3 ms·
Your simplistic view of Russia is what happens when you learn some select facts and plug them into a formula that's designed to accommodate Western societies. I
by asdflkj 18y ago
Your simplistic view of Russia is what happens when you learn some select facts and plug them into a formula that's designed to accommodate Western societies. If every fact you know about Russia (assuming even that your facts are accurate, which is unlikely if you read Anglophone media) suddenly became true in America, things would certainly become worse. Sort of like if you added garlic salt to ice cream, it would taste worse, and this doesn't prove that garlic salt is bad.
For people who want to understand Russia, I suggest learning more about the 90s, and what was actually happening there while The Economist and the rest of them were falling over themselves with praise. It will put into perspective what they're saying now. Here's a teaser:
http://media.hoover.org/images/graph2.GIF http://media.hoover.org/images/graph2.GIF
If nothing else, it will remove the desire to pontificate on "the big ugly bear" and "the dread nightmare Putin".
- DanielBMarkham 18y agoIsn't it interesting how Russia is so easily accommodating to such simple theories? Seems like there's no need to learn anything more detailed at all -- the simple views are consistently upheld by Russia's actions. Russia is a great country. It deserves better than Putin and a continuation of oligarchy.
- asdflkj 18y agoIt's easy to find any set of facts to accommodate any simple theory, if the implications of it don't have any effect on your life. Most otherwise reasonable Russians also believe things about America that are just ridiculous. I'd ask you what actions you're talking about, but this isn't the place for that.
- davidw 18y ago> I'd ask you what actions you're talking about, but this isn't the place for that. +1
- siculars 18y agoI would say Russia is not a great country. Russia has great people. And it certainly deserves better than Putin and a continuation of oligarchy.
- rms 18y agoSuggested reading, please?
- asdflkj 18y agoI don't know, to be honest. My knowledge of the 90s is first-hand, and of today--reliable second-hand. I have relatives there. After my experience with Russia and Western media's version of Russia, I had been wondering how to get reliable information on nations whose cultures are isolated from the Western culture (in particular, China). I haven't come up with anything yet, so now I pretty much ignore what comes from the media, and try not to form opinions.
- siculars 18y agoI second you, asdflkj. It is always best to analyze first hand sources. Unfortunately, free media does not exist in Russia. Pitty.
- jsrn 18y agohere is the full transcript of the Times Magazine interview with Putin: http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/printout/0,29239,1690753_1690757_1695787,00.html http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/printout/0,29239,1690... it's pretty interesting, actually. For example, Putin is often quoted with saying that the Collapse of the Soviet Union was the "biggest geopolitical catastrophe of the (last) century." Without context, that sounds like strange, if not downright dangerous thinking to western ears. But it also can help our understanding how the collapse and the chaotic 90s were perceived by the Russians themselves: TIME: Were the 1990s a time of paradox for you? On the one hand, you say it gave you the Gorbachev freedoms; on the other hand, in your statements you have stated that there was a period of total collapse and the tragedy of the destruction of the Soviet Union. PUTIN: I don't see a paradox here. The administrative planning system that prevailed in economic life, and the complete domination of the Communist Party in the political area, resulted in a collapse of the country. When people no longer cared about the state they lived in, they didn't need such a state, therefore there was no surprise that the people couldn't care less about that state. They believed that things couldn't get any worse, but it turned out that they could, and did. The tragedy is that people were utterly dissatisfied and disillusioned because the free-for-all was declared as democracy, the theft of billions of dollars was described as the free market and the theft of enormous assets belonging to the people were declared privatization. What did the collapse of the Soviet Union mean? Twenty-five million Soviet citizens who were ethnic Russians found themselves beyond the borders of new Russia. Nobody gave thought to them. Twenty-five million would make up a major European nation. Before taking a decision, one should consult the population. Do you want to live separate from the state you live in now? I'm confident that if we were to hold a referendum in many of the former Soviet republics, the vast majority would say no. But nobody asked them. Was that a democratic solution? Of such a difficult problem? Well, we're not trying to revisit this but that was so. Who asked us or them? Twenty-five million Russians found themselves outside the Russian Federation, without any economic means, amid growing local nationalism. When they couldn't possibly come to the new Russia, to their historical motherland, because they didn't even have money to buy a train or a plane ticket. Is it not a tragedy?
- siculars 18y agojust try a simple google search. Will bring up sources from all over the world. Shame that the number one indexer in Russia only lets their users access Russian content from the former USSR. http://www.google.com/search?q=russian+life+expectancy+chart http://www.google.com/search?q=russian+life+expectancy+chart
- siculars 18y agoSimple is always bad except when it suits Occam's Razor, eh? There is nothing simple about Russia, unfortunately we all need to live with her.