They did it before In Moscow 20 years ago or so, they did it in Kiev just a decade ago. They did it in Romania after the fall. They did it in Beijing when GW stood by. They did it in Tehran and overthrew the Shah. Etc etc.
I think it was posted here a few days ago, there was a video explaining how Putin has invested tons of money into internal security police to control the population. He has taken it to a degree never seen before. The population is incapable of rising up to any extent until the security police are weakened.
In Sweden for example, The Swedish Social Democratic Party held government power uninterruptedly from 1936 to 1976. And with the exception for three years they also held power between 1982 and 2006. Even if the political right have held government intermittently since 1976, the Swedish political right has always risked loosing to the Social Democrats in probably all elections. Therefore they have always had to attune their political platforms to the one of the Social Democrats. Up until 1992 the Swedish Social Democratic Party basically shaped Sweden into what it is today (with the exception being the 1992 so called 'free school reform' – or whatever that is called in English...).
Sources:
en.wikipedia.org
On this page you find information about Socialdemokraterna, The Swedish Social Democratic Party, in languages other than Swedish.
www.socialdemokraterna.se
I have talked in the past about how in American politics one party sets the narrative for 30-40 years and the other party has to adopt the language of the party controlling the narrative to get anywhere at all. The last time the narrative changed definitively was with Reagan, though I think it's changing now. But from the early 80s until recently the Democrats had to adopt Republican talking points to get anywhere. Before that there was over 40 years of New Deal politics controlled by the Democrats (established by Roosevelt in the 30s) and the Republicans had to adapt.
It appears from what you say that in Sweden the Social Democrats have controlled the narrative since the 30s.
I wanted to just flag your post as a dislike. But it needs a rebuttal. This will be the last time I will try to shed light on the "workers' paradise". For your information, post 1944 the Social-Democrats in the former soviet block shared the same communist prison cells with the Christian-Democrats or similar. Both center-left and center-right democratic parties were made illegal and most of their leadership was arrested; a lot died in prisons. Amazingly a lot of the former extreme right made it out just fine; dropping the "national" part and keeping the "socialist" one worked well for quite a few of the lower level former nazi or similar. Every repressive regime needs more torturers, why waste the ones already trained?
Honestly I think our conflict of ideas can be summarized as following: you think social-democracy=socialism. I think communism=socialism.
All the eastern block states were self described as socialist states building communism. So forgive me when I say you are either sadly misinformed or ignorant of the reality behind Iron Curtain 1944-1989. I can provide you with plenty of legit literature to show you what "socialism" meant there. Socialism in the West Europe was the exception not the rule. Almost everywhere else socialism was synonymous with oppression of the civil society. Judging from the track record of the communism in Western Europe too, world should be happy that they never managed to get a real base. Do you remember the Italy's Red Brigades, or Germany's Red Army Faction, or France's Action Directe or Ireland's INLA? All of them financed, trained and supported by the socialist/communist regimes of the Eastern block. I can provide you with plenty of examples across multiple eastern block countries supporting this but I will keep it out of the thread as there have been enough tangents. Private message me if you want details backed by literature. I will not post again on this topic
Returning to the main topic, please note that if you dig deep in the history the of current hardcore supporters of Putin's/Russia's invasion of Ukraine on twitter/FB/etc, you will discover than other than the obvious bots (who just started posting last month but now have 100s of posts daily), there are exactly 2 groups: extreme-left (communists from pretty much everywhere) and extreme-right (russian nationalists or from other pro-totalitarian groups). Isn't this amazing? History doesn't necessarily repeat but sure enough it follows the same pattern... Why do you think Putin made sure that all pro-democratic internal opposition was destroyed? Both center-left and center-right? Putin is the real descendant of Hitler's policies in the 21st century... In the whole modern history extreme-right and extreme-left had always managed to shake hands behind the back of democracy. It hasn't stopped.
I agree with you that Putin is the modern Hitler. "Putin" may become the go to term for everything evil in the coming years.
I can see you were very traumatized by your childhood in the USSR and you appear to possibly have PTSD from it. I don't blame you, any rational person would have it from your experiences. I'm very thankful that I didn't grow up in that version of hell and I wish nobody had to.
What's being discussed here is what different cultures and people from those cultures go to when they hear the word "socialism". What passed for socialism behind the Iron Curtain is different from what was called socialism in Europe outside the Iron Curtain. People are shaped by their experiences.
Here in the US the communism=socialism thing was pushed by politicians who did not want to see the US become more like Western Europe with its extensive social safety nets. For the generations who grew up with the USSR being the "evil empire" that meme is still there.
When people hear the term, their minds go to different places. For you it's a version of hell you lived through, others think of something different.
I hear this all the time. Putin waiting until Trump leaves because trump was so "loyal" and a Putin "lackey", etc. I truly don't understand this. I would assume if Trump was in Putin's pocket, Putin should invade when Trump was in office. Lets assume Bide is smart and intelligent, and hates Russia -- wouldn't it be 100x harder for Putin to invade NOW, than under Trump assuming as people say, Trump is stupid, less intelligent, etc..
In other words, common sense (occams razor) would say invade while trump is in office. He's Putins lackey and wouldn't do anything. After all, all the media hates him - he probably wouldn't even have the political capital. Trump would not send weapons (as Biden is doing now) to Ukraine. Trump would not bring up the specter of WW3 to galvanize opposition to Putin or even entertain the idea of a "no fly zone". Trump would basically be a Neville Chamberlain gas lighting the American public as best as he can to do nothing while doing nothing. Contrast this to Biden who is somewhat of a war hawk fighting for "what is right" - a more dangerous enemy for Putin (if we are to believe the media).
Sun Tzu in the book the "art of war" says to fight when the enemy is at it's weakest, and to by pass and/or wait out your enemies when they are at their strongest. How can people reconcile this if the USA was at it's weakest under Trump? ... and the USA is at it's strongest under Biden. This idea flies against military doctrine.
This invasion is driven by something shifting in Putin's mind over the last 2 years. He has isolated himself profoundly over the last two years and he's only been listening to two people, one someone who is obsessed with the history of 1600s Russia and the other a Russian Orthodox mystic with some weird ideas about Russia's place in the world.
Historically Putin has been careful with his territorial ambitions and only bitten off what his military could grab in a short campaign. This war is very uncharacteristic for him. It's a hail mary pass campaign that failed miserably.
Putin also knows what the real election results were for the most recent elections and I think there were signs he is losing his iron grip over the population. Dissent has been growing in recent years and he thought a wag the dog campaign of glorious conquest would restore his power and shut of the dissenters. He is supposed to stand for re-election in (I think) 2024 and he wanted to be able to point to the "glorious" conquest of the break away province of Ukraine as his crowning glory.
What happened in the 2020 election in the US was probably not a major factor in his calculations. He thought Trump had fatally weakened NATO for him and he dismissed Biden as a senile old fool. To someone like Putin Biden's style is seen as weak. Most strongmen would discount Biden as weak. But politicians like Biden can be strong where it counts too, it's just so far outside the authoritarian's playbook that they don't see the strength there.
