[buran77]

His is a very idealistic take which weirdly omits that every major example of non-violent protest working to topple a regime involved some foreign super power spending trillions of dollars to wage very much violent wars for the purpose. The insight that he's missing in so many words is that you need to crack the door open just enough for a foreign (super)power to want to come barging in for some reason. Non-violent protests might work as good optics for this, but good optics don't launch rockets on the enemy.

> there are very obviously regimes in the world that have rendered themselves more-or-less immune to non-violent protest.

This sounds like a cop-out to the original blanket statement, or at least this is how I interpret it from your earlier quote. Regimes copy methodologies from others wherever possible and learn from failure to coup-proof themselves faster than the population can keep up. This is why most authoritarian regimes have endured for so long despite many being otherwise failed states, and almost always need some sort of external covert or military intervention to tip the scales.

It's like saying that you can hit the target every time by just meditating. And having a professional take the shot for you.

[JumpCrisscross]

> insight that he's missing in so many words is that you need to crack the door open just enough for a foreign (super)power to want to come barging in for some reason

No foreign superpower barged into the Civil Rights or the Indian independence movement. Not directly. (If we’re counting hypothetical foreign involvement that’s a geopolitical constant.)

> sounds like a cop-out to the original blanket statement

And no excerpt from an article will do a full reading justice. The article makes no blanket statements, its entire thesis is armed insurgency and protest are strategic twins.

[buran77]

> No foreign superpower barged into the Civil Rights

The presumably US Civil Right movement wasn't happening in an authoritarian state. There's no question that non-violent protest works differently in democratic or well functioning countries. But what's the value of this comparison in practice? Under an authoritarian regime would you recommend writing letters to your representative just because this has been known to work in democratic countries?

> or the Indian independence movement

At least this example is on point. But one good example doesn't generally validate a theory. Look no further than the Syrian civil war you mentioned in your previous comment which required trillions of dollars worth of foreign military intervention. Or the countless failed protests and uprisings all around the world.

> The article makes no blanket statements

It's presented as a "recipe" of sorts, a scenario that flows naturally to the expected and described conclusion when it's anything but. Where's the data to back up such a claim, even if later qualified with a weak "of course it doesn't work all the time"? Any evidence that it works most of the time? A significant even if minor part of the time? Does critical thinking have to take a step back in favor of wishful thinking just because the latter gives you the feels while the former the chills?

[martin-t]

> learn from failure to coup-proof themselves faster than the population can keep up

Institutional memory is longer than individual memory. What drove this point home for me was an article about how the police on London can predict whether a protest will turn violent and that they know how to corral people depending on which outcome they want.

But for now, institutions still at least rely on individuals to retain the experience/memories/skills and individuals have their own agency and can leave the organization or die.

[Fuzzwah]

Do you recall the article? Was it this https://netpol.org/2025/03/01/this-is-repression-annual-stat...?