RE: Russian History of WWII and it's Continuing Relevance According to Vladimir Putin on Freedom Day

avatar

You are viewing a single comment's thread:

@valued-customer, Why is Putin's long-term power successful? He seems to succeed through populist policy. Putin is the centralized emperor you oppose.

He had dictatorship by purging his opponents against his long-term rulership. He is Xi Jinping's role model.
By the way, are you in favor of his policy?



0
0
0.000
8 comments
avatar

You are absolutely correct on every point. However Putin's success is not dependent on populism, so much as his success results in populism because what he succeeds at is keeping Russia from utter destruction by war profiteering banksters of the West. For example, in the war in 2008 in S. Ossetia instigated by the CIA in Georgia, it was obvious that Russia would quickly and successfully intervene to stop Georgia from shelling hospitals, schools, and playgrounds where ethnic Russians lived in S. Ossetia.

~3 kilometers south of the border of S. Ossetia is a junction of a pipeline from Baku, that is owned by the banksters that caused the war. It was an obvious and extremely profitable target that Putin could not have failed to note. Banksters were utterly certain he would seize that junction to punish them for their war crimes, and to profit Russia, then in the process of becoming one of the primary suppliers of oil in the world.

At the time, I was aware that $T's were being bet that the price of oil would rise. When Putin did not seize the pipeline junction and take that oil, the price of oil plummeted, and the world enjoyed for a decade fuel prices ~halved from what they had been, and perhaps 1/10 what they would have been had Russia taken the pipeline. It is this example of Putin's mastery of international politics that has made me grateful for his tyrannical rule of Russia. He's clearly a benevolent tyrant, and when availed an opportunity to personally increase his private wealth by $B's, he instead cost Russia's enemies $T's.

I am only in favor of Putin's policies that advance distribution of means of production to individuals consuming their products. However, I am unaware of any policies he has advanced for that purpose. This would suggest that I am completely opposed to Putin's policies.

In a wider context, Putin is acting as a nationalist, and given the existential threat to Russia, as the collapse of the Soviet Union could not have made more obvious, I find it certain that only his policies deriving personal power from institutions so that he could advance the interests of Russia in a corrupt world have enabled Russia to exist today.

Despite my admiration for his competence, I cannot fail to observe he is only human, and devoting his incomparable talents to Russian survival has necessarily prevented his advancing decentralization by focusing his attention elsewhere. His responsibility is to Russia, and the portion of humanity within Russian borders. The survival of Russia - and those people there - has only been possible due to his policies, because of global corruption of institutions vastly better armed and supplied than Russia.

In that sense - on the international inter-imperial competition - he has in fact exactly advanced decentralization. Russia has no national debt in a world drowning in national debt. Russia has successfully defended Syria from an international campaign deploying mercenary terrorists to destroy it, despite the asymmetrical imbalance in power between Russia and the West. These policies exemplify decentralization of security on the international level, despite that maintaining the power to effect them internationally requires internal police state policies that, of course, utterly offend me.

Regarding China's emulation of Putin, I cannot credit Xi with that admiration, but grant to Xi his own singular competence and vision, not mimicry of Putin at all. The vastly more advanced social controls of China indicate to me that such policies are the focus of Xi's social direction, not simply unavoidable relics of his need for focus on the international competition. It is the emulation of Xi's policies in the West that suggest to me Xi is not at all the enemy Putin is at the highest levels of the cabal.

This is why we see the enemedia constantly point at Russia as the enemy of all that is good and decent, while millions of Uighurs are used as organ factories for the transplant industry and the enemedia remark on this not at all. China is modeling what the owners of the 'free press' intend to do in the West, and Putin is not. I don't think Xi emulates Putin at all.

I think they could not be more opposed at that level, and suspect Putin may have all too human incapacity revealed in what appears to be attempts at political alliance between Russia and China. I remain certain that Putin is doing a far better job than I am able to even comprehend than could I, and can only leave it at that.

0
0
0.000
avatar

You are absolutely correct on every point. However Putin's success is not dependent on populism, so much as his success results in populism because what he succeeds at is keeping Russia from utter destruction by war profiteering banksters of the West. For example, in the war in 2008 in S. Ossetia instigated by the CIA in Georgia, it was obvious that Russia would quickly and successfully intervene to stop Georgia from shelling hospitals, schools, and playgrounds where ethnic Russians lived in S. Ossetia.

Senior, you overestimate me. It is well known that Western capitalists support Putin because they are coveting Russian oil.

At the time, I was aware that $T's were being bet that the price of oil would rise. When Putin did not seize the pipeline junction and take that oil, the price of oil plummeted, and the world enjoyed for a decade fuel prices ~halved from what they had been, and perhaps 1/10 what they would have been had Russia taken the pipeline. It is this example of Putin's mastery of international politics that has made me grateful for his tyrannical rule of Russia. He's clearly a benevolent tyrant, and when availed an opportunity to personally increase his private wealth by $B's, he instead cost Russia's enemies $T's.

Do you mean that Western countries supported Putin because Putin deliberately lowered world oil prices?
Your words are probable.

I am only in favor of Putin's policies that advance distribution of means of production to individuals consuming their products. However, I am unaware of any policies he has advanced for that purpose. This would suggest that I am completely opposed to Putin's policies.

You are in favor of Putin's economic policy, but are you against his dictatorship and centralization?

In a wider context, Putin is acting as a nationalist, and given the existential threat to Russia, as the collapse of the Soviet Union could not have made more obvious, I find it certain that only his policies deriving personal power from institutions so that he could advance the interests of Russia in a corrupt world have enabled Russia to exist today.

Do you think Russia needs Putin's dictatorship to survive?

Despite my admiration for his competence, I cannot fail to observe he is only human, and devoting his incomparable talents to Russian survival has necessarily prevented his advancing decentralization by focusing his attention elsewhere. His responsibility is to Russia, and the portion of humanity within Russian borders. The survival of Russia - and those people there - has only been possible due to his policies, because of global corruption of institutions vastly better armed and supplied than Russia.

Do you want Russia not to become a Western colony?

In that sense - on the international inter-imperial competition - he has in fact exactly advanced decentralization. Russia has no national debt in a world drowning in national debt. Russia has successfully defended Syria from an international campaign deploying mercenary terrorists to destroy it, despite the asymmetrical imbalance in power between Russia and the West. These policies exemplify decentralization of security on the international level, despite that maintaining the power to effect them internationally requires internal police state policies that, of course, utterly offend me.

In my view, you are opposed to Putin's dictatorship, but in favor of his international foreign policy.

Regarding China's emulation of Putin, I cannot credit Xi with that admiration, but grant to Xi his own singular competence and vision, not mimicry of Putin at all. The vastly more advanced social controls of China indicate to me that such policies are the focus of Xi's social direction, not simply unavoidable relics of his need for focus on the international competition. It is the emulation of Xi's policies in the West that suggest to me Xi is not at all the enemy Putin is at the highest levels of the cabal.

I think Xi Jinping is imitating Putin. China relies heavily on Russia's resources, particularly oil and natural gas, to escape US economic dominance. Russia will benefit greatly by exporting its resources to China as China's economic development accelerates.
That's why Putin supports Xi Jinping. The alliance between China and Russia exists to counter the alliance between the United States and Japan.

This is why we see the enemedia constantly point at Russia as the enemy of all that is good and decent, while millions of Uighurs are used as organ factories for the transplant industry and the enemedia remark on this not at all. China is modeling what the owners of the 'free press' intend to do in the West, and Putin is not. I don't think Xi emulates Putin at all.

I think they could not be more opposed at that level, and suspect Putin may have all too human incapacity revealed in what appears to be attempts at political alliance between Russia and China. I remain certain that Putin is doing a far better job than I am able to even comprehend than could I, and can only leave it at that.

Russia, unlike China and Japan, is a Christian civilized country in Europe, so it is easy to negotiate with the United States.

Is it possible that the ancestor of @valued-customer is Russian?
Blood is thicker than water. hahaha

Ps: I don't want you to misunderstand my meaning because my english is awkward.

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

It is very good that you ask questions to be sure you have correctly understood.

"Do you mean that Western countries supported Putin because Putin deliberately lowered world oil prices?"

No, I mean that Putin saw the bait offered him by banksters who started the Georgian war to provide it to him, and refused it, literally decreasing their wealth by $T's. He did this despite the $B's he would have gained by seizing that pipeline, and consequently lowered oil prices globally to this very day.

"It is well known that Western capitalists support Putin because they are coveting Russian oil."

You completely fail to understand realpolitik in this regard. Where else does coveted oil exist? Iraq, Syria, Libya... Has the West supported those nationalist leaders of those countries that rose? Oh no, they have not. In the Sudan and Nigeria the presence of oil has resulted in genocide of local peoples to whom title to the oil inures at great cost to banksters in payments to mercenary terrorists in order to save the even greater cost of paying royalties to those peoples.

Saudi government was created to deliver oil to the West, so it is an exception to the rule that countries with oil are destroyed so that the oil can be seized without compensation to the nationals that are due royalties.

Putin exists despite this rule. Russia has not been destabilized despite the enormous efforts to destroy it by the West. This, and this alone, is the source of my admiration for Putin: he has successfully grown the nation of Russia as the West has incessantly striven to destroy it.

"I think Xi Jinping is imitating Putin."

I disagree. Xi has advanced social controls, such as Sesame Credit, that have no parallels in Russia, and are being adopted in the West - and not in Russia. Xi needs Russian oil, and Russia needs China's gold, so they do business amicably. This is not the same as admiring one another, or emulating each the other's domestic policies.

Russia advances ethnic diversity, notably having crushed Western mercenary 'Muslim' terrorists in Chechnya, which enables Muslims in Chechnya and elsewhere to advance society. China farms the Uighurs for their internal organs. In this there is a complete disconnect between policies, and IMHO disproves your thesis that their economic interdependence implies Xi is emulating Putin's domestic policies.

"Russia, unlike China and Japan, is a Christian civilized country in Europe..."

Only since Putin rose to power. The USSR was atheist, and crushed every religion, which commies regarded as competition with Communism. The godless banksters have no problem negotiating with any state.

I should take that back. The Satanic banksters can swindle through negotiations states of any religion, or ideology. It is those that resist being swindled that then are targeted for war, like Iran, N. Korea, and Russia. The demonization of Gaddafi is one of the best examples of that failure to swindle and subsequent destruction. Libya was absolutely the most prosperous state in Africa, and the Libyan people the most civilized on the continent, until Western sponsored terrorists destroyed it and anally raped Gaddafi to death with a steel rod.

On principle, I support people and society, and thus oppose the criminal and genocidal Western bankster cabal that preys on them. Xi is a model for them of how to enslave civilian populations, and strongly is contrasted by Putin, who only has to in order to defy the West.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Xi is a model for them of how to enslave civilian populations,

Well stated.

0
0
0.000