EPTThanks for the write up.
European Politico-economics QA Mega-thread - Page 737
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. | ||
|
RvB
Netherlands6189 Posts
Thanks for the write up. | ||
|
opisska
Poland8852 Posts
I can understand that cold war rhetoric is still rampant is Russia, but is it really "most Russians"? Or if it still is, how large is the majority? I just can't believe that there aren't people who don't see through this antagonizing bullshit of "Russian vs. American interests". There is definitely a conflict of the interest of Putin+ruling oligarchy and of the West in general, but that is not the same as the interest of Russian people as a whole. Getting their country properly influenced by "american shills" could be by far the best thing that could happen to Russians. | ||
|
TheDwf
France19747 Posts
On March 30 2017 01:45 RvB wrote: Where's the info about my Trotskyist hero Poutou? Business as usual.  | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
If I had to put a number on it, I'd say it's probably in the 70-80% range of people who see it as a non-starter to have direct ties to the US. Not all of those are necessarily pro-Putin (pro-Putin Russians are probably in the 55-65% range). But being US-educated in Russia is like being Russia-educated in (insert obtusely anti-Russian CEE nation here). My numbers are ballpark estimates; not only are they always in flux but I'm not really in the mood to dig for numbers for a very vague question. They are pretty consistent with actual voting in most elections. No comment on any of the subtle "fuck Russia" matters because that simply isn't relevant to the question of how Navalny is viewed, nor is it an interesting discussion. You self-identify as rabidly anti-Russian and that's all that needs to be said there. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain17821 Posts
On March 30 2017 01:42 LegalLord wrote: I found a pretty nice article on Navalny from Deutsche Welle from 2013 that is rather level-headed that might do some good in explaining both why he gets so much love from Western/Western-leaning media yet why I (and the majority of Russians) don't view him positively. Source I don't know how most of you would feel if a candidate for president from your own country studied in an incubator in the US for "future political leaders." But let me put it this way: how exactly do you think people would react if a candidate for (chief executive of your nation, US-president-equivalent) went to a four-month program in Moscow for training future leaders to promote pro-Russian values (for lack of a better term; "promoting democracy" is the US equivalent). Modern Russia mind you, not just ex-Soviets who would have naturally went to school in Russia if they wanted to go to the best schools. Given how much people lose their shit over Le Pen merely visiting Putin, I cannot imagine that the "Russia trained candidate" would be seen quite well in 95% of European countries. And that's how most Russians see Navalny. Sure, he has a base of support that isn't trivial, and he certainly should have the right to run his mouth and levy accusations against the PM (though his video reminds me of Alex Jones or Loose Change, honestly). And of course raising attention about corruption is an incentive to push for change. But perhaps this all should be some indication of why I don't really care much for him, whereas at the same time Western media loves him thoroughly. I can appreciate that the majority of Russians are stuck in a cold-war attitude where everything American is bad. and I can definitely see how attack ads (or rather, the Putin channels/newspapers) would fan those flames. But lets face it, a Yale education is a pretty good education, and probably better than anything on offer in the Russia nowadays. So unless it turned him into a brainwashed drone of the US Corporate Elite, I wouldn't really hold a good education against a politician. Although I'm sure that in a perverse act of flipping the tables, one could bring out the Little Octobrists as an example of how much better it works to brainwash future members of society when they are young and gullible than wait until they start thinking on their own In that sense, you're right: Navalny studying in Yale is indeed exactly the same as Le Pen shmoozing with Putin. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18818 Posts
It's nice that Opisska has the forbearance to say the things that many of us are thinking  | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On March 30 2017 02:33 farvacola wrote: LegalLord sometimes self-identifies as rabidly pro-Russian and yet here he is, saying far more than "all that needs to be said..." It's nice that Opisska has the forbearance to say the things that many of us are thinking If you have any desire to participate in any discussion rather than sitting on the sidelines and being a side-troll who adds nothing but a "me too" one-liner, feel free. Otherwise you will appreciate that you aren't worth taking seriously in the slightest. On March 30 2017 02:32 Acrofales wrote: I can appreciate that the majority of Russians are stuck in a cold-war attitude where everything American is bad. and I can definitely see how attack ads (or rather, the Putin channels/newspapers) would fan those flames. But lets face it, a Yale education is a pretty good education, and probably better than anything on offer in the Russia nowadays. So unless it turned him into a brainwashed drone of the US Corporate Elite, I wouldn't really hold a good education against a politician. There was a time when most Russians wanted to put aside the past and seek better ties with the US. That was the 1990s. Yeltsin was a Western darling. The one event that probably started the path towards a potentially irreversible post-Cold-War decline in relations was the Yugoslavian intervention(s) - a pretty blatant politically motivated act at a moment in time when Russia didn't really have the ability to respond. Even Yeltsin, the shill that he was, managed to eke out a word of protest at the time. And while it is theoretically possible to put that in the past and move on, it would be interesting to see how many Westerners are even aware enough of the issues to acknowledge that that was the turning point of post-Cold-War relations. If at least 10 percent could identify that as the major event I would be pleasantly surprised. Putin isn't particularly anti-American. On that issue he is a pragmatist. There are more idealist mainstream politicians, like Medvedev, who do hope that a genuine thaw in relations is possible. Over the past decade it's become pretty clear that that is not possible right now. Hell, even he seems to have walked it back since the failures of the "Russia reset" during his own presidency. The turn against the US under Putin was just a realization that that was very clearly in the best interest of Russian policy. A Yale degree in, say, law, is different from a Yale incubator in "spreading democracy for future leaders" and you know it. Would it be a problem for you if your country's president-equivalent (choose which country you identify as "your country" as you wish) received a similar honor from Moscow State University? Highly prestigious and great school, many leading Russian politicians were educated there. No problem, right? | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain17821 Posts
Of course, the little bit I know of Navalny doesn't lead me to believe he would be better (for anybody) than Putin, and may very well be worse. He seems to use the same demagoguery and nationalistic overtones. I tried to search for his own words on why he studied at Yale, but couldn't find anything. I don't speak Russian, so could only search in English. You seem to come from a starting point that democratic principles are bad for Russia. Or something. Because honestly, I'd rather have my leader study "democracy" at Yale than law. In fact, Yale having a program to educate foreign leaders is fucking genius: all those African dictators were sending their entire famillies to Cambridge, Oxford, Harvard and Yale anyway. Might as well ensure they get an education that will help them at least try to put their country on the right track, rather than become Bashar Mugabe the 373rd. | ||
|
opisska
Poland8852 Posts
I am well aware that "exporting democracy" hasn't worked particularly well lately. But Russia - well at least the western part, I heard some pretty intriguing stories as for what happens in Far East - isn't some tribal shepherds living in huts, it's a country not that far from our own culture as far as I know - I admit I haven't been there, but I have read things and spoken to actual Russians - then again, it's my "social bubble", as those were all scientists, but still. It just lacks any actual democratic tradition. In this respect, it is quite similar to the Czech Republic, we had just 20 years of somewhat free republic between the wars and the lack of tradition is sorely apparent in how people grope around for some guidance on governance matters. Luckily, we are next door to many countries where democratic procedures are established, so we just mostly take notes and it works. I don't see how Russians couldn't do the same - but not if they share your attitude of dismissal towards western influences and delusions of being required to keep a mythical "superpower" status. | ||
|
a_flayer
Netherlands2826 Posts
I have to say, though, I don't think the "good vs bad" that Opisska mentioned is a very healthy approach to international affairs. One might say a country is worse than another in some aspects, but the people of any given country will often have some kind of emotional/nationalistic connection to their country. It makes perfect sense for me in this context that Russians distrust Navalny considering the relationship between the US and Russia, and also that people from Poland won't trust those educated by Russian universities, but it's foolhardy to suggest that Russians are somehow wrong about their beliefs in this matter. Also, in terms of Russians being anti-American, I happened to be reading Yeltsin's wikipedia page and came across this: On 1 February 2006, Yeltsin celebrated his 75th birthday. He used this occasion as an opportunity to criticize a "monopolistic" U.S. foreign policy, and to state that Vladimir Putin was the right choice for Russia. Source | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On March 30 2017 02:55 Acrofales wrote: Other than some conspiracy theorists, I can't think why getting a Russian education would be held against you in a country like the Netherlands or Spain. However, you will be asked why you went to study in Russia. And if you say it's because you respect the long history of successful Russian politics and want to learn more about Communism to put it into practice back home, you may not do too well, no. But the founder of the socialist party in the Netherlands was a proud Maoist (although he tempered his opinions during the 90s) and his party is going strong (stronger than the social democrats this last election). He may not be the leader anymore, he is still an influential voice. Of course, the little bit I know of Navalny doesn't lead me to believe he would be better (for anybody) than Putin, and may very well be worse. He seems to use the same demagoguery and nationalistic overtones. I tried to search for his own words on why he studied at Yale, but couldn't find anything. I don't speak Russian, so could only search in English. You seem to come from a starting point that democratic principles are bad for Russia. Or something. Because honestly, I'd rather have my leader study "democracy" at Yale than law. In fact, Yale having a program to educate foreign leaders is fucking genius: all those African dictators were sending their entire famillies to Cambridge, Oxford, Harvard and Yale anyway. Might as well ensure they get an education that will help them at least try to put their country on the right track, rather than become Bashar Mugabe the 373rd. Democratic principles and "democracy" are two different things. Do you think the US would look more kindly towards a democratically elected leader who says "fuck America" at every turn, or a dictator who is in their pocket? This is hardly a theoretical example because there are any number of cases we could actually turn to in order to gauge this. Not that I blame the US for trying - but it's fair game to play in reverse and to treat any candidate who is involved in such a situation with the greatest degree of scorn. Putin is pretty clearly in the Russian mainstream. You will find plenty of people who think he's been around too long and it's time for him not to run for reelection (I myself am not 100% opposed to this) but people do genuinely want him to be president. There's no secret "gasping to be free" sentiment there, he actually is as popular as the data says he is. On March 30 2017 02:55 Acrofales wrote: Other than some conspiracy theorists, I can't think why getting a Russian education would be held against you in a country like the Netherlands or Spain. However, you will be asked why you went to study in Russia. And if you say it's because you respect the long history of successful Russian politics and want to learn more about Communism to put it into practice back home, you may not do too well, no. But the founder of the socialist party in the Netherlands was a proud Maoist (although he tempered his opinions during the 90s) and his party is going strong (stronger than the social democrats this last election). He may not be the leader anymore, he is still an influential voice. I don't know to what extent this reflects the opinion of the Dutch or Spanish. But if an internationalist, "we accept leaders educated from less friendly nations" view is common, that's fair. I'm not sure those are even really among the most anti-Russian countries. Dutch are pretty upset about MH17 and blame Russia for it, but beyond that it does seem like they genuinely are more Russia-leaning than the most rabid of the anti-Russia crowd. In any case, though, larger countries with a more powerful university system (like Russia, contrary to the idea that "Yale is probably better than anything you could get in Russia") tend to look quite badly upon foreign-educated leadership/ | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On March 30 2017 03:00 opisska wrote: Legal, seriously, "fuck Russia as represented by the third consecutive Putin government" is seriously a stance that I have and I am not afraid to admit it. Good! Then my characterization of "self-acknowledged" is as intended. And you will excuse me if I don't take any of the more unsubstantiated "Putin/Russia is evil" drivel seriously. On March 30 2017 03:00 opisska wrote: But I do wish better on Russian people. Are you of the opinion that the current political system, where all three pillars of political power, media and wealth are controlled by a handful of the same people, is the most beneficial for the whole country or the only one possible? As I have mentioned in the past - a lot of the reason that things are as they are is historic. The 90s were a time of "democracy" but also quite explicit robbery in order to line the pockets of those who were in power. Yes, there were trends towards that in the USSR itself but it all became quite unhinged once some idiot decided to privatize things in one of the worst ways possible. Corruption doesn't just disappear though. Putin helped consolidate the crook class into a business class and to imprison those who continued to want to be explicit crooks. Crooks remain crooks, as we all know - so there's no way to erase that in one fell swoop. But if you compare it over a 20-year period - Russia of 2017 is far, far less corrupt than Russia of 1997. And yes, there is a lot of work that still needs to be done. On March 30 2017 03:00 opisska wrote: If not, where do you think the change can come from else than from the West? I'm not sure you realize how pitiful it sounds to try to say that you need to look to "the West" in order to make things work. Certainly a few things that are worthy of emulating - IMO the biggest one would be the idea of market economies - but also plenty that is foolish or ineffective. On March 30 2017 03:00 opisska wrote: I am well aware that "exporting democracy" hasn't worked particularly well lately. But Russia - well at least the western part, I heard some pretty intriguing stories as for what happens in Far East - isn't some tribal shepherds living in huts, it's a country not that far from our own culture as far as I know - I admit I haven't been there, but I have read things and spoken to actual Russians - then again, it's my "social bubble", as those were all scientists, but still. Well the "I don't know much about Russia but I hate Russia and 'wish better' for Russians" is a pretty common sentiment in the West. On March 30 2017 03:00 opisska wrote: It just lacks any actual democratic tradition. In this respect, it is quite similar to the Czech Republic, we had just 20 years of somewhat free republic between the wars and the lack of tradition is sorely apparent in how people grope around for some guidance on governance matters. WTF? Honestly that sounds pitiful and pathetic. On March 30 2017 03:00 opisska wrote: Luckily, we are next door to many countries where democratic procedures are established, so we just mostly take notes and it works. I don't see how Russians couldn't do the same - but not if they share your attitude of dismissal towards western influences and delusions of being required to keep a mythical "superpower" status. A very simplistic view that simply doesn't capture any of what is actually the issue here. Which unfortunately is a weakness of a historical lack of foreign media presence on the part of Russia. The average person still thinks that Russia is just "snow and commies" and only slowly has that begun to change. Most of this is just meaningless to respond to because it completely and utterly misses the point. I'd say "educate yourself" but there's really no easy way to do so and there is always a tendency to dismiss most things as propaganda. Which is really the problem and why so rarely is there any way to discuss this properly. Though I could of course answer specific questions as I have done here, that's hardly going to help to see the larger picture. | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5079 Posts
| ||
|
opisska
Poland8852 Posts
You have a point with the "consolidation of crooks", I can't probably even start to imagine the full extend of how much is actually controlled by this "new business class" in Russia. But that's somewhat besides the point in discussing what the opposition should strive for, isn't it? It just means that it's gonna be harder. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On March 30 2017 04:22 opisska wrote: Yep and here you clearly show what your problem is here. Some things "sound pitiful" and you are done with them, even if they are effective. "The West", that is most of Europe, Australia/NZ, Canada, to a somewhat lesser extent the US (and a couple of countries here and there I am continuously lazy to evaluate) is the exact extend of the democratic civilization that constitutes the best arrangement of government we have been so far able to come up with. Thus it is worth looking into and emulating, if my own government is less developed. Why should some irrational national pride stand in the way of that? Why would a country have to reinvent the wheel, when the wheel is currently succesfully being rolled by about a billion people? What's pitiful is groveling around looking for help doing something that you should be able to have some idea of how to do yourself. I mean, unless you assume your old government is so irredeemably bad that you have no goddamn clue what you should be doing, that following some template is the way to establish things, then the only reason you would do that is because you are a clueless puppy. Otherwise - it would make perfect sense to accept advice as appropriate (which Russia does do), but to establish a government that better understands the issues related to your own nation in specific. Maybe Czechs are so bad at governing themselves that they literally need someone to dictate to them how they should do things. I don't know, I suppose it's possible. It is pretty pathetic though, if true. Hence, I say it's pitiful. On March 30 2017 04:22 opisska wrote: You have a point with the "consolidation of crooks", I can't probably even start to imagine the full extend of how much is actually controlled by this "new business class" in Russia. But that's somewhat besides the point in discussing what the opposition should strive for, isn't it? It just means that it's gonna be harder. Um... this is hard to respond to in its obtuse misunderstanding of the issues at play. And of who is to blame. Let me make it a little simpler: the people who had power without ownership found themselves in a position where they could suddenly obtain ownership. Much of this involved blatantly illegal thievery. Once the government cracked down on that, it was a choice between arresting the entire business class (who were the people most familiar with how to run their business) or to force them to go straight, pay taxes, and in general work in the nation's interest. Putin chose the latter and those who weren't willing to stray from the old ways went to prison. The "Putin just made it bad" is completely and comically missing the point. Where this "I can't even how powerful they are" comes from is a head-scratcher as well. The opposition is perfectly reasonable for seeking less corruption, yes - but I calls it like I sees it when I say that what those on the outside looking in are really after is just demonizing the Putin administration out of some idea that he turned Russia against them. Because Putin did a hell of a lot more for the cause of stopping corruption in his tenure than those predisposed to dislike him are capable of acknowledging. | ||
|
opisska
Poland8852 Posts
It's actually pretty hard to find nonconflicting sources on how big a part of Russian economy the oligarchs control; I came repeatedly across an estimation that a hundred people own 35% of assets in Russia (which makes it the most inequal country on the planet!) but how much of the ownership structure is transparent enough to evaluate? In any case, this alone is a huge issue for any attempts at democracy, as at this scale, any opposition can be bought pretty easily. Who exactly did Putin "crack down" on, when such a overwhelmingly large concentration of wealth stayed in place? Your story of "Putin dealing with the crooks" doesn't really check out. To me it seems he only convince them that they are better of crooking alongside of himself. I am not surprise that you think that "a government that understands the issues related to your own nation" is superior - after all, we know how big a fan of EU you are. But this is again just a buzzphrase commonly abused by local politicans to shrug off criticism when their enact policies that aren't efficient for anyone but them. Those policies will obviously differ from the general norm in the more developed countries, but that is being played as "local specifics", usually just a veil for thievery. I don't care that you consider it "pitiful", but from the Czech experience it is obvious that we would have been much better off had we just copied the German legal and buearocratic system to a letter instead of letting it get influenced by whomever was able to grasp enough power in the "wild 90s". That is what "democratic tradition" is about - it's much easier to push dishonest agendas when the system is being defined on the scale of months than on the scale of decades. | ||
|
CoughingHydra
177 Posts
This is closely related to the fact that we also had a good portion of democracy selling, notably during the "nationalistic era" of HDZ in the nineties. The western backed media succeeded in the sense that HDZ made a switch from nationalistic to pro-european rhetoric, but this, amusingly, enabled HDZ to be even more corrupt since they weren't under scrutiny as before. + Show Spoiler + Who the f**k cares if you're corrupt when you aren't nationalistic, right? ---------- BTW, one of our most important companies Agrokor which pertains at least 10% of Croatian economy is on the verge of being in Russian hands (Sberbank); this will be a great test for our current government's competency. EDIT: Thank you for your snarky comment danger. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
As for piss, I'll get back to you in a bit. Got some work to do and that one warrants a somewhat longer response than I have time for. | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
| ||
|
Dav1oN
Ukraine3164 Posts
And it's pretty obvious that - corruption is a core of USSR 2.0. Why do I call it USSR 2.0 u may guess? Due to different reasons, for example heads of political patries (Communists and Liberal-democrats) started back in USSR and they are still playing their roles, patriarch of the church is ex-KGBist, guess how many people at the very top were aducated via KGB? Such neo-feudal capitalism would never work without corruption, without massive number of police/army forces for backup and without agressive behavior towards neighbours. The whole nomenclature vertical is based on that corruption. Even modern Russian movies involves schemas how to get some money from budget, how to make a shitty movie and spread those cash between mates. We also may remember sports and doping on national level, sports minister is still doing his job even considering recent doping scandals. This friendly neighbour divided my country and even tortures their own good people - what a wonderful time to live, right?George Orwell described exactly THIS picture in his book "1984", he was like a farseer at some point. | ||
| ||
