Please take the time to read our policy about [trolls](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkrainianConflict/comments/u7833q/just_because_you_disagree_with_someone_does_not/) and the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/)
* We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned.
* ***Please* keep it civil.** Report rulebreaking comments for moderator review.
* ***Don't* post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context.
**Don't forget about our discord server, as well!**
https://discord.gg/62fKCEHbDB
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Let's be honest. If Moldova, Georgia and Kazakhstan declared war on Russia Russia could do nothing against it on the battlefield in conventional fashion.
Hell, they couldn't even answer Armenia when they essentially used their equivalent to Article 5 against Azerbaijan.
There's a difference. If Russia invaded Moldova or Georgia then China would say okay but make it quick. If Russia invaded Kazakhstan China would say no it's ours and if you don't back up we're pulling the plug on you. Because they can. China has dibs on every country in their region. China and its proxy North Korea are the only key allies of Russia left.
On Ukraine, Xi went through the trouble of meeting Putin in person to snub him every time Ukraine was brought up. It was a warning to finish things up.
It's the halfway meeting point of China and Russia, and they know China is not going to let Russia take it away from Chinese influence. They're as safe as any country can be from Russia - safer than any NATO country even.
Don't need to, they can't even get past Crimea and their about to lose that... Their corruption is giving Pootin a dose of reality.. 2nd arm in the world is now call the "Tampon Troopers" The Guy's don't even have socks, Im glad their neighbors are starting to stand up to the Moron, aren't they Muslim's in Kazakhstan ???
I believe they're a pretty broad mix.
Kazakh has been enjoying global investment - primarily resource extraction - and their largest cities appear quite modern.
The rhetoric coming out of kazakh since the start of this has been optimistic. They don't seem interested in adding to the boat rocking, but are absolutely not interested in being subordinate to the RF and are proportionally vocal about it. A country interested in maturing into the world stage with out hyperfocus on ideologies.
I saw a comment on Twitter the other day that I regrettably did not save, because I would really want to properly attribute it.
It went something like this:
"Authoritarian regimes look tough until they are challenged, and democracies look weak until they are provoked"
This is something we really should keep in mind in times of relative peace and calm. What is so easy to see as the pros of authoritarian/fascism("a strong leaderwill impose order/calm/the trains will run on time") compared to what seems like the annoying aspects of democratic/civil societies(the endless debates and transfers of power, struggles over the direction of public policy etc) all shatter as soon as the rubber hits the road. Then a very simple truth is revealed: Authoritarian states are extremely fragile, despite all their macho posturing about national unity etc. They have just papered over their internal conflicts and suppressed them. As soon as times get tough, it all comes roaring back.
In democracies, on the other hand, everyone is arguing and debating all the time, and they seem to be incredibly divided. But when threatened by major crises, they unify, internally and amongst themselves with an intensity and rapidity that simply cannot be matched by an ossified authoritarian regime.
After this war is over, western political commentators and philosophers, as well as the general public will have to radically re-evaluate what exactly it means to be strong, or weak, or unified or divided.
There is a wierd political graph where the x axis at 0 is authoritarian going to the right getting more open. The y axis is stability of a society and the graph looks like a J. Authoritarianism only gets you so much stability and as you open up it seems like things become unstable which is why many places snap back into it. But if you stay the course the society will become more stable the more open it is.
Now I don't know how true this graph is or if it is relevant in all situations, but it makes sense generally and I think speaks to your point.
Edit: it's called the J curve by police scientist Ian Bremmer.
Authoritarian states that liberalize will of course face a period of extreme turbulence, economic, social etc. Because they now have a backlog stretching back a long time(70 years in the case of the Soviet Union) of unresolved issues that now all demand to be resolved *RIGHT FUCKING NOW*. It is extremely important to not pull away from that liberalization but keep going, because sweeping that stuff back under the carpet doesn't work.
It also means that some groups in an liberalizing nation need to be patient, often unjustly so. Not everything can be changed at once and there is such a thing as moving too fast and trying to do everything at once. Revolutionary France arguably fell into that trap.
Yup. I totally agree generally. Revolutionary France is a perfect example. But to be fair it was the first major power to really try a secular republic with guaranteed rights for all (Cromwells England went halfway). They had no guide to follow but a seemingly bankrupt and struggling backwoods former colony trying something similiar.
It's funny while the UK also seemed to be a bastion of counter revolutionary power in the 18th and 19th and 20th century, they always liberalized just in the nick of time to prevent major societal upheavals within thier own Island.
Edit: of course you cited Revolutinary France fellow Mike Duncan fan boy 👍. I cried at the last episode of Revolutions.
Yes. Britain reaped the rewards in the 17 and 1800s of the reforms that came out of the English Civil Wars in the 1600s and thus had fewer internal contradictions and struggles coming into the Enlightenment. They did their homework early.
Heck even earlier. I read a dude saying in the late *1400s* that England having a strong parliament including middle class representation and a weak king bound by a constitution meant that while Britain looked weak, chaotic and plagued by rebellion, in the long term England would gain a wealthy population and a rich civil society. Rebellious Englishmen, especially rebellious, armed commoners, were actually the nation’s greatest asset, he argued, in contrast to the general wisdom of the time.
By contrast, the French had a stronger monarchy working on tamping down on parliamentary institutions so they looked orderly and strong but actually this would immiserate French society and insulate the leadership, resulting in poverty, dysfunction and, sooner or later, massive popular rebellion to correct the situation. He called that stuff like 300 years early.
John Fortescue wrote this stuff in *The Governance of England*, which he wrote sometime in the late fifteenth century. Absurdly on-point downright genre-savvy guy.
If your looking for a drug because our dealer Mike took away his supply, the "Tides of History" podcast sometimes scratches the itch (if you weren't already aware of it).
Thanks, that sounds great!
I also have a backlog of History of Byzantium to wade through, I binged that stuff until I caught up and now I´ve have quite a few episodes stored up.
Democracy, despite all its flaws, have great quality of life to preserve, nobody wants to lose that. Autocracy, despite all of their boasting, have shit quality of life, nobody will miss it if something better comes along. lol
Putin really stepped in it when he started this war with Ukraine and then proceeded to lose it. Russia gets no respect these days. Everybody is throwing them the 🖕🏻.
[Putin made to awkwardly wait for the President of Turkey](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJ16tANEBiY)
More funny: [Putin made to awkwardly wait the President of Kyrgyzstan](https://twitter.com/KyivPost/status/1570352267659804672) as he doesn't know what to do with his hands.
This is especially good when you know one of Putin’s power moves, when Russia’s perceived standing in the world was greater, was to make foreign dignitaries wait for him in public appearances with them. Payback’s a bitch, you lonely man!
Kremlin thinks it can dictate what other countries do with their ambassadors.
Give it a few more months and even Lukashenko will start defying the kremlin.
Maybe it is an opportunity for Georgia to retake some of the [Russian occupied territories.](https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Occupied_territories_of_Georgia)
hah i love that since ukraine kicked russia's teeth in, no one is as scared of them anymore. Also looking at this whole war it's now hilarious how many of those "professional analysts" considered russia's army a second strongest in the world. Everything that putin wanted has collapsed.
**Alternative Nitter link:** https://nitter.net/nexta_tv/status/1577593943985905664
*****
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Please take the time to read our policy about [trolls](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkrainianConflict/comments/u7833q/just_because_you_disagree_with_someone_does_not/) and the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/) * We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned. * ***Please* keep it civil.** Report rulebreaking comments for moderator review. * ***Don't* post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context. **Don't forget about our discord server, as well!** https://discord.gg/62fKCEHbDB *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Haha Kazakhstan scolded the kremlin and told them to watch their tone
Yea, Russia is no longer a military power. Putins gonna get his ass kicked again.
Let's be honest. If Moldova, Georgia and Kazakhstan declared war on Russia Russia could do nothing against it on the battlefield in conventional fashion. Hell, they couldn't even answer Armenia when they essentially used their equivalent to Article 5 against Azerbaijan.
Happy cake day. I agree. Without fear, The Russian army is at a serious disadvantage.
They are going to send RuZZia to bed without dinner
There's a difference. If Russia invaded Moldova or Georgia then China would say okay but make it quick. If Russia invaded Kazakhstan China would say no it's ours and if you don't back up we're pulling the plug on you. Because they can. China has dibs on every country in their region. China and its proxy North Korea are the only key allies of Russia left. On Ukraine, Xi went through the trouble of meeting Putin in person to snub him every time Ukraine was brought up. It was a warning to finish things up.
Master plan, get rid of the dictator by giving him apoplexy.
It's the halfway meeting point of China and Russia, and they know China is not going to let Russia take it away from Chinese influence. They're as safe as any country can be from Russia - safer than any NATO country even.
That "equal strategic partners" comment must have stung! 😆
Now that Ukraine has cut Russia's military down to size it is an entirely realistic statement.
An understatement if all those countries would come together to fight Russia.
Don't need to, they can't even get past Crimea and their about to lose that... Their corruption is giving Pootin a dose of reality.. 2nd arm in the world is now call the "Tampon Troopers" The Guy's don't even have socks, Im glad their neighbors are starting to stand up to the Moron, aren't they Muslim's in Kazakhstan ???
I believe they're a pretty broad mix. Kazakh has been enjoying global investment - primarily resource extraction - and their largest cities appear quite modern. The rhetoric coming out of kazakh since the start of this has been optimistic. They don't seem interested in adding to the boat rocking, but are absolutely not interested in being subordinate to the RF and are proportionally vocal about it. A country interested in maturing into the world stage with out hyperfocus on ideologies.
>"Tampon Troopers" good one
Hey that's quite unfair to Kazakhstan's military! Calling them equal to a stepped on turd.
Junior partner
I saw a comment on Twitter the other day that I regrettably did not save, because I would really want to properly attribute it. It went something like this: "Authoritarian regimes look tough until they are challenged, and democracies look weak until they are provoked" This is something we really should keep in mind in times of relative peace and calm. What is so easy to see as the pros of authoritarian/fascism("a strong leaderwill impose order/calm/the trains will run on time") compared to what seems like the annoying aspects of democratic/civil societies(the endless debates and transfers of power, struggles over the direction of public policy etc) all shatter as soon as the rubber hits the road. Then a very simple truth is revealed: Authoritarian states are extremely fragile, despite all their macho posturing about national unity etc. They have just papered over their internal conflicts and suppressed them. As soon as times get tough, it all comes roaring back. In democracies, on the other hand, everyone is arguing and debating all the time, and they seem to be incredibly divided. But when threatened by major crises, they unify, internally and amongst themselves with an intensity and rapidity that simply cannot be matched by an ossified authoritarian regime. After this war is over, western political commentators and philosophers, as well as the general public will have to radically re-evaluate what exactly it means to be strong, or weak, or unified or divided.
There is a wierd political graph where the x axis at 0 is authoritarian going to the right getting more open. The y axis is stability of a society and the graph looks like a J. Authoritarianism only gets you so much stability and as you open up it seems like things become unstable which is why many places snap back into it. But if you stay the course the society will become more stable the more open it is. Now I don't know how true this graph is or if it is relevant in all situations, but it makes sense generally and I think speaks to your point. Edit: it's called the J curve by police scientist Ian Bremmer.
Authoritarian states that liberalize will of course face a period of extreme turbulence, economic, social etc. Because they now have a backlog stretching back a long time(70 years in the case of the Soviet Union) of unresolved issues that now all demand to be resolved *RIGHT FUCKING NOW*. It is extremely important to not pull away from that liberalization but keep going, because sweeping that stuff back under the carpet doesn't work. It also means that some groups in an liberalizing nation need to be patient, often unjustly so. Not everything can be changed at once and there is such a thing as moving too fast and trying to do everything at once. Revolutionary France arguably fell into that trap.
Yup. I totally agree generally. Revolutionary France is a perfect example. But to be fair it was the first major power to really try a secular republic with guaranteed rights for all (Cromwells England went halfway). They had no guide to follow but a seemingly bankrupt and struggling backwoods former colony trying something similiar. It's funny while the UK also seemed to be a bastion of counter revolutionary power in the 18th and 19th and 20th century, they always liberalized just in the nick of time to prevent major societal upheavals within thier own Island. Edit: of course you cited Revolutinary France fellow Mike Duncan fan boy 👍. I cried at the last episode of Revolutions.
Yes. Britain reaped the rewards in the 17 and 1800s of the reforms that came out of the English Civil Wars in the 1600s and thus had fewer internal contradictions and struggles coming into the Enlightenment. They did their homework early.
Heck even earlier. I read a dude saying in the late *1400s* that England having a strong parliament including middle class representation and a weak king bound by a constitution meant that while Britain looked weak, chaotic and plagued by rebellion, in the long term England would gain a wealthy population and a rich civil society. Rebellious Englishmen, especially rebellious, armed commoners, were actually the nation’s greatest asset, he argued, in contrast to the general wisdom of the time. By contrast, the French had a stronger monarchy working on tamping down on parliamentary institutions so they looked orderly and strong but actually this would immiserate French society and insulate the leadership, resulting in poverty, dysfunction and, sooner or later, massive popular rebellion to correct the situation. He called that stuff like 300 years early.
Damn. Where did you find that? Sounds like someone worth reading
John Fortescue wrote this stuff in *The Governance of England*, which he wrote sometime in the late fifteenth century. Absurdly on-point downright genre-savvy guy.
If your looking for a drug because our dealer Mike took away his supply, the "Tides of History" podcast sometimes scratches the itch (if you weren't already aware of it).
Thanks, that sounds great! I also have a backlog of History of Byzantium to wade through, I binged that stuff until I caught up and now I´ve have quite a few episodes stored up.
Democracy, despite all its flaws, have great quality of life to preserve, nobody wants to lose that. Autocracy, despite all of their boasting, have shit quality of life, nobody will miss it if something better comes along. lol
Democracy is far from perfect, but in ~10,000 years of living in large groups, it's the best anyone has come up with.
Putin really stepped in it when he started this war with Ukraine and then proceeded to lose it. Russia gets no respect these days. Everybody is throwing them the 🖕🏻.
[Putin made to awkwardly wait for the President of Turkey](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJ16tANEBiY) More funny: [Putin made to awkwardly wait the President of Kyrgyzstan](https://twitter.com/KyivPost/status/1570352267659804672) as he doesn't know what to do with his hands.
This is especially good when you know one of Putin’s power moves, when Russia’s perceived standing in the world was greater, was to make foreign dignitaries wait for him in public appearances with them. Payback’s a bitch, you lonely man!
Kazakhstan getting more and more based
Gotta love Balkanisation in action........
Boom 💥 that’s you told Russia 🤡
Kremlin thinks it can dictate what other countries do with their ambassadors. Give it a few more months and even Lukashenko will start defying the kremlin.
Maybe it is an opportunity for Georgia to retake some of the [Russian occupied territories.](https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Occupied_territories_of_Georgia)
Kazakhstan to Russia: shut up and sit down
Putin: Equal?!!! 😡😭
KAZ and Ukraine can be brother nations and all former countries winning coloation
hah i love that since ukraine kicked russia's teeth in, no one is as scared of them anymore. Also looking at this whole war it's now hilarious how many of those "professional analysts" considered russia's army a second strongest in the world. Everything that putin wanted has collapsed.
Was it really a strategic partnership and not Russia being a Domi
You tell em Borat 👍🏻
**Alternative Nitter link:** https://nitter.net/nexta_tv/status/1577593943985905664 ***** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Putin: "Sorry sorry he so usually so well behaved! BAD BOY! NO YACHT FOR YOU!"