Comments by FarEasterner

I didn't say they never run for office. They run and mostly lose (except where proportional system help them). The same like Komeito or Italian lefties. Good at criticism but short on viable alternative program.

Nobody prevented them from publishing articles in press like Putin did or hijack anti-corruption wave which brought Navalny to popularity. They couldn't, they didn't want. Yet they never admitted to play second fiddles to Putin.

It's their fault that Putin prepares to reenter Kremlin.

official opposition sits in parliament - Communists (unreformed, with support among pensioners), Liberal Democrats (led by nationalistic clown Zhirinovsky) and Fair Russia (with vaguely social-democratic program).

They are part of the Putin's system and despite harsh rhetorics are very useful for Kremlin as they never managed to get their act together and manufacture anti-Kremlin tide at least to deprive Putin victory in first round.

They resemble lame nominal opposition parties which were sitting in Italian, Japanese, etc parliaments for many decades without tasting power.

no system in the world is ideal, most Eastern countries are more authoritarian than Russia, Western democracies controlled tightly by plutocratic mafia. Grievances exist everywhere yet it's up to people of particular countries to reform their political and economic system.

Putin's regime made mistakes, many mistakes, if he won't rectify them then he will lead Russia to implosion in some years from now. If he change the kleptocratic system he will be remembered as one of the greatest Russian rulers.

As for opposition in Russia (both official and unofficial), they shopuld admit - they lost this election. His rating after September swap hovered in 40s%. What was the reason behind surge since January? I think it was opposition fault, they could not reach out to poor provinces while Kremlin successfully frightened them with extremist threat.

the West not knowing how to tame Putin wanted to engineer his downfall or at least to gain some pressure points in talks over wide variety of issues from Syria, Iran to AMD and Georgia.

Unfortunately for the West they had only marginalized and discredited set of politicians like Nemtsov who were ready to cooperate (in return for financial support).

Westerners of course observe closely Russian political scene and started to support Navalny, anti-corruption blogger, since 2010, he was given money, support, meeting with US officials.

He indeed gained some popularity in 2011, but in the end his nationalist views failed him and Kremlin's counterattack to portray Navalny and other oppositioners as neonazi, dangerous extremists paid off, Putin's rating started to recover while opposition rallies attendance dwindled.

So game for the West is over for now, till the next time. Hopefully they will find someone more acceptable in multi cultural, multi ethnic, and multiconfessional society as Russia. Nationalists scare most Russians and they have no chance to succeed.

Just like white supremacists in US or Nick Griffin and his ilk in UK.

Navalny was bad investment for the West, money lost, case closed.

Ed Lucas alter ego?

Western backed neonazi revolution in Russia seems to have failed and these contradicting reports (open and friendly faces of protesters....depressing, gloomy, etc) won't hide reality, the West is the main loser of Russian elections.

Strange analysis

it has excellent first half built on generalities but when Economist comes down to concretics it begins floundering.

Mr Rogozin is rabid nationalist, he was accused by many as fascist seeking Russia for Russians (same like Navalny). His small party was dismantled by Kremlin yet he was utilized - his energy was redirected towards NATO & The West, now he was appointed to oversee reforming of military industrial complex. Despite his popularity among nationalists tempered by his association with Putin's regime he does not have any chance to capture two highest posts - PM or President, outcry will be immense.

As for Navalny's central idea of devolution of power - it's actually Medvedev's idea of decentralization of power he aired last summer when Kremlin realized that no investments into infrastructure, housing coming ot far-lying regions. Medvedev after Georgian war started to visit these regions and he was frankly appaled by what he saw.

Navalny had talked only about corruption and since November he revealed his true fascist colours, organizing Russian marches. Despite his denials of racist views he reveal them time and again, ridiculting Tajik's singer video for example, organizing ugly fascist attacks on the web etc. Navalny like Rogozin has no real chance to rule Russia, for if he (hypothetically) elected it will lead to interethnic riots and possibly even to break up of Russian Federation.

I agree with paragraph stating that fledgling opposition movement has no real leaders, those who lead them right now are deeply discredited figures of Nemtsov, Ryzhkov, Kasyanov, Kasparov, (about Navalny I said already). These are not politicians which can translate protest feelings into real votes to change politcal map of the country. People trust more apolitcial figures like writer Boris Akunin or journalist Leonid Parfyonov. But these intelligentsia are not politicians, they don't want to be politicians because it's harmful for their careers. (Many unfollowed Akunin's blog because it was turned into opposition playground).

Navalny and followers wasted two months making ad hominem (very ugly) attacks on popular artists who remain loyal to Kremlin like Evgeny Mironov. After Mironov called for arrest of Navalny for his hate speeches Navalny followers started trolling him labeling him third sex, eunuch, gay, etc.

After such attacks even false news of Chechen policemen brought to Moscow (it was reported by opposition before every meeting in December, in February and now before March 5) in order to inflame nationalist passions among Muscovites won't help opposition movement.

It fizzled out.

But still underlying problems didn't go away. I believe Putin has his last chance to rectify mistakes he made and deliver to provincial Russia development and investment, curb corruption, redtape and reform callous bureaucratic class.

In the end of last year he promised in 2 months to deliver concrete results in fight against corruption. It was obviously election gimmick though he indeed signed ordwer to uncover shady affiliating networks of leading state-run companies. No results so far. But right after re-election people of Russia will wait for them.

I agree with message of the article - India deserve friendly neighbours and lose much economically, politically and militarily due to their indifference or hostility.

India still has no internationally recognized border except with Myanmar. Even with Nepal there is no mutually acceptable border.

These problems should be resolved that's why there is need for better and more Indian diplomats.

Secondly I totally endorse last paragraph about trade.

As for quoted you mentioned these are controversial and depend on perception of Indian policy from within or from point of view of her smaller neighbours.

That's why I said to Economist - practice what you preach. The West has been interfering in affairs of other countries, intimidating them, coercing diplomatically, strangling them economically, invading and installing puppet regimes. These are things which writer of Economist said India should not do. But why the West practice them?

though i agree with article to be fair the west never followed such rules, was breaking them with impunity on large bigger global scale.

interfering, intimidating, bullying, coercing, lying, waging propaganda wars, supporting insuregents, invading, changing regimes and list go on.

Syria will either disintegrate like neighbouring Iraq (or previously Lebanon) in orgy of civil war with sides supported by world powers or Assad (or anyone from ruling clique) will crush uprising.

Western hopes are on Turkey, but will Erdogan risks everything to see Assad gone? What West can offer - EU membership?

no, these approximate figures of casualties and refugees were reported in Western and Indian media

just check them:
http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/article2854513.ece

http://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/SportsArchive/artikel.php?ID=228075

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/3802602.html

I supported no fly zone over Libya because I read Amnesty reports about gross violation of human rights in Libya, but figures were small and also unconfirmed. Opposition talked about 10000 victims of Gaddafi regime, then on AlJazeera represenatative talked about 20000, but no proof emerged even after fallof Gaddafi's regime. Nevertherless these figures are lower than number of victims during revolution and new "democratic" regime in Tripoli.

As for torture of Gaddafists by new authorities, check Amnesty report about recent death in jail from torture of former Libyan ambassador to France.

Why Western media is not screaming foul? Why silence?

These gaddafists are also human beings and I doubt that 7-10 thousands people personally participated in torture of opposition members. They need proper judicial process and cannot be prosecuted without court decisions.

oh my...

what do you mean by nil?

did Americans got nil influence just because they vetoed 60 pro-Palestinian or score of anti-apartheid resolutions?

no, same Arabs crept back to Washington to make deal with American Jewish lobby and Israel.

Arab rulers fan anti-Israel sentiments at home just to divert anger of people at their rampant corruption, nepotism & utter incompetence otherwise they could progress a bit besides tourist & oil trade.

it's just hypocrisy on all sides

for West or Saudis or Qatar to shout about victims of vicious civil war they fuelled themselves is rich.

first thing I'd like to know how many civilians died in Libya, their previous "democratic" enterprise. I heard about 30000 dead. 7-10 thousands of Gaddafi's supporters are in jails, tortured to death without any trial. I also worry about 200000 citizens of Niger alone who fled to their country and many more other Africans who worked in Libya under Gaddafi. Famine in Sub-Saharan Africa because of Western intervention in Libya is real.

I don;t trust manufactured twitter campaigns led by likes of @acarvin (supposedly NPR journalist) and slew of Arab/Iran/Syria etc twitter accounts. I don;t know whether they're real or fake like Gay girl in Damascus who was proven to be American male in Scotland. Their reports are often inaccurate though it's understandable because Syria is totalitarian country.

I don't know why China vetoed resolution given she has little business there. Maybe Beijing didn't like recent anti-Chinese rhetorics coming from Obama. Russian intransigence is understandable and has nothing to do with atrocities committed in Syria - before elections in March foreign policy is paralyzed and Putin won't take any risks.

image is everything, reality is nothing for Western media. And in this case it was japan's image which was carefully cultivated by Economist and likes.

Putin's speechwriters wrote for him very good article. It justifies legacy of his 10-11 years rule skirting over uncomfortable facts that the system he built according to his desire of unitary (not federal) Russia failed.

By redirecting financial resources through the centre he just enriched two main cities, Moscow & St Peterburg, their bureaucracies and all sorts of shady connections. Despite oil prices bonanza because of Bush wars he could not provide provinces with world class infrastructure. Without basic facilities (roads, ports, internet etc) there was not much investment, especially private.

How he can change such situation if he wins another term in office remains to be seen. So far he was cool to Medvedev's idea of decentralisation of authority in Russia so let's see maybe nothing will change at all.

As for political reforms which fringe opposition leaders, bloggers demand - I don't think he is going to satisfy them. Most of these leaders do not represent anyone but themselves. Coverage of their activities is huge in Western media which is good for balance but it's easy to overestimate their importance.

snubbish tone of Economist's articles hide weakness, state of UK fleet is so poor that Philip Hammond made hysterical speeches in Washington appealing to Americans not to leave Europe.

Russian army's plight it's partially true, Putin's regime imposed severe austerity measures in early 2000s. Only recently docks became so busy that delivery of ships for Indian navy was delayed.

But Russia doesn't need to match every American fleet as Economist writer suggest, Russians do not have so many military campaigns as Americans have, they do not have trade to protect etc. To rival Americans they need just subs with Bulava missiles.

As for Dydomuk's rhetorical words about bullets, it's Western countries which are main arm suppliers in the Middle East.

I agree totally. the best camera is the one in hand at the right moment. Besides so-called poster-size pictures which magazines like so much have feel of being staged, unnatural and altogether irritating. When pictures capture life in its beauty and ugliness that's photography, especially reporting photography. When they capture staged events, it's art (artificial).

it doesn't look unpredictable in near future, at least if we listen to what Edward Lucas, David Satter and others told to Voice of America.

They considered many alternatives and came to conclusion that further hardening of authoritarian regime especially after elections and expected victory of Putin - this is what awaits Russia.

It's not what protesters would like to listen to - even small signs of liberalization in recent months, first reports on national TV about opposition meetings - all hit their heads with unexpected freedom. But it will not last long, I am afraid.

Protesters think the regime lost legitimacy and popularity with most Russians and think that Putin's regime is just like GKCHP (junta which shortly deposed Gorbachev in coup in August 1991 precipitating dissolution of Soviet Union).

Unfortunately for protesters it's not true - GKCHP was illegal and secondly was deeply unpopular after 6 years of Gorbachev's reforms (some of them stupid like fight against alcoholism) and economic chaos.

The current regime may take back small steps towards liberalization at short notice if they would feel threatened cracking down on hardline but disparate opposition groups, supported by the West. Putin today already said he won't negotiate with what he called "extremist groups".

So the bottom line is we shouldn't expect much changes beofre economic crisis hit Russia if oil prices go down significantly. And opposition activists better not to delude themselves that the regime will give up power voluntarily, they better work in far-lying regions who are unhappy with their taxes accumulating in Moscow and improve image regarding links to racist & neonazi groups which attend opposition meetings in great numbers because of their leader Navalny. Thus pro-Kremlin tabloids and bloggers can easily smash their nascent movement.

Mrs Clinton is hypocrite and tried to get some sheen meeting the Lady, Nobel laureate. And Obama, also Nobel laureate is hypocrite calling the Lady.

However as these hypocrites are still holding power in DC it's good they found time to get busy with Burmese junta, nudging generals towards reforms.

Pathetic article, especially in light of brutal crackdown on oil workers in Zhanaozen in Western Kazakhstan where at least 50 were shot by police and 500 injured.

Nazarbayev is ailing aging dictator, who rules his country with sheer brutality yet Economist is coming out full of praise the same as Western politicians.

Western hypocrites! All your ratings, articles are made worthless with such articles.