Putin accepts 2012 Presidential Run 21 replies

Please wait...

Commissar MercZ

Notable Loser

300,005 XP

29th January 2005

0 Uploads

27,113 Posts

0 Threads

#1 7 years ago

As discussed by a number of sources on the media, such as Al Jazeera or The New York Times President Medvedev proposed that former president and current Prime Minister Vladimir Putin accept the 2012 Presidential Campaign of their ruling party "United Russia", of which Putin is also the leader of. Recently, Putin has formally accepted Medvedev's proposal and has put forward a program over what his campaign will be about.

This has set forth discussions inevitably about the nature of Russian politics currently, and the role of Vladimir Putin in the new, post-Soviet and post-Yeltsin Russia. There was pretty much a universal consensus among analysis ts that Putin filling the Prime Minister position while allowing Medvedev the presidency was a measure for Putin to retain influence in the government until the constitution would make it possible for Putin hold office again. As per the current changes, which allows for six year terms now, it is now possible for Putin to remain president until 2024. The main restrictions from the constitution as far as I can tell is for two consecutive terms, but not for total terms.

Thoughts?




Raptor_101

The Philosoraptor

105,400 XP

28th March 2008

0 Uploads

10,375 Posts

0 Threads

#2 7 years ago

I don't like the fact that he's been able to stay at the head of the government for so long. He served his terms, he should accept that he's done his job and move on. But no, he had to have Medvedev fill in for him and he still got the better end of the bargain by ruling through him. Just look at Medvedev speak like he's his dog. It's appearing to me more of a dictatorship with democratic ideas with Putin at the leads.

No offense Russians. It's just really apparent now Putin is working for himself.




Fyurii

NEKRON!!!!!!!

50 XP

4th August 2006

0 Uploads

3,477 Posts

0 Threads

#3 7 years ago

I'd say "something is rotten in the state of Denmark". By rotten, I mean this has probably been in the pipeline for some time. By Denmark, I obviously mean Russia.




Mihail VIP Member

President of Novistrana

50 XP

19th January 2003

0 Uploads

15,509 Posts

0 Threads

#4 7 years ago

Putins approval ratings have always been high, clearly he is liked and his presidency was effective, military funding was finally able to goto arms industry and returned in arms, corruption in low to mid state levels are at all time lows.

Who is a better candidate for united russia party? If you can answer that question for me, I'll be the first to agree.




Nemmerle Forum Mod

Voice of joy and sunshine

298,365 XP

26th May 2003

0 Uploads

28,147 Posts

5 Threads

#5 7 years ago

[SIZE="3"]I've never believed that swapping your leaders every two terms significantly decreases chances of corruption. It's more a cup and balls game than any real restraint.

Indeed having that sort of stability may decrease the chances of corruption since the person isn't going to have to look at what happens in eight years when they're kicked out - no need to squirrel away a variety of massive nest eggs...

I only half kid. As far as I'm concerned corruption is more a function of the system than of the individual. If Putin can get himself re-elected indefinitely, by reasonably honest means, then more power to him.[/SIZE]




MrFancypants Forum Admin

The Bad

217,008 XP

7th December 2003

0 Uploads

20,003 Posts

6 Threads

#6 7 years ago

This information in itself doesn't seem very disturbing. if you combine it with the rest of the political climate in Russia you can see though that they are heading for an autocracy.

For example, not long ago one of those super-rich Russians was supposed to lead an opposition party. Apparently the idea was for Putin to have a manageable opposition to campaign against: oligarchs, who gained incredible wealth by playing the markets in the desolate post Soviet 90s, are disliked by many Russians. Yet they also depend on the government which can easily fabricate cases against problematic people and send them to prison indefinitely. However, the plan backfired and the oligarch got too independent, hence he was thrown out rather quickly before he could do any real damage.

The media are mostly controlled by the state. If you watch Russian TV news you get the impression that the only time they don't show Putin is when they demonstrate the latest in Russian military technology. Russia doesn't score well on the press freedom index either.

Any real opposition is often dealt with ruthlessly. And if someone dares to shine a light at the very ugly relations between Russia and the Russian-controlled thugs who control Chechnya then journalists end up dead. According to a report I read a while ago more than 300 journalists were killed in Russia since the 90s which makes Russia the most dangerous country for journalists in Europe.

This is too bad really - Russia is a great country and Russians are very interesting people. I think the phrase "people get the government they deserve" doesn't apply there, they deserve better.




Mihail VIP Member

President of Novistrana

50 XP

19th January 2003

0 Uploads

15,509 Posts

0 Threads

#7 7 years ago
For example, not long ago one of those super-rich Russians was supposed to lead an opposition party.

Kasparov

Apparently the idea was for Putin to have a manageable opposition to campaign against: oligarchs, who gained incredible wealth by playing the markets in the desolate post Soviet 90s, are disliked by many Russians.

Yes apparently people making it super rich off of the Russian state while many people were suffering from the remissness of yeltins rule.

The media are mostly controlled by the state. If you watch Russian TV news you get the impression that the only time they don't show Putin is when they demonstrate the latest in Russian military technology. Russia doesn't score well on the press freedom index either.

Good thing theres thousands of stations available and only three channels under state control, two of which were owned by the state before 1990, but TV news is going the way of the dinosaur, who actually listens to just one media source anymore?

Any real opposition is often dealt with ruthlessly.

Such as?

And if someone dares to shine a light at the very ugly relations between Russia and the Russian-controlled thugs who control Chechnya then journalists end up dead.

Yes the boogie man stories are amusing.

This is too bad really - Russia is a great country and Russians are very interesting people. I think the phrase "people get the government they deserve" doesn't apply there, they deserve better.

Yes if only by the grace of god we could find a Mikhail Sashahvili or a Viktor Yushchenko, because those western approved presidents were and are such great leaders, We'll be able to have nato bases in no time and loose control of where the money goes, it will be awesome.




MrFancypants Forum Admin

The Bad

217,008 XP

7th December 2003

0 Uploads

20,003 Posts

6 Threads

#8 7 years ago

Mihail;5564308Kasparov

Yes apparently people making it super rich off of the Russian state while many people were suffering from the remissness of yeltins rule.

I understand the hatred of Yeltsin and the oligarchs - surely the privatization could have been handled better - but to blame only them ignores the fact that Russia only got into this situation because of the collapse of state socialism.

Good thing theres thousands of stations available and only three channels under state control, two of which were owned by the state before 1990, but TV news is going the way of the dinosaur, who actually listens to just one media source anymore?

A state can control media without actually owning the companies. The term for that is probably self-censorship. I agree though that people who watch TV news only have themselves to blame. From what I heard Russia's newspapers aren't much better though as far as government influence is concerned.

Such as?

It looks like every time someone goes on the street to voice his concerns over Putin he is beaten up by youth gangs which appear out of nowhere or arrested by the police. Or both.

There is also police-state like activites against some people, for example those guys who protested against the polution of the Baikal lake by nearby factory. I think Putin inspected the plant personally. Last thing I heard about the activists was that after many threats their offices were raided and most of their assets taken by the government.

Yes the boogie man stories are amusing.

Not so much for the journalists who are killed in Russia.

Yes if only by the grace of god we could find a Mikhail Sashahvili or a Viktor Yushchenko, because those western approved presidents were and are such great leaders, We'll be able to have nato bases in no time and loose control of where the money goes, it will be awesome.

Its not like I said that those are great leaders. You could do with some Nato bases though; that anti-western stance is obsolete and ridiculous, considering to what degree the Russian and European economies are interconnected. Plus, Russia and Nato have common enemies in Muslim extremists. Russia might even benefit from cooperating with Nato on such matters as Afghanistan, that might reduce your drug problem.




Commissar MercZ

Notable Loser

300,005 XP

29th January 2005

0 Uploads

27,113 Posts

0 Threads

#9 7 years ago

Just a little aside- there might be a chance that 2012 will see us in a repeat of 2000-2008 if the 2012 elections here go a certain way. A wacky Texas governor in the White House and strongman Putin in the Kremlin. It'll be the good ol' days all over again :p




Mihail VIP Member

President of Novistrana

50 XP

19th January 2003

0 Uploads

15,509 Posts

0 Threads

#10 7 years ago
I understand the hatred of Yeltsin and the oligarchs - surely the privatization could have been handled better - but to blame only them ignores the fact that Russia only got into this situation because of the collapse of state socialism.

No one blames just them.

A state can control media without actually owning the companies. The term for that is probably self-censorship. I agree though that people who watch TV news only have themselves to blame. From what I heard Russia's newspapers aren't much better though as far as government influence is concerned.

It's no different then a station being owned by a political party.

It looks like every time someone goes on the street to voice his concerns over Putin he is beaten up by youth gangs which appear out of nowhere or arrested by the police. Or both.

Not that I'm aware of.

There is also police-state like activites against some people, for example those guys who protested against the polution of the Baikal lake by nearby factory. I think Putin inspected the plant personally. Last thing I heard about the activists was that after many threats their offices were raided and most of their assets taken by the government.

Exact sort of corruption Putin has been fighting, be it as it may, the plant was shutdown for 15 months to upgrade their facilities after being inspected.

Not so much for the journalists who are killed in Russia.

When your covering war, crime and corruption you take the risk willingly.

Its not like I said that those are great leaders.

Good thing too.

You could do with some Nato bases though; that anti-western stance is obsolete and ridiculous, considering to what degree the Russian and European economies are interconnected.

Hmm not a bad idea, but better yet, Russian Bases in Europe and US, maybe some Chinese and Indian bases too while were at it, a contingent of 60,000 russian, indian and chinese stationed in each European capital sounds good, we'll be able to defend you from Iran better that way from all those other rouge nations.

Plus, Russia and Nato have common enemies in Muslim extremists. Russia might even benefit from cooperating with Nato on such matters as Afghanistan, that might reduce your drug problem.

Nah, our extremists are too busy killing each other for power, all we have to worry about is stopping the drug trade from Afghanistan which Nato doesn't care about, since all those drug producers are the only ones in Afghanistan that aren't shooting nato troops.