Talk:Putinism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Russia Portal This page is within the scope of WikiProject Russia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.

This article requires heavy cleanup. Now it is filled with crazy conspiracy theories that every Russian is working for KGB etc.DonaldDuck 09:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

To tell that something is a "conspiracy theory" you must provide some relibale sources that tell: "Putinism - is conspiracy theory" per WP:NOR. So far, you provided none. As about "crazy claims" by Konstantin Preobrazhenskiy that FSB owns the entire Russia, we are not here to decide what is crazy and what is not ("verifiability, not truth"). All sourced views, especially by notable experts and authors like Preobrazhensky, can and must be represented per WP:NPOV.Biophys 15:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Contents 1 Recent edits 2 Bloody Putin's regime 3 Category:Vladimir Putin 4 More references 5 Contents 6 Let's examine the sources 6.1 From Communism to Putinism 6.2 RFE/RL 6.3 The Essence of Putinism: The Strengthening of the Privatized State 6.4 Piontkovsky 6.5 The making of a neo-KGB state 6.6 A Rogue Intelligence State? 6.7 "Chekist takeover of Russian state" 7 Let's simply follow WP:NOR and WP:NPOV 7.1 Who is silovik 8 Points for discussion 8.1 Point 1. 8.2 Kryshtanovskaya and other questions 8.3 Point 2 9 Deletion of referenced materials 9.1 Solzhenitsyn quotes 10 Putin-Stalin poster 11 Irrelevant materials 12 Deletions of relevant materials 13 Another source 14 Allow me 15 Notice 15.1 Reply 16 Hmm... do you believe Stanislav Belkovsky? 17 Recent deletions 18 POV problem

[edit] Recent edits

I left a message to DonaldDuck at his talk page reminding him that everyone here must follow WP:NPOV and WP:NOR policies. But beyond that, I am not opposed to any improvement of this article or other constructive suggestions. For example, one could suggest to significantly expand this article, or create a slightly different and more academic article such as Chekist takeover of Russian state (a lot of excellent sources available), or that some "Putinism" aspects belong to Vladimir Putin article. Why not?Biophys 15:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I have removed some quotes of ex-KGB and ex-Securitate spooks promoting conspiracy theory of "KGB rule" or "chekist takeover", which are not reliable sources, and degogatory insinuations that "all Russians are working for KGB". But the article still requires heavy cleanup.DonaldDuck 16:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Could you read WP:Source, please? These sources are not only reliable and scholarly per WP definition, but they represent mainstream views of people who are notable experts and authors of published books, as described in BLP articles about them. If you think the article is not balanced, you can add alternative views about Putinism supported by reliable sources. But you can not delete referenced views of others per WP:NPOV.Biophys 21:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Ex-KGB and ex-Securitate spooks are not scholars. I have reorganised the article in three sections: 1 - Putin's phrases, 2- criticism of Putin, 3 - conspiracy theories of "chekist takeover" . Please follow this structure of the article.DonaldDuck 01:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Scholars or not, but the sources satisfy WP:Source. Only that really matters. You can not remove the sourced texts as you just did. Most important, you now completely changed the subject of the article. It was about a social phenomenon in Russia called "Putinism" - according to numerous reliable sources. But you made an article on a completely different subject: Criticism of Vladimir Putin. So, you effectively deleted the previously existing article because you did not like it. This is non-starter. If you want to improve something, let's discuss one small change at a time.Biophys 01:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Your version of article was full of original research, and had heavy anti-Putin bias. First of all you try to present a perjorative term used to describe Putin's policies as "Putin's ideology". And it is full of all the others sorts of nonsense. Why the Putinism is a "unique political system"? This system it is very common througout Latin America. There is proper term for similar political system - Corporatism. And Putinism is not an "ideology". Putin did not write any political works.DonaldDuck 01:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

If your want to write about chekists in Russian economy and politics - please do it in relevant articles about Russian companies and political institutions.DonaldDuck 01:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I have already contributed to "Criticism of Vladimir Putin" article in Russian wikipedia.DonaldDuck 01:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I did not write "Putin's ideology" because this article is not about Putin. This article is about "Putinism" as defined by reliable sources.Biophys 02:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

This article is also not about History of Soviet security services or political views of Rumanian security services personnel. As Putinism has no definite meaning and is defined differently by various authors, the article should contain definitions of Putinism, not history of Rumanian security services.DonaldDuck 02:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I can only repeat: this article is about "Putinism" as defined by 15+ cited reliable sources.Biophys 14:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Please note that the alternative meaning of term "Putinism" (or rather "putinisms"), which you continue inserting here, can be found only in one Russian language source, but this is English wikipedia. This word has different meanings in Russian and English. If you continue deletion of referenced materials, I will have to post RfC about this article and follow other WP:DR procedures. That will only help to advertise "Putinism" article.Biophys 04:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

So, I have created a separate article Putinisms to clarify this matter. If you want to contribute something about "putinisms" as defined in a single Russian source, please do it there. If you want to add more sourced materials on "Putinism" as defined in English language sources, you can do it here. But you can not delete sourced views per WP:NPOV policy. Biophys 04:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Merged the article with Putinisms. There's no point in creating the second article about the same thing.DonaldDuck 14:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

These two articles had no any content overlap.. They described two different uses of the same word. This is very common situation in WP, which is treated using disambig pages and "other uses" template. In fact, you have deleted an article, which may be qualified as vandalism.Biophys 16:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Please, read wikipedia guideline on Content forking.DonaldDuck 10:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Content fork is about content overlap. These articles have no content overlap. They described different meanings of the same word. If you disagree, please use AfD procedure or/and mark articles for merging and wait for opinions of other users.Biophys 15:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bloody Putin's regime

I wonder why there's not viewed history of phrases "bloody Putin's regime" and "bloody GeBnya" (referring to KGB), which allegedly were used by pronounced Russian liberals to describe Putin's system and since that started to be widely used as pejorative description of public activity of Russian liberals. Moreover, these phrases are increasingly becoming an important social phenomena serving a base for unifying Russian nation on the grounds of patriotism/sovereign democracy:

See e.g. News of Bloody Gebnya , liberal-punk band "Bloody Gebnya" [1], and google search of these phrases([2], [3]). ellol 11:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

This expression ("Bloody Gebnya") is only used in Russian language sources, but you can try to create such article if you want. I would not.Biophys 19:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

See also russophone LiveJournal community "FSB Brigade for Smothering Democracy" [4]. ellol 16:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Vladimir Putin

• I am going thru articles relating to Vladimir Putin and am adding Category:Vladimir Putin to the end of the article to help sort these articles. Part of the reason for doing so is to try and create a clearing house of articles relating to Putin so that they can also be gone thru for POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Russavia (talk • contribs) 02:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Done! NCurse _work 15:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More references

• From Communism to Putinism, by Richard Rahn, The Brussels Journal, Fri, 2007-09-21
• Russia: Putin May Go, But Can 'Putinism' Survive?, By Brian Whitmore, RFE/RL, August 29, 2007Biophys 03:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh! Rferl's true. Saw this? ellol 10:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

And the Brussels Journal is a blog with clear links to the Vlaams Belang. BLP says you should not use blogs. But I suppose that does not really matter because a newspaper controlled by the Moon sect also published it? Richard Rahn, by the way, already did the same job on Hugo Chavez: [5], and it is important to know this because Rahn's former visitations of Chavez explain the use of the word "Putinistas" here (in combination with the word "crude" it is rather a good joke, yes). In short, Rahn has a message, and people like that often get their facts wrong: "Recently a questionable arrest was made in the London killing of well-known journalist and Putin critic, Anna Politkovskaya." (London???) Sorry, Biophys, I am just quoting an earlier version of the article, which is preserved here: [6]. Someone must have told Richard Rahn that his use of the word "Putinistas" was making his article look silly. So there is a third version of the article now on the Washington Times website, which uses the word "Putinists" [7]. Should a text which is so unstable (apart from the fact that the original had horrible mistake and the language indicates clearly some er... POV) be used as a source?--Paul Pieniezny 12:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I did not use "putinistas" in the text of article (perhaps someone else did?). Of course we can remove "putinistas" and exclude all unreliable sources like blogs, although this artile is not BLP.Biophys 16:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Do not take everything personal. Of course, Rahn used "Putinistas" himself and changed it (or had it changed) into "Putinists" later. So there are three versions of this article: 1) with Politkovskaya being muredered in London + "Putinistas" 2) London omitted, but still Putinistas (that is the one quoted in the article, and it IS from a blog!) 3) same as 2) but Putinists instead of Putinistas. One reason why blogs are frowned upon is that they are unstable: they may juggle with the text and with the publication date. Though I must say I have once seen the date change phenomenon on the BBC website as well. It does not really matter much that there is no BLP involved if we are dealing with a dubious source. It is not the only problem with the references here. One recent link has already expired, and I see no reason to quote the Securitate guy twice with almost the same arguments. I am not really sure that BLP is no issue here, however. If changing from Kennedy to Kennedyism were the trick to circumvent BLP concerns, I wonder why Wikipedia does not have a rule to guard against the trick. Perhaps we should consult an admin.--Paul Pieniezny 12:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Contents

Overall Biophys's version of the page seems much of OR.

I would ask Biophys to clarify some his points.

• The privatization of Russian state and economic assets has been allegedly accomplished by a clique of Putin's close associates and friends, who gradually became a leading group of Russian oligarchs

First of all, how is that supported by a quote from your sources?

Then. According to 2004 Forbes investigation of Top 100 Richest Russians, [8]

• According to a study commissioned by the World Bank, Russia's 23 largest companies (almost all of them are present in our list) account for 57% of the country's industrial production.

You can see 2004 list of Richest Russians [9], you can see appearances of Russians in 2007 global list: [10], [11], [[12]].

Biophys, ehh, learn history, you dude. Main assets of Russian economics were privatized in 1990s, when Putin wasn't even a Prime Minister. That was when the layer of oligarchs was formed. And "Putin's clique" has no relation to that. It doesn't look like many (or any of) Russian billionaires who appear in 2007 list top World list and own most of Russian economy had previously served in KGB/FSB. Biophys, I wait for the explanation. ellol 19:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for coming here, ellol. I will check this today, answer, and correct if necessary. Of course the bottom line is to follow sources. They claim that Putin, Sechin, Ivanov and others are "new oligarchs" and that Abramovich and others like him are now have close connections with FSB/SVR/GRU or worked in security services previosly. I will answer later.Biophys 19:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Stop. What the nonsense are you saying? Putin, Sechin, Ivanov do not appear at Forbes list. "Oligarchs" has a precise meaning. It is the layer of big businessmen which was formed in 90s and who own large portion (majority) of Russian economy. Putin, Sechin, Ivanov and others don't own Russian economy. They are not oligarchs.

Then, let's don't play conspirology theories. The word "chekist" also has precise meaning. It's a person who for a certain period had served -- served -- in Russian security services. This can be easily checked in people's biographies. And Russian oligarchs, for the greatest, all-encompassing part ARE NOT checkists.

Russian oligarchs -- people who own the majority of Russian economy -- are not checkists. And there was no much change since 1990s. Prove the opposite, or the line in above is removed.

ellol 19:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Ellol, you'd better learn some Greek and political science. An oligarch is not merely a tycoon. An oligarch is a member of the elite who possesses some political power. The claim that Putin, Sechin, Ivanov are oligarchs is supported by sources. As to the claim that chekist biographies can be easily checked -- well, good luck.Colchicum 20:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, yes, of course we are speaking about specific Russian meaning of the term.

"На жаргоне российских журналистов, ОЛИГАРХИ - это крупные бизнесмены, из-за кулис диктующие свою волю министрам и президентам. Такую трактовку ОЛИГАРХИИ предложил в марте 1997 года Борис Немцов." In slang of Russian journalists, OLIGARCHS are big businessmen, who secretly impose their will on ministers and presidents. Such explanation of Olygarchy was proposed in March 1997 by Boris Nemtsov. [13]

As you see, Oligarchs are big businessmen, while Putin, Sechin, Ivanov aren't -- they don't own large assests. ellol 23:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The article claims: "Putinism is the unique political system of contemporary Russia where all political powers and most important economic assets are owned by a group of former state security officials" As we've seen, the major assets are owned by more or less the same people who owned them in 1990s -- i.e. the old oligarchy. ellol 23:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

As to the claim that chekist biographies can be easily checked -- well, good luck. They surely can be easily checked. E.g. see Putin's, Sechin's or Ivanov's bios. If we can't find reputable sources stating a man has served in Russian security forces, we can't dub person a checkist. Moreover, it's pure McCarthysm. I hope you, Biophys, aren't going to repeat mistakes of your American fathers. ellol 23:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I know what do you mean, and you know what do I. Siloviki doesn't own Russian economy. You've messed all up. Siloviki are a large share of Russian political elite -- up to 25%, with regard to Kryshtanovskaya 2004 research.[14] Moreover, according to K. main areas where siloviki come from are FSB, military, and police. Not simply bloody KGB. One of features of Putin's regime is that he's lowered political influence of oligarchs. But they've retained their economic weight/influence, but for "poor" Khodorkovsky. In some sense, Putin has separated politics and business. Of course, for that part which we can observe publicly. ellol 00:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

E.g. consider the governor Boris Gromov of the Moscow district, where I live. He's a typical silovik. Military general, hero of the Soviet Union, with real fighting experience in Afghanistan. Affiliated with Putin? Little chances, given that Gromov was elected on the position of governor of MO yet in January 2000. ellol 00:53, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Biophys, anyway, I adore you. You have a special talent of calling black white. But how did "Putin set upon harnessing a group of oligarchs who had seized control over the financial, media and administrative resources of the Russian state and sought to manipulate the political authorities" transform to "The privatization of Russian state and economic assets has been allegedly accomplished by a clique of Putin's close associates and friends [5] who gradually became a leading group of Russian oligarchs and who "seized control over the financial, media and administrative resources of the Russian state" ?!?!?! As it's said, that's beyound my ideas of good and wrong. ellol 01:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

shit! I hate this country! ellol 01:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Which the shit Avtorkhanov is Soviet historian? He was fierce criticist of Communists. Propagandist. ellol 02:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Ellol, could you please do not edit this article right now? You asked me some questions. Please let me time to study sources, reply and discuss.Biophys 02:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The bottom line is this: yes, this article can be improved but it will be two-three times bigger in size. That is not a problem, of course.Biophys 03:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

That's a point one hardly can't agree with. ...I never really understood you Americans... ellol 03:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Biophys is recent immigrant to US. He was not born in America.DonaldDuck 03:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Let's examine the sources

[edit] From Communism to Putinism

"Month by month, President Putin of Russia has been erecting a new authoritarian model that owes more of its lineage to fascism than communism." That model can now be named: Putinism - a Russian nationalistic authoritarian form of government that pretends to be a free market democracy. Unlike the communists with their mass repression, killings, and gulags, the Putinistas have been accused of selective murders and have imprisoned their media, business, and political critics, both inside and, in several instances, outside Russia.

[edit] RFE/RL

Since coming to power in 2000, Putin has implemented a system known alternately as "managed democracy" or "sovereign democracy."

Its essential features are a strong and unaccountable executive, a subservient legislature and judiciary, stage-managed elections with predictable results, and a so-called "power vertical" in which regional and local elites are subordinate to the Kremlin.

In foreign affairs, Putinism favors a muscular global stance in which Russia is not afraid to use its energy wealth to get its way in the international arena -- particularly with the former Soviet republics.

[edit] The Essence of Putinism: The Strengthening of the Privatized State

"...the state budget is the ultimate source of most wealth in Russia, it was so in the era of "reforms" and it only became more conspicuously so under Putin. Likewise, gravitating in the state orbit is the surest way to acquire top positions in business, not vice versa."

"The idea of strengthening the state as a violence-producing corporation". It says that Checkist corporation was trying "to monopolize the violence market" which is "the production of violence (protection, enforcement, etc.) as a marketable commodity for sufficiently affluent consumers."

"The idea of Russia, Inc.--or better, Russia, Ltd.--derives from the Russian brand of libertarian anarchism viewing the state as just another private armed gang claiming special rights on the basis of its unusual power." "this is a state conceived as a "stationary bandit" imposing stability by eliminating the roving bandits of the previous era."

"Mr. Putin does not qualify either as a public servant in the modern Western sense, nor as "the master" of Russia in the semi-feudal sense, which was to a certain extent Yeltsin's self-image. Putin is the chief manager of the privatized state, a corporate entity with no clear sense of ownership. Indeed, he speaks and behaves as a caretaker, a hired officer with limited responsibility but potentially unlimited immunity."Biophys 02:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Piontkovsky

Russia is not corrupt, says Piontkovski. Corruption is what happens in all countries when businessmen offer officials large bribes for favours. Today’s Russia is unique. The businessmen, the politicians, and the bureaucrats are the same people. They have privatised the country’s wealth and taken control of its financial flows

[edit] The making of a neo-KGB state

From oligarchy to spookocracy. “A Chekist is a breed,” says a former FSB general. A good KGB heritage—a father or grandfather, say, who worked for the service—is highly valued by today's siloviki. Marriages between siloviki clans are also encouraged.

Viktor Cherkesov, the head of Russia's drug-control agency, who was still hunting dissidents in the late 1980s, has summed up the FSB psychology in an article that has become the manifesto of the siloviki and a call for consolidation. We [siloviki] must understand that we are one whole. History ruled that the weight of supporting the Russian state should fall on our shoulders. I believe in our ability, when we feel danger, to put aside everything petty and to remain faithful to our oath.

As well as invoking secular patriotism, Russia's security bosses can readily find allies among the priesthood. Next to the FSB building in Lubyanka Square stands the 17th-century church of the Holy Wisdom, “restored in August 2001with zealous help from the FSB,” says a plaque. Inside, freshly painted icons gleam with gold. “Thank God there is the FSB. All power is from God and so is theirs,” says Father Alexander, who leads the service. A former KGB general agrees: “They really believe that they were chosen and are guided by God and that even the high oil prices they have benefited from are God's will.”

[edit] A Rogue Intelligence State?

"Vladimir Putin's Russia is a new phenomenon in Europe: a state defined and dominated by former and active-duty security and intelligence officers. Not even fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, or the Soviet Union--all undoubtedly much worse creations than Russia--were as top-heavy with intelligence talent... Are we destined to see a post-Communist Russia that aggressively uses assassination and economic blackmail as essential tools of statecraft? " Biophys 02:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we'll have dialugue in that way. What is your point that you want to prove with all these quotes? ellol 03:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

This is simply a study of sources to be used in this article. I said: since you and others are so interested in this subject, the article should be expanded.Biophys 03:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Chekist takeover of Russian state"

Concomitantly, the organized crime elements with whom the chekists collaborate and enjoy profitable, symbiotic relationships have expanded and solidified their reach around the globe by forging transnational links with corrupt officials, organized crime syndicates, and terrorist groups. With numerous chekists entering the business world in the wake of Communism’s collapse, many under ‘‘active reserve’’ status51 and closely collaborating with organized crime, the links between intelligence and organized crime were not only firmly cemented but became highly sophisticated. Thus, the erasing of government–business distinctions have had important implications for the espionage business. A Moscow-driven offensive in the economic–industrial and military–technological spheres directed toward the West has intensified since then. A consequence of this new (active–reserve) status was that, as former United States Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) James Woolsey53 has frequently noted since 1997, no longer is the difference among a Russian intelligence officer, organized criminal, and businessman discernable.

Said Eugene Poteat, ‘‘When Putin came into the presidency, Russia was under the control of totalitarian Communist KGB officials working hand-in-glove with traditional criminal elements—a very troubling alliance. Putin has now moved to expand and tighten his control by putting his old KGB cronies in charge in virtually every corner of Russia and eliminating or jailing the criminal elements and oligarchs—an even more troubling arrangement.’’

"A pattern of economic development in which chekists gain control of key industries across sectors (often through myriad machinations, intrigue, and extralegal means), is clearly evident, with the rate of such takeovers accelerating. For example, in October 2004, several Putin appointments helped secure additional FSB State control over strategic companies, including that of career chekist Viktor Ivanov and another senior FSB official who were elected to the Board of Directors of the national airline Aeroflot during an extraordinary meeting. Ivanov already runs air defense consortium Almaz Antei, while Sergei Prikhodko, deputy head of the presidential administration, was appointed chairman of TVEL, Russia’s only nuclear fuel trader, with a 17 percent share of the global nuclear fuel market and supplying fuel to 75 nuclear reactors worldwide. This firm will supply China and Iran with nuclear fuel."Biophys 03:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Notice Almaz-Antei is the company which developed/produces newest S-400 "Triumph" air defense complexes, which are potentially seen as the base for space defense complexes. More state control over this company won't be bad, as well as more state control over a nuclear fuel trader. Anyway that's my opinion. But what's more important, these examples are only illustrations, not a proof for the statement. ellol 15:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

"no longer is the difference among a Russian intelligence officer, organized criminal, and businessman discernable." This doesn't seem to be a comment of an adult person. Surely there's difference. Surely there are lot's of honest businessmen. Otherwise Russia would be indeed a failed state which it isn't. ellol 03:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

You said: "This doesn't seem to be a comment of an adult person.". No so fast. In his statement to Congress in a 21 September 1999 Hearing on the Bank of New York and Russian Money Laundering, former DCI James Woolsey noted that, "I have been particularly concerned for some years, beginning during my tenure, with the interpenetration of Russian organized crime, Russian intelligence and law enforcement, and Russian business. I have often illustrated this point with the following hypothetical: If you should chance to strike up a conversation with an articulate, English-speaking Russian in, say, the restaurant of one of the luxury hotels along Lake Geneva, and he is wearing a $3,000 suit and a pair of Gucci loafers, and he tells you that he is an executive of a Russian trading company and wants to talk to you about a joint venture, then there are four possibilities. He may be what he says he is. He may be a Russian intelligence officer working under commercial cover. He may be part of a Russian organized crime group. But the really interesting possibility is that he may be all three and that none of those three institutions have any problem with the arrangement." See ‘‘Congressional Statement of R. James Woolsey, Former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, 21 September 1999, Hearing on the Bank of New York and Russian Money Laundering.Biophys 15:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Great. 1999. What the fuck bloody Putin then? Chronologically, that was prior to "Putinism". What's more important, it's only personal experience of the person, not a serious investigation. It's an opinion, therefore. ellol 15:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Secondary source that I cited (article in Intern. J. Intelligence) was dated 2006 and it said about Putin regime the following: "no longer is the difference among a Russian intelligence officer, organized criminal, and businessman discernable." While discussing this question, author of 2006 article referred, among other things to Woolsey. Thus it is appropriate citation.Biophys 01:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

It is discriminatory quote. It offends broad circles of Russian honest businessmen and honest security officers. ellol 08:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

"eliminating or jailing the criminal elements and oligarchs" Look on the Forbes list. There was no nationalization of oligarchs' property. Other but Khodorkovsky case. But hey, man has to pay taxes. Perhaps the government could implement a harder push on oligarchs, but it didn't. And it's also clear why, it would lead to self-destruction of the country. ellol 04:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Let's simply follow WP:NOR and WP:NPOV

Ellol, your arguments are the following: "This doesn't seem to be a comment of an adult person", "more state control over this company won't be bad", and so on. But that is all your personal opinion (see WP:NOR). What I have cited here are reliable sources per WP:Source. Anything supported by good sources can and must go to WP articles per WP:NPOV. I do agree though that "Putinism" article is not that much important. This stuff (see above and other similar things) should probably also go to more "mainstream" articles, such as Vladimir Putin and pages about Russian government and political system. Biophys 15:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Okey, if my most recent comments embarrass you, i'm deleting them... You are citizen of America while I'm citizen of Russia => we just stand on different positions, so the discussion can't be just a spare talk, but a tough discussion of certain points.

This has nothing to do with citizenship (we are all WP citizens here). I am telling about WP policies and about a possibility to edit some "mainstream" articles, such as Vladimir Putin and Russian government and political system. So far, I was not very interested in those. Also, we should compromise here. We could probably compromise with you, but the deletions of sourced texts, deletions of entire article, and "mergings" by DolaldDuck are unacceptable.Biophys 15:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the point for compromise so far. Above all, you can't even formulate your point to start the discussion. ellol 16:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

For my arguments, see comments in above. The point I tried to prove was the following -- it's absurd to claim that siloviks own the major portions of the Russian economy, because it's owned by just different people whose list we can easily access and check they are not silovicks, as a rule. Or at least, we need more strict criteria on what's exactly share of siloviks in Russian economy(like, 5%, 10%, 20% -- source needed for that)/ or their exact role in managing state property. By the way, I still don't know what exactly statement (statements) did you want to prove with those comments. That's just a mess of strong statements, exactly proving nothing. So for now I don't see your participation in the discussion. ellol 15:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I provided exact citation of sources to exclude any further questions "where it came from" after my future modifications of the article.Biophys 15:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question: what's your statement? What do you prove? ellol 15:53, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

See next section below. Let's decide this point by point.Biophys 01:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

In Russia, as in all other countries, companies don't disclose lists of shareholders. So the statements on "silovik's share of Russian economy" are incredibly difficult to prove or disprove. We really need to define who is a silovik. If we define silovik is anybody with army, police or security services background then there are millions of such people in Russia - but it is absurd to consider that they all have some connection with Putin or share some common ideology with him. DonaldDuck 06:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

You said: "We really need to define who is a silovik." No, we do not need to define anything, because that would be OR. Everything is already defined in sources. If the definitions are slightly different, this should be described. See definitions of terrorism, for example. If there are completely different uses of the same word rather than different definitions of the same phenomenon (such as "terrorism"), this should be described using several different articles (without any content overlap!) and using disambig. pages. Biophys 14:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Who is silovik

We can see definition of "silovik" in e.g. Olga Kryshtanovskaya interview. She is the person who's carried out sociology investigation (2004) and determined amount of siloviks in political elite. This source is already cited in the article (25% share of siloviks in the political elite): [15]

— Давайте начнем с обобщения: кого можно считать представителями силовых структур во власти?

— Силовики сегодня — это 22 федеральных ведомства. Основные из них — ФСБ, милиция, армия. Казалось бы, это совсем разные структуры. Более того, между ними существуют конфликты. В них работают разные люди. Но в обществе неслучайно возникло это понятие: «силовики». Что-то, значит, их объединяет. Кстати, такого термина, объединяющего всех людей в погонах, нет ни в одном языке мира. На Западе сейчас стали писать без перевода, просто латиницей — «siloviki». Конечно, перед армией, службами безопасности, МВД стоят разные задачи. Но для общества эти различия непринципиальны. Важнее то, что их объединяет. А объединяет их то, что это опора государства, это та сила, которая защищает режим, которая блюдет сложившееся социальное неравенство. И сегодня именно эта сила пришла во власть. Силовики, надо сказать, всегда присутствовали во власти. Но важно, какое место они в ней занимали. Теперь они в авангарде.

Let's start from generalization: who may be considered representatives of enforcement (silovye) structures in the power?

Siloviks today are 22 federal agencies. Main of them are FSB, police (MVD), military. Seemingly, these are quite different structures. Moreover, there are conflicts among them. Various people work in them. But it was not casual that the term "siloviki" has appeared in the society. That means, something unites them. By the way, no languafe in the world has a term unifiing people with shoulder straps. Today in the West they started to write without translation, just in latinic letters -- "siloviki". Of course, Army, security forces, MVD meet different tasks. But these distinctions are not important for the society. It's more important what unifies them. What unifies them, they are props for the government, they are the force which defends the regime, which preserves the existing social inequality. And it's that force which has came into power. Siloviki, it must be said, always were presented in the power. But it's important what was their place in it. Today they are in vanguard.

ellol 15:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

That is correct. That is how "siloviks" are defined in one of the sources. This is consistent with text of the article.Biophys 18:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Not consistent. "where all political powers and most important economic assets are owned by a group of former state security officials ("siloviks")". You define siloviks as former security officers. This is OR and this is simply wrong and inconsistent with Krushtanovskaya's notes. ellol 08:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Sources for my contribution:

According to Kryshtanovskaya, there was no capture of power as Kremlin bureocracy has called siloviks in order to "restore order".

На вершине этой пирамиды всегда были и сейчас находятся спецслужбы. Поэтому неудивительно, что к власти пришли главным образом они. Но они не сами осуществили захват власти, их позвала кремлевская бюрократия, изнемогшая от реформ. Сам политический класс призвал на царство «рюриков», чтобы они прекратили «революцию».

The process of siloviks coming into power has allegedly started since 1996, Boris Yeltsin's second term. Not personally Yeltsin, but the whole elite wished to stop the revolutionary process and consolidate the power.

— С какого момента в постсоветской России начался массовый «призыв» чекистов во власть? — Наверное, начиная со второго срока Ельцина — с 1996 года. Но не лично Ельцин, а вся элита хотела консолидировать власть, остановить революционный процесс.

"Yes, Putin has brought siloviks with him. But that's not enough to understand the situation. Here's also an objective aspect: the whole political class wished them to come. They were called for service... There was a need of a strong arm, capable from point of view of the elite to establish order in the country."

"Да, Путин привел с собой силовиков. Но этого мало для понимания ситуации. Здесь есть и момент объективный: весь политический класс желал их прихода. Они были призваны на службу. Когда встал вопрос о преемнике Ельцина, все кандидаты, так или иначе, оказались силовиками: Бордюжа, Степашин, Примаков, потом вот Путин… Все! Это значит, что в наборе требований к наследнику требованием № 1 значилась его принадлежность к силовым ведомствам — самое востребованное качество кандидата. Нужна была сильная рука, способная, с точки зрения элиты, навести порядок в государстве."

ellol 10:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Kryshtanovskaya has also noted that there were people who had worked in structures "affiliated" with KGB/FSB. Structures usually considered as such are the Soviet Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Governmental Communications Commission, Ministry of Foreign Trade, Press Agency News and others. "The itself work in such agencies doesn't involve necessary contacts with special services, but makes to think about it." [6] Summing up numbers of official and "affiliated" siloviks she got an estimate of 77% of such in the power.

Как выглядит биография "доверенного лица" или "негласного кадрового сотрудника"? Да именно так, как биография Михаила Фрадкова. Никогда не работал в органах, но был где-то рядом - в структурах, которые обычно называются "аффилированными" с КГБ/ФСБ. И поскольку структуры эти сосредоточивались на международных аспектах деятельности государства, то и присутствие там спецслужб было значительно выше, чем во всех прочих организациях. К таким структурам принято относить МИД, Министерство внешней торговли, ГКЭС, АПН и проч. Сама по себе работа в этих организациях не означает непременного сотрудничества со спецслужбами, но заставляет задуматься на этот счет. [16]

«Аффилированные» структуры появились в советское время. Это были «дочки» КГБ, в основном связанные с международной деятельностью — с международной политикой, экономикой, торговлей, журналистикой и т.д. «Крышей» для таких людей служили посольства, торговые представительства, корпункты. Я пыталась делать примерные подсчеты. Так вот, если сложить число официальных силовиков и «аффилированных», то их во власти сегодня окажется примерно 77 процентов.[17]

ellol 11:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Points for discussion

[edit] Point 1.

Articles "Putinism" and "putinisms" describe two different uses of the same word. Hence they should stay as two separate articles, without any content overlap (that is without content forks). Ellol, do you agree? Yes or no, please.Biophys 01:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Putinism is quite recent term. Its usage varies, there is no unequivocal definition of "Putinism". All uses should be in one article to avoid confusion.DonaldDuck 05:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Not only there is a definition, but I provided 15+ reliable sources that describe and use such definition; and I provided exact citation of these sources which show that.Biophys 14:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Some of your sources contradict the other, some are absurd as "Putin-Stalin" poster, some are heavily biased, some are irrelevant to the topic of the article. You just filtered out some quotes to support your political agenda, but they are not in any way reliable. I can find 150+ "reliable" sources that describe "freemasonry takeover of US economy" similar to your original research on "chekist takeover of Russian economy", but it still will be a conspiracy theory. DonaldDuck 14:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

If you find 150+ reliable sources that describe "freemasonry takeover of US economy", you can create an article about it. No problem. Perhaps such article already exists. As about "Stalinism"-"Putinism" connection - this is not my synthesis or original research. I provided a reference to reliable source that makes such connection.Biophys 18:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Ellol, what is your reply to point 1?Biophys 21:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kryshtanovskaya and other questions

The only truthworthy source is Olga Kryshtanovskaya work. She's the only person who had carried out certain sociological investigations, and whose point is based not on pure speculation, personal political prejudices or personal impression, but on solid scientific data. That's why she should be given green light, and put to the top.

Again: give me solid data that most of Russian economics assets are captured by siloviks. I need numbers. I don't care where you get them. ellol 08:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Work by Kryshtanovskaya is only one of many, but I placed it first in the corresponding section. But it belongs to manin content. Introduction should only summarize the content. We do not need any data here; we only need to follow the sources. Such data would be needed only in original scientific work on the subject.Biophys 21:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Point 2

"The privatization of Russian state and economic assets has been allegedly accomplished by a clique of Putin's close associates and friends."

As about privatization of Russian economic assets, that's pure OR. This point isn't contained neither in "The Essence of Putinism: The Strengthening of the Privatized State", nor in What is ‘Putinism’?, by Andranik Migranyan. Provide here those exactly quotes which has lead you to such conclusion.

As about privatization of Russian state, that needs to be more deeply viewed. ellol 09:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Corrected. The source said "Chekist takover".Biophys 20:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Who are you trying to fool? I exactly request direct quotation which states that "The privatization of Russian state and economic assets has been allegedly accomplished by a clique of Putin's close associates and friends." Look[18]: the person has written a whole book on "microfinancing in modern Russia", such narrow topic! Don't hope you'll manage to prove the point "privatization of Russian state and economic assets has been allegedly accomplished by a clique of Putin's close associates and friends" with ambigous quote in a popular article. (Btw, yet you didn't even that.) I as easily may cite equally respective sources, claiming Russia is a shining blue democracy with open markets and media without absolutely no problems. The only reason I perhaps wouldn't is that it would add nothing to my current understanding of Russia. Man, I'm an egotist: I learn as I contribute. ellol 17:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Please do not make assumptions of bad faith. I corrected this exactly as I said. This is the diff [19]. But DonaldDuck reverted it back.Biophys 17:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not. I disagree with "checkist takeover" as well. Well, Biophys, see: I have nothing against you. You are doing certain job in Wikipedia, and that already puts you above all those who prefer to relax in front of TV, because really contributing in Wiki is unpaid job. But you are making strong statements about the whole country, where I happened to live. And I want to know the source for that. I want to know your proof of it, based on sources. And according to Wiki rules, I have a right for such request. If you aren't going to, that's also ok, but the statement would be replaced for a more soft ones. E.g.(just e.g.), "many people with KGB past were successfully performing in business since the collapse of the Soviet Union" ellol 18:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't insist you answer today, but let's resolve it in several days. ellol 18:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The sources were there, but they have been deleted by DonaldDuck. These are publications in a scientific journal, if only politology/sociology can be called "science". Title of first source is "The Chekist Takeover of the Russian State". These are comprechensive reviews (reliable secondary sources) on this subject ^[1][2]

Biophys 18:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Unfortunately, they don't offer free internet access. Please, wait, I'll have to buy it and we'll continue the discussion. That will take me some days to make a virtual credit card (no need of the one before). ellol 21:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Both articles definitely worth reading.Biophys 21:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of referenced materials

According to WP:NPOV policy, all sourced views on the subject of the article can and should be represented. Therefore, the following deletion of text are inconsistent with WP policies: According to Soviet historian Abdurakhman Avtorkhanov, the secret political police has always been an "absolute power" of the Soviet society: "It is not true that the Political Bureau of the Central Committee of the Communist Party is a superpower (...) An absolute power thinks, acts and dictates for all of us. The name of the power — NKVD — MVD — MGB. The Stalin regime is based not on Soviets, Party ideals, the power of the Political Bureau, Stalin’s personality, but the organization and the technique of the Soviet political police where Stalin plays the role of the first policeman.", he wrote ^[1] However, all Soviet security services remained officially controlled by the Soviet Communist Party. - - In the beginning of 1990s, the situation remained very similar according to former KGB General Oleg Kalugin. He said: "The KGB is everywhere and in everything, and that itself frustrates democracy" ^[2]. - A coup of 1991 was organized by the KGB chairman Vladimir Kryuchkov. In the aftermath of the coup Boris Yeltsin tried to limit the power of Russian state security services.^[3]. Soviet coup attempt of 1991 against Mikhail Gorbachev was organized by KGB chairman Vladimir Kryuchkov. However a new intelligence law was adopted in August 1992. This law provided conditions for penetration by state security servicemen of all levels of the Russian government and economy, since it stipulated that career personnel "may occupy positions in ministries, departments, establishments, enterprises and organizations in accordance with the requirements of this law" without compromising their association with intelligence agencies. ^[4]. - - In the beginning of 2000s, Checkists took over the entire Russian state according to security experts and political scientists. In partular, a former Securitate general Ion Mihai Pacepa stated that "In the Soviet Union, the KGB was a state within a state. Now former KGB officers are running the state. They have custody of the country’s 6,000 nuclear weapons, entrusted to the KGB in the 1950s, and they now also manage the strategic oil industry renationalized by Putin. The KGB successor, rechristened FSB, still has the right to electronically monitor the population, control political groups, search homes and businesses, infiltrate the federal government, create its own front enterprises, investigate cases, and run its own prison system. The Soviet Union had one KGB officer for every 428 citizens. Putin’s Russia has one FSB-ist for every 297 citizens." ^{[5] [6]}

Some observers discuss ideology of new Russian political elite. Politologist Irina Pavlova said that chekists are not merely a corporation of people united to expropriate financial assets. They have long-standing political objectives of transforming Moscow to the Third Rome and ideology of "containing" the United States ^[7] Columnist George Will emphasized the nationalistic nature of Putinism. He said that "Putinism is becoming a toxic brew of nationalism directed against neighboring nations, and populist envy, backed by assaults of state power, directed against private wealth. Putinism is a national socialism without the demonic element of its pioneer..." [20]. According to Illarionov, the ideology of chekists is Nashism (“ours-ism”), the selective application of rights". ^[8]

And so on.

Please follow WP policies.Biophys 02:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

This article is not about history of Soviet security services. Please place this quotes into the appropriate articles on Cheka, KGB etc.

Much more important for description of Putinism historical background are similar policies by his immediate predecessor Boris Yeltsin. And you have deleted a lot of referenced text on it.

"Putin's predecessor, president Boris Yeltsin led largely corrupt program of privatisation of state property. Juiciest state assets, including oil and metals, were sold for a song to Kremlin-connected businessmen.^[9] Having surrounded himself with corrupt cronies and financiers, Yeltsin paid only lip service to fighting crime and corruption.^[10] Yeltsin’s rule was authoritarian. In October 1993, he sent troops to shell the White House, then the seat of a rebellious Russian Supreme Soviet dominated by communists and other hard-liners.

During that time Vladimir Putin, worked in Saint-Petersburg city administration under the corrupt mayor Anatoly Sobchack and took part in privatisation of city assets. In 1997 a criminal investigation started against Sobchak. On November 7, 1997 Sobchak flew to Paris on a private plane without passport control on the Russian side. The formal reason for his departue was hospital treatment in a Paris hospital for his heart condition, but Sobchak never checked in at the hospital. Flight of Sobchack from Russia, which allowed him to avoid prosecution was organised by Vladimir Putin.

Just hours before the first day of 2000, Yeltsin made a surprise announcement of his resignation, leaving the presidency in the hands of Vladimir Putin." DonaldDuck 05:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's agree that we do not delete relevant and referenced texts of each other. Then, we can move somewhere. At least, I am not going to delete your work and expect the same from you. The text about Yeltsin can be included, but it must be clear that it is relevant to Putinism.Biophys 14:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Pachepa and Avtorkhanov are not relevant here, because they are not writing about Putinism or Putin. Moreover, why you are inserting the same quotes into multiple articles? There are exactly same quotes of Pachepa and Illarionov in Chekism already and they should not be repeated here. Your edits may be described as WP:Coatrack and WP:SYN.DonaldDuck 16:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, as a compromise solution, we could delete the entire "historical background" section. Would you agree?Biophys 22:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

OKDonaldDuck 01:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Solzhenitsyn quotes

From Spiegel interview

• надо удивляться, как за короткие годы, прошедшие со времен тотальной подчинённости Церкви коммунистическому государству, ей удалось обрести достаточно независимую позицию one should be surprised on how in few years which has passed since the times when the Church was totally submitted to the Communist state it has managed to gain sufficiently indepentent position

ellol 16:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

This particular source does not tell about Russian Orthodox Church as related to "Putinism" (it only tells the Church is not submitted to the "Communist state" any more, and contemporary Russian government is hardly "Communist"). But if there are such sources (e.g. "Putin's espionage Church" by Preobrzhensky), they can be cited here, no problem.Biophys 17:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

it has managed to gain sufficiently independent position It is relevant. Your quote sais that the Church is somehow submitted to the state. Solzhenitsyn -- answers similar question of Spigel ("Как сегодня обстоят дела с моральной компетенцией Русской православной церкви? Нам представляется, что она вновь превращается в государственную церковь, каковой она была столетия назад — институтом, фактически легитимировавшим кремлёвского властелина в качестве наместника Божия."). Solzhenitsyn answered a question, whether the Church is submitted to the current Russian state. I understand your concern, but it's not a quote driven from the context. Context is true. My quote is relevant if only your quote is relevant. ellol 18:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• Путину досталась по наследству страна разграбленная и сшибленная с ног, с деморализованным и обнищавшим большинством народа. И он принялся за возможное — заметим, постепенное, медленное, — восстановление её. Эти усилия не сразу были замечены и, тем более, оценены. И можете ли Вы указать примеры в истории, когда меры по восстановлению крепости государственного управления встречались благожелательно извне? Putin has inherited plundered and downthrodden country with demoralized and grown poor majority of the population. And he took on its possible — to be noted, gradual, slow — recovering. These efforts were not right at the moment noticed, not speaking about being appreciated. And can you point on examples in history when measures for recovering strength of governmental management would be benevolently meeted from beyond the country? ellol 18:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Very interesting, but unfortunatuly little relevant:

Шпигель: При всём этом Россия нередко чувствует себя одинокой. В последнее время произошло некоторое отрезвление в отношениях России и Запада, в том числе и в отношениях между Россией и Европой. В чём причина? В чём Запад не способен понять современную Россию?

Солженицын: Причин можно назвать несколько, но мне интереснее всего психологические, а именно: расхождение иллюзорных надежд — и в России, и на Западе — с реальностью.

Когда я вернулся в Россию в 1994-м, я застал здесь почти обожествление Западного мира и государственного строя разных его стран. Надо признать, что в этом было не столько действительного знания и сознательного выбора, сколько естественного отвращения от большевицкого режима и его антизападной пропаганды. Обстановку сначала поменяли жестокие натовские бомбежки Сербии. Они провели чёрную, неизгладимую черту — и справедливо будет сказать, что во всех слоях российского общества. Затем положение усугубилось шагами НАТО по втягиванию в свою сферу частей распавшегося СССР, и особенно чувствительно — Украины, столь родственной нам через миллионы живых конкретных семейных связей. Они могут быть в одночасье разрублены новой границей военного блока.

Итак, восприятие Запада как, по преимуществу, Рыцаря Демократии — сменилось разочарованной констатацией, что в основе западной политики лежит прежде всего прагматизм, зачастую корыстный, циничный. Многими в России это переживалось тяжело, как крушение идеалов.

В то же время Запад, празднуя конец изнурительной "холодной войны" и наблюдая полтора десятка лет горбачёвско-ельцинскую анархию внутри и сдачу всех позиций вовне, очень быстро привык к облегчительной мысли, что Россия теперь — почти страна "третьего мира" и так будет всегда. Когда же Россия вновь начала укрепляться экономически и государственно, это было воспринято Западом, быть может, на подсознательном уровне ещё не изжитых страхов — панически.

ellol 19:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course if you can cite any source that tells precisely that: "Russian Orthodox Church is not controlled by FSB as some claim" - that would be fine per WP:NPOV. However, your text only tells that people at the West do not understand Russia. That would be fine in article Anti-Russian sentiment, but this is irrelevant here. Look, you perceive this article as anti-Russian propaganda, so you naturally want to include some pro-Russian propaganda to balance this. But this is not propaganda. This article is about views of different experts on a certain subject. If any referenced views on this specific subject (rather than on the East-West relations and perceptions in general) are missing, you are welcome to include them.Biophys 19:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

BTW, this article is not "anti-Russian" at all. It only tells about the important role of secret services in Russia. This is all. Many people in Russia (e.g. Mr. Cherkesov) think this important role is good, but apparently you are not one of these people.Biophys 19:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I point out that Solzhenitsyn's quote about the Church speaks about its being independent. Sufficiently independent. Whoever it's being controlled by -- the State, the President, the FSB -- it's yet sufficiently independent.

I think the author of the Gulag Archipelago and "To live not on lie" has some moral authority when discussing such things.

In any way, two quotes set a sort of a facet: one opinion is that the Church is completely subservient to FSB, the other states that it's sufficiently independent. These opinions contradict each other. One can't have an independent from state position and be totally subservient to FSB. That either makes a reader to think the truth is in between, either makes him to choose the opinion he likes better. It's freedom: the possibility to make your own choice based on true knowledge of several options.

Do you think I don't understand you? I understand you. But I disagree.

P.s. I simply want to have a good time. I am neither a devil nor a god, I'm a proud citizen of the Russian Federation, burdened with personal whims and prejudices, accustomed to be free in every respect. Bear that in mind, please. ellol 08:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

p.p.s. Btw, let's agree: I don't speak for Russia and you don't speak for the West. In Russia I've heard opinions that Russia is authoriatrian and opinions that Russia is democratic. Same opinions I've heard in the West. We are just two persons who disagree on the subject, right? ellol 11:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure. I am talking exactly about that. I only tried to understand the logic behind your reasoning. If that is not your logic, then fine, you know this better.Biophys 17:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Putin-Stalin poster

What is the source of "Putin-Stalin" poster (200px-Ukraine Putin-1-.jpg), which Biophys keeps inserting into the article? Who is the author? Where it was published? What is it's copyright status?DonaldDuck —Preceding comment was added at 05:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Would you kindly link the picture when you refer to it. That makes it easier for others to understand what you are talking about. -- Sander Säde 16:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Irrelevant materials

So, I included ALL sourced materials here, including text about Yelsyn created by Donald Duck and edited by Alex Bakharev. Please explain how this text is relevant at all to "Putinism". Yes, it tells someting about Putin's career, but this article is not about Putin. The text is the following:

Putin's predecessor, president Boris Yeltsin led controversial program of privatization of state property. Juiciest state assets, including oil and metals, were sold well bellow their market price to Kremlin-connected businessmen.[15] Having surrounded himself with corrupt cronies and financiers, while crime and corruption flourished.[16] Yeltsin’s rule was often described as authoritarian[citation needed]. During the 1993 Russian constitutional crisis, he sent troops to shell the White House, then the seat of a rebellious Russian Supreme Soviet dominated by communists and other hard-liners.

During that time Vladimir Putin, worked in Saint-Petersburg city administration under the mayor Anatoly Sobchack and was responsible for the privatisation of city assets. In 1997 a criminal investigation started against Sobchak. On November 7, 1997 Sobchak flew to Paris on a private plane without passport control on the Russian side. The formal reason for his departue was hospital treatment in a Paris hospital for his heart condition, but Sobchak never checked in at the hospital. Flight of Sobchack from Russia, which allowed him to avoid prosecution was organised by Vladimir Putin[citation needed]. Biophys 22:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Your point is clear. You want to blame Putin's Russia the worst regime ever existed, without ever taking care of what were the preceding regimes. You judge Russia as if Putin's regime was in a moment transferred to the Washington, and you, an American citizen, compare it with the recent Bush's regime.

There's a need of a historical background section. It's absurd to think Putinism has arisen by itself, but wasn't produced by the preceding historical period, i.e. Yeltsinism. Without Yeltsin, Chechnya, privatization, oligarchs in 1990s, there would be no siloviks and FSB in 2000s. And I will prove that with sources.

All you've done you'd gathered driven from the context negative statements about Russia. But there's also a need to show strong points of Russia under Putin. ellol 10:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

This article is not about Russia. It is not about Putin. It is about "Putinism" as defined in sourcesBiophys 21:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Well Putinism has not grown in an empty space. It was a response (probably wrong one) on the challenges of Yeltzin times (mediabaron's blackmailing, feudalism and the threat of desintegration of the country, crime and corruption). It was became possible because of the super-presidential regime as written in Sobchak constitution, great increase of influence of siloviki's after August 1993 and the First Chechen War, because of falsified elections of 1992 and 1996, etc. Obviously it also has roots in the Soviet times. We need to describe this. The challenge is that it is supposed to be balanced and referenced.

Speaking of balance, we need to have a chapter on the results of the Putinism. Speaking of both positives (e.g. high persistent growth, increase in the average level of life, etc.) as negatives (Illarionov's presentation from the link I put, is a good source of the negatives) Alex Bakharev 01:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

This article is also not about Chekism or history of soviet intelligence. So do not copy text from Chekism to this article. DonaldDuck 12:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Alex, I think you have enough experience to decide what is relevant and what is not. So, if you feel that something is missing, please go ahead and include. Thank you.Biophys 01:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC) By the same token others can include relevant materials. Yes, this article is not about history of Russian secret services. It is about "Putinism", which is an alleged takover of contemporary Russian state by Russian secret services - according to sources. Hence anything sourced on this subject would be appropriate. Please do not delete sourced views on this subject.Biophys 14:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

About Putin's privatization deals under Sobchak. Perhaps that's not directly related to the topic. But there's an interesting line in the opening authored by Biophys: "The 'checkist takeover' of the Russian state and economic assets has been allegedly accomplished by a clique of Putin's close associates and friends" and so on. Any person with even a little remnant of brains to whom I enlist myself too, would wonder how exactly did the process take place, how much was acquired by "Putin's gang" and Putin personally as the head of the gang. As for now, Biophys has failed to answer this question. Mr. Donald Duck, however, has answered half of it: before 1999 "Putin's gang"'s privatization deals were limited to some dirty things within St. Petersburg. Just I would also recall about the Cooperative "Ozero" and Putin's cottage built on these money, as that's perhaps the most prominent "compromate" stuff on Putin.

The thing is, that the body of the article should describe in full text the stuff briefly stated in the opening. In this concern, Mr. Donald Duck's contributions are relevant as they answer the natural question: how much could "Putin's gang" steal? Half-answer, in fact. But you don't have even that. ellol 22:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I did not see any publications that relate Anatoliy Sobchak or Ozero to Putinism. If there are such references, they can be cited here, no problem.Biophys 17:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletions of relevant materials

User DonaldDuck continues deletions of referenced and relevant texts created by user ellol and me, without any justification. Hence I have to restore referenced views of notable experts per WP:NPOV policy. The deleted texts were about secret services as ruling political force in contemporary Russia. Therefore these texts are relevant in this article, and it does not matter if some of the texts are used in other WP articles.Biophys 17:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Note: I don't object user's DonaldDuck deleting text authored by me. My text only serves to somehow balance opinion introduced by Biophys, as itself it's rather foolish, as well as Biophys's quote. From my side I back DonaldDuck's editions. As for now the article is a mess of different opinions, ones introduced by Biophys, majority of others introduced by me. It's bad that we don't have normal article but a mess of opinions instead. Unfortunately "dialogue" understood by Biophys is reinforcing his own point. Biophys is a Russian liberal and nothing can be done with that. Whatever happens he'll continue to state that FSB has blown down houses in Moscow, murdered Chechens, killed Litvinenko, and owns all Russian economic assets. It's the nature of Russian liberals, however. ellol 20:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I did not completely delete it, I moved your text to Chekism article [21] to the similar section after Ion Pachepa opinion.DonaldDuck 02:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

As about the mess, I can easily clean it up, as soon as DonaldDuck and you allow me and stop deleting referenced views. Just tell me when you are done and I can bring this in order. I only have certain fields of interest, such as human rights and the role of secret services in Russia. As a scientific worker, I used to the following procedure: (a) I collect all relevant sources; and (b) I summarize their content and arrange everything in a logical order - as time allows. Of course, I do not take this too seriously in WP (this is work for fun!); so the quality could be better. That is true. But I do not have any strong ideological views. I only do not like when innocent people are killed or arrested for doing their work, like Politkovskya, Litvinenko, Arap and many others. Do you? Biophys 22:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I do not like either. But I don't see here the "long hand of FSB". At least, I would believe in that only after sufficient proofs, while you accuse FSB a priori. I've proposed you long ago to discuss contents. You yet hadn't provided information on how great is a share of FSB owned business in Russian GDP. You know most of Russian economic assets are owned by oligarchs. I would like to see estimations on FSB economics power you used. Is it very hard for you? ellol 12:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's don't go black-and-white. Situation is really more complex. FSB people since coming to political power really got access to economic assets either. The question is, how much did they got? Often some security people are at high position in management of some company, i.e. they don't own it but represent interests of the state. One should tell also about "governmental corporations", which often are ruled by some Kremlin official who doesn't own it. There's also e.g. RAO EES, Russian energetic company owned by the state at 52%, while headed by a known liberal Chubais: incidentally, the way he chosed for the company, i.e. being split into a number of independent private companies shows exactly different approach compared to your "FSB owns".[22] [23]

And really there's certain narrowing of the political field, but is there the "hand of Kremlin" or the lack of funding some democratic parties experience? And really, the majority of people are better concerned about incomes that about democracy, although nobody likes authoritorianism. Or likes? Yes that info you also have: 37% think of a lack of democracy, while 21% think of it's abundance.

And really the problem much more topical that influence of FSB is corruption, which in the first place targets middle class and small/middle businesses. But targeting corruption is also a vast problem because first of all change in minds of state officials must occur.

So on. The situation is much more complex than our "authoritarianism-democracy" "battle". Yes it's all propaganda and opinions, but to do better we need a sort of a real dialogue, which I don't see possible, until you continue to promote your "FSB-owns-Russia" agenda. I've told you: please, lay down your real information about that. If there are estimates that siloviks own any percentage of Russian economics is okey even if that's someone's opinion. If that's an opinion, well, we'll find some different opinion so to let readers access to unbiased information. All is possible unless we continue to consider each other enemies and introduce our "black and white" agenda. ellol 16:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Another opinion on Putin, now Gorbachev's... [24] ellol 18:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

But this article is not about Putin. You should cite this in Vladimir Putin article.Biophys 21:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

"Lenin and the Party are twin brothers. We say Lenin -- we keep in mind the Party. We say Party -- we keep in mind Lenin" Gg. By the way, now it has much better direct sense. Like, Putin and the United Russia, or Putin and Putinism. Lol. ellol 14:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

By the way, imagine Sergey Ivanov will be elected in 2008. Will you create Ivanovism? That way, isn't it worthwhile to create Ivanovism, Zubkovism and Medvedevism in advance? ellol 14:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Or in case Putin by any trickery stands at the third term, would you create Putinism: Reloaded and Putinism: The Revolution? ellol 14:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Btw, if you have access to Russian television, just for your information, nearly at this time (at the moment they are near the end) there are teledebates of Russian political parties at 1st channel. Exactly this [25]. At least I've seen them this day and two days ago, they say they'll last until elections (all days but for saturday/sunday). All those f**king damned politicians. Anyway true debates, and my personal disgust of politicians doesn't affect their quality. ellol 20:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Ion Mihai Pacepa said: "The Soviet Union had one KGB officer for every 428 citizens. Putin’s Russia has one FSB-ist for every 297 citizens." Wow. I appreciate that. You provide simply wrong data (the percentage of Security Service's staff to the whole population has increased, while true data is it has decreased). And you remove sourced text which proves with sources your data is wrong. Long applauses follow. ellol (talk) 21:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

These are not my data. These are published data. And you do not have any newer good published data. So, I suggest that we stop insertions of irrelevant materials here, unless we want to write a lot more about Putin, including new articles, such as Business of Valdimir Putin or Political views of Vladimir Putin.Biophys (talk) 22:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I think we should also view this: [26] [27]. Your opinion? ellol (talk) 12:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Biophys, I appreciate your interest in modern Russian politics, but could you please contribute positively in articles, that is add more content supported by reliable sources, instead of deleting relevant and sourced text? This [28] is unacceptable and may be interpreted by WP administrators as vandalism. Please respect work of other wikipedians. ellol (talk) 17:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

As Russia is a democracy, at least, every political party in Duma and the acting president were freely elected, i.e. other candidates were allowed, the vote was secret and the vote count was correct, effect of Putin's rule on life of an "average Russia" is of interest. Improvement of living standarts, of course, has little to do with the question of the political system -- like share of siloviks in Russian economy has little to do with the Russian political system. But the raise of Russian middle class, which comes from improvement of living standarts has direct consequences for Russian democracy and politics. ellol (talk) 18:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Biophys, we often did a job together, although it got through quarrels and noise, but we used to improve articles after all, although with damaging our nerves. To make it short, I rely on your constructive critique of my contributions. I think an idea of middle class as a political force is topical enough. Briefly, the idea of "Rise of middle class" is: "it must work, but whysoever it doesn't". ellol (talk) 22:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but you simply inserted a lot of irrelevant materials (including "middle class"), which makes the article unreadable.Biophys (talk) 05:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Okey, should I shorten that text? I'll do. In every normal country it's not the politicians who create democracy, but middle class that demands is rights and so is the most powerful source for democracy. Now there is middle class in Russia (37% of the population as estimated), but yet there is no political force which would exactly represent interests of the middle class. This takes time. Perhaps Civilian Power will manage to be such a force.

The only problem is that as long as we stay in the system of coordinates "are you pro or against Putin?" that doesn't solve problems which exist in the country, whether a man is pro or contra Putin that position doesn't help him solve HIS problems, so a different system of coordinates is needed: does THIS political force help me solve MY problems? That would be democracy.

Agree that American citizens aren't much concerned on whether George W. Bush is a democratic or authoriarian president. Their better concern is what system would they the people establish. The question "who rules America" is senseless, because it's ruled by American people.

Rise of middle class in Russia may effectively foster a transition to this American system.

ellol (talk) 08:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another source

Said Anne Applebaum: "Just as the old dissident movement was united only by its hatred of Soviet communism, Other Russia is an umbrella organization, united only by its hatred of Putinism, an ideology that has solidified in recent months into something resembling an old-fashioned personality cult." [29].Biophys (talk) 05:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Is this an article about Other Russia? Well, this view has the right to exist. Just as well as Gleb Pavlovsky's view[30] that "Other Russia is a workshop of picking out pick-locks to the real Russia. Have a read of their texts. Only one question is solved there — how to overthrow Putin's system, i.e. to leave all without the country." ellol (talk) 08:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Word of advice for you, Biophys, and lots of praise for your defence of the article's verifiability and neutrality per Wikipedia policies and Western rule of law, against elLOL's meager attempts at POV-infused sabotage and distracting discussion with absurd blabber when confronted about his incursions into article space. Ignore his clearly agenda-driven and strongly ideological reasoning (or trolling) as youve put up with his offhand attitude for too long. Go on about doing all the changes you feel are necessary, and bring attention to the wider community if he tries to "wolfpack" and corner you. Youve proven your points while he has yet to prove one of his. Ulritz 03:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I like your expression "wolfpacked". I do not know if you are familiar with Soviet expression "Let Tambov's wolf be your comrade! You must call me "citizen superior"!" (a reply of a KGB interrogator to an enemy of the people who called him "comrade" by mistake).Biophys (talk) 05:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Well done. So what, Biophys, do I really "wolfpack and corner" you? Would be fun to know. ellol 11:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at this videoclip: "Who are Russians?" That is who we are and that what we are doing in wikipedia.Biophys 04:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Lol. Btw, I need to say now I'll contribute much less to Wikipedia. First of all dear Wiki is about the West seeing the world, and that's natural and good, imho. I used to believe I had a mission here. Like, protecting Russia. But that's just laughable now. Come to every person in Russia, tell'em there's a damned totalitarian regime or anything... then all'd go and vote for the United Russia. At least 25% of people has internet; and only 3.5% (multiplied by the election turnout, 0.6 or 0.7, so only about 2% of population) voted for right-wing parties. What to speak about? the country's stable as a hippopotamus (I voted for Civilian Power, if anything). ellol 19:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Btw, dunno. Of course, you can just go and remove it all, but I think a brief mention about the rise of living standards wouldn't break the article. It was one of the major points of Putin's speeches (like, read his 2000 or 2001 Addresses to the Federal Assembly), and whatever positive was the economical environment, it was not broken. ellol 20:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Allow me

I, Biophys, award this song of National Merit [31] to all defenders of Vladimir Putin.Biophys (talk) 03:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Listen, when I said bout discussion i meant really to discuss. Don't ya think I'm a brainwashed idiot? We may disagree on terms, but I know you are an equal patriot of Russia like me. We just see the different ways for Russia to become the normal country. ellol (talk) 22:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

And ah, yeah, a song for ya and all the other guys interested bout Russia [32] [33] [34]. ellol (talk) 23:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

(Btw, compare it with "Captain Kolesnikov") ellol (talk) 20:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notice

I highly regard user Biophys as one of the most active contributors to Wikipedia who helps to unveil large layers of truth about topical issues of Russian political and social life. Along with that, his certain actions such as deletion of large stocks of referenced and relevant stuff in the article Putinism makes an outside observer to be very suspicious about if it's the case of vandalism. I hope that of course we don't have to consider this [35] as vandalism. I really do. ellol (talk) 02:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

My edit is fully explained at the talk page of this article (please see above). Deleted info is WP:SYN or completely irrelevant to the subject of the article. Cited sources do not tell this information is related in any way to "Putinism".Biophys (talk) 03:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately it's not explained, and I don't understand why you delete text by Kryshtanovskaya, why do you delete text by Migranyan which are respected scientists and their position is as solid as that of Yuri Felshtinsky or Andrey Illarionov.

I want all points of view to be represented adequately well. While, with all respect to you you are breaking the balance in strong favor of one POV of several present.

ellol (talk) 03:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hmm... do you believe Stanislav Belkovsky?

Putin: no secret policeman

The time has come to understand the Putin regime is not a "militocracy", run by security officials, but a typical kleptocracy found in many other countries in the third world. There some things that need to be corrected: Russia isn't the Philippines or Zaire, of course. It is a very big country with great history, as well as nuclear weapons and a seat in the UN security council inherited from the USSR.

During his two terms as president, Putin has successfully defended the interests of big capital, which helped him come to power. Abramovich, Oleg Deripaska, Mikhail Friedman, Vladimir Potanin, Viktor Vekselberg, Vagit Alekperov, Alisher Usmanov - these men have become richer and more influential in Putin's time than they were in the 1990s.

And the like. Remember it's S. Belkovsky who proclaims Putin's alleged wealth.

Don't be fooled, I'm not any pleased by the article... But why do we never mention the role of Russian oligarchs in the up-to-date system of power? Do you think people who own 1/4 of Russian economy are simply doing their businesses?

Recall the famous Oleg Deripaska interview:

О. Д. - Президент России - это своего рода топ-менеджер, управляющий всей страной. Он умный, адекватный человек, никогда не превышающий пределы своих полномочий. Заметили, как заработал госаппарат в Белом Доме, как работает прокуратура, суды, спецслужбы, как работают российские телеканалы и газеты? Просто блестяще! Все помогает экономике, бизнесу, а не мешает нам, как было еще недавно. Под это можно давать деньги, что мы и делаем.

Н. А. - "Мы " - это крупный бизнес?

- "Мы " - это российская реальная власть. Крупный бизнес - это часть нашей технологии.

Н. А. - Если не секрет, кто входит в Ваш круг?

О. Д. - Какой же секрет? Все те, кто последовательно объединился вокруг первого президента России Бориса Николаевича Ельцина, кто взял на себя смелость принимать тяжелые экономические и социальные решения. Вопреки тем попыткам играть на популизме того времени, которых было огромное количество - и в политике, и в экономике России. Чаще всего были просто неграмотные и просто глупые шаги…

Н. А. - А имена Вашего круга назвать можете?

О. Д. - Губернатор Чукотки Роман Абрамович, я к Вашим услугам, тоже. Глава МДМ-банка Андрей Мельниченко. Продолжать?

[36]

One can discuss whether this interview was fake or not, but there are strange coincidences between it and Stanislav Belkovsky's revelations: Real power are people who united around Boris Yeltsin... Putin serves interests of big businesses...

ellol (talk) 15:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Some comments from Russian InoSmi forum...

эх стасик... почти за умного сошел...

Стасик, завидовать нехорошо. Я понимаю, что господин выбрал этого мерзкого Павловского, а не тебя, Величайшего Политтехнолога Всех Времён и Народов, придворным политтехнологом, но постоянно вываливать в СМИ свои обиды на протяжении вот уже 7 лет - это уже даже не смешно. Ты вызываешь только жалость, Стасик. Лузерок ты...

Мне лично гораздо больше по душе железный кровавый чекист (пусть даже у него будет много-много денег припрятано) прижучивший продажного Ходора во благо Отечества, чем талантливый бизнесмен, избавившийся от конкурента.

Да нет, в этой статье по крайней мере какой-то анализ присутствует... Да и откровенно пророссийскую статью гардиан не пропустила бы.

Ну, блямба, "интелектуалы" типа Белковского уже и не знают с какого бы им боку зайти, чтобы отвратить граждан России от поддержки ВВП и его команды. Прямо на какашки, бедняга, исходит, а только впечатление от его трудов непреходящее : бредятина и заказуха!

I think it's no worse than any other of the sources used in this article. ellol (talk) 18:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Recent deletions

Could you please clarify what's the problem with citation. I have checked this, and the sources seem to correspond exactly to the text.Biophys (talk) 16:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's start with this one: "The "chekist takeover" of the Russian state and economic assets has been allegedly accomplished by a clique of Putin's close associates and friends [8]". On which page does the source say this? And what about a relevant quote from the source? Kulikovsky (talk) 16:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

O'K. I included a reference which tells precisely that.Biophys (talk) 22:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC) The title of this article is "The Chekist Takeover of the Russian State", exactly as written. You can check the source over the internet.Biophys (talk) 23:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Did you read the article? Kulikovsky (talk) 17:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course I did. That was probably most comprehensive scholarly study on the subject. Now we have a better source: "The Age of Assassins".Biophys (talk) 02:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I doubt that you did. The source does not even remotely support the claim you re-inserted. On a side note, it was good reading, so thank you for that. However, I noticed on this and several other occasions that you throw references that do not verify texts. Since I have seen this many times (and including this particular article), I am concerned articles you added "referenced" content are likely to have the same problem. I and other editors cannot spend hours reading all those sources just to find that your claims are not true. I request you to provide specific quotes from your sources verifying your point as courtesy to other editors. Now I will remove unverifiable/poorly sourced content and add appropriate maintenance tags. Kulikovsky (talk) 08:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I but I can not agree with that. Please provide and justify any specific examples of the alleged misrepresentations. Otherwise, these are groundless claims.Biophys (talk) 13:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] POV problem

The article pays way to much attention to the theory that Russia is governed by FSB. Kulikovsky (talk) 09:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

This article is about "Putinism" as described in sources. Yes, many of them describe Putinism as the FSB rule. What exactly do you suggest? Put this theory in a separate article? Then please suggest a title for such article. Thank you.Biophys (talk) 13:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)