02 Dec 07
Originally posted by KorchRacism, bigotry, human rights abuses, murder, assasination - all seem to be traits of Putin's Russia.
I`m from Latvia which was in Soviet Union about 50 years (1941-1990) and i can say for sure - most people from my country will never agree to be in such kind of state again.
Also I`ve talked with Russians who lives in Latvia and have been in Russia to their relatives - they have told that they does not want live in Russia at its current situation, because of ...[text shortened]... ok like Russians. If you dont believe then search in google words like "Moscow racist attack".
http://images.google.ie/images?hl=en&q=moscow+pride&btnG=Search+Images&gbv=2
He's probably vying with Bush for the craziest mofo on the planet.
Similar things are currently going on in Azerbaijan. The BBC's excellent documentary, "How to Plan a Revolution", clearly showed the police brutality employed to silence opposition.
D
03 Dec 07
4 edits
Originally posted by RagnorakSo, who has been worse for Russia, Putin or Yeltsin? And how many of the problems in Russia today did Putin invent, and how many did he inherit from Yeltsin?
Racism, bigotry, human rights abuses, murder, assasination - all seem to be traits of Putin's Russia.
http://images.google.ie/images?hl=en&q=moscow+pride&btnG=Search+Images&gbv=2
He's probably vying with Bush for the craziest mofo on the planet.
Similar things are currently going on in Azerbaijan. The BBC's excellent documentary, "How to Plan a Revolution", clearly showed the police brutality employed to silence opposition.
D
"Yeltsin, vowing to transform Russia's socialist planned economy into a capitalist market economy, endorsed a programme of "shock therapy", that would cut Soviet-era price controls and introduce drastic cuts in state spending. . . . through corruption in the state departments a handful of people were able to enrich themselves while stamping out competitors. The reforms also devastated the living standards of much of the population, especially the groups dependent on Soviet-era state subsidies and welfare entitlement programs. Through the 1990s, Russia's GDP fell by 50 percent, vast sectors of the economy were wiped out, inequality and unemployment grew dramatically, while incomes fell. Hyperinflation, caused by the Central Bank of Russia's loose monetary policy, wiped out a lot of personal savings, and tens of millions of Russians were plunged into poverty. . . . Yeltsin's conception of the presidency was highly autocratic. For example he changed the name of the state by his own decree before the constitution was modified. Yeltsin either acted as his own prime minister (until June 1992) or appointed men of his choice, regardless of parliament. His confrontations with parliament climaxed in the October 1993 Russian constitutional crisis, when Yeltsin called up tanks to shell the Russian White House, blasting out his opponents in parliament. Later in 1993, Yeltsin imposed a new constitution with strong presidential powers, which was approved by referendum in December." (Wikipedia)
Did Putin invent racism, bigotry, and gangsterism in Russia? Or did Yeltsin create conditions conducive to the growth of these things? Did Putin call out tanks to blow-up his political enemies? Did Putin illegally dissolve the country's legislature which opposed his moves to consolidate power and his unpopular "reforms"? Or was that Yelstin? Did Putin execute his political enemies in the basement of the Parliament building? Or was that done by Yeltsin's men? I forget. Somebody remind me of history...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_constitutional_crisis_of_1993#Storming_of_the_White_House
Who has been more heavy-handed with protesters? Putin, or Yeltsin?
Let's see:
"Yeltsin also sparked popular unrest with his dissolution of a parliament increasingly opposed to his neoliberal economic reforms. Between September 21-24, the general atmosphere changed in favor of the defenders of the parliament. Moscow saw what amounted to a spontaneous mass uprising of anti-Yeltsin demonstrators numbering in the tens of thousands marching in the streets resolutely seeking to aid forces defending the parliament building. However, the army leaders remained faithful to Yeltsin.
"The demonstrators were protesting against the new and terrible living conditions under Yeltsin. Since 1989 GDP had declined by half. Corruption was rampant, violent crime was skyrocketing, medical services were collapsing, food and fuel were increasingly scarce and life expectancy was falling for all but a tiny handful of the population; moreover, Yeltsin was increasingly getting the blame. Outside Moscow, the Russian masses overall were confused and disorganized. Nonetheless, some of them also tried to voice their protest. Sporadic strikes took place across Russia.
"On September 28, Moscow saw the first bloody clashes between the OMON riot police and anti-Yeltsin demonstrators. This repression of the mass demonstrations in Moscow had a comparable effect to that meted out by the French police to the students in the May 1968 demonstration that nearly culminated in the fall of Charles de Gaulle. It rallied them for a mass protest action, but one that the popular demonstrators would ultimately lose."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_constitutional_crisis_of_1993#Mass_protests_in_Moscow
03 Dec 07
2 edits
Originally posted by Mark AdkinsYou may defend Putin as you want but, its obvious that he "invented:
So, who has been worse for Russia, Putin or Yeltsin? And how many of the problems in Russia today did Putin invent, and how many did he inherit from Yeltsin?
"Yeltsin, vowing to transform Russia's socialist planned economy into a capitalist market economy, endorsed a programme of "shock therapy", that would cut Soviet-era price controls and introduce ikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_constitutional_crisis_of_1993#Mass_protests_in_Moscow
1) More agressive foriegn policy.
2) Control over all largest sources of mass media, which makes propoganda for his political party.
3) Dispersing of peaceful demonstrations - when Yeltsin was president people had more freedom to express their opinion in demonstration.
4) Arresting (Hodorokovsky) or killing (Litvinenko and Polytkovskaya) political opponents.
You did forget to mention that Yeltsin used force against opponents only in that crisis in 1993 (in extraordinary circumstances), as Putin use it regulary.
If Putin was interested to stop racism, bigotry, and gangsterism he could use resources which he use against political opposition.
Of course Yeltsin was far from perfect, but Yeltsin`s Russia (when Putin became president) was not so dictatoric (and dangerous for its neighbours) country as Putin`s Russia is.
03 Dec 07
1 edit
Originally posted by Mark AdkinsYou really don't seem to know your own mind. Sometimes you seem to pose as a Putin apologist, other times as a severe critic. Interestingly enough, I have just seen a BBC TV News report on the farcical 'elections' that have just taken place in Russia. There was this morning a huge rally in the Kremlin of the Putin-Jugend stormtroopers, acclaiming their 'victory'. The BBC reporter on the spot described the atmosphere as "sinister" with much nationalistic, paranoid, and xenophobic chanting and sloganising. (The OCSE was laughably denounced as a "US tool" for declaring the 'election' unfair.) All the participants in this rally were dressed in a type of uniform with an image of Putin on the back. The cult of the personality is back with a vengeance in Putin's Russia.
So, who has been worse for Russia, Putin or Yeltsin? And how many of the problems in Russia today did Putin invent, and how many did he inherit from Yeltsin?
"Yeltsin, vowing to transform Russia's socialist planned economy into a capitalist market economy, endorsed a programme of "shock therapy", that would cut Soviet-era price controls and introduce ikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_constitutional_crisis_of_1993#Mass_protests_in_Moscow
I don't think you're entirely fair to Yeltsin. Making selective use of Wikipedia sources is hardly being objective or impartial. You omit to mention that, by and large, the people Yeltsin was fighting against were old-style hardliners opposed to democracy, who themselves employed pretty brutal and ruthless means. Yes, Yeltsin made plenty of mistakes (not least in the economic sphere), but I always got the impression that, through the alcoholic haze, he was a man who deep down genuinely wanted a better, freer and more democratic future for Russia. And Korch makes the valid point that Yeltsin's Russia was a lot less hostile to its neighbours than that of Putin, which has become overtly bullying.
03 Dec 07
Originally posted by Korch(1) Which neighbors? Putin isn't Hitler. He isn't going to annex the Baltics like the Sudetenland. He isn't going to invade Germany or France. True, he's been pretty damned rough on Chechnya, but guess who ordered the first invasion of Chechnya in 1994? Boris Yeltsin.
You may defend Putin as you want but, its obvious that he "invented:
1) More agressive foriegn policy.
2) Control over all largest sources of mass media, which makes propoganda for his political party.
3) Dispersing of peaceful demonstrations - when Yeltsin was president people had more freedom to express their opinion in demonstration.
4) Arresting (Ho ...[text shortened]... esident) was not so dictatoric (and dangerous for its neighbours) country as Putin`s Russia is.
(2) OK, admittedly he has increased state control of the mass media.
(3) Putin's attitude toward dissent reminds me a lot of the attitude of the FBI and the police of many major U.S. cities during the 1960s demonstrations against the Vietnam War. Admittedly, that's pretty nasty, but he's no Stalin.
(4) There is no proof that the individuals you cite were the victims of political assassinations, much less assassinations orchestrated by the Russian state. As for Khodorkovsky, did you ever stop to consider that prosecutors have a legitimate criminal case? No doubt if he was still a Putin ally he would have been cut some slack. So yes, he has probably been singled out, but not framed. There is a general consensus about this.
03 Dec 07
Originally posted by Northern LadYou seem to think that anyone who refuses to join the bandwagon of reflexive Putin bashing (regardless of the facts in any particular circumstance) is an "apologist", and that severely criticizing Putin where warranted is somehow inconsistent with circumspect and accurate political analysis. I think you've been conditioned by the lazy and jingoistic Western mass media, to the point where anyone failing to demonstrate undiscriminating hostility to all things Putin must be an "apologist".
You really don't seem to know your own mind. Sometimes you seem to pose as a Putin apologist, other times as a severe critic. Interestingly enough, I have just seen a BBC TV News report on the farcical 'elections' that have just taken place in Russia. There was this morning a huge rally in the Kremlin of the Putin-Jugend stormtroopers, acclaiming their ...[text shortened]... hostile to its neighbours than that of Putin, which has become overtly bullying.
This is the same media that indulges in sensationalistic and alarmist characterizations such as those you describe. I'd like to know how he measured "sinister". Maybe he had a sinister-meter handy. Or maybe jubilant attitudes toward Putin's victory must be regarded as intrinsically sinister, because, well, because the Western media just doesn't like the man. Then there's this whole "stormtroopers" thing. Please. The Nashi kids are not stormtroopers, as much as some outside (and within) Russia would like them to be.
The other terms also seem ill-defined. Russians are "nationalistic" whenever they follow their own traditions and attempt to assert Russia's place as a world power. They are "xenophobic" whenever they resent the constant drumbeat of attacks on their president by the Western media and the attempts by organizations funded by foreign powers and foreign private interests to influence the elections. (No, I am not here talking about the OCSE. But speaking of dishonesty and paranoia, the U.S. -- its leadership, not just a bunch of excited political boy-scouts -- has taken some pretty dismissive and, indeed, "paranoid" stands against the judgments of institutions like the World Court (e.g., with regard to Nicaragua) and habitually against the General Assembly of the U.N. Pettiness, dishonesty, and nationalism don't seem to be the exclusive domain of the Russians.)
Did Putin's government interfere with the election? Very likely. "Golos, an independent election monitoring agency created with US and European support, said it received more than 3,500 calls on its complaints hotline. They include various forms of pressure on voters by Putin’s party like hot food for elderly going to vote at lunch time and raffle prizes (TV sets and appliances) for voters who picked United Russia as well as “illegal” posters and graffiti near polling stations." Would Putin's party have won handily anyway, even without buying people free hot-dogs and offering raffle drawings (only one winner per mass drawing)? Yes. I don't like it either, but facts are facts.
03 Dec 07
Originally posted by Mark Adkins(1) Agressive foriegn policy may express not only as military agression but also as economic sanctions and propoganda (in international level) against "enemy" states trying to incline other countries (and international organisations) against them. And Putin does not act like Hitler not because he is so peaceful but beause he knows about possible consequences.
(1) Which neighbors? Putin isn't Hitler. He isn't going to annex the Baltics like the Sudetenland. He isn't going to invade Germany or France. True, he's been pretty damned rough on Chechnya, but guess who ordered the first invasion of Chechnya in 1994? Boris Yeltsin.
(2) OK, admittedly he has increased state control of the mass media.
(3) Put ...[text shortened]... has probably been singled out, but not framed. There is a general consensus about this.
(3) Did I say that Putin is Stalin? And does your comparision it proves that Putin`s regime is democratic? And isn`t it 21sty century now?
(4) There are very reasoned suspicion that "individuals I cite" are victims of Putin`s regime, because Putin has motive and his KGB guys had options to do that. There are no believable alternative versions about these murders. So I have opinion that Putin`s regime is guilty in these murderers.
About Khodorkovsky - I have no illusions that he have done nothing criminal, but:
1) It`s obvious that he wouldn`t be punished if he was friend of Putin and Putin wouldn`t want to take control over his company`s.
2) Even criminals deserve equitable trial and main admonishments to Putin for Khodorkovsky was trial with obvious procedural violations.
03 Dec 07
Originally posted by Korch
(1) Agressive foriegn policy may express not only as military agression but also as economic sanctions and propoganda (in international level) against "enemy" states trying to incline other countries (and international organisations) against them. And Putin does not act like Hitler not because he is so peaceful but beause he knows about possible consequences. ...[text shortened]... main admonishments to Putin for Khodorkovsky was trial with obvious procedural violations.
There are no believable alternative versions about these murders. So I have opinion that Putin`s regime is guilty in these murderers.
That is your opinion. There is more evidence of "alternative versions of these murders".
03 Dec 07
1 edit
Originally posted by zin23Which would be these "alternative versions" and what kind of evidence they have ?There are no believable alternative versions about these murders. So I have opinion that Putin`s regime is guilty in these murderers.
That is your opinion. There is more evidence of "alternative versions of these murders".
03 Dec 07
1 edit
You just need to read credible newsources. The washington post (I'm not sure though) had something. The site antiwar.com post regularly on this topic normally - so it might have been there or from a link there.
CNN/ new york times are a bit biased against putin but they do mention things you look up elsewhere.
Politics is not like chess where you could just find what the best move is from someone or the computer. Most of the time everything you know is wrong and you have to re-assess what you think you know constantly.
03 Dec 07
3 edits
Originally posted by zin23You`re naive one. Dont you know that most of oligarchs supports Putin? Oligarchs who does not it are prisoned (Khodorokovsky) or escaped from Russia (Berezovsky).
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/12/story.cfm?c_id=12&ObjectID=10384769
Also link above is a real concern for Russians more so than being 'democratic'
03 Dec 07
Originally posted by zin23Does "credible newsources" are newsources which passes opinion which you agree?
You just need to read credible newsources. The washington post (I'm not sure though) had something. The site antiwar.com post regularly on this topic normally - so it might have been there or from a link there.
CNN/ new york times are a bit biased against putin but they do mention things you look up elsewhere.
Politics is not like chess where you co ...[text shortened]... time everything you know is wrong and you have to re-assess what you think you know constantly.
You just need to remember that during cold war many Western people had (and maybe some of them still have) very naive concept about whats happened in USSR.
Seems like the same is about Putin`s regime.
03 Dec 07
1 edit
Originally posted by wormwoodThese 99% looks like elections in USSR where only candidates received 99% votes 😀
99% support for putin's party in chechnya!?! 🙄 that's just laughable. sounds like the elections saddam hussein used to 'win'...
it looks clear now that putin's preparing to put up a puppet for presidency, and act as a prime minister after the next presidential election.