The General Russia Thread

Monarchies are rarely one-man systems (and those that were or are do not last more than a generation or so), despite their being a sovereign. Indeed, the main difference between a monarchy and dictatorship, is the monarchy is a creature of the society it governs (the Arab monarchies, for example, get their power from tribal custom and alleigance, or in the old Indian monarchies, many a time they were warrior kings who came up in the post-Mughal/Company era age of strife to defend a particular community from others). The dictator is not (his reason for being authoritarian is precisely because he does not have societal legitimacy, as opposed to defending the interests of the aristocracy, which explains authoritarianism in monarchies). There are, for dictators, some exceptions, with war being the biggest one, which relates to the Indian example, but only if the conflict is societal or communal in nature (as with the Indian example).

But back to my original point: No government can actually be run by one man, no matter how Machiavellian. Indeed, one is considered Machiavellian because they can keep all the parts, led by different interests, in balance to his own goals.

And considering that Putin does have societal legitimacy, I don't think he can be called a dictator, to further build up on Shinra's point.

If anything monarchies are more stable as they do tend to think about ensuring a viable successor, that's what princes are for.

I am absolutely sure that Putin already has a perfectly fine "prince" all set up and ready to take over. Just because random people on the internet do not know this prince's identity absolutely does not prove that he doesn't exist.

And as history shows us, the leader's choice of successor will always be unanimously respected and followed to the letter upon the leader's death/retirement.

Depends entirely upon the time and the place. Putin has both a big enough trust credit from the Russian people for his successor to be welcomed by them and no meaningful political rivals that could attempt to seize power in the meantime.

edited 1st Apr '15 9:36:09 AM by KnitTie

Putin doesn't need to have visible rivals in order for his succession to potentially be problematic. Just followers who might view each other as rivals once they're no longer united under Putin.

But, yes, it all depends on how Putin goes about it. I just couldn't help getting a bit snarky about your assurance considering the amount of leaders, many even more respected and admired than Putin, whose successes turned to bloody chaos the moment they were no longer around to personally hold it all together.

Russia does the advantage that its a relatively homogenous nation, though - it's not the Yugoslavian or Alexandrian situations, where very diverse and tense ethnic state is held together by a single charismatic leader. I suppose Chechnya might make another bid for independence, but then again it might not. I don't foresee widespread chaos after Putin. A political crisis or palace coup possibly, but violence seems unlikely.

This.

I would even go further and say that Chechnya most likely won't try anything separatistic after Putin steps down or kicks the bucket. It's an entirely different place nowadays.

edited 1st Apr '15 10:40:21 AM by KnitTie

Although - speaking of charismatic leaders who're going to leave a vacuum when they die: what happens when Kadyrov kicks the bucket?

Everybody sighs in relief and takes turns pissing on his grave.

I don't think anyone's really been calling Putin a dictator. Maybe the first syllable but not the rest of it. He WAS elected fairly, the first few times at a minimum. But so was Andrew Jackson.

Real chaos is unlikely, but a weak, divided government is possible.

But seriously though - Chechnya's not exactly somewhere that produces stability. If it is, why stick with this guy?

edited 2nd Apr '15 5:56:29 AM by Achaemenid

Chechens are smart enough to know who pays their bills. And they fight Chechens who are paid by other guys. Who leads them is irrelevant as long as he is that smart too.

So according to our World Politics teacher, who is a former diplomat, Putin prefers the Chinese model of capitalism to the Western model. What do you guys have to say about this?

Of course he does. He's still at the top in the Chinese model.

Or, if we stop with the clichéd autocracy jokes already, because the Chinese model of capitalism has so far shown itself to be working much better for Russian that the European model. A question of finding the right peg for your hole, nothing more.

Chechens have tasted independence during the times of Ichkeria, and boy didn't they like it. If you think that the 90s in Russia were bad, you should look at the unrestrained criminal pandemonium in Chechnya back then, with all the gang wars on every street corner and the government going literally medieval, with torture and beheading, on random people just because.

Now, in economic news: Russian foreign reserves go up, economic doomsday is cancelled.

edited 2nd Apr '15 10:21:02 AM by KnitTie

I don't think the Chinese model is being practiced in full when it comes to Russia. Especially considering the political presence of the PRC in economic realms and their more efficient ways of tackling corruption.

I absolutely disagree with you about corruption, but you are right in general - it's not a copy of the Chinese model that's being used in Russia, but rather an interpretation of it.

News, this time tragic: Russian fishing vessel sinks in Okhotsk sea, 50 crewmen drown.

edited 2nd Apr '15 10:46:59 AM by KnitTie

"if we stop with the clichéd autocracy jokes already"

Wait a minute, you think anyone's joking about this? We're dead serious here. His political opponents have turned up dead on multiple occasions, He's invaded other countries more than once in power-grabs, and he's had the constitution changed to give him power. There's no joke here.

Yes, because Russia is unique in this regard. I don't see anyone complaining of the Saudis doing the same thing to Yemen in the Arab Spring thread.

One, I'm sure people have and do criticize that in other threads.

Two, Saudi Arabia does not have the pretense of being a democracy. Russia does.

That, and yea, many people complain about Saudi Arabia. However, you don't see many people trying to defend it. Can't have much of a discussion if everyone already agrees, and thus you don't see much complaining about them right now.

Plus, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Yemen calling for help against an ISIS aligned revolution right now?

edited 2nd Apr '15 11:08:04 AM by Joesolo

Makes sense I suppose. The Chinese have shown that it's a better transition from a Planned Economy then jumping right into Laissez-Faire.