The Achilles heel of modern authoritarian regimes

[Linkey]

I live in Russia (please note that I support Ukraine). I believe that the political scientists now do not fully understand how authoritarian and totalitarian regimes function, and what is their weakness. These regimes all declare that they are “people’s”, that dictators express the “will of the nation” and so on. These dictators, with the help of propaganda and the repressive machine, do often indeed shape the opinion of the majority of the population in their countries; but they never admit it.
I want propose the easiest way for Western countries to defeat Putin and Xi. First, the United States must reconsider its nuclear doctrine, and declare that the use of US nuclear weapons is possible only in the form of a symmetrical response. If Putin nukes one city, the United States would nuke one Russian city, if Putin nukes ten, the United States would nike ten, and so on.
Next, the United States must announce that they plan to enter the war in Ukraine, but can reverse this decision, if Putin initiates a referendum in Russia with a proposal to end the war, abolish censorship, and release the political prisoners.
I am sure that Russians will vote in this referendum to end the war. If the war continues, Russian soldiers will be unable to fight, because they will suffer from cognitive dissonance - what are they fighting for? For censorship and repression?

[dimreepr]

27 minutes ago, Linkey said:

I live in Russia (please note that I support Ukraine). I believe that the political scientists now do not fully understand how authoritarian and totalitarian regimes function, and what is their weakness. These regimes all declare that they are “people’s”, that dictators express the “will of the nation” and so on. These dictators, with the help of propaganda and the repressive machine, do often indeed shape the opinion of the majority of the population in their countries; but they never admit it.
I want propose the easiest way for Western countries to defeat Putin and Xi. First, the United States must reconsider its nuclear doctrine, and declare that the use of US nuclear weapons is possible only in the form of a symmetrical response. If Putin nukes one city, the United States would nuke one Russian city, if Putin nukes ten, the United States would nike ten, and so on.
Next, the United States must announce that they plan to enter the war in Ukraine, but can reverse this decision, if Putin initiates a referendum in Russia with a proposal to end the war, abolish censorship, and release the political prisoners.
I am sure that Russians will vote in this referendum to end the war. If the war continues, Russian soldiers will be unable to fight, because they will suffer from cognitive dissonance - what are they fighting for? For censorship and repression?

It's not weaponry that defeat's them, it's human dignity...

[joigus]

I think nuclear power is a deterrent, not an actual tit-for-tat mechanism. This, I think, was well understood by the '60s by the likes of Robert McNamara and others. The MAD principle guarantees that. The actual tit-for-tat takes place on a whole different level once the MAD is guaranteed. It creates a fulcrum for other forces to operate, that's all.

BTW, I also think "political scientist" is a contradiction in terms.

Edited June 20 by joigus
minor correction

[zapatos]

49 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

It's not weaponry that defeat's them, it's human dignity...

Can you provide an example where that has happened before?

[TheVat]

1 hour ago, Linkey said:

First, the United States must reconsider its nuclear doctrine, and declare that the use of US nuclear weapons is possible only in the form of a symmetrical response. If Putin nukes one city, the United States would nuke one Russian city, if Putin nukes ten, the United States would nuke ten, and so on.

I appreciate much of your post, but I disagree that symmetrical response is ever possible, outside of novels like 2034.  The use of a nuke creates a situation so volatile that symmetry is unlikely to survive.  As @joigus noted, the MAD principle is crafted to keep nuclear exchange unthinkable as an option.  

I think we should consider a way that Ukraine could be promptly adopted into NATO, meaning that the combined military might of Europe and US could be directed to protecting Ukraine, and this would bring Putin to the peace table because he knows he would not prevail.  Putin has done way too good a job intimidating the West.  

[dimreepr]

26 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Can you provide an example where that has happened before?

Only everywhere in history, as Huxley suggested in "It's a brave new world" and Orwell suggests in "1984"...

[StringJunky]

41 minutes ago, joigus said:

I think nuclear power is a deterrent, not an actual tit-for-tat mechanism. This, I think, was well understood by the '60s by the likes of Robert McNamara and others. The MAD principle guarantees that. The actual tit-for-tat takes place on a whole different level once the MAD is guaranteed. It creates a fulcrum for other forces to operate, that's all.

BTW, I also think "political scientist" is a contradiction in terms.

Now that they have low yield options down to 1KT, and probably less, MAD is becoming increasingly obsolete, I think.

Edited June 20 by StringJunky

[dimreepr]

6 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

MAD is becoming increasingly obsolete, I think.

So, do you think that  it's not mad to test the bonderies?

[joigus]

15 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Now that they have low yield options down to 1KT, and probably less, MAD is becoming increasingly obsolete, I think.

Maybe. Or maybe just a tad less compelling. The Cold War was a crazy, crazy time. But I think that just substitutes the D in MAD for some sort of different acronym, like UD (unacceptable damage)?

[StringJunky]

19 minutes ago, joigus said:

Maybe. Or maybe just a tad less compelling. The Cold War was a crazy, crazy time. But I think that just substitutes the D in MAD for some sort of different acronym, like UD (unacceptable damage)?

Cuba was as well. My grandad was a ground crew chief on Vulcans at the time. They carried Blue Steel standoff nuclear bombs. He said he was constantly on-call.

Edited June 20 by StringJunky

[dimreepr]

12 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Cuba was as well. My grandad was a ground crew chief on Vulcans at the time. They carried Blue Steel standoff nuclear bombs. He said he was constantly on-call.

That sounds exhausting...

[zapatos]

3 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Only everywhere in history, as Huxley suggested in "It's a brave new world" and Orwell suggests in "1984"...

Can you please provide something more specific than "everywhere in history"?

[CharonY]

5 hours ago, Linkey said:

I live in Russia (please note that I support Ukraine). I believe that the political scientists now do not fully understand how authoritarian and totalitarian regimes function, and what is their weakness. These regimes all declare that they are “people’s”, that dictators express the “will of the nation” and so on. These dictators, with the help of propaganda and the repressive machine, do often indeed shape the opinion of the majority of the population in their countries; but they never admit it.

I am not sure regarding the claim that folks do not understand it. I think it is very much well-established that authoritarian regimes use all available tools to shape public perception in order to fortify their power. I think the only thing that has changed over the years is the available technology to do so. In my mind, the part that we still do not fully understand is how the modern information landscape (even in non-authoritarian regimes) shapes our brain. After all, even in non-authoritarian countries, misinformation has led to the creation of perceptions that are utterly disconnected from reality. In a fully controlled environment the potential for manipulation is enormous. But again, I do not think that folks are oblivious to that issue. It is more that there are not good solutions.

[ImplicitDemands]

4 minutes ago, CharonY said:

available technology to do so

Technology that I feel I understand how to make, btw. 

 

[joigus]

8 hours ago, StringJunky said:

My grandad was a ground crew chief on Vulcans at the time. They carried Blue Steel standoff nuclear bombs. He said he was constantly on-call.

I don't think Gen Z people today can imagine what it was like. Daily life went on like none of that was happening though. Our parents and grandparents had seen much much worse.

[Linkey]

16 hours ago, TheVat said:

I appreciate much of your post, but I disagree that symmetrical response is ever possible, outside of novels like 2034.  The use of a nuke creates a situation so volatile that symmetry is unlikely to survive. 

What do you mean? Maybe you meant that a first strike at nuclear mines can destroy them and deprive the victim the possibility to retaliate?

I had read in Pinker's book that this problem makes it a better idea to store nukes on submarines. Maybe they are too expensive?

[Sensei]

Quote

The Achilles heel of modern authoritarian regimes

The mortality rate of dictators..

19 hours ago, Linkey said:

Next, the United States must announce that they plan to enter the war in Ukraine, but can reverse this decision, if Putin initiates a referendum in Russia with a proposal to end the war, abolish censorship, and release the political prisoners.
I am sure that Russians will vote in this referendum to end the war. If the war continues, Russian soldiers will be unable to fight, because they will suffer from cognitive dissonance - what are they fighting for? For censorship and repression?

Nice and naive.

But if you were really in Russia and read and watched their propaganda, you would know that they are already pushing that it is not a war with Ukraine (what war?! They don't even use that word to the level where people go to jail if someone uses it!), but a NATO attack on Russia..

https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2022/02/26/russia-bans-media-outlets-from-using-words-war-invasion-a76605

Instead, it is called "liberation" and words of similar meaning..

 

According to the Internet, only 5% of Russia's population can understand what we are talking about. Which makes reaching them quite difficult.

https://www.google.com/search?q=how+many+russian+speak+english

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_English-speaking_population

7.5 million out of 145 million.

 

[dimreepr]

17 hours ago, zapatos said:

Can you please provide something more specific than "everywhere in history"?

India, where Muhatma's dignity defeated the British or South Africa, where Nelson dignified forgiveness and Russia on a couple of occasions.

17 hours ago, CharonY said:

I am not sure regarding the claim that folks do not understand it. I think it is very much well-established that authoritarian regimes use all available tools to shape public perception in order to fortify their power. I think the only thing that has changed over the years is the available technology to do so. In my mind, the part that we still do not fully understand is how the modern information landscape (even in non-authoritarian regimes) shapes our brain. After all, even in non-authoritarian countries, misinformation has led to the creation of perceptions that are utterly disconnected from reality. In a fully controlled environment the potential for manipulation is enormous. But again, I do not think that folks are oblivious to that issue. It is more that there are not good solutions.

 Indeed, the problem is that they manage to keep most of the people fed and sheltered, just well enough to feel comfortable; while keeping them just scared enough to feel uncomfortable with any other solution.

[TheVat]

20 hours ago, CharonY said:

 In my mind, the part that we still do not fully understand is how the modern information landscape (even in non-authoritarian regimes) shapes our brain. After all, even in non-authoritarian countries, misinformation has led to the creation of perceptions that are utterly disconnected from reality. In a fully controlled environment the potential for manipulation is enormous. But again, I do not think that folks are oblivious to that issue. It is more that there are not good solutions.

In a way, Russians are less susceptible to propaganda because they kind of expect the manipulation, the gaslighting, the agitprop.  I lived near a large Russian community for a few years and they would describe a sort of "immune system" Russian people develop with government misinformation.  Their perception was that Americans are far more vulnerable to such and often lack that cynical immune response.  

 

7 hours ago, Linkey said:

What do you mean? Maybe you meant that a first strike at nuclear mines can destroy them and deprive the victim the possibility to retaliate?

 

I just meant that when you annihilate a city with a strategic nuke, things can get out of hand and the probability of losing your entire nation is too high.  Symmetrical response would require a level of trust between two nuclear powers that they clearly don't have if one of them has nuked a city.  It is kind of a Catch-22: if we trusted each other enough to have  a symmetrical response policy, then we wouldn't need the nuclear weapons in the first place.

That said, they can have Las Vegas.  (Just kidding.)

 

[CharonY]

3 hours ago, TheVat said:

In a way, Russians are less susceptible to propaganda because they kind of expect the manipulation, the gaslighting, the agitprop.  I lived near a large Russian community for a few years and they would describe a sort of "immune system" Russian people develop with government misinformation.  Their perception was that Americans are far more vulnerable to such and often lack that cynical immune response.  

I am not sure how well that works, though. If you consider all media streams suspect (assuming that the government controls everything), how would people gain information in the first place?

There is a fundamental challenge regarding trust in information. A tightly vetted system has the challenge that one would need to trust those that are doing the vetting doing a good job and do so for a good purpose. This might not be the case and can (and sometimes should) lead to an erosion of trust. On the other hand, a free-for-all will allow misinformation to have the same impact as facts, or even outmatch facts. The ramification for that can be dire, especially in emergencies where facts really matter (as, say, during a major pandemic...).

[iNow]

6 hours ago, CharonY said:

On the other hand, a free-for-all will allow misinformation to have the same impact as facts, or even outmatch facts. The ramification for that can be dire

It’s a broader strategy than even that. The populace is being primed to disregard even the possibility of a truth. Everything can be dismissed and hand waves away as “just one perspective.” In this scenario, social structures and cohesion itself crumbles.  

[dimreepr]

16 hours ago, CharonY said:

I am not sure how well that works, though. If you consider all media streams suspect (assuming that the government controls everything), how would people gain information in the first place?

There is a fundamental challenge regarding trust in information. A tightly vetted system has the challenge that one would need to trust those that are doing the vetting doing a good job and do so for a good purpose. This might not be the case and can (and sometimes should) lead to an erosion of trust. On the other hand, a free-for-all will allow misinformation to have the same impact as facts, or even outmatch facts. The ramification for that can be dire, especially in emergencies where facts really matter (as, say, during a major pandemic...).

It's a question of balance, while enough of the populous can feel relatively comfortable, then the minority can look out for themselves; while the majority pat themselves on the back for putting a quid in the collection box.

I think @TheVat is correct, even in the face of blanket propaganda, enough people are savvy enough to keep hold of the fundamental truth of humanity; so that when the balance shifts revolution often results.

 

[Linkey]

21 hours ago, TheVat said:

In a way, Russians are less susceptible to propaganda because they kind of expect the manipulation, the gaslighting, the agitprop.  I lived near a large Russian community for a few years and they would describe a sort of "immune system" Russian people develop with government misinformation.  Their perception was that Americans are far more vulnerable to such and often lack that cynical immune response.  

I think, this is both true and fully not true. To understand this, a kind of psychoanalysis of Russian society must be made.

 

21 hours ago, TheVat said:

I just meant that when you annihilate a city with a strategic nuke, things can get out of hand and the probability of losing your entire nation is too high.  Symmetrical response would require a level of trust between two nuclear powers that they clearly don't have if one of them has nuked a city.  It is kind of a Catch-22: if we trusted each other enough to have  a symmetrical response policy, then we wouldn't need the nuclear weapons in the first place.

 

In my opinion, a specifics of the 21th century is the fact that all wars, revolutions, coups are not the games with non-zero sum; this means that the enemies always try to deal with each other. An example was the missile attack of a Syrian station performed by Trump in 2018:

 

https://www.vox.com/2018/4/13/17221420/trump-syria-attack-strike-assad-russia-response-chemical-weapon

 

So I hope that if a nuclear war will start - the sides will try to deal hardly. This can look ridicullous, but why not - "we are nuking this city, not more, because you have nuked our city".

[dimreepr]

22 hours ago, Linkey said:

I think, this is both true and fully not true. To understand this, a kind of psychoanalysis of Russian society must be made.

 

 

In my opinion, a specifics of the 21th century is the fact that all wars, revolutions, coups are not the games with non-zero sum; this means that the enemies always try to deal with each other. An example was the missile attack of a Syrian station performed by Trump in 2018:

 

https://www.vox.com/2018/4/13/17221420/trump-syria-attack-strike-assad-russia-response-chemical-weapon

 

So I hope that if a nuclear war will start - the sides will try to deal hardly. This can look ridicullous, but why not - "we are nuking this city, not more, because you have nuked our city".

As far as I'm aware, there has never been a war, between nation's, that was started specifically to depose a dictator, it's always a civil matter; I dare you to say "Iraq"...

 

22 hours ago, Linkey said:

I think, this is both true and fully not true. To understand this, a kind of psychoanalysis of Russian society must be made.

There's a reason culture's are victims of stereotyping, nurture v nature explained. 

We're all humans that react in basically the same way, and culture provides the mould that shapes our thinking...

[Linkey]

Speaking of the nuclear threats, I'd like to add that a better strategy for the US, in my opinion, would be to declare, that US will only retaliate, and if Putin launches a lot of nukes to US - the US nukes will retaliate not only Russia but also China, and maybe even India. This threat can make Xi and Mody join the sanctions against Russia.

Edited June 24 by Linkey