You don't think Russia's current path has been set in motion since the 70s & 80s ? The corruption that undergirds Putin's kleptocratic dictatorship has its roots in the relationship between Soviet-era KGB and organized crime. They've basically just swapped totalitarianism for autocracy.
Russia's at it again
- Thread starter Pogue Mahone
- Start date
"It's all Western Propaganda"
I’d say the fall of the Soviet Union, and then the chaotic 90s, represent distinct and significant breaks in Russian history where things might have developed in a number of different directions had Putin not emerged at the end of the period. Not seeing the same sort of upheaval in China since the 70s/early 80s, although as above, happy to be corrected.
You're right that things could've gone either way in Russia, but the transition from KGB corruption to organized crime to the current autocratic police state is little more than a continuation of the same construct. As a former KGB Colonel and head of the FSB, Putin is literally the result of the corruption that preceded him and continues to allow him to rule in the present.
It's really a confirmation bias when you take one side of the system that arguably stayed the same and extrapolate it onto the whole system. Russia's development from the 70's towards today had been anything but straight-forward.
Do you think that Putin is part of a system/network or that he is his own man?
As bad as Russia has been. It's JV compared to the shit we get up to. Let that sink in. It might reshape your opinion on "I'm not biased" or "I'm not influenced by propaganda". Yes, Russia is worse to its own people, barely, but Russia also hasn't invaded a dozen or so countries, and been responsible directly and indirectly for the deaths of millions and the displacement of millions more. Not to mention the destabilization, civil wars, assassinations, and coups we've kicked off. If we want to talk about criminality. The top of the list is the our(US) foreign policy. Or, is it your opinion that none of this is bad because it is is our team doing it? Do you subscribe to the ideology that, America is good, so anything America does in pursuit of "good" is ok, because America is good?
Russia as a separate state/federation has been about for 28 years. Before that it was USSR and they did a helluva lot of stuff that you mention in your post. After that they really didn't have the capacity to do it, till recently.
He's his own man as much as anyone can be in his position. His real focus is only on a few things though (foreign policy mostly), so the system makes a lot of decisions without him.
He got rid of every threat that he had from the system that installed him as a president in the first place — Berezovsky, Khodorkovsky and many other figures that are/were lesser known to the Western public. Originally he was intended to be a puppet, or, at least, a puppet-esque figure. Who knew.
Misunderstood what I posted obviously.
I'm not defending what the US has done or is doing.
That does not mean they are innocent is all.
depends on the criteria.
Generally speaking I think that Russia's role in the world is frequently exaggerated. I don't think that Russia's actions are particularly significant when it comes to influencing global developments. They play an important part in specific regional conflicts but I am not sure that they are able to have much substantial influence beyond that. I don't think that People will look back in 30 years and focus on Russia/Putin as the most significant actor of the time (all pure speculation)
Influenced by some of the writing of Kotkin, I think I have also a slightly different view on Russian history and the importance of Putin in it. I don't think that he is that important/special.
Alternatives? Well, its hard to look past US presidents, especially GWB. I think the world could be a very different place without him & his crew. China is close by and I guess it depends how everything plays out with Xi if he is second or comes behind Hu Jintao. I'd pick Merkel ahead of Putin as well. I don't know enough about guys like Modi to say much about it.
Naturally there are only few people, that have a legitimate case and Putin has the advantage, that his reign isn't limited by a term Limit.
I don't agree with the notion that America has been acting worse in recent times somehow than Russia. Sure Russia may not have the personnel or equipment to launch large scale operations but it certainly plays its part in global conflicts through weapons sales, mercenary and covert ops, propaganda, etc.
Even if we only just look at the destabilizing influence it has had and continues to have on the former eastern block regions. It's just not as out in the open as the US and it doesn't get the media frenzy and Hollywood coverage due to the transparency that we at least still have people capable of pushing for here.
Even if we only just look at the destabilizing influence it has had and continues to have on the former eastern block regions. It's just not as out in the open as the US and it doesn't get the media frenzy and Hollywood coverage due to the transparency that we at least still have people capable of pushing for here.
Thanks, it's interesting how mythical Russia and Putin have become. From the outside it's difficult to know what is what.
People really don’t know or underestimate the situation Putin inherited in 1999. This was a nation, embarrassed humiliated, on its knees and on verge of even more Balkanization. Look up average Russian life expectancy isn’t he 90s, anarchical cities, GDP lower than that of the Netherlands.
He’s easily the most skilled statesman of this century. I can’t take Western coverage of Russia seriously when Economist magazine few weeks ago rated Russia as more authoritarian than China. I mean, anyone who’s been to both countries or just knows a simple bit of facts knows it’s just complete bullshit.
Also interesting that the West didn’t have much problems with Putin until 2007 despite him showing autocratic tendencies (Bill Browder wrote op-Ed in NYT if I recall defending Putin’s arrest of Khodorovsky), it was only after the 2007 Munich conference speech where he ripped into NATO eastward expenasion and American desire for a one-power world order that his coverage in the western media changed.
He’s easily the most skilled statesman of this century. I can’t take Western coverage of Russia seriously when Economist magazine few weeks ago rated Russia as more authoritarian than China. I mean, anyone who’s been to both countries or just knows a simple bit of facts knows it’s just complete bullshit.
Also interesting that the West didn’t have much problems with Putin until 2007 despite him showing autocratic tendencies (Bill Browder wrote op-Ed in NYT if I recall defending Putin’s arrest of Khodorovsky), it was only after the 2007 Munich conference speech where he ripped into NATO eastward expenasion and American desire for a one-power world order that his coverage in the western media changed.
For someone who's never been to the country you sure have very strong views on it, so much so that you've been posting them here for years now. It's absolutely fine to bash Putin or Russian government and its policies but why is it that literally every time the subject of Russia pops up on this forum, you're right there with another dose of bile to add to the mix? You claim to have read everything on the subject but somehow never have anything good to say. Care to point me to a single post of yours where you said something positive about Russia/Russians? I'm genuinely interested.
Speaking from personal experience, I lived in New York for many years and got to know America and Americans quite well. I discovered a whole new world that was nothing like the country I was born and raised in and I'm happy to have had that in my life, it made me a different person and gave me a diffrent perspective, although I'd still never presume to be an expert on all things American. Now back in my home country when I hear some Russians spouting nonsense about what the US/Americans are like, it makes me chuckle because these are mostly views of people who are either brainwashed by propaganda or just too ignorant to think for themselves or both. And yet there are also people who are intelligent, well educated and well read but when it comes to discussing America/Americans they're just as biased as the simpletons who believe everything they watch on the news.
Which makes me wonder if you fall into the category of people who think that just because they read a few books on one subject or the other somehow they've figured out all there's to know about it. Personally, I believe all the books in the world I could have read about America, its people, history and culture wouldn't come closer to what I've learned first hand after living in my first year down there.
Don’t remember ever saying anything bad about the country or the people in general, just the government.
I think you're right in the first 2 paragraphs. But I do think that the views changed from mixed (some good stuff, some bad) to more negative after the conflict with Georgia in 2008, and then widely negative after the Crimea annexation and invasion of eastern Ukraine in 2014.
I’d agree there are some elements of continuity, there always are even with the most abrupt breaks with history, e.g. the transition from the Ottoman Empire to the Republic of Turkey was conducted and achieved by an officer class that had been in training and getting more and more involved in politics for the previous three decades or so. However nobody would deny it still represented a fundamental break with the past, nor that Ataturk was a decisive figure in all of it. Likewise with the USSR —> Russia transition. The Soviets of the early 80s would not have envisaged the future of Russia as it has turned out, and they certainly did not plan for it to play out as it has, quite the opposite actually. The institutions that made the USSR function as it did were largely replaced after breaking down, the dominant state ideology was completely discredited, etc. None of this, it seems to me, has happened in China since the late 70s/early 80s.
Interesting take. As I hinted above, I may be biased by my focus on the Middle East. It’s been nothing short of astonishing to watch a region go from under the thumb of Washington in 2003 to seeing Putin outmaneuver all his rivals and have every regional leader - Netanyahu, Assad, Erdogan, Khamenei, MBS, even Sisi to a certain degree - eating out of his hand. I can’t think of an American President with comparable achievements in that region in such a short space of time.
My framing of ‘significant’ in terms of dramatic achievements, however, may also reflect some bias I’m willing to admit. Who’s to say the stable guiding hands who have managed China’s rise in this century aren’t equally or more deserving? It’s just that we know no little about them as individuals that it is hard to discern how exactly the types of choices they’ve made have impacted upon China’s seemingly inevitable trajectory.
My perception about the Middle East is just a little different. The US sent 3000 soldiers to SA after the attack on the refinery, not Russia. The relationship towards Iran is dominated by the decisions of the US presidents to negotiate with them or to unravel their agreements. Wasnt trumps connection with bibi far more important than anything that Putin did?
I could go on about lybia, Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and struggle to see what Russia brings substantially to the table. Maybe I am missing something, but I don't see Russia as that influential outside syria.
The question if china buys Iranian oil or where they invest seems to be more significant than most of Russia decisions.
Last edited:
What are some of the positive things you've discovered about Russia?
It's interesting that while his popularity around the world has been on the rise, Putin's approval rating in Russia has suffered quite a bit due to an economic crisis and especially recent introduction of pension reform which is very unpopular. The ruling party of his creation United Russia is struggling for support in big cities, and among troubling signs in recent city council lections in Moscow and St.Petersburg several of its members decided to run as independents, which was unheard of only a few years ago. Putin may be a lot of things but he's not stupid and I'm sure he realizes it's time for a change when his own party becomes so toxic association with it hurts more than helps.
I think many realize that this his last term and Putin is probably looking for a successor, who would provide him with guarantees of personal safety and immunity from further prosecution, like he did with his predecessor Boris Yeltzin plus a smooth transition of power without any problems. I don't think Putin's exit will lead to some major changes in Russia's foreign policies. Whoever takes over will either come from siloviki (KGB or the like) or from the business side of his inner circle and depending on that, it'll be either change towards suppression of dissent, militarization and increasing hostility towards the West or more balanced approach wih pragmatic decisions taking priority.
I think many realize that this his last term and Putin is probably looking for a successor, who would provide him with guarantees of personal safety and immunity from further prosecution, like he did with his predecessor Boris Yeltzin plus a smooth transition of power without any problems. I don't think Putin's exit will lead to some major changes in Russia's foreign policies. Whoever takes over will either come from siloviki (KGB or the like) or from the business side of his inner circle and depending on that, it'll be either change towards suppression of dissent, militarization and increasing hostility towards the West or more balanced approach wih pragmatic decisions taking priority.
I won’t comment on embarrassed, humiliated and on the verge of Balkanization (Chechnya? I’m not even sure what do you mean by that) stuff. Those definitely won’t be in my top-3 problems of the 90’s (and there were loads of them).
The rest of your post is more sensible, but I’ll try to comment on it when I have time. Absolutely agree on Russia/China though.
Last edited:
Putin himself runs as an independent candidate every time to be fair
But yeah, it looks like he's throwing U.R. (or someone big) under the bus soon.It'll be interesting to see if he'll step down after this term. Personally, I don't think so, but maybe it's just that I've grown so used with the idea of him. I also can't think of a good candidate, but then Putin in 1999 was a wildcard.
I was talking from an outside perspective. When you see those clips of Bill Clinton laughing his bottoms off with a completely drunk Yeltsin as Russia was being looted, for a so-called "superpower" before that, it was quite embarrassing. Of course, day-to-day Russian citizens who actually lived through those had a lot more things to worry about than being humiliated on the international stage.
I won’t comment on embarrassed, humiliated and on the verge of Balkanization (Chechnya? I’m not even sure what do you mean by that) stuff. Those definitely won’t be in my top-3 problems of the 90’s (and there were loads of them).
The rest of your post is more sensible, but I’ll try to comment on it when I have time. Absolutely agree on Russia/China though.
About your graph, yes it shows a steady rise and then a sharp fall as the recession that took place after sanctions and falling oil prices. It's been steadily improving since from the sources I've seen, but of course, there are economic difficulties. Interestingly, according to UNWTO 2018 tourism statistics, Russian citizens' spending while travelling abroad had the highest % of the increase (11%) in the world only matched by those of French and Aussie citizens. Usually, those things are sign of improving economic conditions, but I am happy to be corrected. I agree with antihenry though that I can't see Putin staying after 2024 and most likely he'll want to go out on a high and if I were him I'd focus hard on domestic improvements for the final few years, but I think the successor has to be a relatively young person in their 50s, so that'd rule someone like Shoygu out.
As a person who wants to see just beyond economy and GDP, stats like alcohol consumption being down by 40% since 2003 and tobacco consumption down 30% since 2009 in Russia is interesting and in my opinion and some credit should go to him. Also it's amazing that it took one successful World Cup campaign for him to be convinced to open up the country a bit and trust his beauracrats with e-visas with country expected to go all e-visa by 2021 (Spb, Kaliningrad and Far East are already) which has the potential to really shake up the economy by opening a whole new revenue stream. Again, I personally don't see it as black and white. He's done some things terribly wrong, but also has done somethings very well.
Anyways, there is a high chance I'll be living in St. Petersburg for a month or more before end of the year to acquire fluency in Russian, so it'll be interesting to talk to even more Russians from all walks of life and dig their brains to think what they think of his legacy and rule. 3rd time lucky in Russia!
You've seen what the graph is about, right? The problem with Putin's "economic miracle" is that he had an almost limitless amount of money coming in from the oil and the gas sales when the price for them was at the all-time high... and instead of putting those funds into the economy, like, say, many Arab country did, he, well, just spent it (putting a big chunk of it in his and his friends pockets). Hence why when the price dropped down, the ruble crumbled — and we don't really have a strong economy, there's no big manufactures, high-tech start ups are moving abroad and there's not even enough money to finance the pension fund (which led to Putin adding a few years to the required retirement age).
If he left for good back in 2008 after his second term, most people in the country would remember him fondly still, I think. Putin did bring the country back from its knees and there were plenty of positives during his reign.Yet I feel when his legacy will be discussed in the years to come many would agree that he failed to use a unique historic opportunity to change fortunes for his country and people. Instead he decided to hold on to the power by any means necessary and get rid of any potential opposition. You've already mentioned booming oil prices and that's when Putin had a great chance to carry out sorely needed reforms and by now we'd be living in a different country. Instead he chose to divide the country's resources between his friends and cronies in order to strengthen his power grip inside Russia and play geopolitical games on the global stage at the expence of the welfare of Russian people.Putin himself runs as an independent candidate every time to be fair
It'll be interesting to see if he'll step down after this term. Personally, I don't think so, but maybe it's just that I've grown so used with the idea of him. I also can't think of a good candidate, but then Putin in 1999 was a wildcard.
Yeah, I agree with that.
Boris and Brexit make for a weaker EU. Happy days for Russia and their geopolitical meddlings.
Ohhh, the evil Russians are coming to eat your kids.
At least someone will have food.Ohhh, the evil Russians are coming to eat your kids.
Nah, it's more like "let us create problems for them, so there is less focus on us" kinda evil. I doubt this is done do increase their influence over others, but more likely a long term strategy to ensure less scrutiny/actions/influence from the west.Ohhh, the evil Russians are coming to eat your kids.
If one views this from a Russian standpoint (Russia = good guy), they are doing this to defend themselves from the influence of evil countries.
If one views this from a Western standpoint (Russia = bad guy), they are doing this to the make west weaker and less united and paving the path for Russia as a major player on the global stage again. (In reality, they are more or less Chinas less dangerous little brother)
I know, those stupid Russians have nothing else to eat because they are dumb and only drink vodka.
I'm viewing it from a neutral standpoint because from my knowledge and experience, both the West and Russia take advantage of situations for their own benefit only. And the moral high ground that Westerners try to take is absolutely hilarious to me.
At least Russia say it as it is - they do what they do to protect their national interest. The West loves to talk about democracy and what not, whereas they do the same things like Russia whenever they can.
And babies, people always forget the vodka soaked babies!
Congrats on winning yet another election, Ser Putin.
Vodka soaked babies on krokodil, it's a Russian tradition.
Well on that basis, I for one salute our drunken overlords
At least you will know when they arrive from the sound of all the crying babies.
That is the media and traditions so deep-rooted in western culture that most people take it for granted. Historically, I think it is fair to view it from a neutral point of view where both are doing things based on self-interest. Who started it? Napoleon? The Swedes? IDK.
Today, and for the foreseeable future, I think the only standpoint that really matters is from a climate change point of view (which is my standpoint). Influencing elections or politics in the UK and US with the outcome of Trump and Boris in power is not good at all. Hence, my somewhat subjective negative view of Russian geopolitical interference.
But my point is the West also meddles in elections and has been doing it for a long time. I get that it might influence you negatively in this case, but Western governments do the exact same thing, yet they expect their opponents to play a fair game. That's not how the world works. There is a reason for intelligence and counter-intelligence agencies to exist, the silent or proxy wars will always go on, as unfortunate as that is for regular citizens on either side.
I can give many examples from my own country, but I'm a bit short on time right now, might do it later.