Is Vladimir Putin, the prime minister and ex president of russia, a moderate or a radical?

7 Responses to Is Vladimir Putin, the prime minister and ex president of russia, a moderate or a radical?

1. NeoNerd says:

   May 31, 2009 at 7:41 am

   I would call him a reactionary - he's clearly intent on pulling Russia back into the USSR.
2. Gentle Giant says:

   June 1, 2009 at 12:05 pm

   An ex kbg operatchik gorbachev is moderate stalin was radical hes an ex kbg operatchik gorbachev is.
   An ex kbg operatchik gorbachev is moderate stalin was radical hes an ex kbg operatchik gorbachev is tyrant and radical hes an ex kbg operatchik gorbachev is moderate stalin was radical hes an ex kbg operatchik gorbachev is moderate stalin was radical hes an ex kbg.
   An ex kbg operatchik gorbachev is moderate stalin was radical hes an.
3. Dave says:

   June 2, 2009 at 11:59 am

   radical communist
4. sk_quest says:

   June 2, 2009 at 6:02 pm

   I vote for radical....as in radical whack job.
5. Andrew G says:

   June 3, 2009 at 4:42 pm

   I am from Russia.

   Putin has not been truly elected, so what would you need to frame your political identity if nobody has ever asked you to this before.
   I mean, imagine two scenarios: in the first one you got Obama as he is as of today. in the second you got Bush, unexpectedly going out of the office and naming an Obama to become a successor.
   Hmmm, looks like it becomes not that impotants who this second Obama is, but who Bush is.
   So, we come to Yeltsin? Who is Yeltsin? A merry drunkard and a destroyer of the USSR? Both and to all these unique features he was a president, securing the existence of several elites in Russia. He was backed by them and hadn't they wanted him there he would never have been there at all.
   So, 1) Yeltsin was backed by "elites".
   2) Putin was backed by Yeltsin.
   This means that Putin became just a new figure, a new pawn. Then, what happened was the following - Putin managed to use the struggle between different elites to weaken them and then he became more or less independent of them. He became the sole ruler of the USSR, or sorry the RF... So he brought back many of the things from the past and in such a way he managed to get stability and sustained developement. Most of thes growth and stability was created by immense oil revenues.
   Then, not wishing to amend the RF Constitution, Putin decided to step down, but not exactly, since he is still very powerful. In fact, we are still wondering who is the boss and who is not. It is funny, but before we got this kind of "news" only from the Kremlin - now we get Kremling and then the White House.
   So, Medvedev became the President - he was names a successor - it is completely undemocratic and we are moving to the same stuff which we had during the USSR.
   So, in the nutshell:
   1) Putin was chosen as a pawn, but he managed to become the "real boss" - so, is he a moderate or a radical?
   2) He brought back a lot of things from the past - he cracked down on the mass media, only one party, some strange things like pioneers and so on, he cracked down on non-governmental organisations, he cracked down on the opposition, - so, is he a moderate or a radical?
   3) He was to leave the presidential office, since you cannot serve more than two terms, but he de facto retained the power and now we have a tandemocracy (from tandem+democracy), so he refused to give up his power (but as quote "Putin has not been truly elected, so what would you need to frame your political identity if nobody has ever asked you to this before." Was there a need for him to give up his power? I am not sure, coz a lot of folks seem to be quite happy and just waiting for the Advent of The USSR part 2), so is he a moderate or a radical.

   And finally, we do not have any opposition, we do not have any competitiveness, and they have just said we have won over financial crisis and are getting closer to the sovereign democracy... Russia is in such a position, since the Russians are not mobile enough to take choices and fight for their liberties. So, if the environment fabricated legions of Putins, Medvedevs or whoever else around you and they virtually have no need to do anything to get elected, to get reelected to fight the financial crisis, would they care who they are - moderate or radical????
   No, they would not.
   Putin is completely radical, a moderate one would not survive - it is like trying to have a convesation in a street fight - it is just fighting, you see.

   As I have spend several minutes answering your question, your anwer or any other questions would be waited for and I would drop in later on.

   By the way, if any people wanna contradict what I have said, I would try to answer to them here.
6. technotopian says:

   June 7, 2009 at 2:43 am

   Quoting him: those who don't regret demise of USSR have no heart, those who wish it to be restored have no brains.

   He's not a communist at all, I'd say opposite to communist modern Russia is a corporate state. Thats completely incompatible to communist ultra left ideology. However, 'United Russia' party has total majority in parliament, courts are not independent and there is corruption everywhere, education and healthcare have degraded since USSR collapse. One, but important positive difference: government doesn't try to impose some stupid ideology, and interfere private life or small business.
7. max says:

   June 29, 2009 at 11:14 pm

   I liked this "government doesn’t try to impose some stupid ideology, and interfere private life or small business".
   Hang on a second, did you really think there was any small business in Russia?
   Did you really think that a private individual is not under constant pressure from the government bureaucracy?
   You just don't know what you are talking about then.