[fokker]

I spent three years talking to American forums with arguments. But I realized that this is completely useless. The overwhelming majority of Americans opposed to Russia are not able to accept arguments that run counter to the official Western position. This is a matter of religious faith and the arguments are useless.

Do you want arguments? Let's discuss specific issues with specific examples, rather than brush aside arguments - "this is all Russian propaganda." Do you understand that there are no arguments against the latter in principle?

You are a very valuable member, as there are very few Russians who post on American forums. Difference of opinions allows interesting discussions in opposition to situation when there is an agreement.

I have no doubt about Putins popularity in Russia and among Russians abroad. What I question is turnout. It would seem unnecessary to go to elections if Putins victory is guaranteed. Just like a football match with a predetermined result (very unequal teams) will get few viewers.

In my view the former Soviet system was in a way fairer and also solved the problem of "continuity" when selecting the leadership, which we do not have with Putin. The fairness was in possibility to become the top man regardless of social class, ethnic group, donors, media manipulation as these were not having an influence. This is not the case in many western countries who present their democracy as the superior political system.

Creating image of a "perfect" leader that is irreplacable and superior to all oponents is a threat to long term stability and continuity.

[Balancer]

Russia is not a brutal dictatorship like Syria or North korea but rather it have a system implemented thought the country that prevents any serious opposition from rising and becoming popular

this is being done by a complete control over the media,police,education system and other government facilities

the average citizen can speak his mind but as soon as he became popular and getting followers he is getting in trouble

In part, you may be right. But if you disassemble your statement on points, it turns out like this:

The state, of course, controls completely the central terrestrial television channels. But in Russia this is no longer the main source of information. There are independent Russian TV channels. There is a broadcast of western television channels. A lot of independent radio. And a huge amount of independent Internet, which is now used by 70% of Russians. Also, the state almost does not control the turnover of movies and literature. And they are mostly Western in Russia. In addition, this is already my subjective assessment, but I do not see anti-opposition propaganda on television. I see only a reduction in the mention of the opposition and pro-Putin propaganda. That is, in fact, this point can only be blamed on the government in its own propaganda on the central broadcast TV. This, of course, creates unequal conditions for the opposition, but if people were really unhappy, then the opposition would easily expand.

The police in Russia do not engage in purposeful work against the opposition. In fact, the Russian police, despite the huge number of accusations from the West and the opposition, works much milder than the West. If I correctly judge by examples of detentions from Western media. On the one hand, Russia introduced laws requiring coordination and regulation of rallies. You can not, as before, come to any place with a crowd of thousands, block other people's movement, etc. Now you need to apply for a rally indicating the place, time and expected number of participants. The state ensures the allocation of police for the protection of order, the provision of rescue services, etc. Many oppositionists do not like this and they continue to deliberately arrange uncoordinated rallies. In this case, there are arrests. Activists are arrested, drafted protocols and released. Often even without a fine. Really severe punishment is received only by those who render fierce resistance at arrest. But in recent years there have been only a few such cases. As far as I know, in the same US, for force resistance during the arrest of a person can simply be shot. We do not have that. So I do not think that this also puts a lot of opposition to the opposition. As the practice shows, people often come to unsanctioned rallies "just hang out". Young people, teenagers. They are interested in taking a ride on a police bus, making selfies with policemen, and so on. I can bring a lot of photo illustrations for everything described above, but I do not want to clog a topic. If you are interested in something specific, write, I will share Although it is better to show the video, not the photo, because experienced photographers can very selectively choose a picture depending on the desired result

With the education system, you just missed. We have a lot of opposition in education. My daughter from kindergarten once, at 6 years old, came home and asked "Daddy, why is our president a murderer?" This is her teacher in the kindergarten so taught. There is no such radicalism in the school, the school curriculum is more conservative, but there are a lot of oppositionists among the teachers. Although patriotic education finally appeared (before it was not at all, since the collapse of the USSR). But it is not love for the power of the Kremlin, but love for the Motherland. Stories about the Great Patriotic War, actions such as "Immortal Regiment", stories about the achievements of the country, etc. By the way, to the question of the level of patriotic upbringing. In Russia, the level of patriotism in the United States still cuts our eyes. For us, Russians, this seems excessive, such a high level of patriotism in upbringing. I will not say that it's bad, just - it's unusual for us. We are used to treating Russia more coolly than Americans are to America.

Another such moment. If we compare information from the Western media and what I see in Russia, we have much less control over the children on the Internet. I see that in the West, a lot of measures are being taken to restrict Internet access for children. We still do not have such a thing. Many children actively and independently use the Internet since 6-7 years. Social networks, instant messengers, YouTube. So, sometimes I look at the corner of my eye what my daughter does on YouTube - and I see a lot of advertising from the opposition there. That is, the Russian opposition has an impact on the upbringing of children through the Internet Is it because at the last rallies of Navalny there are more and more schoolchildren, and not adults?

Finally, about the persecution of popular oppositionists. I think, besides Navalny, another example can not be given here. But he, really, was involved in financial fraud. If you want to be an active opposition politician - be prepared for the fact that your past for violations of the law will be disassembled especially carefully. In the Western political race there is usually the same thing. So I do not see anything unusual here. Other popular opposition politicians in Russia are doing well. Even if they, like Grudinin in this election, came across a direct deception of the state. By the way, Navalny eventually received a smaller penalty than is required. And then several times he could be sent for jail for violation of conditional punishment. But the Kremlin does not do this to avoid unnecessary accusations of suppressing the opposition.

[Balancer]

Is Putin doing it? No, I personally think he is not even capable of doing it. He is an ex-KGB agent not a statesman. He is a different breed of a man.

We in Russia from the inside see how "not even capable of doing it" Russia 15 years of falling into the abyss during the reign of Gorbachev and Yeltsin. Russia has been confidently moving upward during the Putin reign for 18 years. Conclusion - Putin is a much better statesman than Gorbachev or Yeltsin. And this is enough for us. Probably, in Russia there are those who are not worse. But it's definitely not Navalny and not Yavlinsky These are losers who can not do anything but organize rallies and debates.

Ella Pamfilova seemed to have been bought out and has turned. I imagine there was a backroom deal where she sold her soul to the devil.

You understand that it is impossible to prove anything to a person who believes in something without any proof. You are now just like all accusations of the West against Russia in the last 10+ years. Only "highly likely" without an any proof.

[Balancer]

Here we go, your mentality is that of the thugs in Kremlin, then we wonder why Russia is messed up. You vote and grant your support for this shit willingly. What do you want justice and peace, or do you want to live in this shit?

Okay, I see no reason to communicate with you any more. You are inadequate.

[annatar1914]

Okay, I see no reason to communicate with you any more. You are inadequate.

Don't feel down about it though; not everybody in the West is a deluded idiot. These politicians and their ilk now are more hot air than anything else; ''A tale told by an idiot, sound and fury, signifying nothing''. Russia is in good hands!

[Balancer]

1) Zhrinovsky is in politics for more than 30 years now.

4) He has charisma although due to his age, it is starting to lack.
5) He is perhaps the most experienced politician in Russia at the moment.

I will add that Zhirinovsky's party, the LDPR, is characterized by the fact that it helps a lot of ordinary people on the periphery of Russia. I used many years Zhirinovsky perceived as a politician who only cares about himself and does nothing practical for people, yet had not begun to deal with the practical benefits of the work of his party in the small Russian towns. They help people solve legal and bureaucratic issues, ensure the allocation of state funds to public and social issues, etc. For me it was quite new and unexpected The fact that Zhirinovsky is much smarter and more cunning than the image that he shows, I understood back in the 1990s. But for a long time I did not know about the real useful deeds of his party. Even it is a pity that his star rolls up. The whole party is built on the personality of Zhirinovsky and after his departure from politics, the party is likely to be disintegrated.

[Balancer]

The ONLY disruption of this was Bernie Sanders, because he got funding from the people.

"Let me tell you, young man — the dirty little secret of democracy is that just because you get a vote, doesn't mean you get your choice"

- Lois McMaster Bujold, "Cryoburn"

[Balancer]

You are a very valuable member, as there are very few Russians who post on American forums. Difference of opinions allows interesting discussions in opposition to situation when there is an agreement.

Thank you. That's why I came to the American forums (this forum is not the only one where I talk) three years ago True, since then I was largely disappointed with attempts to convey the point of view from Russia, but I am stubborn, so I continue to lead Its information war, although not with the same activity ......

What I question is turnout. It would seem unnecessary to go to elections if Putins victory is guaranteed. Just like a football match with a predetermined result (very unequal teams) will get few viewers.

There were two factors. Firstly, the government in recent months has been active propaganda for the turnout. The result was predetermined, but there is a difference, a lot or little will vote for Putin. Whatever tyrant in the West he is not portrayed, he really needs to feel for himself the popular support. Another bonus was the simplification of the voting procedure for those who vote not at home. In Russia, a huge number of those who left the place where they live according to the documents. I myself am so. The passport says that I live in the Pskov region, although I have been living in Moscow for almost 30 years Previously, it was difficult for such people to vote, it was necessary to take a special document in the place of official residence. Now you can apply in electronic form or at any polling station. So I voted for the first time since 1996 - before I simply could not. And like me - many millions

This in itself would ensure a fairly high turnout. But still a huge increase brought all the latest aggressive attacks of the West against Russia. While the sanctions concerned, say, the actions of Russia in Ukraine, it was understandable. The Russians were unhappy with the way the West viewed the accession of the Crimea one-sidedly and assessed Russia's guilt in the events in the Donbass, but here we at least understand this point of view. And so such sanctions in Russia are considered fairly honest answer. But the West did not stop there. Sanctions against Russia on the topic of "interference in elections", "Olympic doping scandal" in Russia were perceived as complete lawlessness, violation of any unwritten rules of politics. And as cherry on the cake - it's a matter of poisoning Skripal in Britain. After such unfounded accusations in Russia, very many went to vote for Putin just to express their protest against the West. My wife, for example, went to vote for the first time in my life for this very reason.

In my view the former Soviet system was in a way fairer and also solved the problem of "continuity" when selecting the leadership, which we do not have with Putin. The fairness was in possibility to become the top man regardless of social class, ethnic group, donors, media manipulation as these were not having an influence. This is not the case in many western countries who present their democracy as the superior political system.

Creating image of a "perfect" leader that is irreplacable and superior to all oponents is a threat to long term stability and continuity.

Yes, here I can not disagree with you. Two factors. Despite the existence of an example of such an authoritarian ruler as Stalin, in the USSR real power has always been shared among several people. In fact, all decisions were taken by the Politburo and even Stalin did not issue any orders contrary to the decisions of the Politburo. Yes, he was choosing intrigues and repressions for the composition of the government he needed, but this government made its own decisions. Therefore, the power continuity was always preserved and even Stalin's death with the subsequent "game of thrones" did not affect the stability of the country. And, of course, in the USSR there have always been fantastic social elevators. Capable people could easily climb from any level to any level. Now in Russia it has become much worse.

The concentration of power in the hands of one person, no matter how good it may be and how much it is not loved by citizens, is always evil in terms of stability in the country after the departure of such a ruler. I see that Putin is coping well with the rule of Russia in these years. But he is mortal. And he does not get younger. And he has repeatedly hinted that this will be his last term. 6 years is very little I hope only that in these 6 years there will be a worthy successor to the Russian government. It is obvious to the Russians that this will not be an opposition party. This is another problem that is poorly understood in the West. In the West, traditionally, the image of the opposition is people who want good for their country, but see this good differently than the ruling party. In Russia the situation is different. Most often, the opposition is those who deny any, even the most positive, initiatives of the country's leadership. Since from the point of view of most Russians the government's actions are correct and are for the benefit of Russia, the opposition begins to deny everything that the positive government does, is trying to directly advance the decisions harmful to Russia, and the dissenting majority of Russians are called non-humans, genetic rubbish and the like. Obviously, people do not like this attitude towards themselves and respond to the opposition with complete obstruction

...

I would prefer such a hypothetical form of government, when in power there would be 3-5 roughly equal rulers. Perhaps - with periodic regular elections of one of them. Let their joint decision also be very authoritarian. This option seems more useful for the state than the election of one unpredictable president and constant squabbles in the parliament

[Political Interest]

I would like to see some real evidence that these elections were not democratic. We are constantly told that Russia is autocratic because Putin wins the elections, but maybe it's because he is the only reasonable choice in Russia at the present time? Who can say Zhirinovsky would be a better leader than Putin? And, Sobchak lost, but maybe it's because her ideology and vision for Russia are so foreign to the aspirations and interests of the Russian people.

[Decky]

I would like to see some real evidence that these elections were not democratic. We are constantly told that Russia is autocratic because Putin wins the elections, but maybe it's because he is the only reasonable choice in Russia at the present time?

To be fair PI he might be the only reasonable choice as the other choices tend to end up dead. Not that I'm knocking him of course.

[Balancer]

According to the orders and actions of Navalny in the light of the tragedy in Kemerovo. He is not only a political corpse, but with some probability of a real corpse, if one of the parents of the victims before him gets.

[Ganeshas Rat]

According to the orders and actions of Navalny in the light of the tragedy in Kemerovo. He is not only a political corpse, but with some probability of a real corpse, if one of the parents of the victims before him gets.

Ok, to this point I was fining you adequate even though a bit weird but right now you are wishing a death to a man for some orders and actions, orders and actions being:

a) calling for national mourning by victims;
b) calling a governor who names victims as rowdies, calls them to stop promote themselves on blood (to the father whose three children, wife and sister died in fire), thanks Putin that he found a time in his inhumane regime to call and is personally responsible for this tragedy a bastard.

So I conclude that you agree with "PR on blood" and see Tuleev and others like him as victims. Just to specify, do you also agree that cunning evil journalists built a conspiracy to spoil reputation of the innocent honest labourer Slutsky?

[Balancer]

but right now you are wishing a death to a man

You do not understand correctly. I do not want the death of Navalny. But I would not be surprised if someone from the victims wants it. Because he allowed himself an absolutely unfriendly PR on the blood of the deceased. And, of course, his completely fallen political career will collapse even lower.

[Ganeshas Rat]

Because he allowed himself an absolutely unfriendly PR on the blood of the deceased.

I see. The PR on blood is a mad concept. I am not even sure someone out of Russian Federation will understand such a concept: to talk about the tragedy is bad because talking about it proves you're an egoist who wants to get popularity by any price, so if you don't want insult victims KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT. It's the idea only a totally wretched scoundrel could invent, pure evil. And the mind should be totally ill to suppose that people who lost their beloved ones, children and relatives will put their anger onto someone who brings attention to their situation instead of people who got bribes, turned off fire alarms, locked doors, runt away and now tell them to KEEP THE MOUTH SHUT.

[MistyTiger]

Will Putin ever retire? He's getting old. He should retire and live a little while he can on a deserted island and order around the wild life and flora.

[Negotiator]

Why would anyone retire directly after they get a friggin 76% vote ?

[Albert]

Putin will never retire, you can only retire him now.

Darn it Russia is becoming a thugdetorship.

Banditship, Gopnikship, Goptatorship.