Is this close enough:
You see, Gaidar believed that there was a really good possibility that, given the chance, Russians would go right back to Soviet dicatorship. He thought they'd vote for it. Everybody told him he was crazy, it would never happen, the changes in Russia were "irreversible." But Gaidar still worried. So he decided that it was necessary to transfer Soviet power into other hands just as fast as humanly possible, and he knew it would be messy, very messy. That's why he sold off assets as fast as possible, and why he had Boris Yeltsin tell local leaders to "take all the power you can grab." Granted, many problems would result. But the alternative was USSR II, and a second round of cold war with the USA and a second massive failure, something Gaidar wasn't sure his country could survive. And uh... Gaidar was right. That's exactly what the people of Russia did when given the chance. They didn't give democracy even one decade to work, not even two different presidents. They didn't build a variety of political parties and send forth able leaders. They kept voting for the Communist Party.
And uh... Gaidar was right. That's exactly what the people of Russia did when given the chance. They didn't give democracy even one decade to work, not even two different presidents. They didn't build a variety of political parties and send forth able leaders. They kept voting for the Communist Party.
This is an absurd analysis IMHO, but anyway it does lend itself to the interpretation that "La Russophobe considers Gaidar and the Locusts some sort of 'move towards democracy'". Does it not? The road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom - William Blake
I think it's "absurd" to call something "absurd" without explaining how your own view differs. In fact, it's childish and exactly the kind of thing you purport to despise.
Your characterization of our comment about Gaidar is quite insane and offensive. There is absolutely NOTHING in the comment, NOT ONE WORD, about Gaidar favoring a "move toward democracy." The OPPOSITE is true. The post says that Gaidar feared Russia would slip back into dictatorship, so he favored the UNDEMOCRATIC dissipation of assets in order to deprive the center of power when the return occurred. We believe he was right to do so, since the facts clearly show Russia did exactly what he predicted it would do.
Sir, you are way WAY worse than the accuse LR of being. You're a hypocrite the size of Mt. Olympus. You are free to disagree with our view, but to claim it is "absurd" without even characterizing it acccurately is obscene. Russia is the best country in the world . . . except for all the others!
I don't know that I'm worse than "what i accuse LR of being" - because the worse I accuse it of, is that its a bad joke. Actually so much so that it only makes sense as some sort of weird FSB psyops: rabid anti-russianism as a scarecrow that unites russians against the enemy. To rational people, the tone of your blog is such that it creates sympathy for Putin. Think about it. The road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom - William Blake
Do you know the eXile has a thing going trying to figure out who LR really is? They think it's either the work of an anti-Russia NGO or a lonely American girl. Other people have written in with suggestions about a disgruntled Balkan emigree, nasty Brit journalist, etc. But I think you should send them your theory. She's FSB!
I don't think it's true for a second, but it's a delicious accusation. Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. -Voltaire
LR's (her?/his?/them?)anti-russian style reminds me of the speeches of Valeriya Ilyinichna Novodvorskaya, our пламенная революционерка (passionate revolutionary). I adore listen to her, she's kind of Zhirinovsky (but attacks from a western-right side) and for more aesthetically challenged snobs, just like me
:-)
Theory that she's an FSB bug is nice too, not in a kind of some or t'other Nasty Colonel Ivanov from KGB but, say, a retired ex-Soviet journalist who was working abroad for ages could've created such blog. Easy-peasy
I don't think Gaidar ever believed Russia could become a democracy and I don't think he ever said it could. I don't think he ever took any action to promote democracy, and my blog has never praised him for doing so. Your claim that we have is BOLDFACED LIE , pure and simple. You've twisted our words to suit your own propagandistic purposes, and that is an outrage. You didn't even do us the courtesy of quoting us in your original comment. Disgusting!
What Gaidar wanted was to make Russia as benign a state as possible, and to make it as difficult to consolidate power for a dictator as possible. This is basically the same idea that the American founding fathers had. They didn't create true democracy (they excluded women and blacks from voting guarantees), but they did create a government that was failsafe against dictatorship. Moreover, stopping a Hitler is not the same thing as electing a Ronald Reagan. There's lots and lots in between and Gaidar was not so stupid to fail to notice that (even if you are).
It turned out Gaidar was exactly correct, and Russia did almost immediately lapse back into autocracy. Had he not done as he did, Putin's power would be far greater now. He's spent almost his whole term of office scrambling to collect the broken pieces of power left by Gaidar.
Labeling "absurd" views you don't agree with is the mark of a nasty undereducated little child (or a meglomaniac). It's amazing that you can proceed in such a childish and haughty manner and yet dispense criticism of others as being beneath you. A slug's belly is not beneath you. Russia is the best country in the world . . . except for all the others!
Finally - and I mean finally - labeling in an internet discussion (as a side remark outside the scope of one's reply) a stated opinion of an (obvious) non-expert as "absurd", is by no means and in no way the sort of invective you seem to think it is. It's not. It is a statement of dismissive opinion. On the other hand, your demeanor over here has been anything but polite. I really don't think that the proponents of the Ann Coulter school of argumentation can lecture on debating manners. In fact your behavior here (as seen in your reply above) is truly "the mark of a nasty undereducated little child (or a meglomaniac)". And while I might very well be a "moron", I leave our readers to judge our relative IQ levels based on what we have respectively written.
All this if indeed you are not an FSB operative, a possibility that I find more and more likely with each of your responses. If that's the case, you are a genius and you are doing your masters a great service. The road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom - William Blake
