One Possible Elaboration, Part II (and final):
(without claims for the absolute truth attached to it)
(... continuation from above or below in this thread ...)
Why is Gorbachev today so rudely harsh towards modern China - the possible future N:1 economy in the world - when expressing his opinion about this country?
What's the purpose of NATO today - fighting terrorism? Who trained and armed the dead-officially-now Bin Laden in the first place in the 80s, and against whom?
How come Turkey is considered a country worthy of pondering about if and when to invite for EU-membership, while the same idea and attitude towards Russia - historically a truly European country with undeniable historic and cultural influence on Europe and the world - countless world-renown writers, poets, composers, scientists... you name it... plus a huge territorial span till the Pacific with all the resources, people, and real economic potential - is something highly exotic? (And this put in best possible terms.)
P.S.
I do not deny that Russia has a corruption problem and also, in the years ahead, huge-impact policy decisions and measures are needed in the economic sphere.
But this is something skillfully used in the practice of the western variety of propaganda called PR, the part of it that serves governmental strategy goals of US and UK. (BTW, A pair of most powerful countries in a "special relationship" as Her Majesty the Queen so rightly stated during the recent Obama's visit in the Buckingham Palace, London).
P.P.S.
" - But isn't the media really free and independent in the western world? How come ever such a FUD possible - serving international state policy strategic goals and forming popular western mass perceptions? "
" - Well, this is really a Hacker-News after all... I have a suggestion for you - you do your own homework research on the topic and report back if you're really intrigued. For starters - check topdocumentaryfilms.com."
How come Turkey is considered a country worthy of pondering about if and when to invite for EU-membership, while the same idea and attitude towards Russia
Turkey has been much more successful in maintaining multiparty democracy internally and peaceful cooperation externally with EU countries than Russia has been in the relevant time period. Turkey has its problems, and Turkey has yet to gain EU membership, but the distinction is meaningful to me (as an American who knows people here in the United States from both Russia and Turkey).
After edit: This may result, over the last century, from Kemal Atatürk being a much better statesman than Vladimir Lenin. It appears that Atatürk did a much better job of leading his country through the tough fall from having an imperialist system before World War I than Lenin did.
I might slightly agree with you to a certain extent, but with the strong exception that it is not meaningful to draw opinions on multi-million nations based on individual immigrants or expats.
I'm from Bulgaria and, for example, one of the most incapable senior manager-expatriate I've ever saw in my country is British. I guess somebody in UK might have been really happy to have him overseas.
But I don't hold this against the Brits ;) They are truly a great nation.
On Turkey and EU - I can't say they deserve more or less the EU-membership. It's really a complex topic and AFAIK both France and Germany, have huge reservations. (BTW I don't think slogans about multiparty democracy really mean anything in the real geopolitical play between the world powers. Your own American experience shows that just two parties are enough and they are both at the mercy of the Federal Reserve - a private banking money-printing institution! - internally, and do more or less the same thing as international state policy, externally).
It even might amuse you that Russia and Turkey currently are in very good international economic and political relations (despite some rethorics). Russia is building several! nuclear power reactors in Turkey and they enjoy also huge mutual benefitial trade in other sectors - construction industry, tourism, gas, agriculture, etc. However strange it might seem to you, actually Russia plays a certain interesting role in the modern economic development of Turkey.
Things are just not black-and-white and defy simplistic explanations.
On your Lenin-vs-Ataturk remark (in the after-edit):
It's really an interesting line of thought to compare both leaders and draw some analogies - same historic time, post-imperial after-war revival and consolidation of the states, including massive social change, setting new economic policies, etc.
But I find it dubious that there is a direct link between some comparatively superior statesmanship back then - even if there really was such, I don't know, to be frank - and Turkey's relatively recent economic upturn and regional political aspirations. (It is yet to be seen if Turkey's growth and development won't be just a temporary miracle - just like Ireland's or some other proclaimed "tiger"-economies.)
And especially dubious it is in the perspective of the whole 20-th century. In those decades Russia gained such high points which Turkey can only dream about - just think the space/rocket sector as one example (back in the Gagarin's times, and also nowadays).
The really state-wise thing Turkey did in the 20-th century is that they stayed out of the World War II that devastated the main rivals in continental Europe. Russia didn't have such a chance - they were invaded.
After WWII Turkey was a strict American/US satellite, not so European-centric in its international politics, and, until recently, the US/NATO-backed Turkish chief-of-staff generals were the real guarantors for a seeming democracy.
P.S.
BTW, you can check the wikipedia page on Lenin's NEP (New Economic Policy) at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Economic_Policy.
From it is clear that originally socialism/communism wasn't entirely hostile to private businesses and entrepreneurship - this had its fine economic policy results at the time when Lenin was still in charge.
Turkey has been much more successful in maintaining multiparty democracy internally and peaceful cooperation externally with EU countries than Russia has been
Translation: Turkey has been an obedient muppet state.
agree with you 100%. My favorite example of the Western media's clear bias comes from the WSJ- early in Putin's presidency they wrote an editorial calling on him to take down oligarchs and praising his leadership style. A few years later, the same editorial section called his use of the word "oligarch" an anti-semitic slur and defended the very people they encouraged him to confront years earlier.
Russia is far from a perfect place, but that doesn't mean we should support far from perfect media coverage of it.
(... continuation from above or below in this thread ...)
Why is Gorbachev today so rudely harsh towards modern China - the possible future N:1 economy in the world - when expressing his opinion about this country?
What's the purpose of NATO today - fighting terrorism? Who trained and armed the dead-officially-now Bin Laden in the first place in the 80s, and against whom?
How come Turkey is considered a country worthy of pondering about if and when to invite for EU-membership, while the same idea and attitude towards Russia - historically a truly European country with undeniable historic and cultural influence on Europe and the world - countless world-renown writers, poets, composers, scientists... you name it... plus a huge territorial span till the Pacific with all the resources, people, and real economic potential - is something highly exotic? (And this put in best possible terms.)
P.S.
I do not deny that Russia has a corruption problem and also, in the years ahead, huge-impact policy decisions and measures are needed in the economic sphere.
But this is something skillfully used in the practice of the western variety of propaganda called PR, the part of it that serves governmental strategy goals of US and UK. (BTW, A pair of most powerful countries in a "special relationship" as Her Majesty the Queen so rightly stated during the recent Obama's visit in the Buckingham Palace, London).
P.P.S.
" - But isn't the media really free and independent in the western world? How come ever such a FUD possible - serving international state policy strategic goals and forming popular western mass perceptions? "
" - Well, this is really a Hacker-News after all... I have a suggestion for you - you do your own homework research on the topic and report back if you're really intrigued. For starters - check topdocumentaryfilms.com."