The Gift that Keeps on Giving

When I saw the title, I thought the article was going to be about STDs in Russia.

Richard Pipes? Well, sort of the same thing.

Of course Pipes gets the historical analogy wrong, and is more “Chamberlain” himself than he thinks. As Neville said to Adolph at Munich, the point was to protect Germany from Soviet counteraction “…if Russia were attacked…”

It’s funny. As I read this article, I was wondering if there was a relationship between Richard and Daniel Pipes given their mutual hatred for things not American, I guess. And lo and behold! There is.
Being concerned about policy shifts and/or general trends in both the Middle East and Russia are cause for concern for the U.S., but I think we need to be careful not to overstate the threat.
At any rate, I enjoy visiting this blog and getting your insight into things.

“Aggressive large powers tend to begin their expansion with “insignificant statelets” in order to test the world’s reaction before going after bigger fish. I think Russia’s behaviour toward Georgia fits this pattern. It should not be ignored.”

If you change the word “Russia” for “USA and NATO” and “Serbia” for “Georgia” then Mr Pipes might be on to something. The idea that the militarily convalescent Russia in any way resembles the massively rearmed Nazis of 1938 is wildly unhistorical and infantile. In the short term at any rate Russia wants and needs peace and quiet on its borders but is being continually and deliberately put into situations where there is little choice but to react in ways that are easy to caricature as “bullying”. Media comment constantly mentions Russian support for Abkhazia and South Ossetia and hardly ever mentions the US arming of Georgia and promotion of its efforts to force its rule on its two breakaway neighbours. No one at all mentions that until this year Russia maintained an oil embargo against Abkhazia as they agreed to do in 1992. It is USA and friends’ determination to push ahead with Kosovo’s independence that has inevitably triggered a change in the Russian attitude to the frozen conflicts. They warned that it would and it has.

German foreign minister Steinmeier was in Abkhazia the other day and had the impertinence to suggest that they take back 250,000 Georgian refugees from the civil war that ended in 1992. Apparently he does not think that Kosovo should be made to take back a similar number of Serbian refugees that fled from the region after the NATO attack on Serbia.

No matter what – it’s fascist Russia that will be blamed…
I guess it’s something in the brains of some people…

My favorite Pipesian moment is when he claimed there was some kind of deep significance in that the words “bolshak” and “bolshevik” both start with “bolsh.” I can understand how this kind of idiocy might appear in a non-peer-reviewed first draft, but that it made it through several editions says something.

No one at all mentions that until this year Russia maintained an oil embargo against Abkhazia as they agreed to do in 1992.

There are at least a couple of factual errors just in this one sentence. As you clearly know nothing about the conflict and Russia’s role, and I have other things to do today, I’m not going to bother trying to school you. But you might want to read up on things before weighing in.

Sorry, to (perhaps) avoid seeming like a total asshole, I’ll clarify the source of my irritation. Robert appears to be doing exactly the same thing that Pipes is doing with the conflict over Abkhazia – making it into a political football to suit his own needs with a limited knowledge of the long history. Except that Pipes is using it as a stick to beat Russia with and Robert prefers to use it as an instrument in an argument about Kosovo.

By the way, Edward Lucas busted out with a “Sudetenland” reference about Abkhazia almost two years ago. Like any sweeping historical analogy (much less one that tries to tread heavily on the minefield of using the specter of Nazi Germany to interpret current events) it is a flawed one. I guess we can’t expect Pipes to be original in his dotage.

I agree that Pipes’ opinion about Russian-Georgian situation is not well balanced, but I’d quibble with your description of Pipes as “someone who carries a big intellectual bat”.

Also, as far as unbalanced opinions go, Pipes’ is on par with your oft-expressed opinion that the US is governed by some secret cabal of monied people (which you probably formed by reading Jack London’d ‘Iron Heel’ way back when).

Lyndon – you are no doubt no more of a total asshole than me and certainly a great deal less of one than E.lucas on the subject of Russia. E.L. amused me the other day. In what was obviously a money spinning article for the Daily Mail he admitted that the Missile defence system proposed for Poland or possibly Lithuania and the Czech Republic was aimed at Russia which is not at all what he said in his book. I have had no reply to my e-mail querying the point.

In brief where did I go materially wrong on oil sanctions against Abkhazia? Have they not been obliged to get their oil from Rumania? As far as political footballs are concerned I don’t think there is any doubt that the frozen conflicts are just that without any help from me. What was McCain doing there on his campaign to get the Republican nomination last year risking getting his helicopter shot up?

It is not me that made the connection with Kosovo but the entire Russian political class. They did the same with the Crimea as I am sure you know.

Yes the issues are complicated and known fully to few but sometimes the underlying political themes are quite simple. A full balanced discussion in the media is rare. I dont think you would argue with that would you?

It is not me that made the connection with Kosovo but the entire Russian political class. They did the same with the Crimea as I am sure you know.

Yes, and with Crimea it’s even more comical – or rather it will become tragicomic if they ever try to put some guns behind Luzhkov’s orations, which I think is not likely at this stage (depending of course on Ukr’s approach to NATO membership, which is exactly why this issue arose when it did).

In brief where did I go materially wrong on oil sanctions against Abkhazia? Have they not been obliged to get their oil from Rumania?

In brief, any sanctions from Russia would not have been in effect in 1992 and were lifted (albeit informally, but as you know in that part of the world de facto counts for much more than de jure) long before this spring. The only formal “blockade” or sanctions I know of were imposed by the CIS starting in 1994-95 and were initially designed to make anyone who wanted to deal with Abkhazia go through Tbilisi (which of course was a non-starter for all concerned). At the time this suited the Russians who didn’t like Abkhazia’s ties to Chechnya and who were then (publicly, at least – some have theorized that Russian involvement in the hot part of the conflict in Abkhazia was designed to get Georgia into the CIS) much more consistently in favor of “territorial integrity.” According to some sources, the sanctions were being informally violated as early as 1997, although 1999 is more commonly cited as the time when the Abkhazian sector of the Georgian-Russian border (where Russia would not allow Georgia to post border guards) became more porous.

Later on, when sticking it to Georgia became more fashionable in Moscow and when Russia realized it wasn’t going to lose Chechnya after all and could therefore be more open about helping to tear off bits of other countries (around the turn of the millennium), or at least realized it had an interest in keeping the conflicts from being resolved, the “blockade” came to be more openly violated.

So the formal lifting of sanctions this spring was just that – a formality. Abkhazia has for years been receiving money (pension transfers to the newly minted Russian “citizens” there), military support and tourists from Russia, and I would imagine oil as well (I’ve never heard anything about a Romanian oil connection, but I’d be interested if you can post links, articles, or what-have-you). I would also note that the other legalistic moves by Moscow this spring (to open offices to represent the interests of the Russian passport-holders in Abkhazia and to recognize Abkhazian law) have also been several years in the making and do not represent an abrupt shift in policy post-Kosovo UDI. I keep saying I’m going to put up a web page with links to all of the online source material (much of which has to be taken with a spoonful of salt), but haven’t had time to do so yet.

A full balanced discussion in the media is rare.

Actually, any discussion of Abkhazia in the media was rare, up until a couple years ago. And informed/balanced discussions are still few and far between.

“(which you probably formed by reading Jack London’d ‘Iron Heel’ way back when).”

Man, you’re really fond of sticking people into categories.

And I do it very methodically too. First I stuck Sean into category of people who read books…

Lyndon – it seems that the sanctions on Abkhazia were imposed in January 1996 and abandoned by Russia immediately after the announcement of independence for Kosovo in March this year, although legally they still exist. Details on the sanctions treaty are on http://www.civilgeorgia.ge/eng/article.php?id=17293

As to Rumanian oil for Abkhazia, I did not make it up but have not yet found a source. I have an article somewhere almost certainly copied off Johnson’s Russia List

What I did find that was (to me) fascinating was that originally a multi-national force was agreed for Abkhazia but in 1994 Russia pushed through a UN Security Council resolution that gave it sole rights for peace keeping. According to the analysis on http://www.rand.org/pubs/conf_proceedings/CF129/CF-129.chapter5.html by Evgeny M. Kozhokin this was in exchange for not vetoing a UNSC resolution endorsing the (shameful)invasion of Haiti by the US. It is a small and wicked world.

As regards the Kosovo link there is an interesting admission by Javier Solana EU head diplomat in a piece on RFE by Ahto Lobjakas 05/10/06 “Solana indicated that he, too, considers it possible that independence for Kosovo could have a negative effect on Georgia’s territorial integrity, acknowledging it would set a “precedent.”
“We are trapped here,” he said. “President Saakashvili is trapped, all of us are trapped in a double mechanism that may have good consequences for one, but not for the other. It may not be a win-win situation – although we should be able to look [for] and find a win-win solution. But it will not be easy.”

I think I had better get on with some paid work now.

I’ve heard that detail about Haiti from a State Dept. lawyer (just that it may have been a tacit compromise, the guy himself was not involved). Makes sense, especially since 1) the US-Russian bilateral relationship was in a more cooperative mood then and 2) the US certainly didn’t want to send troops on another PK mission to some violent place no one had ever heard of just after Somalia, and the Europeans were busy in the Balkans.

It’s important, especially when you talk about “precedents,” to be clear about drawing distinctions between fact patterns. I don’t know much about what you call the “(shameful) invasion of Haiti by the U.S.” I do think there might be some differences with the situation in Abkhazia (i.e., a much more robust U.N. role in Haiti, as well as a conflict that is not secessionist in nature, etc.), which may or may not be substantial.

But just because someone dropped the word “precedent” into their remarks about Kosovo does not mean that it either makes sense to use it as a precedent or that the situations are similar enough to be precedent-setting from a legal point of view (not that anyone actually cares about “int’l law” in all of this, but using terms like “precedent” at least pays lip service to its relevance). It is a useful rhetorical tool, to be sure, but not much more than that. I commend to your attention this article on the subject.

“your oft-expressed opinion that the US is governed by some secret cabal of monied people (which you probably formed by reading Jack London’d ‘Iron Heel’ way back when).”

I would have guessed he was someone who formed that secret cabal opinion from reading the “Illuminatus Trilogy” by Wilson and Shea, way back when.

Iron Heel is much too common and old-school. Much more bizarre and entertaining secret cabal books have been written since then.

“US arming of Georgia and promotion of its efforts to force its rule on its two breakaway neighbours. ”

Please. Do you realize what an incredibly small amount of military aid the US has provided Georgia? I see Tirasipol Times likes to assert it was “the largest percent military budget increase of any country in the world” or some such nonsense, which only makes sense when you realize how little money is involved and how small the Georgian military is.

Russia has spent far more, given more aid, and has sold far more weapons to questionable nations (such as Iran and Venezuela) than the US or NATO will ever contribute to nations like Georgia or Ukraine or anywhere else in a former “sphere of influence” that pisses off Russia. This is even factoring in the $1.5 billion dollar cost of the proposed ABM missile-shield in Poland/Czech Republic. Russia has over $2 billion in arms sales to Venezuela alone, far exceeding the military spending of any other nation in that region. It is far, far from being proportionate and you look foolish in stating otherwise.

What’s a “questionable nation”?

This is wholly unrelated to the dazzling debate regularly occurring on the SRB comment thread, but for those interested, we just posted a translation of Sergei Storchak’s letter to Gazeta.

http://www.robertamsterdam.com/2008/07/exclusive_the_sergei_storchak.htm

Lyndon – I read the article and I admire the guy’s stamina. It seems to me that this is the weak bit: -

(c) Is secession the only solution? The political situation prior to the declaration of independence did not appear to offer any realistic alternatives to secession.

It would have been perfectly possible to do nothing. What was the hurry? Yes I know that NATO wants to get the troops out but legally I mean.

To be fair Javier Solana is not just some guy but the High Representative for 500 million people on foreign affairs plus he was previously Sec Gen of NATO so if he thinks it is a “precedent” for Abkhazia then it is worth taking note at least but the ultimate legal maxim operating here is “might is right” I think.

W.Shedd – do you really think that the missile shield will only cost 1.5 billion?

I should be interested on your views as to why at one point Georgia sent the third largest contingent to Iraq. Nobility of soul? It is a disguised form of military subsidy is it not?

I saw the other day that the Georgian military was 70,000 and being increased by 5,000. Is this really necessary for such a small country I wonder? Hard to believe the impoverished Georgians are paying for it all. Please do not give me all that propaganda BS about the danger of imminent Russian invasion. The Russians want the status quo for their own reasons.

Bearing in mind the constant tooing and froing of top US politicians and officials to Georgia anybody would think it was next to South Carolina not on the other side of the world.

As to Venezuela any independant minded Latin American country that does not arm itself, would want its head examined in the light of US behaviour there and you yourself make the point that the Russians are selling the stuff and correct me if I am wrong but that is not the case in Georgia. Chavez cannot very well buy it from the US can he?

By the way, Robert, you said:

German foreign minister Steinmeier was in Abkhazia the other day and had the impertinence to suggest that they take back 250,000 Georgian refugees from the civil war that ended in 1992. Apparently he does not think that Kosovo should be made to take back a similar number of Serbian refugees that fled from the region after the NATO attack on Serbia.

This is a classic example of an attempt to draw a comparison that falls flat or is at least quite misleading without a full description of the context. Total population of Kosovo is currently 2 million, give or take. Total population of Abkhazia (post-war) is roughly 200,000. The ethnic breakdown in Kosovo prior to the Yugoslav breakup was (if Wikipedia is to be believed) 90% Kosovar Albanian; in Abkhazia, the titular nationality made up 18% of the population in 1989 and does not make up a majority even today.

Sorry to go back to your original comment, but I just want to underscore that it seems like you are projecting the Kosovo scenario (and your assumptions about Russia = good & “the West” = bad) onto the situation in Abkhazia.

Following up on Wally’s comment, if you compare US military aid to Georgia with Russian military support to Abkhazia (which, I think, does qualify as a “questionable nation”) on a per capita basis, although Russian assistance (including personnel – not counting the “peacekeepers” – as well as equipment, which is one of the reasons they decided to break the sanctions regime) is extremely difficult to document – rather unlike US aid to Georgia in that respect, which has been transparent – I am fairly certain you would be startled at the comparison. Sorry for the run-on sentence, it is long because I don’t have time to make it short.

Wait, are you kidding?

How can this:

I saw the other day that the Georgian military was 70,000 and being increased by 5,000. Is this really necessary for such a small country I wonder? … Please do not give me all that propaganda BS about the danger of imminent Russian invasion.

And this:

As to Venezuela any independant minded Latin American country that does not arm itself, would want its head examined in the light of US behaviour there…

coexist in the same comment?

Of course no Russian invasion of Georgia is imminent, because they already have troops in the secessionist regions. They have no need to “invade,” as they are already occupying large parts of Georgia.

Regarding Venezuela, to paraphrase you, “please do not give me all that propaganda BS about the danger of imminent [US] invasion.”

Anyway (and don’t worry, three comments in a row is my limit), my ultimate point is that it’s the height of oversimplification to simply wave in the direction of a “precedent” and suggest that the US or Russia should act 100% consistently with respect to every single territorial conflict. These conflicts are each sui generis , they each have their own causes and their own solutions, and to chalk it all up to evil NATO expansion (or, for that matter, to blame Russian neo-imperialism 100%) is to oversimplify grossly. Some people bring in Taiwan and Cyprus as points of comparison as well, and while one has to look for all possible comparisons and solutions, imposing one in particular (the “Kosovo precedent”) doesn’t seem to me to be particularly fruitful, especially since it may not even be the most applicable comparison.

It also seems your approach (though I may be drawing an unjustifiable conclusion from short blog comments, and I apologize if that’s so) simplifies in another way – by treating these disputed territories simply as the geopolitical footballs of great powers. One of the more interesting dynamics of the situation in Abkhazia is the extent to which Russia’s interests there do not coincide with the interests of pro-independence Abkhazians. For instance, the latter managed as part of their “state-building” to set up competitive elections, the results of which Russia promptly tried to overturn. This applies to economic interests as well as political interests (though perhaps they are inseparable). So it’s all much more complex than the “evil Americans” and “justified Russians” which you seem to be depicting.

I should be interested on your views as to why at one point Georgia sent the third largest contingent to Iraq. Nobility of soul? It is a disguised form of military subsidy is it not?

You asked Wally, not me, but I’ll answer. It’s (1) a training opportunity for the Georgian military and (2) a way for Georgia’s government to demonstrate how much it wants to be part of NATO. AFAIK, contingents sent to Iraq are paid by the countries who send them and not by the US. As I said before, US assistance to Georgia is fairly transparent and you can read about it all over the internet. Must everything the US does be “disguised” and sinister in some way?

Personally, I think the US involvement in Georgia and Ukraine has less to do with an anti-Russian policy than with a desperate need on the part of the Bush people to show some sort of success in their “democracy spreading” agenda, which has not been working out well.

Chris, that’s no doubt true in part, but it ignores the fact that there are people involved who are true believers in a European future for those countries (and truly believe that such an outcome would result in a better quality of life for citizens there), and many of those people are not “Bush people” at all. It’s possible, for example, to believe that “democracy promotion” in the form of political party-building and various (non-military) training programs are a good way to help post-Soviet countries, while not sharing the belief that “democracy” should be spread at the point of a gun in other places. But who knows, guessing at the motivations and beliefs of people (much less governments) is pretty hard.

Happy belated b’day, by the way.

“Chris, that’s no doubt true in part, but it ignores the fact that there are people involved who are true believers in a European future for those countries (and truly believe that such an outcome would result in a better quality of life for citizens there), and many of those people are not “Bush people” at all.”

Sure, like I said elsewhere, these things are the result of different people with different beliefs, sometimes radically different ones — for instance, some of the “pro-Western” people in Ukraine are liberals in the Western sense of the term, and some are unpleasant ultranationalists. However, the “Bush people” certainly did jump on the Colored Revos as gist for their propaganda mill.

Lydon I do not think that everything the US does is hidden or sinister any more than any other nation. I do not think that the Russia is good and the West bad. I used to think the opposite but the last few years have persuaded me that they are no different. The reason the US & the West get so much stick is that it they proclaim values that they do not practice the moment their interests are at stake.

I frankly do not believe that Georgia funded its contingent in Iraq out of its own pocket whatever the internet may say –all those missing billions washing about. Intervention in Iraq had nothing to do with NATO but I agree with you about that part of the Georgia US deal. We help you get your territories back and you join the NATO mercenary army and provide us with a bridgehead in the Black Sea. Why not? The trouble is that the Russians recovered a bit quicker than expected and got themselves a leader who was neither drunk, naïve or bribeable. Yes it is supposed to be about democracy but the experience is that is just talk when push comes to shove. There is the little matter of the corridor to the Caspian.

I am afraid it is perfectly possible to believe that there is not the slightest danger of a Russian invasion of anybody at the moment not because they are good but because it is not in their interests. The United States on the other hand has made a habit of intervening in other countries since WW2 and particularly in Latin America. I did not raise Venezuela did I? But Chavez is in grave danger of US aggression. Why is it necessary to keep an aircraft carrier off the coast of Venezuela? It is in my view, based on the events of the last decade, much more likely that the US will attack any country that displeases it than that Russia would do likewise.

If I was an American I would be paying close attention to Ron Paul. Time to go home and sort out the domestic front and give the finances a rest rather than telling the whole world how to run its affairs… but that is another story.

Whether Chavez is actually in danger of US aggression or not, he probably believes he is, and given US history in Latin America, it is not an unfounded belief.

(I personally doubt it. If the US hasn’t invaded Cuba since the Bay of Pigs, it’s not going to do it to Venezuela.)

… do you really think that the missile shield will only cost 1.5 billion?

This entire shield consists of only 10 missiles and a used radar, so yes, a couple billion seems about right.

“But Chavez is in grave danger of US aggression.”

ROTL. Very funny, Robert. I assume you don’t believe such a silly remark.

Chris, no doubt the US would love to see Chavez gone, I doubt very much that Chavez actually believes that he’s in danger of being invaded. The US, or, as he likes to call it, “El Imperio” is one of Chavez’s principal tools to prop up his regime.

First, Venezuela’s economy depends on the US. Despite Chavez’s bluster and threats, because of the type of oil it has as well as its geographical location, it would be harder for Venezuela to find a substitute buyer than it would be for the US to find other sources. Second, the US (and the CIA) serves as the universal scapegoat to explain away virtually all the problems of his regime. Third, he justifies Venezuela’s wasteful military expenditures by constantly mentioning the threat of a US military invasion.

Chavez, by the way, is becoming less and less popular. Alas, his political opponents, although numerous, have so far proven to be ineffectual and disunited.

It only consists of 10 missiles and a used radar right now.

“Chris, no doubt the US would love to see Chavez gone, I doubt very much that Chavez actually believes that he’s in danger of being invaded. The US, or, as he likes to call it, “El Imperio” is one of Chavez’s principal tools to prop up his regime.”

Maybe not a full-scale invasion — Venezuela being a big country and the US not having that many troops available, among other things — but a coup, supporting insurgents if any such appeared from nowhere, something like that.

The imperialism propaganda works because Latin America has experienced many, many US interventions throughout its history. Some of which have not been very nice.

No I dont expect to see J.Wayne coming across the beaches but he still has plenty to worry about without an old fashioned invasion.

The CIA and other US intelligence services spends an unbelievable amount of money 40 to 60 billion dollars. No wonder they get blamed so often.

And what exactly is that aircraft carrier doing off Venezuela?

How can this:

coexist in the same comment?

Thank you Lyndon, for challenging the very point which had me rolling my eyes and searching for the scroll wheel.

The United States on the other hand has made a habit of intervening in other countries since WW2 and particularly in Latin America.

And Russia hasn’t?!! The USSR never shovelled money and arms in South America (and everywhere else) in the direction of anyone who jumped on the Communist gravy train?

Or are we going to invoke the Averko get-out clause, and claim that Russia was not the only country in the USSR and therefore bears no responsibility for its actions over the entire course of its 70 year existence (except, of course, its role in defeating Nazi Germany)?

One of my pet hates is the regularity with which people criticise US foreign policy in the 50 years since WWII in complete isolation of the geopolitical situation in place at the time. It is not uncommon to find a lengthy newspaper column preaching the evils of say, US intervention in say, Indonesia, with ne’er a mention of the USSR, China, or the Cold War.

Any reader who did not know better would think from what is printed by many commentators that the US just rocked up in a boat one day and started shelling Hanoi for fun, and they supported Suharto because the US just liked killing Communists. They would have no clue that the US had recently lost 34,000 of its men defending South Korea from an unprovoked Communist invasion from the North, backed and aided by the Soviet Union and China. Nor would they know that the Soviet Union had in the decade earlier been actively encouraging Chinese forces to intervene in support of Communist revolutions in South East Asia, and that China had done so on several occasions.

That’s not to say that many of the US policies during the Cold War should not be condemned as being counterproductive, often immoral, and sometimes barbaric. But to remove US actions from the Cold War context is to remove the ultimate aims of the US’ adoption of these policies from the picture entirely, leaving the reader to be appalled at the means only. It is like discussing in detail the RAF’s bombing of Dresden in isolation of the fact that Britain was at war with Germany at the time. Whereas historians do, and should, argue over whether the means of achieving Germany’s surrender by bombing Dresden was correct or morally sound, they at least do so on the basis that Britain’s ultimate aim of Germany’s surrender was real, and it was morally right. No serious historian writes a paper on the bombing of Dresden in the greater context of the UK’s history of military imperialism.

Apologies for the long comment, it’s Saturday, I’m in the office, and I don’t want to be.

What’s a “questionable nation”?

France.

Well, to me it would not be surprising to find out that the US (El Imperio) is somehow trying to undermine Chavez, just like I would not be surprised if Russia is trying to do the same with the present Georgian regime, and Chavez tried to undermine Uribe’s regime, and so on. It’s long list, even in the present world. That’s how the world works. And by the way, I’m merely stating that I would not be surprised, I’m not stating it is actually happening. I don’t know.

To undermine a regime, though, is a far cry from a US military invasion of Venezuela, even though Chavez loves to say that such an invasion is in the works. (Chavez is a narcissistic demagogue, so such claims, besides their value as agitational propaganda value, also prop up his ego.)

Chris, the way Chavez’s regime blames the “imperialismo yanqui” and the CIA for all their ills, difficulties and failures is staggering and, at times, ridiculously laughable. And, of course, there is no shortage of self-hating Americans/westerners that believe Chavez, visit Venezuela, and sing praises for what is inefficient, wasteful and corrupt government. As I wrote before, Venezuelans have an apt term for such foreign visitors and supporters. They call them Pendejos Sin Fronteras (PSFs)–something like Dumbasses Without Borders.)

Dumbasses Without Borders – I like it )

“As I wrote before, Venezuelans have an apt term for such foreign visitors and supporters. They call them Pendejos Sin Fronteras (PSFs)–something like Dumbasses Without Borders.)”

AFAIK, they are in a minority — Chavez is a popular leader, isn’t he????

“But to remove US actions from the Cold War context is to remove the ultimate aims of the US’ adoption of these policies from the picture entirely, leaving the reader to be appalled at the means only.”

True. I note that people do this with the behavior of the USSR during the Cold War regularly, though, so that the repression of the Hungarian uprising or the Berlin Wall, for instance, are seen as acts of pure unmotivated evil.

“Chavez is a popular leader, isn’t he????”

He was very popular, but in the last year or so his popularity has been going down. The more credible polls show that sometimes his popularity deeps below 50 percent and sometimes even below 40 percent (but it also bounces up). Remember that in December he lost a referendum in which, among other things, would have lenghtened presidential terms (he already lengthened them once) and done away with terms limits (which he increased from what it was.) It seems that this defeat took him by surprise. Another blow to his ego was that during the recent spat with Colombia the polls showed that Uribe (the Colombian president) was surprisingly popular among Venezuelans and most of them did not approve of Chavez’s belligerent talk, while Chavez’s popularity in Colombia was extremely low. In addition, Chavez’s support for the FARC was deeply unpopular in Venezuela (that’s at least one reason he recently changed his stance with respect the FARC.)

On the other hand, Chavez is a resilient populist and, so far, the opposition is too disunited, so nobody should count him out. Although many in his government are very unpopular, he still benefits from the “good Tsar” syndrome: “If Chavez only knew what his corrupt functionaries are doing, he would not let it happen.”

Chris, in case you are interested, I just dug this up from an anti-Chavez blog I trust (the author usually calls it correctly, even when he’s unhappy about his forecast). Here the blogger is comment about some poll results (May 2008):

///It certainly does not give much comfort to see that when people are asked whether they are pro-Government, opposition or neither, 27.6% still say they are pro-Chavez, only 18.7% say they are pro-opposition and a huge 46% of the people polled say they are neither. And if I am reading the poll correctly, the people in this 46% later prove they are neither in their answers to other questions.///

The best thing the US could do as regards Chavez is to ignore him completely aside from making a few vague noises in his direction to keep his paranoia up, and let his own idiotic economic policies form a strong, tight noose around his own neck. With luck, they can also get Russia or China to get bogeed down in their support of him one way or another, but I think both the Russians and Chinese will be too smart for that.

Thinking about it, this is pretty much what the US is doing.

The idea that the history of the United States interventions in Latin America and the Carribean can be justified by the Cold War is tempting but not really sustainable. For example Guantanamo Bay was seized from the newly self liberated Cubans by an opportunistic US intervention in 1898. It was and remains a colony held by force. Difficult to blame the Communists for that.

I do not know if the economic policies of Chavez will end in financial disaster. But sensible reports from the country seem to indicate that whatever else is wrong, there is some long overdue attention to the needs of the less well off. The carefully propagated idea that he is not democratic is frankly absurd. As to US intervention, only very small children believe that the US had nothing to do with the coup that briefly saw him in prison. I would mention in passing that idiotic economic policies are not confined to Venezuela at the moment as anyone who is paid in dollars or pounds knows only too well.

All of this has nothing to do with Russia! On the contrary it has a great deal to do with Russia. The self satisfaction which much of the West regards itself particularly concerning human rights, press freedom democracy and evenn economics does not sit well with what is often done and has been done in its name. The Russians, Chinese and others do not have to rely on a self censoring western media to get their information. They watch us and dismiss our calls for changes in the way they do things as cant and hypocrisy. If you want a source for that I had it personally from the lips of the Secretary General of the Council of Europe this week.

I have previously recommended Stephen Kinzer’s ‘Otherthrow: America’s century of regime change from Hawaii to Iraq’ Times Books New York 2006, which clearly demonstrates that regime change is a long standing US tactic that has little to do with Communism except as an excuse and a lot to do with commercial interests. I repeat I do not think the US is worse than anyone else – just no better.

Neocons MUST keep shouting “catch the robber” as they live in fascist country themselves. Political Correctness de facto is a pure fascism. US is turning red, Russsia is turning white. So far so good.

Read some of the proofs of US being-fascist-police-state from my blog. Start with the whole page:
http://p2o2.blogspot.com/2008_07_22_archive.html

Regards
Przemysław Pawełczyk

I think there is a very good reason to support Georgia and getting it into the NATO fold as the territorial conduit towards the Caspian Sea and potentially the energy supply from there. This being said, Georgia\’s tensions with Russia will be very uncomfortable for NATO to swallow. I would not be surprised if NATO/US would try to persuade Georgia to forgo Abkhasia and Ossetia. After all, these are two destabilized areas they can not win over and have very little chance of getting back and control successfully. Instead, it would the the best for all sides to prop up Georgia proper in exchange of cutting off these tumors.

As for Chavez, his case does remind me of the famous Marx\’ maxim from the 18 Brumere: it\’s nothing but a farce compared to real problems Latin America was getting into with Castro, Che and Allende.

I lived in Venezuela for a total of about 19 years. I often roll my eyes when people talk how bad the situation was in Venezuela before Chavez came to power. Venezuela’s democracy was extremely corrupt, but there was indeed more democracy and freedom of the press than there is now, the murder rate was high but it was several times lower than it is now (the same can be said about most other crime rates), the country’s infrastructure was in better shape, and the military was not as visible and politicized as it is now. This does not mean, however, that Chavez is a dictator. Not yet, and maybe never.

Below is an excerpt from a comment of a level-headed anti-Chavez Venezuelan and center-left economist. Considering Russia’s reliance in oil, it has some relevance to this blog.

(BTW, CAP refers to Carlos Andres Perez, who was elected to Venezuela’s presidency twice, first from 1974-79 and second from 1989 to 93–the Supreme Court forced him out of the office, so he didn’t complete his second term. AD (Accion Democratica) was his party.)

///
“Question: it’s my understanding social spending had been reduced to a trickle, particularly under Perez/Caldera. Is that so?”

As with everything else in my country, you need to question the role of the oil cycle in this. In absolute numbers, spending has certainly risen enormously, but then oil has risen from $10/barrel to $140/barrel since 1998. So you’re comparing spending at the top of the oil cycle with spending at the bottom of the oil cycle, in a country that’s enormously dependent on oil.

A more meaningful comparison would be with spending at the height of the last great oil bonanza. Certainly, if you’d taken a tour of the barrios in 1975, you would’ve been startled by the strength of feeling that CAP’s spending binge once elicited, by the sense that finally somebody in power was taking the interests of the poor into consideration, and by the hope that the country was finally turning the corner, becoming La Gran Venezuela. You would’ve noticed the proliferation of CAP posters in poor people’s homes, their strong identification with AD, and you would have been stirred by CAP’s determination to leverage Venezuela’s windfall into a fairer deal for the world’s poor. Sadly, it’s a vision that lasted exactly as long as the 70s oil boom did.

My argument is that petrostates systematically face similar incentives, regardless of the ideological labels they apply to themselves: when the tills are full, politicians spend, because spending is popular. You see that in every petrostate in the world right now, regardless of its professed ideology, from Russia to Sudan to Saudi Arabia disposable income is rising and governments are popular.

Alternatively, when the tills are empty, they stop spending, because they can’t. Note, for instance, that when Chávez first took office in 1999, he conspicuously vowed to maintain the previous government’s spending targets, and even ratified the previous Finance Minister, Maritza Izaguirre, in her post. Why? Not because he was a neoliberal opposed to social spending, but simply because he had no budget to spend.

Certainly, at ground level, it feels like this government is doing much more than previous governments. But when you take a serious look at whether social spending is more of a priority now than it used to be, you find it confoundingly hard to support official propaganda. To boot:

Official figures show no significant change in the priority given to social spending during his administration. The average share of the budget devoted to health, education, and housing under Chávez in his first eight years in office was 25.12 percent, essentially identical to the average share (25.08 percent) in the previous eight years. And it is lower today than it was in 1992, the last year in office of the “neoliberal” administration of Carlos Andrés Pérez — the leader whom Chávez, then a lieutenant colonel in the Venezuelan army, tried to overthrow in a coup, purportedly on behalf of Venezuela’s neglected poor majority.

You should reflect that chavismo has a pressing ideological need to differentiate itself rhetorically from everything that came before – after all, it’s supposed to be a revolution, no? But the basic shape of the country’s political economy (oil comes out, government captures the rents, government spends the rents to cement its political power) show far more continuity than anyone inside the governing establishment would care to admit.

As for proposals, my view is simple: as long as Venezuelan governments maintain discretionary authority to manipulate spending for political purposes, they will. After all, they always have. The only way to break the cycle is to put the petrodollar cookie jar well away from politicians’ reach.
///

(And I can send the sources, if anyone is interested)

I trust you, Kolya.

My view of Venezuela, as of most things, can be encapsulated in the phrase, “what do I know?” Considering all the mockery I spew on people talking about Russia who don’t know the language, as a non-Spanish speaker, I am in no position to have an opinion on Venezuela.

I think there is a very good reason to support Georgia and getting it into the NATO fold as the territorial conduit towards the Caspian Sea

Sure there is a good reason. And for same good reason there is no reasons to believe a single word of our “friends” in NATO.

There are few problems with Caspian Sea though. A small one – Georgia has no access to this sea. Second one is more serious – as NATO will have to change the name from North Atlantic to something else

Kolya, thanks for the first hand account about Venezuela. I wish it was not that short.

As to your quotes of “anti-Chavez Venezuelan and center-left economist” – I can see that they have their own “Gary Kasparov” there

I believe that the guy is anti-Chavez. But he is not center-left – he is economist on the moon…

PS. As I told Chavez can waste the money in any way he wishes. But as long as he’s wasting them I’m glad he’s spending them in Russia. Nothing personal or political – pure business.

Sure there is a good reason. And for same good reason there is no reasons to believe a single word of our “friends” in NATO.

Who said NATO was \”your\” friend? Don\’t tell me you buy the diplomatic talk full of meaningless niceties. Russia has no reason not to be a friend with NATO. Unfortunately for itself it thinks like a corporation – trying all it could to get itself into a monopoly position. As such, it will not get too many friends.

There are few problems with Caspian Sea though. A small one – Georgia has no access to this sea.

You are quite right – it is a small problem. If at all. Azerbaijan does and there is already at least one pipeline completed that goes across Georgia from Baku to Ceyon. Stable and secure Georgia will have more and then it will be fun to see how well the \”no pipeline under the sea\” motto holds.

There is an inconvenient thing about Russia and its client states: in the end of the day, most of them seem to abandon her and run towards the West looking for money, blue jeans and bubblegum.

Second one is more serious – as NATO will have to change the name from North Atlantic to something else

Why? Why does a name matter? Russia calls itself a democracy, doesn\’t it?

Cyrill,

I like what you’re saying, but I think you are making a big mistake when referring to “Georgia proper”. Georgia, while small, is a quarreling microcosm of very troublesome smaller ethnic groups.

Candide, I agree. I just wanted to be brief and distinguish between what I think has been lost for Georgia and what can be salvaged, like Ajaria.

Cyrill “There is an inconvenient thing about Russia and its client states: in the end of the day, most of them seem to abandon her and run towards the West looking for money, blue jeans and bubblegum.”

I dont think Azerbaidjan is a client state of Russia but I take your point. Democracy was distinctly secondary. However it may be that Russia’s neighbours ran a bit too quickly and that the money is going to be in Russia as much as the West if not more so. Did they allow themsleves to be seduced into adopting hostile attitudes to neighbouring Russia that are not really viable once the poverty gap with the West evens out, as it will?

Despite US blandishments Azerbaidjan is very much the jam in the Iranian Russian sandwich. They have recently undertaken to do nothing to aid an attack on another Caspian state (Iran) and just this week pointed out that they have no quarrel with Iran at all. After all they have stashed away the millions of bribes from BP and others. They have got the pipeline so they are now playing safe with their neighbours. Very wise; the USA is a very long way off and like all great powers a fickle friend.

Russia doesn’t actually have any client states. It has some allies, but no clients.

Who said NATO was \”your\” friend?

NATO did.

looking for money, blue jeans and bubblegum.

This is the very basic instinct (and might be your motto). That’s why “kavkaztzi” go to Russia in such quantities. As well as “ukraintzi”, “tadzhiki” etc.

at least one pipeline completed that goes across Georgia from Baku to Ceyon.

I just don’t understand this! Georgia is not a NATO member yet. Azerbaidzhan never will be. And – OMG – the whole West is risking all it’s future! I would never install even a tinny pipeline over territory that is not NATO- controlled. Never.
It’s OK with Finland not to be in NATO – they are “polnie otmorozki”. But Georgia!

Why does a name matter? Russia calls itself a democracy, doesn\’t it?

P.A.T.R.I.O.T. act. In fact so called West and US in particular are just obsessed with N.A.M.E.S.

And Russia called – Russian Federation. Not a single word about dermocracy.

And Robert already pointed out about the place of Azerbaidjan in this “game”.

PS. In ten years from now oil/gas will be much less relevant and their importance as energy
source will be declining anyway. So building strategy on pipelines is at least naive.

“looking for money, blue jeans and bubblegum.

This is the very basic instinct (and might be your motto). ”

It’s pretty much what Cyrill did, isn’t it?

Looks like projection to me. Vice sees itself everywhere.

Coming back to the original subject, if we are seriously interested to discuss the proliferation of Fascist references, we can’t overlook 8 years of “Bush=Hitler” sloganeering from the Left.

If preoccupation with Fascism indeed breeds in the washrooms, Liberals need to clean theirs real bad.

Democracy was distinctly secondary.

Of course it is. It is always secondary, since it is a consequence of economic structure. Russia’s “managed” democracy is a consequence of Russia’s managed economy.

After all they have stashed away the millions of bribes from BP and others. They have got the pipeline so they are now playing safe with their neighbours.

True and this Caspian game has been going on for some 150 years. They will always be forced to play 3 sides as long as energy supplies make that part of the world relevant. So far I see no evidence that any of these countries are squarely lumping themselves into one camp or another. The Western goal actually presupposes just that:1) dealing with the west in expanding energy supplies – beneficial for Azeri and the West. Not very much in the interest of either Iran or Russia; 2) keep good relationships (make pronouncements and kiss rings) with Iran and Russia to keep the area stable.

I see no contradiction here at all.

Russia doesn’t actually have any client states.

My point exactly.

It has some allies, but no clients.

Russia has allies? Who? Батька Лукашенка?

That’s why “kavkaztzi” go to Russia in such quantities. As well as “ukraintzi”, “tadzhiki” etc.

I actually meant countries, but yes, migrations have always been patching holes in labour supplies. Mexicans in the US fill the same gap. I personally prefer Mexican labourers just like some of my friends in St. Pete seem to prefer non-Russian labourers.

It’s OK with Finland not to be in NATO – they are “polnie otmorozki”.

Sure, that’s why Finns benefit so much from doing things for Russia it has problems doing itself. But overall, I am not sure what was the point of dissing Finns here. Some seriously veiled attempt at sarcasm?

And Russia called – Russian Federation. Not a single word about dermocracy.

А это пожалуйста к Суркову. I wonder was the above a deliberate misspelling to indicate negative attitude to democracy, or was it a Freudian slip?

PS. In ten years from now oil/gas will be much less relevant and their importance as energy
source will be declining anyway. So building strategy on pipelines is at least naive.

Looks like projection to me. Vice sees itself everywhere.

No projection, just a fact. And I see no vice in either what I did or what countries do when they shed silly ideologies and follow their interest. Enlightened egoism FTW!

“Democracy was distinctly secondary.”

Of course it is. It is always secondary, since it is a consequence of economic structure. Russia’s “managed” democracy is a consequence of Russia’s managed economy.

US corporate democracy is a consequence of US corporate economy

Russia has allies? Who? Батька Лукашенка?

He is the least ally. But China is a good one. And Sultan Nazardaev.

I am not sure what was the point of dissing Finns here. Some seriously veiled attempt at sarcasm?

No sarcasm at all. I’m using Finns every time I hear how good to be under NATO protection. Poor Finns, living so many years in grave danger.

I wonder was the above a deliberate misspelling

No misspelling. I have “Check my spelling as I type” option “on”.

I personally prefer Mexican labourers

I personally prefer good labourers. Even if they are green and from the Mars. But I won’t rely on them much.

US corporate democracy is a consequence of US corporate economy
Never heard that term, but fine with me. I have no major issues with corporate economy and as a consequence I have no major issues with “corporate democracy”

He is the least ally. But China is a good one. And Sultan Nazardaev.

One is dead and another is some ally that would love nothing more but to eat half of its ally. Yep, tell me who your friends are…

No sarcasm at all. I’m using Finns every time I hear how good to be under NATO protection. Poor Finns, living so many years in grave danger.

Finns are in a league of their own. The only country that managed to bloody USSR into a stalemate victory twice, keeping its independence.

I personally prefer good labourers.

That was exactly my point. I had a recent home improvement project and I had a great opportunity to compare Mexicans with local surfer dudes. I’d say we should make all illegals legal and let the doods rot without work.

Ivanov “I just don’t understand this! Georgia is not a NATO member yet.”

I do not really understand it either. What is the big deal why the visits from the US president, secretary of state, McCain endless Senators congressmen and top officials. I understand there a lot of US officials in Georgian ministries. I saw with my own eyes a year or two ago,that the customs service had US naval craft and US personnel.

Is the plan that this should be the new Jerusalem, Christians surrounded by Muslims and therefore dependant with no one else to turn to like Jews surrounded by Muslims or indeed in Kosovo and Albania Muslims surrounded by Christians? The Ceylan Baku pipeline is a strange affair. I sometimes wonder if it was put there just to justify a US presence rather than the other way round.

The US certainly does not depend on the pipeline for oil. The idea that Russia or Iran will allow a pipeline across the Capian to suit the West is a pipedream to coin a phrase.

robert.
One idea came to mind after reading your note about so many US VIPs visiting Georgia.
What if The Plan is to make Eastern Georgia and Western Georgia? Like S. and N. Caroline.

I’d say we should make all illegals legal and let the doods rot without work.

First, I would ask local dudes about what “we want” as you are not really “we”

Second, if all illegals turned into legals and vice cersa, then it would be Mexico there. With some slavic smell

First, I would ask local dudes about what “we want” as you are not really “we”

And that’s where you are wrong, but most importantly you show little understanding of the US. I am as much a part of “we” here as someone from a Mayflower stock.

Second, if all illegals turned into legals and vice cersa, then it would be Mexico there. With some slavic smell

Another gross mistake. It’s not ethnicity that makes US for what it is. Those Mexicans are here for the exact same reason that brought over Croats and Serbs.

“Second, if all illegals turned into legals and vice cersa, then it would be Mexico there. With some slavic smell”

Another gross mistake. It’s not ethnicity that makes US for what it is. Those Mexicans are here for the exact same reason that brought over Croats and Serbs.

I know that US is not what is was. Both ethnically and mentally

You may tired of hearing about Venezuela’s president, but perhaps you will enjoy this one.

Hugo Chavez is well known for his laughably pompous language. It is inevitable for heads of state to use pompous language, but even for Latin Americans leaders who often pride themselves for their grandiloquence Chavez has few rivals. As a small sample, and for your enjoyment, I translated an excerpt of Chavez’s recent letter to Fidel Castro.

(Explanatory note: Martian refers to Marti (a 19th Century Cuban hero) and Bolivarian to Simon Bolivar, the Venezuelan “Liberator” who died in 1830 and for whom Marx, in his writings, shows only contempt.) (BTW, I noticed that the official Cuban translation toned down the pomposity somewhat.) (Spanish version available upon request.)

——————————–

Miraflores, July 26, 2008

Commander in Chief

Fidel Castro Ruz

Dear Father Fidel:

With the most authentic revolutionary fervor, receive a Martian, Bolivarian, revolutionary and socialist salute from one who knows and feels you to be Father and Teacher. In the name of my People, receive the most fraternal and emotional tributes in commemoration of a new anniversary of the Assault on the Moncada Garrison: of the Assault on the future that happened on that memorable July 26th of 1953.

There are many things I would like to tell you in the context of this great and radiant date, but I prefer to focus on one that is without question the most intense and palpitating actuality. I am referring to your reflection, published on July 24, 2008 …. I truly feel the “Reflections of the Commander in Chief” are mandatory reading for the revolutionaries of Our America and of the world: whoever wants to understand the lines of force in our time must turn to them.

Fidel, you are making an incalculable contribution to the battle of ideas, for which you are due gratitude as well as admiration.

[snip]
It is true, Fidel: once again the aggressive Yankee obstinacy not only wants to encircle the great power of Russia, as you well state; it also wants to crush all of us who dare to raise our voices in these times of genocide darkened by impunity.

[snip]

If imperialism, in its insane and aggressive obstinacy, has conceived the senseless goal of dragging us down in its inexorable and unstoppable collapse, then our strength, today more than ever, is what your indispensable teaching states: what is needed are nerves of steel. And nerves of steel are what the great Cuban people have, Fidel, under your inspiration and guidance: nerves of steel are what the Venezuelan people have, who today are taking the road shown to them by the Liberator, Simón Bolívar. The same road that was followed by Cuba’s national hero, José Martí, and the one to which you gave continuity: that of the emancipation and redemption of our Peoples.

Father, brother, friend, compañero, comrade: Until Victory Forever! We need you for many more years among us with the determination and integrity that we know in you: the determination and integrity with which every day you are ready to assault the Moncada. Receive a strong embrace with my admiration of always.

Country, socialism or death!

We will Triumph!

Hugo Chávez Frías

——————–

“Dear Father Fidel:

With the most authentic revolutionary fervor, receive a Martian, Bolivarian, revolutionary and socialist salute from one who knows and feels you to be Father and Teacher.”

Martian – not little green men?

Jose Marti.

Jose Marti – that’s the good thing aobut this blog you learn things. Still I rather liked the idea of Martians.

Pompous or puffed up with vanity not really – flowery, baroque, mannered, I don’t know but not I think pompous. Whatever else, one has to admit that Chavez has balls as indeed has Fidel.

A possible extraterrestrial origin for Marti should not be excluded, given that we know now that Mars has water ice and that its soil chemistry is conducive to plant growth.

Martian was a poor choice on my part. Martinian would have been better. The original in Spanish said martiano. (In Spanish, the little guys from the red planet are marcianos.)

“one has to admit that Chavez has balls as indeed has Fidel.”

Chavez is very vain, loves the sound of his own voice, and can lecture for hours. After so many years, however, a lot of people learned to distinguish between his fiery rhetoric and his actions (or lack thereof). I’m not an admirer of Castro. He’s responsible for his country’s poverty, lack of freedom, and the imprisonment and death of many of his countrymen who opposed him. To be fair to Fidel, he does have guts. In that regard Chavez, his admirer, comes up short. On the positive side, it seems that Chavez, despite his bluster, lacks Castro’s willingness to spill blood.

I barely have any opinion whatsoever on Cuba and/or Castro, but doesn’t the place have really high HDI indicators?

I had to check what HDI stands for (Human Development Index to those who are as clueless as I am.)

According to the Human Development Report Cuba is in the 51st place (out of 177 nations) and is in the “High Human Development” category. Iceland, Norway, and Australia got the gold, silver and bronze medals. The US came in 12th. Romania at 60, Belarus at 64, Bosnia at 66, Russia at 67, Venezuela at 74, China at 81, poor Sierra Leone came in dead last.

http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/

My goodness. Everything was going so swimmingly just a few days ago. Very interesting and engaging conversation, everyone getting along. Now I come back, and it’s thinly veiled racism and scary spam comments… Where’s Sean? What have you done with him?

Anyway, just wanted to share this with Chris:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_9Cp5idTzM

And yes, it’s unconscionable that someone, anyone, would never have heard of the Smiths.

I think Sean is in Israel, isn’t he?

“thinly veiled racism”

Sorry, poemless, I didn’t notice it. Can you point it out? Thanks.

“According to the Human Development Report Cuba is in the 51st place (out of 177 nations) and is in the “High Human Development” category.”

Yes. It is listed as a country with a “high” level of development — albeit low down the list — and in 6th place in Latin America, beaten only by Chile, Costa Rica, Uruguay, the Seychelles, and the Bahamas. In adult literacy rate, Cuba is No. 2 (in the world, behind only Georgia); in life expectancy at birth, it is No. 32 (77.7 years — the US is 77.9).

Poemless, where did you get that amazing bit of footage of Averko and the hippy?

Kolya: What, no Internet in Israel? I kid!

Sorry, my comment was not nec. aimed at you.

“(1) Second, if all illegals turned into legals and vice cersa, then (2) it would be Mexico there. With some slavic smell. … I know that US is not what is was. (3) Both ethnically and mentally.”

1. “Ilegal” is not a noun. A human being can’t be “illegal.” 2. The idea that “Mexicans” in America would outnumber everyone else if they were all given citizenship is more fear mongering about immigration policy than actual fact. As is the assumption that by giving them citizenship somehow the citizenship of “legals” would be compromised or taken away, like it’s a zero sum game. 3. There are swaths of the current US that were Mexico! Or was this a references to the native populations white Europeans effectively eradicated? No, I don’t think so. But the thing is, the ethnic make-up of the US is always in flux. That’s the very nature of the country. The comment seems to imply that America has been compromised or corrupted both ethnically and mentally (and that there’s a connection). Silliness and ignorance.

Not to mention the idea that being a good a labourer is contingent up on ethnicity or nationality. I suspect it has more to do with how badly you need the work, the monetary incentive, how much faith you have in the whole “hard work pays off” idea, and the price tag you put on your own labor. It mostly boils down to a lack of economic opportunities. I don’t think Mexicans make better dish washers either.

Anyway, I suppose this didn’t strike others as racially insensitive remarks.

Chrisius: Averko can’t stand hippies either? Oh, look. You’ve something in common!

Poemless, I may have to kill you.

“Poemless, I may have to kill you.”

We have to take this threat very very seriously. Poemless, Sean may well have some Mossad contacts that may be helpful.

As to the comments you found offensive, I think they were Ivanov’s. I have no idea what he really believes, but I think that in the comments here he enjoys his role as a derisive provocateur. Especially if by doing so he can poke fun at American or Western notions and attitudes.

Ha. It worked!

On a serious note, this comment from ET might interest you:

“Slightly related, I saw an article (in Russian) yesterday that 82% of Russian jews in Israel think that Israelis do not see them as Israelis but as Russians; 25% think they were discriminated for being Russian, 51% of their kids in school were discriminated against and 31% of kids were physically assaulted by non-Russian kids.”

”

Article: http://www.vremya.ru/2008/133/5/209115.html

The Ceylan Baku pipeline is a strange affair.

Eh? How so? It allows Azeri oil to get to world markets, the Caspian being isolated from the open seas. The US interest in all this is that, like every country, they want to see oil getting to the world markets in the most easy manner possible.

Whatever else, one has to admit that Chavez has balls as indeed has Fidel.

Erm, no. People who use the force of the state to shut down avenues of criticism are not brave.

\”Whatever else, one has to admit that Chavez has balls as indeed has Fidel.\”

Erm, no. People who use the force of the state to shut down avenues of criticism are not brave.

Tim. Do you want to say that Hitler (or Stalin) didn\’t have balls?
I think that having balls has nothing to do with democracy/tyranny.

“People who use the force of the state to shut down avenues of criticism are not brave.”

This is a categorical moralistic statement that is clearly false.

Tim. Do you want to say that Hitler (or Stalin) didn\’t have balls?

No, I was saying that Chavez doesn’t have balls.

I think that having balls has nothing to do with democracy/tyranny.

Chavez doesn’t have the courage to take criticism of his ideas from his own people. He also doesn’t have the courage to take foreign criticism without spitting his dummy like a petulant child.

If you think Chavez is a good example of somebody possessing courage, then your idea of courage differs greatly from mine.

This is a categorical moralistic statement that is clearly false.

I’ll put it another way: in my opinon, those people who respond to ideas with force are not brave.

Or was this a references to the native populations white Europeans effectively eradicated?

It took so long to guess?

No, I don’t think so.

“Было бы большой ошибкой думать…” (с) В.И. Ленин

But the thing is, the ethnic make-up of the US is always in flux. That’s the very nature of the country.

Exactly. So you admit that America as a country of white Europeans might become something of Afro-latino-humano-someone else country, don’t you? Or this old rule is not applicable to US? Why?
Just a simple check – wright down a list of 100 great US citizens. Then check how much of them crossed south border (legally or illegally – irrelevant). Gonzales-attorney?
It’s not about racism (as you might know soviet man can’t be a racist! It’s about changes.
The blog is about Russia – so I’ll stop here (as this is about the US problem number 1).

The comment seems to imply that America has been compromised or corrupted both ethnically and mentally (and that there’s a connection).

Corroded. The Steel Tower can withstand the forces of hurricanes but collapsed by the work of slow, silent corrosion…
And I know one such country (in recent times).

Silliness and ignorance.

Ignorance and as such – silliness

I’ll put it another way: in my opinon, those people who respond to ideas with force are not brave.

“Those” people might think that their ideas are much better for others. And cause they have balls – others have to bend.
In fact if you check history – only those with balls who forced other to “accept” their ideas got the title Great.

“I’ll put it another way: in my opinon, those people who respond to ideas with force are not brave.”

Why? Ideas can be threats like anything else, greater or lesser. Brave does not mean being gentlemanly and tolerant or oblivious to danger.

Whatever else he was, Hitler was not a coward.

“spitting his dummy”

What does that mean?

Why? Ideas can be threats like anything else, greater or lesser.

No. Ideas are threats when backed up with force. Remove the force, and ideas are simply ideas. Those who respond to ideas with force, in my opinion, are not exhibiting corageous behaviour.

And cause they have balls – others have to bend.

As I’ve already said, your idea of courage differs greatly from mine.

What does that mean?

An English expression, meaning to throw a tantrum.

“No. Ideas are threats when backed up with force. Remove the force, and ideas are simply ideas. Those who respond to ideas with force, in my opinion, are not exhibiting corageous behaviour.”

OK. Let us say that an idea (say, Nazism or whatever) permeates and then acquires support in the society at large or a prominent minority thereof, and thus force.

Not that I am not entirely sure that Chavez is doing this at all.

Let us say that an idea (say, Nazism or whatever) permeates and then acquires support in the society at large or a prominent minority thereof, and thus force.

At the point it acquires force, then it ceases to be just an idea. The problem is allowing ideas to acquire force, not in allowing ideas.

Idea without force? It’s a dream!
I have no problem if you have any dreams, Tim )
Well, I have no problem if you have different ideas.
But it’s always force that makes them a reality (show).

PS. What do you mean by “allowing ideas”?
I thought that ideas “just come”. No matter who has the force at this moment.

Back to topic. Do you think that Kasparov’s “ideas” are not widespread cause they are “banned”?

“At the point it acquires force, then it ceases to be just an idea.”

And at that point, it may be too late.

As to the FASCISM!!!! stuff. This may be too obvious for me to state here, but most people don’t really know what Fascism was, but rather employ it as a swear word meaning “political beliefs I don’t like.” Personally, I reserve the word for a political movement and political systems that existed in Europe between World Wars 1 and 2, with a few holdovers thereafter (though I am not sure if even Franco’s Spain post-WWII can meaningfully be refered to as “Fascist”). Maybe I’m old-fashioned, but even it doesn’t correspond to any definition the actual Fascists used for themselves, it ain’t Fascism.

“Do you think that Kasparov’s “ideas” are not widespread cause they are “banned”?”

I don’t think even Kasparov, except maybe when talking to a gullible foreign journalist in the heat of the moment, would say his ideas are banned. Given that you can buy his book in my neighborhood bookstore, they obviously aren’t.

“Personally, I reserve the word for a political movement and political systems that existed in Europe between World Wars 1 and 2, with a few holdovers thereafter (though I am not sure if even Franco’s Spain post-WWII can meaningfully be refered to as “Fascist”).”

I agree with you completely on this, Chris. And yes, Franco was not a Fascist. He used the fascists (as well as the monarchists) to his advantage. Once he solidified his power he paid some lip service to the Falange without allowing them them to have much influence on his government. That is not to say that Franco was not a ruthless (but shrewd) dictator.

Maybe this is being too nitpicky but, for what is worth, the Nazis did not consider themselves fascists. They considered themselves Nazis.

“Maybe this is being too nitpicky but, for what is worth, the Nazis did not consider themselves fascists. They considered themselves Nazis.”

Not notpicking at all. It’s a point I make all the time.

Going to what Sean and Poemless wrote about Russian Jews in Israel, I wonder how widespread is the perception in Israel that many of these new immigrants from Russia are not even ethnic Jews?

It may well be an exaggerated notion, but I actually had a Russian friend in Moscow who, to my surprise, emigrated to Israel as a Jew even though he was not Jewish, did not look Jewish, and was not related to any Jews by marriage. While still in Moscow he paid some money and obtained documents falsely stating he was Jewish. I have not seen him since he left Moscow, but I know he lived in Israel for a few years and then moved to Berlin. Last I heard (several years ago), he still lived in Berlin and ran a shady business that often took him to Russia.

“It’s a point I make all the time.”

Chris, maybe you did it here too and I forgot.

Kolya: I think that happens but have no idea how widespread it is. I also think it has a lot to do with era when someone emigrated. During the time of the Soviet Union, at some point Jews were allowed to leave, and Jewish organizations abroad would sponsor them. Limonov wrote about coming to America with these fake Jewish papers.

I spent several years tutoring immigrants from the former Soviet Union in the early nineties, through a Jewish service organization. It was just about the only game in town. None of the families I worked with appeared to be actively Jewish, but I just attributed that to the fact that they had not been raised as practicing Jews. It never occurred to me that they might not be Jewish at all (though I can’t say that it was a requirement for receiving the services of this Jewish agency….), but they did not have the same sense of Jewish identity, practicing or not, that my American Jewish friends had. I even remember one family, 3 generations, in which the parents and great grandparents did not consider themselves Jewish at all, but decided to send their kid to Hebrew school here in America, because their great grandparents had been Jewish.

So, my point is yes, that I think using a false Jewish identity for purposes of emigration probably did take place, but that it’s also possible that many emigres could honestly claim to be Jewish, but outwardly they appeared, culturally, more Russian than Jewish. And not through any fault of their own.

in which the parents and great grandparents

should be

“in which the parents and grandparents”

Why isn’t there a preview button in this joint? This is Fascism. FASCISM!!!

Ivanov: I think you left out something in your cute little Lenin quote.

poemless, you wrote:

“So, my point is yes, that I think using a false Jewish identity for purposes of emigration probably did take place, but that it’s also possible that many emigres could honestly claim to be Jewish, but outwardly they appeared, culturally, more Russian than Jewish. And not through any fault of their own.”

I agree with you. Perhaps, though, in addition to what you wrote about many of them being culturally more Russian than Jewish, the fact that a few of these new Israelis from Russia turned out to be fake Jews was enough to cast suspicion and distrust on the whole group. Sort of like Reagan’s story of the Cadillac driving “welfare queen” served to stigmatize so many deserving welfare recipients.

Ivanov: I think you left out something in your cute little Lenin quote.

Who cares as long as it’s cute?
And one more thing – don’t ask me about volume number and page!

For Chris

http://mbl.is/frimg/4/73/473961.jpg

It’s the magic island!

“And not through any fault of their own.”

Not being culturally Jewish is a fault? Assimilation into goy society was the dream of every secular European Jew for hundreds of years.

The near-disappearance of a distinct Jewish culture in Russia and Eastern and Central Europe largely has to do with the actions of some German guys about 65 years ago. While the near-disappearance of a distinct Jewish culture in Western Europe and North America has to do with assimilation into goy society having been the dream of every secular European Jew for hundreds of years.

“So, my point is yes, that I think using a false Jewish identity for purposes of emigration probably did take place, but that it’s also possible that many emigres could honestly claim to be Jewish, but outwardly they appeared, culturally, more Russian than Jewish. And not through any fault of their own.”

I was in Baden Baden in Germany the other day where there is a strong Russian colony and was assured that a considerable percentage of those of German origin who have successfully claimed German citizenship are in fact full blooded Russians.

I also have a book ‘Bon Baisers du Goulag: Secrets de famille’ by Christian Millau about his Grandfather who disappeared in a Goulag, that relates in passing that a large percentage of the Jews that moved from the Holy Roman Empire to Poland from the 12th century onward were not in fact Jews at all but very sensibly tagged along to stay alive and went where they were welcome – for a while, for quite a while.

Chavez not brave? How ridiculous. What do you have to do to be considered brave, I wonder; dodge the draft and become President of the US I suppose.

“I was in Baden Baden in Germany the other day where there is a strong Russian colony and was assured that a considerable percentage of those of German origin who have successfully claimed German citizenship are in fact full blooded Russians.”

BTW, a friend of mine is from the Volga region and there is still a fairly large Wolgadeutscher population there.

Come to think of it, my ex-fiancee was (well, is) ethnic nemetskaya. She would be outraged whenever people assumed that because she was a rossiyanka, she must be a russkaya.

“Bon Baisers du Goulag”

Hee-hee. I love the double meaning of “baiser.’

“Chavez not brave? ”

Yeah, isn’t he a paratrooper?

Chris: Not being culturally Jewish is a fault?

That came out poorly, didn’t it? It’s not implicitly a fault, but in the case of those who’ve immigrated to Israel, it may be problematic. So yeah, you spend a hundred years trying to assimilate and shed or hide your “Jewishness” for fear of persecution, and then when you have the ability to move to a place where you won’t be a target because of you are a Jew, you then become a target because you are Russian. Can’t catch a break, can they?

BTW, I have a somewhat embarrassing question:

Am I the only one who struggles over using the term “Russian” to refer generally to people who share a common culture & history but who are not necessarily in or from the country we now refer to as the Russian Federation? I mean, many of the “Russian Jews” or “Russians” I know are actually from Ukraine or Moldova or something. But I meet a lot of people from Ukraine or Moldova who don’t really differentiate themselves from Russians. People who consider Russia some kind of motherland, feel they share some identity. I guess the prevailing term is “ethnic Russians.” Right? But that’s problematic too, isn’t it? Surely there are ethnic Russians in Poland, but I’ve never heard a Pole identify as Russian. OTOH, I know an Uzbek family who have a rather strong Russian identity. They don’t really differentiate. Anyway, when, in the above paragraph, I say, “Russian,” I don’t nec. mean “from modern day Russia.” I just don’t know what the correct term is.

I would just go with “former Soviet” Jews (or Germans or whatever).

Oh, do you know the old Soviet joke?

Jewish guy is getting ready to emigrate to Israel. His father says, “remember, son — here you are just a Jew. There, you’ll be just a Russian.”

Am I the only one who struggles over using the term “Russian”

Not really. Well I’m not struggling but I use term “Russian” not as an ethnic identity. As there is no such thing as ethnic “russian” I think. At least I’ve never met one. I would say that those with Russian as native language – are Russians. Otherwise what would you say about person whose mother was Russian, father Latvian, he was born in Sakhalin, lived all over CCCP and doesn’t speak his “native” language? Well he learned Estonian as his wife is Estonian.

Come to think of it, my ex-fiancee was (well, is) ethnic nemetskaya.

I would say “немка” (немец) in this case.
And don’t to try teach my Englysh. Þetta er useless anyway

My last one on Chavez (at least for now).

I don’t think that to jump from a parachute requires much bravery (hey, I’ve done it). It’s thrilling but not that much of a risk. Chavez, though, was a reluctant paratrooper and his jump record is fairly short.

It cannot be disputed that two of Chavez’s heroes, Fidel and Che, had physical bravery. That is not the case with Chavez, though. Once danger passes he quickly recovers his composure, but he did not show himself to possess much bravery when he thought his life was at risk. For example, that was the case during his 1992 coup attempt as well as during the 2002 coup attempt against him.

Ivanov:

As there is no such thing as ethnic “russian” I think. At least I’ve never met one. I would say that those with Russian as native language – are Russians.

Yeah, I have no idea what makes a person an “ethnic Russian.” But that’s the term bandied about in the news when talking about the scores of Russians living in Ukraine or Estonia. I take it to mean, “descendant from someone who was from Russia.” “Russian as native language” seems somewhat sensible, but aren’t there people who were a bit miffed about having to adopt Russian as their language? I suppose it is all some subjective identity thing…

“I suppose it is all some subjective identity thing…”

Yes, that’s how I see it. If a person genuinely identifies as a Russian he or she is a Russian–regardless of ethnicity, citizenship and so on. Citizenship is another issue.

Before it gets sillier than it is, I want to make a quick clarification on this bravery issue. I have no problems whatsover in recognizing that individuals that in other ways I find reprehensible can also be brave. As examples (and limitimg myself to leaders) I can name Che Guevara, Fidel Castro, Adolf Hitler, Shamil Basayev, Osama bin Laden. It can be a long list.

people who were a bit miffed about having to adopt Russian as their language

If someone adopts language as his own – he most likely adopts the rest

Like people did when they were coming to Amerika (no longer now ).

“Yeah, I have no idea what makes a person an “ethnic Russian.””

This is kind-of true with any ethnicity. They’re 1% biology and 99% social construct.

Exvept for Icelanders.

“Before it gets sillier than it is, I want to make a quick clarification on this bravery issue. I have no problems whatsover in recognizing that individuals that in other ways I find reprehensible can also be brave. As examples (and limitimg myself to leaders) I can name Che Guevara, Fidel Castro, Adolf Hitler, Shamil Basayev, Osama bin Laden. It can be a long list.”

The cries of “they’re not just (insert bad thing here) — they’re cowards, too!” is part of the general human tendency to dehumanize, mock, and vilify one’s enemies, and more specifically a (usually male) attempt to make them look less manly. Such as the once-common and utterly ridiculous idea that the 9/11 hijackers were cowards.

If a person genuinely identifies as a Russian he or she is a Russian–regardless of ethnicity, citizenship and so on…

So by this logic is there anything preventing me from identifying as russkaya, and you having to accept it? I have no Russian ancestry (though Native American, so there’s some Siberian something in there somewhere), am not a Russian citizen, but I could theoretically begin speaking primarily Russian and identify with Russia etc., would not be much of a stretch from where I am now. But I don’t think I could ever claim to be Russian.

This is an interesting post about who is Russian.
Excerpt:

«Это и обитатели пространства, перестающего ныне быть “постсоветским” (но остающегося русско-культурным), и русская эмиграция, и все, кто учился на русском языке в русских университетах, чтобы затем ехать в свою Африку или Азию строить справедливое общество – так, как понимали это русские.» [It is both inhabitants of the area, that is no longer "post-Soviet" now (but remains culturally Russian), and the Russian Emigration, and everyone who studied in Russian in Russian universities in order to afterwards go home to their Africa or Asia and build a righteous society – like Russians themselves understood it.]

Judging by this article, I, who have studied in Russian at a few Russian universities (despite not really with the aim of later building a righteous society back home, mostly due to my society back home already, in my strictly personal opinion, being fairly righteous), am «русская» though not being a «россиянка» [the words in their female form] since I am yet to become a citizen. Funny, I always thought it to be the other way around for me – that I could become a legalized citizen instead of a legal alien in this country, but never a ‘real’ part of this people.

Precisely.

“все, кто учился на русском языке в русских университетах, чтобы затем ехать в свою Африку или Азию строить справедливое общество – так, как понимали это русские.”

According to the article, I should be Russian (except I went back to America, not Africa…). But I don’t think I am. Just as someone in Israel might look at a Russian who is Jewish in their soul and say, “Nope. You are too Russian, ” Russians would look at me and despite my best efforts declare, “No. Too American.” It’s not just about decide for yourself who you are. Other people have to agree with you. I think there is a Seinfeld episode about this…

Poemless, I think you’re encountering a problem Americans and inhabitants of other settler countries have with conceptualizing ethnic relations pretty much everywhere else in the world (this is not a specifically Russian thing). Americans (and Australians and Canadians) by and large tend to base national belongingness on 1) citizenship (“I have a US passport, so I am an American”) and/or 2) skin color. Russians (and Indians and Africans and most Europeans and pretty much everybody else) does not. Their national identities are based on deep history and linguistic differences. Poles are not called Poles because they live in Poland and have Polish passports; Poland is called Poland because people called Poles live there. It’s a different conceptual framework.

As to “Jewishness” in Israel, as far as I know it is a highly controversial topic there, with religious Israelis having an easy criterion.

Yes and no. I was saying that having a Russian passort would not make me Russian. The question is, what would. “Deep” history? But it’s obvious the answer is different if you are talking about America. And having grown up here, I don’t “get” nationalities in the non-political context. Fair enough.

Deep history — you know, my people, the Maximians Blessed of God, the True People, have always lived on this side of the Big River. We have always hated and done battle with the Foul Zoompharians on the other side of the River, who are Accursed of God and engage in hideous abominations like marrying their donkeys and wearing their hats backward.

“Yes and no. I was saying that having a Russian passort would not make me Russian. The question is, what would.”

The answer is, nothing would. You can’t be any more a Russian than I can be Black.

Exactly.

“You can’t be any more a Russian than I can be Black.”

This reminded me that several years ago I was looking for something about Pushkin and came across a website of an African-American who wrote admiringly about Pushkin and referred to him as a “great African” and one of “us”. I was puzzled and sent him an email. Never got a reply. Here is part of what I wrote:

“Why did you call Pushkin a “great African”? He was a Russian who was partly African. If the great-grandfather of a great African American writer happened to be a German,
should Germans call this African American writer a “great German”? Germans can be rightfully proud that this writer has some German ancestry, but it would be rather strange for them to call him a “great German”.”

Chavez not brave? How ridiculous.

Yes, of course. Utterly ridiculous!

Onwards, Chavez the Brave!

Good grief.

Something I am rather uncomfortable with, to the point of my finding it distasteful, is the habit of Russians being quick to point out that Tatars, Koreans, Jews, etc. are not Russians. I guess Russians see “Russian” as being an ethnicity, whereas outsiders see “Russian” as being a nationality the same as “British” or “Australian”.

I see nothing inconsistent about the son of Indian immigrants being English, but I’d be hard pressed to find a Russian who would consider a third generation Korean as a Russian.

“Something I am rather uncomfortable with, to the point of my finding it distasteful, is the habit of Russians being quick to point out that Tatars, Koreans, Jews, etc. are not Russians. I guess Russians see “Russian” as being an ethnicity, whereas outsiders see “Russian” as being a nationality the same as “British” or “Australian”.”

I’m curious — you’re a Welshman. Are you English?

I was trying to get at this earlier. Russia is a multinational empire/federation/commonwealth/what have you, like the Roman or Ottoman or British Empires. Such places don’t bring INDIVIDUALS in, like the US did — they assimilate other PEOPLES, already inhabiting their own territories with their own cultures, religions, etc. (Settler/genocide countries like the US and Canada and Australia don’t have this issue much since their indigenous populations have been reduced to nearly nothing. I am not using “genocide” here as a term of opprobrium, odd as it may seem, but as a descriptive term.)

PS. The idea that aborigines are “Australian” is a rather new idea in Australia.

I’m curious — you’re a Welshman. Are you English?

Hard to say. I was born in Wales to English parents, grew up in Wales with an English accent. Using the one true test of nationality in Wales – the rugby team you support – I consider myself Welsh. Other consider me English.

But I also consider myself British, which to me is more important than whether I’m Welsh or English. So I have had on my wall at various times both a Welsh flag and a Union flag together, plus I wear a Union flag tie (especially on Australia day) and a Welsh tie.

If Wales were to become independent, I’d jump for an English passport. Anyone who knows the Welsh work ethic would be advised to do the same.

“But I also consider myself British, which to me is more important than whether I’m Welsh or English. So I have had on my wall at various times both a Welsh flag and a Union flag together, plus I wear a Union flag tie (especially on Australia day) and a Welsh tie.”

So, you’re a rossiynin, but not a russkii.

“Hard to say. I was born in Wales to English parents, grew up in Wales with an English accent.”

Were you seen as an outsider in Wales for this reason?

It will be irrelevant soon. And all of “us” will speak ASCII

Were you seen as an outsider in Wales for this reason?

Yeah, pretty much, although never to any extent where it was an issue. Then when I was 16 and moved to SE England they all thought I was Welsh; then I moved to Manchester, and they thought I was from London; then I came back to London and they though I was from Manchester.

In Sakhalin, I fit right in.

Do they think – in Sakhalin – that you are Japanese?
OMG! I got it! You – RUSSIAN!

““Why did you call Pushkin a “great African”? “He was a Russian who was partly African. If the great-grandfather of a great African American writer happened to be a German, should Germans call this African American writer a “great German”? Germans can be rightfully proud that this writer has some German ancestry, but it would be rather strange for them to call him a “great German”.”

I’m pretty sure Langston Hughes appropriated Pushkin for Afro-American literature a while ago.

Pushkin’s African ancestry was pretty important to him — he wrote a book about it after all. IIRC one of his decendents married into the British Royal Family around 1900 and it was something of a scandal in Britain — “a royal marrying a Negro” and all that.

PS Kolya: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/31/world/europe/31hoax.html?pagewanted=print

Chris, thanks for the Langston Hughes’s info. I didn’t know about it. I know, of course, that Pushkin was very interested in his African great-grandfather. Gannibal’s life is a fascinating story. For anyone, however, to call Pushkin a “great African” because he was 1/8 African is rather misleading, whether done by white racists or by people of African descent.

In any event, for the sake of completion, let me add more to it. The guy who wrote that Pushkin is a great African didn’t reply to my email, but I was still intrigued by this whole thing. Searching the web I found out about Allison Blakely, an African-American scholar who wrote a book on Blacks in Russia, so I sent him an email. He immediately sent me a very helpful reply. Here is an excerpt of it:

“I do not object when African Americans refer to [Pushkin] as “black,” because in the peculiar definition of race and color (which are admittedly artificial, social constructs – not biological – but constructs that have had very real historical meaning) that has been employed in the United States Pushkin was by definition “black” according to the laws of some of our states. I never allow that to confuse me about Pushkin’s own self-identification, that was centered on his status as a Russian nobleman descended from one of the distinguished Russian families. He did also acknowledge pride in his African ancestry; but that does not make him an African.”

Not really related to but…

Travelers’ Laptops May Be Detained At Border
No Suspicion Required Under DHS Policies

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/content/article/2008/08/01/laptops.html

“Travelers’ Laptops May Be Detained At Border
No Suspicion Required Under DHS Policies”

You can protest about it here: -

http://www2.americanprogress.org/t/288/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=6239

I’d be hard pressed to find a Russian who would consider a third generation Korean as a Russian.

Not sure about this, Tim. If you ask the generation of late 70-s or early 80-s they will most likely say Виктор Цой was Russian. Except for obvious mongoloid features, everything about him seemed quite Russian.

You can protest about it here:

1. Why me? This is not my country that is been trashed.

2. What for? I don’t think I’ll visit US in any near future.

Robert, I read the S.H.I.T. that you posted a link to. Thanks! Excellent! Bravo-o-o-o-o!

But you know what?
This is NOT a protest against something. This is just a plea “Please, when taking out my notebook, documents and even my favorite comics – do it in risponsebble way. Please, please, please.”

But as I said – this is not my country.

PS. Not so long time ago in a far-far away country there was a rule – all copy machines MUST be registered. Just in case. And kept in the locked room with limited access. Just in case. For the good, of course.

The policies cover “any device capable of storing information in digital or analog form,” including hard drives, flash drives, cell phones, iPods, pagers, beepers, and video and audio tapes.

On the surface, it seems way too much, however. this is WP after all.

This phrase above alone makes me wonder of how accurate this is. How many laptops, iPhones and MP3 players or FLASH DRIVES cross the border daily?

This reminds me of the scare several years ago (coincided with the Dubai port embarrassment) that only 5% of the containers imported into the US were inspected. I had a job where people from the Miami customs were and they told me quite frank: “we inspect 100% of the cargo we want to inspect (which constitutes about the 5% cargo that comes into the US). We have the authority to shut the goddamn port down if we need to and we will.”

If you ask the generation of late 70-s or early 80-s they will most likely say Виктор Цой was Russian. Except for obvious mongoloid features, everything about him seemed quite Russian.

Good point. Wealthy, good looking, celebrity ethnic minorities are normally permitted to be considered Russian.

Dima Bilan?

I have been out of circulation for a week or so and haven’t had time to follow this thread in detail (perhaps my good fortune?), but I wanted to mention one thing I saw toward the top, about Russia’s “allies.”

It’s a concern expressed at times even by Russian foreign policy analysts who are not “anti-government” that Russia does not in fact have any allies in the traditional sense of the word. It has countries with whom it cooperates on one thing or another, but almost none (and perhaps, indeed, none) of those countries could be described as allies. Even Belarus doesn’t really work – can you imagine the president of a US “ally” having designs on the US presidency?

Also, the “news” about laptop searches is terrifying but is based on a Court of Appeals decision that’s several months old, IIRC. I guess now DHS (our very own KGB) has decided that they are going to promulgate policies consistent with the decision. What is difficult is that there is a long line of court decisions supporting the idea that no level of suspicion at all is required for searches at the border. This may have made sense in a world when tangible goods presented the greatest danger, but I think now some standard is needed (at least some articulation of “reasonable suspicion,” which is a very low bar) to prevent completely arbitrary searches/seizures of information media.

I had a flashback (similar, I think, to ivanov’s) to Soviet border policies when any “printed media” was subject to being perused and confiscated if its contents were not amendable. It is a little disturbing to see the US taking pages from that particular book.

Cyrill, your point about it not being a big deal because they won’t search a very high percentage of laptops doesn’t fly. That’s like saying not many people’s homes are likely to be searched, so why not do away with the 4th Amendment. Are you really willing to leave such decisions (which could involve results including confiscation and pirating of people’s intellectual property) up to a customs official with no judicial review?

Cyrill, your point about it not being a big deal because they won’t search a very high percentage of laptops doesn’t fly.

I did not mean to say it was no big deal. It is if this article is correct. I was just a bit skeptical since media is prone to use hyperbole and likes to scare people.

As for allies, I remember one of my friends that lives there said a couple of years ago: Even with Brezhnev we had friends, under this guy we have none.

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/images/apr08/BBCEvals/BBCEvals_Apr08_graph2.jpg

The average percentage saying that the US is having a positive influence has increased from 31 per cent a year ago to 35 per cent today while the view that it is having a negative influence has declined from 52 per cent to 47 per cent.

The country with the greatest improvement is Russia. Positive views of Russia have risen on average from 29 per cent to 37 per cent and negative views have fallen from 40 per cent to 33 per cent. In 12 countries, the view of Russia grew more positive.

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/views_on_countriesregions_bt/463.php?lb=btvoc&pnt=463&nid=&id=

PS. Sorry but I hate doing this manual “coding”

Ivanov, Cyrill means the United States, the only country that is important in Cyrillworld! Unimportant loser countries like China and India don’t count.

Chris, thanks for the

PS Kolya: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/31/world/europe/31hoax.html?pagewanted=print

Interesting and amusing.

“It has countries with whom it cooperates on one thing or another”

That’s pretty much what an ally is, no? “Allies” are countries that cooperate on a lot of stuff and say nice things about each other, while at the same time usually putting their country’s own perceived interests first.

The kind of mutual backstabbing going on between Roosevelt, Stalin, and Churchill, for instance, was hilarious, as Roosevelt was trying to undermine the British Empire and the USSR, Churchill was trying to undermine the USSR and preserve the British Empire, and Stalin trying to undermine the British Empire and US, all while slapping each other on the back.

PS. I highly recommend the transcript of Roosevelt and Stalin’s conversation at Yalta over the Baltic States. Roosevelt’s level of cynicism is jaw-dropping. (So is Stalin’s, but that;s to be expected.)

Ivanov, Cyrill means the United States, the only country that is important in Cyrillworld! Unimportant loser countries like China and India don’t count.

Not sure where you got this Chris. As a professional interpreter I can tell you your interpretation has failed miserably. I was not talking for myself and I was following Lyndon’s post that did not address how people think of other people but rather “allies in traditional sense”.

I am a Russian myself, if Russia did not matter to me, why would I be discussing it here? All you seem to see is dislike I or others might have for the current administration and its policies and extrapolate it on overall general attitude. Unlike most immigrants I know, I actually go to Russia twice a year.

“Allies?” Allies mean a serious common purpose. No matter the back stabbing, WWII allies had a serious common goal. There is no common goal between Russia, China and India that might overwrite their national interests, except maybe preventing each other from getting ahead.

Not to mention that being an ally usually means some sort of a formal alliance. I doubt the Shanghai protocol could qualify as an alliance akin to NATO or Warsaw Pact or the Axis.

“WWII allies had a serious common goal”. True – remove the menace of German militarism. After that it was every nation for itself. The Soviets never took a meaningful part in the war against Japan although they took serious advantage of it at the very end of the war.

Come to think of it, in a less dramatic form, the link between China and Russia could very easily be compared with that of the wartime Grand Alliance, to resist the pressure of US militarism.

Come to think of it, in a less dramatic form, the link between China and Russia could very easily be compared with that of the wartime Grand Alliance, to resist the pressure of US militarism.

Right, right, US invaded at least one of them and is constantly bombing another preparing for a… what’s Chinese for Seelöwe?

The analogy would only work if Czeck was sniping at the Sudetan Germans after having tried and failed to genocide them.

US Presence in the Republic of Georgia is Russia’s God Send

Georgia and the West once more on the March in the Caucuses

robert harneis The Soviets never took a meaningful part in the war against Japan although they took serious advantage of it at the very end of the war.

Yes, if you mean defeat a Japanese army in 1939 on the Mongolian border and than finishing off the Japanese force in Manchuria in 1945 as not partaking…than yes, why of course, no less than the British and French and Dutch who fought the Japanese long before US entry into the war.

The Soviet entry into the war against the Japanese was meaningful enough that the USSR regained control over the southern half of Sakhalin Island (and helped themselves to the Kuril islands in the process, Russiena sovereignty over which the Japanese refuse to acknowledge). And most of us here having been to Japan, it is tempting to imagine what the place would be like had the Japanese still been here. I’ll bet the Japanese would have heard of drainage, for starters.

Yeah, they heard of Korean slaves too.

Yeah, they heard of Korean slaves too.

They’re still here, despised by the Russians because they don’t mind doing some work occasionally.

Hi everyone.

Since Sean seems to not be posting, I just wanted to let people know there are some good discussions of the S. Ossetia situation over at European Tribune, if you’re interested.

Today: Georgia: oil, neocons, cold war and our credibility

Yesterday: Wannabe NATO member on war path

Thanks, poemless.

As everyone here knows, I’m no fan of the Putin/Medevedev government, but the decision of Georgia’s president to attack South Ossetia was extremely idiotic. It’s because of him that people are dying in his own country. Did he really think that he’ll come out ahead?

Even those who sympathize with Georgia and believe its stance that Abkhazia and South Ossetia are integral part of Georgia would have to agree that the launching of this attack was rash, stupid and self-defeating.

I don’t know how it will all play out in the world of politics and diplomacy, but military it makes perfect sense for Russia to strike deep into Georgia. Regardless of the US officials say, they know that under similar circumstances they would have done the same.

Kolya.
If the Georgian president is in fact a US law graduate, if the Georgian army is paid by, equipped, trained and in practical terms under US command, if State Department don’t show a slightest surprise and provide full political (so far) support, if the full scale small war started same day as Olympics in CHINA – who do you think is in fact behind this plan? Crazy Saakashvili?

Ivanov, I’m certainly no fan of the disastrous Bush administration, but I really don’t think that they are behind the attack. Perhaps I’m wrong, but my guess is that privately the White House is very displeased with the stupid rashness of Georgia’s president.

hey! there’s a war going on! where are you sean? fuck russia!

Вся ситуация ужасает.

“Perhaps I’m wrong, but my guess is that privately the White House is very displeased with the stupid rashness of Georgia’s president.”

I would agree.

ivanov,

Isn’t ironic that you are saying virtually the same thing as Berezovsky?

… необходимо отметить, что Грузия пошла на силовой вариант решения конфликта в Южной Осетии, лишь почувствовав за собой мощь США, которые пытаются решать в регионе Южного Кавказа свои геополитические задачи.

Chrisius Maximimus “Perhaps I’m wrong, but my guess is that privately the White House is very displeased with the stupid rashness of Georgia’s president.”

I would agree.”

It seems that the gamble Sakaashvili took was to take over South Ossetia before the Russians could react militarily. This is not as crazy as it sounds because apparently the only land route in is through the Roki tunnel. They failed to block the tunnel and so they failed period. had the Russians been shut out it would have been very difficulty to invade Georgia across the mountains. What seems to have stopped them is the effective holding action of the South Ossetians in Tiskinvali against their tanks, just as Hezbollah in Lebanon stopped the Israelis using Russian or Russian derived antitank missiles. I read about this scenario a couple of years ago pointing out that the Russians could not simply “pour across the frontier” as the press has suggested because of the roadless 5000 metre mountain range in the way.

It is certain the US is very displeased with Sakaashvili for failing in his coup. It is hard to believe that they would have been too upset with him if he had succeeded. Did they give him the green light? Hard to believe that somebody in the US administration was not aware of the big military build up necessary for an attack of the size mounted by the Georgians. Who paid for it all? Was the huge US intelligence set up completely deaf to what was obviously a carefully planned attack? Have they no one keeping an eye on Sakaashvili? No doubt the US would have us believe they were not consulted or at some level aware- wholesale slaughter in Tskinvali is not really what the world’s leading democracy is supposed to stand for.

The other question arises were the Russians tipped off? The speed of their reaction indicates that they were at least ready and may have known the attack was coming.

Diplomatically the West has not got a leg to stand on after Kosovo, Iraq, Afghanistan and now Pakistan to name but a few. To hear GWB talking about wide spread bombing and respecting the territorial integrity of nation states warms my heart.

The Russians will presumably want to push the Georgians back so that South Ossetia cannot be shelled. They will also try and clear the Khodori Gorge to make Abkhazia safe but that may not be so easy as the terrain appears difficult to say the least. They will also attempt to eliminate as much military equipment as possible, particularly planes.

As a footnote BP have apparently said that Georgian claims that bombs fell near the BTC pipeline are untrue. It is anyway out of action through a fire which may have been Kurdish sabotage in Turkey.

Robert, knowing all we know about Putin/Medvedev I doubt very much that Russia would have not attacked Georgia had they successfully blocked the tunnel. It would have made things more difficult and bloodier, but, if anything, it would have enlarged the conflict even more. And I’m sure that Russia’s military had plans for such a turn of events. So yes, Saakashvili’s decision was idiotic and because of him Georgians living miles from South Ossetia died needlessly (and might still be dying–had not check the latest news).

Kolya – you could be right about that certainly in hindsight after what we have seen in the last day or two. But do you really believe that absolutely no one in the US administration knew what was cooking.

On the other hand I attended an off the record press briefing with a senior Polish dimlomat about a month ago and asked him what he thought would happen in Georgia and he said he thought it would simmer but not boil over. I have no reason to believe he was kidding me along so perhaps the cock up theory of public events should prevail over the conspiracy theorists – just this once. On the other hand somebody at some level must have known something or they should be sacked.

Kolya – dimlomat was not a deliberate insult to diplomats but a typing error. Not a bad new word though in the circumstances.

“do you really believe that absolutely no one in the US administration knew what was cooking.”

I agree that that’s hard to believe. Frankly, I have no idea. Yes, more than likely some Americans knew that something was about to happen. How far up the chain of command this knowledge went is another matter. Time will tell (maybe). Either way it does not reflect well on the US state/intelligence services.

johnnie b. baker

hey! there’s a war going on! where are you sean? fuck russia!

Sorry, boy, but this time it’s your term to be fucked up by Russia.

Kolya.
the whole “idea” is very simple.

To get into conflict then:

1. If he wins – Saak gets the nation’s hero and the Saver title. Russian influence in the region destoryed – that means more troubles – that means more ways to “poke” Russia.

2. If he looses – Saak claims Georgia is under attack of evil empire – please send “mediators” and “international peacekeepers”. Russian influence in the region destoryed – that means more troubles – that means more ways to “poke” Russia.

Now think about:

1. Saak background
2. who in fact control Georgian army (communication and command systems)
3. what US top guys (and the top US girl in particular) are “demanding” Russia to do

– and you can get the full picture by yourself. No need to be a genius

PS. Bush has nothing to do with this. he is not that smart and he is out of the game now anyway.

PS-2. And also to make a small “surprise” for China for free…

Ivanov, I understand your argument but I doubt very much that your guess is correct. First, I find it very improbable that any high-ranking US person thought Georgia has much of a chance to succeed militarily. Second, it is clear that besides talk the US is not doing much. I think they were not prepared for either one of the two contingencies you wrote about.

At the end of the day what all this proves is that Saakashvili, regardless of his IQ, acted like reckless fool.

I think Anatol Lieven has it right when at the end of his piece he writes:

“Promises by NATO leaders to bring Georgia into the alliance at some stage in future, and ostentatious declarations of support from Washington, appear to have convinced the Georgian administration that if they began a new war with Russia over South Ossetia, the West would be compelled to come to their aid. Hence the Georgian military move into South Ossetia in recent days.

In this however the Georgians appear to have miscalculated very badly. Russia has made it clear over the years that it has no intention of suffering defeat in South Ossetia or Abkhazia. It is exceptionally unlikely that the U.S. will send troops to fight for Georgia, or even impose serious sanctions on Moscow, given the certainty of a Russian response against vital U.S. interests in other areas (notably Iran). And if Russia exerts even a fraction of its strength, the Georgian forces will be crushed. The only very faint hope from this miserable situation is that yet another defeat might conceivably persuade the Georgians to let South Ossetia and Abkhazia go, at which point Georgia’s path to join NATO and perhaps even one day the EU would be vastly easier.”

Do you have a link to the Lieven piece, Kolya?

Kolya, I’ll try to show you that Lieven is wrong in his every assumption, but now I’m just busy.

As I remember you are the “military” person so for now try to guess why Georgian army was launching its offense at night and very often were able to get back positions lost in the day

Do you have a link to the Lieven piece, Kolya?

Here

Ivanov,

May I interpose with an answer about Georgian night fighting abilities?

\Bad joke

It is simple, the Georgian army knows the lyrics of Boney M’s ‘Night Flight to Venus’ better than the Russians!

/Bad joke

I have little doubt that Georgian night vision equipment is of western origin though…

… second attempt, Chris…

Here is the Lieven piece link:

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/needtoknow/2008/08/georgias_miscalculation.html

There is also a Dmitri Trenin piece. It starts okay, but then he becomes too much of an alarmist.

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/needtoknow/2008/08/georgias_risky_move.html

Chris, for some reason when I send the link my comment does not make it through (Georgian intelligence, no doubt). Check the Washington Post (down the left side, postglobal box.)