very politically polarized very similar to US, and the opinion split varies widely from region to region. My assessment is based on the information my friends give me, which they in turn have from talking to their friends and co-workers in Russia, but that is only representative of Moscow region. On the other hand, you should not trust the results of the polls in a state where any opinion against the government policy is criminalized. Would you expect people in North Korea openly expressing an opinion opposing the government? Of course they would never said that for the fear of being persecuted. So, in fact we can not know for sure what the "true results are", but at least I have a "sampling point" from my Russian friends.
My name for what you call "liberal democracy" is corporatocracy, or in the case of Ukraine, oligarchy. In any case, if I were Russian, I suspect I would pick the side that protects my country from NATO, knowing that behind the armed forces of NATO lie the corporate forces eager to take my country's resources for themselves. Even if it means I can no longer eat at McDonald's.
Ukraine is a very corrupted society, there is no question about that. In fact, it's even more corrupted than Russia. Ukrainians will certainly have to deal with that if/when they win the war. Yet Ukraine is a democracy and has tools to deal with corruption, even though it may take a long time. But, as opposed to Ukraine, Russia is an oligarchical non-democratic government capitalism with corruption deeply buried in the whole governmental and social structure and mentality. So, sure, you can call "liberal democracy" as "corporatocracy", I have no problem with that, but my personal choice between corporatocracy and corrupted autocratic oligarchy would still be the former. If there would be a choice between paradise and corporatocracy, I would of course prefer paradise, but unfortunately we do not live in paradise on Earth. I actually over my life lived in socialist USSR, oligarchical post-USSR Russia and corporatocratic US/Canada, and, being a realist, I definitely prefer the latter, but again, it is only my own personal choice.
Now, you view on the situation "if I were Russian" is very valid, it is in fact how many people in Russia also look at the issue of Ukraine joining NATO.
Here is a good discussion on that topic for anyone interested. I think this argument was used many times, but here it is again: imagine Mexico going into a military alliance with China and agreeing to put some Chinese military facilities on the US border. How would US react to that? I'm sure US would say "no way, it's just not going to happen" and use all means, including military, to prevent that from happening. Same scenario actually happened during the Cuba missile crisis. On the other hand, if we look at the same situation from "if I would be Mexican" POV (or Ukrainian for that matter), the view would be very different. Why would not Mexico or Ukraine, being sovereign states, have their own right to decide which country to associate with? There is no easy solution to this problem. But I agree with the position of Chinese government on the Ukraine conflict: "we understand Russia's safety concerns related to the expansion of NATO, but we believe that the sides have to resort to diplomatic solutions and stop any military confrontation." I do believe that NATO countries need to be more realistic and flexible in considering Russia's safety concerns regarding Ukraine joining NATO. As Putin complained to Macron: "The West completely ignored Russia's safety concerns".
However, NATO expansion is by far not the only and not the main reason for Russia's invasion in Ukraine, it's is rather one of the justifications. The more fundamental reason was given in the
ARTICLE BY VLADIMIR PUTIN ”ON THE HISTORICAL UNITY OF RUSSIANS AND UKRAINIANS“ where he insists that Ukraine is not and has never been a sovereign country and sovereign nation and it has always been part of Russia. Putin sees his role to restore the lost unity even if it has to involve military means. This is similar to China-Taiwan issue, but with the difference that the formation of Ukraine as a sovereign state was a result of the Belovezh Accords and was recognized by all countries in the world. But apart from the problem of contradicting with Belovezh Accords, the problem with Putin's view is that it is simply not true. Ukrainians is a nation different from Russians with their own mentality, language, history and culture, albeit close to Russian, but certainly still distinct. They had periods in history when they were part of Russian Empire, as well as periods when they were separate. And so, Ukrainians as a nation have their own view on their own national identity and national destiny, which is very different from Putin's. And, being a sovereign nation, they have all rights to have such own view and hold to it. This is not to say that Ukraine is free from their own problems and wrongdoings. In fact, anti-Russian views and extremist nationalism is quite common in the Western Ukraine, as well as corruption and oligarchocracy. But it's not Russia's business to interfere to fix these problems by means of military invasion. Russia still does have right to protect the rights of ethnic Russians living in Ukraine, but it has to do that only by non-violent and non-military means.
One thing that Putin fails to understand is very simple. He wants to create the "Russian World" as an alliance of countries/nations under the umbrella of Russia as a superpower and a pole in the world's geopolitics. But he fails to understand that the right way to do that is the voluntary way by making the alliance with Russia for other countries to be attractive from economic, socio-philosophical and political point of view. You cannot force sovereign countries into an alliance by military invasion or by bullying/threatening. Nobody wants to deal with a government that cannot be trusted and cannot provide and safety guarantees. Same actually applies to the US foreign policy.