Topic: So what does Hatrack think of Vladimir Putin? And also the Future of Mother Russia.
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
I've been starting to get into Russian politics and I've been looking into Vladimir Putin, he's young, charismatic, unaffiliated with any political party won landslide victories for the Presidency, and is decisive.
Among his actions however as President has largly been the recentralization of Federal Power into more of a top-down approch, takes a strong stance in Chechnya, reformed the economy and greatly improved relations with the Chinese. And is also taking a strong stance as a protector of the arab world.
There is no doubt that he is consolidating political power but this is his last term unless he amends the constitution to be able to run more then 2 consequetive terms (there is no limit on how many terms a russian president can run but can only do it 2 at a time), if his polticial power solidifies and manages to make Russia an authoritan state once again will he govern as Stalin or as Peter the great?
posted
He's also been nationalizing business over there like crazy for the last couple years. I don't know nearly as much about Russian politics and the situation over there as I feel like I should, but I have to say, it's a bit disturbing.
Further, for all of the resources Russia has, I'm rather surprised they still haven't found a way to get their economy back on track in a lasting way. Foriegn investment is up, but they seem stymied.
I don't see him being able to pull off an authoritarian state. Despite the fact that he is bringing his economy and what not closer to China, which should help with regional stability (even though I don't think these two nations will ever be lasting allies), much of Russia's economy is still interlaced with the West. And the West is not going to allow Russia to slide back into authoritarian rule without a fight. The only weapon they will feel free to use is money, and that means pulling money from Russian's economy, which effectively starves it.
I don't think he has the time or the resources to pull off that sort of move. But he's certainly doing a good job of increasing the power of his office for the next guy.
Edit: Just did a little further reading on the situation. Economically they're actually doing decent, but that is heavily dependent on the price of natural resources and strife in the Middle East as a way of boosting both the price and need of their oil and other resources. They need to get their manufacturing sector modernized and up and running. They've done a great job of reducing debt and increasing foriegn reserves, but without a stablized economy, reduction in corruption, and adherence to the rule of law they are never going to fully realize foreign investment potential.
They'll also leave their growing middle class out in the cold. They'll have to rely more on imports, which is great for a country like China, but really just takes money out of the Russian economy at a time when they could really use it. Natural resources are only going to last them so long, especially as they become harder and harder to come by because of the difficult topography of the country.
They also need to fix their banking system to encourage investment and the growth of small and medium sized businesses. The corruption over there and establishment of Russian aristocrats almost ensures that the only people who get to set up shop are the ones already in the business men's pockets. Eventually their protective trade barriers, low valued ruble, and high oil prices are going to dry up, and they need something to break the fall.
All told, great progress in the last 8 years since the crash in 1998, but they have a long way to go. And I know this is supposed to be a discussion on Putin, and not Russia as a nation, but I see the two as interconnected at the moment. The more Putin tries to centralize the government and exert control over the economy, the more I see it as hurting the future growth of the nation. They're the sixth largest economy in Europe, in a decade, they could be second, if they play their cards right. If things don't turn around, Putin won't be able to consolidate enough power for constitutional reform, and he'll have no choice but to relinquish power to whomever is next in line. He doesn't have the capital to seize power, and I think he knows it.
I'd say he leaves the office and becomes a behind the scenes power player, hoping to make a return in 2012.
posted
Fairly successful petty dictator of what would be a minor state excepting their nukes (and to a lesser extent their oil).
Most of the problems with Russia's economy are political.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Actually Lyrhawn, thats probly what will happen, if he doesnt push a constitutional admendment to allow him to run for a third term he will be out of office until the election after the next one so thus a behind the scenes player.
And yes maybe I should change the title a little to include Russia and the Pan Slav countries as a whole.
IP: Logged |
posted
errrm... To a lesser extent, their nukes. Russia has been the world's largest exporter of both oil and natural gas since 2001. With FirstWorld traders bidding up crude oil prices past $70 per barrel on the mere fear of an Iranian supply disruption, Russia could put serious HURT on the world economy by deciding to cut off or minorly reduce the flow of its oil and natural gas. Even threatening to reduce their export would probably be enough to send oil prices through the roof. And though the EuropeanUnion could probably withstand higher oil prices better than the US, EU industry and heating and electricity generation are HIGHLY dependent on Russian natural gas.
posted
This is a tangent, but in my class on dictators last fall, my professor showed us a quotation from a prominant Russian thinker, whose name slips me by, who said that "Russia always needs a Great Papa to govern them, whether it's a Tsar, Stalin, Putin etc". That, of course, is a gross generalization and completely unfair but...
Apparently, there are a lot of Russian pop songs along the lines of "We Love You Vladamir Putin" (can you IMAGINE there being a serious song like that for an American president?). He is, to the Russian people, a cultural icon as well as a President.
So, regardless of his actual political actions, he appears to be doing SOMETHING which appeals to the average Russian. Because of that, he might have the social and ideological cache to remain in power.
Posts: 484 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Not exactly a polite way of asking for permission to use Sebastopol as Russia's only Warm water port...
IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Oh don't get me wrong I'm a fan of Putin myself, he's freaking KGB and a Black Belt in Judo!!! 8)
Russian's tend to like the idea of being a strong nation if Putin is making Russia stronger then the people will love him. Though there are definately alot of other factors at work.
IP: Logged |
posted
Yep, the Russians reduced natural-gas supplies to force Ukranians out of their longtime extremely-reduced prices to a much higher price more in keeping with world natural gas prices. The Ukrainians just kept tapping approximately the same amount of natural-gas out of the pipelines passing through their country heading to Europe. So the natural-gas shortfall ended up in Europe instead of the Ukraine. And various European nations couldn't jump fast enough to subsidize (though it was phrased differently) the Ukrainians in order to restore Europe's own natural-gas flows.
posted
Kind of sucks for Russia though. When the Soviet Union collapsed, and all the little SSRs ran away from Big Red, they took most of the advanced stuff with them. The nuclear power plants, and the advanced industrial infrastructure. Granted Russia got a majority of the natural resources in the deal, they were also left without a major warm water port weren't they?
They're trying to claw their way into first world nation from basically an economy based on 1950's infrastructure. Considering they've only really had the last decade to do it, including a major Asian financial crisis, they've come a long way in growing their economy. But if they don't get serious soon about ending corruption and abiding by a serious set of laws, they'll never get their industrial sector off the ground. Selling advanced technology to Asia isn't going to sustain them forever. They need to take advantage of the timing. They have a lot of money flowing into their economy, and it won't last out probably even the 2020's. They need to get on the ball.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think Russia will ever have the kind of power it did during the USSR. It may come close, but chances are, it will strike a deal with China. The two will become big partners, and then when China is a superpower, and Russia is lagging behind, China will leave them out in the cold, and invade/ abandon them. Russia, (if not invaded) will look to the western world for support, and probably get sum. Meanwhile, the two superpowers: China and the United States will enter a new Cold war. Who will win in the long run?
U.S. will, of course. Communism never works, and when China attains a position of power in the world, the people (rural mostly) will demand more, and China will have revolts/ possibly a large scale revolution which will result in either A) China collaspses due to a large scale civil war, or B) Communist China falls, bringing a more democratic PRC, which will hinder it's growth.
If A, then possibly during this civil war, the western world will look down upon China, who in turn will critize some of our policies...which would be bad. This could possibly lead to World War III. The sides would be the Pacific and the Western world. Places such as the Middle east will join China, while places such as the western world, India, and Japan will be on the side of the U.S. You can guess who has the advantage.
*eagerly awaits China debate*
Posts: 2121 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
China will become more and more socialist and be "Communist" in name only. It will become an Asian Europe. Russia, on the other hand, will return to its Communist roots and be "Socialist" in name only. In other words, I believe that China and Russia will switch national character. I am currently more worried about a future confrontation with Russia than China. A situtation with Tiwann<sic> can quickly change that perspective for me.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
China's not particularly communist nowadays. Its not particularly democratic, either, but communist definitely isn't an appropriate title.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why do you see China increasing in socialism, Occasional? They've only been ramping up free market reforms. As for Russia, Putin has steadily been nationalizing the place (as noted), increasing the "socialist" nature.
Reticulum: its authoritarian on some levels, on other levels not. Its not a sort of state we have a good model for dealing with yet.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because, to me at least, Socialism is a free market society that still retains control of large areas of the economy and politics. So, China's free markets will continue to increase while it tightens some areas of control. In that sense China already is Socialist - although it is still Communist in much of how it treats its rural population.
As for Russia, Putin has steadily been nationalizing the place (as noted) increasing its "Socialist" nature. I don't stop there, and say that such nationalism seems to be heading down the path of a communist system again. Where China is becoming lax, Russia is becoming restrictive.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think Russia will go all the way back. They need foriegn investments, and I don't think the world market today will invest billions in a budding communist state. If they want to grow their economy into becoming a major world player, not to mention a manufacturing power, they are going to need the help of others.
They lost half their population and a lot of resources when the USSR collapsed, and I think they've realized in the last decade that a free market economy is the way to go. Putin is nationalizing away, but there are SOME good things going on there too. Putin is gone in a couple years. The next president isn't going to have the reputation or collective political power necessary to will his country back into communism. Russia has a huge bargaining tool in their oil exports, but not much else. Many Western nations might be willing to risk it (especially since Russia needs the cash), in order to stop any possible communist state from forming.
I don't see them receding into an authoritarian government though. Western nations will demand a transparent democratic process. And likely they will get it. So far as their economics go, I could totally see them becoming the biggest socialist state in the world. But they won't go all the way, they can't afford to. Furthermore, I think the growing middle class in Russia won't allow it.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
As transparent as the current US government? In which ya can't find out what public property is being sold to private parties? In which the Administration only leaks favorable information out? In which the Administration is allowed to pick and choose which laws it will obey today, and which laws it will prosecute others for doing the exact same thing? In which most of the effort in Congress is expended in preventing voters from finding out exactly what their senators and representatives voted for or voted against?
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
I think others are doing a good enough job in argueing for me.
But one thing thought: The phrase that the USA will win because Communism never works is flawed especially when we consider China is Communist in name only, socialist in social policies but market oriented in the economic sphere. So thus its like saying it will rain because the sky is blue.
China's demographics say having 10 times more engineers then the USA etc (as an example) should provide us prudence AGAINST assumption about who will win/lose in a world conflict that is decades away if it ever happens. There are MASSIVE differences between a Warsaw Pact vs NATO cold war and a USA and Co. vs Shanghai Co-operation cold war, China's neighbours and possible rivals are far more economically intertwened with China then the Soviet Block ever was with EU/NATO members, thats one of many factors that makes any such war substantially different, such as China's quick catchup to th West in technologies, profficiency with hardware and software and the cutting edge, a far greater degree of encouragement towards success and a much better determined military to conduct operations. the 12 Million members of the Warsaw Pact Miltiary are unlikely to be as reliable as China's 3 Million nationally coherent forces.
They will not be fighting with North Korean Cannon fodder the way the Soviets would fight with the Warsaw Pact Revervists.
Also, China by some US scholars is encouraging the collapse of North Korea since it would lead to a unified Korea and eliminate the need for a US presence on Korea soil, the S Koreans have no need to worry about Beijing they're close trading partners, but North Korea over the msot heavily militerized border in the world......
So I caution, avoid assumptions based on Cold War mindsets, it seems to be the pattern of the US to fight the next war based on the experiances of the last one.
IP: Logged |
posted
There's not really any such thing as socialist in social policies; socialism is an economic system, not a political one.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: As transparent as the current US government? In which ya can't find out what public property is being sold to private parties? In which the Administration only leaks favorable information out? In which the Administration is allowed to pick and choose which laws it will obey today, and which laws it will prosecute others for doing the exact same thing? In which most of the effort in Congress is expended in preventing voters from finding out exactly what their senators and representatives voted for or voted against?
You said it, not me.
And Blayne -
What evidence do you have that America fights its wars based on the previous ones? Korea and Vietnam were fought with lessons learned independently of previous wars. WW 2 used new tactics as well. The Gulf War, which was a spectacular victory was fought with almost zero previous experience fighting in that climate. America hadn't fought in the sand since North Africa and Rommel during WW 2.
I think you are basing your entire assumption on Gulf War II vs Gulf War I. Which is ridiculous if you're trying to make some sort of assumption about the entire US military and its operations.
Besides, I have a feeling the war would have gone much differently, and much better if the military establishment had had more direct control over the war, and there hadn't been so much civilian meddling. Usually I'm a huge fan of civilian OVERSIGHT of the military, but when it comes to the actual fighting, I much prefer to do their thing, sit back, and give them what they need. I feel that that was the situation in Gulf War I. I do not feel that has been the situation in Gulf War II.
I'd also say that when it comes to actually fighting a war, the US is the best force in the world. When it comes to holding enemy territory occupation style, we are spetacularly bad at it, but I blame much of that on the civilians in charge.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
actually I was refering to the Korean and Vietnam wars, Gulf wars militaryily speaking were fought rather well.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Gulf wars militaryily speaking were fought rather well.
Rather well. Really? Just rather well? Blayne, just so I can see, could you list the top 5 militaries in the world, decending order? According to your opinion
Posts: 2121 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
USA NATO China Russia/CIS India
China is not quite as advanced as NATO but it can overcome it once it catches up.
And when I mean rather well I mean rather well overall in each military aspect it was fought well. With the exception of clean up which I will give a D grade.
IP: Logged |
posted
Excluding NATO as a group, could you do it again? (E.g., count countries like Britain on their own.)
And then a list of what it will be in 2020, and 2040? Just give esitmates. Things will happen, but just try.
Posts: 2121 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
If someone actually attacked Europe, NATO would fight as a unified bloc, but when it comes to fighting somewhere else....
If you vote on DEFENDING armies then that changes matters. But quite frankly, the rankings change if you change it from offense to defense. NATO isn't as strong offensively as it is defensively. I still put USA on top of both defense and offense, but the other four change around when you switch categories.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Argh making it harder for me.
USA China Russia India England/France*
I am unsure of the combat cabailities of England/France, I think England has the better navy and airforce but French have some impressive tanks.
I'm basing this on a 1 v 1 format of how theyre cabailities pan out one versus one. 20 years later China/America should be damn close to each other 40 years later in theory China will have exceeded the USA barring natural disasters, wars, depression, alien invasions etc.
This assumption can be made because there is a precedent in academia when it comes to judging a nations growth, America was predicted to become the world largest economy at the time assuming the same circumstances and the Civil war ended rather soon.
IP: Logged |
posted
It's impossible to say who will be the strongest in 40 years. For all we know, it could be the United States of Europe.
And really, Britain's armor is just as good as France's and quite frankly, I think it's better. The French haven't fought in any conflict since the Gulf War, at least the British are battle hardened. And yeah, their fleet is better, though France will be their equal in carriers in ten years. I'd give Britain the edge.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hah!!! The French have better wines with which to ply POWs into betraying military secrets.....such as who a majority party Minister is sleeping with, a revelation which is sure to bring down any British government.
What have the Brits got? Marmite. Admittedly, threatening to rub some on the lips of those who fail to co-operate with interrogators might produce results in prisoners from other nations. But the French are long-trained in eating disgusting things: if ya can eat ground snails...
posted
BTW: The Brits have very recently banned Marmite as a hazardous substance. Under the same nutritional standards, mother's milk would have to be banned, though DietCoke could be used as a healthy substitute.
Yet another case of the spice must flow being played out by the Harkonnens...erp...Putin and Gazprom: this time flexing muscle in Belarus to put pressure on EU states to sell their national pipelines&etc to Russian oliogarchs.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Did you remember this thread because of the Marmite or because of the references to Russia cutting off supplies to nations they have disagreements with?
If it's the latter, it makes sense given the Belarus issue.
If it's the former, you have a freakishly odd memory.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: So what does Hatrack think of Vladimir Putin?
This Hatracker for some reason can't dig any plutocratic leader who arrests members of the oposistion, stifles the free press, intimidates his neigbors and is widely believed (at home and abroad) to have ties to Mafiya and to posion oponents. Call me crazy, but I can't find it in me to like Robert Mugabe either.
A friend of mine, an academic from Romania who shares most of her compatriots Rusophobia, did say that Mr. Putin was an improvement over the ineffectual Mr.Yeltsin, but that she thought Russia would never be a European democracy.
Posts: 211 | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
just me or is Russia and Belarus basically one and the same country? As far as I can make out from their treaties they're in a special union.
IP: Logged |
posted
I like Putin as much as I like any overweening plutocrat with a distaste for accountability and free speech!
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Belarus is one of the world's most oppressive dictatorships. Russia, despite some of Putin's efforts to the contrary, is nowhere near that.
Belarus is not part of Russia, though it maintains very close ties with Russia, which are largely related to this: Belarus (well, its dictator) believes it is the second coming of the USSR.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Also, China by some US scholars is encouraging the collapse of North Korea since it would lead to a unified Korea and eliminate the need for a US presence on Korea soil, the S Koreans have no need to worry about Beijing they're close trading partners, but North Korea over the msot heavily militerized border in the world......
I've heard the reverse, that they do not wish a collapse because it would lead to millions of refugees going over the border into China.
I get the sense that they want a nice balancing act, a N. Korea that is aggressive enough to act as an irritant (forcing the US to rely on China for negotiations and being enough of a loudmouth to have other powers to back off in a way that China cannot), but not too aggressive to cause any real problems or drag China into a war. Thats why they they were especially irritated with the nuclear bomb test, because the balance was swinging way too far for their comfort (they may have lost some measure of control over the situation).
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Two thousand years 'til the latter days And Rome will be slave to a hairy man, A hairy man that is scant of hair. Sign of Pharaoh, eyes of the east, Witness to murder, he'll have his revenge. Millions shall die by famine and sword, The work of his son, true son.
The hairy one next to enslave the State, Son, false son, of his hairy last, Shall be that deceiver whom all disdained. He shall have hair in a generous mop. Awestruck by his glory the people shall tremble, One in eight to be slain by the Sword and the Shield. Thirty years shall he reign as despot supreme And then blood shall gush from his tomb.
The hairy third to enslave the State Shall be son, false son, of his hairy last. He shall be mud well mixed with blood, A hairy man that is scant of hair. He shall give Rome victories and defeat And fall to the gain of his son, false son. An island shall be his sword.
The hairy fourth to enslave the State Shall be son, false son, of his hairy last. He shall have hair in a generous mop. He shall seek comfort and riches and trinkets. Eighteen years shall he reign, a mild reflection Of the reign of the second, his original father. A doddering fool at the end, he shall die To the gain of his son, true son.
The hairy fifth to enslave the State Shall be son, true son, of his hairy last. A hairy man that is scant of hair And staggers 'neath the winter snow. He shall be shrewd as his hairy first, The Sword and the Shield for a hairy crown, But in fifteen months his life shall end To the gain of his friend, no friend.
The hairy sixth to enslave the State Shall be son, true son, of his hairy fourth. He shall have hair in a generous mop. An aged man of no account Whose hoary voice shall stem the tide, But in thirteen months his life shall end To the gain of his son, no son.
The hairy seventh to enslave the State, To enslave the State, though against his will, Shall be son, marked son, of his hairy fifth. A hairy man that is scant of hair. Though glib and hale he shan't long prevail, But shall fall at the hands of his friends, no friends, To be saved by his son, no son.
The next hairy one shall free the State, Son, no son, of his hairy last. He shall have hair in a generous mop. Heart of a lion, flaws of a man, By the will of the people the first to command. But the wounds are profound, and sorrows abound, To the gain of his son, false son.
The hairy eighth to enslave the State Shall be son, false son, of this hairy last. A hairy man that is scant of hair. The Sword and the Shield well mixed with gold, Without his number naught bought or sold. One of the seven, more clever by far, He'll deceive the world by fallen star. No hairy ninth to him succeeds And fire shall be his fate.
--Anonymous, after Robert Graves
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Did you remember this thread because of the Marmite or because of the references to Russia cutting off supplies to nations they have disagreements with? If it's the latter, it makes sense given the Belarus issue. If it's the former, you have a freakishly odd memory."
It's odder...er...er. I remembered this thread when the Marmite ban was first proposed. Decided against popping up an old thread merely to revisit an old joke. Reminded of the Marmite ban when the Belarus story broke, and chose this thread rather than a more recent musing on Gazprom to also add to the japery.
posted
depends on the elections the CPRF has a chance of winning, they almost won versus Yeltsin and have about 15,000,000 of the popular vote currently making them the second largest party.
IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
