Could someone provide evidence that the majority of Russians aren't insane?

[blablahblah]

Kluge, let me reverse the question. As this whole "Russians are insane" stigma is a Western invention (I think it originated in the Hollywood propaganda film "The Hunt for Red October", but maybe earlier), and as those who make a hypothesis have the burden of proving it, let me ask:

Could someone from the West provide evidence that the majority of Russians are insane?

Firstly, no need, you're doing a pretty good job of it yourselves!


Secondly: insanity, or lack of sanity, is a social judgment by definition. The claim "I am sane" is meaningless in isolation. Why should you care if I care if you think you are sane and 'normal' and a well-adjusted individual if you live somewhere in a different part of the world? It's bullshit. Your state of mind doesn't matter to me if it does not affect me in any way. If we try to establish objective criteria to define sanity, we automatically find that one of the requirements is to have peers arguing and deciding over the definition! The claim "I am insane" is just a variation of the Liar Paradox.

One of Russia's 'problems' today is that they are not isolated, although I guess some Russians would prefer it if they were. Since you are not isolated, you must learn to face criticism, FEEDBACK, that informs you about your state. If you don't like this information, then that's good! You're not supposed to like it. You're supposed to learn from it.

As this whole "Russians are insane" stigma is a Western invention

It cannot be a Russian invention. Similarly, Westerners cannot claim that they are insane, they must rely on an outside perspective (Russia, Asia, etc.) to criticise their actions.

[Rassah]

In their own words, those attending the Atlantic Council gathering describe the battle for Ukraine being fought to “complete” their socioeconomic consolidation in Europe – this includes “integrating Russia.” Secretary John Kerry at the gathering would literally state:

    Our European Allies have spent more than 20 years with us working to integrate Russia into the Euro-Atlantic community.

By “integrating” Russia, of course, Kerry means overthrowing any independent national political order that exists in Moscow and replacing it with one that answers to Wall Street, London, and now Brussels. This can be seen clearly in attempts by the West to replicate its model of “color revolution” within Russian territory itself.

This is a good example of Russian insanity. When "The West" talks about integrating countries into its community, they are talking about opening up trade restrictions and expanding economic relations, mainly between private companies. When the Russia hears about integration, they immediately think "imperialistic expansion and installing puppet governments." Because that's what the Russia's policy itself is, or was, most of the time. (Sure, USA is guilty of that too at times, but USA is not the entirety of "the west")

[Lethn]

In their own words, those attending the Atlantic Council gathering describe the battle for Ukraine being fought to “complete” their socioeconomic consolidation in Europe – this includes “integrating Russia.” Secretary John Kerry at the gathering would literally state:

    Our European Allies have spent more than 20 years with us working to integrate Russia into the Euro-Atlantic community.

By “integrating” Russia, of course, Kerry means overthrowing any independent national political order that exists in Moscow and replacing it with one that answers to Wall Street, London, and now Brussels. This can be seen clearly in attempts by the West to replicate its model of “color revolution” within Russian territory itself.

This is a good example of Russian insanity. When "The West" talks about integrating countries into its community, they are talking about opening up trade restrictions and expanding economic relations, mainly between private companies. When the Russia hears about integration, they immediately think "imperialistic expansion and installing puppet governments." Because that's what the Russia's policy itself is, or was, most of the time. (Sure, USA is guilty of that too at times, but USA is not the entirety of "the west")

Riiiiiiiiiight

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_United_States_foreign_regime_change_actions

[blablahblah]

In their own words, those attending the Atlantic Council gathering describe the battle for Ukraine being fought to “complete” their socioeconomic consolidation in Europe – this includes “integrating Russia.” Secretary John Kerry at the gathering would literally state:

    Our European Allies have spent more than 20 years with us working to integrate Russia into the Euro-Atlantic community.

By “integrating” Russia, of course, Kerry means overthrowing any independent national political order that exists in Moscow and replacing it with one that answers to Wall Street, London, and now Brussels. This can be seen clearly in attempts by the West to replicate its model of “color revolution” within Russian territory itself.

This is a good example of Russian insanity. When "The West" talks about integrating countries into its community, they are talking about opening up trade restrictions and expanding economic relations, mainly between private companies. When the Russia hears about integration, they immediately think "imperialistic expansion and installing puppet governments." Because that's what the Russia's policy itself is, or was, most of the time. (Sure, USA is guilty of that too at times, but USA is not the entirety of "the west")

Riiiiiiiiiight

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_United_States_foreign_regime_change_actions

OK, this is getting annoying.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/tu-quoque

You avoided having to engage with criticism by turning it back on the accuser - you answered criticism with criticism.

Pronounced too-kwo-kwee. Literally translating as 'you too' this fallacy is also known as the appeal to hypocrisy. It is commonly employed as an effective red herring because it takes the heat off someone having to defend their argument, and instead shifts the focus back on to the person making the criticism.

Example: Nicole identified that Hannah had committed a logical fallacy, but instead of addressing the substance of her claim, Hannah accused Nicole of committing a fallacy earlier on in the conversation.

Just provide a legitimate answer to the criticism instead of changing the subject all the time. You guys are really far too sensitive.

[RoadTrain]

What is insanity here? Is it subjective?
When Russians like something that westerners don't like and the other way around, can it be called insanity?

[YarkoL]

This is a good example of Russian insanity. When "The West" talks about integrating countries into its community, they are talking about opening up trade restrictions and expanding economic relations, mainly between private companies. When the Russia hears about integration, they immediately think "imperialistic expansion and installing puppet governments." Because that's what the Russia's policy itself is, or was, most of the time. (Sure, USA is guilty of that too at times, but USA is not the entirety of "the west")

Far too simplistic. Cowboys and Villains style.

EU - "West" would not for example consent to any of its member nations to freely
exchange agricultural products with a non-EU members. There
are tariffs that protect EU member producers.

Ukraine and Russia had a free-trade contract. EU began unilateral talks
about removing their trade barriers with Ukraine and to my knowledge
never even tried diplomacy to address Russia's concern about EU products
entering Russian market in the absence of trade agreements. That's what
really started the present troubles.

[Kluge]

What is insanity here? Is it subjective?
When Russians like something that westerners don't like and the other way around, can it be called insanity?

Not necessarily. Insanity, I would call wanting one thing but doing something which leads to something unwanted, then continuing to do that, expecting it to work (beyond a reasonable number of tries to make sure it wasn't an anomaly - so maybe an outfit tries an experimental ebola cure on 50 people and they die at the same rate as if they were untreated, and then they continue trying the drug exclusively on 1000 more patients -- while ten trials may've been reasonable, I think most reasonable people would say trying it again on 1000 people is insane). Insanity, at least here, is a euphemism for stupid. For example, a reasonable person may look at the US giving Congress a 10% approval rating, look at the >90% Congressional re-election rate, and come to the conclusion that the vast majority are either insane/stupid, or have a very diverse set of views and base their approval on whether or not Congress as a whole or their individual member generally acts in line with the individual's viewpoints, where the majority of Congress may be at odds with (or just not care about) ideas the individual and their Congressperson care about. -So maybe Bill Billstein, Congressperson of the 29th District, won his seat because he campaigned on ending the black market involving artichokes, but Congress couldn't give half a damn about the black market for artichokes. -And maybe Jim Jimski of the 10th district won by campaigning on a platform where he'd stop immigration from Bahrain, but Congress has no beef with the people of Bahrain nor really give a damn about them.

You can maybe make the leap of logic from OP in determining what I consider insane. It's definitely vague, though. I wanted a diverse conversation which ended up with many different points of focus, though I'm still very interested in learning more about the Russian Mafia, which I find little credible info on. Maybe they really are a minor player in Russia -- Idunno. Again - thanks everyone for the replies so far.

[blablahblah]

What is insanity here? Is it subjective?

Yep.

It's one of the world's worst-kept secrets, along with the idea that nobody rules the world, and that gods don't count. There's basically constant anarchy on the global scene. Just look around.

Oh, I'm sure there are hundreds of secret societies and think-tanks in addition to the public governments and large corporate entities. Everyone is trying to influence everyone else. In this sense, the "insane" label is an extreme way of saying to someone else, "hey! You are doing things too differently and I don't like it."

I'm sure it's possible to have a constructive dialogue, even if it starts with name-calling, but it requires good will and openness from all sides.

[Swordsoffreedom]

Just provide a legitimate answer to the criticism instead of changing the subject all the time. You guys are really far too sensitive.

Seemed like there was a reply in there
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_United_States_foreign_regime_change_actions

Interventions in different countries the installation of puppet governments and dictators like Pinochet and the sponsoring of these pro-western governments while attacking their civilians.

Unless I missed something though

In their own words, those attending the Atlantic Council gathering describe the battle for Ukraine being fought to “complete” their socioeconomic consolidation in Europe – this includes “integrating Russia.” Secretary John Kerry at the gathering would literally state:

    Our European Allies have spent more than 20 years with us working to integrate Russia into the Euro-Atlantic community.

By “integrating” Russia, of course, Kerry means overthrowing any independent national political order that exists in Moscow and replacing it with one that answers to Wall Street, London, and now Brussels. This can be seen clearly in attempts by the West to replicate its model of “color revolution” within Russian territory itself.

This is a good example of Russian insanity. When "The West" talks about integrating countries into its community, they are talking about opening up trade restrictions and expanding economic relations, mainly between private companies. When the Russia hears about integration, they immediately think "imperialistic expansion and installing puppet governments." Because that's what the Russia's policy itself is, or was, most of the time. (Sure, USA is guilty of that too at times, but USA is not the entirety of "the west")

True but when you open up trade relations between private companies thats for a corporate agenda to kill nationalist companies and to do a wealth transfer to the richer nations.
Pretty much give us the raw material we will process it for you and then sell it back at triple the price.

Russia has a good reason not to trust the West (Primarily represented by the USA) especially near their home base, would be like your neighbor building a few missile bases in your backyard, kind of like if the Russians put more missiles in Cuba.

[BrianM]

Putin is like 4 feet tall and he is clearly insane. He has his picture taken bare chested Riding a pig or whatever it was. Trying to be "Manlike"  He is pissed off because he is shorter than Napolean and his pecker is only 2". He wants his war to show he is a "Big Man" but in reality he is small in all aspects of life.

Angry little Vodka fueled rage is what he has. Fact is Little man Putin is putting the world on the Brink of WW3 and his little Ego Might be put back into Check Mate since the Entire planet is condemning and watching his every "Tiny" movement.

The Good Russian people should overthrow this Vermin and replace him with a more Stable minded person. The world was a better place with Russia before him.

Hi got a black belt in Judo and is a Gran Master in Sambo, can't argue against that.

I'll give Putin that much. He could probably go toe to toe with Obama and beat the living shit out of him.

It'd be so BAD, Ahmedinajad would pull Putin off of Obama saying,"Thats enough man, thats enough."

Hell yeah!

[bryant.coleman]

Putin is as close as you can get to a dictator without actually being called a dictator, and 80% of Russians support him? Even George W Bush never got anywhere near that amount of support, despite being an imperialist asshole.

His support may not be 80%, but definitely somewhere around 60% to 70%. And there are reasons for that. Non-Russian MSM can continue its propaganda campaign calling him a dictator, but the vast majority of the Russians don't care about that. The ordinary Russians are relieved that the US puppet (drunkard Yeltsin) was replaced with a strong minded person.

[Balthazar]

drunkard Yeltsin

What should you do if you wish to become a genuine president?

• Use machine guns to kill more than 3000 parliament supporters when democratically elected parliament tries to impeach you for violation of constitution.
• Force adoption of hyper-presidential constitution, force the MPs to surrender by shelling the parliament building.
• Grant a non-revocable and lifetime legislative immunity to himself.

So BBC is right, Putin and Medvedev are dictators who are increasingly restrict human rights while Yeltsin was truly democratic & liberal indeed... I even think it's safe to bet that blablahblah and other members of Yeltsin's fan club would be happy to have him as their president. I don't doubt it, but I have to ask you, are you sure that usage of machine gun against the crowd doesn't violate any human rights?

[blablahblah]

drunkard Yeltsin

What should you do if you wish to become a genuine president?

• Use machine guns to kill more than 3000 parliament supporters when democratically elected parliament tries to impeach you for violation of constitution.
• Force adoption of hyper-presidential constitution, force the MPs to surrender by shelling the parliament building.
• Grant a non-revocable and lifetime legislative immunity to himself.

So BBC is right, Putin and Medvedev are dictators who are increasingly restrict human rights while Yeltsin was truly democratic & liberal indeed... I even think it's safe to bet that blablahblah and other members of Yeltsin's fan club would be happy to have him as their president. I don't doubt it, but I have to ask you, are you sure that usage of machine gun against the crowd doesn't violate any human rights?

Careful with the smear campaign! Putin hasn't finished being president yet.

Do some research on past dictators, then come back here and tell us why Putin's high popularity is different this time.

[Kluge]

drunkard Yeltsin

What should you do if you wish to become a genuine president?

• Use machine guns to kill more than 3000 parliament supporters when democratically elected parliament tries to impeach you for violation of constitution.
• Force adoption of hyper-presidential constitution, force the MPs to surrender by shelling the parliament building.
• Grant a non-revocable and lifetime legislative immunity to himself.

So BBC is right, Putin and Medvedev are dictators who are increasingly restrict human rights while Yeltsin was truly democratic & liberal indeed... I even think it's safe to bet that blablahblah and other members of Yeltsin's fan club would be happy to have him as their president. I don't doubt it, but I have to ask you, are you sure that usage of machine gun against the crowd doesn't violate any human rights?

Why didn't Putin or Medvedev fully reverse the policy outcomes of Yeltsin's power grab?

[bryant.coleman]

Why didn't Putin or Medvedev fully reverse the policy outcomes of Yeltsin's power grab?

Whether you like it or not, Putin was legitimately elected by the voters of Russia, with more than 60% of the votes. Some vote rigging is definitely there, but even without that he could win effortlessly. Popularity of Putin has remained much higher than that of his party (United Russia). So in short, he doesn't need to "grab" power, unlike the drunkard.

[spazzdla]

The racism...

[Balthazar]

drunkard Yeltsin

What should you do if you wish to become a genuine president?

• Use machine guns to kill more than 3000 parliament supporters when democratically elected parliament tries to impeach you for violation of constitution.
• Force adoption of hyper-presidential constitution, force the MPs to surrender by shelling the parliament building.
• Grant a non-revocable and lifetime legislative immunity to himself.

So BBC is right, Putin and Medvedev are dictators who are increasingly restrict human rights while Yeltsin was truly democratic & liberal indeed... I even think it's safe to bet that blablahblah and other members of Yeltsin's fan club would be happy to have him as their president. I don't doubt it, but I have to ask you, are you sure that usage of machine gun against the crowd doesn't violate any human rights?

Why didn't Putin or Medvedev fully reverse the policy outcomes of Yeltsin's power grab?

Because drunkard was smart enough to protect himself from revocation of his legislative immunity. 1993 constitution redefines almost all state institutions, so rolling back to pre-1993 constitution will turn all current state bodies into illegal & self-proclaimed entities due to legislative collision. Starting from parliament, president and ending with all governors, regional governments, regional parliaments, courts system, electoral commissions etc. And as a result, there wouldn't be anybody able to judge him. I have to admit that it was very smart move. Although he had already been dead for a long time, his legislative back door is still there, and restoration of pre-1993 constitution will lead to a full-scale crisis of all branches of power.

It was possible to restore pre-1993 constitution before formation of new state bodies  (i.e. between 1994 and 1995) but now it's too late. Now it's required to develop a new constitution which will be equal to pre-1993 constitution in terms of power distribution without losing compatibility with current system of state bodies. There is a project of new constitution, developed by National Movement for Freedom (coalition of parliamentary factions led by UR politician Eugene Fedorov), but it's unknown when it will be ready for adoption.

[Rassah]

In their own words, those attending the Atlantic Council gathering describe the battle for Ukraine being fought to “complete” their socioeconomic consolidation in Europe – this includes “integrating Russia.” Secretary John Kerry at the gathering would literally state:

    Our European Allies have spent more than 20 years with us working to integrate Russia into the Euro-Atlantic community.

By “integrating” Russia, of course, Kerry means overthrowing any independent national political order that exists in Moscow and replacing it with one that answers to Wall Street, London, and now Brussels. This can be seen clearly in attempts by the West to replicate its model of “color revolution” within Russian territory itself.

This is a good example of Russian insanity. When "The West" talks about integrating countries into its community, they are talking about opening up trade restrictions and expanding economic relations, mainly between private companies. When the Russia hears about integration, they immediately think "imperialistic expansion and installing puppet governments." Because that's what the Russia's policy itself is, or was, most of the time. (Sure, USA is guilty of that too at times, but USA is not the entirety of "the west")

Riiiiiiiiiight

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_United_States_foreign_regime_change_actions

Almost none of those list anything other than what I described, trying to open up countries to foreign trade and such, even if by deposing communist dictators. Where is the list of countries USA decided to invade and control as part of USA?

[Rassah]

True but when you open up trade relations between private companies thats for a corporate agenda to kill nationalist companies and to do a wealth transfer to the richer nations.
Pretty much give us the raw material we will process it for you and then sell it back at triple the price.

Wealth transfer is pretty much a communist socialist myth: Those materials were already there. So why weren't you mining them yourself?  If you were mining them, with a nationalist company that is pretty much always more wasteful, then getting a private company will reduce the waste and increase profits. Even if the private company is completely foreign and takes all the resources out of the country, they still pay the local people to build the mining and refinery factories, and still pay the local people to work to get the resource mined, refined, and delivered. The only wealth the company gets to keep is the small percentage of profit between the amount they sell it for, and the cost of getting it out of the ground (the cost that went entirely too the country). And you can't just decide to sell something at "triple the price." Things are sold on the market for whatever people will buy them for. A private company will pay labor whatever people will be willing to work for in that country, and sell the resources at the global rate. If you just take over and nationalize the mines and factories, and sell the materials at triple the price, all your workers will starve due to you not being able to sell anything.

For a real historical example, compare Venezuela, which is doing things exactly as you suggest, with nationalized resources, who's economy is in shambles and people are poor, and Poland, which after the fall of USSR privatized and sold everything to foreign investors, who came in and used their expertise to greatly improve the quality and efficiency of their factories, hired more people to work and increase production, and where, despite the "wealth being shipped elsewhere," living and economic conditions have improved drastically, and the country is much more wealthy than it was when it was nationalized.

[Rassah]

The ordinary Russians are relieved that the US puppet (drunkard Yeltsin) was replaced with a strong minded person.

That's funny, and tragically ironic. The ordinary Germans were also relieved that European puppet Paul von Hindenburg (who was printing money and handing out wealth to others at an alarming rate) was replaced with a strong minded person.


Wonder how many will get the Hitler reverence...