Vladimir Putin Wins Reelection

[waalkwriter]

And the rag tag of opposition parties are already railing, claiming vote fraud and getting lots of attention in the West. Frankly it's all a bunch of horseshit. None of them had any chance against Putin; the communists are stuck to a few rural areas, and the rest are just billionaire vanity campaigns. Putin's margin of victory is far too wide to leave any doubt. It's just newspapers, especially newspapers in Britain and America, continually hype up dissension against Putin and hype up negative stories. My Russian studies professor noted, that when you get to Russia, you find a bunch of people in the academia and a bunch of wealthy people who don't like Putin, but that by large, almost all the people you come across on the streets love him. Unfortunately, those who don't study the area and it's politics academically, get a very one sided view, one that usually reviles Putin without looking at his many accomplishments, one usually spread by paranoid ex-patriot billionaires who made their fortunes in the most shady and illegitimate manners imaginable.

I'm not saying I agree with Putin's policies, or his style, but I think he is a pragmatic man and serves a very important function by monopolizing the rightist and authoritarian vote in Russia and keeping it both under control and keep it from getting too radical, in a country where the neo-nazi movement is already very strong. In general, you can look at lot of his policies, like removing the power to appoint governors from local legislators and placing it solely in the hands of the President, and say, "Oh look at that blatant, corrupt power grab." But if you view in the context of the late 90s, when several governors were so autonomous and uncooperative that they practically ran separate countries, you begin to understand that this move effectively broke up even more corrupt, power grabbing local regimes and allowed Russia to establish a marginally effective national government; something that did not exist in the 1990s.

What Putin offers is a stable and pragmatic, if authoritarian, constitutionalist government. He's the one with the experienced party, the talented officials, and the only candidate with only real change of asserting enough power to govern a stubborn political entity like Russia. The other parties, especially the Communists, suffer from too much idealism and lack any potential to assert authority if they somehow, through some miracle, won power. So, essentially, Putin is Russia's best and safest bet right now, and really, the candidate that the West should want in power because he will keep the radicals in check and he will keep the country stable, and be able to convert it's oil industry into a more diverse economy.

[Heteronym]

You seem to feel very strongly about this matter.

[Eric]

Indeed, Heteronym. Waalkwriter has been very quiet lately about literature, and now comes with this very effusive and non-literary piece of praise for the Winner. The winner takes all, as they say, but my local newspaper hints at a whiff of 1905, as yesterday evening, after the election results were announced, there were still anti-Putin demonstrations against what the opposition suggests was election fraud. Popular politician Grigoriy Yavlinskiy was not allowed to stand as a candidate in the election, and those who did (e.g. Zyuganov /communist/, Prokhorov, Zhirinovskiy /ultra-right/, and Mironov) had very small votes for them. There were evidently 3,700 complaints of vote rigging made. Were these all made by unstable subversive whingers, or is something else afoot?

I think that the next time they have an election in Russia, Waalkwriter ought to go to a few polling stations as an observer with such an organisation as the OSCE.

[Eric]

Zdraughtsvooee, Waalkwriter. Look at this:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...r-reports.html

Truth or fiction? We deal mostly with fiction on this website.

[waalkwriter]

Hmm? I merely feel strongly because I feel Putin gets a lot of crap tossed, unfairly, at him, and rarely gets credit for his good decisions, and in the west people seem incapable of putting his actions into the perspective in which they were drastic, but indeed necessary and ultimately beneficial for the country. God knows I'm a leftist, you know this. But Putin is an important piece to Russia's stability,

And that's an interesting article, it really is, but that's all it is. It's nothing but heresay, garnished with marginal attempts to act like they were impartial and complete with a healthy sprinkle of lightly-veiled, pompous derision directed towards 'all the regular people who like to vote for the leader.' Do you really expect me to go off this? 3700 complaints isn't that terrible either, why there probably many more Republicans in American filing complaints about how ACORN stole the Election for Obama.

And I haven't stuck around here much. But sometimes, on political issues, i find that there are a certain group of people here, an audience, that I want to discuss an issue with more. I haven't really written much about books lately, though i did do a thorough write up of Hitchcock's Rear Window last week

[Eric]

I think this is a reasonable article on Putin by someone who has many years experience of covering the Soviet Union:

http://www.standpointmag.co.uk/node/4350/full

Read it, it's in English.

If more and more Russians are getting dissatisfied with Putin, this can't all be attributed to whingeing (although Russians appear rather good at that sport). There is something wrong with having an ex-secret policeman purportedly rigging elections and swopping jobs with his mate. If Hilary Clinton were to turn out to be an ex-CIA operative and kept on swapping jobs with Obama, and was said to rig the elections, wouldn't you be rather annoyed?

I'm glad I'm living in the West. You can go and live in a small town in Russia if you wish. But a one-way ticket only, remember?

[waalkwriter]

I think this is a reasonable article on Putin by someone who has many years experience of covering the Soviet Union:

http://www.standpointmag.co.uk/node/4350/full

Read it, it's in English.

If more and more Russians are getting dissatisfied with Putin, this can't all be attributed to whingeing (although Russians appear rather good at that sport). There is something wrong with having an ex-secret policeman purportedly rigging elections and swopping jobs with his mate. If Hilary Clinton were to turn out to be an ex-CIA operative and kept on swapping jobs with Obama, and was said to rig the elections, wouldn't you be rather annoyed?

I'm glad I'm living in the West. You can go and live in a small town in Russia if you wish. But a one-way ticket only, remember?

The counterpoint is that there isn't really any proof that more and more Russians are getting dissatisfied with Putin. He's certainly not as popular as he once was, but he is still quite popular. There's also no firm evidence that there was any large scale vote fraud.

The United States isn't Russia, so your question is moot. I might as well ask you, "If you lived in Antarctica, wouldn't you be rather cold?"

[Eric]

I don't know whether you are playing the Devil's advocate, Waalkwriter, or whether you are plain naïve. But surely all those demonstrations throughout Russia, however small, demonstrate, in a country where people do not have a tradition of demonstrating, that something is wrong.

Did you read the Edward Lucas article or didn't you? If not, which I suspect, read it.

[waalkwriter]

I don't know whether you are playing the Devil's advocate, Waalkwriter, or whether you are plain naïve. But surely all those demonstrations throughout Russia, however small, demonstrate, in a country where people do not have a tradition of demonstrating, that something is wrong.

Did you read the Edward Lucas article or didn't you? If not, which I suspect, read it.

Different countries require different things; I'm not like the typical Yanks whom I think you'd find distasteful who think the whole world is like America and should be run like America. The protests aren't really that significant, all they show is what has been true for years, that there is a substantial base of people who really hate Putin, and a substantial base that really love him. Remember, polling showed Putin's personal favorability ratings at 78% just a year or two ago. I really doubt there has been any groundswell of change since then.

[Svidrigailov]

As far as I know, Putin has a rating more than 60 % in Russia (even on polls of opposition parties). When in the West elections are won by the leader with a rating of 20 or 30 % - for some reason nobody shouts about violations on elections. When Putin with a rating more than 60 % collects on elections of 63 % of votes that all the western mass media begin a hysterics: "totalitarian Putin forged elections" and so forth. By the way, observers recognized legitimacy of elections (including the European observers).
"Yavlinsky - the popular politician"? Really? I very long laughed. Even having united with crowd of others same "popular politicians" they collect 2-3 % of votes. It is popularity?
Apropos "3.700 complaints".
The majority of these complaints is submitted by NPOs (non-profit organizations or NGO). Let's take for example "Golos" association (most scandalous). We look at those who finances this association: Agency on the international development (USAID), National fund for democracy (NED) and National democratic institute (NDI) etc. I think it is necessary to explain to nobody, who actually is owners of these "funds" and "institutes"? Present, that the organization which is completely financed Iranian "by funds for democracy" interferes with an election of the president of the USA. It is simply impossible to imagine. So why is this can be done in relation to Russia?
The majority of these complaints have technical character: formal violation (for example sealed a ballot box not at 20.00, but at 20.01 etc).
Main thing: why Putina to rig elections if it has a rating more than 60 %? I will repeat - even the most radical oppositionists recognize these ratings (through clenched teeth, but nevertheless recognize). Why to steal a "thing" - if you is sure that will present this "thing" to you in minutes?
"demonstrations throughout Russia".
I live in Russia. I didn't see and didn't hear about "demonstration across all Russia". It seems in Kazan 200-300 people (more than 1 million inhabitants) gathered. In other cities there were same "demonstrations" - 10, 50, 100, 200, 300 people. And that - in only several large cities. In Moscow there were two meetings. In December 2011 on Bolotnaya Square (100 thousand people - according to opposition; 20 thousand - according to police; I think that about 50-60 thousand) gathered. For information: in Moscow there live about 11-12 million people. The second meeting in 2012 collected absolutely already a little - about 20-40 thousand people. I live in the city with the million population - at us gathered a maximum of people 300 (from them probably 250 people were journalists, passers-by and simply having a rest people - meeting was in park). Where here "demonstrations across all Russia"? Why in the western mass media "forget" to tell who leaves to protest against Putin? In the majority it: nazis ("Movement against illegal emigration" and to that similar "oppositionists"), the Left-wing radical organizations ("National-Bolsheviks" and to that similar "revolutionaries") etc. Really, it is the presents "fighters for Democracy".