Putin arrests opposition presidential candidate

[FireKrakouer]

Ahh the left. They cry "muh Russians" when they don't get their way in the US election, then cry "muh Russians" again when they don't get their way in the Russian election. Why all the hate for democracy? Why the hate for the concept of 2 long-term foes, 2 nuclear superpowers, actually getting along?

Most are happy for the US and Aus to cooperate with the one-party state of China, but crap their daks at the thought of cooperating with Russia. Weird.

 

[smokingjacket]

Ahh the left. They cry "muh Russians" when they don't get their way in the US election, then cry "muh Russians" again when they don't get their way in the Russian election. Why all the hate for democracy? Why the hate for the concept of 2 long-term foes, 2 nuclear superpowers, actually getting along?

Most are happy for the US and Aus to cooperate with the one-party state of China, but crap their daks at the thought of cooperating with Russia. Weird.

I'd say I'm the most left wing poster in this thread and the greatest sabrerattling against Russia over the past few years has come from the neoconservative wing of the Republican Party and their political allies in Australia. Save the low IQ trolling for the Trump thread, that's more at your level.

 

[FireKrakouer]

Save the low IQ trolling for the Trump thread, that's more at your level.

So this is what I get for sticking up for you. PS I'm banned from the TDS Trump thread.

 

[smokingjacket]

So this is what I get for sticking up for you. PS I'm banned from the TDS Trump thread.

I appreciate the sentiment but I don't need your help. Russian geopolitics is a great interest of mine and I enjoy the spirited back and forth with the interested parties. I'd rather this thread not become another tired front of the 2016 election wars. Happy to be corrected but I'm not sure rfctiger74 would even describe himself as from the left, he mentioned voting McCain over Obama at some point and Ratts of Tobruk is a garden variety centrist having expressed sympathies for both sides of politics on many occasions. Not only was your trolling unnecessary but it didn't hit the mark.

Unfortunate that you're banned from the Trump thread. The modding on this site has become overzealous IMO and the vibrancy and discussion has paid for it.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

I appreciate the sentiment but I don't need your help. Russian geopolitics is a great interest of mine and I enjoy the spirited back and forth with the interested parties. I'd rather this thread not become another tired front of the 2016 election wars. Happy to be corrected but I'm not sure rfctiger74 would even describe himself as from the left, he mentioned voting McCain over Obama at some point and Ratts of Tobruk is a garden variety centrist having expressed sympathies for both sides of politics on many occasions. Not only was your trolling unnecessary but it didn't hit the mark.

Unfortunate that you're banned from the Trump thread. The modding on this site has become overzealous IMO and the vibrancy and discussion has paid for it.

For the record, i tend to be very right wing economically, but left wing socially. Would be in alp right, or one if the libs wets (if they still existed)

 

[floodbuster]

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

For the record, i tend to be very right wing economically, but left wing socially. Would be in alp right, or one if the libs wets (if they still existed)

And I would be considered 'Labor right' too on a political spectrum, but me and RFC have disagreed vehemently on multiple issues. Labeling is useful as a short-hand to save time, but only if it is usefully accurate. Denying a label is fine, and shouldn't be a conversation de-railer, but it often becomes one. Not least because so often such labels are used to dismiss.

Vote rigging is not OK! I'm sorry if that point wasn't made clear enough before but it's fairly obvious. Vote rigging is bad. The argument I was making is don't suffer from the delusion that Putin "stole" the election through vote rigging. The ballot stuffing referred to in the media were a small group of cases absolutely inconsequential to the overall electoral landslide in favour of Putin's system.

But to suggest it is "small" and "inconsequential" is downplaying the rigging. We have no idea how widespread rigging is, but much like their assassinations and jailings and shutdowns, including by means seemingly specifically designed to create impactful news stories (radiation and nerve gas poisonings, killings directly in front of the Kremlin, obviously fanciful conspiracy theories, etc), the impact of these things is far wider than the direct provable consequences we can see with our own eyes. They are undeniably consequential.

The question of who takes over should Putin accidentally die doesn't appear all that relevant to the fact potential opposition leaders are killed, jailed, denied the ability to run, attacked by the vast Putin-friendly info campaign, etc. But, of course, whoever the leader is does have an impact. Kim Jong-Un's reaction to Trump's antics are obviously different to what his Dad would've done. His Dad never hung out with Rodman.

Russia absolutely could be a great European-friendly nation. There's no reason why they shouldn't, and they have the added advantage of being a massive country with lots of resources that spans Europe and Asia, from Mid-East to far-East. Straight-forward access to the Pacific and the Atlantic and of course to running across the pole (an advantage increasing with climate change) is very handy. And as I've said before, they've tried a variety of government types and have plenty of people smart enough to mould their country in new, fairer ways.

Their consistent problem, however, has been that power is wielded by an elite, whether that be Tsars, Communists or Oligarchs (of which Putin is one). It takes a lot of work to reduce that stranglehold on power. Especially because for every world leader working hard to shape a globe that isn't concerned with shows of strength, there are just as many who believe their political power is based upon shows of strength. When the inevitable head-butting occurs, people label the former group 'weak'. Political ideas of 'strength' often align with policies that benefit the powerful few.

 

[awaremind]

There are only two real sides in this last conflict, the American empire, (Europe, Israel and Saudis plus the five eyes)
Vs the rest of the world Russia,China Iran, NK being the substancial military powers. Turkey is on the fence apparently.
Russia submitted for 15 years after 1989, to the will of the Empire, but after repeatedly having their interests ignored and trampled on, they now see the Empire as wishing only to subjugate them. In my opinion this assessment is correct.

The below quote is from the Saker blog which while being definitely pro Russian is quite insightful. Russia and China are definitely preparing for war with us, and there is almost zero chance we in Australia will avoid the consequences of this if we carry on in our present tragectory. China will back Russia because if Russia falls they know they are on their own and they are next.

http://thesaker.is/how-the-east-can-save-the-west/

"Russia limits herself to words of protests ==>> the Empire sees that as a sign of weakness and escalates
Russia responds in kind with real actions ==>> The Empire feels humiliated and escalates

Now look at this from a Russian point of view for a second and ask yourself what you would do in this situation?

The answer, I think, is obvious: you try to win as much time as possible and you prepare for war. The Russians have been doing exactly that since at least early 2015."

 

[Jello_B]

I appreciate the sentiment but I don't need your help. Russian geopolitics is a great interest of mine and I enjoy the spirited back and forth with the interested parties. I'd rather this thread not become another tired front of the 2016 election wars. Happy to be corrected but I'm not sure rfctiger74 would even describe himself as from the left, he mentioned voting McCain over Obama at some point and Ratts of Tobruk is a garden variety centrist having expressed sympathies for both sides of politics on many occasions. Not only was your trolling unnecessary but it didn't hit the mark.

Unfortunate that you're banned from the Trump thread. The modding on this site has become overzealous IMO and the vibrancy and discussion has paid for it.

Putin has been good for Russia?

 

[smokingjacket]

Putin has been good for Russia?

Literally anything would be an improvement on the Yeltsin era. The state collapsed. Full economic depression, near complete collapse of law and order, mafioso running minor cities and suburbs of the big cities. Even the election was rigged for Yeltsin with US help after the first one so it's hard to make a case for it on genuinely democratic grounds. Doesn't excuse Putin's crimes but it partly explains why Putin's popularity is connected to the Russian populace fear of another liberal revolution.

 

[smokingjacket]

But to suggest it is "small" and "inconsequential" is downplaying the rigging. We have no idea how widespread rigging is, but much like their assassinations and jailings and shutdowns, including by means seemingly specifically designed to create impactful news stories (radiation and nerve gas poisonings, killings directly in front of the Kremlin, obviously fanciful conspiracy theories, etc), the impact of these things is far wider than the direct provable consequences we can see with our own eyes. They are undeniably consequential.

The question of who takes over should Putin accidentally die doesn't appear all that relevant to the fact potential opposition leaders are killed, jailed, denied the ability to run, attacked by the vast Putin-friendly info campaign, etc. But, of course, whoever the leader is does have an impact. Kim Jong-Un's reaction to Trump's antics are obviously different to what his Dad would've done. His Dad never hung out with Rodman.

Russia absolutely could be a great European-friendly nation. There's no reason why they shouldn't, and they have the added advantage of being a massive country with lots of resources that spans Europe and Asia, from Mid-East to far-East. Straight-forward access to the Pacific and the Atlantic and of course to running across the pole (an advantage increasing with climate change) is very handy. And as I've said before, they've tried a variety of government types and have plenty of people smart enough to mould their country in new, fairer ways.

Their consistent problem, however, has been that power is wielded by an elite, whether that be Tsars, Communists or Oligarchs (of which Putin is one). It takes a lot of work to reduce that stranglehold on power. Especially because for every world leader working hard to shape a globe that isn't concerned with shows of strength, there are just as many who believe their political power is based upon shows of strength. When the inevitable head-butting occurs, people label the former group 'weak'. Political ideas of 'strength' often align with policies that benefit the powerful few.

Russia isn't North Korea Ratts. They publish information about their election results and they allow international observers. I'm saying the ballot stuffing was a small and isolated part of the election results and inconsequential to the overall result and that's backed up by the data that every intelligence agency and Western affiliated democracy NGO with an axe to grind had a chance to comb over for irregularities. You might want it to be otherwise be otherwise, but it isn't so. At least at the moment. Russia is a complete shitshow and not as centralised as people make out. As has come out over the last 24 hours with the confusion over the novichok assessment, quickly shoehorning guilt from motive doesn't always work.

The moment for intergrating Russia into Europe has been lost because arguably the US never wanted it to be. Keeping Russia and Germany apart to prevent a Eurasian superbloc has been a very resilient geopolitical idea going back beyond 1904. And in any case, you still haven't acknowledged the basic fact that the EU=NATO after 2007, and NATO's purpose is to oppose Russia. Just saying niceties about Russian possibilities doesn't make it so. There's no alternative to defensive nationalism in Russian foreign policy because they were never invited to the party. People, like me, who would like to see a real pluralistic, democratic Russia have to understand that it will take decades to undo the damage of missing that key strategic moment at the fall of the Soviet Union to do Russia properly. But I'm also realistic about the immense pressure the regime is placed under by aggressive NATO encroachment and US regime change efforts that predate the worst accusations leveled against Putin. Put it this way, it was always unlikely that the Russian state would opt for more democracy while the US was trying to use democracy to instigate regime change in Russia and Russian allied states.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

Russia isn't North Korea Ratts. They publish information about their election results and they allow international observers. I'm saying the ballot stuffing was a small and isolated part of the election results and inconsequential to the overall result and that's backed up by the data that every intelligence agency and Western affiliated democracy NGO with an axe to grind had a chance to comb over for irregularities. You might want it to be otherwise be otherwise, but it isn't so. At least at the moment. Russia is a complete shitshow and not as centralised as people make out. As has come out over the last 24 hours with the confusion over the novichok assessment, quickly shoehorning guilt from motive doesn't always work.

The moment for intergrating Russia into Europe has been lost because arguably the US never wanted it to be. Keeping Russia and Germany apart to prevent a Eurasian superbloc has been a very resilient geopolitical idea going back beyond 1904. And in any case, you still haven't acknowledged the basic fact that the EU=NATO after 2007, and NATO's purpose is to oppose Russia. Just saying niceties about Russian possibilities doesn't make it so. There's no alternative to defensive nationalism in Russian foreign policy because they were never invited to the party. People, like me, who would like to see a real pluralistic, democratic Russia have to understand that it will take decades to undo the damage of missing that key strategic moment at the fall of the Soviet Union to do Russia properly. But I'm also realistic about the immense pressure the regime is placed under by aggressive NATO encroachment and US regime change efforts that predate the worst accusations leveled against Putin. Put it this way, it was always unlikely that the Russian state would opt for more democracy while the US was trying to use democracy to instigate regime change in Russia and Russian allied states.

This is just spin. You continue to downplay the myriad, aggressive ways Putin denies the pluralistic Democracy you claim to want, while you simultaneously swallow whole the narrative of the US being to blame for everything. The EU is not NATO. Europe, as well as individual European nations, regularly disagree with the US over important issues, but that doesn't suit the Putin narrative.

 

[awaremind]

This is just spin. You continue to downplay the myriad, aggressive ways Putin denies the pluralistic Democracy you claim to want, while you simultaneously swallow whole the narrative of the US being to blame for everything. The EU is not NATO. Europe, as well as individual European nations, regularly disagree with the US over important issues, but that doesn't suit the Putin narrative.

Dude it takes a whole lot of independent thought to see past your rather simple world view. There are always multiple ways to look at things. To impose a single narrative on "how things are" is such a limited way of thinking. Every side in all these conflicts have legitimate stories, conflict will never be resolved until all parties accept the concerns of the other. SJ did specifically say not too excuse the bad. You are just appearing to be a mind controlled ideologue, as you are merely echoing the prevailing sentiment of the media sources you prefer.

 

[smokingjacket]

This is just spin. You continue to downplay the myriad, aggressive ways Putin denies the pluralistic Democracy you claim to want, while you simultaneously swallow whole the narrative of the US being to blame for everything. The EU is not NATO. Europe, as well as individual European nations, regularly disagree with the US over important issues, but that doesn't suit the Putin narrative.

I don't think I do, I think I'm just more pragmatic or maybe if I'm being less kind to myself, cynical about how power works in Russia after the collapse. Likewise trying to view Russian foreign policy through their eyes rather than what I think would be good for Russia.

To join the EU you need to be part of NATO. The EU provides the overwhelming number of members state to NATO. The EU and NATO are indivisible. Don't take my word for it, look it up. I even gave you the agreement it was written in previously.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

I don't think I do, I think I'm just more pragmatic or maybe if I'm being less kind to myself, cynical about how power works in Russia after the collapse. Likewise trying to view Russian foreign policy through their eyes rather than what I think would be good for Russia.

To join the EU you need to be part of NATO. The EU provides the overwhelming number of members state to NATO. The EU and NATO are indivisible. Don't take my word for it, look it up. I even gave you the agreement it was written in previously.

Wait, when did Austria, Ireland, Cyprus, Malta, Finland, and Sweden join nato?

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

I don't think I do, I think I'm just more pragmatic or maybe if I'm being less kind to myself, cynical about how power works in Russia after the collapse. Likewise trying to view Russian foreign policy through their eyes rather than what I think would be good for Russia.

Have you considered looking at their foreign policy through the eyes of a Russian who wants Democracy, as you say you do? Why would a Russian think differently to you on the value of pluralism? Why would they dislike Europeans? Russia is being controled by a rich elite. As was the case under Tsars, under Communism, and post-Communism. Giving the people a proper choice at the ballot box is surely the minimum requirement if you are thinking of what "would be good for Russia" - unless you think the people can't make good choices themselves?

To join the EU you need to be part of NATO.

Incorrect.

The EU provides the overwhelming number of members state to NATO.

Pointing out that Europe has more countries than two is not even slightly an argument against the USA and Europe having different priorities.

Don't take my word for it, look it up. I even gave you the agreement it was written in previously.

I don't know what you're referring to here. I am obviously not 'taking your word for it' because the historical facts I am aware of contradict your narrative.

 

[smokingjacket]

Wait, when did Austria, Ireland, Cyprus, Malta, Finland, and Sweden join nato?

Specific exemptions carved out for existing members with 'neutral' policies. Even then, all of them are Partners for Peace and have contributed soldiers, and or logistically to NATO missions. They're members in all but name. Austria was going to join in 2017 and the foreign affairs cultures of all of those countries are very much preoccupied with pushing to join NATO, maybe apart from Cyprus because of the difficulties. Plus the way the Lisbon Treaty was written, the language hasn't been tested yet. NATO as common security and defence provider is written in to the Lisbon Treaty, but so are some vague exemptions. It's widely understood that NATO is doing most of the heavy lifting on collective European defence as a part of the EU.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Specific exemptions carved out for existing members with 'neutral' policies. Even then, all of them are Partners for Peace and have contributed soldiers, and or logistically to NATO missions. They're members in all but name. Austria was going to join in 2017 and the foreign affairs cultures of all of those countries are very much preoccupied with pushing to join NATO, maybe apart from Cyprus because of the difficulties. Plus the way the Lisbon Treaty was written, the language hasn't been tested yet. NATO as common security and defence provider is written in to the Lisbon Treaty, but so are some vague exemptions. It's widely understood that NATO is doing most of the heavy lifting on collective European defence as a part of the EU.

So its mandatory unless its not?

 

[smokingjacket]

Have you considered looking at their foreign policy through the eyes of a Russian who wants Democracy, as you say you do? Why would a Russian think differently to you on the value of pluralism? Why would they dislike Europeans? Russia is being controled by a rich elite. As was the case under Tsars, under Communism, and post-Communism. Giving the people a proper choice at the ballot box is surely the minimum requirement if you are thinking of what "would be good for Russia" - unless you think the people can't make good choices themselves?

Incorrect.

Pointing out that Europe has more countries than two is not even slightly an argument against the USA and Europe having different priorities.

I don't know what you're referring to here. I am obviously not 'taking your word for it' because the historical facts I am aware of contradict your narrative.

Where we keep failing to understand one another is that you let your own personal dislike of Putin cloud how you think others feel about him. Even among young liberals, especially among the young who are exposed to the West, Putin is extremely popular. If anything, I've been overly using the viewpoints of my interactions with Russian people to you, rather than my own views.
https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Russia-s-young-people-are-Putin-s-biggest-fans-12741826.php

On March 18, Russians will go to the polls to confirm a fourth presidential term for the 65-year-old former KGB officer who turned this country's young, chaotic democracy into an authoritarian system beholden to his rule. He has batted back the opposition thanks to his control over Russia's main television channels, the security services and the judiciary - but also because, as even many of his opponents acknowledge, most of the country supports him.

According to a December survey by independent polling firm Levada Center, 81 percent of adults approve of Putin as president - including 86 percent of Russians 18 to 24 years old. Among the age group, 67 percent told Levada they believed the country was going in the right direction, compared to 56 percent of the general public.

The most internationally connected generation in Russian history, with access to more information than any of their predecessors, is now helping Putin solidify his authoritarianism.

Rather than dwell on Putin's crackdown on his opponents, young Russians draw a sense of personal liberty from those freedoms they do enjoy - a mostly open Internet, an open job market and open borders. Many of them reject state TV as propaganda but nevertheless repeat its central tenet - that Russia needs Putin to stand up to U.S. aggression. And perhaps most important, these Russians seem shaped by a collective history they never knew - by fear of a return of the crisis-stricken 1990s or the stifling Soviet era.

Take this in to account, and that yes, Putin controls the mainstream media, but these are young people who have social media accounts and travel across Europe, Asia and the US, and then come back to Russia and are happy with the direction of the country. Further than that, compare the coverage and response to the Russian elections to the coverage of the recent Egyptian elections.
Sisi takes 97% of the vote with turnout of around 41%, nearly all opposition parties were banned, reportedly leaving the runner up candidate to be Egyptians writing in Mo Salah for President. Considerably more farcical than anything the Russians have tried on. Response of the West?

During voting last week, the US embassy in Cairo said on Twitter it was "impressed by the enthusiasm and patriotism of Egyptian voters".

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-04-...wins-election-with-no-real-opposition/9611468
Theresa May likewise praising the re-election of Sisi, a man whose security services regularly torture people (electricity and male rape the preferred means) who participate in street protests against it as a "the chance to take Egypt further along the path of democratic transition."

I'm not saying we need to be perfectly consistent just because we have some dodgy allies, but screaming from the rooftops about how Russia is the most brutal state in the world and the source of all that's bad in the world when we have endless pragmatism for our own favourites pushes Russia towards further defensive nationalism and empowers the worst actors in Russia.

 

[smokingjacket]

So its mandatory unless its not?

If you're new, yes, that is the expectation and in practice, the way the EU's military arrangements have moved. It's written into the Treaty that unless you had an existing neutrality policy, you need to accept the fact that most of the member states create their common security through NATO.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

Where we keep failing to understand one another is that you let your own personal dislike of Putin cloud how you think others feel about him. Even among young liberals, especially among the young who are exposed to the West, Putin is extremely popular. If anything, I've been overly using the viewpoints of my interactions with Russian people to you, rather than my own views.
https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Russia-s-young-people-are-Putin-s-biggest-fans-12741826.php


Take this in to account, and that yes, Putin controls the mainstream media, but these are young people who have social media accounts and travel across Europe, Asia and the US, and then come back to Russia and are happy with the direction of the country. Further than that, compare the coverage and response to the Russian elections to the coverage of the recent Egyptian elections.

Nope, I've met young Russians who support Putin. It isn't that surprising considering Russian media is saturated in Putin's narrative, and of course there is plenty to criticise any nation, region or grouping about. But you are back once again to downplaying the reality. Now you say Putin is "extremely popular", despite previously suggesting that vote rigging was to hide the fact lots of people didn't vote. Hmmm. Of course, if he was really "extremely popular" Putin wouldn't need to do any of the anti-Democratic thuggery he does.

Sisi takes 97% of the vote with turnout of around 41%, nearly all opposition parties were banned, reportedly leaving the runner up candidate to be Egyptians writing in Mo Salah for President. Considerably more farcical than anything the Russians have tried on. Response of the West?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-04-...wins-election-with-no-real-opposition/9611468
Theresa May likewise praising the re-election of Sisi, a man whose security services regularly torture people (electricity and male rape the preferred means) who participate in street protests against it as a "the chance to take Egypt further along the path of democratic transition."

As for your whataboutism regarding Egypt, it isn't relevant. There are many countries that have appalling approaches to 'Democracy'. What has that to do with the discussion? Of course there's a clue in your own quote about "path to Democratic", given the clear signs out of Russia are that they have been taking a path away from Democracy for a long time (having previously been thought to be headed towards giving greater power to their people), and are promoting propaganda that promotes a move away from cooperation and Democracy in other nations. So it is actually you being hypocritical in not backing your own desire for a pluralistic, Democratic Russia, and claiming that the people want to not move to a more 'Liberal' country.

I'm not saying we need to be perfectly consistent just because we have some dodgy allies, but screaming from the rooftops about how Russia is the most brutal state in the world and the source of all that's bad in the world when we have endless pragmatism for our own favourites pushes Russia towards further defensive nationalism and empowers the worst actors in Russia.

And to top it off you whack in straw man exaggeration. I'll ignore it.

 

[smokingjacket]

Nope, I've met young Russians who support Putin. It isn't that surprising considering Russian media is saturated in Putin's narrative, and of course there is plenty to criticise any nation, region or grouping about. But you are back once again to downplaying the reality. Now you say Putin is "extremely popular", despite previously suggesting that vote rigging was to hide the fact lots of people didn't vote. Hmmm. Of course, if he was really "extremely popular" Putin wouldn't need to do any of the anti-Democratic thuggery he does.

As for your whataboutism regarding Egypt, it isn't relevant. There are many countries that have appalling approaches to 'Democracy'. What has that to do with the discussion? Of course there's a clue in your own quote about "path to Democratic", given the clear signs out of Russia are that they have been taking a path away from Democracy for a long time (having previously been thought to be headed towards giving greater power to their people), and are promoting propaganda that promotes a move away from cooperation and Democracy in other nations. So it is actually you being hypocritical in not backing your own desire for a pluralistic, Democratic Russia, and claiming that the people want to not move to a more 'Liberal' country.

And to top it off you whack in straw man exaggeration. I'll ignore it.

The most interesting thing I find is the number of young people who have absorbed these vague liberal ideas from the world around them and the early Russian steps out of the Soviet Union - remembering Putin's original cabinet was full of liberal revolutionaries - but so many of these same people support Putin and see him as the best hope for a free, modern, prosperous Russia. Go figure.

Minor correction of you, I actually said:

Even among young liberals, especially among the young who are exposed to the West, Putin is extremely popular.

and presented a link showing the data for that. 86% approval rating among 18-24's counts as extremely popular in my book. My point in a purely rhetorical sense would be, not every state thinks the instability of democracy outweighs the benefits of democracy, such as popular mandate, civic engagement, accountability etc. Putin is trying to devise a system where he can get the benefits of democracy like the popular mandate and civic engagement, without the instability. They're particularly scared of instability as a country because of their history of revolution and collapse, and because of the history of aggressive foreign policy from the US.

Also how is the UK praising Sisi - a classic favoured despot in the making - not relevant in a week they've been battering Putin and the Russian elections.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

The most interesting thing I find is the number of young people who have absorbed these vague liberal ideas from the world around them and the early Russian steps out of the Soviet Union - remembering Putin's original cabinet was full of liberal revolutionaries - but so many of these same people support Putin and see him as the best hope for a free, modern, prosperous Russia. Go figure.

Minor correction of you, I actually said: and presented a link showing the data for that. 86% approval rating among 18-24's counts as extremely popular in my book. My point in a purely rhetorical sense would be, not every state thinks the instability of democracy outweighs the benefits of democracy, such as popular mandate, civic engagement, accountability etc. Putin is trying to devise a system where he can get the benefits of democracy like the popular mandate and civic engagement, without the instability. They're particularly scared of instability as a country because of their history of revolution and collapse, and because of the history of aggressive foreign policy from the US.

Also how is the UK praising Sisi - a classic favoured despot in the making - not relevant in a week they've been battering Putin and the Russian elections.

Riiight. So Putin is "trying to devise a system where he can get the benefits of democracy like the popular mandate and civic engagement, without the instability" - How many decades of him being in charge do you need before you decide maybe he isn't trying very hard? He rigs votes so the "popular mandate" is clearly not a concern. Civic engagement is obviously lessened by his thuggery. Where do you hear this stuff?

Do you know a huge part of the "benefits of democracy"? A free press revealing corruption and illegality and offering alternate ideas for a voting public. I wonder if you think any of those would be good for Russians? Or is it better that Putin tells them what is good for them?

 

[smokingjacket]

Riiight. So Putin is "trying to devise a system where he can get the benefits of democracy like the popular mandate and civic engagement, without the instability" - How many decades of him being in charge do you need before you decide maybe he isn't trying very hard? He rigs votes so the "popular mandate" is clearly not a concern. Civic engagement is obviously lessened by his thuggery. Where do you hear this stuff?

Do you know a huge part of the "benefits of democracy"? A free press revealing corruption and illegality and offering alternate ideas for a voting public. I wonder if you think any of those would be good for Russians? Or is it better that Putin tells them what is good for them?

You're making a complete goose of yourself again. I have to make the exact same point to you after each of your replies, me giving an opinion on the motivations or actions of Putin and the Russian state is NOT an indication of my support.

I question how "rigged" the actual election was but there's no doubt that the media and civil society has come under huge pressure to support the government and create a more "stable society." I don't understand your point about him not trying very hard. He's not trying very hard to create a hybrid system of government? I think he is. You and I might not agree with the process - it's not true "liberal" democracy - but the popular mandate aspect of the Russian elections is the basis of Putin's power, there's a type of democracy in that.

I *personally* think those things would be good for Russians. And by the way, it's harder to find than it used to be but there's still Russian media that reports on corruption, illegality and the oligarchs. The most obscene stories even appear in the mainstream media occasionally. Alternate ideas maybe not so much. In my opinion, the only way you can put pressure on an oligarchic government like Putin's is from the left, not a pseudo-liberal like Nalvalny but real democratic leftist opposition. Only the left can generate "the rage" at the system, and injustice and have the frameworks and narrative that can affect change. People see someone like Navalny sharing horror stories of the most indecent theft and corruption possible but it doesn't take off because at least partly, people say: ok, what are the things you would change about it? Navalny is a liberal, close to business, the corruption would just move to a new set of oligarchs who are friendlier with the West. Trying to draw the Russian Communist Party towards the elements of the European left that still have some legitimacy and organisational power would be an idea at least worth a try IMO.

 

[awaremind]

You're making a complete goose of yourself again. I have to make the exact same point to you after each of your replies, me giving an opinion on the motivations or actions of Putin and the Russian state is NOT an indication of my support.

I question how "rigged" the actual election was but there's no doubt that the media and civil society has come under huge pressure to support the government and create a more "stable society." I don't understand your point about him not trying very hard. He's not trying very hard to create a hybrid system of government? I think he is. You and I might not agree with the process - it's not true "liberal" democracy - but the popular mandate aspect of the Russian elections is the basis of Putin's power, there's a type of democracy in that.

I *personally* think those things would be good for Russians. And by the way, it's harder to find than it used to be but there's still Russian media that reports on corruption, illegality and the oligarchs. The most obscene stories even appear in the mainstream media occasionally. Alternate ideas maybe not so much. In my opinion, the only way you can put pressure on an oligarchic government like Putin's is from the left, not a pseudo-liberal like Nalvalny but real democratic leftist opposition. Only the left can generate "the rage" at the system, and injustice and have the frameworks and narrative that can affect change. People see someone like Navalny sharing horror stories of the most indecent theft and corruption possible but it doesn't take off because at least partly, people say: ok, what are the things you would change about it? Navalny is a liberal, close to business, the corruption would just move to a new set of oligarchs who are friendlier with the West. Trying to draw the Russian Communist Party towards the elements of the European left that still have some legitimacy and organisational power would be an idea at least worth a try IMO.

You're a putin bot, Navalny is the only one who really fights corruption! The other parties are all just for show.