Comments on: Russia’s “sultan” Putin Sun, 28 Jul 2013 14:34:09 +0000 hourly 1 By: Need4Debate Wed, 05 Oct 2011 01:29:18 +0000 Putin didn’t transform Russia’s economy…oil did. And when the price of oil drops again, Russia will face severe economic hardships. This is not a question of who is a better leader or which flavor of democracy is better. Russian people want real political competition, not competition against straw puppets approved by the ruling power. We want campaigning to be open. We want to hear real debate, not watch a boxing match between old guard politicians. We want a leader that is strong, yes, but also compassionate to the conditions under which his people are living. The degradation of social and economic programs in this period of supposed “riches” is well-documented, as is the increasing restrictions placed on our basic freedoms. Sure it is better than the Soviets, but for how much longer? The only viable alternative to 12 more years of Putin is Mikhail Prokhorov, but why should he return now?

By: Aguada99 Mon, 03 Oct 2011 15:40:39 +0000 The other point to consider is the predictable European appeasement, from some of the Europeans who fail to recognize that there’s has never been sufficient cultural fraternity other than their own desires search for an equal political partner to influence rather than be part of NATO. These are the same Europeans that didn’t want Turkey to join the EU even though Turkey paid the price of admission all in advance by guaranteeing peace by providing their own backyard as another front to attack. It’s delusional. The Russians are only fond of the Serbs. They had their chance to build bridges with the former Soviet satellites and they only proved that they care about themselves.

By: laguardia23 Mon, 03 Oct 2011 13:58:28 +0000 Isn’t it even more notable when you have the conservative branch of the GOP controlling the media here? There is a parallel strategy the GOP and Putin use to get control. Only Putin possesses the .38 special. Hold on loosely but don’t let go.

By: SamantaJones Mon, 03 Oct 2011 13:52:38 +0000 “We now know that Russia isn’t a dictatorship controlled by one party, one priesthood, or one dynasty. It is a regime ruled by one man.” Ok, Putin is strong, but not only
Everybody knows the recently celebrated cases with Prokhorov’s exit from political party, managed by Kremlin and disclosure the name of Surkov, and Kudrin’s resignation. These show the very beginning of changes in Kremlin ideologies, so on one hand there are people who don’t want to be controlled by puppet masters, on the other hand, this regime is nit invulnerable, because more people will leave the council.

By: sparta888 Mon, 03 Oct 2011 13:23:13 +0000 It is absolutely ridiculous to call Mr. Putin “sultan”. Just think, the “sultan” is actually British queen who is sitting on the throne since 1953, even longer than Gaddafi in Libya. How anyone can even talk about democracy in UK, when they cherish ancient mid-ages style of politics. British people do not progress at all. For centuries all of them just slaves of Her or His Majesty. Maybe people elect a prime-minister in GB? No. The words of people in UK mean absolutely nothing in the politics of England. So, the queen of UK is absolutely the same kind of the monster rulers as Gaddafi in Libya and Saddam in Iraq!
Mr. Putin, on the other hand, will be the new president of Russia ONLY if the majority of Russian people will elect him next year on the true and real democratic elections.
That’s a real big difference between true democracy in Russia and fake democracy in UK.

By: fmathew Mon, 03 Oct 2011 12:43:20 +0000 Russia is a young democracy and needs time to develop an awareness in terms of civil rights of citizens.

Maybe the big mistake has been done by Gorbaciov who was not able to slow the transiction from communism to democracy.

I’d like to read from you guys your opinion about a weaker goverment in Russia now.

Please, don’t misunderstanding: I’m pro freedom but I like to know the point of view of progressist russians who are protesting for an unacceptable situation.

By: sitrd Mon, 03 Oct 2011 10:02:42 +0000 To MrNemo

>>What is the difference between Russia in 1993, 1996, 2000 or 2008? It’s all the same constitution, …

My answer would be exactly the same question but with different set of dates:
What is the difference between Russia in 1936, 1953, 1967 or 1989?
It’s all the same constitution…
Well, not exactly (which is also true about 1993 and 2011 constitutions), but that’s just nuances.
The main point is that in Russia (at least from 1917 and on)
words and deads were always two completely different matters.
Russian (or Soviet Union) constitutions were just that – words.
The deads – judicial practices and law inforcement among others –
were and still are very little in touch with those constitutuions.
Stalin’s 1936 constitution was one of the most democratic and progressive at the time,
but behind the facade that it created were mass executions, unlawful imprisonment,
GULAG, staged elections, fear, etnical and religeous suppression, brainwashing, and pervasive poverty.
With some variations it continued to the mid 80-es and then began to tumble down under Gorbachev’s “perestroika”.
To refer to constitution and to “institutions” in the context of modern
and not so modern Russia is a typical example of westerners naïveté
(nothing personal – it is a wide spread phenomenon)

By: rudraksha Mon, 03 Oct 2011 07:39:40 +0000 Anybody know what it’s about? Hint: Speaking of democracy versus sultanates versus one-party rule.

By: Sinbad1 Mon, 03 Oct 2011 06:12:23 +0000 The Russian people like Putin because he has transformed a bankrupt nation into an economic powerhouse.

I doubt if the Russian people will take to much notice of lectures from a nation ruled by elites and going broke.

By: nasraddin Mon, 03 Oct 2011 04:10:32 +0000 The author tries to make a systematical analysis of what did happen that days in Russia. Good piece, real approach: ‘Russia’s shift to sultanism’. But can I add? The author’s ‘a sultanistic…regime is a break …with Russian history’ is not entirely true. IVAN GROSNY (The Terrible) of XVI c. – the Russian tsar once stepted the same personolised regime – he broke his legitimacy from his blood by appointing someone SIMEON BEKBULATOVICH a ‘legitimate’ ruler. That trick intied him from BOYARS and gave a scene to OPRICHNINA and Ivan gained all the power and, in mordern language, re-PERSONOLISE his regime or, using French, proclaimed L’Etat c’est moi.
The very difference of XVI c. and nowdays is that Ivan – at the end of the day a legitimete ruler – gave birth to Oprichnina, while Mr.Putin was born by ‘the ruling clique’ using Ms.Freeland expression. But the very question still stand: Who is more immortal – the Leader or the ruling Oprichnina? And for how long this time?