Thread: "Russophobia" and "Russophilia" :)

Originally Posted by 14Russian

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.

The fact that Russian Nationalists use that term doesn't make it an intelligent or productive term. And no, I don't whine or complain but I will point out terms that are counter-productive in a debate.
If those Nationalists are that opposed to Putin and prefer the disaster called 1990's Russia, they can move to Detroit Michigan and have that lifestyle back. Well, they may wanna invest in some APC's, body armor, tanks, and AK-47's before they move. Detroit is so much like Russia was in the 90's. I think they call it the American Dream - I just call it a nightmare.

And yeah, I am well aware that the Ukraine regime and the Russian government are both involved in the Ukraine disaster... and the USA... and every country in Europe... and the UN... and the NGO's.... and NATO... Did I miss somebody?
But it's not bad for Russia. The Russian economy is growing, despite all the sanctions, and US trade with Russia has risen more than the trade with Europe. But hey, even the US Chamber of Commerce is highly opposed to any more sanctions.

One thing I do know about the Ukrainian disaster and it was life-changing: Our country didn't condemn the heinous slaughter in the Union building in Odessa. They even actively blocked any investigations.
Russia openly condemned the slaughter and demanded an investigation.
If that's what neo-Soviet is all about, then yeah, I would be very proud to be called a neo-Soviet.

@ Hanna and RedFox: Thanks for all the insights into the USSR. That's a very interesting topic.
But don't forget, there are no time machines so nobody can go back and change up the October Revolution. So nobody can really know if Russia would have advanced as quickly as it did without communism.
I'm not a communist but I am impressed with what the USSR accomplished and I have learned what Russia was like between the USSR and President Putin. Weak and illiterate countries do not rise to become world leaders like Russia did.
Also, I think the American education system is severely over-rated. There's a lot of government control and the focus is highly vocational. There's even plans to rewrite more of the American history textbooks.
If I was enrolled in the US public school system, my education would be almost completely vocational.
Anyway, if I had to write a review of the Obama administration, I would call all of them illiterate. Maybe they all went to college but nothing they do or say ever proves it. But hey, anyone can get college degrees in the US... if they have enough money. They can buy their grades.

Originally Posted by UhOhXplode

The fact that Russian Nationalists use that term doesn't make it an intelligent or productive term. And no, I don't whine or complain but I will point out terms that are counter-productive in a debate.
If those Nationalists are that opposed to Putin and prefer the disaster called 1990's Russia, they can move to Detroit Michigan and have that lifestyle back. Well, they may wanna invest in some APC's, body armor, tanks, and AK-47's before they move. Detroit is so much like Russia was in the 90's. I think they call it the American Dream - I just call it a nightmare.

*Those Nationalists know their country far more than you do. *

I think it's fair to say that Russians there who feel oppressed to Putin and see that his clan is ruining the country have the RIGHT to object to what's going on. How come you can whine about the USA and make speeches but THEY 'can just move.' What a hypocrite.

But it's not bad for Russia. The Russian economy is growing, despite all the sanctions, and US trade with Russia has risen more than the trade with Europe. But hey, even the US Chamber of Commerce is highly opposed to any more sanctions.

The economy is NOT growing.
wakeupnow.info - В. Наганов: Путинские экономические заслуги

Hanna and UhOhXplode have no to little knowledge of the country or the politics and only because they are lapdogs to neo-Soviet leanings do you entertain them. There's no real discussion here.

I hope my last sentence is accepted. I edited the rest.* If not, the record shows they have little knowledge. Each time I prove them wrong with facts, they disregard it or make inane statements with no substance behind it. Пока.

Originally Posted by UhOhXplode

Russia openly condemned the slaughter and demanded an investigation.
If that's what neo-Soviet is all about, then yeah, I would be very proud to be called a neo-Soviet.

Oklahoma, USA.
Советский троллинг из неожиданного источника.

Originally Posted by UhOhXplode

But don't forget, there are no time machines so nobody can go back and change up the October Revolution. So nobody can really know if Russia would have advanced as quickly as it did without communism.

No, but it's a very interesting question and I imagine every single person in Russia and the ex USSR countries has considered it, and/or has a strong view on it.

I think that RedFox attempted to do an analysis and I believe his conclusion was that Russia would have done better without the revolution and that the accomplishments of the USSR would have taken place anyway, or were irrelevant.

I am less convinced - I think it would have taken a long time for disadvantaged groups to get the advantages that the USSR offered them within only a a decade or two. There are Russian Nobel prize winners and prominent scholars and scientists whose parents or grandparents were practically illiterate peasants.

I also wonder if Imperial Russia would have been able to defend itself effectively against the attack from Nazi Germany, and whether regular soldiers would have had the same motivation to defend the territory of the USSR and liberate Eastern Europe. Things might have looked very different in Europe today, if they hadn't. Imperial Russia might have settled for simply defending its own historical territory and left Europe to the Nazis. The USSR went further West than Russia had ever been before, thereby defeating the nazis. Because fascism is the natural enemy of communism it spurred the USSR on in a way that might not have happened otherwise. Imperial Russia might even have reached some agreement with Nazi Germany that would have prevented it from getting drawn into the war completely.

Would Imperial Russia have built a sputnik and sent the first man into space? Part of the incentive for doing that, were ideological.

What would the situation be like in Central Asia? I think they'd be were Afghanistan and North West China are - instead they were treated as equals in the USSR, received support to develop their republics and are lightyears ahead of Afghanistan. I doubt most of the people there regret the USSR.

Would there have been democracy in Russia during the 20th century if the revolution never happened? Who would have accomplished that, and how would it have happened in absence of a revolution? Given what I know about Imperial Russia it seems unlikely.

My feeling is that Russia would have remained a country with extremely strong class divides without the revolution. Like Brazil today, perhaps, or other nations in South America which has well educated modern populations in the cities and poverty / poor education in rural areas. Russia is such a large and diverse country that only a really ambitious ideology with a centrally planned economy could have quickly achieved the changes that it achieved, across the nation.

However, for anyone who considers the USSR a total fiasco, obviously anything would have been preferable, including brutal class divides during the 20th century. I think that for a large, grand country like Russia, a really dramatic change and a grand, super ambitious ideology was the only way to achieve change across the country.

Originally Posted by Hanna

Would Imperial Russia have built a sputnik and sent the first man into space? Part of the incentive for doing that, were ideological.

Спутник определенно не стоит 10 миллионов человек, погибших в ходе гражданской войны. (Это не считая всех тех, кто погиб от голодомора и репрессий позднее.)
Если мы предположим, что стоит, и что величие страны измеряется в спутниках, самолётах и подводных лодках, то нам следовало бы признать Нацистскую Германию — вершиной человеческой эволюции.

Один характерный штришок из жизни отца русской космонавтики Королёва. Вернее, из его смерти:
Следователь КГБ сломал Королёву челюсть, ударив Сергея Павловича графином по скуле; вследствие неудачного сращения кости, Королёв не мог достаточно широко раскрывать рот даже во время еды.
Из-за этой травмы во время операции (он был болен саркомой) возникли сложности при интубации трахеи. Ему не смогли корректно ввести дыхательную трубку в трахею. Во время этой операции Королёв скончался.

Вы знаете, мне не хочется говорить ничего хорошего о государстве, в котором одного из талантливейших людей на планете избивает графином следователь КГБ. Хотя конечно хорошее в СССР было, не только плохое... Но вот просто не хочется.
Эти твари должны быть изгнаны обратно в ад.