Mutiny on the Kremlin

[Incongruous]

My favourite Tory newspaper had this article posted on its site today, I thought it was an interesting eye catcher.
Even if this is a case of the Telegraph being naughty, again, it gave me a morning pick up.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...t-in-east.html

[Brenus]

Brown Putin same problems...

[Incongruous]

Brown Putin same problems...

Oh, how Brown wishes that comparison to be true!

[Mooks]

This article plays on all my inner optimism, for the russian people not to allow their country to turn back to authoritarianism. Also on my baseless assumptions about what it says about Russia I have gained without any actual research. For those 2 reasons I dont trust it.

[rasoforos]

Interesting piece of fiction. Is it from the 'what if' series?

In a time of crisis I would trust Putin as a leader than almost any other western leader. They wouldn't last 2 weeks in Russia...

Also good ole Vladimir reminds me of the Patrician in Pratchett's Discworld so I like him

[HoreTore]

double post.....

[HoreTore]

Wow. Some protests against a President. Obviously, he's going down soon.

Does that mean Bush caved in to the anti-war demonstrations and did not invade Iraq a few years back?

[Incongruous]

Wow. Some protests against a President. Obviously, he's going down soon.

Does that mean Bush caved in to the anti-war demonstrations and did not invade Iraq a few years back?

I suppose it helps to diminish the vision of Russians as one party "all hail Putin" nutters certain peoples made them out to be, in certain newspapers.

Anyway, we should all be happy about another case of an authoritarian having trouble, bit of a for the troublemakers I expect.

In a time of crisis I would trust Putin as a leader than almost any other western leader. They wouldn't last 2 weeks in Russia...

What? Trust him to murder or torture over interested journos interested in how certain men came to be in a position which enabled them to ruin the country?
Or, to start a diversionary war against a "rebel" region, commiting mass murder along the way?

Yep, sounds very trusworthy, I am being vewy, vewy thewious...

[rasoforos]

What? Trust him to murder or torture over interested journos interested in how certain men came to be in a position which enabled them to ruin the country?
Or, to start a diversionary war against a "rebel" region, commiting mass murder along the way?

Yep, sounds very trusworthy, I am being vewy, vewy thewious...

Trust him to take a country out of a crisis. I do not say I approve of his tactics or that I would trust him with my coins collection or would want him to run my country. It is just that he will do a much better job than let's say Gordie ole boy Brown...

[CountArach]

Trust him to take a country out of a crisis. I do not say I approve of his tactics or that I would trust him with my coins collection or would want him to run my country. It is just that he will do a much better job than let's say Gordie ole boy Brown...

At least if (when) Brown stuffs up you have a real chance to get rid of him. Putin on the other hand...

[naut]

At least if (when) Brown stuffs up you have a real chance to get rid of him. Putin on the other hand...

Then again they voted for him the first two times. The British had no say in the fact Brown would take office.

[rory_20_uk]

Then again they voted for him the first two times. The British had no say in the fact Brown would take office.

And we're the democracy...

Who'd not love a leader with a budget surplus, sticking it to the Americans and everyone is getting richer on the back of it?

Budget deficit, cutbacks... People will care about this far more than their vote is worthless. I know I do.

[Kralizec]

Trust him to take a country out of a crisis. I do not say I approve of his tactics or that I would trust him with my coins collection or would want him to run my country. It is just that he will do a much better job than let's say Gordie ole boy Brown...

I doubt Putin would be such an effective politician in a country where he'd actually have to face questions from a hostile opposition, or where he'd be lambasted by the press and unable to do anything about it.
On the economic side, Russia's economy grew so much because it was in shambles to begin with and oil prices enabled them to earn a lot of money. Nothing to do with Putin. Maybe he is capable of steering Russia through this crisis, there's just no reason to assume he is.

[rasoforos]

On the economic side, Russia's economy grew so much because it was in shambles to begin with and oil prices enabled them to earn a lot of money. Nothing to do with Putin. Maybe he is capable of steering Russia through this crisis, there's just no reason to assume he is.

Which is why Zimbabwe, Burma (and indeed most of Africa, half of Asia and South America) are now rich developed economies. Nothing to do with Putin...

[naut]

Sorry rasoforos I call your bluff. Africa is completely different. The majority of African nations do not own their resources, which ensures they mostly do not receive the benefit of those resources. Russia on the other hand has most of it's resources either in the hands of the state or Russian Corporations, which enriches their economy.

[rasoforos]

Sorry rasoforos I call your bluff. Africa is completely different. The majority of African nations do not own their resources, which ensures they mostly do not receive the benefit of those resources. Russia on the other hand has most of it's resources either in the hands of the state or Russian Corporations, which enriches their economy.

Words words words...

..'they dont own their resources'... many very rich countries do not have ANY significant resources...

We could have a great economic topic where we could discuss the reasons behind Russia's economic success under Putin. This is not the place.

You should not, however, say that it has nothing to do with Putin. Good governance is very important for growth and has been proven time and again, both historically and in relevant economic research (I think Krugman has some nice quantitative observations on the fact).

The argument that 'these countries do not control their resources' is also self defeating because one of the major reforms under Putin was to take control of the country's national resources from the billionaire plutocrats. So... ...since you imply that national control of resources is necessary for growth (which is not really the case from an economist's point of view) and since my pal Vladimir did just that, then he did contribute to Russia's high growth rates.

QED

Anyway lets go back to saying bad things about Gordon

[Kralizec]

Gordon has its own thread, this one is about badmouthing Putin

Putin hasn't been a bad leader as far as the economy is concerned. The point is that Russia was hard to do any worse than the Yeltsin years anyway and that Russia's ubiquotous natural recources coupled with high prices are much more important than Putins awesome skilz. Mugabe would undoubtedly have done worse than him, but that's not saying much, is it?

Wether he'd be replaced by someone better if he got ousted, is besides the point. Wich is that the man is an utter bastard.

[Furunculus]

Which is why Zimbabwe, Burma (and indeed most of Africa, half of Asia and South America) are now rich developed economies. Nothing to do with Putin...

zimbabwe used to be known as the bread basket of africa, the reason it is not is because mugabe has driven the country into the ground.

russia was a shambles with great potential which has prospered on high oil prices, an entirely different situation.