Why America Needs a Friendly Rivalry with Europe

 

Recently there was a lot of talk about Trump's new administration being hostile to Europe. Some went as far as suggesting that the US will abandon Europe altogether and EU needs to figure out how to do it without Americans.

On its part, Europe responded with a mix of shock and disbelieve on one hand and concerted effort to placate and appease Trump on the other one. European leaders insisted that transatlantic alliance is essential and there can be no alternatives.

Recently this somewhat subdued so most will be inclined to say that storm have passed and its business as usual now. 

However, there is no smoke without fire. There are reasons for such American hostility. These reasons are not obvious. As far as I know not a single pundit, expert of columnists managed to pin them down. So, I will explain why, as I wrote it in the title, America wants a Friendly Rivalry with the EU.

Reasons for these are within America's own psychology. Americans are culturally and traditionally opposed to taxes and big government: legacy of American Revolutionary war. That makes Americans much more skeptical about paying taxes that Europeans are.

To make matters worse a lot of Americans live in rural areas, where benefits of government spending are far less noticeable than in cities.

These two factors contribute to recent rise of various anti-tax movements like tea party. Even unrelated movements such as libertarianism are often taken over by anti-tax zealotry.

All these anti-tax movements put federal government in danger, no matter what they do. Ignore them and be perceived as corrupt and autocratic. Embrace them and put government revenue and by extension government functioning in danger.

Because of that government needs a solution that will allow them to somehow appease the population without reducing government expenditure and taxation. 

What that solution can be, a second cold war style rivalry. Back during Cold War era threat of USSR kept American public alert and willing to support their government to fight communism, even if that support meant higher taxes for them personally. Threat of Gulag and losing it all kept them content with giving a fraction to federal government to fight back against Gulag. Government in turn used these money to modernise not only the military and intelligence services, but many other aspects of the government as well. Even social services were seen as necessary to prevent poor from turning towards communism.

However, after USSR collapsed, together with sign of relief, came cuts to various agencies and departments that were created during the Cold War era. Now that communism is defeated and the US dominant position is unchallenged it's time to finally cut taxes and get rid of all these Cold War era departments. That sentiment eventually sprung various anti-tax movements across the US that now threaten to undermine American government itself.

Cold War or not, expenditure on military, espionage and even social services are still essential. The US will not survive without it. Just because Cold War has ended, dangers to American way of life have not. The only difference is that these dangers became less obvious for an average person. These arguments are something a rational person will understand. However anti-tax zealots are not rational and do not listen to such arguments. Thus, government needs an alternative solution.

If it worked during the Cold War rivalry, then perhaps emergence of a new rival that can challenge the US? Such rival will mobilise the country and at the same time give taxpayers a good reason to keep paying their tax.

However, who can become such a rival? War on Terror did not kept population engaged for too long. Russia is now too weak to challenge Ukraine, much less the US. Not to mention American attitudes to Russia have changed from fear to admiration. China would much prefer to divide the world into spheres of influence and each lord over their part of the world. Also, China is poorer and weaker than the US, not something average American will lose sleep over. That leaves the EU.

EU is just as rich as the US, has about the same level of technological development, possibly exceeds the US in quality of life and definitely has more cultural appeal. A kind of rival, the US will have to catch up to. That will allow federal government to even justify new taxes to pay for "keeping up with the Joneses Europeans". In short perfect rival.

However, EU is American original Cold War ally and has no appetite for any conflict whatsoever. Also, when it comes to security, the EU is still heavily dependent on the US and cannot just jump the boat at a drop of a hat. That makes transatlantic rivalry rather unfeasible. However not completely impossible.

To ignite transatlantic rivalry, Trump administration tried to provoke Europe emotionally, hoping that Europeans will retaliate in tit for tat manner. That however did not work as Europeans in general much more rational and levelheaded compared to Americans. European response was as calm and calculated as it could possibly be. 

In general EU struggles with emotional appeal. People who think rationally see only benefits from EU. However, those who think emotionally cling to national flags and perceived mythical national glory, no matter how fictitious it is. "We are descendants or space technology wielding Illyrians/Dacians and those idiots across the border are not, we cannot unite with them."

Back to American rivalry problem. Since Europeans are so calm and calculated, there is no point of provoking them, but there can be point in trying to discuss this issue calmly. After all Americans do not need a full all out second Cold War until the utter and complete destruction of either one or the other side, like the first one was. Americans need something like a managed rivalry, akin to a sport game. For something like that a discussion about rules of the game is needed. Such discussions of course have to be behind closed doors, so that public will not guess it's all a game. That way Americans and Europeans can appear to be fighting each other, but at the same time be able to come together as a team, if some real external threat will materialize.

A frank behind closed door discussion between the US and Europeans can solve many of their problems and will allow both of them to move forward in a very clever fashion. A managed partial rivalry that will solve many of the internal American problems will become possible.

How Shifting Goalposts Allowed Rupert Murdoch to Shift Politics Right.

 

Recent elections delivered Labor Party a record large majority. Normally it would be a good reason to rejoice for majority of people. After all most people are not rich business owners represented by Liberals. Most people are either employees or unemployed who are much better represented by the left while often demonised by the right.

However, this time around, reactions are more cautions. Sure, members of Labor are celebrating, but broader public so far is quiet. It is far from when Kevin Rudd won in 2007. Back then everyone could clearly see that time of Howard's Work Choices is over, and Labor will bring back justice. Why do people not feel the same now?

Back in the days I wrote several articles on how Labor got too gentrified and out of touch with common people. How now Greens effectively took over the left because they better understand how poor people live and what they have to go through. Greens have solutions, but Labor does not. It all was very damning for Labor.

It's not that what I wrote back then was incorrect, but it still overlooks a very important, but carefully hidden reason for our current problems: shifting goalposts.

It is well known that Rupert Murdoch's News Corp has a near monopoly on media in Australia. He is routinely accused of manipulating politics to suit his far-right bias. That all well and good but that is not enough. To really defeat Murdoch, you need to not just accuse him of manipulation, but to also expose how he is doing it.

Murdoch's manipulates politics by shifting goalposts. He and his media company carefully and deliberately misinterprets public opinion to suit their right-wing agenda. What does it mean? I can give a rather recent example.

In 2022-2023 prices on groceries and other things rose up dramatically. Media and public dubbed it a Cost-of-Living Crisis. During the electoral campaign this issue was named as the biggest concern by the Australian public. That led to bi-partisan consensus that fixing cost of living is what new government should focus on.

However, how one can fix cost of living? There could be many solutions: lowering prices artificially, rising salaries and social payments, making certain goods and services free. All sensible solutions.

However, none of these options were discussed by the politicians. Instead, politicians focused on cutting taxes. Cutting taxes was often reported to public as a measure to combat cost of living crisis.

However, why of all measured they could take, politicians focused on cutting taxes. There are many better options that would actually help people. Cutting taxes would only help rich, who can afford groceries anyway. The reason is Murdoch press. 

Murdoch newspapers ran a concerted and choreographed effort to equate Cost of Living with cutting taxes. They deliberately ignored and overlooked any and all alternative measures and insisted that solving cost of living crisis means cutting taxes. Phrase "Cost of Living Crisis" became a middleman that allowed them to pull this trick. First, they label, rising grocery prices "Cost of Living Crisis", then equated solving "Cost of Living Crisis" with cutting taxes.

If we remove phrase "Cost of Living Crisis" and directly connect 'rising grocery prices' with 'cutting taxes', then it is easy to see how much of a nonsense it is. There is no way to fix rising grocery prices by cutting tax. Remove the middleman phrase and its obvious. It is also obvious that government should not cut taxes but do other measures to combat rising grocery prices.

That is how Murdoch press operates. They use these middlemen phrases like Cost-of-Living Crisis to move the goalposts towards their real objectives: making rich richer and poor poorer. Public and government were misled into supporting a measure that does not benefit them in any way to solve the problem they acutely need actual solutions for.

Labor Party too fell victim to this "moving goalposts" strategy. Chalmers competed with opposition in how to better cut tax, making Murdoch happy. It does not matter if Coalition is in opposition if Labor simply does anything he and other ultra rich want. No matter who is in government, Murdoch wins either way.

However, this Murdoch's moving goalposts strategy is bad for the county. Public consistently does not get policy that benefits them. People lose trust not only in government of the day, but in system generally. They start thinking that maybe democracy does not work, and alternatives are needed.

All this is very concerning and dangerous. We need to act fast against Murdoch's propaganda machine if we are to save our democracy and country. 

Murdoch is in Putin's pocket and will turn Australia into another Putinstan if he is allowed to continue. Government should realise Murdoch is duping them and should stop listening to anything he says. There should be Royal Commission into Murdoch's collision with Putin and his editorial practices.

Hopefully incoming government will finally be able to reign in Murdoch's lies and tricks and fix Australia from the damage he has done.

What People Really Value in Leaders or Vote For

 

Recently I watched yet another misleading video about power that claimed that people prefer villains to good guys. While there were some accurate statements, most of it was misleading and downright wrong. Here I will explain why.

I will begin with the biggest lie. The video claimed that Nietzschean slave morality is somehow connected with modern liberal democracy. That is incorrect. Slave morality is creation of Christianity. Christianity preaches sacrifice and selflessness. It's in Christianity Jesus "died for our sins". There are also many saints and martyrs who died or suffered for their faith. 

The only reason these Christian slave moral values are connected to democracy is that most liberal democracies are Christian countries. That puts these values in high regard in many democratic societies. Fundamentally however Christian values are not democratic values. 

In many ways Christian values are opposite of democratic ones. Christianity values suffering and preaches acceptance of one's circumstances, while democracy instead allows you to change these circumstances by voting out government that caused you suffering. Democratic values is rejection of sheepishness of Christianity and taking control into one's own hands.

Now the second lie. Video claimed that people liked autocrats. They cited Napoleon and Mussolini as examples. They however blissfully overlooked the fact that for every Napoleon there are several dozens of Lukashenkas, Amins, Mubaraks and Pinochets whom people cannot wait to get rid of. 

Every Lukashenka out there possibly sees himself as next Napoleon but often ends up just another Mubarak. They have to hide from "love" their people behind bodyguards and army of riot policemen, or people will "lovingly" strangle all life out of them with their bare hands.

Because of that it's more appropriate to see people like Napoleon or Hitler as exceptions rather than rule. In fact, of all traits of master morality, its competence and vision that get each of these leaders to their stardom. Lack of competence was reason for eventual downfall of Mussolini.

However, what exactly makes these few successes stories stand out from the crowd of jokes such as Idi Amin. How to make name for oneself and enter the history books and someone great.

In Napoleon's case it was clearly competence. Put it simply Napoleon knew how to win wars, and he won them a lot. He was competent in administration too, Napoleonic code, created in his time is still basis for most Statute books in Civil Law jurisdictions. Other reforms that were made during his time also stood test of time. It was during Napoleon's time that out of chaos of Frech Revolution finally emerged new better France. 

Compare that to incompetence of Louis XVI who could do nothing when his people starved, chaos and fear during Robespierre's Commitee of Public Safety, corruption scandals and personal enrichment during Directory and then cynical power grab for purely personal benefit during Charles X and it's not too hard to see why Napoleon looks very good next to any of the alternatives.

Yes, Napoleon also dismantled democracy, abolished elections and declared himself emperor. However, these things are not what people love him for, they love him for many other good things he has done.

Nowadays Hitler and Nazis are associated with pure unabashed evil. That is because history is written by winners and US together with USSR repainted Hitler into insane homicidal racist devil incarnate. 

That was not the case in 1933 in Germany when he came to power. Back then Hitler was seen as alternative to politicians who failed to pull Germany out of Great Depression. When in power Hitler actually managed to pull Germany out of Great Depression. Under Hitler quality of life improved, roads were built, well-paying jobs became available for all who needed them. Economy wise Hitler was German FDR and Germans loved him for that. Compare that to constant cuts to wages and mass firings under Hitler's predecessors and it's no surprise why adoring crowds welcomed him anywhere he went.

Here again people love Hitler not because he did Holocaust or started war, but because he made their lives better. Here again competence wins the day.

Some more moral people might want to say it's no excuse for genocide, but people are ultimately selfish and vote and support for what benefits them personally. Hitler did benefited Germans of the 30s even if modern Germans has to apologise for his actions.

Hitler's distorted memory is not the only example. For example, Yeltsin back in early 90s was very energetic and decisive. He looked very strong and competent next to often helpless and inept Gorbachev. Yet history remembers Yeltsin as incompetent drunkard because Russian patriots hate him a lot and distort the facts about him. On the other hand, American fans of Gorbachev like to portray him as modern Prometheus and father of Russian democracy. A guy with a staff from LoD intro has more confidence and ability than Gorbi.

It's the same with the one, whom some call modern Hitler, Trump. Sure, Trump has many flaws, but he has good points too. At the same time lot of bad things about him is simply not true and made up by people who hate him. It's hard to find anything good about Hillary Clinton or Kamala Harris, he won against. Arguing that Trump is unacceptable is pointless, you have to offer a better alternative or walk.

So, what do people vote for. It's not a matter of master or slave morality. In fact, only heavily moralistic people base their vote on morals. Most vote for self-interest. Rich vote to reduce tax, poor to tax the rich. Employers for more power over employees, employees for more protection from power of employers. Landlords for more control over tenants and their properties, tenants for protection from landlords. Car owners for cheaper petrol, people without cars for more public transport, bicycle owners for more bicycle paths and so on. 

Left was popular when their programs were giving money to the majority. Everyone who qualified for a handout was supporting it, no matter if some die hard rightists were saying there is no free sandwich. When left became woke and decided to limit help to black, elderly and women, they lost those who do not fall into either of these groups.

It's the same in dictatorial countries. Ability to extort bribes and misuse public funds via procurement tenders may be good for bureaucrats, but bad for ordinary citizens. Autocrats like Yanukovych and Shevardnadze fall not because of Soros, but simply because citizens see that quality of life is better with EU style democracy and want to bring it into their lives as well. The EU promise them this quality of life and more if they join the EU. Bureaucrats and police on the other hand cling to the autocrats like Lukashenka and Putin in order to keep their Mercedes Maybach and Maldives vacays, paid by misused public funds. 

When people protest in post-Soviet states that it's not because they think stealing is wrong in principle, its only because money stolen was meant to pay for the new lifts and full Euro renovation in their apartments and they want bureaucrats to pay this back in full and finally fix the lifts like in Europe. However, paying for all these lifts will mean less money for Maldives vacays so bureaucrats opt for riot police instead. 

This dynamic of struggle between citizens and bureaucracy will continue for as long as these demographic groups continue to exist and live in the same country. That is why I said in my other article that Russia should just divest Moscow and other western areas into separate countries and move capital to somewhere in Yekaterinburg. That way they will no longer have to deal with all these citizens who need their lifts and renovations paid for.

People vote and support people and policies that benefit them personally. They will ditch moral if there is something in it for them but will not support villains because they are villains.

Government Should Limit Super Withdrawals for Retirees

Australia has an interesting system of retirement savings system, called superannuation or super for short. The idea is that while person works, the company they work for pays part of their salary into a super fund. Super fund is managed by a professional investment company that earns interest on these money and pays some of it back into the super account of the recipient as interest. A beneficiary of the account could always check how much money their account has accumulated but could not withdraw any until their retirement age.

In the past constant salary contribution to the super account together with interest easily allowed an average worker to save up millions for their retirement. Current boomer generation is the first generation that majorly benefited from that scheme. Many of them now have millions to spend on various stuff. Luxurious retirement home is proof of how lucky boomers were with this scheme that ensured such high class living for no particular effort or merit of their own.

Benefits of superannuation are not limited to retirees alone, however. Until the beneficiary retires, the money is in the hands of the professional investment company to use as their see fit. In the past these companies used these money to finance various development projects that made Australia bigger and better. Money in super was the fuel, that propelled the economy into stratosphere and made life better for everyone.

However, the superannuation system Australia uses had and still has a major flaw. This flaw is the reason why the country struggles with money ever since the Financial Crisis of the 2008 and have not recovered from it.

The problem is that beneficiary of super fund can withdraw the entire amount of their super, the moment their reach their retirement age.

Until first generation of beneficiaries retired, total amount of money in super funds only grew more and more. That meant that investment companies had more and more money to invest into the economy.

However, after first generation has retired, the investment funds suddenly shrank by a very large amount. Since boomers are more numerous than younger generations, it meant that contributions from people still in workforce did not cover the shortfall. 

Suddenly investment companies had less money to work with. Since that that got worse and worse as more and more people have retired, shrinking investment pool further and further.

Almost two decades later government still have not found a solution to this problem. Government tried to raise retirement age several times, but all it did was only postpone the inevitable payment, giving investment funds only temporary relief.

Meanwhile due to shortage of money, everything gets more and more dilapidated. New businesses that require significant investment could not get capital to start, preventing new jobs from being created. Real salaries shrink more and more as non-retirees struggle to afford even food and rent. All while retirees' dwell in their luxurious retirement homes.

In short, it's a disaster that made Australia from a lucky country into a misery land.

It does not have to be this way however, A solution to a problem not only exist, its already practiced by pretty much every other country with a similar superannuation program.

All government needs to do is to limit how much money retirees can withdraw from a fund even after they retire. 

In most other countries, similar systems do not allow beneficiaries to withdraw the whole amount at once in a single day. In most of such systems government just pays retirees an extra supplement to the regular minimum pension. The supplement amount depends on the level or number of contributions; the person made to the fund.

Australia does not have to make any complicated changes to existing system. All we need is to limit the withdrawals from super to something like 1% or principle per month or a certain fixed amount like $3000 per month or $1500 per fortnight.

This will keep most of the money in the hands of the super funds and will allow them to use these money to invest in Australian economy. That will benefit everyone in the country. 

Such change will benefit retirees as well. When the entire amount is immediately available to them, they become a lucrative target for all forms of fraud. Crooks know that fleecing just one of them can net them a jackpot that will set them for live. In the news we keep hearing more and more stories about retirees losing all their money, as banks and other institutions struggle to inform the public about basic fraud vigilance.

In contrast if super withdrawals will be limited, then retirees will stop being such a lucrative target for fraudsters. Even if they end up being conned by someone, it will not be as much of a problem as most of their super will still be safe and sound in the super fund and will be available to them next fortnight.

Limiting super withdrawals to $1500 per fortnight will not only save Australian economy and make everyone's lives better, but it will also protect retirees from fraud and save their money. The sooner government adopts this policy the better.

Europe Should Explain Value of Ukraine to Putin

 

I recently found a new interesting angle to the war in Ukraine. An angle that can allow EU and Russia to reach peace and even mutual cooperation. 

In my article about Baltic States, I did mention how Russia and the West generally value them differently. For Russia Latvia is most important of three, followed by Estonia and Lithuania. For EU and the west, it's generally the other way around, Lithuania first, Estonia next and Latvia last.

When it comes to Ukraine and other post-Soviet states, there is similar picture. Russia and Russians generally do not value Ukraine that much. Russians generally see Ukrainians as greedy, selfish and parochial people without shred of honor. In contrast they value Belarussians much more, believing them to be loyal, respectful and good team players. In fact, whole Kremlin propaganda narrative that backs war in Ukraine revolves around the idea that Ukrainians were "too weak and stupid" to "prevent Nazis from taking over" and now Russia has to "save" them.

For EU it's clearly the other way around. Ukrainians are potential EU accession success story on the level of Poland. In contrast Belarus and its leader Lukashenka is all they detest and despise in a single country and person. Only threat of Russian retaliation prevents Poland and Lithuania from simply invading Belarus to overthrow Lukashenka by force.

Kremlin is not necessarily aware of value, EU places in Ukraine. EU response to an invasion make Kremlin think that response will be the same no matter what they invade. Thus, Kremlin choose to invade the country it personally values lest and holds grunges against, Ukraine.

In reality EU would be a lot less concerned if Kremlin instead invaded Belarus or Kazakhstan. EU has no real stakes or interests in Kazakhstan; thus, they likely limit response to verbal condemnation and possibly small token sanctions. While EU wants Belarus to embrace EU integration path, that option is simply impossible for as long as Lukashenka remains in power. In fact, Lukashenka is so detestable to Europeans, they might even welcome Russian invasion of Belarus if it will remove him from power.

Sure, from geo-political perspective it will make no sense for Russia to invade broadly pro-Russian and anti-western regimes. However, that would be most crucial factor only if geo-politics are the real reason for Russian war. 

Actual relationships between Russia and post-Soviet states are more nuanced. EU and West often think that it is Russia who forces its will onto Belarus and other weaker countries of post-Soviet space. The reality however that its local bureaucrats and police, who fear European level scrutiny of their actions and seek Russian protection from it. Lukashenka and average Belarussian bureaucrat and policeman needs Russia a lot more than Russia needs them.

Sure, Russian bureaucrats and police are sympathetic to "plight" of their colleagues in Belarus and Ukraine, but their own interests come first. They need some sort of war to keep domestic population distracted and at least apathetic for Putin's continued rule and bureaucrats continued plunder. However, that does not have to be a war in Ukraine. However, they also want continued access to their mansions on French riviera and such. Europe can get much in exchange for giving them these things back.

However, it is not that important who Kremlin actually fights. Back in early 2000s it were Chechens, then Georgians, finally they settled on Ukrainians. Putin's propaganda machine can come up with some reasons to fight Kazakhstan or Uzbekistan if EU can give them good enough reason to switch their focus there. EU has just that kind of reason, it just has to explain these reasons to Putin.

While that does sound cynical, but EU should make it clear that while they care what happens to Ukraine and they want no further fighting there, they do not care if Putin instead invades Kazakhstan and "saves Russians" there. Something like this likely have to be agreed behind closed doors. 

Yes, it's a betrayal of principles of rule of law world order. It brings back the spheres of influence concept Putin always wanted to implement. However Central Asian dictatorships do not practice any rule of law, so not much will be lost if Putin invades there. In contrast Ukraine is actually developing democracy that gravitates towards this rule of law and EU values. Thus, saving Ukraine from Putin at expense of Central Asians can be considered a prudent call. A realistic solution to complex problem.

Europe can strike a deal with Kremlin where it gets Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia for EU integration, as well as Armenia and Azerbaijan for future integration. In return Moscow gets free reign in Central Asia with wars without sanctions. 

That only leaves issue of Belarus, but possibly Kremlin will be willing to either, trade it away or partition it between democratic and autocratic side. In fact, Kremlin might be willing to actually see Poland and Lithuania invade Belarus to change the regime as it can use it in domestic propaganda. Of course, such agreements will have to be made behind closed doors.

This rather cynical pact can finally end Russian war in Ukraine and solve so called fundamental issues between the EU and Russia.

Why Australia Have Changed So?

I have been living in Australia for almost 20 years now and could not fail to notice that country have changed a lot since I first arrived. 

Back in mid 2000s Australia was chill, calm and relaxed place. Everyone was relaxed and friendly. No one worried about anything. It was very refreshing compared to pretentious, stressful and often downright mean Moscow, where I lived before. Australia was a country of people who knew how to enjoy themselves and enjoyed life to the fullest, a paradise on earth. I too was happy back then.

That however changed with advent of Financial Crisis. A stressful time that was meant to be temporary upset but crept on and on ended up becoming a new norm. All sort of stress and crisis have followed. Employment crisis, rental shortages, Medicare, COVID, cost of living. It goes on and on for more than a decade.

All this stress made country and us miserable. Noise and mess and crowds everywhere. Crazy people roam the streets. Crime is on the rise. Almost everyone gave up on everything fun and now only jog or lift in never-ending gyms. That is near opposite of what paradise is.

Now, after a decade of that mess under Libs, they actually pitch to us with a slogan "to get country back on track". On track to what, to keep this Toon's mess going even longer. Track is a lie; it's only a road to hell and completely un-Australian.

We do not need to get back on track. We are not circus ponies to run truck in circles every day like hamster in a wheel.

Instead, we should get back to pools, barbeques, surfboards, boats, fishing rods, videogames, vacays, palms, beaches, thongs, eskys, pubs and of course beer - all thing that make life fun and worth living. Now that is an Australian idea.

How Rayon Reform Have Led to War in Ukraine

 

Sometime before Russia invaded Ukraine, Ukraine passed a land reform that reduced number of second tier subdivisions from 400 something to only 136. It was a long overdue reform that reduced number of bureaucrats and streamlined the government. Other territorial subdivisions too needed similar reforms.

Reform was mostly a success with most common citizen think it was for the best. However, reform left one group unhappy, that is bureaucrats who lost their jobs as a result of the reform. However, what could fired bureaucrats do about it? Turned out they could convince Putin to invade Ukraine in an attempt to restore them. Putin annexed 4 oblasts, restored their rayon boundaries and numbers to their pre-2020 parameters and placed people, fired by Poroshenko and Zelenski, back into their old jobs. 

Ukraine burns from constant Russian shelling; Russia is chaffs under sanctions and broader world suffers from inflation and cost of living crisis. All so that some rayon robber baron boss could get his petty little job back and then use it to extort bribes from citizens. If you put it this way, no one in their sane mind would support such a war, in Russia as well. So, they did what they always do, lied. As of now no one yet figured this rather banal reason that keeps war going.

Some might wonder why Russia would care what happens to petty bureaucrats in Ukraine? That is because Russia is a captured state, and bureaucrats have undue control over it and Putin. Far from being public servants, bureaucrats in Russia see themselves as masters of the state and shamelessly exploit their position of power to parasite off the backs of common citizens.

Citizens do not like that and occasionally protest against it, but bureaucrats use riot police to suppress them, keeping bureaucrats in charge.

Bureaucrats are like a caste who has de-facto special privileges over common citizens. The caste could trace its origins back to Soviet times, so all post-Soviet bureaucrats have good relationship with each other and see themselves as colleagues and part of common socio-economic group. That is why what happens to bureaucrats in Ukraine or Georgia matters to Russian or Belarus bureaucrats. 

What bureaucrats fear most however is when citizens win against bureaucracy, like for example during Ukraine's Euromaidan, Ukraine local government reform or Saakashvili rule in Georgia. That reminds them that their special status and privileges are not eternal and can vanish in a flash if a wrong person takes power. 

Thus, on one hand, bureaucrats double down on domestic oppression to shore up their power at home. On the other hand, they want to reclaim what was once theirs and restore their colleagues to power in post-Soviet states. They believe that restoring bureaucratic order across post-Soviet states could solidify their grip on power at home and make challenging them impossible in future. 

Imagine if the Unites States, public servants, fired by Elon Musk's DOGE will ask China to invade the US to restore them back to their jobs. That is unthinkable, yet in Russia its normal.

Anyhow, if Putin needs to somehow placate these useless bureaucrats, then he can simply carve out 300 or so more rayons across the Russia to employ them. No need to fight wars. Or he can poison them and say Ukraine did it.