Ukraine

[RichardB]

It’s been clear for some time now that Putin will be unable to conquer Ukraine but he can cause a lot of damage and will probably continue to do so.

His lack of a clear aim and/or exit strategy is a problem familiar from the Iraq invasion of 2003. We don't get anywhere by individualising the invasion by concentrating entirely on Putin as a paranoid megalomaniac (even if he is one). As in Iraq, the focus of the invasion is surely on taking control of natural resources, with some kind of ideological spin as justification for the masses (stopping the production of WMDs and spreading democracy in Iraq, stopping the expansion of NATO and "denazification" in Ukraine). Many of us back in 2003 said that the invasion would lead only to more bloodshed, and profits for a few already wealthy entities, but Bush and Blair went ahead anyway, being under strong influence from those same entities. Putin's invasion of Ukraine is explainable either in such terms, or (as preferred by the media, for obvious reasons) as the result of a Hitler-like figure wanting to lay waste to as much of the world as he can send his tanks into. As stated upthread, it seems to me that getting Putin bogged down in a draining and expensive occupation in Ukraine suits the longer-term geopolitical interests of the Pentagon possibly better than any other outcome. Those people don't care about human lives any more than Putin does, as was demonstrated once more in Iraq during the blockade of the 1990s, famously defended by Madeleine Albright in 1996.

[oddoneout]

I don't know why Hitchens gives the impression that he's the only one who's ever propounded these opinions, the only clear-sighted dissident. We do live in a complicated, contradictory world and some politicians/people are unspeakable, whether adding to or attempting to counter the evils in society. We all make a pretty miserable job of it but Hitchens seems, unfailingly, to hit the wrong note in all his righteous fulminations.

And in so doing risks defeating the point of his argument in my opinion. As you say he is not the only person to recognise or comment on the multiple hypocrisies that this conflict has brought into the spotlight, but others do it more effectively.

[teamsaint]

His lack of a clear aim and/or exit strategy is a problem familiar from the Iraq invasion of 2003. We don't get anywhere by individualising the invasion by concentrating entirely on Putin as a paranoid megalomaniac (even if he is one). As in Iraq, the focus of the invasion is surely on taking control of natural resources, with some kind of ideological spin as justification for the masses (stopping the production of WMDs and spreading democracy in Iraq, stopping the expansion of NATO and "denazification" in Ukraine). Many of us back in 2003 said that the invasion would lead only to more bloodshed, and profits for a few already wealthy entities, but Bush and Blair went ahead anyway, being under strong influence from those same entities. Putin's invasion of Ukraine is explainable either in such terms, or (as preferred by the media, for obvious reasons) as the result of a Hitler-like figure wanting to lay waste to as much of the world as he can send his tanks into. As stated upthread, it seems to me that getting Putin bogged down in a draining and expensive occupation in Ukraine suits the longer-term geopolitical interests of the Pentagon possibly better than any other outcome. Those people don't care about human lives any more than Putin does, as was demonstrated once more in Iraq during the blockade of the 1990s, famously defended by Madeleine Albright in 1996.

Interesting point. Probably not just the Pentagon either.

The idea that this war happened and continues ( as many think) simply because putin is a power crazed nut job would get a very poor grade as an answer to a GCSE question.

I don’t know if we discussed this elsewhere, but I sense a distinct generational split on how people view the war, between 40 somethings and older who recall the Cold War and nightmares about nuclear war, and younger age groups who tend to view the world and geopolitics rather differently.

[RichardB]

Interesting point. Probably not just the Pentagon either.

I think I mentioned it upthread, it's something I read rather than my own idea though! I think, as someone who was quite active in CND in the 1980s, that you're right about the generational split, and I think that also has to do with the level of political discourse I grew up with in comparison with what passes for political discourse now (in the UK I mean).

[richardfinegold]

His lack of a clear aim and/or exit strategy is a problem familiar from the Iraq invasion of 2003. We don't get anywhere by individualising the invasion by concentrating entirely on Putin as a paranoid megalomaniac (even if he is one). As in Iraq, the focus of the invasion is surely on taking control of natural resources, with some kind of ideological spin as justification for the masses (stopping the production of WMDs and spreading democracy in Iraq, stopping the expansion of NATO and "denazification" in Ukraine). Many of us back in 2003 said that the invasion would lead only to more bloodshed, and profits for a few already wealthy entities, but Bush and Blair went ahead anyway, being under strong influence from those same entities. Putin's invasion of Ukraine is explainable either in such terms, or (as preferred by the media, for obvious reasons) as the result of a Hitler-like figure wanting to lay waste to as much of the world as he can send his tanks into. As stated upthread, it seems to me that getting Putin bogged down in a draining and expensive occupation in Ukraine suits the longer-term geopolitical interests of the Pentagon possibly better than any other outcome. Those people don't care about human lives any more than Putin does, as was demonstrated once more in Iraq during the blockade of the 1990s, famously defended by Madeleine Albright in 1996.

The interest in seeing Russia get bogged down in a quagmire is that it would discourage future warmongering. That will hopefully discourage a Chinese assault on Taiwan in addition to forestalling whatever other conquests the Russians are contemplating. Unfortunately this turns the Ukrainians into sacrificial lambs. In addition there is the wild card of Nuclear weapons, as Putin was awfully fast to deal that card from the deck.
The Pentagon actually acted to defang their own leader, Trump, when the brass sent alerts to the lower ranks that if the megalomaniac in chief gave the order to arm Nukes, they were to await confirmation from the Military, an act which clearly violates the chain of command.
As to whether we can equate Putin with the Russians, that depends upon whether or not one accepts the “Great Man” interpretation of History.
I think there probably were some Frenchman in 1812 that wanted to invade Russia, and certainly many Germans in 1939 itching to start a conflagration. However, I think that absent the personalities of Napoleon or Hitler, those specific conflicts would not have occurred. Megalomania unchecked by other Political Forces is a common feature of Putin, Hitler, Stalin, et. al, and the world as a whole usually suffers for their ambitions

[RichardB]

As to whether we can equate Putin with the Russians, that depends upon whether or not one accepts the “Great Man” interpretation of History.

Well, I don't. (Also there's no question of equating Putin with "the Russians"!) Conditions need to exist before a Hitler or Napoleon can rise to power, and it seems that if these conditions do exist some unscrupulous individual or other will do so. Hitler wouldn't have come to power without the German economic collapse, the opportunity to blame other countries for the suffering caused by the Versailles reparations, the Teutonic-nationalistic tendencies already present in the 19th century, the support of German industrialists for the profits to be gained by rearmament and territorial expansion, and so on. Given those conditions that place would have been occupied by someone, perhaps someone less antisemitic (or even more), perhaps different in other ways. The same could be said of the other historical figures you mention. I simply don't think situations like the present one are best understood (and responded to) in terms of evil megalomaniacs.

[Dave2002]

Is this now “yesterday’s news?”.

I hope not. It’s still a major tragedy for many involved and many still need our support.

[RichardB]

Is this now “yesterday’s news?”.

I hope not. It’s still a major tragedy for many involved and many still need our support.

Don't be silly. Just because people aren't posting on this thread doesn't mean they aren't concerned about the issues discussed in it!

[french frank]

Don't be silly. Just because people aren't posting on this thread doesn't mean they aren't concerned about the issues discussed in it!

I'm not sure that any attempt to revive the discussion should be dismissed as 'silly'. I was thinking of querying what exactly is implied by the 'Great Man theory' and how the idea that certain individuals are somehow "born to greatness", born to have a huge influence on the destiny of their country or the wider world could be rejected. But if the situation is turned round and one starts, not with 'The Man', but the 'The Prevailing Conditions', then it matters very much who the individuals are who hold sway at that particular moment, and what motivates them.

[RichardB]

But if the situation is turned round and one starts, not with 'The Man', but the 'The Prevailing Conditions', then it matters very much who the individuals are who hold sway at that particular moment, and what motivates them.

Why?

[french frank]

Why?

Because you might get very different, even opposing, outcomes?

[HighlandDougie]

I think that this recent interview should be accessible:

https://octavian.substack.com/p/inside-the-bear-alexander-gabuev?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjo3NSwicG9zdF9pZCI6NTAyMTQ3NTAsIl8iOiJIeGtRZCIsImlhdCI6MTY0NzI2MzEyNiwiZXhwIjoxNjQ3MjY2NzI2LCJpc3MiOiJwdWItNDM5OTk1Iiwic3ViIjoicG9zdC1yZWFjdGlvbiJ9.686gTPiPXNvgRV95hyNw_ppCjrw5ioYQyhzDLSMXffE&s=r

If the link doesn't work, the authorial byline is Jonathan Tepperman, the title, "Putin in His Labyrinth: Alexander Gabuev on the View from Moscow", and it's in 'The Octavian Report', dated 14 March.

I thought it made for interesting if not exactly comforting reading but then nothing about the current tragedy in the Ukraine is anything other than profoundly depressing, apart possibly from the positive response of so many local people in, for example, the Maritime Alps who want to do something to try to help victims of such terrible circumstances.

[RichardB]

Because you might get very different, even opposing, outcomes?

I really don't think so. These "great men" are representative of the processes that put them in their positions of power, and those processes are what drives history, not a sequence of individuals. Of course, arguments on both sides of this issue are hobbled by having to depend on what "might have been" which is rather an ungraspable concept; but what makes these men "great" is to a great extent the circumstances of their birth, upbringing, experience, social environment etc., and, crucially, the people who bestow the accolade of greatness on them, all of which exist at the confluence of the aforementioned processes. (Ian Kershaw's biography of Hitler is good on this point.)

[french frank]

These "great men" are representative of the processes that put them in their positions of power, and those processes are what drives history, not a sequence of individuals. Of course, arguments on both sides of this issue are hobbled by having to depend on what "might have been" which is rather an ungraspable concept;

I think there's a constant flux which makes it all a bit chicken and egg. As I see it, that flux catches the individual who suits the moment. But I can't think of that individual, whoever the cadre propels into the top spot, as being anything but unique. Or does one take the view that, absent Putin, there would have been a line of 'Putins', any of whom having been chosen as leader would have thought like Putin, acted like Putin, indeed had a very similar background to Putin?

but what makes these men "great" is to a great extent the circumstances of their birth, upbringing, experience, social environment etc., and, crucially, the people who bestow the accolade of greatness on them, all of which exist at the confluence of the aforementioned processes.

Yes, but isn't "great" a sort of 'post hoc' characteristic? That is, you're 'great' once you've reached the top; you don't reach the top because you're 'great'. The system (as in the current 'Soviet' system) allows that individual to be 'great' and to take whatever path he chooses.

[Ein Heldenleben]

Isn’t all this great man vs thrown up by circs debate discussed ad nauseam in those bits of War And Peace that most people skip?
I think Tolstoy was of the RichardB party…