NationStates Jolt Archive

TIME just announced its Man of the Year: Vladimir Putin. Who would people here choose as "Man of the Year?" The person may of course also be a woman, but try not to cheat like the magazine did last year and choose "You" or "The Computer."

Me.

Me.

I'll second that.

Lunatic Goofballs. *nods*

TIME just announced its Man of the Year: Vladimir Putin. Who would people here choose as "Man of the Year?" The person may of course also be a woman, but try not to cheat like the magazine did last year and choose "You" or "The Computer."

Can't choose The Computer? What are you, some kinda filthy Commie Mutant Traitor?

I don't like the way they justified their choice. Putin didn't create stability, in recent years he's undermined pretty much every government institution in Russia. He installs cronies, fuses big corporations, their regulators and the courts into one thing and watches as various secret services arrest each other's members trying to prove they're the best.

He's built a house of cards out of a pile of them, but that doesn't make the house particularly stable.

My choice would be Al Gore for the attention he brought to the whole climate change business. Certainly a more fitting acknowledgement than a Nobel Prize.

I don't like the way they justified their choice. Putin didn't create stability, in recent years he's undermined pretty much every government institution in Russia. He installs cronies, fuses big corporations, their regulators and the courts into one thing and watches as various secret services arrest each other's members trying to prove they're the best.

He's built a house of cards out of a pile of them, but that doesn't make the house particularly stable.

My choice would be Al Gore for the attention he brought to the whole climate change business. Certainly a more fitting acknowledgement than a Nobel Prize.

Yeah, Uncle Vlad isn't a shining beacon of liberty but compared to the Capitalizt Field Day that was going on under Boris Yeltsin it would be hard to say he didn't stabilize Russia economically.

Yeah, Uncle Vlad isn't a shining beacon of liberty but compared to the Capitalizt Field Day that was going on under Boris Yeltsin it would be hard to say he didn't stabilize Russia economically.
Did he somehow manage to make oil and gas prices explode? He's a lucky bastard who rode the wave, that's all. People like to talk about the "oligarchs" under Yeltsin, like they don't exist anymore. They're still around, he just took out the ones who disagreed with him and got the rest to follow him.

TIME is seriously going to regret that choice once Putin declares a dictatorship.

I don't know who I would have chosen, personally.

TIME's person of the year is the guy who had the biggest impact, for good or for ill. It doesn't matter if you're a sick, twisted fuck. Hell, that probably increases your chances of getting chosen.

agreed, it is about the person who has made the biggest impact on the world. Stalin and Hitler have both graced the cover of Time (Stalin twice actually). Why should US Presidents be entitled to such an honour (almost every one since its inception have been named - W' twice) ... it is not as if the US has been a shining beacon for the world

Man of the Year doesn't necessarily mean "Best Person," it means the person who had the biggest impact.

Man of the Year doesn't necessarily mean "Best Person," it means the person who had the biggest impact.

Putin had an impact? :confused:

Putin? Man of the year? But of course! (http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19400101,00.html)

TIME is seriously going to regret that choice once Putin declares a dictatorship.

I don't know who I would have chosen, personally.

No, they'll congratulate themselves on correctly picking the Man of the Year.

At any rate, why would Putin want or need to declare a dictatorship?

No, they'll congratulate themselves on correctly picking the Man of the Year.

At any rate, why would Putin want or need to declare a dictatorship?

Putin likes his power and he doesn't want to let go of it.

Did he somehow manage to make oil and gas prices explode? He's a lucky bastard who rode the wave, that's all. People like to talk about the "oligarchs" under Yeltsin, like they don't exist anymore. They're still around, he just took out the ones who disagreed with him and got the rest to follow him.

I forget where, but I read that there are more billionaires living in Moscow than in any other city.

Putin likes his power and he doesn't want to let go of it.

I don't think it's necessarily that simple, and it goes back to those "oligarchs".

There are four parties that any Russian ruler must cater to: the army, the church, the masses, and the aristocracy. Any one can (and has) brought previous Russian rulers to their knees.

Putins already got the army (and intelligence services), and the church hasn't really mattered since Stalin.

If he simply supported the masses, he'd probably get voted in as long as he kept running...but that would piss off the "aristocracy" of "oligarchs", who would be certain to do what they could to get rid of Putin if he cut into their profits. This would probably result in a lot of infighting and instability at the top levels of the army and aristocracy, which would piss off the masses...the most dangerous group to piss off if you want the nation to emerge intact.

Instead the oligarchs recognize that Putin, along with the support from the army and intelligence services he provides, is the best tool in the drawer at the moment to keep unhappy elements of the masses from being too much of a problem. Meanwhile they keep making their money, and Putin gets to serve as the link between the army and the aristocracy...for as long as he remains useful.

It's actually probably not the greatest of positions to be in, considering he's probably got enough money to live comfortably anywhere in the world...and the uncertainty of just what will happen to him if the oligarchs suddenly have no need for him anymore.

Then again, I might be reading too much into it, and he might just be a power-hungry bastard. :p

So when are we going to see the russian flag be replaced by the USSR one and Putin naming a city to Putingrad?

I don't like the way they justified their choice. Putin didn't create stability, in recent years he's undermined pretty much every government institution in Russia. He installs cronies, fuses big corporations, their regulators and the courts into one thing and watches as various secret services arrest each other's members trying to prove they're the best.

He's built a house of cards out of a pile of them, but that doesn't make the house particularly stable.

My choice would be Al Gore for the attention he brought to the whole climate change business. Certainly a more fitting acknowledgement than a Nobel Prize.

Unfortunately, people (including those at TIME) have lost sight of the fact that the Man of the Year (or Woman, whatever) goes to the person who had the most impact on the world, for good or for ill. Now, having said that, Putin shouldn't have won, and neither should have Al Gore. A more fitting candidate (although probably not the most deserving, I haven't spent any time thinking about it) is George W. Bush, due to how huge his impact (good or ill) is on the world around him.

Whoever was on the TV set at the time.


2007 must have been one of the most passive years in history, whilst the world raged on and descended deeper in a very subtle manner, and several nations started getting everybody else uppity about nuclear weapons, and whilst those with nuclear weapons said, "Oi. No." to them, and whilst in the UK, Trident was replaced... most of the population was wondering when the Spice Girls were getting back together, whether Beckham had settled in at LA Galaxy, whether the Simpsons Movie was any good, whether the next threequel would entertain (or quadquel in the case of John McClane and pentaquel in the case of that shit adaptation cashcow) whether JK Rowling might kill him off in the final book... list goes on.

You could also say, Kim Jong-Il or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for the nukes, JK Rowling for Potter, Castro for umming and ahhing about popping off to the great Communist Regime in the sky, Chavez for being... Chavez, that guy who runs a country off the telly; seriously, who cares? And that's the point.

Putin likes his power and he doesn't want to let go of it.

What has that got to do with him declaring a dictatorship?

He seems perfectly capable of holding onto power without doing that. Did you notice the news from Russia just this past week regarding him and Dimitri Medvedev?

What has that got to do with him declaring a dictatorship?

He seems perfectly capable of holding onto power without doing that. Did you notice the news from Russia just this past week regarding him and Dimitri Medvedev?
Actually, no. What happened?

what a horrendous picture, couldn't that find any of those muscle ones he made

Putin had an impact? :confused:

well he did nearly start WWIII by sending his bombers out for no apparent reason, as Europe we certainty shat ourselves that night

edit: and my pick would go to Burma since its what the tabloids seemed to care about for about a week this year

what a horrendous picture, couldn't that find any of those muscle ones he made



well he did nearly start WWIII by sending his bombers out for no apparent reason, as Europe we certainty shat ourselves that night

Wait, what? When did THIS happen?

I don't like the way they justified their choice. Putin didn't create stability, in recent years he's undermined pretty much every government institution in Russia. He installs cronies, fuses big corporations, their regulators and the courts into one thing and watches as various secret services arrest each other's members trying to prove they're the best.

He's built a house of cards out of a pile of them, but that doesn't make the house particularly stable.

My choice would be Al Gore for the attention he brought to the whole climate change business. Certainly a more fitting acknowledgment than a Nobel Prize.

Of course, the person of the year isn't supposed to have anything to do with how good he is. It's supposed to be about who made the most news, for good or for ill.

Of course, they puss out a lot, especially since 9/11. The first "man of the year" after 9/11 was Gulliani, but of course the most news was made by Osama Bin Laden who created the story that made news. Bin Laden was the only reason there even was a Gulliani story. After that they picked "the American Soldier." Also a stupid choice and one intended strictly to strike patriotism brownie points.

But Putin's detractors make him newsworthy as much as his admirers. And that whole "poisoning his critics with radioactive poison," thing got a lot of press.

ur mom!!

Robbie Williams... he made a movie named man of the year.:)

Actually, no. What happened?He has been asked to be Prime Minister, that's what happened

Wait, what? When did THIS happen?

August (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2302783.ece)

how on Earth could you of missed this? HM armed forces at the very least where ready for WWIII that night

Actually, no. What happened?

Putin "announced his support" (ie, picked) his old friend and deputy Dimitri Medvedev in the next presidential election, and the next day Medvedev announced his intent to make Putin Prime Minister if (when) elected.

Its a work-around for presidential term limits. Putin seems committed to keeping power under color of law.

Ah, right. But what happens when he can no longer work through the law to do so?

And I remember the bomber thing now...I simply hadn't given it much thought at the time.

Ah, right. But what happens when he can no longer work through the law to do so?

And I remember the bomber thing now...I simply hadn't given it much thought at the time.

I think abolishing the pesky term limit can be accomplished by amending their constitution legally.

Also, there is no term limit for the PM, so perhaps he'll just continue in that capacity forever.

I vote for Hornswoggle

Of course, the person of the year isn't supposed to have anything to do with how good he is. It's supposed to be about who made the most news, for good or for ill.
I'm not criticising their choice, I'm criticising what they said about the guy. The stability thing is a myth he's used to devastating effect to consolidate his own power at home, and for some reason people in the west are desperate to believe it.

I'm not criticising their choice, I'm criticising what they said about the guy. The stability thing is a myth he's used to devastating effect to consolidate his own power at home, and for some reason people in the west are desperate to believe it.

Doesn't the consolidation of Putin's own power create stability in itself, though?

Doesn't the consolidation of Putin's own power create stability in itself, though?
The question is whether he is even as powerful as people think he is. Just below him sit powerful factions with all sorts of connections and trump cards.

Anyways, if all you mean by stability is that right now there is only a minor civil war going on in the country that's actually making the news, then yes. But if you mean by stability a durable and lasting creation of transparent and reliable government that allows people to plan their futures with some certainty, then he certainly hasn't created anything of the sort.

The question is whether he is even as powerful as people think he is. Just below him sit powerful factions with all sorts of connections and trump cards.

Anyways, if all you mean by stability is that right now there is only a minor civil war going on in the country that's actually making the news, then yes. But if you mean by stability a durable and lasting creation of transparent and reliable government that allows people to plan their futures with some certainty, then he certainly hasn't created anything of the sort.

Well, I wasn't trying to imply that Russia was stable at this point. Just that the further consolidation of Putin's power- he is the leader, after all- will create more stability. Russia may or may not become particularly stable relative to the world. I suppose if he keeps going the way he's going there may be a durable and lasting creation of government. I'm not all that hopeful for it being transparent or reliable.

No, they'll congratulate themselves on correctly picking the Man of the Year.

At any rate, why would Putin want or need to declare a dictatorship?

Those pesky revolutionists, you know..

Person/thing of the year should have gone to Reagan this year.

No, they'll congratulate themselves on correctly picking the Man of the Year.

At any rate, why would Putin want or need to declare a dictatorship?

Exactly. He'd just provoke rebellon. Dancing on the line between president and dictator just creates confusion.

So when are we going to see the russian flag be replaced by the USSR one and Putin naming a city to Putingrad?

Putin would be much more likely to name himself Tsar than Secretary of the party.

TIME just announced its Man of the Year: Vladimir Putin. Who would people here choose as "Man of the Year?" The person may of course also be a woman, but try not to cheat like the magazine did last year and choose "You" or "The Computer."

I think they need to change it to newsmaker of the year. Man of the Year sounds like some kind of honour for a job well-done. While what Putin has been up to is certainly newsworthy, it is certainly not deserving of accolades.