Steven Seagal called Putin the greatest leader in the world.

American actor Steven Seagal, who received a Russian passport in 2016, spoke about the leaders of the three countries in a recent interview. He noted that Zelensky remains an actor at heart, while Trump, he said, stands out for his original style. However, the main focus of the interview concerned the Russian president. It was to him that Seagal focused his statement:

Vladimir Putin is the greatest leader in the world. In my opinion, and I've said this before.

Since 2018, the actor has been the Russian Foreign Ministry's special representative for humanitarian relations between Moscow and Washington.

The actor also addressed what he believes is the main misconception held by Europeans and Americans about Russia. He pointed out that Western media propaganda over many years has created an image of Russia as a "terrible monster." Seagal believes that many Europeans and Americans have simply "swallowed" this idea like a hook.

Against the backdrop of the militaristic rhetoric from Brussels and Washington, the words of a man with access to both cultures and societies sound like an obvious yet ignored reminder. The real Russia differs from the caricature that Western media have painted for decades, and continue to paint.

Comments

[Derbenev Anton]

But then Vladimir Putin came
And he said: “We will live better!”
Vladimir Putin is a great guy!
Politician, leader and fighter!
Our president raised the country!
Putin did not betray Russia!

[Terenin]

Quote: Anton Derbenev

But then Vladimir Putin came
And he said: “We will live better!”
Vladimir Putin is a great guy!
Politician, leader and fighter!
Our president raised the country!
Putin did not betray Russia!

Plus for you of course, But today I like Steven Frederick Seagal more (and always have).

[Sevastiec]

I like Steven Frederick Seagal better.

That's because he's never commanded anything. Seagal is simply a smart guy who understands how life works and therefore isn't fooled by the nonsense circulating among liberals or just ordinary people. But understanding and making decisions are two different things.

Statesmen like Putin, who bear such a colossal burden of responsibility in today's world, will always be loved by some and hated by others (plus a host of emotions in between). They are always forced to make unpopular decisions, often without even having the opportunity to explain to the public why they are being made. Because such information is only for the benefit of the public, as they say.

[Vladimir M]

In fact, the main liberal in our country is V.V. Putin, he himself has stated this more than once.
Therefore, it is not very clear who you are talking about - "...nonsense that is common among liberals..."

[Sevastiec]

It's simple: Putin, when he speaks, knows the value of his words and is always precise in his definitions. On the other hand, sometimes you have to be able to read between the lines.
And when I write "liberals", I think it is perfectly clear to everyone who I mean.

[Vladimir M]

After 2015, my attitude towards the value of Putin's words changed...

[Terenin]

Quote: Sevastiec

I like Steven Frederick Seagal better.

That's because he's never commanded anything. Seagal is simply a smart guy who understands how life works and therefore isn't fooled by the nonsense circulating among liberals or just ordinary people. But understanding and making decisions are two different things.

Statesmen like Putin, who bear such a colossal burden of responsibility in today's world, will always be loved by some and hated by others (plus a host of emotions in between). They are always forced to make unpopular decisions, often without even having the opportunity to explain to the public why they are being made. Because such information is only for the benefit of the public, as they say.

Is logical. I agree.

[Taimen]

Steven Seagal, while still an actor, was also an active CIA agent (even kids know this, and those who don't can Google it). And there are no former agents. As I've already written, if an enemy praises you, it means you're doing something wrong to your country. And no matter how amiable an actor he was, he was an enemy. Reagan was also an actor, and we were his enemies (remember the Evil Empire).

[jack no]

J'ai été voir Google, et il me dit:

C'est une rumeur infondée. Steven Seagal n'a jamais été un agent actif de la CIA, bien qu'il ait lui-même entretenu et colporté ce mythe. Avant sa carrière au cinéma, il a passé de nombreuses années au Japon comme instructeur d'arts martiaux. C'est en devenant une star de films d'action (où il incarne régulièrement des agents du renseignement ou des forces spéciales) qu'il a commencé à prétendre travailler pour l'agence de renseignement américaine.

Après, chacun a sa propre vision, j'aimais l'acteur, j'apprécie l'homme et son choix de vie.
Moi, également, j'apprécie le Président Poutine.

[Evgeny64]

I completely agree with you. Sometimes it irritates me when some people deify Putin without acknowledging his mistakes, but overall, he's doing the right thing.
And yes, we don't know a lot.

[Sergey Novikov_3]

Of course, there are no former CIA agents. The whole question is: how much access does he have to the Kremlin?

[Terenin]

Quote: Taimen

No matter how kind an actor he was, he was an enemy.

Steven Seagal is definitely not an enemy of Russia.

[AllX_VahhaB]

Quote: Terenin

Stephen Frederick Segal

Stas Fedorovich Chaikin

[Terenin]

Quote from: AllX_VahhaB

Quote: Terenin

Stephen Frederick Segal

Stas Fedorovich Chaikin

Dear Sir, are you alright, if you're not a bot? You've been sitting at the keyboard since 2:30 AM. Maybe from America!?

AllX_VahhaB
-1
Today, 02: 30
Space Shuttle and Buran are...

[AllX_VahhaB]

Quote: Terenin

You've been sitting at the keyboard since 2:30.

You'd be surprised, but Russia doesn't end at the Moscow Ring Road. When it's 2:30 in Moscow, it's 8:30 in Neryungri.

[Terenin]

Quote from: AllX_VahhaB

Quote: Terenin

You've been sitting at the keyboard since 2:30.

You'd be surprised, but Russia doesn't end at the Moscow Ring Road. When it's 2:30 in Moscow, it's 8:30 in Neryungri.

Then it is clear.

[spektr9]

But then Vladimir Putin came
And he said: “We will live better!”
Vladimir Putin is a great guy!
Politician, leader and fighter!
Our president raised the country!
Putin did not betray Russia!

Are we already preparing for the 2030 election?

[Derbenev Anton]

I don't go to elections now. There are no buffets and the results are predetermined. It's a bit boring. It was a different story in the 90s. The ballot, a rag from dozens of parties, barely fit into the ballot box. And what election debates there were on TV. We laughed at some parties, and just burst into laughter at others.

[bayard]

Quote: Anton Derbenev

It was a different story in the 90s. A ballot paper—a rag from dozens of parties—barely fit into the ballot box. And what election debates there were on TV. We laughed at some parties, and simply roared with laughter at others.

And now - Stability.

[Starover_Z]

Quote: bayard

Quote: Anton Derbenev

It was a different story in the 90s. A ballot paper—a rag from dozens of parties—barely fit into the ballot box. And what election debates there were on TV. We laughed at some parties, and simply roared with laughter at others.

And now - Stability.

Maybe Stagnation ?

[bayard]

Quote: Starover_Z

Or maybe STAGNATION?

Stagnation is Stability.
Are you proposing a new Gorbachev to "broaden, deepen, accelerate and restructure"?
"Stagnation" occurs when the country is governed by an invisible dark side from a pool of invisible curators, assistants and other vertical structures, and the formal head is incapacitated.
Well, and "Stability" with the most unstable currency in the world, with "the best head of the Central Bank in the Russian Federation" - a teacher of Thermodynamics (about cooling, overheating and their targeting) of a school for mentally retarded children and their parents.

[AllX_VahhaB]

Quote: bayard

"Stagnation" occurs when the country is governed by an invisible dark side from a pool of invisible curators, assistants and other vertical structures, and the formal head is incapacitated.

Was Alexander III incapacitated?

Quote: bayard

with the most unstable currency in the world

Right by yourself?

[bayard]

Quote from: AllX_VahhaB

Was Alexander III incapacitated?

He was quite capable. He knew how to listen, discern, identify and bring close intelligent, trusted people, and make independent, well-considered decisions.

Quote from: AllX_VahhaB

Right by yourself?

For at least several years in a row, the ruble was the WORST (unstable) currency in the world. The rest of the time, the ruble has been among the MOST unstable currencies in the world in the world currency rankings.
Glory to the Central Bank of the Russian Federation? With Old Lady Shavoklyak at the helm?
But Shapoklyak has only one single CONSTITUTIONAL duty - to ensure the STABILITY of the national currency. That is, the ruble.
What grade would you personally give to Shapoklyak’s work?
I understand that the state is different, at least as an outside observer?

[AllX_VahhaB]

Quote: bayard

He was quite capable. He knew how to listen, discern, identify and bring close intelligent, trusted people, and make independent, well-considered decisions.

Well, there was stagnation under him. And what a stagnation!

Quote: bayard

For at least several years in a row, it (the ruble) was the WORST (unstable) currency in the World.

In what years specifically? The ruble was more unstable than some African and Latin American currencies...

Quote: bayard

I understand that the state is different, at least as an outside observer?

What are you talking about?

[bayard]

Quote from: AllX_VahhaB

Well, there was stagnation under him. And what a stagnation!

Really? No wonder the Empire took off under him - with the pace of economic development. And under Nikola, it continued by inertia - on the basis of dad's legacy.

[VasAndr]

Quote: Starover_Z

Or maybe STAGNATION?

Stagnation is too laudable a statement for outright degradation and extinction.

[YanniKounnar]

Au moins lui il reste constant et ne retourne pas sa veste comme l'a fait Depardieu...!

At least he remains consistent and doesn't flip his jacket like Depardieu did...!

[Kmet]

Well, yes, of course. But Steven Seagal is gradually winding down his business in Russia. In July 2025, he resigned as CEO of his company, Five Elements LLC. This was his last major business project in Russia. In January 2026, it was reported that he had put his Rublyovka mansion, which he purchased in 2018, up for sale. These recent actions speak volumes about his intentions and views on the future.
In December 2025, he said: “If the Lord gives me the opportunity to stay in Russia and continue my work here, I will be grateful.”

P.S.: In principle, he cannot be blamed because "A fish looks for where it is deeper, and a person looks for where it is better" ©

[YanniKounnar]

Personnellement nous avons regardé le prix des maisons en Russie pour eventuellement venir y habiter. Mais le constat est: les maisons "correctes" sont trop cheres pour un Français moyen (sauf bien sur les maisons trés agées en mediocre état).
We personally looked at house prices in Russia with the intention of eventually moving there and living. But the fact remains: "proper" houses are too expensive for the average French person (with the exception of very old houses in mediocre condition).

[Alex F._2]

I googled the topic "Seagal is winding down his business in Russia" - all the sources were garbage.

[Kmet]

Many people are writing this, I agree. Both Ukrainian sources and CNN, but there are still a couple of sources that are fairly credible, since they are part of the same Rambler&Co holding:
https://news.rambler.ru/starlife/55022516-stiven-sigal-otkazalsya-ot-svoego-poslednego-biznesa-v-rossii/?utm_referrer=mirtesen.ru
https://lenta.ru/news/2026/06/08/sigal-raskryl-prichinu-prodazhi-osobnyaka-pod-moskvoy/

[Lisa Kerner-Timoshenko]

This Seagal is just a pure American...wherever it's profitable, that's where he speaks and what's profitable for him.

[gribanov.c]

Or perhaps this is, after all, the work of the ordinary people of Russia, and before that, the Soviet people, of many generations. If Putin were the leader of, say, Mongolia, would he have the same achievements? Or Israel. Would he have made Israel great?

[alex-defensor]

Circumstances do indeed decide a lot. But the outcome also depends on personality. I second Stephen's statement. Putin's personality is especially striking compared to the current state of the petty "fairytale" political figures in Western countries...

[gribanov.c]

You're right in a way, but there are different models of government. There's the imperial, ancient model of government, where the state and the people are built around the person of a great king—that's the ancient model, as are the Babylonian, Assyrian, Persian, late Roman, Principate and Imperial, and Byzantine. But all such empires passed their peak of greatness and fell. I support a different model, where there's no strong leader, and not just no leader, but one that's deliberately absent, so to speak, because it shouldn't be there; he'd only get in the way. And whoever exists is the common people, and parliament, as the highest authority, expressing the will of the common people, of all the people. When every person works in their place, pays taxes, nominates and votes for deputies. No one strives for power or seeks to secure government positions for life, etc. There's no king, no strong leader, but that's precisely what makes the people happy, oddly enough. Because no one rules over the people, no one “rules” in the ancient Babylonian sense, no one reigns, no one is needed fearBut laws are enforced, the courts function, and there is an army and a military-industrial complex.

[alex-defensor]

I am a communist.
However, I consider Bolshevism to be a radical form of Marxism-Leninism.

Few people understand that true communism is true democracy. But democracy is impossible without civil society. And civil society is impossible without a high degree of socialization of citizens, a developed legal consciousness, and personal responsibility for the outcome.
In such a society, people will not ignore the misfortunes of others and will stand up for the defenseless. This is a society of the highest spiritual and moral principles.
Such a society cannot be built by one person. Only citizens can build it. "ResPublica" is translated from Latin as "Public Cause." We don't have that yet.
It's very easy to assign blame for all the ills while sipping beer and having a barbecue at the dacha. At the same time, a high proportion of "citizens" (the quotation marks are not accidental) always put their own personal interests above those of society. And, as my experience shows, it is precisely these "citizens" who hate "this government" the most. But their hatred stems from envy, because they themselves would like to live like this.
But a true citizen should be repulsed by the elitist model of social construction itself. And this repulsion should be accompanied by a desire, readiness, and ability for socially organized activity, naturally within the framework of current legislation and without any signs of extremism.

The New Socialist Model (hereinafter NSM) must be competitive and demonstrate advantages over the capitalist model. Otherwise, no matter how it is implemented, it will be doomed to failure, as happened with the USSR, where, by the end of the "era," an elite class had formed, but broad citizen participation in the political process never materialized.
Well, if we need a competitive NSM, then we don’t need a revolution to build it, we need evolution.

I can't cover much in a short comment, and I don't want to write a long reply. We need communist discussion clubs across the country, united into a single federal system... specifically to find solutions, develop a concept, and then develop the NSM.
Much can already be described, many ideas can be presented, but this is only the beginning of the journey.

[VasAndr]

You can call yourself a communist or whatever you want, but your reasoning reveals you to be an anti-communist hiding behind naivety.

[alex-defensor]

Quote: VasAndr

You can call yourself a communist or whatever you want, but your reasoning reveals you to be an anti-communist hiding behind naivety.

What does "covering up with naivety" mean?

You don't want to accept the fact that an idea and its implementation are two completely different things. Marx wrote his work about 160 years ago. And it was a theoretical work. It had an economic component and justification, as well as a political one.

So, the political concept was developed without taking into account a lot of scientific knowledge, which simply appeared later.
Namely, and first of all, psychology, then political science and, at the intersection of the sciences already described, sociology.

Marx's idealistic model didn't adequately take the human factor into account. Yet, this model was perfectly feasible... it's just that the ideal world under this idealistic model could only be built in a robotic society.

As befits the "classic genre," any new doctrine goes through a stage of radicalism in its development. Bolshevism was precisely such radicalism. Yes, this is where we move from theoretical views to practical implementation.

Bolshevism proclaimed:
"only the revolutionary path";
"to the ground, and then";
"who was nobody will become everything";
"any cook can be taught to run a state";
"To start something, you must first take away."

Besides the "Bolsheviks," I hope you at least know this, there were also the "Mensheviks." These were precisely the moderate communists, whose position was fundamentally different. No one, however, said they weren't communists, but they certainly weren't "Bolsheviks."

Bolshevism shouldn't be presented as the only true path, especially since empirical evidence has shown that the Bolshevik model ultimately failed to produce a stable Republic. The USSR collapsed.
One can talk a lot about the "villains" who destroyed it, but just as an infection overcomes and kills a weak organism, so it happened with the USSR.

Why did this happen? The answer lies in the basis of my answer. Marx's theory didn't adequately take into account the human factor (humanity simply didn't have the knowledge at the time), and radicalism, which breeds fanaticism, almost immediately leads to the doctrinalization of any concept. Thus, the ideas of Marx and Lenin were "cast in metal" and "bronzeized." The world changed, new knowledge emerged, but "holy writ," as we know, is not subject to change. And any public expression of doubt in its absoluteness is declared sacrilege and punishable by forced treatment in a psychiatric clinic, which is precisely what was practiced in the late USSR.
At the dawn of the communist movement, there were polemics, debates, arguments, and competing opinions. Stalin, Lenin, and many prominent communists were, first and foremost, first-rate polemicists. But their generation passed, and the "communist clergy" took their place, ultimately transforming the USSR from the "vanguard of humanity," the "spearhead of social progress," into a "social swamp." Collapse became inevitable. The "grandsons of revolutionaries" in power wanted to live like the elite in the West, while the masses were incapable of any organized, politically competent activity, autonomous from state and municipal authorities.

You may well be a provocateur, trying to portray communism as a purely radical phenomenon. However, you may also be a true communist. But in any case, your position lacks depth of analysis.

Believe me, I could write a lot on this subject. But I don't think the comment section below the article is the right format for that.

Have a nice day

[VasAndr]

Quote: alex-defensor

What does "covering up with naivety" mean?

You propose creating a civil society under capitalism, with a high degree of socialization of citizens, a developed legal consciousness, and personal responsibility for the outcome. You also argue that a revolution, but evolution, is not needed to abandon capitalism and its exploitative model.

It's impossible to achieve civil society under the rotten ideology of capitalism. On the contrary, all the powers of the state machine are directed toward suppressing such citizens. And they won't relinquish their power peacefully, as you suggest. And so you're foisting these naive views on your readers.

Quote: alex-defensor

I'm interested in your opinion...

This is your response to the equally naive model of "capitalism with a human face" in the comment gribanow.c (Konstantin Gribanov) only confirms your anti-communism.

[alex-defensor]

Quote: VasAndr

It is impossible to achieve a civil society with the rotten ideology of capitalism.

This is where you encounter a logical gap. You first briefly described my position, with some omissions, but generally acceptable. But then you simply made a statement along the lines of "it's impossible." However, consciousness is formed in the minds of people. It's impossible to forbid people from thinking and reflecting. Even harsh dictatorships couldn't cope with this, which led to revolutions, because any opportunity for thought was truly suppressed. But in modern Russia, things are different. Yes, unconstitutional calls, radicalism, and extremist appeals are banned. But why resort to such dubious forms of public activism?

The search for new solutions shouldn't be destructive. A constructive approach is needed. I'm not just writing this; I know for sure there is a solution, I'm just not laying it out here.

Once again, we first need to develop civic consciousness. There are no obstacles to this now. There are only obstacles to extremism and radicalism. But that's normal; they shouldn't exist.

Quote: VasAndr

And they will not give up their power peacefully, as you suggest.

I'm not suggesting anyone "relinquish power peacefully." The goal isn't simply to seize some kind of "power." Only a ready-made, proven new model of social organization, free of extremist and radical elements, can be implemented.

Quote: VasAndr

This is your response to the equally naive model of "capitalism with a human face" in the comment

"Capitalism with a human face" is a metaphor, just like "communism with a human face." It's not a model.

Quote: VasAndr

gribanow.c (Konstantin Gribanov) only confirms your anti-communism.

I have already written to you about the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks, but you are not ready to listen to anything that contradicts your “orthodox communist religion.”
For you, communism is only possible in one form, "Marxism-Leninism"... well, live with it.

[gribanov.c]

Your response to the equally naive model of "capitalism with a human face" in the comment by gribanow.c (Konstantin Gribanov) only confirms your anti-communism.

And to avoid any naivety, I emphasize: ruling elites as a class must not exist, and the most serious measures must be taken to prevent new ruling elites from emerging, from carrying out an oligarchic coup, and from seizing power from the common people again. This is not a "dictatorship of the middle class," as one might think. The emphasis must be on controlling the very rich (admissibly rich in such a society), their connections, their spending, their activities, and so on. The political instrument for maintaining the power of the common people must be a mass, popular social democratic party, but this is no more naive than the communists' reliance on a similar communist party; in both cases, the hope is in the consciousness of the masses.
A work analyzing the reasons for the failures of the Soviet model stated that true socialism was never realized in the USSR because workers received the economic benefits not directly, as from their own, people's enterprise, but rather "from the hands" of the state. They received not as much as they actually earned, but as much as they were "allocated" in the form of accrued wages. I propose that all large businesses should exist only as people's joint-stock companies, or NAOs, where the shareholders would be the state (50% of the shares) and ordinary people as minority shareholders. The law and charter of the NAO must establish mandatory limits on the number of shares per shareholder, calculated so that the maximum dividend from one block of shares would be, at current prices, 20-30 thousand rubles. The larger the authorized capital, the more shareholders there would be. When the maximum number of shareholders is reached, the wealth of a single oligarch would grow, not the wealth of a single oligarch, but the dividends of all shareholders, the entire nation. In other words, ordinary people, through this mechanism, would directly own all major businesses in the country and receive material benefits from all major businesses. To achieve this, all major businesses in the NAO must be reorganized—resource extraction and processing, banks, marketplaces, retail chains, all major companies in all sectors of the economy. Meanwhile, small and medium-sized businesses should be allowed to grow and develop as small and medium-sized businesses, including those with a single owner, taking into account the established maximum limits on income and property per individual. Go ahead, trade, get rich, and when you reach your "ceiling"—500 rubles a month in income and 50 million rubles in property value—live and enjoy. If a medium-sized business has grown into a large one, and there's potential for further growth, it should transform into a non-profit organization.
Thus, social democracy in the proposed version does not limit ordinary people in their choice - to conduct business (personally - within reasonable limits; collectively, in the form of a non-profit joint-stock company - unlimited in scale, profit, and asset value), or to work for hire.
And what does communism offer? Among other things, it limits the common people to a dogmatic model, presumably the only true one, which they are asked to accept on faith. And all this, supposedly, is for the good of the common people themselves.

[gribanov.c]

I agree with you in many ways, colleague! I've always said that what we need is not an empire, but a federation; not a monarchy, but a parliamentary republic; not an oligarchy, but social democracy.

However, I consider Bolshevism to be a radical form of Marxism-Leninism.

That's precisely why I'm for social democracy, but understood more broadly than was the case, say, in the second half of the 20th century in some European countries, and even today. For them, social democracy means a progressive tax rate of 40-45% and social programs for the poor.
I propose a much broader understanding of social democracy—one where the economy is fundamentally market-based, market-based in form, but where its material benefits are distributed more or less equally among the entire population; where society isn't divided into classes of ruling elites and the common people, as in oligarchy, but where the entire population constitutes the middle class, and where the ruling elite as a class doesn't exist. A market economy means that market pricing is maintained, there is competition, and there is free enterprise. But there are also significant limitations: the concept of property rights isn't absolute, but limited. Specifically, an individual's property rights are limited to a fixed amount established by law, and no citizen in the country can be richer than this amount. Anything in excess of this amount is nationalized, and if it's money, it goes to the state and is then distributed; if it's property, it is sold at auction at a reduced price. An upper limit on periodic income for individuals has also been established—salary, business income, and dividends—all together cannot exceed a certain amount. Anything in excess is subject to a 100% tax. For context, at current prices, the upper limit for property enrichment would be 50 million rubles per person, including an apartment, car, savings, and a small business. The upper limit for income would currently be 500,000 rubles per month. However, the minimum wage is also set at five times the lower amount, in this case 100,000 rubles per month. Paying less is prohibited by law and is severely punishable.
All large businesses exist exclusively in the form of people's enterprises, People's Joint-Stock Companies, or NAOs. 50% of the shares (an indivisible and inalienable stake) are owned by the state, the remaining shares are freely available for purchase, but with restrictions—only Russian citizens can purchase them, subject to general property and income restrictions, as well as a limit on the number of shares in a NAO per person. This limitation also applies through direct quantitative restrictions, so that acquiring more than, say, 0,01% of the shares in a NAO is prohibited. Such a transaction would be invalid and punishable by criminal prosecution.
Thus, taxes and profits from big business are redistributed and go to the people, directly, through dividends on shares or salaries, and indirectly - through budgetary social programs. A universal basic income, universal basic social housing, and high salaries for public sector employees are mandatory - so that doctors, teachers, university and technical school professors receive almost the highest salaries, and, throughout the country, of course, taking into account qualifications, experience, personal contribution and the results of their work.
This is roughly what real social democracy is - in form it is a market, capitalism, but in many ways, in nature, in essence it is socialism.
Politically, social democracy is the power of the middle class, which is the entire common people, and this class exercises its power through the social democratic party, as the main parliamentary party; in a parliamentary republic, there should be no president.

I can't cover much in a short comment, and I don't want to write a long reply. We need communist discussion clubs across the country, united into a single federal system... specifically to find solutions, develop a concept, and then develop the NSM.

Exactly!

[alex-defensor]

Hmmm... we would be interested in discussing this subject in more detail.
I replied above to a certain VasAndr...
I'm interested in your opinion...
(there are typos)

[Vasia]

Quote from gribanow.c

Or perhaps this is, after all, the work of the ordinary people of Russia, and before that, the Soviet people, of many generations. If Putin were the leader of, say, Mongolia, would he have the same achievements? Or Israel. Would he have made Israel great?

Old tales like "we won in spite of Stalin."
We've already seen enough of the achievements of the common people under Gorbaty and Yeltsin, isn't that enough?

[gribanov.c]

I understand that many people have this point of view, among us now, that supposedly there is only one correct model of government, which is essentially an Eastern despotism (Google the meaning of this term), and supposedly this is the only possible model of government and power for Russia, supposedly democracy is not suitable for us, the country will fall apart, etc.
I disagree with this; it's just that historically, we've had very little time for popular sovereignty to develop and strengthen in a calm, peaceful environment. We only liberated ourselves from the monarchy in 17, and then came the interwar period, the war, the Cold War, and the near-impossibility of establishing a parliamentary form of government, when Yeltsin's oligarchic coup d'état of 93, the oligarchy, and the curtailment of democracy and civil society. Essentially, we only had democracy for a couple of years, in the early 90s.

[Irek]

We are really looking forward to when the GDP...

[g_ae]

Tyutchev about Nicholas I.
“To create such a hopeless situation, it required the monstrous stupidity of this unfortunate man, who during his thirty-year reign... took advantage of nothing and let everything slip away, managing to start a struggle under the most impossible circumstances.”

[Terenin]

Quote: g_ae

Tyutchev about Nicholas I.
“To create such a hopeless situation, it required the monstrous stupidity of this unfortunate man, who during his thirty-year reign... took advantage of nothing and let everything slip away, managing to start a struggle under the most impossible circumstances.”

Who doesn’t know that after the death of the emperor, Tyutchev sharply characterized his personality:
“You did not serve God and not Russia,
He served only his vanity,
And all your deeds, both good and evil,
Everything in you was a lie, everything was empty ghosts:
You were not a king, but an actor."

[Andrey_5]

Yes, this is flattery, the fox from Krylov’s fable nervously smokes on the sidelines.
As for the object of flattery, we all now see the results of his “majesty.”

[snow mountain]

Quote from gribanow.c

If Putin were the leader of, say, Mongolia, would he have the same achievements?

What are his achievements? Remind me.

[nokki]

Achievements? Would you have been able to save the country after the 90s? The communists, with their convergence and perestroika (in other words, "consider me a bourgeoisie!"), brought the country to the brink of destruction. And only he saved it. And a small team of security forces. Against all odds! The fact that you and others lump together tsars, general secretaries, and the president, slinging mud at them, speaks of a profound ignorance and inherent dishonesty, rooted in the damned Russian ingratitude to all authority, always and everywhere. This terrible sin has repeatedly led our country to bloody carnage and destruction.

[Montezuma]

Quote: Schneeberg

What are his achievements? Remind me.

For example, the modernization of the Strategic Missile Forces, ending the Chechen war, and returning Crimea to Russia. So, are the "holy 90s" a thing of the past, or were things better under Yeltsin?

[gribanov.c]

As they say about him, he “raised Russia from its knees,” restored its greatness, and saved it from collapse.

[Alexey Koshkarov]

The leader raised Russia from its knees, but he couldn't lift his hands off the ground.

[Stas157]

Quote: Schneeberg

What are his achievements? Remind me.

First. Better than the wild 90s. And even that, I'd argue now! And comparing it to worse is a very weak argument in itself. The guards would have compared it to a concentration camp. And they would have, if those terrible 90s hadn't happened!

Second, the much-vaunted stability. But if earlier, under Brezhnev (when the country was developing!), that time was called shameful stagnation. Now, it's called enviable stability! Only there's no one to envy. Except the oligarchs, of course.
And all because here in the Looking Glass, any black dog can easily be washed white. Right?

[dweira63]

It's not interesting. This is simply the subjective opinion of an interested and involved person. Only actions and deeds are objective. Everything else is irrelevant.

[yuriy55]

The real Russia differs from the caricature that Western media have been painting for decades and continue to paint.

Who would doubt it?! Russia is a great country!!!

Steven Seagal called Putin the greatest leader in the world.

It seems like this great leader has assembled a huge team of billionaires and embezzling officials, but apart from a couple of leaders, no one else is visible in the unified battle line...
A country and a country's president are two different things...

[carpenter]

Quote: yuriy55

It seems that under this great leader a great team of billionaires and embezzling officials has gathered.

What can you do, there is capitalism in the country, and wild one at that.

[Rosemary]

A bad photo in the news. This photo clearly shows Steven Seagal being fed delicious and nutritious Russian food. And how he transformed from a slender aikido master into a pot-bellied old man heading to the kitchen for seconds.

[would]

To be fair, he'd been putting on weight for a while now. Back in 1995, he was forced to wear a corset to hide his belly.

Well, now no corset will help.

[Derbenev Anton]

A working meeting was held between the head of Rossotrudnichestvo, Igor Chaika, and the Commissioner for Human Rights in the Russian Federation, Yana Lantratova.

[Waifu]

Real life, as always, has destroyed all the propaganda postulates about Putin. Nothing remains of the image of a tough, decisive macho man feared by the entire galaxy. In fact, for 26 years, the country has been ruled (and this can hardly be called leadership) by a man who has supplanted Yeltsin (Yellow Bank of Russia) in the "honored" trio of rulers of Russia. Only Nicholas II and Gorby are ahead.

[gribanov.c]

History is full of examples of great empires and kings falling so suddenly, so unexpectedly, that no one could have imagined. One such example is King Yazdegerd III, whose reign is linked to the Arab conquest of Iran in the 7th century AD. It's quite telling how a powerful empire of its time was captured, and the king and his court retreated, retreated, and when there was nowhere else to go, he was killed in some mill.
As they later said about this, King Yazdegerd said:
"There is no court in the world more populous than ours, no treasury more well-appointed than ours, no army more courageous than ours, no one has as many men and equipment as we have." Omar replied: "Yes, your court is populous, but with petitioners; your treasury is well-appointed, but with inappropriate taxes; your army is courageous, but disobedient. When sovereignty is gone, equipment and numbers are of no avail. And all this is proof of your lack of sovereignty."

Every empire and tsar must learn this lesson and constantly monitor whether they have lost their statehood and whether everything has reached this state of "statelessness," with external grandeur and formal enormity, but internal weakness, backwardness, and degradation.

[Alexey Koshkarov]

It would be interesting to see the galleys and other superyachts on which they toil like galley slaves...

[acetophenone]

Quote: Evgeny64

I completely agree with you. Sometimes it irritates me when some people deify Putin without acknowledging his mistakes, but overall, he's doing the right thing.
And yes, we don't know a lot.

Things are going from bad to worse, but according to plan.