Running against him and survive this has been done by several people during the last election, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Russian_presidential_election for some details of the survivors. He can run for president only two times consecutively. But it is not forbidden to run again after a break. This has already happened, after the first two presidential terms there was a break when Medvedev was president and Putin lead in that period the government. This would be a possibility in the next time too.
Putin will be 72 when this term ends in 2024 he will be 78 when the next president's term is done will he run again at age 78?
He is pretty popular within Russia and the next guy isn't likely to be much different. Russians seem to love their "strong" leaders.
The question is whether they occasionally think risking a real war would profit them. The answer from the historical record - including quite recent events - is "yes". You assume the State and the corporations are at odds, somehow opposed to each other. That is true of liberal democracies, left wing libertarian setups generally, some monarchies. It is not true of fascist governments. Living and learning about fascism. If you want to speed up the "learning" part, take a look at the origin of the term "banana republic" - keeping in mind that bananas are not what the State needs during a war. Fascists are often fuckups. As posted, with the overlooked part bolded: Imagine someone feeling safer when the dominant military power on earth abandons diplomacy, boosts its military budget, breaks a few treaties, and starts threatening people. Very natural, very common throughout Russian history, and evident now. Of all Russian heads of State Genghis Khan was the best at it - at least, many think so.
Yeah I don't see at all how he could feel that way, especially when he knows that the president of that dominant military power was elected without any Russian interference, manipulation or extortion and is therefore completely hostile to Russian imperial ambitions. Evidently Putin hopes to outdo his great great great great great great grandpa.
There are always power struggles. First of all, already between the corporations. Your notion of fascism is, obviously, pure ideology, nothing about the facts. And the facts are that there is never a complete unity between the state and the corporations. And once in fascism the fight is not bound by law, it is much more serious and deadly. In the classical fascist states, the state was superior, ruled by the Führer, Duce or whatever. The corporations had to follow. Those who followed gained top positions, state contracts, and a lot of things they liked a lot, but they had to follow. In a modern fascist state, the corporations are much more powerful. So, in Ukraine, one of the oligarchs, Poroshenko, gained power, and became much more powerful economically, but was never the full winner in the fight with the other oligarchs. Now, a puppet of another oligarch is president. In Yeltsin time Russia, the situation was similar, the oligarchs ruled, Yeltsin did not play a big role (except that his family became rich too, but not that rich like the oligarchs). And there was a lot of fighting among them. It was probably this infight between them that allowed Putin to win. This was what happened already in 1991. Diplomacy was abandoned, and people were not only threatened, but actual wars were started. The actual president is in comparison with the others a peaceful one, at that time Obama/Clinton had already started the Syrian as well as the Libyan terrorist wars, and Bush has already started the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. Trump has not yet started a new war, neither a classical one nor a modern terrorist one. LOL, Genghis Khan a Russian. Of course, many Americans think so. Here some basic information about him: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genghis_Khan for you, the local Nazi, as well as the other educated Americans here.
I think you are very wrong in stating this. Trump is setting the world up for one hell of a bun fight... China, North K, Iran etc... Sure he may not have started any relatively minor skirmishes, but he has been priming the world for a global confrontation since coming into office. (Trade, Nukes, alliances...) If you monitor the situation with China and Honk Kong, Iranian nuke build up, NK nuke build up and so on you can see a distinct pattern that is cause for concern. I haven't even started on Russia. Do you honestly think China has been doing nothing regarding it's nukes?
In fact, a global confrontation was much more probable before Trump, in particular with Russia in Syria. And one cannot not exclude that this state will be revived if the Dems win the next elections. Think about what they will do in Syria. Go out? Certainly not, given how they have reacted against Trump's attempts to go out. Status quo, which would mean to continue the official line proposed by Trump, that the US is only there to steal oil? No, they need some moral justification. So there will be a return to a serious "Assad must go" policy, yet some more fake gas attacks, and then a full-scale war with Syrian, and probably also with Russia. What else? Of course, China improves its nukes too and will not allow something serious happening in Hong Kong. (They are not very angry about some serious economic losses in Honk Kong itself, it teaches others what it means following the West, as well as Ukraine teaches other former Soviet republics, but they will stop it when it will be sufficiently obvious for the Hong Kong population that this is necessary). They all prepare for war with the US because they have to. The Trump years have been years of peace, but this does not mean peace forever. If the globalists win the next elections, there will certainly some two new terrorist wars maybe even direct wars, and certainly, even more, regime change operations starting all over the world. All the states mentioned are possible targets of such wars, so they have to prepare for war, this is obligatory. Ghadafi was stupid enough to believe Western promises and has paid for this. Trump will remain peaceful. Once Trump was not ready to start wars even with NK, Venezuela, and Iran, he will certainly not start a war with China. The war faction has yet a sufficiently strong influence on Trump to prevent him from going out of Syria and Afghanistan but not enough to make him start something really problematic.
Make-believe does not constitute, "in fact". Trump's appeasement only empowers warmongering. Peace is a lack of war. We might consider also consider the proposition that all wars are started by defenders, which in turn is the would-be peace at the heart of Trump's poodling. Like Turkey in northern Syria: If only those pesky Kurds would just fucking die like Turkey wants, there would, shortly, be no appearance of war. If the price of not having a global confrontation is regional ethnic cleansing, then you're doing it wrong. (And, yes, we know, we know: You're not doing anything. That, to be certain, does not surprise.)
How do you know he doesn't moonlight as a caped crime fighter or a high end business mogul when he's not busy here justifying genocide?
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Oh, wise guy! Click to we dee dee we dee dee dee. We would have heard of it. Still, though, can you imagine what would happen if Putin could harness international incel energy into an antisocial cooperative? I mean, y'know, we thought the capitalists were bad. Meanwhile, is anybody else even remotely paying attention to the ongoing saga of the Mueller report, itself? We're getting more on, redactions, and even have access to communication and notes from investigators; Roger Stone was just convicted in a trial that connects Trump and the campaign to Wikileaks. We should remember, when encountering propositions of why Democrats didn't impeach straightaway for the Trump=Russia affair, that was the point of DoJ's hinderance and obstruction of Congress, and disruption of the Mueller report, itself. The report does, apparently, describe impeachable offenses, and we should remember of AG Barr's interference, any president attending the Constitution, juristics, and history, would prefer not put indictment on the table, but that's precisely what the Trump administration has done. It is both complicated and not: The report would never lead to an indictment, per DoJ standard, and thus the investigation did not consider itself in such a manner; left alone, the question of indictable crime actually exceeds the purview of the report. For Barr to intervene and assert the significance of a failure to indict, when the report was precluded from considering indictment, actuallly puts the question of indictment into play. This is part of what confounds about trying to assess the Trump phenomenon; when we look at how the GOP is acting in the Beltway and even the state houses, it is hard to not recall old lines about decency and what offends, and the need to reel in criticism. That is to say, yeah, you know those things we weren't supposed to suggest, because it was unkind and gravely impolite to say such things about people without proof; turns out that's what conservatives were on about the whole time. Here we are with a white supremacist, Nazi-loving, open dalliance toward fascism that wholly appears to be operating like a banana republic crime syndicate. Here is a really effed up proposition: For some people, the point is to be ineffable; simply attend the four and a half years of our neighbor's perpetual whatever. The problem with describing it is that it sounds either childish or insane or, more generally, ineffably askew and awry. I mean, think about it: How many issues, whether gay marriage in Indiana, or Trump poodling for Kim, or even, as such, concepts such as social contract, all we get is this weird, rootless, unsupported rambling unfailingly spilling putinesque anti-Americanism and subordinate Trumpist antisociality. And, sure, there's a joke in there, somewhere, about a Macedonian trollfarm washout, but who, really, is going to bother with the effort of actually writing it? There really are more important things to discuss. Beyond that, well, I really am uncertain what to tell you about the point of this spectacle describing what it takes to defend #DonnySmalls or #PutiToots. I mean, sure: Misdirection akin to cruel denigration of incompetency is no good way to go through life. There's that, sure, but something goes here about the grave impolitic of such implications. Still, I am uncertain what explanation wouldn't feel unkind.
That's an interesting question... A foreign student, from Russia, lead to me to believe that there could be a big disrupting power vacuum without, Putin.
Some core Trump supporters feel the same way about Trump. It's true that it seems that Putin is pretty popular within Russia.
oh I am not talking about Trump starting a war... I am talking about the Trump (USA) having a war started against it. You keep talking about Trump (USA) as if he is immune to wars being started against him. To be honest I am surprised that no nation has taken serious military advantage of the USA's current leadership confusion and incompetence. ( ignoring IRAN, NK, RUSSIA, CHINA military build ups of course)
You won't get any argument from me on you claiming Democrats are cowards. Now they've done some focus group testing to move their own goalpost from quid pro quo to bribery, apparently because that helps ignorant Dem voters be "aware of the facts". They had to dumb-down the Latin. No wonder you have trouble understanding ad hominem and valid argument. Yet the current impeachment effort has zero to do with the Mueller report. And no, your take, on the facts therein, is only you failing that Rorschach test.
The non sequitur was when you brought it up. I can't explain that. I see a lot of unsubstantiated nonsense and links to whole posts, which themselves are mostly unsubstantiated nonsense. If you had a point, one would assume you could simply make it, without all the color commentary and with, perhaps, a few specific points directly addressed. You seem incapable of that, so it's a waste of time. You just blather on as if your assumptions are somehow clear to others or based in fact, without ever supporting either presumption.
