“Most Russians do not love Putin per se, but they love Putin’s Russia.”

“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.

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:-)

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.

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.

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”?

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?

“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.

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?

“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. They seem to be just one step below politicians on the I am damn important ladder.

It was used as recently as month ago in an article in the Financial Times.

I remember watching US elections from London and I was completely shocked by unanimity of coverage. It felt like the USSR, just it was all voluntary.

So what is really important is democratic spirit.

What’s important is the type of ownership of means of production. More private property – more democracy; more government or quasi government superstructures like Gasprom where no one knows where private ends and public begins – you get less democracy. Simple. As for 2 terms and 4 years – the Democratic process determines rules and restrictions. To imply that existence of restrictions mean absence of democracy is usually a straw man or inadequate thinking over. Just like Medvedev’s shock when he discovered that capitalism does imply anti-monopoly restrictions.

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.

Ouch. But very true.

Although America has no Siberia, it does have a warm attachment to the herd mentality (clap, clap, clap),

This clapping thing always made me sick to watch State of the Union. And the pattern goes all through the societal levels. I was a Republican Party Central Committee (sic!) member for several years and this clapping is just as omnipresent on low levels. Although I do recognize its mostly symbolic nature and in case of the State of the Union, it has a significant taunting value of sticking to the other side of the isle. There are, naturally, no consequences for not clapping. I have also publicly refused to recite pledge of allegiance at the party meetings and nobody had said anything.

Moreover, the Republicans and Democrats’ shared ideology is so normative that no one even recognizes it as ideology.

There are ideological differences between the two parties just as well as there is quite a bit of differences inside each party. If some observers can not see this, it usually means that they are so far removed ideologically that form that distance all distinctions are blurred. Naturally, for Angela Davis that teaches Marxism here in UCSC, there is no difference between Democrat and Republicans. The coming of what is happening right now in the GOP between two of its wings was obvious to me several years ago. The religious conservative bunch hit the wall on the road to smaller government – they can not go any further because they need for the government to be big and strong enough to dictate their morality and establish more protectionism.

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.

There is a simple and easy explanation for this, Sean. People just do not agree with you. I see no reason to agree with you on this either.

Instead we are treated to slogans like “You decide” and debates where the only discernible differences are in candidates rhetorical style.

Are you trying to say there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats on Iraq? NAFTA? Immigration, and what to do with this horrendous situation this country got itself into? Abortion? “Universal” health care? Hey, even within the GOP there was quite a difference between Rudy and Hackster or McCain and Tancredo, and add this lunatic Ron Paul into the mix as well. Once again, Sean, lots of people seem to see differences you do not. Might be a reason for a tacit double take, no?

Unfortunately a lot of threads end up in the сам дурак category.

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.”

What difference does it make? In a free world anyone can call themselves anything they want. And this ability also comes prepackaged with skeptical attitude built in with every reasonable consumer. Does the name rubs you the wrong way? It does me, so I am not reading it often. But Greg Mould’s point was about the West, not La Roussophobe. They are not one and the same. I understand not caring for a blog and its opinions but dismissive attitude towards perceptions of “not us” is not healthy.

“I remember watching US elections from London and I was completely shocked by unanimity of coverage. It felt like the USSR, just it was all voluntary.”

No, it wasn’t USSR, it was BBC.

Well, it wasn’t just BBC, naturally a monopoly does not help much, but I meant to include most of the British press in there as well. Economist and Telegraph were sort of on the fence and mildly but grudgingly pro Bush, Everyone else was almost as rabid as Air America.

The democracy issue is crucial. The weakness of Russia is that they signed up for a Western style electoral system under Yeltsin. They also joined the European Council which runs the European Court of Human Rights. However the great majority of them now believe that they cannot risk allowing that system to operate in its usual random way. It is acceptable, they think, when a country is rich and secure within its borders from outside attack or interference, Russia currently benefits from neither luxury. I have not the slightest doubt that a Yugoslav type fate was planned for Russia and that US political leaders and others in the West still dream of splitting Russia up. I also believe that if Russia had gone further down the western democratic route that would have been much easier. One of Putin’s achievements is to have put a stop to that – so far but at the expense of not allowing the electoral system to evolve freely. On the other hand the Russian government obviously does care what people think because they have not said all this openly. Their problem is that there is no acceptable political discourse in domestic politics that they feel they can adopt for their situation. The mysterious sovereign democracy is an attempt in this direction. Their problem is actually one of the unanswered problems of the western style electoral and human rights model.
Equally the West has a huge problem because, yes, they happily practice their proclaimed different systems domestically. Or at least muster up an acceptable appearance of doing so, most of the time. However the minute we move from domestic policy to foreign policy they are in the same bind as the Russians. To attack Serbia the media have to tell the people it is about “genocide” when it clearly was not. Iraq has to be about “weapons of mass destruction” when it was not. Iran has to be about “the nuclear threat”. Human rights go out of the window throughout NATO with the “extraordinary rendition” scandal. Proclaimed values about corruption and human rights are completely ignored when energy resources are at stake. In matters of foreign policy the Western secret services spend billions of dollars ‘persuading’ or deceiving the media to write things that are untrue or only partly true, in order to legitimise what governments want to do. The problem is magnified by the fact that whereas most people in Western countries know little and care less about foreign affairs, people in foreign countries naturally care a lot about them and judge the West accordingly. Being bombed or occupied or ruled by despots kept in power by foreigners tends to affect one’s thinking. When Putin says that the US is behaving like the Third Reich, from his point of view that is a perfectly reasonable statement, as it is when Chavez describes Bush as the devil. To Westerners comfortably at home watching excerpts from such speeches on TV it seems hysterical and silly.
The only people who have solved these problems so far are the theocrats. God says this is what we do, end of discussion. God is right so what anybody else thinks is irrelevant and evil. Majorities and elections are thus beside the point. The non theocrats have a lot of thinking to do.

Cyrill, thank to answering Tim. I mean this:
“I remember watching US elections from London and I was completely shocked by unanimity of coverage. It felt like the USSR, just it was all voluntary.”

At least you are also Soviet Union expert

2 Candid.
It was not BBC’s fault. I watch and read all this shit live – with exact same impression. And I’m not in London…

robert harneis,

Nobody planned any fate for Yugoslavs (Serbs, Croats, Bosniaks, etc.), they determined their own fate. As long as Yugoslavia was kept together, there was no outside interference. Can you offer any evidence there was a concerted effort to break up Yugoslavia by the West?

After Yugoslavia fell apart and different ethnic wars started, eventually there was NATO involvement, which was reluctant and very slow. While the NATO countries were trying to figure out how to deal with the situation, many thousand of innocent Serbs, Croats, Bosniaks and Kosovars perished in fighting and ‘ethnic cleansings’. The reason for NATO involvement was to stop all those ethnic wars. Can you offer any information what material advantages did the West get for all the trouble?

Likewise with Russia. Nobody wants Russia to fall apart. Nobody could possibly invite that kind of trouble on the world. But if Russia can’t hold and Tatarstan starts fighting with Mordova, while Karelia goes to war with Kom’ and what else, one can easily imagine NATO interference to impose some kind of order.

The problem lies with the shortcoming of authoritarian rule, which is inherently unstable. It can bring about decades of peace but it only postpones the inevitable. Sooner or later it crashes and all the suppressed subjects start fighting with each other. That’s why Russia desperately needs stable institutions outside the Kremlin that can help to see it through hard times.

I understand it’s very difficult to facilitate democracy while trying to keep the country together. Yugoslavs actually went quite far in that direction. Yugoslavs had freedoms that were unimaginable in the USSR. Still it wasn’t enough to keep Yugoslavia together.

I have not the slightest doubt that a Yugoslav type fate was planned for Russia and that US political leaders and others in the West still dream of splitting Russia up.

What is this certainty based on? Is there any (even mildly) significant western leader on record, either as a matter of policy or speaking privately, stating that he or she thinks Russia splitting up is desirable?

Candide “Nobody planned any fate for Yugoslavs (Serbs, Croats, Bosniaks, etc.), they determined their own fate”.

You pick on a side point that I rashly left trailing. Perhaps I flatter western diplomats. The effort was not “concerted” throughout the West. However the moment that Germany and the Vatican recognised Slovenia and Croatia in 1992 they triggered the break up of Yugoslavia. You will have great difficulty in persuading me and a lot of experts in international affairs who are a lot brighter than me that they were unaware of what they were doing. It is possible that they did not care. As early as 1943 Roosevelt talked to Anthony Eden about breaking up Yugoslavia. I can find the reference for you if you like. Yes the country was vulnerable but its break up was not inevitable. Western attitudes to Yugoslavia changed once the cold war finished. There are well documented studies showing the massive and largely concealed PR effort that went on to demonising the Serbs over a long period. That was not an accident. True there was a great difference between the policies or lack of them of many NATO countries and the clear aims of elements in the US.

“Likewise with Russia. Nobody wants Russia to fall apart”.

Some think tankers in Washington are full of just such talk. Indeed it is a pretty obvious idea. After all the United States with five percent of the world’s population using 25% (without checking!) of the world’s energy resources, cannot get any bigger but it can encourage its rivals to fall apart and get smaller. It is not just Russia. There is talk of China splitting into five parts. If you think that Dick Cheney and his ilk do not want Russia split up or at the very least gravely weakened and are not prepared to give the process a helping hand, I think you are deceiving yourself. Most members of the European Union would agree with you and do not want this. There is a difference between the US and Europe, as will emerge at the NATO conference coming up shortly in Rumania. It is a proven technique of the United States and Britain to use the openness of the very democratic institutions that they demand, to other throw governments that they do not like. It is this knowledge that to a great extent explains Putin’s repressive policies.

“The problem lies with the shortcoming of authoritarian rule, which is inherently unstable. It can bring about decades of peace but it only postpones the inevitable.”

As a well brought up westerner I used to believe that unquestioningly but could one not say exactly the same thing about democracy? Is it not a question of horses for courses? In times of danger a degree of authoritarian rule is necessary and more appropriate than the typical western electoral system. If you do not believe that Russia was or is in danger then you will not approve of what Putin has done. I believe that danger existed and still to a lesser extent exists and I think that for now he has acted wisely. It is not possible to simply ignore the fact that the United States spends as much as the rest of the world put together on armaments, which it uses freely, and an unbleievale 60 billion on its secret services.

robert harneis,

Yes, I’d like to see all the references you promised, if you can spare the time.

I don’t understand how you jump from the allegation that Germany and Vatican were fomenting Yugoslavia break-up to firm conviction that Cheney is plotting Russia break-up.

I agree that Putin was mostly justified in his actions, but what concerns me most is Russian future. They seem to be imitating Salazar model. Well, it did work somehow, – in Portugal.

If you think that Dick Cheney and his ilk do not want Russia split up or at the very least gravely weakened and are not prepared to give the process a helping hand, I think you are deceiving yourself.

This is a usefully unfalsifiable statement, which abandons the usual practice of adducing documentary evidence in favour onine, amateur psychological pronouncements as to the mental machinations of others.

Sorry, that should say:

…in favour of online,…

“I agree that Putin was mostly justified in his actions, but what concerns me most is Russian future.”

This concerns me (as well as Putin and many, many Russians). I mean – your concerns.

So I would ask you for a favor – be concern about someone else and let Russians to deal with their future?
Anyway all “western” advices and best wishes are irrelevant in Russia.

PS. robert is right in his descriptions. You want evidence? Well then I would ask you evidence for all your words.
But at least it looks like I was reading many same documents as he did (and as you guess – I didn’t read them in gazeta Pravda).

There we go, a simple expression of concern in private chat on the web is suddenly a threat to Rodina…

Fear not Candide, ivanov seems to be living outside of Russia but is of Russian extraction. I am living outside of Russia and am of the Russian extraction as well. And taking on just as much freedom of speaking for many many Russians as he does, I welcome your concerns, since I have them as well.

“There we go, a simple expression of concern in private chat on the web is suddenly a threat to Rodina…”

Threat? By no means. Just tired to be given advices (Sovet)
That’s the only reason I’m asking to turn concern to someone else

At least I don’t remember when Kremlin issued Report about Human Rights in the world and in the West in particular…

Cyrill. Do you have right to vote in Russia? If you do – when did you exercise your right last time?

So I guess I have more rights to be concerned…

PS. I have only one – Russian – citizenship.

At least I don’t remember when Kremlin issued Report about Human Rights in the world and in the West in particular…

Just have a little patience.

Candide. “Yes, I’d like to see all the references you promised, if you can spare the time.”
I only promised one reference! I will find it. The use of PR agencies against the Serbs can be found all over the place but I have just read “Peter Brock’s Media Cleansing Dirty Reporting: journalism and Tragedy in Yugoslavia.” GM-Books, a strange but revealing book.

“I don’t understand how you jump from the allegation that Germany and Vatican were fomenting Yugoslavia break-up to firm conviction that Cheney is plotting Russia break-up.”
Tim “I have not the slightest doubt that a Yugoslav type fate was planned for Russia and that US political leaders and others in the West still dream of splitting Russia up. I also believe that if Russia had gone further down the western democratic route that would have been much easier”.

That is the view I have formed. I should have said “some US political leaders”. The stronger Russia gets the quicker the idea will fade. Of course as you must be aware no political leader would ever say such a thing. Never the less Zbigniew Brzezinski talks about it in ‘The Grand chessboard: American Primacy and its Geostratic Imperatives’ 1998. He is now foreign policy adviser to Obama and has close relations with at least one Tchechen leader.

From a Russian point of view it has already happened in the case of the Baltic States. The desperate attempts to get Ukraine into NATO despite the obvious difficulties can be said to be related.

Then there was the alleged remark by Madeleine Albright that Russian Siberia should belong to everyone. I have never found the source for that remark and would appreciate it if any one has it. At the end of the day it is my opinion based on watching the pattern of behaviour of the United States in particular. I have spent a fair bit of time going through the British Foreign Office archives on other subjects. After a while you develop instincts for what is going on – or you think you do.

I found an interesting old article in the NYT on the subject. I would be interested to hear reactions to it. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9505E2DB1F31E03ABC4851DFBE66838B639EDE

Finally I revert to what my post was actually about. Russia cannot easily justify repression in search of security at home but neither can the western powers easily justify trampling on human rights and democratic freedoms in search of energy resources abroad. Only the religious zealots have a coherent political doctrine.

Ivanov “At least I don’t remember when Kremlin issued Report about Human Rights in the world and in the West in particular…”

China has just issue one on Xinhua. It makes interesting reading, if slightly comic in a black sort of way.

Then there was the alleged remark by Madeleine Albright that Russian Siberia should belong to everyone. I have never found the source for that remark and would appreciate it if any one has it.

Moscow Times reported:

“Boris Ratnikov, a retired major general who worked for the Federal Guard Service, said in a December 2006 interview with government newspaper Rossiiskaya Gazeta that his colleagues, who worked for the service’s secret mind-reading division, read Albright’s subconscious a few weeks before the beginning of the NATO bombardment of Yugoslavia in 1999.

Albright, who as secretary of state played a major role in the lead up to the attacks, was one of the main targets of Russian criticism of the bombing campaign.

Apart from her “pathological hatred of Slavs,” Ratnikov said “she was indignant that Russia held the world’s largest reserves of natural resources.”

….

Nuff said about that one I think.

Hey – Irishman. Happy St Paddy’s Day to you! Or a belated one if you were among those celebrating Saturday.

“China has just issue one on Xinhua. It makes interesting reading, if slightly comic in a black sort of way.”

I know, I know…
This is their way to answer to the guys in Washington. Guys in Kremlin cares much less about such things.

db
“Just have a little patience.”

No problem
But I think that State Department and Фонд, учредителями которого являются 15 крупнейших всероссийских и региональных общественных объединений и организаций, are apples and oranges…

PS. I wonder to know the name of at least ONE “largest national public union”. ДОСААФ?

It really annoys me to see people denigrate Kasyanov in the fashion that you do. Kasyanov and others who are courageous enough to fight against Putin/Medvedev are protesting their inability to get their message out. That is critical to a functioning democracy.

Political polls do not choose political winners. Voters do that after they have had the chance to listen to differing viewpoints. That requires that politicians have access to an independent media. Furthermore, who controls the polling companies that say Kasyanov as 2%? VSIOP is controlled totally by the Kremlin. If we adopted your logic then Barack Obama shouldn’t be where he is now because a couple years ago few people knew who he was. Finally, whatever one thinks of Kasyanov he at least has a right to try to run. If he is so unpopular then the Kremlin shouldn’t be so afraid of him. You make it sound like some sort of stupidity that he should even try.

It doesn’t do the Russian people that you profess to care so much about any good that they are unable to hear what the likes of Kasyanov, Nemtsov, etc. have to say about Kremlin corruption and the other issues that Putin/Medvedev would rather not talk about. It is especially sad that people from democratic societies that should know better would actually support such actions by ridiculing those who are trying to fight for a more just society in Russia.

“likes of Kasyanov, Nemtsov, etc. have to say about Kremlin corruption ”

From what planet are you, mitchp?
Yes, you right and these two guys know a lot about the topic. But I doubt they will talk much about it. People don’t like to talk about their own “small deals”.

PS. I assume there is some lack of basic info at your planet. So just for the start – Kasyanov got his nickname “Misha two percent” IN KREMLIN.

Cyrill,

I’m Russian too. I was born, raised, lived most part of my life in Russia and still have family there. So I claim the right to be concerned all I want! Although I think ‘ivanov’ is trying to introduce an incredibly dense criteria. I can’t even begin to describe how tired I am of that ‘сами с усами’ brand of Russian nationalism.

ivanov,

As far as the issue of citizenship, I noticed you are not an American citizen, but that doesn’t seem to stop you from offering comments about the US every time you feel like it. Стыд-позор!

robert harneis,

I was hopping mad when NATO was bombing Serbia. I cooled off since, although I’d agree that Serbs continue to be treated unfairly by the West. Well, that’s something they have to deal with, because they did manage to come out as the biggest assholes in all of Yugoslavia, although the competition was stiff. They need to get into EU and work to improve their image, imho.

“Never the less Zbigniew Brzezinski talks about it in ‘The Grand chessboard: American Primacy and its Geostratic Imperatives’ 1998. He is now foreign policy adviser to Obama and has close relations with at least one Tchechen leader.”

I still don’t understand where does Cheney come into this.

All these insinuations about Bush-Cheney pursuing anti-Russian agenda are particularly puzzlng in view of the fact that any of the US Presidential nominees in ‘08 are much more anti-Russian than Bush-Cheney. By comparison, Bush-Cheney were quite friendly toward Russia and the real animosity seems to lie in the near future.

I don’t see any desperation to get Ukraine into NATO. I know that the idea of entering NATO was entertained equally by Kuchma, Yushchenko and Yanukovich, ever since Ukraine went independent. Heck, even Russia was considering NATO membership and as far as I know Russia still didn’t absolutely rule it out.

“ivanov,

As far as the issue of citizenship, I noticed you are not an American citizen, but that doesn’t seem to stop you from offering comments about the US every time you feel like it. Стыд-позор!”

Candid.
You have to admit that I have more reasons to be concerned about Russia that any US citizen

And I don’t remember when I was offering free Sovet what America should do.
But this time I decided to give one. It’s still free but if someone wishes – he could pay something.

I think (just think!) that the best way US could spread its values – to be an example of that values. A real, working example. Instead of using the current moto “If you don’t want to be happy our way – our planes are on the way to you”. Some people in US must understand one simple thing – to be different doesn’t mean to be wrong (c)Sean.

Don’t get me wrong. For instance.
I consider Iraq “project” a complete political failure – and I have no objections to US decision to invade Iraq. It’s US money and lives after all. BUT! But why the heck to lie about WMD and other shit? Why not just say “We don’t like Saddam and we gonna get him”… Many people would support that. At least it’s fair (and stupid but why not if someone can afford to be a cowboy).

PS. Democracy in the Middle East – one should be a lunatic to believe in it, really. Are there lunatics in White House, Candid?

ivanov,

I am still confused. So it would be OK to post sneering comments, like ‘Putin durak’ or ‘Rossia suxx’, but expression of concern and/or advice is somehow offensive?

Of course the US is “a real example” of its own values, or to be more precise an example of how difficult it is for humans to live up to their own values. There are many things far from perfect and quite a few things just plain wrong in the US. The point is, Americans keep trying to attain the democratic ideal. Russians seemed to have tried a little bit and quit very quickly. And yes, it concerns me.

I have my own strong opinions about Iraq, but that would take us too far off topic, I’m afraid.

Expressing concern is not offensive at all. I just said that outside concern concerns me. And ask to stop being concern – if possible of course.

But what about lunatics?

What would you say if Russian Foreign Minister comes to US for important talks but first thing he does – he meets with Michael Moore and ask him about “situation in US”? Or Obama? Or any other “opposition”?

http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSN1760020320080318

But this is what Condy did. Is she dura or lunatic?

“Rice meets opposition heavyweights in Moscow

Seeking ways to open Russia’s Kremlin-dominated political system, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice met civil society leaders and Kremlin opponents on Tuesday.

“I am very much looking forward to your thoughts about the political situation here… and what the United States can do to make this a more open and participatory political system”, Rice told participants before the breakfast meeting…
Defense Secretary Robert Gates also attended the breakfast.

Asked whether she expected Russia to be angered by her meetings with civil society leaders and NGOs, Rice said: “I think it is expected.”

Among those invited to the U.S. embassy residence for the meeting were Grigory Yavlinsky, head of the social democratic Yabloko party, and Vladimir Ryzhkov, an independent who lost his seat in the State Duma (parliament) last year.”

From everything Condy says I would call her “dura”. But considering Yavlinsky and Ryzhkov – two losers – as heavyweighters forcing me to thing she is lunatic.

What would you say if Russian Foreign Minister comes to US for important talks but first thing he does – he meets with Michael Moore and ask him about “situation in US”? Or Obama? Or any other “opposition”?

No problem at all. Perfectly normal. In fact, it’s a good idea. Why doesn’t Lavrov ever do that kind of thing?

“No problem at all. Perfectly normal. In fact, it’s a good idea. Why doesn’t Lavrov ever do that kind of thing?”

You might not have a problem with it, but must Americans would be outraged.

Then he REALLY should do it.

I would love it personally, just for the entertainment value!

Other question.

Who – among “heavy opposition leaders” in US – would agree to meet with Lavrov to complain about US problems?

Lavrov can meet with Bob Avakian.

ivanov,

First, I’d never compare Yavlinsky to Moore. Or Obama to Moore.

Second, she met with Medvedev on Monday and with opposition on Tuesday, opposite of what you claim. Why did you reverse the sequence of events? I’m tired correcting.

I’m sure Russian embassy in the US can invite anyone they wish at any time. In fact, Communists used to take full advantage of this with Angela Davis, Pets Seeger etc.

“I’m sure Russian embassy in the US can invite anyone they wish at any time. In fact, Communists used to take full advantage of this with Angela Davis, Pets Seeger etc.”

Yes, and Americans just loved it. It was a real PR win for the Soviets.

Anyway the point is that Medvedev DOESN’T meet with those people. Of course he could do so. He could have photo ops with GWAR if he wanted to. It probably wouldn’t be very smart though — although I would buy the photos.

“At least Yavlinsky and Ryzhkov WERE actually real politicians.”
They WERE, Sean.

Hence my question – Is Rice dura or lunatic if she meets with dead politician just to anger real Russian politicians she is going to meet?

Candid. Yes you right about meeting with Medvedev. But this was not official one. I guess it was jealousy in case with Rice (could not forgive Merkel).

As to embassy – US embassy do it ALL the time. And it’s OK – this is their job after all to stay “in contact” with he country.
But we are talking about official VISIT of the State Secretary.
Personally I don’t care where she puts her nose to. I’m just asking who she is

Medvedev met with Deep Purple. That was really cool.

That was cool.

My roomie met Kouchner last year.

Chrisius Maximus,

“It was a real PR win for the Soviets.”

So meeting with the opposition is good PR? Excellent! May be you can explain to ‘ivanov’ that it’s not lunacy?

Whatever, Candid. I accept that she is dura as well. No problem

A kind of off-top but same time good example of “independent and free” western media – hysteria about boycotting China and protect Tibet culture and freedom.
99% of those “concerned” could hardly show the China on the map not saying about Tibet…

It would be fair to ban US and UK to come to Olympics because they undermine the spirit of the game – they are at war.

“So meeting with the opposition is good PR? Excellent! May be you can explain to ‘ivanov’ that it’s not lunacy?”

I was joking, actually.

To be honest though it probably was good PR for the domestic Soviet audience — as Rice’s is for the domestic US audience.

“All this said, I wonder how common it is for foreign ministers to meet with political “opposition”–and by this I don’t mean minority parties in governments, but parties outside of governments. For example, does France’s Bernard Kouchner do this?”

It is quite common but with discretion for information – not for PR. They want to know if they obtained power what would they do with it. More commonly it is done by Ambassadors often through intermediaries. Kouchner certainly does. However when British Ambassador Brenton went to an opposition political meeting when asked not to just before the G8 meeting in Russia it was not information seeking but seemingly a deliberate provocation and presumably instructed or agreed from London.

“Chrius Maximus on March 18, 2008 9:54 am My roomie met Kouchner last year.”

My father in law with others hid him, his parents and his sister from the Nazi’s in Paris during the war.

Ivanov – Cheney; NATO/Ukraine

I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that Bush, Cheney and Rice are in government to a large extent for the oil industry and related industrial concerns. The change in attitude between Cheney’s first period in office and now are very stark. I suppose you could say that they are indistinguishable from oligarchs. Once that is accepted a lot of what the Bush administration has done stops appearing insane and becomes quite logical. They may of course believe or have persuaded themselves that their commercial interests are identical to those of the USA and the world.

Sure Ukrainian governments have wanted to belong to NATO for a long time. It is no fun being piggy in the middle. I say desparate attempts to join NATO because they ignore public opinion which is against the idea and solidly against it in the East. I think the governments of Ukraine, Georgia and the US wanted to pull off an irrevocable step in that direction before Bush goes. If they suceed it will be proof that the US still bosses NATO whatever the members think. Apart from Poland and the Baltic States, most members are against the idea.

Georgia’s moves towards US/NATO predate Sakashvilli as well.

An interesting (reliable) new public opinion poll from Ukraine shows that far more Ukrianians trust Putin than vice versa.

“I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that Bush, Cheney and Rice are in government to a large extent for the oil industry and related industrial concerns. The change in attitude between Cheney’s first period in office and now are very stark. I suppose you could say that they are indistinguishable from oligarchs. Once that is accepted a lot of what the Bush administration has done stops appearing insane and becomes quite logical. They may of course believe or have persuaded themselves that their commercial interests are identical to those of the USA and the world.”

This is true to some extent, but Big Oil was not a big lobbyist for the Iraq war.

robert harneis,

“I think the governments of Ukraine, Georgia and the US wanted to pull off an irrevocable step in that direction before Bush goes. If they suceed it will be proof that the US still bosses NATO whatever the members think.”

Kommersant reported yesterday that during the Rice visit the compromise was reached: there would be limited steps to develop NATO facilities in Poland and Chach Rep., but question of Ukraine and Georgia membership will be postponed.

The whole meeting was described as unexpectedly cordial.

http://www.kommersant.ru/doc.aspx?DocsID=868555&NodesID=5

I thought the postponement (possibly forever) of Georgian and Ukrainian NATO membership was linked to Russia prividing a supply link to the forces in Afghanistan.

“I thought the postponement (possibly forever) of Georgian and Ukrainian NATO membership was linked to Russia prividing a supply link to the forces in Afghanistan.”

I saw that too. I think it is being left deliberately vague. There is I believe a growing element in the US foreign policy establishment who follow Pat Buchanan when he asked of the whole Russia Ukraine Georgia situation “Haven’t we got enough enemies already?” Offical US speak has been that it is the Russians who are stirring up trouble from the Baltic to the Caspian. They are at last toning this down not because it wasn’t true, which in my view it wasn’t, but because they can’t handle all the problems they already have so better be a bit less provocative with Russia. Reversing the foreign policy of a big country is like trying to turn the Queen Mary round. I think that the Russians, well led by Putin, have been aware of this and have been laying down a barrage to change perceptions throughout the US for. pol. class that time is up on ignoring Russia’s wishes particularly on her own doorstep. It is noticeable that both Ukraine and Georgia seem to have toned down their rhetoric recently and the latest gas spat with Ukraine seems to have been essentially Ukraino-Ukrainian. But there is still a big russophobic lobby out there. A mini-cold war would do wonders for the arms industry.

Another element is that the European governments have been making a bogey out of Putin to get the public to accept more nuclear power not because they really think the Russians are suddenly going to cut the gas off.

Big oil not a big lobbyist for the Iraq war.

They didnt need to be, given the composition of the administration did they?

Here’s a very interesting account of how the guest list for Rice’s meetings with opposition figures in Moscow may have been formed. Some of the non-establishment critics of Putvedev are miffed that they weren’t invited. Looks like poor Condi can’t win. If she meets with any opposition figures at all, Ivanov is ready to call her a “lunatic,” but since she didn’t meet with enough oppo figures, she gets accused of delivering the Kremlin a “large diplomatic victory.”

And of course Robert Harneis continues to believe she must be plotting – nay, dreaming of – a “Yugoslav type fate” for Russia, in league with Zbig (куда без The Grand Chessboard, that totem of Russian paranoia), Dick Cheney and the oil companies.

Давайте ж выпьем за тех, кто в ГосДепе,-
За тех, кто в ГосДепе никто не пьет… (c)

Lyndon “And of course Robert Harneis continues to believe she must be plotting – nay, dreaming of – a “Yugoslav type fate” for Russia, in league with Zbig (куда без The Grand Chessboard, that totem of Russian paranoia), Dick Cheney and the oil companies.”

What I actually believe is that Rice is a cypher although a very bright one, of no real influence. Sure I continue to believe that elements of the US foreign policy establishment would have liked to see Russia break up and were prepared to lend a helping hand. It is, as i have said a pretty simple idea and logical. However it has failed and has largely it seems been dropped quite recently.

Brezinski? Totem of Russian paranoia? I remember the old saying. “Just because you are paranoid does not mean they are not out to get you”. The Russians are pretty touchy, with reason, but not I think paranoid.

Cheney? What exactly are you saying? That he is not prepared to go to war to get what he wants and lie to the publice to do it? That he is not closely connected with the oil industry? That he has not gravely damaged America’s image worldwide? It is all very well laughing at my stumbling remarks but what do you think he is? A second George Washington who could never tell a lie?

Sure I continue to believe that elements of the US foreign policy establishment would have liked to see Russia break up and were prepared to lend a helping hand.

I am still waiting to see links to the “think tankers” in Washington who are “full of such talk.” The possibility of Russia collapsing (or of more and more power devolving to the regions and the center becoming irrelevant) was discussed by people in the US in the late 1990s, usually with a sense of dread (think of the nukes!) – probably because the same possibility was being discussed in Moscow. The primary causes of power devolution to the regions in the 1990s can be found not in Washington, DC, but in Moscow and in the regional capitals.

Brezinski? Totem of Russian paranoia? I remember the old saying. “Just because you are paranoid does not mean they are not out to get you”. The Russians are pretty touchy, with reason, but not I think paranoid.

All I meant by that is that whenever someone who thinks Russia is surrounded by enemies who wish to dismember it is asked to adduce proof of this, The Grand Chessboard is mentioned. It has taken on a significance in the Russian view of this issue that is completely disproportionate to its actual influence on US policymakers. But at least it’s not a complete fabrication like the Albright “quote.”

Cheney? What exactly are you saying? That he is not prepared to go to war to get what he wants and lie to the publice to do it? That he is not closely connected with the oil industry? That he has not gravely damaged America’s image worldwide?

Cheney is all of those things, of course. But none of those things lead to your conclusions about “some US politicians” wanting to break up Russia. Anyway, I know my last comment was kind of a smartass remark, sorry about that.

Of course some US politicians want to break up Russia. Denying this is silly. Whether this actually plays any significant role in US foreign policy is another matter.

And Zhirik wants Alska back…

As if breaking up Russia is good for oil industry. I have worked with major oil companies on VP levels and I was told quite firmly that oil industry would rather deal with predictable dictators like Nazurbaev and even Saddam then to try fishing in muddy waters of collapsing economies, infrastructures and strife. Those environemtns are good for speculators like Soros but not for companies that try to plan several years in advance.

This myth of oil industry having such a great influence on US foreign policy is appropriate for loony calls to radio talk shows where people have no clue of what upstream and downstream mean on larger scale of profit making. Besides, if the oil industry really had that sway, there would be no support for Israel, period.

Predicting and planning for a potential desintegration of Russia is/was a prudent thing to do but by no means does it equate to desire for such a collapse.

If Putin did not need to whip up internal nationalistic frenzy to get his clan reelected and would not start using oil and gas as leverage in applying pressure to “ближнее зарубежье” not too many would care or even notice penetration of russian quasi state moinopolies into its energy supply chian.

Hi guys. I’m sure you can find politicians and think-tank Americans who wanted the break up of Russia, but Lyndon is right in saying that most people who wrote and talked about it saw it as a dreadful possibility They hated the idea not out of love for Russia, but because they feared the ensuing chaos and instability. Heck, to go back to the early 1990s, let’s remember that in his infamous “Chicken Kiev” speech George Bush even spoke against the independence of Ukraine. Germany’s Kohl also tried to persuade the Ukrainians not to seek independence. As to Yugoslavia, it’s only fair to point out that the US was initially against its break up and was not happy about Slovenia and Croatia declaring independence.

In other words, with respect to the Soviet Union/Russia as well as Yugoslavia the first instinct of the US was to preserve the borders as they were. Views changed once the situation on the ground changed, but the US was a not a secret instigator of those initial events.

Glad you agree with the oil line argument, Sean. It never made any sense to me either. As for WMD, I have two mutually complimentary explanations. One was offered by Fukiyama I believe in July 2003 when it became painfully obvious that expected huge stockpiles would not be found. He made a parallel with the USSR that made all the sense in the world to me. In pyramids like USSR (and I see no reason for Iraq to be an exception) there has always been beautification of reporting flowing up the chain of command. At each step, new (probably minor) embellishments were made but cumulatively they created an illusion for Saddam himself to believe he had these programs. This to me is the only reasonable explanation of his defiant behaviour.

The second argument lies in Colin Powell demanding to do everything possible to obtain UN authorization. The only real issue UN could act on was noncompliance with UN resolutions. Otherwise, UN founding principles prohibit it from any authorization to remove a sovereign leader. Colin Powell overplayed that card to death and as the result, all people remember now is WMD. However at the time I do not think WMD had been the only, or even the primary issue. Please consider that Hans Blix did confirm to UNSC that Iraq was not in compliance in January and February 2003.

Also, Sean, I am not sure that telling what you think, albeit a false conjecture, does qualify as a lie.

Having said all that, I have a deja vu feeling that we have been here before.

Alright you are beginning to convince me that there was no master plan to split Russia. There was on the other hand a complete absence of balance of power. Perhaps nations attack other weak nations mainly because they can and it suits some of the people in charge who do not neccessarily put all their cards on the table. I am sure the Russians feared it.

I totally agree that it is the contractors who have really made a killing in Iraq and it is hard to believe that they were against a nice war or six. Yet Greenspan said it was about oil. Did he get that wrong too.

What I find very hard to believe is that no one realised that they would have a post war problem. I suspect some that did and said nothing because they wanted the war anyway, on the principle that we will fall off that bridge when we come to it.

WMD lies? At the time I got the distinct impression that Bush went for the WMD nonsense to help Blair stay on board and get the agreement of the British Parliament. So I think that he neither knew nor cared if it was true, believing perhaps that they would be able to finesse it when the time came. The victors write the history and all that stuff. It is also true that an unspoken complicity is a very real phenomenom at these levels. Everybody knows what everybody wants to hear so it gets served up. The classic is Henry II and Thomas à Beckett. Gosh I didn’t actually mean you to kill him – still now that you have…

I agree it would be comforting to believe that we are dealing with a bunch of Bismarcks rather than a bunch of blundering idiots. You can see McCain get his knickers in a twist over Al Quaeda and extremists and correcting himself on Reuters tonight. Not a reassuring spectacle.

If you supported the Bush invasion of Iraq it is undoubtedly painfully hard to admit that US plans for a post-Saddam Iraq were woefully inadequate. To be fair, though, some Pentagon officers and experts did draft plans that were quite realistic. They were shocked to discover that all their efforts were ignored. The fact that those voices existed but were ignored shows that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, et al (none of them congenital fools) suffered of a sort of collective hubris that made them stupid.

As an illustration of this hubris, here is an excerpt of Fiasco by Tom Ricks:

“[Paul] Wolfowitz told senior Army officers that within a few months of the invasion the U.S. troop level in Iraq would be thirty-four thousand, recalled [Johnny] Riggs, the Army general then at Army headquarters. Likewise, another three-star general, still on active duty, remembers being told to plan to have the U.S. occupation force reduced to thirty thousand troops by August 2003. An Army briefing a year later also noted that that number was the goal ‘by the end of the summer of 2003′.”

And to celebrate the fifth anniversary of the Iraq invasion, here are a few quotes from shortly after the fall of Baghdad in the spring of 2003:

“The war was the hard part. The hard part was putting together a coalition, getting 300,000 troops over there and all their equipment and winning. And it gets easier. I mean, setting up a democracy is hard, but it is not as hard as winning a war.”
(Fox News Channel’s Fred Barnes, 4/10/03)

“We’re proud of our president. Americans love having a guy as president, a guy who has a little swagger, who’s physical, who’s not a complicated guy like Clinton or even like Dukakis or Mondale, all those guys, McGovern. They want a guy who’s president. Women like a guy who’s president. Check it out. The women like this war. I think we like having a hero as our president. It’s simple. We’re not like the Brits.”
(MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, 5/1/03)

“What’s he going to talk about a year from now, the fact that the war went too well and it’s over?”
(MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, speaking about Howard Dean–4/9/03)

“Over the next couple of weeks when we find the chemical weapons this guy was amassing, the fact that this war was attacked by the left and so the right was so vindicated, I think, really means that the left is going to have to hang its head for three or four more years.”
(Fox News Channel’s Dick Morris, 4/9/03)

“Well, the hot story of the week is victory…. The Tommy Franks-Don Rumsfeld battle plan, war plan, worked brilliantly, a three-week war with mercifully few American deaths or Iraqi civilian deaths…. There is a lot of work yet to do, but all the naysayers have been humiliated so far…. The final word on this is, hooray.”
(Fox News Channel’s Morton Kondracke, 4/12/03)

“This will be no war — there will be a fairly brief and ruthless military intervention…. The president will give an order. [The attack] will be rapid, accurate and dazzling…. It will be greeted by the majority of the Iraqi people as an emancipation. And I say, bring it on.”
(Christopher Hitchens, in a 1/28/03 debate– cited in the Observer, 3/30/03)

//NPR’s Mara Liasson: Where there was a debate about whether or not Iraq had these weapons of mass destruction and whether we can find it…
Brit Hume: No, there wasn’t. Nobody seriously argued that he didn’t have them beforehand. Nobody.
(Fox News Channel, April 6, 2003)//

As if breaking up Russia is good for oil industry. I have worked with major oil companies on VP levels and I was told quite firmly that oil industry would rather deal with predictable dictators like Nazurbaev and even Saddam then to try fishing in muddy waters of collapsing economies, infrastructures and strife. Those environemtns are good for speculators like Soros but not for companies that try to plan several years in advance.

Exactly.

This myth of oil industry having such a great influence on US foreign policy is appropriate for loony calls to radio talk shows where people have no clue of what upstream and downstream mean on larger scale of profit making. Besides, if the oil industry really had that sway, there would be no support for Israel, period.

Even more exactly.

This is why I’ve never really bought into the Iraq is about oil argument. If it was, it would have been much easier to strike a deal with Saddam. After all, they worked with him before. And they are working with just as equally heinous people now.

We usually disagree Sean, but on this we’re in perfect agreement. If I was CEO of Exxon in the 1990s, I’d have been lobbying for the normalisation of relations with Iraq, not clamouring for war.

There was on the other hand a complete absence of balance of power. Perhaps nations attack other weak nations mainly because they can and it suits some of the people in charge who do not neccessarily put all their cards on the table. I am sure the Russians feared it.

By historical standards, Russians got off lightly from having lost the Cold War. A few hundred years earlier, such an imbalance of power following 70 years of de facto war would have had the west marching across the former USSR from Brest to Magadan making pyramids of heads outside every city and ploughing salt into the fields.

Russia may feel hard done by when they recall the West’s well-meaning but idiotic economic advice which gave them such hardships for 10 years, but they should be somewhat grateful that the west as victors behaved in a manner more humane than any throughout history.

“[Paul] Wolfowitz told senior Army officers that within a few months of the invasion the U.S. troop level in Iraq would be thirty-four thousand, recalled [Johnny] Riggs, the Army general then at Army headquarters. Likewise, another three-star general, still on active duty, remembers being told to plan to have the U.S. occupation force reduced to thirty thousand troops by August 2003. An Army briefing a year later also noted that that number was the goal ‘by the end of the summer of 2003′.”

I don’t think this makes the point you think it does, and I see your mistake as being here:

The fact that those voices existed but were ignored shows that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, et al (none of them congenital fools) suffered of a sort of collective hubris that made them stupid.

By lumping together all these names, you assume they all thought alike as to what to do post-invasion, which is no correct. In the quote above, Paul Wolfowitz was not advocating a period of nation-building, he was of the opinion the US should invade, topple Saddam, hand back to the nearest strong Iraqi, then largely fuck off. Indeed, this was the exact plan at the beginning when James Garner was appointed, and that was his role: hand back the country, in whatever state, to the Iraqis ASAP.

Bush and probably some others then decided to go about the business of installing democracy and nation-building, whereupon Garner was replaced within a few weeks by Paul Bremner. As far as I know, Rumsfeld was not expecting this change of mind, hence he never authorised enough troops to Iraq in the first place. He now gets unfairly blamed for underestimating the number of troops required to bring democracy to Iraq, whereas in fact this was never the task (despite what was said beforehand) he was originally given.

Of the many blunders which occurred following the Iraq invasion, it is odd that this total change of mission halfway through should be forgotten so easily, as it is probably the second biggest contributing factor after the invasion to the chaos that followed. Hopefully historians will document the events more closely, and note the differences in plans and ideas of the major players who now are seen as all of the same mind.

I doubt there were any real plans to break up CCCP/Russia.
But there were (are) plans to get it under control. With “pro-western” leader of course. Georgian scenario.

It’s like with a car you like (but not yours). It would be stupid to break it. But stealing keys and drive away – could be a hard idea to ignore

Keeping in mind that these plans worked in some other ex-CCCP countries – it would be hard not to try at least.

Tim, not everyone thought alike. Among others, Shinseki didn’t, Colin Powell didn’t. But the ones who called the shots were not very interested in dissenting opinions. The fact that Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld believed that by the end of 2003 they will only need 30,000 troops clearly demonstrates that their plans were indeed woefully inadequate. After all, they didn’t invade Iraq only to take out Saddam and then leave in less than a year, whether Iraq was stable or not. They expected that Iraq will be pacified and mostly functioning by then, that’s why they thought that 30,000 soldiers will be sufficient. What amazes me is that after months and months of preparation and planning they were so stupidly confident that there were no real contingency plans in case the transition didn’t go as smoothly as expected. And to make matters worse, it turns out that some people were actually quite good about predicting the difficulties the US was going to encounter. They were, however, out of the loop and their input was unwelcome.

The fact that there were so many contradictory orders and avoidable mistakes after an easy military victory shows that the Bush administration didn’t have a clear-headed plan for what to do after overthrowing Saddam. A lot of it was wishful thinking.

The fact that Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld believed that by the end of 2003 they will only need 30,000 troops clearly demonstrates that their plans were indeed woefully inadequate.

As things turned out it was, but as I have said, 30,000 troops may have been adequate had the original plan been adhered to.

After all, they didn’t invade Iraq only to take out Saddam and then leave in less than a year, whether Iraq was stable or not. They expected that Iraq will be pacified and mostly functioning by then, that’s why they thought that 30,000 soldiers will be sufficient.

This is simply not true. As I have said, the initial plan was to invade, topple Saddam, and leave the country’s institutions largely intact enabling the US to withdraw almost all their army. This is what Rumsfeld was tasked with doing, and he appointed James Garner to carry it out. The halfway through, Bush (probably through consultation with Powell) decided to disband the army and the police and strip the Baa’th party of all their authority. Then the shit really hit the fan. I was pretty close to Iraq, living in Kuwait, from June 2003 until May 2004, and the place was not the chaos it became once it was clear all the previous government and management had been totally decapitated.

The fact that there were so many contradictory orders and avoidable mistakes after an easy military victory shows that the Bush administration didn’t have a clear-headed plan for what to do after overthrowing Saddam.

Not quite. They had a plan, albeit a shit one, and some dickheads changed it halfway through. The blame for this rests squarely with the Bush administration, but it is inaccurate to say that nobody had a plan and the entire administration were unanimous in what decisions were made afterwards. I look forward to the time when all records and transcripts are made public and a decent historian can write about what really was said and done by whom.

By chance, the excellent defence blog Westhawk addresses this subject today. They note Richard Perle as a good example of someone who initially proposed and supported the invasion of Iraq, only to become an outspoken critic of the manner in which Bush changed the scope of the operation once it had begun.

Tim is absolutely correct on the original plan. However even in the beginning there were two factions supporting two different Iraqi entities – Allawi and another one I can not recall at the moment. Garner’s story is essential to recall. Right after the war, Colin Powell wrestled control and authority over iraq from Pentagon and Rummy. He proceeded to appoint Bremmer who did two worst things possible from the start – uncategorized debaathification (Condi should have known better as well) and settling into one of Saddam’s palaces. Add this to the WMD charade and overall, I credit Colin Powell with a lion’s share of our problems with Iraq to date. There is no wonder the guy is not running at the moment – I bet he knows full well how badly did he screw this thing up.

Ivanov, your metaphor about a car is well taken. I would like to suggest that there might be yet another approach – get a job and buy a car. But, I know, I know, Rusians do not like getting advice.

Iraq

If you look at the immediate concrete results of the invasion and occupation of Iraq, not what people say or were told or say they were told, you see three things. One the likely splitting of the country into three parts de jure or de facto (sounds familiar). Two the opening up of the oil industry to international competition against the wishes of the Iraqi people. Three the establishment of permanent long term US bases away from the centres of population. Am I being unduly hysterical if I am prepared to consider that some of the originators of this war were clever enough to have foreseen this happy outcome? They thought in their inimitable way that it would be very nice if an instant democracy emerged and all the women went around dressed like Brittney Spears but at the back of their minds the three results above lurked, did they not?

The oil industry wants peaceful oilfields and could have done a deal with Saddam. True in the short term. But if Saddam was giving all the oil rights to France and Russia there was not going to be much for Exxon etc peaceful or otherwise. And the ungrateful rascal was about to stop trading in dollars.

Tim
“By historical standards, Russians got off lightly from having lost the Cold War. A few hundred years earlier, such an imbalance of power following 70 years of de facto war would have had the west marching across the former USSR from Brest to Magadan making pyramids of heads outside every city and ploughing salt into the fields.”

It is arguable that the West is wrong to talk of Russia losing the Cold War. It also seems to me possible that the Russian nuclear deterrent rather than western nobility of soul explain the absence of foreign intervention.What you describe above is pretty much what has happened to Iraq is it not? – without the salt.

I have just see a very good article “why did the US invade Iraq” at:-

http://www.antiwar.com/lobe/?articleid=12552

“It is arguable that the West is wrong to talk of Russia losing the Cold War.”

Yeah, I know. It’s interesting how the Reagan/Gorbachev period is being wiped from history, or rather reinvented.

Two the opening up of the oil industry to international competition against the wishes of the Iraqi people.

This hasn’t happened.

True in the short term. But if Saddam was giving all the oil rights to France and Russia there was not going to be much for Exxon etc peaceful or otherwise.

Nonsense. Exxon would have as much chance of operating in Iraq as Total or Lukoil, unless the US government made it illegal for it to do so. Find me one country where Exxon is shut out and other foreign companies operate.

And the ungrateful rascal was about to stop trading in dollars.

So what?

What you describe above is pretty much what has happened to Iraq is it not?

No. Nowhere even close. Either you do not know the history to which I refer, or you do not know how the US is conducting itself in Iraq, or both.

It is arguable that the West is wrong to talk of Russia losing the Cold War.

Russia lost the cold war economically, culturally, and morally. They were undefeated militarily. Arguable, just.

Oh, and add politically in there as well.

“Russia lost the cold war economically, culturally, and morally. They were undefeated militarily. Arguable, just.”

I don’t think Ronald Reagan would have agreed.

So, if I am Tim Newman are pointing guns at each other, and Tim Newman says, “hey, Chris, why are we pointing guns at each other? Let’s cut it out and go get a beer,” and we put our guns down, and then while we’re sitting down having a beer Tim Newman dies of a heart attack, do I get to brag about how I beat Tim Newman?

Two the opening up of the oil industry to international competition against the wishes of the Iraqi people.

This hasn’t happened. YET

True in the short term. But if Saddam was giving all the oil rights to France and Russia there was not going to be much for Exxon etc peaceful or otherwise.

Nonsense. Exxon would have as much chance of operating in Iraq as Total or Lukoil, unless the US government made it illegal for it to do so. Find me one country where Exxon is shut out and other foreign companies operate.

HARDLY NONSENSE. PERHAPS NOT QUITE CORRECT. I WOULD ESTIMATE THAT EXXON WILL IN DUE COURSE PAY THE PRICE FOR USA’S CURRENT BEHAVIOUR

What you describe above is pretty much what has happened to Iraq is it not?

No. Nowhere even close. Either you do not know the history to which I refer, or you do not know how the US is conducting itself in Iraq, or both.

HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS DIE. THIS IS THE ULTIMATE WESTERN SELF DECEPTION. “WE” DO IT BY MISTAKE “THEY” DO IT OR DID IT ON PURPOSE OR ALTRERNATIVELY WE HAD TO DO IT FOR THE BEST OF MOTIVES AND IT WENT SLIGHTLY WRONG – ER SORRY.

Let’s cut it out and go get a beer,” and we put our guns down, and then while we’re sitting down having a beer Tim Newman dies of a heart attack, do I get to brag about how I beat Tim Newman?

If you subscribe to the school of thought that the west did nothing to bring about the downfall of the Soviet Union, then yes. Otherwise, no.

The USSR was dismantled by a voluntary action of the Soviet elite, much as Tim Newman was killed by clogged arteries. I suppose one could infer a causal relationship (for which one would find no proof) between the policies of the West and that voluntary action, as one might attribute Tim Newman’s clogged arteries to my habit of sending pizza to his apartment out of my desire to weaken his gun arm through poor diet.

In either case, it seems like an odd thing to do to celebrate the “victory” while we are out having a beer, given that the “West”
and USSR were practically allies in 1991 and the Cold War had been over for a number of years. This is doubly the case given that “the West” was AGAINST the dismantling of the USSR. Seems a bit odd to try to take credit for something you didn’t want to have happen.

Pizza is my Trojan Horse.

I suppose one could infer a causal relationship (for which one would find no proof) between the policies of the West and that voluntary action.

No proof?!! Read John Lewis Gaddis’ account of the Cold War.

“No proof?!! Read John Lewis Gaddis’ account of the Cold War.”

I doubt it will give me proof. In fact I know it won’t. It will give me his interpretaion of events, which will differ greatly from those of other people’s. These are hotly contested, as-yet-undecided and probably undecidable, issues. This is actually what really annoys me — when people try to present a hypothesis as fact, something people try to do a lot in history. I’d like to see a physicist try to assert the existence of Dark Matter as if it were a known reality.

There is still no consensus as to why the _Roman Empire_ collapsed. The idea that we “know” why the USSR collapsed is laughable. People will be debating this for hundreds of years. The epistemological reason for this is that history is a hermeneutic discipline that does not admit of counterfactual examples, but I’m not going to get into that here.

This is actually what really annoys me — when people try to present a hypothesis as fact, something people try to do a lot in history.

Gaddis doesn’t do this. You are getting annoyed by something you haven’t read.

Gaddis wasn’t doing it. You were.

PS. what’s the book’s title? I should read it.

I really liked Shubin’s Paradoksy Perestroiki, though that account is limited to (mostly) the Gorbachev period.

Thirty-four pounds to read that thing?

Gaddis wasn’t doing it. You were.

No, I wasn’t. You were said:

I suppose one could infer a causal relationship (for which one would find no proof) between the policies of the West and that voluntary action…

There is proof, but you dismissed it in advance of seeing it as somebody’s interpretation and no more than a hypothesis.

There is ample proof that there was a relationship between the policies of the west and the actions of those Soviets who brought about the end of the Soviet Union, and they are referenced well by Gaddis (they usually come in the form of transcripts or memoirs of the Soviet actors stating what they did in response to something the western actors did).

The books of his I am referring to are We No Know: Rethinking Cold War History and The Cold War: A New History. The second is far more accessible than the first, but much lighter on content.

This is diverging into matters of epistemology rather than Russia, but there is no “proof” in questions of the meaning of large historical events, and there cannot be, because (1) history does not have a meaning or general “laws” like those in nature, (2) any historical event is the result of a practically infinite number of factors, and (3 and most importantly) because there has been only one history we are unable to compare what happened to what might have happened. It is part of the nature of the science of history (and actually what makes it interesting). One can make a more or less convincing case based on available data, but somebody else is always going to contest it. If somebody claims to have uncovered the real reason for some historical event, that person is either lying or delusional.

This will be my last comment about Iraq in this thread. This is too vast of a subject and this is a blog about Russia, not Iraq. Part of my interest in all this is that I became a US citizen (at 31) while serving in the US Army as an infantry grunt. So far, in two deployments, my former division had 645 soldiers killed in Iraq. All of them died after Bush gave his speech under the “Mission Accomplished” banner. My closest army buddy is now an officer who has served in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

Tim and Cyrill, if I understand you correctly, you maintain that the plan for what to do after the fall of Saddam was adequate enough, but that in essence it was abandoned after the fall of Baghdad. I disagree. From all I have read, there was indeed adequate planning for the combat phase (Phase III) but NOT for the post-combat phase (Phase IV). Even Franks admitted that he was not interested in that phase. In other words, Phase IV was someone else’s problem. But whose? That’s the crux of the matter. There was some paper shuffling about this before the war, but no person in the Bush administration made it into a priority. Noticing this some well informed people expressed concern and surprise about it. In statements before the war, for example, Schwartzkopf worried about the post-combat phase. He hoped, though, that the unease he felt from the little he heard about it was simply a consequence of him being out of the loop.

In February of 2003, only a month before the invasion, Garner was surprised by the lack of coordination and the lack of clear post-war planning. Part of it was caused by constant turf battles not only between the Pentagon and State, but also by infighting within the Pentagon itself as well as pressure from outside advisers. For example, Garner thought that Chalabi was a sleazy and unreliable character, but the Pentagon’s Feith kept on foisting Chalabi on him (Chalabi was also a Perle favorite). Many of the people Garner chose for his team and whom he considered the most knowledgeable and reliable were suddenly taken off his team. Why? Because Rumsfeld didn’t trust them because they were “State Department” types. Even before entering Iraq Garner and his team despaired at the messiness of it as well as the constant infighting.

Bremer now gets blamed for a lot of stuff. I’m sure he deserves a lot of it, but I’m afraid he’s becoming too convenient of a scapegoat. Let us not forget that the situation was a mess before he got there. Of course, it continued to be a mess during his tenure. Among other things, the chain of command was unclear and kept on changing. Bremer’s chain of command superior, however, was Rumsfeld, not Powell.

So there is plenty of blame to go around (White House, Pentagon, State) and right now many of the players are trying to exonerate themselves by pointing the fingers at others.

Let me finish with two quotes. In December of 2002, Wolfowitz said, “I think people are overly pessimistic about the aftermath.” And here is part of what Garner wrote while waiting in Kuwait to go into Iraq: “History will judge the war against Iraq not by the brilliance of its military execution, but by the effectiveness of the post-hostilities activities.”

”If somebody claims to have uncovered the real reason for some historical event, that person is either lying or delusional.”

I’m not entirely sure that historical events cannot be accurately accounted for. For example, two nuclear bombs dropped on Japan -result: Japan surrenders. Irish rebels shoot enough Brits in 1921 -result:Brits cant manage us anymore and fuck off.In the case of the collapse of the USSR, a contributing factor – undoubtedly -was financial loss resulting from fighting in Afghanistan. The use of stinger missiles crippled the Soviet air force there, so much so that not only did the war drag on, it became unwinnable. Who supplied the Mujahadin with the gear? The USA. So I think that the West certainly contributed to the collapse of the USSR. Add in collapsed oil prices and Chernobyl – things like this would do horrendous damage to any country, let alone a country that was already broke and enduring food shortages. At the end of the day, the USSR had no money left and simply couldnt go on. Historians, in my view, like to muddy things as much as possible with theory, but thankfully numbers -glorious numbers – are the answer to all questions. If you’ve got no money in the bank, food shortages and pictures on tv of a civilisation -the west – lapping in luxury after being told for years they are inferiour -of course the country is going to collapse. The USSR in 1991 had around 200 billion dollars in foreign debt that had no hope of even being serviced in the forseeable future. Of course they were fucked, and that is why. No mystery of theories required. What you saw on tv -the putsch, etc -were the death throes of a family with a drunk, out-of-work father and a wife fed up of eating schi. Money is everything. In the west, what happened? Nothing. Why? Cos of reasonable bank balances and no food shortages. The reason why Putin is so popular? The opposite of above. Loads of money, loads of food, loads of consumer gear. Anyway, thats my tuppence worth.

“For example, two nuclear bombs dropped on Japan -result: Japan surrenders.”

Ger, historians argue about this point all the time.

So, what is your hypothesis of the vector of causation between the state of the Soviet economy in the late 1980s and the decision of Yeltsin, Burbulis and the other guy to dismantle the USSR as a territorial entity? There is a connection, but it is not an umabiguous one.

Historians muddy the waters because they are actually more knowledgeable than the average guy. In fact they do not so much muddy the waters as point out that the water already was muddy.

”Ger, historians argue about this point all the time.”

No they do not. They argue that Japan was considering surrendering before the bombs were dropped. But the important thing is that Japan did surrender after the bombs were dropped. It doesnt take a great deal of knowledge to put two and two together for that one. Mind you I’m sure historians waste thousands of dollars in research grants writing about it whereas the rest of us plebs can see what happened quite clearly and really need no further elaboration.

”So, what is your hypothesis of the vector of causation between the state of the Soviet economy in the late 1980s and the decision of Yeltsin, Burbulis and the other guy to dismantle the USSR as a territorial entity?”

Its very simple. The price of oil, the USSRs largest hard cash earner, dropped in the early 80s to less than 20 dollars a barrel, a greater than 50% reduction in value. Add in to this a near 10 year long war that cost around 100 billion dollars on top of a nuclear disaster the cost of which no-one has even figured out, and you have an empty bank balance, massive foreign debt and food shortages. Then, in 1991, the whole pile of shit couldnt stick together any longer, fell to pieces. Yeltsin knew he could hardly keep Russia out of financial difficulty and I’m sure was quite anxious to ditch the rest of the republics whom he couldnt afford to have anyway and both Belarus and Ukraine wanted to go their own way. Result: dissolution of the USSR. I dont see whats complicated about it at all really. No money, not enough food = collapse. All about money, all about numbers:-)

The USSR was dismantled by a voluntary action of the Soviet elite, much as Tim Newman was killed by clogged arteries.

The Cold War was not only US vs USSR. It was between NATO and Warsaw Pact. It has long been lauded in the USSR as the war between capitalism and soviet socialism. The Warsaw Pact is gone by some of its members gladly switching sides – USSR lost its rip on these territories. A clear loss. Most of the countries are no longer Soviet socialist. A clear loss for the USSR. The USSR itself had split and it was not voluntary Chris. The Balts left over Gorbachev’s black berets storming Vilnius TV tower and tanks sent against a peaceful vigil in Tbilisi. Calling the end of Cold war a voluntary action by the USSR is about as appropriate as calling Potsdam a voluntary act by Germany.

There is quite a lot of causation in history after all.

Kolya, you say it was your last post on the subject and then you asked a question. In answer, no, I did not think or say there was adequate planning done. I said there was a plan that did not get implemented and instead a completely new approach was used. I have no idea how would the other plan work in reality, minding Clausewitz.

What I am saying is that any of it had nothing ton do with oil as in simple vulgar conspiratorial sense of grabbing someone else’s stuff. Greenspan did not mean it in this sense. Sure, allowing an oil producer to bring more of its oil to the market and increase its supply has had a lot to do with the invasion. Suggesting a simple grab throws back understanding of the current capitalist world to anachronistic times of imperialism when it was forced to serve the state. Things have changed dramatically since then. Capital got much more free and it now transcends territory and state.

Whether Iraqi people want to privatise oil sector or not is just like any poll: how much of that is cultural coercion? Do Russians really love Putin and Putin’s Russia? If they do as polls suggest, have they come up with this love all on their own or were they helped in forming their opinions?

Historians muddy the waters because they are actually more knowledgeable than the average guy.

Absolutely correct. I’m always nervous about glib assertions about causality — including my own from time to time. I’ve been known to blame oil prices and bankruptcy for the Soviet collapse. But there’s really no more validity to that claim than there is about any of several others.

But at least we do have a shared understanding that there was a Soviet collapse and there were a bunch of contributing factors.

What you guys started to discuss here was something different, or potentially different — namely how (or even, at one stage in this thread, whether) the USSR lost the Cold War.

Was the end of the Soviet Union also the end of the Cold War? Insofar as we all agree what the “cold war” metaphor stood for, then maybe yes. But do we? I bet the metaphor meant different things to Ronald Reagan and George Bush Sr. than it did to, well, me for one.

And if we are entitled to differ over what the Cold War actually was, then we’re bound to disagree about how it ended and who if anyone won.

I mention this because of course now we’ve got various polemicists on both sides arguing about a “New Cold War” — whether there is one and who started it.

FH, what if we just look at the Cold War as a subsystem of a larger system of relationships? I know it is not too fashionable to peddle a revised version of Marx’s Historical Materialism, but to me the Cold war was a part of a larger standoff between capitsalism and feudalism that started with the Netherlands in 15-hundreds and is still going on. I see very little structural difference between the current standoff between the West and fundamentalist world (I am writing this from Kuwait so I do not want to use filterable religious terminoligy) and the “Cold War.”

So maybe Russia have not lost, in fact Russian people did not loose, they benefited from the collapse of soviet communism. But the Cold War as a standoff between USSR/communism and the West/capitalism was won by the latter.

”I’ve been known to blame oil prices and bankruptcy for the Soviet collapse. But there’s really no more validity to that claim than there is about any of several others.”

I dont see how anything else could actually have more validity fh. If a country is bankrupt, something’s got to change, or collapse even.

”But the Cold War as a standoff between USSR/communism and the West/capitalism was won by the latter.”

Exactly. I wrote reams of stuff just trying to convery that very scentence.

“So maybe Russia have not lost, in fact Russian people did not loose, they benefited from the collapse of soviet communism. But the Cold War as a standoff between USSR/communism and the West/capitalism was won by the latter.”

Hear, Hear!

But the Cold War as a standoff between USSR/communism and the West/capitalism was won by the latter.

I think “won” is the wrong word. The USSR/communist side collapsed, no doubt. I have never yet seen one viable shred of evidence that the Soviet collapse was a result of anything the West/capitalist side did.

The “we won” mentality is at the heart of many of the foreign policy mistakes that we’ve had to endure during the Bush administration. It is a decidely false and self-aggrandizing premise.

Oh please, Communists were defeated on their own terms.

They proclaimed they were going to “catch up and overcome”, and finally “bury” Capitalists.

Well, who buried whom?

”I think “won” is the wrong word. The USSR/communist side collapsed, no doubt. I have never yet seen one viable shred of evidence that the Soviet collapse was a result of anything the West/capitalist side did.”

I agree Wally that the west cant take all the credit for what happened, and cant say they ‘won’, rather their way of life did not collapse, whilst the Soviet did. But the fact remains that the USSR was stuck in Afghanistan for almost 10 years, thanks in large part to US inteference, and this certainly helped bankrupt the country. Had the Soviets won quickly in Afghanistan and been out in two or three years, the USSR may not have collapsed.

You are mixing two issues and by claiming that since there is no causation between B and C, this somehow means there is no causation between A and B.

What made Gorbachev to start talks with Reagan? His benevolence? Hardly. In his own interview with Echo Moskvy he said it were Pershing missles that NATO had deployed in Germany.

That stand-off was ideologically motivated: communism will prevail and “we will bury you”. There were two goals in the stand-off: to take over capitalist countries and replace capitalism with communism by force and an opposing goal to survive this posibility and eliminate the threat if possible and furthermore, liberate those under the yoke. The latter goal was achieved in its entirety while the former failed. This is a clear cut win/loose situation.

I am not sure there is anyone that would suggest that that loss was the direct and only cause of the collapse. But the entity that hold one of the warring factions together was weakened to the point of not being capable or willing to fight anymore.

I agree with Cyrill that it was communism not the Russians that lost. Unfortunately too many Russians, it seems, identify themselves with the Soviet system.

Wally, my position is somewhat between yours and Candide’s. The Soviet Union’s communist system was unsustainable and destined to collapse, but it was competition with the West that accelerated this collapse. The Soviets more than once openly proclaimed that they were in competition with the capitalist West and, as Candide noted, they cockily predicted that they will overcome and bury the West. I’m no fan of Reagan, but I have little doubt that his military build up shortened the existence of the Soviet Union by several years. To their horror the Soviet leaders realized that there was no way they could keep up with their ideological enemies.

“As I have said, the initial plan was to invade, topple Hitler, and leave the country’s institutions largely intact enabling the US to withdraw almost all their army.”

Goof plan indeed.

Cyrill wrote: “Ivanov, your metaphor about a car is well taken. I would like to suggest that there might be yet another approach – get a job and buy a car. But, I know, I know, Rusians do not like getting advice.”

Thanks for the advice but you missed. We are talking about Russian car that US wants to break or steal.

”Goof plan indeed.”

Any chance of getting Shakira’s phone number for me ivanov?:-)

Cyrill, I just read what you wrote in response to my “last” Iraq comment. Perhaps we were not addressing the same thing. I, for one, have no opinion on the oil issue. My comment was not on why the US decided to invade, but on how things went once that decision has been made.

Once again, there is absolutely no doubt that the so-called Phase IV (post major combat) planning was atrocious. Before the war there was very incredibly little planning and whatever existed were badly coordinated. Moreover, from all I read, Colin Powell was not behind the replacement of Jay Garner. At least neither Garner nor Bremer think that. Bremer said that it was Wolfowitz who contacted him first. Garner said that Rumsfeld told him it was Bush who changed things and sent Bremer. Once back in the US, however, Garner met with Bush and out of politeness commended Bush for his choice of Bremer. According to Garner, Bush looked at him with surprise and said that it was Rumsfeld who selected Bremer just as he had earlier selected him (Garner). Officially Bremer was part of the Pentagon and according to him during the first few months he was under constant contact with either Rumsfeld or Feith. In the fall of 2003, however, Rice became more involved.

You can read interviews with Garner, Bremer and others by going to this site:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/yeariniraq/interviews/

Okay, I hope this is indeed my last….

Part of my interest in all this is that I became a US citizen (at 31) while serving in the US Army as an infantry grunt.

Hats off to that, Kolya. I’ll always have respect for someone who’s done some soldiering.

“Well, who buried whom?”

Candid, we haven’t arrived yet!

I hope you remember this medic anekdote.

Just for record!
Khruschev didn’t say “bury you” he said “переживем вас”. “We’ll live longer than you”…

And now few remarks to Irishman remarkable message. About history and CCCP.

“For example, two nuclear bombs dropped on Japan -result: Japan surrenders.”

What about other version?
“If we don’t drop these toys before Japs surrender – we’ll have to test them on Russians. Do you want this? No? So hurry up guys!”

At least the post-war report of USAF didn’t mention atomic bombing as significant factor in the war. It “saved” about 500 flights of B-29 (if I recall right) – which was nothing in total scale. Conventional bombing of Tokyo killed more that A-bomb.
But as test and “demo” – it worked out well. Just read documents of that time, Irishman…

Irish rebels shoot enough Brits in 1921 -result:Brits cant manage us anymore and fuck off.

I have no idea who fucked whom but I heard that Irish much more stubborn that Brits )

“In the case of the collapse of the USSR, a contributing factor – undoubtedly -was financial loss resulting from fighting in Afghanistan.

It was not that expensive. We would burn fuel and shoot shells anyway – during training. And soldiers would eat their casha even more in cold of Siberia
But yes – it was a good excuse for the guys in Kremlin to answer question “Where are money?”

The use of stinger missiles crippled the Soviet air force there, so much so that not only did the war drag on, it became unwinnable.

Well how to say it so you won’t be offended? Ok let’s say that you better stay out of military topics (and tactics).
Choppers alone made more then 1.000.000 flights there. Lost less than 400 machines. Do the math.
Let’s say they killed just 1 person in 1 flight out of 10 flights. Do the math again.

Who supplied the Mujahadin with the gear? The USA. So I think that the West certainly contributed to the collapse of the USSR.

It was really stupid decision. And many in US military were against it but …. Iranians got Stingers in few months after USA passed them to Afgans. Afgans claimed – by mistake. But most likely these tribe men calculate that it’s more effective to sell them to Iranians than shoot them into the air.
But worse was training. There are few places in the world where someone could learn how to operate SA missiles. And it was USA that supplied that training to terro… o-ops mujahadins.

Add in collapsed oil prices and Chernobyl – things like this would do horrendous damage to any country, let alone a country that was already broke and enduring food shortages.

Oil prices and Chernobyl are less related then apple and oranges… so I skip them.
There were no food storage as real food storage. There was paralysis of Soviet distribution system (as well as other systems) More exactly Soviet one was stopped but “new” one was not started… I know that well as I use copy machine (very few had them at that time) to make food stamps that I changed at 1:5 ratio with director magazina. She had more that enough goods but couldn’t sell them without food stamps. So she sold me something I needed for 1 stamp and used left 4 stamps to sell for her personal benefits – like good relations with Health authorities etc. A kind of Gorbachev’s version of NYSE ))

The USSR in 1991 had around 200 billion dollars in foreign debt that had no hope of even being serviced in the forseeable future.

Russia paid it all alone recently. Or 15 years are beyond forseeable future?

Of course they were fucked, and that is why. No mystery of theories required.

From the point of history – it’s too early for judgement day. Once there were Polish army in Moscow. But at the end they – not Russians – were fucked.

The reason why Putin is so popular? The opposite of above. Loads of money, loads of food, loads of consumer gear.

Not really. It helps to be popular but… Stalin was more popular with much less food and no real money at all…

So history is somewhat more complicated that things looks like at close range…

PS. But I agree with you about Brits – they are the cause of all problems )

S..t! I fu…d up code in the post above. So try to sort out IRISHMAN words and my remarks… Sorry.

Wow. Great stuff Ivanov. So — why do you think it all fell apart? How did the CPSU and the KGB lose control? Gorbachev was practically begging for a bailout. It wasn’t solely because a new distribution system wasn’t in place. There was literally nothing to distribute. The world’s exporters were refusing to even talk to the foreign trade organizations, as they couldn’t pay.

Obviously there were members of the elite who saw their chance and took it — like Yeltsin in Moscow or Aliyev in Baku. They and their associates were the real winners, not the West and not ordinary Russians.

But who was holding the smoking gun?

“There were no food storage as real food storage. There was paralysis of Soviet distribution system (as well as other systems) More exactly Soviet one was stopped but “new” one was not started…”

I was told by a guy that worked in the 500 Days program that there was a large amount of food at the time, but because Gaidar didn’t understand the Soviet goods inventory system worth a damn, the government didn’t have a clue how to use it or even that it was there.

Anyway there is an obvious difference between the reform-turning-into-collapse of the Soviet system,on the one hand, and the decision to dismantle the USSR as an entity, on the other. The later was likely done in order to get rid of Gorbachev by depriving him of his country. In other words it was a coup.

“What made Gorbachev to start talks with Reagan? His benevolence? Hardly. In his own interview with Echo Moskvy he said it were Pershing missles that NATO had deployed in Germany.”

Gorbachev says one thing to one audience and another to another. He’s not the brightest bulb in the world.

Wow, this is my billionth comment in a row.

Can somebody more knowledgeable than I explain what exactly the price of oil meant to the Soviet economy, given that it was an almost entirely self-contained command economy practically the only imports of which were luxury goods? It doesn’t seem like the price of oil, or any export, would matter very much. Maybe I’m missing something.

“Soviet economy, … was an almost entirely self-contained command economy practically the only imports of which were luxury goods?”

Yeah, food was a real luxury those days…

I was told by a guy that worked in the 500 Days program that there was a large amount of food at the time, but because Gaidar didn’t understand the Soviet goods inventory system worth a damn, the government didn’t have a clue how to use it or even that it was there.

Chris, I am surprised you would fall such an obvious load of BS. A prime minister does not know distribution system and it falls apart? That means there is no distribution system worth a damn. Prime minister would not be doing any of it in the country of 100 plus just federal ministeries, not to count Госкомитеты and ministeries of republics.

No wonder though, that Gaidar gets the blame. I heard this before in different forms, but it is always Gaidar – they guy that actually tried to do the right thing and was cut short.

Gorbachev says one thing to one audience and another to another. He’s not the brightest bulb in the world.

He most certainly is not. But his explanation made most sense: the Soviets realized that Minsk was 5 and Moscow was 8 minutes away from launch. There was nothing Soviet Military had that could react to this in time. That and not Star Wars ended the Cold War.

Can somebody more knowledgeable than I explain what exactly the price of oil meant to the Soviet economy, given that it was an almost entirely self-contained command economy practically the only imports of which were luxury goods?

Not sure where did you get this, Chris. This illustrates a glaring hole in your view of the USSR: it was buying food all the time. A lot of it was on barter terms like Danish or French butter, fruit, fish, meat, wheat. Plus, a lot of oil money went to purchase heavy construction equipment. Magirus trucks, Kone cranes, Nokia cables, tires, and other machinery, etc. Foreigners built factories in Russia – Finns built a huge paper mill in Svetogorsk, Fiat’s Zhiguli plant, many fod processing factories like milk packaging, etc. By mid 80-s there were some HP mainframes installed as well. (unles these were soviet made running HP OS)

USSR was not self contained by any stretch. The oil money glut of the 70-s was squandered by Brezhnev on idiotic river turning backwards projects, BAM, etc.

It afected political clout as well: there were fewer resources to buy tin pot dictators around the world like Fidel Castro that was basically a budget item for the USSR. One of the ways Fidel made money for himself was to turn the oil he would get from the USSR at cost and sell it at the spot market.

I read that Russia still imports up to 40% of foodstuffs, making it very vulnerable to food prices fluctuations abroad. And these are the good times.

“I was told by a guy that worked in the 500 Days program that there was a large amount of food at the time, but because Gaidar didn’t understand the Soviet goods inventory system worth a damn, the government didn’t have a clue how to use it or even that it was there.”

The logic is very familiar. All the treasures are out there somewhere, you just need to shoot some bad people and prosperity is certain to happen.

I read that Russia still imports up to 40% of foodstuffs, making it very vulnerable to food prices fluctuations abroad. And these are the good times.

A friend of mine is building a cannery for vegetables. I asked him where would the stuff come from – corn, peas, etc. All will come from abroad. Then I asked if there was still anything growing in Russia – he said sure: березки и елочки. I have no idea about real percentages, so it is all a sample of one person looking at supermarket shelves. It feels more then 40%. At least most of the value added ag stuff seems to be imported. Which by itself is not necessarily bad.

I kinda import 100% of the food I eat. It’s quite all right, as long as I have sufficient income of course.

It doesn’t seem like the price of oil, or any export, would matter very much. Maybe I’m missing something.

The USSR still needed hard currency in order to function. During the Stalin years, it exported gold. Later it exported grain and lumber. Later still it exported oil.

What made Gorbachev to start talks with Reagan? His benevolence? Hardly. In his own interview with Echo Moskvy he said it were Pershing missles that NATO had deployed in Germany.

This is correct. Anyone who doubts the importance to the Cold War of the deployment of Pershing missiles in Europe needs to revise his reading material.

At least most of the value added ag stuff seems to be imported. Which by itself is not necessarily bad.

It isn’t, unless you happen to think that contract and tax laws can be applied selectively to foreign companies and that simply sitting atop vast reserves of oil and gas is a good substitute for investor confidence.

Cyrill, you lived in Moscow didn’t you? Nothing personal just want to verify this before I comment your “BS”.
As you well aware Moscow globe was and is very different from the rest of Russia.
Hence moscowites are not Russians really

“Yeah, food was a real luxury those days…”

Ah yes, the food imports! Forgot.

Ivanov, you presume too much. I lived in Moscow and Leningrad. But I worked as an interpreter for ВЦСПС and took delegations around. Anyway, are you denying USSR was actually purchasing all of what I mentined?

Ah yes, the food imports! Forgot.

Don’t forget the knock-off Depeche Mode tapes.

Depeche Mode definitely comes umder the class of luxury goods.

“Chris, I am surprised you would fall such an obvious load of BS.”

You’re such a predictable ideologue.

Oh really? You buy an ideologically charged BS that somehow a prime minister is responsible for failure of a food distribution system in any country and I am an ideologue? Or is it because blaming Gaidar for all ills is something you hear from every corner in Russia? For peet’s sake, use Occum Razor when it is available.

“blaming Gaidar for all ills is something you hear from every corner in Russia? For peet’s sake, use Occum Razor when it is available.”

Cyrill, I hope you are not suggesting Chrius to cut Gaidar’s throat with бритва?

PS. About import, ВЦСПС and food storage – later.

Occum [sic] Razor = magic space pony.

What makes Cyrill so unintentionally funny is the way that, on the one hand, his views on Russians and Americans are utterly marginal and believed in by very small numbers of Russians and Americans, respectively, while, on the other hand, he trumpets them as if they were obvious and only a moron would not see them. It’s almost Larouchian in its level of self-delusion.

Don’t try to slide it Chris. This particular one has nothing to do with my views. It has everything to do with your precondition that allows you to accept an urban myth that somehow a prime minister can single handedly ruin a country because he did not understand “distribution system”.

As for your use of third person singular and space ponies, you are beginning to employ methods of your own arch nemesis – Averko.

I am an ideologue? Or is it because blaming Gaidar for all ills is something you hear from every corner in Russia? For peet’s sake, use Occum Razor when it is available.