Putin-isms

Yes, you are most probably right.
(I'm left wondering why Twitter hasn't taken it down -- it's not as if the Kremlin or Putin himself lack in persuasive powers).
 
"You are most probably right" does in fact leave open the possibility that you seriosuly considered this might be genuine or officially sanctioned?. You don't seriosuly expect do you for one second that anyone remotely connected to the Kremlin would be saying stuff like that (publicly). Mind you I was mildly amused by the reply from an American who pointed out that 20% of American students don't know where America is either, and blamed Bush for it

I think it also worth pointing out that Putin is democratically elected, and with much bigger approval figures (64%) than any western politician. Despite lazy comments from Cameron about votes being conducted "at the point of a barrel of a Kalashnikov" it's actually the case that he is very popular in Russia (much more so than Cameron is in the UK). Quite a few western politicians have made the mistake of assuming their bogeymen to be a lot more unpopular than they actually are, don't fall for it. Western p;oliticians have proven to be particularly bad judges at respective domestic popularity

Also worth remembering of coruse that it was a democratically elected government of the Ukraine that was overthrown by a motely looking street mob. Strange how the supporters of the government are being described as "rebels" by the western media isn't it. Normally when democratically elected governments are overthrown its the other side that is dubbed the "rebels". Again, don't fall for it. Just remember that until recently 'rebel' groups and 'islamists' (thats what we call them now) were being presented to us as plucky 'pro-democracy campaigners' when the so-called Arab Spring was in full swing
 
Last edited:
Warbler said:
"You are most probably right" does in fact leave open the possibility that you seriosuly considered this might be genuine or officially sanctioned?.
Click to expand...
Yes, I'm embarrassed to say that I did.
Incredibly naive, I'm afraid. Holding my hands up to a serious error of judgement.
 
Fair enough, you realise the jokes on you then, no point rubbing it in (would be different of course were it Clive - who still can't manage his in box again!)

Putin is a strange one at the moment.

Clive made the not unreasonable point a few weeks ago that he doesn't possess the philosophical authenticity of the communists. In this regard he can't be treated with the same degree of accommodation. The Soviet Union was pretty stable after all, and normally quite predictable. In this regard Clive is right.

Russia has always had a tradition of nationalist chauvinism, and I'm sure it's this which Putin increasingly plugs into, which makes him nearer to a Tsar than a Bolshevik. Having said that, Russia needs a strong leader to hold it together. I really daren't imagine what would break out otherwise in the current climate. We've got enough potential flashpoints coming down the road, and enough to swamp us at the moment without stoking another one up, and especially so when the country concerned has more in common with us for the coming conflict than we'd perhaps care to imagine

Despite what Cameron will have you believe, there are undoutedly huge parts of Ukraine who want to be Russian. We need to find a solution to this that doesn't push Russia back to where they were in the 1980's. At the moment they aren't arming regimes opposed to the west, and their own country is so fragmented it could easily eclipse North Africa for its chaos potential if allowed to fall apart

Putin is the personification of the devil you do, as opposed to the devil you don't. I would hope that by now some of our stupid leaders and advisors must surely be realising that everytime they help create a power vacuum to remove a leader they don't like, they've created more trouble than if they'd negotiated an accommodation. I'm deeply concerned for David Cameron in particular, for of all the western leaders, he's the one who seems to be most hopelessly lost in the cold war
 
Last edited:
Since Vladimir Putin became President of Russia there has been increasing international criticism of the conduct of Russian elections. European institutions who observed the December 2007 legislative elections concluded that these were not fair elections. Göran Lennmarker, president of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), said that the elections "failed to meet many of the commitments and standards that we have. It was not a fair election."[SUP][7][/SUP] Luc Van den Brande, who headed a delegation from the Council of Europe, referred to the "overwhelming influence of the president's office and the president on the campaign" and said there was "abuse of administrative resources" designed to influence the outcome. He also said there were "flaws in the secrecy of the vote." "Effectively, we can't say these were fair elections," he said at a news conference.[SUP][8][/SUP]
In February 2008 The human rights organisation Amnesty International said that the presidential election on 2 March would not be a genuine election: "There is no real opposition ahead of the election. There is no real electoral campaign battle," Friederike Behr, Amnesty's Russia researcher, was quoted as saying. In a report on the elections, Amnesty said laws restricting non-government organizations, police breaking up demonstrations, and harassment from critics were all part of "a systematic destruction of civil liberties in Russia."[SUP][9][/SUP] Another human rights organisation, Freedom House, said that the victory of Putin's party in the 2007 elections "was achieved under patently unfair and non-competitive conditions calling into doubt the result’s legitimacy."[SUP][10][/SUP]
The Russian government has acted to prevent international observers monitoring Russian elections. In 2007 the OSCE was prevented from monitoring the legislative elections held in December.[SUP][11][/SUP] In February 2008 the European Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights announced that it would not send observers to monitor the presidential election on 2 March, citing what it called "severe restrictions" imposed on its work by the Russian government. "We made every effort in good faith to deploy our mission, even under the conditions imposed by the Russian authorities", said Christian Strohal, the organization’s director. "The Russian Federation has created limitations that are not conducive to undertaking election observation".[SUP][12][/SUP] The OSCE has also withdrawn its attempts to monitor the elections.
The 2011 Russian legislative elections were considered to be rigged in favor of the ruling party by a number of journalists and opposition representatives.[SUP][13][/SUP] However public opinion-polls prior to the election suggested that the ruling party could count on the support of 45–55 percent of voters, which may suggest that there were no mass falsifications, despite isolated cases of fraud.[SUP][14][/SUP] Nationwide exit polls were very close to the final results.[SUP][15]

[/SUP]
 
might also be worth adding that he is so secure that his popularity is secure and that his democratic mandate is assured that he routinely has journalists shot
 
I think that's about right Clive

Putin would in all likelihood win a Russian election legitimately with a significant mandate, but he isn't taking any chances on it.

We have examples of course in the west of democratic deficits too. The introduction of the postal vote nearly always creates issues in the UK now. The Italians had a former technocrat from Goldman Sachs imposed on them, and who can forget the fiasco of the hanging chads of Florida, or dead voters who supported Kennedy

Putin to my mind is the devil you know though, above the devil you don't
 
Our (the West) problem with Putin is similar to the problems we have in the Middle East, in that we appear to prefer promotion of a nebulous concept like 'democracy', ahead of developing much-needed (if somewhat distasteful) practical, strategic-relationships with some of the world's more important despots.

In my view, some places simply do not avail themselves to the democratic process. In the case of Russia, the land-mass is too great, and the vested-interests too fractured, for a democracy to actually ever properly work there, and - in real terms - it is probably much easier to manage under an absolute authoritarian Government. In the case of the Middle East, it's a combination of tribalism and sectarianism that is the issue, and as we have seen in Egypt, the country actually ooerates better under a military junta, than it did under the disastrous, yet thankfully brief, period when the Muslim Brotherhood were in control of matters.

The West should really stop trying to impose/promote democracy, as if it is a cure-all for everything that is wrong in authoritarian States. The experience of the last 30 years or so (say, since the Iron Curtain came down) suggests that it ain't necessarily so.
 
Spot on, GH.

The West, including its citizens, should stop preaching about Russia and the supposed moral superiority it has over Putin, when it is anything but true.
 
Grasshopper said:
Our (the West) problem with Putin is similar to the problems we have in the Middle East, in that we appear to prefer promotion of a nebulous concept like 'democracy', ahead of developing much-needed (if somewhat distasteful) practical, strategic-relationships with some of the world's more important despots.

In my view, some places simply do not avail themselves to the democratic process. In the case of Russia, the land-mass is too great, and the vested-interests too fractured, for a democracy to actually ever properly work there, and - in real terms - it is probably much easier to manage under an absolute authoritarian Government. In the case of the Middle East, it's a combination of tribalism and sectarianism that is the issue, and as we have seen in Egypt, the country actually oerates better under a military junta, than it did under the disastrous, yet thankfully brief, period when the Muslim Brotherhood were in control of matters.

The West should really stop trying to impose/promote democracy, as if it is a cure-all for everything that is wrong in authoritarian States. The experience of the last 30 years or so (say, since the Iron Curtain came down) suggests that it ain't necessarily so.
Click to expand...

total bollocks. another authoritarian fantasist. the feeble minded lefts slavish drooling over strong men

india is huge and is a democracy. get it? heard of india? six times the population of russia. actually theres aanother country called brazil which is quite big too. oh have you ever heard of the usa?

india is far from perfect with its bureaucracy cronyism and corruption but once you have authoritarian states then all those cancers spread uncontrolled because there is no accountability. once those factors run out of control then economies do not perform to potential and thats before we get onto human rights.even sluggish dictator loving lefties ight get that one. perhaps a quick look at what is going on in russia would confirm that?

its a simple rule of life that authority without responsibility fails

chruchill was right.
 
If we're talking about "slavish drooling over strong men", a quick look in the Archives will unearth a litany of posts from yourself demonstrating admiration of the Bush/Cheney axis.......so I'd be careful about which rocks you throw.

I live in the real world, where alliances with odious dictatorships have been the norm since the birth of creation. I don't live in the fantasy world you have created in your head, where everyone lives happily-ever-after as soon as they get the vote.

"Getting the vote" in Egypt, put the Muslim Brotherhood into power. One of the net-effects of this 'democratic process' was additional support and material help to Hamas - who are firmly bracketed by yourself as a terrorist organisation. That additional support to Hamas resulted in an incursion by Israel which you enthusiastically supported.......so naturally I'm inclined to wonder exactly who has the hard-on when it comes to "strong men".

Ultimately we're left with the dichotomy of you on the one-hand supporting the democratic vote in Egypt, then immediately condoning one of the all-too-obvious outcomes of that vote, and then supporting a war which led to thousands of deaths in Gaza. It is the position of a simpleton.
 
Last edited:
Ultimately we're left with the dichotomy of you on the one-hand supporting the democratic vote in Egypt, then immediately condoning one of the all-too-obvious outcomes of that vote, and then supporting a war which led to thousands of deaths in Gaza. It is the position of a simpleton.

out of your depth again arent you?

the mb were abusing the system and gradually imposing their absolute rule. not democractic. its a fair bet that there would be no further elections under their rule

there have been no further elections under hamas have there? but for you like, you just believe that israel is attacking hamas because it was elected and like so many on here runninga round like a kid with hands over their ears when the actual fact that they were decalring war and firing missiles into israel is mentioned

bush and cheney were not dictators. got it?

and now would you like to explain why russia needs hero putin and yet equally if not more diverse larger countries such as brazil usa and india do not\

oh its land mass sorry


which is why canada had authoritarianism of course
 
The MB were put into Government by the democratic process you espouse as the cure-all to any dysfunctional state. It is is naivety in-extremis. You didn't learn a single thing from the excursion into Iraq - the template for demonstrating that Democracy doesn't always work - and were quite happy to support the Arab Spring, int he hope that it would all just work out. Again, naivety in-extremis.

I have no interest in discussing Israel, because I refuse to let you drag this off-topic and make it about them. This dialogue is about whether democracy is workable in certain states. Israel is a shining - indeed, the only - example, of a functioning democracy in the Middle East, and therefore not remotely close to the subject matter being discussed. Apologies for seeing right through your transparent attempt to turn this into a thread about Israel - a smokescreen I've seen you deploy on many occassions, when your position has been exposed.
 
You have no interest in discussing Israel? So why the **** did you bring it up then? You got Alzheimer's or something? It was half an hour ago.

Why was Egypt disfunctional? The problem there and everywhere is when you have parties that are not secular and are divisive. Democracy always needs certain guidelines and controls to stop parties becoming too closely linked with religous groups.

in the short term many countries probably do need some control. As was said in Africa and Latin America too no doubt. And what's the overwhelming trend there?

in the longer term dictatorships fail to deliver. Unless backed up by fortunate wealth (Saudi) a totalitarian states lead to everything I have mentioned before simply because there is no recourse. Do you need exampleS.

the nativity is in thinking that totalitarian states are a long term solution. Absolute power etc etc
 
Last edited:
Israel was brought up only to demonstrate the polarity of your position i.e. support for a democratioc process in Egypt which eventually and inevitably led to more rockets for Hamas, and the eventual the Israeli incursion into Gaza. Given your previous on the matter, it is clearly, wholly and indisputably incompatible for you to simultaneously support a process which puts the MB in charge of Egypt, and directly results in additional rocket-fire into Israel.

In Latin America, military juntas generally (eventually) relinquished power to avoid a 'revolution' - think Chile or Argentina. Whenever there was an attempt to impose democracy in Latin America from 'outside', we ended-up with the Sandinistas and the Contras - which was not very pleasant for anyone involved.

In all of the Latin American cases, the sectarian element was missing, and there was (eventually) a desire on the part of the politicians to represent all-of-the-people. It is this crucial element that is missing from Middle Eastern states, due to the Sunni/Shia sectarianism which prevails, and the pea-brained, medieval religion that both sides support, and which apparently compels one side to constantly oppress the other....and anyone of any other religion. Even India had a period of great schism and violence when it's democracy was gaining a foothold, and it needed partition to get things to calm down.

Russia is unique. It is a Mafia state, and democracy has already failed there as recently as in the last 25 years.
 
Last edited:
There are enough sectarian elements in a whole host of African states that have embraced democracy. However it can be denied that the first seeming reflexes of so many muslims is suspicion, hatred and paranoia with sectarianism being a big driver.

I do not believe that ultimately Russia cannot be a proper democracy with decent values. In fact, given the near terminal downward spiral there its easy to envisage a street level demand for change. As with the falied venzuelan state, oil prices are just about the only reason the authorities have remained in power
 
Back
Top