Friday, March 11, 2022

Soros' World Views

 

GEORGE SOROS, "Vladimir Putin and the Risk of World War III"

After receiving a green light from Chinese President Xi Jinping, Russian President Vladimir Putin launched his war in Ukraine in an effort to reclaim the old Russian empire. But both leaders appear to have misjudged the situation, raising the prospect of a global catastrophe – unless they are removed from power.


Mar 11, 2022 SAN FRANCISCO – Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on February 24 was the beginning of a third world war that has the potential to destroy our civilization. The invasion was preceded by a long meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping on February 4 – the beginning of the Chinese Lunar New Year celebrations and the Beijing Winter Olympic Games. At the end of that meeting, the two men released a 5,000-word, carefully drafted document announcing a close partnership between their two countries. The document is stronger than any treaty and must have required detailed negotiations in advance.

I was surprised that Xi appeared to have given Putin carte blanche to invade and wage war against Ukraine. He must be very confident that his confirmation as China’s ruler for life later this year will be a mere formality. Having concentrated all power in his own hands, Xi has carefully scripted the scenario by which he will be elevated to the level of Mao Zedong and Deng Xiaoping.

Having obtained Xi’s backing, Putin set about realizing his life’s dream with incredible brutality. Approaching the age of 70, Putin feels that if he is going to make his mark on Russian history, it is now or never. But his concept of Russia’s role in the world is warped. He seems to believe that the Russian people need a Czar whom they can follow blindly. That is the direct opposite of a democratic society, and it is a vision that distorts the Russian “soul,” which is emotional to the point of sentimentality.

As a child, I had many encounters with Russian soldiers when they occupied Hungary in 1945. I learned that they would share their last piece of bread with you if you appealed to them. Later, at the beginning of the 1980s, I embarked on what I call my political philanthropy.

First, I set up a foundation in my native Hungary, and then I actively participated in the disintegration of the Soviet empire. When Mikhail Gorbachev came to power in 1985, the disintegration had already begun. I set up a foundation in Russia, and then did the same in each of the successor states. In Ukraine, I established a foundation even before it became an independent country. I also visited China in 1984, where I was the first foreigner allowed to set up a foundation (which I closed in 1989, just before the Tiananmen Square massacre).

I don’t know Putin personally, but I have watched his rise very closely, aware of his ruthlessness. He reduced the capital of Chechnya, Grozny, to rubble, just as he is currently threatening to do to the capital of Ukraine, Kyiv.

Putin used to be a canny KGB operator, but he seems to have changed recently. Having developed an idée fixe, he appears to have lost touch with reality. He certainly misjudged the situation in Ukraine. He expected Russian-speaking Ukrainians to welcome Russian soldiers with open arms, but they turned out to be no different from the Ukrainian-speaking population. Ukrainians have put up an incredibly brave resistance against seemingly overwhelming odds.

In July 2021, Putin published a long essay arguing that Russians and Ukrainians are really one people, and that the Ukrainians have been misled by neo-Nazi agitators. The first part of his argument is not without some historical justification, given that Kyiv was the original seat of the Russian Orthodox Church. But in the second part, it was Putin who was misled. He ought to have known better. Many Ukrainians fought valiantly during the Euromaidan protests in 2014.

The events of 2014 made him very angry. But the Russian army performed poorly when it was ordered to attack its Ukrainian brothers. Ingrained corruption in the awarding of defense contracts also has played an important role in its underperformance. Yet rather than blaming himself, Putin seems to have gone literally mad. He has decided to punish Ukraine for standing up to him, and he appears to be acting without any constraint. He is throwing the entire Russian army into the battle and ignoring all the rules of war, not least by indiscriminately bombing the civilian population. Many hospitals have been hit, and the electrical grid supplying the Chernobyl nuclear power plant (currently occupied by Russian troops) has been damaged. In besieged Mariupol, 400,000 people have been without water and food for nearly a week.

Russia may well lose the war. The United States and the European Union are both sending defensive weapons to Ukraine, and there are efforts to buy Russian-made MIG fighters that Ukrainian pilots know how to fly. These could make all the difference. Regardless of the outcome, Putin has already worked wonders when it comes to strengthening the EU’s resolve and unity.

Meanwhile, Xi seems to have realized that Putin has gone rogue. On March 8, one day after Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi had insisted that the friendship between China and Russia remained “rock solid,” Xi called French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz to say that he supported their peacemaking efforts. He wanted maximum restraint in the war in order to avert a humanitarian crisis.

It is far from certain that Putin will accede to Xi’s wishes. We can only hope that Putin and Xi will be removed from power before they can destroy our civilization.

33 comments:

  1. That's a nice kleptocracy you have there, Putin. Be a real shame if something happened to it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'm gonna make you an offer that you can't refuse...

    ReplyDelete
  3. He obviously doesn't understand the extent of our control over the "concrete freedoms" of the global financial capital system.

    In invoking Absolute freedom... DREAMER!

    Now set his credit line to zero and make sure that the dollars he does have can only be used to process potatoes into premium top-shelf vodkas. Maybe that way, he'll learn his place.

    ReplyDelete
  4. You've never seen me. I've never seen you. Hopefully it stays that way.

    ReplyDelete
  5. It must be hell living in a "literal" land w/o figures or analogies.

    ReplyDelete
  6. What's your ultimate purpose, Don Quixote? Lone "activist"? Or do you have one?

    ReplyDelete
  7. He has a primitive belief that reading and repeating nonsense without question will make it true. It's not an uncommon trait, unfortunately. You'll know when you strike such a belief when the believer goes apeshit.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Replies
    1. Imagine a world where everybody is a clone of each other.

      So, libertarianism wouldn't work in a strawman argument.

      "Imagine cyanide tasted like Kool-Aid"

      Delete
    2. Libertarianism won't work in the real world.

      Delete
    3. Do you have a real world argument for that?

      Delete
  9. It's like saying, "Religion won't work in the real world," and then flying around Mogadishu in a helicopter trying to suppress expansion of the Islamic Courts Union.

    "Blackhawk Down! Blackhawk Down!"

    ReplyDelete
  10. It's not fair that the guy on the tricycle can't win the Indianapolis 500. Regulate!

    ReplyDelete
  11. Do you have a real world argument for that?

    See the article (linked to earlier) that you pulled the quote from.

    The author points out that "When we combine the normal distribution of luck with the economy of scale, we get a significant long term problem. A large factory or farm produce more value per dollar invested than a smaller one. This is due to economies of scale. Hence lager fortunes on average give a higher return than smaller ones".

    aka it takes money to make money. aka people born into wealth have a huge advantage. This explains why, over time, wealth concentrates at the top. To the great disadvantage of people at the bottom, as well as to the disadvantage of the rest of us. Why we MUST have wealth redistribution. Libertarianism is for people who think the US doesn't have enough people living in extreme poverty starving and dying (from treatable illnesses) and eventually revolting.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "Luck" is not the scientific explanation of a standard Pareto distribution, or anything else. "Luck" doesn't exist.

    Even worse for your article's unscientific analysis is that Pareto distributions pop up everywhere in any kind of measurable grouping, especially in a centrally-planned command economy such as posited by socialism and communism. Who gets to distribute wealth to the rest of the group? The guys with the most wealth, who will remain in control. The curve will never flatten.

    This has nothing to do with libertarian philosophy and everything to do with math. The cotton gin freed more slaves than any Yankee rifle ever did.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Your kind of idiot thinking would blame the conditions in Haiti on the Dominican Republic, or the conditions in North Korea on South Korea. The Dominican Republic and South Korea aren't what they are due to "luck."

    ReplyDelete
  14. "the people born into wealth" - who the hell is that?

    Let's look at the top 10 wealthiest people in the world...

    1. Elon Musk - from nothing to starting Zip 2, to selling off that and PayPal to create Tesla and Space X...

    2. Jeff Bezos - from a garage based used book selling website to Amazon

    3. Bernard Arnault - real estate developer that purchased Christian Dior and LVMH and managed them into the luxury and fashion powerhouses they are today over the course of nearly 50 years

    4. Bill Gates - from writing a program in math class to have a computer play Tic-Tac-Toe to developing a disk operating system (DOS) for IBM to building and marketing home computers from his garage to standardizing graphical user interfaces so that computer users didn't have to be trained computer programmers to what Microsoft is today in business offices around the world

    5. Larry Page - from middle class computer science student to the author of the Google internet search engine

    Shut your lazy ass up.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Don't even need to go through the remaining top 5. None of them are wealthy because of their parents.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Increasing benefits to workers does nothing to decrease the risk of total financial collapse.

    ReplyDelete
  17. The Guardian: Self-made billionaires including Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk made huge profits during the Covid-19 pandemic but a new report shows there’s no beating family money when it comes to getting – and staying – really, really rich.

    In 1983 the Walton family, whose patriarch Sam Walton founded Walmart, were worth $2.15bn (or $5.6bn in 2020 dollars). By the end of 2020, Walton's descendants had a combined net worth of over $247bn, an inflation-adjusted increase of 4,320%.

    The family behind some of the US's favorite candy bars, the Mars family, have also enjoyed a sweet return on their fortunes, increasing their family wealth by 28%, or $21bn, from March 2020 to May 2021.

    The Mars dynasty began in 1911, when Franklin and Ethel Mars opened a candy factory that grew to produce bestsellers such as Milky Way and Snickers in the 1920s and 1930s. Today, it is run by their descendants.

    In 2020, their family wealth was $94bn, according to the Forbes magazine Billion-Dollar Dynasties List, which was a key resource for the report. IPS compared information from the 2020 list to a similar list Forbes published in 1983 and adjusted that information to reflect what it would be in today's dollars.

    Between 1983 and 2020, Mars family wealth increased by 3,517% from $2.6bn to $94bn. They were one of 27 families to appear on the Forbes lists in 1983 and in 2020, and together those families combined assets have grown by 1,007% in 37 years.

    Even among the super rich income inequality is an issue. The very, very wealthy did even better than their less rich cohorts. The five wealthiest dynastic families in the US have seen their wealth increase by a median 2,484% from 1983 to 2020. (6/16/21).

    As for your examples, 2+4+5 all created monopolies that have crowded out and even destroyed competition. Something Conservatives say they support. Nowadays someone with a genius idea that starts their own company gets rich when Amazon, Google or Facebook buys what they created. As opposed to continuing to grow their company and compete with these behemoths. That isn't a free market.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Beamish: "Luck" doesn't exist.


    Bill Gates
    : "I was lucky to be a young person when the digital revolution was just getting under way, and my Microsoft colleagues and I had the chance to help shape it".

    Jeff Bezos: "I succeeded because I won a lot of lotteries".

    Mark Zuckerberg: "If we're honest, we all know how much luck we've had" (2017 Harvard University commencement speech).

    Warren Buffett: "The womb from which you emerge determines your fate to an enormous degree for most of the seven billion people in the world". Buffett says he won the "ovarian lottery".

    Eric Schmidt (Google billionaire) "I would say I'm defined by luck, and I think almost anyone who's successful has to start by saying they were lucky".

    Elon Musk: "Luck is the best superpower".

    ReplyDelete
  19. Nobody was having any luck hitting their car with a horsewhip.

    Meanwhile Derpy's rabbit foot keychain factory was shut down for animal cruelty so he demanded tariffs on Irish clover.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I don't believe this rabbit-foot-keychain-factory-owning person named "Derpy" exists. Or know what your Derpy anecdote has to do with the conversation.

    ReplyDelete