Russia is losing points in the tech innovation category, but is definitely leading in the autocracy innovation.
As Sergei Guriev (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergei_Guriev) pointed out, the regime will perish when government will have to pay too much for the information war and the population simple won't be able to satisfy their basic needs (empty fridge).
The information war is a lot cheaper than the Cold War was. They seem to be making a significant profit from insider trading, manipulating markets, and selling military arms.
It's hard to see a negative end-game to the Russian story in the short term.
The biggest threat seems to be a disorganized power grab after Putin retires or kicks the bucket - but I suspect they have a secret succession plan for that.
As a Russian national sharing most of anti-Putin sentiments I can tell that Guardian tends to provide an oversimplified picture of Russia.
Most importantly this very article misses the fact that there were many actors in Russian political theatre at the time when Putin became prime minister.
For instance, the article tells nothing about the involvement of oligarch Boris Berezovsky in the coup.
But yes, I get your point, reading fairy tales is far more entertaining than reading chronicles.
Given all these inaccuracies in this advertising artice I don't feel too much convinced. I'd recommend everyone reading the book by Paul Khlebnikov https://books.google.de/books?id=vb2ZAAAAIAAJ&redir_esc=y which gives a detailed insider view on Russian politics of that era. BTW, writing this book has costed the guy his life. As for "Putin's People" it looks like an another unwitting attempt to cash in on anti-Putin hysteria.
Interesting wording. Russia used to scare me in the context of nuclear war, but the fact that Putin's influence is now controlling Trump and the GOP (and elsewhere), I feel rightfully frightened.
What if it doesn't? Would I be able to get my money back?
Just as I've said, mentioning Sergei Pugachev and not mentioning Boris Berezovsky in one article looks strange. I totally get it why Pugachev is being mentioned: he's been advertising himself ever since leaving Russia.
OTOH Berezovsky's dead so books about his influence might not sell well.
Fun fact: it's Pugachev's own claim he was the architect of the coup https://www.bbc.com/russian/uk/2015/07/150724_brit_press
Part of the continuing British infowar against Russia.
If you want to understand how modern Russia came to be, start with Paul Klebnikov’s Godfather of the Kremlin. Klebnikov, who was in fact murdered for his fearless journalism, very likely by said Godfather, Boris Berezovsky. Berezovsky, who received shelter, protection and more from the UK.
"a groundbreaking study..." hm, I'm left wondering what's groundbreaking in this article. It's all accurate and well known information and barely scratched the surface. If anyone learned anything reading this, they are simply not knowing Russia beyond Hollywood movies.
The teaser shall have been simply more exciting (if there is really something groundbreaking). Reading well known "facts" is not going to make buy this book...
Putin and his friends do a pretty decent job of running an old-school oligarchy. That's not really the problem, there is nothing groundbreaking in their approach.
The problem is that the "Western" bloc (if there ever was such a thing, really) is currently ruled by elites that fundamentally share those values: weak collective institutions, strong private corporations, the bottom line as the final measure of virtue, and exploitation of the weak as socially acceptable. That means "we" end up fundamentally unable to oppose putinism on a principle basis, let alone in practice.
That's how we end up with what the study reports: Western interests fundamentally welcome Putin's money and influence on a systemic level. "We" now run the world on gangster capitalism, and Putin is fairly good at playing that game. In fact, we will see more and more Putin-like figures appearing as time goes on.
Unless we significantly change the game, Putin will keep winning.
I see your point with respect to the US, there's a very corporatist oligarchic tendency on the right, but I really don't see that in Europe at all. Europe has gone to great lengths to stand up to corporations, and that includes many European conservatives of which I count myself one. There's a much broader acceptance among moderate European conservatives that regulation is essential to well functioning market economies for example.
In terms of facing up to Putin though, despite the fact that European governments, and as a result the EU, are less corporatist than the US they also tend to be softer on Putin. The Germans particularly, for example their support for the Russian gas pipeline.
Meanwhile the US has tended to want to be much tougher on Putin. In this respect Trump is an outlier. He definitely does seem to see Putin as a kindred sprit personally and seems incapable of dealign with him effectively, but this is not at all representative of Republican policy and attitude towards Putin over the last few decades. If anything it was the Democrats who tended to be over-optimistic about the chances of rapprochement with Russia as in the failed "reset' of relations under Obama.
So yes there are definitely corporatist oligarchic forces in the west that bear comparison with the Russian system, but I see them as mainly being US based not western in general. However that doesn't make them natural allies with Russian oligarchism, rather they're directly competitive power structures. Their similarities can potentially make them less compatible with each other not more. If they were to work out how to become compatible with each other we'd really be in terrible trouble.
Well, Merkel is "pro-business". Even she said auto dealers could reopen after a few weeks of lockdown, because of the German car lobby (it's sort of defensible if one considers automotive jobs are a big chunk of voters too). Meanwhile LuxLeaks is about tax breaks/evasion to the biggest corporations.
Sadly, with this sort of elite, populists have it easy...
Republicans are anti-Russian from a military perspective, because some of their traditional interests are rooted in that industrial area and will always benefit from a heightened state of military urgency. That's the "John Bolton" wing, basically, which is mad at Trump for squandering their best opportunities of payday (you can't sell weaponry without an enemy, and it's hard to get a credible enemy when the key guy is so friendly to all the best candidates). That drives a lot of their other objections to Putin's reach.
From an economic perspective, imho they display the same oligopolistic tendencies that Putin's Russia exhibits: lip service to competition and open markets (mostly abroad), ruthless devotion to monopolistic positions and cartels at home. The definition of "free markets" is declined differently depending on circumstances, in opportunistic fashion. I think that's what you mean by "competitive power structures" - they are competing entities, sure, but I personally don't see them as particularly different in the way they behave. Trump lays this bare by dropping the hypocrisy: him and Putin speak the same language, in the same way Putin and Berlusconi did. Both Trump and Berlusconi spent their lives in the trenches of "the Market". I don't think this is a coincidence.
I also disagree on the view of Europe being significantly more anti-corporatist than the US, but I admit that my Anglo-Italian view might be excessively pessimistic in that area and it's a complex discussion anyway, so I won't go there. However, the difference in "softness" towards Putin imho is not there - the Eastern block in the EU, for example, is rabidly anti-Russian for understandable reasons. We simply know that we cannot live without Russian energy at the moment, and that results in some hard pragmatism.
Read the book. Pay attention to how russian money flow into London, the English elite and the conservative party there. Putin got at least one of his people /very/ close to Boris Johnson.
Europe may pretend to have principles, something USA seems to have given up upon, but in the end, - for a huge part of the ruling class - it's all about the money.
Oh I’m sure there are plenty of people in the west who would like it to be all about the money, Trump for example looks at the corrupt oligarchic system in Russia and sees huge commercial opportunities, it’s right up his street. The trouble is the Russians keep insist on playing their stupid Cold War spy, assassination and destabilisation games mucking things up.
The rate of Putin's acceptance has dropped by factor of 2 since 2015. I think the ease of information exchange is the game-changer.
The point you're missing is that Russian gangsters've made some terrible decisions (from economic perspective) and now the only voters they only get old people who only have TV access.
Which is still enough to manipulate elections, but I don't think it's going to continue forever.
EDIT: There is also another social group that supports Putin. "Siloviki" and their families, which happens to be >1% of Russian population.
> gangsters've made some terrible decisions (from economic perspective) and now the only voters they only get old people who only have TV access.
In America, that's an electable majority. Bit of voter suppression and making sure that it's difficult for working age people to vote just helps to push it over the line.
Even more so in the UK, where 44% of the vote share gives total control.
I would not compare election quality of "Russia" with UK/US. For example, now we have a voting procedure during pandemics where nobody wants to go not to get infected with corona. But the old people get their voting papers home delivered by pro-Putin activists (Good targeting). It's also not rare for police to arrest key people from opposition and for us to see videos of voting stations based on the stump (literally) in the countryside.
In US you have whole war of Facebook not handling AI enough and your "branches of power" do somewhat work. For sure you have your own problems, but Russia is on another level.
Or what Paul Krugman (and Matthew Yglesias) surmised: https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/02/09/greece-the-tie-... ; when Greece got a bunch of left "radicalists" into power, it got the elite to bully mode, because usually (prime) ministers could be offered cushy European gigs as long as they do what the "elite" wants, but the non-tie-wearing Greeks actually wanted to save their population.
The book "Adults in the Room" by Yanis Varoufakis is also an eye opener...
Well, Putin is a trained spy. As I read Viktor Suvorov books, I see, that Soviet Union provided decent training and these people know how to reach their goals.
Putin is hated outside of Russia but is loved in Russia, because he cares about Russian interest first.
Russia is the biggest country in the world. Has so many natural resources so has always been coveted by Empires: The French one and the German, now the US and financial elites Empire.
It also counterweights US military power, something the US does not tolerate, they need to to destroy it like Roman Empire had to destroy Carthage in order to secure its hegemony.
The president of Russia that would make US media happy is the kind of president that would make Russian people unhappy. A puppet from foreign powers.
They want to break Russia in 10 or 20 pieces so they become much weaker and they can benefit bidding against each other.
Your arguments are deeply flawed and based in dogmatism, not data. Western interest does not welcome Putin's money, Russia has very little money compared with Europe, the US and even China, it is a poor country.
They care about energy and resources because in Germany people can not survive in Winter without energy. Is that simple. The industry also could not survive.
Oh, and by the way the Russian also have nuclear weapons that could destroy Western countries in seconds. That also gives them influence.
Nothing to do with capitalism. Several European countries spend more money in the public sector than in the private one, so you can call them socialist instead.
With either socialism or capitalism, in Germany or Sweden you get -30 C in Winter. I was raised in a country with -(1-5)C and it is a completely different league.
I am not Russian myself but completely understand their position.
Russian money is absolutely welcome over here - London is positively awash with it, from “Chelski” on down. It got to a point where laws had to be passed to stop the worst excesses (if one’s wealth is “unexplainable” now the UK government can crack down on it) and maintain a shred of decency. The post-Crimea sanctions annoyed a lot of people over here, I can assure you. Russia might be poor but Russian oligarchs are definitely not, and they do business like any other global oligarch does.
As someone who works in Russia for a few months every year, to say that Putin is loved by Russia is the same as saying Trump is loved by America. Putin has a base.
Germany was not really a democracy in 1917. It was nominally a constitutional monarchy under the Kaiser, with a very limited parliamentary system elected by male sufferage that could pass budgets but little else. By the end of the war - before the Kaiser abdicated - it was pretty much a defacto military dictatorship run by the General Staff.
Seeing how and where Kerenskij directed Russia after the february coup, we can safely say that Russia would be non-existent. Just like Ottoman or Habsburg empires, that disappeared at the same time.
I’m often wondering if Putin is, in fact, the most powerful person in the world by a very large margin. He might not have a billion people or a space force, but he plays everyone like a fiddle.
Russia has been severly weakened by democratic Europe. They have lost an insane amount of area since the fall of USSR and Europe has never been "closer" to Moscow, their capital.
They are now getting punished for actions of last resort. Eg. Invading Ukraine, because otherwise their entire naval fleed would be rendered useless, since it couln't even go out.
Russia is weak, although Putin tries to portray it like it isn't. The conflicts they create (eg. with their jets) is just for the show, they can't even afford it to build those jet en masse for themselves, lol.
Are they really getting punished for Ukraine though? My impression is that Europe by and large does almost nothing, partly out of fear of getting cut of from Russian gas. There are some economical sanctions, yes, but do they hurt Russia? More than they hurt Europe's farmers?
If there's any punishment, it certainly is not effective. Russia still occupies large parts of Ukraine (even some areas outside of the Crimea).
Russia had a GDP per capita of $16,007 in 2013. In 2014 Russia annexed Crimea. In 2016 Russia's GDP per capita was $8,745. This drop was twice as great as the 2008 economic crisis. It has recovered from it somewhat, but it'll take time to get back up again. Keep in mind though that other countries did have a dip in GDP per capita in 2015 as well, but nowhere near the same level as Russia.
GDP per capita PPP did drop as well. More than after the 2008 crisis, but they have recovered from it by now.
It definitely seems like Russia is economically in trouble. How much of this is from sanctions is hard to tell though.
They're still dependent, but so is Russia on those profits. Right after the sanctions started they tried to sell this gas to China, but didn't get a good deal on that.
I’m always confused when I see people cheering for sanctioning other nations. Is it pleasant to know that people are suffering, having done nothing wrong?
I think it’s a global issue. Pretty sure almost everyone has had these thoughts when reading a news article about some wrongdoing of a foreign government and thought “why don’t we just nuke those Reds?”, “why can’t we just come and take over the North Korea”, “that’s it, it’s time to show those damn Iranians who’s the boss on this planet”.
The media has evolved to take advantage of our emotional response. Hate seems to be the most useful one.
Nuking is unrelated to the discussion. I will never promote an actual war.
Russia is meddling in foreign affairs, invading Ukraine, uselessly threatening Europe, trying to spread misinformation and killing other people in foreign countries ( London, Germany, ... )
Even now, Russia is trying to influence/take-over Ukrains news agency.
This is not about conspiracy theories, these are plain facts.
And for this, Russia deserves to be punished. And Russians should realize it is Putin's fault.
We have been too soft on Russia for too long and the problems are just increasing. The soft approach isn't helping anymore.
Edit: new from an hour ago. Nuclear radiation spike. Guess who it is... Again...
Russia is not the only country under the US sanctions. It always ends the same way — the government is largely unaffected, the people die in poverty. Sometimes they die because of the lack of medical equipment. It’s hard for them to leave because other countries are not eager to welcome them.
It’s not war, but there end up being millions of casualties. Understandably, a country values its interests above the lives of foreigners. It all looks like a world-scale trolley problem.
Do you have an alternative to sanctions? I agree they aren't particularly effective, but they seem to be the "kindest" of actions you can take against an oppressive government that might lead to a civilian uprising.
History is rife with examples of failures to stop oppressive regimes. Hell, look at North Korea. We fought a war, we've tried sanctions, we've tried lifting sanctions. Sure, they are propped up by China, but what else could be done to improve the lives of civilians there?
I have no solution to that. The thing that consistently makes me sad is when people attribute the decisions of a government to all its citizens. There are 7b people on this planet, at least 2 of them cannot influence their governments in a meaningful way.
Would you rather stand nearby and do nothing when Hitler was starting to kill and occupy?
Well, Russia is doing exactly the same now.
Russia took part of Ukraine, Russia is killing Ukrainians as we speak ... and they plan to do more ...
Would you prefer that 'love' attitude toward all kinds of scumbags?
Thanking US for stopping another dictator-sick-head. From your question and history of your comments I can presume that your empathies are with dictators and other scumbags. This is of course how it should be for a proper Russian propaganda. It's well established tradition of Russia to protect all sorts of scumbags and dictators. Also Russia started a WWII with their ally Hitler together attacking Poland.
Saddam got what he deserved, but the people of Iraq didn't deserved what came to them -- about half a million deaths[1] and later the rise of ISIS. Total number of people dead in the aftermath of American invasion is now bigger than the number of Saddams victims.
Do you know that the US supported Saddam in his war of agression against Iran? [0] Saddam could've been hanged much earlier and countless lives could've been saved if not for American support of scumbag and dictator.
As for WW2, please read about the Munich agreement.[2]
I’m simply against the “let’s go kill all $nation_name” attitude. It’s totally fine to take action against scumbags. I don’t think it’s fine to extend the hate onto the whole nation.
I don't think he's saying that Russia is the most powerful country in the world, I think he's saying that as an individual person, Putin is more powerful than any other individual person. I guess the main question would be "is Putin with total control of a less powerful country more powerful than the US president with carefully defined control of a more powerful country?"
I'm implying on the : "he plays everyone like a fiddle".
The sanctions against Russia are still in place and it seems to be working. It will only get worse when Trump will ( probably) lose. Their ally is China and they are the weak partner on that end and China knows it.
Additionally, Russia is probably getting an extra "big reward" in the coming year for their meldding in the western world.
He's managed to keep sole control of Russia for 20 years, and probably made himself one of the wealthiest people in the world, so he's definitely playing fiddle for a lot of people
At this point he's a prisoner of his own making. Yes he has personal wealth to last generations, but there is no clear path for him to retire and quietly step aside for a younger successor. Even during late Soviet times there was always a slightly fitter and younger General Secretary to take over, but it's unclear how this would happen in modern Russia without a bloody power struggle. A strong leader at this point would be trying to build a legacy of consitutional, democratic (or even quasi-democratic) rule of law that would outlast him. I doubt Putin could achieve this now even if he wanted to; so instead he fixes the consitution to make himself President for life and let Russia fall apart when he dies.
Franco won the civil war in 1939 and did not really plan for succession until 30 years later. Spain didn't fall apart (and it could have - apart from the usual oligarchic strife, they even had competing claims to the stooge-like monarchy Franco had installed). So hey, maybe it will work out. Mugabe lasted into his 90s and died in his bed, the country did not break more than he had already broken it.
Putin had plan to make himself and his friends richest people in the world. According to this plan, Gazprom must be valuated at $1T at the end of 2016[0].
He might be the most powerful in current soviet union that is CIS.
However I fail to see how he can be the most powerful in the world given that USA surpasses russia in both military and economic might (which are pretty much the same thing if you think about it). Russia has no answer to sanctions and those counter-sanctions are just a delusion. USA can make many other countries respect the sanctions due to dollar being universal currency.
There's also China which is simply too populous to challenge for anyone.
I think that GP point might be about being able to direct the military and economic might. The US is surely ahead in terms of numbers... but even if they wanted to stop any military involvement in the middle east tomorrow, and pull back from NATO, there'd be a lot of push-back and it would heavily disappoint its allies.
Compare with Russia: they have some involvement in Syria (and other places, I'm sure), but if they'd pull back from Syria, I'm not sure who else besides Assad would complain. From this point of view, their hands might not be as tied as the US'
I agree that Russia counter-sanctions can be just a delusion, but I think that another interesting point is that sanctions aren't biting as hard as they could've in Russia, due to their massive reduction in public debt:
Russia's economy is the sum of 3 countries in Europe ( I think France, Belgium and Netherlands would do) and they
redirect an insane amount of their GDP % to military.
But even then their army is ancient and mostly predates the fall of Soviet Union.
>But even then their army is ancient and mostly predates the fall of Soviet Union.
>Post link to aircrafts stats only
While it is true that Russia is behind the other major players on modernisation - russian military does get new toys quite often these days on a stable basis.
Same goes for upgrading old T-72 tanks for example. What's the point of building armada of Armata if modernised T-72 has basically the same capabilities as T-90 which is more than enough in most scenarios? T-72 Where used in Ukraine and Russia was able to get enough data from operations to do some improvements to the machines and even to upgrade the majority of them even before the 'hot' part of the conflict was over for them.
Also how did you count the size of the economy exactly?
You can use wolfram alpha to get their GDP and re-calculate my statement.
And considering Russia is marketing their Jets heavily to everyone, i think the aircraft stats are enough to make it obvious how ancient their army actually is ( majority is ~ 50 years old).
Disclaimer: I'm no politician or economist, but while I do believe the US has military superiority still, they won't be able to wage a large scale war at the moment; they simply cannot afford it. They would have to take out even more loans, and right now the US' money lenders are the UAE and China; given that they are both close to Russia, they may opt to not lend money to fund the US' wars. And even without the threat, they may opt to not lend the money because the US will never be able to pay it back.
I suspect WW3 is kept at bay not because of MAD anymore, but because of financial interests. If a country decides "fuck it, we'll forfeit this debt", we'll likely see more armed conflicts.
I don't see Russia opting for a conflict though, they too cannot afford it. Not unless they're backed by a well-to-do country like China.
I don't believe China would become a direct aggressor either, if they would, then their economy would quickly grind to a halt due to sanctions and import stops from the US and Europe. They'd probably a proxy like North Korea.
70% of US debt is owned by American citizens. I do agree with the premise of nobody going to war because they can't afford it. The only caveat I would add would that America tends to do pretty well when armed conflicts happen as they supply the world with weapons
Putin is dangerous because he realised that in the Internet age, you can do incredible damage to a country with social media messaging, hacking, and bribery.
The US has been using the media like this for decades, but it's always been considered a side game. Russia has made it a primary mode of attack - partly because it's vastly cheaper and more effective than spending extreme sums of money on super-weapons.
So we know that Putin has been financing the subversion of social democracy and the promotion of far-right nationalist narratives in the US and the EU through a combination of direct funding, social media troll farming, and straightforward financially advantageous diplomacy - and possibly also direct election hacking, although so far that's been harder to prove.
The UK has been almost destroyed by this. It's a shell of the country it was when the century started, and the poison of Brexit hasn't even worked its way fully through the system yet.
I expect I'll get the usual downvotes for posting this out, but the downvoters might want to address the points made here before they waste their time on that:
I do not understand why people downvote you if they are sincere to the truth. You points are correct and what West doesn't realise is that Putin is at war with West civilisation. He acts like it's a war and he thinks in terms of war. People do not realise, because it seems crazy to create war when there is no need for it, but this is exactly why they loose, because Putin uses it for his advantage. I just hope people would wake up and understand how serious threat is.
The difference being that we suspect Putin has pretty much total control over his empire, whereas a US president for example operates with checks and balances
The US is trying to grab it; they're actively threatening with sanctions to dozens companies that are building a new gas pipeline at the moment (https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=nl&tl=en&u=https%3...), and they're successful in that some companies have backed out. The pipeline is already mostly finished though. But basically the US is trying to stop it because it'll reduce the dependency of Europe on American resources.
Or you could think of it as the US helping (some of) its NATO allies in Europe. Poland, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania have been vocally against Nord Stream 2. Just because Western Europe is for it doesn't mean all the other countries in Europe are as well. Even the previous president of the European Council came out against it.
He does not play everyone like a fiddle because he is just one man and there are a million things requiring Control in the world. By the time he makes a move a million new things have happened. Ofcourse he has a network but that network suffers from the same flaw.
So its all illusion of control. Easier to achieve among some parts of the population when anyone who points it out gets killed.
But don't mistake it for control. He has lot of buttons he can push but what Outcomes he produces is all bullshit. The world is too complex and even Putin has a 7 inch head which can't fit in all of it.
I beg to differ. Putin's law school thesis was "The Most Favored Nation Trading Principle in International Law." Granted, that may be slightly better than "Tentative Study of Agricultural Marketization", but both are only theses, not a full book: "The Art of the Deal."
Saying that Khordokovsky was "no saint" is...an understatement. He refused to pay tax in Russia, he was charged in the US for money laundering resulting from one of the largest tax fraud schemes ever, he was the main money launderer for Russian organised crime, he was involved in massive political corruption (it is forgotten today, the reason why Yukos was targeted was all of the above...Western investors, Bill Browder, worked with Putin to take Khordokovsky down), he got "his start" by stealing a bank from the state and paying bribes to win rigged auctions (an idea suggested by Western economic consultants, even well after it was apparent they were being rigged). Khordokovsky lived by the sword, and died by it.
To suggest that Putin was immensely powerful from the off and schemed his way into the Presidency is also not true. It took him nearly half a decade to build a power base. The corruption and incompetence around Yeltsin was also very real (it is amazing how almost every Western accounts ignores this), elections were rigged, big donations from foreigners were produced (one even went to pay state pensions before an election), and this was a govt run by oligarchs around Berezovsky (all of whom refused to pay tax and controlled the media, all of whom fled to the UK and were sheltered by the govt...which wasn't particularly smart). Not to mention that Yeltsin was then basically dead on his feet (he had heart surgery, was polling near 0%, and the corruption against him was basically proven).
If you want to understand Putin, you have to understand the 1990s (funnily enough, 1998 isn't mentioned...it never is, a financial crisis triggered by bad advice from the West doesn't fit the narrative).
Btw, this isn't to say that Putin isn't corrupt, etc. But it is to say that West reaped what it sowed in Russia. Bad economic advice (amazingly, some involved are regarded as economic experts of great gravitas and wisdom) and hitching our star to Yeltsin were errors (inevitably and accurately, Russians believe the West is hypocritical...Yeltsin's corruption was fine because he was "our man"). And say what you will but when Putin came to power, Russia's economy had basically imploded, there was essentially a civil war going on, the oligarchs were paying no tax, and looting everything that wasn't nailed down. He ended that (and btw, he won great plaudits from the West for this until he took over Yukos) and brought some measure of stability that Yeltsin was nowhere close to achieving (again, largely because the purpose of his govt was to be run by the West and oligarchs looking to loot Russia...Putin was focused on what was good for Russia).
I am not sure why journalists push this narrative either. Everything doesn't need to be characterised as good or bad. It isn't binary. Putin is a function of the system that exists in Russia, and the situation that he inherited. Russia isn't like the West. To expect that it should be or judge him solely by those standards may feel comfortable but it makes no logical sense.
Yeltsin was in power during a period when people in Russia and outside thought that Russia can be a liberal free market democracy. Of course that was never going to happen, and will not happen in our lifetime or the next.
Whatever advice he got was useless as it never could be applied to Russia and they did not even try. They just stole whatever they could.
As Chernomyrdin said: We wanted to make it better but it ended up as usual.
Putin also did what was good for Putin and reestablishment of the empire. Problem of course is that as great player as he is Russia is still in deep trouble. Reckoning when it come will be terrible.
Russia has been more sinned against than sinning. Gorbachev was lied to and manipulated with assurances of a "Marshall -like plan" to get him to dissolve the Soviet Union. During the Yeltsin years the West literally had advisors dictating every aspect of the Political, Economic and Monetary recovery plans in the newly formed countries. Belarus, Ukraine and Kazakhstan were persuaded to give up their nukes in exchange for economic/monetary help. The result? They have been made irrelevant on the world stage and nobody cares about them anymore. Luckily Russia escaped worse fate and is now hitting back. Since then the entire Western media has been whipping up Russo-phobia everywhere.
I live in Kazakhstan. We are irrelevant to the world because we have very weak economy and terrible, all-pervading corruption, not because we don't have nukes. If we had them, they would probably have been sold to some terrorist groups out there already.
One day I hope to come to your country and travel on horseback.
I don't know if there really are forests of apple trees that grow apples I'd need two hands to hold, but if it's true I want to ride through in spring when the trees are in blossom. The few Kazakh people I've mentioned this too, have dismissed the idea with phrases like 'don't bother, it's an ex soviet strongman kleptocracy shit hole with las vegas architecture.'
But I'm hanging onto the hope that in any country, city people don't really know much about the world beyond where the paved roads end.
I've spent quite a bit of time in the sticks. You won't find any "Las Vegas architecture" outside of the capital city (which I avoid calling by its new name). The rest of the country looks very, very different.
This kind of thing is possible starting in eastern Turkey and continues in the rural areas going east. I don't know about security, is probably ok, who knows. But you should do it now, don't wait.
Thanks Sitkack, I have four children. So my adventures are on hold for a bit, and while the risk of this journey may be increasing year on year, in 15 years when the youngest is an adult, my willingness to take on risk is going probably go back up quickly. What I'd really love to do is travel east to west and cross into Mongolia. How important is the radioactive contamination from nuclear testing in along the border?
Nothing I would call "groundbreaking", but I do salute the warning about Russia's money and influence being happily accepted by the west right now. As somebody who grew up in communist eastern europe I fear this russian strategy apparent success.
A completely corrupt regime which puts incredibly little value on human rights is agitating people in the west with accounts of (comparatively ) minor incidents and imperfections in western systems and institutions. This includes a lot of things from anti EU sentiments to racial tensions. And it's working if you ask me.
A completely corrupt regime which puts incredibly little value on human rights in it's country. We (as in NATO, but mostly done by the executor of NATO, the US) don't really care about human rights globally either, but we're very adapt at pretending to when it's to our advantage, e.g. when we can use it to mobilize the population against China, or Russia. We're also very good at looking away when it's about our allies or our wars.
I don't know whether "it" is working and if it is, how successful it is. I believe that it's a colossal mistake to say "well, there is anti EU sentiment, so Putin's strategy is successful" as if that sentiment couldn't exist without any outside influence. The same goes for racial tensions, they are not a new thing at all, and they go back to before Putin was born, so to ascribe them (in full or in significant part) to Russian influence is questionable at best.
Here is my take: I'm sure there are Russian intelligence operations. I'm also convinced that they aren't "behind it all". Much like we did with the civil war in Syria (that is: provide money, guns, and training, because we wanted Assad gone), they are adding a bit of oil to the fire, but they can't start something where there is nothing to start a fire with.
This whole "it's Russian propaganda, you're a bot/paid shill" bit, that also get thrown around on HN on relevant posts, is just a lazy way to silence dissent, and usually followed up with "the moderators should look into the posting patterns and ban these people". I'm sure the moderators would disclose it if it happened, and they haven't, so my money is on there being no such thing here, but still people believe in it, because it's an easy explanation for the experience of people disagreeing with them.
The same, I believe, is true in society in general. If people can just hand-wave away different opinions with "ah, the Russian influence has created a movement", they're happy to do so, because it allows them to not question whether the other side might have a point. The Russians do the same, only to them it's American Agents that have infiltrated Russia and want to harm the Russian people.
After living under the east and west influence there is little doubt which one is better as regards to human rights, standards of living, levels of corruption. To say the other side has the same problems is true but highly misleading. It's like saying both a mouse and an elephant have mass.
Same for internal tensions in the west. Sure they exist regardless of Putin and Russia, but it's the size of problem that matters. Extremists without critical mass can't do much harm. A small fire can go out on it's own, but adding gasoline is a clear significant issue.
The last part about calling the other side shills don't interest me much. Internet drama.
> After living under the east and west influence there is little doubt which one is better as regards to human rights, standards of living, levels of corruption.
I'm not saying anything to the contrary, but your statement sounded like only Russia disregards human rights. I believe the primary difference is that Russia will do to Russian citizens what we will do to Iraqis, but not to our citizens.
> Same for internal tensions in the west. Sure they exist regardless of Putin and Russia, but it's the size of problem that matters.
But how do you know what size they would "naturally" be? We've had huge conflicts in the West before Putin, we've even had huge conflicts before the Soviet Union was created. Political conflicts, racial tensions (with the occasional genocide) are nothing new.
> The last part about calling the other side shills don't interest me much. Internet drama.
I disagree, that's why I mentioned it. The same thing is happening offline as well. You're not a fan of further political integration of the EU, the Euro or Euro-Bonds? You'll quickly get called a Putin-bot, because that's the easiest response to dissent: they can't really believe something else, they must have a hidden agenda. Or, alternatively, the more insulting variant: they can't really believe that, they must be stupid and are directed by foreign powers without them knowing it.
I always find it funny to see 1-2 people on hn defend russia, that killed thousands of people, kids in moldova, georgia, ukraine, syria.
You are just braindead or paid russian troll.
> The revolutions in Georgia and Ukraine of 2004-5 fed Putin’s “dark paranoia” that the Kremlin was threatened by a western plot to topple his regime. The Kremlin has subsequently revelled in escalating conflicts with the western powers as a marker of Russia’s newly regained stature on the world stage.
The US has spent a generation pushing first the Soviets, then Russia, back into a very tightly confined sphere of influence. There is no obvious limit to the amount of harm the US has been wishing on Russian interests.
It is a remarkably cycloptic perspective call such fears 'paranoid' or to paint Russia as some sort of aggressor. Russia isn't the one with military bases set up in North America. Russia isn't cutting people off from the global trade network or invading every other country in Western Asia. They are a relatively neutral country on the world stage in terms of aggressive foreign posture, even accounting for this article.
The bit that you miss is that the people who had the misfortune to live in the Russian "sphere of influence" did not want, and will never want to be in it. The former Russian "spheres of influence" are very happy to be out of it, and terrified by the prospect of finding themselves drawn into it.
I am the first person to criticise the Russian sphere of influence. They did a terrible job from the rise of the proletariat through to today. Even I could do a better job if left to administer the country.
However to call them aggressors is a total perversion of the word aggression. Their posture is backs-to-the-wall defensive in relation to Western powers.
They are absolutely aggressors, and the defensive posturing is something they (Russian leaders) have used for centuries to excuse aggression. Their armies never conquer, they "liberate". This is not a tactic unique to them, but one they excel in.
Don't bother, most of the people with an interest in discussing Russia have not one iota of understanding of the difference between 'invading' a country and 'annexing' it, or they choose to willingly conflate the two since it works against American's interest in this discussion:
Well yes, America's "invasion" was a muddle of confused goals & retaliation while Russias "annexation" was conquest. You're quite right that they're different. One does massive incompetent damage while not intending to stay, the other does its damage deliberately with an eye towards the long term health of their newly conquered territory. Russia's imperial ambitions on their western borders aren't exactly new.
Your attempt to cast Russias annexation of territory it has had claims on for hundreds of years as a misdeed isn't really effective. There were actual Russian civilians being protected by Russian forces during that process. There was a fully armed nuclear base that was under threat of falling into the wrong hands during the Ukraine uprising (which, incidentally, the rest of the world knows full well was funded by the CIA).
Iraq lost 5% of its population during the American invasion.
How many Americans were in Iraq, who were under direct threat of violence from a fascist group involved in a coup d'etat?
Russia hasn't reached America's level of evil, destructive, criminal warfare, that is for sure. The claim that America was surgical and careful in its invasion(s) is specious at best, but really just downright evil. Literally millions of people are still suffering from the effects of America's callous invasion.
4 million innocent people have lost their lives under America's war machine. How many Ukraine soldiers did Russia take during the annexation?
Not even comparable levels of magnitude, no matter how finely tuned your moral relativism chops are ..
All of the Ukraine color revolutions were clearly US / CIA / foreign intelligence agency backed (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/nov/26/ukraine.usa). Both the EU, Germany and the US had their favourite political operatives in the fight. Various NGOs including German ones paid protestors daily stipends to continue protesting on Maidan, provided them with food and other assistance.
There is no question that the irregular forces in Ukraine received military equipment from Germany, US and other sources. There is videos documenting that. Part of the anti-russian forces were literal neo-nazis, complete with insignia used during world war 2. The Vice magazine war reporting (Russian Roulette in Ukraine) documents both of these statements.
Americans very shrewdly avoid the fact that their state was supporting literal neo-Nazi's in Ukraine. It seems they are caught in a caldron of misinformation and simply do not care for the truth, as long as it distracts the world from the other things America is doing, as a nation, around the world.
You blew it in the second paragraph. Russia is not a very active aggressor these days because it was successfully contained by the west, not by choice.
Not as successful as it might have been. US troops had once been on russian soil[1] but were withdrawn. If they'd provided more assistance Wrangel might've had more luck in ukraine[2].
You hit the nail right on the head. The underlying rusophobia that has been eaten and digested by the english-speaking world after the cold war never ceases to amaze me, particularly in the face of the global threat that is the american military power. America has military bases outside of their own country all over the world and has a proven track record of interfering in other countries' politics, causing several wars, yet Russia is always the bad guy?
As Sergei Guriev (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergei_Guriev) pointed out, the regime will perish when government will have to pay too much for the information war and the population simple won't be able to satisfy their basic needs (empty fridge).
This is quite scary.