> Evaluation of Russia by Finnish Intelligence Colonel
I can't take this talk seriously. it's just a bunch of history bits used to explain and reinforce stereotypes about Russians. "Russians like strong leaders" because Russia was once invaded by mongols who also had strong leaders. Russians always think the leader is infallible because he gets his power from God. Then almost in the next sentence he says Russians hate Gorbachev because he ruined the Soviet Union. It's all just a bunch of shower thoughts. All it does it reinforces stereotypes and hate.
Reality shatters your point really quickly, it's even mentioned in the lecture (suggesting you didn't watch it): Russians have literally had 8 years of democracy in the past 600+ years, otherwise it's always been an autocracy.
The first years of the Kleptocracy were, at lest formally, politically more or less democratic. Also possibly a few years somewhere in there between the revolutions of 1905 and 1917; perhaps some of the last years of Czarist rule could be said to have been more of a contitutional monarchy than an absolute one.
But yeah, that's at most two decades out of the last thousand years or whatever. So on the whole as soon as the Russian people have got rid of one dictatorship, they seem to have been pretty damn eager to replace it with another one.
> Russians have literally had 8 years of democracy in the past 600+ years, otherwise it's always been an autocracy.
To pin this on the Russian people is ludicrous. I think Russia has been consistently dealt a bad hand when it comes to leadership. And interference from the "west" has also been a negative influence in modern times. Consider Lenin[1] and western economic advice that led to the looting of the Russian state after the fall of communism[2].
I think Russia has been consistently dealt a bad hand when it comes to leadership.
When you're dealt a bad hand, it's your responsibility as citizens to do something about it.
That's the part that Russians don't seem to get. As the video describes, it's as if they they enjoy suffering and oppression. Nothing wrong with that, I guess... whatever floats your boat, no kink-shaming here. But don't expect it to catch on elsewhere.
Governments tend to reflect and represent the worst out of given population. That's why Swiss won't in foreseeable future have any dictator like Putin, and that's why Russians will never have anybody who will bring Russia into real prosperity that will actually benefit common citizens.
The endless complaints about 'the others' completely mitigates the facts that its Russians who stole from Russia and made it into crap place it is now. You want a simple proof? Check nationalities of all the oligarchs, all the politicians at power.
Whom else should one pin it on, if not the people??? Constantly abetting and abiding dictatorship is ultimately the responsibility of those who abet and abide it.
No Space Aliens came down in their UFOs and bequeathed enlightenment and democracy on anyone else in the world either. It's up to each people themselves.
My point was the explanations in the video are shower thoughts. If you want to understand why Russia is how it is just read a real history work on Russia not this guy’s shower thoughts
Their entire recent comment history is contrarian “maybe the Ukrainians are Nazis, maybe they aren’t, how can anyone know”, “the Soviet Union mostly did good things”, etc.
This is either a victim of Russian propaganda, or an agent of Russian propaganda.
As to the presented ideas in the talk - as someone who knows Russia well, speaks Russian, has Russian family, he’s spot on - but no Russian will ever agree, because that is part of their complex.
yeah that talk is designed to reinforce your bias by mixing a bit of history to make it look scientific. just watch a real history of Russia lecture. you’re basically watching a history lecture from a career spy instead of from a historian. and you think I am a victim of propaganda lol
Have you ever been outside of your oblast? I guarantee that I’ve seen far more of Russia than you - my views are based on far, far more than some video with which I happen to agree.
Not addressing the points raised and just repeating the same senseless blah over and over... how russian.
Luckily for me, I did actually spent 1 hour watching the video (more like 4 hours in between managing kids) and it made sense of many things I didn't understand before. As somebody coming from country brutally occupied by russian forces for 21 years on a 'friendly special mission', yes the part about mentality is spot on.
I don't think Putin is on some holy mission for slav unification, seeing how he immediately ordered 10,000 chechen killers on their closest slavic neighbor. He is just an ordinary smart thug, highly functioning sociopath, who got lucky being at the right time and place and having good KGB experience to get him to the top and sustain.
Also, its a great lecture on how to not even react and completely ignore the russian news full of 'pravda', intended to just divert attention from other nefarious activities purported by them. Don't play the games they lay for the west.
What are some sources you'd recommend? The thing that impressed me about the colonel's lecture is that it seems to have had some predictive power. Someone who watched that lecture a couple of years ago will be less surprised at Putin's actions today.
That's not really an argument. All you've done is label the Yeltsin administration a democracy, and the Putin administration an autocracy, and then told me a democracy is more democratic than an autocracy.
What I specifically want to hear from you - presumably someone knowledgeable about the political history of the Russian Federation - is how the Yeltsin administration was more democratic. Because my understanding is that the Yeltsin administration was extremely unstable (ie Yeltsin shelling the Russian white house after trying to unconstitutionally dissolve the parliament).
”The 1993 constitution declares Russia a democratic, federative, law-based state with a republican form of government. State power is divided among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. ”
Yes, their attempt was a miserable failure in many ways, but it was a democracy, albeit a very shallow one.
And in what ways is the current administration not a very shallow democracy?
I feel like ever since the Ukraine invasion Russia has been down-graded from "flawed democracy' to 'autocratic dictatorship' - I mean it's not Switzerland but it's hardly North Korea..
Do you not keep up to date on current affairs? When criticizing the Russian war effort can land you in jail for 15 years, it's getting very close to NK - shortages and all included
Do you not keep up to date? I live in New Zealand, a western democratic country and if I possess or share "objectionable material" of a political nature, I could land in jail for up to 14 years.
And usually has a pretty light touch on this kind of stuff compared to Australia, Canada or the UK.
So no, that in itself is not enough to prove to me that Russia is an autocratic dictatorship, when parliamentary democracies all over the world have similar laws - they reserve the right to throw you in jail for content that expresses threats against the regime.
> Do you not keep up to date? I live in New Zealand, a western democratic country and if I possess or share "objectionable material" of a political nature, I could land in jail for up to 14 years.
What exactly? I could not find anything by Googling on material which would land you in jail for 14 years.
The relevant legislation is on the surface about CP, but if you read the fine print it includes anything that:
d) Promotes criminal acts or acts of terrorism; or
e) Represents any particular class of the public as inherently inferior as a result of a characteristic of members of that class being a characteristic that is a prohibited ground of discrimination specified in the Human Rights Act 1993.
No, AFAICT just pointing out that "You can be jailed for up to X years just for having stuff on your computer!" goes for Western[1] countries, too. Factually correct, of course (the best kind of correct), but employed here in the service of some pretty hefty whataboutism.
___
[1]: "Western"?!? NZ is about as far East as you can get, innit? Oh well, you know, "generally regarded as non-dictatorships".
I can't take this talk seriously. it's just a bunch of history bits used to explain and reinforce stereotypes about Russians. "Russians like strong leaders" because Russia was once invaded by mongols who also had strong leaders. Russians always think the leader is infallible because he gets his power from God. Then almost in the next sentence he says Russians hate Gorbachev because he ruined the Soviet Union. It's all just a bunch of shower thoughts. All it does it reinforces stereotypes and hate.