North Korea

[Grig]

Would you like to know the facts, I do history at a tertiary level here, so I will provide to you the fact of why Russia became a superpower. America's concern of this 'superpower' status that we are both debating about is the continuing buildup of Soviet naval and air forces, ground forces in Europe, and strategic nuclear weapons has reactivated concern about Moscow's intentions. The Kremlin's expansion of its influence through military advisers, arms, and friendship treaties that frequently contain a mutual security provision has been even more disturbing. In 1975, Soviet Union and Cuban forces played a decisive role in the Angolan conflict and then proceeded to aid Ethiopia against Somalia and the Eritrean Liberation Front. Afghanistan made a defensive alliance with Moscow as did Vietnam, which relied on the Kremlin for arms to carry out its smashing victory in 1975 as well as more recent wars with Cambodia and China. The political resurgence of the French and Italian Communist parties, the collapse of the Shah's regime and the ensuing turmoil in Iran, and South Yemen's attacks on Yemen with Soviet arms and advisers have all intensified American concern about the Soviet Union's objectives. Yes, I will not deny that the war led to the Soviet Union becoming a superpower, however, it did very much so become a superpower and was until Khruschev and Brezhnev, then it went to a steady state of decline when Gorbachev tried to blend Socialism with Capitalism in his policies of prestroika and glasnost. All in all, one may argue, including a Soviet historian Michael McCauley that it was in reality the allowance of more freedom that let to the downful, it is the failure OF CPAITLISM and NOT some sort of after effect of Communism that echoes how poorly Russia is doing today.

As for your Stalin comment, I stand by it. He was indeed a mad man, but he was an effective totalitarian dictator. Why did he kill Trotsky with an ice pick? Simple, because Trotsky was a threat to him, he needed to consolodate power and as one of the 'big 3' dictators of that era it often resulted to brutal techniques. Sure, I am not saying he was all high and mighty and did what was right. For example, Stalin launched a reign of terror know as The Great Purge, that increased his power but did no benefit to his people. This was followed by a failure of agricultural policies etc. It is clear that Stalin alone wouldn't be the man who transformed the USSR, there was a large complex interplay of factors.

As for China and it's economy, yes you are right it is not that of a Socialist strucutre, but it cannot operate in that at the moment, it has to be open up for investment, in order for it to suceed, hence I agree that a Capitalist based economy is working well for China. China had an economic transition and this transition, which took place in a chaotic manner in Eastern Europe and the USSR during the 1990s, proceeded in a much more gradual process in China, in the context of strong economic growth and under the total control of the one-party system. In fact the Chinese bureaucracy drew some lessons from the experience of the USSR and it had already started introducing elements of a market economy before the collapse of the Berlin wall.

As for the fact that you think I'm slamming Capitalism I'm not, I am just proving to you that some of the facts you provide are looked through one view with the fact that Socialism is not a complete fail, or else America would have had no need to go to a Cold War with Russia, nor would people like Truman have the need to present his 'rotten apple' analogy of it's spread.

Now if you take a reality check here, yes both myself and my family are Russian. However, many people, including my Grandfather who was a diplomat became far worse off when Socialism crumbled in 1991 under Boris Yeltsin. It opened up corruption and there grew a rank of the very rich, such as for example, the gentleman who owns Chelsea FC and others of the likes. Then the majority of the people became poor. It was social, political and economic chaos in the initial years. At the moment Russia is not Socialist nor is it in any way Capitalist, it is simply a totalitarian dictatorship of Vladimir Putin. This is NOT BECAUSE of the hinderance the country recieved from a Socialist regime, nor a statement that Capitalism isn't working. It is just showing that in Russia, true Capitalism has yet been introduced, as the government now may I say is pretty Stalinist.

So to conclude my point, I disagree that Socialism is some sort of crappy regime that does not work. It had a lot of its positives. Capitalism does work, however not in all countries and not under all situtation i.e. look at the bank bailouts in the US economic crisis etc. There are flaws in both, yet it also depends to what extent leaders are following the regime. Furthermore, I am sure the US would not have been so good economically had it not been saved by the government, that my friend is Socialism.

From your reply I can see you do not read history, because you bring up the USSR being a superpower in such simple terms. I'll define it clearly for you then why the Soviet Union became a superpower and I can tell you now that it wasnt because it was socialist - anyway; after WW2 the British Empire was feeble and weak, brought down by the costs of a world war. Meanwhile the USSR occupied half of Europe, developed an atomic bomb and gained a seat on the United Nations Security Council for being a victor. The poverty caused by WW2 turned people to socialism, because it is only when there is nothing else left that people turn to socialism which is far from the reality of the second Russian revolution where it was only a minority (the Soviets) who took power, not the people.

Stalin killed people to stop corruption? - am I actually seeing this right now that someone on Habbox Forum is actually defending a mad-man who killed more than Adolf Hitler and who was clearly and totally insane. The man killed the educated who were a threat to the communist regime because the very fact they were educated, he stamped out opposition and sent the KGB to go after Trotsky in Mexico who ended up with a pick axe in his head. The very fact Stalin sent the KGB after Trotsky on the other side of the world I think shows how much of a deluded pyschopath he was.

I find it distasteful to those who died at the hands of Stalin and the USSR regime how you can even defend him killing these people, there was no justification in the killing of these people and he only removed people because of the simpe fact he was paranoid. Did he not kill something like 97/98 of the Generals leaving only one general left alive, himself?

To stop the communists taking over which would of ment more influence in the world for the Soviet Union, infact had it not been for the British and Americans the city in which you now live would be under communuism and wouldn't resemble the high-tech modern city it is now, it would be a complete and utter dump just like most of Russia is now (because of it being held back for a period of around 70 years under communism).

Talking about going around the world to protect your idealogy/establish it, is that why the Soviet Union also was doing the same in Korea through China, Vietnam through China and Cuba which nearly resulted in the end of the world?

China is nowhere near socialist economically. Infact it was only since the founder of socialism in China (Mao Zedong) died and the new era of Chinese leadership came in that China has grown. There is a quote by one member of the Chinese leadership (Deng Xiaoping) who had internal wars with Mao who said "No matter if it is a white cat or a black cat; as long as it can catch mice, it is a good cat." - meaning that is economic prosperity is to be achieved it doesnt matter how you do it, aslong as you get it aka via capitalism.

Of course capitalism isnt flawless, but capitalism needs a downturn to survive and continue and as does any economic system. Let us look at it in simple terms, Habbo Hotel. A rare can not keep on rising forever and they dont, eventually what goes up always comes down. Each time it goes back up, the standards are raised higher (aka living standards in the real world).

I find it incredibly interesting how you live in one of the most capitalist and beautiful cities in the world based on that very system where you are far luckier than those in countries which has been ravaged by socialism, yet still seem to have some crazy notion that socialism is fantastic and capitalism is bad.

You/your family is Russian is it not and one member of your family was a Russian diplomat? - which again shows how far your family would of been removed from the realities of Soviet Russia. Russia is still a hard place to live, granted. But that is only because socialism has held it and Eastern Europe back by a period of 60 odd years.

[Black_Apalachi]

I haven't finished watching this guide yet but it's incredibly inaccurate so far, I've spent a lot of time in the past year researching North Korea and most of what he's said is just exaggerated to make it seem more dangerous and interesting.

Anyone can visit North Korea for starters, Americans are banned most the time however they allowed in once a year when NK is holding the Mass Games. Many american tourists go then.

Are you talking about the British one or the American one when you say it's inaccurate?

[Jordy]

Would you like to know the facts, I do history at a tertiary level here, so I will provide to you the fact of why Russia became a superpower. America's concern of this 'superpower' status that we are both debating about is the continuing buildup of Soviet naval and air forces, ground forces in Europe, and strategic nuclear weapons has reactivated concern about Moscow's intentions. The Kremlin's expansion of its influence through military advisers, arms, and friendship treaties that frequently contain a mutual security provision has been even more disturbing. In 1975, Soviet Union and Cuban forces played a decisive role in the Angolan conflict and then proceeded to aid Ethiopia against Somalia and the Eritrean Liberation Front. Afghanistan made a defensive alliance with Moscow as did Vietnam, which relied on the Kremlin for arms to carry out its smashing victory in 1975 as well as more recent wars with Cambodia and China. The political resurgence of the French and Italian Communist parties, the collapse of the Shah's regime and the ensuing turmoil in Iran, and South Yemen's attacks on Yemen with Soviet arms and advisers have all intensified American concern about the Soviet Union's objectives. Yes, I will not deny that the war led to the Soviet Union becoming a superpower, however, it did very much so become a superpower and was until Khruschev and Brezhnev, then it went to a steady state of decline when Gorbachev tried to blend Socialism with Capitalism in his policies of prestroika and glasnost. All in all, one may argue, including a Soviet historian Michael McCauley that it was in reality the allowance of more freedom that let to the downful, it is the failure OF CPAITLISM and NOT some sort of after effect of Communism that echoes how poorly Russia is doing today.

As for your Stalin comment, I stand by it. He was indeed a mad man, but he was an effective totalitarian dictator. Why did he kill Trotsky with an ice pick? Simple, because Trotsky was a threat to him, he needed to consolodate power and as one of the 'big 3' dictators of that era it often resulted to brutal techniques. Sure, I am not saying he was all high and mighty and did what was right. For example, Stalin launched a reign of terror know as The Great Purge, that increased his power but did no benefit to his people. This was followed by a failure of agricultural policies etc. It is clear that Stalin alone wouldn't be the man who transformed the USSR, there was a large complex interplay of factors.

As for China and it's economy, yes you are right it is not that of a Socialist strucutre, but it cannot operate in that at the moment, it has to be open up for investment, in order for it to suceed, hence I agree that a Capitalist based economy is working well for China. China had an economic transition and this transition, which took place in a chaotic manner in Eastern Europe and the USSR during the 1990s, proceeded in a much more gradual process in China, in the context of strong economic growth and under the total control of the one-party system. In fact the Chinese bureaucracy drew some lessons from the experience of the USSR and it had already started introducing elements of a market economy before the collapse of the Berlin wall.

As for the fact that you think I'm slamming Capitalism I'm not, I am just proving to you that some of the facts you provide are looked through one view with the fact that Socialism is not a complete fail, or else America would have had no need to go to a Cold War with Russia, nor would people like Truman have the need to present his 'rotten apple' analogy of it's spread.

Now if you take a reality check here, yes both myself and my family are Russian. However, many people, including my Grandfather who was a diplomat became far worse off when Socialism crumbled in 1991 under Boris Yeltsin. It opened up corruption and there grew a rank of the very rich, such as for example, the gentleman who owns Chelsea FC and others of the likes. Then the majority of the people became poor. It was social, political and economic chaos in the initial years. At the moment Russia is not Socialist nor is it in any way Capitalist, it is simply a totalitarian dictatorship of Vladimir Putin. This is NOT BECAUSE of the hinderance the country recieved from a Socialist regime, nor a statement that Capitalism isn't working. It is just showing that in Russia, true Capitalism has yet been introduced, as the government now may I say is pretty Stalinist.

So to conclude my point, I disagree that Socialism is some sort of crappy regime that does not work. It had a lot of its positives. Capitalism does work, however not in all countries and not under all situtation i.e. look at the bank bailouts in the US economic crisis etc. There are flaws in both, yet it also depends to what extent leaders are following the regime. Furthermore, I am sure the US would not have been so good economically had it not been saved by the government, that my friend is Socialism.

You've let yourself down big time. Copying and pasting large chunks of texts from the US Air Forces website without using any quotation marks or giving credit? That would imply you were passing it off as your own? To be honest I thought better of you.

http://copyscape.com/view.php?o=8777...=60&c=&i=1&r=1

The stuff in pink is the copied bit.

I shan't be taking any of your posts seriously from now on, especially after that muddled up post anyway.

Are you talking about the British one or the American one when you say it's inaccurate?

The American one, I haven't watched the British one yet. The American one was very inaccurate, mostly exaggerated nonsense, he either knows very little about North Korea or is just making a hideously inaccurate film on the country.

Above all he was very rude in North Korea, pissing people off continually and pushing the boundaries at every opportunity. He chose to go there so he should respect their culture and their people, there's absolutely no need to go about it like that, it's not even the peoples fault. You don't have to agree with anything they do, but at least go along with it and let the people watching decide.

[Grig]

Do I care, I was point out facts, whether copied or not the facts remain largely the same. The chronological analogy was to prove it, and does it look like I even care whether you do or do not. This whole thread has become a dscriminatory to people's veliefs where you are taking an idiotic view of lookig at things through rose tinted spectacles and not doing something that is comparative.

That is the worst someone could have, as you cannot do a one sided argument without this. I have ackknowledged the fact that Socialism isn't perfect, neither is Capitalism and by god damn far it isn't.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Would you like to know the facts, I do history at a tertiary level here, so I will provide to you the fact of why Russia became a superpower. America's concern of this 'superpower' status that we are both debating about is the continuing buildup of Soviet naval and air forces, ground forces in Europe, and strategic nuclear weapons has reactivated concern about Moscow's intentions.

LOL!!

I just said all of that and now according to Jordy, you've copied and pasted this stuff without even giving it credit in any attempt to pass it off as your own. In conclusion, you dont know what you are even talking about.

The Kremlin's expansion of its influence through military advisers, arms, and friendship treaties that frequently contain a mutual security provision has been even more disturbing. In 1975, Soviet Union and Cuban forces played a decisive role in the Angolan conflict and then proceeded to aid Ethiopia against Somalia and the Eritrean Liberation Front. Afghanistan made a defensive alliance with Moscow as did Vietnam, which relied on the Kremlin for arms to carry out its smashing victory in 1975 as well as more recent wars with Cambodia and China. The political resurgence of the French and Italian Communist parties, the collapse of the Shah's regime and the ensuing turmoil in Iran, and South Yemen's attacks on Yemen with Soviet arms and advisers have all intensified American concern about the Soviet Union's objectives.

I just said about Afghanistan being supplied by the Soviet Union, in the same way that North Korea was supplied by Moscow via the Peoples Republic of China. Instead of actually copying and pasting stuff like this, you'd know they are known as 'phoney wars'; Korea, Afhganistan, Vietnam and so forth.

Yes, I will not deny that the war led to the Soviet Union becoming a superpower, however, it did very much so become a superpower and was until Khruschev and Brezhnev, then it went to a steady state of decline when Gorbachev tried to blend Socialism with Capitalism in his policies of prestroika and glasnost. All in all, one may argue, including a Soviet historian Michael McCauley that it was in reality the allowance of more freedom that let to the downful, it is the failure OF CPAITLISM and NOT some sort of after effect of Communism that echoes how poorly Russia is doing today.

So what are you saying, that thanks to Gorbechev introducing better economic reforms which actually allowed the heavily in-debted USSR to carry on for a few more years the people are worse off? - strange really, because I dont rememeber any mass-famines under Gorbachev and after him, do you?

The USSR became a superpower instantly after WW2, with the race to Berlin and the Berlin Blockade signaling it. So yes, the results of WW2 allowed the Soviet Union to become the superpower it was but all was not to last, because the very reason it fell was because like all socialist countries it was buying what it could not afford. The USSR was already in economic turmoil throughout its life, but when Ronald Reagan was elected US President in the 1980s it was the death knell for the failed USSR; Reagan increased military spending so the USSR followed even though it could not handle such amounts of debts, and thus it collapsed.

As for your Stalin comment, I stand by it. He was indeed a mad man, but he was an effective totalitarian dictator. Why did he kill Trotsky with an ice pick? Simple, because Trotsky was a threat to him, he needed to consolodate power and as one of the 'big 3' dictators of that era it often resulted to brutal techniques. Sure, I am not saying he was all high and mighty and did what was right. For example, Stalin launched a reign of terror know as The Great Purge, that increased his power but did no benefit to his people. This was followed by a failure of agricultural policies etc. It is clear that Stalin alone wouldn't be the man who transformed the USSR, there was a large complex interplay of factors.

So what did Stalin transform the USSR into? - a state with half of its military generals dead, a state with millions in gulags in the USSR for committing no crimes, ethnic removal and a state with no opposition because they were all dead. I mentioned the Great Purge, again you seem to streamroll on ignoring what I have said and actually including what I have said which is rather strange.

As for China and it's economy, yes you are right it is not that of a Socialist strucutre, but it cannot operate in that at the moment, it has to be open up for investment, in order for it to suceed, hence I agree that a Capitalist based economy is working well for China. China had an economic transition and this transition, which took place in a chaotic manner in Eastern Europe and the USSR during the 1990s, proceeded in a much more gradual process in China, in the context of strong economic growth and under the total control of the one-party system. In fact the Chinese bureaucracy drew some lessons from the experience of the USSR and it had already started introducing elements of a market economy before the collapse of the Berlin wall.

It can never operate as a socialist/stalinist economy, it was tried under Mao but failed. I dont know how many more examples you'd like of how socialism fails and only brings mass poverty and starvation, but again; China has embraced capitalism in its economy and now they are benefitting massively from it.

Yes, the Chinese did introduce reform in the 1980s under Deng whom I mentioned and you just ignored, hence why they didnt want to end up the way the Soviet Union did with its failed economy. It was either to continue down the socialist road or the capitalist road - they chose capitalism and hence why their economy is experiencing staggering growth.

As for the fact that you think I'm slamming Capitalism I'm not, I am just proving to you that some of the facts you provide are looked through one view with the fact that Socialism is not a complete fail, or else America would have had no need to go to a Cold War with Russia, nor would people like Truman have the need to present his 'rotten apple' analogy of it's spread.

So what successful examples of a socialist state can you provide me with? - because so far you've provided none.

Now if you take a reality check here, yes both myself and my family are Russian. However, many people, including my Grandfather who was a diplomat became far worse off when Socialism crumbled in 1991 under Boris Yeltsin. It opened up corruption and there grew a rank of the very rich, such as for example, the gentleman who owns Chelsea FC and others of the likes. Then the majority of the people became poor. It was social, political and economic chaos in the initial years. At the moment Russia is not Socialist nor is it in any way Capitalist, it is simply a totalitarian dictatorship of Vladimir Putin. This is NOT BECAUSE of the hinderance the country recieved from a Socialist regime, nor a statement that Capitalism isn't working. It is just showing that in Russia, true Capitalism has yet been introduced, as the government now may I say is pretty Stalinist.

Do you know why you become worse off? - because your family was under the government, you never experienced what the normal Russian and Eastern European people did because you were living the high-life in Russia. When the USSR collapsed, so did that life which had built up around your family and its given the illusion that somehow socialism was great to live under to you. The fact that Russia is still so far behind serves as a testament to the failures of its socialist past.

Russia is not a dictatorship, Putin was elected and Russia is very capitalist now. It will take a long time for Russia to succeed as its socialist past has ruined what could of possibly been a powerful country - instead it chose to waste it away on weapons which it could not even afford.

So to conclude my point, I disagree that Socialism is some sort of crappy regime that does not work. It had a lot of its positives. Capitalism does work, however not in all countries and not under all situtation i.e. look at the bank bailouts in the US economic crisis etc. There are flaws in both, yet it also depends to what extent leaders are following the regime. Furthermore, I am sure the US would not have been so good economically had it not been saved by the government, that my friend is Socialism.

Come on then, some examples of some great socialist states please because i'm sure me and Jordy cannot wait to hear them (and dont copy and paste this time!) - yes the US saved the banks, and it was totally un-capitalist to do so and in reality, it would of been good if those banks would of collapsed on their own. However the money and size of them and the impact to the economy could not have been sustained by the US economy which is heavily in debt.

[Grig]

China, is one. It is not Capitalist no matter how you look at it.

Russia is corrput, Putin was elected fairly yes, but now he has the whole of Russia in his hands and murdered so many of his critics, an example being journalist Anna Politkovskaya. We know Putin will seek out power in the next presidential election. He put a dummy in his place. Medvedev. THE FACT RUSSIA IS NOT CAPITALIST is a well known fact.

The USSR not being a superpower didn't last is because Gorbchev came and he was very weak, he stated opening the ciunt up and that is when it collapsed. He banned alcohol sales as an example and with this came great public anger. He allowed people to critisize him. This again with glasnost, that exact policy led to Yeltsin being able to manipulate him.

It was not the fact that Socialism didn't work in the USSR, it was the very weak leadership under Gorbachev that led to the collapse.

[-:Undertaker:-]

China, is one. It is not Capitalist no matter how you look at it.

China is socially communist/socialist yes, not economically.

Russia is corrput, Putin was elected fairly yes, but now he has the whole of Russia in his hands and murdered so many of his critics, an example being journalist Anna Politkovskaya. We know Putin will seek out power in the next presidential election. He put a dummy in his place. Medvedev. THE FACT RUSSIA IS NOT CAPITALIST is a well known fact.

Theres no evidence of that being the case, on Medvedev that does not show that it is corrupt as Medvedev was elected as President of the Russian Federation by the Russian people who appear to be supportive of Putin because he is instilling some national pride back into the Russian people, just as Margaret Thatcher of the United Kingdom did for the British people.

Russia is very capitalist, it sold off any assets in the 90s and now you have very large gas companies with the olleygarks in control of them. It is pure capitalism, and although Russia remains in a state it will recover given time.

The USSR not being a superpower didn't last is because Gorbchev came and he was very weak, he stated opening the ciunt up and that is when it collapsed. He banned alcohol sales as an example and with this came great public anger. He allowed people to critisize him. This again with glasnost, that exact policy led to Yeltsin being able to manipulate him.

The USSR collapsed because its economy was ruined, Gorbechev came too late and the fact that once capitalism sets in people want freedom and elections is shown by its collapse. The Eastern European people and the Russian people rose up against their Soviet oppressors and brought down the Berlin Wall, along with splitting the whole rotten thing up.

It was not the fact that Socialism didn't work in the USSR, it was the very weak leadership under Gorbachev that led to the collapse.[/QUOTE]

[Grig]

ARE you kidding? It has been a fix, reported by so many inetrnational news agencies with evidence of vote rigging from observers. Putin will be back in power and will continue to drive the country down with his main aim of personal gain. Putin is the prime minister not for this national pride bull **** that you speak of, but for the fact that he is power hungry and is almost like a totalitarian dictator. To say it's free and fair now it's complete and utter rubbish. If you go out there and speak YOUR opinion against Putin too much, you will be murdered, and I wil just laugh because of the sheer amount of power hunger that this man posses.

As for the fact you say it was economy. It wasn't! The economy was doing fine under Khruschev, it started to fall under Adropov and Brezhnev. Gorbachev overall had very weak leadership, you can'y suddenlyt decide to open a Socialist country up

[-:Undertaker:-]

ARE you kidding? It has been a fix, reported by so many inetrnational news agencies with evidence of vote rigging from observers. Putin will be back in power and will continue to drive the country down with his main aim of personal gain. Putin is the prime minister not for this national pride bull **** that you speak of, but for the fact that he is power hungry and is almost like a totalitarian dictator. To say it's free and fair now it's complete and utter rubbish. If you go out there and speak YOUR opinion against Putin too much, you will be murdered, and I wil just laugh because of the sheer amount of power hunger that this man posses.

As for the fact you say it was economy. It wasn't! The economy was doing fine under Khruschev, it started to fall under Adropov and Brezhnev. Gorbachev overall had very weak leadership, you can'y suddenlyt decide to open a Socialist country up

The party of Putin was elected fairly and often gains the overwhelming support of the public, all the photoshoots that Putin does is propaganda, but its not done by a unpopular President. You may not like it, you may not agree with him - he won the election by far over the second party and Medvedev himself stayed ahead in the opinion polls throughout 2008, and he came out with 70% on election day. If he had indeed fixed the elections and did not have much support, the Russian people simply would of rebelled along with the opposition parties. There is immense support for Putin putting national pride back into Russia, hence why everyone is behind him when he stands up to the US and NATO.

On killings/opposition, yes governments are dirty but until something is really proven then I do not believe that. It is just like Dr David Kelly in the United Kingdom, very strong feelings to suggest he was murdered by the government. The economy was not doing good under Khruschev, yeah maybe it wasnt as bad as under other leaders but the Russian people were still immensely poor compare to the American people, British people and the western world.

Didnt the fabulous Soviet Union only have two cars which barely could drive anyway?; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaporozhets - I remember that Top Gear very well and i'm no avid car fan, so after 70 odd years of fantastic socialism, the USSR came up with a limited selection of cars which were basically crap and dangerous to drive.

My history teacher had family I think in the Soviet Union, they had to wait something like 15 years for a car to be delievered and even then, you couldnt even choose the paint job - you just got a colour and that was that. As I said earlier, your family was far removed from the realities of the USSR.

[Grig]

My grandfather actually owned one of the first cars in the Soivet Union, and one of the brands there was pretty good, called the Volga in its glory days. I saw that Top Gear show and they were biased by picking only the worser Soviet brands, which I agree are crap.

As for the Putin, he is corruput, I basically had to pay the police bribes to get my passport last time I was in Russia and that is considered normal practice. That really is Capitalism eh