Russia is teh democratcy!1!

[Pekka]

ANd like that is the biggest problem with the brochure to begin with. This is creating an alternative reality and it builds its roots on nationalism. It's pretty clear and loud about it.

If someone believes these kids are 17-19 year olds, well what can I say. I'd like to hire them to organize my stuff, they seem to be prodigies. Or maybe they are followers, not the initiators.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Kasyanov was PM under Putin, and IIUC broke with him and is running for Pres. Will likely oppose the Putin backed candidate.

The brochure talks about how hes a traitor, who works for Russias foreign enemies.

If a pro-Bush group was calling Obama a traitor, would you be a tad concerned?

And note this is in Russia, where "traitors" not infrequently find themselves killed.

It's rather contradictory territory you're threading in here, with the American far right resorting to phrases like 'he hates America'...

I'm certainly not siding with Putin, but rather noting that Saras is little more than Serb's anti-Russian counterpart.

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by Pekka
Or maybe they are followers, not the initiators.

That's the point in "Jugendesque" groups.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Alexander I
Putinjugend. Good name for it.

"Down with the fascists!" they say.
Yeah.

Don't forget that German fascism was not only anti-communist, but also specifically suprematist againt Eastern Europeans. One can imagine that the term, in Russia, is more like a one-size-fits-all phrase coined to describe things that are contrary to Russian interests.

In that sense, they would be correct to remark that America is taking control of former Russian spheres of influence, though I wouldn't agree (obviously) with the ultranationalist slant behind.

[BeBMan]

"In the next year, there will be a new stage of development in the country - modernization."

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


It's rather contradictory territory you're threading in here, with the American far right resorting to phrases like 'he hates America'...

I'm certainly not siding with Putin, but rather noting that Saras is little more than Serb's anti-Russian counterpart.

I guess the question is whether these guys are as far out on the Russian spectrum as the far right in the US guys are. Not clear.

Of course enemies of Bush dont typically end up dead in mysterious circumstances, nor are billionaire press lords who are anti-Bush hounded out of the country. Whether it is reasonable to connect those facts with this, is debatable, I suppose.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris

In that sense, they would be correct to remark that America is taking control of former Russian spheres of influence, though I wouldn't agree (obviously) with the ultranationalist slant behind.

except of course the US does not control (former Soviet) Georgia. Or Poland, or the Czech Rep for that matter.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


I guess the question is whether these guys are as far out on the Russian spectrum as the far right in the US guys are. Not clear.

Of course enemies of Bush dont typically end up dead in mysterious circumstances, nor are billionaire press lords who are anti-Bush hounded out of the country. Whether it is reasonable to connect those facts with this, is debatable, I suppose.

What's so great about America is that you don't even need to shoot dissidents, because the media is already sufficiently pro-establishment. I don't think that America is incapable of commiting atrocities, though.

What happened after the fall of communism is that oligarchs truly made a fortune pilfering on the Soviet industry, and moved the capital away. Putin didn't solve corruption and probably never will, but at least he made a decent of job bringing that money back and somewhat concentrating corruption in a lesser number of hands. That may be why he's not seen as a 'traitor' by the Russian people. The sad truth is that a country used to authoritarianism needs authority...

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


except of course the US does not control (former Soviet) Georgia. Or Poland, or the Czech Rep for that matter.

Diplomatically, they're your *****es, and yes, they did go to Iraq. There's more to control than tanks.

[Kuciwalker]

What's so great about America is that you don't even need to shoot dissidents, because the media is already sufficiently pro-establishment.

Unlike the state-owned media in Russia?

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


Diplomatically, they're your *****es, and yes, they did go to Iraq. There's more to control than tanks.

The fact that they're leaning westwards now may also have to do with some experiences with their big eastern neighbour during the past, no?

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Oncle Boris

What's so great about America is that you don't even need to shoot dissidents

We dont, cause we let them speak their piece. Our media are diverse, and its hard to pick up a newspaper that doesnt have a criticism of Bush in it.

What happened after the fall of communism is that oligarchs truly made a fortune pilfering on the Soviet industry, and moved the capital away. Putin didn't solve corruption and probably never will, but at least he made a decent of job bringing that money back and somewhat concentrating corruption in a lesser number of hands.

He only went after billionaires who opposed him. Very effective.

That may be why he's not seen as a 'traitor' by the Russian people. The sad truth is that a country used to authoritarianism needs authority...

Good to know where you stand.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

What's so great about America is that you don't even need to shoot dissidents, because the media is already sufficiently pro-establishment.

Unlike the state-owned media in Russia?

Precisely. In a strange way, a regime that doesn't need violence to create consensus is more totalitarian than one which does.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


Diplomatically, they're your *****es, and yes, they did go to Iraq. There's more to control than tanks.

theyre close allies, which makes sense given their strategic position.

Confusing alliance, with control was the standard line for those equating NATO with the Warsaw Pact during the Cold War.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Precisely. In a strange way, a regime that doesn't need violence to create consensus is more totalitarian than one which does.

Check your def of totalitarianism.