At first, I want to thank you for the explanation.
Then a promised answer.
Actually there was. Before mid year 2000 there was plenty of criticism and satire against the Government. That is what Putin destroyed, mainly by having Gazprom taking over management of NTV and then going after the rest of smaller channels. After that mainstream news and tv shows were poisoned with an insane amount of news where Putin could do no wrong and even greater amount of shows where police and alike were portrayed as honest, incorruptible organisations... That is what I've meant. Also while Internet remains reasonably free in Russia, it is a poor tool to shape public opinion or to keep people informed as it consists of thousands of sites, blogs and journals that are not often factchecked.
You blame the wrong man for this. Plenty of criticism was a logical consequence of the horrible mess of 90th. And as stability risen criticism faded. Just the laws of human society. But the case of NTV - that was really unpleasant deed. And I 'm not so sure that was Putin's deed. Of course, for those who sees him as a dictator, he's only one to blame. But he has much to do besides the TV channel. Remember the Russian proverb: если в кране нет воды - значит выпили жиды (there's no need to translate this). And Choobuys (if I type correctly), a head of Gazprom, isn't the man under Putin's command.
He (Putin) was a director of National Security Service and no doubt he ordered his men to make him a true leader in the eyes of Russians. That is what any adequate leader always doing when he try to rise country. That's not the dictator's feature. Any foreign news sources no one forbids in Russia.
The trouble here is that it is close to impossible to explain to someone who believes that anarchy has the same right to exist as democracy the real difference between the two...
Hmm, I used to think quite opposite. Where are equal rights to everyone and everything? How can you compare things that has different rights to exist? How can you compare real with imaginary, for example? Without comparing it's impossible to see the difference.
- Virtually all people that influenced Putin during his life are in the positions of wealth and power. Be that his teachers, friends or colleagues (Old, new colleagues are obviously in the position of power
).
- Judiciary branch in Russia is falling apart, it is corrupt, all verdicts favour beyond reason to people in power, etc.
- He has been in the position of insane power for almost 12 years now. His attitude towards Medvedev who can "fire" him is sometimes mocking and outright disrespectful.
Second is actually to expand the thought of the first and to answer your constant comparison of Medvedev and Putin. Yes, it is true that they are both a "real" deal as Medvedev has his own political "clan" and Putin has his own. But it is hard to dispute that Putin's clan is stronger... He is the leader of "United Russia", he is has been around longer and I see no reason for him to actually relinquish control of the media or influence over oligarchs to Medvedev. The one who will decide who gets to be elected as president next year will be Putin unless someone manages to destroy his "brand" and that is not likely.
I won't fight with opinion or belief, that's meaningless. We have different points of view, you look from outside the Russia and I look from inside. And that's why we see different things. But I must tell you some.
>Virtually all people that influenced Putin during his life are in the positions of wealth and power
That's Russia and it's perfectly normal. Every man with power "share his light" (metaphorically speaking) with those he respect and/or like.
>Judiciary branch in Russia is falling apart, it is corrupt, all verdicts favour beyond reason to people in power, etc
I have personal expirience with courts and judges of Perm region (Russia, western Ural). Of all Perm region, that's a big territory. And I saw no trace of corruption. If you saw corruption in Moscow... well, this is another case. I see Moscow like another country, to live there like living in foreign country. Moscow is unlike Russia.
>His attitude towards Medvedev who can "fire" him is sometimes mocking and outright disrespectful
So, that's the point (to different points of view). I have a quite opposite opinion. Medvedev disrespects Putin in any way he can, he laugh at him and I can't understand such attitude to a man who made him president.
From here on I risk at repeating myself... Neither of them is supposed to have control over Judiciary branch, my believe that Putin has such is a sad reality of Russia in my eyes. Any president that has "Full control" is a dictator by definition so you are contradicting yourself with what you write about Medvedev. Putin is the leader of "United Russia" political party! Check their freaking website. Putin is NOT a member of the "United Russia", no idea where you got that from. Gryzlov leads those member of the party that are in the actual "Duma" but that does in no way makes him an actual leader of the party itself...
Thing that really blown my mind away. Gryzlov is a leader of "United Russia", news said so. All news sources, radio, TV (possibly, I don't watch TV), Internet. Google approves that
![Smiley :)](https://www.pinkpetal.org/Smileys/DarkB/smiley.gif)
But their freaking website... It told me that Putin is the chairman of the party and Gryzlov is the chairman of the High Council of the party. they both are chairmen, but who is the leader of the party after all? I prefer to trust news in that case.
"Liked to live" under Stalin is a relative term. I am sure there are many people who "Like to live" in the North Korea these days and most of the people who crave Stalin today are poorly informed about the possible alternatives that do not require killing millions to save millions.
Of course it's relative term. But if even part of population (not a small group I must add) enjoy with that leader, what's so bad in dictatorship?
About the free pesky "Free Western Massmedia" (Not sure what you meant with official). I've never heard anything about the real numbers of supporters, rebels and people who just don't give a f^ck. But the thing is that they have convinced me that Gaddafi was using military force against his population and there is an international treaty that allows intervention if leadership of a country is using military force against it's people. One of the main differences between a democracy and other forms of government is that problems seems to get solved under democracy before they get to the point where you need kill thousands to stay in power... and that is exactly the reason why it has more right to exist then anarchy, absolute monarchy and dictatorship...
Well, just an example. A country, default country. A group of bandits with the weapon, bought in illegal way, announce themselves as rebels and began to commit different crimes. They always talk of themselves as of rebels fighting with state leader (he didn't gave us a free high education, he don't want there was a free trade of fire weapons, he must be killed), but the things they really do are murder and stealing. They are well enough armed and can easily kill the police force. So the leader of the country sent the military force against them. And that's the reason for intervention. How you think, is that right? The inner problems of the country must be solved by the inner forces of that country. Any intervention is aggression. That situation repeats from time to time, in last century and in this century. And it is democracy who intervents other countries, not monarchy or dictatorship. Democracy don't give a damn about one of main rules of nature: Live and Let Live.
I usually call Bush a "D^ck" for invading Iraq, but Afghanistan was the right call to make after 9/11. And why Bush qualifies only for such a grand title and not for a dictator is that he hasn't killed the Free press, Media and didn't manage to build a vertical of power high enough in U.S.A worthy of calling him one... Oh, not forgetting that he lost his political party Presidency and both of the houses while at it...
Of course, of course. What do you know of Afghanistan? Terrorist organizations, terrorist camps, Muslim jihad... And you say I watch conspiracy theory movies? Do you remember Afghanistan war conflict where USSR take part? Do you know what remains of that country after Soviet troops are left? You believed Bush when he said that terrorists was from Afghanistan. He can name any eastern country. Iraq, for example. Or Packistan. Or Libya. Or Israel. But Afghanistan couldn't say any words in your defence. And that was the reason for laying guilt on this country. Afghanistan was a land of constant unending war conflict. And for the leaders of conflict.. they just don't give a damn about USA, they fight for his land. All Afghani terrorist was only on lips of Bush and nowhere else. But after the tragedy USA need someone or something to guilt.
Sorry, but I need to stop again. Posts in English take very much of my time. I will answer on your other posts when I have time.