|
|
|||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Western press continue to attack Russian politics
In the article it mentioned "Russians cast their ballots with muted enthusiasm in national parliamentary elections Sunday". And how do they arrive at this assumption? It seems that their comment was based on the feelings of just one voter. They also mentioned that the voter turnout (in two of the less politically minded regions) was only 45-48 percent. Considering the locations and the fact that this vote is not unlike a 'by-election' in the UK, such a percentage could be seen as respectable, and likely to be much higher in other areas. The article then goes on to say that "popular discontent appears to be growing with Putin's strongman style" (presumably based on that one voter again?) and mentions the corruption and the "gap between ordinary Russians and the country's floridly super-rich" Yes, corruption does exist in Russia and it is quite widespread, but this is not a unique problem to Russia, it is present in the US, Britain and Europe. The only difference between the corruption in Russia and the rest of the world is that others hide it much better and pretend that it doesn't exist. The gap between the rich and the poor in Russia is evident, but that is probably true in most countries. However, it is worth noting that this gap shortened when Putin replaced Boris Yeltsin as leader. Yeltsin was more interested in vodka than the economy and was an obvious favourite with the west because he was prepared to let them have whatever they wanted. It is because of Putin's refusal to let the west plunder Russia's resources that the public like him so much, but this of course makes him a target for western powers (and the press that offer support) who paint a picture of Putin as some satanic demon who has no regard for human rights. The question of 'Human Rights' seem to differ depending on who breaks them. The west frequently restricts the public's rights, but we are told this is acceptable (by the mainstream media) because it is for the good of the people and designed to protect them. Of course, if leaders of other countries do the same, they are branded as dictators. Putin has been accused of blocking political parties and individuals from having a voice, but I suppose it is okay for the US to do the same to Ron Paul, or for Britain to treat the BNP in much the same way? The west will shoot down any opposition they see as dangerous just as quickly as anyone else. Vladimir Putin is no fool and knows that the west is more interested in Russia's resources than any violations to its people's human rights. Like everyone else, he has seen how the west has invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, and played a key role in manipulating the political situation in other Middle Eastern countries. All of which either have oil, or are necessary for an oil pipeline, and if you wish to discover which countries are future targets, just check to see who meets this requirement (Russia, Iran, Syria, Pakistan.....) If you were the leader of a country that was a target for a group of people that wanted to steal your resources, wouldn't you do your best to prevent this? That may mean employing some restrictions, but which is worse, protecting your country and people, or adopting some western policy that allows the west to walk straight in and take whatever they want? And as a reward, the public will receive a taste of western style corruption (especially from the press), movies full of propaganda and a market swamped by junk food so that you can experience the obesity problem enjoyed by your western counterparts. Putin should be applauded by all for his strong stance, and the majority of the people in Russia already do. Do not be conned by the reports you see on Russia, this is one country that has a good future, which is more than you can say for the others that have been destroyed by the bankers and greedy oil companies! Syria latest target of "western terrorists"
|
||||||
The
one certain factor about the western press, when it comes to Russia
and Vladimir Putin, is the consistency of its attacks, and a recent
Associated Press article that appeared in the Guardian was no exception.