Opinion of Boris Yeltsin

[smoltchanov]

Russia is slowly moving in our direction anyway.

Is this intended as an anti American jab, because I don't see the direction that Russia is "slowly moving towards" as a particularly pleasant one...

Russia is slowly moving towards Western-style liberal democracy. That is what I meant. In the 1900 there was old-fashioned autocracy centered around a Czar. In 1950 there was retrofitted old-fashioned autocracy with bureaucrats and party apparatchiks replacing the Czars. Now we have more of a "guided quasi-democracy" in a dominant-party system. This trend is obviously not unstoppable, but it's clear for now at least.

Putin annexing Crimea is actually further proof of this trend - he saw enough need to cater to the public that he felt the need for some good ol' warmongering, and seized Crimea (a move overwhelmingly popular among the Russian public). He's not entirely opposed to democracy either - he just stops it in its tracks when he doesn't like the direction it's taking.

+100. And yes - seizure of Crimea had about 90% support among Russia population. No politician would ignore such easy way to increase his popularity to almost unthinkable numbers: before reitement system reform was annpunced recently Putin's popularity (which increased from about 60% to about 85-87% after Crimea) consistently held over number 80. Now he lost 10-15%, but so far he can afford it. Bit - not more.

Why did Putin reform the pensions anyway?

Two factors.

1. Demography. Not enough young people to support a system as it is, especially with real (modest, but real) increase in people's life expectancy.

2. Corruption. Officials disagree with the idea that they must steal less, then before. Hence, again, not enough money.....

Russia's economy, I've heard, is helped a bit by the fact it's an immigration magnet for a large portion of interior Asia. How much is that helping the pensions situation?

Not much. After oil prices fell few years ago Russia stopped to be such big magnet as before - one. And two - many of these people work outside of existing legal framework, so retirement fund gets substantially less money from them, then it must.

How does the retirement fund get any money at all from them?
(pardon me for all these questions...I don't intend to annoy you in any event. Russia is a truly fascinating country.)

Theoretically every working person pays a percentage of his/her salary in the fund (and employers pay too). But it's so in case of official employment. Naturally, in case, where "gray schemes" (at best) of employment and payment are used, fund gets little or nothing.

And I assume that if you are buddies with Putin and Co, then you can access the magic of those gray schemes. And vice versa.

You are correct. Generally. It doesn't require you to be "buddy of Putin" to have such access: it's more then enough to be "buddy" with, say, governor of your region (of course - appointed by Putin)

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Russia is slowly moving in our direction anyway.

Is this intended as an anti American jab, because I don't see the direction that Russia is "slowly moving towards" as a particularly pleasant one...

Russia is slowly moving towards Western-style liberal democracy. That is what I meant. In the 1900 there was old-fashioned autocracy centered around a Czar. In 1950 there was retrofitted old-fashioned autocracy with bureaucrats and party apparatchiks replacing the Czars. Now we have more of a "guided quasi-democracy" in a dominant-party system. This trend is obviously not unstoppable, but it's clear for now at least.

Putin annexing Crimea is actually further proof of this trend - he saw enough need to cater to the public that he felt the need for some good ol' warmongering, and seized Crimea (a move overwhelmingly popular among the Russian public). He's not entirely opposed to democracy either - he just stops it in its tracks when he doesn't like the direction it's taking.

+100. And yes - seizure of Crimea had about 90% support among Russia population. No politician would ignore such easy way to increase his popularity to almost unthinkable numbers: before reitement system reform was annpunced recently Putin's popularity (which increased from about 60% to about 85-87% after Crimea) consistently held over number 80. Now he lost 10-15%, but so far he can afford it. Bit - not more.

Why did Putin reform the pensions anyway?

Two factors.

1. Demography. Not enough young people to support a system as it is, especially with real (modest, but real) increase in people's life expectancy.

2. Corruption. Officials disagree with the idea that they must steal less, then before. Hence, again, not enough money.....

Russia's economy, I've heard, is helped a bit by the fact it's an immigration magnet for a large portion of interior Asia. How much is that helping the pensions situation?

Not much. After oil prices fell few years ago Russia stopped to be such big magnet as before - one. And two - many of these people work outside of existing legal framework, so retirement fund gets substantially less money from them, then it must.

How does the retirement fund get any money at all from them?
(pardon me for all these questions...I don't intend to annoy you in any event. Russia is a truly fascinating country.)

Theoretically every working person pays a percentage of his/her salary in the fund (and employers pay too). But it's so in case of official employment. Naturally, in case, where "gray schemes" (at best) of employment and payment are used, fund gets little or nothing.

And I assume that if you are buddies with Putin and Co, then you can access the magic of those gray schemes. And vice versa.

You are correct. Generally. It doesn't require you to be "buddy of Putin" to have such access: it's more then enough to be "buddy" with, say, governor of your region (of course - appointed by Putin)

I guess that means that if you are a friend of, say, the Governor of a place like Tomsk (West Siberia being Russia's answer to the Permian Basin in TX/NM or NM Bakken Shale), then you can benefit from such scheme, which could mean a lot in regards to whether you make money if the going gets tough in the oil market.

[smoltchanov]

Russia is slowly moving in our direction anyway.

Is this intended as an anti American jab, because I don't see the direction that Russia is "slowly moving towards" as a particularly pleasant one...

Russia is slowly moving towards Western-style liberal democracy. That is what I meant. In the 1900 there was old-fashioned autocracy centered around a Czar. In 1950 there was retrofitted old-fashioned autocracy with bureaucrats and party apparatchiks replacing the Czars. Now we have more of a "guided quasi-democracy" in a dominant-party system. This trend is obviously not unstoppable, but it's clear for now at least.

Putin annexing Crimea is actually further proof of this trend - he saw enough need to cater to the public that he felt the need for some good ol' warmongering, and seized Crimea (a move overwhelmingly popular among the Russian public). He's not entirely opposed to democracy either - he just stops it in its tracks when he doesn't like the direction it's taking.

+100. And yes - seizure of Crimea had about 90% support among Russia population. No politician would ignore such easy way to increase his popularity to almost unthinkable numbers: before reitement system reform was annpunced recently Putin's popularity (which increased from about 60% to about 85-87% after Crimea) consistently held over number 80. Now he lost 10-15%, but so far he can afford it. Bit - not more.

Why did Putin reform the pensions anyway?

Two factors.

1. Demography. Not enough young people to support a system as it is, especially with real (modest, but real) increase in people's life expectancy.

2. Corruption. Officials disagree with the idea that they must steal less, then before. Hence, again, not enough money.....

Russia's economy, I've heard, is helped a bit by the fact it's an immigration magnet for a large portion of interior Asia. How much is that helping the pensions situation?

Not much. After oil prices fell few years ago Russia stopped to be such big magnet as before - one. And two - many of these people work outside of existing legal framework, so retirement fund gets substantially less money from them, then it must.

How does the retirement fund get any money at all from them?
(pardon me for all these questions...I don't intend to annoy you in any event. Russia is a truly fascinating country.)

Theoretically every working person pays a percentage of his/her salary in the fund (and employers pay too). But it's so in case of official employment. Naturally, in case, where "gray schemes" (at best) of employment and payment are used, fund gets little or nothing.

And I assume that if you are buddies with Putin and Co, then you can access the magic of those gray schemes. And vice versa.

You are correct. Generally. It doesn't require you to be "buddy of Putin" to have such access: it's more then enough to be "buddy" with, say, governor of your region (of course - appointed by Putin)

I guess that means that if you are a friend of, say, the Governor of a place like Tomsk (West Siberia being Russia's answer to the Permian Basin in TX/NM or NM Bakken Shale), then you can benefit from such scheme, which could mean a lot in regards to whether you make money if the going gets tough in the oil market.

Yes. And you could get the most profitable contracts in the area generally. Or, say, he (a governor) could get you a very profitable permission: may be not to export some oil through your company (as was the case even recently), but still something on that level of profitability. And, generally, all your requests to officials woild be considered speedily and in benevolent way. And ... a lot of other things

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Russia is slowly moving in our direction anyway.

Is this intended as an anti American jab, because I don't see the direction that Russia is "slowly moving towards" as a particularly pleasant one...

Russia is slowly moving towards Western-style liberal democracy. That is what I meant. In the 1900 there was old-fashioned autocracy centered around a Czar. In 1950 there was retrofitted old-fashioned autocracy with bureaucrats and party apparatchiks replacing the Czars. Now we have more of a "guided quasi-democracy" in a dominant-party system. This trend is obviously not unstoppable, but it's clear for now at least.

Putin annexing Crimea is actually further proof of this trend - he saw enough need to cater to the public that he felt the need for some good ol' warmongering, and seized Crimea (a move overwhelmingly popular among the Russian public). He's not entirely opposed to democracy either - he just stops it in its tracks when he doesn't like the direction it's taking.

+100. And yes - seizure of Crimea had about 90% support among Russia population. No politician would ignore such easy way to increase his popularity to almost unthinkable numbers: before reitement system reform was annpunced recently Putin's popularity (which increased from about 60% to about 85-87% after Crimea) consistently held over number 80. Now he lost 10-15%, but so far he can afford it. Bit - not more.

Why did Putin reform the pensions anyway?

Two factors.

1. Demography. Not enough young people to support a system as it is, especially with real (modest, but real) increase in people's life expectancy.

2. Corruption. Officials disagree with the idea that they must steal less, then before. Hence, again, not enough money.....

Russia's economy, I've heard, is helped a bit by the fact it's an immigration magnet for a large portion of interior Asia. How much is that helping the pensions situation?

Not much. After oil prices fell few years ago Russia stopped to be such big magnet as before - one. And two - many of these people work outside of existing legal framework, so retirement fund gets substantially less money from them, then it must.

How does the retirement fund get any money at all from them?
(pardon me for all these questions...I don't intend to annoy you in any event. Russia is a truly fascinating country.)

Theoretically every working person pays a percentage of his/her salary in the fund (and employers pay too). But it's so in case of official employment. Naturally, in case, where "gray schemes" (at best) of employment and payment are used, fund gets little or nothing.

And I assume that if you are buddies with Putin and Co, then you can access the magic of those gray schemes. And vice versa.

You are correct. Generally. It doesn't require you to be "buddy of Putin" to have such access: it's more then enough to be "buddy" with, say, governor of your region (of course - appointed by Putin)

I guess that means that if you are a friend of, say, the Governor of a place like Tomsk (West Siberia being Russia's answer to the Permian Basin in TX/NM or NM Bakken Shale), then you can benefit from such scheme, which could mean a lot in regards to whether you make money if the going gets tough in the oil market.

Yes. And you could get the most profitable contracts in the area generally. Or, say, he (a governor) could get you a very profitable permission: may be not to export some oil through your company (as was the case even recently), but still something on that level of profitability. And, generally, all your requests to officials woild be considered speedily and in benevolent way. And ... a lot of other things

"well, you see Mr. Karpov, your bid to process this particular petroleum by-product goes against a request from a friend of mine, Mr. Korov. Mr. Korov will get the contract unless you give me enough monetary encouragement"

[smoltchanov]

Russia is slowly moving in our direction anyway.

Is this intended as an anti American jab, because I don't see the direction that Russia is "slowly moving towards" as a particularly pleasant one...

Russia is slowly moving towards Western-style liberal democracy. That is what I meant. In the 1900 there was old-fashioned autocracy centered around a Czar. In 1950 there was retrofitted old-fashioned autocracy with bureaucrats and party apparatchiks replacing the Czars. Now we have more of a "guided quasi-democracy" in a dominant-party system. This trend is obviously not unstoppable, but it's clear for now at least.

Putin annexing Crimea is actually further proof of this trend - he saw enough need to cater to the public that he felt the need for some good ol' warmongering, and seized Crimea (a move overwhelmingly popular among the Russian public). He's not entirely opposed to democracy either - he just stops it in its tracks when he doesn't like the direction it's taking.

+100. And yes - seizure of Crimea had about 90% support among Russia population. No politician would ignore such easy way to increase his popularity to almost unthinkable numbers: before reitement system reform was annpunced recently Putin's popularity (which increased from about 60% to about 85-87% after Crimea) consistently held over number 80. Now he lost 10-15%, but so far he can afford it. Bit - not more.

Why did Putin reform the pensions anyway?

Two factors.

1. Demography. Not enough young people to support a system as it is, especially with real (modest, but real) increase in people's life expectancy.

2. Corruption. Officials disagree with the idea that they must steal less, then before. Hence, again, not enough money.....

Russia's economy, I've heard, is helped a bit by the fact it's an immigration magnet for a large portion of interior Asia. How much is that helping the pensions situation?

Not much. After oil prices fell few years ago Russia stopped to be such big magnet as before - one. And two - many of these people work outside of existing legal framework, so retirement fund gets substantially less money from them, then it must.

How does the retirement fund get any money at all from them?
(pardon me for all these questions...I don't intend to annoy you in any event. Russia is a truly fascinating country.)

Theoretically every working person pays a percentage of his/her salary in the fund (and employers pay too). But it's so in case of official employment. Naturally, in case, where "gray schemes" (at best) of employment and payment are used, fund gets little or nothing.

And I assume that if you are buddies with Putin and Co, then you can access the magic of those gray schemes. And vice versa.

You are correct. Generally. It doesn't require you to be "buddy of Putin" to have such access: it's more then enough to be "buddy" with, say, governor of your region (of course - appointed by Putin)

I guess that means that if you are a friend of, say, the Governor of a place like Tomsk (West Siberia being Russia's answer to the Permian Basin in TX/NM or NM Bakken Shale), then you can benefit from such scheme, which could mean a lot in regards to whether you make money if the going gets tough in the oil market.

Yes. And you could get the most profitable contracts in the area generally. Or, say, he (a governor) could get you a very profitable permission: may be not to export some oil through your company (as was the case even recently), but still something on that level of profitability. And, generally, all your requests to officials woild be considered speedily and in benevolent way. And ... a lot of other things

"well, you see Mr. Karpov, your bid to process this particular petroleum by-product goes against a request from a friend of mine, Mr. Korov. Mr. Korov will get the contract unless you give me enough monetary encouragement"

Not so directly, of course. but you got the gist)))))

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Russia is slowly moving in our direction anyway.

Is this intended as an anti American jab, because I don't see the direction that Russia is "slowly moving towards" as a particularly pleasant one...

Russia is slowly moving towards Western-style liberal democracy. That is what I meant. In the 1900 there was old-fashioned autocracy centered around a Czar. In 1950 there was retrofitted old-fashioned autocracy with bureaucrats and party apparatchiks replacing the Czars. Now we have more of a "guided quasi-democracy" in a dominant-party system. This trend is obviously not unstoppable, but it's clear for now at least.

Putin annexing Crimea is actually further proof of this trend - he saw enough need to cater to the public that he felt the need for some good ol' warmongering, and seized Crimea (a move overwhelmingly popular among the Russian public). He's not entirely opposed to democracy either - he just stops it in its tracks when he doesn't like the direction it's taking.

+100. And yes - seizure of Crimea had about 90% support among Russia population. No politician would ignore such easy way to increase his popularity to almost unthinkable numbers: before reitement system reform was annpunced recently Putin's popularity (which increased from about 60% to about 85-87% after Crimea) consistently held over number 80. Now he lost 10-15%, but so far he can afford it. Bit - not more.

Why did Putin reform the pensions anyway?

Two factors.

1. Demography. Not enough young people to support a system as it is, especially with real (modest, but real) increase in people's life expectancy.

2. Corruption. Officials disagree with the idea that they must steal less, then before. Hence, again, not enough money.....

Russia's economy, I've heard, is helped a bit by the fact it's an immigration magnet for a large portion of interior Asia. How much is that helping the pensions situation?

Not much. After oil prices fell few years ago Russia stopped to be such big magnet as before - one. And two - many of these people work outside of existing legal framework, so retirement fund gets substantially less money from them, then it must.

How does the retirement fund get any money at all from them?
(pardon me for all these questions...I don't intend to annoy you in any event. Russia is a truly fascinating country.)

Theoretically every working person pays a percentage of his/her salary in the fund (and employers pay too). But it's so in case of official employment. Naturally, in case, where "gray schemes" (at best) of employment and payment are used, fund gets little or nothing.

And I assume that if you are buddies with Putin and Co, then you can access the magic of those gray schemes. And vice versa.

You are correct. Generally. It doesn't require you to be "buddy of Putin" to have such access: it's more then enough to be "buddy" with, say, governor of your region (of course - appointed by Putin)

I guess that means that if you are a friend of, say, the Governor of a place like Tomsk (West Siberia being Russia's answer to the Permian Basin in TX/NM or NM Bakken Shale), then you can benefit from such scheme, which could mean a lot in regards to whether you make money if the going gets tough in the oil market.

Yes. And you could get the most profitable contracts in the area generally. Or, say, he (a governor) could get you a very profitable permission: may be not to export some oil through your company (as was the case even recently), but still something on that level of profitability. And, generally, all your requests to officials woild be considered speedily and in benevolent way. And ... a lot of other things

"well, you see Mr. Karpov, your bid to process this particular petroleum by-product goes against a request from a friend of mine, Mr. Korov. Mr. Korov will get the contract unless you give me enough monetary encouragement"

Not so directly, of course. but you got the gist)))))

yeah.
In regards to the money proceeds, how much is sucked up by corruption and how much goes to pacify would-be quasi-independent regions?

[smoltchanov]

Russia is slowly moving in our direction anyway.

Is this intended as an anti American jab, because I don't see the direction that Russia is "slowly moving towards" as a particularly pleasant one...

Russia is slowly moving towards Western-style liberal democracy. That is what I meant. In the 1900 there was old-fashioned autocracy centered around a Czar. In 1950 there was retrofitted old-fashioned autocracy with bureaucrats and party apparatchiks replacing the Czars. Now we have more of a "guided quasi-democracy" in a dominant-party system. This trend is obviously not unstoppable, but it's clear for now at least.

Putin annexing Crimea is actually further proof of this trend - he saw enough need to cater to the public that he felt the need for some good ol' warmongering, and seized Crimea (a move overwhelmingly popular among the Russian public). He's not entirely opposed to democracy either - he just stops it in its tracks when he doesn't like the direction it's taking.

+100. And yes - seizure of Crimea had about 90% support among Russia population. No politician would ignore such easy way to increase his popularity to almost unthinkable numbers: before reitement system reform was annpunced recently Putin's popularity (which increased from about 60% to about 85-87% after Crimea) consistently held over number 80. Now he lost 10-15%, but so far he can afford it. Bit - not more.

Why did Putin reform the pensions anyway?

Two factors.

1. Demography. Not enough young people to support a system as it is, especially with real (modest, but real) increase in people's life expectancy.

2. Corruption. Officials disagree with the idea that they must steal less, then before. Hence, again, not enough money.....

Russia's economy, I've heard, is helped a bit by the fact it's an immigration magnet for a large portion of interior Asia. How much is that helping the pensions situation?

Not much. After oil prices fell few years ago Russia stopped to be such big magnet as before - one. And two - many of these people work outside of existing legal framework, so retirement fund gets substantially less money from them, then it must.

How does the retirement fund get any money at all from them?
(pardon me for all these questions...I don't intend to annoy you in any event. Russia is a truly fascinating country.)

Theoretically every working person pays a percentage of his/her salary in the fund (and employers pay too). But it's so in case of official employment. Naturally, in case, where "gray schemes" (at best) of employment and payment are used, fund gets little or nothing.

And I assume that if you are buddies with Putin and Co, then you can access the magic of those gray schemes. And vice versa.

You are correct. Generally. It doesn't require you to be "buddy of Putin" to have such access: it's more then enough to be "buddy" with, say, governor of your region (of course - appointed by Putin)

I guess that means that if you are a friend of, say, the Governor of a place like Tomsk (West Siberia being Russia's answer to the Permian Basin in TX/NM or NM Bakken Shale), then you can benefit from such scheme, which could mean a lot in regards to whether you make money if the going gets tough in the oil market.

Yes. And you could get the most profitable contracts in the area generally. Or, say, he (a governor) could get you a very profitable permission: may be not to export some oil through your company (as was the case even recently), but still something on that level of profitability. And, generally, all your requests to officials woild be considered speedily and in benevolent way. And ... a lot of other things

"well, you see Mr. Karpov, your bid to process this particular petroleum by-product goes against a request from a friend of mine, Mr. Korov. Mr. Korov will get the contract unless you give me enough monetary encouragement"

Not so directly, of course. but you got the gist)))))

yeah.
In regards to the money proceeds, how much is sucked up by corruption and how much goes to pacify would-be quasi-independent regions?

Of course - no official numbers, but i would estimate that at least a third of GDP is "sucked up" by corruption, and, may be, half of that - by "pacification" (especially - such troublesome regions as Chechnya). So, about half of GDP is effevtively lost.

[junior chįmp]

FF

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Russia is slowly moving in our direction anyway.

Is this intended as an anti American jab, because I don't see the direction that Russia is "slowly moving towards" as a particularly pleasant one...

Russia is slowly moving towards Western-style liberal democracy. That is what I meant. In the 1900 there was old-fashioned autocracy centered around a Czar. In 1950 there was retrofitted old-fashioned autocracy with bureaucrats and party apparatchiks replacing the Czars. Now we have more of a "guided quasi-democracy" in a dominant-party system. This trend is obviously not unstoppable, but it's clear for now at least.

Putin annexing Crimea is actually further proof of this trend - he saw enough need to cater to the public that he felt the need for some good ol' warmongering, and seized Crimea (a move overwhelmingly popular among the Russian public). He's not entirely opposed to democracy either - he just stops it in its tracks when he doesn't like the direction it's taking.

This is all very Whiggish, isn't it? The idea that history is one steady march towards progress is nice, but not one that really survives scrutiny. The same with Russia: there's just as much chance Russia will degenerate into an ultra isolated fascist state as a western liberal country.

I'm sorry, but my definition of being entirely opposed to democracy is immediately stopping the process when people disagree with you.

Same with Crimea: dictators always feel the need to make showy gestures to show IM STILL ON YOUR SIDE to the population, which doesn't mean they have democratic instincts, just that they know they need to survive in office.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Russia is slowly moving in our direction anyway.

Is this intended as an anti American jab, because I don't see the direction that Russia is "slowly moving towards" as a particularly pleasant one...

Russia is slowly moving towards Western-style liberal democracy. That is what I meant. In the 1900 there was old-fashioned autocracy centered around a Czar. In 1950 there was retrofitted old-fashioned autocracy with bureaucrats and party apparatchiks replacing the Czars. Now we have more of a "guided quasi-democracy" in a dominant-party system. This trend is obviously not unstoppable, but it's clear for now at least.

Putin annexing Crimea is actually further proof of this trend - he saw enough need to cater to the public that he felt the need for some good ol' warmongering, and seized Crimea (a move overwhelmingly popular among the Russian public). He's not entirely opposed to democracy either - he just stops it in its tracks when he doesn't like the direction it's taking.

This is all very Whiggish, isn't it? The idea that history is one steady march towards progress is nice, but not one that really survives scrutiny. The same with Russia: there's just as much chance Russia will degenerate into an ultra isolated fascist state as a western liberal country.

I'm sorry, but my definition of being entirely opposed to democracy is immediately stopping the process when people disagree with you.

Same with Crimea: dictators always feel the need to make showy gestures to show IM STILL ON YOUR SIDE to the population, which doesn't mean they have democratic instincts, just that they know they need to survive in office.

Progress is not an inevitable process, even as though it does exist more often than not. History is not a steady march towards progress. It's fits, starts, fits, starts, ad infinitum.

[smoltchanov]

Russia is slowly moving in our direction anyway.

Is this intended as an anti American jab, because I don't see the direction that Russia is "slowly moving towards" as a particularly pleasant one...

Russia is slowly moving towards Western-style liberal democracy. That is what I meant. In the 1900 there was old-fashioned autocracy centered around a Czar. In 1950 there was retrofitted old-fashioned autocracy with bureaucrats and party apparatchiks replacing the Czars. Now we have more of a "guided quasi-democracy" in a dominant-party system. This trend is obviously not unstoppable, but it's clear for now at least.

Putin annexing Crimea is actually further proof of this trend - he saw enough need to cater to the public that he felt the need for some good ol' warmongering, and seized Crimea (a move overwhelmingly popular among the Russian public). He's not entirely opposed to democracy either - he just stops it in its tracks when he doesn't like the direction it's taking.

This is all very Whiggish, isn't it? The idea that history is one steady march towards progress is nice, but not one that really survives scrutiny. The same with Russia: there's just as much chance Russia will degenerate into an ultra isolated fascist state as a western liberal country.

I'm sorry, but my definition of being entirely opposed to democracy is immediately stopping the process when people disagree with you.

Same with Crimea: dictators always feel the need to make showy gestures to show IM STILL ON YOUR SIDE to the population, which doesn't mean they have democratic instincts, just that they know they need to survive in office.

Idiocy, frankly speaking. The Russia will NOT degenerate  into an ultra isolated fascist state. At least - because it's heavily dependent (and will be in foreseable future) on oil and gas export, because of Internet, and because new generation of Russians is much more accustomed to contacts (regular) with the West. No chances of 1937-38 years. I could add thousands other reasons, but will repeat here: IDIOCY!. Which goes back to  Forrestal and his like. The last soccer championship showed quite conclusively, that fears (which are assiduosly cultivated by some in the West) are groundless. The only question i want to get answered: why this time it's so called "liberals and progressives", who spread such idiocy? Usually it were an unltraconservative anti-communists (that, at least, was more or less natural)

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Don't take me for some #Resistance idiot; I have a lot of sympathy for ordinary Russians that had their desires betrayed by Yeltsin, Putin and their various cronies. Unfortunately though, Russia is in a dangerous period: rapidly aging population in decline, heavy reliance on fossil fuels in an era where most major economies claim to be moving away from them, a huge Islamic minority that is particularly radical, poor economic fundamentals etc.

Notice also I said that Russia has just as much chance of becoming fascist as it does of becoming a "western liberal democracy", not that Russia is doomed towards such a fate. Indeed I hope Russia will find a way to prosper in the future, especially given that it has historically given so much to humanity in the form of great science, literature and music.

[smoltchanov]

Don't take me for some #Resistance idiot; I have a lot of sympathy for ordinary Russians that had their desires betrayed by Yeltsin, Putin and their various cronies. Unfortunately though, Russia is in a dangerous period: rapidly aging population in decline, heavy reliance on fossil fuels in an era where most major economies claim to be moving away from them, a huge Islamic minority that is particularly radical, poor economic fundamentals etc.

Notice also I said that Russia has just as much chance of becoming fascist as it does of becoming a "western liberal democracy", not that Russia is doomed towards such a fate. Indeed I hope Russia will find a way to prosper in the future, especially given that it has historically given so much to humanity in the form of great science, literature and music.

This time i agree with you. But not percentagewise. Despite dangers, which you described, being quite real. Russia WILL become a normal state (in western sense of the word), but it will take time. Considerable time. And yes - back turns will happen from time to time (though Yeltsin sympathized with the West, undoubtely, unlike Putin, who, as former KGB resident, is naturally skeptical of it), but my son, when he will be my present age (he is 16, while i - 61) will live in normal state. I, probably, will not see it, but it WILL happen.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Russia is slowly moving in our direction anyway.

Is this intended as an anti American jab, because I don't see the direction that Russia is "slowly moving towards" as a particularly pleasant one...

Russia is slowly moving towards Western-style liberal democracy. That is what I meant. In the 1900 there was old-fashioned autocracy centered around a Czar. In 1950 there was retrofitted old-fashioned autocracy with bureaucrats and party apparatchiks replacing the Czars. Now we have more of a "guided quasi-democracy" in a dominant-party system. This trend is obviously not unstoppable, but it's clear for now at least.

Putin annexing Crimea is actually further proof of this trend - he saw enough need to cater to the public that he felt the need for some good ol' warmongering, and seized Crimea (a move overwhelmingly popular among the Russian public). He's not entirely opposed to democracy either - he just stops it in its tracks when he doesn't like the direction it's taking.

Than Putin isnt pro democracy

[junior chįmp]

Russia is slowly moving in our direction anyway.

Is this intended as an anti American jab, because I don't see the direction that Russia is "slowly moving towards" as a particularly pleasant one...

Russia is slowly moving towards Western-style liberal democracy. That is what I meant. In the 1900 there was old-fashioned autocracy centered around a Czar. In 1950 there was retrofitted old-fashioned autocracy with bureaucrats and party apparatchiks replacing the Czars. Now we have more of a "guided quasi-democracy" in a dominant-party system. This trend is obviously not unstoppable, but it's clear for now at least.

Putin annexing Crimea is actually further proof of this trend - he saw enough need to cater to the public that he felt the need for some good ol' warmongering, and seized Crimea (a move overwhelmingly popular among the Russian public). He's not entirely opposed to democracy either - he just stops it in its tracks when he doesn't like the direction it's taking.

Than Putin isnt pro democracy

Neither is America as the Republican party makes it harder for people to vote

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Russia is slowly moving in our direction anyway.

Is this intended as an anti American jab, because I don't see the direction that Russia is "slowly moving towards" as a particularly pleasant one...

Russia is slowly moving towards Western-style liberal democracy. That is what I meant. In the 1900 there was old-fashioned autocracy centered around a Czar. In 1950 there was retrofitted old-fashioned autocracy with bureaucrats and party apparatchiks replacing the Czars. Now we have more of a "guided quasi-democracy" in a dominant-party system. This trend is obviously not unstoppable, but it's clear for now at least.

Putin annexing Crimea is actually further proof of this trend - he saw enough need to cater to the public that he felt the need for some good ol' warmongering, and seized Crimea (a move overwhelmingly popular among the Russian public). He's not entirely opposed to democracy either - he just stops it in its tracks when he doesn't like the direction it's taking.

Than Putin isnt pro democracy

Of course he's not pro-democracy, overall. He's just not entirely anti-democracy, unlike some of his predecessors.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Russia is slowly moving in our direction anyway.

Is this intended as an anti American jab, because I don't see the direction that Russia is "slowly moving towards" as a particularly pleasant one...

Russia is slowly moving towards Western-style liberal democracy. That is what I meant. In the 1900 there was old-fashioned autocracy centered around a Czar. In 1950 there was retrofitted old-fashioned autocracy with bureaucrats and party apparatchiks replacing the Czars. Now we have more of a "guided quasi-democracy" in a dominant-party system. This trend is obviously not unstoppable, but it's clear for now at least.

Putin annexing Crimea is actually further proof of this trend - he saw enough need to cater to the public that he felt the need for some good ol' warmongering, and seized Crimea (a move overwhelmingly popular among the Russian public). He's not entirely opposed to democracy either - he just stops it in its tracks when he doesn't like the direction it's taking.

Than Putin isnt pro democracy

Of course he's not pro-democracy, overall. He's just not entirely anti-democracy, unlike some of his predecessors.

That is true but its not that hard to be better than Soviet Era leaders(Who were horrible in every way)

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Russia is slowly moving in our direction anyway.

Is this intended as an anti American jab, because I don't see the direction that Russia is "slowly moving towards" as a particularly pleasant one...

Russia is slowly moving towards Western-style liberal democracy. That is what I meant. In the 1900 there was old-fashioned autocracy centered around a Czar. In 1950 there was retrofitted old-fashioned autocracy with bureaucrats and party apparatchiks replacing the Czars. Now we have more of a "guided quasi-democracy" in a dominant-party system. This trend is obviously not unstoppable, but it's clear for now at least.

Putin annexing Crimea is actually further proof of this trend - he saw enough need to cater to the public that he felt the need for some good ol' warmongering, and seized Crimea (a move overwhelmingly popular among the Russian public). He's not entirely opposed to democracy either - he just stops it in its tracks when he doesn't like the direction it's taking.

Than Putin isnt pro democracy

Of course he's not pro-democracy, overall. He's just not entirely anti-democracy, unlike some of his predecessors.

That is true but its not that hard to be better than Soviet Era leaders(Who were horrible in every way)

I would argue that both Yeltsin and Putin were both worse than Gorbachev, Khrushchev and even Lenin, although all were (or are in the case of Gorbs) bad people.

[smoltchanov]

Russia is slowly moving in our direction anyway.

Is this intended as an anti American jab, because I don't see the direction that Russia is "slowly moving towards" as a particularly pleasant one...

Russia is slowly moving towards Western-style liberal democracy. That is what I meant. In the 1900 there was old-fashioned autocracy centered around a Czar. In 1950 there was retrofitted old-fashioned autocracy with bureaucrats and party apparatchiks replacing the Czars. Now we have more of a "guided quasi-democracy" in a dominant-party system. This trend is obviously not unstoppable, but it's clear for now at least.

Putin annexing Crimea is actually further proof of this trend - he saw enough need to cater to the public that he felt the need for some good ol' warmongering, and seized Crimea (a move overwhelmingly popular among the Russian public). He's not entirely opposed to democracy either - he just stops it in its tracks when he doesn't like the direction it's taking.

Than Putin isnt pro democracy

Of course he's not pro-democracy, overall. He's just not entirely anti-democracy, unlike some of his predecessors.

That is true but its not that hard to be better than Soviet Era leaders(Who were horrible in every way)

I would argue that both Yeltsin and Putin were both worse than Gorbachev, Khrushchev and even Lenin, although all were (or are in the case of Gorbs) bad people.

No, Gorby was still an adherent of the Soviet Union "with a human face", but - with party leadeship undisputed, Khrushev was not only unpredictable, but - heavily involved in Stalin's repressions, and Lenin - genious political tactician, but - absolutely terrible and vile human. Believe me - i read a lot of his works in youth, they were obligatory part of ANY Soviet student educations)))

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Utter trash, and it's a disgrace that the Clinton administration bragged about their influence in getting him re-elected.

[smoltchanov]

Utter trash, and it's a disgrace that the Clinton administration bragged about their influence in getting him re-elected.

Your description better fits lots of your Presidents, BTW. And you still elected them.... In 2016 you had "trash" candidates from BOTH major parties)))). That doesn't prevent you from promoting your political system and process as "an example" for the whole world...