Talk:Vladimir Putin/Archive1

this guy is awesome!
i love Russian..... so serious...... with a deadly gaze without emotion.

.......... i wish my GF was a sexy Russian dominatrix but she just a normal girl...... WHY!? ............WHY!?Waronstupidity (talk) 20:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Conservapedia's article on him is one of the few articles by them that's better than Wikipedia's. RationalWiki also has the right idea in shorter sentences, but the main Wikipedia is burdened by being a high value target for Putin's spin doctors. Look at 's uncanny praise of him. I think it might have gotten a lil better lately, but still no mention of the very apparent poll rigging (some formal looking website as well as the Cobarat's Report (Misspelled  ...or was it the Daily Show)) claimed there was one region where more ppl voted than the total number of legible voters, with only one voting against Putin.


 * Wikipedia does not focus on defending Russia's image in general, actually talks of a history of Psychiatry being used as an excuse for political suppression, and if you read to the end of that article, you'll find Putin's government using the method to defend him. But only 100 people a day read the article talking of political suppression, while 5000 a day read the article on Putin which contains no mention of political suppression other than that unfairness has been suggested. 24.85.161.72 (talk) 08:26, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

"journalist"
Didn't the guy that got polonium have a history of service at the KGB? I thought he was a defected spy. --85.78.156.46 (talk) 18:00, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

As a russian....
I think this article requires work. Putin is a subject worthy of having an article full of fun on this wiki. I shall be working on this in the near future. Lichy (talk) 14:14, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Picture
TheoryOfPractice, Would you mind telling me and everyone else why you took the brilliant picture of Putin away?! It was the best thing on the page.Zara Thustra (talk) 20:13, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Putin - BADASS
Putin is a BADASS... not a "very mean man". He just acts mean to keep his badassness up.
 * You know, you could have done with only one section title.--ZooGuard (talk) 19:11, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "One year later..." Osaka Sun (talk) 04:53, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Putin reverted
My edit was reverted for 'changing the tone' of the article (I guess, to 'accurate'), and even the links I used to back up evidence of Litvinenko's MI6 funds was deleted; the commentator above remains unanswered regarding Litvinenko; I've been here a day and can already see the agenda the 'Rational' Wiki attends to push.

Dalandzadzi (talk) 20:23, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree, this article is stupid. It's a couple of kids who don't know anything fooling around. SuperInfinity (talk) 12:51, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Litvinenko is not the only person who spoke out against Putin to be killed. Several actual journalists have been killed by Russian security forces on Putin's command, or by upper levels of those associated with Putin.ROPChain (talk) 09:42, 22 May 2014 (UTC)


 * No they haven't you idiot. You are a very simple-minded person. SuperInfinity (talk) 15:13, 26 July 2014 (UTC)


 * What about Anna Politkovskaya? --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 15:32, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Is Putin a dictator?
I'd say yes, but apparently this is not a universal view. Worzelpete (talk) 03:04, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No, it's not universal. There's certainly pro-forma elections and republican government bureaucracy at the very least.  What definitions of dictator do you think apply?  Which do you think don't?  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 22:50, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, because of how political definitions work, the definition of the word dictator is key here. Putin was elected in a Republican presidential system. Whether this election was legitimate or not is basically irrelevant. It's not like in other African countries, where the dictator has held the office since forever and literally kills his opponents that will just to make the election go in his favor. Although it's true Vladimir Putin has had a couple of people killed and plenty of people imprisoned, this hardly makes him a dictator. Typically dictators have an unwaveringly loyal population behind them willing to do whatever they want without question. This is hardly the case with Putin, as there are plenty of vocal opposition figures that are able to basically say whatever they want as long as it's not slander or treason. Also, Putin faces plenty of opposition from Parliament, who can stop some of the things he wants to do. While it's true that they follow him in most respects, there have been some issues in the past that they've disagreed with him on. I'd hardly put him in the same category as Pinochet, Ben Ali, or Saddam Hussein. Applesauce (talk) 23:18, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hitler won a relatively free election in 1933 and was appointed according to the rules of the constitution. And Ben Ali also had regular elections. Your definition is flawed. Worzelpete (talk) 23:57, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure, I can understand why you think their definition is flawed. But I'll repeat my solicitation above:  Which definitions do you think apply?  I'm not at all in disagreement with you that Putin is something of an odd case.  But the position you need to articulate is more than "He's not not a dictator" but also "He's this kind of dictator in particular"  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:52, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Ukraine & Ukrainian nationalism
US sanctions on Putin now are standing in the way of a Nato-Russian response to Daesh and work to Daesh's advantage and survival. Sanction's were placed over the issue of Ukrainian nationalism. Ukrainian nationalists trace their struggle back to Czarist and the multicultural Soviet era when Ukrainian language was targeted and attempts to stamp it out. In both Czarist and Soviet times a Ukrainian shopkeeper, for instance, could not post a sign in the Ukrainian language, whereas Muslim shopkeepers and Arabic script went untouched.

The issues are similar today. Ukraine is facing a declining birthrate and a growing Muslim population. However Putin is not known for granting special privileges and exemption to Muslims, as the Czars and Soviets did. The common belief is the Czars and Soviets were fearful of Muslims, and at a loss as to how to try to be equal in the administration of law in dealing with Muslim subjects. Putin by contrast, doesn't appear fearful of Muslims and is tolerant of the Ukrainian language. nobs 13:39, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Strawman ?
"Putin is popular with certain elements of the left,[54] particularly people who who opposes atlanticismWikipedia's W.svg, globalization, or US foreign policy. This "anti-imperialism" line was a staple of Soviet apologetics. The apparatchiks justified practically any move with "defense against Western Imperialism". And while the Soviets are dead and buried now, with their rhetoric, you can play the Russian public, the left and right wings like claviatures.[55][56] Putin, a literal Judo master, invokes this "political judo" stuff all the time. " Indeed not everone opposing atlatic foreign policy or globalization and seeing in some cases Russian policies as better or more consistent, doesn't necessarily mean supporting Putin in all cases, especially his internal politics, from authoritarianism, to banning "gay propaganda" to please orthodox fundies, but it's true that it's not an uncommon pattern. About the Ukrainian crisis, it should be mentioned that a "coup" or golpe occurred there and a democratically elected prime minister, Yanucovich has been debased, with the neo nazi governement of Petro Poroshenko taking power. At that point the Russian comumnity of Donbass and Crimea was at risk of a renewed persecution. We may contest the legitimacy of annexing Crimea (after a consultation) and invading Donbass, but those communities were in danger and Nato with the EU supported a neonazi golpe, failing to protect people who felt russian but which was protected from discrimination with past governments of Kiev. --78.15.232.220 (talk) 18:15, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Baba Vanga "prediction"
Concerning this edit by User:Bryan See, there is little evidence for the supposed prediction of Putin by Baba Vanga in 1979. On her, Pravda Report is the only source for this claim. It was only added to Wikipedia recently, in 2016, by an account that might also be Bryan See (the edit summary mentioned "BatteryIncluded", similar to User:Bryan See/BatteryIncluded).

I could not find mention of this prediction anywhere before a Pravda Report article in 2006. This "prediction" appears to have been invented by the press. CowHouse (talk) 00:15, 29 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I know it's invented by right-wing press, and may have been originated from Russian social media and conspiracy theorist sites. Russia has been manipulating me since 2012, with Putin himself. -- Bryan See (talk) 03:07, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The wording of your edit said she "obscurely predicted him back in 1979". This was, at best, misleading. Nothing in your edit suggests it was invented by the press or that there is no evidence she ever made the prediction in 1979. Also, to be clear, this is all irrelevant to the Vladimir Putin page anyway. So please don't re-add it.
 * "I know it's invented by right-wing press." It seems to have originated in Russia, not necessarily right-wing press (Pravda Report is left-wing).
 * "Russia has been manipulating me since 2012, with Putin himself." I'm not trying to be rude but you sound a bit paranoid. CowHouse (talk) 05:32, 29 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I know. Putin is very popular with certain elements of the far-left, including you on this wiki. That's why I spent most of my time holding back Putin's influence. -- Bryan See (talk) 08:31, 29 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I could not find mention of this prediction anywhere before a Pravda Report article in 2006. This "prediction" appears to have been invented by the press. CowHouse (talk) 00:15, 29 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I guess it must be copied from message boards or Russian social media or conspiracy theories. The 2012 Washington Post said that. Regardless, Vanga must be referring "Vladimir" to this leader.


 * She said in 1979: "Everything will melt away like ice yet the glory of Vladimir, the glory of Russia are the only things that will remain. Russia will not only survive, it will dominate the world." I guess Baba Vanga predicting authoritarianism taking over the world, but she didn't.


 * I guess she made these predictions in Bulgarian. -- Bryan See (talk) 07:52, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

I've found the one besides Pravda. It's "(1) "The Prophecies of Vanga", aut: Jeni Kostadinova, "Trud"". It said in Bulgarian:

-- Bryan See (talk) 09:00, 1 October 2017 (UTC)


 * The "prediction" does not belong on the Putin page; it's too vague for one thing. Bongolian (talk) 03:58, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

russian dominatrix
I disagree about Ukraine in this article. My opinion is RW must be free from lie. 10:39, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Removal of Link
ZooGuard took my last link away saying "Pravda is shit". I know very well that Pravda is shit! I wanted the article in there because it was hilarious! If he, and others think it was not relevant to Putin then maybe it can stay out, but it was relevant to claims of psychotronic weapons. Incidentally laser weapons and rail guns are just high technology. The things mentioned by Putin's defence minister are science fiction - to my knowledge - and probably based on pseudo-science. 16:58, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Some conspiracy
There is a very popular theory within russian conspiracy groups. It says that Puting is long dead for now, and all we see are his doubles. They use his young days photos and compare the form of his ears and other facial features to proof there point. There point is that there had been no "original" Putin on any visual media since 1998 (or 2009). I know there is such theories around almost any old political leader (ex., british queen), with Trump may be the single exception :). Is it worth to mentioning in the article?
 * There is also the theory that Putin, himself, arranged for the bombings he blamed on Chechnya, so that he could get the popular support that put him into power. -- Bertrc  (talk) 21:26, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

"War on science and tech" section
A significant portion of this section was plagiarised (seemingly copied and pasted) from the cited articles. The parts that weren't copied and pasted were not supported by the sourced articles. For instance, the article referenced for the claim that Putin "sabotaged space missions like Fobos-Grunt" does not mention Putin at all. CowHouse (talk) 03:34, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Come on
Go easy on Putin. It’s not like he’s Kissinger. &mdash; Unsigned, by: 216.154.17.222 / talk / contribs
 * No. 01:29, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Putin's fee-fees are easily hurted. Bongolian (talk) 01:31, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Putin's future
I know 70 is no longer considered old - but at what point will the post-Putin period start being discussed?

If the Ukraine crisis goes 'too wrong' from the Russian perspective how secure is VP? Anna Livia (talk) 13:44, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

“We only have to kick in the door and the whole rotten structure will come crashing down.”
I wonder of Putin was drunk on a similar illusion r.e. Ukraine. Leucippus Salva veritate 15:03, 27 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Godwin's Law?
 * Or is 'Apres moi le deluge' a possibly better fit? Anna Livia (talk) 20:00, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is an instance of Godwin’s law (thought the comparison was apt, albeit in a trite sort of a way). I take issue (to be pedantic) with phrases like “Godwin’s law or “Poe’s law” for they aren’t laws; they’re empirical generalisations, if anything.
 * That French idiotisme is definitely more congruent with Putin’s underlying motives. Thanks for making me aware of it! Leucippus Salva veritate 21:56, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Though Putin 'flagged' Godwin's Law first - and there is the derivative of Godwin's Law to the effect that whoever brings in Hitler/the Nazis/the other usual suspects #unnecessarily# has lost the argument.
 * The internet laws such as Godwin and Poe may be trite but they can flag up memes(whether or not misused), truthiness and other matters which need proper thought.
 * And does 'L'Etat c'est moi' also apply? Anna Livia (talk) 22:50, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry Anna—that’s my fault, I think you’ve misunderstood me. I wasn’t saying that internet laws such as Poe’s, or Godwin’s, were trite; rather, I was saying that my comparison was trite i.e. my comparison of Hitler’s hubris about how easy it would be to conquer Russia and, potentially (i.e. I don’t know whether Putin actually has this mind state), Putin’s hubris concerning how easy it would be to invade Ukraine.
 * I believe that both laws, Poe’s and Godwin’s, are useful, particularly in the manner you’ve described. My other remark, a pedantic one at that, was just expressing my belief that they aren’t laws but empirical generalisations. I have no problem, though, in continuing to call them “laws” as this is a more convenient form of expression, a façon de parler (if you will).
 * Finally …. You seem to be far more proficient in French and scholarship of French history, than I—I’m a former alumni of Del Boy’s world renowned school, “Garson! Garson! Pinot Noiarrrr, if y’ve got it?” Be that as it may, I would urge the composition of an inclusive disjunction betwixt your two candidates, that is, either L'Etat c'est moi or Apres moi le deluge, or both; either one would serve as an apt diagnosis for the despot in question.  Leucippus Salva veritate 01:12, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * If something can be misunderstood it will be - especially if the internet is involved. (And the computer spellcheck, when offering a choice of 'spelling corrections' will suggest the most inappropriate one first.) Anna Livia (talk) 11:55, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Another quote 'Power tends to corrupt. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.' (Lord Acton to Bishop Mandell Creighton) Anna Livia (talk) 12:00, 28 February 2022 (UTC)


 * There's a video by the channel "Battle Order" that might be helpful for those writing this article. &mdash; Unsigned, by: 2607:FB90:CE2E:B89D:713C:BB2A:A710:A23C / talk

The Sunday Times articles of 27 February 2022
(A paywall may be involved with TST.)

Several people are quoted/write about Putin having mental health issues. Comments? Anna Livia (talk) 11:59, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Bounties
Should mention be made of the various bounties and similar suggestions made?

Referring to the article - one advantage of non-digital communications is that they are not so easy to hack (some parts of the current German administration apparently make use of typewriters for this reason). Anna Livia (talk) 12:51, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Passing thought
Ras + Putin = 'whatever you wish to make of the concept.' Anna Livia (talk) 12:54, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

The Scottish Play
Act III, scene 4, lines 136-8 appear to apply. Anna Livia (talk) 13:04, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, he was a communist
Putin was required to join the communist party while studying law at the Leningrad State University in the 1970s. He remained a member of the party until its dissolution in 1991. This, by itself could just be viewed as a matter of convenience. However, his career benefited from the membership and he rose to the high rank of lieutenant colonel of the KGB in East Germany. He is not some schmuck who just joined pro forma, he used the party to advance himself. Arguably, he has no political beliefs at all other than power and money. Communism once provided this pathway to power, now fascism does. As an aside, Richard Hofstadter was a member of the CPUSA for only 6 months and he is in the commie category. Bongolian (talk) 17:53, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Joining the Communist Party is no guarantee of being a genuine communist, especially in a single-party state like the Soviet Union. Considering he denounced Lenin and the Soviet Union for creating the "fake state" of Ukraine, and has been dictator of the very capitalist Russian Federation for over two decades now, it's doubtful that he ever was a communist, and certainly isn't one now. You said yourself that you believe that he's not ideologically communist, being only interested in power (honestly, IMO his ideological commitment to Russian Fascism is genuine, but that's not entirely relevant to the topic. Parzival (talk) 12:35, 4 April 2022 (EST)
 * OK then, how do you explain Putin's rehabilitation of Stalin? Putin is a tankie simply by that action. We either need a better definition in the Category:Commies page or to put Putin back as a commie. Given that we use the term 'commie' (often associated with red-baiting) rather that 'communist', I had assumed that the term is to apply broadly as the McCarthyists applied it to anyone who was ever a member of a communist party. Bongolian (talk) 17:07, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Stalin is pretty popular among the Russian right for "making Russia strong" (even though he was Georgian) Honestly, liking Stalin is pretty orthogonal to being a communist. There are plenty of non-communists who like Stalin and plenty of communists who hate Stalin. Look, if Putin doesn't believe in communism (as nobody has disputed), then don't list him as a goddamn communist! Parzival (talk) 14:28, 4 April 2022 (EST)
 * Liking Stalin is not at all orthogonal to communism. There are/were a whole bunch of Stalin-supporting communist parties . Paul Robeson was a communist and never gave up on Uncle Joe, even after outliving him by two decades. We even have a page on one of the Stalinist parties (Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist-Leninist)). Bongolian (talk) 19:55, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * There being communists that like Stalin doesn't exactly disprove my point.Parzival (talk) 16:02, 4 April 2022 (EST)
 * "Joining the Communist Party is no guarantee of being a genuine communist" -- this is a No True Scotsman argument, Parzival. Please try again. 72.184.174.199 (talk) 17:25, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not a [No True Scotsman] Argument. Being a communist means that someone has certain beliefs, which the governance of the Russian Federation notably contradicts. It's more of a "you have to believe in god to be a christian" argumentParzival (talk) 14:30, 4 April 2022 (EST)
 * he was a card carrying member of the communist party ergo a communist. being a party member is no gaurantee of being a 'genuine' communist true believer but still was a communist non the less, especially as there appears to nothing in support of his not being onboard with it all at the time. not being a communist now means little and doesnt tell us what he was. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:33, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * that said every russian official from the soviet era was by default a communist making 'commie' a not especially useful cat here AMassiveGay (talk) 17:39, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Again. Joining the Communist Party in a Marxist-Leninist single party state does not mean that you are a communist. It's literally the only game in town. I never thought I had to say this, but you have to believe in communism to be an actual communist! Parzival (talk) 14:33, 4 April 2022 (EST)
 * Except that we don't and wouldn't have every Soviet official on RW. The category membership is moderate in size, so useful enough. Bongolian (talk) 18:30, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * So we're now getting into weird semanticism since being a member of the CPSU did not automatically make one a communist by Parzival's definition. This is basically saying that people are not communists unless they voluntarily join communes — the end-state of Marxism. Why? Because it's been argued that the CPSU was not even communist at all because they never really bothered with the internal class struggle — something argued both by anarchists and Marxism experts. The CPSU was just state capitalism with a deceiving label on it. The problem with this sematicism is that it is not how the label 'commie' was applied by red-baiters: anyone ever joining a communist party was a commie in their eyes. Bongolian (talk) 20:42, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think we should use the red-baiters' definition of communist, as according to them even people like Joe Biden are "commies". A better question is if Vladimir Putin is afflated with communism in any way today. Plutocow (talk) 02:32, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Since the discussion has wound down… We have two sysops (Bongoliann + AMassiveGay) + 1 BoN in favor vs one sysop against (Parzival), so I will reinstate Category:Commies. I revised the text on Category:Commies to be more reflective of what it should and shouldn't be, and more in line with including Putin. Bongolian (talk) 02:24, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Should we have an ex/former communist category? 02:47, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it's better just to have one category of past or present party members. The category could be renamed to "Communist party members" to address the red-baiting issue that Plutocow raised. Bongolian (talk) 04:06, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Putin and Ukraine
Part of what is became Ukrainian territory was within the Austro-Hungarian Empire; and both Otto von Habsburg and Karl von Habsburg who would have been successively Kaiser und Koenig were Euro MPs. Therefore Putin's claims are even more flawed.

Should Putin be given a Charlemagne Prize for his work in unifying Europe? Anna Livia (talk) 19:21, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The New Holy Roman Empire, perhaps? Vee (talk) 17:07, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Ill-health
As there are regular references to Putin being physically ill (with various diseases) should there be a specific mention of the issue? Anna Livia (talk) 09:21, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Question 'the next'
How many RW-article touching points does the first article in get? Anna Livia (talk) 09:26, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Recent evidence of Massacres in Izyum
I wanted to remind y'all that this will be important info to add. I would love to write it, but I have tried writing in the past and been pretty trash at it. --153.91.207.90 (talk) 21:40, 17 September 2022 (UTC)