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.
"A lot of KGB agents, like Putin, had left the organisation, realising it was discredited. The fact that he was ex-KGB meant nothing. Putin had shown himself to be a liberal and a democrat, who wanted to continue market reforms."
You know, back in those days, after 1990/91, the old-guard folks who still believed in the old Soviet system and the privileges for those on top, cast themselves as "democrats". What it really meant was, that they were all for "privatization", so they could pick up major state assets for pennies. They took it as a license to be robber barons, basically. Does that help explain Yeltsin's choice? He's the one who let oligarchs steal everything in sight, in terms of large assets. And "privatization" was part of the economic reforms...
Thanks for posting. I didn't know P had announced his intentions so early. But I suppose it was to be expected, given the tendencies of the era.
Last edited by Ruth4Truth; 10-02-2022 at 03:43 PM..
I sure do hope that I'm not inadvertently steering this thread off course , much less coming off as being snarky , but you do realize that Hungarians have participated in a total of at least 9 rather bloody mass revolutions against their own government throughout history ?
Compare that to Americans who have , unless you count the Civil War , revolted in a mass bloody way against the federal government a total of zero times in spite of such talk being part and parcel of American political discourse to this very day .
I admire the Hungarians’ courage in rising up against foreign oppressors in 1848, 1956, etc. But Hungarians have not done much about Hungarian-led autocracy, whether in the Dual Monarchy after 1867, under Horthy, or under Orban.
You seem to not be aware of US history.
Americans have sacrificed their lives for democracy and human rights repeatedly and very recently.
The most recent large-scale example is the civil rights movement in the 1960s, when courageous African Americans were beaten, shot, etc. in their struggle for democratic rights.
Even in the past few years, the Black Lives Matter movement resulted in bloodshed, with protests for human rights. (And unlike Hungarians, who didn’t stop oppressing Romanians and other minority groups, Americans generally supported African-American protesters and changed laws to give them more rights.)
And when Trump got elected, there were massive protests, even in “red” states. And unlike Hungarians or Russians, that tyrant was voted out of office in 2020 before he could do more damage.
Trump was a clown, no one realistically considers him a tyrant of the likes of Kim Jong Un or Saddam Hussein. On top of that Orban is a fake nationalist, he will do only what appeases the west and just looks more avant-guard to the dumb masses. I'm popping a champagne if Hungary really leaves the EU but for the time being it's rather "we like eu money but you know syrians are dark so we don't want them". My country also in eastern europe just elected with 10% a party which opposes adopting the euro currency and wants to leave the eu, yet as you can suspect they will never form a majority.
Trump was a clown, no one realistically considers him a tyrant of the likes of Kim Jong Un or Saddam Hussein.
Trump aspired to be an American version of Putin or Mussolini.
If you consider Trump a clown, then the fact that many Americans were very concerned about his attacks on the rule of law and took action by protesting, suing him and voting him out of office are even more admirable. That shows that Americans generally take threats to democracy extremely seriously, even if the person threatening democracy is considered a clown.
Trump aspired to be an American version of Putin or Mussolini.
If you consider Trump a clown, then the fact that many Americans were very concerned about his attacks on the rule of law and took action by protesting, suing him and voting him out of office are even more admirable. That shows that Americans generally take threats to democracy extremely seriously, even if the person threatening democracy is considered a clown.
Yes. He turned out to be a dangerous clown. And he did show tyrannical tendencies, like when he would hold up federal funds to states whose policies he didn't like, and that kind of thing. That's never been done before by a President, AFAIK.
I sure do hope that I'm not inadvertently steering this thread off course , much less coming off as being snarky , but you do realize that Hungarians have participated in a total of at least 9 rather bloody mass revolutions against their own government throughout history ?
In fact the Golden Bull of 1222 extended the right of revolution not just to members of the nobility , but also to a significant swathe of commoners ( aka royal servants ) , a right which I don't believe has ever been enjoyed by any amount of commoners in any Anglo or Western European country .
Compare that to Americans who have , unless you count the Civil War , revolted in a mass bloody way against the federal government a total of zero times in spite of such talk being part and parcel of American political discourse to this very day .
I won't even expound on the factor of the rule of the man you've mentioned in tandem with Putin , since I'm honestly quite loathe to continually have to face the baseless accusation of defending him , but I must say that this whole implicit narrative about Hungarians being a servile people based on merely the political events of the past 12 years is completely unwarranted .
And as much as I admire the Britons as a people , they happen to reside in one of the most intense nanny states ever conceived , in fact one of the main reasons as to why I don't live in the UK is precisely that .
Also I sure do hope that you're not referring to the French Revolution as being a fight for freedom , since it gave birth to the first example of truly horrific modern age tyranny .
All in all this whole latent narrative about non Anglosphere/Western European people having a cultural tendency towards servility is completely wrong and stems from an incomplete reading of history , but I will most definitely digress having typed this .
All you do is try to "intelligently" throw up one false equivalence after another. Currently at this stage in world events, the Hungarians are tools and unless they change course, they will suffer the consequences. Now feel free to bring up any historical facts you have to counter this.
I admire the Hungarians’ courage in rising up against foreign oppressors in 1848, 1956, etc. But Hungarians have not done much about Hungarian-led autocracy, whether in the Dual Monarchy after 1867, under Horthy, or under Orban.
You seem to not be aware of US history.
Americans have sacrificed their lives for democracy and human rights repeatedly and very recently.
The most recent large-scale example is the civil rights movement in the 1960s, when courageous African Americans were beaten, shot, etc. in their struggle for democratic rights.
Even in the past few years, the Black Lives Matter movement resulted in bloodshed, with protests for human rights. (And unlike Hungarians, who didn’t stop oppressing Romanians and other minority groups, Americans generally supported African-American protesters and changed laws to give them more rights.)
And when Trump got elected, there were massive protests, even in “red” states. And unlike Hungarians or Russians, that tyrant was voted out of office in 2020 before he could do more damage.
Despite all their faults none of the states you've mentioned were or are autocracies and I'm well aware enough of American history to know that the civil rights movement was an instance of internal reform as opposed to a bona fide revolution , even though its effects were indeed revolutionary in scope .
That typed you and I seem to basically be in agreement about Russia's experiment with democracy having turned out to be a failure , though for probably different reasons , and perhaps we should stick to that subject as such .
So to move forward with that particular topic , do you think it would be prudent for the attempt to create democracy in Russia to pick up steam once more ?
After all if it has already failed twice , since the Russian Provisional Government of 1917 can also be called an attempt to create democracy , then what would the odds of no Lenin or ( depending on how you look at him of course ) Yeltsin/Putin like figures emerging once more be ?
In short wouldn't the attempt to create a semi constitutional monarchy via restoring the rightful heirs of the house of Romanov , who wouldn't suffer from the handicap of having grown up in a long gone off course Russia to boot , hold much more potential for success ?
Despite all their faults none of the states you've mentioned were or are autocracies and I'm well aware enough of American history to know that the civil rights movement was an instance of internal reform as opposed to a bona fide revolution , even though its effects were indeed revolutionary in scope .
That typed you and I seem to basically be in agreement about Russia's experiment with democracy having turned out to be a failure , though for probably different reasons , and perhaps we should stick to that subject as such .
So to move forward with that particular topic , do you think it would be prudent for the attempt to create democracy in Russia to pick up steam once more ?
After all if it has already failed twice , since the Russian Provisional Government of 1917 can also be called an attempt to create democracy , then what would the odds of no Lenin or ( depending on how you look at him of course ) Yeltsin/Putin like figures emerging once more be ?
In short wouldn't the attempt to create a semi constitutional monarchy via restoring the rightful heirs of the house of Romanov , who wouldn't suffer from the handicap of having grown up in a long gone off course Russia to boot , hold much more potential for success ?
The civil rights movement was a revolution by Western democratic standards. Western democracies don’t need 1848-style revolutions because social change can generally done through the democratic process.
If Russia, or any country, wants a constitutional monarchy, that’s fine. There are a lot of benefits to having a nonpartisan head of state. But please note that democracy and monarchy are not necessarily in conflict; the freeest and most democratic nations in the world (Sweden, Denmark, Canada, Australia, etc.) are monarchies.
Russia continues smuggling Ukrainian grain to help pay Putin's war. Thank to satellite imagery is quite simple to track the origins of the grain.
Russia is using falsified manifests and seaborne subterfuge to steal Ukrainian grain. Videos posted on social media in recent months show a steady stream of grain transport trucks moving south through occupied areas of Ukraine.
Agro-Fregat train cars have been recorded rolling through the Crimean port town of Feodosia, where satellite imagery shows trucks and trains lined up as grain was being loaded onto ships.
The images also show large cargo ships anchored off the Russian coast rendezvousing with smaller ships shuttling grain from both Crimean and Russian ports, obscuring the true origin of the cargo.
The civil rights movement was a revolution by Western democratic standards. Western democracies don’t need 1848-style revolutions because social change can generally done through the democratic process.
If Russia, or any country, wants a constitutional monarchy, that’s fine. There are a lot of benefits to having a nonpartisan head of state. But please note that democracy and monarchy are not necessarily in conflict; the freeest and most democratic nations in the world (Sweden, Denmark, Canada, Australia, etc.) are monarchies.
Yes well by your statement regarding Americans/the French and the Britons having fought for and sacrificed their lives for freedom , I assumed you meant what is typically signified by the term revolution , but (if this is the point you were trying to make of course ) I actually agree that Americans have so far been able to achieve peaceful social revolutions much more effectively than many other nations .
I actually think they are , but setting that aside I don't think a monarchy in the style that Commonwealth/Scandinavian countries exercise it would be desirable in the case of Russia , since that would still include involving the people at large in political decision making , which has been shown to be a colossal failure concerning Russia .
A monarchy in which the monarch actually rules , but has their power to curtail freedom severely limited by a constitution that includes the right of revolution among its Bill of Rights , is the best way to go for Russia in my humble view .
Last edited by William Blakeley; 10-03-2022 at 07:17 AM..
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.
