The Right-Wing Love Putin.

[rubato]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/12/opini ... c=rss&_r=1

Thugs and Kisses
[Paul Krugman]

Paul Krugman SEPT. 12, 2016

First of all, let’s get this straight: The Russian Federation of 2016 is not the Soviet Union of 1986. True, it covers most of the same territory and is run by some of the same thugs. But the Marxist ideology is gone, and so is the superpower status. We’re talking about a more or less ordinary corrupt petrostate here, although admittedly a big one that happens to have nukes.

I mention all of this because Donald Trump’s effusive praise for Vladimir Putin — which actually reflects a fairly common sentiment on the right — seems to have confused some people.

On one side, some express puzzlement over the spectacle of right-wingers — the kind of people who used to yell “America, love it or leave it!” — praising a Russian regime. On the other side, a few people on the left are anti-anti-Putinists, denouncing criticism of Mr. Trump’s Putin-love as “red-baiting.” But today’s Russia isn’t Communist, or even leftist; it’s just an authoritarian state, with a cult of personality around its strongman, that showers benefits on an immensely wealthy oligarchy while brutally suppressing opposition and criticism.

And that, of course, is what many on the right admire.

Am I being unfair? Could praise for Russia’s de facto dictator reflect appreciation of his substantive achievements? Well, let’s talk about what the Putin regime has, in fact, accomplished, starting with economics.

Mr. Putin came to power at the end of 1999, as Russia was recovering from a severe financial crisis, and his first eight years were marked by rapid economic growth. This growth can, however, be explained with just one word: oil.

For Russia is, as I said, a petrostate: Fuels account for more than two-thirds of its exports, manufactures barely a fifth. And oil prices more than tripled between early 1999 and 2000; a few years later they more than tripled again. Then they plunged, and so did the Russian economy, which has done very badly in the past few years.

Mr. Putin would actually have something to boast about if he had managed to diversify Russia’s exports. And this should have been possible: The old regime left behind a large cadre of highly skilled workers. In fact, Russian émigrés have been a key force behind Israel’s remarkable technology boom — and the Putin government appears to have no trouble recruiting talented hackers to break into Democratic National Committee files. But Russia wasn’t going to realize its technology potential under a regime where business success depends mainly on political connections.

Every weekday, get thought-provoking commentary from Op-Ed columnists, the Times editorial board and contributing writers from around the world.
Receive occasional updates and special offers for The New York Times's products and services.

So Mr. Putin’s economic management is nothing to write home about. What about other aspects of his leadership?

Russia does, of course, have a big military, which it has used to annex Crimea and support rebels in eastern Ukraine. But this muscle-flexing has made Russia weaker, not stronger. Crimea, in particular, isn’t much of a conquest: it’s a territory with fewer people than either Queens or Brooklyn, and in economic terms it’s a liability rather than an asset, since the Russian takeover has undermined tourism, its previous mainstay.

An aside: Weirdly, some people think there’s a contradiction between Democratic mocking of the Trump/Putin bromance and President Obama’s mocking of Mitt Romney, four years ago, for calling Russia our “No. 1 geopolitical foe.” But there isn’t: Russia has a horrible regime, but as Mr. Obama said, it’s a “regional power,” not a superpower like the old Soviet Union.

Finally, what about soft power, the ability to persuade through the attractiveness of one’s culture and values? Russia has very little — except, maybe, among right-wingers who find Mr. Putin’s macho posturing and ruthlessness attractive.

Which brings us back to the significance of the Putin cult, and the way this cult has been eagerly joined by the Republican nominee for president.

There are good reasons to worry about Mr. Trump’s personal connections to the Putin regime (or to oligarchs close to that regime, which is effectively the same thing.) How crucial has Russian money been in sustaining Mr. Trump’s ramshackle business empire? There are hints that it may have been very important indeed, but given Mr. Trump’s secretiveness and his refusal to release his taxes, nobody really knows.

Beyond that, however, admiring Mr. Putin means admiring someone who has contempt for democracy and civil liberties. Or more accurately, it means admiring someone precisely because of that contempt.

When Mr. Trump and others praise Mr. Putin as a “strong leader,” they don’t mean that he has made Russia great again, because he hasn’t. He has accomplished little on the economic front, and his conquests, such as they are, are fairly pitiful. What he has done, however, is crush his domestic rivals: Oppose the Putin regime, and you’re likely to end up imprisoned or dead. Strong! ... "

[liberty]

The Left loved the place when it was the Soviet Union. True Russia is a thug state but not nearly so brutal than when it was Communist. As far as I know the terminal camps, where homosexual and social misfits where sent to be worked to death digging phosphate with their bare hands ( refer: Out of The ICE) , no longer exist.

When Obama failed to respond to the Russian invasion of east Ukraine that was the beginning of the end. The hand writing is on wall; better learn to deal with a new reality.

Russia has great potential; it is the Africa of the north in terms of natural resources. If Russia would recruit foreign investments and convince investors their money is safe their economy could grow like China’s has.

[Econoline]

The Left loved the place when it was the Soviet Union.

Bullshit. Nobody on "The Left" loved the USSR past at least the late 1940s (hint: when was the novel 1984 written?)--and in the early 1940s there was more love for the USSR because they were our allies in WW2.

If Russia would recruit foreign investments and convince investors their money is safe their economy could grow like China’s has.

That's a very, VERY, VERY big "IF". The Paul Krugman column rubato quoted explains quite well why this is unlikely to happen very soon.

[Scooter]

[Joe Guy]

If Russia would recruit foreign investments and convince investors their money is safe their economy could grow like China’s has.

That's why you should buy Russian stocks now. Buy low, sell high. Your children will thank you when they become so wealthy that they will be able to afford to move to Russia.

[liberty]

If Russia would recruit foreign investments and convince investors their money is safe their economy could grow like China’s has.

That's why you should buy Russian stocks now. Buy low, sell high. Your children will thank you when they become so wealthy that they will be able to afford to move to Russia.

The problem is Joe Russia is a country that protects its own people. A foreigner that owns lots property there my find himself facing a high selective tax just for being a foreigner. I am not sure that citizenship would be much protection. But I could be wrong there are Americans that live in Russia and I have not heard of any complaints.

[liberty]

If you don’t love Russia doesn’t that make you a hater and a fascist?


http://waytorussia.net/WhatIsRussia/MythsAndTruth.html

Myth: The economy is destroyed and not at all diversified, Russia has no future!
Truth: The funny thing is that two years ago we'd just say it's not true: look how fast the GDP is growing, look at the millions of people who managed to climb from the poverty in the last few years.... Well, nowadays things are quite different. After the financial crisis hit the country it became very obvious that you can't build a solid economy on natural resources, like oil and gas. On one side it made things quite unstable again. On the other side, many people finally got a kick in their ass and started to do something about innovation rather than thinking about it. The bottom line is that Russia still has a huge human resource potential. Even though the education is hopelessly outdated, the economy is hopelessly dependent on the outside markets and not at all diversified... We still have small grass-root initiatives here and there that keep Russia on the international map (for example, tandp.ru below). If the society (and through it – the government) realizes that it should nurture these attempts and give resources to talented and passionate people instead of bureaucrats, we'll see a very fast rise and diversification of the economy.

[MajGenl.Meade]

But I could be wrong there are Americans that live in Russia and I have not heard of any complaints.

A Russian standing in line to purchase cabbages started to complain that in today's more open society, these periodic shortages should no longer occur. A man in a dark coat and hat standing behind him tapped him on the shoulder and said:


"Comrade. I am old KGB. You should stop making complains about shortages. In the old days, it would be THIS for you." He makes the gun shape with his hand and puts his finger on the man's temple, his thumb mimicking the hammer falling. "Pow!" says the ex-KGB man.


Our hero shrinks away and trembles. The chap in front of him, who saw and heard the entire thing, asks if he is afraid.

"Yes I am," says the man, "It's much worse than I thought. They've run out of bullets"

[Scooter]

http://waytorussia.net/WhatIsRussia/MythsAndTruth.html

Myth: The economy is destroyed and not at all diversified, Russia has no future!
Truth: The funny thing is that two years ago we'd just say it's not true: look how fast the GDP is growing, look at the millions of people who managed to climb from the poverty in the last few years.... Well, nowadays things are quite different. After the financial crisis hit the country it became very obvious that you can't build a solid economy on natural resources, like oil and gas. On one side it made things quite unstable again. On the other side, many people finally got a kick in their ass and started to do something about innovation rather than thinking about it. The bottom line is that Russia still has a huge human resource potential. Even though the education is hopelessly outdated, the economy is hopelessly dependent on the outside markets and not at all diversified... We still have small grass-root initiatives here and there that keep Russia on the international map (for example, tandp.ru below). If the society (and through it – the government) realizes that it should nurture these attempts and give resources to talented and passionate people instead of bureaucrats, we'll see a very fast rise and diversification of the economy.

Is that supposed to be an accolade? He/she is saying that the Russian economy will remain in the toilet as long as it remains resource-dependent and in the hands of apparatchiks.

[liberty]

At least Russia is a real country and Putin cares about his people?

[Burning Petard]

Thank you Liberty, for putting a question mark at the end of your sentence above.

For all the discussion of the current status of the economy of Russia, I hold my judgement as long as the assessments are based on data from the sources within Russia that cook the books just like they did in the time of Stalinist 5 year plans.

snailgate

[Lord Jim]

There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Putin cares about his people, and a significant body of evidence to the contrary.

[Guinevere]

There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Putin cares about his people, and a significant body of evidence to the contrary.

Since when have facts ever mattered to the ignorant Trumpanzees like the ones who post here? You're wasting your breath, LJ.

[liberty]

There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Putin cares about his people, and a significant body of evidence to the contrary.

Where is the evidence that Obama cares about the people of this country. What has he improved?

[BoSoxGal]

[liberty]

Well, what has he improved?

[Scooter]

How Obama's Economic Record Stacks Up

Obama’s Numbers (January 2016 Update)
A statistical measure of the U.S. on crime, guns, jobs, health insurance and more under Barack Obama.

Here's a clue - a president doesn't leave office with a 55% approval rating unless most people believe they are better off than they were when he took office.

And everyone knows what you have against Obama.