
Uncle Volodya says,”Wars of aggression are popular nowadays with those nations convinced that only victory and conquest could improve their material well-being”
From a distance we all have enough,
And no one is in need.
And there are no guns, no bombs, and no disease,
No hungry mouths to feed.
From a distance, there is harmony,
And it echoes through the land.
It’s the voice of hope, it’s the voice of peace,
It’s the voice of every man.
God is watching us. God is watching us.
God is watching us from a distance.
God is watching us; from a distance. If there is a God – something you pretty much have to take on faith – what does He or She make of our performance as human beings, this year of 2012 as it’s winding down? From a distance, there is harmony. Is it an illusion imposed by perspective? Let’s look closer.
February, 2012. Some 73 people are killed in a brawl between rival soccer teams, in Egypt. Knives and clubs are used, raising questions about security at the gate. Over 300 die in a prison fire in Honduras, initiated by an inmate who set fire to his mattress; most of the victims die in their cells, awaiting rescue. Russia and China veto a UNSC resolution on intervention in Syria, the same day as a “massacre” in the Syrian city of Homs which later accounts suggest was faked by the Free Syrian Army, in an attempt to steamroller the decision for intervention. Most of the dead appear to have been shot at close range, with none of the horrific tissue damage that would accompany the use of heavy weapons, as described by activists with a vested interest in drawing NATO into the fight as occurred in Libya. Hillary Clinton fumes “What more do we need to know to act decisively in the Security Council? To block this resolution is to bear responsibility for the horrors that are occurring on the ground in Syria.”
From a distance you look like my friend,
Even though we are at war.
From a distance I just cannot comprehend
What all this fighting is for.
Closer.
March 2012. Valdimir Putin wins Russia’s presidential election, with about 64% of the vote. OSCE observers complain that he had no competition, and government spending at his disposal – as if having no competition were his fault, while one of his opponents is a multibillioniare and the 7th richest man in Russia. The total cost (estimated) of the Russian presidential election, according to Transparency International Russia, was $70 Million USD. The U.S. election campaign came in at an estimated $6 Billion USD. Elena Panfilova, head of TI Russia, complained that Vladimir Putin was abusing state resources in his election campaign although he made only one speech, as though all state visits should be discontinued during the year of a presidential election, while the opposition is free to do as it likes. Investigation of complaints about election fraud reveals most of the video clips purporting to show falsification or ballot-box stuffing originated from a single server, in California. A U.S. soldier goes on a door-to-door rampage in Afghanistan, killing 16 civilians including 9 children, most of them sleeping. Mohammed Merah, a Frenchman of Algerian descent, shoots a rabbi, two of his children and another child in Toulouse, France. Before he is killed by French police, Merah claims to be a member of al Qaeda seeking revenge for murdered Palestinian children. In Syria, President Assad agrees to a UN-brokered ceasefire and promises to withdraw troops from cities by April. The UN continues to publish and quote casualty figures in Syria as provided by the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, which is one man working from his home in England, and who receives all his information from Syrian activists striving to overthrow the Syrian government.
Closer.
May. Chinese dissident Chen Guangcheng leaves the U.S. embassy to get treatment for an injured foot, but later says he left partly because the Chinese government threatened his wife’s life if he remained. He asks Hillary Clinton – in China for meetings – for help. Clinton arranges through government-to-government talks for Guangcheng and his wife and two children to visit the USA while Guangcheng studies at New York University; one for the good guys. Some sources incorrectly accuse Russian police of sending protesters to military draft centers. Francois Hollande defeats Nikolas Sarkozy to become president of France. Another “massacre” in Syria, this time in the city of Houla, kills 108 civilians, 49 of them children and 34 of them women. According to accounts by the ubiquitous activists, the Syrian government’s forces shelled the area with heavy weapons, and then its mysterious Shabiha militia closed in, shooting and stabbing innocent people. The BBC is caught using a fake photo of bodies in shrouds – taken 9 years previously in Iraq – to substantiate the Houla massacre, which is subsequently suggested to have been another staged event by the “Free Syrian Army” – a loose collection of militants – in order to mobilize international support against president Assad. That notwithstanding, 11 nations expel Syrian diplomats.
From a distance there is harmony,
And it echoes through the land.
And it’s the hope of hopes, it’s the love of loves,
It’s the heart of every man.
Still closer.
June, 2012. Hillary Clinton accuses Russia of supplying Syria with attack helicopters, which turn out to be Syrian helicopters that were already in Russia for repair. This leads to wild rhetoric about the UK “striking at a 21st century scourge” by withdrawing the vessel’s insurance. While the British strut and prance, the vessel returns to Russia to be reflagged by a Russian underwriter. Mohamed Morsi wins a hotly-contested election in Egypt to consolidate a victory for the Muslim Brotherhood, which coincidentally is the group which would benefit most by a western intervention to overthrow Assad in Syria. Morsi promptly proclaims sharia law, and says in a speech that “Today Egypt is close as never before to the triumph of Islam at all the state levels”. Russia’s Maria Sharapova returns to world #1 in women’s tennis, after winning the French Open.
Closer.
July. Libya holds its first elections since the murder of Gaddafi by mercenaries led by al Qaeda warlord Abdelhakim Belhaj, supported by NATO warplanes. Two people are killed in armed assaults on voting centers. In Kufur, some voting centers close due to a tribal battle. Nonetheless, western-educated Mahmoud Jibril takes an early lead. Near a Bulgarian airport, a suicide bomber carries out an attack against a bus carrying Israeli tourists in Bulgaria on holiday, killing 5 Israelis as well as the driver. Netanyahu blames it on Hezbollah, saying angrily, “All the signs lead to Iran…This is an Iranian terror attack that is spreading throughout the entire world. Israel will react powerfully against Iranian terror.” No mention is made of Israel’s campaign of assassinating Iranian nuclear scientists. Russia and China veto another UNSC resolution which would have imposed sanctions on Syria, this one because it would offer a loophole for western military intervention. The UK was “appalled”. Susan Rice, American UN Ambassador, called it a “dark day” and said “The message it sends is that two permanent members of the Council are prepared to defend Assad to the bitter end.”
August. Egyptian president Morsi orders a retaliatory airstrike in the Sinai Peninsula which reportedly kills 20 militants, in retaliation for an attack at an Egyptian Army checkpoint which killed 16 soldiers. Ecuador grants asylum to Wikileaks’ Julian Assange. Three members of Pussy Riot are convicted of hooliganism in Russia, and sentenced to two years in penal colonies. The U.S. military death toll in Afghanistan, a war that has dragged on for 11 years, reaches 2000. Russia is admitted to the World Trade Organization. According to some sources, expectations include “…an increase of 3% in the Russian GDP, more foreign investment, and a doubling of U.S. exports to Russia-as long as trade relations are normalized through the lifting of the 1974 Jackson-Vanik amendment.” The latter expectation is soon to be torpedoed by the American insistence on passing the so-called “Magnitsky Act” along with the trade bill.
September. Gunmen storm the American embassy in Benghazi, Libya, killing U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens and 3 other embassy officials. The use of heavy anti-aircraft weapons and RPG’s leads some analysts to suggest the attack was planned in advance. Diplomatic cables later released reveal that Stevens repeatedly recommended or requested greater security for the Benghazi embassy. Other analysts suggest it was retaliatory anger at an anti-Muslim film released by a California producer; attacks on U.S. embassies in Tunisia, Yemen and Egypt, where angry demonstrators climb into the compound and rip down the American flag, seem at the time to support this theory.
October, 2012. Turkey launches cross-border attacks against Syria in response to mortar attacks on Turkish cities, an act for which the Syrian Army is far too busy even if there would be something to gain from aggravating yet another enemy; it is more likely the work of the Free Syrian Army, tiring of efforts to prod the west into an intervention. In Venezuela, Hugo Chavez wins a third term with about 54% of the vote. Rumors about his health promptly begin to percolate through the English-speaking press. Taliban gunmen shoot 14-year-old Malala Yousafzai, who claimed to be unafraid of them and undeterred in her determination to get an education, in the head and neck in front of other children on a school bus. She survives, and is airlifted to Birmingham, UK for treatment of skull fractures and for long-term rehabilitation. A Moscow court frees Pussy Rioter Yekaterina Samutsevich on appeal, on the grounds that she was detained by security personnel as she approached the altar and was therefore not part of the act of hooliganism. The sentence against the remaining duo stands. A large bomb explodes in Beirut, killing 8 people and wounding at least 80; among the dead is Brigadier-General Wissam al-Hassan, a top security official and longtime foe of Syria; this is seen as an attempt to drag Lebanon into the conflict.
November. The quarrelsome Syrian National Council – a disappointing effort by western backers to unite the Syrian opposition – is shunted aside in favour of the Syrian National Initiative, a handpicked group chosen by the western Friends of Syria. It is immediately recognized by France as the only legitimate government of Syria, in an aggressive repeat of its action on Libya, albeit under a different French president. The new leader, Sheik Ahmad Moaz al-Khatib, promptly requests financial assistance and arms from his beaming “parents”. Israel launches another of its periodic offensives in Gaza, in retaliation for rocket attacks, hitting some 20 targets and killing Hamas military commander Ahmed al-Jabari as he is traveling through Gaza in a car. New Egyptian president Morsi steps up with aggressive vocal support for the Palestinians. His foreign minister and Hillary Clinton broker a cease-fire. Morsi declares himself the authority over Egypt’s courts, thus removing any check the law might exert on him. Surprising pretty much everyone, the UN approves non-member state status for Palestine. Israel is furious, while the USA and UK are disappointed their background maneuvering was unsuccessful. This will allow Palestine access to international organizations such as the International Criminal Court. A fuming Netanyahu announces Israel will not transfer about $100 million in much-needed tax revenue owed to the struggling Palestinian Authority, and will resume plans to build a 3,000-unit settlement in an area that divides the north and the south parts of the West Bank, thereby denying the Palestinians any chance for a contiguous state. Barack Obama is re-elected president of the United States. Russian election monitors present for the election, after enduring complaints from aggressive monitors of the Russian elections that monitors could not always see what was happening inside the polling station, are told that if they approach an American polling station closer than 100 yards they may be arrested.
Which brings us around to now. Protesters rally in Tahrir Square, where not even a year ago they were cheering Mubarak’s ouster and deliriously tweeting victory at each other, over Morsi’s constitution, which he presses forward with undeterred. Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, announces she is pregnant with the someday likely heir to the British throne. Two Australian DJ’s play a prank, calling the hospital and pretending to be the Queen and Prince Charles, and manage to score a scoop from the unsuspecting nurse who took the call. The following week the nurse, Jacintha Saldanha, commits suicide by hanging herself with a scarf from her wardrobe door in the nurse’s quarters.
From a distance we are instruments
Marching in a common band.
Playing songs of hope, playing songs of peace.
They’re the songs of every man.
According to The Statistic Brain, 50% of the world’s population lives on less than $2.50 a day. Some 80% of the world’s population lives where income differentials are widening, not narrowing. Meanwhile, Exxon-Mobil’s earnings for the first 9 months of 2012 were $34.9 Billion, up 10% over the same period in 2011. In British hospitals, 43 patients starved to death and 111 died of thirst while on wards, according to a report by the Office for National Statistics; nurses placed trays of food in front of patients too weak to feed themselves, and later took them away untouched. Another 78 patients died from bedsores. Meanwhile, the British government’s Health Secretary announced that “real-terms spending on the NHS (National Health Service) has increased across the country” when figures from the Public Spending Statistics revealed that spending was actually down year-over-year.
An otherworldly deity watching us from a distance would have a hard time escaping the conclusion that we have progressed little from the cruel children we were on the playground, and that we have a long way to go to achieve anything like the self-satisfaction of looking after the weak and helping our fellow men through tough times.
Still, there is hope. We can still start 2013 better than we started 2012, and even those who have extended the hand of friendship only to draw it back full of warm spit can patiently extend it again. It’s late, but it’s never too late until it is. At this special time of year, as always, I wish peace and contentment in the company of family to friend and foe alike, from my family to yours. Merry Christmas, and best wishes for a New Year in which we all do a little better.
Editor’s Note: “From a Distance” is performed by Bette Midler, written by Julie Gold. You can see the official video here. It’s a great song, and I always thought Midler is an underrated singer with a gorgeous, soaring voice that suits this kind of music.
I wish perdition upon my enemies and to hell with that Christian love-thy-enemy and turn-the-other-cheek nonsense, which policy most Christians, in my opinion, have always clearly failed to implement; but I am not a Christian: my God is Woden!
Yuletide Greetings and Waes Hail!
Dear Mark: Excellent post. Very poetic and philosophical summation of 2012. The good news is that the world didn’t end yesterday. Yay!
To you and your family I wish a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year, and all the best for the following year.
To that unrepentant pagan, MoscowExile, on the other hand, I hurl the following curse: “May your God Wotan’s Spear be broken soundly on the sword of Germany’s truest hero! Wa Ha ha!”
Siegfried started on up the mountain, when suddenly the giant Wotan stood before him.
“What are you doing here?” demanded Wotan.
Siegfried replied:–
“I am going to the top of this mountain. There a maiden lies sleeping. I will awaken her, and she shall be my bride.”
“Go back to your forest!” commanded Wotan. “This mountain is encircled by fire.”
And stretching forth his arm, he barred the path with his mighty spear.
Siegfried quickly drew his sword from its sheath.
“This is the magic spear that rules the world!” said Wotan. “Put away that sword, or the spear that once shattered it will shatter it again!”
“Ha!” cried Siegfried, “then you were my father’s foe!”
There was a flash of Siegfried’s blade, then a crash that echoed over mountains and valleys, and Siegfried had shattered Wotan’s spear. It lay in splinters on the ground.
Wotan stepped aside and sadly bowed his head upon his breast.
http://www.authorama.com/opera-stories-from-wagner-49.html
Oh misguided Christian! That was Wotan whom Siegfried scorned. Wotan and the Norse Odin were pussies compared with the mighty Woden! Woden is still revered by the Angelcynn in that the middle day of the week is still named after him: Woden’s Day, i.e. Wednesday, whereas the Germans simply call Wednesday “Mittwoch” – midweek, as do the Slavs: среда – the middle day.
Oh, and by the by, the Coca-Cola employee, a certain Santa Claus, is the anglicized by English North American colonials Sinkt Klaas, which is Dutch for Saint Klaus (Niklaus). St, Nicholas’ Day is on December 6th. St. Nick is, amongst other things, the Western Christian patron saint of children and was an early Christian bishop in what is now Turkey. Dutch and Flemish Belgian children get their “Christmas” presents off him on December 6th and legend has it that he arrives in the Low Countries from Spain of all places.
In England it is and always has been the winter solstice that is celebrated : Yule, a time of happiness, as from Yuletide the days get longer and the greenery will appear again, hence “Deck Your Halls with Boughs of Holly” and other evergreens. It’s a time of feasting and merry making. It is a magical, a “holy” time, and the English gift bringer is Father Christmas. Likewise in Germany the gift-bringer is “der Weihnachtsmann” – “the Holy Nights Man”. That “Christmas” bit is a Christian addition that has been latched onto the solstice celebrations. It is Woden that doth magically appear with gifts! For Woden, though God of War, is also wise: he forfeited an eye at the tree of wisdom so as to become all-knowing.
You don’t mess round with Woden, nor, for that matter, with his son Thor, after whom Thursday is named; nor with Mrs. Woden – Frige (pronounced /fri:je/), after whom Friday is named!
By the way, why, during the time of the English Commonwealth (republic), do you think those miserable, po-faced Puritans banned Christmas celebrations after the parliamentary victory in the English civil wars?
Because they knew full well that Christmas celebrations are only thinly disguised Old Time Religion (pagan) ones, that’s why!
Best thing those holy stick-in-the-mud Puritans ever did was to bugger off to New England.
Not so good for the locals in the New World. These God-loves-you-if-you-succeed-in-business freaks should have gone down in a storm.
Ha ha! Kirill, you are brimming over with Christmas spirit! Here is a pretty song to soften you up, this one’s about an actual nice guy, not a nasty puritan:
Thanks for the history lesson, @Exile! To accompany your comment, I found this video of the god-family at home: Mr. Woden, Mrs. Woden (Frige), Woden’s brother-in-law Thor, his other brother-in-law, Frohe, and Frohe’s sister Freia. Here we also have Erda (Mother Earth) who shows up to sing a warning to Mr. Woden (“Wache, Wotan, Wache!”). He’s the one with the pirate eye-patch. She warns him to give the accursed Ring as payment to the giants Fafner and Fasolt (who labored to build the castle Valhalla). Erda is the only person in the world whom Woden is willing to listen to.
Mr. and Mrs. Woden didn’t always get along very well, BTW, probably because hubby was always off shtumping the other ladies. After meeting Ms. Erda, Woden cannot even help himself and goes off to shtump with her too, thus giving birth to the noisy race of Valkyries. Later, Mrs. Woden finds out about this, and rips him a new one, but that’s not until much later…
My favourite story about the Norse gods is in the poem Thrymskvidha. This is the one where Thor’s hammer is stolen by the giant Thrymr who demands Freyja as his bride in exchange so Loki persuades Thor to disguise himself as Freyja and wear a bridal dress. Thor and Loki, dressed as Thor’s bridesmaid, journey to the land of the giants who hold the wedding ceremony and reception straight away and are amazed at Thor’s appearance and capacity for food (he wolfs everything down). Once he gets his hammer back, he really starts partying and slays everyone – literally, that is.
http://thorkitastic.tumblr.com/post/37508324504/frikadeller-thor-dressed-as-a-bride-and-loki-as
Early cross-dressing. And Thor having his “hammer” taken from him. Sounds loaded with symbolism to me.
Just come out and say it: Norsemen were perverts!
Ha ha! You would think Thor would at least take the time to shave off his moustache before getting up in drag! Those giants must have been pretty stupid. Great building contractors they were (they built Valhalla), but apparently all brawns no brains!
The eye patch is because, as I mentioned earlier, Woden forfeited an eye to gain knowledge. He is also sometimes depicted with his cap pulled down over his eyeless socket. The relationships between the various Germanic gods vary depending on where you lived. In English mythology, Thor was Woden’s son. There was a time also when Thor was considered boss god.
Erda (above) sings: “Wache, Wotan, Wache!” – “Wake, Wotan, wake!”
That’s the German god Wotan.
My Lord is WODEN.
Thor’s policy
statement
and:
this.
The true Christian response to the above effrontery.
Wow, Jesus really copping some attitude there!
P.S. as to your translation “Wache Wotan”, it is true that it translates literally as “Wake up”, but Erda means “wake up” in the sense of “Look out!” or “Come to your senses!” See, Wotan wants to hold on to the Ring, because it would give him unlimited power over all the other races (Giants, Nibelungs, Norns, and whomever else may be out there). Erda is trying to tell him that this would be a huge mistake, because the Ring has a humungous curse put upon it by Alberich the Nibelung.
Also, as to the distinction between Wotan and Woden, I am not sure I am buying your argument, personally I think it’s just a difference in spelling; however, I am not qualified to debate you, since I didn’t go to Theology School.
Meanwhile RIA-Novisti reports that Moscow is now (23rd December) bracing itself for the coldest night of the year, when temperatures are forecast to reach minus 26 degrees Celsius (-14 Fahrenheit).
If I listen carefully tomorow night as I’m creeping around in the dark with mummy round the Christmas tree, I might just hear those sleigh bells a-jingling.
Despite your calling down of hellfire and misfortune upon those who have trespassed against you, you are at heart just a big soft thing, what are you?
“Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord!” you Christians believe.
I say, “Revenge is sweet! Furthermore – it’s non-fattening!”
Revenge is also gluten-free!
Yes it’s one rule for God and another rule for Christians across all denominations whereas believers in Asatru, Wotanism or any other sect of the Germanic religion are free to believe what they like depending on the status of their sect in the country where they live. Germanic religion has legal status in Iceland and Spain.
Revenge might be sweet, non-fattening and gluten-free but isn’t it also best served cold in a dish? We’ll have to eat it as sorbet.
Merry Christmas to all Christians here, Happy Holidays to some others, Wassail to Moscow Exile and Hails to any other pagans here. May your God / Woden / Zeus / Jupiter / Svarog / Ukko / Tengri keep you guys safe!
Thanks for the Christmas greeting, Jen! Despite MoscowExile’s egregious slandering of me, I am not actually a Christian. Nor am I Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, HIndu, Taoist, Scientologist, or any other religion (that I know of). I guess you could call me one of those accursed “secular humanists”.
Although, gun to head, if I was forced to accept a religion, I think it would be the Germanic style paganism. But preferably an indoor pagan. (Not into dancing around trees.)
What have you got against trees?
What has an oak ever done wrong to you?
Credo quia absurdum: I believe because it is absurd.
Blind faith is one of the tenets of the Catholic catechism: it is cleary an absurd belief that upon the utterance of his magic words the bread in a Catholic or Orthodox priest’s hands becomes transubstantiated into the creator of all that was is and ever shall be, yet the faithful believe that this is so regardless of its absurdity – indeed thay have to, or they shall be excommunicated and thereby denied entry to heaven after their deaths, because one must have faith in the existence of the Christian God in order “to gain redemption”.
I thought about this for many years and came to the conclusion that a belief in the existence of Woden and chums was just as absurd… ergo credo quia absurdum!
Why not?
And my claim to be a “pagan” bugs some Holy Joes – not that I should think any that contribute to this site could be so categorized. (By the way, the word “pagan” simply comes from the Latin term that meant “country bumpkin”, the intelligentsia of Rome believing that peasant folklorish beliefs were the realm of idiots.)
I don’t care what a man’s religion is – so long as he doesn’t try to injure or kill me because I am not a member of his religious community. And I am not interested in his religious rites so long as they are not anti-social, e.g. human sacrifice and paederasty.
С праздником!
Merry whatever to yourself as well, Jen, and happy and safe holidays!
Dear Mark,
Congratulations on a completely wonderful post. This is the best summary of 2012 I expect to read anywhere. Going through it certainly gives one a true perspective of the state of things.
Thanks for the kind words, Alex, and thanks also for the support you have given me throughout the year; it has meant a lot, and your sharp analysis has often meant the difference between a shaky case and credibility.
Say, the chap from Voice of Russia (VOR) London specifically mentioned you, as well as Anatoly, with respect to a VOR Debate sort of blog website which would debate various current events. Do you think you might be interested in something like that, at some point in the near future?
The historical news timeline came mostly from here; critics could fault me by saying I soft-pedaled Canada’s part in current events, and only published information about Russia which made them look like good-hearted saints. Of course they’re not, no more so than any and less so than some, just like the rest of the people in the world. Some might also say I was hard on the USA, but shocking events are usually those which make the news.
The item I meant to include that most sickened me about my own country was the bullying death of Amanda Todd, who was driven to suicide by constant harassment in school. That, and Canada’s lockstep voting with the USA on Syria, although – as I mentioned at the time – I was very gratified at Canada’s refusal to recognize the Syrian National Initiative as the legitimate government of Syria.
There were plenty of items in Russia that would bring shame upon the country, but throughout the year the news coverage of Russia was brutal and its image was regularly smeared unfairly. Let he who is a better world citizen cast the first stone.
Dear Mark,
Now it’s my turn to thank you for your kind words. I think you overestimate my contribution. You ran an outstanding blog before I joined and it’s a pleasure and a privilege to contribute to it.
I wasn’t aware of what you say viz Voice of Russia. I feel that until I learn Russian (which I am going to make a priority as soon as my eyes are sorted) I would be overstepping things if I set myself up as an independent commentator on Russian questions. In the meantime I get full satisfaction by contributing to your blog.
Dear Alexander: Your comments are always great, and I don’t think it matters that you don’t read Russian. I am not one of those who believes you have to know a language in order to analyze a given country. In any case, I am always happy to translate something for you, if you ever need to read a particular source that is not otherwise available. Just let me know. And Merry Xmas!
That’s great to know, and especially admirable at your age! I wish you the best of luck in this altogether non-trivial endeavour.
“It’s a great song, and I always thought Midler is an underrated singer with a gorgeous, soaring voice that suits this kind of music.”
****
Agree.
She had a relationship with this chap who was a distant relation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Russo
Nice piece on nsnbc, by the way. A good read.
Sarcasm noted as it was previously brought to your attention.
It’s a repost of what initially appeared at Eurasia Review and Albany Tribune, with a front page pickup at the Valdai Discussion Club website.
I didn’t send that particular one. Hopefully, NSBC takes care of the paragraph jumbling.
That some others aren’t as familiar with such material as what much of the JRL propped write is a non-emphasized element of what’s actually wrong with the coverage. Too much of a phony crony, wonky tonk status quo IMO – a view that’s shared by some others.
Some moderator elsewhere privately and hypocritically expressed a non-liking of what he sees as “self promotion”.
I see how some others (including that moderator in question) selectively promotes in a way that’s not in sync with a technical merit based comparative way of acknowledging what’s quality material.
No sarcasm at all; I must have missed it on the initial heads-up, and only noticed it today because of a pingback to the Valdai article. Anyway, a very enjoyable read that reiterates the need for Russia to do a better job of promoting itself.
Given the characterizations of some other sources and where they get placed, “brilliant” is an appropriate description.
http://valdaiclub.com/russia_in_foreign_media/51681.html
http://www.eurasiareview.com/20112012-marketing-putin-and-russia-to-a-foreign-audience-analysis/
http://www.albanytribune.com/19112012-marketing-putin-and-russia-to-a-foreign-audience-analysis/?doing_wp_cron=1356345112.8912479877471923828125
An example of what some are willing to highlight over situations like the VoA number trumping, which Moscow Exile brought up at the the thread before prior to this one:
http://globalvoicesonline.org/2012/12/23/prank-reveals-the-depths-of-anti-american-propaganda-in-russian-media/
RT isn’t perfect – something true of other venues. Meantime, much of the propped critical overview of RT falls short in the area of constructive criticism; in the form of looking to improve that venue as a better alternative to the longer established Western based English language mass media venues.
That’s funny; I just read that one a couple of hours ago, and left a comment to the effect that it is not hard for Russians to believe that America has it in for them.
The source writing that piece leaves something to be desired in terms of objectivity and earnest manner – not that I’m claiming to be perfect.
I’m reminded of the recent Simes-Saunders NYT op-ed:
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/russia-political-suicide-assad-uses-chemical-arms-093022766.html
http://www.smh.com.au/world/assad-asylum-offers-20121223-2btgi.html
Big powers don’t diplomatically act so virtuously on a number of issues. Suggestively singling out Russia is mis-informative. While open to some second guessing, the official Russian position on Syria includes a reasoned and ethical basis
—————–
This piece also reminds me of the recent Simes-Saunders NYT:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323297104578174932950587010.html
Make a broad comment that can be taken as being a negative aspect about Russia. “Nationalism” can include the suggestion that a given country premises the issue of human rights in a non-Machiavellian way – something that relates to the mindset evident in countries west of Russia as well as elsewhere. No great need to note that this point includes Russia, seeing how it’s emphasized by a number of folks including “The Russia Hand”.
—————–
Putin in India brings results:
http://rt.com/politics/official-word/putin-delhi-hindu-visit-714/
http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/india-russia-sign-defence-deals-worth-around-3-bn/article4234982.ece
Yes, I just saw the India-Russia defense deal in the news; I don’t really watch TV, but I was helping my daughter find a movie and happened to catch that item going by on the crawl. That’s good news for Russia, and sort of makes a mockery of the popular notion that Russia needs Assad because otherwise it won’t have any markets for its weapons.
An Al Jazeera TV report spun it as the agreement falling short of what was otherwise expected – adding how since the Cold War’s end, India has increased arms agreements with France, the UK and US.
The flip side is that since the Cold War’s end, Russia has found itself some markets which the USSR didn’t have. Granted that post-Soviet Russia doesn’t have the kind of monopoly that the USSR had in countries that comprised the Warsaw Pact.
Somewhere there must be a detaIiled chart breaking down the defense sales relationships of the leading countries selling arms (countries sold to, along with identifying the kind of units sold and the monetary amounts).
Al Jazeera has gone from a source which made Americans grimace and spit on the ground (in the run-up to the Iraq war) to a source which is nearly as jingoistic as Fox News. But if I recall correctly, it originates in Qatar, which is fond of billing itself as “America’s strongest partner in the Gulf”.
So far, the segments I’ve seen on Saudi Arabia have been on the fluff side.
By mass media standards, a mixed bag on Russia.
Been told that its Serbia coverage is greatly influenced by anti-Serb propaganda.
They had on an analyst who recently said that the reported use of Scuds by the Syrian government is a sign that they might not be able to depend on its air force any longer.
Low and behold, Syrian fighter planes are reported to have been used a short time later.
Come to think of it, I recall Barnaby Phillips with an AJ web post which said that crime related material from Serbia proper (if you may) was making its way into the northern mostly Serb inhabited town of Mitrovica (in northern Kosovo).
JOKE! (A bad one at that)
Consider the greater evidence of crime going in and out of Kosovo from mostly Albanian inhabited areas, inclusive of Albania’s border.
On the matter of crime going in and out of disputed territories, note the hyped not so well substantiated English language mass media claims on Trandnestr relative to the situation in Kosovo, which (propaganda aside) appears greater.
Meanwhile, MagnitskyOrphanGate has become a big cause celebre among the Russian liberals and White-Ribbon types. Recall that they (and Navalny personally) enthusiastically endorsed the Magnitsky Bill in U.S. Congress. Russian Duma responded with a clever asymmetrical counter-measure that would forbid Americans to adopt Russian orphans. I personally don’t know why this would be a big deal, but apparently it struck a nerve with Americans, who feel they have a god-given right to take in orphans from any country they please. Knowing Americans as well as I do, It is important component of their psyche to believe that they are good people who rescue children. (I don’t necessarily want to spit on this conception: I personally know a Russian orphan whose situation was fairly hopeless until she found a wonderful loving home with an American family. But there are also some well-publicized cases of Russian orphans who were abused by their American sponsors. Their mistreatment touched a raw nerve among Russians who feel that Yeltsin turned them into a third-world country who cannot care for its children and must send them abroad as “tribute” to the colonizers.)
Anyhow, in counter-counter-response, the liberals and Navalnyites have started a petition to U.S. government to add the “orphan” legislators to Magnitsky List. Their ideological point is that Russian orphans are being callously jeapordized and denied the opportunity to live in a decent, civilized country.
Here is the actual petition, they say they have 51,000 signatures which is more than twice as many as they need.
Some of the signatures might be suspect, however. I was looking at this yesterday, and there were a lot of signatures by somebody called “Bot A”, which is short for “Robot A”. That is to say, some of these signatures might have been created by internet bots.
Putting that aside, if this petition happens to be valid and has enough valid signatures and does lead to more legislation in American Congress, then this could be the start of a new Cold War.
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/identify-russian-law-makers-jeopardizing-lives-russian-orphans-responsible-under-magnitsky-act/q9LbTGRB
Dear Yalensis,
There are two completely different groups of Russian objectors to the ban on US adoptions of Russian children:
1. The liberals and white ribbon opposition types who on any question will automatically and invariably side with the US even (actually especially) if it means going against their own country; and
2. Certain officials of the Russian government (including Lavrov) who are concerned that the adoption ban undermines an agreement Russia negotiated with the US as recently as this September that purports to give the Russian authorities access to Russian children adopted by US families and a right to participate in US court proceedings involving such children.
Rhese are two totally different groups of objectors who come to this question with completely different motives and agendas. The first use adopted children in the cynical way they accuse the Duma and the Russian authorities of doing though perhaps one should qualify that by saying that since they apparently sincerely believe the US is the Shining City on the Hill they doubtless sincerely believe that the best thing that could happen to a Russian orphan or any Russian child is to be adopted by a US family. The second group are professionals and officials who are concerned about the problems of Russian children in the US either for genuinely humanitarian reasons or because that is their job.
The major underlying problem, familiar to anyone who has to deal with US legal culture, is that US courts too often simply refuse to recognise the legitimacy of foreign rights over US citizens even when these are grounded in international law. Already there have been problems with a case involving a Russian chiild in Florida with a local court in Florida simply choosing to ignore the international agreement that the State Department agreed with Russia in September. The Russian Foreign Ministry has made diplomatic representations about this to the State Department, which has formally agreed to help (how it could refuse?) but given the entrenched US legal culture and the lack of respect the US now routinely shows to international agreements (especially those made with Russia) I am deeply pessimistic that anything in the end will change. However it is understandable that the professionals and officials who worked hard to secure the September agreement are unhappy about any steps taken by the Duma that might undermine it.
As for the petition to add Russian lawmakers to the Magnitsky list I welcome it firstly because it is not going to happen (the US government surely understands that this would be an escalation too far) but mainly because it shows that the original pretext behind the Magnitsky list – to punish Magnitsky’s persecutors and Russian human rights abusers more generally – is totally bogus. As you absolutely rightly say whether one agrees with the adoption ban or not there is no doubt that the Russian parliament is fully entitled to order it. If the US Congress outlawed adoption by Russians of US orphans would anyone disagree? The threat to put Russian lawmakers who support the adoption ban on the Magnitsky list is simply a display of petulance driven by childish feels of injured amour propre because it violates the unshakable US belief in Americans’ god given right to do whatever they want anywhere they want. What it shows as you correctly say that the adoption ban has hit a raw nerve. Needless to say Americans have no “human right” to adopt children in Russia and Russian children have no “human right” to be adopted by parents in the US. However by threatening to add Russian lawmakers to the Magnitsky list for doing something wholly within Russia’s jurisdiction and sovereign rights and which has nothing to do either with Magnitsky or with human rights those who have put forward the petition show up the Magnitsky law for what it really is: a crude device to blackmail Russian politicians and officials and to meddle in Russian internal affairs.
Oops, you have yet again forgotten to say what your own position is. If you were a Russian citizen and a referendum were held today on this issue, how would you vote?
a) Yes, I do personally support an immediate outright ban on international adoption of Russian orphans, including disabled ones.
b) No, I do not support such a ban.
Dear Peter,
The reason is I didn’t state a view is because I don’t have a very strong view on this question, which seems to me to be an internal Russian matter. However since you press me the answer to your question is (b). I would however point out that unless I have completely misunderstood the position (in which case please correct me), the Dima Yakovlev law does not ban all international adoptions (which is the question you pose), merely adoptions by US citizens. However, to anticipate your next question, I also oppose a ban on adoptions by US citizens. The reason is that in my opinion adoption is a private matter and I would not wish to punish potentially good US parents because of the misconduct of a very few bad ones or because of the perceived deficiences of the US legal system. Though as I said I am pessimistic about the prospects of the latest US Russia agreement I still think diplomatic action when things go wrong is the best way.
Thanks, thought so.
Ideally, adoption should be a private matter between families. But it isn’t. It can be very political, especially where international boundaries are concerned. What else would stop people from just buying and selling children over the internet?
This is a particular problem for Third World countries. It seems an Angelina Jolie type can just waltz into some African village and grab some urchins, even if they actually have parents.
Look what happened to Elian Gonzalez, there were so many Americans who felt that he should be raised by his second-uncle in Miami, even though Elian had an actual biological father in Havana.
Americans believe that any kid anywhere in the world is better off growing up in America than in their native land. This is true for some kids, but not for all. Again, there are rules and regulations.
I personally support the ban on American adoptions as a temporary bargaining chip to try to force America to lose the Magnitsky Law. Russia is in a state of Cold War with USA and has to play hardball. Having said that, I do understand the Lavrov position, and see the merits of diplomatic negotiations. But in order to negotiate with Americans (who are ruthless), one needs to have a full house.
“Their mistreatment touched a raw nerve among Russians who feel that Yeltsin turned them into a third-world country who cannot care for its children and must send them abroad as “tribute” to the colonizers.”
This is precisely why I support the Russian bill curtailing adoption by Americans. Yes, it is unfortunate because it means some children will not get wonderful American homes, although Russia was a fairly low market for American adoptions – 962 in 2011 against 2,587 from China, 1,732 from Ethiopia and 640 from Ukraine. And it’s perfectly correct that most American adoptive families are motivated by that boundless American kindness and generosity, and that Russian children are rarely mistreated although when they are the circumstances are horrific.
It should be noted, though, that a loophole remains in that if Russian officials are allowed satisfactory access to Russian children in the USA, adoptions might go ahead as before. Also a factor is that many children adopted by American couples might have been adopted within Russia by Russian families, except that Russian applicants are told to wait because foreign applicants have priority. Surely there’s no harm in addressing an imbalance there, when westerners are always shrieking about catastrophic shrinking of the Russian population? They make the case for action themselves.
The validity of the bill’s impact for me is that the American media cannot stop itself from politicizing everything that has to do with Russia. Children from Russian orphanages are regularly rated to have been lucky to have escaped such hellholes, where they are neglected, beaten and starved, and of course nobody in Russia cares because they are such savages that savagery no longer moves them. Rarely ever a word of the conditions from which orphans have escaped in Ethiopia, where sexual diseases are often rampant because many African men will not wear a condom, and where waves of starvation have taken a terrible toll on the country.
Have you ever been in a Russian orphanage? I have. Both the children and the facility were scrupulously clean, the children were well-dressed in clean clothes, there was a clinic and classrooms onsite and the level of care and attention looked to me to be at least as good as you would find in, say, Europe. That was in a town near Dalnegorsk, in the Far East. I don’t doubt there are hulking brick monstrosities elsewhere in Russia that suffer from chronic overcrowding, and generally speaking, the life of a child growing up in state care can never measure up to being raised in a loving family. But which condition is the norm in Russia? You’d never know from accounts by the western press, in which going to an orphanage in Russia is a slow death sentence unless some angelic western family swoops in to complete your deliverance.
America will get respect from Russia when it is willing to give it, and will never get subservience. That is what the USA needs to hear, and there is likely only what remains of Putin’s time in office to get it across. Nice a guy as he might be, Medvedev would have been a dithering wreck by now, trying to please everyone and getting torn apart by the press in both countries for his pains. Whoever Putin’s successor will be, it won’t be Medvedev. That leaves a huge question mark opposite what future Russian foreign policy will be.
Семейный кодекс (СК РФ), Глава 19, Статья 124.
4. Усыновление детей иностранными гражданами или лицами без гражданства допускается только в случаях, если не представляется возможным передать этих детей на воспитание в семьи граждан Российской Федерации, постоянно проживающих на территории Российской Федерации, либо на усыновление родственникам детей независимо от гражданства и места жительства этих родственников.
Дети могут быть переданы на усыновление гражданам Российской Федерации, постоянно проживающим за пределами территории Российской Федерации, иностранным гражданам или лицам без гражданства, не являющимся родственниками детей, по истечении шести месяцев со дня поступления сведений о таких детях в федеральный банк данных о детях, оставшихся без попечения родителей, в соответствии с пунктом 3 статьи 122 настоящего Кодекса.
Huh. That’s curious, because it certainly does spell it out, no ifs, ands or buts. Why, then, would State Duma Deputy Speaker Sergei Zheleznyak say, “Many of our citizens who want to adopt a child, including several people I know, were asked to wait another year, they are told that foreigners enjoy the privilege of adoption” ?
Surely he must know the law?
He certainly knows how to live well beyond his official means.
So does everyone in the United Russia party, according to Navalny.
I’d say it’s more like 25%, though I can sympathize with Navalny’s frustration.
We will all have a better understanding of what position Navalny is in to act as arbiter of moral rectitude shortly, once his trial starts. If the charges of corruption against him turn out all to have been fabricated because he is such a tremendous political threat, I’ll be the first to say I’m sorry I misjudged him. Meanwhile, frustration is the legitimate province of those who are not themselves up to their necks in dirty business deals. To his credit, Navalny has thus far acknowledged that the Kirov/Les emails are legitimate; his argument is that they do not represent the crooked deals the prosecutors say they do. We will see.
We will all have a better understanding of what position Navalny is in to act as arbiter of moral rectitude shortly, once his trial starts.
When have I ever suggested Navalny to be a good candidate to be an “arbiter of moral rectitude”? I didn’t.
On the other hand, the photos he posted of Zheleznyak’s cars and the schools his children go to are quite real. One can double check it by going to their Facebooks (well, and back in time, because they’ve since removed them).
However because Mr. Zheleznyak is a member of UR needless to say the amount of attention that will be directed towards investigating his affairs will be but a negligible fraction if not zero percent of those directed to uncovering Navalny’s machinations.
“When have I ever suggested Navalny to be a good candidate to be an “arbiter of moral rectitude”? I didn’t.’
That’s correct – not ever, to the best of my knowledge, and it was simply my choice of words, not an accusation. Not directed at you, in any case, although now you mention it Navalny does indeed set himself up as just that. Remember him roaring from the stage that if the crooks and thieves “continue to steal from us, we will take what is ours”? Who’s stealing, Alexei? We’ll see.
And I agree there will be a disproportionate level of investigation which goes into Navalny’s case – because the proof will have to be ironclad, and that in its turn is because he is the Anglosphere’s fair-haired boy, and the press is licking its chops at the prospect of painting him as Lord Byron with an east-European accent, sent down the river simply because the Kremlin feared his phenomenal organizing power. I can imagine fearless journalists such as the redoubtable Charles Clover will portray it that way no matter what happens, but for a few it might suffice that the evidence shows what the evidence shows. Once bitten, twice shy, and I have no doubt Navalny will be given every chance to defend himself – not for him Khodorkovsky’s mantle of martyrdom.
Is Zheleznyack’s Duma gig his only income? I seem to recall Leonid Gozman tried to conceal sufficient income to buy quite a few nice cars, too, although that likewise received zero western attention.
According to this post, Zheleznyack says he made his fortune before his political career, when he ran an ad agency called News Outdoor.
Presumably Mr. Zhelezn’ak could prove that he earned his wealth legitimately, all he has t do is publish his accounts and tax returns from that time. If he is clean, he can prove it. If he is dirty,, then Navalny would have performed a public service by bringing this into the open. Having said this, (1) Navalny went too far when he went after the guy’s kids, and (2) Navalny complains that his own kids have been dragged into it, yet he himself uses his family for publicity purposes, everybody remember that “Addams Family” blog, where he published a glam-photo of his wife and kids?
I mostly agree. I strongly agree that if he is corrupt and it can be proven, he should go down, and that if he is unjustly accused – it happens, even in Russia – the accuser should get his own ass hammered flat. I don’t speak Russian well enough to get nuance, and can’t tell if the mention of the Zhelenznyak girls was spiteful or just a matter-of-fact announcement that they attended foreign schools (which in itself is nothing; western news sites never got tired of strutting about Mikheil Saakashvili’s having been educated at Columbia, and there are many more examples), although the photos are suggestive of spite.
I came across this piece:
http://mat-rodina.blogspot.com/2012/12/dumas-response-to-magnistsky-simple.html
Excerpt -
“While I am no fan of our children going overseas, the response of the Duma was misguided, hypocritical and just plain childish.
Let us begin with this question: how many of the millionaires sitting in the Duma have adopted a child? Hell, how many of them even have two of their own? Constantly they speak hypocritically to us about having more children (this rather has 3 and plans on expanding his family further) and adopting more. I say, a fine line indeed, now lead by& example.
But why bother when hypocrisy is so much cheaper.
There is the issue of children invalids, both mental and physical. At present, those children have no future in our country, and at least adoption gave them some hope. Instead of banning adoption by Americans (and others to follow), or at least along side it, they should have created legislature that would have provided a future for these orphans (and the none orphaned too). But hypocrisy is much cheaper. Now they will go home to their one child families (if that many) and clap themselves on their collective backs for a job well done.”
It seems that a clear majority of Russians support the adoption ban despite the splits in the government and the vociferous opposition to it.
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20121225/178392573.html
Whatever one’s views of the adoption ban (and I have explained mine) at least in Russia there’s a debate about it. There was no debate in the US about the Magnitsky law.
56% is a good score, shows that the Duma is on a popular course with this adoption legislation.
Contract this with the number of Russians who support the Magnitsky Bill (an unusually high number, indicating that most Russians don’t really understand what it means for Russian sovereignty), and you can see how the Duma has cleverly found the right sword to cut this particular Gordian Knot.
Where is the corresponding castigation of the Magnitsky Law which provoked this backlash, and how hypocritical, self-serving and childish it was? Of course all the English-speaking press will be abuzz with what a shitty law the Russian one is, while polishing the notion that many Russians support the Magnitsky Law because they want their leaders held accountable.
How many mentally or physically disabled Russian children have been adopted by Americans in the last 20 years? Is it significant? Is it higher than the number of Russian adoptees who have been abused? Is it enough to warrant backing down and eating crow, and just settling for a duplicate law that will say, “OK, you can’t come to Russia, and we’ll freeze all your assets in Russia!!” which will just make Americans and the entire English-speaking press laugh heartily?
Dear Mark,
I think it is very unlikely now that the adoption ban will not happen precisely because dropping it would be construed in the US as a sign that the threat of a Magnitsky blacklist is effective. I’ve had to deal with blackmailers myself and the only fit response is to stand up to them.
You touched your fiinger on it when you said that the whole problem is the way this whole issue has become politicised or to be more precise internationalised. Internationalising the question of how Magnitsky died in no way helps, on the contrary it hinders, attempts to find out the truth about it. Similarly posting petitions on the White House website threatening Russian legislators who vote for the adoption ban crudely interferes in an internal Russian debate where official opinion was divided and has made the adoption ban more not less likely. Incidentally someone in the White House may understand this because I understand that the two petitions have now been removed from the White House website.
For its part the US has behaved equally crassly by using the Magnitsky law to threaten Russian legislators in a matter that has nothing to do with either human rights or with Magnitsky and by apparently saying that the adoption ban violates the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which is doubtful but which is also crass if it is true as I have heard that unlike Russia the US is one of the two or three countries which have not ratified it.
As far as I know the only development on this front is that a petition for this has gathered more than 25,000 supporters and will thus have to be “considered” by the US Presidential administration as a matter of legal obligation. As such barring an outburst of insanity many orders of magnitude greater than that which led to the Magnitsky Act, this should not become a matter of concern.
According to Ambassador McFaul’s official statement, over 60,000 Russian children (many of them “special needs”) were adopted into American homes over the past 20 years, of which only 19 were abused:
We welcome Prime Minister Medvedev’s statement last week to encourage new initiatives to promote adoptions by Russian parents, and we appreciate President Putin’s comment yesterday that most American adoptive parents are kind and caring people. American families, in fact, have welcomed more than 60,000 Russian children into their families over the past 20 years, many of whom are special needs children. We also deeply regret the deaths of 19 Russian adopted children in our country. It was in part out of our commitment to address these tragic deaths that we entered into negotiation with the Russian Federation on an adoptions agreement.
http://moscow.usembassy.gov/pr_122112_statement.html
McFaul’s numbers are probably accurate. However, I still support the adoption ban as a counter-measure to Magnitsky. If Americans can stick their nose into other people’s business and cry a river over one grown-up guy who was NOT a Russian citizen and who was abused in a Russian jail, however unfairly, then Russians certainly have the right to harp over the abuse of 19 innocent Russian children.
That translates to a death rate of about 0.00032 for Russian orphans in US custody.
In Russia, the annual death rate for 10 year old children in 2010 was 0.000272, this is by the way also the age of lowest natural mortality. I.e., the average Russian child in the safest period of a typical life is almost as likely to die in Russia over the period of one year, as the Russian adopted child in the US to die over the period of whatever is the typical length of a childhood when adopted (10 years?).
Dear AK: Do you know how inclusive the quoted figure for Russian 10-year-old children is? Does it include figures for children born in places like Chukotka and other areas where the infant mortality levels happen to be high (for Russia) in its averaging? Also, is it possible to find out which parts of Russia supply the most orphans for international adoptions, relative to population? Thanks.
It’s for all Russian 10-year old children as per the mortality.org demography site. Obviously Chukotka children will account for a diminishingly small % of the total and it’s not as if the US doesn’t also have certain groups among whom child mortality is significantly elevated.
McFaul’s numbers are probably more accurate than the U.S. State Department? If so, I’d be interested to know just where he is getting those figures, because it is the job of the State Department to keep them, and theirs go back only to 1998. According to the State Department, Bureau of Consular Affairs, inter-country adoptions, there have been 46,698 children adopted from Russia since that time. Adoptions reached a peak of 5,862 adoptions annually in 2004, and have been in a steep decline since. Last year, 2011, they slipped below 1000 for the first time. There are no figures available regarding how many of those children were disabled, or mentally or physically impaired, but I would guess the number to be very small; parents who deliberately adopt a child who already has serious problems are a decided minority.
McFaul is probably just extrapolating, based on higher numbers or using the average (3,592) and ignoring the downward trend, and assuming another 15,000 or so adoptions between 1992 and 1999. It’s technically possible, I suppose, but even if it’s true the total number is about the size of one really big white-ribbon protest, spread over 20 years. And McFaul has no idea, at all, how many of them are special-needs children. This is just the angle the USA is going to take – the adoption ban is cruel, because it denies poor special-needs children the chance for a warm, loving home with kind Americans. By next week, all 60,000 will have been special-needs children. Even if the ban stays in place, as it likely will, the west will reap a minor propaganda dividend – Russia cannot care for its orphans, but it won’t let nice Americans, who want them, have them. Cruel, cruel Russian government. Brinksmanship, day in and day out, and there is zero chance of any serious rapprochement as long as it goes on.
I guess I just assumed that Ambassador McFaul was quoting some official numbers and not just pulling them out of his ass. Could I have been mistaken in that assumption? Gasp!
I’m sure he’s not just pulling them out of his ass; that’s a lesson diplomats learn early. He would have asked someone for figures – likely the State Department – and would have been told their figures did not go back that far. Then he likely would have said something like, “How many would it be if they did go back that far, and make it believable”. And whoever supplied him with the figures likely extrapolated; the year I checked – the most recent, 2011 – happened to have been the lowest since they began keeping records, and if they continue to decline as they have been Russia adoption would die out altogether on its own in about 10 years, without any ban. But if they took the average, which was something over 3,000 annually, they would have come out with something like 60,000. So it is believable.
P.S. Against expected American propaganda trope about “handicapped kids are being denied a good home”, Russia can respond with poignant details of the abuse that the 19 (or however many) abused kids did endure, and then add some Dostoevskian piety of the type, “If even one child is hurt, then that is one child too many…” Something like that. I could even write this stuff for them, but I bet they already have people who do this.
Excuse my cynicism, but we ARE in the middle of a propaganda war,after all.
That tearjerker line “should the life of even one child be forfeit that would be one child too many” wouldnt have much of an effect on some in Washington; after all, that’s the place where Madelaine Albright reckoned that half a million dead children was a worthwhile price for the fulfillment of US policy in Iraq.
I gather the Federation Council has now voted unanimously to support the adoption ban. This is a direct result of the campaign against it.
The adoption ban looks to me like an emotional response not just to the Magnitsky law but also to the way in which the original Dima Yakovlev law was first formulated. This very wisely limited sanctions to US officials who have violated the human rights of Russians. By doing so Russia has avoided the ridiculous situation created by the Magnitsky law by not extending its jurisdiction to US citizens whose actions have nothing to do with Russia. Understandably enough someone decided to name the law after Dima Yakovlev, who is not a Russian whose rights were violated but who as a child makes the ideal poster boy for this sort of law. However by naming the law after Dima Yakovlev the whole subject of the mistreatment of Russian children in the US was opened up and someone (Putin?, Russia’s Children’s Ombudsman?, someone within United Russia?) in what was surely an emotional response decided to tack on an adoption ban to the original Dima Yakovlev law. That this was not pre planned is shown by the fact that the Russian Foreign Ministry was until recently busy negotiating the agreement with the State Department to protect Russian children that I discussed previously. I gather this agreement was reached as recently as last month ie. November not September as I said in my previous comment. It is scarcely likely that the Russian government negotiated an agreement it planned to cancel, which shows that the adoption ban must have been an emotional afterthought.
Since the adoption ban was almost certainly an emotional afterthought that almoost certainly had not been properly thought throught the best way to defeat it would have been to try to reason the Russian parliament and government and Russian public opinion out of it. The point could have been made that adoption is a private matter, that the number of Russian children abused by their US adoptive parents is microscopically small, that it is unfair on other intended US adopted parents to discriminate against them because of the bad behaviour of a very few bad US adoptive parents and that the problems involving Russian children with the US authorities and with the US courts have hopefully been addressed by the agreement with the US State Department, which should be given a chance to work. It could also have been pointed out that the adoption ban sits uneasily with the rest of the Dima Yakovlev law, which is intended to hit out at US officials who violate the rights of Russian citizens and not at innocent US citizens who want to adopt Russian children.
All of these arguments have been lost by the hysterical and hyperbolic reaction to the adoption ban. Thus critics of the law have accused Russian legislators of cynically acting contrary to the interests of children, which unnecessarily offends those Russian legislators who may genuinely have thought that by supporting the adoption ban they were trying to protect Russian children. They have also all but said that Russia is incapable of looking after its own orphaned children, which must offend patriotically minded people generally. They have even come close to insinuating that Russian children are better off being brought up in the US than in Russia, which must offend patriotically minded people even more. For its part the US has behaved equally crassly by using the Magnitsky law to threaten Russian legislators in a matter that has nothing to do with either human rights or with Magnitsky and by apparently saying that the adoption ban violates the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which is doubtful but which is also crass if it is true as I have heard that unlike Russia the US is one of the two or three countries which have not ratified it.
The totally predictable result is that the adoption ban has not only been overwhelmingly supported by the parliament and is now certain to become law but Russian public opinion has consolidated behind it.
Dear Alexander: Yes, I think this whole thing is very sad, and American government is mostly to blame, IMHO, they are always picking these fights with Russia. International adoptions should be the domain of of treaties and social workers and so on, and not belligerent senators. But Americans awakened a sleeping giant, because many Russians have been deeply upset about this whole adoption issue, ever since the Yeltsin years.
Having said that, I have a close friend who was adopted by an American couple in the 90′s,she was disabled as a baby, but they didn’t care about that, they couldn’t have children of their own and just wanted a little baby to love. They spent a lot of money to fix her disability, they were wonderful to her, she grew up to be a very nice person, and I admire her because she is full of life and completely fearless!
I am sure this is the norm for adopted children in the USA; the adoption criteria are quite strict, and what surprises me more than anything is that those few abusive parents got through the selection process. The few children who were abused are the rare exception, and this on its own would be an extremely childish reason to ban adoptions. Of course, that wasn’t all there was to it.
Dear Yalensis,
I completely agree with you. It is the US that is ultimately responsible for this affair. Firstly, it is the US that is continuously picking these fights, in this case by passing the Magnitsky law, which quite apart from everything else is a legal monstrosity. Secondly, the US response to the adoption ban was unbelievably crass and arrogant and all but guaranteed that it would be passed. Thirdly, there is the underlying problem of the way the US legal system treats the US’s international legal obligations, which the US shows no interest in fixing. In fact the US shows little sign that it properly undertands that there is a problem at all. The result is that another opportunity to improve relations with Russia, this time provided by the repeal of the Jackson Vanik amendment, has been lost. Since the US cannot stop Russia’s economic development its persistence in treating Russia as an enemy even though Russia has no interest in or desire to be the US’s enemy is so completely contrary to the US’s own interests that it is difficult to explain it.
And one of the American expectations devolving from Russia’s joining the WTO was a doubling of U.S. exports to Russia. So much for that idea.
According to this RIANOVOSTI article, US State Department spokesman Patrick Ventrell has said that the proposed Russian anti-adoption legislation “would deny many young people a childhood outside state custody”.
I don’t know whether what I have quoted above are Ventrell’s actual words or whether “state custody” is normal US English to describe being in “state care”, which is British usage when talking about orphans. If “state custody” is not normal US usage in such a
context as is the proposed Russian “anti-adoption” legislation, then “custody” was clearly used by Ventrall to suggest that Russian orphanages are akin to prisons.
Ventrell is further reported as saying that more than 60,000 Russian children have beeen adopted in the USA over the past 20 years and said: “The bill passed by Russia’s parliament would prevent many children from enjoying this opportunity”.
Why does Ventrell, and I presume most other US citizens, believe that the possibility of living in the USA is an opportunity that should not be denied Russian orphans? Do US citizens really believe that everyone desires to live in “the freest country in the world”, as
George W. Bush was fond of describing his native country to the rest of the world; that being denied the possibility of adoption in the USA, Russian orphans are also being denied their “human right” to enjoy “the pursuit of happiness” in heaven on earth? Is it part and parcel of “the American dream” that everyone that does not live in the USA dreams of doing so?
Woden forbid (:-)), but it is not unlikely that my three children might one day be orphaned: I am in my twilight years and my wife is now middle-aged. I have thought long and hard about this and asked them if they would like to live in England, not telling them that the reason for my asking them this is that at the time of my death my sister and nephews and nieces in the UK would be close at hand to help my widow and, if the worse comes to the worst, to take them in care. They always categorically express their strong desire to live in Russia: they say they like England, but that they wouldn’t like to live there. Same goes for the USA: I ask them if they would like to emigrate there. “No way!” the two elder children chime out in unison – and in English!
It’s curious that the USA should at one and the same time express such a broad anti-immigrant bias, while – apparently, according to the present attitude – suggesting it is a violation of Russian orphans’ human rights to deny them the opportunity to grow up in the USA. This reference is interesting because the survey (based partially on 2007 Pew results, but updated for some factors) suggests the impact of highly-skilled immigrants is less on public attitudes than conventional wisdom tends to hold, considering it has the potential to affect Americans’ own economic well-being. Surprisingly, the UK is even more anti-immigrant. Perhaps that explains why the UK – at least, so far – has not come down firmly on the American side as it customarily does. Some interesting figures here; I wonder where they got them? According to this account, around 3,400 Russian children were adopted by foreigners in 2011, about a third of them by Americans, which ties in with State Department records of 962. Adoptions of Russian orphans by Russians for the same period were more than 7 times as high, at 7,416. Although that is only to be expected, it puts quite a different face on the implication that adoption by Americans is more or less an orphan’s only chance.
There are some old statistics here, from 1999, although I gather from looking into it that comprehensive studies are not done very frequently and there is a patchwork of state laws which regulate adoption in the USA, making it even more difficult to keep track of numbers. However, while the study suggested that Americans are indeed generous and warm-hearted about opening their homes to adopted children – adoptions, most of them from foster care, nearly doubled in the USA between 1996 and 2000 – the percentage of American-born “waiting children” in the USA (defined as “children who have a goal of adoption, and/or whose birth parents’ rights have been terminated”) was more than two-and-a-half times the number of children adopted in that year (1999).
If Americans truly are moved by the spirit of generosity and yearn for children to nurture rather than a political axe to grind, they need not look so far away as Russia.
Well so much for the “opposition co-ordination committeee”. According to today’s Moskovsky Komsomlets, there is planned for January 13th a “Children’s March” in protest against the proposed law to ban the adoption of Russian children by American citizens. This march has not been organized by the “opposition co-ordinating committee”, it seems, but by Boris Nemtsov, though the members of that committee, no doubt, would be fully supportive of such a march.
A grab for “opposition leadership” perhaps, in view of the fact that the present “opposition leader” might well soon be eating porridge for a few years?
Nemtsov making a Machiavellian power grab for Opps leadership? Tsk tsk, that is very disloyal of him, given that he previously laid aside his ambitions, kneeled down, bowed his head, and swore on the tip of his sword that Navalny was his lord and master. Remember that touching moment? That was when Nemtsov announced on his Facebook page that Navalny was a 100% fabricated person, and that he (Nemtsov), acceding to the wishes of their American patrons, woudl follow Navalny into the gates of hell.
But sadly, Nemtsov now accepts that his liege might be leaving the scene very shortly. Hence the loyal underling is ready to step up too the plate and resume Opps leadership. And this Orphan thing sounds like a sure winner for them…. NOT!
From Exile’s link:
После подачи заявки, пока чиновники будут согласовывать мероприятие, у организаторов будет время составить действительно конструктивные и общегражданские требования марша, поскольку идеологическая составляющая грядущей акции сейчас содержит ряд противоречий. Получается, что негодующая толпа будет обращаться к власти с требованием не просто отменить закон, ущемляющий права сирот, а фактически с требованием «разрешить американцам забирать наших сирот, чтобы они не умерли на родине» — именно об этом говорится в многочисленных заявлениях, опубликованных в СМИ и соцсетях. А правительство США попросят включить в «список Магнитского» депутатов, проголосовавших за закон, и «наказать» их невозможностью провести отпуск в Штатах. Подобная акция станет репрезентативной (особенно выгодно она будет смотреться в освещении американских СМИ), но станет ли она результативной? Уже сейчас звучат голоса гражданских активистов, которые считают, что помимо лозунгов «против» нужно разработать программу, направленную на изменение соцполитики и вовлечение общества в проблемы сирот, которые должны решаться не только руками усыновителей из Америки.
TRANSLATION:
…the organizers [of the Children's March] will need some time to compose a list of demands, since the ideological component (…) contains several contraditions. Apparently the enraged crowd will address the authorities with the demand, not just to annul the [Orphan] law…, but factually with the demand to “permit the Americans to take all our orphans, so they are not left to perish n their homeland…” This is precisely the tone that is being taken in the numerous petitions published in the media and internet…
Why, yes; it’s hard to argue the population is shrinking when it’s not, but if you could do a little fast-dance with the number of poor big-eyed waifs being taken off Russia’s hands every year, you could once again make a point that not only is the population shrinking again, those being subtracted are the young who would eventually be expected to repopulate the country, therefore Russia once again is doomed, doomed, doomed.
Naturally you could also reap a double bonus in propaganda as well, since those poor knock-kneed Dickensian waifs – once in America – would morph into uncontrollable disciplinary problems owing to fetal alcohol syndrome and a host of other ailments they picked up in Mother Russia.
Here is a brilliantly written, even scintillating, account by Israel Shamir of the Lebedev/Polonsky fistfight and subsequent legal battle. It is also a fascinating deconstruction of Lebedev.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/12/24/oligarch-smackdown-live/
Re: http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/12/24/oligarch-smackdown-live/
Excerpt -
“Only the mighty pen of Nikolai Gogol, the mid-19th century Russian author of The Squabble (You can read the plot here) could have done it justice; he might have called it Why Alexander Lebedevich Punched Sergei Polonovich, but you’ll have to bear with my humble efforts.”
****
Runs counter to the not so well substantiated suggestion that Gogol was a suppressed Ukrainian.
Excerpt –
“They could have become great pals, toasting each other’s successes in turn; for both are given to real estate development, both love swimming, both wear casual more often than formal, both are rather vain, and both are facing a sharp decline in their fortunes. But instead they have come to blows, for they are doomed to be opposing characters.”
****
Actually, likes of this type can understandably come to blows. The article goes on to explain the differences between the two.
Excepts –
“In response, the canny Mr Lebedev activated his long term insurance policy. If he were a Russian Jew, he would have claimed he was being attacked by authoritarian Russian anti-Semites; but Mr Lebedev is not a Russian Jew. Instead, Mr Lebedev claims he is being attacked by authoritarian KGB thugs like Mr Putin. This insurance was effective but expensive: for many years he had been forced to heavily subsidise the anti-Putin newspaper Novaya Gazeta, widely read in the central borough of Moscow and unheard of elsewhere.”
&
“His lawyers claim that Lebedev had felt threatened and was forced to defend himself; Lebedev (with a straight face) claims that he is being persecuted by the bloody Putin regime for his “love of freedom”. A bald-faced liar is always more entertaining than a talented ingénue, so we will not be too surprised if Mr Lebedev walks away with a slap on the wrist. Anyway, the bloody Putin regime is soft on the oligarchs. However, this Oligarch Smackdown is far from over. We await Mr Lebedev’s elevation to the voice of Russia’s conscience by his own British hacks!”
****
If I’m not mistaken, awhile back English Wiki made mention of Polonsky being of Jewish background – something not currently evident under his Wiki name. His surname suggests he might very well be of Jewish background.
If so, not much (if anything) made of Lebedev throwing a punch at the Jew Polonsky, which might’ve something to do with the former being considered somewhat of a positive force among neocon-neolib leaning Russia watchers.
On the flip side, one can imagine what someone like Gessen would write if Lebedev was a Putin loyalist punching an anti-Putin foe, who happened to be of Jewish background.
I’m not so hung up on the matter of ethno-religious backgrounds as some. Pro and anti Putin commentary is a multiethnic mesh. At the same time, I’ll make it a point to periodically note suggestively inaccurate comments like when Stephen Cohen wrote in The Moscow Times that Khodorkovsky couldn’t become Russian president because of his Jewish background.
Dr. Cohen has been frank in going after folks who he sees (typically within reason) as offering suspect commentary. Without penalty, there should be a two way street on that attitude.
Dear Misha,
Here I agree with you. As we have discussed two recent Russian Prime Ministers were Jewish or partly Jewish: Kiriyenko and Fradkov. It was no big deal with either. Fradkov now runs the SVR. Zhirinovsky is also part Jewish and it doesn’t seem to have done him much harm either. Arguably the most popular member of the Russian government at the moment is Shoigu who is Tuvash. Provided a Russian politician is seen to identify with Russia I don’t think his or her Jewishness or ethnicity generally concerns Russian voters much or at all. Unlike Dr. Cohen I have no difficulty imagining Russia voting in a President of Jewish ethnicity. Khodorkovsky (like Berezovsky) is hated because he is a corrupt oligarch and a criminal not because he is a Jew.
Dr. S. Cohen wrote that piece several years ago. None of the JRL court appointed Russia friendlys bothered to challenge it on their own.
Upon further questioning, I’m of the impression that Dr. C might very well acknowledge that the wording of his comments was off.
Thanks for this excellent piece! Shamir’s writing gets better every time.
The Investigative Committee has now said that there is no evidence that Berezovsky was involved in Politkovskaya’s murder. I think this finally buries that theory.
Patrick Armstrong’s theory has always been that Politkovskaya’s reporting in Chechnya brought her too close to some of the very dangerous people involved in the insurgency there. The gunman who allegedly shot her is a Chechen and the businessman who acted as the go between in setting the murder up is also a Chechen so the theory makes sense. Incidentally the Investigative Committee has already said that there is no evidence that Ramzan Kadyrov was involved in the murder.
The idea had early appeal because Berezovsky would do anything to get even with Putin, and his wealth gave him considerable reach. I think the fact she was killed on Putin’s birthday pointed to Berzovsky’s involvement, because it smelt strongly of his heavy-handed plotting; don’t be too subtle, or the rubes might not catch on. If he did have anything to do with it, it certainly gave him his money’s worth, because the popular press immediately seized on it as Putin’s doing despite the “motive” component of means, motive and opportunity’s being completely absent. The Economist‘s coverage is emblematic; ordinary Chechens “adored her” (so it likely wasn’t Chechens who killed her), Russian Special Forces captured her and threatened to leave her dead in a ditch (by her own account, I’m sure), and the gun with which she was killed was left lying beside her; the “blatant hallmark of a contract killing”. Is it? Where did The Economist read that contract killers always leave the murder weapon beside the victim? What rubbish.
There is unlikely to be any evidence now, naturally; Politkovskaya was killed 6 years ago.
Dear Mark,
There has in fact always been a legitimate question about whether there was any mysterious behind the scenes puppet master or client behind Politkovskaya’s killing. Supposedly the cost of organising the murder was $1.5 million disbursed by the Chechen businessman who was the supposed go between. A possibility few have considered is that he was not the go between at all but actually the client. $1.5 million is not such a huge sum that a businessman like this person could not have raised it. The policeman who actually organised the murder has gone on record as saying that he thought Berezovsky and Zakayev were behind it but he may simply have been left to think this by the businessman as a kind of aiibi. Of course this leaves open the question of the businessman’s motive but the truth is we simply do not know very much about this person so any speculation about his possible motive is difficult.
PS: I forgot to say that unlike the Economist writer I actually do know something about contract killings from what my friend who works in the Crown Prosecution Service has told me. Professional hitmen (who most definitely exist) in fact scarcely ever leave the murder weapon at the crime scene. I don’t know where that idea comes from. The whole point about hiring a professional hitman is to leave as few clues at the crime scene as possible by hiring someone to do the killing who has no connection to the victim. There is no bigger clue than the actual murder weapon (whose backstory can often be traced) and if only for that reason a professional hitman is unlikely to leave it behind. Why it was left behind in Politkovskaya’s case we should find out at the trial.
The idea that professional hitmen always leave the murder weapon behind, as a sort of “hallmark” comes from the fact that such was the crime scene when Anna Politkovskaya was killed, and it suits The Economist to say that doing it that way is the mark of the professional contract killer, because that leads one down all sorts of interesting speculative pathways. It also makes The Economist sound hard-boiled and cynically jaded, an image it no doubt wishes to cultivate.
Professional killers, who do indeed exist, approach the job with a view to getting it over with in a businesslike fashion and getting out without ever being seen, never mind caught. The “hallmark” of a professional killer is not whacking somebody by shooting them several times in the head and body in the stairwell of a building from which there is likely only one exit, in broad daylight, and then leaving the murder weapon at the scene to give the cops a head start. Typically the murder weapon is discarded where it is unlikely to be found, is only used once and is either a weapon that has never been used before or one which has been stolen locally from a registered owner (on the off chance it is found) so as to complicate the investigation. Professional killers do not take silly risks, any more than professional race-car drivers drive their personal vehicles like race-cars when they are on their way down to the liquor store to pick up a bottle of bubbly for the evening.
Of course, killers-for-hire come in all levels of expertise, and it’s perfectly possible to hire someone in a bar who is hard-up for money and who will spray your chosen victim with lead for a reasonable sum in what will ultimately turn out to be a messy hit that might not even kill him or her. And it will likely be solved in about an hour; better make sure that level of hitnman never sees you – as the contractor – and does not know your real name. That’s the kind of person who drops the gun at the scene, because he doesn’t want to be caught with it in his possession and made no prior plan for getting rid of it.
I think the idea of leaving the weapon behind with the body comes from watching movies. In action movies the hitman usually leaves the gun on top of the body and calmly walks away. The idea is that it is an untraceable weapon anyway, and by not taking it with him, the hitman is unburdened, for example he could just hop aboard a plane, he doesn’t have to worry about being stopped and frisked at some later point.
That’s not my impression. From the US movies dating back to the 30s that I have seen the gun is usually dumped into the river or disposed of elsewhere. You may have seen different movies which had the “greeting card” aspect to them, but I can’t recall any where the murder weapon was the greeting card. Instead it was something else the serial killer would use to taunt the police. Organized crime flicks did not have the gun left at the scene. Would you give some titles? It would be interesting to see when this theme started.
The Economist BS about hitmen leaving behind the murder weapon for the police to find is part of the larger propaganda war on Russia. They are claiming the Polonium in the Litvinenko case was also a flashy hallmark advertising to the world that Putin did it.
Russia should really stop turning the other cheek to this blood libel. The UK, USA, France and any other POS state with a genocidal agenda (that is where blood libel leads so lets not mince words) should be subjected to punitive retaliation on the economic front, at the very least. Russia does not need economics ties to these turdlet states but they need cheap Russian energy to keep global prices on oil and LNG down. It is in Russia’s interests to keep these prices high since the long term revenue is higher. So Russia should not develop LNG export capacity, let Qatar do it and pump itself dry. Russia should not be exporting over 7 million barrels of oil per day. It is better to forgo 2 million barrels in exports. That may not seem like a lot, but it is enough to keep the global oil markets tight especially with the stalled global production.
Dear kirill: Yeh, ya got me on that one, ya big palooka, because I find I cannot name any specific movies I have seen where the hitman leaves the gun behind. You are correct that they don’t do that in the old gangster movies, Jimmy Cagney would never leave his weapon behind! Of course Jimmy Cagney would always go out in a blaze of glory, in a big shoot-out with the coppers.
I know it’s more recent Hollywood action flics that they leave the gun behind, maybe something like the Bond movies, or Bourne series? Can any movie buffs out there help me? I’m flailing here….
Dear Yalensis: I haven’t seen “The Godfather” but that’s a movie that often comes up in Internet discussions about hitmen leaving guns at the scene of the crime. Hollywood has had many dumb tropes about guns (like detectives picking up guns with pencils or sticks stuck inside the barrel) and the reason must be that producers, directors and script-writers watch too many movies for ideas instead of tramp outside and do first-hand research.
Classics:
Perfect! Thanks, misha (and jen). The Godfather it is. That’s where this whole “leave the gun behind” trope probably started. Politkovskaya hitman probably watched The Godfather and thought that’s the way it’s supposed be done. (LIke people say, Michael Corleone should have taken the gun with him and dropped it in the river.)
I wouldn’t be so quick to close this case. The Investigative Committee is in my view operating within political constraints. As mentioned here in a previous thread, the optics of the Russian government going after “saint” Berezovsky are really bad. If they can get him on other crimes with more evidence then, as with Al Capone, it will have to do.
I’ve always been of the opinion that Politkovskaya’s murder was the result of her rubbing up some Chechen Islamic fundamentalist “warlord/s” the wrong way. She wrote articles shooting the shit at Putin because, on her own admittance, she simply didn’t like him nor his policies. Putin was big enough and man enough to ignore this gadfly of an “investigative journalist”, who was also, lest it be forgotten, a US citizen. Putin quite rightly said in a statement mad after her murder that her “journalism” was of minimal influence in Russia, a statement which the Western press immediately pounced upon, using it to provide evidence of the Evil One’s “callousness” whilst conveniently omitting, as per usual, what he continued to say in his condemnation of a “cowardly” murder of a woman and his determination to seek out and punish her killers.
With her Chechen murderers, though, it was a different tale: Politskovskaya was a
Russian and a woman to boot. She insulted men, Moslem fundamentalists, doing Men’s businessness. She had to die.
The West ignores this possibility, namely that she was murdered by vengeful religious maniacs because, those maniacs, being anti-Putin, must be the “good guys” and the good guys don’t gun down journalists in cold blood.
Dear Moscow Exile,
That is a very persuasive theory.
Shortly after Politkovskaya was killed I leafed through her book in a London bookshop. This was well before I began reading Russian blogs so what knowledge of her was what I had read in the British press. Since what I had read about Politkovskaya made her out to be one of the best investigative journalists in the world I thought I would at least give her book a glance. I have to say (and perhaps it’s wrong of me to say it of someone who is dead) I was completely incredulous that the reckless and grotesquely biased gossip and morbid anti Putinism that I found in the book could possibly be considered serious journalism. That was my second sustained exposure to Russian liberal journalism (my first was in 2004 when I first came across Moscow Times) and a disillusioning experience it turned out to be.
Regardless of the IC clearing Berezovsky of any involvement in the murder of Politskovskaya, the shit really hit the fan last Sunday when the TV channel Rossiya-1 aired a programme about Berezovsky’s alleged criminal actions, which programme has caused the Prosecutor General to order an inqiry into the allegations.
See today’s Moscow Times.
Dear Moscow Exile,
Very interesting and interesting also to see Aleksander Korzhakov who until 1996 was the head of Yeltsin’s praetorian guard surface as one of Berezovsky’s accusers though I doubt he can know much about the Litvinenko affair since he had out of power for over a decade before Litvinenko was killed and his allegation that Berezovsky was behind Litvinenko must therefore be no more than a combination of score settling and guess work..
Anybody who wants to know what political life in Russia was really like in the 1990s should read Korzhakov’s memoirs where he describes a madhouse atmosphere around Yeltsin in which various barons including Berezovsky, Chubais and Korzhakov himself alternatively threat to murder each other or arrange murders for each other. Despite the occasional scandals the contrast with the situation today could not be greater. Korzhakov’s book shows both to what depths Russia fell and how far since then it’s come.
I read a report on Interfax which may suggest a very important shift of policy in the Ukraine. This is that Azarov, the Ukrainian Prime Minister, has said that the Ukraine can simultaneously join the Customs Union and pursue EU integration. That is as Azarov must know actually untrue but it is the first statement by a leading official of the Ukrainian government I have seen that talks of the Ukraine actually joining the Customs Union. It may be that the statement is intended to pave the ground for it. The trouble is these Interfax reports tend to be only a line long and it is difficult to know how much weight to place on them.
The EU isn’t likely taking Ukraine in as a full fledged member anytime soon, if ever.
Ukraine has to therefore consider other options that are in Ukraine’s best interests. Ideally, Ukraine would like to have a close, but limited relationship with the Customs Union. Russia has answered back with an all or nothing approach.
It has been suggested that the EU comments about the domestic situation in Ukraine (like Tymoshenko’s internment) is partly motivated as an excuse to keep Ukraine out of the EU. Appearance wise, It’s more virtuous for the EU to trump human rights than stressing that the EU is too over-burdened to take in Ukraine.
Some Armenians are apprehensive about what’s motivating some in the West to stress the Armenian genocide. Is it a matter of pure virtue or looking for ways to keep Turkey out of the EU?
That apparently will not stop the EU from trying to talk Ukraine out of it, as witnessed by the acrimonious exchange between Lavrov and EPC Foreign Affairs Chairman Elmar Brok. According to Lavrov, Ukraine is being pressured by outside influences not to join the customs union on the grounds it would be incompatible with its entry into the EU, which Lavrov described as “absolutely incompetent”. In diplomatic language, that’s fairly strong.
The EU can offer perks which fall short of Ukraine getting full EU membership. Such perks might serve the purpose of keeping Ukraine out of the Customs Union up to a point.
There’s good reason to believe that in the long run Ukraine will come around to joining the Customs Union. This belief could very well be shared in the previously mentioned all or nothing approach that Russia has taken vis-a-vis Ukraine and the Customs Union.
Perhaps some in the West are hoping that in time the Customs Union wil flop, without giving much consideration to the present and futue challenges facing the EU.
Isn’t it in fact symptomatic of western policy that though the west doesn’t actually want the Ukraine in the EU they nonetheless want to stop the Ukraine joining the Customs Union. The Customs Union is a completely peaceful economic union. The only reason to object to it is that Russia is at its core. What clearer evidence of western hostility to Russia does one need than that?
Goes back to instances like when Aslund positively references Brzezinski’s comment about Russia becoming more like an empire again when/if Russia and Ukraine come closer to each other.
Anti-Russian sentiment among Ukrainians isn’t “significant” in terms of being in a majority or near majority – something to keep in mind when seeing the Ukrainian views often getting the nod in English language mass media.
Of course Brzezinski and Aslund aren’t so up and arms over Ukrainian-Polish gatherings, which at times has included a noticeable anti-Russian strain. Never mind that pro-Russian sentiment in Ukraine is greater than pro-Polish sentiment.
The EU aspirations of countries like Ukraine and Turkey are quaint. They assume the EU will be some sort of powerhouse into the indefinite future. This simply inane. The EU has basically no resources and its past is not a proof of its future well being. Currently its southern parts (Spain, Italy, Greece) are in a state of full blown depression. If you look at the origins of this crisis you see it was real estate speculation and borrowing beyond any reasonable ability to pay back the loans. This applies to Ireland, as well.
This sort of “Potemkin” economy is at the heart of the EU. A grand facade of puffed up BS not created through real economic growth but through deficits and private sector borrowing. Of course Germany is an exception in that it has a Japan-like export oriented economy that real and not some bubble fake. But Germany is not the EU and Ukraine cannot expect to be anything more than another PIIIGS variant with a hollow economy like in Bulgaria and Romania. Ukraine will *not* be like Germany.
I think Russia is being too generous. Let Ukraine flail in the wind and learn its own bitter lessons instead of always blaming Russia for its own stupidity.
Ukraine could be a great asset, but somebody needs to spend some money on it – kind of a fixer-upper. The EU is decidedly not interested in a fixer-upper of a partner with a poor population that has aspirations to diffuse itself throughout the EU, picking up dream jobs and living the high life. A few might actually make it, but for the most part the EU countries are guarding those jobs for their own citizens. I am afraid that way lies national disillusionment, but Ukrainians are likely spared it by EU disinterest; it only pretends Ukraine might some day be a member in order to antagonize and disadvantage Russia.
But in the end, who’s got the money to spend? Russia, or the EU? You know the answer. But Russia is not going to splurge on rebuilding Ukraine only to have it run off and join the EU, whatever Lavrov says about compatibility.
As has been previously brought up by some others elsewhere:
http://www.rferl.org/content/ukraine-russia-relations-depend-on-oligarchic-interests/24747089.html
Some non-oligarch Ukrainian elements also get encouraged:
http://www.rferl.org/content/meeting-clinton-ukrainian-activist-says-situation-is-not–hopeless-osce/24792539.html
The EU needs Ukraine like it needs a hole in the head and, as Marknesop rightly suggests, much of these signals from Brussels suggesting that one day in the not too distant future Ukraine may be welcomed into the EU is only to antagonize “the former USSR”. It was only a few years ago when a president of the EU said that New Zealand had more of a chance of becoming an EU member state than Ukraine had.
I agree with everything about the Ukraine and the EU said here.
I suspect that one of the reasons why the Ukraine cannot decide between the Customs Union and the EU is because of divisions within the Ukrainian government on the subject. I suspect that Azarov who I believe is an ethnic Russian who was not even born in the Ukraine is amongst those who support joining the Customs Union. Some of the oligarchs in the eastern Ukraine may however oppose the idea because they do not want to come under Putin’s lash.
Well, I still think Ukraine has a lot of possibilities – not least in agriculture, but it also has a large and comparatively well-educated workforce which could turn its hand to anything. It would take a few years of careful development and job creation, and money. The sponsors of the Orange Revolution just assumed Yushcenko was going to handle all that – him being a banker and all – and loaned him a big pile of money, which promptly got wasted on short-term projects. Tymoshenko’s idea was just to hike everyone’s pay by 50% or so, which is a nice treat but does diddly for national or regional development except for the retail sector, because everyone has more money to spend. At any rate, the opinion of British analysts – and I know I’ve said it before but I must say it again, it’s such an evocative phrase – of Tymoshenko’s economic meddling was that it “flies in the face of fiscal reality”.
Oh, and one more thing – everybody please stop saying “the Ukraine”. I have to go in and correct it every time. It’s not, and more than it would be “the Russia” or “the Latvia”. While there are certain cases, like the UK, the Netherlands and the United States, but Ukraine is just Ukraine.
No snow here this morning, I’m afraid, just more of the seemingly-neverending rain the west coast gets in abundance at this time of year. We’ve only had snow once so far, and it only lasted until noon the next day. I don’t know if I want it, because I have a long, steep driveway, but it sure looks pretty on the video of the Russian Christmas song.
Being half Ukrainian I find the nationalist obsession with “the Ukraine” to be inane, obscene, petty-minded and embarrassing nonsense. I can say “in the UK” and it would not be derogatory but proper English. Same goes for “in the Ukraine”. Also, referring to Holland as “the Netherlands” is proper too.
There is no article, neither definite nor indefinite, in the Ukrainian language. That territory that Ukrainian nationalists like to be known in English as “Ukraine” was always called “the Ukraine” in English; it was always called “die Ukraine” in German as well. Furthermore, I do not think there has been any pressure on the Germans to remove the feminine definite article from the name “Ukraine”.
The vast majority of the names of countries are not preceded with an article in English; there are, however, exceptions to this “rule”.The vast majority of the names of countries in German are of neuter gender (because “land” is neuter in German: “das Land”) and are also not preceded by an article. However, the names of some countries in German are feminine in gender and are preceded by the feminine article: hence “die Schweiz” (Switzerland), “die Turkei” (Turkey) and “die Ukraine”.
I know of no complaints made by the Turks and Swiss against this German usage. I do not think there has been any pressure on the Germans to remove the feminine definite article from the name “Ukraine” either: witness this entry in the German Wiki:
Die Ukraine ([ukʀaˈiːnə], [uˈkʀaɪ̯nə]; ukrainisch Україна/Ukrajina; russisch Украина/Ukraina) ist ein Staat in Osteuropa. Sie grenzt an Russland im Nordosten, Weißrussland im Norden, Polen, Slowakei und Ungarn im Westen, Rumänien und Moldawien im Südwesten sowie an das Schwarze Meer und Asowsche Meer im Süden. Die Hauptstadt ist Kiew. Die Ukraine verfügt nach Russland über das zweitgrößte Staatsgebiet in Europa und ist damit der größte Staat, der ausschließlich in Europa liegt. Seit der Auflösung der Sowjetunion im Jahr 1991 ist die Ukraine unabhängig. Ein baldiger EU-Beitritt wird zwar seitens der ukrainischen Regierung angestrebt, eine Entscheidung hierüber seitens der EU-Institutionen ist jedoch zurzeit nicht absehbar.
However, English being the international language, it seems that some Ukrainian nationalists have taken it upon themselves to demand changes in another nation’s language, believing, wrongly, that the article before the name “Ukraine” somehow diminishes their nation’s status.
Furthermore, in Russian, one used the preposition “на” (literally “on”) rather than “в” (literally “in”) when describing location within that state known as “Україна” in Ukrainian (no article of course). Some Ukrainian nationalists took affront at this, believing that standard Russian usage of the preposition meaning “on” implied that the country in question was disparagingly considered by Russians as being only a territory. In English there is no problem in this matter: the preposition used to indicate a position within that country is and has always been “in”.
I am pretty sure that those Ukrainian nationalists who take affront at the English usage of the definite article with the name of their country are “Canadian Ukrainians”.
I wonder if these Ukrainian nationalists think that native English speakers should no longer say “The Hague” and say “Hague” instead, lest sensitive Dutch citizens believe that those dastardly native English speakers are suggesting that “the Hague” is not a “real” city?
As a native speaker of English who persists, contrary to the wish of some Ukrainian nationalists, to use the definite article before the name of their country, I can unequivocally state that I have never in my life used the definite article before the name of their country in order to diminish the status of that country or to indicate that it is a territory of Russia. I am also sure that native speakers of German do not say “die Ukraine” so as to annoy Ukrainian nationalists in a similar fashion.
One final point: contrary again to the wishes of some Ukrainian nationalists, I say “the Crimea” and that is most definitely because that peninsula was most definitely never part of that independent state that was formerly known as the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic: the Crimea is a territory that was annexed by the Russian Empire towards the end of the 18th century and was part of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic until it was handed over to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic as a gift – quite illegaly, in my opinion – by Nikita Khryshchev.
I rest my case.
Another thing: the UK is the UK because the United Kingdom is post defined with the prepositional locative noun phrase, either said or unerstood, “Great Britain and Northern Ireland”. Likewise, the United States (of America). The reason why Netherlands have “the” is because one is defining them as “the low (nether) ones” using the archaic adjective “nether”; one could, and indeed can, also say “the Low Counties” as do the French: Les Pays Bas.
In English, proper nouns, i.e. names of places and people, are usually self defining. So I say: I live in Moscow. This does not mean (the “English language school rule”!) that one cannot say “the Moscow”. I can for example say: I live in Moscow: not the Moscow in Russia but the Moscow in Texas, thereby defining which Moscow I live in. Likewise, I can say: I was talking to Alla Pugacheva yesterday: not the Alla Pugacheva that sings on TV , but the Alla Pugacheva that works in our gastronom., thereby defining which Alla Pugacheva.
Those Ukrainians that insist on the absence of the definite article before Ukraine are not as smart at English as they would like to think they are: the definite article can be used to define all nouns which usually do not need to be defined. Those Ukrainians that wish to change English grammar think they know the rules, and they don’t.
Take for example an abstract English noun such as “music”.
School rule: abstract uncountable noun – no article.
Take a look at this:
Music is the food of love.
Here “music” has no article because it is functioning as an abstract concept in the singular – a generalization. However, although “food” is also a singular abstract noun used as a generalization, here I use the definite article as I post define it as THAT (demonstrative adjective) food of love. And again, no article for the general abstraction “love”.
However, consider the following:
Last night as I was walking home, I heard music. (A generality, an abstract concept, no definition of which kind of music)
It was a music that I had never heard before. (Indefinite article meaning “one of a kind”, i.e. I am classifying it. And I can go on classifying it indefinately:
It was a music that had a haunting melody; a music from the East; a music that was exotic and alluring….
And then, when I choose to define the music, I do so using the definite article:
It was the music of Azerbaidzhan. (post definition)
And when I use the definite article before the proper noun “Ukraine” I am defining that border land that is called “at the border” in Slavic tongues.
Taking all the above into consideration, one can say in English: I had not been to the Ukraine since that time when it was part of the Soviet Union and when I revisited that land, it was a Ukraine that I could barely recognize, a Ukraine that seemed now to consist of two countries.
I wonder if certain Ukrainian nationalists would object to my using the indefinite article in this way before Ukraine? Would they take it as an insult and demand that I change the syntax of my mother tongue?
In Soviet times, it was easy to tell where one stood by the use of “Ukraine” (translating into frontier or borderland) versus “the Ukraine”.
Captive Nations Committee/Captive Nations Committee linked sources making it a point to very much stress the former:
http://www.russiablog.org/2006/04/yuschenkos_wife_and_the_ugly_h.php
Post-Soviet Russia uses “Ukraine”, while recognizing Ukraine’s Communist drawn boundaries, as people like Riabchuk suggest that Russia has the greater ultra-nationalism problem than some of what’s evident elsewhere:
http://www.eurasiareview.com/02042012-coverage-of-russia-uncensored-analysis/
If anything , it can be reasonably said that post-Soviet Russia lacks a savvy high profile English language counter-advocacy to what people like Motyl and Riabchuk regularly say.
I stand corrected. I have seen such arguments before from Ukrainians – that saying “the Ukraine” is like saying “the Canada” and is incorrect while making the author of it sound ignorant. But perhaps that argument was offered by a Ukrainian nationalist. I simply took it for granted that, being Ukrainian, they would know better. However, your usage is well-defended and appears in all respects correct, and it is certainly true that nationalities appear differently in different languages; some take “Gruzia” for an insult, when it is merely Russian for “Georgia”, for example.
Therefore, I shall leave it to individual preference, and shall edit no more.
In a somewhat moacking way, I say “Crimea” and not “the Crimea”.
Ditto Krajina
First time I was in the Crimea, a taxi driver nearly threw a fit when I said that the peninsula was no longer in Russia. I’d gone there to join my wife and family at a sanatorium.
It was 2004 and I hadn’t a Moscow residency permit then. My wife had booked a room for all of us (we only had 2 children then), forgetting that I needed a visa in order to enter the former Ukrainian SSR. I had to apply for a visa and consequently arrived a week after the rest had. She had a taxi driver meet me at the railway station in Evpatoria.
As we were driving to the sanatorium, I explained to the driver why I was late in joining my family, telling him that my wife had forgotten that the Crimea was part of a foreign country now. He pulled up and went into a blue fit, repeating “This is not a foreign country! This is Russia!” whilst banging his fists on the Lada zhiguli steering wheel. I told him I was in full agreement with his opinion as regards this matter and after he had calmed down, we set off once again for the sanatorium.
I think I ruined his day.
But Russia can’t fully diss Ukraine either, so long as Ukes holding Black Sea fleet hostage. I suggest Russia make a deal with Ukraine to pump in $$$ and rebuild them, in return for full ownership of Sevastopol.
Thanks to Khruschev Russia lost Crimea which Ukraine did nothing to win. Since Russia is not going to claim it back the correct approach is to relocate the Black Sea fleet to another location. If Novorossiysk is not good enough then they should build a naval base somewhere else on the Black Sea coast. I refuse to believe that there is no favourable location.
Unfortunately, I don’t believe there is any other geographical location on the Black Sea that is big enough or deep enough to hold the entire fleet. Maybe Mark could correct me, he was in the (Canadian) navy, so he knows all about ships and ports.
In 1954, NSK didn’t fathom that Russia and Ukraine would become two separate countries from each other.
The transfer of Crimea from the Russian SFSR to the Ukrainian SSR made geographical administrative sense, in addition to honoring the 300th anniversary of the Treaty of Pereslavl.
Keeping in mind that Russia and Ukraine signed an extended lease that will see a Russian naval presence in Ukraine for an extended period – would’ve to check the exact number of years.
It has been noted that Crimea has been receiving a good amount of financial support from Russia in one form or that other.
Yeah, the naval lease goes for about 20 years, if I am not mistaken.
But one needs to think much farther ahead than that.
(Now that we know the world doesn’t end in 2012, in which case this would all have been moot.)
Regarding this issue, I think that time is on Russia’s side.
Dear Kirill,
Turkey is a country I know very well and I can say definitely that enthusiasm for the EU has substantially waned there. Twenty years ago you wouldn’t have found a Turk who didn’t enthusiastically want EU membership. Today they are disillusioned and have largely lost interest. Incidentally Russia is now Turkey’s biggest trading partner. One of the most remarkable changes that has happened over the last twenty years is the transformation of Turkey from an intensely anti Russian country into a very pro Russian country. This is true in Turkey at all levels of society including not just its very large and well educated intelligentsia (where there has always been a left wing Russophile tradition) but amongst working people as well. Turkey is one country by the way where the presence of large numbers of Russian tourists seems to have consolidated pro Russian feelings amongst the population.
I don’t know Ukraine at all well but I rather get the feeling that even there and even in western Ukraine enthusiasm for the EU is less strong than it was. I gather Svoboda is not a pro EU party. Incidentally I get the impression that Russia’s policy towards Ukraine is “to let it flail in the wind and learn its own bitter lessons”. Azarov’s comments may be a sign that reality is finally starting to dawn in which case the “bitter lessons” are being learnt.
Lastly, on the subject of the EU, we have not discussed it but there has been a revolution in attitudes towards the EU in Romania where the EU leadership pulled out all the stops to support the hated right wing pro US President Traian Basescu. There were massed protests in Romania against Basescu at the start of the year some of which were violent and which in contrast to the far smaller white ribbon protests in Moscow went by almost unnoticed in the western media. A left wing anti Basescu coalition has now swept to power in parliamentary elections with almost 60% of the vote (Basescu’s party got just 17% of the vote).
Basescu along with Saakashvili and Yushchenko is another one of those disastrous figures who the west leveraged into power to pursue anti Russian policies in this case by getting him to destabilise Moldavia so that Moldavia could be annexed by Romania and brought into NATO and the EU. There has been a strong reaction in Romania to the country being used in this way and to the disastrous neo liberal economic policies Basescu has followed. Not only has Basescu been decisively defeated in parliamentary elections but a powerful letter of complaint has been sent to the European Commission by a group of Romanian parliamentarians and public figures complaining about the EU’s blatant interference on Basescu’s behalf in Romania’s internal affairs. The European Commission for example actively campaigned on Basescu’s behalf in a recent referendum to have him impeached which failed possibly because EU threats frightened voters so that the turnout was too low. The new Prime Minister Ponta is a confirmed enemy of Basescu who now exercises little power and it seems to be only a matter of time before Basescu is forced from the Presidency as well.
You may be interested to know that the EU is putting all the blame for Basescu’s defeat squarely on Russia. There have even been some bizarre broadcasts by Deutsche Welle and I believe the Voice of America claiming that the anti Basescu landslide was orchestrated by Voice of Russia. This is impossible if only because Voice of Russia does not broadcast in Romanian.
Interesting account of the situation in Romania. I admit I have not followed the recent political events. It is good that there appears to be some democracy in Romania and not just bootlick conformity. The sour grapes in the western media are surreal but are consistently schizophrenic. Russia is both a basket case that has lost superpower clout and at the same time Russia has supernatural abilities to manipulate politics in places like Romania. The inanity is spectacular. Romania is the last place where Russia would have any sort influence of the sort alleged. Who the hell listens to Voice of Russia in the west? Perhaps it could meddle in Serbia due to cultural compatibility but even there the regimes have been pro-EU and even pro-NATO.
Dear Kirill,
It is simply impossible to convey how outspokenly Russophobic Basescu has been. Needless to say during the parliamentary elections he repeated the Yushchenko/Saakashvili gambit of claiming that his left wing opponents are Kremlin agents. What may show the extent of the change of feeling in Romania is that Basescu’s opponents did not rise to the bait of denying that they wanted better relations with Russia. On the contrary they openly admitted that they did want better relations with Russia and accused Basescu of wrecking relations with Russia. After saying this they went on to win a landslide.
This marks a massive change in Romania’s political culture. Though there were brief periods of reasonably good relations between Romania and Russia in the Nineteenth Century and Romania and Russia briefly fought together as allies during the war againt Turkey in 1876 and during the First World War (when Romania was heavily under French influence) Romania is traditionally very antagonistic to Russia. The reason for this is that the Romanian political class is obsessed with “recovering” Moldavia, whose people actually show no desire to join Romania, and has convinced itself that it is Russia that stands in the way of this objective. Romania’s two Twentieth Century dictators, Antonescu and Ceasescu, were obsessed with this objective and were intensely anti Russian. Basescu belongs to the political class that emerged under Ceasescu. There are persistent stories that he had some sort of link with Ceasescu’s dreaded secret police the Securitate.
At last notice, if I’m not mistaken, the polled % of those in Moldova interested in a Romanian linkup tops in the 15%-20% range. At least for now, the potential of it going over 1/3 seems remote.
There’re also some ethnic Moldovans from Moldova who for practical reasons aren’t so dismissive of considering the Customs Union option over the EU.
Hi Alexander,
Re:
“One of the most remarkable changes that has happened over the last twenty years is the transformation of Turkey from an intensely anti Russian country into a very pro Russian country.”
****
The image of Russia in Turkey has improved with a noticeable apprehension still evident. This situation exists in reverse as well. Putin’s recent meeting in Turkey highlights the sophisticated way that some countries can successfully either improve or maintain decent to good ties, while continuing to recognize ongoing differences.
I continue to come across anti-Russian leaning commentary in Turkish media. An overall, better situation than before – but by no means exempt from a noticeable anti-Russian element.
Dear Misha,
As I said before, Turkey is a country I know well (it is after all the big boy on the block in my neighbourhood). Certainly there is still some anti Russian feeling, though remember some of the Turkish media is either foreign owned or subject to foreign (ie. US) influence. Nonetheless the contrast with the situation say 30 years ago is astonishing.
I would add two qualifiers:
1. Turkey had a very large Communist Party that was highly influential in intelligentsia circles though the extent of its support amongst the population as a whole is difficult to gauge since for most of the Cold War it was banned. Turkish intellectuals who were Communists were and continue to be strongly pro Russian;
2. The great irony of official Turkish Russophobia is that the revered founder of the Turkish Republic, Mustafa Kemal Attaturk, was strongly Russophile. He maintained excellent relations with the USSR until his death and famously many of his industrialisation projects were planned for him by a Soviet economic adviser Orlov who was sent by Stalin to Turkey for that purpose.
Having said this, it is not difficult to understand why Turkey is traditionally hostile to Russia. The long history of Russo Turkish wars, in which Turkey was almost invariably the loser, provides reason enough. By the way one of the most beautiful buildings in Istanbul is the Russian Consulate.
Dear Alexander: I’ve heard that all Muslims in Turkey are considered Turks so it’s difficult to say what percentage of Turks have Caucasian ancestry and how many can trace their family history to forced refugee migrations from Russia to the Ottoman lands during the 1850s-60s, and whether this accounts for some Russophobia in Turkey. The Prime Minister Reyyip Erdogan himself has some Georgian ancestry.
One might think that hundreds of thousands of people who fled the Caucasus region as a result of the Caucasian wars would generate communities of people in post-Ottoman Turkey harbouring suspicion and even hatred towards Russia. The Ottomans though did a poor job in resettling refugees and many returned to Russia in the late 19th century. There are still Chechens living in parts of Syria, Israel and Jordan; the Jordanian capital Amman itself actually didn’t start to flourish as more than a village until Caucasian refugees settled there and got to work as farmers and traders.
Dear Jen: There is also a large Abkhazian diaspora (in the Middle East) left over from tsarist times. Abkhazians were forcibly expelled by Russians back in the day, so they were not happy about that. But nowadays Abkhazians are fairly pro-Russian, due to Russian support for Abkhazian independence (in the 2008 war with Gruzia). However, a majority of Abkhazians do not want to be a Russian province, they would prefer to stay independent and maybe bring back some of the diaspora, if they can get their economy moving along enough to absorb more population.
Regarding my extended follow-up on Turkey to Alexander, I didn’t see some of the follow-up comments.
Syria’s Circassian population is portrayed as not being anti-Russian, while being generally on the side of the Syrian government over its armed opposition.
Russia led the albeit limited international recognition of Abkhaz independence. All the geostrategic wishful thiking in the world will not turn Abkhazia against Russia, as long as the disputed former Georgia SSR territory is diplomatically and otherwise treated as an outcaste by the leading Western governments.
That aforementioned follow-up being just below.
Dear Jen,
I am no expert on these questions but I understand that DNA tracing has found that the majority of the population of modern Turkey is much closely related to and is essentially an extension of the population of the Balkans and that it is not closely related to the Turkic peoples of Central Asia. This suggests that there was no mass movement of peoples in Anatolia and Asia Minor into the former Byzantine provinces of Anatolia following the Turkish conquest but rather an adoption by the local people of the religion and language of the conqueror. I gather that DNA tracing has similarly come to the view that the core population of England is of Celtic origin and that rather than being displaced by Saxon invaders what happened was that the Celtic British population adopted the English language of their Saxon conquerors.
Incidentally the Ottomans tended to avoid the use of the word “Turk” since they defined their empire dynastically (like today’s Saudi Arabia) and by religion and not ethnically. The name of the country was the “Ottoman empire” and its subjects were encouraged to refer to themselves as “Ottomans” rather than “Turks” (like “Saudis” today). The spoken language of the Ottoman court and of the Ottoman empire’s Muslim Anatolian subjects and the empire’s administrative language was Ottoman Turkish which is not the same as modern Turkish, which is a somewhat artificial modern language derived from Ottoman Turkish but purged of Ottoman Turkish’s very numerous Arabic and Persian loan words I have been told that the two languages are sufficiently different to be no longer mutually intelligible. Incidentally the Turkish characters in the Russian film Turetsky Gambit (an adaptation of the Boris Akunin novel) anachronistically speak modern Turkish instead of Ottoman Turkish. One of them supposedly even cries out “Long Live the Turkish Republic”.
This is all correct.
To that you can add formation of a new Independent Human Rights Council, which includes American citizen Lyudmila Alekseeva and other former members of the Presidential Human Rights Council, and which has thrown itself with great enthusiasm into culling out new names for the U.S. government to add to the Magnitsky List. Alekseeva, living proof that only the good die young, has let it be known that the group will lobby for the names of all those lawmakers who voted for the new NGO law to be included. Amazingly, the Magnitsky List is shaping up to be even more of a chill on international relations than was Jackson-Vanik. I imagine that makes its sponsors squirm with delight. I’m sure Bill Browder has to change his pants three times a day.
Dear Alexander: Thanks for the information, much appreciated. I have read similar information about the origins of Turkish people. Given that the Ottoman sultans used to import girls for the harem from the Caucasus and the northern shores of the Black sea and brought boys from the Christian parts of the Balkans to serve in their armies as well as accommodate refugees from the wars against Russia in the Caucasus, you’d expect modern Turks to resemble the people around them both in appearance and in genetics. I’ve heard also that the original invading Seljuk and Ottoman armies might not have been very large to begin with and part of the reason they succeeded was that the local people were fed up with their Byzantine rulers for their oppressive rule and welcomed the invaders.
Hello again Alexander,
You raise a number of points.
We seem to agree that the situation in Turkey has improved in terms of how Russia is viewed. I understand that a good number of Russians vacation in Turkey. Not too long ago, Turkey’s leader visited Tatarstan. A related piece that includes some overview on Russian-Turkish relations:
http://www.russiablog.org/2009/04/settling-the-dispute-over-nagorno-karabakh-averko.php
I’m of the impression that Turkish media (whether foreign owned or not) is expressing a good deal Turkish public opinion on Russia. This includes a noticeable degree of anti-Russian leaning spin – in overall terms, nowhere near the venomous level of Saudi media.
Turkey has a good number of folks of Chechen and Crimean Tatar backgrounds, as well as those of Circassian background who sided with Ottoman Turkey in its differences with Russia in the Caucasus. (There were also pro-Russian Circassian Russians who remained loyal subjects of the Russian Empire.) These Turkish citizens/resident include some noticeably anti-Russian elements, who undoubtedly have an influence on the rest of Turkey’s population.
At a nearby state park near me, I came across a festive gathering of American based people of Turkish background. Besides the Turkish flag they exhibited this one:
http://www.google.com/search?num=10&hl=en&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1015&bih=570&q=crimean+tatar+flag&oq=crimean+tatar+flag&gs_l=img.12..0i24.1500.6797.0.9125.18.14.0.4.4.0.94.1108.14.14.0…0.0…1ac.1.WxJxX3xZr5s
Within reason, I’m all for people expressing their ethnic identity. The folks most prone to flying the above linked flag don’t generally come across as being Russophile.
A piece that touches on this matter, inclusive of a Crimean Tatar leader, who is considered among the more moderate:
http://www.eurasiareview.com/13102010-beyond-the-edward-lucas-peter-hitchens-exchange-on-russia-and-ukraine/
Having presented the above, I note instances of good relations in Crimea between Russocentric Slavs and Tatars – inclusive of those being of both backgrounds.
Regarding Ataturk, keep in mind that the mass atrocity against Armenians occurred when he becomes politically prominent. A motivating factor behind that action was/is a fairly common Turkish perception that the Armenians were pro-Russian.
Countries can establish relatively good relations for reasons not necessarily related to an especially great cultural liking of each other. I’m apprehensive about categorizing Turkey as being historically more pro-Russian than Germany. The periods of good Russian-German ties didn’t prevent the two from fighting major wars against each other.
Banned or not, the number of Turkish Communists (past and present) seems to me to be considerably limited in relation to all Turks. The non-Communist left can include Russophile and anti-Russian elements, as is true with more rightist leaning individuals.
The coverage of Turkey has varied. For a period just prior to Turkey’s stand on the Syrian Civil War, Turkey’s image in the West became more negative. Before that, Turkey received better treatment. A piece that makes some mention of these changes:
http://www.eurasiareview.com/29092011-russian-limits-in-supporting-serbia-and-some-peripheral-issues-analysis/
Back in the 1990s, a family member of mine noticed blatantly anti-Jewish graffiti openly evident and unchallenged in (I think it was) Istanbul. Such an occurrence in Moscow is likely to get a NYT headline plastering. Going back to Ottoman times, Turkey has had (when compared to some other instances elsewhere) generally good relations with Jews. Nevertheless, Turkish-Israeli relations have become more tense in recent times, along with what a family member of mine saw when visiting Turkey.
“I think Russia is being too generous. Let Ukraine flail in the wind and learn its own bitter lessons instead of always blaming Russia for its own stupidity.”
****
Russia hasn’t been soft IMO. Once again noting that Russia rejects the Ukrainian government’s request for a limited Ukrainian participation in the Customs Union.
Came across this realist piece concerning Russia’s position on Syria, which contrasts from the Simes-Saunders realist NYT op-ed:
http://english.ruvr.ru/2012_12_20/The-hard-to-swallow-truth-Russian-stance-on-Syria-is-politically-wiser-than-Western/
Dear Misha,
The great problem I have with articles like those of Simes and Saunders is that they make assumptions about Russian policy towards Syria that are not based on anything Russian officials actually say. I repeat what I have been saying all along and what I discussed at length in my blog post of a few months ago: I don’t think Russia has any very strong interests in Syria or is especially concerned about Assad or the fate of his regime. Russia does not “support” Assad and nor do I think that Russia in any way feels that it “owns” Syria. What Russia (rightly) objects to is externally imposed regime change since that is something that is contrary to international law..
I discussed this all at length in my blog post but here is a lengthy interview Lavrov has just given to RT in which he says it all again.
http://rt.com/politics/lavrov-interview-rt-syria-628/
If you read Symes and Saunders carefully, what they basically propose is the perennial western proposal that is dusted off every few months whereby Russia “persuades” Assad to quit in return for western “guarantees” for Russia’s interests in Syria. I discussed in my blog post why Russia will never agree to such a proposal, which is based on a complete misunderstanding of Russian policy. I find it difficult to understand why this policy continues to be so widely misunderstood when someone like Lavrov repeatedly goes to so much trouble to explain it. Nonetheless the message simply doesn’t get through, probably because western commentators just cannot believe that Russia is less cynical than they are and cares more about international law than they do. That doubtless is why Simes and Saunders are now reviving a proposal Obama made to Putin at the G20 summit in the summer (Putin himself has now said as much) when to Obama’s anger and astonishment Putin said no.
Dear Misha,
If you haven’t read my piece on Russian policy towards Syria here (with apologies to Mark) it is
http://mercouris.wordpress.com/2012/06/22/russia-and-syria/
As you can see what Lavrov says in his latest interview corresponds exactly with what I said in my post. This is not because of any special insight on my part. It is just because I happen to believe that Russian diplomats and officials like Lavrov mean what they say.
PS: Lavrov in his interview gives his own undoubtedly true account of what actually happened during his meeting with Hillary Clinton in Dublin a week or so ago. That meeting was misrepresented by the western media as signalling a change in Russian policy and as presaging a negotiations on the future of Syria between the US and Russia. As we see from what Lavrov says there was no change in Russian policy and those reports were completely wrong.
As realists (albeit establishment ones), I’d like ot see more from Saunders and Simes, in terms of not playing up the image of Russia not being an ideal partner.
There’s enough negativity on Russia as is. IMO, a realist should concentrate more on punching holes thru that slant.
Reminded of “The Russia Hand” (stressing in one of his propped commentaries) emphasizing the view that the Russian Foreign Ministry doesn’t really care about human rights.
Hi Alexander,
That Simes-Saunders piece comes across as a bit gung ho in looking for greater Russian differences with Assad than what actually exist. As noted at this thread, official Russia isn’t happy with Assad, while also not seeking that he suddenly gets ousted by a group comprising some questionable elements.
I’ve no doubt that the Russian government places a value in a Syrian government that’s on good business and diplomatic terms with Russia.
Dear Misha,
I have a fairly high opinion of Simes. As long ago as the 1990s he was a staunch opponent of the Clinton administration’s disastrous policies towards Russia. He wrote a very fine article I think in Foreign Policy in about 2006 criticising the US’s Russia policy generally. Despite my criticisms of the Simes-Saunders article I do think he is a good analyst.
As for Assad, as Lavrov points out Russian criticism of him goes right back to the start of the crisis in 2011. Having said this the Russians would obviously prefer him not to fall partly because they are justifiably worried about what will follow but also because they do not want the success of a western regime change policy with which they fundamentally disagree.
Hi again Alexander,
Among the foreign policy establishment Simes is one of the better ones.
There was a period when he wasn’t as good. That was back in the early 1990s when (if I’m not mistaken) he was at Carnegie, which doesn’t seems as realist leaning than The Nixon Center/National Interest.
I don’t put all of my eggs in the basket of the officially promoted. There’s a good deal of originally thought out and brilliant commentary to be found elsewhere.
The people’s prince in shining armour faces yet again another fraud and emezzlement rap, as reported by the BBC World Sevice, RT, today’s Christmas Day edition of the Moscow Times and Komsomolskaya Pravda.
Some commenters, of course, are chirping in with the opinion that such a spate of charges only reflects the fact that Navalny is an innocent victim of a government frame up. It doesn’t enter these critics’ heads that the more deeply the Investigation Committee delves into Navalny’s activities, the more his nefarious activities are revealed.
One commenter to RT writes: “I am a little amazed people buy [sic] this. From thousands of miles away and very little info, this looks like a pretty standard setup of a political rival”. I presume “thousands of miles away” means the USA and that the paucity of information that the commenter claims he possesses is the result of his not being able to read Russian sources and his reliance on the “free press” of the Anglosphere to keep him informed.
To counter this commenter’s argument, I, for my part, were I a native Russian speaker having little or no knowledge of English, could opine that from this distance Bernie Madoff’s incarceration is the result of his being set up by his political enomies and economic rivals.
By the way, there is a video inset in the above KP linked article that reports a finding by Forbe’s that the “opposition leader” is not as popular in Russia as might first appear.
Well blow me down!
And could this be a signal from the “bastion of democracy” that Navalny’s possible incarceration will be no great loss to the movement as his popularity has long been on the wane?
I notice Navalny’s ardent defender, Leonid Gozman, was a former adviser to Yegor Gaidar and Anatoly Chubais, and is again an adviser to Chubais, who is now Director of Rusnano.
Gozman has rather a storied past in his own right, begging the question of what value it is to one to have Gozman come forward to say, “He did nothing wrong!!!”. According to Antikompromat, he tried in 2007 – as a candidate to the state Duma – to conceal an income of $16 million he received from Uralsib LLC. According to Pravda, in 2009 he organized an online campaign to oust Moscow mayor Yury Luzhkov which he claimed had garnered over 100,000 signatures in its first day. An inquiry was initiated by Yabloko, which revealed the unique visitors counter was just a picture overlaid on the real counter, and rather than 120,000 visitors there had been only 3.
Yeah. I’d want Gozman defending me on charges of fraud.
Predictably, several news sites are carrying the story under the headline “Top Putin Foe Navalny Faces New Charges”. Still with the fiction that Navalny is a big political threat. Although on reflection it is accurate; which just reflects how weedy the opposition has become.
Navalny’s “Allekt” company is the one he has registered in Cyprus as an offshore. Navalny uses this company for his various money-laundering schemes.
Nikita Belykh’s response (from the Moscow Times link given above):
Kirov region Governor Nikita Belykh, a former head of the Union of Right Forces, declared his position on checks into Navalny and the party in his blog on Ekho Moskvy’s website back in October, when it was revealed that the Interior Ministry had begun checks into correspondence between him and Navalny.
“I’m sure there weren’t any violations. The party was closed down, all financial reports were submitted to the Central Elections Committee and the Justice Department on time. If anybody remembers what was the attitude of authorities toward the Union of Right Forces in 2007, then you may be sure that if there were any violations, they would be found back then,” he wrote.
LOGICAL FALLACY ALERT!
See, Belykh is also involved in these scams. Nikita’s logical fallacy consists of protesting that any violations would have been found back in 2007. That’s not true, because any violations would have been COVERED UP back in 2007. Back in those halcyon days, Navalny had serious “krysha” (from Belykh), and Belykh had serious “krysha” (from ???)
But things have changed since then. Navalny broke the Prime Directive: Putin himself established the rule: Oligarchs (or, in Navalny’s case, wannabe Oligarchs) ARE allowed their minor dodges and even get to keep the loot, PROVIDED they don’t enter into politics and go up against Putin himself. Navalny broke the rule, and now he’s toast. I expect he will bring Belykh down with him.
Dear Yalensis,
Belykh is obviously trying to exculpate himself in advance of the Investigative Committee’s investigation of his correspondence with Navalny. Belykh cannot very well admit to having known about Navalny’s fraud since that would make him an accessory or even an accomplice. Remember it was Belykh who subsequently appointed Navalny to be his adviser in the Kirov Region.
This latest case appears to be the single most straightforward case against Navalny so far. I don’t think I need to explain it. Of course the fact that the case is straightforward doesn’t in itself mean Navalny is guilty (though it does make it more likely). That will depend on the evidence.
The Moscow Times article also discloses the identity of the foreign company that has brought the complaint that it was defrauded by Navalny which has led to the opening of the postal case. Moscow Times says it is “Yves Roche”. I presume this is a mispelling for “Yves Rocher”, which is a major international beauty and skin care company. I believe it is French based and that it is owned by the eponymous Monsieur Yves Rocher who is an extremely wealthy French businessman. It’s hardly reasonable to suppose that the Kremlin or Bastrykhin put Yves Rocher up to making the complaint.
As Moscow Exile says, the disclosure that cases are being brought against Navalny is encouraging others to bring more complaints against him The more carefully Navalny’s affairs get looked at the more comes out. That is exactly what one would expect. Going back to a point I recently made about Navalny in response to one made by Anatoly, I think the accumulation of cases is going to damage him further and make it even more difficult to mobilise support for him. This is particularly the case if one of the complainants is a French company. As I have said before the revelation that Navalny owns an offshore company in Cyprus isn’t going to do his reputation much good either. Precisely because these are fairly small and simple frauds they are relatively easy to understand and the fact that there are so many of them is actually going to make it more difficult to explain all away. I doubt we are looking at another Khodorkovsky affair in the making.
The one thing I would say is that all of these dodgy activities seem to go back to a short period around 2008. One gets the impression of Navalny at that time being very much a young man in a hurry, anxious to get rich very fast and willing to cut corners all over the place. His decision to scarper off to the US now begins to look rather different. Was it perhaps because he felt that Russia was becoming a bit too hot for him? Whatever it’s all catching up with him now.
Dear Alexander: In 2008 Navalny would be around 32 years old. The age when many men think it’s now or never: they either become a success or a failure in life.
Navalny had a wife to support, and 2 young children, ages, I don’t know their exact ages, I guess they would have been around 8 and 10 or something like that? Maybe a bit younger, but in any case this was a family man who obviously needed money to support his family in the lifestyle which he witnessed in the limousine liberal circles they hung with. Maybe there was some particular reason why he needed not just money but a LOT of money. Maybe some family debt, or some other big expenses, who knows?
Add the mysterious connection between Navalny’s parents and Egor Gaidar, which continued into the next generation with Navalny’s friendship with Masha Gaidar. These are people who aspired to a lavish lifestyle and, in Russian conditions of the time, maybe they felt the only way to achieve that lifestyle was by crossing the line into criminality? In any case, Navalny has proved himself to be quite the little hustler, he has more variety of dodges going on than the Artful Dodger himself.
We’re still a long way from a conviction yet, and he must be assumed innocent of all charges until that point, but it’s certainly going to be an interesting case.
Okay, I’ll assume that Navalny is innocent of all the charges, until Bastrykin proves him guilty.
This is very useful information, at least the company has been identified. I want to know if Yves Rocher itself has any official statements on this.
It’s already December 25th here in Mother Russia, so for all of you still a-bed where the sun is yet to arise to herald in a new middwinter day:
Yuletide Greetings!
Despite all its imperfections, I still feel content here in my adopted land. Perhaps the above video partly explains why.
Dear Moscow Exile,
I have just watched this video. It is very beautiful. Is that a Russian Christmas carol? I didn’t know Russia had any. I don’t know any Greek Christmas carols. Until recently we didn’t give much weight to Christmas.
Dear Alexander Mercouris,
Yes, the hymn on the video is a Russian Christmas carol or “kolyadka”.
In fact, “kolyadki” (plural) originate in pagan times and were sung at the winter solstice – it’s that Northern European Yuletide thing again. Perhaps this is why there are no similar “Christmas” traditions in the balmy climes of the Hellenic world, for this midwinter feasting in pre-Christian Slavic territories had the Christian bits added on after the conversion of the Slavs to Christianity in like manner as were Christmas rituals in other Northern European countries applied as a thin veneer over pagan ritual.
This carolling tradition was chiefly a Ukrainian custom that spread east into Russia: most Russian kolyadki are Ukrainian in origin. The tradition was to go round the village with a symbol of the sun and sing kolyadki and the verb “kolyadovat” means to go “kolyadking” or carolling.The word “kolyadka” comes from the name of a Slavic god, Kolyada. It’s all better explained here.
In that linked above article there is a video inset where you can hear a Ukrainian girls’ choir singing the haunting melody of the Kolyadka “The Bells”.
The linked above blog site, by the way, is like a breath of fresh air. It’s called “Russophilia” and written by an American woman who studied for a year in Russia, fell in love with the place, returned to the USA, couldn’t return to Mother Russsia for various reasons, and now, though married and living in the USA, still pines for the Evil Empire. Check all this out on the site! If La Russophobe should find out about this woman, she’d probably start howling at her something like: “What kind of bitch are you? Some kinda goddam freak, you commie weirdo????”
By the way, I’m pretty certain Rachmaninov did an adaptation of the Kolyadka “The bells”. I shall have to check that out.
Here’s a Russian site about kolyadki. Some kolyadki verses are written on this site, which might prove interesting as regards your proposed Russian studies.
Удачи!
Forgot to link the Russian site mentioned above.
Here it is.
Dear Alexander Mercouris,
I just couldn’t resist posting this clip from the wonderful Soviet film version of Gogol’s “Ночь перед Рождеством (Noch pered Rozhdestvom)” – literally “The Night Before Chriistmas” but called “Christmas Eve” in this Wiki article.
The clip shows Ukrainian peasants a-carolling in their village. Gogol was, of course, Ukrainian.
That studio village shown in the clip looks very similar to how my dacha territory looks
right now!
Gogol saw himself as a Russian, who was simultaneously proud of the part of the Russian Empire (the territory now commonly and formally known as Ukraine) where he was from.
If I’m not mistaken, Gogol was part Polish.
Once again noting that Shamir (in his recent article) refers to Gogol as being Russian.
Thanks, Exile, wonderful clip! I haven’t heard of this Gogol film, but now I want to see it. The wiki article does not list the cast, but I could swear the old man is the same actor who portrayed Nastenka’s father in the Russian classic “Morozko”, you can see his face at :32 seconds in this clip.
This is the version that was dubbed into Czech, apparently this film is more popular with Czechs than even Russians, in Czech Republic they show it on TV every year around Christmas time, from what I am told.
I myself have seen this movie about a million times. I am in love with Nastenka, of course, who isn’t? But at the same time, I am also in love with Marfushka, the ugly step-sister. What does that say about me?
By the bye, we passed the 20,000-comment mark during the night; I just noticed and had to count backward to establish the identity of the lucky winner, which was Alex Mercouris – congratulations, Alex? What would you like as a gift? You can have a coffee mug, a T-shirt or a bottle of gin I made myself from juniper berries, which functions excellently at shifting dried paint and which I have been trying to get rid of for years. Okay, I was kidding about the last choice; I can’t send alcohol through the mail, and I made it up anyway. What say you? Whichever you choose, that’s what Moscow Exile is getting, too, because he was tardy about choosing (almost a year) and whichever it is I have to get it made. Either item will feature the logo used as the header of the blog.
Dear Mark,
Firstly, congratulations on passing the 20,000 comment mark. It is a tribute the excellence of your blog.
For the rest, I will have the bottle of gin, with great thanks. It sounds interesting. Were those juniper berries Canadian? PS: Do you have my address? If not I’ll email it to you
Sorry, have read your comment again, it seems that our modern postal communications render deliveries of alcohol impossible. In that case I will take a coffee mug with pleasure. I collect them.
A T-shirt would suit me fine. A coffee mug would likely get smashed during its flight half way around the world from the Canadian Pacific coast to here.
Always the rebel, huh? I will see about getting some (of both) made.
Happy Holidays to everyone here.
Here’s the interview (video & English transcript) Lavrov gave with RT yesterday:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article33430.htm
Another mega-scam at the Ministry of Defence revealed this morning and reported here on the ITAR TASS site.
So the Putin “regime” is turning up the heat on corruption. Time for the western media to accuse Putin of being corrupt and promoting corruption.
I am starting to wonder about Medvedev. It seems there was a lot of corruption on his watch and only a minimal response to it.
Wow; that’s another big one. The way it’s written lends weight to the “poor Serdyukov” theory, in that he is not mentioned and there is no suggestion he knew what his bent subordinates were up to. Mind you, a role for him may come up in the investigation, which is only just beginning. I am personally of the opinion that he is guilty as sin, but my opinion is of no consequence and I am not basing it on evidence, only what I have read.
It will be interesting to see how it’s reported on western news sites; on the one hand, they’ve always loved to scream how corrupt Russia is, but they can’t really beat on it too hard without acknowledging that it is coming out and being exposed under the Putin government rather than just being covered up. I’m sure Putin knew about it long before Tass did, and likely had the option of saying, “Ssssshhhhh!! Shut up, for Christ’s sake! I better not see it in the papers, or you’re dead”. It will be fun to see the contortions they will have to go through to make it look like it’s all coming out in spite of Putin, whose fault it really is.
Well, it’s all pretty predictable how the west will greet the news: As more evidence that Russia is the most corrupt hellhole on earth NOT the fact that their leader is actually doing something about it. That part of the narrative will be glossed over, ignored, or actually twisted to imply that Putin is implementing another “crackdown.” Stephen Cohen & Israel Shamir will probably write truthfully about it in the west, but that’s about it. I’ve long consigned myself to the the fact that no matter what Putin does (positive or otherwise) will be spun as a negative by the west and their 5th columnists in the Russian media. they’ve been quite creative in spinning literally EVERYTHING this man does (eve when he’s being charitable) into something sinister.
It’s actually quite astonishing when you think of it.
Dear RC,
I am afraid I agree with you. The hostility to Putin has long gone past the point where it can be related to anything Putin actually does. I cannot think of a single international statesman in recent history of whom the reality differs so far from the constructed image.
Did any of Shamir’s commentary appear in JRL?
As long as the JRL court appointed Russia friendlys get theirs (desired publicity), it’s unlikely that you will see any kind of a critically stated opposition from them:
http://russialist.org/kremlins-syria-policy-hurts-russias-position-in-arab-world/
It’s absurd to expect people to be so willing to take the time and effort to travel to and pay for the “privilege” of listening live to the ongoing status quo.
As for the above JRL promoted piece (from a VoA venue that recently trumped up the numbers at a Moscow protest) on Russians being hated in the Middle East, there’s that recent incident in Libya, involving the murder of an American diplomat.
In Syria, I’m sure that one can find examples of Syrian citizens who earnestly oppose the American government’s slant towards the armed anti-Syrian government opposition.
They can always find a Belhadj lackey who will give the bank of microphones a good sound bite about how Russians are hated, and how they will all be killed by the heroic people’s mujaheddin. In this way, they hope to foster the impression that the decent people of Syria blame Russia for holding off the sweet, healing western hammer-blow that will break their shackles once and for all, and that only Assad and a handful of government ministers support Russia. That it is all spin and nonsense hardly needs to be said.
Pepe Escobar on the “rape of Syria” from Counterpunch:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article33425.htm
Concerns how Ukrainians feel about the EU and Customs Union
http://aminuk.org/index.php?idmenu=12&idsubmenu=314&language=en
Excerpt –
In insisting that Ukraine spurn Russia, the EU’s aforementioned Mr. Elmar Brok says Ukraine must give precedence to its long-term interests over short-term benefits. In other words: never mind if no benefits flow from the FTA; thwarting Russia is reward enough.
But most Ukrainians disagree. They prefer tangible benefits to renewed tensions with Russia. Consider some recent polling results:
According to a survey conducted by the Social Monitoring Center in 24 regions of Ukraine on December 5-15, 2012, 46% of Ukrainians support the country’s accession to the Customs Union while 35% of respondents think that Ukraine should sign on to the FTA. Nineteen percent were undecided.
Among those who have made up their minds on the issue, 57% support joining the Customs Union; 43% say Ukraine should sign the FTA.
Similarly, Kiev-based Research & Branding conducted a survey entitled — “Which Corresponds More to the Interests of Ukraine: the EU or the CU?”
It shows that support for the EU has declined from 37% in 2011 to 33% in 2012, whereas support fro the CU has grown from 36% to 39% in 2012.
It is clear that the European Union’s insistence on the mutual exclusivity of the FTA and the CU stems not from economics but from geopolitics. That seemed to be the import of Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov’s recent sharp response to Mr. Brok’s remarks. He pointed out that the CU and the FTA are fundamentally compatible as both countries are members of the WTO and adhere to its rules and regulations. Prime Minister Azarov has staked out a similar position.
The EU sees it otherwise, at least for now. Brussels’s efforts to steer Ukraine away from the Customs Union is clearly influenced by outgoing US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s recent declaration that the US, as a matter of policy, seeks to thwart Moscow’s plans to forge a common Eurasian Economic Space of which the CU is the foundation. Let’s hope Senator John Kerry, recently nominated to replace Mrs. Clinton, reverses her position, which has nothing to do with American national interests — and in many respects contradicts them. But that is a subject for another time.
————————-
Can be viewed as a propaganda counterpunch of sorts:
http://rt.com/news/rt-recalls-us-elections-836/
Dear Misha,
That is a very interesting opinion poll. My own view is that we are more likely than not to see Ukrainian membership of the Customs Union before long with a decision possibly taken in 2013. There will of course be the usual opposition but I sense it will not be very effective. The opinion poll suggests the move could actually be popular and might strengthen Yanukovitch ahead of the forthcoming Presidential elections.
Does joining the Customs Union need 1/2 or 2/3 of the Rada’s vote?
If the former, it will be a breeze. If the latter, it will be all but impossible.
Dear Anatoly,
This is a constitutional question and (thank goodness) I am not an authority on the Ukrainian Constitution. Having said this I think it is overwhelmingly likely that the answer is that it only needs a 50% + 1 vote in the Rada. The Customs Union is simply a trade association. It is not a political union or a military alliance like NATO of the sort that might violate what I understand are the Ukrainian Constitution’s neutrality provisions. I hardly think it likely that economic agreements such as to join a Customs Union would require a two thirds Rada majority.
Having said this I confidently expect some people in the Ukraine to argue otherwise and to go on insisting if and when the Ukraine does join the Customs Union that it has done so illegally because two thirds of the Rada didn’t vote for it. Ukrainian politicians endlessly engage in that sort of thing.
Rada voting has periodically been a matter of horse trading favors over maintaining a certain set of views.
There’s also the issue of practicality, which can increase as time goes by, with reality sinking in at a greater degree.
With socioeconomic matters to consider and some noticeable enough democratic trappings evident, Ukrainian politicians aren’t so shielded against public opinion as some might think.
The tournament just got underway and already -
http://sports.nationalpost.com/2012/12/26/don-cherry-has-a-few-choice-words-for-russia-nail-yakupov-at-world-juniors/
Everybody hates us. That’s a new viewpoint, for a Canadian. I suppose Don Cherry loves the sport and just wants to see Canadians win no matter what, but I still can’t see him as anything other than a pompous loudmouth.
Gretzky played on that nationalist paronoid bit when he served as general manager of the Canadian ice hockey team at the 2010 winter Olympics in Vancouver.
In that instance, he wasn’t being a creep (a Canadian answer to the “ugly American”) as much as looking to give his team an added psychological edge.
The Guardian has published an extraordinary interview between Miriam Elder and Pussy Riot’s Yekaterina Samutsevich.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2012/dec/26/pussy-riot-protest-interview
Though the interview purports to discuss the trial there is no mention made of the falling out between Pussy Riot and the lawyers and the way in which Pussy Riot (and Samutsevich especially) now blame the lawyers for what happened at the trial. This is such a colossal omission that its effect is to misrepresent completely both the trial and Pussy Riot’s current situation.
Can Samutsevich really have said nothing about the lawyers in her interview with Miriam Elder? After all she has been saying I find that difficult to believe. If Samutsevich did say something about the lawyers who took the decision to edit her comments out? If Samutsevich didn’t say anything about the lawyers then why didn’t Miriam Elder ask her about this given its importance? Either way this is a particularly good example of the way the Guardiannow routinely misrepresents Russia to British readers.
On a more minor point, the article gives the strong impression that the two other women who participated in the punk prayer are still in Russia. Samutsevich supposedly still meets with them or “sees” them, which would presumably be impossible if they have fled abroad. If they are still in Russia then who was the woman who German television recently interviewed? Was she an impostor (quite possible by the way)? The article also says that the Russian authorities “inexplicably” decided not to charge these two women. This suggests that the Russian authorities know the identities and whereabouts. That of course is very likely to be true but if so then why all the secrecy?
Not following this as closely as some others.
Offhand, I think this can be a matter of spin control, in terms of becoming more aware of the sarcastically put greater enemy.
Dear Misha,
Of course it is spin control. The quarrel with the lawyers contradicts the Guardian narrative that the trial was a show trial so for that reason the Guardian is suppressing it. I now realise that there have in fact been at least two other Pussy Riot articles in the Guardian these last few days both of which like Miriam Elder’s interview with Samutsevich also suppress details of the quarrel with the lawyers. In fact the last occasion the Guardian properly reported the quarrel was as far back as 20th November 2012.
As to the importance of this story, I would say what I have always said. In themselves Pussy Riot and what they did are of no consequence or importance or interest at all. In Russia itself the impact of what they did was always exaggerated and was arguably minimal and such as it was it has now faded. However one cannot say that the case itself was unimportant because the western media propaganda blizzard that was whipped up around it is in itself important. It is the one news story about Russia this year that in Britain at least has attracted mass public notice, which given the centrality of pop culture to western and especially Anglo American self identity is not surprising.
Hi again Alexander,
Forgive me for not paying so much attention to what I think should be a secondary to below secondary covered item.
Sam and Elder don’t impress as being great observers of “hard” (if you may) political issues.
Their standing becomes reality because of those propping them. In turn, some others bitch about this in a way that serves to take attention away from more important issues.
Dear Misha,
In fairness Samutsevich doesn’t pretend to be an observer of “hard” issues. Miriam Elder is however the Guardian’s Moscow correspondent. One would expect the newspaper with the second most visited website in the English speaking world to have a correspondent in a major world capital like Moscow who is a good observer of “hard” issues. Once upon a time the Guardian did have such correspondents. I still remember the high quality articles by Hella Pick, Martin Walker and Jonathan Steele. Not only is Miriam Elder obviously not in that class but I agree with you she is actually a hopeless observer of “hard” issues.
However one cannot simply ignore or disregard a propaganda storm on the scale that has been whipped up around the Pussy Riot case. Doing so does not serve to redirect attention to more important issues because the simple reality is that whilst such a propaganda storm is underway no one is paying attention to those issues. Saying nothing in the face of such a storm is to lose the argument by default. That if you forgive me saying so is the mistake Russia constantly makes.
Hi Alexander,
In fairness, Sam gets way too much attention in propotion to some others with more substantive things to say.
Not a fan of Martin Walker.
I asked her this very pertinent question via Twitter. Let us see if she replies.
I will be very interested to see whether she replies and if so what she says.
It appears only the crickets answered LOL.
Why am I not surprised?
Serdyukov’s done a runner!
See today’s MK.
Below the above linked MK article, some joker has written:
Нуууу. Нужно искать в 13-ти комнатной квартире у Васильевой. Может под диваном спрятался.
[Weeeeell..... they should search Vasileva's 13-room flat. He might be hiding under a sofa.]
Oi, this could be really bad. Like, if he defected to Great Britain. Like, doesn’t he know a lot of state secrets?
So there is no way the western media can cast Serdyukov as a bad guy now. He is yet another saint escaping Putin’s totalitarian nightmare like Berezovsky.
According to various news reports he scarpered as soon as he was dismissed, since which time various sources state they haven’t seen hide nor hair of him.
Betchya he’s in London-na-Temze!
Yeah, in a big secret room being debriefed by Judi Dench. I’m not kidding, this guy probably has ALL the shit on Russia’s defense system.
I’d do anything (almost) to be de-briefed by Helen Mirren. Bear in mind, as regards her antecedents, she might well be a double agent. I’d tell her everything, just to please her.
If Serdyukov has fled to the west, especially to London, this would mean a failure of security of cataclysmic dimensions. The scandal would also explode exponentially and would become internationalised. It could damage Putin and the KPRF in particular would be in its element. Precisely for this reason I am sure proper precautions have been taken to ensure it doesn’t happen.
I had the good fortune to meet Helen Mirren in the 1970s. She was even more beautiful (actually much more beautiful) than she appears in her films, She was also very attractive and utterly charming. She was highly intelligent, very political and far to the left (I believe she still is). She could easily be a double agent. I can certainly vouch for the fact that being debriefed by her would be a delight.
In today’s Komsomolskaya Pravda it is reported that the Investigation Committee has at last summoned Serdyukov to present himself for an interview on December 29th. The article goes on to say that seerdyukov has hired a top lawyer, which latter has stated to KP:
“Мы сегодня виделись со следователем и виделись с Сердюковым… А появившаяся в СМИ информация об отъезде Сердюкова в неизвестном направлении не соответствует действительности. Я убежден, что это злонамеренная попытка его опорочить, представив его в негативном свете. На самом деле Анатолий Эдуардович все время в Москве и планирует здесь встречать наступающий 2013 год”.
[I have seen both Serdyukov and the investigator today ... recent media information about Serdyukov's departure to an unknown destination is not true. I am convinced that this is a malicious attempt at defamation, to present him in a negative light. In fact, Anatoly Eduardovich has been in Moscow all the time and is getting ready to welcome New Year 2013.]
@Exile: If Helen Mirren were assigned to interrogate you, I am sure she would be completely ruthless. First she would smack you around just to soften you up. Then she would strip down to her sexy bikini and beat you with a whip until you were ready to submit to her and tell her everything you know about the Russian missile defense system that you have out there at your dacha…. Get the picture?
Never! Never! I’ve spent the best part of the past 20 years digging a silo there, to say nothing of erecting my radar dish in a bogus banya and the installation of a control centre bunker beneath our septic tank.
What?? I thought he had been seen cuddling with Vasileva on the balcony of her flat, rubbing the noses of the Russian people in his invulnerability or some such tosh as that – I distinctly remember there was quite a state of high dudgeon here about it. Can that all have been intuited rather than proven?? Was he actually not even in Russia while he was supposedly spooning with his love interest, and can he actually fear prosecution after all instead of swanking about daring the authorities to do anything, and reveling in his oligarchical untouchableness?? Wonders shall never cease.
This seems to just be the rumor mill, however his spending a night with Vasilieva has yet to be refuted.
I suppose it’s good that he will be questioned after all (if only as a witness and not a suspect so there’s no cause for celebration yet) nonetheless the fact that he feels he can continue sleeping over with his gf and the fact that rumors of his flight can gain credence (and why not? after all that’s what Luzhkov did in the brief time he felt heat) testifies to the general climate of impunity that senior Russian politicians seem to enjoy.
“…however his spending a night with Vasilieva has yet to be refuted.”
Or proven. As far as I know, that was just a newspaper report as well, and the papers plainly aren’t even sure if he’s in the country.
Dear Anatoly,
Is it certain that Serdyukov is only being interviewed as a witness or is it simply what the newspapers are saying? I say this because as I said before it seems to me that this story is being spread his lawyer.
I never thought Serdyukov had left the country for the reason I said before. As a member of Putin’s cabinet and above all as a former Defence Minister Serdyukov’s flight abroad would be such a political and security catastrophe that it beggars belief that precautions are not being taken to prevent it. There is simply no comparison with Luzhkov’s situation who was never that close to Putin and has no national security secrets to disclose. I suspect that Serdyukov is being kept under close watch and that this will continue for a while at least.
On two other points:
1. I am sure that Serdyukov has visited Vasilyevna. It has been very widely reported that he has. Even the English language edition of Itar Tass, which is after all the country’s official news agency, has reported it. It is such an outrageous and provocative and damaging act that I have no doubt Serdyukov or his lawyer would have denied it if it was not true.
2. Is it certain that Luzhkov and his wife will not be prosecuted? I have seen reports of comments by Putin that might suggest that he and his wife will be. As I have said before these very complex investigations can take time.
@Alex,
I am very skeptical about Luzhkov because it’s a script I’ve already seen.
Take Kasyanov. Lowlife type, widely known as “Misha 2%” (for his standard kickback when PM), and there was even some documentaries conveniently aired about his damn villas immediately after his fallout with Putin. And he’s now a liberal oppositioner to boot. Perfect guy to prosecute – what else do you need? But nine years on now (I think) and the crickets are still chirping.
Luzhkov hasn’t become an oppositioner beyond making some angry old man statements about Putin, he hasn’t really done anything major to annoy the powers that be. The political machine he constructed in Moscow also ensured United Russia got 46% there during the recent elections there instead of the 25%-30% it actually got. Very useful, that. Loyal, in a twisted way. My read is that Putin will continue lightly taunting him from time to time for rhetorical points but nothing will ever be done.
According to a very interesting link given to me by kovane, Serdyukov incidentally also played an important role in the dismantling of Yukos. He has also proven his usefulness and as such that is why I am likewise skeptical that anything will come of his prosecution (although I am not 100% sure because Russia is such today that sweeping it all under the rug is now much harder than it was even 5 years ago).
And in an addendum to the Luzhkov point I actually did think back then that it really did signify a real drive to root out corruption including at the very top with the promise of a serious investigation and prosecution of him and his billionaire property developer wife and his deputy Mayor who sported a $500,000 watch.
So my situation is once bitten, twice shy, in effect.
Dear MoscowExile:
Putting Serd’ukov aside for one second and continuing “Orphan” thread from above: U.S. State Dept spokesman Patrick Ventrell referred to Russian orphans as being in “state custody”.
This would make for a good linguistic debate. It is hard to say if Ventrell is meaning something derogatory by using this expression. I looked up the expression on Google, and found a lot of references to “child custody” issues. In this context, the word “custody” is neutral, it is used to signify whether the child’s primary guardian is the mother or the father. Hence, the word “custody” would not necessarily be derogatory, it just means “who is the custodian” of the child.
In the criminal world, “custody” has a more negative connotation, as in “The suspect is in the custody of the police.”
I wouldn’t put it past Ventrell to be using the term “custody” in a loaded way, especially in conjunction with the word “state”, since the combination of those two words, “state custody” would raise up images of cartoon-communist totalitarianism, where all children supposedly belong to the state.
However, it is the Christmas season, and I am willing to give Ventrell the benefit of the doubt, assume he has been consulting with a bunch of social workers, and got the word “custody” into his head, with the more neutral meaning.
sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Juvenal
EGO DIXIT PVTIN!
Vladimir Putin is legally the guardian of the constitution though, and that’s according to the constitution!
Dear Yalensis,
Voice of Russia also quotes Ventrell as saying words to the effect that Russian children are being prevented “from enjoying the opportunity” of being adopted by families in the US. If I was a patriotic Russian (which in my experience most Russians are) I would find that sort of comment offensive. To an American it may be axiomatic that a Russian child would be better off being brought up in the US with American parents than in Russia but there are goiing to be lots of Russians who disagree.
Why would any Russian be better off in the USA? Americans are taught to hate Russians from birth. It is a deeply rooted hate that at this stage is just plain racism. So growing up in the USA to be taunted and bullied because you are Russian is the last thing from “better than in Russia”. If they are lucky and get well off parents in the USA then they can considered better off in that one metric alone but only if you assume they would have been living under the bridge in a cardboard box in Russia. That is merely a self-serving, malicious assumption
My children started to ask me a couple of years back why Americans hated Russians and why they wanted to wage war against Russia. I use to tell them that that wasn’t true, that all the Americans I’ve known and worked with have been decent folk, friendly, generous and well mannered. I asked if their teacher had been telling them this: it turned out that it was older children that they had overheard saying these things about Americans. But now my children doubt what I say about Americans in general because they are that little bit older and have graduated to playing games online.
The insults, it turned out, started long ago. They told me that they regularly get obscene abuse online from American players once they reveal their nationality. Not all of their US contacts do this, mind you: there are some kids who are only pleased to chat online with a Russian boy and girl in English. Nevertheless, there seems to me to be a sizeable number of children – and perhaps adults – that play online games and who are all too ready to start abusing Russians. My children have played online with French, Spanish, Italian and German kids as well and they tell me that there has been no nastiness from them. Strangely to say, they have not received any abuse of British players either.
I tell my son not to communicate with those that are abusive to him, but he answers back, usually ending with his coup de grace that runs something like: “How come if you are so smart you can’t talk to me in Russian yet I can talk to you in English?”
Dear Moscow Exile,
I don’t know how common this is but Milla Jovovich has said she was bullied at school in the US because she was Russian. Having said this any children brought up by US parents will after a certain point become Americans.
Milla was very close to one of my best friends, so I got to see/speak with her many times back in 1987-1992. She was very young at the time and lived with her uncle here in Los Angeles. If I’m not mistaken, I think she’s Ukrainian – which naturally was a part of the Soviet Union at the time of her birth. A beautiful (and very intelligent) girl back then and remains so today.
Dear RC,
I agree with all you say about Milla Jovovich and it is exciting to know that you have met her. I love her and her movies. I have all her Resident Evil films on DVD. I think they’re great fun.
As I understand her backstory she was born in the Ukraine of a Serb father and a Russian mother (who was also an actress) but they emigrated to the US when Milla Jovovich was a young child.
MJ is among a group of folks from Ukraine with Serbian heritage.
“Just the facts, ma’am.”
And that Dragnet clip should have been beneath my next last comment but….
I was also bullied at school in the UK in significant part because I never did lose my Russian accent.
In time I have come to see the rightness of it, Great Britons have no obligations to tolerate the foreigner in their midst. It also benefited me personally by saving me from assimilation and by dispelling any illusions I might have had about general Western attitudes to Russians.
In a perverse sort of way it is a good thing that young Russians are exposed to the bile of these American meatheads and learn the facts of life and not rabid white ribbonist fantasies.
During the Cold War (part I, we are now in part II) it was routine to call the USSR, Russia. This is, of course, utter nonsense. It is like calling Tito’s Yugoslavia, Serbia. In the case of the USSR, Russia had to swallow a lot of sh*t including having non-Russian leaders such as Khruschev give away huge tracts of Russian land to ungrateful states such as Ukraine. In fact, Ukraine got a massive windfall from the USSR, including the eastern Donetsk lands that were illegally gifted by the Bolsheviks after the revolution.
A recent BBC “documentary” on Stalin’s repressions tried very hard to make Stalin into some sort of Russian nationalist. They presented the “shocking” evidence that non-Russians were in the gulags. Well, golly gee whiz there were more Russians in the gulags than non-Russians by a long shot. They were over-represented as a percentage.
It is now apparent that this Cold War propaganda ploy of equating USSR to Russia allowed for a seamless hate propaganda transition once communism had disappeared. It’s as if the Cold War was not about Soviet communism but about ethnic Russians. So most every American (and Canadian) has the association in their ignorant heads that it was bad Russians threatening them with nuclear annihilation. Never mind that it was America that was super keen to station nuclear missiles in Turkey during the so-called Cuban missile crisis. To think that the USSR would dare retaliate by stationing nuclear missiles in Cuba. The self-righteous hypocrisy is deep rooted.
It boggles the mind how Roosevelt ever thought he was going to pursue a close postwar relationship with the Soviet Union, as no end of fairly-recently-released documentation supports that he did. Roosevelt feared a resurgence of Imperial Japan, and wanted Russia – under Stalin, naturally – to help the western powers contain her. It was Roosevelt’s government which unambiguously placed the Kuriles under Russian dominion. However, how did he plan to overcome prejudices in his own country?
In answer to Mark’s question: “However, how did he plan to overcome prejudices in his own country?” – Hollywood!
I’ve seen some Hollywood propaganda films made post 1941 that lavish praise upon the Soviet Union and the Russians.
I remember one such film where two US diplomats arrive in Moscow and as they walk past the steam locomotive, one of them speaks to the driver who is leaning out of the cab window of the huge engine high up above them. Suddenly, the diplomat says to the driver: “Why….you’re a…you’re a GIRL!!!”
The girl replies in a heavy Hollywood Russian accent that sounds like Vlad Dracula with a severe head cold that she is indeed a girl. The diplomat says in astonishment that an engineer’s job is man’s work, whereupon the girl laughs saying there is nothing that Soviet girls can’t do.
I’m sure the film is called “Mission to Moscow”.
Is that that nice “Iron” Felix Derzhinsky I see at the end?
I wonder if anyone would dare show this film again at prime time viewing in the USA?
That flim periodically comes on networks like PBS and documentary channels.
Its depiction of the 1930s show trial conforms with the official Soviet line.
It does give a valid explanation of the pre-WW II Soviet position on Finland and depicts an unreasonably nationalistic Polish diplomat.
I’m of the impressioon that NSK was an ethnic Russian, who refers to himself as such in his memoirs. He was also a bit of a Ukrainephile, who clamped down on the ROC upon assuming power.
Up to a point, Stalin exhibited some Russian patriotic themes, at a time (WW II and a bit before) when Russia was in need of some pep. That said, it’s disingenuous to then have that aspect of Stalin used as a means of disrespecting reasoned patriotic expressions of Russian identity.
WWII and Roosevelt were before the Cold War. The gulags were not something on the minds of every American before the late. So I do not think there was the sort of hate that we have today, stoked by media blood libel.
Roosevelt was a great American president. Truman was hater hack.
For some reason “late 1940s” got clipped. Anyway, the western media has destroyed any chance of a normal relationship between Russia (Russians, actually) and the west. These journalist whores and their paymasters must think that there will be no consequences.
Following up on the Russia-USSR subject, during WW II there were strategic Soviet military detachments that were formally named with the Ukrainian and Byelorussian designations.
As the largest of Soviet republics in both size and population, the natural resource rich and comparatively (in general terms) well developed RSFSR had an understandable degree of influence.
The culture and languages of non-Russian Soviets was promoted – sometimes at the unfair sacrificing of Russian identity. The somewhat famous propaganda poster of each Soviet nationality wearing their national costume with the exception of the depicted Russian stands out along with some other examples.
http://www.eurasiareview.com/12082012-cherry-picking-the-soviet-past-and-russian-present-analysis/
Further to Misha’s comment as regards the elbowing out of the Russian national identity in favour of non-Russian ethnic groups within the Soviet Union, I remember how many years ago when I was working with a young woman from the United States she commented to me how much she loved the Russian national costume whilst at the same time pointing to a poster showing dancers dressed like this.
I pointed out to her that they were Georgians and that the were not wearing Russian “national costume”. She was quite put back by this information and said “But in the States that’s what they always say is Russian national costume”.
Maybe she was from Springfield.
I did actually once work with an American from Springfield, Ohio. He didn’t know the Simpsons though.
An example of a non-Georgian who often included that in his wardrobe:
http://www.hoover.org/publications/hoover-digest/article/105861
Scrolling down a slight bit is a photo of him wearing such.
Like many others, his background included a non-ethnic Russian element, while he considered himself Russian.
Over the course of time, the Russians have embraced a good number of non-Russians as their own – in contrast to the recently promoted JRL imagery in the form of R. Pipes’ and A. Cohen’s most recent commentary.
Another pro-Soviet Hollywood classic was “Song of Russia” (1944), which portrayed the Soviet Union as a workers paradise:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Song_of_Russia
There were several pro-Soviet films made during and just after the war, until HUAC and the McCarthyites put an end to this. Ironically, McCarthy wasn’t lying when he accused that these films were made by commies or fellow-travelers. In truth, there WAS a significant Communist influence in Hollywood at that time. There was also a significant anti-communist faction too (Ronald Reagan, James Cagney), but the two sides got along okay and made movies together until the HUAC repressions started.
It goes without saying that the commies had the best screenwriters. Communists by nature are good writers. Not all of these creative people were actual card-carrying Party members, of course, some just belonged to various pro-communist front groups.
https://www.mtholyoke.edu/courses/rschwart/hist151s03/messages/157.html
There was a lot more social realism those days in the US though. Perhaps it was because the Great Depression was still alive and well in the national conscience. Steinbeck’s “The Grapes of Wrath” became a Hollywood classic in this genre and showed the callous exploitation of the impoverished . And I remember as a kid how there were realistic cop serials that showed working class, down beat areas of cities with a gritty realism. One such realistic cop show began with the detective hero voice over, beginning something like: “This is the city. My name’s Friday – Joe Friday. I’m a cop”.
And then by the ’60s it all had ended and there began such series as “77 Sunset Strip” and “Hawaii Five Zero” in which the cops seemed to me to be wealthy playboys and the crime scenes were always exotic and populated by the wealthy. This, I presume, was the result of increasing affluence in US society and I suppose the not so wealthy folk felt they already knew enough about poverty and crime and wished to enter a fantasy world of wealth – and crime.
Perhaps it was “Hawaii Five Zero” in the land of black teeth and endless rainfall, where they can’t spell “tires” properly and think gasoline is “petrol”, but everywhere else it was Hawaii Five O, like in the letter O. Philistine!!!
Marknesop wrote: “Perhaps it was “Hawaii Five Zero” in the land of black teeth and endless rainfall, where they can’t spell “tires” properly and think gasoline is “petrol”, but everywhere else it was Hawaii Five O, like in the letter O. Philistine!!!”
No, it was “Hawaii Five O” in the UK, as in OO7 Bond, James Bond.
I only used the term “zero” lest some North Americans be confused, but certainly not those North Americans whose ancestors may very well have been Empire Loyalist Tories.
Ha, ha!! Like “Zed” versus “Zee”. Although I was taught to say “Zee” in school, my vocabulary was altered – as was, I suspect, many a young man’s – by the modern muscle car of the 1970′s. Chevrolet introduced the Camaro Z-28 in 1977 (actually the Z-28 designator was a reintroduction based on enthusiast demand; the Z28 was an introductory package in the late 60′s, back when the new Camaro was available all the way up to the earthquake-inducing 396 cid (6.5 L) engine. Anyway, nobody in their right mind who wanted to talk cars with the knowledge of an old hand even though none of us yet had a driver’s license would say “Zee 28″. It was always and forever the “Zed 28″.
As regards the occassional differences between North American English pronunciation and British English pronunciation, the British way of pronouncing the name of a specific type of musician and the name of the 7th planet in the solar system might sometimes amuse, if not shock, some North Americans.
e.g. “My brother is a pianist and he is very interested in Uranus.”
pianist: /ˈpēənist/ (US pronunciation); /ˈpiːənɪst/ (British pronunciation)
Uranus: /ˈjʊərənəs/ (US pronunciation); /jʊˈreɪnəs/ (British pronunciation)
In truth Russian gamers tend to be annoying. They barge into servers which are clearly marked as American and/or English-speaking and holler здесь есть русские.
The Bulgarians I run into in the US often express a view of not disliking to be initially taken as Russians.
As one of them put it, many Bulgarians feel culturally akin to Russians, while appreciating Russia’s big power status and its great assistance in liberating Bulgaria from Ottoman Turkish rule.
Slowly but surely, some anti-Russian biases have toned down, due to the increased number of Westerners actually getting in touch with Russians; who like others are a mixed bag.
As I’ve noted before: during the Cold War, it wasn’t uncommon for anti-Communists of Russian background in the West to be stupidly linked with the USSR.
Kirill,
For lack of a better term, “self hating Russians” are very much tolerated in some circles.
Not all is bad in the US. Plenty of earnest folks here, who can personally relate to negatively inaccurate stereotypes.
These brainiacs are so smart they are stupid. And in whose custody are the orphans supposed to be before they are adopted? Even in the precious USA before a certain age people require a guardian and do not have full rights. Last time I checked the government acts as the legal guardian and custodian of the children that have been seized from delinquent parents or orphans. Being adopted is not some panacea and many children end up moving from one home to another.
For Yalensis:
Dear Moscow Exile,
Though I consider myself something of a film buff I too had never heard of this film. The only Soviet film version of Gogol’s Christmas Eve that I knew of was an animated version made in I think 1950. Strange that this very beautiful film is so little known. I have just checked on Amazon and there is no DVD of it available here in contrast to say Vyi, which is another Soviet adaptation of a much slighter Gogol story.
Dear Alexander Mercouris,
I’m really surprised to hear from both you and Yalensis that this 1961 (I think) Soviet film of Gogol’s magical (and devilish!) Christmas story is not well known in the West. Here it is regulary shown on TV and at Christmas time it is, of course, shown on every TV channel at least once, I should think – something like “The Snowman” is in the UK, which, by the way, my children love.
Gogol’s short story “The Night Before Christmas” is part of a two volume anthology called “Evenings on a Farm Near Dikanka” – you can see this title as the book pages are opened in the film title shots.
Dikanka is a real place, by the way – I’ve passed by it on my travels – situated not far from Gogol’s birthplace, Velyki Sorochyntsi.
The Soviet cartoon film version of the same story was made in the early 1950s.
I should advise you then to get a free Youtube downloader application, download the four parts that I’ve posted here, and make your own copy.
If Gogol’s descendants sue you for breach of intellectual property rights, do what Alekseeva does and put a complaint in to the US Congress.
Thanks, @Exile! Gosh, that’s the best Christmas gift ever!
P.S. to your previous remark about your American friend who thought this was the Russian national costume:
http://www.pghcitypaper.com/binary/4cd2/43_0018_playbriefs.jpg
So… you’re saying it’s NOT the Russian national costume?
I wish you had told me this before, this is what I wear to work every day!
http://en.rian.ru/military_news/20121226/178413560.html
So rail based heavy ICBMs will return to service in Russia. And some yapping “expert” called Alexander Konovalov thinks it’s a “bad idea” and thinks that “We’re better off developing telecoms systems, unmanned drones and precision weapons, not these monsters”.
What a moron. Strategic nuclear weapons have nothing in common with telecoms systems and unmanned drones. When he talks about precision weapons he probably thinks that Russian missiles can’t hit their targets and that Russia has no guided munitions. Who is this clown and why is RIAN even asking him for an opinion?
As for rail based ICBMs, they are obviously better than silo based ones. Silos are stationary and can be targeted preemptively. Even though a railway is a constrained path you can’t predict where the ICBM train will be at any instant. From the details it appears that the weight of the new missiles is small enough to make the trains much easier to camouflage.
Latynina in today’s Moscow Times really enjoys herself over the duma debate of the propsed “anti-US adoption Bill”.
As usual, though, she voices an amazing calumny:
“In the U.S., child abuse is a crime. In Russia, it is routine”.
What is she suggesting exactly – that child abuse is not a crime in Russia?
Then she gets carried away and, as is her wont, enters la-la-land, stating that “part of the Russian elite puts the motives of U.S. citizens on par with those of Osama bin Laden. And Putin is the driving force and inspiration behind this sick, warped perception”.
How has she arrived at the conclusion that Putin is the person responsible for equating the desires of US citizens with those that Osama bin Laden had? When and where did he exactly do this? When and where has part of the Russian elite put the motives of U.S. citizens “on par with those of Osama bin Laden”? I fail to see where she draws her evidence for this conclusion and also what Osama bin Laden had to do with US anti-Russian propaganda, Russophobia and the belief apparently held by many US citizens that the US legislature can interfere with and over-ride that of Russia.or of any other sovereign state for that matter.
At the very end of her harangue she can’t help taking off into her fanasy world, though, ascribing what she believes to be a mistaken move by the legislature to “Putin’s reported health problems”.
And she gets paid for writing such shite!
Someone on this site once asked who reads the Moscow Times.
In answer to that question, I can only reply: the type of person who commented in today’s MT Latynina opinion piece:
“Russia the only country where an assassin can become president”.
Bill Clinton slaughtered civilians, George W. Bush slaughtered civilians and Barak Obama has slaughtered civilians. What do they think all those collateral damage and “mistakes” from the drone attacks in Pakistan, Afghanistan and of course Iraq are all about? Meanwhile we have the squeaking about Litvinenko and Politkovkaya. I’ll take my assassin over yours any day.
As is always the case with Latynina she throws statistics around like confetti. This article has a priceless example. She says that “50% to 95%” of children from Russian orphanages become drug addicts, alcoholics or suicides. Which of the two is it? Either practically all Russian orphans become drug addicts, alcoholics or suicides or only half of them do. The range Latynina gives is so vast as to be meaningless. With examples like this how can one doubt that Latynina simply makes most of it up?
I have done a few quick cursory checks and though I hate making the sort of comparisons Latynina makes it was after all she who started it. Anyway it seems that the situation with child abuse in the US is not the ideal Latynina makes it out to be
http://www.childhelp.org/pages/statistics
According to that study the US has the worst child abuse position in the industrialised world. I presume that “industrialised world” means “western world” since I am sure there is more child abuse in Russia than in the US. So far as I can tell the number of children who are killed in Russia in any one year is between 1,500 to 2,000 whilst in the US the curve is rising and is now around 2,500. The US of course has double Russia’s population so the murder rate for Russian children is certainly higher than it is for US children.
This is as one would expect. Russia still has a significantly higher murder rate than the US and the number of killings of children is in line with this. However the position in Russia does not seem to be exponentially worse than it is in the US and for Latynina to say that what is a crime in the US in Russia is routine is nonsense.
Just to make one quick correction to the above comment, I should have said deaths from child abuse rather than killing. Children who die from abuse are not always or even usually intentionally killed.
Incidentally the figure in Britain in any one year seems to be between 50 and 60, significantly below both the US and the Russian figures. This is consistent with the fact that the murder rate in Britain is well below what it is in either the US or Russia.
Indeed, this harpie pulls “facts” out of her ass. As I have said before, it is tiresome to debunk her drivel. She is pulling the same trick as the global warming deniers, producing a flood of half-truths, lies and cherry picking that would take orders of magnitude longer to refute than to concoct.
Dear Kirill,
I don’t think one can talk about “facts” where Latynina is concerned. Someone who can say “50% to 95%” is obviously not cherry picking but simply making a wild guess. It is the fact that Latynina is able week after week to get away with simply making things up which I find extraordinary. The blame is not Latynina’s. The blame is with Moscow Times which is obviously not editing her.
On the subject of murder rates one of the least mentioned areas of progress in Russia has been the dramatic improvement in murder rates which have almost halved since 2005. Here are some figures from Wikipedia providing details up to 2010 and providing a breakdown by Region and Federal District. I gather the improvement has been sustained and the murder has fallen further since 2010.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Russian_federal_subjects_by_murder_rate
Counterintuitively the worst regional offenders are not in the northern Caucasus despite the continuing conflict there but in the Siberian and Far Eastern Federal Districts with the murder rates in Tuva and Evenkia still appalling and at central American levels. One wonders why?
I think it is local poverty and organized crime. The nasty effects of the 1990s will take decades to work out of the system. As they say in Russian: lomat ne stroyet, or to break (destroy) is not as hard as it is to build.
Dear Aexander Mercouris,
Because the natives can’t hold their liquor, probably.
The ethnic peoples of Siberia have a low tolerance to alcohol. Russian colonists – and “How the East Was Won” is a story of epic proportions that far overshadows the much more widely known tale of “How the West Was Won”, which tale was marketed by US dime novelists and Hollywood – began to move east of the Urals as early as the late 15th century and did the same trick with the Siberian folk as did Western Europeans with Native Americans: gave them booze. Siberians and Native Americans are closely related – I read recently that all Native Americans are descended from a people that lived south of Lake Baikal – and they quickly get drunk and alcohol dependent.
Anyway, those wicked Russkies weren’t as bad as the Europeans in the New World were; there are no reservations for Siberian peoples: they have their own autonomous republics. One of them, Chukotia, had recently as one of its governors the oligarch Abramovich, who, they say, invested his own money into the social infrastucture there (maybe because there is oil in them thar hills?)
I often think when I see these peoples that they are the equivalent of the North American “plains indians”: they have similar features. However, whereas these Siberians are certainly alive and well in the 21st century, I think one would have to search hard in the USA to find many “full-bloooded” Sioux wandering around.
I don’t think the ethnic Russian travelers were deliberately trying to harm the natives by getting them drunk. They liked to drink themselves, and were probably just being sociable. In those days people didn’t understand about genetics, and how some people cannot metabolize certain sugars and so on. Ignorance = the greatest enemy of mankind. But let’s face it, once the cat is out of the bag and people learn to drink, there is no going back. The only solution is for scientists to invent some kind of pill that allows alcoholics to enjoy a drink just like regular people.
Every day I wake up I thank the gods that I am not a genetic alcoholic, because that means I can enjoy my wine and beer without having to pay a price!
To be drunk preferably as a reward after a good workout, a tall boy of 24 ounces over a 6 pack comprising a total of 72 ounces.
Some periodic splurging under careful conditions (like no driving) is within acceptable.
Here is a picture of a Yakut woman, a of the Sakha Republic (Yakutia). This is one of the Siberian peoples who are related to Native Americans. The woman is sampling some fish, a staple of the Yakut diet. Note the voda glasses on the table. I must say, though, that chilled vodka goes down a treat with fish!
And here is a 19th century picture of Buryats, the people that live around the southern shores of Lake Baikal and who, according to folk history, drove the Yakuts from there
northwards.
The Buryats are, according to an article I read, the Siberian people closest related to Native Americans.
These are two of the etnic Siberian peoples who can’t hold their liquor like old Ivan can.
In the US, the American Indians have been portrayed as individuals with drinking problems, who have problems holding liquor.
I believe that’s accurate; they are genetically unable to metabolize some sugars, or something. It’s nothing to do with Indians “just not being able to hold their likker” or anything so crass as that, there is an actual physiological factor against which they are helpless.
Dear MoscowExile: You prove your point. Who needs a DNA analysis, you can tell just by looking at these nice folks that they are the same as American Indians!
Do you happen to know if anybody has done a linguistic analysis? Linguists have tried for centuries and cannot come up with a proto-language for all American Indians (aka native Americans). There are simply too many dialects, and many of them are radically different from each other. But if all native Americans evolved from this Baikal group, you would expect there to be more similarities among their languages.
Dear Misha: Apparently the stereotype about native Americans and “firewater” have some truth to them. Native Americans also have issues with diabetes and obesity. The common thread is something to do with sugars/insulins at the genetic level. Apparently these people evolved to adapt to a meat-eater’s diet. Either that, or there is a bad gene mutation in there somewhere. Sugars, grains, and ethynol are bad for these people.
But again, it seems to me that modern medical science could up with something to help them out so that could enjoy the modern lifestyle without having to pay such a heavy price? It seems unfair to tell people, “Oh, you just have to eat that slice of meat, you’re a genetic mutant so you’re not allowed to have that pastry or that glass of wine.”
I didn’t see your reply, and said much the same thing. If it’s not too late, I agree.
Yes, as regards Native American Indians, the origins of their languages seems to be an unfathomable mystery. Those Yakuts and Buryats I mentioned above are always classified asTurkic peoples, but I’m not sure whether they are only classed as Turkic because of their languages, which are definitely Turkic. Grouping a people by its native language, however, is dangerous ground, I think. As mentioned in another thread, Anatolian Turks speak modern Turkish, but are the Anatolian Turks really “Turks”?
The paper I read about the Buryats was done a few years back by a US geneticist from UCLA, if I’m not mistaken. He presented what looks like solid DNA evidence that genetically links these Siberian people to all Native Americans from the Aleutian Islands to Tierra del Fuego.
Interestingly, the Japanese and their language is an anthropological and linguistic mystery as well. Some think that the Japanese originated from Siberia – their distant ancestors heading south along the Kuriles rather than pressing on westwards across the Aleutians, but whence the roots of the Japanese language sprang nobody knows: I have read it has the agglutinative features of Siberian (Turkic?) languages a well as similarities to some Polynesian tongues; and Chinese, of course, has heavily influenced Japanes as regards the acquisition into Japanese of many loan words, but Japanese and Chinese belong to different linguistic families.
Some Native American languages are also agglutinative, such as the Algonquian group of languages, but not all.
It’s a fascinating subject is this linguistic detective work and something that has fascinated me for most of my life, although I should be first to admit that it is not everybody’s “cup of tea”.
True Yalensis on American Indians up to a point.
Over the course of time, a good number of them have mixed with whites and blacks.
On the issue of food/drink tolerance, I recall it being said that blacks (at least a good many of them) have problems with drinking cows’ milk. As a non-black, I myself gag at the thought of drinking it straight, in contrast to having other dairy products.
As a kid, I seem to recall getting tested for sickle cell anemia, on the basis that after blacks, people of Mediterranean background had the next greatest chance of getting afflicted with that ailment.
ME is correct. It is almost completely a function of vodka bingeing.
Orthodox Russians and especially the Buddhist/shamanist Asiatic peoples kill each other in drunken brawls with implements like knives and axes, often in their own apartments.
Caucasians have a higher *criminal* rate of killings, e.g. knifing people who look at them wrong, or clashes between different clans, mafias, etc. However that does not in and of itself lead to a very high murder rate.
After all mafia is an Italian word, but the murder rate in Italy is fairly low regardless, at just 0.9/100,000 people.
Basically having a population a substantial percentage of whom are chronic vodka binge drinkers is perhaps surprisingly far worse in terms of murder rates than having a very criminalized society (as in the Caucasus, or Sicily) or one with a lot of guns (like the US, or the Czech Republic).
That’s all very interesting. Presumably then the fall in the murder rate at least in these regions is connected to the decline in alcohol abuse. That makes sense.
It is striking how wide regional variations for the murder rate in Russia are. The murder rate in Moscow is now roughly the same as that in the US as a whole but is ten times less than in Tuva and around a quarter to a third of what it is in some other regions. I doubt that variations between regions in the US are anything like this great. By the way before we all cheer what is unequivocally good news it is worth pointing out that Russia’s current murder rate is now roughly the same as that of the US in 1980, which was the highest murder rate the US ever achieved in its whole existence. There has been enormous progress but there is still a long way to go before one can say that the situation is remotely satisfactory.
Incidentally might this not be a moment to offer a reassessment of the much maligned former Interior Ministry Rashid Nurgaliyev? On the face of it he presided over one of the steepest declines in the murder rate in any modern industrialised country. Obviously he can only take part of the credit but he must have been doing something right. I gather that his background was not in the police but that his successor Kolokoltsev is a well regarded police professional. It will be interesting to see how well he does.
I see no reason to attribute any of it to Nurgaliev.
It’s directly a function of decreased vodka consumption, which in turn was driven by cultural changes (especially linked with growing wealth and the slow development of better tastes in alcohol) as well as increased restrictions and tariffs on vodka sales (for which we can thank the Health and Social Development Ministry).
Moscow is both 5-10 years ahead of the rest of Russia in economic development, as well as being the region with the highest percentage of people with a higher education (who are less likely to binge drink and murder). That it has a relatively low murder rate is therefore not very surprising.
Well I know in that case what to do which is to keep well clear of a drunken Tuvash.
In the meantime since we are discussing crime rates here is a testament to a completely failed policy, viz Russia’s policy against illegal drugs.
http://en.rian.ru/crime/20121227/178441734.html
I should say that I cannot believe these figures which look to me like they’ve been plucked out of the air. However if those who tout these figures really believe Russia has so many heroin addicts should they not be suggesting a change of policy? It’s nothing short of astonishing that the question in Russia hardly gets debated.
He says illicit drugs. To your typical boneheaded silovik that includes weed and as such it would certainly not surprise me to learn that “over 18 million” Russians have “tried narcotics at least once.”
That person obviously never heard of George H W Bush who was CIA Director for about a year in the late 70s and must have authorised the odd assassination or two.
http://en.rian.ru/business/20121227/178439758.html
Putin has to explain Russian capital movements to the pathetic, lying media. If the jabbering about “capital flight” is real then that means that Russian companies do not invest abroad. Ergo, oil and gas field development projects outside Russia by Lukoil, Gazprom, etc are not really happening. Since this is a patent contradiction to observed reality, the media is full of sh*t.
Dear Kirill,
Notice how the Novosti article switches effortlessly between “capital outflow” and “capital flight” without apparently realising that the two are different.
I’m sure they realize the two terms mean different things. I’m equally sure they realize most of their readership does not.
Come to think of it Britain in 1870 was probably the country with the biggest capital flight back then.
STOP PRESS: Serdyukov has been called in for questioning and his lawyer has said he is still in Russia.
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20121227/178439262.html
I said a while ago that if Serdyukov was not called in for questioning by Christmas it would be a bad sign. I had the western Christmas rather than the Russian Christmas in mind but the slippage is only a few days. We will see what happens next. I gather Putin’s comments about Serdyukov during his recent mammoth press conference were also notably cold. However Putin’s office is taking forever to provide a complete translation and and I can’t confirm this.
There would be no investigation of these cases if “El Corrupto” Putin was covering up his corruption. In none of these cases have I heard about some whistleblower going to the media. So it was “Putin’s corrupt mafia state” that was exposing these corruption cases. It therefore would make no sense for Serdyukov to not be questioned.
The climate will be quite unfavourable for corruption during Putin’s term and this has been made clear already. If someone as high as Serdyukov can fall then so can all the little maggots who infest the system. Corruption can only thrive when there is some infighting in the government that keeps it weak and impotent. Then the president can’t touch some maggot because it has another roof, etc. In fact, such infighting is about power and the corrupt spoils associated with it. In spite of the fantasies of the 5th columnists there are no multiple factions that make Putin impotent. It will be interesting to see how serious of a purge we get in the next few years.
Helpfully rounded out by a reminder of where Russia appears on the totally meaningless Transparency International How Corrupt We Think You Are Index, upon which Russia is destined forever to remain among the dregs of the world regardless the actual state of corruption in the country…unless a liberal white-ribbonist like Alexey Navalny or Boris Nemtsov or Garry Kasparov takes the reins. Then, then Russia would shoot up the charts like Stairway To Heaven, much like Georgia did after Saakashvili was elected although the country remained incredibly corrupt. Just the say-so of a Chosen One is good enough for the compilers of meaningless indexes.
On the matter of “Western Christmas rather than the Russian Christmas” and an earlier discusion on the subject at this thread, my Bulgarian friends inform me that post-Communist Bulgaria drifted over to the Western calender from what had been evident during the Communist era much longer pre-Communist period.
If I’m not mistaken, Romania did the same. Serbia, Russia, Belarus and Ukraine, as well as some other predominately Orthodox Christian countries maintain the old calender for religious holidays.
During Boris the Drunk’s reign, the government was considering making Decembrer 25th a public holiday too. The powers that be had decided to make the Russian New Year holiday into the monstrosity that encompassess Christmas and New year as in the West. The question was, were they to celebrate New year and Christmas (January 7th Julian calendar) or Christmas and New Year in that order?
A major reason for having a western style sequence of events was that while Russia was still trading, the West was shut down and vice-versa. The church refused the later option and wanted the new extended holiday period to include the Orthodox Christmas. The church won its argument.
This year, the last working day is tomorrow, Saturday, December 29th in lieu of Monday, 31st. The first working day in the new year is Wednesday, January 9th. So businesswise, Russia will be out of synch with the rest of the world – thanks to the church.
If the Yeltsin criminals had opted to celebrate 25th December and then New Year, with everyone returning to work in early January, perhaps the church might have ditched its Julian calendar and shifted to the Gregorian one in order to synchronise with the West. This didn’t happen.
And they say the Church and the Evil One’s regime are too cosy with each other.
The church was also rather cosy with that criminal Yeltsin as well.
As was Putin.
But was he? The one who really ran the show during the Yeltsin administrations – or claimed that he did – was Berezovsky, the “Godfather of the Kremlin”. The man who called Yeltsin that and wrote lengthy atricles criticizing Berzovsky’s criminal activities, US citizen Klebnikov, was murdered. Nobody knows by whom and why. So I don’t think that Putin”s alleged closeness to Yeltsin is the reason why he succeeded that drunkard: I believe he was appointed by Berezovsky, who liked to play kingmaker whilst holding the reins of power.
Putin was essentially Berezovsky and Yeltsin approved.
In contrast to Putin, I’m reluctant to say that the ROC-MP was cozier to the latter two.
During Yeltsin’s presidential reign, Moon’s Unification Chuich was able to get some of its teachings taught in some Russian public schools – something that I’m sure didn’t please the ROC-MP.
Along with the rest of the Rusisan population at large, the ROC appears to be more comfortable with Putin than Yeltsin. When reviewing the Yeltsin period, I think that one should consider emphasizing the idea of a trial and error process, which involved a learning curve.
The after the fact hind sight analysis often kicks in. One thing to correctly predict what eventually happens over conveniently downplaying what proved to be an erroneous support process.
On the particular matter under discussion, S. Cohen got it right.
With this in mind, the West shouldn’t be completely blamed for the 1990s fault-lines ikn Russia.
Didn’t Putin go along with a pardon for Yeltsin as the latter stepped down?
Putin also didn’t put every oligarch criminal behind bars. Your point is vacuous since the pardon for Yeltsin was to prevent unnecessary strife. Putin obviously had a power base independent of Berezovsky and Yeltsin and that would be the army and the so-called “siloviki” who for some reason did not serve Yeltsin even though Berezovsky had several years to corrupt the FSB and other security agencies with cronies such as Litvinenko.
So there’s no misunderstanding, I answered in a way to respectfully second guess the thought that the ROC-MP especially stood out as a Yeltsin supporter in contrast to what was evident at the time.
Yeltsin initially caught the positive eye of a good number – many of whom in time became uneasy with some aspects that he was to exhibit
It was clear when Primakov became Prime Minister and completely reversed the monetarist policy foisted on Russia via shock therapy by the Yeltsin regime, that Yeltsin had lost power. There is no way he would have allowed Primakov to be appointed otherwise. The coup de grace came after NATO’s rape of Serbia in March of 1999: Putin was appointed Prime Minister. This wasn’t some Berezovsky machination, the Russian army basically staged a quiet coup since the country was being undermined by Yeltsin and his NATO advisers. The resignation of Yeltsin at the end of 1999 just further confirms the fact that Yeltsin was coerced to transfer power to Putin.
So NATO won the “prize” called Kosovo and lost Russia. Smart move by smartasses.
In time, Yeltsin himself seems to have become disenchanted with how his peers in the West were treating Russia.
Besides former Yugosaliva, there was also the first wave of NATO expansion that involved a good deal of anti-Russian propaganda from some influential politically connected folks in the West.
Yeltsin Russian government faults notwithstanding, there was some unfair mainstream Western commentary against Russia vis-a-vis Chechnya.
IMO, these factors had an influence on Yeltsin.
i think it’s fair to say that the early years of post-Soviet Russia saw a very earnest attempt to please the preferences of Western foreign policy elites. Comparatively speaking, i don’t think that the latter were as respectful towards some pretty legitimate Russian concerns.
I can only repeat here what I was told at the time by certain very well informed and very well connected people within the diplomatic community who were present at the time in Moscow. This was that Yeltsin suffered a major loss of power in the summer of 1998 when Primakov was forced on him against his wishes by the Duma (Yeltsin had wanted to re appoint Chernomydin). Primakov made it known that he wanted to clear out the corrupt elements in Yeltsin’s entourage and intended to arrest Berezovsky. This resulted in a power struggle between Primakov and the oligarchs around Yeltsin with Yeltsin backing the oligarchs. When Primakov also made known his strong opposition to the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia the Clinton administration joined in behind the scenes in the demands for Primakov’s dismissal. Yeltsin, who intended to stand for a third term as President and who felt he needed US support to do this because of the way it might be opposed by those who said such a step would be unconstitutional, duly sacked Primakov but felt insufficiently strong to appoint Chernomydin (his preferred choice), He therefore appointed Stepashin with the intention of reappointing Chernomydin once the dust had settle in the autumn. Primakov’s sacking however provoked a furious reaction from within the military leadership and the security services, who were outraged by the way Yeltsin and Chernomydin were putting pressure on Yugoslavia on the US’s behalf. They signalled their opposition to Yeltsin by the movement of Russian troops to Pristina, which was decided on by General Kvashin and the General Staff without Yeltsin being informed and which was therefor intended as much as a signal (and warning) to Yeltsin as it was to the US and NATO. . The crisis eventually ended when a deal was done whereby Yeltsin agreed to stand down early and not seek a third term in return for a promise of immunity from prosecution. Putin was appointed as Prime Minister and as Yeltsin’s intended successor after he had previously signalled his availability and where his ultimate loyalties lay by ostentatiously laying a wreath on the tomb of Yuri Andropov, the former Soviet leader and KGB chief, on the anniversary of Andropov’s death.
In other words Putin came to power because of a behind the scenes power struggle precipitated first by the financial crisis of 1998 and the collapse of the liberal economic project and by outrage at Yeltsin’s accommodating policy towards the west in relation to Yugoslavia. If this scenario is true then Putin was not a client of Berezovsky’s. In fact the only reason to think he was a client of Berezovsky’s is that Berezovsky endlessly says so. Following what Mrs. Justice Gloster has said about Berezovsky there is no longer any reason to believe this. One reason to doubt that Putin was in any way a client of Berezovsky’s or was someone Berezovsky could have wanted to see in power is that in the autumn of 1998 Berezovsky made in the most theatrical way imaginable (through a press conference in which Litvinenko had a starring role) a public claim that the FSB, headed at that time by none other than Putin, intended to kill him.
I want to stress that I have no direct knowledge of any of this. What I would say is that i was told this by Greek people who were present in Moscow at the time when this all happened and who were in contact with some of the people involved in part because of shared concerns they had about the evolution of the Yugoslav crisis. These were private conversations and I am afraid I cannot say more.
What I would also say is that if this scenario is true it makes sense of certain of the developments that immediately followed Putin’s appointment such as
1. The extraordinary and still unexplained appearance of the Medved party and the way it swept everything before it. The success of this party when all other post Soviet attempts to set up a pro government party had failed is surely only explainable because because the bureaucracy for the first time was united in supporting it. This in turn only makes sense if the bureaucracy felt it had reason to support this party. Incidentally, secure government control of the Duma would have been absolutely essential in any future showdown with Berezovsky and the other oligarchs. Medved’s success provided it;
2. The exceptionally vigorous response to the jihadi attack on Dagestan, which was in sharp contrast to the chaotic and bungling way Yeltsin’s government had responded to such previous challenges and a clear indications that it was the General Staff and the other security professionals rather than Yeltsin and his corrupt entourage who were in charge;
3. Yeltsin’s early resignation before the end of his term;
4. Putin’s difficulty in dismissing certain senior military commanders in January 2000. In a forgotten episode the commanders were first dismissed and then almost immediately reinsated. There has never been a proper explanation for this episode. What it suggests is that Putin as acting President was trying to rein in a military leadership that having played a critical role in securing Yeltsin’s removal he had reason to believe might be slipping out of control. The fact that he was not able to force through these dismissals shows how weak his position at this time was. If this is correct (and I cannot see any other explanation) then not the least of Putin’s achievements has been his reassertion of civilian control over the military.
5. The way Putin literally within days of his election picked up Primakov’s agenda and moved decisively against Berezovsky and the other oligarchs.
The strongest contra indicator to this verision of events is of course the public support Berezovsky and his media group gave to Putin in the summer of 1999 and during the Duma elections in the autumn of that year. What alternative however did Berezovsky have? The other contenders for power in the summer of 1999 were Primakov, who had made known his wish to have Berezovsky arrested, and Zyuganov and the Communists. From Berezovsky’s point of view lending public support to Putin who at this point was careful to keep his intentions hidden, was the only possible choice.
Thank you for the run down, Alexander. Putin was mercurial in the 1990s, aligning himself with Sobchak in St. Petersburg and seeming to be a “westernizer”. So it could have been that Berezovsky viewed him as a potential stooge. Khlebnikov concluded in his book, “Godfather of the Kremlin”, that Putin was indeed a Berezovsky stooge. But I think it is quite clear now that Putin played Berezovsky and other NATO 5th columnists. The patriotic factions in the security services and the army must have had key people aware of Putin’s true loyalties that he was installed as Prime Minister in 1999 in order to replace Yeltsin without a banana republic style coup.
I think the political events of the late 1990s in Russia are epically historic. The NATO stooges that had brought the country to ruin lost power almost completely. The oligarchs had to sing to Putin’s tune after 2000 and Khodorkovsky, the mafia butcher with 72 bodies to his name, learned the hard way that the roaring 1990s of kill whomever you want and do whatever you want was over.
The maneuver involving the limited Russian troop presence to Kosovo served to underscore the unstable side of Yeltsin era Russia.
http://www.eurasiareview.com/29092011-russian-limits-in-supporting-serbia-and-some-peripheral-issues-analysis/
In such a situation, either commit in full or don’t send at all. As is, that action had a chumpish side to it.
Thereafter as well as beforehand, there’s good reason to believe that Yeltsin was becoming increasingly apprehensive with his Western peers. Way before “The Russia Hand” said such, I noted that:
- 1990s post-Soviet Russia did a number of things that went along with Western neocon/neolib desires, with examples noted slightly above this thread
- Along with some others at the time, I said that a brewing backlash was developing in Russia – due to the lack of respect that country was getting in a number of instances.
@Exile: I think you are historically correct about this. Putin was Berezovsky’s choice and was somewhat crammed down Yeltsin’s throat. Yeltsin probably even felt a bit uncomfortable about this, he was in the Bette Davis/Margo Channing situation of seeing the younger, more attractive ingenue (=Putin) being paraded in front of him and prepped to take the reins. The real story, behind the scenes, was the relationship between Putin and Berezovsky. They started off as allies, then something went terribly wrong.
.. and having said that, I just re-read Mercouris’ comment, which puts a completely different slant on what I thought I knew…
I gather that a decision has been made to make available two public places in Moscow for impromptu political gatherings like Speaker’s Corner in Hyde Park in London. One of them is in Gorky Park. Predictably there have been complaints from members of the protest movement that the venues are too small and are not central enough though I would have thought Gorky Park is pretty central.
Speaker’s Corner along with Madame Tussaud’s and Big Ben is in my experience one of the sights of London Russian visitors always want to see. They always come away disappointed. The number of people present is always small and the majority are usually tourists whilst the speakers range from the offensive to the mad.
Dear Alexander Mercouris,
I lived in London for 2 years over 40 years ago and I regularly visited Speaker’s Corner on Sundays at lunchtime. There were never many there then: as you said, mostly cranks – flat earthers and the like. The biggest crowd puller at that time was a certain Baron Soper. He was a Methodist minister and he used to enjoy getting into debates with the crowd. He was a thorough gentleman and argued his case cogently. Even at that time I had rejected religion (this is before I started revering Woden!
) and sometimes used to argue the toss with him – you know, if God is perfect goodness, why is there evil on earth and why did He create it and why is He a vindictive God yet he Church claims he loves us etc?Old Baron Soper used hold his corner though. He must have died years ago.
I’m always telling them here that Speaker’s Corner is quite literally a corner of Hyde Park at Marble Arch, that it is not very big – about the size of four tennis courts I should think – that one cannot say there whatever one wants and that there is always a police presence there – granted, a small one, but always ready to call in reinforcements if a public disturbance were to take place. These white-ribbonists, however, have in their dreamlike fantasy of the “Free West” a very different idea of what Speaker’s Corner is like and want to transplant their fantasy Speaker’s Corner to central Moscow.
Dear Moscow Exile,
Where do you suppose they get this idea of Speaker’s Corner from? It’s hardly reasonable to think that its existence was much publicised during the Soviet period. I completely agree with you. They seem to have this fantastic idea of it as a gigantic open air popular parliament in the centre of London. If only!
Incidentally Madame Tussaud’s is almost as big a disappointment for Russians as Speaker’s Corner. I agree with them. It’s pretty dismal and appallingly overpriced. Big Ben does however seem to live up to their expectations. The girls especially always want to be photographed in front of it.
@ Alexander, ME: What are the best sights in London that you would recommend for visitors if they want to avoid the usual touristy routine like being photographed outside Buck House standing next to an overgrown toy soldier, being photographed in front of a priapic building called Big Ben (near the seat of British power, eh?) or buying souvenirs of the Hanoverian / Saxe-Coburg-Gotha crowd?
Dear Jen,
I like Greenwich a great deal. It still has the feel of a little town within London and is of great historical interest. In Greenwich Park on a hill there is situated the old Royal observatory. A tremendous view over the fullsweep of central London and the Thames can be seen from there. The zero meridian runs through the observatory, which meridian is indicated by a brass rail set into the courtyard cobblestones and the metal even runs up the old building walls and over its roof. I had someone take a picture of me shaking my then newly wed wife as we reached over the line: she was in the eastern hemisphere and I in the western.
In the little townof Greenwich is a dry dock in which is (or was – there was a terible fire there several years ago) berthed the wonderful tea clipper “Cutty Sark”, a beautiful square-rigged ship built on the Clyde, Scotland in the 1860s.
There are also some decent cafes, pubs and bookshops in Greenwich as well – well, there were in 1998 when I was last there.
In Greenwich on the riverbank is the beautiful “Queen’s House” and a drive that leads from the building straight up the hill in the park behind it.
There is also in Greenwich the National Maritime Museum in which you can see the very uniform that admiral Nelson was wearing when a French sharpshooter shot him from a fighting top on the French warship Redoubtable. The uniform is tiny! Nelson was of very small stature and you can still see the hole in it that the ball shot at him by a French marine made.
The most scenic way to get to Greenwich is by riverboat from Westminster Pier next to Westminster Bridge. You could also go to the end of the line on the Docklands Light Railway and then walk under the river using a narrow foot tunnel.
was built at the turn of the last century.
In HMS VICTORY – Nelson’s flagship – in Portsmouth is a replica of the cot in which he slept, which was reconstructed from records and donated by the Ladies’ Auxiliary. It looks like it was made for a child; a sort of truckle bed on gimbals so that it swung suspended from a frame with the movement of the sea. Throughout the ship, especially on the gun decks, the uncomfortable proximity of the deckhead (ceiling) reminds you constantly that the average man was maybe 5 ‘ 6″ tall then. As a race we have been getting steadily bigger, on average. Those average-sized people of today are forever smacking their foreheads into the hull when going through the sally-port (entry) at the gangway. On the upper deck near the helmsman’s position is a small block of wood affixed to the deck, with a brass plaque which reads,”here Nelson fell”. No matter how many groups go through per day, some wag among them unfailingly remarks, “No wonder – probably tripped over that bit of wood”. I’m sure the guides have heard it a million times.
As there could be no question of Nelson’s body being returned to England for a state funeral, he could not simply be pitched over the side, as was common practice. As there likewise could be no question of his arriving in any fit state for any kind of funeral following a lengthy ocean voyage (Trafalgar is off Spain) without refrigeration, he was put whole into a barrel of navy rum, which preserved him as effectively as formaldehyde would have done. No record of which I’m aware states what happened to the rum once Nelson was extracted from it, but all navy rum has thenceforth been known as “Nelson’s blood”.
I read somewhere that they put a marine on guard next to the rum barrel in which Nelson’s body was being pickled and a few days later, apparently because of the action of gases in the cadaver or whatever, the lid of the barrel flew off and old Horatio suddenly popped up.
I don’t know what the marine did. It wouldn’t surprise me if he had jumped overboard into Biscay and was never heard of again.
In terms of aesthetics, marketing minded folks know a good thing when they see it:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=cutty+sark+liquid+label&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&bvm=bv.1355534169,d.dmQ&bpcl=40096503&biw=1024&bih=578&wrapid=tlif135667197778110&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=8SvdUIeXL-it0AHf0YHADQ
There was a large collection of sailing ship figureheads when I was on board Cutty Sark. The hull is just one vast hold and the crew lived in deckhouses: maximization of cargo space being the reason for this, of course. I suppose all the figureheads were destroyed in the fire.
Cutty Sark is named after the Burn’s poem of the same name in which Scots boozer Tam O’Shanter happens one drunken night upon a witch who was wearing a “cutty sark” – Scots dialect for a short shift. The witch chases him. He’s on horseback and heads for a river because he knows witches cannot cross water. He crosses a bridge. she grabs hold of the horse’s tail but he manages to make a getaway, leaving the witch grasping it. The Cutty Sark figurehead is of an extremely angry and young witch with one breast exposed (they liked figureheads of buxom women with exposed breasts I think) and her right harm outstretched grasping the tail. The tail is not a carving: it’s made out of some material and may have possibly been real horsehair when the ship was in her full glory. On the main topmast there is also attached a metal plate in the shape of a “cutty sark”.
I should think that the Cutty Sark is the only tea clipper left in one piece in the world now. I don’t think there are any preserved clippers in the USA, the northeast coast of which being the bithplace of the ocean clipper ship.
Dear Jen,
You ask a challenging question but here are some suggestions to add to Moscow Exile’s excellent suggestion of Greenwich.
1. The Temple. This is an area south of Fleet Street and the Strand on the banks of the river Thames. Few tourists go there because it is enclosed by a wall though it is easily accessible through several gates. Within the wall you have a largely pedestrianised area consisting of a maze of small streets and ornate gardens and lots of Seventeenth and early Eighteenth Century residential buildings evocatively lit at night with gas lamps. It is the only part of London Dickens would have recognised and most of the film and television adaptations of Victorian or Eighteenth Century London you see are filmed there. The reason it has been so well preserved is because most of the buildings have been converted into lawyers’ offices. The Temple also has two very interesting old buildings. One building is Temple Church, which is one of London’s few medieval churches built by the Knights Templar (who gave their name to the district) in an odd circular shape. It’s a very strange and rather mysterious place and features in the Da Vinci Code. The other building is Middle Temple Hall, which was built in 1560, has a spectacular wooden hammerbeam roof and is the one remaining venue where Shakespeare is known to have arranged the performance of one of his plays (Twelfth Night);
2. Bloomsbury. This is the intellectual heart of the city. The main buildings of the University of London (Senate House, University College, the New College of the Humanities, the University of London Union etc) are located here as are the British Museum (whose archaeological collection is incomparable in the world), the British Library, many higher educational institutes and lots of small and little known museums of which possibly the most interesting is the Percival David Foundation, which has a quite exceptional collection of Chinese porcelain including what were before the rediscovery of the original kiln site in central China around half the world’s surviving examples of the Song Dynasty’s famous Ru ware (supposedly brought to London as plunder following the sack of Beijing in 1860 and the Boxer Rising);
3. The Regent’s Park complex. This is was developed in the early Nineteenth Century by George IV (formerly the Prince Regent) and his architect Nash and is the only extensive area of London to match the planning achievements of Bernini in Rome, Haussman in Paris and Rossi in St. Petersburg. It is all very splendid and Italianate but some find the buildings cold;
4. The Royal Botanical Gardens at Kew. These are very extensive and are the best botanical gardens I know. They are full of strange and exotic plants many brought to London by Victorian explorers. Perhaps the most famous is a colossal water lily (called Victoria Regina – what else?) brought from the Amazon jungle that has to be seen to be believed. There are also a number of simply huge and very exotic looking Victorian glasshouses that are strangely beautiful and rather odd. There is definitely an Alice in Wonderland quality about the place but it is romantic and rather wonderful;
5. Of the main tourist sites I think one should also in fairness mention the Tower of London and Westmnister Abbey. They are both very interesting medieval buildings. The Tower is dimensionally about the same size as the Moscow Kremlin though it seems much smaller. Its most interesting sections are the original White Tower built around 1100, the recreated medieval palace of Edward I (the King who appears in Braveheart), the Bloody Tower (which has a sinister history) and the Water Gate from which boats used to enter the complex from the Thames. Until about 1750 important state prisoners used to be brought to the Tower of London complex through the Water Gate so it is popularly referred to as “Traitors’ Gate”. The famous Victorian bridge across the Thames built in the 1890s in mock medieval style and beloved of Hollywood film producers with its two big towers is located directly next to the Tower of London. For its part Westmnster Abbey is a most interesting building with a very interesting library, treasury and set of medieval cloisters (a rectangular colonnade built round a garden). Near to Westminster Abbey and just next to the Houses of Parliament (“the Palace of Westminster”) there is London’s most spectacular medieval building, Westminster Hall, built in around 1100 and with the largest and most spectacular wooden hammerbeam roof in Europe. It used to be the site of state baquets (like the Granovitaya Palata in the Kremlin) but was large enough even for tournaments to be held inside it. Famously during a recent restoration of the roof old tennis balls from the time of Henry VIII (ie. the early Sixteenth Century) were found there, lost supposedly during games of “real tennis” (the original indoor version of the game, very different from modern tennis and in some ways more like squash and still played in its original form in the old university towns especially Cambridge).
6. There is also of course the entertainment district around Piccadilly, Soho and Leicester Square. It has an ugly side but there are also a lot of good restaurants and theatres there as well as London’s oldest jazz club (Ronnie Scott’s).
7. The Museum Area in Kensington south of Hyde Park. This houses three important museums all in splendid Victorian buildings: the Victoria & Albert Museum, which houses a magnificent collection of applied art, the Natural History Museum and the Science Museum. I am afraid the Natural History Museum and the Science Museum were disastrously reorganised in the 1980s and no longer come close to the standard of US science museums as they once did, but the Victorian buildings remain spectacular (that of the Natural History Museum especially). The Victoria & Albert Museum in a Victorian Italianate building very different from the Victorian Gothick used for the other museums remains as good as ever.
8. There’s also the South Bank complex, which is architecturally undistinguished but which does have some of London’s best theatres and concert venues. The National Theatre, the National Film Theatre and the Festival Hall are located here and the reconstruction of Shakespeare’s Globe is nearby. That is by the way a very fine and genuinely serious theatre venue and not just a tourist trap.
9. Finally, but only really accessible if you are here on a long stay, there are the great aristocratic palaces that were built over the course of the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries in an arc around London. These include Ham House, Kenwood House, Osterley, Chiswick and Syon House. They are built on a much bigger and grander scale than the Royal palaces and house spectacular art collections. Unfortunately they are all located in the suburbs and are not easy to access. The aristocracy did build palaces inside London but many of these were knocked down during the Twentieth Century (especially durig the period from 1920 to 1960) and few are now left. The most accessible is Apsley House near Hyde Park but the palace of the Spencers (Diana’s family) near Piccadilly which is not always open to the public is even grander Further afield still but quite accessible (between one and one half hours by train) are the two university cities of Oxford and Cambridge with their often spectacular medieval architecture, the two Tudor/Jacobean palaces of Hampton Court and Hatfield House, the splendid baroque palace of Blenheim Palace (whose extraordinary landscaped gardens are also worth seeing) and Windsor Castle, which in spite of its monarchical connections is genuinely interesting. The field of Runnymeade where the Magna Carta was signed is nearby.
Overall no one would pretend that London is able to match cities like Rome, Paris or St. Petersburg for architectural beauty. What most people who live here like about the place is what it offers culturally and otherwise. It has an exceptional music and theatre scene, better than that in New York or in any other west European capital (Moscow’s theatre scene though very different is as good), spectacular museums and bustling shops, some of which are artisinal and go back to the Eighteenth Century as for example does my pharmacist (who used to concoct to a Nineteenth Century recipe what was in my experience the only effective hangover cure, recently discontinued for health and safety reasons because it contained alcohol – woe is me). London is of course also a major fashion centre, which is a huge draw to many people, especially women and young people. It also has a huge nightlife scene but you have to have a lot of money and to be or feel a lot younger than I am to enjoy it.
There are lots of disagreeable things about London, the ludicrously high cost of practically everything, the appalling transport system (the London Underground is slow, filthy, subject to frequent breakdowns and shockingly expensive whilst the taxi drivers operate what can only be called a conspiracy against the public making any venture into one of their pictureque black cabs an exercise in crippling your bank balance), the dreadful climate (it is always raining and summer never happens or if it does usually lasts a day or so), the bad food (though it has a got a lot better and much of it now is excellent) and so on but there is no doubt the place has its buzz. I should say that one of the things Russians seem to like especially in London are its open air markets, which are totally different from those they are used to in Russia. The one in Notting Hill along the Portobelllo Road in particular is a goldmine of art and antiques and cutting edge clothes and Russians (especially the younger ones) seem to love it.
Dear Alexander Mercouris and Jen,
I wholeheartedly second all that is written above about London. As I said earlier, I lived there for two years, 1967-69, and in that short space of time I got to know the capital very well. I lived in the City of Westminster by the way, in Pimlico, Camden Town and Somers Town, which places have become seriously up-market in the 40 years since I left London.
I have always had a love-hate relationship with London: it’s bloody expensive for one thing, and sometimes Londoners seem to have no time to be polite and friendly, but the same can be said for those who work, if not live, in huge metropolises elsewhere: Moscow is no exception as regards this matter.
However, London is positively ancient and absolutely oozes with history. There really are mysterious, almost unkown, secret places there, such as the Temple, which Alexander has mentioned. One such hidden place that I loved visiting when I lived there is a small garden behind the cloisters at Westminster Abbey. When I used to go there, it felt that in its tranquility, disturbed only by the soft tinkling of the waters of a small fountain situated in its centre, I had somehow entered the 15th century some 100 years before Henry VIII’s dissolution of the monasteries. I also used to climb up into the cupola of St. Paul’s in order to sit in the Whispering Gallery there. Forty years ago, if you had a head for heights, you could even go higher and enter the ball below the golden cross atop the dome. There was only room for one in the golden ball! There were no skyscrapers then in the city, so perching oneself atop St. Paul’s Dome made one feel that one was looking down on the whole of London. (There was at the time an ultra-modern Post Office tower in Westminster off Tottenham Court Rd., but that was a good distance from Ludgate Hill on top of which St. Paul’s dominates the city.)
There’s no East End now as well – in the sense of the working class East End, that is. What is now the Docklands – all very upmarket – were working docklands in my youth and its inhabitants were dockers and tradesmen – and thieves and whores, as in docklands everywhere. It was over 100 years ago the haunt of that notorious murderer of prostitutes who has become known as Jack the Ripper. I believe you can now go on Jack the Ripper tours, which seems rather to be rather in bad taste to me. In the East End I used to go to Wapping in order to visit a very rowdy pub called “The Prospect of Whitby”. Don’t know if it’s still there, but it has a long, and often criminal history: it was a haunt of smugglers (of French cognac mostly), who used to bring it up river at night and upload it into the pub, which partly hangs over the Thames, which river, by the way, is very fast and tidal in London. It was also very dirty when I lived in London: I believe you can catch edible fish in it now – sometimes salmon even!
The docks became too small for modern ocean going vessels and they were closed down and redeveloped. The monumental Victorian warehouses are full of luxurious flats now and in the docks are berthed yachts. The workers were shipped off en masse to Essex, to new housing developments built for them there, and to some old towns as well, which migration of real “Cockneys” gave rise to that species of feminine pulchritude and decorum that is known to all and sundry in the UK as an “Essex Girl”.
What exactly is an “Essex Girl”?
Ah well… that would take too long to explain here.
Dear Moscow Exile,
Many people say that the two years you were in London, from 1967 to 1969, were its best ever. It was the time of flower power, Carnaby Street, the Beatles, the Rolling Stones and The Who, Sergeant Pepper, the best Doctor Who, the Prisoner, the Avengers, the Grosvenor House “riot”, anti Vietnam protests, student protests, pot smoking, free love and Mary Quant. I came finally to settle in London in the autumn of 1968 (I had been previously on short visits). After Greece, at that time in the grip of a fascist dictatorship that banned jeans and wouldn’t allow girls to wear trousers, it was like leaving behind a black and white world for a world of glorious (and riotous) technicolour.
Thank God for nostalgia; it allows movies to play in our heads that will never be forgotten, and still have the power to squeeze the heart like a fist. The best times in anybody’s life are those years when all things still seem possible, and the future beckons alluringly.
Dear Alexander, ME: Thanks very much for the sight-seeing tips and advice. This is all very much appreciated!
My knowledge of the late Sixties pop culture in the UK is limited to some old pop music by bands like the Beatles, the Yardbirds, the Pretty Things (who still survive with two of the original members) and the Who, and to watching some of the films and TV shows from the period, like Antonioni’s “Blow Up”. I’ve been watching some old Avengers TV spy show episodes from 1967 on Youtube and some of the episodes have surprisingly dark themes beneath the fluff. “Murdersville” was about a town specialising in murder and extortion to keep itself alive. I’ve been told the show was hugely popular across western Europe and I even found two short Avengers-styled films on Youtube that Diana Rigg made in Germany and Spain in the 1960s (“The Diadem” and “Minikillers”). They’re amateurish and low budget, the film quality is poor and the shorts feature no dialogue but they’re very funny to watch.
Dear Jen: it sounds like you will have a lot of things to do and see on your trip to London. (I assume you are making a trip.) I’ve been in London a couple of times, but don’t know it very well, it is a very cool city, though. One thing I can recommend is visit the town of Coventry. There is a lot of history there, and I know you are a big history buff.
Dear MoscowExile: On the London “Jack the Ripper” tours being in bad taste… I did a trip to Edinburgh Scotland (fantastic city, BTW), and they have a “ghost tour” through the city streets late at night (all scary, “woooo”), and you pay to be scared out of your wits when you see the ghosts of Burke and Hare going about their grisly business.
Then, in my favorite American city, Seattle, they have a similar “ghostly tour” through the “Seattle underground”, a a warren of tunnels underneath the streets of the old city. Once again, you guessed it, eager tourists pay for the privilege of being frightened by a ghost!
@ Yalensis:
Yes, Edinburgh is a fine place to visit. I know it well and when, many years ago, I needed to apply for a visa to visit Russia, it was considerably more convenient for me to travel from my former home in Northwest England to the Russian consulate in Edinburgh than it was to travel to London. In fact, the Russian consul in London advised me to use the Edinburgh consulate: fast service and friendlier Russians there.
After I got wed, I took my wife to London for a week and then we headed off north by train for Edinburgh: she was highly impressed by both cities. I’m extremely fond of Scotland and my best man was a Scot. I also used to regularly holiday in Ireland, another place where I used to feel very much at home. That was way back in the early ’70s.
What I don’t like about the Jack the Ripper trips is the glamorization of the actions of a vile, cowardly, misogynistic perverted killer of poor defenceless women – and by poor, I mean that literally. They were, contrary to their popular image, unattractive, unhealthy middle aged women who looked much older than their years; they were alcoholics, semi-destitute, and not the buxom, attractive and jolly whores as portrayed in Hollywood and on TV. And they were all the lowest class of prostitute, street walkers in the poorest quarter of London; in the society that they inhabited they were the lowest of the low who did “knee tremblers” up back alleys for the price of a drink. And “Jack the Ripper” disembowelled them. All were unattractive except one: she was the last to be murdered and was both young and attractive. She was murdered in her bed. Because her murderer remained undisturbed in his fiendish work carried out in her small rented room, she was so terribly mutilated that her remains look like a gutted pig’s carcass in a bacon factory, yet people go on paid tours in reverence of these monstrous, inhuman events.
There are some speculations that Jack the Ripper was actually the Victorian artist (painter) Walter Sickert. Sickert was known as a misogynist and also financially sponged off of wealthy women.
The biggest evidence in favor of his culpability is a guestbook that he left behind in an inn, which he had defaced with extremely sociopathic ravings and pornographic drawings. The other evidence against him is fairly thin, but the guestbook is a solid piece of evidence, IMHO.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Sickert
Dear Jen,
A lot of what we thought of as good television in the 1960s looks embarrassingly creaky and amateurish now. The Avengers is a case in point. The production values of The Prisoner were however quite exceptionally high and that series has stood up remarkably well. Amazingly it was filmed in colour even though we only started to go over to colour television in Britain in 1969 ie. after The Prisoner was broadcast. I still think it is one of the high points of British television.
I thought Diana Rigg (Emma Peel, in The Avengers) was so hot when I was a boy. Although she’s still pretty good-looking for her age, she’s 74, and “hot” would be a little creepy. She’s what they used to call “a handsome woman”. But in The Avengers? My, my.
Part of the success of the Prisoner series was its surrealistic location, Portmeirion, an architect’s folly in North Wales, another place worth visiting in the UK.
Dear Moscow Exile,
I totally endorse what you say about the gruesome nature of the Jack the Ripper tours. I have never been on one precisely because of the way the whole ghastly business is glamourised.
Incidentally far and away the best book on the subject and the only one worth reading because it simply and painstakingly sets out the facts is the Complete Jack the Ripper by Philip Sugden. Sugden does not give an opinion about who he thinks Jack the Ripper was but it is fairly obvious that he thinks it was an immigrant Polish barber who was executed about 20 years later for the unrelated murders of certain other women. The police inspector most heavily involved in the original Jack the Ripper investigation thought it was this person and the coincidences between this person’s known movements and those of Jack the Ripper are in fact remarkable. Indeed if this person was not Jack the Ripper then one would have to conclude that two serial killers were living together at the same time in the same place. This person’s appearance also almost exactly matches the one reliable physical description of Jack the Ripper, which was given by a police witness who saw him but who didn’t realise who he was, and there are also certain other clues that point to this person as well. Overall I don’t think there is much room for doubt that he was the murderer but there is a vast industry in perpetuating the mystery so no agreement will ever be reached.
@marknesop:
Thank God for nostalgia?
Even nostalgia is not half as good now as it used to be.
The reason I asked about London’s sights is that I’d like to visit there and experience some of the cultural aspects but want to cut out the tourist traps. Also I’ve met a lot of people who have family connections with the UK. They don’t talk much about the sights though – they always talk about the plane flights going to London and coming back to Sydney and how they can never sleep!
Those Jack the Ripper tours sound gross: I have the impression they’re done without any reference to the social and economic conditions of the period. You have to wonder at the mindset of tourists who go on such tours and of the people who organise them. The closest I’ve come to doing something similar was way back in 1986 when I visited Port Arthur in Tasmania. This was a prison where dangerous convicts and re-offenders used to be sent because it’s located on a peninsula so avenues of escape can be cut off. It always had a bad reputation (even before 1996 when Martin Bryant shot dead 35 people there) and at the time I visited, the atmosphere of the prison was cold and gloomy. The prison’s design in itself is interesting because it follows the philosopher Jeremy Bentham’s idea of the panopticon prison though not very closely.
I presume the London Metropolitan Police and the City of London Police have their separate museums that trace the history of policing and crime in London just as Sydney has a small Justice & Police Museum (part of the Museum of Sydney) in Circular Quay but I could be wrong.
@Jen re. Scotland Yard museum, London:
There is a so-called Black Museum at Scotland Yard but it is not open to the public, though visiting “dignitaries’” may apply to be conducted around it. The museum is used to give the cops lectures on forensic science and how to say ” ‘Allo, ‘allo, ‘allo! Nah then, wots goin’ on ‘ere?” In a polite and respectful manner.
Do they also learn how to pronounce “Wots all iss then?” and “Yer nicked!”
@ ME, yalensis: That’s interesting, thanks for the info. In Sydney the Justice & Police Museum is open to the public. It houses a small but amazing collection of weapons confiscated from crooks in the 19th century and early 20th century. Perhaps the crime history of Sydney isn’t quite as gruesome though we have had our share of gang warfare, bikie gang warfare (the most notorious incident being at Sydney Airport a couple of years ago where a man was bashed to death with the bollards there, used to create and separate queues at the ticket counters), a local chapter of the Calabrian mafia (biggest mafia group in the world, I believe) and colourful criminals like the tiny grandmother / serial killer from the 1950s, Caroline Grills, who poisoned her relatives for money with cakes and tea laced with thallium-based rat poison. A real Agatha Christie kind of murderer!
@Jen:
Ned Kelly was yer man, though, down your neck of the woods, I reckon.
One of my party pieces in my wild youth was a rendition of “The Wild Colonial Boy”.
I’ve got loads of relatives in Australia. After many years of their telling me to stop being a mug and come and join them Down Under, I finally decided to go to Australia after I’d come out of nick in 1985. And these penpushers at Australia House went and told me that I couldn’t emigrate to Oz because – wait for it! – I’ve got a criminal record.
The irony of it!
And if I’d done what I’d done what got me sent down in the UK some 150 years before I did what I did, they would have sent me to Australia for free – and told me not to come back!
http://en.rian.ru/military_news/20121227/178443375.html
This is the reason for the crackdown on military corruption. Putin is not going to let the $730 billion dollars be siphoned off without any resistance. It should also be noted that the Pentagon’s spending on procurement is notoriously corrupt. The Pentagon can’t account for $3 trillion (TRILLION) dollars of spending between 1980 and 2005 (or thereabouts). I remember the talk about $9000 toilet seats. Of course, this talk is all but gone now since the focus is bringing down Russia with a wave of propaganda.
With a headline of: “No official invitation for Moldova to join Customs Union yet”
http://www.inform.kz/eng/article/2522378
———————
To be expected:
http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/russias-year-mediocrity-7902
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/opinion/article/why-russians-feel-so-isolated-and-hostile/473635.html
———————
This piece highlights a main neocon talking point against Assad (having to do with the Syrian government’s ties to Hezbollah and Iran):
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/dangers_post_assad_ZooslcMS4V6NNPIopYG0qI?utm_medium=rss&utm_content=Oped+Columnists
———————
An example of the aspect of trying to get along with rivals, while conducting trade relationships:
http://paktribune.com/news/Pakistan-concerned-over-India-Russia-defence-agreement-256057.html
———————
Russian-Scottish cooperation:
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Russian_Rocket_will_launch_Scotlands_First_Satellite_999.html
———————
Regarding Plushenko and other Russian figure skating news:
http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-10-151003-Plushenko-clinches-10th-Russian-title
http://rt.com/sport/pluschenko-russia-figure-skating-888/
Follow-up on Cherry-Yakupov:
———————
http://www.torontosun.com/2012/12/27/russian-nail-yakupov-to-avoid-reporters-until-sunday
If accurately quoted, Yakupov was out of line.
Regarding Cherry’s characterization about Russians rooting for Germany against Canada in a historically forgetful way (an apparent reference to tww world wars), Cherry undoubtedly roots for Germany when playing against Russia.
In today’s Moscow Times Professor Richard Pipes waxes lyrical on “Why Russians Feel So Isolated and Hostile” and why Russians are not like the rest of us. And the reason, according to Pipes, is because they have not changed: they still live according to the values that they held true hundreds of years ago.
What a terrible backward people those Russkies are, says Richard Pipes – or should that really be Ryszard Piepes, who inherited his opinions as regards Russians from those found in his birthplace: Cieszyn, Poland?
Pipes ends thus:
“I believe that once a majority of Russians start realizing that their country is not threatened from the outside, they will be able to devote themselves more assiduously to changing their attitudes and institutions, among which rule of law and human rights are the most important”.
That’s a bit rich coming from someone whose motherland borders Russia and along which border weapons systems are emplaced that are intended to give an agressor an advantage if it should choose to attack Russia.
What?
Oh, the systems are in Poland to defend the USA from an attack made by Iran?
Oh, right!
Sorry.
The most recent JRL is stacked in the form of Pipes, A. Cohen, Goble and J. Brooke.
A. Cohen’s National Interest piece highlights a blame Russia mindset, while ignoring the “off the wall” (to borrow from him) comment from Hilary Clinton on the Customs Union involving Russia and some other former Soviet republics. A.l Cohen has a habit of comparatively downplaying off the wall anti-Russian elements
Pipes’ article is classic anti-Russian propaganda in its depiction of the Russian Orthodox Church among some other issues. In his broadly subjective overview of the past, Pipes downplays instances like the Polish and Napoleonic occupations of Russia, which included a suppression of the Russian Orthodox Church.
To one degree or another, one can find other past and present examples of such prejudicial thinking.
The coverage improves by not having people in propped positions (funding and all), who carry on in a personally petty and vindictive way:
http://www.exile.ru/articles/detail.php?ARTICLE_ID=6751&IBLOCK_ID=35
Not including his periodic appearances on panels, I don’t recall any of Srdja Trifkovic’s articles getting posted at JRL. There’re other examples to boot as well.
The JRL court appointed Russia friendlys aren’t keen in criticizing such manner. as long as they get theirs.
I remember Richard Pipes during the Cold War when his basic theme was what a wonderful place tsarist Russia was especially as compared with the nightmarish nastiness of the USSR. Now that the USSR no longer exists tsarist Russia has suddenly stopped being so wonderful.
I have never understood Pipes’s reputation as a historian and this article is a case in point. When he says for example that Russia before the Revolution had no conception of private property he is talking utter nonsense. When he unfavourably compares Russian attitudes to private property with those in US and Britain and says that in Russia unlike in Britain and the US the tsar owned all the land he is simply wrong. I don’t know what was the position with land ownership in tsarist Russia but in England the Queen still as a matter of legal principle owns all the land (those who own as I do their homes in perpetuity do so in law as the Queen’s direct tenants or “tenants in chief”). Pipes’s claim that private property is based on freedom is not a historical observation but an ideological one. His claim that Russia had no laws worthy of the name before 1864 is absurd (Russia had a system of traditional law based largely on Seventeenth Century structures and concepts as was the case before 1789 in France and as is still the case in Britain. What happened in the 1860s was that Russia along with many other countries including Germany moved over to a more modern system of legal codes under the ultimate inspiration provided by the Napoleonic code). Pipes’s idea that before 1864 the tsar was some sort of despot who could simply imprison or exile or execute everyone and anyone he wanted whenever he wanted and without rhyme or reason and who was not bound by law or due process is a popular western fantasy that has no basis in historical fact. I am not even going to discuss Pipes’s claim that Russia has a persecution complex because of its fear of imaginary enemies. Russian history and present reality provides sufficent answer.
“I remember Richard Pipes during the Cold War when his basic theme was what a wonderful place tsarist Russia was especially as compared with the nightmarish nastiness of the USSR. Now that the USSR no longer exists tsarist Russia has suddenly stopped being so wonderful.”
***
In pre-Soviet times, he portrayed Soviet negatives as something inherently Russian from times past. Some on the left have agreed with that stance as well.
Among some others, Solzhenitsyn opposed that view.
In some other areas, I’ve found some agreement with Pipes – like how official Soviet history bloated the Russian Civil War era Western intervention bit.
I remember Richard Pipes during the Cold War when his basic theme was what a wonderful place tsarist Russia was…
I’m not old enough to “remember” anything in the direct sense about Pipes during the Cold War, but in his seminal book about the Revolution, Tsarist Russia was painted as a very backwards and “patrimonial” society as I recall (with special emphasis on the climatic factors that supposedly made it so).
Yes, as well as hypocritical ROC bashing, given what can be said of some other major to fairly major denominations.
Over the years, his book “Russia Under the Old Regime” has undoubtedly been used as core reading in a good number of US based Russian history classes.
Pipes doesn’t give a complete picture, with many not having a complete understanding. No surprise that A. Cohen was one of his students.
Pre-Pipes, there were some very good American situated Russian historians that included George Vernadsky and Michael Karpovich.
The quality they gave was in the tradition of such pre-Soviet Russian historical giants as Vasily_Klyuchevsky and Nikolai Karamzin.
A few years back, I recall Pipes (on a CSPAN aired interview show) suggestively speaking highly of himself, as someone who bucked what (was in his presented view) a dominance of White Russian émigré influence in American based Russian studies programs.
On that presentation, he overrates their influence. The active high profile academic presence of such people in the modern era would mark a qualitative upswing from the current status quo.
Pipes doesn’t come across as being more objective than these people, who he seems to have some issues with.
During the fag end of the Cold War Richard Pipes was constantly cropping up on television as a key Russia expert and that is how I best remember him. In these programmes he constantly gave a rosy picture of conditions in late tsarist Russia, especially in the countryside. The context of this was saturation coverage at the time in the western media of Soviet agricultural problems. It all in the end descended into total farce when he said in a television broadcast around 1980 (which I watched) that living standards in the USSR were no higher than they had been in late tsarist Russia. I was at university studying history at the time and I can remember how this comment provoked almost universal ridicule amongst staff and students alike. Pipes later backtracked by saying that what he had meant to say was that living standards of Russian urban dwellers only surpassed their 1927 level in the mid 1950s, which by the way is probably true.
He’s anti-Communist and (IMO and that of some others) anti-Russian leaning.
Regarding what Pipes said, you can find Ukrainian anti-Communist/anti-Russian elements saying a positive thing or two about the pre-Soviet Russian Empire, in reply to a given pro-Soviet view.
Don’t be mistaken. Look at the bigger picture in terms of what’s said overall.
Dear Misha,
Indeed so and as we can now see from his latest burblings Pipes actually doesn’t much like tsarist Russia either so all his protestations to the contrary in his broadcasts of the 1970s and 1980s were a sham. Frankly I don’t think there is any sort of Russia Pipes would like.
Hi Alexander,
He has spoken of having Russian friends, which can undoubtedly be taken to mean people thinking along the lines of himself.
They’re of course entitled to their views, which are in the minority among Russians.
Pipes’ earlier mentioned (at this thread) book “Russia Under the Old Regime” underscores his biases.
Catherine the Great willingly entertained Westerners and elements within their intelligentsia. Peter the Great wasn’t against utilzing Westerners withinhis ranks.
Putin has faced openly sharp and negatively inaccurate comments about his country from Merkel and Bush.
The Valdai Discussion Club, which has A. Cohen as one of its main members is Russian based and with a good amount of Russian government involvement.
So, who more closely resembles the more intellectually intolerant and prejudiced among us?
He’s not a patch on his Israel-zealot son, Daniel Pipes, who distinguished himself for his “Campus Watch” program when he was at the Middle East Forum think tank in 2002. The website, as well as identifying what Pipes’ ideological coven felt were problems with the way college material on Islam and the Middle East is taught (too politically correct, don’t you know – let your hatred free your mind). Professors whose material was judged too critical of Israel ended up in online “dossiers” suggesting they were hostile to America, which generated enough furor that they were taken down. Remember, this was 2002, when public feeling against Islam and Arabs was easy to stoke and manipulate. If Pipes’ methods were too strong for that climate, you can imagine what they were like.
In 2003, George W. Bush nominated Daniel Pipes to the United States Institute for Peace (another of those pretzelesque “Ministry of Love” titles, like the Clear Skies Act which removed controls on pollution generated by factories), and the Democrats filibustered the appointment. He was inserted in place through a recess appointment, a favored Bush administration tactic.
The Pipes family is a real piece of work, and being criticized by them is a badge of honour given how nutty and radical they are.
That they are given a pulpit to bleat their hate says it all about the media. The media has an agenda and is not “free”. People like Pipes who go against the media’s agenda are branded as kooks or ignored completely. No family or individual can command attention, they have to be given it by higher ups. Of course the media’s agenda is the elite’s agenda since they are nothing more than its mouthpiece.
http://grayfalcon.blogspot.com/2012/12/faith-force-and-freedom.html
Excerpt –
“Looking back over 2012, it’s been one of my leaner blogging years. Not because nothing was happening worth mentioning – quite the contrary – but because I saw little point in addressing people who just didn’t care to listen.”
****
By their manner, this seems to be what some in the high profile decision making process seek. Pretty much, if not exclusively downplay some great analytical insight, in favor of political biases and/or crony interests – with the obvious hope that a greater unchallenged monopoly will be firmly put in place.
Here’s a review that appears in today’s Moscow Times. It’s about a play entitled “One Hour Eighteen”. The play is about Magnitsky, whom the reviewer desribes as a “muck-raking attorney was allowed to die in a Moscow prison in November 2009″.
“One Hour Eighteen” opened in early summer 2010 and “examined the actions of several people in close proximity to the prisoner when he mysteriously was allowed to die, apparently handcuffed, on a cold floor in a prison cell”.
The present MT review is about a second, updated version of the play with “several scenes added to respond to events of recent years”.
This review appears in a “newspaper” that constantly decries the absence of the right to express oneself freely in “Putin’s regime” and constantly reports “yet another crackdown” in “Putin’s Russia” against freedom of speech and assembly.
No doubt the reviewer of this play also believes that there is an absence of freedom of speech in Russia and that the right of assembly there is denied Russian citizens.
So what the fuck were those people doing in the theatre where the play “One Hour Eighteen” has been performed for the past 2 years?
Just wondering, like.
Hypocrites with an agenda are good at compartmentalizing. If they had to act on principle they wouldn’t be the maggots that they are.
Serdyukov appeared before the Investigation Committee at 10 o’clock this morning (it is now 3 o’clock in the afternoon, Moscow Time) reports today’s Komsomolskaya Pravda.
Moscow’s only English language daily “newspaper” still reports in today’s issue that Serdyukov is on the run.
Article says the questioning of Serd’ukov went on for only an hour and was then put off for later, because Serd’s lawyer (Genrich Pavda) could not be present due to reasons of ill health.
Serdyukov’s next appointment with the IC is a fortnight today on January 11th, two days after Russia starts back at work on the 9th. As I said earlier, they’re beginning to shut down shop here now: tomorrow is the official last working day of this year, but the parties have already started.
My firm’s piss-up was this afternoon. As usual, I declined to attend just to annoy them. I don’t know why they get so annoyed every year over my absence, which has almost become a tradition now. I only tell them that just because I work with them doesn’t mean I have to socialize with them. (
)
Perhaps that’s why Serdyukov’s attorny was “sick” this morning: because he’s started partying already. He was mouthing it off in presss statements yesterday though. Reckon he might have had an almighty hangover this morning.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the speculation about Serdyukov’s lawyer having a hangover is dead right. Incidentally I am sure he is behind the stories that have appeared in the press saying that Serdyukov is not a suspect merely a witness and that there is “no possibility” of Serdyukov being charged with anything. That is a classic high end criminal defence lawyer’s tactic, intended to pre empt any decision to prosecute Serdyukov by the Investigative Committee and the Procurator General’s Office and intended to warn that any prosecution will be vigorously defended. Unlike certain other defence lawyers we have had occasion to talk about he comes across as a very able lawyer.
Unfortunately, the court of public opinion has no business hours, and western society learned long ago to exploit it efficiently. Despite their protestations to impartiality, decision-makers like judges are often under tremendous pressure to convict or acquit based on a wave of opinion which coalesced around a few well-placed editorials and articles. We’ve seen it happen over and over, although it’s fairly new for Russia.
Dear Alexander: Maybe Pavda does have a hangover, but several commenters have pointed out that Serd’ukov has a whole team of lawyers, not just the one. Clearly they are just playing for time!
I bet MT doesn’t even print a retraction. They’re used to making shit up, and their readers should be, too.
And what’s this nonsense about suspending questioning just because his lawyer isn’t present, like some pantywaist rule-of-law country? It’s on with the hood, and beat him until he confesses; come on, get with the program!
They used the excuse that he did not have his attorney present and was therefore unable to receive legal advice if and when necessary simply to start partying. I know these Russkies, see: December 28th is just too late in the year to arse around with legal niceties when it’s almost major party time!
There is simply no hope for these indolent, uncouth alcoholic almost subhuman riff raff.
Yours etc.
LR
All very true, @Exile, but if you really want to fit in with these subhumans, then you need to start attending their annual office party!
I prefer to have parties at home with my subhuman wife and subhuman children!
No, no, no, it just proves that this is a Putin staged farce where Serdyukov will be let off easy. As long as Serdyukov doesn’t pull a Magnitsky everything will be OK for him. Otherwise he will be beaten to death in pretrial custody.
To be more serious, the real problem is the innumeracy of the media consumer. If Russia was a corrupt mafia state today (it was one in the 1990s under leader, Yeltsin) you would see murder and human rights abuse on a vast scale, tens of thousands of cases per year. So it would be really easy for all the professional Russia haters to pull up victims lists spanning pages. But instead we have the one Magnitsky case trumpeted up and down. If it was just the tip of the iceberg then there would be a long list of names besides Magnitsky, so where is this list?
So now he conveniently knows all the questions he will be (re)asked, giving him ample time to consult on them with his lawyer…
I think it was reported in MK that the IC never even asked him any questions: he just strode in, bold as brass, told them that his lawyer was not present and that he was not willing to say anything to them at present. So they adjourned the interview until January 11th. According to reports in the Moscow press it was all over pretty quickly.
Serdyukov then hurried off over to his mistress’s 13-room appartment and persuaded her to allow him to get his leg over as it might very well be the last one for him and her over the next few years.
(Nah! I just made that bit up. Honest!
)
I came across this interesting blog the other day in which a blogger knowns as “soyuz1917″ and who refers to Serdyukov as “the furniture salesman” (the former boss of the Russian MoD started work in a furniture shop in 1985 and from 1995 to 2000 was the director general of a furniture company in Saint Petersburg) makes this interesting comment:
“The furniture salesman’s mistress is going to spend some time in the gulag and he is damaged goods because of her, and any leader would have to remove him unless he wants to be tainted too. Putin had no choice. And it didn’t help that the furniture salesman’s wife is related to the CEO of Gazprom and is entirely responsible for the furniture salesman’s rise, and his cheating on her so openly was pretty much the worst thing he could do –worse than stealing $100 million — as she could always destroy him with pretty much a twist of her wrist and it looks like that’s precisely what happened. Sex scandals were not tolerated in Soviet politics. People were kicked out of the party for merely divorcing a spouse. Vlad’s Soviet upbringing wont let him stomach a sex scandal
especially one involving $100 million in graft on top of the mistress”.
I don’t know…maybe she was the one that liked being on top?
I think it was reported in MK that the IC never even asked him any questions: he just strode in, bold as brass, told them that his lawyer was not present and that he was not willing to say anything to them at present. So they adjourned the interview until January 11th. According to reports in the Moscow press it was all over pretty quickly.
But according to your KP link:
Все это заняло почти полчаса. А затем начались вопросы по существу: от того, в какой степени бывший министр был осведомлен о деятельности подразделений «Обронсервиса», в какие именно сроки он был председателем совета директоров в этой фирме, подведомственной МО, до весьма «щекотливых» – они касались уже конкретных продаж «лишнего» имущества МО.
Были вопросы и по департаменту имущественных отношений МО, который возглавляла Евгения Васильева (мучающаяся сейчас под домашним арестом), и по «Славянке» во главе с Александром Елькиным – «личным другом министра», как он себя, говорят, частенько представлял. Но ни на один из этих вопросов следователи от Сердюкова ответов не получили. Он воспользовался своим правом не отвечать на вопросы без защитника. Хотя предельно внимательно и настороженно выслушивал вопросы.
You betcha he listened very carefully! :LOL:
Yep, I’m sure he did… and then hurried off over to his lawyer’s office to make his report.
What made me err was that the interview was all over in less than half an hour.
Pretty smart move that of Serdyukov’s lawyer: no lawyer – no answers. Yet the IC mugs fire away questions knowing that he’s not going to answer them. But were they mugs? Did they really expect answers when his lawyer was not present?
Well, yes, whatever else they are I do not suppose they are mugs. The real question is to what instruction the IC is acting. To kill, to bury it, or to just be impartial?
Where is the source that it was over in less than half an hour? Again according to your KP link, the “questioning” lasted several hours:
Все это заняло почти полчаса. А затем начались вопросы по существу… Примерно через час свидетель Сердюков на достаточно грамотном юридическом языке заявил ходатайство о переносе допроса на другой день, и процедура была закончена.
Well, not several hours, sorry, but 1.5 hours.
One and a half hours it was – or thereabouts! But still pretty quick – at first sight, until you realize that only one side was doing the talking.
So the IC spent about 90 minutes asking questions which they surely knew were not going to be answered?
Was it really an interview…or was it more of a briefing for the interview on January 11th?
Yes, the actual questioning and non-answering took approximately an hour: the preliminaries – half an hour. But like I said above: one hour consisting of questions off one party and silence off the other is a long time spent asking questions. It is also a long time spent briefing the “witness” Serdyukov on his forthcoming interview on January 11th.
Well, here, I am not arguing with you all. As written up by KP the entire affair sounds shady and highly suspect!
I agree. And this line off the furniture salesman’s lawyer, that his client is a “witness”, seems all part of what could be a whitewash job as well.
This is a classic lawyer’s tactic and it strengthens my impression that Serdyukov has got himself a good lawyer.
I don’t know what the position is in Russia but the position in Britain is that the police are obliged to go through the questions even if the witness doesn’t answer them. It is important to understand and it is also a fundamental legal principle that a witness or a suspect has a right to know what questions will be put to him and a right to take as long to answer those questions or not to answer them as he wishes. A police interrogator cannot trap a suspect with unexpected or trick questions in the way that is sometimes done in films. Were that to happen the suspect would be fully entitled to have all references to his answer removed from the evidence at his trial. What the prosecutor can do in Britain (though not in every country and especially not in the US where the right not to answer questions is protected by the First Amendment) is draw attention at the trial to the fact that the suspect has either refused or delayed answering questions and to invite the Court to draw inferences from this fact. I don’t know whether this is possible in Russia. I doubt it actually.
Putting all these legal points to one side, the fact that Serdyukov and his lawyer are resorting to these tricks is surely the clearest possible sign that they are worried about the case. If Serdyukov and his lawyer were confident that Serdyukov had nothing to fear they would not be resorting to these tricks.
As I have said already there is a great deal of gossip and disinformation being spread about this case, much of it undoubtedly the work of Serdyukov’s lawyer. It is much too early to leap to conclusions or work out how much of this information is reliable. So far the case has proceeded in a normal way and nothing has actually happened that suggests a cover up.
Dear Alexander Mercouris,
Just as an enquiry, as regards this right to silence in English law, wasn’t the practice as regards the right to silence amended in Northern Ireland law as part of anti-terrorist acts?
Dear Moscow Exile,
You may very well be right but I am afraid I am a complete ignoramus on the subject of British terrorism law so I cannot answer your question. As a general principle I would say that the whole point of anti terrorist legislation in Britain is to tilt the balance as far as possible against the defendant by qualifying or taking away his rights.. If you think about it everything terrorists do that makes them terrorists is a crime anyway so if anti terrorist legislation did not remove or qualify rights there would be no point to it.
Sorry I made a mistake in my lengthy comment on this thread. When I discussed the right in the US to remain silent I should have referred to the Fifth Amendment rather than the First.
In today’s <a href="http://www.mk.ru/politics/article/2012/12/29/794002-priletel-iz-frantsii-i-vel-sebya-naglo.html".Moskovsky Komsomolets there is an article about an article that appeared in “Argumenty nedeli” (Arguments of the Week) that stated that the former furniture salesman and minister of defence had indeed been out of the country and that he had flown back to Russia from France, arriving back in Moscow at 07:30 Friday morning: his interview was scheduled for 10:00 that same day.
AoW states that he rolled up at the Investigtatory Committtee interview accompanied by 12 members of the FSO – the Federal Security Organization (State “heavies” – Федеральная служба охраны Российской Федерации) and that an IC source reports
that the former minister’s “insolent behaviour” was noted and that his bodyguards
“provoked” IC employees.
Here’s a better link to the Moskovsky Komsomolets article that I referred to above.
He seems to be a cheeky little chappie, doesn’t he? Bringing his heavies along to the show but not turning up with a lawyer.
Showing those snivelling IC curs who’s boss, I should think.
He won’t be so cocky if he gets sent down for 10, though.
Dear Moscow Exile,
This is reckless and stupid behaviour needlessly antagonising the Investigative Committee. Even if Serdyukov is confident that this case will not be pursued to its conclusion this sort of provocative behaviour is extremely unwise. Its only effect will be to make the Investigative Committee angry, which will make them want to press on with the case against Serdyukov whatever instructions they’ve been given and to cut him no slack whilst they do so. If Putin does want to stop the case against Serdyukov then Serdyukov is making it more difficult for him to do so. If an order to stop the investigation is given Putin will have a lot of angry people in the Investigative Committee on his hands. Of course all of this is consistent with Serdyukov’s similarly brazen behaviour in continuing to see Vasilyeva and persisting in his relationship with her.
Incidentally I have now had a chance to read what Putin said about Serdyukov at his press conference and it was very interesting. He said Serdyukov’s boorish treatment of high ranking officers in uniform was wrong and that such people should be treated with respect. He definitely left open the possibility that charges against Serdyukov might be brought. He went out of his way to repeatedly say and indeed promise that there would be no political interference with the case and that the Investigative Committee would be allowed to see through. His comments about Serdyukov were indeed cold though he did say quite properly that in the end it is only a court which can declare guilty. He also explained the reason why Serdyukov has not been arrested so far along the same lines I have previously discussed, which is that this can only happen in accordance with proper legal procedure and due process. Putin also made the very interesting suggestion that the Defence Ministry might bring a civil case against the various fraudsters involved in the case including presumably Serdyukov to recover the property and the money they have stolen.
Overall I did not get the impression that Putin is protecting Serdyukov. Quite the contrary. I would add that Putin is someone who puts a very high value on his word so when he makes a promise that he is not going to protect Serdyukov I am inclined to believe him. Besides why would Putin want to protect Serdyukov? Serdyukov has already antagonised the military whose support Putin has repeatedly made clear he values. It is probably true that he has also antagonised Zubkov by having an affair with Vasilyeva whilst still married to Zubkov’s daughter. The fact that he is continuing to see Vasilyeva can only add insult to the injury. He has angered the defence industries by delaying payments and by sourcing equipment from abroad. He is now busy antagonising the Investigative Committee by his arrogant behaviour. What supporters does Serdyukov have that would make it politically expedient for Putin to protect him when Serdyukov has enemies like these?
Here is the link from Putin’s website that provides the English translation of his comments at his recent big press conference. The translation is still incomplete but the comments about Serdyukov come towards the end.
http://eng.kremlin.ru/transcripts/4779
Something that really irritates me about Serdyukov’s alleged “arrogant behaviour” as reported by MK as regards his visit to the IC for an interview that didn’t take place because he brought along not onelegal representative with him, is that he attended the interview in the company of 12 members of the FSO, who, allegedly,”provoked” IC security officers.
The security of the former Minister of Defence does not fall within the remit of of the FSO, I am sure, yet Serdyukov rolls along to the “interview” accompanied by a bodyguard who are government heavies dedicated to the protection of what was previously known as the nomenklatura.
Who authorized Serdykov’s protection by the FSO? Why was it deemed necessary that he be protected? What made Serdyukov’s bodyguard believe that part of its duties that day was to intimidate IC employees?
This all smacks to me of fiefdoms. Serdukov, though not a government minister, is displaying to all that he is still a powerful man, a silovik, who still has the ability to summon state employed heavies to act on his behalf even though he is no longer a government minister.
He is truly full of his own shit as regards his belief in his importance. That’s why he is
still visiting another “witness” in this £60 million fraud case, former MoD employee Vasileeva, his now under house arrest alleged mistress with the very, very upmarket 13-room appartment situated in one of the most “elite” districts of central Moscow.
What Serdyukov is doing is blatently giving two-fingers (or one upraised middle finger if you prefer – o tempora, o mores!) to the government, the people, the regime – to the whole damn world, because he’s the fat guy who can fly off to France whilst under
grave suspiscion of a serious crime; who can then return to Russia two and a half hours before his interview with the Russian version of the FBI and, whilst at the interview and accompanied by his own team of government heavies, then decline to answer questions because his lawyer (he only has one at his disposal it seems) just happens to be indisposed.
I really do hope he gets his fat arse kicked.
If he’s proven guilty, of course – which I’m pretty sure he is.
Again, is there any proof he is visiting Vasilieva? Video, date-stamped photographs, reliable eyewitnesses? I’ve lost track of where the original story came from; I think it was Kommersant. I quite agree he seems to have adopted the “brazen it out, all the cattle respect is strength” approach, but if he hopes a show of strength will intimidate Putin, he is much mistaken. However, it is his visiting his floozy while she is supposedly off-limits that seems to have drawn the most public fury. As far as I’m aware, we have only a news story from newspapers who have proven not very adept at tracking Serdyukov – but who have a direct interest in whipping up public dudgeon in order to sell newspapers – to support that it ever happened.
Otherwise, Serdyukov’s behavior reminds me of the reaction of the former head of the Canadian Mint, David Dingwall, when confronted by auditors on his out-of-control spending of public funds, including even a pack of chewing gum on his government expense claims. He responded, famously; “I am entitled to my entitlements”.
And his was one of the least egregious examples of Canadian MP’s living it up on the taxpayer’s money – an investigation even resulted in his being paid back $417,780.00 after it determined he had been unfairly forced out of his job. Check out Bev Oda, who refused to stay at a 5-star hotel in London because it was deemed not sufficiently luxurious – rebooking at another which cost more than twice as much – and claimed reimbursement for a $16.00 bottle of orange juice.
I almost – almost – feel a little sorry for Serdyukov, because he is fast making of himself a caricature of entitlement and privilege in his seemingly earnest pursuit of the image of a righteous man who has been badly treated. Either this is his true character, or somebody is giving him bad advice. Either way, he is riding for a hard fall.
I find it highly sucpicious that Serd’ukov was in France while he was being investigated on this serious matter. I suspect he is trying to arrange a defection to the West. To put in context, note how the West is always busy trying to get members of “rogue regimes” to defect (like the recent defection from Assad’s government in Syria). I imagine they would consider Serd to be quite a prize.
According to this report, Serdyukov was certainly at Vasilyeva’s appartment when investigators called on her.
The Novosibirsk News reported that Serdyukov is meeting Vasilyeva and that she:
“…asked the Khamovnichesky Court to allow her to continue her house arrest in a mansion outside of Kosygin together with her former chief, Serdyukov”.
The Novosibirsk News reports that the request was turned down.
According to this site:
“Бывший министр обороны Анатолий Сердюков навестил находящуюся под домашним арестом фигурантку дела о хищении имущества ОАО «Оборонсервис» Евгению Васильеву. Как передает РСН со ссылкой на анонимный источник в службе охраны дома № 6 в Молочном переулке, экс-министр остался на ночь в 13-комнатных апартаментах обвиняемой”.
[Former Defence Minister Anatoly Serdyukov has visited the under house arrest person involved in the "Oboronservis" property embezzlement case,Yevgenya Vasilyeva. Russian News Service, citing an anonymous source in the service of house number 6 in Molochny Lane, has stated that the former minister stayed the night in the accused person's 13-room apartment.]
The article also reports that Vasilyeva and Serdyukov are meeting each other and that a court has turned down her request that she be allowed to continue her house arrest in the company of Serdyukov.
And there’s more similar stuff if one should wish to comb throught he Russian web.
And here’s a cracker that I’ve sniffed out from a scandal sheet: Guess who Vasilyeva’s first cousin is reckoned to be?
None other than Svetlana Medvedeva, the prime minister’s wife!
See here.
It’s that old St. Petersburg clan in operation again!
Does the word “krysha” suddenly spring to mind?
None other than Svetlana Medvedeva, the prime minister’s wife!
Wow it must run in the family then.
Well!!! Completely changes my impression of her – which I must admit was totally based on her appearance and not really anything concrete at all – because I wanted to like her. I had no idea she was such a cow. This is exactly the sort of performance that gives people a poor impression of Russians, because it would of anyone but all anyone who came in contact with her will remember is that she is Russian.
I must say, this whole episode speaks poorly of Putin’s instincts. He, after all, appointed Serdyukov, and look what a disaster that has turned out to be. But, more to the point, Medvedev was at one time his chosen successor. What a mistake that has turned out to be as well. He’s not only a bit of a weak leader owing to his desire to please everyone, but now it appears his wife is the real pit bull in the relationship.
If true, and the two women really are related, this is quite a scoop.
Oh, Svetlana’s unbearable conceit has long been noted. When she was the president’s wife, some journalists used to call her “Tsaritsa Svetlana”. (I got acquainted with some decent journalists a few years back.) They didn’t print that though. And one used to tell me of the airs and graces that she put on and he said that it always seemed to him that she acted as though she expected people to bow to her, or to courtsey.
She had this American “First Lady” crap in her head I suppose. Seems that she still thinks she’s the f*cking Queen of the May.
I’m bloody sure Medvedev is a closet white-ribbonist!
Keeping in mind the suggestion that Russia has an overbearing attitude towards others:
http://www.crappytown.com/2012/12/us-to-bosnians-heres-what-your.html
From someone who has served as Khodorkovksy’s legal counsel:
http://www.eurasiareview.com/27122012-the-kremlins-criminal-treatment-of-russian-orphans-oped/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+eurasiareview%2FVsnE+%28Eurasia+Review%29
For all the bile directed to me by some commentators on this site, I am happy to say that overallI remain somewhere in the golden middle, between fanatical “Russophilia” and deranged Russophobia.
Here’s an example of how the Moscow Times works:
A couple of days back, former Soviet Union propagandist Vladimir Pozner, now turned libertarian critic of Russia and its president, made comments about the State Duma on his TV show as regards the “anti-adoption bill”, punning the word “duma” with the Russian word “dura”, which means “stupid woman”, basically insinuating that the Russian legislature, in its passing of the adoption bill, was acting like a stupid old woman. (Remember: this occurred in the country where there is no free speech and no free press and news media.)
Four duma deputies got rather irritated about Pozner’s comment and sent him a letter suggesting that if he did not like the proposed legislation, he should seek employment in the USA or France: Pozner not only holds a Russian passport but a French and US one as well.
In the latest issue of MT, the essence of this this story has been reported under the headline “Pozner Faces Ban From State TV”.
The MT article states:
“Four State Duma deputies are threatening to ban foreigners from state television if they utter discrediting remarks about the country”.
So, according to MT, four deputies are threatening to impose censorship upon Pozner’s utterances and those of others of like mind and of foreign nationality.
The fact of the matter is, however, that four deputies may just possibly propose a bill to the remaining 445 duma deputies, which bill, if accepted by that legislative chamber and the upper chamber of the legislature and signed by the president, will effect the dismissal from employment of Pozner and other foreign journalist when making “discrediing remarks” about Russia.
That such a bill be passed by the duma would be, in my humble opinion, highly unlikely.
The MT article, however, gives the impression that the imposition of such a ban on former professional liar Pozner’s uterances is imminent (“Pozner Faces Ban…”) and is, surely, yet another glaring example of an imminent crackdown on free speech in the Evil Empire.
MT describes itself as a “newspaper”.
I certainly hope that you are right on it being unlikely.
The best way to prove the GosDura thing wrong is to just ignore it as it would be any sane parliament. Unfortunately at least four and possibly many more wish to do the opposite.
Russia should pass UK style libel laws. Pissner should be sued for libel and forced into personal bankruptcy.
Also, in the precious west journalists are regularly fired for making rather benign comments which are seen as politically incorrect. Eventually Pissner will flap his lips past some threshold and should be outright fired.
This is one occasion I have to say when I am on Pozner’s side. His comment was crude but it seems to me an appropriate comment for a political commentator to make. Only individuals can be libelled not whole institutions so I don’t think this was a case of libel. Incidentally I notice that one of the Duma Deputies to lodge the complaint was Andrei Lugovoi, the man the British say was Litvinenko’s assassin. One woulld imagine such a person was made of sterner stuff than to take umbrage over a comment like that.
Dear Alexander Mercouris,
That the duma as a whole can be characterized as a stupid woman is neither shocking nor offensive and Pozner is certainly within his rights to express this opinion freely as is any Russian citizen.
What annoys me, hoewever, is how the Moscow Times has reported this story, saying, on the grounds of the content of a letter sent to him by four duma members, that Pozner faces being dismissed from his position as political commentator on a TV channel as a result of legislation to be passed by that silly woman duma.
The four who were offended by Pozner’s statement have not yet proposed a bill that, if passed, will effect the dismisssal of foreign nationals who, working as journalists and political commentators, criticize Russia.
I think that the proposal and acceptance of such a bill is hardly likely and, therefore, saying that Pozner faces dismissal for what he said is a gross exagerration intentionally made by MT in order to portray Russia as a state where freedom of expresssion is severely limited.
Dear Moscow Exile,
You are quite right the article in Moscow Times (especially the headline) is misleading and absurd.
By the way I notice the web page carrying the article still gives a link to the article that appeared yesterday which speculated that Serdyukov had fled abroad. That article purported to be based on information provided by various senior officials. If those officials exist then they clearly had no idea what they were talking about. That ought to make us careful about giving credence to other articles about this case that purport to be based on comments of senior officials. As I have said already there is a great deal of misinformation being spread about this case. Some of it may be unintentional but it is quite likely that some of it is deliberate disinformation.
I heard you go to hell if you tell lies.
Pozner is a 5th columnist by his spin on VOR and elsewhere. This situation is analogous to the RIAN pandering to western media spin on all things Russian. Russia does not need this “branch plant” journalism. Russians are free to read CNN, BBC, etc on the web and even watch them on TV. So there is no need for Russian media to fill their role.
In the long run it is undermining Russian media to have it sing the west’s tune. Russian journalists should be home grown watch dogs and put the flame to the government based on their own initiative and Russian realities. Instead too many of them are just whores who peddle western propaganda.
The situation you describe (in your own words) can be said of a good number of the hired non-Russians.
It’s not like there aren’t other options (quality ones at that) out there.
Political biases and cronyism remain major stumbling blocks.
This particular incident didn’t happen in Russia:
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/local-news/20121228-statue-of-praying-hitler-displayed-in-former-warsaw-ghetto-stirs-mixed-reactions.ece
—————————
Especially for those who dwell on a cover-up mindset in Russia:
http://rapsinews.com/judicial_news/20121229/265957756.html
—————————
From an American academic teaching in Moscow:
http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2012/1228/Putin-shows-Russian-insecurity-in-signing-ban-on-US-adoption-of-orphans?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+feeds%2Fcommentary+%28Christian+Science+Monitor+%7C+Commentary%29
So much for the thought not feeling free enough to openly criticize the Russian government in Russia.
—————————
From an overly hyped source:
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/12/28/Putin_orphans_Russia_crackdown
—————————
For the purpose of paying up the image of a no good Russia as host to the disgraced:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/29/world/europe/in-barvikha-russia-leaders-like-assad-find-haven.html?ref=europe&_r=0
I’m sure they aren’t living as well as Somoza and Bautista, among some other former heads of state who’ve lived in exile elsewhere.
Regarding the subject of criminals, there’re the sham decisions handed out by the Western legal politico influenced ICTY
—————————
On Syria, I think it’s fair to say that Russia has attempted a greater degree of reasoned objectivity, when compared to the official manner of the US government and some others:
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/nationworld/sns-rt-us-syria-crisis-russia-oppositionbre8bs04o-20121229,0,2919829.story
http://paktribune.com/news/Russia-urges-Assad-to-talk-to-opposition-256088.html
—————————
The US played well in its loss to Russia.
Latter today, the US faces Canada.
http://www.iihf.com
Re: the Christian Science Monitor piece – remember when they said the sheer volume of articles on Pussy Riot indicated, ipso facto, how important they were? Nuckol spends an entire page laughing off how unimportant and childish the adoption ban is, yet, western newspapers cannot stop screaming in rage. As other sources have pointed out, the childless would-be adopters are looking for the white kids; as recently as 2005 (couldn’t find any references dated later, that one was from People Magazine), nearly all the children adopted from the United States were African-American or biracial – and there is no shortage; in 2011 there were more than 400,000 children in foster care in the United States and more than 100,000 looking for adoptive homes.
According to Nuckol – and this is the only thing in it that really makes me angry – the mature thing for Russia to do upon being confronted with the Magnitsky Act would have been to comprehensively investigate and punish those guilty. Since the United States now has a huge list of people from such worthies as the Carnegie Moscow Center who are “guilty”, for Putin to fire about half his government would do it. Then America might be mollified, and say these were “positive steps”, and crow over what an effective tool the Magnitsky Act was at making the Russian brute lick his lips and cower. The fact that a complete package of investigatory material was already offered to the west, and both the USA and UK refused to even look at it, is not mentioned.
The fiction persists that “most of” the Russian orphans adopted by the USA are disabled or special-needs children. This is a crock. It’s certainly true some are, and it is a tribute to the kindness and generosity of American adoptive parents that this is so at all, because in nearly a quarter of cases where American families have a special-needs child at home, one parent has had to quit working to look after the child – it is a life-changing commitment. I’d be interested to see any hard figures which indicate how many Russian children adopted are disabled, but I’m not sure any such records exist.
There is money in adoptions, and sometimes corners get cut. I read, for instance, that the signature of Dmitri Yakovlev’s grandmother on his documents was forged. The USA is a ratified (since 2008) signatory to the Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoptions, and it is the responsibility now of the U.S. State Department to monitor all intercountry adoptions. There might have been a good reason, such as that the grandmother couldn’t write or something, but it sounds dodgy.
Chutzpah:
http://news.antiwar.com/2012/12/28/syrian-rebels-spurn-russian-call-for-peace-talks/
I like what Ben-C says:
“A guy in exile (who’s not even in Syria) who was anointed ‘leader’ by the US State Department is not the ‘Syrian rebel leader”… He is neither a “rebel” nor a “leader” of anything other than what he’s told…he’s not even located inside Syria under “protection” by the so-called almighty “rebels” who are allegedly “closing in” and “gaining” every day on the ‘Assad regime’…I think enough is said…”
A diverse panel on Syria that just aired:
http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/insidesyria/2012/12/201212306644638376.html
A far cry from CNN’s Anderson Cooper piously interrupting a Syrian government representative, while being comparatively much softer, when interacting with supporters of the armed the anti-Syrian government opposition.
Crock from Saudi Arabia:
http://www.arabnews.com/why-beg-russia-its-help-syria
One of the reasons I would like to see Assad survive is that perhaps it would bring a reckoning with those dirty Saudi inveiglers. Note the pious repetition of 50,000 deaths – probably taken right from the duplicitous Syrian Observatory of Human Rights, or simply made up of whole cloth – and the mention of attempting to bribe Russia into withdrawing its support. Note also that the author discourages further persuasion of Russia now as it would perhaps interfere with the rebels being able to kill all the Alawites – which, mark my words, will happen if the rebels succeed, at which point the west will throw up its hands and protest, “Nobody could have known this would happen”, or perhaps the more pithy “Freedom is untidy”, or some such rot.
It is unimaginable to me that there is anyone left in the world who still believes the coalition arrayed against Syria is acting out of any type of humanitarian motive, especially since the Saudi newspapers are crying for more bloodshed and not less, rather than a cold and cynical agenda of domination and another obstacle removed on the march to Tehran.
Saudi media is horrid, along with some other aspects in Saudi Arabia. No terse comments on that from Victoria Nuland.
Not too long ago, there was an example of people power in Jordan, which made international news services.
The stand that some governments take on issues outside their borders can have a good deal of irony.
Dear Mark and Misha,
I agree with every point you both make both about Saudi Arabia and about this specific article. Yet am I alone in seeing behind all the exasperation and the anger in an article obviously written by a highly placed source who probably reflects official Saudi thinking a certain grudging respect – admiration even – for the way Russia has stuck to its position in Syria? Notice how the article comments on the “clarity and continuity” in Russia’s policy, how it refuses to analyse or explain Russian policy (suggesting that the writer understands the policy perfectly well but does not want to explain it because he finds doing so embarrassing) and the ill concealed amazement at the way Russia has refused to change its policy despite all the bribes and all the pressure it has come under from the Gulf States
Re: http://www.itar-tass.com/en/c32/612697.html
Contrary to what was earlier suggested as a possibility, Shevchuk hasn’t (at least so far) become a version of Yushchenko –
http://www.aminuk.org/index.php?idmenu=12&idsubmenu=268&language=en
One of the few instances where I’ve differed with an AMINUK run analytical piece.
http://www.eurasiareview.com/10012012-pridnestrovies-present-and-future%C2%A0-analysis/
Along with yours truly, chalk up AMINUK as another competent source that isn’t JRL promoted – much unlike some others that include Paul Goble, Taras Kuzio and Andreas Umland.
Improvement comes with qualitative changes made in the decision making process.
Those truly seeking such with the necessary resources, make it a point to actively pursue the quality options getting muted on account of political biases and/or cronyism.
Extry EXTRY! Masha Gaidar is BACK! (She was out of the public eye for a while.)
According to this piece in Izvestia, Masha hopes to take on a “pro bono” position as Advisor to the Moscow Mayor’s office:
http://izvestia.ru/news/542484
Okay, I don’t get this whole “unpaid advisor” thing. If a public official needs a particular post filled, then why not hire somebody and pay them a salary? Why these eager-beaver volunteers?
Recall that Navalny was also an “unpaid advisor” to Kirov Governor Nikita Belykh during that period when he was (allegedly) embezzling lumber products. During that period, Masha Gaidar held the post of (paid) Vice Governor to Belykh at the time. Eyebrows were raised by the fact that Masha and Nikita were having an affair. (Yes, as in any good soap opera, she slept her way into the job – gasp!)
Now, everything I have ever read about Yegor Gaidar’s darling daughter would indicate that she is a crook and a thief, although I am sure she just regards herself as an entrepreneur.
So, now she is apparently going to join the team of Leonid Pechatnikov, Vice Mayor in charge of Social Policy. Masha says that her specialty is the needs of ambulatory care patients. (In English I think this would translate to Outpatient Clinic or possibly Outreach programs for urban indigents.)
“I will only be coming in occasionally for consultations or meetings,” she says. “I will not be a bureacrat. As an expert, I will occupy myself with issues of raising the quality of access to ambulatory care. I will no doubt rely on my experience (that I gained) in the West.”
Gaidar adds that she will be working with Moscow doctors, hospitalists, and insurance companies.
Hm… colour me cynical, but I can’t help but wonder what this female Ostap Bender is up to now? Maybe some kind of insurance scam??? Will we learn later that she was charging for outpatient visits that never happened and then siphoning the money to Navalny’s Cyprus offshore?
Here is a link I found on the ins and outs of ambulatory care, which in an of itself is a worthy exercise with or without Masha Gaidar:
http://bigmeden.ru/article/%D0%90%D0%BC%D0%B1%D1%83%D0%BB%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%9F%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%BE%D1%89%D1%8C
So these clowns can push their way into municipal government as they please? It is in the interests of Moscow’s government to not let this grifter anywhere near the administration.
Could Gaidar be the new chosen one? Is she implanting herself, waiting for the call if and when the present chosen one, the prince in the now tarnished armour gets sent down?
This guy Leonid Pechatnikov, who reports to the Mayor of Moscow and who is apparently Masha Gaidar’s new … er….. mentor:
I checked his curricula vitae, he is a medical doctor who did his residence in therapy, then eventually switched to administration in the area of therapy and social work. Seems like like a qualified bureacrat who clawed his way up the ladder of the medical establishment in Moscow.
http://www.mos.ru/en/authority/vice/5/
Not only that, he is also going to be in charge of the anti-doping team at the Sochi Olympics and para-Olympics:
http://www.emcmos.ru/en/profession/a1763
That last link was from 2010, I guess that was before he was appointed Deputy Mayor of Moscow:
Leonid Pechatnikov, President and CMO of the European Medical Center: «The European Medical Center strategic goal is to integrate international healthcare standards in to Russian market of medical services. Today our clinics host professionals from six countries. Their knowledge together with experience of our Russian medical staff has contributed to the creation of unique clinics in Russia that render services of high quality compared with leading clinics in Europe».
[NOTE: CMO stands for “Chief Medical Officer”.]
He could be quite qualified but that does not preclude him having a white ribbon agenda. Anyway, it is strange for Masha Gaidar to be treated by Russian governments of any level as acceptable political goods and not something to be avoided at all costs.
I guess Putler’s totalitarian nightmare dystopia ain’t all its cracked up to be.
Something frequently downplayed within Western mass media, inclusive of not picking up on some of the more common Russian gripes, as opposed to the openDemocracy and RFE/RL preferred Russian views.
When I first read the story, I figured Masha’s scam might have something to do with billing for non-existent outpatient visits in some rundown Moscow clinic. But that’s chump change, actually way beneath her skill level (as an expert grifter). So, after reading about Pechatnikov’s (future) role in the 2014 Olympics, I came up with a new theory: I think Masha wants to worm her way into the Olympics! I am guessing there is some money to be made in the doping/anti-doping gig, maybe big bribes from athletes? Masha would convince Pechatnikov to do the paperwork and harvest the cash, so that he could buy her nice things and keep her in the style to which she has become accustomed. We went through this whole soap opera once before, with her and Kirov Governator Nikita Belykh!
I don’t want to speculate about any illicit plans that Masha Gaidar might have in Moscow, for which we have no evidence, but could it be that the reason she wants to become part of the Moscow administration is because under Sobyanin it is becoming a success and she wants to associate herself with it?
There was a recent article in the Financial Times (behind a paywall unfortunately) which spoke of the improvement of conditions in Moscow over the last year as a result of the work of the Moscow administration. Needless to say it didn’t give credit for this to Sobyanin, who the article didn’t even mention, but gave the whole credit to one of his subordinates who it represented as a liberal. There were various things mentioned as having improved in Moscow this year but the one that stood out was the reorganisation and revival of Gorky Park. If the Moscow administration is becoming popular and successful it is completely understandable why individuals like Masha Gaidar might want to be associated with it if only so that they can take the credit for the things it is doing.
On the subject of Masha Gaidar’s possible schemes to enrich herself in Moscow, the one thing I would say is that Moscow is a very different place from the Kirov Region and Sobyanin is a very different proposition from Belykh. I think if Masha Gaidar has any such ideas she would be wise to put them aside.
Incidentally anyone (Moscow Exile?) who wants to read the Financial Times article about the improvements in Moscow can get round the paywall by doing a Google search “Financial Times Muscovites benefit from city’s makeover”. The article attributes the improvements not to Sobyanin, who is of course the Mayor, but to an official called Sergei Kapkov who it pointedly says is a former associate of Roman Abramovitch and an ex boyfriend of Ksenia Sobchak’s.
I am not saying this official doesn’t deserve some of the credit for any improvements that might have happened in Moscow but to write an article discussing improvements that have been done to Moscow by its administration without mentioning the person who is actually the Mayor does seem odd. I can’t imagine Mayors Giuliani or Bloomberg would be terribly happy if the Financial Times or the Wall Street Journal published an article touting improvements in New York whilst they were Mayors without mentioning them.
Dear Alexander Mercouris,
I have just read the that FT article about which you have written above. There’s a nice little line in it:
“It is unclear whether bicycle racks and outdoor games will distract Muscovites from the anti-Kremlin opposition movement”.
Well, I’ve got news for the person who wrote that: the vast majority of the population of Moscow – you know, the “bydlo” – doesn’t need to be distracted from the antics of the white ribbonists because, though well aware of the oppositionists’ events, it doesn’t give a monkey’s about them.
The whole article, though, whilst conceding that certain improvements have been made in the capital, suggests that this is the result of the Kremlin’s fear of the power of the noble oppositionists and a concession to them.
But, frankly, my dear white condomnists, the majority of Muscovites couldn’t give a damn about what you think. (Apologies to Margaret Mitchell.)
Here is a KP article from last month announcing the opening of the biggest ice rink in Europe and situated at Gorky Park.
Just to distract peoples’ attention, of course, from the idea of attending opposition rallies of, say, 400 or so at Lubyanka Square, mind you.
The article appeared on November 17th. The reporter says at the beginning that although there is no snow yet, there is an ice rink. Not long after she had said that, Moscow endured the coldest December on record and, needless to say, there is now snow on the ground.
By the way, in winter they have always turned the paths in certain parks, not only those at Gorky, into “ice rinks”. My local Park, Taganskaya, is one big ice rink now and is so every winter.
С Новым Годом!
Yes, certain reporters of a certain liberal persuasion are fond of implying that even the weather is opposed to the Russian government, and that attractions which rely on certain conditions are laughable follies, because this winter it surely will not be cold; any fool could see that – any fool but the government, of course.
Sometimes that kind of spin was warranted; I remember when Darkin was governor of the Primorsky Krai (not so long ago, actually, since he was only fired – I mean, stepped down for health reasons after a trip to the woodshed with Dima Medvedev – last February, but I’m talking about his early days, say 2003/2004) consistently seemed amazed that it was cold in winter, evidenced by the fact that his officials had failed to purchase enough coal and fuel to keep Vladivostok going through the winter. Maybe that’s where the million or so people Russia is losing every year went: they didn’t actually leave, they just quietly moved to Vladsivostok in November.
By the way, if you click on the diagram of the Gorky Park ice rink that appears in the KP article, it becomes much bigger.
Dear Moscow Exile,
The idea that any of the improvements in Moscow have anything to do with the protest movement is completely nonsensical since as anybody with any knowledge of administration knows such improvements (the redevelopment of Sokolniki and Gorky Park especially) take time and must have been initiated more than a year ago and before the protest movement got underway.
Having said this, is this story even true? Redeveloping Sokolniki and Gorky Park is of course a good thing but the other changes all look pretty minor and hardly the sort of thing people really notice. Still this is a rare article to appear in the British press that says that some things in Russia are getting not worse but better.
Yes, I think there are very few Russian adults who don’t know how to ice skate. You can buy the tiniest of skates here and children learn at a very early age how to skate. My children all skate well, not least because this place is situated right next to our house. It says on the facade: Central Palace of Ice Sport. It was built 7 years ago – long before Putin had started to hide in his Kremlin bunker, safe from the fury of the Moscow public under the leadership of Navalny.
Are you being sarcastic? I hope not, because it is reputed to be the lowest form of wit. According to people who are not very good at it. All the same, I would have you know that seven protesters against the adoption ban were detained a few days ago outside the upper house of parliament. You mock the gathering storm of the people’s rage at your peril.
Say – is it just me, or are there far too many western-oriented “Center” think tanks in Moscow? What’s this “Center for Political Information”? I could find only one other reference for its all-but-invisible Director, Alexei Muhkin.
Here’s a view of one of the rinks inside the “Central Palace” that I posted above: the other is a big ice-dancing and figure skating rink. There is also a basketball court there and gymnasium with all the usual bodybuilding machinery and gymnastic apparatus.
But what good is all this, one may ask, if one does not have liberty!
The people need freedom, not ice rinks!
It’s a different video clip now and made quite recently.
Nice shots in it of all those young oppressed folk crushed by the denial of their human rights and all yearning for freedom.
It is indeed a good clip.
We have one outdoor skating rink in London outside Somerset House on the Strand. It is very small, far smaller than the new one in Moscow, but is massively popular with young people and has become quite a meeting place for young couples. Needless to say it can get very crowded so everybody has to skate in the same direction and the time on the ice is restricted. I think people would very much envy the possibility of being able to skate in the parks. Despite the cold (or perhaps because of it) Moscow has in my opinion much more to offer by way of outdoor fun in winter than London.
Incidentally I get the impression that ice skating in winter is a very old tradition in Moscow. Anna Karenina, which is set in the 1860s, has a meeting at an outdoor skating rink between Levin and Kitty fairly early on in the novel.
Gosh, Moscow Exile, the indoor rink looks spectacular. I have never seen anything like that here.
To give credit where it’s due the Major and Blair governments (especially the latter) did invest heavily in sport, which explains the sudden improvement in performance by the British Olympic Team. However this investment is not being sustained and I don’t see the improvement continuing. This is a shame because British people love sport.
Regarding the comment about Moscow and rinks, the KHL is top heavy with teams from the Moscow area:
http://en.khl.ru/clubs/
Good job by Canada in beating Russia today and finishing atop their pool play group, thus earning a buy in the single game elimination playoff round.
I’m sure these sites will have the details:
http://www.iihf.com
http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey
Or perhaps she will be an inside source of scandalous information about the Olympics. The west is well aware that this is a big moment for Russia, and that the government has spared no effort to ensure the Olympics are a success. The west, doubtless, would like them to be a disaster. I keep expecting the announcement daily that the USA and UK will boycott the Olympics in Russia in protest of the adoption ban, and I have no doubt both are searching for a particularly juicy tit to slap on top of the Russian tat. Still, it’s early days yet, and announcing too soon would be a tactical blunder. It’s interesting, in an unfolding-train-wreck sort of way, to see how the Anglosphere is willing to ditch the entire work of decades in building an uneasy relationship with Russia just to see who has the biggest prick.
That’s an angle I hadn’t thought of…. very devious… Masha is not a journalist, of course, but what would stop her from spying on the athletes and the behind-the-scenes, and relaying information to western journalists who want to wreck the Olympics? Assuming that Pechatnikov brings her along with him to Sochi. This could be extremely interesting….
I just thought I would mention that I ventured forth yesterday on the Guardian’s Comment is Free website to discuss a for once fairly even handed article on the subject of the adoption ban, which resulted in the Guardian amending the article to correct a minor point.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/dec/28/russia-ban-us-adoption-children-rights#start-of-comments
The Guardian has to correct factual errors like this one or it faces a complaint to the Press Complaints Commission or whatever new complaints body will replace it following the Leveson Report. It takes time to force corrections but it can be done.
Iskander missiles in Syria?
Do you guys know if this is true? I know Press TV and several other media outlets have carried several stories on this, but I don’t think the Russian government has yet commented – which, either way, I’m guessing they won’t. IF this is true, this may be one of the reasons why NATO hasn’t set up a “no-fly zone” in the country. From what I’ve read about Iskanders (perhaps the most advanced surface to air missile in the world), this would make it VERY difficult to impose flight supremacy over Syria, especilly if those Iskander platforms come equipped with Russian technicians as Press TV claims.
The Military Observer of 14th December 2012 reported that the Iranian press had been giving out announcments stating that a few hours after the NATO Council had approved on 11th December the sending of “Patriot” missiles to Turkey because of the crisis in Syria, Russia delivered the first batch an “Iskander” missile system to Damascus.
Oops, wrong link!
That was a link to a RIA Novisti article of 7 years ago about Assad denying that there was an Iskander contract betweeen Russia and Syria, which was more the pity, according to a spokesman from the Russian Ministry of Defence.
Here’s the link to the Military Observer article that I wrote of above.
Thanks Moscow Exile,
but sadly, I can’t read it! – though I do trust you. I’m thinking if the Russians have indeed now placed Iskanders in Syria (I’m thinking they were probably brought in through Tartus), it was probably done within the last two-weeks to counter the patriot missile batteries placed along the Turkish border to “defend Turkey” – you know the country actually supporting and headquatering the terrorists attacking Syria. It basically boils down to another “tit for tat” between Russia and the US.
Dear RC,
I know that the media (especially Press TV) is full of the story of Iskander missiles in Syria but I am reasonably sure that this story is wrong. I have heard of no such order for the delivery of such missiles and given their power and sophistication is it reasonable to suppose that they could be delivered now without this triggering protests from the west especially after all the hullaballoo we saw a few months ago over the delivery of just three helicopter gunships? Also as I understand it the Iskander is one of the most modern and advanced medium ranged ballistic missiles in the Russian arsenal. It has only recently entered service with the Russian military and forms a key part of the planned Russian response to the planned US deployment of anti missile interceptors in eastern Europe. Would Russia really supply such a powerful and sophisticated weapon to Syria at this time when there must be a serious risk if the regime falls that its secrets will fall into the hands of the Americans?
Russia did supply shorter range and less sophisticated Tochka ballistic missiles to Syria about a decade ago. It also recently agreed to supply to Syria Bastion supersonic coastal defence anti ship cruise missiles. I understand that deliveries of the Bastion missiles took place recently and it may be that it is these deliveries that have been mistaken for deliveries of the Iskander.
Thanks for the clarification Alexander.
I also found it odd that Russia could deliver such a powerful weapon to Syria right under the nose of the west. If this had happened, we probably would’ve heard wide condemnation from the US and its allies in the media, as this would most certainly rule out any kind of air campaign over Syria – which is why I was skeptical that such a transfer had happened. On another note: I was also skeptical when I heard two years ago that Russia had delivered the SS-400 to Iran, when that system was still in wide use in Russia. usually, the US and Russia never transfer their newer state of the art platforms in their arsenals to other countires (though in the case of the US, this may not be true regarding Israel). My understanding is that the Iranians were trying to receive the ss-300. You’ve also noted that the Russian Bastion missile is a supersonic not one of the newer hypersonic missiles – which are now the cornerstones of Russia’s medium range fleet, which makes sense to me.
The Iskander does not make sense as product for sale to Syria. As noted above it is a medium range strategic missile. Syria has no use for such a weapon unless it plans to intimidate its neighbours and this is dubious for a weak government,
Syria could benefit from the upgraded versions of the S-300 which have high kill ratios out to 150 km. Such a system in sufficient quantities could shut down any NATO attack attempt. This is why the pressure on Russia not to deliver S-300 systems to Iran. Medvedev caved to this pressure like he let Libya be trashed. Russia does not export the S-400 system. The S-500 system available by 2020 should be able to intercept ICBM warheads. So these systems are quite advanced and rapidly evolving. I doubt Russia would sell leading edge technology to some regime that could be overrun.
Russia is not doing much to support Syria militarily and all of these stories about advanced missile system delivers are some BS propaganda. Perhaps this propaganda reflects the phobias of the people that produce it, that Russia may actually get serious and send systems to Syria that would do severe damage to the big plans of invaders.
Thanks Kirill.
Since this has been a meme over at PressTV – which happens to be pretty supportive of Assad, this is probably just wishing thinking on their part (and that of their commentators). As you clearly laid out, it would strategically make little sense for Russia to arm Syria with advanced weaponery. Someone has already included the Iskander as being in the posession of Syria over at Wikipedia (citing a link that’s known not to be trustworthy).
Also……..Wow! I didn’t know the S-500 was being made to intercept ICBM’s. It does make sense that this would be the next logical step. It would certainly be a great game-changer if they could get this system to work effectively, as it could potentially nullify much of the US nuclear arsenal.
Yes, the S-500 system is aiming for space. The US is developing low earth orbit bombing platforms and those would be one of the targets for this system. The speeds involved are quite dramatic and basically warhead-like. There are some videos of an Almaz-Antei factory where you see samples of A-135 Gorgon missiles casually lying around.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=dGavg6MZX1Q
The A-135 Gorgon missiles are what is used in the Moscow ABM system (http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-345.html) and clearly they could be adapted to be launched by the S-500 system given their size. The S-300 was put out around 1990 but its current version is much more advanced thanks to upgrades of the missiles which have increased the kill range from 75 km to over 150 km (and it is claimed over 200 km, depending on the missile variant). The same sort of evolution applies to the S-400 and S-500. The missiles themselves are the key part.
In fact, Syria would need such systems only in the event of an intervention by western powers with all-up military forces; they are totally unnecessary to the grinding war of attrition currently playing out, and there is no public support for a no-fly zone or “humanitarian corridors” which would enable a “rebel” advance. The real danger is that Syria will run out of ammunition for artillery and infantry weapons, and it is these upon which the rebels can draw in an endless abundance, thanks to deep-pocketed Qatar and Saudi Arabia. As long as Assad’s forces do not fall for the repetitious Hollywood tricks of another “rebel breakthrough” as they take some new cluster of huts, as long as Assad is himself not assassinated – which would not necessarily mean defeat, he’s not that militarily important, but it would defeat the purpose of further resistance – and as long as ammunition and light arms which match those of the al Qaeda mercenaries remain to Assad’s forces, he’s still in reasonably good shape without advanced anti-air missile systems. This is just another “Russia is supporting Assad!!! We have to help the rebels!!!” scream for attention. The suckers must be getting weary of hearing them.
If you recall, there was such a furor some months ago about Iran getting them that Russia cooperated and canceled the contract, angering Iran. They already had several systems, probably bought through a third country like Ukraine. But it staggers the imagination that they could be moved from Iran without detection given the scrutiny the area is under. Besides, if they had come from Iran it would be an excuse to attack, and would surely be mentioned. I haven’t even seen the story, but there’s nowhere they could have come from – did the Syrians knit them?
Dear R.C.: I’ll translate chunks of the article into English for you, if you need. Not until later today,though, I don’t have time right now because I’m in a bit of a rush…
Viz Kirill’s comment, it always surprises me that amidst all the discussion about the planned US anti ballistic missile system it is always overlooked that Russia actually has such a functioning system and is in fact the only country to do so.
Yeah, but the Russian system doesn’t work – everyone knows that! However, it is the “manifest destiny” of the USA to defend democracy and freedom in the world from the evil Russians, who are determined to put the whole of mankind into their thrall – even though Russian weapons are crap and the Russians are stupid and are always drunk and don’t know what day of the week it is.
Sorry, I got cut off, but the point I wanted to make is that it was because the US became concerned in the late 1960s at the development of the Soviet anti ballistic missile system, which threatened the viability of the US nuclear deterrent, that it proposed the ABM Treaty at the Johnson Kosygin summit in 1967 at Glasboro. The US was also at that time working on its own anti ballistic missile system but unlike the Russian system it was not going well and in echoes of today the US also balked at its cost because of pressure on its budget from the cost of the Vietnam war. By alll accounts Kosygin was furious at the suggestion for an ABM Treaty but in the end the USSR came round to it. When the ABM Treaty no longer suited the US because under Bush II it rehatched its anti ballistic missile plans it dumped the ABM Treaty even though it had originally proposed it.
No one yet knows how effective the proposed US anti ballistic missile system will be and given its cost and the budget crisis in the US there must be a real possibility that it will eventually fall victim to defence spending cuts, that are ultimately inevitable. It will be the ultimate irony if Russia with the S500 develops a viable anti ballistic missile system and the US doesn’t. In that case I expect to see the events of the 1960s repeat themselves with demands from the US for Russia to agree a new ABM Treaty in which case the question will then be whether Russia will agree to it.
As during the whole history of weaponry, for every weapon you produce there is a counter weapon or improvement in defense. The US ABM shield is already being circumvented by individually maneuverable warheads in MIRV ICBMs and shorter boost stages in missiles such as the RS-24. At the same time Russia is not standing still in its missile development programs and the ABM systems originating from the 1960s are being evolved. With the S-500 the ABM capability will be mobile and distributed around the whole country and not just Moscow.
The collapse of the USSR went to the heads of the deciders in the US. They really started to swallow the koolaid that Russia was some 3rd world joke and not a nascent superpower temporarily incapacitated by the shock therapy voodoo they helped foist on Russia. This sort of wishful think is pervasive in the western media and I think it is rampant amongst the deciders as well.
But things are moving. As I noted, the rot that was present in the Russian defense industry even as late as 2003 has been undone to a large extent. By 2020 Russia will be significantly outclassing the USSR in terms of military technology and deployed systems. The change from 2003 to 2012 demonstrates to me that corruption is a secondary issue for Russia. If it was as big of a problem as being claimed by the white ribbon scum, then the situation would be analogous to India where you can see road works projects dragging on for years with little progress thanks to continuous siphoning of funds. There would be no way in hell that the Almaz-Antei factory shown in the video link I posted would go from its state in 2003 to that in 2012. There is no multi-billion dollar siphoning and some $120 million real estate fraud by Serdyukov is really nothing to write home about. On top of that this fraud was exposed. If such peanuts are taken seriously then there is no climate and no “roof” for substantial fraud that would be detrimental to Russia.
This is not surprising. Empirical evidence suggest that Russians working in the defense sector are not a bunch of opportunist leeches. During the 1990s they managed to keep Russia’s defense potential alive even if they got no salaries. I bet the witchdoctors that foisted the collapse on Russia during the early 1990s expected that the breakdown would be complete. Instead they got a guerrilla style resistance from the people working in strategic industries who should have all run off to (better) paying jobs. I think this is not unrelated to Putin’s ascent to power in the face of the corrupt oligarchy running the show during the 1990s. There was resistance from various quarters.
But…but…they don’t have real diplomas!! Everybody knows that! Sukhoi routinely hires aircraft engineers who bought their university diplomas to get higher salaries!!!
Dear Kirill,
Whilst I would not say that the Serdyukov affair is “peanuts” (quite the contrary actually) the comparison you make with India is very much to the point. Despite all the talk of a “India Shining” India has largely failed to develop its own military industrial and technology base, witness the debacle of the Tejas light fighter, a programme that has its origins in 1969 (!) and which is still in development to produce a fighter with the level of performance achieved by US and Soviet fighters ias long ago as the late 1970s, or the Arjun battle tank, which took 37 years (!) to develop with the Indian army refusing to buy more than 250 because it prefers the Russian T90 tank. India has successfully developed long range ballistic missiles and is intending to build its own nuclear submarine but the failure of its own military industrial base means that it still has to import huge numbers of weapons from Europe, Russia and the US. Compare this dismal picture with China, a country that was technologically inferior to India as recently as the 1970s, which has designed and put into service several generations of tanks since then, is now testing two prototypes of fifth generation fighters, has managed in just a few short years to design and now offers for export its own light fighter comparable to the Tejas (the FC1) and which already fields nuclear submarines.
Patrick Cockburn gave an interview with antiwar.com’s Scott Horton yesterday (the date erroneously states 12/18, but I believe it’s 12/28, as this interview just posted on his site).
SYNOPSIS: “Patrick Cockburn, journalist with The Independent, discusses Syria’s “descent into Holy War;” why the Assad government isn’t on the verge of collapse; the very few competent Western media figures reporting on Syria; the Al-Qaeda style public beheadings scaring minority Alawites and Christians; and how US-NATO support motivates the rebels to keep fighting and reject peaceful compromise.”
http://scotthorton.org/2012/12/18/121812-patrick-cockburn/
A fine interview as always with Patrick Cockburn.
A brand new article (12/30) by Patrick Cockburn has gone up at The Independent:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article33476.htm
I must say that I’ve had the same experience Cockburn has had while talking to people who get their info from mainstream media sources touting rebel propaganda as fact .I’ve told them to treat these claims with skepticism, because the only thing the rebels are really truly “winning” is the international media war (which would, ironically, be more balanced if the Assad government were more liberal with its Visa policy). You would think that after being constantly lied to day in and day out about Iraq and Afghanistan, that people would take this stuff with a grain of salt.
Gluttons for punishment I guess.
Dear RC,
Indeed another interestiing article by Patrick Cockburn.
I too know exactly what Cockburn means about the kind of abuse one gets when one says things about Syria that go against the flow of the accepted (or should I say the imposed?) narrative. Like you I am also bewildered at the readiness of so many people to fall for the same tall stories time after time. I am not referring to the media here, but to people who persist in the face of repeated proof of its unreliability, to go on believing what it says.
A much more grotesque example in my opinion than anything that has happened in Syria was the appalling misreporting of the original uprising against Gaddafi in Libya in February 2011. As I remember the media was full of totally unsubstantiated stories of Gaddafi troops opening up on unarmed crowds with heavy machine guns, of Libyan aircraft bombing population centres and of crazed machete wielding African mercenaries running amock. At the time I was utterly incredulous at the readiness with which even people I knew believed these fantasies despite the way stories the western media and western governments had previously told about Afghanistan and Iraq had turned out to be completely untrue. As it is studies of what actually happened during the initial Libyan uprising in February 2011 by organisations like Amnesty International have again showed that nearly these stories were also untrue.
Actually the western media does this all the time. It is forgotten now butt for a whole week after the Chinese government’s crackdown on the Tiananmen protests in Beijing in 1989 the western media was reporting battles in Beijing between different units of the Chinese army some of which had supposedly gone over to the side of the protesters. The stories were of course a complete fantasy as the many western journalists in Beijing must have known yet the story, which was obviously intended to incite mutinies within the Chinese army, continued to fill the airwaves and the print media for days. When it was no longer possible to sustain the fiction it was simply dropped without retraction or explanation and the whole episode has now simply vanished down a memory hole. Yet as I remember people believed it at the time because they saw it reported in the media and the fact that the story was dropped without explanation and turned out to be completely untrue never seemed to worry people very much.
I always found it amusing how the western media (and hence popular opinion) has it that Russians under the USSR (and today) were a bunch of drones goosestepping to the orders of the Party. This caricature actually applies to the west: most people in the west give their lying sack of sh*t media the benefit of the doubt and do not question the ridiculous stories it pushes. They fall for the same propaganda every single time and seem not to learn from previous lying such as that used to justify the Iraq invasion.
The vast majority of people in the USSR did not give the media the benefit of the doubt. That is why people eagerly listened to VOA on their Soviet-made short wave radios.
Brings to mind the art of reading between the lines. A Russian official told me that in Soviet times, the censors would be periodically beaten with a PC article title, followed by the first few paragraphs giving the preferred party line. In the last half of the article, the clever writer could nuance a dissident view up to a point.
During the Cold War, the VoA had a better rep than RFE/RL. An exmple of how a more government controlled media venue isn’t always the worst option. Although largely US government funded, RFE/RL is independent of the US government, unlike the VoA.
Nowadays, the VoA has if anything outdone RFE/RL in some instances.
People enjoy being fooled by a version of reality they wish was true. If your local paper carried a story about your being pursued every time you went out in public by attractive women of all ages, would you be in a hurry to set the record straight (I am assuming that is in fact not the case; please forgive me if it is)? I certainly wouldn’t, and after a couple of repetitions I might even come to believe it was true.
It speaks to people’s secret fantasies about the destruction of ideological foes that they believe so easily what has proven false time and again.
Reminded of an undergard professor of mine, who expressed jealousy that Kissinger (according to said professor and some others) was (at the time) able to attract a good number of “eligible” ladies, because of his professional stature.
Regarding the coverage of the Communist bloc, some of the more twisted visions of reality pertain to some of the sources getting propped at the more high profile of venues.
“People enjoy being fooled by a version of reality they wish was true…”
Or, in many cases, the (Western) public at large doesn’t so much want to be fooled as just needing a version of reality that is half-way plausible and that doesn’t contradict their core beliefs. They elect a government to handle foreign affairs, and they want to delegate that function and not have to think about it too much afterwards, because they really aren’t interested.
It’s like when you as a viewer go to see an action movie and you are psychologically predisposed to enjoy it, but the writers have to do at least a bit of work to make the plot mostly plausible and not make any glaring mistakes as they are setting up to their big multi-car-crash shoot-em-up bang bang scene?
This speaks to Western propaganda writers who have to plot and storyboard their international scenarios as if it was an action movie, with good guys, bad guys, shoot-em-up scenes, and semi-plausible scenarios, with no obvious technical errors. An example of a “technical error” would be the reference to “Christian thugs” supporting the Assad regime. This was later corrected to “Alawite thugs”.
P.S. speaking of action movies, I totally ruined the new Bond movie for my brother-in-law. He is really into the whole Bond thing, and marched in to see the film with very high expectations. I was sitting next to him the whole time, and every time they did something preposterous on the screen (like most of that scene on top of the train), I would lean over and whisper in his ear, “That’s physically impossible.” Until he finally got mad and smacked me and told me to shut up. QED.
The successor to the Typhoon class is FINALLY entering service:
http://en.rian.ru/military_news/20121230/178488437/First_Borey_Class_Nuclear_Sub_to_Join.html
We in the west remember the modified Typhoon class which was made famous in the film ‘The Hunt for Red October.”
http://echo.msk.ru/blog/piontkovsky_a/978262-echo/
Yeah, he talks of an authoritarian regime – “authoritarian”, though he can spout his shit on a radio station whose majority shareholder is an organ of that same regime – Putinism and Putinoids and that Putinism etc. is bound to collapse, as did the USSR, when folk realize that its power structure is a myth and blah, blah, blah…
And he says that Putinism is already hiding its bunker and its end is near, so he wishes all his white condomist chums, citizens of a “Free Russia”, a Happy New Year.
And after all that waffle, he fails to say which party will form a goverment.
When the scales have at last fallen from the voters’ eyes, will they resoundingly reject the “party of crooks and thieves”?
Who will be the new President and what will be the government policy? Will it be Navalny and a return to the (in his own words) “romantic times” of the Yeltsin years, when all who were smart enough could plunder??
Ooh! Ooh! I know! Iknow! Pleeeeeeease sir, I KNOW!!!!
It’ll be Khodorkovsky, won’t it?
And we’ll all be as free again to become as rich as he had become before this tyranny fell upon us.
It will be him, won’t it?
It will, it will!!!!
Please say it will!
Pleeeease!
Yeah, you’ll be “free” to be rich only if Khodorkovsky’s goons don’t shoot you first because they want to rip off your apartment. And there’s the rub, freedom for everyone to plunder means that only a few will rise to the top and suppress the freedom of the vast majority to do the same. This has been true throughout history and it is shocking that people don’t realize this simple fact. You need a “regime” to impose law and order for the majority to have a chance at normal life. This means taking away the freedom of the few like Khodorkovsky for killing anyone they want in their stellar, Randroid wet dream rise to the top.
I wonder how the Russian T-50 stacks up to the US Air Force’s F-22′s?
http://www.en.rian.ru/military_news/20121223/178346715.html
Its makers, unsurprisingly, claim the T50 is much better, although they confine their observations to differences that can be proven such as generated power, maneuverability, signature and weapons load. Of those, maneuverability probably depends largely on the pilot, and a good one who knows his aircraft well could probably humiliate a less confident one in the other aircraft type. I was surprised at the degree of AI employed in the avionics and weapons suite in the T50; it can save a lot of decision-making time as it is all based on algorithms, but a lot of people fear it because anything complex is usually unfixable if it breaks down when you really need it, and consequently they are afraid to rely on it. Hey, remember “Firefox”, with Clint Eastwood as USAF pilot Mitchell Gant? I think we might have brought it up on this blog once before; it had to be the most-mocked movie ever for military guys, and I’m afraid I was among those who took women to the movie and then irritated them with non-stop scoffing, “that would never happen”, and the like. It really was a spectacularly bad movie, but I remember the book on which it was based described the plane as having a “thought-guided” weapons system. It had been designed by a scientist who wanted to incorporate it into a wheelchair to give disabled people something like a normal life, but of course it was immediately commandeered by the ruthless Russian state that seems to exist in the minds of a lot of western writers, and slaved instead to a helmet that would let the pilot launch missiles and fire machine guns simply by thinking the commands; in Russian, of course.
That was something else we snickered about back then, but the T50 and other 5th-generation fighters are getting closer to that all the time. I’m also very curious about the “nanotechnological materials” which are said to cover 85% of the exterior of the T50. They are said to decrease the radar signature of the plane, but this sounds like more than just a reflective paint job. The first primitive jammers introduced worked – and the principle in this particular mode is still the same – by capturing the radar pulse of a transmitter, attenuating it to a lower level and then sending it back, so that the radar seeking you got an incorrect impression of where the target is. Alternatively, in blip-enhance it could send back such a huge fuzzy echo that operators would think it was weather or some other such natural phenomena. I’m wondering if they have moved to making the entire outer skin of an aircraft into something like a jammer. Fascinating stuff, all conceptual so far as I know.
Anyway, other sites will predictably say the T50 is a piece of junk, and jump on every crash as evidence that Russia is deluding itself if it thinks it can build an advanced fifth-generation fighter, because only the west has the technology to do that. That’s just going through the motions, because people in defense procurement who buy fighters to outfit their militaries are pretty hard to fool. Provided they really have the freedom to choose what they think is the best aircraft – absent political toadying – the results often surprise. The F22 had at least two crashes to its credit by 2009. That in itself doesn’t mean much – aircraft are expected to crash during the test phase and it is infinitely better that faults are found out then, before the plane enters series production.
Yeah, it’s common for countries to overstate the failures of their opponents and downplay their own. I remember all of those Bulava failures which went on for years and how the US press harped on it. I was told by a friend in the US air-force that present-day ICBM technology is extremely complex & complicated and it ususally takes a decade to perfect a platform and that the US goes through the exact same thing (high failure rates) as Russia when testing new tech. Once the Bulava finally entered the Russian naval fleet in late 2011, there was no mention of this in the US press……afterall, they’re only interested in the failures.
It’s a solvable engineering problem. With enough testing they got the fixes that they needed. The western media likes to paint Russians as mentally retarded untermenschen since at least the days of the Cold War. Every failure is trumpeted as evidence of this inferiority. The only thing that the Bulava problems prove is that there was a breakdown in oversight and the missile was approved before it was ready. There was lots of talk about how fast it was being developed so I guess there were corners cut during testing. They had to pay for this corner cutting with late-stage testing.
Ditto the missile defense system, which experienced multiple failures and often passing of tests was linked to political brinksmanship – when the public began to grumble about financing such a failure-prone system, there would be a successful test, although it would later transpire that it had been set up to succeed. The time and bearing of the target launch would be known in advance, as well as target course and speed throughout the profile, and the target would be augmented to ensure it was detected.
Some of the newspaper criticism of the system was unfair, because the general public does not seem to understand the developmental process and it is common to fly test profiles for data collection and validation of some related part of the system – the fact that the entire course of the target flight is known in advance is deliberate. But that should not be mistaken for an indication of how the system would perform against an unalerted launch.
Most of the Bulava’s failures were attributed to substandard components, although each failure was used to hammer home the conviction that Russia is just not as technologically advanced as western nations and Russians can’t design or build to western standards. But I remember when the CIWS (Close-In Weapons System) by General Dynamics – also called Phalanx, when it first came out – had just entered series production. A couple of techs who were fired or for some other reason had a grudge against the company went public with the test process, and pointed out that each system was hooked up to a test bed, and put through its paces. It only had to pass once, and it was crated up and shipped out, but it might have failed 800 times in a row prior to that. In the end there is not a dime’s worth of difference in the way average people behave anywhere, although each country’s press attributes to itself virtue it does not possess while attributing to its ideological enemies faults that they do not possess.
Well, I’m no military or avionics expert, but, aesthetically at least, they certainly look impressive to me – at a distance, namely above my head at my dacha, which is situated not far from the aerodrome where they do their training. Last summer they were doing their tricks above my head the week before the Zhukovsky show mentioned above
The maneuverability depends on the 3D thrust vectoring ability of the T-50. This does indeed make it superior in this metric to the F-22 since the F-22 only has 2D thrust vectoring thanks to its “stealth” nozzles.
All the F-22 fanboys regularly yap about the round nozzles on the T-50 not being stealthy. Well, the F-35 is supposed to be stealthy and it has one big round nozzle. If I was an F-22 fanboy and had a clue I would be more worried about its massive billboard sized rear rudders. There is a reason that they are tiny by comparison on the T-50. The EM backscatter from the round nozzles is a tertiary issue in comparison to scatter from other flat surfaces with much larger areas. It does not matter that such surfaces are slanted since 1) the plane isn’t going to fly at one fixed orientation to the incoming radar beam(s) and 2) the EM waves being sent at the aircraft are going to come from multiple sources. So at the end of the day the good old physics notion of cross-section rules the day regardless of RAM coatings and angled surfaces.
If you look at the profile of the T-50 from the side it is quite a bit thinner than the F-22.
Marcel Daissault, the designer of the French Mirage series of fighters, once said that a “fighter must be beautiful”. Certainly the T50 passes that test.
For what it’s worth I get the impression that its flight programme has been going well. Certainly it seems a much more happy programme than that of the F35. The Borei submarine programme also seems to have been basically trouble free, the delays being almost entirely with the Bulava, which is apparently a very sophisticated missile using a lot of new technology, which not surprisingly had a lot of teething problems which have apparently been sorted out. The first in the class of the Yasen submarines, which appears in some ways to be a more sophisticated submarine than the Borei, has also apparently had its share of teething problems but there is apparently talk that it too will be commissioned soon.
I think it is an exaggeration that the Russians have special problems with the engineering of their weapons. The S400, the Iskander, the Topol and the Yars all seem to have had relatively trouble-free development histories as has been the case with the Onyks and Kaliber cruise missiles. It is not as if other countries don’t run into such problems. Russia has no debacle to show comparable to that of the F35 whilst the sea trials of the latest British nuclear attack submarine the Astute have apparently not gone well with concerns that because of a design flaw in matching its reactor and turbines its speed is well below the intended 30 knots.
All true, and I would add that you are not going to pick up EM backscatter or even a solid hit off the thrust nozzles when the plane is pointed toward you. And that’s the only time you should be concerned.
From one source, a ranking of the top 10 present day tanks:
http://realitypod.com/2010/08/top-10-most-advanced-tanks/
A bit of an awkward scroll, Canada-Russia in a few hours time:
http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=58058
Winner takes first in the group they’re in,
Both teams having already qualified for the playoff round.
IMO, much preferable than reading and analyzing one brat interviewing another.
An easier to follow North American TV schedule:
http://www.tsn.ca/world_jrs/feature/?id=4124
In the US, the NHL TV Network is carrying the games aired on the Canadian based TSN.
I find it astonishing that stories like this can pop up in a British tabloid, but the mainstream US press is pretty silent on the atrocities being committed by the rebels. As Patrick Cockburn has said, you simply don’t hear about it in the press; probably becasue they’re busy passing on tales of rebel “victories” from (drumroll…..) THE REBELS!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2255103/Syria-rebels-beheaded-Christian-fed-dogs-fears-grow-Islamist-atrocities.html
This nun sounds like she knows what she is talking about, the West should listen to her. Surprising that this kind of blunt truth-telling can be found in a Western paper. I notice there is still a bit of a slant in referring to “rogue elements” or “fifth columnists” within the rebel ranks. As if these atrocities are only the work of a few oddballs. Everybody who followed the Libya war could see that sadistic psychopathological behavior is the POLICY of these rebels. Torture, murder, and rape. It’s what they do best, these are the types they recruit, and their core ideology (jihadism) encourages such behavior.
I noticed in an online piece a few months back (I can’t remember the link, sorry), the writer referring to “pro-regime militias” as “Alawite and Christian thugs”. The combination of words “Christian” and “thug” must have caused a bit of cognitive dissonance in some western readers, because later that same piece was amended to remove the reference to “Christian thugs”, but did keep the “Alawite thug” reference. Most western readers probably don’t know what an Alawite is, and hence do not object to hearing them referred to as thugs. The western propaganda machine wants to give the mass public a simple plotline (like in a simplistic action movie) that they can just accept and put away in the backs of their heads, provided they don’t dig too deep into it and see all the flaws.
Yes, what you said. I really must learn to read all the comments before firing off replies.
Even so, the Mail story still refers to “rogue elements of the Free Syrian Army”, as if the remainder was a disciplined and coherent force. It is not. They do have a component of a hundred or so who are clean-looking young men accustomed to drill at the halt and on the march, who are trotted out for the cameras when required, but in the main they are stateless mercenaries who could not give a tin weasel for military ethos or discipline. It’s great that a British tabloid breaks this kind of story, but even this is understating the case.
It never fails to astound me that the Russian press does not pick up and reamplify these stories, so as to substantiate the government’s stand. Russia’s remaining aloof and refusing to explain its position is helping the rebels to win the YouTube war.
Russia knows that it is not as good as the West when it comes to blatant propaganda, so defers from entering combat in this arena. Or… (more cynically), there are Fifth-Columnist elements in the Russian government and media who support the Western line on Syria and want to see Assad fall, because they believe (correctly) that this would also be a blow against Putin.
I would say it is not a question of how good Russian propaganda is but the tribal credulity of the western public. They are stuck in the us vs. them mode so anything Russia (or anyone not “us”) says is automatically rejected and the Mickey Mouse BS spewed by the western media given the benefit of the doubt or outright believed.
I have had discussions with people who think that the Iraq invasion was justified because Saddam Hussein was a “very bad man”. Following this logic one would have to invade Saudi Arabia and Kuwait too. Also, the war based on false pretenses does not bother them in the least. There’s plenty of “bydlo” in the west.
Never mind the bydlo – George W. Bush, the freaking President, justified the invasion of Iraq and the killing of Saddam because he was a bad man. That’s after more or less admitting the whole WMD thing was just a pretext to rally public support for war.
“Russia knows that it is not as good as the West when it comes to blatant propaganda, so defers from entering combat in this arena.”
****
There’re examples out there to reference. Two main related issues pertain to the quality level and how to improve upon a situation that has involved some questionable hiriings.
Another paywall has gone up!
I got notification this morning after having logged on that I now have to pay to read UK Telegraph drivel.
I hadn’t noticed, but apparently it was announced last month that the wall was being erected. And get this, the wall is only to prevent non-UK residents free entry. So retired in their Spanish villas British Tories will henceforth have to pay the “Torygraph” for the right to harumph and bluster about how the UK has gone to the dogs and why they were forced to leave.
So that’s the Times and the Telegraph gone. I ditched the Guardian on my own volition several months ago. There’s only the Daily Mail online left now. That’s the British rag that has the shameful record of supporting the Nazis right up until the UK declaration of war against Germany in 1939.
So the only “quality” UK news source left open for my free perusal remains Lebedev’s horrendous Independent with its Moscow correspondent Shawn Walker.
Aunty BBC is still free though.
We should be grateful for small mercies, I suppose, a sentiment that US citizen Bill Browder in his “Notes from a Small Island” considers a salient feature of the British national psyche.
I mustn’t be British then!
Dear ME: The Independent has a paywall as well for non-British residents. It kicks in if you try to read it more than 30 times a month.
Lots of people including some royals (Edward VIII in particular) in Britain supported Nazi Germany before September 1939. They seemed not to have learned their lesson either after the war; did anyone vet Prince Phillip’s background before he married Princess Elizabeth? At least one of his sisters was married to a former SS officer at the time.
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2925
Browder makes me laugh; he’s about as English as Kentucky Fried Chicken. But he still feels himself qualified to expand on the essential quality of Anglophilia.
He renounced his US citizenship, yet got the House and Senate to pass a bill that doesn’t just name libraries. And his grandfather was head of the American Communist Party. Those are two potentially explosive angles that were completely ignored by the mainstream media.
I think the part about Gramps being a Commie – however inept and reviled a Commie he was – is fairly well-known. Browder was at great pains to get that one out front and dismissed quickly, as he does in his motivational speeches; something about his disadvantaged boyhood, having his roots in Russia and being the grandson of the head of the American Communist Party, followed by, “I dealt with it the best way I knew how – by putting on a suit and tie, and becoming a businessman”, or something like that. Probably written for him, specifically to answer the question, “How do I introduce my family’s past, thereby removing its usefulness to anyone who is digging, in such a way that it makes people sympathize with me and say, ‘there goes a self-made man you can trust’?” It’s certainly very carefully worded, and Browder delivers it perfectly, with that wry twist of the lips that says, “Yeah – my Grampa was a Communist – you believe that shit?” By the end of it, people are probably wishing they had more money just so they could lend it to Browder, he just comes across as so honest and straight-arrow, butter wouldn’t melt in his mouth.
About the renunciation of his U.S. citizenship, I didn’t know that, and it certainly is an interesting angle, for exactly the reason you describe. Do you happen to have a reference?
To R.C.: this is a continuation of the thread about the supposed delivery of Russian “Iskander” missiles to Syria. I read the link provided by MoscowExile.
http://warsonline.info/siriya/iran-soobschaet-o-postavkach-v-siriiu-raket-iskander.html
It’s a reputable Russian military journal (“Military Observer”), but all it is doing is mentioning that an Iranian paper (“Mashregh”) has reported that the Iskander missiles are being delivered. Here is a better link for you, in an English-language version of the story:
http://hamsayeh.net/world/2550-russia-arms-syria-with-powerful-ballistic-missiles.html
As most commentators have noted, the claim about the Iskanders has not been confirmed, and is highly dubious. I am guessing a false flag to confuse the West?
It’s a bit strange that it is coming from Iranian sources. Usually it is Debka or some other western source.
I suspect that the reason for this confusion is because the Russians have stopped giving information about what weapons they are supplying to Syria. Inevitably when this happens speculation fills the gap so that even reputable Russian military magazines are obliged to source their stories from dubious sources in this case Iranian.
I suspect the reason why the Russians have stopped commenting on their weapons deliveries to Syria is because they don’t want it generally known that deliveries of advanced weapons to Syria have largely come to a stop. If Russia is delivering any weapons to Syria I suspect these take the form of ammunition and spare parts rather than complete weapons. The Russians do not want this fact generally known because it will again be misrepresented as “Russia abandoning Assad”.
It is important to say that the coast of Syria is now under effective NATO blockade. Any Russian freighter that passes through NATO waters on its way to Syria and which is carrying weapons runs the serious risk of being stopped and its cargo seized. It is very difficult to see how Russian freighters can in fact reach Syria without passing through NATO waters whilst the cost of providing a naval escort to every Russian freighter sailing to Syria and carrying weapons would be politically exhorbitant. Russian warships can of course still travel to Tartus and indeed a flotilla seems to be heading that way at the moment and it may be that some of the landing ships that are part of this flotilla are carrying weapons for Syria but the amount of weapons that can be delivered to Syria in this way must be small.
I don’t see the point in such weapons deliveries. Syria is already a very heavily armed country and one doesn’t get the impression of any great shortage of weapons or ammunition there. The most effective help Russia can give Syria is economic by supplying oil and food and even printing bank notes and we know that that is what Russia is in fact doing,
I am afraid I have to sign off now to prepare for the New Year.
Happy New Year Mark both to you and your family. May all you desire in the New Year come true.
Happy New Year to everyone else who writes on this blog. It’s been a great pleasure exchange thoughts and opinions and news with all of you.
I will second the sentiment. Happy New Year to everyone!
Chin-chin!
Ditto to that, Happy New Year everybody. Especially Mark, thanks for running such a great blog!
All the Best to you as well, Alexander!
HAPPY NEW YEAR
Forwarded to my attention from a friend, who isn’t part of the overly hyped dilettante class:
http://www.rcws.org/
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Russian-Childrens-Welfare-Society-Inc/75412441010
That’s a brilliant reference, thanks!!
Make that the overly hyped dilettante chattering class, who’ve exhibited manner not too far removed from one of the greatest American sitcom TV characters:
It’s turned midnight here, 31st December 2012, so…
Happy New Year for 2013 from Sydney to everyone here.
The waterfall of fire from the coathanger is spectacular – what a show!!! Happy New Year to you, too, Jen! Still a few more hours to wait for us.
Wow! Aussies really know how to do synchronized fireworks. How is it done, out of curiosity? I suppose some master computer that controls the sequence…
From what I can find, the concept for the fireworks display is done by Imagination Australia, a subsidiary of the British company Imagination. They have been doing this work since 2011 when they won the contract from the City of Sydney Council after going through a tender process. (“Tender” as in competing against other companies for a contract by proving you can do a better job with less money. ) The wiring of the bridge supports takes place in late December but beyond that I don’t know so it must be a company secret.
Happy New Year to Mark and everyone else here on the Kremlin Stooge blog!
My very best wishes to all for a season of peace and joy!! That said, as of midnight (here) the armistice is at an end, and we will taste once more the joy of battle. Bring me your Magnitsky Lists, and let’s get it on!!
Provided there’s a very nearby sauna and/or steam room, this looks like a great way to bring in the new year:
http://www.rferl.org/media/video/24812937.html
——————-
Without meaning to disrespect his family situation, this chap shows the inaccurate biases of his soon to be former employer and himself:
http://www.rferl.org/content/pressrelease/24813049.html
One gathers an ongoing situation of some changed names pushing the same old, same old.
Turkey in the news:
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2012/12/30/280835/iraqi-politicians-slam-turkey-meddling/
http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/12/31/jailing-journalists-in-plot-mad-turkey/
Til next year.
…and an interesting potential legal option for Syria. There is little reason to believe the USA controls the International Criminal Court, since it customarily demands freedom from prosecution for its forces before or upon commencing a military adventure. It obviously fears prosecution thereby. I would also dearly love to see the French government get a serious smackdown, although I have nothing against the French people. That knee-jerk recognition of the rebel rabble as the legitimate government is getting just a little old for me.
Yes, I saw.
Following up on what Alex said about that source, I think that going over the top is within acceptability up to a point.
When having a valid point, one need not get too overly rhetorical in a way that will unnecessarily put a greater number of people off. For the sake of accuracy, this last thought shouldn’t be confused with a constructively pointed rebuke at existing flaws which get covered up – inclusive of letting some views/sources go over the top without penalty.
Then again, the author of that piece probably feels that view is appropriate with his piece.
It sounds promising. I think the Syrian government should pursue all possible defensive strategies, including the legal one. At the very least it might be able to get a temporary restraining order against this unholy coalition of (American/French/Saudi/Qatari/Israeli) Zionists and jihadists.
Such “international law” is flawed.
Without meaning to soft peddle Nazi atrocities, were there not any Allied WW II atrocities worthy of prosecution?
The present day ICTY essentially carries on like a NATO/Sorosian kangaroo court.
The following incidents in which Allied forces killed German and Japanese civilians might come close to “atrocities” worthy of prosecution:
1/ RAF bombing of Hamburg during a hot dry summer in July 1943 which created a firestorm that swept through the city and killed at least 45,000
2/ US and British air forces dropping 3,900 tons of explosives on Dresden in February 1945 which resulted in a firestorm that killed at least 25,000 or as many as 250,000, depending on who you read, and of course referenced by Kurt Vonnegut in “Slaughterhouse Five”
3/ 1945 (February – May) napalm bombing of Tokyo by US air forces which killed over 100,000
There are extreme opinions among the German far right that the Soviet submarine sinking of the Wilhelm Gustloff off the coast of northern Germany on 30 January 1945, in which nearly 9,400 lives (mostly women and children refugees) were lost, should be a war crime but as the ship was also carrying military personnel, it was a legitimate target and was sailing through waters where naval and submarine warfare was heavy. The same submarine brought down the Steuben a few days later and some 3,600 lives were lost.
A lengthy litany that for consistency sake can include forces under the command of Tito and Stalin. There’s also the matter of how some suspect folks were able to get off from being prosecuted, while having settled in South America and elsewhere. Some have also questioned the ethics of the former Nazi connection with NASA.
Victor’s justice.
With all due respect to Franklin Lamb, I don’t see the Syrian government successfully initiating an internationally recognized war crimes tribunal on its behalf. It’s not like the Syrian government is so virtuous – a thought which shouldn’t be taken as a rubber stamp for the armed anti-Syrian government opposition,