Why did Russia turn out the way it is right now? Why is corruption so rampant...

Yeah but those muslims weren't invited. They were conquered.

Russia is one of the most corrupt white nations, it has a terrible heroine and opiate problem and as a consequence of this, and aids problem.

It's a fucking shithole compared with probably wherever you're living now.

and the basically open borders with practically all of Central Asia isn't an invitation to come in, right? Or were they conquered as well?

Fuck yeah nigga. Putin said himself if you want your mudslime life style, sharia law etc you go to countries that already have that. Russia won't change in favour of mudslimes.

youtube.com/watch?v=rotW3v0HP14

What if they weren't

except for autonomous Muslim republics
and publicly funding mosques in Chechnya
and being really buddy-buddy with Kadyrov

you should leave your online echo chambers and maybe actually travel, or read a book

It's the slave mentality.

The majority of Russians throughout the centuries were slaves, with maybe partially a pause between the 1860s and 1910s. It's literally generation after generation building this way of thinking.

Hate to tell you this, but if you're one of the few normal people in Russia, your only solution is to go live somewhere else or suffer your life surrounded by those people.

This.

Political centralization and weak rule of law create a culture of clientelism and patronage politics.

Communism is the epitome of political centralization and weak rule of law.

I would say that's it's a fundamental weakness of planned economies. They have a distinct tendency to favor areas where the planners and their friends like, rather than some village out in Kranodarskiy Kray. Once you realize that you can flex your influence to get certain things, then you'll start to wonder what else you can snap up.

>the entirety of his knowledge of the outside world comes from Veeky Forums

like Chechnya, Dagestan or autonomous oblasts

Russia always had that problem, though. You can see that from the cities in Siberia; the area was settled in general, the Tsar established one big city for 500km, then ignored just about everything else. See: Yekaterinburg, Omsk, Vladivostok.

Well, the basic problem is

>humans abuse power
>communism involves giving a small clique of people carte blanche to utterly dominate every area of society

Of course, the czars themselves were an absolute monarchy, so it's not like totalitarianism is anything new in that culture.

And then they give up on democracy after ten years of kinda sorta democracy under Yeltsin, because they don't realize that rule of law is something that takes decades to centuries to build.

That's a good point. Autocratic rule of such a large territory is going to lead to absurd examples of failed planning fairly quickly.

>grants asylum to edward snowden
>corrupt

nice CIA shilling

Well, you can't really discount the level of violence and suffering that went on in the 90's. The complete collapse of the government led to a lot of crime and excess, so it's more understandable why people would follow someone who promised stability rather than a threatening and dangerous freedom that very few people were using anyway.

youtube.com/watch?v=vifYelSTlMo

???
Those two things have nothing to do with each other. Sheltering Edward Snowden is a geo-political middle finger, not a statement of policy.

>implying granting asylum to Snowden wasn't done solely for propaganda purposes

I understand it, I just think it's dumb.

Remember kids, where the law is king, there is liberty. Where the king is law, there is tyranny.

>Speransky reforms failed
>Stolypin reforms failed
>Gorbachev reforms failed

Russia is just too big. It should break up in smaller countries. If Novgorod had managed to keep its independence, for example, being a merchant republic as it was, it would be as rich and democratic as the West.

But that's just the point - the USSR had such a deeply ingrained culture of corruption that the rule of law wasn't going to happen there. Russia is probably not culturally suited to a liberal democracy/rule of law type of solution, and may not be for the foreseeable future. In other former Soviet republics this attempt (to create a new system) has been more or less successful depending on where they were because the people felt more comfortable rejecting the legacy of the USSR. Russia, as its successor state, can't allow that to happen for reasons of international image and national pride.

Well, the journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.

Apparently a lot of Bush Senior's cabinet was pushing for a new Marshall plan to help eastern Europe recover from communism, but it didn't happen because the economy was in the shitter and the American people wanted spending to go down now that the Cold War was over.

I frequently wonder whether more development assistance from the US could have kept Putin from coming to power.

Just give everything east of the Urals to China. It's Asia anyway. Russians can keep the European part.

I definitely think that the collapse of the USSR was met a bit too gleefully by most Western powers and with a kind of assumption that that was the last they'd heard of an aggressive expansionist power in that region. I'm not sure how much resistance there would have been or if it would have been seen as Western meddling by the elites. I guess we'll never know.

itt buttblasted liberals and butthurt psheks/balts
when will traitors realize that we are best, most influential, most cultured, most powerful and best place to live across slavic countries? They should have russified themselves while they had the chance and we could rule the world together but instead they keep complaining about muh russian empire/soviet unio while countries like ireland were literally genocided by GB

it turns out the free market doesn't fix it.

it makes it worse.

once oil runs out ur economy is fycked