NationStates

Shanghai industrial complex wrote:Well,I think it's a traditional Russian politics performance.Every famous Russian emperor and Soviet leader had a power struggle or coup.

Russian leadership succession is much like a pack of dogs fighting under the carpet. You don’t know which one will be win but it’ll always only be one with blood on its paws(?).

San Lumen wrote:

Exalted Inquellian State wrote:The communist party still exists, and I'm pretty sure they have a governor. Russian SFSR 2: Electric Boogaloo? Or the military might make a junta/

Russia is a one party state at this point. The opposition have very little chance of winning a national election.

You conflate a Government's monopoly of power in a state where there is no political opposition, with a Government whose dominance over other political opposition is secured by its immense and sustained popularity.

State of Turelisa wrote:

San Lumen wrote:Russia is a one party state at this point. The opposition have very little chance of winning a national election.

You conflate a Government's monopoly of power in a state where there is no political opposition, with a Government whose dominance over other political opposition is secured by its immense and sustained popularity.

I agree with you fully.

I respect Putin's allegiance to his church and his service to God. There are Orthodox churches widely available in Russia. For all of his faults, he is certainly a man of faith.

San Lumen wrote:

Kowani wrote:I fully expect to see this thread in 2036,if Putin hasn't died of old age.

There is going to a massive power struggle when he steps down and when he finally kicks the bucket. There is no heir apparent as he has destroyed all opposition.

There are intelligence officials and military officials to succeed him.

reminder that if the U.S. actually disliked Putin he would be dead by now

Ok

Sundiata wrote:I respect Putin's allegiance to his church and his service to God. There are Orthodox churches widely available in Russia. For all of his faults, he is certainly a man of faith.

Do you know how many people he has had murdered

wide putin will lead on

Britannia Maior wrote:The weaker Russia is the better it is for what I believe to be our national interests.

Margaret Thatcher would have disagreed.

British and Russian interests stopped colliding after the Brits abandoned the Back of the Beyond and the old empire. The only residual tensions are because of Britain's role as a NATO base.

Kargintina the Third wrote:

Sundiata wrote:I respect Putin's allegiance to his church and his service to God. There are Orthodox churches widely available in Russia. For all of his faults, he is certainly a man of faith.

Do you know how many people he has had murdered

I absolutely do not condone all of his actions.

Jack Thomas Lang wrote:

Britannia Maior wrote:The weaker Russia is the better it is for what I believe to be our national interests.

Margaret Thatcher would have disagreed.

British and Russian interests stopped colliding after the Brits abandoned the Back of the Beyond and the old empire. The only residual tensions are because of Britain's role as a NATO base.

In my opinion it would be better if we moved towards reasserting ourselves as a great power, and I personally despise any and all forms of Russian expansion or irredentism so I want us to be re-empowered at Moscow’s expense. Its human rights abuses, interference in European elections and self-centred culture are also things I condemn. Hopefully something comes up that sends Moscow into a downwards spiral so that we might have the chance to start kicking the bear in the teeth once it’s down.

Sundiata wrote:I respect Putin's allegiance to his church and his service to God. There are Orthodox churches widely available in Russia. For all of his faults, he is certainly a man of faith.

Putin's only faith is in power. The whole Orthodox mumbo-jumbo is just part of the new imperial narrative after Soviet ideology ran itself into the ground.

Sundiata wrote:I respect Putin's allegiance to his church and his service to God. There are Orthodox churches widely available in Russia. For all of his faults, he is certainly a man of faith.

Organised religion is a relatively easy thing to please and use to your advantage. If he was a true man of faith he wouldn’t be such a shadowy prick. It’s just an excuse to get more power/legitimacy from clerical backing.

Britannia Maior wrote:In my opinion it would be better if we moved towards reasserting ourselves as a great power, and I personally despise any and all forms of Russian expansion or irredentism so I want us to be re-empowered at Moscow’s expense. Its human rights abuses, interference in European elections and self-centred culture are also things I condemn. Hopefully something comes up that sends Moscow into a downwards spiral so that we might have the chance to start kicking the bear in the teeth once it’s down.

I'm not quite sure how Britain can be re-empowered at Russia's expense beyond becoming more rabidly pro-NATO, and by extension pro-US. Being the loyal wingman to the American Empire is really the only way Britain clashes with Russia. I think that's what made the whole Skripal debacle so standout. A case of direct conflict that wasn't at the behest of Washington.

Sundiata wrote:

San Lumen wrote:There is going to a massive power struggle when he steps down and when he finally kicks the bucket. There is no heir apparent as he has destroyed all opposition.

There are intelligence officials and military officials to succeed him.

Yes, you see, succession between those sorts aren't always peaceful affairs, compared to democratic succession.

Jack Thomas Lang wrote:

Britannia Maior wrote:In my opinion it would be better if we moved towards reasserting ourselves as a great power, and I personally despise any and all forms of Russian expansion or irredentism so I want us to be re-empowered at Moscow’s expense. Its human rights abuses, interference in European elections and self-centred culture are also things I condemn. Hopefully something comes up that sends Moscow into a downwards spiral so that we might have the chance to start kicking the bear in the teeth once it’s down.

I'm not quite sure how Britain can be re-empowered at Russia's expense beyond becoming more rabidly pro-NATO, and by extension pro-US. Being the loyal wingman to the American Empire is really the only way Britain clashes with Russia. I think that's what made the whole Skripal debacle so standout. A case of direct conflict that wasn't at the behest of Washington.

True. I get what you mean. It makes sense for us - an island nation - to secure ties with the largest and most powerful Eastern European power in order to cover where we lack the ability to deal with ourselves. The good relations with Russia in WWI was overall good for us, perhaps, but I personally do not appeal to the idea of letting Russia once more hold hegemony over the now-free nations of the Baltic, Ukraine, Poland and Finland among others. I’m staunchly opposed to Russian interests because I fear for the security and safety of those cultures Moscow has consistently oppressed.

I’m no fan of Washington either, mind you, I don’t like its cultural and economic influence it has over us among other things. But I want a Europe and C. Asia free from Russian rule more than many geopolitical outcomes.

Britannia Maior wrote:True. I get what you mean. It makes sense for us - an island nation - to secure ties with the largest and most powerful Eastern European power in order to cover where we lack the ability to deal with ourselves. The good relations with Russia in WWI was overall good for us, perhaps, but I personally do not appeal to the idea of letting Russia once more hold hegemony over the now-free nations of the Baltic, Ukraine, Poland and Finland among others. I’m staunchly opposed to Russian interests because I fear for the security and safety of those cultures Moscow has consistently oppressed.

I’m no fan of Washington either, mind you, I don’t like its cultural and economic influence it has over us among other things. But I want a Europe and C. Asia free from Russian rule more than many geopolitical outcomes.

The argument for the protection of the sovereignty of the Baltic states, Ukraine, Poland and Finland is one that makes more sense than British national interest, and one I can sympathise with. While I firmly believe Crimea is Russian (it is in every way but legal), I do think that Ukraine, Poland, etc have the right to pursue their own path as a nation. That being said, worry over Russian influence is a mixed bag of legitimate concerns and hyperbolic nationalist-driven hysteria.

Kargintina the Third wrote:

Sundiata wrote:I respect Putin's allegiance to his church and his service to God. There are Orthodox churches widely available in Russia. For all of his faults, he is certainly a man of faith.

Do you know how many people he has had murdered

I dont think anyone really knows because Putin always has their deaths recorded as "fell out a window, possible suicide."

Britannia Maior wrote:

Jack Thomas Lang wrote:I'm not quite sure how Britain can be re-empowered at Russia's expense beyond becoming more rabidly pro-NATO, and by extension pro-US. Being the loyal wingman to the American Empire is really the only way Britain clashes with Russia. I think that's what made the whole Skripal debacle so standout. A case of direct conflict that wasn't at the behest of Washington.

True. I get what you mean. It makes sense for us - an island nation - to secure ties with the largest and most powerful Eastern European power in order to cover where we lack the ability to deal with ourselves. The good relations with Russia in WWI was overall good for us, perhaps, but I personally do not appeal to the idea of letting Russia once more hold hegemony over the now-free nations of the Baltic, Ukraine, Poland and Finland among others. I’m staunchly opposed to Russian interests because I fear for the security and safety of those cultures Moscow has consistently oppressed.

I’m no fan of Washington either, mind you, I don’t like its cultural and economic influence it has over us among other things. But I want a Europe and C. Asia free from Russian rule more than many geopolitical outcomes.

The only times Britain had good relations with Russia was whenever another continental power was becoming too strong and they had to team up to bring them down.

Aside from that, Britain is probably the most demonized and obsessively hated Western European country in Russian political circles. I think Dugin has whole chapters in his work dedicated to explaining how "Anglo-Saxon liberalism" is everything that Russia is not.

Rojava Free State wrote:

Kargintina the Third wrote:Do you know how many people he has had murdered

I dont think anyone really knows because Putin always has their deaths recorded as "fell out a window, possible suicide."

"Regime critic shot in the back of the head, twice. Obvious mugging gone wrong."

Beautiful.

Baltenstein wrote:

Sundiata wrote:I respect Putin's allegiance to his church and his service to God. There are Orthodox churches widely available in Russia. For all of his faults, he is certainly a man of faith.

Putin's only faith is in power. The whole Orthodox mumbo-jumbo is just part of the new imperial narrative after Soviet ideology ran itself into the ground.

The soviets saw "Religion is the opium of the people" as a warning. Putin saw it as an opportunity.

Rusozak wrote:

Baltenstein wrote:
Putin's only faith is in power. The whole Orthodox mumbo-jumbo is just part of the new imperial narrative after Soviet ideology ran itself into the ground.

The soviets saw "Religion is the opium of the people" as a warning. Putin saw it as an opportunity.

In the long-run, Putin is far better for Russia than Stalin or Lenin before him because of his connections to the church. For a people to thrive with long-term stability they need a culture that's deeply entwined with the sacred. A secular society isn't built to last. Unfortunately, Putin's Russia is too liberal in many ways: abortion, divorce, contraception.

They'd certainly have more soldiers to expand their territory if they abandoned these holdovers from the soviet era.

Sundiata wrote:

Rusozak wrote:
The soviets saw "Religion is the opium of the people" as a warning. Putin saw it as an opportunity.

In the long-run, Putin is far better for Russia than Stalin or Lenin before him because of his connections to the church. For a people to thrive with long-term stability they need a culture that's deeply entwined with the sacred. A secular society isn't built to last. Unfortunately, Putin's Russia is too liberal in many ways: abortion, divorce, contraception.

They'd certainly have more soldiers to expand their territory if they abandoned these holdovers from the soviet era.

This seems to be an awfully narrow and erroneous qualification. Historically, combining religion with politics has never worked out well. It usually results in persecution or genocide. At either rate, religion is Putin's tool. Just as the Soviets used the pursuit of a communist utopia to entice the proletariat into subservience, Putin uses religion to entice the devout of Russia to secure his power and further his goals. If you're wondering if the ex-KGB murdering dictator notorious for not so subtle assassinations of political dissidents is sincerely concerned with bringing the country closer to god, I would have to say no.