12:29pm Friday UK Labour has retained Birmingham Erdington at a by-election by a 55.5-36.3 margin over the Conservatives, up from 50-40 at the 2019 election. The Lib Dems and Greens had about 1% each.
Guest post by Adrian Beaumont, who joins us from time to time to provide commentary on elections internationally. Adrian is an honorary associate at the University of Melbourne. His work on electoral matters for The Conversation can be found here, and his own website is here.
Vladimir Putin began Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on February 24. Historically, attempts to conquer sovereign countries have not been unusual. Alexander the Great and Napoleon are still famed as conquerors. The Roman empire did much conquering, and European colonial powers were very cruel to native populations. The UK’s Queen Elizabeth is the descendant of William the Conqueror, who conquered England in 1066.
Occasionally invasions by more powerful countries are repelled. Two examples from the UK are Scotland repelling England in the 14th century, and the UK repelling the Nazis early in WW2. But in most cases, the only feasible protection for smaller countries is to be allied to bigger powers that will fight if the smaller ones are invaded.
Putin’s gamble was that the West would not send major military equipment, such as tanks, warships and aircraft, to support Ukraine. Without this support, it is likely that weight of numbers will eventually allow Russia to conquer Ukraine. While sanctions will damage the Russian economy, they won’t stop the Russian tanks or artillery. In a drawn-out invasion, civilian casualties will be high.
I am sceptical that Ukraine will continue to resist if conquered. Tyrannical regimes are effective at brutally suppressing dissent. There isn’t news anymore about Chechnya, which rebelled against Russia in the 2000s.
The polling is not like the reaction to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. The only leader who has received a massive jump is Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, whose approval surged 59 points since December to 91%.
US: Biden’s ratings down, 62% say invasion wouldn’t have occurred under Trump
In the FiveThirtyEight poll aggregate, 53.0% disapprove of Joe Biden’s performance and 41.5% approve (net -11.5). Biden’s net approval has dropped about one point since the invasion.
In a poll conducted at the start of the invasion, 62%, including 38% of Democrats, thought Putin would not have invaded had Donald Trump still been president. 59% thought Putin ordered the invasion because he saw weakness in Biden, while 41% thought Biden was not a factor.
I believe this polling highlights that the fallout from the Afghanistan troop withdrawal in August 2021 has crippled Biden on any national security issue. It also continues to affect his ratings on eg the economy because voters have lost confidence in his competence.
In US redistricting news, courts in North Carolina and Pennsylvania have finalised new maps. The new NC map was created after courts rejected a Republican gerrymander, while Pennsylvanian courts resolved a dispute between the Democratic governor and Republican legislature. In Ohio, Republicans used their majority on a redistricting commission to pass a gerrymander, but it is likely to be rejected by state courts.
Overall, there are currently 179 Democratic-leaning seats in the FiveThirtyEight tracker, 171 Republican-leaning and 33 competitive. Democrats are up 11 seats from the old maps, Republicans down six and competitive down six.
Biden nominated Ketanji Brown Jackson to replace the retiring Stephen Breyer on the US Supreme Court. If confirmed by a simple majority in the Senate, Jackson will be the first Black woman Supreme Court judge. But she will replace a left-wing judge, and the 6-3 right majority will be retained.
France: a Macron vs Le Pen runoff more likely
The first round of the French presidential election will occur April 10, with a runoff April 24 between the top two. Since the Ukraine invasion, incumbent Emmanuel Macron has gained to be in the mid to high 20s from the mid 20s. The latest polls suggest the far-right Marine Le Pen has moved ahead of both the more far-right Éric Zemmour and conservative Valérie Pécresse.
Pécresse had appeared to be the most competitive runoff opponent for Macron, but the latest two runoff polls have Macron winning by about 60-40. Le Pen is now closest, with Macron leading her by about 56-44.
UK: Little change as Labour faces by-election
The Ukraine invasion has not changed the polls very much in the UK, with Labour ahead of the Conservatives by a low single digit margin, reflecting a continuing recovery for Boris Johnson from “Partygate”.
Polls close at 9am AEDT Friday for a by-election in Birmingham Erdington, which Labour won by a 50-40 margin over the Conservatives in 2019.
Rewi –
…
I have no interest in defending cat’s comments.
I am interested, at least philosophically, on this topic. It is, of course, very much along the lines of “if you could go back in time and assassinate Hitler, would you?”
But a couple of your phrasings seem … a bit odd to me. “Eye for an eye” is a very odd way of framing the Russian/Ukrainian/Broader community situation. This is not village justice we are talking about, and there are many dimensions and implications to this situation far beyond some simple notion of revenge. Talking about “crime” in this context also is a bit odd. If a Ukrainian were to fire a gun and kill Putin in a time of war, it would not be considered “murder” – they’re at war, it’s about defeating – killing – the opponent or the opponent’s proxies. Where do the rest of us fit into that, and what is right or wrong or justice or whatever is a complex question.
Ethically I would say that if there were reliable, effective mechanisms – systems of justice – that could be applied that they should be upheld and followed. But there are clearly no such systems that apply in any meaningful way to an individual like Putin. He can’t be held to account, he can’t be punished, he can’t be restrained by any judicial system – not internationally and certainly not in today’s Russia. So what is left?
Thoughts and prayers?
Well here we have the Global Times parroting the White Ants, or is that the other way round? The White Ants have gone deathly quiet on blaming the US and NATO in any way shape or fashion for Putin’s War. They finally twigged.
‘
…Washington, as the root cause of the Ukraine tension, is in no position to ask other countries to follow it closely to condemn or sanction Russia. It cannot ask the whole world to pay for the chaos it has created. No party other than the US and its close allies in NATO should bear the responsibility.
…’
It is well worth bearing in mind that this sort of pap is about the only pap that Chinese citizens can get after the Comrades finish with their information control activities.
https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202203/1253786.shtml
“;Far right and far left. Two sides of same coin”
Bullshit!
Re ‘The Atlantic’ article on possible ‘central bank’ sanctions against Russia..
A quote that stands out for me: “Russia imports almost everything its citizens eat, wear, and use.”
The article goes on to argue that the EU and US could ‘crush’ the Russian economy by freezing Russia out of accessing foreign currency – which Russia needs to buy imports (see above.)
Some opinions from me:
1) Putin is on a time limit. His economy is at the mercy of Western banks. Those banks may not choose to ‘crush’ the Russian economy, but may choose to place it on a drip feed of accessing only a small amount of foreign currency per month – enough to feed Russia, but no room for military expenses etc. Putin needs to ‘win’ in Ukraine before the full range of sanctions bight.
2) Putin has initiated a criminal war of invasion. He has been supported by oligarchs etc. It is hard to gauge ‘public opinion’ in Russia, but clearly a significant portion of the population support him (even if all the elections are rigged.) The people who support Putin, whether they be rich or not, need to decide to depose him. To that end, even though some Russians will die of starvation (for example,) I would have no problem with a decision to ‘crush’ the Russian economy.
Snappy Tom,
Something else I just heard Juval Noah Hariri say on this TED talk:
https://youtu.be/yQqthbvYE8M
Was that Russia doesn’t make anything for the world to buy either.
Jackol says:
Friday, March 4, 2022 at 8:27 pm
Rewi –
have openly countenanced assassination, a crime. You’re not alone.
…
If you believe so strongly in that course of action you should have the courage of your convictions to defend the position that an eye for an eye is a suitable defence for murder
I have no interest in defending cat’s comments.
I am interested, at least philosophically, on this topic. It is, of course, very much along the lines of “if you could go back in time and assassinate Hitler, would you?”
But a couple of your phrasings seem … a bit odd to me. “Eye for an eye” is a very odd way of framing the Russian/Ukrainian/Broader community situation. This is not village justice we are talking about, and there are many dimensions and implications to this situation far beyond some simple notion of revenge. Talking about “crime” in this context also is a bit odd. If a Ukrainian were to fire a gun and kill Putin in a time of war, it would not be considered “murder” – they’re at war, it’s about defeating – killing – the opponent or the opponent’s proxies. Where do the rest of us fit into that, and what is right or wrong or justice or whatever is a complex question.
Ethically I would say that if there were reliable, effective mechanisms – systems of justice – that could be applied that they should be upheld and followed. But there are clearly no such systems that apply in any meaningful way to an individual like Putin. He can’t be held to account, he can’t be punished, he can’t be restrained by any judicial system – not internationally and certainly not in today’s Russia. So what is left?
Thoughts and prayers?
______________________________________________________
An interesting story about a tyrant’s possible assassination and what-if of history was told by the British-American writer, Jessica Mitford. In the 1930s, she had joined the British communist party while her sister, Unity Mitford, had become an ardent fascist and joined the inner circle of Adolf Hitler. Jessica and Unity had many arguments, as you could imagine, but years after the war Jessica reflected on one of her sister’s requests.
Unity suggested that she introduce her sister to Hitler. She said Jessica would then discover what a wonderful individual he was. Jessica thought that maybe she could do this, while carrying a concealed weapon and then gun down the Fuhrer at the opportune moment.
She realised, of course, that she would then be either shot dead by Hitler’s bodyguards or executed by the Nazi state. But wouldn’t the death of such a tyrant be a worthwhile thing to die for?
Young Jessica decided against it, reflecting that if Hitler survived the assassination attempt she would be giving her life for nothing.
Writing years after the war, Jessica Mitford stated that now knowing just how much destruction Hitler had wrought on the world, she sometimes regretted she had not been a little braver.
Sir Henry Parkes at 9.32pm
On the other active thread, I posted the following about a Hitler ‘near thing’ probably even more extraordinary than the July ’44 plot against him…
C@t
Dictators have many ways to avoid assassination. Hitler, for example, was never punctual – at either end of his engagements.
There is a heart-rending movie (in German, with English subtitles) called ’13 Minutes.’
In late 1939, after Hitler had invaded Poland but before his attacks in the West, a young German decided to assassinate the Fuehrer.
The young man was in watch/clock making and was able to gain access to a venue where Hitler was scheduled to speak and carry out ‘maintenance.’ In reality, he installed a time bomb, scheduled to go off during the course of Hitler’s speech.
Non-punctual Hitler left early and the bomb went off 13 minutes after he departed, killing several Nazis. It is very likely it would have killed Hitler if he was still giving his speech (as scheduled.)
1939. November. 13 minutes.
Another thing Yuval Noah Hariri said was that the oligarchs have gotten used to their Western lifestyles. Their chateau in France, house in London, their yachts, their private planes and that if they are taken away from them then that might be enough motivation for them to act against Putin.
Snappy Tom, the problem with blowing things up is that you eventually have to build them back again. They talk about the drip feed stuff in the article.
I said it in a thread a few days back; I’m surprised that anyone in Russia has any money in a bank, at least if they have a choice. What I’ve always found about sanctions is that the people who say “sanctions don’t work” are generally paid by the people affected by them. My biggest hope from this debacle is that it will finally force many governments to accelerate the shift to renewables. Because without energy exports, Russia would have exactly zero cards to play in this high stakes game.
Rewi @ #99 Friday, March 4th, 2022 – 7:39 pm
Touchy. 🙂
I said it was implied by your statement against the dream, but not a plan, never would be an actuality, of someone getting to paint Polonium on a seat Putin sat on. Which I would support if it happened.
That’s the thing with tyrants. No one mourns them when they’re gone. I just found it passing strange that you would defend Putin so energetically against something that was merely a fantasy.
So I drew just as long a bow as you did against me and said that, if you are defending Putin’s right to life, then you are defending the death that monster has caused.
Ukraine:
How might the war end? Five scenarios :
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60602936
Scenario 1 is basically off the table now. The Russian aren’t going to win quickly. There is not going to be a puppet regime with any popular support. They are not able to advance and have been losing ground in the north. In the south, they are still moving but into territory that is less important.
Scenario 2 looks likely. The Russians have major supply line issues (so do the Ukrainians but they have the home ground advantage; food & shelter might be supplied by locals).
Scenario 3 might happen but the Russians do have the forces and run into the exactly the same issue of supply lines they do in Ukraine. NATO has planes too, unless the nukes start to get used the Ruskies will get a whipping.
Scenario 4 maybe but I am not sure that Putin is going to accept a solution that kicks him out of Ukraine.
Scenario 5 might actually happen. He relies on the Security Service for survival and they can only be relied upon so much. Once the fear of the state is gone, Putin is gone. And one way the fear of state goes is by having the army crushed in an unwinnable war.
I didn’t think Lindsey had it in him:
[‘Senator Lindsey Graham has called for ‘somebody in Russia’ to assassinate their president Vladimir Putin.
The Republican Senator invoked a Julius Caesar-style assassination of the Kremlin strongman – currently leading an invasion of Ukraine – during an appearance on Fox News’ Hannity show and in a series of incendiary tweets on Thursday.
‘Is there a Brutus in Russia? he asked. ‘Is there a more successful Colonel Stauffenberg in the Russian military?’ he tweeted, referencing the army officer who attempted to kill Adolf Hitler.
‘The only way this ends is for somebody in Russia to take this guy out. You would be doing your country — and the world — a great service,’ his tweet continued.
Graham’s call for Putin to be assassinated comes as the Russian leader continues to indiscriminately bomb cities after launching his savage invasion of Ukraine.
Russian troops today seized Europe’s largest nuclear power plant in Ukraine after a firefight that set part of the complex ablaze, with President Volodymyr Zelensky accused Putin of resorting to ‘nuclear terror’ and risking a catastrophe ‘six times worse than Chernobyl’ that would affect the whole continent.
In a separate tweet Graham added that the responsibility of eliminating Putin laid solely in the hands of Russian citizens.
The tweets prompted a furious response from the Russian ambassador to the US. Anatoly Antonov called Graham’s remarks ‘unacceptable and outrageous’ and demanded an explanation.’]
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10576505/Sen-Lindsey-Graham-calls-Russians-assassinate-President-Putin.html
clem attleesays:
Friday, March 4, 2022 at 8:40 pm
“;Far right and far left. Two sides of same coin”
Bullshit!
_______________________________________________________
Absolutely, the far left has killed 10’s of millions more than the far right…or was the Nazi party socialist? National Socialist German Workers hmm nationalist but also socialist.
Just looking up the number of people that have been killed by far left Governments in modern history, absolutely staggering. Millions upon millions. Who were the far right governments? Fascist Italy, Spain and Germany. Only far left wing Governments left and still killing.
Steelydan at 11.06pm
Additions to your list of ‘far right govts’: lots in Latin America
Imperial Japan also interesting: a constitutional monarchy of sorts, but if (I think) any of the War Minister, Navy Minister or Prime Minister resigned, whole cabinet fell. This gave the militarist Army (through the War Minister, often a general) near blackmail capacity with respect to the rest of cabinet.
Current far right probably includes Belarus and, of course, Russia – given the lack of international confidence in their election ‘results’. Also, Myanmar, with its strongly military-biased constitution; Egypt, where, I think, the generals might still be in charge; Syria…
Rewi @ #98 Friday, March 4th, 2022 – 6:39 pm
I assume by “defence” you mean “judicial sanction” there. In most jurisdictions if someone is trying to kill you and you manage to kill them instead, you won’t suffer any punishment. Self-defense and all that. So reciprocity is recognized as a suitable (and I’d wager, noncontroversial) response to imminent or actual violence.
Once the crime is done and a suitably empowered judiciary is involved, things change in ways that make “eye for an eye” less appropriate. Can’t prevent or undo the damage done by inflicting murder upon the murderer. Can’t have nuance around mitigating and aggravating circumstances if the only verdict is death. And importantly, the statistical inevitability of wrongful convictions means that at least some innocents will be murdered by the state.
But that’s all sort of beside the point. There is no “suitably empowered judiciary” for Putin. He’s done assassinations, annexations, and invasions. A normal person doing those things would have been apprehended and tried long ago. Putin’s a special case. And Putin also appears to believe that assassination is fair play. That’s a good enough justification for advocating that he get a taste of his own medicine (Po-210, please?), and it’s not a suggestion that the judicial system should work that way in general.
Russia-Ukraine war by the numbers: Live Tracker
As the Russian offensive enters its ninth day, we track where battles are taking place and the human cost of war, as more than one million refugees stream out of Ukraine.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/2/28/russia-ukraine-crisis-in-maps-and-charts-live-news-interactive
Putin’s repeat use of assassination outside of Russia makes him fair game for the same treatment from the rest of the world.
He has gone rogue. The only way this ends now is with his death.
How could anyone claiming knowledge of history leave 1930s and 40s Japan off the list of far right governments? Under Konoe and Tojo they killed tens of millions in Korea then China.
Ukrainian National Anthem, sung at the Met, March, 1:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUfwy3f3R4s
Steelydan says:
Friday, March 4, 2022 at 11:06 pm
The distinction between left and right just collapses when the context is madness; when the prevailing belief is in the utility and desirability of death itself; when every consideration is subordinated to murder.
Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin, Lenin, Hitler…what is there to choose between any of them or their many imitators? And there have been so many others. The Spanish in the Americas. The brutality of Idi Amin. The war-making of Timur, Ghengis Khan,
Attila; the repressions of Xi and Putin. The legendary cruelties of Vlad, Peter “the Great” and Catherine of Russia. The merciless barbarities of Clive of India including the Bengal Famine. The 1,000 year-long repression of Ireland by England. The occupation and subjugation of Manchuria by Japan and their later conquests and slaughters in China and SE Asia; the genocide in Rwanda; the repression of Indo-China, originally by China and then more recently by France and then their back-up, the US. The repression of the people of North Korea. The various repressions in Indonesia. The outbreaks communal violence in the Subcontinent. The list is only just commenced and is very partial.
How is it relevant to filter all the deaths and the torture and the cruelties as depravities of the Left or the Right, as if the dead could be counted through a sheep run? The classification is not only spurious, it is an insult to the dead.
Surely the distinctions are between tyranny and justice; between war and peace; between life and death; between sanity and insanity.
Well said, Bludging.
A report in a Sydney based publication aimed at the Greek diaspora, “Greek City Times”. A reminder that ‘fascists” in Ukraine are not just the product of fevered imaginations. Mariupol is supposed to be one of their strongholds.
https://greekcitytimes.com/2022/03/01/greek-in-mariupol-fascist-ukrainian/
The Greek population there have quite a history.
Mariupol Greek
The peninsula of Crimea was Greek-speaking for more than two and a half thousand years as a part of ancient Greek colonies and as a part of the Byzantine Empire. Greek city-states began establishing colonies along the Black Sea coast of Crimea in the 7th or 6th century ……….Mariupolitan Greek, or Crimean Greek also known as Tauro-Romaic[2] or Ruméika (Rumaíica, from Greek: Ρωμαίικα, “Romaic”; Russian: Румейский язык; Ukrainian: Румейська мова), is a Greek dialect spoken by the ethnic Greeks living along the northern coast of the Sea of Azov, in southeastern Ukraine; the community itself is referred to as Azov Greeks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariupol_Greek
I have just now read through this thread, which encapsulates thoughts by the Bludgertariat over the last few days, as events unfold.
I have found it useful being in France during this time, as I have easy access to many European new channels, which provide high-quality information.
I have my mother with me, and when she is push watches ABC News via app (on the TV), and while the ABC coverage is pretty good overnight – they take Deutche-Welle (DW), it seems a bit narrow to me during the Australian daytime.
A few things:
AR, last week, before Putin invaded Ukraine, IO accused you of being too quick to jump for the military option in stopping Putin. You were right, and I was categorically wrong in assuming that Putin would not risk a full-scale invasion of Ukraine.
I am absolutely gobsmacked, as are many analysts. The comments I hear are that “the Putin of 15 years ago would not have done this. He was careful then not to overreach in military engagements.”
A few random comments from La Bastide de Sainte Foy:
1. Everyone has been shocked that Putin would go through with this very obvious military invasion of Ukraine, breaking the post Cold War European settlement, so that we are now seeing the tanks rolling into a sovereign country, reminiscent of the attack by Hitler on Poland on 01/09/1939, on our TV screens, but
2. I have watched Europe, NATO, and almost all the rest of the world unite to condemn the invasion. I have never seen Europe so united, and I have lived and worked all over here, particularly important in this case, in Hungary. I wondered if Hungary would side with Putin, but they have made a decisive choice to unite with Europe.
3. I do not believe that Putin’s Russia can survive the opposition of the whole world – BUT, he will do horrific harm to Ukraine (and his own country) in the time it takes to crush him. I would hate to be wrong in this prediction as it would mean the end of democracy as we know it.
4. NATO / EU are not in a good position to militarily take on Russia right now, and a no-fly-zone over Ukraine would mean war. I hope the countries of the world are remedying their lack of military capability quickly as we speak.
5. Remember that are probably many things we do not know about what is happening in this war. The change in the EU / NATO /World response to the invasion suggests that quite quickly we are realising that the post-WW2 settlement, which served “The West” so well, is in tatters. We now need to hope that our spy forces (intelligence capability) is up to the important job of winning this war – they are very important.
6. See e.g, the role of Bletchley Park in winning WWII for the Allies. Remember that the capabilities, including the of breaking the enigma code, were not made public until the end of the Cold War. In the 21st century, these intelligence agencies will be more important than ever.
6. Hitler was seriously planning to undertake Operation Sea Lion, but Goering’s Luftwaffe could not provide the air superiority required.
Anyway, tomorrow is market day in La Bastide, so I should get some sleep.
I was a bit sceptical at first that the markets would just be selling stuff you could buy in the supermarkets, but it is all the real thing. Everything is produced locally, and these markets have an 800 years history. The tradition of gathering in the local Brasserie, and drinking beer and wine with a good lunch, after the markets are over is very old, and continues to this day.
poroti,
There are Fascists everywhere. Do you think the Fascists of Newtown – there is quite a little commune there – would to hesitate to use a crisis like this in Australia to start threatening the local Muslim and indigenous population?
Edit: and Berlin is a dangerous place to be either Muslim or black or brown-skinned.
Julia Baird (of course) puts the situation into far Bette perspective than I can:
From BK’s Dawn Patrol, Baird suggests that our cheering on of Ukraine is not enough, and we need to put our military and personal risk where our mouths are:
https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/beware-the-feel-good-narrative-being-spun-around-ukraine-s-resistance-20220303-p5a1ep.html
ummm
The comments at the end are seriously concerning. he difficulty of defending Poland.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JyldO8t1ds&ab_channel=DWNews
Jackol
Put aside the ‘eye for an eye’ reference, which I wasn’t particularly happy about at the time I wrote it.
The argument for assassinating Putin, simply put, is that he’s done horrendous things, including ordering assassinations, and so it’s OK to assassinate him. That’s really what I meant to convey.
Frequently, though, those supportive of such an act invoke the law: Russia is engaged in war crimes, Putin’s alleged ordering of assassinations is criminal, &c. I use the word ‘alleged’ in this paragraph, and not earlier, to clarify the distinction. If you are going to invoke the law, then you invoke the rule of law which includes the right to a fair trial at which evidence is tested and guilt weighed.
Your questions rightly raise the vagaries of international law, especially international criminal law. The latter is governed by the Rome Statute and administered by the International Criminal Court. But not all states are parties to that Statute. They do not submit to the jurisdiction of the court. Russia doesn’t. Nor does the United States, or Australia. Our alleged war criminals, too, may not be brought to justice under the jurisdiction of the ICC. That’s why Ukraine has commenced its proceedings in the International Court of Justice.
It is no coincidence that the vast majority of people brought before the ICC are from African states, Cambodia and the former Yugoslavia.
So yes, it’s a quandary. What I have sought to highlight is that if we say assassination is bad when Putin does it, surely it’s bad if anyone else does it?
For some people, like Mark Latham, the notion of there being laws of war is a nonsense. On a bad day I agree with the argument, but not the conclusion he draws. He, and others (perhaps even some here on this blog) say in war anything goes, it’s war. I, and others (and I don’t know if there are others here on this blog) say war itself is criminal and distinguishing some crimes as justifiable by distinction to others is ridiculous.
C@tmomma/Victoria
I walk my dog energetically, I note your confluence of morality with Lindsay Graham lackadaisically. Again, you have, just in that post, said that you’d be cool with assassination. I’ve never said I’m cool with Putin. The two are not comparable, no matter how hard you may try to make them so.
Perhaps, rather than taking an unjustified crack at me for pointing out the vicissitudes of your ethics you should be looking at your shared opinion with Senator Graham and asking ‘how did I get here?’
a r
I see you, too, decry the criminal but love the crime so much you countenance it against those you perceive as your enemies.
At what point do you become the thing that you hate? I’m sure the line must appear to you clear as day on the distant horizon. But, what’s that? Do we note it creeping, creeping closer?
Perhaps if NATO lives up to your expectations and those of other Bludgers such as Bludging and imposes a no-fly zone over Ukraine leading inevitably to total war we will get to witness how you respond as that line blurs in its fog.
Douglas and Milko says:
Saturday, March 5, 2022 at 10:15 am
Julia Baird (of course) puts the situation into far Bette perspective than I can:
From BK’s Dawn Patrol, Baird suggests that our cheering on of Ukraine is not enough, and we need to put our military and personal risk where our mouths are:
https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/beware-the-feel-good-narrative-being-spun-around-ukraine-s-resistance-20220303-p5a1ep.html
—————————————–
I am happy to consider this provided that Baird guarantees that she, her friends, and her family are first over the top.
I posted on this sort of situation several times before Putin started his war.
Another Bludger Rule of War: ‘If you are going to go, go now.’
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/05/he-literally-had-30-seconds-an-australian-couples-desperate-fight-to-flee-ukraine
Boerwar
We have a wicked problem here -there are no good solutions.
However, I now have a far better understanding why people like George Orwell (Eric Arthur Blair) went to fight the for the republican international brigades in Spain. They really were fighting for the future- democratic or fascist?
We now know that they had little hope of holding back the tides of history, but if I had the military training, I would consider adding my efforts to those of the Ukrainian people. I am but one person – and of course I am smart enough to know that not having military training would make me a liability, not an asset – but any resistance makes it harder for the international community to ignore the horrors that Putin has unleashed.
A week ago I would never have even thought this. And I am not in anyway naive about what military service means – death, kill or be killed. The males in my family have a long history in the military.
D&M
There are three Bludger Rules of War that apply:
1. Never ever fight a war if you can avoid it.
2. If you can’t avoid a war fight like you mean to win it.
3. If you can avoid somebody else’s war, avoid it.
In relation to No 2, the Ukrainians, as far as I know, are not even blowing the bridges in front of the advancing Russians.
The War is devolving into something I predicted last week some time… although my time sense is getting muddled. It was that if the Russians failed with shock and awe they would revert to the Russian mean: flatten places with artillery and then walk in. Your putative role, should you go and fight, would probably be to hunker in a bunker while the town is being flattened before retreating.
Should Putin’s War not result in some sort of negotiated split of Ukraine following the fall of Kyiv and Kharkiv, then you would have an opportunity to sneak through a forest and lob a small missile at a Russian post, truck or tank. Should you succeed in this enterprise, I imagine that the Russians would flatten some nearby village by way of reprisal.
The Democracies – among other things – are fighting for the rule of law. Even in relation to Putin, the law should be held high. Assassination is Putin-like. The Democracies have to cleave to the law. There’s no choice about this. When the war has been fought and won, the Democracies can insist that Putin be handed over for trial by the ICC.
Of course, the premise is that the Democracies win. Well, we must win. We cannot allow terror and despotism to win. We just cannot. For all the errors, democracy is still our best hope.
Ukraine, pity the Ukrainian people, has become the theatre where democracy and tyranny are fighting it out. This is an aftershock of both the Bolshevik Revolution and WW2. It cannot become the preface to the new subjugation of Europe by despair and tyranny. The Democracies have to win in Ukraine. We absolutely must.
Rewi –
Well, my argument in favour of assassinating Putin is not about what he’s done. What he has done (and what he has said) is evidence – evidence that he is driving a very dangerous agenda that immediately threatens the lives of tens of thousands of people, and that appears to just be the starting point of his threat.
“Crime” “justice” etc don’t even figure here – he is an extremely dangerous individual who cannot be touched by any limiting systems apart from physical laws. The rightness or wrongness of how to deal with him fall, as far as I’m concerned, purely down to your philosophical system of choice. The danger that he poses to many many people means, in my opinion, that he needs to be taken out of the equation for the good of the many. That doesn’t necessarily mean execution, but I don’t think capture is at all feasible, and the more exotic methods (being deposed, drugged, psychologically manipulated, targeted with sonic (?) weapons etc) are not so reliable.
This is a bit too simplistic for my liking. It reflects a fairly well worn argument about things like capital punishment – and I’m all in favour of outlawing capital punishment, and agree that having the state using death as a punishment is somewhat at odds with a society suggesting that killing people is a bad thing.
But clearly (eg) people in Australia are still killed as part of the functioning of society – people who present as too dangerous in the moment to be subdued via other means are killed fairly regularly. Of course we try to minimize it, and too many incidents of this border on (or cross over) into being unjustified, but the basic principle that a person who is posing a threat can only be tolerated up to a certain extent, and after that lethal force is basically justified. We’ve codified this in our laws in terms of self defense, or in terms of police doing their jobs correctly, and such codification makes things a bit cleaner or neater, but the presence or applicability of any such laws to a Putin is clearly irrelevant.
If I may do my own over-simplification – Putin is not subject, in any meaningful way, to rule of law. International law and Russian law don’t apply – any justice system can’t touch him – and he has engineered Russia’s parliament to prevent being voted out or held to account in any way – the political system can’t touch him. Law, process, procedural fairness, is never applied to Putin’s actions, so surely he also forfeits any protection under law. Social contract theory for dictators?
Again, my central point is it is the fact that there are no limiting systems that apply to Putin’s actions that drives the focus on extreme measures. If there were limiting judicial or political systems then I’d be all for saying that assassination should be off the table; the fact that any such systems can’t deal with him means that action relies on acting outside of accepted systems.
I was down at the Opera House in Syderney (Olympic City) last night, and around about.
The Ukrainian colours (which iirc L R suggested were so sharply defined as to suggest photo-shopping) on the sails of the Opera House were as clean and sharp as represented. It looked amazing.
Here’s a thoughtful piece by Alex Ross (music critic, musicologist, author, blogger) on the arts and politics, focused on the pretty much now fully de-Westernised conductor Valery Gergiev. (I’ve posted more than enough already on him in the other thread.) Ross had a stint here a few years ago with the ACO in a programme that grew out of his book “The Rest Is Noise”; his latest tome is on Mr Wagner.
Ross speaks to Gergiev’s musical and moral decline. Gergiev brought the Vienna Philharmonic to Sydney (quite a coup) many years ago, when his fame was rightly on an a great ascendant arc. There was a frenzied run on tickets. I sat next to a man who had flown down from Brisbane, having otherwise just about given up on going to live concerts. The demand was so high that they did a live outside broadcast to the packed Grand Staircase. Gergiev went outside after to acknowledge the crowd. Heady days.
Last night Mavis posted a Youtube of the Met chorus singing the Ukrainian national. Alex Ross notes, poignantly:
He concludes:
https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/valery-gergiev-and-the-nightmare-of-music-under-putin
Rewi @ #128 Saturday, March 5th, 2022 – 9:31 am
You infer a lot of untrue things from a simple (imo) explanation of how/why Putin is a special case. Bravo.
Attempting to assassinate the head of state of another country would, I’m sure, rightly be classified as an act of war. The only country at war with Russia at the moment is Ukraine. If Ukraine had the capability to kill Putin I’m sure they would have done it by now (and I’m also sure Putin wouldn’t have invaded).
The only potential assassins Putin has to worry about at the moment are Russian, assuming any of them can get in range. I doubt the war has brought enough damage to Russians for Putin to be too concerned at this stage.
https://youtu.be/auJxrmNErIA
a r
Fair cop.
The latest:
https://youtu.be/IsBc_Vbt1Uw
Some very good news for Biden: his overall approval surges eight points to 47% in a Marist poll, with approval of handling of Ukraine up 18 to 52%. Even on the economy, he’s up eight to 45% approve.
https://www.npr.org/2022/03/04/1084463809/biden-approval-poll-ukraine-economy
This poll was taken March 1-2, just after Biden’s SOTU address, from a sample of over 1,300.
We should wait for other polls before jumping to conclusions. Biden’s ratings have improved to -9.8 net in the last few days in the 538 aggregate.
Jackol
Yes, it was simplistically put.
“Well, my argument in favour of assassinating Putin is not about what he’s done.”
If we’re making decisions made on some other basis, what is it? That someone poses a danger? That seems to be a particularly subjective approach, and raises the question of who gets to decide. Indeed, all of the issues you’re raising point to that really fundamental question.
Impunity, which is the fundamental concern you’re highlighting, is the central flaw in international law that things like the Rome Statute try to overcome. As you rightly say, that jurisdiction is virtually meaningless when it comes to the leaders of countries that don’t submit to the ICC jurisdiction. That’s why John Howard will never be prosecuted for alleged war crimes committed under his regime, or Blair, or Bush. I’ve included Blair there because even though the UK is a state party to the Rome Statute there is virtually no chance of his ever being handed over to the court.
Even if we don’t say that assassinations should not be sanctioned as a matter of principle, the problem is that once we open the door to countenancing life and death decisions being made in a non-impartial way based on perceived threats we, in my view, open our own leaders to the risk of such action being taken against them.
Would, given Dutton’s language, Xi be entitled to perceive him as a risk requiring elimination?
Rewi –
In the framing of my position I think I’ve ruled this out because Dutton is subject to political and legal mechanisms in Australia, and to a limited degree internationally, so I think I can safely say that consistent application of my reasoning would say that assassination would be off the table in Dutton’s case.
This question suggests to me that you keep seeing everything through a legal lens. The law certainly doesn’t fully define what is right and wrong and focusing solely on what can be proven to a court’s standards before taking action seems … unhelpful in these kinds of outlying cases.
Anyway I’ve explored all I care to in this discussion so I’m gonna leave it there.
Jackol
That’s cool. I’m not, I’m just not sure what the other basis for deciding who gets to live and who has to die is that you’re suggesting. Appreciating that you’ve had your fill, my question was really are there rules to it at all, or is it the vibe? Your argument appears to be that if the forces of liberal democracy determine that a foreign leader is sufficiently threatening and dangerous then it should be ok to knock them off. That, at least, is what I’ve taken you to mean by this:
“a person who is posing a threat can only be tolerated up to a certain extent, and after that lethal force is basically justified.”
I’d also say that there is a legal regime in Russia that Putin is bound by. That’s why he had to give up the Presidency in favour of Medvedev to take the position of Prime Minister instead, he was term-limited by the constitution, which he abided by. The constitution didn’t, as the US one does, prevent him from returning after one term out of office, which is why he was able to come back. And, by the way, he was elected at each stage. It is true that elections have become regressively unfair and less free over the course of his reign in both roles, and that he has used state authorities to intimidate and imprison his opponents. That it is unlikely that Russian investigative and prosecutorial authorities are likely to take any action against him is a fair point.
In anticipation of being accused, again, of being a Putin sympathiser, I am merely pointing out that there is a legal and constitutional system in Russia that Putin is subject to, noting the inadequacies of that system in holding him and others to account. I’m suggesting that the Russian system is not unique in that regard. How effective are those same investigative and prosecutorial authorities in commencing legal actions against political leaders in other non-state parties to the ICC?
Thanks for the conversation.
Ah, they did blow a bridge up north.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsBc_Vbt1Uw
Given that many people worldwide are incapable of distinguishing between fact and fiction (or too lazy/stupid to do basic research) in this new world of social media and the World Wide Web, what chances of the Russian public seeing and understanding what is really happening in Ukraine? Is the information war any easy-win for Putin?
So it would seem:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-03-05/russian-support-for-putin-ukraine-invasion/100881316
Jackol at 2.42pm
1) Putin is not fighting an information war
2) If he is strongly supported by the Russian citizenry, that simply adds to my support for the harshest sanctions against Russia
3) If he isn’t supported by ordinary Russians (we have now way of knowing) and NATO won’t blow Putin to bits, harsher-than-now sanctions become the only way to strike at Putin’s evil regime and I support them, even though levying them will cause ordinary Russians to suffer
4) I’ve had a gut-full of Putin and his like. Russia can be excluded from the economy, arts, world sport – you name it. Same with Belarus and anywhere else that signs up to Putin’s tsarism. They can play football against North Korea. (China, for example, needs to examine what happens to Russia and be warned by it.)