Everyday one can easily read articles that severely criticize Putin and the Kremlin.
Electronic media is different. Television is, for the most part, either controlled or heavily influenced by the Kremlin. However, control or influence of television is not the product of an “authoritarian” mindset. Rather, state influence has been the response to individuals who owned television networks for personal and political ambitions – the oligarchs again.
Does not make any sense, why "The Kremlin would have been guilty of irresponsibility if it had allowed the super wealth to use airwaves to promote personal agendas" is not true for "printed media" then?
Absense of logic.
The opposition, on the other hand, offers little to the average Russian. In fact, the opposition simply represents failure. Yabloko and SPS continue to represent the failures of Russia’s economic and political transformation since 1991
Yabloko and SPS, AFAIR never ruled the country. But OK, I am not too worried about them, just shows "manipulation"
Reigning in regional governors does have a reasonable logic – whether it will actually strengthen Russia’s sovereignty is another issue. Appointing governors is not really about fighting terrorism
At least one good point.
The “commentariat” rarely reflects upon the fact that Putin has very few people he can really count on.
Who's fault is that?
Actually Putin controls very little. He wants to change that.
Is it good or bad?
I see no arguments
No single person, or group of fabulously wealthy individuals, has the right to determine Russia economic future.
Ridiculous.
"No single person" and see above "Actually Putin controls very little. He wants to change that"
Putin has enough on his hands at home to overly worry about advancing Russia’s interests beyond its nearest borders.
But he does that, and everyone knows this, even his supporters.
Excessive central control and under the grip of the “siloviki.” The “commentariat” never misses the chance to point out that the highest state positions (including state-owned companies) are held by present and former members of the Soviet security forces. The implication is that former “totalitarians” are today’s “authoritarians.” Well, who exactly should Putin be promoting to high state positions? Liberal-conservatives refuse to work for the Kremlin. Business leaders are not welcomed – that was done under Yeltsin (with the obvious disastrous outcome). The first post-Soviet generation is more interested in the private sector because the much higher wages.
Poor arguments.
Under Putin rule, overall living standards have improved impressively each year and there is little indication that will change during the balance of his second term.
Yeah, right, depends on oil prices.
Putin’s Russia has virtually nothing to do with the Soviet period. Of course some symbols and traditions have been retained or re-introduced, but the Soviet ethos is not present.
Yet
He is also committed to Russia’s national interests
What is it? A fact? A thought? Maybe a belief?
Количество постов не переходит в качество, которое стоит прочтения.
