Is Greece to be Putin's "Big and Better Crimea"?

Living there isn't evidence the evidence you need to back up your belief. I gather you are a Russian emigrant or sycophant. The facts are Russians have been a very docile people for eons. They have been ruled by autocrats for thousands of years and dissidents have been vigorously purged from the gene pool (i.e. imprisoned and killed).

Well, those East Germans threw off the yoke of Russian autocracy, something the Russian people have not done and are now much happier and much more prosperous than their Russian counterparts.

Well, we in the West, unlike Russians, do not need permission to believe anything.

So basically you are saying Russians want to be told what to think, what to do, what to believe rather than do all that thinking stuff on their own. Well I guess that explains the autocracy thingy. But it also makes my point. Russians are a very docile group of folks. Autocrats tell them what to think, do, and believe. That isn't how it works in the West and as I previously wrote, that is why Greece is not compatible with Russia. Greeks far from the docile Russians who blindly follow autocrats. Greeks want and do think for themselves. That is why it is infinitely more difficult to lord over them. Greece does have a democracy and a democratic tradition, something Mother Russia lacks. That is a serious problem for Putin if he should decide he wants to use this opportunity to move his troops into Greece. Greece is also a NATO nation, such a move would mean war, and while I don't think Putin is very smart, I don't think he is that stupid. A Russian occupation of Greece is far more than Russia can handle. Greeks are not docile Russians. Greeks are a feisty lot, they are use to making their feelings and opinions known (e.g. the current crisis), and they are not vodka drinkers.

Hmm, if Russians were so happy with Mother Russia, why have they left Mother Russia and emigrated to the West (e.g. the USA)? I guess they didn't like the Russian media?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Here is the difference between Russian media and Western media, Western media isn't controlled by the state as it is in Mother Russia. In the West dissidents are not thrown into gulags or wind up with exotic radioactive poisons in their food or get gunned down on the streets.

If you think debate and public discord in the West is limited to "political correctness", whatever that means, then you and your fellow Russians are missing 99.99999999999999% of the material in Western media which isn't surprising as Putin control his press. Putin controls what Russians see and hear. That isn't how it works in the West, the Western press is free to print and publish whatever it wants whenever it wants. It's called a free press, something Russia does not have. We have real debates. We have real challenges to people in power. Those things do not happen in Mother Russia.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

There was a short period of Stalinism where such things have happened, but this has not played a big role. The Russians in the Breshnew period were mentally free of communism, they simply despised the communists as carrierists, their music came from unofficial records of unofficial concerts of people, their most popular writer was Bulgakow.

They have done it at a moment when it was no longer a yoke, because Gorbatshov has essentially stopped to support the Eastern German communist government. At a time where one could simply get openly anticommunist papers on the streets of Moscow. So, there was not that much risc. And, no, the Germans are in no way happier than the Russians. Prosperous - that's another question, but there was a reason for this - West Germany, which had the advantage of using capitalist economy over a much longer time, and was, therefore, much more rich.

The Russians don't need such permissions. You need - if you start to argue in politically incorrect ways, you will be soon in trouble.

You have very strange interpretational abilities. Russians think of their own and don't think much about what the tsar thinks, who is far away in Moscow. No, basically I'm saying that democracy is a thing which works nicely for cheating the masses, while the Russians have easily understood that it is essentially a lie.

They didn't like the communist political system at that time. And, of course, as part of it, the communist media. And found, in the West, a system where, unexpectedly, quite similar bs in the media - but all the people believing this bs.

In the West, they are controlled by a very small number of big media corporations.

LOL. I'm not a Russian, not living in Russia now, and have access to all of the internet, as the Russians too. Here I see a whole forum full of political correctness.

LOL. You have no idea about the real debates in the Russian media about, say, the policy in the Ukraine. Putin cares only about a very simple point: That the Western media concerns, which control your media, do not control the Russian media.

And it is sufficient to compare what different Western mass media present to see that they do not publish whatever they want.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

LOL, well that is either ignorance or a rather revisionist view and white washing of history isn’t it? J Russian repression of political dissent has always happened in Russia and as previously pointed out it occurs even today. In fact it is getting worse. The czars used secret police to enforce “political correctness”. The communists used the state to enforce “political correctness”. And the fascists who followed communists (e.g. Putin) have and continue to use the state to enforce “political correctness”. Russian dissidents have always been imprisoned and executed by the state. Russian persecution of political dissidents didn’t begin and end with Stalin as you believe or would have people believe. The fact is Russia has always prosecuted political dissenters. You know there is a reason why the call Ivan IV Vasilyevic, Ivan the Terrible. Before the communists, czars used special or secret police to ferret out dissenters and the communists and fascists who succeeded them followed suit, right up to Mr. Putin.

Russian political repression of dissidents didn’t end with Stalin, “Under Nikita Khrushchev and Leonid Brezhnev the Soviet regime continued intimidation of opponents by censorship, arrests, harassment, imprisonment and/or involuntary exile in of many prominent cultural leaders, such as Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Andrei Sakharov, Yelena Bonner, Joseph Brodsky, Natan Sharansky, Pyotr Grigorenko, Yuli Daniel, Vasili Aksyonov, Mstislav Rostropovich, Galina Vishnevskaya, Aleksandr Galich, Joseph Bondarenko, Vazif Meylanov and others. A few cultural figures managed to escape from the Soviet regime, such as Rudolf Nureyev, Mikhail Baryshnikov, Lyudmila Makarova, Mikhail Shemyakin, William Brui, and others. Attacks on prominent dissidents ended with Mikhail Gorbachev's policies of glasnost and perestroika in the late 1980s and partial liberation of political prisoners from GULAG prison-camps. However, the political leadership of post-soviet Russia continued harsh treatment of opposition by censorship, harassment, and/or imprisonment.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_dissidents
As I previously wrote, it isn’t healthy to be a dissenter in Putin’s Russia. Exotic poisons have a funny way of showing up in the food of Russian dissenters and if not exotic poisons, then good old fashioned bullets work too. The bottom line is Russian dissenters have a nasty habit of showing up dead or in prison or both.

This is what Russian chess champion, Garry Kasparov , says about the current repression of dissidents in Russia, “Every year he has been gradually reducing the space of political freedom in Russia. [In] 2001, attacks on the free press. Next two years, he replaced independent or semi-independent central key stations with cronies. Then the limitations for the election process in 2004, he cancelled the direct elections of the governors. It was a steady process, and then gradually limitations in the Russian legislation, and then in the penal code, measures to prevent the open demonstrations and criticism of the government. There’s no one milestone. It was a steady process … And eventually, when you look at the results of Putin’s rule today, almost everything that aims at criticizing the government is a criminal offense. “Kasparov goes on to say, “many of the people who could see the deadly consequences [of] Putin’s rule prefer to leave the country rather than to fight inside.” That is docile my friend. Rather than stay and fight, Russians run. Now I know this is not how Russians like to view themselves, but facts are facts. When the shit hits the table, Russians run.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/front...e-state-of-dissent-in-vladimir-putins-russia/

Yeah, it is no longer a yoke because East Germans said enough is enough and revolted and tore down the wall Russia (i.e. the Soviet Union) built. East Germans cast off the chains of Russian suppression.

Now how you can honestly and rationally say East Germans are not happier than their Russian counterparts is beyond me. Where is your evidence to support that belief? According to the United Nation’s Happiness Index, Russia ranks just barely above Greece. Russians are just slightly happier than Greeks and we all know how happy Greeks are these days. The empirical data says Germans are much happier than the Russians you so adore.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Happiness_Report

East Germany’s economic success has nothing to do with “using a capitalist economy over a much longer period of time” as you wrote. East Germany started from scratch like Mother Russia with no experience with capitalism. The reason East Germany is now economically successful and East Germans are now happier than their Russian counterparts, is because East Germany was integrated into a stable democracy, the West German government where political dissent is welcome.

Well yes they do. Russians do need permissions to speak against the state if they want to keep their jobs, avoid asset seizures, beatings, jail time or death. Unlike Western states the Russian state controls its media. It controls what is said and how it’s said. The Russian state owns most, if not all, Russian media outlets. On the Press Freedom Index, Mother Russia ranks just below Burma and Cambodia, a 148th out of 179 countries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_Freedom_Index

The Russian media only reports, only publishes, what is politically correct and sanctioned by the state. It’s Fox News every day and on every channel and in every medium in Russia. Unlike Fox, the Russian state controls all press operations within its domain. Western media isn’t controlled by the state that is why you see a plethora of opinions and ideas in the Western press. That isn’t so in the state controlled Russian media. In the West one even gets to see, hear and read the opinions and beliefs of Russian sycophants.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Do I? You said, “The Russians have understood very fast what "democracy" means, and named it "dermocracy", which translates, roughly, "shitocracy". The Americans seem unable to understand this.”. A reasonable interpretation of that statement is you and your fellow Russians don’t like democracy since you refer to it as “shitocracy”. So what is the alternative to democracy (i.e. rule by the people)? It’s autocracy. It’s having someone else do the thinking and decision making which is what you and your fellow Russians seem to want.
So what makes you think autocracy is better than democracy? I have news for you; Putin is doing a very good job at “cheating the masses”. Putin is estimated to have a personal fortune of 70 plus billion dollars, making him one of the world’s richest people accumulated while earning a salary of $85,000 or less. How does that work with you and those savvy Russians?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Russia is one of the 20 most corrupt countries in the world, ranking just below Laos, Papua New Guinea, and Kenya.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index

The world’s least corrupt countries are democracies. So, it is quite apparent that what you and the Russians you claim to know and represent believe in a lie, which isn’t surprising given who controls and the state of their media.

Well if we were talking about emigration from a communist state, The Soviet Union, then that argument might make sense. But the Soviet Union ended 24 years ago. So you argument no longer makes sense and it cannot rationalize the millions of Russians who have fled the country since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Russians had to create barriers to keep people in during the Soviet era and given the growing numbers of Russian emigrants, Russia may soon need to resurrect those barriers to keep people from fleeing the glorious Russian state.
http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/the-russians-are-leaving-russia/article2880044.ece
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/nov/14/world/la-fg-russia-emigration-20111115

Actually, that isn’t the case. Western media isn’t controlled by a very small number of “big media” corporations. But even if that were the case, it would be better than a single state owned and controlled media (e.g. Russia). A healthy press is measured by its diversity of opinion and a healthy airing of fact and discourse that is something you see in the West and you don’t see in Russia.

I guess you missed the “or sycophant” part and in any case I guess we will just have to take your word that you are not Russian. As for political correctness, just what is “political correctness” in your view? Since you see a forum full of political correctness perhaps you can point out a few examples. It should be easy, given the forum is full of it (your words).
Two, not or even most Russians have access to the internet. Three, most Russians don’t read or speak English which is the dominate language on the internet. Only 5% of Russians speak or read English. So it does Russians little good to have access to the internet and not be able to read or understand most of it. That is why Russia is propagandizing the internet. And fourth, most Russians get their news from state controlled TV. And then there is the internet blocking, Russia actively blocks access to internet sites which publish materials and opinions which run counter to those of the Russian government.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_English-speaking_population

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_Russia#Instances_of_censorship

That isn’t a free press.
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/04/how-the-media-became-putins-most-powerful-weapon/391062/

Hmm, what debates? There are no debates in Russian media. There is scripted news just like what we see with Fox News. But that isn’t a debate. What we see in Russian media is an artful manipulation of the news similar to what we see with Fox News in the US. And I am sure Putin is very concerned with maintaining his control over the Russian media. I don’t think there is any doubt about that, but that interest is only incidental to protecting his derrière which is his main goal and the reason why he can never relinquish power.

Apparently, I have a much better “idea” about how the Russian press operates than you do my friend. Here is the thing; the Western press is not controlled by one individual or just a few individuals as it is in Mother Russia. In the West media outlets compete with each other for business. And we have laws, which unlike Mother Russia, are enforced and prevent the monopolization of any industry (public utilities exempted). So your beliefs are just not rooted in reality. Unlike Russian press, the Western press publishes a wide variety of opinions. I can find articles with differing opinions on virtually anything.

And bringing this back to Greece, contrary to your assertion Russians are a docile people, a people easily manipulated and controlled as demonstrated by Vladimir Putin. Russians have really never had a successful democracy. As I previously wrote, while Western powers have successfully become democracies, Russia has never managed to cross that bridge. Democracies are not easy, because people don’t easily agree on most things, so compromises are necessary. There are many differences and opinions in a democracy, something to which Russians are not accustom. Russians are accustomed to autocracy, one ruler, one position, the ruler’s position. Western countries are not and would not tolerate the shit Putin has done and continues to do because the freedom of the press is important to the West. So should Putin try to foray into Greece, or any Western European state, the people he encounters will not be the docile Russians to which he is accustomed. Russia has persecuted dissidents for thousands of years and continues to persecute dissidents; those that have remained continue to flee the country in droves. So what’s left? The docile folks… that is the unpleasant fact of the matter.

 

So what? You have talked about "vigorously purged from the gene pool". Things which deserve to be named in such a way have not happened under the Tsar, nor under Chruchtschow, Breshnew or today.

Who cares what Kasparow says?

They revolted against their own communist leadership - crying "Gorbi, Gorbi" during their demonstrations. And only after this leadership was thrown away, they take the chance to tore down the wall - after the government has said, that tomorrow the wall will be opened.

I have lived long enough in Russia as well as in East Germany. What your survey measures: "These six factors include: real GDP per capita, healthy life expectancy, having someone to count on, perceived freedom to make life choices, freedom from corruption, and generosity". You may think this is what defines happiness, ok, your choice.

LOL, East Germany does not really have economic success, it become simply part of rich Germany, thus, was able to get a lot of transfer payments.

If you take the Northamerican Government Organization (NGO) Reporters Sans Frontières seriously, ok, your choice.

I can read as the Russian, as the German, as the Western sources, and have done this about the Ukraine. And I can tell you that German and Western media are totally homogeneous, moreover, full of lies. Instead, in Russian and Novorussian media the information is much more reliable, and more diverse. In particular, what is written in the Western and Ukrainian media is described there too. Sometimes even without comments - simply copies of Ukrainian lies which are so horribly unbelievable that one does not even have to comment them.

 

No, these are not alternatives, these are simply different forms of rule by the state. The alternative is to think yourself, to ignore what the state is doing, the tsar is far away in Moscow.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy:_The_God_That_Failed

Yes, of course, and all these money somewhere in Western banks. LOL. Read this, this is well-known in Russia too but nobody takes this seriously.

If you believe TI, ok, your choice.

There is a problem with corruption in Russia, yes. But there is also one in Germany. It was also quite visible. It is on another level, that's all. The German government has sold the property of former Eastern Germany - a lot of factories, land, and so on. Everybody knows that all that was highly corrupt. But I doubt that this appears in the TI corruption index.

And in America it is sufficient to compare the military budget, almost the half of that of the whole world, with what the military can do - not even win against IS and running away from the taliban.

Of course, the first ten years after the collapse Russia was a poor US-colony, with a drinking idiot as the leader and the mafia grabbing everything. So no wonder that people were running away.

The situation started to change with Putin, who has been quite successful in many aspects. And today the Ukrainians are fleeing into Russia. And the people from the Crimea have voted for Russia in part because everything - wages, rents, and so on - are much better in Russia than in the Ukraine.

http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/the-russians-are-leaving-russia/article2880044.ece
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/nov/14/world/la-fg-russia-emigration-20111115

Feel free to believe this. I couldn't care less.

Do you read Russian sources?

I read quite different sources, and among them the Russians appear quite reasonable. This is what counts for me.

I simply tend to ignore low level insults.

To risc being banned for politically incorrect propaganda?

In fact, there is not much difference between Russian and Western democracy. Above are forms of controlled democracy. In the West, it is controlled by rich oligarchs in the background, in Russia the rule of the oligarchs was too harmful and has been returned to the state. The american system with two big parties, above controlled by the same oligarchy, with programs which differ on some quite unimportant questions like gay marriage or so, but with full agreement about the big questions (military and security budget, increase of state power) looks, of course, because of its longer tradition, a little bit more persuasive to the sheeple, that's all.

Why the Russians are supporting Putin is very simple: Look at the statistics, for economy, income, rents, criminality, life expectancy, birth rate, whatever, you will see in almost all these numbers the same picture: Everything becoming worse during the US-oligarchy-rulership of the Jeltsin time, and improving during Putin's time. And they are, of course, aware that if Putin will be overthrown by the Americans, the Jeltsin time will return - with mafiaboss Chodorkowski as the new ruler. So, they know what to expect. This support has nothing to do with docility. Simple self-interest is sufficient. And, of course, Russians have always been patriots.

 

LOL…yeah, who cares what dissidents have to say or what history says? Facts are facts, and the facts just don’t support your beliefs. The fact is dissidents have been imprisoned and killed for eons in Mother Russia. As I previously pointed out, Russian political purges didn’t begin or end with Stalin.

Yes and their communist leadership were subservient to their Russian overlords. East Germany revolted. Russia didn’t. Those are the facts. All of Russia’s vassal states given to them after WWII revolted.

Well it’s not my survey. It’s the "United Nation’s World Happiness Report".

“The World Happiness Report is a measure of happiness published by the United Nations Sustainable Development Solutions Network. The report is edited by Professor John F. Helliwell, of the University of British Columbia and the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research; Lord Richard Layard, Director of the Well-Being Programme at LSE’s Centre for Economic Performance; and Professor Jeffrey Sachs, Director of The Earth Institute at Columbia University, Director of the SDSN, and Special Advisor to the UN Secretary General.[1]
In July 2011, the UN General Assembly passed a resolution inviting member countries to measure the happiness of their people and to use this to help guide their public policies. On April 2, 2012 this was followed by the first UN High Level Meeting on "Happiness and Well-Being: Defining a New Economic Paradigm," which was chaired by Prime Minister Jigme Thinley of Bhutan, the first and so far only country to have officially adopted gross national happiness instead of the gross domestic product as the main development indicator.[2]
The first World Happiness Report was released on April 1, 2012, just ahead of as a foundational text for the conference. It drew international attention as the world's first global happiness survey.[3] The Report outlined the state of world happiness, causes of happiness and misery, and policy implications; along with case studies including from Bhutan. In September 2013 the second World Happiness Report offered the first annual follow-up.[4] The Report uses data from the Gallup World Poll. The first Report used available data from 2005-2011, and the second Report used available data from 2005-2012, focusing on the data set from 2010-2012.
In the Reports, leading experts in several fields – economics, psychology, survey analysis, national statistics, and more – describe how measurements of well-being can be used effectively to assess the progress of nations. The second Report delved deeper into issues relating to happiness, including mental illness, the objective benefits of happiness, the importance of ethics, policy implications, and links with the OECD’s approach to measuring subjective well-being as well as the Human Development Report.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Happiness_Report

Yeah, contrary to your assertion, the former East Germany is much happier now than they were while under Russian (i.e. Soviet Union) domination. The facts just do not support your beliefs.

Hmm, and you think that makes sense? Do you know what a transfer payment is? As I noted in my last post, East Germany merged into West Germany. Instead of laughing, you should be studying.

Well now you are moving the goal post. We were discussing Western press, that is much more than the German press. But I am sure if you look a bit further in the Western press you can find dissenting authors. Even in the US we had Russian apologists advocating Putin’s causes. So you obviously aren’t looking for anything that might blow your beliefs out of the water. That might be too much for you to handle.

The facts are Russia has persecuted dissidents for thousands of years, purging the gene pool if you will. Being a dissident doesn’t pay in Russia. It never has. Russians are a docile people. As I said before, if Putin attempted to do in the West what he has done in Mother Russia, there would be riots in the street. If just wouldn’t fly as it does in Mother Russia.

 

If somebody starts to claim "facts blabla" one can be sure they are not facts. That's a simple heuristic - works as well as the criterion that if someone starts to talk about his honesty then he is a liar.

A nice example. Russia did revolt too, And this was what put Jeltsin to power in Russia and destroyed the USSR.

As if this would make a stupid idea to measure happiness good. Ok, as I have said, feel free to believe such measures of happiness, once they come from governments, even from the UN, they are the Pure Truth.

Sorry, I have never made such a claim. And this would be, indeed, wrong (even if I know a lot of people who are less happy now, they are a minority).

There are a lot of them, starting from rents, all the financial support for the poor, a lot of money for infrastructure, all the salaries for governement workers - all what the citizens of East Germany would have to pay themself without the unification.

Thus, their economic position is, essentially, caused by the economic freedom of the West, where they have had 40 years more of a capitalist system.

Of course, in the internet one can find them.

Again, a cheap insult. Seems quite typical - those who disagree with the political correct position, have to face personal insults.

 

And you think that makes sense? Russian’s aren’t ignoring what is happening in Moscow. They are complying (i.e. being docile). They certainly are not thinking for themselves. And the unfortunate fact for you and your fellow Russians is democracies work. The most successful, the most prosperous, the most innovative countries are all democracies. It is a very simple and verifiable fact.

Additionally, governments don’t just magically fail; they fail because they become corrupt and can no longer carry out the functions of the state. Democracies have a better control corruption by making the political process competitive. There is nothing competitive about the Russian polity.

Thank you for another very clear example of the docile Russian nature. In the West even the mere allegation of that kind of corruption would cause consternation and Westerners would demand a full accounting and an open and transparent investigation. There would be no LOL. In Russia, it’s no big deal. In Russia it is a LOL.

Well it isn’t a matter of belief; it is a matter of fact. Apparently you don’t know the difference between belief and fact.

Yes, there is a big problem with corruption in Russia. A few paragraphs ago it was a big LOL. What happened? Every country has a problem with corruption. But as the previously referenced material indicates, Russia’s corruption is extraordinary in scope and magnitude. Additionally, selling former East German property isn’t evidence of corruption. As previously referenced, East and West Germany merged into one entity. The fact is Russia has a very corrupt government and the democracies of the West have the least corrupt governments. That’s another one of those facts you like to ignore.

Hmm, that looks like a Hail Mary pass. The US has a large military budget in nominal terms, but as a percent of GDP it isn’t that great. Russia spends a larger share of its GDP on its military than the US does. The US military budget has been shrinking while Russia’s has been growing.

With respect to ISIS, aside from dropping a few bombs, one successful raid to nab a high ranking ISIS official and training Iraqi military personnel the US is not fighting ISIS…oops…one of those facts again. The US doesn’t have a large or even a small contingent on the ground fighting ISIS. The US government has no interest in fighting ISIS. It’s an Iraqi problem. Iraq needs to put on their big boy pants and defend their country.

Poor US colony…? Where does that come from? Russia has never been a US colony. The US has never been a colonial power…oops, one of those nasty facts again. As I pointed out in my last post, it has been 24 years now and Russians are still emigrating in droves. So even if everything you said were true, which it isn’t, you still cannot account for the other 14 years and the continuing Russian emigration.

Well unlike you my friend I don’t need to believe anything. It is a simple matter of verifiable fact. I think we have established the fact you really don’t care about evidence and facts. I think this gets back to the docile Russian nature.

I have read Russian sources and I listen to Putin’s speeches and interviews.

The better question is do you read the Western press? You have clearly demonstrated your biases. It is painfully obvious that you use Russian state media to feed your cognitive biases, because you have no need for fact or evidence. As demonstrated in this post you just dismiss inconvenient facts with out evidence or reason.

That wasn’t an insult. It was one of those pesky facts.

You asserted this forum was full of political correctness. I asked you to define political correctness and for an example which you have yet to provide. I have been threatened by a few moderators when I have backed them into a corner but they have never banned me in over 8 years. The fact that we can have heated discussions in Sciforums kind of says your accusations of political correctness is full of shit.

Except Russia doesn’t have a democracy. Russia has what it has always had, rule by one party and one person. Russia is an autocracy, the US is not. The US has a functional democracy, Russia doesn’t. In the US there is real political competition. In Mother Russia, that doesn’t exist. In the US we have transparency and we have the rule of law, not the rule of a single man as in Russia.

And if you knew anything about America you would know there are important and many differences between Republicans and Democrats. The Democratic Party is a populists party whereas Republicans are more the party of the wealthy and older middle class whites.

LOL, yeah, I think you have been hitting the vodka my friend.

 

The book contains arguments which make sense.

Your repetitions of your antirussian prejudices does not make them correct. The Russians don't care much about laws. Been there, at places where following the laws I should have never been, all this together with my Russian friends who couldn't care less about this.

If you want a state where democracy really works, ok, there is Swiss. That's all - everything else is only controlled democracy, with not much differences between the Russian and the American variant.

The problem with corruption in poor states is that simply the payments of police are so small that they have to live from income by corruption. This is a problem which usually goes away with economic improvement - and it is simply a question of political will of the leadership. Because the low level corruption is quite easy to control. And, by the way, Russia has already reached in this domain a lot.

You have misunderstood me. "Nobody takes this seriously" was, it seems, a bad translation from German "das nimmt niemand ernst", which means nobody believes this nonsense. If Putin would have such billions of money on Western banks, he would be a docile Western puppet. Because else the West would simply confiscate his money.

It was at Jeltsin time. There is improvement, and there is also agreement that the improvement is too slow. But in the Jeltsin time, you would have to pay if stopped by a traffic cop, which is no longer necessary. And there were established tariffs, say, to get rid of an accusation worth around 2-3 years of prison you have to pay 10 000 $. This is also in the past. Now there are some serious cases with various Gouverneurs. In Crimea they have catched some ministers who have thought it is sufficient to switch sides but to continue the old Ukrainian schemes, not so.

In itself not. But what is widely known about how this has happened.

It has to, given that the US has seriously started a war on Russian border.

Of course, the US has preferred other methods to control its imperium. Real colonies are simply too expensive. The US prefers to control the political leaders and the oligarchs.

There is more immigration into Russia than emigration. "According to UN Population Division estimates, as of 2013, the Russian Federation was second only to the United States in the sheer number of immigrants." http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/russia-the-worlds-second-largest-immigration-haven-11053

Sometimes, but not regularly. Usually if I follow links to interesting articles. Regularly reading mass media would be a loss of time. Independent of the origin.

Yes, and I'm not interested to argue here about particular cases of political correctness. I have tried a slightly politically incorrect post, it was immediately censored, I have understood, point.

LOL. Heated discussions may happen about minor questions, and if heated discussions would be a criterion - Russian media are full of them. The question is about which questions heated discussions are possible. Unfortunately, there is no way to make an unbiased distinction between really important and unimportant questions. For example, I consider gay marriage as completely unimportant, purely symbolic politics, but in the really important question for or against a new Cold War I see no disagreement at all. There is a lot of discussion in Russia how to behave in the Ukraine, with a lot of people in favour of starting a war against the Kiew junta, and may accusing Putin for being much too docile in its relations with the West. In your opinion, these are not discussions at all.

LOL, the rule of law with Obama signing killing lists, with legal torture and Guantanamo. And laughable presidential elections between two guys who do in all essential questions almost exactly the same things.

And, just for your information, there are different parties in Russia, In the Duma, the "single party" has only 52.88% of the seats, a number which would be quite normal for the US too.

And the real political power is in above states in the hands of a hidden "deep state".

Of course, there are some differences, this is part of the show for the sheeple. The really wealthy support above parties.

 

Actually, it doesn’t. The book is a hot mess of disconnected irrational thoughts. In the US we have an old idiom that goes like this, birds of a feather flock together. Your reference of that book really says a lot about you. The author eschews democracy, just as you do. The author has NO evidence to back up his assertions, just like you. This man believes monarchy is preferable to democracy.

The unpleasant fact remains, democracies are much more successful, more prosperous, and more stable than any other form of government. The richest, happiest, most successful, most innovative, and most powerful nations are Western democracies. So as much as you want to run away from it, the facts are not going away.

But you do very clearly demonstrate my point here. You and the author of the book you reference prefer autocracies. You want someone to tell you what to think, how to think and what to do. Russians are indeed docile.

LOL, except facts and rational thoughts are not prejudices my friend. It helps to know the meaning of the words you use. A prejudice is an unfavorable opinion formed beforehand and without knowledge. That isn’t applicable here. My opinions are based on facts and reason…facts and reason which run counter to your beliefs and threaten those beliefs because your beliefs are not supported by fact and reason.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/prejudice

You claim of prejudice is a personal attack, which short of admitting your errors of fact and reason, is all you can do, because fact and reason do not support your beliefs.

And just what is a “state controlled democracy” exactly and what differentiates the Swiss? Why are the Swiss a democracy and Germany, France, UK or the US not?

And as previously explained, there are NO similarities between the US democracy and the Russian autocracy. Additionally, rule of law has meaning in the West, meaning the West follows its laws. Russia doesn’t. The West has a fragmented system of political power by design. That doesn’t exist in Russia, with the exception of a few years; it never has existed in Mother Russia. Putin has run roughshod over the Russian constitution.

Well you are attempting to change the subject and evade the evidence. The evidence shows Mother Russia to be one of the most corrupt countries on the planet. And, as usual, you have absolutely NO evidence to support your beliefs.

The best remedy for corruption is political competition and openness of government, things that do not exist in Mother Russia and certainly would not exist in your idealized autocracy.

No I understood you very well. I don’t think you understand. As I said before, even the rumor or accusation would have caused an independent and open investigation of the matter. That has not happened in Mother Russia. The West can do many things it hasn’t done. As of now, Putin has not exempted from Western sanctions. His fellow oligarchs have not been so favored and the reason for that is they don’t want a pissing session. They want Putin to act like a rational leader. The West hasn’t gone after Putin for the same reasons it didn’t go after the Japanese emperor in WWII.

How did this happen then? The bottom line here is you have NO evidence of German corruption related to the selling of public lands or at least you have offered No evidence of same. And even if you did, it really isn’t relevant. The fact is Russia is one of the most corrupt countries on the planet and Germany is not. Germany is among the least corrupt.

And what war would that be exactly and where is the credible evidence to support your beliefs? Let me guess, as with everything else, you have none. The fact is the US has not started a war on the Russian border. The fact is Russia has repeatedly invaded and annexed portions of neighboring states.

The fact is contrary to your statement, Russia has never been a US colony. The US has never been a colonial power. You were wrong. The US prefers stable successful states which are democratic and transparent and respect human rights.

Actually, that is more than a little misleading. If you look into the numbers, Russian immigrants were made immigrant status largely because Putin changed the definition of a Russian citizen by giving Russian citizenship to all former Soviet client states and by invading and annexing territory of neighboring states (e.g. Crimea). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Russia#Emigration_in_recent_years

“One measure of an economically secure homeland is women’s willingness to raise children with the expectation of opportunities for good health, education and livelihoods. On that front, Russia confronts a perfect storm – as fertility rates plummeted to 1.2 births per women in the late 1990s and now stand at 1.7 births per women. “Russia’s population will most likely decline in the coming decades, perhaps reaching an eventual size in 2100 that’s similar to its 1950 level of around 100 million,” write demographers Joseph Chamie and Barry Mirkin. The country has high mortality rates due to elevated rates of smoking, alcohol consumption and obesity. Investment on healthcare is low. Over the next decade, Russia's labor force is expected to shrink by about 15 percent. Other countries with low fertility rates turn to immigration to pick up the slack. While immigrants make up about 8 percent of Russia’s population, the nation has a reputation for nationalism and xenophobia, and fertility rates are even lower in neighboring Belarus, Ukraine and Lithuania, all possible sources of immigration.” – YaleGlobal

“The perfect demographic storm of comparatively high mortality, low fertility and emigration of well-educated professionals is increasingly burdening Russian society and its deteriorating economy. In addition to a shrinking labor force, mounting costs for its aging population and troubling premature deaths, especially among men, Russia is facing difficulties in filling critical jobs with largely unskilled non-Russian migrants, many working illegally in the country.
Throughout most of the second half of the 20th century, Russia’s population increased. Whereas the Russian population was slightly more than 100 million in 1950, it peaked at nearly 149 million by the early 1990s. Since then, the population has declined, and official reports put it at around 144 million.” YaleGlobal http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/russian-demographics-perfect-storm

 

Translation, you read articles which support your biases and avoid those which might challenge your beliefs.

Well fortunately you were not asked to argue about particular cases of “political correctness”. You were asked to define what you meant by political correctness and provide examples of same because you made broad and generalized accusations of political correctness. I think the bottom line here is that you either don’t know what political correctness is or its just demagoguery.

Oh, and what would be a “minor” question exactly? Here is the thing, like all demagogues, you like to miss use words. Just because you are not interested in something or just because the particular issue doesn’t support your beliefs, it doesn’t mean the issues are “minor”.
Russia has already started a war with Ukraine. Russian troops are already fighting in Ukraine. If you had been paying attention you would know prisoner swaps have occurred where Russian prisoners of war were exchanged for Ukrainian prisoners of war. I do not for one minute doubt Putin has incited the flames of nationalism within Russia and I know there are Russians who like Putin want to restore the old Soviet Union. That is why Russia has invaded and occupied and annexed former Soviet States (i.e. neighboring states).
My opinion is Putin is an unethical corrupt dictator. My opinion is there is discussion within Russia based on false and misleading information. My opinion is Russians have more ego than common sense. My opinion is dissent is not well tolerated in Russia. That is why Russia’s few dissidents wind up being murdered with exotic poisons, gunned down, or thrown into jail and their property confiscated by the state. And, unlike you, my opinions are grounded in evidence and reason.

Killing lists…and what lists would those be exactly? Where did Obama sanction torture? He hasn’t. Guantanamo is just a prison for battlefield detainees, nothing more, and nothing less. What’s wrong with Guantanamo other than it costs the US government a lot of money to operate?
Here is the thing you are good over making overly generalized statements which you cannot define in any meaningful way but not so good at making sense or making evidence based arguments. You thrive on ambiguity. How are US presidential candidates the same on all the “essential questions? And just what are these “essential” questions.
Democracies have open debates, dissidents don’t end up being poisoned with exotic poisons, or gunned down on the streets or being thrown into prison and having their wealth confiscated by the state.

There are 4 political parties of significance in Russia. Russia is a parliamentary form of government where ruling majorities are uncommon, collation governments are common. The US is does not have a parliamentary form of government…oops.
When have any of Russia’s 4 parties opposed Putin? There are 4 political parties represented in the Duma, yet the Russian Duma usually votes unanimously or nearly unanimously. When has there been any significant disagreement in Putin’s Duma?

And what is the “deep state”? The real political power is with Putin.

Just because wealthy individuals support parties it doesn’t follow they control everything or that the US does not have a democracy. People do vote and their votes do count. And we do have a free media. Unlike Russia the US media is free and open, unlike Russia people can and do protest and are critical of our government. You see arguments openly argued. You see people criticizing our elected officials and our government all the time and they don’t wind up dead or in gulags.

 

The author thinks that it is less evil than democracy. That's a difference. The argument about the time preference is a strong one. The argument that democracies tend to extend the state power much more than monarchies is also sound.

As usual, if somebody starts to name his prejudices facts, one can ignore them.

The US imperium was successful, indeed. But this success was based on free markets, while the competitors engaged in a stupid planned state-ruled economy.

Because of a very strong decentralization. In comparison, the "Federal" Republic of Germany is de facto an unitary state. Democracy can work on a small level, in greater states only in the case of very rigid decentralization. The US has had such a decentralization too, but this has been increasingly destroyed by the federal power. But this decentralization, together with free market, was the base of the success of the US.

You don't want to see them, that's all.

You mingle idealizing with considering something as less evil.

LOL. But I have to agree, in the modern "democracy" it is sufficient to remove a politician simply by rumor and accusation. This has been demonstrated in Germany using federal president Wulff, in France with Strauss-Kahn. If I would have been asked to say which German politician has the smallest probability of being corrupt, this would probably bee Wulff (from the leading parties, outsiders may have less corrupt politicians). And the investigations have found nothing. But the president is now a different one, much more pro-American.

I have also no evidence about corruption in other countries, except those where I have had to pay some bribes myself. I use different methods to evaluate the level of corruption. Up to now, this has worked for me. And these methods tell me, yes, there is more corruption in Russia than in Germany, always have been and always will be, because the Germans are extremely docile to the state, the LAW is Holy to them, while Russians are much less docile and much more open to f.... the laws of the state, and this naturally is not only about citizens, but also about local bureaucrats.

On the other hand, in the Jeltsin time - the few years of "democracy" - corruption was extremal, much larger than in Soviet times, comparable to the Ukrainian one, and also larger than today. Instead, corruption in the Ukraine has been and actually is increasing.

Providing "evidence" four you, who believes US media? This is comparable to providing evidence for the evil of communism to somebody who considers Brreshnew time Prawda as a reliable source. So I couldn't care less what you think. I simply tell you what seems plausible to me.

Learn to read. I repeat, the US imperium uses other methods to control its colonies, so they are formally independent states. And, yes, in the past the US has preferred to create stable successful states in the territories it has controlled. This was the base of success for the US empire: Germany, Japan, South Corea. But it has lost this ability. There was a quite long period where the results of establishment of US control have been neutral. The latest thing where something economically positive has been reached by an US-takeover was Pinochet's Chile. Today, if a territory goes under US control, it goes down into chaos and civil war, like Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Libya.

It has been the case from the start that those born in the Soviet Union can have Russian citizenship. There have been made some natural extensions to those born after the collapse, that's all.

 

No, I read what I think is interesting. Or do you think, for example, that Stratfor analyses are unable to challenge some of my beliefs?

I know what it is, but I'm not interested in discussing it with people who name their own ideological beliefs facts. The level of shit I receive here for defending Russians against the defamation of being docile is completely sufficient for my personal level of masochism.

This is exactly the critical point, with the result that one cannot use such questions as a base for a more or less objective exchange of arguments. I have named gay marriage as an example. This is not even important for many gays who do not plan to marry but prefer multiple partners, or those who do not care about the question if the state accepts them or not, which makes it, quite obviously, symbolic politics.

The discussion in Russia - about how to act toward the Ukraine - is, instead, quite obviously not a minor one. It is one about peace or war. It is about the long time consequences, about the survival of Russia.

But, anyway, I'm sure that you will continue to claim that in the US all the important questions can be discussed, and in Russia all have to follow Putin.

There has been a quite dubious story about 11 or so Russian soldiers who have been taken as prisoners and exchanged. With nobody seriously believing nor the Ukrainian nor the Russian version. Russia support Novorossia with weapons, and drill, symmetrical to the US which similarly supports the Ukrainian Nazis.

It has not. The Crimea has a strong enough Russian majority, which has take over the control after the anti-russian fascist coup in Kiew. All Russia has done was to support them, which prevented the start of a civil war already at that time. In Georgia, it was NATO-supported Georgia who has attacked South Ossetia and the Russian peacekeeping forces, and all Russia has done was to stop this aggression. South Ossetia and Abchasia have been independent moslemic states already before, but always with an uncertain border and a lot of attacks from the other side.

Full symmetry, my opinion is that discussion in the West is based on false and misleading information.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...uit-over-obama-administration-drone-kill-list

It was Bush who became famous for sanctioning torture. If it has really stopped under Obama's rule is far from clear, most people believe that this has been simply shifted to secret US prisons localized in other countries, so that officially US law no longer applies.

The detainees are not soldiers of some state the US is in war with, so, they are simply civilians imprisoned without any rights for a fair process as long as the US likes. Simply a classical concentration camp.

First of all, peace and war. No candidate, except for Ron Paul, has ever questioned the power of military-industrial complex, or the power of the secret services.

The last point seems to indicate that you classify the mafia boss Chodorkowski as a "dissident". LOL.

Google yourself. And I think there is, indeed, a difference - the Russian deep state is more open, closer to the open state. In this US, it is not that clear where the real political power is concentrated.

Feel free to believe into the facade. This is the only difference: In Russia, nobody takes the Duma opposition seriously. People know that democracy is only and can be only facade. You don't get it that this democracy game is only a facade for the sheeple.

 

Given that we have discussed the quality of Russian media, here an opinion about them: http://thesaker.is/they-are-also-heroes-of-novorussia-russia-and-even-the-world/

 

LOL, yeah that is just what the world needs, more state controlled Russian propaganda!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

It seems that the Greeks have rejected the measures proposed by the eu and the imf.

..............
IMF
We used to have a tv show wherein the parent agency went by that acronym.

 

Hmm, so you think that makes a difference…seriously? The bottom line here, the author (Hoppe) prefers monarchy to democracy. Just because something appeals to your cognitive biases, it does not make it “sound”. You and Hoppe have no evidence, only beliefs. More than that, the beliefs you and Hoppe hold run contrary to history and known facts…one of dem nasty details again. Hoppe blames democracy for what he calls “decivilization” since WWI. The fact is, more countries have never been wealthier and the standard of living has never been higher…oops. But you and Hoppe are not ones to let little things like evidence and reason get in the way of your beliefs. And the fact remains; the wealthiest, the healthiest, and the highest standards of living are all unique to democratic countries.

LOL, I think you need to go back and look up the meaning of the word prejudice. J As I said before fact and reason are not prejudice (i.e. pre judging)…another one of those pesky details.

Ok, so you are infatuated with the word “imperium”. The subject was the success of Western democracies, not just the US. The unfortunate fact for you is the democracies have been far more successful by virtually any measure than the autocracies you and your fellow Russians so adore.

You were asked a very specific question. You said Switzerland was the only Western democracy. I asked you to explain why Switzerland was a democracy and the US and other Western countries are not. I am not looking for more of your beliefs, I am looking for some very specific differences which would lead a rational person to your conclusions, something you have yet to do.

LOL, well it might help if they existed because then you could point them out. This is just one of the many challenges which have been put to you and which you have evaded answering. Contrary to your beliefs the US democracy isn’t in anyway like the Russian government. For starters, the US government has three separate but equal branches of government. Unlike Russia, no one party or individual has absolute power in the American system of government. The US has a long tradition of democracy, Russia doesn’t. In the US there are many competing special interests, in Russia there is only one special interest, Vladimir Putin. Unlike Russia, in the US we do not have a state owned and controlled media. Unlike Russia, we in the US are almost always critical of our government and leaders. The US doesn’t send journalists to prison for being critical of its leaders, in Russia they do (e.g. journalist Vladimir Rakhmankov).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Russia

No, what I did was say, and I’ll repeat it once again for your edification, the best remedy for corruption is transparency and competition interests. Competition and knowledge are pretty powerful. Mother Russia lacks both.

Well you look at what others have found and Russia, as previously cited, is one of the most corrupt of countries, and Germany is one of the least corrupt. More than that the most corrupt countries are the most autocratic countries (e.g. Mother Russia) and the least corrupt are Western democracies.

Well, I use multiple sources of information. You use one source; the Russian state owned and controlled media. The same state controlled sources which have told a number of lies. You believe a source which has been repeatedly exposed for its fibs.

 

LOL, perhaps you should take your own advice. But your problem is not your reading skills per se, but rather your cognitive skills. As I said before the US has never been a colonial power. Please do name these US colonies. Your use of the word colony is inappropriate. The US doesn’t have colonies, it never has. The US doesn’t control its allies as Russia controlled its client states. The territories the US has rebuilt are now independent democracies. They are often at odds with the US (e.g. France). One case in particular if France, even though the US along with the UK and other Allies liberated France, and rebuild France, France has consistently gone its own way numerous times. The US is often at odds with its Allies (I assume you think they are its colonies).

Further, Afghanistan is now a much more successful and peaceful place today than it was before US troops invaded and took out the Taliban. The lights are on; it has a government, a democracy. It has its own troops who continue to fight the Taliban. Afghanistan is no longer a pariah state living a medieval existence. Women now have rights they didn’t have.

In the case of Iraq, they now have a civil government, a democracy. Their economy is now growing and prospering. However, tribal conflicts remain, and that is something Iraq has to work out. It’s not something an outside power can impose upon them. The Sunni and Shite communities need to learn to live together in peace. And Iraq and Afghanistan are still works in process. US troops remain in both countries, to advise and assist. Those countries still need to learn. You seem to have difficulty in understanding, unlike Russia, the US doesn't dictate to states it has rebuilt.

As for Somalia and Libya, the US never invaded Somalia or Libya nor did it ever attempt to reconstruct those countries. What it did do was to send troops as part of a UN contingent to protect aid shipments in Somalia. In Libya, at the request of NATO nations, conducted a few bombing raids and coordinated NATO air attacks. But no ground troops were sent into Libya. It’s those pesky details again. Perhaps if you go your information from sources other than Russian state controlled news sources you would know those things.

Well actually, as I pointed out in my last post, it’s more than that. It’s a loosing of the definition of who is a Russian citizen and military conquest (e.g. Crimea). Putin’s invasion and annexation of Crimea alone gave him over 2 million more “citizens” and then there is Georgia where Putin invaded and annexed land and citizens.

And the bottom line is the Russian population has been in decline for a long time and for a number of reasons and there has been a huge migration of Russians out of Mother Russia and that migration continues.

The bottom line here is that dissent isn’t well tolerated in Russia and Russians are indeed docile. What Putin does and gets by with, would never fly in the West.

 

Have you other arguments than naming arguments beliefs and "appeals to cognitive biases"?

The fact that you see no difference between civilization and standard of living and wealth is evidence for decivilization.

Because the autocracies which I do not adhere - communists - have severely fighted against the free market, which has, of course, severely decreased their success. Instead, most non-communist or anti-communist autocracies have been US puppets (in Latin America) or remained puppets of their former colonial power.

I have named the important difference, decentralization. Formally, there is no difference. Swiss becomes more and more EU- and US-dependend, they have given up the economic base of their success (free banking).

There is also no transparency in the US. Except, maybe, the transparency of everybody to NSA surveillance.

This is correct about the low level corruption. Not about the highest level corruption.

I don't use Russian TV at all, as well as any other TV, because I simply don't use TV, which is a device for the stupid. And I use multiple sources of information. All of them are in the internet, I don't spend money for paper at all. So, standard mass media from above sides I see only accidentally, if linked by the internet sources I prefer.