Russia Discussion

Nick 0208 Ldn said:
When i was in Saint Petersburg last month, i thought it noteworthy how wistful our guide became when referring to the Soviet era. She would speak about the inadequacy of the pension system, and the bribery required to attain quality healthcare.

That being said, the Estonians and Germans (we visited Lubeck) were very happy with things in 2015.
Click to expand...
I found this exactly the same a few years back when I was in Moscow for a week with work. Many of the people, even though we're working for a successful pharmaceutical company, spoke more fondly of the dictorial days when houses / jobs were assigned to you rather than how it was when I was there. One woman was honest to you know who, almost in tears when she spoke of how good the past was, in her eyes at least.
 
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/08/russia-western-food-ban-putin/402388/

One face of Vladimir Putin's brave new Russia is a man called Nikolai.

We don't know his last name, but we know he lives in Vladivostok. And we know that after having a few drinks on the evening of August 16, he called the cops to rat on his neighbors for cooking illegally imported goose meat.

“I served in the army and I understand the situation like this: We have our superiors and they give orders that we must carry out, meaning there is the law and we must obey it,” Nikolai said, according to Russian media reports.
Click to expand...

Just like the old days!
 
Raoul said:
Can't disagree, although recently the west have been operating under the delusion of Russia being amenable to democratic governance when in reality its is basically being run by mostly former Communist/KGB apparatchiks, and has been run more as an organized crime patronage network than a nation state.
Click to expand...

The most baffling thing about it is how the people (populace, citizens, etc.) in Russia can lack self-determination in improving the country compared to people from former Eastern Bloc states. Not all is perfect and switching from dictatorship to democracy is never easy, but you would easily feel that the Hungarians, the Poles, the Czechs, the Slovaks, the Baltic people and many others from the region put more effort in improving their respective countries under democratic systems than Russia ever tried.

The old and retired can say whatever they want about nostalgia from the older Soviet days, but no one can deny that deterioration was visible when Brejnev was in power. The worst thing that can happen for a country is to live in the past and not doing anything to improve the future; it's a real shame to see that "living in the past" issue being such a major mentality issue in a country that has great potential.
 
Sir Matt said:
http://www.newsweek.com/2015/09/18/...atened-putins-push-revise-history-369532.html
Click to expand...

This is a very interesting topic btw.

First, you need to reconcile the actual number. Are we counting everyone who died under his regime? Or the people he deliberately and intentionally had killed? The difference between these two numbers is startling. If the first number, it's quite large. If the second number it's (for mass murdering dictators) quite small.

The article itself if that is where your quote comes from is already problematic. Less than 1 million people can be veritably attributed to Stalin during the purges. Throughout the Stalin period, the vast majority of people sent to Gulags actually left alive. The highest period of deaths via Gulag was during WW2.

The number of people who died during collectivization and the forced industrialization of the USSR account for the largest percentage of deaths under Stalin. We are talking about people who starved to death because collectivization simply didn't work. This is a failed policy. Then we can look at the Holodomor where several million Kulaks starved to death. This is another very interesting topic. Were these people victims of Stalinist nationalist liquidation? I'd hedge towards no, but it certainly played a role. Draught (Stalin can't control rain) + failure of collectivization probably played the biggest role, but Stalin certainly wasn't losing sleep over the famine. I'd say this is a combination of several issues. Draught/collectivization/Stalin not giving a feck.

At the end of the day less than 1 million people were deliberately ordered killed by Stalin during the purges, the article is completely wrong in its scholarship and research. In sum Stalin intentionally had 2-3 million people killed during his entire reign. Several million more died during his regime but I'm not sure it's fair to lay those directly at his feet. Otherwise we need to look at ourselves a little more closely. How many in the USA starved to death during the great depression. Nobody in their right mind would say FDR was a mass murderer for their deaths.

However, the crux of the issue is, were the deaths justifiable in the long term?

Is what Stalin did responsible for the USSRs ability to resist Germany? What was at stake? I would ultimately have to argue that yes, the ends justified the means here. The purges strengthened Stalins position in power. He eradicated the military establishment that could challenge him. He also burned out a lot of the old guard which were reluctant to embrace change in military doctrine and theory. One counter point to this was the murder of Tukhachevsky the author of Deep Battle doctrine. By establishing his position and wiping out any threats Stalin was able to make himself the spine of the USSR. Nobody could give up unless he gave up and he wasn't going to give up. This was a key aspect of the USSRs ability to hold out in the opening months of the German war.

Now we look at the 5 year plans. A lot of people died as a result of these. Both in the industrialization phase and the collectivization phase. One was a success, the other was a total failure. Millions died as a result of collectivization, lots died during industrialization as well. On balance which was more important? Well, industrialization. Without the forced industrialization of Stalins 5 year plans, the USSR isn't able to produce the tanks, planes, bullets, locomotives, trucks etc that allowed it to fight the Nazi invasion off. Collectivization was a major set back, but it was a setback that ultimately did not cause the state to collapse and it was therefore absorbable.

The question is, are the deaths of millions of citizens ever justifiable? This isn't a question that we as westerners can really ever answer. Our countries have never faced existential wars. If Stalin and the USSR fail in WW2, we're not talking about 11 million people murdered by the Nazi's. We're talking about the enslavement and eventual eradication of ALL of European Jewry, ALL Slavic peoples west of the Urals. We're talking about potentially over 100 million people that would be enslaved and eventually exterminated.

That is what you need to consider when you say "was it justified". Could they have done it without what he did? I would lean towards no.
 


And the report confirms what the Western media has said all along while the Russian media's attempts to obfuscate failed.
 
To date, comfortably one of the best assessments of Putin's adventures in Ukraine.....

How Putin’s Ukrainian Dream Turned Into a Nightmare

http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/10/20/how-putins-ukrainian-dream-turned-into-a-nightmare/

Whatever the larger goal of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s armed intervention in Syria, it has succeeded in distracting the world’s attention from his ongoing aggression in eastern Ukraine. In his half-hour speechat the United Nations earlier this month timed to reach a prime-time Russian audience, he spent only a minute on the Ukrainian conflict, focusing instead on Russia’s constructive role in the Middle East.

Putin’s rhetorical redirection is not surprising.

The Kremlin’s war in Ukraine is turning into a quagmire.The Kremlin’s war in Ukraine is turning into a quagmire. Militarily, it is a stalemate — which, given the vast imbalance between Russian and Ukrainian capabilities, amounts to a Ukrainian victory. Ideologically, the war is a bust, as the Kremlin’s hopes of converting southeastern Ukraine into “New Russia” have been effectively, and perhaps permanently, shattered. Economically, the war and occupation of both Crimea and the Donbas have imposed ruinous costs on Russia, whose economy has already been battered by declining global commodity prices and Western sanctions. Socially, both regions are on the verge of a humanitarian catastrophe for which Russia would be blamed. In sum, Putin’s plans of weakening Ukraine have backfired. Ukraine is slowly getting stronger, while Russia is getting weaker.


Time is, therefore, on the side of Ukraine and the West. They should avoid offering Putin any relief as long as Russian and proxy troops continue to occupy Ukrainian territory: on the contrary, they can and should press for additional concessions. Given Ukraine’s strengthened military and the threat of further sanctions, Putin will be unable to escalate the confrontation. Ironically, Putin’s self-defeating aggression in eastern Ukraine is now limiting his scope of action more effectively than anything the West could have devised.

Much of Putin’s authority at home rests on his ability to deliver steadily improving living standards as the upside of his authoritarian rule. But Russians of all income classes are tightening their belts. The sanctions have already cost the Russian economy 9 percent of GDP, according to the IMF. Since Russia’s invasion of Crimea in February 2014, the ruble has lost 50 percent of its value. In dollar-denominated terms, Russia’s GDP has fallen from $2.1 trillion in 2013 to an anticipated $1.2 trillion by the end of 2015. In dollar terms, the country’s economy has droppedfrom ninth in the world to 13th. Many Russian professionals are leaving the country, frustrated by its authoritarianism, corruption, and lack of interest in modernization.


Meanwhile, social and economic problems in the Russia-occupied Donbass enclave are mounting. Many of the territory’s economic links with Ukraine have been disrupted. Its GDP has contracted by over 80 percent. Much of its infrastructure and its banking and administrative systems are in ruins. Large swathes of the territory suffer from shortages of gas, water, and electricity shortages. Though it’s hard to know precise figures, unemployment is huge. A large proportion of the region’s skilled workers and professionals are internally displaced or in exile, mostly in Ukraine. Unsurprisingly, inflation is high and poverty is growing.


In eastern Ukraine, Putin now has responsibility for a large population of about three million under de facto Russian occupation who are increasingly looking to Moscow to meet basic social needs. He must also cope with a rising criminal class in the self-styled Donetsk and Luhansk Peoples’ Republics. A parasitical conglomeration of local political bosses, powerful oligarchs, and criminal elements with roots in Soviet times have traditionally misruled this part of the Donbas. These elements are still around. At the same time, the collapsing economy has made contraband and smuggling, from Russia and Ukraine, one of the most lucrative and stable sources of income, thereby giving rise to new criminal entrepreneurs centered in the power structures of the republics. This development threatens to spread crime and instability into neighboring Russian regions. Statistics from Russia’s Ministry of Justice show a spike in the crime rate in parts of the country bordering on the occupied Donbas.

Adding to this litany of problems is the risk of further economic costs resulting from Russia’s aggression. In September, protesters belonging to Crimea’s beleaguered Tatar minority imposed a blockade on all trucks carrying goods to and from the occupied peninsula. On September 22, Ukraine announced it would launch aggressive international litigation, seeking $50 billion in compensation for the Russian takeover of property and assets in Crimea, and the damage inflicted by Russian weapons and fighters. As successful litigation by investors in the bankrupt oil company Yukos has shown, international courts have the ability to impose economic costs on Russia.

While Western pressure to facilitate a durable peaceful solution should remain a top priority for the European Union and the United States, forcing Ukraine into deep concessions to secure peace at any cost is a mistake. While Putin has dug himself and Russia into a hole, Ukraine is making steady, if unspectacular,progress toward reforming its economy, society, and political system, while retaining its democratic institutions, a free press, and a vigorous civil society. The banking sector is being fixed, energy subsidies have been reduced, and GDP growth is expected to be positive in 2016 — an enormous achievement after a contraction of over 20 percent in 2014-2015. Higher education and the police are being reformed. Government decentralization is being sharply debated and may soon be introduced. Corruption and the courts remain huge problems, but here, too, some inroads are likely to be made once a new National Anti-Corruption Bureau and Prosecutor get to work in late 2015. If the Prosecutor is genuinely independent, progress may be substantial.

The most serious counter-argument against maintaining the sanctions regime and continuing to insist on Russian concessions is that Putin would respond to a tough Western stance by escalating the war in Ukraine, creating additional global mayhem.
Click to expand...
 
But all evidence points in the opposite direction. A ground offensive would be hard-pressed to succeed in the face of an increasingly strong Ukrainian fighting force. Today, 40,000 well-supplied forces, led by officers proven in combat, defend Ukraine’s front line with the Donbas enclave. Ukraine has also arrayed 350 tanks and hundreds of pieces of heavy artillery in the region. It has developed its own drone industry for better intelligence and surveillance. In short, the country is ready to withstand an offensive from the East, and any territorial gains would result in thousands of casualties among the Russians and their proxies. There are also reports of declining morale among the proxy forces as it becomes increasingly clear that they are stuck in a long-term frozen conflict. The time for Putin to have invaded Ukraine was in the spring of 2014, when Ukraine’s government and armed forces were in disarray. Now, short of a major invasion, Russia is stuck.

An all-out Russian invasion, entailing bombardment of Ukrainian cities and forces,would, however, trigger major new Western sanctions as well as embroil Russia in a second war. Hybrid war is one thing; the open use of the Russian air power and massive deployment of Russian forces is another. Russia could expect not only international condemnation, but also economic isolation, including its likely removal from the international SWIFT banking system.

This last measure, which would devastate the Russian economy, has been the subject of Western policy discussions and is thus perfectly possible. And Putin could expect a backlash at home. While Russian public opinion supports the separatist cause in the Donbas, it opposes by a stable majority direct Russian military intervention in Ukraine. Unsurprisingly, Putin’s propaganda machine has assiduously hidden the fact of a Russian military presence in Ukraine, and of substantial Russian troop losses, from citizens. Putin’s legitimacy among and support by the Russian policy elite would also suffer. Hard-line nationalists already regard his abandonment of the New Russia project as a betrayal of Russian interests.

In sum, Putin’s adventure in eastern Ukraine is now dragging him down. The temporary upside for his popularity is outweighed by the economic burdens of the occupation and the costs of further expansion. Unsurprisingly perhaps, Putin may be losing interest in the Ukraine project. A person party to the Sept. 2 phone conversation between French President Francois Hollande, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko, and Putin said that the Russian president appeared unengaged and was not in command of the nuanced details of the discussion. Instead, he was more interested in complaining that Ukraine was not buying Russian gas at a cheaper price than it gets from European and other international sources.

For the West, Putin’s quagmire in eastern Ukraine and his dangerous recent intervention in Syria are excellent news.For the West, Putin’s quagmire in eastern Ukraine and his dangerous recent intervention in Syria are excellent news.Russia’s foreign policy rests on an eroding economic and political foundation, and the West need only sustain Russia’s Donbas mess for the Kremlin to become more pliant and amenable to compromise. It is as if Putin has himself contained Russia. The West need do little more than maintain the status quo.


The West should pursue two aims. First, it should keep Ukraine sovereign and stable and promote its reform process — which is exactly what the West has been and is doing anyway. Second, the West should maintain strong sanctions on Russia until all its forces and heavy weapons are withdrawn from occupied Ukrainian territory.

Just as importantly, the United States and Europe should clearly and unequivocally label Russia the occupying power in the Donbas and press Russia to provide adequate socioeconomic assistance to the three million Ukrainian citizens under its control. At the same time, the leaders in Kiev must make clear to its citizens in the Donbas that they will be ready to help them, but if and only if the Russian occupation ends. Until that time, Ukraine and the West must do all they can to press Russia to compensate Donbas residents for the damage it has inflicted upon them.

Western policy also should refrain from pressuring Ukraine to absorb the economic burden for rebuilding the Donbas, even if Russia withdraws all its forces, weapons, and bases. The costs must be shared between Russia, which caused most of the destruction, Ukraine, the victim of Russia’s aggression, and the international community. Russia’s cost sharing can be pitched as a face-saving humanitarian gesture by the Kremlin to rebuild the Donbas and save its population from disaster.


For the first time since Putin invaded Crimea, the West and Ukraine have the upper hand.For the first time since Putin invaded Crimea, the West and Ukraine have the upper hand. They should play it and force Putin to agree to a genuine peace in Ukraine. He could do it. He started the war in 2014. He forced the separatists to accept a ceasefire on September 1, 2015. If confronted with a tough Western stance, he just might draw the right conclusion and actually end the war with Ukraine.
Click to expand...
 
@Raoul , seems too rosy, especially regarding reforms in Ukraine. Although I have next to 0 understanding of the specifics, I find that over history countries that are largely corrupt have a hard time getting over it.
 
MarceloFalcon said:
@Raoul , seems too rosy, especially regarding reforms in Ukraine. Although I have next to 0 understanding of the specifics, I find that over history countries that are largely corrupt have a hard time getting over it.
Click to expand...

Ukraine is still incredibly corrupt, thanks to its former Soviet past and continued Russian meddling during the Putin years. That sort of thing doesn't go away over night, but the mere fact that the Ukrainian government are implementing reforms in anti-corruption and generally switching to a more western, democratic style is a good sign. Give it a few years and the results will begin to show.
 
antihenry said:
Ukraine leader's wealth grows despite war, economic woes.

https://news.yahoo.com/ukraine-leaders-wealth-grows-despite-war-economic-woes-171552774.html
Click to expand...

Because his chocolate business is doing better, hardly a scandal. What popped to my mind before opening to read was "Does he own Amazon stock?" (Up 100% this year). I don't even know the man, so I'm not quite going to jump to his defense... but if you're trying to frame him as some sort of crook, I'm sure there will be better ways to argue that.
 
MarceloFalcon said:
Because his chocolate business is doing better, hardly a scandal. What popped to my mind before opening to read was "Does he own Amazon stock?" (Up 100% this year). I don't even know the man, so I'm not quite going to jump to his defense... but if you're trying to frame him as some sort of crook, I'm sure there will be better ways to argue that.
Click to expand...

Ukraine is great. Russia, on the other hand, is fecked.

Another reminder of the ridiculous levels of corruption there....... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...builds-12-million-palace-say-campaigners.html
 
MarceloFalcon said:
Because his chocolate business is doing better, hardly a scandal. What popped to my mind before opening to read was "Does he own Amazon stock?" (Up 100% this year). I don't even know the man, so I'm not quite going to jump to his defense... but if you're trying to frame him as some sort of crook, I'm sure there will be better ways to argue that.
Click to expand...

I think that one of his factories still resides in Russia is quite scandalous. He's running his mouth non stop about "Russian aggressors" while he keeps making money there and paying taxes to Russian state.
 
antihenry said:
Ukraine Is in Danger of Becoming a Failed State.

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-11-06/unreformed-ukraine-is-self-destructing
Click to expand...

Ukraine's Security Service "seems to be above the law.
Click to expand...

Poroshenko's and Yatsenyuk's close allies are routinely named in connection with corrupt schemes involving Ukraine's customs service and state energy companies.
Click to expand...

"Pyatt and the U.S. administration have more influence than ever in the history of independent Ukraine," Leschenko wrote.
Click to expand...

The grip of oligarchs and a corrupt bureaucracy on what's left of the Ukrainian economy has proven too strong, the schemes too entrenched.
Click to expand...

Just blame Putin.
 
It's certainly down to Ukraine being a former Soviet state and the continued meddling by post-Soviet Russia, especially during Putin's regime. This is backed up by transparency international's data where there is a clear difference between former Soviet states and former eastern block European states, which since the early 90s have democratized and westernized. Ukraine is a work in progress, give it 20 years of Russian free meddling and it too will wind up much like its eastern European neighbors.

http://www.transparency.org/cpi2014/results
 
Raoul said:
It's certainly down to Ukraine being a former Soviet state and the continued meddling by post-Soviet Russia, especially during Putin's regime. This is backed up by transparency international's data where there is a clear difference between former Soviet states and former eastern block European states, which since the early 90s have democratized and westernized. Ukraine is a work in progress, give it 20 years of Russian free meddling and it too will wind up much like its eastern European neighbors.

http://www.transparency.org/cpi2014/results
Click to expand...

Ah, so now it's because of 'Russian meddling' ;). You crack me up sometimes man. I guess what Ukraina needs is some 'American meddling', clearly that is the path towards democracy and prosperity, as we can see from the many successful state building processes in the Middle East.
 
Mihajlovic said:
Ah, so now it's because of 'Russian meddling' ;). You crack me up sometimes man. I guess what Ukraina needs is some 'American meddling', clearly that is the path towards democracy and prosperity, as we can see from the many successful state building processes in the Middle East.
Click to expand...

You prefer identity, nationalism, and corruption over freedom and democracy ? Interesting.
 
Raoul said:
You prefer identity, nationalism, and corruption over freedom and democracy ? Interesting.
Click to expand...

Identity is not something you prefer or not, all individuals belonging to social and cultural groups have an identity. Not sure what you're on about. And no, I don't prefer nationalism and corruption, that's just so 90s. And, I also don't prefer shortsighted moralist Yanks lecturing the world on democracy while at the same time causing nothing but chaos and destruction.
 
Mihajlovic said:
Identity is not something you prefer or not, all individuals belonging to social and cultural groups have an identity. Not sure what you're on about. And no, I don't prefer nationalism and corruption, that's just so 90s. And, I also don't prefer shortsighted moralist Yanks lecturing the world on democracy while at the same time causing nothing but chaos and destruction.
Click to expand...

And thus tacitly, you support the actions of a corrupt authoritarian strongman who brazenly steals land from neighboring countries. That's some moral compass you have.
 
Raoul said:
And thus tacitly, you support the actions of a corrupt authoritarian strongman who brazenly steals land from neighboring countries. That's some moral compass you have.
Click to expand...

Strongmen do whatever they want and whatever they can get away with as long as it's in their national interest. Applies to all strongmen. That's how this business works.

I'm quite content with my moral compass, thanks.
 
Great interview with Ukraine's President Petro Poroshenko, very entertaining. The guy has completely lost touch with reality.

 
antihenry said:
You watch it regularly, do you? Or ever? Speak or comprehend Russian? Some expert you must be.
Click to expand...

If their English language news is anything to go by, I wish I did watch some. Although I think watching Fear & Loathing in Las Vegas once was enough.

 
Sir Matt said:
If their English language news is anything to go by, I wish I did watch some. Although I think watching Fear & Loathing in Las Vegas once was enough.

Click to expand...


This is a state funded channel, created specifically for foreigners. Most Russians don't watch it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.