Sorry, but I think you a bit mistaking here. If you want to discuss - I'm ready... )

Well, I'd say so... Speaking of December 2011 - yes that time support for Putin was not the best he had... And it was protests, and you know - people always want changes to better. :)

 BUT, then our opposition show themselves as TOTAL JERKS, and a lot of people who wasn't sure turned to Putin again - and now his support is on some of highest levels he ever had (this is mostly my personal feelings from inside of Russia).

Yelstsen and He are equally as corrupt.

And though he was scapegoated for the economy, there isn't anyone who was going to end up doing well in that transition.

Putin was only benefiting from coming in at the end of the process after the pain from transitioning came about and market transitions were complete.  He's only gotten in the way of Russias economy.

http://www.iie.com/publications/papers/paper.cfm?ResearchID=974

 When the american invasion, a war crime under the Nuremberg standard set by the US after WWII, overthrew the Saddam Hussein secular government, the Iraqi Sunnis and Shi’ites went to war against one another. The civil war between Iraqis saved the american invasion. Nevertheless, enough Sunnis found time to fight the american occupiers of Iraq that the US was never able to occupy Bagdad, much less Iraq, no matter how violent and indiscriminate the US was in the application of force.

 The consequence of the US invasion was not democracy and women’s rights in Iraq, much less the destruction of weapons of mass destruction which did not exist as the weapons inspectors had made perfectly clear beforehand. The consequence was to transfer political power from Sunnis to Shi’ites. The Shi’ite version of Islam is the Iranian version. Thus, Washington’s invasion transferred power in Iraq from a secular government to Shi’ites allied with Iran.

 Now Washington intends to repeat its folly in Syria. According to the american secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, Washington is even prepared to ally with al-Qaeda in order to overthrow Assad’s government. Now that Washington itself has al-Qaeda connections, will the government in Washington be arrested under the anti-terrorism laws?

 Washington’s hostility toward Assad is hypocritical. On February 26, the Syrian government held a referendum on a new constitution for Syria that set term limits on future presidents and removed the political monopoly that the Ba’ath Party has enjoyed.

 The Syrian voter turnout was 57.4%, matching the voter turnout for Obama in 2008. It was a higher voter turnout (despite the armed, western-supported rebellion in Syria) than in the nine US presidential elections from 1972 through 2004. The new Syrian constitution was approved by a vote of 89.4%.

 But Washington denounced the democratic referendum and claims that the Syrian government must be overthrown in order to bring democracy to Syria.

 Washington’s allies in the region, unelected oil monarchies such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar, have issued statements that they are willing to supply weapons to the Islamist rebels in order to bring democracy--something they do not tolerate at home--to Syria.

 For Washington “democracy” is a weapon of mass destruction. When Washington brings “democracy” to a country, it means the country’s destruction, as in Libya and Iraq. It doesn’t mean democracy. Libya is in chaos, a human rights nightmare without an effective government.

 Washington installed Nouri al-Maliki as president of Iraq. He lost an election, but remained in power. He has declared his vice president to be a terrorist and ordered his arrest and is using the state police to arrest Sunni politicians. Syria’s Assad is more democratic than Iraq’s Maliki.

 For a decade Washington has misrepresented its wars of naked aggression as “bringing democracy and human rights to the Middle East.” While Washington was bringing democracy to the Middle East, Washington was destroying democracy in the US. Washington has resurrected medieval torture dungeons and self-incrimination. Washington has destroyed due process and habeas corpus. At Obama’s request, Congress passed overwhelmingly a law that permits american subjects to be imprisoned indefinitely without a trial or presentation of evidence. Warrantless searches and spying, illegal and unconstitutional at the turn of the 21st century, are now routine.

 Obama has even asserted the right, for which there is no law on the books, to murder any american anywhere if the executive branch decides, without presenting any evidence, that the person is a threat to the US government. Any american anywhere can be murdered on the basis of subjective opinion in the executive branch, which increasingly is the only branch of the US government. The other two “co-equal” branches have shriveled away under the “war on terror.”

 Why is Washington so determined to bring democracy to the Middle East (with the exception of Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, and the Emirates), Africa, Iran, Afghanistan, Russia, and China, but is hostile to constitutional rights in america?

 The rights that americans gained from successful revolution against King George III in the 18th century have all been taken away by Bush/Obama in the 21st century. One might think that this would be a news story, but it isn’t.

 Don’t expect the Ministry of Truth to say anything about it.

LOL, Kaz, that's so typicall of you. Present an opinion throwing in some long and boring article as the only argumentation, practically forcing people to read it. Well, valid, but will you have a little mercy on people? Your opponents are human beings, too :D

I've made an effort over myself and read it all, couple of times stumbling over the name Nemtsov along the way, which made me worry and gave a strong sense of deja vu at the same time. And while reading through reference materials I've come across... Itogi reference. Jesus mother fucking christ... Itogi :D That's what it reminds me, an infamous Nemtsov and Milov's Itogi. Though merely a single reference, the entire article is basically a summary of Itogi, quouting it couple of times, like here, which's Aslund's key idea as I understand it: "What remains of Putin's economic legacy is only that he was lucky to reap the benefits of the arduous but productive reforms his predecessor instigated in the 1990s (Milov and Nemtsov 2008)". Really he could have never bothered to brining anything else to the references except of Itogi.

Of course, it's excusable for you, Kaz. Should you've known about Russian politikum more (the figure of the author, Nemtsov, is pretty much telling all by itself), you wouldn't touch with a ten feet pole anything that's based, mentions or refers to Itogi without an attempt to have a few laughs. Just be warned, that serious people in serious talks avoid brining up Itogi, the same way historians do not bring up Fomenko*.

* Ok, that's yet another cultural-specific example, but I believe you got an idea and can think of a better example for yourself.

I enjoyed that (and your follow up post). I do enjoy Kasz's posts but he does have an habit of producing someone's (writer, politician, whoever) opinion without giving thought that it doesn't make that opinion factual or valid. It's just someone's opinion he agrees with.

There are many times I wanted to reply to some of his posts but just couldn't be bothered.

This is not an attack on you Kasz, and as it make's for interesting discussions, I encourage it.

They are always to sides to a coin. I travel a bit in my job and it is simply amazing how news is manipulated depending on where you are.

In the west it's played out like Putin has to cheat to win and could actually loose. By showing a few thousand people protesting in a coutry of 140m on TV just means there is opposition to him, nothing else. It's the old "who makes the most noise" trick.

The west doesn't like Putin, play him off as the bad guy. A couple years ago the west loved Gaddafi, played him of as the good guy.

Even if these elections were 100% straight and without any fiddling Putin is still very likely to have won.

As for your other post it is true that America has been meddling in many other countries elections for decades. How is this democratic? Trying to force your will on another. Imaging some other country getting involved in the US elections... then again the way things are going, who knows what the future holds.