4 ms·

Frankly, we don't have a choice. I favour Putin, but mostly because there's no alternative. There's not a single opposition leader that is trustworthy and compe

Frankly, we don't have a choice. I favour Putin, but mostly because there's no alternative. There's not a single opposition leader that is trustworthy and competent. But it's not like Putin is a bad leader. Maybe the lack of choice is due to his actions, but he's doing lots of good things for Russia. For me, clear sign of this is how he's hated by the western media. Bad Russian leaders are loved by western media (e.g. Gorbachev, Yeltsin) and good ones are hated.

acd10j 6y ago
People like you are the reason you don't have any choise, World is increasing turning to dictators, same thing is being propogated in India in form of Modi, anyone else is being ridiculed.
- anticodon 6y ago
  I don't know anything about India politics and I don't think it's equal to Russian politics. Anyway, I can't compare. But I don't think I'm the reason for Modi or people like me. It's a different situation. E.g. Modi is nationalist and Putin isn't. Modi is pushing one predominant religion and Putin isn't. Etc.
  - 3v1n0 6y ago
    Can you please define Putin political view in short?
    - anticodon 6y ago
      No, I don't see how it is possible. First of all, West and East use different metrics and different words for describing political views. E.g. "left" in US and "left" in Russia are very different things (also, "left" and "right" are almost not used in Russia). I happen to remember USSR collapse, then the awful years of Yeltsin, when everything went to hell: economy was dead, crime rate went through the roof - there were shootings every day on the streets, suicide rate went through the roof, population started to decline because people didn't want to have children (or didn't have means to raise children), millions were starving to death. And I remember how this started to change almost the next day after the first election of Putin. No more street shootings and businessmen cars explosions. Corruption started to wither (and continues to this day). Not only old buildings stopped to deteriorate, but new buildings, roads and bridges started to appear everywhere. In short, just about every metric you can measure started to improve under Putin's rule. Except maybe some "freedom of speech" which is almost unimportant to me. I remember that "freedom of speech" was used to calumniate Russian past and present in 90s, I don't remember a single good thing caused by "freedom of speech" in 90s. Bunch of freaks were allowed to speak on TV and other media, what they said caused only strong negative emotions in everyone. It was obvious that it had nothing to do with making our life better.
      - phpnode 6y ago
        the perception from the west is that corruption in Russia didn't go away but was simply hoisted up to the level of government. How do you feel about the level of wealth that Putin and his associates have accumulated during his reign? It is interesting that you talk about different metrics and different words meaning different things to Russians compared to those in the west. If we can't use "left" and "right" as descriptors, and you don't place much emphasis on "freedom of speech", what _are_ the values that you think are important? (I suspect, from what you say, even "freedom of speech" means something different to you than it does to me)
        shashurup 6y ago
        It wasn't just a corruption. I cannot even choose a word to describe these terrible business schemes when all enterprise's income in a foregn currency were syphoned out of the country, workers payments were constantly delayed and the enterprise asked for donation from the state at the same time. Putin stopped that. As for left or right I would label Putin as right inclined centrist.
        anticodon 6y ago
        During Yeltsin times corruption was equally high both on street level and government level. But West didn't care, on the opposite - West praised Yeltsin and even openly meddled in our election to elect Yeltsin for the second term. Despite him being extremely corrupt and using his position to enrich his family and friends. Now, West suddenly become very concerned with Putin's alleged wealth (nobody had seen it) - why? Why Putin's wealth is more important than Yeltsin wealth? Why current level of corruption which is measly compared to level of corruption during Yeltsin times had become so extremely important to the west? Why it didn't bother anyone before? What is important to me: being able to live normal life: have a job, have access to medicine and education for me and my family, having enough food on my table to not starve. Less important but nice to have is enough income to travel somewhere for holiday at 1-2 times a year. To have friends and family. To not have war in my country (which is US currently actively pushing as well - they hope to force war between Europe/Ukraine and Russia because that will be very beneficial for US economy and US being separated by the ocean will not experience the devastating effects of the war on its own territory). I do not believe that democracy exists anywhere or even actually possible. I do not need some kind of "free speech" whatever that means. I like to blog, but I seriously doubt my blog would cause any problem in any society. I'm definitely aware that blogging in the US is more likely to create problems than in Russia. In Russia nobody cares if you're rude or politically incorrect or you have contradicting political views. Many of my friends do not support Putin unlike me - that doesn't ruin our friendship. Whatever I write on my blog will never put me in trouble in Russia, even if I'll write "I hate Putin, he's a crook" - nobody cares despite what you may read in western media. In Russia I can write or say: "BLM" or "All lives matter" and I won't have any problem at my job or with the police or with anyone. In the US there's only one approved view that you can openly support, otherwise you're destined to have problems, e.g. you can be fired from your job and become homeless if you don't agree with your latest election results or don't support some SJW movement or you support it but not in an approved way.
yoavm 6y ago
> because there's no alternative It's a little strange that in all of Russia one can't find an alternative, for decades. One might think that when an alternative shows it might get poisoned and jailed.
- shashurup 6y ago
  I'm courious who do you consider a good alternative from those who were poisoned, jailed or neutralized in some different way?
  - phpnode 6y ago
    it's not as simple as that - poisonings, beatings, imprisonment etc have a chilling effect. We have no idea which leaders would step forward if it weren't for the effects of intimidation. That is to say, someone smart enough to become a political force to be reckoned with is probably smart enough to realise that they will be faced with some terrible consequences for doing so. Their chances of success are extremely small and the chances of punishment is high. The smartest move is not to participate, and so this filters out all but the most principled or naive and foolhardy.
    - shashurup 6y ago
      Sorry, I cannot spend my vote on such a vaguely described person - I live in this country and its my future. My list starts with representation. This person must represent interests of a big group of people wich includes me. This person must represent interests of businesses I find valueable for my country. This person must have a prioritized list of problems to fix with the corresponinding steps he think must be taken. Otherwise, as you correctly stated it is not worth participating. So, sorry, neither Nemtsov nor Khodorkovsky doesn't pass, BTW are there someone else?
croon 6y ago
> Frankly, we don't have a choice. I favour Putin, but mostly because there's no alternative. There's not a single opposition leader that is trustworthy and competent. Maybe because every alternative that pops up gets assassinated or jailed by Kremlin. If it was a democracy maybe more viable alternatives would be seen.
- shashurup 6y ago
  Sorry, can't help quoting querez: It would be great if you could link to some sources for your claims.
  - croon 6y ago
    https://www.businessinsider.com/here-are-6-other-russian-dissidents-who-also-died-mysteriously-in-recent-years-2015-2 https://www.businessinsider.com/here-are-6-other-russian-dis... https://www.chicagotribune.com/nation-world/ct-russian-dissidents-poisoned-20180306-story.html https://www.chicagotribune.com/nation-world/ct-russian-dissi... https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/21/world/europe/moscow-kremlin-silence-critics-poison.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/21/world/europe/moscow-kreml...
    - shashurup 6y ago
      So, I don't see any evidence. I see only accusations. Most of them don't make even slightest effort to consider other versions. This makes it very clear that the initial intent is not to figure what is going on, who are influental players, what interests they pursue and what conflicting points exist. Just blame Putin - people buy it.
      - croon 6y ago
        So what do we have? 1. Everyone who opposes Putin dies or ends up in jail. 2. Putin hasn't been tried in court to be proven guilty, so we don't "know" who's responsible. 2 is actually barely relevant in context. The fact of the matter is that the chilling effect occurs regardless. That the incentives clearly points to one explanation and nothing else makes sense is unmistakable, but also secondary.

acd10j 6y ago

People like you are the reason you don't have any choise, World is increasing turning to dictators, same thing is being propogated in India in form of Modi, anyone else is being ridiculed.

anticodon 6y ago
I don't know anything about India politics and I don't think it's equal to Russian politics. Anyway, I can't compare. But I don't think I'm the reason for Modi or people like me. It's a different situation. E.g. Modi is nationalist and Putin isn't. Modi is pushing one predominant religion and Putin isn't. Etc.
- 3v1n0 6y ago
  Can you please define Putin political view in short?
  - anticodon 6y ago
    No, I don't see how it is possible. First of all, West and East use different metrics and different words for describing political views. E.g. "left" in US and "left" in Russia are very different things (also, "left" and "right" are almost not used in Russia). I happen to remember USSR collapse, then the awful years of Yeltsin, when everything went to hell: economy was dead, crime rate went through the roof - there were shootings every day on the streets, suicide rate went through the roof, population started to decline because people didn't want to have children (or didn't have means to raise children), millions were starving to death. And I remember how this started to change almost the next day after the first election of Putin. No more street shootings and businessmen cars explosions. Corruption started to wither (and continues to this day). Not only old buildings stopped to deteriorate, but new buildings, roads and bridges started to appear everywhere. In short, just about every metric you can measure started to improve under Putin's rule. Except maybe some "freedom of speech" which is almost unimportant to me. I remember that "freedom of speech" was used to calumniate Russian past and present in 90s, I don't remember a single good thing caused by "freedom of speech" in 90s. Bunch of freaks were allowed to speak on TV and other media, what they said caused only strong negative emotions in everyone. It was obvious that it had nothing to do with making our life better.
    - phpnode 6y ago
      the perception from the west is that corruption in Russia didn't go away but was simply hoisted up to the level of government. How do you feel about the level of wealth that Putin and his associates have accumulated during his reign? It is interesting that you talk about different metrics and different words meaning different things to Russians compared to those in the west. If we can't use "left" and "right" as descriptors, and you don't place much emphasis on "freedom of speech", what _are_ the values that you think are important? (I suspect, from what you say, even "freedom of speech" means something different to you than it does to me)
      - shashurup 6y ago
        It wasn't just a corruption. I cannot even choose a word to describe these terrible business schemes when all enterprise's income in a foregn currency were syphoned out of the country, workers payments were constantly delayed and the enterprise asked for donation from the state at the same time. Putin stopped that. As for left or right I would label Putin as right inclined centrist.
      - anticodon 6y ago
        During Yeltsin times corruption was equally high both on street level and government level. But West didn't care, on the opposite - West praised Yeltsin and even openly meddled in our election to elect Yeltsin for the second term. Despite him being extremely corrupt and using his position to enrich his family and friends. Now, West suddenly become very concerned with Putin's alleged wealth (nobody had seen it) - why? Why Putin's wealth is more important than Yeltsin wealth? Why current level of corruption which is measly compared to level of corruption during Yeltsin times had become so extremely important to the west? Why it didn't bother anyone before? What is important to me: being able to live normal life: have a job, have access to medicine and education for me and my family, having enough food on my table to not starve. Less important but nice to have is enough income to travel somewhere for holiday at 1-2 times a year. To have friends and family. To not have war in my country (which is US currently actively pushing as well - they hope to force war between Europe/Ukraine and Russia because that will be very beneficial for US economy and US being separated by the ocean will not experience the devastating effects of the war on its own territory). I do not believe that democracy exists anywhere or even actually possible. I do not need some kind of "free speech" whatever that means. I like to blog, but I seriously doubt my blog would cause any problem in any society. I'm definitely aware that blogging in the US is more likely to create problems than in Russia. In Russia nobody cares if you're rude or politically incorrect or you have contradicting political views. Many of my friends do not support Putin unlike me - that doesn't ruin our friendship. Whatever I write on my blog will never put me in trouble in Russia, even if I'll write "I hate Putin, he's a crook" - nobody cares despite what you may read in western media. In Russia I can write or say: "BLM" or "All lives matter" and I won't have any problem at my job or with the police or with anyone. In the US there's only one approved view that you can openly support, otherwise you're destined to have problems, e.g. you can be fired from your job and become homeless if you don't agree with your latest election results or don't support some SJW movement or you support it but not in an approved way.

yoavm 6y ago

> because there's no alternative It's a little strange that in all of Russia one can't find an alternative, for decades. One might think that when an alternative shows it might get poisoned and jailed.

shashurup 6y ago
I'm courious who do you consider a good alternative from those who were poisoned, jailed or neutralized in some different way?
- phpnode 6y ago
  it's not as simple as that - poisonings, beatings, imprisonment etc have a chilling effect. We have no idea which leaders would step forward if it weren't for the effects of intimidation. That is to say, someone smart enough to become a political force to be reckoned with is probably smart enough to realise that they will be faced with some terrible consequences for doing so. Their chances of success are extremely small and the chances of punishment is high. The smartest move is not to participate, and so this filters out all but the most principled or naive and foolhardy.
  - shashurup 6y ago
    Sorry, I cannot spend my vote on such a vaguely described person - I live in this country and its my future. My list starts with representation. This person must represent interests of a big group of people wich includes me. This person must represent interests of businesses I find valueable for my country. This person must have a prioritized list of problems to fix with the corresponinding steps he think must be taken. Otherwise, as you correctly stated it is not worth participating. So, sorry, neither Nemtsov nor Khodorkovsky doesn't pass, BTW are there someone else?

croon 6y ago

> Frankly, we don't have a choice. I favour Putin, but mostly because there's no alternative. There's not a single opposition leader that is trustworthy and competent. Maybe because every alternative that pops up gets assassinated or jailed by Kremlin. If it was a democracy maybe more viable alternatives would be seen.

shashurup 6y ago
Sorry, can't help quoting querez: It would be great if you could link to some sources for your claims.
- croon 6y ago
  https://www.businessinsider.com/here-are-6-other-russian-dissidents-who-also-died-mysteriously-in-recent-years-2015-2 https://www.businessinsider.com/here-are-6-other-russian-dis... https://www.chicagotribune.com/nation-world/ct-russian-dissidents-poisoned-20180306-story.html https://www.chicagotribune.com/nation-world/ct-russian-dissi... https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/21/world/europe/moscow-kremlin-silence-critics-poison.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/21/world/europe/moscow-kreml...
  - shashurup 6y ago
    So, I don't see any evidence. I see only accusations. Most of them don't make even slightest effort to consider other versions. This makes it very clear that the initial intent is not to figure what is going on, who are influental players, what interests they pursue and what conflicting points exist. Just blame Putin - people buy it.
    - croon 6y ago
      So what do we have? 1. Everyone who opposes Putin dies or ends up in jail. 2. Putin hasn't been tried in court to be proven guilty, so we don't "know" who's responsible. 2 is actually barely relevant in context. The fact of the matter is that the chilling effect occurs regardless. That the incentives clearly points to one explanation and nothing else makes sense is unmistakable, but also secondary.