Dear David,

Thank you, and here I was believing that successful autocrats boosted their popularity by eliminating their opponents and critics. As a morbidly curious regular viewer of the SBS weekend Nazi hour, I feel that Putin has studied their methods very closely.

Once Russia has been humiliated and forced to withdraw, then Ukraine should be admitted to NATO.

Foxy wrote: "I feel so sorry for what's happening to the Russian people
under Putin."

Yes, me also but not just under Putin.

By sheer chance I happened to be in Moscow in March 1985 when Chernenko died and Gorbachev took over. I well remember the elation of those Russians I knew that finally the country was destined to exit the doldrums of the suffocating Brezhnev era and would modernise to the benefit of the people. They looked forward to knew thinking, a freer market, opening to the west and an end to the Afghan adventure. By this time Russians, at least those in Moscow, were aware of the massive difference in standards of living in the west as compared to the motherland, and believed that Gorbachev's new broom would shrink that difference.

Even at the time, I thought that they were way too optimistic and naive as to how big the task facing them was. Not just me, I read many a western expert on Russia who also saw this.

/cont

/cont

It didn't take too many years before the people were disabused of this naivety. Unfortunately, the natural Russian reaction to this was to seek out new, more authoritarian leadership. Remember that the Rus people have basically been ruled by authoritarian leaders for 1000 years and it is natural for them to acquiesce to authority. Following the failures of Gorbachev, who sought to implement a free market in goods and ideas without ceding any power, it was inevitable that Russia would seek out a new authoritarian leadership. Just as they had in 1917 when they had a window of opportunity to develop a democracy but instead chose to replace one Tsar (Nicholas) with another (Lenin) they ultimately sought to revert to the relative comfort (for them) of a strong leader in Putin.

I don't for a moment fall for the claims that Putin has 80-odd% support, but I do think he has a level of support that most western leaders would envy. Its in the nature and tradition of Russia to love their leaders (there was mass hysteria when Stalin died). My feeling from my Russia contacts is that they (or at least a majority) recognise that standards of living are low as compared to the west and are falling further behind but that they are prepared to accept that if it means they can retain the relative surety of strong leadership.

Putin and his entourage may not survive this war. But we ought not be too sanguine about what follows.

Fester wrote: "As for AC failing some Socratic test, I am of the belief that Socrates seemed far more interested in understanding why people believed what they did and saw arguments more as discussions between friends and colleagues."

I wasn't setting him up for a Socratic test, just poking fun at the level of argument that descended to "Blah-blah-blah-blah bleh-bleh-bleh-bleh-bleh".

As to Socrates, I'm not so sure he was interested in "understanding why people believed what they did" and more interested in getting them to understand the contradictions in their views. By asking questions about their thoughts and coming at issues from different directions, the aim was to show those contradictions and then led to a better more consistent position. It was more of a cross-examination than a discussion. I'm sure Socrates would have seen it as friendly banter, but few people enjoy having their fondest views exposed and take offence at being exposed. Which ultimately leads to a cup of hemlock.

Winston Churchill defined Russia as - "A riddle, wrapped
in a mystery, inside an enigma." He said these words in
1939 and they spoke eloquently to the Western sense of
Moscow as the "other". They spoke of an inscrutable and
menacing land that plays by its own rules, usually to the
detriment of those who choose more open regulation.

We've seen from recent events at both NATO and the UN the
re-affirmation of that sense of "otherness". From Putin's
viewpoint NATO has been a meddlesome force extending
influence within what used to be the Soviet fief. That
rankles with Moscow. Imperial memory is a powerful
force.

By projecting itself as a pole of opposition to Western plans
Moscow is offering itself as an alternate - as much the
"other" as in 1939.

Perhaps there is a key to the riddle of Russia. That key is
Russia's national interest. And Putin knows how to play
that game very well. However Europe also has some leverage.

Europe is a force not only for revenue but also for vital
technology and investment to broaden and develop Russia's
economy. However experts warn that divisions over dealings
with Moscow leave the West
vulnerable to the Kremlin's manipulations.

Tony Hayward of BP years ago - when asked what advice would he give
to companies dealing with the Kremlin?
"My advice," he said, "Would be tread with caution."

That applies even more today.