- Joined
- Jun 16, 2018
- Messages
- 2,647
- Reaction score
- 286
- Location
- East
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Tigerace117:
Yes. Alfons is not alone in his advocacy for Igor (Strelkov) Girkin. Another poster has endorsed this man and gone one step further suggesting the Chechen Ramzan Kadyrov who is even more corrupt and violent than Igor Strelkov.
Both men suggested are examples of the type of leaders who would dismember Russia into their own personal regional principalities?states because they are incapable of working or unwilling to work with others and simply choose never to make compromises which last very long. I surmise we are dealing with people whose ideas closely align with very far right-leaning, ultra-violent, Russian hyper-nationalists who would rather see their country destroyed from within than get along with their neighbours and grow peacefully. It is quite tragic for the "rodina mat"/motherland and for all the sacrifices of their forefathers and mothers to protect it in its many times of peril.
Cheers.
Evilroddy.
I believe you're referring to me in this post.
Let me say that I believe that there is a lot of Russia hatred in the West. That has been the case for centuries. I also believe that history tells us that when Russia is not expanding it is contracting due to this endemic hostility and the repeated history of western aggression towards it.
Now to your point. Because of Russia's size, geography (that thing again), and diversity, it con only be held together by a strong central leader. Western style 'democracy' is a sham put on to pacify citizens and pretend that ther views matter, but it's also a slow and weak decision making machine which is designed to preserve the status quo. Russia can have no such luxury because it needs to be dynamic and decisive in decision making. We see the advantages that this brings Russia over such western debacles as Syria, and their vanity projects like Libya. The West is unable to react to the obvious failures of its own policies.
So, sham democracy is not an answer for Russia. This system would preside over the break up of Russia into constituent smaller entities - that's exactly why the West is so keen to foist its own weak systems onto Russia. Ironically, in a western system, Chechnya would have become its own mini state. So Evilroddy, try looking at Europe to see how the West creates regional principalities like Kosovo.
By contrast, Russia holds together because of strong leaders. Kadyrov is not my favourite, but being a Muslim he would in fact be ideally placed to hold the Caucasus regions in place. The exercise and projection of power from Moscow is a central to Russia's future. This is precisely what Putin did in his first term.
Thus your analysis is a virtual nonsense. Russia does not survive by weakness, or by trying to accommodate with a West which has now shown itself to be incapable of accepting anything other than surrender on US terms. This is not ultra anything, it's an empirical observation of reality, of geography, of centuries of history, and of the post Cold War era. The siren voices of those who actually want Russia to be weak and subservient cut no ice in Russia.