Does Putin have a soul?

[Alex157]

Does Putin have a soul?


HAMPTON, New Hampshire

(Reuters) - Sen. Hillary Clinton, campaigning on Sunday ahead of New Hampshire's critical presidential primary,

declared in response to a voter's question that Russian President Vladimir Putin "doesn't have a soul."

…


http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/01/07/hillary_clinton_campaigning_ponders_putins_soul/



Why Hillary is so sure that the KGB’s officers have no souls? . What if Hillary is elected

and it will be found out that Medvedev has not a soul too? It may spoil relations between two countries .


I do not think that it is right to state such things…

[belgareth]

No, it isn't right to say such

things. In her case we have to wonder if her statement had any meaning other than political hyperbole. After all, do

democrats and Hillary in particular have religion? Sometimes I wonder.

At the same time, it isn't right for a

citizen of one country to become involved in the politics of another.

[Alex157]

No, it isn't right to say such things. In her case we have to wonder if her

statement had any meaning other than political hyperbole. After all, do democrats and Hillary in particular have

religion? Sometimes I wonder.

Actually, in fact the Soviet morality didn’t deny existing of a soul.

Marx just stated that the material stuff is primary. So I am sure that both Putin and Hillary have souls

At the same time,

it isn't right for a citizen of one country to become involved in the politics of another.

Well, the problem is that nobody

obeys this rule and Putin with his guys first
Say, it is a civil war in a country

and there are good and bad guys there (well, from my point of view, of course) and I am able to help good guys. I

think it was a terrible mistake of the Western powers that they didn’t fulfill a full-scale intervention in Russia

in 1918.

[belgareth]

I never said anything about

Soviet morality, only Clinton's, something I doubt exists. It isn't even morality but spirituality but the

statement still applies.

Does the fact that another does not obey a rule make it right for us to disobey the

rule? Not in my opinion.

I also disagree on the intervention. We are wrong to interfere with other nations now

and we would have ben wrong then. That is the very basic precept of the democracy we tout. Each has their right to

choose their own course so long as that course does not interfere with another person or country's freedom to

choose.

[Alex157]

I never said anything about Soviet morality, only Clinton's

Yes, I commented on her statement

Does the fact that another does not obey a rule make it right

for us to disobey the rule? Not in my opinion.

Sure, sure, but it is difficult to obey rules when nobody doesn’t want

to do it

I

also disagree on the intervention. We are wrong to interfere with other nations now and we would have ben wrong

then.

Well, however you had to interfere in 1941 all the same. Was it possible

then not to interfere? It would be a betrayal of your ally Britain.

Each has their

right to choose their own course so long as that course does not interfere with another person or country's freedom

to choose.

But the Bolsheviks positively interfered with many other persons in

Russia and other places as well. If a government violates the rights of citizens is it interference with other

persons?

[Rbt]

Well, however you had to

interfere in 1941 all the same. Was it possible then not to interfere? It would be a betrayal of your ally Britain.

If you are speaking of WWII, the US only entered the war formally after the attack on the US Navy

at Pearl Harbor. Not sure why the US didn't get more involved after the invasion of the Phillipines but I'm not

fully up on that part of history.

The US at the time had a policy of non-involvement (military) otherwise. There

was economic support of Britain and other countries before the formal declaration of war. If I recall the US only

got involved in the European theater due to the military/political link between Japan and Germany.

Politics is

strange... Even though the US was "friends" with France for example at that time, we did not get militarily involved

with the war even after France's colonies in Asia (eg Veitnam) were invaded by the Japanese. During/after WWII we

got roped into some sort of treaty with France about coming to their aid if they or one of their possessions was

invaded which is how we got mixed up with the communist "invasion" in Veitnam in the 60's-70's (thanks Mr.

Truman...).

[Alex157]

If you are speaking of WWII, the US only entered the war formally after the

attack on the US Navy at Pearl Harbor. Not sure why the US didn't get more involved after the invasion of the

Phillipines but I'm not fully up on that part of history.
The US at the time had a policy of non-involvement

(military) otherwise. There was economic support of Britain and other countries before the formal declaration of

war.

Economic support of Britain included sending ships there and since the

Nazis tried to sink them, of course, the ships had to be guarded and it meant a direct war against German.

If I recall the US only got involved in the European theater due

to the military/political link between Japan and Germany.

Well, I don’t think that Germany was that much involved in war in Asia

to consider it. America had to decide whether it supported England (and it meant a direct war against Germany) or

not. Yes, I am sure that many citizens of the US would prefer not to be involved, but the politicians knew that

there was no choice.

Politics is strange... Even though the US was "friends" with

France for example at that time, we did not get militarily involved with the war even after France's colonies in

Asia (eg Veitnam) were invaded by the Japanese. During/after WWII we got roped into some sort of treaty with France

about coming to their aid if they or one of their possessions was invaded which is how we got mixed up with the

communist "invasion" in Veitnam in the 60's-70's (thanks Mr. Truman...).

Always, there is a politician who can be

thanked for a war. In Europe, Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Serbia, Iraq…



As for ‘friendship’ and getting roped now everything is simpler. An attack at any

member of NATO means an attack at all others according to the treaty.

[Rbt]

Economic support of Britain

included sending ships there and since the Nazis tried to sink them, of course, the ships had to be guarded and it

meant a direct war against German.

Actually no. You can defend your ships (or anything else) but not be

in a "direct" war. You would be if you were actively attacking *them*. Switzerland (which remained neutral) had

it's army guarding it's borders as a defense, but was not in a "direct war" with Germany or the Axis powers.



At first I think most of the convoys of ships (including American ships) were guarded primarily by the British

Navy.

[Alex157]

Actually no. You can defend your ships (or anything else) but not be in a

"direct" war.

Yes, sure. But I don’t think it was the case in the WWII. As well

as in any wartime either. Say, Iran (or any other countries) would send convoys with weapons to anti-American troops

in Iraq. I doubt very much that it would be possible for them just ‘defend’ their ships without real

fighting against the American Navy.
If you support my enemy you are my

enemy too.

You would be if you were actively attacking *them*.

Without no doubt, I think, it will be so in most cases.

Switzerland (which

remained neutral) had it's army guarding it's borders as a defense, but was not in a "direct war" with Germany or

the Axis powers.

There was not any reason for Hitler to attack Switzerland. Money and

gold are useless in a world war (your enemies woun’t sell you anything and your allies are figting too so are

not able to sell food and weapons), so he knew that he could do it after the victory. If Switzerland helped somebody

in the anti-Hitler coalition it would be crushed in a moment.

At first I think most of the convoys of ships (including

American ships) were guarded primarily by the British Navy.

I think it was so in the first perion of the war. Then logic of war

demanded for more and more wide interference.

[idesign]

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/01/07/hillary_clinton_campaigning_ponders_putins_soul/



Why Hillary is so sure that the KGB’s officers have no souls? . What if Hillary is

elected and it will be found out that Medvedev has not a soul too? It may spoil relations between two countries .


I do not think that it is right to state such things…

I agree

Alex.

What Hillary Clinton says is always calculated to achieve a marketing effect for her candidacy, pure

self-interst, nothing more or less. She is a loose cannon when it comes to international affairs, having no

experience, incomplete information, childishly naive understanding and a ruthless instinct to get what she only

thinks she deserves.

She recently made a comment about Pakistan's leader concerning Bhutto's assasination

which was immediately and rightly rebuked by that gov't. Irresponsible at best, and dangerous if anyone took her

seriously, which no real thinking person could do.

She's the poster child for nanny state proponents who believe

"if I only ruled the world...."

What does that have to do with the Russians? History. More on that if

anyone's interested.

BTW, Alex, where are you from? Just curious.

[Alex157]

What Hillary Clinton says is always calculated to achieve a marketing effect for her candidacy, pure

self-interst, nothing more or less. She is a loose cannon when it comes to international affairs, having no

experience, incomplete information, childishly naive understanding and a ruthless instinct to get what she only

thinks she deserves.

Yes, many say about her the

same things… It is strange, her husband is nobody’s fool, I think

She recently made a comment about Pakistan's leader concerning Bhutto's assasination which was

immediately and rightly rebuked by that gov't. Irresponsible at best, and dangerous if anyone took her seriously,

which no real thinking person could do.

I think that it is very bad for a politician . Indeed, an

average Joe from the street may say anything he wants, but a politician should be responsible for every word he/she

says.

What does that have to do with the Russians?

History. More on that if anyone's interested.

Yes,

sure!

BTW, Alex, where are you from? Just curious.

I am a

Russian, I live in Moscow. By the way, it seems to me that Alex is a female name in the States. I am a male. It is

always a problem in English . In Russian you have to write just a couple of words and your gender is clear.

[Rbt]

I'm in midwest US and I am pretty

sure that "Alex" isusually considered a male name. I can think of a number of Alexes right now, and they are all

male.

(Alex Trebek, actor; 2 sports figures at least; but I grant Alex Doonsebury [comic strip character-

cable TV show] was female...)

[Alex157]

Great! Usually Alexes whom I met

were female, so I decided that in the US it is a female name .
For example, I am watching 'what women want'

and the name of Gibson's daughter in the movie is Alex.
Alexander Baldwin, though, sometimes is Alec and

sometimes Alex...

Actually, there is nos such an official name in Russian (it is used as a nickname only in

imitation of the West) so I decided to make it clear

[idesign]

Agree with Rbt on the name Alex,

but some women have that nickname, diminutive for Alexandra or Alexis.

I've always appreciated the Russian

custom of making the middle name a patronymic. Alexandrovna is both lovely and respectful.

My remark about

Hillary and the Russians has mostly to do with socialism than anything else, which has changed in Russia, but you

can tell us better from your place.

Hillary has an "oligarchy" mentality, which, in her case, blends socialism

with a "right" for her clan (liberalism) to rule for the "common good". She uses her own concept of the "collective"

to push ideals which most of the population would reject if they knew what she was actually representing. Of course

she is not honest in representing her real motives.

This is not a direct comparison to the former Soviet state,

but perhaps more applicable in comparing to Putin.

A socialist leaning joined with a sensibility which assumes

there is a "right" to power is perhaps the most dangerous political ideal. I can't help but think there is a

Czarist mixed with October Red mentality driving Putin.

In Hillary's case the appeal to the "common good" is

both seductive and evil, as Bolshevism has proven to be true. In Putin's case there seems to be a shift toward

Czarist oligarchy, which is what Hillary and her machine would love to achieve with her idealist control over

personal lives. Idealism is all about control, subject to a shifting and nebulous definition of "what's best" for

you and me.

In Russia, it seems there has always been a desire for a strong leader to gather the Russian lands

and anchor the Rus in a solid mooring. In America, the opposite is true, we have rejected kings and tyrants. Until

now. There is a tyranny which nobody recognizes until it is in their house and is eating all their food.

In a

very loose way Putin and Hillary are traveling the same path, in different spheres.

Its amazing to me how much of

our American population is willing to give up their ability and right to prosper freely to a gov't which will

appropriate the fruit of their labor at the whim of politicians.

I'm thankful that I live in America, and hope

for more than our current political climate offers.

PS Alex, I've made some assumptions, please correct me when

I'm wrong.

[tounge]

Greg, fantastic appraisal of

Hillary Clinton. She shares the same philosophy of Chavez in Venezuela and Ortega in Nicaragua. The USA and the rest

of the world are about to enter very dangerous and hard times.

Many people who have studied her, consider her

an avowed Leninist.

[Rbt]

But, of course, as it seems with any

political election in this country in my memory of late, it always seems to come down to a choice of the lesser of

the evils...

It's been ages since I voted FOR someone rather than AGAINST the worst of the choices.






<sigh>



And I have yet to see any really clear cut differences between the two

major political parties. Same crap, different names. No real choice. Just cover your own ass and hope to make it

through the next series of created crises and "pending disasters."

[Alex157]

Agree with Rbt on the name Alex, but some women have that

nickname, diminutive for Alexandra or Alexis.

It seems that

it is equal to the situation with the male name Alex in Russia. Here it is a half-jocular nickname for Alexander or

Alexey.

I've always appreciated the Russian custom of making

the middle name a patronymic. Alexandrovna is both lovely and respectful.

There was an Englishman in

the Soviet Union who taught English. And his new Russian name became Richard Richardovich Dixon.

Alex, I've made

some assumptions, please correct me when I'm wrong.

I mostly agree with you, Idesign, but I think that many in the West

underestimate what happened in 90s in Russia.
Yes, the US is a very

liberal country. However, I know one thing about the US for sure. A friend of my father is a pensioner and he hadn’t

worked a day in the US. But he has an apartment, medical care which in the SU had top communist bosses only and the

like. During our capitalist reforms the old folks became just dirt under feet. As well as invalids and anybody who

was not able to build capitalism with the nails and teeth.
Also whole

cites began to be controlled by gangsters. Posts of mayors or governors were just bought by them. So Putin in some

sense just returned the country to more or less normal conditions. And since the citizens didn’t want to do anything

everything was done by the Kremlin.
And I wouldn’t say that Putin is

trying to control me.

There

was a soviet joke. A guy comes to the office in a rumpled shirt and answers the boss to his question. I got up in

the morning and switched on the TV set. It was a translation of the 24th meeting of the Communist party of the

Soviet Union. Then I switched on radio. It was a translation of the 24th meeting of the Communist party of the

Soviet Union. I didn’t even try to switch on an electric iron.



There is nothing like this now. I read and write in the Net everything I

want. Nobody blocks sites, moreover the government tries to computerize all the country. For $3-4 a month I can get

70 channels including the CNN and Euronews through the telephone connection. Euronews are even broadcasted by an

open standard channel with a translation in Russian. Nobody says me what I should watch – the CNN or Russian

channels. The only thing Putin wants in return is that I wouldn’t interfere in his affairs too


He is building capitalism and doesn’t want me hamper him. And it is OK

by the majority of people since all his opponents proved that they cannot suggest anything better. On the contrary,

everybody knows that they would just make things worse.

[idesign]

There was an Englishman in the Soviet Union who taught

English. And his new Russian name became Richard Richardovich Dixon.

Dangerously close to an American politician. Using

nicknames he would be "Tricky Dick Dickovich Nixon".

I mostly agree with you, Idesign, but I think that many in the

West underestimate what happened in 90s in Russia.
Yes, the US is a very

liberal country. However, I know one thing about the US for sure. A friend of my father is a pensioner and he

hadn’t worked a day in the US. But he has an apartment, medical care which in the SU had top communist bosses

only and the like. During our capitalist reforms the old folks became just dirt under feet. As well as invalids and

anybody who was not able to build capitalism with the nails and teeth.


Also whole cites began to be controlled by gangsters. Posts of mayors or

governors were just bought by them. So Putin in some sense just returned the country to more or less normal

conditions. And since the citizens didn’t want to do anything everything was done by the Kremlin.


And I wouldn’t say that Putin is trying to control me.

Understood. The parallels with the US are limited I know.

Putin has a very different set of circumstances. Since there is no democratic tradition in Russia he must play his

role as benevolent dictator. Interesting that you said "back to normal", it is reminiscent of Czarist Russia no?



The oligarchy/mafia scheme was inevitable, as they were the only ones in place to fill the power/economic void

left by a dead Soviet system. On the other hand, the Soviets had a cabal of powerful people who ran everything

(aparatchiks), and many of them are the same characters operating in a different system. At least the

Communist/totalitarian control is gone, along with the Glorious Meeting of the 24th Komsomol/Comintern/Commitetye

Sovietskiye.

The ones caught in the middle are the ones who had their life and spirit sucked out of them by the

Soviet system, one might even say soul. All incentive was drained from a huge segment of population which is

capable of turning Russia into a greater nation than it already is. Who knows how many generations it will take

before the mentality of the "collective" leaves the minds of your people.

There was a soviet joke. A guy comes to the office in a rumpled

shirt and answers the boss to his question. I got up in the morning and switched on the TV set. It was a translation

of the 24th meeting of the Communist party of the Soviet Union. Then I switched on radio. It was a translation of

the 24th meeting of the Communist party of the Soviet Union. I didn’t even try to switch on an electric iron.

Very funny! It reminds me of myself when I turn on the TV and

hear most of the mainstream media gibberish which passes as "news". Fortunately for both of us, we have many

alternatives to the old

monopoly.

Nobody says me what I should watch – the CNN or Russian channels. The only thing Putin wants in return

is that I wouldn’t interfere in his affairs too
He is building

capitalism and doesn’t want me hamper him. And it is OK by the majority of people since all his opponents

proved that they cannot suggest anything better. On the contrary, everybody knows that they would just make things

worse.

By these comments I know that you are Russian! Welcome moi droog, we must drink

together some day. Your pragmatic optimism is a trait which many can learn from.

I'm genuinely curious Alex,

how long and how far do you think Putin can rule this way? Where do you think the nature of politics is going? Do

you think Russia needs a "Czar" like Putin or someone equally strong?

Good discussion, thank you.
Greg

[idesign]

She shares

the same philosophy of Chavez in Venezuela and Ortega in Nicaragua. The USA and the rest of the world are about to

enter very dangerous and hard times.

Many people who have studied her, consider her an avowed

Leninist.

I can see that Tongue. Its not such a far stretch from "Workers of the World Unite" to

"It Takes a Village to Raise a Child". At least Lenin told you up front what he was planning. Hillary's most

dangerous evil is her calculated deception.

And lets not forget Obama, he may be worse in that he's charismatic

and says nothing at all of any substance. Regurgitation with a nice smile.

Without being alarmist, I cautiously

agree with the remark about dangerous and hard times. There is a fundamental shift in political, economic and

social dynamics both within and between nations that I don't think many recognize, much less comprehend. The US

could be poised for disaster if it doesn't get its house in order.

All the while our US leaders are engaging in

the most trivial and pointless debates, esp on the Dem side. The GOP is only slightly better. As Rbt said, the

choices are not that great.

[tounge]

Hillary's

most dangerous evil is her calculated deception. (Yes. To the Marxist, the LIE is a sacred tool to advance their

cause. Hillary is a dialectic in the Marxist tradition.)

And lets not forget Obama, he may be worse in that

he's charismatic and says nothing at all of any substance. Regurgitation with a nice smile.
(Agreed. He is an

empty suit who brings nothing whatsoever to the table.)

All the while our US leaders are engaging in the most

trivial and pointless debates, esp on the Dem side. The GOP is only slightly better. As Rbt said, the choices are

not that great.

( Agreed, the GOP although head and shoulders above the Democrats, are clueless as to he

direction the USA needs to go for it to continue to be a viable player on the world stage in the next quarter

century.)

[Alex157]

Dangerously close to an American politician. Using nicknames he would be "Tricky

Dick Dickovich Nixon".

I was said that his answer was ‘I am not a crook’

Understood. The

parallels with the US are limited I know. Putin has a very different set of circumstances. Since there is no

democratic tradition in Russia he must play his role as benevolent dictator.

Yes, I think that

it is his point.

Interesting that you said "back to normal", it is reminiscent of Czarist Russia no?

No, I think that the fact that autocracy lasted so long in

Russia was the main cause of all troubles.
When I said ‘back to normal’

I meant that now the police controls cities not bandits, old folks get some pensions and the like.

The

oligarchy/mafia scheme was inevitable, as they were the only ones in place to fill the power/economic void left by a

dead Soviet system. On the other hand, the Soviets had a cabal of powerful people who ran everything (aparatchiks),

and many of them are the same characters operating in a different system. At least the Communist/totalitarian

control is gone, along with the Glorious Meeting of the 24th Komsomol/Comintern/Commitetye Sovietskiye.

The problem is, I believe, that the reforms of 90s hadn’t

touched the bases of the Soviet system. Actually, Soviet economic of the Brezhnev’s era was a mix between a Marxist

control on factories and the black market. The reformers just legalized the black market but it didn’t change the

core things.

The ones caught in the middle are the ones who

had their life and spirit sucked out of them by the Soviet system, one might even say soul. All incentive was

drained from a huge segment of population which is capable of turning Russia into a greater nation than it already

is. Who knows how many generations it will take before the mentality of the "collective" leaves the minds of your

people.

Yes, Russia

lost several millions of her best citizens and I am not sure that we will be able to rise again.


And indeed it’ll take a long long time till our distorted mentality will

change.

By these

comments I know that you are Russian! Welcome moi droog

Òû

çíàåøü

ðóññêèé?

we must drink together some day. Your pragmatic optimism is a

trait which many can learn from.

I am ready to drink (I prefer Scottish whisky ), and we are optimists

indeed, but our optimism is not pragmatic . It is based on two main Russian conceptual words ‘avos’ and ‘nebos’.

Say, you drive to a river and see that the bridge may collapse any moment. If you a Russian you would say ‘nebos, it

won’t collapse’ and ‘avos I will be able to cross it’. With these words you should drive over the bridge without any

thoughts

I'm

genuinely curious Alex, how long and how far do you think Putin can rule this way?

Greg, I am sure that Putin well understands that such a system which is

based on one person is unstable. Definitely there is a plan of building of a two party-system in Russia. There is

already a party which is planned for this role. However, will it be a real political system or just an imitation as

it often happens here we’ll see soon

Where do you think

the nature of politics is going? Do you think Russia needs a "Czar" like Putin or someone equally strong?

I think that

nobody who can rule his/her life doesn’t need any czars. But definitely this dream of a good and kind czar is in

Russian mentality. The problem is that czars are never good and kind

[idesign]

Ok, Putin and the Kremlin

understand the need for a two-party system, will they say 'nebos and 'avos?

One thing that concerns me is the

way Putin handled himself during the Ukranian election a few years ago. Also his most recent "sabre rattling"

exercises. He's a strong-man in Ivan IV's clothing, but I think perhaps he knows he can't get away with it.

I

hope it is as you say, and there will be a true choice. The only remaining question is does Russia have a leader

who will come from the people to lead a new party? Say, a Peter in Gorbachov clothing? Maybe Peter is not the best

choice for that example, but you understand.

к вашему

здоровью

[idesign]

( Agreed,

the GOP although head and shoulders above the Democrats, are clueless as to he direction the USA needs to go for it

to continue to be a viable player on the world stage in the next quarter century.)

Unfortunately, part of

the "head and shoulders" party of the first part just quit the race. Fred Thompson was the only *true* conservative

of the bunch.

While any of the others are a better choice than either of the Dems, it now comes down to

compromise.

[Alex157]

Ok, Putin and the Kremlin understand the need for a two-party system, will they

say 'nebos and 'avos?

Well, Putin is not quite

Russian. That is, he is an ethnic Russian, of course, but he has been a spy in Germany for 10 years and adopted a

lot from German mentality, I think.
There is our famous movie hero a

shtandartenfurer SS Shtirliz (who was in reality our Russian agent, of course) and Putin is something like this

One thing that concerns me is the way Putin handled

himself during the Ukranian election a few years ago.

Well, nobody’s perfect

Also his most recent "sabre rattling" exercises. He's a strong-man in Ivan

IV's clothing, but I think perhaps he knows he can't get away with it.

I hope it is as you say, and there will be a true choice.

The only remaining question is does Russia have a leader who will come from the people to lead a new party?

No, it is out of consideration . It should be a guy

from the Kremlin who would coordinate all his actions with it. If there is a second strong leader it will be a civil

war.

Say, a Peter in Gorbachov clothing? Maybe Peter is

not the best choice for that example, but you understand.

Yes, the Russian population had lessened by third under Peter No, I think that a

plan is that it should be a second party controlled by the Kremlin and when people get used to a notion that after

electing a new leader heavens won’t come down to Russia with angels who will work for us it will be possible

to make the system more realistic.



[quote] к вашему здоровью

[/quote]



I have heard that Russians in movies say ‘na zdorovie’? Is it true? We never say it in

reality

Поднимем

наши стаканы за две

великие нации –

русских и

американцев

[idesign]

Поднимем наши

стаканы за две

великие нации –

русских и

американцев

"Let us raise our glasses to two

great nations - Russia and America".

очень

хорошо, I owe you a bottle of Scotch Whiskey.

Yes, I have heard "na zdorovie"

in the movies (Local Hero), but in my post I simply translated "to your health" in a translator. My Russian is 25

years old and has not aged as well as a good whiskey.

I appreciate your insight Alexander. What is your

patromymic?

I will think about your reply and will certainly ask more questions.

[Alex157]

î÷åíü

õîðîøî, I owe you a bottle of

Scotch Whiskey.

OK, and I owe you a bottle of vodka Do you remember as they changed

their watches in ‘Red Hot’?

Yes, I have heard "na zdorovie" in the movies (Local Hero),

but in my post I simply translated "to your health" in a translator. My Russian is 25 years old and has not aged as

well as a good whiskey.

Well, a bit more accurate would be ‘za tvoje/vashe zdorovje’ but your

Russian is still quite OK

I appreciate your

insight Alexander. What is your patromymic?

No, I am

Alexey - as it was a real name of Gorky, not as Pushkin’s



I am Alexey Lvovich, how is your one?

[idesign]

Understood, but I never saw "Red

Hot", is it good? Who are the primary actors?

Ok good Alexey, Gorky and Pushkin are two very interesting and

different men. I think you are more like Pushkin in ideals if not name.

We do not use patromymics, so I could be

either Yosef Grigorovich, or Odelovich using my father's name.

To be honest, I prefer whiskey too, so we should

have a wonderful time drinking.

We in America look eagerly toward political and social change in Russia, and

we also understand that it is Russia who will determine her future. I'm glad that we are now "friends", and of

course we wish to remain friends. Sometimes it is difficult among friends to achieve a balance as we know.

A

question: what do you think is the most desired social change among most of the population? I assume it would be

economic. If so, do you look mostly for economic freedom? Do you think Russia mostly desires for a Western ideal

of economic success?

More interestingly, do you care so much about the political system if the economic benefits

are good on the street? Assuming that the successor to Putin will follow his policies, do you think those policies

are oriented more to achieving a place in some new world order or a new Russian independence or dominance?

A lot

of questions, sorry, but I look forward to your answer.

Greg

[Alex157]

Understood, but I never saw "Red Hot", is it good? Who are the primary

actors?

Well, it was popular in Russia (as well as all movies

with the governator, though). Another leading role was played by Belushi.


There were some funny lines there. For example, the

Soviet policeman suggested to his American colleague (played by Belushi) to shoot all drug dealers and the like. He

said that it would be a good idea, but politicians won’t allow this. ‘Shoot them first’ was an answer.

Ok good Alexey, Gorky and Pushkin are two very

interesting and different men. I think you are more like Pushkin in ideals if not name.

I heard that the main reason why Pushkin wrote verses was

that he always had huge card debts and tried to get some money to pay

We do not use

patromymics

It is not of any importance . As long as a person knows

the name of his father he/she has patronymics . If not, the patronymics will be thought up

so I could be either Yosef Grigorovich, or

Odelovich using my father's name.

Why Yosef? Greg is quite OK And it cannot be two ones

. What is the name of your father?







[quote] To be honest, I prefer whiskey too, so we

should have a wonderful time drinking.

[/

quote]





OK, I prefer Johnny Walker. I think that it a lady’s

drink but I don’t like hard drinks.

We in America look eagerly toward political and

social change in Russia, and we also understand that it is Russia who will determine her future. I'm glad that we

are now "friends", and of course we wish to remain friends. Sometimes it is difficult among friends to achieve a

balance as we know.

Yeah, it is the last thing I would want – to have the US

as enemy again.

A question: what do you think is the most

desired social change among most of the population? I assume it would be economic. If so, do you look mostly for

economic freedom?

Actually, I am not sure. I think that economy is only a

part of politics. Again, you never are able to create good economy without political stability.


Why everybody is glad to keep money in Switzerland? It is

a safe place, in the center of Europe and NATO defends my beloved money (no matter that Switzerland itself is not a

member of it).
The problem is that everybody knows that

any second the government may rob people. Nobody will be surprised if tomorrow it will be announced that all rubles

should be changed in proportion 1:10 after showing papers where they come from. In Moscow there are exchange booths

at each corner and we keep our money in dollars and euros. Nobody trusts rubles, nobody trusts the government. So

rich people just make money here and have some infrastructure for the recreation – brothels and small gyms. They try

to send serious money abroad.
It is very difficult to

develop economy under such political and social circumstances.

Do you think Russia mostly desires for a Western

ideal of economic success?

Politically we are total morons, so it doesn’t matter

what we desire . I think that we desperately need for colleges of high economical and political education. When

there are several thousands educated Russian guys – it will be possible to discuss what they want.


However, I think yes, many prefer the Western way of

economics now.

More interestingly, do you care so much about

the political system if the economic benefits are good on the street?

Sure, sure. Without a firm political system everything

may collapse in a second. It happened in 1998 already.

Assuming that the successor to Putin will follow

his policies, do you think those policies are oriented more to achieving a place in some new world order or a new

Russian independence or dominance?

I think

that Medvedev is a quite pro-Western politician and he’s going to continue to try to find a place under the

capitalists sun for Russia.




Greg, who do you think is going to be the next president of the US?

[Rbt]

I'm thinking there is a bit of a

translation thing here... the movie I recall I think was called "Red Heat" not "Red Hot"...

[idesign]

Well, it was popular in Russia (as well as all movies

with the governator, though). Another leading role was played by Belushi.


There were some funny lines there. For example, the

Soviet policeman suggested to his American colleague (played by Belushi) to shoot all drug dealers and the like. He

said that it would be a good idea, but politicians won’t allow this. ‘Shoot them first’ was an

answer.

You might also add the

lawyers...

I heard that the

main reason why Pushkin wrote verses was that he always had huge card debts and tried to get some money to pay

Ok Alex, we will not drink and play cards in

the same evening, unless you are like Pushkin. But if I win, you could pay your debt with a poem that would win

the heart of a lovely Russian woman.

Why Yosef? Greg is quite OK And it cannot be two

ones . What is the name of your father?

My

name is Joseph Gregory. My father is Odell.

OK, I prefer Johnny Walker. I think that it a

lady’s drink but I don’t like hard drinks.

Johnny Walker is a good drink, but I prefer

single malt scotch, there are many. I will bring you a bottle of Glenmorangie. Scotch is definitely not a lady's

drink, but some women will drink it. I will tell you a story when we are drinking Scotch

together.
[/quote]

Yeah, it is

the last thing I would want – to have the US as enemy again.



Actually, I am not sure. I think that economy is only a

part of politics. Again, you never are able to create good economy without political stability.


Why everybody is glad to keep money in Switzerland? It is

a safe place, in the center of Europe and NATO defends my beloved money (no matter that Switzerland itself is not a

member of it).
The problem is that everybody knows that

any second the government may rob people. Nobody will be surprised if tomorrow it will be announced that all rubles

should be changed in proportion 1:10 after showing papers where they come from. In Moscow there are exchange booths

at each corner and we keep our money in dollars and euros. Nobody trusts rubles, nobody trusts the government.

I understand, it is the same worry that the

West has with Putin. He is seen as a figure who is not known, and not predictable. Also, the history of Russia

will always be "an enigma wrapped in a mystery". As with all countries, history and culture are a weight which

moves slowly and with much effort.

So rich people just make money here

and have some infrastructure for the recreation – brothels and small gyms.

So, you are saying that the prostitutes are in

good physical shape? Maybe I will visit you soon.

They try to send serious money

abroad.
It is very difficult to develop economy under

such political and social circumstances.

Yes,

capitalism suffers when capital leaves the country. Its too bad. Political stability is the first requirement, you

know this. That is the main question with the Putin dynasty. They must create an environment of national stability

and growth.

You are right, politics will lead economics, and in Russia there has never been an environment

conducive to capitalism.

Politically we are total

morons, so it doesn’t matter what we desire .

Again, spoken like nobody but a Russian can

speak. You are a wonderful people waiting to be born into the world. What can you do? I suppose you can wait for

time to deliver changes which may or may not happen. You've never had politics in your homes, and now you see the

world but have no choices.

[/quote]

I think that we

desperately need for colleges of high economical and political education. When there are several thousands educated

Russian guys – it will be possible to discuss what they want.


However, I think yes, many prefer the Western way of

economics now.

Yes, an educated

political/economic infrastructure is much needed. The USA is the "university of the world" in many ways, and I

hope Russians will be able to take advantage.

I think

that Medvedev is a quite pro-Western politician and he’s going to continue to try to find a place under the

capitalists sun for Russia.

I hope he is not

cut from the same cloth as Putin.

Greg, who do you think is going to be the next president of the US?

Good question

Alexey. A super-model I think...