Thread: "Russophobia" and "Russophilia" :)

Originally Posted by 14Russian

-> "as well as they don't notice now how the Kievan neo-fascist junta burns civilian people with banned phosphorous bombs, supplied by the US in the South-East regions of Ukraine. It's very convenient to be pleasantly blind and see only those things that please your eyes. "
You are a troll. Same as the other neo-Soviet posters. Why not just say who you are?

BS about 'neo-fascist' Kiev government is getting old. What is it about them that fits that description? Russia bans publications and has lots of censorship. There's more freedom in Ukraine than in Russia. That might change with the pro-Western EU dictatorship but saying they are 'neo-fascist' CURRENTLY is not just exaggeration, it's utter BS. Russia is a neo-soviet dictatorship right now but do you complain or talk about that? НЕТ! Until then, you are just a hypocrite parroting the same old rhetoric that your Kremlin media dictates to you. Learn to think for yourself, huh?

Is insult all you are capable of? Do you really think that insulting other members of the forum makes you look any smarter or somehow better? it's pathetic! I just don't care.
All I know, the bell tolls for you too.
PS. Russia is far from neo-Soviet. Russia has almost the same political and economical model of oligarchic monopolistic capitalism as Ukraine has, imputed by the IMF after the break-up of the Soviet Union. The only difference is that in Ukraine the oligarchs have completely subdued the state to their private needs, while in Russia they haven't succeeded that goal completely due to Putin's so-called "dictatorship".

Originally Posted by SergeMak

All I know, the bell tolls for you too.

So, the bell tolls for anyone who happens to disagree with your view of the world? You know, insulting someone just coz you two can't agree on something isn't good either, but it's still better than threatening. Think about that. Seriously.

Originally Posted by Eric C.

So, the bell tolls for anyone who happens to disagree with your view of the world? You know, insulting someone just coz you two can't agree on something isn't good either, but it's still better than threatening. Think about that. Seriously.

I am not threatening anybody. The bell tolls for everybody. If you don't know it's a quotation of John Donne - an English poet of the XVII century:
"No man is an Iland, intire of it selfe; every man is a peece of the Continent, a part of the maine; if a Clod bee washed away by the Sea, Europe is the lesse, as well as if a Promontorie were, as well as if a Mannor of thy friends or of thine owne were; any mans death diminishes me, because I am involved in Mankinde; And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; It tolls for thee."
Think of the deep philosophical meaning of this idea. If you think that you can be safe and happy in your comfortable country not noticing all the blood-shed and all the injustice that's going in the world, you're in a big trouble. Think about that. Seriously.

It was so obvious why that quote from "For Whom The Bells Toll" was used. What's not obvious is how anyone could consider it to be a threatening statement... Well, unless they think classic books are a threat. lol.
And when I think about all those people in the peaceful OWS demonstrations that were beaten and pepper sprayed, I think using that quote was appropriate. Apathy supports monsters.

President Putin's job approval rating = over 82%.
President Obama's job approval rating = about 41%.
So which President should somebody suspect got into office with a corrupt election?
Only a Russophobe would say Putin.

Btw, the Princeton University study concluded that America is an Oligarchy, not a Democracy:

Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organised groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence.
In English: the wealthy few move policy, while the average American has little power.

BBC News - Study: US is an oligarchy, not a democracy

So how can anyone say that our government isn't corrupt? It doesn't matter who we vote for because they aren't the people who make the important decisions.

Originally Posted by SergeMak

Is insult all you are capable of? Do you really think that insulting other members of the forum makes you look any smarter or somehow better? it's pathetic! I just don't care.
All I know, the bell tolls for you too.
PS. Russia is far from neo-Soviet. Russia has almost the same political and economical model of oligarchic monopolistic capitalism as Ukraine has, imputed by the IMF after the break-up of the Soviet Union. The only difference is that in Ukraine the oligarchs have completely subdued the state to their private needs, while in Russia they haven't succeeded that goal completely due to Putin's so-called "dictatorship".

Funny slogans doesn't improve your argument. (Вытерто. Л.) Maybe, you suspect you are wrong, if my post bothers you?

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.

Вы должны воздерживаться от переходов на личности. Напоминаю: переход на личность, публичное выражение неуважения к другому есть нарушение правил форума. Конечно, тема горячая, и я призываю всех к соблюдению спокойствия в дискуссии.

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 UhOhXplode

It was so obvious why that quote from "For Whom The Bells Toll" was used. What's not obvious is how anyone could consider it to be a threatening statement... Well, unless they think classic books are a threat. lol.
And when I think about all those people in the peaceful OWS demonstrations that were beaten and pepper sprayed, I think using that quote was appropriate. Apathy supports monsters.

President Putin's job approval rating = over 82%.
President Obama's job approval rating = about 41%.
So which President should somebody suspect got into office with a corrupt election?
Only a Russophobe would say Putin.

Btw, the Princeton University study concluded that America is an Oligarchy, not a Democracy:

BBC News - Study: US is an oligarchy, not a democracy

So how can anyone say that our government isn't corrupt? It doesn't matter who we vote for because they aren't the people who make the important decisions.

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.

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

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 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 Eric C.

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

Да никто бы не осмелился, шутка-то мега смешная, я 2 часа из под стола вылезти не мог.

Originally Posted by Alex_krsk

Да никто бы не осмелился, шутка-то мега смешная, я 2 часа из под стола вылезти не мог.

Согласен, некоторые глупости никаким юмором не исправишь, и получаются плоские вещи вроде той.

Originally Posted by Eric C.

Согласен, некоторые глупости никаким юмором не исправишь, и получаются плоские вещи вроде той.

это лучше петросяна