Putin is increasingly cracking down on any possibility of dissent and threat to his power, whatever the consequences to the Russian economy, and this of course scares foreign companies who work there - even if, with the recent fall of the ruble, Russian talent is even more affordable now.
I'm afraid (I have friends in Russia) that we're going to see more of this.
That's a very myopic view and here's why -- virtually all governments in the world are becoming increasingly authoritarian because of the global economic crisis and the civilian unrest that it provokes. For example, replace Putin in your sentence and you'll get "United States is increasingly cracking down on any possibility of dissent and threat to it power". You can support that statement with facts about police in Ferguson, US conflicts with China in Asia Pacific, and of course US crackdown on dissidents like Assange and Snowden. You can also try that exercise by replacing Putin with "Greek government".
Demonizing Putin is what your government wants you to do to avoid seeing the bigger picture. The real question is WHY is Putin cracking down on threat to his power?
I'm a Romanian, a country that's pretty close to Russia and I am one that suffers for what the Ukrainians are going through with Russia, because I can see how the same thing could happen in Basarabia (Moldova) and there are already signs of that. Russia historically has been occupying territories, getting rid of any political dissent by effectively killing or deporting people, while crushing their national identity. I hate Russia for what they did after the secret pact from Yalta, for the soviet induced hunger that happened after that and for the years of communism we endured.
It's been only 24 years since we escaped their control and apparently we've been lucky, but now Putin is destroying any chance of having a peaceful neighborhood. War is effectively at our borders and Putin is to be blamed.
So spare me rhetoric about every government or country being the same. No, they are not equal. And I hope the Putin administration will receive what it deserves.
>So spare me rhetoric about every government or country being the same. No, they are not equal. And I hope the Putin administration will receive what it deserves.
Maybe not equal to you. US has propped up almost countless corrupt regimes and cartels for its own interest. You just don't care when it's happening in Saudi Arabia or Mexico.
That said, I strongly doubt Russia has any interest in Moldova or Romania. Putin lost a figurehead in Yanukovich and grabbed what he could out of the ensuing mess. Putin did not start what happened in Ukraine, but rather was extremely opportunistic once it happened.
There are evidences that Crimea annexation had been prepared for few years before any unrests. There are photos of paramilitary people with Donetsk "People Republic" flags at Russian summer camp Seliger in 2009. Relentless Russian propaganda has been translated all over Eastern Ukraine and Crimea for ten years.
Don't get me started on "Putin did not start what happened in Ukraine".
Judging by your other comments, your intent is pretty clear but I'll bite.
I strongly disagree that governments are becoming more authoritarian, it's quite the opposite, governments are becoming more liberal and democratic, with the situation improving even in countries such as Libya, Egypt and Morocco. The only reason for why the situation seems bleak to some people is because access to information has become unhindered due to the Internet.
>>> with the situation improving even in countries such as Libya, Egypt and Morocco
I don't know enough about Morocco to call you out on that one, but dude... Libya and Egypt? If the current goings-on in those countries forms the basis of your opinion then I think you might need to rethink your position
Europe pre-WW2 was overrun with all variations of fascism and authoritarianism. Prior to that, it was still ruled by Kings, Queens, and Imperial rule ala Napoleon.
You falsely equated the actions of a few berserk local cops in the US with the Putin regime. You need people to twist your words so that you don't look like an idiot or worse.
Police brutality in the US is a problem. It doesn't compare to the slaughter of millions under the former USSR, or the complete shut-down of all freedom of speech and freedom of the press under Putin.
If the US were anything like Russia, we couldn't be having this conversation on a heavily trafficked web site like HN located within the US. The US still has the greatest level of freedom of speech of any nation on earth, and the strongest speech protections, even after some of the recent erosion.
And what makes you think US would have treated Romania better? Please read more about history. Your ignorance is common. For every bad thing Russia did there is an equally bad thing US did. Same goes for any other 2 countries. It's everyone for himself.
"Under the Reagan Doctrine, the United States provided overt and covert aid to anti-communist guerrillas and resistance movements in an effort to "roll back" Soviet-backed communist governments in Africa, Asia, and Latin America"
Your country was of enormous help to Hitler while attacking the USSR, and the retribution you had to "endure", given everything you did, was astonishingly mild. So spare me your complaints.
The only reason for why Romania joined the Axis, is because of the Molotov–Ribbentrop pact [1] between Hitler and Stalin from 1939, which amongst other things, for us it meant yielding control of Basarabia and Bucovina to the soviet union. This provided the perfect opportunity for the Romanian parliament to be dissolved and for a military dictatorship to seize power in Romania, which is the one responsible for joining the Axis.
But yeah, thanks for bringing that up - goes to show that what goes around comes around ;-)
Man, it's 2014, the people that did anything in WW2 on both sides are long dead.
And in the context of that time, "the Allies" included Stalin's Russia (read some history, this tyrant killed more of his own people than there were victims of Hitler's holocaust!), so choosing to support Hitler's Germany against an alliance that included Russia was not necessarily a bad idea at that that time, even morally and ethically speaking.
And concerning post-war "retribution" as a way to handle international relationships after a war: basically the only reason Hitler himself came to power in Germany was because this country had to endure an extremely harsh "retribution" post WW1 so maybe the people that made this harsh post WW1 deal really deserved the killings and destruction of WW2! Post WW2 western European countries all benefited from something called the Marshall Plan from the US and of decades of productive cooperation in the EU, regardless of who did what in WW2, whereas the "Eastern Block" countries all got to endure "retribution" and being part of the unhealthy forced economy of the USSR.
International politics is something that should be taken separately from concepts such as "fairness" and "correctitude" and "punishing someone for one's bad deeds". You don't punish a whole people for the consequences of what a leader decided, even if they followed that leader. You try to rebuild countries and economies, regardless of what seems "fair" or not, and you try to accelerate economical growth, even if this even means letting 1 in 10 war criminals get away. You optimize social and economical systems for performance so that they can provide the best average "quality of live", even if this means swallowing some shady politics once in a while and occasionally "forgetting" some historical truths when remembering them is not "productive".
Thankfully the US, UK and modern Germany get these basic principles right, and I really hope they will have as much of an influence as possible on international politics, in the detriment of Russia and China who, despite the immense economic growth of the last, haven't really gotten to the level where they really understand what "healthy modern democracy" is all about and know how to play "the game" and also make the people happy.
"You try to rebuild countries and economies, regardless of what seems "fair" or not"
The problem here: after the cold war, which Russia lost, nobody cared to rebuild its economy; instead everything was done to siphon people and resources away and to destroy industry. Obviously US really did not want to see Russia on the map anymore and so they did that.
Guess what - 20 years pass, Russia is angry like a non-mortally wounded wild animal.
I'm not a fan of mr. Putin but he's very cautious still. With someone less cautious it WILL look like pre-WW2.
And of course it will be a disaster for everyone involved.
First of all, the cold war wasn't a real war, but a competition between the US and Russia. Russia's loss was that they overspent resources they couldn't afford to spend. Russia is also really big and has all the resources it needs to recover from anything. In such a scenario I don't understand why would anybody assume that, if it had been given international help, they would be any different than what they are today.
Second of all, if they lost the cold war, I don't get why they'd want another one. Putin is only cautious because he knows that in such a scenario he will lose. And Putin's nationalistic behavior only happened because Russia was on the brink of another economic recession.
"Russia is also really big and has all the resources it needs to recover from anything"
Sure, but industries will be destroyed and people die, starve and be forcibly relocated. That's what happened to ex-USSR a lot because the rest of world did not see any reason to rebuild a country that in fact yielded to them.
You are free to "don't understand", but the damage I mentioned was done. Don't then be surprised when people you considered harmless want to nuke you for all the good. All the good that, strictly speaking, you did not have to do.
"Second of all, if they lost the cold war, I don't get why they'd want another one"
If Germans lost one world war, why would they want another one?
You don't have to be a centenarian to have fought in WWII. Plenty of them around.
Stalin killing fascists was a good thing. You are retelling a good story but the West, always working on its narrative, does not tell the truth.
And Japan and Italy? Axis powers were trying to join the imperialist game of u.s. and britain of land grabbing colonies. Hence WWII was an inter-imperialist war.
After WWII you get many Third World countries trying to break away from Western puppet governments, colonialism, by flying the red flag.
A lot of the fascist collaborator countries, including Baltic states and Ukraine, are still proud of their support of fascism. The West turns a blind eye to this as its promotion of democracy is a political tool, which is a farce considering the dictatorships it creates and supports like Saudi Arabia.
To me such lines sound like the soviet propaganda we were listening to until the nineties. The communists basically needed enemies, like all good oppressors do and so they were blaming fascism and imperialism for everything.
False equivalence watch: what Snowden did was so outside the bounds of established law that he'd face prosecution in virtually any administration in American history. His arguments mitigating the offense might be important at a trial, but we can't know, because he fled the country rather than face that trial. The attention paid to Snowden is not in itself evidence of increased authoritarianism in the US.
When I think of Putin, I don't so much think of things my government says (in fact, Americans don't generally pay that much attention to what the government says; our legislature is skirting single-digit approval ratings).
I think more about news stories about how 4chan-style prank videos of kids having gay porn posters put up on their wall are reported as factual news by Russian state-owned television:
I won't disagree that demonizing Putin is what the government wants us to do. I remember how the U.S. funded Saddam to use chemical weapons on Iran and then overthrew him "for the sake of the people."
However, it should also be kept in mind that we're still far away from the Russian regime where speaking against the government (releasing classified documents doesn't count) or being a homosexual will land you in jail.
So yeah, no one's perfect, but I'll stick to North America for the time being, thanks.
> Speaking in favor of gay rights is considered propaganda and was made illegal last year.
That's false.
EDIT: Again, the statement above is false. It is legal to speak in favor of gay rights. It is illegal for adults to speak in favor of gay rights TO MINORS. Much like it is legal to have sex. And illegal for adults to have sex with minors.
Under the statute it is effectively illegal to hold any gay pride events, speak in favor of gay rights, or say that gay relationships are equal to heterosexual relationships in presence of minors.[5][57][60][64][65]
It is legal to "hold any gay pride events, speak in favor of gay rights, or say that gay relationships are equal to heterosexual relationships"
It is illegal "illegal to hold any gay pride events, speak in favor of gay rights, or say that gay relationships are equal to heterosexual relationships _in presence of minors_."
so, anywhere in public? where would one find space to hold a public event where children are guaranteed to not be present?
Also the whole line of reasoning is that mentioning homosexuality to children makes them gay which is... bad?
thats a value judgment on homosexuality that was put in place by the government, yet you are trying to constantly say that this law holds no prejudice? what a shill.
Oh, before you try to come back with 'thats not a value judgement!' hold your breath. the law literally states that you cant say that gay relationships are equal to heterosexual relationships to children, that leaves only two possible positions: either homosexual relationships are better or they are worse
I don't want my kids to be exposed to any form of expression supporting any sexual lifestyle. In fact, I don't event want my kids to see a blurred photo of Kim Kardashian's naked butt on TV.
There is zero prejudice in this value statement. And most parents agree with my position.
When my kids are adults they can decide about sexual relationships for themselves. Until then I decide for them and I want a legal system that supports my decisions.
Does the law block speaking to kids about ALL sexual orientations, or just 'non traditional'?
you're point is completely irrelevant to the discussion. this is about discrimination against homosexuality.
But I'll address it anyways:
>I don't want my kids to be exposed to any form of expression supporting any sexual lifestyle.
Good for you, luckily as a parent you have the ability to make those decisions for your kids.
This does not extend to you forcing your views on others.
>And most parents agree with my position.
and the rights of the majority are the only rights that matter, correct?
>Until then I decide for them and I want a legal system that supports my decisions.
This is not how it works. Say you were an anti-vaccine advocate, you would want the legal system to outlaw vaccines, but many other parents would disagree. see how this conflicts with the rights of others?
Choose your words carefully, the law blocks _propaganda_ not speaking; of _"sexual relations"_ not sexual orientations. Translated from Russian to English, "sexual relations" refers to non traditional parental units, i.e. those that do not consist of a male + female. You may see here a discrimination against homosexuality but I see a legal framework for protection of a traditional family. LGBT individuals still have rights in this framework.
With respect to your anti-vaccine example. There is always a conflict between something that a minority may consider a right and the rule of the majority. There are minorities that want pedophilia to be made legal. Do you have a novel solution for the minority rights conflict? Traditionally rights for minorities have been won through struggle, societal change, and war among many other ways. Are you proposing a novel solution for LGBT rights in Russia?
>or say that gay relationships are equal to heterosexual relationships in presence of minors.
Is it me, or is that the word 'say'?
>You may see here a discrimination against homosexuality but I see a legal framework for protection of a traditional family.
This is a direct contradiction. You cannot use law to legally protect one class of people without necessarily discriminating against those not in that class.
> There are minorities that want pedophilia to be made legal.
Weak example. Pedophilia has a direct victim (a child is unable to give consent)
>Do you have a novel solution for the minority rights conflict?
No, but it wouldnt be to ignore it as you would. This is so far from what the discussion is about I wonder why you are trying to sidetrack this
>Traditionally rights for minorities have been won through struggle, societal change, and war among many other ways. Are you proposing a novel solution for LGBT rights in Russia?
? this is pretty much nonsense? yeah, rights are won through societal change as you say - Many societies are changing to accept homosexuality, not sure what you're trying to get at here? Why would i be proposing a novel solution to gay rights?
In free countries, minorities have right without struggle. We all are owed due process, free assembly and so on. This so-called conflict is made-up, where the majority imagines they are harmed by the private arrangements of the minority.
I assume you would have no problem showing your children a Disney movie where the prince marries a princess (kids' movies obviously have no explicit sex scenes).
Would you have a problem with a Disney movie where a princess marries another princess?
I.e. is your problem really just with exposing children to sex, or do you actually have a problem with gay characters?
Interesting. So how does this play out as a means of controlling moral values in Russia? Can I effectively break up any pro gay rights events just by bringing along enough children? Or does incidental inclusion of minors not count enough to stop an already planned event?
To be honest, gay rights events in Russia are usually broken up by far-Right mobs physically attacking anyone participating. It's fair to say the police aren't renowned for making concerted efforts to ensure things go peacefully, but they're generally not the ones dishing out the beatings either.
The law in question is pandering to the extreme levels of homophobia prevalent in modern Russian culture, and its justification and theme is loosely based on an actually much more explicitly anti-gay law that existed on the UK statute book not so long ago; our current PM opposed its repeal in 2003 and yet ended up backing gay marriage a decade later. Legislators sometime reflect popular sentiment more as they shape it.
Which doesn't mean it isn't a terrible law, and much more likely to be used to persecute people in Russia than the UK (or indeed Singapore where homosexuality is technically illegal). But some perspective is useful here. From the waves of condemnation emitted from certain sources earlier this year you'd never guess that last Olympic venue where homosexual activity was actually illegal was Atlanta in 1996.
I'd appreciate the campaign to support Russian gay rights much more if I believed much of the media behind it wasn't - for better or worse - really far more interested in Russia's foreign policy. Or that it wouldn't backfire...
It is illegal "illegal to hold any gay pride events, speak in favor of gay rights, or say that gay relationships are equal to heterosexual relationships _in presence of minors_."
I know that propaganda of sex to children had been forbidden last year (which makes one wonder, has it really been legal before 2013?), did not know this one. Any links would be appreciated. I can read and write Russian so the law's name would be good enough for me.
It's the same law; their logic is that promoting LGBT rights means promoting deviant sexual behaviour, and doing so publicly will inevitably reach children.
"Their" is referring whom exactly? I don't think Russia is a Common Law country, judges there cannot derive something from a law so whomever you think is interpreting the law. Were not media saying that gay athletes in Sochi are going to be incarcerated using the same logic?
You can't really use Sochi as an example. The Olympics are a very important international event and Russia wanted the good publicity. You'll also notice that Putin ordered the release of many political prisoners just in time for that event.
It is legal to speak in favor of gay rights. It is illegal for adults to speak in favor of gay rights TO MINORS. Much like it is legal to have sex. And illegal for adults to have sex with minors.
The logical structure of the two arguments is the same.
I don't want my kids to be exposed to public promotion of any sexual lifestyle. In fact I don't even want them to see a blurred photo of Kim Kardashian's naked butt on TV.
LGBT community can rent out a conference center and hold the rally there, advertising it publicly and denying minors access to the premises. This is perfectly legal under today's LGBT laws in Russia.
It doesn't matter what you want your kids exposed to... because there are activists who are working with politicians in most Western countries to totally change sex educations classes.
For example, in the UK, teachers are to tell kids as young as 13, which is below the age of consent:
"normal behaviour includes taking an interest in pornography, having sexually explicit conversations, using the internet to chat online and consenting to oral or penetrative sex with the same or opposite gender."
Or kids as young as 9:
" So-called “green behaviours” are defined as those that “reflect safe and healthy sexual development”.
For children aged nine to 13, green behaviours include “solitary masturbation” and “use of sexual language”."
LGBT community can rent out a conference center and hold the rally there, advertising it publicly and denying minors access to the premises. This is perfectly legal under today's LGBT laws in Russia.
> The real question is WHY is Putin cracking down on threat to his power?
Sounds like a rhetorical question but I don't guess the answer. Do you mean Putin is doing it because of the civilian unrest?
> Demonizing Putin is what your government wants you to do to avoid seeing the bigger picture.
No-one is demonizing Putin, they're telling facts. The bigger picture is, censorship is bad, and if US defends the freedom of opinion in Russia, it's good because we can turn those arguments back to the US gov.
>>No-one is demonizing Putin, they're telling facts.
Really? Much in the same way that the media of 10 years ago convinced the populace that Hussein was involved with 9/11, the media today is propagating the following memes:
- Putin hates gays
- Putin kills journalists
- Putin was responsible for downing of MH17
How many of these memes are supported by facts? When accusing a leader of a nuclear power of these things, shouldn't the accusations be ironclad?
While I think it's very appropriate to question media portrayals, I think you crossed a line in suggesting that russian treatment of gays is "a meme." (If I'm interpreting you too strongly, I apologize, but please just skim http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Russia a bit, especially the section on "national law"; for me at least this leaves very little of the governments stance to question)
Similarly, when given such data as ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_journalists_killed_in_R... ) it's very hard to suspect there isn't something amiss; this theory guided as well with russia's likely history of using assassinations as a tool prior. (I hate to bring up the Alexander Litvinenko case as that it's probably been beaten to death, but I think it's fair to say it doesn't lend me to trust the Russian govt.)
It's all fine and good to call for fact checking, but to neglect to take in the same facts you so loudly call for, you do yourself a great disservice.
interesting, an article written by an author who has never written anything else and comes up with not a single social media profile, or really anything other than this article and articles referencing it.
a couple 5 year old youtube videos, not very convincing lets dig deeper
joined twitter in 2009 but his first tweet was this january, 2 tweets ever - oh and the tweet was this article, apparently the only this thing "journalist" has ever written(and its not even journalism? its a whitepaper)
diversity spectrum eh? lets check them out
nothing but their own website comes up on a web search (diversityspectrum.org), bunch of meaningless bullshit you'd expect from a 'thinktank' website
I'll check the domain registration - looks like its registered to Perfect Privacy LLC
weird why would they want to obfuscate the domain?
What about this owner, Lynn Gardner Heffron?
searching her turns up similar results to your buddy Brian, bunch of astro turfed bullshit.
Sorry shill, I dont even care if brian m heiss is a real person in the world, these are clearly shill accounts designed specifically to push this one single whitepaper document. Let me know when Brian M Heiss (the Media Professional/Public Relations Pro/Journalist - his words) writes something else, maybe i'll check it out, because for such an incredible media talent he has a surprising lack of footprint on the internet
That's interesting, but it doesn't help to support what he's saying one way or another. In the West, plenty of LGBTs either openly supported, or attempted to minimize the harmful impact of their government's (or their church's) anti-gay policies -- right up until the very end, when public opinion (and if you will, history) eventually turned against them.
So Brian's defense of the status quo in the RF is not much different.
From the Executive Summary ("10 Things You Didn’t Know About Russia’s Anti-Gay Law & LGBT Rights"):
1. The law never mentions or uses the word gay, lesbian, homosexual or any other LGBT identifier. [Chapter 2 & Appendix]
2. The law focuses on children, it’s title is “On Protections of Minors from Propaganda of Non-Traditional Sexual Relations”. The messaging and strategy to bring the ban on propaganda from the law of several regions to national laws is part of a larger family values push and is based on the successful anti-same sex marriage push in the United States. [Chapter 2]
So it's based on the same semantic BS as the anti-LGBT propoganda coming from the America's religious right. Except that, onerous as they are, they've been largely unsuccessful at having their agenda codified into federal law (not that they wouldn't dearly love to).
The fact that the author states points 1+2 so matter-of-factly (despite the semantic subterfuge) makes is clear where his biases are, and difficult to take any of the other points seriously.
But nonetheless:
3. Russia is actually expanding protections of members of the LGBT community: On September 20, 2013 the official delegation of the Russia Federation announced their willingness to take all required measures to prevent homophobic hate crimes and discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation at the 24th UN Human Rights Council. [Chapter 2]
OK, so there are rays of hope at least.
4. There have been regional (much harsher) versions of the propaganda ban in effect for 7 years and there were only 2 convictions for violations of the regional laws and both were overturned. [Chapter 3]
5. In 6 months of the Federal Law there have been 3 convictions: 2 were acts of civil disobedience to challenge the legality of the law, the other is a story which you must read. [Chapter 3]
My understanding from people either in Russia recently (or from the FSU) is that it's widely understood that these laws are at best barely enforceable (and perhaps not even intended to really enforced). But that's also precisely the point: they're meant to have symbolic effect -- and the symbolic effect is generally taken to be quite chilling (like a shot across the bow, as it were).
6. Statistically you are far more likely to be the victim of an anti-LGBT Hate Crime in the United States than in Russia. [Chapter 4]
Seems dubious, given what my friends tell me. Most likely these crimes simply aren't reported, or the stats are suppressed (given the way crime stats are routinely manipulated in many countries, including the U.S.).
7. In Russia you cannot be fired from your job for being an LGBT individual, in the United States you can. [Chapter 4]
Possibly a valid point; I wouldn't know.
8. Since 1993 gay sex was made legal in Russia, in 12 US States gay sex is a crime. [Chapter 4]
Technically correct (in that those laws are still on the books in some states). But the more important fact is that the Supreme Court famously ruled these laws unconstitutional in 2010. Which is a rather important omission for the author to make actually; it suggests he's not really all that on top of things, as far as the basic status of gay rights in the U.S. are concerned. (Or perhaps he does -- and is, again, playing semantic head games).
9. While President Obama says “I have no patience for countries that try to treat gays or lesbians or transgender persons in ways that intimidate them or are harmful to them.” his policies demonstrate he has nothing but patience. [Chapter 5]
This, sadly, is basically true. But it's also an attemp to change the subject.
10. The group impacted most if found to be in violation of the law: Multinational corporations. [Chapter 6]
No. It's millions of LGBTs in the Russian Federation, young and old, unable to live their lives openly, and constitutionally protected from prosecution for simply being what they are.
> The argument for the war in Iraq was not that Hussein was involved in 9/11.
Direct links of the Hussein regime to al-Qaeda was prominent as justification for the war.
> The argument was that Hussein had WMD (reasonable assumption given that the US had given him a bunch of chemical weapons and he had used them against his own people), and that intelligence said he was going to attack next. It was a "preemptive" war.
This is false. While claims about WMD (many of which were false, and known to the US to be false at the time they were made -- as pointed out in the same UN session where Powell made his famous presentation, several of the specific claims in that presentation had been researched and debunked by UN weapons inspectors prior to that time) were made, there was no claim of specific intelligence of a planned attack, but just the specter that if Hussein acquired WMDs as the Administration claimed he was actively seeking to do and near doing, then he might either use them directly against the US or its allies or transfer them to terrorists who might do so. It was not a preemptive war as that term is generally used, it was an example of a broadening of that concept beyond the traditional notion of imminent threat to a speculative and future threat, which might best be described as "preventive war" (if one felt the need to distinguish it from any other instance of simple aggressive war, which it unmistakably was.)
> However, hand waving that everyone in America was so stupid as to believe Hussein was behind 9/11 really undermines your other points.
The majority of Americans did believe that [0], and that belief persisted at significant, though reduced, levels several years later [1][2]. I'm not sure how accurately relating facts undermines the grandparent comment's other points.
That's not what people generally say about him. A fairer summation of his attitudes towards LGBTs is that he considers them to be morally defective, and their lives and freedoms to be more or less expendable.
Putin was responsible for downing of MH17
To the extent that he invaded a neighboring country via a poorly trained proxy force, and gave them big, expensive toys without sufficient training (or tactical intel) to use them properly, along with high pressure to achieve results; and to which he hasn't showing anything resembling genuine remorse over the incident -- I think you know very well where the responsibility lies.
Look, I've been to Russia, I know people there, and there is NO WAY you can compare the level of democracy and rule of law we have in western Europe or the US to what there is in Russia now. Lots of Russians were ready to exchange some of their freedom, and to accept a very high level of corruption, as long as their global living standards improved. But now Putin is violating that pact. We'll see what happens.
Stalin was loved by most of the Russians. There were more tears cried over his death than over Kim Jong-il's, and to this day many Russians keep Stalin's pictures in their homes.
I believe that the West underestimates the strength of the Russian people, and their unsatisfied dreams of becoming the world superpower. Sadly, I think that this "violation of the pact" you are writing about is not serious enough to cause a change of power. And even if it was - who should continue ruling Russia? There are no direct candidates, but also I see no long-term perspectives. New democracies that formed after USSR collapse were built upon pre-war traditions. Russia has never seen any democracy.
I know that there are many Russians that disagree with their government. I know there are many in jail because of their opinions. But this is a minority. For the average Russian Putin is still the guy.
> virtually all governments in the world are becoming increasingly authoritarian because of the global economic crisis and the civilian unrest that it provokes
I agree with the former very much. Not sure the latter is the reason why, but it's a decent enough theory. The fact that authoritarianism is the general trend globally is very disturbing - and there is little to no civilian opposition to this.
You can support that statement with facts about police in Ferguson
Not really. Ferguson represents a lot of things, but I don't think there's any evidence that it's part of some national crackdown on dissent. How would that even work?
Russia is only a threat to its own citizens and border countries who are not members of NATO. The West was bringing Russia closer, now that trust is gone and will take a long time to repair.
What's actually going on here is people are committing the classic mistake of assuming if one side of a quarrel is in the wrong, the other must be in the right.
As far as I'm concerned, while we could bicker about whether Russia or the West has been more insanely stupid in its part in the escalating spiral of provocation in recent years, it would be quibbling over details.
The point that matters is that all of the governments in question are behaving like fools, and need to be brought under control or replaced with saner minds before the same pattern of stupidity that we saw a hundred years ago leads to the same results - and this time around, both sides have nuclear weapons.
As part of bringing Russia closer, the West decided to shred Russia of its defense interests inherited from the Soviet Union. There was a systematic attack by the West on Russia's interests in Central Asia, Georgia, Syria, and now Ukraine. You can only bait the bear for so long until it bites you back.
You can only bait the bear for so long until it bites you back.
But he isn't "biting back" at the West. He's biting on the bones of thousands of civilians (of all nationalities) killed in Ukraine. And hundreds of his own soldiers, sent illegally (by Russia's own laws) to fight in a war beyond its borders.
Not just toothless, but soon to be insolvent. It should only take another 12 to 18 months with oil below $60 or $70, to thoroughly crash the Russian economy and deplete their reserves (the share of their reserves they can actually use). At that point they'll either effectively capitulate, or they'll instigate a greater war.
You are someone with an account created 69 days ago. A noob. Back in the day both reddit and this place used to have rational discussions. Until noobs like you showed up.
Actually I've been coming on here for years now. This is just one of my other accounts created while I'm at work. But yeah, seems like you are on your way to being hellbanned.
Do you think Putin can keep this up with the falling currency and economy crashing? Or does he have a stronghold on everyone with guns that nobody could take him down?
I wonder if Russia could change to a more democratic and liberal tone after Putin. I mean, it seems like Putin wants to go back straight to Soviet era.
> I mean, it seems like Putin wants to go back straight to Soviet era.
There were many different soviet eras, each with their own problems and strengths. Putin's doing his own thing. Just because he's becoming more authoritarian doesn't mean he's becoming Soviet.
He controls all law enforcement and mass media, restricts freedom of speech, prosecutes political competition, enables corruption and connections-with-benefits, and has everyone eat this crap because patriotism.
I struggle to recall a soviet era without these traits.
Why not rattle off every fascist and authoritarian regime, then? Why not say he's acting the corrupt autocrat, i.e. every bad guy in every civilization since pre-history.
The current price of oil is well below the price Russia needs to sustain its economy. Depending on the source, Russia needs $100/barrel to maintain its economy. Putin was making comments that $80 is very bad. The bakkens (fracking in ND) can probably go as low as $40/barrel in some areas and still be ok.
I don't have a crystal ball, but a lot of people in Russia are worried that if Putin falls, the next one will be even worse than him. I don't even know what to hope now.
It seems to me as a distant observer that much of Putin's strength derives from a "cult of personality".[1] He's out there topless, catching fish. He's out there topless, swimming in a Siberian lake. He's out there on a tiger hunt. He's out there flying with cranes. He's out there dressed as an ice hockey player. He's out there doing judo moves. He's tough on terrorists. He's tough on breakaway republics. He stands up to "the Great Satan" (sorry, actually that's a line used by Iranian wackos). Etc.
This cult of personality takes many years, even decades to develop. Also these types of leaders hate up-and-coming competition. So there's no JV Putin out there, building up his own cult of personality. Medvedev probably doesn't have the charisma to take Putin's place. Plus, Putin was in what was probably a once-in-a-lifetime position to take over from Boris Yeltsin.
I don't think that any new leader could "be worse than" Putin without spending many years building up his own cult of personality.
My Russian friends on Facebook love Putin. Why would they overthrow him? He's given them everything they wanted: revenge on West for the cold war, bullying neighbors, a toughguy image, punishing homosexuals, and up until recently a higher oil price (coincidental of course). Sorry I just don't believe that the Russian people are interested in peace or human rights. Putin reflects the will of majority. I think Russia's culture is just broken.
I don't think a lot of Americans understand how corrupt and messed up that culture is. Ever do business there? I have. Its madness compared to the west. They're not Europeans. They're Russians. They have their own ideas of what passes for justice and international law. I'm getting a little sick of hearing how Putin doesn't reflect the average Russian's political will. Sadly, Putin does.
Isolation and sanctions are the only rational move at this point. We've gone down this road before several times and recently with Iran. Do you guys really think the average Iranian wants Ali Khamenei overthrown? Come on.
Isolation and sanctions would be acts of insane stupidity at this point. Take a dodgy regime and cut them off from the international community, mess up their economy, give everyone in the country a reason to believe the world really is out to get them, and it should be no surprise when the inevitable happens: popular opinion in the country becomes increasingly paranoid, support for the dodgy regime is solidified, and the regime itself becomes more extremist and totalitarian over time. It's the perfect way to make a bad situation worse.
This might be excusable if the situation were unprecedented, but the worst part is, the pattern is not news to us at all. Cuba, North Korea, Iraq under Saddam Hussein, Iran: how many times does history have to repeat the lesson before we become willing to learn it?
But what's the alternative when Russia is tramping over the sovereignty of another country in the EU's backyard? If not isolation and sanctions, what's left? Full scale war? I don't think there will be any winners in a WWIII.
Obviously going to war would be even more insanely stupid. The alternative is to realize that just because Russia is behaving badly is not a reason the US and EU should also start behaving badly.
Maybe you didn't consider that those who have success in business in Russia are largely those who live well in a corrupt system and have a strong relationship with Putin's power. That doesn't represent the average Russian.
I'm afraid (I have friends in Russia) that we're going to see more of this.