The General Russia Thread

My guess it that he found out that urban middle class won't be loyal to him anyway, whether he is acting decently or not. And that they are, culturally, such a minority despised by everyone else that they can be shut down. So he focused his attentions on populist approach.

What do you mean "provoke him"?

edited 12th Apr '14 7:02:36 PM by Mio

Westernization is generally seen (and not without reason) as imperialism by other means by non-Western nations and the third world. As long as Russia's interests were respected, Putin had no problem doing business with the West on mutual interests (Afghanistan is a prime example). But western meddling/cheerleading with Georgia and Ukraine a decade ago, the missile defence system, etc. ensured that understanding would not be maintained. And so he was provoked.

EDIT-

Apologies for the mistype.

edited 13th Apr '14 5:38:42 AM by FFShinra

The protests over elections for his last term. That's what I've meant, at least

But is right also

edited 12th Apr '14 7:13:24 PM by Beholderess

I'm aware of that. I was hoping to learn about something more specific (also don't you mean "not without reason").

Ah, I see.

Anyway, to give you an impression about just how much the 90s influenced people - during the last few years before the fall of the USSR, you could scarcely find people more enamoured with America than Soviet citizens. They would secretly listen to the Western radio (fixing it so that it would get the signals by themselves), the "Western" goods, especially the ones with insignia, were coveted and were a point of pride, and the cultural aspirations were very much towards the West. The state constantly issued advertisements shaming the people for fawning over the "Bourgeois capitalist" culture, but it had no effect whatsoever.

It takes a lot to be so completely disillusioned.

edited 13th Apr '14 6:42:22 AM by Beholderess

I wonder if the Forbidden Fruit effect might have also played a part.

I honestly don't think it takes that much to become disillusioned.

I was under the impression that the waning days of the Union were not exactly that great economically either. Were things genuinely that much worse in the 90s for your average Russian, or was it more the sting of prestige and geo-political loss?

A friend of mine and I were also having a conversation about recent events were he brought up the conspiracy theory surrounding the "Washington Consensus" and "Shock Therapy". That was concocted to "ensure the bear never raises" again. It's not true, mostly because it was about more then just the waning USSR, but I don't begrudge those that think it's true.

On a more relevant note,a piece from the BBC about Germany's complex relations with Russia.

edited 13th Apr '14 7:20:11 AM by Mio

They weren't great, definitely, but people could be sure they'll be able to make the ends meet. Life was stable.

Also, the integrated nature of the Soviet economy would have made it easier for the Soviet Union to stay together and go through the reforms than to do so as independant republics. It would have still hurt, but not nearly as much as it did the way it went down.

Perhaps, but I think maintaining the Union would have made such reforms less likely to happen, which is not necessarily bad thing.

It probably would have been better for Russia if they decided to go with more gradual reforms akin to the Chinese model, but that's just hindsight at this point.

No disagreement here. Those more sympathetic to Gorbachev would even say that was his intention cept for the August Coup.

I understand that he wanted to develop the U.S.S.R. along the lines of the Scandinavian model.

It was never Gorbachev's intent to dissolve the Union or really to abandon Communism. Deng-style reform was probably exactly what he was going for. Tiananmen being the watershed moment in China like the August Coup was in Russia, except that in Russia, the soldiers refused to follow the coup-plotters and crush dissent, while the troops did follow the government's orders in Tiananmen (helped that they were all apparently from other parts of China and didn't see themselves as shooting their own so much), and so the spirit of democracy was crushed, even as the hunger for more reform behind that spirit was acknowledged.

From what I've read, sucess in the August Putsch would have made reform less likely in the short term. In fact it would have likely called for a doubling down on traditional soviet policies. It's not exactly analogous to Tienanmen in that sense.

I am not going to act as apologist for the West, which has a long history of pursuing its own interests while dressing it up as defending freedom, but it's a mistake to define something by the way someone else has abused it. The proposition that people are in the long run better off making difficult choices themselves through public debate and discussion rather than relying on authoritarian-style savior figures to do the deciding for them is either true or it isn't, regardless of what any media figure has said or ever could say. It's also a mistake to resign all earnest public discussion as propaganda from one side or another, there is truth which can be discerned, and discerning it is the first duty of any member of society.

As for Beholdersess' comment, no one is responsible for Putin's reactions but Putin, and he has to answer for the consequences, just as any leader does. I cant think of any circumstances in which it makes sense to suppress dissent, even in the face of hostile and provocative actions by foreign nations. I believe in diversity of opinion: to the extent that a country faces dangerous challenges, that is exactly when the widest range of opinion and insight should be cultivated, so that potential insights and solutions are not overlooked. Narrowing the range of discussion that one deems "loyal" is a slippery slope that I dont think has ever ended well.

It's true that democracy has a downside in that it inevitably leads to the expression of shallow and superficial opinions. It's like the internet in that way- freedom of expression allows anyone to express themselves, however offensive their opinion is. So Western media are guilty of a huge amount of hypocrisy, mostly due to the pressures to pander to an ever wider commercial audience. But that's a price worth paying if it also leads to a greater opportunity for relatively powerless people to express their interests and needs. This is the fundamental reason why I wish for the every country in the world to become more democratic and not less, because that's the only way we can all cross over the boundaries dividing us and work together toward common goals.

Democracy is messy, and authoritarianism is orderly. Many people, I think, mistake orderliness for safety and security, but IMHO they're wrong. In the long run, sooner or later, it's one of the opinions you didn't hear (because it was "taboo") that will turn out to have been the one that was needed the most- because it provided in insight into a problem that no one in a position of authority could have afforded to be seen endorsing. Sooner or later, this is bound to harm both China and Russia. One day I think that they will both be forced to engage in serious political reform, and I also think that when they do, their citizens will be both happier and safer.

If I ever do a video on this whole Ukraine and Russia situation, mind if I quote some of your text? Because it's a really good text.

Yeah, De Marquis really said everything there was to say about this entire subject. Well done my friend, well-done.

Putin's rise is a direct consequence of the West taking Russia for granted. Most nations, democracies or not, leave the planning of geopolitics in the hands of very few (a necessity, because it requires professionals rather than politicians), so all those advantages to democracy you stated don't really affect the decision-making process. Triumphalist policies and presumptions about democracy being great no matter what the situation, ensured this was going to happen.

It's fine to speak in platitudes, but practicality must be considered at some point. You can't have no order and no freedom. It requires a balance. In Russia, they fly into extremes. Will there eventually be balance? Sure. But it's not there yet.

EDIT-

This.

edited 13th Apr '14 10:19:33 AM by FFShinra

@demarquis: Most of the more recent talk was more to do with Russian economic development then it's political system. The question of democracy in Russia is something that Russians will have to sort out on their own and whatever decision they make we will have to accept.

@demarquis

I am not going to argue about the merits of democracy - blast it, I fully support it. It's just I've been wondering lately whether the protests have made things worse. I do think they were fully justified - it's just, well, there is no hope in sight for this country now while there has been plenty before.

As for people here distrusting Western democracy - yes, you are right that it is not quite rational. However, it often feels as if you dismiss such sentiment as not existing, or saying that t should be ignored. Well, it is not safe to ignore. Right or wrong, mistaken or not it exists, and not without reasons.

While this certainly look grim now, I hope you don't loss hope. The "rally around the flag" effect doesn't last forever and if Putin's domestic policy doesn't work out then I could see things shifting back the other way. It will definitely take time regardless of anything though.

As long as Russia is treated as an enemy the crazy patriotism and rejection of everything "Western" on principle will not go anywhere. And it's been treated as an enemy even during the times of "good' behaviour, which allowed such sentiments to grow and fester.

By now, it would need time. At least a generation.

Indeed. Still, don't lose hope. You'd be needed in the times of the good, especially when you have no illusions of Western views toward Russia. Less likely to be led astray.

@Quag/Gaon: Gosh, thanks. Feel free to quote me whenever.

@Shinra: "Putin's rise is a direct consequence of the West taking Russia for granted." Pish posh. Here's the thing: people who keep decrying the West's "attitude" (as the West were some homogenous mass that didnt have a huge diversity of opinion about everything) attribute too much importance to what the West thinks. I assure you Putin's rise was entirely due to Russian's desires and perceptions, mostly with respect to their internal politics. To suggest otherwise is patronizing.

As for elites and their role within the governing system- in a functioning democracy the few have to answer to the many- and if they dont do a good job they can be replaced by some rival faction of elites. What rival elite factions exists in Russia?

Triuphalism has little to do with it. Like I said, either free and open public debate of all sides of the issue is good for a country in the long run, or it isnt. There is a truth behind the slogans.

Of course they will have to sort all this out themselves. That's the point of democracy. I dont want to dismiss anti-Western sentiment anywhere, including in the West (we have our own reasons for opposing globalization). I suspect, however, that one major reason they are seemingly going backward at this point is due to home-brewed propaganda, not anything the West has done.

BTW- not to be a downer, but regarding Russia as "the Enemy" is a great exhaduration. We dont really have feelings that strong about Russia.

edited 13th Apr '14 12:23:03 PM by demarquis