Badass
Hilarious! I’m sorry I missed that on the first read.
Russians are self-destructive as a nation. Maybe due to drinking too much vodka.
Brilliant chess players, mathematicians, computer programmers; yet ruled by mobsters and kleptocrats.
Maybe too much brainpower is debilitating to national character. Like in India and China.
USA! USA!
Think my favourite stunt was when he went scuba diving in that lake and just happened on those ancient artifacts. Gold!
In Soviet Russia…President elects you!
I think Putin does these things because he likes them. He can basically do whatever hobby he wants. So why not go for submarine rides? Why not play hockey with the NY Rangers?
The question is why he hired someone to go around photographing him. I think I know the answer. There is basically 0% probability that he is not banging his photographer.
Let’s extend this reasoning (using some hyperbole, I don’t think Putin is as bad as those below):
Anyone who denies the fact that Lenin has done *at least some good for Russia*…
Anyone who denies the fact that Stalin has done *at least some good for Russia*…
Anyone who denies the fact that Mao has done *at least some good for China*…
Anyone who denies the fact that Pol Pot has done *at least some good for Burma*…
The fact that a leader has done “some good” is not a useful criterion for whether they are a good leader or not. For many leaders, it is difficult to judge them on an absolute basis. It’s not like we have an observable social welfare function that we can observe that everyone is x% better off. Perhaps a better way to think about these leaders is what would a competing politician at the time have hypothetically done. Like,how would a hyptohetical Trotsky have managed Russia in comparison to Stalin? Similar, how would a prominent Russian politician other than Putin have hypothetically acted differently from Putin. I don’t know the answer to that, but I know three potential scenarios: alt-pol>Putin (Putin is bad), alt-pol=Putin (Putin is not special, but could be good or bad), alt-pol
Simply put, how has he been any worse than Yeltsin? The West likes to complain about Putin violating human rights, freedoms, democracy etc etc. But they conveniently forget that Yeltsin was the exact same in terms of democracy or human rights, with the main difference being that Russia was far weaker under Yeltsin. But Yeltsin never got the same criticism from the West that Putin gets today.
Essentially, Putin has been just as brutal and dictatorial as Yeltsin, but has turned Russia from national humiliation into a power that is both respected and feared. That’s the real problem the West has.
I think “human rights” is a grey area. Most countries do not have the same definition of human rights as the US. For instance, in most places, you can be jailed for holding public protests against the government. In the US, there is great freedom of speech, so you can pretty much say anything you want. Even places like west European countries don’t have the same freedom of speech as the US (but they usually have stronger personal privacy rights).
Russia is definitely less free than the US, but I’m not sure how far we can accuse them of violating human rights at this point. Certainly, Putin will throw you in jail if he doesn’t like you, but that’s just the way it works over there.
Didn’t Marge Schott get suspended for speaking in those terms.
Russians more or less dislike Gorbachev and Yeltsin for two separate reasons.
They dislike Gorby because he let them fail and fall from power and authority. They felt humiliated by this and even though they are better for it, most Russians don’t like Gorby at all. He’s much more popular in the West than he is in Russia, which is another Reason Russians do not like him. In Russia, get the West to hate you and Russians love you.
They dislike Yeltsin because 1) life sucked while he was president 2) he was responsible for a group of, mostly jewish, oligarchs getting all of the countries natural resources through corruption. Russians don’t particularly like Jews FYI.
Putin is loved because 1) Life got better thanks to oil prices going up and infrastructure finally catching up a bit 2) They perceive him as strong 3) Russia now gets to feel important politically as it did during the Soviet Uion, rather than like a third rate country.
Round-about Godwin’s law?
Hey CT, pretty accurate assessment I’d say.
Dissagree with this though, very misleading… and I’d believe you if I didn’t know any better…
Pol Pot was in Cambodia which is not the same as Burma…
Did you study in a US public school?
That, ladies and gentlemen, is why I say too much intelligence being debilitating to the national character will never be an issue in the USA.
USA! USA!
The growth in Russia’s power is heavily correlated with the huge bull market in commodities we have seen since the early 2000’s. When that source of wealth evaporates, as all commodities are highly cyclical, we will see just how well Putinhas managed Russia.
I sense that the endemic corruption, anti-business climate and xenophobia that has festered in Russia under Putin’s leadeship does not bode well for Russia’s long term political/economic and social future.