Russia and American elections, now featuring radical republicans as co-stars

[Shady Ray 1633]

1 hour ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

Thank you very much for chiming in here; I've been mostly following the protests in Belarus, the ongoing rise in nationalism in Europe, and such from a few sources so my perspective on Navalny is cursory. Will read the article you posted above today. I can understand the populace wanting Putin out, but trading one thug for an isolationist (haven't read the article yet) ultra right populist would not necessarily help the country either. The anti-corruption talk was all of which I was aware. Thanks again.

Yeah, I hear ya. Reading the tea leaves over there is damn near impossible given the hyper-sensationalism on all sides of the media, IMO.

 

From my perspective having lived in Moscow for a few years in the very early 2000s and working closely every day with Russian colleagues at my company's office over there, I think that the entire future of Putinism hinges on how the Russian equivalent of Generation X/older millennials break.  The over-55 generation is solidly behind Putin due to a variety of reasons, most importantly of which is the perception that he righted the ship that Yeltsin via his Western backers essentially wrecked. For better or for worse, Putin is seen by most to be a much more reliable hand than International Institutions like the UN, WTO, EU, IMF, etc., which is actually an understandable position for them, even if ultimately incorrect.

 

One thing that is very much lost on the Western public - and particularly the US public - is how much the US is blamed for enabling the wholesale plundering of the Russian state in the 1990s by those who lived through that collapse. While this is an over-simplification, there is an element of truth in the position that Western hyper-capitalists and politicians sucked up Russian state wealth and put it into their own coffers on a massive scale. If you are a true glutton for punishment, I would suggest reading this article from 1998 in The Nation. Our "betters" really, really did a number on Russia and those older than 35 haven't forgotten it. It is a very long read, but it details proven corruption and misappropriation that is jaw-dropping, and yet no one ultimately paid any price for it. Anyone seeking to understand Russia must understand this part of history, IMO.  
 

Quote

 

Essential to the implementation of Chubais’s policies was the enthusiastic support of the Clinton Administration and its key representative for economic assistance in Moscow, the Harvard Institute for International Development. Using the prestige of Harvard’s name and connections in the Administration, H.I.I.D. officials acquired virtual carte blanche over the U.S. economic aid program to Russia, with minimal oversight by the government agencies involved. With this access and their close alliance with Chubais and his circle, they allegedly profited on the side. Yet few Americans are aware of H.I.I.D.’s role in Russian privatization, and its suspected misuse of taxpayers’ funds.

The Harvard Boys Do Russia

 

 

In my estimation, as a result of their lasting impression of western democratic values, anti-Putin sentiment is probably not going to automatically mean a pro-Western or pro-Democratic one and it is naive/dishonest of the US media to constantly push this narrative...the population there doesn't really like us and with the exception of developing closer trading ties to the EU, they don't view closer relations with the West on non-trade issues as a particularly desirable development.

 

Of course, I could be totally wrong on this, but this is my anecdotal experience. 

Edited January 24, 2021 by Shady Ray

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Russia has a preternatural affinity for empires and emperors.  Even when they went full communism it didn’t take long for them to allow Stalin total control. Lenin was no angel either. 

[Neonmoon 38129]

I once postulated that technology will be the downfall of oppressive regimes like Russia and China, with their inability to control the message on certain platforms, but so far the opposite became true, these platforms hurt the free societies with disinformation

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

6 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Russia has a preternatural affinity for empires and emperors.  Even when they went full communism it didn’t take long for them to allow Stalin total control. Lenin was no angel either. 

Their entire history since the formation of Rus, has been one of serf/dictatorship. It's in their DNA.  The cossacks are the only ones that really ever tried to block that game plan. They had a fucking beard tax under Peter the great for God sake.  

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

4 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

I once postulated that technology will be the downfall of oppressive regimes like Russia and China, with their inability to control the message on certain platforms, but so far the opposite became true, these platforms hurt the free societies with disinformation

Duuuu'h.....because the the state controls the means of production.... errrrr broadcasting.

[Shady Ray 1633]

9 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Russia has a preternatural affinity for empires and emperors.  Even when they went full communism it didn’t take long for them to allow Stalin total control. Lenin was no angel either. 

Very true. In my experience, there is a bunker mentality of us vs. them, which again, is somewhat understandable given all of the invasions over the centuries....which is only exacerbated by their tendency towards internal chaos and unhinged clusterfuckery.

 

I think there was a fleeting moment in Yeltsin's first term where the country was actually primed psychologically to pivot to the West, but by the time the 1996 Yeltsin re-election campaign was complete, that shit was long since squandered.

 

I wish I would have kept some of the more populist newspaper images from my time there...it was pure red meat for the anti-western elements. If we were gloating to this degree in the US, you can only imagine what the other side of the coin looked like on the streets of broke ass Novosibirsk or Yekaterinburg. Unfortunately, that shit sticks.

 

 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

5 minutes ago, Shady Ray said:

Very true. In my experience, there is a bunker mentality of us vs. them, which again, is somewhat understandable given all of the invasions over the centuries....which is only exacerbated by their tendency towards internal chaos and unhinged clusterfuckery.

 

I think there was a fleeting moment in Yeltsin's first term where the country was actually primed psychologically to pivot to the West, but by the time the 1996 Yeltsin re-election campaign was complete, that shit was long since squandered.

 

I wish I would have kept some of the more populist newspaper images from my time there...it was pure red meat for the anti-western elements. If we were gloating to this degree in the US, you can only imagine what the other side of the coin looked like on the streets of broke ass Novosibirsk or Yekaterinburg. Unfortunately, that shit sticks.

 

 

Russia is the crossroads between east, and west, conquest from both sides for a thousand years or so.  It's vastness is what has helped, and hurt it surviving  as single state. 

[Woland 733]

Politically, Russia has always oscillated between authoritarianism and reform; militarily, between powerful and shit.

[Nivek 16923]

9 hours ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

And one more recently chuckled dismissively at the comment, and concept that Russia was a threat. Hmmmmmmmm.....

That's not true. He chuckled dismissively that Russia was the greatest threat at the time that ISIS was expanding its territory.  Seeing how we had been recently attacked by radical extremists from the Middle East, he rightfully considered a massive growing organization of radical extremists that were currently being engaged by US forces and allies to be the greater threat at that moment.    But you knew that....

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

1 hour ago, Nivek said:

That's not true. He chuckled dismissively that Russia was the greatest threat at the time that ISIS was expanding its territory.  Seeing how we had been recently attacked by radical extremists from the Middle East, he rightfully considered a massive growing organization of radical extremists that were currently being engaged by US forces and allies to be the greater threat at that moment.    But you knew that....

The revisionism is strong with you.  That he didn't recognize what Russia was trying/beginning to do behind the scenes even then is sad.  He tried to say the Cold War was over, Russia wasn't a threat (here's a pro tip :  they've never stopped being a threat, at least Romney had that right). Then later he said you can't rig or steal a federal election. The democrats have said Trump did or tried to do exactly that....  You can't have it both ways, but y'all like to try.

[Baconboy 135]

1 hour ago, Nivek said:

That's not true. He chuckled dismissively that Russia was the greatest threat at the time that ISIS was expanding its territory.  Seeing how we had been recently attacked by radical extremists from the Middle East, he rightfully considered a massive growing organization of radical extremists that were currently being engaged by US forces and allies to be the greater threat at that moment.    But you knew that....

I believe Onboard was referring to one of the 2012 Presidential debates, which would have taken place in 2011. ISIS didn't get much publicity and didn't issue its caliphate until 2014, at which time Obama referred to "ISIL" as a "JV team".  I don't consider 2011 recent though so maybe he was referring to a different event.

If this discussion is about Romney's comment about Russia during the debate, he was broadly mocked by the left and the media for his comment. Something Madeleine Albright personally and publicly apologized to him for years later.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

7 minutes ago, Baconboy said:

I believe Onboard was referring to one of the 2012 Presidential debates, which would have taken place in 2011. ISIS didn't get much publicity and didn't issue its caliphate until 2014, at which time Obama referred to "ISIL" as a "JV team".  I don't consider 2011 recent though so maybe he was referring to a different event.

If this discussion is about Romney's comment about Russia during the debate, he was broadly mocked by the left and the media for his comment. Something Madeleine Albright personally and publicly apologized to him for years later.

Yes it happened during a debate. Mr. Obama chuckling about it sent a little chill down my spine. It really illustrated how truly little he knew about Russia, and geo politics.

[Red Five 40854]

Obama chuckled about Russia, and Trump was a Russian asset who used their help to get elected. Both sides. 

[Nivek 16923]

1 hour ago, Baconboy said:

I believe Onboard was referring to one of the 2012 Presidential debates, which would have taken place in 2011. ISIS didn't get much publicity and didn't issue its caliphate until 2014, at which time Obama referred to "ISIL" as a "JV team".  I don't consider 2011 recent though so maybe he was referring to a different event.

If this discussion is about Romney's comment about Russia during the debate, he was broadly mocked by the left and the media for his comment. Something Madeleine Albright personally and publicly apologized to him for years later.

I know he was referring to the debate.  And at that time ISIS had formed out of the remnants of Al Qaeda and he might have called them the JV team, but he knew who they were and how they were swelling their ranks in 2012 from Iraqi prison breaks.   At that time, Iran was supplying weapons, training, and fighters, to set traps for our troops.    It was true that Romney recognized that Russia was a geopolitical adversary constantly disrupting the UN when it came to dealing with bad actors.  That doesn't mean that Obama thought they were best buddies or that Obama was incorrect at all.  It was just part of a political game to make Romney look foolish and out of touch.  It worked.  Obama understood that Americans love soundbites not in depth thought.    Romney also believed Iran was the greater threat (to be clear).  Obama saw it different.  

So Obama put effort to breaking ISIS.  Once that was removed then other threats become #1.  It is not a difficult concept to understand.  If the most wanted man in America is captured.  #2 becomes the most wanted.  Obama and his administration orchestrated the breaking of ISIS.   So claiming that Romney was right is only because we don't know what would have happened had ISIS succeeded and established a state or reached some level of stability within the region.  Would they have just stopped trying to expand or sow discord or would they have started building institutions of higher learning dedicated to the development of quantum computing and cancer research?   Like the great mystery of the number of licks to get to the center of a tootsie pop, the world will never know.  

 

 

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

11 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Russia has a preternatural affinity for empires and emperors.  Even when they went full communism it didn’t take long for them to allow Stalin total control. Lenin was no angel either. 

They also give the side eye to the "intelligentsia" traditionally. The tsar both welcomed and repudiated them, with Lenin they either tried to leave, were sent away, or were absorbed, but were never completely trusted. Even today, I'm not sure that Putin sees them beyond utilizing them as a tool to his own aid.

I'm skipping Stalin. He was an evil nutter.

[washparkhorn 9939]

@Hugo Stiglitz @Mrs Whiggins - Looking in on Russian culture reminds me that it much older than ours and survives in austere conditions. When Mother Russia could not deliver sustenance after the fall of the Soviet Union, the gangsters (similar to our immigration based gangsters of old) run the show for commoners in Russia. The state narrative is maintained using conventional and unconventional means available to any weaponized nation-state. 

We beat the Russians with soft power - always have. I hope diplomacy works with Russia. We may need their help with the emerging economic picket ringing China. The world's good opinion of a nation is earned. 

Bride Russia is the new the national personification in Russian culture - an offshoot of the Mother Russia personification. It morphed into Unattainable Bride Russia - a battle between the state (M) and the intellectuals (M) for Russia's (F) hand in marriage. It is a subtle but important distinction of between the Mother and Bride personifications in Russian culture. Sharing a mother's love with siblings is common (Mother Russia). Putin has certainly adopted the role of Tsar quite nimbly to fit his own needs. The machismo is reckless, but portrayed to russians as passionate dedication to the people of Russia - the idea of Russia. Nationalism.

We always did best with the Russians when we competed with one another on an intellectual plain. It gives them hope of a better future we we competed in that realm. Russian culture celebrates intellectual freedom, which is why Russians adore their arts and artists. Russians were here before Putin and will be after. 

Good book on the subject - https://muse.jhu.edu/book/876 :

Spoiler

Synopsis:

Throughout the twentieth century and continuing today, personifications of Russia as a bride occur in a wide range of Russian texts and visual representations, from literature and political and philosophical treatises to cartoons and tattoos.

Invariably, this metaphor functions in the context of a political gender allegory, which represents the relationships between Russia, the intelligentsia, and the Russian state, as a competition of two male suitors for the former’s love.

In Unattainable Bride Russia, Ellen Rutten focuses on the metaphorical role the intelligentsia plays as Russia’s rejected or ineffectual suitor.

Rutten finds that this metaphor, which she covers from its prehistory in folklore to present day pop culture references to Vladimir Putin, is still powerful, but has generated scarce scholarly consideration.

Unattainable Bride Russia locates the cultural thread and places the political metaphor in a broad contemporary and social context, thus paying it the attention to which it is entitled as one of Russia’s modern cultural myths.

 

[Grandioso 2592]

Is it bad that I kind of wish this was true because it would mean that Russia isn't completely eating our lunch when it comes to spycraft and the information/misinformation war?

 

[956 Worldwide 34705]

On 1/24/2021 at 7:52 AM, Shady Ray said:

The significance of this latest protest is going to be whether it changes anything outside of St. Petersburg, Moscow and to some degree Novosibirsk. 

 

What the American media - with its obsessive tendency to paint everything as "good vs. bad" or "freedom vs. tyranny" - doesn't report on is how unpopular Navalny as an individual is with the majority of Russians and how closely he has aligned himself with the Russian far-right until the last couple of years. I will be very curious to see how this whole poisoning ordeal impacts his numbers, as the latest reputable polling in late 2020 showed him with around 18% favorability and very high unfavorables, particularly in the provinces.

 

His anti-corruption stance is certainly his strongest and most admirable position, and could mobilize some new voters in theory, but the political views he espouses to the domestic Russian audience with respect to Russian ethnic-nationalism, Ukraine/Crimea, NATO, war on Georgia, Russia's right to intervene in the affairs of its neighbors, etc. are much more aligned with Putinism than The NY Times and Washington Post tend to report, so he is not the savior the American media has been looking for, albeit certainly better than Putin.

 

Reputable media outlets here in Germany at regularly least acknowledge his early ties to neo-Nazi parties and rabble-rousing at neo-Nazi marches, his referring to muslim Russians from the caucuses as "beasts" and "cockroaches" (Navalny actually was even one of the founders of the "Starve the Caucasus" movement which advocated ending social support/food subsidies for the Muslims in the Caucasus), and continued flirtation with the Russian far-right. Yet I very rarely see this referenced in the US media, which is a bit concerning, particularly as within Russia he is frequently in direct conflict with the actual reformist movements within Russia at the local level.

 

And unfortunately, the limited electoral success he has had at the municipal level out in Siberia has only come when his candidates punched Putin from the right on all matters outside of corruption.

 

Decent article from the Middle German Rundfunk, which is the public-service broadcaster out of Dresden which is really good on Russian analysis given the whole former East Germany thing...

 

 

So a couple of counterpoints to this.  First of all, being "deeply unpopular with the Russian public."  That's of course true, but I would argue that it's virtually meaningless because of Russia's completely controlled media environment.  Russian public opinion is almost entirely manipulated, particularly outside of the politically engaged, educated, foreign-language speaking young people that you can find in Moscow, St. Petersburg, and a few other large cities. 

Navalny has an ugly past when it comes to  making ethnic slurs, and there's no excuse for them. But making ethnic slurs is hardly the exclusive domain of the far-right, or even the "opposition in Russia."  And no politician is likely to make any dent in the Putin/United Russia wall without making some appeals to ethnic Russians and their concerns, especially since actual liberal democracy (which was never tried) has been successfully discredited by the media machine described above. The "starve the Caucuses/stop feeding the Caucuses" movement can be seen as a bigoted attack on Muslim minorities, or it can be seen as a completely rational argument to end the state subsidies that are functionally bribes given to grotesque semi-feudal regimes throughout the North Caucuses in exchange for internal crackdowns on Islamic extremists and the end of insurgency. 

The Russian regime has long made the argument, both at home and abroad, that it faces two enemies-- extremist nationalists at home and Western "liberalism" abroad and frequently conflates the two. In the state-run media, Navalny has been framed as part of both things at the same time.  The nature of the Russian state is such that it has pushed any and all form of opposition to the state into a realm where only a tiny minority of dedicated liberals or frightening extremists have the courage to operate-- and then they point to that as evidence that only extremists or radical liberals would dare to oppose the Putin regime, and use that fact as a justification for their policies in the western press. It's pretty sophisticated. 

[Shady Ray 1633]

1 hour ago, 956 Worldwide said:

So a couple of counterpoints to this.  First of all, being "deeply unpopular with the Russian public."  That's of course true, but I would argue that it's virtually meaningless because of Russia's completely controlled media environment.  Russian public opinion is almost entirely manipulated, particularly outside of the politically engaged, educated, foreign-language speaking young people that you can find in Moscow, St. Petersburg, and a few other large cities. 

Navalny has an ugly past when it comes to  making ethnic slurs, and there's no excuse for them. But making ethnic slurs is hardly the exclusive domain of the far-right, or even the "opposition in Russia."  And no politician is likely to make any dent in the Putin/United Russia wall without making some appeals to ethnic Russians and their concerns, especially since actual liberal democracy (which was never tried) has been successfully discredited by the media machine described above. The "starve the Caucuses/stop feeding the Caucuses" movement can be seen as a bigoted attack on Muslim minorities, or it can be seen as a completely rational argument to end the state subsidies that are functionally bribes given to grotesque semi-feudal regimes throughout the North Caucuses in exchange for internal crackdowns on Islamic extremists and the end of insurgency. 

The Russian regime has long made the argument, both at home and abroad, that it faces two enemies-- extremist nationalists at home and Western "liberalism" abroad and frequently conflates the two. In the state-run media, Navalny has been framed as part of both things at the same time.  The nature of the Russian state is such that it has pushed any and all form of opposition to the state into a realm where only a tiny minority of dedicated liberals or frightening extremists have the courage to operate-- and then they point to that as evidence that only extremists or radical liberals would dare to oppose the Putin regime, and use that fact as a justification for their policies in the western press. It's pretty sophisticated. 

First off, great points here. Really appreciate this perspective. And I agree, Russian public opinion is absolutely difficult to gauge. For the record, I am basing my external view on Levada polling, which is accepted by all major Western media as legitimate and is frequently cited in Reuters, NYT, WaPo, Deutsche Welle, BBC, etc. And the bottom line is that Putin is much more popular than the West tends to want to acknowledge. And - in the alternative - Navalny is much less popular than the West tends to want to acknowledge. 

 

I will give an anecdotal perspective re foreign-language speaking younger professionals in Moscow and St. P: I am a manger of corporate paper-pushing lawyers for a very large German company with 6 direct Regional Counsel reports working under me in our Moscow and SP offices. I have worked with most of them for years. I have slammed vodkas with them, I have treated them to endless beers at the Oktoberfest here in Munich, etc. Basically, what I am saying is that there is a friendship here. There is no incentive from the business that I am in to love Putin, and there is no incentive to love Navalny, ...and vice versa etc. We are not in a business that is dependent on either of them and God knows that no-one in Russia believes that they are under a North Korean-style surveillance state when they are speaking in an office in Munich, yet, to a person, they hate Navalny. We are talking 33 year old highly educated and successful women to 50 year old highly educated and successful men...no exception. They see him as an attention-seeking two-bit YouTube star. Nothing more, nothing less. And they are pissed that he is stealing the thunder of other vastly superior candidates that could take on Putin's allies at their local levels.

 

Is this anecdotal? Yes.

 

Has their input on Russian affairs ever once been wrong over the last 10 years? No.

 

And to be accurate here, there are two actual opposition leaders in Russia from the polling perspective: Gennady Zyuganov with the Communist Party of Russia (i.e. commies), and Vladimir Zhirinovsky's Liberal Democratic Party of Russia (i.e., fucking hardcore fascists), both of which command 10-15% of the Russian electorate. But neither of those are going to trigger sympathy in the West, so western media have basically deemed Navalny (polling around 2% nationally per Levada) as a game-changer, which unfortunately, he isn't.

 

Here is the Deutsche Welle article on him (albeit from a couple of years ago) showing how literally no one sees him as significant beyond Western media and teenagers in Russia. 

 

 

Quote

 

Alexei Navalny: Most Russians don't care about his work, poll shows

He has been targeted by police raids, faced hefty fines and long jail terms. But a new poll has revealed that Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny is barely on the radar in his home country.

Only 9% of Russians have a positive view of Kremlin critic Alexei Navalny's work, Russian media reported on Tuesday.

A poll conducted by the reputable Levada Center revealed that one in four Russians even have a negative view of Navalny's endeavors. The center quizzed over 1,600 Russian adults in both rural and urban environments in late October, according to the Interfax news agency.

https://www.dw.com/en/alexei-navalny-most-russians-dont-care-about-his-work-poll-shows/a-51114579

 

 

And when you talk about the validity of the Caucasus food-deprivation movement (whether it is "stop-feeding" vs. "starve" is immaterial, but the truth is that in Russian, it is "starve") I would point to the video below and ask you: Is this type of content about an end to state subsidies....or is this the same type of parasitic imagery made famous by Fascists in 1930s Europe? If you saw this about Jewish people or leaders, would you feel comfortable? Unfortunately, it is not available on YouTube because it has been deemed as Fascist content, but you can see it here.

 

https://archive.org/details/VideoAlexeiNavalnyComparesMuslimsToCockroaches

 

This is not the type of dude we need to be supporting if we expect proper change in Russia. 

[956 Worldwide 34705]

39 minutes ago, Shady Ray said:

First off, great points here. Really appreciate this perspective. And I agree, Russian public opinion is absolutely difficult to gauge. For the record, I am basing my external view on Levada polling, which is accepted by all major Western media as legitimate and is frequently cited in Reuters, NYT, WaPo, Deutsche Welle, BBC, etc. And the bottom line is that Putin is much more popular than the West tends to want to acknowledge. And - in the alternative - Navalny is much less popular than the West tends to want to acknowledge. 

 

I will give an anecdotal perspective re foreign-language speaking younger professionals in Moscow and St. P: I am a manger of corporate paper-pushing lawyers for a very large German company with 6 direct Regional Counsel reports working under me in our Moscow and SP offices. I have worked with most of them for years. I have slammed vodkas with them, I have treated them to endless beers at the Oktoberfest here in Munich, etc. Basically, what I am saying is that there is a friendship here. There is no incentive from the business that I am in to love Putin, and there is no incentive to love Navalny, ...and vice versa etc. We are not in a business that is dependent on either of them and God knows that no-one in Russia believes that they are under a North Korean-style surveillance state when they are speaking in an office in Munich, yet, to a person, they hate Navalny. We are talking 33 year old highly educated and successful women to 50 year old highly educated and successful men...no exception. They see him as an attention-seeking two-bit YouTube star. Nothing more, nothing less. And they are pissed that he is stealing the thunder of other vastly superior candidates that could take on Putin's allies at their local levels.

 

Is this anecdotal? Yes.

 

Has their input on Russian affairs ever once been wrong over the last 10 years? No.

 

And to be accurate here, there are two actual opposition leaders in Russia from the polling perspective: Gennady Zyuganov with the Communist Party of Russia (i.e. commies), and Vladimir Zhirinovsky's Liberal Democratic Party of Russia (i.e., fucking hardcore fascists), both of which command 10-15% of the Russian electorate. But neither of those are going to trigger sympathy in the West, so western media have basically deemed Navalny (polling around 2% nationally per Levada) as a game-changer, which unfortunately, he isn't.

 

Here is the Deutsche Welle article on him (albeit from a couple of years ago) showing how literally no one sees him as significant beyond Western media and teenagers in Russia. 

 

 

 

And when you talk about the validity of the Caucasus food-deprivation movement (whether it is "stop-feeding" vs. "starve" is immaterial, but the truth is that in Russian, it is "starve") I would point to the video below and ask you: Is this type of content about an end to state subsidies....or is this the same type of parasitic imagery made famous by Fascists in 1930s Europe? If you saw this about Jewish people or leaders, would you feel comfortable? Unfortunately, it is not available on YouTube because it has been deemed as Fascist content, but you can see it here.

 

https://archive.org/details/VideoAlexeiNavalnyComparesMuslimsToCockroaches

 

This is not the type of dude we need to be supporting if we expect proper change in Russia. 

Awesome points as well, this is stuff you're clearly deeply engaged with.  

So I'd first say that I need to clarify-- I believe that the polling is accurate and that Russian's don't like Navalny.  The proposal I make is that given the near complete control of the information space in Russia, any opinion polling is really just a gauge of how effective Kremlin propaganda is.  (The answer-- extremely effective in stoking fear and anger at targets the Kremlin chooses, but less so at creating genuine support for Putin/United Russia). 

Zyuganov and the Communists and Zhirninovsky and LDPR are the definition of controlled opposition.  They have supporters and get votes because Putin needs the illusion of democratic choice.  They are given media space and allowed to participate in the political process as an outlet for lingering Communist nostalgia and for xenophobic nationalism. Incidentally, the tolerance extended to Zhirinovsky belies the cries of "but Navalny is a FASCIST" you hear from Kremlin apologists, despite Navalny's genuinely noxious statements in the past. Western observers looking for the seeds of opposition properly ignore them, not because they are distasteful, but because they aren't really opposition. 

I'd also say that the Kremlin may have made a bad bet and turned Navalny into something far bigger than he was, so comparisons to his relevance in 2013 and 2014 are not analogous to his appeal today.  Supporting the protesters who are in the streets is not an endorsement of Navalny and all his positions, it's support for those Russians who do not want to live under a regime that carries out political assassinations with chemical weapons and jails anyone who is an actual dissident. And it's the Kremlin who wants to frame it as a binary equation, that if you protest what happened to Navalny, then you must support him as an individual.

Putin's regime is sophisticated in the extreme, and is very good with all the autocrats' tricks. It's no surprise that genuine opposition in Russia is either effete or distasteful, that is by design.  The Kremlin very much wants everyone to sit on their thumbs waiting for a "respectable" opposition to surface.......

Edited January 25, 2021 by 956 Worldwide

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

Gave as much rep as I could; this is a fascinating discussion.

12 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

I'd also say that the Kremlin may have made a bad bet and turned Navalny into something far bigger than he was, so comparisons to his relevance in 2013 and 2014 are not analogous to his appeal today.

I'm getting a clearer picture of the man, so I appreciate the perspectives. I don't think a surging xenophobic extremism is helpful to the populace at large, but at the same time, if Putin is distracted by events at home, I wonder if the citizens in Ukraine and Belarus may have a tiny chance to make some inroads in their own governance. Plus, if the global protesting movements begin to take hold, having a U.S. that is no longer led by an autocratic loving isolationist cannot hurt. The description of some citizens in Russia supporting Putin no matter what others outside of Russia think of him makes a lot of sense.

It's all a bit much for me, trying to wrap my head around. In addition, I've been attempting to follow the EU/UK fracas and that's another one where it seemed foolish to break up a group that together would have much more power sitting at the table. I'm oversimplifying to be sure, but from my biased view it seems if one wants to do business with the "Big Two" then having that bloc of Euro interests aligned was smart. Oh well.

Keep talking y'all, I'm enjoying learning just how much I don't know!

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

9 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

Gave as much rep as I could; this is a fascinating discussion.

I'm getting a clearer picture of the man, so I appreciate the perspectives. I don't think a surging xenophobic extremism is helpful to the populace at large, but at the same time, if Putin is distracted by events at home, I wonder if the citizens in Ukraine and Belarus may have a tiny chance to make some inroads in their own governance. Plus, if the global protesting movements begin to take hold, having a U.S. that is no longer led by an autocratic loving isolationist cannot hurt. The description of some citizens in Russia supporting Putin no matter what others outside of Russia think of him makes a lot of sense.

It's all a bit much for me, trying to wrap my head around. In addition, I've been attempting to follow the EU/UK fracas and that's another one where it seemed foolish to break up a group that together would have much more power sitting at the table. I'm oversimplifying to be sure, but from my biased view it seems if one wants to do business with the "Big Two" then having that bloc of Euro interests aligned was smart. Oh well.

Keep talking y'all, I'm enjoying learning just how much I don't know!

It's not some citizens (although younger citizens do want to push back, but know that's a life endangering game), it's an ingrained trait in Russians at their DNA level. They've known no other form of rule (other than the blink of an eye Yeltsin gov't) since the formation of Rus/ Russia.  It's always been rule by dictator. They had among the first (horseback mounted) state terror police under Ivan the Terribles rule, their symbol was the dog and broom... sniff our dissension, and sweep it away. They simply know no other way to be governed.  

[956 Worldwide 34705]

19 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

 

It's all a bit much for me, trying to wrap my head around. In addition, I've been attempting to follow the EU/UK fracas and that's another one where it seemed foolish to break up a group that together would have much more power sitting at the table. I'm oversimplifying to be sure, but from my biased view it seems if one wants to do business with the "Big Two" then having that bloc of Euro interests aligned was smart. Oh well.

 

Completely separate from what might be good for the UK, it boggled my mind that any AMERICAN foreign policy thinker thought Brexit would be good for us.

"Hey, you know what would be awesome? If our BFF for life that's always down to do what we want no longer played a leading role in the world's largest economy."

For years if we wanted to get something done in Brussels, we paid a visit to London.  Now, we have to go talk to Paris or Germany and that's very different proposition.

/backtorussia

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

7 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

It's not some citizens (although younger citizens do want to push back, but know that's a life endangering game), it's an ingrained trait in Russians at their DNA level. They've known no other form of rule (other than the blink of an eye Yeltsin gov't) since the formation of Rus/ Russia.  It's always been rule by dictator. They had among the first (horseback mounted) state terror police under Ivan the Terribles rule, their symbol was the dog and broom... sniff our dissension, and sweep it away. They simply know no other way to be governed.  

That doesn't seem quite right, though. What I mean is, we all have unavoidable human characteristics that have been many centuries in the making, our learned behaviors can change. From my ignorant viewpoint, trying to construct a democracy out of scratch (Yeltsin) in the modern age was going to be no easy thing, and it was not as if other folks that were pretty smart didn't have their own agenda to try and take advantage of it.

I mean, if that was the case--the argument that slavery has existed and continues to exist is not something that I want to perpetuate even though 'tribalism' is something that people argue will always be present in the human condition.

[Parliament 14257]

 The spokesman for Russian President Vladimir Putin says the U.S. Embassy’s statements about the nationwide protests, in which more than 3,500 people reportedly were arrested, interfere in the country’s domestic affairs and encourage Russians to break the law.

Dmitry Peskov made the criticism on Sunday, a day after protests took place across the country demanding the release of jailed opposition leader Alexei Navalny, an anti-corruption activist who is Putin’s most well-known critic.

During the protests, embassy spokeswoman Rebecca Ross said on Twitter that “the U.S. supports the right of all people to peaceful protest, freedom of expression. Steps being taken by Russian authorities are suppressing those rights.” The embassy also tweeted a State Department statement calling for Navalny’s release.

https://apnews.com/article/international-news-vladimir-putin-moscow-arrests-russia-353137aaa31032050df0cd01ae364f6f

[bluto 4920]

Damn this thread is one of the most informative on surly

[956 Worldwide 34705]

50 minutes ago, Parliament said:

 The spokesman for Russian President Vladimir Putin says the U.S. Embassy’s statements about the nationwide protests, in which more than 3,500 people reportedly were arrested, interfere in the country’s domestic affairs and encourage Russians to break the law.

Dmitry Peskov made the criticism on Sunday, a day after protests took place across the country demanding the release of jailed opposition leader Alexei Navalny, an anti-corruption activist who is Putin’s most well-known critic.

During the protests, embassy spokeswoman Rebecca Ross said on Twitter that “the U.S. supports the right of all people to peaceful protest, freedom of expression. Steps being taken by Russian authorities are suppressing those rights.” The embassy also tweeted a State Department statement calling for Navalny’s release.

https://apnews.com/article/international-news-vladimir-putin-moscow-arrests-russia-353137aaa31032050df0cd01ae364f6f

The "statements" that they really complained about were the alerts sent out to U.S. citizens that highlighted the times/places of the protests and warned that they would be unauthorized so U.S. citizens might consider staying away.  Of course, we do this in every country for almost every protest. 

https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/01/25/navalny-protests-sweep-russia-as-kremlin-cries-u-s-interference

 

Quote

On Saturday, Russian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova accused the U.S. embassy in Moscow of fanning the flames of dissent by publishing protest times and routes (as part of a notice to avoid such gatherings) on the embassy website. “What was that: a setup or an instruction?” Zakharova told the Russian news agency TASS, adding that if the Russian embassy in Washington had done the same during U.S. protests “global hysteria” would ensue.

 

[Brisketexan 105100]

Here’s what I find interesting: I dont disbelieve that Navalny is not that popular, and would not be a serious political threat.

But you know who clearly feels differently? The Russian govt, which tried to assassinate him. I find that interesting. Why are they so afraid of a minor player?

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

1 hour ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

That doesn't seem quite right, though. What I mean is, we all have unavoidable human characteristics that have been many centuries in the making, our learned behaviors can change. From my ignorant viewpoint, trying to construct a democracy out of scratch (Yeltsin) in the modern age was going to be no easy thing, and it was not as if other folks that were pretty smart didn't have their own agenda to try and take advantage of it.

I mean, if that was the case--the argument that slavery has existed and continues to exist is not something that I want to perpetuate even though 'tribalism' is something that people argue will always be present in the human condition.

That is the only reality they've ever known as a people since the formation of their country.  I took a few years of Russia history in college (doesn't make me an expert by any means). Our professor, a really great professor of history spent years living there. He talked about the mentality of the citizens and discussed how it had been that way always. They have zero history of self governance. Democracy is as foreign to them as the greek language is to a Chinese citizen.

They went from serfdom to communism with pretty much no break in a cultural or political stride.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

9 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Here’s what I find interesting: I dont disbelieve that Navalny is not that popular, and would not be a serious political threat.

But you know who clearly feels differently? The Russian govt, which tried to assassinate him. I find that interesting. Why are they so afraid of a minor player?

Any and all dissent is hammered away in totalitarian regimes.

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Why are they so afraid ?

 

Truth Speaks to Power.

 

Doesn't matter the country.

[956 Worldwide 34705]

16 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Any and all dissent is hammered away in totalitarian regimes.

Putin's regime isn't really totalitarian though, when you balance it against true totalitarian regimes like Stalin's USSR or modern North Korea.  The existence of "controlled opposition" like LDPR or the Communists is a testament to that--- even controlled, tame opposition can't be tolerated in a genuine totalitarian system.  Putin's Russia has release valves like that, and pop culture, and others built in that Stalin would never tolerate. 

Putin doesn't want to completely politicize his population, he would far prefer a subdued apathy-- "this is good enough."  Navalny is intolerable because as @Shady Ray pointed out, he is hammering at a theme that poses a real threat to that apathy, which is corruption.  It's also evidence that sanctions and stagnant oil prices are really starting to bite, because Russians are able to swallow a lot of corruption so long as the tide is rising. They won't swallow it while they are being impoverished. 

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

19 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

That is the only reality they've ever known as a people since the formation of their country.  I took a few years of Russia history in college (doesn't make me an expert by any means). Our professor, a really great professor of history spent years living there. He talked about the mentality of the citizens and discussed how it had been that way always. They have zero history of self governance. Democracy is as foreign to them as the greek language is to a Chinese citizen.

They went from serfdom to communism with pretty much no break in a cultural or political stride.

I don't have your background, so I'm guilty of applying opinion w/o enough knowledge or authority for sure. I suppose like most things, it's complicated. I did think that with Ukraine (at least) having a historical background of, for lack of a better phrase--'being fought over' by more powerful neighbors due to it's resources might lend an example to those within Russia's vast borders. The people there want self-determination and a say.

Oh, and @956 Worldwide replied while I was typing; yes, corruption does seem to prick people into more action than otherwise.

[The Royal We 3072]

This turned into a very interesting thread.  Props to 956 and Shady for both bringing great viewpoints and discussion.

The thought that polling in Russia is functionally useless because of the success of their propaganda machine is both impressive and terrifying at the same time.

[Brisketexan 105100]

33 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

That is the only reality they've ever known as a people since the formation of their country.  I took a few years of Russia history in college (doesn't make me an expert by any means). Our professor, a really great professor of history spent years living there. He talked about the mentality of the citizens and discussed how it had been that way always. They have zero history of self governance. Democracy is as foreign to them as the greek language is to a Chinese citizen.

They went from serfdom to communism with pretty much no break in a cultural or political stride.

My wife was a gov't major, with her primary focus on Soviet Studies (and yeah, we watched the fall of the USSR happen live, and she commented "well.....guess I just became a history major.")  And that was her consistent take -- just because Russians look like white Europeans, don't mistake their mindset for being anything close to the Western European liberal democracy mindset.  Their very identity is that of a peasant people, and that requires a strong ruler, always -- doesn't matter the "system," that's what it will always look like.

I don't know if that's 100% accurate --  I do know that the opportunity of the 1990s to transform Russia into something CLOSER to a functioning western-style economy and state was utterly botched -- but it sure seems to be MOSTLY accurate.

Will be interesting if having a more open society, with a free exchange of information (internet, social media) will change things for future generations.  But even if so.....that's many years in the future.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

16 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Putin's regime isn't really totalitarian though, when you balance it against true totalitarian regimes like Stalin's USSR or modern North Korea.  The existence of "controlled opposition" like LDPR or the Communists is a testament to that--- even controlled, tame opposition can't be tolerated in a genuine totalitarian system.  Putin's Russia has release valves like that, and pop culture, and others built in that Stalin would never tolerate. 

Putin doesn't want to completely politicize his population, he would far prefer a subdued apathy-- "this is good enough."  Navalny is intolerable because as @Shady Ray pointed out, he is hammering at a theme that poses a real threat to that apathy, which is corruption.  It's also evidence that sanctions and stagnant oil prices are really starting to bite, because Russians are able to swallow a lot of corruption so long as the tide is rising. They won't swallow it while they are being impoverished. 

It's still a dictatorship whether its called democratic or not. My comments are based on what I listened to from one man decades ago, so they aren't the absolute only answer,  but rang true as he took us form Russias formation to at that point Gorbachev.

He wants a populace that does what he wants for the least amount of effort, but make no mistake he would, and does what any despot does to control the population. The internet makes it a more difficult task because of the ability to show things in real time,  but it hasn't stopped him from killing anyone who's gotten in his way. I don't believe they've cared about rising tides ... historically speaking that is.  The new citizen, the younger, better informed Russian citizen is more apt to criticize so that's probably playing into his rare restraint at times.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

22 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

My wife was a gov't major, with her primary focus on Soviet Studies (and yeah, we watched the fall of the USSR happen live, and she commented "well.....guess I just became a history major.")  And that was her consistent take -- just because Russians look like white Europeans, don't mistake their mindset for being anything close to the Western European liberal democracy mindset.  Their very identity is that of a peasant people, and that requires a strong ruler, always -- doesn't matter the "system," that's what it will always look like.

I don't know if that's 100% accurate --  I do know that the opportunity of the 1990s to transform Russia into something CLOSER to a functioning western-style economy and state was utterly botched -- but it sure seems to be MOSTLY accurate.

Will be interesting if having a more open society, with a free exchange of information (internet, social media) will change things for future generations.  But even if so.....that's many years in the future.

That is almost exactly what our professor discussed several times. They knew nothing but strong rulers that kept them poor, ignorant, and starving. The best rulers they ever had were Peter the great (still a fucking bastard and a despot, but a world view, and progressive despot) and Catherine the great, maybe one of the most underrated European rulers, if you consider Russia European.  It's at a weird crossroads of east and west like Constantinople.

She was carrying on written correspondence with some of the great thinkers of Western Europe at the time, had the greatest art collection in the western world, tried to do away with torture as a means of rule, established semi autonomous peasant rule in her vast empire (within a very strict framework, but semi autonomous rule nonetheless) a health system, and many other things that flew in the face of traditional Russian rule, and it constantly got her in hot water with the power structure below her.

And she wasn't Russian, not a coincidence to be taken lightly given her "enlightened" rule.

Edited January 25, 2021 by Onboard 2.0

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

Perhaps, given what I'm learning about our own voting populace as compared to Russia, y'all ought to elect me President in the next go round. Jobs for everyone according to ability, bread and circuses every day, and a library on every corner. That's my platform.

If @Brisketexan promises never to contradict me, I'll give him diplomatic immunity and/or a pardon for anything regarding Sela Ward.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

21 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

Perhaps, given what I'm learning about our own voting populace as compared to Russia, y'all ought to elect me President in the next go round. Jobs for everyone according to ability, bread and circuses every day, and a library on every corner. That's my platform.

If @Brisketexan promises never to contradict me, I'll give him diplomatic immunity and/or a pardon for anything regarding Sela Ward.

Until I hear "a chicken in every pot"  I'm on the fence....

[Lagunamadre 1975]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

Here’s what I find interesting: I dont disbelieve that Navalny is not that popular, and would not be a serious political threat.

But you know who clearly feels differently? The Russian govt, which tried to assassinate him. I find that interesting. Why are they so afraid of a minor player?

I think with Trump crippling the world order coupled with every country preoccupied with Covid, Russia has been and will be more brazen. They know other countries don't have the political will to pick a fight right now. What is scary is once you push the line forward, it's hard to go back. It feels like they are going to keep escalating things until they find the line, unclear who in the world has the fortitude to draw the line. 

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

7 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Until I hear "a chicken in every pot"  I'm on the fence....

I believe in supporting regional specialties and multiculturalism, so:

 A taco truck on every corner, a brisket for every smoker, a clam chowder for every kettle, a kebab for every pita, and a biscuit for all the gravy.

 

2 minutes ago, Lagunamadre said:

I think with Trump crippling the world order coupled with every country preoccupied with Covid, Russia has been and will be more brazen. They know other countries don't have the political will to pick a fight right now. What is scary is once you push the line forward, it's hard to go back. It feels like they are going to keep escalating things until they find the line, unclear who in the world has the fortitude to draw the line. 

Certainly, the hacking has made us very vulnerable even w/o a global pandemic.

[Doc Sam Beckett 5793]

27 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

Perhaps, given what I'm learning about our own voting populace as compared to Russia, y'all ought to elect me President in the next go round. Jobs for everyone according to ability, bread and circuses every day, and a library on every corner. That's my platform.

If @Brisketexan promises never to contradict me, I'll give him diplomatic immunity and/or a pardon for anything regarding Sela Ward.

You were just elected Surly's mom like 2 years ago and now you want the White House. It's true what they say, the Surl corrupts all. 

[Brisketexan 105100]

2 minutes ago, Lagunamadre said:

I think with Trump crippling the world order coupled with every country preoccupied with Covid, Russia has been and will be more brazen. They know other countries don't have the political will to pick a fight right now. What is scary is once you push the line forward, it's hard to go back. It feels like they are going to keep escalating things until they find the line, unclear who in the world has the fortitude to draw the line. 

Well, the Russian strategy isn't complicated, and it never has been.  Their ability to become "strong," either economically or based on their geopolitical position, has always been limited.  So, in order to insure that they can handle external threats, their best strategy is to make any and all rivals weaker -- so they are more evenly matched.

And make no mistake, they are VERY good at that game.  They've been playing it for centuries.  Russians are really fucking good at chess.

[Lagunamadre 1975]

4 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

 

And make no mistake, they are VERY good at that game.  They've been playing it for centuries.  Russians are really fucking good at chess.

They can be beat. 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

43 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

I believe in supporting regional specialties and multiculturalism, so:

 A taco truck on every corner, a brisket for every smoker, a clam chowder for every kettle, a kebab for every pita, and a biscuit for all the gravy.

 

Ohhhh you are a politician in the making....

[Nivek 16923]

I am not sure that liberal democratic principles are in our DNA anymore than in the DNA of the Russians, Germans, or Japanese.   That phrase seems borderline nationalistic. 

 

 

[bolverk 29671]

Posted on by a friend on my FB news feed:

"America has always been known for exporting its culture, but translations rarely do justice to the original. Face palm."

[Nivek 16923]

2 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Well, the Russian strategy isn't complicated, and it never has been.  Their ability to become "strong," either economically or based on their geopolitical position, has always been limited.  So, in order to insure that they can handle external threats, their best strategy is to make any and all rivals weaker -- so they are more evenly matched.

And make no mistake, they are VERY good at that game.  They've been playing it for centuries.  Russians are really fucking good at chess.

Something about Russians not taking dumps without plans...

[Judge Roybeanbag 11819]

4 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

 

I don't know if that's 100% accurate --  I do know that the opportunity of the 1990s to transform Russia into something CLOSER to a functioning western-style economy and state was utterly botched -- but it sure seems to be MOSTLY accurate.

 

Garry Kasparov had a good op-ed on this the other day.  I am oversimplifying, but basically they did not stamp out the anti-democratic authoritarians when they had the chance, but instead went for the "it's time for unity" bullshit, and ended up with Putin.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/12/opinions/battle-against-anti-democratic-extremism-kasparov/index.html

 

 

Edited January 25, 2021 by Judge Roybeanbag

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

12 minutes ago, Judge Roybeanbag said:

Garry Kasparov had a good op-ed on this the other day.  I am oversimplifying, but basically they did not stamp out the anti-democratic authoritarians when they had the chance, but instead went for the "it's time for unity" bullshit, and ended up with Putin.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/12/opinions/battle-against-anti-democratic-extremism-kasparov/index.html

 

 

The KGB never went away, it just took a deep breath, went deep cover, and re emerged as it felt the times allowed.  It took advantage of the strength, and weakness of man, to forgive, and go on, and a short memory.