8 Answers

  1. Technically, we cannot evaluate the historical processes of which we are a part.

    This is one of the laws of history.

    We can only compare Russia's success with that of other countries, and speculate whether it could have been better or worse.

    Compared to Thailand, Putin's rule is a failure. Forty years ago there were poor peasants growing rice there, but now it is a modern country with a powerful industry, medicine and a capital not much inferior to Moscow. Despite the fact that they rose on the export of rice, the entire volume of which, even in the best years, barely reached 0.5% of Russian oil exports. 300,000 modern cars a year, up to 40% of electronics, 60% of polyethylene pipes are made in Thailand. In some industries, when compared with Russia, it is Thailand that looks like an industrial giant.

    However, if we compare it with a country that finds itself in very similar geopolitical conditions – next to developed countries, and the elite involved in financial flows, with Mexico – then we look very good.

    Mexico has a monstrously heavy labor force, and one of the lowest GDP rates per capita, while now there is virtually a civil war between cartels, urban militias, and government agencies.

    But Mexico still produces oil regularly.

    So the answer should be this-perhaps it would have been better. But it certainly could have been much worse. As far as I understand modern political science, it is wrong to link the development of the situation to a specific person.

    We like to make P. look like an all-powerful dictator, but time after time there is evidence to the contrary. He is good at solving minor problems that are voiced on a direct line, but he is not able to solve anything serious. A fairly large list – 20,000,000 high-tech jobs at the start of his second term-turned out to be a completely empty promise.

    Or from a recent one, when he, apparently believing in himself as he is portrayed, issued a decree on increases for doctors in tens and hundreds of thousands of rubles.

    It ended in zilch, if you don't remember – the state machine gave the poor doctors 3 or 15 rubles. Like a sophisticated mockery.

    The bottom line is that a structure always works, with common values, aspirations, and meanings. One person, even if he is at the very top, is not able to noticeably change the situation if the current carries him in the wrong direction.

    I didn't say all this, these are the latest studies of the authorities.

    Although purely psychologically, people tend to blame their superiors for their success, and themselves for their failures-long-term research is unambiguous, the role of the boss is reduced to extracting the resources necessary for work. If you have a salary, a workplace, and tools for work – the boss has done everything he can. the rest depends on the team. That is why all Western firms are so fiercely engaged in team building. This is really important.

    And who sits in the chief's chair is not so important.

  2. Definitely-creative))) Despite, and at the same time considering, what was done in the late 80's and dashing 90's…(((by the former “would-be rulers” – Gorbachev, Yeltsin.. who de facto sold out, and as a result, destroyed the country(((( And what is currently being carried out in our country is nothing but a creative process, it is impossible to call it otherwise…))))

  3. The destroyer. The political regime represented by Putin destroys the rule of law and culture. His worldview is based on Nazi doctrines about the existence of an external and internal conspiracy against the country – the Anglo-Saxon conspiracy against Russia, similar to Hitler's Jewish conspiracy against Germany. Aggressive state propaganda imposes these hateful mantras on the population, corrupting the remnants of culture and forming a cult of revanchism for the supposedly great USSR, which, shaking megaton bombs, was unable to adequately produce even toilet paper and women's pads and diapers, which are still being brought from abroad. Putin is a stupid and incompetent misunderstanding, it is good if he himself dies of old age before his insanity leads to the third world war.

  4. he doesn't know the idea for Russia and he doesn't care. a new state is being created and girls who will not give birth will join the Army by order of the Russian government, and we need to improve and take a lot from the past history of states.

  5. he once spoke out and said that with this system created in the country, it will not be possible to create a full-fledged state. in addition, in the program earlier, Solshenitsyn said, ” do it in silence without announcing to the people what will happen. today, thanks to the rich bisnesmen, they said not to introduce quarantine.

  6. he just laughs at the Russians, that's all, but Russia has great prospects, rich cultural and historical, and moral experience. he has enough power, but no experience in understanding people, and this is the main thing – he put Volodin next to him. no Anglo-Saxons are to blame here, if something does not work out, we need to think about how best to do it and, in addition, be able to build relations with the outside world and there will be happiness for Russia. And the further that everything is neglected, then no one will understand anything.

  7. the problem is that he himself does not know any good ideas for the structure of Russia and just wants to make the country more comfortable for himself.therefore, the king pays money only for children, destroying the traditions and culture, and the morality of the people.

  8. Putin insistently takes us back to the past. He is building a copy of the Soviet system. In this sense, he is a creator. But, at the same time, it deprives Russia of the opportunity to develop and take its rightful place in the modern world. And it turns out that he and the destroyer are the same. Depending on your views and political preferences, you can accept any of the three versions…

Leave a Reply