|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On March 29 2017 04:35 LegalLord wrote: Well it's hard to properly see it when you only look at it from a Western reporting perspective (which is always very strongly anti-Putin in not always reasonable ways), but I'll say this much. It's definitely true that there's resentment against Putin among the younger and less-established, but more highly educated, population. There is a perception, not altogether inaccurate, that it's hard to reach a level of well-being that said individuals feel that they have earned for their educational gains. And there is a long string of issues of corruption that genuinely need to be addressed.
While the West tends to pour it all on Putin, I see the truth as more along the lines of that Putin's government elevated the standard of living high enough that people started to care more. Who cares that you can't open a business without bribes if you're more worried about how to get your next meal? The 90s were a pretty shitty time and Putin's government helped to consolidate the wealthy crook class into a wealthy business class. On the scale of decades the change is massive.
I don't blame the youth for seeing it from a different perspective, from looking at where developed Western nations are and thinking that that's where they should be. They definitely underestimate how much Putin has done towards that end and how bad things were in the past, but their concerns are valid. The anti-corruption effort needs quite a bit of doing. And there is of course the concern that older people are worried that any massive change could lead to 90s-era ruination (though many see the 2014-present economic troubles as a stress test to see how durable the newer economy is).
On Navalny. He's a character and he's boisterous enough to get some attention. But honestly I and many others just don't like him. He's like a leftist counterpart to certain Western populists. A guy who makes some noise on important issues but is clueless as to how to actually fix any of the problems he talks about. It doesn't help that he has a Yale degree at a time when people are rightfully wary of Western-educated shills in Russia and even more so elsewhere that essentially serve as a fifth column.
As for the protests themselves. I can't say that they seem to have much more significance than just the issues in general. It's a way to raise awareness on issues people care about. A good thing to do to be sure, but I have no doubt this will be painted in Westen media as a brooding revolution of some sort. Hardly; just a more garden variety large organized protest.
U're so biased. The one who established high uprise was pre-Putin president, strong economist Boris Yeltsin. Do you even remember what was the reason why he left and took his place?
Navalny represents the only REAL opposition.
And by the way, protests were not only in RF, Belarus also shakes a bit. Few pages before I made a post about it.
|
This article doesn't even cover half of the obscurity of what's happening. It's like this:
Everybody's darling foreign minister Sebastian Kurz (conservatives) has been very vocal about not taking refugees from Italy, for as long as the "NGO-madness" is going on, saying Austria shouldn't participate in the relocation program. On the other side, chancellor Christian Kern (social democrats) has been outspoken to participate, because he had already given the OK. Then the interior minister Wolfgang Sobotka (conservatives) announced that Austria will have to take the refugees, even though he does not want that, because the chancellor has approved of it in some EU meetings. Then the defense minister H.P. Doskozil (social democrats) announced that this really goes back to some 2015-16 deal of the former interiro minister Mrs. Mikl-Leitner (conservatives) and we really should not take them, because we have taken so many already and as long as Italy can't control their borders, this will never stop. Which then triggered the chancellor to write a letter to Brussels saying that Austria wants to exit the program, because we have already overfullfilled our duty.
It's bullshit like this that wants me to Anschluss... Maybe I should actually vote for FPÖ...
|
Care to explain what you mean with Anschluss, cause as a German I kinda have bad memories about that lol
|
Migrate to Germany, integrate badly, become a citizen. All the hip stuff you do these days in Germany.
|
I'd totally support people diluting Germany's "Germanness" to the better.
|
United Kingdom13774 Posts
So, European army. Is it going to happen or is it not particularly likely?
|
Last I heard the Netherlands disbanded all her tanks units and sent them to the German Army.
|
On March 29 2017 04:50 cSc.Dav1oN wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2017 04:35 LegalLord wrote: Well it's hard to properly see it when you only look at it from a Western reporting perspective (which is always very strongly anti-Putin in not always reasonable ways), but I'll say this much. It's definitely true that there's resentment against Putin among the younger and less-established, but more highly educated, population. There is a perception, not altogether inaccurate, that it's hard to reach a level of well-being that said individuals feel that they have earned for their educational gains. And there is a long string of issues of corruption that genuinely need to be addressed.
While the West tends to pour it all on Putin, I see the truth as more along the lines of that Putin's government elevated the standard of living high enough that people started to care more. Who cares that you can't open a business without bribes if you're more worried about how to get your next meal? The 90s were a pretty shitty time and Putin's government helped to consolidate the wealthy crook class into a wealthy business class. On the scale of decades the change is massive.
I don't blame the youth for seeing it from a different perspective, from looking at where developed Western nations are and thinking that that's where they should be. They definitely underestimate how much Putin has done towards that end and how bad things were in the past, but their concerns are valid. The anti-corruption effort needs quite a bit of doing. And there is of course the concern that older people are worried that any massive change could lead to 90s-era ruination (though many see the 2014-present economic troubles as a stress test to see how durable the newer economy is).
On Navalny. He's a character and he's boisterous enough to get some attention. But honestly I and many others just don't like him. He's like a leftist counterpart to certain Western populists. A guy who makes some noise on important issues but is clueless as to how to actually fix any of the problems he talks about. It doesn't help that he has a Yale degree at a time when people are rightfully wary of Western-educated shills in Russia and even more so elsewhere that essentially serve as a fifth column.
As for the protests themselves. I can't say that they seem to have much more significance than just the issues in general. It's a way to raise awareness on issues people care about. A good thing to do to be sure, but I have no doubt this will be painted in Westen media as a brooding revolution of some sort. Hardly; just a more garden variety large organized protest. U're so biased. The one who established high uprise was pre-Putin president, strong economist Boris Yeltsin. Do you even remember what was the reason why he left and took his place? Navalny represents the only REAL opposition. And by the way, protests were not only in RF, Belarus also shakes a bit. Few pages before I made a post about it. Just in case someone wants some context to all this, here's the full video that inspired the protests in Russia: + Show Spoiler +
It's basically your typical corruption. Medvedev was using charity foundations to receive donations from wealthy people and then adjusted state policy to benefit himself and the people that donated to him. Not that I am opposed to the Russian people 'dethroning' Putin democratically, but I can't help but feel the need to point out that Navalny definitely seem to have a "political gains" purpose with this, considering the way he ends the video. He basically said "Vote for me, I alone can solve this", which seems kind of a familiar phrase somehow.
Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "strong economist Boris Yeltsin". This probably doesn't tell the whole story, but I believe there was some election interference from an outside source that helped sway things into his direction after he was wildly unpopular due to the bad state of the economy:
The U.S. also attempted to sway Russian elections. In 1996, with the presidency of Boris Yeltsin and the Russian economy flailing, President Clinton endorsed a $10.2-billion loan from the International Monetary Fund linked to privatization, trade liberalization and other measures that would move Russia toward a capitalist economy. Yeltsin used the loan to bolster his popular support, telling voters that only he had the reformist credentials to secure such loans, according to media reports at the time. He used the money, in part, for social spending before the election, including payment of back wages and pensions. Source
Then Putin showed up and created (economic) stability in Russia which was appreciated by the older generation who suffered through the collapse of the Soviet Union. That stability is now sort of being dismantled by outside sources such as sanctions (although you can blame Putin for that if you so choose) and lower oil prices. But yeah, I can definitely understand why a younger generation would be wary of Putin despite the positive things he has done for Russia and wants more freedom in their communications/media/etc. The way he retains political control is very dubious and not particularly inspiring to young people. And the nepotism/oligarchy situation is of course ridiculous, as it is in many countries across the world.
On March 29 2017 08:42 LegalLord wrote: So, European army. Is it going to happen or is it not particularly likely?
On March 29 2017 15:08 lastpuritan wrote: Last I heard the Netherlands disbanded all her tanks units and sent them to the German Army. Over the past 25 years or so, we (the Netherlands) have very slowly started to integrate bits and pieces of our military with that of the Germans. I think it has accelerated some in the past few years and about 2/3rds of the Dutch army is now integrated with the German army. I imagine that if the EU agrees on forming a "European Army" it will take a similar form as this, except much more widespread across all nations within the EU. It will likely take decades to complete such an integration.
|
|
I'd like to thank the Brits for taking one for the team. When everyone sees how painful leaving the EU is and how badly it can impact one of the strongest countries, noone will ever follow and stability is ensured.
|
On March 29 2017 21:44 opisska wrote: I'd like to thank the Brits for taking one for the team. When everyone sees how painful leaving the EU is and how badly it can impact one of the strongest countries, noone will ever follow and stability is ensured.
To the vast majority of the people in the UK who won't benefit from the tax cuts for the rich: You are the real MVP here!
|
|
Well, some news from the French campaign:
(For memory, the list of all candidates.)
(18/03) The day the final list of candidates was known and the anniversary day of the beginning of the Commune de Paris (quite an important symbol in the imaginary of the French radical left), Mélenchon held a big rally in the open in Paris, a march for the VIth Republic to “abolish the presidential monarchy”. Dozens of thousands of people attended (130k according to organizers) and marched towards the place de la République, where Mélenchon made a speech. He reasserted the need of a constituent assembly to redefine the French institutions, warned against an “ethnic or financial coup” (targetting Le Pen for the former, Macron/Fillon for the latter) and criticized the EU for confiscating the popular sovereignty in favor of the “sovereignty of money”. He underlined how dangerous the current Constitution was should the presidency fall into the wrong hands (again a reference to Le Pen).
(19/03) Hamon had a big meeting the day after, between 15 and 25k people gathered at Bercy (Paris). With this meeting, he hoped for a new start since his campaign was visibly struggling to take on. He too criticized the fact that the “party of money” had too many candidates in this election, targetting Macron, the right and the far right. I have to say that the text of the speech was quite powerful and vibrant. Unfortunately for Hamon, everyone still remembers the “discours du Bourget” [Bourget speech] from the candidate Hollande where he famously claimed that his “opponent was the finance” and made some left-wing promises before betraying them. It also felt like Hamon's speech was aimed at his convinced base (he pretty much recited the ABCs of the French left, the namedropping of all the political ancestors was quite crazy) while he should try to attract voters beyond his current. Maybe it will be remembered as a decent funeral oration for the PS (1971-2017†?).
(20/03) So, for the first time, TF1 (the first and oldest French TV channel) hosted a debate between several candidates. The criteria was to poll above 10%, so only the 5 biggest candidates (Le Pen, Macron, Fillon, Hamon, Mélenchon) made it. This was criticized quite harshly as “antidemocratic,” especially from the 6th candidate in polls, Dupont-Aignan (polling between 3 and 5%), who left a TF1 interview to protest against the methods of the TV channel. The video of his departure apparently buzzed pretty hard, it was seen 11 or 12 millions of times. The same candidate had also tried a legal recourse, but the highest administrative court rejected it and stated that TF1 was free to organize this debate.
Now, for the debate itself; it lasted almost 3h15, with each participant talking, hmm, ~25 minutes (?) from memory. Candidates had 90 seconds per answer, with something like 15 themes (some were scrapped because no time). The first question was, “what kind of president do you want to be?” The emission was split into 3 big themes:
- What model of society for France? - What economic model for France? - Which place in the world for France?
The themes discussed were (in that order): education, security, immigration, laïcité [secularism], institutions, environment, work/jobs, purchase power, retirement/pensions, health, international relations, terrorism; then the conclusion.
Almost 10 millions of people watched the debate, i.e. ~half the people who watched TV that evening, with a peak at 11.5 millions early.
The aftermaths and how people reacted to the candidates:
Le Pen was… well, herself. No surprise, I don't think the debate changed anything whether people were for or against her.
Macron didn't make any major blunder, he didn't collapse, but he wasn't brilliant either and many of his sentences were too PR/vague/wooden language; at some point Le Pen brutally mocked him for being shallow. But I think he answered fine when she attacked him. He tried to adopt an “above the melee” stance, often saying (15+ times) that he agreed with what another candidate had just said. He was a bit mocked for that; Fillon and Le Pen criticized him for his indecisiveness and his “a little of this, a little of that” posture.
Fillon was a bit like a ghost during the first part, it felt like he was trying not to step too much into the light. He woke up a bit in the second part and criticized other candidates for promising costly stuff, especially Le Pen (most notably he said “the real serial killer of the purchase power is Mme Le Pen here, with her euro exit”). Apparently he was receiving live advice by SMS during the debate, the guy just can't stop cheating lol
Mélenchon's performance was widely recognized and praised, even columnists who mostly hate him were forced to admit that he was good. His quips were quite appreciated on the Internet, so he was instantly turned into a meme.
+ Show Spoiler +
Hamon got the lowest ratings in post-debate polls. I don't think he did particularly wrong, but he was simply outshined by Mélenchon. He didn't really bring something new to the table. (One has to remember that Fillon and Hamon have already debated 4 times in their respective primaries…)
(22/03) Some funny, nice infography about donations regarding 4/5 of the biggest candidates:
+ Show Spoiler +First number: average donation Second number: overall funding received (millions of €)
Quite telling, uh?
(23/03) At some political show, Fillon accused Hollande of plotting against him, claiming or insinuating that there is a “shadow cabinet” [to disrupt political opponents]. His accusations were based on a book in which journalists talk about various low blows during Hollande's mandate, but journalists themselves say that they cannot affirm that there is a “shadow cabinet”. Hollande denied and condemned Fillon's accusations shortly after they were made. Basically Fillon sticks to his conspirationnist defence and keeps counter-attacking with lies or insinuations, using whatever he can find to add suspicion. He's following a famous motto in French politics: “When a case bothers you, you have to create a case in the case, and if necessary a case in the case in the case, until no one understands anything anymore.” I spare you the details about the extra dirt that was found on Fillon since he was indicted, it's simply surrealistic.
(During the week) Hamon's campaign is still not working, and he's weakened by important figures of the government/PS fleeing to Macron (which medias report daily…). After Mélenchon's successful rally at Paris and his good performance at the TF1 debate, the curves intersected in polls:
+ Show Spoiler +
All recent polls had Mélenchon passing in front of Hamon. Podemos' dreamed sorpasso might happen in France. The funny thing is that the “useful vote/lesser of two evils” blackmail used all those years by the PS (vote for us or it will be the chaos!)… is spectacularly backfiring, because both Macron (for those who lean towards the centre) and Mélenchon (for those who stayed at the left) are in a better shape/condition than the candidate of a dying PS. Live by the sword, die by the sword…
(24/03) Fillon's substitute was charged for embezzlement of public funds.
(27/03) Some big social movement is happening in Guyane since the 20/03. A general strike started Monday, voted by all trade unions. People protest over poverty, unemployment, the cost of life, lack of infrastructures, insecurity, etc. (France loves to exploit the natural resources of its former colonies, but naturally doesn't give a f*ck about the local populations.) Almost all candidates criticized quite harshly the government for under-reacting; people from Guyane were asking for the visit of several ministers, which was denied at first before the government yielded to pressure.
(28/03) Fillon's wife was charged for complicity & concealment of embezzlement of public funds and misappropriation of corporate assets + concealment of aggravated fraud.
Macron held some press conference in which he stated that people in his future majority would need to leave their current parties and adhere to his.
(29/03) The final betrayal in Hamon's campaign: Valls, the losing finalist of the primary, ex-first minister, announced today that he would not respect his own word (he signed a chart in which he commits to support the winner) and would vote for Macron instead. This liar, traitor, oathbreaker, deserter argued that the Front National is too big of a threat, gotta think about the higher interest of the country, blablabla, to justify his support to Macron, “the only one who can beat Le Pen”. Valls and apparently Hollande seem to labour under the idea that the FN would somehow be “way stronger than what polls claim”. I have no idea why they seem to believe that, probably got scared by some random results of whatever secret polls they have access to. Those two gravediggers are so pathetic: their lies and betrayals might lead to a historical rise of the far-right, and so their only concern… is to continue with the same policies which strangle the lower classes and thus contribute to the far-right vote. They are so stupid and arrogant, it's insane: they lost ALL intermediary elections, Hollande had to withdraw given how weak he was, Valls got steamrolled at the primary, yet they STILL. DON'T. UNDERSTAND. THE. MESSAGE.
Note that Macron isn't too pleased with all those beggars coming (hence his press conference the previous day, by the way): he's actually fairly embarrassed, because it makes him appear more and more like the statu quo candidate and Hollande's true heir (which he is); whereas his whole scam is based on the supposed “renewal” that he would be.
After Valls' announcement, Montebourg, the third man of the primary, said this morning: “Everyone now knows what a commitment signed on his honour is worth from a man like Manuel Valls: nothing. What's worth a man without honour”. Many other PS députés expressed their disgust and/or shame at Valls' behaviour. Cambadélis, the godfather of the PS, said that he was “sad” about Valls' decision and that he “fought this position”. Note that he's supposed to expel from the party all those who support Macron, but he never did it; it's always good to have a plan B and two candidates…
At any rate, Valls' perjury was absolutely foreseeable. Mélenchon had instantly refused a primary of the left because, “I am loyal: if I lose, I won't support the winner [if it's Hollande or Valls]”. Valls' betrayal proved that he was right: this primary was a gigantic fool's bargain, of course the right-wing of the “social-democracy” had no intention of admitting his defeat. The ideological wide gap between the various currents made of course zero sense, between the left-wing of the social-democracy and people who are finally confessing that they're centrist liberals aka the second right.
Hamon pretended to be surprised that there were “so many betrayals,” but I hope his surprise is only PR talk; if not, he's dumb as his feet and understood nothing about what was going on. And it's quite possible actually, because his planned strategy was to “siphon Mélenchon's electorate” (after he supposedly isolated him because of his deal with the ecologists, who weigh nothing lol) and establish himself as the only one serious at the left of Macron. This strategy failed so miserably… yet it was so obvious that it would fail, so after all he might really have a limited political sense. Who knows? At any rate, he had some press conference earlier in which he snivelled over Valls' betrayal, then called “social-democrats, communists and Mélenchon to unite their forces to his”. Note that the communists, who support Mélenchon, actually call again for a single candidature (previous talks had failed), and want to organize some encounter between the different forces of the left.
Mélenchon has a meeting tonight, I guess he'll make some statement about Valls' perjury and all this mess. He's in a strong position and has no intention of being dragged to the bottom by the dying PS; I doubt he wants to enter again into talks, this would kill his dynamics. He also stated a few days ago that he did not want any “table corner deal” between parties. Probably best for him to laugh at this circus, sing “told you so,” wait for Hamon to collapse under the 10% threshold, then devour his electorate and/or suggest him to withdraw with a gentle pat on the shoulder.
At any rate, the intellectual and moral collapse of the French social-democracy is almost complete. Gaping contradictions cannot last eternally.
The next TV debate is scheduled in 6 days, with all the candidates there this time. Stay tuned for more French nonsense!
|
Sad that Hamon is getting brutalized by the circumstances. My impression is that he's the only real politician in the race, the rest are just crooks and demagogues.
|
Why isn't Le Pen in the donations graphic?
|
On March 29 2017 23:44 LightSpectra wrote: Sad that Hamon is getting brutalized by the circumstances. My impression is that he's the only real politician in the race, the rest are just crooks and demagogues. For sure he's a real politician, almost 30 years of career within the PS...
Circumstances were hard but he made a severe mistake when he chose to remain in the middle of the road, which is simply not good in an era of increased polarization. He should have completely ignored his right-wing, most of them would have left for Macron either way. He should have been sincere when he said that he wanted a deal with Mélenchon, but instead of that he simply wanted to appear like the unity good guy while the other one would be the sectarian bad guy, and he banked on this to drain Mélenchon's electorate. Horrible bet. Of course, had he been in the 2016 protests against the labour law, he would have known why it had no chance to work...
It's not his fault in a way, PS apparatchiks are naturally arrogant; for decades they've been programmed to believe that the PS is the sun of the left, the star around which other forces at the left have to gravitate. Even today, with all his woes, he still claims to be “central” in the left… Their domination has finally come to an end, but they refuse to see it and prefer to shelter behind wishful thiking.
On March 29 2017 23:53 bardtown wrote: Why isn't Le Pen in the donations graphic? Data not available.
|
United Kingdom13774 Posts
Looks like pretty unpleasant politics but at the same time the polls seem to be quite stable in their predictions.
|
On March 30 2017 00:08 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2017 23:44 LightSpectra wrote: Sad that Hamon is getting brutalized by the circumstances. My impression is that he's the only real politician in the race, the rest are just crooks and demagogues. For sure he's a real politician, almost 30 years of career within the PS...
Maybe you say that critically, as do many who scorn "career politicians" and whatnot. But I'll take an honest and intelligent career politician, despite them being privileged and a bit out of touch, over a crook or sabre-rattler any day.
|
On March 30 2017 01:28 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2017 00:08 TheDwf wrote:On March 29 2017 23:44 LightSpectra wrote: Sad that Hamon is getting brutalized by the circumstances. My impression is that he's the only real politician in the race, the rest are just crooks and demagogues. For sure he's a real politician, almost 30 years of career within the PS... Maybe you say that critically, as do many who scorn "career politicians" and whatnot. But I'll take an honest and intelligent career politician, despite them being privileged and a bit out of touch, over a crook or sabre-rattler any day.
Yeah, ask anywhere where people got fooled by the "down with career politicians, vote for this guy who has no despicable history of doing politics, who actually worked in business his whole life and knows what's up" how well it went for them. Czech Republic happens to be a good place, if you can deal with the language barrier, but I am pretty sure there are more.
A good trustworthy politician is a treasure to cherish.
|
United Kingdom13774 Posts
I found a pretty nice article on Navalny from Deutsche Welle from 2013 that is rather level-headed that might do some good in explaining both why he gets so much love from Western/Western-leaning media yet why I (and the majority of Russians) don't view him positively.
Kremlin critic Navalny: To Moscow via Yale
Russian blogger and opposition politician Alexei Navalny in 2010 attended a leaderhip program at the US Ivy Leage university Yale. His chances for the upcoming Moscow mayor elections, though, are considered very thin.
When Moscow heads to the polls on September 8, 2013 to vote for a new mayor, there's at least one man in the US likely to pay close attention. Michael Cappello is the director of the World Fellows Program at Yale, one of the leading Ivy League universities. The vote in Moscow has one of his graduates running for office: Alexei Navalny.
The 37-year old blogger is the first Russian opposition figure who was partly educated in the US. Running for mayor is the high point of his political career thus far. "The Yale World Fellows Program is extremely proud" to have Navalny as one of their alumni, Cappello told DW. The US university supports Navalny's hopes to foster democracy in Russia.
Incubator for future leaders
In August 2010, Navalny went for four months from Moscow to New Haven, Connecticut. At that time, he already was a famous Internet activist. The scholarship for Yale was a stroke of luck, he wrote in his blog. "There are said to have been around 1000 applicants for 15 places." But it's not only luck - his Yale grant also came thanks to recommendations from former chess world champion and turned opposition activist Gari Kasparov.
The Yale World Fellows Program has existed since 2001 and offers courses in philosophy, world politics and economy. It sees itself as an incubator for global leaders. The candidates are selected from a pool of successful politicians, businessmen and journalists around the world - people "whose biggest achievements are yet to come," explains Cappello.
Former Yale graduates like Berlin politician Sergei Lagodinsky confirm that Navalny fits that description. "You had the immediate feeling that he could become a leader of the opposition," Lagodinsky told DW.
Lagodinsky himself is originally from Russia and will be contending in Germany's September national elections for the Green party. Source
I don't know how most of you would feel if a candidate for president from your own country studied in an incubator in the US for "future political leaders." But let me put it this way: how exactly do you think people would react if a candidate for (chief executive of your nation, US-president-equivalent) went to a four-month program in Moscow for training future leaders to promote pro-Russian values (for lack of a better term; "promoting democracy" is the US equivalent). Modern Russia mind you, not just ex-Soviets who would have naturally went to school in Russia if they wanted to go to the best schools.
Given how much people lose their shit over Le Pen merely visiting Putin, I cannot imagine that the "Russia trained candidate" would be seen quite well in 95% of European countries. And that's how most Russians see Navalny. Sure, he has a base of support that isn't trivial, and he certainly should have the right to run his mouth and levy accusations against the PM (though his video reminds me of Alex Jones or Loose Change, honestly). And of course raising attention about corruption is an incentive to push for change. But perhaps this all should be some indication of why I don't really care much for him, whereas at the same time Western media loves him thoroughly.
|
|
|
|