General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsDamn. I thought Russia was a nation of 143 million+ people...
Last edited Sun Mar 2, 2014, 07:36 PM - Edit history (2)
Met more than a few in my day. Seem a very intelligent, independent GROUP of people.
But, reading here, turns out it's one person, Putin, and 143 million slack-jawed zombies.
Who Knew?
cali
(114,904 posts)phleshdef
(11,936 posts)malaise
(269,157 posts)Guess they're trying to impress the NSA
mythology
(9,527 posts)Putin and the Russian people as a whole.
But if you want to give the Russian people as a whole credit for enshrining bigotry against the lgbt community and for beginning to invade a sovereign country in Ukraine like they did in Georgia, okay I suppose.
Junkdrawer
(27,993 posts)what is done before a war (cold, warm or hot) is started. I'd say more readers of DU see this than you imagine. You do not do yourself credit.
Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)Junkdrawer
(27,993 posts)the whole sad, Yeltsin, oligarch theft of Russia's assets led to the Russian people looking for a strongman to lead.
Kill Putin, and they'll find a new leader quickly. We would.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)"Finding" a new leader implies there was a search, debate, struggle, etc. We KNOW who would come next. Orderly and quickly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_line_of_succession#Current_order
Junkdrawer
(27,993 posts)and I could imagine, in a case of extreme internal tension, when such an election would be moved up.
jsr
(7,712 posts)Invasion seems labor intensive.
Junkdrawer
(27,993 posts)Call it a hunch.
sibelian
(7,804 posts)If we can't spurt meaningless definition-munging garbage like "homophobic oligarchs", "Paulite Snowden-slobberers" and "state-funded propaganda machine" how can we have sensible political conversations of ANY KIND?!?!?!
Don't you realise that the only legitimate analytical process is establishing what category the subject is in so we can position ourselves relative to it to feel good about our own political systems???? Addressing the content of the issue means FINDING STUFF OUT. And then everything degenerates into a chargeless soup of nebulous ambiguities and no-one can look like they have any strong feelings about anything! And that means NO EMOTICONS!!!!!
Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)For invasion of Ukraine, jailing of dissidents, and persecution of its gay citizens?
What is your point on this OP?
dixiegrrrrl
(60,010 posts)or else we would have to spead the blame around to all Americans
for jailing of protesters, persecution of minorites, black site prisons, droning deaths of citizens at weddings and funerals in Yemen and Pakistan and Afghanistan.
sibelian
(7,804 posts)Why not read the OP again, this time switching off your natural tendency to seek something to contradict.
Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)By a majority, I should add.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Russia#Latest_elections
Response to Vashta Nerada (Reply #10)
Name removed Message auto-removed
seattledo
(295 posts)Would you really want that to happen? No, so you shouldn't do the same to his supporters. They had no way of knowing how he was going to turn-out.
Igel
(35,350 posts)But the second time, they'd have known.
When they elected him for the top internal office, they knew.
When they re-elected him for the third time as president, they knew.
Russians have their own culture and viewpoint. It pays to understand it. Quite a few abhor Putin. Most do not. He put the bad guys in their places and on a leash; he defended the voters against those who would be corrupt on too massive a scale in public; he defends Russia against all of its many external enemies. He's their defender.
So it makes sense for him to be seen shooting, riding, doing all kinds of virile, manly things. Because he's their batka, their protector and defender of the Russian honor.
Nationalists seem him protecting and restoring Russian honor. Calls to restore Russian greatness get him votes. He prevented breakaway regions from breaking away because that would be horrible and threaten Russia's territorial integrity. Better to destroy the village and take the land for Russia then let the people and land escape. Will to empire.
They see him as the one that protected them against economic collapse under Eltsyn--it makes no difference that the economy was improving faster and corruption declining faster before Putin was elected than after, or that corruption surged under Putin's first two terms. That's the perception. He's their breadticket, for workers.
They see him as the one that stopped the freefall in benefits to retirees. For those who depend on the state for their existence, he's also their bread ticket.
The faithful see him as restoring and defending the Orthodox church from foreign heterodoxy. He's banned some religious organizations, and he's regulated others to death. Some churches that have been there for decades are stymied as they wait for their registrations to be rejected, revised, rejected, revised. The Orthodox Church is blessed.
Conservatives like that he seems to reflect old values. He restored the Cossacks--which may have the same name as the Ukrainian group but which are firmly Russophiles and protectors of a strong, central, powerful government. Rather the opposite of the old Cossacks and more in keeping with the revision under the tsars.
Xenophobes--and that includes skinheads--like Putin because he likes russkost', being Russian. When in doubt, round up some foreigners. They're a menace. They threaten Russian purity.
Some DUers like that he accepted Snowden. But for his own reasons, not theirs. He restored order. But on his terms. Some like that he sticks it to the US. Or that he's been anti-US intervention, anti-corporatist, anti-EU expansion, anti-NATO. But always for his reasons and those of some segment of his supporters, and usually those reasons are foreign to most DUers.
They knew exactly how he was going to turn out. They cheered him over S. Ossetia. And on his Abkhazia policy. Oddly, in many ways his policy is Eltsyn's--both are Russian nationalists, one just happened to be a drunk who hung his corruption out for all to see in an inappropriate way.
Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)reformist2
(9,841 posts)HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)Stereotyping is a tool of that facilitates a lazy mind.
Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)So, what you said about the lazy mind and all that...
Response to Junkdrawer (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
BainsBane
(53,056 posts)but it pretend the Russian government isn't Putin , or that he doesn't control Russia's foreign policy, is disingenuous.
Junkdrawer
(27,993 posts)So much simplification and demonization going on....
The Nation
Distorting Russia - How the American media misrepresent Putin, Sochi and Ukraine.
Stephen F. Cohen
The degradation of mainstream American press coverage of Russia, a country still vital to US national security, has been under way for many years. If the recent tsunami of shamefully unprofessional and politically inflammatory articles in leading newspapers and magazinesparticularly about the Sochi Olympics, Ukraine and, unfailingly, President Vladimir Putinis an indication, this media malpractice is now pervasive and the new norm.
There are notable exceptions, but a general pattern has developed. Even in the venerable New York Times and Washington Post, news reports, editorials and commentaries no longer adhere rigorously to traditional journalistic standards, often failing to provide essential facts and context; to make a clear distinction between reporting and analysis; to require at least two different political or expert views on major developments; or to publish opposing opinions on their op-ed pages. As a result, American media on Russia today are less objective, less balanced, more conformist and scarcely less ideological than when they covered Soviet Russia during the Cold War.
The history of this degradation is also clear. It began in the early 1990s, following the end of the Soviet Union, when the US media adopted Washingtons narrative that almost everything President Boris Yeltsin did was a transition from communism to democracy and thus in Americas best interests. This included his economic shock therapy and oligarchic looting of essential state assets, which destroyed tens of millions of Russian lives; armed destruction of a popularly elected Parliament and imposition of a presidential Constitution, which dealt a crippling blow to democratization and now empowers Putin; brutal war in tiny Chechnya, which gave rise to terrorists in Russias North Caucasus; rigging of his own re-election in 1996; and leaving behind, in 1999, his approval ratings in single digits, a disintegrating country laden with weapons of mass destruction. Indeed, most American journalists still give the impression that Yeltsin was an ideal Russian leader.
Since the early 2000s, the media have followed a different leader-centric narrative, also consistent with US policy, that devalues multifaceted analysis for a relentless demonization of Putin, with little regard for facts. (Was any Soviet Communist leader after Stalin ever so personally villainized?) If Russia under Yeltsin was presented as having legitimate politics and national interests, we are now made to believe that Putins Russia has none at all, at home or abroadeven on its own borders, as in Ukraine.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4588299
BainsBane
(53,056 posts)Our media sucks.