In the recent weeks I have been struggling with very unpleasant thoughts which I want to share with you in the hope that you will help me make sense of the doubts and dilemmas I am dealing with. To explain what I am referring to, I will use a few of the examples which elicited these thoughts in me:
Syria:
Readers of this blog might remember that when the first demonstrations against Assad in Syria began I was supportive of them. My reasons were basic and, frankly, primitive:
1) I don’t like Baathism, Baathists and Arab secularism generally.
2) I knew for a fact, from contacts with Syrians, that Hafez al-Assad rule was a brutal one: his Mukhabarat(s) was universally feared, his officials corrupt and I was aware of the fact that he had crushed an Islamist uprising in 1982 at a cost of anywhere between 10’000-40’000 deaths (depending on sources).
3) As for the son, Bashar al-Assad, my beef with him was that he had tortured CIA detainees for the USA and that he had allowed the Israelis to murder Imad Mughniyeh in a high-security neighborhood of Damascus.
I don’t want to go into a polemic here over whether my reasons were valid or not. For one thing, at this point in time, this is irrelevant. I will just summarize my personal evolution by saying that while I did not like Assad or, while I actually disliked the Assad regime, and while I mistakenly assumed that the demonstrations were in support of democracy, human rights, free speech and political pluralism, I soon came to realize that I was completely mistaken. What was taking place was not an expression of popular demands, but a CIA backed, KSA financed and Wahabi executed attempt at regime change and that Syria was at the edge of becoming a hybrid of the so-called “Islamic state of the Caucasus Emirate”, Somalia and Afghanistan. I also understood that for better or for worse, but the person of Bashar al-Assad, the Baathist regime, the Syrian state and the Syrian nation were, de-facto, one and the same and in the context of a foreign intervention it was simply unreal to defend one without defending the other. Yes, at a future date, I would love to see these categories become separate again. But at this moment in time they are one and the same, they are “Syria”.
But my topic today is not Syria, but the most disturbing thoughts I have been struggling with ever since the war on Syria (not in Syria, but on Syria) began. By various estimates, the war on Syria has already caused something in the range of 100’000-150’000 deaths. For a total population in the range of 22 million, that is very big. But what really hit me is this thought:
Was Hafez al-Assad wrong to crush the Islamic uprising in 1982 at the cost of up to 10’000-40’000 deaths and within one month or was he wise? On one hand 10-000-40’000 deaths in one month and on the other 100’000-150’000 deaths in over two years.
Of course, one could say that the 1982 “Hama massacre” eventually resulted in today’s civil war. But what if that 1982 massacre gave the Syrians 20+ years of relative peace instead and what if Bashar al-Hassad had crushed the current uprising as rapidly and brutally as his father did in early 2011?
In hindsight – if I had a time travel machine and if I could travel back to 1982 and speak with Hafez al-Assad about the Islamic uprising taking place, would I really advise him to refrain from the use of force, or would I tell him “go ahead and crush this monster before it fully materializes!”?
The Ukraine:
I am looking at the footage coming out of Kiev and I can’t help wonder what I would recommend to Yanukovich if I was his advisor. Something interesting happened two days ago: the regime told the riot cops to push back the demonstrators by a few hundred yards and to tear down the catapult they had build. Well, the riot cops did that very easily, even without using any kind of lethal weapons, they pushed back the “elite” combat teams of the so-called “Right Sector” (Ukie neo-Nazis) in minutes. Everybody was amazed at how easily the riot cops tore through what appeared to be well prepared defenses and how rapidly the order to clear a section of the Grushevsky street was executed. I mention that because this probably indicates that the riot police could probably clear up all of central Kiev overnight if given the order. Yes, such an operation would almost certainly result in fatalities, but there is no reason to suspect that their numbers would be large.
So, should the regime use violent force and simply clean up central Kiev?
From Maidan to Tiananmen to Moscow:
Maidan square brings back memories of another square, Tiananmen square in China.
Now please consider this: I was brought up in a rabidly anti-Communist family and I had been deeply involved in what the Soviets used to called “anti-Soviet activities” for many years. In 1989 I was still more or less believing all the crap which I had been fed in my youth and I was studying in Washington DC towards a MA in Strategic Studies where most of my teaches were either from the White House, or the Pentagon, or the CIA or some branch of the US military. Worst of all, I was still under the delusion that you could get information from the mass media. All this is to say that when the Tiananmen demonstrations began I was jubilant – to me this was yet again an example of “the people” overthrowing “Communism”. Sure, when the Chinese students put their ridiculous “Goddess of Democracy” even I got a little suspicious. Something just did not look right. But then the crackdown happened and the iconic picture of that historical moment, Tank Man, really blew my mind in its political perfection, or so I thought at the time: one simply man stops a column of tanks with his unprotected body. What can be more noble, more inspiring, more touching than this amazing symbol of humanity?
Three years alter, in 1991, the Soviet Union “was collapsed” (let’s not go into “who really did it” and “how” right now) and I rushed to my first trip to Russia ever. I landed in Moscow and immediately went to the center of the city were the barricades were still standing. My lifelong dream of seeing the Bolsheviks bite the dust had finally happened, and I was standing in the capital of a new, free Russia. Or so I thought. I spent a lot of time in Moscow between 1991 and 1993, and I saw it all: the complete collapse of the economy, the astronomic rise in crime, the ugly way in which ex-CPSU re-branded themselves as “democrats” only to steal away the wealth of the nation, the total breakdown in public services and the criminalization of the economy. By 1992 my imbecilic enthusiasm had already been very much toned down and my outlook on things was beginning to get more sober, more cynical and more disillusioned. The process of disillusionment reached its peak with in 1993 I witnessed with my own eyes the bloody orgy of violence unleashed by the Eltsin regime in Moscow. Just before it all began I had spent many hours with all the parties involved in a struggle and I knew one thing for sure: both sides were ex-Communists, both sides were accusing the other of Fascism, and both sides were claiming to act in defense of democracy. In fact – both sides were extremely similar and I was disgusted by all of them. Eventually, the USA backed ex-Commies turned “democrats” won by using tanks to shoot at the Parliament building and Russia sank even deeper into another 7 years of “democratic nightmare”.
Now playing the “what if” game – I wondered what if Gorbatchev had done in 1991 what the Chinese had done in 1989? What was worse – the Tiananmen square “massacre” or 9 years of “democracy” in Russia?
I think that any sane and rational person who would compare the fantastic economic boom China saw in the 1990s compared to the complete collapse of Russia over the same time period has to admit that Deng Xiaoping was a much wiser statesman than Gorbachev. Keep in mind that Deng Xiaoping himself once said that the Tiananmen crackdown had prevented a civil war in China.
Looking back in time:
By 1993 I had very few illusions left, my career had not taken the fatal plunge yet (that would happen by 1997), but my eyes were slowly opening to a far more complex reality than I had assumed. Still, the fate of Russia was still very much on my mind and I was avidly reading all the books I could get my hand on about the Bolshevik revolution and the reign of Czar Nicholas II. The mountain of lies written about these two topics must be something of a historical “Mount Everest” mainly because almost all the parties involved had a stake in spreading and maintaining the same pack of lies. It goes something like this:
Under Nicholas II Russia was a poor authoritarian country ruled by a weak and incompetent Czar, who was eventually overthrown in 1917 in a popular uprising which brought the Communist to power.
In that sentence above literally every word is a lie. Now, I don’t want to write an analysis of the causes, mechanism and nature of the so-called “October Revolution”, but I have to share with you some of what had found out:
1) 1917 Russia was wealthy and the economy was booming
2) 1917 Russia was economically socialist and politically pluralist
3) Nicholas II was neither weak nor incompetent
4) The real regime change happened in February of 1917
5) All the Bolsheviks did is to boot the liberals out of power after 8 months of utter chaos
I know that many of you will disagree, but I ask you to ignore my reasons and just look at my conclusion as it is the only thing pertinent to my current dilemma:
There is no doubt in my mind that Czar Nicholas II could have *easily* crushed the February 1917 Revolution had he wanted to. His reasons for not doing so are complex (he was a complex person), but the bottom line was this: he did not want to maintain himself in power by violence. On a human level, I understand him completely. On a religious level (Nicholas II was very deeply religious) I also can understand him. My question is this:
But for the future of Russia, was his decision the correct one?
I am personally convinced that if Nicholas II had ordered the arrest of no more than 50 key personalities and if he had also ordered a few trustworthy generals to clear the streets of Saint Petersburg from the rampaging mobs (by shooting on sight if needed) there would have been no February Revolution, no October Revolution, no Civil War and, possibly no World War II or even no Cold War. I know, “shoulda, coulda, woulda” and to-rewrite history is always easy. But still, think of it: the lives of, say, a few hundred of the worst scum of Russia in 1917 or the lives of many tens of millions of innocent people?
The counter-example: Argentina 1976
In 1976 I was still a 13 year old kid, but I had two cousins in the Argentinian military and I was spending all my winter holidays in Buenos-Aires. I remember the daily bombings and terrorist attacks of 1975-1976 when the country was torn up by rampaging guerrillas from the Montoneros and the even more frightening ERP on one hand, and a totally clueless and corrupt police on the other. Bombings, kidnappings, shootings everywhere, every day. Police barricades all over the city. Regular riots and demonstrations by students, unions, political parties. Semi-official rightwing death squads – called AAA – lead by, I kid you not, the “Minister of Social Welfare” – Jose Lopez Rega – also known as “the sorcerer” because he was deeply involved in black magic. And to top it all off, an entire province of central Argentina – Tucuman – totally under the control of the ERP guerrillas who simply executed all the government officials and basically declared their own state. Scary stuff, I can tell you, not only for a 13 year old boy.
So when the Argentinian military lead by General Jorge Rafael Videla took power, I promise you that most Argentinians were extremely relieved and had high hopes for the restoration of law and order. Well, we all know what happened, from then on it was all downhill and the military dictatorship’s rule of incompetence and violence ended in the absolutely stupid and mis-managed invasion of the Malvinas (yes, I do consider that these islands should belong to Argentina, but no, I don’t think that invading them made sense). Looking back at the rule of the military in Argentina it was a disaster.
I recently spoke to my old cousin, who retired from the Argentine military with the rank of Lt-Colonel, and he told me: “you know, we did win the military war, but we lost the ideological one”. I think that he is right. They did crush the guerrillas, rather fast really, but they did so at the cost of alienating the vast majority of the Argentinian people. Which brings me full circle to my original dilemma.
The legitimate use of violence by the state
Clearly, and by definition, there is a general consensus amongst most people that the state can, and should, use violence in defense of its people. This is, at least in theory, why we have a police and a military. In theory, the police is supposed to use violence when needed inside the country, while the military is supposed to deal with foreign threats.
Now, since I know that I have a lot of readers in the USA, and since I know that amongst them there will be those who define themselves as anarchists or libertarians, let me immediately deal with their objections to the above.
Anarcho-libertarians are basically opposed to the very existence of the state. At best, they want the least possible amount of state, at worst, they want no state at all. It is not my purpose today to debunk one by one all the fundamentally mistaken assumptions (political, historical, sociological or economic) which anarcho-libertarians make, but I will just say that the ideal anarcho-libertarian society is even more impossible than the ideal Communist society of Marx. I know, that will not convince anybody who believes in the state-less myth, but I would ask them to set aside their own preferences and accept, for argument’s sake, the following three postulates:
1) If the function of a state is to maintain law and order, its purpose is to defend the weak. Why? Because the powerful do not need a state to defend themselves. A rich man does not need the police – he can hire his own bodyguards, investigators or enforcers. A rich man does not need universal heath care – he can pay for his medical costs. A rich man does not need regulated highways – he will chase the poor off the roads no problem. And if the rich man every needs a military, its only because he does not have enough hired guns for himself, because he is comparatively weak alone.
2) Only a state can uphold the rule of law. All non-state entities are regulated by the rule of the ruler, not the rule of law. Remove the state and, by definition, you will have lawlessness.
3) History is replete with examples of very, very bad states. History is also replete with examples of very, very bad medecine. Yet we do not want to live without medicine. To reject the state on principle is “throwing the baby out with the water”. The solution to “bad state” is “good state”, not “no state”.
I hope that this takes care of any accusations of “statism” and other such naive accusations. Anyway, back to the topic at hand:
In theory a state is entitled to use violence. The problem with that is that a state which relies on violence to impose law and order becomes a violent state and that is, I think we can all agree, a very bad and most undesirable thing.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn once developed a very interesting concept. He said that regimes can all be placed on a conceptual continuum ranging from “regimes whose power is based on authority” to “regimes whose authority is based on power“. He is right. And in an ideal world, all regimes would be enjoying the support of its people because the latter would feel well represented, heard, taken care of, etc. In the real world, of course, this is rarely so, especially at a time when the capitalist nature of the international economy is running the entire planet into the ground and when the top 1% rule more and more overtly by violence only. It is no wonder that the anarcho-libertarian ideas are so strong in the USA where most people have not seen an European-style state taking care of weak, sick, poor or needed and where the state is really fully an instrument in the hands of US corporations, special-interests groups and various lobbies. And, to nobody’s surprise, the US state is amazingly violent with 16+ intelligence agencies, cops everywhere and on all levels, uniformed hire-a-cops everywhere too, TSA goons, 2 million Americans in jail, daily police shootings, taserings, beating, etc, etc, etc. You spend enough time in the US will will become anti-state too!
But what happens when a state which does have authority based on more than just power is challenged by a minority of very aggressive people who do not recognize any authority to the state and who actually want to use power to overthrow the state? That is what we see in the Ukraine today, that is also what is taking place in Syria and that is what was happening in the streets of Saint-Petersburg in the first months on 1917. What should the state do to defend the people? Do like Nicholas II and refuse to stay in power by violence, or do like Hafez al-Assad who deliberately killed many thousand of Syrians thereby protecting many millions more? What the “Tiananmen massacre” a way for the “Chinese commies to just stay in power and resist reforms” as the corporate media would have us think, or was the the only way to save democracy in China and avoid a civil war? And what if Gorbachev had categorically ordered his forces to arrest Eltsin, Kravchuk and Shushkevich – would that have been better or much worse?
My doubts and fears
Frankly, I think that Yanukovich should send in the riot police to clear the street of the city of Kiev from the nationalist scum rioting there. I would also arrest the top opposition leaders for sedition, armed insurrection, conspiracy to overthrow the government, treason, etc. etc. etc. – whatever the Ukrainian penal code offers. Let them all join Iulia Timoshenko in jail or, better, let them replace her in jail as I really don’t see at all what she deserves being put in jail for.
But then what?
Yanukovich clearly has little to no authority in Solzhenitsyn’s terms.
I suppose that Hafez al-Assad did.
As for Videla, I think that he had it, but lost it pretty soon.
So if Yanukovich uses his cops, would he gain or lose authority for doing so?
I think that showing some spine and being a statesman is better than being a jellyfish. But that’s me.
Keep in mind that the famous Ukrainian “Berkut” is no Spetsnaz at all, even if the moronic media says so. They are just riot cops, something like the French CRS or the Russian OMON. Using them to clear the city center is not like “sending in the tanks”. Right now these poor guys are told to get burned, beat up, shot at and abused and just stand there and take it. I really feel sorry for them. And Yanikovich is a scumbag to denounce them every time he sends them in to do something. I wish they could turn their batons on him and beat the crap of of his fat body, but that is not going to happen either, alas. But if he sends them in, they are probably going to delight in beating the ever-living shit of the neo-Nazi punks which have been abusing and assaulting them for weeks now. To ask them to gently and kindly escort these armed nationalist thugs out of the city center is also unreal. So if they go in to really clear not only Grushevski street but also Maidan square, there are going to be many casualties and even fatalities. Right now, about 100 of these Berkut cops are already in hospitals with various injuries and more are sent there every day. Finally, I strongly suspect that the combatants of the “Right Block” have stores of firearms hidden in Kiev and the surrounding areas and that they will use them should the government send in the cops to clear the city center. At that point, the Berkut guys will have no other choice than to shoot back and which point even more blood will be shed, and the western Ziomedia will go in hyperdrive with indignation at the “gross human rights violations” of a “discredited regime” which has “turned against his own people” who “peacefully demonstrated” for “reforms and democracy”.
So should Yanukovich sit tight and wait?
I honestly don’t know but I have a strong feeling that a Tiananmen square like outcome (remember – they even had to use soldiers, armored assault vehicles and tanks!) is the best the Ukraine can hope for at this time.
What do you think? Please let us know!
Kind regards and many thanks!
The Saker
OK SAKER there are a few things you have to understand that you dont right now, it would seem that way at least.
Tiananmen WAS a civil war, parts of the Beijing garnison fought against the rest of the army. the students were just some kind of decoration although many of them were likely to be trained fighters in fact. as was the nature with soviet union, it is of course difficult to find out what exactly happened as that is a state secret.
furthermore, den xiaoping might have initiated a wonderful economical boom in china, but capitalism will eventually cost hundreds of millions of chinese deaths when the big social catastrophy (wealth distribution, terrifying ecological factors coupled and/or caused by a most unwise and unsustainable consumer trend) will – most likely – break upon the central empire (just like the russian empire, if you want to exclude the angloamerican hand in the bolshevik uprising).
as someone who sees himself a part of russian civilization I might further add that nicholas II was a good man who unfortunately lacked a better sense of geopolitics.
then, you cite opposition sources and UN bullshit for human casualties. that in fact makes me question if maybe your basis for argumentation is not flawed. I remember there were CIA leaks (if Im correct) where it is admitted that HAMA MASSACRE killed no more than 5000 people or so, most of which WERE islamist terrorists. Im sure you know that, but I hate it when people use these false figures.
concerning UKRAINE: your pessimism and unstable mood in that regard are kind of sad. yanukovich has putin behind his back, and as I see it they are handling the situation rather well. the louder our angloamerican “friends” bark, the worse its getting for them. the war is not over yet, and many things could happen… but if we survive sochi, there are dark times coming for our enemies, I can promise you that. very dark times. and better times for us.
with that in mind, relax and be reasonable for once.
oh and saker… my father has quite a knowledge in this regard (his business is in ukraine) and he says that the berkut guys were groomed to do exactly this. which is why they are so disciplined. you feel sorry for them??? its like feeling sorry for a mercenary army… these guys do not deserve as much pity from you as the russian OMON (who are not just riot police but also soldiers!) who had a few dozen wounded in the bolotnaya decabrist style events.
regards, an annoyed ukrainian russian.
Dear Saker,
I recommend this site:
http://oko-planet.su/politik/politikukr/227832-rubikon-obratno-ne-perehodyat.html
A very good post, Saker. It’s a cliche, of course, (but a saying becomes a cliche because it contains more than a grain of truth) that hindsight is 20/20. With the historical examples you’ve given, the only answer to the ‘what if?’ questions you’ve posed is that subsequent events would have been different had different courses of action been followed but they would not necessarily have produced better outcomes. Change one element and all other elements do not remain equal – other, unforeseen factors come into play.
I tend to think that Ukraine has passed the point of no return. Even if Yanukovich hangs on until 2015, it’s already quite clear that no election result which does not produce the ‘right’ answer, will be permitted to stand. I really don’t think there’s anything he can do which will change Ukraine’s fate.
A thoughtful essay raises questions to which there are no good answers. I was in China during Tien an Men and worked to get some film out of the country. As someone who had pariticipated in the first sit-ins of the Civil Rights Movement I was deeply moved by the demonstrations and thought I understood them, though not being Chinese, this was just a mirage. As to the question of force or no force, it obviously just depends, and the right decision is what separates great leaders from humdrum ones. I doubt any of us could make the right decision except by chance. I agree, howver, that the Ukrainian leader should bemore forceful. From your description he doesn’t look like the type of man who can successfully pull off a rope-a-dope. Curious what messages he is getting from Putin.
Knut
Saker, good post and good questions…. Now my two bits
My view is that it largely about containment. And containing social unrest should be managed by the societal blocks on the ground. Outside advice can be given but interference (a fine line) should be avoided. Hopefully, this will done with wisdom (which may not be readily apparent to outsiders), but if not, they will learn wisdom or be swept from the board. Culling of the herd, so to speak.
I remember when the Syrian “revolution” started, having a deep conversation with my friends. They were of the view that there would be UN or NATO troops on the ground in “peace keeping duties” within six months. I disagreed and said that I thought Assad would survive, but the key was for him to contain the rebels until the general Syrian populace could see them for what they were. Once they’re shown for what they truly are, I argued that the civilian population would see Assad was the lesser of the evils. I have generally had a benign view of Bashar Assad. I think he is an intelligent and principled man (for the society he comes from). I believe he tried to be the best he could be (getting to be an Ophthalmologist in England is the best evidence I can give). But when his brother died he came back and did his duty. It was a dirty job with some very brutal associates that he inherited. I feel he’s done an admirable job under the circumstances and I strongly believe that he is the best leader to get Syria through the current crap it is going through. I think his older brother (who was supposed to be the heir apparent) was a son of a bitch. Thank God he was killed (oops sorry, car accident……. LOL). Hafez was a real son of a bitch. Outsiders (especially western “theorists”) don’t have a grasp of the societal dynamics in these areas. The outsiders naively believe it just like over here but “a little different”. Then they stick their nose in there and Holy Hell manifests itself.
This is nothing new. Calgacus as referenced by Tacitus said “they spread desolation and call it peace”. Libya comes to mind. In modern history this is driven by well meaning people and powers who have no clue. My friends who have had to put up with my intense arguments will recognize my statement “LEAVE THEM THE FUCK ALONE”.
Now whether it is Syria, Ukraine, Russia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Argentina or somewhere else, they will either get it right or not. The vacuum will eventually be filled on their own terms and by somebody the general populace will accommodate itself to. The phrase “he’s a sonofabitch but he’s our sonofabitch” has some validity. Life is messy.
Now if these “sonofabitches” cause a problem (Afghanistan is a debatable subject) send in bombers, special ops or whatever, put the fear of God into them and then leave. Rinse and repeat if necessary. It’s cheaper. The locals will either learn their lesson or change their “sonofabitches”.
So to summarize, whether the state uses force and to what degree should be very carefully monitored. This depends on the locals because they have “skin in the game” and they are (usually) best to understand the costs, the benefits and the repercussions. Those on the outside should be brutally honest about any intervention. Would you put your son, your daughter, your brother or sister into this intervention?
There are exceptions. Rwanda springs to mind.
@Snow on the Path: Tiananmen WAS a civil war, parts of the Beijing garnison fought against the rest of the army. the students were just some kind of decoration although many of them were likely to be trained fighters in fact.
I heard that too but I have no sources about that. Can you recommend a good book or article?
that in fact makes me question if maybe your basis for argumentation is not flawed.
Dude, I never said I knew the facts of this matter, I am using that example even assuming these figures are more or less true.
relax and be reasonable for once.
Relax? Never! LOL! Can’t do it. Tried many times, but I just can’t. Be reasonable? That I always try, and I think that I do ok on that account, no? I did call this post “confused musings” – did you notice? Why are you picking on me after that? :-P
you feel sorry for them???
As I would for anybody, including the OMON or the CRS, if they are beat up and told not to fight back. Not inherently though – I don’t like cops in general and I mostly hate hte riot police…
@Knut:From your description he doesn’t look like the type of man who can successfully pull off a rope-a-dope. Curious what messages he is getting from Putin.
Well no amount of messages from Putin can help. Yanukovich is a dishonorable, hypocritical, corrupt and spineless puppet, the polar opposite of an officer like Putin. He reminds me of Kerensky, and we all know how that ended…
Cheers,
The Saker
@JohnM: I think that I might have been unclear in my topic which was not the right to intervene, but the legitimacy of the use of force by the state inside its own borders. For the external use of for I really subscribe to your “LEAVE THEM THE FUCK ALONE” as in 99.999999% of cases intervention only makes things worse. And let me add that in Rwanda the intervention was there already, long before the Interahamwe went on their full-scale rampage. I also totally agree with you when you say that “Now if these “sonofabitches” cause a problem (Afghanistan is a debatable subject) send in bombers, special ops or whatever, put the fear of God into them and then leave. Rinse and repeat if necessary. It’s cheaper. The locals will either learn their lesson or change their “sonofabitches” as long as the problem caused is serious enough to warrant such an action.
No, my conceptual problem is with the internal use of force against a substantial and aggressive minority of the population like we see in Kiev today.
Cheers and thanks,
The Saker
Is a very interesting view, comparing all those squares political events. It would be more interesting if the author could point out where was Soros and his ngos at those time. Even the 1968 Paris “students uprising” with the fall of De Gaulle as consequence aquire new meaning.
Dear Saker,
There is much to discuss here. Since I have guests tonight I will come back to this tomorrow. I would say that I find your “musings” thoughtful and in no way confused.
However briefly, on the situation in the Ukraine, the short and simple answer is that Yanukovitch should send in the riot police. When they cleared Maidan Square on 30th November 2013 he should have backed them to the hilt as any self respecting leader in any other European country should have done. The reason the situation has deteriorated to the extent that it has is because of the deplorable weakness he has shown and the extraordinary political incompetence of the two main opposition leaders Klitschko and Yatsenyuk. I should say that I have just come from a Crosstalk with Peter Lavelle in which this subject was debated. Broadcasts tomorrow when I promise to be back with more.
@ The Saker
the legitimacy of the use of force by the state inside its own borders ………..
No, my conceptual problem is with the internal use of force against a substantial and aggressive minority of the population like we see in Kiev today……
I should have been more concise with my “social unrest should be managed by the societal blocks on the ground”. The Ukrainian government does have the legitimate right (in my view) to use force to defend itself and that is what they are doing whether we agree with their assertions or methods. .
However, the statement “they are (usually) best to understand the costs, the benefits and the repercussions” is presupposing that they have more accurate or timely information on the ebb and flow of their opposition. Whether they are right or wrong in the scope of their actions may be verifiable in the future. This comes back to my idea of containment. The use of force becomes a judgement call on how substantial and aggressive the minority in reality is.
Containing (or destroying) this minority depends on the wisdom of both sides. In my view, extreme views by a small minority should be contained to the point that the larger population can appreciate the consequences of such views……… even though this is difficult, if not impossible in short and emotionally charged times. The minority also needs some wisdom to evaluate whether their goals are achievable in some shape, form or time frame. In one sense, there is a mutual containment until the larger population (silent majority in most cases) comes to some kind of consensus.
As an aside, the “Well of Wisdom” seems pretty dry on both sides. I should confess that I don’t follow it very closely because the idiocy on all sides depresses me…… And causes me to reach for another bottle of wine.
@Alexander: Since I have guests tonight I will come back to this tomorrow
Thanks so much for dropping by! Believe me, I also run around all day like crazy and I really know that real life my always come before our beloved “virtual world”. I hope that you have a super-wonderful evening and that, one day, we will meet in person!
Crosstalk with Peter Lavelle in which this subject was debated. Broadcasts tomorrow
Sounds great. I will probably post the broadcast here as you plus Lavelle is always a mix.
Kind regards & many thanks, take care.
The Saker
@JohnM:Containing (or destroying) this minority depends on the wisdom of both sides. In my view, extreme views by a small minority should be contained to the point that the larger population can appreciate the consequences of such views…
This is a very interesting idea. Containing such a minority until the larger majority can appreciate what is going on. You might be on to something really interesting here. I need to think about it and, alas, I am a slow thinker and I like to mentally “chew” on a new idea for quite a while. Same thing for “societal blocks”. Very interesting. Let me think about that for a while but thanks a lot for two interesting concepts.
Cheers!
The Saker
Saker,
Sorry to bother, it is little OT – its about Ukraine, could you check this article, ivam very poor russian reader:)
http://oko-planet.su/politik/politikukr/227832-rubikon-obratno-ne-perehodyat.html
@VINEYARDSAKER
No, my conceptual problem is with the internal use of force against a substantial and aggressive minority of the population like we see in Kiev today.
Of course it is and it would be much easier to debate if you started right away with that proposition!We have been watching the for weeks, months what’s going on in Ukraine and we all witnessed the light hand used by local authorities and how it didn’t work at least to give some breathing space in the propaganda war. And this second round of riots, after some resting for the populace, has everything to do with the growing, and unforgivable, influence of Putin in Syria and his capacity of organizing successful Olympic game. So, authorities didn’t use the very needed violence necessary to curb the uprising and are being blamed for the use of violence. The problem here, imo, is this: «seemingly» popular revolutions are very well established and many times trained by now (see http://www.aeinstein.org/). The only way to fight it is never, ever, let the movement grow till the point of no return! Of course, Yanukovich isn’t up to the game (somehow it seems he is trying to please Russia and UE…). If he looses – and at this time of the day it seems he is going to -, it will be very bad in a geopolitical point of vue, because it will be tried once again in Russia.
I would like to add one more thing. In fact, what’s going on in Ukraine is not anymore a popular uprising but a well masterminded uprising led by outside powers that found inner fragilities to stick to for leverage. Understanding this places your worries aside, I think.
Finally, let me confess that I can’t agree with postulate 1…Every passing day reality shows otherwise! My 2 cents
@VINEYARDSAKER
No, my conceptual problem is with the internal use of force against a substantial and aggressive minority of the population like we see in Kiev today.
Of course it is and it would be much easier to debate if you started right away with that proposition! We have been watching for weeks, months what’s going on in Ukraine and we all witnessed the light hand used by local authorities and how it didn’t work , at least to give some breathing space in the propaganda front. And this second round of riots, after some resting for the populace, has everything to do with the growing, and unforgivable, influence Putin is gathering in Syria and his capacity of organizing successful Olympic game in spite of the terrorist menace. So, Ukrainian authorities didn’t use the much needed violence necessary to curb the uprising and are still being blamed for the use of excessive violence. The problem here, imo, is this: «seemingly» popular revolutions are very well established and many times trained by now (see http://www.aeinstein.org/). ‘They’ know exactly what to show, what to say, what to do…The only way to fight it is never, ever, let the movement grow till the point of no return! Of course, Yanukovich isn’t up to the game (somehow it seems he is trying to please Russia and UE…). If he loses – and at this time of the day it seems he is going to -, it will be very bad in a geopolitical point of view, because it will be tried once again in Russia and around Russia (the aim being to isolate it).
I would like to add one more thing. In fact, what’s going on in Ukraine is not anymore a popular uprising but a well masterminded uprising led by outside powers that found inner fragilities to stick to for leverage. Understanding this sets your worries about the use of force aside, I think.
Finally, let me confess that I can’t agree with postulate 1…Every passing day reality shows otherwise! State uses force not in name of the majority, but for the sake of wealthy minorities! My 2 cents
“Если ситуация в настоящем спутана с неблагоприятной ситуацией в прошлом, ситуация обладает свойством эргодичности и может быть охарактеризована как структурный кризис. Далее, можно цитировать аналитическую стратегию: «Первая теорема о структурном кризисе постулирует невозможность выйти из него за счет «естественной» динамики систем, то есть опираясь лишь на внутрисистемные ресурсы. Вторая теорема о структурном кризисе утверждает, что всякая неудачная попытка разрешить его провоцирует фатальную воронку. Третья теорема о структурном кризисе гласит, что адекватной формой его решения может быть только инновация — усложнение структуры пространства решений за счет использования внешних по отношению к системе ресурсов».”
The tripartite EU-Russia-Ukraine event is a good starting point, but hey it’s much more easier to masturbate from Brussels, Berlin or Warsaw then do the work.. so, keep the water ready for -30C°
Yanukovich is a dishonorable, hypocritical, corrupt and spineless puppet, the polar opposite of an officer like Putin.
Hi Saker,
Too much stuff here to talk about, I’ll stick to Ukraine.
IMHO, you’re underestimating Yanukovich. Him saying “no” to the EU scum was good enough alone! And at such a manner—when they thought the game was over. No matter how incompetent (and the rest) he might be, he is clearing the last remnants of a defeated army from the streets. Ukraine swung to the Russian side forever! Remember how quickly Yushchenko fell under 5%?
From this point on, Yanukovich must fight for his political survival (don’t thing he won’t), and thus, will begin strengthening his position by getting pro-Russian nationalists in the key positions and bribing the flailing / divided opposition (that always works). Truthfully, the opposition is in chaos.
In fact, after the elections in 2015, he will come out much stronger. Reasons?
Putin is behind him with credits / investments / ____,
China is getting there as well,
no investments from the west, and he already rejected bravely the odious IMF / WB / EU usurers,
EU / opposition is falling apart & he knows time works for him.
Exposing the opposition for what it is was a smart move on his part. He made protest(r)s lose steam by letting them to fight for empty announcements, continue with disorder which achieves nothing, & expose the west which offers sandwiches & . . . zeros . Hence, he looks as the only appreciated solution.
All-in-all, cheer up!
Heavy stuff!
The state, by definition (at least modern ones) is “a monopoly on the use of legitimate violence” (Max Weber). Therefore the problem is that of legitimacy. The constitutions of many states provide for responses to rebelions against the established government, which are equivalent to foreign aggression.
The specific cases should be analysed on their own. Was the “repression” of Hafez al Assad illegitimate in face of the attack of the Muslim Brotherhood which most likely was acting on behalf of Israel?
It become increasingly clear that the “protestors” in Kiev act on behalf of a foreign power. I think that the Govt. adopted a dilatory tactic, leting the opposition to compromise itself. The opposition demands amount to treason. I think that eventually the Government would take a tougher stance.
It is hard to judge whether Tsar Nicholas should have resisted. The Civil War would have started earlier.
WizOz
WizOz
@Mart: could you check this article
Done. Its a leaked document about what kind of terms the US diplomats and the so-called “opposition” are demanding from Yanukovich.
1) early Presidential elections
2) early Parliamentary elections
3) freeing of Timoshenko
4) criminal prosecution of riot cops
Typical.
@Anonymous: …адекватной формой его решения может быть только инновация — усложнение структуры пространства решений за счет использования внешних по отношению к системе ресурсов»
Very interesting conceptual framework. Where did you get that from? Where can I got the full text?
Thanks!
@Sokenokos: Him saying “no” to the EU scum was good enough alone!
That was after saying YEEEEES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! to the EU for three years. It is his last minute change which largely contributed to the explosion of rage which we see now.
will begin strengthening his position by getting pro-Russian nationalists in the key positions
I will bet you he will do the exact opposite in the hope to appease the USA, EU and nationalists
In fact, after the elections in 2015, he will come out much stronger
I might shock you, but I think that Russia had a better partner with Timoshenko than with Yanukovich. At least the former had a spine, if not balls, while the latter is just a protoplasm.
Does anybody remember that Putin and Iulia Timoshenko got along just great and that it is with him that she signed the deal for which she was then jailed?
Please do not misunderstand me: Iulia Timoshenko is not my ideal, but yeah, I think that Moscow would have a better partner in her than in Yanukovich.
All-in-all, cheer up!
Give me a reason :-)
Cheers,
The Saker
Good article, Saker. Much to think about. I’m still reading the many comments already posted, but I’ll toss in my two cents now at the risk of being either redundant,misguided, or both.
You know far more about the situation in the Ukraine than I do, and a lot more about the other rebellions you describe, so I won’t venture much by way of my own opinions in that regard. It would almost be beside the point anyway, as they were primarily illustrations of a more philosophical problem, namely the use of force in the state.
One element that most civil uprisings have in common (at least in modern times) is meddling and instigation by foreign operatives with evil intent. That was certainly true in the case of the Bolsheviks, and Syria is the latest example. This adds a whole new dimension to the philosophical problem you lay out, namely the dimension of foreign policy, interventionism, and the rights of sovereign nations.
Any state, however obnoxious its leadership may be, has a responsibility to defend against foreign invasion, whether the attack is openly martial or insidiously manipulative. If it’s a genuine case of righteous domestic rebellion against a government that has barred any peaceful means of reform, then some benevolent support from abroad might be acceptable, but it’s a damn slippery slope.
Reading your article also got me thinking about the differences (and some similarities) between coups and secessions. I haven’t yet reached any firm conclusions on the subject, though the spectre of foreign meddling comes to mind there too.
Thank you for understanding our American attraction for libertarian-style anarchy. I confess I lean strongly in that direction myself, and for the reasons you describe. The best way to put it is this- I don’t favor powerful centralized government, but I do favor strong local government. I will say, however, that I’m not convinced that the European brand of soft socialism is anything for us to aspire to. The underlying shadow powers are the same there as here (and thriving on the centralized EU) and I am convinced that the entire system (both here and there) will likely fall apart rather badly, and soon.
There will be rebellions, and righteous ones at that.
I’m not as worldly as you, but we are the same age (to the same month!) and my fall from idealism to cynicism has followed about the same trajectory as yours.
@Saker: I honestly don’t know but I have a strong feeling that a Tiananmen square like outcome (remember – they even had to use soldiers, armored assault vehicles and tanks!) is the best the Ukraine can hope for at this time.
It is probably not as simple as clearing up central Kiev. Yanukovich’s challenge is much more formidable and his real foes are not the punks on Grushevsky St. and not the people on Maidan. I think there is a whole army of real fighters waiting in the shadows with guns, as you mentioned. In addition, there is significant 5th column in the government, SBU, police, army, media.
If Yanukovich moves to clear the Maidan (which can be done easily), most of the Western Ukraine will rise up and will riot. What happened in the Western provinces in the last couple of days is clearly meant to give Yanukovich a preview of what’s to come. Wide-spread riot in the west will only be possible to put down with a harsh crackdown involving the army, because police does not have enough people and they cannot rely on any local people there. Even assuming that army will follow the orders, the actual crackdown will be very difficult and bloody. The crackdown itself will effectively be civil war. Given how divided the populace is, the army will likely to split as well, once the heavy blood starts to flow. Then full-scale civil war can start.
I think it is this scenario that paralyzes Yanukovich (and the fact that western bank accounts of his backers will be “expropriated” and their access to the West denied). So it is a much more difficult situation than 1989 in China (as history has shown crackdown on Tiananmen is all it took). Situation in Ukraine is much closer to Syria in 2011, and any move to crackdown will be followed by quickly escalating civil war.
@Saker: Frankly, I think that Yanukovich should send in the riot police to clear the street of the city of Kiev from the nationalist scum rioting there.
I think the dilemma you are describing is one extensively studied by psychologists called the trolley dilemma, in which you pull a switch which will redirect a trolley to kill one man instead of five. 90% of people, if I recall correctly, say that they will pull the switch in this case. However, when asked about situation when they have to throw a man on the track with their bare hands to kill him to save five people, the percentages are reverse (90% of people say they won’t do it). I think in this case, something similar must be going on in the head of person who has the power to kill a few to save many. So the logical calculus is countered by psychological resistance to doing it yourself and taking responsibility. History knows a number of people who could do it, but also many that could not.
Perhaps this is why Nickolay II did not move to arrest the key people and prevent escalation of revolution. However, I generally disagree with you that he even had such an option. I think if he could he would. He did this before (recall Bloody Sunday and the whole of 1905).
What happened in Russia in 1917 was not a random event, but a result of pressure building up over decades. The axis of societal conflicts was the conflict of peasants who wanted land and landlords who needed land to continue their way of life. The latter were the main backers of the czar and he could thus do nothing to resolve the conflict without completely breaking the system apart. When all of the conflicts were made more acute by the WWI (army was composed of peasants after all) the pressure cooker simply exploded. To prevent this explosion and to put down the resulting unrest would require rivers of blood and a dictatorship. Kornilov has tried to do this but failed (it’s interesting to think why he failed). If Kornilov or someone else succeeded, Russia would turn into a dictatorship a-la Pilsudsky’s Poland and it would be conquered by Germany in WWII just as easily as France and Poland. I have no doubt that WWII would happen regardless of what happened in Russia, because its origins have nothing to do with political system in Russia. So there is additional dilemma for you. Suppose what I say is correct and what Bolsheviks did resulted in victory of USSR in WWII. You probably know what would happen to slavs if Germany won, so do you think it was worth it what bolsheviks did?
Dear Saker,
Before dealing with the substance of your article may I address the question of the supposed split in the Chinese army that allegedly happened during the Tiananmen Square disturbances in 1989?
The story that the Chinese army split and that part of the army sided with the students is a fiction that was widely reported in the week after the suppression of the protests by the western media including by western journalists in Beijing. As I very well remember for several days the BBC was reporting clashes between different units of the Chinese army as a fact. There was absolutely nothing at the time to lend credence to these reports other than the usual eyewitness reports, which as we both know should always be treated with extreme scepticism, and the fact that for several days after the Chinese army began its operation occasional bursts of automatic fire could be heard. The latter is by no means unusual when large numbers of troops (around 250,000 were involved) engage in an operation of this sort.
I did not believe the reports at the time. Not only was I sure they were untrue but I also suspected then (as I still do now) that the reports were to some extent at least deliberate mischief making by western journalists who were hoping that if they reported something it might actually happen. I have since spoken to several Chinese people who were in Beijing at the time and several of whom oppose the government and they have all told me the same thing, which is that these reports were untrue.
As has since become routine once it became clear that the reports were untrue they simply vanished down a memory hole without any formal retraction ever being made. Your respondent’s comment is the first reference to them I have seen since then and I follow Chinese news and commentary closely.
Incidentally there is a parallel between Tiananmen Square and EuroMaidan. In both cases a situation that was fully containable spiralled out of control because of division and indecision on the part of the authorities. Had the Chinese authorities acted firmly to suppress the protests at the outset the situation would never have escalated to the point that it did and many lives would have been saved. Similarly by his weakness in confronting the protesters in Maidan Square Yanukovitch has created the situation he is facing today. There is also a further parallel between the two incidents in that in both cases the leaders of the protests proved to be politically incompetent and failed to present a coherent political programme, which in both cases caused the protest to be taken over by more militant elements.
In 1989 the Chinese leadership eventually found the courage and the resolve to act. Whether the Ukrainian government is able to do that remains to be seen.
@ Sky
“my fall from idealism to cynicism has followed about the same trajectory as yours.”
Agreed, so has mine. But it is not an age thing (I am much older than both of you), but a natural consequence of the evil developments that we are going through.
Gordon.
You really are producing some cracking good stuff of late and this is no exception.
But just to echo Sky above. My guess is that some of the reasoning in your examples might be modified – at least slightly – by giving a tad more weight to the extent of external interference in and manipulation of them by powerful external forces. Most could be modified by considering them as part and parcel of the CIA’s (and other Western SIS’s) ‘Mighty Wurlitzer(s)’ +
http://youtu.be/C1BmBUfHfMU
http://www.rada.crimea.ua/news/22_01_2014_8http://www.mk.ru/politics/sng/article/2014/01/24/975104-verhovnyiy-sovet-kryima-progolosoval-za-otdelenie-ot-ukrainyi.html
It seems we have a secession processus ongoing by now?
Is force the answer, I don’t know.
Dear Saker,
My clear view is that the first duty of a state is to maintain a minimum level of security and order. Where these do not exist life becomes intolerable. People who deny this in furtherance of some absolutist and abstract vision of “liberty” are in my opinion the cruellest and most inhumane people of all. It is invariably ordinary people who pay the price.
That does not mean that any and every form of state repression is equally justified or is the same. Here the concept of aggression well known from international law is helpful. In assessing an internal situation in a country, which has turned violent, one should ask the same question one applies in relations between states: who is committing aggression – the state or its opponents?
Sometimes the answer is the state or the agencies of the state. That was the situation in Greece in 1967 when there was a coup against the country’s constitutional and democratic order launched to prevent an opposition party winning a democratic election. Though I dislike the man intensely the August coup in Egypt against Morsi was a coup of the same sort.
Turning to Russia’s history, the Bolshevik regime of the 1920s and 1930s was a revolutionary dictatorship that believed used terror to further its revolutionary objectives. I do not think anybody who studies that period of Russian history objectively would deny this or that this represented aggression by the state. Yeltsin’s coup in 1993 was aggression of the same sort as that in Greece in 1967.
In other situations the aggression comes from the state’s opponents. That was the case in Argentina in the early 1970s, in Russia in February 1917, in my opinion it was the case in Beijing in 1989 (I realise that is a very controversial view), it was the case in the USSR in the late 1980s (the USSR had long ceased to be a revolutionary dictatorship), it was definitely the case in Libya in 2011 and in Syria in 2012 and 2013 and it is now the case in the Ukraine.
When a state is faced with aggression the state is under a duty to resist aggression whether it comes from within or without. A failure to do this is a failure of the state’s primary duty to protect its citizens by providing a minimum level of security and order. States that fail in this duty do not survive long and the consequences can be calamitous as you have described.
Internal and external aggression can and sometimes does link up. That happened in Libya and Syria and Yugoslavia and to a lesser extent in the Ukraine now. In a different way it happened in Greece in 1967, in Chile in 1973, in Russia in 1993 and to a certain degree in Egypt today.
Aggression is wrong. That is my starting point. That can involve defending governments like those of Assad and Yanukovitch I don’t like.
Like all rules it is not one I follow absolutely. I remain enough of an Old Leftist (actually a paleolithic Leftist) to think that there can be some situations where a revolutionary transformation is unavoidable and ultimately beneficial – though I am never blind to the costs. However it is however my starting point. It may offer a key to some of your questions.
@ Alexander Mercouris: Similarly by his weakness in confronting the protesters in Maidan Square Yanukovitch has created the situation he is facing today.
You are forgetting that he did confront the protesters forcefully on Nov 30, when protests were still small. The result was huge escalation of protest. Likewise, any more or less significant action by government after Nov 30 led to unproportionate escalation.
I believe this is not a coincidence, but a result of strategy of people who decided to carry out coup in Ukraine. All the actions are designed to provoke the government to escalate application of force until it can be easily declared to be a bloody regime that is illegitimate. This then will legitimize the coup itself. Otherwise, the coup will be clearly a coup because it is toppling a democratically elected government only a year from the next election.
So the parallel is with Syria of 2011, not with China of 1989.
Alexander, may I congratulate you on your appearance on RT’s ‘Cross Talk’ with Anders Aslund and Mark Sleboda. I thought you were particularly effective in refuting Aslund’s assertions that ALL violence in Ukraine was coming from government-placed agent provocateurs.
I was surprised that Aslund didn’t try and place the responsibility on Russia but guessed the headline ‘Putin’s thugs behind Ukraine violence’ is being reserved in case the situation seriously worsens. However, picking up a copy of today’s Daily Mail left on a train, I see Edward Lucas has an article entitled ‘The 6’7” boxer trying to stop Putin’s blood-soaked new war on the West’. Another low for the British media.
Nobody made any secret out of the fact that the ultimate target of the ukrainian “smutnoe vremia” is Russia. The long term plan is to weaken Russia and any troubles in Ukraine (and the longer they last, the better) are steps towards that goal.
WizOz
“There is no doubt in my mind that Czar Nicholas II could have *easily* crushed the February 1917 Revolution had he wanted to.” …. There was nobody whom Czar Nicholas could have given the order (to arrest), his orders had been simply ignored, the top military were almost entirely traitors.?
Dear Andrey,
I understand the point you are making. My counter to that is that one must resist falling for the opposition narrative.
Briefly, what happened on 30th November 2013 was a standard police operation to clear a public square occupied by protesters who first agreed and then refused to leave. I see no evidence of disproportionate or excessive violence. I have read comments by various retired police officers in various western countries who have said the same thing. Certainly the force used was unexceptional compared to that routinely used in western countries and I am not even going to start making comparisons with places like Turkey.
The fact that the opposition has used that operation as a pretext or excuse for its own far greater violence does not mean that we should fall into their trap of accepting this pretext or excuse as true. Lamentably however that is precisely what Yanukovitch and Azarov did within hours of the police operation, establishing thereby the disastrous pattern of appeasing the protesters we have seen since, which has led to the consequences in Kiev we can now see. Had Yanukovitch and Azarov taken a firm line supporting their police from the outset the police would have been far more confident about their response and would have dealt effectively with the violent protests on the following day. As it was the criticism they came in for left them demoralised and uncertain how to respond lest they get criticised and punished for it, which is why the square was reoccupied by the protesters and public buildings were seized.
Lastly, on the subject of Syria, I know it is now part of the accepted narrative that the protests there initially were peaceful. Assad categorically denies this and says they were violent from the start – even before the notorious incident in Deraa. We now know that claims that the protests in Libya in 2011 were peaceful were untrue and that they were actually violent from the start so we should not be in a hurry to dismiss what Assad says simply because it is he who is saying it. Reports that were coming out of Syria in the summer of 2011 were already referring to murdered police officers and soldiers, which does tend to give force to what Assad says and at the very least suggests the protests there were violent from a much earlier stage than is generally admitted.
Dear Fern,
Thank you for your very kind words. I have read Ed Lucas’s entirely predictable article. Coming someone who has apparently in print referred to Russia as Mordor it was moderate by his standards.
Dear Anonymous,
For anyone who is interested in finding out what actually happened in Petrograd in February/March 1917 the indispensable book is “Russia 1917” by the Russian émigré historian George Katkov. This book was widely known and studied in the 1960s and 1970s when it was published but it has since been forgotten since its version of events is unpopular. Katkov however came from a prominent literary and political family and I believe (though I am not sure) that he was physically present in Petrograd on the days in question. He was also personally familiar with many of the major personalities (including Kerensky) and could access sources western and Soviet historians ignore.
Briefly, Nicholas II was as Saker says a very intelligent and extremely well educated man. Contrary to what Saker thinks he did give orders to suppress the protests. The protests were by no means unprecedented and were confined entirely to Petrograd and the means to suppress them certainly existed. The problem was that in Nicholas II’s absence at headquarters the local authorities on the spot proved incapable of responding to the challenge effectively largely because they were obstructed in their work by politicians from the Duma who were trying to use the protest wave to gain power. These same politicians were able to persuade the top military leadership at the front to coerce Nicholas II into abdication as a means of regaining control in the capital. They did this by misrepresenting the situation in the capital both to Nicholas and to the military leaders by saying that the Duma had formed a Provisional Government (it hadn’t), which had the support of the people in Petrograd (it didn’t) and that Nicholas would be succeeded by his brother (he wasn’t) and that the dynasty would be preserved (it wasn’t).
The answer to your question, according to me, should depend on just two factors: The “legitimacy” of the state and the legitimacy of the Resistance to a state (tyranny). I don’t know anything about Ukraine, other than what I read here and on other news websites.
Legitimacy of the State
The first category is very difficult to come by (unless I start talking about Ali ibn Abu Talib (a.s) again).
You gave the example of Hafez al Assad, but he is such a bad example. Just like Saddam would have been. Both lacked legitimacy. Most Arab governments lack it. I don’t know to what extent Bashar had legitimacy.
How about the example of Iran and the velvet revolution they put down. Would that be a better example?
Legitimacy of the Resistance
(We cannot include the Hizballah, the Mujahhidin, and the Sunnis of Fallujah during the American occupation, because all of them were fighting an outside power.)
But what about a Sunni wanting to get rid of an Allawi Bathist in Syria?
(I know it’s been said that Syria is a land of minorities, but I still feel it should be run by a Sunni, not a Shia, not an Allavi, and not a Christian. Also the Syrians I met were very well educated, they were Sunni, and they did not seem to care if Bashar was an Allavi. Back then they felt stifled by the regime and its pervasion of society. Similar to what I guess many Americans are feeling because of the NSA)
A Shia wanting to get rid of a Khalifa in Bahrain?
A Shia or Sunni or Kurd wanting to get rid of Saddam?
A Kurd wanting independence in northern Iraq?
Are these not majorities that want self rule? Even if it a type of rule I won’t like.
Now if a leader, state, government is chosen divinely (like King Solomon (s.s), King David (a.s), Ali ibn Abu Talib (a.s)), democratically (here I will only list the Kingdom of Bhutan), by a council of elders (loya jigra), hereditary (King of Swaziland), familial (eldest in a house) then if all other factors remain constant, it has a right to monopolize force in the interest of the weak and to implement justice.
It is like an economic theory. The results are possible only if certain factors such as interference remain constant, which they won’t.
The answer to your question, according to me, should depend on just two factors: The “legitimacy” of the state and the legitimacy of the Resistance to a state (tyranny). I don’t know anything about Ukraine, other than what I read here and on other news websites.
Legitimacy of the State
The first category is very difficult to come by (unless I start talking about Ali ibn Abu Talib (a.s) again).
You gave the example of Hafez al Assad, but he is such a bad example. Just like Saddam would have been. Both lacked legitimacy. Most Arab governments lack it. I don’t know to what extent Bashar had legitimacy.
How about the example of Iran and the velvet revolution they put down. Would that be a better example?
Legitimacy of the Resistance
(We cannot include the Hizballah, the Mujahhidin, and the Sunnis of Fallujah during the American occupation, because all of them were fighting an outside power.)
But what about a Sunni wanting to get rid of an Allawi Bathist in Syria?
(I know it’s been said that Syria is a land of minorities, but I still feel it should be run by a Sunni, not a Shia, not an Allavi, and not a Christian. Also the Syrians I met were very well educated, they were Sunni, and they did not seem to care if Bashar was an Allavi. Back then they felt stifled by the regime and its pervasion of society. Similar to what I guess many Americans are feeling because of the NSA)
A Shia wanting to get rid of a Khalifa in Bahrain?
A Shia or Sunni or Kurd wanting to get rid of Saddam?
A Kurd wanting independence in northern Iraq?
Are these not majorities that want self rule? Even if it a type of rule I won’t like.
Now if a leader, state, government is chosen divinely (like King Solomon (s.s), King David (a.s), Ali ibn Abu Talib (a.s)), democratically (here I will only list the Kingdom of Bhutan), by a council of elders (loya jigra), hereditary (King of Swaziland), familial (eldest in a house) then if all other factors remain constant, it has a right to monopolize force in the interest of the weak and to implement justice.
It is like an economic theory. The results are possible only if certain factors such as interference remain constant, which they won’t.
Did not sign off to my comment
Mindfriedo
Dear Saker (sorry don’t know you’re real name!) Firstly may I just commend you for creating what is, in my humble opinion, the most informative and insightful blog on geopolitics on the web today, you have shaped my views on many issues about which I previously had only a vauge and confused notion and I especially wish to thank you for showing me the geopolitical (and moral) importance of the Russia, Iran, Hizballah Axis in current affairs.Anyway what i wanted to suggest is really only tangential to the subject of this particular post (although I think you’ll agree it is not completely unrelated) namely the potential for the rise of ‘national labour’ parties in Western Europe in the coming years, combining elements of the populist right and populist left (whilst rejecting much of the dross, i.e. ‘identitity’ politics and hyper feminism as well as social decadence on the left and Zionism, knee-jerk anti-Islam rhetoric, i.e. the kind which lumps Al qaeda in with Hizballah and crass simplistic ‘plastic’ patriotism on the right-as well as acceptance of liberal values as somehow ‘our culture’ which ‘the Muslims’-and others-are threatening) Anyway I myself see this as being the best possible outcome for Western Europe as both the faux radical Left and the populist right are total traps leading us nowhere and craftily cementing the status quo, in times of crisis, whilst appearing to do the very opposite.But (and to give some context I am speaking here as someone who lives in the South of England) I see the major dividing line here being one of race,or, if you prefer ‘culture’ , a fact which many who are otherwise extremely sober and realistic on these issues refuse to discuss (perhaps as a political ploy-which I understand-focus on topplign the common enemy from power first before diving the people etc) anyway I myself fail to see, all other things being equal, while large scale racial, and cultural, ‘diversity’ is a benefit at all, in the long term (and as a geopolitican you should realise this) it simply makes it far easier for outside powers to ‘interfere’ in ones domestic affairs, and also, by making the populus more easily divided on various lines weakens a nation state in case of outside attack. On the other hand ‘all things’ clearly are not ‘equal’ at the moment and we are in teh situation we are in, in my opinion the best long term solution is to try to wrest Western Europe out of Zionist-U.S control, cooperating with our Muslim and African inhabitants and then, through trade aggrements and other schemes encourage those who wished to leave to do so, whilst maintaining long term cultural links and amicable relations. What do you think on this issue? Anyway what I have always liked about your blog is that you do not take the easy, fashionable route of condeming ‘States’ and ‘Nations’ per se and also the fact that you do not fall neatly into the Left Right paradigm that is so pernicious to intelligent debate and has a deadening effect on critical thinking on such issues especially it seems to me, in the U.S (and that by design).
Dear Saker (sorry don’t know you’re real name!) Firstly may I just commend you for creating what is, in my humble opinion, the most informative and insightful blog on geopolitics on the web today, you have shaped my views on many issues about which I previously had only a vauge and confused notion and I especially wish to thank you for showing me the geopolitical (and moral) importance of the Russia, Iran, Hizballah Axis in current affairs.Anyway what i wanted to suggest is really only tangential to the subject of this particular post (although I think you’ll agree it is not completely unrelated) namely the potential for the rise of ‘national labour’ parties in Western Europe in the coming years, combining elements of the populist right and populist left (whilst rejecting much of the dross, i.e. ‘identitity’ politics and hyper feminism as well as social decadence on the left and Zionism, knee-jerk anti-Islam rhetoric, i.e. the kind which lumps Al qaeda in with Hizballah and crass simplistic ‘plastic’ patriotism on the right-as well as acceptance of liberal values as somehow ‘our culture’ which ‘the Muslims’-and others-are threatening) Anyway I myself see this as being the best possible outcome for Western Europe as both the faux radical Left and the populist right are total traps leading us nowhere and craftily cementing the status quo, in times of crisis, whilst appearing to do the very opposite.But (and to give some context I am speaking here as someone who lives in the South of England) I see the major dividing line here being one of race,or, if you prefer ‘culture’ , a fact which many who are otherwise extremely sober and realistic on these issues refuse to discuss (perhaps as a political ploy-which I understand-focus on topplign the common enemy from power first before diving the people etc) anyway I myself fail to see, all other things being equal, while large scale racial, and cultural, ‘diversity’ is a benefit at all, in the long term (and as a geopolitican you should realise this) it simply makes it far easier for outside powers to ‘interfere’ in ones domestic affairs, and also, by making the populus more easily divided on various lines weakens a nation state in case of outside attack. On the other hand ‘all things’ clearly are not ‘equal’ at the moment and we are in teh situation we are in, in my opinion the best long term solution is to try to wrest Western Europe out of Zionist-U.S control, cooperating with our Muslim and African inhabitants and then, through trade aggrements and other schemes encourage those who wished to leave to do so, whilst maintaining long term cultural links and amicable relations. What do you think on this issue? Anyway what I have always liked about your blog is that you do not take the easy, fashionable route of condeming ‘States’ and ‘Nations’ per se and also the fact that you do not fall neatly into the Left Right paradigm that is so pernicious to intelligent debate and has a deadening effect on critical thinking on such issues especially it seems to me, in the U.S (and that by design).
Hi Saker,
I like your articles. Freeing yourself from us indoctrination is not done by many people. You got far but not far enough. There is still a too strong anti-communist bias. I can recommend the great blog of Ronald Boer for this:
http://stalinsmoustache.wordpress.com/
Cheers, Ben
Hi Saker,
Do you know this article?:
http://nsnbc.me/2013/04/29/lets-talk-about-tiananmen-square-1989-my-hearsay-is-better-than-your-hearsay/
Cheers, Ben
Your comment about claims that the Communists overthrew Nicholas the II is a strawman argument, since just about all history books that discuss the subject acknowledge that their were two revolutions in 1917, the first overthrew Nicholas II and the second brought the Communists to power. The confusion among most people about the revolutions comes from the Bolshevik Revolution being much better known.
While Russia did have high growth and a great deal of economic development in the last few decades before 1914, and the books I have read on the revolution acknowledge this, Russia’s economy certainly wasn’t booming by 1917.
The war blocked Russia from the markets of Europe and the millions of refugees from German occupied areas also created disruptions. Their were shortages of goods and threats of famine in the cities. The railroad system was overstretched due to the war and their was a large amount of inflation.
Nicholas II was viewed as weak because of the influence of Rasputin. His decision to make himself commander in chief of the armed forces in order to rally the Russian people behind the war backfired, as the continued battlefield defeats hurt his credibility.
Nicholas II never had any problem with using force to maintain his government. He used force against protesters during the 1905 Revolution and he ordered troops to fire on protesters in 1917, but the troops ended up joining the protesters. Nicholas II at the front at the time and he ignored a request by the Chairman of the Duma to return to Petrograd to help preserve the government. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_Revolution#Protests
Most of Petrograd was shut down by strikes, unleashing the troops wouldn’t change that. Also, why do you characterize the protesters as the worst scum? They were ordinary Russian people.
As for the millions of people who died during the Civil War, the Bolshevik Revolution initially took very few lives. The Civil War might not have occurred or at least been less savage if not for foreign intervention on behalf of the Whites.
This is why we fought the Crimean War against Photius Heresy
so they could never Bystra Paris again! That is why Cuomo
Environmentles are exterminating Tchaikovsky swans for being
too agressive. Putin’s tax, gay and oil policies are almost
as bad as Sarah Palin’s. Putin should have violated constituional
term limits just like Bloomberg. Does Yanukovich think he is Morsi?
CNOOC should have been allowed to buy Unocal just like Exxon and
Chevron tried to buy Yukos. We have no problems with pussy riots
in St Patricks as long as they abuse children Alexander’s hangover
has finally worn off. Charlemagne and Jagiello beware mermaids
turning Danube into limestone with paraplastic phytotherm tufa
stromatolite while Alexandria librarians infest Vatican archives
with periplastic trichomonas termopsidis!