3 ms·
Don't know where to start. First, you are seriously naive or uninformed if you think that Putin is not corrupt on a gigantic, unheard-of scale. Take a look at t
by yaakov34 14y ago
Don't know where to start. First, you are seriously naive or uninformed if you think that Putin is not corrupt on a gigantic, unheard-of scale. Take a look at the so-called Putin's palace on the Black Sea, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ac4bzpRhtVQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ac4bzpRhtVQ (there have been really feeble attempts to deny that it was built for Putin, but the funds have been traced to companies owned by his associates - funds that they in turn got from government contracts). This thing cost a billion dollars. There is another one of these in one of the most remote regions of Russia - the Altai mountains - where the road to the place alone cost hundreds of millions of dollars (this time, simply taken from the federal budget), and a whole small town needed to be built to house the construction workers. (The story is hilarious, if you read Russian or if the G-translate can get you close enough: http://chistoprudov.livejournal.com/91316.html http://chistoprudov.livejournal.com/91316.html). The tiny village which appears in some of the photos is the official excuse for building the gigantic road through some of Russia's most difficult terrain; officially, the road is called a "junction". It cost more than the annual budget of the Altai Republic. Something like a dozen of Putin's classmates and friends have become multi-billionaires, in businesses related to government contracts or state-owned oil companies. In general, Putin's corruption makes the Shah of Iran look modest and tasteful. And that's just the financial corruption; there have also been several brazenly stolen elections, railroading of political enemies in the courts, and God knows what else.
With all that, I still don't think that a "revolution", which is to say a violent seizure of power, followed by the displacement of the current elite, is called for. It would result in years of bloody war. (Do you think the men who own these billion-dollar enterprises built on nothing other than government connections will just settle down and start raising turnips?) And the elite which it brings to the top might be no better. You are unlikely to end up with true rule of law.
The fact is that Russians are not without non-violent means of achieving change. The presidential elections were less corrupt than the preceding parliamentary elections, largely because far more citizens organized and became observers. Putin has had to allow popular elections of governors of Russia's regions, after years of personally appointing them, because of pressure brought about by the outrage over the elections. The idea of destroying everything and building a better version is tempting, but it has produced disaster again and again.
- rdl 14y agoYeah, you're probably right. I guess I don't consider Putin's direct actions to be corruption so much as bad governance (in some cases; in other cases he's superior to Yeltsin, but maybe that's a really low bar). The US President can spend $5b on a few helicopters to fly himself around without it being "corruption", so I assume the Russian president could build a secure "vacation home" somewhere. None of it is acceptable, but corruption vs. not is just semantics. The sad thing is Russia has so much hydrocarbon fuel that they can probably go on like this for a long time. US and Europe having open immigration for talented Russians seems like the best we can do.