This computer is playing me up again... So if Russia, which let us say is more of a geo-political alliance than a country as such, was goverened/ruled by a single individual, then it would be easier for the Russian people to accept as they could look up to that one person, and not at a government which merely ties itself into knots and only serves it's own ends (sounds like ours). However, as Russia is such a large 'country' it has many different people and races within it's boundaries, all of them with different beliefs and ideas, making it almost impossible to be goverened. So Russia as a country needs a strong ruler at it's head. Instability is a factor of life in Russia, and so it needs a strong but flexible leader, not a set-in-it's-ways government. Hmm. Food for thought there. The problem with that premise is that it assumes that instability is inherent to a race of people. To me it has to be a culture not a race. Culture you can change a race you can't. A government that is not controlled by the people has no incentive to deal with problems of the people so neglect is inevitable. Enslaving people creates a self-fulling instability nature, you groom them away from being able to stand for themselves and judge for themselves. It is sort of like when people come out of prison or a POW camp, if they have been in there a long time, they come out and they are in a mental prison because they have forgotten how to think for themselves. Contrary to T34's claim, nobody "likes" being enslaved. They may prefer it over death, but they certainly don't like it. I made the analogy applying it to the concept of a concentration camp but it flew over his head.