Russia Continues to Expand Definition of Treason - Stop Any Dissent (Reagan, illegal)
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.
Agree. Putin really cannot seem to stand criticism and does not let go the power - the Yukos chief in jail and the Georgian President are among the people who will corroborate. But, many Russians support him despite these problems. When Putin had jailed the Yukos chief, I was in Moscow and while there were many tears being shed in the West, the few people I discussed this over drinks there could not care less. They really thought amalgamation of the companies into a govt-controlled company was good for Russia. Never mind that another oilgarch - forgot if he was the Sibneft guy - who was friends with Putin, made off with billions while the Yukos guy is still in jail.
Absolutely, I believe many of the Russian citizens are more concerned with reestablishing to old resect (actually, fear) of Russia than trying to make personal economic progress.
However, they hadn't yet experienced the personal impacts of a reversal in oil prices. It will be interesting to evaluate their personal sentiments if we can keep prices low for a couple of years.
An interesting thing is despite all this, Putin is popular with quite a few people. They seem him as restoring Russia's dignity in the world and are not too bothered with democracy. Like in China, in some ways, economic prosperity (percieved or real) trumps the need for true democracy.
Like this is particularly different in the United States?
Like this is particularly different in the United States?
Absolutely the opposite in the USA, folks care a whole lot about how they are doing in terms of personal finances. The economic process differences between the USA and Russia are extensive.
However, they hadn't yet experienced the personal impacts of a reversal in oil prices. It will be interesting to evaluate their personal sentiments if we can keep prices low for a couple of years.
Here is an interesting article (may require subscription) in Wall St Journal on the impact on Russia of faling prices: Oil's Crash Stirs Unrest in Russia as Slump Hits Home - WSJ.com
- some protests in far flung areas have started
- Rouble is devalued from 23 to 28 this year (vs US$)
- public panic is one of Moscow's great fears
- the country's 8% growth will be a recession soon. They are revising budgets that were set assuming much higher prices
An excerpt from the article: The prospect of further unrest poses what could be the biggest challenge yet to the authoritarian system built by Mr. Putin. It also foists a stark choice on the Kremlin: to stifle dissent, or to placate protesters to provide some kind of pressure outlet. For now, the Kremlin has decided on a mixture of both. But the government's options may narrow as its financial reserves shrink. The prospect of further unrest poses what could be the biggest challenge yet to the authoritarian system built by Mr. Putin. It also foists a stark choice on the Kremlin: to stifle dissent, or to placate protesters to provide some kind of pressure outlet. For now, the Kremlin has decided on a mixture of both. But the government's options may narrow as its financial reserves shrink.
You are correct in implying that if prices stay low for 2 yrs, that will be a huge problem for them.
An interesting thing is despite all this, Putin is popular with quite a few people. They seem him as restoring Russia's dignity in the world and are not too bothered with democracy. Like in China, in some ways, economic prosperity (percieved or real) trumps the need for true democracy.
I think you're right. It reminds me of the old "freedom from" and "freedom to" distinction. "Freedom from" is what Russians (and many people around the world) seem to want more than anything. Freedom from hunger, freedom from instability, freedom from crime, freedom from foreign invasion. Russians historically have rarely had these "freedom froms".
We in the U.S. are more accustomed to our "freedom tos". Freedom to speak your opinion, freedom to report the news without government intimidation or interference...in short: freedom to oppose the government.
I don't know if we in the land of "freedom to" can fully understand the mindset of people from the lands of "freedom from". Ultimately, it is a test of our imagination to do so: sit down, and really imagine how dire life would be without the "freedom froms".
Strongmen provide "freedom froms" better than do democrats (small d). Since government stability can never be more than an illusion shared by the governed (i.e.: we all buy into it), concrete expressions of power are more "believable" than the saintly acts men like Washington who had power and freely gave it up for something greater: true democracy for his nation. Americans would likely not believe in a Washington had he not actually happened, and I don't think Russians have ever had a Washington of their own (Gorbachev, amazingly enough, was close- he could have tenaciously and foolishly held onto power- even if he would have been doomed in the end. Plenty of leaders have tried to hold onto power despite their hopelessness (Saddam Hussein), and their people have always payed for it in the bloodiest of terms).
Like Otto von Bismarck who resisted social and political progress and instead gave his people a palliative of nationalism and military success (aided by the excellence of German military ability as well as the organizational mastery of the German General Staff), Putin gives his people the "freedom froms" and assuages their sense of national pride instead of giving them "freedom tos".
I'm not sure what George W. Bush mistook for 'goodness' when he thought he saw it in Putin's eyes, but I hardly think it is there. I cannot imagine that Iraq will end up as anything but a similar strongman-lead nation just as bad or worse than Saddam Hussein. You cannot have the "freedom tos" from a people who have not undergone a grass-roots mental revolution necessary to implement and sustain it. Sadly, we are an optimistic and naive nation that believes the rest of humanity will follow our same dynamic, whereas much of the rest of humanity is more cynical and jaded. We have based too much of our foreign policy on this naive optimism.
Absolutely the opposite in the USA, folks care a whole lot about how they are doing in terms of personal finances. The economic process differences between the USA and Russia are extensive.
I think you and I agree here:
Quote:
Like in China, in some ways, economic prosperity (percieved or real) trumps the need for true democracy.
I think you're right. It reminds me of the old "freedom from" and "freedom to" distinction. "Freedom from" is what Russians (and many people around the world) seem to want more than anything. Freedom from hunger, freedom from instability, freedom from crime, freedom from foreign invasion. Russians historically have rarely had these "freedom froms".
We in the U.S. are more accustomed to our "freedom tos". Freedom to speak your opinion, freedom to report the news without government intimidation or interference...in short: freedom to oppose the government.
I don't know if we in the land of "freedom to" can fully understand the mindset of people from the lands of "freedom from". Ultimately, it is a test of our imagination to do so: sit down, and really imagine how dire life would be without the "freedom froms".
Strongmen provide "freedom froms" better than do democrats (small d). Since government stability can never be more than an illusion shared by the governed (i.e.: we all buy into it), concrete expressions of power are more "believable" than the saintly acts men like Washington who had power and freely gave it up for something greater: true democracy for his nation. Americans would likely not believe in a Washington had he not actually happened, and I don't think Russians have ever had a Washington of their own (Gorbachev, amazingly enough, was close- he could have tenaciously and foolishly held onto power- even if he would have been doomed in the end. Plenty of leaders have tried to hold onto power despite their hopelessness (Saddam Hussein), and their people have always payed for it in the bloodiest of terms).
Like Otto von Bismarck who resisted social and political progress and instead gave his people a palliative of nationalism and military success (aided by the excellence of German military ability as well as the organizational mastery of the German General Staff), Putin gives his people the "freedom froms" and assuages their sense of national pride instead of giving them "freedom tos".
I'm not sure what George W. Bush mistook for 'goodness' when he thought he saw it in Putin's eyes, but I hardly think it is there. I cannot imagine that Iraq will end up as anything but a similar strongman-lead nation just as bad or worse than Saddam Hussein. You cannot have the "freedom tos" from a people who have not undergone a grass-roots mental revolution necessary to implement and sustain it. Sadly, we are an optimistic and naive nation that believes the rest of humanity will follow our same dynamic, whereas much of the rest of humanity is more cynical and jaded. We have based too much of our foreign policy on this naive optimism.
Dec 16th 2008 The rouble—a rock-hard currency since the oil price started to rise—is losing value at an accelerating rate, down by 3% this week against a basket of currencies. It has lost around 15% of its value since the summer. Even so, Russia’s huge foreign-currency reserves are steadily shrinking as the authorities defend the rouble. They are down by more than a quarter, or around $160 billion, from their August peak of $600 billion.
Now take BigJon's post above, ponder Putin's proclivities and the method of his strong-man rule, and extrapolate the kinds of things he and Russia are likely to do in the near future. Add to this the fact that the one nation with the capacity and will to project its military power anywhere around the globe is currently and for the foreseeable future bogged down in Iraq. Military conflict isn't necessary, but the threat of military force definitely factors into a potential rogue state's calculations. Whatever our goals in Iraq, we've given up a lot of goals everywhere else to pursue them.
Sadly, we are an optimistic and naive nation that believes the rest of humanity will follow our same dynamic, whereas much of the rest of humanity is more cynical and jaded. We have based too much of our foreign policy on this naive optimism.
BTW, nice post (cant rep - luv spreading needed!)
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.
