Quote:
Originally Posted by Betonov
Yes, the Russians.
Putin might be a bad bad person, but Russia needs a tough leader more than a friendly leader.
|
Putin has changed dramatically over the past ten years. After the cold war, and folliowiung Yeltzin, he tried to move Russia closer to Europe, and got the door in his face by NATO, being lied to and betrayed over NASTO's Eastern expansion. He then gave up that policy that not few observers intially compared to the ambitions by Peter the Great to modernise and "Europeanize" Russia.
That his iron hand by which he started to control organised crime and corruption and convinced the oligarchs to just enjoy their wealth but not take over poltiics, else the state would play not nicley with them, and the submission of said organsied crime to the goivernment-loyal adminstration,found only criticism and hostility in the West, did not help to slow down the Russian alientation process. The alternative to Putin's Russia would hjave been a Russia in which the selling-out of Russdia, allowed and tolerated unde ryeltzin, would have continued, seeing Western predators and Russian oligarchs exploiting the Russian weakness as much as possible, leaving the interest of the nation behind.
However, Putin has manouvered himself into a dead end. With the way he has set up the economy and political control, it has almost no space for developement and modernization anymore. The income sources are not really diversified, making Russia extremely dependant on high prices for gas and oil. And POutin himself, imo he has chnaged, psycvhologically, and very much so. It started with the machismo poses by him in the print media that it got my attention. Before, I saw him indeed believbing to act for the best inzterest of the state, but it seems he has switched to an attitude of
l'etat c'est moi, turning him more and more into a reactionary tyrant of the kind Russia has seen so many.
However, what is the alternative? We have seen that the mobster wopuld take over the state and turning it into a criminal snake pit and sell Russia to Wetsern entrepreneurs, if the giovenrment becomes liberal and "democratical". The Yeltzin era was a disaster, the man himself a bad joke. Is there a democratic ztradiiton in Russia experienced enough to take over if it gets the card blnache? No. An authority that could keep the organised crime and the oligarchs in check if the state folds over its role as the biggest bad bully of the block? No.
Putin reminds me of a knight who has worn his armour so long and has been forced to play that role so long that now he has changed indeed and no longer is a knight wearing armour, but has become the armour itself, hollow, empty, and with no option to behave any different. And yes, it could become much worse with him, and Russia could fall back into even more oppressive tyranny. But what is the alternative to the system in place right now? If there ever would be such an alternative, it needs to be grown and prepared cautiously and over longer time. Just deleting the Putin-system of state control, a revival of the old Soviet regime that is, and leaving the vacuum after that uinfilled, may produce right the opposite of what wellmeaning pohilantropists in the West hope to see happening. And if we have learned in the present time one thing about democracy, than that is is not perfect, and is an open invitation to corruption, lobbyism, and egoism.
For the West, I would recommend pure pragmatism, and a realistic assessement of one'S own ver ylimited options for influencing Russia. Our major interest is stability, so that the military does not go wild and the nuclearf wepaons stay under well-organsied control. Prevention of civil war and rebellion in the military. This must be our absolute and total priority. We already have North Korea and Pakistan as nuclear risks, we are set to get Iran, followed by Egypt, Saudi arabia, Syria and Turkey as well. The last thing we need is another irrational and irresponsible nuclear bad boy trying to hold the world by its nose.