4 ms·
Yes, this article is a disgrace. Putin has built a relatively successful and stable economy, which worst of all for the NYT is both pursuing an independent path
by arcadeparade 13y ago
Yes, this article is a disgrace. Putin has built a relatively successful and stable economy, which worst of all for the NYT is both pursuing an independent path and is rich in natural resources. If they weren't able to defend themselves Russia would fulfil all 3 of Chomskys criteria for Western Intervention, however they have a capable defence and cannot be "Iraq'd" or "Libya'd", so instead of missiles they have to settle for black propaganda instead.
- vdaniuk 13y agoI am a citizen of a country near Russia and have a rather good knowledge about Russia internal politics and economics. Black propaganda, you say? That's adorable.
- arcadeparade 13y agoYour comment adds nothing of value.
- vdaniuk 13y agoIt points out your biases in a humorous way while conveying information that I've first hand knowledge of the subject ;)
- zavulon 13y agoLOL @ 'relatively successful and stable economy'. Their economy is entirely based on selling off natural resources (sell 5%, steal 95% for yourself). When those resources run out, entire country will be bankrupt. Source: I'm from Russia and know what I'm talking about.
- arcadeparade 13y agoRelative to Yeltsins Russia that is a success. And far more stable.
- free652 13y agoIt doesn't make it more successful or stable. Putin simply continued Yeltsin changes: more power to the government, suppress the opposition, consolidate the power in few hands. He haven't done anything new, except creating a new image of an iron man that Russia loves (Like Stalin, translated from Russian - steel).
- arcadeparade 13y agohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Russia#Putin.27s_first_presidency http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Russia#Putin.27s_fir... Nice little graph there.
- guard-of-terra 13y agoMost of those graphs conveniently end in 2010. 2010 was the year when world economy started to recover, russia's - not so much.
- vdaniuk 13y agoRelative to Khmer Rouge Russia is a beacon of human rights. This means nothing.
- nickik 13y agoNo. You can not compare a period after privatesation and other social, political and economic changes directly with now. The fact is that there was less political elitism and state power in russia but it increased a lot. If you have small political elite you will never have stable growth. You might not get stable growth under a more broader politcal system (socialist india was relativly democratic) but much more likly. See these two books, one from a economist perspective, on from a politcal sienctist perspecitve (both considered top people in the field): - Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty - Dictator's Handbook The both tell the same story with diffrent words, or maybe one would better say diffrent but overlapping parts of the same story.
- 13y ago
- guard-of-terra 13y agoNot so stable now given the lack of economy growth and perspective of cuts amidst growing oil prices and diving into recession. Russian economy outlook is less than bright for a few years now.