Opinion polls Feb. 2015

[mousquet]

Moscow regional branch of the Russian Society of Political Scientists publish the results of a sociological survey among schoolchildren in Moscow suburbs. The study included 5 questions on political issues, with the main theme of the survey - the opinion of Russian schoolchildren of the United States. To the question "Do you see the news about politics?" Replied affirmatively, 72.7% of students grades 8-11 (11th class is graduating from Russian high schools).
Other questions:
Do you think the US model of a democratic state?
The answer is "yes" - 13.6%, and the rest answered "no".

Do you find the right US military intervention in the affairs of other countries?
The answer is "yes" - 5.6%. "No" - 94.4%

However, about 35.2% schoolchildren who participated in the social survey, the question "Would you like to study / live in the United States?" The answer is in the affirmative.

61.4% of respondents believe the United States an enemy of Russia.

Such surveys, as well as their results have recently become something ordinary for Russia and the US, which proves that a new round of the negative attitude of the peoples of the two states with respect to one another. On the eve of the material that the sociological service Gallup (USA) published the results of the survey, according to which Russia is considered an enemy of the United States 18% of Americans (first place). North Korea and China in terms of surveyed Americans "hostility" put on the 2nd and 3rd places respectively.

 

[Nikon]

So what will it be? Cold War II or World War III?

 

[mousquet]

So what will it be? Cold War II or World War III?

I think, Cold War-2 got started one year ago. Hope, it will not be WWIII.

 

[NickHouston]

I don't see Russia as our enemy. I know Americans and Russians disagree with each other a lot, but we should be allies.

 

[The Moment]

Enemies? No.

Allies? No.

Mutually respecting world powers? Yes.

America and Russia don't need to necessarily be allies, just not enemies. If there was a problem between them, the whole world could suffer.

 

[PR3C1Z10N]

From a Machiavellian perspective, superpowers must collide. Powerful entities are a threat to each other. I think there is a bit of truth in that. With the unsatisfactory leadership that the USA has, I wouldn't be surprised if they try to go about things the wrong way.

P.S. I don't have anything against Russia.

 

[TheDude]

I don't think Russians and Americans would be at such odds if it weren't for the Russian dictator and the USA would-be dictator. and more importantly.... the organizations behind the two.

Real russian and american people are just people.


Take the power back, anyone?
[DOUBLEPOST=1424189506][/DOUBLEPOST]PS Machiavelli is good to study, but please don't live your life that way.

Compassion is a good thing. Shouldn't we be trying to transcend our animalistic, competitive, "balanced" existence?
In this age, shouldn't we be focusing more on how much we CAN learn, meaning how little we know? How much we CAN get better? Shouldn't these ignorant differences be chalked up to obstacles along the way, as opposed to how we define ourselves?
[DOUBLEPOST=1424189669][/DOUBLEPOST]Also,

The best russian art i've experienced was made by people who were exiled after they made it.
Bulgakov!
[DOUBLEPOST=1424189987][/DOUBLEPOST]Basically...

Can't we all just express our hate for this whole conflict and what is behind it?
Let's do something as a population, rather than be a tool as a population.

 

[miniCyb3r]

War is inevitable. One way or another, it will happen.

 

[HIBred]

imo polls of the public don't amount to much when dealing with foreign policy...in the grand scheme it's this, we all compete for resources so we will always be in competition even if allied. Each country has it's own way of swaying the public opinion so as to keep their actions "accountable" ( a joke yes i know). Public opinion in most cases is reactionary in the way that we are never apprised of what our countries true deals and motives are until after the fact.

 

[jasmine]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Fq9FZ8e6d1Q
we must recognize that for many years Russia has been mistreated by the US because of weakness due to its restructuation.
For some time Russia resumes its great power role and that does not please the Americans
but I do not think a new Cold War is possible both parties speak both the language the same"money"

 

[PR3C1Z10N]

War is inevitable. One way or another, it will happen.

I agree. Not concerning Russia and the USA, but just in general. We don't live in a perfect world, heck, our world is pretty messed up.

 

[BluBirD78]

I don't see Russia as our enemy. I know Americans and Russians disagree with each other a lot, but we should be allies.

I agree with that we should be allies and I think that most Americans also agree that we don't see Russia as our enemy. The problem is that this doesn't matter anymore in America, our government could care less what the American people think and are going to do whatever the hell they want, it's been this way for many years (I believe).

 

[NickHouston]

I agree with that we should be allies and I think that most Americans also agree that we don't see Russia as our enemy. The problem is that this doesn't matter anymore in America, our government could care less what the American people think and are going to do whatever the hell they want, it's been this way for many years (I believe).

They will pretty much go in whatever direction smells more like money.

It sucks that the American people don't have a voice in the government anymore, which was the entire point of the country.

 

[mousquet]

I found interesting article. Author is American, I guess. I agree with his conclusions. I think, this article also images real moods in Russia.

Monday, February 16, 2015
Western sanctions and Russian perceptions

I parse the Russian media (corporate and social) on a daily basis and I am always amazed at the completely different way the issue of western sanctions is discussed. I think that it is important and useful for me to share this with those of you who do not speak Russian.
First, nobody in Russia believes that the sanctions will be lifted. Nobody. Of course, all the Russian politicians say that sanctions are wrong and not conducive to progress, but these are statements for external consumption. In interviews for the Russian media or on talk shows, there is a consensus that sanctions will never be lifted no matter what Russia does.
Second, nobody in Russia believes that sanctions are a reaction to Crimea or to the Russian involvement in the Donbass. Nobody. There is a consensus that the Russian policy towards Crimea and the Donbass are not a cause, but a pretext for the sanctions. The real cause of the sanctions is unanimously identified as what the Russians called the "process of sovereignization", i.e. the fact that Russia is back, powerful and rich, and that she dares openly defy and disobey the "Axis of Kindness".
Third, there is a consensus in Russia that the correct response to the sanctions is double: a) an external realignment of the Russian economy away from the West and b) internal reforms which will make Russia less dependent on oil exports and on the imports of various goods and technologies.
Fourth, nobody blames Putin for the sanctions or for the resulting hardships. Everybody fully understands that Putin is hated by the West not for doing something wrong, but for doing something right. In fact, Putin's popularity is still at an all-time high.
Fifth, there is a wide agreement that the current Russian vulnerability is the result of past structural mistakes which now must be corrected, but nobody suggests that the return of Crimea to Russia or the Russian support for Novorussia were wrong or wrongly executed.
Finally, I would note that while Russia is ready for war, there is no bellicose mood at all. Most Russians believe that the US/NATO/EU don't have what it takes to directly attack Russia, they believe that the junta in Kiev is doomed and they believe that sending the Russian tanks to Kiev (or even Novorussia) would have been a mistake.
The above is very important because if you consider all these factors you can come to an absolutely unavoidable conclusion: western sanctions have exactly zero chance of achieving any change at all in Russian foreign policy and exactly zero chance of weakening the current regime. In fact, if anything, these sanctions strengthen the Eurasian Sovereignists by allowing them to blame all the pain of economic reforms on the sanctions and they weaken the Atlantic Integrationists by making any overt support for, or association with, the West a huge political liability.
But the Eurocretins in Brussels don't care I suppose, as long as they feel relevant or important, even if it is only in their heads.
http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.ca/2015/02/western-sanctions-and-russian.html

 

[jasmine]

I found interesting article. Author is American, I guess. I agree with his conclusions. I think, this article also images real moods in Russia.

Monday, February 16, 2015
Western sanctions and Russian perceptions

I parse the Russian media (corporate and social) on a daily basis and I am always amazed at the completely different way the issue of western sanctions is discussed. I think that it is important and useful for me to share this with those of you who do not speak Russian.
First, nobody in Russia believes that the sanctions will be lifted. Nobody. Of course, all the Russian politicians say that sanctions are wrong and not conducive to progress, but these are statements for external consumption. In interviews for the Russian media or on talk shows, there is a consensus that sanctions will never be lifted no matter what Russia does.
Second, nobody in Russia believes that sanctions are a reaction to Crimea or to the Russian involvement in the Donbass. Nobody. There is a consensus that the Russian policy towards Crimea and the Donbass are not a cause, but a pretext for the sanctions. The real cause of the sanctions is unanimously identified as what the Russians called the "process of sovereignization", i.e. the fact that Russia is back, powerful and rich, and that she dares openly defy and disobey the "Axis of Kindness".
Third, there is a consensus in Russia that the correct response to the sanctions is double: a) an external realignment of the Russian economy away from the West and b) internal reforms which will make Russia less dependent on oil exports and on the imports of various goods and technologies.
Fourth, nobody blames Putin for the sanctions or for the resulting hardships. Everybody fully understands that Putin is hated by the West not for doing something wrong, but for doing something right. In fact, Putin's popularity is still at an all-time high.
Fifth, there is a wide agreement that the current Russian vulnerability is the result of past structural mistakes which now must be corrected, but nobody suggests that the return of Crimea to Russia or the Russian support for Novorussia were wrong or wrongly executed.
Finally, I would note that while Russia is ready for war, there is no bellicose mood at all. Most Russians believe that the US/NATO/EU don't have what it takes to directly attack Russia, they believe that the junta in Kiev is doomed and they believe that sending the Russian tanks to Kiev (or even Novorussia) would have been a mistake.
The above is very important because if you consider all these factors you can come to an absolutely unavoidable conclusion: western sanctions have exactly zero chance of achieving any change at all in Russian foreign policy and exactly zero chance of weakening the current regime. In fact, if anything, these sanctions strengthen the Eurasian Sovereignists by allowing them to blame all the pain of economic reforms on the sanctions and they weaken the Atlantic Integrationists by making any overt support for, or association with, the West a huge political liability.
But the Eurocretins in Brussels don't care I suppose, as long as they feel relevant or important, even if it is only in their heads.
http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.ca/2015/02/western-sanctions-and-russian.html

fully agree with what just be cited
russia of today is not the Russia of yesterday and the "eurocretins" to pay the price because when the buziness resume, europe will as always behind the USA
a small question is what Americans would support a political control etc ... of China on Japan?

 

[Storky]

Ever since the cold war the russians and americans have been enemies. It will stay this way a long time.
[DOUBLEPOST=1424281640][/DOUBLEPOST]

I found interesting article. Author is American, I guess. I agree with his conclusions. I think, this article also images real moods in Russia.

Monday, February 16, 2015
Western sanctions and Russian perceptions

I parse the Russian media (corporate and social) on a daily basis and I am always amazed at the completely different way the issue of western sanctions is discussed. I think that it is important and useful for me to share this with those of you who do not speak Russian.
First, nobody in Russia believes that the sanctions will be lifted. Nobody. Of course, all the Russian politicians say that sanctions are wrong and not conducive to progress, but these are statements for external consumption. In interviews for the Russian media or on talk shows, there is a consensus that sanctions will never be lifted no matter what Russia does.
Second, nobody in Russia believes that sanctions are a reaction to Crimea or to the Russian involvement in the Donbass. Nobody. There is a consensus that the Russian policy towards Crimea and the Donbass are not a cause, but a pretext for the sanctions. The real cause of the sanctions is unanimously identified as what the Russians called the "process of sovereignization", i.e. the fact that Russia is back, powerful and rich, and that she dares openly defy and disobey the "Axis of Kindness".
Third, there is a consensus in Russia that the correct response to the sanctions is double: a) an external realignment of the Russian economy away from the West and b) internal reforms which will make Russia less dependent on oil exports and on the imports of various goods and technologies.
Fourth, nobody blames Putin for the sanctions or for the resulting hardships. Everybody fully understands that Putin is hated by the West not for doing something wrong, but for doing something right. In fact, Putin's popularity is still at an all-time high.
Fifth, there is a wide agreement that the current Russian vulnerability is the result of past structural mistakes which now must be corrected, but nobody suggests that the return of Crimea to Russia or the Russian support for Novorussia were wrong or wrongly executed.
Finally, I would note that while Russia is ready for war, there is no bellicose mood at all. Most Russians believe that the US/NATO/EU don't have what it takes to directly attack Russia, they believe that the junta in Kiev is doomed and they believe that sending the Russian tanks to Kiev (or even Novorussia) would have been a mistake.
The above is very important because if you consider all these factors you can come to an absolutely unavoidable conclusion: western sanctions have exactly zero chance of achieving any change at all in Russian foreign policy and exactly zero chance of weakening the current regime. In fact, if anything, these sanctions strengthen the Eurasian Sovereignists by allowing them to blame all the pain of economic reforms on the sanctions and they weaken the Atlantic Integrationists by making any overt support for, or association with, the West a huge political liability.
But the Eurocretins in Brussels don't care I suppose, as long as they feel relevant or important, even if it is only in their heads.
http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.ca/2015/02/western-sanctions-and-russian.html

I actually agree with this.

 

[Voodoo]

Wait so none of these Russians have an internet connection? They all think its all because we hate Russia for being so good at everything? America has news companies that will cater towards nationalism and the un-informed too.

And for the original post, 72% of 15-18 year olds pay attention to the news? Seriously? I was a member of this group not too long ago and we were not known for awareness of world events. ( "seeing" the news is one thing, actually give a sh*t is another)

Do you think the US model of a democratic state?
The answer is "yes" - 13.6%, and the rest answered "no".

And is any country in the world a good model of a democratic state? Our government isn't perfect. Who's is? (I assume the question meant a good model, because it only says model and if these kids actually look at politics they would understand the US is a model of a democratic nation.)

This survey just sounds odd.

 

[mousquet]

And for the original post, 72% of 15-18 year olds pay attention to the news? Seriously? I was a member of this group not too long ago and we were not known for awareness of world events. ( "seeing" the news is one thing, actually give a sh*t is another)
.

Russia is very politized country, imho. And TV in Russia is a main attraction, unfortunately.
Also you can be sure, 99% of them have Internet at home and in theyr smartphones.

Do you think the US model of a democratic state?
The answer is "yes" - 13.6%, and the rest answered "no".

And is any country in the world a good model of a democratic state?
This survey just sounds odd.

Definitely, question was about USA, not about "which social structure is the best in the world".
I live here and I can point that results of survey looks probably.

 

[null]

They have internet connections, but you must understand that the data does not matter. What matters is your social and cultural context. You interpret the data a certain way because of your understandings, as do the Russians. Therefore, the realizations you are expressing seem equally obvious to the Russians and they find themselves asking the very same questions you are about Americans: i.e., "how can they not see it? The evidence is right there!" That's because truth is largely subjective, and there is far more that goes into a person's psyche than fact alone: environment plays a large part.

A bit further up it was suggested that superpowers, by virtue, will clash or, at the very least, attempt to undermine one another. A little less further up it was stated that, since the Cold War, Russia and the US had been enemies and that this state would continue for some time. To these bits I'd like to add a quote from Hunter Thompson, commenting on the aftermath of 9/11:

"The towers are gone now, reduced to bloody rubble, along with all hopes for peace in our time, in the U.S. or any other country. Make no mistake about it: we are at War now- with somebody- and we will stay at war with that strange and mysterious enemy for the rest of our lives."​

In Thompson's direct case, of course, he is referring to the Middle East. However I suggest that this statement can be applied broadly. If you've read your Orwell, or perhaps even your Huxley, then you'll know that redirection/distraction, whether in forms of pleasure or pain (conflict), is a great panacea of progress and social liberalism. It keeps populations in check and allows politicians to do what they do best: invent new methods for abstracting control away from the people. Think about that. The very purpose of politics is NOT to protect the masses (that's just a secondary outcome), but rather to abstract away the structures of power behind increasing levels of bureaucracy. In this regard, politics can be compared to something like programming: the founding fathers wrote code in assembly, modern politicians write in JavaScript or something...

So I disagree that there will be any WWIII (or, at least I hope not) because that type of conflict is not profitable. Open war is in neither countries best interest since, presumably, the end result would be either large-scale loss-of-life or MAD (mutually assured destruction). Instead, both sides want to wage proxy-battle with sanctions, posturing and politics that serve the purposes of:

1. Introducing further legislation in response to perceived threats.
2. Keeping the general public misdirected and somewhat confused (who are we fighting now? why?)
3. Hopefully weakening some other power vicariously.​

In that order, no less. Perhaps you'll agree that the strategy in Russia is exactly the same as this, hence my comments above about Russian's thinking the very same things about Americans as we do about them.

NOW, how is that any different from the first Cold War? Politicians have learned from their past mistakes which is why, at least for the time being, you're seeing a new series of events unfold. America and Russia are not directly or indirectly meeting on any battlefield in the traditional sense: America is engaged throughout the Middle East, Russia is engaged in Crimea and the Ukraine. That means that the nature of fighting between the nations is what I'd call 'sentiment-direct' i.e. the sanctions, posturing and politics (incl. polls (as we are discussing now)) that I mentioned earlier. This is a much more abstract and modern way to wage battle: it's a more bureaucratic way as well (abstraction, abstraction!).

The goal is not to win, the goal is not to kill or to annihilate. The goal is to remain in a state of constant, *seemingly* chaotic, equilibrium where advantages shift in large cycles, sentiments rise and fall, polls are conducted, new forms of legislation are introduced, sanctions are levied and lifted and each side turns *inward* in response. Why is that the goal? Because nations want to grow. In size, influence and power. Although the people may say that they are aligned with those goals, the citizenry are actually a great hindrance.

People are messy: they want things like rights and privileges, securities and other comforts (material and political). To grow in the curent global climate you must be unscrupulous about it and, at the end of the day, people are not. As one poster mentioned, everyday Russians and everyday Americans are the same - just people. So, if you want to get anywhere as a world power, you have to remove your people from the equation. Sometimes this goes right, and sometimes they go the Icarus route and fly too close to the sun (Snowden, &c.). It's a balancing act that will be performed over very many years to come, but one that has a consistent end-game.

What happens when things go on like this for a long time, and nations eventually become too large to maintain their 'chaotic equilibrium' is another question altogether and the far more interesting one, imho.

 

[DamageINC]

So I disagree that there will be any WWIII (or, at least I hope not) because that type of conflict is not profitable. Open war is in neither countries best interest since, presumably, the end result would be either large-scale loss-of-life or MAD (mutually assured destruction).

This has always been my main argument against the outbreak of any type of WWIII scenario.