Some people admire Vladimir Putin for what they believe is his manliness. Such was the case a year ago. Paul Krugman writes:
Putin was their idea of what a powerful man should look like, and Russia, with its muscleman military vision, their idea of a powerful country.
It should have been obvious from the beginning that this worldview was all wrong. National power in the modern world rests mainly on economic strength and technological capacity, not military prowess.
In the 21st century, manliness doesn't win wars:
Modern wars aren’t won by strutting guys flexing their biceps. They’re won mainly through logistics, technology and intelligence (in both the military and the ordinary senses) — things, it turns out, that Russia does badly and Ukraine does surprisingly well. (It’s not just Western weapons, although these have been awesomely effective; the Ukrainians have also shown a real talent for MacGyvering solutions to their military needs.)
But character does make a difference:
Just to be clear, wars are still hell and can’t be won, even with superior weapons, without immense courage and endurance. But these are also qualities Ukrainians — men and women — turn out to have in remarkable abundance.
The problem is that the Right confuses manliness with courage:
The key to understanding right-wingers’ growing Ukraine rage is that Russia’s failures don’t just show that a leader they idolized has feet of clay. They also show that their whole tough-guy view about the nature of power is wrong. And they’re having a hard time coping.
Putin is “winning the war in Ukraine,” declared Tucker Carlson on Aug. 29, just days before several Ukrainian victories. There’s still a lot of hype about a huge Russian offensive this winter; the truth, however, is that this offensive is already underway, but as one Ukrainian official put it, it has achieved so little “that not everyone even sees it.”
This doesn't mean that Ukraine is out of the woods. It takes real courage to be in for the long haul. One year ago, some were claiming that Putin would walk into Kyiv in three days. So far, he hasn't succeeded.
Image: Agence France Press
18 comments:
I reason that Putin can't be described as being "manly" as much as being a guy suffering something akin to the Napoleon condition
"It is believed shorter men are more prone to loud, ostentatious, even aggressive behaviour. Like Napoleon, they might have grandiose plans and ambitions, notoriously trying to achieve a dominating position. It is almost as if they are in constant competition with other men, to prove their worth. To show that despite their small height they still offer value. This behaviour might become obsessive and prevent people from developing healthy relationships".
I agree with your analysis, zoombats. Putin is a little dog who wants to be a big dog.
Big things have to happen when the job is run by a little tyrant with the runt complex.
Best part of the whole war was when Sean Penn "awarded" 'lil Z his Oscar for best actor under the "symbol of faith" category.
BEST ACTOR AWARD...lmao.
"lil Zs' military resume begins and ends with his endless Rockstar "go fund me campaign" in a military t-shirt
And as usual Nato is winning the propaganda war in the west; MSM exaggerating the wins and burying the rest, news bite by news bite, until we know exactly what they want us to know and repeat it as truth in armchair analysis pieces ... reality need not intrude.
The war will end the day that blue and yellow quit making green ... oh that sweet american green.
It's all about over compensation, John.
I understand your cynicism, lungta. But Putin is the villain here.
I am gobsmacked by Krugman’s ignorance and your championing of it.
Face bloody facts. Putin has been wearing a suit and tie in public for years. Does this ‘economist’ not see this or can he not get over the bare chested horseback riding thing from what, twenty years ago.
It is so obvious the runt Zelensky he barely comes up to Biden’s armpit, in his tight fitting Tshirt, his phone tough guy image In that shameful Vogue spread is actually the one fitting Krugman’s description to a tee. Even decrepit old Joe himself plays the tough guy much more than Vladimir Putin. Maybe you should actually watch Putin give a speech. He is calm, reasoned and straightforward.
I’ll tell you what. This bullshit demonization of Putin that has reached delusional levels in the collective West is not going to win that war either. And you can take that to the bank! Mac
Putin is far from being a villain. He is a nationalist leader of an independent country that sees the West as anxious to destroy it.
Don’t believe me??? Just read what the German, French, Estonian, Latvian, American, and - yes - Canadian leaders have been saying. Neo-fascists all. The war in Ukraine was started in 2008 - puttered- then was reignited in 2014.
Russia responded in 2021 and gosh golly was accused of starting a war of aggression when Ukraine has their army ready to invade the Donbas. Logic fails on that one.
Look at the long history here. The antagonism against Russia goes back to the 1800s, if not further.
The West is the aggressor and always has been.
I'll let you make the deposit, Mac. I won't.
We disagree, Anon -- profoundly. Please initial your next comment.
I was going to ask if your posts on Ukraine still attracted the tankies, but the comments above answered that already.
I don’t entirely agree with Krugman here. Military prowess does still count for national power. The point is that said prowess is linked to the economic strength and technological capacity, and it always has been. It is also about governance. Part of the reason Russia’s invasion fell apart so quickly was because the country is a corrupt oligarchy, and that extended to its military. The equipment wasn’t maintained properly so they could skim the budget and troop strength was over counted compared to reality so people could pocket the extra pay. So their equipment broke down and they had insufficient infantry to cover the vehicles that did work. (Noticeably, this was less of a problem in areas like the Donbas and Crimea, where actual combat or combat experience had driven home the importance of not just looking intimidating on parade.) But I will say he is right on the whole. Bluster, bragging and machismo may impress some people, and convince you that the people who don’t display such acts are weak as a result, but they don’t win wars. Sadly, I think we will have a long wait to see just how much death and destruction Putin will subject the Ukrainians and his own people to as a result of that.
Autocracy destroys competence, BJ-- economic competence, technological competence, and military competence. The competent are those who will rise in opposition.
BrianB
One misstatement, Stalin was a butcher and there was some Soviet aggression- usually in response to US aggression.
Height attacks are essentially ad hominem attacks or projection. Putin is a nationalist and acts accordingly. The West simply does not understand the Slavic world view.
BrianB
The Cold War was pretty nasty, Brian. We tend to forget that.
Cold War was ugly. West equally guilty of the stooopid of the Cold War.
Please inital your next comment, Anon.
Your last statement is a sweeping generalization, Brian
Post a Comment