Putin winning with a landslide - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in Europe's nation states, the E.U. & Russia.

Moderator: PoFo Europe Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. This is an international political discussion forum, so please post in English only.
#14898471
Balancer wrote:
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?


Don’t know why you two are arguing. Canadians and Russians have much in common.

Image
#14898475
Your first mistake is assuming I am American. I am not.

Your second mistake is assuming that I am anti-Russia. I am not.

I never said it was all Russian propaganda. I said that RT is pro-Putin. I have watched quite a bit of RT, and have came to that conclusion, myself. The press and media do NOT have freedom of speech in Russia(correct me if I am wrong, but anti-Putin reporters have had problems, and that's fact). Please, you are free to contradict me, but provide a source.

So far you have no argument, as you aren't presenting any counter-arguments or even sources that dispute what I posted. Stop pretending you want a discussion when you really only want to preach your own ideology/opinion. You address the argument, not the person.
#14898476
Godstud wrote: :roll: What is really foolish is when someone lambastes a person without knowing what they are talking about, and think that insulting one is a legitimate argument(check out what an Ad Hominem is). You assume people know nothing about anything, and you yourself is a professional? You have no argument, so you resort to deflection.


He is right in some sense. It reminds me of Yudkowsky's "The Lord of the Rings" fragment where Frodo says the plan to bring the ring into Mordor is an obvious trap, that's what the enemy plans for: so the brotherhood will deliver the ring just to his front door. And Gandalf "explains" that the enemy is never able to imagine that someone would refuse the ring's power and decide to destroy it. Frodo knows that Gandalf is wrong because the enemy is not stupid: he would be misguided in his predictions of others' behavior again and again if he wasn't able to predict their good intentions.

So if you make the wrong assumption it's not only bad because you've made the wrong assumption: any other assumption based on it is automatically wrong too. I'm as deep in opposition to RF as it could be, I think this state should cease to exist. Still it's not obvious to me that RF is a dictatorship. It definitely has no democracy. To some point it's possible to say it's a tyranny because the rule was usurped long ago. There are sad tendencies. But this is not a totalitarian dictatorship. The situation is much more complex and making this assumption is clearly wrong.

For example you made a point about enemies of Putin being murdered. The problem here is the main enemy of Putin not only alive, he is very free, too free I'd say for a dictatorship, for example he spent three last months to organize the mass campaign of elections' boycott (while the main purpose of the administration was to get as high turnout as possible). While the enemies of Putin who were killed are not quite his enemies. If you see the list of murdered it consists of journalists (who can't be enemies of Putin as mosquitos can't be enemies of a man, just different level of play), politicians with zero rating like Nemtsov, small KGB deflectors etc. On another side people who make a threat to Putin's regime are boringly put into prisons or labeled as extremists with suppression of rights, opposition parties are banally aren't registered and... That's all about it. In the West they don't know about their existence because there's a much more interesting topics: the former Russian KGB agent was poisoned by secretly injecting antimatter into an eyes through the anus by a radio controlled nanodrone, Russian trace is suspected. They substitute the reality (that is boring and ugly) with the carnival image of a bloody dictator from books about James Bond.

Or let's say, it's fairly known that Putin is a bloody dictator without conscience who makes hard statements and oppresses everyone, his main target is to destroy the EU and the US. He evaded the defensive mechanisms of democracy using the help of Dmitry Medveded, a soft vegetable man thinking only about iphones.

The problem is Dmitry Medvedev is actually the one with the balls who ordered from Olympic games to start backfire and begin a full military operation. Putin... The international society clearly noticed the start of events in Ukraine, Syria etc. But they didn't notice everything between. How Putin decided to simply refuse that there were any Russia's military in Crimea, then organized Minsk, repeated for three years (and probably will repeat in the future) that Minsk agreements have no alternative, liquidated the leaders of the militia of Donbass (because he was fearing them more than some Ukraine). And in Syria when Erdogan shot a plane and Putin wiped himself... Oh, no! He made a horrific strike back and bravely banned Turkish tomatoes, then forgave this Erdogan, befriended him and started to build a Turkish pipe in hope when it will reach Turkey Erdogan agrees to permit it further. He wiped himself a few months ago when a hundred of Russian citizens was killed by Americans by some of his subordinates' guilt and he said nothing (and the West said nothing, because it's not interesting). The Chinese-Russian relations are obscure and nobody talks about them.

So the West tries to image him as a dictator of steel who builds 1984 society, new Stalin appeared. While it's the 'master' of compromises who always tries to choose a soft way, agrees on everything and able to make hard decisions only under a threat of immediate eradication. And he truly builds 1984 in Russia, only not from the Orwell's book but Russia's history: the reincarnation of not Stalin but Leonid Ilyich Brezhnev.

Though I guess it's ok for the West. They don't need the weak and pathetic Vladimir Vladimirovich mumbling some inadequateness, they want the steel Vlad Juggernaut, the destroyer of worlds invading the clean pretty Belgian reality. It's most important to not really believe it themselves, because Vladimir Vladimirovichs and Vlad Juggernauts need a totally different approach. Whenever there will be a need to push further they will reject ("It's impossible to push this Machiavellian titan"), whenever there will be a need to agree they will refuse ("It's an another move in 7D chess, he plans something"). The wrong assumptions will bury the touch with reality.
#14898482
Wrong. I brought forth an argument that Balancer did not like, and since he had no counter-argument, he started name-calling, which is what people without arguments do.

There is evidence that supports the argument that Putin has his political rivals murdered. Do we ignore that?

Here are 10 critics of Vladimir Putin who died violently or in suspicious ways
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wor ... 8cc2cb33ad

Here’s a list of Putin critics who've ended up dead
http://uk.businessinsider.com/list-of-p ... ing-2016-3

Putin enemy found dead in London eight days after Skripal poisoning, as counter-terror police launch investigation
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/0 ... sky-found/
#14898484
Godstud wrote:Wrong. I brought forth an argument that Balancer did not like, and since he had no counter-argument, he started name-calling, which is what people without arguments do.


I don't discuss what Balancer says, I just noticed that his first saying "Russia is not a dictatorship" has sense. Maybe not in the sense he put in.

Godstud wrote:There is evidence that supports the argument that Putin has his political rivals murdered. Do we ignore that?


Yeah. I have no much time right now to go through the whole list and make a list if I know something about or not and if it proves my point or not. So I will be short for now. I clicked the first link and saw the names of Nemtsov and Politkovskaya. About Nemtsov I already said: he was a pathetic nothing in square, his rating was at zero level, the population saw him exclusively as the face of 90s liberals (people hated during his murder and hate to this day). He was probably the direct Kemlin's agent.

Though I don't know exactly who killed him, maybe it was Kremlin. Not very plausible but possible.

But with Politkovskaya it's easier. Politkovskaya was never a critic of Putin and his enemy. I made the passage about it in my previous post. Journalists simply cannot be his enemies. In reality Politkovskaya was an enemy of Ramzan Kadyrov, she made the first interview with him where showed him as a monster and later started to write about this problem more and more. Her critique of Putin was from the point "How do you even allow this monster to rule in some part of Russia?" Kadyrov actively disliked her and Kadyrov (in opposition to Vladimir Vladimirovich) kills people he doesn't like, either in Chechnya or Moscow, and journalists are his enemies. Kadyrov has the license to kill everywhere (he killed his enemies as far as in Dubai). That can be the agreement (Vladimir Vladimirovich agreed that if Ramzan wants someone dead he can kill this person) or the weakness of Vladimir Vladimirovich (he doesn't want killings but has no powers to push Kadyrov into submission). It's too difficult, it needs discussion about who is Ramzan Kadyrov, why he has this license, which role Chechens play in the Russian Federation, who put them to this role (it was not Vladimir Vladimirovich but the best Democrat of Russia). Too difficult.
#14898492
@Ganeshas Rat So if one isn’t popular in Russia, expected to be killed?

It seems a significant number of Russians support Putin because he makes them feel powerful. And so the on going challenges to the West.



http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-03-20/even-putins-fake-election-serves-important-purpose/9564862?section=analysis

ANALYSIS

Despite Vladimir Putin's expected victory, Russian election served important purpose

By Europe correspondent James Glenday in Moscow
Updated Tue at 12:29am


What a shock!

With no serious competitor and almost total control over the media, not even the Kremlin could suggest with a straight face this result was ever in doubt.

It is staggeringly easy to poke fun at a process with so many obvious democratic deficits.

The images of officials appearing to stuff ballot boxes in remote Russian regions are bizarre, not to mention the complaints from some citizens that they were forced to vote multiple times.

I find this particularly amusing considering how closely the ABC was supervised, monitored and checked when we entered a polling booth or filmed on the street.

Vladimir Putin arrives to take part in a rally to support his bid in the upcoming presidential election.

Even an election coordinator in central Moscow confided to me in an awkward, embarrassed kind of way that "irregularities" and "widespread voter fraud" were fairly common.

It seems highly unlikely he was a Putin supporter — they have spent the past 10 days claiming Russia's version of democracy is its own "unique" process that I can't comprehend due to my misguided, western "Russophobic" ways.

But to purely mock or focus on the broader geopolitical consequences of Vladimir Putin's "re-election" — quote marks intended — is to miss a few interesting aspects of this whole, theatrical process.

Russians, the many we met at least, seem to genuinely like voting, even though they almost all know the outcome has already been decided.

In their eyes, the fact they can actually cast a ballot puts them miles ahead of a stack of other countries.

Russian opposition leader Alexei Nayalny submits endorsement papers for his registration as a presidential candidate.

Opposition supporters of course are campaigning for change.

But even had the banned and oft-arrested Alexei Navalny been allowed to run, it's highly unlikely he would have forced the election into a second round.

It's true, no-one knows for sure what would happen if Russia suddenly gave its people the freedom to openly, safely challenge the political establishment, though it's safe to say there's no sign that's about to happen.

And that seems at least partly because Mr Putin appears to have a solid support base.

Russians have repeatedly told us, "they're not better off", "life isn't better", but they think their President is carving out a greater place for them on the world stage and that makes them very proud.

So the "election", while flawed, serves a purpose — it's almost a sort of ritual.

In the eyes of many Russians, the process, the show, legitimises Mr Putin's enormous power at home and licenses him to keep projecting it abroad.

Here, many expect him to keep antagonising and confronting Western nations for the next six years
#14898497
Ganeshas Rat wrote:He is right in some sense. It reminds me of Yudkowsky's "The Lord of the Rings" fragment where Frodo says the plan to bring the ring into Mordor is an obvious trap, that's what the enemy plans for: so the brotherhood will deliver the ring just to his front door. And Gandalf "explains" that the enemy is never able to imagine that someone would refuse the ring's power and decide to destroy it. Frodo knows that Gandalf is wrong because the enemy is not stupid: he would be misguided in his predictions of others' behavior again and again if he wasn't able to predict their good intentions.

So if you make the wrong assumption it's not only bad because you've made the wrong assumption: any other assumption based on it is automatically wrong too. I'm as deep in opposition to RF as it could be, I think this state should cease to exist. Still it's not obvious to me that RF is a dictatorship. It definitely has no democracy. To some point it's possible to say it's a tyranny because the rule was usurped long ago. There are sad tendencies. But this is not a totalitarian dictatorship. The situation is much more complex and making this assumption is clearly wrong.

For example you made a point about enemies of Putin being murdered. The problem here is the main enemy of Putin not only alive, he is very free, too free I'd say for a dictatorship, for example he spent three last months to organize the mass campaign of elections' boycott (while the main purpose of the administration was to get as high turnout as possible). While the enemies of Putin who were killed are not quite his enemies. If you see the list of murdered it consists of journalists (who can't be enemies of Putin as mosquitos can't be enemies of a man, just different level of play), politicians with zero rating like Nemtsov, small KGB deflectors etc. On another side people who make a threat to Putin's regime are boringly put into prisons or labeled as extremists with suppression of rights, opposition parties are banally aren't registered and... That's all about it. In the West they don't know about their existence because there's a much more interesting topics: the former Russian KGB agent was poisoned by secretly injecting antimatter into an eyes through the anus by a radio controlled nanodrone, Russian trace is suspected. They substitute the reality (that is boring and ugly) with the carnival image of a bloody dictator from books about James Bond.

Or let's say, it's fairly known that Putin is a bloody dictator without conscience who makes hard statements and oppresses everyone, his main target is to destroy the EU and the US. He evaded the defensive mechanisms of democracy using the help of Dmitry Medveded, a soft vegetable man thinking only about iphones.

The problem is Dmitry Medvedev is actually the one with the balls who ordered from Olympic games to start backfire and begin a full military operation. Putin... The international society clearly noticed the start of events in Ukraine, Syria etc. But they didn't notice everything between. How Putin decided to simply refuse that there were any Russia's military in Crimea, then organized Minsk, repeated for three years (and probably will repeat in the future) that Minsk agreements have no alternative, liquidated the leaders of the militia of Donbass (because he was fearing them more than some Ukraine). And in Syria when Erdogan shot a plane and Putin wiped himself... Oh, no! He made a horrific strike back and bravely banned Turkish tomatoes, then forgave this Erdogan, befriended him and started to build a Turkish pipe in hope when it will reach Turkey Erdogan agrees to permit it further. He wiped himself a few months ago when a hundred of Russian citizens was killed by Americans by some of his subordinates' guilt and he said nothing (and the West said nothing, because it's not interesting). The Chinese-Russian relations are obscure and nobody talks about them.

So the West tries to image him as a dictator of steel who builds 1984 society, new Stalin appeared. While it's the 'master' of compromises who always tries to choose a soft way, agrees on everything and able to make hard decisions only under a threat of immediate eradication. And he truly builds 1984 in Russia, only not from the Orwell's book but Russia's history: the reincarnation of not Stalin but Leonid Ilyich Brezhnev.

Though I guess it's ok for the West. They don't need the weak and pathetic Vladimir Vladimirovich mumbling some inadequateness, they want the steel Vlad Juggernaut, the destroyer of worlds invading the clean pretty Belgian reality. It's most important to not really believe it themselves, because Vladimir Vladimirovichs and Vlad Juggernauts need a totally different approach. Whenever there will be a need to push further they will reject ("It's impossible to push this Machiavellian titan"), whenever there will be a need to agree they will refuse ("It's an another move in 7D chess, he plans something"). The wrong assumptions will bury the touch with reality.


Hi,

Pretty impressive for someone who is not Russian or probably has no contact with Russian people to understand all this.

Almost everything is spot on.

This begs the question, what do you do for a living?
#14898518
foxdemon wrote:Don’t know why you two are arguing. Canadians and Russians have much in common.


My friend, who lived in Canada for 7 years, says the same thing :)
#14898527
Godstud wrote:I never said it was all Russian propaganda. I said that RT is pro-Putin.


Apparently, in the fireside of the dispute, we evaded the original statements. I never said that there is no propaganda in Russia. Propaganda is everywhere. Both in the West and in Russia. I objected to terms such as "a parody of democracy." I do not know how from your point of view, but from my point of view, democracy is the power of the people. What the majority decides is a democratic solution. In Russia, the overwhelming majority of people are supporters of Putin. You can consider this a sincere fear of the West, you can consider it an influence of propaganda, but the concept of democracy does not take into account where the opinion of the people comes from. It is important that the people want this decision and this decision is made. This is democracy.

Notice, in the same USA, on the contrary, the decision for the whole people is made by specific people. But not the entire population of the United States entirely. This is a republic, but not democracy :)

Do you think the American version is less prone to extraneous influences? And whence then such hysterics about the Russian intervention in the American elections? If the system is stable, then such a ridiculous intervention has no role. America has an incomparably greater interference with Russia. But we do not like hysterics about this :) And what to think about all these American scandals with bribes of senators, etc.? In Russia, at least, you need to influence the entire nation, not individual senators, in order to achieve the desired decision in the elections :)

Godstud wrote:The press and media do NOT have freedom of speech in Russia(correct me if I am wrong, but anti-Putin reporters have had problems, and that's fact).


In Russia there are a number of very evil anti-Putin opposition media. And very popular. For example, Echo of Moscow.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echo_of_Moscow

The Echo of Moscow has an audience of 7 million people, mainly Moscow. That is the heart of the country :)

This is really a very aggressive anti-Putin radio station. Now, for example, they react very harshly to the results of the elections. And, surprisingly, her studio is less than one mile from the Kremlin :)

Literally today's news. In Kamchatka, the leader was removed from the air, calling the elections a booth, scolding about life in the country and said that 74% of citizens in Russia are stupid monkeys. If it were not for the latter, they could not have been dismissed, and so - it directly offended most of its listeners. Obviously, since she said so, she was not afraid of the consequences :)

By cable and Internet TV (penetration of which in Russia exceeds 70%) we have many western news channels. At me on TV in a base package BBC, EuroNews, Deutsche Welle, France24 are shown. By the way, DW in general in Russia is very anti-Russian rhetoric. I even hate listening to them :)

Still need to teach that the central radio and television channels in Russia are no longer the main sources of information. The basic information in Russia is distributed through the Internet, to which 73% of Russians have access. And on the Internet a lot of top bloggers with millions of audiences. And many of them are very oppositionist. Some - in general hysterical Russophobic :)

Finally, it is impossible to watch Western films, serials, read books, not to see the attitude towards Russia in the West and not to think about the reasons for this. And almost all of the things listed in Russia are Western ones :)

Godstud wrote:So far you have no argument, as you aren't presenting any counter-arguments or even sources that dispute what I posted. Stop pretending you want a discussion when you really only want to preach your own ideology/opinion. You address the argument, not the person.


What else are you interested in?
#14898536
Godstud wrote:There is evidence that supports the argument that Putin has his political rivals murdered. Do we ignore that?


This is the banal law of large numbers. People die constantly. Especially in Russia of past years. And even now the number of murders in Russia in terms of population is twice higher than in the US. If the politician is big and famous, he has many opponents. Any accidental death of such an opponent can be written to the account of the politician. At what you can not prove anything. What we observe. But the Western man in the street is used to believing the accusations against Russia without any evidence. Can you name at least one victim whose death is proved by Putin's fault? No? So you believe in empty fantasies.

In Russia, for example, some also believe, for example, that the West was killing Russian ambassadors and pro-Kremlin politicians last year.

http://www.businessinsider.com/russian- ... hss-2017-8

Or a series of mysterious deaths of critics Hillary Clinton.

http://lasvegas.cbslocal.com/2016/08/10 ... ck-it-out/

If you accept without evidence that Putin is killing his critics, are you ready to accept without evidence that Hillary is killing his critics? :)

Finally, it has already been said above that they die more often, political losers who do not already have any political weight. Their death for Putin brings only harm, not good. The same Nemtsov in Russia, no one remembered. And after his death, he turned into an icon.

...

It's a dance that can be danced together. And the one who makes a statement must prove it. Because the burden of proof lies with the approver. But in the West in relation to Russia such a simple rule is beginning to be ignored.
#14898539
foxdemon wrote:So if one isn’t popular in Russia, expected to be killed?


As mentioned above, if this were the case, then in 2012 (or earlier), Navalny, first of all, would be killed. At the peak of his popularity.

By the way, right now, when he lost almost all the support and as a politician no longer weighs anything and can not threaten Putin with anything, his life can be at risk. If we assume that there is some truth in the fact that someone is killing the losers of all politicians in order to harm Putin. In this case, the murder of Navalny will now be a very profitable step. As a politician, he is already incapable of anything, but after the murder he will join the list of "killed Putin's oppositionists." Now the murdered Navalny will cause much more harm to Putin than the living one. So if I were Navalny, now I would be worried. Now, and not in 2012 at the peak of his popularity :)
#14898543
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
#14898597
foxdemon wrote:So if one isn’t popular in Russia, expected to be killed?

No, however if one isn't popular = makes no threat, it has significantly less sense to organize an assassination.

Compare to the destiny of Alexander Lebed. Yeltsin's spindoctors pushed him to the president elections of 1996 as a spoiler candidate who impersonated power, military force, "simple and hard measures", "let's make Russia great again" etc. After the elections despite expectations wasn't forgotten, became a significant political person, governor of Krasnoyarsk and planned to move further, his image was very appealing to the electors. Died in a helicopter crash, nobody knows why. Evil tongues say about explosives at the helicopter's propeller.

And Nemtsov... They say he was killed for revealing the horrific truth about Russian military in Ukraine. Today the candidates that say something positive about Ukraine get their percent of honor. In 2015 at the euphoria of the Russian spring and the returning of Crimea whatever he could publish would produce this reaction:

1) Putin is very good, there is written he put Russian military in Ukraine, it's everything we only could dream of;

2) Nemtsov writes Putin is very bad. If Nemtsov writes people must wash hands it means there's acid in pipes. So Putin is very good.

Instead of publishing his pathetic book (that was published by his supporters for whom it became the matter of honor anyway) he got a bullet and produced the political scandal significantly worsening Russia's position. As dead he became much more useful for the destroying of Russian Federation than he was when being alive.

Please note that my position to Nemtsov is very positive (even despite his pro-Ukrainian views). He was a prodigy, a man who in his sixteen proposed an improvement for space satellite antennae, a smart and talented man with pleasant appearance (in comparison to majority of the modern Russian elite who are physical freaks including modern Putin) and some charisma. He just was unlucky that he was a) a liberal, b) in 1990s c) at power. To the age of Putin people hated them all to vomit, to 'gnashing of teeth'. And mostly correctly. For example, the close political friend of Boris Nemtsov, the man who continued his work after his murder was Mikhail Kasyanov, the first Putin's premier-minister also known as Two percents. The nickname is the price he was asking for solving problems as the PM. It's not even the most ugliest example. Nemtsov associated himself with these people and buried his potential totally.

JohnRawls wrote:Pretty impressive for someone who is not Russian or probably has no contact with Russian people to understand all this.

I didn't quite understand this part. Do you mean me? I am a Russian myself.

Ok, now about the list. I said about Poltikovskaya and Nemtsov enough I think. Now to the next ones in the list.

Natalya Estemirova. Don't know the details. For me it's enough that she wrote on the same topics with Politkovskaya. The Ramzan's razor - if someone speaks about Chechnya there is no need to search another reasons of this person's death. Chechnya means death.

The same about Stanislav Markelov. Well, actually I think I must stop at this topic about Chechnya and say more.

At 80s first entrepreneurs and businessmen appeared in the Soviet Union (and Russia after that) after 60 years of socialism. With them first mafia appeared. Former proletarians learned the word 'racket' and started to make "commerses" share their money in voluntary-forced way, sometimes using electric irons and cup boilers (also known as rectal cryptoanalyzers). After conquering their cities they moved to the big cake of Moscow. Moscow was big but numbers of gangsters are bigger so they had contradictions. Contradictions were solved at skhodkas (a 'council' of criminals high in the chain of command under the patronage of some influent criminal) or at strelkas (arrows). The typical arrow looked like this: two groups of cars drive to each other, stop, people leave the cars and one of each group start to discuss problems. Sometimes they find the compromise, sometimes it ends with a shooting.

The transition from Russian empire to Soviet Union produced "thieves" - a caste of professional criminals who not necessarily were thieves, just professional criminals. They produced the specific codex of appropriate and inappropriate actions. For example, a true thief shouldn't work at all, no matter where (because in the Soviet Union you can only be the employee of the state, the same state that controls police, you have a job => you work for police). Also a true thief can't have a wife and can't be a homosexual (passive). If you are or people think you are you automatically go to the caste of 'cocks', appropriate victims of rape. If you call someone a cock or say another phrase that can be interpreted like that this man has a right to kill you. And he should to do so, if he does nothing it will mean that he agrees. On the other side if someone calls you a homosexual and you demonstrate your readiness to defend your honor in the case you cannot do it because your opponent is stronger the same codex obliges others to help you.

And it can be very anti humane but it's a thing that produces some order and doesn't let sociopaths in prisons to kill each other and regulates violence at streets. The criminals who don't bind to this codex are called bespredelshiks (something like no-limit-men). They are pariahs of the criminal society and deeply hated: the only way for known nolimits to survive at prisons is to contact the prison administration that can use lawless criminals for its purposes (beat, rape, kill a man who gave no reasons to) in separated wings of a facility.

Now the pathetic criminals who moved to arrows with knives and bats and their more evolved colleagues with firearms had quite a shock when Chechen mafia appeared in Moscow. Chechens were extreme nolimits and had a bad habit of starting to shoot not at the end of an arrow but at its beginning and sometimes even before it. Simply to kill everyone without any discussions no matter where no matter what, families and relatives included. Using also explosives, RPGs, landmines, sometimes even tanks rented from some corrupt military chief (I think I can remember a couple of cases). Yeah, just like in GTA except it was in reality. The full psychopaths, beasts so much respectable murderers who ordered or directly killed dozens of men were getting pale skin and shaking hands.

It's the reputation of Chechens. The caste of murderers for the sake of murder, no reason and honor. Since then nothing has changed. Besides Politkovskaya I will give a couple of examples Washington Post will never write about.

Yuri Budanov, the colonel of Russian army, participated in the Chechen war at the real warfare (proved by the order of courage and three contusions). In 2000 was accused of the next: during the Chechen war drunk Budanov have seen the 18 year old Chechen beauty Elsa Kungaeva. The colonel fell in love and ordered his subordinates to get her. Using the regiment's BMP soldiers took the girl, wrapped her in a carpet and delivered to the colonel who raped and killed her (The only known photo of the Chechen beauty). At the trial Budanov was cynically proving she was a sniper that is totally impossible. By the consultation of doctors he was found irresponsible and impotent (because of contusions), then found responsible because doctors were found irresponsible, then got ten years of prison. In 2004 wrote a petition of clemency. Ramzan Kadyrov publically said that if this will be approved "we will find another way for justice". Freed in 2010, 1.5 years later shot in Moscow by a professional killer. The killer was later found and recognized as Magomed Suleymanov recognized as Yusup Temirkhanov, sentenced to 15 years. During the trial the talented Chechen lawyer Murad Musayev (google his biography and face, there is a lot of things, including Politkovskaya's murder) bought one jury and threatened another two to push for the acquittal, found guilty and freed immediately because of the lapse of time.

Sergey Arakcheev and Evgeny Khudyakov, sappers that were demining Chechnya after the war. In 2003 both drunk drived around, found three Chechen workers, ordered to lay faces down and shot them in heads. Why? Because drunk Russian beasts. There was a trial, the jury found both innocent. The verdict was revoked (it was wrong jury), the second trial happened. By the decision of the jury both are innocent. Ramzan Kadyrov publically declared that "the reason for this justice was done not at the territory of the Chechen republic, there were no Chechens among the jury, the jury didn't quite understand the will of my people". The second verdict was revoked. During the second trial laws were changed because the president of Chechnya Alu Alkhanov asked to process trials about crimes in Chechnya without jury, because jury produces wrong sentences and can't quite understand the will of people of Chechnya. During the third trial...

Damn, I don't even want to write about all interesting details of the third trial. It's just too much. The justice was restored and the judge understood the will corectly, Khudyakov got 17 years and escaped, catched in 2017 and delivered to the prison. Arakcheev got 15 years and declared that will fight for the justice until the end, appeared at the court and was imprisoned. Was freed at 2017, sources said he is in a safe place. Then it was declared Arakcheev is in a safe place and moved to Syria immediately after the release. Everything is good with him. The attempts of his friends to contact him failed, it's not known if he's alive and just if he really left the prison.

That.

And now they write about Stanislav Markelov who defended Chechen civilians suffering of bloody Russian military and got a bullet personally from Putin. I think it's simpler and he was killed by Chechen civilians, it happens when Chechen civilians are around you that you sometimes die as the result. Read the details of death of Yury Budanov (specifically how the killer acted) and compare to the death of Markelov.

I wanted to write about deaths of Litvinenko and Berezovsky but too tired right now. I'll just say that a few days ago the father of Litvinenko appeared at the first channel where he hugged the murderer of Litvinenko Andrey Lugovoy, said that (by his opinion) Litvinenko was poisoned by his close friend Alex Goldfarb who works for CIA and complained the British rules don't give him access to the documents about death of his son because everything is classified for 100 years. I haven' found bruises at him but rectal cryptoanalyzers leave no traces so everything is possible.
#14898666
^
Here you go, you just gave very good examples that the system is messed up in Russia. And what is Putin doing about it, nothing meaningful. He is incapable as the system itself, why because he runs it.

The whole system needs to be revamped and reformed. On top of that there needs to be purges that get rid of corrupt officials from government and security organization in Russia. So law enforcement can function properly coupled with proper legal system that distributes justice. The whole system needs to be cleaned out. 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.


Balancer wrote:Of course, Putin is not the only honest man in Russia. The problem is that honest people in Russia today are either politically inactive, or working with the Kremlin, even if they were recently in the opposition.

Here is a bright, fresh example. A few years ago Ella Pamfilova was an active oppositionist. By the way, she was actively promoted by the West as a fighter against the Putin regime.

http://www.newsweek.com/ella-pamfilova- ... ssia-71501

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-10819796

She criticized a lot of human rights violations, criticized the election campaigns of past years. And what does Putin do? He appoints her as the chairman of the election campaign!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/eu ... story.html

By the way, this, too, greatly increased confidence in the results of the elections in Russia. When counting is done by someone who has always tried to blame for dishonesty, then he has more confidence.

So, how should Panfilov be considered now, the opposition of the Kremlin or part of the Kremlin? :)

...

Can you call honest politically active oppositionists in Russia? Me not. And not because they are fighting. With the same Navalny not only do not fight, it is directly protected. Otherwise, he would have been in prison for a long time under Russian law. But it would be very bad for PR. That's why Navalny is free. Moreover, contrary to Russian norms and laws, he instantly received a foreign passport when he needed to fly abroad for medical treatment. Who else?
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.

Putin worked in KGB, they know haw to manipulate political process. This is what they did around the world for their living. One of KGB doctrines was to control the opposition; a lot of times they will allow an opposition to exist as long as it is not capable to actually successfully challenge the ruling party. That is why for example they let liberal opposition to exist in Soviet Union to a degree, yet cleansed society of nationalist and maxist/communist who were critical of the Soviet system. Because these guys actually posed an existential danger.

This is where Navalny is taken seriously, because he actually has the potential to challenge the regime successfully. Granted he does not do himself any favours when he decides to troll the regime by going to the west, to places like Human Right court in the Hague, (the court is know to be a tool of the west for their interest,) or recently he proclaimed that Russian did influence the American election, because the regime keeps harassing his campaign, so he wanted to spite them back.
Last edited by Albert on 21 Mar 2018 23:17, edited 3 times in total.
#14898669
Balancer wrote:As mentioned above, if this were the case, then in 2012 (or earlier), Navalny, first of all, would be killed. At the peak of his popularity.

By the way, right now, when he lost almost all the support and as a politician no longer weighs anything and can not threaten Putin with anything, his life can be at risk. If we assume that there is some truth in the fact that someone is killing the losers of all politicians in order to harm Putin. In this case, the murder of Navalny will now be a very profitable step. As a politician, he is already incapable of anything, but after the murder he will join the list of "killed Putin's oppositionists." Now the murdered Navalny will cause much more harm to Putin than the living one. So if I were Navalny, now I would be worried. Now, and not in 2012 at the peak of his popularity :)
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?

I guess it is entertaining to watch whom will Putin kill next.

@Ganeshas Rat
But with Politkovskaya it's easier. Politkovskaya was never a critic of Putin and his enemy. I made the passage about it in my previous post. Journalists simply cannot be his enemies. In reality Politkovskaya was an enemy of Ramzan Kadyrov, she made the first interview with him where showed him as a monster and later started to write about this problem more and more. Her critique of Putin was from the point "How do you even allow this monster to rule in some part of Russia?" Kadyrov actively disliked her and Kadyrov (in opposition to Vladimir Vladimirovich) kills people he doesn't like, either in Chechnya or Moscow, and journalists are his enemies. Kadyrov has the license to kill everywhere (he killed his enemies as far as in Dubai). That can be the agreement (Vladimir Vladimirovich agreed that if Ramzan wants someone dead he can kill this person) or the weakness of Vladimir Vladimirovich (he doesn't want killings but has no powers to push Kadyrov into submission). It's too difficult, it needs discussion about who is Ramzan Kadyrov, why he has this license, which role Chechens play in the Russian Federation, who put them to this role (it was not Vladimir Vladimirovich but the best Democrat of Russia). Too difficult.
This is another thing, he let Chechen's just walk all over him. There was a successful military incursion onto Chechnya, but he has no mind to follow up with it. Chechnya needs to be subdued still, letting a warlord run the region is not an answer. He will do what a warlord does. Navalny even has a more reasonable approach to the Chechen issue then Putin. For one he proposes to cordon the region until stability is restored there. Which makes more sense then just let criminal gangs and henchmen pour out of the region.

Putin just lets a hostile population roam free in Russia proper after the war, without ever first stabilizing nor even pacifying the region. Chechen's displaced and even massacred ethnic Russian in that war, yet he lets them live and kill in Moscow freely. It is cruel betrayal simply or idiocy of highest caliber.
#14898677
Ganeshas Rat wrote:No, however if one isn't popular = makes no threat, it has significantly less sense to organize an assassination.

Compare to the destiny of Alexander Lebed. Yeltsin's spindoctors pushed him to the president elections of 1996 as a spoiler candidate who impersonated power, military force, "simple and hard measures", "let's make Russia great again" etc. After the elections despite expectations wasn't forgotten, became a significant political person, governor of Krasnoyarsk and planned to move further, his image was very appealing to the electors. Died in a helicopter crash, nobody knows why. Evil tongues say about explosives at the helicopter's propeller.

And Nemtsov... They say he was killed for revealing the horrific truth about Russian military in Ukraine. Today the candidates that say something positive about Ukraine get their percent of honor. In 2015 at the euphoria of the Russian spring and the returning of Crimea whatever he could publish would produce this reaction:

1) Putin is very good, there is written he put Russian military in Ukraine, it's everything we only could dream of;

2) Nemtsov writes Putin is very bad. If Nemtsov writes people must wash hands it means there's acid in pipes. So Putin is very good.

Instead of publishing his pathetic book (that was published by his supporters for whom it became the matter of honor anyway) he got a bullet and produced the political scandal significantly worsening Russia's position. As dead he became much more useful for the destroying of Russian Federation than he was when being alive.

Please note that my position to Nemtsov is very positive (even despite his pro-Ukrainian views). He was a prodigy, a man who in his sixteen proposed an improvement for space satellite antennae, a smart and talented man with pleasant appearance (in comparison to majority of the modern Russian elite who are physical freaks including modern Putin) and some charisma. He just was unlucky that he was a) a liberal, b) in 1990s c) at power. To the age of Putin people hated them all to vomit, to 'gnashing of teeth'. And mostly correctly. For example, the close political friend of Boris Nemtsov, the man who continued his work after his murder was Mikhail Kasyanov, the first Putin's premier-minister also known as Two percents. The nickname is the price he was asking for solving problems as the PM. It's not even the most ugliest example. Nemtsov associated himself with these people and buried his potential totally.


I didn't quite understand this part. Do you mean me? I am a Russian myself.

Ok, now about the list. I said about Poltikovskaya and Nemtsov enough I think. Now to the next ones in the list.

Natalya Estemirova. Don't know the details. For me it's enough that she wrote on the same topics with Politkovskaya. The Ramzan's razor - if someone speaks about Chechnya there is no need to search another reasons of this person's death. Chechnya means death.

The same about Stanislav Markelov. Well, actually I think I must stop at this topic about Chechnya and say more.

At 80s first entrepreneurs and businessmen appeared in the Soviet Union (and Russia after that) after 60 years of socialism. With them first mafia appeared. Former proletarians learned the word 'racket' and started to make "commerses" share their money in voluntary-forced way, sometimes using electric irons and cup boilers (also known as rectal cryptoanalyzers). After conquering their cities they moved to the big cake of Moscow. Moscow was big but numbers of gangsters are bigger so they had contradictions. Contradictions were solved at skhodkas (a 'council' of criminals high in the chain of command under the patronage of some influent criminal) or at strelkas (arrows). The typical arrow looked like this: two groups of cars drive to each other, stop, people leave the cars and one of each group start to discuss problems. Sometimes they find the compromise, sometimes it ends with a shooting.

The transition from Russian empire to Soviet Union produced "thieves" - a caste of professional criminals who not necessarily were thieves, just professional criminals. They produced the specific codex of appropriate and inappropriate actions. For example, a true thief shouldn't work at all, no matter where (because in the Soviet Union you can only be the employee of the state, the same state that controls police, you have a job => you work for police). Also a true thief can't have a wife and can't be a homosexual (passive). If you are or people think you are you automatically go to the caste of 'cocks', appropriate victims of rape. If you call someone a cock or say another phrase that can be interpreted like that this man has a right to kill you. And he should to do so, if he does nothing it will mean that he agrees. On the other side if someone calls you a homosexual and you demonstrate your readiness to defend your honor in the case you cannot do it because your opponent is stronger the same codex obliges others to help you.

And it can be very anti humane but it's a thing that produces some order and doesn't let sociopaths in prisons to kill each other and regulates violence at streets. The criminals who don't bind to this codex are called bespredelshiks (something like no-limit-men). They are pariahs of the criminal society and deeply hated: the only way for known nolimits to survive at prisons is to contact the prison administration that can use lawless criminals for its purposes (beat, rape, kill a man who gave no reasons to) in separated wings of a facility.

Now the pathetic criminals who moved to arrows with knives and bats and their more evolved colleagues with firearms had quite a shock when Chechen mafia appeared in Moscow. Chechens were extreme nolimits and had a bad habit of starting to shoot not at the end of an arrow but at its beginning and sometimes even before it. Simply to kill everyone without any discussions no matter where no matter what, families and relatives included. Using also explosives, RPGs, landmines, sometimes even tanks rented from some corrupt military chief (I think I can remember a couple of cases). Yeah, just like in GTA except it was in reality. The full psychopaths, beasts so much respectable murderers who ordered or directly killed dozens of men were getting pale skin and shaking hands.

It's the reputation of Chechens. The caste of murderers for the sake of murder, no reason and honor. Since then nothing has changed. Besides Politkovskaya I will give a couple of examples Washington Post will never write about.

Yuri Budanov, the colonel of Russian army, participated in the Chechen war at the real warfare (proved by the order of courage and three contusions). In 2000 was accused of the next: during the Chechen war drunk Budanov have seen the 18 year old Chechen beauty Elsa Kungaeva. The colonel fell in love and ordered his subordinates to get her. Using the regiment's BMP soldiers took the girl, wrapped her in a carpet and delivered to the colonel who raped and killed her (The only known photo of the Chechen beauty). At the trial Budanov was cynically proving she was a sniper that is totally impossible. By the consultation of doctors he was found irresponsible and impotent (because of contusions), then found responsible because doctors were found irresponsible, then got ten years of prison. In 2004 wrote a petition of clemency. Ramzan Kadyrov publically said that if this will be approved "we will find another way for justice". Freed in 2010, 1.5 years later shot in Moscow by a professional killer. The killer was later found and recognized as Magomed Suleymanov recognized as Yusup Temirkhanov, sentenced to 15 years. During the trial the talented Chechen lawyer Murad Musayev (google his biography and face, there is a lot of things, including Politkovskaya's murder) bought one jury and threatened another two to push for the acquittal, found guilty and freed immediately because of the lapse of time.

Sergey Arakcheev and Evgeny Khudyakov, sappers that were demining Chechnya after the war. In 2003 both drunk drived around, found three Chechen workers, ordered to lay faces down and shot them in heads. Why? Because drunk Russian beasts. There was a trial, the jury found both innocent. The verdict was revoked (it was wrong jury), the second trial happened. By the decision of the jury both are innocent. Ramzan Kadyrov publically declared that "the reason for this justice was done not at the territory of the Chechen republic, there were no Chechens among the jury, the jury didn't quite understand the will of my people". The second verdict was revoked. During the second trial laws were changed because the president of Chechnya Alu Alkhanov asked to process trials about crimes in Chechnya without jury, because jury produces wrong sentences and can't quite understand the will of people of Chechnya. During the third trial...

Damn, I don't even want to write about all interesting details of the third trial. It's just too much. The justice was restored and the judge understood the will corectly, Khudyakov got 17 years and escaped, catched in 2017 and delivered to the prison. Arakcheev got 15 years and declared that will fight for the justice until the end, appeared at the court and was imprisoned. Was freed at 2017, sources said he is in a safe place. Then it was declared Arakcheev is in a safe place and moved to Syria immediately after the release. Everything is good with him. The attempts of his friends to contact him failed, it's not known if he's alive and just if he really left the prison.

That.

And now they write about Stanislav Markelov who defended Chechen civilians suffering of bloody Russian military and got a bullet personally from Putin. I think it's simpler and he was killed by Chechen civilians, it happens when Chechen civilians are around you that you sometimes die as the result. Read the details of death of Yury Budanov (specifically how the killer acted) and compare to the death of Markelov.

I wanted to write about deaths of Litvinenko and Berezovsky but too tired right now. I'll just say that a few days ago the father of Litvinenko appeared at the first channel where he hugged the murderer of Litvinenko Andrey Lugovoy, said that (by his opinion) Litvinenko was poisoned by his close friend Alex Goldfarb who works for CIA and complained the British rules don't give him access to the documents about death of his son because everything is classified for 100 years. I haven' found bruises at him but rectal cryptoanalyzers leave no traces so everything is possible.


Interesting read.

It is useless to explain all this to Albert though.

There are 4 main "MEMES" about Putin:

Case 1: Putin, the saviour of Russia, lifter from the knees, bearer of Russian pride and prestige.

Case 2: Corrupt dictator of all Russia, next Stalin or Devil incarnate. His greed can be only surpassed by his lust for power.

Case 3: Manly man, he catches bear with his hands and pets tigers like kittens. True orthodox believer and saviour of conservative values.

Case 4: Master of the 20d chess game. Machiavelli incarnated to conquer the world and subjugate anything non-Russian.

So 99% of the people in the west consider him to be something out of those 4 memes or a combination of several of them. As you see, not all of them are negative. But it delivers a general point. Albert considers Putin to be 2 and 4 so he will never change his mind regarding this.

People do not really realise that "MEMES" are not a representation of the man himself and what he stands for. It is a representation of the propaganda, be it Putins one or somebody elses. It is an image. Images are very power to brainwash people in to believing because it is a simple concept which does not require much thinking. It also allows people to overlook things that do not fit in to this meme.

For example:
If Putin is 2 and 4 then Skrypal -> definitely killed by Putin.
But if Putin is 2 and 4 then Putin must have been on Qadaffis side (Putin actually agreed to not veto UNSC resolution on Qadaffi and basically let Europe/US do anything with him short of killing him. Europe/US broke that promise but that is a different story)

Point being, people do not even try to rationalise any actions that Putin does. They are also very unaware what the alternatives to Putin actually are. Both from the United Russia side and the opposition parties. Simply being in opposition to Putin or in systemic opposition does not make you a better person or leader than Putin. Most people in the West have no clue about this.

Navalny for example. What does he actually stand for? What methods does he use? What lies does he tell? There is no more than 5 people that can answer these questions on this forum. And note, this is about Navalny, the darling child of the Western Media. Ones who are a bit older might know about Zhirinovsky but that is it. But in reality, if you ask them who is Grudinin, Zyuganov, Sobchak(Father, wife, daughter), Udaltsov, etc they won't know.

On top of that, it is also aggravated by the fact that the Media in Russia is very much controlled by the state. So everything that the Russian media says is a lie by default. Add the ultimately super complicated situations in Dagestan, Chechnya and then it is way easier to shout Machiavellian Dictator when you see this:

Map of the election:
Image

Putin won states are grey.
#14898682
John, what does Putin stand for? You tell me. I would like to find out myself.

But judging him by his actions, this is what I conclude. That when he kills his opposition it should be a red flag for anyone who wishes to live in a republic. The whole point of having a republic is that people who have different opinion to the official policies of the ruling government can voice them. Then if willing they can take their opinions to the legislative chambers of government by being elected there. Aka representative democracy.

When Putin oppresses or kills his political opponents he foregoes the whole principles of the republic. He does not play by the rules set up and to which he agreed on. On top of that it is just immoral.

Point being, people do not even try to rationalise any actions that Putin does. They are also very unaware what the alternatives to Putin actually are. Both from the United Russia side and the opposition parties. Simply being in opposition to Putin or in systemic opposition does not make you a better person or leader than Putin. Most people in the West have no clue about this.
John, there is no visible alternatives to Putin because Putin suppresses, jails or kills any meaningful alternatives (and opposition) to him. Do you understand what I'm saying?

Navalny for example. What does he actually stand for? What methods does he use? What lies does he tell? There is no more than 5 people that can answer these questions on this forum. And note, this is about Navalny, the darling child of the Western Media. Ones who are a bit older might know about Zhirinovsky but that is it. But in reality, if you ask them who is Grudinin, Zyuganov, Sobchak(Father, wife, daughter), Udaltsov, etc they won't know.
Navalny stands for many things, for one he wants to reform the system so it would be fair and just. That is one good reason for me already. He has his own channel on youtube. You can check it out. Granted, I personally do want to see more of clear platform from him as to what in detail he stands for and how he wished to accomplish what he wants. Perhaps there is such information available but I have not researched enough to find it yet. (In many of his interviews he sometimes suggest an idea of jailing corrupt oligarch, so it appears he is open to the idea of purging them.) In the end it would be good if he could even be an opposition party in Duma so different critical ideas can be expressed.

And Zhira is a clown, he is not a serious statement. Although at times he has his moments, for one I remember seeing an interview with him. Where he proposed a two party system similar to that in America, so there will be at least some opposition in Duma and politics.

On top of that, it is also aggravated by the fact that the Media in Russia is very much controlled by the state. So everything that the Russian media says is a lie by default. Add the ultimately super complicated situations in Dagestan, Chechnya and then it is way easier to shout Machiavellian Dictator when you see this:
Exactly and who runs it? Putin and his regime, you have to understand he is and they are good liars and manipulators. They have set up the conceptual atmosphere and this political circus, his an ex-KGB operator, these guys know what they are doing and how to manipulate minds. They fooled people. Once a person wakes up and is not fooled by the lie anymore, if they cant keep quiet and begin to challenge the ugly nonsense they set up, they kill them.

Navalny is not dead because he has managed to play his cards right, as Balancer has pointed out if his dead that will be worse for the regime then if his alive. So he plays that to his advantage, as if they kill him, it will expose to more people the reality of the dirty oppressive regime they live under now and wake them up. Putin knows he can not risk that with Navalny.
#14898742
Albert wrote:John, what does Putin stand for? You tell me. I would like to find out myself.

But judging him by his actions, this is what I conclude. That when he kills his opposition it should be a red flag for anyone who wishes to live in a republic. The whole point of having a republic is that people who have different opinion to the official policies of the ruling government can voice them. Then if willing they can take their opinions to the legislative chambers of government by being elected there. Aka representative democracy.

When Putin oppresses or kills his political opponents he foregoes the whole principles of the republic. He does not play by the rules set up and to which he agreed on. On top of that it is just immoral.

John, there is no visible alternatives to Putin because Putin suppresses, jails or kills any meaningful alternatives (and opposition) to him. Do you understand what I'm saying?

Navalny stands for many things, for one he wants to reform the system so it would be fair and just. That is one good reason for me already. He has his own channel on youtube. You can check it out. Granted, I personally do want to see more of clear platform from him as to what in detail he stands for and how he wished to accomplish what he wants. Perhaps there is such information available but I have not researched enough to find it yet. (In many of his interviews he sometimes suggest an idea of jailing corrupt oligarch, so it appears he is open to the idea of purging them.) In the end it would be good if he could even be an opposition party in Duma so different critical ideas can be expressed.

And Zhira is a clown, he is not a serious statement. Although at times he has his moments, for one I remember seeing an interview with him. Where he proposed a two party system similar to that in America, so there will be at least some opposition in Duma and politics.

Exactly and who runs it? Putin and his regime, you have to understand he is and they are good liars and manipulators. They have set up the conceptual atmosphere and this political circus, his an ex-KGB operator, these guys know what they are doing and how to manipulate minds. They fooled people. Once a person wakes up and is not fooled by the lie anymore, if they cant keep quiet and begin to challenge the ugly nonsense they set up, they kill them.

Navalny is not dead because he has managed to play his cards right, as Balancer has pointed out if his dead that will be worse for the regime then if his alive. So he plays that to his advantage, as if they kill him, it will expose to more people the reality of the dirty oppressive regime they live under now and wake them up. Putin knows he can not risk that with Navalny.


Regarding Putin: Knowing what Putin stands for is complicated. Once of the few things that can be mentioned is that he stands for stability and steady reform over time instead of fast lightning speed reforms. The other things that he stands for is furthering the interests of Russia by agressive policies if necessary. Also he stands for a form of "state capitalism" which we see today. Companies like Gazprom and Rosneft are his brainchildren after all. He invented/borrowed the idea and then he created them.

Putin is accused of great many things but he probably did not order most of those assasinations of harassments. As mentioned by Ganeshas, he simply has no reason too. Most people who are considered "critics of Putin" are not really people who can do any real harm to him or his political carrier. He is also known to make cold calculated decisions when the situation requires it. Those decisions are not bound conventional rules and he definately has good out of the box thinking.

Although his rule brought some issues that need to be fixed which he can be blamed for:
1) Due to his long rule, corruption has taken over. He needs to renew his cabinet, people etc. That or surrender power for some time to somebody else.
2) Due to the political fighting of Putin vs Eltsins old gang, the state controls most of the media. The situation has gotten a bit better but it no way this is resolved.
3) The rule of law is a very vague term in Russia. Laws do not apply to everyone which needs to be addressed immediately. I mean this has always been the case even during the SU but since Putin is in charge, he might as well also get the blame.

Also there are things that he definately does not stand for: 1) He doesn't want to kill the immigrants. 2) He is against military action or agressive action if it can be avoided. 3) He is against decentralisation and believes power should be centralised as much as possible. 4) He is against prosecuting his own friends for corruption.

There are great many thing that can be added but these are the more important ones.

Regarding opposition to Putin:

There is some merit in your words but most of them is untrue.
1) He can be blamed for supression because the state does control the media. The proper thing to say is that the media in Russia is showing Putin too much while not showing anybody else as much.
2) Putin does not jail any meaningful alternatives.
3) Putin does not kill any meaningful alternatives.

The real alternatives to Putin is either the communists (Zyganov/Grudinin) or Zhirinovski. Even if you consider them "systemic opposition", there has been no real political force that reached their numbers. The commies are always 2nd, heck they even got around 25-30% durring some local elections etc. Peoples inability to see this boggles me. Considering Navalny a threat to Putin with 1-2% of the vote vs Commies who get around 10-30% is redicilouse.

As for the rest. Partly Jabloko and greatly Navalny is to blame. The issue is that Russia opposition is devided. You need to unite to stand a chance again Putin but Navalny and Jabloko are heavily against it. Very foolish.

Regarding Navalny:

It is funny that zhirinovsky is considered a clown while Navalny is like the best alternative to Putin. When people say something like this, it makes me laugh inside and instantly ignore them for their stupidity. The simple version not to overload your brain:

1) Zhrinovsky is in politics for more than 30 years now. If he was a clown he would not survive for that long.
2) He has had numerous important political roles in the past and present.
3) His rhetoric is a tool that he uses.
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.
6) He can be compared to Mccain in a sense at best and Trump at worst.

What is Navalny compared to that? He is nothing. On top of that, Navalnies politicies border on lunacy. Let us start with the simple ones:

1) We will fund healthcare/teachers by cutting taxes. (How is that supposed to work even?)
2) I will prosecute the corrupt officials and fire the propaganda machine. ( Putin much? Not the presidents responsibility to do all this. How is this different to Putin?)
3) Blockade chechnja, Dagestan and get rid of Kadirov and terrorists. Arrest/execute Kadirov. ( Probably the most lunatic idea of them all. This is how you start a third Chechen war. On top of that, Kadirov has Chechnya under control which gives him exceptions. Not only is Kadirov a unifying force but navalny wants to get rid of him to start another war. )
4) Restore the rule of law. (Okay, this is perhaps one of the more sane ones. But many have tried and failed. How is he going to do it?)
5) Get rid of immigrants. (Right, as if Russian workforce does not have issues even without this)
6) Cut the military(Oh boy)

Regarding Navalny:

His death is irrelevant in my opinion. Russian people won't care and that is the more important part. If he is groomed by the west, it does not mean that people within Russia will care. As many others before him, he can do much more damage to Russia only when he is dead, so there is no clear need for Putin to get rid of him. Actually, it is in Putins best interest for him to do anything he votes. Navalny is one of the main reasons why the Russian opposition is so divided.
#14899048
Beren wrote: [...] You can call US elections a shitshow, but there's still some competition and eventuality, so thus the results are not completely predictable [...]
Actually with basically 100% accuracy:

1. Theres always only two actual alternatives that stand any chance

2. Usually the guy with the higher budget wins.

3. How do you get a high budget ? By getting money from the big companies. So the candidate of the rich wins. Super democratic !

The ONLY disruption of this was Bernie Sanders, because he got funding from the people.
Russia-Ukraine War 2022

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0pAf3aBt18 How […]

He is still under checks and balances while other[…]

So the evidence shows that it was almost certainly[…]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

The claim is a conditional statement. This is one[…]