Where’s Vladimir?

I find it offensive. My name has not been mentioned … again. Even though I’m THE President. Mr. Putin USED TO BE the President.

You write about Putin’s “cult”, however you contributing to creating his “cult” with articles like this one that endorse Mr. Putin “majestic” status not only within the Russian society, but also all over the world.

Would it kill you to write a few lines about the REAL President? I wonder. Best wishes, DM.

Awww, isn’t he cute when he gets so angry and insistent he’s really the the President?

Come here little guy – here’s a cookie and some milk for you. Now go sit at that table over there with the other boys and girls while the grown-ups talk, ok?

They are so precious when they are this small and young. I hope VVP appreciates these years with his little one, they go by so quickly.

OK, maybe it’s just me, but the С точки зрения section of VVP site (http://www.premier.gov.ru/points/) reads a lot like Mao’s Quotations (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/works/red-book/).

There’s no way the formal presentation is a coincidence, is there? I mean, I know that the “aphorisms” genre has other followers, but it’s eerily similar, no?

24/7 web cams for ALL “executives”!
As we – the people – pay for them we should be able to watch what they are doing.
Great idea, Sean

Doom wonders how “being really popular” is the same as “having a cult.” The Beatles were really popular; Charles Manson had a cult. Doom himself is admired by many supervillains. There is a difference.

Some may argue that there was (still is?) The Beatles cult, no?

Well, I think there is also a difference between a cult cult, which I don’t think VVP is running, and a cult of personality, which I do think VVP has. Obama too. The first seems to rely on groupthink and manipulation and rejection of normal society, while the second is like celebrity on steroids. Being gaga for these guys doesn’t hinder you from belonging to the mainstream society, and there aren’t any serious repercussions for suddenly deciding you don’t love them anymore.

Anyway… so is Putin going to sport one of those GPS trackers he’s placed on Koni? Or is this just going to be Putin finally catching up to the 21st Century and getting his own blog? A 24/7 Putin webcam sounds appealing (I could totally go for some Vovka at the banya moments), but I respect him too much to want to deny him his privacy. Unless he’d want to do this of his own volition. I could support that.

Unless he’d want to do this of his own volition. I could support that.
———————————————
He may, he’s been working out regularly

Dima,

Next time you see him, pitch the idea to him, ok? Thanks.

Nah, not a cult. Groupies.

A “cult” is what you call the popularity of somebody you don’t like.

Some may argue that there was (still is?) The Beatles cult, no?

Or Deep Purple.

24/7 web cams for ALL “executives”!
As we – the people – pay for them we should be able to watch what they are doing.
Great idea, Sean

Gives new meaning to camwhores.

Imagine in the Bill Clinton White House. People would have paid for that. Especially Republicans.

It’s Halloween night, and I’ve answered the door to a number of Barack’s, but I’ve yet to see a Vladimir. Getting his face on Halloween masks – that would be the signal of a worldwide following. Wish I’d suggested it to my son before he went out…he’s got the judo outfit. Next year. I myself have fashioned a beehive updo and put on a pencil skirt, shiny top and peep-toe shoes. I’m Sarah in glasses now for handing out candy; but, shifting into Amy Winehouse later for a party by simply loosing the glasses and applying the heavy Cleopatra liner and white nostril effect. It’s a very flexible look, as are the characters that have recently made it famous.

Where if FH?

The comments where more intellectually stimulating when FH was around. And he had a way challenging people while showing full respect toward them. A rare breed, indeed.

“And he had a way challenging people while showing full respect toward them.”

On the Internet? No wonder he didn’t last.

“It’s Halloween night, and I’ve answered the door to a number of Barack’s, but I’ve yet to see a Vladimir.”

Any Dooms?

Dima,

Next time you see him, pitch the idea to him, ok? Thanks.
———————————————–
I will mention this to Vladimir Vladimirovich (we are going bowling tonight, but he may ask for your photo, do you have one to share?

Where if FH?

The comments where more intellectually stimulating when FH was around.

I have no idea who you are talking about.

I’ve seen scarcely any change in the nature of the comments on this blog over the past 3+ years. It has gone through some nastier periods, but overall remains approximately the same: a group of Russia-interested “geeks” kicking around rather esoteric topics on Russian history and current events.

Doom is no “geek.” He is Doom.

Wally, I’m not such long timer for this blog, and I know that things are cyclical. In my opinion, right now the “commentariat” of this blog is going through a mediocre phase. I know this is subjective: to each his own. Even though Chris is disconsolate about his absence, I’m sure glad I missed most of Averko’s reign. I do miss FH, though. He used to comment here for a few months. He’s a Brit with a Russian wife. He lived in Russia for several years, but as far as I know he lives now in London. I think he’s a lawyer, although I could be wrong about it.

Da Russophile and others interested in the demography issue: below is the link for a rutube video of the demographer Vishnevsky in Ekho Moskvy.

http://rutube.ru/tracks/657625.html?v=bfda8daefd5716a2bcc8fab75bd41030

Doom has FH’s email and can pass it on if Kolya so desires.

Thanks for the offer, Doom, but I don’t want to intrude upon FH’s privacy. I don’t have any private messages to convey. It would be great if he drops by for a visit, but I assume he’s either too busy or found better ways to occupy his keyboard time.

—–

I don’t know if anyone heard Vishnevsky, the Russian demographer. I found it interesting because this is a guy who is totally qualified to talk about the demographic crisis in Russia. Some of his points:

1. Today’s analytical tools are much powerful (and accurate) than they were, say, twenty years ago.

2. Whether it is the CIA, the UN, or Russian agencies the projections are quite similar because they pretty much use the same tools and data.

3. The demographic crisis in Russia has been brewing for several generations, but it will be felt by all only in the coming years (about 15 years from now): that’s when the burden of the shrinking working population (to take care of the young, disable and old) will become especially onerous.

4. There are ways to ameliorate the crisis, but it’s too late to avoid it. Simply put, there are not enough women either now or in the coming generation (those who are now minors)–even if women start procreating more.

5. There are not enough ethnic Russians. Immigration is key, but for that Russia should change its attitude toward immigration and immigrants.

6. Just like the US takes it for granted that in a couple of generations white Americans will simply be one minority among many, ethnic Russians should accept that they will be a minority in future Russia.

7. Ethnicities that were traditional Islamic (even if only nominally) is the main growing block and that’s where most immigrants will probably come from. Assimilation is key.

8. If the new population influx becomes dominated by the Chinese, Russia will simply lose certain areas of the country to China.

Whatever popularity Putin may have in Russia, it appears to be nothing when compared to the outright adoration of The One in the US of A.

I’m always amazed how the ‘established’ democracies can fall victim to the conceit of ‘leadership’.

Anybody else feel that whatever manufactured adoration there is for Mr. Putin, it is nothing when compared to the almost maniacal emotional investments Americans have made into a person who has never done anything?

Putin at least had to fight a small victorious war and knock down a few oligarchs before he became popular and admired and had songs written about him.

The One in the US of A only has to strut around talking about ‘change’ (what kind, one wonders), and the oh-so-critical and democratically mature US of A is turned into a bunch of teenage groupies.

Russians are accused of craving a tsar – apparently, Americans crave a messiah.

“Whatever popularity Putin may have in Russia, it appears to be nothing when compared to the outright adoration of The One in the US of A.”

Your comment would be somewhat credible if we knew that Obama will get 75 percent of the vote. As it is, if he wins (not yet a given) he will surely get under 60 percent of the vote. Whether Obama or McCain win, close to half of the voters will vote against the winner and a significant percentage of those who will cast their ballots for the winner will do it under the “choosing the lesser of two evils” rationale.

Many Republicans complained that during Bush’s presidency some Americans developed BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome.) It seems to me that even before the elections a significant segment of the American population are already suffering from ODS (Obama Derangement Syndrome.)

“Your comment would be somewhat credible if we knew that Obama will get 75 percent of the vote.”

Kolya,

my comments were not about how many votes Obama will receive, but how Obama is perceived by those who support him.

The difference between Russians and Americans is quite interesting: few Russians see in Putin anything more than an agent of stability. They support him lest things become worst. There appears to be little belief that Putin will make the world a better place or that he will bring about some kind of magical change. Russians see their state as at best neutral to their personal lives, at worst destructive. Americans, however, continue to cling to the absurd belief that somehow the state will make their lives better.

Considering that the Russian president and prime minister actually have power over domestic affairs, while the US president has only jurisdiction over foreign affairs and the military, Russian attitudes towards their president and prime minister are in fact more rational than the attitudes of Americans towards their president.

Regarding ‘bds’ and ‘ods’ – I have no particular like for either McCain or Obama. In fact, in terms of the policy area over which the president does in fact have jurisdiction, I prefer Obama.

Regarding their domestic policies, that is: the policies they will try to persuade Congress to pursue, both presidential candidates are equally foolish. Both see themselves in one way or another as the new FDR. Contrary to popular myth, FDR’s economic policies were a complete disaster.

I doubt anybody on this board will be capable of arguing this particular manner intelligently, so – rave away about the fantastic benefits of the New Deal. At least you’ll entertain me.

he may ask for your photo, do you have one to share?

Not publicly, but Chris, and I think Sean, have seen my facebook photo. They can vouch for my devastating beauty.

Poemless’ photo pleases Doom.

FDR was the greatest enemy of liberty in the history of the United States. It was become of him that the United States has languished in oppression lo these many years and was unable to defeat Nazi Germany (naturally, since FDR and Hitler were qualitatively the same). This is why I love him so.

“8. If the new population influx becomes dominated by the Chinese, Russia will simply lose certain areas of the country to China.”

Doom is skeptical. This assumes that the Chinese population in Russia will automatically wish to be part of the state of China, which is a bit silly.

Dear all,

Never mind where Vladimir is for now. Good luck tomorrow, please vote for the “right” party
No pun intended. Pass on my personal regards to Captain Khlynov. I’m sorry that he got himself demoted by Marshal Brezhnev.

Talk to you after the election!

2008 US Presidential election: The view from the Kremlin:

http://thepresidentofrussia.blogspot.com/2008/11/2008-us-presidential-election-veiw-from.html

“my comments were not about how many votes Obama will receive, but how Obama is perceived by those who support him.”

That’s silly, Khlynov. I will vote for Obama and my wife was an Obama volunteer (worked the phones here in Vermont and canvassed in New Hampshire) and yet I don’t know anyone who fits your description of the adoring Obama groupie. One thing is to be a supporter, to want your candidate to win. Competitive elections elicit emotions that are similar to the ones we have when our favorite sports team made it to the final. I see plenty of excitement, but reports of widespread blind adoration are simply wrong. I’m sure some people (a small minority) are indeed fanatical groupies, but that’s common in most political campaigns. Palin has her groupies, Putin had his groupies, and even now there are plenty of Americans who still adore and venerate Reagan. Maybe you are being influenced by what you are seeing in TV or the net. Don’t worry, if Obama wins, within a few months of his presidency all those comedians and cartoonist that had great fun ridiculing Bush and Clinton will be doing the same with Obama.

““8. If the new population influx becomes dominated by the Chinese, Russia will simply lose certain areas of the country to China.”

Doom is skeptical. This assumes that the Chinese population in Russia will automatically wish to be part of the state of China, which is a bit silly.”

Chris, did you watch the video? Vishnevsky’s remark on the Chinese was in response to a question and it was very brief. I only watched it once: my perception is that he thinks that most immigrants will be from the Muslim ethnicities (even if only nominally Muslim). However, if there is a strong influx of Chinese it will mainly concentrate around the border regions with China. If China becomes the power many people predict, I think it’s quite possible that an economically and demographically weaker Russia will at least de facto cede those regions to China.

Doom did not see the video. However, China has quite a ways to go before its living standards match those of Russia (which is why there are Chinese immigrants in Russia to begin with). Why would ethnic Chinese in Russia want Russia (or parts of it) to be part of China, which is worse off? They are not homing pigeons drawn to their geographical origin. Doom thinks this is Yellow Peril scare talk.

Well, Doom, we disagree on this. Keep in mind that Vishnevsky is not talking about the immediate future. The context behind some of those remarks was the projection of American demographers of the US ethnic mix in 2050.

For pretty much the same reasons, I don’t see it as either inconceivable or outrageous to think that, say, around 2050 or 2070 some US regions/counties bordering Mexico with an overwhelming majority of ethnic Mexicans would start talking about rejoining Mexico. First, this does not necessarily mean war or a total break. Second, it would mainly depend on the rate of assimilation. If the rate of assimilation is sufficiently rapid folks would not feel such desires. In any event, it seems clear, that it is now easier for immigrants to assimilate into the US than into Russia.

“For pretty much the same reasons, I don’t see it as either inconceivable or outrageous to think that, say, around 2050 or 2070 some US regions/counties bordering Mexico with an overwhelming majority of ethnic Mexicans would start talking about rejoining Mexico.”

Kolya, Doom sees this as possible, but unlikely. It assumes that Mexican (or Chinese) at future time x perceive belonging to the country that their grandparents were born in as desirable. It is possible, but I think unlikely, that living standards in Mexico will be higher than those in the US in 2050, or those in China higher than those in Russia, simply due to historical inertia. This would be possible if living standards in Russia were not rising at about the same level of those in China, but they are. China’s population, Hong Kong and Beijing notwithstanding, is about 60% peasant, i.e., that of Russia about a century ago.

That said, Doom wishes China all the best, is somewhat drunk given that tomorrow is a holiday, and is listening to the best rock song of all time, which is this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5extIQ3EXjM

Sandinista!

Living standards matter, but only up to a point. Cultural ties and assimilation are also key. A country with a high influx of immigrants has to have stronger centripetal (assimilating) forces than centrifugal (alienating) forces.

If in 2050 a Chinese is living relatively well in the Russian Far East why should we assume that if that region joins China his living standard will drop to the level of China proper?

In any event, I brought the Mexico example only as an hypothetical, not that I expect that fifty years from now Mexico’s standard of living will surpass the US. But if the difference becomes less drastic and those ethnic Mexicans do not feel assimilated into the US the idea of Mexico extending its borders may well sound appealing to them. This, of course, is all speculation with no data to support it.

As an aside: during dinner arguments with Russians, more than once I was asked something like, “Well, what if in the future most Texans chose to rejoin Mexico?” My reply is that if indeed most of these future Texans want Texas to rejoin Mexico, they indeed it should.

And don’t drink too much, Doom!

few Russians see in Putin anything more than an agent of stability.

Sure – this is why his name is on bottles of vodka, his face is painted on black velvet, sold on towels sold along the side of the road to truck drivers, his image painted on matroshka, pop songs written about his sex appeal, and his name plastered on almost every product imaginable.

He’s just seen as an agent of stability. There is no adoration involved.

“He’s just seen as an agent of stability. There is no adoration involved.”

Stability is important. There is no “just” about it.

Stability is important. There is no “just” about it.

My tone was sarcastic. Perhaps I didn’t provide enough clues.

For other countries that consider themselves world powers, stability is a given, not an elusive quality that is viewed by the populace to rest entirely within the will of a single iconic person or entity. The Russian government had to advertise a mysterious “Plan Putin” to what … reassure Russians that the elections wouldn’t bring chaos?

More to the point raised by Khlynov – comparing the pop culture that surrounds Putin in Russia versus Obama in the USA is a joke. Putin wins and is far more iconic within his country, hands down.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Economy/story?id=6158877&page=1

I seem to recall we had some discussion of the US recession affects on different regions. This news story and link appears to confirm this.

A few thoughts on demographics topic:
#1 I listened to a travel-log audio book by Rob Gifford (NPR reporter) recently. He does a good job covering the situation of the Muslim Uighur minority in Russia border areas like East Turkistan. He reports that these people have little allegiance to Beijing today. Isn’t it more likely that a new Muslim nation arises? It’s a good book. He covers the AIDS epidemic in rural China too and the threat of a killer bird flu epidemic.
http://www.amazon.com/China-Road-Journey-Future-Rising/dp/1400064678

#2 Also, isn’t one of the reasons for China’s huge population the fact that it has not suffered major warfare casualties in many centuries to “cleanse” the population Teddy Roosevelt style? Maybe Chinese rule would be a new and bigger Pax Romana. ; )

#3 My recent “Europe’s Last Summer” read makes me worry when people worry about not enough of their certain nationality. Once census data was available, France realized it had fewer people than Germany and felt threatened, forging an alliance with Russia as a counterbalance. Kaiser Wilhelm worried about the greater Slavic brotherhood because it dwarfed the number of Teutonic Germans. So then we had WW I, which meant fewer of all of them. …which led to the Russian revolution…Fewer still. Dearth of men in Russia after two world wars, not only put a governor on population directly, but led to other kinds of tearing of the social fabric — Stalin purges turning children against parents; socialized housing denying people privacy; ‘hero woman’ complex whereby women have to live without men because there aren’t any, so then they convince themselves and any young sons that they may have that men are useless. (Francis dePlexey Grey research). Thus, high divorce rates, more broken families. (BTW: we’re doing this in the US too. Read: Real Boys by Pollack)

#3 Demographics and rising standards of living. Is having fewer people really the threat? Candide really got me thinking when he said that Bulgokov’s M&M was really about the evil inherent in Socialized Housing. This article suggests 50 sq ft is the minimum needed per person.
http://www.whitehutchinson.com/children/articles/35footmyth.shtml
In the U.S. the avg house size has doubled since 1950 to about 2000 sq ft. http://www.moyak.com/researcher/resume/papers/housing_summary.html
Given average family of 4; that’s about 500 sq ft per person. Ten times the minimum. I think this is at the root of America’s current weakness. 10X the necessary space per person. That’s another way of looking at where all the money went. But, as Wally pointed out to me in a previous post Russians want this too. If they want a strong country is it smart to grow in square footage and population too?

“For other countries that consider themselves world powers, stability is a given,”

That depends on the historical circumstances. Stability was not a given in the US in 1929; nor is it in the minds of many contemporary Americans, who believe that Obama is going to usher in Black Nationalist Muslim National Socialism.

Hello, Tess.

“Is having fewer people really the threat?”

Assuming stable borders, the key is not so much in the absolute numbers but in the age distribution of the population. Will there be enough working age people to keep an economy going while supporting the elderly, the children and the disabled? If those who can reproduce, do not reproduce, who will maintain them once they reach a certain age? How sustainable is it?

One of the dangers is that because such problems are not readily apparent until they are too late to prevent, people usually do not pay attention to such things.

When not enough natives are reproducing, immigration is key. But for a state to maintain cohesion and stability under these conditions, the assimilation rate of the immigrant population has to be sufficiently rapid.

War 08.08.08 (Война 08.08.08), or the art of treachery. English version

has been released:

http://thepresidentofrussia.blogspot.com/2008/11/war-080808-080808-or-art-of-treachery.html

Yes xenaphopia has its long-term consequences. Japan is a case in point. But, the Japanese have also come up with some unique solutions:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C07E4DE113FF936A35750C0A9629C8B63

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/industry/1288241.html

Interesting solutions coming out of xenophobic Japan.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C07E4DE113FF936A35750C0A9629C8B63

Misha.
You better erect your monument in Tbilisi so Russian Army next time has something to drag down

Will there be enough working age people to keep an economy going while supporting the elderly, the children and the disabled?

Positive!

In short.
Stop reading “demographers” and just look around and a little back in time. And you’ll see that this is a basic trend – less and less working age people and more and more non-working humans hence productivity is increasing.

If you still believe professional demographers answer one question. They estimate life expectancy that based on the current data. Like in Iceland this numbers are really high, far beyond many deserve (he-he…joke). So 85 years here is no big deal at all. Now the question. Do you think the grand-grand-kids of these old Icelanders – who were living in fresh air, spent almost all their time outside, walk 10 km daily as minimum – so these grands will live till 85 if
- they spent most of time in tiny rooms flying in far universe or killing bad guys
- they drive to the school by parents or by bus (even if the school is 5 minutes walk)
- they eat and drink junk food
- when they grow to drive cars themselves first thing they do when get in the car – start smoking
etc.

Same story with the Russian Far East. Chines North East had been empty, is empty and will stay empty for a long time. So why they should “occupy” Russian part of these territories? The only reason they go there in such numbers – economy. More and better jobs for them and more chances to sell/buy than in China. But situation is changing – so less and less will come.

I think so (remember – I’m 13 years old and I’m not a demographer).

PS. How is voting going? Could you buy defizit at polling stations? ))

The whole ‘demographic catastrophe’ debate is a tad bit absurd.

There is no evidence that a declining population, regardless of the age distribution, is bad for the economy. What is bad for the economy is if the proportion of those creating value declines vis-a-vis those consuming value. How bad such a scenario can be depends on the relative change in the productivity of those creating value.

A simple solution to an increasing value-consuming population is, for example, the removal of mandatory retirement, the curtailment of pension payments, unemployment support, child support, and a reduction of the state sector (including subsidies) etc. This would decrease the burden on those who create value, while not reducing GDP per capita. This would result in a reduction of income for those who consume value, but increase the income of those who create value.

The whole discussion about the alleged economic dangers of the demographic ‘crisis’ is the result of completely muddled economic thinking.

The decreasing population is only a problem because the entire system of economic redistribution currently practiced in most modern countries is based on the premise that the size of the value creating population does not decrease vis-a-vis the size of the value consuming population.

Actually, to be more precise, the system is based on the assumption the the amount of value created by the value creating group increases at least as fast as the amount of value consumed by the value consuming group.

Of course, few people are willing or capable of discussing economics at this highly conceptual level, and instead prefer to spout illogical regurgitations of common economic prejudices.

The result is, of course, that the crisis will not be solved and the system will come to a slow but certain grinding halt.

ivanov,

you actually make sense there. What’s wrong with you?

There are so many thing that are wrong with and around me – that I don’t know which one made such a great impact on my ability to produce sense : )

But I promise to do my best to fix that! Don’t worry.

This message has no sense at all I hope?

How to get promoted back to General?
Any ideas?

You don’t deserve even Leitenant rank. A soldier must never ask such question – how to get promoted from capitan to general! Serve you country, carry burden, sacrifice as often as you can etc. – and you’ll get the rank (posmertno)… komrad.

PS. Do you want me kiss you?

You don’t deserve even Leitenant rank. A soldier must never ask such question – how to get promoted from capitan to general! Serve you country, carry burden, sacrifice as often as you can etc. – and you’ll get the rank (posmertno)… komrad.

PS. Do you want me kiss you?
——————————————-
You are a fraud. Brezhnev was never Generalissimus. Only two Russians have been promoted to Generalissimus ever: Suvorov (18 century) and Stalin (20 century).

Brezhnev was “only” Marshal Sovetskogo Soyuza.

Now that America has elected a Marxist president, the United States is sure to fall irretrievably into the hole of Statist doom. Hooray!

You are a fraud. Brezhnev was never Generalissimus.

I got it posmertno, dude! As well as a couple of extra Hero Stars

I must have been sick on that day, sorry don’t remember!

You are a fraud. The only question is – fraud Dima or fraud captain? : )))

That depends on the historical circumstances. Stability was not a given in the US in 1929; nor is it in the minds of many contemporary Americans, who believe that Obama is going to usher in Black Nationalist Muslim National Socialism.

Dude. Come on, you’re being very un-Dude. Is this an acid-flashback?

First, I would not confuse a world-wide depression with a lack of national or government stability. I think stability in Russia means something other than prosperity. If you mistakenly are using the word stability, when you mean economic prosperity, now would be the time to say so.

However, I think stability is the correct word, and the Russian government has expressed concerns of various kinds, regarding protecting their stability, projecting an image of stability and order, and the transition of the government from Putin to Medvedev, specifically.

And I repeat, most world powers take this as a given and do not formulate special plans out of fear or concern that their government is not stable.

Regarding your comments about Obama – what the fuck have you been reading? Many contemporary Americans believe that horse shit you wrote? “Black Nationalist Muslim National Socialism?” A phrase so nice, you say “National” twice.

You better get specific and cite sources, because you’re waaaaaay waaaaaay out in left field on that one.

Quoting some lunatic fringe racist group or some screwball Weekly World News article won’t count as a citation, either. “Many” Americans voted for Barack Obama yesterday, and even “many” of those that voted for McCain don’t believe he is a Black Muslim Socialist (he is obviously neither Muslim nor Socialist.)

If you are still interested where Vladimir Putin is, you may find your answer in this article:

http://thepresidentofrussia.blogspot.com/2008/11/vladimir-putin-has-gone-unofficial-too.html

Apparently Mr. Putin has gone 100% unofficial (too)!

Hi guys,

Still feel like ignoring me? Anyways, if you are also still interested in knowing where Vladimir Vladimirovich is, you might have to check out this article:

http://thepresidentofrussia.blogspot.com/2008/11/vladimir-putin-has-gone-unofficial-too.html

Apparently Vladimir Vladimirovich has gone 100% unofficial too!

The vampires must be sleeping – it’s rare a comment goes 7 hours without being answered here now.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081105/ap_on_re_eu/eu_election_an_american_abroad

People around the world may be hoping too much for a bold American turn-around in foreign policy.

After all, people thought Medvedev would be more liberal. Now that he’s invaded Georgia, stationing missiles in Kaliningrad, calling for 6-year presidential terms, and blaming the US for any and all economic woes, I’m thinking people’s minds have changed.

I heard NPR’s Greg Pfeifer from Moscow with his “Two minutes of hate” this morning. The report was about Medvedev’s speech, translated/summarized as 1)Russia’s economic woes have roots in U.S. problems and 2) missile build up in Kaliningrad complete with starwars-jamming capabilities is needed due to U.S. actions.

Basically M’s summarizing the facts, and stating predictable Russian state reactions. The timing of his speech was the Russian November holiday, not U.S. election. Pfeifer didn’t mention that – which is a key omission. The placement of the story among “World Reactions to Obama” led one to conclude the speech was Medvedev’s reaction to Obama’s election. This reporter is consistent in his “bad, scary Russia” messages.

Not that I’m really excited about more war in Afghanistan, but this is where Obama has promised to put some focus. I think the pull back from Iraq and push into Afghanistan will inevitably lead to greater cooperation with Russia and better overall relations.

OF course Obama is not a Muslim, but he IS a socialist. So is McCain, by the way. The only reason we don’t think McCain or Obama are socialist is because most of us wouldn’t be able to provide a definition of socialism that does not include almost every politician out there.

We are a little confused on language in politics: what used to be called internationalist socialist has morphed into liberal, what used to be called nationalist socialist has more or less morphed into ‘conservatism’, and what used to be called liberal is now generally referred to as crazy libertarianism, and what used to be called chaos is now called anarchy.

Protectionism is now called industrial policy, mercantilism is now called free trade, and what used to be called the regulated market is now called unregulated laissez-faire capitalism.

Imperialist meddling is now called humanitarian intervention or preemptive war, depending on circumstances.

It’s wild, wild, Orwellian linguistic nightmare out there.

“After all, people thought Medvedev would be more liberal.”

Not me, Shedd, not me. Please don’t use “we”, “people” – you are not authorized nor appointed
Have YOU thought Medvedev would be more liberal? And why?

PS. I don’t give a shit what “people” expect him to be. He is supposed to serve the country – and he does.

He protected Russian interest in Kavkaz, he is protecting Russian interest in Europe (look at map and see where is Poland and where is USA). In his last speech he said that all political forces should get access to national TV, censorship of press should be dropped, parties can go to Duma if they get 5% votes (not 7% as now), parties don’t have to collect XXXX signatures to participate in election etc.

Most stupid thing about any president to say – that he is “pro-western” or “pro-something”. President is elected to be “pro-his country”!

PS. Congratulations with the “victory” btw Most expensive broadway show in the history indeed…

Dear Captain Khlynov and Co,

Do you REALLY want to know where’s Vladimir?
I think I’ve an idea. Please follow the link to find out:

http://thepresidentofrussia.blogspot.com/2008/11/vladimir-putin-has-gone-unofficial-too.html

Apparently Vladimir Vladimorovich has gone unofficial! Can you believe it?