• Vladimir Putin’s popularity has just hit a 3-year high
    63 replies, posted
[QUOTE]As the situation in Crimea grew increasingly tense over the past few weeks, many in Western Europe and the U.S. began to wonder what exactly Russian President Vladimir Putin was thinking. German Chancellor Angela Merkel reportedly said he was "in another world," while Julia Ioffe of the New Republic wrote that he had "lost it." As Anne Applebaum of The Post tweeted, "we may have reached the weird moment when the dictator believes his own propaganda." The image was of a man losing his bearings, stumbling blindly into a possible conflict. Perhaps, after 14 years of leading Russia, he had finally gone mad. Apparently in Russia, the perspective is rather different. In a poll conducted by the Russian Public Opinion Research Center (VTsIOM) last week, Putin's popularity level in Russia has reached 71.6 percent. That's a 9.7 percent increase since mid-February, which seems quite obviously linked to the Russian president's handling of Ukraine and the Sochi Olympics. As Ria Novosti notes, it means that Putin's popularity levels are now at a three-year high. You might want to put that down to the fact that the VTsIOM is state-run, but that argument doesn't really hold. The Levada Center, a well-respected independent polling center, has also found that Putin had a 72 percent approval rating, up 7 points from January and a recent record. To put that in context on a world stage, U.S. president Barack Obama is currently at 43 percent, according to Gallup, while 79 percent of the French say they don't approve of Francois Hollande's presidency. Putin isn't just popular, he's extraordinarily popular. So what is Putin doing right? Well, another poll released by Levada offers some insight. According to that poll, conducted March 7-10, 37 percent of respondents believe that Ukraine has been taken over by radical nationalists, and another 36 percent believe there is no single authority there. Just 9 percent believe the government in Ukraine represents the full range of interests of the Ukrainian population. Meanwhile, some 67 percent of those polled blame the crisis in Crimea on Ukrainian nationalists, while just 2 percent blamed it on the Russian leadership. This fear of Ukrainian nationalists is part of the Kremlin line, of course: In an unusual news conference this month, Putin referred to the Euromaidan protests as "orgy of nationalists and extremists and anti-Semites on the streets of Kiev." Russia has simply stepped in to protect Russian speakers from this terrible crowd, the Kremlin logic goes, and that action is apparently okay with Russian citizens – some 65 percent of those polled by Levada felt that Russia had the right to protect Russian speakers in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine. In total, 79 percent felt that Russia should accept Crimea into the country if it votes that way in this weekend's referendum. -- Incidentally, Putin's popularity peaked in September 2008 – just a few weeks after Russia crushed Georgia's military in a brief war over the fate of breakaway region South Ossetia. Putin's actions may strike us as paranoid and possibly mad, driven by exaggerated fears of "Russophobia" and rose-tinted memories of a grand Russian empire, but we should remember: There appear to be millions of people in Russia who may feel the same.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/03/13/we-treat-him-like-hes-mad-but-vladimir-putins-popularity-has-just-hit-a-3-year-high/?tid=pm_world_pop[/url]
rip
What the fuck is going on with this world. Aren't russian presidents only allowed to serve two terms? Why was Putin allowed to serve a third time again?
Unrelated, but I'd imagine Kim Jung un is aware of this and wants to emulate Putin, but as his neighbors consist of the most fortified border on the planet and an increasingly reluctant ally to the north, he's probably out of options.
[QUOTE=Killer900;44251699]What the fuck is going on with this world. Aren't russian presidents only allowed to serve two terms? Why was Putin allowed to serve a third time again?[/QUOTE] Putin was so great that everybody agreed to give him as many terms as he wants because Putin is the best and better than those western pigdogs glory be to tsar Putin.
[QUOTE=Killer900;44251699]Aren't russian presidents only allowed to serve two terms? Why was Putin allowed to serve a third time again?[/QUOTE] are you really asking this question
[QUOTE=Killer900;44251699]What the fuck is going on with this world. Aren't russian presidents only allowed to serve two terms? Why was Putin allowed to serve a third time again?[/QUOTE] They can't serve more than 2 consecutive terms, which is why Medvedev had a quick term.
[QUOTE=Killer900;44251699]What the fuck is going on with this world. Aren't russian presidents only allowed to serve two terms? Why was Putin allowed to serve a third time again?[/QUOTE] It's kinda funny, but there is nothing wrong about it. Constitution of Russian Federation allows (i mean, there are no restrictions about it) former presidents (like Putin became in 2008) to be re-elected after next president (like Medvedev became one in 2008). Democracy as it is. P.S: I guess Putin is going to be like Brezhnev. Being the head of the country till the end.
Amazing; we got through the cold war without it going hot and here we are 20 odd year later and shit's heating up. If Putin is going crazy we might have a serious war on our hands
the center that conducted and published this poll is state-run and owned, so i'm hesitant to automatically accept these as accurate. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VTSIOM[/url]
[QUOTE=joes33431;44251787]the center that conducted and published this poll is state-run and owned, so i'm hesitant to automatically accept these as accurate. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VTSIOM[/url][/QUOTE] I've heard this argument before. The Levada Pollster also found his rating to be at 72%. It's even in the article. [QUOTE]You might want to put that down to the fact that the VTsIOM is state-run, but that argument doesn't really hold. The Levada Center, a well-respected independent polling center, has also found that Putin had a 72 percent approval rating, up 7 points from January and a recent record. To put that in context on a world stage, U.S. president Barack Obama is currently at 43 percent, according to Gallup, while 79 percent of the French say they don't approve of Francois Hollande's presidency. Putin isn't just popular, he's extraordinarily popular.[/QUOTE]
I distrust especially popular and exciting or assertive politicians. Politicians should be boring, along with politics.
Comrades, you may blame Russia for "agression", but why not to remember Grenada Invasion, Panama, Persian Gulf, Kosovo, Iraq, Lybia? Double standarts, double standarts everywhere.
[QUOTE=laserguided;44251806]I've heard this argument before. The Levada Pollster also found his rating to be at 72%. It's even in the article.[/QUOTE] oh. okay. my mistake.
[QUOTE=bogdan;44251841]Comrades, you may blame Russia for "agression", but why not to remember Grenada Invasion, Panama, Persian Gulf, Kosovo, Iraq, Lybia? Double standarts, double standarts everywhere.[/QUOTE] Except all of those countries were dictatorships
[QUOTE=bogdan;44251841]Comrades, you may blame Russia for "agression", but why not to remember Grenada Invasion, Panama, Persian Gulf, Kosovo, Iraq, Lybia? Double standarts, double standarts everywhere.[/QUOTE] The difference being, those were western-backed invasions. Thus, legitimate and transparent.
[QUOTE=bogdan;44251841]Comrades, you may blame Russia for "agression", but why not to remember Grenada Invasion, Panama, Persian Gulf, Kosovo, Iraq, Lybia? Double standarts, double standarts everywhere.[/QUOTE] Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't we end up not actually doing anything in Lybia? Or is that a different situation I am thinking of.
[QUOTE=bogdan;44251781]It's kinda funny, but there is nothing wrong about it. Constitution of Russian Federation allows (i mean, there are no restrictions about it) former presidents (like Putin became in 2008) to be re-elected after next president (like Medvedev became one in 2008). Democracy as it is.[/QUOTE] There's a restriction though. There's this document, [url=http://constitution.garant.ru/act/president/12113545/]Constitutional Court ruling[/url] on November 5, 1998 that states as follows: [quote] &#1044;&#1074;&#1072; &#1089;&#1088;&#1086;&#1082;&#1072; &#1087;&#1086;&#1083;&#1085;&#1086;&#1084;&#1086;&#1095;&#1080;&#1081; &#1087;&#1086;&#1076;&#1088;&#1103;&#1076;, &#1086; &#1095;&#1077;&#1084; &#1080;&#1076;&#1077;&#1090; &#1088;&#1077;&#1095;&#1100; &#1074; &#1089;&#1090;&#1072;&#1090;&#1100;&#1077; 81 (&#1095;&#1072;&#1089;&#1090;&#1100; 3) &#1050;&#1086;&#1085;&#1089;&#1090;&#1080;&#1090;&#1091;&#1094;&#1080;&#1080; &#1056;&#1086;&#1089;&#1089;&#1080;&#1081;&#1089;&#1082;&#1086;&#1081; &#1060;&#1077;&#1076;&#1077;&#1088;&#1072;&#1094;&#1080;&#1080;, &#1089;&#1086;&#1089;&#1090;&#1072;&#1074;&#1083;&#1103;&#1102;&#1090; &#1082;&#1086;&#1085;&#1089;&#1090;&#1080;&#1090;&#1091;&#1094;&#1080;&#1086;&#1085;&#1085;&#1099;&#1081; &#1087;&#1088;&#1077;&#1076;&#1077;&#1083;, &#1087;&#1088;&#1077;&#1074;&#1099;&#1096;&#1077;&#1085;&#1080;&#1103; &#1082;&#1086;&#1090;&#1086;&#1088;&#1086;&#1075;&#1086; &#1050;&#1086;&#1085;&#1089;&#1090;&#1080;&#1090;&#1091;&#1094;&#1080;&#1103; &#1056;&#1086;&#1089;&#1089;&#1080;&#1081;&#1089;&#1082;&#1086;&#1081; &#1060;&#1077;&#1076;&#1077;&#1088;&#1072;&#1094;&#1080;&#1080;, &#1074;&#1082;&#1083;&#1102;&#1095;&#1072;&#1103; &#1087;&#1091;&#1085;&#1082;&#1090; 3 &#1077;&#1077; &#1088;&#1072;&#1079;&#1076;&#1077;&#1083;&#1072; &#1074;&#1090;&#1086;&#1088;&#1086;&#1075;&#1086; "&#1047;&#1072;&#1082;&#1083;&#1102;&#1095;&#1080;&#1090;&#1077;&#1083;&#1100;&#1085;&#1099;&#1077; &#1080; &#1087;&#1077;&#1088;&#1077;&#1093;&#1086;&#1076;&#1085;&#1099;&#1077; &#1087;&#1086;&#1083;&#1086;&#1078;&#1077;&#1085;&#1080;&#1103;", &#1085;&#1077; &#1076;&#1086;&#1087;&#1091;&#1089;&#1082;&#1072;&#1077;&#1090;.[/quote] Now I'm going to translate it very badly because I suck at legal English: [quote]Two consecutive terms, - spoken of in the article 81 (section 3) of the Constitution of Russian Federation, - form a constitutional limit, going beyond which Constitution <...> [b]does not permit[/b][/quote] The ruling was made in 1998, obviously, but since then no articles or sections that speak of presidency have been change, therefore it technically should apply. Putin de-jure is illegitimate president. You can tell the chairman of Constitutional court haven't been changed by Putin since then for nothing.
[QUOTE=download;44251851]Except all of those countries were dictatorships[/QUOTE] Iraq turned out nicely didn't it?
[QUOTE=MoralSupport;44251866]Or how about Chechnya, Georgia, Afghanistan, Czechoslovakia, and now Ukraine. Right back at you.[/QUOTE] Stop with Chechnya shit, it never was its own country.
[QUOTE=gudman;44251873]Stop with Chechnya shit, it never was its own country.[/QUOTE] Eh, the Tsars and Comrade Stalin made sure of that.
I actually just played as Vladimir Putin in a big satirical play today people liked it, so yes, this is true
[QUOTE=bogdan;44251841]Comrades, you may blame Russia for "agression", but why not to remember Grenada Invasion, Panama, Persian Gulf, Kosovo, Iraq, Lybia? Double standarts, double standarts everywhere.[/QUOTE] Did you really just call us comrades? I thought we were the imperialist pigs?
[QUOTE=MoralSupport;44251866]Or how about Chechnya, Georgia, Afghanistan, Czechoslovakia, and now Ukraine. Right back at you.[/QUOTE] ~superpower fight~ Honestly you're both pretty bad [QUOTE=gudman;44251873]Stop with Chechnya shit, it never was its own country.[/QUOTE] That's totally a valid excuse for the some 130,000 dead civilians, yep. The terrorist attacks in Russia may have been catastrophic but it's not an excuse for russias behavior. Hands down the most horrific images I've ever seen of human suffering have come from the Chechen conflict. Same goes for Iraq "something something blah blah dictator" =/= valid excuse for causing the death of 150,000 civilians. The sheer number of people that died in in the war makes the Halabja attack look like a practical joke.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;44251754]are you really asking this question[/QUOTE] Yes sobotnik I did not know that's why I asked
[QUOTE=_Kent_;44251941]Did you really just call us comrades? I thought we were the imperialist pigs?[/QUOTE] Imperialist pigs are sitting in the White House, don't you worry. About Chechnya - in the 90's there was huge genocide of Russian population. Plus, Dudaev's regime used Grozny Airport to transfer large amounts of weapons and drugs in Russia and Europe. In order to restore constitutional status, troops were sent there.
[QUOTE=bogdan;44251841]Comrades, you may blame Russia for "agression", but why not to remember Grenada Invasion, Panama, Persian Gulf, Kosovo, Iraq, Lybia? Double standarts, double standarts everywhere.[/QUOTE] Let's see. The Persian Gulf was an invasion of Iraq because Saddam Hussein was a fucking idiot and thought annexing Kuwait was a good idea. Libya was entirely an air and naval-based campaign, and NATO did not invade the country, and Ghadaffi thought breaking cease-fires and bombing his own people was a brilliant idea. And Kosovo? I don't recall any American ground precense in Kosovo, just like Libya. I'll give you that the other conflicts you mention are less defendable and definitely disputed in terms of whether they were justified. But as MoralSupport pointed out, Russia does NOT have the moral high ground here.
[QUOTE=MoralSupport;44251903]They did actually in 1917. And of course they had to be apart of the Soviet Union, what were they going to say, no. They would have gotten destroyed, kind like they did in the 90's when it broke up.[/QUOTE] They actually didn't, because Mountainous Republic not only existed for a few months, but consisted of more than just Chechnya. And I beg you to educate yourself on what happened in 90s, because calling it "broke up" is pretty far from reality. There was an armed coup that just "declared" their independence with no referendum (more so, "freedom fighters" actually prevented the referendum by ousting the local government before it could take place). Then they began throwing ethnic Russians off of Chechnya by means that could only be described as genocide. And after that their terrorists began invading neighboring regions for not supporting their "government forces", band of armed separatists supported by all sorts of Middle Eastern terrorist factions. Their government was crushed because they were terrorists, not because of indepencence declaration. Plus, it would help if you actually called it for what it is, as in, they were never directly part of USSR. They were part of Russia, and its constitution required fairly more complex procedure for declaring independence than Soviet one, which separatists refused to uphold anyway. [editline]16th March 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=hypno-toad;44251962] That's totally a valid excuse for the some 130,000 dead civilians, yep. The terrorist attacks in Russia may have been catastrophic but it's not an excuse for russias behavior. Hands down the most horrific images I've ever seen of human suffering have come from the Chechen conflict. [/QUOTE] Yeah because everyone forgot to tell the tale of how ethnic Russians there suffered before the conflict. The response might've been barbaric and way overpowering, but it certainly wasn't completely unprovoked.
[QUOTE=bogdan;44251841]Comrades, you may blame Russia for "agression", but why not to remember Grenada Invasion, Panama, Persian Gulf, Kosovo, Iraq, Lybia? Double standarts, double standarts everywhere.[/QUOTE] there might have been viable comparisons in foreign policy. gulags vs abu ghraib/gitmo. afghanistan vs vietnam. and we both propped up repressive regimes against the wishes of the people. and domestically, you had your mass killings of political dissidents, poor/unworkable industrial and agricultural policy, mass famines, shortages of consumer goods, mass indoctrination, ethnic cleansings, a disregard for national/ethnic/religious backgrounds, media censorship, a complete lack of political freedoms, and a total and utter disregard for the actual well-being of the people against the very tenets of the ideology that the former government at the time was founded upon. and we had... ...uh... ...twinkies, mccarthy, and hiding under desks.
[QUOTE=bogdan;44251841]Comrades, you may blame Russia for "agression", but why not to remember Grenada Invasion, Panama, Persian Gulf, Kosovo, Iraq, Lybia? Double standarts, double standarts everywhere.[/QUOTE] What about everyone here who isn't American?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.