It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Arguments Put Forward To Deceive You into Disliking Putin

page: 1

log in


posted on Apr, 3 2008 @ 10:22 PM
1. Democracy: Worldwide English speaker media has been very vocal in calling Putin “anti-democratic”. Yet conduct a poll (by almost any organisation) almost anywhere in Russia and 50 percent plus of the people will gladly tell you of their support for Putin and his Party United Russia.
Putin’s Russian approval ratings: Are about 85%
This BBC interview survey reveals how Putin’s worldwide opinion isn’t bad either. [Edited: It was a bad link for this site]

Only in the West is opinion bad:

So clearly our hostility isn’t representing Russian public opinion on behalf of the Russian people (like it apparently is in other countries).

Ok, so maybe we think the second biggest party should be in charge?

A quick look at the Russian election results:

Oh dear, Russia’s second biggest are the Communists.

Ok so maybe we just want Russia’s third biggest party to be in charge?
Called the: Liberal Democratic Party of Russia I thought it would be a good idea to have a look at some of their goals…

reunification of some of the former Soviet Republics under a unitary state, with a strong presidency, 15 appointed governors, and a single official language (i.e., Russian);

Oh dear there goes Poland and most of the new EU states back under Russian occupation, espically when it’s clear there is no way they would consent to it.

the abolition of "non-traditional" and "fanatic" religious sects in Russia;

I.e. Strictly (Christian) Russian Orthodox only please. Well at least that will put both the Jews and Muslims in the same boat!!!

control of all agricultural land by the state.

Sounds kind of like err communism.

Ok how about Russia’s 4th biggest political party?
Called: Fair Russia: This is an “opposition” party which openly supports the current government (yes both Putin and his United Russia Party).

Fair Russia is basically a populist extension which is more to the left. I can’t find its manifesto in English. But Wikipedia gives a somewhat good description:

What Russians Want…
Basically 52% want more welfare benefits for the poor and needy which is understandable due to their rapid post Soviet growth creating an economically uneven society (even though almost everybody is better of than in 1989).
It would also be a good idea as greater internal cash flow would create a more self-sufficient economy giving it a base besides mineral exports.
The Russian leadership seems to understand this and from what I’ve heard Dmitry Medvedev is planning massive public infrastructure projects as president, as well as increased social welfare (something no doubt good for greater political stability!)
I think you’ll find he we also crack down on state of Russia justice system as its proving bad-irritatism for the economy.

Basically Russians are getting what they want.

Putting us into perspective.
So what do we want with our criticism of “democratic” Russia?
Do we seriously want the communists back? Or just the communists to have more votes so the Russian government starts making political compromises with communism?
Do we want more socialism?
Or do we just want Poland to be reinvaded?

Because this is what the opposition would have.

Should people believe the West feels empathy with the rest of the Russian populace (who only seem to want a government almost exactly like what they’ve got now)?

Hopefully you are beginning to understand that the purpose of Western criticism of “democratic Russia” is not a serious attempt for democratic change, only a serious attempt to annoy the Russian government. But why?

And yes it’s true the Russian media is biased towards the Kremlin with a capital B. But this is actually normal; if it wasn’t why are you (for perhaps the first time) seeing an analysis like mine only on the ATS internet, as opposed to at least one page before somewhere in the mainstream media?

Know what kind of minion the West (can) make you.

To see more brainwashing-effects of our mass media: (tightly owned, selectively influenced) see this other thread I authored: The Excellency of Saddam Hussein and His Leadership:
(All done in the name of freedom!!).

One clear difference is that we don’t proactively close down (through fair means or foul) TV stations that are critical.
However perhaps (if like Russia) there was a foreign power block (which was hostile to our own) and which was proactively trying to manipulation (through media ownership) our own internal politics; then perhaps an argument would be found? Especially if we thought the power block was open to (and capable) of threatening regime change (Orange Revolution style)?

2. Western Involvement In Russian Politics
During the Russian elections a number of small political parties (the sort who get 0.6% of the vote) decided to let themselves loose and get themselves arrested in high profile media stunts.
They succeeded in getting arrested during a peaceful protest by demonstrating in areas of Moscow where you cannot protest without notifying the authorities in advance.

We have similar laws in the United Kingdom which prohibit anyone demonstrating within 1km of parliament (without permission from the government first)
This legislation is under the: Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005

Anyway the Russian government has for a long while publicly alleged that these critics are western funded stooges.

Putin Calls (insert: some) Critics Western Funded Jackals:

Quote from Putin from Time Magazine
The President, in our discussion, routinely suggests that Kasparov is a stooge of the West because he spoke to the foreign press in English after his arrest. "If you aspire to be a leader of your own country, you must speak your own language, for God's sake," he says.

And just to confirm: Opposition parties are certainly being funded by the criminal Boris Berezovsky who has been given asylum in the U.K.
I use the word “criminal” because he made his fortune by conning the owners of a car factory into thinking they were saving their steel works from closure by buying shares, when in actual fact the small print made the shares virtually worthless.
Or more briefly:

Boris Berezovsky is obviously not a person with any real moral convictions, so why believe him when he says he is political refugee for well meaning political actions?

The simple fact is that he fell out of favour with the Kremlin when the new Putin took people by surprise, by announcing he would actually clamp down on corruption. Berezovsky thought he was above even Putins orders, so Putin decided to make an example (by showing him otherwise).
Ever since Berezovsky has been like hornet in a jar, actively trying to ferment trouble in Russia from the U.K in order to bring down-hinder Putin. But to what end?

Final Quote from Putin in Time Magazine

He says he wants Russia and America to be partners but feels the U.S. treats Russia like the uninvited guest at a party.
"Sometimes we get the impression that America does not need friends" but only "auxiliary subjects to command." Asked if he'd like to correct any American misconceptions about Russia, Putin leans forward and says, "I don't believe these are misconceptions. I think this is a purposeful attempt by some to create an image of Russia based on which one could influence our internal and foreign policies.


3.Our Real Problem With Russia…
Remember when Yeltsin was in power? Almost everything was good between Russia and the West back then. Sure the guy was a drunk; and people would even jokingly worry that the guy might suddenly burst into the control room and launch a nuclear war (but of course that was only if he could remember he was in the control room).
The most significant thing about the guys latter rule (other than the rise of the mafia) was that Russia’s mineral resources were continued to be sold off at totally ridiculous prices. Sometimes it was metals, sometimes it was even industry, but in particular it was oil and gas. BP to this day retains vast amounts of Russian oil fields which it acquired at that time.
However now we have a guy who says he’s going to put an end to this (that’s bye, bye elitist foreign investors). Worse he even tries to bully poor old BP into selling back it’s assets (techniques usually involve using environmental legislation, than deciding there isn’t an environmental problem after all once state run Gazprom gets involved).
Now we have a new guy (Dmitry Medvedev) who talks of spending Russian money on Russian infrastructure, and Russian social welfare-benerfits.

Clearly this isn’t exactly good for Western investment (something we seem to think is our God given right as it is primarily Western capital that pays for Russian oil-minerals).
And certainly none of this has been good for the world’s meagre rich, speculative, (but somehow somewhat secure) lucrative foreign investors.

And remember it is these people who influence the (scarcely owned) western media by share buying, and it is these people who (quite naturally) represent the interests of media share owners anyway, as even if they don’t fancy putting money into Russian projects directly, they can always reap the rewards of investment funds that do.
Also remember that it is the western media which collectively sets the political agenda of the West!

Is Russia a Good-Bad “Dictatorship” You Decide?
Now the above is essentially the difference between a good dictatorship and a bad dictatorship. A good (i.e. tolerable) dictatorship is one like Saudia Arabia which sells it’s resources to the West and uses the cash to invest back in the West through broad mechanisms such as the stock market.
A bad dictatorship is one that may or may not choose to sell it’s resources to the West, and when it does it reinvests (most) of the money on itself.
The only time a good “government” can spend its money on its own infrastructure is when it is part of the West. And to do that you need to agree to number of free trade conditions, and do your fair bit towards Western military strength (which obviously serves broader purposes than just economic). This last bit is essentially why Poland has its conscripted soldiers serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, even though Afghanistan (just like in Soviet times) has almost nothing to do with Poland. In fact Poland is one of those countries which (in a more ideal world) barely needs a military at all, if I were them I would just focus on a few nuclear power stations so that I could scramble a nuclear-dirty bomb, just in case Russia’s opposition to United Russia actually won power and made good their manifesto commitments.

4. Missile Shield…
The Cold War Is Over So What’s the Problem?
The missile shield is apparently aimed only at rogue nations which may or may not have intercontinental ballistic missiles, which may or may not be actually launched.
Of course the missile shield could be used to shoot down Russian missiles, fired in response to our own; but hay, to hell with that idea; right?

The Problem?
People may wonder why George Bush doesn’t just get out of bed and nuke Iran. The Zionists would love it, and he’s leaving office anyway because he’s served his two terms. If the Democrats get in, and he’s a lame duck president, what’s to stop Bush with his politics, and electric death chair (warrant) conscience?

Well the problem would be that although Russia might not actually respond to such an attack with its own missiles; it would however focus on making the world a very, very unsafe place for us.
In fact I'm pretty sure Uranium would start turning up on Ebay (stolen of course). Who knows somehow pirates might find the co-ordinates of a ship carrying nuclear weapons for decommissioning, board the boat and force the crew into their own, even more oddly I wouldn’t be surprised if those same nuclear weapons ended up in North Korea (if it hasn’t already been nuked of course).
As for the state of Russian (legal) arms controls, those legal controls might get even more libertarian.

However none of this would matter because George Bush would have a impenetrable missile shield around his country.

However at first it all seems a bit unlikely, so Putin decided to conduct an experiment on a monkey. The monkey called (George) was told he could have his missile shield providing it was dependant on facilities built on Russian territory.

Russia, which insists that the missile shield is a plot to undermine its nuclear deterrents, has already said that Iskander missiles could be deployed in the Baltic enclave of Kaliningrad, which lies in EU territory.

Or if the shield was built in Azerbaijan

The logic behind this is that by being on Russian soil it is practically impossible for the shield to be used against Russia (But obviously not a Kim Jong of North Korea who accidentally puts the wrong CD in his play station).

Sounds fair?
Well the Pentagon has complained

it’s not a like for like proposal
The other way is for the U.S to simply agree to cap the number of anti missile, missiles; so that in the event of actual nuclear war, the Russian side can at least over whelm the anti missile shield.
Despite being such an obvious suggestion it hasn’t been done yet. Until Russia has at least that in a binding international treaty they have every right to be hostile.

Perhaps a deal will be well lubricated if America stops pressing for Nato membership of Ukraine and Georgia? However at the moment it looks unlikely.

I believe a deal must be done because unlike the Cold War where the prospect of paying for a anti to Reagan’s missile shield intimidated the Soviet side into going easy on human rights in Eastern Europe (and therefore immediately led to e.g. Poland’s independence) this time the Russians (and particularly the Russian populace are well up for a fight). This time it’s politics (rather than warring ideology) that will determine their level of missile (missile defence) spending.

5.Russian Retaliation
We have all heard how the poisoned Alexander Litvinenko might have been nuked by the Russian government. However if so it’s such a stupid way of doing things because it left a radio-active trail.

The man who we want extradited to Britain for Litvinenko’s murder (Andrei Lugovoi) is a member of the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia (the 3rd biggest party after the communists which wants to re-invade Poland).

Journalists are sometimes, also killed but (of course perhaps just quite naturally) they’re always such nice people!!! Also the way in which they are killed is also very sloppy.
Could it be one of many foreign power is defaming Russia?

Real Retaliation: What we do know is that anti aircraft weapons sales to Iran, as well as Russia’s co-operation with the Iranian nuclear project is a direct retaliation towards western interference in Russia’s internal politics.
Put it this way; Russia certainly doesn’t need the few hundred million it gets for these projects. Add them up and it’s less than a billion. And a billion is very small change in the eyes of strong nations.

6. The Solution
1. Stay out of Russian Politics: After all it’s not as if people’s welfare is really the real issue. This would mean not obstructing wherever they spend their oil billions in their borders or ours.
This would involve not supporting exiles in ones borders (wherever possible).
2. In exchange ask Russia to phase out its support in pro-vocative areas like Iran.
3. Build up Russian relations, religious extremism is a after all a common enemy.
4. To soften that, we might gradually want to work out a way to send back each others wanted persons (or not) (would probably depend on extent of more current strategic co-operation).
5. Accept the Russian compromise, build the missile shield on their territory (or at least agree to cap anti-missile numbers). Remember this time the Russian people are up for a bit of that old cold war fight; whilst last time they were quite sick of it.

What I want to know is why isn’t anyone following something similar to the above?

[edit on 090705 by Liberal1984]

new topics

log in