What happens after Putin?

Russia produced more rail cars in 2019 than the USSR did at its peak.   And Russia =/= USSR in size.  

Only losers with no interest in facts, would come here and claim that Russia today is the same as it was in 1998.
That is what the troll clowns above are precisely doing.

The Russian GDP is 1/3 the size of the US in real terms.   The consumer-centric PPP factor totally fails to scale the
Russian MIC and most of its industry.   Food prices in Moscow are not a valid basis for a PPP adjustment.    The clowns
who engage in such surveys are the same ones who put weighted averages to calculate the CPI.   So they assume
that food only accounts for 13% of household expenditures, etc.   If you impose such weights a priori, then you are
skewing the results.   The 13% changes if the food prices increase above inflation as they actually are doing in Canada
and the USA.   While the official CPI is 2%, food prices are going up 7-10% per year.   I know, I spend my money on
food.  

The USSR was soft and weak.   Russia's economy today is substantially stronger and more developed than that
of the USSR.   The USSR couldn't even replace the Japanese gauge railway on Sakhalin.   The current infrastructure
projects in Russia (road, railway, ship building, petrochemicals, value added resource derived production) put the
USSR to shame.

But barking mutts will keep barking that Russia = fail.

Worry about your own problems, you fcuking koonts.

Arrow wrote:The USSR was more focused on military production.  He was spending 25% of GDP on defense, I guess.  Interestingly enough, Russia seems to be less but more than the USSR ahead of the West in military technology.

Do not forget that Russia has thrown a lot of subsidized territories and population off its shoulders. The support of the peripheral republics was VERY expensive. So with the collapse of the USSR, we lost many resources, but we gained new opportunities - the Russian economy is now smaller, but more mobile and more efficient, if we are talking about point-to-point application.

Arrow wrote:Yes Russian.  Currently, the Russian economy has slowed down sharply. The West also has low GDP growth.  On the other hand, China continues to grow at around 6% of GDP.

Yes. Since the crisis in 2008, it has been a mixed bag for all the world's economies except China.

But China is industrializing. As with the US and even the USSR after the war , China is on a roll. And nothing can stop it. It's not realistic to compare Russia to China in this case.

Backman wrote:

Arrow wrote:The only thing you can fault is Russia's low economic growth.

Oh really ? Which economy in the world do you think grew the most in constant dollar terms between 2000 and 2008 ? It wasn't China.

It was Russia. So that's bullshit too.

It's simple: you grow until you hit the ceiling of your capabilities. This ceiling is primarily due to the infrastructure. Once you reach the ceiling, your growth is slowed down by exactly the level of resources you need to invest in infrastructure development. After the accumulation of a certain critical mass, a new qualitative leap occurs to the next limiting factor. So, now the Russian economy has slowed down primarily due to huge investments in infrastructure projects that will become drivers of economic growth for decades to come. Putin's merit lies precisely in this strategic approach. It does not operate at the same rate of growth as Stalin did, but we do not see such brutal methods of restructuring the economic and life structure as they were during the first five-year plans.

Arrow wrote:The USSR was more focused on military production.  He was spending 25% of GDP on defense, I guess.  Interestingly enough, Russia seems to be less but more than the USSR ahead of the West in military technology.

Economics is complicated. The USSR had a good education system and good technology. But the system didn't allow them to capitalize on it as much as it should have.

But this was the analog era. All economies of the time had that analog look to them.

After 2008 Russian banks and companies started to pay back loans. Thanks to western financial magic this lowered the growth of the russian economy. Meanwhile the west and China are inventing more and more funny money from thin air which, according to the same Voodoo, expands their GDP. Until the man with the hammer pops up and hit them on the head, then the whole house of cards will come down.

Scorpius wrote:...
It's simple: you grow until you hit the ceiling of your capabilities. This ceiling is primarily due to the infrastructure. Once you reach the ceiling, your growth is slowed down by exactly the level of resources you need to invest in infrastructure development. After the accumulation of a certain critical mass, a new qualitative leap occurs to the next limiting factor. So, now the Russian economy has slowed down primarily due to huge investments in infrastructure projects that will become drivers of economic growth for decades to come. Putin's merit lies precisely in this strategic approach. It does not operate at the same rate of growth as Stalin did, but we do not see such brutal methods of restructuring the economic and life structure as they were during the first five-year plans.

The Stalinist period had massive growth but the starting base was terrible. The Russian economy was in shambles after WWI and the Civil War.
While there was a lot of degradation in the 1990s of course it would pale in comparison to that.

I'm glad there are more than just KVS and I who have at least knowledge in economics, especially Russia. Some members here even been or living in Russia.

Putin has been well rounded. If he tried more extreme measures, it could involve more economic growth but at an expense of something else.

Hannibal Barca wrote:Putin's departure is long overdue. In his 20 year tenure he failed to solve any of the fundamental problems of Russia. Demographic decline, economic stagnation, technological backwardness, diplomatic isolation, Russians inferiority complex. He proves to be unable to solve the succession problems as well.

Too conservative to move Russia's balance to the East (he didn't learn the lesson from the Romans), didn't challenge USA in central Asia (Russia's backyard), didn't manage to undermine EU, hasn't put Ukraine in its place. Failed to give a long lasting lesson to Georgia and stabilise Kaukasus.

A young lion should overthrow him and adopt an aggressive policy of rebuild Russia's status. Make clear that provocations from the tiny European vassals will not be tolerated, make A FULL ALLIANCE with China, with mutual defence pact and maximum economic integration. Rejuvenate whatever vital sources remain in the state and if no other option exist, buy the vital time to China to push back USA and give Russia the so much needed breathing space. It's a fight for survival.

This nonsense above explains why he is head of state of the RF and considered the best Russian statesman since Stalin and you a random guy behind a keyboard

LMFS wrote:....This nonsense above explains why he is head of state of the RF and considered the best Russian statesman since Stalin and you a random guy behind a keyboard

Since Stalin?

Guy who caused deaths of tens of millions of Russians through malice and just as many through incompetence?

You could have chosen some higher benchmark, even Gorbachov looks good in comparison to Stalin

PapaDragon wrote:Since Stalin?

Guy who caused deaths of tens of millions of Russians through malice and just as many through incompetence?

You could have chosen some higher benchmark, even Gorbachov looks good in comparison to Stalin

The rabid communist dictator for some, the reactionary that killed the revolution for others, Stalin was a colossal statesman and is to this day, and regardless of your opinion, the chief of state with the best popular reputation in Russia. Wining the Great Patriotic War has some weight there probably you know...

If Trotsky was in charge in 1939, there would be no USSR and Russia today.    I think Trotsky's job was to lubricate a Nazi victory.
No, ideology of the advertised kind does not make the world go round.  

But Stalin went with the whole "enemies of the people" flow.   The forced collectivization program was unnecessary.  
Some may say it was necessary to urbanize and industrialize.   That sounds a bit too contrived.   It would have been easy
to draw people from the countryside into the cities with better pay.   A command economy could more than afford it.    Creation
of industrial farms did not require the removal of kulaks and kurkuls.   All this did was create a persistent crime wave that lasted
into the 1950s.   Crime derived from bitterness and mistreatment.   As for WWII, clearly Stalin had his act together. He
made key decisions that helped the USSR win. This requires a tome's worth of discussion, but those decisions pertained
to approval of various technology development programs and sane management of the campaigns. Stalin did not let clowns
fcuk up the Soviet war effort and there were several cases. Hitler was the one who let his ego get in the way of the right
decisions. It is rather predictable that all sorts of failures would be attributed to Stalin, while downplayed in the case of
Hitler. Russia = fail is the one-note Johnny tune of the Russia haters.

Putin, the "failure" has demonstrated that real economic growth can be achieved without coercion and human sacrifice.   If
the Russian church beatifies him some time down the line it will be right to do so.  

The pattern is clear.   Back in the 1930s westerners were not shrieking about oppression in the USSR and instead you had
various apologists on the left.   After WWII when the repressive excess was on its way out, Khruschev the clown who helped
stuff the gulags oversaw their unloading in 1956, the western shrieking went into high gear.   And all you hear to this very day
is 1930s and Stalin and gulags.   GTFO, you slime.   Western haters clearly did not have any case during the Cold War since
they endlessly returned to Stalin and his crimes (while whitewashing butcher Trotsky).   In the 1990s, when "palpable humanitarian"
Yeltsin was running a gangster's paradise resulting in the premature death of millions of Russians, the west was happy again.
But once Putin demonstrated that he was not a doggie on a leash and was restoring Russia (that includes tearing up all the
colonial "production sharing agreements" signed by Yeltsin) we have the return of the hate shrieking.   With over the top braying
about tyranny and "human rights abuse"  (because grifters who are sponsored by the west cannot be touched).

LMFS wrote:The rabid communist dictator for some, the reactionary that killed the revolution for others...

Nobody gives a fuck about some pinko revolution, he killed more Russians than the fucking Nazis (and helped Nazis kill some more through his retarded incompetence)

LMFS wrote:...Stalin was a colossal statesman ...

He was colossal something alright

And the state he set up was of such high quality that it's demise became comedy gold

LMFS wrote:...and is to this day, and regardless of your opinion, the chief of state with the best popular reputation in Russia. ...

I expect nothing less from a nation of people who refuse to move out of buildings with fecal stalactites free of charge

LMFS wrote:...Wining the Great Patriotic War has some weight there probably you know...

He didn't win shit, it was won in spite of him not because of him

Or are we forgetting how that dumbfuck moron ignored entire Operation Barbarossa when everyone and their grandma saw it coming?

If you want to example of his military leadership check out Winter War (also, some more comedy gold)

@kvs:

Very much in agreement. What Putin has but Stalin didn't, and that is a very major factor, are nukes. Russia after the 90's was a defeated country that was not finished off only because of their nuclear armament. Stalin did not have nothing similar so he could not really avoid the war, despite being preparing for it for the best part of a decade. So Putin has had the chance to actually keep reforming the country without the excessive measures used by Stalin, and that is very much an aspect that underlines his statesman qualities, unlike some "analysts" which could not find their asses with both hands say, as if achieving the strategic goals of Russia without bloodbaths is a bad thing and only proves passiveness by the government. The biggest success of the Putin government will be if the West collapses on their own and Russia does not need to fight them on a battlefield, but morons will again say all was handed to him and he did nothing.

@PD:

your phobias are well known in this forum, so no need to discuss much about them. You know the Western narrative about Stalin's purges are outright and embarrassing lies, or you should know. Putin appeared from the shadows of the oligarchic Russian establishment, Stalin from the Bolsheviks, both took the country into another completely different direction and did what was needed to save it. But among all that Western fabricated BS of yours, saying Stalin ignored Barbarossa really takes the cake

If you are the leader of a gigantic country your decisions effetc millions of people. That´s true for Stalin, but also for Churchill or Roosevelt. But only the millions harmed by Stalin (most of them unintentionally) are being talked about. Churchill killed millions in the ME and India intentionally but he is seen as "great statesman" in the west, just like Kissinger.

Hole wrote:...Churchill killed millions in the ME and India intentionally but he is seen as "great statesman" in the west, just like Kissinger.

Millions Churchill killed were foreigners and colonial natives, not British citizens

Churchill was killing foreigners and enemies, Stalin was killing his own citizens

PapaDragon wrote:...he killed more Russians than the fucking Nazis (and helped Nazis kill some more through his retarded incompetence)

That is bunk. You have been reading too much Western propaganda.
With regards to Stalin's "incompetence". The West failed hard at both containing and defeating the Nazis. The British and French failed completely even with a materiel advantage. The first time German forces started losing battles proper was in the Soviet Union.

PapaDragon wrote:He didn't win shit, it was won in spite of him not because of him
Or are we forgetting how that dumbfuck moron ignored entire Operation Barbarossa when everyone and their grandma saw it coming?
If you want to example of his military leadership check out Winter War (also, some more comedy gold)

Stalin knew the war was inevitable. The Soviet Union was in the middle of a massive mobilization before Operation Barbarossa happened.
He tried to placate the Nazis as much as possible because he knew the mobilization would take another year to complete.
It was in the Soviet Union's interest to delay the rearmament process as much as possible to ensure the troops had the most up to date equipment.
He simply never expected the rest of Europe would fall that quickly so it was expected that the Soviet Union would have had more time to rearm.

With regards to the Winter War, who won in the end? It certainly wasn't the Finns who had to cede more territory to the Soviet Union than the one initially demanded by Stalin.
Sure there were plenty of losses on the beginning. But the military leaders were replaced and eventually the Finns did lose.

Narishkin for president. He's a chad. More charisma than Putin. Hopefully they are grooming him at the FSB for president. He's my top pick.

Check out this interview

https://twitter.com/BBCSteveR/status/1394533208654495744?s=19

Putin needs to arrange for a Unite Russia leadership selection process which will introduce new leader candidates to the public.
The process must be "managed" just like the west. Random foreign sponsored bloggers doe not get onto the US ballot.

Or are we forgetting how that dumbfuck moron ignored entire Operation Barbarossa when everyone and their grandma saw it coming?

It is suspected that Stalin was expecting some provocation from the British to start a conflict with Germany... up to the point of the German invasion of the Soviet Union Britain was essentially fighting Germany alone and they were desperate... I would think their spies in Germany were probably doing everything they could to turn Hitlers eyes to all those resources in the Soviet Union and away from the British Isles.

They had likely read Mein Kampf hundreds of times and knew what Hitler was thinking... how hard would it be to push them in that direction.

A few internal enemies could be faking a German attack to get a Soviet response to actually start a conflict as far as Stalin was concerned.

Millions Churchill killed were foreigners and colonial natives, not British citizens

Churchill was killing foreigners and enemies, Stalin was killing his own citizens

Stalin saw the Soviet citizens that were killed as holding the country back, and therefore an enemy of a good comfortable and prosperous future for Russia.

Churchill was happy enough to kill British people too when he thought it was necessary... no different from Stalin really at all.

More importantly Churchill was a vehement anti commie, yet was happy to jump straight into bed with uncle joe when it suited him... and he used other groups of people he hated when it suited him too...

With regards to Stalin's "incompetence". The West failed hard at both containing and defeating the Nazis. The British and French failed completely even with a materiel advantage. The first time German forces started losing battles proper was in the Soviet Union.

The first time the German ground forces were actually defeated and had to stop was at the gates of Moscow.... they were not defeated at the English Channel.

With regards to the Winter War, who won in the end? It certainly wasn't the Finns who had to cede more territory to the Soviet Union than the one initially demanded by Stalin.
Sure there were plenty of losses on the beginning. But the military leaders were replaced and eventually the Finns did lose.

It was not so much Stalin that caused heavy casualties in the Winter War, it was men in the Army who thought submachine guns were too expensive and used too many bullets so they didn't deploy them in the armed forces. Experience in the Winter War led to the PPSh-41 which was an excellent weapon, and the later PPS-43 which the Finns actually copied for themselves.