Thank you for your insightful one liner replies, vierotchka.
So, according to you, my first comment to Mohandeer was without justification and clearly showed that I had never either been to Russia or spoken with any ordinary Russians.
But what was the nub of my reply to Mohandeer, vierotchka? Merely this: that Russia is a capitalist and that consequently the presidency of Russia is a capitalist presidency.
Obviously if that was the nub of my assertion and you objected to it without putting into words the gist of your objection, a reasonable person could only presume you might doubt that Russia was a capitalist state. Hence my first question to you that you declared to be a “strawman.”
In what sense was my question a “stawman?” Or are you incapable of any elaboration beyond emotional ejaculation, vierotchka?
And now I get a third penetrating reply from you, vierotchka, presumably a Russian who could enlighten us about Russia, but one who prefers instead to express disdain at our apparent and uncouth ignorance.
What? Does religion have no place in the lives of any substantial proportion of the Russian population? Are all Russians atheists? Or is it that you don’t like the characterization of religion as a hangover from a feudal past? What do you have in mind, vierotchka? What is ridiculous about the claims that “religion in Russia is culturally influential and that in its organized forms is a feudalistic legacy?”
Or are you merely reacting at a purely emotional level at something that to you smells of petulant ‘criticism’ of Russian society? Is Russia, then, to your mind, beyond criticism? Or is criticism of Russia something that only Russians are entitled to make? If so, doesn’t this smack just a little of something that goes by the name of chauvinism? Or maybe there is no such thing as Russian chauvinism, eh, vierotchka?
Surely you can do a bit better than spout one line insults?

Seriously? LOL!

The element of religion, or religious orthodoxy, in the national zeitgeist, as well as the associated and culturally influential institutions of the church, that is to say, influential in a politically conservative direction. The same element is alive and well in the United States and in any other country in which religion figures prominently as part of the national culture. I can’t see what else SNBI would have in mind.
As for my self, the more prominent and significant feature of Russian society — as of the entire world, actually — is its capitalist character.

Where do you see the elements of feudalism in Russian society? I’m not challenging you, I don’t know enough about Russia to have an opinion, I’m just interested to hear more

https://imageshack.com/a/img922/7592/yJB4oG.gif

Well and fine. A welfare state is still a capitalist state. Since you cannot have capitalism without exploitation, Russia, whether a welfare state or not, remains a society that is exploitative, no?

What did you say? What did I say? Did I jump to conclusions by asserting that Russia was capitalist?

That is not what I said, your strawman fallacy notwithstanding.

Russia is capitalist but not neoliberal or austerity capitalist. It is a welfare state. Free healthcare. And the policy has been to redistribute the wealth downward for the past 18 years of Putin. Compared to the West there is decent support for the poor and working people and the policy of social support which everyone had in the West 40 years ago is not banished.
This is why the IMF hates Russia.