Russia - General Discussion.

[Feanor]

Once there is a violent uprising of military scale, there is no question anymore to let potentially hostile parties agitating freely. And sometimes non-hostile parties can be victim.
It's not good. But that's how it happens.

Complete nonsense. Shariy was one of Zelensky's competitors for the presidency, then after Zelensky came to power he banned his party. It was a move against a political competitor using the power of the government apparatus once Zelensky was in power. Check the dates of the relevant events before arguing about their meaning. So after the '14 uprising Shariy and his movement wasn't banned. But Zelensky comes to power and he is. And let's be clear, if you ban any political party that the government deems to be "potentially hostile" you don't really have a democracy. What you're left with then is what Putin called a "sovereign democracy" and what I call an authoritarian oligarchy given the larger context here present.

EDIT: To clarify, what I mean is that if you ban "any", as in any party the government feels like banning because they're declared "potentially hostile". I don't mean banning a single party immediately destroys democracy. And we're not talking about one party in the case of Ukraine. We're talking about a thorough sanitizing of the political space.

 

[Karl Franz]

Interesting sidenote, General Mordvichev has just been made Russia's commander of Land Forces. He's Russia's most successful general of the current war, and this is his second promotion since the start of the war, he was commander of the 8th CAA South MD, then became commander of the Central MD. I don't think, on practical level, that he will leave the front lines. Instead I suspect he will be coordinating the war effort but from a higher level position.

I remember reading not too long ago that he was transferred (just him or with the units he commands not sure) to the Lyman (South Kupyansk) front. Although the Russians were already moving forward here, there was a noticeable uptick in advancement rate after that. Its a good trend for Russians to promote based on merit which was not always the case.

 

[Karl Franz]

No: It cost the US economy (The government + the rest of the economy).

So you do not understand the difference.

Telling me that I have no understanding of basic economics while you asked such questions is ... how to say... pathetic.
(But ok, I will ignore it for this time)

My questions were asked challenging your previous statements. My hope was that while researching the questions you would figure out where you went wrong, however you were unable or unwilling to do this.

Generally speaking your blind bias is preventing you from assessing the information objectively and actually understanding what is happening in both Russia's economics and its war in Ukraine.

 

[Fredled]

Complete nonsense. Shariy was one of Zelensky's competitors for the presidency, then after Zelensky came to power he banned his party. It was a move against a political competitor using the power of the government apparatus once Zelensky was in power. Check the dates of the relevant events before arguing about their meaning. So after the '14 uprising Shariy and his movement wasn't banned. But Zelensky comes to power and he is. And let's be clear, if you ban any political party that the government deems to be "potentially hostile" you don't really have a democracy. What you're left with then is what Putin called a "sovereign democracy" and what I call an authoritarian oligarchy given the larger context here present.

EDIT: To clarify, what I mean is that if you ban "any", as in any party the government feels like banning because they're declared "potentially hostile". I don't mean banning a single party immediately destroys democracy. And we're not talking about one party in the case of Ukraine. We're talking about a thorough sanitizing of the political space.

It's possible that Zelensky banned a political competitor. That's why I said that some non-hostile parties or politicians can also be victim. It's hard to have a perfect democracy in troubled times. I also heard that Zelensky didn;t have a good reputation before the war... Hehehe...

Edit: Isn't Zelensky doing the same with Poroshenko, right now?

 

[Fredled]

My questions were asked challenging your previous statements.

Ho, I see... Well... I don't play that game. You met the wrong person.

 

[seaspear]

I'm not sure the definition of democracy can include whether parties are banned even in Australia the nazi salute is banned let alone the party itself racist parties etc.

 

[Ananda]

I think everybody learned from 2008 that falsifying data (purposely or not) can be much more dangerous to the economy than whatever problems they are facing.

Yes, that's the point. WB and IMF still see Russian statistics that open to them are reliable enough. They also acknowledge that Russia do withhold some of economics data. Holding data and falsifilying data are two different things. Somehow some 'think tank' believe it is the same.

 

[Fredled]

Yes, that's the point. WB and IMF still see Russian statistics that open to them are reliable enough.

Data issued by a central banks are supposed to be reliable. It's not up to the WB or the IMF to decide whether they are reliable or not. They are required to publish the numbers provided.
After that it's the responsibility of Russia to provide accurate numbers and if they don't, it's their problem.

At the present time, the numbers they are publshing have virtualy no influence on anyone. Nobody reads them (except for fun on political internet forums).
Those who invest in Russia today, don't care about these numbers. They work on a person to person basis, with guarantees from government insiders.