Stats
-
-
Mar
2
Russian Election Day has come and gone. Finally. Nevertheless, the mandarins of the American media are dutifully filling column inches with reports about Russia. Sadly, like most reporting on the Slavic nation, one you read one, you’ve pretty much read them all. The Washington Post is a typical example of how little American newspapers editors understand about Russia. Here are a few examples:
The Kremlin has rounded up a collection of three losers for Mr. Medvedev to run against, including the head of the Communist Party and a buffoonish ultranationalist, while disqualifying the most serious opposition candidate, a liberal former prime minister.
By “liberal former prime minister,” they mean Mikhail Kasyanov, or as they call him in Russia “Misha 2%.” The editors from the Washington Post can’t get it through their thick skulls that the “head of the Communist Party” and the “buffoonish ultranationalist” are the only serious opposition simply because they actually have political constituencies. To suggest otherwise would be like saying Ralph Nader is the only serious opposition in the American election. The real sad part is that instead of allowing Kasyanov to run openly and uninhibited to show the world that Russians don’t care about him, the Kremlin’s minion in the Central Election Commission disqualified him for allegedly faking signatures. I believe this claim. But the election is all bullshit anyway so the way I see it you might as well let all bullshitters play. At least that way the whole process won’t be so goddamn boring.
So the benighted slag and drag is piling up highthis Russian Presidential election day. It’s no wonder that when Tim Russert asked Hillary Clinton “Who the next Russian President will be?”, she garbled her answer with “Med . . . um . . . Medeveda . . . Mededevda . . . whatever.” No matter Bush didn’t know who Pervez Musharaf was when he was running the first time. Hopefully for her, if she wins, which looks unlikely, she won’t discover Medvedev’s name in a similar context in which Bush had to learn Musharaf’s. You can see a clip of of Hillary’s verbal stumbling on Siberian Light. (Btw, Andy has also be doing some live blogging on the election.)
Luckily, there is one diamond amid the pundit zirconia, and even more surprisingly it’s from the chief mandarin of them all, the New York Times. Rather than turning to their editorial board to make yet another dull comment, the Times has enlisted Princeton historian Stephen Kotkin to give his assessment of Russia via a book review of Anders Aslund’s Russia’s Capitalist Revolution. More important than what Kotkin thinks of Aslund’s book is what he says about the election. “Dmitri A. Medvedev will be anointed president of Russia today thanks to the political handiwork of Vladimir V. Putin. But maybe the real winner is economic globalization.” Agreed. And this is what many Russopundits should understand. Putin may not be a liberal in the political sense, but he’s certainly one in the economic sense. This is the secret of the success of Putin’s Plan. Russia’s increasing integration into the global economy has produced enough trickle to enough Russians to build a middle class. Once you have that class as your political back pocket, how the poor live doesn’t matter. Especially since the uppity middle class despises them anyway. As Kotkin writes,
Most Russians do not love Mr. Putin per se, but they love Mr. Putin’s Russia. They love being middle class. They love planning for the future. It is no comfort to the politically persecuted, but average wages in Russia are leaping 10 percent a year, in real terms.
The growing millions of Russian homeowners, vacationers and investors may seem inclined to authoritarianism or just apolitical. But they certainly value a strong ruble, moderate inflation, affordable mortgages, access to higher education, satellite television, Internet connections, passports, foreign visas and — above all else — no economic shocks.
So as much as people like Aslund want to argue that Putin had nothing to do with Russia’s economic resurgence, the truth is that he and his circle are reaping the political benefits. Enough Russians see that things are good now and the man in office is Putin. This makes Medvedev’s win a no brainer even if the election was a shining example of the democratic process. Given this, perhaps the real farce would be holding an actual democratic election. That would certainly be the worst thing for Russia’s “liberals” because it would expose them for the politically bankrupt “opposition” that they are. Putin has unwittingly done the liberals a great favor. His Plan has all but buttressed their their self deluded right to exist.
Plus why pretend there is a contest when there actually isn’t one in real political terms? Dima is Putin’s man, so by that simple fact he’s also most Russians’ man. So instead of harping again and again on the obvious–Russia is not the democratic, liberal nation we all pray for–we need concentrate on why Russians may not love Putin, but they love Putin’s Russia. As Kotkin rightly says, quoting Dmitri Trenin, “There is a Russia beyond Putin’s.” True enough, though Mr. Trenin does not detail that Russia. Almost no one does.” True that.
Popularity: 6% [?]
Comments
252 Comments so far
“Once you have that class as your political back pocket, how the poor live doesn’t matter. Especially since the uppity middle class despises them anyway.”
Actually if you did a poll of the Russian middle class I think you would find that the majority are Social Democratic in outlook.
I’ve heard similar statements about the American middle class. Chomsky and some other lefty-celebs have made a similar argument about the attitudes of the American middle class. Yet, social democracy has no real political force. So I’m not inclined to make much of such polls.
But perhaps this is a reason why a better understanding of the Russian middle class is needed. There is no uniformity and attitudes and mores are often trumped by political pragmatism.
Would you say the American middle class holds poor people in contempt? I wouldn’t. Well, some of them.
The lack of a social democratic movement probably has something to do with the KPRF, I think, which absorb some left movements and alienates others.
Also, it may be relevant the great majority of people in the Russian middle class have been poor themselves, and quite recently too.
Good post!
“The real sad part is that instead of allowing Kasyanov to run openly”…
“Putin has unwittingly done the liberals a great favor. His Plan has all but buttressed their their self deluded right to exist.”….
Sean, don’t you think Kasyanov knew this?
I think this was his plan - to pretend to run and do everything possible to be “suppressed”. To have the right to exists as “opposition leader” rather than loser with 2% of votes.
PS. How little the west understand - is the problem of the west
Just for record.
I think that Medvedev is not the leader (at least - not ready to be the one). But he will carry out all these time-consuming political BS that president has to carry - to travel, meet, make speeches, shake hands, kiss something etc…
And Putin will concentrate on real job and day-to-day problems.
I see these two guys as good pilot team - leader and …oops don’t know military term for “ведомый”. And the second pilot is as important for success of the fight as the leader. And the fact that sometimes they change roles doesn’t mean that they change their power and leadership…
PS. I didn’t vote for M … but not sure what box I marked on the list - for Ж,З or Б.
But he will carry out all these time-consuming political BS that president has to carry - to travel, meet, make speeches, shake hands, kiss something etc…
I disagree. These are the perks of the job, which Putin seemed to enjoy so much. PM in Russia is a thankless job. The day-to-day nitty-gritty of pensions, wages and other BS, while not having any real power. Compare that with jetting around the world, making pipeline deals. And Putin himself acknowledged being tired. So IMO, the PM pledge is a smokescreen, much like his campaigning for ER in November. He is simply pumping up Medvedev because it’s his tendency to overdo things. He really is riding into the sunset. This will really suck for the russophobes.
So? “And Putin himself acknowledged being tired.”
One of the nastier aspects of much of Western coverage of Russia is not so much the criticism but what appears to me as a total lack of sympathy for the people of Russia and Putin as a person. There seems no understanding of the immense personnal effort made by Putin over the last eight years. He did not create the rise in energy prices of course but he took advantage of them to benefit his country in a superb way.
The other night there was an excellent exhaustive and exhausting series of programmes about Russia on Franco the German Arte Channel. In it they interviewed a modern artist from near Socchi next to his very modern art. I expected the usual progressive unthinking criticism. Instead to describe Putin’s achievement, he used the metaphor of an eagle knowing how to soar into the sky riding a thermal. Impressive I thought.
On the other hand I absolutely dispute the idea that Putin swaned around the world signing treaties because he enjoyed foreign travel. He may have enjoyed it but he has achieved an enormous improvement in Russia’s overseas image as a nation to be taken seriously. This slander is just part of the “weaken by denigration campaign” that is now widespread.
Ivanov - As a non Russian speaker “ведомый” ‘navigator’? perhaps the Economist would translate it as ‘bomb aimer’.
Flight leader and wingman?
Flight leader and wingman?
Can’t be both really. Flight leader is the boss of a group of planes and wingman is the plane that flies at your wingtip to protect you flank. As a description of the deadly duo perhaps.
“One of the nastier aspects of much of Western coverage of Russia is not so much the criticism but what appears to me as a total lack of sympathy for the people of Russia”
I completely agree. Expressing sympathy — and even more so empathy — would undermine the whole Western narrative. The whole collapse of society and string of catastrophes in the 1990s are a result of the collapse of the USSR, which according the reigning Western narrative was a good thing. Thus, the sufferings of people in its wake must be ignored, minimized, or blamed on them. This is even more so insofar as the West tries to take credit for the collapse, because to do otherwise would morally implicate Westerners.
Navigator?
Expressing sympathy — and even more so empathy — would undermine the whole Western narrative.
Yes I should have used the word empathy or perhaps both.
Thanks, robert.
Of course wingman!
Looking at the Putin’s confidence in the specific plans/measures beyond his official terms, at Medvedev’s silence about “his vision”, taking into consideration Medvedev’s age and long term experience of Putin/Medvedev as leader/wingman - I’m sure that they just castle.
There is nothing in Constitution that prevents Putin to keep REAL power.
And in fact REAL power and official title are not the same thing at all. When Yeltsin was president - his power was limited by Moscow ring road. And even his own ministers didn’t give a shit about “mr. president” - they were too busy stealing anything they could touch
This period was called “democratic reforms” in the West…
And all this BS known as diplomatic protocol takes too much time! And I’m sure that Medvedev is good enough to handle it even better than Putin.
But when I see Putin as Prime-Minister (with his jaws of wolfhound) - I think he might serve the country much better this way.
So let wingman to fly around (and flight leader - to shoot those fools who thinks that Akela got tired
It’s interesting to note that 12 years ago the Washington Post was arguing that Yeltsin must be supported at all costs or else — Russia would be led by the head of the Communist Party or the buffoonish ultranationalist.
ivanov:
I don’t think that having a symbolic President is a good thing. Yeltsin was one because of his poor health. Power sharing is not workable either. I’m sure that both Putin and Medvedev understand this. That’s why I don’t believe Putin will hang around in any official capacity.
“I don’t think that having a symbolic President is a good thing.”
It depends…
The place I’m living at the moment has such symbolic president. It works excellent!
President is traveling and shaking hands, PM is doing dirty job. Everybody is happy
Seriously speaking Putin (and Yetlsin in this respect) had the problem with PMs and as such - had to do their job most of the time. Now he could concentrate on the job full-time.
“It’s interesting to note that 12 years ago the Washington Post was arguing that Yeltsin must be supported at all costs or else — Russia would be led by the head of the Communist Party or the buffoonish ultranationalist.”
Yeah! And most funny - Yeltsin had much higher rank in the Communist Party than Zyu. He was chlen of Central Committee, boss of Moscow Communists etc.
I remember that time. My “western” friends were so excited about the fact that communists “failed” and lost power in Russia … When I was telling them that this was BS - communists just changes their titles - very few people were really able to understand that.
I mean symbolic in the sense that while he has all the official powers, he does the bidding of the PM, who offically has almost none. Institutions and laws, not personalities and “mutual understanding”. IMO, when Putin voluntarily relinquishes power, he will do a great service to his country. He understands this better than anyone.
So?
Why do you think that it’s good to serve 8 years only?
For some - I would never allow even one day in power. For others - 20 years might be too short.
8 years limit is justa copy from … let’say not perfect rules of some country-I-do-not-name-here
These are the set rules, and they must be followed. A law-abiding leader sets a good example for all citizens. Given the amount of power concentrated in the Russian Presidential office, a term limit is a good to prevent a Brezhnev scenario if anything. Remember, were it not for the term limit, Yeltsin would have been stinking up the joint for at least another 4 years.
I dunno — a school of thought exists that Yeltsin was forced out of office under fear of impeachment and criminal prosecution (which would have been sweet I must admit).
So, do you believe, So?, that 2 terms@4 years for General Secretary of Communist Party of the CCCR would have change anything?
PS. What rules are broken by Putin now
Yeltsin passed the power not because of fear of impeachment or prosecution or term’s limit.
He was fully aware of the fact that his power was slipping off his hands (in 1999 I would estimate his power at same level as any regional governor - so he was the kind of governor of Kremlin rather than Russia). And he was searching for the man he could pass his remaining power to. He tried many people none of whom appeared to a Man.
I don’t have any reasons to like Yeltsin. But I have to admit - he had the instincts of the bear. He felt the danger and he always - always - made the right last bite. When he found Putin and felt (on instinct level) that this was the right man - he passed the power. Because he understood - this was the last chance to save the country from disaster.
Believe me - the smell of disaster was in the air…
”Most Russians do not love Russia per se, but most Russians love Chris Doss’ Russia”.
Just a little piece of wisdom from Ireland for the day thats in it:-)
My Russia is the bestest Russia.
He did not create the rise in energy prices of course but he took advantage of them to benefit his country in a superb way.
This is a view probably not shared by many in the oil and gas industry. The manner in which he has moved the industry towards nationalised monopolies, often at the expense of the foreign companies upon whom Russia’s success in this area is dependent, is almost guaranteed to lead to stagnation, poor safety, inefficiency, environmental pollution, and and all round poor deal for Russians.
One of the nastier aspects of much of Western coverage of Russia is not so much the criticism but what appears to me as a total lack of sympathy for the people of Russia
And why are Russians deserving of sympathy from the west?
“And why are Russians deserving of sympathy from the west?”
Because of “shock therapy”, going on the idiotic IMF and WTO economic plans, and the like. Chubais, those idiots at Harvard’s “Russia House”, and other economic retards badly mangled Russia. They followed our crap “plans” until saner heads prevailed.
Because of “shock therapy”, going on the idiotic IMF and WTO economic plans, and the like. Chubais, those idiots at Harvard’s “Russia House”, and other economic retards badly mangled Russia. They followed our crap “plans” until saner heads prevailed.
Any sympathy they may deserve for having endured this is likely to be vastly outweighed by the Russians having been stupid enough to have persisted with communism for 70 years to the point that when it collapsed around their ears they were so economically clueless they embraced the idiotic plans which you describe with open arms.
Unsympathetic characters like me might think that Russians need a lesson or two in taking responsibility for their own predicaments rather than sympathy.
“And why are Russians deserving of sympathy from the west?”
Because they are people?
Because they are people?
I look forward to similar criteria resulting in Russian media coverage of the west to contain sympathy.
You mean like all those totally nonsympathetic 9/11 specials, standing in total contrast to the Beslan coverage?
By the way, Shock Therapy was not adopted by the Russians. It was adopted by the ruling clique of the time. The Russians were agin it. That’s part of why Yeltsin shelled the Duma.
You mean like all those totally nonsympathetic 9/11 specials, standing in total contrast to the Beslan coverage?
I mean I look forward to the Russian press adopting levels of sympathy in their coverage of the west which you complain are lacking in the west’s coverage of Russia.
By the way, Shock Therapy was not adopted by the Russians.
They said the same thing about communism, and no doubt when Putin’s nationalisation programs and centralised economy go belly up, the same excuse will be dredged up.
No, they didn’t say that about Communism. Most Russians think highly of central planning, and have for a long time.
In fact I am not sure how much water the claim that the Communists bankrupted the country actually holds, despite its obvious ideological appeal. Given that the economy and material standards of living were growing up through the early 1980s, albeit at ever-slowing tempos, it is false on the face of it.
If you ask me, and I know you dont, but anyway, the disaster 1991-1999 was down to Chris Doss cheerleading for the Court Appointed Russia friendlies. The number of people who will not accept this fact is enormous.
I wonder when Mike is getting back from Moscow after covering the election for the Tiraspol Times?
The trolling troll trolls again in his trolling way of trollish trolls.
No, they didn’t say that about Communism. Most Russians think highly of central planning, and have for a long time.
So most Russians supported communism and central planning? I think this goes a long way to explaining why few in the west sympathise with Russians for their economic catastrophes.
In fact I am not sure how much water the claim that the Communists bankrupted the country actually holds, despite its obvious ideological appeal.
Ignoring ideology and focussing solely on economics, the idea that the centrally planned economy as practiced by the Soviet Union was the major contributor to the economic collapse of the Soviet Union holds water rather well.
Given that the economy and material standards of living were growing up through the early 1980s, albeit at ever-slowing tempos, it is false on the face of it.
I would not want to take the economic data as published by the USSR seriously enough to state as fact that the economy was growing in the 1980s. And increasing living standards is not proof that the system was sustainable beyond the point of collapse.
“So most Russians supported communism and central planning?”
Yes, they did.
“I think this goes a long way to explaining why few in the west sympathise with Russians for their economic catastrophes.”
I don’t think they even know. In fact I’m sure they don’t, since they think the USSR was a vale of tears in which everybody lived in a state of total fear and degradation.
“Ignoring ideology and focussing solely on economics, the idea that the centrally planned economy as practiced by the Soviet Union was the major contributor to the economic collapse of the Soviet Union holds water rather well.”
This may be true or false. But the claim that the central-planning system bankrupted the country is clearly false. This claim might be applied to the late Brezhnev and Gorbachev periods. It is however clearly false if applied to the entire era, and for the majority of it in fact.
It is impossible to ignore ideology and focus solely on economics!
Come to think of it, it’s not just Russians who think this. My Georgian cab driver this morning (since he doesn’t read the Economist, he doesn’t know that all Georgians are anti-communists, forgive him) had a discussion with me about how great life was under the Communists, especially Andropov.
I once got absolutely hammered at a house party with Dima Andropov, grandson of Yuri. Nice guy. We ended up walking around Ploschad Illycha at 4am trying to find a produkty for more booze
Really Ger? Andropov’s great-grandniece Alesya is a friend of mine. That’s not her dad is it?
“Really Ger? Andropov’s great-grandniece Alesya is a friend of mine. That’s not her dad is it?”
Do you both know Putin who put flowers on Andropov’s grave?
“I mean I look forward to the Russian press adopting levels of sympathy in their coverage of the west which you complain are lacking in the west’s coverage of Russia”.
The vaste number of articles I have read from Russia rarely show the cold spite that you read in Britain’s Daily Telegraph for example. There is anger about Western attitudes which is different.
Communism was not the brightest idea in the world economically it would seem but it was cooked up in the British Museum and imposed by Germany through the Bolshevik revolution. It is a little hard to blame the people of Russia who from what I have seen had little or no say in the imposition of the system, which was reinforced by the counter productive interventions by Britain the US and France.
Yes, its true. His girlfriend,now wife as far as I know, Olga - was a friend of the girl I was going out with, and we had a flat-party. I even gave him an Ireland rugby jersey I was wearing! I dont know about his relatives at all though, except his grandfather of course. But he’s around my age or a bit younger and he had no kids as of 2002. He could easily be her uncle. He spent some time in Florida as a teen as far as I know. Total zapoi night thought - a hardcore Russian drinking session!
“Do you both know Putin who put flowers on Andropov’s grave?”
I know he thinks highly of Andropov. Didn’t know about the flowers.
“Communism was not the brightest idea in the world economically it would seem but it was cooked up in the British Museum”
Ahem. That guy in the British Museum said almost nothing abot Communism as a system.
“It is a little hard to blame the people of Russia who from what I have seen had little or no say in the imposition of the system,”
Well they didn’t in the very beginning, but the system (system-in-formation at the time) had popular support from at least the late 20s on. Remember that the dissident movement started as a “return to Lenin.” So did Perestroika.
Ah, he can’t be Alesya’s dad then — she’s in her early 30s. I’m going to ask her if she has an uncle Dima. I guess she must!
Hmm, I SMS’d her. No uncle Dima. They must be related somehow though.
Chris, she has to have, she bloody better have, otherwise there was a total ESL/TORFL failure on that night cos of booze or I’m as deaf as a pole:-)Seemingly he sometimes appears in scandal sheets like Express Gazetta and Spid-Info. Actually Mike would be ideal for Express Gazetta!
Just ask her has she a male relative Dima, about 30-35 years old, called Andropov. Married to Olga.
Was this guy FSB? Practicslly her whole family is FSB.
No, I dont think so. He wasnt the sharpest tool in the box seemingly. Then again, I’m not sure that would have entirely excluded him, and maybe he’s gotten his act together since.
My wifes brother was invited to join the FSB, or at least go for an interview anyway - they contacted him first. The minute they found out his sis was married to a foreigner, the guy on the phone said that was the end, nice talking to you. He had no intention of joining anyway, but it was funny. Discrimination! I wanted to join the FSB:-(!!
A friend of mine was invited to join the KGB back in the day, but got too drunk the night before the physical and failed.
Does the FSB still hire by invitation only?
I think that may be the case. They contact a person directly after university or army service. I must have a look at the website and see if they are any opportunities in their West of Ireland branch and while I’m there check can we arrange something for Mike at the Hicksville and Malverne department:-)
The government is squandering those profits. Giving them to oligarchs through nationalizing companies and storing revenue in the stability fund that should be used for developing national infrastructure.
Chrisius Maximus said,
“By the way, Shock Therapy was not adopted by the Russians. It was adopted by the ruling clique of the time. The Russians were agin it. That’s part of why Yeltsin shelled the Duma.”
Not a single word is true here.
Russians supported Yeltsin program by the results of National Referendum. I pointed that out to you just recently, yet you still pretend that you know nothing about the Referendum.
Yeltsin didn’t shell Duma. Duma didn’t exist then. The legislative body was Congress of People Deputies and it’s Supreme Soviet - the direct holdover from Communist times. Yeltsin proposed to replace it with a new Duma, but the Congress refused and started an open revolt, setting up an alternative gov’t and unleashing armed goon squads in the city, culminating in an attempt to capture the TV tower. Duma was created after Yeltsin dismissed the CPD. You know all that quite well, but still feign ignorance.
Are you simply deluded or do you have an agenda?
Russians supported Yeltsin program by the results of National Referendum.
Well, sort of. That was certainly the Kremlin’s spin. Remember “da, da, nyet, da”?
But the key question with respect to shock therapy was #2 on the ballot: “Do you approve of the socio-economic policies carried out by the president and government of the Russian Federation since 1992?” 53% of voters said yes on turnout of 64%. Legally, that was a “da” — because the constitutional court had ruled that this question only required a simple majority of actual voters, not the voting age population. But as a practical matter, it’s a third of the adult population, and of those, a fair number would have simply voting against the Communist past, not for shock therapy. This ambiguity is what then led to the subsequent conflicts and confrontations. I don’t think any fair reading of the situation would support the notion that Russians wanted shock therapy. Who would?
Oops. Forgot to close the italics. Sloppy. Sorry.
“You know all that quite well, but still feign ignorance.”
No, it was a slip of the fingers.
“Are you simply deluded or do you have an agenda?”
I have an agenda. I am paid by the Kremlin to hang out on Sean’s blog and feign ignorance. That’s why I can vacation in Tahiti. It’s all part of a nefarious plan. Shhh! Don’t tell anybody.
“I don’t think any fair reading of the situation would support the notion that Russians wanted shock therapy. Who would?”
Well Carl obviously would!
Next we’ll be hearing that Yeltsin won the election in 1996 because he was really popular, a true national leader who forged unity and consensus!
Whoops! I meant Candide. Sorry Carl!
(Or perhaps, rather than being a slip of the fingers, the misappellation was part of a delusion and/or agenda. Who knows? The Kremlin is sneaky.)
fh,
Nobody wants shock therapy. However, people usually settle for it for the lack of any other promising options.
I have no intention to paint Yeltsin as a champion of Freedom and Progress. What happened in 1993 was a brutal fight for power and Yeltsin won.
I just can’t let pass the fabrications that somehow CPD was a legitimate body. CPD was set up in Communist times, when absolutely nothing had any legitimacy. Russia didn’t know any legality for 70 years. Communists grabbed the power in armed revolt and kept control of the country by illegal means. The only governing principle was the good of the Com. Party.
Prospects of new legality and legitimacy were granted by the new Russian Constitution in 1993, adopted after Yeltsin crashed the CPD. Not much came out if it so far, but before 1993 there was simply nothing.
We don’t know if Rutskoi and Khasbulatov would be better for Russia and we never will. They lost, Yeltsin won, the rest is history. New Constitution was adopted, Duma was created, Chechen wars lost and won, Putin appointed and so on…
15 years passed and there is no going back. All the more sad that some people just can’t stop twisting the truth about the events of 1993.
Who’s Carl? (or is it Karl?)
“CPD was set up in Communist times, when absolutely nothing had any legitimacy. Russia didn’t know any legality for 70 years. Communists grabbed the power in armed revolt and kept control of the country by illegal means.”
What does how the Bolsheviks grabbed power in 1917 have to do with the legitimacy of the Council of Elders, whoops I mean Supreme Soviet, in 1993?
All names that begin with C are the same to me!
”I have an agenda. I am paid by the Kremlin to hang out on Sean’s blog and feign ignorance. That’s why I can vacation in Tahiti. It’s all part of a nefarious plan. Shhh! Don’t tell anybody.”
Well, well, well. Outed at last. Press and indeed the pips will squeek. I knew it all along!!:-)
”Oops. Forgot to close the italics. Sloppy. Sorry.”
Typical Paddiness there fh. You’ve got too much Irish genes in you:-)
“We don’t know if Rutskoi and Khasbulatov would be better for Russia and we never will.”
I know. And you can find it out too. Just check their political “records” afterwards. Rutskoy as the governor and Khasbulatov as …nobody.
They were brought on the top by the wave of dirt and shit - and they were swept away by same wave…
“Yeltsin didn’t shell Duma. Duma didn’t exist then.”
What Дима are you talking about?
There is no such thing as Дума either. It’s called Законодательное Собрание :))
Дума - from думать!
Just an old word for any kind of gathering of respected men who are supposed to think something good about.
Remember where you were on this fateful day, folks — the unspeakable is going to occur. Yes, somebody on the Internet is going to admit that he might be wrong. I really don’t know enough about the early 90s period as I should, and should research it a bit more before I start pontificating about it.
“What does how the Bolsheviks grabbed power in 1917 have to do with the legitimacy of the Council of Elders, whoops I mean Supreme Soviet, in 1993?”
Again, to insinuate that any holdover from Communist times had any legitimacy is just silly. There was no law except the good of the Party.
A social instiution has legitimacy if the population believes it has legitimacy.
Chrisius Maximus,
By your own definition, the population believed Yeltsin’s claims more legitimate, because it gave him slim majority in the National Referendum.
That does not logically follow.
Candid.
Do you want to say that USA recognized and has been cooperating in several ways with non-legitimate institution?
And that non-legitimate institution had veto power at UN Security Counsel?
Owen ‘He did not create the rise in energy prices of course but he took advantage of them to benefit his country in a superb way.
“The government is squandering those profits. Giving them to oligarchs through nationalizing companies and storing revenue in the stability fund that should be used for developing national infrastructure.”
I think that spending the money in the stability fund too quickly would risk serious inflation which is already too high.
I may be wrong but I do not believe that the aim in the long wrong is to create a huge or even an enlarged public sector nor to give it to the oligarchs.
Is it not a little over the top to insist that nothing that Putin has done is any good? Of course it may all end in tears. We shall see but the doom sayers have been so wrong so often since Putin took power, that I am a quite encouraged.
ivanov,
I think it’s better to leave the international relations out of this discussion. International legality is a very murky business. For example, Bush would insist his action was legal and Saddam would insist it was not.
It’s much easier to judge how the Rule of Law is upheld inside the country. Of course, some die-hard Marxists here would claim that the Rule of Law is a sham and everything is a class struggle. To which I say, Fine, if so just shut up about legitimacy altogether. Stop using that ‘bourgeois’ concept of legitimacy only when it suits you: that’s pathetic.
Ivanov is mistaken when he says “How little the west understand - is the problem of the west”. This dismissive attitude ensures that the west will never understand the machinations of the Russian psyche. Unless explained, the west will remain dismissive of Russians as a serious and contemplative people. In the popular culture of the west, Britney’s latest trip to rehab will remain more compelling than the bizarre happenings in Russia. We in the west do not understand the acceptance of the status quo and consequently are left to believe that Russians have chosen the government they deserve (as do we all).
“Unless explained, the west will remain dismissive of Russians ”
I see every day what and how is “explained” by the “west” about Russians.
But as I said - it’s not Russian problem.
It sure as hell is Russia’s problem. Like it or not, perception governs human interaction be it on individual or social levels. Try setting up a business that says “I could care less what my customes think of me”. The attitude appropriately called dismissive is a problem for Russia in more ways then one. It affects ability of Russian entities (individuals or businesses) to interact with the world. If Russia does not care that what others think of it is wrong, then why would others care to correct the wrong.
Deeper then, this attitude reveals an arrogant and misguided view that Russia can stand alone and be just fine. Whether it is based on rightful pride or an inferiority complex is immaterial.
The quote Sean used as the title of the article is also telling. Nobody in the right mind would refer to US as Bush’s America or Clinton’s or whoever. As long as this view - of a benevolent leader making the country for what it is - persists, it robs Russians of recognizing their own achievements as well as responsibilities.
Sometimes a banana is just a banana. (c)
I didn’t say: “I could care less what my customers think of me”.
I said: “I could not help my customers to get their brain working and to look at things what they are rather than what they want them to appear”. If such “customer” wants to see “evil empire” - this is his problem (well it also troubles other around but anyway…).
“It affects ability of Russian entities (individuals or businesses) to interact with the world”
It affects “the world” as well. Just remember - “the west” and the world are different words
“misguided view that Russia can stand alone and be just fine”
Could you point out the situation where Russia stands alone. Or is this just an arrogant view of “the west” who by default is always stays on right side of the street? : )))
And one more. I think that “inferiority complex” troubles the West rather than Russia. But this is immaterial indeed
Like it or not, perception governs human interaction be it on individual or social levels.
That’s right.
But what - by your opinion - would govern human after he reads
“Welcome to La Russophobe!
Congratulations, you are now reading the best Russia politics bloggers in the world.”
Just remember - it was not Russians who claims this trash “the best in the world”. If you have any idea how to “explain” to these “experts” anything - I’m in full ears
PS. tried Google with “Bush’s America” - got about 112,000 links
If Russians really don’t give a fig about democracy, how come most Russians follow US elections with such attention?
I didn’t get your point, Candid.
What attention? By how many “most”?
And what is relation between democracy and the show “Obama vs. Clinton vs. McCain”?
A lexis-nexis search of world’s major English lag newspapers reveals the following.
“Bush’s America” in 814 articles.
“Clinton’s America” in 819 articles.
“Reagan’s America” in 853 articles.
Even “Nixon’s America” comes up 132 times. It was used as recently as month ago in an article in the Financial Times.
That’s a lot of people without a right mind writing for the major newspapers.
ivanov,
Everything can be labeled as a ’show’, especially any election anywhere in the world.
For instance, I’ll call Medvedev election a ‘propped puppet show’. It’s only fair to bring all elections to a common denominator, so we can judge them on similar merits.
Now, once we established ’show’ component as true basis of any election, let’s compare the democratic content. Obviously three competing puppets is three to the power of three more democratic than a single puppet. Plus, consider the entertainment value. American elections are very exciting. Russian elections are very boring.
Plus, consider the entertainment value. American elections are very exciting. Russian elections are very boring.
100% agree.
But what does it have to do with “democracy” or whatever you wish to call it?
And how does “2 terms by 4 years” limit related to “democracy” and demos?
Of course democracy can’t be legislated. Any piece of paper with prescription for democracy is a sham. SSSR Constitution was probably the most democratic of them all, on paper.
So what is really important is democratic spirit. The public spirit that produces spectacular electoral horse-races in the US, for example, is much more democratic than the letharghic stupor prevailing among Russia electorate. The same goes for spontaneous ‘term limits’ and other movements that happen in the US and notably absent in Russia. The spirit behind the ‘2 terms by 4 years’ amendment to the US Constitution is pure, raw, rough and tumble democracy. The spirit behind ‘2 terms by 4 years’ article in Russian Constitution is the old habit of imitation that can be traced all through Russian history. At least they are not imitating radical German socialists this time around, so there is an improvement.
feel free to believe in the best horse-racing democracy in the world. I respect you choice, Candid.
But answer just one question. By your personal opinion what are chances of anyone outside Democratic Party Inc. and Conservative Party Co. to be elected?
There is this paragraph from “Hammer and Sickle Still Tickles Russia’s Fancy” published in the Moscow News:
“5. Politics. One thing that I continue to hear from Russians of all stripes is that America’s present political system brings back memories of their glorious Soviet days. They like to recite the famous story about the unfortunate apparatchik who decided that a five-minute applause for Joseph Stalin was really quite enough, so he returned to his seat long before his fellow comrades. The man won himself a one-way trip to Siberia the very next day. Although America has no Siberia, it does have a warm attachment to the herd mentality (clap, clap, clap), which is proving to be every bit as dangerous, especially given the reckless antics of the present administration. But the best summary of the U.S. political scene I have heard in Russia came from an old Soviet war hero who lives in my building. Upon seeing a photo of Hillary Clinton from a newspaper I was holding, he barked: “Your Democrats and Republicans, just as dirty as our Bolsheviks and Mensheviks!”
Now there was a man who understood a thing or two.”
“American elections are very exciting.”
That’s a lot of people without a right mind writing for the major newspapers.
And you needed to do a Google search to figure this out?!!
One thing that I continue to hear from Russians of all stripes is that America’s present political system brings back memories of their glorious Soviet days.
I’m calling bullshit on this one. I don’t know what circles the author mixes in, but if they are all commenting on the US election, he is not mixing with Russians of all stripes.
Sean,
You can’t possibly be serious!
Poor ‘old Soviet war hero’ doesn’t know any better, but you must.
I don’t know Candide. I don’t know what you mean by the Soviet war hero doesn’t know any better and I must. You’ll have to clarify.
ivanov,
“feel free to believe in the best horse-racing democracy in the world.”
If you notice, I never called the US a ‘democracy’, because it isn’t. The US is officially still “…the Republic for which it stands…”. I was talking about manifestations of democratic spirit in the US…
“But answer just one question. By your personal opinion what are chances of anyone outside Democratic Party Inc. and Conservative Party Co. to be elected?”
I guess this suppose to prove that the US is not really a democracy. Which it isn’t (see above), so?
Sean,
Seriously? Well, if you insist. Which American party would you call similar to Bolsheviks and which similar to Mensheviks?
Going a bit deeper, let’s recall that Bolsheviks and Mensheviks were never dominating political arena in Russia, the way GOP and DNC do in the US. If things were allowed to develop freely, the majority parties would be SR and Kadets. As it happened, Bolsheviks conducted a coup and gradually eliminated all oposition.
In short, I understand the nonsense a hapless ‘old Soviet war hero’ can say, but for the thinker of your caliber to repeat the same nonsense is simply astonishing.
2 Candid
====================
ivanov:
“But answer just one question. By your personal opinion what are chances of anyone outside Democratic Party Inc. and Conservative Party Co. to be elected?”
Candid:
“I guess this suppose to prove that the US is not really a democracy. Which it isn’t (see above), so?”
============================
OK. Let me guess …. The chances are none to zero?
As to spirits it doesn’t matter what you have - vodka or whiskey. Both end suddenly
2 Tim
“America’s present political system brings back memories of their glorious Soviet days.
I’m calling bullshit on this one.”
Tim, I hope you agree that I know Soviet glory well enough?
And I came to US first time in 1989 (right from that glory). It’s almost 20 years. Enough to be able to compare.
And I can tell you that sometimes (and more and more often) I can see United Soviet America…
And this doesn’t make me feel happy at all.
PS. have no idea what stripe I from.
In short, I understand the nonsense a hapless ‘old Soviet war hero’ can say, but for the thinker of your caliber to repeat the same nonsense is simply astonishing.
I’ll not comment on whether Sean was endorsing the views of the author or not, but I will comment once again on the piece itself. Coverage of Russia has a habit of repeating supposedly witty one-liners delivered at the expense of the West (Putin is full of them) in an approving manner, as though the quote contains some straight-talking insight of which the readers were formerly unaware.
I can see why this might appeal to some readers, but to me it comes across as celebrating ignorance. The Soviet war hero clearly does not understand a thing or two about US politics, and his statement reveals him to be profoundly ignorant on the subject. That a journalist prefers a supposedly witty soundbite from somebody who hasn’t a clue over a statement from somebody who might know what he’s talking about tells you all you need to know about the standards of his work.
And I came to US first time in 1989 (right from that glory). It’s almost 20 years. Enough to be able to compare.
If you are seriously seeing policial similarities worthy of note between the current USA and the former Soviet Union, then I’d say the amount of time you’ve spent in the USA is irrelevant.
How many relevant days did you, Tim, spent in Soviet glory?
Have you ever sit at Oblastnoy Party Conference? Have you heard what was said there?
I did. And I heard Condy.
She would be perfect Perviy Secretar’…
So the similarities between the current USA and the former Soviet Union is not one of form or content, but rather what politicians say at meetings?
Tim Newman,
I have no problem with an ‘old Soviet war hero’ purported opinion. I know the atmosphere of brutal indoctrination he was raised at and it really hurts me to think how many normal human lives were damaged and disfigured by the Russian Communist experiment. Actually, I’m surprised at his insight. Most Russian people of that generation have no idea about American political divisions: all they knew before was that “American imperialists’ were out to get them, which later transformed into suspicion that ‘Americosy’ are still out to get them.
As for that snarky American from ‘Moscow News’ responsible for this, the less said the better…
Hey Ivanov, I’m thinking of visiting your Magic Island this summer. Any suggestions of not-unbelievably-expensive places to stay?
Candide, I’m glad that you clarified what you meant because I would have totally misread your original comment.
I didn’t take the comment from the old war hero that literally. I certainly didn’t think of 1917, October coups, Kadets and SRs. Nor did I take it to mean that the US and the Soviet Union are the same.
I’m actually surprised that the guy mentioned the hapless Mensheviks at all. It would have better for him to say, “Your Democrats and Republicans, they are just as dirty as our Left Opposition and the Stalinists.” Calling the Reps and Demos Bolsheviks and Mensheviks is suggesting that there is some real doctrinal difference between two.
I read into his statement something else. And granted I doubt that it is what the war hero meant (or maybe it was), but whatever, texts are always open to interpretation.
I saw two things in the statement. 1) that the Republicans and Democrats are dirty, which they equally are. You can pick whatever meaning you want by dirty–from corruption to propaganda and vote manipulation. They both exercise power through patrons and clients. They both despise the public, but understand that they must at least put up the appearance that they care. 2) I read into it that here are two groups that say they have different views, when in reality they don’t, speak the same ideological language, and have the same assumptions about the world, and most importantly the same assumption about America’s place in it. Moreover, the Republicans and Democrats’ shared ideology is so normative that no one even recognizes it as ideology. This is not to say that there aren’t differences within the Republicans and Democracts (or the Left Opposition and the Stalinists), it’s just that these differences don’t disrupt the ideological unity both parties share.
But that leads to how they are dirty on another level. They have convinced many, many Americans that they are different parties rather than two factions within one party. In fact, the blame everything on Bush mantra that Democrats use benefits both parties quite well. It gives the Democrats their enemy, which allows them to whitewash their complicity (which is necessary), and the Republicans enough wiggle room in declaring the Bush policies an anomaly. This is all bullshit. Any hearings and investigations brought against Bush should be equally brought against the leading Democrats in Congress.
Both parties are vile. Yet for some reason people keep thinking the American political process and long election cycle is exciting and reflective of something democratic. That’s bullshit too, but I don’t blame Americans for this. Realizing the truth is far more psychologically horrifying than believing the lie. It’s more comforting to think that the Parties of Power are doing what is best for America.
The elections are simply a managed campaign, where no one says anything of substance (because that is taboo) and no real political discourse takes place (because that is taboo too). Instead we are treated to slogans like “You decide” and debates where the only discernible differences are in candidates rhetorical style. The local news, which is how most Americans get their news, is really good at this. Just the other night I was watching and I learned more about how some people rescued some baby possums rather than about any of the candidates.
What really matters is money and which corporate backers and power brokers you have behind you. You might as well have the American presidential election on American Idol. Ironically, the latter is more democratic than the former.
Sometimes I appreciate the fact that the Russians engage in their political corruption openly and honestly. At least you know who the enemy is and where they really stand without having to slice through all the ideological fluff and “do good for America” posturing.
I actually fear that the Democrats will be in power come November. Because if there is any difference between the two it is that Democrats are better imperialists. The Republicans are easy to expose because they are fuckups. They overvalue force, whereas their congressional colleagues understand that consent cultivates sweeter fruit in the orchards of Empire.
“Any suggestions of not-unbelievably-expensive places to stay?”
Tent in back-garden of my house - free. Wi-Fi included
But if you say for how long you gonna stay and what is min/max wishes - I might find something cheaper…maybe.
Also you can try http://www.hospitalityclub.org/
for further details write to reyndar-sobaka-yandex.ru
Sean, could you edit e-mail address in my last post for something less “attractive” - like reyndar-sobaka-yandex.ru
?
ivanov,
First you said that any artificial criteria, such as “2 times 4 years” term, doesn’t produce democracy and I agreed with you.
But then you immediately put forth an insinuation that because the US politics is dominated by only two parties, it’s not democratic. Isn’t that just another meaningless artificial criteria?
Sean,
I’m still diappointed by your uncritical recital of that article by some snarky American editor jerk in ‘Moscow News’. Imagine I go to Russophobka cite and simply copy-paste one of her articles into your forum! You sure you want to see such a standard of discourse on your cite?
I’m further disappointed by your last response. Why such an abundance of derisive epithets, like “dirty”, “vile” and so on? I thought of you as a student of history and politics, kind of like a true professional in your chosen field. We all know that politics is an unpleasant business. If we really want to investigate politics, shouldn’t we get past puerile abusive language?
When gastroenterologist describes the contents of patient’s cloaca, he doesn’t use words ‘dirty’ and ‘vile’ as much as they seem appropriate for the layman. Gastroenterologist uses the professional vernacular to convey his investigative methods and important conclusions. So should the professional students of politics.
That’s a lot of people without a right mind writing for the major newspapers.
Quite right. Journalists and pundits are a suspect lot from the get go. The