Ausdoerrt said:*snip*
You basically just dismissed or ignored everything I said and just repeated your viewpoint. What was the point of that post?
Ausdoerrt said:*snip*
.Pascal Kerkhove, chief editor of "Gazet van Antwerpen" stated "the role of the editorial stuff is confined to checking whether the drawing does not feature racist content or does not infringe a persons private integrity
Indeed.Silencer said:...the entire post-Warsaw Pact bloc.
I'm aware of the transformative processes that occurred in Russia in the last two decades. Part of those processes is the rise of a new-old elite composed mostly out of current and former members of the state security apparatus. Mismanagement and corruption of the nineties are not the only failures of the Yeltsin administration - another, and I would argue no less pivotal, is Yeltsin's failure to effectively dismantle KGB in the aftermath of USSR's dissolution, allowing it to remain a powerful factor in Russian society. Worse yet, Yeltsin recruited his own successor out of that snakes' den, and the rise of Putin (who is practically a Chekist archetype) and his clique led to rehabilitation of Soviet-era enforcers as bureaucrats in a new order. They displaced the Yeltsin-era establishment (the oligarchs) by resorting to violence, intimidation and show trials (you know, the Chekist way) and assumed complete control over administration and economy. Centralization of the state and destruction of democratic institutions (which were frail to begin with) are all part of this process of consolidation. The next step, I believe, is reassertion of Russian hegemony over former Soviet republics.Brother None said:I'm still kind of assuming you're kidding. Just in case you're serious: this kind of rhetoric is on Palin's level of political analysis. I can't really reply to it because it assumes something nonsensical of the bat: that the future of a country and its political future depends completely on the past of its intelligentsia. "Spook-ism" is the right word for it, it's not relevant political analysis, it's just meant to sound scary. And I bet it does. But it's not relevant.
Though no doubt your unique insight in the "Chekist" mind allows you insights not available to us misinformed masses. But allow me to simple consider it from a political angle; a country with a decade of terrible mismanagement and corruption swings the other way to over-centralization and de-democratization, worrying reforms of the electoral code and constitution, and general lack of checks and balances. What does the future hold? Dunno, but I'd never even try to analyze it based on "Chekist" rhetoric. That way demagogery lies.
Ratty said:This hypothesis is not nearly as irrational as you seem to think. All members of the Soviet security organizations went through extensive indoctrination over the years, which isn't something one can simply shed overnight and wake up a democrat the next morning. Moreover, their loyalty to the State and its ideology is sealed in blood, seeing as they were enforcers of a regime that murdered its own citizens by the millions. Finally, being a Chekist is hereditary. Seriously.
Brother None said:Ausdoerrt said:*snip*
You basically just dismissed or ignored everything I said and just repeated your viewpoint. What was the point of that post?
Ausdoerrt said:In response to a post that tried to change the topic. Is it so bad?
Okay, so maybe I'm trolling... a bit. The theory that I espouse is actually proposed in an Economist article from 2007 (Economist being probably the most unabashedly Russophobic mainstream magazine out there) and it's become my new favorite conspiracy theory. I do believe that former security officials of totalitarian regimes (such as Putin) should not be allowed to occupy positions of power in a democratic system, but the claim that three quarters of all Russian officials are ex-KGB and GRU is based on little but wild imagination.Brother None said:I kind of hate to say it since it's so elaborate, but you're really tipping your hand here. It's a good troll, and I see what buttons you're trying to push, but I know you're smarter than this.
Brother None said:Wut? We'd be discussing the Ossetian question for a couple of posts now. If we mods felt it derailing we would've split it by now.
Dude, weirdest excuse ever.
But they are much more badass with the stereotype D: !!Ausdoerrt said:@Ratty: I don't think it has much to do with ex-KGB people taking positions. I mean, not everyone who worked in the organization was a brainwashed maniac or anything, and higher-ups even less likely than those taking lower positions. I've known a few ex-KGB people myself, and they're nothing like what you see in the movies ^__^