What's good (and bad ) about Russia?

[Old Koreelah]

We hear an awful lot about opposition candidate being either locked up or disqualified from standing. 

 

You seem to have a more sympathetic take on Putin’s record than many; you obviously follow events there closely.

 

I certainly agree that Russia has managed its treasury better than we have. They’ve been building up a vast gold stockpile to back a future move away from dependence on the $US for external payments. Meanwhile, Australia  has bugger all in reserve: Howard sold most of our gold at the bottom of the market. We will be far more vulnerable than Russia in the coming economic crisis.

 

 

[willedoo]

Old Koreelah, you are right about about a more sympathetic take on his record and my following of events there. I've followed events there and Putin's career for many years; since Vlad had hair. But I do concede a lot of points to your view; I try not to look at it with rose coloured glasses. One thing I attempt to communicate is the fact that a lot of opinion in the West is based on manicured media that paints the whole picture in one colour. There's certainly not just black and white there, but many shades of grey. And it's good to take things in perspective by allowing for the history there.

 

For example, and no offence meant, but about the idea that Putin's administration has buggered up any semblance of democracy, I see it as a bit of a generalization. I look at it from the point of view that before 1991, Russia had never had any real form of democracy. Post 1991, the attempts have been a bit clumsy. The corrupt, drunken stooge Boris Yeltsin and his likewise cronies had no experience of, and very little understanding of democracy, and absolutely no idea how to go about it. I doubt they even had a desire for it.

 

For America, Boris was the goose that laid the golden egg. The deal was, we bail out Russia with loans, in return U.S. advisors write the new Russian Federation constitution and laws. And sign on the dotted line all these product sharing agreements. The gist of those agreements was that U.S. resource companies took over Russia's resources. Russia was supposed to get something like 10% royalties, but written into the agreements was the clause that royalties would be paid out of profits only and not the gross income. With creative accounting, after write offs, Russia got bugger all for ten years. A lot of people assume the oligarchs are all Putin's cronies. Only the ones on the right side of things are. During the communist period, there were no oligarchs; corrupt officials and office bearers lining their own pocket to be sure, but the bulk of the oligarchs were created post 1991.

 

The original oligarchs were created by the Yanks. In those early days, the brand new Russian Federation was under virtual American administration owing to the USSR bankruptcy and subsequent bail out. In those days, it was easy to make an oligarch. All the Americans had to do was identify powerful and corruptible people, then offer them former state owned  assets and infrastructure in return for political loyalty. A bit like you can have the railways if you do our bidding. Meanwhile, the people starved. Estimates vary between one million and up to two million deaths during those horrible first years. It was the rape of a nation.

 

It didn't stop there. The oligarchs went on to politics and basically controlled the state Duma for quite a long period. Not happy with selling the country to get rich, they wanted the power to make laws to get richer still. America was as happy as a pig in a poke until Putin came along and spoiled their game. It took him till the early 2000's to get out of those agreements, boot the Yanks out and take back control of Russia's resources.  By then, the system was so entrenched, it is still impossible to clean up completely while remaining alive. And I'm sure they don't want it cleaned up completely; just leave enough so the place works and the right people (in their minds) get rich and the wrong ones don't.

 

So back to the question of Putin's administration buggering up any semblance of democracy. Their democracy was designed and set up by the Americans and has only existed in any form since 1991. So at what point since 1991 was their democracy of a higher standard than today? And if that high point can be identified, to what degree has it gone downhill since then, and what actions of the government have caused that decline from the high point. Personally, I don't think there has been a high point. It is what it is. It comes back to comparing apples with oranges. We view it through the eyes of our own democracy without considering history and how Russia got to where they are today. Just like you can't take the aboriginals out of the stone age and instantly make them be just like us. It's the same with Russia. You can't take a country that has never known democracy, and that also has a systemic, almost cultural bent towards corruption and consolidation of power, and in just twenty years turn them into us.

 

 

[Bruce]

Thanks for your posts willedoo, you sure have given us more real stuff than the media ever has.

 

I spent about a week in Libya in the 1970's ( there was an Australian demonstration farm near Benghazi) and a lot of what you say about Putin was true of Gaddafi. Sure, the english-speaking drivers assigned to me were probably all secret police, but their enthusiasm for taking foreigner's profits back and spending the money  on Libyans was genuine.

 

And the schools where the boys and girls played in the yards were not contrived for me. Gosh I reckon that Libya was far better off under Gaddafi than it is now.

 

 

[Marty_d]

Willedoo, given your interest in all things Russian, you may enjoy one of their TV shows that I'm currently watching.  Called "Better Than Us" on Netflix, it's a Russian version of "Real Humans" (or the original Swedish "Äkta människor").

 

Shot well, engaging characters and plot lines, interesting futuristic tech combined with old-fashioned cars and vans.  I'm loving it.

 

 

[willedoo]

Willedoo, given your interest in all things Russian, you may enjoy one of their TV shows that I'm currently watching.  Called "Better Than Us" on Netflix, it's a Russian version of "Real Humans" (or the original Swedish "Äkta människor").

 

Shot well, engaging characters and plot lines, interesting futuristic tech combined with old-fashioned cars and vans.  I'm loving it.

 

Thanks for the heads up Marty, I'll keep an eye on it.

 

 

[willedoo]

Thanks for your posts willedoo, you sure have given us more real stuff than the media ever has.

 

I spent about a week in Libya in the 1970's ( there was an Australian demonstration farm near Benghazi) and a lot of what you say about Putin was true of Gaddafi. Sure, the english-speaking drivers assigned to me were probably all secret police, but their enthusiasm for taking foreigner's profits back and spending the money  on Libyans was genuine.

 

And the schools where the boys and girls played in the yards were not contrived for me. Gosh I reckon that Libya was far better off under Gaddafi than it is now.

 

That would have been an interesting trip, Bruce. I'm not very qualified to make judgements on Libya as most of what I know is second hand and might not be accurate. But I've had the impression that things were fairly good under Gaddafi. I've read where women's rights were the best of all Muslim African nations. And things like free education, free health etc.. Might even be free housing or assistance in some form. The destruction of Libya was a sad thing. I thought the original idea of NATO was self defence of member countries, but since the destruction of Yugoslavia in the 90's, they've taken it on themselves to attack and destroy countries outside of NATO; countries that were in no way threatening any NATO countries. I can see why Vlad views them as a threat as opposed to the other way around. He's surrounded by a large force with a solid track record of attacking other countries. I think he knows an attack is extremely unlikely despite all the sabre rattling, but his job is make sure NATO are denied that ability to do so.

 

The press often distorts things a bit. Once some leaders are designated a bad guy, it's hard for the press to have a balanced view from that point on. Syria is a good example, with the Western press coverage of Aleppo. Most nights we would see footage of the devastated, bombed out suburbs, but not once on the Western media did I see footage of the other 80% of Alleppo under government control which was unaffected. No destruction, life as normal, people going to nightclubs etc.. The press would have us believe the whole city was a mess. Not by lying, but by omitting, intentionally or otherwise, certain truths to alter the context of their reporting. I get the impression with Gaddafi that there was more to him than what we were being told.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

Among the many tragedies stemming from NATO's toppling of Gaddafi is the clear lesson for other strongmen: never give up nuclear weapons.

 

South Africa did, and their regime was overturned. Ukraine did, and had big mobs of its territory invaded. Libya did, and was rewarded with destruction. Why would Iran or North Korea ever agree to renounce nukes?

 

Having a few of these weapons might be the only reason they could deter a US invasion. 

 

 

[willedoo]

Saddam could be added to that list as well.

 

 

[Bruce]

Old K, did all those countries really have nukes? My understanding  is that the only unknown one is Israel. I have read that they own apartments in all the major cities and have smuggled-in nukes ready to be set off with a phone call.

 

Personally, I would like Australia to have its own nukes, with Jabiru based drones for delivery.

 

This will be an unpopular idea for sure.

 

 

[facthunter]

 The best index of  how the ordinary person will fare  is how easy is it to know what's going on in the government (and businesses like banks) and how free am I to comment publicly on it?  PLUS WHO is getting rich and how they are doing it. The way THIS place is trending we  won't be better than anyone eventually (and perhaps soon) so won't be in any position to criticise anyone else.. We suffer from a tendency to put up with massive incompetence and just leave it to someone else to sort out and just order another beer, and believe what's in the WRONG papers. "I read it somewhere" still works. Anyone can write a book, and rich newspaper owners aren't interested in the Poor bastards whose wages are being cut or those killed on Construction sites or who can't keep a Marriage going because we have more pokies here than anywhere in the world, by a country mile.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

Old K, did all those countries really have nukes?

 

Ukraine was to inherit nukes when the Soviet Union broke up, but decided to do without them.

 

Libya, South Africa and Syria had reactors and were reputed to have clandestine weapons programmes.

 

Libya's Kaddafi renounced his programme and was rewarded with destruction by NATO.

 

South Africa is believed to have worked with Israel on weapons development; a mysterious flash detected over the South Atlantic may have been a nuclear test. https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/nuclear-vault/2016-12-06/vela-incident-south-atlantic-mystery-flash-september-1979-raised-questions-about-nuclear-test

 

The Apartheid regime later renounced Nukes.

 

 

[octave]

Some great musical satire by mathematician and satirist Tom Lehrer, written in the mid 60s but still relevant today.

 

Who's next

 

 

 

[Yenn]

That Tom Lehrer recording must be at least 30 years old. I nearly fell out of my cot when I first heard it. It goes well with poisoning pigeons in the park.

 

 

[octave]

That Tom Lehrer recording must be at least 30 years old. I nearly fell out of my cot when I first heard it. It goes well with poisoning pigeons in the park.

 

 

 

Even older than that, I think this recording was made in the 60s.  I do tend to judge people on whether or not they have heard of Tom Lehrer. ?    Poisoning  pigeons in the park was my first introduction to Lehrer. 

 

 

[Methusala]

Tom (poor Tom) Letter said that he retired from satire when Kissinger was awarded the Nobel peace prize. (Couldn't top that with all of his wit!) 

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

Too right Methusala. I'm amazed that the Nobel Prizes still enjoy such a high profile. There are plenty of worthy people, but butchers and tyrants often get the Peace prize. Why?

 

My vote for a very deserving person is Jeremy Wales, who created the world's most-visited website, but didn't get rich like so many other internet pioneers. Instead, he guided Wikipedia to being a free resource for humankind. 

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founder_of_Wikipedia

 

 

[willedoo]

Could this be Imran telling Vladimir what he thinks of Donald?

 

[ATTACH]50323._xfImport[/ATTACH]

 

[spacesailor]

", he guided Wikipedia to being a free resource for humankind. "

 

How about Julian Assange, Now there'a good candidate.

 

spacesailor 

 

 

[nomadpete]

Is he still alive?

 

 

[Litespeed]

Still in a British cell for now.

 

But the yanks are warming up a black site somewhere.

 

Julian gets my vote as well.

 

 

[spacesailor]

TWO votes for the Australian !.

 

Can we get a few more ?.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

It grates to recognise the historic achievements of such an imperfect person, but yep, he has made a big difference.

 

 

[nomadpete]

Whatever else people say about Julian, I applaud him for highlighting how afraid of truth (and integrity) all governments are.  Those in power assume that all their lies and doublespeak should be excused. Sadly, the public seem to accept (normalised deviance) that it is quite necessary to lie and cheat to succeed.

 

 

[Yenn]

The way Julian has been treated by the Australian government makes me wonder why anyone would want to have Australian citizenship. same goes for David Hicks. Both guilty until proved innocent.

 

 

[facthunter]

You really amaze me sometimes Yenn..   .Nev.