There are quite a few oligarchs in London, where they have infiltrated the social circles of the Conservative party, have made large donations and may even have compromised leading politicians. Some people think there may have been some involvement in Brexit. Indeed we have had a report into this which pointed the finger at Russian interference in the referendum and the Conservative party. Which was largely redacted by government representatives. And is regarded as a whitewash.the oligarchs are still around.
Putin is a ruthless authoritarian who (1) sincerely believes that what he's doing is best for Russia and is dedicated to the Russian state, which he sees as a continuous and almost unbroken line of strong rulers going back centuries (this is not necessarily a recommendation, but it's far from mere gangsterism), (2) is genuinely popular, because (2i) he brought stability, security, and some economic improvement following the traumatic disaster of shock therapy in the nineties, and (2ii) he prevented the breakup of Russia by making an example of Chechnya. — jamalrob
To see him as someone who is dedicated to the Russian state while not disputing his net worth of $70b and those are low estimates. — Judaka
So what's the problem here? Firstly, this is an almost entirely positive characterisation and secondly, it's really quite objectionable. Let us imagine that you rephrased this exact same statement as "well, here are some positive things about Putin" then we can solve the first part and you can say "well, here are some positive things about Stalin" or whoever else you want and I won't care. — Judaka
The popularity of a leader in an authoritarian state cannot be treated seriously. — Judaka
I did not dispute his personal enrichment. — jamalrob
That's war talk, nothing more. It's a justification for rejecting any views from Russia that you don't like. Do you think the Russian people are oppressed and want the help from outside powers? The very idea, even among opponents of Putin, is laughable and contemptible. — jamalrob
No, of course it doesn't. I don't understand this black and white thinking, on a philosophy forum of all places. Are we just slaves to propaganda, or can we discuss things rationally and imaginatively? It's as if you guys are not satisfied until I do the correct virtue signalling, like saying Putin is a monster or whatever. It's just dumb. — jamalrob
Agreeing on the obvious isn't a virtue, you can say good things about Putin on a specific note but if you only have 3-4 sentences to describe him, do you think it's fit for those 3-4 lines to be singing his praises and justifying his leadership? — Judaka
But what did I say that was false? lay it out concisely: what is the problem? — jamalrob
I think aliens would say, "Those creatures kill each other pretty much continuously, and not very efficiently. They bumble around exhausting enormous resources to do it.
"Meanwhile their climate is changing rapidly and they're just sitting there." — frank
beam us plans for an economical fusion reactor along with the wormhole machine — Marchesk
That Germany ever carpet bombed in the UK indiscriminately before the British did - and I'm now even certain they did so in retaliation after Churchill did. The Germans totally bombed the shit out of industrial centres (like Sheffield) and plenty of collateral damage but they didn't target civilians. Even the second great fire of London avoided residential areas, which was a standing order from Hitler (directive 17). Terrorist bombings (eg targeting civilians) were prohibited based on the view of international law at the time in Germany.Which bit is a fairy tale, the destruction I pointed out, or the myths about Hitler? — Punshhh
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.