Will Dmitry Medvedev make a good President if he wins the election?


Sevodnya_Net 10 December, 2007, 14:47	"When" not "if", I'd have said. The fact alone that he isn't Putin is a plus. There is a widespead belief that Russia is really run by the FSB. Medvedev needs to have the independence to be able to break with that legacy, and to be his own man. It's a big ask. permalink quote 0 Sevodnya_Net
David 10 December, 2007, 19:41	Isn't the USA run by the CIA with a cattle rancher holding the reins and told where to stear his horses? Rhodesia was run by a gallant ex-RAF pilot but the country was not run by the RAF! So why should it be said that with Putin being ex FSB (KGB) that Russia is run by the FSB? Should Medvedev succeed at the next election am sure he will be guided to continue with huge progress Putin has made in such a short time for the country. Progress, and good progress, takes time - one does not have a mature bonsai tree in 24 hours. It takes decades of good caring. permalink quote 0 David
DaniYah 10 December, 2007, 23:27	"There's a poor link between society and the government, and the situation is chronic. To eliminate it, we need to talk to the government, without hesitation, to call it to order, to call it to respond to the needs of civil society." -D. Medvedev That's a remarkable comment coming from someone who looks like a movie star, if you know what I mean. permalink quote 0 DaniYah
Karin24 10 December, 2007, 23:35	I believe that Medvedev will make an excellent choice since he is sharp, smart and quite a brilliant diplomat. Of course the situation in Russia isn't simple one. With all the western pressure building up on Russia as the west tries to obtain(own) cheap gas so to fuel their economies it doesn't really matter how diplomatic you are. But Medvedev is a good choice, and Russia needs to stay on course, for at least another 20-25 years. after that, there will be no stopping for Russia anymore :)) permalink quote 0 Karin24
avatar singh 11 December, 2007, 05:43	putin hAS MADE A GRAVE MISTAKE. HE SHOULD HAVE CHOSEN IVANOV. THIS MEDVEDEV IS NOT THAT CLEVER IF HE THINKGS THAT SO CALLED CPITALIST SYSTEM IS PANACEA FOR RUSSIA ESPECIALLY WHAT HAPPEND IN 90S. BESIDES IF THE WEST IS PLEASANTLY SURPRISED WITH THIS CHOPICE OF CANDIDATURE THEN THERE IS SERIOUSLY WRONG WITH THE CANDIDATE. BECAUSE ENGLAND IS THE MAIN ENEMY OF RUSSIA AND THE ANGLOSAXON RACE ARE HAPPY WITH HIS CANDIDATURE. EVEN IF THE SO CALLED WEST HAD WANTED THEIR CANDIDATE THEY COULD NOT HAVE GOT BETTER THAN THIS MAN. RUSSIA IS UNFORTUNATE IN HAVING LEADERSHIP WHO DO GRAVE MISTAKE AT CRITICAL JUNCTION. RUSIA HAD A CHQANCE TO BE SUPERPWOER AGAIN BUT IT LOST BY NOMINATING A MAN WHO THE WEST LIKES. permalink quote 0 avatar singh
The Favorite 11 December, 2007, 08:41	'Mr Medvedev is known for his liberal pragmatism rather than his bellicose statements on foreign policy and Russia's place in the world' The key word here is liberal pragmatism - Today the world knows, understands and respects pragmatism. Everything else PALES before that - money, power and strength. And I pray, Medvedev will continue what Putin so successfully started - Heal Russia and make the world a better and less dangerous place to stay in! permalink quote 0 The Favorite
Sevodnya_Net 11 December, 2007, 15:28	Medvedev is a good choice, and hopefully a sign that contrary to the suspicions of many - in the west and in the east - Putin is intending to take more of a back seat in the future. It may also be that Putin will be seen to have spawned (unlikely as it may seem) a completely different breed of successor (a bit like Yeltsin with Putin, as it happens). Whatever lame excuses one makes for the nature of Putin's rise to power, however one tries to ignore or cover up the huge crimes committed particularly in the early part of his tenure, the fact is he comes with baggage. And baggage of a highly dubious nature. Rather than "being guided", hopefully, as I said before, Medvedev can be his own man, and that means offering Russia an alternative to the type of society it is threatening to develop into. More interestingly, however, perhaps he can do more than that: maybe he can show the world, the US included, how it is possible to develop an alternative democracy based on progressive ideals, and thus not only make things better for Russians (building on and away from Putin's legacy if you will) but also enhancing Russia's reputation abroad. The world does need a benign antidote to US dominance. Whatever, I wish him the best of luck. permalink quote 0 Sevodnya_Net
The Director 11 December, 2007, 20:33	I think that other than Mr Lavrov, Mr Medvedev is a relative good choice if the emphasis is continuity. With Vladimir Putin as Prime Minister this is a fairly good option of Governance and stability in Russia today. I would like to see continued modernisation, a role where Russia is one of the worlds leaders in setting democratic standards and ethics in all areas of Government. A place where Russians can realise their aspirations and become entrepreneurial if they wish to do so. A Russia where there is continued modernisation in public and private sector housing and a better health care system that is appropriate for a modern Russia. A country where future Russians can ascertain the finest of degrees from the best Universities within Russia. A public private partnership that empowers the Russian citizen to accomplish all that they can if they are intellectual gifted and talented to do so. An economy where there are no limits to growth and prosperity and one that fosters opportunities for all Russians and indeed foreign entrepreneurs and Europeans that may want to do business there. A program of replacing the old fleet of the Russian Navy with a modern one that is able to navigate in the modern day and conditions of Climate Change that prevail in the world today. I think that overall continued reforms of the pension system for the elderly but also a program for house ownership for those that want to buy a home for their future family. A country that encourages free speech and intellectual debate. A Russian Duma that always questions and debates with passion and belief rather than one that always follows. You can follow but the policies of the leadership is something that is for the benefit of Russia as a whole. So in concluding I would state that the future Government and President is one that serves all Russia and of all its people. A president that has the strength and integrity to lead a nation forward but at the same time one to whom can acknowledge other Nation States and work with them as well both economically and on a Geo social perspective. I suppose a leader that is understanding and equally one that can build good relations with European Union as a whole. Russia can thus move forward but inspiration is set from the leadership of the day which is passed through to the citizens of a nation state. Thus with the status quo we have in Russia today the ability to move the country forward with confidence and one especially that serves all the citizens of Russia. permalink quote 0 The Director
Chris 11 December, 2007, 23:13	Looking at the two from the mess we call the US, the two will make a good team and continue with the re-building process. Putin has provided the foundation and direction needed to regain necessary control, and Medvedev can put the finishing touches on it from a business standpoint. With Putin overseeing things the process will continue more smoothly, the two will make a good team as each is comfortable with the other and the goals look to be very similar. Wish we had such competant leaders in the Whitehouse. permalink quote 0 Chris
Sanjay 12 December, 2007, 00:59	The gravest concern is that once Medvedev becomes president, Anglo-american terrorists might attack russia with renewed vigor by 1. Financing-arming-training chechen al-qaida 2. collaborating with presidency to Bring back oligarchs to power and create anarchy and destruction. Anglo-americans have two major goals summarized in brezinski plan. 1. To snatch all territory to the east of urals 2. To exterminate the russian orthodox so that they cannot rebuild and or pose a challenge for another two centuries. Their plan is to destroy Russia by financial and nuclear (missile defence) destruction and destroy India by Psychological Subjugation through Aryan-Invasion and /or Sindhu terrorism. And Pitting India against China and using Pakistan as a gateway to balkanize India and stuff it with radical islam. Once India is balkanized and Russia is exterminated China will go down fighting against radical islam leaving behind US as the sole superpower for next century. This is the project for the new american century. Anglo-american terrorists are encouraging russian traitors to hold IPOs in london. One wonders why they don't hold IPOs in eurozone. Why are oligarchs still allowing anglo-americans to buy stakes in Russian energy and metal companies. Speak softly, carry a big stick. And collaborate with eurozone and India and consolidate Indo-european powers against anglo-american-radical islam terror. permalink quote 0 Sanjay
medicaldoctor 12 December, 2007, 02:10	isn't it a bit flaky to vote for an appointed president and to know for sure who will become the next president a few months in advance before the democratic elections? any thoughts? permalink quote 0 medicaldoctor
Daniel 12 December, 2007, 03:51	Medvedev better not be a "figurehead" President, that only does whatever Putin asks him to. That would be a complete disgrace to the Kremlin and Russia itself. Furthermore i'm suprised that Putin has picked a "successor", 'cause he only said a few months ago that he wouldn't pick one. permalink quote 0 Daniel
DaniYah 12 December, 2007, 05:00	Medvedev's "love" of Led Zepllin, Deep Purple, and Black Sabbath- should we take this as an apologist overture to the Bohemian Grove and Skull & Bones or as a display of ignorance to the Tavistock Institue's own Reeperbahn Str. Beatles (Aleister Crowley) project of Helena Blavatsky? What happened to promotion of native Russian culture? What does this mean? Will Mr. Medvedev himself explain? Surely his boss isn't ignorant. permalink quote 0 DaniYah
Sevodnya_Net 12 December, 2007, 10:26	Re medicaldoctor's question: In theory it's only a nomination: there has to be a presidential election of course, and it will be interesting to see who opposes the Kremlin's candidate. What is dodgy, in my opinion, is Medvedev seeming to "appoint" Putin as Prime Minister before such an election. Of course, having Putin as his future prime minister is going to be a huge benefit to Medvedev in an election campaign. In many other countries it would be seen as odd, and what's more potentially a huge impediment, to have your ex-boss the president in the position of PM but plainly this is not an issue for the people involved here. "Flaky" in my opinion is rather a polite way of describing it, but then snow is "flaky" and Russians cope with that pretty well :-) permalink quote 0 Sevodnya_Net
Guru 12 December, 2007, 18:29	Sevodnya_Net wrote: "Whatever lame excuses one makes for the nature of Putin's rise to power, however one tries to ignore or cover up the huge crimes committed particularly in the early part of his tenure, the fact is he comes with baggage. And baggage of a highly dubious nature." Is your intention to equip Putin with the baggage that Friedman's School of economy and their shock capitalism therapy docrine left in Russia during Yeltsin's time? Lame shot pal. If somebody told me 15 years ago that Russia will be free economy with decent democracy and US become "Soviet Union" I would tell him "no way". But it happened. Russia has to retain Putin, for a simple reason, he is an ordinary decent human being and Russian at the same time. Dificult task, but he made it. If we want to talk baggage we can discuss it on the Bush - Bin Laden line, there is much more thare. permalink quote 0 Guru
Sevodnya_Net 12 December, 2007, 19:26	Guru I have no interest in Friedman's school of economy. And no desire to harp on about the US, a subject I have little interest in. Furthermore, I was trying to be positive about Putin's successor. Contray to what you say, Russia, actually, has to move on from the Putin era. If Putin is as wonderful as you say then it should be possible for it to do that. permalink quote 0 Sevodnya_Net
Norman 13 December, 2007, 01:02	This situation is similar to the American tradition of a Vice President running for President, like Reagan-Bush Sr, Roosevelt-Truman and Kennedy-Johnson. From what I see on RT, Mr. Medvedev did what Putin instructed him to do. Mr. Medvedev also has some slight differences from President Putin, thus he's a bit of his own man. Last, look at the United Russia track record: security, financial progress and stability and social programmes. Who ever said you can't please all the people should look at Russia. Ofcourse, Medvedev will have some well known competition: Zyugannov, Zhukov, Ivanov and Zhiranovsky or Lugavoy. Most of all, let the Russians decide. They love democracy and free market economy, even if they don't always admit it. Cheers from the USA! permalink quote 0 Norman
DaniYah 13 December, 2007, 01:49	Sevodnya, et al: Any competent person who has been staying on top of developments affecting Russia in the news and elsewhere is quite aware by now that the issue at hand has very little to do with Putin and his persona. Where is break in the glass ceiling "matrix" of Hollywood personality gossip circles? What is keeping you from discussing the real issues in Russia today? Can we even name a few in the public arena? in the private arena? It is quite shocking that people are debating the theory of appointing a 'siloviki' as Russian president when they (admit to) have little understanding of what that is! And the left-right tug of war? So cliche! permalink quote 0 DaniYah
Sevodnya_Net 13 December, 2007, 09:15	Hi Daniyah, Well, come on then. If the debate is in completely in the wrong field set the ball rolling (just to mix a few metaphors!) with some specific points. I had thought that some folk had indeed raised lots of interesting and pertinent points about the issues facing Russia. Tho' it's a sad fact of life that politics and personality do go together in lots of countries. If Putin''s persona is unimportant how do you explain his picture appearing increasingly regularly in public on large posters? If he joined Yabloko they'd be a shoe-in for the next elections:-) permalink quote 0 Sevodnya_Net
DaniYah 15 December, 2007, 17:34	By this time, people know that many things heard in the press have been long tossed about in closed (official) circles. Therefore, it's not worth reiterating old maids' tales. There are, however, much less discussed issues of urgent concern to our leaders. The chaos of the 90's in Russia (and the respective former Republics) heaped labyrinths of vandalism and debauchery upon a people already confused by the treachery of Stalin and more recent 'Soviet' leaders who did not value the lives of their neighbors. The collective Soviet and Russian administrations were forced into many secret deals with the enemies of Russia, and those enemies to this day have used those deals as a secret leverage to prevent Russia from moving about freely to better the life of its inhabitants. The trick has been, if Russian leaders act independently of the global superpower, then the global superpower will gather a consensus to decry the abuses that stemmed from those secret agreements, without any mention of the initiators of the diabolical contracts, nor the lengths to which the coercive measures went to secure the deals. It is in the spirit of undoing the the hold of those secret ropes binding the minds and souls of the leaders that I wish to encourage the public to drop the personality discussions and to actively work to draw from all means to strengthen the moral fibers and integrity of our leaders! At this day and age, an abundance of money will buy any photo opportunity, and provide the backdrop for any public image one can wish for. But central issues of morality and integrity cannot be abandoned without obvious consequences. When a person rises to public life, esp. to the highest office, the presidency (i.e. national leader), every aspect of their being is up for scrutiny (as it ought to be), because the president's person is a an national example that, multiplied by millions, has long ranging national and international consequences. In a democratic society (as Russia is modeled on), the public choose their leader. More accurately, the people choose a leader that they feel relates to them on a personal plane. So, Russia requires a national example the reflects the cumulative (national) response to the experiences of each of Russia's many regions, ethnicities, and each level of the Russian social strata (including the basest). Therefore, in debating if a particular individual is fit for the presidency, we should consider the aspects of that person's example. It's not a simple discussion to have, but a few issues drive to the heart of Russia's needs and expectations (from national and international perspectives.) (It's already an embarrassment for nations to be caught interfering in each other's domestic affairs. However, it would be extremely imprudent for a foreign power to PUBLICLY advocate a persona devoid of integrity or moral fiber, so by addressing those genre, we are safe on all fronts.) Some of the questions that we can use to scrutinize a presidential candidate may be inappropriate when scrutinizing an individual in the general public, because the general public can live as they choose, but the president is the PEOPLE's CHOICE. He must live as the people choose. Some of the questions, if answered precisely, almost encourage treason, for the enemies of Russia (and the world) would like to use such answers as an opportunity to meddle in a more keen fashion than they did before they "knew". But, in a democratic society, the people can mold the leader in very much way that leaders mold the course of the nation. The real issues: the moral qualities needed to sustain the presidential office; spiritual sensitivities that define leadership the duty to uphold Russian culture and traditions OVER foreign ones; the enhancement and development of those national values On these notes, I would like to propose: Family life: Is the life of Mr. Medvedev and his family an appropriate response to the needs of the (dwindling) population? Given Russia's orphan situation, isn't it strange that he has only one child if he is so well off? International: Does Medvedev posses the inner strength to seek out and resist the motives behind the missile array aimed at Russia? Is Medvedev also inspired to express concern and work toward the wellbeing of people of other nations, even of nations posed as enemies? And the answers to all above probably lie in this question: It is said that Medvedev and his wife, as the Putins, have close ties with the Orthodox Church and their leader, Alexy II. Does Medvedev's public support of the church signify support of church officials (money, fame (foto ops), or does it mean strong support for the moral standards upon which the church claims to stand? How far does such devotion to those morals take Medvedev? Is it a search for historical and present facts, the tracking and tracing of the origin of every motive in popular culture, and the consequences thereof? If Russian people strengthen the leader's moral standard, then they will be able to support him should he slip or fall. If it is true that if Putin had led the Yabloko party, they would've gained the parliamentary majority, then that means that Yabloko and the Union of Wrong forces have already won the hearts of the nation, and thereby all the seats in parliament needed to exact their plans. permalink quote 0 DaniYah

Sevodnya_Net 10 December, 2007, 14:47

"When" not "if", I'd have said. The fact alone that he isn't Putin is a plus. There is a widespead belief that Russia is really run by the FSB. Medvedev needs to have the independence to be able to break with that legacy, and to be his own man. It's a big ask.

permalink quote Sevodnya_Net

David 10 December, 2007, 19:41

Isn't the USA run by the CIA with a cattle rancher holding the reins and told where to stear his horses? Rhodesia was run by a gallant ex-RAF pilot but the country was not run by the RAF! So why should it be said that with Putin being ex FSB (KGB) that Russia is run by the FSB? Should Medvedev succeed at the next election am sure he will be guided to continue with huge progress Putin has made in such a short time for the country. Progress, and good progress, takes time - one does not have a mature bonsai tree in 24 hours. It takes decades of good caring.

permalink quote David

DaniYah 10 December, 2007, 23:27

"There's a poor link between society and the government, and the situation is chronic. To eliminate it, we need to talk to the government, without hesitation, to call it to order, to call it to respond to the needs of civil society." -D. Medvedev That's a remarkable comment coming from someone who looks like a movie star, if you know what I mean.

permalink quote DaniYah

Karin24 10 December, 2007, 23:35

I believe that Medvedev will make an excellent choice since he is sharp, smart and quite a brilliant diplomat. Of course the situation in Russia isn't simple one. With all the western pressure building up on Russia as the west tries to obtain(own) cheap gas so to fuel their economies it doesn't really matter how diplomatic you are. But Medvedev is a good choice, and Russia needs to stay on course, for at least another 20-25 years. after that, there will be no stopping for Russia anymore :))

permalink quote Karin24

avatar singh 11 December, 2007, 05:43

putin hAS MADE A GRAVE MISTAKE. HE SHOULD HAVE CHOSEN IVANOV. THIS MEDVEDEV IS NOT THAT CLEVER IF HE THINKGS THAT SO CALLED CPITALIST SYSTEM IS PANACEA FOR RUSSIA ESPECIALLY WHAT HAPPEND IN 90S. BESIDES IF THE WEST IS PLEASANTLY SURPRISED WITH THIS CHOPICE OF CANDIDATURE THEN THERE IS SERIOUSLY WRONG WITH THE CANDIDATE. BECAUSE ENGLAND IS THE MAIN ENEMY OF RUSSIA AND THE ANGLOSAXON RACE ARE HAPPY WITH HIS CANDIDATURE. EVEN IF THE SO CALLED WEST HAD WANTED THEIR CANDIDATE THEY COULD NOT HAVE GOT BETTER THAN THIS MAN. RUSSIA IS UNFORTUNATE IN HAVING LEADERSHIP WHO DO GRAVE MISTAKE AT CRITICAL JUNCTION. RUSIA HAD A CHQANCE TO BE SUPERPWOER AGAIN BUT IT LOST BY NOMINATING A MAN WHO THE WEST LIKES.

permalink quote avatar singh

The Favorite 11 December, 2007, 08:41

'Mr Medvedev is known for his liberal pragmatism rather than his bellicose statements on foreign policy and Russia's place in the world' The key word here is liberal pragmatism - Today the world knows, understands and respects pragmatism. Everything else PALES before that - money, power and strength. And I pray, Medvedev will continue what Putin so successfully started - Heal Russia and make the world a better and less dangerous place to stay in!

permalink quote The Favorite

Sevodnya_Net 11 December, 2007, 15:28

Medvedev is a good choice, and hopefully a sign that contrary to the suspicions of many - in the west and in the east - Putin is intending to take more of a back seat in the future. It may also be that Putin will be seen to have spawned (unlikely as it may seem) a completely different breed of successor (a bit like Yeltsin with Putin, as it happens). Whatever lame excuses one makes for the nature of Putin's rise to power, however one tries to ignore or cover up the huge crimes committed particularly in the early part of his tenure, the fact is he comes with baggage. And baggage of a highly dubious nature. Rather than "being guided", hopefully, as I said before, Medvedev can be his own man, and that means offering Russia an alternative to the type of society it is threatening to develop into. More interestingly, however, perhaps he can do more than that: maybe he can show the world, the US included, how it is possible to develop an alternative democracy based on progressive ideals, and thus not only make things better for Russians (building on and away from Putin's legacy if you will) but also enhancing Russia's reputation abroad. The world does need a benign antidote to US dominance. Whatever, I wish him the best of luck.

permalink quote Sevodnya_Net

The Director 11 December, 2007, 20:33

I think that other than Mr Lavrov, Mr Medvedev is a relative good choice if the emphasis is continuity. With Vladimir Putin as Prime Minister this is a fairly good option of Governance and stability in Russia today. I would like to see continued modernisation, a role where Russia is one of the worlds leaders in setting democratic standards and ethics in all areas of Government. A place where Russians can realise their aspirations and become entrepreneurial if they wish to do so. A Russia where there is continued modernisation in public and private sector housing and a better health care system that is appropriate for a modern Russia. A country where future Russians can ascertain the finest of degrees from the best Universities within Russia. A public private partnership that empowers the Russian citizen to accomplish all that they can if they are intellectual gifted and talented to do so. An economy where there are no limits to growth and prosperity and one that fosters opportunities for all Russians and indeed foreign entrepreneurs and Europeans that may want to do business there. A program of replacing the old fleet of the Russian Navy with a modern one that is able to navigate in the modern day and conditions of Climate Change that prevail in the world today. I think that overall continued reforms of the pension system for the elderly but also a program for house ownership for those that want to buy a home for their future family. A country that encourages free speech and intellectual debate. A Russian Duma that always questions and debates with passion and belief rather than one that always follows. You can follow but the policies of the leadership is something that is for the benefit of Russia as a whole. So in concluding I would state that the future Government and President is one that serves all Russia and of all its people. A president that has the strength and integrity to lead a nation forward but at the same time one to whom can acknowledge other Nation States and work with them as well both economically and on a Geo social perspective. I suppose a leader that is understanding and equally one that can build good relations with European Union as a whole. Russia can thus move forward but inspiration is set from the leadership of the day which is passed through to the citizens of a nation state. Thus with the status quo we have in Russia today the ability to move the country forward with confidence and one especially that serves all the citizens of Russia.

permalink quote The Director

Chris 11 December, 2007, 23:13

Looking at the two from the mess we call the US, the two will make a good team and continue with the re-building process. Putin has provided the foundation and direction needed to regain necessary control, and Medvedev can put the finishing touches on it from a business standpoint. With Putin overseeing things the process will continue more smoothly, the two will make a good team as each is comfortable with the other and the goals look to be very similar. Wish we had such competant leaders in the Whitehouse.

permalink quote Chris

Sanjay 12 December, 2007, 00:59

The gravest concern is that once Medvedev becomes president, Anglo-american terrorists might attack russia with renewed vigor by 1. Financing-arming-training chechen al-qaida 2. collaborating with presidency to Bring back oligarchs to power and create anarchy and destruction. Anglo-americans have two major goals summarized in brezinski plan. 1. To snatch all territory to the east of urals 2. To exterminate the russian orthodox so that they cannot rebuild and or pose a challenge for another two centuries. Their plan is to destroy Russia by financial and nuclear (missile defence) destruction and destroy India by Psychological Subjugation through Aryan-Invasion and /or Sindhu terrorism. And Pitting India against China and using Pakistan as a gateway to balkanize India and stuff it with radical islam. Once India is balkanized and Russia is exterminated China will go down fighting against radical islam leaving behind US as the sole superpower for next century. This is the project for the new american century. Anglo-american terrorists are encouraging russian traitors to hold IPOs in london. One wonders why they don't hold IPOs in eurozone. Why are oligarchs still allowing anglo-americans to buy stakes in Russian energy and metal companies. Speak softly, carry a big stick. And collaborate with eurozone and India and consolidate Indo-european powers against anglo-american-radical islam terror.

permalink quote Sanjay

medicaldoctor 12 December, 2007, 02:10

isn't it a bit flaky to vote for an appointed president and to know for sure who will become the next president a few months in advance before the democratic elections? any thoughts?

permalink quote medicaldoctor

Daniel 12 December, 2007, 03:51

Medvedev better not be a "figurehead" President, that only does whatever Putin asks him to. That would be a complete disgrace to the Kremlin and Russia itself. Furthermore i'm suprised that Putin has picked a "successor", 'cause he only said a few months ago that he wouldn't pick one.

permalink quote Daniel

DaniYah 12 December, 2007, 05:00

Medvedev's "love" of Led Zepllin, Deep Purple, and Black Sabbath- should we take this as an apologist overture to the Bohemian Grove and Skull & Bones or as a display of ignorance to the Tavistock Institue's own Reeperbahn Str. Beatles (Aleister Crowley) project of Helena Blavatsky? What happened to promotion of native Russian culture? What does this mean? Will Mr. Medvedev himself explain? Surely his boss isn't ignorant.

permalink quote DaniYah

Sevodnya_Net 12 December, 2007, 10:26

Re medicaldoctor's question: In theory it's only a nomination: there has to be a presidential election of course, and it will be interesting to see who opposes the Kremlin's candidate. What is dodgy, in my opinion, is Medvedev seeming to "appoint" Putin as Prime Minister before such an election. Of course, having Putin as his future prime minister is going to be a huge benefit to Medvedev in an election campaign. In many other countries it would be seen as odd, and what's more potentially a huge impediment, to have your ex-boss the president in the position of PM but plainly this is not an issue for the people involved here. "Flaky" in my opinion is rather a polite way of describing it, but then snow is "flaky" and Russians cope with that pretty well :-)

permalink quote Sevodnya_Net

Guru 12 December, 2007, 18:29

Sevodnya_Net wrote: "Whatever lame excuses one makes for the nature of Putin's rise to power, however one tries to ignore or cover up the huge crimes committed particularly in the early part of his tenure, the fact is he comes with baggage. And baggage of a highly dubious nature." Is your intention to equip Putin with the baggage that Friedman's School of economy and their shock capitalism therapy docrine left in Russia during Yeltsin's time? Lame shot pal. If somebody told me 15 years ago that Russia will be free economy with decent democracy and US become "Soviet Union" I would tell him "no way". But it happened. Russia has to retain Putin, for a simple reason, he is an ordinary decent human being and Russian at the same time. Dificult task, but he made it. If we want to talk baggage we can discuss it on the Bush - Bin Laden line, there is much more thare.

permalink quote Guru

Sevodnya_Net 12 December, 2007, 19:26

Guru I have no interest in Friedman's school of economy. And no desire to harp on about the US, a subject I have little interest in. Furthermore, I was trying to be positive about Putin's successor. Contray to what you say, Russia, actually, has to move on from the Putin era. If Putin is as wonderful as you say then it should be possible for it to do that.

permalink quote Sevodnya_Net

Norman 13 December, 2007, 01:02

This situation is similar to the American tradition of a Vice President running for President, like Reagan-Bush Sr, Roosevelt-Truman and Kennedy-Johnson. From what I see on RT, Mr. Medvedev did what Putin instructed him to do. Mr. Medvedev also has some slight differences from President Putin, thus he's a bit of his own man. Last, look at the United Russia track record: security, financial progress and stability and social programmes. Who ever said you can't please all the people should look at Russia. Ofcourse, Medvedev will have some well known competition: Zyugannov, Zhukov, Ivanov and Zhiranovsky or Lugavoy. Most of all, let the Russians decide. They love democracy and free market economy, even if they don't always admit it. Cheers from the USA!

permalink quote Norman

DaniYah 13 December, 2007, 01:49

Sevodnya, et al: Any competent person who has been staying on top of developments affecting Russia in the news and elsewhere is quite aware by now that the issue at hand has very little to do with Putin and his persona. Where is break in the glass ceiling "matrix" of Hollywood personality gossip circles? What is keeping you from discussing the real issues in Russia today? Can we even name a few in the public arena? in the private arena? It is quite shocking that people are debating the theory of appointing a 'siloviki' as Russian president when they (admit to) have little understanding of what that is! And the left-right tug of war? So cliche!

permalink quote DaniYah

Sevodnya_Net 13 December, 2007, 09:15

Hi Daniyah, Well, come on then. If the debate is in completely in the wrong field set the ball rolling (just to mix a few metaphors!) with some specific points. I had thought that some folk had indeed raised lots of interesting and pertinent points about the issues facing Russia. Tho' it's a sad fact of life that politics and personality do go together in lots of countries. If Putin''s persona is unimportant how do you explain his picture appearing increasingly regularly in public on large posters? If he joined Yabloko they'd be a shoe-in for the next elections:-)

permalink quote Sevodnya_Net

DaniYah 15 December, 2007, 17:34

By this time, people know that many things heard in the press have been long tossed about in closed (official) circles. Therefore, it's not worth reiterating old maids' tales. There are, however, much less discussed issues of urgent concern to our leaders. The chaos of the 90's in Russia (and the respective former Republics) heaped labyrinths of vandalism and debauchery upon a people already confused by the treachery of Stalin and more recent 'Soviet' leaders who did not value the lives of their neighbors. The collective Soviet and Russian administrations were forced into many secret deals with the enemies of Russia, and those enemies to this day have used those deals as a secret leverage to prevent Russia from moving about freely to better the life of its inhabitants. The trick has been, if Russian leaders act independently of the global superpower, then the global superpower will gather a consensus to decry the abuses that stemmed from those secret agreements, without any mention of the initiators of the diabolical contracts, nor the lengths to which the coercive measures went to secure the deals. It is in the spirit of undoing the the hold of those secret ropes binding the minds and souls of the leaders that I wish to encourage the public to drop the personality discussions and to actively work to draw from all means to strengthen the moral fibers and integrity of our leaders! At this day and age, an abundance of money will buy any photo opportunity, and provide the backdrop for any public image one can wish for. But central issues of morality and integrity cannot be abandoned without obvious consequences. When a person rises to public life, esp. to the highest office, the presidency (i.e. national leader), every aspect of their being is up for scrutiny (as it ought to be), because the president's person is a an national example that, multiplied by millions, has long ranging national and international consequences. In a democratic society (as Russia is modeled on), the public choose their leader. More accurately, the people choose a leader that they feel relates to them on a personal plane. So, Russia requires a national example the reflects the cumulative (national) response to the experiences of each of Russia's many regions, ethnicities, and each level of the Russian social strata (including the basest). Therefore, in debating if a particular individual is fit for the presidency, we should consider the aspects of that person's example. It's not a simple discussion to have, but a few issues drive to the heart of Russia's needs and expectations (from national and international perspectives.) (It's already an embarrassment for nations to be caught interfering in each other's domestic affairs. However, it would be extremely imprudent for a foreign power to PUBLICLY advocate a persona devoid of integrity or moral fiber, so by addressing those genre, we are safe on all fronts.) Some of the questions that we can use to scrutinize a presidential candidate may be inappropriate when scrutinizing an individual in the general public, because the general public can live as they choose, but the president is the PEOPLE's CHOICE. He must live as the people choose. Some of the questions, if answered precisely, almost encourage treason, for the enemies of Russia (and the world) would like to use such answers as an opportunity to meddle in a more keen fashion than they did before they "knew". But, in a democratic society, the people can mold the leader in very much way that leaders mold the course of the nation. The real issues: the moral qualities needed to sustain the presidential office; spiritual sensitivities that define leadership the duty to uphold Russian culture and traditions OVER foreign ones; the enhancement and development of those national values On these notes, I would like to propose: Family life: Is the life of Mr. Medvedev and his family an appropriate response to the needs of the (dwindling) population? Given Russia's orphan situation, isn't it strange that he has only one child if he is so well off? International: Does Medvedev posses the inner strength to seek out and resist the motives behind the missile array aimed at Russia? Is Medvedev also inspired to express concern and work toward the wellbeing of people of other nations, even of nations posed as enemies? And the answers to all above probably lie in this question: It is said that Medvedev and his wife, as the Putins, have close ties with the Orthodox Church and their leader, Alexy II. Does Medvedev's public support of the church signify support of church officials (money, fame (foto ops), or does it mean strong support for the moral standards upon which the church claims to stand? How far does such devotion to those morals take Medvedev? Is it a search for historical and present facts, the tracking and tracing of the origin of every motive in popular culture, and the consequences thereof? If Russian people strengthen the leader's moral standard, then they will be able to support him should he slip or fall. If it is true that if Putin had led the Yabloko party, they would've gained the parliamentary majority, then that means that Yabloko and the Union of Wrong forces have already won the hearts of the nation, and thereby all the seats in parliament needed to exact their plans.

permalink quote DaniYah

Name*
Country, City
Valid e-mail*
Text*
Enter digits below*

	*Required fields