Russian parliament election

Can Russia rise again and get back its old Glorious Soviet status? I believe

I think it is very unlikely, especially because all people see on Russian TV is Putin and his party, which always wins and doesnt change much in Russia.

Although the Communist Party of Russian Federation is the second strongest party in Russia, and wants to revive a new Soviet Union (much better than the last Soviet Union), at the same time they are unlikely to win, if Russia doesnt become more democratic and give an equal amount of time on the TV for each party.

Russia won't get back on track unless it becomes socialist and it reunites with Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Belarus at least. I.e the rebirth of a new USSR.

Comrade Kenzu, democracy doesn't mean to give more time to parties or to allow plurality but to have the majority of people represented in the government. For what I can see Putin is indeed popular in Russia, he's so far the best president Russia has had since Gorbachyov. However, he's not half as good as what Russia needs and many Russians are dessilutioned with Socialism for what happened with USSR. Russians need to see how rich their country is, how strong Russia is, and what that strength depends on. Russians usually have a complex of inferiority towards west and nowadays they usually kneel to it.

Putin is playing a very risky card: He's making Russia's wealth to rely on the incomes Oil and Gas exportations can yield. But that's temporal. Russia cannot thrive under capitalism, and that's something Russians ought to know.

Russia is now like a beautiful woman who is now acting as a prostitute for west, she's knelt down and is giving a blow job to it just to get some money.

Russi shun't reunite with the other cuntryes it shuld instead split up or give more power to reginal goverments.
Russias problem is it's wst size it inclueds dozens of cultures and it covers more than 10% of the worlds surface making it hard for all socal benifits that you would get in a large city in the west to reach siberia or near mongolia. It needs to be broken in to independent peces that can deal with theyer reginal problems independently.

P.s russi has NEVER been democrtic and will NEVER be demcratc.

mattabesta wrote:

Russi shun't reunite with the other cuntryes it shuld instead split up or give more power to reginal goverments.
Russias problem is it's wst size it inclueds dozens of cultures and it covers more than 10% of the worlds surface making it hard for all socal benifits that you would get in a large city in the west to reach siberia or near mongolia. It needs to be broken in to independent peces that can deal with theyer reginal problems independently.

P.s russi has NEVER been democrtic and will NEVER be demcratc.

Russia was welded by totalitarian regimes and Russia requires somewhat totalitarian regimes. The more centralized a government is in Russia the more their people like it. Eg. Peter the Great, Stalin, Putin (modern age depleted homologue).

Russia's strength is precisely based on its size, on its multiculturality, on its multiple ethnicities.

What you mention about "not being able to get social benefits to all of its parts" is a matter of logistics and logistics aregreatly solved by technology. Free market capitalism has created a great disbalance in Russia making distribution of production of course harder and of course the acquisition of logistics gets harder by monetary limitations and greedy interests. But, objectively, technology allows efficient logistics, and right now, logistics aree efficient enough for a country the size of Russia.

As for democracy: No nation in wordl's history has been democratic.

Quote :

Russia was welded by totalitarian regimes and Russia requires somewhat totalitarian regimes. The more centralized a government is in Russia the more their people like it. Eg. Peter the Great, Stalin, Putin (modern age depleted homologue).

People like it? , your joking right? Germans also liked Hitler very much. Its totaly the same. Maybe russians like it , but many nations who live in federation of Russia do not. So its more like dictatorship.

Quote :

As for democracy: No nation in wordl's history has been democratic.

At least so of them try... And that isn't socialistic country's ;d

comiescums wrote:

People like it? , your joking right? Germans also liked Hitler very much. Its totaly the same. Maybe russians like it , but many nations who live in federation of Russia do not. So its more like dictatorship.

When I was in Russia most Russians I had contact with did seem to like Putin, both from Moscow and outside. Anyway, that's just because he's been so far the Russian president with more charachter and because his "Oil and Gas tactic" are giving results, anyway, that's a weak card Russians are buying.
As for those little republics, you are probably speaking about Chechnya and Dagestan and "republics" of the sort. They're pretty corrupted entities just following the prometeist trend.. And these "republics" also consitute real minorities.
Hitler was not totally liked. He was of course liked by the powerful classes and, as Germany was enjoying some imperial bonanza, he may have earned also great parts of all other classes, however, this bonanza was ephimerous and depended on german hegemony and so came dessilution.
And dictatorship... hmmm... well... as I said no country is democratic. On those grounds I could argue that absolutely any governor is a dictator with the difference that some are availed by western observers and mass media and others are not..

comiescums wrote:

At least so of them try... And that isn't socialistic country's ;d

1. As I have told you, there has not been any socialist country yet.
2. Those are not even considerable attempts to stablish democracy. Those attempts are just another way to justify minorities ruling over majouirties.

Quote :

When I was in Russia most Russians I had contact with did seem to like Putin, both from Moscow and outside. Anyway, that's just because he's been so far the Russian president with more charachter and because his "Oil and Gas tactic" are giving results, anyway, that's a weak card Russians are buying.
As for those little republics, you are probably speaking about Chechnya and Dagestan and "republics" of the sort. They're pretty corrupted entities just following the prometeist trend.. And these "republics" also consitute real minorities.

As i say germans also liked Hitler very much. As russians now like Putin , its just becouse of that both of them make they're country's seen to world. Putin make Russia stabil and Hitler make Germany one of the powerfullest country in the world of his time. That why people liked them.

comiescums wrote:

Quote :

When I was in Russia most Russians I had contact with did seem to like Putin, both from Moscow and outside. Anyway, that's just because he's been so far the Russian president with more charachter and because his "Oil and Gas tactic" are giving results, anyway, that's a weak card Russians are buying.
As for those little republics, you are probably speaking about Chechnya and Dagestan and "republics" of the sort. They're pretty corrupted entities just following the prometeist trend.. And these "republics" also consitute real minorities.

As i say germans also liked Hitler very much. As russians now like Putin , its just becouse of that both of them make they're country's seen to world. Putin make Russia stabil and Hitler make Germany one of the powerfullest country in the world of his time. That why people liked them.

Anyway the paralelism is not only unnecesary but not applicable. Putin is strengthening Russia on the "Oil and Gas" basis and Russians are buying that tactic, it's temporarily giving Russia a steady income.
Hitler conquered other nations so that Germany could thrive.

You should say: "Most powerful"

Quote :

Hitler conquered other nations so that Germany could thrive.

It's not only that , Hitler was having very good situation , Hitler started militarism politic , so German market was in need of weapons and other militaristic stuff. Also they stretch roads,rails...
So i've just trying to say , that Germany do it alone.

comiescums wrote:

Quote :

Hitler conquered other nations so that Germany could thrive.

It's not only that , Hitler was having very good situation , Hitler started militarism politic , so German market was in need of weapons and other militaristic stuff. Also they stretch roads,rails...
So i've just trying to say , that Germany do it alone.

That's merely the military industry, but, what about resources and workforce from slaves? Let alone the simple casus belli (motive for war).

Quote :

That's merely the military industry, but, what about resources and workforce from slaves?

So do ussr in syberia, there work political prisoners and ussr also conquered other nations...

comiescums wrote:

Quote :

That's merely the military industry, but, what about resources and workforce from slaves?

So do ussr in syberia, there work political prisoners and ussr also conquered other nations...

And what does that have to do with the previous arguement?

Anyway USSR's main force was not on political prisoners, and is not the same to enslave a political prisoner than to enslave a whole nation. In one you're merely ensalving another one for belonging to a nation that could not withstand your nations' force. In the other you're ensalving someone who opposes you and the benefit you want to bring to your nation.

I'm not saying its good or bad, I'm saying germany relied on imperialism.

As for USSR, no, it didn't conquer any nation. It was the Russian Empire and great part of the territories conquered by Russian Empire were in great part as part of the counteroffensive against Mongolian Empire.

Quote :

So do ussr in syberia, there work political prisoners and ussr also conquered other nations...

Quote :

As for USSR, no, it didn't conquer any nation. It was the Russian Empire and great part of the territories conquered by Russian Empire were in great part as part of the counteroffensive against Mongolian Empire.

Not really , those nations was forced to join by Soviet union , Soviets give ultimatum to Baltic states. So its like Hitler on Austria and Cekoslovakia.
So if you say that hitler conquered Austria and Cekoslovakia , so does Stalin on Baltic states,becouse Baltic states was independent.

comiescums wrote:

Quote :

So do ussr in syberia, there work political prisoners and ussr also conquered other nations...

Quote :

As for USSR, no, it didn't conquer any nation. It was the Russian Empire and great part of the territories conquered by Russian Empire were in great part as part of the counteroffensive against Mongolian Empire.

Not really , those nations was forced to join by Soviet union , Soviets give ultimatum to Baltic states. So its like Hitler on Austria and Cekoslovakia.
So if you say that hitler conquered Austria and Cekoslovakia , so does Stalin on Baltic states,becouse Baltic states was independent.

Which nations were forced aside from Baltic States? And anyway, and for the sake of the arguement on exploitation, Baltic States were not necesary for USSR's economic development, they were mainly a strategic point in the Baltic Sea, besides much of the Baltic States' infrastructure was built by USSR.

Quote :

infrastructure was built by USSR.

shit not infrastructure...and if people lifes is not so important as infrastructure ,so communism ist sheize!

@zealot
do you know a country called afghanistan?
a country invaded by USSR in 1979

comiescums wrote:

Quote :

infrastructure was built by USSR.

shit not infrastructure...and if people lifes is not so important as infrastructure ,so communism ist sheize!

What did you mean? Could you elaborate a bit more? In which way does infrastructure oppose people's lives? And what does communism have to do with USSR??

Voice of Reason wrote:

@zealot
do you know a country called afghanistan?
a country invaded by USSR in 1979

Of course. We're talking about conquest right?

Ok here it goes: There was a socialist tending state capitalistic government in Afghanistan which asked for Soviet military support as soon as a civil war sprouted. USSR intervened militarily in 1979 to support that government.

1. Since the plan was not to annexate Afghanistan to the USSR it cannot be called conquest.
2. Since the USSR didn't succeed militarily and didn't annexate Afghan territory to USSR, it can't be called conquest.
3. Since Russian culture was not being imposed on Afghans, it can't be called conquest.
4. Since USSR was not exploiting Afghan resources, it canot be called conquest.

Was it a conquest then?

Quote :

Ok here it goes: There was a socialist tending state capitalistic government in Afghanistan which asked for Soviet military support as soon as a civil war sprouted. USSR intervened militarily in 1979 to support that government.

So you do think that baltic states too ask for military support , right? , if so then Nazi Germany too 'not concoured' Austria and so on...

Quote :

What did you mean? Could you elaborate a bit more? In which way does infrastructure oppose people's lives? And what does communism have to do with USSR??

Ok i chage it for you to USSR . :D

comiescums wrote:

So you do think that baltic states too ask for military support , right? , if so then Nazi Germany too 'not concoured' Austria and so on...

You should say: "So you do think that Baltic States aksed for military support too, right?" - It's in past so you should write "asked for". Then. "If so, then Nazi Germany didn't "conquer" either Austria and so on.." - When your sentence is in negative form and you want to use "too" in negative, you should change it for "either". Also as it is in past you should say "didn't (did not) + verb". You should write "conquered" not "concured". In this case since you're going to use negative and past you should use "did not conquer" (there's not a form like "conquered not"). So the verb "to do" is the one that changes tense and "conquer" remains in present tense

Now, back to discussion, no I don't think Baltic States asked for military support, those are the only territories that were annexed by USSR.

comiescums wrote:

Ok i chage it for you to USSR . :D

"Ok, I'll change it for you to USSR" Still didn't get your point very well

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Voice of Reason wrote:

@zealot
do you know a country called afghanistan?
a country invaded by USSR in 1979

Of course. We're talking about conquest right?

Ok here it goes: There was a socialist tending state capitalistic government in Afghanistan which asked for Soviet military support as soon as a civil war sprouted. USSR intervened militarily in 1979 to support that government.

1. Since the plan was not to annexate Afghanistan to the USSR it cannot be called conquest.
2. Since the USSR didn't succeed militarily and didn't annexate Afghan territory to USSR, it can't be called conquest.
3. Since Russian culture was not being imposed on Afghans, it can't be called conquest.
4. Since USSR was not exploiting Afghan resources, it canot be called conquest.

Was it a conquest then?

lol you belev that exuse??.
the ussr went for afganistan to get closer to the indan oceqn and prtect it's backdoor this is a commonly known fact

p.s if ther was a civil war then why did another civil war trow them out?

mattabesta wrote:

lol you belev that exuse??.

What excuse? Who is excusing here the Soviet Invation? I'm arguing it was not a conquest and I'm stating why it wasn't.

mattabesta wrote:

the ussr went for afganistan to get closer to the indan oceqn and prtect it's backdoor this is a commonly known fact

Regardless of all the supposed intentions you may claim the USSR had, there was no conquest.

mattabesta wrote:

p.s if ther was a civil war then why did another civil war trow them out?

There had been a civil war status for a quite long time, nearly tribal wars. And it was not a "civil war" that threw them out they simply withdrew after the Invation proved unsuccesful.