> Russia is still more democratic than many of the US’s allies
Russia is an authoritarian dictatorship with the same guy ruling for 21 years and counting. Which allies did you meant?
> and certainly more democratic than it was under Yeltsin
Under Yeltsin they had freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, separation of powers, state-independent business including large corporations, the federation, and independent press. Putin dismantled all of the above.
> a physics paper from China or Soviet Russia would not automatically be regarded as suspect
> > Russia is still more democratic than many of the US’s allies
> Russia is an authoritarian dictatorship with the same guy ruling for 21 years and counting. Which allies did you meant?
Well, compare Russia to America's ally Saudi Arabia.
In Russia, they have national elections. You can complain they are rigged, and there is some truth in that – but, anyway, at least they have them. Saudi Arabia has never had an election in its history, except for local government.
I don't think the rigging in Russia is primarily through direct election fraud (although some of that may be happening). Putin is genuinely popular with a majority of Russians, so he can win a genuine majority of votes, but he engages in manipulation of public opinion through state-controlled media to help build his popularity. Also, the system ensures that the only people allowed to run against Putin are the communists and ultra-nationalists who are unlikely to win; pro-Western/liberal candidates are prevented from running, although it is not guaranteed they'd win if they were allowed, but they possibly could give Putin some more real competition. However, if Putin's popularity were to collapse, he'd be forced to resort to more blatantly fraudulent means to stay in power, and it is possible at that point his allies who keep him in power might turn against him and he might be removed.
In Russia, they have political parties. The system is dominated by the ruling "United Russia" party, although other parties (such as the Communist Party and the ultra-nationalist LDPR) are permitted to hold around a quarter of the seats in the Duma. Again, you can complain the Duma is rigged in United Russia's favour, and that complaint may well be true, but still doing better than Saudi Arabia, where political parties are banned.
It isn't just Saudi Arabia. Other American allies in the Middle East, such as UAE, Qatar and Oman also ban political parties.
That helped him to stay in power, but only to an extent.
Unfortunately, he decided to resort to even more sinister means to stay in power, military offence against a neighbor country. Apparently, land grab of Crimea boosted his popularity by a lot back in 2014. Only recently the effect has started to fade away, likely a result of macro-economic consequences of international sanctions.
> Other American allies in the Middle East, such as UAE, Qatar and Oman also ban political parties.
Still, that’s 4 countries out of about half of the world. That’s not many of them.
Contemporary Russia has far more of the form of an electoral democracy than the USSR had. 25% of the Duma is controlled by opposition parties. How much of the Supreme Soviet was controlled by opposition parties?
If we distinguish form from substance, contemporary Russia has a lot of the form, but the substance is impaired. By contrast, the Soviet Union was lacking in both.
> That already happened in 2011 and in all the later ones
Looking at that article about the 2011 election, United Russia was polling in the 50s to 60s, and won about 49% of the vote, suggesting they underperformed their polls. There may well have been some fraud, but unless the opinion polls are rigged too (which might be true, but where is the evidence?), it doesn't look like any fraud actually changed the outcome.
> Apparently, land grab of Crimea boosted his popularity by a lot back in 2014
Which seems to support what I said earlier, about him being "genuinely popular with a majority of Russians"
> 25% of the Duma is controlled by opposition parties.
An example, in 2014 100% of state senators (they have two houses in their parliament, duma is another one) approved Putin’s request to invade Ukraine. I think that level of conformity would be impossible with opposition parties there.
> 2020 Levada poll gave him a 65% approval rating
In modern Russia, saying you don’t support Putin or his party is risky. It’s not yet as bad as in USSR (the risk was almost 100% then, people were executed, imprisoned, or later forcibly treated in psychiatric hospitals), but it’s slowly getting there.
We don’t know how these same people would have responded if they would be free to express any opinion on the subject.
> it doesn't look like any fraud actually changed the outcome
In the first paragraph of that article there’s a statement “Statistical analysis of poll data have shown massive abnormalities that most researchers explain by mass-scale electoral fraud”, which has 6 external links.
> Under Yeltsin they had freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, separation of powers, state-independent business including large corporations, the federation, and independent press.
And how much good did it do to people of Russia? I'd say that going the "democratic" way Russia would end up pretty much in the same place where Ukraine is now, and surely Russians would not want that. And thus maybe Russia way is actually more "democratic". We are learning quite a lot about democracy and free speech here too.
You've got a point here, although nowadays after "Russia interfered in election", "Trump colluded with Russia" etc., I am not sure if I can trust in what is being reported on many issues.
Good point, any others? Because the claim was "many of the US’s allies", one example is not enough.
> And how much good did it do to people of Russia?
These people spent 70 years practicing and exporting communism. They suffered heavy military losses in Afghanistan. They have lost the cold war, and lost many dependent territories.
That's why their quality of life has dropped. Democratic freedoms and human rights did good for people.
> Good point, any others? Because the claim was "many of the US’s allies", one example is not enough.
Omitting usual suspects - Jordan is a monarchy.
> These people spent 70 years practicing and exporting communism. They suffered heavy military losses in Afghanistan. They have lost the cold war, and lost many dependent territories.
And adding "democratic" institutions like independent large businesses controlled by oligarchs, "free" press also controlled by oligarchs and "free" elections manipulated by oligarchs and external forces, "free" market economy w/o protectionism, was making the country into what Ukraine is today - just country divided into feudal domains controlled oligarchs in turn controlled by western elites.
> Democratic freedoms and human rights did good for people.
OK, that’s two out of how many? NATO alone has 30 states, that’s 29 excluding the US. Claiming these two are “many of the US’s allies” is dishonest.
> was making the country into what Ukraine is today
Quality of life, and economy, of Russia started to decline before the transition to democracy. Two main reasons were international sanctions for the war in Afghanistan (like Ronald Reagan’s security directive 75 in 1983), and collapse of oil prices around 1986.
Transition to democracy was not making the country into anything. Causations is directed from earlier to later events, never the other way around.
> Look at the current state of Ukraine.
The economy ain’t great because since 2014 Ukraine is losing many lives and resources defending Russian military aggression. In terms of democratic freedoms the country is way ahead: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index
Russia is an authoritarian dictatorship with the same guy ruling for 21 years and counting. Which allies did you meant?
> and certainly more democratic than it was under Yeltsin
Under Yeltsin they had freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, separation of powers, state-independent business including large corporations, the federation, and independent press. Putin dismantled all of the above.
> a physics paper from China or Soviet Russia would not automatically be regarded as suspect
Russian government was caught cheating with doping tests of athletes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doping_in_Russia