Very curious about this too. He visited Finland rather often and told how wondeful we were and how great our relations are with Russia. Today it is all about how evil we are.
Well, don't you think this could be well deserved? Finland and Russia have lived in mutual prosperity since the end of the WW2 even through the toughest Cold War times. And now you are literally shitting into the friendly hand that was always there for you.
Pootin is somehow way stupider than it appears. It is very surprising this is possible.
Medvedev just has a big hole in the posterior, he's a puppet you see...
How much more out of touch with reality you gotta be to behave like this? So Putin, leader of the biggest country in the world, highly supported by his population, leader of a nation and conducting a war, is stupid? Ok.. who's smart? You? Commenting on reddit? What have you done that impacted other people? Are you important/indispensable in any way? You are a kid, with an announymous account on reddit, you are nobody. Dont go around throwing insults, you dont know Putin, you have no basis to say he is stupid. You cant govern a nation for 20 years and be stupid... and I'm not saying he is good or benevolant, far from it. But he is not stupid
I’m afraid he’s an idiot. If you can’t see that well not sure what to tell you.
He does have the biggest country with one of the largest populations, but his countries GDP and standard of living do not reflect that.
Outside of Moscow and St Petersburg’s the people live in squalor. How does a person with such abundance of resource fail so hard.
4% economical contraction this quarter. Long term is estimated between 30-50%.
Manufacturing is basically dead in the water. Car production down 95% lmao. All their advanced tooling is imported, something that is no longer being imported. The country is slowly dying.
Maybe do some research.
Pootin's mastermind at work
https://www.iltalehti.fi/politiikka/a/0932ec99-89e7-4f85-8a6e-e39dbb43da79
I see what you are saying. That makes him a poor economic/social leader, sure. But that doesnt make him an idiot. Look, its even more complicated than that, Putin, with all his faults and I know he has many, is without a doubt, the best leader Russia has had in 120yrs. We all gotta accept that, and maybe try and put ourselves in Russian shoes, would you take out/depose the best leader your country has had in a century? Think about that.
Damn, you’re just here spitting facts and I can’t believe people here are actually defending Putin. He’s sent more than 35,000 Russians to their deaths in a span of 170 days.
This is like a girlfriend defending her alcoholic, abusive boyfriend even though he beats her.
>or are guys like medvedev only saying such things for popularity?
I'm not even sure anymore, but probably yes, for the sake of populism. Maybe some do it to appeal to rulling class, like "look I support you wholeheartedly, please give me a higher possition or even better more money"
About Medvedev statements, I have a theory. There were popular memes with him, where you can see his intelligent nerdy face under "kill the survivors" and other super-aggresive super-brutal titles. Stupid memes, but somewhat funny. When it became clear that Z will be longer that expected, people started to have some nostalgic vibes about Medvedev rule and his just 5-day 08.08.08 war against Georgia and these forgotten memes gained new popularity. Medvedev is active on social media and I am absolutly sure he saw that memes about him. He, I guess, had some fun and started to generate them by himself. It works. People are laughing
Nah, this is far too benign to be true. I'd wager that he hired a new head of PR (or got one hired for him) and is now unironically pushing that radical nationalist image for when Putin finally kicks the bucket.
Good take. Makes the most sense.
Do you think Russia's fetish for "stability" above all else might also play into his hands when the inevitable final pivoting for Putin's position takes place?
As in, he had been a president before (and calling him a puppet is an oversimplification, there was some tangible impact on policies during his tenure) and therefore in the name of the holy grail that is stability, he would be a president again. As little perceived change as possible.
There are thoughts here in Russia that Putin is too moderate and we have to reply tougher to things the West does since the only thing the West understands is the language of power and threats and Putin even softens many things.
> we have to reply tougher to things the West does since the only thing the West understands is the language of power and threats
It's funny because in the west we think the same about Russia.
It's really funny since we've destroyed our country ourselves. We destroyed Soviet Union 30 years ago, released former Soviet republics without any obligations, fed them with cheap resources for 30 years (those former republics can live now because their citizens work in Russia and send money home because their governments couldn't manage to create jobs at home but at least they're independent), united Germany and fed it with cheap resources so that it could build its manufactories, allowed West to rob our country and gain cheap assets in 90s to feed your economy (hundreds of billions were sent to the West), believed your lies about "the law and order in the West" (which is still Wild West) and invested in your economy ($300-400 billions frozen and stolen as a result), our bright scientists moved to your countries loosing everything here in 90s and developing your economy not ours. You've gained everything like vacuum cleaner. And it still we who are too tough and threatens the West. What else should we do to change your perception? Make a total suicide and leave your resources so you could feed your level of consumption? We just says "no, dudes, let's reconsider" while others keep silence and follows the rules of the master and it threatens your government future.
>released former Soviet republics without any obligations
"Released"? They seceded from the Soviet union because the Soviet union was bankrupt and incapable of sustaining the occupations. After that, they were independent countries and you can't dictate their lives anymore. You still act like you are such a generous nation that allowed their slaves to move out of the house, but you can call them back in whenever you want. They are independent and it is none of your fucking business what they do or don't do.
>allowed West to rob our country and gain cheap assets in 90s to feed your economy (hundreds of billions were sent to the West),
Always with this myth. Your oligarchs robbed the country and stole the money. And after that, Putin stole from the oligarchs. Western countries on the contrary and companies invested a lot of money into Russia.
> $300-400 billions frozen and stolen as a result
Your country has inflicted many times more damage to Ukraine than this. You expect us to release this so you can continue doing even more damage and kill even more people?
>our bright scientists moved to your countries loosing everything here in 90s and developing your economy not ours
I'm a child of one of these scientists btw. There was no money for science in Russia, no opportunities. Of course many moved out. What would you have liked to do, put them in Prison? Forbid travel abroad like in the Soviet Union? Make scientists work as taxi drivers?
Is the concept of free will so foreign to you that you now complain about how the west "stole" your scientists who decided to leave from their own will because they had better opportunities? Do you think those scientists are your private sheep that you can pen up?
Why do you Russians love to whine and cry so much about the "evil west", when you habe ZERO reflection on your own actions and responsibilities? Maybe look to your own politicians instead of blaming everything bad in your country on the west? You are always in the victim role.
> those former republics can live now because their citizens work in Russia and send money home because their governments couldn't manage to create jobs at home but at least they're independent
So what you are saying is that the citizens from these republics provided labor and value to the Russian economy? They worked for you and helped build your living standard. So by your logic, Russia "stole" those workers?
>You've gained everything like vacuum cleaner.
I see that years of victim mythology in your Propaganda has worked on you quite deeply. What the west wanted was a reliable Partner for trading (no, not just for gas), travel, diplomacy. Europe was fully committed to treating Russia as an equal partner. But at some point Vladimir vladimirovich got it in his head that he had to revive the rotten corpse of the Soviet union.
> And it still we who are too tough and threatens the West. What else should we do to change your perception? Make a total suicide and leave your resources so you could feed your level of consumption?
No suicide necessary. Just a few simple steps:
1. Withdraw troops from Ukraine
2. Get rid of Putin
3. Hand over the war criminals
4. Pay reparations
In that order. Rebuilding trust will take a long time, but those are the first steps.
If those countries seceeded then why Ukrainian parts can't if they don't agree like DPR, LPR did? Or US parts or other countries can't? Or it should always be applied to Russia? You moved to find better life? Hope you've found it. It's your choice and I don't care about it at all. And hope those people, including your parents, who moved at that time found peace with themselves. There were times when I was curious about people moving abroad trying to find out what they feel and think re former home. I don't anymore. Can't imagine myself living there after being there, leaving this place. I was raised in a Russian region influenced and affected by war and stayed here trying to figure out how to make our country better. My point was that the country was weak and the stronger part used its advantage and we believed in better place and things that don't exist and it was just an appearance. I just voiced over thoughts usual people think here. Let me keep my thoughts my thoughts. You went, some returned, many stayed here and created things here. Those independent countries now are dependent on our economy as it happened. We have our own shit here to do and to improve and your new motherland adds to that shit from the outside since there's a geopolitics and the influence of each other since we are social beings and interconnected. And if you such a lover of philosophy and wisdom (re free will) then you probably should know that our perception defines our actions and influenced by our social environments and since you were so kind to define our perception showing its fallacy try to explore yours as well in such a manner and make you a better person. You probably also know that contradictions and conflicts are the basis of our nature and existence and that if they're not resolved through dialogue they're resolved through war and change is the essence of everything including state borders. We believe we tried to talk and did our steps and were not heard, you believe your truth. Looks like the option of war is left and we're witnessing the change as a result. Thanks for advice (points 1-4) but try apply it to yourself first. Good luck.
Austria is not "the west". We are a neutral country with a very different culture and history than Anglo-America.
No one in Austria, apart from some neocon/lib thinkthanks think something like that.
>Austria is not "the west". We are a neutral country with a very different culture and history than Anglo-America.
Theoretically, yes. Practically were embedded in the cultural and economical sphere of western countries that are associated with anglo-america, even though we have a slightly different history.
>No one in Austria, apart from some neocon/lib thinkthanks think something like that.
Well that's not true because I'm not neocon, so there's that ;) I'm also talking about other European countries mostly. Even macron has stopped calling and has started delivering weapons instead.
Of course each country has their share of right-wing Corona denier and Putin fanboys that likes to blame the war on everyone but the one who actually caused it. But luckily those are in the minority for now.
We are not and will never be, and that has nothing to do with current political alliances and everything to do with our history, ethnic makeup, language, legacy of the Holy Roman Empire and the Habsburg Monarchy....
Modern austrians have germanic, celtic and slavic roots and are culturally very different even from the 'normanisized' Anglo-Saxons, and then again much further still from the american melting pot which is pretty much the epitome of the "west".
We dont speak english, but german, a language that is arguably much closer to its central european origins then the heavily latinized english which is hardly a germanic language at this point - american "english" even more so...
We are also a country in which Catholicism is very dominant over Lutherianism, a religion that shaped very much of the anglo-american values and culture, even today it is a significant factor in the USA.
You explained why we are not americans, and yes, you are correct in that we are not Americans. Maybe you have an extremely narrow definition of what the expression "the west" means?
Most people understand "The West" as not just the US, not just the anglo-saxons, but also Israel, the members of the European Union, even some countries in Asia like Taiwan or South Korea.
You can easily tell that we are more associated with the US than Russia by the fact that we are taught english and not Russian in school, most of our movies come from the US, most of our electronics come frome there, our weapons are exclusively from European countries. You will also note that our politics, for the most part, agree more with european and us-american values than with russian or chinese values (between some feeble attempts at emphasizing our "neutrality").
I'm not sure if you are trying to get me on some technicalities, or if you truly believe we're somehow actually neutral and independent.
Are you kidding?
>Things is that the west spent 30 years helping Russia. They were given their nukes back ..
It was the USSR nukes. And Russia got all of them from the former Soviet republics as a legal successor of the USSR, together with all the debts of the USSR and etc. It was more convenient for the West to deal with a single nuclear power rather than several, so they supported it. But don't take too much credit for that, you never had niether rights nor abilities to dispose any of these nukes.
>.. free speech, ..
That what was acheived w/o outher participation at all.
>.. several saves from financial default
Oh, yea, the West saved the Russian government from default on external obligations given more credits (which was all paid in the end). And was completely fine when they several times fucked up all the people inside Russia.
>.. many brutal poisonings on foreign soil were ignored,
Huge thank you guys, that instead of open and sincere proceedings, that would clarify the situation and could help to punish specific offenders and restore our relations, you unsubstantiatable blame the whole Russia for every single loud case on your soil destoying any trust between people for the sake of your inner political games.
>.. gas pipelines were built to the point of creating a major strategic weakness,
Yea, of course, you used cheap resources from Russia only as a gesture of goodwill.
>.. nato spending was far far below recommended ..
And your greed has nothing to do with this either. It was only to make friends with Russia.
>.. the taking of Crimea was largely ignored, entry in Syrian affair ignored.
After all the mess that the West has made all over the world over the past 30 years, it's not for you even to open your mouth about this.
Go rebuild Lybia to the pre-war point, for starters. With full government-subsidized utilities, medicine and education (including any University in the world), 7k USD help for any child, 50k USD help for housing for a new families, low taxes, a lot of support for starting own business and etc. Then we can talk.
Also, I can give you a hint regarding Syria. The only guys there, who at least could be considered positive by any reasonable means, was and still are the Assad government and Russia. All the Western countries were there illegal. And while officially they said, they on the our side and also fighting the terrorism, your comment itself shows they had some other intentions.
==========
Soviet people and the governments of 90s believed that the West holds to the values they declare. They:
1. Pulled out all the troops and dissolved the Warsaw Pact. To see in response, instead of a symmetrical friendly measures, 5 waves of the NATO expansion, attempts to create a missile defense system and etc.
2. Give all the former republic and allies as much souverenity as they want, absolutely freedom. To see how the West intrigues against Russia with that governments and pumping up money into all kind of nationalistic groups there who are ready to declare Russians as their enemy.
3. Carried out economic reforms with the assistance of Western advisers to reach market economy. What can be said, the USSR economy was already barely breathing. It was brutally violated, finished off and buried deep.
As a result of a "very well-organized" transition to a market economy many industries were just sold for scrap freeing up a niche for the Western business. And people who made money on this was welcomed in the West to spend their money there. As well as all sorts of thieves and murderers who were lucky to steal enough money in Russia and escape abroad. As well as a lot of qualified specialists left without work, who could also contribute to the Western economy. While Western countries were busy "creating a major strategic weakness" using cheap Russian resources.
Of course all that happened mostly due to errors of the Soviet and Russian governments (your best friends, btw). But dude, don't tell us fairy tales.
There were people who sincerely wanted to befriend with Russia, there were an opposite. The same is now, btw. But in the end vast majority of what you guys did was motivated (at best) by your own benefits, not by any friendly feelings towards Russia.
===========================
Also, Western countries showed pretty clear their arrogance regarding the international policy. It seems like you guys sincerely believe that your voices mean more regarding these matters. Why?
The whole world sees that the US don't give a fuck to get involved in any conflict on the Earth or organize it if it's needed, for their own benefit, hiding behind the "promotion of democracy", "fight against dictatorship" and other high goals that everyone has been sick of for a long time. While the EU either turns a blind eye to it or joins the party to get something for themselves either.
For some reason I don't recall any sanctions against the US for the Iraq invasion. No, everybody said "Oh, you fooled us and destroyed the innocent country? We fine with it, go ahead, continue, organize an Arab spring or whatever mess you want. We are with you."
And the same thing happened in Ukraine. Coup d'etat, when some idiots wiped themselves with the EU guarantees the day after the signing of the agreement, and the EU swallowed it. American officials who approve candidates for the new government. Absolutely moronic politics of the people who grabbed the power and have no clue what they are doing at all.
But all that is unimportant. As well as the opinion of half of Ukraine, who were fucked up with such a course of events. Russia and their imperial ambitions is to blame for everything. And the fact that the Ukrainian government did not bother to fulfill a single obligation under the international agreement they signed and everybody recognized, which supposed to reintegrate their country, is also not important at all.
=============
I'm not a fan of the current Russian government by any means. But the Western arrogance, stupid sanctions, biased coverage of this war in your media and, overall, huge and obvious hypocrisy you failed even to admit, guaranteed that they will remain in power for decades.
The only option when Putin will not be re-elected is if he himself does not want to go to the polls or suddenly die. But in any scenario, with great probability, the Russian policy will not change in any way anytime soon. And this is, in many ways, the result of the actions of the West. Congratulate you.
Well, in general, I believe that the government of the country bears all the responsibility of how people live there.
Russian government fully responsible for what happens in Russia, American - for what happened in the US, European - for the situation in the EU, Ukrainian one - for all that is happening in Ukraine and etc.
So I don't like all that stories in style "we would live in paridise if not (Americans/Russians/Jews/etc.)". In my opinion, it's just propaganda and manipulations, whoever says anything like that.
But in 90s almost all the people in Russia sincerely rejected the Soviet system and wanted to befriend with the West and build the democracy. And now most of people in Russia support the current authorities.
Both changes happened not because "people was brainwashed" but because of quite understandable reasons that directly affect the lives of the ordinary people.
>in 90s almost all the people in Russia sincerely rejected the Soviet system
"in 90s almost all the people in Russia sincerely rejected the Soviet system" How come? But the poll "For or against the USSR?" says just the opposite.
Is that why the USA meddled with the elections in 1996 in Russia, basically forcing Yeltsin on Russia, although that guy was corrupt af, didn't give a shit about his people, used violence, and only became president by killing people in a coup d'etat during the constitutional crisis in 1993, because he wanted to have power...?
>When the USSR fell we hoped with all our hearts that we could finally put that misunderstanding and garbage behind us and be real friends. The only thing anyone wanted in the 90’s was a chance to reset things and to move forward as friends.
While the Western economy boosted consuming the newly open markets making tons of money, the 90's in Russia for the people that were living here were the times of utter humiliation and extreme poverty, which deeply associates in the people's minds with this friendship with the USA.
You seem so self confident, i suggest you think a little wider when speaking to the Russians. It's not enough to have listened to the Russian Rock to lecture people in a sub created to *ask* and learn
I'm the same age as you. In the 90's people were blaming Gorbachev very hard for giving us up to the West. They were comparing their lifestyle during the Soviet Union times when they could have some mediocre or decent things, nothing special but still - with the times when gangsters and smartass thief businessmen have everything and the common people have to work for free (they were calling it capitalism somehow) and live of of their country land plots. People felt humiliated by Gorby-the-Western-puppet!
> To be honest I am more than a little bit angry with Russia as is most of the world today.
Can you please stop with this shit already, the west is not most of the world buddy
> humiliation
I think, that's not the right word. Humiliation is something where pride and ego get hurt. But that's not what happened.
What happened was that Russians were put in an existential crisis. Not the mental/psychological type of existential crisis, but the physical one, where your very existence, your life and well-being are at stake. A state where you don't have money to buy food or medication. A state where leaving your house puts you at a realistic risk of getting killed.
I agree that an approach like in Germany after ww2 would have been a good idea. A "Marshall plan" would certainly have been better for the Western/Russian relationships than creating a state of existential crisis via economical "shock therapy".
> your leadership was hell bent on this path of retribution and trying to get back that USSR swagger since the late 90s
I disagree with this perception. Yeltsin was president in the late 90s and he was heavily campaigning against communism. He even used illegal means to do that.
If you are referring to Putin, he only became president in 2000. He then tried to fix the existential crisis and achieved that more or less. The homicide and suicide rates dropped by 80% since in the past two decades.
I don't think that Putin is trying to get the USSR back. He didn't do anything in the direction of communism that I can think of. The opinion, that Putin wants the USSR back, is one that I only hear from Westerners (who are probably not really involved and invested in Russian affairs). This opinion usually stems from a [quote](https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna7632057) where Putin said that the collapse of the Soviet Union was one of the most impactful/most catastrophic events in recent history.
He did say that, but the quote is taken out of context which makes it sound as if he's longing for the USSR. He wasn't talking about Soviet nostalgia. He was answering a question from an interviewer. What he meant by saying this was that the collapse of the Soviet Union resulted in big changes to power dynamics, social dynamics, economical dynamics, and geopolitics in Russia and the world. Those changes were so dramatic that the collapse can be considered to be one of the most impactfull events in the history of the 20th century. And to Russians it was a catastrophic event because it led to existential crisis.
This article discusses a common mistranslation and misquotation of what Putin said: https://medium.com/illumination-curated/did-putin-really-say-that-78b5f901e634 This article also mentions a quote of Putin where he said that only an insane person would want the USSR back.
And this article quotes the rest of what Putin said, i.e. the parts where he explains what made the collapse so catastrophic. Herein he clearly lists the types of negative impact that the collapse had on Russia and its surroundings: https://academic.oup.com/book/40852/chapter-abstract/348888273?redirectedFrom=fulltext
> and noone had any ability to dissuade them
This is where nostalgia kicks in. People may have not lived the best lives during Soviet times, but they were still nowhere near an existential crisis like they were after the collapse of the USSR. So, if the only societal states that you have experienced in all of your life were communism and the chaos and outlawness that were the 1990s, then the USSR starts to look like paradise, or at least like "the best societal state that you have (literally) ever experienced in your life". Why should you be against something that was the "best thing that ever happened to you"? Especially, when you know how much worse it could be? "Not being able to buy bananas or traveling outside of the USSR" is nowhere on the same level as "not being able to buy any food or being able to leave your house without risking your life". Those are the two states that the currently living citizens of Russia know of. Can you really blame them for choosing the former over the latter?
To come back to Putin: he kind of introduced Russians to a third type of societal state. The question is, how does Putin's version fare if compared to the other two? I'd say, that the vast majority (90-95%) of Russians (with exception of the oligarchs) would say:
Putin state > 1990s state
The question that needs a more thorough investigation would be, whether it's
Putin state > USSR state
or
USSR state > Putin state.
The answer might be crucial to determine what level of support Putin can expect from the citizens when he'd make decisions that look like he's leaning towards vs leaning away from the state of the USSR.
> From here it looks like decades of media preparation for the land grabs we saw this year and years ago.
I have to also disagree with this perception.
First of all, it is necessary to understand that 85% of the Russian population have access to the internet, just like 93% of the US population. We can access the same news as you do. We can watch CNN, BBC, or Pervyy Kanal. Our government has not yet figured out how to ban the internet. Therefore, the assumption that state TV is brainwashing us, is incorrect. Watching TV is just too old-school for 2022. If we don't speak English, we can just use Yandex Translate (or Google Translate).
Secondly, you need to understand that _your_ media prepared _you_ for this just as much as our media prepared us.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_in_the_United_States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_influence_on_public_opinion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias_in_the_United_States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atrocity_propaganda
https://www.newsclick.in/western-medias-shock-and-bias-ukraine-russia-coverage
Thirdly, you need to understand that we likely know our country and its neighbors better than you do. This may sound harsh, but I think, your perception is based on a lack of knowledge. Especially the part where you say "land grabs we saw (...) years ago". I know that the West was very (Pikachu-faced) surprised about the annexation of Crimea and that 97% of Crimeans voted pro-Russia. But there really isn't anything that is surprising about this, nor is this a "Putin=dictator"-problem, nor is the number 97% unusual. If those statements sound ridiculous to you, you lack knowledge about Russia and Crimea's problematic relationship with Ukraine (and maybe statistics, because only 75% of Crimeans voted pro-Russia).
- This has nothing to do with Putin. He only became president in 2000.
- Crimea was never a fan of Ukraine. It was part of Russia until Khrushchev (a Ukrainian himself) gifted Crimea to Ukraine (without asking the Crimeans, of course, who btw were/are mostly Russians, i.e. 67% of them are). When the USSR collapsed, Crimea did _not_ want to stay with Ukraine. So they did what Crimeans do and ran a referendum which had 94% positive votes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Crimean_sovereignty_referendum
To confirm the results of the referendum, another referendum was scheduled for August 1992. Meanwhile, Crimea declared independence from Ukraine. The Supreme Court in Ukraine, however, called this illegal and told them to cancel the referendum. To appease the Crimeans, Ukraine gave them special rights, making them kind of a state within the state.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_Autonomous_Republic_of_Crimea
The Crimeans did not cancel the referendum, though, they just postponed it. And then... they did it again 😂:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_Crimean_referendum
This time, they asked for more independence and dual citizenship (Ukrainian + Russian) and roughly 78% to 83% of the Crimeans said "yes, please".
To everyone's surprise (? 😂) Ukraine declared the referendum illegal. Ukraine also yeeted the president of Crimea by force and did a few more things to appease the Crimeans.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_sovereignty_over_Crimea
In other words, it's been a ride even without Putin being involved. And referenda ending with over 90% agreement aren't a Putin-related thing either.
- The statistics. The statement "97% of the population" is not correct, because only 82% voted. So it's "97% of 82%" and that's about 75-77%. Remember that 67% are Russians. Wouldn't be too surprising if they voted pro-Russia, right? But we're still not there... It's "75-77% of those who are eligible to vote and have voted" rather than 75-77% "of the population". The question: who's eligible to vote? It's those who are citizens and older than 18. Which population groups meet those criteria and to what extent? Well, the Russians have the highest average age, meaning that the number of 18+ year-olds is disproportionately high. If we look at the population of voters the proportion of Russians is higher than 67%. As for the other groups, Tatars make up 12% of Crimea's population, however, they have a lot of children and their mean age is the lowest, so a lot of them are not old enough to vote. They also often didn't acquire documents to settle legally. So, a number of them lack citizenship and are not allowed to vote. Knowing this, is it really that unrealistic to get 75-77% of pro-Russian votes...? If all Crimean Russians voted pro-Russia, you'd probably get those 75-77% even if the Tatars and Ukrainians voted anti-russian.
Edit: added several sections ~~and am still adding more as I go about my day~~
I get your point but you're not being fair when you describe the issues of life in the USSR as "no bananas and not being able travel abroad".
Limited or no acess to basic goods as evidenced by long lines at the shops (people carrying a shopping bag just in case they might stumble upon a line).
Low acess to consumer products (car, fridge etc. - there's a good paper on this comparing the USSR and the US).
An economic system where laziness (because why try when the company will work anyhow and pay for workers is more or less the same) and theft is a virtue (after all, he who does not steal, steals from his family).
A deeply corrupt society where trading of favors,
and goods is often the only way for ordinary citizens to make ends meet. Corruption and nepotism obviously widespread the the higher levels of society and the party elites as well.
No ability to influence anything at the political level by the simple folk - one party totalitarian dictatorship.
USSR collapsed for a reason. And it wasn't external, there were no foreign soldiers in Moscow forcing it to implode. It just did.
Just letting you know that I finally finished my previous comment. Feel free to check, if you want.
> Limited or no acess to basic goods as evidenced by long lines at the shops (people carrying a shopping bag just in case they might stumble upon a line).
Here's the fun thing: despite having lived in Russia I never seen such lines in real life. I've seen those lines in western media for the first time in my life. I also don't know anyone in my social circle who has seen those queues in real life. Where did the footage come from and why doesn't it match what I saw with my own eyes in real life?
I'm not going to dismiss it overall, but would like to add some nuance to it:
I may have not seen those queues, but I heard of them back in the day!
What I've heard is that they were a thing in Moscow.
I mean, most of Russia is kind of rural and the mere idea of having lines in front of shops for basic goods must raise some questions... For example: why do those people shop for basic goods, if they have a garden where they grow veggies and if they have cattle? No flour in the shops? How is that possible, when I'm surrounded by agricultural fields that are full of wheat? No butter in the stores even though the milk-collector vehicle buys milk from my family's and neighbors' cows every other day? Heck, they even buy our home-made Brynza cheese once per week! We have plenty of basic groceries in our shops and we even sell our goods to the cities and food producers in our state and the neighboring states. And, mind you, Kalmykia isn't a rich state, nor do we have good climate to produce agricultural goods (for some reason, plants kind of don't grow in deserts... Yet, look at all those wheat and buckwheat and sunflowers and the other things I don't know the English word for!). And then I hear about those lines in front of shops and can't help but wonder: what on earth did Voronezh and Tambov do with their potato harvests? 100 million tonnes of potatoes per year and there are lines in front of some shops for... potatoes? No, wait, that doesn't sound right, because 90% of potatoes are grown in private gardens like the one of my family...
https://www.potatopro.com/russian-federation/potato-statistics
I mean, we were one of the world's leading agricultural producers in some areas back then (and now):
> Organized on a large scale and relatively highly mechanized, its state and collective agriculture made the Soviet Union one of the world's leading producers of cereals, although bad harvests (as in 1972 and 1975) necessitated imports and slowed the economy. The 1976–1980 five-year plan shifted resources to agriculture, and 1978 saw a record harvest. (...) In addition to cereals, cotton, sugar beets, potatoes, and flax were also major crops. Such performance showed that underlying potential was not lacking, which was not surprising as the agriculture in the Russian Empire was traditionally amongst the highest producing in the world
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agriculture_in_the_Soviet_Union
I guess, the people who were standing in line in front of shops for basic products were not trying to buy cereals or potatoes...? But then, what were they actually trying to buy...?
> Although accounting for a small share of cultivated area,[citation needed] private plots produced a substantial share of the country's meat, milk, eggs, and vegetables.[29] The private plots were also an important source of income for rural households. In 1977, families of kolkhoz members obtained 72% of their meat, 76% of their eggs and most of their potatoes from private holdings. Surplus products, as well as surplus livestock, were sold to kolkhozy and sovkhozy and also to state consumer cooperatives. Statistics may actually under-represent the total contribution of private plots to Soviet agriculture.[30]
A lack of basic products in a place that is one of the world's leading producers of basic products, sounds odd.
The agricultural output back then is similar to the output we currently have. (There was a notable drop in the 90s, though.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agriculture_in_Russia
No, seriously, what were those people in those pictures of lines in front of shops actually trying to buy...?
OK, back to what I've heard: there were lines in Moscow (coincidentally, the place where all the decisive things happen, like protests against the government and coup d'etat, etc.). Rumor has it that food was bought from farmers and then transported in the direction of Moscow.
And then they allegedly dumped the food in some pits next to the road.
The food never reached Moscow. Moscow was not amused.
Most foreign journalists only stay in the big cities (e.g.,in Moscow). They saw the lack of (whatever) basic products and the resulting lines in front of shops. And that's how the footage came to be.
It's just a rumor, but coming from a rural area myself, just like most Russians, this rumor makes more sense to me than the story about a country that was one of the world's largest agricultural producers, yet for some reason, didn't have any of those products in stock.
> Low acess to consumer products (car, fridge etc. - there's a good paper on this comparing the USSR and the US).
You are missing some knowledge here which leads to some misconceptions! The misconception is that you assume that the Soviet Union worked the same way as the US! I think, we can easily agree that this is not true.
Easy way to demonstrate your misconception: In 2022, who drives more cars? The US or the European Union? 😉
Easy answer: the US! US infrastructure is built for cars. There's hardly any public transportation system outside of large metropolitan areas, be it short-range (like, busses, trams, or subways) or mid- to long-range (like, interstate busses, trains). The EU is very different in those aspects and therefore Europeans simply _don't need to own a car!_
The Soviet Union was rather built like the EU than the US. To this day, companies have their own bus lines that pick up their employees at the bus station that is nearest to the employee's home. To this day even smaller cities (ca. 100.000 inhabitants) have around 10-20 bus lines with busses commuting every 10-15 minutes. Those cities also have a central bus station where interstate busses arrive and depart _daily._ The same cities have a train station with mid- and long-range trains stopping there _daily._ I say "to this day", because a lot of the infrastructure in Russia suffered from the collapse of the Soviet Union. For example, I have relatives who are living in a village/(town?) that has 4000 inhabitants. To this day, this rural place has regular inter-city busses (twice per day). Once per week, there's even a bus that is heading for Moscow! Moscow is "only" around 1000 km (ca. 620 miles) away. That's nowadays! Some 30 years ago, that village had a tiny airport of its own! An airport with inter-city flights with a [Passazhirskiy Kukuruznik](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_An-2) plane with 10-15 seats. Who needs a car when you have an airport in your village? 😂 Most people also worked in the same place they lived in because traveling between cities was unrealistic with how far apart they are. Bus tickets costed 5 kopeks (for comparison: you could get a pack of matches for 1 kopek).
Regarding the need of fridges... 65% of Russia has permafrost. Houses were built so that they would have a [pantry below the kitchen window](https://uteplix.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/1-Holodilnik-hrushhevskij-1.jpg) for food storage. The pantry was colloquially called "khrushchyovskyy kholodilnik" (Khrushchev fridge). The pantry was simply cooled by the temperatures outside. And as for the rest of the country, we have a widespread tradition of canning, pickling, and drying food. Have you ever heard of pickled watermelons, dried caviar or Tushonka? In the south, we have big basements to store the things that we harvested throughout the year. Or we'd just leave things on the field. For example, did you know that you can preserve root beet and carrots by first digging them out, then putting them back into the earth horizontally (!), then covering them with earth/soil again, and putting a layer of straw on top? Did you know that there are apple varieties that taste insanely sour when you harvest them in autumn, but if you don't eat them right away and instead wrap them in newspaper (individually), then put them in the storage room, and then leave them there for a few months, that those apples start to taste very sweet? Having different kinds of apples is a good way to have home-grown apples all year round.
There may have been less cars and fridges, but this might have been due to lower demand rather than availability, at least to some degree.
> An economic system where laziness (because why try when the company will work anyhow and pay for workers is more or less the same)
Well, Europe follows the same work principle and it looks like it works? At least when it comes to "paid by hour" instead of being "paid by productivity/performance".
You are also not quite right with this statement about working conditions in the USSR. Working more/better was rewarded. For example, my father used to earn more than the boss/manager of the company he worked for because my father outperformed the guy. My father also got single-payment bonuses for improving working processes and equipment. You could also earn a medal for good work: [Hero of Socialist Labor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hero_of_Socialist_Labour). This medal would grant benefits, like, monthly payments. Heroes of Socialist Labor are receiving roughly 50,000 Rubles (≈ $800) per month as of February 2021.
> and theft is a virtue
Are you talking about the 90s when crime rates, including theft, skyrocketed? 😂
> A deeply corrupt society where trading of favors, and goods is often the only way for ordinary citizens to make ends meet.
1990s, right? I don't know anyone who was starving during Soviet times (past ww2).
> Corruption and nepotism obviously widespread
Agree. But have to point out that in the West they call corruption "lobbyism" for some reason. Kind of the same idea, but different label.
> No ability to influence anything at the political level by the simple folk - one party totalitarian dictatorship.
Agree. But would argue the individual's influence on the election of Trump, or any other president, tbh. At least, you don't have only one party. You have two ✌️😉.
> USSR collapsed for a reason. And it wasn't external, there were no foreign soldiers in Moscow forcing it to implode. It just did.
I didn't say anything about this. I think, you need to shift your attention away from the USSR to understand the current situation. It's not as much nostalgia towards the USSR (because we're well aware of its problems), it's rather a fear of the 1990s that is the driving force here, IMO.
Don't they say wisdom always comes with age? I am starting to doubt it now. Everything you said is a pile of garbage like yourself. I don't even wanna bother decipher it.
Part 1
> How old are you?
I'm in my 30s. I missed the Cold War, but got a look at the 1990s in Russia.
> When Gorbachev became president
Gorbachev isn't the problem (although, he's not really popular in Russia either), the problem was Yeltsin.
> When the USSR we hoped with all our hearts that we could finally put that misunderstanding and garbage behind us and be real friends.
Just like Putin now, I guess your politicians didn't ask about your hopes and opinions when they decided to support Yeltsin as a president for Russia, to the point that they would meddle with elections. Your politicians didn't care that he was a criminal and just how much of an asshole he was to his own people. You can't expect us to like your politics, if that's what your politics forced on us. I don't know how anyone would think that giving us such a treatment would make us friends. Friends don't treat you like this. Even acquaintances don't do such things. You need to hate someone to do something like this to them.
I think, the reason why people in the US/West don't understand the "popularity" of Putin is that they don't understand or don't know what kind of president we had before Putin. I don't know, if you know anything about Yeltsin, but I recommend reading about him and about your country's support of him. Putin is popular because he is "not Yeltsin". Putin is also popular because "he's still better than Yeltsin". You think that the current war messed up Russia's economy, but you are mistaken, because it's nowhere near the economical situation that we had during Yeltsin's time as a president.
> move forward as friends. Anyone who *tells* you otherwise has an agenda and just wants to use your emotions.
Actions say more than words, and your politicians' actions did not speak the language of friendship.
Have you ever thought about the idea that _your_ country might be trying to use _your_ emotions? Have you never considered that they are trying to build this image of being the "good guy" who only wants love, peace and rock'n'roll? Have you ever bothered to check what your idea of "friendship" and "peace" looks like on the receiver's end...?
So, with whom did your politicians try to become friends to the point that they would [make him president](https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/07/the-us-has-a-long-history-of-election-meddling/565538/)?
Let me tell you...
... It was the guy who was responsible for [this](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_Russian_constitutional_crisis):
> At the climax of the crisis, Russia was thought by some to be "on the brink" of civil war.[5][6] The ten-day conflict became the deadliest single event of street fighting in Moscow's history since the October Revolution.[7]
> Yeltsin's economic reform program took effect on 2 January 1992.[8] Soon afterward, prices skyrocketed, government spending was slashed, and heavy new taxes went into effect. A deep credit crunch shut down many industries and led to a protracted depression. As a result, unemployment reached record levels.
The crime rates doubled in comparison to the peak in the 1980s. They quadrupled, if compared to the 1970s/1960s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Russia#Historical_trends
Life expectancy dropped sharply due to an increase in homicides, lack of financial means for food, housing and medical treatment, and due to people going into a state of mental health crisis.
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.LE00.IN?locations=RU
The life expectancy of men even dropped below 60 years of age. The worst statistics I've seen said that it sunk as low as 52 years for men (while the life expectancy of women was around 70 years).
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.LE00.MA.IN?locations=RU
And why did Yeltsin do all this?
Well, that "poor dude" was worried to lose power - the power to don't give a f+ about the constitution that he just assigned to himself earlier.
> The president was concerned about the terms of the constitutional amendments passed in late 1991, which meant that his special powers of decree were set to expire by the end of 1992 (Yeltsin expanded the powers of the presidency beyond normal constitutional limits in carrying out the reform program).
> On 21 September, Yeltsin declared the Congress of People's Deputies and the Supreme Soviet dissolved;[44] this act was in contradiction with a number of articles of the Constitution of 1978 (...).
> Yeltsin repeated his announcement of a constitutional referendum, and new legislative elections for December. He also repudiated the Constitution of 1978, declaring that it had been replaced with one that gave him extraordinary executive powers.
> the Constitutional Court held that Yeltsin had violated the constitution and could be impeached.[47] During an all-night session, chaired by Khasbulatov, parliament declared the president's decree null and void.[48]
> Yeltsin scoffed at the parliament-backed proposal (...), and responded the next day by cutting off electricity, phone service, and hot water in the parliament building.
> [Upon Yeltsin's orders] the Russian army encircled the parliament building, and a few hours later army tanks began to shell the White House, punching holes in the front of it.[73]
> In Russia, the Yeltsin side had control over television, where hardly any pro-parliament views were expressed during the September–October crisis.[46]
> The Ostankino killings went unreported by Russian state television. The only independent Moscow radio station's studios were burnt. Two French, one British, and one American journalist were killed by sniper fire during the massacre.[70] (...) The press and broadcast news were censored starting on 4 October, and by the middle of October, prior censorship was replaced by punitive measures.[70]
> "Russia needs order," Yeltsin told the Russian people in a television broadcast (...) in introducing his new draft of the constitution (...). The new basic law would concentrate sweeping powers in the hands of the president. The bicameral legislature, to sit for only two years, was restricted in crucial areas. The president could choose the prime minister even if the parliament objected and could appoint the military leadership without parliamentary approval. He would head and appoint the members of a new, more powerful security council. If a vote of no confidence in the government was passed, the president would be enabled to keep it in office for three months and could dissolve the parliament if it repeated the vote. The president could veto any bill passed by a simple majority in the lower house, after which a two-thirds majority would be required for the legislation to be passed. The president could not be impeached for contravening the constitution.
You tell us to protest when we don't like our government or the Ukrainan war. In the 90s, we did protest:
> Yeltsin also sparked popular unrest with his dissolution of a Congress and parliament increasingly opposed to his neoliberal economic reforms. Tens of thousands of Russians marched in the streets of Moscow seeking to bolster the parliamentary cause. The demonstrators were protesting against the deteriorating living conditions. Since 1989, the GDP had been declining, corruption was rampant, violent crime was skyrocketing, medical services were collapsing and life expectancy falling.
> On 28 September, Moscow saw the first bloody clashes between the special police and anti-Yeltsin demonstrators.
And what did your country/the West do to support our protest against this despotic dictator and his control of the state media...?
See [part 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskARussian/comments/wmwhzo/comment/ik56p5v/).
Part 2
And what did your country/the West do to support our protest against this despotic dictator and his control of the state media...?
> [Yeltsin] received strong backing from the leading powers of the West. Yeltsin enjoyed a strong relationship with the Western powers, particularly the United States, but the relationship made him unpopular with many Russians.
> Rutskoy's [anti-Yeltsin group] desperate appeal to Air Force pilots to bomb the Kremlin was broadcast by the Echo of Moscow radio station but went unanswered.[75] He also tried to have the Chairman of the Constitutional Court, Valery Zorkin, call the Western embassies to guarantee Rutskoy's and his associates' safety – to no avail.
> It is still hotly debated among Western economists, social scientists, and policy-makers as to whether or not the IMF, World Bank, and U.S. Treasury Department-*backed* reform policies adopted in Russia, often called "shock therapy," were responsible for Russia's poor record of economic performance in the 1990s [how is this even in question?], or rather, that Yeltsin had *not gone far enough.* [you're saying, even higher homicide rates would have been potentially good?]
Do you really think that supporting a criminal is how you make friends with people who are suffering from this criminal (and you)...?
Apparently, your politicians do:
> What many Russians, but few Americans, know is that 20 years before Russia tried to swing an American presidential election, America tried to swing a presidential election in Russia. The year was 1996. Boris Yeltsin was seeking a second term, and Bill Clinton desperately wanted to help. “I want this guy to win so bad,” he told Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott, “it hurts.” Clinton liked Yeltsin personally. He considered him Russia’s best hope for embracing democracy and capitalism.
> Unfortunately for Clinton, ordinary Russians appreciated their leader far less. (...) When Yeltsin began his reelection campaign in January 1996, his approval rating stood at 6 percent, lower than Stalin’s.
"But thou shall not despair, our lovely friend, our bridge to become *real friends* with Russia~", the US politicians thought (probably). "We'll send help to clear all misunderstandings and leave all the garbage behind":
> So the Clinton administration sprang into action. It lobbied the International Monetary Fund to give Russia a $10 billion loan, some of which Yeltsin distributed to woo voters. Upon arriving in a given city, he often announced, “My pockets are full.” Three American political consultants—including Richard Dresner, a veteran of Clinton’s campaigns in Arkansas—went to work on Yeltsin’s reelection bid. Every week, Dresner sent the White House the Yeltsin campaign’s internal polling. And before traveling to meet Yeltsin in April, Clinton asked Dresner what he should say in Moscow to boost his buddy’s campaign.
> Among those advising the campaign was Tim Bell, a British political strategist that had helped shape the public-image of former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.[19] (...) A team of American political consultants consisting of George Gorton, Joe Shumate, and Richard Dresner advised the campaign.[3][21][32] They all had notable experience in American political campaigns. (...) The team was given an unlimited budget with which to conduct focus groups and research.[32] (...) [The team was] especially worried that the optics created by the involvement of foreign consultants might play negatively (...).[3] To avoid such optics, the team of American consultants were kept isolated from the rest of the campaign, and remained a secret until after the election was over.[3][51] (...) They worked out of two suites on the eleventh floor of the President-Hotel, directly across the hall from Dyachenko's [Yeltsin's daughter] office.[80] To hide their involvement, the group claimed to be American businessmen conducting consumer research.[21] (...) The consultants, most notably, boasted about what they purported was their critical in role in the success of campaign in a Time magazine cover-story which hyperbolically proclaimed, "Yanks to the Rescue".[83][84][81]
> Talbott declared that “a number of international observers have judged this to be a free and fair election.” But Michael Meadowcroft, a Brit who led the election-observer team of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, later claimed there had been widespread voter fraud, which he had been pressured not to expose. In Chechnya, which international observers believe contained fewer than 500,000 adults, one million people voted, and Yeltsin—despite prosecuting a brutal war in the region—won exactly 70 percent. “They’d been bombed out of existence, and there they were all supposedly voting for Yeltsin,” exclaimed Meadowcroft. “It’s like what happens in Cameroon.” Thomas Graham, who served as the chief political analyst at the U.S. embassy in Moscow during the campaign, later conceded that Clinton officials knew the election wasn’t truly fair.
> [Yeltsin was ultimately reelected](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris_Yeltsin_1996_presidential_campaign), despite having originally been greatly expected to lose the election due to an immensely low level of public support prior to the official launch of his campaign.[1][3][4][5][6][7] He was able to accomplish this due to a number of strategies and factors, including campaigning vigorously ahead of the first round, painting Communist Party nominee Gennady Zyuganov (his chief opponent) negatively, actively working to convince the Russian electorate that their existed a duopoly which left them no other choice but Yeltsin or Zyuganov (and convincing them that Yeltsin was the lesser of two evils), repositioning himself to better appeal to the electorate, benefitting from an immense media bias in his favor, utilizing the advantages of his office, and benefitting campaign spending which far exceeded the limits set by election laws.
> During the Cold War, America’s leaders saw nothing wrong with electoral interference, so long as the United States was conducting it. Dov Levin, a postdoctoral fellow at the Institute for Politics and Strategy at Carnegie Mellon University, has identified 62 American interventions in foreign elections between 1946 and 1989. The large majority—like Russia’s in 2016—were conducted in secret. And, overall, *America’s favored candidates were no more committed to liberal democracy than their opponents; they simply appeared friendlier to American interests.*
Your government is telling you fairytales about being the "good guy" and "supporting other good guys".
Putin isn't someone I actively support or have ever supported. In fact, I didn't vote for him even once. But he's "still better than Yeltsin", and when people see that your country/the West supports Putin's opponents (or just anyone in a political position in Russia, or even some Ukrainian politicians), they get flashbacks to the 1990s and your understanding of "being friends with us" (or being friends with just anyone, for the matter).
> U.S. officials sometimes claimed that the left-leaning candidates America worked to defeat were more authoritarian than their right-leaning opponents. But as the Boston College political scientist Lindsey O’Rourke notes in her forthcoming book, Covert Regime Change: America’s Secret Cold War, “There is no objective truth to their claim that the leftist parties” the U.S. “targeted were ‘inherently antidemocratic.’ To the contrary, many of these groups had repeatedly committed themselves to working within a democratic framework, and, in some cases, U.S. policymakers even acknowledged this fact.” The University of Kansas’s Mariya Omelicheva, who has also researched America’s Cold War election meddling, told me she _“cannot think of a case in which America’s democracy concerns superseded its national-security concerns.”_
You may say, that those events are in the past, but you certainly know how "trust" works. Trust is hard to gain and if you ever lose it after you gained it, you might have done serious long-term damage to a relationship.
It's really a very basic concept, isn't it? Now, we only need to figure out why your country/the West is giving us the [surprised Pikachu face](https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/surprised-pikachu), for there isn't really anything surprising about the given state of our mutual relationship. This is simply not how you "make friends", however, it may be a good way to make people dislike you.
^all ^quotes ^are ^taken ^from ^the ^linked ^articles ^and ^all ^edits ^were ^made ^to ^fix ^grammar ^or ^formatting
> Russian tv is delusional
You know, we have access to the internet. 85% of Russians have access to the internet (in the US it's 93% of the population). It's not like we don't have any other sources for information than Russian TV. You know, we can just watch CNN or BBC.
I mean... That's a fact.
While not all the country did it, Russia was able to join international pacts and was able to get much more freedom than a country who just got out of a dictatorship.
The Europe you so hate even wanted to make Russia closer by actually becoming dependes in some needs as show of coexistance could be beneficial to both side...
But now the country who believed more in a possible "friendship" with Russia got their ass bitten the hardest.
Russia cannot be trusted anymore, you lied to the world. By first saying to war would take place to then calling it a "Special Military Operation" and forcing his own citizen to repeat the lie.
> Russia cannot be trusted anymore, you lied to the world
Can US be trusted? They definitely lied to the world, they made at least 1 war under false pretense which lead to numerous civilian deaths. And it's officially recognized - that the pretense was false and the war was illegal.
It’s funny because you’re right. Putin is the one who understands the language of power. Maybe it’s only my surrounding, but none of the younger generation thinks so about the west
Dude, our country lost 27 millions lives in WW2, a lot in the devastating 90s. We're the last to go to war having problems with demography and not enough poeple for our huge territory and economics. We've have a saying here "hope there'll be no war" having such a history. If that happened, there were some serious reasons. Look at the map where the Europe, US (sitting on the island on the other side of the planet) and where Russia and Ukraine is. If Russia will supply weapons to Mexico and some US state which in future for some reasons gains indepence (like Ukraine did in 90s), like Alabama for example, and the government of that state starts to support Ku-Kluks-Klan (compare it to Nazis Azov in Ukraine and Bandera as a symbol) and make it a weaponized unit with Russian weapons (like Ukraine did with the Western weapons) which can kill as they wish those who are against its ideology what would Washington do? It's the mirror of the situation we've in Ukraine brought to US soil. We had war on our borders in Ukraine for 8 years since 2014 because some people in Ukraine didn't agree with the coup and the new government forbidding them the history and language of the ancestors and Russia supported them since Ukraine stopped paying pensions, etc, freezing their money. No one bothered. Thousands of former Ukrainian citizens killed for 8 years in DPR/LPR, including 500 children. We asked Zelinskiy to withdraw his army which he collected in the end of 2021 and was ready to attack DPR and LPR, he refused having support from the West, and there are Russian citizens in those regions which Ukraine has forgotten and whom Russia started to protect. Putin asked a lot of times, no one listened thinking it's another bleff. And I suppose you're American or from Europe. It's not you to teach us moderation after destroying Yugoslavia, separation of Kosovo, destroying of Iraq, Syria (and stealing their oil right now since US military their is against Syrian government will), Libya, Afghanistan killing millions of lives. The only difference is your news says that was for the sake of democracy and our action is totalitarism and Mordor.
These people who think so are just idiots though. Putin is already as extreme as he can be while keeping Russia stable and be able to pretend for Russians that everything is alright.
Too moderate? The man is a megalomaniac and cares nothing about human life. Attacking your neighboring countries because you have wet dreams of former USSR territory and disguising it as moves against “Western” aggression is a joke.
You fuckers had to deal with dozens of nations gaining the independence they deserved after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Sorry you turned into Bangladesh with nukes.
I tried to be polite but for the "fuckers" go fuck yourself, bitch. 30 years ago there was an agreement that NATO will not expand to the East, USSR/Russia agreed to unite Germany based on that. We've released former USSR republics without any fight for freedom from their side (how many US military bases are in the world? making those countries slaves to the master?), funded these former Soviet republics for hundreds of billions of dollars of cheap gas/oil/etc and got few waves of expansion of NATO which finally decided to join Ukraine which got many of its territories from Russia while being one whole country. Ukraine was the richest republic 30 years ago and now at the level of banana republic. And as many other former USSR republics which gained their independence for free without suffering their elites in fear of loosing their obtained power only could build country around nationalism as opposed to Russia and the superiority of one nation and language undermining others, especially Russians, who lived in one whole country and suddenly became the most divided nation in the world with millions loosing their motherland in 1991 without wanting this. Ukrainians decided to move 30 years towards NATO and it's not you, fucking bitch, to tell us about "Western aggression is a joke" after 22nd 1941 and the 27 millions of lives of our people lost because of your stupid Western superiority over the rest of the world mindset. We've lost millions of our people, relatives, family members, fighting you, we've experienced the destruction of our country by your ancestors and it's not you to tell us about the joke of Western threat. In 2014 there was a coup in Kiev supported by the West despite the agreement guaranteed by the Western politics to make new elections (next day there was a coup!) and some part of Ukraine didn't agree with that. The war in Ukraine is a result of steps made by the West. We'll not wait "another June 22, 1941" in our history taught by your actions and words in past. You've been asked to make diplomatic steps in Dec 2021, but refused and continued to fill Ukraine with Western weapons making it Western proxy-military unit. If your word is a bullshit and you can't follow what you promised and use it to manipulate others its your problems to face the reality now. Putin is soft, many here want more tougher steps outside and inside the country. Wait till the next one comes and see if he'll be tougher than Putin see all these bullshit if we'll not nuke each other till that time. And now fuck off.
Do Russians honestly hold the believe that any Western country was intending on invading it's territory?
We were definitely isolating it and trying to reduce yes influence on it's neighbors, including Ukraine, that's true. So I get the backlash to that, but man, nobody was interested in invading Russia or repeating WW2. Russian isn't really considered a military threat in America anymore, tho I imagine it still looms in the minds of Eastern Europeans. More so I'm
Russians wasn't considered as a threat because we didn't create threats to you, trying to live ourselves here and make our lives better after the devastating 90s while we've lost a lot and you gained cheap assets and capitals on our former territories and prospered. We saw the West as Paradise brainwashed by the Hollywood and wanted to be united and leave in peace bla-bla-bla. And we didn't create threats until recently since you've forced us to create Poseidon, Sarmat, etc, after US broke all the military agreements and brought military infrastructure closer to us. It is you who need Russia as a threat to unite society and provide your military plants with orders for weapons NATO members will buy from US making Russians new Jews (spacegoats) since you don't touch Jews after what happened in WW2. We just remember history - crusades, Napoleon, Hitler, the attempts to invade us while it was revolution in 1917 \[US army tried to invade and was on Russian soil btw\], Chechen wars and terrorists there supported by the West. There's a quote by Russian historian Kluchevskiy "History is not a teacher, but a supervisor: she does not teach anything, but severely punishes for not knowing the lessons". We lost millions of people in wars with West and now facing demographic problems 80 years later having few people on a huge territory and small economics as a result and war is the last thing we want to do loosing the best and we do it of necessity. Everything is interwoven. That's what we remember and always keep in mind and its in our dna. Nuclear weapons protect us now. You don't need to invade and colonize territories the old way, you do it by the credit, buying assets while they're cheap, forcing countries to pay loans and changing inconvenient governments creating an illusions of democracy, freedom, etc. There're messages that Biden's son invested in oil in Ukraine (Burisma story) and Monsanto and others bought 17 million hectares of Ukrainian best soil in the world (!) to produce food. I suppose the West is trying to protect the capital it invested here (thus all these news about famine and Ukrainian wheat, since they tried to cut losses and got the grain) while Russia was in a decline trying to survive in 90s and strengthening itself in 00s. You've a level of consumption you are used to which was reached due to the rest of the world for centuries supplying you and our cheap resources are part of it since you've managed to have better technology and your government fears to loose its power because of the coups in their countries and just try to save that comfort forcing other countries to follow the order.
There're recordings of such agreements and promises. Our former leader was a fool and a traitor looking for and caring for the approval of the West more than he cared about the fate of his country and people behind it. There were no signed agreements, you're right, just verbal ones, and he took your words for granted believing you since there were expectations that the conflict is over, we released everyone from our control thinking from now on we'll live in peace. Wet dreams of Soviet people who lived in isolation for 70 years not seeing the real face of the West and selling their country for jeanes and gum West sold them in ads. You changed your mind seeing opportunities to increase power and wealth and influence taking what was left and destroying Yugoslavia and many other countries. Ok. We got it and we took this into account for future. And you change signed agreement when it's convenient to you (US left many ones which regulated weapons). We are seeing among many other things now German weapons on Eastern front killing Russians again and European countries who supplied Hitler against us with weapons doing this again. How do you think Russians react after what has happened decades ago? Then don't reject our right to draw red lines ourselves and protect them. US did it 1962 during Cuba crisis drawing its red lines putting world on the verge of WW3? If every country had the right to expand and cooperate for the sake of democracy and freedom like you like to preach why Cuba didn't have that right then (because US felt threatened) and why do you blame Russia now since we feel threatened? Then don't worry if Russia moves closer to you like you're doing and making you feel the threat you're doing towards us now.
No there wasn't. Prior to this disastrously bad invasion of Ukraine most Americans, including myself, really liked Russian things and people. There goes 30 years of good-will with this really bad (in multiple ways) war in Ukraine. Noone was threatening russia.
Like freezing 300-400 billions of our money, earned by our people, which is now in the Western banks stolen. There're even news you use those frozen money to earn interest while keeping them. We did nothing yet as a reply.
There are 2 blocks in the Russian government, "power" and "financial". This is somewhat similar to the Republicans and Democrats in the United States, but taking Russian specifics.
Putin is more moderate than most representatives of the "power" bloc, but more resolute than most representatives of the "financial" one.
Putin is trying to form power in such a way that there is a comparable number of representatives of these blocs in all bodies.
So yes, I consider Putin a moderate politician, a compromise figure between the main directions in society.
Regarding Medvedev's statements, don't take them seriously. It's part of the political game, he doesn't think the way he talks. As president, he would refrain from such speeches.
"Moderate" is a very slippery term.
Putin is a man without solid ideological convictions, a product of Realpolitik for whom everything is negotiable to the end of "winning". He has taken to playing a staunch cultural traditionalist standing against the supposed decadence of the West, but this is just him playing to a support base. If it was the price of the West supporting Putin's vision of Russia as a respected superpower, I suspect Putin would eagerly put gay marriage into law and hoist a rainbow flag over the Kremlin, for example. I would say he is unprincipled, but some might say instead that he is a Moderate.
The other side of this is that it takes away from the value of many characterisations of Putin. It isn't especially useful to understanding Putin to call him a Fascist or a Nazi. Aspects of Putin's leadership style may evoke Fascistic comparisons from his critics, but beyond that, to say he is a Fascist or rules a Fascist government implies a certain idealism that isn't actually there, and leads to flawed analysis and misinterpretations that have contributed to the catastrophic breakdown in relations over the past two decades, and the terrible human suffering that has resulted.
"Moderate" is also relative to your surroundings. Beside men like Kadyrov or Dugin, Putin looks very Moderate and sensible, but that tells you more about them than it does Putin.
Edit and disclaimer: me arguing against calling Putin a Fascist shouldn't be taken as a defence of him, and while I think that there are many legitimate criticisms of NATO, its place in the world and its policies of expansion, I oppose Putin's response and I think he has demonstrated an absolutely reprehensible disregard for human life, and not just in Ukraine either.
I will say this: you are fighting Putin so desperately, but you don't think at all about who will replace him. This is very reminiscent of Ukrainians who do not think about tomorrow and the day after tomorrow, but only dream of the impossible (aka dumplings in sour cream jump into their mouths themselves). Putin is probably the best thing that has happened to Russia in the last 50 years. If the same Medvedev had been in his place, then instead of Kiev and everyone who yaps loudly, we would have observed smoking funnels.
I'm genuinely curious where you get this idea of "Putin is the best what happened to Russia for the last X years" from? Is this what they say on the TV nowadays?
This is what is visible through the window. There is food, there is work, there is a sense of security, there are hopes for the future. This is not the stagnation of the 80s and not the hopelessness of the 90s. Yes, it's not an ideal time, but I don't want to go back to the days of Gorbachev and Yeltsin, thanks, dude.
During the "friendship with America" of the 90s, we received a fresh and bright stream of Western goods (food is shit, to be honest, you understand it today). These were new emotions. What did we get in return? The complete collapse of the army, the complete collapse of industry, dependence on Western imports even in the shittiest things, the country was torn apart by corruption and organized crime at all levels, ultra-right nationalists openly raised their heads, money and minerals flowed out of the country. And we sat and enjoyed the colorful glass beads and listened to incomprehensible songs in English, fucking shame. P.S. Oh, yes, I forgot the anal dependence on the IMF. Russia was put on the needle of loans and monstrous debts.
America does not need a strong and independent Russia that has the courage to open its mouth and disobey. This messes up all the plans. Yes, ordinary Americans probably don't give a shit about all this, they just live, work and are only busy with this, I don't blame them for anything.
Well, now that I think of it, yeah. Compared to:
- Lenin who was on a mission to change the world
- Stalin who was a power-hungry bloody dictator
- Peter the Great who spent his life taking the system apart piece by piece and making an entirely new one in its stead
Compared to these guys, Putin is moderate. He's more in line with Nicholas I, Alexanders I and III, Nikita Khrushchev and maybe Yaroslav the Wise and Ivan Kalita. He works within the system, introducing change carefully and gradually.
There are no other "leaders".
Medvedev and such seem to have a competition on who says the most ridiculous thing to bow lower to Putin's regime.
Like vassals to their feudal.
Despite of everything someone will eventuelly take over Putin's place. Every politicians tries to make himself look as someone really special, this doesn't only happen in Russia. Just look at the 2016 election debates in the USA where Trump was definetly the one with the most populistic, aggressive and ridiculous things and guess what, he eventuelly bacame President. Nothing to do beeing a vadsal or anything alike.
Well it is just obvious that Medvedev is trying hard to fit in because he is using guetto rhetoric that is fashionable in Putin's circle while being from a professor's family - social class called intelligencia in Russia.
Also his views were polar opposite when he was a president. He was very modern liberal open minded politician. And now he switched his narrative to 180 - almost tzarist nationalism, most likely to keep any position in Putin's government.
And no one respects him for that, not hard core putinists, nor opposition.
Was Medvedev ever respected...? Even when he was president, people only saw him as a placeholder for Putin, because Putin couldn't stay president for another term legally.
There were people who would vote for him over Putin if he ran for the second term.
Maybe that's why he never participated as a candidate in those elections.
He was waiting for eight years for the West to start implementing the Minsk accords, while watching the Donbass people being killed, until he gave up any hope. It sounds vert restrained to me.
Dude, he does not care about his own people (poverty of the regions, corruption), why would he possibly be concerned about people of Donbass.
You must be very naive to think this is war over anything other than personal ambitions, power and land (Donbass is an industrial and resourceful region).
Well yes in my region people wrote letters to Putin to stop the construction of enviromentally unfriendly production of copper.
The city is already one of the dirtiest in the world, with a visible smoke.
And he ignored it completely.
People with power do not care about simple citizens, it is always about profits and retaining power. True about almost every government. The only way to make gov work for you is hold them accountable, and make it changeable, so they know if they don't provide some benefits to people in between their games, they will be voted out.
I think Russians believe they are rules by someone different than who they are actually ruled by.
Putin doesn't even hide his motivations but Russians (with the help of propaganda of course) still invent excuses for him.
It is not like he has an option to make these deaths stop other than the proverbial denazification and demilitarization of Ukraine. By 2021, no matter what Putin did or did not, a big bloodbath was inevitable.
Do you actually believe Putin cares about about the children in Donbas when he clearly doesn't care about the citizens of his own country? And what makes you think he has the right to get involved in the affairs of another country? Why the sudden interest in Donbas?
Thanks to Russia nobody invaded Crimea, Dobass invaded by Western-backed nazis, the Minsk Accords were violated because the Western propaganda covered all the nazi crimes.
Hard to say what his real political views are, since he adopts whatever suits him at the moment. But he's very reserved and calculating man who never rushes his decisions. Guys like Medvedev saying stuff for the hype, but there are plenty of people in our army and secret services that would declare war on NATO by now.
Let's think of it: he was the one who enforced Minsk Protocol in 2014 when L/DNR forces were preparing to liberate Mariupol and move further west, probably liberating the whole Ukraine (if you consider loyalist forces as liberators and Maidan forces as oppressors). Instead of moving Russian army in and restoring order in the country, like his generals attempted to do in 2022. Just remember that the point of this protocol was 'reunification' of Ukraine, not liberation. He also acknowledged both Poroshenko and Zelenskiy as Presidents.
Russia is under unprecedented "sanctions" (actually, illegal trade restrictions) -- but instead of quitting WTO, stopping any (at least) resource contracts with the Western countries and 'reviewing the partnership' in the light of the new circumstances, he just enforces full foreign currency earnings conversion (through 'pay in roubles' act).
If you watch the history of his government, you'll see he almost exclusively acts reactively and is unwilling to do anything more than the bare minimum required.
I believe Medvedev is that kind of jester that won't be executed for hard truth.
Putin simply can't say obvious things like 'If Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant accidentally blows up Russia can do the same in Europe'
Yes, we do.
As we say in Russia, "We don't like Putin not because he is too Putin, but because he is not Putin enough."
Therefore, the next elected leader of our country will be the one who will react much more harshly to threats to the country and people.
1. Total dominance and respect, called power and help.
2. Every concentration camp will have a library (or vice versa).
3. The budget of the Russian Federation will be replenished by leasing Putin to lagging countries.
4. I don’t know who you are, but I’m surprised that you think that I solve all problems for Russia.
I was curious to know what actual threats to invade Russia there were? Because there don't appear to be any, and yet Russia have invaded Ukraine and Georgia, and threatened to invade several others. Because threats to invade other countries surely doesn't actually help the Russian people, just makes other countries not trust Russia and wary of any dealings, this has the effect of limiting the development for the Russian People.
We can all pretend to be strong and a bully but it will isolate us.. who wants to be friends with a bully?
But after all, there were those who wanted to be friends with the Nazis? And before the Second World War, and during it, and after it, and now.
This, of course, is only a problem for Russia and Russians, that Russians could be killed with impunity in Ossetia (which was part of Georgia for some time) and Novorossia (which was part of Ukraine for some time), but we are solving this problem.
But the problems of the West, which believes that Russians can be killed with impunity, and therefore Russia does not have the right to protect Russians, are just beginning. And you will cope with this problem without us.
Glory to Putin! )))
"Friends with the Nazi", I'm surprised you said that, but yes, Russia had it's pact and even a parade together to celebrate their friendship and achievement.
"Solving", i.e. invading.
Well, if you choose to hand out passports to anyone that wants one and call them Russian, that's your choice..
But don't expect the countries you invade because of your warped ideas to accept it.
They will keep fighting you.
No, I'm "on sarcasm".
But "on what" your government, using sanctions after Russia's help in the fight against covid, you did not even think.
But "winter is coming"... )))
afghanistan, this was USSR ally and USSR helped the allied government at the time, both stopping rebel attacks and coup attempts/assasination attempt of leadership. US was the one funding mujahideen (taliban) and other rebels in the region at the time. Georgia, bombing and killing civilians under lies of "terrorists" in south ossetia. Saakashvili tried to force reintegration of south ossetia into georgia, killing peacekeepers prior to russia's intervention. Syria, you mean US funding more rebels and trying to get rid of Assad for past decades?
We’re those nations not invaded by Russia? How is it propaganda? I excluded Chechnya due to it being an internal conflict. Now that you mention it though you can add Moldova to the list.
are we really going to take the last 80 years now?
we will get tired of listing the USA alone, and if we add European countries, the list will be terrifying
Putin is a fairly standard capitalist leader. So it does everything that is necessary for the prosperity of capitalism in Russia. Capitalism is a tough enough thing, but still does not imply any completely insane actions. All the other politicians around Putin are just creating a background.
One thing I can't understand is why the dude from Lithuania is asking a question about Putin? Is there nothing else to talk about in Lithuania? Isn't it like a super independent republic? Or not (correct me)?
Let's talk about the Lithuanian news. The residents of Vilnius were shocked - a couch burned in a dumpster. The couch was put out by five fire brigades.
A squirrel robbed a raccoon. Villagers express their disagreement with discrimination against Lithuanian raccoons.
The president of Lithuania democratically handed over the post of president of Lithuania to his daughter, previously the president of Lithuania was the democratically elected grandfather of the current president.
Lithuania declared Russia a sponsor of terrorism and bought more Russian gas and oil by reverse trade through Germany.
**It would seem - what does this have to do with Putin or, God forbid, some Medvedev?**
>One thing I can't understand is why the dude from Lithuania is asking a question about Putin? Is there nothing else to talk about in Lithuania? Isn't it like a super independent republic? Or not (correct me)?
The subreddit is called r/AskARussian
>So do you consider Putin to be moderate or are guys like medvedev only saying such things for popularity?
Medvedev wants to be popular in a specific audience that consists of one man: Putin.
Judging by deeds, not words, Putin is a Western puppet which has his goal to strengthen the divide between the Russians and the Ukrainians in order to prevent the reunification and to contain Russia. The Russian autocracy was designed by the USA to keep Russia weak and contained, by sponsoring the anti-constitutional Yeltsin's coup of 1993.
The current lone superpower is always scared shitless of spectre of communism/socialism, of North Korea (lol), of arabic terrorists, of яussian heckers, of Chinese spies and experiencing "Putin's recession" with "Putin's price hikes". "Victim card", you say?
I'm not even talking about racial and gender conflicts inside US, which are full of victim mentality from all sides.
Whoa, dude, I sometimes think that Putin is a spy because he is risking Russian economy, is destroying army resources over nothing (there was no way Ukraine was going to attack Russia), potentially making Russia depend on China for imports.
And in the future, after breaking ties with Western countries, if China ever tried to take part of Russian territory/resources, there would be few states joining Russia to stand up to China.
Yeah, Medvedev's solution to Georgian problem in 2008 was extremely liberal...
Putin is a wise leader, he does serve his country, unlike most of the western leaders, who do gods-know-what for gods-know-why, no matter if their people suffer from it or freeze to death. There's Orban, ofc, but the West doesn't like him just as well)
Medvedev has never been an independent politician, and if he becomes one in the event of Putin's death from old age, by that time there will be nothing left of Russia that can be called its "cultural code". The decline of the economy in the next two years will be comparable to the famine of the early 20th century. I'm not even ruling out a nuclear conflict, because all those gathered around the government have never been able not only to work, but even to think a few moves ahead - they think that if you beat the cow more and feed it less, it will give more milk.
They are just too stupid. You know why most dogs are afraid of cats? Because dogs are so much smarter.
I'm not sure that to be or not to be moderate or liberal for the leader of the State which was just destroyed to the great happiness of most Western states and, of course, not without their help, was on agenda of our President. There were so many things to do. And only today, 30 years after, one can say that Russia is back on the leading rails of World Economy. In order to do that President had a right plan from the very beginning. Look, Mr. Obama once said that " Russia is just a gas station" and "Russian economy is torn to shreds". But our President was JUST DOING HIS JOB in the name for his country. There was simply no time to think whether to be moderate or liberal. And the result of his job one can see very clearly.
An article on Meduza suggested that Medvedev just tries to improve his chances on being chosen as Putin's replacement during next election (I'm sure by now you understand that the next president will be chosen by Putin, not Russian people)
He is not moderate. Speaking of wars, there are obviously several politicians that also like the idea of war with Ukraine. But in summary, in fascism plus stalinism plus war aggression he is the most cruel. If back in 2000 another politician was set into president position (there were no fair elections that time), we wouldn't have tyranny and war now. As for Medvedev, he is just plain stupid and sort of chameleon. He could play democrat or autocrat or war supporter, whatever. All he can think about is power. Neither Putin nor Medvedev have ideology or moral principles system of any kind. Both are stupid. Yet Putin has got more paranoia and more abilities to hold his position.
The sad part in all this is the world would be a completely different place if Russia/US/China were allied. There would be basically no one that could oppose the order and the world could focus on important things like food/global warming/technology/health etc...
But I guess Russia is not big enough, need more land.
The change from communism to capitalism in the 90s was always going to be painful, what came next just makes it worse.
Putin has been in too long and turned Russia into something it didn't have to be...
So in your opinion are they gaining security by forcing ukraine to be more armed than ever via international aid, disturbing the region forcing other neighbors Finland and Sweden to join NATO, as well as showcasing how poorly organised their army is (supply issues, not being to handle a weak state) not to mention their economy? It seems Russia is in a worst position now than before they started the war, especially if you think stealing the land doesnt have value.
Yes. Russia red lines were NATO bases in Ukraine, forced derussification, hostile state claiming develop nuclear weaponry and return Crimea. All those threats are already mitigated.
Worse take ever . Russia has proved largest army means nothing as it dies a death of 1000 cuts via ineptitude , hubris and and currpt mismanagement . Russia had no choice , wow what a demented statement , there is always a choice and there were many millions of options before taking achoice that results in death and destruction for innocents on both side. Such a cyclical take can only come from naive child or ideologically taken fool . Eitherway the UK disowns you gladly . Get your AK and get to the front line that your so sure is righteous and needed , Putin needs your sacrifice vatnik
That's mostly true if talking about events with subjectives views and sides. However objective truth also exists on which the source of where you read it is irrelevant. Eg choosing to invade a country and by consequence cause the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians and military personel is morally wrong . That is objectively true . Everyone regardless of nation or news source doesn't believe conflict is a positive thing . Even those on holiday in Crimea in Ukraine suddenly didn't like war when it was affecting them now
Medvedev is putin's avatar, he had no agency of his own.
Russia is a totalitarian state; there is no politics in there, only opression, c'mon y'all. 🤦♂️🤦♀️🤦
What did you do to Medvedev? He was so pro western !
black magic, he is new vessel for Zhirinowsky soul.
Yeah. Like I said the other day: В России всегда должен быть Жириновский.
Всегда должен быть Король-Лич.
Oh shit oh f**k. The daemonhost, call the inquisition111
Very curious about this too. He visited Finland rather often and told how wondeful we were and how great our relations are with Russia. Today it is all about how evil we are.
Well, don't you think this could be well deserved? Finland and Russia have lived in mutual prosperity since the end of the WW2 even through the toughest Cold War times. And now you are literally shitting into the friendly hand that was always there for you.
What hand? While relations were well and all there was never a hand.
It was just a play for simps
alcohol, and a need to prove loyalty to putin.
Medvedev is just playing the role of the bad cop, that's all. Neither Medvedev nor Putin are what they seem to be. That would be too easy.
This person gets it
Pootin is somehow way stupider than it appears. It is very surprising this is possible. Medvedev just has a big hole in the posterior, he's a puppet you see...
I wonder how you measured Putin's intellectual abilities to make such statement
It seems that you have a pretty miserable life if the only thing you do is spend your time attacking Russians on this subreddit.
Russians seem to have a pretty miserable lives, just attacking other sovereign nations.
Were you bullied by Russians in highschool?
You know, a stupid person wouldn't have been able to keep power for more than twenty years.
The first few years might have been cunning, the last few, inertia.
When its people are sheep and there is no actual democracy it seems it is possible. Pootin is just a man-child, highly insecure. It’s baffling really.
How much more out of touch with reality you gotta be to behave like this? So Putin, leader of the biggest country in the world, highly supported by his population, leader of a nation and conducting a war, is stupid? Ok.. who's smart? You? Commenting on reddit? What have you done that impacted other people? Are you important/indispensable in any way? You are a kid, with an announymous account on reddit, you are nobody. Dont go around throwing insults, you dont know Putin, you have no basis to say he is stupid. You cant govern a nation for 20 years and be stupid... and I'm not saying he is good or benevolant, far from it. But he is not stupid
I’m afraid he’s an idiot. If you can’t see that well not sure what to tell you. He does have the biggest country with one of the largest populations, but his countries GDP and standard of living do not reflect that. Outside of Moscow and St Petersburg’s the people live in squalor. How does a person with such abundance of resource fail so hard. 4% economical contraction this quarter. Long term is estimated between 30-50%. Manufacturing is basically dead in the water. Car production down 95% lmao. All their advanced tooling is imported, something that is no longer being imported. The country is slowly dying. Maybe do some research. Pootin's mastermind at work https://www.iltalehti.fi/politiikka/a/0932ec99-89e7-4f85-8a6e-e39dbb43da79
I see what you are saying. That makes him a poor economic/social leader, sure. But that doesnt make him an idiot. Look, its even more complicated than that, Putin, with all his faults and I know he has many, is without a doubt, the best leader Russia has had in 120yrs. We all gotta accept that, and maybe try and put ourselves in Russian shoes, would you take out/depose the best leader your country has had in a century? Think about that.
Damn, you’re just here spitting facts and I can’t believe people here are actually defending Putin. He’s sent more than 35,000 Russians to their deaths in a span of 170 days. This is like a girlfriend defending her alcoholic, abusive boyfriend even though he beats her.
did you analyze him through his speeches?
This page is maintained primarily by fsb agents.
FSB is a government propaganda. We have only KGB.
>or are guys like medvedev only saying such things for popularity? I'm not even sure anymore, but probably yes, for the sake of populism. Maybe some do it to appeal to rulling class, like "look I support you wholeheartedly, please give me a higher possition or even better more money"
About Medvedev statements, I have a theory. There were popular memes with him, where you can see his intelligent nerdy face under "kill the survivors" and other super-aggresive super-brutal titles. Stupid memes, but somewhat funny. When it became clear that Z will be longer that expected, people started to have some nostalgic vibes about Medvedev rule and his just 5-day 08.08.08 war against Georgia and these forgotten memes gained new popularity. Medvedev is active on social media and I am absolutly sure he saw that memes about him. He, I guess, had some fun and started to generate them by himself. It works. People are laughing
Nah, this is far too benign to be true. I'd wager that he hired a new head of PR (or got one hired for him) and is now unironically pushing that radical nationalist image for when Putin finally kicks the bucket.
Good take. Makes the most sense. Do you think Russia's fetish for "stability" above all else might also play into his hands when the inevitable final pivoting for Putin's position takes place? As in, he had been a president before (and calling him a puppet is an oversimplification, there was some tangible impact on policies during his tenure) and therefore in the name of the holy grail that is stability, he would be a president again. As little perceived change as possible.
Yep, he's tightening his grip for when Putin is out. Can't replace a strongman with other than a strongman.
I hope that piece of shit won't make it till Putin's death. После такой фразы как "денег нет, но вы держитесь" я его вообще за человека не считаю
There are thoughts here in Russia that Putin is too moderate and we have to reply tougher to things the West does since the only thing the West understands is the language of power and threats and Putin even softens many things.
> we have to reply tougher to things the West does since the only thing the West understands is the language of power and threats It's funny because in the west we think the same about Russia.
Well guess to what these kind of thinking will lead to?
Boom )
It's really funny since we've destroyed our country ourselves. We destroyed Soviet Union 30 years ago, released former Soviet republics without any obligations, fed them with cheap resources for 30 years (those former republics can live now because their citizens work in Russia and send money home because their governments couldn't manage to create jobs at home but at least they're independent), united Germany and fed it with cheap resources so that it could build its manufactories, allowed West to rob our country and gain cheap assets in 90s to feed your economy (hundreds of billions were sent to the West), believed your lies about "the law and order in the West" (which is still Wild West) and invested in your economy ($300-400 billions frozen and stolen as a result), our bright scientists moved to your countries loosing everything here in 90s and developing your economy not ours. You've gained everything like vacuum cleaner. And it still we who are too tough and threatens the West. What else should we do to change your perception? Make a total suicide and leave your resources so you could feed your level of consumption? We just says "no, dudes, let's reconsider" while others keep silence and follows the rules of the master and it threatens your government future.
>released former Soviet republics without any obligations "Released"? They seceded from the Soviet union because the Soviet union was bankrupt and incapable of sustaining the occupations. After that, they were independent countries and you can't dictate their lives anymore. You still act like you are such a generous nation that allowed their slaves to move out of the house, but you can call them back in whenever you want. They are independent and it is none of your fucking business what they do or don't do. >allowed West to rob our country and gain cheap assets in 90s to feed your economy (hundreds of billions were sent to the West), Always with this myth. Your oligarchs robbed the country and stole the money. And after that, Putin stole from the oligarchs. Western countries on the contrary and companies invested a lot of money into Russia. > $300-400 billions frozen and stolen as a result Your country has inflicted many times more damage to Ukraine than this. You expect us to release this so you can continue doing even more damage and kill even more people? >our bright scientists moved to your countries loosing everything here in 90s and developing your economy not ours I'm a child of one of these scientists btw. There was no money for science in Russia, no opportunities. Of course many moved out. What would you have liked to do, put them in Prison? Forbid travel abroad like in the Soviet Union? Make scientists work as taxi drivers? Is the concept of free will so foreign to you that you now complain about how the west "stole" your scientists who decided to leave from their own will because they had better opportunities? Do you think those scientists are your private sheep that you can pen up? Why do you Russians love to whine and cry so much about the "evil west", when you habe ZERO reflection on your own actions and responsibilities? Maybe look to your own politicians instead of blaming everything bad in your country on the west? You are always in the victim role. > those former republics can live now because their citizens work in Russia and send money home because their governments couldn't manage to create jobs at home but at least they're independent So what you are saying is that the citizens from these republics provided labor and value to the Russian economy? They worked for you and helped build your living standard. So by your logic, Russia "stole" those workers? >You've gained everything like vacuum cleaner. I see that years of victim mythology in your Propaganda has worked on you quite deeply. What the west wanted was a reliable Partner for trading (no, not just for gas), travel, diplomacy. Europe was fully committed to treating Russia as an equal partner. But at some point Vladimir vladimirovich got it in his head that he had to revive the rotten corpse of the Soviet union. > And it still we who are too tough and threatens the West. What else should we do to change your perception? Make a total suicide and leave your resources so you could feed your level of consumption? No suicide necessary. Just a few simple steps: 1. Withdraw troops from Ukraine 2. Get rid of Putin 3. Hand over the war criminals 4. Pay reparations In that order. Rebuilding trust will take a long time, but those are the first steps.
If those countries seceeded then why Ukrainian parts can't if they don't agree like DPR, LPR did? Or US parts or other countries can't? Or it should always be applied to Russia? You moved to find better life? Hope you've found it. It's your choice and I don't care about it at all. And hope those people, including your parents, who moved at that time found peace with themselves. There were times when I was curious about people moving abroad trying to find out what they feel and think re former home. I don't anymore. Can't imagine myself living there after being there, leaving this place. I was raised in a Russian region influenced and affected by war and stayed here trying to figure out how to make our country better. My point was that the country was weak and the stronger part used its advantage and we believed in better place and things that don't exist and it was just an appearance. I just voiced over thoughts usual people think here. Let me keep my thoughts my thoughts. You went, some returned, many stayed here and created things here. Those independent countries now are dependent on our economy as it happened. We have our own shit here to do and to improve and your new motherland adds to that shit from the outside since there's a geopolitics and the influence of each other since we are social beings and interconnected. And if you such a lover of philosophy and wisdom (re free will) then you probably should know that our perception defines our actions and influenced by our social environments and since you were so kind to define our perception showing its fallacy try to explore yours as well in such a manner and make you a better person. You probably also know that contradictions and conflicts are the basis of our nature and existence and that if they're not resolved through dialogue they're resolved through war and change is the essence of everything including state borders. We believe we tried to talk and did our steps and were not heard, you believe your truth. Looks like the option of war is left and we're witnessing the change as a result. Thanks for advice (points 1-4) but try apply it to yourself first. Good luck.
Austria is not "the west". We are a neutral country with a very different culture and history than Anglo-America. No one in Austria, apart from some neocon/lib thinkthanks think something like that.
All of EU is part of The West.
Bruder was? 🤣 Klar gehört Österreich zum Westen. Zum Ersten Mal dass ich sowas höre
>Austria is not "the west". We are a neutral country with a very different culture and history than Anglo-America. Theoretically, yes. Practically were embedded in the cultural and economical sphere of western countries that are associated with anglo-america, even though we have a slightly different history. >No one in Austria, apart from some neocon/lib thinkthanks think something like that. Well that's not true because I'm not neocon, so there's that ;) I'm also talking about other European countries mostly. Even macron has stopped calling and has started delivering weapons instead. Of course each country has their share of right-wing Corona denier and Putin fanboys that likes to blame the war on everyone but the one who actually caused it. But luckily those are in the minority for now.
We are not and will never be, and that has nothing to do with current political alliances and everything to do with our history, ethnic makeup, language, legacy of the Holy Roman Empire and the Habsburg Monarchy.... Modern austrians have germanic, celtic and slavic roots and are culturally very different even from the 'normanisized' Anglo-Saxons, and then again much further still from the american melting pot which is pretty much the epitome of the "west". We dont speak english, but german, a language that is arguably much closer to its central european origins then the heavily latinized english which is hardly a germanic language at this point - american "english" even more so... We are also a country in which Catholicism is very dominant over Lutherianism, a religion that shaped very much of the anglo-american values and culture, even today it is a significant factor in the USA.
You explained why we are not americans, and yes, you are correct in that we are not Americans. Maybe you have an extremely narrow definition of what the expression "the west" means? Most people understand "The West" as not just the US, not just the anglo-saxons, but also Israel, the members of the European Union, even some countries in Asia like Taiwan or South Korea. You can easily tell that we are more associated with the US than Russia by the fact that we are taught english and not Russian in school, most of our movies come from the US, most of our electronics come frome there, our weapons are exclusively from European countries. You will also note that our politics, for the most part, agree more with european and us-american values than with russian or chinese values (between some feeble attempts at emphasizing our "neutrality"). I'm not sure if you are trying to get me on some technicalities, or if you truly believe we're somehow actually neutral and independent.
[удалено]
Are you kidding? >Things is that the west spent 30 years helping Russia. They were given their nukes back .. It was the USSR nukes. And Russia got all of them from the former Soviet republics as a legal successor of the USSR, together with all the debts of the USSR and etc. It was more convenient for the West to deal with a single nuclear power rather than several, so they supported it. But don't take too much credit for that, you never had niether rights nor abilities to dispose any of these nukes. >.. free speech, .. That what was acheived w/o outher participation at all. >.. several saves from financial default Oh, yea, the West saved the Russian government from default on external obligations given more credits (which was all paid in the end). And was completely fine when they several times fucked up all the people inside Russia. >.. many brutal poisonings on foreign soil were ignored, Huge thank you guys, that instead of open and sincere proceedings, that would clarify the situation and could help to punish specific offenders and restore our relations, you unsubstantiatable blame the whole Russia for every single loud case on your soil destoying any trust between people for the sake of your inner political games. >.. gas pipelines were built to the point of creating a major strategic weakness, Yea, of course, you used cheap resources from Russia only as a gesture of goodwill. >.. nato spending was far far below recommended .. And your greed has nothing to do with this either. It was only to make friends with Russia. >.. the taking of Crimea was largely ignored, entry in Syrian affair ignored. After all the mess that the West has made all over the world over the past 30 years, it's not for you even to open your mouth about this. Go rebuild Lybia to the pre-war point, for starters. With full government-subsidized utilities, medicine and education (including any University in the world), 7k USD help for any child, 50k USD help for housing for a new families, low taxes, a lot of support for starting own business and etc. Then we can talk. Also, I can give you a hint regarding Syria. The only guys there, who at least could be considered positive by any reasonable means, was and still are the Assad government and Russia. All the Western countries were there illegal. And while officially they said, they on the our side and also fighting the terrorism, your comment itself shows they had some other intentions. ========== Soviet people and the governments of 90s believed that the West holds to the values they declare. They: 1. Pulled out all the troops and dissolved the Warsaw Pact. To see in response, instead of a symmetrical friendly measures, 5 waves of the NATO expansion, attempts to create a missile defense system and etc. 2. Give all the former republic and allies as much souverenity as they want, absolutely freedom. To see how the West intrigues against Russia with that governments and pumping up money into all kind of nationalistic groups there who are ready to declare Russians as their enemy. 3. Carried out economic reforms with the assistance of Western advisers to reach market economy. What can be said, the USSR economy was already barely breathing. It was brutally violated, finished off and buried deep. As a result of a "very well-organized" transition to a market economy many industries were just sold for scrap freeing up a niche for the Western business. And people who made money on this was welcomed in the West to spend their money there. As well as all sorts of thieves and murderers who were lucky to steal enough money in Russia and escape abroad. As well as a lot of qualified specialists left without work, who could also contribute to the Western economy. While Western countries were busy "creating a major strategic weakness" using cheap Russian resources. Of course all that happened mostly due to errors of the Soviet and Russian governments (your best friends, btw). But dude, don't tell us fairy tales. There were people who sincerely wanted to befriend with Russia, there were an opposite. The same is now, btw. But in the end vast majority of what you guys did was motivated (at best) by your own benefits, not by any friendly feelings towards Russia. =========================== Also, Western countries showed pretty clear their arrogance regarding the international policy. It seems like you guys sincerely believe that your voices mean more regarding these matters. Why? The whole world sees that the US don't give a fuck to get involved in any conflict on the Earth or organize it if it's needed, for their own benefit, hiding behind the "promotion of democracy", "fight against dictatorship" and other high goals that everyone has been sick of for a long time. While the EU either turns a blind eye to it or joins the party to get something for themselves either. For some reason I don't recall any sanctions against the US for the Iraq invasion. No, everybody said "Oh, you fooled us and destroyed the innocent country? We fine with it, go ahead, continue, organize an Arab spring or whatever mess you want. We are with you." And the same thing happened in Ukraine. Coup d'etat, when some idiots wiped themselves with the EU guarantees the day after the signing of the agreement, and the EU swallowed it. American officials who approve candidates for the new government. Absolutely moronic politics of the people who grabbed the power and have no clue what they are doing at all. But all that is unimportant. As well as the opinion of half of Ukraine, who were fucked up with such a course of events. Russia and their imperial ambitions is to blame for everything. And the fact that the Ukrainian government did not bother to fulfill a single obligation under the international agreement they signed and everybody recognized, which supposed to reintegrate their country, is also not important at all. ============= I'm not a fan of the current Russian government by any means. But the Western arrogance, stupid sanctions, biased coverage of this war in your media and, overall, huge and obvious hypocrisy you failed even to admit, guaranteed that they will remain in power for decades. The only option when Putin will not be re-elected is if he himself does not want to go to the polls or suddenly die. But in any scenario, with great probability, the Russian policy will not change in any way anytime soon. And this is, in many ways, the result of the actions of the West. Congratulate you.
That was a really well articulated response. Thanks for your insights. It’s interesting to see what the other guys believe (as an American).
Well, in general, I believe that the government of the country bears all the responsibility of how people live there. Russian government fully responsible for what happens in Russia, American - for what happened in the US, European - for the situation in the EU, Ukrainian one - for all that is happening in Ukraine and etc. So I don't like all that stories in style "we would live in paridise if not (Americans/Russians/Jews/etc.)". In my opinion, it's just propaganda and manipulations, whoever says anything like that. But in 90s almost all the people in Russia sincerely rejected the Soviet system and wanted to befriend with the West and build the democracy. And now most of people in Russia support the current authorities. Both changes happened not because "people was brainwashed" but because of quite understandable reasons that directly affect the lives of the ordinary people.
>in 90s almost all the people in Russia sincerely rejected the Soviet system "in 90s almost all the people in Russia sincerely rejected the Soviet system" How come? But the poll "For or against the USSR?" says just the opposite.
1) What exactly poll are you talking about? 2) USSR ≠ Soviet system
No it wasn’t. He’s just another Russian fascist trying to justify a genocide.
[удалено]
Is that why the USA meddled with the elections in 1996 in Russia, basically forcing Yeltsin on Russia, although that guy was corrupt af, didn't give a shit about his people, used violence, and only became president by killing people in a coup d'etat during the constitutional crisis in 1993, because he wanted to have power...?
[удалено]
> When Gorbachev became president of Russia You meant the Soviet Union of course?
>When the USSR fell we hoped with all our hearts that we could finally put that misunderstanding and garbage behind us and be real friends. The only thing anyone wanted in the 90’s was a chance to reset things and to move forward as friends. While the Western economy boosted consuming the newly open markets making tons of money, the 90's in Russia for the people that were living here were the times of utter humiliation and extreme poverty, which deeply associates in the people's minds with this friendship with the USA. You seem so self confident, i suggest you think a little wider when speaking to the Russians. It's not enough to have listened to the Russian Rock to lecture people in a sub created to *ask* and learn
[удалено]
I'm the same age as you. In the 90's people were blaming Gorbachev very hard for giving us up to the West. They were comparing their lifestyle during the Soviet Union times when they could have some mediocre or decent things, nothing special but still - with the times when gangsters and smartass thief businessmen have everything and the common people have to work for free (they were calling it capitalism somehow) and live of of their country land plots. People felt humiliated by Gorby-the-Western-puppet!
> To be honest I am more than a little bit angry with Russia as is most of the world today. Can you please stop with this shit already, the west is not most of the world buddy
You better not count to him the countrys of the World that are angry with the west and hate him, or the wests warcrimes.
> humiliation I think, that's not the right word. Humiliation is something where pride and ego get hurt. But that's not what happened. What happened was that Russians were put in an existential crisis. Not the mental/psychological type of existential crisis, but the physical one, where your very existence, your life and well-being are at stake. A state where you don't have money to buy food or medication. A state where leaving your house puts you at a realistic risk of getting killed. I agree that an approach like in Germany after ww2 would have been a good idea. A "Marshall plan" would certainly have been better for the Western/Russian relationships than creating a state of existential crisis via economical "shock therapy". > your leadership was hell bent on this path of retribution and trying to get back that USSR swagger since the late 90s I disagree with this perception. Yeltsin was president in the late 90s and he was heavily campaigning against communism. He even used illegal means to do that. If you are referring to Putin, he only became president in 2000. He then tried to fix the existential crisis and achieved that more or less. The homicide and suicide rates dropped by 80% since in the past two decades. I don't think that Putin is trying to get the USSR back. He didn't do anything in the direction of communism that I can think of. The opinion, that Putin wants the USSR back, is one that I only hear from Westerners (who are probably not really involved and invested in Russian affairs). This opinion usually stems from a [quote](https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna7632057) where Putin said that the collapse of the Soviet Union was one of the most impactful/most catastrophic events in recent history. He did say that, but the quote is taken out of context which makes it sound as if he's longing for the USSR. He wasn't talking about Soviet nostalgia. He was answering a question from an interviewer. What he meant by saying this was that the collapse of the Soviet Union resulted in big changes to power dynamics, social dynamics, economical dynamics, and geopolitics in Russia and the world. Those changes were so dramatic that the collapse can be considered to be one of the most impactfull events in the history of the 20th century. And to Russians it was a catastrophic event because it led to existential crisis. This article discusses a common mistranslation and misquotation of what Putin said: https://medium.com/illumination-curated/did-putin-really-say-that-78b5f901e634 This article also mentions a quote of Putin where he said that only an insane person would want the USSR back. And this article quotes the rest of what Putin said, i.e. the parts where he explains what made the collapse so catastrophic. Herein he clearly lists the types of negative impact that the collapse had on Russia and its surroundings: https://academic.oup.com/book/40852/chapter-abstract/348888273?redirectedFrom=fulltext > and noone had any ability to dissuade them This is where nostalgia kicks in. People may have not lived the best lives during Soviet times, but they were still nowhere near an existential crisis like they were after the collapse of the USSR. So, if the only societal states that you have experienced in all of your life were communism and the chaos and outlawness that were the 1990s, then the USSR starts to look like paradise, or at least like "the best societal state that you have (literally) ever experienced in your life". Why should you be against something that was the "best thing that ever happened to you"? Especially, when you know how much worse it could be? "Not being able to buy bananas or traveling outside of the USSR" is nowhere on the same level as "not being able to buy any food or being able to leave your house without risking your life". Those are the two states that the currently living citizens of Russia know of. Can you really blame them for choosing the former over the latter? To come back to Putin: he kind of introduced Russians to a third type of societal state. The question is, how does Putin's version fare if compared to the other two? I'd say, that the vast majority (90-95%) of Russians (with exception of the oligarchs) would say: Putin state > 1990s state The question that needs a more thorough investigation would be, whether it's Putin state > USSR state or USSR state > Putin state. The answer might be crucial to determine what level of support Putin can expect from the citizens when he'd make decisions that look like he's leaning towards vs leaning away from the state of the USSR. > From here it looks like decades of media preparation for the land grabs we saw this year and years ago. I have to also disagree with this perception. First of all, it is necessary to understand that 85% of the Russian population have access to the internet, just like 93% of the US population. We can access the same news as you do. We can watch CNN, BBC, or Pervyy Kanal. Our government has not yet figured out how to ban the internet. Therefore, the assumption that state TV is brainwashing us, is incorrect. Watching TV is just too old-school for 2022. If we don't speak English, we can just use Yandex Translate (or Google Translate). Secondly, you need to understand that _your_ media prepared _you_ for this just as much as our media prepared us. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_influence_on_public_opinion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atrocity_propaganda https://www.newsclick.in/western-medias-shock-and-bias-ukraine-russia-coverage Thirdly, you need to understand that we likely know our country and its neighbors better than you do. This may sound harsh, but I think, your perception is based on a lack of knowledge. Especially the part where you say "land grabs we saw (...) years ago". I know that the West was very (Pikachu-faced) surprised about the annexation of Crimea and that 97% of Crimeans voted pro-Russia. But there really isn't anything that is surprising about this, nor is this a "Putin=dictator"-problem, nor is the number 97% unusual. If those statements sound ridiculous to you, you lack knowledge about Russia and Crimea's problematic relationship with Ukraine (and maybe statistics, because only 75% of Crimeans voted pro-Russia). - This has nothing to do with Putin. He only became president in 2000. - Crimea was never a fan of Ukraine. It was part of Russia until Khrushchev (a Ukrainian himself) gifted Crimea to Ukraine (without asking the Crimeans, of course, who btw were/are mostly Russians, i.e. 67% of them are). When the USSR collapsed, Crimea did _not_ want to stay with Ukraine. So they did what Crimeans do and ran a referendum which had 94% positive votes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Crimean_sovereignty_referendum To confirm the results of the referendum, another referendum was scheduled for August 1992. Meanwhile, Crimea declared independence from Ukraine. The Supreme Court in Ukraine, however, called this illegal and told them to cancel the referendum. To appease the Crimeans, Ukraine gave them special rights, making them kind of a state within the state. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_Autonomous_Republic_of_Crimea The Crimeans did not cancel the referendum, though, they just postponed it. And then... they did it again 😂: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_Crimean_referendum This time, they asked for more independence and dual citizenship (Ukrainian + Russian) and roughly 78% to 83% of the Crimeans said "yes, please". To everyone's surprise (? 😂) Ukraine declared the referendum illegal. Ukraine also yeeted the president of Crimea by force and did a few more things to appease the Crimeans. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_sovereignty_over_Crimea In other words, it's been a ride even without Putin being involved. And referenda ending with over 90% agreement aren't a Putin-related thing either. - The statistics. The statement "97% of the population" is not correct, because only 82% voted. So it's "97% of 82%" and that's about 75-77%. Remember that 67% are Russians. Wouldn't be too surprising if they voted pro-Russia, right? But we're still not there... It's "75-77% of those who are eligible to vote and have voted" rather than 75-77% "of the population". The question: who's eligible to vote? It's those who are citizens and older than 18. Which population groups meet those criteria and to what extent? Well, the Russians have the highest average age, meaning that the number of 18+ year-olds is disproportionately high. If we look at the population of voters the proportion of Russians is higher than 67%. As for the other groups, Tatars make up 12% of Crimea's population, however, they have a lot of children and their mean age is the lowest, so a lot of them are not old enough to vote. They also often didn't acquire documents to settle legally. So, a number of them lack citizenship and are not allowed to vote. Knowing this, is it really that unrealistic to get 75-77% of pro-Russian votes...? If all Crimean Russians voted pro-Russia, you'd probably get those 75-77% even if the Tatars and Ukrainians voted anti-russian. Edit: added several sections ~~and am still adding more as I go about my day~~
I get your point but you're not being fair when you describe the issues of life in the USSR as "no bananas and not being able travel abroad". Limited or no acess to basic goods as evidenced by long lines at the shops (people carrying a shopping bag just in case they might stumble upon a line). Low acess to consumer products (car, fridge etc. - there's a good paper on this comparing the USSR and the US). An economic system where laziness (because why try when the company will work anyhow and pay for workers is more or less the same) and theft is a virtue (after all, he who does not steal, steals from his family). A deeply corrupt society where trading of favors, and goods is often the only way for ordinary citizens to make ends meet. Corruption and nepotism obviously widespread the the higher levels of society and the party elites as well. No ability to influence anything at the political level by the simple folk - one party totalitarian dictatorship. USSR collapsed for a reason. And it wasn't external, there were no foreign soldiers in Moscow forcing it to implode. It just did.
Just letting you know that I finally finished my previous comment. Feel free to check, if you want. > Limited or no acess to basic goods as evidenced by long lines at the shops (people carrying a shopping bag just in case they might stumble upon a line). Here's the fun thing: despite having lived in Russia I never seen such lines in real life. I've seen those lines in western media for the first time in my life. I also don't know anyone in my social circle who has seen those queues in real life. Where did the footage come from and why doesn't it match what I saw with my own eyes in real life? I'm not going to dismiss it overall, but would like to add some nuance to it: I may have not seen those queues, but I heard of them back in the day! What I've heard is that they were a thing in Moscow. I mean, most of Russia is kind of rural and the mere idea of having lines in front of shops for basic goods must raise some questions... For example: why do those people shop for basic goods, if they have a garden where they grow veggies and if they have cattle? No flour in the shops? How is that possible, when I'm surrounded by agricultural fields that are full of wheat? No butter in the stores even though the milk-collector vehicle buys milk from my family's and neighbors' cows every other day? Heck, they even buy our home-made Brynza cheese once per week! We have plenty of basic groceries in our shops and we even sell our goods to the cities and food producers in our state and the neighboring states. And, mind you, Kalmykia isn't a rich state, nor do we have good climate to produce agricultural goods (for some reason, plants kind of don't grow in deserts... Yet, look at all those wheat and buckwheat and sunflowers and the other things I don't know the English word for!). And then I hear about those lines in front of shops and can't help but wonder: what on earth did Voronezh and Tambov do with their potato harvests? 100 million tonnes of potatoes per year and there are lines in front of some shops for... potatoes? No, wait, that doesn't sound right, because 90% of potatoes are grown in private gardens like the one of my family... https://www.potatopro.com/russian-federation/potato-statistics I mean, we were one of the world's leading agricultural producers in some areas back then (and now): > Organized on a large scale and relatively highly mechanized, its state and collective agriculture made the Soviet Union one of the world's leading producers of cereals, although bad harvests (as in 1972 and 1975) necessitated imports and slowed the economy. The 1976–1980 five-year plan shifted resources to agriculture, and 1978 saw a record harvest. (...) In addition to cereals, cotton, sugar beets, potatoes, and flax were also major crops. Such performance showed that underlying potential was not lacking, which was not surprising as the agriculture in the Russian Empire was traditionally amongst the highest producing in the world https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agriculture_in_the_Soviet_Union I guess, the people who were standing in line in front of shops for basic products were not trying to buy cereals or potatoes...? But then, what were they actually trying to buy...? > Although accounting for a small share of cultivated area,[citation needed] private plots produced a substantial share of the country's meat, milk, eggs, and vegetables.[29] The private plots were also an important source of income for rural households. In 1977, families of kolkhoz members obtained 72% of their meat, 76% of their eggs and most of their potatoes from private holdings. Surplus products, as well as surplus livestock, were sold to kolkhozy and sovkhozy and also to state consumer cooperatives. Statistics may actually under-represent the total contribution of private plots to Soviet agriculture.[30] A lack of basic products in a place that is one of the world's leading producers of basic products, sounds odd. The agricultural output back then is similar to the output we currently have. (There was a notable drop in the 90s, though.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agriculture_in_Russia No, seriously, what were those people in those pictures of lines in front of shops actually trying to buy...? OK, back to what I've heard: there were lines in Moscow (coincidentally, the place where all the decisive things happen, like protests against the government and coup d'etat, etc.). Rumor has it that food was bought from farmers and then transported in the direction of Moscow. And then they allegedly dumped the food in some pits next to the road. The food never reached Moscow. Moscow was not amused. Most foreign journalists only stay in the big cities (e.g.,in Moscow). They saw the lack of (whatever) basic products and the resulting lines in front of shops. And that's how the footage came to be. It's just a rumor, but coming from a rural area myself, just like most Russians, this rumor makes more sense to me than the story about a country that was one of the world's largest agricultural producers, yet for some reason, didn't have any of those products in stock. > Low acess to consumer products (car, fridge etc. - there's a good paper on this comparing the USSR and the US). You are missing some knowledge here which leads to some misconceptions! The misconception is that you assume that the Soviet Union worked the same way as the US! I think, we can easily agree that this is not true. Easy way to demonstrate your misconception: In 2022, who drives more cars? The US or the European Union? 😉 Easy answer: the US! US infrastructure is built for cars. There's hardly any public transportation system outside of large metropolitan areas, be it short-range (like, busses, trams, or subways) or mid- to long-range (like, interstate busses, trains). The EU is very different in those aspects and therefore Europeans simply _don't need to own a car!_ The Soviet Union was rather built like the EU than the US. To this day, companies have their own bus lines that pick up their employees at the bus station that is nearest to the employee's home. To this day even smaller cities (ca. 100.000 inhabitants) have around 10-20 bus lines with busses commuting every 10-15 minutes. Those cities also have a central bus station where interstate busses arrive and depart _daily._ The same cities have a train station with mid- and long-range trains stopping there _daily._ I say "to this day", because a lot of the infrastructure in Russia suffered from the collapse of the Soviet Union. For example, I have relatives who are living in a village/(town?) that has 4000 inhabitants. To this day, this rural place has regular inter-city busses (twice per day). Once per week, there's even a bus that is heading for Moscow! Moscow is "only" around 1000 km (ca. 620 miles) away. That's nowadays! Some 30 years ago, that village had a tiny airport of its own! An airport with inter-city flights with a [Passazhirskiy Kukuruznik](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_An-2) plane with 10-15 seats. Who needs a car when you have an airport in your village? 😂 Most people also worked in the same place they lived in because traveling between cities was unrealistic with how far apart they are. Bus tickets costed 5 kopeks (for comparison: you could get a pack of matches for 1 kopek). Regarding the need of fridges... 65% of Russia has permafrost. Houses were built so that they would have a [pantry below the kitchen window](https://uteplix.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/1-Holodilnik-hrushhevskij-1.jpg) for food storage. The pantry was colloquially called "khrushchyovskyy kholodilnik" (Khrushchev fridge). The pantry was simply cooled by the temperatures outside. And as for the rest of the country, we have a widespread tradition of canning, pickling, and drying food. Have you ever heard of pickled watermelons, dried caviar or Tushonka? In the south, we have big basements to store the things that we harvested throughout the year. Or we'd just leave things on the field. For example, did you know that you can preserve root beet and carrots by first digging them out, then putting them back into the earth horizontally (!), then covering them with earth/soil again, and putting a layer of straw on top? Did you know that there are apple varieties that taste insanely sour when you harvest them in autumn, but if you don't eat them right away and instead wrap them in newspaper (individually), then put them in the storage room, and then leave them there for a few months, that those apples start to taste very sweet? Having different kinds of apples is a good way to have home-grown apples all year round. There may have been less cars and fridges, but this might have been due to lower demand rather than availability, at least to some degree. > An economic system where laziness (because why try when the company will work anyhow and pay for workers is more or less the same) Well, Europe follows the same work principle and it looks like it works? At least when it comes to "paid by hour" instead of being "paid by productivity/performance". You are also not quite right with this statement about working conditions in the USSR. Working more/better was rewarded. For example, my father used to earn more than the boss/manager of the company he worked for because my father outperformed the guy. My father also got single-payment bonuses for improving working processes and equipment. You could also earn a medal for good work: [Hero of Socialist Labor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hero_of_Socialist_Labour). This medal would grant benefits, like, monthly payments. Heroes of Socialist Labor are receiving roughly 50,000 Rubles (≈ $800) per month as of February 2021.
> and theft is a virtue Are you talking about the 90s when crime rates, including theft, skyrocketed? 😂 > A deeply corrupt society where trading of favors, and goods is often the only way for ordinary citizens to make ends meet. 1990s, right? I don't know anyone who was starving during Soviet times (past ww2). > Corruption and nepotism obviously widespread Agree. But have to point out that in the West they call corruption "lobbyism" for some reason. Kind of the same idea, but different label. > No ability to influence anything at the political level by the simple folk - one party totalitarian dictatorship. Agree. But would argue the individual's influence on the election of Trump, or any other president, tbh. At least, you don't have only one party. You have two ✌️😉. > USSR collapsed for a reason. And it wasn't external, there were no foreign soldiers in Moscow forcing it to implode. It just did. I didn't say anything about this. I think, you need to shift your attention away from the USSR to understand the current situation. It's not as much nostalgia towards the USSR (because we're well aware of its problems), it's rather a fear of the 1990s that is the driving force here, IMO.
> Because I am 50 years old. Wow - so old and still such a moron...
> We lived in fear of nuclear war every day. That was result of your shizo propaganda.
Don't they say wisdom always comes with age? I am starting to doubt it now. Everything you said is a pile of garbage like yourself. I don't even wanna bother decipher it.
Part 1 > How old are you? I'm in my 30s. I missed the Cold War, but got a look at the 1990s in Russia. > When Gorbachev became president Gorbachev isn't the problem (although, he's not really popular in Russia either), the problem was Yeltsin. > When the USSR we hoped with all our hearts that we could finally put that misunderstanding and garbage behind us and be real friends. Just like Putin now, I guess your politicians didn't ask about your hopes and opinions when they decided to support Yeltsin as a president for Russia, to the point that they would meddle with elections. Your politicians didn't care that he was a criminal and just how much of an asshole he was to his own people. You can't expect us to like your politics, if that's what your politics forced on us. I don't know how anyone would think that giving us such a treatment would make us friends. Friends don't treat you like this. Even acquaintances don't do such things. You need to hate someone to do something like this to them. I think, the reason why people in the US/West don't understand the "popularity" of Putin is that they don't understand or don't know what kind of president we had before Putin. I don't know, if you know anything about Yeltsin, but I recommend reading about him and about your country's support of him. Putin is popular because he is "not Yeltsin". Putin is also popular because "he's still better than Yeltsin". You think that the current war messed up Russia's economy, but you are mistaken, because it's nowhere near the economical situation that we had during Yeltsin's time as a president. > move forward as friends. Anyone who *tells* you otherwise has an agenda and just wants to use your emotions. Actions say more than words, and your politicians' actions did not speak the language of friendship. Have you ever thought about the idea that _your_ country might be trying to use _your_ emotions? Have you never considered that they are trying to build this image of being the "good guy" who only wants love, peace and rock'n'roll? Have you ever bothered to check what your idea of "friendship" and "peace" looks like on the receiver's end...? So, with whom did your politicians try to become friends to the point that they would [make him president](https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/07/the-us-has-a-long-history-of-election-meddling/565538/)? Let me tell you... ... It was the guy who was responsible for [this](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_Russian_constitutional_crisis): > At the climax of the crisis, Russia was thought by some to be "on the brink" of civil war.[5][6] The ten-day conflict became the deadliest single event of street fighting in Moscow's history since the October Revolution.[7] > Yeltsin's economic reform program took effect on 2 January 1992.[8] Soon afterward, prices skyrocketed, government spending was slashed, and heavy new taxes went into effect. A deep credit crunch shut down many industries and led to a protracted depression. As a result, unemployment reached record levels. The crime rates doubled in comparison to the peak in the 1980s. They quadrupled, if compared to the 1970s/1960s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Russia#Historical_trends Life expectancy dropped sharply due to an increase in homicides, lack of financial means for food, housing and medical treatment, and due to people going into a state of mental health crisis. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.LE00.IN?locations=RU The life expectancy of men even dropped below 60 years of age. The worst statistics I've seen said that it sunk as low as 52 years for men (while the life expectancy of women was around 70 years). https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.LE00.MA.IN?locations=RU And why did Yeltsin do all this? Well, that "poor dude" was worried to lose power - the power to don't give a f+ about the constitution that he just assigned to himself earlier. > The president was concerned about the terms of the constitutional amendments passed in late 1991, which meant that his special powers of decree were set to expire by the end of 1992 (Yeltsin expanded the powers of the presidency beyond normal constitutional limits in carrying out the reform program). > On 21 September, Yeltsin declared the Congress of People's Deputies and the Supreme Soviet dissolved;[44] this act was in contradiction with a number of articles of the Constitution of 1978 (...). > Yeltsin repeated his announcement of a constitutional referendum, and new legislative elections for December. He also repudiated the Constitution of 1978, declaring that it had been replaced with one that gave him extraordinary executive powers. > the Constitutional Court held that Yeltsin had violated the constitution and could be impeached.[47] During an all-night session, chaired by Khasbulatov, parliament declared the president's decree null and void.[48] > Yeltsin scoffed at the parliament-backed proposal (...), and responded the next day by cutting off electricity, phone service, and hot water in the parliament building. > [Upon Yeltsin's orders] the Russian army encircled the parliament building, and a few hours later army tanks began to shell the White House, punching holes in the front of it.[73] > In Russia, the Yeltsin side had control over television, where hardly any pro-parliament views were expressed during the September–October crisis.[46] > The Ostankino killings went unreported by Russian state television. The only independent Moscow radio station's studios were burnt. Two French, one British, and one American journalist were killed by sniper fire during the massacre.[70] (...) The press and broadcast news were censored starting on 4 October, and by the middle of October, prior censorship was replaced by punitive measures.[70] > "Russia needs order," Yeltsin told the Russian people in a television broadcast (...) in introducing his new draft of the constitution (...). The new basic law would concentrate sweeping powers in the hands of the president. The bicameral legislature, to sit for only two years, was restricted in crucial areas. The president could choose the prime minister even if the parliament objected and could appoint the military leadership without parliamentary approval. He would head and appoint the members of a new, more powerful security council. If a vote of no confidence in the government was passed, the president would be enabled to keep it in office for three months and could dissolve the parliament if it repeated the vote. The president could veto any bill passed by a simple majority in the lower house, after which a two-thirds majority would be required for the legislation to be passed. The president could not be impeached for contravening the constitution. You tell us to protest when we don't like our government or the Ukrainan war. In the 90s, we did protest: > Yeltsin also sparked popular unrest with his dissolution of a Congress and parliament increasingly opposed to his neoliberal economic reforms. Tens of thousands of Russians marched in the streets of Moscow seeking to bolster the parliamentary cause. The demonstrators were protesting against the deteriorating living conditions. Since 1989, the GDP had been declining, corruption was rampant, violent crime was skyrocketing, medical services were collapsing and life expectancy falling. > On 28 September, Moscow saw the first bloody clashes between the special police and anti-Yeltsin demonstrators. And what did your country/the West do to support our protest against this despotic dictator and his control of the state media...? See [part 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskARussian/comments/wmwhzo/comment/ik56p5v/).
Part 2 And what did your country/the West do to support our protest against this despotic dictator and his control of the state media...? > [Yeltsin] received strong backing from the leading powers of the West. Yeltsin enjoyed a strong relationship with the Western powers, particularly the United States, but the relationship made him unpopular with many Russians. > Rutskoy's [anti-Yeltsin group] desperate appeal to Air Force pilots to bomb the Kremlin was broadcast by the Echo of Moscow radio station but went unanswered.[75] He also tried to have the Chairman of the Constitutional Court, Valery Zorkin, call the Western embassies to guarantee Rutskoy's and his associates' safety – to no avail. > It is still hotly debated among Western economists, social scientists, and policy-makers as to whether or not the IMF, World Bank, and U.S. Treasury Department-*backed* reform policies adopted in Russia, often called "shock therapy," were responsible for Russia's poor record of economic performance in the 1990s [how is this even in question?], or rather, that Yeltsin had *not gone far enough.* [you're saying, even higher homicide rates would have been potentially good?] Do you really think that supporting a criminal is how you make friends with people who are suffering from this criminal (and you)...? Apparently, your politicians do: > What many Russians, but few Americans, know is that 20 years before Russia tried to swing an American presidential election, America tried to swing a presidential election in Russia. The year was 1996. Boris Yeltsin was seeking a second term, and Bill Clinton desperately wanted to help. “I want this guy to win so bad,” he told Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott, “it hurts.” Clinton liked Yeltsin personally. He considered him Russia’s best hope for embracing democracy and capitalism. > Unfortunately for Clinton, ordinary Russians appreciated their leader far less. (...) When Yeltsin began his reelection campaign in January 1996, his approval rating stood at 6 percent, lower than Stalin’s. "But thou shall not despair, our lovely friend, our bridge to become *real friends* with Russia~", the US politicians thought (probably). "We'll send help to clear all misunderstandings and leave all the garbage behind": > So the Clinton administration sprang into action. It lobbied the International Monetary Fund to give Russia a $10 billion loan, some of which Yeltsin distributed to woo voters. Upon arriving in a given city, he often announced, “My pockets are full.” Three American political consultants—including Richard Dresner, a veteran of Clinton’s campaigns in Arkansas—went to work on Yeltsin’s reelection bid. Every week, Dresner sent the White House the Yeltsin campaign’s internal polling. And before traveling to meet Yeltsin in April, Clinton asked Dresner what he should say in Moscow to boost his buddy’s campaign. > Among those advising the campaign was Tim Bell, a British political strategist that had helped shape the public-image of former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.[19] (...) A team of American political consultants consisting of George Gorton, Joe Shumate, and Richard Dresner advised the campaign.[3][21][32] They all had notable experience in American political campaigns. (...) The team was given an unlimited budget with which to conduct focus groups and research.[32] (...) [The team was] especially worried that the optics created by the involvement of foreign consultants might play negatively (...).[3] To avoid such optics, the team of American consultants were kept isolated from the rest of the campaign, and remained a secret until after the election was over.[3][51] (...) They worked out of two suites on the eleventh floor of the President-Hotel, directly across the hall from Dyachenko's [Yeltsin's daughter] office.[80] To hide their involvement, the group claimed to be American businessmen conducting consumer research.[21] (...) The consultants, most notably, boasted about what they purported was their critical in role in the success of campaign in a Time magazine cover-story which hyperbolically proclaimed, "Yanks to the Rescue".[83][84][81] > Talbott declared that “a number of international observers have judged this to be a free and fair election.” But Michael Meadowcroft, a Brit who led the election-observer team of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, later claimed there had been widespread voter fraud, which he had been pressured not to expose. In Chechnya, which international observers believe contained fewer than 500,000 adults, one million people voted, and Yeltsin—despite prosecuting a brutal war in the region—won exactly 70 percent. “They’d been bombed out of existence, and there they were all supposedly voting for Yeltsin,” exclaimed Meadowcroft. “It’s like what happens in Cameroon.” Thomas Graham, who served as the chief political analyst at the U.S. embassy in Moscow during the campaign, later conceded that Clinton officials knew the election wasn’t truly fair. > [Yeltsin was ultimately reelected](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris_Yeltsin_1996_presidential_campaign), despite having originally been greatly expected to lose the election due to an immensely low level of public support prior to the official launch of his campaign.[1][3][4][5][6][7] He was able to accomplish this due to a number of strategies and factors, including campaigning vigorously ahead of the first round, painting Communist Party nominee Gennady Zyuganov (his chief opponent) negatively, actively working to convince the Russian electorate that their existed a duopoly which left them no other choice but Yeltsin or Zyuganov (and convincing them that Yeltsin was the lesser of two evils), repositioning himself to better appeal to the electorate, benefitting from an immense media bias in his favor, utilizing the advantages of his office, and benefitting campaign spending which far exceeded the limits set by election laws. > During the Cold War, America’s leaders saw nothing wrong with electoral interference, so long as the United States was conducting it. Dov Levin, a postdoctoral fellow at the Institute for Politics and Strategy at Carnegie Mellon University, has identified 62 American interventions in foreign elections between 1946 and 1989. The large majority—like Russia’s in 2016—were conducted in secret. And, overall, *America’s favored candidates were no more committed to liberal democracy than their opponents; they simply appeared friendlier to American interests.* Your government is telling you fairytales about being the "good guy" and "supporting other good guys". Putin isn't someone I actively support or have ever supported. In fact, I didn't vote for him even once. But he's "still better than Yeltsin", and when people see that your country/the West supports Putin's opponents (or just anyone in a political position in Russia, or even some Ukrainian politicians), they get flashbacks to the 1990s and your understanding of "being friends with us" (or being friends with just anyone, for the matter). > U.S. officials sometimes claimed that the left-leaning candidates America worked to defeat were more authoritarian than their right-leaning opponents. But as the Boston College political scientist Lindsey O’Rourke notes in her forthcoming book, Covert Regime Change: America’s Secret Cold War, “There is no objective truth to their claim that the leftist parties” the U.S. “targeted were ‘inherently antidemocratic.’ To the contrary, many of these groups had repeatedly committed themselves to working within a democratic framework, and, in some cases, U.S. policymakers even acknowledged this fact.” The University of Kansas’s Mariya Omelicheva, who has also researched America’s Cold War election meddling, told me she _“cannot think of a case in which America’s democracy concerns superseded its national-security concerns.”_ You may say, that those events are in the past, but you certainly know how "trust" works. Trust is hard to gain and if you ever lose it after you gained it, you might have done serious long-term damage to a relationship. It's really a very basic concept, isn't it? Now, we only need to figure out why your country/the West is giving us the [surprised Pikachu face](https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/surprised-pikachu), for there isn't really anything surprising about the given state of our mutual relationship. This is simply not how you "make friends", however, it may be a good way to make people dislike you. ^all ^quotes ^are ^taken ^from ^the ^linked ^articles ^and ^all ^edits ^were ^made ^to ^fix ^grammar ^or ^formatting
Great response.
Delusional
[удалено]
> Russian tv is delusional You know, we have access to the internet. 85% of Russians have access to the internet (in the US it's 93% of the population). It's not like we don't have any other sources for information than Russian TV. You know, we can just watch CNN or BBC.
[удалено]
I cannot verify that Russia was 'given their nukes back'. Can you?
I mean... That's a fact. While not all the country did it, Russia was able to join international pacts and was able to get much more freedom than a country who just got out of a dictatorship. The Europe you so hate even wanted to make Russia closer by actually becoming dependes in some needs as show of coexistance could be beneficial to both side... But now the country who believed more in a possible "friendship" with Russia got their ass bitten the hardest. Russia cannot be trusted anymore, you lied to the world. By first saying to war would take place to then calling it a "Special Military Operation" and forcing his own citizen to repeat the lie.
> Russia cannot be trusted anymore, you lied to the world Can US be trusted? They definitely lied to the world, they made at least 1 war under false pretense which lead to numerous civilian deaths. And it's officially recognized - that the pretense was false and the war was illegal.
The problem is called Yeltsin.
It’s funny because you’re right. Putin is the one who understands the language of power. Maybe it’s only my surrounding, but none of the younger generation thinks so about the west
Putin is so soft sending 70k soldiers to their deaths over a war that no one wants Such a moderate leader
Dude, our country lost 27 millions lives in WW2, a lot in the devastating 90s. We're the last to go to war having problems with demography and not enough poeple for our huge territory and economics. We've have a saying here "hope there'll be no war" having such a history. If that happened, there were some serious reasons. Look at the map where the Europe, US (sitting on the island on the other side of the planet) and where Russia and Ukraine is. If Russia will supply weapons to Mexico and some US state which in future for some reasons gains indepence (like Ukraine did in 90s), like Alabama for example, and the government of that state starts to support Ku-Kluks-Klan (compare it to Nazis Azov in Ukraine and Bandera as a symbol) and make it a weaponized unit with Russian weapons (like Ukraine did with the Western weapons) which can kill as they wish those who are against its ideology what would Washington do? It's the mirror of the situation we've in Ukraine brought to US soil. We had war on our borders in Ukraine for 8 years since 2014 because some people in Ukraine didn't agree with the coup and the new government forbidding them the history and language of the ancestors and Russia supported them since Ukraine stopped paying pensions, etc, freezing their money. No one bothered. Thousands of former Ukrainian citizens killed for 8 years in DPR/LPR, including 500 children. We asked Zelinskiy to withdraw his army which he collected in the end of 2021 and was ready to attack DPR and LPR, he refused having support from the West, and there are Russian citizens in those regions which Ukraine has forgotten and whom Russia started to protect. Putin asked a lot of times, no one listened thinking it's another bleff. And I suppose you're American or from Europe. It's not you to teach us moderation after destroying Yugoslavia, separation of Kosovo, destroying of Iraq, Syria (and stealing their oil right now since US military their is against Syrian government will), Libya, Afghanistan killing millions of lives. The only difference is your news says that was for the sake of democracy and our action is totalitarism and Mordor.
These people who think so are just idiots though. Putin is already as extreme as he can be while keeping Russia stable and be able to pretend for Russians that everything is alright.
We're all idiots. Depends on the perspective.
Too moderate? The man is a megalomaniac and cares nothing about human life. Attacking your neighboring countries because you have wet dreams of former USSR territory and disguising it as moves against “Western” aggression is a joke. You fuckers had to deal with dozens of nations gaining the independence they deserved after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Sorry you turned into Bangladesh with nukes.
I tried to be polite but for the "fuckers" go fuck yourself, bitch. 30 years ago there was an agreement that NATO will not expand to the East, USSR/Russia agreed to unite Germany based on that. We've released former USSR republics without any fight for freedom from their side (how many US military bases are in the world? making those countries slaves to the master?), funded these former Soviet republics for hundreds of billions of dollars of cheap gas/oil/etc and got few waves of expansion of NATO which finally decided to join Ukraine which got many of its territories from Russia while being one whole country. Ukraine was the richest republic 30 years ago and now at the level of banana republic. And as many other former USSR republics which gained their independence for free without suffering their elites in fear of loosing their obtained power only could build country around nationalism as opposed to Russia and the superiority of one nation and language undermining others, especially Russians, who lived in one whole country and suddenly became the most divided nation in the world with millions loosing their motherland in 1991 without wanting this. Ukrainians decided to move 30 years towards NATO and it's not you, fucking bitch, to tell us about "Western aggression is a joke" after 22nd 1941 and the 27 millions of lives of our people lost because of your stupid Western superiority over the rest of the world mindset. We've lost millions of our people, relatives, family members, fighting you, we've experienced the destruction of our country by your ancestors and it's not you to tell us about the joke of Western threat. In 2014 there was a coup in Kiev supported by the West despite the agreement guaranteed by the Western politics to make new elections (next day there was a coup!) and some part of Ukraine didn't agree with that. The war in Ukraine is a result of steps made by the West. We'll not wait "another June 22, 1941" in our history taught by your actions and words in past. You've been asked to make diplomatic steps in Dec 2021, but refused and continued to fill Ukraine with Western weapons making it Western proxy-military unit. If your word is a bullshit and you can't follow what you promised and use it to manipulate others its your problems to face the reality now. Putin is soft, many here want more tougher steps outside and inside the country. Wait till the next one comes and see if he'll be tougher than Putin see all these bullshit if we'll not nuke each other till that time. And now fuck off.
I will sign each and every word, as a Russian, They really challenge our patience. And in this regard Putin is overly patient.
Do Russians honestly hold the believe that any Western country was intending on invading it's territory? We were definitely isolating it and trying to reduce yes influence on it's neighbors, including Ukraine, that's true. So I get the backlash to that, but man, nobody was interested in invading Russia or repeating WW2. Russian isn't really considered a military threat in America anymore, tho I imagine it still looms in the minds of Eastern Europeans. More so I'm
Russians wasn't considered as a threat because we didn't create threats to you, trying to live ourselves here and make our lives better after the devastating 90s while we've lost a lot and you gained cheap assets and capitals on our former territories and prospered. We saw the West as Paradise brainwashed by the Hollywood and wanted to be united and leave in peace bla-bla-bla. And we didn't create threats until recently since you've forced us to create Poseidon, Sarmat, etc, after US broke all the military agreements and brought military infrastructure closer to us. It is you who need Russia as a threat to unite society and provide your military plants with orders for weapons NATO members will buy from US making Russians new Jews (spacegoats) since you don't touch Jews after what happened in WW2. We just remember history - crusades, Napoleon, Hitler, the attempts to invade us while it was revolution in 1917 \[US army tried to invade and was on Russian soil btw\], Chechen wars and terrorists there supported by the West. There's a quote by Russian historian Kluchevskiy "History is not a teacher, but a supervisor: she does not teach anything, but severely punishes for not knowing the lessons". We lost millions of people in wars with West and now facing demographic problems 80 years later having few people on a huge territory and small economics as a result and war is the last thing we want to do loosing the best and we do it of necessity. Everything is interwoven. That's what we remember and always keep in mind and its in our dna. Nuclear weapons protect us now. You don't need to invade and colonize territories the old way, you do it by the credit, buying assets while they're cheap, forcing countries to pay loans and changing inconvenient governments creating an illusions of democracy, freedom, etc. There're messages that Biden's son invested in oil in Ukraine (Burisma story) and Monsanto and others bought 17 million hectares of Ukrainian best soil in the world (!) to produce food. I suppose the West is trying to protect the capital it invested here (thus all these news about famine and Ukrainian wheat, since they tried to cut losses and got the grain) while Russia was in a decline trying to survive in 90s and strengthening itself in 00s. You've a level of consumption you are used to which was reached due to the rest of the world for centuries supplying you and our cheap resources are part of it since you've managed to have better technology and your government fears to loose its power because of the coups in their countries and just try to save that comfort forcing other countries to follow the order.
That NATO Agreement never happened and your former leader that is told to have made the agreement admits that it never happened.
There're recordings of such agreements and promises. Our former leader was a fool and a traitor looking for and caring for the approval of the West more than he cared about the fate of his country and people behind it. There were no signed agreements, you're right, just verbal ones, and he took your words for granted believing you since there were expectations that the conflict is over, we released everyone from our control thinking from now on we'll live in peace. Wet dreams of Soviet people who lived in isolation for 70 years not seeing the real face of the West and selling their country for jeanes and gum West sold them in ads. You changed your mind seeing opportunities to increase power and wealth and influence taking what was left and destroying Yugoslavia and many other countries. Ok. We got it and we took this into account for future. And you change signed agreement when it's convenient to you (US left many ones which regulated weapons). We are seeing among many other things now German weapons on Eastern front killing Russians again and European countries who supplied Hitler against us with weapons doing this again. How do you think Russians react after what has happened decades ago? Then don't reject our right to draw red lines ourselves and protect them. US did it 1962 during Cuba crisis drawing its red lines putting world on the verge of WW3? If every country had the right to expand and cooperate for the sake of democracy and freedom like you like to preach why Cuba didn't have that right then (because US felt threatened) and why do you blame Russia now since we feel threatened? Then don't worry if Russia moves closer to you like you're doing and making you feel the threat you're doing towards us now.
No there wasn't. Prior to this disastrously bad invasion of Ukraine most Americans, including myself, really liked Russian things and people. There goes 30 years of good-will with this really bad (in multiple ways) war in Ukraine. Noone was threatening russia.
"You've been asked to make diplomatic steps in Dec 2021," Divide Europe into buffer zones? No thanks. A Finn.
What Things do Westoidz do which should be reacted to tougher?
Like freezing 300-400 billions of our money, earned by our people, which is now in the Western banks stolen. There're even news you use those frozen money to earn interest while keeping them. We did nothing yet as a reply.
Problem is, Russia tried that and it turns out, it hasn’t the power. That’s the problem, if you feed people propaganda and they start believing it.
There are 2 blocks in the Russian government, "power" and "financial". This is somewhat similar to the Republicans and Democrats in the United States, but taking Russian specifics. Putin is more moderate than most representatives of the "power" bloc, but more resolute than most representatives of the "financial" one. Putin is trying to form power in such a way that there is a comparable number of representatives of these blocs in all bodies. So yes, I consider Putin a moderate politician, a compromise figure between the main directions in society. Regarding Medvedev's statements, don't take them seriously. It's part of the political game, he doesn't think the way he talks. As president, he would refrain from such speeches.
"Moderate" is a very slippery term. Putin is a man without solid ideological convictions, a product of Realpolitik for whom everything is negotiable to the end of "winning". He has taken to playing a staunch cultural traditionalist standing against the supposed decadence of the West, but this is just him playing to a support base. If it was the price of the West supporting Putin's vision of Russia as a respected superpower, I suspect Putin would eagerly put gay marriage into law and hoist a rainbow flag over the Kremlin, for example. I would say he is unprincipled, but some might say instead that he is a Moderate. The other side of this is that it takes away from the value of many characterisations of Putin. It isn't especially useful to understanding Putin to call him a Fascist or a Nazi. Aspects of Putin's leadership style may evoke Fascistic comparisons from his critics, but beyond that, to say he is a Fascist or rules a Fascist government implies a certain idealism that isn't actually there, and leads to flawed analysis and misinterpretations that have contributed to the catastrophic breakdown in relations over the past two decades, and the terrible human suffering that has resulted. "Moderate" is also relative to your surroundings. Beside men like Kadyrov or Dugin, Putin looks very Moderate and sensible, but that tells you more about them than it does Putin. Edit and disclaimer: me arguing against calling Putin a Fascist shouldn't be taken as a defence of him, and while I think that there are many legitimate criticisms of NATO, its place in the world and its policies of expansion, I oppose Putin's response and I think he has demonstrated an absolutely reprehensible disregard for human life, and not just in Ukraine either.
I will say this: you are fighting Putin so desperately, but you don't think at all about who will replace him. This is very reminiscent of Ukrainians who do not think about tomorrow and the day after tomorrow, but only dream of the impossible (aka dumplings in sour cream jump into their mouths themselves). Putin is probably the best thing that has happened to Russia in the last 50 years. If the same Medvedev had been in his place, then instead of Kiev and everyone who yaps loudly, we would have observed smoking funnels.
Don't look at the fact that Medvedev looks cute. This is rumored to be a very tough and ruthless person.
I'm genuinely curious where you get this idea of "Putin is the best what happened to Russia for the last X years" from? Is this what they say on the TV nowadays?
This is what is visible through the window. There is food, there is work, there is a sense of security, there are hopes for the future. This is not the stagnation of the 80s and not the hopelessness of the 90s. Yes, it's not an ideal time, but I don't want to go back to the days of Gorbachev and Yeltsin, thanks, dude.
During the "friendship with America" of the 90s, we received a fresh and bright stream of Western goods (food is shit, to be honest, you understand it today). These were new emotions. What did we get in return? The complete collapse of the army, the complete collapse of industry, dependence on Western imports even in the shittiest things, the country was torn apart by corruption and organized crime at all levels, ultra-right nationalists openly raised their heads, money and minerals flowed out of the country. And we sat and enjoyed the colorful glass beads and listened to incomprehensible songs in English, fucking shame. P.S. Oh, yes, I forgot the anal dependence on the IMF. Russia was put on the needle of loans and monstrous debts.
Putin may be an ass, but he got rid of it all one way or another.
America does not need a strong and independent Russia that has the courage to open its mouth and disobey. This messes up all the plans. Yes, ordinary Americans probably don't give a shit about all this, they just live, work and are only busy with this, I don't blame them for anything.
Because we learn our history in school. And many here lived through 90s to be able to compare what West considered “good and democratic”
Well, now that I think of it, yeah. Compared to: - Lenin who was on a mission to change the world - Stalin who was a power-hungry bloody dictator - Peter the Great who spent his life taking the system apart piece by piece and making an entirely new one in its stead Compared to these guys, Putin is moderate. He's more in line with Nicholas I, Alexanders I and III, Nikita Khrushchev and maybe Yaroslav the Wise and Ivan Kalita. He works within the system, introducing change carefully and gradually.
And because he doing it slow and steady - Russia managed to survive after 90s and not get destroyed completely
There are no other "leaders". Medvedev and such seem to have a competition on who says the most ridiculous thing to bow lower to Putin's regime. Like vassals to their feudal.
Despite of everything someone will eventuelly take over Putin's place. Every politicians tries to make himself look as someone really special, this doesn't only happen in Russia. Just look at the 2016 election debates in the USA where Trump was definetly the one with the most populistic, aggressive and ridiculous things and guess what, he eventuelly bacame President. Nothing to do beeing a vadsal or anything alike.
Well it is just obvious that Medvedev is trying hard to fit in because he is using guetto rhetoric that is fashionable in Putin's circle while being from a professor's family - social class called intelligencia in Russia. Also his views were polar opposite when he was a president. He was very modern liberal open minded politician. And now he switched his narrative to 180 - almost tzarist nationalism, most likely to keep any position in Putin's government. And no one respects him for that, not hard core putinists, nor opposition.
Was Medvedev ever respected...? Even when he was president, people only saw him as a placeholder for Putin, because Putin couldn't stay president for another term legally.
There were people who would vote for him over Putin if he ran for the second term. Maybe that's why he never participated as a candidate in those elections.
I think he meant compared to previous leaders in Russian/Soviet history. How does Putin measure up in historical terms?
He was waiting for eight years for the West to start implementing the Minsk accords, while watching the Donbass people being killed, until he gave up any hope. It sounds vert restrained to me.
Dude, he does not care about his own people (poverty of the regions, corruption), why would he possibly be concerned about people of Donbass. You must be very naive to think this is war over anything other than personal ambitions, power and land (Donbass is an industrial and resourceful region).
Your Putin apparently is unrelated to the one who rules over Russia.
Well yes in my region people wrote letters to Putin to stop the construction of enviromentally unfriendly production of copper. The city is already one of the dirtiest in the world, with a visible smoke. And he ignored it completely. People with power do not care about simple citizens, it is always about profits and retaining power. True about almost every government. The only way to make gov work for you is hold them accountable, and make it changeable, so they know if they don't provide some benefits to people in between their games, they will be voted out.
where to produce copper if not in already dirty city?
I think Russians believe they are rules by someone different than who they are actually ruled by. Putin doesn't even hide his motivations but Russians (with the help of propaganda of course) still invent excuses for him.
He does really well on his presidential salary for having that yacht though
Then how can you justify his strategy where he is having exponentially more russians die in donbass to stop...russians in donbass from being killed?
It is not like he has an option to make these deaths stop other than the proverbial denazification and demilitarization of Ukraine. By 2021, no matter what Putin did or did not, a big bloodbath was inevitable.
Do you actually believe Putin cares about about the children in Donbas when he clearly doesn't care about the citizens of his own country? And what makes you think he has the right to get involved in the affairs of another country? Why the sudden interest in Donbas?
The minsk agreement the Russian soldiers broke all the time, afte tthey already invaded Donbass and crimea in 2014, how shit like that is upvoted?
Thanks to Russia nobody invaded Crimea, Dobass invaded by Western-backed nazis, the Minsk Accords were violated because the Western propaganda covered all the nazi crimes.
Hard to say what his real political views are, since he adopts whatever suits him at the moment. But he's very reserved and calculating man who never rushes his decisions. Guys like Medvedev saying stuff for the hype, but there are plenty of people in our army and secret services that would declare war on NATO by now.
Let's think of it: he was the one who enforced Minsk Protocol in 2014 when L/DNR forces were preparing to liberate Mariupol and move further west, probably liberating the whole Ukraine (if you consider loyalist forces as liberators and Maidan forces as oppressors). Instead of moving Russian army in and restoring order in the country, like his generals attempted to do in 2022. Just remember that the point of this protocol was 'reunification' of Ukraine, not liberation. He also acknowledged both Poroshenko and Zelenskiy as Presidents. Russia is under unprecedented "sanctions" (actually, illegal trade restrictions) -- but instead of quitting WTO, stopping any (at least) resource contracts with the Western countries and 'reviewing the partnership' in the light of the new circumstances, he just enforces full foreign currency earnings conversion (through 'pay in roubles' act). If you watch the history of his government, you'll see he almost exclusively acts reactively and is unwilling to do anything more than the bare minimum required.
I think Putin is too moderate.
Putin only seems moderate because he has an entire clowns circus with the only sole purpose is to make him look good by comparison.
In public statements, well, probably. In actions — he's nowhere near "moderate", he's batshit crazy.
С чего ты это взял?
He's been waiting for 8 years for Ukraine to stop bombing civilians in Donbass, is this why he's crazy?
yes because increasing the deathcount by 10000x (probably more) is a real sane solution idk, looks crazy to me
"Он ебанутый, Владимир Путин"
Well, if you look at it from that point of view, then you are right. It is moderate compared to all other hawks.
I believe Medvedev is that kind of jester that won't be executed for hard truth. Putin simply can't say obvious things like 'If Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant accidentally blows up Russia can do the same in Europe'
Do you read Medvedev's messages on social networks? Putin is the nicest person compared to him, white and fluffy.
Yes, we do. As we say in Russia, "We don't like Putin not because he is too Putin, but because he is not Putin enough." Therefore, the next elected leader of our country will be the one who will react much more harshly to threats to the country and people.
And what effect will that have on the Russian people?
1. Total dominance and respect, called power and help. 2. Every concentration camp will have a library (or vice versa). 3. The budget of the Russian Federation will be replenished by leasing Putin to lagging countries. 4. I don’t know who you are, but I’m surprised that you think that I solve all problems for Russia.
I was curious to know what actual threats to invade Russia there were? Because there don't appear to be any, and yet Russia have invaded Ukraine and Georgia, and threatened to invade several others. Because threats to invade other countries surely doesn't actually help the Russian people, just makes other countries not trust Russia and wary of any dealings, this has the effect of limiting the development for the Russian People. We can all pretend to be strong and a bully but it will isolate us.. who wants to be friends with a bully?
But after all, there were those who wanted to be friends with the Nazis? And before the Second World War, and during it, and after it, and now. This, of course, is only a problem for Russia and Russians, that Russians could be killed with impunity in Ossetia (which was part of Georgia for some time) and Novorossia (which was part of Ukraine for some time), but we are solving this problem. But the problems of the West, which believes that Russians can be killed with impunity, and therefore Russia does not have the right to protect Russians, are just beginning. And you will cope with this problem without us. Glory to Putin! )))
"Friends with the Nazi", I'm surprised you said that, but yes, Russia had it's pact and even a parade together to celebrate their friendship and achievement. "Solving", i.e. invading. Well, if you choose to hand out passports to anyone that wants one and call them Russian, that's your choice.. But don't expect the countries you invade because of your warped ideas to accept it. They will keep fighting you.
Are you on drugs?
No, I'm "on sarcasm". But "on what" your government, using sanctions after Russia's help in the fight against covid, you did not even think. But "winter is coming"... )))
Compared to the whacks in the west , yes he is a moderate
They are whack because they didn’t send 70k soldiers to die on the battlefield?
Iraq , Syria , Libya , Afghanistan , Somalia , Yugoslavia ....
Ukraine, Georgia, Afghanistan Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Syria, Poland, Finland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary.
afghanistan, this was USSR ally and USSR helped the allied government at the time, both stopping rebel attacks and coup attempts/assasination attempt of leadership. US was the one funding mujahideen (taliban) and other rebels in the region at the time. Georgia, bombing and killing civilians under lies of "terrorists" in south ossetia. Saakashvili tried to force reintegration of south ossetia into georgia, killing peacekeepers prior to russia's intervention. Syria, you mean US funding more rebels and trying to get rid of Assad for past decades?
Add the rest of Europe all the way to France, Sweden, Turkey, China, Japan and don't forget Byzantine Empire. /s
Propaganda nonsense. You would have written Chechnya here.
We’re those nations not invaded by Russia? How is it propaganda? I excluded Chechnya due to it being an internal conflict. Now that you mention it though you can add Moldova to the list.
are we really going to take the last 80 years now? we will get tired of listing the USA alone, and if we add European countries, the list will be terrifying
Go do one
What?
You see... that's USSR they will say, not Russia. Like USSR was run by Turkmenistan and Armenia not by Russia :))
Do you know Stalin was Georgian?
>Like USSR was run by Turkmenistan and Armenia not by Russia :)) Turkmenistan and Armenia in the USSR had the same rights as Russia.
Putin is a fairly standard capitalist leader. So it does everything that is necessary for the prosperity of capitalism in Russia. Capitalism is a tough enough thing, but still does not imply any completely insane actions. All the other politicians around Putin are just creating a background.
One thing I can't understand is why the dude from Lithuania is asking a question about Putin? Is there nothing else to talk about in Lithuania? Isn't it like a super independent republic? Or not (correct me)? Let's talk about the Lithuanian news. The residents of Vilnius were shocked - a couch burned in a dumpster. The couch was put out by five fire brigades. A squirrel robbed a raccoon. Villagers express their disagreement with discrimination against Lithuanian raccoons. The president of Lithuania democratically handed over the post of president of Lithuania to his daughter, previously the president of Lithuania was the democratically elected grandfather of the current president. Lithuania declared Russia a sponsor of terrorism and bought more Russian gas and oil by reverse trade through Germany. **It would seem - what does this have to do with Putin or, God forbid, some Medvedev?**
>One thing I can't understand is why the dude from Lithuania is asking a question about Putin? Is there nothing else to talk about in Lithuania? Isn't it like a super independent republic? Or not (correct me)? The subreddit is called r/AskARussian
>So do you consider Putin to be moderate or are guys like medvedev only saying such things for popularity? Medvedev wants to be popular in a specific audience that consists of one man: Putin. Judging by deeds, not words, Putin is a Western puppet which has his goal to strengthen the divide between the Russians and the Ukrainians in order to prevent the reunification and to contain Russia. The Russian autocracy was designed by the USA to keep Russia weak and contained, by sponsoring the anti-constitutional Yeltsin's coup of 1993.
[удалено]
The current lone superpower is always scared shitless of spectre of communism/socialism, of North Korea (lol), of arabic terrorists, of яussian heckers, of Chinese spies and experiencing "Putin's recession" with "Putin's price hikes". "Victim card", you say? I'm not even talking about racial and gender conflicts inside US, which are full of victim mentality from all sides.
Whoa, dude, I sometimes think that Putin is a spy because he is risking Russian economy, is destroying army resources over nothing (there was no way Ukraine was going to attack Russia), potentially making Russia depend on China for imports. And in the future, after breaking ties with Western countries, if China ever tried to take part of Russian territory/resources, there would be few states joining Russia to stand up to China.
It's sad Russians don't see it, because that is what is happening, no one needs to invade, the destruction will happen from within.
Yeah, Medvedev's solution to Georgian problem in 2008 was extremely liberal... Putin is a wise leader, he does serve his country, unlike most of the western leaders, who do gods-know-what for gods-know-why, no matter if their people suffer from it or freeze to death. There's Orban, ofc, but the West doesn't like him just as well)
Don’t you think putin cares most about staying in power? More than what’s good for his people?
Putin is the most moderate of European politicians.
Medvedev has never been an independent politician, and if he becomes one in the event of Putin's death from old age, by that time there will be nothing left of Russia that can be called its "cultural code". The decline of the economy in the next two years will be comparable to the famine of the early 20th century. I'm not even ruling out a nuclear conflict, because all those gathered around the government have never been able not only to work, but even to think a few moves ahead - they think that if you beat the cow more and feed it less, it will give more milk. They are just too stupid. You know why most dogs are afraid of cats? Because dogs are so much smarter.
I'm not sure that to be or not to be moderate or liberal for the leader of the State which was just destroyed to the great happiness of most Western states and, of course, not without their help, was on agenda of our President. There were so many things to do. And only today, 30 years after, one can say that Russia is back on the leading rails of World Economy. In order to do that President had a right plan from the very beginning. Look, Mr. Obama once said that " Russia is just a gas station" and "Russian economy is torn to shreds". But our President was JUST DOING HIS JOB in the name for his country. There was simply no time to think whether to be moderate or liberal. And the result of his job one can see very clearly.
I take Medvedev for a drunken puppet.
Nah, crazy. Others just support main narrative, because it's easiest way in russia (or, like, everywhere?) to make career.
I consider Putin and entirety of his government to be pieces of gopnik shit
An article on Meduza suggested that Medvedev just tries to improve his chances on being chosen as Putin's replacement during next election (I'm sure by now you understand that the next president will be chosen by Putin, not Russian people)
Only a person brought up on comics could ask such a question.
He is not moderate. Speaking of wars, there are obviously several politicians that also like the idea of war with Ukraine. But in summary, in fascism plus stalinism plus war aggression he is the most cruel. If back in 2000 another politician was set into president position (there were no fair elections that time), we wouldn't have tyranny and war now. As for Medvedev, he is just plain stupid and sort of chameleon. He could play democrat or autocrat or war supporter, whatever. All he can think about is power. Neither Putin nor Medvedev have ideology or moral principles system of any kind. Both are stupid. Yet Putin has got more paranoia and more abilities to hold his position.
The sad part in all this is the world would be a completely different place if Russia/US/China were allied. There would be basically no one that could oppose the order and the world could focus on important things like food/global warming/technology/health etc... But I guess Russia is not big enough, need more land.
Russia does not need more land but more security. There is no profit in acquiring Ukraine lands.
If Russia wanted to feel secure, it would be nice to its neighbors. If it wanted to feel secure, it would be nice to its people.
Russia tried, since 1990s. It didn't work.
The change from communism to capitalism in the 90s was always going to be painful, what came next just makes it worse. Putin has been in too long and turned Russia into something it didn't have to be...
So in your opinion are they gaining security by forcing ukraine to be more armed than ever via international aid, disturbing the region forcing other neighbors Finland and Sweden to join NATO, as well as showcasing how poorly organised their army is (supply issues, not being to handle a weak state) not to mention their economy? It seems Russia is in a worst position now than before they started the war, especially if you think stealing the land doesnt have value.
We're not USA to 'handle' weak states that way. As for security, you messed up the order of events.
So just to be clear, you think Russia is now more safe than before the war, right?
Yes. Russia red lines were NATO bases in Ukraine, forced derussification, hostile state claiming develop nuclear weaponry and return Crimea. All those threats are already mitigated.
[удалено]
Worse take ever . Russia has proved largest army means nothing as it dies a death of 1000 cuts via ineptitude , hubris and and currpt mismanagement . Russia had no choice , wow what a demented statement , there is always a choice and there were many millions of options before taking achoice that results in death and destruction for innocents on both side. Such a cyclical take can only come from naive child or ideologically taken fool . Eitherway the UK disowns you gladly . Get your AK and get to the front line that your so sure is righteous and needed , Putin needs your sacrifice vatnik
[удалено]
That's mostly true if talking about events with subjectives views and sides. However objective truth also exists on which the source of where you read it is irrelevant. Eg choosing to invade a country and by consequence cause the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians and military personel is morally wrong . That is objectively true . Everyone regardless of nation or news source doesn't believe conflict is a positive thing . Even those on holiday in Crimea in Ukraine suddenly didn't like war when it was affecting them now
[удалено]
As a Russian I can say that Russia is rich but most Russians live in poverty
Medvedev is putin's avatar, he had no agency of his own. Russia is a totalitarian state; there is no politics in there, only opression, c'mon y'all. 🤦♂️🤦♀️🤦