“Putin’s historic achievement”

“Putin’s stifling regime ”

Has this person ever been in Russia?

He’s a young NYC-based writer from an émigré family originally from Latvia. He was born in Riga.

From the artcle:

“The morning after Medvedev’s victory, on Pushkin Square, I joined a group of about 60 young Nashi men and women with government-issue flags huddled, under freezing rain, in front of an outdoor stage.”

Chris — Is it my imagination or do you ask that question about every journo with whose stuff you disagree?

I like this:

“Instead, there’s a new language of cynicism. In the past few years, Russian has acquired an extraordinary number of energetic slang terms for various subspecies of fraud: raspil (embezzlement), otkat (kickback), otzhim (hostile takeover). Every street rally, every public opinion is assumed to be zakazano and proplacheno–”ordered” and “paid up.” The most fashionable pose is that of a conspiracy theorist: Belief in a shadowy world government, be it KGB, CIA, or Jews, is mainstream and commonplace. This thinking, of course, has the side benefit of excusing the thinker of any responsibility.”

A well-written article by someone who clearly doesn’t understand economics and politics. The assertion that Russia’s growth since 2000 has been entirely due to oil prices is simply wrong – the economic reports from the World Bank and even the Economist Intelligence Unit have been saying this for a long time now. Second, Idov amazingly asserts that today’s Russia is characterized by ‘zastoi’! Why are these journalists amazed that Russians aren’t rearing to tear down a system or leadership that has provided so many successes? For some reason, in Russia, if you aren’t anti-system, then you aren’t a part of the ‘opposition.’ This is an obvious holdover from the Cold War mentality. Why doesn’t he write an article about how American democracy is in a state of ‘zastoi’ because nobody votes for Ron Paul or Ralph Nader? The previous comment pointing out Idov’s Baltic emigre background is instructive. Years of kitchen table discussions about evil Russians tends to make an impression.

“Chris — Is it my imagination or do you ask that question about every journo with whose stuff you disagree?”

Your imagination is running wild!

Funny, I don’t feel stifled.

““Instead, there’s a new language of cynicism. In the past few years, Russian has acquired an extraordinary number of energetic slang terms for various subspecies of fraud: raspil (embezzlement), otkat (kickback), otzhim (hostile takeover). Every street rally, every public opinion is assumed to be zakazano and proplacheno–”ordered” and “paid up.” The most fashionable pose is that of a conspiracy theorist: Belief in a shadowy world government, be it KGB, CIA, or Jews, is mainstream and commonplace. This thinking, of course, has the side benefit of excusing the thinker of any responsibility.”

Belief in a shadowy world government is mainstream and commonplace?

“Second, Idov amazingly asserts that today’s Russia is characterized by ‘zastoi’!”

Yeah, I know. Where’s the stagnation? I think the writer just wanted to use the word.

Sometimes I miss good old Soviet days because people who “Belief in a shadowy world government is mainstream and commonplace” were getting free medical help.
Now they have to work hard and write something stifling… poor boy

“It has its own banking system (Gazprombank, which doesn’t deal in rubles”

http://www.gazprombank.ru/eng/private/index.wbp

For retail customers

“Gazprombank offers the following services to retail customers:

cash and settlement service in Russian roubles and US dollars;
money transfers in Russian and foreign currencies;
deposits in Russian roubles, US dollars and EURO … ”

I think this sums up the whole article

I noticed that he mentioned Tibet. It’s now a world mainstream fashion – no article without Tibet?

PS. Sorry Sean, I couldn’t got further than three first paragraphs.

I respect freedom of speech as loong as it’s not freedom of facts.

Michael – “Putin’s status as the head of United Russia”

UR web site – http://www.edinros.ru/news.html?rid=2812

“It has its own banking system (Gazprombank, which doesn’t deal in rubles”

check http://www.gazprombank.ru/eng/private/index.wbp

For retail customers

“Gazprombank offers the following services to retail customers:

cash and settlement service in Russian roubles and US dollars;
money transfers in Russian and foreign currencies;
deposits in Russian roubles, US dollars and EURO … ”

I think this sums up the whole article

I read the whole article and, frankly, don’t know what you guys are whining about. Perhaps he’s mistaken in a couple of places (I certainly cannot judge whether he made any mistakes), but were those mistakes fatal. Even great articles sometimes contain factual erroes. The point is whether those error totally undermined his case.

Jesse you wrote: “The assertion that Russia’s growth since 2000 has been entirely due to oil prices is simply wrong.” Maybe I missed it, where did Idov makes such a claim. He does write about Russia’s “oil-fueled prosperity”, but that is far cry from saying that all of Russia’s growth is “entirely due to oil”.

Moreover, I thought that his explanation for his use of the word “zastoi” was quite adequate. Readers can disagree with him on that, but he was not capricious in using that word. And Jesse, although the word “zastoi” is not used in the US, I read my share of American commentators lamenting the sense of stagnation in American politics and the apathetic indifference that this engenders.

As Jesse pointed out – “Years of kitchen table discussions about evil Russians tends to make an impression.”

+1

I also didn’t get the answer – is Tibet is a must in any article now?

I agree with Kolya. Excellent piece. Captures well the irrelevancy of the so-called opposition, the cynicism of the intelligentsiya, and the — what? — possibilities under Medvedev.

And he got Nashi dead to rights in a few words. I suspect he’s read Sean’s chronicles.

A few factual details wrong, but everyone gets some things wrong.

Ivanov – I’d be grateful if you would force yourself to read beyond three paragraphs so that we at least have something worthwhile to disagree over.

The reference to Tibet was actually very apt, as a metaphor for how power manifests itself.

OK, if Tibet is a must – as Stalin and Lenin quoting in every Soviet written document – let me say something also.

F&^K Tibet, F&^K D-lama.

So, fn, you think that Tibet was apt in the article?
But I got the impression that the author tried to impress readers with his English skill and pretend to be extremely smart (by using long sentences with rare words), but he completely lost the point in the process…

“It reelected Vladimir Putin, in the way Tibetan monks pick the same Dalai Lama each time, regardless of the human form he’s taken. The rubber- stamping of the Kremlin candidate illuminates a useful truth about Russian society: Putin’s stifling regime and the country’s oil-fueled prosperity are viewed not as unrelated phenomena but as cause and effect. Medvedev, even as he formally represents the end of that regime, is also its ultimate triumph.”

Just try to read above pile of words – and translate to plain English. I bet if everyone will “translate” above pile and then we’ll compare translations – it would be fun

PS. if a car is “oil-fueled” – do you think we might also suspect that it is moved by Space forces or pedal power? Not likely.
So if our rizhskiy friend wrote “oil-fueled prosperity” – most likely the chances are that he meant exactly what Jesse said.

off-top

For bot writers!
secret words are:

sea
fine
trout
better
near
space

At least I’m getting only them. Aha! I know what it means!

Fine trout better near sea space.

Sean, did you have to set anti-bot dictionary manually by yourself?

Sean, thanks for posting this, I might not have seen it otherwise and I thought it was a damn good article.

To the folks nitpicking (I especially like the Americans-turned-ура-патриоты) – it’s funny to see people happily residing outside of Russia so quick to reject an article about the atmosphere in the country written by a guy who has been there since before the election, clearly did a fair amount of legwork and old-fashioned reporting (hanging out with Nashi, chatting with people like Gel’man, who can hardly be considered an “opposition” figure) and does not seem to subscribe to a simplistic view of Russian politics. Obviously the guy has a point of view (he hardly hides it), but I’d hope that those of you who make a habit of mocking Western media coverage of Russia would at least give Idov a bit of credit for this:

The Western press likes to kid itself that Putin’s regime is crushing a potent revolt. “They always wanted us to give the opposition viewpoint,” chuckles a former reporter for The New York Times’ Moscow bureau. “Where’s the opposition? More opposition! We were like, ‘It’s really not about the opposition here.’”[...]

To call the Other Russia, a coalition of anti-Kremlin forces, disorganized or rudderless is to hugely understate matters. It is a leftover stew of political views–combining literally everyone who isn’t a Putinist or a communist in one of history’s least organic alliances. Given any measure of power, it would fracture in seconds.

I also thought the word zastoi was out of place – until I read the next sentence:

Economically booming, politically resurgent, today’s Russia is also culturally stagnant in the widest sense.

As for “oil-fueled” – Jesse, can you do a post or something debunking this myth or at least provide some links to the reports you mention? I confess I’m not an economist – the last econ class I took was in high school. I keep hearing about all of the reports validating the idea of the Russian economic miracle (in other places I’ve seen “IMF reports” – also unlinked – cited), and I was there to see some of their policy innovations during VVP’s first term – the introduction of the new tax and labor codes, for example – and saw some of the results – more foreign cars (including more and more produced in Russia), a Western-standard retail sector accessible to the middle class, consumer credit and mortgages (the latter developed, BTW, thanks in no small part to a US-gov’t-seeded investment fund), etc. – so I agree that they took affirmative steps to improve the economy. But do you really think Moscow would be quite so blingy if oil had stayed at $25-30/bbl (roughly where it was before 9/11)?

I’ll grant that the growth figures of plenty of oil-less post-Soviet economies since 1998 prove that growth in the region can be achieved without oil (query, though, why some of those other countries have outpaced Russia – I guess perhaps they just had lower baselines).

And I have seen lots of discussion elsewhere of the various methodologies for calculating GDP figures and accusations that the figures can be gamed to make Russia’s growth and size look less impressive than it is. But I still think it’s no accident that the year of Russia’s financial crisis directly coincided with a downward spike in oil prices (see chart), and it’s no accident that Russia’s resurgence has coincided with soaring oil prices. Really, even if you give credit to VVP & Co. for not screwing things up, how can the positive impact of high oil/gas prices on the Russian economy be denied?

The previous comment pointing out Idov’s Baltic emigre background is instructive. Years of kitchen table discussions about evil Russians tends to make an impression.

For a minute, I thought I was reading some Nashi member’s LJ. Please, isn’t it enough that prejudiced comments like this clog blogs all over RuNet?

“And Jesse, although the word “zastoi” is not used in the US, I read my share of American commentators lamenting the sense of stagnation”

Sure, but “zastoi” in Russian usually means ECONOMIC stagnation, which Russia, with one of the fastest-growing economies in the world, is not experiencing.

Who cares what American commentators think anyway? The US is a declining power. One should be more attentive to what they are saying in China and India.

“As for “oil-fueled” – Jesse, can you do a post or something debunking this myth or at least provide some links to the reports you mention?”

Look for the IMF report for last year. It’s online.

“For a minute, I thought I was reading some Nashi member’s LJ. Please, isn’t it enough that prejudiced comments like this clog blogs all over RuNet?”

Weak rhetorical trick.

Chris, do you assume that everything is a cynical “rhetorical trick”? Is it wrong to somehow point out a statement that is prejudiced on its face and to point out that such statements are more prevalent at other types of online venues?

I mean no offense to Jesse, and he’s probably right to make an assumption about a point of view that may be prevalent among a certain group of people, but to draw a conclusion on the basis of that assumption puts his comment in the realm of racial profiling. Actually, I was thinking that his comment is perhaps akin to someone dialing up a bunch of Rev. Wright’s sermons on YouTube and making a comment like this:

“Pointing out Obama’s church membership is instructive. Years of hearing sermons about evil Whitey tends to make an impression.”

Actually, it’s worse, since none of us has any idea what was discussed at the kitchen table in the Idov family – or what impact any discussions might have had on his work (after all, don’t people sometimes rebel against their parents’ views?) – and to make assumptions about that on the basis of someone’s ethnicity is the textbook definition of prejudice.

Actually, perhaps a better comparison would be a comment dismissing anything critical of the US written by someone who was born in the Soviet Union before, say, 1975. After all, “Years of official indoctrination about evil Americans tends to make an impression.”

Although as we all know, in most cases, it didn’t make an impression. Anyway, I really mean no offense to Jesse (he is the only SRB commenter I’ve actually met in real life!), that comment just rubbed me the wrong way.

Lyndon, thanks for good comparison

“Actually, perhaps a better comparison would be a comment dismissing anything critical of the US written by someone who was born in the Soviet Union before, say, 1975. After all, “Years of official indoctrination about evil Americans tends to make an impression.”

The only problem – you made a wrong conclusion. Look at Cyrill – and try to find anything critical about US

Oh! One mistake, Lyndon, – we are talking about kitchen propaganda, not official one

Lyndon: “an article about the atmosphere in the country written by a guy who has been there since before the election,”

I even voted – so I guess I can smell that “atmosphere” as well

Lyndon: “clearly did a fair amount of legwork and old-fashioned reporting”

I’m not a reporter. Never taken any classes. So might be wrong to think that old-fashioned legwork should look different. Something like
“Vasya from Nashi told me bla-bla-bla. Taxi driver told me f**k-f**k-f**k, NYT reporter said bla-bla-bla. Then I went to the store and saw ….Then I passed babushka etc.” This would allow readers to feel atmosphere over there, right?

Lyndon:”how can the positive impact of high oil/gas prices on the Russian economy be denied?”

Who is denying IMPACT? Please point us out so we could nitpick the bastard to the ban
But it was Idov who claimed that Russian prosperity is “oil-fueled” only. As you know (without economy classes) shit could happened even with the country full of oil and nothing but the oil (Nigeria comes to mind)…

PS. Idov expressed his opinion about atmosphere. And this is his right that I respect. But I personally think he has some problems with the nose

Lyndon,

-Econ. Growth – read the EIU viewswire from last June (http://www.economist.com/agenda/PrinterFriendly.cfm?story_id=9354403)
byline = “It’s not about just oil and gas.” This is especially ironic considering the ‘reporting’ done by the section of the Economist that doesn’t rely on facts. Also, Da Russophile has done an insane amount of excellent blogging debunking the ‘oil-fueled’ myth. Check out this post (http://darussophile.blogspot.com/2008/03/editorial-fighting-russophobes.html)

The ‘oil-fueled’ line is bunk not only because it plays fast and loose with the facts, but also because it’s a mainstay of the Russophobe’s argument – that any positive development in Russia is attributable to oil. They ignore the improvements in the regulatory environment that have caused domestic and foreign investment to grown at breakneck speeds. Also, if Russia was spending its ‘windfall’ from oil profits – versus stashing it in a stabilization fund – inflation would spiral out of control and likely undermine that hard-earned stability from the past 8 years.

-Baltic Peoples: I wasn’t trying to be racist. I’ve met many first generation Russian-Americans who have never been to Russia and instead were raised with horror stories of the USSR. And even though Idov did spend time in Russia, it seems that he sought out the story that he ultimately told. His acknowledgment that Other Russia is not a popular organization reflects his overall hipster theme – that these guys are hip to the facade that is modern Russia, while anyone who is optimistic about the future is a total moron.

Look for the IMF report for last year. It’s online.

Well, Chris, not to be difficult, but the IMF has a lot of reports about Russia on its website, and none immediately jumps out as being “the one” from last year. There are several reports from last year (a couple of Article IV Consultation Reports, one Selected Issues report, and a couple of Working Papers) – I’m going to do a bunch of pasting from these various reports, and I apologize in advance if this turns out to be a long post.

Most likely, you’re referring to a report from April of last year which asked the question “Diagnosing Dutch Disease: Does Russia Have the Symptoms?”

The report notes the following:

Oil and gas exports have contributed significantly to recent output growth in Russia. Crude oil, oil products, and gas together account for almost 60 percent of Russia’s total export revenues,4 and for an estimated 20–25 percent of Russia’s gross domestic product (GDP). In recent years, record high oil prices have generated significant windfall revenues, have put the real exchange rate on an appreciation path, and have stimulated the economy to the point of overheating. (p. 3)

We conclude that, while Russia does appear to have all of the symptoms, the diagnosis of Dutch Disease remains to be confirmed. Although we find evidence of real appreciation, a declining manufacturing sector, an expanding service sector, and rapid real wage growth, more research is needed to determine that these symptoms are not caused by other factors. Nevertheless, the risk of Dutch Disease exists and warrants close monitoring. (p. 23)

For example, they note that wage growth may have been caused by “de-shadowization” of wages after 2000 and that the growth in the service sector relative to manufacturing may be natural for a “transition” economy and as households become richer. This is a very interesting report, and I recommend it – here’s the link again (but be careful with the pdf’s in FireFox, as they sometimes crash it).

Moving on to other reports from last year, here is the paragraph from last May’s Article IV Consultation report which seems most relevant to the discussion (my emphasis added):

18. The energy sector is now weighing on the long-term outlook. The oil sector is not expected to recover over the medium-term from the precipitous decline that took place in 2004-2005. Thus, having previously contributed significantly to economic growth, it is now becoming a drag on growth in the sense that it is projected to expand at only half the pace of the economy at large. This also means a sharp decline in the relative importance of a sector that has been the main source of revenue to the budget and of foreign exchange inflows in the past, which in turn significantly increases the risk of the external current account and the real exchange rate overshooting their long-term equilibrium if the fiscal relaxation of the non-oil deficit continues in the coming years, as discussed above. In this regard, the poor performance of the oil sector as the state has assumed greater control in recent years and the equally disappointing performance of the state controlled gas sector over a much longer period stand in stark contrast to the strong growth of the privately controlled energy sector until recently, suggesting that the state may not be the best steward of this important sector. While the long-term goal should clearly be to diversify the economy away from dependence on the natural resource sector, this sector provides Russia with a strong comparative advantage and its resources could help spur growth and economic transformation if harnessed through the right policies.

Seems like that’s just saying that the performance might not be as good in the future as it’s been in the past, because – guess what? – governments are not always the best managers of natural resource wealth. I guess that is the conclusion one would expect from the IMF, but it is surprising, Chris, based on your feelings about the 1990s in Russia, that you are willing to rely on their analysis in these matters at all.

The October “Selected Issues” report discusses oil mainly as a cause of inflationary pressure (to the extent that I can understand the economic jargon therein – see p. 11). Here I think we can all agree that oil wealth may be a mixed blessing, but again I’m not sure how this bolsters the argument that the growth of the 2000’s thus far was not due in large part to high oil prices (that seems to be the case Chris and Jesse are trying to make).

the fall Article IV report, here’s the first sentence:

High oil prices, a strong catch-up potential, and sound fiscal policy underlie
Russia’s long spell of robust growth.

So, oil is one of three major factors, and without it there would have been no room for VVP & Co. to pursue their sound fiscal policy of salting away the windfall. The report also notes the strong growth in other sectors and greater “balance” in GDP growth in 2006, and have the following assessment, which would seem to bolster an argument that oil has been a crucial factor in the past but is no longer the only factor in Russian growth:

37. Russia’s macroeconomic performance continues to impress. Much is owed to high oil prices and large capital inflows, but also to good economic management. Most important in view of the dependence on oil prices, the stabilization fund is providing a notable measure of stability, helping self-sustaining growth in the form of rising investments and a positive nexus of high growth in productivity, real wages, and consumption to take hold. The acceleration in investments, even with receding oil prices and uncertainty relating to political transition, points to the robustness of investor sentiments at this time.

They also note, though, that the “balanced-budget oil price” will be rising from $30/bbl in ‘06 to $55-60/bbl in ‘09 (para. 42), which suggests that Russia is to a certain extent coming to rely on higher oil prices (even, one might say, “doubling down” on the role of the energy sector).

And this:

48. Improving the investment climate is the main long-term challenge. Despite the increases in recent years, the level of investments remains relatively low. Moreover, Russia scores poorly in international comparisons of the investment climate. The limited progress with regard to important reforms—not least, civil service, public administration, and legal reforms—has been of limited consequence so far because high oil prices and the still strong catch-up potential have entailed robust growth.

“Box 1″ on page 20 of the report discusses strong financial sector and consumer credit growth – this is not oil sector growth, but would it really be as strong as it is if not for the underlying oil wealth? “Box 2″ on page 21 lauds the government for introducing reforms which will limit the amount of oil money that goes into the budget, but it’s talking about a smart policy move for the future, not about the growth of 2000-2007.

In conclusion (now that I’ve burned a couple of hours wading through these reports), I can certainly agree that the Russian government has managed the oil windfall well and that today other areas of strength in the economy have developed. I still think it’s incorrect to insist that oil has not been a critical factor in Russia’s growth under Putin, and I’d still argue that it has been the critical factor.

Note that calling it “oil-fueled” means just that – oil fueled the growth, not that oil was exclusively responsible for it. Obviously no one is suggesting that management had nothing to do with it. After all, pouring more gasoline into a Zaporozhets won’t make it faster than a BMW. But Russia’s sound policies and previously underutilized human capital (the “BMW,” in case you need me to connect the dots of my oblique analogy) could not have started the engine and put the pedal to the metal without the fuel.

Jesse, thanks for the links – I will check them out soon, for now my head is still spinning from all those IMF reports and other stuff I was looking at (I’m going to risk the wrath of Sean and do one more long post which I hope people will find edifying)

-Baltic Peoples: I wasn’t trying to be racist.

I know, sorry if I went off a bit on that.

I’ve met many first generation Russian-Americans who have never been to Russia and instead were raised with horror stories of the USSR.

Oh, so have I. My favorite was a Russian-American I met once with an MBA from a good school who had a rather unglamorous and not high-paying job crunching numbers for a law firm but had never considered going to Moscow to seek his fortune. After talking about it with him for a while and suggesting he look into it, I realized he just didn’t think anything good could come of his going there to work.

And even though Idov did spend time in Russia, it seems that he sought out the story that he ultimately told. His acknowledgment that Other Russia is not a popular organization reflects his overall hipster theme – that these guys are hip to the facade that is modern Russia, while anyone who is optimistic about the future is a total moron.

Well, perhaps he was infected by the cynicism he was chronicling…

A couple of letters from the March/April issue of Foreign Policy (I’m pasting here because the full text is only accessible through paid databases):

Lilia Shevtsova (“Think Again: Vladimir Putin,” January/February 2008) is a remarkable political scientist. But when a specialist, even one as qualified as she, begins discussing the problems of another sphere of competence, the risk of error is high. I am not simply referring to some peculiar expressions such as, “The proportion of goods and services in Russia’s exports is a mere 1.7 percent” (exports are, as a matter of fact, the transport of goods out of a country, and nothing else). These are trifles. More important is Shevtsova’s assertion that Russia’s economic growth is entirely due to high oil prices. This is an error I can’t ignore.

In fact, we can turn to Gaidar himself for some answers. In his brilliant new book, Colbpse of an Empire: Lessons for Modern Russia (Brookings Institution Press, 2007), Gaidar concludes that “Russia’s economy, like the USSR’s before it, is becoming dependent on keeping oil prices at historically anomalous levels.” That sounds remarkably like a false bottom to me. Does economic growth in Russia actually translate into development, or is it indeed an obstacle to modernization? [...]

OK, I know that at this point I’m acting like you-know-who (I dare not speak his name, but the anagrams one can create with it are amazing) and quadruple-posting, but I want to share one more bit of source data on the topic of oil & Russia’s economic growth.

Excerpts from an interview with Kudrin last week:

[Kudrin] said the oil and gas sector’s share of the economy would fall from 21% to 14%-15% in the next four years. “We won’t be able to sustain the sort of oil and gas sector revenue that is being used for federal spending,” he said, explaining the need to cut public spending. [...]

Russia earned an extra $475 billion in 2000-2007 due to high oil prices, Kudrin said.
In 2000 the forecast oil price was $20 per barrel, which was the average price in the preceding 10 years. Since then the price above $20 per barrel has brought Russia a windfall of $475 billion, of which $340 billion – 72% – went to the budget.
In that way, Russia was able to prevent the ruble from strengthening too much. It also helped to keep down inflation, Kudrin said.
Thirty percent of the windfall went to budget spending, 34% to retire foreign debt, and the remaining 36% went to the stabilization fund.

To give you an idea of the scale of a $475bn windfall, that amount is greater than the country’s total GDP for 1999 and 2000 put together, and larger than annual GDP for all individual years until 2003. On the other hand, it’s less than 10% of the total GDP for the years 2000-2007 (see this chart for the figures).

Sean et al., I apologize for the flood.

Shevtsova (who I think is awesome and whose new book I am currently reading) asks: “But then what is the “main engine” of this growth?”

Answer: An extremely educated workforce (especially in the hard sciences and technology fields), rising consumer demand, and, most importantly, rising domestic/foreign investment. This is not only portfolio investment, but the actual acquisition or creation of factories – e.g., VW, Coca-Cola.

To be clear, I’m not denying the role oil has played in helping Russia recover – I think almost half of its exports are carbon-based (even though this hasn’t been an export-based recovery). But, there are two points:

1. Every country benefits from whatever happens to be in the ground.
2. Resources do not = wealth. As I said before, if Russia had in fact used the wealth from oil production for spending to keep the population fat and happy, then inflation would skyrocket. In fact, spending has stayed amazingly low, despite the huge surplus. Also, I don’t see how people can argue that Russia is a kleptocracy where its wealth is dependent on oil, but the leadership steals all the oil wealth. If this were the case, Russia would be a basket case like Nigeria, where even with tons of oil and foreign investment, the people live in abject poverty.

Jesse, because you mention the kleptocracy argument (which I know is out there, and put there by Russians like Belkovsky more than by any Western “Russophobes”) as though it was raised here, I want to be sure no one misunderstood my phrase about “VVP & Co. [pursuing] their sound fiscal policy of salting away the windfall” – that was a non-sarcastic statement referring to the StabFond. I don’t think the kleptocracy argument was raised in Idov’s article, either (since that was the topic of the post, before that “oil-fueled” tangent).

I would note, though, that the way control of the energy sector is set up would seem to make it easy for certain people to skim enough to become pretty rich without the overall effect being more than a rounding error. The idea of using the StabFond money to play the Russian stock market (floated by Putin last year – not sure if it went anywhere) is also quite problematic, given the the potential for this to just create false valuations for Russian blue chips – not to mention the potential for the folks involved to make a little extra on the side through insider trading, since one imagines it would be a small group of people with little oversight except from the dyarchs themselves. Part of the problem is that there is no one auditing the Korporocrats (if I may try to coin a new term), so even if you don’t think there is money being siphoned off on a large scale, you have to remember that these guys are human, and the temptation would have to be pretty huge.

It seems to me part of Russia booming middle class is not so much oil, but the stability those revenues bring. Subjective factors are as important as objective ones in a growing economy. Oil has given the image of prosperity which carries more weight than many seem to be willing to admit. As a result, investment in Russia on the part of multinational corporations in on the rise and wages are going up as a result.

This is very insightful and true, I think (although the effect of oil/gas, at 20-25% of GDP, is not just about image). It is a confidence-builder and lets certain foreign investors come in knowing that someone will have money to buy their stuff (recall that the first post-2000 trend in this regard was the foreign hypermarkets).

Here is an interesting hypothetical to consider: Putting much of the oil money in the StabFond has been a good thing for the country because that money doesn’t go into the economy and create inflation (right?). But what if – and I know this is probably impossible, but it’s just a thought exercise – the StabFond numbers were tweaked and the actual amount deposited was, say, $50bn short of the $157bn claimed. If no one knew, presumably everyone would assume the government was prudently caring for the nation’s wealth, the “image” would be secure, Russians would continue to take out loans, FDI would continue to pour in, and the virtuous circle would continue. But if the news were to leak, the “kleptocracy” rumors would be confirmed, and things might look decidedly less rosy, even with $100bn+ still in the account.

I am interested to hear any other interpretations of that hypothetical (including that it is bred). My own conclusion is that it illustrates that image (Sean’s “subjective factors”) is indeed quite important, but that “objective factors” – the reality of how much cash there is and who has it – are more important in the long run. Then again, as a wise man once said, in the long run we’re all dead.

one more interesting fact which is not often mentioned is that the Russian Central Bank deversified its currency reserves back in 2005/6, thus making some extra dozens of billions

https://financialcryptography.com/mt/archives/000748.html
“On Thursday, June 8, Russia became the latest in the list of countries that shifted a part of its Central Bank reserves from the dollar. Sergei Ignatyev, chairman of the Central Bank, said that only 50 percent of its reserves are now held in dollars, with 40 percent in euros and the rest in pounds sterling. Earlier it was believed that just 25-30 percent of Russia’s reserves were held in euros, with virtually all the rest held in dollars.”

back then the buck traded around 1,2$, now it is 1,57$, the Gulf and China still hold nearly all of there reserves in dollars

Gosh. I’m sure Idov would be astonished to see a single throw-away phrase — “oil-fuelled prosperity” — parsed to this extent. He’d be doubly amazed at the eminent thinkers cited variously to attack or support his imputed point of view.

Perhaps we should simply take it as given that, as the splendid Shevtsova states, “The reality is far more complicated.” It always is.

Many thanks to Lyndon for the impromptu research on the relationship between oil prices and the RF economy. And thanks also to Sean for unearthing a piece which has proven to be so provocative. Frankly, if I’d stumbled across it myself, I’d have regarded it as interesting, and usefully (from a western media perspective) unorthodox, especially about the state of dissent, but largely uncontroversial. Not for the first time, Sean’s “second sense” on what to post has proven superb.

There is a disturbing tendency to dismiss the observations of western, especially US, journalists. (eg, Who cares what American commentators think anyway? The US is a declining power.). This particular commentator’s views were initially dismissed on grounds that he might not even have been to Russia, and then because – as a Russian speaker – he actually had been.

In matters of analysis of the power elite in Russia, it reflects a smug self-confidence which no-one sitting outside the Kremlin could possibly justify. Whether American, Chinese, Indian – or Russian – we know little about what’s going on on the other side of those walls. I’m neither arrogant enough to think I have a better answer nor cynical enough to dismiss someone else’s based on his nationality (or, in Ivanov’s case, on a reading of three paragraphs).

Sean said (or at least quoted Aslund): All of Russia’s current economic success originated with the reforms of the 1990s, which incidentally he was a major advocate and adviser for.

This is not true. Since Putin entered office, Russia has passed a a new tax codes, labor code, land code, a reduction in red tape in certain areas affecting business, and the Arbitrazh courts’ competency and independence have greatly increased because salaries for judges were raised. And I really can’t stress enough the restraint with the stabilization fund – they’ve used it to pay down huge deficits but haven’t significantly increased spending. In theory, with the fund at $156 billion, the government could give a billion dollars to each Russian citizen.

‘a billion dollars for each citizen’ – oops, i mean a thousand..i just woke up

Jesse – I think you meant a million. I have just applied for Russian citizenship.

“Then again, as a wise man once said, in the long run we’re all dead.”

In Britain where this fellow mostly practiced his economic arts, as we looked around at the wreckage of the economy, we used to say “… and this is the long run and Keynes is dead”. A clever man but not I think a wise one.

The source of Russia’s current prosperity. I suspect a lot of the above debate is really about the infantile attempt of some commentators to suggest that any clown could have managed the current economic recovery in Russia because of the high oil and gas price.
It is interesting that with carbon resources contributing 20 -25% to GDP that is the same as the percentage of GDP provided by financial services and the City of London in the until recently prosperous UK. At least I think it is interesting.

No quite right a thousand. I have just torn up my application.

By now, with Lyndon, FH, and Sean’s better informed comments, my words are largely irrelevant and uninteresing, but here they go. First, my apologies for somehow forgetting about the existence of questions marks in the comment I wrote yesterday–the one where I wondered why so many of you were unfairly dismissing Idov’s fine article.

Chris, you wrote that “zastoi” usually means economic stagnation. True, but Idov makes it PERFECTLY clear that by using that word he’s not talking about the economy. One more thing. The reason I wrote about American commentators lamenting the state of politics in the US was a response to Jesse’s “Why doesn’t he write an article about how American democracy is in a state of ‘zastoi’ because nobody votes for Ron Paul or Ralph Nader?”

And once again let me repeat that Idov’s phrase, “oil-fueled prosperity” is a far cry from the assertion, as Jesse wrongly claimed, that “Russia’s growth since 2000 has been entirely due to oil”.

The only problem – you made a wrong conclusion. Look at Cyrill – and try to find anything critical about US
Simple. I have posted a number of radio shows at cyrillvatomsky.com. There is quite a bit of criticism on subjects usually outside of what is discussed here: immigration, religiosity, over moralizing, NIMBY.

As for the article itself, any long piece will have errors and any opinion piece will have facts “stretched” to various degrees. Which usually is used by those that disagree with opinion to nitpick and try to invalidate the whole based on details. A commonly used debate tactic. When he talks about Gazprom media assets he does not mention Эхо Москвы. It is a glaring omission (sloppiness or intentional) but does it invalidate his claim about NTV? To a degree it does, since he is not making specific claims akin of Kommersant’s “доступ к теле” and Medvedev’s coverage on NTV vs. Rambler. Sloppy.

Thanks, again, Lyndon for reaffirming what many had claimed before that the current petrodollar glut is partially responsible for Putin’s success. But does such a claim invalidate all successes Russia had achieved in the last decade? Hell no.

Regarding the zastoi comment, it is not necessarily only an economic issue. After all, zastoi (I might be completely wrong but I recall it being more of a slogan to distinguish a new leader rather then based on specific economic numbers) refers to the Brezhnev era when Russia experienced a similar petrodollar glut. Economically it was not as bad as the word implies. While Moscow and Leningrad elites might not have had it as good as before, the oil glut was spread a bit more evenly in провинция. And then there is this comment:

today’s Russia is also culturally stagnant in the widest sense. Its only identifiable passion is to be taken seriously abroad.

This really hurts but this seems to confirm my experiences with Russia and with Russians there and abroad. With all the anti-Western fervor and self professed cultural identity Moscow MacDonalds is the busiest in the world. Mannerisms of cheap купечество oozes from everywhere. Meeting Russian tourists in Europe is a painful experience – more so then even meeting American tourists there. Culturally what I saw in Russia in the last 3 years is predominately kitch. For crying out loud, a Deep Purple fan as a president?! Anyone remembers this юрай хип и дип пурпле очень нравятся урле.

The article’s depiction of Nashi is spot on from what I gather. Just like the late zastoi Komsomol was – mildly ideological at the base but cynical and career oriented above.

The final leg of Sovereign Democracy is in what used to be the private sector. A de facto nationalization of Russia’s most flush industries–oil and gas–provides the cushion that keeps the bureaucratic deadweight afloat. Both functionaries and dissidents, struggling to put this socioeconomic model into first-world terms, like to say that the new Russia is being run like a corporation. To an extent, it is a corporation, and that corporation is Gazprom–currently headed by Dmitri Medvedev.

While I agree in general terms, I think it is more then Gazprom, but it is a corporation – Putin Inc. Gazprom is only one component of it. Let’s not forget Igor Sechin and Rosneft (the current owner of Yukos’ assets) or Leonid Reiman – current telecom minister that apparently owns assets he regulates and shares some with Ludmila Putina’s Megafon. A feudal lord set up his hierarchy by giving what Timofei Granovsky refers to as “алоты” – allotments, pieces of land – the most important “means of production” at the time. Similarly, current feudal lord would give currently valuable means of production to his lieutenants – quasi-state corporations. However, this is not in any way Russian. This model is universal for late feudal/early capitalist societies from early US to fascist Italy to current Iran, Kuwait or Kazakhstan.

Agree on pathetic depiction of pathetic intelligentsya. Always self-indulgent, always elitist and always messing things up because of utter incompetence in anything except kitchen talk about global and cultural issues.

Kolya,
then why didn’t he say ‘consumer-driven prosperity’ or ‘construction-boom prosperity’? That catchphrase is meant to at once simplify Russia’s economic recovery and dismiss the much-needed reforms that helped this process.

Idov said: “Putin’s stifling regime and the country’s oil-fueled prosperity are viewed not as unrelated phenomena but as cause and effect.”

The gist of this argument is that Putin has somehow ‘bought off’ the population with oil riches, which makes them more ‘docile.’ If the prosperity was due to reforms made by Putin’s regime, then the population might have a legitimate reason for supporting his successor.

Lastly, perhaps the area where Russia’s ‘oil-fueled’ prosperity has had the most effect is in increasing the country’s independence on the international stage. Because of the surplus generated by rising oil prices, Russia has gone from a debtor to creditor nation. I think it paid off the Paris club in ‘05 or ‘06. Thus, Russia doesn’t have to worry about the views of western creditor nations. I guess it makes sense that western commentators would fixate on and resent a dynamic that has diminished the west’s leverage over Russia.

I notice that he is the editor-in-chief of Russia! Magazine. The same magazine published La Russophobe.

Yuck! I’m afraid I don’t know anything at all about the magazine. But that’s certainly not a good sign.

Sean,
I am putting the finishing touches on a law review article on the new strategic sectors legislation. Long story short, it probably won’t hinder Russia’s WTO progress as it mirrors similar legislation in France, Germany, etc.

-One last thing about the Idov article that really bugged the hell out of me: right after stating that most Russians have conspiratorial world-views, he goes on to float the idea that Medvedev was chosen because he’s a closet homosexual! It just shows that, for the most committed Russophobes, any unexpected turn of events (the choosing of a liberal successor as opposed to a silovik or Putin staying on) can be fit into the central thesis (that Russia is ruled by evil people with mischievous schemes for power). I can almost picture the smoke-filled dacha where the siloviki decide in between vodka shots to choose the ‘queer’ as the next president. Conspiratorial world-view indeed…

Kitsch indeed, but I wouldn’t make much of the rocker President.

Sorry if it came across as more then a jest jab.

True, Russia does seem to be overly concerned about its image abroad (partly for good reason since its image is under constant attack and many of those attacks are based in Russophobic assumptions).

We have been through some of this before and I would predictably disagree. I think that lots of the image problems Russia (and Russians) have are of their own making. Just like lots of image issues US has are of its own making. I certainly would not ascribe US image issues as based on some USophobia.

Behaviour of individuals abroad speaks volumes. The kupechestvo antics of Russians in Courchavelle, Milan or London are just as repugnant as some US people in Iraq expecting every Filipino girl there to drop on her knees… – just an example.

Back to the article, I read it again and I agree – it is the best piece I have ever read about Russia, balanced, without the democracy now drumbeat, realistic and in some cases painfully perceptive. I am going to do some talking about this on my radio show today – will post it at cyrillvatomsky.com later tonight. (a shameless plug, but also a way to save virtual trees)

Hey, you know, considering that Russia has one of the fastest economic growth rates in the world, and that this all has nothing to do with, nay, is IN SPITE OF!!, Putin, just imagine what it would be like if he weren’t there.

Russia’s economic growth rate would be like A BILLION PERCENT!!!! There would be flying cars! Personal robot butlers! Damn you, Putin!

I liked the article, and so did my whole family, which is rare.

Kudos to Mr. Idov for unearthing this old term ‘zastoi’. It was certainly keenly felt in late 70s-early 80s. Without ‘zastoi’ there would be no ‘perestroika’. It instantly brought back many lost memories of youth and I feel richer for it.

Of course it’s nonsense to compare Brezhnev’s ‘zastoi’ to modern Russia. It’s also nonsense to use the term ‘Neo-Soviet’ to describe modern Russia: this is just lazy. But that’s our media, always lazy but also always adversarial to any status quo.

What Russians can’t grasp is that in the US politics it’s always about ‘Change’. In the US politics, few weeks without controversy or scandal is ‘BIG Zastoi’.

Anyway, good article. Way better than the average media pabulum.

P.S. Deep Purple ROOLZ!

Jesse, it’s obvious that the phrase “oil-fueled prosperity” means something different to me than to you. As you wrote in your first comment, with that phrase Idov asserts that “Russia’s growth since 2000 has been entirely due to oil prices.” I don’t read it in such extreme way at all. If Idov meant to say what you are saying he meant, I’m sure he would have said so directly.

Although I liked the article this does not mean that I think he’s right on everything he wrote. For example, in my ignorance I totally missed what he meant by “gaydar”. I read through it without giving it much of a thought except to think (I kid you not) that it had something to do with Gaidar. Now that I know what he meant and knowing how homophobic the Russian establishment is, I agree with you that those words were a low blow on Idov’s part. And like FH, I’m disappointed by what Sean uncovered about Idov’s connection with the despicable La Russophobe.

There is no denying that Russophobia is wrong. My own perception, though, is that it is more acceptable to be a USphobe than a Russophobe. Many times I heard and read comments in foreign media that are insultingly and pettily anti-American and nobody bats an eye about it. Although there are exceptions, the US government and the American media is so used to this that for the most part they simply take it for granted and ignore it. Russians, though, have an extra-sensitive radar for such things.

“I’m disappointed by what Sean uncovered about Idov’s connection with the despicable La Russophobe.”

Was it Sean who interviewed Russophobka not so long ago? Doesn’t mean there is a connection. Neither in Idov’s case.

Kolya – The “gaydar” thing swept right by me too, I’m afraid. I had to look the word up. Probably a generational thing, or I’m just hopelessly out of touch. But yeah, I’m not comfortable with that kind of smarmy tabloid-style drive-by smear either. Although…is it possible that for people who do NOT have to look the word up it is not generally regarded as a smear? Just a thought.

With regard to the oil-fueled prosperity issue: I think you could probably line the bottom half of a magazine page with 6-point footnotes listing all the other contributing factors for the Russian boom. But it’s TNR, not an academic journal. For a political sketch, oil-fueled prosperity works well enough.

By the way – I was away when you resurfaced. Welcome back. Hope what needed doing got done.

Sean: Especially since most of the picks were made without reading the piece.

Did you mean this: “Candide on April 6, 2008 1:19 pm
Was it Sean who interviewed Russophobka not so long ago?”

1. If Idov meant to say what you are saying he meant, I’m sure he would have said so directly.

This is the main problem of the article – too many efforts to say something умное instead of what he meant. In simple words.

2. “What Russians can’t grasp is that in the US politics it’s always about ‘Change’. In the US politics, few weeks without controversy or scandal is ‘BIG Zastoi’.”

Are you sure you are not mixing words “changes” and “show”?
And believe me, Russian have been “grassping” changes much more often then they wished.
There is a Chinese proverb (very negative) “I wish you live in the time of changes”….

3. “I just wonder how much this will push back Russia’s entry into the WTO.”

What is so special in WTO that Russia must rush in to? As a voter – I against it. There was/is no peace treaty between CCCP/Russia and Japan. Does it hurt REAL business and cultural relations? In no way. Actually Japanese businessmen were somewhat scared when iron curtain was pulled apart. Same with Finland (are they in WTO?)

4. But my 10 points go to Lyndon for his excellent example
“After all, pouring more gasoline into a Zaporozhets won’t make it faster than a BMW”

Exactly!

PS. I found Lyndon’s post much more worth reading than Idov’s first three paragraphs
But one correction! Lyndon, Zaparozhets is not Russian car – it’s Ukranian!

fn’s “For a political sketch, oil-fueled prosperity works well enough.”

I would say – political comics.

But one correction! Lyndon, Zaparozhets is not Russian car – it’s Ukranian!

Well, I was going to use a Lada as the example, but those little suckers can go pretty fast when they have “russkii tyuning” under the hood and a “likhoi russkii potsan” behind the wheel. Actually, I’ve peeled out in a devyatka myself, though that had more to do with getting used to the transmission.

Was it Sean who interviewed Russophobka not so long ago?

In my role as resident pedant and cite-checker (though of course I take a backseat to the master, db), I will mention that it was Andy at Siberian Light who interviewed LR (and then had to explain himself a few days later). I think interviewing someone is different from publishing their work. For instance, it can be quite a coup for a journalist to get an interview with a reviled and infamous yet reclusive public figure. However, the usual format of a “blog interview” is a little different, since the interviewee gets the chance to think over and edit their responses before sending them back, eliminating the chance for a “gotcha” moment or for questions that make the interviewee uncomfortable.

By the way, Sean, I can’t say I’ve ever felt disappointed that you published pieces by other people here, my differences with M. Averko notwithstanding. I’m guessing, but perhaps part of the reason that you did it is that it’s hard to generate original content on one’s own for a blog – the same may be true of a newly launched magazine like “Russia!”

Here is the offending piece by LR. As with Averko’s pieces at SRB, it’s not really worth getting up in arms about. Marketplace of ideas and all that.

Note that I think it would be more accurate to describe “Russia!” as a (glossy) publication aimed at Russophiles (i.e., people interested in / fascinated by / attracted to Russia) than Russophobes (whatever one means by that term). Here is their mission statement:

We believe it’s time for a new, global medium with a dedicated focus on Russia. With strong reporting, sharp wit and Russian design school approach, Russia! magazine, a quarterly glossy publication, will deliver the most original coverage of people, trends, ideas and events which take place in Russia.

When I saw that Idov was the editor I just assumed it was the kind of job a young, ambitious journo in Moscow might take as a way of trying to step up to the EIC level.

By the way, here’s a further elucidation of Idov’s thoughts about conspirology in Russian society – my favorite excerpt:

Here is the basic formula, applicable to any bit of news: if an event makes Ivanov look bad, it must be engineered by Petrov. That’s entry-level cynicism, though, unworthy of discussion. A real Russian knows that someone wants you to think the Ivanov-implicating event was engineered by Petrov, in which case it’s a totally brilliant move by Ivanov. Unless, of course, it’s Sidorov trying to make it look like Ivanov and Petrov are locked in a petty smear campaign while he marches off with credibility intact; which means Ivanov and Petrov are actually in a sub rosa pact to take down Sidorov. If we transplant this rationale to the U.S. soil, for instance, we’d find that, in 2000, the insidious push polls suggesting John McCain had sired a black baby were the handiwork of, say, a Condi Rice-Hillary Clinton alliance to weaken Karl Rove, with Jon Stewart paid off to make jokes about it.

Lyndon! Petrov is my best and most trusted friend as well as Sidorov. That only proves that Idov is not worth reading.

And your comparison is perfect. Lada (aka Zhiga) is Italian clone. Zapor – is famous Russian car
here he is
http://static.oper.ru/data/gallery/l1048752542.jpg

Robert:

It is interesting that with carbon resources contributing 20 -25% to GDP that is the same as the percentage of GDP provided by financial services and the City of London in the until recently prosperous UK. At least I think it is interesting.

I’m going to guess (and correct me if I’m wrong) that you’re suggesting the UK’s economy is a one-trick pony as much as Russia’s is (if it is, which I’m not asserting), and that creating GDP in the financial services sector is as easy as pumping oil. Although I’ll grant you that London “inherited” from the Empire some of the capital and networks necessary to become a global financial center, I think you’re overlooking the fact that the ongoing success of London as such a center is really due more to its ability to attract top talent (including a lot of Russians) and create a regulatory atmosphere that is now more attractive than New York’s than to some inherent, evil fatcat-ness derived from the days of Empire. In addition to capital, high finance requires a lot of highly educated human capital (not just the bankers, but all the lawyers too! )

Jesse:

Thus, Russia doesn’t have to worry about the views of western creditor nations. I guess it makes sense that western commentators would fixate on and resent a dynamic that has diminished the west’s leverage over Russia.

Wait, you criticize Idov for mentioning the “closeted Dima” theory of succession – indeed, you elevate him to the ranks of “the most committed Russophobes” for this perceived sin – but have no problem with suggesting a conspiracy or identity of interests between western journos and western gov’t and corporate interests? The same western journos who are the first to run scandalous info about corporations poisoning people and politicians’ various misdeeds? Perhaps I’m naive and all the western correspondents in Moscow in fact have one-button mobiles to connect them to the Trilateral Commission’s war room. (I know that attempt at a joke exaggerates your point, but hopefully that’s OK since it’s aimed at lightening the atmosphere…)

I am putting the finishing touches on a law review article on the new strategic sectors legislation. Long story short, it probably won’t hinder Russia’s WTO progress as it mirrors similar legislation in France, Germany, etc.

From what I know (much less than you – any chance you can email me a draft of that article?), that’s absolutely right. And after Dubai Ports and the CNOOC-Unocal thing, I don’t think the US should be pointing too many fingers about protectionism.

Sean:

…if Aslund’s neoliberalization would have continued in the energy sector, there would be no stablization fund, Russian gas and oil would have been carved up by Chevron, BP, et al.

I’m sure someone will correct me if I’ve misunderstood things, and I mean no offense, but I believe this statement is completely wrong for a couple of reasons. First, the StabFond is money that the government collects in export taxes (see, e.g., here – “The way it works is this: The fund receives all oil tax proceeds above the base price of $27 per barrel”; and here – “The Fund accumulates revenues from the export duty for oil and the tax on the oil mining operations when the price for Urals oil exceeds the set cut-off price.”) and I believe these taxes are levied on entities like TNK-BP and Lukoil which have substantial foreign ownership. I think that some of the Sakhalin participants received profit tax breaks, but I’m pretty sure that’s a different tax (not sure about whether they got a break on export tax) and in any event the concession was project-specific and rendered in consideration for the companies’ investments in the project, which I think is typical of PSAs (where is Tim Newman when we need him?!). Incidentally, this article is quite interesting and shows that Kasyanov – in contrast to the Kremlin’s current black PR about him – sought to drive a hard bargain with the foreign companies involved. So to say that foreign involvement in the Russian oil sector = no StabFond seems wrong.

Second, and perhaps more importantly (since it sort of renders moot the issue about foreign oilCos’ tax burden), I don’t think the Russian oil sector was really going to be “carved up” at all. Khodor was no dummy and wasn’t going to sell control of the golden-egg-laying goose – the stake that was discussed with Chevron was 25%, which hardly represents “carving up” (unless you think that Russia’s neftyanniki somehow got carved when ConocoPhillips acquired 20% of Lukoil).

Note that if anything the chances that foreign oil companies would somehow escape paying oil export tax would seem to be less than the chances for tax to be avoided on oil exported by the government-insider Rosneft-to-Gunvor route. I would also note that foreign oil companies are probably less likely to pay what are called “informal taxes” (I highly recommend this article on the subject) in a nontransparent way, they’re more likely if pressed to donate to or set up legitimate non-profits.

Please correct and forgive me if I’m misunderstanding some key aspect of the way the oil/gas industry is taxed. Oh, and one more thing – in the course of googling for this post, I found an interesting and on-topic blog I hadn’t seen before – Kremlin, Inc.

The comments section of SRB – where free time goes to die…

Sean, I think you’ve set your spam filter to chop comments which mention mistakes in your reasoning. Please tell me the comment I just spent 40 minutes writing will appear shortly… The best part was that the anti-spam confirmation word that showed up on the page after I clicked “Submit” and my comment didn’t show up was gone. Artificial intelligence, indeed.

Oh, and regarding the Zaporozhets, I recall the Bogdan Titomir hit from the early ’90s:

А запорожец машина класс
Он выдает сто километров в час
А ты купи его и мне поверь
Что запорожец машина – зверь!

Еще есть Волга и Новый москвич
Но где капусты на них бы настричь
А запорожцев валом везде,
Они на свалках в гараже и в *****

Those stanzas I found online, but they didn’t have the one I recalled:

А запорожец машина класс,
Он выдает сто километров в час.
В нём поместятся пятнадцать людей,
А Запорожец полон… женщин!

Ah, early Russian rap…

Somewhere I have a photo I took in SPB of a hilariously tricked-out ’80s Zapor with cracked plastic “spinner” rims (no joke) and a sticker on it saying “ЗАЗ-Банда.”

Sean,

My apologies for Russophobka interview mistake. Indeed, I must have seen it in Siberian Light.

=====================================

I see we’ve moved from Zastoi to Zapor… interesting.

Hurrah! Free the comments! Spam-filtered comments of the world, unite!

Sean, you can’t fool me. Applying the conpiro-logic described above, someone else wants it to look like you are censoring me. But you might know about it. I believe that not-so-Russia-friendly forces are involved. Can you confirm? Your denial, of course, would be predictable and thus also a confirmation.

Actually, to continue a different theme from above, it’s more likely that the (excessive?) bounty of links in some of my comments gives the spam filter a severe case of…zapor.

Thus, Russia doesn’t have to worry about the views of western creditor nations.

If they don’t, then they have tripped over one of the largest hurdles of economic reality. Russia’s development is utterly dependent on foreign creditors, every one of their current and future oil and gas projects is financed by foreign creditors. Gazprom and Rosneft are massively in debt. The stabilisation fund cannot be used to finance oil and gas development projects without causing massive inflation (and mind-boggling corruption), thus Russia is still dependent on foreign creditors. Two of the largest creditors of the Sakhalin II project have recently withdrawn their credit facilities, and it is unlikely that too many foreign investors will feel comfortable about ploughing $10bn into a Russian oil and gas project having seen Gazprom appropriate Shell’s Sakhalin II project, Rosneft help itself to Yukos, TNK BP’s offices raided, and Exxon’s contract ignored to prevent them from exporting gas.

For 70 years Russia pretended worldwide economics didn’t matter. Now they find themselves flush with some oil cash, they think worldwide economics don’t matter. Ger Clancy put it well on SL when he said Russia reminded him of “someone who suddenly got a load of compensation money and is now flush, but still hasnt got a job.”

I certainly would not ascribe US image issues as based on some USophobia.

I wouldn’t describe all of it as USophobia, but much of it I would. I used to read the press in the Middle East on a daily basis, and to be honest if I believed half the stuff they did about the US and its alleged actions, I would be flying airliners into buildings as well.

BTW, I really enjoyed Idov’s article. I agree with the other commentators who said although in contained a few stretched conclusions and a couple of mistakes, it was altogether a pretty good article.

Just like I have a connection to Mike Averko because I published his stuff here at one time.

One time? Heh! You unwittingly published his entire outpourings twenty times over in the comments section over an 8 month period in 2007.

I think that some of the Sakhalin participants received profit tax breaks, but I’m pretty sure that’s a different tax (not sure about whether they got a break on export tax) and in any event the concession was project-specific and rendered in consideration for the companies’ investments in the project, which I think is typical of PSAs (where is Tim Newman when we need him?!).

Here’s one I prepared earlier!!

I think that some of the Sakhalin participants received profit tax breaks…

Neither of the Sakhalin operating consortia receive tax breaks on profits. Under the Sakhalin PSAs, all imported materials and equipment can be brought in free of customs duties (equipment left over must be exported or duty paid on it), and the operating company and the government share the production. This is typical for all PSAs.

Note that if anything the chances that foreign oil companies would somehow escape paying oil export tax would seem to be less than the chances for tax to be avoided on oil exported by the government-insider Rosneft-to-Gunvor route.

This is absolutely true. The easiest way for a government to make money from its oil reserves is to license of blocks and tax production. One of the most common, and ill-informed, responses I get to this is that countries like Russia can’t trust the evil oil companies to be honest with reporting its production rates. Actually, nothing could be easier for a government. All they need to do to monitor production rates is to fit a flow meter on the pipelines and record the laden weight of the tankers, which are incredibly easy things to do. So easy, I have not heard of a single instance whereby a foreign oil company cheated a government of its production figures.

It’s not just about taxation, sure today foreign oil companies are taxed the same way as the Russian are. But imagine a world where all oil companies are private owned(not necessarily foreign owned), their lobbyists would “pressure” government and parliament to cut taxes and they would surely achieve what they want, we already observed this during the 90s .
Another point is, when a company is state owned, it can prefer or subsidise domestic sub- contractors, e.g. RAO UES and Gazprom are two of the most active industrial investors in Russia. I doubt that EDF or Exxon would buy Russian-built turbines or pipes, they would just import something.

Me too think that a market solution is more preferable, but market is not always free from failure and there are allocational and distributional targets in Russia, which can only be achieved by a tight state control of the crucial energy sector.

Me too think that a market solution is more preferable, but market is not always free from failure and there are allocational and distributional targets in Russia, which can only be achieved by a tight state control of the crucial energy sector.

Agreed. Even (or, especially) the multinats have understood that resource nationalism has won the day. For all the reasons Conformist cites, Exxon, BP and the rest are being forced to accept junior roles around the world. There was no way the 1990s arrangements in Russia could survive the trend.

But imagine a world where all oil companies are private owned(not necessarily foreign owned), their lobbyists would “pressure” government and parliament to cut taxes and they would surely achieve what they want, we already observed this during the 90s .

A government having to withstand pressure from the shareholders of a private oil company is infinitely better than having to deal with the gross corruption and mismanagement that comes with nationalised oil companies.

I doubt that EDF or Exxon would buy Russian-built turbines or pipes, they would just import something.

EDF or Exxon would make sure they got the best quality deal at the best price. If this happens not to be some shoddily-made Russian turbine, so much the better. In all likelihood, the pipes would be Russian as Russians are perfectly capable of making a decent pipe, usually fairly local to the facility being built. When a nationalised company in Russia procures equipment and services, it normally involves the winning bid being the one which included the largest kick-back to the person doing the purchasing. Quality and price rarely comes into it. I have seen at least two instances whereby the manager of a nationalised Russian energy company has subcontracted huge orders to an outside company owned by none other than himself.

there are allocational and distributional targets in Russia, which can only be achieved by a tight state control of the crucial energy sector.

I take it by this you mean the allocation and disribution of money into English football clubs, Dubai waterfront property, and Mercedes Benz dealerships in Moscow?

For all the reasons Conformist cites, Exxon, BP and the rest are being forced to accept junior roles around the world.

They have indeed. The supermajors are likely to find themselves as the junior partners in nationalised consortia, bringing in the expertise to allow the national governments to develop their resources. I think this approach is economically and politically misguided though, for reasons I touch on here.

I see we’ve moved from Zastoi to Zapor… interesting.

Candid.
Zapor was the symbol of Zastoi. And in fact it is much worse than Zastoi(as запор=constipation)

“But it’s TNR, not an academic journal. For a political sketch, oil-fueled prosperity works well enough.”

I think this is the problem. If I want cheap pop entertainment, I will read Spider-Man or some crap novel by Dean Koontz. There is a reason the pop media are wrong, like, always. It’s because they’re sketches.

There is a reason the pop media are wrong, like, always. It’s because they’re sketches.

Come on Chris. You know better than this. Journalism always involves tension between and among space, time and accuracy. Events and factors get compressed. Cliches are adopted. If we had to wait for fully annotated versions, we’d all be clueless.

“If there’s no room to share it then there is no role for us – it’s a simple as that.” – Rex Tillerson, as quoted on http://www.desertsun.co.uk/blog/?p=318

Sorry Tim. A very quick grab as I have to shove off for a meeting. But in general I think this is bullshit, and Tillerson knows it. He’s fighting a rear-guard action on this. January’s Kashagan deal in Kazakhstan is probably the absolute outside best a multinat can hope for these days.

Back to the subject later in the day. Good blog by the way.

But in general I think this is bullshit, and Tillerson knows it.

I’m not sure what your objection is, but Tillerson seems to be agreeing with what you said here:

the multinats have understood that resource nationalism has won the day. For all the reasons Conformist cites, Exxon, BP and the rest are being forced to accept junior roles around the world.

Tillerson is admitting as much in the quote you have selected. Yes, he is fighting a rearguard action, as there is very little scope for a western supermajor to be the major operator on a significant field in the forseeable future. There are few in the industry who deny that this is happening, but there are also few in the industry (at least, with any international experience) who doubt that this will be a disaster for the countries involved.

“Come on Chris. You know better than this. Journalism always involves tension between and among space, time and accuracy. Events and factors get compressed. Cliches are adopted. If we had to wait for fully annotated versions, we’d all be clueless.”

The guy who reads the annotated version is the guy who knows what’s going on.

I’m really tired of some dork with a journalism degree (wow, that one’s really hard to get) trying to present him/herself as an authority on anything. Such as, for instance, the Russian economy. This should be a subject for discussion by trained economists, not Hank the Hack (or me for that matter).

Such as, for instance, the Russian economy. This should be a subject for discussion by trained economists, not Hank the Hack (or me for that matter).

I think it could subject for the discussion by anyone.
But the value of such “discussions” are very different – from BS to political comics to old-fashion report to IMF internal rumors

BYW, I am of the understanding that there is actually a consensus among economists who specialize in this area (and aren’t crazed Swedes).

This is: the high natural-resource prices have been a boon, and the Russian government’s policies in managing them have been sound, such as the Stabo Fund. Thus, it is one of those BOTH/AND issues. Like most things in the world.

Have you read something from Illarionov, Chris?

I think it could subject for the discussion by anyone.
But the value of such “discussions” are very different – from BS to political comics to old-fashion report to IMF internal rumors

Absolutely right. People are a lot smarter than Chris thinks. And credentialed boffins writing in peer-reviewed journals are a lot dumber than he thinks too. Half their footnotes would disappear if there were no hacks.

Seriously though – I sympathize on this. Coverage of Russia is systematically and comprehensively awful, and not just in the anglo media. There have been huge changes institutionally within the foreign press corps in Russia over the past two decades. On paper, I’d have thought coverage should have improved – given big wire service bureaus and more Russian-speakers. But in practise, it hasn’t turned out that way. I’ve been trying to figure out why.

I’ve been trying to figure out why.

Because everyone’s coverage of anywhere is systematically and comprehensively awful. Try reading a BBC report on the US, for example.

FH and Chris (belatedly), thanks for the “welcome back”.

FH you wrote: “Coverage of Russia is systematically and comprehensively awful, and not just in the anglo media.”

Is this a Russia thing or is it more of a global thing? I mean, how does the QUALITY of the coverage of Russia compares with the coverage of, say, China or the Middle East? I’m asking because I really don’t know.

“People are a lot smarter than Chris thinks.”

I don’t think they’re not smart. I think they’re ignorant and lazy.

“And credentialed boffins writing in peer-reviewed journals are a lot dumber than he thinks too.”

Ahem fh I am a former academic! Want me to go off on a rant about the Heidegger Wars of the early 1990s? Brrr it makes me shiver just thinking about it. Damn you, John Caputo, damn you.

The fact is some twit journalist has no business writing about the economy, any more than I am capable of writing a book on Wagner’s role as a fulcrom in the development of Schopenhauer’s thought as it turned into Nietzschianism and Freudianism. See, I could probably fool somebody who didn’t know about the subject into thinking I was an expert, but really I’m not. I am dilettante in the area.

“I’ve been trying to figure out why.”

In large part it is because the stories are written not be people, but by larger intellectual paradigms, as it were.

I see Tim replied to my question before I even posted it!

“Is this a Russia thing or is it more of a global thing? I mean, how does the QUALITY of the coverage of Russia compares with the coverage of, say, China or the Middle East? ”

This is a good question. In fact, the main reason I have no opinion on events in Tibet, say, is that I know how awful coverage of Russia is, and so I don’t trust them on Tibet either.

PS. thanks Kolya! Dobro pozhalovat!

Sean and Lyndon, thank you for clarifying Idov’s connection with LR. It seems innocuous. Before you guys mentioned it, I was not aware of “Russia!”–the publication.

Lyndon, the Idov quote you included is hilarious and, oh, so true!

“Here is the basic formula, applicable to any bit of news: if an event makes Ivanov look bad, it must be engineered by Petrov. That’s entry-level cynicism, though, unworthy of discussion. A real Russian knows that someone wants you to think the Ivanov-implicating event was engineered by Petrov, in which case it’s a totally brilliant move by Ivanov. Unless, of course, it’s Sidorov trying to make it look like Ivanov and Petrov are locked in a petty smear campaign while he marches off with credibility intact; which means Ivanov and Petrov are actually in a sub rosa pact to take down Sidorov. If we transplant this rationale to the U.S. soil, for instance, we’d find that, in 2000, the insidious push polls suggesting John McCain had sired a black baby were the handiwork of, say, a Condi Rice-Hillary Clinton alliance to weaken Karl Rove, with Jon Stewart paid off to make jokes about it.”

Tim – I was reacting to Tillerson’s claim that there would be “no role for us.” The supermajors will adjust and have adjusted. They’ll have a role.

Whether the trend is as disatrous as you say is debateable. Ownership has shifted to the parastatals, but technology and knowhow are being bought in, both from the Schlumbergers and Halliburtons, but also from the supermajors themselves.

I suspect the more worriesome element is not at this level of the industry at all. It’s the fact that the state-affiliated majors institutionally don’t like independents and don’t know how to work with and accommodate them. By squeezing out the indies, the resource states are closing down a highly successful financing paradigm.

The quote is funny, but I’d like to point out that conspiracy theorizing and speculation about shadowy-wars-under-the-carpet and backroom deals are common for non-Russians who write/talk about Russia, not just Russians. Such as the dreaded silovik wars that everybody was talking about and don’t seem to have happened.

Parastatal?

Tim – I was reacting to Tillerson’s claim that there would be “no role for us.” The supermajors will adjust and have adjusted. They’ll have a role.

Ah, okay. Yeah, they will have a role, or rather, some of them will. Most likely, they’ll serve a role somewhere between the Halliburtons/Schlumbergers and the national oil companies (actually, they pretty much do this on a lot of oilfields anyway). I think Shell will be the biggest casualty, as they are way too bloated, have a terrible management structure, and are way too dependent on independent contractors. BP might struggle too. Exxon will do okay, they are the sleakest and best run of the supermajors, streets ahead of Shell and BP. The problem that oil companies have in changing to service provision is they generally have no idea about business economics. If all you have to do is turn a tap on to get your money, you tend to forget the basics of delivering a service. Most of the Shell lot I know have not the first bit of business sense amongst them. They just throw people at a problem, and allow it to drag out for months. I think they’re going to really struggle against the more slicker, experienced service companies.

It’s the fact that the state-affiliated majors institutionally don’t like independents and don’t know how to work with and accommodate them.

That’s true, but it’s worse than that. Neither Rosneft or Gazprom appear to be able to do something as simple as put out a tender to international companies. I recently visited Rosneft in Angarsk, where they have Asia’s largest petrochemical complex. We were the first international company ever to have approached them, with the exception of one small Danish outfit a few years before. Needless to say, their facility was falling to bits.

I mean, how does the QUALITY of the coverage of Russia compares with the coverage of, say, China or the Middle East?

Pretty bad. As Tim says, international coverage by everyone is poor. It’s a mistake to blame it on the journos. What can a one-person bureau in Beijing possibly do to reflect daily reality in China?

There was a time when I thought international coverage was improving. This was just after CNN set up shop around the world and there seemed to be more investment going into far-flung places. But I was overly optimistic it seems. And now big network bureaus are a thing of the past and the dead-tree media are in serious decline and retrenching. Pretty soon, I figure the wire services will convert their bureaus into trading desks and have done with journalism altogether.

You want the future of international journalism? You’re reading it. It’s Sean.

The problem that oil companies have in changing to service provision is they generally have no idea about business economics.

Yep — I see it in the bureaucrats and no-hopers at BP all the time. The internal culture is completely wrong for this role.

Chris: Sorry. Stupid jargon. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parastatal

In fact, the main reason I have no opinion on events in Tibet, say, is that I know how awful coverage of Russia is, and so I don’t trust them on Tibet either.

Exactly right. Same with Zimbabwe. I THINK I can tell the good guys from the bad guys. But I can’t be sure.

Doesn’t stop me from having opinions though. I just recognize that they are poorly informed opinions. As usual.

You want the future of international journalism? You’re reading it. It’s Sean.

what about us – ivanovs, petrovs and sidorovs? PS. If you want to ignore yourself – that’s fine with me

I agree with Chris (and others) about taking everything one reads outside one’s area of competence with a grain of salt precisely because one sees how often the coverage of areas one knows about is faulty or misleading.

All in all, I prefer to be skeptical rather than totally cynical about what I read, since most of the journalists and writers I know in person actually try hard to get the story right. Often they don’t get it right because of lack of knowledge, time constraints, editorial pressures and so on. As the saying goes, journalism is the first draft of history. And first drafts, besides the occasionally brilliant gem, also contain plenty of holes and mistakes.

What bothers me more than journalists trying to report from the ground is to hear media “pundits” expound on things they don’t know much about. They became well known by writing or commenting on particular subjects they had some expertise, but that does not make them experts on other subjects–and yet their opinions on those subjects are sought and too often they gladly take the bait. What does a columnist covering US domestic politics really know about Indonesia, global warming, small-unit tactics or Venezuela?

“By the way, Sean, I can’t say I’ve ever felt disappointed that you published pieces by other people here, my differences with M. Averko notwithstanding. I’m guessing, but perhaps part of the reason that you did it is that it’s hard to generate original content on one’s own for a blog – the same may be true of a newly launched magazine like ‘Russia!’

Here is the offending piece by LR. As with Averko’s pieces at SRB, it’s not really worth getting up in arms about. Marketplace of ideas and all that.”

****

Far more tue of Allin’s views on so called “Russophobia” and a number of other matters.

That’s: true

AT really left himself open with a not so detailed commentary about so-called “Russophobia”.

There’s a more accurate, though not completely perfect term and numerous examples to firmly substantiate it.

As now Tibet is a must in every written piece – here are my 5 koopeek to the international journalism.

from Sky.

Olympic Torch Snuffed Out In Paris

Sky News Europe correspondent Greg Milam said …
“It’s clearly a massive blow to the organisers – the demonstrations along the route have had the desired effect.”

So brainwashed by their own reporting, these Reporters Without Brains are hanging in the air like crazy shimpanzes.
For sure – they got desired effect.

PS. It was Idov – not me – who started that Tibet show. Right in his first paragraph (out of three I read).

I heard a troll, trolling in the wilderness, “Prepare ye the way of the Troll. Make safe in the desert a trollway, for our troll.”

“What bothers me more than journalists trying to report from the ground is to hear media “pundits” expound on things they don’t know much about.”

Exactly. Like now Charles Krauthammer thinks he’s an expert on Iraqi politics. When he did his PhD in Arab Studies?

As some have shown, the Phd isn’t the end all to having great insight.

There’re a good number of shit as well as quality commentary coming from Phds.

Ditto the non-Phds.

Bravo! “Insight” finally spelled correctly!

Kolya, sorry: I mean, how does the QUALITY of the coverage of Russia compares with the coverage of, say, China or the Middle East?

Was in a rush and didn’t read properly. How does the coverage compare? I don’t know. Good question.

Instinctively, I’d have thought good coverage of any foreign turf depends first and foremost on good coverage by the host country media. Because like it or not, and regardless of their pretentions, foreign correspondents are largely aggregators of host country stuff for a home audience. The job is to grab stories with a home-audience angle and “enrich” them with further research and interviews. The best lean to the enriching, and the worst lean to, well, making up quotes from “diplomatic sources” or whatever.

The problem in judging coverage of one country vs another is that not a lot of us have a special fixation for, say, both Russia AND China. So how would anyone make a subjective comparison?

And objective comparisons are out of the question because the variables differ too much. How would one weight the results of the US military’s big PR machine in Iraq, for instance?

”As some have shown, the Phd isn’t the end all to having great insight.”
”Ditto the non-Phds.”

Indeed. And as others have shown, having none often means the same thing. By the way are you Mike Averko, and as such shouldnt these comments be attributed to your grand total of 8.5 million?

”Exactly. Like now Charles Krauthammer thinks he’s an expert on Iraqi politics. When he did his PhD in Arab Studies?”

That ugly man just drives me mad. He’s all over the place, even in my newspaper The Irish Times. I think they put him there for a laugh or to fill space.

“Instinctively, I’d have thought good coverage of any foreign turf depends first and foremost on good coverage by the host country media.”

Also, foreign media, by virtue of “human nature,” tend to gravitate to media in the host country that reinforce what they already believe and/or are otherwise accessible to them. Western journalists in Russia, for example, are not going to hang around with the Russian journalists who write for Zavtra, whom they would regard as crazy and vice versa. (Speaking of Zavtra, Prokhanov is a prolific novelist, but he is almost never described as such in the brief instances he is mentioned in the Western press. Instead, he’s the “right-wing editor of Zavtra,” which is sort of like calling Celine “a right-wing editor.” True, but it kind of misses stuff. Anyway…)

In the Russian case, this is compounded by the long Westernizer vs. Slavophile national psychosis of inordinate love or inordinate loathing of the largely imaginary West. Russian journos who court Westerners are likely to fall into the former camp, because people in the latter do not pander to Westerners for obvious reasons. This is largely why Solzhenitsyn (and R. Medvedev and A. Zinoviev) has vanished from Western pop consciousness and media.

Thus, the Western journo is treated to a display of the whole range of psychotic zapadnichestvo, which is incorporated into the journo’s work as an informed insight.

“IRISHMAN on April 7, 2008 8:47 am ‘As some have shown, the Phd isn’t the end all to having great insight.”
‘Ditto the non-Phds.’

Indeed. And as others have shown, having none often means the same thing. By the way are you Mike Averko, and as such shouldnt these comments be attributed to your grand total of 8.5 million?”

***

From the looks of things at SRB, that last point applies to Chris Doss.

The first point most certainly doesn’t apply to yours truly.

Speaking of psychosis.

Hi all,
I’m the author of the article (and yes, a reader of this blog). Thank you so much for the massively informed discussion, and for pointing out a couple of slip-ups (such as Putin not technically being the head of United Russia last December – just at the head of its ballot as Delegate One, гарант etc ).*

I’m obviously not here to debate or defend my own writing, I just wanted to quickly clear up two minor issues that have to do with me personally, or rather some posters’ perceptions of who I am. First, reading into my “Baltic heritage” for clues to my stance on Russia is awfully naive. Even someone with the most cursory awareness of the Baltics should be able to guess that a Latvian named “Michael Idov” is not an ethnic Lett. Russian is indeed my native language, and I regularly write for Afisha, Bolshoi Gorod etc. So I make a terrible poster boy for “Western journos.” I’d rather be judged against, say, Tatyana Tolstaya’s latest Times op-ed

Second, I hope you’re not seriously thinking that publishing La Russophobe was tantamount to endorsing or even tolerating her views. It was, however, the absolute fastest way to demonstrate that RUSSIA! was not a Kremlin-financed propaganda exercise (which, a year ago, was the default view of many).

Finally, I completely agree with Chrisius Maximus’s point about the inherently skewed Western-reporter perspective (that any Westerner writing about Russia finds himself mobbed by eager Zapadniki). That’s why I didn’t use any as my sources. Unless you count Marat Guelman, who plays his own rather complicated game.

That’s all – thanks again.
Michael

*Ironically, hours ago UR announced that it will nominate Putin to replace Gryzlov. Tomorrow’s news today, gentlemen!

The thing is though Chris, there is a really broad spectrum to deal with and to absorb. Set aside circulation numbers and who reads what. The fact is it’s a hell of a buffet.

This is what’s frustrating. There’s a lot of crap of course. That’s true everywhere. But there are good journos in Russia doing a fine job. But unless you’re writing for Novaya Gazetta or, well, doing the Ekho Moskva/Moscow Times thing, the expat corros ignore you.

A trivial example. There was a homeless dog who used to hang around one of the metro stops. People looked after it with scraps of food. Some guy killed the dog. Citizens called the cops and the guy was arrested and ultimately jailed. And now there’s a modest memorial at the station on behalf of all stray dogs. (I don’t know any of the details of this. A visiting in-law just told me the story over dinner. He might have the details wrong. But never mind….)

It’s an ordinary human interest story revealing something about ordinary humans in Russia. If it happened at Oxford Circus tube stop in London, the AP would undoubtedly pick it up. But not in Russia. Doesn’t fit the agenda.

fh, I like your politcorrect language

The job is to grab stories with a home-audience angle and “enrich” them with further research and interviews.

Nice term – “enrich”
But you point it right – it’s about angle…

About Idov and his “old-fashion” reporting.

Here is what I see as REAL old-fashion reporting.
http://hitch-hiker.livejournal.com/
Artem is from Moscow and as you can see – a hitch-hiker. I recommend his LJ not because of reporting style (very good though) but because his insights into post-CCCP.
Sorry, it’s in Russian.
WARNING: It’s long and interesting reading!

Just to give you an idea of what he covered:

Мои скитания

Северный Кавказ (июль 2007)
Часть 1. Каспийский берег
Часть 2. Тропами имама Шамиля
Часть 3. На стыке гор Чечни и Дагестана
Часть 4. Дорога в Чечню
Часть 5. Грозный-Гудермес
Часть 6. Поездка в Ичкерию
Часть 7. Ингушетия
Часть 8. Северная Осетия

Закавказье (июню-июль 2007)
На холмах Грузии. Батуми – Кутаиси – Гори
На холмах Грузии. Тбилиси – Кахетия. Итоги “революции роз”
Азербайджан. Баку и Апшеронский полуостров

Иракский Курдистан (июнь 2007)
Иракский Курдистан – страна, которой нет (часть 1)
Иракский Курдистан – страна, которой нет (часть 2)

Турция (май-июнь 2007)
Часть 1. Анталья – Кютахья
Часть 2. Стамбул – Измир
Часть 3. Анкара – озеро Туз – Каппадокия
Часть 4. Диярбакыр – гора Немрут – Урфа
Часть 5. Ван – Трабзон

Польша (декабрь 2006 – январь 2007)
Что такое Hospitalityclub. Дорога до Бреста
На границе. Варшава
Краков. Бохня. Освенцим
Вроцлав. Познань. Польский язык
Торунь. Гданьск. Гдыня. Польша и ЕС

Белоруссия (октябрь-ноябрь 2006)
Москва-Минск. Интродукция
Минск. Город побежденной революции. Часть 1
Минск. Город побежденной революции. Часть 2
Мир и Несвиж. Два объекта ЮНЕСКО за один день
Бобруйск. Мекка «падонков» и высококультурный город
Могилев. Поле битвы и последняя столица Империи

Украина-Молдавия-Приднестровье (июнь-июль 2006)
Путешествие в оранжевый Киев – часть 1
Путешествие в оранжевый Киев – часть 2
Киев – Львов: автостоп по-украински
Львов: в логове бандеровцев
Львов – КПП Россошаны: однажды на Диком Западе
Молдавия: на задворках Европы
Приднестровье: осколок империи
Одесса-мама

Россия (лето 2005)
Избранные фотки: от Куликова поля до Улан-Удэ

Москва – Груша
Грушинский фестиваль
Самара
Самара – Волгоград
Волгоград
Волгоград-2
Волгоград-Тамбов
Тамбов
Тамбов-Куликово поле
Куликово поле
Москва-Питер
Москва-Питер (2-я часть)

США (лето 2004)
Camp America (Автостопом по США)

“Finally, I completely agree with Chrisius Maximus’s point about the inherently skewed Western-reporter perspective (that any Westerner writing about Russia finds himself mobbed by eager Zapadniki).”

WOOT!

“Speaking of psychosis.”

The above quoted is akin to the healer in need of healing.

Also, foreign media, by virtue of “human nature,” tend to gravitate to media in the host country that reinforce what they already believe and/or are otherwise accessible to them.

Sure. It’s all about human nature really.

Now that Mr Idov has joined us, I probably ought to clarify that I’m being somewhat uncharacteristically negative about general western coverage of Russia precisely because I felt his piece was exceptionally good. And, sure, I get the constructive deployment of La Russophobe for repositioning purposes.

But what’s the deal with saying Medvedev’s gay without any evidence?

“Second, I hope you’re not seriously thinking that publishing La Russophobe was tantamount to endorsing or even tolerating her views. It was, however, the absolute fastest way to demonstrate that RUSSIA! was not a Kremlin-financed propaganda exercise (which, a year ago, was the default view of many).”

***

By giving that anonymously bigoted entity a platform, it shows a qualitative cheapening of how the topic is covered.

Calling people by their name and referring to them as a “scumbag” in formal blog posts isn’t what many have in mind as constructive criticism.

What’s somewhat cowardly is how some state agreement, while not critiquing those like JRL, which prop such an entity over some others.

Ivanov – You’re right about Artem. Good stuff. Like it a lot. It raises another point. Most news content, whether in Russia or in the States, isn’t political. But most international coverage is. This too distorts.

”From the looks of things at SRB, that last point applies to Chris Doss.”

This from the man who posted a record 6 comments in a row at one thread at SRB, and has posted 4 in a row on about 30 occasions. Talk about kettles calling the pot black. Just as well Andy hasnt been counting like Sean.

”What’s somewhat cowardly is how some state agreement, while not critiquing those like JRL, which prop such an entity over some others.”

Here we go again. Havent you gotten over all this yet? What about Operation Kick Ass 2008?

”There was a homeless dog who used to hang around one of the metro stops. People looked after it with scraps of food…etc”

I read that story before in the MT, and it was cute and sad. There was one reporter for British Sky News a few years ago called Andrew Wilson who was based in Moscow. He seemed to love the place, and every second story was something very positive about Russia -one story was actually about metro dogs and how the authorities choose not to kill them (even giving them veterinary care when injured) because they keep the numbers of rats very low. But Wilson and his ilk are few and far between. Its all about market, and most westerners will simply tune out of a good news piece about Russia, but will tune in for a bad news piece. Its a bit unfair I guess, but thats the way it seems to be.

fn – I warned you!
So don’t complain if you spent the night in front of monitor

Ps. Would be interesting to compare his view of US with inside view of aborigens.

most westerners will simply tune out of a good news piece about Russia, but will tune in for a bad news piece. Its a bit unfair I guess, but thats the way it seems to be.

But is it Russian problem, IRISHMAN? Russians has no control over this “tuning”….

“IRISHMAN on April 7, 2008 2:01 pm ‘From the looks of things at SRB, that last point applies to Chris Doss.’

This from the man who posted a record 6 comments in a row at one thread at SRB, and has posted 4 in a row on about 30 occasions. Talk about kettles calling the pot black. Just as well Andy hasnt been counting like Sean.

‘What’s somewhat cowardly is how some state agreement, while not critiquing those like JRL, which prop such an entity over some others.’

Here we go again. Havent you gotten over all this yet? What about Operation Kick Ass 2008?”

****

The last point is going much better than the above quoted trolling.

A BBC appearance and recent Counterpunch articles, with motfre to come.

Meantime, the above quoted disingenuously glosses over the number of posts made by Doss here.

Likewise with Doss’ cowardly exit from SL, after I busted him on his slimeball trolling at that venue.

JRL has bullied people into conformity. What happened to a short lived “Media Watch” feature that was said to have received a good reception? Ditto the forced apologies to Gessen, Lipman and Albats.

Who is forcing the other side of the political spectrum to apologize when they say personally negative things? On the contrary, they get treated gingerly.

A good time for me to exit, seeing how the troll patrol is out therre in full force.

I’m way too good for this shit.

That’s: more

BTW, no surprise at all to see AU propped on a topic that was lacking in overall substance.

The uncensored points will be shortly released.

”But is it Russian problem, IRISHMAN? Russians has no control over this “tuning”….”

No, its not Russia’s fault at all, except of course when the bad news is genuinely bad and there’s no other way to report it. You have to remember that westerners are, the vast majority of them, not in the least bit interested in Russia. Its not even on their map. They know its a big place with nuclear missiles and that Putin is the boss and thats all. Its also seen as an enemy of the west – I’m not saying thats right or wrong, but thats how its seen. One way Russia could possibly improve this is a total visa relaxation for westerners to visit Moscow and Petes, and encourage holiday makers to come, in much the same way as Prague and Budapest have, and maybe, as time goes by, its imagine might improve -Prague and Budapest are raved about in the west as lovely places. The thing is, we’re all interested in Russia here for one reason or another, but 99% of westerners dont actually give a fuck.

That link you gave is great by the way ivanov, its just a shame for me my Russian isnt good enough for it.

You said it Mike!:-) You the MAN!! Actually if you simply read the thread you’ll find it was you who started up your anti-JRL crap again. Havent you moved on?

Ger, you wrote:

“most westerners will simply tune out of a good news piece about Russia, but will tune in for a bad news piece. Its a bit unfair I guess, but thats the way it seems to be.”

Unfortunately this is the way news work everywhere. For example, read any American newspaper and you will get the impression that the US is falling apart, is full of cruel thugs, psychopathic rapists and so on.

P.S. Ger, do not feed the troll! Let it go, man.

Operation Kick Ass 2008 in the Mutha-Fuckin’ House! Taking names and trolling trolls in a manner akin to the aforestated before cited previously mentioned comment.

”Unfortunately this is the way news work everywhere. For example, read any American newspaper and you will get the impression that the US is falling apart, is full of cruel thugs, psychopathic rapists and so on.”

Thats very true Kolya. Chris Doss touched on it above; journalists have a degree in journalism and are experts on nothing – actually I utterly despise journalists; they are among the most disingenous of animals this world has. I worked in an anti-doping lab for years, and you couldnt dream up the spin they put on stuff…just dreadful, guys we’d caught for amphetamine or other nasties being called ‘innocent victims’, things like that…most of them are in someone’s pocket. I have a hypothesis; what if there were no more journalists, and instead articles would be written exclusively by knowledgeable hobbyists or actual experts? I wonder would it lessen the spin and bullshit? I know it wouldnt work economically, but the idea of it is good I think. People who know their subject but have no vested interest in reporting a certain way, which most journalists surely do. For example, speaking authoritatively on Russia surely requires a degree in Russian history/politics and fluency in Russian. I wonder how many of the lads ensconsed at the bar in Night Flight in Moscow writing articles for western papers actually have these qualifications? You’re a biologist Kolya, would you listen to a Freshman chemist telling you about monoclonal antibodies? I doubt it.

”P.S. Ger, do not feed the troll! Let it go, man.”

I know, i know. But I was peacefully reading the thread until he came along and its hard resist when his bullshit appears above the waves. I’ll stop.

“journalists have a degree in journalism and are experts on nothing”

Maybe the system whould be reworked so journalism isn’t a stand-alone degree, but rather must be paired with some other course of study; e.g., if you want to be a reporter on science, you would have to get some background in science, or know something about art to get a degree in Art Journalism. As things stand journalism seems to teach phone-calling skills.

”Operation Kick Ass 2008 in the Mutha-Fuckin’ House! Taking names and trolling trolls in a manner akin to the aforestated before cited previously mentioned comment.”

am actually laughing out loud:-)Isnt it way past your bedtime in Moscow Chris?;-) The Cheerleaders for the Court Appointed Russia Friendlies never rest!

”Maybe the system whould be reworked so journalism isn’t a stand-alone degree, but rather must be paired with some other course of study; e.g., ”

It should be but clearly isnt. I think Heribert said that in Germany you need something like this to be a journalist. I just cant get my head around the fact that there are journalists in Moscow who cant speak Russian. Its just ridiculous, and such nonsense is simply unworkable in most other professions. Now Mike, off you pop and get those Russian grammar books out! Its not too late for you to do the TORFL exam!

I don’t have to be at the Court-Appointed Russia Friendly Office until noon! Sometimes I love my job.

What the heck is the American Chronicle? They really, really need an editor. Check this sentence out:

“They include the kind of insults that have found their way at a purportedly, academic oriented venue, which included a remark claiming vodka consumption relative to the stated analysis.”

Wow, Just, wow.

“You’re a biologist Kolya, would you listen to a Freshman chemist telling you about monoclonal antibodies? I doubt it.”

I agree with your point, Ger. For the sake of accuracy, though, I have to say that I cannot describe myself as a biologist. I have not worked as a field biologist (very little lab work) in years and years…..

“Chrisius Maximus on April 8, 2008 2:46 am What the heck is the American Chronicle? They really, really need an editor. Check this sentence out:

‘They include the kind of insults that have found their way at a purportedly, academic oriented venue, which included a remark claiming vodka consumption relative to the stated analysis.’

Wow, Just, wow.”

****

Look who is taliking. A freak, who often posts comments at blogs without writing formal commentary of his own.

Someone who repeatedly claimed that “there’re” isn’t valid shorthand for “there are”.

meantime, a valid pont was raised about that remark directed at Vlad Sobell. There’s a certain DC based area individual known for privately lecturing some on niceities. those lectures seem to be politically stilted.

American Chronicle does quite well.

Much better than Untimely Thoughts.

That’s: talking

For shitz and giggles I checked that specified quote and it’s a misquote of what’s on-line.

He has the gall to critique others.

OK, let’s look at two passages. One was written by a genius; the other, by a lazy dork who won’t check his own writing. Let’s figure out who wrote what.

Exhibit A:

“It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way–in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only.”

Exhibit B:

“They include the kind of insults that have found their way at a purportedly, academic oriented venue, which included a remark claiming vodka consumption relative to the stated analysis.”

OK. Who wrote what?

“For shitz and giggles I checked that specified quote and it’s a misquote of what’s on-line.”

The cut-and-pasted quote?

Dude, you can’t write. Face reality. For instance, stop saying “specified” or “mentioned” or “above cited” before every goddamn word. It’s ridiculous. Also, learn to use punctuation. Commas and semicolons serve a purpose; they are not randomly interjected into text.

“Most would look atrocious next to him.”

OK, point taken. Dean Koontz maybe?

When you read this piece of linguistic artwork by Mike Averko:

“They include the kind of insults that have found their way at a purportedly, academic oriented venue, which included a remark claiming vodka consumption relative to the stated analysis.”

try to bear in mind this is the same guy who said above:
”I’m way too good for this shit.”

Mike, that has to be the worst scentence ever written in the history of FSU punditry, and I include the Moscow Times in that. Mike, you make me sound like Flann O’Brien. Its simply atrocious and there’s no getting away from it.

OK, I realize we have talked about this to the point of retching nausea. However, this following but really annoys me:

“It reelected Vladimir Putin, in the way Tibetan monks pick the same Dalai Lama each time, regardless of the human form he’s taken.”

Like, this would be a good comparison, if the Dalai Lama were in power in Tibet, which he isn’t, and if Tibetans credited their economic boom (a subset of the Chinese boom) to the Dalai Lama, which they don’t. Russians reelected Vladimir Putin (or rather, somebody they thought was the next best choice) because they like him and the vector of development during his time in power, and they want that vector to continue. Thus, instead of being a good comparison, it’s really, really stupid.

Ok, “stupid” was probably an overstatement. What it is is the statement of a young person, for whom 8 years is a really long time. (I mean, how can a society stagnate in 8 years? Eight years was yesterday.)