Miracle or not, Putin on course to win in Russia

[Kasz216]

mai said:

Kasz216 said:

A) See... the whole article?  it's sitting right there and it's not long.

 

B) "Sources, Kaz, sources. Mention of Gaidar, Transparency International, Freedom House, Shleifer are worth a lot of ":D" as well. Bibliography of research defines it well enough to make a judgement if said research is a worthy material or not, any academic or school teacher will tell you that."

and

"(which is really typical middle-class European political analytic or enthusiast opinion"

come to mind.  You keep broaching these points then backing off them.

1) Er, probably our defenitions of "critically" differs from each other. I read it twice and yet wasn't able to see anything you might have considered "critical use of the sources".

2) Well, an idiot is an idiot regardless of his nationality and discussed subject, mantras differ from one information field (or culture) to another and from subject to subject, but they're still mantras (that's). What I'm trying to say that he's regular writing monkey on political and economic matters, so immensely mainstream it's boring (the reason why I dug into non-mainstream media often, like PCR, Borde, Escobar etc.). While reading I knew exactly what he's going to say and more importantly why, maybe I'm taking too much upon myslef, but it seems I understand things he doesn't (provided he's honest in his opinion, eventually I might elaborate this in details, running through his article with comments). Nothing is interesting or unexpected about him, not sure what exactly attracts your attention to Aslund. Take Glucksmann for example, I mean he's a complete and utter idiot, but at least he is fun :D or used to be... he's getting old, which certainly affects his writing style.

1) To critically use sources means to refrence them and then use them to form your own opinions.

2) Nothing in particular does attract my attention to him, other then the fact that said specific article gives a pretty baseline example of the russian economy.  Most of the actual opinions are relativly pointless over if the russian government will change or not.

The point is, that Russia's economy was built on the reforms of the past, combine with a strong commodities market.  Putin didn't restore a semblence of the economy so much as he did coast to it as reforms completed.

It's like having two apartment managers, one of them gets 85% through building a pool, then the new guy comes in, and when it finishes you thank him for creating the pool, unlike the asshole before him.

 

It's pretty simply really.  Putin finished earlier agreed on reforms, the economy got better.  He reversed course, and only got buoyed by rising energy costs.