But this success, where is it?

But this success, where is it? The French political philosopher Edgar Quinet coined this phrase.
It’s as relevant now as it was when philosophers first reflected on the French Revolution. Quinet has oft been quoted and the sentiment echoed down the ages.
The artist with regards to earthshattering events and the public servant of today in predictive mode both grapple with the autarchic mindset:
To understand that which affixes assertion and action. Connects claims and crimes:

The single line comes from the following full paragraph:

“The persistent illusion of the terrorists is to invoke a success in order to justify themselves before posterity. In effect, only the success can absolve them. But this success, where is it? The terrorists devoured by the scaffolds that they themselves erected, the Republic not only lost but rendered execrable, the political counter-Revolution victorious, despotism in place of the liberty for which a whole nation swore to die: is that success? How long will you go on repeating this strange nonsense, that all the scaffolds were necessary to save the Revolution, which was not saved.”

And thus we can sympathize with the terrible dilemma Putin now finds himself in. You can’t make an omelette without cracking a number of eggs but how does one know, then, when to stop cracking eggs?

One must then have a keen acute awareness of the concept of satiety directing one’s aspect, demeanor and decisions, as Chief of State, here. Literally: What will it take to satisfy Putin?
But his success, where is it?

1. When will the death toll from the nations and the appalling legacy of atrocities from its invasion of neighboring Ukraine, provoke a state of satiation in Putin?
A state of affairs that is not unusual with regards to Russia’s appetite in invading it’s neighbours?
2. Could the West be taking a different course of action so as not to aggravate Russia?

1. Putin is not averse to cracking eggs. His own or the Ukrainians. In recent weeks it has become evident that his own may be cracked if he does not bring the ‘Special Operation’ to a (successful) close. Other bloodthirsty chefs with an equally insatiable appetite for success are drafting recipes (and wings of loyalists of their own) and are hot on his cloven heels.

BUT! Ukraine is winning and has the backing of the (fully armed) Western World) won’t that mean Russia sooner or later has to retreat and deal with purling a narrative in retrospect to satisfy it’s citizens?

NO. Not necessarily. Putin could still pull the Nuclear wildcard.
If your decisions are driven by the desires beyond logic and you have the means at your disposal?
No argument in the Western World could convince Putin to withdraw.

It’s a table service no-one thought to model. Or perhaps one would have better secured Uranium shipments and placed better weight on diplomacy with rogue nations:


2. This is not about aggravation. The Good Guys vs the Bad. This is about how to have reform with revolution and the accompanying legacy of atrocities. This is not a war of Russia vs Ukraine.
Putin wants something from the West. He tried to get it thorough a War of Economic Attrition.
By invading Ukraine and blocking the Ports he banked on Western resolve failing and suffering a loss of appetite long before he did.
It didn’t work. Putin is still committed.
We are now the aggressor for not leaving the table before the macabre Server.
It is winter. There is only one way to level the playing field in terms of troop numbers.
We should fear what is coming.

Perhaps this time we can perhaps learn from history. Reform the UN so as not to be held hostage by Russia or China. Learn Many would demand a softening to U.S. hegemony.

But this success, where is it?
Quoted in REVEL IN FIN DU siècle DES OMBRES,( P 246) (Jean Francois Revel.

Discuss and share:

Become enlightened.
Get the newsletter: