7 ms·

Why wouldn't I? I live in Russia and I support Kremlin politics. You say it like it's a bad thing and any good Russian citizen should strive to undermine his co

Why wouldn't I? I live in Russia and I support Kremlin politics. You say it like it's a bad thing and any good Russian citizen should strive to undermine his country. For what? To become a third world neo-colony? To allow NATO bomb our country like Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya that are suffering from war for decades with no sign of improvement?

mekkkkkk 6y ago
This is such a sad thing. I know a lot of Russians, and most of them share your sentiment. It basically reads "Putin isn't great, but compared to other leaders we've had in the past hundred years, he is phenomenal." Maybe it's a legit point of view, that Putin is a stepping stone toward true democracy and liberty. It just seems so defeatist.
- anticodon 6y ago
  It's not defeatist. First, we see more and more evidence that there's no democracy in the West, just a well decorated fake "democracy". All important positions in government of USA are occupied by people from the oldest and wealthiest US families. Is it democracy? I doubt that. There's no freedom of speech. Which we hear is "freedom" of speech, because censorship is performed by not government, but private entities like Facebook, Twitter, Google. Yeah, maybe formally it's not a censorship for some strict definition of the word, but de-facto it's censorship and it's stronger than censorship ever were in Russia. Secondly, so-called "democracy" is weaponized by the West to oust regimes West doesn't like (e.g. that aren't willing to sell rights to exploit their natual resouces to Western corporations) or simply to bomb anyone they don't like. There's no need to explain anything: "We bombed Afghanistan because they have no democracy! Hooray!". "So, have people of Afghanistan started to live better after 20 years of bombing and killing?" - "You're banned from Facebook and Twitter for violating our TOS". Sorry, I no longer believe in "democracy".
  - mekkkkkk 6y ago
    The purpose of democracy is to let citizens exercise control of their own country. Wealth, status, heritage etc. is always going to be confounding factors for this to work. Ideally the democratic process should account for this, but in reality it will always be a sliding scale. A truly perfect democracy doesn't seem possible. This doesn't contradict the fact that democracy is something to strive for. Most people would like to have their voices heard and not be subjugated by authoritarian leaders. Alas, this is were it seems like a lot of Russians have just given up; "We'll have an authoritarian regime, because it's always been like that. This one isn't as bad as the previous ones, so it's fine."
    - anticodon 6y ago
      A truly perfect democracy doesn't seem possible. Exactly. This is why it is also possible for USA to bomb or otherwise subvert any country because they don't confirm to some definition of democracy. Because there will never be perfect democracy, the strong bully can plunder any country saying: "You're not perfect democracy, so give up your resources to me!". This doesn't contradict the fact that democracy is something to strive for. Most people would like to have their voices heard and not be subjugated by authoritarian leaders. Is there any country in the world where your voice would be heard unless you're a highly ranked bureaucrat or media star? In US, which is considered a "near perfect" democracy you can't say a lot of things because either you'll be blocked by monopolistic Internet media (FB, Twitter, YouTube) or you'll be "canceled" (like RMS and many others) or both. So what should we strive for? And why would I care? What do I need to say to the government? There're 140,000,000 of us in Russia and all have different opinions and little understanding outside of our area of expertise. If we'll all say something, the result we'll be chaos and noise. Besides, contrary to what western media says, there's more freedom of speech in Russia than in the West. E.g. I read critics of Putin every day on all Russian social networks. I have friends that criticize Putin for years openly. They were never even invited to police or their accounts blocked. So what?
      - mekkkkkk 6y ago
        The voice you have in a representative democracy is the right to vote for a candidate that acts as a proxy for your personal opinions, combined with the right to start a political campaign/party if none align with you. The foundation for this is fair elections and lack of censorship. Personally I do feel like I'm having my voice heard when I cast a vote at the ballot box. I'm not going to entertain your tangential whataboutisms. There are a lot of problems in the world today, we can agree on that.
- 3v1n0 6y ago
  Same it happens with Chinese and many others who are just brainwashed by their government. Let them go, one day will understand that there's a middle way between being a (masked?) dictature and an US vassal
  - modo_mario 6y ago
    Which one tho? I"m trying to think of countries that are not poor af, a dictature, related or in some way crooked and do not kowtow to the US when it actually comes down to it regardless of their self interest. Can only think of exceptional cases like Switzerland or Israel. Maybe the later isn't exactly politically sound but i don't think that changes much in this comparison.
- shashurup 6y ago
  I would rather call this pragmatism, not defeatism. There are problems and most Russians are aware of them and as soon as there emerge a political forse which will feel like they may fix them we'll definitely vote for it. The idea that something like bipartisan system may just magically fix the problem we have is deeply unconvincing for us.
  - croon 6y ago
    > There are problems and most Russians are aware of them and as soon as there emerge a political forse which will feel like they may fix them we'll definitely vote for it. "Putin will kill or jail anyone who opposes him, but they sucked anyways. As soon as a good challenger comes along we'll for sure vote them in!" I wasn't even trying to be snide, but actually writing out this scenario made it too absurd to signal any other sentiment. It's not that a bipartisan system fixes any and all problems, it's that a system where any opposition doesn't fear for their life at least opens up the possibility of viable alternatives.
    - shashurup 6y ago
      I'm not sure I get your point. What kind of non absurd scenario do you imply? Vote for another person nevermind how clueless he is? Overthrow the goverment and start a civil war?
      - croon 6y ago
        If I make a button that says (without lying) "IF YOU PUSH THIS YOU DIE", only clueless people will ever push it. You saying > as soon as there emerge a political forse which will feel like they may fix them we'll definitely vote for it is waiting for a scenario that can't happen, by Putins/Kremlins design.
        shashurup 6y ago
        So, you state that: 1. My approach is not pragmatic, but rather naive. 2. You seem to be a defeatist :-) I don't agree with 1 - people die, Putin's no exception. People in ruling party rotate, change etc. The design you are talking about is, imo, overrated.

mekkkkkk 6y ago

This is such a sad thing. I know a lot of Russians, and most of them share your sentiment. It basically reads "Putin isn't great, but compared to other leaders we've had in the past hundred years, he is phenomenal." Maybe it's a legit point of view, that Putin is a stepping stone toward true democracy and liberty. It just seems so defeatist.

anticodon 6y ago
It's not defeatist. First, we see more and more evidence that there's no democracy in the West, just a well decorated fake "democracy". All important positions in government of USA are occupied by people from the oldest and wealthiest US families. Is it democracy? I doubt that. There's no freedom of speech. Which we hear is "freedom" of speech, because censorship is performed by not government, but private entities like Facebook, Twitter, Google. Yeah, maybe formally it's not a censorship for some strict definition of the word, but de-facto it's censorship and it's stronger than censorship ever were in Russia. Secondly, so-called "democracy" is weaponized by the West to oust regimes West doesn't like (e.g. that aren't willing to sell rights to exploit their natual resouces to Western corporations) or simply to bomb anyone they don't like. There's no need to explain anything: "We bombed Afghanistan because they have no democracy! Hooray!". "So, have people of Afghanistan started to live better after 20 years of bombing and killing?" - "You're banned from Facebook and Twitter for violating our TOS". Sorry, I no longer believe in "democracy".
- mekkkkkk 6y ago
  The purpose of democracy is to let citizens exercise control of their own country. Wealth, status, heritage etc. is always going to be confounding factors for this to work. Ideally the democratic process should account for this, but in reality it will always be a sliding scale. A truly perfect democracy doesn't seem possible. This doesn't contradict the fact that democracy is something to strive for. Most people would like to have their voices heard and not be subjugated by authoritarian leaders. Alas, this is were it seems like a lot of Russians have just given up; "We'll have an authoritarian regime, because it's always been like that. This one isn't as bad as the previous ones, so it's fine."
  - anticodon 6y ago
    A truly perfect democracy doesn't seem possible. Exactly. This is why it is also possible for USA to bomb or otherwise subvert any country because they don't confirm to some definition of democracy. Because there will never be perfect democracy, the strong bully can plunder any country saying: "You're not perfect democracy, so give up your resources to me!". This doesn't contradict the fact that democracy is something to strive for. Most people would like to have their voices heard and not be subjugated by authoritarian leaders. Is there any country in the world where your voice would be heard unless you're a highly ranked bureaucrat or media star? In US, which is considered a "near perfect" democracy you can't say a lot of things because either you'll be blocked by monopolistic Internet media (FB, Twitter, YouTube) or you'll be "canceled" (like RMS and many others) or both. So what should we strive for? And why would I care? What do I need to say to the government? There're 140,000,000 of us in Russia and all have different opinions and little understanding outside of our area of expertise. If we'll all say something, the result we'll be chaos and noise. Besides, contrary to what western media says, there's more freedom of speech in Russia than in the West. E.g. I read critics of Putin every day on all Russian social networks. I have friends that criticize Putin for years openly. They were never even invited to police or their accounts blocked. So what?
    - mekkkkkk 6y ago
      The voice you have in a representative democracy is the right to vote for a candidate that acts as a proxy for your personal opinions, combined with the right to start a political campaign/party if none align with you. The foundation for this is fair elections and lack of censorship. Personally I do feel like I'm having my voice heard when I cast a vote at the ballot box. I'm not going to entertain your tangential whataboutisms. There are a lot of problems in the world today, we can agree on that.
3v1n0 6y ago
Same it happens with Chinese and many others who are just brainwashed by their government. Let them go, one day will understand that there's a middle way between being a (masked?) dictature and an US vassal
- modo_mario 6y ago
  Which one tho? I"m trying to think of countries that are not poor af, a dictature, related or in some way crooked and do not kowtow to the US when it actually comes down to it regardless of their self interest. Can only think of exceptional cases like Switzerland or Israel. Maybe the later isn't exactly politically sound but i don't think that changes much in this comparison.
shashurup 6y ago
I would rather call this pragmatism, not defeatism. There are problems and most Russians are aware of them and as soon as there emerge a political forse which will feel like they may fix them we'll definitely vote for it. The idea that something like bipartisan system may just magically fix the problem we have is deeply unconvincing for us.
- croon 6y ago
  > There are problems and most Russians are aware of them and as soon as there emerge a political forse which will feel like they may fix them we'll definitely vote for it. "Putin will kill or jail anyone who opposes him, but they sucked anyways. As soon as a good challenger comes along we'll for sure vote them in!" I wasn't even trying to be snide, but actually writing out this scenario made it too absurd to signal any other sentiment. It's not that a bipartisan system fixes any and all problems, it's that a system where any opposition doesn't fear for their life at least opens up the possibility of viable alternatives.
  - shashurup 6y ago
    I'm not sure I get your point. What kind of non absurd scenario do you imply? Vote for another person nevermind how clueless he is? Overthrow the goverment and start a civil war?
    - croon 6y ago
      If I make a button that says (without lying) "IF YOU PUSH THIS YOU DIE", only clueless people will ever push it. You saying > as soon as there emerge a political forse which will feel like they may fix them we'll definitely vote for it is waiting for a scenario that can't happen, by Putins/Kremlins design.
      - shashurup 6y ago
        So, you state that: 1. My approach is not pragmatic, but rather naive. 2. You seem to be a defeatist :-) I don't agree with 1 - people die, Putin's no exception. People in ruling party rotate, change etc. The design you are talking about is, imo, overrated.