> You can say the same about every country

No, you can't, except in some abstract sense that loses all meaning.

In the west, it's routine to find wealthy and powerful members of the establishment pursue goals and policies that are directly opposed to the government with both success and failure. And of course these governments change hands relatively commonly.

In Russia, there are no wealthy or powerful people pursuing anything but Putin's agenda. All those who tried have been removed, via various methods ranging from banal to horrifying.

Now I'm sure there are nuts on the internet who will try to claim that the political divisions of the west are "really" just a front for a kleptrocrat cabal or whatever. But in the real world we have one country arresting its enemies and a bunch that don't, and that distinction matters.

Condorcet's Secret aside, Russia is a Mafia State. This is where the state's military and paramilitary are deeply integrated with state-sponsored organized crime. So you have commandos and police both work systems of extortion, human and drug trafficking, money laundering, racketeering, war, espionage, etc. etc. It's a totally different thing than the garden variety corruption you find in western countries, ok?

Does selling influence in the state department count as "garden variety corruption you find in western countries"?

Does delivering Uranium to The Enemy in exchange for cash donations to a slush fund count as "garden variety corruption you find in western countries"?

Does employing El Salvadorian gangs in your nation's capital to intimidate and assassinate your political enemies count as "garden variety corruption you find in western countries"?

> delivering Uranium to The Enemy

I have to admit, even in a subthread where I was sure we'd see conspiracy nuttery, this is not the conspiracy I would have expected. You realize this is a totally fabricated thing, right? The timing alone should tell you all you need to know about what the intent behind it was.

When I engage with conspiracy communities it's usually to debunk extreme claims, so I approach most claims with skepticism, but wouldn't this:

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/225

Suggest that it's not fabricated?

The claim of a quid-pro-quo is fabricated (seriously: it requires collusion between like five governments and three branches of the USG, of which Clinton had control of only one -- there is zero evidence of any of that). Obviously the conspiracy nuttery exists, so yeah, it's "out there".

"It's out there" is the only bit of content. Anyone who reads that and says "well damn he clearly means watch out Hillary, they know about all your illegal doings. Shred everything!" rather than "fyi the right are spreading that nonsense talking point" is making a bit of a leap IMO.

> Does delivering Uranium to The Enemy

You're of course referring to that exploratory deal involving no delivery of Uranium anywhere.

Amazing that people don't see this still. Kaspersky insists that his company has an exception, and it "doesn't work like that", but it's hard to believe. And if you're part of the US IC, it'd be malpractice to believe him.

The nature of the relationship is unknown. Even if Kaspersky is bought by Putin in some way, it’s not clear what the terms and expectations are. It does seem unlikely that the commercial offering is straight up spyware for putin—why would anyone buy it? So it’s a little silly to talk about the relationship as if its existence is meaningful when the degree of ownership is the real question.

You're treating the question of "is Kaspersky spyware" in the sense of criminal law, requiring proof of guilt before enforcing punishment.

The grandparent was treating it in the sense of security analysis: requiring proof of safety before granting trust.

I know which paradigm I'd pick before installing an trusted piece of software that can literally snoop on the whole system. But, y'know, whatever. You be you.

Basically: almost the whole of the Russian economy has been subverted to serve the needs of Putin's government. What are the chances that Kaspersky alone has not? Seems low enough to maybe look elsewhere for your AV needs.

I am not sure I follow your line of reasoning. It is obvious that Kaspersky does not advertise itself in such a way, and the average consumer probably has no idea the company is even based out of Russia.

Who cares if Putin personally calls the shots to the leaders of the company? There are a thousand shades of grey, for instance: Kaspersky knowledgeably allowing backdoors about which they could later feign ignorance.

I don’t trust US, Chinese, or Russian software. Big companies with access to sensitive data invariably become targets, and are only allowed to exist peacefully with the blessing of their masters.

At the micro level there are certainly events that support your position. However, at the macro level the arc of history doesn't seem to bend in your favor.

And even if there are those who oppose, there are also those who do not - and the do nots often get favors, inside info, etc. The opposers aren't really a concern.

> However, at the macro level the arc of history doesn't seem to bend in your favor.

It doesn't get more macro than what happened to Khodorkovsky, who got his company (Russia's biggest at the time) stolen from him once Putin started consolidating his power (in the early 2000s). That's like the Democrats confiscating the Koch brothers' conglomerate business and putting them in prison, or like the Republicans doing the same thing to some big Hollywood media mogul. It's not going to happen.

I believe the comment I was commenting on was about corruption and The West. Looks like I should have pulled a quote and spoke to that. Sorry?

> "In Russia, there are no wealthy or powerful people pursuing anything but Putin's agenda. All those who tried have been removed, via various methods ranging from banal to horrifying."

Where the hell do people come up with this? It's not only untrue, it's not even feasible.

Seems true enough to me, though I'm willing to be educated. Where is the Russian equivalent of, say, the Koch brothers or Soros? That is: wealthy, powerful people who use their wealth to drive policy aimed (often) at unseating the established government.

Russia had a few of those in the mid 90's. They're all jailed or exiled, or in more than a few cases murdered. Who are Putin's powerful domestic opponents whose existence you think is unfeasible to deny?

It is absolutely feasible. Much of Russia's wealth is generated by a handful of large state owned businesses, predominantly the oil sector.

And all these positions are staffed with individuals who have intimate contact to Putin himself. Ranging from the husband of his daughter (Kirill Shamalov) who within months after the marriage took over Sibur, one of the largest petro businesses in the country, to old KGB aides of Putin who are now in charge of say, Rostec (Sergey Viktorovich Chemezov ) Russia's largest tech company. He too met Putin during his KGB time in East Germany. The list is too long for one post.

This is called an oligarchy and it's a fairly common historical arrangement. Nothing special about it and can be found in stratified countries where economic and political power is concentrated in the hand of a few families.

For starters, do you not see the huge logical leap going from naming a couple of executives who are close with Putin, to saying that ALL people in Russia with money or power are doing nothing but following Putin's agenda?

What about the minor detail that the oligarchs existed not only before Putin, but before Yeltsin, his predecessor, as well (not that they didn't grow under Yeltsin, but still)?

Most documentation that even passes a smell test of being reasonably plausible also suggests that the relationship was inverted - the oligarchs had more influence over Yeltsin than he did over them. When Putin took power, he was known for getting rid of many of them. The interesting thing about that, is that can be interpreted charitably or uncharitably - reducing the level of corruption and oligarch abuse of the government would be a positive thing, but banishing those who don't get in line (where we are assuming "getting in line" means they are being asked to do bad things, not follow laws) seems to be the default assumption in Russia's case. As far as I've seen, there's really never been anything to substantiate the uncharitable narrative, but so many people who have never been to Russia or spoken to a Russian person have themselves thoroughly convinced that they understand these secret "arrangements".

The whole idea that he could be a mafia boss and the CEO of literally everything is just crazy thinking, yet many of us westerners seem to just eat it up, and anything shady that happens even close to the government is always personally attributed to Putin's orders. It'd be like calling Trump a mafia boss because some random cop took a bribe in some city in the mid west. The idea is laughable, and the fact that we got here warrants a little bit of self-reflection on our part.

>What about the minor detail that the oligarchs existed not only before Putin, but before Yeltsin, his predecessor, as well (not that they didn't grow under Yeltsin, but still)?

Nobody is doubting that. The country wasn't liberal or less oligarchic under Yeltsin, it was just as oligarchic under Soviet rule. Russia never meaningfully deviated from this course.

And this doesn't just come from a 'westerner far removed from Russia'. I have family in the country and lived there and I have experienced the degree of corruption not just under Putin but his predecessors personally.

Not everyone would agree that things are good now, or perhaps not even anyone, but it seems like most agree that they have at least improved dramatically since Yeltsin. You're disagreeing with this and saying it has not meaningfully deviated?

Also, why do you believe that the corruption you experienced was because of the leader, rather than despite the leader's efforts?

I do not think anyone would even try to claim that Russia does not have a corruption problem. Putin himself has discussed it at length, particularly expressing frustration over how it cripples the economy, which is probably his biggest obsession.

Furthermore, and I am assuming here, but unless you're from an extremely important family, it seems unlikely that the flavor of corruption you would experience is even in the same universe as what the oligarchs and president are dealing with. This goes back to the idea of him being the mafia boss CEO of literally everything.

>Also, why do you believe that the corruption you experienced was because of the leader, rather than despite the leader's efforts?

because of the programs he has put in place. Role of state owned entreprises has nearly doubled up to 70% of the economy, he has consciously put these close friends in place, he has cut down on any form of opposition and dissent within the country. It is the official course of his politics. The Russian government is not even hiding this, which makes the constant apologia from people not even affected by it seem only more baffling.

Old news. The Russian government, for all practical purposes is the Russian mafia. Many people have written about this starting several years before Steve Blank, the SV entrepreneur, wrote about it in 2008. In 2010, the US Diplomatic Cables Leak confirmed it, going on from there with Luke Harding's book Mafia State. You can get a pretty good look by reading the wikipedia article on this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mafia_state

seems like you've never set foot in Russia