“Mark our words, the European Union will spare no effort in ensuring that Putin experiences absolutely no repercussions for the outrageous death of a key opposition leader,” said European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen.
This part, even though from the same article, is true…
At press time, the U.S. House of Representatives had reacted in solidarity to the statement with an arms bill guaranteeing $0 of aid to the Ukrainian military.
Sorry for mixing real NON-ONION news in here — I know you're all easily confused to begin with — but…
From the Michigan Advance article: Death of Russian dissident raises stakes for U.S. aid to Ukraine, Biden warns…
[…]the U.S. House adjourned Thursday for a President’s Day recess without acting on aid.[…] House members are scheduled to return Feb. 28.
“It’s about time they step up, don’t you think? Instead of going on a two-week vacation?” Biden told reporters. “Two weeks. What are they thinking? My God, this is bizarre. And it’s just reinforcing all the concern, and almost — I won’t say panic, but real concern about the United States being a reliable ally. This is outrageous.”
Life once again imitates art. -- r^2^
This sounds so true down to the apathy of the world governments and citizens that it hurts having never been to Eastern Europe myself. I can’t imagine what it must feel to be somewhat dependent on other counties for support in the defiant act of just existing like Ukrainians are today :(
The only comfort I take in governments like those of Russia and China, is that they can't last.
All societies are inherently unstable, and require constant application of pressure on one side of the scales or the other to keep things level.
Systems like democracy (when done right) attempt to find a way to reduce the wobbling of the scale over time, so that whenever possible, the amount of pressure needed in the future will be less and less, so that while the pendulum motion never stops, it become calmer and easier to counteract.
Democracy also avoids placing that burden on a single individual, "averaging out" who is interpreting the wobble and making decisions about where to apply pressure.
Russia's government is doing the opposite. The CCP is using more insidious means that I worry are actually effective but even there the populace has been shown to be on verge of boiling over... And some day soon technology may enable the enforcement of rule by the few, without the co-operation of the many.
Putin is having to use more and more force to counteract the wobble of society, and that is not a recipe for a long-term regime. That he keeps finding ways to apply the additional force needed to delay the tipping point, is not an indicator that he will do so forever. At the very least, he will die one day.
I'm not sure if the prospect of him dying one day is any consolation. I mean, Kim Il-sung and Kim Jong-il died at some point, but nothing really changed for ordinary North Koreans.
Yep and Kim Jung Un will die and his daughter will take over now that he's been grooming her to be his successor. Kim Jung Un's sister also buys into the dictatorship so nothing will change in NK until someone inherits and actually wants to change something or the unlikely event the whole family get wiped out somehow.
You bring up a scary point, NK has successfully set up a ruling family dynasty.
Here's hoping Xi/Putin won't succeed in doing the same. Though them doing so using relatives feels unlikely, they might attempt something similar in a political sense.
True enough. It's not my preferred solution, either. And like you say, it's up to chance whether it actually changes anything.
But NK had a system around passing on the dictatorship. As for the stability of their regime, it's hard to know.
It's a much smaller country and from what has been seen, everything is set up in just such a way that a dictatorship can stay stable. And Kim Jong-un isn't rocking the boat by doing stupid things like, say, attempting to annex a neighbour.
While Putin's death may or may not change things, he seems to have put little effort into preparing for it. Worst case, someone exactly like him but younger seamlessly steps into the power vacuum. But they need to be just as skilled in identifying when and where to apply pressure to stay in power, for there be no change in stability.
I'm making the point that Putin seems to think he can rule forever. Worse than that, in his old age, he is taking on giant risky projects, one of which is a literal war. If still in progress when a transfer of power occurs, they massively increase the risk of something going wrong in the machine that is his regime.
And yes that can mean the result is something better, but also something worse.
My point is that building governments like those of Russia and China is a self-defeating exercise, where in order to stay in control more and more action must be taken. But the more action is necessary, the more precarious the control becomes. (At least until tech changes things by a lot more than it already has)
Nobody tell this guy about Russia and Chinas governing systems prior to the 1900s lmao
Right because their current regimes have existed uninterrupted since the dawn of civilization.
Unfortunately I'm not trying to say that improvement is inevitable, but rather that no regime lasts forever. Even when they manage to become dynasties, they collapse eventually.
Usually sooner, if they're really shitty. Whether what follows is an improvement, wasn't something I even commented on.
Dictators, monarchies, etc. systems have been the bread and butter of the world for the longest amount of time.
You can’t possibly be arguing against that. Especially Japan and China.
I'm not. What made you think I was?
The fact that you edited the comment after the fact? Didn’t see the edit, thanks for clarifying
I wasn't asking about my reply, but which part of my initial comment made you think the words you tried to put in my mouth would fit there?
Calm down, I didn’t claim you said anything, which therefore makes you paranoid and a hypocrite.
Did you expect to crack wise at my expense without me telling you off?
I'd love for you to elaborate on my alleged hypocrisy.
You’re putting words in my mouth.
Which makes you a hypocrite.
What words would those be?
All I think you're guilty of, is making a comment assuming ignorance on something I do know, and then another assuming I hold a stance I clearly don't.
Am I wrong?
I don’t know how much clearer I can be with you. The words you put in my mouth were that I was putting words in your mouth. Follow?
I wasn’t doing that. Which therefore means you put words in my mouth and that would make you a hipocrit.
You also edited your comment while I was responding which went from
(Loosely worded not a direct quote ;)
“yeah because those civilizations havent been around since the dawn of civilization”
To including content after that sentence which I had originally read as sarcasm. Are we caught up now
Yes. I did not realize your interpretation did a 180.
I was still questioning how that first interpretation arose in the first place, considering the context of my first comment. I thought it more illustrative of what kind of ideas I have, and that it would have excluded such a conclusion on your part.
I didn't like you shifting my words away from what I actually wanted said with a jovial comment that undermines my credibility without even forwarding any relevant points like the guy mentioning NK.
I can sympathize with that, nobody likes to be misrepresented. My bad man.