KGB must also have taught him to hate free media. This endless praising that almost resembles a personality cult is not adding to Russia's credibility in the eyes of the world. But hey, what does he have to care because all problems in Russia are made abroad and thus all foreign countries that don't fall under her wings or want to rid themselves of Russia need not to be understood. Oh please!

Ok KGB is KGB, that's the organization, but not the creation of Mr. Putin. But everyone must admit without any reserve that Mr. Putin has made the only and the most service to the word : democracy as it must be and to the world Statesman. In my deep conviction today there is no one more sincerely dedicated - as a power man and politician could be as Mr. Putin. In my opinion the rest of democratic world is just a big bluff and cynical hypocrisy, the blue print of what couldn't be the democracy ! There are wonders in the Politics world ! That's Mr Putin ! Congratulations, you are the only one who is not corrupt

Russia is a huge country with a lot of valuable resources. It is a given that the west tried to exploit and hoodwink Russia into selling itself out. Putin rallied the one weapon which he could, pure state power, to wrest control from foreign interests and corrupt oligarchs. This required less than soft methods at times, but it was necessary to take Russia out of the hole that it was in. But ultimately, it is the Russian people who will judge Putin; not Washington, not the EU, not NATO or their henchmen. And whatever the Russian peoples' judgment turns out to be, it is the only one that matters. Putin was not elected to do what the west wants.

First of all, I do not think Putin really cares what foreigners think about him, as long as they don't convert their paranoia into foreign policy. The Russian people like him and that is more important. What are his popularity numbers now, 70 or 75 percent? Obama is already below 50 percent, last I heard. But lately we Americans seem to be tougher to govern, so it may not be entirely his fault. Second, I think the scary initials after Putin's name probably helped keep the competing forces in the Kremlin from tearing the government apart. Why Russia did not dissolve into civil war during the late 1990s or the early years of his presidency (and it was a near thing with the brutal Chechnya wars) still puzzles analysts here. Maybe it was all those grandmothers lighting candles; it sure seems like a miracle. I hope they are still praying. Third, I believe Putin's legacy for the past 10 years will include "Yukos" in big letters. Maybe the Russians do not care, but the western press still does, and Yukos was re-hashed in a new article I read just last weekend. Putin probably will never be forgiven for that, because he pinched some very rich people in their wallets, and he did it with a sneaky tax gambit. Rothschild had been about to get ownership of Yukos and all that lovely oil, with his fingers almost closed around the prize, and suddenly . . . ZIP! It disappeared from his grasp. Too Bad! So Sad! Putin did not let foreign interests "part out" Russia as if it was a stolen car in a chop shop. Therefore, he will always be "eeeevvviiiilllll" according to the big money centers, especially London and New York. And that is where the big media outlets lurk, so they will make sure the Putin legend always includes something scary. @ Wonderer, I agree with your first statement. Putin never had the patience with the press that Medvedev has.

If there is anyone in the world politics to respect both as a personality and stateman, it is Mr. Putin. I'm glad that Russians finally got the leader they can be proud of.

@MEJanssen Yes, I'm sure he isn't too troubled with what the west thinks of him and he has every right to that.

@Wonderer Didn’t mind when Primakov who during the final phase of the Soviet era, he headed the KGB intelligence and security service, and served as a Politburo member in 98 under Yeltsin or the President of Azerbaijan. The scheme to loot Russia. http://www.questionsquestions.net/docs04/engdahl-soros.html It is the western press, newspapers and TV, books, foundations and NGO’s since Putin came to power 10 years ago at least one negative story about Russia every week in the western media and even good news like increase in GDP or sign that government policy to increase Russian birth rate has a negative spin on it. Or theories like Russia has a secret network of KGB and organised crime throughout Europe and the US and new books about WW2 and Communism with the sub narrative that Russia poses the same threat as the USSR that has to be confronted. There has been more independent media under Putin than Yeltsin before he came to power were under the control of 2 Oligarchs who have connections to organised crime and Chechen terrorist groups. 8 Oligarchs and specifically 2 of them Berezovsky and Guisinky controlled every aspect of Russia media, economy government, appointees, etc which they would appoint there people to the Duma to enact laws especially regional ones that benefit them which through a series of banking firms and Charities they would launder Berezovsky was able weasel his way to becoming the equivalent of security position of that of Rumsfield and Gates in the US who was secretly financing and giving aid to Chechen militants under the Yeltsin regime who the Oligarchs controlled especially after his second term and were running the country. He now brags of his connections to the establishment in the UK has connections to MI6 and has publicly stated he is plotting the violent overthrow of President Putin from his base in Britain just like they did in 1917 to Rothschild own media rag The Gaurdian newspaper. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/apr/13/topstories3.russia Of course the western media will not reference or go into detail there connections to organised crime or there past criminal activity and how they got there wealth or that they are citizens of a foreign country. One banking family controls a huge majority of the media in Europe as well as in the US. In the US an ethnic minority of 2 percent especially in the controls and has a monopoly on the media, political financing, academia, banking, law, law enforcement and intelligence agencies FBI/CIA, psychology, government contracts, organised crime, NGO’s Basically every conceivable social/political/financial institution imaginable. It is the same in every other European and western country as well as some non-European countries like Mexico.

@ Wonderer. Obama gets far more baseless praises from the media than Putin, he has done none of the things he promised when he was campaigning, but I have not heard CNN or BBC raise this point. Not once. As for Putin, I agree with peter that the KGB was good for him. Clearly that's where he got his tough, decisive nature from. And I think that's where he got the Soviet-type 'we must look after all our children' attitude, seeing as he works not just for the Russian people but for the marginalised former soviets, e.g. Armenia, S Osseta and Abkhazia. And he works for the rest of the world in trying to establish a multi-polar world with China.

I agree johnx, that some western media tends to cling onto one-sided, not very well reasoned newsmaking and channels like Fox should never be taken seriously as a reliable source of news. I'm also not by any means saying that the Yeltsin years would be an ideal to look up to, far from it. What I am trying to say is, if Mr Putin had done such a flawless job as claimed on RT for example, why would he need to be so cautious about media that criticizes the regime and digs up details. No one can deny this fact: regardless of western media being concentrated under few owners, there is constant critique towards governments and policy makers. One of the most important, if not THE most important, functions of the media is to keep an eye on those who decide on our behalf.

Peter, Your assessment is very well presented and there is little if anything one can add. From a Western media perspective you have rightly identified the biggest yawn as being the constant regurgitation of Prime Minister Putin’s security background. Very rarely is President Bush ever motioned in conjunction with his CIA past; it is like it never happened. To be patriotic and protective of one’s country is an expected and essential part of being the American presidency. Indeed, how long would President Obama or any US government representative last if there was a hint of unpatriotic beliefs. Patriotism is sacrosanct. So when a Russian leader exhibits patriotism of strong national beliefs, why is this vilified in Western media? Do they have any idea how large a country Russia is and how large its borders are and how many ethnic and cultural entities there are to hold together under one roof? The answer is no. The only thing important to get into foreign minds is that Russia is a dangerous country socially and on the governmental front the leaders are somehow all ex KGB despots with a vision of world domination; Russia, KGB, a warmongering untrustworthy imperialistic state. There is rarely any exception to the negative media diatribe churning out this vision of hopelessness. Russia is not “allowed” to be patriotic or have a strong leader. It is a dangerous precedent. There is one question I am always asked and it is one I relish and enjoy. “ So….Michael, you spent time in Russia what do you think of Putin….?” I look at my “accuser” straight in the eye and say “Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin” is the best leader Russia has ever had and I like him.” There is usually a big pregnant pause as they digest the shock that I am a traitor to western media and one of two things happen. The conversations stops with “oh” or there are two more exploratory daggers, either one will follow. “So, what about freedom of the press, I hear…..” or “But what about democracy.? This is where I yawn. I really don’t have time to explain. The conversation would drag for another half hour as I educated them on Russia as it is today and how in many respects Russia was probably the most free place I have ever lived.

"KGB must also have taught him to hate free media". Strange logic, Wonderer. Following it, and considering the fact that KGB and CIA were rival organizations (purpose, methods), I guess, I could rephrase it applying to G. Bush, Dick Cheney, and some other top American politicians "CIA must also have taught them to hate free media". Or, probably, your knowledge of KGB is based on some stupid Hollywood movies. The KGB would had done very sloppy job, if they had such bone-heads who expose their weaknesses and lack of ability to manipulate people. But, as far as know, though, in the West, the KGB used to be respected (and therefore feared) Soviet organizations. So, even if Putin would hate free media you would never notice it. Another part of you post which I find hypocritical it that you see the problem with the Putin's "nationalistic" foreign policy. As far as I remember, Obama's weakest political domain during his campaign was him being "not patriotic" -- he wanted to be a citizen of the World and the US being equal among equal. That was in contrast to "patriotic" McCain whose foreign policy agenda looked more like Nazi's rather than democratic society -- extremely pro-national and demanding for world domination. Peter, I heard the rumor (from Russians) that there is a crack (which is growing) between Medvedev and Putin regarding the future direction of the country. In very simple terms -- Medvedev wants to bring some elements of Eltsyn's era (read: more "synchronized" actions with the West) whereas Putin's approach is more Russia-centric (basically, Russia's interests first and everything else is secondary). It this true?

one thing I admire most of Mr. Putin is his political will :)

Corrections I have to make my wireless keyboard sometimes does not pick up words that I type. Didn’t mind when Primakov who during the final phase of the Soviet era, he headed the KGB intelligence and security service, and served as a Politburo member in 98 under Yeltsin was PM or the President of Azerbaijan a former KGB agent. In the US an ethnic minority of 2 percent controls and has a monopoly on the media, political financing, academia, banking, law, law enforcement and intelligence agencies FBI/CIA, psychology, government contracts, organised crime, NGO’s Basically every conceivable social/political/financial institution imaginable. I'll also note that they created or the vanguard of political and social movements.

Wanderer said: "... But hey, what does he [Putin] have to care because all problems in Russia are made abroad and thus all foreign countries that don't fall under her wings or want to rid themselves of Russia need not to be understood. Oh please!" As a matter of intellectual curiosity, I am curious, Wanderer, what makes you think that Georgia or Ukraine or Latvia etc. would fare so much better than Mexico, Haiti, Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador, Chili etc. under the "care" of my country? Afterall, in our hemisphere, we are totally in charge, and yet everyone hates our freaking guts, and not without reason. Mexico is currently in ruins because of NAFTA, which is only the most recent scheme the lunatics in the Republican Party foisted on them. Also, I'm curious, just what is it that makes people like Saakashvilli believe he can do better with the US elite than Ngo Diem, Noriega, or Saddam Hussein did, or Benezir Bhutto, whose death was very suspicious?

We are children of nature earthlings. Putin is a naturalist, clearly. This simple truth is all there needs to be for the trust necessary to follow a genuine enlightened leader. All the political ranting is empty rhetoric. Putin and Medvedev are NOT poly-addicted drug addicts. Medvedev is also a child of nature. The WORLD GLOBALISTS, those who want to follow Condi and Bush, et al. in being "Global Citizens" are clearly mass murdering criminally insane poly-addicted drug addicts -- never enough to those who are hungry ghosts. Best to follow the children of nature.

@Bogdanov I think you know quite well that in the west the media is very critical towards governments and politicians. I do not see the same in Russia and it makes me worried. My KGB statement was not supposed to be taken 100% seriously, but yes indeed, if Mr Putin would have wanted free media, as do western leaders, that would have been arranged. And as "free" I mean free to criticize and find out, despite who owns the media. @Pauline Did I say I want the Americans to run the world? No. They have made the most disastrous foreign policy eversince WW2. That's why they are hated in so many places. Let me say my point again: what is good in the west that Russia (and indeed China) is missing is free media in the sense that I mentioned above.

My only wish is for more Putin-Medvedev-like politicians in the world. These two mind there own business as opposed to the Western caricature politicians which, it appears, come from the same pot no matter what colour or creed. The Western audiences and the audiences of most Eastern European countries are stupified to the maximum extent (with some notable exceptions) and it is impossible to influence their opinion any more. Moreover, it doesn't really matter what those amorphic masses think. New generations of the self-respecting are needed in the West, but that is not Russia's problem. I command Putin et al in their abandonment of explaining to the corrupt, criminal and decadent West Russia's motives and actions. They, the Russian politicians around Putin and Medvedev, go by their own business in their own way. Whether they, the West, like it or not - bad luck more or less. Russia tried to be more open but it was exploited by the real world government (we know who they are!!!). The laws of self-preservation kicked in and resulted in Putin. The results of ultra-liberal economy brought by the Western "educated" experts is grossly felt across the whole of south-eastern Europe. Whole countries have been robbed of their means of production, some even of their lands (Serbia), by the Western "democracies". Puppet regimes are installed across Europe. But I hope that it is only by inertia that such pro-Western elites are in power. In the end, the West is only happy to see Slavic countries ruined and in conflict with each other.

I think Russian Federation has taken on a whole new look on the world stage since Mr. Putin came into power 10 years ago. Nevertheless, to the best of my knowledge, it seems that the western media have never stopped lashing out against him personally ever since. In spite of his "dark" past background, as the west puts it, I still consider Mr. Putin as the greatest statesman in the 21st century, who has greatly changed the world as well as his homeland. I am wondering why the western media have been vilifying Mr. Putin on a daily basis, which is very hard for an ordinary person to take. After all, he is not infallible God, unlike the personality cult developed towards Mr. Obama in the west. IMHO, their daily press attacks on Mr. Putin result from the grave fear of the west towards him as a powerful and highly efficient Russian leader who is to change Russia into a counterweight to the west led by USA in the foreseeable future. I think the rise of Russian Federation in the world arena is only the matter of time, and in other words, Mr. Putin is exactly the right leader chosen by his people at the right time. This is the so-called historical inevitability and the maker of history is none other than Mr. Putin.

Inside Russia Mr Putin is held in high esteem and those from outside Russia who have taken the time to look at his record know that he halted Russia’s decline. The problem for Putin and more importantly for Russia is the negative hostility he receives in many countries. For example the recent images of Putin’s “bare chested” horse riding .On the BBC he was mocked as the footage was accompanied by the song “so macho” by Sinita. In Britain’s leading tabloid newspaper with a readership of 8 million they used these images to voice, that Putin was showing he’s a “tuff guy” and added at the end of the piece that experts warn that Russia not Iran is the biggest threat to world security, Now they never said who these experts were or what evidence they have to support this allegation. It was just a two line throw-away-comment. The problem is that very few people in Britain have any real knowledge or understanding of a country like Russia and they use these types of glib comments to formulate a negative opinion. Mr Putin has now been put in a box with the label “an aggressive Ex KGB colonel not to be trusted” and this perception will never be broken. The problem for Russia is they need to attract foreign investment and create beneficial partnerships to help diversify the economy, President Medevedev has already stated that Russia’s economy is finished if they can’t move it away from being commodity driven. The -11% economic contraction supports this statement. During the most heated part of Anglo-Russian relations in 2006 the then Prime Minister Tony Blair advised UK businesses not to get involved with Russia this was at a time when the UK was Russia’s largest foreign investor. And from my understanding this is still Britain’s position (no reset button). As we recently saw a Canadian/Russian consortium has tried to buy Opel from GM even though they exceeded the asking price and have the German leaders approval there is a real reluctance on GM’s part to sell, as they do not want the Russians to have the intellectual property rights to “their” products. These are precisely the kind of deals Russia needs to modernise its out of date car manufacturing industry. But this deal is as painful as “pulling teeth” and I believe if Opel were being sold to another more “welcome party” the deal would already be done. I believe Medvedev is pragmatic and knows that for Russia to start reaching its full potential partnerships need to be forged. And these partners will have to be from the Western developed Nations as they have the technology and market places Russia needs. The conundrum for Russia is do they stick with their national hero Mr Putin and keep the international status Quo risking economic stagnation through loss of foreign investment and technology, or move into a more enlightened pragmatic Medvedev era. In Russia there can only be “one” leader the question is who is it?