To which country Russia compares the best (level of development, living standards etc).

[Methuselah]

Russia is obviously very rich in natural resources but it is also very far from Canada and Norway development wise. So to which societies it would compare the best? Ukraine and Romania? What else? Closer to Argentina or Brazil? Obviously more developed than India and i think Iran and even China as well (despite the fact China has cities where salaries are close to Eastern Euro). Discuss please.

[Russki]

Lithuania, Latvia.


https://i.imgur.com/B8N8dXC.png

[capocannoniere]

I've always seen a similarity between Russia and Argentina on standards of living (even seen some apartment blocs here lol). People live better than they think, the education is above average but the brain drain is big. Both are relatively safe too.

Perhaps in population diversity, it's close to Brazil. A good bit of regional variance in climate, nature, way of living and genetics, but still culturally and linguistically whole. But due to its size and history Russia is just incomparable imo, any comparison I make here is full of flaws.

[Methuselah]

Lithuania, Latvia.
Kinda yeah.

Russia is just more unstable and corrupt and also a huge one so i would also compare it to bigger countries.

https://i.imgur.com/B8N8dXC.png


I've always seen a similarity between Russia and Argentina on standards of living (even seen some apartment blocs here lol). People live better than they think, the education is above average but the brain drain is big. Both are relatively safe too.

Perhaps in population diversity, it's close to Brazil. A good bit of regional variance in climate, nature, way of living and genetics, but still culturally and linguistically whole. But due to its size and history Russia is just incomparable imo, any comparison I make here is full of flaws.
This was my bet also. Russia has suffered high criminality rates so here it reminds more of Brazil, but bit more developed. Argentina and Brazil are just democracies and Russia is not which of course plays a role too.

[Jana]

Russian living standard was pretty similar to Croatian but idk how sanctions impacted it now.

[Brás Garcia de Mascarenhas]

Turkey.

[Lemminkäinen]

Russia has high education level and good engineering power, but standards vary geographically. Talent people. What sucks is consumer good production and consumer market.

[Rumata]

Fuck consumerism / ultra materialism.

[Loki]

Russia is probably the country with the most potential for growth of all. It has an intelligent, educated population, almost limitless natural resources, most of which the world really need. It has a very stable government and mostly internal peace and unity -- the most in Russia's history for a long time.

All these are the reasons why NATO countries, especially the US, are aggressively targeting Russia in any way possible, militarily , financially and economically. Russia's perceived enemies know all this, therefore fear and envy Russia, and hence implement unlimited sanctions in order to keep Russia down.

[Methuselah]

Russia is probably the country with the most potential for growth of all. It has an intelligent, educated population, almost limitless natural resources, most of which the world really need. It has a very stable government and mostly internal peace and unity -- the most in Russia's history for a long time.

All these are the reasons why NATO countries, especially the US, are aggressively targeting Russia in any way possible, militarily , financially and economically. Russia's perceived enemies know all this, therefore fear and envy Russia, and hence implement unlimited sanctions in order to keep Russia down.

I agree about many things that you just said and indeed, there is some hatred towards Russia, always been. But i would not say that the Russian government is stable, it is not and people who hate Russia know this and use tricks against it. Too bad Russia didn't experience normal transmission from communism to capitalism and could not intergrate itself properly with other Europeans. Many things failed, including privatization. Maybe certain Western countries didn't even want Russia or maybe Russia could not deal with it's problems because of all the mess it has been through.

[Methuselah]

Russian living standard was pretty similar to Croatian but idk how sanctions impacted it now.
It made it worse to some degree. War always impacts economy. But yeah, a good point!

Turkey.
There are similarities yes. Do you consider Turkey as a more developed country than Brazil or are these places just too hard to compare?

I think these countries remind each other to some degree because of the gap between rich and poor, not being fully developed but still not far away from it. All have huge problems what comes to corruption. All have problems with the criminality and the way of ruling is different from what of fully developed countries. They are not much into the rule of law, Brazil being more democratic tho. All of these have chaotic history. Russia is probably more wealthy than others and it's education/input in science is better. Economy sucks like always and here Russia is behind and still learning. I thought Russia could remind Argentina but maybe not after all because Argentina feels more stable.

[Victor]

I've always seen a similarity between Russia and Argentina on standards of living (even seen some apartment blocs here lol). People live better than they think, the education is above average but the brain drain is big. Both are relatively safe too.

Perhaps in population diversity, it's close to Brazil. A good bit of regional variance in climate, nature, way of living and genetics, but still culturally and linguistically whole. But due to its size and history Russia is just incomparable imo, any comparison I make here is full of flaws.

Yea we have some similar vibe, Argentina is a warm Russia xD and even not warm considering the southern territories.

[Methuselah]

Russia has high education level and good engineering power, but standards vary geographically. Talent people. What sucks is consumer good production and consumer market.
Yes. Without the revolution this could have been better.

Fuck consumerism / ultra materialism.
How it this related to the topic or being a fully developed economy? But if we start talking then I'm not talking that Russia need salaries of Norwegians or that spending money could satisfy our inner souls. I'm talking about basic needs of millions of the people, this includes clean houses, schools and hospital with good air and no mold problems, stable salaries even for cleaners (because even if Russia you need money to survive), less gaps between poor and rich etc. I'm not here asking why Russia does not have more oligarchs.

[Methuselah]

Yea we have some similar vibe, Argentina is a warm Russia xD and even not warm considering the southern territories.

Do you live in Argentina? I think Russia has more problems dealing with criminals. I have a feeling that Argentina is more like a Portugal or something.

[Victor]

Do you live in Argentina? I think Russia has more problems dealing with criminals. I have a feeling that Argentina is more like a Portugal or something.

What do you mean with "dealing with criminals"? If you consider everyday crime, Russian ethnic regions of central and southern Russia (majority of population lives there) are very safe, safer than lots of European capitals.

[Methuselah]

What do you mean with "dealing with criminals"? If you consider everyday crime, Russian ethnic regions of central a d southen Russia (majority of population lives there) are very safe, safer than lots of European capitals.

I was referring to Russian post Soviet history overall and high criminal rates. I agree that today it is not as bad as in 90's but still behind Scandinavia let's say.

[Brás Garcia de Mascarenhas]

It made it worse to some degree. War always impacts economy. But yeah, a good point!

There are similarities yes. Do you consider Turkey as a more developed country than Brazil or are these places just too hard to compare?

I think these countries remind each other to some degree because of the gap between rich and poor, not being fully developed but still not far away from it. All have huge problems what comes to corruption. All have problems with the criminality and the way of ruling is different from what of fully developed countries. They are not much into the rule of law, Brazil being more democratic tho. All of these have chaotic history. Russia is probably more wealthy than others and it's education/input in science is better. Economy sucks like always and here Russia is behind and still learning. I thought Russia could remind Argentina but maybe not after all because Argentina feels more stable.

It is not easy to compare. At first glance Turkey doesn't have as much crime as Brazil but it has terrorism, a decades-long problem with Kurdish pro separatist factions. Turkey seems to be more unstable politically, it has coup attempts almost every decade and a more autocratic government too. Both countries have quite poor regions but Brazil perhaps has more extreme poverty in some more isolated regions, which also might be a result of the country's sheer size. Corruption seems to be rampant in either country but Russia is by far the most corrupt nation out of the three. In terms of education Russia performs better than Turkey or Brazil. Brazil probably has the worst educated citizens on average but their universities are better than that of Turkey and their upper middle-class and upper class is more successful, educated and entrepreneurial compared to that of Turkey. I do not know if Russia on average has better universities (probably not) but I would be surprised if they had one that comes even close to USP (University of São Paulo).

A simplistic analysis, but if we take into account the present, Russia is the worst off by far since it is currently a pariah state while Brazil and Turkey with all their problems are still seen as countries with future potential.

[Marshall Theodore]

Argentina


their upper middle-class and upper class is more successful, educated...

LOL


Brazil and Turkey with all their problems are still seen as countries with future potential
Você certamente não sabe o que falas... não há potencial algum no Brasil em termos de desenvolvimento sócio-econômico.

[capocannoniere]

It is not easy to compare. At first glance Turkey doesn't have as much crime as Brazil but it has terrorism, a decades-long problem with Kurdish pro separatist factions. Turkey seems to be more unstable politically, it has coup attempts almost every decade and a more autocratic government too. Both countries have quite poor regions but Brazil perhaps has more extreme poverty in some more isolated regions, which also might be a result of the country's sheer size. Corruption seems to be rampant in either country but Russia is by far the most corrupt nation out of the three. In terms of education Russia performs better than Turkey or Brazil. Brazil probably has the worst educated citizens on average but their universities are better than that of Turkey and their upper middle-class and upper class is more successful, educated and entrepreneurial compared to that of Turkey. I do not know if Russia on average has better universities (probably not) but I would be surprised if they had one that comes even close to USP (University of São Paulo).

A simplistic analysis, but if we take into account the present, Russia is the worst off by far since it is currently a pariah state while Brazil and Turkey with all their problems are still seen as countries with future potential.

The problem with our education is that it's extremely exclusive. While USP is very good, it's close to impossible to enter in a non-meme course without years of studying after graduating high school. The mass in Brazil has to deal with shitty expensive private institutions, and our average professional has will, but does not have the tools to do stuff well.

Funny that in Argentina it's the exact opposite. People are very scientific in the stuff they do as you can enroll easily in a quality public uni (Other than med school that has been swarmed by we the migrants and runs on very low resources. I do my studies on a private uni here due to that), but have no ambition whatsoever (anecdotal evidence).

[KirillMazur]

Another thread from the main expert on Russia, who once again tells us how we suffer:).
We will never be like you, but since we are neighbors, we will be forced to study you.

The main consolidating principle of Westerners is systemic racism (the same primitive biology, in the wild every species is a racist). Additionally - clannishness, as increased loyalty to a separate privileged brood. Individual "advanced" representatives and groups of them have learned to consolidate on the subject, creating structures such as "gang" (corporations, as a modern example).
In social studies, Westerners like to look for answers in the wild and draw parallels with the animal world, which leads to certain thoughts.
The icing on the cake is the notorious liberalism, as the "law of the jungle" in a modern reading. The so-called "elites" practice mutual incriminating evidence, apparently the only thing that can "cement" their pack and stop the internal squabbling.
Their main "civilizational" achievement - they adapted to share the stolen without stabbing (and even then not always), which is proudly called democracy, and, due to their stupidity, is considered inaccessible to the rest ("lower" races). On a practical level, they exist due to three "s": stealing, selling, showing. Whatever a Westerner talks to you about, he thinks about money (more often about yours).

Of interest for study are, for the most part (in order to develop countermeasures), the main fraudulent schemes and techniques for manipulating consciousness (most of them have long been known and borrowed from gypsies and ordinary scammers, but not only). Although, studying the standard racist-egocentric “firmware” of a Westernoid can also make practical sense.

2 hot Finnish guys, stop analyzing Russia already, you're not doing well. Your views are largely outdated, and the West is already being replaced by an unattractive post-West.

[Brás Garcia de Mascarenhas]

Você certamente não sabe o que falas... não há potencial algum no Brasil em termos de desenvolvimento sócio-econômico.

https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/world-2050/assets/world-in-2050-image1.png

O potential está lá, só falta concretizá-lo.


The problem with our education is that it's extremely exclusive. While USP is very good, it's close to impossible to enter in a non-meme course without years of studying after graduating high school. The mass in Brazil has to deal with shitty expensive private institutions, and our average professional has will, but does not have the tools to do stuff well.

Funny that in Argentina it's the exact opposite. People are very scientific in the stuff they do as you can enroll easily in a quality public uni (Other than med school that has been swarmed by we the migrants and runs on very low resources. I do my studies on a private uni here due to that), but have no ambition whatsoever (anecdotal evidence).

If you want to get into Harvard or Oxford you also have to be the best of the best. That's how it works with the top universities and that's how it has to be if they want to keep their status. Ease of entry to Universities is a major mistake. It discredits academic courses, trivializes them, and diminishes the quality of students.

[PlattitüdenPaule]

Whatever a Westerner talks to you about, he thinks about money (more often about yours).

Not true. I always ever think about beer, brawls and music, even when talking to other people. :(

[capocannoniere]

If you want to get into Harvard or Oxford you also have to be the best of the best. That's how it works with the top universities and that's how it has to be if they want to keep their status. Ease of entry to Universities is a major mistake. It discredits academic courses, trivializes them, and diminishes the quality of students.

The difference with the USA is that you have top universities almost every state. The gap between Ivy League and a "normal" university is smaller than that of USP (and some others good public ones in the South/Southeast) and your average Brazilian private institution.

Public unis in Argentina are easy to enter but hard to get out, it's not as if they produce a ton of graduates every year. But while in Brazil you need to spend years studying on expensive preparatories for standardized testing on unrelated subjects, in Argentina the uni will always give you the classes and the material, and even if it takes you long, you have relative equality. Now compare the Nobel Prizes, famous writers and important inventions of Argentina to the Brazilian ones. We indeed shouldn't give away degrees, but opportunity should be given away and it's not the case in Brazil other than affirmative action.

[Methuselah]

It is not easy to compare. At first glance Turkey doesn't have as much crime as Brazil but it has terrorism, a decades-long problem with Kurdish pro separatist factions. Turkey seems to be more unstable politically, it has coup attempts almost every decade and a more autocratic government too. Both countries have quite poor regions but Brazil perhaps has more extreme poverty in some more isolated regions, which also might be a result of the country's sheer size. Corruption seems to be rampant in either country but Russia is by far the most corrupt nation out of the three. In terms of education Russia performs better than Turkey or Brazil. Brazil probably has the worst educated citizens on average but their universities are better than that of Turkey and their upper middle-class and upper class is more successful, educated and entrepreneurial compared to that of Turkey. I do not know if Russia on average has better universities (probably not) but I would be surprised if they had one that comes even close to USP (University of São Paulo).

A simplistic analysis, but if we take into account the present, Russia is the worst off by far since it is currently a pariah state while Brazil and Turkey with all their problems are still seen as countries with future potential.

Nice answer, thanks. Yes, hard to compare. If we go to pre war time Russia, then many would say that statistically speaking Russia is more developed since it produces more scientific articles and has better education. But again, Russia has huge socio-economical problems that many other countries don't have. And less positive attitude for life. Let's not forget that Russia was a full blown mess in 90's learning new way of life after the collapse of the USSR.

Russia has few highly ranked universities including Moscow State University.

[Ranger0075]

According my sources Russia by GDP PPP per capita is between Malaysia and Bulgaria, going by HDI it's closer to Romania, cost of living similar to Spain while in quality of life index it is closer to Brazil

As a whole it may be statistically closer to Southern Cone (Uruguay, Argentina, Chile) which makes sense since it is a huge country with many different people living on it.

[Methuselah]

Another thread from the main expert on Russia, who once again tells us how we suffer:).
We will never be like you, but since we are neighbors, we will be forced to study you.

The main consolidating principle of Westerners is systemic racism (the same primitive biology, in the wild every species is a racist). Additionally - clannishness, as increased loyalty to a separate privileged brood. Individual "advanced" representatives and groups of them have learned to consolidate on the subject, creating structures such as "gang" (corporations, as a modern example).
In social studies, Westerners like to look for answers in the wild and draw parallels with the animal world, which leads to certain thoughts.
The icing on the cake is the notorious liberalism, as the "law of the jungle" in a modern reading. The so-called "elites" practice mutual incriminating evidence, apparently the only thing that can "cement" their pack and stop the internal squabbling.
Their main "civilizational" achievement - they adapted to share the stolen without stabbing (and even then not always), which is proudly called democracy, and, due to their stupidity, is considered inaccessible to the rest ("lower" races). On a practical level, they exist due to three "s": stealing, selling, showing. Whatever a Westerner talks to you about, he thinks about money (more often about yours).

Of interest for study are, for the most part (in order to develop countermeasures), the main fraudulent schemes and techniques for manipulating consciousness (most of them have long been known and borrowed from gypsies and ordinary scammers, but not only). Although, studying the standard racist-egocentric “firmware” of a Westernoid can also make practical sense.

2 hot Finnish guys, stop analyzing Russia already, you're not doing well. Your views are largely outdated, and the West is already being replaced by an unattractive post-West.

I don't want to spend my time fighting with you but your logic is mystery to me. Comparing Russia to Romania, Turkey, Brazil or Argentina is not telling that you suffer, all of these countries are growing economies. Stop thinking you live in country that you can compare to Japan, South Korea, Germany or Sweden, because you are not. Russia is not developed economy and it makes me feel deep shame when some Russians are trying to prove otherwise, if it was some game kids play and who screams better wins. Statistically Russia is not a developed economy, there is no point even to argue. Without oil Russia would be in a bigger trouble.

Clannishness is ultra Russian thing and even Russians know this. In the West it is more individualistic but clans of course exist and people tend to create links with each others. But the way to rule in Russia is more authoritarian/tsarist and clans play role here. Everything was about clans fighting each other in 90's when privatization failed and mafia was running the business. Learn your history. Of course there is corruption too in the west, and clans, but it's still different.

You said that the West is already being replaced by an unattractive post-West. Does it make sense? Russia is then what? Post Empire post Soviet post modern state? Post-West means nothing, you have to define it.

Stop telling other people what to do. Your analysis of the West is just very pathetic too. All you can do is to talk about "gays and negroes". It's so hard to look in the mirror tho. We know Russia well enough, of course Finns tend to oversimplify things and many have bad memories but young generation knows a lot about Russia.

Now let me tell you few facts about life:

1. Social Darwinism was invented by Westerners because that's how science collided with nihilistic ideas and selfish behaviour. But, Russia also is know for racism and there is a lot of racism in Russia. It is also true that West has looked down sometimes on Russia but so have some Russians done looking down on certain people. Gypsies can be racist. Jews can be racist. Russians can be racist. Americans can be racist. People are people.

2. Like i mentioned before, Russia is undeveloped economy. Maybe we can compare it to Turkey or Argentina to some degree assuming it will stop fighting soon. Russia has good things but also a lot of people living under the poverty line. Russia is very far from fully developed countries like Japan, Scandinavia, Germany etc.

3. Don't take everything so personally. It's not like only Russians do this but it is so annoying that you start talking about a country and "the Defenders" come here telling other people if they can talk about a country or not. You are not Russia, you are Russian. You are not Ovechkin, Gogol, Tolstoy or Dostojevski. You are just ordinary dude who does not know many things about politics or economy. These are Russian's worst parts. Always been. Of course be proud of your country and defend it when you can. But don't tell us it is developed. It has never been. With oil reserves this big it could potentially be at some point more developed, maybe without the revolution it could have been.

4. There is a lot of selfishness in the West (US and Europe) and there is a lot of selfishness in Russia too. There is huge amount of selfishness in China as well. I understand that the West has been succesful for a long time and had stability Russia never had but that does not mean that all evil is there. Evil and corruption is everywhere, to some degree at least. Russia has been through a lot and also looked down at and just ordinary people suffer from this. But let's not forget that also Russia has been fighting and treating people, including own people wrong. My point was not to show that Western people are better, because they are not, but to try to find an alternative for Russian economy/society. West is more developed and it clearly shows up. It's a good thing because economical stability is a good thing. Does not mean you have to spend all your money on shit. But you can buy a house or save for your kids or help poor people. Is this hedonistic behaviour? I don't think so.

[JamesBond007]

What do you mean with "dealing with criminals"? If you consider everyday crime, Russian ethnic regions of central and southern Russia (majority of population lives there) are very safe, safer than lots of European capitals.

Russia, South America and China have the most cybercriminals do they not ?

[Rumata]

How it this related to the topic or being a fully developed economy? But if we start talking then I'm not talking that Russia need salaries of Norwegians or that spending money could satisfy our inner souls. I'm talking about basic needs of millions of the people, this includes clean houses, schools and hospital with good air and no mold problems, stable salaries even for cleaners (because even if Russia you need money to survive), less gaps between poor and rich etc. I'm not here asking why Russia does not have more oligarchs.

I see. My post was addressed to those who measure the living standard by ability to buy things (often unnecessary).


2 hot Finnish guys, stop analyzing Russia already, you're not doing well. Your views are largely outdated, and the West is already being replaced by an unattractive post-West.
Methuselah is a good expert on Russia. Second to maybe only Finnish Swede :D

[Brás Garcia de Mascarenhas]

Nice answer, thanks. Yes, hard to compare. If we go to pre war time Russia, then many would say that statistically speaking Russia is more developed since it produces more scientific articles and has better education. But again, Russia has huge socio-economical problems that many other countries don't have. And less positive attitude for life. Let's not forget that Russia was a full blown mess in 90's learning new way of life after the collapse of the USSR.

Russia has few highly ranked universities including Moscow State University.

One of Russia's biggest problems is keeping its talent in the country. The war has only made the Russian brain drain worse and if it weren't for the Western embargo that doesn't allow visas for Russians we would probably be seeing an even greater exodus but this should not be news to you since thousands of them have tried to move to Finland.

[Methuselah]

I see. My post was addressed to those who measure the living standard by ability to buy things (often unnecessary).


Methuselah is a good expert on Russia. Second to maybe only Finnish Swede :D

I have met a lot of Russians in Finland because i have Russian friends here and also speak Russian pretty fluently. I have to say that many Russians are nice people but they are completely uneducated on the topics of politics and economy, it's almost like they came from another world. At worst they don't even want to discuss, just laugh at you and shoot down your points without checking facts. I'm not saying all Russians are like this or all Yankees are like this etc but this is just something i have seen. On the other hand Russia is something similar to Brazil and Argentina and is quite hard to analyse as a whole because it has big and quite developed cities like St Petersburg, Moscow, pretty decent education compared to the world average and a culture reminding Europe. A the same time it's full of corruption, full of inequality and instability because of it's interesting history. Brazil and Argentina are Catholic, Mediterranean cultures basically so it's a bit hard to compare maybe to them even. Russia is just as brutal as it gets and as high in potential as it could be. Well, enough of words. Now you can tell me what i said wrong and write your own opinion. I still didn't get where did you disagree.

[KirillMazur]

Not true. I always ever think about beer, brawls and music, even when talking to other people. :(
But you are conditionally a third or half Russian genetically - accordingly, you are closer to living people, not to cyborgs:).

Methuselah is a good expert on Russia. Second to maybe only Finnish Swede :D
There is much in common between them, and they are united by a provincial view and the absence of a more or less holistic view of the construction at large state entities, such as Russia. Their slogans are on the level - do not be lazy, and everything will be fine! They got used to living in their village, not being surrounded by external and internal enemies all their lives around the perimeter.

But FS also has feministic and men hating vibe (at 21, Carl!).

Stop thinking you live in country that you can compare to Japan, South Korea, Germany or Sweden, because you are not. Russia is not developed economy and it makes me feel deep shame when some Russians are trying to prove otherwise, if it was some game kids play and who screams better wins. Statistically Russia is not a developed economy, there is no point even to argue. Without oil Russia would be in a bigger trouble.
You listed impoverished resourceless countries designed to live in greenhouse conditions with access to cheap natural and energy resources, as well as an open Western market for their goods. But the resource-donor countries no longer want to give you resources for glass beads, and your neo-colonial world (metropoly-colony model) is shaking. It's just that the old division of labor has ceased to suit all its participants.


Clannishness is ultra Russian thing and even Russians know this. In the West it is more individualistic but clans of course exist and people tend to create links with each others. But the way to rule in Russia is more authoritarian/tsarist and clans play role here. Everything was about clans fighting each other in 90's when privatization failed and mafia was running the business. Learn your history. Of course there is corruption too in the west, and clans, but it's still different.
Russian clan structures do not flaunt themselves in the media. Even colleagues within the organization may not be aware of your "dynasty" affiliation, unless you share the same last name as the business owner. We don't have all these William Gates I, II, III etc.


You said that the West is already being replaced by an unattractive post-West. Does it make sense? Russia is then what? Post Empire post Soviet post modern state? Post-West means nothing, you have to define it.
What we are seeing today in the collective West is that it is unable to cope with the new and tougher conditions. Its model turned out to be a phantom based on access to cheap energy - as soon as access was gone, the question of survival again rose to its full height. And most importantly, democracy will necessarily transform into a dictatorship in such conditions.
That's what Russia has never been good at, it's "public relations" - for historical reasons, we missed the development of marketing, in which the West has reached perfection. Yes, today we are successfully catching up with the West in this area, but the deep essence of our country again remains unchanged - we produce better than we sell.


Stop telling other people what to do. Your analysis of the West is just very pathetic too. All you can do is to talk about "gays and negroes". It's so hard to look in the mirror tho. We know Russia well enough, of course Finns tend to oversimplify things and many have bad memories but young generation knows a lot about Russia.
---
Don't take everything so personally. It's not like only Russians do this but it is so annoying that you start talking about a country and "the Defenders" come here telling other people if they can talk about a country or not. You are not Russia, you are Russian. You are not Ovechkin, Gogol, Tolstoy or Dostojevski. You are just ordinary dude who does not know many things about politics or economy. These are Russian's worst parts. Always been. Of course be proud of your country and defend it when you can. But don't tell us it is developed. It has never been. With oil reserves this big it could potentially be at some point more developed, maybe without the revolution it could have been.
Don't be so nervous, we are all not Spinozas here, besides, we are deprived of access to power circles. Where will we get a holistic knowledge of the world order in this case? It remains for us to collect information bit by bit and systematize this knowledge all our lives.


1. Social Darwinism was invented by Westerners because that's how science collided with nihilistic ideas and selfish behaviour. It is also true that West has looked down sometimes on Russia but so have some Russians done looking down on certain people.
The reason for the differences between Russia and the West clearly has a religious basis.
At the end of the Middle Ages, Western Protestants of all stripes, in collusion with Catholics, cooked their Bible in the form of a kind of locomotive, consisting of 2 parts - an eclectic collection of ancient Jewish cannibalistic and racist stories (Old Testament) and the Holy Christian Gospel, fiercely denied by the Jews. The book was cooked in order to unite Jews rushing to power in some countries of Europe with the help of their capitals, with not surrendering Catholics and maximally Judaized Protestant sects such as the Calvinists, but by the power of Anglo-Saxon and Catholic propaganda, as well as their money, it was distributed on all continents of the Oecumene.
In Orthodox churches, during services and prayers, the Bible is not used and is not mentioned in the list of Holy Books, but some excerpts about the Lives of the Holy Apostles and members of the Holy Family are quoted from it.

Protestantism teaches that God loves the rich and successful, so any means are good to achieve success, including absolutely immoral ones. And that every person, even a beggar at the moment, is a potential millionaire, and "the chosen one", experiencing temporary difficulties.
For this reason, Steinbeck believed that socialism would never take root in the United States, because any tramp considers himself an chosen one and potential millionaire who has not yet been lucky, and not at all an exploited class.

There are actually more differences - our God is a merciful and all-forgiving entity, in contrast to the Protestant one (and Jewish). Also, Russia's plans do not include the destruction of a competing civilization, but the desire to establish good neighborly relations. But Protestants, on the contrary, are trying to destroy (or replace meanings) everything that they do not understand and that prevents them from enrichment, because God loves the rich in their opinion. Etc.


3. to try to find an alternative for Russian economy/society. West is more developed and it clearly shows up. It's a good thing because economical stability is a good thing. Does not mean you have to spend all your money on shit. But you can buy a house or save for your kids or help poor people. Is this hedonistic behaviour? I don't think so.
No one denies the great success of Western civilization (by "true" Western I mean mostly Protestants). But how to immerse yourself in hell is to consider yourself "chosen" - (each person is his own God among the Protestants) is to live in eternal struggle and competition with others, the same individualists. In the geopolitical arena, this degenerates into Nazism, both overt and covert. There is an opinion of one narrowly known researcher that Protestantism is good only for a society or a nation while it is still in the outsider stage - later this society will inevitably eat itself, having reached hegemony.
One way or another, most of the Russian problems are caused by the intervention of the West, driven by Protestant morality.
So I want the path of Russia to meet the requirements of Orthodox (New Testament) morality. It does not matter at all what it will be called and under what banner, but this path must keep animal instincts within the most strict limits.
I do not want people with archaic morals to lead my country, and I am also against blind borrowing from the West, without any national rethinking. By the way, 95% of fraudulent schemes and pyramid schemes in Russia were borrowed from the West almost unchanged in the 90s.

Democracy is a good thing within certain limits. But, like any medicine, it must be in moderation, otherwise the medicine turns into poison.
Technologies can help a person reach new heights, but they will never solve the issues of ideological confrontation. AI is not capable of replacing human dreams and political will - it is just a set of algorithms, albeit a very advanced one.

In 1941, the Third Reich was head and shoulders above everyone else in technology - and where is it now?
The Fourth Reich adopted "democracy" instead of Nazism.

[Victor]

In Orthodox churches, during services and prayers, the Bible is not used and is not mentioned in the list of Holy Books, but some excerpts about the Lives of the Holy Apostles and members of the Holy Family are quoted from it.


This part is the only one you're wrong. Holy Bible is used in every Orthodox service, both Old and New Testament. Every regular Sunday Liturgy has a lot of Psalms of David, readings of Gospel and Holy Apostles. The same with everyday prayers for the Christians. There are Old Testament readings at the Vespers time. Old and New Testaments are unseparable from each other and making difference between the God of Old and New Testament is an old heresy named marcionism. Old Testament prophets and saints are equal with New Testament ones, lots of them are the greatest ones.
Old and New Testaments are meaningless without each other aswell.

[JamesBond007]

https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/world-2050/assets/world-in-2050-image1.png

O potential está lá, só falta concretizá-lo.



If you want to get into Harvard or Oxford you also have to be the best of the best. That's how it works with the top universities and that's how it has to be if they want to keep their status. Ease of entry to Universities is a major mistake. It discredits academic courses, trivializes them, and diminishes the quality of students.


https://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-colleges-hate-geniuses-just-as-convents-hate-saints-ralph-waldo-emerson-37-65-78.jpg






Just before the Labor Day weekend, a front page New York Times story broke the news of the largest cheating scandal in Harvard University history, in which nearly half the students taking a Government course on the role of Congress had plagiarized or otherwise illegally collaborated on their final exam.[1] Each year, Harvard admits just 1600 freshmen while almost 125 Harvard students now face possible suspension over this single incident. A Harvard dean described the situation as “unprecedented.”

...

Just a few years ago Pulitzer Prize-winning former Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Golden published The Price of Admission, a devastating account of the corrupt admissions practices at so many of our leading universities, in which every sort of non-academic or financial factor plays a role in privileging the privileged and thereby squeezing out those high-ability, hard-working students who lack any special hook. In one particularly egregious case, a wealthy New Jersey real estate developer, later sent to Federal prison on political corruption charges, paid Harvard $2.5 million to help ensure admission of his completely under-qualified son.[8] When we consider that Harvard’s existing endowment was then at $15 billion and earning almost $7 million each day in investment earnings, we see that a culture of financial corruption has developed an absurd illogic of its own, in which senior Harvard administrators sell their university’s honor for just a few hours worth of its regular annual income, the equivalent of a Harvard instructor raising a grade for a hundred dollars in cash.

An admissions system based on non-academic factors often amounting to institutionalized venality would seem strange or even unthinkable among the top universities of most other advanced nations in Europe or Asia, though such practices are widespread in much of the corrupt Third World. The notion of a wealthy family buying their son his entrance into the Grandes Ecoles of France or the top Japanese universities would be an absurdity, and the academic rectitude of Europe’s Nordic or Germanic nations is even more severe, with those far more egalitarian societies anyway tending to deemphasize university rankings.

...
Although the evidence of college admissions corruption presented in Golden’s book is quite telling, the focus is almost entirely on current practices, and largely anecdotal rather than statistical. For a broader historical perspective, we should consider The Chosen by Berkeley sociologist Jerome Karabel, an exhaustive and award-winning 2005 narrative history of the last century of admissions policy at Harvard, Yale, and Princeton (I will henceforth sometimes abbreviate these “top three” most elite schools as “HYP”).

Karabel’s massive documentation—over 700 pages and 3000 endnotes—establishes the remarkable fact that America’s uniquely complex and subjective system of academic admissions actually arose as a means of covert ethnic tribal warfare. During the 1920s, the established Northeastern Anglo-Saxon elites who then dominated the Ivy League wished to sharply curtail the rapidly growing numbers of Jewish students, but their initial attempts to impose simple numerical quotas provoked enormous controversy and faculty opposition.[10] Therefore, the approach subsequently taken by Harvard President A. Lawrence Lowell and his peers was to transform the admissions process from a simple objective test of academic merit into a complex and holistic consideration of all aspects of each individual applicant; the resulting opacity permitted the admission or rejection of any given applicant, allowing the ethnicity of the student body to be shaped as desired. As a consequence, university leaders could honestly deny the existence of any racial or religious quotas, while still managing to reduce Jewish enrollment to a much lower level, and thereafter hold it almost constant during the decades which followed.[11] For example, the Jewish portion of Harvard’s entering class dropped from nearly 30 percent in 1925 to 15 percent the following year and remained roughly static until the period of the Second World War.[12]

As Karabel repeatedly demonstrates, the major changes in admissions policy which later followed were usually determined by factors of raw political power and the balance of contending forces rather than any idealistic considerations. For example, in the aftermath of World War II, Jewish organizations and their allies mobilized their political and media resources to pressure the universities into increasing their ethnic enrollment by modifying the weight assigned to various academic and non-academic factors, raising the importance of the former over the latter. Then a decade or two later, this exact process was repeated in the opposite direction, as the early 1960s saw black activists and their liberal political allies pressure universities to bring their racial minority enrollments into closer alignment with America’s national population by partially shifting away from their recently enshrined focus on purely academic considerations. Indeed, Karabel notes that the most sudden and extreme increase in minority enrollment took place at Yale in the years 1968–69, and was largely due to fears of race riots in heavily black New Haven, which surrounded the campus.[13]

Philosophical consistency appears notably absent in many of the prominent figures involved in these admissions battles, with both liberals and conservatives sometimes favoring academic merit and sometimes non-academic factors, whichever would produce the particular ethnic student mix they desired for personal or ideological reasons. Different political blocs waged long battles for control of particular universities, and sudden large shifts in admissions rates occurred as these groups gained or lost influence within the university apparatus: Yale replaced its admissions staff in 1965 and the following year Jewish numbers nearly doubled.[14]

At times, external judicial or political forces would be summoned to override university admissions policy, often succeeding in this aim. Karabel’s own ideological leanings are hardly invisible, as he hails efforts by state legislatures to force Ivy League schools to lift their de facto Jewish quotas, but seems to regard later legislative attacks on “affirmative action” as unreasonable assaults on academic freedom.[15] The massively footnoted text of The Chosen might lead one to paraphrase Clausewitz and conclude that our elite college admissions policy often consists of ethnic warfare waged by other means, or even that it could be summarized as a simple Leninesque question of “Who, Whom?”

Although nearly all of Karabel’s study is focused on the earlier history of admissions policy at Harvard, Yale, and Princeton, with the developments of the last three decades being covered in just a few dozen pages, he finds complete continuity down to the present day, with the notorious opacity of the admissions process still allowing most private universities to admit whomever they want for whatever reasons they want, even if the reasons and the admissions decisions may eventually change over the years. Despite these plain facts, Harvard and the other top Ivy League schools today publicly deny any hint of discrimination along racial or ethnic lines, except insofar as they acknowledge providing an admissions boost to under-represented racial minorities, such as blacks or Hispanics. But given the enormous control these institutions exert on our larger society, we should test these claims against the evidence of the actual enrollment statistics.
Asian-Americans as the “New Jews”

The overwhelming focus of Karabel’s book is on changes in Jewish undergraduate percentages at each university, and this is probably less due to his own ethnic heritage than because the data provides an extremely simple means of charting the ebb and flow of admissions policy: Jews were a high-performing group, whose numbers could only be restricted by major deviations from an objective meritocratic standard.

Obviously, anti-Jewish discrimination in admissions no longer exists at any of these institutions, but a roughly analogous situation may be found with a group whom Golden and others have sometimes labeled “The New Jews,” namely Asian-Americans. Since their strong academic performance is coupled with relatively little political power, they would be obvious candidates for discrimination in the harsh realpolitik of university admissions as documented by Karabel, and indeed he briefly raises the possibility of an anti-Asian admissions bias, before concluding that the elite universities are apparently correct in denying that it exists.[16]

There certainly does seem considerable anecdotal evidence that many Asians perceive their chances of elite admission as being drastically reduced by their racial origins.[17] For example, our national newspapers have revealed that students of part-Asian background have regularly attempted to conceal the non-white side of their ancestry when applying to Harvard and other elite universities out of concern it would greatly reduce their chances of admission.[18]

Indeed, widespread perceptions of racial discrimination are almost certainly the primary factor behind the huge growth in the number of students refusing to reveal their racial background at top universities, with the percentage of Harvard students classified as “race unknown” having risen from almost nothing to a regular 5–15 percent of all undergraduates over the last twenty years, with similar levels reached at other elite schools.

Such fears that checking the “Asian” box on an admissions application may lead to rejection are hardly unreasonable, given that studies have documented a large gap between the average test scores of whites and Asians successfully admitted to elite universities. Princeton sociologist Thomas J. Espenshade and his colleagues have demonstrated that among undergraduates at highly selective schools such as the Ivy League, white students have mean scores 310 points higher on the 1600 SAT scale than their black classmates, but Asian students average 140 points above whites.[19] The former gap is an automatic consequence of officially acknowledged affirmative action policies, while the latter appears somewhat mysterious.


...



https://www.unz.com/runz/the-myth-of-american-meritocracy/

[Lemminkäinen]

2 hot Finnish guys, stop analyzing Russia already, you're not doing well. Your views are largely outdated, and the West is already being replaced by an unattractive post-West.

Sorry, I feel freedom to analyze every nation, also the Finnish one. Look, I have analyzed Germany, EU, Sweden and Finland. Why should Russia make an exception? I know you are a decent guy, please don't get offended for Russia alone. In my imagination we don't yet live in a such dystopic world. I wait for seeing if I am wrong and someone is triggered to push button.

[Laredo]

Mexico

[Rumata]

There is much in common between them, and they are united by a provincial view and the absence of a more or less holistic view of the construction at large state entities, such as Russia. Their slogans are on the level - do not be lazy, and everything will be fine! They got used to living in their village, not being surrounded by external and internal enemies all their lives around the perimeter.

But FS also has feministic and men hating vibe (at 21, Carl!).

I think both of them are blatantly biased.

[KirillMazur]

This part is the only one you're wrong. Holy Bible is used in every Orthodox service, both Old and New Testament. Every regular Sunday Liturgy has a lot of Psalms of David, readings of Gospel and Holy Apostles. The same with everyday prayers for the Christians. There are Old Testament readings at the Vespers time. Old and New Testaments are unseparable from each other and making difference between the God of Old and New Testament is an old heresy named marcionism. Old Testament prophets and saints are equal with New Testament ones, lots of them are the greatest ones.
Old and New Testaments are meaningless without each other aswell.
Thank you for correcting a inveterate atheist who may someday be on the path of correction.

Sorry, I feel freedom to analyze every nation, also the Finnish one. Look, I have analyzed Germany, EU, Sweden and Finland. Why should Russia make an exception? In my imagination we don't yet live in a such dystopic world. I wait for seeing if I am wrong and someone is triggered to push button.
I am not against your analyzes, but I would not be offended if they were a little more accurate and relevant. But it turns out that I live here all my life, sometimes I even enjoy life, and suddenly these analyzes tell me that I live in shit with no prospects and with the risk of being killed by going to the store for bread. And my parents and grandparents are generally sinners and have long been in hell.
But somewhere far away there is a country (countries) of bright and noble elves, where everyone lives for 150 years in love, order, prosperity and good manners. And these elven countries don't make mistakes. But I'm in Mordor.

Tired of reading this from year to year, well, honestly.

I know you are a decent guy
A programmer will not peck out a programmer's eye:).

[Methuselah]

One way or another, most of the Russian problems are caused by the intervention of the West, driven by Protestant morality.
So I want the path of Russia to meet the requirements of Orthodox (New Testament) morality. It does not matter at all what it will be called and under what banner, but this path must keep animal instincts within the most strict limits.
I do not want people with archaic morals to lead my country, and I am also against blind borrowing from the West, without any national rethinking. By the way, 95% of fraudulent schemes and pyramid schemes in Russia were borrowed from the West almost unchanged in the 90s.
You told me that you were an atheist. I grew up in a Protestant (not Lutheran) church whole my life and was active in church services with my family. I also was learning theology with my theology friends and a small groups so i can tell you few things that might surprise you. I hope you can widen your view a bit.

All Christianity is defined by Holy Trinity and not Old or New Testaments since both books belong in the package of the Holy Bible. You are absolutely wrong that the Orthodox religion focuses on New Testament and Jesus and other religions don't. All denominations have fought against each other and claim their righteousness but this is more about the culture and small theological differences, not views on the Jesus. Protestantism, Catholicism and Orthodox churches all DIFFER from Judaism and all have traditionally had problems with being antisemitic in the eyes of the Jews because Jews were blamed for the killing of the Christ together with Romans. All Jews were strange in the Middle Ages because of their religions at least, because the freedom did not exist. Luther did not blame Jews for the killing of the Christ but he got angry when he saw them refusing converting into Lutheran faith despite him being very friendly to them, thus the book "On the Jews and Their Lies". So Protestantism is NOT super close to Judaism as you claim but Protestant morals have some similarities with Jewish thought and certain things just like Orthodox views have similarities in others. Maybe pragmatism and focus on this life is a Protestant thing but let's not forget that all Christian churches take something from Judaism. Don't forget that Jesus was a Jew and all Christians accept morals of Judaism in form of Laws of Moses. It just gets deeper than that with Messianic Jesus. And i'm not advertising Messianic Christianity. I'm telling you how Christianity was born and it was born when certain Jews including Paul converted to Christianity and started following Jesus. After that Christianity kept evolving of course.

Calvinists indeed are more deterministic and Jews, also Muslims have similar vibes. But don't think that the Orthodox religion is not influences by the Jews. I think it is, and is a lot. I don't actually think that Russian antisemitism stems from only Russian soul or Russian religion. Maybe Orthodox Church fathers were more antisemitic, you tell me? I guess most of the Fathers regardless of their denomination were anti Jewish in terms of religions, simply because of Jesus.


Russia is a country with less and not more things that comes to stablity, laws and morals. In general, West has more and not less. Protestant countries have more of everything, not only wealth but also social security and kindness. People with humble backgrounds maybe have more toughness but that's it. On everything else they have to do extra work. Maybe traditional values are respected more in Russia and this is one of the rare occasions where there is something "more".

I don't know if you should put all the blame on USA and the West tho. Yes, Russia is an Orthodox country because of the Byzantine connection, but why do you think Protestantism is a bad influence? Is Protestant work ethics bad? Is taking care of the poor people bad? Is honesty bad? Is certainty better than uncertainty even if it is a bit too simplistic sometimes. I don't wanna make you sad but you sound exactly like one who would benefit more from a Protestant view. Orthodox view is more Archaic and every single Christian including Orthodox knows this, despite your guess. It is older and less pragmatic. It has beautiful elements and many deep thinkers have Orthodox background, but also many writers and thinkers are Catholics and Protestants. It is a very oldish view where people compete saying "we are holier than others". It is just not trues. No one is holier. Everyone have their own problems. Americans have done great work keeping such a huge country together but it is a class society with a lot of problems. Europe has it's own issues and Russia even more. And yes Russian problems are partly related to the West. But not everything from the West is bad. Is Apple bad? Is modern science bad which Russia contributed to? Is classical music bad? Is Greek philosophy which contributed to Russia too bad? Social Darwinism is bad and Nazism and Communism in my opinion are bad. And black and white racist theories are bad. But not everything Wester or everything Eastern is bad.

"Protestantism teaches that God loves the rich and successful, so any means are good to achieve success, including absolutely immoral ones. And that every person, even a beggar at the moment, is a potential millionaire, and "the chosen one", experiencing temporary difficulties.
For this reason, Steinbeck believed that socialism would never take root in the United States, because any tramp considers himself an chosen one and potential millionaire who has not yet been lucky, and not at all an exploited class.

There are actually more differences - our God is a merciful and all-forgiving entity, in contrast to the Protestant one (and Jewish). Also, Russia's plans do not include the destruction of a competing civilization, but the desire to establish good neighborly relations. But Protestants, on the contrary, are trying to destroy (or replace meanings) everything that they do not understand and that prevents them from enrichment, because God loves the rich in their opinion. Etc."

Prosperity theology is more American and not merely Protestant thing. Also Orthodox God is not super loving all the time, neither is Protestant or Catholic God. It all depends on the theological interpretation. Charismatic movements (which have Protestant roots) focus on the love of God all the time and think that God is very humane and does not even require Baptism from infants. In Orthodox and Lutheran churches it is a must. But of course modern popes try to be as human as they can get.

If Protestants destroyed something, it is not because of their religion but because of their selfish European behaviour and lack of morals. If Soviet soldiers raped someone, that is not because of their Orthodox views but lack of discipline.

You wrote: Protestantism teaches that God loves the rich and successful, so any means are good to achieve success, including absolutely immoral ones. Why did you write this? Have you been in Finland or Sweden or England or Netherlands? Do you really think that Russian way of making money is more holy than Scandinavian/Northern way? Really? Also, stop connecting Protestantism to negative stereotypes of Jewish thinking. I agree that certain Jews can get selfish in making money but this is exactly where all Christian views differ from modern, secular Jewish view.

"So I want the path of Russia to meet the requirements of Orthodox (New Testament) morality. It does not matter at all what it will be called and under what banner, but this path must keep animal instincts within the most strict limits."

For this you need strict laws and produce healthy law abiding citizens. If you want Russia to make more like "New Testament" it is not about certain Christian denomination. It is about making it less corrupt and more working. Don't forget that Satan came to Moscow even in the book of Bulgakov. And that Nihilism and Materialism is bullying Russians as well as others. Orthodox is only the word. I respect that religions and Byzantine culture is fascinating but it is not that simple and Orthodox religion is not perfect. I personally think that none of these are perfect. Russian problems stem from the lack of working society, stable government, respected citizen and lack of certain things the West has. Russia and Balkan had less stability than West because of the wars too, without a doubt.

What comes to the Jews (you mentioned them), they are interesting people. In Russia Tsars seemed pretty antisemitic. I don't know if it was their German influence from the Catherine the Great or just random Byzantine thought. It is very sad what the last Tsar was fighting with everyone from Japan and Germany and that out of the Jews could come such strange and dark figures as Trotsky.

[Lemminkäinen]

Thank you for correcting a inveterate atheist who may someday be on the path of correction.

I am not against your analyzes, but I would not be offended if they were a little more accurate and relevant. But it turns out that I live here all my life, sometimes I even enjoy life, and suddenly these analyzes tell me that I live in shit with no prospects and with the risk of being killed by going to the store for bread. And my parents and grandparents are generally sinners and have long been in hell.
But somewhere far away there is a country (countries) of bright and noble elves, where everyone lives for 150 years in love, order, prosperity and good manners. And these elven countries don't make mistakes. But I'm in Mordor.

Tired of reading this from year to year, well, honestly.

.

I usually use historic perspective, like Peter the Great's wars. For example speaking about boyars I wrote that they own nothing, but they have right to steal instead. I suppose it has been always like that, very straightforwardly. It is how property and power accumulates also in the west. A small group makes deals and sneakiest wins. Bill Gates stole DOS code from IBM, Apple stole touch screen. USA steals by making market and techology standars to protect US markets, meanwhile pretending have be a defender of free markets. EU acts today similarly. You have power if you have markets. For that reason I wrote about poor Russian domestic markets. EU isn't strong either, semiconductors come from Taiwan and China, energy from Middle East and Russia, but EU has powerful markets.