Thread: "Russophobia" and "Russophilia" :)

Of course. But, I don't see a violation of the rules in any of those replies. I find their posts subjective and biased and suggested the contrast: anti-West slant (which is fine, by me, probably) vs neo-Soviet/Putinist apologist tone - which recent discussions of particular Westerners also share.

I also objected to Mr. Mak's assertion (check post) about the Kiev government but I explained this illogical evaluation already. No one has disputed it yet so either they have no counter argument or it's perceived as accurate.

I guess I can express it better but, honestly, it's just my belief that some of the statements aren't just false but rather absurd. I am against certain criticism of Russia but when it's warranted and justified, then it should be examined and acknowledged instead of whining and defensiveness that sounds childish and immature. Correct? I try to explain where I'm coming from so my critiques are not baseless.

Originally Posted by 14Russian

I am against certain criticism of Russia but when it's warranted and justified, then it should be examined and acknowledged instead of whining and defensiveness that sounds childish and immature. Correct? I try to explain where I'm coming from so my critiques are not baseless.

You contradict yourself here. When other forum members talk you keep on showing up with dreary repetition of words that happened to be learned somehow. "neo-Soviet" - not only can't it be "examined and acknowledged" but even understood. And you never bothered to explain the implication. This is a perfect example of "defensiveness that sounds childish and immature".

Russia is imposing it's neo-Soviet framework, Ukraine is not. Yes, Ukraine is probably moving towards a corrupt Western system but that doesn't make it 'neo-Soviet.' You know the difference between our arguments? You're a neo-Soviet apologist and critique the West. I criticize both.

What response rom forum members do you expect posting basless slogans? "You know the difference between our arguments?" what difference might be known between somthing nonexistent?

Whether approval ratings are high or low or election % are at 80% or 90%, is not enough info to go on. What was the turn out? What is the evidence that the entire election was fair or untainted. Sorry, but you obviously don't talk to many Russians. Talking to a bunch of Putin fans here is not going to provide a fair sample. If you insist you have never heard of any Russian citizens or politicians claim of rigged results and interfering with elections, then I question how much you have investigated what happens in Russia.Plus, the media is controlled and there is a heavy influence on that industry to what they will spin and how they will do it. So, having "80% vote for Putin' is more or less not indicative of firm support or a functioning political system that approves of the status quo. On the other hand, one could possibly argue that the electorate's minds are molded to support the status quo based on repetive conditioning to accept the current system since citizens would have to take time to weed through information outlets which are all presenting information how they (i.e. the Government) want it delivered.

Same old song. What else than "election %" do you need to say who wins and who loses? Putin was supported by 63%, you probly belong to othe 37% i see no problem this is called a democracy. You are being in opposition to current government still can share your view on the internet (in ru, com, net and othe domain zones ) you are not in jail, you don't starve and may be even quite waelthy, and you can vote for those you support. An the fact that the majority supports the others doesn't automatically make eclections unfair. (Oh i forgot, only elections approved by "free world" can be fair). Anyways, minority is being respected (i.e. has every right) so why majority shouldn't be?

Ithink we have had enough of stupid ideology
not long ago they said - "lets build communism" which they proved can't even exist
then it was like - "let's move to golden billion" which is way far from "golden" it used to be 50 years ago

I don't want some other country's foreign policy to be russia's domestic policy. Because it can't be other then destructive.

Originally Posted by Alex_krsk

You contradict yourself here. When other forum members talk you keep on showing up with dreary repetition of words that happened to be learned somehow. "neo-Soviet" - not only can't it be "examined and acknowledged" but even understood. And you never bothered to explain the implication. This is a perfect example of "defensiveness that sounds childish and immature".

What response rom forum members do you expect posting basless slogans? "You know the difference between our arguments?" what difference might be known between somthing nonexistent?.

I'll address this briefly because it's a waste of time to go into detail with so many insignificant points made by yourself and other Westerners who are Putin loyalists and the thread has transformed into a back-rubbing competition of pointless comments back and forth.

(Вытерто.Л.)