Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Helgoland]

It's even worse than I thought. Russia clocks in at a score of 28 in 2013, putting them on place 127 of 177 on the Corruption Perceptions Index. You guys are worse than China. In the region, only Ukraine (sorry, UR) is worse...

Now that would be a worthy project for Russia-EU collaboration.

[gogis]

snip
It's funny, but most people see corruption, in the US, as a serious and real issue, many even see it as one of the biggest issues our country faces, and a large amount of effort is dedicated here to fighting it (even if it does feel like 2 steps forward one step back).

I would be horrified to hear a fellow countryman in my own country say "It's undeniable that corruption in state is high." and then move to minimize the impact of the statement.

Olemars - thanks for the sources.

Pretty much this.
People get caught doing corrupt crap in the west, they get thrummed out of office, their political career ends, they get jail time.
It might not be eradicated, (and at least in the US, recent court decisions have been counter-productive, to our chagrin), but if it is undertaken it's done with much greater surreptitiousness, and is never hand-waved by the general public.
Woo a culture of integrity!

Do you really believe that what you call lobby is not outright corruption? You have a lobby, we have blat. One is openly legit, another is not so much. Do you really fight lobby? I mean really, really? We all puppets in that situation. They toss us stick called elections and we now magically believe we control them?

[WealthyRadish]

The US and Russian governments are corrupt in different ways, so I don't think the comparison is that valid. Here it's more a case of institutionalized corruption and scapegoating, while more basic things like (more direct) bribery and nepotism aren't as relevant. I'm not really familiar with Russian corruption beyond what happened immediately after the fall of the USSR, but here in the US, it's more about corporate and special interests getting disproportionate influence over legislature than political/personal gain (usually, though that line is always fuzzy with career politicians).

Not that this has anything to do with Ukraine, though...

[mainiac]

Do you really believe that what you call lobby is not outright corruption? You have a lobby, we have blat. One is openly legit, another is not so much. Do you really fight lobby? I mean really, really? We all puppets in that situation. They toss us stick called elections and we now magically believe we control them?

So you can't be arsed to fight corruption, might as well accept it as a fact of life.  Gee, wonder why your leadership sucks so much.

[GrizzlyAdamz]

Lobbying is kinda a grey issue. Here are the good sides, (from my perspective):
1. It allows minority groups to get their voices heard. This is why they became a thing in the first place; so disparate groups /of people/, not oligarchs, could get themselves organized and have a greater impact on how the government is run.
It allows faster feedback between the constituents & their representatives in-between elections, (a good thing).

2. It allows a tamer method to get these interests heard. So you don't have to resort to illegality to work towards your goals. This contributes to that 'culture of integrity' we've got going- we're more lenient with the money-in-politics thing, allowing the grey bits in exchange for truly outlawing the black bits.
Plus we get to monitor it.
Legalization & regulation, ya? Gets rid of back-alley coat-hanger abortions and seedy street-corner drug-dealers. Does the same for politics.

Not that this has anything to do with Ukraine, though...

[gogis]

it's more about corporate and special interests getting disproportionate influence over legislature than political/personal gain (usually, though that line is always fuzzy with career politicians).

Okay... How it's not indirect bribery? I bet one of party hands out money/services, another receives, in the end. More paperwork but same thing.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

Back to Ukraine, some thoughts

a) I am sure that Russia wants much more than Crimea. That region is not self-sufficient and with all that economic damage it suffers it will bring nothing but expenses for the next few years even if Crimean Tatars will not start Jihad (I think Putin will find some Ramzan Kadyrov like-guy and give him a lot of money, but doubt that it will help)

b) All that situation seriously undermines democratic reforms in Ukraine. You can't find worse time to do democratic reforms then when your country is invaded. How to reform law enforcement system and secret service when they are needed to counter enemy agents?

c) It sucks to live in a country that can't do anything to protect 2 millions of it's citizens that are captured by armed terrorists. It is a very awful feeling. Basic rights of people living here are not protected at all. There are first rumors of cases of rape and robberies from "liberators"   

d) And still I am optimistic, nation has changed direction to the right one, the path will be not easy at all, but we'll get a country that we'll be proud of.

[GrizzlyAdamz]

Hey UR, has anyone been mentioning all those pipelines running through the rest of Ukraine? Those seem to be getting a disproportionately small amount of attention.

[gogis]

I think you overemphasize current oligarchs issue. They stole all that millions in 90's but now they all legalized. I think Khodorkovsky and Berezovsky cases showed how harsh repercussions can be. We all know that it's almost guaranteed that given person made it all illegally, but that was bandit times. Overall, you can't really belive that most powerful people can be handled, do you?
I don't see all that 2008's bankers rot in jail as well.

[Mephansteras]

it's more about corporate and special interests getting disproportionate influence over legislature than political/personal gain (usually, though that line is always fuzzy with career politicians).

Okay... How it's not indirect bribery? I bet one of party hands out money/services, another receives, in the end. More paperwork but same thing.

Outright bribary is illegal. There are strict limits on what lobbies can do and what politicians can accept. Obviously, some politicians break the law. If they're caught, that pretty much ruins their career.

Now, there is some indirect bribery. Nothing stops wealthy politicians from making sure that industries that they invest heavily in are given extra weight when making decisions, or are given tax breaks, or whatnot. It's far from 100% perfect.

Overall, I'd say the US has Mild to Moderate Corruption. It exists, and it causes problems, but there is strong pressure against it and most of it that does exist has to stay hidden because it is illegal. At which point it is simply another crime rather than an integral part of the system.

Areas with High corruption are usually third world countries. Mostly defined as anywhere that requires a bribe of government officials just to get something done, or as an easy way to avoid repercussions for breaking the law.

Interesting wikipedia page on corruption by country.

To bring us back on subject, the page on Ukraine is rather enlightening.

[WealthyRadish]

the good sides

I agree, it's a useful system, it's just gotten out of control. I'd rather not rant about corn subsidies and the weapons industry, though...

Okay... How it's not indirect bribery? I bet one of party hands out money/services, another receives, in the end. More paperwork but same thing.

I don't think US corruption is usually about the personal economic gain of the politician, is what I meant. The vast majority of politicians here are already rich anyway, since it's practically a requirement to be independently wealthy. What they do need money for are the campaigns, which are getting increasingly expensive and need to be run perpetually for most legislators, and recent court rulings have made it even easier for private interests to donate unlimited amounts to these campaigns. But in terms of politicians actually stealing from the system, I don't think it's that common. Again, no idea if that happens in Russia or not.

Not that this has anything to do with Ukraine, though...

[gogis]

Do you really believe that what you call lobby is not outright corruption? You have a lobby, we have blat. One is openly legit, another is not so much. Do you really fight lobby? I mean really, really? We all puppets in that situation. They toss us stick called elections and we now magically believe we control them?

So you can't be arsed to fight corruption, might as well accept it as a fact of life.  Gee, wonder why your leadership sucks so much.

I do not. I don't even vote. Should I hang myself now? It's a different mentality, I just live. There are people who want fight corruption and they do. Why you are so determined that society must be politicaly active? Is it some requirement to be a human being or something? You know, Russia is exactly how it's described. Sleeping bear. You not poke it - everything is fine. Poke it too much and it's explode in blood fury.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

Hey UR, has anyone been mentioning all those pipelines running through the rest of Ukraine? Those seem to be getting a disproportionately small amount of attention.

Well, as long as there are no actual fighting nothing will happen to them... Else... even if our government will decide that blowing them up is not in our best interests, some citizens may disagree. Damaging pipes is not that hard to do

[Sheb]

I'm kinda sad about the way the Ukrainian government seems to have been totally sidelined in the recent stuff. You only hear about the EU, US and Russia hashing it out, like we're at the congress of Vienna again.

Helgoland, I was reading a rather interesting opinion piece in the Economist today about how Merkel's Russophilia was grounded in the Ostpolitik of Helmut Schmidt and that other chancellor (Willy Brandt? Not sure anymore).

It really seems to apply to your position too. But I still think it's misguided. Part of the reasons the Ostpolitik worked was the pressure the US and the rest were applying on Russia, making any opening look worthwhile. (Or if you're cynical, they were trying to break the West apart).

As ivse said, the very fact that almost all the ex-Warsaw Pact countries decided to join NATO is seen as an agression by Russia. We can be as friendly as we want, unless we are willing to sacrifice the right of whole countries to freely choose their alliance (Which Russia agreed to in treaties BTW) Russia won't be satisfied.

[nenjin]

I bet you will be sued in US, aint ya?

Generally, no. You have to say or write something factual that is not true for you to be sued over it. (Libel and slander in American and British Law.) Simple hyperbole? No, you can do that all day long in America. Hell, conservatives have been calling Obama a Commie-Pinko-Socialist-Muslim-Fascist since he was elected. None of those are grounds for being sued over, even for a private citizen rather than a public, political figure.

It's impossible to believe to anecdotical evidence if you biased to person and his origin, though.

No, it's impossible to believe anecdotal observation without corroborating evidence. That's why it's an anecdote. I'm not biased towards you or Russia. However, your defense does make me question whether you're saying what you believe, or what you know.
 

As ivse said, the very fact that almost all the ex-Warsaw Pact countries decided to join NATO is seen as an agression by Russia. We can be as friendly as we want, unless we are willing to sacrifice the right of whole countries to freely choose their alliance (Which Russia agreed to in treaties BTW) Russia won't be satisfied.

It's very hard to reason with people who view free will as an act of aggression towards their interests. That's Imperial thinking.