Slashdot Mirror
Russian Opposition Figure Thinks Anti-Putin Movement Has Faltered
New submitter FilatovEV writes "Interview with Russian liberal opposition politician Vladimir Milov taken by Los Angeles Times reveals a different side of the Western narrative about Russia."
From the article: "All they have for a plan is a very simple formula: Let's lead a million people out into the streets, and that will scare the hell out of Putin. He will run away, and we will grab power. But even if they get a sufficient number of people out in the street, they don't know what to do next. All they can do is chant their old anti-Putin incantations instead of offering a program of action. "
Ever see the movie Network?
You have to get mad first...
I'm god, but it's a bit of a drag really...
His small talk has changed foreign policy. Sasquatch has taken a picture of him. He once ran a marathon, just because it was on his way. He is... the most interesting man in the world.
Drill baby drill - on Mars
I tried to RTFA but I nodded off, where's the bacon guy... has he made to Cali yet?
Hey asshole, lets not turn this into the drudgereport.
Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
Sounds much like Occupy Wall Street in the USA. Didn't like the status quo, but doomed with no clear platform or list of achievable goals.
"We want change"
"Well, what policy changes are you hoping get made?"
"We don't know"
1) enact stricter enforcement and regulation on govt involvement with illegal activity. (Russians are supposedly good at being heavy handed. Cracking down on abusive behavior should be easy enough, as long as you can keep the pendulum swinging too far.)
2) legal system reforms that provide immunity to witnesses and juries concerning testimony and verdicts. Make it safe to state what is true, and not simply what is "expected", or "approved."
3) hardball removal and blacklisting of politicians, judges, and prosecutors who fail to live up to #2.
4) prison system reforms
That should be a good starting place.
Hey asshole, lets not turn this into the drudgereport.
Hey Spoogestain! I got nothin, just figured if we were going to start name calling I'd get my $.02 in.
So what exactly are you proposing then, a Russian revolution? Seriously, what *can* they do? They have no governmental authority outside of a vote, and even supposing Putin steps down (itself a ridiculous proposition) they still will have no governmental authority. All they would be able to do, without guns and ammo, is make some noise and hope his replacement listens.
They already have a plan of action and it is shout into the wind and hope people hear. Perhaps enough people will hear so that Putin won't win the next election, perhaps Putin will make some effort to be less of a PITA for them, and perhaps Putin's eventual replacement will take note of their discontent more than he does. Year sure, they can hope Putin will step down, but who among the protestors really think that's gonna happen. Remember that Putin in all likelihood won the vote without direct fraud, so making noise in public really is an end to itself right now.
Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.
I hear there are hackers in Russia. And they have computers and stuff there too.
Better known as 318230.
Right, because health care was so affordable for the middle class before. That's why almost everyone was insured.
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
Why is this on Slashdot? Is there a tech/science/maths/nerd angle I'm missing.
To help you see the nerd angle, I'm going to answer your questions in Reverse Russian Notation:
There are many smart tech/science/maths/nerd people in Russia. Don't forget they're only the ones still putting humans in space. This is also where many of the black hats penetrating Western computers are based, because things are so bad there this is the best employment a lot of those smart people can get.
This is on slashdot because ever since Kasparov was arrested they need someone to come up with a strategy for revolution, and slashdot is full of people who are well-versed in the "Step 1, Step 2, Step 3, ???, Profit" form. With a thousand slashdot monkeys submitting thousands of random 5-step plans, someone is bound to come up with the answer. Then all they have to do is figure out which one is correct.
+
Slashdot set Russia up the revolution
It could fall under the second part of the slogan: "news that matters."
Deteriorating political conditions in and between Russia and the rest of the world, as Russia makes the dive deeper back down the rabbithole of communist dictatorial govt and secrecy, can have far-reaching implications internationally.
Take for instance, the "strained" relations between Russia and the USA, concerning the strategic missile installations being installed in the middle eastern puppet states. A fully dictator led Russia under Putin could herald a return to cold-war aggression between the USA and Russia.
We narrowly escaped nuclear armagheddon last time, because the USA was more financially prosperous, and won by attrition.
Seen the state of USA's financial prosperity lately? I wouldn't bet on that outcome for part II.
Actually, it sounds more like Occupy. The only movement that has accurately identified the problems that face us, but can't field any practical alternatives.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
great, do a news story about them
I'd say repealing Obamacare is a helluva good start.
Why? I've heard many (mostly republicans) say that we need to repeal Obamacare, but why?
Do you not think providing health care coverage for everyone is important?
Do you not understand why providing healthcare insurance for everyone means that everyone (healthy or not) needs to have coverage?
Do you think that forcing insurers to accept those with prexisting conditions is wrong? If so, how will people unlucky enough to have a chronic illness obtain coverage?
What should happen to those who are unable to obtain healthcare insurance on their own when they have a serious medical condition? Are you OK with paying for their urgent treatment in the ER? Should they be left to die? If so, are you ok with paying for their burial, or should they be left to rot wherever they happened to die?
Do you worry that it's too close to "socialist" healthcare coverage? How do you feel about Medicare?
So really, what is it that bothers you so much about providing healthcare coverage?
In all the honesty, the problems are simply too big for a movement that small to address. It would probably require a massive consensus of most of the Western world to solve the conundrum of our current political and financial system (as they are currently essentially one system).
I think a lot of them end in failure because jets don't have windows that open.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Putin is a man who rejects Western liberalism and its evil works. Russia is still trying to recover from communism, another ruinous Western invention.
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
Except in Russia the only "problem" opposition politicians can name is, "We can't win elections, so something must be wrong!". In reality, everyone (or almost everyone) in Russia simply hates them, and mildly dislikes Putin.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
I, for being one of the citizens of one of these puppet states, welcome our new nuke-wielding, choice-giving overlord.
On a serious note, US radar installations - built under the guise of "humanitarian NATO purposes", are giving rather crisp picture of geopolitical situation in ex-soviet satellite states of eastern to mid Europe. CIA prefers to buy politicians via straight, old fashioned strong-arm political tactics (think ACTA) against EU and state politicians. Russian influence, on the other hand, manifests itself via ex-criminal oligarchs from the 90s, who are actually the most powerful financial groups in our area nowadays.
Basically, the roles have switched. Americans are thought-police, whatever Moscow used to be under the communist rule. Russians are all about hard cold cash and much more subtle - it's take it or leave it. US tactics is really strong arm, which is effective only short term, it will eventually end with swift reaction to the opposite direction.
Except that they're not. The Russians were fooled once with Gorbachev and Yeltsin. Unbridled capitalism does not work. Putin is a dictator, but he is a dictator who wants Russia to remain strong and to make oligarchs subservient to the interests of the state.
It's exactly the same approach which has made China successful, except that China is about forty years behind in human rights terms: allow businessmen to get rich by doing whatever it is they do as long as they don't act against the interests of the country. By doing exactly the opposite since Reagan/Thatcher - i.e. making governments subservient to the will of big business - we are now in the shit.
I would vote Putin any day. I don't want the right to a free press which will be ignored anyway - illusions of freedom serve no purpose to anyone but the stupid.
Amen !!
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
From TFA:
How do your colleagues take your criticism?
Unfortunately, they took my criticism very badly and accused me of having been recruited by the Kremlin. I don't have any relations with them now. I think these people must leave the political stage and engage themselves in writing stories and blogs, exposing corruption schemes and so on, and leave the political work to those who want to struggle for power in earnest.
You, for example?
Why not? I could make a very good opposition candidate.
I do not know why TFA appears on Slashdot.
What is Slashdot anyway?
Is Slashdot a place for geeks whose interests are girls and tech.
Or has Slashdot become a place for fanbois of Western democracies?
Is Slashdot so hard up on credible stories that this type of shameless plug of a pathetic Russian politician.
TFA has nothing to do with sexy technology, nor anything about online censorship.
What the hell is Slashdot turning into?
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
... paid pro-Putin poster. Since his russian forum is full of propaganda stuff about "rotten Western world", "stupid americans" and "great country of China".
Do you not think providing health care coverage for everyone is important?
It'd be nice, I'll grant. However, there's a question that never really gets answered, somehow: Who's going to pay for it? AIUI, if you can't pay, it's free, and right there's a big problem because the demand for a free good is infinite.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
Do you not think providing health care coverage for everyone is important?
It'd be nice, I'll grant. However, there's a question that never really gets answered, somehow: Who's going to pay for it? AIUI, if you can't pay, it's free, and right there's a big problem because the demand for a free good is infinite.
Obamacare is not "free" to most people -- most people will purchase private healthcare insurance. Those that can't afford private health insurance will have their costs covered by the government, much like the situation today.
But even if the government did provide "free" healthcare, it would be just as "free" as the other governmental services that most modern countries provide - fire protection services, police services, roads (taxes on cars pay only a fraction of road costs), military protection, etc.
Demand for healthcare is not infinite even if it's "free" because healthcare practitioners don't dole out unlimited amounts of healthcare - you matter how many times you beg for a head CT after you stub your toe, your doctor isn't going to prescribe one. I have practically unlimited healthcare through my employers plan, I pay only a $15 copay for each visit -- but whether my copay was $0 or $100, I don't think I would visit the doctor any more or less frequently than I do now. I don't *want* any non-neccessary drugs or medical procedures.
And you're missing the other half of the equation.... who is paying for healthcare now? We're not letting (usually) people die in the street because they can't afford healthcare, those that can't afford health insurance wait until they have an urgent situation and then they visit an ER where they know they will get care regardless of ability to pay. And when they can't pay and the ER has to absorb the cost, then the rest of us end up paying more in taxes and/or our healthcare costs to cover it. So you're paying for universal healthcare whether you want to or not, but you're probably paying more now than if you paid for more preventative care so people can have their ailments treated before it requires a trip to the ER.
You can't fight cheese curds and gravy with ideology.
So really, what is it that bothers you so much about providing healthcare coverage?
I'll bite on this one. It's not the coverage, it's the way in which it was implemented. I know what I am paying for my healthcare at work, and I know what my company pays (it's a 25% / 75% split). So, take my plan (which, btw, is the most expensive one offered as my wife has asthma and we tend to need services more than others), and multiply that by 25 million (as my plan covers 2 people). Guess what? You could have covered all uninsured 50 million people (which includes people not here legally) for slightly more than what the Universal Health Care Act is supposed to cost. And that assumes you're paying my price, which, with a group of 50,000,000, you very likely wouldn't be. At even 75% of what I pay, you'd have 100% coverage for about 80-85% of the yearly cost of the UHCA without having to change a single other thing.
So, from a simple financial standpoint, it makes no sense whatsoever to make a law that requires thousands of IRS agents to be hired when you could have done it cheaper and easier simply buying a private plan for everyone who didn't have one. But, that's just it. This wasn't about healthcare coverage, it was 100% about control. The government wants to control every aspect of our lives, as it thinks it knows better than us what is good for us. And they don't want private plans, they want single payer coverage, because they're stuck on the firm belief that an evil private corporation can't ever do anything better than the benevolent government. Cause they've managed everything else so well financially so far, right?
Do you even know WHY your job pays for your health care in the US? Because there was a time when the government stepped in and mandated pay freezes for everyone. But benefits weren't considered pay, so to win people over to work for them, companies started offering free health coverage, since they couldn't offer competitive salaries. Over time, it digressed into what we have today, where the only affordable plan is the one your company offers, and even if you decided to buy a different one, the premiums wouldn't count as tax deductible since that only works for buying your employer's plan. So, in the end, I am not my Insurer's customer, my employer is, and the insurer knows they don't have to keep me happy, they only have to keep my employer happy, as I don't have a choice. Funny how government regulation and meddling in private affairs has led us to the point we are now, yet we have people claiming it's all capitalism's fault and we need yet more regulation to fix it.
If you truly wanted to fix healthcare, instead of passing a law that "we have to pass to find out what's in it" you'd decouple healthcare from employment, and allow people to buy any plan from anywhere. Unfettered capitalism isn't the answer though. You'd still need some regulation to cover pre-existing conditions as well as something to handle people who can afford coverage and don't buy it, along with the last bit of paying for coverage for those who can't afford it. You'd end up with a cheaper system, that cost the government less, and provided universal coverage (while allowing people to willfully exclude themselves and suffer their own consequences of that exclusion) and everyone would be happy.
But like I said, this was never about universal coverage, it was always 100% about control. If not, why did McDonald's get a pass from having to provide coverage to their minimum wage employees, which this whole thing was supposed to help?
That's what bothers me about it.
WWJD?
JWRTFM!
Many Russians have problems with Putin. Many others do not. I do know that I have not authorized you to speak on my own behalf, and I'm still a Russian citizen.
There are quite a few Russian nationals reading Slashdot, you know. We don't all agree on such things, though, not anymore than Americans agree on their stuff (judging by any story discussing Obama hereabouts).
Ok, if you insist. OP is, probably, UNpaid pro-Putin poster. But this is quite unlikely.
See, there are quite a few people that are paid for posting Putin propaganda all around russian internet at 85 roubles ($2.5) per comment. Very similiar to chineese "50 cent party".
There was a scandal earlier this year, when few of responsible kremlin leaders got their email hacked and whole paying-for-posts thing emerged.
I mean, in more general sense -- as in, compared to "opposition".
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
Opposition is Russian, too.
It's just that many tech-savvy Russian Slashdot readers are busy looking for chance to move into more civilized country - from New Zealand to Czech Republic, for example. So they don't have time (and, more importantly, desire) to discuss these topics. Speaking from personal experience here - several of my friends have already left or are planning to leave soon.
Absence of proof != proof of absence.
So is Andrei Chikatilo, except he is more popular in Russia than current "opposition".
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
Sad but true. The West has demonstrated to the russian people over the 90s that capitalism and freedom means the freedom to exploit economic power to grab from the poor. I am afraid that this lesson stuck with them. Putin mangaged to redirect the (oil,gas) companies to pay enough taxes that a once bancrupt country is debt-free. The west has the habit of shaking the hands of dictators and oligarchs without considering moral whenever there seems to be profit and the wonder why the people in the tese countries can not get used to the idea of freedom and democracy.
What are these girls you talk about? Only thing I know about female has to do with connectors where the female connector tends to be the "hole" where the male connector inserts into.
But what this has to do with girls, I have no idea.
Perhaps a girl came up with the labels for connectors?
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
So really, what is it that bothers you so much about providing healthcare coverage?
I'll bite on this one. It's not the coverage, it's the way in which it was implemented.
So it sounds like what you're saying is that you'd support a plan where instead of a single-payer government run system, you'd like a system where people can continue to purchase insurance on their own (or where businesses could still offer plans if they wanted to). Where insurance companies could not deny coverage based on preexisting conditions. But above all, you want the government out of it, and you want private insurers to provide the coverage.
Well you're in luck! Let me introduce you to Obamacare!
I believe that the system you describe was the failed US National Health Care Act which was never passed.
The Russians were fooled once with Gorbachev and Yeltsin. Unbridled capitalism does not work. Putin is a dictator, but he is a dictator who wants Russia to remain strong and to make oligarchs subservient to the interests of the state.
1. After the USSR has fallen apart, there was a period called primitive accumulation of capital (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primitive_accumulation_of_capital). It was very violent and unstable, but capitalism had not yet formed. It was pre-capitalism.
2. When Putin came to power, capitalism was buried before it was born, the country spiralled into dictatorship. What it meant is that capital got redistributed again between Putins' friends and relatives. The only concern of so called government now is to ensure the capital stays in their hands, no matter the cost.
Who's going to pay for it?
Just look at how it works in all other western countries. Not that complicated really. And with the amount of money you save by not needing people paid to deny claims, you can provide better care. Yup that sentence is true.
Non-Linux Penguins ?
So really, what is it that bothers you so much about providing healthcare coverage?
I'll bite on this one. It's not the coverage, it's the way in which it was implemented. I know what I am paying for my healthcare at work, and I know what my company pays (it's a 25% / 75% split). So, take my plan (which, btw, is the most expensive one offered as my wife has asthma and we tend to need services more than others), and multiply that by 25 million (as my plan covers 2 people).
So what happens if you lose your job?
So I assume you're trying to say that you disagree with him on the points you refer to as "textbooks".
Economics
Say what you want about the bank bailouts, but they did stop the crisis from becoming a depression.
History
Foreign Policy
The US Constitution
Those are listed because? Okay, I suppose he does continue the Bush era policy of murdering people in foreign countries (ie. drone attacks), and imprisoning people without proper trial (guantanamo).
You can try to legalize this, say the constitution, human rights, Geneva convention doesn't apply. And sure it's practical solution. But never in history have it been good foreign policy, and no matter how you phrase it, it's certainly against the spirit in which the constitution was written.
In Russia fair elections and free (means controlled by big businesses) media will result in Special Olympics game of shit-throwing, so every candidate will be in deep shit and the one who will promise more free money to old people and throw more quality shit on the opponents will win. .
If such is indeed the case, then congratulations for adopting what looks for all the world like American politics today. I guess all of that Cold War-era Voice of America broadcasting paid off after all.
Actually, my take on it, based on conversations with some Russian engineers I work with, is that Russia has been an oligarchy since the time of Peter the Great. Only the faces and names of the oligarchs and their "systems" have changed over the centuries. The nomenklatura will always run things via government, corporatism, and/or organized crime. The long-suffering average Russian knows this and shrugs,
Scruting the inscrutable for over 50 years.
That's all prejudices and misconceptions about health care rolled into one.
1. Everyone is going to pay for it. Each one according to his possibilities. And you know what? It will be inversely to your actual needs. People without severe conditions will pay more than sick people in the end. Young people will pay more than the old ones. That's because being sick is by definition not being able care for yourself. To cure a sick person, you need a healthy person to take care of him. A health care system that lets sick people care for their sickness and lets healthy people go free can't work, protestant work ethic be damned. Whoever tells you something else lies to you.
2. Most health care services are services that are nearly completely useless to healthy people. There is no point in eating antibiotics if you don't have an infection. There is no point in wearing a splint if your leg isn't bend or broken. And there is no point in getting tubefed if you are not comatose. There are a few services which are interesting also for people in good shape, for instance painkillers and physiotherapy. Those have to be controlled for. But for the most, health care services will not be used by healthy people - they are not worth it if you are not sick. And so the abuse of those free (more correctly: pre-paid) services will be low.
3. Private health insurance plans have a high overhead. The current rate in the U.S. is about 30%. You pay a third of your insurance fee to keep the staff and the private owners of the insurance companies happy. The current overhead for governmentally controlled health care services as Western Europe has them is 10%. You might argue that this goes against conventional wisdom, but maybe the wisdom in this case is not as wise as it thinks it is.
There is also a lot of people taking money from US government controlled funds promoting chaos under the guise of democracy, you probably being one of them :) If you are claiming that you are not maybe you should rethink your comments about "paid pro-Putin posts".
But we still have you, obviously having both time and desire ;)
So really, what is it that bothers you so much about providing healthcare coverage?
I'll bite on this one. It's not the coverage, it's the way in which it was implemented. I know what I am paying for my healthcare at work, and I know what my company pays (it's a 25% / 75% split). So, take my plan (which, btw, is the most expensive one offered as my wife has asthma and we tend to need services more than others), and multiply that by 25 million (as my plan covers 2 people).
So what happens if you lose your job?
I'm on a pension you insensitive clod.
Demand for a free good is not infinite. If it was free (and it's not), the demand could not be more than 400,000,000 units of the free item. Not a small number, but that's the demand for it when it's not free as well.
Learn to love Alaska
If you lose your job, it was your fault for not being more valuable and not seeing the future. You deserve to slowly die of a horrible disease.
But I like how so many people in condemning Obamacare end up stating a support in national health care, just not the one selected. If there was that much support for national health care, why did it take so long to get one nobody likes?
Learn to love Alaska