Why did Putin change so outwardly?
Why did Putin change so outwardly?
- and you look at your pictures ....
- The erysipelas became more vigorous from good nutrition, but the forehead is narrower.
- Well, at least something in Russia is changing!
- I know it's clear that you just asked a provocative question to once again crap Putin.
Firstly, the size of the ears changes with age.
Secondly, I do not see any strong differences.
Thirdly, Putin has at least one double.
And in general, when he became president - he was younger.
Also worth noting is the fact that he leads a healthy lifestyle and for live broadcasts all are applied a little cosmetic makeup. Did not know?
- And you are sure that it is Putin, and not his double. Some presidents (and not only) have their own counterparts. The reason is to be in time.
- sogshlasna with speaker above! It's just a double! Agree, why change the ears of the facial features and eyes to the person! He is the same as he was and he stayed! And if you judge logically and google it in one day and the difference in a couple of hours is in different places and not two but four and five! even on an airplane it's not real!
- To the 60 anniversary of the Russian president: six main myths about Vladimir Putin
The fourth myth, according to the author, is the "repetitive mantra" conviction that Putin is "the national leader who raised Russia from his knees." According to Raitschuister, the fact that the West once again began to fear Russia is primarily due to the unpredictability of its foreign policy and its alliances with "gloomy characters in world history" such as Bashar Assad and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
"Loud clanking with weapons on the world stage is nothing more than self-deception," the article reads. "The Russian economy is not competitive, and the army is in desperate state, despite all the promises of reforms." According to Reitschuster, the cruel treatment of conscript soldiers is still the norm, and in the spring of 2006, according to the analysis of the Adenauer Foundation, nearly every third conscript was sent home due to a body weight deficit. An essential part of the military budget was eaten by ubiquitous corruption, the author continues, summarizing: "Russia would be really strong if there is an economic, political and social model that inspires other countries not with fear but with sympathy."
According to the fifth myth, writes Raitshuster, Putin "dealt with the oligarchs." The proof is given to the trial against Khodorkovsky. However, the author notes, not counting Khodorkovsky, Berezovsky and Gusinsky, the majority of Yeltsin-era oligarchs, the same Abramovich, still "occupy an excellent position in business and may not be afraid of questions about the questionable origin of their wealth."
According to Raitschuister, most "old oligarchs," though not all, have lost political influence. However, there was a "new cast of oligarchs, primarily from among the former KGB officers," such as Putin's neighbor in the country, Yuri Kovalchuk, his friend Gennady Timchenko, a partner in judo Boris Rotenberg and many others. Critics complain: although many firms are formally owned by the state, in fact they are controlled by people from Putin's environment, such as Igor Sechin, and the profits are actually privatized, for example, through contracts with dubious intermediary firms or through the sale of raw materials at understated prices.
Finally, the sixth myth, continues Reithshuister: Putin in the long run is striving for democracy, but Russia is allegedly not for her mature. "And indeed: while state-controlled television speaks about everything connected with democracy, the tone that is usually said about contagious diseases, it is hardly to be expected that most Russians will start thinking about this form of public administration well" - in contrast to the beginning of perestroika, when the television was dominated by very different moods, the author comments.
For 13 years, Putin, according to Raitshuster, destroyed the already weak democratic achievements of perestroika: suppressed all dissent in the media, parliament, courts, and, worse, turned the political landscape into a place for farce, a dirty comedy that would repel respect for the political even the most benevolent observer ". Moreover, Wrightshuister writes, since Putin, in response to instructions on shortcomings, always answers that nowhere in the world exists neither democracy, nor legal statehood, corruption and arbitrariness of officials began to be regarded as a norm, and not as a deviation, and state ideology became cynicism.
- it may have been blown
- exactly and he had one hand more! not to mention that before there was a black
- I'm here wondering how they are going to explain his 115-year anniversary)))
- divorced and changed.