Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What place DOES Russia warrant in the world? It has a vast land mass, but little else. It can continue to be a serious military player so long as it impoverishes its people in order to pay for it, sure. And the population is daft enough to support it.
What is the role of the UK in the world in these last decades??
I think that Putin did everything correctly. He did not hurry and did not make hasty conclusions.
Didn't hurry? It took him all of 24 hours between slagging off the UK and doing a 180 degree turnaround and going even further!
Quote:
Western newspapers published headlines "Putin kill my children" the next morning after the collapse of the Malaysian plane. And you do not have proof until now. West is playing a dirty game.
I didn't see any headlines saying "Putin killed my children". They wouldn't be far from the truth, however. You forget that we have satellites that can see things you can't. There is no conclusive proof which side fired the missile, but one thing is certain - it had "Made In Russia" on the casing. The West did not encroach on the internationally recognised borders of a sovereign nation. The dirt is all on Putin's hands. In any case, Vlad know his Ukraine adventure was going to come back and bite him on the ass which is why he switched his diversion to Syria.
Quote:
You make a dangerous mistake. You say: "Putin is to blame for the downed plane." The correct phrase: "The terrorists are to blame for the downed plane." If you think that Russians can be intimidated by terrorist attacks, you're wrong. If Putin begins to be afraid of terrorists, he will lose support of the electorate. It is excluded.
Only I didn't say anything like "Putin is to blame for the downed plane" did I? I said it is looking very likely that it is retaliation for his bombing raids in an attempt to shore up his old ally Assad, but this is, of course, very unpalatable to the Russian public who think he can do no wrong. The facts cannot be covered up indefinitely even with a manipulated media like Russia's.
What is the role of the UK in the world in these last decades??
A disaster in terms of the Iraq invasion, which most of us have the humility to admit, and were vocally opposed to at the time. We don't hero worship our leaders like Russia.
Other than that - still the world's 5th largest economy.
It's pretty obvious how the vast majority of Russians feel about Putin, and it's understandable. The country has no democratic roots. No liberal DNA. It's less than three decades since it had the West living in fear through the cold war. Life there was without dignity (I saw it for my own eyes in 1988) but the country was feared through its military prowess.
Since then its been through a complete humiliation during Gorbachev's final months. I love the joke he told Thatcher:
"A couple are standing in an endless queue for vodka in the freezing cold. The man says to his wife "I've had enough - I'm going to find Gorbachev and strangle him". He returns after 5 minutes and the wife asks him why. "Because that queue is even longer than this one" he says.
Russia has not yet been through democratic puberty. It loves Putin simply because they see him as strong. The fact that most of the developed world see him as an utter clown doesn't bother them, even if they realise. He's like a pantomime act - with his staged ice hockey matches (always scores, of course!), riding horses with his top off (looking like a pin-up from a 1970s gay calendar) - it seems incredible that the Russian people take him seriously, but with a history of being manipulated, it seems nothing changes - even if there is a pretense of democracy. He doesn't bother about sanctions, as they can simply be portrayed as an attack from the West, and the Russian people swallow it without question. A people that withstood the siege of Stalingrad can cope without a few Western delicacies. Russia's GDP is only 75% of that of the UK, despite having nearly 2.5 times the population and vast resources. It is selling its resources at knock down prices to countries who manufacture and add all the value. A very dumb policy, but then Russia makes nothing the world wants to buy other than arms.
It's a shame, as the entire country's reputation is fast shadowing that of it's gangster leader. The athletic doping scandal - instead of taking it seriously, they hit out calling it "western propaganda". They pretend to be bombing ISIS in Syria when we know they are actually bombing anyone who is part of the opposition to Assad - and actually helping ISIS in the process. Their civilian airliner from Sharm is bombed out of the air, yet Putin pretends it's not the case and harasses the plane's operators instead (and the media obediently keep quite about the bomb). Russia's civilian airline safety record is appalling - not least because they always jump to blame someone or something rather than calmly analyse crashes so that lessons can be learned.
The Russian people need to grow up, politically, before the country can really advance and enjoy the benefits of a proper plurality. Whilst it allows itself to be lied to and manipulated by a completely biased media, its future is not bright. Which should be a worry to the rest of us.
Sorry 640, but your understanding of "Russia," "democracy," "Putin" is very skewed, since the 90ies are totally absent from your equation, apparently.
The whole Putin affair can't be understood, if taken out of the context of the 90ies.
It is the West to blame for things to come, because it dug its own grave twenty years ago.
That's how "unimportant" Russia is.
I agree with you, individual freedom is for the rich but not only in Russia, in the US as well.
Well I meant the US first of all, since it were the Americans that sold the "bag of goodies" to Russia twenty years ago, about how "successful" is the model where money rule everything.
Russia is historically poor and unimportant. Their rise is recent and occurred under tough guys. It's not America, used to centuries of affluence and personal freedom. For them power is mostly about being militarily respected. The Russian Right Wing favors taking back the breakaway republics, so Putin's actions in Crimea or South Ossetia are pleasing.
Let me make a guess - yet another Eastern European?
Sorry 640, but your understanding of "Russia," "democracy," "Putin" is very skewed, since the 90ies are totally absent from your equation, apparently.
The whole Putin's affair can't be understood, if taken out of the context of the 90ies.
It is the West to blame for things to come, because it dug its own grave twenty years ago.
That's how "unimportant" Russia is.
No, I appreciate the context of the 90s. It looked as though we might have a major new member of the proper international community until the old habits returned. Russia had a pretty terrible time under Yeltsin, and he led the way for Putin - who could at least meet and greet other leaders without falling over.
To try and lay the blame at the West's feet is just playing the victim.
Well I meant the US first of all, since it were the Americans that sold the "bag of goodies" to Russia twenty years ago, about how "successful" is the model where money rule everything.
What on earth is that supposed to mean?
Despite its many failings, and that it has been let too far off the leash, capitalism is a damn site more successful than what went on in Russia for 50 years (and was inflicted on the eastern European states - no wonder they are so bitter).
A lot of things - the bombing of parliament, ( a democratic institution you know,) the shifting all the country's valuable resources in few hands, ( and with money there goes the power - in few hands,) absence of any laws protecting the rights of the common citizens (private property including,) starvation and genocide of general population ( you are clueless how many people died ( unjustifiably so,) during that "transitional period," how much the birth rates dropped down/mortality went up, are you?) And all with a blessing of the US "economic advisers" and US government. You don't know about it all, do you? But Russians still remember. They remember it all very well, and that's the reason they hold on to Putin now. Because of the external threat that they still perceive. As in "fool me once.."
Quote:
Despite its many failings, and that it has been let too far off the leash, capitalism is a damn site more successful than what went on in Russia for 50 years (and was inflicted on the eastern European states - no wonder they are so bitter).
Number one - capitalism in the US and capitalism in Europe were quite different things, and the model that has been forced upon Russia was downright destructive.
And number two - for the Western countries communism is a dangerous thing. But not for Russia, because of the number of reasons. So on initial stages "communism" ( or whatever you call it) did Russians a lot of good. If not for the rapid industrialization, they wouldn't have had a chance in the WWII.
Since Russians are damn stubborn people ( and I am talking first of all about those on the top) they were not willing to be more flexible and adjust their system according to the growing needs ( I am talking about the private sector first of all,) and that's what brought their demise at the end. When Europeans combine capitalism with socialism, no one regards it as an "ideological failure of capitalism," but Russians were all hung up on "ideological aspects" of their system, and refused to adjust - it's that simple.
However saying all that, when they were looking for positive changes and were quite trusting towards the West, dropping all their defenses, they were brutally deceived. They learned that it was not "freedom and democracy" that the West wanted to establish in their country, but it wanted to turn it downright to the regular third world country. An appendix for supply of the natural resources, the status Russia basically had BEFORE industrialization and the Socialist Revolution.
So instead of the progress, their rejection of the Soviet system was indeed a regression, with all the destruction of their social security system, science sector and industrial sector along with it.
So as far as I am concerned Russians have every right to feel bitter and to progress with their path, as "destructive" for the "world balance" as it gets. Or as "destructive" as some might perceive it.
Sorry if it doesn't suit the West's fancy.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
