Talk:Politics of Russia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Russia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. (comments)

The above is what Russian government would want you to believe. Actually Chechnya is independent country occupied by Russia, where Russian Army did atrocities not any less shocking than what Hitler's or Stalin's Armies did.

Russia is imperialist state dangerous to both own citizens and citizens of neighbour countries. Russia is in good relations with countries like North Korea and China - countries that don't care at all about rights of own citizens.

I removed this, as it is not in line with the neutral point of view. I'm not saying it isn't true, but it needs to be rewritten in a more objective fashion appropriate for an encyclopedia. For example,

"The people of Chechnya consider their land to be an independant state under Russian occupation. There are many reports coming out of the region of atrocities committed by the Russian army."

And for the second paragraph:

"Russia maintains close relations with North Korea and China, both of which have been heavily criticized for their rejection of various human rights for their citizens."

I didn't leave either of these in on the Russia/Government page, however, as these seem to belong in separate articles. -- Stephen Gilbert

While comparision to Hitler/Stalin is quite subjective (but still true), Chechnya was independent country before Russian invasion.

Hi, I'm a citizen of Russia, my name is . Please listen to my humble opinion. People in the western world got used to various freedoms they struggled for so long. Indeed, the conception of open society is one of the main achievements of civilized humanity, a conception that works - that's why Perestroika occured in my country. There are no ideological standards of thinking, totalitarian taboos et cetera. However, while different points of view on the inner problems make western people at least argue with each other, they express _total_ solidarity speaking of outer world problems (having _a priori_ less information on this subject). It is strange to me that an independent and free-thinking western person doesn't put under question the information he/she gets from various news reports and analytical reviews (that are quite the same), well, he/she doesn't even care about it. Speaking particularly about situation in Chechnya, western society relies on the information it can't prove. I often watch world-wide channels, such as CNN, BBC, EuroNews and what I see are the reports made in a comfortable office building somewhere in London, or, perhaps, New-York. Surely, I know about the restrictions that russian government placed on the work of foreign journalists; but look, there are many independent sources (especially Internet-based) in Russia that provide quite an information (why don't you watch russian television?). As to Hitler/Stalin comparison, nobody compares Tony Blair[e?] to Stalin, and nobody talks about atrocities in Ireland (that's idiotic). What about basks in Spain?... ...Nevertheless, I never agreed with military operations in Chechnya; I prefer peaceful solutions, that do work.

I am a citizen of Russia as well, i feel that Putin is a Dictator, he creates this 'war' in Chechnya to divert the citizen's attention. I feel the Russia people should overthow the current government because of it's brutal nature and it's poor human rights record towards Russians and the people of Chechnya!

Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it. At present the alternative to Putin are not the democrats, liberals, or whatever they may want to call themselves. It is the Russian fascism in its various guises. Now, I am not doubting that to a large extent such a situation was, if not engineered, then certainly abetted big time by Putin and his KGB buddies. But this does not change Putin's role as the guy who is at present keeping a lid on things, including the nuclear bombs and what not.

As for Stalin/Hitler comparisons, well any foreign army is compared to them, nothing new here. At present Russian press is widely comparing American presence in Iraq to Nazi invasion of Russia. They are particularly keen on pointing out the alleged similarity between German and American helmets. There is definitely no place for such garbage in an encyclopedia article.

Chechnya claimed itself an independent country after seceding in a bloody war, and this secession was not recognized by anyone. In fact all participants of that secession qualify as rebels, murderers, and criminals under Russian law. Imagine what would have happened if, say, some parts of Montana were to try to secede from the US. They would not stay independent for long :). And as for widespread criticism of Russian reconquest of Chechnya at home and abroad, well they just made a big mess of things. With any luck they will sort it out sooner or later. Watcher 01:48, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

I changed the definition of Rodina from Fatherland to Motherland for connotative/linguil reasons.

--TheRedAnthem 18:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Intro

"The politics of Russia (the Russian Federation) take place in a framework of a federal presidential republic, whereby the President of Russia is both head of state and head of government, and of a pluriform multi-party system. Executive power is exercised by the government. Legislative power is vested in both the government and the two chambers of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation."

This is incorrect. The Russian president is the Chief (Head) of State while the Russian premier, who is appointed by the President, serves as the Head of Government.

Proof:

"chief of state: President Vladimir Vladimirovich PUTIN (acting president 31 December 1999-6 May 2000, president since 7 May 2000) head of government: Premier Mikhail Yefimovich FRADKOV (since 5 March 2004); First Deputy Premier Dmitriy Anatolyevich MEDVEDEV (since 14 November 2005), Deputy Premiers Aleksandr Dmitriyevich ZHUKOV (since 9 March 2004) and Sergey Borisovich IVANOV (since 14 November 2005)" https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/rs.html#Govt

I was doing an assignment on Russia and thought I'd do my part and keep things straight. I didn't edit it, because I'm not sure how people would like it to be revised.

--Spenser. September 19, 2006

I am Russian and I entirely agree with Spenser. I'm editing this. - sredni vashtar

[edit] Rewrite?

I think this article is waaaay toooo looong. Most, if not all, of the historical information that is endlessly repeated here is already available at the appropriate places, namely articles on modern Russian history. On the other hand, the current political system in Russia is not sufficiently well described - most input on that dates from the Yeltsin era. This article should be rewritten to concentrate on today's politics rather that history of the last century. Sredni vashtar 19:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

If you feel capable to split the article in two (one about history, one about current state of affairs), can add more recent materials, and cross-reference the resulting two articles, just be bold and do it. The article is indeed way too long, and the way you propose to split it sounds very logical. Go for it! If anything goes wrong, it can always be fixed or reverted to existing version.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Weasel Words

However, since that time Russians have continued to debate the future of their political system, with Western-style democracy and authoritarianism being two widely considered alternatives.

Time for a reality check. There is no debate. It's not like there's a bunch of politicans and academics and citizens having a good old chin wag about how to run Russia. It's simply a case that Russia has become essentially a dictatorship and looks like it's slowly turning fascist (political popularism to keep the masses happy plus intolerance and a lot of repression and injustice). This has happened because there is no real political process, no system of checks and balances, and over time Putin has consolidated political control in his hands, in a manner and with a result all too similar to what existed before. Russia has never really changed. Toby Douglass 11:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Your contribution may be considered true by some (perhaps, myself included). However, it's hardly NPOV. I think when you're talking about "sliding back" and such things, you are definitely making judgements without presenting the opposing view or possible benefits of such a "sliding back." Would you please reconsider? Red Plum 20:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Possible benefits of a State run press, a court system with a 99% conviction rate, where contract murder is an accepted part of the political process and there is no political freedom? making judgements without presenting the opposing view? if someone can present an opposing view where there are benefits from such human right violations, they have lost the ability to critically judge matters. Toby Douglass 10:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I removed the paragraph after reviewing the Wikipedia NPOV policy. Please check out NPOV Policy and Words to Avoid Manuals of Style article. Red Plum 20:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

NPOV is where material expresses a given point of view upon a subject. I argue that what was written is not NPOV, but *accurate*. Russia IS a State run by machine politics, just, for example, as Chicago was in the 1960s. There is nothing *debatable* about this. Putin is not susceptable to being electorically removed. People who get seriously involved in politics who might be a threat end up in jail with their billion dollar companies confiscated by the State. What is non-NPOV about stating these facts and their implications?

This article, as it stands, is a failure. Anyone reading it would have absolutely *no idea* about the current state of play in Russian politics. They would imagine Russia to be a reasonably functional multi-party democracy. Toby Douglass 10:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

As it was, the paragraph you added was editorial in tone, and didn't actually state any facts. If you write up something that is neutral in tone, state those facts (specific examples) and provide sources, you'll make the article better. Red Plum 23:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)