Compressing the Spring

Posted by Sean on April 27, 2007 Leave a comment (127) Go to comments

On Monday Robert Gates met with President Putin and other officials in Moscow to discuss US plans to deploy the US ABM complex in Europe, and most importantly to offer cooperation on the issue: a potential linking of Russian and US systems and the ability for Russia to initiate inspection checks to the newly-built facilities. These plans were publicly rejected by Russia‘s newly-appointed Minister of Defense Anatoliy Serdyukov and Mr. Ivanov (Russia‘s first-vice-premier). Russia continues to remain skeptical that Iran possesses any type of threat to Russia and to Europe. Similarly, the US, in the face of Secretary of State Rice has called Russia’s concerns over plans to deploy the ABM systems “ludicrous”, the New York Times reported.

In his annual address to parliament, President Putin made it clear that Russia will respond immediately to US plans by withdrawing from the Adapted Conventional Armed Forces Treaty in Europe, which was based on an earlier treaty of 1990 during the dissolution of the Cold War and the Soviet Union. Russia‘s claims are that it is the only nation to have fully ratified the treaty and refuses to continue to fulfill its obligations unless other members (specifically NATO members) ratify it. NATO has declared its surprise over such actions as it believes Russia was never fulfilling its promises under the treaty.

Because of numerous confusions in the press, it is important to go back and determine the realities of the treaties. An adapted copy of both treaties (1990) and (1999) can be found on the Arms Control Association Websites. The New York Times reports that:

The agreement in question, the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe, known by the initials C.F.E., was signed in 1990 by the N.A.T.O. nations and the nations of the former Warsaw Pact, including Russia. It required the reduction and relocation of much of the main battle equipment then located along the former east-west dividing line, including tanks, artillery pieces, armored vehicles and attack aircraft. It also established an inspection regime.

Under the treaty, more than 50,000 pieces of military equipment were converted or destroyed by 1995. With its initial ambitions largely achieved, it was renegotiated in 1999, adding a requirement that Russia withdraw its forces from Georgia and Moldova, two former Soviet republics where tensions and intrigue with Moscow run high.

The fact of “force withdrawal” remains very controversial. NATO members in 2002 had accepted that Russia fulfilled all of its requirements under the treaty, specifically regarding the fact of withdrawal of TPE (treaty prohibited weapons) from Georgia and Moldova and other territories. Russia claims that its obligations essentially stop here, and a withdrawal of forces is a gesture of goodwill; NATO members claim that Russia made promises to withdraw its troops also. The treaty was originally signed to ensure the collective security of Europe and security from a “blitzkrieg-type” attack when one state would concentrate a large number of weapons on another’s border. Thus, severe caps on TPEs were implemented (specifically tanks, jet fighters, light-armored vehicles, cannons, etc.) Consequently, troop presence would not be an issue to collective security, neither would the US ABM bases (clearly a missile deterrent system).

In addition to the above, Russia’s attempt to withdraw from the treaty is set to completely confuse all negotiations, as the treaty seems to be read differently by both sides. With Russia having ratified it but slow on implementation and NATO members, having not ratified it accusing Russia of slow progress. Even before Russia’s announcement, the Guardian reported that:

The Bush administration has this week been struggling to convince sceptical European partners that the missile shield is a good idea.

In an interview yesterday, Germany’s deputy foreign minister, Gernot Erler, revealed that at least six allies, including Germany, raised doubts about the project at a Nato meeting last week — amid fears of another cold war on European soil.

The CFE treaty is not the first treaty Russia has threatened to withdraw from. Russian officials initially opened up their protests by suggesting likely withdrawal from the 1987 treaty limiting medium-range missiles. It is a paradox that both treaties are virtually outdated, with Russia and US having mostly scrapped their medium-range missiles, while six other countries still possess them. With regard to the CFE treaty, the militarization and force-withdrawals have mostly been achieved already, and Russia remains the beneficiary under the treaty due to its massive territory. While other countries had to scrap their weapons, Russia shifted its TPEs beyond the limit-free Urals in Siberia. Yet the treaties are highly symbolic and are the essential foundations of collective security in the post Cold War period.

The Financial Times reports that, the US was the first country that began breaking such treaties, through its 2001 unilateral withdrawal from the ABM treaty:

However, Thursday’s decision is strategically important because it signals Russia’s growing readiness to tear up the post-1990 diplomatic order. Moscow believes today’s strong Russia can revisit the deals done in the 1990s by a weak Russia. The Kremlin also argues the US has repeatedly acted unilaterally, including over Iraq and over recent plans for Czech and Polish missile defence bases. If the US can set aside bilateral or multilateral pacts, says Moscow, so can Russia.

These developments take the world into perilous waters. While there is no open ideological conflict between east and west, there are deep differences over democracy and the rule of law. It will be dangerous if these disputes prevent Russia, the European Union and the US co-operating on matters of mutual interest, including energy, the war against terrorism and nuclear non-proliferation.

The US is entitled to look after its own security. But it must accept security is often easier to build in partnership with others than alone. America, not Russia, was the first to pull out of a cold war arms pact when in 2001 it abandoned the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. Washington’s recent effort to explain its missile defence plans to sceptical European states, including Russia, is long overdue.

Russia is behaving irresponsibly in a diplomatic sense and is severely threatening collective security in Europe. But the US is doing the same, yet indirectly. Analysts have rightly pointed out that withdrawal from both treaties will make Russia‘s position worse: it has barely the right capital to finance development and deployment of medium-range ballistic missiles, and to engage in a large-scale rearmament of its European part. These capabilities are dwarfed by 10 times by the US military budget. But clearly Russia has no choice. Its policy of countering NATO’s dominance must start now, at a time when relations are moderately cool. The fact of no ideological difference between the East and the Wets means no serious threat of confrontation will occur. Yet, it is worrisome if Russia and the US scrap their commitments to security in Europe, especially given the experience of the 20^th century. We are living in a different world, but relations among countries sour easily, and alliances and counter-alliances form just as fast.

The end goal of its diplomatic game is not to scrap its commitment to European security, but to make the rest of Europe aware that such issues as the ABM deployment if pushed unilaterally by the US without NATO approval could bring instability. Yet, the threats that Russia has made show that it is engaged in almost full-scale bluff, the US knows and understands this. Germany understands this even better. This poker game is very long, and the stakes may rise with every passing day. Unless serious negotiations start soon, Russia will turn its bluff into action. If a treaty withdrawal will occur, there is a marginal prospect of US rearmament in Europe. This would be quite an unfortunate prospect.

Nikolay, Student, Boston U., Business Major, Russian. Interests: International Relations (1930-1945); Russian 20th century History, Capital Markets, Private Equity. He also runs the blog Russia’s True Tales of Terra.

US-Russia

← “Nor-r-r-r-r-r-m!”

Comments Policy →

127 Comments.

Chris May 6, 2007 at 3:24 pm

Lots of rossiyane think Estonia is basically a fascist state, or at least that parts of society have a fascist agenda.

I was told by someone who used to work in the Lithuanian government (in the early 1990s) that the most politically active elements in the pro-independence Estonian and Latvian diasporas post-WWII were the emigree SS/Nazis, and that their influence has had a definite effect on developments inside those countries.

I have no idea if that is true or not.
Lyndon May 6, 2007 at 3:35 pm

Why would they do so? Insofar as Putin has an ideology (not much, I don’t think), a positive assessment of the Soviet socio-economic system is not a part of it.

First of all, I don’t think Putin wants or is able to micro-manage everything that comes out of his administration. Anyway, the “ideology” being propagated by Nashi is not about “a positive assessment of the Soviet socio-economic system” or anything that sober or serious – it’s simple fearmongering about how fragile the current stability is and how the evil foreigners can destroy it with the help of Russian “traitors” – read the whole brochure.

And to the extent that Putin has an ideology, I do think that a big part of it is wrapped up in the idea that the breakup of the USSR was a “catastrophe” (or whatever his oft-quoted soundbite on that topic was). The point would seem to be to harken back to a time when Russians were supposedly united, proud and prosperous. Unfortunately, in trying to resurrect this Soviet nostalgia, the people who wrote this nonsense appear to be willing to ignore the truth about 1991 and try to play on the fact that their audience – young Nashi members and other youths – don’t remember the food lines, rationing, etc.

Anyway, I don’t think this brochure is something that Putin saw a draft of or anything of the sort – it’s not as though he knows about everything that’s done in his name or by people in his administration. On the other hand, I also don’t think it’s entirely inconsistent with his worldview.

The sums allocated to Nashi are probably relative crumbs in the context of the current petro-wealth (and not enough to lead to micro-managing by VVP), but in the context of youth group organizing, they appear to be substantial.
Sean Guillory May 6, 2007 at 3:37 pm

I was told by someone who used to work in the Lithuanian government (in the early 1990s) that the most politically active elements in the pro-independence Estonian and Latvian diasporas post-WWII were the emigree SS/Nazis, and that their influence has had a definite effect on developments inside those countries.

Not knowing much of anything about Estonia myself, I asked a friend who is a historian of the place. He told me last night that this was the case too. To think I figured all the Russian cries of fascism had no basis. I guess they just might.
Chris May 6, 2007 at 3:42 pm

“And to the extent that Putin has an ideology, I do think that a big part of it is wrapped up in the idea that the breakup of the USSR was a “catastrophe” (or whatever his oft-quoted soundbite on that topic was). The point would seem to be to harken back to a time when Russians were supposedly united, proud and prosperous. “

If I recollect correctly, the quote was “Nado priznat, chto krushenie Sovetskogo Suyuza bylo kropneishei katastrofoi veka” — and then goes on to ennumerate why — mass impoverishment, oligarchization, growth of terrorism, Russians found in noe-alien countries. The great majority of Russians, and people in other former Soviet republics, would agree with that. I agree with that — it’s obvious.

Given what he has said about “communism” being a historical dead-end, and given that Gorbachev seems to view Putin as the Second Coming of himself, I think it’s more-or-less clear that he thinks the Union should have been preserved and its socioeconomic system gradually altered. That is, that Gorby’s project had been realized.

I don’t see a whole lot of desire to return to Gosplan.
Chris May 6, 2007 at 3:47 pm

Wasn’t the current Lithuanian PM a member of the SS? I seem to recollect there was a scandal prior to the election in which some Lithuanian newspaper uncovered his past, with photos of him in uniform. He said that yes he was in the SS, but was just a cook or looked after the horses or something like that. Or is my memory playing tricks on me?
Lyndon May 6, 2007 at 3:55 pm

You agree that it was the greatest catastrophe of the 20th century?

Sorry, I can’t agree with that. The consequences were definitely catastrophic for a lot of people involved, but a lot of that was a reflection of the rot and unsustainability of the Soviet system. The Soviet Union itself could possibly be considered the greatest catastrophe of the 20th century, but not its breakup.

people in other former Soviet republics, would agree with that.

People in some former Soviet republics would agree.

Anyway, among those Russians who have it, Soviet nostalgia is based on a yearning for stability (among the masses) and (among the elites) fond recollections of superpower status and an era where Russia was feared and respected worldwide – none of this has anything to do with Gosplan or “communism.”
Chris May 6, 2007 at 3:59 pm

Not “the greatest,” but “a very great” catastrophe of the century. It was exceeded by WWs I and II and by the destruction of the Ottoman Empire, not by much else.

Note the ambiguity of the superlative “krupneishii.”

According to an opinion poll I saw recently, 70% of people in Lithuania think life was better in the USSR (60% think it impossible to return). In LITHUANIA.
Lyndon May 6, 2007 at 4:09 pm

True – the statement was ambiguous. But if he’d wanted to be unambiguous about it being “one of the greatest catastrophes” as opposed to “the biggest,” he could have just said “odin iz krupneishikh.”

And I think there’s a much longer list of 20th C. catastrophes “bigger” (in terms of human suffering and death) than the Soviet breakup; and the formation and existence of the USSR (the civil war, the terror/purges, mass deportations, etc.) would easily make that list.

I can’t argue with poll data, so you may be right that Soviet nostalgia exists all over the former Soviet space. People miss the stable predictability of the Brezhnev era, I guess.
Chris May 6, 2007 at 4:17 pm

Speaking of the Brezhnev era, check this out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtBMHGEazP0

One can argue about rankings in one’s hierarchy of catastrophes, but I think it’s pretty obvious that the Soviet collapse and everything it entailed — such as three civil wars in Georgia alone, not to mention Chechnya — definitely qualifies as one of them.

(That is a completely different issue from whether or not preventing its collapse was possible.)
Lyndon May 6, 2007 at 4:31 pm

Thanks for that video – classic. I didn’t realize Leonid Il’ich also did the “he-kan’ie” of G’s (not sure of the formal linguistic term, but you prob. know what I mean), which I remember Gorby doing. But I guess he was a southerner, too. It’s amazing, considering his slightly slurred speech in that video, that he hung around for over 10 more years.

I would separate the Chechen wars from the Soviet collapse, as I don’t think the former became an inevitability because of the latter.

As for the wars in Georgia (by three, do you mean S.O., Abkhazia, and the one between the Zviadists and the Georgians who kicked him out?), they were definitely catastrophic and much more closely linked to the Soviet breakup. And don’t forget the Tajik civil war, which I think claimed more lives than any of the others.

I always cringe when I hear Americans talk about how the Soviet Union broke up “bloodlessly.” Some people who say that seem to really think it was “bloodless” and are just ignorant; others, I suppose, mean that the breakup occurred “much more bloodlessly than it could have” but are simply speaking in shorthand.
Chris May 6, 2007 at 4:46 pm

Don’t leave out Armenia-Azerbaijan, either.

I don’t know if one can blame the breakup for the various pogroms in the late USSR, since they preceeded it, but I think they can be blamed on a general collapse-in-progress. Here’s a list from
A. Shubin’s book “Paradoksy Perestroiky,” lest we forget:

1988

22 Feb. Thousands of Azerbaijani nationalists attack Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh. Around 50 casualties.

28-29. Pogrom in Sumgait (Azerbaijan). Azerbaijani nationalists attack Armenian refugees with axes and other hand weapons. 32 dead, 197 wounded, 12 rapes, more than 100 apartments tobbed.

Sept. 18. Nagorno-Karabakh. Clashes between Armenians and Azerbaijanis, including the first use of firearms. 25 wounded, 17 hospitalized.

Nov. 21-25. Multiple pogroms against Armenians in Azerbaijan in the cities of Baku, Kirovobad, Nakhichevani, Khanlar, Shamkhor, Fizuli and others. In Kirovobad demonstrations took place under the slogan “Death to Armenians and Russians!”, and a church, the gorkom and Armenian apartments were burned to the ground. 547 people are arrested after intervention by Soviet military. 200 thousand Armenian refugees flee Azerbaijan.

Dec. 7. Catastrophic earthquake in Armenia. (Poor Armenia!)

1989

June 3-15. Pogroms in the Fergana Valley (Uzbek Soviet Socialist Republic). An everyday conflict between Uzbeks and Meskhetian Turks in a bazaar develops into systematic anti-Turk pogroms. Turks form resistance. 103 dead — 53 Meskhetian Turks and 36 Uzbeks. More than 400 homes and 8 industrial and educational centers burned to the ground.

June 13. Tajikistan. In the city of Isfar, clashes between Tajiks and Kyrgyz over division of land. More than 1 thousand people participate. 27 wounded, 1 dead.

June 15-16. Sukhumi (Abkhazia, Georgia). Armed conflict begins between Georgians and Abkhaz, who attack police and take their weapons. 14 dead, more than 150 wounded.

June 17-18. City of Novyi Uzen (Kazakhstan). A fight at a disco between Kazakhs and Caucasians turns ugly. Kazakhs demand that all Caucasians be expelled, and clashes occur. Three people dead.

Nov. 23. Beginning of Georgian/South Ossetian conflict.

Beginning in Fall of 1989. Pogroms again against Armenians in Azerbaijan. Lack of interference by the police and military results in 148 dead, 503 wounded, thousands of homes robbed. All Armenians remaining in Azerbaijan flee. On Jan. 20, Soviet troops and armored vehicles are sent into Baku and armed clashes occur with Azerbaijani nationalists. More than 130 dead, around 700 wounded.
Lyndon May 6, 2007 at 5:02 pm

Right. NK was the bloodiest of the post-Soviet conflicts to take place in “Europe” – barring Chechnya, of course. I think all of the pogroms, etc., you listed (as well as events like the perhaps mythologized massacre on the main square in Tbilisi involving Soviet troops whacking people with sappers’ shovels) can be lumped in with the Soviet collapse, which after all was a process of several years. Why they all happened, between groups which seemed to get along OK for decades (well, for the most part), is a mystery. My (not particularly academic or original) theory is that ethnic tensions come to the fore in times of poverty and uncertainty. As long as there’s enough to go around, people don’t point fingers at the “other.” But people were not in the best economic straits in 1988-91, and perhaps they saw that things were only going to get worse. As the pie of benefits provided by the gov’t got smaller, the impetus to blame other ethnic groups for taking a larger piece of it grew. And some of the territorially based conflicts that happened slightly later (NK especially) were just waiting to happen.
Fanya May 6, 2007 at 5:15 pm

Those of you in Moscow, a beautifully shot, but somewhat flawed, film — set during the the Armenia-Azerbaijan war — is playing around town. It’s called ????. Saw it last night at the Tsenralnyi dom literaturov.
Chris May 6, 2007 at 7:27 pm

I would imagine the police/military/KGB played a role in keeping ethnic conflicts down, and the internationalist ideology as well.

Whatever it was, it worked. I can’t think of a single large-scale ethnic clash in the USSR post-WWII, with two possible exceptions — I suppose there MAY have been an ethnic component in the pro-Stalin riots in Georgia in 1956, and there MAY have been one in the Novocherkassk massacre, given that the population of Novocherkassk is almost 100% Don Cossack. (There I go again with my Cossacks!)

Someone I know from Uzbekistan says the Uzbeks did not like at all the Crimean Tatars that Stalin resettled there, because 1) they thought they were Nazis and 2) the government has built apartments for them and they in general lived better than Uzbeks.
Lyndon May 6, 2007 at 10:19 pm

I think the whole police state is effective at controlling all kinds of large- and small-scale crime and disorder. I know that in the mid-’80s my parents felt OK letting me ride my bike around in Leningrad at 11pm and later during the height of the White Nights, something I would never let any kid of mine do today. It was definitely safer to walk the streets of Moscow back in the day, too – especially as a foreigner, I think, since everyone knew crimes against foreigners would be more likely to be punished because of their potential to create a bad image for the USSR abroad. But all that order, safety and stability was achieved at a fairly high cost.
Tim Newman May 6, 2007 at 10:28 pm

A totalitarian police state accountable to nobody is remarkably effective at keeping inter-ethnic conflict at bay; witness what’s happening in Iraq since the iron fist of Saddam was removed.

I have an amusing anecdote regarding the Nagorno-Karabakh war. One of our project engineers on the Sakhalin II project is an Azeri, and he was complaining about the conditions in the workers’ camp on site. I said that I guessed those who’d done national service would have found the conditions more bearable, then asked him if he’d done national service. His answer:

“National service? I fought a fucking war with the Armenians for 4 years!”
Lyndon May 6, 2007 at 11:19 pm

On NK, I highly recommend de Waal’s Black Garden – a very readable and even-handed account, which includes a description of the background to the conflict and some of the resolution efforts of more recent years.

A number of the post-Soviet conflicts are compared (along with fmr. Yugoslavia) in a book called Modern Hatreds by Stuart Kaufman. There’s a bit too much of an attempt to draw out an overarching theory for my taste, but it’s a good all-in-one book and is fairly readable as well. Tom Goltz’s trilogy of books (Azerbaijan Diary, Chechnya Diary, and Georgia Diary) about the Caucasus are less formal but also provide a great account.
Michael Averko May 7, 2007 at 4:27 am

I recall reading two different historical accounts which concluded that Lithuanians weren’t as prone to Nazi like manner during WW II, when compared to Estonians and Latvians. During the inter-war years, Vilnius wasn’t a part of Lithuania. Were it not for the Soviet action of 1939, Vilnius wouldn’t have been part of present day Lithuania. One of the mentioned historical accounts notes a significant Lithuanian partisan (as in Soviet allied) element during WW II.

In the present, Lithuania doesn’t have the same problems with its Russocentric Slavic population as Estonia and Latvia. This in large part has to do with Lithuania’s non-ethnic Lithuanian population being a combined 20%. Insecurity is at play in Estonia and Latvia.
Michael Averko May 7, 2007 at 4:36 am

Regarding contemporary former Communist bloc ethnic matters is this piece in the 5/6 TT:

Moldovan serial killer gets life for anti-Russian murder spree

http://tiraspoltimes.com/
Lyndon May 7, 2007 at 5:01 am

First, the story has nothing to do with anything discussed at this thread, so you’re taking things off-topic again, Mike.

Also, I’ve just read the article you referred to, and I can only say that it’s another example of TTT’s sterling reporting, and I mean that with as much sarcasm as possible.

The actual story is about a homeless guy in Israel who immigrated from Moldova years ago and who killed a few of his drinking buddies and some unfortunate woman, according to Haaretz. TTT has used it as an excuse to drag out a bunch of nonsense about Moldovan “hate crimes” against Russians (of which the article cannot provide a single concrete example). The guy was actually convicted last year, but I guess some TTT “news” manufacturer saw the story about the sentencing come across their Google feed yesterday and decided to use it as a hook for this article, which is itself hate-filled.

I especially liked this quote from the TTT article, from an unnamed “courtroom observer” and not present in any of the online accounts of the trial I found:

“That is how the Moldovans are. First they kill, and then they deny it. And if they can’t get away with denial, then they try to portray themselves as victims. They are crafty, sneaky little bastards.”

And note this paragraph in the TTT piece:

Although the first murder occurred in 2005, police did not suspect a serial murderer until the third body of Valeri Soznov was uncovered two months later, and similarities were noted between the crime scenes.

Plagiarized (word for word) from the Haaretz piece linked above. I guess that’s supposed to be OK since they added a note at the bottom saying “(With information from Haaretz).” Nice. And I note that this article is bylined Karen Ryan in Haifa – that “Karen Ryan” sure gets around.

Yes, Mike, that’s a classy website you’ve affiliated yourself with.

And can you please tell me exactly what some down-and-out murderer in Israel has to do with post-Soviet ethnic issues? The rest of the TTT article is undocumented innuendo. If you had ever been to Moldova, you would know that there is no mass “hatred” of Russians there.
Tim Newman May 7, 2007 at 5:13 am

Heh heh! Good follow-up, Lyndon.

If anyone was not already convinced the Tiraspol Times is a political pamphlet masquaerading as a second-rate newspaper, they ought to be now. Given Mike’s writing style and content, he seems to have found himself the perfect platform for his articles.
Lyndon May 7, 2007 at 5:19 am

Thanks, Tim. I’m trying to be clear about this without making it too personal with Mike, but TTT is simply not credible, and the more Mike flacks for it, the harder it is to take him seriously (actually, at this point it’s become impossible for me to take him seriously).

My latest theory is that Mike and the TTT are bitter because my recent post of photos from Tiraspol is already in the top 20 Google results for “Tiraspol” (subject to change, obviously), whereas TTT’s website doesn’t even appear in the top 50.
Lyndon May 7, 2007 at 6:06 am

My latest theory is that Mike and the TTT are bitter because my recent post of photos from Tiraspol is already in the top 20 Google results for “Tiraspol” (subject to change, obviously), whereas TTT’s website doesn’t even appear in the top 50.

Because of the discussion at the other thread, I guess I should be perfectly clear that the above sentence was intended largely as humor. And I know that Google results for obscure search terms do not indicate a superior product. Anyway, sorry to continue the off-topic digression from what had been a fairly good discussion…
Michael Averko May 7, 2007 at 6:37 am

Only an idiot could possibly find Lyndon’s latest salvo to be of humor. You’re wrong Lyndon, as The TT article is on topic with the discussion of ethnic divisions in former Communist bloc territories. Why claim otherwise when all can see how crystal clear that is? You’re sounding like La Russophobe with your latest hit claim. Others have noted how such claims are often made in a non-accurate manner. I’m sure you didn’t do a full accurate accounting of the quoted matter you suggest was fabricated by TTT fabricated. There’s no denying a noticeable degree of anti-Slav ethnic Moldovan extremism which triggered the brief war of the early 19 nineties in Trans-Dniester. Many of these extremists came from Moldova. Haifa is where the involved incident took place. You’re apparently unfamiliar with the media at large. Personally, I kind of share your view on that particular.

Lyndon, nothing personal, but you’re a flack for Socor and EDM, as shown by how you don’t want to address their faulty analysis. Having someone like Tim cheer for you isn’t a ringing endorsement. If you’re going to criticize, show substance. To date, you’ve yet to find much if anything at fault with my commentary.
Michael Averko May 7, 2007 at 7:27 am

A fairness doctrine of sorts in lieu of Lyndon Allin’s unfair criticims of FSU media coverage. its relevance pertains to what he has recently posted at this discussion.

Re: Vladimir Socor

Excerpted from the Moldova/TransDniester segment of the Sept. 15, QT:

New Broom at US Led OSCE Mission in Trans-Dniester http://www.jamestown.org/edm/article.php?volume_id=414&issue_id=3853&article_id=2371439

Excerpt:

“The Transnistria conflict is not one between two parts of Moldova, or the two banks of the Nistru River and their respective populations, or some kind of inter-communal conflict. The OSCE will continue to fail unless it recognizes the conflict’s real nature: An inter-state conflict in which Russia has seized a part of Moldova’s territory by military force and installed its political and administrative appointees there. The ongoing ‘negotiating process’ and diplomatic terminology long associated with it are obscuring that reality. Imposed by Yevgeny Primakov in 1997 on a then-isolated Moldova, and supported by a line-toeing OSCE Mission to date, that process and that terminology mis-define Transnistria as a ‘party to the conflict’ (ostensibly co-equal with the rest of Moldova); and Russia as ‘mediator’ between two parts of Moldova, ignoring Russia’s actual role as initiator of and party to the ongoing conflict. Moreover, Russia claims the role of ‘guarantor’ of an eventual political settlement of the conflict thus defined.”

Excerpt:

“The conceptual cleanout ought also to include the postulate that Transnistria possesses a special political identity that could serve as one of the bases for autonomy of the left bank. This postulate originates with the 1994 report of a German diplomat in the OSCE Mission on his first, and brief, assignment to Moldova, where he never returned afterward. In reality, the left-bank and right-bank population contains the same ethnic mix (Moldovans, Ukrainians, and Russians being the main ethnic groups, in that order) with many related families on both banks. The one specific feature in Transnistria, however, is the successful Soviet political socialization among Russian and Russified town dwellers — a feature hardly worth considering as part of a left-bank political identity, let alone justifying autonomy for the left bank.”

Geographically, is Vladimir Socor calling Trans-Dniester the “left bank” and if so, shouldn’t it be referred to as the “right bank”?

He completely ignores the different histories of the two entities. Inclusive is his mildly selective Red baiting, combined with a hypocritically applied Soviet like support for a centralized state in the form of Moldova’s Communist drawn boundaries. Note how Socor omits reference to the current Communist Party affiliation of Moldova’s president. Trans-Dniester as well as Moldova had a pre-Soviet relationship with Russia. Between the two world wars (1918-39), Trans-Dniester remained associated with Russia as a part of the USSR. During this period, Moldova was linked to Romania, while Trans-Dniester had an autonomous status within the Communist drawn boundaries of the Ukrainian SSR.

In present day Moldova, one can find Russia leaning sympathies. It wasn’t so long ago that Moldova was considering membership into the proposed Common Economic Sphere involving Russia and some other former Soviet republics.

It’s somewhat misleading for Socor to state that the ethnic composition is the same in Moldova and Trans-Dniester. The latter has a considerably greater diversity of Slavs and ethnic Romanians, whereas the former has a more ethnic Romanian makeup.

He’s right for suggesting that the Moldova/Trans-Dniester dispute doesn’t have anywhere near the same ethnic venom as some other disputed former Soviet territories. Slavs serve the Moldovan government in good numbers, with many ethnic Romanians involved in Trans-Dniester’s. During the 19th and early 20th century, some of Ireland’s greatest patriots were Protestants. The point being that an ethno-religious group can have different national/political allegiances.

When the Soviet Union broke up, a violent conflict arose in the Communist drawn boundaries of the former Moldavian SSR. At the time, that war featured elements of ethnic extremism which have since dissipated to a considerable degree. The political differences remain. The Russian 14th army successfully neutered the armed conflict. Russian influence in Trans-Dniester isn’t shunned by the local population (quite the contrary). Trans-Dniester is about to have a referendum. Is Socor actually denying the views of its population, which will freely vote for independence?

Moldovan Region Holds Vote on Independence http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/world/international-moldova-dnestr.html

In English language mass media circles, this article typifies what is and isn’t being said about Trans-Dniester (the bulk of which is in the reply to Socor’s article).

*****

It was later explained to me how Socor utilized “left bank” and “right bank” (viewing from a north position as opposed to the standard map reading utilization).

———————————–

http://www.exile.ru/2002-October-31/press_review.html

Vladimir Socor: Hound for Hire

Vladimir Socor — ever hear of him? I doubt it. Socor is one of the semi-anonymous propagandists whose job it is to keep feeding ignorant Western consumers lies about Russia, cooked to the taste of their rightwing American sponsors. His name has been creeping up more and more lately, as if someone is trying to raise the bar on official American Russophobia another level, using Socor as the eager ladder-boy. It’s not easy to learn anything about people like Socor. But then, the obscurity and minginess of the breed is an essential part of its usefulness. Does a hound in a pack of hunters have a biography, a personal history, a psychology?

It’s simply a dog, bred to hunt the game its masters choose. Socor is a hound of this sort — what might be called a Russian-hunting dog. He is connected to at least two far-right “think tanks” of the sort which specialise in funding ideologically-driven journalists. One of these, the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies, is — despite its grandiose title — little more than a slush fund which shovels flipping great wodges of cash toward any journalists sleazy enough to take money from the Mellon-family heir who bankrolls it and other far-right organs. This institute is based in Israel but has offices in Washington when the address serves the writer well. The IASPS is widely despised among Israeli journalists for its habit of hiring the sleaziest, least principled reporters in town to put a pro-free-market spin on any story. Radical Chicago-style free market ideology never found the same sort of fanatical following in Israel as it did in America, making the institute rather a queer phenomenon.

The other teat at which Socor is known to suck is the Jamestown Foundation, another extreme-right slush fund run out of Washington and widely considered to be a fully-funded subsidiary of the good old CIA. The Jamestown Foundation was founded in 1983 to bankroll anti-Soviet defectors in their new capacity as counter-propagandists, and its board of directors today includes Tom Clancy, fetus-fetishist Henry Hyde, and Polish nationalist Zbigniew Brzezinski — three utterly potty Russophobes who rue the end of the Cold War no less than Kipling mourned the loss of empire. In case you find this description overbearing and opinionated, I’ll quote from the Foundation’s home page on the web: “It is now widely acknowledged that the insights of those assisted by Jamestown were a priceless contribution to American policies that led eventually to the downfall of the dictatorships of the Soviet Bloc.” (I must add, however, that as a professional I do feel a certain respect for the Jamestown Foundation, which was one of the few institutes to provide any critique of the Clinton administration’s Russian policies during those oppressively giddy years, whatever its motivation.)

The Jamestown Foundation’s pet scheme at the moment is the “Chechnya Project”, which enables groups like this to pretend, by focusing on the one military adventure remaining in the supine Russian state, that Russia is as big, bad and slavering a threat as ever. So naturally, good employees of the Foundation such as Socor are at their most enthusiastic when playing up Russia’s demonic intentions in Chechnya.

The Foundation’s profile of Socor says only that he’s a native of Rumania. Most of the bitterly anti-Russian journalists who publish with these rightwing lobbies are from the small countries surrounding Russia, and they are animated by a deep hatred of their former conqueror. Imagine that a victorious Russia hired hundreds of stringers from Cuba, Nicaragua, or El Salvador to contribute reports on the USA, or that Russian papers went, for their UK news, to a staff composed entirely of Catholics from Northern Ireland.

It isn’t surprising that reporters like Socor, who spent their youth cursing the Russians, jump enthusiastically at the chance to have their views disseminated all over the West — particularly when they are paid to do so at a level they could never have imagined. Men like Socor have fallen into what must be, for their sort, a kind of vindictive bliss: paid huge sums (by their standards) to broadcast the old village hatreds — as long as those hatreds continue to serve American interests.

I’ve downed many a beer with men like Socor at grubby hotels all over Eastern Europe. They aren’t what one would call “evil” men; they’re rather on the pitiful side. They have the knack of scenting out and besieging any Western reporter in the vicinity and forcing beer after beer upon him. At a certain level of inebriation, their Russophobia (which they expect all Westerners to share), can become rather frightening. I remember one such marathon session with a Rumanian stringer very much of Socor’s type, who felt so close to me after his sixth Guinness (it shocked him that I settled for the local brew) that he ventured to inform me that his grandfather had been in the Iron Guard. I was stumbling through a slurred, drunken dismissal (“Oh, could’ve happened to anyone”) when I realized that it had been a boast, not a confession. I promptly shut up, and he went on, telling me that those men, men like his grandfather, were the true spirit of Rumania. It was the West’s great mistake, he explained, to have sided with the Russians against the Germans, who after all were only trying to defend Europe against Bolshevism.

When you’ve followed the Socors of the world for a few years, you begin to wonder why no one ever calls them on their innumerable mistakes, lies and absurdities. As I finally realised, it’s simply a matter of ignorance. Most Western readers couldn’t find Georgia, much less the Pankisi Gorge, on a world map.

All that most American readers really want to know from the “International News” pages is what they want to know from the Sports Pages: “Are we winning or not?”And native auxiliaries like Socor are there to tell the homeland readers that indeed, we are winning this Superbowl by three touchdowns.

In a recent example of trimphalist reporting (Jamestown Monitor, 28 May 2002), Socor gloated that the US had managed to strike out the term “near abroad” when referring to countries which border Russia. What this means, Socor gloats, is that “…for the first time since 1991, Russia is being relegated to second place in a set of major international documents that lay some ground rules of conduct in the ex-Soviet area.” Imagine that Russia were imposing the same rules on the US: the US was “being relegated to second place” in all questions concerning Canada or Mexico, with first place going to Russia. The manifest injustice of the notion would enrage American readers. But it seems that those same readers are meant to take Socor’s news as cause for celebration.

In light of the bloody siege by Chechen terrorists in Moscow, the natural justics of conceding that Russia has a bigger stake in the Caucasus than does America seems all the more obvious. Ah, but that would be forgetting that Socor has spent the last few months telling his credulous readers that there is no reason for Russia to get upset about Chechnya, Georgia or militant Islam.

The newspapers which print Socor’s pieces seem incapable of noticing the wild inconsistencies with which his stories are filled. Socor’s many articles on the Pankisi Gorge are really quite amazing in this regard. The Pankisi is one of those Augean messes the Caucasus nurtures so well. In a multiethnic region where banditry is considered an heroic pursuit, it’s a venerable haven for bandits, political or otherwise (and that distinction is by no means clear in Caucasian culture).

When the US said that the Pankisi was full of Al-Qaeda terrorists and sent in the Green Berets to “train” Georgian troops to uproot them, Socor and the hundreds of other lickspittles like him were depicting the Pankisi as Pandora’s Box, crammed to the ridgeline with turbaned menaces holding daggers between their teeth, a menace to the West which could only be saved by the surgical efficiency of American force. One had to be very clear about that: only American, not Russian.

The cooperation between Georgian troops and US special forces was entirely predicated on this notion. The Georgians needed the Americans’ help, we were told by Mr Socor, to begin cleaning up the dire Pankisi, Gorge of Terror.

But then the Russians got involved. They said that there were Al-Qaeda terrorists from Afghanistan holed up in the Pankisi, and that the place was full of Chechens, resting up and rearming for raids into Russia. (If you look at a map of the Caucasus, you will see that this is a pretty reasonable claim, and might lead the truly fair-minded reader to conclude that indeed, Russia’s national interest in the region was more urgent than that of the US. Indeed even the Chechens don’t deny this.)

That’s when Mr Socor and his ilk changed their tune. Suddenly there was nothing very scary in the Pankisi. Indeed, Russia was just being alarmist. If there were any terrorists about, the Georgians were perfectly capable of handling the matter themselves. And of course, “by themselves” means “with American help” but “without Russian interference.”

You can’t really grasp the blithering idiocy of these stories unless you see them for yourself, So here is Mr Socor explaining the matter in The Wall Street Journal of 18 October, 2002:

“Georgian authorities have just completed successfully a nonviolent security operation in the Pankisi Gorge, the suspected haven of a handful of Chechen fighters. Lawless and crime-ridden no more (!), the gorge is now controlled by Georgian forces, and open to Russian and international inspection. Moscow had threatened to extend the war from Chechnya into Georgia under anti-terrorism pretenses, the real goal being however to change Georgia’s Western orientation. President Vladimir Putin and his closest associates were publicly hinting that a free hand in Georgia was part of Russia’s price for standing aside if the United States moves against Saddam Hussein in Iraq.”

Mr. Socor, lay off the wormwood, please! The list of lies — I can’t think of another word because I am sure that Socor is aware of his lies, and perhaps, as a former Socialist bloc citizen, perhaps even enjoys it — in this lead is impressive even by journalistic standards, starting with that amazing first sentence describing the Georgians’ successful “nonviolent security operation in the Pankisi Gorge…” To give readers some sense of perspective, this would be roughly like saying that a group of primary-school crossing guards had just successfully and non-violently pacified Bedford-Stuyvesant. And the idea that the Georgians, of all people, would be the ones to manage such an impossibility…well, it’s the sort of enormity which can be practised only on readers far, far away.

Any ordinary hack would use his next sentence to qualify this risible claim. Not Socor. Give the man his due: he’s got sheer bloody crust, if nothing else. He actually says that the Pankisi is “lawless and crime-ridden no more”! Mr Socor, if you are reading this, let me make a suggestion: take your family on a picnic to the lovely, peaceable Pankisi Gorge, beauty spot of the Caucasus. As you recline on the verdant lawn, your little ones frolic, secure in the knowledge that the Georgian military watches over them with nary a Wahhabite in sight.

Now I don’t want to be too hard on the Georgians; I’ve a soft spot for them. They’re a small, proud nation, hospitable and crushingly charming, with fine weather and excellent cuisine. But even a Georgian nationalist would have to admit that it’s fairy-tales, this talk of “the Georgian military” driving terrorists from the Pankisi. First of all, the Georgian army is one of the most incompetent and demoralized in the world, having disgraced itself in every post-Soviet Caucasian brawl it’s entered, particularly in Abkhazia and in Southern Ossetia. The Georgian troops were particularly outclassed when they went up against Chechens in Abhkazia, who went through the much-better-armed Georgian Army like the proverbial hot scimitar through khachapuri (with, indeed, massive Russian help). Moreover, even Green Beret advisors were shocked by the degree to which the Georgian recruits were demoralized and incapable — and they were given the cream of the crop to train, which numbered so few that they were having difficulties just finding enough bodies to put in the US-trained “special battalion”. So to suggest that the Georgians cleared the Pankisi of Chechen guerrillas and their Al Qaeda cohorts simply defies reality.

But an even more fundamental absurdity of Socor’s fairy tale is the notion that the Georgians would want to clear out the Pankisi. It is in the interests of Georgia that the Chechens keep an irritant pressure on Russia via the Pankisi. The Georgians are quite happy to have the Pankisi to worry the Russians with: it’s payback for the Russian involvement in the loss of Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Adjaria, and moreover, the Chechen/Al Qaeda menace has provided the perfect excuse for Georgia’s fantasy-come-true: American military aid. Yet they would never provoke the Chechen terrorists. They tried that once, and have the scars to prove it.

Socor’s next lie is that the Russians’ concern over terrorists in the Pankisi is only a pretext for renewed imperialism: “Moscow’s fixation on the Pankisi problem has for some time distracted international attention away from its more far-reaching moves to thwart Georgia’s pro-Western course.” In other words, the dirty Russkis have invented the whole thing. This begs some rather basic questions, such as: why, then, did the US make a deal with the Georgians to accept Green Beret “training” and establish American bases in Georgia if there’s no real “Pankisi problem”? When the deal was signed, both parties agreed that the threat of terrorism, spreading from Georgia into Russia and beyond made US help essential. And it was to the Pankisi that the US and Georgian cooperation was specifically directed. Some reports say that Al Qaeda terrorists there were planning “operations” against Western targets in Moscow and chemical attacks on American and Western military bases in Central Asia. Russia has been screaming about this for two years now, to the derision of the West. Now that the West agrees, Russia is still derided, not for lying as previously, but now, for having imperial intentions. President Bush’s people, naturally, are not in the least motivated by the idea of securing the Caspian Sea oil routes.

For a truly mad ideologue like Socor, this is conveniently forgotten. All things involving Russia must be understood as manifestations of the big bear’s insatiable appetite. Any claim by Moscow to special rights over its former territories must be rejected.

This dogmatic reading of Russian intentions is looking particularly feeble after the events of the past week. When 50 Chechen terrorists can drive right up to a theatre in central Moscow and take 700 hostages, it is not quite so easy to dismiss Russia’s fears of Chechen terrorism expanding into new areas so easily. Socor dismisses Russian objections to Georgia’s collaboration with the Chechens as a cynical attempt “to generate anti-Georgian sentiment among the Russian public…” In other words, the Russians are just being alarmists so they can mess around with their former client states. I really wonder if anyone is going to take this line after this week’s events in Moscow. The 50 Chechens who occupied that theatre and prepared to blow it up, taking 700 hostages with them, were not plants of the FSB nor figments of Putin’s speechwriters’ imagination. The Russians do face a real threat from Chechen terrorism, and it is just barely possible that the steps they take to oppose it are not animated by some evil ulterior motive.

Socor, of course, will not see this. Moscow could be blown to bits by Chechens, and it would not dissuade him from his well-paid work of demonising poor broken Russia. Every step the crippled Russian state takes to look out for its interests is instantly grabbed by Socor and waved about as proof of the Bear’s evil intent. And of all such moves, nothing is easier or more handy to the Russia-baiter than the issue of NATO expansion. It was this bogey to which Socor chose to devote a Sept. 13, 2002 article for the WSJ. Socor’s view is simple: President Bush has led the world in a grand crusade against terror. Russia seems to be going along with us — but is it? Can the Bear ever be trusted, even when apparently docile?

Socor tells a grim story: while Russia has made a show of cooperation, it is not happy about NATO expanding to its doorstep and is making an effort to “reconstitute a Russian-led political, military and economic bloc in large parts of the former Soviet domain.” So there are two objections to Putin’s policies: first, that he has grumbled about the expansion right up to Russia’s borders of an alliance specifically established to prepare for war against Russia; and second, that he is attempting to reestablish some sort of alliance with his neighbors, in which Russia — by far the biggest and most powerful nation in the area — would be cheeky enough to take a leading role.

This sort of Russian revanchism, Socor insists in article after article, is the real threat. He even asserts that Russia’s claim to be worried about Islamic terrorism is a facade. When the US taps its citizens’ phones, suspends habeas corpus, conducts military operations from the Pankisi to the Philippines and otherwise shreds its Constitutional restraints on government limits, that is a fully justified reaction to 11 Sept. But when Russia pretends to worry about Chechnya, it’s mere expansionism in disguise. (You start to wonder if they really believe this stuff. But that’s where having me several facsimiles of Mr Socor is useful: I can assure you that he and his like believe it, very much so.)

The most vile of Socor’s many lies is the one he told in a special RFE/RLE “Background Report on Russia and Islam” in October of 1999: “Moscow is now blaming Islamic fundamentalism for just about every outbreak of violence in the Caucasus and Central Asia. Without any evidence, it holds Chechen Islamists responsible for the recent spate of bombings in Russia. Help us fight this Islamist plague, it asks of other nations [but has failed to help the Kyrgyz Army fight Islamic guerrillas].”

One wonders what Socor feels (or is instructed to feel) about the seriousness of that Islamic threaet now. Moreover, what hard evidence has Socor’s lord, Dubya, provided to link bin Laden to the September 11th attacks, or Saddam Hussein to Al Qaeda?

That “spate of bombings” killed over 300 Muscovites in their homes. To their credit, a significant percentage of the Russian people and even brave journalists and politicians, who are far less gullible than their American counterparts, considered from the start that the bombings might have been staged by the FSB to create a surge of nationalist feeling which would get the nationalist Putin reelected. But after this week’s siege in Moscow, it’s hard to deny that there is, to put it mildly, a very real threat of Chechen terrorist violence in Moscow. It is both tied to Islamic fundamentalism as well as something peculiar about the Chechen character. Obviously the Putin people started adding “Islamists” to “Chechens” after 11 Sept. as often as they could, but it isn’t as if the Chechens have done much to dispel that notion. Besides, one sure way to get the proverbially deaf and self-interested Bush administration to listen to your pleas for cooperation was to say “Islamic terrorists”. It was the Americans, not the Russians, who made that a bogeyman. Russians don’t fear Turkmen, Kyrgyz, Uzbek, Kazakhs, Azeris, or any of the hundreds of other Islamic ethnic groups in their region. They fear Chechens. And after this week’s nightmare here, it would seem to be difficult to find any reason to object to them for doing so.

But I have faith…faith that Mr Socor, and all the hundreds of other native auxiliaries who do his dirty job for the big western dailies, will find a way. There’s some proverb to the effect that the truth will find a way. Will it? I recall believing that once, when I joined this profession. Now I’d put it otherwise: “The lies will found an institute.” And that Institute will keep them rich, happy and proud, lying for their supper and sending their kids to a good Ivy-League school on the proceeds.

Journalists often make bitter jokes on the theme of what would happen if they and their colleagues really had to act as if they believed the drivel they wrote. For me, the most delightful image of this sort is one I mentioned above: the entire Socor family sitting on a grassy meadow, enjoying a delicious picnic lunch made by Mrs Socor, as Mr Socor reads his family his story describing the way the Georgian Army has made the Gorge “lawless and crime-ridden no more.”

He wouldn’t even make it to the end of the paragraph before the war-cries sent him and the loved ones fleeing clumsily, hopelessly, toward the family car. Justice: it’s a nice dream, at least.

*****

Excerpted from an ’03 eXile article:

http://www.exile.ru/2003-October-02/feature_story.html

The WSJ, apparently worried that its fulltimers might not be barking mad enough, has taken to using hired psychos willing to rant freelance on the pages of the Journal. And none of these crazies is more utterly deranged than our friend Vladimir Socor. Socor’s an old favorite of Moscow expat press-watchers, and was featured in an eXile press review last year. His one gimmick is Russophobia. But that’s like saying that Andy Roddick’s one gimmick is his serve. Socor is the incarnation of Russophobia, its avatar, the supreme expression of it.

Socor’s latest work, an essay published in the WSJ a few days before the France/Russia editorial, may be his best and craziest ever. Even the title makes your jaw drop in sheer wonder: “Standing up to Putin’s Imperial Ambitions.” The thesis is that a too-trusting, too-gentle America is in danger of being overwhelmed by an aggressive, imperialistic Russia.

No, seriously. That’s Socor’s thesis.

Socor’s evidence is that Russia is actually negotiating with several former Soviet states on its borders: “In a vast stretch of the former Soviet Union, from Belarus and Ukraine to Central Asia, Mr. Putin is now setting up a trading and monetary bloc of six countries under leadership from Moscow.”

In other words, Russia is holding trade talks with states which until 1989 were united, with Russia, in a single nation.

Socor explains that this Russian-sponsored “Eurasian Economic Union” actually threatens NATO, because it “…restores Moscow’s control over this part of Europe, on NATO’s and the EU’s new frontier.”

This has to win as the most absurd, moronic assertion of all. What Socor is saying is that Russia is stirring things up on “NATO’s new frontier”-which happens to be thousands of kilometres east of NATO’s original frontier. It’s like Genghiz Khan accusing the Europeans of building castles “on Mongolia’s new frontier” 10,000 km west of Mongolia’s original frontier.

If the Cold War had gone the other way, would outraged Pravda editorial writers be churning out scare-pieces about how the US dared to set up its own customs shacks at the Tijuana border, and was stirring up trouble at the Warsaw Pact’s “new frontier” south of Vancouver?

They might. The difference is that most of them would do it cynically, because it was their job. They wouldn’t actually believe the lies they were paid to write.

That’s what makes America so truly, scarily insane: these people genuinely believe the lies they write. And the more implausible the lie, the more they believe it.

****

http://www.exile.ru/2002-November-13/sic.html

A reply to the above:

SOCOR-RUPT!
Congratulations on excellent piece about hatred-spewing schmuck Vladimir Socor. It’s actually even funnier. For several years before 9/11 one of his favorite tree to bark up was Russian sinister designs to undermine the good government of Taliban and reestablish its domination of Afghanistan and the rest of the Central Asia. Here are some hilarious droppings from his columns in WSJ Europe and some sheet of toilet paper he edits called “Fortnight in Review” (thanks Google for making exposing morons so easy it is truly fun):

“The charge that Afghanistan under Taliban is an exporter of Islamic extremism is another canard”. “But where is the evidence of Taliban religious-missionary expansion into Central Asia or other neighboring countries?”. “They [Central Asian countries]. seem prepared to accept the fact of Taliban domination of Afghanistan in return for guarantees of responsible behavior, which the Taliban authorities seem prepared to both offer and observe. What these countries do fear is precisely what the US-Russian sanctions seem structured to promote: unlimited and unmatched Russian arms supplies to the Afghan opposition that will produce interminable war and Russian demands to use Central Asia as staging areas for intervention in Afghanistan.”

Oops. Then came 9/11 and the Party line got changed. Here is what he wrote in one of his December 2001 columns: “Ivanov. has credited Russia for being responsible for Northern Alliance military advances, while minimizing the decisive role of US air operation, intelligence gathering and special operations on the ground. Meanwhile Russia is. threatening to use its veto power on the UN Security Council to give it disproportional role in decisions on peacekeeping operations in Afghanistan and the country’s political future.”

Get it? A few months before September 11 – evil Russia was arming Northern Alliance while slandering and plotting against nice peaceful Talibs. After 9/11 – evil Russia has the temerity to claim it had a role in helping Northern Alliance to route evil terrorist thugs of Taliban!

The hacks like Socor are simply obsessed with hatred to ever notice this and infinite number of their other bloopers.

Many of you probably know an old Russian joke about a happily humming mosquito who, asked why he feels so good, proudly replies: “Yesterday they were beating up the elephant near the river, and I also managed to kick him twice”. If this is not pathetic enough, imagine these Socors and other mosquitoes DENIED such opportunity to kick the lying elephant again and again, every second of their miserable life? To see that this elephant (or bear, or whatever) is down but still alive, not totally ground into dust? That Carthage is not yet plowed and salted?

Imagine him in such a rage, humming so furiously that he actually can be heard almost two meters away? Now imagine such a mosquito having at his disposal the loudspeaker of venom-spitting Wall Street Journal to broadcast his petty grievances far further than a couple of meters of space he rightfully deserves?

Kirill Pankratov,
Acton, MA, USA

Dear Mr. Pankratov,

Congratulations, you’ve just written the best damn letter we’ve received in a long time. Anyone who helps the eXile’s mission to Out The Scum is a hero in our eyes. Unfortunately neither your letter nor the original press review about Socor will make it onto the screens of America’s official Russia Watching Bureaucracy on David Johnson’s Russia List since we’ve been officially censored. However, thanks for your letter. Whenever we get our goddamn [sic] T-shirts made, you’re in for one. Postage and handling on us!
Tim Newman May 7, 2007 at 7:27 am

Lyndon, nothing personal, but you’re a flack for Socor and EDM, as shown by how you don’t want to address their faulty analysis.

So not criticising something is now equated to supporting something? Can we assume that Averko is a flack for the North Korean news agency, given how he doesn’t want to address its faulty analysis?

Having someone like Tim cheer for you isn’t a ringing endorsement.

It’s funny, I have found a pattern here: when I use a turn of phrase, you adopt it a comment or two later. Would you like me to give you some writing lessons, given how you are so keen to adopt my style?

If you’re going to criticize, show substance. To date, you’ve yet to find much if anything at fault with my commentary.

You can keep repeating it, but it doesn’t get an less false. Several people have found plenty of faults with your commentary, and you have failed to address the issues raised, and instead resorted to evasions, repetition, and erm, saying over and over again that nobody has found fault with your writings.
Tim Newman May 7, 2007 at 7:37 am

Oh, great! Yet another Mike Averko cut-and-paste job of entire articles in a blog comment.

Didn’t Sean ask you not to do this? It is extremely tedious for the rest of us.
Michael Averko May 7, 2007 at 7:58 am

Oh great! Another Tim Newman misrepresentation claiming that he (or anyone else here) successfully found any significant fault with my commentary. This relative to his general non-substantive replies to facts and fact based opinions, which he apparently disagrees with.

Oops! Sorry Sean. I felt it was high time to show what Lyndon keeps overlooking relative to his repeated establishment like nitpicks.
Irishman May 7, 2007 at 8:36 am

Mike,

couldnt you just have linked the article? Why, oh why, do you have to copy and paste the whole thing? Is it really necessary?

I’m going to say something to you Mike and you can tell me f*** off if you want, but I’ll say it anyway. Your behaviour is astoundingly bad for a man your age. Now I know you’ve gotten a lot of flack from all of us lately, but your responses to simple questions and queries have been dreadful, and that is the politest word I can use.

Your continued ranting against David Johnson, Peter Lavelle, Socor and whoever else that doesnt publish you are whom you’ve had a run-in with borders on the hysterical. First of all, be under no illusions about this – no-one gives two fucks about these people. No-one. Looking at photos of Lavelle and Johnson, lets face it, you wouldnt envy their looks. But apart from that, you over-emphasize their importance. These people are of absolutely no consequence to anyone at all. They are nobodies. And they’re mingers. Which brings me to my next point.

Mike, without trying to belittle your achievements, and there are indeed some things you’ve written that I liked, lets face it, you havent been published anywhere major. Yet. I say yet because the way I see it, you have a simple choice. You can spend all your lif in rows on blogs about how great you are, with no evidence, or you can actually go and make yourself great. I’m 31 years of age and as a chemist I’m nowhere near the finished article, inspite of years of experience, teaching part-time and being chief analyst of a state lab in Ireland. Unlike you I know I have years of work to go before I can get even near being the type of chemist I’d look up to – people like Don Catlin at UCLA(you might know him Sean). You have the opposite attitude – you have no real backing to your claims of greatness and think you are the finished product as an analyst or journalist. Lets face facts, you havent. Why dont you do the intelligent thing – go and work on your writing and try, try again? Instead of spending your time moaning on a crusade against those people and trying to convince us of your greatness? I know that if I get rejected at something or cant make something work, I look at myself and think, what am I doing wrong? Couldnt I improve this or that? What do i need to do to make this or that happen?
Why dont you have that attitude? Why is your ‘censorship’ everyone elses fault and not yours?

I know you’re going to call me names and say mind my own business etc. But the only person you’re hurting on here is yourself Mike. I’ve no doubt you have great knowledge of the FSU and you have written some good pieces and that if you concentrated your energies you could do really well. But complaining against the establishment isnt going to change anything.
Fanya May 7, 2007 at 8:59 am

Mr. Averko,

Tim is being far too generous, but he offers the right prescription. Here’s a valuable resource:

http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/toc.htm
db May 7, 2007 at 9:13 am

Oops! Sorry Sean. I felt it was high time…

Still can’t figure out how to post hyperlinks?
Michael Averko May 7, 2007 at 9:26 am

Fanya, generously inaccurate and off topic applies to the last three comments here. My posted comments deal with FSU issues. In comparison, some others here try to stray off topic.

The record shows how I stay on topic, only to be met with hypocritically applied and bogus comments like the ones most recently made by Fanya and Tim.

I continuously stay on topic with a non-LaRussophobe described like “brigade” (refer to LR’s premised description of such) going off topic with personal comments that are either false and-or way off topic.

I will once again note how Ger continuously goes off topic with misrepresentative comments about myself. Also note how Tim Newman contradicted himself. He recently suggested to not comment about me. He violated his own advocacy. A sign of a weak personality.
Tim Newman May 7, 2007 at 9:34 am

The record shows how I stay on topic,

Yes, that topic being Mike Averko and the Injustice of the Anglo-American Mass Media led by the Evil Overlord David Johnson. Sadly for the rest of us, this is rarely the actual topic.

only to be met with hypocritically applied and bogus comments like the ones most recently made by Fanya and Tim.

Explain exactly why my comments are hypocritically applied, Mike? And what is bogus about them? Are they really not comments but something else instead?

Also note how Tim Newman contradicted himself. He recently suggested to not comment about me. He violated his own advocacy.

Violating ones own advocacy and contradicting oneself are not the same thing. They are quite different, in fact. As has been noted before, for somebody who purports to be a serious writer, your grip on the English language it atrocious.
Michael Averko May 7, 2007 at 9:46 am

Tim is off topic again with broadly stated false innuendo.

Tim, try dealing with the issues in terms of my FSU rwalted points instead of trolling.

From top to bottom, the record is clear on this.

You’re carrying on like a fraud for belittling without substance my fact based media critiques, while taking pot shots at venues offering more accurate depictiins as those stated by people like Vladimir Socor.

I can’t make you stay on topic.
Fanya May 7, 2007 at 9:46 am

Guess you haven’t had time to check out the Guide to Logical Fallacies yet…

Let me also recommend Bryan Garner’s Dictionary of Modern American Usage.

And when I taught in Russia, I made all my students read this guide to using the Internet like an adult.
Michael Averko May 7, 2007 at 9:53 am

People who carry on like children are in no position to authoritatively comment on how to carry on like an adult.

I’d like to discuss FSU issues and instead am met with troll like manner.
Fanya May 7, 2007 at 10:01 am

People who carry on like children are in no position to authoritatively comment on how to carry on like an adult.

Go easy w/ the self-criticism, man.
Michael Averko May 7, 2007 at 10:06 am

Are you that delusional?

With sound reasoning on my side, I was clearly referring to yourself.
db May 7, 2007 at 10:13 am

Mike, it’s 6AM in NY, and you’ve been on here since 3AM. Are you a night guard or something?
Michael Averko May 7, 2007 at 10:18 am

How do you know that I’m in NY right now? For all you know, I could be in Haifa, or Tiraspol, or Moscow.

Are you west coast like SG? No, I’m not a night guard or anything closely resembling that.
Irishman May 7, 2007 at 10:27 am

Mike,

you’re not in Moscow at all. Dont be fooling yourself or anyone else. You’re never been to Russia, a fact I conclusively proved the other day with my simple questions. Dont be confused – ignoring those questions doesnt make you aloof from them. It simply means you’ve never been to Moscow, thats all.
Fanochka May 7, 2007 at 10:28 am

With sound reasoning on my side…

Look, it’s trying to think.

Gospodin A., ??????? ? ???, you still haven’t learned how to make arguments that don’t commit logical fallacies, and the guide to using the net like an adult isn’t about comments policies–I’m more than happy to behave like a child–but is about learning how to determine whether an internet source that might appear legit is actually full of shit… you know, like you.
db May 7, 2007 at 10:29 am

How do you know that I’m in NY right now?

It’s easier than you think. I’ll tell you as soon as you learn how to post hyperlinks.

Are you west coast like SG?

No.
Michael Averko May 7, 2007 at 10:34 am

I know what you’re thinking and it can still mislead you (wink, wink). I know how to post hyperlinks. Those in receipt of my QT know this.

Ger comes back with a repeat lie.

This is why Tim Newman is carryiong on like such a phony with his selective moaning about what is and isn’t acceptable etiquette.

I try to stay on topic, with the trolls trolling on.
Michael Averko May 7, 2007 at 10:39 am

“‘With sound reasoning on my side…’

Look, it’s trying to think.

Gospodin A., ??????? ? ???, you still haven’t learned how to make arguments that don’t commit logical fallacies, and the guide to using the net like an adult isn’t about comments policies–I’m more than happy to behave like a child–but is about learning how to determine whether an internet source that might appear legit is actually full of shit… you know, like you.”

***

Unlike your pathetic self, I don’t have to try. You’ve all of the trappings of a sock puppet or troll friend of an existing troll here.
Tim Newman May 7, 2007 at 10:51 am

Tim is off topic again with broadly stated false innuendo.

I was quoting you, Mike. Kind of difficult for you to accuse me of going off topic when I am quoting your own words back to you.

Tim, try dealing with the issues in terms of my FSU rwalted points instead of trolling.

I’ve dealt with the issues in terms of your FSU related points before, as have others. All you do is ignore the issues and repeat your mistakem points over and over again. And then moan about Johnson’s Russia List. Over and over again.
db May 7, 2007 at 10:55 am

I know what you’re thinking and it can still mislead you (wink, wink).

I don’t think so.

I know how to post hyperlinks. Those in receipt of my QT know this.

No, you obviously don’t know how to enter hyperlinks manually.
Michael Averko May 7, 2007 at 10:58 am

With db unable to make a substantive criticism related to my FSU commentary.

———————————–

Tim proves my point again about him:

“Tim is off topic again with broadly stated false innuendo.

I was quoting you, Mike. Kind of difficult for you to accuse me of going off topic when I am quoting your own words back to you.

Tim, try dealing with the issues in terms of my FSU rwalted points instead of trolling.

I’ve dealt with the issues in terms of your FSU related points before, as have others. All you do is ignore the issues and repeat your mistakem points over and over again. And then moan about Johnson’s Russia List. Over and over again.”

***

No Tim! My detailed critiques of JRL are act based. They have yet to be addressed. Instead, were some misrepresentatuions as to what I actually stated, which is clearly on record.

Meantime, Tim readily accepts the misinformative criticisms of TTT.
Tim Newman May 7, 2007 at 11:05 am

No Tim! My detailed critiques of JRL are act based. They have yet to be addressed.

No, Mike. You are lying. Your ‘detailed critique’ of JRL was that they censored you by not publishing articles of yours. Then Lyndon pointed out that they did publish you, but you didn’t receive it. Far from addressing this point, you then stated that this didn’t matter, your criticims were still 100% valid, leaving most of us on here to only gaze open-mouthed upon such logic. Then you shifted your complaints to JRL not archiving you and putting you at the end of the list.

In short: your critiques of JRL are not fact based, and they have been addressed.

Meantime, Tim readily accepts the misinformative criticisms of TTT.

I came to my own conclusions about the Tiraspol Times, in that it is more political pamphlet than newspaper. It just so happens that everyone else came to the same conclusion too.
Michael Averko May 7, 2007 at 11:17 am

No Tim you’re blatantly lying by falsely stating what I’d actually said relative to Lyndon’s disingenuously clumsy and repeated omission of the totality on what I said in full. This is all a matter of record.

As for TTT, you aren’t able to make a sound evaluation of its overall quality. Like Lyndon – you duck many of the establishment media flaws, while maintaining their prejudices.

Compressing the Spring

127 Comments.

Recent Posts

SRB Щебеты

Братишки и Боевые комсомолки

Global Voices: Russia

Roll Call

Archive