Russia's invasion of Ukraine: Part 5

dustyfalcon122 said:The British Monarchy.
Japan before World War II.

Now you try... tell me about one successful democracy in the last 200 years of human history?

And what exactly defines a "successful" democracy?

The British Monarchy was a dictatorship!?

Okay... I think we’re talking past each other here. A monarchy is a monarchy, and a dictatorship is a dictatorship. A Monarch and a dictator aren't the same thing. Look at the Swedes, the Norwegians... people like that.

I asked about dictatorships. A dictator seizes power through violence and maintains it through violence. Primarily against their own people. A dictator secures support through fear, not through the actual consent or acceptance of the majority. That is how you distinguish a monarchy from a dictatorship.

So, in the last 200 years, which one of these "enlightened" dictators actually existed?

Anthony Perez9 said:Is there even such a thing as a "mafia-style autocratic oligarchical democracy"? 🤔

Take the USA, for example. We act like the world's beacon of democracy while hunting down ideological enemies with drones, usually leaving a trail of civilian casualties in our wake—all without ever giving anyone a fair shake in court.

Islamic terrorists don't get any rights to a democratic trial or due process. If there's collateral damage, that's on them. ☕

Of course it exists.
In fact, they even have an official abbreviation, which happens to be RF, not to mention colloquial nicknames like Putinistan or Orkistan. ☕

dustytiger8 said:The British Monarchy was a dictatorship!?

Okay... I think we’re talking past each other here. A monarchy is a monarchy, and a dictatorship is a dictatorship. A Monarch and a dictator aren't the same thing. Look at the Swedes, the Norwegians... people like that.

I asked about dictatorships. A dictator seizes power through violence and maintains it through violence. Primarily against their own people. A dictator secures support through fear, not through the actual consent or acceptance of the majority. That is how you distinguish a monarchy from a dictatorship.

So, in the last 200 years, which one of these "enlightened" dictators actually existed?

Why would a dictator necessarily take power by force? Is Kim Jong Un a dictator, or just a communist monarch who inherited his position without a violent takeover?

Jessica Peterson2 said:Of course it exists.
In fact, they even have an official abbreviation, which happens to be RF, not to mention colloquial nicknames like Putinistan or Orkistan. ☕

The Russian Federation is constitutionally structured around a powerful president, making it a presidential federal republic rather than a de jure dictatorship. They hold democratic elections where the majority-supported option typically wins.

Jose Clark2... you're trying to apply logic to something fundamentally illogical. It’s a waste of breath to keep talking.

The fundamental question remains: in the last two hundred years of human history, which dictatorship has actually been a "good" one?

Name just one. "Give me one, Vasily, just one single example, please."

Jose Clark2 said:The Russian Federation is constitutionally structured around a powerful president, making it a presidential federal republic rather than a de jure dictatorship. They hold democratic elections where the majority-supported option typically wins.

Perhaps not by law, but certainly in practice.

dustytiger8 said:Jose Clark2... you're trying to apply logic to something fundamentally illogical. It’s a waste of breath to keep talking.

The fundamental question remains: in the last two hundred years of human history, which dictatorship has actually been a "good" one?

Name just one. "Give me one, Vasily, just one single example, please."

I already answered you above. Or do you honestly think they were running satisfaction polls on people's lives and their leaders? What metrics would we even use? GDP? Poverty reduction? Public health? Free education and healthcare? Wages?

@Faro

What exactly did you provide? Give me a quote. You mention a dictatorship... whose? Maria Theresa was a MONARCH, not a dictator.

My apologies, of course, for failing to spot this dictatorship you’ve suddenly identified.

By the way, if there are no criteria—as you claim—on what basis did you decide that this specific dictatorship (the one you’re clearly implying) was actually "good"? 🙂

Jose Clark2 said:The Russian Federation is constitutionally structured around a powerful president, making it a presidential federal republic rather than a de jure dictatorship. They hold democratic elections where the majority-supported option typically wins.

All you have to do is swap the Russian Federation with the Democratic People's Republic of Korea or the People's Republic of Albania, and replace Putin with fat leader No. X or Enver Hoxha. ☕
It would certainly be more vivid that way...
That bolded part doesn't even merit a response, my apologies.🤷
P.S. I wish you all the best in your own little "Z-universe"... that magical place where Putin captured Kyiv in three days while the delighted citizens welcomed him with flowers, salutes, and vodka.

Jose Clark2 said:You're oversimplifying things. Claiming Russia is still a democracy ignores how laws actually function. Even here in America, minor offenses can land you behind bars for years or even life. It's all about the legal framework.

The reality is more nuanced than just the political system; you have the rule of law and the separation of powers to consider. Legal systems vary wildly. Then there's the matter of human rights. Take the USA, for instance—acting as a beacon of democracy while using drones to eliminate ideological enemies abroad, often resulting in civilian casualties and zero right to a fair trial.

Americans don't really have a legal basis to prosecute that specific crowd operating those drones. Do you honestly believe an Iranian general feels obligated to respect American laws? I highly doubt it. On the flip side, if that same Iranian general targets American citizens anywhere on the globe, the US will simply take him out. Others can ponder their motivations and how they intend to deal with Americans all they want. Americans can be cooperative, certainly, but they can also be incredibly stubborn. The dilemma for Iran and similar adversaries is that the US possesses the technological reach to strike anyone, anywhere. They have this capability because they possess advanced technology, and they have that technology because they aren't a closed society; they aren't monolithic like Iran. In many ways, Iran is sawing off the very branch it sits on—their internal political structure drives away anyone with independent thought or the means to flee, leaving behind nothing but the dregs of society. That is, essentially, the current limit of their system's reach. There is little use in being overly burdened by ideology or faith; one must attempt to understand the world around them.

Exactly, Zulu—you're talking about Ford. But let’s be clear: the man generally had a soft spot for non-democratic regimes, provided they actually managed to give their people a decent standard of living. He even sympathized with Nazism back before the war broke out, of course. And we shouldn't forget that the Germans chose Hinkie through what was, more or less, a democratic system. It’s the same story with Russia and Putin. Just because someone ascends to power via a democratic model doesn't mean they won't eventually steer the entire country straight into the darkest kind of dictatorship. Jose Clark2, that’s my answer to you as well.

dustytiger8 said:@Faro

What exactly did you provide? Give me a quote. You mention a dictatorship... whose? Maria Theresa was a MONARCH, not a dictator.

My apologies, of course, for failing to spot this dictatorship you’ve suddenly identified.

By the way, if there are no criteria—as you claim—on what basis did you decide that this specific dictatorship (the one you’re clearly implying) was actually "good"? 🙂

I defined a good dictatorship as a successful one where living standards for the average citizen actually improve. It's one where the state—or empire, or whatever is perceived as the common good—is strengthened. For instance, the Ottoman Empire had periods like this, with better and worse rulers who would fit this definition of a dictator. It depends. If you want something more recent, like the former America, and assuming you consider Josip Broz a dictator and that state a dictatorship, it also had its bright spots.

Nancy Gomez26 said:Americans don't really have a legal basis to prosecute that specific crowd operating those drones. Do you honestly believe an Iranian general feels obligated to respect American laws? I highly doubt it. On the flip side, if that same Iranian general targets American citizens anywhere on the globe, the US will simply take him out. Others can ponder their motivations and how they intend to deal with Americans all they want. Americans can be cooperative, certainly, but they can also be incredibly stubborn. The dilemma for Iran and similar adversaries is that the US possesses the technological reach to strike anyone, anywhere. They have this capability because they possess advanced technology, and they have that technology because they aren't a closed society; they aren't monolithic like Iran. In many ways, Iran is sawing off the very branch it sits on—their internal political structure drives away anyone with independent thought or the means to flee, leaving behind nothing but the dregs of society. That is, essentially, the current limit of their system's reach. There is little use in being overly burdened by ideology or faith; one must attempt to understand the world around them.

Iran has 84 million people. The "dregs" left behind? I have no further comments.

@Jose Clark2

Man... even elementary and high school teach you the distinction between a monarchy and a dictatorship. If we are talking about a kingdom, it isn't a dictatorship; it’s a monarchy. A monarch is chosen initially, and then their lineage is selected from among peers. Take Sweden, for example—it's a total monarchy functioning with a parliamentary democracy today, just like the United Kingdom... or Norway, Denmark, Belgium...

Marshall was a dictator, plain and simple. His entire legacy is built on intrigue and crime, regardless of any occasional bright spots that might have appeared later.

Democracy means you get to choose, and you get to be chosen.

All these "democracies" we talk about usually fail the first test: you're just picking from a pre-selected list where there’s really only one viable option anyway.
The second requirement—that you actually have a fair shot at running for office yourself—is almost never met. In most places, the opposition is either purely symbolic, completely shut out, or buried two miles underground. Take the Russian Federation, for example; any opposition that actually carries some weight ends up exiled in Siberia.

Jose Clark2 said:The Russian Federation is constitutionally structured around a powerful president, making it a presidential federal republic rather than a de jure dictatorship. They hold democratic elections where the majority-supported option typically wins.

That’s how it looks on paper. In reality, the only thing that matters is "who counts the votes" and how many years of prison time they can hand out to opposition candidates. Putin essentially emerged from nowhere; he was hand-picked as the successor by the previous president. Elections have become little more than a formality—a farce—because there is no genuine political contest. There is no struggle because there is no real opposition left. Any true opposition has been forced into exile, thrown behind bars, or driven underground. The few "oppositionists" who remain serve primarily as window dressing for the current administration, existing solely to maintain a Potemkin village version of democracy.

And by now, this has likely become entirely normalized. The fundamental issue is the total absence of a democratic tradition; it simply never existed. For many, the concept of changing political leadership feels alien. They likely fear that shifting power will lead to a complete systemic collapse—a lesson learned painfully from past upheavals. Naturally, those currently in power have zero incentive to prove otherwise. Consequently, they remain stuck in the status quo, dealing with all the inevitable fallout.

Jose Clark2 said:I defined a good dictatorship as a successful one where living standards for the average citizen actually improve. It's one where the state—or empire, or whatever is perceived as the common good—is strengthened. For instance, the Ottoman Empire had periods like this, with better and worse rulers who would fit this definition of a dictator. It depends. If you want something more recent, like the former America, and assuming you consider Josip Broz a dictator and that state a dictatorship, it also had its bright spots.

During those bright moments—to paraphrase Czesław Miłosz—that massive ship of dictatorship sails smoothly right up until it hits the first reef.

On the flip side, the little raft of democracy, where everyone's pulling in different directions around the rocks, somehow manages to scrape by.

electricsurfer47 said:Can you tell me

Why on earth is Turkey fighting them??? Why wouldn't they be allowed to have their own little state within Syria? They aren't even that big, and they don't really pose a threat to Turkey.

If the Americans had actually worked out some kind of diplomatic deal between the Kurds and the Turks, they could probably sit under the Turkish umbrella to defend themselves from Bashar al-Assad.

I honestly don't know. You should ask the Turks. Most likely it's fear. They are a significant minority within Turkey, and there is a fear that they might establish a state on territories spanning parts of Syria, Iraq, and Turkey.

A 30-year-old daughter of Dugin was killed in a car explosion...
It’s still unclear if it was Ukrainians, or if Putin just missed his mark...