NationStates Jolt Archive

In a move eerily reminiscent of Julius Caesar, Napoleon and other wannabe megalomaniacs, Vladimir Putin has decided to rewrite the Russian Constitution so that he can be "Tsar" in perpetuity. I guss the KGB Mafia will be more in charge than ever.
Does Russia need a new revolution to oust this dictator or do you think it's a case of the Russian people "knowing what they like and liking what they know?":eek:

Change may put Putin back in charge
Adrian Blomfield, Moscow

The Age, November 14, 2008

RUSSIA'S parliament will rush through a constitutional amendment that could see Vladimir Putin return to the presidency within weeks.

Amid growing signs of panic in the Kremlin, the State Duma said it would meet today to pass legislation that could allow Mr Putin to return to the top job for 12 years.

Giving short shrift to Russia's 1993 constitution, all three readings of the bill will be compressed into a single sitting, rather than dragged out over weeks or months as convention dictates.

The proposal to extend the time a president can serve from two consecutive terms of four years to two consecutive terms of six was made by Dmitry Medvedev, the Russian leader, just last week.

Existing constitutional restrictions forced Mr Putin to stand down in May after completing two consecutive four-year terms. He did not go far, however, changing jobs to become Prime Minister.

Few expect Mr Medvedev to mount a challenge should he be asked to go. Even so, political analysts had predicted that Mr Putin would wait for his protege to serve a full four-year term before replacing him in 2012. Opinion has quickly shifted, however, as the financial crisis has taken hold, threatening the wealth of Russia's oligarchs and power brokers.

With oil and commodity prices sliding and fortunes dissolving, analysts say that an uneasy truce between the Kremlin's rival factions is in danger of disintegrating.

"It is evident that there has been a collapse in the consensus of the Kremlin's elite factions," said Dmitry Oreshkin, a leading political analyst.

Another Kremlin analyst, Olga Kryshtanovskaya, said: "One scenario we could see is the creation of a mini-USSR by joining together Russia, Belarus and South Ossetia and making Putin the leader of the union."

TELEGRAPH

Hey! I'd like to point out that Julius Caesars' seizing power was a good thing for Rome! If those traitors hadn't ended his life, we might still have a Roman empire, never had went through the scientific stagnation of the middle ages, and be in a generally better position today!

Hey! I'd like to point out that Julius Caesars' seizing power was a good thing for Rome! If those traitors hadn't ended his life, we might still have a Roman empire, never had went through the scientific stagnation of the middle ages, and be in a generally better position today!

Yep, Caesar would've bitch slapped Atilla the Hun and make him go crying back to his Steppes. Then he'd whip all those barbarians into shape. :p

Hmm! Maybe the Gauls and Britons wouldn't have minded if Caesar's demise had been even earlier.

Not that Jules didn't have his good points (a great advertising jingle for one - "Veni! Vidi! Vici")

However, the question of the Roman senators being traitors is a highly debatable one. They claimed to be defending the Republic from Caesar's grab at power.
Maybe Shakepeare gave them bad press!

Hmm! Maybe the Gauls and Britons wouldn't have minded if Caesar's demise had been even earlier.

Not that Jules didn't have his good points (a great advertising jingle for one - "Veni! Vidi! Vici")

However, the question of the Roman senators being traitors is a highly debatable one. They claimed to be defending the Republic from Caesar's grab at power.
Maybe Shakepeare gave them bad press!

Defending the Republic? Bah. They were defending a greedy and corrupt government. To paraphrase one of the founding fathers (I think):

Erm... I forget. It was something about a bunch of tyrants ruling being no better then a single tyrant. Or something along those lines. Th point is, Julius Caesar was a good leader, a military mastermind, and NOT corrupt, unlike many members of the Senate at the time, and many governors.

Everyone knows Medvedev is a lackey for Putin.

This is simple ass-kissing by the faction. I'm sure his current Gray Cardinal position is quite a lot better than sudden unconstitutional comebacks.

Yes, he was keeping Putin's seat warm for him till he changed Russia's constitution.

Defending the Republic? Bah. They were defending a greedy and corrupt government. To paraphrase one of the founding fathers (I think):

Erm... I forget. It was something about a bunch of tyrants ruling being no better then a single tyrant. Or something along those lines. Th point is, Julius Caesar was a good leader, a military mastermind, and NOT corrupt, unlike many members of the Senate at the time, and many governors.

I'd rather have 1 tyrant 1,000 miles away than 1,000 tyrants 1 mile away.

Back to Caesar. Like Putin, he would be quite happy to wipe out and enslave anyone who opposed him.

The Romans (and Russians) seemed to like that. Otherwise we wouldn't be looking at a new Stalin emerging.

I'd rather have 1 tyrant 1,000 miles away than 1,000 tyrants 1 mile away.

1. Erm... Point?

2. Would you rather have 1000 tyrants one mile away, or one tyrant one mile away?

Back to Caesar. Like Putin, he would be quite happy to wipe out and enslave anyone who opposed him.

'Cept for the fact that that practice was acceptable then. It isn't anymore. *glares at Putin*

1. Erm... Point?

2. Would you rather have 1000 tyrants one mile away, or one tyrant one mile away?

I was telling you the damn quote! *bops on forehead*

I was telling you the damn quote! *bops on forehead*

Thanks. *Rubs forehead in pain*

I'd rather have no tyrants at all. And no, I don't think that the "democratic" West can be smug and superior to the Ruskies or anyone else. All power to the Soviets! (Too bad Lenin made sure that all the soviets got was an empty slogan).

I'd rather have no tyrants at all.

Beggars can't be choosers.

But we don't have to beg. If we resist tyrants successfully, they will be the ones begging!

(And the artwork I most resemble? The dying Gaul)
http://www.bluffton.edu/~sullivanm/italy/rome/capitolinemuseumtwo/dyinggaul.html

But we don't have to beg. If we resist tyrants successfully, they will be the ones begging!

And you're assuming that the new leaders will be better then the tyrants?

Yes! Our ancestors fought revolutions and civil wars based on that assumption.

For me a "benevolent tyrant" is an oxymoron. Oddly enough, Nation States is currently describing my governmnet as that...... weird huh!

Yes! Our ancestors fought revolutions and civil wars based on that assumption.

For me a "benevolent tyrant" is an oxymoron.
And tell me, where are we heading now?
It is the natural process for government to grow, and liberty to yield.
And what about benevolent tyrants? Tyranny by majority?

And tell me, where are we heading now?

And what about benevolent tyrants? Tyranny by majority?

It is not a natural development for tyrrany to grow - it is a man-made development:

"In every cry of every man,
In every infant's cry of fear,
In every voice, in every ban,
The mind-forged manacles I hear"
William Blake

It is natural to resist enslavement.

It is not a natural development for tyrrany to grow - it is a man-made development:

"In every cry of every man,
In every infant's cry of fear,
In every voice, in every ban,
The mind-forged manacles I hear"
William Blake

It is natural to resist enslavement.
It is the natural way of things for tyranny to grow.
Crisis is the rallying cry of the tyrant.
Which is exactly what happens. Tyranny grows, because a crisis happens. Government assumes more power. People begin to become used to the increased government intervention. A new generation comes. They don't know what it was like before. Most accept it. Repeat.

And, all of this is a man-made development. Computers, government, writing, everything. None of this is natural, including this conversation.

Just repeating yourself doen't make somethiong true, CM. So what if some "founding father" said something or other? What all the American revolutionaries said was "Give me liberty or give me death!" (After Patrick Henry first said it). And the American revolutionaries, meant it, did something about it, suffered but prevailed.
When Chales the 1st in England became too tyrannical, the English revolted and chopped his head off. Cromwell who replaced him, proved to be a dictator too, so the Brits reintroduced the monarchy but insisted that it be subject to Parliament. Thus Britain became a constitutional monarchy.

In Australia in 2007, the US and New Zealand this year, there have been elections resulting in a change of goverrnment. The people were sick of their leaders and replaced them with a different set. Ultimately, these leaderships will be replaced as well.

"It is true that democracy is the worst system of governmnet - except of course, for all the others." (Winston S. Churchill)

One day, maybe the world will move on an we will evolve a more localised, more participatory form of representation.... but for now, representative democracy is in the driver's seat.

And back to the point of this thread, Putin's grab at power is undemocratic and a throwback to the dictatorships of the 20th century.

If they didn't have nukes, Putin would be no different from any other shitty wannabe dictator of the past 30 years. All we need is a good way to render those irrelevant and we're in the clear...

If they didn't have nukes, Putin would be no different from any other shitty wannabe dictator of the past 30 years. All we need is a good way to render those irrelevant and we're in the clear...

I believe Western Europe might think otherwise with winter time coming. . .

I believe Western Europe might think otherwise with winter time coming. . .

The Russians wouldn't get much farther than eastern Poland before NATO bombed them to oblivion and back. Shoot, the Nazis nearly beat them and they basically fucked up every step of the process...we'd have the Siberian oil and gas fields in our hands by January at latest, especially once China joins the party and carves out their share.

I believe Western Europe might think otherwise with winter time coming. . .

Funny, I had heard that Europe was the forefront of green energy...

...maybe my hypocrisy meter is broken, but it seems Europe is just as ready to accept fossil fuels from dictators as the US is.

There's nothing wrong with trading with Russia. There is nothing wrong with talking with Russia. I'm not joining in in a NATO versus the "bad guys wankfest". There is something wrong with an "ius versus them" attitude. You end up with Putin and Bush clones everywhere - the politics of division.

The EU got where they are today because the worked on building unity -through negotiation not domination.

I believe Western Europe might think otherwise with winter time coming. . .
Meh, you'd have to say that Russia is probably more dependent on that trade than Europe is. Being cold for a while would suck big time, but there are means and ways of dealing with the first winter and switch to other suppliers or technologies in the following years.

Russia on the other hand relies hugely on the primary export sector, and the only way the government can keep income taxes so low is because such a huge chunk of its revenue comes from these exports. Look what simply the threat of adverse capital moves did to Russia's stock exchanges in the crisis, and actual refusal to supply Europe would end the Russian economy, followed by its government. Hence why they're very careful for all the grand posturing to keep the various bilateral relationships very healthy.

Might work for a few more years, if you ask me, then they'll find that underinvestment and kicking out foreign companies are a bad combination if you've got demanding customers lined up well into the future.

The Russians wouldn't get much farther than eastern Poland before NATO bombed them to oblivion and back. Shoot, the Nazis nearly beat them and they basically fucked up every step of the process...we'd have the Siberian oil and gas fields in our hands by January at latest, especially once China joins the party and carves out their share.

Of course, Stalin had executed roughly %90 of the armies command structure. That might've had something to do with it.

And, although I have no doubt that Russia would lose such a war in its current state, I seriously doubt that any war with Russia would be short. Or easy.

While the Russians may not have much love of their government, it's generally the case that they have very strong feelings in regards to their country. Good luck occupying anything. And invading Siberia is the epitome of foolishness. If God made a land for a protracted guerrilla campaign, it's Siberia.

Not that that matters at all, because the Putin would probably sooner hit the big red button than let the evil Westerners take his country.

Oy! Another Putin is Tsar Article. We're all going to die! Ok, let's go with the basic errors:

"RUSSIA'S parliament will rush through a constitutional amendment that could see Vladimir Putin return to the presidency within weeks."

Rush through? Wait a sec, so several weeks of discussion, presenting it to the media, more discussion, is now known as "rush through"? I wonder then, what would be "going the pace"? A couple years? First sentence, first error,
go Blumfield.

"Amid growing signs of panic in the Kremlin, the State Duma said it would meet today to pass legislation that could allow Mr Putin to return to the top job for 12 years."

Signs of panic? Let's see, according to the Telegraph's other articles, the government is popular, they have ousted all opposion, and here they are showing "signs of panic"? Am I the only one who picks up on this stuff?

"Giving short shrift to Russia's 1993 constitution, all three readings of the bill will be compressed into a single sitting, rather than dragged out over weeks or months as convention dictates."

Convention? What convention? Do they have to be as slow as the DMV? Or Bush's response to Katrina?

"The proposal to extend the time a president can serve from two consecutive terms of four years to two consecutive terms of six was made by Dmitry Medvedev, the Russian leader, just last week."

You mean Putin gets to be president for twenty years? Oh my, now what was that other country that elected a president for twenty years. I think it stats with a U. United States maybe?

"Existing constitutional restrictions forced Mr Putin to stand down in May after completing two consecutive four-year terms. He did not go far, however, changing jobs to become Prime Minister."

Actually Putin was offered by United Russia, and had the legislative authority to alter the Consitution. He chose not to do so. But expecting Blumfield to mention a fact that contradicts his own faulty argument is just too much to ask.

"Few expect Mr Medvedev to mount a challenge should he be asked to go. Even so, political analysts had predicted that Mr Putin would wait for his protege to serve a full four-year term before replacing him in 2012. Opinion has quickly shifted, however, as the financial crisis has taken hold, threatening the wealth of Russia's oligarchs and power brokers."

Threatening the wealth of Russia's oligarchs and power brokers? Umm, ok, that's just retarded for two reasons. #1 - the was a struggle between the Oligarchs and the Siloviki and the Siloviki won. Ergo the Oligarchs have nothing that's threatened by Russia. Study the history of Russia before writing something Blumfield. Shish. #2 - Russia's wealth isn't based solely on oil, the country's economy is DIVERSIFIED!!!

"With oil and commodity prices sliding and fortunes dissolving, analysts say
that an uneasy truce between the Kremlin's rival factions is in danger of disintegrating."

Yeah, winning two wars, keeping the tax rate at 13% and the economy growing, huge reserves, clearly there's a financial crisis dissolving the factions. ROFL.

""It is evident that there has been a collapse in the consensus of the Kremlin's elite factions," said Dmitry Oreshkin, a leading political analyst."

Define: Kremlin's elite factions. What do they mean? The political parties? And what is the evidence of this collapse?

"Another Kremlin analyst, Olga Kryshtanovskaya, said: "One scenario we could see is the creation of a mini-USSR by joining together Russia, Belarus and South Ossetia and making Putin the leader of the union.""

Mini-USSR? South Ossetia equated in power to Belarus and Russia? I mean there may be a possibility of a Union between Belarus and Russia, although that is quite unlikely, considering both countries are ok with the status quo. Mini-USSR? Do these guys just want to say it? "Although we don't have any solid proof of Russia going back to the old ways, we need headlines, so we will call it USSR light." If it bleeds, it leads - that's from my journalism class that I took a while ago.

Everyone knows Medvedev is a lackey for Putin.

That's why Medevedev makes his own Putin-Independent Economic Decisions. Cause that's what lackeys do, make their own independent decisions, right?

Back to Caesar. Like Putin, he would be quite happy to wipe out and enslave anyone who opposed him.

The Romans (and Russians) seemed to like that. Otherwise we wouldn't be looking at a new Stalin emerging.

No Gulags
No Purges
No Pravda-like media
No bans on books

Shall I keep going?

I'd rather have no tyrants at all. And no, I don't think that the "democratic" West can be smug and superior to the Ruskies or anyone else. All power to the Soviets! (Too bad Lenin made sure that all the soviets got was an empty slogan).

So what was wrong with ending a slave-like state and promoting the New Economic Policy that Lenin did?

The Russians wouldn't get much farther than eastern Poland before NATO bombed them to oblivion and back. Shoot, the Nazis nearly beat them and they basically fucked up every step of the process...we'd have the Siberian oil and gas fields in our hands by January at latest, especially once China joins the party and carves out their share.

Poor Vetalia. Wants to rape Russia for its oil, just like Bush raped Iraq. But cannot do so due to nukes. Nor can he rig their government. What a shame. Russia's oil actually making a profit for Russia. We cannot have that, can we?

Meh, you'd have to say that Russia is probably more dependent on that trade than Europe is. Being cold for a while would suck big time, but there are means and ways of dealing with the first winter and switch to other suppliers or technologies in the following years.

Russia on the other hand relies hugely on the primary export sector, and the only way the government can keep income taxes so low is because such a huge chunk of its revenue comes from these exports. Look what simply the threat of adverse capital moves did to Russia's stock exchanges in the crisis, and actual refusal to supply Europe would end the Russian economy, followed by its government. Hence why they're very careful for all the grand posturing to keep the various bilateral relationships very healthy.

Might work for a few more years, if you ask me, then they'll find that underinvestment and kicking out foreign companies are a bad combination if you've got demanding customers lined up well into the future.

Hey, I'm not saying that Russia has Europe under its heel or anything; just that their might be more than nukes seperating Russia from being run by just another "shitty wannabe dicator". I'm not so sure if most Europeans (and by proxy, governments out to get votes) would appreciate the lack of gas from Russia, but I have no doubt that you are right about Russia suffering worse economically; only question then is if that would really hurt Putin.


The Russians wouldn't get much farther than eastern Poland before NATO bombed them to oblivion and back. Shoot, the Nazis nearly beat them and they basically fucked up every step of the process...we'd have the Siberian oil and gas fields in our hands by January at latest, especially once China joins the party and carves out their share.

Well, I wasn't really suggesting Russia would invade the rest of Europe. And to be fair, the Nazis were far from beating the ill prepared and overly trusting Stalinist USSR. Not to mention I highly doubt that China would back Nato; especially since Chinese leadership are more concerned with the status quo being kept (not to mention internal problems that are soon to rise up). Military power isn't the only concern of the West anymore.

Well, I wasn't really suggesting Russia would invade the rest of Europe. And to be fair, the Nazis were far from beating the ill prepared and overly trusting Stalinist USSR. .

You know, the fact that Hitler had something to do with communist hunts and his general attitude towards communism should have been a clue/ Both Stalin and Hitler knew they had a war coming, it was just a matter of time. The only reason why it took so long for it to happen was because they were busy with dividing eastern Europe. Poor trusting Soviets, running around threatening other nations and employing military might to get what they wanted, such a naive nation...

The Russians wouldn't get much farther than eastern Poland before NATO bombed them to oblivion and back. Shoot, the Nazis nearly beat them and they basically fucked up every step of the process...we'd have the Siberian oil and gas fields in our hands by January at latest, especially once China joins the party and carves out their share.

Forgive us Eastern Europeans for not wanting to have a war on our hands and see our countries devastated again. And January? General Winter? Why do people assume Russia's easy on its home turf? Gustav, Napoleon, Hitler, all found out why that's a bad assumption to make. And it kinda beats the point to have China, the only major communist state and a nation that illustrates tyranny quite well in many aspects to bear Russia. Assuming that is that they'd get involved in the first place, which leaves us wondering about India and the treaties Russia has with China and so on.

#2 - Russia's wealth isn't based solely on oil, the country's economy is DIVERSIFIED!!!


Up to a point where the fact that the oil prices got lower really did a number on the Russian economy. Or the fact that Russian banks are nearly kaput? The Russian economy isn't as diverse as they'd like to think it is.

So what was wrong with ending a slave-like state and promoting the New Economic Policy that Lenin did?

That worked so well that most of the agricultural production was obtained on those private, barely tolerated lots. Not to mention that they actually had to import grain from the US! I'm not saying that the previous system in Russia was good, hell it was as bad as they get, but what replaced it... not much of an improvement there, just a change in owners and punishments if you didn't do your job. Heavens forbid that you actually managed to get a profit.

Hey, I'm not saying that Russia has Europe under its heel or anything; just that their might be more than nukes seperating Russia from being run by just another "shitty wannabe dicator". I'm not so sure if most Europeans (and by proxy, governments out to get votes) would appreciate the lack of gas from Russia, but I have no doubt that you are right about Russia suffering worse economically; only question then is if that would really hurt Putin.
Well, Russia can be a great country, but if you ask me, Putin is not a great leader. He really is another shitty wannabe dictator, which is all Russia has ever had. It really is kind of sad when the best thing approaching a democratic government in all the country's history is of that sort of quality. Sometimes people even say that Russia must always have these strongman leaders, that it's somehow in the country's character. That's just stupid - plus they said the same thing about Germany once.

And though I can't speak for all of Europe, if Russia were to stop gas supplies into Germany, there would be two groups that would feel the public backlash: energy companies (Germans love the whole "evil capitalists oppress us" bandwagon) and the Russian government. I have never met a German who liked Vladimir Putin, and they have absolutely no illusions about his willingness to use gas exports as a political weapon. Few people would go and blame the German government of the day for falling victim to any such act.

never had went through the scientific stagnation of the middle ages

Don't fall into the trap of thinking of Middle Ages as that much stagnated. They had their share of progress, even if they did produce little of notable theoretical work.

Mini-USSR? South Ossetia equated in power to Belarus and Russia? I mean there may be a possibility of a Union between Belarus and Russia, although that is quite unlikely, considering both countries are ok with the status quo. Mini-USSR? Do these guys just want to say it? "Although we don't have any solid proof of Russia going back to the old ways, we need headlines, so we will call it USSR light." If it bleeds, it leads - that's from my journalism class that I took a while ago.

I think the point is that Russia will become autocratic--yet again--and potentially dangerous to world security, due to acting like a spoiled brat and presuming it has the right to go pushing countries around just because they border it, and whining when the international community tells it to grow the fuck up already.

*spits tea into thw computer screen*
What the fuck?! Vladimir Romanov?!:eek:

Hey! I'd like to point out that Julius Caesars' seizing power was a good thing for Rome! If those traitors hadn't ended his life, we might still have a Roman empire, never had went through the scientific stagnation of the middle ages, and be in a generally better position today!

Not to bash good ol'JC, but the romans were scientifically stagnating even BEFORE the barbaric invasions. They had the steam turbine and regarded it as a toy - there is no need for motors when you have slaves.

In a move eerily reminiscent of Julius Caesar, Napoleon and other wannabe megalomaniacs,

I take umbrage at that. Both Cæsar and Napolèon were highly enlightened.

I take umbrage at that. Both Cæsar and Napolèon were highly enlightened.
Yet authoritarian assholes.

-snip-

Rushed through as in: We're actually supposed to do it this way, but we're doing it that way, because that way is faster.

Which, incidentally, you'll notice the article mentioning.

Most constitutions are hard to change because of situations such as these.

Yet authoritarian assholes.

Cæsar was a far cry from that. He repeatedly forgave his enemies and instituted very progressive policies, like bankruptcy to replace enslavement. Before he came along Rome was already under the rule of a dictator: Pompey. Before Pompey the nation was hardly the Republic it once was, and had degenerated into several corrupt rich boys openly taking bribes and killing anyone who "posed a threat to freedom" (for instance, some persons gave food to those who were starving, but they were executed for trying to seize power by becoming too popular).

Napolèon created one the greatest nations on the continent, and his government contrasted favorably with those of Robespierre and Louis XVI. He was voted into full power by the people, and genuinely devoted his time to helping France. He would stay up all-night trying to find solutions to problems of internal policy, and once, when a fellow statesman who was working with him fell asleep, he nudged the fellow and said, "Come come, we must earn the money France pays us." Under his leadership taxes were lowered, and much religious freedom was granted.

Oy! Another Putin is Tsar Article. We're all going to die! Ok, let's go with the basic errors:

"RUSSIA'S parliament will rush through a constitutional amendment that could see Vladimir Putin return to the presidency within weeks."

Rush through? Wait a sec, so several weeks of discussion, presenting it to the media, more discussion, is now known as "rush through"? I wonder then, what would be "going the pace"? A couple years? First sentence, first error,
go Blumfield.

"Amid growing signs of panic in the Kremlin, the State Duma said it would meet today to pass legislation that could allow Mr Putin to return to the top job for 12 years."

Signs of panic? Let's see, according to the Telegraph's other articles, the government is popular, they have ousted all opposion, and here they are showing "signs of panic"? Am I the only one who picks up on this stuff?

"Giving short shrift to Russia's 1993 constitution, all three readings of the bill will be compressed into a single sitting, rather than dragged out over weeks or months as convention dictates."

Convention? What convention? Do they have to be as slow as the DMV? Or Bush's response to Katrina?

"The proposal to extend the time a president can serve from two consecutive terms of four years to two consecutive terms of six was made by Dmitry Medvedev, the Russian leader, just last week."

You mean Putin gets to be president for twenty years? Oh my, now what was that other country that elected a president for twenty years. I think it stats with a U. United States maybe?

"Existing constitutional restrictions forced Mr Putin to stand down in May after completing two consecutive four-year terms. He did not go far, however, changing jobs to become Prime Minister."

Actually Putin was offered by United Russia, and had the legislative authority to alter the Consitution. He chose not to do so. But expecting Blumfield to mention a fact that contradicts his own faulty argument is just too much to ask.

"Few expect Mr Medvedev to mount a challenge should he be asked to go. Even so, political analysts had predicted that Mr Putin would wait for his protege to serve a full four-year term before replacing him in 2012. Opinion has quickly shifted, however, as the financial crisis has taken hold, threatening the wealth of Russia's oligarchs and power brokers."

Threatening the wealth of Russia's oligarchs and power brokers? Umm, ok, that's just retarded for two reasons. #1 - the was a struggle between the Oligarchs and the Siloviki and the Siloviki won. Ergo the Oligarchs have nothing that's threatened by Russia. Study the history of Russia before writing something Blumfield. Shish. #2 - Russia's wealth isn't based solely on oil, the country's economy is DIVERSIFIED!!!

"With oil and commodity prices sliding and fortunes dissolving, analysts say
that an uneasy truce between the Kremlin's rival factions is in danger of disintegrating."

Yeah, winning two wars, keeping the tax rate at 13% and the economy growing, huge reserves, clearly there's a financial crisis dissolving the factions. ROFL.

""It is evident that there has been a collapse in the consensus of the Kremlin's elite factions," said Dmitry Oreshkin, a leading political analyst."

Define: Kremlin's elite factions. What do they mean? The political parties? And what is the evidence of this collapse?

"Another Kremlin analyst, Olga Kryshtanovskaya, said: "One scenario we could see is the creation of a mini-USSR by joining together Russia, Belarus and South Ossetia and making Putin the leader of the union.""

Mini-USSR? South Ossetia equated in power to Belarus and Russia? I mean there may be a possibility of a Union between Belarus and Russia, although that is quite unlikely, considering both countries are ok with the status quo. Mini-USSR? Do these guys just want to say it? "Although we don't have any solid proof of Russia going back to the old ways, we need headlines, so we will call it USSR light." If it bleeds, it leads - that's from my journalism class that I took a while ago.

Granted the Telegraph is a Tory paper, but aren't you defending the indefensible a bit here. The Duma voted overwhelmingly for this. Why does a Parliament vote overwhelmingly for anything? Does that reflect how Russians and much, much lessfeel? Even a highly popular Western leader (like Tony Blair in his heyday circa 2004) would only get 50%-55% of the vote, and much much less for a referendum that would entrench him and his cronies in power. The reason why he is getting an over 80% vote in the Duma for this is very simple - the Duma is well and truly nobbled and it is not representing the Russian people.
This is an example of a hardline anti-democratic putsch at work. It spells trouble for the region.
If Russia starts expanding to include all those neighbouring states that have significant ethnic Russian minorities, then there could be another "Sudetenland" situation here.
Yes, history could be repeating itself. Putin could make "one last territorial demand " after another and eventually push NATO into a corner. Putin's attempts to beat the UKraine into submission over the gas pipline reflect a far more aggressive stance.
But the thing that I don't like is how Putin murders and imprisons his opponents. This guy will continue to be trouble.

I think the point is that Russia will become autocratic--yet again--and potentially dangerous to world security, due to acting like a spoiled brat and presuming it has the right to go pushing countries around just because they border it, and whining when the international community tells it to grow the fuck up already.

Ok, we've been over this a million times:

1. When Ukraine decided to join NATO, Russia took away their discounts, forcing Ukraine to buy at market prices, and Russia took away their loan interest forgiveness program, forcing Ukraine to take out loans at market rates. So a Capitalist-wannabe country forced to live under Capitalist principles. Russia - guilty! They should give discounts to "presidents" the US supports, or be found guilty, right?

2. Georgia - meddled in the Chechen Affairs. They had it coming. Again, there was a reason Putin banned Georgian wine, but not Ukrainian Borchs, and that reason was Georgia's support of the Chechens. In addition, they attacked the Russian Army. I don't care what they were thinking, they had it coming.

3. Baltic States - Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania. Lithuania's and Russia's relations aren't that bad. Estonia - well do you really expect Russians to buy your goods after you tear down a statue of the Red Army soldier that almost everyone in Russia loves? Putin didn't institute a boycott against Estonia, the Russian people did that. Russians in the US boycotted it too. Don't mess with Red Army soldiers. You can do whatever you want to Stalin, but leave the Unnamed Red Army Soldier alone. Latvia - also decided to discriminate against Russians living there. Well surprise - just like protective tarrifs there was similar relation from Russia, discriminating against Latvia's goods.

4. Serbia - you mean Russia actually signed an alliance with a country desperate for Russia's help? Oy - that's meddling!

In all honesty, Russia hasn't been the agressor. All of Russia's actions, were reactions. If you think about it - who would you rather do business with, someone who treats you as an equal, (France) or someone who expects free shit from you (Ukraine)?

As for Russia becoming Autocratic yet again, I've lived in Russia under Yeltsin's Mafia Rule, if that's why you guys call Democracy, then you can take that Democracy and shove it U.Y.A. When was Russia not Autocratic? Or if someone is a Mafia Tsar, who rules the country while the helpless president looks on, is that somehow Democracy?

A scene from Yeltsin's election:
Poll Worker: "who are you voting for?"
Voter: "Isn't that my business?"
Poll Worker: "sure, but those who vote for Yeltsin get free stuff, and we do check who voted for who".

Oh yeah, Democracy at work.

Rushed through as in: We're actually supposed to do it this way, but we're doing it that way, because that way is faster.

Which, incidentally, you'll notice the article mentioning.

Most constitutions are hard to change because of situations such as these.

Not really. If you have 70% approval, and the exteme majority of Congressional Seats, you could change the Contitution rather fast. That's the thing most people on this forum don't get, because they've never been to Russia, or never talked to actual Russians about politics. Putin is enourmously popular there, because under him the people's lives imporved DRAMATICALLY!!!

Cæsar was a far cry from that. He repeatedly forgave his enemies and instituted very progressive policies, like bankruptcy to replace enslavement. Before he came along Rome was already under the rule of a dictator: Pompey.

I'd question the interpretation that Pompey was a dictator as such. The Senate was full of Caesar's partisans, and political conflict and debate continued under Pompey. Caesar, on the other hand, filled the Senate with his supporters, setting a precedent that led to the establishment of the Imperial autocracy. It was Caesar who destroyed the institutions of the Republic.

Granted the Telegraph is a Tory paper, but aren't you defending the indefensible a bit here. The Duma voted overwhelmingly for this. Why does a Parliament vote overwhelmingly for anything? Does that reflect how Russians and much, much lessfeel? Even a highly popular Western leader (like Tony Blair in his heyday circa 2004) would only get 50%-55% of the vote, and much much less for a referendum that would entrench him and his cronies in power. The reason why he is getting an over 80% vote in the Duma for this is very simple - the Duma is well and truly nobbled and it is not representing the Russian people.
This is an example of a hardline anti-democratic putsch at work. It spells trouble for the region.
If Russia starts expanding to include all those neighbouring states that have significant ethnic Russian minorities, then there could be another "Sudetenland" situation here.
Yes, history could be repeating itself. Putin could make "one last territorial demand " after another and eventually push NATO into a corner. Putin's attempts to beat the UKraine into submission over the gas pipline reflect a far more aggressive stance.
But the thing that I don't like is how Putin murders and imprisons his opponents. This guy will continue to be trouble.

Nope. OK see, the differences between Suedetenland and South Ossetia are crucial to understand:

1. Czeckoslovakia did not support anti-German terrorists. Georgia did, and got its wine banned and restaurants closed as a result.
2. Czeckoslovakia did not launch an attack on German forces. Georgia did, and when the Russian Army is shot at, they tend to shoot back.
3. Ossetia has been split into two by Stalin, but the split was never enforced. Not so in Suedetenland.

Also, the parties that endorsed Medevedev hold a 353 seat majority in Russia's 450 seat Duma. Saying politicians don't really care about the people is an age old slogan, that can be applied to any country, but the truth is that some do and some don't. Arguing that someone's not a dictator isn't the same as arguing that someone's Angellic. Thus you would expect most of those 353 seats to vote for the Amendment. Now the Commies and LDPR - and BTW Zhirinovsky is a very intelligent man, you may not like his positions, but questioning his intelligence is silly; anyways LDPR realizes that the Amendment is going to pass - so they're likely to vote for it too, in return for something for their base, the Russian Industrial Worker. United Russia and Fair Russia wouldn't mind giving it up. Commies are now under the threat of being isolated once again... you get the picture.

Now as to popularity and fairness. Saying that there was a fair and balanced political election is bullshit. There's always going to be unbalanced TV coverage in every election. Just look at how US Media covered Ron Paul and Mike Gravel, both of whom served in Congress. The question here, is whether or not, in an election there was rigging, or equiptment tempering, or something like that. Nothing like that came even close to happening, not including the Caucasian Region; however Putin stabilized the Caucasian Region, so one would expect Medvedev, who was endorsed by Putin, to win most of that region. In the Election of 2008, Medevedev won over 70% of the vote.

As to your claim of Western Politicians not getting good results, my answer is that they suck. And that's why. America, in my opinion, haven't had a great president since JFK got assasinated. (Yes, I know LBJ's Great Society was wonderful, but in every other area he was blunderful.) As for percentages, in the 1936 election, FDR won with 60% of the vote and beat his opponent 523 to 8 in the Electoral College, with 98% of the vote in the EC. Great Leaders become popular and maintain that popularity over time.

Is it just me or is an ad for a Russian mail order bride service on top of this page a bit ironic?

I'd question the interpretation that Pompey was a dictator as such. The Senate was full of Caesar's partisans, and political conflict and debate continued under Pompey.

Pompey probably did not have enough supporters in comparison to Cæsar to control the senate, but he certainly would have liked to.

Caesar, on the other hand, filled the Senate with his supporters, setting a precedent that led to the establishment of the Imperial autocracy. It was Caesar who destroyed the institutions of the Republic.

The Republic had a great run, but by the time Cæsar arrived it was in major decay. While there were absolutely some crackpots running the Empire in later years, I would say that over-all there was much less corruption, much less war, and much more prosperity after Cæsar than under the rotting "good ol' boys" that were overseeing things before. If you will notice, his main detractors were aristocrats, mainly because he no longer allowed the poor to be oppressed.

Pompey probably did not have enough supporters in comparison to Cæsar to control the senate, but he certainly would have liked to.

The Republic had a great run, but by the time Cæsar arrived it was in major decay. While there were absolutely some crackpots running the Empire in later years, I would say that over-all there was much less corruption, much less war, and much more prosperity after Cæsar than under the rotting "good ol' boys" that were overseeing things before. If you will notice, his main detractors were aristocrats, mainly because he no longer allowed the poor to be oppressed.

Yeah, you're right about all that stuff. It was a direct choice between keeping the Republic or keeping the Empire, and they chose autocracy and power. Still I'm not sure how good of a ruler Caesar was after his initial reforms. Seems to me he did a lot of stuff in a hurry, and didn't have the devotion to administration to follow it through, so he started planning an invasion of Parthia and walking around in red boots. The Roman Empire owed a lot more to Augustus than it did to Caesar.

Putin has wanted to be Tsar for a long time. More power to him if he can pull it off.

Yeah, you're right about all that stuff. It was a direct choice between keeping the Republic or keeping the Empire, and they chose autocracy and power.

And the "Republic" (by that time) was basically "rule by the most friends and greatest bribes".

Still I'm not sure how good of a ruler Caesar was after his initial reforms. Seems to me he did a lot of stuff in a hurry, and didn't have the devotion to administration to follow it through, so he started planning an invasion of Parthia and walking around in red boots. The Roman Empire owed a lot more to Augustus than it did to Caesar.

Augustus was one of the best rulers of all-time, yet it is true that some of his most recognized projects were what Cæsar intended to do before he was interrupted by death. Augustus was a continuation of Cæsar, and spent most of his time holding power, whereas Cæsar spent his time acquiring it.

Augustus was one of the best rulers of all-time, yet it is true that some of his most recognized projects were what Cæsar intended to do before he was interrupted by death. Augustus was a continuation of Cæsar, and spent most of his time holding power, whereas Cæsar spent his time acquiring it.

Indeed. But I'm not sure from his attributed actions that Caesar was capable of following through his intentions. I think he was a megalomaniac. The idea that he was planning an invasion of Parthia before he'd been in Rome for a year is not totally substantiated, but it seems plausible. He wasn't capable of actually administrating an Empire the size of Rome's.
Augustus was primarily a follower of Caesar, yet he managed to win over the aristocracy because he was what Caesar wasn't - an incredibly able ruler. The ideas may have been Caesar's, but it took an Augustus to carry them out.
And actually, a large part of Augustus's life was devoted to winning power, and it wasn't secure until he was middle aged, as I'm sure you already knew.

Indeed. But I'm not sure from his attributed actions that Caesar was capable of following through his intentions. I think he was a megalomaniac. The idea that he was planning an invasion of Parthia before he'd been in Rome for a year is not totally substantiated, but it seems plausible. He wasn't capable of actually administrating an Empire the size of Rome's.

If Cæsar was as unstable as you claim, why did he repeatedly (to the shock of those about him) forgive his enemies? Why was he more merciful than Augustus?


Augustus was primarily a follower of Caesar, yet he managed to win over the aristocracy because he was what Caesar wasn't - an incredibly able ruler. The ideas may have been Caesar's, but it took an Augustus to carry them out.

Cæsar had less time.

And actually, a large part of Augustus's life was devoted to winning power, and it wasn't secure until he was middle aged, as I'm sure you already knew.

But he was never assassinated, probably because (unlike Cæsar) he killed everyone who posed a threat to him. I absolutely agree that Augustus was superior to Cæsar in an administrative capacity, but I think you are belittling Cæsar nonetheless. The fellow was a vain rake, but he was also a (generally) benevolent genius.

If Cæsar was as unstable as you claim, why did he repeatedly (to the shock of those about him) forgive his enemies? Why was he more merciful than Augustus?

OK, megalomaniac is wrong, plain wrong on reflection. His clemency, as you say, was incredible, and probably helped his assassination along. But I think he had a tendency to think in absolutes that was very conducive to producing innovative political solutions on a scale that Augustus was simply not capable of, but less conducive to actually carrying those ideas out. In warfare, his innovative thinking was a an entirely positive asset, because his ideas were carried out to the letter, instantly. In politics it was a double-edged sword because his ideas tended to provoke opposition, and for all his cleverness and audacity he didn't know, as a ruler, how to deal with political opposition.

Cæsar had less time.

I think Caesar operated best when he was under time constraints, actually. His problem was that he couldn't deal with the boring bits.

But he was never assassinated, probably because (unlike Cæsar) he killed everyone who posed a threat to him. I absolutely agree that Augustus was superior to Cæsar in an administrative capacity, but I think you are belittling Cæsar nonetheless. The fellow was a vain rake, but he was also a (generally) benevolent genius.

Actually, Augustus was clement to a number of his enemies, and the supporters of the Pompeians and Antonians continued to hold a place in the aristocracy well beyond his rule. The difference was, he deliberately acquired a reputation for ruthlessness early on, which acted as a deterrent. The proscriptions of the Second Triumvirate were his most ruthless purge, and they were also supported by Antony (oh yeah, I think there was some other guy there too, his name began with an L I think).

So are we now arguing that Putin is more like Auguatus Caesar than Julius Caesar?

Tsar/Caesar - yep it's the Russian word for it! I rest my case. Shofercia, you are blowing your ram's horn for a tin god with feet of clay. This guy is no messiah - just another politician addicted to power and expansionism.

And the point about Georgia is irrelevant...Russia was stomping around with a big chip on its shoulder daring the Georgians to knock it off. Very unwisely, they did.
As for Georgia supporting the Chechyens - well you know more about that than I do - we're a bit remote from the action here in Australia but I guess that's how realpolitik is played over there (enemy of my enemy stuff!)
A rejoinder to that is what 5th column groups does Russia support? They all play that game!

Not really. If you have 70% approval, and the exteme majority of Congressional Seats, you could change the Contitution rather fast. That's the thing most people on this forum don't get, because they've never been to Russia, or never talked to actual Russians about politics. Putin is enourmously popular there, because under him the people's lives imporved DRAMATICALLY!!!

I quote:
Giving short shrift to Russia's 1993 constitution, all three readings of the bill will be compressed into a single sitting, rather than dragged out over weeks or months as convention dictates.


Now follow your own damn laws. There's a reason why convention dictates it has to be dragged out over weeks or months and avoiding people like Putin getting into power for the sake of power is exactly that reason.

Furthermore, not even the most popular of leaders can reliably expect to get 80% of the vote.

I knew some spoilsport was going to bring the OP into it sooner or later...

I recommend reading Geroge Orwell's "Homage to Catalonia" as well as his "Collected essays, letters and journalism". Orwell was a stickler for journalistic ethics. He saw through pro-Soviet propaganda after fighting on the Republican side in Spain. Because, Republican Spain was largely dependent on Soviet aid during the civil was, Stakinist agents started taking over the civil guard. Then, when they had police power, they began to outlaw left wing organisations - especially the POUM the trotskyist group that Orwell hgad been fighting for. The anarchists rose to defend the POUM and Spain had a civil war within a civil war. All this was happening, while in Russia, Stalin was jailing anyone who was not toeing the stalin line. Millions of former revolutionaries, army officers, intellectuals and ordinary people suffered under the Stalin purges.

So what's my point? The same as Orwell's point. Don't be fooled by dictator's propaganda. That's what they do. Orwell reacted against the dishonesty coming from the Soviet apologists (Think Napoleon the pig and his propagandist Squealer). He warned the world against allowing dictators - any dictators - too much power.
We in the west, have to peel back the atrocious politics of the neo-cons.
We should also be supporting anti-authoritarian resistance in the rest of the world - against the so-called Communist Party in China, the generals in Burma, Mugabe in Zimbabwe, the Janjaweed in Sudan etc

I keep hearing that Putin has "too much power". Too much for what? As opposed to whom? Russia never was as democratic/free/progressive as Western Europe or North America. It's normal for Russians to live under the rule of a Tsar, whether he calls himself Tsar, President or PM. Liberalism failed in Russia.

I don't hear anyone complaining about Hu Jintao being too powerful, or the undead remnant of Kim Jong-Il.

Dear Turaan:
Too much power as opposed to his neighbours
Too much power for Russian democracy
Too much power for peace

I mentioned the Chinese leadership in my last post
We should also be supporting anti-authoritarian resistance in the rest of the world - against the so-called Communist Party in China, the generals in Burma, Mugabe in Zimbabwe, the Janjaweed in Sudan etc

Yes and you can add Kim Jong-Il and Ahmen bloody Jihad of Iran and any other tim pot dictator who pays lip service by holding "General" elections (elections where a General usually gets in".

I don't hear anyone complaining about Hu Jintao being too powerful, or the undead remnant of Kim Jong-Il.

Um... what?

Dear Turaan:
Too much power as opposed to his neighbours
Too much power for Russian democracy
Too much power for peace

I mentioned the Chinese leadership in my last post
We should also be supporting anti-authoritarian resistance in the rest of the world - against the so-called Communist Party in China, the generals in Burma, Mugabe in Zimbabwe, the Janjaweed in Sudan etc

Yes and you can add Kim Jong-Il and Ahmen bloody Jihad of Iran and any other tim pot dictator who pays lip service by holding "General" elections (elections where a General usually gets in".

Too much power as opposed to his neighbours - excluding China I assume. But it's been so ever since WW1 ended.
Too much power for Russian democracy - I wouldn't go calling it democracy in the first place (Laos also calls itself "democratic").
Too much power for peace - Russia is a multi-ethnic state trying to subdue its non-Russian ethnicities since imperial times. Whenever it's not in a foreign war, it fuels a domestic war (some are more heard of than others). There is no peace in Russia as long as Russia continues to exist as the pseudo-democratic successor of the Russian Empire.

What I'm trying to say is, that it's nothing new and nothing unusual. The current situation in Russia is merely another aspect of its century-long history, whether imperial or soviet. The short-lived era of liberalism in Russia under Yeltsin has turned that country into an oligarchy, so it's no wonder that the Russians gather around a leader that promises them glory and victory. Thus, Putin does make Russian nationalists happy, and that's one of the reasons why he's in power. If he's autocratic to the point of ruling a country that disapproves of him, it's more or less the Russians' fault of not deposing of him, but that isn't the case here.

Russia is and always was stronger than its neighbours, save China. That results in a small country getting bent over and raped by Russia once in a while. But that also happens with the US (see Iraq) or Brazil (see the natives). It's wrong on every level, but it's human nature and there's nothing you or anyone else can do about it, unfortunately.

As for your reference to the Chinese, sorry for missing that.

Um... what?

Kim Jong-Il is said to be dead, though SA doesn't believe in that claim. Doesn't matter.

I agree with a lot of what you said Turaan but you seem to be sitting on the fence (must be the Swiss connection).
I don't mind if the Russian people really are basking in the sun of their radiant leader but I think that they might be just a little bit scared to oppose anything he does because he has a powerful KGB who might just take it out on any dissident.
Yeah and I know the Russian rpredisposition for liking a strong leader but there is also a Russian predisposition for toppling autocrats. I'm hoping that young Russians end their blackshirt fixation and get into black flags again.
Long live the Krondstadt sailors (who never had any time for undemocratic Dumas).

I'm not trying to preach another Cold war here - more like a world-wide democratic revolution (a Prague spring if you like)

I agree with a lot of what you said Turaan but you seem to be sitting on the fence (must be the Swiss connection).
I don't mind if the Russian people really are basking in the sun of their radiant leader but I think that they might be just a little bit scared to oppose anything he does because he has a powerful KGB who might just take it out on any dissident.
Yeah and I know the Russian rpredisposition for liking a strong leader but there is also a Russian predisposition for toppling autocrats. I'm hoping that young Russians end their blackshirt fixation and get into black flags again.
Long live the Krondstadt sailors (who never had any time for undemocratic Dumas).

I'm not trying to preach another Cold war here - more like a world-wide democratic revolution (a Prague spring if you like)

What do you think I should be doing about Russia? It's not only not my duty to set their things straight according to what I believe is right, it would even be harmful interventionism to do so. Of course, if every country just magically turned into a free democratic state, I would save a lot of money on national defence among other things, but this is not human nature. There will always be dictators and although I disapprove of the loss of freedom, humans will never learn anyway. It's not my job to teach them and even if I would try to, they'd hate me for it. Disillusioned would be a more accurate word than fence-sitter. And though I applaud your enthusiasm, I'm afraid that reality will hit you hard sooner or later. Either that or you'll die a revolutionary without a revolution.

It's most people's lot in life to die a revolutionary without a revolution. (It's generally less painful than to die a revolutionary IN a revolution or to die a revolutionary in a counter-revolution.....which happened to many people in Russia.)
Also, one doesn't have to be a revolutionary - just a seeker of truth:

RUSSIA: Russian editor murdered; second in two weeks
The editor of a Moscow arts magazine has been found stabbed to death, less than two weeks after the murder of a foreign journalist which raised questions about the political and economic changes in Russia

The Straits Times
Monday, July 19, 2004
10/20/2006 Digg Stumble Upon Reddit Facebook Del.icio.us Fark Yahoo Newsvine Google MySpace Font:
RUSSIAN JOURNALIST MURDERED
Is Russia's Press Freedom Dead?
By Matthias Schepp, Christian Neef and Uwe Klussmann

Journalism is a dangerous profession in Russia: No less than 261 journalists have been murdered there since the fall of the Soviet Union. The killers are hardly ever found. The recent murder of Russian investigative reporter Anna Politkovskaya may now become a major political issue.


AP
Anna Politkovskaya's murder has created an uproar in Europe. It's just the latest in a string of such killings.
The gathering of Russians looks small in the hectic commotion of a busy street crossing in the heart of Moscow. Fresh flowers have been placed by the building in front of which journalist Anna Politkovskaya was gunned down on Oct. 7, but the vigil doesn't look particularly impressive. An old woman is there; so is an elderly professor with thick horn-rimmed glasses. Twenty people have shown up, which isn't a great showing in a city with a population of almost 11 million.

Politkovskaya had accused Russian President Vladimir Putin of "state terrorism" and called him a "KGB snoop," referring to his background as an agent for the Soviet intelligence service. She accused the intelligence services now under his command of committing abduction, torture and murder in Chechnya. Such accusations aren't left unpunished in contemporary Russia. The politically powerful in the Kremlin accused Politkovskaya of besmirching her country's reputation.

She liked to wear old-fashioned wool sweaters. She was neither left- nor right-wing, but a kind of moral watchdog who kept an eye on Russian politicians. In some ways, she was to Russia what investigative journalist Seymour Hersh is to the United States: someone incorruptible and driven. Some of her colleagues thought she was fanatical and even biased. Politkovskaya tried to impose moral norms on post-Soviet Russia.

The 10-story tenement that Politkovskaya lived in, on Lesnaya Street 8, was built during the Stalinist era. It looks shabby. Its stone walls have been covered in a layer of yellow paint. They're plastered with posters, pieces of paper with poems written on them and a picture of Russian President Vladimir Putin. He's wearing sunglasses; his eyes are hidden.

"The state has taken control of the media"

On a picture of Politkovskaya displayed nearby, someone has written "Death of Freedom of the Press." The picture is framed in black. But the sign doesn't quite capture the truth, because Politkovskaya's journalistic activities had largely been curbed when she was still alive. She was banished from state-controlled public television and published only in the small newspaper Novaya Gazeta, which appears twice a week and has a readership of only about 100,000 people.

She was the daughter of a diplomat, but she wasn't diplomatic. Her investigative journalism lacked a proper audience and receptive context in Putin's Russia. And as a Russian journalist killed lately in unusual circumstances, she wasn't alone. Just over a week after her murder, for example, the business chief of Russia's news agency, Itar-Tass, died of knife wounds in his own apartment in Moscow. Anatoly Voronin, 55, had worked for Itar-Tass for 23 years.

"The state has taken control of the media," Vladimir Ryzhkov, one of the last opposition politicians in the Russian Duma, explains. "And so no information gets through to the majority of Russians."


NEWSLETTER
Sign up for Spiegel Online's daily newsletter and get the best of Der Spiegel's and Spiegel Online's international coverage in your In- Box everyday.

This conclusion, drawn after 15 years of putative freedom of the press in Russia, could hardly be more bitter.

The slow stranglehold on Russian media

During the first years after the fall of the Soviet Union, under President Boris Yeltsin, Russian journalism was exciting, tough and impudent. Then the oligarchs who had secured entire industrial sectors for themselves during the process of privatization bought up parts of the media landscape, from TV channels to the most important newspapers. They managed to supplement their new economic power with political power.

Putin came to office with the declared goal of restoring the Kremlin's political authority. Vladimir Gusinsky, the country's most important media entrepreneur, was arrested about five months later. His media holding company -- including the TV channel NTW -- was taken over by Gazprom, the state-controlled natural gas monopoly.

The Kremlin proceeded to let companies closely associated with the government purchase one publishing house after the other. In September, one such company acquired the Kommersant publishing group, distinguished by its high print runs and -- until then -- its critical stance towards the government.

The new owner Alisher Usmanov, formerly a leading functionary of the Communist Party's youth federation, is in charge of a Gazprom subsidiary. A billionaire and longtime acquaintance of Putin's spokesman Alexei Gromov, he promised "not to meddle with editorial policy." But then he immediately installed a Putin supporter as editor-in-chief and declared himself "entirely loyal to the state."

Valery Yakov, the editor-in-chief of Novye Izvestia, reports that smaller non-conformist or critical papers are harassed by the authorities through surprising -- and sometimes absurd -- fire protection or health controls.

The result is that tough investigative journalism has become a rarity in Russia. "Anyone who takes the place of Politkovskaya will take on a suicide mission," says Yelena Tregubova, who has written as book describing her experiences as a Kremlin correspondent. A bomb exploded outside her front door shortly after the book was published.

I quote:
Giving short shrift to Russia's 1993 constitution, all three readings of the bill will be compressed into a single sitting, rather than dragged out over weeks or months as convention dictates.


Now follow your own damn laws. There's a reason why convention dictates it has to be dragged out over weeks or months and avoiding people like Putin getting into power for the sake of power is exactly that reason.

Furthermore, not even the most popular of leaders can reliably expect to get 80% of the vote.

Not even George Washington? Oh wait, he got 100%. Also, it said convention dictates, not Russia's Laws dictate. Russia's laws aren't bound by convention.

I agree with a lot of what you said Turaan but you seem to be sitting on the fence (must be the Swiss connection).
I don't mind if the Russian people really are basking in the sun of their radiant leader but I think that they might be just a little bit scared to oppose anything he does because he has a powerful KGB who might just take it out on any dissident.
Yeah and I know the Russian rpredisposition for liking a strong leader but there is also a Russian predisposition for toppling autocrats. I'm hoping that young Russians end their blackshirt fixation and get into black flags again.
Long live the Krondstadt sailors (who never had any time for undemocratic Dumas).

I'm not trying to preach another Cold war here - more like a world-wide democratic revolution (a Prague spring if you like)

Prague Spring - definetely not a Cold War. Didn't even happen in the Cold War. Oh yeah it did. The West has already interfered enough in Russia - bringing to power an Alcoholic who let mafia corruption run rampant and dominate every aspect of Russia, while the West lauded Russia's "Democracy". Enough's enough dontcha think?

Not even George Washington? Oh wait, he got 100%. Also, it said convention dictates, not Russia's Laws dictate. Russia's laws aren't bound by convention.

You didn't read what I wrote and you're skirting the issue.

First, I said reliably and who cares about George Washington? Even he couldn't get 100% honestly, considering that there were plenty of dissidents against the British Empire, who were probably denied the right to vote. He also ran unopposed. The system he ran in was and remains undemocratic.

Second, it still reeks of authoritarian bullshit and you defending it doesn't make you look any good. I really can't understand why you're so eager for Putin to come back now rather than in 2012. I mean, it's not like the constitution can't be changed by then by following convention.

Finally, check your own statements: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1789

Notice how forty thousand people voted, out of three million. That's nowhere near 100%. Add to it that several places didn't even bother with the popular vote...

You didn't read what I wrote and you're skirting the issue.

First, I said reliably and who cares about George Washington? Even he couldn't get 100% honestly, considering that there were plenty of dissidents against the British Empire, who were probably denied the right to vote. He also ran unopposed. The system he ran in was and remains undemocratic.

Second, it still reeks of authoritarian bullshit and you defending it doesn't make you look any good. I really can't understand why you're so eager for Putin to come back now rather than in 2012. I mean, it's not like the constitution can't be changed by then by following convention.

Finally, check your own statements: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1789

Notice how forty thousand people voted, out of three million. That's nowhere near 100%. Add to it that several places didn't even bother with the popular vote...

Anyways, ok - what about convention. Since when did "as convention dictates" become Russia's Law?

Shofercia - it has to be the Russian people who determine their own fate. I don't think that many people on this thread would argue otherwise. However, we in the West should criticise a Russian regime that is showing alarming signs of becoming worse - with more state murders of journalists and disidents (and DON'T try to downplay or dismiss this because then you'll appear to be passively defending it - in a similar way to holocaust deniers really defending the Nazis). Criticising Gorbachev or Yeltsin for their failings and failures and ignoring the massive flaws in the Putin administration and its KGB kleptocracy makes you appear to be defending the worst excesses of a Capitalist oligarchy. Gorbachev and Yeltsin had a vision of a more democratic Russia - and that idea still remains. For those unfamiliar with the Gorbachev era, here is Wikipedia on it:

Glasnost (help·info) (Russian: Гла́сность, Russian pronunciation: [ˈglasnəsʲtʲ]) is the policy of maximal publicity, openness, and transparency in the activities of all government institutions in the Soviet Union, together with freedom of information, introduced by Mikhail Gorbachev.

The word is a transliteration of the Russian word Гласность and was frequently used by Gorbachev to specify the policies he believed might help reduce the corruption at the top of the Communist Party and the Soviet government, and moderate the abuse of administrative power in the Central Committee.

Glasnost can also refer to the specific period in the history of the USSR during the 1980s when there was less censorship and greater freedom of information.

Look up glasnost in
Wiktionary, the free dictionary.Contents [hide]
1 Glasnost in USSR and in Russia
2 Areas of concern
3 Effects
4 See also
5 Notes
6 References
7 External links



[edit] Glasnost in USSR and in Russia
The word "glasnost" became a political motto in 1985-1990 as a part of the program of reforms called perestroika, whose goals included combating corruption and the abuse of privilege by the political classes. In the broadest sense, it aimed to liberalize freedom of the press gradually, and to allow for freedom of dissent.[1] The policy met resistance during the 1986 Chernobyl disaster, when authorities hid the true extent of the nuclear accident for several days.

Through his policy of glasnost, Gorbachev pressured conservatives within the Communist Party who opposed perestroika, his programs of economic restructuring. By cultivating a spirit of intellectual and cultural openness which encouraged public debate and participation, Gorbachev hoped to increase the Soviet people's support for and participation in perestroika.


[edit] Areas of concern
While "glasnost" is associated with freedom of speech, the main goal of this policy was to make the country's management transparent and open to debate, thus circumventing the narrow circle of apparatchiks who previously exercised complete control of the economy. Through reviewing the past or current mistakes being made, it was hoped that the Soviet people would back reforms such as perestroika.


A 1988 Soviet postage stamp: (1) Perestroika continues the cause of the October Revolution;
(2) Acceleration, Democratization, GlasnostGlasnost gave new freedoms to the people, such as a greater freedom of information by opening the secret parts for unallowed literature in the libraries[2][3] and a greater freedom of speech — a radical change, as control of speech and suppression of government criticism had previously been a central part of the Soviet system. There was also a greater degree of freedom within the media. In the late 1980s, the Soviet government came under increased criticism, as did Leninist ideology (which Gorbachev had attempted to preserve as the foundation for reform), and members of the Soviet population were more outspoken in their view that the Soviet government had become a failure. Glasnost did indeed provide freedom of expression, far beyond what Gorbachev had intended, and changed citizens' views towards the government, which played a key role in the collapse of the Soviet Union.


[edit] Effects
Relaxation of censorship resulted in the Communist Party losing its grip on the media. Before long, much to the embarrassment of the authorities, the media began to expose severe social and economic problems which the Soviet government had long denied and covered up. Long-denied problems such as poor housing, food shortages, alcoholism, widespread pollution, creeping mortality rates and the second-rate position of women were now receiving increased attention. Moreover, under glasnost, the people were able to learn significantly more about the horrors committed by the government when Joseph Stalin was in power. Although Nikita Khrushchev denounced Stalin's personality cult, information about the true proportions of his atrocities was still suppressed. In all, the very positive view of Soviet life which had long been presented to the public by the official media was being rapidly dismantled, and the negative aspects of life in the Soviet Union were brought into the spotlight. This began to undermine the faith of the public in the Soviet system.

Political openness continued to produce unintended consequences. In elections to the regional assemblies of the Soviet Union's constituent republics, nationalists swept the board. As Gorbachev had weakened the system of internal political repression, the ability of the USSR's central Moscow government to impose its will on the USSR's constituent republics had been largely undermined. During the 1980s, calls for greater independence from Moscow's rule grew louder. This was especially marked in the Baltic Republics of Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia, which had been annexed into the Soviet Union by Joseph Stalin in 1940. Nationalist feeling also took hold in other Soviet republics such as Ukraine, Georgia and Azerbaijan.

Starting in the mid-1980s, the Baltic states used the reforms provided by glasnost to assert their rights to protect their environment and their historic monuments and, later, their claims to sovereignty and independence. When the Balts withstood outside threats, they exposed an irresolute Kremlin. Bolstering separatism in other Soviet republics, the Balts triggered multiple challenges to the Soviet Union. Supported by Russian leader Boris Yeltsin, the Baltic republics asserted their sovereignty.

The rise of nationalism under glasnost also reawakened simmering ethnic tensions throughout the union. For example, in February 1988, Nagorno-Karabakh, a predominantly ethnic Armenian region in the Azerbaijan SSR, passed a resolution calling for unification with the Armenian SSR. Violence against local Azeris was then reported on Soviet television, which provoked massacres of Armenians in the Azerbaijani city of Sumgait.

The freedoms generated under glasnost enabled increased contact between Soviet citizens and the western world, particularly with the United States. Restrictions on travel were loosened, allowing increased business and cultural contact. For example, one key meeting location was in the U.S. at the Dakin Building, then owned by American philanthropist Henry Dakin, who had extensive Russian contacts:

During the late 1980s, as glasnost and perestroika led to the liquidation of the Soviet empire, the Dakin building was the location for a series of groups facilitating United States-Russian contacts. They included the Center for U.S.-U.S.S.R. Initiatives, which helped more than 1000 Americans visit the Soviet Union and more than 100 then-Soviet citizens visit the U.S.[4]

While thousands of political prisoners and many dissidents were released in the spirit of glasnost, Gorbachev's original goal of using glasnost and perestroika to reform the Soviet Union was not achieved. In 1991, the Soviet Union was dissolved following a failed coup by conservative elements who were opposed to Gorbachev's reforms.

I don't hear anyone complaining about Hu Jintao being too powerful, or the undead remnant of Kim Jong-Il.

I hate to be didactic, but Hu Jintao is actually a relatively positive reformer who has taken some substantive steps towards democratizing China. There's a long way to go, Wen Jiaobao's 3 Principles of Democracy kick the living shit out of the "Head down, Mouth shut" policy of Jiang Zemin.

Not that Hu is a saint or anything, but at least he's starting to take China in a positive direction.

Prague Spring - definetely not a Cold War. Didn't even happen in the Cold War. Oh yeah it did. The West has already interfered enough in Russia - bringing to power an Alcoholic who let mafia corruption run rampant and dominate every aspect of Russia, while the West lauded Russia's "Democracy". Enough's enough dontcha think?

Yeltsin rose to power on his own merits. It's easy to forget this because of his clumsy handling of government, but once upon a time, the man was a hero.

Shofercia - it has to be the Russian people who determine their own fate. I don't think that many people on this thread would argue otherwise. However, we in the West should criticise a Russian regime that is showing alarming signs of becoming worse - with more state murders of journalists and disidents (and DON'T try to downplay or dismiss this because then you'll appear to be passively defending it - in a similar way to holocaust deniers really defending the Nazis). Criticising Gorbachev or Yeltsin for their failings and failures and ignoring the massive flaws in the Putin administration and its KGB kleptocracy makes you appear to be defending the worst excesses of a Capitalist oligarchy. Gorbachev and Yeltsin had a vision of a more democratic Russia - and that idea still remains. For those unfamiliar with the Gorbachev era, here is Wikipedia on it:

Snip...

Gorbachev is one for the strongest supporters of Putin's politics.
Gorbachev Applauds Putin's Achievements (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/04/AR2007120402218.html)
"During the 1990s, we witnessed the regressive movement from trust to mutual misunderstanding and suspicion," he added. The 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty "was cast aside" by President Bush. "We see the remilitarization of thinking in nuclear policy. As of today, all nuclear states are basing their policy on the long-term preservation of nuclear weapons."
That is dangerous, he said.
"I believe that the arrogance of one great power that it is capable alone to solve any problems is something that is very costly. We are paying a big price, and I believe Americans, the U.S., is paying a very big price."

Anyways, ok - what about convention. Since when did "as convention dictates" become Russia's Law?

I never said it was Russia's Law, I said it was Russia's convention. To merge it all into one sitting reeks of trying to bypass measures put into place to avoid situations such as these.

I have no idea why you are even defending it. Once again, is it that horrible that Putin will have to wait a few more months, so that a proper amendment can be written?

I never said it was Russia's Law, I said it was Russia's convention. To merge it all into one sitting reeks of trying to bypass measures put into place to avoid situations such as these.

I have no idea why you are even defending it. Once again, is it that horrible that Putin will have to wait a few more months, so that a proper amendment can be written?

What "measures put into place to avoid situations such as these"?
Some kind of law? Because you just said that it's not Russia's Law, just convention. And that is not binding. And not being binding it is not a "measure put in place to avoid situations such as these".

If it was convention that they drink chaj from the same samovar before voting and Putin did away with it would you still be complaining?

Gorbachev is one for the strongest supporters of Putin's politics.
Gorbachev Applauds Putin's Achievements (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/04/AR2007120402218.html)

The Gorbachev of the 80s is not the Gorbachev of today. I predict that there will come a new democracy movement that will overthrow this regime. Nothing lasts forever - look at George W Bush for proof of that!
Khleb i Volia!

The Gorbachev of the 80s is not the Gorbachev of today. I predict that there will come a new democracy movement that will overthrow this regime. Nothing lasts forever - look at George W Bush for proof of that!
Khleb i Volia!

Proof?
One of Gorbachev points is that Putin authoritarianism is needed to solve the problems Russia inherited by Yeltsin's puppet government.
And the majority of russians think that is the case, not only Gorbachev.

Yes but....I'm sure the majority of Russians thought that going into Afghanistan was a good idea. Later on, so did the majority of Ameroicans.
Majorities can, on occasion, be stampeded like sheep and Putin is good at stampeding his flock.

He will go too far. Stalin may have outlasted his enemies. Putin's enemies may not make the same mistake.

Eventually, the cheers for Vlad will stop. If he continues to use the KGB to crush/kill off his opposition, he will be thrown out - or assasinated.

Yes but....I'm sure the majority of Russians thought that going into Afghanistan was a good idea. Later on, so did the majority of Ameroicans.
Majorities can, on occasion, be stampeded like sheep and Putin is good at stampeding his flock.

He will go too far. Stalin may have outlasted his enemies. Putin's enemies may not make the same mistake.

Eventually, the cheers for Vlad will stop. If he continues to use the KGB to crush/kill off his opposition, he will be thrown out - or assasinated.

In the case of the Russians - nope. Once they got the letters from the men at the front, they thought the idea was horrible. But if you directly challenged Brezhnev, to the Gulag you went. So yeah, people knew and opposed it, but they couldn't do anything about it. Also Georgia isn't Afghanistan - this was a nice, quick, glorious victory. Stalin didn't really outlast his enemies, recent research shows that he was poisoned by, wanna guess whom?



Scroll down
















Beria!

Shofercia - it has to be the Russian people who determine their own fate. I don't think that many people on this thread would argue otherwise. However, we in the West should criticise a Russian regime that is showing alarming signs of becoming worse - with more state murders of journalists and disidents (and DON'T try to downplay or dismiss this because then you'll appear to be passively defending it - in a similar way to holocaust deniers really defending the Nazis). Criticising Gorbachev or Yeltsin for their failings and failures and ignoring the massive flaws in the Putin administration and its KGB kleptocracy makes you appear to be defending the worst excesses of a Capitalist oligarchy. Gorbachev and Yeltsin had a vision of a more democratic Russia - and that idea still remains. For those unfamiliar with the Gorbachev era, here is Wikipedia on it.

The problems began in the early 1990's, when Gorbachev created a power vacuum that no one filled from 1985 to 1990. Then it was filled by the mafia, and that's when shit hit the fan. Yeltsin may have had vision of a Democratic Russia, but what he brought to the people was mafia rule. I don't think most Russians wanted to be ruled by people like Al Capone. Yeltsin's First Chechen War Campaign resembled Brezhnev's assault on Afghanistan. In addition Gorbachev's continuation of Brezhnev's war also doesn't make him look angellic. Finally, although Gorbachev and Yeltsin may have had great ideas, they handed Russia over to Mafia Rule - replacing Soviet Union with Al Copone-like government, which was worse, because at least the USSR - people were used to it and knew how to get around the KGB. Had Gorbachev immediately withdrawn from Afghanistan, one could consider him a decent leader, but he did not do so. I don't look at what people want, I look at their actions, not their words, and two lost wars, the country broken up, the economy in tatters, lost of people dying from hunger, a generation of creativity lost, skyrocketing alcoholism rates, were all results of Brezhnev-Gorbachev-Yeltsin ruling period. All 3 failed, epically, and the latter two were rightfully ousted from power.

Edit: I've lived in Russia under Yeltsin's Mafia Regime. I saw a kid whacked for walking in the wrong place. A fucking kid. Don't get me started on it.

Stalin may have outlasted his enemies but he couldn't outlast his "friends" (You can take Beria; he'll take cear 'o ya.....do you know that song? It's "Don't bring Trotsky" to the tune of "don't bring Suzy")

I guess with glasnost and perestroika, you have that problem of a shift from the creaky old state-Capitalist system into a more modern Capitalist "system". Yes there was a vacuum - one that the KGB and the entrepreneurs were quick to fill.

Kamenev and Zinoviev warned Lenin that Russia couldn't go straight to Socialism without first going through a Capitalist phase. The state Capitalism that emerged was indeed problematic. .... it resulted in a Communist Party that intruded far too deep into peoples' freedoms. This seems to be pretty much universally acknowledged now. In fact, we debate "Who was worse: Hitler or Stalin?" (I maintain, Hitler, though the scores are very close).
The fact that over the last 30 years, the Russians have yo-yoed between reacting against incompetent authoritarianism and incompetent liberalism indicates that Russians have to do a lot more reacting before they get it right.
There WILL be a democracy in Russia but the only way for that to happen is for the KGB/Russian Mafia to be overthrown. It is no easy task.
In China, it will be just as hard to win these reforms - an honest and more democratic system.
But you know how it will be won????

We have a secret weapon.......scroll down







Your computer! All power to the bloggers!

Stalin may have outlasted his enemies but he couldn't outlast his "friends" (You can take Beria; he'll take cear 'o ya.....do you know that song? It's "Don't bring Trotsky" to the tune of "don't bring Suzy")

I guess with glasnost and perestroika, you have that problem of a shift from the creaky old state-Capitalist system into a more modern Capitalist "system". Yes there was a vacuum - one that the KGB and the entrepreneurs were quick to fill.

Kamenev and Zinoviev warned Lenin that Russia couldn't go straight to Socialism without first going through a Capitalist phase. The state Capitalism that emerged was indeed problematic. .... it resulted in a Communist Party that intruded far too deep into peoples' freedoms. This seems to be pretty much universally acknowledged now. In fact, we debate "Who was worse: Hitler or Stalin?" (I maintain, Hitler, though the scores are very close).
The fact that over the last 30 years, the Russians have yo-yoed between reacting against incompetent authoritarianism and incompetent liberalism indicates that Russians have to do a lot more reacting before they get it right.
There WILL be a democracy in Russia but the only way for that to happen is for the KGB/Russian Mafia to be overthrown. It is no easy task.
In China, it will be just as hard to win these reforms - an honest and more democratic system.
But you know how it will be won????

We have a secret weapon.......scroll down


Your computer! All power to the bloggers!

The enterpreneurs and KGB? Wrong. The Mafia filled the gap, not the enterpreneurs, nor the KGB who couldn't even coup Gorbachev. Now you may wish to call Al Capone an enterpreneur. I would disagree. Also, KGB and Russian Mafia don't like each other. Both want state resources, and the state has only so much resources to give. You are trying to link KGB to the Russian Mafia, without even realizing that the two don't get along. In this case I actually like the KGB, because to qoute Churchill "If Hitler (Russian Mafia) declared war on hell, I would find something nice to say about the Devil (KGB)". I'm not saying that Hitler is Russian Mafia, or that KGB is the Devil, but merely showing how Churchill's quote can still apply.

You admit that Russians have been yo-yoed, and yet you want to blog to ensure that they continue to be yo-yoed to fit your ideological spectrum. Why can't you just let them be? Why must you preach of Liberty on your computer through Internet Anonimity, while telling the Russians to go out and riot, and the risk of destabilizing a country AFTER it achieved stability. It's easy for you to talk, food's not even a major concern for you, right? Or security? Maybe you should try living in North Ossetia for a while, see what life in Beslan is like, and then comeback and preach your doctrine.

Most Americans, or even EU residents don't get it. They have stability, food, water, shelter, the basic necessities, so its easy for them to preach Liberty. I live quite comfortably too, but I've also lived in areas like Beslan. In order to achieve Democracy, one must first achieve Stability and the Basic Necessities, and then speak of Democracy. When your salary is $100 a month and food takes away more then half of your income, you may not be ready for Democracy. Ukraine took the path of "Democracy", as did Moldova - successfully becoming the two nations with the highest per capita rate of prositution - that's how desperate they are. Belarus remained "dictatorial", and as a result, kept stability and its population in one peace. Yanukovich's voters would gladly vote for Timoshenko, if they actually could put a loaf of bread on the table everyday. You don't care about any of this, you just want Democracy, and if a couple million people starve? Would you even care?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index

Look at the "Dictorial" Land of Belarus vs. the "Democratic" Ukraine: compare and contrast. The two countries had exactly the same positions, Ukraine actually had more resources due to not being landlocked. You can see the results of "Democratization". In Belarus you recieve a pension and can afford food. In Ukraine you die of starvation, if you're too old to work and don't have connections. Geez, I wonder, which one is morally acceptable to regular people?

So give it a break, will you? Stop it with the Salesman Bullshit. Democracy is great if you have the neccessities, but if you don't and you start Democratizing, you could become a third-world country. I wonder if the "Liberals" actually bother to inform the countries they're "Democratizing"? Probably not, doncha think?

That being said, Russia will eventually become a Democracy. But these ideas must come from within the country, not be imposed by outside forces, including bloggers looking to spread their ideology, with complete disregard for the effects of these ideologies on the country's lifestyle....

A good point shofer but what is the Mafia if not a group of ruthless entrepreneurs? They are a class of kleptocrats. They are a disease. Every country has them and those that deny having them have them the worst.

There is something buried deep in the heart of Russia that can produce extreme nobility. That can never die - though for periods it will be driven deeply underground. The Russia of Tolstoy, Tchaikovsky, Tarkovsky will outlive the Mafia/KGB/party apparachiks.

To survive Stalin and to redefine Russia - constantly...eternally is to be a good Russki!

There are plenty of good Russkis to help you to do it.

On another thread,I discussed how "Patriotic" I was. I mentioned a lot of films that made me cry.

A Russian film I saw never made me cry because it was too sad....too shocking...

A solitary woman is inspecting the bodies left by th e Wehrmacht, looking for her loved one whom she eventually finds. She is wringing her hands and howling out her agony. The film is black and white and it has no sound. But it speaks volumes of the heroism of the Russian people - their capacity to endure and to overcome.

You will overcome.

In the case of the Russians - nope. Once they got the letters from the men at the front, they thought the idea was horrible. But if you directly challenged Brezhnev, to the Gulag you went. So yeah, people knew and opposed it, but they couldn't do anything about it. Also Georgia isn't Afghanistan - this was a nice, quick, glorious victory. Stalin didn't really outlast his enemies, recent research shows that he was poisoned by, wanna guess whom?

Beria!

Not to mention Georgia is the homeland of Stalin (and Beria). Regardless, Stalin's death was a damn good thing; he might have done well at industrializing the country and leading it to victory in the Great Patriotic War (not to mention achieving a truly incredible postwar reconstruction in the span of only five years...Soviet industrial production by 1951 was 50% over its 1941 level, even after being savaged by a good 30-40% by the German invasion) but by the time he died his regime was rapidly degenerating in to a disaster for the now-recovered USSR. Beria himself might have been a real monster, but even he knew it was time to draw the line at the onset of the Doctors' Plot. I mean, Stalin already trashed the Red Army heroes of the war, especially Zhukov, by demoting them to lowly positions and was then preparing for yet another round of purges that would've likely been as bad if not worse than the 1930's.

By the late 1940's, Stalin was easily turning as paranoid and crazy as Hitler in the final years of WWII, so this move was a necessary step to avert disaster. Sort of like the July 20th plot in Germany, only this one actually worked.

Interesting fact: Lavrentii Beria's hometown is located in present-day Abkhazia, the location of the recent conflict between Russia and Georgia. This is obviously coincidental, but an interesting fact nonetheless.

A good point shofer but what is the Mafia if not a group of ruthless entrepreneurs? They are a class of kleptocrats. They are a disease. Every country has them and those that deny having them have them the worst.

There is something buried deep in the heart of Russia that can produce extreme nobility. That can never die - though for periods it will be driven deeply underground. The Russia of Tolstoy, Tchaikovsky, Tarkovsky will outlive the Mafia/KGB/party apparachiks.

To survive Stalin and to redefine Russia - constantly...eternally is to be a good Russki!

There are plenty of good Russkis to help you to do it.

On another thread,I discussed how "Patriotic" I was. I mentioned a lot of films that made me cry.

A Russian film I saw never made me cry because it was too sad....too shocking...

A solitary woman is inspecting the bodies left by th e Wehrmacht, looking for her loved one whom she eventually finds. She is wringing her hands and howling out her agony. The film is black and white and it has no sound. But it speaks volumes of the heroism of the Russian people - their capacity to endure and to overcome.

You will overcome.

You are very skilled at the way you post. And if the Russian People want to overcome Putin, they will. The fundamental question is this: should they?

In your post you do your best to link the KGB to the Russian Mafia, whereas in reality the two are separate, diametrically opposed entities. The KGB and the Russian Mafia do not get along to say the least, in fact they hate each other enough to kill each other. The hatred dates back from the Afghan War, where a skillful Mafioso actually managed to provoke the KGB into firing on the GRU. You do NOT do that. I don't care who you are, you do NOT do that. The GRU are elites, and promptly returned fire, wiping out the KGB unit attacking them. This drew the KGB and the GRU into a mini-Cold War, that luckily ended with Stepashin's and later Putin's efforts. Neither Yeltsin, nor Gorbachev, nor Brezhnev did jack shit to end that war, in fact Brezhnev encouraged it. Thus your first mistake is linking the KGB and the Mafia. The less mafia there is in Russia, the more taxes the gov't. gets the more funding the KGB recieves, that's just basic economics.

Also, right now, Russians don't have it that bad. Over the past 8 years the salary of an average Russian quintupled. Russia is in a NEP-like period. In a scene from Zolotoy Telenok, a Russian Classic, one of the characters who is a petty criminal says: "I could make money during War Communism...but under NEP, oh how I thrived under NEP!" Zolotoy Telenok is a brilliant comedy, but it is also a stellar commentary on Russian Society at the time, where the main character, Ostap Bender, is fictionary, but the rest of the characters and events could all have happened in Soviet Society. The paraphrase the quote - under War Communism, the Russians had so little that there wasn't even enough to steal for a petty criminal, but under NEP, [New Economic Policy that actually worked] there was plenty of food and money to go around for everyone. I also remember reading the letter written by Russians and Soviet Minorities alike, that describe how good life under NEP was for the average person, how much it improved, even saying this: "more NEP...Lenin died too soon!"

Right now the Russians have it very similar to NEP. This is a time to rebuild the Russian Society, not to stage a new revolution. Russia has had enough coups and revolutions in the 20th century to last a millinea:

1905, 1916, 1918, 1927 (or 1929 depends on when one thinks that Stalin ceased power by assasination), 1953, 1964, 1989, 1999. How many times does Russia need a coup or a revolution?

The Russians don't need to Imperialize again, nor has Putin done that. Certainly he trades with many different countries, but it is a trade, not "economic assistance". And when Putin dares to apply a free market trading agreements to a country that the West likes, say Ukraine, there's a howl of evil Putin going after Ukraine. So if I take out a loan from a bank don't pay it back and ask for another one, do I get to call the Bank the "Empire of Evil" if I don't get another loan?

In addition, and this is what made me a supporter of Putin, Vladimir has been praised by none other then one of two of Russia's greatest investigative journalists, Alexander Solzhenitsyn. (Radischev was the other one - he wrote "The Journey from Moscow to St. Petersburg" where he dared to point out to the Russian Aristocracy how poorly the peasants lived, for which he got sent to a labor camp.) Solzhenitsyn doesn't just praise anyone. He denounced Russian and American leaders alike. He foresaw the Caucasian Conflict and tried to get Gorbachev and Yeltsin to prevent it, yeah like those two will do something truly for the people. He just wasn't your ordinary dissident. And it was his praise, and I'll quote "Russia is damn lucky to have Putin" - that phrase was what turned me from a sceptic into a Putin supporter.

So again, I ask, why should Russians struggle against Putin? Why should they go against the wind, if the wind is favorable to them? Instead I believe that Russians should work to improve conditions in Russia, and fight the local government if they can do so. Russians should fight for better schools, better infrastructure, better healthcare, better pensions, better veterans benefits, a more integrated economic development plan, laws that make it easier to raise kids, that should be their fight. They don't own anything to the World, they've taken the brunt in taking down Hitler, enough's enough. There's no point in fighting what is already on your side. Just because certain countries don't like Putin or Medvedev, tough luck, so what? The question is do Russians like Putin and Medvedev and United Russia? Do they help the Russians? has life for the majority of Russians improved? If the answer to all of these is yes, then why should it matter to Russians what CNN, or Fox News, or Sky News, or NY Times, or BBC, or [insert name of self-contradictory newspaper here] thinks about them?

You are praising Russians, and yet you are asking more sacrifices of them. Like "you Russians are great, now do what I tell you and listen to my beliefs!" That's not what Russians should do. They don't own jack shit to you, or anyone else. It is a nice shift though, now I guess there's a move from stimulating Russians on the basis of fear, "Putin will kill you and eat your baby, unless you fund Chevron!" to the basis of hope "Putin is mediocre and Chevron's better! You shall overcome!"

And yet it's all the same. Don't you think the Russians have sacrificed enough, and now it's time for them to get a better life?

I'll end on a great Russian Saying: "OT DOBRA, DOBRA NE ISHUYT".


Ps. I've been offerred to work in the so-called Western Media to Influence Opinions in Russia. I've refused that offer, I am sorry, but I prefer to tell it like it is, if it's good, it's good, if it's bad, I'll say it...

If it's that good for you Shofer, then mazeltov. I hope that Russia continues to thrive and I certainly don't want Russia to suffer any more "interesting " events like coups or wars or famines.

I also take your point about the Russians not owing anyone Jack Shit (least of all me!). However, the price of being accepted is accountability. Remember that nobody owes Russia much either (although you did mention a loan to the Ukraine - heh! heh!)

If Vlad wants to smell nice, I suggest that he ceases rolling around in the shit. In Australia we just dumped a Prime Minisater who played the race card. He was a very effective populist and he was hard on accepting refugees, big on bashing "Islamists" and George Bush's best friend. He got away with committing troops to Afghanistan and Iraq; people supported him on the war on terror and on his lack of sympathy for multiculturalism. The nationalists loved him - and there are plenty of nationalists everywhere. Then he attacked the unions - and this became his Stalingrad. It was one front too many.
While everyone was making money, they liked him but when people began to see that their incomes were being threatened, then there was tsouris for Howard.
People don't mind Putin's chutzpah - that's always been an impressive Russian characteristic - it's his darker side that disturbs them. Does an effective Russian leader really have to be an Ivan the Trerrible to get the respect of the Russian people?

As for Lenin, the reason he died was because he was systematically closing down all opposition to him - especially from the Left. It was a left Socialist Revolutionary who hastened his early death but it could just as easily been an anarchist or a menshevik. Remember that some of the most passionate anti-Communists were often idealistic Communists who could not accept the complete Machiavellian basis of the Party....it was the Party's betrayal of the socialist ideal that made them turn so violently away.

And you must never forget that Lenin paved the way for Stalin. Could Lenin have allowed more democracy? It's an academic question because he didn't. I do think Putin is Lenin's heir....whatever economic differences they may have.
I'll be kinder towards Vlad when Russia's journalists and intellectuals stop dying - and the security forces are apparently shooting up citizens of Ingushetia, which may exacerbate the Moslem secessionist crisis:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7743551.stm

So again, I ask, why should Russians struggle against Putin?
Well, I would say we haven't really been able to see what people thought of Putin because of the economic boom. He has, as any politician would, taken credit for it, for the most part undeserved. Russia has grown despite its government, rather than because of it.

Now that (http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/nov2008/gb20081119_658448.htm?chan=globalbiz_europe+index+page_top+stories) is over (http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12641926), and people will have to start judging Putin honestly, by what he actually does now.

And hey, who knows, maybe a new government would remove judges like this idiot (http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,591935,00.html).

You are very skilled at the way you post. And if the Russian People want to overcome Putin, they will. The fundamental question is this: should they?

In your post you do your best to link the KGB to the Russian Mafia, whereas in reality the two are separate, diametrically opposed entities. The KGB and the Russian Mafia do not get along to say the least, in fact they hate each other enough to kill each other. The hatred dates back from the Afghan War, where a skillful Mafioso actually managed to provoke the KGB into firing on the GRU. You do NOT do that. I don't care who you are, you do NOT do that. The GRU are elites, and promptly returned fire, wiping out the KGB unit attacking them. This drew the KGB and the GRU into a mini-Cold War, that luckily ended with Stepashin's and later Putin's efforts. Neither Yeltsin, nor Gorbachev, nor Brezhnev did jack shit to end that war, in fact Brezhnev encouraged it. Thus your first mistake is linking the KGB and the Mafia. The less mafia there is in Russia, the more taxes the gov't. gets the more funding the KGB recieves, that's just basic economics.

Also, right now, Russians don't have it that bad. Over the past 8 years the salary of an average Russian quintupled. Russia is in a NEP-like period. In a scene from Zolotoy Telenok, a Russian Classic, one of the characters who is a petty criminal says: "I could make money during War Communism...but under NEP, oh how I thrived under NEP!" Zolotoy Telenok is a brilliant comedy, but it is also a stellar commentary on Russian Society at the time, where the main character, Ostap Bender, is fictionary, but the rest of the characters and events could all have happened in Soviet Society. The paraphrase the quote - under War Communism, the Russians had so little that there wasn't even enough to steal for a petty criminal, but under NEP, [New Economic Policy that actually worked] there was plenty of food and money to go around for everyone. I also remember reading the letter written by Russians and Soviet Minorities alike, that describe how good life under NEP was for the average person, how much it improved, even saying this: "more NEP...Lenin died too soon!"

Right now the Russians have it very similar to NEP. This is a time to rebuild the Russian Society, not to stage a new revolution. Russia has had enough coups and revolutions in the 20th century to last a millinea:

1905, 1916, 1918, 1927 (or 1929 depends on when one thinks that Stalin ceased power by assasination), 1953, 1964, 1989, 1999. How many times does Russia need a coup or a revolution?

The Russians don't need to Imperialize again, nor has Putin done that. Certainly he trades with many different countries, but it is a trade, not "economic assistance". And when Putin dares to apply a free market trading agreements to a country that the West likes, say Ukraine, there's a howl of evil Putin going after Ukraine. So if I take out a loan from a bank don't pay it back and ask for another one, do I get to call the Bank the "Empire of Evil" if I don't get another loan?

In addition, and this is what made me a supporter of Putin, Vladimir has been praised by none other then one of two of Russia's greatest investigative journalists, Alexander Solzhenitsyn. (Radischev was the other one - he wrote "The Journey from Moscow to St. Petersburg" where he dared to point out to the Russian Aristocracy how poorly the peasants lived, for which he got sent to a labor camp.) Solzhenitsyn doesn't just praise anyone. He denounced Russian and American leaders alike. He foresaw the Caucasian Conflict and tried to get Gorbachev and Yeltsin to prevent it, yeah like those two will do something truly for the people. He just wasn't your ordinary dissident. And it was his praise, and I'll quote "Russia is damn lucky to have Putin" - that phrase was what turned me from a sceptic into a Putin supporter.

So again, I ask, why should Russians struggle against Putin? Why should they go against the wind, if the wind is favorable to them? Instead I believe that Russians should work to improve conditions in Russia, and fight the local government if they can do so. Russians should fight for better schools, better infrastructure, better healthcare, better pensions, better veterans benefits, a more integrated economic development plan, laws that make it easier to raise kids, that should be their fight. They don't own anything to the World, they've taken the brunt in taking down Hitler, enough's enough. There's no point in fighting what is already on your side. Just because certain countries don't like Putin or Medvedev, tough luck, so what? The question is do Russians like Putin and Medvedev and United Russia? Do they help the Russians? has life for the majority of Russians improved? If the answer to all of these is yes, then why should it matter to Russians what CNN, or Fox News, or Sky News, or NY Times, or BBC, or [insert name of self-contradictory newspaper here] thinks about them?

You are praising Russians, and yet you are asking more sacrifices of them. Like "you Russians are great, now do what I tell you and listen to my beliefs!" That's not what Russians should do. They don't own jack shit to you, or anyone else. It is a nice shift though, now I guess there's a move from stimulating Russians on the basis of fear, "Putin will kill you and eat your baby, unless you fund Chevron!" to the basis of hope "Putin is mediocre and Chevron's better! You shall overcome!"

And yet it's all the same. Don't you think the Russians have sacrificed enough, and now it's time for them to get a better life?

I'll end on a great Russian Saying: "OT DOBRA, DOBRA NE ISHUYT".


Ps. I've been offerred to work in the so-called Western Media to Influence Opinions in Russia. I've refused that offer, I am sorry, but I prefer to tell it like it is, if it's good, it's good, if it's bad, I'll say it...

Didn't I hear nearly this exact same spiel six years ago?

Here is some sick puppies (of Russian extraction) who just got prison terms in Israel for being neo-Nazis. It underlies a problem that Russians need to deal with - a strange ultra-nationalism that turns in on itself even quicker than most ultra-nationalist movements:

Jewish Nazi gang convicted2008-11-24 12:41:39
A gang of six Jewish neo-Nazis has been jailed in Israel after carrying out a year-long spree of violence. WARNING: graphic images.(01:36) Sorry, there is an annoying ad that goes for 30 seconds - if you want to skip it drag the bar across it.
http://media.smh.com.au/?category=Breaking%20News&rid=43965

Well, I would say we haven't really been able to see what people thought of Putin because of the economic boom. He has, as any politician would, taken credit for it, for the most part undeserved. Russia has grown despite its government, rather than because of it.

Now that (http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/nov2008/gb20081119_658448.htm?chan=globalbiz_europe+index+page_top+stories) is over (http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12641926), and people will have to start judging Putin honestly, by what he actually does now.

And hey, who knows, maybe a new government would remove judges like this idiot (http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,591935,00.html).

I agree that Zubov should be removed as a judge. However I don't think Putin's thinking about removing judges at the moment. I can and will of course repudiate the Economist's claim that the Ruble is troubling, simply by saying that Russia could force others to buy the its natural resources using rubles instead of dollars. The BW article is interesting, in that it actually provides useful facts: "the economy may slow down from 6.5% to 3.5%" - but the economy will still maintain growth. In the US, the economy will slow down to only 1.8% growth.

Here is some sick puppies (of Russian extraction) who just got prison terms in Israel for being neo-Nazis. It underlies a problem that Russians need to deal with - a strange ultra-nationalism that turns in on itself even quicker than most ultra-nationalist movements:

Jewish Nazi gang convicted2008-11-24 12:41:39
A gang of six Jewish neo-Nazis has been jailed in Israel after carrying out a year-long spree of violence. WARNING: graphic images.(01:36) Sorry, there is an annoying ad that goes for 30 seconds - if you want to skip it drag the bar across it.
http://media.smh.com.au/?category=Breaking%20News&rid=43965

You mean after their country collapses, ultra-nationalists rise? What a weird event. The problem here started with Gorbachev and the collapse of the USSR that led to the current Neo-Nazi movenment in Russia. However Putin has done quite a bit to crack down on the Neo-Nazis. It was a rising problem under Yeltsin. I'm glad it's contained. I'm reading their forum - http://www.center-rne.org/forums/ - and noticing a lot of criminal names. Like "Whip", "Knife", "Aristocrat" - these are not normal names used on Russian Forums, I read quite a bit of them. Basically it's a group of criminals, and they are treated as such. The topics are about how to stop the Russian Government from locking onto your cell phone... on a website that the Russian Government can read - these people aren't smart. Of course when the Russians arrested a Neo-Nazi "hacker" - hacker in qoutes as to not insult real hackers, there was Western Uproar about the "evil arrest" - http://committeetoprotectbloggers.org/category/savva-terentyev/ of Savva Terentyev, the noble guy who wanted everyone in Russia to "kill each other". One of his milder statement: "Savva Terentyev, a blogger arrested last August for suggesting his local police should be set on fire in the town square". So if Russia arrests these Neo-Nazis, Putin is violating Free Speech and if Russia does nothing, Putin is allowing the Neo-Nazis to rise. There is no pleasing you, is there?

Didn't I hear nearly this exact same spiel six years ago?

From me? Quote please?

If it's that good for you Shofer, then mazeltov. I hope that Russia continues to thrive and I certainly don't want Russia to suffer any more "interesting " events like coups or wars or famines.

I also take your point about the Russians not owing anyone Jack Shit (least of all me!). However, the price of being accepted is accountability. Remember that nobody owes Russia much either (although you did mention a loan to the Ukraine - heh! heh!)

If Vlad wants to smell nice, I suggest that he ceases rolling around in the shit. In Australia we just dumped a Prime Minisater who played the race card. He was a very effective populist and he was hard on accepting refugees, big on bashing "Islamists" and George Bush's best friend. He got away with committing troops to Afghanistan and Iraq; people supported him on the war on terror and on his lack of sympathy for multiculturalism. The nationalists loved him - and there are plenty of nationalists everywhere. Then he attacked the unions - and this became his Stalingrad. It was one front too many.
While everyone was making money, they liked him but when people began to see that their incomes were being threatened, then there was tsouris for Howard.
People don't mind Putin's chutzpah - that's always been an impressive Russian characteristic - it's his darker side that disturbs them. Does an effective Russian leader really have to be an Ivan the Trerrible to get the respect of the Russian people?

As for Lenin, the reason he died was because he was systematically closing down all opposition to him - especially from the Left. It was a left Socialist Revolutionary who hastened his early death but it could just as easily been an anarchist or a menshevik. Remember that some of the most passionate anti-Communists were often idealistic Communists who could not accept the complete Machiavellian basis of the Party....it was the Party's betrayal of the socialist ideal that made them turn so violently away.

And you must never forget that Lenin paved the way for Stalin. Could Lenin have allowed more democracy? It's an academic question because he didn't. I do think Putin is Lenin's heir....whatever economic differences they may have.
I'll be kinder towards Vlad when Russia's journalists and intellectuals stop dying - and the security forces are apparently shooting up citizens of Ingushetia, which may exacerbate the Moslem secessionist crisis:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7743551.stm

Lenin died before NEP was fully implemented. He tried to warn others of Stalin, but failed to do so. Putin managed to start up NEP, that's still going strong, and Medvedev will likely continue NEP. I think saying that Putin is Lenin's Heir is misleading. Lenin suppressed all non-Bolshevik Newspapers. Putin's allowing CNN in Russia to broadcast, and judging by their coverage of the South Ossetian War, CNN is rabidly anti-Russian. Do I need qoutes, or will you take my word for it? Here's an interview that CNN censored because Putin actually came off too sensible: http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/98501/is_cnn_getting_kicked_out_of_russia/?page=2

Some qoutes:

"For us, it is a special tragedy, because during the many years that we were living together the Georgian culture -- the Georgian people being a nation of ancient culture -- became, without a doubt, a part of the multinational culture of Russia.[C]onsidering the fact that almost a million, even more than a million Georgians have moved here, we have special spiritual links with that country and its people. For us, this is a special tragedy."

"Therefore, those who insist that those territories must continue to belong to Georgia are Stalinists: They defend the decision of Josef Vissarionovich Stalin. [It was Stalin who first split up Ossetia and gave the southern half to Georgia.]"

"You and I are sitting here now, having a quiet conversation in the city of Sochi. Within a few hundred kilometers from here, U.S. Navy ships have approached, carrying missiles whose range is precisely several hundred kilometers. It is not our ships that have approached your shores; it's your ships that have approached ours. So what's our choice? We don't want any complications; we don't want to quarrel with anyone; we don't want to fight anyone. We want normal cooperation and a respectful attitude toward us and our interests. Is that too much?"

"Construction of the first gas pipeline system was started during the 1960s, at the height of the Cold War, and for all those years, from the 1960s until this day, Russia has been fulfilling its contract obligations in a very consistent and reliable way, regardless of the political situation. We never politicize economic relations, and we are quite astonished at the position of some U.S. administration officials who travel to European capitals trying to persuade the Europeans not to buy our products, natural gas for example, in a truly amazing effort to politicize the economic sphere. In fact, it's quite pernicious. It's true that the Europeans depend on our supplies but we too depend on whoever buys our gas. That's interdependence; that's precisely the guarantee of stability."

Of course CNN censored those. And they're still allowed to operate within Russia. Putin the Evil Media Repressor? Looks like CNN's doing the censoring. Also, no one has to be Ivan the Terrible. If you studied Russian History, you'd realize that Ivan the Terrible only became terrible after the Nobility murdered his wife and planned to unseat him. He got his revenge, and then some... and it's the "then some" that everyone has a problem with. However it is important to realize that Ivan the Terribly gained and kept power, while not being terrible. Also, Alexander Nevsky, Dmitri Donskoy, Ivan Kalita - all great Russian leaders that weren't terrible in any way, shape or form. Most of the Romanovs didn't exhibit terror traits either. Nor do I see Gulags or Purges from Putin. There's actually a new joke in town, that has a truth component: "Count Vlad doesn't kill Progressive Journalists, he deports them". Russia is far from freedom of speech or the press, but to portray Russia as if it were Saudi Arabia, like Murdoch wants to do, to portray it as a hungry, evil dictatorship, is pure bullshit.

I can and will of course repudiate the Economist's claim that the Ruble is troubling, simply by saying that Russia could force others to buy the its natural resources using rubles instead of dollars.
That's not how it works, I'm afraid.

Neu L how'd your interview for tutor go?

Shofer, not all critics of Putin are 'evil empire" type ideolgues (Murdoch and Reagan may have pushed that line but I've spent my whole adult life fighting their politics). No, I don't want to dwell on RUSSIA'S flaws and you don't have to defend them from the Cold War adversary here. All countries have flaws and Russia has a long history. What I am concerned with are the trends in Russia that could be avoided. The joke about deporting journalists is no joke. It's a reflection of th egallows humour that many Russians revert to when they feel that they are powerless to effect democratic change.
Here's another old joke (The names have been changed to protect the guilty):

Putin is talking to Medvedev while they are in a sealed Russian train:
Putin: Even though we can't see out, I know what country we are in when I put my hand out the window.
Medvedev: So, what country are we in now, Vladimir?
Putin: We're in the Ukraine!
Medvedev: How can you tell?
Putin: They spat on my hand! Ah! now we're in Georgia!
Medvedev: How can you tell?
Putin: They bit my hand! Ah! Thank God! Now we're back in Mother Russia!
Medvedev: How can you tell?
Putin: They stole my watch!