Certain US Democrats and Western European socialists seem to feel duty bound to treat Putin as a 'murderous tyrant'. To add murky, bloody colour to this, it's even suggested that he systematically bumps off his political opponents. It has been the politically correct, agenda requirement to treat Russia under Putin as the most dangerous enemy of the West. The agenda pushers and their main financier, who thankfully can only have a few more years of existence, need no encouragement in making sure that this status quo continues, and that the flames of concocted contention be constantly fanned. This is also why they are furious that Trump dared to give Vladimir Putin the opportunity to reveal that he's capable of smiling.
Regarding Putin's election as President (March, 2018). None of his competitors were eliminated by nerve agents cunningly disguised as expensive French perfumes. The other candidates were Vladimir Zhirinovsky (Liberal Democrat Party) Pavel Grudinin (Communist Party), Sergei Baburin (Russian All-People's Union), Ksenia Sobchak (Civic Initiative, or Party of Changes), Maxim Suraykin (Communists of Russia), Boris Titov (Party of Growth), Grigory Yavlinsky (Yabloko). Ironically there was also an anti-corruption activist candidate, Alexei Navainy. His candidature was turned down due to a prior criminal conviction...
Interestingly the candidate Ksenia Sobchak (Ксе́ния Анато́льевна Собча́к) is a popular TV news reporter, journalist, socialite (which doesn't mean socialist) and actress. She is also the daughter of the first democratically elected mayor of St Petersburg, Anatoly Sobchak, (who died in February, 2000) and Lyudmila Narusova, her mother, who is an important member of the Federation Council of Russia.
If Russia really wanted a change, and felt that enough were known about Ksenia Sobchac for her to be able to successfully bring this about, would she not have stood a good chance of being elected?
Yet no, Putin was again elected as expected, if not as predetermined. Following his election however, there were no huge, public demonstrations expressing outrage because of hopeless feelings of being cheated, or robbed. There were no public accusations of massive voting fraud or insidious foreign meddling (especially from the USA). In fact it would even seem that the result caused general satisfaction, although such an abominable idea would be unprintable in any main stream western newspaper, and totally unreportable for Western European and American TV.
Russian friends confirm that the majority of Russians admire Putin, certainly with regard to the way he represents Russia internationally. This is understandable, because there are many Europeans who have similar admiration for him in this respect. For them he seems to be a stabilising factor of common sense, whilst the 'leaders' of Western Europe, Canada, Australia and certain US State authorities, still appear to be derailing themselves on their mad, culturally destructive, suicidal course.
This admirable international representation was brilliantly apparent by the way in which Russia hosted the World Cup. Acknowledging praise of this seemed to have been meanly limited by western media. Would it be because such brilliant, international hosting clashes terribly with the requirements of the 'agenda'? Sadly it would seem to be the case.
No doubt Karl Marx had good intentions. There is some truth in his theories and ideology, and even his pamphlet, The Communist Manifesto, (1848). Certainly this could be judged so during the industrial revolution of the nineteenth century, when the working class (proletariat) was cruelly exploited by capitalist tyrants (ruling classes then labelled as the bourgeoisie).
Soviet Communism however, became a monster that ended up by destroying itself, and although in the West the ideology should logically be considered as being dead and buried, unfortunately the regurgitation of ever failing socialism still periodically occurs.
It seems ironical that the economic philosophy, and moral common sense of Adam Smith regarding capitalism and relational politics, remain just as fresh and valid today as they were when he wrote, for one example, The Wealth of Nations, published in 1776.
Ironic too that in spite of this economical logic, endorsed by history, socialism has a habit of forcing itself upon us time and time again, like a ghastly parasite impossible to entirely eliminate for good.
The irony is even greater when the EU, supported by the establishment, and certain, seemingly bought-out Western European politicians and Prime ministers, appear to be feverishly engrossed in implementing a neo-Marxist agenda completely contrary to the interests of the populations they claim to represent.
But to return to Putin. He is an admirer of Benjamin Netanyahu, which also means he understandably admires Israel. Considering how much clout he has over two of Russia's allies, Iran and Syria, this is obviously an enormously important stabilising factor. Again ironically, it contrasts starkly with the attitude of ex US President Obama, who was virtually hostile towards Israel, and over generously appeasing towards Iran, to a dangerous extent, according to Israel, obviously the first democratic State concerned.
In view of all this, would it not appear that the east/west ideological tables have incredibly and ironically turned?
Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin admits that he was a 'trouble maker' as a young boy, but one of his teachers believed in his potential, and noticed how he quickly mastered languages, for example. He had an excellent memory.
An interesting biography can be found here.
Putin was in fact offered the appointment of Prime Minister of the Russian Government by President Boris Yeltsin, in August 1999. Here is a short extract from his biography:
'Putin described his time in the prime minister’s office as an honour and an interesting experience. “I thought then, if I can get through a year that will already be a good start. If I can do something to help save Russia from falling apart then this would be something to be proud of.”
Indeed when one reads his biography and some of his speeches, it's very difficult to associate Vladimir Putin with the 'murderous, tyrannical dictator' that certain people whom one formerly considered as well informed and intelligent, label him as. But then I, in turn, would be labelled as extremely naive by daring to make such a politically incorrect allusion.
🎴
Text and treatment of b/w image (with thanks for this use) © Mirino, August, 2018
Posts
2 comments:
Putin was born in October, 1952. That would make him 36 when the Afghan Soviet war ended in February, 1989, and 37 when the Berlin Wall came down in November that same year. Both events marked the end of Soviet Communism.
Boris Yeltsin was the first President of the Russian Federation (serving from 1991-1999). Although he originally supported Mikhail Gorbachev, he became one of Gorbachev's strongest political opponents. Yeltsin helped to turn the page on Soviet Communism simply by resigning his Politburo membership towards the end of 1987. This was considered an unheard of act of rebellion, and helped to boost him as a popular, anti-establishment hero.
The fact that Boris Yeltsin recognised the leadership potential of Vladimir Putin, enough to offer him the PM function in 1999, before stepping down and offering him the Presidency of the Russian Federation in 2000, therefore speaks volumes.
Putin was elected President on March 26, 2000. He was re-elected for a second term on March 14, 2004. On May 8th, 2008, he was appointed PM by Presidential executive order.
Many people distrust Putin because he was an intelligence officer in the KGB. But his work would have had nothing to do with 'witch hunting', with spying on fellow Russians who might be considered a threat to the Soviet Union's regime. The Soviet Union died in Afghanistan in 1989, and Yeltsin had the courage to help bury it. In 1991 Yeltsin became the first elected President in Russian history. That same year in December, the Russian Soviet Socialist Republic became the independent Russian Federation.
In view of what Yeltsin had initiated, at considerable personal risk, naturally he would never have handed over the governing reins of the Russian Federation to someone inclined to revert to communism. He obviously had great confidence in Vladimir Putin's capacity to continue to develop the Russian Federation also as a democracy, and to defend its rich, cultural identity, which includes its root religion.
Mikhaïl Gorbachev was the last leader of the Soviet Union, but even so, he was comparatively moderate. He must also have seen the light of what was inevitable.
Boris Yeltsin had the courage to cut the Soviet umbilical cord. He was the first President of the Russian Federation. Putin had the trust, the energy, confidence and convictions to continue the uphill climb.
But democracy takes time to properly establish itself, even more so when, like a fragile poppy, it flowers from a murky heap of death and destruction. Even when a nation finally reaches the summit of democracy, dangers still exist of it overstepping its mark and becoming its own enemy, by falling into the abyss of autocratism and totalitarianism.
Today that danger even seems to exist in Western Europe, and democratic continents that are giving more priority to ideology than to the interests of the people they are supposed to represent.
Christophe de Ponfilly, was a French journalist and film reporter who wrote 'Massoud l'Afghan' between 1997 and 98. He saw the final throes of Soviet Communism in Afghanistan and knew of the horrors of the Afghan-Soviet war. Russians 'fight dirty' as they say in the USA. This was certainly true in Afghanistan. Yet before the fatal year for Massoud and the USA, the French journalist was allowed to visit Russia and show his films to simple Russian people who were oblivious of how the war was fought. Ponfilly was moved by the reaction of people who approached him after seeing his film. Women had tears in their eyes as they thanked him for showing an important part of the truth. They never knew.
Doesn't this in itself mark a total political and social change in Russia? Yet the west failed to appreciate and acknowledge this, and this lack of acknowledgement is still the status quo today, certainly in Western Europe, agenda oblige.
Although history would have been vastly different if the Soviet Union under Stalin had never been invaded by Nazi Germany (Barbarossa) in 1941, had Stalin been the Russian leader during the Ukrainian coup and Euromaidan in November, 2013, is it not plausible that it could have led to WWIII?
Post a Comment