|
Typo posted:. I dunno quote:In keeping with Russian laws at the time, Zyuganov spent less than three million dollars on his campaign. Estimates of Yeltsin’s spending, by contrast, range from $700 million to $2.5 billion. (David M. Kotz, Russia’s Path from Gorbachev to Putin, 2007) This was a clear violation of law, but it was just the tip of the iceberg. Sounds uh pretty rigged to me. https://www.globalresearch.ca/us-meddling-in-1996-russian-elections-in-support-of-boris-yeltsin/5568288 But even discounting that, "soft rigging" is nice words for greatly helped manipulate a foreign election to get desired results. COMRADES fucked around with this message at 01:38 on Nov 20, 2018 |
#
?
Nov 20, 2018 01:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 07:23 |
|
|
Quote is not edit
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2018 01:37
|
|
|
Typo posted:The Republics with serious separatist sentiments were the Baltic Republics, Moldavia, Armenia and Georgia, those were 1-2% of USSR's population/territory. They could have jettisoned every single of those republics and still had the vast majority of the pre-1985 USSR. One interesting contributor to the breakup of the soviet union that hasn't been mentioned here yet is Gorbachev's banning of alcohol in 1985, ostensibly to fight alcoholism. As you can imagine, this was not a popular policy, and it was reversed two years later, mostly because of the loss of income from alcohol and the great increase in black market sales. During those two years, the USSR burnt many grape fields in the wine growing regions of Georgia and Armenia, further fueling nationalist sentiments in the region.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2018 04:19
|
|
|
COMRADES posted:I dunno globalresearch is garbage
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2018 04:26
|
|
|
GoluboiOgon posted:One interesting contributor to the breakup of the soviet union that hasn't been mentioned here yet is Gorbachev's banning of alcohol in 1985, ostensibly to fight alcoholism. As you can imagine, this was not a popular policy, and it was reversed two years later, mostly because of the loss of income from alcohol and the great increase in black market sales. During those two years, the USSR burnt many grape fields in the wine growing regions of Georgia and Armenia, further fueling nationalist sentiments in the region. coincidentally, Nicholas II also tried to ban alcohol during WWI
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2018 04:31
|
|
|
Simply enough if you things are tough and you ban or heavily restrict one of the chief outlets (alcohol), additional pressure starts to form. It is also why one of the things FDR did was to allow beer production again. Funnily enough, in modern-day Russia, there has been some additional restrictions on alcohol use and purchasing, the most notable is limiting sales to before 11pm and minimum prices for hard alcohol. In actuality, drinking has heavily subsided in recent years, we will see if the trend continues.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2018 08:50
|
|
|
Typo posted:globalresearch is garbage Is that really the response considering you can easily find the same information all over the Internet from all kinds of credible sources? You realize the USA has meddled with foreign elections in dozens of well documented cases around the world, not even counting the coups and other things like that right? You yourself admit to "soft rigging?" The 94 referendum was pretty rigged too although who knows with how much help ofc. quote:The details of the alleged electoral fraud have appeared in both opposition and pro-reform media. Legal authorities have sometimes confirmed them. The supervisor of a Moscow polling station committed suicide after the referendum and left a letter confessing that he had 'grossly deceived the people', according to one newspaper, Novaya Yezhednevnaya Gazeta. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/yeltsin-referendum-rigged-1368955.html COMRADES fucked around with this message at 10:38 on Nov 20, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2018 10:22
|
|
|
COMRADES posted:
your goalposts basically running a marathon right now
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2018 14:54
|
|
|
Typo posted:your goalposts basically running a marathon right now What goalposts dude you're just not addressing anything whatsoever. Like you're not even forming arguments or anything. You handwaved away my first source (sorry it was just the first one I grabbed on my phone?) and then ignored the other post and latched onto a sidenote to smugly go "haha goalposts moving." Here's what I said originally: the US helped rig the '96 election in Yeltsin's favor. As far as I'm aware we're more or less quibbling over to what degree anyway since you said sure there was some soft-rigging. quote:In an interview with TIME on Thursday, he said that Medvedev, while debating electoral laws with the activists, "took a pause and said, 'We all know that Boris Nikolaevich Yeltsin did not win in 1996.'" Three other opposition figures who were at that meeting have separately confirmed in radio and television interviews that Medvedev said this. http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2107565,00.html COMRADES fucked around with this message at 17:43 on Nov 20, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2018 16:06
|
|
|
COMRADES posted:What goalposts dude you're just not addressing anything whatsoever. Like you're not even forming arguments or anything. You handwaved away my first source (sorry it was just the first one I grabbed on my phone?) the source you are posting from literally has WTC CONTROLLED DEMOLITION on the front page dude, I thought you'd at least check out the front page, it's literally left-wing infowars  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bSJ2VicnXbE like a basic 5 second check should tell you that it's a garbage source to cite quote:and then ignored the other post and latched onto a sidenote to smugly go "haha goalposts moving." Here's what I said originally: the US helped rig the '96 election in Yeltsin's favor. As far as I'm aware we're more or less quibbling over to what degree anyway since you said sure there was some soft-rigging. The problem is that you aren't clear on what you are trying to argue, the last link you posted isn't even about the 1996 election, the current blurb you quoted doesn't say anything about US involvement, but you seem to be using it as evidence that "America rigged Russian elections". Again, I think hiring US political consultants to run a campaign isn't enough to qualify as "America rigging Russian election". No more than Trump hiring Manafort was Russia rigging 2016. quote:s far as I'm aware we're more or less quibbling over to what degree anyway since you said sure there was some soft-rigging. I'm just gonna quote Hoffman because I think it's relevant:   Was it a dirty election, absolutely, did Yeltsin had unfair advantages in funding and media, absolutely. Was it rigged? I disagree partially because that degree of incumbent advantage isn't all that unusual in a lot of second world democracies, and the opposition do win sometimes. To me rigged election is more like Saddam or Brezhnev era USSR with 99% of votes for the incumbents. In the end Yeltsin -did- find an appealing message to enough of the Russian electorate. But you are probably right in that we are splitting hairs here. Typo fucked around with this message at 00:09 on Nov 21, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2018 00:00
|
|
|
Typo posted:Was it a dirty election, absolutely, did Yeltsin had unfair advantages in funding and media, absolutely. Was it rigged? I disagree partially because that degree of incumbent advantage isn't all that unusual in a lot of second world democracies, and the opposition do win sometimes. To me rigged election is more like Saddam or Brezhnev era USSR with 99% of votes for the incumbents. But you are probably right in that we are splitting hairs here. In the end Yeltsin -did- find an appealing message to enough of the Russian electorate to win. (Ignoring globalresearch) The fundamental issue is there was a very clear and direct turn-around in polling during that period, which showed it was less that it was policy suddenly winning the electorate over (since not that much change during such a period of time), but it was clearly other factors. Zyuganov was leading by wide margins (at least double Yeltsin's support) until April 1996 when the gap vanished and by the end of May, Yeltsin was in the lead. So what is responsible for this sudden and swift change of fortune? (Also, btw Typo, it is a more than bit weird you cited a book that pretty much disregarded the shortages of the early 1991 then to turn around to use them as apart of your next argument. )
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2018 00:11
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:(Ignoring globalresearch) quote:(Also, btw Typo, it is a more than bit weird you cited a book that pretty much disregarded the shortages of the early 1991 then to turn around to use them as apart of your next argument. ) Late Gorbachev clearly and obviously had severe shortages even if it's not literal starvation level deprivation. But again, I think that level of shortages points more to the problems of a badly managed transition towards a market economy more so than it points to pre-1985 issues. Nor do I think that the economic crisis necessarily translate into a political crisis which destroyed the Soviet state.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2018 00:15
|
|
|
Typo posted:I'm just gonna quote Hoffman because I think it's relevant:. i love that his idea of an average voter is a banker. clearly, this member of the 1% accurately represents the opinions of the masses. oh, and if you google him this guy was appointed as prime minister of russia by yeltsin in 1998, who was more or less responsible for crashing the russian economy in 1998. quoting one of yeltsin's cronies as an example of popular opinion should really make you reconsider the intentions of the author of that book. quote:Sergey Vladilenovich Kiriyenko (Russian: Серге́й Владиле́нович Кирие́нко; born 26 July 1962) is a Russian politician. He serves as the First Deputy Chief of Staff of the Presidential Administration of Russia since 5 October 2016[1]. Previously he served as the 30th Prime Minister of Russia from 23 March to 23 August 1998 under President Boris Yeltsin. Between 2005 and 2016 he was the head of Rosatom, the state nuclear energy corporation.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2018 00:21
|
|
|
GoluboiOgon posted:i love that his idea of an average voter is a banker. clearly, this member of the 1% accurately represents the opinions of the masses. Hoffman was pretty clear about the level of corruption in that election if you actually read the book, and even the fact that Yeltsin was on the verge of calling in the security forces launching an auto-coup before the 1996 because he thought he would lose the election. So if your implication is that the book is pro-yeltsin I have to disagree. Typo fucked around with this message at 00:27 on Nov 21, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2018 00:25
|
|
|
Typo posted:Do you have a source on the polls, I know there was a pretty big turnaround, but I actually cannot recall off the top of my head how fast the polling turned around The 1996 Russian election wiki page has polling and honestly a bunch of other relevant info. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_presidential_election,_1996 quote:Late Gorbachev clearly and obviously had severe shortages even if it's not literal starvation level deprivation. But again, I think that level of shortages points more to the problems of a badly managed transition towards a market economy more so than it points to pre-1985 issues. Nor do I think that the economic crisis necessarily translate into a political crisis which destroyed the Soviet state. I don't think it really follows that starvation level deprivation isn't going to have an effect on the political crisis. I mean this goes through-out human history. It wasn't obviously the only issue at the time, but it has to be there in the equation. Also as far as the transition issue, it is abundantly clear there was more going on than warehouses sitting on food or hoarding (which honestly had been going on through Soviet history), but that the Soviet Union was in a fundamental weakened trade position, its foreign trade bank was literally run out of cash, and the country was in severe debt. Obviously, Yeltsin's solution for at least the Russians (but generally followed across the bloc was to launch a firesale in which anyone with connections made off like bandits. (Btw around 1993, the Russians were desperately asking the US for an emergency loan to essentially keep the lights on, the US refused.)
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2018 00:30
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:The 1996 Russian election wiki page has polling and honestly a bunch of other relevant info. In beginning of march the polling looked like 20 Zyg - 14 Yeltsin, by april it was pretty even between the two, final result in June election was 35-32 (yeltsin-zyg) that's not not too unusual imo, you can probably observe similar patterns in western elections as candidates consolidate their support, and Yeltsin did have media/illegal funding advantages + actually trying to run a modern western style electoral campaign. It's not too strange that Yeltsin caught up to Zyuganov by the actual election. E: I'll address the rest of your post later Typo fucked around with this message at 00:43 on Nov 21, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2018 00:37
|
|
|
Typo posted:I'm reading the poll right now This is considering how fragmented the field was, going from 5-11% support in February to 14-18% support in March to 35% in the first round in June is one hell of a turn-around. At that same time, Zuganov's support was relatively stable across the period. Yeltsin went from extremely unpopular to the leading candidate in about 3.5 months. I don't know if you call it "hard" rigging but honestly many of the harsher complaints the election do have grains of truth to them. Yeltsin was clearly saved from certain defeat by what transpired. Btw, the big influencers were ignoring spending rules, utilizing state media, and almost certainly the IMF deal (they got a giant EEF (extended fund facility on March 26)) which went a long way in helping to stabilize the Ruble during that period. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 01:08 on Nov 21, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2018 00:53
|
|
|
Typo posted:
Ok I feel dumb for not noticing that but no I didn't check the front page. My bad.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2018 00:53
|
|
|
Typo posted:
I do not find Stephen Cohen to be anything close to objective, at least not in the op-eds he writes and the interviews he gives. He's basically the RT of academics.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2018 00:59
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:This is considering how fragmented the field was, going from 5-11% support in February to 14-18% support in March to 35% in the first round in June is one hell of a turn-around. At that same time, Zuganov's support was relatively stable across the period. Well, isnt that what's likely to happen when the overriding question is between "go back to communism and don't do that do something esle?" There were lots of candidates initially splitting the "don't do that do something else" group but Zuganov was the clear choice for the "go back to communism" voter from the start. The fact that the other side gradually abandoned the other candidates and coalesced around Yeltsin does not mean that they changed their mind on the big issue before them - just who to choose to do it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2018 01:09
|
|
|
predicto posted:Well, isnt that what's likely to happen when the overriding question is between "go back to communism and don't do that do something esle?" There were lots of candidates initially splitting the "don't do that do something else" group but Zuganov was the clear choice for the "go back to communism" voter from the start. Zuganov was a known quantity, and it wasn't a surprise he was running. The question is why did Yeltsin become the pick considering he was very unpopular around February, he was getting 4th place in a lot of polls. Also, "communism" or "not communism" wasn't the choice, the Soviet Union wasn't coming back and in all honesty, Zuganov even then was a light-weight ideologically speaking. Also, Cohen's academic work is separate from his public persona, and honestly that is the discussion at hand.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2018 01:17
|
|
|
predicto posted:I do not find Stephen Cohen to be anything close to objective, at least not in the op-eds he writes and the interviews he gives. He's basically the RT of academics. When it comes to current us russia relations i agree cohen is too pro russia for me. Though i do not entirely discount his point that the us really did screw up its relationship with russia in the 90s, nor the genuine sense of grievance russia has with rhe west. But when he points at ukraine and go its americas fault i strongly disagree with him. At the same time the book i linked is basically pro gorbachev and anti yeltsin. The book argues russia lost its real shot of democracy with the fall of Gorbachevs USSR. What kind of agenda is being pushed here? Gorbachev is irrelevant today and the condemnation is against putins political patron. The book doesnt blame the US either. Its a biased piece of work but in the light of continual survival of authoritarian regimes with worse economic and political problems than ths ussr in 1985, its hard not to agree with his arguments. Typo fucked around with this message at 02:38 on Nov 21, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2018 02:35
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Zuganov was a known quantity, and it wasn't a surprise he was running. The question is why did Yeltsin become the pick considering he was very unpopular around February, he was getting 4th place in a lot of polls. As current us politics inform us it works when you run against what you want your opponent to be and not what he actually is. If republicans can successfully portray obama as hitler mao yeltsin can portray zuyganov as brezhnev.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2018 02:41
|
|
|
Typo posted:As current us politics inform us it works when you run against what you want your opponent to be and not what he actually is. If republicans can successfully portray obama as hitler mao yeltsin can portray zuyganov as brezhnev. The question is if political polarization was actually responsible, or simply the public was so bombarded from so many angles that Yeltsin was saved from the jaws of defeat, and the West had its fair share of involvement in this. Cohen has a pretty different reputation in 2018 than in 2010 when the book was published. That said, it is clear from an ideological perspective that Cohen is very much a left-liberal/social democrat, just one that is a Russophile.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2018 09:04
|
|
|
I wanted to add that Zyuganov would have probably still been screwed by the 1997 Asian crisis, and in that context, VVP would have still had an opening in 1999/2000.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2018 11:41
|
|
|
 mod edit: too big Somebody fucked around with this message at 01:31 on Nov 25, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2018 01:20
|
|
|
Btw to throw it out there, I wonder how much that is going on Ukraine is a purposeful distraction from increasing unhappiness at home.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2018 21:57
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Btw to throw it out there, I wonder how much that is going on Ukraine is a purposeful distraction from increasing unhappiness at home. For which country?
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2018 22:03
|
|
|
Darth Walrus posted:For which country? Russia, although could also be applied to both although Poroshenko hasn't been popular for a while.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2018 22:15
|
|
|
The vessel inspections are bullshit. They're not acting in a legitimate port state capacity. This is larger than the Russia - Ukraine issue. Vessels of all flags are being boarded. This is a bfd.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2018 22:40
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:The vessel inspections are bullshit. They're not acting in a legitimate port state capacity. This is larger than the Russia - Ukraine issue. Vessels of all flags are being boarded. This is a bfd. The idea is to distract the population, so it needs to be a pretty big international incident. I hate to say it but I have been expecting something like this the last few weeks. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 22:46 on Nov 25, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2018 22:42
|
|
|
Welp, I'm going to put off looking at the affected ships until tonight. I think I'd prefer to not be sober for that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2018 23:00
|
|
|
Darth Walrus posted:For which country? the American Deep State no really, Russia says the heightened tensions are the fault of Ukraine and anti-Trump elements who want to derail the pendong Trump Putin meeting
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2018 23:01
|
|
|
COMRADES posted:Ok I feel dumb for not noticing that but no I didn't check the front page. My bad. The article you posted was not actually from global research, they just syndicated it, which they do with all kinds of sources from Infowars to Der Spiegel. This one was from a Hetq, was seems like a fairly legit and mainstream Armenian news website.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2018 00:22
|
|
|
predicto posted:Well, isnt that what's likely to happen when the overriding question is between "go back to communism and don't do that do something esle?" There were lots of candidates initially splitting the "don't do that do something else" group but Zuganov was the clear choice for the "go back to communism" voter from the start. also at least 1 the candidate (alexander lebed) who polled relatively well was pretty much openly kremlin plant to leech votes away from "anybody but yeltsin" from consolidating behind zuganov, basically jill stein of russia 1996
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2018 00:45
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:The vessel inspections are bullshit. They're not acting in a legitimate port state capacity. This is larger than the Russia - Ukraine issue. Vessels of all flags are being boarded. This is a bfd. Where are you getting this information?
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2018 22:35
|
|
|
CountFosco posted:Where are you getting this information? Half was was the bbc article BrandorKP posted:It's pretty loving bad. They've defacto blockaded two Ukrainian ports with the tanker ship under the bridge and they're seizing ships. "But recently there, Russia began inspecting all vessels sailing to or from Ukrainian ports." Same article says this is affecting ships of EU member states flags. Only the Ukrainian ships have been seized but everybody is getting boardings. The other half is that ships are what I do basically. Its probable that I'll eventually meet crew members that have been on affected vessels, though that might take years.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2018 22:56
|
|
|
Crimea splits the black sea in half when controlled. So it makes sense that the rf would enforce sea rights after making that move. Mariupol is the real target.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2018 07:56
|
|
|
LeoMarr posted:Crimea splits the black sea in half when controlled. So it makes sense that the rf would enforce sea rights after making that move. Mariupol is the real target. We will see how VVP's approval holds up in December, he is still in the mid-50s at this point.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2018 14:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 07:23 |
|
|
I just wikipediad Mariupol and man, the Azovstal iron and steel works there looks like something out of Stalin's dreams. Soviet Ironworks for a better tomorrow.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2018 19:39
|
|