Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

TV Speech of Vladimir Putin to nationals from Beslan

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Bruno View Post
    Some results are quite strange...
    Tchechenia voting at 99,9 % pro Putin when they are at war against Russia for years is quite hard to believe...
    Either all the guys against Russia are dead or the vote is not really "democratic".
    It is because you are misinformed about the situation in Chechnya. The Western mass media try to show Chechnya as Russian Vietnam or Iraq.

    The Chechen people is VERY tired from war. They want to live by a peaceful life. Now the most leaders of Chechen bandits are killed. The military actions practically stopped. The Chechens began to live by peaceful life, they towns and villages are restoring. TV speaks every week about new hospitals and schools.

    So I don't see any strange that the Chechens voted for the man who stopped the war.

    Also "United Russia" party is called Rule Party. Many governors amd mayors are members of this party.

    So when people voted for United Russia they did it for 2 reasons - 1 Putin requested pople to do it in his TV speech, 2 people wanted to show that they like where the country was moving

    In Chechnya the people showed that they like how the situation is developing. They don't want to vote for other parties and to risk to get new war or worse life.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Andrey View Post
      I do see the analogue you mention. Hitler... Nazies...

      The western rulers who organized anti-Putin propagana campaign play with your scares.

      Putin is not a nazi, he is a former KGB officer. He is a spy (in Russian it is called scout, spy is a bad word).

      Our view of such guys is not the same as yours. The most of them defended their Motherland. They were patriots.

      Not political clowns.

      Limonov who went in demonstrations together with Kasparov is real Nazi. His Party is called National-Bolshevists Party. He was in a prison because he was arrested when large group of his followers and he were training to shoot from AK-47 in a camp preparing to make coup-de-tout!!! Kasparov went with him in one line! It was because the significant part of the demostrants were Limonov's guys.

      Zhirinovsky can be called Russian Hitler.

      So Putin is not Russian Hitler, he is Russian De Gaulle. Have you heard about De Gaulle and what he had done to France?
      Personally, I don't think Putin is a dictator, yet. From what I have read (and that is about half Moscow and St. Petersburg times and half Time and cnn.com), the guy doesn't have dictatorial powers yet, only the powers of a strongman who still has a number of political checks on unbridled power. His demands regarding oil pipelines to Western Europe may be unreasonable, but that's just part of the bargaining process, and eventually a deal will be struck. And I give him credit for providing some needed internal stability, a focus on declining birth rates, and national pride - if nothing else, just getting the church to end its split since the 1920's was a very big if mostly symbolic step. In short, I don't have any beef with him at this point.

      My concern is that when a leader expands his powers on grounds of (1) xenophobia ("the west is out to get us!") and (2) the need for greater stability that only consolidated power can offer ("Eltsin was incompetent and let foreigners rob the Rodina"), and (3) the need for national pride, he walks down the same road that plenty of other dictators (not just Hitler) have used to take power. It's one thing to become a voice for national pride, it's another to use national pride to justify an expansion of personal power.

      Maybe he will be like Cincinnatus, and not keep expanding his power in the old Communist style. Or maybe he will. He's not a De Gaulle, because the French have such a phenomenal commitment to democracy, even at the risk of ineffective government, that there was never a real chance of De Gaulle becoming a dictator. Russia doesn't have the same fanatical commitment that the French have had, off and on, since 1789.

      Re the points you made earlier about the need to give him more power to rescue Russia from plundering by the west, that's the same rallying cry that appealed to Germans in the 1930's - just substitute "Weimar" for "Eltsin" in what you wrote earlier.

      Bottom line: he's not a dictator, yet. But the more his power expands, the closer he gets. Plenty of nations have made bad decisions for the same reasons before, and I'm confident that none of them ever thought they were creating a dictator. Let's hope Putin uses his power in moderation. If so, I think that as long as oil and gas prices are high Russia will have the ability to diversify its economy and solve many of its problems.

      Zhirinovsky I agree is a real threat, a neo-Nazi.
      "There are only two professions in the world in which the amateur excels the professional. One, military strategy, and, two, prostitution."
      -- Maj. Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower

      (Avatar: Commodore Edwin Ward Moore, Republic of Texas Navy)

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Andrey View Post
        Now the most leaders of Chechen bandits are killed.
        You seem to know a little bit about France.
        Don't you know that "bandits" (or "terrorists") were how the Resistance members were called by Germans during WW II ?
        In France there is a saying : if you want to kill your dog, say it has mange.

        You call them bandits, they call themselves freedom fighters and I don't really know where is the truth.
        I'm not a pro-Tchechen, neither pro-Putin, only wanting to have a clearer (if possible !) point of view.

        Comment


        • #34
          Bruno - but the French resistance were not religious fanatics that were fighting the French government for a theocratic state in France.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Bruno View Post
            You seem to know a little bit about France.
            Don't you know that "bandits" (or "terrorists") were how the Resistance members were called by Germans during WW II ?
            In France there is a saying : if you want to kill your dog, say it has mange.

            You call them bandits, they call themselves freedom fighters and I don't really know where is the truth.
            I'm not a pro-Tchechen, neither pro-Putin, only wanting to have a clearer (if possible !) point of view.
            In which connection is France with my words?????

            I know the Western mass media called them "freedom fighters". So what?

            Look this about the Russian view of the Chechen war
            http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forum...echen+Campaign
            Last edited by Andrey; 10 Dec 07, 19:58.

            Comment


            • #36
              I know the Western mass media called them "freedom fighters". So what?
              Only when it suited them, when they were killing school children or whatever, they were all of sudden, terrorists.

              I really hate the media.
              Eternal War(gaming) Armoured Struggle Car Bob

              History does not record anywhere at any time a religion that has any rational basis.
              Lazarus Long

              Draw the blinds on yesterday and it's all so much scarier....
              David Bowie

              Comment


              • #37
                Here is another very good article

                http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...120701617.html

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Jon Jordan View Post
                  Personally, I don't think Putin is a dictator, yet. From what I have read (and that is about half Moscow and St. Petersburg times and half Time and cnn.com), the guy doesn't have dictatorial powers yet, only the powers of a strongman who still has a number of political checks on unbridled power. His demands regarding oil pipelines to Western Europe may be unreasonable, but that's just part of the bargaining process, and eventually a deal will be struck. And I give him credit for providing some needed internal stability, a focus on declining birth rates, and national pride - if nothing else, just getting the church to end its split since the 1920's was a very big if mostly symbolic step. In short, I don't have any beef with him at this point.

                  My concern is that when a leader expands his powers on grounds of (1) xenophobia ("the west is out to get us!") and (2) the need for greater stability that only consolidated power can offer ("Eltsin was incompetent and let foreigners rob the Rodina"), and (3) the need for national pride, he walks down the same road that plenty of other dictators (not just Hitler) have used to take power. It's one thing to become a voice for national pride, it's another to use national pride to justify an expansion of personal power.

                  Maybe he will be like Cincinnatus, and not keep expanding his power in the old Communist style. Or maybe he will. He's not a De Gaulle, because the French have such a phenomenal commitment to democracy, even at the risk of ineffective government, that there was never a real chance of De Gaulle becoming a dictator. Russia doesn't have the same fanatical commitment that the French have had, off and on, since 1789.

                  Re the points you made earlier about the need to give him more power to rescue Russia from plundering by the west, that's the same rallying cry that appealed to Germans in the 1930's - just substitute "Weimar" for "Eltsin" in what you wrote earlier.

                  Bottom line: he's not a dictator, yet. But the more his power expands, the closer he gets. Plenty of nations have made bad decisions for the same reasons before, and I'm confident that none of them ever thought they were creating a dictator. Let's hope Putin uses his power in moderation. If so, I think that as long as oil and gas prices are high Russia will have the ability to diversify its economy and solve many of its problems.

                  Zhirinovsky I agree is a real threat, a neo-Nazi.
                  I understand what you mean but your opinion is based on western scares about russia, low knowledge about the processes in Russia and too simple view of some events.

                  It is a very long talking to describe everything in details. I have no ability to give you so detailed explanation.

                  I repeat - Putin is a Russian De Gaulle. Forget what you spoke about French love to democracy that immuned France from dictatorship. When some western reporters compare Putin to Stalin or Hitler they don't recall that modern Russia is not the USSR or Germany of the 30th years.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Emil_G View Post
                    Bruno - but the French resistance were not religious fanatics that were fighting the French government for a theocratic state in France.
                    The French resistance were a diverse bunch with differing political ideologies, and not all those who have fought against the Russians are or were religious fanatics. The wars are more complex than that.
                    Last edited by Sergio; 11 Dec 07, 05:54.
                    "Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it"
                    G.B Shaw

                    "They promised us homes fit for heroes, they give us heroes fit for homes."
                    Grandad, Only Fools and Horses

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Andrey View Post
                      I understand what you mean but your opinion is based on western scares about russia, low knowledge about the processes in Russia and too simple view of some events.

                      It is a very long talking to describe everything in details. I have no ability to give you so detailed explanation.

                      I repeat - Putin is a Russian De Gaulle. Forget what you spoke about French love to democracy that immuned France from dictatorship. When some western reporters compare Putin to Stalin or Hitler they don't recall that modern Russia is not the USSR or Germany of the 30th years.
                      I agree that my knowledge of Russian policies and politics is superficial compared to yours. Your view of the US policies, press and public opinion is superficial compared to mine. And both our views about France and De Gaulle are superficial compared to Bruno (and maybe most Britons). But because we can't avoid having opinions, we can only try to be open-minded and get beyond sweeping or oversimplifying statements as much as possible.

                      I base my earlier comments on the following:

                      1. Russia has a much more autocratic history over the last 200 years than France; when De Gaulle was in power there were free elections in France and Stalin ruled the USSR. I can't ignore this history when speaking about the French historical commitment to democracy compared to Russia.

                      Of course what happens yesterday doesn't govern what happens tomorrow, but it does give most outsiders reason for concern that history could repeat itself.

                      2. I don't see the genuine, mainstream western press comparing Putin to Hitler. The Washington Post article you posted is an example of "good press" Putin gets from time to time, just like he gets "bad press" from time to time as well. In most western sources that I've read, there is a concern but no sense of crisis.

                      Sure, some less-mainstream columnists and Russian expatriates claim Putin is like Hitler, just as some in the press have compared Bush to Hitler, Tony Blair to Hitler, and virtually every US president to Hitler in the past. Putin, like any politician, just has to accept strident, often irrational criticism and move on. A sticker I saw in St. Petersburg in May that read "Not My President" with Putin's face is almost exactly the same thing that I have seen in the US with Bush's face. It should not be blown out of proportion.
                      "There are only two professions in the world in which the amateur excels the professional. One, military strategy, and, two, prostitution."
                      -- Maj. Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower

                      (Avatar: Commodore Edwin Ward Moore, Republic of Texas Navy)

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Sergio View Post
                        The French resistance were a diverse bunch with differing political ideologies, and not all those who have fought against the Russians are or were religious fanatics. The wars are more complex than that.
                        Right, political ideologies, some were Communists, others not. All were fighting for the same goal - Nazis out of France. Not the point. The point is that religion, was not a driving factor behind their resistance. And you are wrong, religion and religious nationalism were the driving forces behind all resistance to the Russians in the North Caucases since the 1700's.
                        Last edited by Emil_G; 11 Dec 07, 19:56.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Emil_G View Post
                          Right, political ideologies, some were Communists, others not. All were fighting for the same goal - Nazis out of France. Not the point. The point is that religion, was not a driving factor behind their resistance. And you are wrong, religion and religious nationalism were the driving forces behind all resistance to the Russians in the North Caucases since the 1700's.
                          Getting the Nazis out of France would have been the primary goal, however the politics that would follow would not have been the same so the goals were not entirely the same.

                          As for Chechnya I simply stated that to say that ALL of those fighting against Russia in the First and Second War were religious fanatics was wrong because it ignores the ethnic and nationalist element. Was religious identity a part of the problem, yes. The wars saw, as has been seen in other conflicts, an increasing radicalisation and many of the insurgent groups were Islamist or jihadi in nature. And yes the importance of outside factors and the jihadi link is an integral part to the Chechnen Wars. However to say that religion and religious nationalism were "the driving force behind all resistence.. since the 1700s" simplifies things beyond belief and is onesided.
                          Last edited by Sergio; 11 Dec 07, 23:09.
                          "Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it"
                          G.B Shaw

                          "They promised us homes fit for heroes, they give us heroes fit for homes."
                          Grandad, Only Fools and Horses

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Jon Jordan View Post
                            Media in the west responds to the mass market, so with few exceptions (e.g., Fox News network, arguably), it's hard to call the western media a mouthpiece for "a few rich guys." The companies that own these media outlets are public companies owned by millions of stockholders, some big, some small. If the public views an outlet as either too liberal or too conservative, it will tend to gravitate to other sources, which then make more money and become larger.

                            It's not perfect, but it's better than a government-dominated system where incompetence or corruption in government cannot be discovered. The more government dominance of the media, the less effective the media is in checking government.

                            Regarding Russophobia, you have to remember that the western press is inherently liberal, and spends much more time criticizing governments at home than it does in Russia or elsewhere.

                            In the west it views itself as being a check on government, and it takes that same attitude when it critiques foreign government. The more powerful the central government, the more it will tend to criticize. That's why it was generally kind to Gorbachev (viewed as taking an autocratic structure and making it more liberal) and has been less kind to Putin (viewed as taking a moderate structure and making it more autocratic). It did the same thing in the U.S. when Nixon was perceived as too autocratic, and it attacked the current Bush when he was viewed as taking away too many civil liberties to fight the war on terror. I'm not saying any of these conclusions are objectively correct - that's debatable - but without a chorus of intrusive, annoying journalists, we can't even have an intelligent debate. The media's job is to shine light on government actions, not necessarily agree with them.

                            You are still believing in a delusion. This systems, if working requires educated shareholders. I doubt we deal with well informed shareholders, who dig their information from a pool of sources that want to sell consumption goods. Not all Harvard, Yale, or whatever place of quality education, neccessarily produces enough participants, will build the majority of influence
                            in the chair rooms to sway the majority remainder towards the "right" conclusions. The educucation system in the US is one of the worst in the democratic nations. You even have a senator, that could not answer to a reporters question, regarding the Cuban Missile Crisis. What does that tell you ? The news your network broadcasts, are cherrypicked news. They are broadcasting news, that doe not really belong to the National News, like minor scandals and crime stories. They broadcast those news, because the advertising Cooperations unilateral patronise the puplic, they suggest that uneducated consumers do not understand the complexities of foreign news.
                            They are simply not interested in an educated public, that for heaven's sake could criticise their products. So they feed them simple stories with a "Spin".
                            Fact is , the networks have continually cut down on foreign correspondents,
                            for more than 26 years, excactly since the citizen voted a pompous actor into office. What you have now in the states is an army of "Soccermoms"
                            with a "Black & White" tunnelvision that vote with their remote - controls.
                            Well, they are the perfect consumers, and the networks love to cater to them. No questions on the "State of Culture" , rather a herd of bloking sheep and cattle. No offense, but this is just my humble opinion. And who knows,
                            may be the kids who those soccer moms send to "Jesus Camp" or other Bible beating institutions, will herd off old farts like me to outsourced foreign torture camps. I've seen it all.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Sergio View Post
                              As for Chechnya I simply stated that to say that ALL of those fighting against Russia in the First and Second War were religious fanatics was wrong because it ignores the ethnic and nationalist element. Was religious identity a part of the problem, yes. The wars saw, as has been seen in other conflicts, an increasing radicalisation and many of the insurgent groups were Islamist or jihadi in nature. And yes the importance of outside factors and the jihadi link is an integral part to the Chechnen Wars. However to say that religion and religious nationalism were "the driving force behind all resistence.. since the 1700s" simplifies things beyond belief and is onesided.
                              Have you read the link I gave to you?

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Jon Jordan View Post
                                I agree that my knowledge of Russian policies and politics is superficial compared to yours. Your view of the US policies, press and public opinion is superficial compared to mine. And both our views about France and De Gaulle are superficial compared to Bruno (and maybe most Britons). But because we can't avoid having opinions, we can only try to be open-minded and get beyond sweeping or oversimplifying statements as much as possible.
                                We are speaking about Russia now.

                                I base my earlier comments on the following:

                                1. Russia has a much more autocratic history over the last 200 years than France; when De Gaulle was in power there were free elections in France and Stalin ruled the USSR. I can't ignore this history when speaking about the French historical commitment to democracy compared to Russia.

                                Of course what happens yesterday doesn't govern what happens tomorrow, but it does give most outsiders reason for concern that history could repeat itself.
                                So what? If a country with a little democracy time in past gets a strong leader like De Gaulle who stopped the disorder inside of the country and made it stronger and the life of its people better you think it is a reason to go into hysteric and to scream about new Hitler/Stalin?

                                Are you speaking if De Gaulle was a Russian and did the same he did in France it is fair to declare him a tyrant/dictator because it was in Russia?

                                2. I don't see the genuine, mainstream western press comparing Putin to Hitler. The Washington Post article you posted is an example of "good press" Putin gets from time to time, just like he gets "bad press" from time to time as well. In most western sources that I've read, there is a concern but no sense of crisis.

                                Sure, some less-mainstream columnists and Russian expatriates claim Putin is like Hitler, just as some in the press have compared Bush to Hitler, Tony Blair to Hitler, and virtually every US president to Hitler in the past. Putin, like any politician, just has to accept strident, often irrational criticism and move on. A sticker I saw in St. Petersburg in May that read "Not My President" with Putin's face is almost exactly the same thing that I have seen in the US with Bush's face. It should not be blown out of proportion.
                                It were you who compared Putin to Hitler and modern Russia to Nazi Germany right before 1933!!! Look your post #29.

                                I met the same comparisons (or hints at it like yours one in your post #29) in some other Western articles.

                                And as I know the most of Western mass media write in russophobic style. Good truthful articles are very rare.
                                Last edited by Andrey; 12 Dec 07, 02:09.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X