Rants

[desantoos]

Let's just admit it and move on. I mean, come on, if Putin were to leave he would have been gone a long while ago. He's not leaving and he probably won't for another few decades.

And talk about a piece of #### country he's turned it into. One of the least liked "superpowers" in the world. Heck, the world likes China more than Russia. And I know China rightfully gets a lot of flak for enabeling #### throughout the world, but watch any documentary on North Korea (or pretty much any other ####hole dictatorship like Swaziland) and you'll sense the rotten decay of the Soviet Empire. I mean look at these #### trying to defend the actions of the Syrian leaders. I know I know, technically I am being a hypocrite since the US was similar with Yemen for god knows how long but at least now the US has said the leadership they propped up there needs to step aside.

All we seem to get out of Russia these days is the scary-ass Russian Times (RT News) which regularly interviews conspiracy theorists and other sorts of really really crazy people. I suppose they are getting a head start on the future of media: pro-country sources that spend their entire program talking #### about other countries. Yes we will soon pine for the days of the soon-to-be-remembered Responsible Journalists from Fox News.

In conclusion, fuuuuuudge Russia and fuuuuuudge Russia's sorry-ass parnership with China to keep the world in a state of ####ty stasis.

[westpark]

Yeah but Russia's so #### big & diverse ethnically I wonder if it could hold in one piece w/o a dictatorship? Look @ what happened to the Soviet Union. Most states that are that diverse tend not to last very long.

[Kinnolo]

You just figured that out?

[desantoos]

Maybe everyone knows this already but we never talk about it. Ever since the end of the Cold War, Americans have failed to give a #### about Russia.

[Kinnolo]

Russia is like the kid at the orphanage that got disowned by their adopted parents. 

[Cepheus84]

Russia's been a dictatorship of one sort or another (tyrannical monarchy, communist, authoritarian presidential) for virtually all of its history, so I'm not terribly surprised. It would have been more unusual if it had actually become a democracy.

[Cepheus84]

---

westpark wrote:

Yeah but Russia's so #### big & diverse ethnically I wonder if it could hold in one piece w/o a dictatorship? Look @ what happened to the Soviet Union. Most states that are that diverse tend not to last very long.

---

What exactly are the implications of this idea when it comes to huge ethnically diverse countries like the USA?

[Cepheus84]

---

desantoos wrote:

Ever since the end of the Cold War, Americans have failed to give a #### about Russia.

---

Well, what exactly were we supposed to do?  Invade after the fall of the Soviet Union and impose democracy on them?  I don't see exactly how we could have done much more than we did, which is to help them financially through institutions like the IMF and support the development of capitalism and civil society through various NGOs... most of which were seen as foreign interlopers by the Russian government and much of its population and kicked out during Putin's presidency.

Look, Russia is a huge, powerful country with its own centuries-long history and culture and traditions... and a long-standing streak of xenophobia which is frankly somewhat understandable if you look at their history.  There was always going to be distinct limits on how much leverage we can exert over them.  I think we genuinely tried our best, but at the end of the day the weight of Russia's own history and culture was going to determine their future much more than anything we did or could do.

[westpark]

---

Cepheus84 wrote:

---

westpark wrote:

Yeah but Russia's so #### big & diverse ethnically I wonder if it could hold in one piece w/o a dictatorship? Look @ what happened to the Soviet Union. Most states that are that diverse tend not to last very long.

---

What exactly are the implications of this idea when it comes to huge ethnically diverse countries like the USA?

---

Dunno but if Russia, Yugoslavia, Iraq, etc are examples -- it doesn't look good. I hope it doesn't become an issue. Or rather i should say...I'm HOPING it doesn't become an issue. *knock on wood*

Regardles of what happens here I think everythings moving to China & Asia anyhoot. Might as well learn Mandarin & Hindi  now.

[desantoos]

---

Cepheus84 wrote:

 I think we genuinely tried our best, but at the end of the day the weight of Russia's own history and culture was going to determine their future much more than anything we did or could do.

---

You are probably right, but man does that #### so much. It just feels so stupid that we spend so much time and effort on ####ty nations that are puppets of these big countries and we can't just go to them and fix things because they are trapped in a culture of stupid.

[Josey]

Russia isn't anymore a dictatorship than the USA. After all, Putin is very popular and elected by a majority, whether you want to believe it or not. If our presidents could serve more than two terms, you'd see many of them doing something similar.

Why is Putin popular? Because he essentially cleaned up the disaster Russia had become due to Boris Yeltsin who let the country essentially get robbed by a handful of wealthy people with western connections, well known as the oligarchs. The oligarchs were supported by the west and once they were kicked out, a huge propaganda campaign against Russia went into motion and hasn't stopped yet.

Go ahead and call Russia ####, but it isn't because of Putin. You can thank Yeltsin and his billionaire buddies for that. Undeer Putin, Russia has had a heck of a turnaround with a space program that we're now dependant upon, an attempt to create a sustainable ecological policy, an end to the Chechen war and an influence that's not built on terrorizing other countries ... unlike the US. It also maintains the third most powerful military in the world.

There's still a long way to go, but the US is more apt to fall below Russia in ####tiness as opposed to Russia rising up to the forefront again.

[Josey]

---

westpark wrote:

Yeah but Russia's so #### big & diverse ethnically I wonder if it could hold in one piece w/o a dictatorship? Look @ what happened to the Soviet Union. Most states that are that diverse tend not to last very long.

---

The thing is that Russia has always been like that with the Tartars and its Far Eastern population. Aside from Chenya, there hasn't been too many issues, largely because they don't have too much meddling from Moscow but have the benefits of protection of the Russian military and Russian economic boom.

[shutupfatty]

for anyone who's concerned about russia's neo-imperialist rheoteric, the cost of the soviet union's collapse has been huge and ongoing. with a shrinking population that only accounts for 2% of the human race, russia is a post-imperialist country without vision or appeal, and lacking the human and economic resources necessary for expansion. russia could still fragment further.

[westpark]

---

Josey wrote:

---

westpark wrote:

Yeah but Russia's so #### big & diverse ethnically I wonder if it could hold in one piece w/o a dictatorship? Look @ what happened to the Soviet Union. Most states that are that diverse tend not to last very long.

---

The thing is that Russia has always been like that with the Tartars and its Far Eastern population. Aside from Chenya, there hasn't been too many issues, largely because they don't have too much meddling from Moscow but have the benefits of protection of the Russian military and Russian economic boom.

---

Yep. Russia's also BBBBIIIIGGGG. I mean there are large swathes of Siberia probably the size of US states that have never seen human beings. Lord knows what kind of animals live there. A lot of the groups have had self-rule of sorts for years. I guess the Soviets must've just made local tribal leaders commisars & #### like that.

[westpark]

---

shutupfatty wrote:

for anyone who's concerned about russia's neo-imperialist rheoteric, the cost of the soviet union's collapse has been huge and ongoing. with a shrinking population that only accounts for 2% of the human race, russia is a post-imperialist country without vision or appeal, and lacking the human and economic resources necessary for expansion. russia could still fragment further.

---

Over time yes. The only reason the Chinese don't send a big army across the river to take back Siberia is because of Putin's nukes. I still think Siberia will gradually move back into China's sway. The one thing the Russians DO have is resources. Siberia is one big massive #### oil well & gold mine & w/e other mineral you wanna think of. That will keep the regime in power indefinitely because other countries need their ore & minerals.

[shutupfatty]

yeah, but russia's economy is poorly insulated as a consequence of its reliance on oil, gas, and mineral wealth to generate growth. the market for these raw materials is extremely volatile and in the instance of a global recession, russia is hit hard. 

[Josey]

---

westpark wrotever time yes. The only reason the Chinese don't send a big army across the river to take back Siberia is because of Putin's nukes. I still think Siberia will gradually move back into China's sway. The one thing the Russians DO have is resources. Siberia is one big massive #### oil well & gold mine & w/e other mineral you wanna think of. That will keep the regime in power indefinitely because other countries need their ore & minerals.

---

Interestingly, all the areas that share a border with China are at least 80 percent Russian. With such a high saturation of Russians, it's probably not likely that they'll just switch to Chinese rule, especially considering how China treats its ethnic minorities.

While there are some border disputes, it's probably not near the level that China has with India and it's Islamic neighbors. China itself has more internal territorial disputes with the Tibetan and it's Islamic regions which are constantly rebelling against Beijing. With water demands, China and India are heading closer to conflict because of the shared water resources between the two.

[Josey]

---

shutupfatty wrote:

for anyone who's concerned about russia's neo-imperialist rheoteric, the cost of the soviet union's collapse has been huge and ongoing. with a shrinking population that only accounts for 2% of the human race, russia is a post-imperialist country without vision or appeal, and lacking the human and economic resources necessary for expansion. russia could still fragment further.

---

The shrinking has slowed down and Russia is the second biggest destination for immigrants in the whole world behind the United States. While it no longer seems to have imperial ambitions, expansion seems quite possible, since it has been in negotiations with Belarus for a political merger. It's international influence is still powerful as well, even though it's economic instead of militaristic now.

[shutupfatty]

Russia's population growth (%)--even accounting for immigration, population growth is hovering at  -.5%. you can thank rampant AIDS and alcoholism. a quick comparison between Russia's GDP (PPP) and the United States' GDP (PPP), as well as China's GDP (PPP) reveals Russia's status as a relatively insignificant economic power. honestly, the only thing that should give anyone pause is their enormous arsenal of nukes.

[Josey]

Actually, the trend is that the decline is reversing itself. They're still losing people, but it's less people every year and their birth rate continues to rise.

---

shutupfatty wrote:

Russia's status as a relatively insignificant economic power. honestly, the only thing that should give anyone pause is their enormous arsenal of nukes.

---

Then why is Russia still such an influential power then? You're talking about a country that had pulled itself out of a decade of disaster under Yeltsin, who essentially let the country get robbed blind and a bloated imperial state before that. For many countries that would have just disintegrated, Russia is doing quite well and still has one of the world's most powerful militaries.

[shutupfatty]

They're going to need overcome rampant alcoholism and drug use, as well as combat the spread of HIV, if they want their population to rebound. But I think you misunderstand me... I admire the Russian people. They survived an unprecedented amount of physical destruction during WWII (an order of magnitude greater than the entire western theater) and decades of government censorship and repression (which, under Stalin's reign, was unparalleled in its visciousness and brutality). And I'm also disgusted with what happened to Russia after the collapse of the Soviet Union.  I think the international community, America in particular, had a commitment to help Russia in its transition. By letting Russia get ransacked and descend into lawlessness, we failed in our obligation.

[Josey]

---

shutupfatty wrote:

  I think the international community, America in particular, had a commitment to help Russia in its transition. By letting Russia get ransacked and descend into lawlessness, we failed in our obligation.

---

I don't think we were really obliged to do that in as much establish a friendly relationship, and even if we offered, I don't think our help would have been accepted considering how many strings we tend to have attached to that sort of thing. Russia already had the frame work in place with elections of sorts taking place during the final years of the USSR.

But after the fall of the USSR, the policy of the US, as well as NATO countries, was to isolate Russia and dissuade it from any ambitons of being a world power again. NATO really pushed itself to Russia's front door, the attempts to put missiles there hasn't helped. A lot of Cold Warriors pretty much wanted a weak Russia that would walk in step with the US and EU, not the independent and influential one we have today.

Putin is popular because his regime really began reversing that trend without the use of military force, despite what they report in American media, he's very popular and not so bad for a transitional leader compared to what most countries who've overthrown authoritarian regimes get. While, it's a very valid case that he's still the real leader of Russia even after stepping down as President, he did respect the framework of the law. This can be taken as a leader that knows that his country must go on after he's gone, not one who leaves a disaster in his wake.

[GaiusIuliusCesar]

what else is new?

[desantoos]

---

Josey wrote:

Russia isn't anymore a dictatorship than the USA. After all, Putin is very popular and elected by a majority, whether you want to believe it or not.

---

Okay, I've thought about this post for a long while and I still can't think of how this could be true. Putin's reign has no end in sight, unlike any US president since FDR (with which the rules were correctly changed to prevent what could have been a dictatorship). Even with the protests in Moscow right now the propaganda there is so tight that there is no chance Putin loses control for a least another decade?

Has he been popular? At times, but you look across actual functioning democracies and you'll see that nobody lasts very long in power. The reason is that no single perspective or ideological slant is good enough for a large mass of people. Putin's power as a function of true success is even less plausible when you consider the lag of the counry behind much of the rest of the world.

---

Josey wrote:, an end to the Chechen war and an influence that's not built on terrorizing other countries ... unlike the US.

---

Also, this is total bull####. Look to much of the Middle East and you'll see Russia's influence. Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan. I'm not saying that the US hasn't done its fair job of #### up countries like Yemen and Libyia. I think we need to see a cross-the-board removal of people influencing awful dictators and terorist organizations and right now Russia is doing so and doing so quite often.

Also, I'm pretty sure Russia terrorized Georgia. Maybe RT News called it something different, but that's what it was. 

[EvilsergE]

---

Josey wrote:

---

shutupfatty wrote:

  I think the international community, America in particular, had a commitment to help Russia in its transition. By letting Russia get ransacked and descend into lawlessness, we failed in our obligation.

---

I don't think we were really obliged to do that in as much establish a friendly relationship, and even if we offered, I don't think our help would have been accepted considering how many strings we tend to have attached to that sort of thing. Russia already had the frame work in place with elections of sorts taking place during the final years of the USSR.

But after the fall of the USSR, the policy of the US, as well as NATO countries, was to isolate Russia and dissuade it from any ambitons of being a world power again. NATO really pushed itself to Russia's front door, the attempts to put missiles there hasn't helped. A lot of Cold Warriors pretty much wanted a weak Russia that would walk in step with the US and EU, not the independent and influential one we have today.

Putin is popular because his regime really began reversing that trend without the use of military force, despite what they report in American media, he's very popular and not so bad for a transitional leader compared to what most countries who've overthrown authoritarian regimes get. While, it's a very valid case that he's still the real leader of Russia even after stepping down as President, he did respect the framework of the law. This can be taken as a leader that knows that his country must go on after he's gone, not one who leaves a disaster in his wake.

---

This is what started this whole dicussion.

I can't believe people trust American news.

Oh, OP, Russia did not terrorize Georgia, Georgia is sht and Russia wants nothing from them. It's Georgia that attacked South Ossetia (sp). And you know what else, the Georgian troops has US logo on their uniforms, oh yes they did. All the footage you've seen on CNN and all this American bs news came from Ossetia, not Georgia.