Russian Politics Thread: Добро пожаловать!

[Sadist France]

I mean it doesn't help theres a civil war going on.

The most prosperous nations in the world are ones with free markets. Just look at places like Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, West Europe, USA, Israel, etc

Half of Ukraines issues stem from corruption and mismanagement from protectionist Conservatives who have no idea how to run economies, and the mix band of Communist nuts, Russian nationalists and Ortho fundamentalists roaming around the Ukrainian-Russian border. Civil Wars are not good for economics, however the sooner the shit is cleared and rightful Ukrainian land is reclaimed, the sooner the liberal reforms can be made and Ukraine can enjoy the relative prosperity and social freedoms West European nations have enjoyed.

The most prosperous nations in the World are ones with a great education system and an amazing H1B visa program. And I know this might be challenging for Poroshenko and his ilk to grasp, but a great education system requires paying quality salaries to teachers/professors. Furthermore, warfare in Donetsk and Lugansk does not prevent improvements in other areas of Ukraine. There was warfare in Chechnya, and other parts of Russia experienced phenomenal growth. But sure, blame the Russians for the failures of Kiev, and don't forget to blame the commies while you're at it.

Yea Ukrainians don't really like Poroshenko anymore. Nevertheless polls indicate they've become more pro-EU and pro-NATO at the same time.

Considering that they're chances in getting into either alliance are practically nil, I doubt the growth will last.

If he was going to commit ethnic cleansing why weren't undefended Ossetian villages emptied as Georgian forces moved into them? There is literally no reason for why defenseless Ossetian villagers would have been left alone and treated civilly if the their invaders' goal were ethnic cleansing. Civil treatment is the near opposite of ethnic cleansing.

Ethnic cleansing isn't something that people just commit because they simply don't like a certain peoples either, it require quite a lot of hatred, especially if said ethnic cleansing would throw away quite a deal of what had been accomplished beforehand. This was the case with Saakashvili, except his politics and previous actions were completely devoid of the required rabid anti-Ossetian ethnic nationalism as I showed in the other thread.

I'm not a complete Saakashvili apologist either. And although the puppet Kokoity government's refusal to cooperate whatsoever obviously helped nurture his militaristic policy, I know what he did was morally wrong.

Tskhinval(i) is about 2 kilometers from the Georgian border. There are no villages in between, and Saakashvili's assault was focused on Tskhinval(i). There's been plenty of destruction in the city, including that caused by Dana Howitzers and BM-21 Grads. Ethnic cleansing doesn't require a lot of hatred, it simply requires orders, discipline, and a few ruthless units. Saakashvili wanted South Ossetia to be restored to Georgia, no matter what the cost, and the cost was the ethnic cleansing of Tskhinval(i).

The fact is that Russia's war against Chechenya was a war between an aggressive large nation (Russia) and a relatively small by comparison nation (Chechenya). There was absolutely no threat of Chechenya overthrowing Russia or sucking up that much military force. On the other hand, the pro Russia rebels have the manpower especially with big Russia's backing to cause significant damage to the whole of Ukraine and potentially collapse the liberal government.

[Mugrul]

If he was going to commit ethnic cleansing why weren't undefended Ossetian villages emptied as Georgian forces moved into them? There is literally no reason for why defenseless Ossetian villagers would have been left alone and treated civilly if the their invaders' goal were ethnic cleansing. Civil treatment is the near opposite of ethnic cleansing.

Ethnic cleansing isn't something that people just commit because they simply don't like a certain peoples either, it require quite a lot of hatred, especially if said ethnic cleansing would throw away quite a deal of what had been accomplished beforehand. This was the case with Saakashvili, except his politics and previous actions were completely devoid of the required rabid anti-Ossetian ethnic nationalism as I showed in the other thread.

I'm not a complete Saakashvili apologist either. And although the puppet Kokoity government's refusal to cooperate whatsoever obviously helped nurture his militaristic policy, I know what he did was morally wrong.

Tskhinval(i) is about 2 kilometers from the Georgian border. There are no villages in between, and Saakashvili's assault was focused on Tskhinval(i). There's been plenty of destruction in the city, including that caused by Dana Howitzers and BM-21 Grads. Ethnic cleansing doesn't require a lot of hatred, it simply requires orders, discipline, and a few ruthless units. Saakashvili wanted South Ossetia to be restored to Georgia, no matter what the cost, and the cost was the ethnic cleansing of Tskhinval(i).

Actually Gudjabauri is in between Tskinvali and the border, Khetagurovo was also sort of in that area as well. But it still doesn't explain why he didn't have them cleansed.

So Saakashvili decided to throw away everything and shoot himself in the leg, that is try to cleanse South Ossetia. Despite the fact that a) he wasn't a crazy ethnic nationalist b) it would have been a stupid fucking move from a pragmatic perspective.

[Mugrul]

Basayev wasn't quite an enemy of the Russian state at that time. And his group wasn't as actively anti-Russian at that time either. And many Abkhaz as well took part in the ethnic cleansing and massacres. Of course the Georgian side kind of prompted the violence with Gamsakhurdia and etc, but what they received in return was by far not equivalent enough to brush away.

Ok? Never did I claim that Russian forces cleansed anyone. They get credit in fact for halting some of Kokoity's ethnic cleansing when they entered South Ossetia. The point is that it's pure hypocrisy to defend one area's right to self determination, and then subjugate another because your buddies want you to.

Yes, it is pure hypocrisy to do so. And guess what? I'm not doing that. I was against the First Chechen War. I supported the soldiers, not the war. I didn't support actions that resulted in removing Georgians from parts of Abkhazia in 1990s either. I think those actions were wrong. I called the governments under which said actions occurred, "drunken" and "traitorous" and that's not an endorsement. That said, my other point is that Basaev, AFAIK, was not involved with the Russian state. He was seeking spoils of war for his next conquest. Most Russians just wanted to go home, if it wasn't destroyed yet. And if Basaev was a Russian agent, and again, everything I've seen points to the contrary, but if he was - that's fucked up.

That's all fine but you've missed the point. I was referring to Kodori in reference to Russian hypocrisy. It's clear that you don't condone of Yeltsin, but why support Abkhazia's subjugation of the Kodori Gorge? Yes it's small and seemingly insignificant. But so are South Ossetia and North Kosovo and you clearly don't want those two to go ignored.

[Spiffier]

I'm amazed that people actually think that NSG is so crucial, that Putin would actually pay people to post here.

He's joking in response to my joke about the poster being paid by Soros to post here.

[Shofercia]

The most prosperous nations in the World are ones with a great education system and an amazing H1B visa program. And I know this might be challenging for Poroshenko and his ilk to grasp, but a great education system requires paying quality salaries to teachers/professors. Furthermore, warfare in Donetsk and Lugansk does not prevent improvements in other areas of Ukraine. There was warfare in Chechnya, and other parts of Russia experienced phenomenal growth. But sure, blame the Russians for the failures of Kiev, and don't forget to blame the commies while you're at it.




Considering that they're chances in getting into either alliance are practically nil, I doubt the growth will last.




Tskhinval(i) is about 2 kilometers from the Georgian border. There are no villages in between, and Saakashvili's assault was focused on Tskhinval(i). There's been plenty of destruction in the city, including that caused by Dana Howitzers and BM-21 Grads. Ethnic cleansing doesn't require a lot of hatred, it simply requires orders, discipline, and a few ruthless units. Saakashvili wanted South Ossetia to be restored to Georgia, no matter what the cost, and the cost was the ethnic cleansing of Tskhinval(i).

The fact is that Russia's war against Chechenya was a war between an aggressive large nation (Russia) and a relatively small by comparison nation (Chechenya). There was absolutely no threat of Chechenya overthrowing Russia or sucking up that much military force. On the other hand, the pro Russia rebels have the manpower especially with big Russia's backing to cause significant damage to the whole of Ukraine and potentially collapse the liberal government.

You do realize that the Second Chechen War started with Chechnya being taken over by IIPB, (ISIS of the 1990s,) attacking Dagestan, and actually committing ethnic cleansing in the region, as documented by British Historian Richard Sakwa, right? When you commit blatant ethnic cleansing on Russia's soil, Russia will, quite rightfully, try to wipe you out, irrespective of your size. You should read some of Sakwa's work on Dagestan.

[Shofercia]

Tskhinval(i) is about 2 kilometers from the Georgian border. There are no villages in between, and Saakashvili's assault was focused on Tskhinval(i). There's been plenty of destruction in the city, including that caused by Dana Howitzers and BM-21 Grads. Ethnic cleansing doesn't require a lot of hatred, it simply requires orders, discipline, and a few ruthless units. Saakashvili wanted South Ossetia to be restored to Georgia, no matter what the cost, and the cost was the ethnic cleansing of Tskhinval(i).

Actually Gudjabauri is in between Tskinvali and the border, Khetagurovo was also sort of in that area as well. But it still doesn't explain why he didn't have them cleansed.

So Saakashvili decided to throw away everything and shoot himself in the leg, that is try to cleanse South Ossetia. Despite the fact that a) he wasn't a crazy ethnic nationalist b) it would have been a stupid fucking move from a pragmatic perspective.

Sort of in the area... sort of doesn't count. As for Gudjabauri, Grads were fired there, and Grad holes were found in the village, or fairly close to it. Saakashvili promised that South Ossetia would be forcefully united with Georgia. That was his campaign promise. That's already very non pragmatic. And yes, it was a stupid move.

Yes, it is pure hypocrisy to do so. And guess what? I'm not doing that. I was against the First Chechen War. I supported the soldiers, not the war. I didn't support actions that resulted in removing Georgians from parts of Abkhazia in 1990s either. I think those actions were wrong. I called the governments under which said actions occurred, "drunken" and "traitorous" and that's not an endorsement. That said, my other point is that Basaev, AFAIK, was not involved with the Russian state. He was seeking spoils of war for his next conquest. Most Russians just wanted to go home, if it wasn't destroyed yet. And if Basaev was a Russian agent, and again, everything I've seen points to the contrary, but if he was - that's fucked up.

That's all fine but you've missed the point. I was referring to Kodori in reference to Russian hypocrisy. It's clear that you don't condone of Yeltsin, but why support Abkhazia's subjugation of the Kodori Gorge? Yes it's small and seemingly insignificant. But so are South Ossetia and North Kosovo and you clearly don't want those two to go ignored.

Did Abkhazia subjugate the civilians in the area? Yes, they forced the military out, but did they force the civilians to leave? The Red Cross clearly stated that wasn't the case.

[Johanistania]

you people take nationalism and politics too seriously imo tbqh

[Robert Bork]

I would definitely not be surprised if Shofercia was puppet-wanking through a proxy account.

[Allanea]

Why? Do you not think there are millions of people who believe the same things?

[Robert Bork]

Why? Do you not think there are millions of people who believe the same things?

I'm saying I wouldn't be surprised if it was true.

[Spiffier]

Why? Do you not think there are millions of people who believe the same things?

I'm saying I wouldn't be surprised if it was true.

You seriously underestimate online support for Putin.

[Robert Bork]

I'm saying I wouldn't be surprised if it was true.

You seriously underestimate online support for Putin.

The account in question is clearly intended to parody Western liberalism.

As for Putin, I'm not really impressed. He's a kleptomaniac who's masterfully strategized himself into a political black hole. He won't be around much longer.

[Sadist France]

Tbh I'm just looking forward to when the Putocracy collapses and 'any' of the non kremlin opposition parties take power.

..Well almost any of them. A Fash or Com party would be even worse

[Shofercia]

I would definitely not be surprised if Shofercia was puppet-wanking through a proxy account.

You seriously underestimate online support for Putin.

The account in question is clearly intended to parody Western liberalism
As for Putin, I'm not really impressed. He's a kleptomaniac who's masterfully strategized himself into a political black hole. He won't be around much longer.

Right, Russia's winning the War in Syria, successfully integrated Crimea, is playing a major role in the expanding SCO, and will have a growth economy in 2018, if not sooner.

Meanwhile Ukraine's economy and popular support are collapsing, the EU is beset by a refugee crisis, the US is either going to end up with Clinton or Trump, unless Sanders pulls out a miracle, and Clinton simply means someone like Trump in four years, possibly someone even worse, but sure, let's all imagine that it's Russia that's in trouble.

Oh, and one more thing: I don't need to parody Neoliberalism, I can outdebate Neoliberals cleanly. It's not hard, just ask them how Libya and Kosovo are doing, how many jobs were created outside of the technology sector, and how their education reforms are working.

[Shofercia]

Tbh I'm just looking forward to when the Putocracy collapses and 'any' of the non kremlin opposition parties take power.

..Well almost any of them. A Fash or Com party would be even worse

Too bad for you that most Russians aren't, and last time I checked, the Russians vote.

[Robert Bork]

I would definitely not be surprised if Shofercia was puppet-wanking through a proxy account.

The account in question is clearly intended to parody Western liberalism
As for Putin, I'm not really impressed. He's a kleptomaniac who's masterfully strategized himself into a political black hole. He won't be around much longer.

Right, Russia's winning the War in Syria, successfully integrated Crimea, is playing a major role in the expanding SCO, and will have a growth economy in 2018, if not sooner.

Meanwhile Ukraine's economy and popular support are collapsing, the EU is beset by a refugee crisis, the US is either going to end up with Clinton or Trump, unless Sanders pulls out a miracle, and Clinton simply means someone like Trump in four years, possibly someone even worse, but sure, let's all imagine that it's Russia that's in trouble.

Oh, and one more thing: I don't need to parody Neoliberalism, I can outdebate Neoliberals cleanly. It's not hard, just ask them how Libya and Kosovo are doing, how many jobs were created outside of the technology sector, and how their education reforms are working.

It's true that Russia's temporarily propped up the sick man of Syria. But just as the Russian operation was really designed to bomb both the rebels and ISIS, the American campaign that President Clinton is going to launch will be ostensibly targeted towards ISIS while bombing the shit out of Asaad's forces. Clinton has taught us that in her neoliberal language, "no fly zone" equals "bomb the shit out of the dictator I don't like". So we're definitely going to see a reversal of Russia's goals in Syria soon.

As for their economy, we'll have to see how it turns out, but Putin's quagmire is to fuel increasingly costly wars to promote his domestic popularity. I would question if Crimea has been fully integrated, but really, Putin has invested so much into that region, and it's really for nothing. It's most immediate benefit is his domestic popularity at a huge cost to himself abroad and economically. So he's got two million or whatever new people, some nice real estate (it's like twenty times the size of L.A.), but he really didn't need it.

[Robert Bork]

Tbh I'm just looking forward to when the Putocracy collapses and 'any' of the non kremlin opposition parties take power.

..Well almost any of them. A Fash or Com party would be even worse

Too bad for you that most Russians aren't, and last time I checked, the Russians vote.

Russians are taking the soma right now. When the Ford and fun is over, Putin's out.

[Sadist France]

Right, Russia's winning the War in Syria, successfully integrated Crimea, is playing a major role in the expanding SCO, and will have a growth economy in 2018, if not sooner.

Meanwhile Ukraine's economy and popular support are collapsing, the EU is beset by a refugee crisis, the US is either going to end up with Clinton or Trump, unless Sanders pulls out a miracle, and Clinton simply means someone like Trump in four years, possibly someone even worse, but sure, let's all imagine that it's Russia that's in trouble.

Oh, and one more thing: I don't need to parody Neoliberalism, I can outdebate Neoliberals cleanly. It's not hard, just ask them how Libya and Kosovo are doing, how many jobs were created outside of the technology sector, and how their education reforms are working.

It's true that Russia's temporarily propped up the sick man of Syria. But just as the Russian operation was really designed to bomb both the rebels and ISIS, the American campaign that President Clinton is going to launch will be ostensibly targeted towards ISIS while bombing the shit out of Asaad's forces. Clinton has taught us that in her neoliberal language, "no fly zone" equals "bomb the shit out of the dictator I don't like". So we're definitely going to see a reversal of Russia's goals in Syria soon.

As for their economy, we'll have to see how it turns out, but Putin's quagmire is to fuel increasingly costly wars to promote his domestic popularity. I would question if Crimea has been fully integrated, but really, Putin has invested so much into that region, and it's really for nothing. It's most immediate benefit is his domestic popularity at a huge cost to himself abroad and economically. So he's got two million or whatever new people, some nice real estate (it's like twenty times the size of L.A.), but he really didn't need it.

I must admit as much as I find Clinton questionable (Understatement), I do find her view on what constitutes as a fly zone inspiring

[Shofercia]

Right, Russia's winning the War in Syria, successfully integrated Crimea, is playing a major role in the expanding SCO, and will have a growth economy in 2018, if not sooner.

Meanwhile Ukraine's economy and popular support are collapsing, the EU is beset by a refugee crisis, the US is either going to end up with Clinton or Trump, unless Sanders pulls out a miracle, and Clinton simply means someone like Trump in four years, possibly someone even worse, but sure, let's all imagine that it's Russia that's in trouble.

Oh, and one more thing: I don't need to parody Neoliberalism, I can outdebate Neoliberals cleanly. It's not hard, just ask them how Libya and Kosovo are doing, how many jobs were created outside of the technology sector, and how their education reforms are working.

It's true that Russia's temporarily propped up the sick man of Syria. But just as the Russian operation was really designed to bomb both the rebels and ISIS, the American campaign that President Clinton is going to launch will be ostensibly targeted towards ISIS while bombing the shit out of Asaad's forces. Clinton has taught us that in her neoliberal language, "no fly zone" equals "bomb the shit out of the dictator I don't like". So we're definitely going to see a reversal of Russia's goals in Syria soon.

As for their economy, we'll have to see how it turns out, but Putin's quagmire is to fuel increasingly costly wars to promote his domestic popularity. I would question if Crimea has been fully integrated, but really, Putin has invested so much into that region, and it's really for nothing. It's most immediate benefit is his domestic popularity at a huge cost to himself abroad and economically. So he's got two million or whatever new people, some nice real estate (it's like twenty times the size of L.A.), but he really didn't need it.

Clinton getting Americans stuck in a Middle Eastern Quagmire? Obama dug a giant debt whole, so for every dollar Clinton wastes in the Middle East, (assuming that she's even elected,) Republicans will be working their asses off as calling her the Debtor in Chief, because face it, if another Clinton hits two terms, and another Trump loses twice, Republican Party is going to be gone. No, Clinton isn't going to bomb Syria. Nor will Trump. Nor will Sanders. Sure, we've all seen the Neoliberal language of "no fly zone" but that's also been a phenomenal waste of taxpayer money. Americans got nothing from Libya, except a bunch of dead American Citizens. Clinton's still facing fallout from Benghazi. And I doubt that American Taxpayers will be giddy to fund Neocon/Neolib anti-Putin Crusade in Syria. Especially after quagmires in Libya, Iraq, Kosovo, Afghanistan, yep that one's becoming more and more of a quagmire as well.

Not to mention that you seem to think that if Clinton intervenes Putin will back down. What if he doesn't? Or what if he backs down on Syria, but throws Russia's entire weight behind China in the South China Sea dispute? Or starts selling advanced weapons to Iran in direct violation of Obama's Treaty that Clinton backed? There are numerous things that Putin can do, so let me put this bluntly for you: she wouldn't. Speaking of Putin's quagmire fueling costly wars, really? Do you even know the cost of the Syrian Intervention? My guess is that you don't: http://www.fort-russ.com/2016/03/shocki ... ry-is.html

Russia spent $0.45 billion on Syria. Russia has a balance of $71 billion, if not more, in the reserve fund. That's just one fund. Those are the facts. The cost of Crimea? Since Crimea's successful reintegration, the cost is very little. Cost of Donetsk and Lugansk? It's right on Russia's border, so again, quite low. Cost of the Caucasus? Not much there either. Russia would have to fight for at least ten years with your so-called Putin's "Quagmire" to even hit half of the $70 bil+ budget. If that's a quagmire, where do I get one? As for Crimea, you still don't get it, do you? Oh well, that ain't my problem.

Too bad for you that most Russians aren't, and last time I checked, the Russians vote.

Russians are taking the soma right now. When the Ford and fun is over, Putin's out.

I'm going to file that under "just another opinion" unless you can actually get some facts backing that up.

I must admit as much as I find Clinton questionable (Understatement), I do find her view on what constitutes as a fly zone inspiring

Obama admitted that Libya was a mistake: http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/10/politics/ ... t-mistake/

"Obama's worst mistake of his presidency, it's damn inspiring stuff!"

[Spiffier]

Tbh I'm just looking forward to when the Putocracy collapses and 'any' of the non kremlin opposition parties take power.

..Well almost any of them. A Fash or Com party would be even worse

You do realize that the it is the current administration which broke the oligarch stranglehold on the country?

[Shofercia]

Tbh I'm just looking forward to when the Putocracy collapses and 'any' of the non kremlin opposition parties take power.

..Well almost any of them. A Fash or Com party would be even worse

You do realize that the it is the current administration which broke the oligarch stranglehold on the country?

I should note that the Neoliberal policies that a poster with the nick "Robert Bork" is suggesting for Syria, have been "wildly successful" in Germany; for instance, after said policies, 60% hate state that a religious minority does not belong in Germany, which would do "wonders" when replicated in Syria, but if, and only if Assad would be gone, because we all know that a single man causes all of a country's problems. Nothing promotes "Human Rights" quite like the ethnic cleansing of Tawargha, with the aid of Neoliberal "Human Rights" bombs.

[Allanea]

No, 60% of Germans do not 'hate' a religious minority.

60% of Germans managed to answer "Islam doesn't belong in Germany" in a biased poll by a right-wing tabloid.

[Shofercia]

No, 60% of Germans do not 'hate' a religious minority.

60% of Germans managed to answer "Islam doesn't belong in Germany" in a biased poll by a right-wing tabloid.

My mistake, I striked out the word "hate" and replaced it with "does not belong in Germany" and given NSG's other thread, I think it's clear what I am referring to.

[Panslavicland]

No, 60% of Germans do not 'hate' a religious minority.

60% of Germans managed to answer "Islam doesn't belong in Germany" in a biased poll by a right-wing tabloid.

Its no surprise that people are upset when their government is covering up rapes because they were committed by refugees.

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/russia-accuses-germany-covering-alleged-rape-13-year-old-girl-by-refugees-1540207

[Urmanian]

No, 60% of Germans do not 'hate' a religious minority.

60% of Germans managed to answer "Islam doesn't belong in Germany" in a biased poll by a right-wing tabloid.

Its no surprise that people are upset when their government is covering up rapes because they were committed by refugees.

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/russia-accuses-germany-covering-alleged-rape-13-year-old-girl-by-refugees-1540207

This was debunked.