9 ms·

"Anti-Putin circles" is rather vague. It covers anything from the extreme right to the extreme left. If a "circle" is xenophobic then, surely, most of the centr

by geoka9 12y ago

"Anti-Putin circles" is rather vague. It covers anything from the extreme right to the extreme left. If a "circle" is xenophobic then, surely, most of the centrist/liberal opposition are US sock-puppets to them, simply by the virtue of having a similar political agenda to the Western mainstream politics. I, personally, am not a fan of Navalny (I dislike racial slur in his blog posts and some of his views that I consider chauvinist), but the trend is clear: he and Khodorkovsky have been the only viable opposition leaders in Russia in the recent years. Both of them ended up in jail on similar white-collar crime charges.

huhtenberg 12y ago
There's certain logic to what happened to Khodorkovksy (and earlier to Berezovsky and few other people) - they all were oligarchs, they blatantly stole their way into their riches, but they were allowed by the state to use them. That is until they tried to use their money to try and un-sit those who let them become obnoxiously wealthy. They weren't the opposition per se. They were just former buddies that got drunk on money power and decided to play against their own. And they lost.
- geoka9 12y ago
  So your point is that Putin only represses the oligarchs that dared to "bite the hand that fed"? OK, Khodorkovsky has spent 10 years in prison, been stripped of his billions and forced to leave the country upon release. But Navalny and Kasparov are not, and have never been, oligarchs; however they are either in prison or in exile (I'm sure Kasparov would be prosecuted right now, but he chose to leave Russia in 2013).
  - raquo 12y ago
    Navalny and Kasparov are in trouble because they had a shot at gaining popular momentum. Khodorkovsky privately expressed desire for a more free Russia to Putin, and was shot down as a warning to others. Putin prosecutes everyone who goes against him apart from allowing a minimal opposition to exist for the sake of appearance and venting off angry people's steam. "Shut up, look down and you'll be allowed to live" is a very popular theme in Russia across all levels from the president down to local municipal offices. If you go against those in power you will be persecuted proportionally to their power. The important thing to understand about modern Russia is that there is no separation of power. Putin owns the parliament, the government, the military, and the judges. As a corollary, everyone is guilty of something, and if not, they are made to be.
    - p1esk 12y ago
      Putin owning the parliament, the government, the military, and the judges is not the problem. The problem is that he's not able to, or not willing to, use all that power to improve life in Russia.
      - raquo 12y ago
        But that is the problem – he has no incentive to do anything good for the country because he has absolute power and controls mass media. He is not accountable to anyone. In fact, he sort of benefits from people struggling. When you're hungry you don't care about democracy that much. By the way, Russians' lives did improve relative to early 1990s which is what most people remember most vividly. It's just that Putin has little to do with it, it's just a matter of rising oil prices and increased trade.
        drdaeman 12y ago
        To be fair, I don't think it's that simple. He must do at least some good for the country, or the country would suffer and he wouldn't have much to parasitize upon. He must be beyond any imaginable madness to play "let's see how long I can fuck with this country"-type of game, so, by Hanlon's razor, I hypothesize it's more like he's trying to do some good (and has incentive to do so), but has completely weird ideas on what's good and by which means it could be achieved. Still, no matter what Putin's thinking, I don't like what's going on.
        raquo 12y ago
        Well, he does some good, sure, the kind that any generic country manager would do. Normal maintenance-mode deeds of good. But I can't recall any significant positive things that he did in the last few years, other than providing significant state support if you give birth to or adopt your second child ($10K I think). Maybe you can add Skolkovo to the list, but we are yet to see how that pans out. For now it feels like a money grab... but then again, what isn't. On the flip side, rampant corruption makes government spending incredibly inefficient. Putin could kill all this off in a year if he wanted to, but he doesn't, because he knows how to work this kind of system. Be closer to the top, get more benefits to screw everyone else. That makes for a very stable power structure. No one will rise against him because all those with any sort of power are part of the scheme and treasure their position in the food chain. So, even though Russia is filthy rich with oil money (50% of federal budget), they can only use a tiny fraction of that money for actual improvements to the country. Russia could by far surpass Eastern Europe in quality of life today if its government was working with any comparable efficiency, but that is the opposite of what is happening.
  - huhtenberg 12y ago
    > So your point is that Putin only represses the oligarchs No, that's not my point. This is your strawman :) Point being that Khodorkovsky is a mafia member going public against the boss and using his crime-sourced wealth as a stepping stone. I personally don't give a flying f#ck what his fellow clan members will do to him for that and I certainly don't want to be manipulated into thinking that his a noble martyr.
- DenisM 12y ago
  I feel like you're bending out of shape to justify the lawless voluntarism of the government. This guy deserved it because he took on the powerful. This on had it coming because he was, allegedly, a foreign agent. That other one was an oligarch, so likely a thief anyway - it's ok to gulag him. In the same vein people would say that a girl had a short skirt, so likely a slut and totally deserved the treatment she got. What you're doing is rationalizing the crime. People do that because they can't stand the alternative - admission than those in power can and do railroad people's lives because they feel like it, and there is nothing you can do to stop it. The mere thought of it is unbearable, so it's easier to come up with an excuse as to why the victim had it coming, and therefore why this won't happen to me and people I care about. It's called "the just world fallacy" - a mistaken belief that everything happens for a reason, and so nothing needs to be done about it. It's where the fear of doing something meets the excuse for not having to do it. But here's some good news - you can actually admit that those things are unjust, and you are not obligated to right the wrongs by yourself. It would be nice if you did, but just being honest with yourself is an achievement in its own right.
  - huhtenberg 12y ago
    Big words, comrade, almost a thesis. It's called "switching the subject" though. The matter of fact that Navalny's stubborn persistence doesn't correlate with his personality, at all. He looks and acts like an artificial construct with no obvious genuine motivation. Khodorkovsky was one of them and he went against the gang. He got shot down, surprise. Was he opposed to the state? Yes. Was he an opposition? Hell, no.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
xnull2guest 12y ago
Sockpuppet means more than aligned views - it implies collaboration. It's interesting to note here that in America the IRS is regularly weaponized to attack political opponents of whichever current administration.
- xnull2guest 12y ago
  Despite downvote I do insist: sockpuppet does imply collaboration. And I do insist: the IRS is regularly used (with other capabilities) by American administrations to harass and discourage political opponents. This is not a contended fact and is very open to search and research.
  - geoka9 12y ago
    > sockpuppet does imply collaboration They do imply collaboration, too. Most of them see no reason to champion liberal values other than being paid for it.
rev 12y ago
> white-collar crime charges Agreed re Navalny, but Khodorkovsky was charged with three murder cases (and one case of attempted murder), so I'm less sure about the collar color.
- ired 12y ago
  Have you ever seen any evidence to prove his or his associates guilt? Just because he was charged with anything makes him not guilty. Basically he was imprisoned for about 10 years for alleged tax evasion + for "stealing" crude oil. p.s. I have seen a lot of the original materials of the cases and I can assure you that State failed to prove his guilt. With Navalny cases (yes, he and his associates have been charged with many things including stealing a picture) it has reached the whole new dimension.

by geoka9 12y ago

huhtenberg 12y ago

There's certain logic to what happened to Khodorkovksy (and earlier to Berezovsky and few other people) - they all were oligarchs, they blatantly stole their way into their riches, but they were allowed by the state to use them. That is until they tried to use their money to try and un-sit those who let them become obnoxiously wealthy. They weren't the opposition per se. They were just former buddies that got drunk on money power and decided to play against their own. And they lost.

geoka9 12y ago
So your point is that Putin only represses the oligarchs that dared to "bite the hand that fed"? OK, Khodorkovsky has spent 10 years in prison, been stripped of his billions and forced to leave the country upon release. But Navalny and Kasparov are not, and have never been, oligarchs; however they are either in prison or in exile (I'm sure Kasparov would be prosecuted right now, but he chose to leave Russia in 2013).
- raquo 12y ago
  Navalny and Kasparov are in trouble because they had a shot at gaining popular momentum. Khodorkovsky privately expressed desire for a more free Russia to Putin, and was shot down as a warning to others. Putin prosecutes everyone who goes against him apart from allowing a minimal opposition to exist for the sake of appearance and venting off angry people's steam. "Shut up, look down and you'll be allowed to live" is a very popular theme in Russia across all levels from the president down to local municipal offices. If you go against those in power you will be persecuted proportionally to their power. The important thing to understand about modern Russia is that there is no separation of power. Putin owns the parliament, the government, the military, and the judges. As a corollary, everyone is guilty of something, and if not, they are made to be.
  - p1esk 12y ago
    Putin owning the parliament, the government, the military, and the judges is not the problem. The problem is that he's not able to, or not willing to, use all that power to improve life in Russia.
    - raquo 12y ago
      But that is the problem – he has no incentive to do anything good for the country because he has absolute power and controls mass media. He is not accountable to anyone. In fact, he sort of benefits from people struggling. When you're hungry you don't care about democracy that much. By the way, Russians' lives did improve relative to early 1990s which is what most people remember most vividly. It's just that Putin has little to do with it, it's just a matter of rising oil prices and increased trade.
      - drdaeman 12y ago
        To be fair, I don't think it's that simple. He must do at least some good for the country, or the country would suffer and he wouldn't have much to parasitize upon. He must be beyond any imaginable madness to play "let's see how long I can fuck with this country"-type of game, so, by Hanlon's razor, I hypothesize it's more like he's trying to do some good (and has incentive to do so), but has completely weird ideas on what's good and by which means it could be achieved. Still, no matter what Putin's thinking, I don't like what's going on.
        raquo 12y ago
        Well, he does some good, sure, the kind that any generic country manager would do. Normal maintenance-mode deeds of good. But I can't recall any significant positive things that he did in the last few years, other than providing significant state support if you give birth to or adopt your second child ($10K I think). Maybe you can add Skolkovo to the list, but we are yet to see how that pans out. For now it feels like a money grab... but then again, what isn't. On the flip side, rampant corruption makes government spending incredibly inefficient. Putin could kill all this off in a year if he wanted to, but he doesn't, because he knows how to work this kind of system. Be closer to the top, get more benefits to screw everyone else. That makes for a very stable power structure. No one will rise against him because all those with any sort of power are part of the scheme and treasure their position in the food chain. So, even though Russia is filthy rich with oil money (50% of federal budget), they can only use a tiny fraction of that money for actual improvements to the country. Russia could by far surpass Eastern Europe in quality of life today if its government was working with any comparable efficiency, but that is the opposite of what is happening.
- huhtenberg 12y ago
  > So your point is that Putin only represses the oligarchs No, that's not my point. This is your strawman :) Point being that Khodorkovsky is a mafia member going public against the boss and using his crime-sourced wealth as a stepping stone. I personally don't give a flying f#ck what his fellow clan members will do to him for that and I certainly don't want to be manipulated into thinking that his a noble martyr.
DenisM 12y ago
I feel like you're bending out of shape to justify the lawless voluntarism of the government. This guy deserved it because he took on the powerful. This on had it coming because he was, allegedly, a foreign agent. That other one was an oligarch, so likely a thief anyway - it's ok to gulag him. In the same vein people would say that a girl had a short skirt, so likely a slut and totally deserved the treatment she got. What you're doing is rationalizing the crime. People do that because they can't stand the alternative - admission than those in power can and do railroad people's lives because they feel like it, and there is nothing you can do to stop it. The mere thought of it is unbearable, so it's easier to come up with an excuse as to why the victim had it coming, and therefore why this won't happen to me and people I care about. It's called "the just world fallacy" - a mistaken belief that everything happens for a reason, and so nothing needs to be done about it. It's where the fear of doing something meets the excuse for not having to do it. But here's some good news - you can actually admit that those things are unjust, and you are not obligated to right the wrongs by yourself. It would be nice if you did, but just being honest with yourself is an achievement in its own right.
- huhtenberg 12y ago
  Big words, comrade, almost a thesis. It's called "switching the subject" though. The matter of fact that Navalny's stubborn persistence doesn't correlate with his personality, at all. He looks and acts like an artificial construct with no obvious genuine motivation. Khodorkovsky was one of them and he went against the gang. He got shot down, surprise. Was he opposed to the state? Yes. Was he an opposition? Hell, no.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]

xnull2guest 12y ago

Sockpuppet means more than aligned views - it implies collaboration. It's interesting to note here that in America the IRS is regularly weaponized to attack political opponents of whichever current administration.

xnull2guest 12y ago
Despite downvote I do insist: sockpuppet does imply collaboration. And I do insist: the IRS is regularly used (with other capabilities) by American administrations to harass and discourage political opponents. This is not a contended fact and is very open to search and research.
- geoka9 12y ago
  > sockpuppet does imply collaboration They do imply collaboration, too. Most of them see no reason to champion liberal values other than being paid for it.

rev 12y ago

> white-collar crime charges Agreed re Navalny, but Khodorkovsky was charged with three murder cases (and one case of attempted murder), so I'm less sure about the collar color.

ired 12y ago
Have you ever seen any evidence to prove his or his associates guilt? Just because he was charged with anything makes him not guilty. Basically he was imprisoned for about 10 years for alleged tax evasion + for "stealing" crude oil. p.s. I have seen a lot of the original materials of the cases and I can assure you that State failed to prove his guilt. With Navalny cases (yes, he and his associates have been charged with many things including stealing a picture) it has reached the whole new dimension.