Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Politics of Russia Thread:

    Share

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Politics of Russia Thread:

    Post  GarryB on Tue Dec 13, 2011 2:20 am

    May I ask why?

    And who would the Russian people prefer... and why don't they vote for them instead?

    That is how democracy is supposed to work after all... vote for the people you want in power... not vote a guy in and then protest that his party was elected.

    I have a sneaking suspicion that if he could come up with a credible US birth certificate a significant fraction of Americans would probably vote for him right now, simply because Obama was a huge let down and the alternatives don't actually seem that much better.

    The problem here is that there are no extreme parties that are viable... two main parties that are blue and red and otherwise not really different enough, who trade leadership of the country every few years when they either stuff up or people get bored and decide it is time for a change.

    They all only listen on election year and then they do what they like... someone once said that politicians are like babies nappies... they need to be changed often and for the same reasons.

    The problem is that good leadership means directing the entire country towards a destination... like a ship. If you keep changing crews and destinations then you never get anywhere, and most destinations are never so close they can be reached in one or even two terms.

    Now that Putin is only a 50% guy instead of a 75% guy he will need the support of other parties to get things done and they might choose to cooperate, and that cooperation alone might make things better, or they could be like the political parties in the US and sabotage him at every opportunity to make him look bad like the republicans have done, which might backfire on the republicans when they get in and start asking for cooperation to get things done... they are shooting themselves in the foot and it is America that will suffer for it for quite a few years to come.

    Will the Russian parties make the same mistake?

    From the other side of the planet I like Putin and Medvedev, I personally would have preferred to have seen Medvedev continue a second term, but with the US meddling in Iran and Syria and creating a mobile navy based ABM system they say they will position in the Med and Black Sea but because it is sea based could pretty much move anywhere in days... I reckon the US has made Putins return a necessity. They could have honoured their idea of a reset and backed off, but it seems they are after conflict all over the place including meddling in Russian elections now.
    I hope Putin tears them a new one.

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5840
    Points : 5892
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Politics of Russia Thread:

    Post  TR1 on Tue Dec 13, 2011 10:00 am

    Because people are sick of him. The man served his term, changing the constitution to serve more is not going to make him any more popular- not that his little puppy Medvedev was really anyone new in the president's seat.

    People tolerated him because he was not an alcoholic embarrassment, but honestly, who ever had illusions about him? The guy was installed by Yeltsin to avoid retribution for leaving office a substantially richer man than he entered, is Putin any different? No, the man and his circle are awfull well off money wise considering how much he is supposed to be paid. Now, every other Russian politician being a thief I am used to, but that doesn't mean I am going to like them - Putin is a scumbag like the rest of them. His approval polls would not be half as good if it were not for high energy prices and the economy stabilizing itself naturally after 98 meltdown.

    Russians (at least not brainless Nashisti) would love a government that actually serves the people (not the other way around, as has always been in Russia) but easier said than done. Opposition parties have a hard time fighting the resources that UR can afford to spend on its campaigning...and even then they have to resort to blatant election fraud, like recently seen. It's all documented, large scale or not, it happened.

    I honestly don't put Putin and Obama into even the same type of men. Obama (unfair criticism to his handling of the economy, a largely natural force that was in any case screwed up by 8 years of Republican gov)is not a power obsessed liliput thief.

    I'm not advocating for some Yabloko type selling out of Russia, but honestly, UR is a bunch of scumbags, and that is the opinion that most (almost all?) of my family and friends in Russia share.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Politics of Russia Thread:

    Post  GarryB on Tue Dec 13, 2011 11:20 am

    Well first of all the limit on terms as president is an AMERICAN thing, and really has nothing to do with democracy.

    Saying someone can't run for president because they have been voted president two times before in a row sounds very stupid to me... we have no such law here in New Zealand, and the only other country I know of with such a law is the US.

    I rather think that not just anyone can do a good job and not selling out to the west is the best thing Putin is known and hated for in the west... he could have tried to be popular in the west and signed everything put in front of him like Yeltsin, but he didn't. If he was really corrupt the money he could steal from Russia is not huge... the money he could get from western interests would be enormous... he just has to let foreign investors do to Russia what they did in East Germany... buy up cheap assets, fire a lot of people... steal all the pension funds, sell off any infrastructure that might be worth anything and scoop off the money and then sell it for twice what you paid for it.

    For a while it was the ex communists that were doing that because they had the contacts and the money and power and they were Russian and Russian assets were only being sold to Russian nationals. The sad thing is that those commies were worse than the capitalists... if Putin had been like Yeltsin the next step would have been in the collapse of Russia the west would have moved in and built lots of factories for the Russian people to work in and Russia would have become the new China.

    You see western consumer society works best with cheap consumables, but the only way to get cheap consumables is to have a slave labour force that will work for next to nothing.

    Workers earning less than a dollar a day making nike shoes worth $300 US is what I am talking about... of course as people earn money their expectations and quality of life improve and it becomes more and more expensive till they move the factories to Mexico, or the next place with lots of unemployed poor people.

    You say Russia grew just because of oil and gas... I would suggest that the pressure in the west was enormous to sell off those assets and allow them to go in and find and exploit more... with Putin Russia benefits from its oil... much like Iran does. With someone else in power you might find a situation more akin to Saudi Arabia or Kuwaite.

    Obviously you are entitled to your opinion and I hardly expect you to change your mind based on my comments, but I think you could do rather worse that Putin in charge... he seems to be rather more honest and open than most politicians and seems to tend to speak his mind and does not suffer fools.

    I have a lot of respect for him.

    And regarding personal fortunes... poor people can't make office... that is how democracy works... you will never see a peasant farmers son like Gorby getting into power again... unless he starts a business and makes a fortune and then runs for power. George Bush doesn't know what homeless means let alone being hungry and out of work and wondering how he will feed his family.

    BTW if American didn't have that stupid law that limits presidents to two terms Clinton probably would have kept Bush out and while Clinton liked to go to war as much as any US president, I don't think he would have put the US in the economic position it is in today. I mean Bill of course, not that bitch he married... the unelected other president.

    Obama made lots of promises about change and backtracked on pretty much every one of them. Git mo bay is still open for business, and torture is still standard US practise.

    ahmedfire
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 711
    Points : 885
    Join date : 2010-11-11
    Location : egypt

    Re: Politics of Russia Thread:

    Post  ahmedfire on Tue Dec 13, 2011 11:08 pm

    After the deals between russia and china in military co-operation, russian now agree to give ahigh military technology to chineese hands ,

    Americans now so angry and will do any thing to stop that after the georgia card burned out ,

    Russia now is protecting Syria and stand beside iran ,

    All these things will make americans do any thing to make disturbances in russia like coloured revolution and the excuse already known > > > Democracy Laughing

    So guys,How much george soros paid for these disturbances ? Wink

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5840
    Points : 5892
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Politics of Russia Thread:

    Post  TR1 on Tue Dec 13, 2011 11:35 pm

    Garry, I will respond, and give you some detail of the particularly damning parts of Putin's rule on Russian society in general (as it pertains to me), but you must excuse me, finals weeks, college, you know how it goes.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Politics of Russia Thread:

    Post  GarryB on Wed Dec 14, 2011 12:49 am

    I certainly have been there... good luck.

    I am happy to wait... I have no illusions Putin is perfect and would be interested to hear how you think he has failed a sector of Russian society.

    If I were in your shoes however I would be thinking of how to communicate this to Putin rather than think voting for someone else will solve the problem.

    Best of luck.

    Firebird
    Lieutenant Colonel
    Lieutenant Colonel

    Posts : 915
    Points : 947
    Join date : 2011-10-14

    Re: Politics of Russia Thread:

    Post  Firebird on Thu Dec 15, 2011 6:59 pm

    To me, any analysis of Putin needs to look at atleast 3 things:-

    1)Russia's standing in the World, together with the protection of her citizens and connected people. There's been NATO encroachment all over - including the Baltics, the Ukraine, Georgia, the Warsaw Pact, Middle East etc etc.
    Putin hasn't been a pushover, but Russians have been treated pretty badly by US-lackey states on some occasions. Then we must consider that while India has a sort of alliance with the CSTO, its still adopting a policy of standing back,

    2)The economic, social and cultural welfare of Russian citizens( both at home and in other states). OK, Russia is changing from the oligarchs vs poor situation that the idiot Yeltsin and Co caused. But I think most Russians would like to see more.

    3)Then there's the question of what sort of Russia do people want to see. A European style "democracy"? An authoritarian style centralised government. A European style civil code and welfare state etc. Ofcourse there are many, many options.

    Personally, I believe that Russia can be a massive, massive superpower. OR, it can go down a very wrong path eg Yeltsin style. Many people forget Russia IS the biggest country in the World. Tapping the Russian Arctic could bring monumental wealth. But I also think Russia needs to think of alliances more - with sensible European countries, her Slavic brothers and sisters, and looking towards Asia.

    One thing that does surprise me is that Russia has not dominated in the way I thought it might with technology, in the comercial sphere. I'm sure there's a gigantic amount of tech that could be converted to commercial uses and eclipse even Russia's mineral wealth .

    As for criticisms of Putin, thats a matter for Russians alone. Britain and America's sinister Establishments need to keep their mouths firmly shut. Perhaps Putin could help with a "regime change" over here in Britain..?! Very Happy

    I don't recall any of us voting for Feudalist Monarchies in the last elections..

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Politics of Russia Thread:

    Post  GarryB on Fri Dec 16, 2011 1:14 am

    As for criticisms of Putin, thats a matter for Russians alone. Britain and America's sinister Establishments need to keep their mouths firmly shut. Perhaps Putin could help with a "regime change" over here in Britain..?!

    I hope you realise that while the UK and US are after political and economic advantages over Russia as a primary rival and therefore are worthless in regards to "democratic" advice, I am interest in Russia and the Russian people.

    I have long read of the history of Russia and they have not had an easy time... terribly harsh weather, compounded by terribly harsh neighbours has made life hard.

    My questions directed at you and others not pro Putin are mainly to understand what you have against him... no he is not me... yes that probably surprised SOC, and I freely admit to being a Putin fan, not for the machismo, but because when I hear him talk I think he is perhaps a little naieve in the sense that he is actually more honest than all the western politicians put together. I think he is very good for Russia and that is why I support him.

    Like it or not... the problems with the Soviet Union were many and varied, but the problems that made it fail were primarily financial and largely stemmed from trying to compete with all of the west lead by the US... you might be the biggest country on the planet, but the west is a bunch of colonial and excolonial powers who have plundered the earth for the last few centuries and were in a much better economic and geographic position to compete and win.

    Trying to be a superpower is a nice goal, but becoming an economic superpower should be your goal first... and that economic wealth can pay for the best military money can buy.

    Continual confrontation with the west is not the way forward, and not all of what is now called the west is your enemy.

    I fact I think Germany and France are probably much more likely to be Pro Russian than pro US. Play your cards right and you can add Greece and probably a few other countries in Europe to that list.

    America tries to drive wedges between its enemies and rivals and any potentially useful allies... case in point is Afghanistan... the Soviet Union basically armed and trained its neighbour for years, then in the early 1970s the CIA started to interfere and that relationship changed dramatically for the worse.

    The west as a whole, with the US at its head is not your friend and I am not suggesting jumping into bed with them... you will wake up next morning out on the street with a sore backside, your wallet empty and your house and car signed over to their names.

    On the other hand isolation is what stopped the Soviet Union being like China is now... a manufacturing centre for the world.

    You don't have an empire to maintain with lots of freeloading hangers on, you don't have an ideology to sell... and most importantly now you will have WTO access to markets that you have never had before.

    Having an experienced leader, who doesn't just do as they are told by the west, yet at the same time is wanting Russia to change, to adapt to the new century to allow progress is a good thing in my opinion.

    Russias standing in the world is not actually that bad. Most people outside of Europe and the US see Russia as a potential counter to the lynch mob of the western self appointed world police force. Of course this is not the cold war and Russia wont just intervene to do the right thing... Russia does not have bottomless pockets and is not in the business of regime change either.

    The US never let its own morals or any ideas of democracy or freedom get in the way of its foreign policy. US foreign policy is tied to its allies... Israel, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Oil, and because of that its international actions don't seem to match the morality it spews during its sermons.

    Russia is not tied to that.

    The huge irony is that part of the advantage of at least being civil to Russia is that Russia still has ties to most of the countries that the US considers rogue states and a real reset of better relations rather than the actual reset which was basically about the US getting what it wants like transit routes to Afghanistan and ABM systems in Europe.
    Russia, as a real, full partner to the west could use its influence to solve a lot of problems the west has with a lot of countries... but how could the west then justify its defence budgets?

    2)The economic, social and cultural welfare of Russian citizens( both at home and in other states). OK, Russia is changing from the oligarchs vs poor situation that the idiot Yeltsin and Co caused. But I think most Russians would like to see more.

    Very much linked to the economy and international relations.
    I think because of the period of Yeltsin till about 2007-2008 when Putin concentrated on paying off foreign debt and building up a reserve... I realise there were promises of spending that never happened... especially for the Military and that caused a lot of frustration and anger, but now Russia is in a much much better position than most of the EU and if you play your cards right and help the correct parts of the EU things might improve faster... the west has largely failed in the promise of "trickle down" where paying CEOs enormous bonus's is supposed to improve everyones situation as when they spend money they create an economy that benefits from their wealth. Problem is that they tend to buy foreign cars and hoard their money to remain rich.

    Even here in New Zealand they hide the real issue by talking about raising minimum wage. The solution is not paying people more, the solution is to limit the ratio of the highest salary and the lowest salary in a company. It is cheaper to give the CEO an extra $5000 a year than to give 1,000 workers an extra $10 a year. The problem is that when the people doing the actual work that generates income for the company earn $25 an hour and the three CEOs are on salary packages that include a car, paid holidays, complete medical and dental cover plus $1 million dollars a year or more... the people at the bottom feel like they are trapped in a pyramid scheme... such schemes are outlawed in most countries because when they collapse... as they invariably have to, it is only the people at the top that make any money and everyone else gets screwed.
    My question is, if these schemes are illegal, why is the company model also based on a pyramid?

    3)Then there's the question of what sort of Russia do people want to see. A European style "democracy"? An authoritarian style centralised government. A European style civil code and welfare state etc. Ofcourse there are many, many options.

    Here in New Zealand we are constantly making changes... because this is how they do it in the US or UK or somewhere else. Russia needs to find its own path and decide what sort of society suits it best. Western democracy is teetering, and lots of choices being made show clearly the ideal western model of "market forces" is a load of rubbish... companies are even less trustworthy to control themselves than governments. Governments need to set clear rules and no company can be allowed to get too big to fail.

    But I also think Russia needs to think of alliances more - with sensible European countries, her Slavic brothers and sisters, and looking towards Asia.

    Not just countries you have ethnic ties to... look at how successful Russias relationship with India has been in the past, yet culturally you have not that much in common. Different can be good too.

    Don't be like the US... I like the Star Trek analogy best... in Star Trek the Soviets/communists were depicted as the Klingons... a less civilised almost animal like race but with some technologies superior to human (American) technology... like the cloaking technology. Totally offensive of course, but it clearly showed the American mentality.

    The irony is that while in Next Generation the Klingons were integrated into American civilisation with the addition of Worf on the Enterprise crew, they introduced a new race that actually reminds me a lot of the Americans. The Borg. The Borg are a melting pot of every civilisation and technology they have come across, and they are centrally controlled by a central core whose goals are not control of oil, but the assimilation of new technology and power.

    Souless, Heartless, with a veneer of morality and righteousness and religion, but basically high tech space zombies at heart.

    One thing that does surprise me is that Russia has not dominated in the way I thought it might with technology, in the comercial sphere. I'm sure there's a gigantic amount of tech that could be converted to commercial uses and eclipse even Russia's mineral wealth .

    The mineral wealth has to be carefully used to develop tool and design technology, so that Russia can design and tool up high tech high productive factories that can put out quality products made from your own raw materials. The margin on raw materials is much lower than on products and finished goods, so it is more profitable to use the raw materials yourself to create what you need and export the rest as icing on the cake.

    BTW thank you for sharing your feelings and opinions on the matter. I hope I haven't offended anyone with my... forthright and sometimes a little eccentric ideas and opinions.

    SOC
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 595
    Points : 650
    Join date : 2011-09-13
    Age : 38
    Location : Indianapolis

    Re: Politics of Russia Thread:

    Post  SOC on Fri Dec 16, 2011 5:02 am

    GarryB wrote:no he is not me... yes that probably surprised SOC

    Whyso? I know you're not Putin! Even ex-KGB types aren't nutso enough to get rid of their entire air force willingly jocolor

    Hell, I'd take Putin over Obama any day of the week. I've got a book, this one: http://www.amazon.com/First-Person-Astonishingly-Self-Portrait-President/dp/1586480189/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top/188-1142449-7340233 which I found to be a pretty interesting picture of the man. Granted, I do not live in Russia. Nor do I follow a lot of the politics over there (hell I don't even follow them over here much anymore, there's no point to it at all). But Putin has always struck me as a guy who is not to be screwed with. And for a nation still arguably trying to move forward from the 1990s problems, you could do a lot worse.

    Plus, Putin said he thought the protesters were wearing condoms. That was just hilarious.

    Oh, and TR1, that economic problem over here? Remember that it had a lot of its roots in all of the Fannie May/Freddie Mac BS? It was the Democrats that continually stopped Republican efforts to enact reforms and stricter oversight on the whole system prior to the house of cards collapsing. Neither party is immune to creating the problems we've got, and solely casting blame on one side or the other is completely wrong. I only grudgingly voted McCain as the lesser of two evils (and to see if he really had the balls to veto anything on his desk with pork spending attached), as I consider myself a mostly Republican, and even I will tell you that nobody in D.C. is really helping anything.

    Russian Patriot
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1168
    Points : 2062
    Join date : 2009-07-21
    Age : 25
    Location : USA- although I am Russian

    Re: Politics of Russia Thread:

    Post  Russian Patriot on Sat Dec 17, 2011 6:53 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    As for criticisms of Putin, thats a matter for Russians alone. Britain and America's sinister Establishments need to keep their mouths firmly shut. Perhaps Putin could help with a "regime change" over here in Britain..?!

    I hope you realise that while the UK and US are after political and economic advantages over Russia as a primary rival and therefore are worthless in regards to "democratic" advice, I am interest in Russia and the Russian people.

    I have long read of the history of Russia and they have not had an easy time... terribly harsh weather, compounded by terribly harsh neighbours has made life hard.

    My questions directed at you and others not pro Putin are mainly to understand what you have against him... no he is not me... yes that probably surprised SOC, and I freely admit to being a Putin fan, not for the machismo, but because when I hear him talk I think he is perhaps a little naieve in the sense that he is actually more honest than all the western politicians put together. I think he is very good for Russia and that is why I support him.

    Like it or not... the problems with the Soviet Union were many and varied, but the problems that made it fail were primarily financial and largely stemmed from trying to compete with all of the west lead by the US... you might be the biggest country on the planet, but the west is a bunch of colonial and excolonial powers who have plundered the earth for the last few centuries and were in a much better economic and geographic position to compete and win.

    Trying to be a superpower is a nice goal, but becoming an economic superpower should be your goal first... and that economic wealth can pay for the best military money can buy.

    Continual confrontation with the west is not the way forward, and not all of what is now called the west is your enemy.

    I fact I think Germany and France are probably much more likely to be Pro Russian than pro US. Play your cards right and you can add Greece and probably a few other countries in Europe to that list.

    America tries to drive wedges between its enemies and rivals and any potentially useful allies... case in point is Afghanistan... the Soviet Union basically armed and trained its neighbour for years, then in the early 1970s the CIA started to interfere and that relationship changed dramatically for the worse.

    The west as a whole, with the US at its head is not your friend and I am not suggesting jumping into bed with them... you will wake up next morning out on the street with a sore backside, your wallet empty and your house and car signed over to their names.

    On the other hand isolation is what stopped the Soviet Union being like China is now... a manufacturing centre for the world.

    You don't have an empire to maintain with lots of freeloading hangers on, you don't have an ideology to sell... and most importantly now you will have WTO access to markets that you have never had before.

    Having an experienced leader, who doesn't just do as they are told by the west, yet at the same time is wanting Russia to change, to adapt to the new century to allow progress is a good thing in my opinion.

    Russias standing in the world is not actually that bad. Most people outside of Europe and the US see Russia as a potential counter to the lynch mob of the western self appointed world police force. Of course this is not the cold war and Russia wont just intervene to do the right thing... Russia does not have bottomless pockets and is not in the business of regime change either.

    The US never let its own morals or any ideas of democracy or freedom get in the way of its foreign policy. US foreign policy is tied to its allies... Israel, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Oil, and because of that its international actions don't seem to match the morality it spews during its sermons.

    Russia is not tied to that.

    The huge irony is that part of the advantage of at least being civil to Russia is that Russia still has ties to most of the countries that the US considers rogue states and a real reset of better relations rather than the actual reset which was basically about the US getting what it wants like transit routes to Afghanistan and ABM systems in Europe.
    Russia, as a real, full partner to the west could use its influence to solve a lot of problems the west has with a lot of countries... but how could the west then justify its defence budgets?

    2)The economic, social and cultural welfare of Russian citizens( both at home and in other states). OK, Russia is changing from the oligarchs vs poor situation that the idiot Yeltsin and Co caused. But I think most Russians would like to see more.

    Very much linked to the economy and international relations.
    I think because of the period of Yeltsin till about 2007-2008 when Putin concentrated on paying off foreign debt and building up a reserve... I realise there were promises of spending that never happened... especially for the Military and that caused a lot of frustration and anger, but now Russia is in a much much better position than most of the EU and if you play your cards right and help the correct parts of the EU things might improve faster... the west has largely failed in the promise of "trickle down" where paying CEOs enormous bonus's is supposed to improve everyones situation as when they spend money they create an economy that benefits from their wealth. Problem is that they tend to buy foreign cars and hoard their money to remain rich.

    Even here in New Zealand they hide the real issue by talking about raising minimum wage. The solution is not paying people more, the solution is to limit the ratio of the highest salary and the lowest salary in a company. It is cheaper to give the CEO an extra $5000 a year than to give 1,000 workers an extra $10 a year. The problem is that when the people doing the actual work that generates income for the company earn $25 an hour and the three CEOs are on salary packages that include a car, paid holidays, complete medical and dental cover plus $1 million dollars a year or more... the people at the bottom feel like they are trapped in a pyramid scheme... such schemes are outlawed in most countries because when they collapse... as they invariably have to, it is only the people at the top that make any money and everyone else gets screwed.
    My question is, if these schemes are illegal, why is the company model also based on a pyramid?

    3)Then there's the question of what sort of Russia do people want to see. A European style "democracy"? An authoritarian style centralised government. A European style civil code and welfare state etc. Ofcourse there are many, many options.

    Here in New Zealand we are constantly making changes... because this is how they do it in the US or UK or somewhere else. Russia needs to find its own path and decide what sort of society suits it best. Western democracy is teetering, and lots of choices being made show clearly the ideal western model of "market forces" is a load of rubbish... companies are even less trustworthy to control themselves than governments. Governments need to set clear rules and no company can be allowed to get too big to fail.

    But I also think Russia needs to think of alliances more - with sensible European countries, her Slavic brothers and sisters, and looking towards Asia.

    Not just countries you have ethnic ties to... look at how successful Russias relationship with India has been in the past, yet culturally you have not that much in common. Different can be good too.

    Don't be like the US... I like the Star Trek analogy best... in Star Trek the Soviets/communists were depicted as the Klingons... a less civilised almost animal like race but with some technologies superior to human (American) technology... like the cloaking technology. Totally offensive of course, but it clearly showed the American mentality.

    The irony is that while in Next Generation the Klingons were integrated into American civilisation with the addition of Worf on the Enterprise crew, they introduced a new race that actually reminds me a lot of the Americans. The Borg. The Borg are a melting pot of every civilisation and technology they have come across, and they are centrally controlled by a central core whose goals are not control of oil, but the assimilation of new technology and power.

    Souless, Heartless, with a veneer of morality and righteousness and religion, but basically high tech space zombies at heart.

    One thing that does surprise me is that Russia has not dominated in the way I thought it might with technology, in the comercial sphere. I'm sure there's a gigantic amount of tech that could be converted to commercial uses and eclipse even Russia's mineral wealth .

    The mineral wealth has to be carefully used to develop tool and design technology, so that Russia can design and tool up high tech high productive factories that can put out quality products made from your own raw materials. The margin on raw materials is much lower than on products and finished goods, so it is more profitable to use the raw materials yourself to create what you need and export the rest as icing on the cake.

    BTW thank you for sharing your feelings and opinions on the matter. I hope I haven't offended anyone with my... forthright and sometimes a little eccentric ideas and opinions.


    correction :we were depicted as Klingon until 90's, after we are depicted as Gorns Very Happy

    Why can't we vote for opposition you ask?

    Because the opposition is not on the ballot!

    LDPR, Communists, Fair Russia and others have always been in Duma , and always mostly agreed in backroom deals with United Russia. so its a farce and even a former United supporter understands that.


    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Politics of Russia Thread:

    Post  GarryB on Sun Dec 18, 2011 1:18 am

    Here in New Zealand we have a system called MMP.

    I wont bore you with the details but I get a vote for a local MP and a vote for a Party.

    Party votes are counted up and any party with more than 5% gets a seat in parliment. MPs can be directly voted into parliment, or they can get in because they are on a party list through the party vote.

    We also have two major parties, but the difference between them is not that big so they often get similar numbers of seats, so it comes down to after an election one of the two major parties creating a coalition with several of the smaller parties to form a government, so backroom deals are a normal part of government here.

    It is good in my opinion because it stops either of the big parties being able to do anything they want because they need the support of the smaller parties to get things done.

    No big party is stupid enough to want to cooperate with a small party that wants to reintroduce slavery or anything, so while a few strange laws get through, mostly it stops radical changes rather than promotes them.

    It means smaller parties get a voice in parliment even if they don't get any real major control.

    Russian Patriot
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1168
    Points : 2062
    Join date : 2009-07-21
    Age : 25
    Location : USA- although I am Russian

    Putin comments on foiled plot against his life

    Post  Russian Patriot on Tue Feb 28, 2012 8:29 pm

    Russian Prime Minister and presidential candidate Vladimir Putin says there is no need to tighten security for the country’s leaders as a fearless stance will scare away would-be assassins.

    The comment, made during Putin’s surprise visit to the southern Russian city of Astrakhan, was the Prime Minister’s first reaction to news of a foiled plot against his life. The attempt was uncovered in a joint operation by Russian and Ukrainian special services. Putin also told the press that the terrorists had created a special unit to target him, but its members had been eliminated long ago.

    Putin’s response to a reporter’s question on tightening security following the thwarted attempt was laconic. “What for?” the premier enquired. The Prime Minister said he has been living with such events since 1999, and that security officials always report to him about assassination attempts. “People in my position must live with this. Such things must never affect the work, they have never obstructed the work and they never will,” the Prime Minister said about the danger of assassination. “Let them fear us,” Putin concluded.

    Earlier, Putin’s press secretary Dmitry Peskov told reporters that his boss had made no changes to his working schedule after the news. Peskov added that Putin knew about all of the numerous plots against him, but this never stopped him from making planned trips.

    Russian media reported on Monday that Russian and Ukrainian state security had detained a group which confessed they were preparing to kill Prime Minister Vladimir Putin with a roadside bomb on the orders of Russia’s most wanted terrorist Doku Umarov.

    Some Russian journalists and bloggers called the report just one week before Russia’s presidential poll a PR stunt, but the press service of the First Channel that broke the story called those who make such suggestions “insane”.

    http://rt.com/politics/let-fear-putin-terrorists-397/

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Politics of Russia Thread:

    Post  GarryB on Tue Feb 28, 2012 11:40 pm

    Good to hear the Security forces of Russia and the Ukraine are doing a good job.

    Still, if Hilary can dodge sniper fire in the Balkans, I am sure Putin can do the same... Twisted Evil

    Of course Hilarys sniper fire was imaginary....

    Raghu Reddy
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 9
    Points : 13
    Join date : 2011-07-14
    Age : 28
    Location : Hyderabad, India

    Re: Politics of Russia Thread:

    Post  Raghu Reddy on Fri Mar 02, 2012 6:56 pm

    Dunno much about Russian Politics!!

    What are the chances of Liberal Democratic Party of Russia winning the elections

    I was just reading about LDPR, and they seemed to be someone capable to bringing back the Soviet Era.


    SOC
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 595
    Points : 650
    Join date : 2011-09-13
    Age : 38
    Location : Indianapolis

    Re: Politics of Russia Thread:

    Post  SOC on Fri Mar 02, 2012 10:19 pm

    Raghu Reddy wrote:Dunno much about Russian Politics!!

    What are the chances of Liberal Democratic Party of Russia winning the elections

    I was just reading about LDPR, and they seemed to be someone capable to bringing back the Soviet Era.


    Slim to none? Zhirinovskiy would have to hope Putin gets less than 50% of the vote and have himself finish #2 in the polls. Then he'd have to win the run-off election. Dunno if that's a realistic hope.

    It is interesting that the Russian President has a lot more political power than the US President, if you compare the powers each office can exert. Plus, the President basically appoints the members of the Federation Council (upper house of the Federal Assembly), as he appoints the regional politicians that select the Council members. This obviously makes the Council far more amenable to doing things like approving the President's government appointees. Compared to the way it works over here, it certainly makes for a system where it's easier for the President to accomplish what he sets out to accomplish.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Politics of Russia Thread:

    Post  GarryB on Wed Mar 07, 2012 6:46 am

    It seems Europe has no idea about what a democracy is or how it is supposed to function.

    The OSCE has criticised the Russian Presidential Election because it thinks that the result should not be known before hand.

    It seems to think Elections should be like Lottery draws perhaps?

    Tonino Picula, head of the OSCE observer mission in Russia noted that “The point of elections is that the outcome should be uncertain”.

    So I guess the situation in Europe is a problem where leaders are assigned to countries by their overlords in Brussels, and in the US where there are only likely to be two candidates for President whereas there were quite a few candidates in the Russian election in comparison...

    SOC
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 595
    Points : 650
    Join date : 2011-09-13
    Age : 38
    Location : Indianapolis

    Re: Politics of Russia Thread:

    Post  SOC on Wed Mar 07, 2012 10:05 pm

    GarryB wrote:So I guess the situation in Europe is a problem where leaders are assigned to countries by their overlords in Brussels, and in the US where there are only likely to be two candidates for President whereas there were quite a few candidates in the Russian election in comparison...

    OSCE is full of crap. The Duma elections are in December. If you look at the percentage of votes that went to United Russia, it's not really a shocker that the United Russia presidential candidate was going to win the March election, is it?

    Also, who in Brussels assigns leaders to EU members? The EU tries to talk a big game and has a habit recently of throwing money about but in the grand scheme of things it's probably a lot less powerful than you think it is in many areas. Assigning leaders actually goes the other direction. Look at Britain. Vote for MPs, then the leader of the party with the most seats becomes Prime Minister, Britain's chief executive. That then automatically inserts him or her into the European Council, made up of the heads of state of the 27 member countries, plus an elected council president (Van Rompuy) and an observer's position for the head of the European Commission (Barroso). I'm actually enrolled in a class on the EU right now, on the basis of I had no clue what it really was or did other than these were the guys that made the Euro, like to give Greece money, and refuse to let NATO die.

    And while we're at it there are more than two candidates for President in US elections, you just never hear too much about them because they rarely if ever get any electoral college votes. Yes, I know the way we elect the President is completely retarded.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Politics of Russia Thread:

    Post  GarryB on Wed Mar 07, 2012 11:00 pm

    Also, who in Brussels assigns leaders to EU members?

    I remember seeing a news report where the government of an Eu country stepped down and was replaced by the person responsible for putting that country in the EU... I think it was Greece but can't remember.

    And BTW hmmm more than two US candidates but anyone outside the two major parties is largely unknown because the major media outlets ignore them? Where have I heard about that before?....

    So really all Russia needs is one more powerful political party to split the vote and give the morons at the bottom a better chance of getting seats... is that really how democracy should work?

    If you are studying the EU Sean then you will know better than most that there are plenty of different types of democracy and criticising Russias' implementation is the height of hypocrisy...

    US elections take about a year, while India seems to get itself sorted in a month or so.

    SOC
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 595
    Points : 650
    Join date : 2011-09-13
    Age : 38
    Location : Indianapolis

    Re: Politics of Russia Thread:

    Post  SOC on Thu Mar 08, 2012 4:29 am

    GarryB wrote:I remember seeing a news report where the government of an Eu country stepped down and was replaced by the person responsible for putting that country in the EU... I think it was Greece but can't remember.

    That wouldn't suprise me at all if the people who took over were involved in the bailouts. But as joining the EU was likely somebody's platform, or part of it, if their party took over I still don't necessarily see anything nefarious about it. Hell, you even get Eurosceptics who want to disband the EU elected to the European Parliament. I should try running on the "I want to disband Congress" platform and see what happens Very Happy

    GarryB wrote:And BTW hmmm more than two US candidates but anyone outside the two major parties is largely unknown because the major media outlets ignore them? Where have I heard about that before?....

    They don't get ignored, they're on TV here all the time. They just can't get elected President as they fail to win electoral college votes because they don't ever win a given state. They do start to get less coverage as they demonstrate that they have no chance of getting elected. This isn't anything wrong with the system, either, it's something wrong with us, the voters. Congress has had an approval rating south of 25% for a whole long time now, yet historically speaking 80-85% of incumbent Congressmen will get re-elected. Nobody cares. It's far easier to just vote the party line for whatever reason rather than actually, holy crap, educate yourself about the issues and make an informed decision. And if people did that, maybe the results would still be the same, who knows. This does all dovetail into a separate argument for terms limits in Congress, but I digress.

    GarryB wrote:So really all Russia needs is one more powerful political party to split the vote and give the morons at the bottom a better chance of getting seats... is that really how democracy should work?

    What? All I was saying is that if United Russia gets around 60% of the votes in the Duma elections, then it isn't a shock to expect that the people might just vote United Russia when the Presidential elections roll around. OSCE is trying to claim a rigged election, I'm trying to explain that no, not necessarily, just look at the voting records. Same thing happens here, you get voters who always vote for one particular party regardless, or voting districts that vote predominately one party or the other for various elections.

    There's no reason for Russia to change anything as far as I'm concerned, I wasn't saying that. Their proportional representation system gives the most power to the party with the most votes, but gives power to any party with over 7% of the vote. If there's 100 seats (there's not but this makes the math easier), say UR gets 65% of the vote, the Communist Party gets 10%, the Liberal Democrats get 10%, and three fringe parties get 7%, 7%, and 1%. The 1% party gets no Duma seats, the rest are broken down according to what relative percentage of the votes they got. What this does is it forces UR to theoretically govern by coalition, as they no logner have a constitutional majority to govern unopposed in the Duma. Coalitions aren't bad, they bring mroe ideas to the table and because you have to cooperate with someone you can make more progress. Our two party system over here basically ensures that we never really fix anything and that the two parties spend most of their effort complaining about each other. If we had a PR system of electing Congress over here things might be improved as far as progress is concerned. We're about the only place I can think of with a two-party dominated system, and if you ask me it clearly isn't working all that well anymore.

    GarryB wrote:If you are studying the EU Sean then you will know better than most that there are plenty of different types of democracy and criticising Russias' implementation is the height of hypocrisy...

    Like I said, I wasn't being remotely critical. I was just relating the presidential results to the voting trends from the 2011 Duma elections, illustrating to any OCSE genius reading this that hey, UR apparently had support, and enough of it to likely get Putin elected. What, does OCSE think that UR did something retarded in the brief time the new Duma was in office prior to the Presidential election, retarded enough to erode away all of that support?

    GarryB wrote:US elections take about a year, while India seems to get itself sorted in a month or so.

    Our actual elections take about 2 and a half months from election day in November to inauguration in January. The parties just like to draw out the whole primary process and campaigning process as long as possible. Which is really hilarious, as 80-85% of people in Congress are going to be re-elected regardless. All of that money spent when you know the results are pretty much in the bag already.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Russian Politics

    Post  GarryB on Thu Mar 08, 2012 5:55 am

    But as joining the EU was likely somebody's platform, or part of it, if their party took over I still don't necessarily see anything nefarious about it.

    So an organisation that has countries within it with unelected governments in control of them has the right to claim Putins outright popularity made the Russian elections unfair and undemocratic???

    So when there are money problems you can just skip on giving the people their right to vote, but there are special new rules for Russias elections where there has to be competition or it doesn't count as real democracy?

    Bush jnr got his second term because the alternative was not worthy and Bill Clinton got a second term for exactly the same reason. Tony Bliar in the UK got voted back in because the alternative was crap, Howard in Australia got back in because the alternative was rubbish, Helene Clarke here in New Zealand stayed in power because the alternative was rubbish... I dare say unless the Republicans wake up and realise their only chance of winning would be Ron Paul then Obama will probably get a second term too... not because they are any good, but because the alternative is rubbish.

    Putin is not rubbish and I would certainly vote for him.

    (BTW regarding my opinion of Ron Paul, he would be the best candidate for the republicans because I think he is the only republican that democrats will vote for. That means if given a choice between voting for Ron Paul or Obama that all republicans will choose to NOT vote for Obama, and a lot of disheartened democrats will want to not vote for Obama. I think Paul will win on the punnishment vote... they wont vote for him because they love him, they will vote for him to punnish obama for obamas failure to do what he promised.

    Of course it all really doesn't matter because unless the winner can control congress then they wont be able to push anything through to become law or to actually change.


    Cyberspec
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1946
    Points : 2117
    Join date : 2011-08-08
    Location : Terra Australis

    Konstantin Lebedev on foreign funding of opposition protests

    Post  Cyberspec on Wed Jun 12, 2013 1:01 pm

    Olesya Gerasimenko interviews Konstantin Lebedev, recently convicted of planning riots at the Bolotnaya rally of 6 May, 2012 and given a 2.5 year prison sentence. After his plea bargain and shocking confessions, his former comrades now call him a traitor.

    ...

    Interesting that the money came via Georgia, which as is known is hardly a rich country.....no prize for guessing who the real sponsors were

    Konstantin Lebedev – “I Don’t Consider Myself a Traitor”
    http://russianspectrum.com/2013/04/30/lebedev-bolotnaya-interview/

    sepheronx
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 7302
    Points : 7612
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 27
    Location : Canada

    Rich Russian Lawmakers Exit Russian Senate

    Post  sepheronx on Fri Jul 12, 2013 1:47 pm

    Russian Law Makers Exit Senate
     
    As much as people would love to cry foul to this, I am not sad to see them go.  Simple fact is, Senators are there to represent people, not about their wealth.  If they are stepping down because they are taking money out of the country and investing it elsewhere, then it is obvious of their motives.  What this will do, is now have these senators in the limelight, and could very well face persecutions that they normally would not face while being a senator.
     
    Far too many crooked government officials.  And I absolutely dislike those who purposely put their money outside to avoid taxes of specific proportions, as well as invest in other countries, when their home country is in more dire need of investments.

    Edit: Second look over it, it seems the two that stick out are a business man for a private bank, and an owner of a construction company; the two most corrupt form of business' out their. Just need someone who owns a defence firm in that list, and the list would be complete.

    Viktor
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5630
    Points : 6283
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 36
    Location : Croatia

    Re: Politics of Russia Thread:

    Post  Viktor on Fri Jul 12, 2013 2:05 pm

    Far fewer than I expected. Such law had to be implemented.

    sepheronx
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 7302
    Points : 7612
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 27
    Location : Canada

    Re: Politics of Russia Thread:

    Post  sepheronx on Fri Jul 12, 2013 3:39 pm

    Viktor wrote:Far fewer than I expected. Such law had to be implemented.

    Yeah, I thought this law would have made a lot more flee as well. But really, this is indeed much needed law as there was and still is far too much capital flight happening, and a lot of that money should be going back into the system, since it is the systems money.

    sepheronx
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 7302
    Points : 7612
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 27
    Location : Canada

    Navalny gets sentanced to 5 years in prison

    Post  sepheronx on Thu Jul 18, 2013 4:17 pm

    http://en.rian.ru/politics/20130718/182299516/Russian-Opposition-Leader-Navalny-Found-Guilty--Court.html

    KIROV/MOSCOW, July 18 (RIA Novosti) – A Russian court handed down a guilty verdict Thursday morning for opposition leader Alexei Navalny, a Moscow mayoral candidate and vocal Kremlin critic, sentencing him to five years in jail on embezzlement charges.
    The court, in the city of Kirov, about 900 kilometers (560 miles) east of Moscow, found Navalny guilty of organizing an embezzlement scheme that cost a local state-owned company, KirovLes, some $500,000, by forcing it to sell timber at below-market prices when he served as an unpaid advisor to the Kirov Region’s governor in 2009.
    Navalny, who has denounced the case as politically motivated, was cuffed by court marshals and led out of the courtroom shortly after the judge announced the sentence.
    The conviction, unless overturned upon appeal, will prevent Navalny, a whistle-blowing blogger well-known for leading large-scale anti-Kremlin protests, from running for public office.
    “Navalny’s guilt has been proven by the testimony of witnesses,” judge Sergei Blinov read in a monotonous voice.

    Now, people love to go ape over this case, and I am wondering, the charges against him - Bogus or not? I think people in and from Russia seems to have wild thoughts that only United Russia party is only capable of corruption and scams, but what about others? Isn't corruption a major issue in almost every sector in Russia? So what makes them so special over others? If guilty, then why are people so in love with him? Because he is a staunch Putin hater?

    Sponsored content

    Re: Politics of Russia Thread:

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 3:09 am


      Current date/time is Sun Dec 11, 2016 3:09 am