Why is Russia always viewed as "the bad guy"?

"A superpower is a cold war term. When people today say that Russia aspires to have this status, I interpret it in the following way: they want to undermine trust in Russia, to portray Russia as frightening, and create some kind of image of an enemy. ... Russia is in favor of a multipolar world, a democratic world order, strengthening the system of international law, and for developing a legal system in which any small country, even a very small country, can feel itself secure, as if behind a stone wall. ... Russia is ready to become part of this multipolar world and guarantee that the international community observes these rules. And not as a superpower with special rights, but rather as an equal among equals" - Vladimir Putin

Why is it that Russia is ALWAYS viewed negatively in the media? The Soviet Union did not do anything wrong at all except try to spread their idiology. Modern day Russia is always viewed as "the bad guy". What gives? It is a great nation with a unified populace if you take out he chechyns

The Soviets did kind of oppress their people. And I wouldn't call Russia's government too democratic when the executive branch appoints the members of the judicial branch. I don't care what anyone says, but the leaders of a country being in charge of how the law is interpreted and carried out is undemocratic. Luncbox1

[QUOTE="Luncbox1"]The Soviets did kind of oppress their people. And I wouldn't call Russia's government too democratic when the executive branch appoints the members of the judicial branch. I don't care what anyone says, but the leaders of a country being in charge of how the law is interpreted and carried out is undemocratic. CruxisXIII

[QUOTE="CruxisXIII"][QUOTE="Luncbox1"]The Soviets did kind of oppress their people. And I wouldn't call Russia's government too democratic when the executive branch appoints the members of the judicial branch. I don't care what anyone says, but the leaders of a country being in charge of how the law is interpreted and carried out is undemocratic. Luncbox1

[QUOTE="Luncbox1"][QUOTE="CruxisXIII"][QUOTE="Luncbox1"]The Soviets did kind of oppress their people. And I wouldn't call Russia's government too democratic when the executive branch appoints the members of the judicial branch. I don't care what anyone says, but the leaders of a country being in charge of how the law is interpreted and carried out is undemocratic. Matt-4542

[QUOTE="Luncbox1"]The Soviets did kind of oppress their people. And I wouldn't call Russia's government too democratic when the executive branch appoints the members of the judicial branch. I don't care what anyone says, but the leaders of a country being in charge of how the law is interpreted and carried out is undemocratic. CruxisXIII

I feel like you didn't mention someone else...>.>

[QUOTE="CruxisXIII"][QUOTE="Luncbox1"]The Soviets did kind of oppress their people. And I wouldn't call Russia's government too democratic when the executive branch appoints the members of the judicial branch. I don't care what anyone says, but the leaders of a country being in charge of how the law is interpreted and carried out is undemocratic. gameeer1

I feel like you didn't mention someone else...>.>

[QUOTE="gameeer1"]

[QUOTE="CruxisXIII"][QUOTE="Luncbox1"]The Soviets did kind of oppress their people. And I wouldn't call Russia's government too democratic when the executive branch appoints the members of the judicial branch. I don't care what anyone says, but the leaders of a country being in charge of how the law is interpreted and carried out is undemocratic. CruxisXIII

I feel like you didn't mention someone else...>.>

Not Soviet dictators...

Does anyone know who Josip Broz Tito was?

I could give you a REALLY long answer, but instead I will just give you the short version.

First of all, the Soviet Union was guilty of way more than just spreading their ideology like you say. (Although their ideology was one that violates human rights). They were, and continue to be, an unpredictable force for instability. Stalin killed more innocent civilians than Hitler ever did. The communist regime violated numerous natural and basic rights, and jailed dissidents to their government. They were a closed society that covered up many atrocities, including their attempt to cover up the nuclear incident at Chernobyl. They put up walls, such as the one in Berlin, to keep their citizens in.

Today, Russia is different, but still operates in a similar way. Putin has established a one-party system, silenced the media, and local dissidents, as if it were the days of the Soviet Union all over again. Members of minority political parties are jailed and sometimes murdered. Check out this article of one of the more well-known occurences:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/11/19/world/main2199604.shtml

As far as the invasion of Georgia, read this article to get an idea of why Russia is seen as the "bad guy."

http://www.nypost.com/seven/08092008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/raping_georgia_123664.htm

All you have to do is pick up a history book and see how Russia has continullay been a force of instability and violence in the world since 1917.

[QUOTE="Luncbox1"]The Soviets did kind of oppress their people. And I wouldn't call Russia's government too democratic when the executive branch appoints the members of the judicial branch. I don't care what anyone says, but the leaders of a country being in charge of how the law is interpreted and carried out is undemocratic. CruxisXIII

His approval rating is that high because people are afraid to voice dissent. They might diappear and never be seen again. I know people in Russia who can cooberate this. Also, google "Natan Sharansky" to see why Putin has such a high approval rating. Also worth noting- almost all oppresive dictators have high approval ratings, such as Omar Khadafi and Saddam Hussein.

I could give you a REALLY long answer, but instead I will just give you the short version.

First of all, the Soviet Union was guilty of way more than just spreading their ideology like you say. (Although their ideology was one that violates human rights). They were, and continue to be, an unpredictable force for instability. Stalin killed more innocent civilians than Hitler ever did. The communist regime violated numerous natural and basic rights, and jailed dissidents to their government. They were a closed society that covered up many atrocities, including their attempt to cover up the nuclear incident at Chernobyl. They put up walls, such as the one in Berlin, to keep their citizens in.

Today, Russia is different, but still operates in a similar way. Putin has established a one-party system, silenced the media, and local dissidents, as if it were the days of the Soviet Union all over again. Members of minority political parties are jailed and sometimes murdered. Check out this article of one of the more well-known occurences:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/11/19/world/main2199604.shtml

As far as the invasion of Georgia, read this article to get an idea of why Russia is seen as the "bad guy."

http://www.nypost.com/seven/08092008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/raping_georgia_123664.htm

All you have to do is pick up a history book and see how Russia has continullay been a force of instability and violence in the world since 1917.

nakasa5

Sure they did. They hated facism because it is the extreme opposite, yet just as violent and perverse, as communism. But it was not only the Soviets, the Americans and British did plenty as well.

Is that the only rebuttal you have? You need to look into this carefully and read your history. Who has been on the side of freedom, human rights, and democracy most of the time? America and western Europe.

nakasa5

Sure they did. They hated facism because it is the extreme opposite, yet just as violent and perverse, as communism. But it was not only the Soviets, the Americans and British did plenty as well.

The western world was not always on the side of "freedom, democracy, and basic human rights". The US set up dictatorships all along South America, the middle east (Iran), and in other countries.

The Soviet Union did not do anything wrong at all except try to spread their idiology.

CruxisXIII

Er, they also killed tens of millions of their own people. I'm going to hope that that falls under the category of "wrong".

[QUOTE="CruxisXIII"]

The Soviet Union did not do anything wrong at all except try to spread their idiology.

GabuEx

Er, they also killed tens of millions of their own people. I'm going to hope that that falls under the category of "wrong".

[QUOTE="GabuEx"][QUOTE="CruxisXIII"]

The Soviet Union did not do anything wrong at all except try to spread their idiology.

CruxisXIII

Er, they also killed tens of millions of their own people. I'm going to hope that that falls under the category of "wrong".

I really dont think that argument's gonna get you anywhere..

[QUOTE="CruxisXIII"][QUOTE="GabuEx"][QUOTE="CruxisXIII"]

The Soviet Union did not do anything wrong at all except try to spread their idiology.

colonicjas2

Er, they also killed tens of millions of their own people. I'm going to hope that that falls under the category of "wrong".

I really dont think that argument's gonna get you anywhere..

[QUOTE="colonicjas2"][QUOTE="CruxisXIII"][QUOTE="GabuEx"][QUOTE="CruxisXIII"]

The Soviet Union did not do anything wrong at all except try to spread their idiology.

CruxisXIII

Er, they also killed tens of millions of their own people. I'm going to hope that that falls under the category of "wrong".

I really dont think that argument's gonna get you anywhere..

It's like Stalin says , "The death of one man is a tragedy, the death of a million is a statistic". Most people view the 25 million he killed as 25 million tragedies, not just a statistic.

Well, I'm a firm believer that Stalin killed 25 million to save 300 million. He had to modernize his nation because he saw that Europe was a time bomb waiting to explode in a bloody war. He had to race against time. Lets not always view Stalin as a bad guy, we can view him as a hero instead.CruxisXIII

Why exactly does one need to commit things like the Holodomor famine, considered by the Ukrainian government to have been an act of purposeful mass murder, as well as murdering any and all dissidents and political opponents, in order to modernize one's nation?

People view Stalin as a bad guy because he was a bad guy, an egomaniacal, paranoid bad guy who murdered his own citizens for dissenting or opposing him.

The western world was not always on the side of "freedom, democracy, and basic human rights". The US set up dictatorships all along South America, the middle east (Iran), and in other countries.

Yes, the USSR did a lot in WWII, but does that make them a rightous country. Also, did you just try and justify the deaths of 25 million people all to modernize a country?

Apprently you are not actually asking honest questions. Your mind is already made up (however misled it may be). No country is perfect, but the very freedoms you exercise every day are secure because the West defnded them for the latter half of the 20th century. It is free enterprise governments that have allowed for new technologies to flourish, like the internet and video games. Oppressive governments who control the assets of their citizens and stifle their natural rights belong in the dustbin of history. They don't need apologists.

If the Soviet Union let another political party come into existence, they would still be a one-party state, because everybody would join the other party. --Ronald Reagan

[QUOTE="colonicjas2"][QUOTE="CruxisXIII"][QUOTE="GabuEx"][QUOTE="CruxisXIII"]

The Soviet Union did not do anything wrong at all except try to spread their idiology.

CruxisXIII

Er, they also killed tens of millions of their own people. I'm going to hope that that falls under the category of "wrong".

I really dont think that argument's gonna get you anywhere..

And without leaders like Thatcher and Reagan, the world would be owned by Communists.

They killed Apollo Creed.

/thread