Excellent Interview with Vladimir Putin

[Musburger1]

Impressive man.

http://thesaker.is/vladimir-putins-interview-with-the-german-newspaper-bild/

 

[Seattle Husker]

Impressive man.

http://thesaker.is/vladimir-putins-interview-with-the-german-newspaper-bild/

Impressive in the same vein as Pravda?

 

[Musburger1]

Impressive in the same vein as Pravda?

If you bother to read the transcript, you'll see that rather than a buffoon who plays golf nearly every day and utters cliches and political speech, Russia is led by a hard working individual who speaks plainly about a multitude of subjects. He leaves no ambiguity where he stands on the direction of the economy, he gives legal precedence for the intervention in Crimea, and defines the goals in Syria. Only an apathetic or lazy individual results to stereotypical characterizations and name calling without first investigating. You can disagree with Putin's takes, but there is no denying that they are well thought out and defensible.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Notice the tongue wagging icon denoting a joke.

With that said, if you think Putin's responses were any less biased or "spun" than Obama's Town Hall responses than you are naïve. Clearly Russia practices in as much, if not more, propaganda than any other International power. It's great that Putin uses his bully pulpit to state his stance. He's very bright and articulate also. With that said, my observation is that you have a blindspot towards Putin which has been demonstrated multiple times over here.

I still appreciate you posting these articles. It's great to understand the others perspective, even if much of the information is justification for less than unstated agendas.

 

[Musburger1]

Notice the tongue wagging icon denoting a joke.

With that said, if you think Putin's responses were any less biased or "spun" than Obama's Town Hall responses than you are naïve. Clearly Russia practices in as much, if not more, propaganda than any other International power. It's great that Putin uses his bully pulpit to state his stance. He's very bright and articulate also. With that said, my observation is that you have a blindspot towards Putin which has been demonstrated multiple times over here.

I still appreciate you posting these articles. It's great to understand the others perspective, even if much of the information is justification for less than unstated agendas.

Misunderstood your sarcasm. The larger objective to posting the article isn't so much to agree or disagree with Putin's takes (though I do agree with his analysis of US policy in the Middle East and why it's been a disaster for everyone), but rather to contrast the clarity of Putin's message with the opaqueness and obfuscation emitted to the American public by our politicians. I can't listen to a Democrat or Republican debate without wanting to puke.

 

[Seattle Husker]

I can't listen to a Democrat or Republican debate without wanting to puke.

On that we can agree. Putin has a built in advantage though. He has a near monopoly on the pulpit and no viable opposition. Essentially, in Russia it's his voice and nobody else. Without any oppositional voice Putin gets to own the "truth". Our politicians don't have the luxury.

 

[Musburger1]

On that we can agree. Putin has a built in advantage though. He has a near monopoly on the pulpit and no viable opposition. Essentially, in Russia it's his voice and nobody else. Without any oppositional voice Putin gets to own the "truth". Our politicians don't have the luxury.

That's what I'd always heard, but in fact it isn't true. I'm well aware of the statistics of murdered journalists, but no one can say with certainty Putin was behind them. Kasparov and others openly critique Putin as well as some of the press, and have significant institutional backing, but the Russian public, military apparatus, and security services overwhelmingly support Putin. There was quite a bit of a purge within the government over the past decade and Putin has steadily replaced pro-western bureaucrats with nationalists, but the government isn't monolithic. The people that run the central bank in Russia are still Atlantacists (pro-western) and there is much opposition to its policy within the Putin camp.

 

[Seattle Husker]

That's what I'd always heard, but in fact it isn't true. I'm well aware of the statistics of murdered journalists, but no one can say with certainty Putin was behind them. Kasparov and others openly critique Putin as well as some of the press, and have significant institutional backing, but the Russian public, military apparatus, and security services overwhelmingly support Putin. There was quite a bit of a purge within the government over the past decade and Putin has steadily replaced pro-western bureaucrats with nationalists, but the government isn't monolithic. The people that run the central bank in Russia are still Atlantacists (pro-western) and there is much opposition to its policy within the Putin camp.

Murdered journalists aside, there is ample evidence of the government shuttering independent media that were unfavorable to Putin. Is it 100%? No but plenty far enough to quell a significant voice, especially ensuring the opposition is only on the margins.

Putin has torn down the oligarchs and consolidated that power under him. Look only at the nationalization of Gazprom for a crystal clear example. I believe you've cast this as a patriotic move in the past. My viewpoint was that it was a move similar to a self serving dictator. Who's right?

I'm sure the Central Bank is pro-western. They also likely to understand that they are a public misstatement away from being ousted, or worse.

 

[Musburger1]

Murdered journalists aside, there is ample evidence of the government shuttering independent media that were unfavorable to Putin. Is it 100%? No but plenty far enough to quell a significant voice, especially ensuring the opposition is only on the margins.

Putin has torn down the oligarchs and consolidated that power under him. Look only at the nationalization of Gazprom for a crystal clear example. I believe you've cast this as a patriotic move in the past. My viewpoint was that it was a move similar to a self serving dictator. Who's right?

I'm sure the Central Bank is pro-western. They also likely to understand that they are a public misstatement away from being ousted, or worse.

Tearing down the oligarchs basically changed Russia from a third world, crime infested hellhole with a declining birth rate into a developing country with a stable birth rate. The transition he orchestrated is viewed by the public as taking back the country from criminal oligarchs. Without these moves, Russia would basically be what Ukraine is now; a corrupt failed state run by oligarchs where the people have no say.

Of course, whoever follows Putin may not have the same attributes. The President of Russia has a great deal of power, thus the government is only as good as its leader. I happen to think, for now, Russia is blessed with a great President.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Tearing down the oligarchs basically changed Russia from a third world, crime infested hellhole with a declining birth rate into a developing country with a stable birth rate. The transition he orchestrated is viewed by the public as taking back the country from criminal oligarchs. Without these moves, Russia would basically be what Ukraine is now; a corrupt failed state run by oligarchs where the people have no say.

Of course, whoever follows Putin may not have the same attributes. The President of Russia has a great deal of power, thus the government is only as good as its leader. I happen to think, for now, Russia is blessed with a great President.

Do you think he could have torn it down without centralizing their power under him? While tearing down the oligarchy may have been necessary he also personally benefited immeasurably from the actions. You see the patriotism, I see the power grab. We are both right. The real key is whether he relinquishes the power which so far he's shown no signs of.

 

[Musburger1]

Why should he relinquish power? He answers to the Russian people, not the US or the EU.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Why should he relinquish power? He answers to the Russian people, not the US or the EU.

Does he answer to them? One could make a case that he doesn't answer to anyone.

What I'm saying is that he consolidated the power he took from the Oligarchs. If it was for patriotic reasons don't you think he'd give up some of that power or does he really believe that the best leadership for Russia since that was essentially the operational outcome of his shrewd power consolidation.

 

[Musburger1]

Does he answer to them? One could make a case that he doesn't answer to anyone.

What I'm saying is that he consolidated the power he took from the Oligarchs. If it was for patriotic reasons don't you think he'd give up some of that power or does he really believe that the best leadership for Russia since that was essentially the operational outcome of his shrewd power consolidation.

I'm not following the logic. To change the structure of the governing apparatus calls for a change to the Constitution. Despite the rhetoric, Russia isn't a dictatorship. The Constitution in Russia was designed, with influence by the US, to give the President a large amount of control. The thinking was that Yeltsin was "our man" and the west would have more sway in governing. And we did have more say. Assets were privatized and the country was looted: both by Russian oligarchs and criminals and by western corporations.

Putin was thought to be a status quo bureaucrat that would pick up where Yeltsin left off. He wasn't. It was a coup, but arguably not outside of the law in terms of coming to power.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Putin stepped "down" to Prime Minister and installed Medvedev (his PM) as a puppet President to avoid the "2 consecutive term limitation" of holding office. Then he proceeded to orchestrate extending the length of the term to 6yrs from 4 at the end of Medvedev's term. So, now he's hinting strongly at running for a 4th term which combined with his role as PM would leave him in power for a quarter of a century. Does that sound like a true Democratic government? Remember when Sadam Hussein boasted that he was a democratically elected ruler with 96% of the vote? Did you believe Sadam then?

If his age doesn't catch him I wonder if he'll pull the PM stunt again after his 4th term.

 

[Musburger1]

Putin can get away with those changes if two things happen. First of all, the elected officials must approve it. And they will so long as there is a mandate with the people. As of now, that mandate exists. If Putin stumbles, the people will not support his party (which dominate the government) and elected officials would not change the protocols. So yes, Putin has much more power than does the US President, but only as long as there is popular support.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Putin can get away with those changes if two things happen. First of all, the elected officials must approve it. And they will so long as there is a mandate with the people. As of now, that mandate exists. If Putin stumbles, the people will not support his party (which dominate the government) and elected officials would not change the protocols. So yes, Putin has much more power than does the US President, but only as long as there is popular support.

Have you forgotten that Russia largely does not have a free election process? That's another change Putin put in that put elections under Moscow control. I haven't kept up on all changes but as of 2010 only a few cities were allowed to elect their mayors.

Here is where you and I appear to disagree. You appear to see Russia as a budding democracy where everyone is free to support and vote for whomever they like. Conversely, I think the evidence shows that Putin has setup a system controlled by Moscow in which he and his cronies have all the power. The opposition parties are opposition in name only and have no ability to influence change or get enough support to enact change.

 

[Musburger1]

Have you forgotten that Russia largely does not have a free election process? That's another change Putin put in that put elections under Moscow control. I haven't kept up on all changes but as of 2010 only a few cities were allowed to elect their mayors.

Here is where you and I appear to disagree. You appear to see Russia as a budding democracy where everyone is free to support and vote for whomever they like. Conversely, I think the evidence shows that Putin has setup a system controlled by Moscow in which he and his cronies have all the power. The opposition parties are opposition in name only and have no ability to influence change or get enough support to enact change.

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/...al-elections-passes-first-reading/498195.html
Have to admit I'm not well versed in the Russian election process. The above link elaborates on mayoral elections which has largely been transferred away from local elections toward selections by the DUMA. The DUMA (government at the federal level) is an elected body.

This movement clearly gives more power to the central government and away from the local level. While this is anti-democracy, there is some justification.

Politicians from other parties represented in the Duma, most of which are generally loyal to the Kremlin, have criticized the bill as taking the power of self-determination out of the hands of voters. Dmitry Gudkov, a State Duma deputy formerly of the Just Russia party, was quoted by Gazeta.ru as accusing his fellow lawmakers of hypocrisy, saying that while Russia was demanding that Ukraine hold direct mayoral and gubernatorial elections, it was canceling its own local elections.

The bill's authors said the measure would make city government more accessible to ordinary Russians, in keeping with a suggestion made by President Vladimir Putin in a speech to a joint session of both houses of the Russian parliament last month.

LDPR deputy Sergei Karginov defended the bill by citing a low turnout in local elections and said that the system works better when left to political parties.​

I got to thinking about the mayoral elections in Austin and in even in smaller towns like Pflugerville. While I don't like the idea of someone like the governor appointing the mayor of my city, think about this: The 2009 Austin mayoral elections totaled 58,119 votes. I don't know how many registered voters live in Austin but it's bound to be at least 300,000. So the turnout might be 20% at best. When Presidential or Gubernatorial elections are held, the turnout is surely much greater. Most citizens don't even know who the mayor of their town or city is. The elections may be fair, but for whatever the reasons, the public generally doesn't pay much attention to who is running. In theory, the local oligarch has a better chance of being elected in a free election than if the governor or state senate makes the appointment. Case in point, look at the string of mayors that have governed Chicago and Washington D.C. We're talking people like Daley, Emanuel, and Marion Barry.

So my point is, the US is much more democratic than Russia, yet our elected officials aren't necessarily more representative of the citizens than they would be if they were appointed.. How many people that you know, whether Democrat or Republican, feel that Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump represent them? How many Austinites believe Lee Leffingwell (the mayor) represents them?