This is a spin-off of the thread "Liberties of the Russian people".
Printable View
This is a spin-off of the thread "Liberties of the Russian people".
I really don't think that all politicians are corrupt. It depends on what country you compare with. In several smaller countries in Europe there is practically no corruption among politicians. It's certainly not perfect, but there is no unholy alliance between business and politicians to rip off the people and manipulate politics, like there seems to be in the USA and Russia at the moment.
...
Dear Ramil and Hanna, it's like I've watching the conversation between a greek and a foreigner. The whole same stuff happens in Greece over the past few years. And yes, Ramil, you're sooo right as for the distinction between state and country.
As I have discussed with other russians as well, I've come to conclusion, that one way or another, the situation in your country is quite similar to mine. Everybody lies. People don't care about anything anymore, they're just struggling to survive, nothing else is important to them.
But I quite agree with Chaika as well. Many peculiar deaths have occurred among russian journalists. Therefore, Ramil, I guess that "somebody" cares after all about what is being said, or is going to be said... isn't it?
Anyway, it comes to a conclusion, that corruption is well established in Russia as well as in many other countries one of which is also Greece.
Absolutely true. This is not just a usual politician-baiting rant from Basil. It's a basic fact. Not a single politician has become a politician for the good of the public. Politics is an endless quest for power. And corruption is in the nature of power. There's no room for optimism.
Hanna, you originally come from one of the most democratic parts of the world, and live in one of the oldest continuous democracies. It's no surprise that you find Basil's (and Ramil's) views rather cynical. But a Greek, or an Iranian, would be much more likely to agree with them.
...
Thank you , and for the record , I'm not comparing our country's . I'm just curious .
The "Empire of Evil" stuff definitely didn't sit well with Russians.
Soviet propaganda wasn't very fond of America either, but Reagan crossed the line.
That was the first time I felt like the USA was a real enemy, not just a bitter competitor.
The Axis of Evil is a myth - those countries are only "evil" towards their own citizens, if at all. But there might possibly be an Empire of Evil which thinks nothing of manipulation & deception, starting wars and placing nukes at its' bases across the world, supporting ruthless dictators etc, etc. Just as long as its corporations can continue to rake in the money, and its citizens can eat burgers and drive gas monster cars everywhere they go....
...
And about my country being democratic: Yes; we've been "lucky" and are traditionally hard working and well organised. But the political correctness has exceeded all reasonable limits now and if it continues like that; our whole area will go to the dogs.
BUT: I am going back anyway though.. Can't stand London anymore. In April I am OUT of here --- hurrah, at last! And I am taking a big detour East before I go back to Sweden.. More about that in my MR blog that I am about to start.
Hanna, I don't know what country you come from, but if it's Sweden, then (no offence) you should understand that Sweden is not a major power in the world politics and it's very small with a tiny (relatively) population. That means Swedes have no ambitions on the world stage and they tend to keep to themselves. Hence the level of corruption is very low since it's always quieter in a tiny hamlet where you know everyone, than it is in a huge metropolis where many many many warring parties are fighting over influence and resources.
Russia on the other hand is 1) a major power player 2) is very rich in resources 3) has means to influence world politics 4) very huge and scarcely populated (which means people in different provinces do not really feel connected) And to add more to that, Russia suffered a total state and economy collapse 20 years ago (yes - it shook the very foundations of society and reshaped them - in a bloody and violent way). Also Soviet Socialism was an artificial construct, an experiment going against all human nature which severely traumatized and twisted your average Russian's mentality. Russians are recovering, but it's a slow process, it'll take tens of years (if not a hundred) to change something if nothing happens (like a full-scale war or a natural disaster).
Also Russia is an empire and all empires are very corrupt by definition. Also Russians generally do not associate themselves with Russia and its future. They hate their country and are always willing to sabotage the state (even if they themselves do not realize it). Also tomorrow doesn't look promising to Russians, so you really want to hoard as much resources as you can to secure your and your family's future.
But this stuff is really subtle. You wouldn't notice anything like that if you just came and lived in Russia for a while. You would find it very kind, calm and hospitable. I would say I feel much more freedom in Russia than in any EU state. In Russia noone cares about you as long as you're not a threat to others. You can be yourself, not someone other poeple want you to be.
America is too an absolutely corrupt and cynical state. The only difference is that its average citizen is wealthier and that it didn't have to build its economy from the scratch in the last 20 years, but if America experiences something similar to what Russia had in 1991, mark my words - you'll not recognize it and I certainly wouldn't want to be caught in the middle. It was a wonder that Russia remained a single state, America would not be so lucky.
...
@fortheether: Ok you have every right to like Ronald Reagan even though few on the forum think very highly of him.... So give a practical example of something that he did that you think was good?
...
Ok, Scott, I can understand you perfectly well, he was a guy whos leadership made your country a Cold War winner blah, blah. More important for Americans, I think, he was a leader who greatly improved the level of life-quality in America. But have you ever think by what cost? The foundation of policy of blowing American financial bubble was founded by Reagan's goverment. Have you ever thought about how much money an average American family owes to China goverment? And how much your grandchildren will owe if United States will continue current policy?
Now that this has turned into a Reagan talk...
My country is probably even less significant than Hanna's (even if it is significant, it certainly can't be significant in a pleasant way for an American). The one bad thing that Iran has ever done to America is the hostage craziness in late 70s. Reagan did next to nothing to solve that problem, but he was lucky enough to have the problem solved at the beginning of his presidency. So in this way, we have somehow contributed to his popularity among Americans.
(Funny stuff: the monkey who is the current president of Iran was also among the students who took part in the hostage-taking. Reagan must have been grateful to him.)
You've forgotten about E-type! :-) Really, Hanna, don't be so shy about your country. It's played a very important role in European history and in Russian history in particular. Moreover, I think that Swedish culture and Swedish people are great. Also I like the way how your country is run, I think it's one of the best and fairest societies on the face of Earth. My mom visited Sweden a couple of years ago and she literally fell in love in the country. So you should be very proud to be a Swede! ! ;-)
[QUOTE=Hanna;209074]
@fortheether: Ok you have every right to like Ronald Reagan even though few on the forum think very highly of him.... So give a practical example of something that he did that you think was good?
/QUOTE]
He beat Jimmy Carter in the election.
I disagree with your financial bubble comment - please look into FDR and Woodrow Wilson presidencies. I do agree that the USA financial policy is a disaster. It is not just Obama and democrats. It is Bush and republicans also. See the election coming up in November for what direction America thinks we should be going in.
I think it's ironic that Ronald Reagan is being discussed in a "Liberties of the Russian people" thread. I know there were many factors in the collapse of communism but isn't Ronald Reagan one of them? We'll never know but if Carter won again and then followed by other "weak" presidents like Obama - would you be able to freely have a discussion on the liberties of the Russian people?
Scott
Admit it, you can't name anything! of course he beat his opponent.... But what did he do during the course of his presidency?
Basil77 and Misha Tal are right - And certainly, most people in Europe (apart from England) think he was terrible, like Bush,
And you Americans are not quite as "free" as you may think you are! You only believe it because you are constantly told it.
Some of the stuff about the greatness of the USA is laughable - nothing unique about it: every country in Europe has it too.
You are free in the USA if you are able to make a decent amount of money so you can afford to pay for everything that is free in Europe...
and assuming your politics are capitalist/christian.... and reasonably PC...
Did you know that Germany is now putting in place many of the EXACT same policies that East Germany had under socialism?
People want that security and level of organisation and they realise now what they were a bit fast to bin a system that had many good (along with the bad...) qualities.
And don't worry about your grand kids Scott... Although they will be broke, maybe China, Russia and some future moslem super power can give them some aid.... ;-)
That's if the USA doesn't have some "Plan B" for world domination to try when everything else has failed.
For example: "Pay us, or one of those nukes we keep on our base(s) in your country might accidentally go off... "
Sorry if I sound a bit harsh, but I really don't see the USA as the Force of Good that you believe it to be...
I just want to make you see an alternative view.
Main reasons for USSR collapse were internal. At the end of USSR people didn't really believe in soviet ideals, propaganda etc. Everybody became cynic. But yes, maybe external factors played some role. Namely, maybe aggressiveness and insane rhetorics of Reagan prolonged USSR a bit more. He gave many good confirmations to communist propaganda. We'll never know...
Well, Misha Tal seems to enjoy the 'free' talk, so why not? ;)
I'm not sure the reasons for the 'fall of the communism' are quite obvious. Like, look at North Korea. All the so-called 'reasons for the fall' are still there (and perhaps there are even more), but the present regime seems to be rather stable. Some people think at the August of 1991 the SU was very close to abandon the Perestroyka and going back to the roots (=the strong dictatorship).
Having said that, I remember the early '80s and all I can tell is that the SU seemed to be preparing for a big war. It was apparent the SU couldn't match the SDI and the preemptive strike was required to save the regime. Gorbachev allowed a lot of ugly things to happen, but he didn't allow the big war to start.
Sooooo, about SDI, do you really think it was a real threat? Observing US's struggling with ABM now (which is a mush humbler project than SDI was), watching its doubtful effectiveness, I doubt US was capable of SDI in the early 1980s.
Some say that SDI was a bluff in order to hurl USSR into more expenses it could afford, well, if it was it was a very successful one, I'd say the Soviet leaders believed it. Still, I don't see how KGB missed this fact and generally I cannot imagine a bluff of that magnitude and I find it hard to believe.
I think USSR was destroyed from within, not from outside. By its own people, not by some clever US president.
Honestly, I have no idea. But if you remember the early '80s you'd remember "the Pershing II and the SDI threat" talk was looking for you even if you'd opened your fridge. ;)
I think so too. At least, that's how it looked from the outside.
I think that question was more of the GRU's competence than of the KGB's, but that doesn't make much difference. I mean, the Cold War era intelligence games are a way too complex for a simple-minded crocodile like myself. There's never an end to it. For example, perhaps the SU preparation for the preemptive war was also a disinformation campaign so that the US would spend more money on the SDI (while the Soviet Leaders spent much less on the 'preemptive war preparation' than the US Government on the 'SDI implementation') and the US government realized that fact ('I know that you know that I know') and spent more money in order to really impress the Soviet Leaders more and the SU made the 'preemptive war' looking more realistic, and so the game of who's fooling whom goes on and on. ;)
Yes and no. I think the clever US president might have significantly contributed to a situation in which it was beneficial for some people to get more independence (=more local power) and sacrifice the power of the USSR. The 'own people' rode a wave (which was partially created by the US president) to their own benefit.
They said: "USA is our enemy. They hate us just because we are different, just because we are Russians. They want to destroy our country, split it into pieces. They call our country "Evil empire". All we want is to live in peace but they do not agree. They have military bases and nukes all around the USSR while USSR has no nukes near the USA. We propose mutual disarmament but they build SDI to be completely safe when they will bomb our cities. We have to unite against them to save our country and our lives. Just read what their president say and you will see. He hates us."
Funny that at the time of late USSR all of it was true. Sometimes even propaganda may be true.
Well - one mans propaganda is another mans truth!
Where I lived, we heard both sides of this story, presented in a relatively unbiased way.
But I agree with it-ogo: Media from the socialist countries were always on about "friendship", "solidarity", "brotherhood" and Peace etc, etc..
Whereas the US films were always picturing Russians as bad people.
And then now - Russians always have extreme roles in films: Gangsters of some kind or another, for example.
Yes, I even remember being very afraid after watching Международная панорама. I understood very little, only that the Americans want us all dead and they're building many bombs. Funny thing, I'd learned about Reagan's Star Wars first and of Lucas's much later.
The spy game was very complicated but it's not like guess what the other side is thinking. You can't really hide the fact that you're building something of such a grand scale as SDI. There could be tons of evidense even to the stupidest spy.Quote:
I think that question was more of the GRU's competence than of the KGB's, but that doesn't make much difference. I mean, the Cold War era intelligence games are a way too complex for a simple-minded crocodile like myself. There's never an end to it. For example, perhaps the SU preparation for the preemptive war was also a disinformation campaign so that the US would spend more money on the SDI (while the Soviet Leaders spent much less on the 'preemptive war preparation' than the US Government on the 'SDI implementation') and the US government realized that fact ('I know that you know that I know') and spent more money in order to really impress the Soviet Leaders more and the SU made the 'preemptive war' looking more realistic, and so the game of who's fooling whom goes on and on. ;)
I really don't think that Brezhnev in 1980 could think coherently about US threat. Because of his illness I don't think he cared much just about anything. He was old and ill and there were many around him who were simply filling their pockets. It's the stagnation, the lack of progress which undermined the socialist ideas. The generation of 1960s grew up in tranquil times when virtually nothing major was happenning. There were no shocks, no goal, no focus. They yawned through this time and got pretty bored with anything 'made in USSR'. The west offered much more attractive things to the young and the most idiotic thing the leaders could do was forbidding all new and fresh ideas (old farts in Politbureau saw to that). They should have given way to the young. I honestly think that if Brezhnev had resigned or died in the mid-seventies things would be much better now. Then again, who knows...Quote:
Yes and no. I think the clever US president might have significantly contributed to a situation in which it was beneficial for some people to get more independence (=more local power) and sacrifice the power of the USSR. The 'own people' rode a wave (which was partially created by the US president) to their own benefit.
No, no, and no! :)
First, everything we used to find attractive about the SU (stability, etc.) should be attributed to the stagnation time of Brezhnev. The life before him and after him used to be rather challenging to the ordinary people.
Second, the whole 'preemptive war preparation' started at 1983 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strateg...nse_Initiative) after Brezhnev died (at 1982) and should be attributed to Andropov who was the Secretary General of the CPSU 1982—1984 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuri_Andropov). (Just a reminder that Andropov was previously a Chief of the KGB.) Some people said Andropov died at 1984 (in the Central Governmental Hospital in Moscow from the sudden kidney failure) because he was very successful in the preparation.
No, not like that. It would be too simple. They said that the capitalists who oppressed the worker class in many countries were afraid of the 'inevitable' triumph of the communism in the whole world. In order not to lose their wealth and power they strove to destroy the socialist countries. These were the reasons. :)
So the Soviet submarines with nuclear weapons in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans was propaganda? Until a minute ago I thought Nikita Khrushchev said when referring to the USA "We will bury you", but I looked it up:
We will bury you - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
which says he didn't say it. Most Americans think he said it.
Scott
Oh, I don't want to convince anyone with anything. I just told what I think, that's all. Besides, I'm not in the position to judge because I don't know how life had been in USSR before Brezhnev or even in his early years as a leader. In 1982 I was only 6 years old and my understanding of the situation was a bit limited.