It’s PR when you present your guy in the best light possible. In most countries, there are other PR guys tearing your guy down. If your PR guys are really good — or if the other guy’s PR machine is really bad — and/or if your position or image is truly attractive, your spin goes over.

That’s not what’s happening over here. Here they control the image totally on TV, which is the main source of info for about 97% of the population and in a number of other media as well. That’s not PR. It’s the creation of a cult of personality. Wanna call it a soft cult of personality? Ask the guy who got a jail sentence for writing an article about Putin as the national phallic symbol if he’d agree with you.

Now, SO, you should acknowledge that this position does represent progress. At the time, among Western governments and Western economics-concerned types, Hitler was thought better of than Stalin, hence the numerous, enthusiastic followers of Neville “Germany and England as two pillars of European peace and buttresses against Communism” Chamberlain, and the utterly crushing majority this policy commanded even after the Germans moved on Prague. In the end, it took Hitler agreeing to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact to finally convince this sort that Hitler was at least as bad. SWP et. al. and the rest of these Western Russophobe types delude themselves that they would be in the tiny minority around Churchill that was willing to do a deal with Stalin against Hitler.

Not a chance…

The pr machine has done everything in their power to create a cult of Mr P. That’s why he disappears from the screen every time there is a terrorist attack or tragedy — so people won’t associate him with it, or remember that “power vertical” that was supposed to make him in control of everything that happens under him and therefore responsible for it. It’s also why opinion polls nearly always show great discontent with everything going on in the country, but great approval for Mr P and, to a lesser extent, Mr M.

That’s a non-sequitur. And also consider Russia’s rhetorics. Besides, the point was the intensity: Russia should be hypocritical to the extent that its industries are less important and less influentian in the world.

How is that a non-sequitur? Eye for an eye and all that.

You saying this in the abstract marks you as a closet authoritarian as well, Oblivion. Have a look at what Putin says in his on-the-other-hand things, and see what you think. After all, why not do the same to Hitler? He created the Autobahn, Macht durch Freude campaigns, and promoted Wagner’s music. And he was a vegetarian non-smoker.

That assumes that Hitler and Stalin are morally equivalent, which I adamantly believe they are not.

The point being: the bad things Stalin did are so disproportionately huge (just look at the number of pre-WWII victims) that any good sides cannot excuse it. It would be like claiming that slavery had a good side: Black Africans got to travel throughout the world.

I beg to differ. Saving Slavdom from Nazi genocide (and yes, it was a genocide) washes out his other sins, furthermore, some of which may have been necessary evils to accomplish the former.

The case of black slavery is entirely different because the motivations were entirely different, profit and prestige vs. survival of one’s people.

Considering the photographs he keeps posing to, do you really think he’s not trying to contribute? Or, to put it another way, what has he done against that?

Why should he do anything against that?? No rational politician (public figure, rock star, etc) bothers suppressing those who fervently support and idolize them.

If other nations are hypocrites, then Russia too has a right to be hypocritical in return. Especially considering that its industries are less competitive.
That’s a non-sequitur. And also consider Russia’s rhetorics. Besides, the point was the intensity: Russia should be hypocritical to the extent that its industries are less important and less influentian in the world.

What is wrong with a balanced evaluation of history? Again, your wish to push down a singular interpretation of history reveals you as a closet authoritarian.
You saying this in the abstract marks you as a closet authoritarian as well, Oblivion. Have a look at what Putin says in his on-the-other-hand things, and see what you think. After all, why not do the same to Hitler? He created the Autobahn, Macht durch Freude campaigns, and promoted Wagner’s music. And he was a vegetarian non-smoker.

The point being: the bad things Stalin did are so disproportionately huge (just look at the number of pre-WWII victims) that any good sides cannot excuse it. It would be like claiming that slavery had a good side: Black Africans got to travel throughout the world.

Some fans are creating a personality cult around Putin. Not Putin himself.
Considering the photographs he keeps posing to, do you really think he’s not trying to contribute? Or, to put it another way, what has he done against that?