MediaWiki API result

This is the HTML representation of the JSON format. HTML is good for debugging, but is unsuitable for application use.

Specify the format parameter to change the output format. To see the non-HTML representation of the JSON format, set format=json.

See the complete documentation, or the API help for more information.

{
"batchcomplete": "",
"query": {
"pages": [
{
"ns": 0,
"title": "API",
"missing": ""
},
{
"pageid": 1,
"ns": 0,
"title": "Main Page",
"revisions": [
{
"user": "Admin",
"timestamp": "2024-05-10T20:01:49Z",
"comment": "/* Old */ ==Old== {| border=1 | '''Looking for more authors for the 2nd edition.''' Second edition, 2 sections: Section 1: Written by myself (Travis Lee Bailey). The majority of my focus, the Yeltsin years and how business works in Russia today. S",
"contentformat": "text/x-wiki",
"contentmodel": "wikitext",
"*": "[[File:Peaches and coconuts with flags.jpg|400px|center]]\n\n<div style=\"font-size:36px;font-weight:bold;\"><font face=\"Broadway\"> Why Don't Russians Smile?</font></div> \n<div style=\"font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;\"><font face=\"Broadway\"> The definitive guide to the differences between Russians and Americans.</font></div> \n''''\n{| \n|- valign =top\n|[[File:why dont russians smile.png|300px]] \n| style=\" margin: 1em 1em 1em 1em; padding: 6px;\" |\n<div style=\"font-size:20px;font-weight:bold;\"><font face=\"Broadway\">Travis Lee Bailey, Esq.</font></div> \n<div style=\"font-size:15px;\"><font face=\"Broadway\">'''American Lawyer and Think Tank Consultant in Moscow, Russia'''</font></div>\n<div style=\"font-size:15px;\"><font face=\"Broadway\">'''\u0422\u0440\u044d\u0432\u0438\u0441 \u041b\u0438 \u0411\u0435\u0439\u043b\u0438 - \u0410\u043c\u0435\u0440\u0438\u043a\u0430\u043d\u0441\u043a\u0438\u0439 \u044e\u0440\u0438\u0441\u0442: \u0410\u043d\u0430\u043b\u0438\u0442\u0438\u0447\u0435\u0441\u043a\u0438\u0439 \u0446\u0435\u043d\u0442\u0440 \u041a\u043e\u043d\u0441\u0443\u043b\u044c\u0442\u0430\u043d\u0442 \u0432 \u041c\u043e\u0441\u043a\u0432\u0435, \u0420\u043e\u0441\u0441\u0438\u044f''' </font></div>\n<div><span style=\"display:inline-block;width:6em\">Email:</span> MoscowAmerican at Gmail Com</div>\n<div><span style=\"display:inline-block;width:6em\">Skype:</span> TravBailey</div>\n<div><span style=\"display:inline-block;width:6em\">Facebook:</span> <span class=\"plainlinks\">[https://web.facebook.com/moscowamerican3 Moscowamerican3]</span></div>\n<div><span style=\"display:inline-block;width:6em\">VK.com:</span> <span class=\"plainlinks\">[https://vk.com/moscowamerican MoscowAmerican]</span></div>\n<div><span style=\"display:inline-block;width:6em\">Twitter:</span> <span class=\"plainlinks\">[https://twitter.com/moscowamerican Moscowamerican]</span></div>\n<div><span style=\"display:inline-block;width:6em\">LinkedIn:</span> <span class=\"plainlinks\">[http://www.linkedin.com/in/moscowamerican MoscowAmerican]</span></div>\n<div><span style=\"display:inline-block;width:6em\">Instagram:</span> <span class=\"plainlinks\">[https://www.instagram.com/moscowamerican/ MoscowAmerican]</span></div>\n\n[https://www.amazon.com/Why-Dont-Russians-Smile-differences/dp/6138959035/ref=sr_1_1?crid=1I368BO8EFHYJ Published in July 2021. (1st edition) - Amazon.com]. \n\n''Please write a review!''\n\n'''UPDATE: FEBRUARY 2024:''' Earlier draft and '''NEWER''' information not included in the first edition is found below. ''Best viewed on a home PC using Google Chrome.''\n\n'''Authors:''' Travis Lee Bailey, Michael Murrie, Olga Diamant, Akhauri Nitish Kumar.<br>\n|}\n\n\n= Why Don't Russians Smile =\n== Prologue: Violently beaten by a Muscovite in 2021 ==\n{{Prologue: Violently beaten by a Muscovite in 2021}}\n== Title Page ==\n{{template:Title Page}}\n\nRussia is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma \n:''\u2014 Winston Churchill, October 1939.''\n\nI have never met anyone who understood Russians.\n:''\u2014Grand Duke Aleksandr Mikhailovich Romanov (1866\u20131933)''<ref>{{r}}</ref>\n\n\n\n\n\n== Introduction - \u201cI have never met anyone who understood Russians.\u201d - Collectivism versus Individualism. == \n{{Template:Introduction - I have never met anyone who understood Russians - Collectivism versus Individualism.}}\n\n= Chapter 1: Russian Coconuts & American Peaches - Why don\u2019t Russians Smile?= \n\n== Why are Americans like peaches and Russians are like Coconuts? ==\n{{Template:Why are Americans like peaches and Russians are like Coconuts?}}\n\n== Beyond Fruit - Why don\u2019t Russians smile? ==\n{{Template:Beyond Fruit - Why don\u2019t Russians smile?}}\n\n== Immigration ==\n{{Immigration}}\n\n== America is the most individualistic nation in the world, whereas Russia has no word for privacy ==\n{{America is the most individualistic nation in the world, whereas Russia has no word for privacy}}\n\n\n\n== Soviet Propaganda - Americans\u2019 smile hides deceit ==\n{{Template:Soviet Propaganda - Americans\u2019 smile hides deceit}}\n\n\n== Your American smile may be misinterpreted as arrogance ==\n{{Your American smile may be misinterpreted as arrogance}}\n\n= Chapter 2: Russians and Americans = \n== Westernizers and Slavophiles ==\n{{Westernizers and Slavophiles}}\n\n= Chapter 3: Russians\u2019 Unique Culture and Character (Social Etiquette and Expectations) =\n''The Russian is a delightful person till he tucks in his shirt. As an oriental he is charming. It is only when he insists upon being treated as the most easterly of western peoples instead of the most westerly of easterns that he becomes a racial anomaly and extremely difficult to handle. The host never knows which side of his nature is going to turn up next.'' \u2014 Rudyard Kipling, The Man Who Was. (1900).\n\n== The Russian Soul ==\n{{The Russian Soul}}\n== Collective vs. Individualist ==\n{{Collective vs. Individualist}}\n\n== Russian pessimism - A pessimist is an informed optimist ==\n{{Russian pessimism - A pessimist is an informed optimist}}\n\n== Russians Lie ==\n{{Russians Lie}}\n== Verification - Trust but Verify ==\n{{Verification - Trust but Verify}}\n== Cheating in Universities ==\n{{Cheating in Universities}}\n== Friends - the key to getting anything done in Russia ==\n{{Friends - the key to getting anything done in Russia}}\n==Information is Power==\n\"Heaven is a Chinese cook, a British house, an American job, and a Russian wife. Hell is a British cook, a Chinese house, a Russian job, and an American wife.\"\n\nSTUDIES CHARACTERIZE RUSSIA AS A COLLECTIVIST SOCIETY WITH HIGH POWER DISTANCE. RUSSIAN MANAGERS AND RUSSIANS IN GENERAL, ARE RELUCTANT TO SHARE INFORMATION. RUSSIAN MANAGERS CONSIDER INFORMATION A SOURCE OF INDIVIDUAL POWER RATHER THAN A CORPORATE RESOURCE. Most Russian managers also have difficulty accepting the fact that they can learn from employees on lower organizational levels. \n\nRussia is a collectivist culture. Russians individuals feel a moral obligation towards other Russians such as family members, distant relatives, co-workers, and members of political and/or religious groups who have common interests and a concern for each other\u2019s welfare. Russians have a lack of interest towards those who are considered out-group members. Due to Russia\u2019s communist history people have learned to keep things to themselves in the fear of being misinterpreted.\n\nTrust and control are essential in manager-employee, teacher-student, religious leader-congregation relationships, but how they are achieved varies in different cultures. A 2021 academic study examined Russian subsidiaries in a Finnish multinational corporation. The social scientists interviewed 86 Russian managers and employees and 13 Finnish expatriates. These researchers found that Russian managers simultaneously nurture trust and exercise control over their employees.<ref>Virpi Outila, Irina Mihailova, B. Sebastian Reiche, Rebecca Piekkari, A communicative perspective on the trust-control link in Russia, Journal of World Business, Volume 55, Issue 6, 2020, 100971, ISSN 1090-9516, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2018.11.001.</ref> \n\nThe Finnish expatriates naively didn't see the nuances in the Russian high-context communication. They were not aware of the employee support that was provided through constant informal communication to nurture trust between Russian managers and employees. The Finns did not mention the communication between Russian employees with their employers as expressions of a need for support and nurturing of trust. Instead, the Finns naively perceived Russian communication as a way to control the employees work. They felt that control was a replacement for trust. They did not see the mutually beneficial nature of communication between the Russian managers and their employees. \n\nRUSSIAN MANAGERS AND THEIR SUBORDINATES WERE UNANIMOUS ABOUT THE NECESSITY OF BOTH TRUST AND CONTROL IN THE DAILY COURSE OF THE WORK.\n\nThe Russian managers and their employees emphasized the importance of both trust and control in the relationship. Even though the Russians managers emphasized the importance of trust in the working relationship, that employee trust can never be complete. Russian managers only trust their closest networks, mainly relatives and old friends; subordinates are not usually included in this group and therefore require more control. Managers emphasised discussing not only work-related but also personal issues in nurturing trust with his subordinates. However, it\nappeared that informal discussions were also a way for managers to exercise control over their employees. Russian managers check on their employees often.\n\nSurprisingly, employees largely mirrored the managers\u2019 view. Harmonious understanding across managers and subordinates that trust plays a significant role as the foundation of working relationships. Employees seemed to take for granted the intense control by their Russian managers. \n\nIn Russia, a low degree of trust requires a high degree of control and, vice versa, a high degree of trust allows for a limited degree of control (called the substitution perspective). Russia is a high-context culture.<ref>Henri C Dekker, Control of inter-organizational relationships: evidence on appropriation concerns and coordination requirements,Accounting, Organizations and Society, Volume 29, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 27-49, ISSN 0361-3682, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0361-3682(02)00056-9.</ref>\n\nA FINNISH EXPATRIATE WHO WORKED IN RUSSIA FOR OVER 20 YEARS USED THE PROVERB \u2018TRUST IS GOOD, CONTROL IS BETTER\u2019, TO DESCRIBE HOW RUSSIAN MANAGERS CONTROL THEIR EMPLOYEES. \n\nBy contrast, in Finland, trust and control build upon each other because they both are seen to contribute to the development of cooperative relationships between parties. Finland is a low-context culture.<ref>Zucker, L. G. (1986). Production of trust: Institutional sources of economic structure, 1840\u20131920. Research in organizational behavior.</ref>\n\nIn HIGH-CONTEXT CULTURES such as Russia, China, India, Korea, Japan, South Africa, Argentina, and Spain communication is less-direct. Also countries in the Middle East as well as in South-East Asia and the Mediterranean countries are high-context cultures. There is much more nonverbal communication. \n\nIn contrast, LOW-CONTEXT CULTURES such as Finland, the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Germany, Austria, the Netherlands and Switzerland, communication is mostly verbal with less focus on body language. \n\nIn a workplace in low-context cultures, direct communication is used, which is accurate, precise, clear and understandable. Repetitions, additional questions and clarifications are appreciated and common.\n\nIn high-context cultures, direct communication is considered immature and infantile. An adult is expected to speak in a veiled and cautious manner. High-context cultures require an in-depth knowledge of the circumstances and details of the situation in order to understand the message. Information is largely contained in the context, so in order to understand the message, a foreigner needs to know the context well. In these cultures, good education requires speaking in a veiled, \"roundabout\" way. A direct message is interpreted as a sign of bad behaviour. \n\nThe interpretation of messages takes place not so much at the level of the meaning of words as through a tone of voice, gestures, silence or presumed understanding and the context of the whole situation. People often use body language: gestures and facial expressions. Verbal communication is less important than non-verbal communication. Instead, situational context and mutual relations are more important. Discussed issues are often exposed from different sides and communicated in circle. Communication is considered an art. This causes problems for outsiders, because in order to understand the intentions of the other person, one needs to know the context or cultural norms.\n\nFOR PEOPLE FROM LOW-CONTEXT CULTURES, PEOPLE FROM HIGH CONTEXT CULTURES CAN BE CONSIDERED SUSPICIOUS, INSINCERE AND CUNNING.\n\nLow-context cultures are usually individualistic, while high-context cultures are collectivist. Therefore, in low-context culture, the content is expressed individually and the representatives of this culture are individualists \u2013 they are dependent on themselves and responsible for themselves.\n\nHigh context cultures, on the other hand, have the cultural content written in the customs of a group, they clearly separate themselves from strangers, and there is also an obligation to follow the rules of conduct adopted by the group \u2013 \u201closing face\u201d by an individual is at the same time compromising the group. Communication is largely based on intuition.<ref>[https://migranciwielkopolska.caritas.pl/en/08-09-2020-cultural-differences-low-or-high-cultural-context Cultural differences: low or high cultural context], September 8, 2020. \"Greater Poland Common Cause\", a Polish government organization.</ref>\n\nRUSSIANS HAVE A TENDENCY TO DISTRUST INDIVIDUALS, GROUPS, AND ORGANISATIONS THAT FALL OUTSIDE THEIR PERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS. TRUSTING RELATIONSHIPS IN RUSSIA EXIST WITHIN INGROUPS OF FAMILY MEMBERS, FRIENDS, AND COLLEAGUES, WHILE OUT-GROUPS ARE TYPICALLY DISTRUSTED BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT SEEN TO SHARE THE SAME VALUES.\n\nDuring the Soviet era, personal networking and social connections were important for organisational survival. Managers of industrial enterprises tried to achieve the goals set by government ministries\nthrough unofficial inter-organisational bartering and cooperative exchange to reallocate limited resources. This approach to gaining influence, making connections, and relying on personal contacts with people in influential positions is still widely practiced in Russia and known as\n\u2018blat\u2019. Furthermore, control has always been an inherent part of the Russian society, which has been governed by an authoritarian style of leadership for centuries.<ref>May, R., & Ledgerwood, D. (2007). One step forward, two steps back: Negative consequences of national policy on human resource management practices in Russia. In M. E. Domsch, & T. Lidokhover (Editors). Human resource management in Russia. Hampshire: Ashgate Publishing Limited. Available at http://site.ebrary.com.libproxy.aalto.fi [Accessed April 22, 2024 - Login required].</ref>\n\nThe transition period from the Soviet era to a market economy resulted in weak formal institutions, economic instability and profound societal changes. Russian individuals and organizations did not develop a Western-type of trust in government, regulatory agencies, and the judicial system. Today, most state and public organizations are viewed as unpredictable, unreliable and failing to provide support. This has resulted in even stronger trust at the personal level to mitigate the risks associated with turbulent economic and political changes. Scholars stress that \u2018relationship trust\u2019 is a very important concept in the Russian context and applies both to personal and organizational settings.\n\n== The importance of trust in Russia==\n{{The importance of trust in Russia}}\n\n== The Importance of Equality ==\n{{The Importance of Equality}}\n\n==Russia\u2019s \u201cAmerican Dream\u201d==\n{{Russia\u2019s American Dream}}\n\n== Russians are cautious and deeply conservative ==\n{{Russians are cautious and deeply conservative}}\n\n== Russians Extremes and Contradictions ==\n{{Russians Extremes and Contradictions}}\n== 11 Time Zones - The largest country on Earth ==\n{{11 Time Zones - The largest country on Earth}}\n\n== Russians superiority complex (Messianism) ==\n{{Russians superiority complex (Messianism)}}\n== Russians\u2019 rebellious spirit ==\n{{Russians\u2019 rebellious spirit}}\n\n== Alcoholism - Russia\u2019s Scourge ==\n{{Alcoholism - Russia\u2019s Scourge}}\n\n==Russian\u2019s Deep Distrust of Government ==\n{{Russian\u2019s Deep Distrust of Government}}\n\n== Time and Patience ==\n{{Time and Patience}}\n== Communication Differences ==\n \n=== Russians interpret the question of \u201cHow are you?\u201d and strangers asking personal questions very differently than Americans ===\n{{Russians interpret the question of \u201cHow are you?\u201d and strangers asking personal questions very differently than Americans}}\n\n=== Language - different shades of meaning ===\n{{Language - different shades of meaning}}\n\n=== Untranslatable ideas ===\n{{Untranslatable ideas}}\n\n=== Russians are long winded ===\n{{Russians are long winded}}\n=== Intimate touch between friends ===\n{{Intimate touch between friends}}\n\n=== American\u2019s infatuation with mental health ===\n{{American\u2019s infatuation with mental health}}\n\n=== Americans find Russian rude because they hardly ever say please or thank you ===\n{{Americans find Russian rude because they hardly ever say please or thank you}}\n\n===Body Language: Russians tend to gesture more===\n{{Body Language: Russians tend to gesture more}}\n\n= Chapter 4 - Visiting a Russian\u2019s home = \n== Visiting a Russian\u2019s home == \n{{template:Visiting a Russian\u2019s home}}\n\n== The Toast == \n{{The Toast}}\n\n= Chapter 5 - Sex and dating =\n{{template:sex and dating}}\n==Dating rules ==\n\n=== The man is in charge === \n{{The man is in charge}}\n\n=== Gift giving ===\n{{Gift giving}}\n\n=== Talking about money ===\n{{Talking about money}}\n\n==Sex==\n{{template:Sex}}\n\n= Chapter 6 - Marrying and Divorcing a Russian \u2013 Why do Russians cheat on their spouses so much? = \n\n==A warning==\n{{Warning}}\n== Women\u2014the Stronger Sex ==\n{{Women\u2014the Stronger Sex}}\n\n==Marriage==\n{{Marriage}}\n\n== Fidelity and Adultery - Russians cheat A LOT whereas Americans act like Puritans ==\n{{Fidelity and Adultery - Russians cheat A LOT whereas Americans act like Puritans}}\n\n===Soviet policies which encouraged adultery===\n{{Soviet policies which encouraged adultery}}\n\n=== Soviet Khrushchev administration policies encourages infidelity ===\n{{Soviet Khrushchev administration policies encourages infidelity}}\n\n=== Russians are willing to cheat on there spouses more than 24 other countries===\n{{Russians are willing to cheat on there spouses more than 24 other countries}}\n\n==Americans expect total honesty in marriage==\n{{Americans expect total honesty in marriage}}\n\n==Abortion==\n{{template:Abortion}}\n\n==Divorce==\n{{Divorce}}\n\n= Chapter 7 - Living with a Russian \u2013 Russian Home life =\n==Housework==\n{{Housework}}\n\n==Domestic Abuse==\n{{Domestic Abuse}}\n\n== Clothing and public appearance == \n{{Clothing and public appearance}}\n\n== Walking barefoot and sitting on the floor == \n{{Walking barefoot and sitting on the floor}}\n\n= Chapter 8 - Russians in business =\n \n== Women in the workforce ==\n{{Women in the workforce}}\n\n== Negotiating with a Russian ==\n'''NEW!'''\n{{template:Negotiating_with_a_Russian}}\n\n==Working in a Russian company ==\n'''NEW!'''\n\n{{template:Working in a Russian company}}\n\n\n=Chapter 9: Muscovites are Shit=\n{{template:Muscovites are shit}}\n\n= Chapter 10: Soviet Mentality and Russian Leadership Today =\n{{Template:Soviet mentality and Russian leadership today}}\n\n= Chapter 11 - Conclusion =\n{{Chapter 11 - Conclusion}}\n\n= Russian English Vocabulary =\n{{Russian English Vocabulary}}\n\n== Appendix 1 - History of Russia and Ukraine == \n=== History ===\nWhere did Ukraine come from? The Russian state was established in 862 when the townspeople of Novgorod invited a Varangian prince, Rurik, from Scandinavia to Reign. In 1862 Russia celebrated the 1000th anniversary of its statehood, and in Novgorod there is a memorial dedicated to the 1000th anniversary of the country. \n\nIn 882 Rurik\u2019s successor Prince Oleg, who was actually playing the role of regent and Rurik\u2019s young son because Rurik had died by that time, came to Kiev. He ousted two brothers who apparently had once been members of Rurik\u2019s squad, so Russia began to develop with two centers of power, Kiev and Novgorod.\n\nRUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH - 988\n\nThe next very significant date in the history of Russia was 988. This was the baptism of Russia when Prince Vladimir, the great-grandson of Rurik, baptized Russia and adopted orthodoxy or eastern Christianity. \n\nThe centralized Russian state began to strengthen and take shape for several reasons. One was because of a shared language. Also because of after the baptism of Russia, Russians had the same faith and rule of Prince Vladimir. \n\nBack in the Middle Ages, Prince Yaroslav the Wise, introduced the order of succession to a throne. But after he passed away, it became complicated. The throne was passed not directly from father to eldest son, but from the prince who had passed away to his brother, then to his sons in different lines. All this led to the fragmentation and the end of Rus (Russia) as a single state.\n\nMONGOL EMPIRE ATTACKS RUSSIA - MONGOL HORDE (1206-1368) \nThere was nothing special about Russia at the time. The same thing was happening in Europe, but the fragmented Russian state was easy prey Genghis Khan (1162 \u2013 1227). His successors, namely Batu Khan (1205\u20131255), came to Rus (Russia), plundered and ruined nearly all the cities. The southern part, including Kiev, and some other cities lost independence while northern cities preserved some of their sovereignty. The Rus (Russians) had to pay tribute to the Golden Horde, but they managed to preserve some part of their sovereignty. And then a unified Russian state began to take shape with its center in Moscow.\n\nGRAND DUCHY OF LITHUANIA (1236-)\n\nIn the 13th century, the southern part of Russian lands, including Kiev, began to gradually gravitate towards another magnet, the center that was emerging in Europe. This was the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. It was even called the Lithuanian Russian Duchy because Russians were a significant part of this population. They spoke the old Russian language and were Orthodox. But then there was a unification, the union of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the Kingdom of Poland (1025\u20131385). \n\nPOLAND \n\nA few years later, another union was signed, this time religious. Some of the Orthodox priests became subordinate to the Pope, thus these lands became part of the Polish-Lithuanian state. For decades, the Poles were engaged in colonization of this part of the population. They introduced their language there, tried to entrench the idea that this population was not Russians, that because they lived on the fringe, they were Ukrainians. (Ukraine means Borderland)\n\nOriginally, the word Ukrainian meant that the person was living on the outskirts of the state along the fringes or was engaged in a border patrol service. It didn\u2019t mean any particular ethnic group. So the Poles were trying, in every possible way, to colonize this part of the Russian lands and actually treated it cruelly. The Russian lands began to struggle for their rights. They wrote letters to Warsaw demanding that their rights be observed and people be commissioned in Rus (Russia), including to Kiev.\n\nAround 1654 the people who were in control of the authority over that part of the Russian lands addressed Warsaw, demanding that they send them to rulers of Russian origin and Orthodox faith. When Warsaw did not answer them, and in fact rejected their demands, they turned to Moscow, so that Moscow took them away. \n\nThe letters from Bogdan Khmelnytsky (1595 \u2013 1657), the man who then controlled the power in this part of the Russian lands that is now called Ukraine. He wrote to Warsaw demanding that their rights be upheld, and after being refused, he began to write letters to Moscow asking to take them under the strong hand of the Moscow Tsar. \n\nRussia would not agree to admit them straight away, assuming that a war with Poland would start. Nevertheless, in 1654 upon Russian assembly of top Orthodox clergy and landowners headed by the Tsar which was the representative body of the power of the old Russian state, decided to include a part of the old Russian lands into Moscow Kingdom. \n\nRUSSIA - POLAND WAR (1654-1686)\n\nAs expected, the war with Poland began, it lasted 13 years (Thirteen Years' War), and then in 1654 a truce was concluded, and approximately 32 years later, a peace treaty with Poland, which was called the \"Eternal Peace Treaty of 1686\", was signed, and these lands, the whole left bank of Dnieper River, including Kiev, went to Russia and the whole right bank of Dnieper River remained in Poland.\n\nCATHERINE THE GREAT (1729 \u2013 1796)\n\nUnder the rule of Catherine the Great (1729 \u2013 1796), Russia reclaimed all of its historical lands, including in the south and west. As far back as the 19th century theorists calling for Ukrainian independence appeared. All those, however, claimed that Ukraine should have a very good relationship with Russia. They insisted on that. This all lasted until the Russian Revolution (1917 \u2013 1923).\n\nWORLD WAR I (1914-1918) - THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION (1917 \u2013 1923)\n\nThe Russian Revolution (1917 \u2013 1923). Before World War I, Austrian general staff relied on the ideas of Ukrainianization and started actively promoting the ideas of Ukraine and the Ukrainianization. Their motive was obvious. Just before World War I, they wanted to weaken the potential enemy and secure themselves favorable conditions in the border area. So the idea which had emerged in Poland, that people residing in that territory were allegedly not really Russians but rather belonged to a special ethnic group, Ukrainians, started being propagated by the Austrian general staff.\n\nAfter the 1917 revolution, the Bolsheviks sought to restore the statehood and the Civil War began including the hostilities with Poland. In 1921 peace with Poland was proclaimed, and under that treaty, the right bank of Dnieper River, once again was given back to Poland.\n\nIn 1922, when the Soviet Union (USSR) was being established, the Bolsheviks started building the Soviet Union (USSR) and established Soviet Ukraine, which had never existed before. For some inexplicable reason, Vladimir Lenin (1870 \u2013 1924), the founder of the Soviet Union (USSR), insisted that the 15 republics be entitled to withdraw from the Soviet Union (USSR). Again, for some unknown reasons, Vladimir Lenin transferred to that newly established Soviet Republic of Ukraine, some of the lands together with people living there, even though those lands had never been called Ukraine, and yet they were made part of that Soviet Republic of Ukraine. Those lands included the Black Sea Region (Odessa) which were conquered under Catherine the Great In the Russian-Turkey War (1768\u20131774). These lands had no historical connection with Ukraine whatsoever. Even if we go as far back as 1654, when these lands returned to Russian Empire, that territory was the size of three to four regions of modern Ukraine with no Black Sea Region. For decades, the Ukrainian Soviet Republic developed as part of the Soviet Union (USSR), the Bolsheviks were engaged in Ukrainianization. The Black Sea area was called New Russia or Novorossiya.\n\nWORLD WAR II (1939-1945) - Hitler and USSR invasion of Poland 1939 \n\nThe German invasion began on September 1, 1939, one week after the signing of the Molotov\u2013Ribbentrop Pact between Germany and the Soviet Union, and one day after the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union had approved the pact. The Soviets invaded Poland on September 17, 1939.\n\nCOLD WAR 1946 - 1991 - JOSEPH STALIN (1878 \u2013 1953)\n\nAfter the victory in World War II (Great Patriotic War), all those territories were ultimately enshrined as belonging to the Soviet Union (USSR). \n\nAs for Poland, it received in compensation, the lands which had originally been German. The eastern parts of Germany, these are now Western lands of Poland. Poland regained access to the Baltic Sea and the city of Danzig, which was once again given its Polish name. \n\nThe Soviet Union was given a great deal of territory that had never belonged to it, including the Black Sea Region. \n\nStalin insisted that the Soviet Union (USSR) republics be included in the Soviet Union (USSR) as autonomous entities. Much of the Soviet leadership was composed of those originating from Ukraine. The same things were done in other Soviet Republics. After World War II Ukraine received, in addition to the lands that had belonged to Poland before the war, part of the lands that had previously belonged to Hungary and Romania. So Romania and Hungary had some of their lands taken away and given to the Soviet Ukraine, and they still remain part of Ukraine. In this sense, Russia has every reason to argue that Ukraine is an artificial state that was shaped by Stalin\u2019s will. Stalin\u2019s regime saw numerous violations of human rights and violations of the rights of other states.\n\nPRESIDENT PUTIN TO TUCKER CARLSON FEBRUARY 3, 2024: \n\nSomewhere in the early \u201980s, I went on a road trip in a car from then Leningrad across the Soviet Union through Kiev, made a stop in Kiev and then went to Western Ukraine. I went to the town of Beregovoi and all the names of towns and villages there were in Russian and in the language I did not understand, in Hungarian. In Russian, and in Hungarian. Not in Ukrainian, in Russian and in Hungarian. I was driving through some kind of village and there were men sitting next to the houses and they were wearing black three-piece suits and black cylinder hats. I asked, are they some kind of entertainers? I was told, no, they were not entertainers. They\u2019re Hungarians. I said, what are they doing here? What do you mean? This is their land. They live here. This was during the Soviet time in the 1980s. They preserved the Hungarian language, Hungarian names, and all their national costumes. They are Hungarians and they feel themselves to be Hungarians, and of course when now there is an infringement-\n\nCollapse of the USSR 1991 / RUSSIA 1991 - 1999 BORIS YELTSIN (1931 \u2013 2007) / Rise of China (2015 - Present)\n\nThe collapse of the Soviet Union (USSR) was effectively initiated by the Russian leadership. I suspect there were several reasons to think everything would be fine.\n\nFirst, Russian leadership believed that the fundamentals of the relationship between Russia and Ukraine were in fact a common language. More than 90% of the population there spoke Russian. Family ties, every third person there had some kind of family friendship ties, common culture, common history. Finally, common faith coexistence with a single state for centuries, and deeply interconnected economies. All of these were so fundamental. All these elements together make our good relationships inevitable. \n\nSecond, the former Russian leadership assumed that the Soviet Union had ceased to exist and therefore there were no longer any ideological dividing lines. Russia even agreed voluntarily and proactively to the collapse of the Soviet Union and believed that this would be understood by the \u201cCivilized West\u201d as an invitation for cooperation and associateship. That is what Russia was expecting, both from the United States and the \"Collective West\" as a whole.\n\nThere were smart people, including in Germany, Egon Bahr (Former State Secretary in the Chancellery of Germany (1922-2015)), a major politician of the Social Democratic Party who insisted in his personal conversations with the Soviet leadership on the brink of the collapse of the Soviet Union, that a new security system should be established in Europe. Help should be given to unify Germany, but a new system should be also established to include the United States, Canada, Russia, and other central European countries, but NATO needs not to expand. That\u2019s what Egon Bahr said. If NATO expands, everything would be just the same as during the Cold War, only closer to Russia\u2019s borders. He was a wise old man, but no one listened to him. In fact, he got angry once. Egon Bahr said, \u201cIf you don\u2019t listen to me, I\u2019m never setting my foot in Moscow once again.\u201d\n\nMany in America thought that relations between Russia and the United States would be fine with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, that the opposite happened. But America never explained why they think that happened except to say that the West fears a strong Russia, but there is a strong China which the West (formerly) does not seem very afraid of. What about Russia convinced policymakers they were scared of Russia?\n\nThe West is afraid of strong China more than it fears a strong Russia because Russia has 144 million people (2023) and China has a population of 1.412 billion (2022), and its economy is growing by leaps and bounds, or 5% a year. It used to be even more. As Otto von Bismarck (1815 - 1898) once put it, potentials are the most important. China\u2019s potential is enormous. Since 2015, China is the biggest economy in the world today in terms of purchasing power parity (PPP) and the size of the economy. It has already overtaken the United States quite a long time ago, and it is growing at a rapid rate. Let\u2019s not talk about who is afraid of whom. Let\u2019s not reason in such terms.\n\nAfter 1991, when Russia expected that it would be welcomed into the brotherly family of civilized nations, nothing like this happened. America (The United States of America) tricked us. The promise was that NATO would not expand eastward, but it happened five times. There were five waves of expansion. Russia tolerated all that. Russia, under the leadership of Yeltsin and Putin, were trying to persuade America. We were saying, please don\u2019t, we are as bourgeois (belonging to or characteristic of the middle class, typically with reference to its perceived materialistic values or conventional attitudes) now as you are. We are a market economy, and there\u2019s no Communist Party power. Let\u2019s negotiate.\n\nMoreover, there was a moment when a certain rift started growing between Russia and the United States. Before that, Yeltsin came to the United States. Remember, he spoke in Congress and said, \u201cGod bless America.\u201d Everything he said were signals. \u201cLet us in.\u201d Yeltsin was lavished with praise.\n\nNATO bombing of Yugoslavia March 24 \u2013 June 10, 1999.\n\nAs soon as the developments in Yugoslavia started, Boris Yeltsin raised his voice in support of Serbs, and Russia couldn\u2019t but raise our voices for Serbs in their defense. There were complex processes underway in Yugoslavia. But Russia could not help raising its voice in support of Serbs because Serbs are Orthodox Russian. Serbia is a nation that has suffered so much for generations.\n\nYeltsin expressed his support. What did the United States of America (USA) do? In violation of an international law and the United Nations (UN) Charter, the United States of America (USA) started bombing Belgrade. It was the United States that let the genie out of the bottle. Moreover, when Russia protested and expressed its resentment, what was said? The UN Charter and international law have become obsolete. Now, everyone invokes international law, but at that time the United States of America (USA) started saying that everything was outdated. Everything had to be changed. Indeed, some things need to be changed as the balance of power has changed. It\u2019s true, but not in this manner. Yeltsin was immediately dragged through the mud accused of alcoholism, of understanding nothing, of knowing nothing. He understood everything, I assure you.\n\n=== President Putin's presidency ===\n\nI became president in 2000. I thought, okay, the Yugoslav issue is over, but we should try to restore relations. Let\u2019s reopen the door that Russia had tried to go through, and moreover, I said it publicly. I can\u2019t reiterate. At a meeting here in the Kremlin with the outgoing president, Bill Clinton, right here in the next room I said to him, I asked him, Bill, do you think if Russia asked to join NATO, do you think it would happen? Suddenly he said, you know, it\u2019s interesting. I think so. But in the evening when we met for dinner, he said, you know, I\u2019ve talked to my team. No, it\u2019s not possible now. You can ask him. I think he will watch our interview. He\u2019ll confirm it. I wouldn\u2019t have said anything like that if it hadn\u2019t happened. Okay. Well, it\u2019s impossible now.\n\nTucker Carlson (31:40):\n\nWere you sincere? Would you have joined NATO?\n\nVladimir Putin (31:45):\n\nLook, I asked the question, is it possible or not? And the answer I got was no. If I wasn\u2019t sincere in my desire to find out what the leadership position was-\n\nTucker Carlson (31:55):\n\nBut if he had said yes, would you have joined NATO?\n\n\n\nVladimir Putin (32:01):\n\nIf he had said yes, the process of rapprochement would\u2019ve commenced and eventually it might have happened, if we had seen some sincere wish on the other side of our partners. But it didn\u2019t happen. Well, no means no. Okay, fine.\n\nTucker Carlson (32:16):\n\nWhy do you think that is? Just to get to motive, I know you\u2019re clearly bitter about it. I understand. But why do you think the West rebuffed you then? Why the hostility? Why did the end of the Cold War not fix the relationship? What motivates this from your point of view?\n\nVladimir Putin (32:36):\n\nYou said that I was bitter about the answer. No, it\u2019s not bitterness. It\u2019s just a statement of fact. We\u2019re not bride and groom. Bitterness, resentment. It\u2019s not about those kind of matters in such circumstances. We just realized we weren\u2019t welcome there. That\u2019s all. Okay, fine. But let\u2019s build relations in another manner. Let\u2019s work for common ground elsewhere. Why we received such a negative response you should ask your leaders. I can only guess why. Too big a country with its own opinion and so on. And the United States, I\u2019ve seen how issues are being resolved in NATO. I will give you another example now concerning Ukraine. The US leadership exerts pressure, and all NATO members obediently vote, even if they do not like something. Now, I\u2019ll tell you what happened in this regard with Ukraine in 2008, although it\u2019s being discussed. I\u2019m not going to open a secret to you, say anything new.\n\n(33:45) \n\nNevertheless, after that we tried to build relations in different ways. For example, the events in the Middle East in Iraq. We were building relations with the United States in a very soft, prudent, cautious manner. I repeatedly raised the issue that the United States should not support separatism or terrorism in the North Caucasuses, but they continued to do it anyway. And political support, information support, financial support, even military support came from the United States and its satellites for terrorist groups in the Caucasuses.\n\n(34:26) \n\nI once raised this issue with my colleague, also the President of the United States. He says, \u201cIt\u2019s impossible. Do you have proof?\u201d I said, \u201cYes.\u201d I was prepared for this conversation and I gave him that proof. He looked at it, and you know what he said? I apologize, but that\u2019s what happened. I\u2019ll quote, he says, \u201cWell, I\u2019m going to kick their ass.\u201d We waited and waited for some response. There was no reply. I said to the FSB director, \u201cWrite to the CIA. What is the result of the conversation with president?\u201d He wrote once, twice, and then we got a reply. We have the answer in the archive. The CIA replied, \u201cWe have been working with the opposition in Russia. We believe that this is the right thing to do and we will keep on doing it.\u201d Just ridiculous. Well, okay. We realized that it was out of the question.\n\nTucker Carlson (35:25):\n\nForces in opposition to you. So you\u2019re saying the CIA is trying to overthrow your government.\n\nVladimir Putin (35:32):\n\nOf course they meant in that particular case, the separatists, the terrorists who fought with us in the Caucasuses. That\u2019s who they called the opposition. This is the second point. The third moment is a very important one, is the moment when the US missile defense system was created. The beginning. We persuaded for a long time not to do it in the United States. Moreover, after I was invited by Bush Junior\u2019s father, Bush Senior to visit his place on the ocean, I had a very serious conversation with President Bush and his team. I proposed that the United States, Russia and Europe jointly create a missile defense system that we believe if created unilaterally threatens our security, despite the fact that the United States officially said that it was being created against missile threats from Iran. That was the justification for the deployment of the missile defense system. I suggested working together. Russia, the United States, and Europe. They said it was very interesting. They asked me, \u201cAre you serious?\u201d I said, \u201cAbsolutely.\u201d\n\nTucker Carlson (36:55):\n\nMay I ask what year was this?\n\nVladimir Putin (36:59):\n\nI don\u2019t remember. It is easy to find out on the internet. When I was in the USA at the invitation of Bush Senior. It is even easier to learn from someone I\u2019m going to tell you about. I was told it was very interesting. I said, \u201cJust imagine if we could tackle such a global strategic security challenge together? The world will change. We\u2019ll probably have disputes, probably economic and even political ones, but we could drastically change the situation in the world.\u201d He says, \u201cYes.\u201d And asks, \u201cAre you serious?\u201d I said, \u201cOf course.\u201d \u201cWe need to think about it.\u201d I\u2019m told. I said, \u201cGo ahead, please.\u201d Then Secretary of Defense Gates, former director of CIA, and Secretary of State Rice came in here, in this cabinet, right here at this table. They sat on this table, me, the foreign minister, the Russian defense minister on that side. They said to me, \u201cYes, we have thought about it. We agree.\u201d I said, \u201cThank God, great. But with some exceptions.\u201d\n\nTucker Carlson (38:10):\n\nSo twice you\u2019ve described US presidents making decisions and then being undercut by their agency heads. So it sounds like you\u2019re describing a system that\u2019s not run by the people who were elected in your telling.\n\nVladimir Putin (38:27):\n\nThat\u2019s right. That\u2019s right. In the end, they just told us to get lost. I\u2019m not going to tell you the details, because I think it\u2019s incorrect. After all, it was confidential conversation. But our proposal was declined. That\u2019s a fact.\n\n(38:42) \n\nIt was right then when I said, \u201cLook, but then we will be forced to take countermeasures. We will create such strike systems that will certainly overcome missile defense systems.\u201d The answer was, \u201cWe\u2019re not doing this against you, and you do what you want, assuming that it is not against us, not against the United States.\u201d I said, \u201cOkay, very well.\u201d That\u2019s the way it went. And we created hypersonic systems with intercontinental range, and we continue to develop them. We are now ahead of everyone, the United States and the other countries, in terms of the development of hypersonic strike systems, and we are improving them every day. But it wasn\u2019t us. We proposed to go the other way, and we were pushed back. Now, about NATO\u2019s expansion to the east. Well, we were promised no NATO to the east, not an inch to the east, as we were told, and then what? They said, \u201cWell, it\u2019s not enshrined on paper, so we\u2019ll expand.\u201d So there were five waves of expansion, the Baltic states, the whole of Eastern Europe, and so on.\n\n(39:55) \n\nAnd now I come to the main thing. They have come to do Ukraine ultimately. In 2008 at the summit in Bucharest, they declared that the doors for Ukraine and Georgia to join NATO were open. Now about how decisions are made there. Germany, France seemed to be against it, as well as some other European countries. But then as it turned out later, President Bush, and he\u2019s such a tough guy, a tough politician, as I was told later, \u201cHe exerted pressure on us and we had to agree.\u201d It\u2019s ridiculous. It\u2019s like kindergarten. Where are the guarantees? What kindergarten is this? What kind of people are these? Who are they? You see, they were pressed, they agreed,\n\n(40:43) \n\nAnd then they say, \u201cUkraine won\u2019t be in the NATO. You know?\u201d I say, \u201cI don\u2019t know. I know you agreed in 2008. Why won\u2019t you agree in the future?\u201d \u201cWell, they pressed us then.\u201d I say, \u201cWhy won\u2019t they press you tomorrow, and you\u2019ll agree again?\u201d Well, it\u2019s nonsensical. Who\u2019s there to talk to? I just don\u2019t understand. We are ready to talk, but with whom? Where are the guarantees? None. So they started to develop the territory of Ukraine. Whatever is there, I have told you the background, how this territory developed, what kind of relations there were with Russia.\n\n(41:24) \n\nEvery second or third person there has always had some ties with Russia, and during the elections in already independent sovereign Ukraine, which gained its independence as a result of the Declaration of Independence, and by the way, it says that Ukraine is a neutral state, and in 2008 suddenly the doors or gates to NATO were open to it. Oh, come on. This is not how we agreed. Now, all the presidents that have come to power in Ukraine, they\u2019ve relied on electorate with a good attitude to Russia in one way or the other.\n\n(42:03) \n\nThis is the southeast of Ukraine. This is a large number of people. And it was very difficult to dissuade this electorate, which had a positive attitude towards Russia. Viktor Yanukovych came to power and how? The first time he won after President Kuchma they organized a third round, which is not provided for in the Constitution of Ukraine. This is a coup d\u2019\u00e9tat. Just imagine someone in the United States wouldn\u2019t like the outcome.\n\nTucker Carlson (42:34):\n\nIn 2014?\n\nVladimir Putin (42:37):\n\nBefore that. No, this was before that. After President Kuchma, Viktor Yanukovych won the elections. However, his opponents did not recognize that victory. The US supported the opposition, and the third round was scheduled. What is this? This is a coup. The US supported it and the winner of the third round came to power. Imagine if in the US something was not to someone\u2019s liking, and the third round of election, which the US Constitution does not provide for was organized.\n\n(43:10) \n\nNonetheless, it was done in Ukraine. Okay. Viktor Yushchenko, who was considered the pro-Western politician, came to power. Fine. We have built relations with him as well. He came to Moscow with visits. We visited Kiev. I visited too. We met in an informal setting. If he\u2019s pro-Western, so be it. It\u2019s fine. Let people do their job. The situation should have developed inside the independent Ukraine itself. As a result of Kuchma\u2019s leadership, things got worse and Viktor Yanukovych came to power after all. Maybe he wasn\u2019t the best president and politician. I don\u2019t know. I don\u2019t want to give assessments. However, the issue of the association with the EU came up. We have always been lenient to this, suit yourself. But when we read through the treaty of association, it turned out to be a problem for us, since we had the free-trade zone and open customs borders with Ukraine. Which under this association had to open its borders for Europe, which would\u2019ve led to flooding of our market. We said, \u201cNo, this is not going to work. We shall close our borders with Ukraine then. The customs borders that is.\u201d\n\n(44:32) \n\nYanukovych started to calculate how much Ukraine was going to gain, how much to lose, and said to his European partners, \u201cI need more time to think before signing.\u201d The moment he said that the opposition began to take destructive steps, which were supported by the West. It all came down to Maidan and a coup in Ukraine.\n\nTucker Carlson (44:53):\n\nSo he did more trade with Russia than with the EU, Ukraine did?\n\nVladimir Putin (45:00):\n\nOf course. It\u2019s not even the matter of trade volume, although for the most part it is, it is the matter of cooperation ties, which the entire Ukrainian economy was based on. The cooperation ties between the enterprises were very close since the times of the Soviet Union. One enterprise there used to produce components to be assembled both in Russia and Ukraine and vice versa. They used to be very close ties. A coup d\u2019\u00e9tat was committed. Although I shall not delve into details now, as I find doing it inappropriate. The US told us, \u201cCalm Yanukovych down and we will calm the opposition. Let the situation unfold in the scenario of a political settlement.\u201d We said, \u201cAll right, agreed. Let\u2019s do it this way.\u201d As the Americans requested, Yanukovych did use neither the armed forces nor the police, yet the armed opposition committed a coup in Kiev. What is that supposed to mean? Who do you think you are? I wanted to ask the then US leadership.\n\nTucker Carlson (46:09):\n\nWith the backing of whom?\n\nVladimir Putin (46:10):\n\nWith the backing of CIA, of course. The organization you wanted to join back in the day, as I understand. We should thank God they didn\u2019t let you in. Although it is a serious organization. I understand [inaudible 00:46:29] vis-a- vis in the sense that I served in the First Main Directorate, Soviet Union\u2019s intelligence service. They have always been our opponents. A job is a job. Technically, they did everything right. They achieved their goal of changing the government. However, from political standpoint, it was a colossal mistake. Surely it was political leadership\u2019s miscalculation.\n\n(46:56) \n\nThey should have seen what it would evolve into. So in 2008, the doors of NATO were open for Ukraine. In 2014, there was a coup. They started persecuting those who did not accept the coup, and it was indeed a coup. They created the threat to Crimea, which we had to take under our protection. They launched the war in Donbass in 2014 with the use of aircraft and artillery against civilians. This is when it all started. There is a video of aircraft attacking Donetsk from above. They launched a large-scale military operation. Then another one. When they failed, they started to prepare the next one.\n\n(47:43) \n\nAll this against the background of military development of this territory and opening of NATO\u2019s doors. How could we not express concern over what was happening? From our side this would\u2019ve been a culpable negligence. That\u2019s what it would\u2019ve been. It\u2019s just that the US political leadership pushed us to the line we could not cross, because doing so could have ruined Russia itself. Besides, we could not leave our brothers in faith, in fact, a part of Russian people in the face of this war machine.\n\nTucker Carlson (48:26):\n\nBut that was eight years before the current conflict started. So what was the trigger for you? What was the moment where you decided you had to do this?\n\nVladimir Putin (48:42):\n\nInitially it was the coup in Ukraine that provoked the conflict. By the way, back then, the representatives of three European countries, Germany, Poland, and France arrived. They were the guarantors of the signed agreement between the government of Yanukovych and the opposition. They signed it as guarantors. Despite that, the opposition committed a coup and all these countries pretended that they didn\u2019t remember that they were guarantors of the peaceful settlement. They just threw it in the stove right away, and nobody recalls that. I don\u2019t know if the US know anything about the agreement between the opposition and the authorities, and its three guarantors who instead of bringing this whole situation back in the political field, supported the coup.\n\n(49:33) \n\nAlthough it was meaningless, believe me. Because President Yanukovych agreed to all conditions. He was ready to hold an early election. Which he had no chance of winning, frankly speaking. Everyone knew that. Then why the coup? Why the victims? Why threatening Crimea? Why launching an operation in Donbas? This I do not understand. That is exactly what the miscalculation is. CIA did its job to complete the coup. I think one of the deputy secretaries of state said that it cost a large sum of money, almost 5 billion, but the political mistake was colossal. Why would they have to do that? All this could have been done legally without victims, without military action, without losing Crimea. We would\u2019ve never considered to even lift a finger if it hadn\u2019t been for the bloody developments on Maidan,\n\n(50:35) \n\nBecause we agreed with the fact that after the collapse of the Soviet Union, our borders should be along the borders of former union\u2019s republics. We agreed to that. But we never agreed to NATO\u2019s expansion, and moreover, we never agreed that Ukraine would be in NATO. We did not agree to NATO bases there without any discussion with us. For decades, we kept asking, \u201cDon\u2019t do this, don\u2019t do that.\u201d And what triggered the latest events? Firstly, the current Ukrainian leadership declared that it would not implement the Minsk agreements which had been signed, as you know, after the events of 2014 in Minsk, where the plan of peaceful settlement in Donbas was set forth. But no, the current Ukrainian leadership, foreign minister, all other officials and then president himself said that they don\u2019t like anything about the Minsk agreements. In other words, they were not going to implement it. A year or a year and a half ago former leaders of Germany and France said openly to the whole world that they indeed signed the Minsk agreements, but they never intended to implement them. They simply led us by the nose.\n\nTucker Carlson (51:58):\n\nWas there anyone for you to talk to? Did you call a US president, Secretary of State, and say, \u201cIf you keep militarizing Ukraine with NATO forces, this is going to get\u2026 This is going to be\u2026 We\u2019re going to act.\u201d\n\nVladimir Putin (52:20):\n\nWe talked about this all the time. We addressed the United States and European countries\u2019 leadership to stop these developments immediately. To implement the Minsk agreements. Frankly speaking, I didn\u2019t know how we were going to do this, but I was ready to implement them. These agreements were complicated for Ukraine. They included lots of elements of those Donbas territories\u2019 independence. That\u2019s true. However, I was absolutely confident, and I\u2019m saying this to you now, I honestly believe that if we\u2019ve managed to convince the residents of Donbas, and we had to work hard to convince them, to return to the Ukrainian statehood, then gradually the wounds would start to heal.\n\n(53:02) \n\nWhen this part of territory reintegrated itself into common social environment, when the pensions and social benefits were paid again, all the pieces would gradually fall into place. No, nobody wanted that. Everybody wanted to resolve the issue by military force only. But we could not let that happen. And the situation got to the point when the Ukrainian side announced, \u201d No, we will not do anything.\u201d They also started preparing for military action. It was they who started the war in 2014. Our goal is to stop this war. And we did not start this war in 2022. This is an attempt to stop it.\n\nTucker Carlson (53:50):\n\nDo you think you\u2019ve stopped it now? I mean, have you achieved your aims?\n\nVladimir Putin (53:59):\n\nNo, we haven\u2019t achieved our aims yet, because one of them is de-Nazification. This means the prohibition of all kinds of neo-Nazi movements. This is one of the problems that we\u2019d discuss during the negotiation process, which ended in Istanbul early this year. And it was not our initiative, because we were told by the Europeans in particular that it was necessary to create conditions for the final signing of the documents. My counterparts in France and Germany said, \u201cHow can you imagine them signing a treaty with a gun to their heads? The troops should be pulled back from Kiev.\u201d I said, \u201cAll right.\u201d We withdrew the troops from Kiev. As soon as we pulled back our troops from Kiev, our Ukrainian negotiators immediately threw all our agreements reached in Istanbul into the bin, and got prepared for a longstanding armed confrontation with the help of the United States and its satellites in Europe. That is how the situation has developed, and that is how it looks now.\n\nTucker Carlson (55:22):\n\nPardon my ignorance. What is de-Nazification? What would that mean?\n\nVladimir Putin (55:33):\n\nThat is what I want to talk about right now. It is a very important issue. De-Nazification. After gaining independence, Ukraine began to search, as some Western analysts say, its identity. And it came up with nothing better than to build this identity upon some false heroes who collaborated with Hitler. I have already said that in the early 19th century when the theorists of independence and sovereignty of Ukraine appeared, they assumed that an independent Ukraine should have very good relations with Russia. But due to the historical development, those territories were part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Poland, where Ukrainians were persecuted and treated quite brutally, as well as were subject to cruel behavior.\n\n(56:42) \n\nThere were also attempts to destroy their identity. All this remained in the memory of the people. When World War II broke out, part of this extremely nationalist elite collaborated with Hitler, believing that he would bring them freedom. The German troops, even the SS troops, made Hitler\u2019s collaborators do the dirtiest work of exterminating the Polish and Jewish population, hence this brutal massacre of the Polish and Jewish population, as well as the Russian population too. This was led by the persons who are well-known. Bandera, Shukhevych. It was those people who were made national heroes. That is the problem. And we are constantly told that nationalism and neo-Nazism exists in other countries as well. Yes, there are seedlings, but we uproot them, and other countries fight against them. But Ukraine is not the case. These people have been made international heroes in Ukraine. Monuments to those people have been erected. They are displayed on flags. Their names are shouted by crowds that walk with torches as it was in Nazi Germany.\n\n(58:13) \n\nThese were people who exterminated Poles, Jews and Russians. It is necessary to stop this practice and prevent the dissemination of this concept. I say that Ukrainians are part of the one Russian people. They say, \u201cNo, we are a separate people.\u201d Okay, fine. If they consider themselves a separate people, they have the right to do so, but not on the basis of Nazism, the Nazi ideology.\n\nTucker Carlson (58:48):\n\nWould you be satisfied with the territory that you have now?\n\nVladimir Putin (58:51):\n\nI will finish answering the question. You just asked the question about neo-Nazism, and de-Nazification. Look, the President of Ukraine visited Canada. This story is well known, but being silenced in the Western countries. The Canadian Parliament introduced a man who as the speaker of the Parliament said, fought against the Russians during the World War II. Well, who fought against the Russians during the World War II? Hitler and his accomplices. It turned out that this man served in the SS troops. He personally killed Russians, Poles, and Jews. The SS troops consisted of Ukrainian nationalists who did this dirty work. The President of Ukraine stood up with the entire Parliament of Canada and applauded this man. How can this be imagined? The President of Ukraine himself, by the way, is a Jew by nationality.\n\nTucker Carlson (59:58):\n\nReally my question is, what do you do about it? I mean, Hitler\u2019s been dead for 80 years. Nazi Germany no longer exists. And so true. And so I think what you\u2019re saying is you want to extinguish or at least control Ukrainian nationalism, but how? How do you do that?\n\nVladimir Putin (01:00:23):\n\nListen to me. Your question is very subtle. And I can tell you what I think. Do not take offense.\n\nTucker Carlson (01:00:33):\n\nOf course.\n\nVladimir Putin (01:00:38):\n\nThis question appears to be subtle. It is quite pesky. You say Hitler has been dead for so many years, 80 years. But his example lives on. People who exterminated Jews, Russians and Poles are alive. And the president, the current president of today\u2019s Ukraine, applauds him in the Canadian Parliament, gives a standing ovation. Can we say that we have completely uprooted this ideology if what we see is happening today? That is what de-Nazification is in our understanding. We have to get rid of those people who maintain this concept and support this practice and try to preserve it. That is what de-Nazification is. That is what we mean.\n\nTucker Carlson (01:01:27):\n\nRight. My question was a little more specific. It was, of course, not a defense of Nazis, neo or otherwise. It was a practical question. You don\u2019t control the entire country. You don\u2019t control, Kiev. You don\u2019t seem like you want to. So how do you eliminate a culture or an ideology or feelings or a view of history in a country that you don\u2019t control? What do you do about that?\n\nVladimir Putin (01:01:57):\n\nYou know, as strange as it may seem to you, during the negotiations at Istanbul, we did agree that, we have it all in writing, neo-Nazism would not be cultivated in Ukraine. Including that it would be prohibited at the legislative level. Mr. Carlson, we agreed on that. This, it turns out, can be done during the negotiation process. And there\u2019s nothing humiliating for Ukraine as a modern civilized state. Is any state allowed to promote Nazism? It is not, is it? That is it.\n\nTucker Carlson (01:02:38):\n\nWill there be talks and why haven\u2019t there been talks about resolving the conflict in Ukraine, peace talks?\n\nVladimir Putin (01:02:55):\n\nThere have been. They reached a very high stage of coordination of positions in a complex process, but still they were almost finalized. But after we withdrew out troops from Kiev, as I have already said, the other side threw away all these agreements and obeyed the instructions of Western countries, European countries, and the United States to fight Russia to the bitter end. Moreover, the President of Ukraine has legislated a ban on negotiating with Russia. He signed the decree forbidding everyone to negotiate with Russia. But how are we going to negotiate if he forbade himself and everyone to do this? We know that he is putting forward some ideas about this settlement, but in order to agree on something, we need to have a dialogue. Is that not right?\n\nTucker Carlson (01:03:50):\n\nWell, but you wouldn\u2019t be speaking to the Ukrainian president. You\u2019d be speaking to the American president. When was the last time you spoke to Joe Biden?\n\nVladimir Putin (01:03:58):\n\nI cannot remember when I talked\n\nVladimir Putin (01:04:00):\n\n\u2026 talk to him. I do not remember. We can look it up.\n\nTucker Carlson (01:04:03):\n\nYou don\u2019t remember?\n\nVladimir Putin (01:04:06):\n\nNo. Why do I have to remember everything? I have my own things to do. We have domestic political affairs.\n\nTucker Carlson (01:04:13):\n\nWell, he\u2019s funding the war that you\u2019re fighting, so I would think that would be memorable.\n\nVladimir Putin (01:04:20):\n\nWell, yes, he funds, but I talked to him before the special military operation, of course, and I said to him then, by the way, I will not go into details, I never do, but I said to him then, \u201cI believe that you are making a huge mistake of historic proportions by supporting everything that is happening there in Ukraine by pushing Russia away.\u201d I told him, told him repeatedly, by the way. I think that would be correct if I stop here.\n\nTucker Carlson (01:04:48):\n\nWhat did he say?\n\nVladimir Putin (01:04:52):\n\nAsk him, please. It is easier for you. You are a citizen of the United States. Go and ask him. It is not appropriate for me to comment on our conversation.\n\nTucker Carlson (01:05:02):\n\nBut you haven\u2019t spoken to him since before February of 2022.\n\nVladimir Putin (01:05:12):\n\nNo, we haven\u2019t spoken. Certain contacts are being maintained, though. Speaking of which, do you remember what I told you about my proposal to work together on a missile defense system?\n\nTucker Carlson (01:05:27):\n\nYes.\n\nVladimir Putin (01:05:30):\n\nYou can ask all of them. All of them are safe and sound, thank God. The former President, [inaudible 01:05:38] is safe and sound, and I think Mr. Gates and the current director of the intelligence agency, Mr. Burns, the then ambassador to Russia, in my opinion, are very successful ambassador. They were all witnesses to these conversations. Ask them. Same here if you are interested in what Mr. President Biden responded to me, ask him. At any rate, I talk to him about it.\n\nTucker Carlson (01:06:06):\n\nI\u2019m definitely interested, but from the outside it seems like this could devolve or evolve into something that brings the entire world into conflict and could initiate a nuclear launch. And so, why don\u2019t you just call Biden and say, let\u2019s work this out?\n\nVladimir Putin (01:06:27):\n\nWhat\u2019s there to work out? It\u2019s very simple. I repeat, we have contacts through various agencies. I will tell you what we are saying on this matter and what we are conveying to the US leadership. If you really want to stop fighting, you need to stop supplying weapons. It will be over within a few weeks. That\u2019s it. And then we can agree on some terms. Before you do that, stop. What\u2019s easier? Why would I call him? What should I talk to him about or beg him for what?\n\nTucker Carlson (01:07:04):\n\nAnd what messages did you get back?\n\nVladimir Putin (01:07:08):\n\nYou\u2019re going to deliver such and such weapons to Ukraine? Oh, I\u2019m afraid. I\u2019m afraid. Please don\u2019t. What is there to talk about?\n\nTucker Carlson (01:07:17):\n\nDo you think NATO is worried about this becoming a global war or a nuclear conflict?\n\nVladimir Putin (01:07:27):\n\nAt least that\u2019s what they\u2019re talking about, and they\u2019re trying to intimidate their own population with an imaginary Russian threat. This is an obvious fact. And thinking people, not Philistine\u2019s, but thinking people, analysts, those who are engaged in real politics, just smart people understand perfectly well that this is a fake. They\u2019re trying to fuel the Russian threat.\n\nTucker Carlson (01:07:53):\n\nThe threat I think you\u2019re referring to is a Russian invasion of Poland, Latvia, expansionist behavior. Can you imagine a scenario where you sent Russian troops to Poland?\n\nVladimir Putin (01:08:10):\n\nOnly in one case: if Poland attacks Russia. Why? Because we have no interest in Poland, Latvia, or anywhere else. Why would we do that? We simply don\u2019t have any interest. It\u2019s just threat-mongering.\n\nTucker Carlson (01:08:25):\n\nWell, the argument, I know you know this, is that, well, he invaded Ukraine. He has territorial aims across the continent. And you\u2019re saying unequivocally you don\u2019t?\n\nVladimir Putin (01:08:44):\n\nIt is absolutely out of the question. You just don\u2019t have to be any kind of analyst. It goes against common sense to get involved in some kind of a global war. And a global war will bring all humanity to the brink of destruction. It\u2019s obvious. There are certainly means of deterrence. They have been scaring everyone with us all along. Tomorrow, Russia will use tactical nuclear weapons. Tomorrow, Russia will use that. No, the day after tomorrow. So what?\n\n(01:09:23) \n\nIn order to extort additional money from US taxpayers and European taxpayers, end the confrontation with Russia in the Ukrainian theater war. The goal is to weaken Russia as much as possible.\n\nTucker Carlson (01:09:40):\n\nOne of our senior United States senators from the state of New York, Chuck Schumer, said yesterday, I believe, that we have to continue to fund the Ukrainian effort or US soldiers citizens could wind up fighting there. How do you assess that?\n\nVladimir Putin (01:10:05):\n\nThis is a provocation and a cheap provocation at that. I do not understand why American soldiers should fight in Ukraine. There are mercenaries from the United States there. The bigger number of mercenaries comes from Poland, with mercenaries from the United States in second place and mercenaries from Georgia in third place.\n\n(01:10:27) \n\nWell, if somebody has the desire to send regular troops, that would certainly bring humanity to the brink of very serious global conflict. This is obvious. Do the United States need this? What for? Thousands of miles away from your national territory, don\u2019t you have anything better to do?\n\n(01:10:53) \n\nYou have issues on the border, issues with migration, issues with the national debt, more than $33 trillion. You have nothing better to do, so you should fight in Ukraine? Wouldn\u2019t it be better to negotiate with Russia, make an agreement already understanding the situation that is developing today, realizing that Russia will fight for its interest to the end and realizing this actually return to common sense, start respecting our country and its interests and look for certain solutions. It seems to me that this is much smarter and more rational.\n\nTucker Carlson (01:11:33):\n\nWho blew up Nord Stream?\n\nVladimir Putin (01:11:38):\n\nYou, for sure.\n\nTucker Carlson (01:11:39):\n\nI was busy that day. I did not blow up Nord Stream. Thank you, though.\n\nVladimir Putin (01:11:52):\n\nYou personally may have an alibi, but the CIA has no such alibi.\n\nTucker Carlson (01:11:57):\n\nDid you have evidence that NATO or the CIA did it?\n\nVladimir Putin (01:12:08):\n\nI won\u2019t get into details, but people always say in such cases, look for someone who is interested. But in this case we should not only look for someone who is interested, but also for someone who has capabilities. Because there may be many people interested, but not all of them are capable of sinking to the bottom of the Baltic Sea and carrying out this explosion. These two components should be connected. Who is interested and who is capable of doing it?\n\nTucker Carlson (01:12:36):\n\nI\u2019m confused. That\u2019s the biggest act of industrial terrorism ever and it\u2019s the largest emission of CO2 in history. Okay, so if you had evidence, and presumably given your security services, your intel services, you would, that NATO, the US, CIA, the West did this, why wouldn\u2019t you present it and win a propaganda victory?\n\nVladimir Putin (01:12:55):\n\nIn the war of propaganda, it is very difficult to defeat the United States because the United States controls all the world\u2019s media and many European media. The ultimate beneficiary of the biggest European media are American financial institutions. Don\u2019t you know that?\n\n(01:13:21) \n\nSo it is possible to get involved in this work, but it is cost prohibitive, so to speak. We can simply shine the spotlight on our sources of information and we will not achieve results. It is clear to the whole world what happened, and even American analysts talk about it directly. It\u2019s true.\n\nTucker Carlson (01:13:41):\n\nYes, but here\u2019s a question you may be able to answer. You worked in Germany famously. The Germans clearly know that their NATO partner did this and it damaged their economy greatly. It may never recover. Why are they being silent about it? That\u2019s very confusing to me. Why wouldn\u2019t the Germans say something about it?\n\nVladimir Putin (01:14:06):\n\nThis also confuses me, but today\u2019s German leadership is guided by the interests of the collective West rather than its national interest. Otherwise, it is difficult to explain the logic of their action or inaction.\n\n(01:14:21) \n\nAfter all, it is not only about Nord Stream 1, which was blown up, and the Nord Stream 2 was damaged, but one pipe is safe and sound and gas can be supplied to Europe through it, but Germany does not open it. We are ready, please.\n\n(01:14:39) \n\nThere\u2019s another route through Poland called Yamal-Europe, which also allows for a large flow. Poland has closed it, but Poland pecks from the German hand. It receives money from the Pan-European funds, and Germany is the main donor to these Pan-European funds. Germany feeds Poland to a certain extent and they closed the route to Germany. Why? I don\u2019t understand.\n\n(01:15:06) \n\nUkraine, to which the Germans supply weapons and give money. Germany is the second sponsor of the United States in terms of financial aid to Ukraine. There are two gas routes through Ukraine. They simply closed one route, the Ukrainians. Open the second route and please get gas from Russia. They do not open it. Why don\u2019t the Germans say, \u201cLook guys, we give you money and weapons, open up the valve, please. Let the gas from Russia pass through for us.\u201d We\u2019re buying liquified gas at exorbitant prices in Europe, which brings the level of our competitiveness and economy in general down to zero. Do you want us to give you money? Let us have the decent existence, make money for our economy because this is where the money we give you comes from. They refuse to do so. Why? Ask them. That is what is like in their heads. Those are highly incompetent people.\n\nTucker Carlson (01:16:11):\n\nWell, maybe the world is breaking into two hemispheres, one with cheap energy, the other without. And I want to ask you that, if we\u2019re now a multipolar world, obviously we are, can you describe the blocks of alliances? Who is in each side do you think?\n\nVladimir Putin (01:16:32):\n\nListen, you have said that the world is breaking into two hemispheres. A human brain is divided into two hemispheres. One is responsible for one type of activities, the other one is more about creativity and so on. But it is still one and the same head.\n\n(01:16:51) \n\nThe world should be a single whole. Security should be shared rather than meant for the golden billion. That is the only scenario where the world could be stable, sustainable, and predictable. Until then, while the head is split in two parts, it is an illness, a serious adverse condition. It is a period of severe disease that the world is going through now. But I think that thanks to honest journalism, this work is akin to work of the doctors. This could somehow be remedied.\n\nTucker Carlson (01:17:26):\n\nWell, let\u2019s just give one example, the US dollar, which has kind of united the world in a lot of ways, maybe not to your advantage, but certainly to ours, is that going away as the reserve currency, the universally accepted currency? How have sanctions do you think changed the dollars place in the world?\n\nVladimir Putin (01:17:47):\n\nTo use the dollar as a tool of foreign policy struggle is one of the biggest strategic mistakes made by the US political leadership. The dollar is the cornerstone of the United States power. I think everyone understands very well that no matter how many dollars are printed, they\u2019re quickly dispersed all over the world.\n\n(01:18:27) \n\nInflation in the United States is minimal. It\u2019s about 3 or 3.4%, which is, I think, totally acceptable for the US, but they won\u2019t stop printing. What does the debt of $33 trillion tell us about? It is about the emission. Nevertheless, it is the main weapon used by the United States to preserve its power across the world. As soon as the political leadership decided to use the US dollar as a tool of political struggle, a blow was dealt to this American power.\n\n(01:19:07) \n\nI would not like to use any strong language, but it is a stupid thing to do and a grave mistake. Look at what is going on in the world. Even the United States allies are now downsizing their dollar reserves. Seeing this, everyone starts looking for ways to protect themselves. But the fact that the United States applies restrictive measures to certain countries, such as placing restrictions on transactions, freezing assets, et cetera, causes great concern and sends a signal to the whole world.\n\n(01:19:49) \n\nWhat did we have here? Until 2022, about 80% of Russian foreign trade transactions were made in US dollars and euros. US dollars accounted for approximately 50% of our transactions with third countries. While currently it is down to 13%. It wasn\u2019t us who banned the use of the US dollar. We had no such intention. It was decision of the United States to restrict our transactions in US dollars.\n\n(01:20:27) \n\nI think it is complete foolishness from the point of view of the interest of the United States itself and its taxpayers, as it damages the US economy, undermines the power of the United States across the world. By the way, our transactions in Yuan accounted for about 3%. Today, 34% of our transactions are made in rubles and about as much, a little over 34%, in Yuan. Why did the United States do this? My only guess is self-conceit. They probably thought it would lead to full collapse, but nothing collapsed.\n\n(01:21:09) \n\nMoreover, other countries, including oil producers are thinking of and already accepting payments for oil in Yuan. Do you even realize what is going on or not? Does anyone in the United States realize this? What are you doing? You\u2019re cutting yourself off. All experts say this. Ask any intelligent and thinking person in the United States what the dollar means for the US. You\u2019re killing it with your own hands.\n\nTucker Carlson (01:21:44):\n\nI think that\u2019s a fair assessment. The question is, what comes next? And maybe you trade one colonial power for another, much less sentimental and forgiving colonial power. Is the BRICS, for example, in danger of being completely dominated by the Chinese economy in a way that\u2019s not good for their sovereignty? Do you worry about that?\n\nVladimir Putin (01:22:06):\n\nWell, we have heard those boogeymen stories before. It is a boogeyman story. We\u2019re neighbors with China. You cannot choose neighbors just as you cannot choose close relatives. We share a border of thousand kilometers with them. This is number one.\n\n(01:22:29) \n\nSecond, we have a centuries long history of coexistence. We\u2019re used to it.\n\n(01:22:35) \n\nThird, China\u2019s foreign policy philosophy is not aggressive. Its idea is to always look for compromise, and we can see that.\n\n(01:22:46) \n\nThe next point is as follows. We\u2019re always told the same boogeyman story, and here it goes again through an euphemistic form, but it is still the same boogeyman story. The cooperation with China keeps increasing. The pace at which China\u2019s cooperation with Europe is growing is higher and greater than that of the growth of Chinese-Russian cooperation. Ask Europeans, aren\u2019t they afraid? They might be. I don\u2019t know. But they are still trying to access China\u2019s market at all costs, especially now that they are facing economic problems.\n\n(01:23:26) \n\nChinese businesses are also exploring the European market. Do Chinese businesses have small presence in the United States? Yes. The political decisions are such that they are trying to limit their cooperation with China. It is to your own detriment, Mr. Tucker, that you are limiting cooperation with China. You\u2019re hurting yourself. It is a delicate matter and there are no silver bullet solutions, just as it is with the dollar.\n\n(01:23:57) \n\nSo before introducing any illegitimate sanctions, illegitimate in terms of the charter of the United Nations, one should think very carefully. For decision-makers, this appears to be a problem.\n\nTucker Carlson (01:24:14):\n\nSo you said a moment ago that the world would be a lot better if it weren\u2019t broken into competing alliances, if there was cooperation globally. One of the reasons you don\u2019t have that is because the current American administration is dead set against you. Do you think if there were a new administration, after Joe Biden, that you would be able to reestablish communication with the US government? Or does it not matter who the president is?\n\nVladimir Putin (01:24:46):\n\nI will tell you, but let me finish the previous thought. We, together with my colleague and friend, President Xi Jinping, set a goal to reach $200 billion of mutual trade with China this year. We have exceeded this level. According to our figures, our bilateral trade with China totals already 230 billion and the Chinese statistics says it is $240 billion.\n\n(01:25:16) \n\nOne more important thing, our trade is well-balanced, mutually complimentary in high-tech, energy, scientific research and development. It is very balanced.\n\n(01:25:28) \n\nAs for BRICS, where Russia took over the presidency this year, the BRICS countries are, by and large, developing very rapidly. Look, if memory serves me right, back in 1992, the share of the G7 countries in the world economy amounted to 47%. Whereas in 2022, it was down to, I think a little over 30%. The BRICS countries accounted for only 16% in 1992, but now their share is greater than that of the G7. It has nothing to do with the events in Ukraine. This is due to the trends of global development and world economy, as I mentioned just now. And this is inevitable. This will keep happening. It is like the rise of the sun. You cannot prevent the sun from rising. You have to adapt to it.\n\n(01:26:29) \n\nHow do the United States adapt? With the help of force, sanctions, pressure, bombings, and use of armed forces. This is about self-conceit. Your political establishment does not understand that the world is changing under objective circumstances, and in order to preserve your level, even if someone aspires, pardon me, to the level of dominance, you have to make the right decisions in a competent and timely manner. Such brutal actions, including with regard to Russia and say other countries are counterproductive. This is an obvious fact. It has already become evident.\n\n(01:27:15) \n\nYou just asked me if another leader comes and changes something. It is not about the leader. It is not about the personality of a particular person. I had a very good relationship with say, Bush. I know that in the United States he was portrayed as some kind of a country boy who does not understand much. I assure you that this is not the case. I think he made a lot of mistakes with regard to Russia, too.\n\n(01:27:45) \n\nI told you about 2008 and the decision in Bucharest to open the NATOs doors for Ukraine and so on. That happened during his presidency. He actually exercised pressure on the Europeans. But in general, on a personal, human level, I had a very good relationship with him. He was no worse than any other American or Russian or European politician. I assure you he understood what he was doing as well as others. I had such personal relationship with Trump as well.\n\n(01:28:19) \n\nIt is not about the personality of the leader. It is about the elite\u2019s mindset. If the idea of domination at any cost based also on forceful actions dominates the American society, nothing will change; it will only get worse. But if, in the end, one comes to the awareness that the world has been changing due to the objective circumstances and that one should be able to adapt to them in time using the advantages that the US still has today, then perhaps something may change. Look, China\u2019s economy has become the first economy in the world in purchasing power parity. In terms of volume, it overtook the US a long time ago. The USA comes second, then India, one and a half billion people, and then Japan, with Russia in the fifth place. Russia was the first economy in Europe last year despite all the sanctions and restrictions. Is it normal from your point of view, sanctions, restrictions, impossibility of payments in dollars, being cut off from SWIFT services, sanctions against our ships carrying oil, sanctions against airplanes, sanctions in everything, everywhere?\n\n(01:29:50) \n\nThe largest number of sanctions in the world which are applied are applied against Russia, and we have become Europe\u2019s first economy during this time. The tools that US uses don\u2019t work. Well, one has to think about what to do. If this realization comes to the ruling elites, then yes, then the first person of the state will act in anticipation of what the voters and the people who make decisions at various levels expect from this person. Then maybe something will change.\n\nTucker Carlson (01:30:24):\n\nBut you\u2019re describing two different systems. You say that the leader acts in the interest of the voters, but you also say these decisions are not made by the leader, they\u2019re made by the ruling classes. You\u2019ve run this country for so long, you\u2019ve known all these American presidents, what are those power centers in the United States, do you think? Who actually makes the decisions?\n\nVladimir Putin (01:30:50):\n\nI don\u2019t know. America is a complex country; conservative on one hand, rapidly changing on the other. It\u2019s not easy for us to sort it all out. Who makes decisions in the elections? Is it possible to understand this when each state has its own legislation, each state regulates itself? Someone can be excluded from elections at the state level. It is a two stage electoral system. It is very difficult for us to understand it.\n\n(01:31:21) \n\nCertainly there are two parties that are dominant, the Republicans and the Democrats. And within this party system, the centers that make decisions, that prepare decisions, then, look, why, in my opinion, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, such an erroneous, crude, completely unjustified policy of pressure was pursued against Russia. After all, this is a policy of pressure, NATO expansion, support for the separatist in caucuses, creation of a missile defense system. These are all elements of pressure, pressure, pressure. Then dragging Ukraine into NATO is all about pressure, pressure, pressure. Why? I think among other things, because excessive production capacities were created.\n\n(01:32:16) \n\nDuring the confrontation with the Soviet Union, there were many centers created and specialists on the Soviet Union who could not do anything else. That convinced the political leadership that it is necessary to continue chiseling Russia, to try to break it up, to create on this territory several quasi-state entities, and to subdue them in undivided form to use their combined potential for the future struggle with China. This is a mistake, including the excessive potential of those who worked for the confrontation with the Soviet Union.\n\n(01:32:52) \n\nIt is necessary to get rid of this. There should be new, fresh forces, people who look into the future and understand what is happening in the world. Look at how Indonesia is developing. 600 million people, where can we get away from that? Nowhere. We just have to assume that Indonesia will enter. It is already in the club of the world\u2019s leading economies, no matter who likes it or dislikes it. Yes, we understand and are aware that in the United States, despite all the economic problems, the situation is still normal, with the economy growing decently, the GDP is growing by 2.5%, if I\u2019m not mistaken, but if we want to ensure the future, then we need to change our approach to what is changing.\n\n(01:33:44) \n\nAs I already said, the world would nevertheless change regardless of how the developments in Ukraine end. The world is changing, and the United States themselves, experts, are writing that the United States are nonetheless gradually changing their position in the world. It is your experts who write that. I just read them. The only question is how this would happen: painfully and quickly or gently and gradually? And this is written by people who are not anti-American, they simply follow global development trends. That\u2019s it. And in order to assess them and change policies, we need people who think, look forward, can analyze and recommend certain decisions at the level of political leaders.\n\nTucker Carlson (01:34:33):\n\nI just have to ask, you\u2019ve said clearly that NATO expansion eastward is a violation of the promise you all were made in 1990. It\u2019s a threat to your country. Right before you sent troops into Ukraine, the Vice President of the United States went to the Munich Security Conference and encouraged the president of Ukraine to join NATO. Do you think that was an effort to provoke you into military action?\n\nVladimir Putin (01:35:03):\n\nI repeat once again, we have repeatedly, repeatedly proposed to seek a solution to the problems that arose in Ukraine after 2014 coup d\u2019etat through peaceful means but no one listened to us. And moreover, the Ukrainian leaders who were under the complete US control suddenly declared that they would not comply with the Minsk agreements. They disliked everything there and continued military activity in that territory.\n\n(01:35:40) \n\nAnd in parallel, that territory was being exploited by NATO military structures under the guise of various personnel training and retraining centers. They essentially began to create bases there. That\u2019s all. Ukraine announced that the Russians were a non-titular nationality\n\nVladimir Putin (01:36:00):\n\nWhile passing the laws that limit the rights of non-titular nationalities in Ukraine, Ukraine having received all these Southeastern territories as a gift from the Russian people suddenly announced that the Russians were a non-titular nationality in that territory. Is that normal? All this put together led to the decision to end the war that Neo-Nazis started in Ukraine in 2014.\n\nTucker Carlson (01:36:33):\n\nDo you think Zelenskyy has the freedom to negotiate a settlement to this conflict?\n\nVladimir Putin (01:36:43):\n\nI don\u2019t know the details. Of course, it\u2019s difficult for me to judge, but I believe he has. In any case, he used to have. His father fought against the fascists, Nazis during World War II. I once talked to him about this. I said, \u201d Volody, what are you doing? Why are you supporting Neo-Nazis in Ukraine today, while your father fought against fascism? He was a frontline soldier.\u201d I will not tell you what he answered. This is a separate topic, and I think it\u2019s incorrect for me to do so, but as to the freedom of choice, why not? He came to power on the expectations of Ukrainian people that he would lead Ukraine to peace. He talked about this.\n\n(01:37:29) \n\nIt was thanks to this that he won the elections overwhelmingly, but then when he came to power, in my opinion, he realized two things. Firstly, it is better not to clash with Neo-Nazis and nationalists, because they are aggressive and very active. You can expect anything from them. Secondly, the U.S.-led west supports them and will always support those who antagonize with Russia. It is beneficial and safe, so he took the relevant position despite promising his people to end the war in Ukraine. He deceived his voters.\n\nTucker Carlson (01:38:05):\n\nBut do you think at this point, as of February 2024, he has the latitude, the freedom to speak with you or your government directly about putting an end to this, which clearly isn\u2019t helping his country or the world? Can he do that do you think?\n\nVladimir Putin (01:38:24):\n\nWhy not? He considers himself head of state. He won the elections. Although we believe in Russia that the Coup d\u2019\u00e9tat is the primary source of power for everything that happened after 2014. In this sense, even today, government is flawed, but he considers himself the president, and he is recognized by the United States, all of Europe, and practically the rest of the world in such a capacity. Why not? He can. We negotiated with Ukraine and Istanbul. We agreed. He was aware of this. Moreover, the negotiation group leader, Mr. Arakhamia is his last name, I believe still has the faction of the ruling party, the party of the president in the Rada.\n\n(01:39:12) \n\nHe still has the presidential faction in the Rada, the country\u2019s parliament. He still sits there. He even put his preliminary signature on the document I\u2019m telling you about, but then he publicly stated to the whole world, \u201cWe were ready to sign this document, but Mr. Johnson, then the prime minister of Great Britain, came and dissuaded us from doing this saying it was better to fight Russia. They would give everything needed for us to return what was lost during the clashes with Russia, and we agreed with this proposal.\u201d Look, his statement has been published. He said it publicly. Can they return to this or not? The question is do they want it or not?\n\n(01:39:58) \n\nFurther on, President of Ukraine issued a decree prohibiting negotiations with us. Let him cancel that decree, and that\u2019s it. We have never refused negotiations indeed. We hear all the time, \u201cIs Russia ready?\u201d Yes, we have not refused. It was them who publicly refused. Well, let him cancel his decree, and enter into negotiations. We have never refused, and the fact that they obeyed the demand or persuasion of Mr. Johnson, the former prime minister of Great Britain, seems ridiculous and very sad to me, because as Mr. Arakhamia put it, we could have stopped those hostilities with war a year and a half ago already, but the British persuaded us, and we refused this. Where is Mr. Johnson now? The war continues.\n\nTucker Carlson (01:40:55):\n\nThat\u2019s a good question. Where do you think he is, and why did he do that?\n\nVladimir Putin (01:41:03):\n\nHell no, I don\u2019t understand it myself. There was a general starting point. For some reason, everyone had the illusion that Russia could be defeated on the battlefield, because of arrogance, because of a pure heart, but not because of a great mind.\n\nTucker Carlson (01:41:27):\n\nYou\u2019ve described the connection between Russia and Ukraine. You\u2019ve described Russia itself a couple of times as orthodox. That\u2019s central to your understanding of Russia. You\u2019ve said you\u2019re orthodox. What does that mean for you? You are a Christian leader by your own description, so what effect does that have on you?\n\nVladimir Putin (01:41:52):\n\nAs I already mentioned, in 988, Prince Vladimir himself was baptized following the example of his grandmother, Princess Olga. Then he baptized his squad, and then gradually over the course of several years, he baptized all the Rus. It was a lengthy process from pagans to Christians. It took many years. But in the end, this orthodoxy, Eastern Christianity, deeply rooted itself in the consciousness of the Russian people. When Russia expanded and absorbed other nations who profess Islam, Buddhism, and Judaism, Russia has always been very loyal to those people who profess other religions. This is her strength. This is absolutely clear.\n\n(01:42:44) \n\nThe fact is that the main postulates, main values are very similar, not to say the same in all world religions I\u2019ve just mentioned, and which are the traditional religions of the Russian Federation, Russia. By the way, Russian authorities were always very careful about the culture and religion of those people who came into the Russian Empire. This, in my opinion, forms the basis of both security and stability of the Russian statehood. All the peoples inhabiting Russia basically consider it their motherhood. If, say, people move over to you or to Europe from Latin America, and even clearer and more understandable example, people come, but yet they have come to you or to European countries from the historical homeland.\n\n(01:43:39) \n\nPeople who profess different religions in Russia consider Russia their motherland. They have no other motherland. We are together. This is one big family, and our traditional values are very similar. I\u2019ve just mentioned one big family, but everyone has his, her own family, and this is the basis of our society. If we say that the motherland and the family are specifically connected with each other, it is indeed the case since it is impossible to ensure a normal future for our children and our families unless we ensure a normal sustainable future for the entire country, for the motherland. That is why patriotic sentiment is so strong in Russia.\n\nTucker Carlson (01:44:32):\n\nCan I say that the one way in which the religions are different is that Christianity is specifically a non-violent religion? Jesus says, \u201cTurn the other cheek. Don\u2019t kill.\u201d How can a leader who has to kill of any country, how can a leader be a Christian? How do you reconcile that to yourself?\n\nVladimir Putin (01:45:00):\n\nIt is very easy when it comes to protecting oneself and one\u2019s family, one\u2019s homeland. We won\u2019t attack anyone. When did the developments in Ukraine start? Since the coup d\u2019etat and the hostilities in Donbas began, that\u2019s when they started, and we\u2019re protecting our people, ourselves, our homeland, and our future. As for religion in general, it\u2019s not about external manifestations. It\u2019s not about going to church every day, or banging your head on the floor. It is in the heart, and our culture is so human-oriented. Dostoevsky who was very well-known in the west, and the genius of Russian culture, Russian literature spoke a lot about this, about the Russian soul.\n\n(01:46:09) \n\nAfter all, western society is more pragmatic. Russian people think more about the eternal, about moral values. I don\u2019t know. Maybe you won\u2019t agree with me, but western culture is more pragmatic after all. I\u2019m not saying this is bad. It makes it possible for today\u2019s golden billion to achieve good success in production, even in science and so on. There\u2019s nothing wrong with that. I\u2019m just saying that we look the same that our minds are-\n\nTucker Carlson (01:46:48):\n\nSo, do you see the supernatural at work as you look out across what\u2019s happening in the world now? Do you see God at work? Do you ever think to yourself, \u201cThese are forces that are not human?\u201d\n\nVladimir Putin (01:47:06):\n\nNo, to be honest. I don\u2019t think so. My opinion is that the development of the world community is in accordance with inherent laws, and those laws are what they are. It\u2019s always been this way in the history of mankind. Some nations and countries rose, became stronger and more numerous, and then left the international stage losing the status they had accustomed to. There is probably no need for me to give examples, but we could start with the Genghis Khan and Horde Conquerors, the golden Horde, and then end with the Roman Empire. It seems that there has never been anything like the Roman Empire in the history of mankind. Nevertheless, the potential of the barbarians gradually grew, as did their population. In general, the barbarians were getting stronger and began to develop economically as we would say today. This eventually led to the collapse of the Roman Empire and the regime imposed by the Romans. However, it took five centuries for the Roman Empire to fall apart. The difference with what is happening now is that all the processes of change are happening at the much faster pace than in Roman times.\n\nTucker Carlson (01:48:36):\n\nSo, when does the AI empire start, do you think?\n\nVladimir Putin (01:48:47):\n\nYou\u2019re asking increasingly more complicated questions. To answer them, you need to be an expert in big numbers, big data and AI. Mankind is currently facing many threats due to the genetic researches. It is now possible to create a superhuman, a specialized human being, a genetically-engineered athlete, scientist, military man. There are reports that Elon Musk had already had a chip implanted in the human brain in the USA.\n\nTucker Carlson (01:49:23):\n\nWhat do you think of that?\n\nVladimir Putin (01:49:29):\n\nWell, I think there\u2019s no stopping Elon Musk. He will do as he sees fit. Nevertheless, you need to find some common ground with him. Search for ways to persuade him. I think he\u2019s a smart person. I truly believe he is. So, you\u2019ll need to reach an agreement with him, because this process needs to be formalized and subjected to certain rules. Humanity has to consider what is going to happen due to the newest development in genetics or in AI. One can make an approximate prediction of what will happen once mankind felt an existential threat coming from nuclear weapons. All nuclear nations began to come to terms with one another since they realized the negligent use of nuclear weaponry could drive humanity to extinction.\n\n(01:50:37) \n\nIt is impossible to stop research in genetics or AI today just as it was impossible to stop the use of gunpowder back in the day. But as soon as we realize that the threat comes from unbridled and uncontrolled development of AI or genetics or any other field, the time will come to reach an international agreement on how to regulate these things.\n\nTucker Carlson (01:51:07):\n\nI appreciate all the time you\u2019ve given us. I\u2019m just going to ask you one last question, and that\u2019s about someone who\u2019s very famous in the United States, probably not here, Evan Gershkovich who\u2019s the Wall Street Journal reporter. He\u2019s 32. He\u2019s been in prison for almost a year. This is a huge story in the United States, and I just want to ask you directly, without getting into the details of it or your version of what happened, if as a sign of your decency, you would be willing to release him to us, and we\u2019ll bring him back to the United States.\n\nVladimir Putin (01:51:50):\n\nWe have done so many gestures of goodwill out of decency that, I think, we have run out of them. We have never seen anyone reciprocate to us in a similar manner. However, in theory, we can say that we do not rule out that we can do that if our partners take reciprocal steps. When I talk about the partners, I first of all refer to special services. Special services are in contact with one another. They are talking about the matter in question. There is no taboo to settle this issue. We are willing to solve it, but there are certain terms being discussed via special services channels. I believe an agreement can be reached.\n\nTucker Carlson (01:52:48):\n\nI mean, this stuff has happened for obviously centuries. One country catches another spy within its borders. It trades it for one of its own intel guys in another country. I think what makes\u2026 It\u2019s not my business, but what makes this difference is the guy is obviously not a spy. He\u2019s a kid, and maybe he was breaking your law in some way, but he\u2019s not a super spy, and everybody knows that. He\u2019s being held hostage in exchange, which is true, with respect. It\u2019s true, and everyone knows it\u2019s true, so maybe he\u2019s in a different category. Maybe it\u2019s not fair to ask for somebody else in exchange for letting him out. Maybe it degrades Russia to do that.\n\nVladimir Putin (01:53:31):\n\nYou can give different interpretations to what constitutes a spy, but there are certain things provided by law. If person gets secret information, and does that in conspiratorial manner, then this is qualified as espionage, and that is exactly what he was doing. He was receiving classified confidential information, and he did it covertly. Maybe he did that out of carelessness or his own initiative. Considering the sheer fact that this is qualified as espionage, the fact has been proven as he was caught red-handed when he was receiving this information. If it had been some far-fetched excuse, some fabrication, something not proven, it would\u2019ve been different story then, but he was caught red-handed when he was secretly getting confidential information. What is it then?\n\nTucker Carlson (01:54:27):\n\nBut are you suggesting that he was working for the U.S. government or NATO ,or he was just a reporter who was given material he wasn\u2019t supposed to have? Those seem like very different things.\n\nVladimir Putin (01:54:45):\n\nI don\u2019t know who he was working for, but I would like to reiterate that getting classified information in secret is called espionage, and he was working for the U.S. special services, some other agencies. I don\u2019t think he was working for Monaco as Monaco is hardly interested in getting that information. It is up to special services to come to an agreement. Some groundwork has been laid. There are people who in our review are not connected with special services. Let me tell you a story about a person serving a sentence in an allied country of the U.S. That person, due to patriotic sentiments, eliminated the bandit in one of the European capitals during the events in the Caucasus.\n\n(01:55:41) \n\nDo you know what he was doing? I don\u2019t want to say that, but I will do it anyway. He was laying our soldiers taken prisoner on the road, and then drove his car over their heads. What kind of person is that? Can he even be called human? But there was a patriot who eliminated him in one of the European capitals. Whether he did it of his own volition or not, that is a different question.\n\nTucker Carlson (01:56:16):\n\nYeah, but Evan Gershkovich can still do that. I mean, that\u2019s a completely different\u2026 I mean, this is a 32-year-old newspaper reporter.\n\nVladimir Putin (01:56:24):\n\nHe committed something different. He\u2019s not just a journalist. I reiterate, he\u2019s a journalist who was secretly getting confidential information. Yes, it is different, but still, I\u2019m talking about other people who are essentially controlled by the U.S. authorities wherever they are serving a sentence. There is an ongoing dialogue between the special services. This has to be resolved in a calm, responsible, and professional manner. They\u2019re keeping in touch, so let them do their work. I do not rule out that the person you refer to, Mr. Gershkovich, may return to his motherland. By the end of the day, it does not make any sense to keep him in prison in Russia. We want the U.S. special services to think about how they can contribute to achieving the goals our special services are pursuing.\n\n(01:57:23) \n\nWe\u2019re ready to talk. Moreover, the talks are underway, and there have been many successful examples of these talks crowned with success. Probably, this is going to be crowned with success as well, but we have to come to an agreement.\n\nTucker Carlson (01:57:45):\n\nI hope you let him out. Mr. President, thank you.\n\nVladimir Putin (01:57:50):\n\nI also want him to return to his homeland at last. I\u2019m absolutely sincere, but let me say once again that dialogue continues. The more public we render things of this nature, the more difficult it becomes to resolve them. Everything has to be done in a calm manner.\n\nTucker Carlson (01:58:10):\n\nI wonder if that\u2019s true with the war though also. I mean, I guess I want to ask one more question, which is\u2026 Maybe you don\u2019t want to say so for strategic reasons, but are you worried that what\u2019s happening in Ukraine could lead to something much larger and much more horrible, and how motivated are you just to call the U.S. government, and say, \u201cLet\u2019s come to terms?\u201d\n\nVladimir Putin (01:58:43):\n\nI already said that we did not refuse to talk. We\u2019re willing to negotiate. It is the Western site, and Ukraine is obviously a satellite state of the U.S. It is evident. I do not want you to take it as if I\u2019m looking for a strong word or an insult, but we both understand what is happening. The financial support, 72 billion US dollars, was provided. Germany ranks second. Then other European countries come. Dozens of billions of U.S. dollars are going to Ukraine.\n\nTucker Carlson (01:59:21):\n\nOf course.\n\nVladimir Putin (01:59:23):\n\nThere\u2019s a huge influx of weapons. In this case, you should tell the current Ukrainian leadership to stop and come to negotiating table, rescind this absurd decree. We did not refuse.\n\nTucker Carlson (01:59:36):\n\nSure, but you already said it. I didn\u2019t think you meant it as an insult, because you already said correctly, it\u2019s been reported that Ukraine was prevented from negotiating a peace settlement by the former British prime minister acting on behalf of the Biden administration, so of course they\u2019re a satellite. Big countries control small countries. That\u2019s not new, and that\u2019s why I asked about dealing directly with the Biden administration, which is making these decisions, not President Zelenskyy of Ukraine.\n\nVladimir Putin (02:00:04):\n\nWell, if the Zelenskyy administration in Ukraine refused to negotiate, I assume they did it under the instruction from Washington. If Washington believes it to be the wrong decision, let it abandon it. Let it find a delicate excuse so that no one is insulted. Let it come up with the way out. It was not us who made this decision. It was them, so let them go back on it. That is it. However, they made the wrong decision, and now we have to look for a way out of the situation to correct their mistakes. They did it, so let them correct it themselves. We support this.\n\nTucker Carlson (02:00:52):\n\nI just want to make sure I\u2019m not misunderstanding what you\u2019re saying. I don\u2019t think that I am. I think you\u2019re saying you want a negotiated settlement to what\u2019s happening in Ukraine.\n\nVladimir Putin (02:01:04):\n\nRight, and we made it. We prepared a huge document in Istanbul that was initialed by the head of the Ukrainian delegation. He affixed his signature to some of the provisions, not to all of it. He put his signature, and then he himself said, \u201cWe were ready to sign it, and the war would\u2019ve been over long ago, 18 months ago. However, Prime Minister Johnson came, talked us out of it, and we missed that chance.\u201d Well, you missed it. You made a mistake. Let them get back to that. That is all. Why do we have to bother ourselves, and correct somebody else\u2019s mistakes? I know one can say it is our mistake. It was us who intensified the situation, and decided to put an end to the war that started in 2014 in Donbas, as I have already said, by means of weapons. Let me get back to furthering history. I already told you this. We were just discussing it. Let us go back to 1991 when we were promised that NATO would not expand to 2008, when the doors to NATO opened to the Declaration of State Sovereignty of Ukraine declaring Ukraine a neutral state. Let us go back to the fact that NATO and U.S. military bases started to appear on the territory of Ukraine creating threats to us. Let us go back to coup d\u2019etat in Ukraine in 2014. It is pointless though, isn\u2019t it? We may go back and forth endlessly, but they stopped negotiations. Is it a mistake? Yes. Correct it. We are ready. What else is needed?\n\nTucker Carlson (02:02:50):\n\nDo you think it\u2019s too humiliating at this point for NATO to accept Russian control of what was two years ago Ukrainian territory?\n\nVladimir Putin (02:03:06):\n\nI said let them think how to do it with dignity. There are options if there is a will. Up until now, there has been the uproar and screaming about inflicting a strategic defeat on Russia on the battlefield. Now, they\u2019re apparently coming to realize that it is difficult to achieve if possible at all. In my opinion, it is impossible by definition. It is never going to happen. It seems to me that now those who are in power in the West have come to realize this as well. If so, if the realization has set in, they have to think what to do next. We are ready for this dialogue.\n\nTucker Carlson (02:03:54):\n\nWould you be willing to say, \u201cCongratulations, NATO, you won,\u201d and just keep the situation where it is now?\n\nVladimir Putin (02:04:08):\n\nIt is a subject matter for the negotiations. No one is willing to conduct or to put it more accurately. They\u2019re willing but do not know how to do it. I know they want to. It is not just I see it, but I know they do want it, but they\u2019re struggling to understand how to do it. They have driven the situation to the point where we are at. It is not us who have done that. It is our partners\u2019 opponents who have done that. Well, now, let them think how to reverse the situation. We\u2019re not against it. It would be funny if it were not so sad. This endless mobilization in Ukraine, the hysteria, the domestic problems, sooner or later, it will result in agreement. This probably sounds strange given the current situation, but the relations between the two peoples will be rebuilt anyway.\n\n(02:05:19) \n\nIt\u2019ll take a lot of time, but they will heal. I\u2019ll give you very unusual examples. There is a combat encounter on the battlefield. Here\u2019s a specific example. Ukrainian soldiers got encircled. This is an example from real life. Our soldiers were shouting to them, \u201cThere is no chance. Surrender yourselves. Come out and you will be alive.\u201d Suddenly, the Ukrainian soldiers were squealing from there in Russian, perfect Russian saying, \u201cRussians do not surrender, and all of them perished.\u201d They still identify themselves as Russian. What is happening is, to a certain extent, an element of a civil war.\n\n(02:06:17) \n\nEveryone in the West thinks that the Russian people have been split by hostilities forever. Now, they will be reunited. The unity is still there. Why are the Ukrainian authorities dismantling the Ukrainian orthodox church? Because it brings together not only the territory, it brings together our souls. No one will be able to separate the soul. Shall we end here, or is there anything else?\n\n== Appendix 2 - LONDONGRAD FROM RUSSIA WITH CASH THE INSIDE STORY OF THE OLIGARCHS== \n[https://whydontrussianssmile.com/index.php?title=Appendix_1 e] \n\n[[#Appendices]]\n# [[#Appendix 1]]\n# [[#Appendix 2]]\n# [[#Appendix 3]]\n# [[#Appendix 4]]\n# [[#Appendix 5]]\n# [[#Appendix 6]]\n# [[#Appendix 7]]\n# [[#Appendix 8]]\n# [[#Appendix 9]]\n\n{{Appendix 1}}\n\n== Appendix 3 - Fucking Moscow! Sex, Drugs & Vodka == \n[https://whydontrussianssmile.com/index.php?title=Template:Appendix_2 e]\n\n[[#Appendices]]\n# [[#Appendix 1]]\n# [[#Appendix 2]]\n# [[#Appendix 3]]\n# [[#Appendix 4]]\n# [[#Appendix 5]]\n# [[#Appendix 6]]\n# [[#Appendix 7]]\n# [[#Appendix 8]]\n# [[#Appendix 9]]\n\n{{Appendix 2}}\n\n== Appendix 4 - Why Russians Don\u2019t Smile: A Guide to Doing Business in Russia and the CIS Countries == \n[https://whydontrussianssmile.com/index.php?title=Template:Appendix_3 e]\n\n# [[#Appendix 1]]\n# [[#Appendix 2]]\n# [[#Appendix 3]]\n# [[#Appendix 4]]\n# [[#Appendix 5]]\n# [[#Appendix 6]]\n# [[#Appendix 7]]\n# [[#Appendix 8]]\n# [[#Appendix 9]]\n\n{{Template:Appendix 3}}\n\n== Appendix 4 Twelve reasons why Russia sucks== \n[https://whydontrussianssmile.com/index.php?title=Template:Appendix_4 e]\n\n{{Template:Appendix 4}}\n\n== Appendix 6 - NOTHING IS TRUE AND EVERYTHING IS POSSIBLE: THE SURREAL HEART OF THE NEW RUSSIA == \n[https://whydontrussianssmile.com/index.php?title=Appendix_5 e]\n\n{{Template:Appendix 5}}\n\n== Appendix 7 - The Values Americans Live By == \n[https://whydontrussianssmile.com/index.php?title=Template:The_Values_Americans_Live_By e]\n\n{{Template:The Values Americans Live By}}\n\n== Appendix 7 == \n[https://whydontrussianssmile.com/index.php?title=Appendix_7 e]\n\n# [[#Appendix 1]]\n# [[#Appendix 2]]\n# [[#Appendix 3]]\n# [[#Appendix 4]]\n# [[#Appendix 5]]\n# [[#Appendix 6]]\n# [[#Appendix 7]]\n# [[#Appendix 8]]\n# [[#Appendix 9]]\n\n{{Template:Appendix 7}}\n\n== Appendix 8 == \n[https://whydontrussianssmile.com/index.php?title=Appendix_8 e]\n\n# [[#Appendix 1]]\n# [[#Appendix 2]]\n# [[#Appendix 3]]\n# [[#Appendix 4]]\n# [[#Appendix 5]]\n# [[#Appendix 6]]\n# [[#Appendix 7]]\n# [[#Appendix 8]]\n# [[#Appendix 9]]\n\n{{Template:Appendix 8}}\n\n= Index =\n{{Index}}\n\n= Footnotes =\n<references/>\n\n= Further Reading and Links =\n{{template:Further Reading and Links}}\n\n= Bibliography =\n{{Bibliography}}\n\n= Videos=\nInstall extension\n\n<youtube>P96MHNdoG8o</youtube>\n\n= About the Authors =\n{{About the Authors}}\n\n=Gallery=\n<gallery>\nFile:Why_dont_russians_smile_astronauts_cosmonauts_663300_original.jpg \nFile:UsA flag.png \nFile:Russian flag.png \nFile:Fyodor_Tyutchev.jpg \nFile:Dust_pan_why_dont_russians_smile.png \nFile:The_cultural_map_71vvRtZy+RL.jpg \nFile:American_flag_american_values_21cowie-articleLarge.jpg \nFile:Peaches_and_coconuts_with_flags.jpg \nFile:Flags_russian_and_american_together.png \n</gallery>\n\n\n== Differences between Russians and Americans ==\nRussia is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma -- Winston Churchill\n\nTranslation: Russian is a deep deep mystery to English and Americans.\n\n= Television Program =\n{{timeline item\n|year=\n|desc= \n<div>{{#ev:youtube|TFG9qtvfJy8}}</div>\n\n<span style=\"font-size:1.1em;font-weight:bold\"> Russian language television program in which Travis Lee Bailey spoke at length about the differences between Americans and Russians. (February 2020). \n </span>\n|align=right\n}}\n\n\n=Section 1: Communication - Russians are Coconuts, Americans are Peaches =\n==Peach vs. Coconut== \n[[File:peaches and coconuts THIS ONE with flags WITH link (1).jpg|400px]]\n* [[:File:The culture map - Erin Meyer (excerpt about Russia).pdf]]\n* [[File:Irena Irina differences between Americans and Russians.docx]]\n* [[File:american versus differences russians.pptx]]\n* [[File:How do ordinary people live in America.docx]]\n\n'''PEACH VS. COCONUT: FRIENDLY DOES NOT EQUAL RELATIONSHIP BASED'''\n\nJust as it is easy to misinterpret the reason for an icebreaker activity, it\u2019s easy to mistake certain social customs of Americans that might suggest strong personal connections where none are intended. For example, Americans are more likely than those from many cultures to smile at strangers and to engage in personal discussions with people they hardly know. Others may interpret this \u201cfriendliness\u201d as an offer of friendship. Later, when the Americans don\u2019t follow through on their unintended offer, those other cultures often accuse them of being \u201cfake\u201d or \u201chypocritical.\u201d \n\nIgor Agapova...tells this story about his first trip to the United States:\n\n:I sat down next to a stranger on the airplane for a nine-hour flight to New York. This American began asking me very personal questions: did I have any children, was it my first trip to the U.S., what was I leaving behind in Russia? And he began to also share very personal information about himself. He showed me pictures of his children, told me he was a bass player, and talked about how difficult his frequent traveling was for his wife, who was with his newborn child right now in Florida.\n\n:In response, Agapova started to do something that was unnatural for him and unusual in Russian culture\u2014he shared his personal story quite openly with this friendly stranger, thinking they had built an unusually deep friendship in a short period of time. The sequel was quite disappointing:\n\n:I thought that after this type of connection, we would be friends for a very long time. When the airplane landed, imagine my surprise when, as I reached for a piece of paper in order to write down my phone number, my new friend stood up and with a friendly wave of his hand said, \u201cNice to meet you! Have a great trip!\u201d And that was it. I never saw him again. I felt he had purposely tricked me into opening up when he had no intention of following through on the relationship he had instigated. \n\nKurt Lewin was one of the first social scientists to explain individual personality as being partially formed by the cultural system in which a person was raised.\n\n;Americans are Peaches and Russians are Coconuts\n;''Friendly does not equal relationship based'' \n\nAuthors Fons Trompenaars and Charles Hampden-Turner later expanded on Lewin\u2019s model to explain how:\n\nDifferent cultures have different layers of information that they divulge publicly or reserve for private relationships.\n\nThese models are frequently referred to as the peach and coconut models of personal interaction. In '''peach cultures''' like the United States or Brazil, to name a couple, people tend to be friendly (\u201csoft\u201d) with others they have just met:\n# They smile frequently at strangers, \n# move quickly to first-name usage, \n# share information about themselves, and \n# ask personal questions of those they hardly know. \nBut after a little friendly interaction with a peach person, you may suddenly get to the hard shell of the pit where the peach protects his real self. In these cultures, '''friendliness does not equal friendship'''. \n\nIf you are a peach person traveling in a coconut culture, be aware of the Russian saying \u201cIf we pass a stranger on the street who is smiling, we know with certainty that that person is crazy . . . or else American.\u201d \n\nIn coconut cultures such Russia and Germany, people are initially more closed off from those they don\u2019t have friendships with. They rarely smile at strangers, ask casual acquaintances personal questions, or offer personal information to those they don\u2019t know intimately. But over time, as coconuts get to know you, they become gradually warmer and friendlier. And while relationships are built up slowly, they also tend to last longer\u2026.<ref>Erin Meyer. [https://multiculturalmeanderings.com/tag/erin-meyer/ One Reason Cross-Cultural Small Talk Is So Tricky \u2013 Harvard Business Review].</ref>\n\nIf you enter a room in Moscow (or Belgrade, Prague, or even Munich or Stockholm) and find a group of solemn-looking managers who make no effort to chat, do not take this as a sign that the culture does not value relationship building. On the contrary, it is through building a warm personal connection over time that your coconut-culture counterparts will become trusting, loyal partners.<ref>The Culture Map - Erin Meyer</ref>\n\nThe culture map - Erin Meyer (excerpt about Russia):\n\n<gallery>\nFile:The culture map - Erin Meyer (excerpt about Russia)-5.png\nFile:The culture map - Erin Meyer (excerpt about Russia)-1.png\nFile:The culture map - Erin Meyer (excerpt about Russia)-2.png\nFile:The culture map - Erin Meyer (excerpt about Russia)-3.png\nFile:The culture map - Erin Meyer (excerpt about Russia)-4.png\n</gallery>\n\n== Americans expect total honesty in marriage==\n[Duplicate]\n\nThe ideal of total honesty that is professed in many American marriages is alien to the Russian mentality. Muriel and Joyce were surprised that their Russian husbands did not tell them about their former girlfriends, and did not want to hear about their wives' previous experiences. \"Those things are private,\" Sergei explained. \"If you're married and you're attracted to someone else, you keep it to yourself. Otherwise you only hurt your spouse's feelings.\" Muriel's arguments about honesty got nowhere. \"I'm not going to tell you what I do outside the house,\" Sergei retorted. \"All this blathering Americans think is honesty only winds up offending everyone.\"<ref name=\"wedded\"/>\n\n== Americans talk a lot about Mental health - revealing every secret == \n\nThe American infatuation with \"professional help\" and \"mental health\" puts most Russians off. Russians do not like to engage in detailed analysis of their feelings towards each other with their spouse or lover. Russians believe that people should solve problems and conflicts on their own, or with help from friends. A Russian journalist was surprised by the widespread role of therapists in the United States. \"And I want to emphasize a specific trait-the aspiration of Americans to total candor. To unveil everything secret, to talk through everything.\" For Russians, true intimacy lies in the silence of a couple who understand each other by a look or a gesture. As a matter of fact, the American penchant for self-analysis and \"letting it all hang out\" strikes Russians as mostly superficial: when it comes to a real opening up, '''Russians find Americans quite closed.'''<ref name=\"wedded\"/>\n\n== Common courtesies == \n===Americans find Russian rude because they hardly ever say please or thank you===\nTheir American friends found Sergei and Pyotr rude because they hardly ever said \"please\" and \"thank you.\" In Russian, polite requests are expressed primarily through a rise and fall in intonation, or through expressions such as \"be so kind.\" Sergei was very polite in Russian, but \"Give me this\" or \"Pass the bread\" sounded extremely rude to Muriel's American friends. \n\nNor do Russians use a pen to say thank you. One Russian bride had to be pushed by her American mother-in-law to write thank you notes for the wedding gifts. \"Russians don't write them,\" she said in exasperation.''\n\nFyodor was offended when people he had just met addressed him by his first name. So were Boris's Russian friends when Mary C. addressed them by their first names instead of by the first name and patronymic. \"I can't remember everybody's father's name!\" she wailed. \"It's hard enough remembering all the first names in this impossible language!\"<ref name=\"wedded\"/>\n\n=== Smiling === \n\nGestures and body language can also cause misunderstandings. For an American a smile on being introduced signals pleasure at making a new acquaintance, and a willingness to engage in conversation. Russians do not smile on meeting people. \n\nWhen Carol first introduced her husband Fyodor to scientists who could be professionally helpful, his face was locked in a scowl. \"Why should I smile at someone I don't know?\" he asked her. \"I'm not a clown. If I'm ready for a serious conversation I have to look serious.\" In Russia a smile on meeting a stranger may be interpreted as a sign that the person is not serious about the upcoming talk, or that he has a hidden agenda under a superficial and hypocritical smile. Carol explained to Fyodor that his refusal to smile made colleagues think he was being cold and unfriendly. \n\nAs an American professor of Russian observed, Russians are accustomed to using an unsmiling expression as a barrier between themselves and the outside world: The Russians' lack of personal space at home in their apartments, on public transportation or on the job causes them to erect their personal space boundaries next to their skin. Therefore it is common for Russians to have deadpan or frozen expressions on their faces. We tend to perceive this as unfriendly and it may ruffle our feathers.\"<ref name=\"wedded\"/>\n\n;Three likely explanations for Russians not smiling:\n\nPeople in different cultures communicate with one another. Different cultures have different \u201cdisplay rules,\u201d or norms that dictate how individuals should express themselves.\n\nDisplay rules are often governed by something called \u201csocial distance,\u201d which refers to the expectation of privacy in a given culture. Studies have found that in Russia, [https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19409419.2016.1262208 social distance is lower relative to the U.S.], meaning that people generally expect to be approached by strangers and there\u2019s more mutual understanding. There\u2019s less pressure to display a positive emotion like smiling to signal friendliness or openness, because it\u2019s generally assumed you\u2019re already on the same wavelength.\n\nWhen there\u2019s greater social distance, there\u2019s more wiggle room to get into trouble during a chance encounter. Because Americans expect a modicum of privacy even when out in public, strangers approach one another less frequently. When it does happen, it can be anxiety-inducing.\n\nSo when approaching a stranger, a smile can grease the social wheels of the interaction and help the other person feel at ease.<ref>Samuel Putnam, June 27, 2018, [http://theconversation.com/why-are-russians-so-stingy-with-their-smiles-98799 Why are Russians so stingy with their smiles?].</ref>\n\nCountries with lots of immigration have historically relied more on nonverbal communication. Thus, people there might smile more. Emotional expressiveness was correlated with diversity. In other words, when there are a lot of immigrants around, you might have to smile more to build trust and cooperation, since you don\u2019t all speak the same language.\n\nIn countries that are more uniform, people were more likely to smile to show they were superior to one another.<ref>[https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/05/why-americans-smile-so-much/524967/ Why Americans Smile So Much]</ref>\n\n\ud83d\ude00\ud83d\ude00\ud83d\ude00\ud83d\ude00\ud83d\ude00\nRussians smile less because they used to be slaves.(seefdom)\n\ud83d\ude10\ud83d\ude10\ud83d\ude10\ud83d\ude10\n\n== Gesturing == \n\nRussians tend to gesture far more than Americans. Muriel thought Sergei was upset when he waved his arm or hammered his fist on the table, but this was merely nonverbal punctuation. Pyotr's habit of shaking his index finger at her, as though scolding a naughty child, infuriated Joyce. \"Cut it out and stop lecturing me!\" she snapped. \"I'm not lecturing you,\" he protested, surprised. \"I'm just saying be sure you lock the door when you leave.\"<ref name=\"wedded\"/>\n\n== Personal space - eye contact == \n\nMuriel had to explain to her girlfriends that when Sergei moved very close to them during a conversation, he was not making passes. He would stand eight inches away, much closer than the distance at which Americans feel comfortable: it's the Russian way. Nor was he trying to look soulfully and romantically into their eyes. \n* '''Russians are in the habit of looking directly and unblinkingly at the person they are addressing. Fred had to tell Irina not to \"stare\" at his American friends, who were uncomfortable when she concentrated her gaze on them. \n\nBody language situations are particularly tricky because the problem remains unstated; the American does not say \"You're standing so close I feel uncomfortable,\" and a Russian does not ask \"Why are you looking away from me?\"<ref name=\"wedded\"/>\n\n== Physical contact between the opposite sex == \n\nOn meeting and parting there is far more embracing, kissing and holding hands among Russians than among Americans. Carol explained to her girlfriend that Fyodor was not trying to flirt when he took her arm while escorting her to a cab after dinner; he was being a gentleman. \n\nShe, in turn, could not get used to the way the Russian wives of her American friends took her arm in the street. \n\nSergei learned not to embrace or kiss American men on meeting or parting, a friendly Russian gesture which can be drastically misinterpreted by American men.<ref name=\"wedded\"/>\n\n== Conversational style == \n===Russians talk in lengthy, uninterrupted monologues===\nThen there are differences in conversational style. Russians tend to talk in lengthy, uninterrupted monologues, and find the American style of short answers and repartee brusque and rude. Americans normally talk about their activities and experiences what they have done, where they have gone, whom they have seen. For Russians, anything and everything is grist for the mill: people, ideas, politics, books, movies. \"They can even analyze a borshch,\" Muriel commented, \"as though it were a theoretical problem, like the existence of God.\"\n\n===Americans get straight to the point===\nWhen answering a question, Americans get straight to the point. Russians tend to go back to the beginning of time. \"Every time someone asks Fyodor how he likes America, all he has to do is say 'fine,\"' Carol sighed. \"Instead out comes a doctoral thesis on the history of the United States and what's wrong with the country.\" \"When my aunt asked Pyotr how his mother was, he gave her the woman's entire medical history,\" Joyce said. \n\n* '''The Russian feels it is discourteous to give a short answer. \n* '''The American resents being held captive to a long monologue. \n* '''Americans feel that simplicity and brevity are the soul of wit and wisdom. \n* '''For Russians, a valuable idea is a complex idea. \n\nMuriel phoned a friend for some information and spent only a minute or two on pleasantries before getting down to business. In Moscow there would first have been a long conversation about the family, the weather, and so on. Starting off with a request, or responding with \"What can I do for you?\" would be rude.\n\nTo American spouses and friends, the endless Russian stories that are a staple of Russian gettogethers can be boring and pompous. Americans like to save time and get to the point. The Russian prefers to go around in circles, lacing his speech with literary, mythological or historical allusions. As the cultural anthropologist Edward Hall noted, \n\n*'''\"Americans are often uncomfortable with indirectness . . . Most Americans keep their social conversations light, rather than engaging in serious, intellectual or philosophical discussions, a trait which especially bothers Europeans.\"\n\n\"I'm wasting my time with your friends,\" Sergei grumbled at Muriel. \"I keep trying to tell them something interesting, and they sit there fidgeting and interrupting.\"\n\n===Years of living in fear of the secret police make Russians hesitant to state their ideas explicitly===\n*'''Years of living in fear of the secret police make Russians hesitant to state their ideas explicitly, and they often seek a veiled or subtle way of conveying a thought. If the listener is intelligent, he should understand what is meant, and it is insulting to spoonfeed him. \n*'''For the American, speaking intelligently means speaking directly and clearly. \n\n\"I feel like they're talking in code,\" Joyce complained of Pyotr and his friends. \"Why can't they just say what they mean?\" Many Russians see their [American] mates as childish and unsophisticated.' \"I can see my American friends' eyes glaze over when Sergei gets going on one of his half-hour philosophical diatribes,\" Muriel said. \"That just convinces him even more of how superior he and his friends are to all of us.\"<ref name=\"wedded\"/>\n\n= Section 2: SEX = \nRussians have a glaring contrast between a kind of puritanism that avoids the slightest mention of sex and a tolerance for obscene jokes and language that shocks even sophisticated Westerners. \n\nA recent survey of sexual activity in fifteen countries shows Americans as the most active nationality, engaging in sex 135 times per year, with Russians in second place with 133 acts annually. \n\nWhen Joyce told Pyotr that she was getting up from bed to insert her diaphragm he was shocked. \"That female stuff-go do it and don't talk about it!\" he snapped. He insisted that she always jump up and \"wash\" immediately after sex since, like many Russian men, he was convinced that \"washing\" was an effective means of contraception-and besides, he felt that after sex a woman was \"dirty.\" Joyce would have much preferred to fall asleep in his arms, but he saw her reluctance as yet another proof of her poor hygiene. \n\nRussian mothers rarely talk about sex or contraception to their daughters, and, even though most Russian doctors are women, many young women are too embarrassed to speak to them. \n\nSeventy per cent of Soviet women say they have never experienced orgasm.\" Partly this is because many Russian men don't know, or don't care, what satisfies a woman, but another common reason is the fear of pregnancy and a widespread belief that female orgasm increases chances of conception. \n\nIn Russia talking about sex - which many Americans take for granted-was for perverts and prostitutes. '''This silence appears to have been a blessing for many American men, tired of being told what to do during every minute of lovemaking.''' Unless he were hurting her, a Russian would be horrified by his wife's telling him she did not like what he was doing, and would be even more shocked were she to tell him what he should do. One Muscovite whose marriage ended in divorce was repelled by his American wife's behavior. '''\"She was unbelievably aggressive in bed,\" he recalled. \"Always telling me what she liked and what she didn't, put my hand here and my tongue there, trying to program me as though I were a computer. And she never shut up. It was like being at a horizontal seminar, not like making love.\" '''\n\nIn Russia, a woman who initiates sex is considered extremely forward. It is the man who calls the shots. Even though Muriel had to get up early, Sergei insisted on having sex whenever he wanted, even at five in the morning after an all-night drinking bout. A man does not expect his initiatives to be rejected. \"\n\nDespite this \"chauvinist\" attitude, Russians can seem very romantic to American women who have talked themselves hoarse about sex inside and outside the bedroom. apart from vulgar \"men's language\" there is no \"erotic language\" in Russian, and that the language barely has the linguistic tools with which to talk about sex. \"Even married couples,\" writes Kon, \"find themselves in terrible straits because they have no acceptable words to express their specific desires or explain their problems, even to each other.\"\n\nSince Russian women have been brought up to think that displaying an interest in sex is indecent, many never dared say anything if a man ignored foreplay.<ref name=\"wedded\"/>\n\n==Section 3: Abortion==\n* During Soviet times \"women terminated seven pregnancies on average during their lifetimes.\"<ref>[https://www.rferl.org/a/Abortion_Remains_Top_Birth_Control_Option_Russia/1145849.html Abortion Remains Top Birth-Control Option In Russia], ''Radio Free Europe'', (June 28, 2008).</ref>\n* Women have, on average, five abortions in their lifetime, two of which are illegal.<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=YNY8NqdsA6UC&pg=PA185 The Sociocultural and Political Aspects of Abortion: Global Perspectives]</ref>\n* Lifetime abortions per woman: Average number of abortions a Russian woman has during her reproductive years. \n**1990: 3.0, \n**2006: 1.2, \n**2010: 1.0.<ref>[https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/global/publications/surveys/russia/russia-survey-2011-infographic.pdf Russian Survey Highlights-Results of the 2011 Russian], ''CDC'', (2011).</ref>\n* 10 percent of women who undergo [abortion] are left sterile. According to U.S. demographer Murray Feshbach, two of every three pregnancies in Russia end in abortion, and women, on average, have six to eight abortions during their lifetime; at least 80 percent of all women have a pathology (abnormality) during pregnancy; and only 30 percent of all children are born healthy.<ref>Yale Richmond, (2003) From Nyet to Da: Understanding the New Russia.<br>\nSource: Feshbach, in a talk at the Kennan Institute, Washington, DC, November 1, 1994, and in a conversation with the author.</ref>\n* In 1920.... the Soviet Union became the first state in the world to legalize abortion... (it was banned once before \u2014 for a 20-year period beginning with Josef Stalin in 1936)...official figures show almost 930,000 women terminate a pregnancy each year. That number is half of what it was in 1995, and one seventh what it was for the Soviet Union in 1965, when abortions nearly tripled the number of births.<ref>[http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/10/03/putins-next-target-is-russias-abortion-culture/ Putin\u2019s Next Target Is Russia\u2019s Abortion Culture], ''Foreign Policy'', (October 3, 2017).</ref>\n* [http://factsanddetails.com/russia/People_and_Life/sub9_2a/entry-4995.html Birth control and abortion in Russia]\n\n== Section 4: Fidelity - Adultery - Russians cheat A LOT, Americans act like puritans == \n\nAttitudes towards sexual fidelity also differ. In Russia, the shortage of men provides considerable opportunities for short and long-term affairs, and for '''Russian men infidelity is the rule rather than the exception'''. Since men are at a premium, a wife may have to put up with her husband's having a permanent mistress and even an out-of-wedlock child. Such a \"second family\" is quite common, and a man is not criticized for it; in fact, he may be praised for keeping both women happy by not abandoning either of them. \n\nA Russian woman will not be criticized for leaving a husband who beats her or who is an inveterate drunkard, but male adultery is not assumed to be automatic grounds for the wife's walking out. \n\nA man is expected to be discrete, and to spare his wife's feelings by keeping his dalliances from her.<ref name=\"wedded\"/>\n\nExtramarital sex, both casual and long-term, is quite common; more than three quarters of the people surveyed had extramarital contacts in 1989, whereas in 1969, the figure was less than half. But public opinion is critical of extramarital sex. In a 1992 survey only 23 percent agreed that it is okay to have a lover as well as a husband or wife, while 50 percent disagreed. Extramarital affairs seem to be morally more acceptable for men than for women.<ref name=\"facts\"/>\n\nDuring the Soviet Union, \u201cSex was the last thing they couldn\u2019t take away from us, and that\u2019s why we did it so much. Everyone had affairs with everyone. Moscow was the most erotic city in the world.\u201d\n\nOne REASON there\u2019s so much adultery in Russia is that there are so few men. Since the 1980s the average life expectancy for Russian men has fallen from sixty-five to fifty-eight. They die of alcoholism, cigarettes, job injuries, and car accidents. By the time men and women reach sixty-five there are just 46 Russian men left for every 100 women (compared with 72 men for every 100 women of that age in the United States).\n\nThese skewed demographics infect romance. In Moscow I have lunch with a well-off single woman in her forties who tells me that if she didn\u2019t go out with married men she\u2019d have almost no one to date. In fact, she doesn\u2019t know any single women who don\u2019t date married men. And none of them try to hide this. For Russian women in their thirties and forties, let alone older ones, a man who isn\u2019t married or an alcoholic is as rare as a Faberge egg.\n\nWoman \"need to accept [men cheating], because he feeds her, her children, everybody. She needs a strong man, but a strong man can leave for one or two nights.\u201d\n\nEighteen-year-old Katya is tall and skinny, with a pageboy haircut and a precocious command of English. She\u2019s animated and confident, especially when describing what she wants in a husband: someone who doesn\u2019t drink or beat her. She says she\u2019ll be lucky if she finds someone like this. She\u2019s just a few years shy of marrying age. Though she has the occasional fling, there are no significant prospects on the horizon. Boys her age are \u201cvery cruel, and they drink.\u201d The few serious ones are more focused on their careers than on relationships, and there\u2019s a lot of competition for them. \u201cFor me, of course I would like my husband to be faithful, and I will do the same, but I don\u2019t know, it depends on the situation. But if we have a good relationship as family partners, we have children, then if he has someone on the side, I have someone on the side, it\u2019s okay, so that the child will grow up in a family with both parents.\u201d\n\nIn the Russian edition of Cosmopolitan, Russia\u2019s bestselling magazine, is running a primer for women on how to hide their lovers from their husbands.\n\nOutside Russia\u2019s big cities some husbands don\u2019t even bother hiding their affairs.\n\nRussians, like Americans, seem to believe that married people shouldn\u2019t keep secrets from each other. But whereas in America that presupposes a harmless emotional openness and intimacy, in Russia it often means exposing harsh truths about affairs.\n\nIf there\u2019s a 50 percent affair rate for men, then presumably the other half of men don\u2019t cheat. So where are these missing men? I can\u2019t find them. The whole time I\u2019m in Moscow, I don\u2019t meet a single person who admits to being monogamous.<ref name=\"lust\">Druckerman, Pamela, (2008). Lust in Translation: Infidelity from Tokyo to Tennessee. Penguin Books</ref>\n\nIn Moscow, women in their forties told me that, by necessity, they only date married men. That's because, since the life expectancy for Russian men has fallen so sharply (to 59) that by age 65 there are just 46 men left for every 100 women.\n\nAnd it was clear that Russian men flaunted this demographic advantage. With the exception of a pastor (who was sitting with his wife at the time), I didn't meet a single married man in Russia who admitted to being monogamous.\n\nA family psychologist whom I had intended to interview as an \"expert\" boasted about her own extramarital relationships and insisted that given Russia's endemic alcoholism, violent crime, and tiny apartments, affairs are \"obligatory.\"<ref name=\"lust2\">Druckerman, Pamela, (2008). Lust in Translation: Infidelity from Tokyo to Tennessee. Penguin Books Found in [https://www.alternet.org/story/81022/lust_in_translation%3A_which_country_has_the_highest_rates_of_infidelity ''Lust in Translation: Which Country Has the Highest Rates of Infidelity? Infidelity is universal. But which country boasts the most cheaters?''] (2008). Alternet. </ref>\n\n=== Soviet policies which encouraged adultery ===\n''From the book The Whisperers: Private Life in Stalin's Russia''\n\nThe Bolsheviks also intervened more directly in domestic life. The new Code on Marriage and the Family (1918) established a legislative framework that clearly aimed to facilitate the breakdown of the traditional family. It removed the influence of the Church from marriage and divorce, making both a process of simple registration with the state. It granted the same legal rights to de facto marriages (couples living together) as it gave to legal marriages. The Code turned divorce from a luxury for the rich to something that was easy and affordable for all. The result was a huge increase in casual marriages and the highest rate of divorce in the world \u2013 three times higher than in France or Germany and twenty-six times higher than in England by 1926 \u2013 as the collapse of the Christianpatriarchal order and the chaos of the revolutionary years loosened sexual morals along with family and communal ties. 13 \n\nIn the early years of Soviet power, family breakdown was so common among revolutionary activists that it almost constituted an occupational hazard. Casual relationships were practically the norm in Bolshevik circles during the Civil War, when any comrade could be sent at a moment\u2019s notice to some distant sector of the front. Such relaxed attitudes remained common throughout the 1920s, as Party activists and their young emulators in the Komsomol (Communist Youth League) were taught to put their commitment to the proletariat before romantic love or family. Sexual promiscuity was more pronounced in the Party\u2019s youthful ranks than among Soviet youth in general. Many Bolsheviks regarded sexual licence as a form of liberation from bourgeois moral conventions and as a sign of \u2018Soviet modernity\u2019. Some even advocated promiscuity as a way to counteract the formation of coupling relationships that separated lovers from the collective and detracted from their loyalty to the Party. 14 \n\nIt was a commonplace that the Bolshevik made a bad husband and father because the demands of the Party took him away from the home. \u2018We Communists don\u2019t know our own families,\u2019 remarked one Moscow Bolshevik. \u2018You leave early and come home late. You seldom see your wife and almost never see your children.\u2019 At Party congresses, where the issue was discussed throughout the 1920s, it was recognized that Bolsheviks were far more likely than non-Party husbands to abandon wives and families, and that this had much to do with the primacy of Party loyalties over sexual fidelity. But in fact the problem of absent wives and mothers was almost as acute in Party circles, as indeed it was in the broader circles of the Soviet intelligentsia, where most women were involved in the public sphere. 15\n\n===Khrushchev administration policies encourages infidelity ===\nFor decades in the Soviet Union had been trying, and failing, to recover from the catastrophic population loss caused by the Second World War and the Gulag extermination system. The thrust of the population policies initiated by Khrushchev was to get as many women as possible to have children by the comparatively few surviving men. The policies dictated that men who fathered children out of wedlock would not be held responsible for child support but the state would help the single mother both with financial subsidies and with childcare: she could even leave the child at an orphanage for any length of time, as many times as she needed, without forfeiting her parental rights. The state endeavored to remove any stigma associated with resorting to the help of orphanages, or with single motherhood and having children out of wedlock. Women could put down a fictitious man as the father on the child\u2019s birth certificate\u2014or even name the actual father, without his having to fear being burdened with responsibility. \u201cThe new project was designed to encourage both men and women to have non-conjugal sexual relationships that would result in procreation,\u201d writes historian Mie Nakachi.<ref>Masha Gessen, (2017). The Future Is History: How Totalitarianism Reclaimed Russia.</ref>\n\n=== Russians are willing to cheat more than 24 other countries ===\nBy 1998, a study showed that Russian men and women led their peers in 24 other countries in their willingness to engage in and approve of extramarital affairs. Faithfulness in marriage is seen as something that is nice but unrealistic. If women don't really expect it of their husbands, they can pre-empt feelings of shock and betrayal.<ref name=\"slate\">Julia Ioffe, [http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2010/12/the_cheating_cheaters_of_moscow.html The Cheating Cheaters of Moscow How infidelity has become accepted and even expected in Russia.], (2010), ''Slate''.</ref>\n\n= Section 3: Privacy - There is no word for privacy in Russian =\n'''There is no word for privacy in the Russian language.'''* <u>''(See also \"smiling\")''</u>\n\nA husband married to an American was accustomed to Russia where living in a two-room apartment with his parents, grandfather and sister, he was able to ignore Muriel's telephone conversations, the television and the clatter of pots and pans. \n\n\"It's as though he builds an invisible wall around himself,\" Muriel said. \"Their language doesn't even have a word for privacy, and in Russia there was so little of it that they simply create their personal space out of nothing.\"\n\nAmericans do not give up their \"personal space\" lightly. Mary C. refused to have the living room in her St. Petersburg apartment double as a bedroom, and insisted on making the smaller room, which Boris wanted as a study, into the bedroom.\n\nMany Russians don't understand why two people, even if they plan to have children, would need four or six rooms.<ref name=\"wedded\"/>\n\n= Section 4: Home life=\n== Housework ==\nMost wives in Russia [wind] up doing all the shopping, cooking, and cleaning. Even if a Russian wife works, the man looks on himself as the breadwinner and on her as responsible for the housework and child care. \n\nRussian men...are thrown off by the unwillingness of \"liberated\" American women to take on the role of homemaker.<ref name=\"wedded\">Excerpts from Visson, Lynn. (2001). [https://drive.google.com/open?id=1CDl6XAzwnzLoQUjqLUyVwTUICk8c0b8N Wedded Strangers: The Challenges of Russian-American Marriages]'' FULL BOOK. </ref>\n\n\n== Household furnishings == \n\nGelsey Kirkland found Baryshnikov's austerely furnished country house heavy, dark and oppressive, but he loved the place because it reminded him of Russia.' The Oswalds' first house in America was shabbily furnished and decrepit, but Marina was enchanted by the privacy and space.' Even a woman as sophisticated as Raissa Gorbachev was amazed by the spaciousness of the home of the American family with whom she had tea during her visit to the United States, and by the fact that each of the four children had his own bedroom.'\n\nWhen everything is available, Russians can become incredibly demanding. Nothing but the best will do. A new house or apartment is treated as a home for life, for in Russia if you were lucky enough to find a nice place to live, moving again was furthest from your thoughts. When Carol and Fyodor wanted to buy an apartment they saw at least eighty places before Fyodor was satisfied. The rooms were too small or the lobby was unattractive, or there was no view. When it comes to wallpaper, furniture, and china, the Russian spouse is likely to opt for the most colorful, extravagant, and expensive items.\n\nThe memory of hundreds of virtually identical Soviet interiors is engraved on Russians' minds. The standard set of glossy dark wood furniture, a couch doubling as a bed, a rug hanging on the wall, glass-enclosed bookcases, a large television set and a sideboard with china and crystal-all this is transferred like a decal to the new American home. Svetlana could not imagine doing without a hall with a large mirror for the ritual hair-combing that takes place the minute a Russian enters, or a rack for the boots and shoes that are exchanged for slippers when coming in from snowy streets.\n\n\"Mary keeps saying Russian furniture is gloomy,\" Boris complained. \"But I don't really like that rug that looks as if it's from the Museum of Modern Art.\" \"I didn't want the place to look like a Russian souvenir store,\" Joyce recalled. \"Pyotr had all these clumsy wooden figures and nesting dolls, and cheap reproductions of Impressionist landscapes.<ref name=\"wedded\"/>\n\n== Clothing - appearance == \n\nCarol could not make Fyodor wear a tie-which, like so many Russian men, he detested-to anything other than a wedding or a funeral.\n\nIn Russia men often wear boxer shorts and tank top undershirts at home, but Carol could not stand Fyodor's sitting around the house in his underwear. Many American wives were surprised to discover that undershirts and boxer shorts doubled for their husbands as night clothes, since men's pajamas are virtually nonexistent in Russia.\n\nNor do most Russian men use deodorant or change their underwear. Several Russian women commented that they had originally been attracted to their American spouses because they were so incredibly \"clean\" compared to Russians.\n\nRussian women spend hours primping in front of the mirror, styling their hair and freshening their makeup.\n\nToday much has changed, but high prices mean that many Russians still have relatively few clothes. Laundry and dry cleaning facilities are still poor, expensive and inconveniently located, and Americans are often surprised to see their Russian business associates wearing the same clothes day after day\n\nWhen the laundry lost an old and ragged undershirt, Pyotr was convinced that this cherished piece of clothing had been deliberately stolen.\n\nRussians often find American women badly dressed. \"With all the stores bursting with clothes, they run around in torn jeans and Tshirts with those silly advertisements on them!\" Svetlana exclaimed. \"I don't understand them.\"\n\nRegardless of the pressures of housework, jobs and standing in line, Russian men expect their wives to be well groomed, their hair perfectly set, their nails manicured and polished. \n\n\u201cAll you American females yapping about liberation, always in a rush-you look as if you came off the garbage heap! No wonder you couldn't find an American husband!\"\n\nFyodor could not understand why Carol refused to paint her toenails bright red the way many Russian women do. \"It makes me look like a whore,\" she said.<ref name=\"wedded\"/>\n\n== Walking barefoot and sitting on the floor == \n\nSergei and Pyotr disliked their wives' habits of kicking off their shoes, walking around barefoot, and sitting on the floor. Aside from being \"unaesthetic,\" walking barefoot meant catching cold, and sitting on the floor was guaranteed to produce all kinds of feminine pelvic problems alluded to in somber whispers.<ref name=\"wedded\"/>\n\n== Table manners == \n\nAt dinner the Russians did not wait for the hostess to start eating before diving in.<ref name=\"wedded\"/>\n\n\n\n== Perceptions of time: Russians are always late == \n\nBeing late seems to be part of the Russian makeup. The anthropologist Edward Hall has described two types of time, monochronous and polychronous, each true for one culture but not for another. The United States goes by monochronous time, meaning that an American gives his undivided attention to one event before proceeding to the next. He takes deadlines seriously, values promptness, and attaches importance to short-term relationships. Russians basically live in polychronous time, in which a person deals simultaneously with multiple events and is very flexible about appointments. He is always ready to change his schedule at a moment's notice to accommodate a friend or relative, since he attaches more importance to long-term relationships than to shortterm ones.\n\nMuriel would make lunch appointments with magazine editors three weeks ahead. Sergei would call up a busy executive in the morning hoping to see him that afternoon. Who knew what might happen three weeks hence? Fyodor thought it was ridiculous for Carol to invite guests to dinner two weeks in advance; Carol found it odd when his Russian friends called up late Friday night to invite them to dinner the next evening. As Ronald Hingley observed, \"To the excessively time-geared Westerner, Russia still seems to operate in an atmosphere relatively emancipated from the clock.\"' Fyodor hardly ever wore a watch unless Carol reminded him that he had a very important appointment. He canceled a promising job interview because his best friend from Russia, whom he had been seeing almost every day during the man's month-long visit to America, called up that morning and said he needed to talk. If a friend or family member needs something, appointments and business commitments go by the board. Such an attitude does not go over well in American offices. Fyodor's boss threatened to fire him because of his chronic tardiness, and only an alarm clock set forty-five minutes ahead forced him to change his behavior. \n\nAmericans naturally quantify time. They will meet a friend in ten minutes, finish a project in five months, and apologize if they are more than five minutes late.\" The Russian concept of time is porous. Joyce finally figured out that when Pyotr said \"I'll be ready in an hour\" he meant two hours; \"in twenty minutes\" translated into forty-five; \"right away\" or \"immediately\" meant in fifteen minutes. The vagueness of Russian time expressions can drive American spouses crazy. \"He'll come during the second half of the day\" means anytime between 1 P.M. and 6 P.M., while \"around seven o'clock\" covers the period from 6:10 to 7:50.<ref name=\"wedded\"/>\n\n= Section 5: Russians in business =\n:'''\"Rob\" in Robota (work) is \"slave\" in Russian''\n\nRussian and ''(American)'' business cultures both:\n# both value flexible scheduling rather than organized scheduling (scale 8), \n# both accept and appreciate open disagreement (scale 7), and \n# both approach issues of trust through a relationship orientation rather than a task orientation (scale 6). \n\n\n;LEADERSHIP\n\nBut there\u2019s a '''big gap''' between the two cultures when it comes to '''leading''' (scale 4): \n# Russia favor a hierarchical approach (high power distance)\n# Americans prefer an egalitarian one (low power distance) \n\n'''Power Distance of Russia'''\n\nRussia scored incredibly high on Hofstede\u2019s scale on the Power Distance dimension, with a score of 93. This number clearly shows the difference between the people, and the inequalities between finances of the Russian population. \u201cThe huge discrepancy between the less and the more powerful people leads to a great importance of status symbols\u201d.<ref name=\"powerdistance\">\nPower Distance of Russia. (March 31, 2019). Megan Andrews. Pennsylvania State University. Quoting Hofstede, 2019. https://sites.psu.edu/global/2019/03/31/power-distance-of-russia \n\nHofstede's Cultural Dimensions Power Distance - James Madison University \n\nhttps://jmu.edu/global/isss/resources/global-campus-toolkit/files/hofstede-power.pdf\n\nWikipedia: Hofstede's cultural dimensions theory\n\nhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hofstede%27s_cultural_dimensions_theory\n</ref>\n\n\n;NEGATIVE CRITICISM\nThe Evaluating scale provides a bird\u2019s-eye view of just how direct people in different cultures are with negative criticism. \n\nMost European countries fall to the direct side of the scale, with the Russians, Dutch, and Germans tend to offer frank biting criticism.\n\nThe French, Spanish, and Russians are generally stereotyped as being '''indirect communicators''' because of their: \n\n:High-context communication style. \n:Implicit communication style. \n\n....despite the fact that the French, Spanish, and Russians give negative feedback more directly. \n\nAmericans are stereotyped as direct by most of the world, yet when they give negative feedback they are '''less direct than many European cultures'''. \n\n;Russians: \n# Often pass messages between the lines. \n:# Russians are very subtle communicators. Russians use irony and subtext. \n:# British and Americans speak transparently.\n# ...but when it comes to criticism Russians have a directness that can startle their international colleagues. \n# In Russia there is no reservation about expressing your negative criticism openly. \n# Russia is a very hierarchical culture. (The highest '''Power Distance''' in the world).\n:# If you are a boss speaking to your subordinate, you may be very frank.\n:# If you are a subordinate speaking to your boss, you had better be very diplomatic with criticism. \n# If Russians are speaking with strangers, Russians often speak very forcefully. \n:# \"Under Communism, the stranger was the enemy. We didn\u2019t know who we could trust, who would turn us in to the authorities, who would betray us. So we kept strangers at a forceful distance.\" \n# Russians are also very direct with people they are close to.\n\n;Examples: \n\n# As an American, if you are walking through the street without a jacket in Russia, little old Russian ladies may stop and chastise you for poor judgment. If you have a screaming baby on the metro or a bus, you maybe chastised to keep the baby quiet. \n# As a Russian, if you are displeased with the service in a shop or restaurant you can tell the shop assistant or waiter exactly what you think of him, his relatives, his in-laws, his habits, and his sexual bias.\n\n; Example:\n\nSandi Carlson called and said a young Russian woman named Anna Golov had recently joined her team and was upsetting a lot of people whose help she needed to get her job done. \n\n:Sandi Carlson explained: \u201cThis is the fourth Russian coordinator we have had in the group, and with three of them there were similar types of complaints about harsh criticism or what has been perceived as speaking to others inconsiderately.\u201d \n\nAnna Golov herself was in the room with me setting up the classroom checking the IT equipment which was not working properly. Golov on the phone with someone in the IT department. \n\n:\u201cI\u2019ve called IT three times this week, and every time you are slow to get here and the solution doesn\u2019t last. The solutions you have given me are entirely unacceptable.\u201d Anna Golov went on scolding the IT manager, each sentence a bit harsher than the one before.\n \nAmerican complaints about Russian staff:\n\n# They call me Mr. President \n# They defer to my opinions \n# They are reluctant to take initiative \n# They ask for my constant approval \n# They treat me like I am king\n\n;Example: \n\n:\u201cWeek two into the job, our IT director e-mailed me to outline in detail a problem we were having with the e-mail process and describing various solutions. He ended his e-mail, \u2018Mr. President, kindly explain how you would like me to handle this.\u2019 \n\nThis was the first of many such e-mails from various directors to fill my inbox. \n\n:'''All problems are pushed up, up, up, and I do my best to nudge them way back down.\u201d''' After all, as Jepsen told the IT manager, \u201cYou know the situation better than I do. You are the expert, not me.\u201d \n\nThe Russian management team were equally annoyed at American's apparent lack of competence as a leader. \n\nHere are some of the complaints they offered during focus group interviews:\n\n# He is a weak, ineffective leader. \n# He doesn\u2019t know how to manage. \n# He gave up his corner office on the top floor, suggesting to the company that our team is of no importance. \n# He is incompetent.\n\n= Section 6: Dating Marrying, Divorcing a Russian =\n==Dating==\n{|align=right\n|\n<youtube>zOJgXBwchR0</youtube>\n|-\n|The biggest fear of a Russian girl is not to be married by the age of 30.\n|}\n\n:''Excerpts from Elena Petrova, (2006) [http://www.russian-women-info.com/how-to-find-and-marry-a-Russian-girl-like-me.pdf How To Find And Marry A Girl Like Me].''\n\nRussian people marry early -- by the age of 22 more than 50% of people are already\nmarried. By the age of 25 about 80% of people are married. Since there are less\nmen than women in Russia (10 million more women of marriageable ages than men,\naccording to the latest census), and even less men who are worthy, the competition\nfor eligible men is extremely harsh. As a result, the men become spoiled and\npromiscuous.<ref name=\"girl\"/>\n\nAttractive women in Russia do get many dating offers from Russian men. But those\nmen are seeking only casual sex. They are either already married, unwilling to\ncommit, or they are not worthy of marriage because they cannot provide for a\nfamily. A normal man who has a stable job (being able to\nsolely provide for his family), is career and health conscious, and willing to commit are rare. Guys like this are scarce in\nRussia and not available for long.\n\nIn contrast, good-looking women are in abundance in Russia, since the tough\ncompetition drives women to perfect their looks.\n\nHistorically, during the 20th century, Russia has had many wars, with World War II\nalone taking 20 million lives, along with another 20 million people dying in Stalin's\nconcentration camps. Nearly 90% of those victims were men. After the war, simply\nhaving a man was a blessing. Then there was the 14-year Afghani conflict, in which\nhundreds of thousands of young Russian men died. Throughout the entire 20th\ncentury Russian women had to compete to ensure they had a husband.\nNow they've got Chechnya - since 1993, just a few years after Russian troops left\nAfghanistan.\n\nIt is scientifically proven that where there are many more women in society than\nmen, men tend to pursue short-term sexual strategies and are unwilling to commit.<ref name=\"girl\"/><ref name=\"desire\">See David M. Buss, \"The Evolution Of Desire: Strategies Of Human Mating\", where a\nresearch was run across 37 cultures.</ref>\n\nGenerally, most women\nprefer their husbands to be 5 to 10 years older than themselves, but the younger the\nwoman is, the less of an issue a wider age difference will matter to her.<ref name=\"girl\"/>\n\nMany Russian women seeking marriage abroad have advanced careers and live well\neven according to western standards. The conditions of life in a major Russian city such as\nMoscow or St. Petersburg are comparable to any European capital. The pace of life in\nMoscow is similar to the one of New York City.<ref name=\"girl\"/>\n\n===Online dating===\n* [https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/apr/06/ukraine-wife-internet-romance-industry-online-scam The men who go to Ukraine looking for a wife then fly home alone and broke], (2014). Guardian\n* BLOG/FORUM: [http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/index.php?action=forum Russian Women Discussion Forum], - related to serious long-term relationships and marriage to a partner from the Former Soviet Union countries!\n\n====Gift giving====\n[[File:russian american heart bag.jpg|right|400px]]\nA man must always bring gifts when visiting your girlfriend for the first time, and not just for her\nbut for her family as well. Gifts are very important in Russian courting etiquette.\nGifts show that the man is \"generous\". It is not only about spending money on a girl.\nGift giving shows the quality of the soul. It shows a person who is not selfish, a man\nwho enjoys giving and receiving.\n\nGiving generously, without expecting anything in return, was the traditional\nquality that was the pride of Russian character. Historically, Russians were\nalways proud of their non-materialistic nature, and this included giving generously (if\nyou had something to share). Since you are financially secure, it would be perceived\nas stinginess, if you did not make occasional gifts when dating a woman. It would\nmean that you are not generous. That you have something to share and do not\nshare it. She would think that you want everything only for yourself. In the end, she\nwould consider you selfish.<ref name=\"girl\"/>\n\n===Talking about money===\nThe biggest turn off for Russian women is when men talk about money.\nMoney talks are a big \"no-no\" in Russian courting etiquette!\n\nTalking about money in the Russian courting stage is as bad as chewing with your\nmouth open. She just cannot help feeling disgusted.\n\nBeing frugal when you are dating equals being cheap. You might accidentally say,\n\"Wow, that's expensive!\", and \"bam\", you may have just blown your\nchances. Russians call it being greedy, which translates to mean stingy.\n\nAccording to Russian courting etiquette, men should pay for everything on a date -\nand do it with a smile. Even if this means he must spend to his last ruble. \n\nIf you say that something is expensive, what your\nwoman hears is that you don't think she is worth this money! For example, if you\nsay, \"Wow, $5 for a glass of Coke, that's expensive!\"; what she hears is that you\ndon't consider her worthy of those $5!\n\nIn Russian, the meaning of the word expensive is rather absolute, it means \"I cannot\nafford to buy this item\", as opposed to the relative meaning, \"this item is\noverpriced\".\n\nSometimes, men erroneously start explaining the details of their travel arrangements\nto their woman. An example would be that they need to book tickets at least two\nmonths in advance because it is 10% less. For Russian women, this sounds cheap.\nOf course, one would assume that if she is making $100 a month, for her saving\n10% from $1,000 ticket would be equivalent to her monthly salary, which is a lot of\nmoney. But women don't think that way. They consider it relative to the size of your\nsalary. Let us say that you make $3,000 a month and move your meeting with her\noff for another two months just so you can save $100 (3% of your monthly salary).\nThis will sound completely out of sync to her. She would not care about 3% of her\nmonthly salary to meet you sooner. And since you can afford to spend that extra\n$100, you just don't really want to see her, or you just don't like her that much.\n\nPut it simpler, remember as the rule of thumb: mentioning money matters is\ntaboo in the Russian courting etiquette. You pay or you don't pay, and that's it.\nIf you don't want to pay, just tell the woman, \"No, we are not buying it\", or \"No, I\ndon't want to buy it\", but NEVER tell her you are not buying something\nbecause it is \"expensive\". If you have the money in your pocket to buy it, then it\nis NOT expensive. Otherwise, your remark is just disrespectful, nothing more,\nnothing less. If you just say, \"No, we are not buying it\", you show you are the man,\nand since it is your money you can spend it the way you want. This is perfectly\nacceptable.\n\nIf there is any problem at all in your relationship, and you tell your woman how\nmuch money you spent on her, you are signing your own death warrant in her eyes.\nThis action is an unforgivable offence. There is now no possibility of recovery, you\nhave lost her forever.\n\nNever, EVER tell the woman how much money you have spent on her. You would not\ntell such things to a western woman you have been courting, so don't do it with a\nRussian woman either, or it sounds as you were trying to buy her. No matter how\nmuch money you spent on her, she does not owe you a thing.<ref name=\"girl\"/>\n\n====Refusing an offer the first time ====\nFrom time to time, you need to ask her if she is hungry or thirsty. If she says she is\nnot but you are hungry or thirsty, most likely she is just being shy. Russian custom\ninsists that a person should refuse a kind offer the first time. It is also\nconsidered polite to refuse a second time, so offer it at least 3 times. This\nmeans, that even if she is dying of hunger and you ask her if she is hungry, she will\nanswer, \"No, I'm fine\". She will then be offended that you did not offer it again, and\nconsider you stingy. Why? Because you just jumped on the opportunity not to buy\nher something, since you did not offer it again. Therefore, your offer was not\ngenuine. If your offer was genuine, you would insist.\n\nSo, even if she says she is not hungry or thirsty, but you are, go and buy some food\nand/or drink, and ask her what she wants. Most likely she will also choose\nsomething. If she does not choose anything, suggest to buy her the same thing as\nyou are buying for yourself.\n\nIf you allowed a woman to buy something with her own money, you MUST\nreimburse her for what she bought. The woman might not accept your\nreimbursement, but you must offer it (at least 3 times!). It is a disgrace when a\nwoman pays for a man. You lose your \"manly\" image in her eyes. This is why most\nwomen will starve, but won't ask you to stop and eat something. You, as a man, are\nsupposed to offer it yourself.<ref name=\"girl\"/>\n{{-}}\n==== The man is in charge ====\nThe man may ask her suggestions, but only in the way, \"I know there is this attraction,\nwould you like to see it? Or would you like to go somewhere else?\" \n\nThe man should be the leader. Once you accept this assertive position, your personal\ncommunications will go much more smoothly with her. This might be not the style\nyou are accustomed to, but this is the style that works with Russian women.<ref name=\"girl\"/>\n\nIf you are in her home city, the woman will be looking after you, after all, you are\nher guest. She will look after you, even if she does not like you, just because you are\na guest. In Russia, every guest is precious and will be treated with the utmost\nrespect. From your side, you will be expected to agree to her suggestions, even if\nyou are not very excited about them. For example, if a woman takes you to a theme\npark, and you don't really enjoy rides, you still should go on some of the rides. You\nwill hurt her feelings if you say, \"I hate all those things\". If you don't enjoy\nsomething, you should offer a different activity, but do not reject the activity she\noffered. After all, she is making the offer with an open heart. For example, instead of\nrides you could suggest to stop at a caf\u00e9 and sit down and talk. If she suggests going\non the rides again, you could just smile and say that you enjoy talking to her more\nthan going on the rides.\n\n== Weddings in Russia (Under construction) ==\nMarriages are registered at the local Citizen's records and Licensing Bureau. No marriage ceremony is required. Couples today marry much later than they did in the Communist era. Many wait until they have good jobs, are relatively financially secure and have a decent place to live. Urban couples tend to get married later than rural couples.<ref name=\"facts\"/>\n\n==Marriage==\n90% of women are married by the time they are 30, and few had children after that age.<ref>Masha Gessen, (2017). [The Future Is History: How Totalitarianism Reclaimed Russia]</ref>\n\nWith Russians suddenly free to emigrate after the fall of the Soviet Union, foreign men offered another route to prosperity. Love was optional. An American who taught English in Moscow tells me that during a class presentation a young woman recounted how her friend Maria married an American man, had a child with him, then turned around and divorced him. In the class discussion that followed, the storyteller\u2019s classmates praised Maria for her \u201ccleverness\u201d and castigated the American husband for allowing himself to be duped.<ref name=\"lust\"/>\n\nSince it is a part of Russian culture, all Russian women want children in their\nmarriages. So, Russian women seek men who will be able to support their family while they are unable to work during the child caring years. Most women in Russia will take full care of their children through age three.\nThis tradition was inherited from the Soviet times when their work position was\npreserved for 3 years after childbirth, with fully paid maternity leave for 18 months\nand unpaid leave for an additional 18 months. Nowadays, maternity leave is not\npaid, but women believe it is proper to stay home with their baby while it is small,\nand seek men who are able to provide for their families.<ref name=\"girl\"/>\n\nBecause of the economic collapse, the institution of marriage is in a deep crisis. In 1992, there were 20 percent to 30 percent fewer new marriages concluded in Russia than in 1990. In the same period, the number of divorces has risen by 15 percent.<ref name=facts/>\n\n==Divorce in Russia ==\nIn the 1990s, approximately one marriage in three ended in divorce, with the rate increasing 20 percent in the early 1990s after the break up of the Soviet Union. About 60 percent of Russian marriages now end in divorce.<ref name=\"facts\">[http://factsanddetails.com/russia/People_and_Life/sub9_2d/entry-5011.html Marriage in Russia], ''Facts and Details''</ref>\n\n= Section 7: Soviet Mentality Muscovites and Russians =\nhttps://russiapedia.rt.com/of-russian-origin/sovok/\n\n\"Suvok\" is a dustbin and dustpan\n\n;Background\n\nIn its simplest form, \"Suvok\" means to be a Soviet Citizen.\n\nThe Soviet Union is \"\u0421\u043e\u0432\u0435\u0442\u0441\u043a\u0438\u0439 \u0421\u043e\u044e\u0437\", Sovetskiy Soyuz \"\u0421\u043e\u0432\u0435\u0442\u0441\u043a\u0438\u0439 Grajidin\" (Soviet Union) what they used to say, a lot of old Russians took pride in that. \n\nThey old mentality Russians today say: \n\n\"Look what is going on, everyone is at everyone's throats, the Ukrainians, the Kazaki, the Russians. In the former Soviet Union we were all together, we were all in one boat, maybe it wasn't all that rich, but we were all in one boat.\" \n\nThis is a classic line by the elderly. \n\nThere were two concepts that emerged from \u0421\u043e\u0432\u0435\u0442\u0441\u043a\u0438\u0439 Grajidin (Soviet Citizen).\n\nOne is the intelligentsia. This is somewhat contentious '''Homo Sovieticus''', written by dissident author Aleksandr Zinovyev. \n\nHomo Sovieticus is an effort to define a certain type of person. In the late 1920s and early 1930s Stalin said he was going to be the \"engineer of human souls\" to justify the deaths of millions. In large part he was successful. Stalin created a certain type of man. \n\nLater on with a touch of bitter humor, Homo Sovieticus came to be known in a wider circle outside of the intelligentsia as \"Subor\" - which is a potter. \n\nSubor was a group of people united with one goal, a collective mentality wrapped around a particular idea of a Soviet citizen. Troskti said \"we will all be in the dustbin of history\" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ash_heap_of_history\n\n;Suvok leadership personalities today\n\nSuvok are heartless Muscovites. \n\nThey will never say, \n* I am sorry, \n* they will never admit they are wrong.\n...They can't because it is a sign of weakness.\n\n*They don't smile. Because there is nothing to smile about. \n\n* '''Endless suspicion'''. There is the sense that nothing is what it seems. You have to keep digging until you find out where the person's '''real''' interest is. \n\n;Reasons behind the Suvok mentality\nThis suspicious mentality is understandable because most of the Soviet period everyone was against everyone. A Soviet citizen couldn't say anything in front of your children because they would blurt it out in school and that would be at best 25 years in the Gulag.\n\n== Russian's superiority complex (under construction) ==\nThis is the quote from Yezhenedelny Zhurnal that\ninterviewed Alexander Golts, a top-ranked Russian military specialist (in connection\nwith a failed launch of two intercontinental missiles): \"All Russians, have a\nsuperiority complex, that we're still equal to the United States\".<ref name=\"girl\">Elena Petrova, (2006) [http://www.russian-women-info.com/how-to-find-and-marry-a-Russian-girl-like-me.pdf How To Find And Marry A Girl Like Me].</ref>\n\n= Section 8: Further differences between Americans and Russians =\n>>>>> At what age does an American leave his parental home?\n\nIn America, 69% of young adults move out of their parents' home when they turn 18. Many go to college.\n \nThere are a couple of reasons why Americans move out from their parents' home.\n\nFirst, there is a huge social stigma especially for men who stay at home. In dating relationship, women think they are a person who cannot support themselves. \n\nAmerica has the highest individuality of any country. On a scale of 1 to 100, Russians are rated at 43 for individualism whereas Americans are rated as 91. Young adults feel like there is freedom from moving away from home, that their parents are stifling them. They can make their own rules. Many move from home to apartments and dorms. \n\n>>>>> When did you move from your parental home?\n\nI moved from my parent's house when I was 18. I was very excited to be free and be able to make my own rules. I went immediately to college and lived in an apartment with other students.\n\n>>>>> How many times does an American move in his life?\n\nAmerica is one of the most geographically mobile countries in the world. The average American moves once every 5 years, more than 11 times in a lifetime. As a result community connections are weaker. American friendships are non-committal compared to Russian friendships. Russian friendships are all encompassing, involve mutual sacrifices and are more intimate. \n\n>>>>> What is the reason for Americans move so much?\n\nThe biggest reason Americans move is for work. The average U.S. employee works for a company for 4 years, compared to 10 years in the European Union.\n\nThe last move that Americans have is to an assisted living facility or nursing home. It is common that pensioners are put in nursing homes by their children instead of living with them. Only 10% of pensioners live with their children. \n\nIt is incredibly easy to move in America. You can rent a truck for $20 for one hour. You can rent a large two bedroom van which anyone can drive for a few hundred dollars. \n\nWhat is so different in America is how most apartments are completely unfurnished. Whereas here apartments are like museums. With old items from previous tenants.\n\n>>>>> What states did you live in? \n\nI have lived in around 15 different cities and 6 states. I grew up in rural Idaho. I have lived in Mormon Utah, desert California, and beautiful Oregon. I earned my Law diploma in Latino Texas. I lived in Maryland just outside of the country capital, Washington city in a gentrified black neighborhood with a lot of crime.\n\n>>>>> Does everyone have a house, an apartment in the property? How does this relate to rental housing?\n\n65% of all Americans own a home. Unlike Russia, Apartments are usually only for renting. Houses are much bigger in America than in Russia and Europe. New American homes in America are twice as large as houses in Europe and Japan. \n\nHomes have 30 year mortgages. \n\nWhat I miss most about America is there is only one key and one door to get into my house. It is very complicated all the steps that a person must take to leave and enter their apartment in Moscow.\n\n>>>>> What does an American smile mean? <<\n\nThe American smile is habitual. In jobs, Americans are required to smile. More smiles means happier customers means more money for the owner. \n\n\"social distance\" is the amount of privacy expected in a culture. Americans have a high social distance. Whereas Russians do not even have a word for privacy. Russians are much more collectivist than individualistic Americans. In cultures that prize individualism, there is no predetermined social links. In these cultures people smile more because they need to build social relationships. Russian rely more on mutual understanding. Therefore, Russians express their emotions and attitudes more freely and don't feel like they have to smile.\n\nMy ex-wife was asked at her first job interview for \"KFC\" if she would try to be a friend with her customers. She said no, because she thought it was a stupid question. She did not get the job. This is partly because Americans ideas of \"friends\" is very low. They call someone friend very quickly. \n\n>>> What could be hidden behind a smile? <<<\n\nFor the average American, there is nothing behind the American smile. It is a habitual form of communication. \n\nAmericans have a term called \"PASSIVE AGGRESSIVE\" \u041f\u0430\u0441\u0441\u0438\u0432\u043d\u043e-\u0430\u0433\u0440\u0435\u0441\u0441\u0438\u0432\u043d\u043e\u0435 \u043f\u043e\u0432\u0435\u0434\u0435\u043d\u0438\u0435 \u2013 people from the capital of America, where I worked for 8 years \u2013 are very \u041f\u0430\u0441\u0441\u0438\u0432\u043d\u043e-\u0430\u0433\u0440\u0435\u0441\u0441\u0438\u0432\u043d\u043e\u0435. They will smile as they stab you in the back. \n\n[TAKE OUT] You have to remember, When you meet an American in Moscow, these are not average Americans. Americans in Russia are more wealthy Americans. They tend to be from the wealthiest coastal cities. Just like Moscow people are much different than the average Russian, an American in Moscow is not like an average American. [TAKE OUT]\n\nAUTOMOBILES AND OBESITY \n88% of Americans have a car, second in the world only to Italy. Outside of New York which has a metro, the sidewalks are very empty because everyone drives. The average person drives 30 minutes to work. It is nearly impossible to get around without a car. The distances between cities is very very big Only the very poor do not drive. This lack of exercise means that Americans are very fat. In addition 37% of Americans eat fast food every day. As a result of this 40% of Americans are obese. . \n\n\n>>> Is it true that in the USA you can buy a very inexpensive used car? <<<\n\nYes. Cars are significantly cheaper in America because of fewer taxes. \n\nPeople can get used cars on credit also. \n\nI had a Russian friend from Moscow who bought a car in New York for $1000 and traveled across America with the car. He kept it for a year.\n\n>>> But how much will its service in a car service cost? <<<\n\nYou can buy a bad car in America also.\nBut in America laws are enforced more strictly in Russia so many of the illegal things that people do when selling cars happens less. \n\n>>> What does a personal car mean in American life?\n\nThe car is seen as freedom in America. \nIt is an economic necessity for the majority of Americans.\n\n>>>> How does the number of cars affect the look of cities?\n\nFor Americans, aesthetics is must less important than Russians. America is a new country with newer buildings with no history, which are torn down easily. This means that there are wider streets and large highways through cities.\n\n>>> Where do Americans go on vacation?\n\nAmericans overwhelmingly go on vacation in America. Because of this, Americans are very ignorant of the rest of the world. 64% of Americans have no passport. Sociologist Seymour Martin Lipset stated \u201cTo know one country is to know none\" \u2013 so Americans have no way to contrast their country with others. Part of the reason is America is so diverse and enormous. \n\nAmericans don\u2019t take as much time off as Europeans and Russians from work. 25% of Americans don\u2019t have any paid time off. 41% of Americans who have paid vacation days don't use them. Vacations are not a big part of Americans mentality. \n\nFor example, when I was working for the federal government, I never took time off, because I was able to cash in my vacation time at the end of the year for more money.\n\n>>> How do they travel?\n\nThe majority travel by car or plane. Buses are only for the very poor. Trains are very uncommon and not used very much at all. The highways between cities in America are very large and in good condition.\n\n>>>> How do national immigrants live in the USA?\n\nImmigrants in America are treated well. Americans care most if a person can make money, not where they are from. Money is very important to Americans. The racism in America is much less than in Russia.\n\n>>> Are there any unwritten laws in those territories where Latinos, Chinese and other peoples live?\n\nNo.\n\n\n>>> Do all Americans have a passport?\n\nThere is no internal passport in America. People usually use their drivers license as identification from every state. \n\n>>> Which country do Americans consider the best in the world and why?\n\nOther than America, Americans really love Europe. If there is one place an American wants to visit, it is Europe. This is because of the shared history that Americans have with Europe. \nAmericans definitely feel like America is the best country in the world. They feel that anyone can work hard and become rich (which is untrue) they feel like America is the \"land of opportunity\"\n\n>>> What is the American dream?\n\nThe American dream is to own your own house and two cars. To have a better standard of living than your parents did. Most Americans believe that America is the best country in the world, despite never being in another country. America is the second most patriotic country in the world after Thailand. \n\nAmerican soft power and propaganda is the best in the world, at least 20 years ahead of Russia. I have always wondered why there is an American dream, but why Russia has never developed a Russian dream. \n\nAmericans are very patriotic. At the beginning of sporting events all audience members and in elementary school every morning children stand up and put their hand on their heart and pledge allegiance to the American flag. When I first moved to America with my ex-wife she said it reminded her of German fascist movies. \n\n>>> Are there any things that you are used to in the USA and which you lack in Russia?\n\nStrong landlord laws that protect renters.\n\nRussians are very different from Americans. I grew up in rural America, which has few people come to Russia. I miss being able to really talk to people and have them understand me. There is a cadence in speech which you never have with a Russian. A shared understanding of culture that is unsaid but understood. \n\nA good postal system. Russia's postal system is terrible. A good postal system allows for Amazon.com, a very popular website in America. In America huge numbers of people buy everything they want online and have it shipped to their homes, in one to two days. It is very convenient. You can return anything within a month and get your money back if you don't like it. Moscow has couriers instead. \n\nMexican food. There are many Latinos in America and so there are American versions of Mexican food.\n\nFewer stairs.\n\n>>> Some differences between Americans & Russians? <<<\n\nAmericans are more willing to take risks. This is partly because of the ease of moving to another location and starting over. Americans are more tolerant of failure. Russians are more risk averse. \n\nBecause of the unstable history of Russia, as late as the 1990s, Russians are more careful with their money. They are less philanthropic. They hoard. They have a castle mentality \u2013 afraid that someone can take what they have. There is the Russian saying \"don't bring your regulation to another monastery\".\n\nAMERICANS ARE PEACHES AND RUSSIANS ARE COCONUTS.\n\nIn America, friendliness does not equal friendship. \n\nCultures like Americans and Brazilains:\n\n1.\tThey smile frequently at strangers,\n2.\tmove quickly to first-name usage,\n3.\tshare information about themselves, and\n4.\task personal questions of those they hardly know\n\nBut after a little friendly interaction with a peach person, you may suddenly get to the hard shell of the pit where the peach protects his real self. \n\nIn coconut cultures such Russia and Germany, people are initially more closed off from those they don\u2019t have friendships with. They rarely smile at strangers, ask casual acquaintances personal questions, or offer personal information to those they don\u2019t know intimately. But over time, as coconuts get to know you, they become gradually warmer and friendlier. And while relationships are built up slowly, they also tend to last longer\u2026\n\nAMERICANS ARE MORE DIRECT\n\nIn general, Americans are very direct. Whereas Russians focus more on nonverbal behavior. There is very little subtly in what Americans say. I called Muscovites sneaky and my Russian/American friend corrected this as Russians being subtle. \n\nRussians talk in long uninterrupted monologues. \n\nAMERICANS ARE LAW ABIDING\nAmericans follow the rules and follow the law. There are two reasons for this. American laws are strictly enforced and Americans are religious, 80% of Americans believe in God. Because of the religious beliefs and weaker relationships, Americans are willing to snitch on each other. \n\nAMERICAN COMMON COURTESIES \n\nAmericans say please and thank you much more than Russians. \n\nOTHER DIFFERENCES\n1.\tFreedom to say what you want. You are more free to express yourself in Russia on social issues such as race gender and sexual preference. \n2.\tAmericans don't believe that breezes in the winter can cause someone to be sick. (This caused huge arguments with my Russian ex-wife)\n3.\tUnlike Russia, in American romantic relationships Americans expect total honesty. Americans will share about their past romantic relationships with others. \n4.\tAmericans wear shoes in the house. \n5.\tMany homes are fully carpeted in all rooms except the kitchen and bathroom. \n6.\tAmericans are infatuated with \"professional help\" and \"mental health\". Americans love to engage in detailed analysis of their feelings towards each other with their spouse or lover. Many Americans have therapists. \n7.\tAmerican men do housework along with women.\n8.\tAmericans don't commit adultery as much as Russians. \n\n>>> Why did you decide to leave the USA? <<<\n\nInternationally the United States is the most violent country in the world today. Since the end of World War 2, the United States has conservatively killed 6 million people, the same number of Jews that Hitler killed in the Holocaust. By living in America with its high standard of living I was benefiting from this violence. Americans are willfully ignorant of what their country does overseas. As Martin Luther King said, The greatest purveyor of violence in the world today: my own government. I cannot be silent. For 30 years I have attempted to find a career which speaks out against such international violence. I came to Russia because I have a voice here and Russians support my viewpoint. My visa expired in July, afraid to be prosecuted for the state and federal material that I brought to Russia, I applied for temporary refuge status from the United States, which is still pending. \n\n>>> Other information <<<\n\nFRIENDSHIPS IN AMERICA TEND TO BE MORE SHALLOW THEN IN RUSSIA.\nRussians help out their friends much more than Americans. Russians are more willing to lend money for example. \n\nWomen are very independent and feminism is very strong in America. It is common for women not to wear makeup (only 41% of women wear makeup every day). Unlike American television and movies, Americans dress really badly compared to Russians. Women don't need men to support them which make them more independent. Family ties are not as deep. People in individualistic countries like America tend to smile more. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19409419.2016.1262208 My Russian friends complain about how their children come to America and are very rude as pre-teen and teenagers. 84% of American teenagers have a smartphone.\n\n\nIn the past ten years political correctness is very strong and therefore freedom of speech is threatened. People cannot share how they really feel about different races, genders, people's appearances or age. \n\nGENERIC NEIGHBORHOODS\nUnlike Russia, the standard of living in America is similar everywhere. Whereas in Moscow people have a higher level of living like Europe, but in the Russian village they are very poor. Like Aschan and Leroy Merlin here in Moscow, there are \"big box\" stores throughout the country, in every city. This means that every city looks the same. Russia has unique small stores owned by local people, whereas America has much less.\n\n= My first year in Russia: One American's random observations about life in Moscow =\n[[Russians/Old]]\n\n= Youtube: Why Russia is better than America - Why people are moving to Russia =\n'''Why Russia is better than America'''\n\nThe next thing reason why Russia is better than America going to shock you - freedom. Do we have more freedom in Russia than you do in America? Do you have the freedom of speech saying that you don't want to serve the gay person, do you have the freedom to say what you feel about dating and women? Do you have the freedom to share how you feel about many of the deep culture war issues in America? There is no political correctness in Russia. There are no *snowflakes*. Freedom of speech is quite restricted in America. Come to Russia and see for yourself.\n\nSnowflake (slang):\nhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowflake_(slang)\n\n{|class=wikitable\n|<youtube>fknB1msANV8</youtube>\n|-\n|'''Why Russia is better than America'''\n* Healthcare is free in Russia \n* Russia is the country that has their highest rate in literacy\n* Holidays - Russia is entitled to 28 calendar days - American people they don't travel they don't have even days off. Americans would tell us that they hadn't had a day off for vacation for ten years \n* Very traditional Christian values\n* We have more freedom in Russia than you do in America! More freedom of speech. \n|}\n{{-}}\n\n{| class=wikitable\n|<youtube>BMSJgF9BECs</youtube>\n|-\n|'''Why people are moving to Russia'''\n\nRussia has been the mystery for a lot of people - for a century or so it was closed for a while and nobody could visit it and now it is open. it is completely different for many European countries \n\nIt is very difficult to live in this country for a normal American person or a European you are deprived from a lot of things\n\nRussia are conservatives about everything the young still believe in God \n\nRussian women in their beauty and they take care of themselves very well and they are very feminine feminism hasn't penetrated our country \n\nCultural heritage \n\n|}\n\n= Culture differences matter=\nExcerpt from ''The Culture Map'':by Erin Meyer\n\nOne reader commented, \u201cSpeaking of cultural differences leads us to stereotype and therefore put individuals in boxes with \u2018general traits.\u2019 Instead of talking about culture, it is important to judge people as individuals, not just products of their environment.\u201d\n\nAt first, this argument sounds valid, even enlightened. Of course individuals, no matter their cultural origins, have varied personality traits. So why not just approach all people with an interest in getting to know them personally, and proceed from there? Unfortunately, this point of view has kept thousands of people from learning what they need to know to meet their objectives. If you go into every interaction assuming that culture doesn\u2019t matter, your default mechanism will be to view others through your own cultural lens and to judge or misjudge them accordingly. Ignore culture, and you can\u2019t help but conclude, \u201cChen doesn\u2019t speak up\u2014obviously he doesn\u2019t have anything to say! His lack of preparation is ruining this training program!\u201d Or perhaps, \u201cJake told me everything was great in our performance review, when really he was unhappy with my work\u2014he is a sneaky, dishonest, incompetent boss!\u201d\n\nYes, every individual is different. And yes, when you work with people from other cultures, you shouldn\u2019t make assumptions about individual traits based on where a person comes from. But this doesn\u2019t mean learning about cultural contexts is unnecessary. If your business success relies on your ability to work successfully with people from around the world, you need to have an appreciation for cultural differences as well as respect for individual differences. Both are essential. As if this complexity weren\u2019t enough, cultural and individual differences are often wrapped up with differences among organizations, industries, professions, and other groups. \n\nBut even in the most complex situations, understanding how cultural differences affect the mix may help you discover a new approach. Cultural patterns of behavior and belief frequently impact our perceptions (what we see), cognitions (what we think), and actions (what we do).\n\n=Further Reading=\n* Guardian Moscow week https://www.theguardian.com/cities/series/guardian-moscow-week\n* 28 stereotypes about Russia: Which ring true and which are complete rubbish? RBTH.COM\n* Greenwald: 'I Came to Russia to Combat US\u2019 Toxic View on the Country'\n* Michael Bohm - American, fluent in Russian. Journalist. \n** [https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/russia-television-talk-shows-smooth-putins-way-from-crisis-to-crisis/2015/12/12/a151fa5a-6c4b-11e5-91eb-27ad15c2b723_story.html?utm_term=.10f51ee38ecc Russia\u2019s TV talk shows smooth Putin\u2019s way from crisis to crisis]\n** David Filipov - [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/03/23/this-is-what-its-like-to-be-the-token-american-journalist-on-russian-state-tv/?utm_term=.f199f2668ae6 This is what it\u2019s like to be the token American journalist on Russian state TV]\n\n* Pravda Report: [http://www.pravdareport.com/news/russia/36195-n/ Russian Mentality: Uncertainty and Fatalism]\n* Pravda Report: [http://www.pravdareport.com/russia/6889-production/ Secret recipe for Russia] - Almost 90% of Russians consider that quality of the imported goods goes down as the industry moves to Russia. \n\n* [https://escholarship.org/uc/item/2hk0c69s Cultural factors and the international space station] \n\n* IMDB [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0710992/ The Storyteller (1987\u2013 ) The Soldier and Death]\n\n\n\n** FRONTLINE PBS Published on Oct 25, 2017: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kk9igTqTx9s The Putin Files: Masha Gessen]\n** [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FrwMrPIHOIw Fast Food in the USSR: The History]\n** [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgYv0dW-Hos Why I Hate Russian TV]\n\n* [http://akarlin.com/2010/05/a-short-guide-to-the-top-10-russia-blogs/ Top 10 Russian blogs]\n\n\n\n====Vladimir Pozner: How the United States Created Vladimir Putin====\n<youtube>8X7Ng75e5gQ</youtube>\n\n==== Russian inventions that changed the world ====\n<youtube>VIyxp3UHjpM</youtube>\n\n===Wikipedia articles I wrote ===\n* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Putin_Country (Book)\n* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Vladimir_Schneiderov Vladimir Schneiderov was a Soviet era film director targeted by the KGB for alleged anti Soviet statements. \n* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medvedev_Doctrine\n* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_city\n\n=Notes=\n<references/>\n\n=Further Reading (General Culture Communication Books) =\n* [[:File:Intercultural Business Communication - Robert Gibson.pdf]]\n* [[:File:Defining Culture and Idenities (Chapter 1).pdf]]\n\n\n{{Template:Header}}"
}
]
}
]
}
}