Thread: The views of Russians, according to the "Pew Institute". True or false?

Another article I read, alongside the one about Alexei Navalny (see separate thread). It's part of a series covering Russia ahead of the 2012 election.

Header was "Russians miss the USSR". Clicking on the link gives a different header, "Russians view the past with mixed feelings".

The article is based on a survey that was made by something called the "Pew Institute"

"The Pew Research Center is an American think tank organization based in Washington, D.C."

(Hmmmm...... Sweden is close to Russia, why does a Swedish paper need to use an American survey to find out what Russians think?? They could get to St Petersburg with a 1 hour flight and find out for themselves...)

The article claims:

Due to the high level of corruption currently prevalent, Russians have a negative view of the changes since 1991. 42 percent say that the change to market economy was good. 50% think that it was good to have a multi-party system.

That makes me wonder, what does everyone else want...?

When asked "Who is most likely to be able to solve problems with corruption and criminality" 32% answered "A democratic government". 57 said "a strong leader".

The Pew institute asked 1000 Russians whether they considered the fall of the USSR a "tragic accident". 50% said Yes and 36% said No. Furthermore, 48% of those asked agreed with the statement "It is natural for Russia to have an empire".

The icon of the West, Michail Gorbatjov, who put a stop to the USSR - is much hated in Russia today, similarily Boris Jeltsin who founded modern Russia. Many view him as the root of the problems of modern Russia.

The article goes on to comment that a massive super power just "gave up" with hardly no deaths or internal fighting.

There was no bloodbath, despite the fact that this was a powerful empire with over 100 ethnic groups within its borders, not to mention enough nuclear weapons to destroy the planet many times over.

(I just included this because I personally think it's an interesting fact.)

"I lost my motherland and I still mourn this occassionally", says Genadij Burbulis who visited the conference in Gothenburg. "But at the same time, the country was a prison." (surely not to him, he was a minister!)

The article ends (surprise, surprise....) with the mandatory speculation about whether Putin has plans to resurrect the USSR in a modern guise, for example the freetrade union with Belarus and Kazakhstan, plus some other countries that also want to join:

Critics claim that military cooperation between ex Soviet countries easily could end up under the control of the new Union which is dominated by 80% ethnic Russian functionaries. They claim that Putin's goal is to create a cluster of obedient buffer states surrounding Russia.

Good luck organising a joint defense...lol.... The EU has wanted to do that for 20 years and had no success whatsoever! I predict it's a hopeless cause...

Do you agree with the views above, or what do you think of them? Do you agree that the statements are representative of peoples opinion or is the survey biased?

"Russians miss the USSR

Это правда.

Russians view the past with mixed feelings

Это тоже.

Due to the high level of corruption

Corruption isn't the only cause.

That makes me wonder, what does everyone else want...?

It depends on how the question given to the respondents was formulated. They might want anything else. Probably a more socialist economy. about multi-party system, they probably do not consider it very valuable.

which is dominated by 80% ethnic Russian functionaries.

Where are the proofs? And does it matter? Probably they think more of influence of the states in the new union?

Мой инстинкт подобен тому, что ты сказала, Ханна. Этот тест был проведен американским институтом. Ну, там должна быть причина для этого. Другие места, может оказать эту услугу за меньшие деньги. И, как ты сказала, многие страны ближе к России. Я подозреваю, что есть вторая мотивация, почему это так обследование проводится американским институтом.

Originally Posted by Hanna

Russians miss the USSR

ну я также могу написать - "это неправда"
в реальности, только часть русских "miss the USSR" и эта часть стремительно вымирает

Russians miss the USSR

Do they miss soviet political/economic system, or do they miss "lost territories" too?

Originally Posted by nulle

Do they miss soviet political/economic system, or do they miss "lost territories" too?

Yeah, the survey specifically mentioned that 0.023% of Russians would like to annex Latvia and force all Latvians to play the balalaika for 10 hours per day....

Plus, I could be wrong, but I think that people in some of the Central Asian countries would be rather pleased if Russians turned up with some oil money and some of the stuff they used to get during the Soviet days. Hospitals, new schools and housing etc. They are living on a couple of dollars a day there... They had it much better before, and based on the situation in Afghanistan or Pakistan they would not have been better off as independent during those years either.

I admit that I mostly said this to tease Nulle, but there might be some truth to it, at least if a BBC documentary that I saw is anything to go by.

Originally Posted by Hanna

Plus, I could be wrong, but I think that people in some of the Central Asian countries would be rather pleased if Russians turned up with some oil money and some of the stuff they used to get during the Soviet days. .

You hit the truth
1.jpeg
2.jpg

Originally Posted by kidkboom

Мой инстинкт подобен тому, что ты сказала, Ханна. Этот тест был проведен американским институтом. Ну, там должна быть причина для этого. Другие места может оказать эту услугу за меньшие деньги. И, как ты сказала, многие страны ближе к России. Я подозреваю, что есть вторая мотивация, почему это так обследование проводится американским институтом.

Другие места могут

Originally Posted by nulle

Do they miss soviet political/economic system, or do they miss "lost territories" too?

Not that easy. In USSR 'success' could mean anything - you could be a good doctor or a good teacher, a good factory worker even or a good scientist. Now 'success' means only one thing - money. Sell your mom and dad, sell your own soul, but get the money and be successful. That's the main problem. In some other countries it may be possible for a doctor or a teacher to earn good money and be content. Unfortunately it's impossible in present-day Russia, and that's what people miss about USSR.

Originally Posted by Ramil

Not that easy. In USSR 'success' could mean anything - you could be a good doctor or a good teacher, a good factory worker even or a good scientist. Now 'success' means only one thing - money. Sell your mom and dad, sell your own soul, but get the money and be successful. That's the main problem. In some other countries it may be possible for a doctor or a teacher to earn good money and be content. Unfortunately it's impossible in present-day Russia, and that's what people miss about USSR.

That means you think they only miss the political/economic system, doesn't it?

Originally Posted by Eric C.

That means you think they only miss the political/economic system, doesn't it?

I can't say for all, there are some people, of course, who miss all the might of the super-power. They have the so called 'imperial complex' but it would be a mistake to think that all people who miss USSR are alike. The good thing about USSR is that they told us that there are more important things in the world than money. Now they're telling us otherwise and I can hardly call it a turn for the better.

Originally Posted by Ramil

In USSR 'success' could mean anything - you could be a good doctor or a good teacher, a good factory worker even or a good scientist.

Originally Posted by Ramil

The good thing about USSR is that they told us that there are more important things in the world than money.

Those are the exact reasons that I have some degree of respect and admiration for the USSR. I know there were many downsides, but this is unique and very cool. Because of what happened in the USSR, other countries shaped up due to fear of a revolution. Plus, I think that for the last 30 years of so of its existence, the USSR was no worse than lots of other countries, either towards its own citizens or anyone else. It raised the living standard of millions of people and gave them access to good education, free healthcare and a secure job.

All of this gets lost among endless talk about gulags, Stalin, nuclear weapons and spies....

It raised the living standard of millions of people and gave them access to good education, free healthcare and a secure job.

That might be true for most of Russia and Central-Asia.
But not for occupied Baltic states - where occupation lowered living standards.

That might be true for most of Russia and Central-Asia.
But not for occupied Baltic states - where occupation lowered living standards.

The level of life in Baltic states grew several times from the War to the end of the Soviet Union.

Originally Posted by nulle

That might be true for most of Russia and Central-Asia.
But not for occupied Baltic states - where occupation lowered living standards.

Означает ли это, что Россия и азиатские страны были что называется паразитами на теле Латвии и повысили свой уровень жизни за её счёт?

Originally Posted by nulle

That might be true for most of Russia and Central-Asia.
But not for occupied Baltic states - where occupation lowered living standards.

Yeah, everyone knows that there was a paradise on Earth in Baltic states before 1940. I'm sure Baltic media tried very hard in 1990s to 'prove' that.

Originally Posted by Ramil

Yeah, everyone knows that there was a paradise on Earth in Baltic states before 1940. I'm sure Baltic media tried very hard in 1990s to 'prove' that.

Maybe lowering here does not necessarily imply absolute lowering, but something like preventing them from rising to the enough level?

Yeah, everyone knows that there was a paradise on Earth in Baltic states before 1940

Not "paradise on earth", but way better living conditions than Soviet Union at that time (there were no purges, gulags or collectivization - we had democracy (till 1934) and market economy).
In 1940 commies came and dragged Baltics down to their level (with collectivization, deportations, looting, etc).

And after that Commies and nazis came with their world war and ruined everything.

That's why in Latvia there is nostalgia (especially among people who lived at that time) for pre-war Latvia, not Soviet Union.

I laugh at the views expressed here. Good comedy. USSR was good. Lenin was good. Brainwashed as much as Americans.

There were a few diffrerent soviet unions according to the epoch of every governer. Every next governer critisized the previous one. Stalin ctiticised Lenin and slaughtered all Lenin's comrades including Trotsky. Khruschev revealied Stalin's policy and executed Stalin's comrad Beria, he also imprisoned Stalin's son Vasily Stalin (under a fictitious name though -- Vasiliev). Khruschev was removed from power and replaced by Brezhnev who prohibited all criticism about Stalin. Then Gorbatschev came to power and described the Brezhnev times as the stagnation period.

So people when talking about USSR mean totally different countries. No one for example wants to get back the USSR of the late 80x when there was no sugar, no soap, no tobacco and all the shops were empty.

Best substitute for deficit alcohol during in the USSR.

6067717e7970f63b5825f84f173.jpg