From 1984 "If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever."

How can things change, then? An invasion is not better than a revolution. Economic pressures work for most countries today (not e.g. North Korea) but not for oil countries -- note that most problem states do live on resource exports (see resource curse).

How do you think about this:

You should not help dictators based on natural resources economically. Countries built on industry will have to democratize when they reach a certain economic level. Countries who get their money from natural resources will just generate more money in Swiss banks if the prices increase.

Edit: pcj50, I doubt even the Saudi A king describes his country as democratic. The West is enough dependent on them that they get a free card. Realpolitik in a democracy means being nice when it isn't too expensive (or the voters back home cares). Dictators are even worse. In sum, there are only varying levels of grey, no black/white. But, well, you knew all this.

The only way to push democracy to such a big and advanced country is to increase cultural exchange, encouraging tourism and supporting Russian education system.

The only two ways I can see his regime could be defeated are:

* Turmoil within his ranks leading destabilizing his power structure

* Significant economic downturn (e.g. oil price falls or oil trading is hindered by sanctions)

One could argue that the growing discontent with Putin among the younger generation could lead to his demise, but I don't think it would work. They can protest all they want but as long as 90% of the population are successfully hypno-toaded, Putin can deal with the protesters in any way he wants.

If not by Channel 1 - then by the paid bloggers that dominate Livejournal top pos list these days.

Strictly speaking _everyone_ is influenced by what they read and by people they talk to in one way or another.

When I put Syria and Ukraine in the same line i mean:

1. I think that what is happening in eastern Ukraine right now is logical consequence of Kiev events. Having a few friends living in Kiev, some of them where on Maidan supporting the revolution and a few friends living in Donbass who supports pro-Russian forces I receive alot of controversial information from both sides. For me it is obvious: it is a civil war right now. Same in Syria.

2. Both countries are playground for major political forces.

3. Both countries are in a really bad state right now.

Same with annexation of Crimea - Russia just used the opportunity to execute the plan. Even the execution started before Yanukovich left the country (such as movement of troops, etc).

2. It's not a civil war and the forces in Eastern ukraine are not 'pro-Russian'.

They are Russian forces (do lookup its leaders - Girkin, Bezler, Antyufeyev, etc). They are all Russian and are members of various branches of Russian government - FSB, GRU, etc.

Your points 2 & 3 i won't even address as they are 'not even wrong'. Any conflict can be described as 'playground for political forces' and 'bad state'. That's why it's a conflict.

Theres alot of russians fighting in ranks of DNR/LNR forces, true. But theres alot of Ukrainians too. You may call this conflict anything you want, but if one group of citizens fight with the other it is civil war. This conflict is supported by russian government only blind will say that LNR/DNR are on their own. The main thing is: LNR/DNR are possible only because they are supported by locals and because of actions of Kiev right after Maidan. Statements that where made by Kiev politics, law acts they enforced, there where alot of mistakes made by Kiev government that led to current situation.

Some information to consider: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legislation_on_languages_in_Ukr...

http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A4%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%BB:2001_U... (red color is for people who pose themselves as ethnically russians)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Ukrainian_revolution#Prote... (just to understand what actions of new government caused so much protest)

Theres alot of information in russian internet but you probably dismiss it as being propaganda and me being brain-washed again.

As far as information in the Russian internet, I will provide one story for the Western readers so they have an idea of what kind of shit cesspool russian media have become: http://www.stopfake.org/en/the-crucifixion-of-a-3-year-old-t...

I'll use public definitions: "Civil war is a violent conflict within a country fought by organized groups that aim to take power at the center or in a region, or to change government policies". Ring anything?

Instead - can you name 5 people who are at the top of the LNR / DNR with their respective citizenships.

I'll give you a little help:

1. Girkin 2. Bezler 3. Borodai 4. Bolotov

Theres well documented cases when ukrainian representatives of law enforcment forces taking a LNR/DNR side. Not only ex-Berkut.

Edit: no, really, it is possible for someone to reach different conclusions from you without being "brainwashed", paid, deluded, or a sockpuppet. People think differently about the world and are operating from different sets of knowledge and beliefs. And different levels of cynicism about international power politics.

(And if you think it is bad in English, be happy that you don't have to swim through the mangled comments in Swedish. But in the last 2-3 months they have gotten a bunch of people with better Swedish.)

Edit: Answer to the Edit. Of course I know that. I ALSO know that few well read people sincerely believe in that the whole world's [democratic] media are in a conspiracy against just Russia and the only truth is in Putin's controlled media. But yes, people do believe in conspiracy theories.

No personal attacks on Hacker News, please.

You on the other hand seem to be blindly throwing around assumptions (you can't logically deduce "supports X" from "doesn't make a point of denouncing X") instead of taking the more mature opportunity of delving into the points mentioned.

The ease with which some throw around rizing citizens and overthrown governments is mind boggling.

While I'd agree that revolutions are often a bloody mess there are a number of examples in recent history where that is not the case. (e.g. The Velvet Revolution[1])

France, UK & the USA all also had bloody revolutions that resulted in democracy (or at least the widely understood view of what democracy is).

[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velvet_Revolution

The UK's civil war established a theocratic military dictatorship. The 'glorious revolution' installed not a republic but a constitutional monarchy with a Protestant king subject to the rule of Parliament. Electoral democracy followed later, piecemeal.

France and the US have more parallels: first revolution in late 1700s, delivering either incomplete or non-lasting freedom; eventually another revolution in the late 1800s, establishing more freedom; final formal abandonment of colonialism/slavery round about 1968. Hmm, that rather implies that the timetable for the next one is somewhere around 2070.

http://www.revolutionspodcast.com/

[citation needed] - or at least an explanation of what you mean by "liberal" here.