Putin Forever: Russians Given Money As Vote That Could Extend Putin's Rule Draws To A Close

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

Plus killing his own people if they insist on voicing inappropriate opinions. 

Yup, there is that.  Putin dislikes you, and you get whacked with a spike umbrella tip in the shin, complete with plutonium poison, right smack on London Bridge.  Ghosts of the old KGB. 

For the life of me I cannot understand why anyone has any truck with this guy.  Lock him up. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites


On 7/2/2020 at 7:06 PM, Tomasz said:


I don't want to argue, I will just state a fact how western coverage and demonization of Putin looks like from Russian point of view

The West especially US Clinton administration could not boast of Yeltsin in 90s when the Russian people fell into total misery, the country was stolen by thieves and Western speculators in the style of Bill Browder and the average life expectancy fell by more than 5 years. But most important for the West was the fact that Russian foreign mintry Kozyriev was called MISTER YES and agree to everythng because he once said Russ doesnt how vital national interests outside Russian Federation. So he was called a perfect Democrat and best russian leader despite the fact russian GDP fall by 40 % during his presidency and he made a coup of etat in 1993 shelling Parliament.

Then come Putin, who disciplined  the oligarchs and prevent Russia from iminent collapsing. During his reign, men's life expectancy increased by 10 years and the earnings in dollars of population increased many times with fast growing economy.

But this is Putin not Yeltsin who according to western press is curse for Russia and Russian people.

From this it can be clearly seen that the West was not disturbed by the tragedy and misery  of the Russians in the 1990s and simply did not like the reborn assertive Russia even worse now in an alliance with China.

From this comes the conclusion not to worry about the opinion of the West, because West dont care about russian people and does not wish Russia well and dreams of a second Sober Yeltsin.

And by this common conclusion in Russia about western press and authorities you can close this thread and all articles blaming and demonizing Putin.

In pair with articles trying to prove Russia should not seek alliance with China but ask West for mercy.

So, you really think that Russia is a legitimate democracy and that Putin is a noble leader? The facts are that the Russian people know there is no hope of changing their system because of the iron fist in the velvet glove. Putin and his oligarchy are not in power in the interests of the people but in their own interests. Otherwise they would do more for their own people and less for themselves. 

Male life expectancy in Russia is 66.4 years. 

Females live to 77.2 

Rank of lifespan worldwide is 105

Income 70 rubles equals one dollar. 

110,000 rubles equals about $1,572 per month. Half of Russian workers earn more, half less.

Median and salary distribution monthly Russia


Edited by ronwagn
added reference

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites


20 hours ago, Tomasz said:
19 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

Russia today is a backwater country.  Its total GDP is less than that of Brasil.  On a per-capita basis, the per-capita GDP is lower than that of Portugal.  You could forget about Russia, except - it has this military hardware, and nuclear weapons, and that makes the place dangerous. 


There is so much sad truth to this statement. For a country that has excelled in many technical disciplines, physics, rocketry, medicinal peptides (one of the biggest, mostly unknown areas of expertise IMO) it's a shame Russia hasn't been able to produce marketable industries in these areas.

I order a nano-sized form of carbon from an outfit in St. Petersburg. Whenever I pick up a shipment from the UPS store they always give me strange looks when they see Cyrillic lettering on the package. Apparently even shippers who see packaging all the time are surprised to see packages from Russia.

Edited by Strangelovesurfing
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 7/3/2020 at 10:06 AM, Tomasz said:

The West especially US Clinton administration could not boast of Yeltsin in 90s when the Russian people fell into total misery, the country was stolen by thieves and Western speculators in the style of Bill Browder and the average life expectancy fell by more than 5 years. But most important for the West was the fact that Russian foreign mintry Kozyriev was called MISTER YES and agree to everythng because he once said Russ doesnt how vital national interests outside Russian Federation. So he was called a perfect Democrat and best russian leader despite the fact russian GDP fall by 40 % during his presidency and he made a coup of etat in 1993 shelling Parliament.


Just one more little interesting remark - Mr. YES Kozyriev was so good for US interests, that moved to Miami and lives there.

  • Like 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites


I suggest all our US users reading this piece russian blogger Anatoly Karlin



At the tail end of the Cold War, there was an incredible atmosphere of Americanophilia throughout the USSR, including amongst Russians.


Blue – approve of USA; orange – disapprove.

Around 75%-80% of Russians approved of the United States around 1990, versus <10% disapproval.

By modern standards, this would have put Russia into the top leagues of America fans, such as Poland, Israel, and the United Kingdom. It was also around 10%-15% points higher than contemporary US approval of Russia.

The blogger genby dug up a VCIOM poll from 1990 asking Russians – that is, Russians within the RSFSR, i.e. the territory of the modern day Russian Federation – what they thought about Americans.

The poll was redone in 2015, keeping the same questions, which allows a direct comparison between the two dates.

What in your opinion characterizes the United States? 1990 2015
High criminality and moral degradation 1 15
No warmth in people’s relations 1 15
High living standards 35 12
Large gap between rich and poor 5 11
Racial discrimination 1 9
Highly developed science and technology 15 7
Success depends on personal effort 20 7
Free society 13 5
Other . 6
Can’t say for sure 10 12

I would wager Russian opinions on America were more positive c.1990 than the opinions of the average American on his own country today!



Is US government friendly or hostile to Russia?1990 2015

Friendly 35 3
Not very friendly 40 32
Hostile 2 59
Can’t say 23 6

hese results speak for themselves and hardly need more commentary.

Nowadays, of course, things are rather different. Suffice to say the numbers of America fans have plummeted, while the percentage of Russians with actively negative views emerged essentially out of nowhere to constitute majority opinion. According to other polls, Russian approval of the US rarely breaks above 30%, and the sentiments are quite mutual. Just 1% (that’s one percent) of Russians approved of US leadership by 2016. Although there were hopes that this trend would turn around after Trump, which seemed plausible in early 2017 and indeed seemed to be happening, this was in the end not to be.

What I think is more significant is that nobody likes to talk about it now, because it reflects badly on pretty much everyone.

Russians would have to acknowledge that they were naive idiots who threw away an empire centuries in the making to end up within the borders of old Muscovy in exchange for… jeans and “common human values.” These figures testify to the complete and utter failure of Soviet propaganda, which spent decades spinning tales about American criminality, unemployment, and lynched Negroes only to end up with a society with some of the most Americanophile sentiments in the entire world. It also makes it much harder to scapegoat Gorbachev, or the mythical saboteurs and CIA agents in power that feature prominently in sovok conspiracy theories, for unraveling the Soviet Union, when ordinary Soviets themselves considered America the next best thing since Lenin and the US government to be their friend.

For their part, Americans would have to acknowledge that Russians do not have a kneejerk hatred of America, and that the “loss of Russia” was largely of their own doing. The arrogant refusal to take into account Russian interests after the Cold War, instead bombing their allies, expanding NATO to Russian borders in contravention of verbal commitments made to the USSR, and for all intents and purposes treating it as a defeated Power, may have made sense when it seemed that the US would be the world’s dominant hyperpower for the foreseeable future and Russia was doomed to die anyway – as was conventional wisdom by the late 1990s. And from a purely Realpolitik perspective, the results have hardly been catastrophic; the US gained a geopolitical foothold in Eastern Europe, tied up further European integration into an Atlantic framework, and closed off the possibility of the “Europe from Lisbon to Vladivostok” envisaged by Charles de Gaulle. On the other hand, in a world where China is fast becoming a peer competitor – with the implicit backing of a resentful Russia – this may, in retrospect, not have been the best long-term play.






His voice is a bit frail now, but the mind, even at age 94, is as sharp as ever. So when I reached George Kennan by phone to get his reaction to the Senate's ratification of NATO expansion it was no surprise to find that the man who was the architect of America's successful containment of the Soviet Union and one of the great American statesmen of the 20th century was ready with an answer.

''I think it is the beginning of a new cold war,'' said Mr. Kennan from his Princeton home. ''I think the Russians will gradually react quite adversely and it will affect their policies. I think it is a tragic mistake. There was no reason for this whatsoever. No one was threatening anybody else. This expansion would make the Founding Fathers of this country turn over in their graves. We have signed up to protect a whole series of countries, even though we have neither the resources nor the intention to do so in any serious way. [NATO expansion] was simply a light-hearted action by a Senate that has no real interest in foreign affairs.''

''What bothers me is how superficial and ill informed the whole Senate debate was,'' added Mr. Kennan, who was present at the creation of NATO and whose anonymous 1947 article in the journal Foreign Affairs, signed ''X,'' defined America's cold-war containment policy for 40 years. ''I was particularly bothered by the references to Russia as a country dying to attack Western Europe. Don't people understand? Our differences in the cold war were with the Soviet Communist regime. And now we are turning our backs on the very people who mounted the greatest bloodless revolution in history to remove that Soviet regime.

''And Russia's democracy is as far advanced, if not farther, as any of these countries we've just signed up to defend from Russia,'' said Mr. Kennan, who joined the State Department in 1926 and was U.S. Ambassador to Moscow in 1952. ''It shows so little understanding of Russian history and Soviet history. Of course there is going to be a bad reaction from Russia, and then [the NATO expanders] will say that we always told you that is how the Russians are -- but this is just wrong.''

One only wonders what future historians will say. If we are lucky they will say that NATO expansion to Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic simply didn't matter, because the vacuum it was supposed to fill had already been filled, only the Clinton team couldn't see it. They will say that the forces of globalization integrating Europe, coupled with the new arms control agreements, proved to be so powerful that Russia, despite NATO expansion, moved ahead with democratization and Westernization, and was gradually drawn into a loosely unified Europe. If we are unlucky they will say, as Mr. Kennan predicts, that NATO expansion set up a situation in which NATO now has to either expand all the way to Russia's border, triggering a new cold war, or stop expanding after these three new countries and create a new dividing line through Europe.

But there is one thing future historians will surely remark upon, and that is the utter poverty of imagination that characterized U.S. foreign policy in the late 1990's. They will note that one of the seminal events of this century took place between 1989 and 1992 -- the collapse of the Soviet Empire, which had the capability, imperial intentions and ideology to truly threaten the entire free world. Thanks to Western resolve and the courage of Russian democrats, that Soviet Empire collapsed without a shot, spawning a democratic Russia, setting free the former Soviet republics and leading to unprecedented arms control agreements with the U.S.

And what was America's response? It was to expand the NATO cold-war alliance against Russia and bring it closer to Russia's borders.

Yes, tell your children, and your children's children, that you lived in the age of Bill Clinton and William Cohen, the age of Madeleine Albright and Sandy Berger, the age of Trent Lott and Joe Lieberman, and you too were present at the creation of the post-cold-war order, when these foreign policy Titans put their heads together and produced . . . a mouse.

We are in the age of midgets. The only good news is that we got here in one piece because there was another age -- one of great statesmen who had both imagination and courage.

As he said goodbye to me on the phone, Mr. Kennan added just one more thing: ''This has been my life, and it pains me to see it so screwed up in the end.''

Edited by Tomasz

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites


I recommend to all those who say that Putin introduced authoritarianism in Russia and Yeltsin was, of course, a sincere democrat.

A 1993 article about the Yeltsin coup and bombing of parliament with the full support of President Clinton.

Until 2020, as part of the presidential system that was then established, Putin ruled and changed the constitutions only after 20 years of rulling.

A Democratic Russia Goes Up in Smoke : Yeltsin the dictator snuffs out Parliament with U.S. approval; why is the West cheering? By ALEXANDER COCKBURN OCT. 5, 1993


The analogy to the events in Moscow is the Reichstag fire. In 1933, Adolf Hitler was a newly installed chancellor facing the prospect of an opposition Parliament. As the election drew near, an arsonist set fire to the Reichstag, the parliamentary building. Hitler then seized dictatorial powers, pleading as an excuse the threat to “democratic rule.”

Sunday’s foolish demonstration by the Russian Parliament presented Boris N. Yeltsin with the opportunity he had been waiting for. As his tanks and elite guards opened fire on the Parliament building--the Russian White House--the West roared its support for the would-be dictator. In 1933, the West supported Hitler, too.

But if Alexander V. Rutskoi and Rhuslan I. Khasbulatov, respectively vice president and parliamentary Speaker, were suicidally foolish in their sponsorship of Sunday’s face-off against Yeltsin’s military, Yeltsin was already guilty of the far greater crime of destroying Russian political reform.

The Russian Congress dissolved by Yeltsin on Sept. 21 had authentic democratic credentials. The deputies elected to it in March, 1990, had faced the voters under conditions far from the one-party rituals of the past. It was this same Congress of People’s Deputies that awarded Yeltsin his own political ascendancy and his executive post. Khasbulatov and Rutskoi stood shoulder to shoulder with Yeltsin on the balcony of the Russian White House to denounce the attempted putsch of 1991. It was this Congress that brought not only the executive presidency into being, but also the Constitutional Court, modeled on the U.S. Supreme Court.

So on Sept. 21, amid rising public resentment at his leadership, Yeltsin undertook the equivalent of suspending the Congress, the court and the constitution.

He did all this amid the cheers of the political leaders of the United States and other Western powers. Yeltsin sought and won Washington’s support for the final bloody assault, in which tanks set fire to a Parliament filled with civilians. The would-be putschists of 1991 never did that. If Clinton had been honest--if he had said, “My fellow Americans, democracy has nothing to do with it. This is about security for Western investments. My friends at the International Monetary Fund and the banks tell me Boris is their man, so we must stand with him"--one could at least have acknowledged the realism even while deploring the sentiment.

Economically, Russia remains stricken, plunged ever deeper into ruin by Yeltsin’s team, coached by the same gang of international advisers whose failures in Poland recently prompted that nation’s voters to give their biggest cheer to the former Communist Party.

Yeltsin dissolved Parliament on Sept. 21 because he was at the end of his tether. The breathing space and popular license of approval he had won with his victory in April’s referendum had been squandered.

The Yeltsin-controlled news shows and the parrot media in the West portrayed Parliament as nothing but a cabal of old hacks trying to turn the clock back.

There were hacks in the Russian White House, but there are hacks in every congressional chamber. That’s not normally taken as just cause to suspend the constitution. The Russian White House also had its idealists who took their responsibilities with the utmost seriousness.

The Yeltsin coup of Sept. 21, Rutskoi and Khasbulatov’s stupid countermove on Sunday, and now Yeltsin’s tanks have most likely closed the book on the democratic period in Russia that began in 1985 and peaked in 1990 and 1991.

There may be a new congress vested under a new constitution, but it will have far weaker countervailing powers against the boss in the Kremlin. The Constitutional Court will also have its powers drastically curtailed--if it survives at all.

Yeltsin is one of those politicians whose creativity is entirely destructive in nature. As a builder and policy-maker he has been a disaster. But time and again, he buys a new lease on life by forcing confrontation, as on Sept. 21, or by seizing opportunity presented by his enemies, as with the attempted coup of 1991 and Sunday’s folly by the parliamentary leadership. Then, at the moment of victory, his creativity expires.

At least there is symmetry. The West’s leaders greeted the onset of reform in Russia in the mid-1980s by saying it was a fraud. Now, by contrast, as dusk settles on the era of reform, as Yeltsin shuts down newspapers and bans political parties, they hail the gathering darkness as though it were the dawn.



Edited by Tomasz

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.