Hacker News Reader

Comment by grepz | Hacker News Reader

There where too many bloody revolutions in russian history. And looking at Egypt, Syria, Ukraine, Lybia and many other countries after the revolution epidemia theres not much russians who thinks that overthrowing the government is a good idea. Even amongst those russians who think that mr Putin is a bad choice.

View on HN

Apparently, Russian shills discovered HN.

Looks like people beyond the borders are misinformed about Russian internal politics. Putin is, no doubt, the evil, but the statement about revolutions is true. There's no point in converting ex-nuclear superpower to failed state just because current government sucks. Successful democratic revolution may happen when there are trusted new leaders who can take the power, transform the state and step back on next elections. State of the opposition in Russia is so pathetic, that, despite among these people there are some really smart guys, it won't be able to run the government. We have to wait until we'll see grassroot support for the young generation of politicians with crystal-clean record (Maria Gaidar, Luba Sobol etc) and good organization capable of fighting even on rigged elections. If revolution will overthrow Putin tomorrow, we'll see new NSDAP as a replacement. There's no point in replicating the Arab spring mess now.

So if a junta is brutal enough and keep the quality of the opposition down (Siberia, assassinations, etc) then you think it is wrong to try to overthrow the dictator?!

From 1984 "If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever."

How can things change, then? An invasion is not better than a revolution. Economic pressures work for most countries today (not e.g. North Korea) but not for oil countries -- note that most problem states do live on resource exports (see resource curse).

I don't think so. I think that people of any country have to look at all existing opportunities. For North Korea, some African or Asian countries there's no point in waiting for good and revolution is the only way for changes. As for Russia (and, possibly, for China), we have the options. The political game is quite dangerous here and political institutions are imperfect but they still may evolve in time to something better. Putin, compared to the dictators in the rest of the world, is very soft and weak: his power is based on popular support and he is well-aware that he has to distribute wealth to the people, boosting economy and imitating western-style democracy. Either he will keep the wealth growing (and thus the country open - it's essential for Russian economy, so millenials will travel and get educated about the benefits of western life style), or the popular discontent will blow him out of Kremlin. We still hope that the first option will be the case. We need more educated people to build reliable and inclusive political system.

Thanks for a reasoned and informed opinion on this subject.

How do you think about this:

You should not help dictators based on natural resources economically. Countries built on industry will have to democratize when they reach a certain economic level. Countries who get their money from natural resources will just generate more money in Swiss banks if the prices increase.

Edit: pcj50, I doubt even the Saudi A king describes his country as democratic. The West is enough dependent on them that they get a free card. Realpolitik in a democracy means being nice when it isn't too expensive (or the voters back home cares). Dictators are even worse. In sum, there are only varying levels of grey, no black/white. But, well, you knew all this.

Russian economy is not based on natural resources, actually. Russia was industrialized in 3 waves (development of mountain manufacturing civilization in Urals in XVII-XVIII, in 1870-1913 and finally by Stalin) long time ago and now has visible post-industrial sector (8.5% of GNP is generated by Internet and IT companies). The patterns that apply to dictatorships of banana republics here don't work: it will not be able to replace import of iPhones, but it is capable of replacing the western technologies that are blocked by sanctions. It can sustain any sanctions by manufacturing luxury goods for elites and providing food and fun for ordinary people. Upper middle class in Moscow will suffer, of course, from the lack of iPhones, but they are hated by the rest of the country, anyway, so who cares.

The only way to push democracy to such a big and advanced country is to increase cultural exchange, encouraging tourism and supporting Russian education system.

That's a reasonable principle. But it won't be applied consistently, because Saudi Arabia would count as an unfree country based on natural resources.

Putin has built a very stable power structure, I'll give him that. And he's crazy popular in Russia, not least because of the fact that he controls all the media.

The only two ways I can see his regime could be defeated are:

* Turmoil within his ranks leading destabilizing his power structure

* Significant economic downturn (e.g. oil price falls or oil trading is hindered by sanctions)

One could argue that the growing discontent with Putin among the younger generation could lead to his demise, but I don't think it would work. They can protest all they want but as long as 90% of the population are successfully hypno-toaded, Putin can deal with the protesters in any way he wants.

I am reading HN for over 1.5 years, not that much, but still. Yes, i've registered account only few hours ago when I understood that by upvoting the article I can save it in my account, so no need for bookmarking anymore. It is sad that you jump to conclusions so fast.

Is it sad? Blindly supporting a pseudo-fascist regime seems sadder.

I am not supporting Putin and co. I don't like many things happening at the moment in my country. But if you put revolution on a scale - no thank you.

The fact that you put Syria and Ukraine in the same sentence when describing 'revolutions' shows that you're fairly brain-washed.

If not by Channel 1 - then by the paid bloggers that dominate Livejournal top pos list these days.

It amaze me how easy people accusing others of being pro-Putin activists and not having independent opinion.

Strictly speaking _everyone_ is influenced by what they read and by people they talk to in one way or another.

When I put Syria and Ukraine in the same line i mean:

1. I think that what is happening in eastern Ukraine right now is logical consequence of Kiev events. Having a few friends living in Kiev, some of them where on Maidan supporting the revolution and a few friends living in Donbass who supports pro-Russian forces I receive alot of controversial information from both sides. For me it is obvious: it is a civil war right now. Same in Syria.

2. Both countries are playground for major political forces.

3. Both countries are in a really bad state right now.

1. False. The events in Eastern Ukraine have been planned by Russia a decade ago (ie there are photos of Russians waving flags of 'Donetsk Republic' in the mid 2000's).

Same with annexation of Crimea - Russia just used the opportunity to execute the plan. Even the execution started before Yanukovich left the country (such as movement of troops, etc).

2. It's not a civil war and the forces in Eastern ukraine are not 'pro-Russian'.

They are Russian forces (do lookup its leaders - Girkin, Bezler, Antyufeyev, etc). They are all Russian and are members of various branches of Russian government - FSB, GRU, etc.

Your points 2 & 3 i won't even address as they are 'not even wrong'. Any conflict can be described as 'playground for political forces' and 'bad state'. That's why it's a conflict.

I don't want to support any side of conflict mostly because I personally know people from both camps. Ukraine and Russia are connected to each other more then they want to and much more then ordinary person who reads western media knows. Connected in all aspects, cultural, family ties, friendship, buisness, ethnic. You may not believe me but current situation is like if Canada decided to have a trade/military treaty with Russia breaking any ties with US at the same time. So before this conflict waving russian flag was actually quite normal.

Theres alot of russians fighting in ranks of DNR/LNR forces, true. But theres alot of Ukrainians too. You may call this conflict anything you want, but if one group of citizens fight with the other it is civil war. This conflict is supported by russian government only blind will say that LNR/DNR are on their own. The main thing is: LNR/DNR are possible only because they are supported by locals and because of actions of Kiev right after Maidan. Statements that where made by Kiev politics, law acts they enforced, there where alot of mistakes made by Kiev government that led to current situation.

Some information to consider: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legislation_on_languages_in_Ukr...

http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A4%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%BB:2001_U... (red color is for people who pose themselves as ethnically russians)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Ukrainian_revolution#Prote... (just to understand what actions of new government caused so much protest)

Theres alot of information in russian internet but you probably dismiss it as being propaganda and me being brain-washed again.

I'm a Russian speaker myself, so am well aware of what is going on. And I won't let you call it civil war. All leaders are Russian soldiers, all weapons are from Russia, etc, etc. There probably are 20-30% locals, even less among the fighting forces. So please stop.

As far as information in the Russian internet, I will provide one story for the Western readers so they have an idea of what kind of shit cesspool russian media have become: http://www.stopfake.org/en/the-crucifixion-of-a-3-year-old-t...

It sounds rather strange actually: "And I won't let you call it civil war" As I've said, you may call it whatever you want, it is civil war. I bet in every civil conflict people tend to think that the other side of conflict is some kind of rogues, bandits, terrorists, mercenaries, foreign agents(hello 1917). It still doesnt change anything.

I'll use public definitions: "Civil war is a violent conflict within a country fought by organized groups that aim to take power at the center or in a region, or to change government policies". Ring anything?

You can call it an ice skating competition - doing so doesn't make it more true.

Instead - can you name 5 people who are at the top of the LNR / DNR with their respective citizenships.

I'll give you a little help:

1. Girkin 2. Bezler 3. Borodai 4. Bolotov

I'd love to see it as ice skating competition(or any other kind of sport event), means no weapons and deaths, unfortunately it is not. Trying to stay on a field of well known definitions not emotions.

Theres well documented cases when ukrainian representatives of law enforcment forces taking a LNR/DNR side. Not only ex-Berkut.

Not everyone who disagrees with you on international politics is brainwashed.

Edit: no, really, it is possible for someone to reach different conclusions from you without being "brainwashed", paid, deluded, or a sockpuppet. People think differently about the world and are operating from different sets of knowledge and beliefs. And different levels of cynicism about international power politics.

True -- when the subject is Russia today, there are lots of paid people too.

(And if you think it is bad in English, be happy that you don't have to swim through the mangled comments in Swedish. But in the last 2-3 months they have gotten a bunch of people with better Swedish.)

Edit: Answer to the Edit. Of course I know that. I ALSO know that few well read people sincerely believe in that the whole world's [democratic] media are in a conspiracy against just Russia and the only truth is in Putin's controlled media. But yes, people do believe in conspiracy theories.

> you're fairly brain-washed

No personal attacks on Hacker News, please.

I don't particularly see "blind support" in his last couple of posts. He acknowledged that some don't support the regime as-is, didn't directly state support or not in his own part, and explained part of the situation that stops those people railing against it (the fear of history repeating badly), raising what could be an interesting discussion point if I had time to take that slightly off-topic detour right now.

You on the other hand seem to be blindly throwing around assumptions (you can't logically deduce "supports X" from "doesn't make a point of denouncing X") instead of taking the more mature opportunity of delving into the points mentioned.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com