Thread: "Russophobia" and "Russophilia" :)

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.)

I've noticed something which I think is positive in the Swedish media recently (since the Ukraine crisis). This is that Swedish media sometimes quotes RT, without the affadavit about it being "Russian state media", "propaganda" etc.

I don't know if this trend happened elsewhere in continental Europe as well, but the quality of journalism in many smaller countries has diminished in a very obvious ways. In some cases it's not much more than a translation of a story in the English speaking press.

In the past, the main news outlets had their own reporters in cities like Moscow, the main European capitals and elsewhere in the world. If at all possible, they sent somebody who spoke the local language. For example the journalist covering Russia, would be Russian speaking and have a high degree of insight into local conditions.

But now - the journalists can all speak reasonably good English, and the internet is available. No need for serious journalism anymore - just copy and translation from the English speaking press! A lot of the times these journalists don't have enough insight to know the difference in flavour between the BBC, Daily Telegraph, Fox News and Alex Jones -- with some borderline ludicrous results.
That's been the pathetic trend for the last 8-10 years.

So for the Russia-coverage, they would just grab it from Reuters, Daily Mail, Washington Post or similar types of sources. Usually you can spot it with Russian stories because the journalists doing the translating that now passes for journalism are so ignorant that they will keep the English transliteration of Russian names of people and places, rather than using the normal Nordic traditional transliteration of Cyrillic. I.e, "Yuri" instead of "Jurij".

It's really pathetic and it certainly gives the game away. I'm not the only person to have noticed this. Somebody else's propaganda becomes our news. You often see ironic comments to news stories like "good translation from Washington Post".

However, now that they "discovered" RT, they are actually beginning to report in a more balanced way. I assume they realise that RT is Russian. It's still pathetic that they only bother reading in English, and don't actually try to conduct their own interviews and research.

But at least RT is preferable to using US and British media exclusively. Hopefully the journalists are reading some of the comments and noticing that the tides are turning for quite a few people across the world. Many people are aware that RT is more truthful than most of the English speaking press with a lot of issues.

I can only guess that the same thing is probably happening in many other European countries as well as Sweden. Places like Scandinavia, Benelux etc.

The money Russia spends on RT is money very well spent.

Originally Posted by 14Russian

My final reply for a while unless some new posters participate. Sorry. The U.S. is a democracy if you consider that democracies ...A) don't work and B) are flawed since it is empowerment of special interest groups and a dumbing down of the masses. Imho, whether you want to call America an oligarchy or democracy, is rather irrelevant. Those who find democracy to be an ideal will obviously disagree.

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.

It should not be rocket science that you can have corruption in both the USA AND Russia and there isn't one that is 'better' than the other. Corruption is...uh, corruption.

Thanks for reading. Good day.

It's been a very interesting discussion. And tbh, it's also summer and I haven't had a lot of time to participate either (I get a lot of my links from dad). But yeah, I don't believe that there's even been a government that wasn't corrupt in some way but I don't really consider it to be that important - unless most of the people in a country are seriously oppressed and starving. I don't see that happening in the US or Russia so I don't believe the corruption is that serious in either country.
I think I already mentioned that people are a mix of good and bad traits. Laws control some of the bad traits but not all of them and they don't do very much to control the bad traits of wealthy people. I've learned that much from my own personal experiences. When I mess up, I learn not to do it again but without any serious consequences. That's not how it happens for people that don't have money.

Anyway, it's still very interesting how so many laws in Russia are approved by the people. 76% of Russians wanted the anti-gay-propaganda laws and over 80% wanted the annexation of Crimea. Also, the job approval ratings (imo) are more important than the elections. If a President gets most of the votes but he doesn't do very much that the people approve of then that's tons worse than if a President gets into office with a rigged election and does what the people want him to do. And btw, since the governments have so much influence in the media then it would be impossible to really know if an election was or wasn't rigged. That's true for America too.
That's just another reason why I see Russia and the US as being different but equal. It's also why I pasted the Russian flag on the American South on my map. As for Christian values, the American South is more like Russia than the American North. We don't support all the Federal gay rights laws and our State has even fought the Federal government to keep the Ten Commandments in the State Capital building. Our governor even said "We are a Christian State founded on Christian values.". Russia is very Christian too but they don't have to fight the Federal government for support.

So yeah, you won't find as many Russophobes in the American South as you will in the American North. And you won't find very many Pussy Riot supporters either.
Btw, I agree with what SergeMak says about the Kiev government but since the thread is about Russophobia/Russophilia, I've mostly just been focusing on that.

Originally Posted by 14Russian

PS. Russia is far from neo-Soviet. -> Seriously? LOL! There's Russians in Russia who have written to great extent on this. But, yes, go ahead and tell me your claim. It's amusing.

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.

I totally did miss this post.
1. There are also Russians that tried to sell Siberia to the West. See Mikhail Khodorkovsky. If you want to see what I think of Khodorkovsky, look in the toilet because it's also what I think of Pussy Riot.
2. I had some free time so I googled "neo-Soviet". It's a bigoted anti-Russian term.

Neo-Sovietism is a broad term of reference relating both to existing policy decisions in the former Soviet Union and to a small political movement dedicated to reviving the Soviet Union in the modern world. Some commentators claim that current Russian President Vladimir Putin holds many neo-Soviet views, especially concerning law and order and military strategic defence.

Notice how it's used to describe everything in the USSR as being wrong. That's how prejudiced people think. Also, it's being used to diss President Putin. So it's a control statement used for intimidation, not logical debate.
Nobody can say that everything in the USSR was bad... except a political bigot. Imo, it would be a lot more constructive to avoid that term and just discuss individual policy issues.

3. You're right. Ukraine would never be "neo-Soviet" since they want a system controlled by Western puppet oligarchs. But the Ukrainian government has supported some of the most heinous and vicious crimes against it's own people that I've ever heard about. Satan must be a lot like Poroshenko.
Well, nobody's perfect but if I was a Russian and every world leader and every party was running for the Presidency in Russia, I would support Putin 100%. Not because he has "neo-Soviet" views but because he makes Russia proud and strong. Anyone that wants anything less than that for their country has serious problems (imo).

Originally Posted by UhOhXplode

if I was a Russian and every world leader and every party was running for the Presidency in Russia, I would support Putin 100%. Not because he has "neo-Soviet" views but because he makes Russia proud and strong.

Недавно один ведущий в известном шоу, где речь шла об Украине, сказал, что ему звонят друзья из Италии и спрашивают: "а нельзя ли договориться, чтобы Путин был у нас президентом?"

Originally Posted by lodka

Недавно один ведущий в известном шоу, где речь шла об Украине, сказал, что ему звонят друзья из Италии и спрашивают: "а нельзя ли договориться, чтобы Путин был у нас президентом?"

И это был ваш шанс, стоило ответить так, "Конечно, но помните, товар обмену и возврату не подлежит" =))

Originally Posted by Eric C.

И это был ваш шанс, стоило ответить так, "Конечно, но помните, товар обмену и возврату не подлежит" =))

Петросян, вы ли это?

Originally Posted by iCake

Петросян, вы ли это?

Сомневаюсь, что ваш тот комик осмелился бы публично рассказать эту шутку в этом контексте. =))

Originally Posted by UhOhXplode

I totally did miss this post.
2. I had some free time so I googled "neo-Soviet". It's a bigoted anti-Russian term.

Notice how it's used to describe everything in the USSR as being wrong. That's how prejudiced people think. Also, it's being used to diss President Putin. So it's a control statement used for intimidation, not logical debate.
Nobody can say that everything in the USSR was bad... except a political bigot. Imo, it would be a lot more constructive to avoid that term and just discuss individual policy issues.

3. You're right. Ukraine would never be "neo-Soviet" since they want a system controlled by Western puppet oligarchs. But the Ukrainian government has supported some of the most heinous and vicious crimes against it's own people that I've ever heard about. Satan must be a lot like Poroshenko.
Well, nobody's perfect but if I was a Russian and every world leader and every party was running for the Presidency in Russia, I would support Putin 100%. Not because he has "neo-Soviet" views but because he makes Russia proud and strong. Anyone that wants anything less than that for their country has serious problems (imo).

2. Russian Nationalists who don't like what Putin has done to ethnic Russians use the term often. Those Russians know more than you or I do. I am certain they're more informed than most of the lame arguments in this thread. It's an apt term to describe the current system, policies and regime. So, it's more than appropriate and accurate. It's those who are misled and clueless to whine and complain about the term.

3. Can you wrap your head around the idea that both the Ukraine government and Putin regime could both be in the wrong and bad for both sides? I know that is a brain buster but try it.

Here is another example of top class unbiased journalism from Sunday Times:

Sunday Times: Emperor Putin has his eyes on the Arctic and the Baltic

North Korea would probably be very pleased to copy this article and just substitute the word "Putin" for "Obama" and "Arctic and Baltic" for, say "Ukraine and Belarus". Other than that, the tone and message is perfect for heavy-duty propaganda purposes...

Hanna, I think Russians are accustomed to the distrust and sometimes even hatred of some Westerners. But it doesn't really matter for most of the Russians, because majority will never feel that attitude personally. Such Russophobic propaganda targets population of Western countries and has a goal to create a certain level of acceptance of some questionable politics, used by officials of those countries.

Originally Posted by hddscan

Hanna, I think Russians are accustomed to the distrust and sometimes even hatred of some Westerners. But it doesn't really matter for most of the Russians, because majority will never feel that attitude personally. Such Russophobic propaganda targets population of Western countries and has a goal to create a certain level of acceptance of some questionable politics, used by officials of those countries.

I think it puts a cloud over Europe though, not to mention missed opportunities in terms of cooperation, business or whatever due to mistrust. If Russia is treated with nothing but hostility it might eventually start responding in kind.

The cold war is over and personally I am not convinced the good guys won...
Now it seems there are very strong forces trying to resurrect the cold war, and I am not talking about Russia, which I perceive as very peaceful and totally uninterested in conflicts. If Russia wanted to expand or had imperial ambitions there are plenty of things it could do in the ex USSR, in parts of Eastern Europe and the rest of the world.

But Russia seems to be focussed on itself and completely finished with being an empire of any kind.

It deserves to be left alone and not constantly the victim of smearing and negative propaganda. I live in the UK at the moment - whatever did Russia do to the UK? Nothing! Yet the UK press hates Russia. That is russophobia.

Now I read that the US is sending its bet coup maker and professional meddler as ambassador to Moscow, one John Terfft. I wonder what colour he picked for the revolution he no doubt already planned....

Oops, the "Mariupol" thread was closed while I typed my comments, so I'll post it here, since it fits this topic as well. The comment is in response to the exchange between Redfox and SergeMak.

------

Redfox, I think you are mixing up the era/generations and that you are letting your negative feelings regarding the USSR somewhat blind you regarding the practical realities. Also, like many Russians, you are judging your country (Russia) very harshly.

I want to give my impressions:

• Russia, at the time of the revolution, was well behind most of Western Europe, and America in terms of development.
• The way that the peasants lived was very primitive.
• Industry was not developed.
• Many people (the majority?) could not read or write.

Surely everybody in Russia knows that Imperial Russia was not a modern country in its days, right? Maybe it had been modern in earlier times, but not in the early 20th century. If it had been strong, efficient and looked after its citizens, the revolution wouldn't have happened!

Russia had somehow stifled development in the the countryside and among the poor.

Sweden where I come from was also poor in those days; a cold, strongly religious and generally backwards country on the outskirts of the continent. But everybody could read and there was industry and natural resources exploited.

There were NO peasants from my grandparents generation who couldn't read. There had been compulsory schooling for 6 years, from ca 1850.

But SergeMak is explaining how his grandmother who I assume is not much older than mine (born 1919 and 1927) could not read, but that her children and grandchildren received high quality education at university level. That was during her lifetime, presumably, and it shows remarkably fast progress. I have seen pictures of how peasants lived at the time of the revolution; it is shocking.

I am not defending the over-use of violence in the revolution, the excesses of Stalin and sometimes cruel and insensitive treatment of people in the early days of the USSR. The USSR did some things that I would totally condemn and had practices up until the end that must have been VERY frustrating for people to put up with.
I am not defending it due to Communist beliefs, and either way I am well aware that most European Communists were very critical of the ideology of the the USSR.

However; I respect that the USSR achieved ENORMOUS progress, in very short time, for all their faults. That can't be denied!

That's why the USA eventually became so paranoid about the USSR.
They had to blackpaint it, because there was a lot that was attractive in, to people who had no other way to improve their lives, or that of their children.

In nearby countries, they lived in fear of a similar spontaneous or USSR backed revolution for decades afterwards.

Workers peasants and others across Europe were inspired by events in the USSR, and out of sheer fear that the revolution would spread, their conditions were improved. The mere existence of the USSR helped peasants and workers across Europe. If they formed a Marxist Leninist study group, got a banner with a hammer and sickle and held a few meetings, their houses were quickly fixed, salaries went up and other good things happened....

Later, the USSR educated Africans built infrastructure, schools, hospitals and helped them for no particular benefit to the USSR.

In Sweden we had our first proper election only months after the 1917 revolution in Russia. Hardly a chance! My grandfather who grew up on a small estate in the countryside told how scared his family had been of the Bolsheviks, and how this fear caused his negligent and alcoholic father was forced to spend money on improving living conditions for peasants on their land after the peasants had some communist meeting.

In the UK, there were huge improvements to the living conditions of the working classes once the genie of Marxism was let out of the bottle... And even more so, after 1917. It's well documented.

So my first point is that the USSR was a positive influence outside its own borders, for peasants workers and intellectual people in Europe and the third world.

My other point is that you cannot compare the USSR with the USA, because the starting positions were different!

Frankly, the people who emigrated to the USA, were self-selected, people with a "drive" to improve their lives. They were entrepreneurial risk takers with initiative.

Secondly; the land was open and the opportunities were endless. Of course somebody could quickly improve their life if they coult just grab a large piece of fertile land, for free, and not have to pay tax! That was the situation in the USA up to the early 20th century, at least for people who were prepared to move far West or North.

During the 19th century there were completely un-exploited natural resources close to the new cities, owned by nobody.
They had entrepreneurial freedom that did not exist in imperial Russia. The American constitution that they are so proud of, worked well back in those days, (at least if you were white...) The state could not bully people like the tsar regime in imperial Russia did.

Was Imperial Russia really "freer" than the USSR - even for those lucky enough to have good lives? I doubt it. People couldn't say what they wanted, people who complained and they had less opportunities than during the USSR era to improve their lvies.

By all means, criticize the USSR for what it did wrong (brutal in the early days and during Stalin, insensitive, ineffective and later stagnated). But don't deny what it did well.

It educated people, improved living conditions for the great majority, peasants, workers.

Compare the standard and opportunities during Soviet days, of Tadjikistan with Afghanistan nearby that has the same tribes and religion.

Look at how native populations lived in the USA, and still do to some extent up in Alaska and at Indian reservations. It's a complete disgrace. The USSR took much better care of such populations and was more sensitive to their cultures.

And what are you talking about when you imply that modern Russians are less educated / intellectual / cultured than Westerners?

I.e. "Liberal Arts" (A strange American expression which essentially means they continue studying the things they should have learned in high school, for 4 more years at university, which they have re-named (and demoted) to calling "college". At college they learn very little of practical knowlege. An excellent idea to push in a country where you have to pay a small fortune to attend university... They are paying for something they should have received for free, in school.) To get the useful higher education needed for the work place, they have to continue on to a Masters which I believe is called University at that stage.

That Russians aren't intellectual simply isn't right! You have a reputation of being intellectual, didn't you know that? Which country do you consider to be significantly intellectually superior to Russia? If you say the USA, I will laugh...

I grew up watching plenty of Russian content on TV, not because of any ideological reasons largely, but mainly because the artistic and intellectual quality was considered superior to that of alternative countries they could have imported from. Yugoslavia and Chechoslovakia also cut the mark in that department, btw). Of course, we also had English speaking, German etc content. For children's material the difference in quality was stunning and very little American content sipped through in my childhood.

Why are you putting your country down like that, when it doesn't deserve it... ?
Americans are the opposite: They keep telling themselves they are the freest, richest, most moral even though its not true apart from for the really well off.
You Russians are almost the opposite. You are convinced you are much worse than you actually are.

As for intellectual people:

We only need to look here in this forum. I have noticed that:

• The average Russian member is stellar at history, in many cases they know aspects of my country's history better than I do, and I am well educated.
• Russians here are familiar with topics like Political philosophy and have read classics ranging from Greek odes to the English/French/German/Spanish classics, not to mention Russian.
• People are familiar with world religions and their own Christian heritage.
• Most Russians here are well familiar with classical music, opera, theater

I am almost certain that this is heritage from the USSR.
It's very much an upper middle class marker in most of Western Europe to be take part in such culture. If you take Americans, they are rarely intellectual in that respect, it's just not the heritage there.
But in Russia, it's almost the norm.

When we see Russians who are less cultured/intellectual, it's younger people who were educated after the influence of the USSR ended, with junk TV, computer games.

So sure: Russia doesn't have "Liberal Arts colleges", but somehow, the population is still more intellectual than in the country that does!

Hanna, спасибо за мнение. Я отвечу на русском, т.к. мой словарный запас не позволяет эффективно общаться на подобные темы на английском.

В разговоре о РИ и СССР всегда присутствует несколько уровней смыслов. Уровень первый:

Что касается развитости РИ и уровня образования в ней, я хочу обратить ваше внимание на следующую вещь: отсылки к РИ используются сторонниками советской власти для оправдания коммунистического режима. Мол, «Это не большевики виноваты в жертвах массового голода, в расстрелах и так далее. На это всё были объективные обстоятельства, а сами большевики беспокоились исключительно о благе людей!»
Как вы понимаете, это пропаганда, а не реальная история. Чем страшнее будет описана РИ, тем проще сказать, что большевики ни в чем не виноваты.
Поскольку вы пишете: «I am not defending the over-use of violence in the revolution», то вы стоите на принципиально иных позициях, чем советские. Поэтому, например, я и вы можем при необходимости предметно обсудить: каков был уровень образования в РИ, как развивалась экономика в то время, в какой форме проходили сталинские репрессии и так далее. Для нас это будет вопрос научный и исторический.
А для советских людей это вопрос исключительно пропаганды и религиозной веры. Сначала пришедшие к власти бандиты придумали сказку, как было страшно жить в РИ, потом те, кто не достаточно знаком с историей, им поверили.

Надо сказать, среди поклонников советского режима уровень незнания истории просто невероятен. Например, для всего мира катынский расстрел — преступление советского режима, а для советских — это преступление немецких национал-социалистов. Я по мере возможности просто пытаюсь говорить правду.
И поэтому я не ленюсь каждый раз при встрече с остатками советской пропаганды про "как страшно жили люди в РИ" повторять: никакой причинно-следственной связи между жертвами Сталина и правлением Романовых — нет.

Уровень второй:

Давайте посмотрим на тезисы, которые вы озвучили:

1. Russia, at the time of the revolution, was well behind most of Western Europe, and America in terms of development.
2. The USSR did some things that I would totally condemn and had practices up until the end that must have been VERY frustrating for people to put up with.
3. The USSR achieved ENORMOUS progress, in very short time. That's why the USA eventually became so paranoid about the USSR.

Вопрос из этих тезисов возникает следующий: являются ли практики СССР необходимыми для достижения того прогресса, который был достигнут?
На мой взгляд — нет. Уничтожение частной собственности, низведения крестьян до состояния рабов, расстрелы офицеров, ученых и писателей, цензура и замена науки на изучение талмудов вождей — всё это никак не может способствовать достижению прогресса. Это то, что тормозит прогресс.
А если так, то выводы получаются такие:
1. Без Сталина Россия достигла бы более впечатляющих результатов, чем с ним.
2. Россия до революции имела огромный потенциал развития, если даже в «урезанном» стараниями Сталина виде смогла представлять угрозу для США.

Уровень третий:

Значение имеет не только уровень развития, но и динамика развития. РИ — это, по меркам истории, молодое государство. Оно началось с Петра Первого. Это начало XVIII века. В практическом плане — это империя, возникшая «из ниоткуда». Начало XVIII века: Россия — «просто страна где-то на северо-востоке Европы», провинция и захолустье. Середина XIX-го века: Россия — уже одна из мировых держав, с которой приходится считаться Франции и Великобритании.
По темпам развития Россия, как ни странно, схожа с США. И США, и Россия создали себя посредством сухопутной колонизации огромной территории, при чем создали «из ничего». США просто «не должно было быть» — это историческая аномалия. Россия Петра Первого — это тоже историческая аномалия.

Что касается внутриполитического развития, Россия во многом повторяла путь Франции (и заимствовала французские идеи). Так же как и во Франции, в РИ должна была произойти революция. Социалистическая, само собой. И вот здесь начинается интересное. Социализм существовал в двух вариантах. Лайт-версия — в виде сплава социализма с демократией. И хардкорная версия — в виде коммунизма. России достался коммунизм.

Уровень четвертый:

Почему России достался коммунизм, репресии, культ Сталина и прочее? Я бы сказал, России в этом плане «помогли». РИ пыталась играть наравне с такими странами как Франция, Великобритания и Австро-Венгрия, но при этом по внутриполитическому развитию отставала от них (в силу своей молодости). В Западной Европе уже отчетливо оформились nation states современного типа, а в РИ всё еще был абсолютизм. Путь от абсолютизма до национализма нужно было пройти «по ускоренной программе».
Это открывало окно внутриполитических нестабильностей. Победить Россию на внешней арене было проблематично, а вот на внутренней — запросто. В приходе к власти большевиков и превращении страны в тоталитарное государство есть немалая заслуга британской короны. Британия уже в ту пору прекрасно умела засылать агентов влияния по всему миру.

И сейчас мы имеем довольно абсурдную ситуацию. Россия — это не Первый Мир, потому что она так и не доросла до европеского nation state, сошла с рельс политического развития на полпути. Но Россия — это и не Третий Мир, т.к. мы никогда не были ничьей колонией. Так и болтаемся во Втором Мире уже около ста лет.

Единственный путь развития государства, который лично я вижу в таких условиях — это:
Ускоренное строительство nation state и формирование дееспособной русской нации. Использование преимуществ нашего политического и географического положения для конкурирования с современными государствами: позиционирование России как страны, идущей по курсу традиционных европейских ценностей; контроль миграционных потоков из стран Средней Азии; модернизация православия, восстановление его имиджа и дееспособности в услових XXI-го века; ускоренное развитие IT, создание благоприятных условий для миграции к нам специалистов, которые не могут реализовать себя в рамках США и Западной Европы (Павлы Дуровы должны ехать к нам, а не уезжать отсюда); налаживание тесного сотрудничества с Китаем, создание альтернативных каналов импорта и экспорта ресурсов; восстановление сферы влияния над традиционно русскими территориями, включая Украину, Беларусь и Казахстан.

Вместо этого «элита» страны занимается черт знает чем. Это обычные советские КГБшники, партийцы, мафия из национальных меньшинств и прочий сброд. Они, попав из СССР в реальный мир, просто не понимают, что им тут теперь делать и как жить. Прежде чем восстановится нормальное функционирование государственного аппарата, должно смениться поколение. Должны вырасти люди, чей мозг не задет советской пропагандой, затем эти люди должны добиться успехов в бизнесе и в государственной службе, попасть во власть — и только тогда можно будет говорить о том, что в России появилась политика. Нужно еще лет 15-20.
Путину же Россия — как шапка титанов для лилипута. Люди, за 2 века создавшие империю таких размеров, — это титаны и гиганты. Несчатный советский полковник КГБ просто не в состоянии разумно распорядиться таким наследством.

Originally Posted by Hanna

Also, like many Russians, you are judging your country (Russia) very harshly.

Отнюдь. Я всего лишь выступаю на стороне здравого смысла. Я за то, чтобы мои сограждане прекратили «натягивать сову на глобус» (такая пословица ) и начали относиться к истории России XX-го века как к набору фактов, которые необходимо знать, а не как к предмету религиозного почитания.

Very interesting response, thanks! We just have a slightly different outlook on things, but you know your own country better than I do, so I won't challenge you on it.

Еще несколько дополнений:

Originally Posted by Hanna

Frankly, the people who emigrated to the USA, were self-selected, people with a "drive" to improve their lives. They were entrepreneurial risk takers with initiative.

А как, вы полагаете, осваивалась территория Сибири? Точно такими же инициативными людьми.

Originally Posted by Hanna

My other point is that you cannot compare the USSR with the USA, because the starting positions were different!

Это звучит так, будто за окном всё еще 60-е и гонка вооружений.
Я сравниваю то, что можно сравнить в историческом контексте. Меня интересует природа различных политических и социальных процессов, а не «количество чугуна на душу населения», ну или в чем там измеряла успехи советская власть, не помню.

Originally Posted by Hanna

Was Imperial Russia really "freer" than the USSR - even for those lucky enough to have good lives? I doubt it.

Я вам так отвечу:
Когда элита культурнее народа — это называется монархия. Это игра на повышение. Народ растёт вслед за элитой. Создаются университеты, школы, больницы, люди учатся уважать друг друга, жить по закону, а не по праву сильного.
Когда «элита» — тупые уголовники (в прямом смысле; основные лица ВКПб — бывшие уголовники: грабители и террористы), проводящие раскулачивания и расстрелы, то это называется тирания.
«Уровень свободы» при этом не имеет никакого значения. Если у вас есть то, что нужно бандиту из НКВД, это завтра будет у него, а вы будете расстреляны как враг народа.

Originally Posted by Hanna

And what are you talking about when you imply that modern Russians are less educated / intellectual / cultured than Westerners?

А я такого и не говорил. Средние слои населения имеют приемлимый уровень образования.
Однако, «элита» страны такого образования, как, например, элита Франции или Германии — не имеет. А в РИ — имела.

Originally Posted by RedFox

Еще несколько дополнений:

А как, вы полагаете, осваивалась территория Сибири? Точно такими же инициативными людьми.

Это звучит так, будто за окном всё еще 60-е и гонка вооружений.
Я сравниваю то, что можно сравнить в историческом контексте. Меня интересует природа различных политических и социальных процессов, а не «количество чугуна на душу населения», ну или в чем там измеряла успехи советская власть, не помню.

Я вам так отвечу:
Когда элита культурнее народа — это называется монархия. Это игра на повышение. Народ растёт вслед за элитой. Создаются университеты, школы, больницы, люди учатся уважать друг друга, жить по закону, а не по праву сильного.
Когда «элита» — тупые уголовники (в прямом смысле; основные лица ВКПб — бывшие уголовники: грабители и террористы), проводящие раскулачивания и расстрелы, то это называется тирания.
«Уровень свободы» при этом не имеет никакого значения. Если у вас есть то, что нужно бандиту из НКВД, это завтра будет у него, а вы будете расстреляны как враг народа.

А я такого и не говорил. Средние слои населения имеют приемлимый уровень образования.
Однако, «элита» страны такого образования, как, например, элита Франции или Германии — не имеет. А в РИ — имела.

I don't strongly disagree with anything you say, but I think you'd find me more to the left of yourself on an old fashioned right - left scale, that's probably why I am more inclined to see the good in the USSR and be harsher in my judgment of imperial Russia which was practically feudal in some respects.
I think a country should be judged on how it treats the majority, not on how the top part of society lives. Your views seem to be more in line with what Americans call "neo-con".

You should also consider, where would YOU be in the hierarchy if not for the revolution? Unless your ancestors were part of the prosperous bourgeoise before the revolution, odds are that your family benefited from a lot of what the USSR offered.

And even if your ancestors were part of the small clique at the top; would you have enjoyed your priveliges while other countrymen were starving and freezing?

Imperial Russia was hardly a democracy either as I understand with those who dared challenge the powers being sent into exile or even executed. How long would that have continued if the revolution didn't happen?

And when Germany invaded, 1941, could the tsar with Imperial Russia have pulled off what Stalin did with the USSR? Things could have ended very differently.

I am aware as you say, that there was a very cultured elite in St Petersburg, Moscow and elsewhere in the Russian empire, and that St Petersburg and Moscow were modern and forward.
I know there were excellent educational institutions in St Petersburg at the time, and that the Russian elite travelled widely in Europe and got new impressions and brought ideas home, and that there were impressive building project as well as the exploration of Siberia during this time.

But while that happened, there were simultaneously people who barely had shoes on their feet in the winter, couldn't read or write, suffered malnourishment but still believed that the tsar was divine. Very backwards, you can't deny that.

Obviously Russia lost much of it elites in the revolution, and put a lid on capitalist style development projects. Communism has some very unattractive sides to it, the way it deals with religion being one of them.
And socialist planning conducted by flawed humans isn't a dynamic, flexible or flawless way of running an economy. I am not disputing that capitalism is more efficient at least for short term profits.
Without the revolution who knows? Maybe Russia would be like Brazil today, some really rich people and some really poor. Or maybe more like the USA - but I believe the melting pot / immigration / new lands situation was quite unique.

As for the level of education of leaders in modern day Russia; Who are you comparing with? Americans?
Are American leaders so much better educated and smarter? How come they always start these insane wars that end in total failure and doesn't achieve what they believe. Sergei Lavrov has really impressed me as incredibly sharp and a bit of a rennaissance person. I don't think Putin is some caveman either, even though my view of him is not quite as positive as of Lavrov. Which leaders is it that you admire and that seem to be so much more refined than Russia's? Merkel? Hollande? Xi Jinping? Surely not Obama?! I have more respect for Putin in that case.

Or did you mean the state of higher education in general?
If so, I can understand you are concerned, I read about bribes and corruption at universities. I knew that there have been times in the past when scientific/tecnical degrees from the USSR were highly rated; back in the 1960s-70s.

Putin should prioritize higher education and invest in excellent universities and vocational educations - anything else would be stupid. If talented people have to go abroad to get a really good education, then Russia is at a disadvantage. I am sure the Russian leadership is aware of that. Partly it's up to people who work in education and at universities to stop accepting bribes and raise the bar.
I don't know how common this is, but I read about it several times.

RedFox, очень интересный пост, действительно! Вы прояснили для меня очень многие моменты, касаемые вашего мировоззрения, и я должен сказать, в лучшую сторону! Согласен практически со всеми пунктами анализа событий 20-го века в вашей стране (британские агенты как ключевые фигуры красного бунта представляется несколько спорным), а также пути развития вашего государства, кроме установления сферы влияния над "традиционно русскими территориями". Дело в том, что территории, перечисленные вами не всегда были под сферой влияния РИ. Геополитическая история - вещь довольно скользкая в том плане, что если начать в ней копаться и "восстанавливать историческую справедливость", то можно придти к тому, что отрезать большую половину территории и от РИ (читайте, современной территории РФ). Вместо этого, я думаю, было бы оптимальным, предположив нынешние устоявшиеся границы государств непреложными, просто уважать право на суверенитет и территориальную целостность всех соседних государств, и, не допуская никакой культурной/экономической экспансии, просто выстраивать с ними добрососедские отношения. Это все насчет внешней политики. Пути же развития внутренней политики, описанные вами, уже кажутся оптимальными на всех уровнях. Это же касается оценок способности текущего руководства вашей страны реализовывать их. =))

RedFox, you made some very good points, I agree with many of them but I think you missing the big picture.
You think that all Russian problems are in a bad ruler - change former KGB officer to somebody else and Russia would be fine. It is very Russian to believe in a good tzar that would come and help
The truth is that many Western countries(especially one) are actively resisting Russian projects to become a strong state and globalization is in a full play at that task.
Whenever Russia tries to make a move in world politics it sees resistance: sanctions against Russia and Russian allies, anti-Russian propaganda, economical and political black-mailing, all these weapons are actively used every day.
At the same time, for the last at least 10 years we see that one country decided that it can use brutal force to get what it wants and uses military almost everywhere on the planet, whenever it feels fit.
And as you were saying:
"Когда «элита» — тупые уголовники ,проводящие раскулачивания и расстрелы, то это называется тирания.
«Уровень свободы» при этом не имеет никакого значения. Если у вас есть то, что нужно бандиту, это завтра будет у него, а вы будете расстреляны как враг народа."
And sadly that country behaves exactly like you described but on a world wide scale. And Russia and some other countries probably feel obligated to resist such behavior which does not make Russia very popular in the eyes of some Western countries and also does not ease Russian development.

I'm glad that at least some countries (like Russia) resisting world wide aggression, because otherwise it would be НКВД of the whole world and that is scary.