Russian 'election' [Archive] - SUBSIM Radio Room Forums

Catfish

03-19-18, 07:39 AM

RIGGED

And the winner of the 2024 Russian election is...PUTIN.

It's not rigged. Since there are no other candidates, the partaking 73 percent indeed must have voted for him :03:

No surprise.. anyway after what happened after 1989 the west is to blame for a good part. Should i really quote Sky :hmmm:, well in this case:

"What many already forgot is that Putin, when he took over from Yeltzin, has ended the chaos of the era after the Sovjet Union's fall. Initially, Putin worked for and tried to bring Russia closer to Europe, on equal eye levels. But then the West betrayed him two times. First the Western predators tried to extract as much loot from the weak new-Russian economic environment as possible and tried to keep the new Russian state and its adminsutraiton out of stable control, and second the West promised to not move up towards Russia'S borders, and naive as they were at that time, the Russians believed that. They got betrayed, and Putin learned to lessons. First, give the West the opportunity to erode and abuse Russia'S wealth and economy, and it will do so, and second: Western promises and verbal agreements do mean nothign and are not worth the air it takes to speak them out.

Putin delivers on the Russian desire for national pride. He sorted out the hostile economic sell-out of Russian property and ecnomy at the cost of allowing oligarchic crime and corruption taking control of parts of the economy again while making it clear by setting several examples that these oligarchs are tolerated, but better do not take on the state itself in their greed, else they, individually, have to pay the highest price. All the revitalising of the Sovjet cult and Stalin cult needs to be seen in the light of all these factors that the West allowed to form and that the West even supported. The West is not as innocent as it claims in creating the situation as it is today. Putin initally did not start to go this way - he reacted to the bitter lessons he got taught by the West - by fallign back to proven Sovjet controlling schemes and reactions."

(from: http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=2545674&postcount=73)

May i add that Putin is meanwhile a prisoner of his own politics. Who else should govern Russia and hold extremists, terrorists and crime at bay? Can a real democratically elected government without having to fear "secret service cleanings" deal with it, or would it all go the way of the Weimarer Republic?

Rockstar

03-19-18, 08:45 AM

Catfish

03-19-18, 09:06 AM

[...] on the 'not one inch' westward NATO expansion [...]

^ Nonsense. First it should read eastward expansion, but i guess in Trump times words have no meaning anymore :O:

Timely removal of russian forces from east Germany alright, the Russians did it. Included in this treaty is the Nato's promise not to expand eastward, but to create a cordon secure, not touching the russian or the west german border.
Later the "outstretched hand" of the West disguised the dagger in the other hand, trying to destabilize and trying to take over what was left of the Soviet Union.
They indeed made their bed in trusting, and now lie in what came of it.

Rockstar

03-19-18, 09:20 AM

LOL oops ummm yes looking at the globe North up that would be 'east'ward expansion

Catfish

03-19-18, 09:25 AM

yes well i thought it was a glitch, np :salute:
And initially it was not Merkel, but Kohl who was left to Germany. Complete standstill for decades to come.

(Google translation)
"A unified Germany, anchored in a changed (political) NATO, whose treaty area is not shifted east."

This is a memorial note of the US Secretary of State James Baker after a conversation on 9 February 1990 with the Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev, with whom he summarized the "final result" of the interview.

As the "Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung" (FAZ) further reported on Tuesday, the historian Mary Elise Sarotte of the University of Southern California at the annual convention of American historians in New York presented and explained this generally unknown fact.

"That meant: Nato should not even be extended to the territory of the GDR. Baker left a letter for Kohl, who visited Moscow a day after him. Accordingly, he had asked Gorbachev before the choice whether he would prefer a non-aligned Germany without US troops or a Germany with Nato bond and the assurance that the alliance area should not 'one inch' grow, "adds the FAZ.

Kohl then made an offer to Gorbachev on the Bakers line, with which he obtained Soviet approval for reunification. The failure of Gorbachev had been to give written confirmation of the freezing of geopolitical status.In addition, an initial secret note published in 2009 on Genscher's statement of 10 February 1990 on Soviet Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze reads:

"BM (Federal Minister): We are aware that joining a united Germany with NATO raises complicated questions. For us, however, it is clear: NATO will not expand to the east. "Genscher remembered what had happened in 1956 in the Hungarian uprising: Parts of the insurgents had announced that they wanted to join the Western alliance, and thus Moscow had the pretext for a military intervention delivered. As far as the GDR was concerned, Genscher explicitly added: "As for the remainder, the non-expansion of NATO, this applies in general."

Rockstar

03-19-18, 09:26 AM

^ Nonsense. First it should read eastward expansion, but i guess in Trump times words have no meaning anymore :O:

Timely removal of russian forces from east Germany alright, the Russians did it. Included in this treaty is the Nato's promise not to expand eastward, but to create a cordon secure, not touching the russian or the west german border.
Later the "outstretched hand" of the West disguised the dagger in the other hand, trying to destabilize and trying to take over what was left of the Soviet Union.
They indeed made their bed in trusting, and now lie in what came of it.

A year or two ago it was very easy to search the intardnet and find the Gorbachev interview. I read it several times and once posted a link on subsim. He stated quite explicitly there were no promises made that would prevent east ward expansion of NATO after the transition.

Funny, today all I read are articles which inundate the net accusing NATO of broken promises. Though I must admit I only went back 6-7 pages looking for the interview. Seems we are force fed information designed to influence our thoughts.

Rockstar

03-19-18, 09:53 AM

I found the old post but unfortunately I didn't post a link to it. Must have been back in the day before Sailor Steve got on us for not posting links and using those ***** asterisks. :D

old post: According to Mikhail Gorbachev former secretary general of the Soviet Union said: “The topic of ‘NATO expansion’ was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years."

All that was agreed upon was until Soviet forces had completed their withdrawal from the former GDR, only German territorial defense units not integrated into NATO would be deployed in that territory.

There would be no increase in the numbers of troops or equipment of U.S., British and French forces stationed in Berlin.

Once Soviet forces had withdrawn, German forces assigned to NATO could be deployed in the former GDR, but foreign forces and nuclear weapons systems would not be deployed there.

Rockstar

03-19-18, 10:17 AM

And yes, maybe trust could have been an issue especially when dealing with the siloviki I would say are one reason why western business closed up shop and left the region and those that remain, remain wary. Maybe too its not so much about trust but about compatibility.

Skybird

03-19-18, 10:55 AM

Sorry but I wave the B.S. flag on the 'not one inch' westward NATO expansion broken promises excuse. Even Mikhail Gorbachov said the agreement was to allow for the timely removal of Russian forces from East Germany and former Soviet bloc countries, that's it, end of story. Russia got time to peacfully remove itself from Eastern Germany and in return left you Merkel.

Number two NATO expansion westward is based on invitation and the acceptance by independent nations. Those independent nations DO NOT require the permission of Putin.

Poor little Russia, horse crap. They made their bed now lie in it.
The West gave Russia its word, and then showed that this was worth nothing. You may say now: "Your own guilt, you stupid Russians", but do not be surprised that they learned the lesson and never give a dime for any of your future promises, announcement and lip confessions again.

I know that it was not signed in a treaty that NAOT shoudl stay away. But NATO told the Russians: if you stick to your word, we stick to ours. They did what they said they woudl do, and pulled out - and NATO broke its own word and moved in.

That lesson sank deep. Got fooled once, never get fooled again.

And Gorbatchev - that is a topic in itself. Dont get me started. He was not the only one doing a lot of talking at that time. I recall that even American and NAOT diplomats later admitted that according assurances were made in spoken words. And I also recall that one American could not resist to lecture the world on the difference between a verbal assurance, which in his view obviously can be ignored any time, and a written treaty.

That today nobody wnats to hear this anymore and treats it as if it never happened, is clear. Nobody likes to admit that he played unfair. And it was the time when the victory of the West was declared, and the end of history was announced, and everybody in the West was full of his ego, and the defeat of socialsim was celebrated.

Well, there is news. Socialism is stronger than ever in the past 100 years in Europe, and Sovjet cult celbrates a great revival in Russia.

Rockstar

03-19-18, 11:29 AM

Russians, Russia, and Putin maybe a lot of things but stupid isnt one of them. I may be wrong but I percieve by this talk here we should feel sorry for them and find ways to blame ourselves for the current world order. I find it to be a load of poop.

Skybird

03-19-18, 11:53 AM

Nonsense.

But America's self-perception is extremely self-centered and always has based on the sometimes unspoken but often spoken-out premise that the US is the best of nations in the world.

To see things through the others' eyes is really no strength of the US, and never was. That one does not need to learn the world'S other languages since the world learns America's language instead, adds to a feeling that America is America up to its borders - and abroad.

But I can understand where in this specific case of Russia your suspicion about Germany and its view of Russia is coming from. Germans traditionally are extremely Russophile indeed, and it has been like this already since the time before WWI. And Germany'S calculation for its policy towards Russia in the past 15, 20 years, has been a house pof cards that in principle already has collapsed. German diplomats just do not want to see and admit the failure. Its a pattern in German foreign diplomacy to never admit misperceptions, Germany does the same towards Turkey.

Please note that I am too sober and not socialist enough to fall for this cheap kind of Russophilia. Relations I had to Russians on perosnal level are somethign vey different than poltical issues between states, and as your former ambassador to Germany once said so nicely and to the shock of the Germna public watching him on TV: "States have no friends, states have interests". I try to describe Russia'S ionterests not by the ambitions of the West and what the West thinks Russia should want, but by trying to see things thorugh Russdias - and Putin's - eyes. That may give the impression that I admire or like him. I don't. By this approach I just get a different perception than from watching state propaganda TV and Western diplomatic blabla. Putin is effective, while the West claism and boasts and gets few things done right, syria and Crimea are two good exambples. The Russians kick the sh1T out of people there - not because Russians are sadistic or genetically predetermined to be like this, but because this is how you win wars instead of benevolently loosing them. I realise the effectiveness. Morals - have little to do with it. The wars the West has done in the ME in the past 27 years, in my books are all strategic defeats, and getting trapped in labyrinths we still cluelessly run around in.

Jimbuna

03-19-18, 01:12 PM

Vladimir Putin has said he is open to "constructive" dialogue with other states after being re-elected president of Russia with an increased majority.

"But of course that doesn't depend on us alone," he added. "Just as in love, both sides must show an interest or there will be no love."

Saying there would be no "arms race", he promised to cut defence spending.

So do the west take him seriously or what?

Mr Quatro

03-19-18, 03:21 PM

It's not rigged. Since there are no other candidates, the partaking 73 percent indeed must have voted for him

But there were seven (7) other candidates :o

Beside President Vladimir Putin, seven other candidates were allowed to run the race. Two of them - Vladimir Zhirinovsky and Grigory Yavlinsky - have run against Putin in the past.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_enLWf3Qki8Q/S7o72GSQqqI/AAAAAAAAACc/IKIlxUSZuxg/s1600/tombstones.jpg

Catfish

03-20-18, 04:17 AM

^@MrQuatro yes, there were other candidates.. nice picture :haha:

@Jim: Yes absolutely, we should take Putin seriously, which means we have to listen to what he says. I guess he indeed is not for a weapon's race because
a) he is already strong enough, an arms race would be an entirely western act to catch up for years to come, and
b) while the russian economy is far from collapsing (by all sanctions, Russia is so big and can provide almost all by itself, except some advanced western "decadent" western luxury maybe :03:), Putin has no interest in spending more than necessary, for weapons.
Deterrence is going on, sure. US builds a rocket to hit any place in the world within minutes (b.t.w. circumventing the early alarm systems of defence), Russia of course will also build one. And it did.

I also think that we should not bedevil him. If we give him a chance to get out of his pariah corner (where we the west west put him, after robbing and breaking our word, as a good part of the world sees it), he can be a dependable partner, at least in trade. The more the exchange, trade-wise and cultural, the sooner a civilian society can grow, in Russia.
He just is not as simple and direct as the US in his talk, but wraps his will and intentions in words that can be easily overheard, by people who hear what they want to hear.

While i can "understand" how the secret services like to have the good old cold war times back, could it be there are some inner powerplays in the UK, about how to handle today's situation? Falling back to 1980ies politics does not make much sense in this brave new world. China is much more dangerous than Russia, in a lot of ways.

@Skybird: you wrote "But America's self-perception is extremely self-centered and always has based on the sometimes unspoken but often spoken-out premise that the US is the best of nations in the world. [...]
To see things through the others' eyes is really no strength of the US, and never was. [...]"

Very true, but then they never had to learn it the hard way. Filter-bubbles.
Still, it surprised me that combover Caligula could win a presidential campaign based on the premise the US were not yet selfish enough :O:

Skybird

03-20-18, 06:26 AM

I also think that we should not bedevil him. If we give him a chance to get out of his pariah corner (where we the west west put him, after robbing and breaking our word, as a good part of the world sees it), he can be a dependable partner, at least in trade. The more the exchange, trade-wise and cultural, the sooner a civilian society can grow, in Russia.
I disagree, I think its too late for that.

Even at the height of the cold war the USSR was a reliable trade partner that stuck to its treaty committments, always. So this far you may be right. But beyond that I see no reason why we should want to bet on Putin being a reliable partner again, I think the only language being spoken her eis strength - or its absence on our side. Putin and the regime he will try to prepare coming after him has learned its lessons, they will never fall into love for a Wetsern liason again any time soon. And we in the West should stop wanting to get one, the past historical exmaples of the past ten yeras or so show that the name of the game is a different one.

Finally, there might be lessons to be learned from the way Russia instrumentalises its gas exports to the Ukraine.

Never chase a tiger's tail, even if you only want to play.

Catfish

03-20-18, 07:00 AM

That Russia feels betrayed.. whatever, it sure insrumantalises its gas exports to the Ukraine, and we have to keep that in mind, of course.
But what about gasoline and prices? Don't those companies and politics instrumentalise us as well? The only advantage i see to going full alternative energy, and electromobility, is to shake off what our "allies" do to us all the time. With those friends, you do not need enemies.

So far Russia has stood to its trade treaties, e.g. gas supplies, but not only. Then there is the Petersburger Dialog, a lot of european and russian firms are there to improve and ease trade. Why shall the EU and Germany among it, exclusively deal with a continent 4000 miles away, overseas, when its glorious leader tries to play games and threaten its "allies" with trade wars? Looking at sheer numbers, it is much easier to trade with Russia when it comes to costs, distances and ease of transfer.

Trump is now wrecking the transatlantic pact's links, that have been built up for decades. Trump wants that, and it seems he will get it. No scientists or economic sage stands in his way, they are all idiots spreading 'fake news'. Have a different opinion? You're fired.

What Trump does is not good for us, and whether it will be even good at all for the US remains to be seen. Politics of small steps and increasing wins with Realpolitik, not dumb visions of grandezza and an overreaching addiction to self-portrayal. There is no reason to stop talks or not trying to improve the situation with Russia.

OT here though i mentioned it before: Regarding the poisoning, it may well be there are undercurrents in the secret services, trying hard to find a justification for their existence, everywhere. The new cold war is the wet dream of those, the question is whether there are not internal.. "misunderstandings" when it comes to make plans for the future. Cloak and dagger plays are only the tip of the iceberg.

Skybird

03-20-18, 10:27 AM

That Russia feels betrayed.. whatever, it sure insrumantalises its gas exports to the Ukraine, and we have to keep that in mind, of course.
But what about gasoline and prices? Don't those companies and politics instrumentalise us as well? The only advantage i see to going full alternative energy, and electromobility, is to shake off what our "allies" do to us all the time. With those friends, you do not need enemies.
Rare earths and lithium can and will be used (and China already has) to project political pressure. Mining Lithium also is a very dirty thing, and there are calculations showing that the ecological costs of electrically driven cars and bikes are not less than those of fossile fueled cars and bikes. I recently bought myself an e-bicyclce additonal to my Brompton and my ordinary use bicycle, but I did nit buy that for any ecological illusions or becasue it is chepaer than a Moped. Its more comfortable and it is luxurious, and that are the only two reasons why I bougth it. These things need to get produced, these costs have to be calculated as wlel, and batteries have a finite lifetime, their replacmeent and prduciton also needs to be taken into account. The immense loss of value of e-cars due to this is somethign that gets almst no cosndieration. But every six months, the car infustry see a new generation of batteries getting fielded by some manufacturer. Go figure.

Not even mentioning that so much energy in Gerany gets bought from other countries that produce it in ncuear and dirty fossile power plants...

E-mobility currently and techncially is not such that it indeed saves climate and th eplanet. it is a means of making its believers feel good and think they collected some eco points in their heavenly eco-bilance.

Buy these things, if you want, if oyu like them, if you enjoy them, like I bought that e-bike. But do not buy it for financial and ecological illusions. Buy it for pleasure and luxury, if you buy it. About the first I laugh, about the second - well, no objections from me regarding the second.

Geostrategically and geopolitically, rare earths and lithium are not different from oil.

nikimcbee

03-23-18, 06:53 PM

Trump in an upset win.

How did HRC do?

Mr Quatro

03-25-18, 02:09 PM

How did HRC do?

She did quite well actually ... Hillary got a new hairdo with the $500,000 her husband Bill received for speaking engagement in Russia. :D

Putin has a new girlfriend ... I hope she's a CIA operative ::o

https://nyppagesix.files.wordpress.com/2018/03/vladimir-putin-victoria-lopyreva1.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&w=618&h=410&crop=1

https://pagesix.com/2018/03/25/this-blonde-may-be-putins-new-pet/

Putin seems to have a new favorite — stunning blond Victoria Lopyreva.

Miss Russia 2003 has been given the cushy job of official ambassador of the FIFA World Cup, to be held in Russia this summer.

Putin has two grown daughters from his first wife, Lyudmila, and is rumored to have three kids with former Olympic gymnast Alina Kabaeva.

I reported two years ago on Alisa Kharcheva, a calendar pinup who sent Putin a birthday greeting in a blog titled “Pussy for Putin,”

Kapitan

03-25-18, 05:09 PM

Russia and Russians need a strong leader elected or not

Everyone bangs on about freedom of this that the other, lets not forget that in 2000 Putin was elected democratically after Yeltsin (even though Yeltsin named him successor).

Until 1991 Russia never knew what a democracy was it was in the living memory of no one alive, they had always had one dictator or leader or Tsar who made the decisions.

Under Yeltsin Russia not only went to the wall the country filed for bankruptcy in 1998 corruption was rife people were not paid for months shortages were common.

The only times you had shortages in the USSR was in the mid and late 1980's and the great patriotic war, i remember travelling in the 90's over there you could buy literally anything for USD $ if you could un bolt it carry it tow it cut it you could have it didn't matter if it was state owned or not.

Russia changed in 2000 it stopped being that country yes theres still corruption but law and order are restored and crime rates are down, whats more people are getting paid and paid well now.

Russia in today world is the 12th largest economy in the world and that like it or hate it is largely down to Vladimir Putin.

Now i am not saying i whole heatedly support all his policies but the transformation from the 90's to now is very noticeable, babushkas don't wait in long ques for bread anymore because there's stores with excess in them

I took a walk in Gum a little while ago coming even from the UK some of the stuff in there i couldn't afford Gucci Prada Jimmy Choo's are all there and making huge amounts of money.

Do i think the election was rigged? most certainly Putin is the strong man of Russia he is well liked in Russia would he have been voted out if it was free and fair elections? i don't actually think so.

Méo

03-25-18, 07:25 PM

Putin is a democratically elected dictator.

Yeah..:nope:

And that sums it up pretty well.

http://blogue.editionsboreal.qc.ca/wp-content/uploads/Poutine1.jpg

Catfish

03-26-18, 03:15 AM

I think what Kapitan wrote makes a lot of sense!

On one hand Russia needs a strong leader, because its civilian society is almost non-existent. There are worse people than Putin, waiting for their chance.
What we can accuse Putin of is that he does nothing to develop "his" country, on the civilian and democratic sector. We also know this is not easy, after centuries of absolutism and dictatorship, nationalism and the Stalin cult.
But we also know he is in a dead end, who should come after him?

There are of course a lot of mostly young people who are sick and tired of all this, but this is not the majority, and they hold not enough power to change century-long prejudice and exaggerated patriotism.

But again, let's not bedevil Putin. He is after all a reasonable man, while with "reasonable" i do not mean pacifist, or pro-west. But he will be open for reasonable talk. He is much more dependable than China.
We just should not stop talking and negotiating, it will help all much more in the long run.

Kapitan

03-30-18, 10:57 AM

I think you will be surprised at his followers, they range all over a spectrum of ages and backgrounds

What you find is the young people who believe they are some how hard done by and that they are sick and tired of the system actually know little to nothing about democracy and what it entails they are what id describe as leftist idealists

Middle age Russians and older Russians want a strong hand on the tiller of power and they get that with Putin you rarely find many old people speak out against Putin and that's because under Putin they are much better off.

The young who want the democracy have never known what that was like in the 90's and the struggles and problems their country faced with a leader that was a joke in the end the 90's was when most of them were born and they are now in their 20's and early 30's

What the young see is America and UK pushing democracy and it looks good not long ago they got a shock why ? because young people in Russia follow politics more avidly that is given credit for.

The young people of Russia tended to want the UK to remain in the EU guess what the vote went to Brexit that was the first shock.

The second shock was trump being elected again most young Russians thought Hillary Clinton was a done and dusted deal it wasn't.

Since then the young have tended to realize that while their system isn't the best and isn't fair they cant have what they want they seemed to have quietened down a lot and numbers have gone down too.

The system under Putin favors the young and hard working the state will assist you in a job and will pay for education, and your education if you sign on to be a military officer your required to do 5 years service then you can leave.

A lot of young get healthy careers in Russia that the state provide they then leave Russia and go overseas.

Putin doesn't want a war he knows he cannot win against the combined defense of NATO nor does he have the cash to do so his war will be one of the hearts and minds and another with the old style soviet influence after all what would you expect from ex KGB.