You certainly won't read this in the dumb American press, but I specialise in its British counterpart, as always, so I bring you some fresh perspective from The UK Times. This was written by an Oxford professor of Modern History.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/co...icle2582598.ece

quote:

Yet again President Putin’s fingers are being rapped: he has apparently been trying to hang on to power. Russia’s Constitution was written more or less to Western order, back in the days when free markets and democracy were supposed to reign. Models were consulted. The French one has a president with powers such that the prime minister is a glorified office-boy; but, in Russia, as in the American model, presidents are not supposed to run for office more than twice in case it goes to their heads. Vladimir Putin may retire to run Gazprom but instead, quite astutely, he is finding a way to hang on to power. He can put himself forward as deputy for the reigning party, then become prime minister, and push forward, as nominal president, a man in his mid-sixties whom he can control. Such devices are not at all without precedent in Russia. Moving an older or even an aged man, without ambition, into a high office so that he can be controlled from behind has long origins, beyond even communist times. If Vladimir Putin is finding a way to hang on to power, then he is doing so within the tradition. And the very first thing to be said is that he has been a very successful leader of the country. Not so long ago, Russia was being written off. Wise persons shook their heads. Moscow was like Berlin in the latter days of the Weimar Republic – Cabaret, complete with rampaging inflation, old women selling their husbands’ medals in the underpasses of the ring roads, prostitutes all over the place (every businessman had his story), a collapsing birthrate, gangster-capitalism raking it in and making whoopee in hotels in Monte Carlo. There was even a school of thought to the effect that the whole of Eurasia was turning into a Latin America: a Slavonic culture disintegrating as the overall Spanish culture of Latin America had done, into oil-rich turbulent Venezuelas on the one side, and weird, atmosphere-poor Bolivias on the other, while wars went ahead between assorted Hondurases and Nicaraguas. Under Putin, Russia has not turned into Latin America. Quite the contrary. Reality on the ground in Russia nowadays is different, and this is not just to do with the recent rise in oil prices. If you go to the provincial towns east and south east of Moscow – Vladimir, say, or Saratov – you can see a successful change going ahead, as people set up businesses such as furniture factories to make up for that lack of consumer goods that marked the old Soviet Union. The university in Saratov has state-of-the-art computers; even agriculture is said to be improving. The horrors of Chechnya are receding into the past and the International Herald Tribune, not a lover of Putin, recently carried an article about the return of order there: the planes fly back and forth and Grozny is being restored after two decades of vicious nonsense including that horrible massacre of schoolchildren three years ago. Of all things, tourism is being encouraged, and the Chechen insurgency seems to be a horror story of the past. There are other encouraging signs. In old Russia, the Tatars were a very important element, not backward Muslims as was sometimes casually supposed: they were good traders, and their habit of sobriety made them stand out. Now, Tatars have been adding their creative element (two instances that will have British resonance: both Nureyev and Barishnikov are Tatar names, Nur from “light” and Barish from “peace”). The Russians are even marketing an aircraft that will challenge Boeing and Airbus. So if Putin thinks that he has done well by his country he is not wrong, and masses of ordinary Russians agree. Now, Russia is recovering, and is back on the world’s stage. Why should a successful president be held back by some constitutional formality? There is no real reason for constitutions to be set in tablets of stone. Referendums were staged elsewhere in the old Soviet continent for successful and popular presidents to stay in office, and it is maybe a measure of Putin’s lack of self-confidence that he shrinks from that. Does he really have to fear the criticism of Europeans, let alone Americans, who now seem to be settling into their own pattern of dynastic politics? Of course his regime is not pure, in the approved Scandinavian manner. It has had to deal with horrible problems of terrorism, and no government can ever be entirely without sin in conditions of that sort. But Putin has highlighted an aspect of Russia that anyone in London should recognise. Russia, like Britain, is a country with a capacity for tissue regeneration. In the Seventies, you would have written Britain off. And then, lo and behold, in the Eighties she struck back – many, many things wrong, of course, but back just the same. It is an odd fact that English literature translates best into Russian, and vice versa. Two countries on the European edge, with the same diagonal approach, and very interested in each other. We should not be criticising Putin: rather, encouraging him to stage that referendum.

___________________
"The favorite American pastime is not baseball, it's moral crusades."

Thanks for posting that. I've been looking for another side of the Putin story but almost all the media I see regularily has the same slant.

There's a reason why Putin's popularity in Russia is at around 80% ... and its not a propaganda figure.

___________________
Whenever you go and buy something, you are affecting someone somewhere, be it environment, a person, or a community - you're making a statement with what you buy. So make it a smart choice ... Its a big picture

"Hello Good Times for Russia"

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/co...icle2584595.ece

quote:

Vladimir Putin’s announcement that he will “consider” becoming Russia’s prime minister after stepping down as President next March raises two troubling questions: does this mean that Russia is moving back towards some form of post-Stalinist dictatorship? Or is the transition from communism to some form of free-market capitalism really an irreversible fact? The answer to both these question is yes. Russia, after its brief flirtation with ultra-liberalism under Boris Yeltsin, is again becoming an authoritarian society. But in saying this, we also have to acknowledge that the failure of democratic politics will not bring back communism and may do the Russian economy no harm. The Putin regime’s economic management has been surprisingly competent and has turned the global energy boom to generally good use. In fact, the Putin dictatorship has a serious chance of creating a successful capitalist economy in Russia in much the same way that the Deng Xiaoping dictatorship turned China into an economic superpower. The statement that “free markets create free people” may have been treated as axiomatic in the idealistic heyday of Reagan and Thatcher, but it was never really more than a rhetorical trope. History has seen plenty of tyrannies that have run their economies on broadly free-market lines. There is a natural tendency for economic freedom to create competing centres of political power, but the link between economic and political liberalism is far from a one-to-one correlation. And even to the extent it is valid, it operates on a timescale of decades or centuries, not years and months. It is wishful thinking, therefore, to suppose that Russia will pay a price economically if it succumbs to a Putin personality cult. It is even more fanciful to imagine that Western investors will flee Russia if it continues to stray from the democratic path. Western oil companies and banks have a long history of profitable cooperation with dictators in the Middle East, Asia and Latin America and they will have no problem working with an autocratic Russia. This is particularly true at present, because Russia’s economic outlook is surprisingly good. Its economy has grown so strongly throughout this decade that it has built up a large reserve cushion, as well as developing a self-sustaining momentum that is independent of the global energy boom. Its GDP is forecast to grow by 6.5 per cent this year and a similar performance is confidently expected for 2008, which will be the tenth successive year of growth of 6 per cent. Given that Russia’s population is declining by 0.5 per cent annually, per capita living standards and productivity are now rising almost as fast as in China, while starting from a base that is three times higher than China’s in dollar terms. The combination of rapid economic growth and a rapidly rising rouble has boosted Russia’s GDP to $1.2 trillion, making it the world’s ninth-largest economy and the biggest developing economy after China. More surprising even than Russia’s rapid growth rate has been the prudence of its economic management under Mr Putin. Essentially all public debt has been repaid and Russia’s $400 billion foreign currency reserves are the third-largest in the world, after China and Japan. The trade surplus, at 5 per cent of GDP, is bigger relative to the economy than Japan’s and the Government has a huge budget surplus, with half the revenues from energy exports sequestered in a $150 billion foreign currency stabilisation fund, where it is kept away from government ministries and politicians. And Russian policymakers, from Mr Putin downwards, have shown impressive awareness of the “natural resource curse” that has blighted such richly endowed economies as Nigeria, Venezuela and Iran. While Mr Putin has bragged provocatively about his country’s “energy superpower” status, he has tried to diversify the economy away from its excessive reliance on natural resources. And as any visitor to Moscow and St Petersburg can testify, these efforts to diversify have produced some results, with wealth from mineral extraction gradually trickling down from energy to other businesses; from the big cities to the provinces; from the oligarchs to the middle class – and even to ordinary proletarian households, which are finally seeing their living standards restored to the levels they enjoyed under communist rule. If all these favourable figures seem too good to be true – a bit like the Soviet output and construction statistics in the good old days of Nikita Khrushchev – they probably are. Russia has many economic vulnerabilities not captured by the favourable statistics: corruption in the legal and tax system; weak protection of property rights; political mismanagement of energy resources; the small size and inefficiency of the service sector and a vast backlog of underinvestment in transport and social infrastructure. Worst of all is the country’s demographic outlook. Russia suffers from a unique combination of collapsing birth rates and rising death rates. It is the only country outside Africa where life expectancy has fallen in the past ten years, mainly because of alcoholism, accidents, suicide, crime, drugs and Aids. Whether Mr Putin has any real ideas on how to tackle these social problems is an open question, but at least economic growth will create enough resources to restore the health and education services that were destroyed in the Yeltsin period. Of course, it might have been preferable for the future of liberal capitalism in Russia if Mr Putin had consigned himself to a monastery and handed power to a triumvirate of Gary Kasparov, George Soros and Alan Greenspan. But realistically, there was a serious risk that Mr Putin’s departure would trigger a new battle for power and a scramble for control of Russia’s mineral wealth. It now seems probable, instead, that stability and property rights will be guaranteed – not by democracy or the rule of law, but by the desire of ruling politicians and business oligarchs to protect the wealth and power that they have already have, instead of trying to grab even more. In a historical context, the gradual stabilisation of Russian politics and economics is starting to look like an accelerated version of the transition of the 12th century in Western Europe – when the anarchic tribalism and organised robbery of the Dark Ages gradually gave way to the feudal system and the rule of law. Russia was Europe’s fastest-growing economy from 1900 to 1914. Politically, this was not a happy period; but had it not been for the incompetence and miscalculations of the Romanovs, Russia might well have avoided the Bolshevik revolution and managed to reform itself from an agrarian feudal economy into a modern capitalist state. Russia now has a second chance to complete this transition – and Vladimir Putin, for all his faults, seems determined not to blow it.

___________________
"The favorite American pastime is not baseball, it's moral crusades."

Fucking Jesus Christ. Pardon my language. That article is shit.

Reason:

"Do svidaniya democracy, and hello good times"

"Vladimir Putin’s announcement that he will “consider” becoming Russia’s prime minister after stepping down as President next March raises two troubling questions: does this mean that Russia is moving back towards some form of post-Stalinist dictatorship?"

WTF does that mean? Where is the evidence that Russia is moving back to dictatorship? This article is absurd. Its comparing Russian current trend to that of 1900-1914, which is incorrect - its like comparing apples to oranges.

I am so tired, so unless someone wants to raise a point for discussion, I dont feel like bothering wasting my time arguing this yet another Russophobic article ... but I am still laughing at the fact that remaining in politics in A DIFFERENT FORM (prime minister) is considered to be authoritarian. LOL! For a country like Russia, where there's not a single political force that can continue the great work that Putin did, Putin needs to stay in a different form in politics to continue the course of raising Russia's levels of prosperity. All other candidates are incompetent, and they will need Putin's advice and help to continue steering the country in the right direction. Or else, Putin's term could turn out to nothing more than a waste of 8 years of hard work ... even in the West its not considered breaking the law, especially when approved by popular vote / Congress / Duma / whatever, and Russians have 80% trust in Putin right now. Me included.

EDIT: The only way Putin's actions can be considered as authoritarian if he does something against the votes, wishes, constitution of the country and its people. Which HAS NOT happened. If the Russian people vote (internationally monitored) to change the constitution, its not authoritarian. If Putin is chosen by the succesor (who is elected democratically monitored by international groups) as his prime minister to help him continue the course, there's no breaking laws there.


So why the f*** does the Western media keep talking about return of authoritarian regime to Russia? Where's the logic, the evidence, why do they scare the Western public? Why the propaganda? Seriously ... its quite evidence that articles like this are bunch of lies. British tabloids.

___________________
Whenever you go and buy something, you are affecting someone somewhere, be it environment, a person, or a community - you're making a statement with what you buy. So make it a smart choice ... Its a big picture

Last edited by Magnetonium on Oct-04-2007 at 22:31

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium So why the f*** does the Western media keep talking about return of authoritarian regime to Russia? Where's the logic, the evidence, why do they scare the Western public? Why the propaganda? Seriously ... its quite evidence that articles like this are bunch of lies. British tabloids.

Because the people who are in charge of the media still don't trust Russians?

Because the western world needs an enemy to justify certain spending and legislation?

Because "everybody happy" doesn't sell news papers?

I've run into a few people in business who've quite openly told me "never trust a russian", usually with little reason. By the same token, if that's the attitude of western business I'm assuming there would be a similar but apposing attitude in Russia toward westerners.

quote:

Originally posted by atbell I've run into a few people in business who've quite openly told me "never trust a russian", usually with little reason. By the same token, if that's the attitude of western business I'm assuming there would be a similar but apposing attitude in Russia toward westerners.

Exactly. Recently (well, sort of - few months ago) I was following the developments of the Russia's OAO Severstal and Luxembourg-based Arcelor SA merger, which was approved on the Russian side, and Seversal was to have a 33.2 percent share in it, which is pretty good for Arcelor.

"Under the $16.6 billion deal, Mordashov, 40, would become Luxembourg-based Arcelor's biggest shareholder, with a 33.2 percent stake, while Arcelor would acquire 89.6 percent of Russia's biggest steel company, plus mining assets AND 1.25 billion euros in cash."

"Severstal is a private company. It's up to the shareholders to decide its course," Mordashov said. But he added that "we have talked about the deal with many people" and he felt the reaction from the authorities was "very positive."


Mordashov said in his conference call that the bid proved that "Russia is an open country" and Severstal's case would be a precedent for more international mergers as "many Russian entrepreneurs want to become global."

http://www.templetonthorp.com/en/news1257


BUT, the fear of Russia instead resulted in the annulation of the merger deal by the board and the investors who instead decided to pact with Mittal Steel Co. NV of India on worse terms for Arcelor, and now it seems that deal with Indian giant will have to be annulled because the Arcelor shareholders are not comfortable with a lot of power of the Indian company. Heck, even Chinese have little problem gaining to the European markets.

BUT, on the other hand, when the Western companies head to Russia and get refused for reasons that make more sense, its against democracy,Russia is heading towards dictatorship, state control, bla bla bla bla ... I am sick of the double standards.


"If more than 50 percent of Arcelor shareholders vote against Severstal, Dolle said Mordashov's offer would be rescinded and he would be paid a break-up fee of 140 million euros. "

^^^ Oh, thats not too bad then for Severstal.

Here's how many hatred there is against Russia, against Arcelor TAKING OVER most of the Russian company, and instead they decided TO ALLOW Mittal TO BUY 51% OF ARCELOR ...


"Arcelor shareholders dumped Severstal owner Alexei Mordashov's offer at a Friday meeting in Luxembourg -- with not a single shareholder voting in favor of his merger bid. "
http://www.templetonthorp.com/en/news1292

This whole thing really hurt the image of Russian business, and its not the first case. Russians have realized that they're not welcome on Western markets, so they are not too friendly at home with foreign companies either, I suppose. The Russian government has every right to be sceptical and very careful with making sure that the 1990s era of blatant corruption and fire sales is not repeated again.

___________________
Whenever you go and buy something, you are affecting someone somewhere, be it environment, a person, or a community - you're making a statement with what you buy. So make it a smart choice ... Its a big picture

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium Fucking Jesus Christ. Pardon my language. That article is shit. Reason: "Do svidaniya democracy, and hello good times" "Vladimir Putin’s announcement that he will “consider” becoming Russia’s prime minister after stepping down as President next March raises two troubling questions: does this mean that Russia is moving back towards some form of post-Stalinist dictatorship?" WTF does that mean? Where is the evidence that Russia is moving back to dictatorship? This article is absurd. Its comparing Russian current trend to that of 1900-1914, which is incorrect - its like comparing apples to oranges. I am so tired, so unless someone wants to raise a point for discussion, I dont feel like bothering wasting my time arguing this yet another Russophobic article ... but I am still laughing at the fact that remaining in politics in A DIFFERENT FORM (prime minister) is considered to be authoritarian. LOL! For a country like Russia, where there's not a single political force that can continue the great work that Putin did, Putin needs to stay in a different form in politics to continue the course of raising Russia's levels of prosperity. All other candidates are incompetent, and they will need Putin's advice and help to continue steering the country in the right direction. Or else, Putin's term could turn out to nothing more than a waste of 8 years of hard work ... even in the West its not considered breaking the law, especially when approved by popular vote / Congress / Duma / whatever, and Russians have 80% trust in Putin right now. Me included. EDIT: The only way Putin's actions can be considered as authoritarian if he does something against the votes, wishes, constitution of the country and its people. Which HAS NOT happened. If the Russian people vote (internationally monitored) to change the constitution, its not authoritarian. If Putin is chosen by the succesor (who is elected democratically monitored by international groups) as his prime minister to help him continue the course, there's no breaking laws there. So why the f*** does the Western media keep talking about return of authoritarian regime to Russia? Where's the logic, the evidence, why do they scare the Western public? Why the propaganda? Seriously ... its quite evidence that articles like this are bunch of lies. British tabloids.

Did you actually read the article? Did you actually understand its meaning? What I actually took from the article, is that Putin is inspite of Westerner's perceptions of him, is a good leader, he has done wonders with russian economy and has created more opportunities for his people. His popularity is well earned and if he wants to dance around the semantics of words like "democracy" and "autocracy" - let him, and don't worry - this won't drive western inverstors away.

Read again. By far, this is perphaps the least "russophobe" article I've read in a while.

To quote one of the commenters:

quote:

First unbiassed and rational article about Russia recently. Very logical and "Russophobe hysteria" free. Thank you. Anna, St. Petersburg, Russia

P.S. I just love all these "Patriot" Russians who live abroad and froth at the mouth about "RUSSIA - WOW, WHAT A KOUNTRII!". Wanna be patriotic? Move back to your country, make your fortune there, invest it back into your nation. It's all nice and good to sit from a privacy of your posh apartment/house in Canada, typing away on your new laptop that you purchased with your Canadian dollars, studying in Canadian University, and praising president who didn't create the same opportunities for you back home - you had to travel abroad.

Know what? NE PIZDI, a PIZDUI. Zaebali nah, chesslovo.

quote:

Originally posted by atbell I've run into a few people in business who've quite openly told me "never trust a russian", usually with little reason. By the same token, if that's the attitude of western business I'm assuming there would be a similar but apposing attitude in Russia toward westerners.

quote:

Boris the Blade, or Boris "the Bullet Dodger." As bent as the Soviet's sickle, and as hard as the hammer that crosses it. Apparently, it's impossible to kill the bastard.

quote:

Originally posted by emc^2 Did you actually read the article? Did you actually understand its meaning? What I actually took from the article, is that Putin is inspite of Westerner's perceptions of him, is a good leader, he has done wonders with russian economy and has created more opportunities for his people. His popularity is well earned and if he wants to dance around the semantics of words like "democracy" and "autocracy" - let him, and don't worry - this won't drive western inverstors away. Read again. By far, this is perphaps the least "russophobe" article I've read in a while. To quote one of the commenters:

Hahah, the title of the article is "Do svidaniya democracy, and hello good times" Einstein, do you know what DO SVIDANIYA means? It means good bye. "Goodbye democracy, hello good times", yes, thats very good praise of Putin.

In case you're not paying attention, I was replying to HardTranceProd's link, the first one (opening post of the thread) is OK with me.

___________________
Whenever you go and buy something, you are affecting someone somewhere, be it environment, a person, or a community - you're making a statement with what you buy. So make it a smart choice ... Its a big picture

quote:

Originally posted by emc^2 P.S. I just love all these "Patriot" Russians who live abroad and froth at the mouth about "RUSSIA - WOW, WHAT A KOUNTRII!". Wanna be patriotic? Move back to your country, make your fortune there, invest it back into your nation. It's all nice and good to sit from a privacy of your posh apartment/house in Canada, typing away on your new laptop that you purchased with your Canadian dollars, studying in Canadian University, and praising president who didn't create the same opportunities for you back home - you had to travel abroad. Know what? NE PIZDI, a PIZDUI. Zaebali nah, chesslovo.

Ummm, first - you dont know me. I moved to Canada not by choice, but with my parents when I just turned 13. No, I dont live in a posh house/apartment. No, I am not in a university, but college. I also praise Canada and its reputation around the world, its foundations, and I live in Canada, and I love the country. Just as any serious Russian-Canadian would. For example, I voted today in the elections/referendum (and many people my age dont vote nowadays or even follow politics).

So take it easy, OK? In case you're really insisting, I will likely end up back in Russia sooner or later. But I will never forget Canada, I love this country for the things that make Canada so good, though things are slipping here (the reason for Canada slipping to 6th in world rankings as best place to live since Chretien left, and not done slipping yet, it appears). I am a very proud Cossack.

___________________
Whenever you go and buy something, you are affecting someone somewhere, be it environment, a person, or a community - you're making a statement with what you buy. So make it a smart choice ... Its a big picture