'Nashi'
 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1770

An interesting article, despite its origin. I found myself nodding in agreement with some of the things said concerning events past and present.

That said, a quote from another forum summs up, quite succinctly, another feeling altogether:
Any russians care to offer their oppinons on this?

The demographic challenge the West is under hardly can be countered by leaving raising the number of home populations to voluntary decisions of private couples. birth rates are low for voluntary decisions and freedom to realise them often leads couples and women to favour career and personal interests over perspectives of raising a family with children.

Russia is not a democratic and liberal society like Western Europe, state authority and centralized power plays a greater role here, and finds more public acceptance. It is not western europe. However, while from an totally non-moral perspective it sounds logical in such a more totalitarian (compared to europe) society to counter the demographic decline of russians and the challenges they are put under by the massive chinese immigration into the empty spaces of Russia'S East, and the demographic bomb exploding in it's Islamic southern border areas, by state-ordered procreation events, it nevertheless is a disgusting idea, in this case.

This does not mean that Western nations also do not run ideological and state-supported agendas and projects. In america for example there is this movement that is heavily supported by the Christian right and the White house where parents and their children vow to behave and think morally clean and to have no sex before marriage, this is publicly expressed during according balls, and wearing a special ring, I think. I read about this, but do not care to search for it again, Americans here will know what I talk about. By content and aiming, it is something totally different then what the russian love camps are doing, nevertheless, like in russia, it is an example of government-supported penetration of ideological ideas into the private sphere of the individual.

I also would compare to the EU's ambitions to get certain politically correct ideas getting hammered into people'S minds. Tools to reach this are the hyped discussions triggered around issues like energy-saving bulbs, and the individual's CO2-balance. The often serious background is made ridicule of by simplifying it to some catchy slogans and then starting a campaign on that.

Of course, unfortunately, the Russian example in question reminds a bit of the Nazi's "Lebensborn"-project. I do not like if politics penetrate people's minds and private spheres for ideological reasons: not in Russia, not in America, and not in the EU. It's all turning into a "Tollhaus".

Although I am a Russophile I don't like this Nashi phenomenon.

It is Nashi's definition of fascism which is scary. They deem anyone who speaks out about the Putin government as fascist.

In fairness, I think the report is barking up the wrong tree. While I am not a fan of Putin or Nashi, there are real skinheads in Russia which are no less widespread, and the fact that Nashi is in definite opposition to them is to me at least some relief. I've never heard/seen Nashi gang up on or beat people whose looks they didn't like. Likewise, at least they promote solving some of the biggest social ills in Russia.

Yea, they're definitely a new "youth of the party" organization, yes they're a sign of where Putin's and post-Putin's Russia is headed, but I assure you - I (and you) are much better off if Russian youth goes into Nashi and not actual neo-Nazi groups which it opposes. Let's not forget: skinheads are a very serious problem there.

I am Russian by origin and had lived there for a long time (almost 30 years). Last time I was there July 2005. I was very surprised that there are a lot of skinheads openly showed up, compare to them Nashi is just nothing. Anyway "Nashi" movement IMHO is new kind of russian young lumpens (see wikipedia "lumpproletarit" ). I actually ashamed of raising nationalism in Russia, but I think part of responsibility for that lyies() on West.
My city was usually pro-west city (if you have heard about St.Petersburg).
Thats a pity that a lot of intellectuals are becoming anti-americanist( USA in this case is major image of WEST modern culture and politics). New generation (from 10-to 28) is become new patriots (and it is very good) but at the same time a lot of young people , i am afraid about 2/3, are feeding with nationalistic and ultranationalistic(about 5-10%) ideas). Its my evaluation.
The really funny think that way USA protects democracy is by killing it...
All these Yale guys thinks that only 1 kind of democracy is possible the... American kind, build on idividual's values and private property basis...
Russia was historically build by society values in priority...
In Russia there is a proverb. "What is goog for Russian can be lethal for German".
Hitler was made by Versaille Treaty ( Allies) and fear of bolshevism.
Russian Nacism can be made by So-called Coalition foreign policy toward Russia and fear of demographical death.

Indeed, here in Estonia they are more commonly refered to as the putinjugend. Not really too fond of them or the lies they spread about my country and our history. They are giving a bad name to all sensible russians with their actions.

I share opinion of Artical below
 

Russia’s belligerence is hardly surprising

Anatole Kaletsky "Times"


"....
Why is hostility to the West so popular in Russia? Let us try to look at the West through Russian eyes. Despite all the past sentimental rhetoric of Western politicians describing Russia as a friend and “strategic partner”, US and European behaviour has consistently treated Russia more as an enemy than an ally. Russia has been told it could never join Nato or the EU and Mr Putin’s invitation to G8 summits is scant consolation for the denial of WTO membership and the continuation of US trade sanctions dating back to the Cold War. On human rights and extrajudicial assassinations, Russia’s record may be deplorable, but its abuses pale in comparison with those of Western friends such as Saudi Arabia and China, not to mention President Bush’s “boil them in oil” ally, Uzbekistan.

But far more serious from the Russian standpoint than any diplomatic conflicts is what the West has done to their country’s territorial integrity. Ever since the first Bush Administration undermined Mikhail Gorbachev by denying him the financial assistance of the International Monetary Fund and then encouraged the dissolution of the Soviet Union under Boris Yeltsin, the West has appeared, at least from Moscow’s standpoint, to seize every opportunity to weaken, isolate and encircle Russia.
Not only has Russia lost its Eastern European satellites, but the homeland itself has been dismembered. No reasonable Russian could object to the independence of Poland, Hungary and even the Baltic states, which were forcibly annexed into the Soviet Union after the Second World War. But the loss of the Ukraine, Belarus, the Caucasus and central Asia are a different matter. These areas ? or at least large swaths of them ? were integral parts of the Russian “motherland” long before Texas and California belonged to the United States. For Russians, the separation with Ukraine and Belarus in particular is at least as emotionally wrenching as Welsh and Scottish independence would be to Britain or Catalonian and Basque secession would be to Spain.
While Westerners see Russian resentment about these territorial losses as a throwback to 19th-century imperialist thinking, consider how the process might look when viewed from the Russian side. What Russians see is a powerful and wealthy empire expanding steadily on their Western border and swallowing all the intervening countries, first into the EU’s economic and political arrangements and then into the Nato military structure. Consider from the Russian standpoint the EU’s explicit vocation to keep growing until it embraces every European country with the sole exception of Russia itself, and the almost automatic Nato membership now granted to EU countries. Is it so very unreasonable to view this EU-Nato juggernaut as the world’s last remaining expansionist empire, or even the natural successor to previous German and French expansions that were considerably less benign?
Western politicians may ridicule such fantasies as Russian nationalist paranoia. But why shouldn’t the Russians worry about Western armies and missiles on their borders, when these contribute to a process of territorial encroachment similar to what Napoleon and Hitler failed to achieve by cruder means?
America and Europe, regardless of their warm words about Russia, are treating it objectively as an enemy, taking every opportunity to cut it down to size. After 15 years of this experience, is it really surprising if the Russians, emboldened by their newfound oil wealth, now respond in kind? In other words, it is not Russia but America and Europe that have restarted the Cold War.
The West may well be right to treat Russia as a natural enemy ? that is certainly the attitude in Estonia and Poland. But if we are going to treat the Russians as enemies, let us at least try to see the world from their point of view."
W-sub: And after reading this ,can you imaging how Russians in Russia see the West? Nationalism is magic pill, will treat sympthoms of sickness but not the sickness.

:up::up::up::up:

Truer words have never been said on the subject. There's nothing surprising about Putin's foreign and internal policy, as much as I may not be a fan of either. As I said all along, this regime is a pragmatic one and it is simply reacting to this situation in a perfectly expected way.

There was a time when the West could've made a friend - and a liberal democratic one at that - of Russia, and that was in the early 90s. But they chose to instead focus on rejoicing at their Cold War victory and watching the enemy squirm in economic ruin. Now Russia is back and what do they see? You've got both the EU and America stepping on their toes, and quite obviously at that.

At this point, I think, it's either the West recognize Russia's sphere of interest and tread more softly, or it's not going to get any friendlier. As I said, Russia under Putin has been remarkably pragmatic and its response to the West's policies regarding it - predictably proportional. The fact is that the EU and the US act as though their having a sphere of influence is inherently natural and right, while Russia having a sphere of influence is nearly criminal. When in fact I fail to see the difference between the two. It's just a case of perceived cultural superiority, in my interpretation.

It's simply a fact that when you have a huge economic, military and demographic power, you can't expect it to be friendly to you if you keep undermining their interests.

Mind you, I still haven't detected a popular anti-West sentiment in Russia. If anything, I only detect disappointment - most Russians would like to like the West, especially Europe (and so, of course, would the government as I'm sure they'd much rather strengthen economic ties with Europe rather than China - I'm sure you can guess why).

I'm still a bit suprised about that deluge of anti-russian media coverage right now.
In the link I read an article stating that "national bolsheviks complain about attacks by Nashi". National bolsheviks are simply put russian neo nazis. If those are the hapless victims of Nashi, why does the west complain?
It seems every moron and political whacko who is against Putin suddenly became a democratic resistance hero. Luckily Zhirinovski still is on Putin's side or he would have become Russia's shining home for democracy by now (Kabila was once termed "Africa's shining hope for democracy" by Madeleine Albright :D).
I suppose the islamic world is too scary for western media so they prefer the good old enemy of their youths.
Not a good prospect, but I'd rather be russian than islamic any day (for my part I'd rather stay german and nothing else, but our politicians right now do anything to prevent just that, it seems), and it seems sometimes that this is Europe's choice if it carries on like this.

I wouldn't worry about Zhirinovsky (see other thread) :D He's never had that much of a chance, really...

And from yet another thread a couple of years back, the sad fact: these days, the future of Russia is really either a pragmatic, highly-centralized Putin-like regime or the extreme right. I really don't see why the West would prefer the latter.

Putin has not been difficult to deal with, contrary to popular belief. It's just a perception after Yeltsin and Gorbachev who were willing to concede anything and everything, whereas Putin won't take anything that doesn't serve his [regime's, country's] interest.
Sure it'd be awfully convenient, but I'm afraid you can't have a large economic and military power that will smile and say "yes" every time you step on their toes.

Russia is situated both in Europe and Asia. It thinks in both ways: European and Asiatic. Menthality is mixed. Spirituality and pragmatism, education and intolerance.
Everything is in it: king, slave, god and worn. where russia is going? it depends on Russians and on West too.
I spend 4 years to understand americans. Great people. Very different. Simple and complicated. Educated and not very. Like any others including Russians.
America likes money.But who does not?
After living more than 8 years in states i found a lot of global similarities between Soviet Union and USA. Like brainwashing. Or their great global missions, one was
giving to world idea of social equality with its labor camps, another was selling 2 world democracy with "fair business practice " supported by our troops.
Everywhere is the same- all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.

Agreed!!! 100/100

According My knowledge and Eduard Limonov : Nationlistic Bolshevicks Party is just a socialictic movement with wrongly given name.
According Limonov , its leader idiology of party is Socialism(Lenin's New Economic Policy kind) and Liberalism. Limonov said that Giving the party name of National Bolshevics was a mistake, badly affected its image.
They have relatively radical program, but thats it

http://www.abc.net.au/perth/stories/m910823.jpg With flags like this, the national bolsheviks definitely could be confused with something else...

That is purely ridiculous that they could use a flag like that and not be compared to the National Socialists.