DescentBB

It seems the Vladimir Putin has a new cheering section, specifically the right wing media, here in the good ol' anti-commie, red-blooded U.S. of A.! What strange bedfellows! And I thought Kerry originally brought up the suggestion that Syria turn over their chemical weapons as an offhanded comment, not Putin.

http://www.newscorpse.com/ncWP/?p=10532

http://mediamatters.org/research/2013/0 ... tin/195803

The style of this article only talks about the bias of the journalist and anti-Russian propaganda.
Actually, the President and Congress USA not only missed a great chance to give a little of their aggression form a peacekeeping mission, but continue driving nails into the coffin of the last vestiges of respect for U.S. foreign policy.

Thats ok. No one has had any respect for Russian foreign policy for decades

CUDA wrote:Thats ok. No one has had any respect for Russian foreign policy for decades

I do not think so. I recognize the familiar colors of the American disease of conceit

just read a funny observation:"When Barack Obama deals with Syria by invading the wrong country and then giving 39 Billion dollars to Joe Biden's old company, then we can start comparing this to Iraq...."

sigma wrote:The style of this article only talks about the bias of the journalist and anti-Russian propaganda.
Actually, the President and Congress USA not only missed a great chance to give a little of their aggression form a peacekeeping mission, but continue driving nails into the coffin of the last vestiges of respect for U.S. foreign policy.

That's true. Kerry gave an us an out and the Russians ran with it instead of our leaders with their usual go-to-war solutions. Stupid, one track mind American leaders. I guess they'll listen to that bloated military industrial complex first, because war makes them money and peace doesn't.

But my point is all the love from the right wing American media being lavished upon the Russian leader, Putin. In the 1950's, that would have been treasonous. Now, it's just plain disrespect for our leaders. Maybe they deserve it, but I find the lack of national pride in the right wing media disheartening. Maybe they should all move to Russia if they like Putin so much. The Russians can have them.

sigma wrote:

CUDA wrote:Thats ok. No one has had any respect for Russian foreign policy for decades

I do not think so. I recognize the familiar colors of the American disease of conceit

and we can recognize the familiar colors of the Russian disease of Ignorance

Fact is Sigma, you can tell a lot about someone by who they choose to align themselves with

flip, the U.S. done it's fair share of aligning itself with despots and tinpot dictators, as long as it served our long term needs.

callmeslick wrote:just read a funny observation:"When Barack Obama deals with Syria by invading the wrong country and then giving 39 Billion dollars to Joe Biden's old company, then we can start comparing this to Iraq...."

Didn't Afgahnastan become the wrong country a long time ago? 73% of casualtys there have happened since Obama took over.
I'll bet you can find he and his Party have benefitted from the war machines contributions too...

Makes me wonder what he hell you think is so funny.

it's funny in an ironic way, and show me anything in the current administration that approaches the windfall that Cheney's company got from Iraq, for NO GOOD REASON(repeated with emphasis, to differentiate from Afghanistan).

callmeslick wrote:it's funny in an ironic way, and show me anything in the current administration that approaches the windfall that Cheney's company got from Iraq, for NO GOOD REASON(repeated with emphasis, to differentiate from Afghanistan).

So as long as Cheney profited more than Obama the growing body count and continuing to send our troops to die in the wrong place is perfectly ,acceptably, amusing to you?

Ok then.

And no, I won't bother to detract from that by posting the Haliburton connections to your team. Nor the other war machine donations because 1) i don't know the precise dollar figures to pass or fail your qualifying red herring benchmark of 'more than Cheney....and 2) I find your need to excuse the death toll and hide behind that qualifier is a much more damning statement about your shameless partisan nature than quibbling over the trivial details ever would be!

So, you go boy! You own it.....73% death toll all yours to yuk it up over! It's all Bush's fault anyway, right? As far as the dumb masses who agree with you any way...

tunnelcat wrote:flip, the U.S. done it's fair share of aligning itself with despots and tinpot dictators, as long as it served our long term needs.

That was then, this is now. Ultimately, the US has stood for good, even if there are opportunists at every bend.

flip wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:flip, the U.S. done it's fair share of aligning itself with despots and tinpot dictators, as long as it served our long term needs.

Ultimately, the US has stood for good, even if there are opportunists at every bend.

I see that the U.S. policy only inspire the American people that they are fighting the villains. And that U.S. exceptionalism allows them to break any laws in their " God-given " mission of the struggle between good and evil against the second-class people around the world. This is very similar to fascism. In one third of the American blockbuster story is the same - a clever super hero fighting for good , destroying stupid aggressive beggars, hungry "scavengers " or mad scientists and military dictators. As a rule, Russian.
In fact, I was afraid of this version of democracy , which we all now shows the U.S. experience. Today's U.S. experience discredits the very concept of democracy. Today, the U.S. uses the concept of democracy as an ideology comparable to Nazism. God forbid, such a variant of American democracy take root in another country. When one considers itself exceptional and always right to use violence only on the basis that he is currently more money and weapons than others. If Russia will cease to be a deterrent for fear of the dark desires of politicians in Washington, if Russia will cease to be their inner voice of conscience, then the U.S. will become a monopoly for a long time racketeer throughout the world scene , as long as the chaos will not lead to revolution. Not to mention the fact that half of the male population may be will homosexual, thanks to the American version of democracy:lol:
Though sometimes you analyze the experience of world history?

Well, Sigma, I can see the propaganda is working well with you my friend. Let's not forget that at your countries darkest hour, we were there to lend a helping hand. This 'democratization' that you now enjoy was wrought by American help and money, although I do wonder if your being hoodwinked along with the rest of us. Your sitting president, Putin, left the KGB after 16 years and becoming Lieutenant Colonel to enter into politics in 1991. I say no one gets that far in the KGB unless they are firm believers. This was around the same time the Berlin Wall fell, The European Union formed and we passed NAFTA and closed military bases everywhere, but most importantly, in the South China Sea. He has been there ever since, first becoming Prime Minister, then President after Yeltsin 'unexpectedly' resigns. Then President for another term, Then Prime Minister again. Then ran and won a highly disputed third term as President and had the law change to extend the term limit to 6 years. That ensures that he stays there until at least 2018. During this term, he has changed the law to where the Governors are now nominated by the President and then took a series of steps to re-align the regional bureaucracy to make the Governors report to the prime minister rather than the president. What you wanna bet that after this third term, Putin is appointed Prime Minister again? All I can say is this, there is no long term plan of America to destroy Russia. No, Instead, we helped Russia get back on it's feet again. If there is a long term plan to destroy America, I would bet my bottom dollar that Putin feels personably responsible for it, He has been there the whole time. Usually Sigma, when someone is pointing the finger all the time, it's so no one will look at them. If I were you, I'd start looking closer at home for the bad guy, or you just might find yourself in a coup that you never saw coming.

Exactly, Putin went out of his way to twist Obama's words. Not a very friendly thing to do. When he said exceptional, he meant the things we stand for and the things we stand against. Our ideals. Yet Putin is taking every occasion to make it look like Americans are arrogant and need to be corralled. It's our ideals that are exceptional, not ourselves.

flip wrote:Well, Sigma, I can see the propaganda is working well with you my friend. Let's not forget that at your countries darkest hour, we were there to lend a helping hand. This 'democratization' that you now enjoy was wrought by American help and money, although I do wonder if your being hoodwinked along with the rest of us. Your sitting president, Putin, left the KGB after 16 years and becoming Lieutenant Colonel to enter into politics in 1991. I say no one gets that far in the KGB unless they are firm believers. This was around the same time the Berlin Wall fell, The European Union formed and we passed NAFTA and closed military bases everywhere, but most importantly, in the South China Sea. He has been there ever since, first becoming Prime Minister, then President after Yeltsin 'unexpectedly' resigns. Then President for another term, Then Prime Minister again. Then ran and won a highly disputed third term as President and had the law change to extend the term limit to 6 years. That ensures that he stays there until at least 2018. During this term, he has changed the law to where the Governors are now nominated by the President and then took a series of steps to re-align the regional bureaucracy to make the Governors report to the prime minister rather than the president. What you wanna bet that after this third term, Putin is appointed Prime Minister again? All I can say is this, there is no long term plan of America to destroy Russia. No, Instead, we helped Russia get back on it's feet again. If there is a long term plan to destroy America, I would bet my bottom dollar that Putin feels personably responsible for it, He has been there the whole time. Usually Sigma, when someone is pointing the finger all the time, it's so no one will look at them. If I were you, I'd start looking closer at home for the bad guy, or you just might find yourself in a coup that you never saw coming.

I totally disagree with you . I believe Vladimir Putin's one of the top leaders of the country ever held this important post . If not the best in the last 100 years in Russia . His actions according to my estimates, 85% of the logical, appropriate and timely. His policy is quite clear. And of course it can be considered as a progressive leader , a champion of real democracy , whose opinion can and should be listened to. Previous Russian leaders have made so many concessions to the West and the U.S., in exchange for a complete disregard for mutual agreements with Russia , which is now the United States and Europe have the nerve to laugh at Russia . Rare reports of news from Russia in American and European media can do without outright mockery and sarcasm against Russia , calling such buffoonery " freedom of the press." Here is an example . U.S. yells to the whole world that the exhibition in Moscow bad artists, depicting russians political leaders in the adult form has been closed by the police. At a time when the Russian Olympic champion posted on his twitter satirical paintings depicting the couple of President Obama, the United States immediately responded with a demand to remove the image. Double standards throughout. I have great respect for the American people, but I despise the U.S. politicians for their immorality . I do not shake hands with Barack Obama and many U.S. congressmen, if we ever meet sometime.
As for U.S. aid to the Soviet Union , we have already discussed this in another topic . I can not say that the United States helped us from the love of the Russian . It was the policy . United States as well would help Nazi Germany, if Germany would win was the Communists. 60 million Russian people gave their lives to rid the world of fascism. It pains me to see that the United States considers himself today the fourth Reich.

callmeslick wrote:http://www.delawareonline.com/article/2 ... imir-Putin

I have not seen any clever phrases in this article.

sigma wrote:I totally disagree with you . I believe Vladimir Putin's one of the top leaders of the country ever held this important post . If not the best in the last 100 years in Russia . His actions according to my estimates, 85% of the logical, appropriate and timely. His policy is quite clear. And of course it can be considered as a progressive leader , a champion of real democracy , whose opinion can and should be listened to.

that's funny.....most of the rest of the world sees him as a greedy little despot, who installed himself into permanent power in your country through rigged elections and a few outright murders of opponents.

At a time when the Russian Olympic champion posted on his twitter satirical paintings depicting the couple of President Obama, the United States immediately responded with a demand to remove the image.

can you provide a link to this 'news', because I cannot find it.

Double standards throughout. I have great respect for the American people, but I despise the U.S. politicians for their immorality . I do not shake hands with Barack Obama and many U.S. congressmen, if we ever meet sometime.

compared to what you have in place, that wouldn't be a very fair judgement. Your leadership is plundering your nation, and your fellow countrymen daily, and piling up huge amounts of cash in other countries. They buy soccer teams in Britain, have been top bidders on multi-million dollar apartments in New York City, etc, etc. You are getting raped, and singing the praises of your rapists, all at once. Let us worry about our politicians, and try and get a wider view of yours.

As for U.S. aid to the Soviet Union , we have already discussed this in another topic . I can not say that the United States helped us from the love of the Russian . It was the policy . United States as well would help Nazi Germany, if Germany would win was the Communists. 60 million Russian people gave their lives to rid the world of fascism. It pains me to see that the United States considers himself today the fourth Reich.

huh? Maybe you consider us as such, but no such ideal being discussed here.

I totally disagree with you . I believe Vladimir Putin's one of the top leaders of the country ever held this important post . If not the best in the last 100 years in Russia . His actions according to my estimates, 85% of the logical, appropriate and timely. His policy is quite clear. And of course it can be considered as a progressive leader , a champion of real democracy , whose opinion can and should be listened to.

Keep talking like that, He might make you Governor

Adolf Hitler’s rise to power in Nazi Germany is nothing less than astounding. In a little over a year, one man completely manipulated an entire government and legal system to acquire a totalitarian regime. What many are not aware of is how Hitler’s strategy arose. After a failed coup attempt in 1923, a short stay in prison and a controversial novel, Adolf Hitler abandoned his ideas that force was the sole solution in achieving complete control over Germany. His second attempt revolved around statutes and regulations. By understanding and contorting the law Hitler achieved sole political control and completely reorganized the German judiciary, all while under a blanket of legitimacy.

http://www.ithaca.edu/history/journal/p ... Hitler.htm

1. I already told you my personal opinion about Vladimir Putin.

2. http://lenta.ru/news/2013/09/15/banana/

3. a corruption of our officials, we can punish without the help of the U.S.
Furthermore, you are small confusing Russia with Kampuchea.

4. If you will make a public poll on the streets of Moscow, you will see the opposite. By the way, did not you bring any argument to refute my words.

flip wrote:

Adolf Hitler’s rise to power in Nazi Germany is nothing less than astounding. In a little over a year, one man completely manipulated an entire government and legal system to acquire a totalitarian regime. What many are not aware of is how Hitler’s strategy arose. After a failed coup attempt in 1923, a short stay in prison and a controversial novel, Adolf Hitler abandoned his ideas that force was the sole solution in achieving complete control over Germany. His second attempt revolved around statutes and regulations. By understanding and contorting the law Hitler achieved sole political control and completely reorganized the German judiciary, all while under a blanket of legitimacy.

http://www.ithaca.edu/history/journal/p ... Hitler.htm

Russian and Germans already know that is a world war in their territory. The Americans did not have such a terrible experience, so they are reckless.

My point was the similarity of Hitler and Putin, both using laws and decrees to ensure long-lived power and authority and neither resorting to outright force. Putin, since 1999, has almost single-handedly structured the Russian government and legal system.

Between 2000 and 2004, and ending following the Yukos-affair, Putin apparently won a power-struggle with the oligarchs, reaching a 'grand-bargain' with them. This bargain allowed the oligarchs to maintain most of their powers, in exchange for their explicit support - and alignment with - his government.[67][68]

A new group of business magnates, such as Gennady Timchenko, Vladimir Yakunin, Yuriy Kovalchuk, Sergey Chemezov, with close personal ties to Putin, also emerged.

Russia's legal reform continued productively during Putin's first term. In particular, Putin succeeded in the codification of land law and tax law, where progress had been slow during Yeltsin's administration, because of Communist and oligarch opposition, respectively. Other legal reforms included new codes on labour, administrative, criminal, commercial and civil procedural law, as well as a major statute on the Bar.[23]

On 12 September 2007, Putin dissolved the government upon the request of Prime Minister Mikhail Fradkov. Fradkov commented that it was to give the President a "free hand" in the run-up to the parliamentary election. Viktor Zubkov was appointed the new prime minister.[91]

In December 2007, United Russia won 64.24% of the popular vote in their run for State Duma according to election preliminary results.[92] United Russia's victory in December 2007 elections was seen by many as an indication of strong popular support of the then Russian leadership and its policies.[93][94]

On 8 February 2008, Putin delivered a speech before the expanded session of the State Council headlined "On the Strategy of Russia's Development until 2020".[95] In his last days in office Putin was reported to have taken a series of steps to re-align the regional bureaucracy to make the governors report to the prime minister rather than the president.[96][97] The presidential site explained that "the changes... bear a refining nature and do not affect the essential positions of the system. The key role in estimating the effectiveness of activity of regional authority still belongs to President of the Russian Federation."

Putin was barred from a third term by the Constitution. First Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev was elected his successor. On 8 May 2008, only a day after handing the presidency to Medvedev, Putin was appointed Prime Minister of Russia, maintaining his political dominance.

At the United Russia Congress in Moscow on 24 September 2011, Medvedev officially proposed that Putin stand for the Presidency in 2012; an offer which Putin accepted. Given United Russia's near-total dominance of Russian politics, many observers believed that Putin was all but assured of a third term. The move was expected to see Medvedev stand on the United Russia ticket in the parliamentary elections in December, with a goal of becoming Prime Minister at the end of his presidential term.[100]

After the parliamentary elections on 4 December 2011, tens of thousands Russians engaged in protests against alleged electoral fraud, the largest protests in Putin's time; protesters criticized Putin and United Russia and demanded annulment of the election results

Putin's domestic policies, especially early in his first presidency, were aimed at creating a strict "vertical of power". On 13 May 2000, he issued a decree dividing the 89 federal subjects of Russia between 7 federal districts overseen by representatives named by himself in order to facilitate federal administration.

According to Stephen White, Russia under the presidency of Putin made it clear that it had no intention of establishing a "second edition" of the American or British political system, but rather a system that was closer to Russia's own traditions and circumstances.[124] Putin's administration has often been described as a "sovereign democracy".[125] First proposed by Vladislav Surkov in February 2006, the term quickly gained currency within Russia and arguably unified various political elites around it. According to its proponents, the government's actions and policies ought above all to enjoy popular support within Russia itself and not be determined from outside the country.[126][127]

In July 2000, according to a law proposed by him and approved by the Federal Assembly of Russia, Putin gained the right to dismiss heads of the federal subjects. In 2004, the direct election of governors by popular vote was ended. This was seen by Putin as a necessary move to stop separatist tendencies and get rid of those governors who were connected with organised crime.[128] The measure proved to be temporary: in 2012, as proposed by Putin's successor Dmitry Medvedev, the direct election of governors was re-introduced.[129] Along with the return of elected governors, Medvedev's reforms also simplified the registration of political parties and reduced the number of signatures required by non-parliamentary parties and independent candidates to participate in elections,[129] thus reverting or further loosening the restrictions imposed by previous Putin-endorsed legislation. Notably, the tough electoral legislation has been among the government actions effected under Putin's presidency that have been criticised by many independent Russian media outlets and Western commentators as anti-democratic.[130][131]

A central concept in Putin's economic thinking was the creation of so-called National champions, vertically integrated companies in strategic sectors that are expected not only to seek profit, but also to "advance the interests of the nation".

The parallels are strikingly similar no?

sigma wrote:...

Russian and Germans already know that is a world war in their territory. The Americans did not have such a terrible experience, so they are reckless.

Reckless, or smart? If we ensure that, if it must happen, it happens over there instead of here...

I meant "dreadful experience." But no doubt you are right, this experience encourage straighten brains of foolishness inexperienced. Clever learn from the mistakes of others. If U.S. policymakers still have brains. Heck, Google translator is very bad job with their use.

I think it is time for Obama to give his Nobel Peace Medal to Putin.

flip wrote:My point was the similarity of Hitler and Putin, both using laws and decrees to ensure long-lived power and authority and neither resorting to outright force. Putin, since 1999, has almost single-handedly structured the Russian government and legal system.

Between 2000 and 2004, and ending following the Yukos-affair, Putin apparently won a power-struggle with the oligarchs, reaching a 'grand-bargain' with them. This bargain allowed the oligarchs to maintain most of their powers, in exchange for their explicit support - and alignment with - his government.[67][68]

A new group of business magnates, such as Gennady Timchenko, Vladimir Yakunin, Yuriy Kovalchuk, Sergey Chemezov, with close personal ties to Putin, also emerged.

Russia's legal reform continued productively during Putin's first term. In particular, Putin succeeded in the codification of land law and tax law, where progress had been slow during Yeltsin's administration, because of Communist and oligarch opposition, respectively. Other legal reforms included new codes on labour, administrative, criminal, commercial and civil procedural law, as well as a major statute on the Bar.[23]

On 12 September 2007, Putin dissolved the government upon the request of Prime Minister Mikhail Fradkov. Fradkov commented that it was to give the President a "free hand" in the run-up to the parliamentary election. Viktor Zubkov was appointed the new prime minister.[91]

In December 2007, United Russia won 64.24% of the popular vote in their run for State Duma according to election preliminary results.[92] United Russia's victory in December 2007 elections was seen by many as an indication of strong popular support of the then Russian leadership and its policies.[93][94]

On 8 February 2008, Putin delivered a speech before the expanded session of the State Council headlined "On the Strategy of Russia's Development until 2020".[95] In his last days in office Putin was reported to have taken a series of steps to re-align the regional bureaucracy to make the governors report to the prime minister rather than the president.[96][97] The presidential site explained that "the changes... bear a refining nature and do not affect the essential positions of the system. The key role in estimating the effectiveness of activity of regional authority still belongs to President of the Russian Federation."

Putin was barred from a third term by the Constitution. First Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev was elected his successor. On 8 May 2008, only a day after handing the presidency to Medvedev, Putin was appointed Prime Minister of Russia, maintaining his political dominance.

At the United Russia Congress in Moscow on 24 September 2011, Medvedev officially proposed that Putin stand for the Presidency in 2012; an offer which Putin accepted. Given United Russia's near-total dominance of Russian politics, many observers believed that Putin was all but assured of a third term. The move was expected to see Medvedev stand on the United Russia ticket in the parliamentary elections in December, with a goal of becoming Prime Minister at the end of his presidential term.[100]

After the parliamentary elections on 4 December 2011, tens of thousands Russians engaged in protests against alleged electoral fraud, the largest protests in Putin's time; protesters criticized Putin and United Russia and demanded annulment of the election results

Putin's domestic policies, especially early in his first presidency, were aimed at creating a strict "vertical of power". On 13 May 2000, he issued a decree dividing the 89 federal subjects of Russia between 7 federal districts overseen by representatives named by himself in order to facilitate federal administration.

According to Stephen White, Russia under the presidency of Putin made it clear that it had no intention of establishing a "second edition" of the American or British political system, but rather a system that was closer to Russia's own traditions and circumstances.[124] Putin's administration has often been described as a "sovereign democracy".[125] First proposed by Vladislav Surkov in February 2006, the term quickly gained currency within Russia and arguably unified various political elites around it. According to its proponents, the government's actions and policies ought above all to enjoy popular support within Russia itself and not be determined from outside the country.[126][127]

In July 2000, according to a law proposed by him and approved by the Federal Assembly of Russia, Putin gained the right to dismiss heads of the federal subjects. In 2004, the direct election of governors by popular vote was ended. This was seen by Putin as a necessary move to stop separatist tendencies and get rid of those governors who were connected with organised crime.[128] The measure proved to be temporary: in 2012, as proposed by Putin's successor Dmitry Medvedev, the direct election of governors was re-introduced.[129] Along with the return of elected governors, Medvedev's reforms also simplified the registration of political parties and reduced the number of signatures required by non-parliamentary parties and independent candidates to participate in elections,[129] thus reverting or further loosening the restrictions imposed by previous Putin-endorsed legislation. Notably, the tough electoral legislation has been among the government actions effected under Putin's presidency that have been criticised by many independent Russian media outlets and Western commentators as anti-democratic.[130][131]

A central concept in Putin's economic thinking was the creation of so-called National champions, vertically integrated companies in strategic sectors that are expected not only to seek profit, but also to "advance the interests of the nation".

The parallels are strikingly similar no?

Who gave the U.S. the right to interfere in the internal affairs of Russia? For what purpose the U.S. is trying to discredit Putin? You all read my previous posts? I'm not the first time I've seen you stubbornly continue to ignore the pressing issues relating to the United States. Are you a zombie?

woodchip wrote:I think it is time for Obama to give his Nobel Peace Medal to Putin.

I think, Vladimir Putin won't spoil the reputation, having joined this company of many undeserved "winners". The Nobel Prize has long been discredited USA.

flip wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:flip, the U.S. done it's fair share of aligning itself with despots and tinpot dictators, as long as it served our long term needs.

That was then, this is now. Ultimately, the US has stood for good, even if there are opportunists at every bend.

Have we? I guess it depends on your definition of "good". I'm more inclined to believe we strive do anything in the world only to support our "national interests", whether they are good or evil, and some of it has been for supporting evil. Especially if that particular tool happens to be aligning with evil leaders as an ends to our means. And it's still recent, not ancient history. Our hands are no cleaner than those of Russia.

http://morallowground.com/2013/01/20/us ... e-nations/

http://theweek.com/article/index/211722 ... l-supports

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta ... an_regimes

The only zombies are those who voted for Obama twice.

I was surprised by this lapse because I think you really “get” Americans. When we saw photos of you shirtless in Siberia, you brought to mind one of our most celebrated American lawmakers, Anthony Weiner. When we watched you navigate around Russian laws to stay in power, you brought to mind another quintessentially American figure, Rod Blagojevich. The Harley-Davidson, the black clothing, the mistress half your age — you are practically American yourself.

And man, that Russian Kool-aid is really strong stuff. Must be the vodka dumped into it.

woodchip wrote:The only zombies are those who voted for Obama twice.

Actually, the other main choice would have been worse. I guess I could have thrown my vote away on some third party candidate, but I hated Romney more than letting Obama stay.

I would like to know how accurate the following chart is:

How Russians view other countries.

vision wrote:I would like to know how accurate the following chart is:

How Russians view other countries.

What conclusions have you drawn from these statistics? I'm very curious to know your opinion.

sigma wrote:

vision wrote:I would like to know how accurate the following chart is:
How Russians view other countries.

What conclusions have you drawn from these statistics? I'm very curious to know your opinion.

I want to know if the chart accurately represents Russia. You might notice I have not commented on any of your viewpoints, but rather I think your perspective is interesting. When I look at the chart, it makes sense given what I know about history and current events. It looks true. I am curious to learn Ukraine is viewed as friend and foe (according to the chart). Why?

vision wrote:

sigma wrote:

vision wrote:I would like to know how accurate the following chart is:
How Russians view other countries.

What conclusions have you drawn from these statistics? I'm very curious to know your opinion.

I want to know if the chart accurately represents Russia. You might notice I have not commented on any of your viewpoints, but rather I think your perspective is interesting. When I look at the chart, it makes sense given what I know about history and current events. It looks true. I am curious to learn Ukraine is viewed as friend and foe (according to the chart). Why?

you need to turn off the TV and the internet for a week. Go out and ask the opinions of ordinary Americans what they think about Russia. I am more than sure that the views of our people will not vary greatly with respect to each other. In contrast to the official statistics, which are published in our and your media.
As for Ukraine ... It is very difficult to express in one sentence. In my view, it can be compared to a quarrel of two brothers.

Actually, I personally have no preconceptions about Russians. They are a people who love their country just as we love ours.

sigma wrote:you need to turn off the TV and the internet for a week. Go out and ask the opinions of ordinary Americans what they think about Russia.

I do not own a TV, thanks. And I get my news from Reuters, which I find is fairly free of sensationalism.

The chart does not reflect your views? This chart was not published in a major media outlet, it is from independent research (not my own). I agree our two populations are not too different. However, last year's presidential candidate Mitt Romney said "Russia was our biggest geo-political foe." I thought this statement was stupid and so did others although many agreed with him. The USA is a very divided country. Is it the same for Russia's views on the USA? Would you say the Russian view of the USA, overall, is favorable or unfavorable? Or is it more complicated than that?