There's a reason the same people are in charge that held power during the Soviet days. The people didn't take any power from them.

v.kemp +1
@biefstuk
...and indoctrination ofc.

Tyranny breeds wars, which means more economic power lost to military, more lives lost, less trade, and other direct and indirect harm Justinian.

@justinian:
Its a war. Logically when you face an opponent so big thats not to be trusted. It would be unwise of the US not to exploit their tech supremacy.

"The world leaders who are filled with ideals are the ones we should be worried about."
Then how do you become one, seriously? They use ideals as propaganda and serve their own goal whatever that is. Don't mix things up.

LP,

Putin has been pretty reliable and peaceful. It's the US that has been doing the backstabbing and aggression.

Putin justifies his power with a kind of social contract. He portrays himself as being strong and able to deliver results. The problem is that his government is actually weak and his masculine propaganda is an obvious joke.

V.Kemp,

Oppression is easily maintained, and has been the reality for most of humanity throughout history. So I don't see how it will necessarily cause instability, nor do I see how it will cause any wars. Putin's foreign policy has been rather peaceful.

By the way:

LP,

Pakistan is an example of a country driven by ideology. I'm dead serious, their foreign policy can be described as "Keeping those Hindus out of Afghanistan, and maintaining an arms race with India to prevent those Hindus from killing us." They take our foreign aid and build nukes with it. LOL.

See the danger?

Kemp,

I think stability has more to do with the dictator's ability to buy loyalty. In countries rich in natural resources, dictators can easily buy the loyalty of relevant power players. But in countries like Afghanistan, it's difficult for a single individual to maintain a monopoly of political power.

My opinion is that the only thing politicians care about is political survival. Democracy differs from other governments because it has a large ruling coalition and selectorate. Since democratic governments are accountable for around 20% of the population, they tend to favor the rule of law, due process, freedom of association, relaxed business restrictions, and leaders can't get away with as much. When leaders go too far, members of the ruling coalition will defect because of too many anxious parties.

This state of affairs evolves from free markets. Free markets broadly distribute resources, which also broadly distributes power. This is why Western democracies differ from "forced" illiberal democracies, because forcing systemic change does nothing to change the distribution of resources, which favor an authoritarian political system.