Russia's at it again

To be fair, even with completely open elections, Putin would probably win as long as he was allowed to run. He's quite popular. Russians are also a little bit different than us in the west, they seem to be more pragmatic, and a considerable number, perhaps not an outright majority, seem to prefer a strong leader, to a completely democratic one.

Let's see how popular he would be if he didn't smother the entire population in 24/7 blitzkrieg of pro-Putin propaganda where he is the savior against a vilified "other" (in this case the US and NATO). Any dictator can frame himself as popular under those terms. Not so much when you have a healthy opposition, robust institutions, and a free press to criticize your actions.

It's a lot easier when you preemptively rig the courts so your most threatening opponent can't run in 2018.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/08/world/europe/russia-aleksei-navalny-putin.html?_r=0
 
Im no russia expert, but it seems he's a good leader for the russian people, although what's good for them probably isn't good for others

He's an autocrat who controls the media, couldn't give a feck about human rights, has been known to bump people off who speak out against him, and the economy is in the toilet.

That's my opinion, can anyone make a good counter case for him being good for the Russian people?
 
He's an autocrat who controls the media, couldn't give a feck about human rights, has been known to bump people off who speak out against him, and the economy is in the toilet.

That's my opinion, can anyone make a good counter case for him being good for the Russian people?

Compare him to what came before.
 
He's an autocrat who controls the media, couldn't give a feck about human rights, has been known to bump people off who speak out against him, and the economy is in the toilet.

That's my opinion, can anyone make a good counter case for him being good for the Russian people?

There really is no rational case for him being a good leader, no more so than there was for the likes of Assad, Mugabe, Qaddafi, or any other dictators being good leaders.
 
Compare him to what came before.

Why, though? The world has moved on from that era. Yeltsin was awful but I think whoever had been in charge during the 90s had a near impossible task at hand.

Russia has enormous natural resources so with good leadership and real democracy at play (including of course the turnover of power), they could be thriving now instead of falling further behind.
 
Why, though? The world has moved on from that era. Yeltsin was awful but I think whoever had been in charge during the 90s had a near impossible task at hand.

Russia has enormous natural resources so with good leadership and real democracy at play (including of course the turnover of power), they could be thriving now instead of falling further behind.

Sorry, it's not my argument, just something I see a lot of Russians say. Probably best to let them answer.
 
He's an autocrat who controls the media, couldn't give a feck about human rights, has been known to bump people off who speak out against him, and the economy is in the toilet.

That's my opinion, can anyone make a good counter case for him being good for the Russian people?
They love him.
 
They love him.

Yeah. He has one of the highest approval ratings of any leader. You have to suspect his unlimited access to the media and control over everything they report about him has something to do with that.

He completely dismantled the independent media not long after he took over. It's a bit like Trump disbanding CNN and the NYT, and leaving only Fox news to tell the American people what's up.
 
Well...yes, largely because of the 'autocrat who controls the media' part.
Yeah. He has one of the highest approval ratings of any leader. You have to suspect his unlimited access to the media and control over everything they report about him has something to do with that.

He completely dismantled the independent media not long after he took over. It's a bit like Trump disbanding CNN and the NYT, and leaving only Fox news to tell the American people what's up.
Comes to the same thing doesn't it? If the people are happy with him then that's the primary objective of a leader met.

TBF I can see the merits in state-run media anyway, maybe not to the extent that Putin controls it but allowing our media total freedom led to Brexit. In my opinion media should be regulated to the extent that they have total freedom to report all news and nothing more, their ability to peddle self-interested misinformation to manipulate the masses is toxic.
 
Comes to the same thing doesn't it? If the people are happy with him then that's the primary objective of a leader met.

TBF I can see the merits in state-run media anyway, maybe not to the extent that Putin controls it but allowing our media total freedom led to Brexit. In my opinion media should be regulated to the extent that they have total freedom to report all news and nothing more, their ability to peddle self-interested misinformation to manipulate the masses is toxic.

No! How can you possibly think that?
 
So I am just writing a few words here not to defend him, but the explain a bit of modern Russian history. I am simplifying a lot and exclude various developments. In the end Putin is a horrible leader, but there is an argument that he is better than what came before.

The break-up for the UDSSR was brutal by every measure you can imagine. Probably only rivaled to the situation after WWI. So you have this extremely disruptive event, where the political, social and economic order collapses. I think it is difficult to comprehend just how disastrous the end of the UDSSR was, but that is necessary to understand modern Russian history.
The people who took over power implemented a relatively free market based democracy, but monopolized the resources at the same time. The voucher privatization and the way these people made their fortune during this period was extremely criminal. At the same time they failed to address the worst economic and social problems and it would take too much time to go into details. The gist is, that the people, already suffering from one of the worst crisis ever had fairly incompetent leaders, who enriched themselves in shameful ways (or more accurately: and alliance between political leaders and people who enriched themselves).
At the same time the west signalled fairly directly that they can’t help. Helmut Kohl said at the time (understandably), that the EU can be open to eastern Europe, but Russia is just too big. The same goes for NATO. So you have a country with on-going crisis, while their leaders living a decadent and decoupled life. My personal opinion is, that many of these reformers had little regard for their own citizens; they grew up in the context of the UDSSR, where they had to hide their own ideals and that influenced their opinion about “common people”, who they blamed in part for the whole mess. That is fairly controversial so. Yet it is well established that implementing free markets without political stability is an accident waiting to happen.
What you can see during the 90s is, that the background of the “elite” is shifting. The reformers who managed Russia in the early 90s were primarily economists, politicians and academics, During the 90 the amount of people with military, intelligence or police background skyrocketed. When Putin takes over about 70% of all the high level officials have such a background (nowadays it is imo +90%). When you are a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
So Putin comes into power and changes the character of the government. He embraces nationalism (vs liberalism/rule of law), autocracy (vs. democracy) economic interventions (vs free markets) and military power. The issue is, that he had success. The economic situation improves a lot and his military “adventurers” (aka wars) paid off (he used the military success to justify his rule from day1). In the end the experience of Russian’s with liberal democracy and free markets was nothing short of a disaster, while people experienced a massive improvement of their quality of life under Putin.
Now there is always the thing with causality and correlation. To some extend Putin was just lucky to take over at the right time, when the massive crisis, that followed the collapse of the UDSSR petered out. At the same time he also implemented some reforms, that played their part. Anyway, my impression is, that Russian’s associate a specific type of social order with the 90s (late 80s) and they want anything but that, because it was objectively horrible. Putin guarantees this and it is quite difficult to explain that liberal democracy and free markets were just a bastardization of these terms.
 
Comes to the same thing doesn't it? If the people are happy with him then that's the primary objective of a leader met.

TBF I can see the merits in state-run media anyway, maybe not to the extent that Putin controls it but allowing our media total freedom led to Brexit. In my opinion media should be regulated to the extent that they have total freedom to report all news and nothing more, their ability to peddle self-interested misinformation to manipulate the masses is toxic.

Even if the majority are happy with him there's still a sizeable minority who very much don't for obvious reasons. Just imagine if the US or UK go further that way and only satisfy an increasingly right leaning majority, are you really saying it would make Trump a good leader?
 
Comes to the same thing doesn't it? If the people are happy with him then that's the primary objective of a leader met.

TBF I can see the merits in state-run media anyway, maybe not to the extent that Putin controls it but allowing our media total freedom led to Brexit. In my opinion media should be regulated to the extent that they have total freedom to report all news and nothing more, their ability to peddle self-interested misinformation to manipulate the masses is toxic.

Not if he's abusing human rights in the process. The will of the majority doesn't excuse some of the awful stuff that can happen to minorities.
 
Comes to the same thing doesn't it? If the people are happy with him then that's the primary objective of a leader met.

TBF I can see the merits in state-run media anyway, maybe not to the extent that Putin controls it but allowing our media total freedom led to Brexit. In my opinion media should be regulated to the extent that they have total freedom to report all news and nothing more, their ability to peddle self-interested misinformation to manipulate the masses is toxic.

If you remove the 24/7 state sponsored propaganda, jingoism, nationalism, and police state coercion, you may get a completely different result in the polls about whether or not he actually is "beloved". After all, who in a fecking police state, is not going to say they love their leader when a mysterious group of people knock on their door asking for their views on Putin.
 
Even if the majority are happy with him there's still a sizeable minority who very much don't for obvious reasons. Just imagine if the US or UK go further that way and only satisfy an increasingly right leaning majority, are you really saying it would make Trump a good leader?
Not if he's abusing human rights in the process. The will of the majority doesn't excuse some of the awful stuff that can happen to minorities.
Leaders who try to be all things to all men end up satisfying no-one. I'm not saying minority abuse isn't terrible but by definition it's a minor problem.

If you remove the 24/7 state sponsored propaganda, jingoism, nationalism, and police state coercion, you may get a completely different result in the polls about whether or not he actually is "beloved". After all, who in a fecking police state, is not going to say they love their leader when a mysterious group of people knock on their door asking for their views on Putin.
That's not the case though is it? Pretty much all journalists who visit Russia say there's a fervour for Putin that goes beyond fear and intimidation and if you talk to any Russian that comes to the UK they will say the same. Is the state-sponsored jingoism such a terrible thing when it leads to such a united nation?
 
Leaders who try to be all things to all men end up satisfying no-one. I'm not saying minority abuse isn't terrible but by definition it's a minor problem.

It's not asking Putin to be "all things to all men"...it's asking him to not do basic things like order the assassination of political opponents, or persecute gay people because of their sexuality. Any human rights abuse within a country is a major problem.
 
Leaders who try to be all things to all men end up satisfying no-one. I'm not saying minority abuse isn't terrible but by definition it's a minor problem.


That's not the case though is it? Pretty much all journalists who visit Russia say there's a fervour for Putin that goes beyond fear and intimidation and if you talk to any Russian that comes to the UK they will say the same. Is the state-sponsored jingoism such a terrible thing when it leads to such a united nation?

Yes we get that bit - but that doesn't speak to the fact that such "fervor" isn't artificially brainwashed into the population with 24/7 propaganda. Do you really think that if Russia had a free press and freedom of speech (without fear of imprisonment or assassination) that Putin, in a Democratic society would be vastly popular ? He's a corrupt dictator, who uses policy state autocratic methods to stay in power.
 
Leaders who try to be all things to all men end up satisfying no-one. I'm not saying minority abuse isn't terrible but by definition it's a minor problem.

You're kidding, right? Minority abuse is about the worst thing that can happen in a democracy, that's why the constitution has to guarantee a set of rights to them that are untouchable. Going from not being able 'to be all things to all men' and minority abuse is by all means a far stretch.
 
@PedroMendez
Yes, what I've read is that his popularity is because he ended the chaos of the 90s soon after taking over, and it coincided with the economy recovering temporarily (caused by oil prices I guess?) I also know he decided to take on and publicly humiliate some of the criminal winners of the collapse lottery, which would have helped his image after Yeltsen surely.

I do think that in a country with slightly more, and less bitter, experience of democracy that would have bought him a few more terms, but probably (hopefully) not such widespread sustained popularity.
 
There really is no rational case for him being a good leader, no more so than there was for the likes of Assad, Mugabe, Qaddafi, or any other dictators being good leaders.

I met a Russian girl in Bali who had been living in London for the last 6 years. She was a Putin supporter as were her family and friends back home. She seemed an intelligent girl and was happy to talk about his faults and why he has the reputation he has but besides all that both she and her family and friends see him as a pillar of strength and traditions for the country. She explained to me about the Russian culture being very macho/alpha-male/patriarchal and he fits into that like a glove, or at least projects that image. It was a bit of an eye opener to be honest. Like listening to a Trump supporter actually eloquently admit he has a tonne of faults and then articulately explain why he is the right leader for her beliefs... and yet be understanding as to why we might not agree with those beliefs.


She was also Pro-Brexit, even if it meant her having to leave her home, job and boyfriend in London.
 
He's an autocrat who controls the media, couldn't give a feck about human rights, has been known to bump people off who speak out against him, and the economy is in the toilet.

That's my opinion, can anyone make a good counter case for him being good for the Russian people?
That's Russia to you :lol: When was the last time from the last 1000 years they had leaders who cared about their own people?
 
I met a Russian girl in Bali who had been living in London for the last 6 years. She was a Putin supporter as were her family and friends back home. She seemed an intelligent girl and was happy to talk about his faults and why he has the reputation he has but besides all that both she and her family and friends see him as a pillar of strength and traditions for the country. She explained to me about the Russian culture being very macho/alpha-male/patriarchal and he fits into that like a glove, or at least projects that image. It was a bit of an eye opener to be honest. Like listening to a Trump supporter actually eloquently admit he has a tonne of faults and then articulately explain why he is the right leader for her beliefs... and yet be understanding as to why we might not agree with those beliefs.


She was also Pro-Brexit, even if it meant her having to leave her home, job and boyfriend in London.
Russia will not survive with a soft leader that's why they like Putin - even if the guy is corrupt to the max.
 
I met a Russian girl in Bali who had been living in London for the last 6 years. She was a Putin supporter as were her family and friends back home. She seemed an intelligent girl and was happy to talk about his faults and why he has the reputation he has but besides all that both she and her family and friends see him as a pillar of strength and traditions for the country. She explained to me about the Russian culture being very macho/alpha-male/patriarchal and he fits into that like a glove, or at least projects that image. It was a bit of an eye opener to be honest. Like listening to a Trump supporter actually eloquently admit he has a tonne of faults and then articulately explain why he is the right leader for her beliefs... and yet be understanding as to why we might not agree with those beliefs.


She was also Pro-Brexit, even if it meant her having to leave her home, job and boyfriend in London.

I've had similar conversations with a Latvian colleague of mine who is very pro-russia and Putin yet seemingly doesn't hold any prejudices, she's also very intelligent (and hot :drool:).

I can never understand patriotism. I don't have an inkling of it my bones.
 
Russia will not survive with a soft leader that's why they like Putin - even if the guy is corrupt to the max.

No one proposed a soft leader - just a Democratic one who isn't corrupt to the gills and a former KGB agent who imprisons and assassinates his rivals.
 
Yes we get that bit - but that doesn't speak to the fact that such "fervor" isn't artificially brainwashed into the population with 24/7 propaganda. Do you really think that if Russia had a free press and freedom of speech (without fear of imprisonment or assassination) that Putin, in a Democratic society would be vastly popular ? He's a corrupt dictator, who uses policy state autocratic methods to stay in power.
And in what fantasy would this Russia ever exist therefore be relevant? Russians don't want a Western civilisation, Putin runs the country as he has to.
 
And in what fantasy would this Russia ever exist therefore be relevant? Russians don't want a Western civilisation, Putin runs the country as he has to.

So did Saddam, Qaddafi, and Assad. What the feck does this have to do with anything.
 
So did Saddam, Qaddafi, and Assad. What the feck does this have to do with anything.

His argument is that the Russians in a fully democractic environment still would elect the man because they want corruption etc.
 
His argument is that the Russians in a fully democractic environment still would elect the man because they want corruption etc.

Yes I gathered he was using the old Russians love living in an authoritarian strongman police state argument.
 
Yeah sorry I forgot how great those countries are doing now.

You don't know whether or not they want a western civilization since they don't have the luxury of freely expressing their views without later being persecuted for them.
 
@PedroMendez
Yes, what I've read is that his popularity is because he ended the chaos of the 90s soon after taking over, and it coincided with the economy recovering temporarily (caused by oil prices I guess?) I also know he decided to take on and publicly humiliate some of the criminal winners of the collapse lottery, which would have helped his image after Yeltsen surely.

I do think that in a country with slightly more, and less bitter, experience of democracy that would have bought him a few more terms, but probably (hopefully) not such widespread sustained popularity.

I think you underestimate just how horrible the aftermath of the fall of the UDSSR was. It is difficult to get reliable data about that, so it is impossible to illustrate this point in this context. It would take too long. Of course part of his “popularity” is down to propaganda, suppression of alternatives and military success. Putin fought wars almost every year. Chechnya, Dagestan, South Ossetia, Caucasus Emirate, Crimea, Eastern Ukraine, Syria. Additionally there were internal terror attacks (some might have been false flag) that he used to consolidate his power. He also plays the cold-warrior card on his own. The whole discussion in the west focuses on a tiny bubble, where liberalism has a foothold, while ignoring the rest of the country; social conservative values, nationalism, the Romanization of history and religion are probably fairly popular ideas. I think people in Russia are rightfully scared of instability. I am not even sure that it is possible to govern such a diverse and vast country without the use of force, cronyism and coercion. I think we can do very little nowadays to influence Russia’s internal politics anyway.
 
Haven't @Pexbo and @Smores already put to bed that argument?

With what, two anecdotes? Not exactly a strong case. Besides one could even argue that additional to Raouls argument here they also lack the all-around information (sadly also the background as Pedro points out) to form those views in the first place.

Edit: Not everyone lacks those, but arguably a sizeable part of the population.
 
Haven't @Pexbo and @Smores already put to bed that argument?

No they haven't. Most people have a streak of nationalism in them, especially when outsiders appear to give them advice as to how to rule their own affairs. That's different than how they might actually feel about their own leadership when discussing the topic amongst themselves.