Thread: Who were demonstrating in Moscow last weekend?

• According to the BBC the demonstrators were pro-democracy and anti-Putin and "fair elections".

• According to Russia Today, the demonstrators were pro-Putin, communists and in favour of fair elections.

Who is right?

Did anyone attend the demonstration?

(myself, I ended up in an anti internet monitoring demonstration on the same day. To my surprise, I found that it was covered on Russia Today. I just ran into the demonstration while I was making an errand....)

Originally Posted by Hanna

• According to the BBC the demonstrators were pro-democracy and anti-Putin and "fair elections".

• According to Russia Today, the demonstrators were pro-Putin, communists and in favour of fair elections.

Who is right?

Did anyone attend the demonstration?

(myself, I ended up in an anti internet monitoring demonstration on the same day. To my surprise, I found that it was covered on Russia Today. I just ran into the demonstration while I was making an errand....)

They both right. There were 4 meetings on Saturday. One was anti-Putin (Putin, go away), the second was pro-Putin (We have things to lose), the third was held by Zhirinovsky (I really don't know what they wanted) and the fourth was also anti-Putin but held by those who were awkward in the presence of their political opponents from the first oppositional meeting.

The first group was the most numerous (I think) and it consited of assorted oppositional movements. In reality they'd rather jump on each other's throats, but they for once have a common cause this time (Putin - go away). It scares me to think what would happen if they succeed and start bickering for power. They are just too different (nazis and communists, pro-western 'creative class', etc). They have a common foe, but once he's gone they will start fighting each other and draw the rest of the country into the fight.

The second group is represented by the people who see the danger of the first group and support Putin. Not because they like them very much, but because they think that Putin is better alternative to that first group. They say that they have something to lose and thus - they're against any revolutional changes.

The third meeting was organized by Zhirinovsky, I think it's a part of his electional campaign.

And the fourth group is a bunch of clowns, great fans of Valeriya Novodvorskaya - a crazy old woman with enormous feeling of self-importance who thinks that there are people who still listen to her ravings except those few who came with her that day.

Originally Posted by Ramil

They both right. There were 4 meetings on Saturday. One was anti-Putin (Putin, go away), the second was pro-Putin (We have things to lose), the third was held by Zhirinovsky (I really don't know what they wanted) and the fourth was also anti-Putin but held by those who were awkward in the presence of their political opponents from the first oppositional meeting.

The first group was the most numerous (I think) and it consited of assorted oppositional movements. In reality they'd rather jump on each other's throats, but they for once have a common cause this time (Putin - go away). It scares me to think what would happen if they succeed and start bickering for power. They are just too different (nazis and communists, pro-western 'creative class', etc). They have a common foe, but once he's gone they will start fighting each other and draw the rest of the country into the fight.

The second group is represented by the people who see the danger of the first group and support Putin. Not because they like them very much, but because they think that Putin is better alternative to that first group. They say that they have something to lose and thus - they're against any revolutional changes.

The third meeting was organized by Zhirinovsky, I think it's a part of his electional campaign.

And the fourth group is a bunch of clowns, great fans of Valeriya Novodvorskaya - a crazy old woman with enormous feeling of self-importance who thinks that there are people who still listen to her ravings except those few who came with her that day.

Thanks for the informative response, Ramil!

I don't reallly understand what Zhirinovsky's agenda is either, but I have not looked into it very much. Unless I am mixing him up with Zhuganov, he is the one who is playing the clown quite a bit on TV etc - I don't approve of that type of style in political leadership.

Saw some really crazy claims about him, that he was a spy, he is "planted" by Edinaya Rossia to pretend that there is a viable opposition party etc. Don't know if there is any truth to it, or if it is made up.

Originally Posted by Hanna

Thanks for the informative response, Ramil!

I don't reallly understand what Zhirinovsky's agenda is either, but I have not looked into it very much. Unless I am mixing him up with Zhuganov, he is the one who is playing the clown quite a bit on TV etc - I don't approve of that type of style in political leadership.

Zhirinovsky is a clown (the leader of "liberals")
Zuganov is the leader of the "communist" party

Doomer - how do Russian "liberals" differ from American "liberals"?

Originally Posted by Deborski

Doomer - how do Russian "liberals" differ from American "liberals"?

Vladimir Zhirinovsky - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think I know what they mean by Liberals. "Liberal democrats" in the European context is more a sort of a right-of-centre type of party that is still quite progressive and in favour of freetrade, trying to have lots of friendly interaction with neighbouring countries etc. They have traditionally been in favour of things like allowing labour immigration.
Most of the voters tend to be academics, people with good jobs, urban people etc who have not gone all the way to become Conservative. Their big problem is that they don't appeal to enough voters since their agendas require a bit of economic insight, and they are not very populistic, like more left or right leaning parties.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Zhirinovsky said he's dreaming of a day "when Russian soldiers can wash their boots in the warm waters of the Indian Ocean and switch to year-round summer uniforms"^[23] following Russia's conquest of Afghanistan, Iran and Turkey and occupation of the Persian Gulf and the Mediterranean.^[18] He also declared that Bulgaria should annex the Republic of Macedonia, and said that Romania is an artificial state supposedly created by Italian Gypsies who seized territory from Russia, Bulgaria and Hungary.^[15]

Oh dear!

Zhirinovsky has been expelled from Bulgaria for insulting its president and was barred from entry to Germany.^[29] In 2005, Kazakhstan declared Zhirinovsky persona non grata on the territory of his historical homeland, due to the politician's controversial speech about the change of the Russia-Kazakhstan border, in which he questioned the Kazakhs' place in history.^[30]

In 2006, Zhirinovsky became persona non grata also in Ukraine, following his statements regarding the January 2006 Russia-Ukraine gas dispute (this ban was revoked in 2007). In reaction to Condoleezza Rice's criticism of Russian foreign policy during the dispute, Zhirinovsky stated that "Condoleezza Rice needs a company of soldiers [and] needs to be taken to barracks where she would be satisfied

I don't think any serious person can vote for this man actually. He is making himself totally impossible in international politics.

Originally Posted by Hanna

I don't think any serious person can vote for this man actually. He is making himself totally impossible in international politics.

Of course he is. Just look at this video of him (it was filmed in Iraq several weeks before USA invasion, and yes, he is totally drunk):

haha, ok that's not the behaviour or rhetoric of someone who is serious about becoming president of a major power.

My word that was pretty funny. He should have a talkshow on TV instead of being a politician!
Is he the same when he's sober?

Originally Posted by Hanna

Is he the same when he's sober?

Almost. Just a bit more agressive and less funny.

Gah! He'd probably fit right in with the right-wing fanatics in America! It's funny that he is considered "liberal" - the word obviously has a very different meaning in Russia. "Liberal" in America tends to mean that we support government-run health insurance (universal health care), that we are against wars (!), and that we favor social freedoms, labor unions, and separation of church and state.

Wow, yeah, the guy sounds like a nut-job. He could get a TV show on FOX "news" here in America, and spout his hate rhetoric all day long and the ignorant masses would adore him, just as they love Glenn Beck!

Glenn Beck - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In June 2010, investigative reporter Alexander Zaitchik released a critical biography titled Common Nonsense: Glenn Beck and the Triumph of Ignorance, with a title mocking Beck's work, Common Sense.[165] In an interview about the book, Zaitchik theorized that "Beck’s politics and his insatiable hunger for money and fame are not mutually exclusive", while stating: "Beck’s true religion is not Patriotism, Mormonism, or Conservatism. His true religion is cross-platform self-marketing ... According to Beck’s worldview, there’s no inherent contradiction between his sophisticated instinct for self-promotion, his propagandist rodeo clown act, his self-image as a media mogul, and his professed belief system. I think he actually believes that God wants him to make a ton of money and become this huge celebrity by fear mongering and generally doing whatever it takes in the media to promote right-wing causes."

Thanks for the explanation, Hanna!

Originally Posted by Deborski

Gah! He'd probably fit right in with the right-wing fanatics in America! It's funny that he is considered "liberal" - the word obviously has a very different meaning in Russia. "Liberal" in America tends to mean that we support government-run health insurance (universal health care), that we are against wars (!), and that we favor social freedoms, labor unions, and separation of church and state.

Uhg. It puts such a bad taste in people's mouths when you throw in the "government-run anything". To be fair, the government portion of "Obama care" was only going to be be an option for those who didn't want, or couldn't afford private healthcare. But the conservatives just said no. Now everyone will be forced to buy private health care, and they aren't happy with that either.

Anyways, Sometimes I think it would be pretty hard to understand American politics if you aren't actively involved in them yourself. I remember seeing an interview on Russian tv with some Russian diplomat back in 2008 who said he wanted McCain to win. Just goes to show, I guess.

lmao, I heard a joke about it:

We're lucky we have only one Zhirinovsky, in USA they have a whole republican party of those like him.

Originally Posted by Ramil

lmao, I heard a joke about it:

We're lucky we have only one Zhirinovsky, in USA they have a whole republican party of those like him.

LOL - That's hilarious Ramil! Hilarious, because it's so true!! But our republicans would die of shame if you called them "liberals." In America, liberals are considered "dirty hippie pinko commie rats" you know

Zhirinovsky is a Kremlin stooge. He is for show in order to distract. I recognize the ignorance here. Using wikipedia? Oh well. Russians don't give the full info either.

Originally Posted by Pavelov

Zhirinovsky is a Kremlin stooge. He is for show in order to distract. I recognize the ignorance here. Using wikipedia? Oh well. Russians don't give the full info either.

Well what inside information do you have then? Are you bugging the Kremlin, or what? You are a friend of Putin's, and he told you "Zhirinovsky is my guy, really..."?

If Russians here are not telling the full story for some reason, then I think you should do that. We are being honest with each other here, aren't we. If there is something fishy going on, let's have it out in the open!

Zhirinovsky is indeed a jester at the king's court. He's allowed to do all sorts of things just because he's always careful not to overdo things and he's extremely loyal. His party in the Duma always votes as it is necessary. Him being a jester doesn't mean he's a fool. Quite the opposite. He's been serving the 'king' for too long though. He's gotten used to serve.
He's very convenient to the 'kings' because him alone joining any oppositional force can ridicule the whole idea of opposition. He steals their slogans then carries them on down to absurdity, then lets it go. And the king can always point at him and say 'Would ya listen to him talking?! Who said we have no opposition? No democracy?'

Originally Posted by Ramil

Zhirinovsky is indeed a jester at the king's court. He's allowed to do all sorts of things just because he's always careful not to overdo things and he's extremely loyal. His party in the Duma always votes as it is necessary. Him being a jester doesn't mean he's a fool. Quite the opposite. He's been serving the 'king' for too long though. He's gotten used to serve.
He's very convenient to the 'kings' because him alone joining any oppositional force can ridicule the whole idea of opposition. He steals their slogans then carries them on down to absurdity, then lets it go. And the king can always point at him and say 'Would ya listen to him talking?! Who said we have no opposition? No democracy?'

Ramil, I'm fully agree with you in this but please, tell us, why did you vote for him back then? I remember that you tried to explain your reasons but they seemed to me rather unconvincing.

Originally Posted by Basil77

Ramil, I'm fully agree with you in this but please, tell us, why did you vote for him back then? I remember that you tried to explain your reasons but they seemed to me rather unconvincing.

Yes, that I did. But as I explained - I voted for him simply to cast my vote away so that it wouldn't have been cast for anyone else.
Still, at least some of his ideas are not too absurd as they might appear at the first glance. Besides, my views changed a bit since then and in December I voted for CPRF (I'm only hoping they will replace Zuganov eventually).

I'm fully agree

I fully agree.