Kinophile

Ref economic grind:
 
 

Ref economic grind:
 
 

Ref economic grind:
 
 

Ref The Invisible Ukrainian Navy
Seababies are very easy to move overland into a new AO... 
 

Ref economic grind:
 
 

Ref The Invisible Ukrainian Navy
Seababies are very easy to move overland into a new AO... 
 

Ref economic grind:
 
 

Ok as we are talking about Elections PR Stunts this popped up and worth a read...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2014/05/05/putins-human-rights-council-accidentally-posts-real-crimean-election-results-only-15-voted-for-annexation/amp/
The article is from May 2014. I know I know going back a bit but when did the war start...
So for those thinking there was mass support for the annexation the actual figures don't back that up...
 
 
 
Anyway all a moot point as any Russian election is just a PR attempt to dupe the world...
 

I read an interesting discussion with a Russian guy who had grown up in the USSR, with him being unable to understand how anyone would ever vote against whoever was in power. His thinking was that the president could order people to vote for him, and not doing so would be insubordination and get punished. And this worked all the way down the chain: officials at various levels, police, judiciary, election organisers, all follow their orders because not doing so would lead to punishment from above.
People tried to explain that in an established democracy it doesn't work like that. The fundamental difference is that (almost) everyone believes in the the rule of law. There are laws around how to hold fair elections, and anyone violating the laws to try and fix the result is very likely to face punishment. His counter was always "but why wouldn't the authorities just order people not to punish the rule breaking and punish the people trying to do things 'fairly'".  He couldn't seem to wrap his head around the idea that once there is a critical mass of people who follow the rule of law, anyone trying to break the law to fix an election is very much taking a big risk and on their own Anyone who might shield them from consequences becomes liable to consequences from higher up, up to an including the supreme court (or equivalent) and police who aren't under the power of politicians and protected from the consequences of following the law rather than the whims of the head of state.
So in an established democracy, enough people believe in the rule of law, following the law shields you from punishment, and anyone trying to subvert that is knowingly taking a risk that might well get them punished - even the people tyring to subvert the rule of law work on the assumption that the rule of law holds sway and that they are violating societal norms.
In Russia, from what this guy is saying, enough people believe that following orders from above  is what shields you from punishment, and following what the law says rather than what you are told to do is going to get you punished. Trying to follow the law and disobey the wishes of the president is what is violating societal norms, and is the same kind of conspiratorial risk-taking in Russia that trying to steal an election would be in an established democracy.
It was an interesting insight into his mindset that he just couldn't make the mental leap to understand how a society might function where everyone (or close enough to everyone to count) valued following the law more than following orders, and that was what protected people. He always fell back on "but what if someone punished them for that".
So yeah, democracy does kind of require a society built on the foundation  that democracy works and the rule of law reigns, and it is a self-sustaining system that functions very differently to the culture that the USSR and Russia had (and probably had before the USSR as well form what I gather)
 

Yet more? 
 

Putin remains a master strategist. 

He really gets it. 
 

If anyone here has knowledge and is interested in technical info on Radio, EW, missile, and drones, frequencies, developments in the FPV arms race, etc, I have this channel to share. Sadly its content surpasses my knowledge on the matter.

Yes, I think he would.
Putin's regime crack on democracy, like Luka's, Kazakh etc. are products of progressive uncertainty on part of aparatus of power, which includes a lot of fears (real or token), irrational decisions, systemic inertia and lack of real data available to ruler. In some ways, this process it is like with decision of invading Ukraine- regime is drawn into certain types of behaviour the more it is in this mud. Except the process lasts much longer here. To organize these mock elections is simpler and cheaper solution for Putin, not necessarly a proof that he would loose the real ones. Much less it is the evidence that more Russians silently opppose his regime now than in the past (like significant part of emigre liberals like to explain it).
       Real democratic processess are a lot, like throwing a coin for Kremlin- even if they would secure the vote anyway, they instinctively push away this idea. Especially in times of war, globals struggles, villain NATO barking on the corner. Even meagre democracy also needs some debates, tiresome compaigns, talking to some peasants in villages lost in Syberia...a lot of hassle, costing tonns of money and effort that should be beyond Tsar dignity *. Strange, awkward and ulitimatelly hollow ritual, good for Western hypocrites, where financial oligarchy rules anyway (at least from Kremlin perspective). Add that Putin is genuinly convinced that Americans and CIA are puting their fingers into every election around him, so- like milions of citizens remembering USSR firmly believe- people can be simply communally programmed into being "nazis" and traitors just like that.
      We will never know, but personally I had little doubt that Putin would most probably win every major election in recent Russian history even without murders and authoritarian propaganda (he would have problems with changing constitution, though)- in some scenarios, he could even rule like Orban in Hungary, just by buying media by friendly oligarchs and controlling judiciary, if not for the militaristic needs of Russian state. But it would cost a lot of effort and always bring some risk, so why even bother? There was always little to no alternatives to Putin in minds of Russians in last 20 years anyway; probably even Navalny was just a phenomena, representing some resentments against corruption but not being taken seriously enough as statesman figure in muscovite sense. So, here we are.
*Probably clips of Buffallo Man on January 4th were like a cold shower for elites of many non-democratic states on this planet; a visible confirmation what can happen if you let the mob to stick their heads too high.

He really gets it. 
 

He really gets it.