Russian political psyche: history and modernity

[mirhond]

Interesting conversation. My thoughts:

(6) Russia is still a second-rate power compared to the U.S.; the problem is that the Russian elite knows this and despises being in that position. That they are buoyed by the political attitudes of the general population is not surprising, but it should also be a signal that there are legitimate problems that need to resolved (preferably not through force of arms).

Here, from inside, I don't see any frustration of the ruling class being second-rate power. Well, they always say so in the media (public love it), but for me personally it doesn't sound very persuasive.

Essentially, from Moscow's perspective, there is no difference between Ukraine and any of Russia's 22 republics.

Now it is, stated loud and clear and that's good for all. So, there are geo-political boundaries for the empire, they lay where the state can't project its political influence and military power.

[kaur]

For months, Western officials have been repeating a mantra that a new Cold War will not break out because there is no ideological basis for such a confrontation. But is it not a form of ideology when Putin states: "It is time we admit one another's right to be different, the right of every country to live its own life rather than to be told what to do by someone else"? Today's world exists in part because leading nations respect certain conventions, and turning the clock back to 1815 threatens that order.

Essentially, Putin is demanding the right to live in a fictional world and to structure not only Russia's life, but the entire world order, according to long-obsolete rules. The worst thing world leaders can do is to continue to pointlessly explain to Putin that they are not a threat, when he fixedly believes that they absolutely are.

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/opinio...es/503400.html

[mirhond]

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/opinio...es/503400.html

Aww, sweet bull####, Redictio ad Hitlerum and Outright Lie in one paragraph

Need I remind readers which European leader spoke of "protecting compatriots abroad" 70 years ago? Putin's regime apparently considers all citizens of the former Soviet republics as "Russians," meaning that his right of intervention extents at the very least to the entire territory of the former Soviet Union.

[kaur]

mirhond

I think you need better explanation. Soviet era is considered golden age because life was predictable, social protection was available and just, everyone had jobs and decent income, the wery existence had a noble goal.

FSB guy Strelkov/Girkin's deputy gave interview to Novaya Gazeta, where he justified Stalin's terror in 1930. Terror was ok, because next generation achieved success. Accrding to mirhond definition in 40 years golden era arrived. I think his points illustrate the thinking among top guys in Eastern Ukraine.

Here is Google translate version.

http://translate.google.ru/translate...24%26bih%3D425

PS mirhond, I hope that you survive the possible terror period without harm.

[mirhond]

mirhond

FSB guy Strelkov/Girkin's deputy gave interview to Novaya Gazeta, where he justified Stalin's terror in 1930. Terror was ok, because next generation achieved success. Accrding to mirhond definition in 40 years golden era arrived. I think his points illustrate the thinking among top guys in Eastern Ukraine.

PS mirhond, I hope that you survive the possible terror period without harm.

1. It's a commonplace in current views on Stalin's era, sometimes terror is just accepted as unnecessary but inevitable flaw of bolshevism, sometimes it justified by calculation of utility function. The matter itself is more complicated, as usual.

2. Wishful Thinking Fallacy. Show any good evidence of possible terror or you know what. And read a fine article about hybrid regimes. http://users.livejournal.com/_niece/249212.html

В России не только демократия липовая, но и сталинские усы - накладные

[kaur]

mirhond, today this is common in Russia to play different camps against each other. Who is winner in the end? It seems to be Putin according to this article. First communists got beaten, then liberals and nationalists. What is left? Some kind of intellectual porrige that has something to eberybody.

http://slon.ru/russia/zakonchilas_li...-1140655.xhtml

mirhond, I do understand that this is all good for internal politics and crowd control, but how you justify those Stalinist admirers to external audience? You don't like them, but they are your son of bitches, who are roaming around with your weapons and support in neighbouring country.

[mirhond]

mirhond, today this is common in Russia to play different camps against each other.

http://slon.ru/russia/zakonchilas_li...-1140655.xhtml

mirhond, I do understand that this is all good for internal politics and crowd control, but how you justify those Stalinist admirers to external audience? You don't like them, but they are your son of bitches, who are roaming around with your weapons and support in neighbouring country.

1. It's called bonapartism, common practice.
2. I stopped reading after this

Благо и у Лукашенко, и у Назарбаева есть свое русскоязычное население, которое отныне воспринимается как мина замедленного действия: а вдруг им тоже захочется «федерализации» или «народных республик»?

and I won't waste a second explaining why it's BS.
3. I. personally, needn't to justify anything to anyone, (as much as you don't need to justify your compatriots honouring Estonian Waffen SS http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3585272.stm),
what Russian establishment is going to do with this - I don't know and I don't care.