"Russia will soon be a one party state"

[MarkG]

Originally posted by Arrian
For the record, yeah, pretty much. This excuses Putin how?

it doesnt. I'm just arguing that this is just politics and it happened, happens and will happen any time, anywhere, even in the "free world"....

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


They had a bit of help, actually.

They could have got much more help, actually. In 1880s, Russia was poised to liberate Constantinople. Yet the evil English and French threatened war, and the Russian offensive was haulted.

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Yes, we did actually, especially in combination with Yeltsin's shift from the liberals to the party of power, which presaged his appointment of Putin as his successor.

Alot of folks (Im thinking of you Strobe Talbott) were willing to look the other way, cause it WAS only 5 years since the fall of the USSR, and since things WERE so much better (democratically speaking) than under the USSR, and cause increasingly it looked like there werent better alternatives. Others were advocating distancing from Yeltsin.

Oh please... The 1996 presidential election in Russia was in many regards even less democratic than the present one. You didn't give a damn because the outcome suited you. Have the courage at least to partly recognize this sad fact.

[Arrian]

I'm just arguing that this is just politics and it happened, happens and will happen any time, anywhere, even in the "free world"....

Using a real or imagined external enemy for political purposes will happen all over, sure.

This thread, however, is a specific criticism of Putin's work to consolidate his power. That's not the same thing.

-Arrian

[Dinner]

In the great scheme of things it would have been cool to liberate Constantinople and return it to Greece.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by The Vagabond


Oh please... The 1996 presidential election in Russia was in many regards even less democratic than the present one. You didn't give a damn because the outcome suited you. Have the courage at least to partly recognize this sad fact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_post-Soviet_Russia#The_1996_presidential_election

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Oerdin
In the great scheme of things it would have been cool to liberate Constantinople and return it to Greece.

And to have Russia achieve domination of the Eastern Med, how cool would that have been, eh?

OTOH the OTL 20th cent was so f**ked up, couldnt have been much worse, huh?

[Wezil]

I'd say we need a "do over" but we'd probably screw it up worse second time round.

[Dinner]

Observers criticize vote as unfair after United Russia dominates opposition

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22061094/

The only party not part of the cult of Putin to get seats was the communist party. It is interesting that even the communist party is saying the voting was unfair and says it will challenge the results in court. Little good that will do them since Dear Leader completely controls the Russian court system.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


And to have Russia achieve domination of the Eastern Med, how cool would that have been, eh?

OTOH the OTL 20th cent was so f**ked up, couldnt have been much worse, huh?

Given how incompetent the Tsar's army was I really wonder why Britain and France were so afraid of Russia gaining control of the Bosporous.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...ntial_election

Not sure of the point being made by reference to that article.

The point I am making (and perhaps Vagabond) is that the west were more than happy for Yeltsin to behave undemocratically because he was their man.

From the Edward Herman article I linked to above :

The Russian election was badly compromised by Western intervention, some of it contrary to Russian law, all of it in violation of nominal Western principles of fairness. Western leaders gathered in Moscow during the campaign to proclaim their opposition to "terrorism" (in the midst of Yeltsin's terrorist attacks on Chechnya) and to give a boost to the "reformer." German president Helmut Kohl traveled to Moscow, as did U.S. Secretary of State Warren Christopher, for photo appearances with our man. The IMF made a $10.2 billion loan to Russia in the midst of the campaign, despite the fact that Russia was in violation of IMF loan conditions and was dispensing large sums of public money for election purposes. A trio of Republican advisers joined the Yeltsin election campaign, although such foreign participation in an election violates Russian law. U.S. ambassador Thomas Pickering urged candidate Grigory Yavlinsky to drop out of the election in order to help Yeltsin.

Going into that election Yeltsin had a measly 8% popularity rating. His western allies intervened on his behalf in an election that was at least as undemocratic as the present one that the west is expressing its disatisfaction with.

This strongly suggests that the problem with this election from the viewpoint of western leadership and media is not the process, but the orientation of the politics.

[VetLegion]

Yeltsin sold the country at below wholesale prices. He gave it away, practically. No wonder he had many friends

This strongly suggests that the problem with this election from the viewpoint of western leadership and media is not the process, but the orientation of the politics.

There's some truth in that.

[onodera]

Originally posted by The Vagabond They could have got much more help, actually. In 1880s, Russia was poised to liberate Constantinople. Yet the evil English and French threatened war, and the Russian offensive was haulted.

That's why the Brits are worse than the Americans. The latter only tried to take Murmansk and Vladivostok from us, while the former constantly meddled in our sphere of influence. I should write a post in the history forum about that.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by onodera

That's why the Brits are worse than the Americans. The latter only tried to take Murmansk and Vladivostok from us, while the former constantly meddled in our sphere of influence. I should write a post in the history forum about that.

The US had zero interest in maintaining control of those territories. It was typical anti communist intervention in a civil war. And much less enthusiastic than almost any of the later anti communist military interventions.

[Saras]

Originally posted by onodera

That's why the Brits are worse than the Americans. The latter only tried to take Murmansk and Vladivostok from us, while the former constantly meddled in our sphere of influence. I should write a post in the history forum about that.

I bet the brits felt the same way about Russia, since their sphere of influence was everything within 1000 miles of blue water .