Carlos Ruiz Zafón, Spanish author of “Shadow of the Wind“, wrote, “A story is a letter that the author writes to himself, to tell himself things that he would be unable to discover otherwise”.
And sometimes, a story is a letter the author writes to himself, to tell himself that his fantasies have come true and that things he wishes were so, are so. Lies My Mirror Told Me.
How about we look at an example – Edward Lucas’s “Renewal Amid the Decay“; his predictions for 2013, and annual love letter to the Baltic States. I ran across it linked in another European Voices piece, and – knowing my respectful worship of Edward Lucas – both Cartman and Mike Averko also linked it in comments. Alex Mercouris mentioned Lucas writes every year that Russia is about to collapse any minute now, and his readership never seems to be put off by the fact that it didn’t happen. They don’t seem to notice that it is actually growing wealthier and more influential every year, either, but that’s because they are Edward Lucas readers, and in the mystical land of Myanus – the source of Lucas’s inspiration – none of that is happening.
Anyway, as I said, we’re going to take a look at it. But first, since we have lots of time and it might be fun to put Alex’s theory to the test, let’s go back in time – weeeeeeooooooooo ….back to 2007. Here’s Lucas – who, we might as well get this on the table right up front, is an overrated, pretentious, black-hole-for-reality hack who is to the world of introspective policy analysis what parachute pants were to the world of fashion – in 2007, with his forecast of how the world is going to shake out in 2008. From the vantage point of being able to look back on 2008, how did he do?
Right out of the gate, Lucas foretold that most of the ex-Communist countries of Eastern Europe would join the Shengen passport-free area as of January 1st. Bzzzzttt!!! Wrong. The only country that joined the Shengen area in 2008 was Liechtenstein. Never a Communist country, I’m afraid. Poland was already a member, since 2004, so it didn’t take much vision to see that it would be in 2008; but I hope that Bulgaria, Romania and Georgia did not break out the party hats and champagne. Poland joined them for a double boning when Lucas predicted they would be included in the USA’s Visa Waiver Program (VWP) for visa-free travel to the United States, as George W. Bush flamed out like a dying Cherries Jubilee, flinging favours about him indiscriminately in gratitude for those who helped him conquer Iraq. Bzzzzzttt!! That didn’t happen, either – to this day, 5 years later.
Mr. Lucas then went into a little shuck-and-jive about NATO membership, speculating that there would be renewed pressure to “[set] Georgia, along with Croatia, Albania and Macedonia, further on the road to membership of NATO. That will infuriate the hawks in the Kremlin, who will use it as an excuse to edge closer to America’s rivals and bugbears such as China and Iran.” In fact, Croatia and Albania were admitted in 2009. Georgia and Macedonia, afraid not. And Lucas probably should not sound so gleeful about the Kremlin “edging closer to China”, since the latter is moving rapidly to world’s largest economy. It is also the third-ranked country for military power, with a standing military of over 2 million, another 800,000 in the reserves, huge reserves of foreign cash and gold, and another 19 million men reaching military age every year. China’s older platforms are steadily being replaced with new weaponry and indigenous fifth-generation fighters. And it is right next to Russia, both geographically and on this list; Russia is military power number 2. Still giggling, Ed?
He was quite right that the economies of the ex-communist countries which joined the EU in 2004 would continue to stagger in 2008, but how risky a bet was that, really? The entire global economy nearly went over the edge in late 2008 and 2009. It also invites speculation that those countries were better off before joining the EU – which has, in fact, become a flabby trapeze act hanging desperately by its fingernails to Germany.
All right, let’s fast-forward – bibblebibblegobbledibbleditdit – to 2010, when Mr. Lucas believes that, by 2020, the relationship between the NATO powers will resemble “…a marriage…where the husband and wife meet only at breakfast, to haggle over the household bills”. NATO, he asserts boldly, is past its sell-by date. Just let me go on record, here, that if you add Russia boosting defense spending by 59% before 2015 to Russia edging closer to China to China boosting its defense spending by 10% or more annually over the past 20 years, you do not get Time To Chuck NATO unless your math blows chunks like your foreign-policy analysis. The USA might well be the world’s preeminent military power, but there is about as much chance of a 2013 Jimi Hendrix World Tour as there is of Number 1 being able to prevail alone against an alliance of Number 2 and Number 3. Dream On, as Aerosmith used to sing before Steven Tyler turned into the lost 5th California raisin. And the USA will not settle for anything less than full-spectrum dominance, while the costs of keeping it up are bleeding it dry.
What else you got, Ed? Ooooo…the EU is going to get a lot bigger; adding “most bits of the former Yugoslavia and Albania” will acknowledge European soft power’s triumph. Well, I guess that could happen, but according to the BBC, Iceland‘s accession is on hold due to a dispute over mackerel fishing. Oh, and payment of compensation entailed by its collapsed banks. How do you think that stacks up against “moving too slowly in the fight against organized crime and corruption, and unstable energy supplies” (Albania), “ethnic quarrels, corruption and organized crime and an unstable political system” (Bosnia-Hercegovina), “reluctant movement against war criminals, insufficiently transparent appointments of judges and prosecutors, court backlogs and insufficient help for disadvantaged minorities” (Croatia), a fight over the country’s constitutional name (Macedonia) and “insufficient freedom of expression and rule of law, not doing enough against corruption and organized crime” (Montenegro)?
Next, it’s off to the High Arctic, where – we learn – Norway will become the top security partner of the USA. More so than Canada, Lucas wants you to know, which may go all squishy like those gutless sausage-eating surrender monkeys under Merkel, and “cozy up to Russia”. I’m at a loss to explain what, in 2010, convinced Lucas that Canada and Russia were getting increasingly snuggly. Stephen Harper was Prime Minister then, just as he is now, and is the most conservative leader the nation has had in living memory. He would be as likely to walk to work wearing nothing but pink socks as he would be to cozy up to Russia, and it is his cozying up to the USA which provides much more potential for alarm. While Lucas was smoking the tea-leaves in 2010, Canada was doing $1 Billion in trade per day with the USA. Norway? Did about a week’s worth at the Canadian rate, all year, in 2010. More than 60% of American exports go to Canada. Canada is the USA’s largest foreign supplier of oil, by a wide margin – far, far ahead of Saudi Arabia, and Canada is the only producer whose exports to the USA are steadily increasing.
Conspicuous by its absence as an energy supplier to the United States….Norway.
Briefly withdrawing his head from the comfort of his buttocks long enough to look around and perhaps realize that he is not cut out for prediction, Mr. Lucas makes a stab at comedy with his assertion that Denmark and Britain will play major roles in the High Arctic as well. Yes, I know…c’mon, be serious for a second, and let’s take a look at it, anyway – I’m kind of glad Edward brought that up. Here’s a handy map of maritime boundaries in the Arctic, as well as disputed areas. We’ll get to Denmark in a minute, but first – where’s Britain‘s claim? The entirety of the Arctic frontage that might feasibly be considered claimable by the UK is already claimed – and the result of international agreement – by Denmark, Norway, Iceland or Russia. Perhaps Mr. Lucas is asserting his claim to membership on England’s behalf based on the undeniably great achievements of British explorer Martin Frobisher. But that was in the 1570′s, and Britain relinquished all claims to the Arctic archipelago to Canada in 1880. Britain currently has zero claim to any of the Arctic.
Denmark? Yes, Denmark has some, a fairly good-sized piece of real estate considering its own size and international influence. So has Norway, and the latter claim is the more significant as claimed Norwegian waters extend farther beyond that country’s coastline, likely thanks to Svalbard and its archipelago. However, Norway and Russia worked out their differences in an historic agreement signed – but not ratified – in 2010. How big, exactly, is Denmark’s share?
Oh, wait. There’s something we haven’t talked about yet, and that’s the extension of territorial seas based on seabed shelves which extend outward from landmasses, known as continental shelves. These are generally considered to be a part of the nation from which they originate. Maritime borders can traditionally be set legally using the baselines method (maximum 350 nautical miles from the baseline, usually the coastline where the land touches the water, or the isobath method, which is a maximum of the point where the ocean depth reaches 2,500 meters (2,500 m isobath) plus 100 nautical miles (nm).
Wouldn’t it be awesome if a country had a continental shelf which extended far, far out under the ocean, above which the ocean never reached the 2,500 m isobath? What kind of real estate might be claimed under such conditions?
Conditions such as are associated with the Lomonosov Ridge, which extends from Ellesmere Island in the Canadian Arctic Archipelago – which belongs entirely to Canada – to the New Siberian Islands – which belong entirely to Russia – 1,800 km away, in an unbroken land bridge which thrusts itself between 3,300 and 3,700 m above the seabed. Most unfortunately for international claimants, the Arctic is the shallowest ocean; only 5,450 m deep at its deepest point, the Eurasian basin. The Lomonosov Ridge is the physical feature that bisects the Arctic Ocean, dividing it into the Eurasian Basin and the North American or Hyperborean Basin – resulting in an average depth of only 1,038 m.
It would seem there is a very good chance the isobath never reaches 2,500 m depth above this undeniably present landmass, since the minimum depth above it is only 954 m. Using the isobath method, then, there exists a claimable territorial limit which extends 100 nm in each direction down the spine of the Lomonosov Ridge, throughout its 1,800 km length – for somebody. Russia discovered the ridge, from a drifting Soviet ice station of their high-latitude expeditions in 1948, but that alone does not imply ownership. Where is the ridge’s point of origin? It might be Ellesmere Island, meaning it is an extension of the Canadian landmass. It might originate in the New Siberian Islands, meaning it is part of the Russian landmass. Determining which is the case is a little like investigating which end of the Golden Gate Bridge was built first, without any plans, charts or access to historical documentation, and will have to be resolved by common agreement using accumulated survey data and solid, convincing science.
Tell you what we can rule out, though. That the Lomonosov Ridge originates in Britain, Norway, Iceland, Denmark or the United States. And even without the ridge, Canada and Russia dominate the Arctic in terms of maritime territorial seas, because of their enormous coastlines.
Another anomaly which accrues to the country that Edward Lucas suspects of getting squishy about Russia is the Northwest Passage. Long believed a myth, hints of its existence cropped up through time and subsequent discoveries, and it was finally mapped from end to end in 1906 by Arctic legend Roald Amundsen. It lies entirely within the Canadian Arctic Archipelago. That’s not good enough for the USA and some European nations, of course, who would be delighted to claim it as sovereign territory if it lay within their own boundaries – but since it does not, insist it is an international waterway, with free passage for all. However, Canada’s claim looks fairly solid, and the introduction of the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act – asserting both Canadian sovereignty and responsibility to protect the sensitive environment – is supported by the clause America uses to challenge its legitimacy; UNCLOS (United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea) Article 234, which provides that Arctic environments are protected more stringently under UN law. Canada has repeatedly offered that it does not oppose international shipping through the passage, which cuts about 4,000 km off the shipping route from Europe to Asia – provided other countries acknowledge Canadian sovereignty, and ask permission. At the same time, the USA – which shows the strongest inclination to challenge Canada’s claim – has acknowledged the route lies entirely inside waters bounded by islands which are undisputed Canadian territory.
Anyway, let’s not get too deeply into the weeds on this; let’s see what else Mr. Lucas claims. Yes, indeed; in the opening paragraph, he did predict Russia’s dramatic decline relative to the BRIC countries, validating Alex’s principle that Edward Lucas consistently forecasts disaster for Russia mostly because that’s what he wishes would happen. Otherwise, while anything is possible, I don’t see any substantiation for his pessimism about Russia. It’s well ahead of the other BRICs in per-capita ratings which compensate for the others’ larger populations. Brazil does have a higher per-capita GDP, and on the face of things looks like Russia’s major competitor among the BRICs. However, Brazil turned in its second-worst economic performance since 2004, in 2011, and the worst performance among the Latin American countries, with an anemic 3% growth. The Brazilian Real is the most overvalued currency in the world, while the manufacturing sector has shrunk steadily for a decade despite manufactured and semi-manufactured goods comprising the bulk of Brazilian exports. Additionally, Brazil is heavily dependent on the world economy, and while it is energy self-sufficient, more than 70% of its oil reserves come from deep-water extraction, which is risky. I can’t foresee a situation in which the world’s biggest energy exporter will decline against its energy-importing partners. But perhaps Edward Lucas has discovered a heretofore-unexplored wormhole in the global-economics continuum.
Mmmmm…good to hear that “Europe’s energy market will be in good shape. Technological change will make unconventional forms of hydrocarbons cheaper to exploit. Russia’s east-west monopoly of gas export pipelines will be a tiresome historical relic, rather than a threat. The big worry will be not Russia’s clout but its weakness. With central Asian countries exporting directly to the west and to China, Russia will be struggling to meet its export commitments.” Good for Europe, I mean. Presumably we’re talking again about shale gas when speaking of “unconventional forms of hydrocarbons”. Well, good luck with that. I don’t intend to waste any more time pointing out what a capricious technology shale-gas extraction is, offering jubilation with its initial bonanzas, then rapidly falling off to diminishing returns. Suffice it to say the “promise” of shale gas has been around for something like a century, and it has yet to wipe oil and gas off the table. I’d be cautious about predicting a shale-gas revolution becoming a game-changer in less than 10 years. But, then again, I’m not Edward Lucas, and I can’t just make shit up. Still I have to give credit where credit is due in the fearlessness department; it takes some kind of brass to forecast the end of Russian energy dominance in a year when it had not only maintained its dominance of the European energy market, but muscled into the lead – over South Africa – in exports to Europe of hard coal; doubled in only 7 years. It’s true that Russia’s share of gas supplied to Europe declined, and the difference was picked up by Qatar. I must say, I was unaware that Qatar had laid a pipeline to Europe. What?? It hasn’t? So, all that LNG goes by ship? Well, that certainly seems a sound energy strategy, doesn’t it? No, it does not. And the Financial Times – for once – agrees with me. In England’s case – Lucas’s homeland – for example, all but 2 cargoes of LNG in 2011 came from Qatar; up 67% over 2010. Yet only 24% of those cargoes were guaranteed by long-term contracts, and the rest could be sold to a higher bidder. England’s own domestic oil production has been contracting at an average annual rate of more than 6% for the last 7 years. The west threatens war with Iran on an almost daily basis, and Iran has promised it will block the Straits of Hormuz at the first sign of attack. Qatar is on the wrong side of the straits, and its gas exports would fall to zero overnight in such an event. Has all the elements of a well thought-out energy policy. Well, except the thinking part.
More than half the EU’s energy comes from countries outside the EU, and that dependence has generally risen over the last decade. But Edward Lucas doesn’t have to worry about making sense. In Edward Lucas’s analysis, Russia will have to employ increasingly-desperate incentive schemes to get Europe to continue buying its gas, offering free draws on a Land Rover to its customers, while the plump, happy citizens of Europe wave a casual goodbye and open the taps on their new, reliable and cheap gas supply. From somewhere. This is the part in engineer’s jokes where all the lines converge in a black box, with “here a miracle occurs” written above it, followed by an “equals” sign and the answer you had already worked out but could not substantiate.
I have to impose a cut-off here, at the point Lucas is arguing that by 2020, Russia will be struggling to keep up with Vietnam and Nigeria. Although the article offers the certain promise of more deliciously entertaining lunacy, and there is an undeniable fascination in watching such destructive mental unraveling, I want to look at his current masterwork; and we’re getting a little top-heavy for words.
Without further ado, then, Renewal Amid the Decay. Right away, we learn that the NATO which is supposed to wither and die by 2020 is going to have a good year in 2013. Bringing Sweden and Finland under the umbrella of NATO and deputizing them to help out with the defense of the Baltic states is a bit of a pet project for Lucas: he regularly interjects fantasy scenarios such as a “law-and-order breakdown in north-eastern Estonia or Latvia” which would be “exploited by Russian irregulars” (whatever those are). In his megalomaniacal dream-reordering of society, he envisions a tightly-knit, ultra-responsive joint air defense network in which “[i]n five years’ time it is quite possible to imagine that the Gripen JAS-39 (or F-16) shepherding a “lost” Russian bomber out of Baltic airspace is flying from a Latvian airfield, flown by a Swedish pilot with a Finnish navigator, guided by a Lithuanian-run radar network and maintained by an Estonian aircraft engineer.” You know what it sounds like to me? A recipe for a dramatic midair collision, as the Lithuanian AIC tries to vector the Swedish pilot and his Finnish navigator onto the Russian bomber when not one of them speaks the same language as the others. Unless those 5 years were going to be spent learning English, so they could go, “Righto, tally-ho, chaps – enemy in sight!! Blimey, what an ugly brute!!”. The two most similar languages – Lettish and Lithuanian – are “not mutually intelligible”, and all these countries have their own language, written into the constitution and spoken by upwards of 85% of the population. Perhaps Mr. Lucas has a plan for a magic decoder ring, or something that will permit them all to understand each other. Or maybe they only have one plane, and have to do it that way.
If this is a preview of The Plan…..run.
Exercise Steadfast Jazz, to be run in fall of this year in the Baltics, will show the Russian bear who’s boss, though. And apparently, “everyone knows” it is a stiffish response to “Russia’s manoeuvres in 2009, which practised the invasion and occupation of the Baltic states (and concluded with a dummy nuclear drill in which the target was Warsaw).” Everybody except The Telegraph, I guess, since they reported it in November and could not even be sure in what month it occurred. Their source is a Polish newsmagazine named Wprost, which claims to have learned the details of the exercise from “documents it obtained”. These documents not only described the exercise in detail – including a simulated nuclear strike on Poland (as if such a thing is ever committed to paper in military exercise planning – the Russians use fictitious countries for everything just as NATO does), but numbered the participants at some 13,000 Russian and Belorussian soldiers. This sizable force, or part of it, carried out an aggressive “Polish” beach landing in Kaliningrad, and it all happened on the 70th anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Poland. Shame that in all that gold mine of martial detail, nobody thought to include the dates the exercise was to run, and nobody saw it, since nobody is even sure, two months later, that it took place in September. I guess the excitement of ripping Saakashvili a new asshole the year before awoke the spirit of conquest in the Russian breast. Funny that, considering some of the Poles were so upset they suggested anyone who was not freaking out was unpatriotic… nobody got any pictures. Didn’t the captured documents have a contact address where you could write for more details? They appeared to leave nothing else to chance. Fortunately Poland’s Defense Minister, Bogdan Klich, was “monitoring the exercises to see what has been planned”. That’s probably a good idea, Mr. Klich, and if I could be permitted a small observation, it will have even greater prospects of yielding valuable information about potential plans if the monitoring takes place while the exercises are actually going on.
Bad news for those of us who think Vladimir Putin is doing a pretty good job running Russia, though; he’ll be leaving in 2013. Well, he might hang on a bit longer, but he’d be mostly skulking around the Kremlin by 2014 looking for a lift to the border so he could make good his escape, since his popularity is sliding almost daily and by then he will probably be the most hated man in Russia.
Ha, ha. Sorry, I really tried to play that straight, but I just couldn’t do it.
Look, the west has tried this over and over, and failed to convince anyone but itself. The Russian public is not going to turf Putin out on his ear, because the public is not broadly unhappy with his performance, and even when his approval ratings sink a little, they still remain well above the same ratings of western leaders by their electorates. Moreover, polls suggest that while Russians are not necessarily content with their lot in life – and nobody ever is, everyone feels they deserve better – they do not blame their leader for current reality and believe he is serious about addressing their concerns. Shrill western democratizers like the always-bitter and often-quoted Masha Lipman cannot explain it in any way that comes out pro-regime-change, so they default to the Russians-are-bydlo foolishness, which is not so much deliberate insult as it is an expression of frustration at being baulked.
Finally, the promising-the-kids-a-pony sweetener that is as characteristic of Edward Lucas forecasts as is doom for Russia – the USA and the EU will ram through the largest free-trade deal in history this year. Silk underwear and shrimp cocktails all around, bartender, and damn austerity – this economy is going to rock!!! Pick up those instruments and play, for Christ’s sake; this is a celebration!!
Except it’s not, and anyone who makes a habit of investing based on Edward Lucas predictions should be spanked and sent to bed. The EU-US Free Trade Deal is a concept that has been batted around since the 90′s, and sporadic attempts to strike a deal have already been derailed several times. I’m not saying it’ll never happen, but the pressure to get it done now owes more to the hot breath from China that America feels on the back of its neck than anything else; blending the two economies would deflect the humiliation of being passed, and maybe even delay it for a few years. Most sites which discuss it seriously speak of an agreed framework for proceeding that’s a maybe for 2014, or for a possible “detailed agreement” in several years. The USA, Bloomberg tells us, runs a deficit in goods and a surplus in services. Since it also mentions a third of the companies involved are affiliates of one another…how’s that going to work? The manufacturing sector in both the EU and US is steadily contracting, the EU’s for 16 straight months, as the outsourcing craze of the early 2000′s comes home to roost. Are the US and EU going to make a fortune selling services to one another?
Even if the financial incentives were mind-boggling – and they’re not – there’s the question of government mojo, which bears directly on its ability to ram through contentious legislation. The present U.S. government has no mojo, and the Republicans are not going to allow anything that might look like an Obama success, even if the initiative under discussion promised to make every Republican a millionaire and make slaves of everyone else.
Well I heard some people talkin’ just the other day and they said you were gonna put me on a shelf Let me tell ya that I got some news for you and you’ll soon find out it’s true; You’re gonna have to eat your lunch all by yourself… ‘Cause I’m already gone and I’m feelin’ strong I will sing this victory song ‘Cause I’m already gone From the “On The Border” Album, EaglesThe window for constructive dialogue with Russia is closing. Nuts like Edward Lucas are trying to slam it shut. Are you sure that’s what you want? You have only to read the news to see that the current Russian government has backed up as far as it is going to, and pushback is the order of the day. Constant aggravation and harassment from the west forces Russia to conduct a daily re-evaluation of how much it actually needs the west, and how much it is in its interest to form new partnerships and alliances. Edward Lucas would have you believe that the U.S. military is so powerful that it can impose American and western will anywhere on the planet, but he is an academic (generously speaking) and not a military tactician, and there is a great deal he does not know at the same time that what he thinks he knows is informed by dazzling victories over military nonentities like Libya. Russia is a whole different ball game, and an attacker would have a logistic chain that stretched halfway around the world – I seem to recall that ending badly for Napoleon. Also, it is snuggled up against another major military power to which it is the biggest supply of energy. China would not stand by quietly and allow the west to take over or destroy its energy supply. Not without a fight, and believe me, the juice is not worth the squeeze.

Wow, this is a really great blogpost. It is a good literary device to use Lucas ravings as a foil to discuss a lot of different economic, political, and geographical issues.
Lucas is clearly on the wrong side of history. His fantasy of Baltic ascension is pure lunacy. Baltic states are fated to be economic satellites of either Russia or Germany.
What is going on in the world now is China’s rise to economic dominance through its strategy of becoming a manufacturing giant:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2013/0115/1224328848972.html
Russia has to make a lot of decisions how to develop and diversify her economy. I hope she chooses a strategic orientation towards China. Pooling their resources together, the two countries could accomplish so much in many areas of economic development, science, and technology. So I hope this happens.
Meanwhile, Russia faces certain dangers, one of which is falling into a consumer debt trap, in this sense a projected 2013 slowdown in the credit market could be a good thing.
http://rt.com/business/news/russia-banks-profit-record2012-245/
Hopefully, remembering what happened in 2008, Russian government regulates banks better than American government has done.
Meanwhile I saw this other piece in RT, indicating a slight setback for Gazprom’s Nord Stream project:
http://rt.com/business/news/gazprom-nord-stream-cost-282/
So, somebody underestimated the costs. Still worth it to bypass Ukraine, IMHO. As distribution network, Ukraine with her chaotic political system was too unreliable!
It was not so much a literary device – I am not a professional writer – as it was taking advantage of opportunities to point out that Lucas fails to consider these factors in any real way when he makes his blithe predictions. He simply assumes the power of his intellect is enough to alter destiny. Once upon a time you had to earn the right to condescend by being brilliant; these days, apparently, it’s sufficient just to be arrogant. Therefore, it’s easy to predict the USA will dump Canada for Norway in terms of strategic partners as long as you completely ignore economic and geopolitical realities. Similarly, he predicts the signing of major treaties and agreements with no apparent understanding of the process involved or how long it takes, or whether or not the actual conclusion of the deal would be to the benefit of the more powerful partner – which is always the deciding factor.
I agree Russia would be well-served to cultivate an alliance with China, but cautiously, because China can be a rapacious partner and it shows little regard for intellectual property rights, as its roundabout ripoff of Russian aircraft designs illustrates. China recognizes no equals and is ruthless about achieving its objectives; it would have to learn the value of partnership rather than imposed servitude, and its fairly easy economic conquest has not really taught it much of a lesson – China should realize that the enemy in that case supplied the sinews of his own destruction. But Russia has an advantage owing to geography, just as Canada has with the USA. China would not sit by and let a secure energy source upon which it depends become insecure and in the hands of those who would order it about if they could.
Lucas likes the idea of superstar Baltic states because he sees their membership in the EU as a tribute to European soft power, just as he says; they have to enjoy an instant boost in lifestyle and self-determination, because being part of the EU is just good for you, everyone should envy you – especially Russia.
His obsession with the Baltics does not really make sense. These countries are not going to shape the economic future of the EU and Russia. And are not such a big achievement in terms of “soft power” since they rabidly hate Russia. Now the Ukraine and Belorus in the EU and NATO would be something to chirp about by such a drone but that ain’t happening.
In fact, he is particularly vituperative toward Ukraine since the Great Promise Of The Orange Revolution failed, and in that event he cared nothing for the people of Ukraine, only that it would hurt Russia. There’s something wrong with Ed Lucas, and it has nothing to do with his being an intellectual.
One of several eXile run articles lean in that direction:
http://www.exile.ru/articles/detail.php?ARTICLE_ID=14038&IBLOCK_ID=35&PAGE=1
For the record, I’m all for interacting on the technical merits minus personal asides as much as possible.
If it was just a matter of selling the magazine then they would do it on every occasion for anyone. No, this is deliberate targeting of Russia with hate propaganda. Zaitchik also panders to the tropes about Russia becoming more authoritarian. BS. It is way freer today than in the 1990s “golden era” of Yeltsin. The freedom I talk about is not of the Khodorkovsky immunity from prosecution or even investigation for gangland murders.
That has been evident in some other eXile commentary.
One of its editors with a Kyiv Post background took an Orange like stance back in late 2004/early 2005.
Edward Lucas is impervious to personal asides, and in his mind criticism of him only showcases the ignorance of the critic. This, too, is typical of the hardcore Russophobe – those who pan or criticize their material do so out of fear that they are “hitting too close to the mark”, and are terrified by their sword of truthiness. Again, fine by me. People who believe their enemy is reacting desperately and out of weakness are generally satisfied to just pat themselves on the back and trumpet more bilious foolishness. Both are harmless, and an insult from a fool is a compliment.
One Russophile leaning source privately said that Lucas is good at picking his spots.
With selectivity, he’s sure to use this line in a reverse mode:
“People who believe their enemy is reacting desperately and out of weakness are generally satisfied to just pat themselves on the back and trumpet more bilious foolishness. Both are harmless, and an insult from a fool is a compliment.”
“There’s something wrong with Ed Lucas, and it has nothing to do with his being an intellectual.”
****
Some “intellectual”, inclusive of linking to LR and lobbing pot shots against those he disagrees with from a good distance.
My kind of intellectual readily faces noticeable opposition in a head on way, while substantively addressing flaws that are evident across the political spectrum
Dear Yalensis,
A fine comment. Just a few points:
1. The Central Bank started to get worried about the pace of credit growth around the middle of 2012. That is one reason why it raised interest rates (the other is the spike in inflation caused by the tariff increases and the food price rises caused by the poor harvest) . It also took other steps such as Central Banks can take to bring credit growth down. It is these steps that the Central Bank took mid year which together with the effect of the poor harvest and the government’s determination to keep the budget in surplus explain the fall in growth in the second half of 2012.
The Central Bank acted absolutely correctly. A US Central Banker once said that a Central Bank’s job is to take away the punch bowl when the party gets going. It is partly because under Alan Greenspan the US Federal Reserve forgot this that things in the US got out of hand and the crash happened.
2. There is a concerted attempt underway in Europe at the moment to get Gazprom to lower its prices. We see this with the EU Commission’s anti trust investigation of Gazprom, the talking up of the prospects of the shale gas boom (very unlikely in Europe whatever happens in the US) and the aggressive expansion of Norway into Gazprom’s markets. With anywhere between 18-25% of the world’s proven natural gas reserves (not including its potential shale gas reserves) and with global demand for gas bound to increase Gazprom can afford to take a long view in the knowledge that in time it will see its opponents off. Norway with between 1.2-1.6% of global natural gas reserves presents no long term threat.
Incidentally I said the other day that in my opinion the shale gas revolution was simply another bubble. I would not be surprised if over time its effect is to strengthen Gazprom’s position by increasing demand for gas and deterring investment in alternative energy sources such as nuclear power. Meanwhile on the basis of what looks to me misplaced confidence about a future of abundant shale gas the US and other producers like Norway are stepping up production and drawing down their reserves at what I suspect will turn out to be an unsustainable rate.
Back in the 1990s in Britain we closed down our coal industry on the promise of a golden future of cheap and endless North Sea gas. Gas prices did indeed fall to very low levels during this period. Excessively high production spurred by all this optimism meant that the North Sea gas windfall was quickly squandered – far more quickly than anyone expected. Unless shale gas from Lancashire rides to the rescue (which looks extremely unlikely) we shall soon be importing gas. In the meantime my personal energy bill to keep my admittedly rather large house warm during the winter is currently running at about $1,500 a month.
Dear Mark,
This is a very fine demolition of Ed Lucas.
Ed Lucas has always struck me as the Prince amongst Russophobes. Partly this is because of the influence he wields through the Economist. One of the most effective comments I ever read about him was written some years ago by Eric Kraus, who had a meeting with Ed Lucas shortly after the rouble devaluation of 1998. Kraus has very wittily described the apocalyptic predictions concerning Russia Ed Lucas made to him during this meeting not one of which came true. Kraus has also expressed his bewildermentthat someone who was so completely and entirely wrong could retain not just credibility but his post at the Economist thereafter.
Kraus’s bewilderment is shared by me. I think you hit on the nail on the head when you say that Ed Lucas predicts what he wishes. What he wishes first and foremost is Russia’s misfortune. Thus he wishes Russia’s economy to decay so he predicts it. He wishes Russia to lose what he sees as its energy dominance in Europe, so he predicts it. He wants to see Norway forge an alliance with the US because he wants Norway to challenge Russia’s position in Europe as an energy supplier and (alongside the US) in the Arctic, so he predicts it. He is a true believer in the shale gas revolution because he believes it will cause Russia to lose its market as an energy supplier,.which he has convinced himself is all that holds its economy together, so he predicts it. He wants Finland and Sweden to forge an alliance against Russia to challenge Russia along with the Baltic States in the Baltic, so he predicts it. Having just been to Finland I can say by the way that that idea is a complete fantasy. I came away with the clear impression that at popular level at least there is far more suspicion of Swedes amongst Finns than there is of Russians and with memories of Finland’s defeat by Russia during the Second World War still fresh being part of an anti Russian alliance would not be popular at all. Anyway I read articles whilst in Finland which which made it absolutely clear that the Finnish army for fairly obvious reasons wants to avoid any sort of confrontation with Russia. As for Ed Lucas’s love for the Baltic States that is surely motivated in part at least by the hostility of their governments to Russia, which of course he shares.
I do not understand the reasons for Ed Lucas’s hostility to Russia. I find it difficult to understand feellings of such irrational intensity. What this hostiliy has done is totally unbalance any ability Ed Lucas’s might have to judge not just Russia but world politics in general. In the end everything for him comes down to Russia.
If Ed Lucas was an isolated figure it would be easy to dismiss him as a crank. Unfortunately he is not. There is an alarmingly large number of people who share his views whilst his position in the Economist confers on his views a degree of respect and authority that they entirely do not merit. The result is that though he will go on being wrong, he will also go on being listened to.
A puzzle indeed. But the west’s hate on Russia is centuries old. As was mentioned on this board by whom I forget, there was an anti-Russia propaganda campaign in the British media before the Crimean war. Perhaps Lucas’ puppet masters think he is a useful tool to further their economic and political agendas. I think they are all a bunch of degenerates who need to be euthanized. These clown deciders are driving the world into the toilet by pretending fossil fuels will last forever and climate change is something of interest only to some leftie environmentalists. I can sort of understand them being afraid to lose their wealth and power and thus resorting to rabid denial and pursuance of business as usual, but their phobias are not an excuse and the last thing the world needs from people in charge of society shaping decisions.
Picking a fight with Russia over what amounts to nothing is just sick. Russia’s resources will not save the west and the world from the brick wall into which it is headed at 300 km/h. Trying to make it into a banana republic is utterly pointless.
From the distance of a TV set, I saw him speak at a RFE/RL gathering before his admiring hosts:
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/NewCol
“The result is that though he will go on being wrong, he will also go on being listened to.”
Perfect. As I have suggested before, no group which fervently believes Russia’s “show of strength” actually conceals huge fault lines which precede imminent collapse, that the country would wink out like a candle if it could not be such a big energy supplier, and is a hotbed of restless resentment which is due to boil over in mass protest any day now is ever going to see the revolution it craves, because the underpinnings of such a revolution exist only in their disordered minds. The more like-minded people who listen to ed Lucas, the better, because instead they could be listening to some Gene-Sharp-clone professional dissent leader who really could make mischief in Russia. For those of us to whom a Russian collapse would be an undesirable event – I certainly would not want Russia running the world, but I believe they have no such ambition and I wish them no harm – the very best outcome is for a wide audience who desire the country’s downfall to take their cues from an idiot who knows as much about the mating rituals of fruit bats as he does about what is actually going on in the country. The more people who believe the Russian economy is crumbling, the fewer who will actively try to bring it about.
Thanks for the kind words, as usual, Alex. And, as Jack the Lad in the Royal Navy used to toast, “Confusion to our enemies!!!” Particularly effective when they are willing to confuse themselves.
Dear Mark,
Thanks also for your comments.
“Confusion to our enemies” indeed! Actually, exactly as you say, they are doing our work (of confusing themselves) for us with no little help from Ed Lucas and his like.
“I do not understand the reasons for Ed Lucas’s hostility to Russia. I find it difficult to understand feellings of such irrational intensity. What this hostiliy has done is totally unbalance any ability Ed Lucas’s might have to judge not just Russia but world politics in general. In the end everything for him comes down to Russia.”
****
The ethno-religious background of a given individual isn’t always indicative of the general impression that many have.
That said, it’s also understood how many could be influenced by their own experiences, relative to their ethno-religious background with some classic examples pertaining to Brzezinski and Begin. Without knowing so much about Lucas’ personal upbringing, this last point could very well explain a good portion of his commentary. Without knowing for sure myself, I understand that he’s an observant Catholic. If I’m not mistaken, the same is true of John Laughland. Put mildly, that’s where the similarity peeks between the two when it comes to the former USSR.
I recall Lucas expressing an uplift when he was present at a Ukrainian Greek Catholic observance some years back. Does he express such sentiment regarding the Russian Orthodox Church? I recall an Economist piece glorying (as depicted by him) the Catholic presence in Montenegro in a way that can be taken as not being as favorable to that land’s strong Orthodox Christian presence.
On former Yugoslavia, I recall him using the G word (genocide) which on that subject leans towards an anti-Serb connotation.
I vaguely recall him suggestively lauding the anti-Russian Captive Nations Committee.
http://www.russiablog.org/2006/04/yuschenkos_wife_and_the_ugly_h.php
He was a friend of that late Roman Kupchinsky, whose views of Russia fit more the anti-Russian than pro-Russian mold:
http://www.russiablog.org/2010/02/improving-russias-image-russian-ukrainian-relations.php
He appears comparatively quick to jump on the shortcomings (real and hyped) of commentary which is more sympathetic to the mainstream Russian point of view.
http://www.eurasiareview.com/13102010-beyond-the-edward-lucas-peter-hitchens-exchange-on-russia-and-ukraine/
There was the instance a few years back when within one month’s time, JRL ran two of his inquiries asking what was behind the funding of the now defunct Tiraspol Times. What actually seemed to irk him was an English language venue giving a different perspective of the former Moldavian SSR than his. The same Lucas linked La Russophobe at his blog (that was active at the time), while never seeking to openly inquire who La Russophobe is. The Tiraspol Times was far more open in its self description when compared to the anonymous manner of La Russophobe.
In line with what I’ve expressed, note the expressed reservations on some comments attributed to Kasyanov:
http://www.edwardlucas.com/2006/07/06/a-fine-line-between-rulers-and-opposition/
Excerpt –
“But the big question that I and the other lunch guests were interested in was ‘what should the west do’. And here Kasyanov’s message was much harder to understand. He strongly advised against bringing Georgia and Ukraine into NATO and said that US Vice-President Dick Cheney’s hawkish speech in Vilnius had been most unhelpful. The west should criticise Putin but not Russia and should do so respectfully, with attention to the country’s economic achievements as well as the current rulers’ political failings. And we should do so either when visiting Russia, or at home, but definitely not in “third countries”. Doing otherwise will strengthen the bad guys.
That seems very odd to me. Russia is increasingly nasty at home and abroad – and the main pro-western challenger for the presidency says that we shouldn’t defend its victims, for fear of making things worse. It’s a familiar tune from the past (‘give us what we want or it’ll get much nastier’). But here it is again, coming from rulers and opposition alike.”
The “main pro-western challenger for the presidency”??? When was that ever true?
That’s another common feature of Russophobia – going into transports of gushing adoration over everyone who makes a few disparaging remarks about Putin, Russia, corruption or all three, and tabbing them for leadership. The fact that a newcomer requires no qualifications for leadership beyond an exhibited willingness to cheerlead for the west speaks volumes about their goals for Russia.
In that example, the highlighted excerpt (of Lucas’ comments on Kasyanov) pertains to what happens when a Russian critic of Putin expresses something that’s arguably within reason from the vantage-point of Russia’s legitimate interests.
Also reminded of how openDemocracy favored Riabchuk’s negative comments on Navalny, who has apparently not responded.
That piece by Riabchuk is hyperlinked towards the end of this article, which includes some rebuttal to his (put mildly) questionable comments:
http://www.eurasiareview.com/02042012-coverage-of-russia-uncensored-analysis/
I wouldn’t categorize Navalny as being more of a nationalist than Riabchuk. Some types of nationalism seem to be more culturally/geopolitically correct than others. It would come as no surprise to know that Riabchuk was on good terms with the previously mentioned (at this thread) late Kupchinsky, who was Lucas’ friend. For all I know, Riabchuk and Lucas might be tight.
On the matter of cultural biases, this piece is a follow-up to what the same author had recently wrote:
http://grayfalcon.blogspot.com/2013/01/serbophobes-unchained.html
There’s bias, with some being more equal than others.
Dear Misha,
Thanks for drawing attention to the Kasyanov piece because I think it is very revealing of Ed Lucas’s mentality. What Ed Lucas’s comments about Kasyanov show is that Ed Lucas’s issue is definitely not with Putin but with Russia itself. It’s perfectly obvious that any Russian leader who defends Russian national interests is going to earn Ed Lucas’s disfavour. So far as Ed Lucas is concerned Russia has no legitimate national interests or even one suspects a right to an independent existence. If Putin were to fall under a bus tomorrow any Russian leader who replaced him, even Kasyanov, would earn Ed Lucas’s hostility before long.
In short Alexander, the Russian leader with an okay would’ve to be a stooge. During WW II, Vlasov got some pointed flack from the Nazi hierarchy for emphasizing how Russians needed to play a role in any successful overthrow of the Soviet regime. Under a considerably more problematical situation, Vlasov didn’t crap on his country in the manner of some present day Russians – of which some of them seem to make a decent professional livelihood.
Look at Republika Srpska with Dodik. He’s portrayed as a moderate turned nationalist. If anything, he’s a Serb leader who has seen the extent of bias, while choosing to challenge it. That stance makes him an extremist.
Touching on the subject of Dodik versus the Serbs who’re more in line with the Western neocon-neolib influenced foreign policy slant:
Re:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hbu1FsUyG6shNMcXuXdeiEB0ZZ8A?docId=CNG.c4217fb25b99b4b3c05b402ae4bc3043.511
Excerpt –
Bosnian Serb President Milorad Dodik, who is Kusturica’s friend, welcomed Belluci.
****
RFE/RL has been big on highlighting Serbs who’re against mainstream Serb views. The aforementioned Kusturica has a culturally/geopolitically incorrect perspective:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emir_Kusturica
Kusterica’s reply to his Turkish detractors on the matter of genocide is a point I’ve periodically made for a good number of years.
The above Wiki piece presents the claim of Kusterica underrepresenting the number of killed and raped in 1990s Bosnia. The greater reality of that situation concerns the grossly exaggerated rape claims and causality figures, which (among the fatalities) involves a multi-ethno-religious dynamic.
This point typically gets answered with which group had the greatest casualty numbers. In wars throughout the ages, the victors typically kill more civilians from the defeated side. The greater number of WW II Japanese civilian dead over American civilian fatalities isn’t used to question whether the US was more virtuous than Japan.
“In short…., the Russian leader with an okay would’ve to be a stooge”.
Exactly! And (a bit like Vlasov in his relations with the Nazis) he would find that even then he would be the object of western suspicion.
Nazi era Germany included pro-Russian/anti-Communist Germans who weren’t necessarily ideologically committed Nazis and and anti-Communist/anti-Russian elements, who were by and large, if not exclusively Nazi diehards. This reality gave some hope that a hypothetically undefeated Nazi Germany might at some point change. In hind sight, this view is easier to dismiss. Back then, the outcome of WW II wasn’t so clear.
Vlasov and some other Russians faced a more difficult situation than the present day Russian political opposition. Contemporary Russia doesn’t have a powerful foreign military force on its land seeking conquest. The present Russian political and socioeconomic conditions are nowhere near as bad as was evident during WW II.
Some Western historians have made it a point to distinguish between the Vichy French who acted out of what could be termed as practical necessity versus some others who went beyond the pale. Difficult times lead to some difficult choices. Democratic capitalist countries saw a common cause in an alliance with the USSR. On the flip side, some others found themselves in the position of facing a Nazi juggernaut, while trying to make the best out of that situation.
In Nazi captivity, Vlasov didn’t say and write anti-Russian absurdities along the lines of what one finds with some of the current Russian political opposition.
“Nazi era Germany included pro-Russian/anti-Communist Germans who weren’t necessarily ideologically committed Nazis”
They were not the ones in charge, Mike. They had no influence on German policy. Not by a long shot.
“and and anti-Communist/anti-Russian elements, who were by and large, if not exclusively Nazi diehards.”
And these outnumbered the others by a couple of orders of magnitude.
“This reality gave some hope that a hypothetically undefeated Nazi Germany might at some point change.”
How would this happen, Mike? Who were the personalities involved, and what were their chances of taking power in Nazi Germany?
“In hind sight, this view is easier to dismiss.”
It was easy to dismiss at the time too.
“Back then, the outcome of WW II wasn’t so clear”
Mike, the Axis was trying to wage “…a war of engines…” on 2% of the world’s natural oil.
That’s a rough, though charitable, estimate of the actual chances of an Axis victory in WWII,
Face facts, Mike. The guy who got Russia through the war of racial extermination that the Nazis waged in the USSR was Stalin, not Vlasov.
Wanderer,
For a time, it looked to a good number like Nazi Germany might prevail. In hind sight this seems more far fetched, given the knowledge of the outcome, inclusive of what the Axis faced. Meantime, there was reason to be disgusted with Stalin’s regime.
The Soviet Union changed after Stalin. If Nazi Germany had somehow continued on, who knows to the full extent what might’ve happened? We know that there were attempts on Hitler’s life.
Under difficult circumstances, a good number of non-Nazis and non-Communists entered into an alliance with either Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union in a way that didn’t condone the extreme fault lines of these regimes. And yes, Anglo-America was (and remains) far from perfect. Without meaning to go Podhoretz-Friedman, many (including yours truly) would reasonably choose the Allied WW II West over Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union.
For some, this choice wasn’t so easy. People were faced dealing with the realities evident in their given area. Some were more ethical about it than others.
You’re entitled to your views. I don’t buy the Stalin genius theory of his winning WW II. He had great human and natural resources to work with. My kudos is to the Soviet citizens and others who contributed to the Nazi defeat.
Towards the end of the war, Vlasov’s forces were actively involved in the liberation of Prague – the last scene of WW II European theater fighting. This act wasn’t a simple matter of sheer opportunism. The Nazi hierarchy jerked Vlasov around, as he and others serving under him were sympathetic to the Czechs.
BTW, I understand that prior to that, there were instances (like one referenced to me concerning the area of Pskov) where some of Vlasov’s personnel had ceasefire like understandings with the Soviet partizans. I recall a Strategic Culture Foundation piece referencing Vlasov personnel who expressed outrage at what Baltic Nazis were doing. Vlasov and his forces don’t come close to having the same racist and murdering baggage as the Ustasha and those associated with the OUN/UPA.
“For a time, it looked to a good number like Nazi Germany might prevail.”
Indeed, many systematically denigrated Soviet economic and military power, because they were blind ideologues.
I recall a joke that made the rounds on the Left around 1942:
Question: “What is the definition of a military expert?”
Answer: “Someone who said the Polish army was the strongest in Europe in 1939, that Hitler had missed the bus in March 1940, that the USSR would collapse in six weeks in June 1941, that the Red Army will be defeated in 1942, and who in 1943 says that there can be no Second Front in 1943.”
” In hind sight this seems more far fetched, given the knowledge of the outcome, inclusive of what the Axis faced.”
The ultimate defeat of the Axis was apparent at the time, given the collossal material superiority of the United Nations.
“Meantime, there was reason to be disgusted with Stalin’s regime.”
Heh… If you don’t mind the Slavs of Eastern Europe being exterminated.
Stalin was the one who stopped that, not Vlasov.
“You’re entitled to your views. I don’t buy the Stalin genius theory of his winning WW II. He had great human and natural resources to work with.”
And those are precisely the resources he had taken care to intensively develop in the decade before the war, at an intensity that Imperial Russia had no hope of matching. That was Stalin’s most vital contribution, and it worked.
“My kudos is to the Soviet citizens and others who contributed to the Nazi defeat.”
Mine too. And their efforts would not have availed if Stalin hadn’t built the mines and facttories and oil wells that built and ran the weapons.
Some of Hitler’s strategic decisions proved faulty. In contrast, Stalin’s blunders could be better compensated.
The disgust with Stalin’s regime included those who were the opposite of anti-Slav. For the purpose of seeing Stalin successfully overthrown, the Nazi ideologues blew a golden opportunity.
On the comparing of Vlasov and Stalin, it could be said that the latter was responsible for killing more Russians.
The closing pot shot on Imperial Russia downplays a process of Russian economic development that was underway and could’ve continued without oh great genius not Stalin. (Yes, he was a shrewd person in diplomacy.) The Nazis were well into Russia in a way that the Central Powers weren’t in WW I. With their backs very much to the wall and faced with a clear enemy, the Russian and the other peoples of the USSR prevailed. When facing greater odds, people can muster in themselves a greater rally, as opposed to a situation which isn’t as dire. This point relates to prior Russian history.
In Russia, WW I saw a mix of suffering without as dominant or oppressive a foreign occupation as WW II, blended with a better propaganda campaign against the government on the territory that was to comprise the USSR. Concerning WW I & II, the worldwide improvements in industrial production were evident across the board. Without such a brutally centralized command structure, the US was able to crank out large amounts of military equipment – albeit under easier conditions than the USSR.
Meanwhile, on the Navalny front, here is Navalny’s brief blog entry about his latest excursion to the Investigative Committee:
http://navalny.livejournal.com/766945.html
TRANSLATION
“I just came back from the IC. I got acquainted with the new composition of the “Brothers Navalny” case, there are 11 investigators. Enough for a football team.
“Also, final charges were presented on the KirovLes case. Pretty much the same as the preliminary charges.
“Like, criminal enterprise, led by an acquaintance of Navalny, bought 14.5 million (rubles) of lumber, sold this lumber for 16 million and, hence, stole 16 million. If calculators could read, then, reading such accusations, they would break out laughing and spew chunks of their solar batteries.
“So, we are now at the sage of getting acquainted with the case, later I will lay out more details. You’ll laugh your head off.”
END OF TRANSLATION
As usual, Navalny displays inappropriate humor; he reminds me of an adolescent who is in serious trouble with his parents, but treats it like joke. Also, he is preaching to his ever-dwindling audience. People in the know (and hopefully people on this blog, where the case has been discussed exhaustively) know why the charge of embezzlement concerns the entire 16 million. (Hint: Navalny and Ofitserov never had a right to take the lumber in the first place, let alone sell it.)
Is it now Navalny’s defense that he should only be charged for embezzling 1.5 million?? His laywer might actually go with that. It’s a tricky defense, but it’s probably the route I would go if I were his laywer. There isn’t much else he can do, since Opalev has already been convicted of this same crime; Opalev’s confession, conviction and testimony add what attorneys call a “layer of prejudice” to Navalny’s case.
“As usual, Navalny displays inappropriate humor; he reminds me of an adolescent who is in serious trouble with his parents, but treats it like joke. Also, he is preaching to his ever-dwindling audience.”
****
Akin to Pussy Riot and some other like minded folks who’ve been egged on by elements within Western mass media.
The trouble with Navalny’s theory is that it relies on the Russian courts being disposed to believe the same tropes about Russia that the west promotes and that he purports to believe; to wit, that if you buy something in a straightforward deal and some time later sell it for a small profit, that’s enough to get you jailed in Soviet Russia – particularly if you happen to be the people’s hero and a crusader for honest business, because the state will permit adoration only of itself and is prone to crush other suitors in its mailed fist.
I have my doubts it’ll fly, because if it were as straightforward as Navalny claims, the IC would not be interested. Either that, or there would be thousands more prisoners, including every member of the opposition: You, Nemtsov – you bought a car on Saturday, away to the brig with you. No doubt the western media will make it out that Navalny had to be silenced because he’s such a danger to the Kremlin hierarchy, but I don’t think very many people really fall for that any more given the increasingly ridiculous conduct of the opposition, and they’re really just going through the motions. Besides, sending you to jail in Russia doesn’t silence you – Nemtsov was sent to jail for his stupid 31 demonstrations, and was immediately able to smuggle out a note to the press describing the dimensions of his cell and the privations he would have to endure. The members of Pussy Riot who remain in custody can barely get their sheets braided for an escape attempt without the breathless press blabbing the whole thing, complete with the latest philosophical piracy cry from the heart.
The trouble is, the Anglosphere will not just report the details of the case matter-of-factly; the press has grown so partisan in its inclinations – not just on Russia, but on any matter which is even remotely political – that most of the major sources can be counted on to spin it with the kind of sarcasm and mockery that makes even the most scrupulously above-board legal proceeding seem shady and corrupt. Normally the evidence would speak for itself, but when it is presented in a language the English-speaking world cannot read, it relies on its reporters. In fact, Russia would do itself a service if it provided detailed English transcripts of all its major trials. Or perhaps it does, and I’m just unaware of it.
I agree with the comment about inappropriate humour.
What I would say is that it seems that this is something of a fashion in Russia. We saw during the summer the wholly inappropriate behaviour of the three Pussy Riot defendants during their trial. We also see the arrogant display of Serdyukov and the flamboyant appearance of Vasilyeva in her Court appearance. Even allowing for the fact that it is winter it would have been far wiser for her to turn up to Court in a more modest coat, perhaps the (very warm) Russian padded coat that a lot of Russian women wear, rather than a fur. As for her femininity, I personally would have advised her to leave it back home. The redoubtable Judge Sylova does not come across to me as the sort of person to be charmed or impressed by it.
Now we see the same arrogance in the inappropriately jocular tone assumed by Navalny. I suppose he think such a display of bravado makes him look tough and brave. like a French aristocrat cracking jokes on the way to the guillotine. As with the other defendants it won’t make a good impression and it won’t do him any good at all.
Mark: If you read the pro-Navalny comments to his blog, that is exactly the defense that the hamsters are making: “Oh [said in uber-mocking sarcastic tone], so it’s illegal now to buy something and then sell at a profit? So, capitalism itself has been outlawed in Putin’s Russia??” In other words, the hamsters believe that KirovLes was a straightforward business transaction. As in, what’s next? I can’t sell my own car??
Navalny himself knows that this is B.S. and that he is a crook. But he continues to use inappropriate humor, as if his mocking will somehow shame his accusers into backing off. I think this device is used more by the guilty than the innocent. If I were wrongly accused of a crime, I think I would be super-serious and very scared. The last thing I would do is crack a lot of jokes.
P.S. and as to Alex’s comment about the French aristos cracking jokes on their way to the guillotine: Maybe that did that. But Charles Darnay gave a much more serious speech!
And P.P.S. Navalny ain’t no aristocrat, he’s basically Russian/Ukrainian trailer trash.
But he is trying to become an aristocrat along with the rest of the liberast swine. They adore the Khodorkovsky’s and despise the rabble. These clowns are not even trying to behave like middle class people in the west. This is not their ideal, it is a transparent mask created by western propagandists.
They buried one of the top “thieves-in-law” yesterday. “Granddad Khasan”, an ethnic Kurdish-Armenian or whatever, was assassinated by a single shot from a sniper rifle as he was walking out of his favourite eatery on the Arbat, a place where he, “Godfather” style, used to give audiences to his accolytes. The sniper’s control shots also seriously wounded a waitress who was at the restaurant doorway, but the gunman got the old bastard in one. The gangster was 76 years old. Why leave a wet-job so late?
I’ve witnessed one of these funerals before at first hand. A couple of years ago I was checking out my in-laws’ grave after the spring thaw and inadvertently walked into the scum of Moscow that had come to pay their final respects to “The Jap”, another big-noise who had been liquidated in his old age in a gang war. And the numerous cops present just kept a “respectful” distance and observed. I thought: “Why don’t they just send in SPETSNAZ and round all the evil bastards up?”
The mourners I witnessed that day were, I am sure, mostly tooled up as well – just in case a little altercation between competing factions occurred – and they all were dressed in leather jackets, caps, overcoats etc.
Why hasn’t there been no Russian Elliot Ness, no Russian “Untouchables” who could rid their country of this criminal scum? Surely a moral crusader such as Navalny could have filled and relished such a post as Ness held in the USA?
Propably not enough money in it to interest the Basketmaker.
The KP journalist who wrote this article claims he was set upon by some of the grieving mourners because they objected to his taking photographs.
What gets me is that almost all of this vermin hails from the Caucasus, Georgians and Armenians making up the bulk of their numbers.
Why, even that well-known Armenian fighter for democracy, Gary Kasparov, appears to have flown in from New York so as to give his last respects to Granddad Khasan – at least, that looks very much like him in the first picture.
Жалко дедушку, жил, как свинья, сдох, как собака.
In his article entitled “Ded’s Dead: The End of a Mafia Era in Russia?”, Mark Galeotti gives the run down on “Dyed Khasan” (aka Aslan Usoyan) and the end of “thieves-in-law” (vory v zakone – воры в законе), which expression he chooses to translate as “thieves within the code”.
Since he was a Kurd, I wonder if there was any connection to the assassination of those three women in Paris. Are the Turks on a killing spree in other countries?
Nah, I shouldn’t think so. I should think the creation of a Kurdish nation state was the least of his concerns.
That does look a lot like Kasparov, but I can’t imagine he would go out unshaven like that or wear such humble clothes. It’s just somebody who looks a little like him.
But I assure you, sir, Scourge of Putin Kasparov (né Garik Weinstein to a Russo-Jewish father and an Armenian mother [née Gasparyan, which name he russified to "Kasparov"]) is the epitome of gangster chic in the linked photograph, and that includes his unshaven “homme sauvage” jowls, the Levis and the leather “kepka”.
I should say, however, that although the man in the photograph bears a resemblance to Mr. Kasparov, I do not think it is he, as most of the time Mr. Kasparov seems to be much too busy in New York planning the overthrow of the Russian “regime” than to bother himself with attending the Moscow funeral of a common criminal.
It wasn’t right that an innocent waitress got hurt.
It’s what other gangsters call “collateral damage”.
The World Bank reckons Russia might leap up from 112th position in the world’s top 185 economies to 20th place in 2018. This year, Russia rose 8 places to its present position after having been ranked 120th out of 185 top economies in 2012.
According to this St. Petersburg Times (stablemate of Moscow Times) article written by Irina Filatova, someone who has not in the past shown any hesitatation in throwing shit at Russia from the pages of the Grauniad, “If Russia achieves the goal, it will become a rare example of a country making such rapid progress in moving up in the rankings in a short time”.
Kirill Rogov, a senior fellow at the Yegor Gaidar Economic Policy Institute is quoted in the article as saying: “The only country to make such a leap is Georgia, which skyrocketed from No. 100 in 2006 to No. 9 in 2013 as a result of drastic changes to the law enforcement system”.
This is where kids write ROFL I think!
And FFS! – “The Yegor Gaidar Economic Policy Institute”!
ROFLAPIHP!
(rolls on floor laughing and pisses in his pants)
These “business” rankings are subjective BS. Georgia shot up just because of some paperwork change for a one time registration. This is plain nonsense and irrelevant to the actual business climate. 99.99999% of the time is spent outside of the license registration office dealing with gangsters and corrupt officials (who extort based on inspections for fire code violations, etc.). And of course the all important actual consumer demand and profits. Sort of important for the business climate for businesses to be able to make enough money to operate. Sorry, but Georgia’s economy ain’t so stellar compared to Russia’s. If this is just me mixing indices then the problem is with the index itself.
It’s tiresome how journalists trot out this BS as some sort of valid metric. But then again journalists are paid liars anyway.
There is a different set of goalposts for countries which are the protegees of western governments and those who are the undeclared enemy. And in the end they are obviously meaningless, since Georgia went from bright child proprietorially patted on the head to pants-shitting, never-talked-about embarrassment with the downfall of Saakashvili.
I agree about Georgia,
I would say nonetheless that the World Bank ease of doing business rankings are among the more reliable international rankings that concern Russia. I discussed them at some length in a comment to an earlier post when I mentioned the high grade they gave Russia for enforcing contracts and for tax collection.
Putin is absolutely right to set ambitious targets for Russia to achieve in order to improve its investment climate. Unless the country’s leader sets such targets nothing much is likely to happen. At the same time the World Bank official is also absolutely right to say that what matters is not so much Russia’s place in the rankings in any one year as the direction in which it is moving. Some of the problems that the World Bank has identified probably can be improved quickly by administrative changes especially in the regions but some may be more intractable since they appear to depend a great deal on problems caused by the country’s difficult geography.
One problem the World Bank identified which stood out for me is the continuing difficulty new businesses have in Russia in getting connected to the electricity grid. As I recall for this ranking Russia was just about the worst the developed world. Again there may be all sorts of reasons for this. However am I not right in thinking that for quite a few years the person who was in charge of the electricity supply industry was none other than our old friend and comrade, the great privatiser Anatoly Chubais? If so then the difficulties new businesses have in Russia in getting connected to the electricity grid represent another of Chubais’s great (non) achievements. Possibly, like so many liberals, he spent more time drawing up elaborate plans to privatise and reorganise the electricity industry than he did in its actual administration. Could it however also possibly be that under Chubais a culture took hold within the electricity supply industry that requires payment of a hefty bribe before a new business can get connected?
Since the Gaidar Forum is mentioned on this thread, I would just mention that Ulyukayev of the Central Bank has just confirmed during the Forum that interest rates will shortly be coming down and might start doing so as early as next month. Provided there are no shocks in the world economy (which of course there may be) I suspect that with monetary policy loosening and with fiscal policy becoming more expansionary the soft patch in the economy over the last few months will end probably in the second quarter after which growth will rise.
Incidentally I gather that Ulyukayev also said that inflation would fall to an annual rate of 5-6% later in the year and that apart from a period lasting roughly from the autumn of 2011 to the spring of 2012 capital outflow has fallen since 2009 to around $10 billion a quarter which is what one would expect given the state of Russia’s current account.
Good observation! Another great reformer aka crook strikes again. In the case of Russia, with its various pathologies, I think the top leadership should set up action committees (sounds very Soviet, but the right tools are the right tools) to address such suspicious conditions. If UES is corrupted a good purge is in order. We are not talking about engineers but paper pushers who can be easily replaced. Perhaps they could start by firing most of the customer service department. After all this is a public monopoly and it should face the music when it misbehaves. Customer service at “Ma Bell” in the USA was also notorious.
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20130120/178902243/Senior-Russian-Lawmaker-Blasts-UKs-Denial-of-Convoy-Medals.html
Stay classy UK government. You wouldn’t want to tarnish your virgin goodness with filthy Russian war medals would you now.
One off-topic history-related question for you guys. Does anyone know what is the estimated number of Soviet partisan dead in WWII? I see on Wikipedia one Vadim Erlikman suggested a figure of 250,000 (which seems quite excessive to me BTW) in a book of his. Has anyone read it, or some other work that ventures to estimate this figure?
Dear Hoct,
I may be able to find this figure once my eyesight is sorted. My operation is on 29th January 2013. If you are prepared to wait until then I can look for it after. I am not really able to do much research now. I would however say that 250,000 does not look excessive to me. In some parts of the USSR (especially in Belarus) partisan formations were quite large often engaging in pitched battles with the Germans or with units allied to the Germans. Given the brutality of partisan war 250,000 does not look to me like an impossible figure.
Sure Alexander, whenever you are ready.
But most of all good luck with your surgery.
Thanks!
Dear Alexander: Will you be able to see again right after your surgery, or will there be a recuperation period? I have a lot of faith in modern medicine, so I am sure everything will be okay.
Dear Yalensis,
Thanks for your interest. I too have faith in modern medicine. Interestingly enough I was told by the hospital that the operation I am about to have was pioneered by the great Sviatoslav Fyodorov.
To answer your question, I should be able to see properly again after a week.
I wish you a successful operation and a quick recovery.
Thanks Kirill!
On the matter of questionable slant concerning an issue which has been discussed:
http://globalvoicesonline.org/2013/01/18/volunteers-settle-dispute-over-size-of-moscow-protest/
The author suggests his bias at the start.
So under 25000 when some effort is exerted to count the participants. If they were so strong and powerful they would have stage demonstrations across the country.
BTW, people should not get too excited about 9,500 vs. 21-25,000. What sort of counters are there in the metal detectors and did the police do a good job tabulating this data. I somehow doubt these are some sophisticated networked devices and probably require manual effort to gather the numbers from each detector/gate. I can see the police being too jaded to exert the effort to count all the scum on parade.
I also have a quibble with Katz’ methodology. He introduces an unnecessary error by having to assume a protestor flux (density x velocity). A good aerial static shot would be good enough.
All three methods look very rough and ready to me. Any headcount made by a team of just 8 people (as in the case of the first) cannot possibly be reliable even with the use of equipment and anyway appears to depend for its final figure on extrapolation from observed data. We do not know the size of the second team or how it reached its total whilst the third method also appears to be based on assumptions about flow that may be unwarranted.
Still if the police estimate of 9,500 present at the peak is the bottom line figure these three surveys provide us with a good absolute upper limit figure. The protest was in the range of 10-20,000 ie. exactly within the range of the other authorised protests since the garden ring protest last February. That as I have said is the number of the Moscow protest community. Judging by the turnout at the Coordinating Council elections, a total protest community across the entire country of around 100,000 cannot be far off from the true total. Since the 4th February 2012 rally the protests have contracted to this core. That is not of course the same as the number of people who oppose the government. Counting Communists and other supporters of the parliamentary parties those number in the tens of millions. However they are choosing to stay away from the protests. The white ribbon opposition has contracted to the protest community and is in fact identical to it and is unable to break out beyond it. As was well said by Eric Kraus, they are in effect marching in a circle or, putting it differently, they have missed the bus.
The 24 thousand figure has been endorsed by no less than Valery Fedorov, the VCIOM’s general director. This makes it as good as official.
No, I cannot agree with this. As far as I am aware VCIOM’s function is not to provide official numbers of people who attend a protest. The only official agencies that are in a position to provide “official” numbers are those charged with authorising and regulating the protest, who are the Moscow City Administration and the Moscow Police. I don’t know where Fedorov got his figure but unless he was given it by the Moscow City Administration or by the Police then it is no more “official” than anyone else’s.
Does the article say by the way that VCIOM did its own count? If it did then I would take that seriously.
I don’t think the actual number, boiled down to only verifiable demonstrators who were inside the area authorized for the demonstration and in attendance for that purpose, really matters that much. What would matter would be if the protests were actually growing and gaining momentum, and they are clearly not. Nobody in the western media, which was so excited and hopeful about the first large demonstrations and kept hoping through the silly attempts to establish “occupy”-style tent camps, is still pretending the “movement” is gaining momentum, and the best they can do is pretend it has “gone underground” to bide its time and gain strength in some non-visible capacity that they won’t have to substantiate with visible markers.
I wouldn’t get too hung up on the difference between a top end of 20,000 and a top end of 24,000. To me, the significant thing about this demonstration is that there is a lot more mainstream interest in the obvious wide disparity between 20,000 and Udaltsov’s claimed 60,000 – 70,000. People who have a vested interest in being hoodwinked will let themselves be hoodwinked for as long as it is possible to maintain the deception. It seems it is now no longer possible, and nuts like Frolov just look like they’re standing on a public corner with their pants around their ankles or lying drunk in the gutter when they make silly propositions that the “movement” is growing or widening or whatever happy shit you want to throw out there, because it is no longer possible to keep the fable alive.
I still think the best course of action would be for the city officials to just go with Udaltsov’s count and fine him for the extra 40,000 he claims; maybe even give him a short stretch in custody. That would bring the liberals to the barricades, shrieking in wrath that Udaltsov was set up and that there were nowhere near that number of people, but they would not have a leg to stand on because the obviously-pulled-from-his-ass number came from Udaltsov himself. Then he would just look like a nut, going to jail for a lie, instead of a martyr.
Let’s also not forget that the large demonstrations one year ago were only because a motley coalition of communists, nationalists, liberasts and even some Islamics was stitched together. This coalition clearly did not last and the liberasts went back down to their small and irrelevant numbers not sufficient to stage demonstrations of the previous scale.
“I wouldn’t get too hung up on the difference between a top end of 20,000 and a top end of 24,000″.
That is exactly right. The only effect these protests now have is to provoke discussion about the size of the turnout with arguments flaring around a few thousand more or less. That is testament to their failure. If the protests had momentum behind them and were widely supported the exact size of the protests wouldn’t matter. Who knows or cares how many people exactly came out to protest against the tsar in St. Petersburg in February 1917?
I wonder if Network Queuing Theory (NQT) could be utilized to estimate the actual number of protesters, using variables for arrival and departure velocity?
Assume that each protester is a packet on the network. Assume the protest site is a transmission queue. Packets arrive at the queue according to a Poisson process, at a rate of X packets per minute. To simplify the problem, we treat packet lengths as being of fixed length, with no packet collisions (unless some of the packets are drinking vodka). Any mathematicians out there? Your assignment is to calculate the total number of packets that were handled by the queue in a 4-hour period. For extra credit, calculate the probability that any single packet is full of shit.
In “Kremlin Running Out of Options as Protests Grow”, another opinion piece in today’s Moscow Times written by someone who appears to be living in a parallel universe similar to that one in which Edward Lucas exists, Vladimir Frolov writes:
“Despite gloating predictions of the imminent death of the protest movement, the thousands-strong “March Against Scoundrels” in Moscow on Jan. 13 showed that the protest movement is resilient, and that its base in the capital is strong and growing. It may now be morphing into a broader democratic movement. The political strategies deployed to crush it have proven ineffective”.
He has a prior background within the Russian foreign policy establishment (Yeltsin era if I’m not mistaken) and was the moderator of the Russia Profile weekly panel.
Another way of looking at the situation in question: despite much fanfare (especially from elements abroad), the attempt to peacefully/democratically move Russia away from the United Russia presidential hold remains limited in overall Rusian support.
Reminded somewhat of the Occupy Wall Street and Tea Party movements in the US. Across the American politcal specturm, there’s wide spread unease with the Republicans and Democrats. This displeasure hasn’t led Americans en masse to actively change the existing political situation in the US.
“It may now be morphing into a broader democratic movement.”
Or, alternatively, it may now be morphing into a pony. Wouldn’t everyone like a pony? I know I sure wanted one when I was a kid. And there’s just as much chance of the protest movement in Russia morphing into a pony, or a blackboard eraser or a 30-foot statue of Cheburashka as there is of it morphing into a broader democratic movement. Frolov is a day late and a dollar short – the time to cheer the protest movement and try to bring it to life was back in December last year, and maybe even then it was already too late. Doing it now is like trying to reanimate a corpse, which I think we can all agree was already done by Mary Shelley.
Even Global Voices is willing to stipulate the Russian protest movement has faded back to the same tiny discontented core of would-be anarchists, spoiled students and dilettantes who find demonstration preferable to getting a job and shouldering adult responsibility. The protest “movement” in Russia was never absent, but it hit its peak after the Duma elections, and there’s nothing left now but a high-water mark. And probably the surge of western interest and effort to turn it into a colour revolution did more than anything else to kill it, so Frolov is even late for that. Say, Frolov – did you know Pushkin is dead? Maybe you should write that up; I don’t think anyone noticed.
On hoping for something in a getting it wrong way, a few years back (during Putin’s first presidential term), Anders Aslund called for a nation wide street people power movement to overthrow the “Putin regime.” That call was specifically promoted at Johnson’s Russia List (JRL). JRL court appointed Russia friendlys are neutralized by that venue posting their replies.
Promoting Aslund’s wishful thinking over more substantive and accurate commentary doesn’t serve to better improve the coverage. At the time, Aslund was affiliated with the Carnegie Endowment. Back then, I suspected that piece of his might be too hot to handle for that org. Shortly thereafter, Aslund was no longer affiliated with Carnegie. On the flip side, Anatol Lieven was with Carnegie. Around the time of his leaving that org., he had a piece on the negative influence of Khodorkovsy. Carnegie is said to have received a half million dollar donation from Khodorkovsky.
Carnegie appears to be a balancing act that’s overall slanted in a specific direction on certain issues.
Recall one of its more Russia sympathetic of analysts (in a Moscow Times piece seeking) to get Russian troops out of Pridnestrovie:
http://www.eurasiareview.com/17092010-the-future-of-russia-nato-relations-analysis/
Is it widely believed in the media community that their articles create reality? I can see there being some feedback effect where a credulous public believes the spew of some journalist hack and then acts accordingly. So the hack created public opinion and hence “reality”. But who in Russia is reading this crap and believing it? If it is the liberasts then that is a null effect since they are converted zealots already. There is no evidence whatsoever of their ranks selling with new recruits.
I’ll take the Russian bydlo any day over these journalist wannabe messiahs out to convert the heathens to their religion. This Russian bydlo managed to save its country in the face of epic sabotage and disruption while not receiving their salaries. They kept intact vital defense industries and infrastruture that was supposed to rot away leaving the country at the mercy of NATO. The Russian bydlo has the audacity to vote for the right leaders!
Talking up protests again in yet another opinion piece in today’s Moscow Times.
It’s becoming a regular litle feature of MT is this encouragement of protest over this that and the other.
Who are these articles targeted at?
Who reads MT?
And, from our old pal the Native Muscovite, an absolutely flabbergasting piece on how Russia was a superpower when it was the evil empire and people had to queue for cabbages, but now that it has a thriving middle class – which it has when Bayer wants to point out the group that hates Putin and wants him gone, but which it has none of when he wants to contrast it with a really progressive country like China – it has become a weakling and a pale shadow of its former powerful self; reviled, yes, but both feared and respected, which it is no longer. Read it in front of a mirror if you want to see what you look like shaking your head with your mouth hanging open.
Oh, Nikolai The Carnegie Guy was a much-worshipped go-to writer in the La Russophobe stable, back when she had a blog. Well, I mean, she still has, but it looks pretty sick compared to her former one, and she gave that up because it was staggering on its pins. The new one started out unimpressive and went downhill from there. But she absolutely loathed Nikolai Petro; you wouldn’t think one letter would make such a difference.
He’s a laugh a minute is native-Muscovite and Russian expert Alexei! He has lived in the USA, presumably as a US citizen, since 1974, when he emigrated there from Russia as a 17-year old. That means that this native-Muscovite is now 55/56 years old, having lived in the USA these past 38 years.
He regularly visits Moscow: at least, that’s what he says he does, as in some of his anti-Russia diatribes in MT he describes his alleged experiences and impressions during a Moscow visit. I remember one such negative Moscow impression of his was about the lack of culture amongst some “New Russians” in that they park their SUVs on the pavement. (Don’t the new rich do the same in “democracies” as well?) The only praiseworthy thing that I have seeen written by him concerning present-day Russia is that Russian Jews seem to be doing well, which apparently was not the case when he and his family left the USSR. 17-year-old.
As it happens, not only do I visit Moscow every day, I live there as well – permanently, and have done so these past 20 years, which is 3 years-longer than native-Muscovite Alexei did.
I wonder if MT will give me a start throwing shit at Russia if I write to them and ask nicely for permission to write a monthly column?
The names there change with the same mindset.
I recall an MT piece from several years back favoring the view that Russia’s two headed eagle is “too Christian”, as claimed by a Muslim org. with limited clout.
A well reasoned rebuttal was answered back by the then chief MT editor, which said that The MT doesn’t run such commentary.
An open-minded diversity of views that’s tolerated in the oppressively dictatorial, nationalist abomination of a nation.
What I find truly amazing about this bizarre article is its grudging admission that living standards in Russia are higher than they have ever been. It shows that even Bayer at some level is not aware of the truth.
Anyway Russia is not friendless or weak. If it was weak the west would not spend so much time criticising it or going into a froth when it opposes western policy in places like Syria. As for being friendless, Russia has friendly relations with China and the other BRICS states. In fact Russia has more real friends (as opposed to sullen dependents) than the USSR ever did.
I would be willing to concede that Opps pulled together 20-24K of the usual suspects to march around and demand that Russia hand its orphans over to America to be brought up properly.
All they accomplished, though, was the astounding jump in popularity of the Dima Yakovlev law from 56% to 76%. A 20-point jump in the course of a couple of weeks! Call it backlash, clarity, majority recoiling in horror at white-ribbon antics. Whatever….
I am happy the bydlo is reacting the right way. Expect more foaming at the mouth hate hurled by this self-anointed upper crust at the rabble that is responding to their attempts to herd it into the toilet.
Dear Yalensis,
What you say is completely true. The only question for me is whether the jump in support for the Dima Yakovlev law is because its critics lost the argument or because people dislike the critics?
By the way what exactly does “bydlo” mean? If it means “people” I always thought that the Russian for “people” is “narod”.
It means “cattle”.
Is a proto-Slavic word, same word exists in every Slavic language. Goes all the way back to proto-Indo-European. *bhuH, “to be”. Russian “byt’” the verb to be. Roughly the semantic drift goes something like: something exists, it is alive, therefore it is cattle. See also:
Greek φύω (phuō)
Baltic
Lithuanian būti
Latvian būt
Latin fio, fui, futurus (and other verb forms of esse starting with fu-); without aspiration in compounds: probus, dubius, -bo (ending of future), -bundus (as in moribundus)
Celtic languages
Breton: bout
Welsh: bod
Proto-Slavic: {{Template:Sla/script|lang=sla|[[byti#Template:Sla|byti]]}} (only the verb forms starting with by-)
Old Church Slavonic бꙑти (byti)
Germanic: {{Template:Gem/script|lang=gem|[[beunan#Template:Gem|beuną]]}} (only the verb forms starting with b-)
Modern English: be
Germanic: {{Template:Gem/script|lang=gem|[[būanan#Template:Gem|būaną]]}}
Proto-Indo-Iranian *bhávati
Avestan: … (bavaiti)
Persian: بودن (budan)
Sanskrit: भवति (bhavati)
Old Armenian: բոյս (boys, “plant”)
http://zikkir.net/words/index.php?title=Appendix:Proto-Indo-European/bhu-
See also proto-Hamlet: “To *bhuH or not to *bhuH, whether tis nobler to be a mindless slavish cattle mired in this pointless existence….?”
Thanks for the information Mark!
Dear Yalensis,
I seem to remember that at the protest on 5th December 2011 (which sparked off the protest movement) Navalny harangued the crowd and called them something pejorative like “cattle” when they refused to follow him. Was the word he used “bydlo” and is that where the present use of the word comes from?
I think he did. I am doing what blacks do when they use the word “nigger” on each other. I am appropriating the term from the Russia haters in a sarcastic way. It is ironic that people who are acting nothing like bydlo are being labelled bydlo by people who treat western media spew as God’s given truth.
The behaviour of the Russian electorate must have been one of the biggest failures in the planning (e.g. Harvard boys) carried out to turn Russia into a banana republic. Don’t forget that the Russian media in the 1990s was goosestepping to western propaganda music. But the “bydlo” didn’t get led around by the nose as anticipated.
“…. But the “bydlo” didn’t get led around by the nose as anticipated”:
This video was shot when Chirikova was campaigning for mayor at Khimki. One day she and other “elite”, bourgeois oppositionists, most noticably Sobchak, who was born into nomenklatyra wealth and enjoys “celebrity” status because of her hosting a smutty fly-on-the-wall TV series (House-2), decided to travel as does the vulgar mob, namely by trolly bus. (I wonder how often previous to his video Sobchak and Chirikova used public transport and, indeed, how often they have travelled by trolleybus after this video had been made?) The trolleybus driver then told the “opposition” passengers and other journalists and camermen in tow that the vehicle had broken down and asked them all to get off. They alighted and the trolleybus drove off. Sobchak and Co. had to walk along the street in the rain.
Why did the driver make them get off?
Here’s a possible answer given by one commenter:
Смотрю на эту “оппозицию” и вижу обыкновенное, псевдохиппстерское быдло.
Собчак – свЭтскайа львицо, которая нет так уж и давно говорила в интервью, что нужно повысить налоги до такого, чтобы в автомобилях ездила только элита, а не всякое “быдло”, которое создает пробки в Москве. А теперь эта западная подстилка полезла в политику и в троллейбусы. Иди уже лучше в свой “Дом-2″, он менее убогий, чем вся ваша либеранальная оппозиция.
[I look at this "opposition" and see the usual psuedo-hipster cattle. Sobchak, the Soviet lioness that not so long ago said in an interview that it was necessary to raise taxes so that only the elite drove a car and not all the "cattle" that create traffic jams in Moscow. Now this western broad has got on board of politics and trolleybuses. Go and cheer yourself up in your "House-2". It is less miserable than your whole liberal opposition.]
And here’s another comment:
Чирикова считает русских крупным рогатым скотом, а водитель тролика считает, что он не обязан катать пидорасов, называющих его скотом.
[Chirikova thinks Russsians are a herd of cattle and the trolleybus driver thought that he was under no obligation to transport fuckers that called him part of a herd.]
And when the vote was cast in Khimki, the herd showed what it thought of Chirikova.
No, that was completely different insult. Navalny did not call the crowd (which refused to follow him over the barricades) “bydlo”. Instead, he called them “barany” (sheep). More precisely, sheep who had been f*cked in the mouth (бараны ёбаные в рот):
Thanks for the clarification. Navalny knows how to win hearts and minds with his street thug lingo.
Thanks indeed for the clarification Yalensis.
Whether it’s “sheep” or “cattle” the effect is the same. As Kirill says it’s no way to win friends (let alone votes) and influence people.
Navalny should have called them “horses” because they “balked” at doing the jump.
Freelance journalist Vadim Nikitin wrote this comment in last Sunday’s Observer: “What links Putin and US Republicans? Their rivals look like elitists”.
In his comment, Nikitin describes the struggle in Russia between the elitists and the bydlo, stating:
“Putin may have rejected American ideas of democracy but he seems to have wholeheartedly internalised Bush’s approach to the culture war, branding his own opposition as elitist and unrepresentative of common people. The Kremlin is using these culture war tactics to drive a wedge between Russian heartland voters and the educated, upwardly mobile liberal opposition clustered around Moscow and St Petersburg”.
Nikitin closes by saying: “But until they [the oppositionist elitists] give the heartland [the hoi-poloi] a good reason to get on board, the opposition can have only itself to blame for losing the culture war”.
Of course, Nikitin reckons that the mob wouldn’t have noticed the existence of this elitism (too dumb, perhaps?), this cultural divide between the “liberal” oppositionists and themselves if the wily Putin had not adopted his “culture war tactics”; they wouldn’t have noticed at all the likes of Chirikova calling them “bydlo” and Sobchak’s immense wealth and detachment from the reality of every life in Russia when she condescendingly stated to them that she had much to loose by coming out as an oppositionist.
As one commenter pointedly writes:
“Any generalization is inaccurate. I live in Moscow, I’m well-educated (although my English is not well enough), I do not work for the state. I drink wine and I don’t support the so-called opposition.
Putin have no need to paint his opponents in black. They themselves excellently cope with their job. Everyday since December 2011 opposition leaders, journalists and rank-and-file protesters declare themselves «people with good faces» (and teeth!), «people of another nation» (or even different race!). Their opponents are «cattle», «Kremlin-paid trolls» and so on. That is what Putin had in mind calling them Bandar-log. Remember how these monkeys describe themselves in Kipling’s book: «We are great. We are free. We are wonderful. We are the most wonderful people in all the jungle! We all say so, and so it must be true »”.
The photograph at the top of the article deserves some comment as well, and comment was indeed made by another commenter, who pointed out:
“look at photo that illustrates Russia in this article – Ust-Omchug, Siberia – do you know what it is? -you don’t… I didn’t too…before 5 minutes ago…so I googled – it is a vilage (less then 3 000 people) in Magadan region -North-East Siberia – one of former Gulags – Ten’lag to be more precise (yes, yes -it is the name of the exact Gulag camp in this place- the building you see on the pic is former baracks actually)- it is now semi-abandoned village in the snowy wilderness of the North – no railway, no road (yes, no road – only “zimnik – that is passable only in winter (when permafrost keeps mud solid) route, not even road, but rout across taiga…I try to imagine the author siting at his computer desk and looking in Internet for a pic that could present the most ugly face of Russia…the most ugly one he was in need of – otherwise what for to write an article about Russia?…so he was googling and googling, photos of Moscow, St.Petersburg, Saratov, Chelyabinsk, Omsk…no…no…something more ugly needed…not this one..oh, here is a village,… damn! this babushka is smiling and looks pretty happy – not good…lets look for something else….hmmmm….maybe this one? -no way , a new car is parked new this vilage house, not good for my article….something more ugly, something more ugly I need…maybe to look for some Gulag site, isn’t it the best to present to Brits contemporary Russia, eh?…..oh! here it is – Ust-Omchug, Siberia !!!! YEEESSSSSS !!!!!”
And the propaganda machine rolls relentlessly on…
Dear Moscow Exile,
I still think this is a better artcle than most of the rubbish we read in the Guardian. At least it recognises the fantastic snobbery and elitism of the protest movement’s leaders and of many of its members. Its flaw is of course that it seriously underestimates the positive element in Putin’s support. It also makes the near universal mistake of conflating the protesters with the Moscow/St. Petersburg middle class. Most middle class Russians, including most middle class Russians who live in Moscow and St. Petersburg, do not support the protest movement. They support Putin.
Having said this, what the article shows (as another Russian commentator to the article said) is that the leaders of the protest movement can never win power in Russia. How can they convincingly do the things Nikitin suggests? How can Navalny, Nemtsov, Kasyanov, Kasparov and Yashin (not to mention Ksenia Sobchak) seriously claim to care about inequality? Who would believe them if they did? Udaltsov perhaps could but he is such a ridiculous individual that no takes him seriously.
Udaltsov, son of a professor, grandson of a diplomat and great grandson of an old blood and guts Bolshevik is the progeny of the Soviet priviliged class and a bourgois poseur. He is mocked on the Russian web by the use of his father’s name – pronounced “Tyootyookeen” – in much the same way as Hitler was mocked by the use of his funny-sounding paternal grandmother’s maiden name: Schiklgruber, which was used by Hitler’s father into his adulthood before grandfather Hitler finally acknowledged his paternity.
Udaltsov’s projection of his “hard-man, working class hero pose is ludicrously evident in his wearing of sunglasses mid-winter and his skinhead, which he sensibly covers on winter marches, but dutifully uncovers when posing in front of cameras.
If he came poncing around working class areas they’d be queuing up to kick his posing arse.
As I’ve said many times previously, I work with the Moscow middle class, and although they are all by no means supporters of Putin or United Russia, the likes of Nemtsov are considered by them to be yesterday’s men who only offer yesterday’s “remedies”; the KPRF is considered by them to be an almost extinct beast, a living museum of an organisation with no relevance to the present; and Udaltsov and Co. are just demagogic political yobs.
None of these middle class Muscovite acquaintances of mine think that the quality of their lives has deteriorated these past 10 years or so and concede, even though sometimes reluctantly, that the “opposition” has nothing to offer them.
Great word is “yobs” for Russians!
Yes, the KPRF is indeed a dessicated fossil thanks to dear leader Zyuganov. It should have undergone a makeover like in Poland and elsewhere and then Russia would have a large opposition party that could win over United Russia.
I guess the real issue is that Russia is fresh into a transition to a new economic and political form. Unlike in the long ago equilibrated west, parties in Russia can send it hurling backwards yielding decades of recovery pain and are not tweakers who just fiddle with some minor policy knobs. So the electorate, which is only bydlo in the eyes of lying sacks of sh*t liberast aristocrat wannabes, will vote for stability and not social experiments. The lying sacks of sh*t liberasts are dinosaurs who want to bring Russia back to the 1990s toilet.
As things stabilize in Russia and most people feel secure there will be a change in voting patterns to resemble western pendulum type voting between center-left and center-right parties. None of the western pundits and op-ed writers in the western media bubble even acknowledge this dynamic. As if somehow you can parachute normalcy into a country undergoing shock transition. People don’t know and don’t want to remember the radicalization during the 1930s brought about by the Great Depression. Somehow Russia is not supposed to be subject to social dynamics seen elsewhere in the human world. I would say that Russians are choosing quite moderate leaders given the pain they went through in the 1990s and only now recovering from. The Russian Great Depression was worse than the 1930s one that sent Germans into the hands of the Nazis. (Oh my I must have nullified my points according to Godwin’s “Law” better termed Godwin’s BS).
Dear Kirill,
I basically agree with this though I think that Russian politics when they mature and stabilise will still look different from what they do in the west. I doubt that there will ever be much of a constituency in Russia for Ayn Rand type policies for instance even though she was of course originally from Russia.
Indeed she was. She fled from the USSR in the Twenties and her ideology was a reaction to the trauma of the Bolshevik Revolution. She rejected one extreme by lurching to its opposite. In my view the damage done by that woman is immense. Her novel Atlas Shrugged has helped popularise the ideology of market fundamentalism and has made greed and callousness towards the poor and weak a virtue in the eyes of many people in positions of power in the USA. Her values were little short of sociopathic. She managed to secure a relationship with Alan Greenspan himself. My view is that it would have been a blessing to humanity if she’d never escaped Russia.
In the real world most creative inventors are not primarily motivated by money. Witness Tim Berners Lee the inventor of the hyperlink. The corporations that market their ideas certainly are but they are gatekeepers. In the real world Ayn Rand’s hero John Galt is most likely to have stolen some else’s intellectual property and used his connections to secure a copyright.
The propaganda machine is just a mutt at the edge of the road, impotently barking at the Russian caravan moving into the future. All of this trope-filled drivel is not worth the time of day:
1) “American democratic ideals”. What would those be? A two-party state where only 40% vote? The system in Russia is clearly closer related to the more democratic ones in the EU, e.g. proportional representation, several sizable parties making up the legislature. Putin gets voted in because he is popular and not because he is a dictator. Of course these paid liar journalists would have you believe the latter. This is why they systematically ignore Russian opinion polls.
2) As you note, it isn’t Putin spinning the lunatic fringe oppostion into elitists. They are actively pushing this image themselves. At least the Republican party in the USA does not denigrate and slander the American people. In Russia this 5th columnist “opposition” does just that all the time. So why would they have a chance to be elected? Once again, a paid liar journalist clips this all important information. And another thing, the so-called liberals in Russia are a bunch of Ayn Randroid flakes who worship corrupt and murderous oligarchs such as Khodorkovsky. Don’t expect such adulation to be popular with the Russian majority who do not remember the 1990s as a golden era of freedom.
3) The lunatic fringe opposition has painted itself into a corner, a very tiny one. It will never take power in Russia and NATO does not have the power to install it.
“At least the Republican party in the USA does not denigrate and slander the American people.”
Not to get off the subject, but when they believe they are unobserved by anyone except the faithful, yes indeedy, they do. Here’s an example, from the short strokes of the Romney campaign, at an exclusive fundraiser in Florida; “But he stood by what he said as conservatives rallied to his side and called for more. “There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what,” he said in the video.
He described them as people who pay no federal income tax and who are “dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to healthcare, to food, to housing, to you-name-it.”
The Republicans get caught in elitist comments that hold the businessman and his empire sacred far, far more often than the Democrats, although the deliberate manipulation of voter anger and angst by the corporate media (and once I thought that was just a fanatic’s label, but really, it isn’t) ensures their actual national and international stances are little different. The Democrats, generally speaking, do much better on the domestic economy, but both parties pander to fundamentalist Christianity and Israel, idolize corporatism (which, for the sake of normalizing, they refer to as “The American Dream” although that once meant something quite different) and sliding big money to big money while sermonizing that it is all about the kids and education and stuff.
The Romney statements were the first ones of this sort by a US presidential candidate during my time living in Canada since the 1970s. I might have missed previous gems of this sort. The liberasts in Russia have contempt for Russians and Russia. The Republicans view America and its people as being great and good. There is no 5th columinist opposition in the USA (or Canada) which gets any attention. If there is talk about the uber-patriot militias in the USA it is generally negative and they are not expected to dominate the political process and form the next leadership of the country.
The political scene in Russia is distorted by western meddling and propaganda which promotes a comprador fringe.
“The Republicans view America and its people as being great and good. There is no 5th columinist opposition in the USA (or Canada) which gets any attention.”
*****
Over the weekend, I caught the end of a CSPAN aired panel which closed with a chief neocon ideologist Norman Podhoretz saying America isn’t always right, but is still damn good to the point of being the best.
Thereafter, CSPAN ran a brief promo of Randall Robinson (in an upcoming CSPAN feature) asking why do many in the American political establishment feel a need to flaunt the idea of the US being the best country in the world – adding that this expression and some American policies serve to further encourage anti-Americanism.
From its inception, the US had the advantage of not being so close to a great power (thereby not putting it under the greater chance of attack), while having a very good overall existence of natural resources, combined with the influence of great powers and the need to have the technically talented and working class category to come from abroad.
These fortunate circumstances contribute to the America is best trumping. This observation isn’t as catchy as simply saying America is best – end of discussion.
Yeah, the Romney “47%” comment kind of marked a watershed in Republican politics. Up until then Repubs acted like they thought American citizens were great, except for a few parasitical minorities, “welfare queens”, and the like. By upping the ante to 47% this was the first time they included a bunch of white folks as also being parastiical. These 47% moochers think they actually have a right to food and health care – the nerve of it! Of course, Romney’s remark was never meant to be made public. Politicians of all stripes probably say this kind of stuff in private all the time. But in the age of youtube and hidden camera phones… watch out!
Nikitin wrote, “…despite continued disappointment with his rule, Putin has little to fear…” He then goes on to point out – correctly – that the protest movement has dwindled to something like a protest twitch. But where’s his substantiation for suggesting there is broad-based disappointment in Putin’s rule? Is this just something his friends tell him? How many friends has he got? I don’t know if you’ve ever read Vadim Nikitin’s blog (I used to have a link to it in my blogroll, but I took it out), but he oftentimes favours the same kind of hip self-deprecating mockery of things Russian that the Guardian readers love to chuckle over, so it’s not surprising to see him in the Guardian/Observer. He’s certainly smart and very well-spoken, and it would be wrong to suggest a lockstep “Don’t you dare say anything bad about Russia!!!” attitude is constructive, because Russia does have problems, some of which are far worse than their western counterparts, and there’s no use pretending they don’t exist. But he just seems to gratuitously mock the country too often to suit me, although less so in international articles than real dyed-in-the-wool Carnegie drones do. Why do people do that? Is it supposed to convey an air of realism?
I agree with both the commenters you have cited, but especially the second one, because I do the same thing: imagery is a powerful tool for making a desired point. When I did the “Russophobic Rogue’s Gallery” post, I searched for a photo of Luke Harding that would most effectively make him look like a drooling git, although in that instance there was an embarrassment of riches. However, although that might not present Harding at his sophisticated, condescending best, that actually is Luke Harding. Presenting Ust-Omchug as representative of Russia is a little like presenting this photo of Detroit as representative of the American standard of living.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-uGSKTQwN9Hk/Tbr1zDbOukI/AAAAAAAAAOE/5Rj5is2ovZE/s1600/DetroitGhetto.jpg
And it’s not like propaganda never achieves the desired effect, even among smart, well-connected people who can sample from a broad range of information. I met my wife’s cousin yesterday, from St-Petersburg; he was briefly in Vancouver with a container vessel, on which he works as a navigator. I had not met him before, although he and my wife grew up together, and she had not seen him for years, and we went into the town of Ladner for coffee so they could catch up. He’s a bright guy, travels a lot and speaks very good English. I didn’t talk with him much – understandably, as the priority for the meeting was for my wife and in-laws to catch up on all the gossip – but when I did, we talked briefly about the U.S.’s plan to become energy self-sufficient, which he brought up. It was affecting his plans to try for a job ashore that would not take him away so much, and his position was, the USA is already taking concrete steps to boost its domestic production so that the worth of Russian energy supplies would be affected, and that maybe now was a bad time to make a career move because it looked like hard times might be coming to Russia. I tried to reassure him that if America had significant supplies of untapped oil that was not difficult to get at (by virtue of being under parklands or areas protected for other reasons), it would have been drawing on them long ago, and that shale gas is not going to displace petroleum and natural gas anytime soon, but he remained skeptical.
The Atlantic piece brought up by Cartman is credited to an editor at that venue with a Carnegie background.
Along with Nikitin, Latynina and some others, here’s another example of the kind of Russian political view finding itself highly sought out among the relatively high profile Western venues:
http://www.rferl.org/content/yury-shevchuk-russia-awakening/24879298.html
If this relative is forming life altering decisions based on some hack journalist pieces then I don’t know what can be done for him. Cornucopianism is rampant mental disorder amongst humans. It is likely an evolutionary “trait” but a rather stupid one. We aren’t lemmings after all. So there is widespread expectation that we will always find more of what we want with the right technology. Basics about shale geology are not considered and some fluffy BS from the media is “authoritative”.
The same goes for Russia’s alleged oil dependence. Have any of these people looked at the numbers recently? I doubt it, they just swallow this trope from the media as they swallow the myths about US oil independence. For the US to be oil independent it has to find 11 million barrels per day of domestic production. That just ain’t happening and let’s not forget that US oil consumption went down to 18 million barrels per day from 22 due to the financial collapse of 2008 and the sustained unemployment and underemployment in its wake. So under the “every thing is just hunky dory” view the US would have to find 15 million barrels per day of new production. This is just wacky nonsense. The Bakken is not a generic shale oil structure, it is basically a one off formation (a dolomite layer sandwiched between two shale layers that contains oil and not just kerogens) that is never going to produce a sustained 2 million barrels per day let alone 15 million barrels.
I don’t know what he is basing his caution on, but he is certainly not stupid and his family – for working Russians who are not oligarchs – is quite well-off. It’s hard to base any kind of analysis on a 10-minute conversation that did not include political leanings, but my sense vwas that there is a semi-pervasive belief that the USA means to give Russia a bootfucking on energy and actually has the means to do it. The former would certainly be true if it were possible, but it is not, assuming current realities. Some would put it down to Russians just being gloomy, pessimistic people, but that’s just a stereotype. Perhaps Moscow Exile could tell us more about the mood in Russia regarding imagined American energy ambitions.
I would also point out – if the issue needs further substantiation – that the USA would not expend billions of dollars and thousands of lives on trying to control Iraq and establish American dominion over its oil resources if America had loads of oil in its own backyard.
But I’m confused, because I keep seeing all these pieces saying America will overtake Saudi Arabia and Russia as top oil producer by 2015-2017. Like this one, for example:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/12/iea-oil-report-idUSL5E8MC7GA20121112
On re-reading, I guess they are talking mostly about fracking.
America imports only 20% of its “energy needs”?! What! The US oil and condensate production in 2012 averaged around 6.5 million barrels per day (http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_crd_crpdn_adc_mbblpd_m.htm). You have to add in ethanol and natural gas derived liquids which takes this to about 9.8 million barrels per day (http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/steo/report/us_oil.cfm).
So the US imports over 8 million barrels per day of oil from Canada and elsewhere. That’s 45% and not 20%. I know they are talking about all energy needs but why introduce this in the middle of a discussion about oil?
The natural gas liquids are not going to grow from 2.4 million barrels per day to 10 million barrels per day. They are indeed talking about the rise of fracked shale to raise the 6.5 million bpd to over 10 million bpd. So they expect 3.5 million bpd of new production from primarily the Bakken. The USGS assessed the Bakken deposits as 4 billion barrels early last decade. A recent estimate pulled out of the ass by one of the drilling companies operating there is 24 billion barrels. Sorry, but even if the 24 billion barrels was true there is no way they can extract an additional 3.5 million bpd from it. They currently extract around 700,000 bpd (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-11/bakken-oil-output-fell-in-november-for-first-time-in-18-months.html).
We are talking about fracked access to oil. It is not going to be easier to extract than the light sweet stuff in Kuwait. Kuwait sure as hell doesn’t produce 4.2 million bpd on its reserve base of 60+ billion barrels.
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tight_oil there are four tight oil formations in the USA. But actually the Niobrara Formation and the Barnett Shale are natural gas sources. The Eagle Ford Shale is a much smaller source of oil compared to the Bakken.
It is simply not credible for there to be a jump of 3.5 million bpd of oil production in the USA in the next 3 years.
That whole article is delusional; the “chief economist” can’t even settle on who is the biggest producer now. He suggests if the rosy scenario doesn’t pan out for the USA, it could slip back to Saudi Arabia being the biggest producer. Then a few sentences later he says Russia is the top producer and has been for awhile, although for some period their gains will stay basically flat while prices may be volatile. How will they do that – adjust the daily output to make sure they don’t make money? Jeez, what a crackpot. The Russian oil industry should hope Americans listen to him.
Indeed, he is talking about fracking, although they like to call the resource “light, tight oil” now since fracking has some negative connotations. The “tight” part indicates it is imprisoned in stone formations. And one day it might be viable – when we have nothing else left. Americans pursue this pipe dream of becoming a huge oil producer, but simple economics suggests they would have to sell this “light, tight oil” at a loss in order to upset the global petroleum production chain; shale gas and this new resource are both recovery from rock deposits, and both involve crushing tons of rock to get a couple of barrels of oil. Sure, there’s lots of oil there, but it is very resistant to recovery while some deposits in Iraq are less than a few hundred meters down, through sand and gravel, and can be brought to production for less than $5.00 a barrel. The USA might well sell shale oil or light tight oil or lemon oil, or whatever you want to call it, at a loss in an effort to break the power of oil-producing countries, if it could afford it. It cannot, manifestly, and is up to its eyebrows in hock to China.
A lot of the west’s maneuvering in the Middle East and other oil producers – chiefly the American oil companies – is centered on locking up Production Sharing Agreements (PSA’s) with the host country rather than simple service contracts. PSA’s allow the company to bill the entire cost of setting up production to the host country through letting the company pump “cost oil” until it has recovered all the costs of setting up. Sweet, huh? That was the aim in Iraq, and it has still not been achieved. Hence, the new shiny thing to distract the bydlo – let’s move production to our own backyard, pump our own oil and shut down everybody else. That sure is a nice dream.
The west likes to bitch about OPEC extorting money but in reality, from a macro-economic perspective, the west pays almost nothing for OPEC oil. Saudi Arabia and others invest their oil money in western banks, real estate and other investments. Their domestic economies are too small to absorb all that money. Although this has been changing due to population growth and development.
Not to be a nitpick, but in the case of “tight oil” there is no shale rock crushing. They just have to frack wells through shale layers to reach porous rock such as dolomite and sandstone. This is the case in the Bakken. The same horizontal, maximum contact (tree branch) well technology is used to pump the porous rock layer as in conventional reservoirs. In fact, the Bakken is a regular reservoir with a peculiar access problem.
Shale rock needs to be crushed and cooked at 500 C for an hour to process kerogens into oil. But there is no such commercial development anywhere on the planet. In contrast, tar sands bitumen is extracted and upgraded into syncrude. It is relatively much cheaper to make syncrude from bitumen than to cook kerogens into oil. Maybe if they build some nuclear power plants to process shale kerogens, but there aren’t even plans to do that.
“Everybody fracking for light tight oil.”
Sounds pornographic to me. I disapprove.
“Let’s get drilling for light sweet oil.”
That sounds nicer.
Useful article on the nonsense being talked in the media about fracking and the fantasy that it will make the USA energy independent
http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2012/07/on-far-side-of-denial.html
“Over the last six months or so an extraordinary torrent of nonsense about limitless gas and oil supplies has been sloshing through the media, spouting out from an equally extraordinary assortment of people who ought to know better. We’ve seen pundits loudly claiming that the United States had become a net petroleum exporter, when what was going on was that modest amounts of gasoline and other refined petroleum products that Americans are too poor to afford nowadays are being sold to more prosperous countries abroad. We’ve seen fracking technology, which the oil industry has been using for decades, waved around as a brand new technological breakthrough; we’ve seen the Bakken shale, which has been known since the 1970s and doesn’t actually have that much accessible oil in it, ballyhooed as a brand new game-changing discovery; we’ve seen the most blatant falsehoods proclaimed as fact—I’m thinking here of the pundit I critiqued in a previous post, who insisted that kerogen shales are exactly the same as what’s being drilled in the Bakken, and that the US therefore has some absurd amount of shale oil ready for pumping.
I suspect we’ve got a ways still to go before the various modes of denial finish working their way through the collective imagination of our time. The pundits and corporate flacks who have, for all practical purposes, gone barking mad about the world’s energy supply—I really don’t think any less forceful phrasing reflects the nature of these strident claims that scraping the bottom of the barrel, via fracking or otherwise, ought to be treated as proof that the barrel’s still full—are by and large associated with the two economic sectors, finance and petroleum, that are going to be clobbered first and hardest as the reality of peak oil sets in. The elephant’s in their living rooms; that’s why their shrill denials that elephants exist can be heard so clearly all through the neighborhood. As the elephant roams a little more widely, I suspect that the same frantic tone will travel with it, until finally we find ourselves on the far side of denial and the next phase starts.”
Dear Robert,
Thanks for this interesting comment.
What I find worrying about the tar oil/shale gas euphoria is precisely that it is encouraging a surge in production in the US. As I said in an earlier comment necessary energy conservation measures are being put off and actual accessible reserves are being rapidly depleted on what looks like an unwarranted assumption of unlimited energy from tar oil and shale gas. In a few years the bubble no doubt will burst. However by then the harm will have been done and we could find ourselves in a worse position than the one we are in now.
Incidentally I gather Russia’s known reserves of oil and gas increased faster than its production last year.
I agree. No matter how lucrative it looks, people should resist the temptation to frack. Fracking is known to cause earthquakes and horrible environmental damage. It’s just not worth it. Let’s try something else.
“… where is his substantiated that there is broad-based disappointment with Putin’s rule?”
None in the article itself. I suppose Nikitin bases this claim on the results of some polls (especially those by Levada) that appear to show various falls and changes in Putin’s popularity and trust levels. My own view is that these polls are being overinterpreted (including by Levada itself). The truth is that Putin has a very large and solid support base, which is why he won so convincingly in March.
Even the Levada “steered” polling does not show Putin being unpopular. We aren’t talking about 20% support levels but over 50%. That is why Putin won the last election. Also note that Putin didn’t promise Russians the Moon to get the vote. His opponents are so pathetic and policy free that he does not really have to compete for the vote with them.
Zyuganov gets the KPRF zombie vote and is the opponent with the largest vote after Putin. This zombie vote has been shrinking systematically since the 1990s. No liberast candidate even manages to appear on the radar. Prokhorov was not quite a liberast although they probably thought he was one of them. He got 8% while Putin got 64%.
I will repeat, if the KPRF entered the modern era and had a proper party convention where a new leadership was chosen (instead of a dinosaur leader for life) along with a pragmatic leftist platform (not Stalinist) then it would probably double its support. The KPRF presidential candidate would be around 40% instead of 17%. So basically the party would be in a position to take power if Putin’s stellar popularity dropped.
I totally agree and nobody would be more delighted than me to see it happen. The Soviet model is dead but there’s no reason why social democrats shouldn’t come to power in Russia. Zyuganov’s moment was in 1996 and even then he botched it.
I agree too. I hope KPRF will retire Ziuganov, bring in new blood, and start to compete against United Russia. Believe it or not, there are a lot of people out there like me (well, maybe not exactly like me): Our slogan is the following:
“Communism.
Let’s try it again.
But this time let’s do it right.
And this time without the bullshit.”
Isn’t Just Russia supposed to be a social democrat party? They must be a jumbled mess of membership if they allow charlatans like Ilya Ponomarev in.
Someone somewhere’s ears are burning because It looks like Ponomarev may be kicked out.
Just wait and see the reaction of the Anglospheric punditry if that ever happens. Screeching noisemakers like Kathy Lally have been consistently supportive of the Communists for so long as Putin has been the leader, in the hope that they might unseat him. But if that ever happened, they would rediscover their aversion to Communism in a New York minute.
Dear Cartman,
I think we are all in agreement about Zyuganov.
The relative success of Just Russia in the 2011 parliamentary election to my mind shows the strong attraction for a lot of Russians of what might be called Social Democrat policies. Just Russia’s problem is that it doesn’t really seem to be a proper party at all. Instead it looks a little like a coalition of politicians and groups that have come together as a kind of left wing Socialistic alternative to United Russia and the KPRF. Doubtless this stems from its origins as a product of the Kremlin administration.
My own view is that whether one likes it or not for the time being at least any credible left wing alternative to Putin and United Russia would have to originate with the KPRF (the party itself and not just a breakaway). Its support base has been surprisingly stable and indeed its support increased sharply during the parliamentary election despite Zyuganov’s disastrous leadership and of course it represents a brand which though intensely polarising also enjoys tremendous and even unique recognition and which has a colossal tradition behind it.
That may not always be so however. In the long run unless the KPRF does renew itself it will surely wither as it becomes increasingly irrelevant. The question is whether it is capable of undergoing such a reform. Zyuganov’s leadership has come under unprecedented criticism these last few months but as I discussed some time ago one of the great faults of a party structured around democratic centralism is that it is extremely difficult to remove the leader if he is determined to cling on. The CPSU only ever managed it once, in 1964 when it removed Khrushchev. In France the French Communist Party continued to stick with George Marchais long after it had become clear that under his leadership the party was doomed.
Looks like The Atlantic is trying to become terrible:
Beautiful and Terrifying Photos of Orthodox Epiphany
As many of the comments note, they would never publish anything like this if the subjects were Jews or Muslims (or Scientologists, apparently).
The Atlantic is a chest thumping triumphalist POS. Their 2003 article on Russia’s economy was an epic joke that was written as if it was 1998 and was completely detached from reality. Edward Lucas style hate journalism without the slightest effort to find the facts. In the case of the 2003 article, they could have found all they needed online.
I don’t care for the flip comments in the captions, but it seems clear that Orthodox religion is going to be singled out for the world-weary mockery treatment from the same jaded cynics who turn to weeping jelly if you show them a picture of a big-eyed child and say, “This boy is not going to get a nice home in America, because of a mean law signed by mean Vladimir Putin”. Then they can pull a realist piece out of their ass that drips with vibrant pathos and makes all the readers curl their lip in angry contempt. They could do something similar for Orthodox religion and its admittedly-oddball rituals, but they simply choose not to. It’s always easier to go for the cheap leg-slapper.
What keeps the world apart is people who know nothing and their deliberate devices to prevent understanding.
Cartman,
IMO, The Atlantic owes more of an apology than the PC apology issued by the UN Secretary General, for the purpose of appeasing a Bosnian Muslim nationalist activist group.
Chalk up another example of a fault ridden selective sensitivity.
Regarding the aforementioned Bosnian Muslim nationalist activism:
http://www.strategicstudies.org/
Bravo!
With considerable regret, I’ve to very disrespectfully disagree with the view that the UN will lose much if any noticeable worldwide support should the PC apology remain. That said, it’s nevertheless worthwhile and commendable to actively oppose the kowtowing to a nationalist hack outfit.
I recall the lack of outrage over Srdja Trifkovic getting denied entry into Canada for reasons having to do with the Bosnian Muslim nationalist extremist org in question. In contrast, RT (formerly known as Russia Today) reported on Luke Harding’s initially getting denied entry into Russia for the technically premised explanations having to do with his not properly completing a standard administrative form for entry into Russia and his not having observed a Russian government media protocol for foreign journalists. To my knowledge, RT didn’t say squat about the Canadian incident in question.
Cartman & Co.
The editor involved with the above linked Atlantic piece has since commented with an apology if anyone was offended delivery – adding that no ill will was intended and that the comments below the photos have been amended.
I’m not completely buying this follow-up. IMO, at the very top of the segment, there should be a note on what was said and why it has been changed.
Some have come to the editor’s defense believing she was ignorant as opposed to a calculated presentation.
One would think that an Atlantic editor with a Carnegie background would know better.
At issue is a cultural bias in mass media.
Here’s an example:
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/01/egyptian-president-calls-jews-sons-of-apes-and-pigs-world-yawns/267131/
Goldberg is quick on picking up on such an issue because of his own upbringing. Some family members of mine went to grade school with him, with one of them meeting up with him in Israel some years later. Putting aside the criticism of some of Goldberg’s views, I don’t have a problem with a consciously Jewish presence in mass media. I do have an issue with a hypocritical approach towards sensitivity that appears influenced by the kind of views/sympathies typically omitted from mass media positions.
Here’s another example:
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/jacob-heilbrunn/silence-munich-the-olympics-7236
Excerpt –
“The Obama administration supports it. So does Mitt Romney. The ‘it’ in question is a moment of silence for the Israeli victims of a Palestinian terrorist organization called Black September at the 1972 Munich Olympics. Eleven members of the Israeli team were murdered. An online petition calling for a minute of silence also exists.
But IOC president Jacques Rogge sees it differently. He’s adamantly resisting a formal moment of silence at the opening ceremony of the London Games this Friday: ‘We feel that the opening ceremony is an atmosphere that is not fit to remember such a tragic incident.’ When it comes to the Jews, the IOC curls into a fetal ball-as the Boston Globe points out, it has not resisted ceremonies for Bosnia or the victims of 9/11. But Munich is taboo.”
****
I haven’t read the aforementioned Boston Globe article. I’m not offhand sure how the IOC held a ceremony for Bosnia.
Regarding Bosnia and the Olympics, there’s this RFE/RL photo gallery of a Bosnian Olympic delegation (11th of 14 photos, with a pointed omission of not noting Russian athletes among the featured Soviet era athletes, who’re identified by their Soviet republic – Belarusian, Ukrainian et al):
http://www.rferl.org/media/photogallery/24642976.html
The photo concerning Bosnia was taken at the 1992 summer Olympics when Yugoslavia (then consisting of Serbia and Montenegro) was hypocritically kept out of that Olympiad. With some understandable disgust, Serbs and Montenegrins saw a Croat team take silver in men’s basketball, with the US finishing first. During this period, Yugoslavia appeared to have the second best men’s basketball team after the US. At the 1992 summer Olympics, Yugoslav teams were banned and individual Yugoslav athletes were made to compete as independent participants, not representing their country. The reason for this was quite hypocritical. Yugoslavia was accused of aiding Serb forces in the Bosnian Civil War, at a time when Croatia was doing the same for their brethren. In addition, the Bosnian Muslim nationalists were the recipients of foreign aid (military and otherwise) from abroad.
One wonders how multiethnic was the Bosnian 1992 summer Olympic delegation? At the time, I recall the Bosnian UN delegation being almost exclusively Muslim.
Bosnia continues to fall well short of a unitary mindset:
http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/2012/07/21/the-uncertain-future-of-bosnia/
Excerpt (from the National Interest piece linked at the very top)-
“Fear of Arab pressure, even a boycott? The desire to maintain an upbeat tone rather than acknowledge the dark past? Whatever the motive, and nothing has ever been too craven for the IOC in the past, Rogge tried to pacify his critics with a minute-long ceremony at the Olympic Village on Monday a part of something called the Olympic Truce, which, as the Washington Post reports, is a United Nations initiative that calls upon everyone to lay down their arms around the world during the Olympics. (Is Bashar Assad listening?)”
****
Concerning that last particular, there’s another element having to do with the armed anti-Syrian government opposition. On the matter of laying down arms during an Olympiad, one can rhetorically bring this matter up in some other instances, including the Soviets in Afghanistan and the US in Southeast Asia.
A new Nation article on US/Russia relations by Stephen Cohen:
http://www.thenation.com/article/172256/americas-new-cold-war-russia#
By the way, there’s someone named “John Newcomb” trolling Cohen’s articles over at the Nation, RT, etc: Have any of you had the pleasure of running into this individual?
Regarding this excerpt from S. Cohen’s article on why a certain kind of Russian protest isn’t mentioned:
“Why have American media failed to report this development? Is it because the university students and faculty, unlike several leading street protesters, do not have personal ties to the US press and to Washington officials? Or because they, also unlike many of last year’s street demonstrators, are not avowedly pro-Western but nationalist-oriented? Or because the university rebellion is directed not against Putin (its slogan is ‘Putin—we believe in you. Putin—save RGTEU’) but against the government of Prime Minister Dmitri Medvedev, once a White House favorite? Or is such complexity simply too much for the orthodox media narrative of post-Communist Russia?”
****
What has been brought up before by some others not including S. Cohen. For example, criticizing RT as “Kremlin propaganda” is more acceptable than noting some of its not always so well informed English language mass media influence.
As for S. Cohen’s stated ‘nationalist oriented’ bit, that N word is (in modern day jargon) often used as a negative kind of patriotism. For clarity sake, being suspect of neolib, neocon and clear anti-Russian influenced views on the former Communist bloc shouldn’t by default be considered anti-Western.
Cohen’s above mentioned article is today’s RT op-ed.
“Tomasz wrote: “Maybe Russia should allow the White House to operate a 24 hour ‘news’ service in Russia 100% financially supported by the White House, eh? Would you like that?”
It does already: it’s called the Moscow Times.”
*****
As you know, that’s not the only venue in Russia which slants in a direction that’s different from a reasoned pro-Russian point of view.
Знаете ли вы, что я English Exile?
Yes, for good or for worse, there’re like minded folks on a number of issues.
The advent of the net brings people closer together, albeit in a distant/not so up front manner.
Stephen Cohen – man, you are playing my song. Not a sour note, either.
As for John Newcombe – see what you think. It’s probably a coincidence, because that line about the Magnitsky Act only preventing filthy-rich Russian oligarchs from coming to New York to check their real estate investments is a fairly common meme…but doesn’t he sound a bit like commenter Juanito, at this Katya Soldak piece for Forbes?
And, of course, “Juan” is Spanish for “John”. Again, maybe a coincidence.
He gets around.
Hmmm…he does so. He seems to have made this orphan thing a bit of a crusade.
The reason why “Juan Newcombe” raises flags with me, is because his “rebuttal” consists of nothing but ad-hominen attacks on Cohen (or whoever appears to be taking a contrarian view to all the garbage spewed about Russia in the western press) and non-seqitors. In his response to Cohen on the message board of the Nation piece, he didn’t refute a single thing Cohen stated, but instead posted leaks to forums and events he’s attended in a feeble attempt to character assassinate him and paint him as a tool of the Kremlin.
So John Newcomb is a troll. I never guessed it and instead replied courteously to a comment he made in which he presented himself as someone who intended to adopt a Russian orphan. Idiot me.
Using quickie literary analysis of preferred vocabulary in the 2 sets of comments.
For example, they both like to use the word “Putinist”:
Newcombe: “Putinist media “informing” within America of how dastardly is America…”
Juanito: “Putinist Russia shows that harming innocent Russian children to avenge…”
Also, that meme you mentioned about the oligarchs checking on their real estate investments. In summary, I’m pretty sure it’s the same guy.
Not that that means anything, except that this troll has at least 2 niks.
Australia is having some unholy heat:
http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/01/21/the-fire-down-below/
BTW, I have heard that if temperatures continue to warm up, Russia will be invaded by all kinds of animals. I’m not sure which ones, but Russians may have to learn how to evade cheetahs.
I also posted that for a wonderful quote from Larry Summers.
Temperatures here are showing no signs of warming up at the moment: minus 16C (3.2F) in Moscow as I write at midday, 22nd January 2013, after nearly 4 days of continuous snow courtesy of a cyclone centred over Italy and which swept all the humid warm air from there over the Balkans and dumped it in the form of snow on the Ukraine, Belorussia and western Russia. The forecast is more of the same – probably until the thaw sets in in mid-March or thereabouts.
RT reported the “Snowpocalypse” a couple of days back.
Not quite cheetahs, but there is already an observed northward migration of insects and diseases (animal and plant). Global warming is real and we are starting to feel the consequences. But so far they are not traumatic enough to wake up the decider elites who think they can keep going with business as usual forever.
@ kirill: In 2011, Alex Shoumatoff wrote an article “The Arctic Oil Rush” for Vanity Fair in which he mentions that the taiga has been moving north in Siberia, encroaching on the tundra region, and this is bringing taiga wolves, following prey and moving north as well, into contact with the Eveny and northern Yakut peoples and their reindeer and horses.
http://graduateinstitute.ch/webdav/site/iheid/shared/summer/IA2011/EM3.pdf
Most recent news items on the state of emergency just declared in Sakha republic by the governor there with respect to the wolf population simply say the animals have been driven north by hunger and cold because their usual prey (mountain hares) has decreased in population due to over-hunting by humans. Wouldn’t it be more likely that the observed over-population of wolves and their predations on the reindeer and horses are due to their following the taiga and finding better hunting opportunities than hares?
Ecosystems are undergoing rearrangement everywhere. It is possible the mountain hares experienced stress from climate change as well. In this case it is likely that stress from both humans and climate (of course itself a human induced change) is playing a role.
I read an article about a study that the permafrost line in Canada has moved almost 1000 km north since the 1950s. Trees are starting to invade the tundra in the northern hemisphere. These are systematic effects that reflect the long term changes in the climate as does glacier melt. The people that deny global warming love to fixate on inter-annual variability. Clearly this variability is not offsetting the systematic effects. Not surprising since most of the variability is back and forth exchange of heat between the oceans and the atmosphere associated with ENSO and other nonlinear cycles. This fact is typically ignored or unknown. When talking about climate it is really about the ocean-atmosphere system and this system is clearly accumulating heat.
The climate deniers can throw up a lot of smoke and confusion when bandying about annual temperature variations and so on. But for me, the proof of the pudding is the melting of the glacier base. That’s real and measurable, and going much faster than even the pessimists predicted. Scientists must find a way to reconstitute the glaciers. There are a lot of ideas out there ranging from short-term bandaids to longer-term solutions. For example, home-owners everywhere on the planet could be asked to paint their roofs white. (To reflect more sun.) Simple doable stuff like that, just for starters.
“Snowpocalypse”
It’s funny that people associate snow with cold, but actually such events are due to extra moisture being pumped into the region via low pressure systems (baroclinic eddies). Global warming feeds both the extra moisture and the energy of the storm systems.
That’s exactly what’s causing the heavy snowfalls here: the warm air is being pumped in from down over Italy way and hitting the heavy, cold high pressure air that sits like a big fat toad over Siberia and most of Russia in winter. Temperatures in Italy are now in double figures. All that hot air full of moisture from sunny Italy! I wonder if some of it was old papa-rimski’s and Femen exhibitionists’ who were screeching in front of St.Peter’s, Rome?
Europe lies at the latitude of Canada, so Toronto and Rome are about the same distance to the north. Europe would naturally be a frozen wasteland without the currents and jet streams moderating the weather. You might notice that the Midwestern United States is experiencing Siberian temperatures – around -50 in Minnesota and North Dakota.
In a story in today’s KP, it is claimed that the newspaper has documents which reveal that last year in the Urals there took place an attempt at an armed military uprising in order to seize power:
“In the Sverdlovsk Regional Court on January 23 there will take place a normal court session in which the “Ural Rebels”, Colonel Leonid Khabarov, inventor Viktor Kralin and retired Cossack Alexander Ladeyschikov will be put on trial. They are accused of preparing an armed rebellion there, in the Urals, in the summer of 2011, in which they intended to seize power in the country. Their lawyers say that all this is a fabrication and that the weapons that were found are a personal collection Col.Khabarov of the Russian Airborne Troops. However, “Komsomolskaya Pravda” has received documents in which it is clear that the rebels were not just bullshitting over a glass of vodka (Hey, wouldn’t it be just great to seize power ourselves!): they had been thoroughly preparing …”
This is hilarious. At best they could have set up some militia and taken over a local town. I would like to see evidence where they infiltrated Russia’s armed forces to the point of being able to seize Moscow.
I guess such pieces are meant to undermine Putin by creating the image of discontent in the military. What a load of crap. We have seen how the Russian military responds to political circumstances in the last 20 years. They don’t stage banana republic style coups. Putin is their man and it is not credible that they are going to remove him from office just when almost a trillion dollars is starting to flow into the Russian military.
Cossacks seizIng Sverdlovsk? Now, that’s just silly!
Razvozzhaev’s plot to seize Kaliningrad made more sense. K-Rebs could have set up a Benghazi-type enclave, and then called on NATO to setup a no-fly zone over the enclave. Then called in NATO ground troops from Poland, etc etc. Wait! I shouldn’t be giving them ideas…
A matter of blowing hot air to an audience which has become more suspect:
http://www.rferl.org/content/georgia-saakashvili-slams-russia-ivanishvili/24879817.html
Latest story on the Serdyukov rumor mill is that Vasilieva got preggers off him.
Perhaps at her forthcoming trial she intends “to plead her belly”, to use a quaint old English legal phrase.
Serdyukov has a lot to answer for, and there seem to be few sanctities that he has not broken; trustworthiness both as a husband and father-figure as well as employer and employee are ashes now. I feel that a fairly stiff punishment awaits him, if for no other reason than because the authorities are taking their sweet time about it and giving him plenty of rope.
“Pleading the belly” worked fine for pirate lass Anne Bonny. Yarrrr!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Bonny
In today’s Moscow Times, Latynina waxes lyrical about Dolmatov’s death in the Netherlands:
“… But Dolmatov’s suicide was the result of a disgusting refugee system in Europe that mass produces self-seeking lumpens living like parasites on state and charitable funds.
“Dolmatov was killed by the hypocritical Dutch bureaucracy, a self-perpetuating machine that imports lumpens while pocketing charitable funds. It does not provide real assistance to political refugees. This tragically flawed system has to answer for its misdeeds”.
No doubt Latynina does not consider Dolmatov to have been a “lumpen”; he was clearly a member of the Russian intelligentsia, a kindred soul, an opositionist bourgoise: he was also a National Bolshevik.
She has clearly decided to make no secret of her detestation of “the mob”, something which came to light a couple of years ago in another MT piece in which she stated that the great mass of people were not capable of choosing whom they should be governed by.
It’s nice to see her tuning up on someone besides Russia for a change, and it’s amazing she did not blame Putin while holding the Dutch above reproach. I have learned not to be surprised by her leaps of logic.
It’s comical that she considers herself a member of the intelligentsia, because I’m sure they consider her a mere hewer of wood and drawer of water. Most groups love a fire-and-brimstone preacher against the groups they despise, but are fearful of getting too close to that person, lest she turn on them.
I have read (conspiracy theories?) that the reason Dolmatov was refused asylum was because he refused to divulge missile secrets to the Dutch/NATO. If so then he was at least honorable if also, regrettably, emotionally unbalanced.
I think that’s actually pretty solid; several comments have mentioned the Dutch authorities questioned him about his work and that he refused to discuss it in any detail. It seems true: well, at least inasmuch as anything the papers say is ever true. But if so, he seems like he was not a real white ribbonist at all, since the Dutch would have only needed to utter the magic words, “You’d really be helping the west” to unleash a torrent of blabber from one of them.
I daresay we will have the truth in due course, or as much of the truth as can be tricked out of those who know, but I find it hard to believe the Dutch would actually put it on the table in such terms – betray your country, or back you go. They might have decided to sweat him a little, see if they could change his mind, and perhaps implied that there would be a price to his asylum; an admission fee, as it were, and the highly-strung Dolmatov decided it was all up with him. But I don’t think any NATO country would have deliberately tipped him over the edge like that. Everybody knows you have a very good chance of coaxing what you want to know out of someone who is well-treated, down the road, no matter what they might say now.
Well, the Dutch interrogators might have been too pushy. They probably thought they had a winner on their hands, once they learned this refugee had some experience in missiles. Maybe they were trying to impress the NATO honchos. Unfortunately for them, Dolmatov was a politically principled opponent of the Russian government, and not a traitor. Ham-fisted Dutch interrogators must have left him with the feeling that there was no way out to maintain his personal honour except to kill himself. As a follower of Lenin, he wanted to escape a prison sentence and go into exile, he did not want to compromise his integrity by becoming a Dutch spy. In retrospect, he should have just done the time in Russia, he would have been out in a couple of years and could have continued his political activity.
Throwing Dolmatov into a refugee detention centre with the prospect of deportation and the punishment he imagined (no doubt reinforced by what rumours and stories he had heard from fellow oppositionists) would follow, would have been enough to unnerve him and made him suicidal. If Dutch refugee detention centres are anything like centres in Australia, they would be full of people having mental breakdowns and being mistreated by prison staff. Being exposed to other people’s distress could have been enough to tip Dolmatov over the edge. Some of our centres used to be run by an Australian company that was owned by Wackenhut in the US which itself was owned by a British company. I’m not sure who’s responsible for running these refugee centres now. Most of them have been closed but the one at Villawood in western Sydney is still going and from time to time people there pull stunts like climbing on roofs and threatening to jump off to draw attention to their situation.
Looks like he believed “opposition” propaganda about the “Evil Regime” and “gulags” – and clearly he was suicidal. As regards his being better off going back to Russia, standing trial and then serving a couple of years, only to return to fight the good fight following his release from gaol, that asumes that he would have been found guilty of riotous behaviour in the first place and that in sentencing him, the court would not have taken into account his good character, the position of trust and authority that he had held and that his actions at Bolotnaya last March were uncharacteristic of his behaviour.
As far as I know, only one of the Bolotnaya arrested has been convicted – and he already had a police record of violence. That convicted Bolotnaya rioter and those that are now being held on remand awaiting their trials are, of course, considered by white ribbonists to be “political prisoners”. And now the “oppositionists” have a martyr to their cause who preferred to take his own life rather than suffer the horrors of one of Putin’s gulags, albeit that most of the oppositionists are not that enamoured with Limonov’s “party”, of which Dolmatov was a member.
That’s even sadder, to think that he probably would have been okay, if he had stayed in Russia, and not even had to serve any time. Although I suppose it is possible he might have lost his job. Still, killing yourself is not the solution. There is always hope that life will get better.
Maybe; I don’t pretend to know how it went at this point, and all we have is the basic facts and a lot of speculation. But they would have been much further ahead to have gone with a lot less stick and a lot more carrot, at least at the outset, and then perhaps hinted that a little quid pro quo would be welcome after he had become comfortable living in the west. Maybe he was just flighty and high-strung, and imagined they were going to send him back when they never suggested anything of the kind, and if I were responsible for his death, that’s what I’d say. Again, I daresay we’ll learn more in the weeks to come. But at the very least they should have watched him a little more closely and been aware of the suicide risk.
I discussed Dolmatov’s case on a thread in the previous post.
What is to me most shocking about this case is that not only did the Dutch try to get him to disclose secret information about his work (and in effect betray his country) whilst purporting to consider his asylum application but that they put him in an ordinary refugee detention facility or possibly even a prison without proper supervision even though he had made previous attempts at suicide and was known to be a suicide risk. To my mind this is at least as negligent as the failure to provide treatment that caused Magnitsky’s death. Bear in mind that Magnitsky was in prison as a suspect whilst Dolmatov went to the Netherlands in the hope of getting Dutch protection.
A further point I made in my previous comment is that though Magnitsky’s death in a Russian prison has triggered an international outcry there is no chance of that happening in relation to Dolmatov’s death because he died in a Dutch prison.
Few days ago I have registered some news about a movement for the independence of Greenland. Greenland appears to already have a great deal of autonomy from Denmark, and the Greenlanders want more.
The independence bug is out there:
http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/spectre-separatism-haunts-europe-7979
There’s a good degree of hypocrisy on that issue.
That would throw a wrench into Denmark’s Arctic domain. I received an invitation to the Adam Smith conferences in Moscow this morning on Russia’s plans for Arctic energy resources, and although of course I am not going (it’s just something BNE sends out by automail to everyone whose email address they happen to capture), I must say it sounds extremely interesting. Stewardship of the Arctic and prevention of spills and pollution caused by drilling feature high on the agenda, which is good to see. I mentioned in the post that the polar seas are very shallow, and the bottom in places is about the same distance they have to drill to hit oil in Iraq. Mind you, it remains to be seen how far below the bottom oil lies, or even if there is much of anything there at all. But for now everything is being spoken about as joint this and our international partners that, and it doesn’t look like there are current plans to push territorial boundaries. A huge amount of the Arctic already lies in Russia’s mostly-undisputed territorial limits. As for the Lomonosov Ridge, nobody is going to buy that it is Canada all the way to Russia, or vice-versa, no matter who ends up being the point of origin of the ridge, and I could see the two just splitting it even.
At last Medvedev tells them as it is and stops faffing around trying to be Mr. Nice Guy!
RT reports that at the world Economic Forum in Davos Medvedev stated that “the whole story of Sergey Magnitsky is politicized fiction as this corporate executive had never been a truth-seeker”.
Medvedev in an interview with Bloomberg News said:
“He [Magnitsky] was a corporate lawyer or an accountant and he defended the interests of the people who hired him. He was not a truth seeker”.
He then added:
“Nevertheless, I feel pity for him as this man died in prison”.
Good for Medvedev. I think the Russian authorities are becoming increasingly confident about their position in this case. Probably that is why Karpov is bringing his case in London.
I like the unintended implication that you cannot be an accountant and a truth-seeker both at the same time!
Not when your pay check depends on whoring for your employer. Magnitsky was not a whistle blower by any stretch. But Medvedev should get his facts straight: Magnitsky was a corporate accountant and not a human rights lawyer. The lawyer label has been a useful ploy to paint him into something he never was and turn him into a martyr.
It also had the advantage of his legal team being able to protect everything he said to anyone as falling under attorney-client privilege. If he was an accountant, his private conversations with clients could be subpoenaed and would likely prove very enlightening. What baffles me is that Russia continues to let them get away with it. Russian lawyers have to pass the bar just like lawyers in other countries; if Magnitsky was not a lawyer, why the continued patty-cake about it?
RT continuously states that he was a lawyer and I have on several occasions pointed out to that organization their error in this matter. The Russian web and blogosphere, however, describes him as an accountant. RT is simply aping Western spin as regards this matter. I wonder why?
From English Wiki:
Sergei Leonidovich Magnitsky (Russian: Сергей Леонидович Магнитский; 8 April 1972 – 16 November 2009) was a Russian attorney and auditor whose arrest and subsequent death in custody generated international media attention and triggered both official and unofficial inquiries into allegations of fraud, theft and human rights violations.
Now compare the above with the Russian Wiki page on Magnitsky:
Серге́й Леони́дович Магни́тский (8 апреля 1972, Одесса — 16 ноября 2009, Матросская тишина, Москва) — бухгалтер и аудитор, работал в юридической компании Firestone Duncan. Смерть Магнитского в изоляторе «Матросская тишина» в 2009 году вызвала значительный резонанс и стала поводом для принятия в США закона, вводящего санкции в отношении лиц, предположительно причастных к его смерти.
[Sergei Leonidovich Magnitsky (8 April 1972, Odessa – 16 November 2009, Matrosskaya Tishina, Moscow) was a book keeper and auditor. He worked for the law firm Firestone Duncan. Magnitsky's death in 2009 at the Matrosskaya Tishina remand prison gave rise to a vociferous reaction and the implementation in the USA of a law that has led to the sanctioning of persons who are supposedly involved with his death.]
A “book keeper” (бухгалтер) is not an “attorney” (адвокат)!
Why such a difference in the English and Russia entries?
I have often noticed this variance in Wiki – Udaltsov’s Russian Wiki and English Wiki entries being a recent case in point.
By the way, Russians distinguish between “book keepers”, auditors and accountants: book keepers are at the bottom of the pecking order in the accountancy ranks and are usually women and the lowest professionally qualified of the number crunchers; accountants have the highest and most prestigious of qualifications – such as “Member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants” in the UK – are usually men, and are highly paid and work for foreign firms such as Price Waterhouse Cooper, KPMG … and Firestone Duncan.
They speak Russian at RT, don’t they?
Those employed at RT must certainly know that Magnitsky was not a lawyer: Medvedev must know this as well – because he’s a bloody lawyer himself! So why does he continue to dance to Browder’s tune in this way?
According to biblical myth, God created languages so as to confuse those who had had the temerity to attempt to build a tower in order to ascend to heaven.
Thousands of years after the building of the the Tower of Babel was abandoned, it seems that God’s divine linguistic plan to confuse nations is still working well.
I respectfully suggest that one can’t be be so sure about what everyone knows and doesn’t know at RTR – inclusive of the realization that not everyone at such a relatively good sized news org shares the same views.
On a variety of issues, the differences between Engliah and Rusian Wiki is quite noticeable with the latter not always being the most authoritative when it comes to the given subject matter.
Yeah, they speak Russian at RT. But I bet a lot of their writers are lazy bastards who just translate paragraphs almost verbatim from Western press, instead of doing original research. Doing research is harder, of course. It would take a lot of time and legwork to figure out if Magnitsky really was a licensed attorney, especially if he was pretending to be one. Whereas it only takes a few minutes to just paraphrase some propaganda from Reuters.
On Russian lawyers: I don’t know the answer, but I wonder if there is some “grey area” where a person could be a lawyer but also not a lawyer, at the same time. Kind of like Schrodinger’s cat. I’m not joking, because there is a similar discussion about Navalny. He is a lawyer, and claims to be a practicing lawyer, but there are questions about whether or not his actual attorney’s license is legitimate. Because supposedly he didn’t take his bar exam within the right time period, or something like that. Bastrykin says he is investigating and might try to pull his license. Which would just be icing on the cake, if Navalny goes down the river for 10 years.
I bet Peter could find it, if anyone could. I couldn’t find any record of Magnitsky ever passing the bar exam, but there were a lot of sources, I imagine, that I didn’t search because my Russian isn’t good enough.
On RT, it appears like a situation with a lack of quality control, in conjunction with not being so well versed on some of the subject matter.
Sorry for the off, but could any of you imagine, that an article like this about Abkhazia can be found on the openDemocracy page? I was like: WTF???
http://www.opendemocracy.net/george-hewitt/abkhazia-from-conflict-to-statehood
Overall a good article that must have been approved to “punish” Georgia for its recent election not producing the wanted result. But the author gets into the standard inanity about “worrying” agreements with Russia. BS. When America installs bases in places like Kosovo (Camp Bondsteel) there is no yapping about them being worrisome. I have not seen any evidence presented that the agreements signed by Abkhazia are some sort of permanent control tools. Clearly from the election campaigns described in the article there is no influence exerted from the FSB border posts or the Russian miltary bases.
Remarkable. The things that jumped out at me were (1) the affirmation that Condoleezza Rice’s Undersecretary for Transcaucasia – among others – was aware of Saakashvili’s plan for a military lunge to restore South Ossetia and Abkhazia to Georgian control so that NATO membership could be rushed through in December 2008, and it is therefore almost inconceivable that Rice did not know as well, and (2) the large depots of “embarrassing” ordnance recovered from the upper K’odor Valley, for purposes that were not determined. Apparently some of the items were briefly exhibited in Sukhum, and it’s likely they were photographed – does anyone know any more about this? The author suggests they were removed at the request of the USA, and this coupled with the potential for embarrassment suggests it was American weaponry that the USA did not want publicized, possibly because it would have suggested the USA had a plan to support Saakashvili militarily (which would be implied by discovery of ammunition for weapons the Georgian forces do not use or have, for example).
This is indeed a very interesting article. I would just make a few points:
1. I personally think that the attack on South Ossetia was agreed in advance by Saakashvili with leading figures in the US administration. The conduct of the US, British and French ambassadors at the UN Security Council on the night of the attack gave me the strong impression that they knew about it in advance. I suspect (as many do) that the attack was agreed informally during Condoleeza Rice’s meeting with Saakashvili earlier that year.
It is important to say however that if the US administration did have advance knowledge of the Georgian plan for the attack then no one took the trouble to inform the US embassy in Tbilisi. Wikileaks has provided a comprehensive list of cables sent by the US embassy in Tbilisi to Washington which proves beyond doubt that the US ambassador to Georgia at least had no foreknowledge of the attack that was going to happen and very little knowledge during the war of what was actually happening and of the course the war was taking. Indeed one of the sad things about the cables is that they show the extent to which the ambassador had become Saakashvili’s dupe for Saakashvili’s lies.
Having read a great deal about US history and knowing something about how US foreign policy is conducted I personally have no difficulty believing that Bush and Condoleeza Rice plotted the war with Saakashvili whilst keeping their own ambassador out of the loop. Examples when that has happened are legion. For example the Nixon administration used a “backchannel” to negotiate the SALT I treaty in the early 1970s directly with the Soviet leadership behind the backs of their own negotiators in Helsinki. However anyone who thinks there was US complicity in Saakashvili’s attack needs to take into account and explain the ignorance of the US embassy.
2. I think the article has hit the nail on the head when it says that the attack was made in connection with Saakashvili’s bid to join NATO. The article is wrong when it says that Bush tried to get NATO to grant membership to Georgia and the Ukraine at the Bucharest summit in April 2008. What Bush tried to get NATO to grant Georgia and the Ukraine was a NATO membership action plan. The proposal was defeated because of strong German opposition with Merkel (who is known to dislike Saakashvili) saying that Germany did not want to get drawn through NATO into Georgia’s territorial disputes. Bush was however able with the support of the British and the Poles and (crucially) of the NATO Secretariat to get an agreement to have the whole question re examined at the NATO foreign ministers’ summit in December 2008.
In my opinion what happened was that Bush (and Saakashvili) were determined to get Georgia and the Ukraine granted NATO membership action plans before Bush left office in January 2009. In order to defeat Merkel’s objections they therefore plotted a Georgian attack on South Ossetia gambling that if the attack succeeded in capturing Tskinvali on the first day then they would be able to mobilise massive diplomatic pressure to deter a Russian counter attack which they probably doubted could happen in less than a week. With South Ossetia secure the pressure would have been on to transfer Abkhazia to Georgia as well and to grant both Georgia and the Ukraine NATO membership action plans or even possibly NATO membership at the NATO foreign ministers’ meeting in December. What defeated the plan was that resistance in Tskhinvali proved much stiffer than expected whilst the Russian military instead of taking a week to respond (and preceding its attack with a lenghty bombing campaign) as NATO might have done instead launched its counterattack almost immediately.
3. I would just finish by adding one word of caution about this article. It takes a very partisan pro Abkhazian position. It happens to be one I basically agree with but I do think that sometimes it errs too far in Abkhazia’s favour. For example I find it impossible to believe that there was no actual ethnic cleansing during the first Georgian Abkhazian war of the early 1990s.
There is I know a view amongst some foreign policy professionals in Britain that the dogmatic refusal to recognise Abkhazia’s independence is preventing the west from countering Russian influence in Abkhazia. This was openly said in a lengthy article by the well known international affairs specialist Neill Ascherson a few years ago. That article was extraordinary for the number of quotes it purported to giive from Abkhazians critical Russia all of which were given anonymously (I believe Ascherson invented the lot). In my opinion this article makes a milder version of the same argument. As its orientation is actually anti Russian (though not Russophobic) that is why it has been published on this forum.
There’s the opposing view which believes that C. Rice had if anything cautioned Saak.
It’s safe to say that the US government might’ve (at the very least) been aware that such an attack could happen. Perhaps there was an understanding along the lines of we (US) not being enthusiastic or openly supportive of such, while nevertheless remaining supportive of Georgia’s territorial integrity – with Saakashvili being given a cautious wink.
Dear Misha,
Everything you say is entirely possible and would make perfect sense. The two things that make me think however that Bush and Condoleeza Rice not only did not warn Saakashvili off but actually gave him the green light to launch the attack are
(1) the extraordinary conduct of the NATO ambassadors at the UN Security Council session on the night of the attack. You remember we have discussed this meeting of the Security Council before. I was listening to the debate at the time and I remember thinking that all three of the NATO ambassadors (the US, the UK and France) were talking so obviously from the same prepared position that I found it difficult to believe that they had not agreed their positions before hand. Given how soon after the attack the meeting took place that suggested to me that someone had prepared the ground in the Security Council before the attack took place and in anticipation of the Russian request for Security Council action that was bound to follow from it;
(2) Bush’s personality, which like Saakashvili’s is aggressive and impulsive. Medvedev has spoken of a meeting he had with Bush before he (Medvedev) became President and the extraordinary and aggressive way Bush brought up the subject of Saakashvili and basically threatened Russian with consequences if Saakashvili was not allowed to have his way. Plotting an aggressive war of the sort that Saakashvili launched in August 2008 was in my opinion fully in line with Bush’s personality. Besides Mark has made the perfectly fair point, which is how did Saakashvili fund his military build up if this was done without US support and without some understanding that all the weapons he was given would one day be put to use? It is a small step from that to agreeing to military action when the moment seems right.
I would add that Medvedev has barely bothered to conceal his own belief that there was collusion between Saakashvili and the US administration before the attack.
Hi Alexander,
It’s interesting how well prepared at a sudden moment some can exhibit in contrast to other situations where you’d think there’d be a better preparedness.
In the lead-up to the Georgian government strike in question, Saak had been talking smack for some time. There were back and forth shots fired by both sides. The Georgian government might’ve been simultaneously of several minds. Launch a quick military strike and see what happens, with the likelihood of a quick pullback, followed by verbal jousting. One suspects they weren’t sure how the Russians would reply and felt it to be a somewhat worthwhile gamble/test – noting how Saak got plenty of live CNN airtime, he’d otherwise not receive.
For Russia, it was an enough is enough mindset.
Along with everyone else, wishing you a healthy and quick recovery. If not already done (which I sense has been looked into), consider the diet and dietary supplements which are said to assist the medical procedure at hand. Proper diet makes a difference (as I munch on a toasted sesame bagel sandwich with grilled Swiss cheese, cooked pork/beef kolbasa, chopped spinach and sliced red peppers, to be followed by a 24 ounce diet coke/coke mix).
@ Misha: Very good, spinach and red peppers (the latter through the stomach, not through sprays!) are good for the eyesight!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/humanbody/truthaboutfood/young/spinach.shtml
http://www.livestrong.com/article/414669-are-hot-peppers-good-for-your-health/
Jen, I understand that blueberries and carrots are considered good for the eyes as well.
Among my favorite pizza toppings cooked on top of the standard mozzarella and sauce pizza is one with ricotta, along with red, green and yellow peppers, mushrooms and onions. Another is chopped spinach and ricotta cooked on top of the standard pizza.
It’s true that carrots are good for the eyes. I mean, have you ever seen a rabbit wearing glasses?
Hope the treatment of your eyesight problem goes well, Alexander.
It actually all sounds healthy, except for the diet coke. There is more and more bad news coming out about artificial sweeteners. Like, you’re probably better off just taking the sugar.
Dear Misha,
Thanks for your kind words and yes I am following a diet plan and I also have to do certain physical exercises.
By the way I accept the force of the point you are making about the speed with which professional diplomats can adjust to new circumstances. It is also certainly true that there were warnings of a possible war. The one point I would make is that it was not just the speed with which western diplomats responded to the war but the complete identity of their comments that I found suspicious. I am not usually a believer in conspiracies and in pre planning and my guess (which is all it is) may be wrong. I am sure one day we will know
I am of the opinion that Condoleezza Rice must have known of Saakashvili’s plans, and, being a professional diplomat herself, she endeavoured to convey to him that the Bush government approved of bold action without ever getting into specifics. I believe, however, that she also signaled to him that if he failed ignominiously, the cavalry could not come riding to his rescue and that it was strictly his play – all without saying anything she could be held to; diplomats are all about plausible deniability.
I further believe that Saakashvili, a risk-taker and – in his own mind – a master manipulator, either misread the latter signal or chose to ignore it, believing that if he only took decisive action, the west would have no choice but to back him. Especially if he could sell the dual narratives that Georgia was winning and that Russia had set a trap for him, so that he was a glorious victim.
Thus the oft-cited scenario in which a shaky and visibly emotional Saakashvili, accompanied by a “stone-faced” Rice, signed a truce which was actually a surrender and went off-script with an angry accusation; “Who invited the trouble here? Who invited this arrogance here? Who invited these innocent deaths here? Not only those people who perpetrate them are responsible, but also those people who failed to stop it.”
Those who “failed to stop it”, clearly, were his western cheerleaders who convinced him he could win, and that NATO membership was within his grasp. And, as you say – it might have been. Had Russia not counterattacked instantly, diplomatic pressure to not react and to let things be in exchange for some concessions would likely have been intense, while the paperwork for a newly-united Georgia’s admission to NATO was rushed through.
I think our impressions of what went on behind the scenes are not too far apart at all.
I was going to mention that old urban legend that Coke can dissolve a steel nail, but just for fun – and, incidentally, to prevent looking any more a fool than I actually am – I looked it up first. That proved to be wise, as it is complete bullshit.
Never liked the taste of Diet Coke. I want something that tastes good and is light. I make an iced tea which is a concoction of my own home brew, mixed with some commercial brands like Diet Snapple.
When it comes to food and drink in contrast to many Americans, some non-Americans are generally known to eat and drink some of the (what’s considered as) not so healthy stuff in moderation, while doing a greater amount of walking and/or bicycling, as well as eating and drinking the healthier items.
You can’t beat Kvas!
I reckon that if I started marketing kvas in the West I’d make a mint.
Healthy, wholesome, fermented liquid black (rye) bread without any additives and very, very refreshing on a hot summer day.
Maybe it would catch on, but you’d have to keep hammering on the health benefits until people acquired a taste for it; that yeasty smell puts a lot of people off except for hardcore beer alcoholics, who are then disappointed it has no kick. Russians have several drinks that are to various degrees not popular among western appetites although you would think they would take off because of the extolled health benefits, Kvas being one of them. That scorched-milk drink, Razhenka, is another, and it was only last year that I learned to like Kefir. The latter is commercially available here in grocery stores, in a non-repeating formula, meaning you cannot use your leftovers to make more Kefir, but my father-in-law bought some starter from a health-food store and for a while we drank it every day. There are no Russian stores in Victoria, although there used to be a Ukrainian store where we could buy Kvas, which I never developed a taste for. But it obviously remains popular in Russia; every time I’ve gone there I’ve seen the tank-wagons big enough to be towed behind a car, with “Kvas” written on the side, and it being sold on the street. For Kvas now as well as proper herring (my family doesn’t like any we have available here because all of it is pickled with vinegar) we have to go to Vancouver, where there are only two stores that specialize in Russian groceries.
Re: “I was going to mention that old urban legend that Coke can dissolve a steel nail, but just for fun – and, incidentally, to prevent looking any more a fool than I actually am – I looked it up first. That proved to be wise, as it is complete bullshit.”
****
I heard it said that Coke can dissolve a slice of steak within 24 hours, in addition to damaging the paint finish on a car.
re: the solvent properties of Coca-Cola
My school director brother-in-law swears blind that the following is true: In order to issue warning concerning the necessity of oral hygiene, at the start of each school year the head of the biology department at his school gets human teeth from Manchester University School of Dental Surgery and places a tooth in conical flasks containing distilled water, beer, lemonade etc. … and Coca-Cola. She does this on a Friday. The following Monday all the immersed teeth still remain where they had been placed, except in the flask containing Coca-Cola, which she pours out into a sink: at the bottom of the flask is a messy brown sludge.
I suppose it’s possible, but demonstrably, it does nothing to nails other than discolour them. I know my wife is strongly-disposed against Coke as being virtually a poison, and that she learned that attitude in Russia; there would be pretty much nothing bad about it you could tell her that she would not believe. That’s where I got the myth that it would dissolve a nail. I’d buy that it would damage a car’s finish; it contains phosphoric acid. Birdshit will damage a car’s finish, too. I can vouch for that, there’s still a mark on my front fender from it that has survived repeated polishings and waxings even though it was originally there only a day or so before being washed off; it’s particularly noticeable on black paint.
On “quick Russian reaction” to Gruzian aggression against Tkhinval:
I suppose it was “quick” in the scheme of things, in the sense that Russia didn’t waste a couple of weeks bombing first. But those 2 days must have seemed interminable to the irregular Ossetian militias who had to hold the Gruzian army at bay while awaiting rescue from Russian tanks. These unsung heroes (and Eduard Kokoita was fighting among them in camo, so he was a hero too, whatever his reputation now) not only held off a professional NATO-supplied army, but also defended the mouth to the Roki Tunnel. They don’t get enough credit for their feats.
@ Mark, ME, Misha: I heard that the US Navy finds Coca-Cola syrup very useful in cleaning barnacles off ship and submarine hulls. Coke also helps clean oil stains and blood from driveways and highways, and a can of coke is recommended for inclusion with detergent to wash a load of oil-stained or greasy clothes. Some people also recommend using coke as toilet cleaner.
http://www.hitchcockdental.com/newspaper-articles/water-vs-coke/
Reading the recent Coke comments just as I’m drinking the stuff. I don’t drink coffee or hard liquor. I gather that most everyone has a dietary vice.
I’m reminded of an earlier conversation between Moscow Exile and myself on homemade kvas versus the mass produced variant and Guinness Stout and the Black and Tan mix derived from it. The tan referring to a sweet ale.
Mark,
A black painted car looks sharp. Too bad the dust and scratches get highlighed with that color along with swirl marks from waxing. Silver is my number one choice, followed by grey, white and as solid a red as possible.
I like kvas too. It has a pleasant taste and gives you a mild mood lift.
But safe to give to children.
Some say it tastes like marmite, but I have never tried marmite.
@ Misha: When you say “cautioned”, do you mean in the way April Glaspie had cautioned Saddam Hussein when he wanted to know the US position on his spat with Kuwait in 1990 over that country’s possible underground drilling of Iraqi oil under and past the Iraq-Kuwait border?
http://www.globalresearch.ca/gulf-war-documents-meeting-between-saddam-hussein-and-ambassador-to-iraq-april-glaspie/31145
You’re aware of the differences Jen.
Saddam didn’t come close to the ties that Saak established with some Western foreign policy politicos. He attacked an internationally recognized sovereign country and proceeded to recognize it as his own. In the lead up to that attack, Kuwait wasn’t involved in any armed acts against Iraq.
The aforementioned non-military manner of Kuwait is something akin albeit different from the rationale some have used for Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor.
I’m reminded of the flashback scene at the end of Godfather 2 when Sonny takes offense to Tom’s explanation on why Japan attacked. BTW, some Russians back then were somewhat “chuckling” (for lack of a better term), given the aw too bad response that some gave to the earlier Japanese attack on Port Arthur.
Wow; I’ll say. According to this Abkhaz news site,
http://www.abkhazworld.com/news/conflict/458-kodor-weapons.html
there were 50 truckloads of weapons and ammunition carted away which were recovered from the K’odor Valley that were abandoned by the Georgian Army. Nothing on the list that I saw rang any alarm bells, though, and while there were enormous quantities of ammo, it all appeared to be for weapons in use.
This site, though, posed some interesting questions on how Georgia could afford a massive buildup of conventional weapons on its tiny GDP. While the answer is fairly obvious, it doesn’t hurt to point it out again.
http://closerview.wordpress.com/tag/sukhum/
I was intrigued at all the purchases from Ukraine. Likely that was where almost all the Russian equipment and ammunition came from. It’s comical that both Georgia and the U.S. asked for the captured equipment back.
@ Mark: Some of the US equipment could have come from Israel and another third party country? Some drones that Georgia had flying over Abkhazia in early 2008 which Russia shot down were Hermes-450 drones from Israel.
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/europe/russia/121022/russia-georgia-drones-little-war
Wow. That was an eye-opener. I remember reading once – in an accompaniment comment to that YouTube video showing Saakashvili running for shelter and getting covered by his security detail’s briefcases upon hearing a low-flying aircraft – that the “aircraft” was actually a Russian drone. It’s true that drones have had a profound impact on modern warfare, but it takes articles like this one to remind everyone that they are like shooting fish in a barrel for air-superiority fighters; comparitively slow, dead-level flight profile and no decoys or countermeasures.
Also, I couldn’t say what made me laugh harder – reading that current corruption poster-boy Serdyukov “forgot” to sign the order authorizing the use of Russian drones, or seeing Pavel Felgenhauer described as a “Russia expert”.
Yeah, I noticed that too:
“To begin with, Russia’s drones were late to the battlefield as Russian Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov initially forgot to sign an order authorizing their use….”
He was probably too busy shtupping his mistress to remember to sign the order..
“Embarrassing” ordnance: Could they be talking about the trophy American Humvees that were captured? This was said to have occurred in “Western Gruzia”, so maybe it was Khodor.
That author has previously appeared at oD with such sentiment. I don’t doubt the sincerity of his views.
As to why oD runs it, I’ve come across suggestions that Abkhaz-Russian differences can be advanced in a way which can benefit neocon-neolib leaning slants.
In his own words, Lincoln Mitchell pretty much suggested such.
The problem for that suggested sentiment is that Russia remains the only major power recognizing Abkhaz independence
Thanks for finding this gem, PvMikhail. It doesn’t matter what the political slant of the writer, or whether he is pro-Russian or anti-Russian, just the fact that he is discussiing actual facts and actual history in such a detailed and scholarly manner. This is completely different from the one-liner cartoonish propaganda that western readers usually get.
Also reiterates the fact that Caucasian politics are EXTREMELY complicated. Russia is one of the few major powers who ever figured out how to set up more centralized government and rule in this area.
Another point author is trying to make is that West should be more open-minded about minority aspirations such as Abkhazi. If I were an intelligent Western imperialist, I would have recognized Abkhazian independence and tried to form ties with them, instead of being completely in the tank for Gruzia. Why put all your eggs in one basket? it’s what Abkhazians want too, they don’t want to be a Russian province. Instead, imperialists are acting very stupid and pushing Abkhazia further into Russia’s arms. Such stubbornness could only be ascribed to either low IQ, or the fact that the policy is driven by lobbyists. (Same deal as America always being in the tank for Israel instead of diversifying her Middle East options.)
In other news, Hillary Clinton gets chewed up by Republicans in her testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee on the Benghazi attack.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/clinton-face-lawmakers-benghazi-attack-090039480–politics.html
Good to know that it was all in good fun, and that even if things got a little heated from time to time, everyone remembered in the end that the name of the game is politics, and that politicians look after one another even if they pretend occasionally to disagree. So it was nice to see it all end in good-natured laughter and nudge-nudge-wink-wink over Mrs. Clinton’s maybe presidential run. I don’t know what they’re thinking (except that the Republicans probably hope she will run), but they would have to be all out of Jack Russell Terriers and root vegetables to nominate Clinton, since the very first thing to come up would be, ding!! ding!! Benghazi.
As if that weren’t ridiculous enough, straight-shooter and former Maverick John McCain admonished her that she “should get her facts straight”. Yes, the John McCain who thought Iraq and Pakistan had a common border,
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/07/mccain_appears.html
that Hugo Chavez is president of a state in the Middle East,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/30/chavez-from-middle-east-h_n_130573.html
and that Spain is in Latin America.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/217881.php
You can’t make this stuff up.
I didn’t see the Clinton hearing, but according to ROSBALT, she admitted/bragged that the weapons used by the Algerian terrorists in their recent attack, came from the anti-Gaddafi Libyan rebels. Apparently “Al-Qaeda in the Mahreb” received a bonanza of weapons from Gaddafi’s fall. But… but… weren’t these mostly American/Saudi/Qatari weapons that were shipped in to defeat Gaddafi? And Clinton acts like somehow this is a good thing. And then draws the crazy connection that America now has no choice except to invade Mali. (The Mali chaos and rise of jihadists, BTW, is also blowback from the Libya invasion. When Gaddafi was in power, he kept all these lunatics in check, not just in Libya and the Mahreb, but also in Mali.)
http://www.rosbalt.ru/main/2013/01/23/1085072.html
Dear Yalensis,
There is so much to say about this I don’t know where to start. How about sowing the dragon teeth or reaping what you sow? I suspect (though they will never admit) that our friends in Washington will start to miss Gaddafi before very long.
Well, a normal person would look at this Benghazi incident and the Algeria terrorist incident, and think, “Geez, maybe Gaddafi wasn’t so bad after all, I’m kind of sorry now that I had him killed.”
But American political elite are not normal people. They never have second thoughts, or ever say they are sorry, no matter what. Whenever they make a mistake, they just double-down and repeat the same behavior. They seem to be lacking in basic introspection skills. Frankly, I think they are sociopaths.
Okay, back to a funner topic, Navalny. On his blog, the mood is becoming more sombre as reality starts to set in, and his loyal followers realize that that hero is probably going down for some serious time. Navalny is being innundated with well-meaning advice in his comments section: Some of the hamsters advise him to flee the country rather than go to the gulag. Others insist that he must martyr himself for the cause. The more adolescent-minded want him to do a “Pussy Riot” and basically turn his courtroom appearance into a circus; not present a defense, not accept the legitimacy of the Russian court system, etc. Their reasoning is that he can’t get a fair trial in Russia anyhow, so he should just become a political prisoner, and then America and Europe will go to bat for him.
One hamster, though, and I like this guy, is trying to give Navalny some actual good advice about how to conduct a proper legal defense. For example: When the prosecution charges Navalny with embezzling 16 million (while post-dating his bank “payment” of 14 million for the lumber), Navalny should respond that he meant to pay the 14 million all along, and that it was a type of “loan”, like an IOU. He also advises that Navalny attempt to impeach the hostile testimony of Opalev. Well, that goes without saying. And so on.
http://navalny.livejournal.com/767541.html?thread=421878069#t421878069
Well, at least you have to give this hamster credit for trying. His expertise in Russian law does not seem any greater than mine, but it may still be far superior to that of Feigin/Volkova, in case Navalny was tempted to secure their services, which some of the other hamsters are advising him to do.
Somehow I suspect that Navalny and his team of attorneys will carefully pore over all 30 volumes of the indictments that have been delivered to him; and then make the one and only smart decision: to go on the lam!
Dear Yalensis,
I find the doubtless well meaning arguments of the hamster utterly charming. If Russian jurisprudence on theft is however anything like English his “defence” if ever tried would simply hasten Navalny’s journey to prison. It is not a defence to a theft that the thief intended merely to “borrow” or “pay” for what he stole. If I take your $50,000 Cadillac without your knowledge or permission then it is not a defence to its theft that I was intending to return it to you or pay for it at some future time. To argue in this way is to admit I stole it.
You are probably right that the hamster would nonetheless make a better fist of defending Navalny than the Volkova/Feigin duo will.
Is this hamster forgetting that Navalny is supposed to be a lawyer himself? An anti-corruption lawyer, yet? Of course he will have a lawyer to defend him – lawyers charged with a crime seldom if ever defend themselves – but it should be remembered that Navalny is a lawyer himself, which seems to have gotten lost in the shuffle, and that if he knew of ways to prove that the “crimes” of which he is accused are just misunderstandings, there would not even be a trial. Simply sneering that the charges are “beyond ridiculous” is not a defense, and I hate to be the one to break it to Navalny, but nearly every defendant – including the guilty ones – says that. His best bet is to shout that the charges are politically motivated; his western fluffers already believe and support that anyway, and that way he can avoid discussing whether or not he is guilty.
Don’t weep for Navalny, he has a whole team of laywers who presumably are not the Feigin/Volkova clown show. According to Navalny, his (unnamed) team are currently studying the 30 volumes of charges, after which there will be a Kafkaesque farce of a trial. (No he didn’t! Yes, he did. He used the K-word and invoked Kafka.)
http://navalny.livejournal.com/767459.html
As a sidebar, I would say any defendant who invokes Kafka BEFORE the trial has started, has already given up. If it were me in the dock, I would bravely invoke a defense lawyer who won against great odds, like maybe Clarence Darrow or Perry Mason. Only after my conviction would I bitterly allude to Kafka and contemptuously spit on the judge.
Dear Mark,
“Is this hamster forgetting that Navalny is supposed to be a lawyer himself?”
Indeed. I would not be surprised by the way if the hamster is actually a law student. His suggestion is exactly the sort that first year law students make. If so then where I suspect he is going wrong is that at least in English speaking countries part of the criminal intention for theft is that there has to be an intention to deprive permanently the owner of his property. It is an argument beloved of thieves that they had no criminal intention because they always intended to return the property they had stolen. In practice that defence almost always fails since the mere fact of the thief’s illegal possession of the property is nearly always sufficient evidence of the thief’s criminal intention to steal it. In any event this defence, such as it is, is not available to Navalny since he cannot return the timber he is supposed to have stolen whilst the fact that he purported to pay for the timber does not form part of this defence since purported payment for stolen goods is not the same as their return. Navalny’s best defence is actually the one that he and Ofitserov are making, which is that this was a bona fide transaction and that no illegality ever took place.
This may be a good moment to refresh our previous discussions about this case. Navalny’s defence is difficult but in my opinion not impossible. The problems it faces are
1. The actual series of transactions concerning the acquisition and sale of the timber;
2. Navalny’s own conduct, specifically his decision to encode his emails to Ofitserov and to flee the Kirov Region when questioned about this affair. This conduct strongly suggests that he knew that what he knew or believed that what he was doing was wrong;
3. The fact that he did what he did whilst purporting to work for the Kirov Region on a pro bono basis. I appreciate that the concept of pro bono may be different in Russia from what it is in the US and Britain but here it is fundamental to the concept that the person purporting to act in a pro bono capacity does not in any way (directly or otherwise) profit from it;
4. Opalev’s evidence. I should say that the fact that Opalev is supposed to have been a co conspirator and that he is giving his evidence following a plea bargain might suffice in some jurisdictions to disqualify him from giving evidence against Navalny. One would like to think that Navalny’s lawyers are busy researching this point and preparing their argument but given that we are talking about Volkova and Feigin I have my doubts and anyway the chances are if they do that they will botch it;
5. The fact that Navalny is a lawyer himself so that he cannot claim ignorance or lack of understanding of the nature of his actions.
These problems make Navalny’s defence very difficult but not in my opinion impossible. If Navalny were to conduct his defence well I think it just possible that he might get off. The trouble is that he would need a truly outstanding lawyer to do it. I know of lawyers in Britain who would be equal to the challenge. I don’t know any lawyers like that in Russia (though I am sure they exist) but I can definitely say that Volkova and Feigin are not numbered amongst them.
Dear Yalensis,
Apologies I only read your comment after writing mine. Is it certain that Navalny is not instructing Volkova and Feigin?
Incidentally I completely agree with you that invoking Kafka at this stage of the proceedings is extremely unwise. Navalny would be well advised not to discuss his case at all other than to protest his innocence. If Clarence Darrow was representing him (and that is exactly the sort of calibre of lawyer this case needs) that is what he would be advising him to do.
Dear Alexander:
I have not been able to find out the names of Navalny’s legal team. No doubt that information will be available on RAPSI once the trial begins. It is probably available now, I just can’t find where to look for it.
Yes, I agree Navalny needs a genius Clarence Darrow type lawyer to get him off. His main obstacle is Opalev, who has turned state’s evidence and will testify that there was a conspiracy and intent (including his own guilty self) to defraud the timber collective.
A crucial point in the defense is at what point in time, or if at all, Navalny/Ofitserov transferrred the 14 million rubles into the VTB Bank. This was an electronic fund transfer (EFT) so it will be datetimestamped. Recall Navalny’s email to Ofitserov of Feb. 23 2010, in which he complained that VTB was trying to undermine him. (Which was one of the reasons that he fled Kirov in the middle of the night.)
If there were any irregularities in the payment of the 14 million (or if the payment never actually took place, or was post-dated), then Navalny loses the argument that he had no criminal intent and just personally believed this was an ordinary business transaction.
I bet Johnny Cochran could get him off though.
I see Hillary Clinton and the French government are falling over themselves to defend Tymoshenko of the new murder charges. What makes them so sure she is innocent and that the charges are groundless?
It’s a type of face saving cum propaganda opportunity. They have invested a lot in the mythology of the “wronged democrat” and would look really bad if it was found that they bet on a criminal. So they will try to spin the trial as a witch hunt and the western media mouthpiece will facilitate by not giving enough detail about the trial to make the ludicrous smears of western leaders seem plausible.
Where did you see that? Have you a link?
Apologies Mark, I should have provided links. Here’s one that confirms that the French government condemns the new case against Tymoshenko.
http://en.rian.ru/world/20130123/178979783/Paris-Slams-Tymoshenko-Murder-Charge.html
….and here is another link about a letter of support Hillary Clinton has sent to Tymoshenko.
http://en.rian.ru/world/20130122/178952715/Clinton-Sends-Letter-of-Support-to-Tymoshenko.html
I presume by the way that all these shows of support for Tymoshenko are going to make Yanukovitch’s plans for an association agreement with the EU even harder than they were before.
Thanks, Alex; I could probably have looked them up for myself, but I am lazy.
It staggers the imagination that the prosecution could be so foolish as to accuse a hard target like Tymoshenko without solid evidence of her involvement, because she can afford the best defense money can buy and has the unqualified support of the western press machine. Therefore, I assume they do have such evidence, and that is not hard to believe. Before she had her Democracy Queen makeover, and was just the ruthless Gas Princess, Tymoshenko was a lot less careful and circumspect, and cared much less about leaving tracks than she did about getting her way. This is what I find curious; why does the west continue throwing its support behind someone so conspicuously arrogant and oozing entitlement? Is it difficult to believe Tymoshenko would remove someone – by whatever means it took – who got in her way? It is not: we’re obviously not talking about Ghandi, here.
It does not help her case that her alleged co-conspirator already went down for corruption and money-laundering in the USA, where presumably the rule of real law prevails and charges are never politically motivated. Considerable evidence implicates Tymoshenko in these financial misdeeds, much of it available in the public domain.
http://www.tymoshenkocase.com/995/
Simply put, it is not at all difficult to imagine her guilty of conspiracy to commit a murder whose results would be to her advantage, as she impressed even sympathetic observers as someone who would brook no restrictions on her authority. And, as I say, in her youth she was a lot less careful than she is now. I would not be at all surprised to learn the prosecution has evidence of a nature that even her western bobbleheads will not be able to spin away, which is why I can’t fathom their continued loyalty; you’d think their entire warning panel would be lit red and buzzing at this point, blaring “hot potato!! hot potato!!!”.
Vis-a-vis your last paragraph, I agree this will make EU association for Ukraine more difficult; EU representatives have said as much, in a not-too-thinly-veiled threat that dropping the case against her would look very good for Ukraine. I will go further, and suggest proceeding with the case marks a departure point for Yanukovich, whereby he no longer cares about EU association for Ukraine or acknowledges it will never happen. That looks good for improved association with Russia, although Russia would probably have to spend a lot of money on Ukraine to get it back on the rails. It would be worth it, though, to see the hemorrhage people like Motyl would have.
” I will go further, and suggest proceeding with the case marks a departure point for Yanukovich, whereby he no longer cares about EU association for Ukraine or acknowledges it will never happen.”
***
Perhaps it’s more a matter of Ukrainian oligarch interests wanting their way as much as possible, in the form of a partial affiliation with the Customs Union, while hoping that the Western neolibs and neocons will geopolitically downplay their complaints out of a fear of “losing Ukraine”.
Whether one buys this perception completely, partially or not at all, Yanukovych can say that he’s not acting like a yes man for either the Russian government or the neolib/neocon influenced Western foreign policy elites.
As for Motyl – some others including him get way too much high profile play, in contrast to what some others offer in terms of a different and valid perspective.
A link to a related commentary and follow-up discussion:
http://austereinsomniac.info/blog/2013/1/21/ignorance.html
.
I would just add to the discussion of the site I linked above, and draw attention to the section entitled “Inna’s Corner”, in which the blog owner details the release of the Skadden Report – the existence of which I was unaware – and its conclusion that the prosecution of Tymoshenko is not politically motivated while her conviction on abuse of authority regarding her part in the gas deal was supported by evidence presented at trial. Skadden, Arps, Slade, Meagher & Flom LLP is a New York law firm which was contracted by the Ukrainian government to review its conduct of the case and report any irregularities contrary to the rule of law.
The effects of the Skadden Report, once released, were fairly predictable. Western sources such as the New York Times seized on minor details regarding violations of Tymoshenko’s rights to conclude in the leading paragraph, “a team of American lawyers has concluded that important legal rights of the jailed former prime minister, Yulia Tymoshenko, were violated during her trial last year on charges of abusing her official power, and that she was wrongly imprisoned even before her conviction and sentencing”,
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/13/world/europe/failings-found-in-trial-of-ukrainian-ex-premier.html?_r=0
although ruefully acknowledging – after that attention-grabber – that the lawyers who prepared the report “concluded that Ms. Tymoshenko’s conviction was supported by the evidence presented at trial, and they found no evidence in the trial record to support to her main contention: that her prosecution was a politically motivated effort by Mr. Yanukovich, her archrival, to sideline her and cripple Ukraine’s main opposition party. ” Meanwhile, Freedom House shrieked like they were being burned alive in a choleric release – which featured a photo of a Tymoshenko poster trampled in the mud – that described the report as “downright pernicious”.
http://www.freedomhouse.org/blog/misguided-report-tymoshenko-case
Western sources consistently amped the findings that in certain instances, there were irregularities in the trial, not seeing fit to mention that there were no irregularities so glaring as those of the defendant, who refused to recognize courtroom procedure and spent much of her time cracking jokes about the judge via Twitter to her giggling supporters outside.
The Center for the Study of Former Soviet Socialist Republics (CXSSR) concluded the Skadden Report totally vindicated Ukraine and demolished Tymoshenko’s contention that both the trial and the verdict were politically motivated.
http://cxssr.org/2012/12/skadden-arps-report-vindicates-ukraine-demolishes-tymoshenko/
I find the conclusions drawn by the author of the blog I first cited, Inna Bohovslovska, most compelling; “The conclusion of experts from Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP is unambiguous – there are no political motivation and signs of selective justice in Tymoshenko case. They admit that there were minor mistakes both on part of the prosecution and defense however, they did not affect the decision a lot.” This is supported by the Skadden Report: “Based on the record, Tymoshenko has not provided clear and specific evidence of political motivation that would be sufficient to overturn her conviction under American standards.”
Dear Mark,
I am sure the case again Tymoshenko is well founded for precisely the reasons you say. It puzzles me why so many people in the west find it difficult to believe that she might be guilty. Is it because she is an opponent of Yanukovitch who they don’t like or could it be because she is a beautiful woman? Do they honestly think that beautiful women are incapable of being corrupt and of funding hitmen? It shows how wierd western feminism is if they do. Admittedly Tymoshenko does know how to talk the “democracy” talk and western politicians and pundits are suckers for that sort of thing.
If Tymoshenko is guilty and seen to be so in the Ukraine itself by the Ukrainian people (who are the ones whose opinion is the only which matters) then as was the case with Khodorkovksy the west by supporting Tymoshenko is putting its money on a criminal who is bound to disappoint it.
On the Putin-Tymoshenko gas deal:
I like Mark’s theory that Putin awarded Yulia a sweet little kick-back if she gave Russia the keys to the castle. That is the only theory that makes sense, because Yulia is no rube when it comes to negotiating these big deals.
On the other hand… in the video, when they are announcing the deal, Yulia keeps blinking a lot and looks she has been drugged, or something…. Maybe Putin slipped her a little ketamine when they were bouncing around in the sack earlier… heh heh…
OMG Ukraine will be a bottomless money pit. But what can you do? Russia has to suck it up and give the Ukes the money they need to get back on their feet. After all, Ukes are Russians too, and it’s not completely their fault that they got into this pickle. Anyhow, Yanukovich is not going to cut any slack for Tymoshenko, no matter how the Frenchies whine and bitch. He hates that woman with a purifying white-hot hatred.
Dear Mark,
I have just finished reading the Skadden report to which you provided a link. It is several hundred pages long but the lines are widely spaced and I had no difficulty reading it.
I think it is an utterly fascinating historical document. It shows:
1. That according to Dubyna the head of Naftogaz he and Miller, the head of Gazprom, were on the verge of agreeing a gas pricing agreement before the start of the January 2009 gas war but that the agreement was scuppered by Yushchenko who apparently bowed to pressure from the Ukrainian investors in RosUkrEnergo;
2. That contrary to what was being said by Ukrainian officials at the time the Ukraine was rapidly running out of gas during the gas war and its position was becoming increasingly desperate;
3. That Tymoshenko not only went over Yushchenko’s head to negotiate a gas agreement directly with Putin (cutting out the two professionals from Naftogaz and Gazprom – Dubyna and Miller) but proved to be an utterly incompetent negotiator with the result that Putin, Gazprom and Russia got even more than they wanted and so that the Ukraine was left with a far worse bargain than the one Dubyna had almost clinched with Miller;
4. That there is compelling evidence that Tymoshenko tricked Dubyna into signing the gas agreement (with which Dubyna was in strong disagreement) by showing him a document she forged that purported to be an Order from the Ukrainian Council of Ministers ordering him to sign the gas agreement. The Ukrainian Council of Ministers had not in fact made such an Order and the document in question was a fake. It seems Tymoshenko may also have threatened Dubyna with dismissal if he did not sign the gas agreement.
This document is absolutely fundamental to the case and its forgery was the key to the charge of abuse of power brought against Tymoshenko. It is testament to the way the case has been completely misreported by the western media that until I read the report I was completely unaware of it. Needless to say any senior official of any western government who forged a document in order to commit his country to an agreement made on unfavourable terms with another country would certainly face prosecution for abuse of power or misfeasance of public office. As the Skadden report says, it simply makes no sense to say in the light of what her conduct was alleged to be that the prosecution of Tymoshenko was legally unfounded. I think by the way that anti Russian Ukrainians who support Tymoshenko should read the Skadden report in full. They might in that case usefully ask themselves why they support a leader who proved so completely unable to take on Putin and the Russians in negotiation and who resorted to low tricks and deceptions to conceal the fact.
For the rest, in discussing the trial itself the Skadden report describes the usual chaotic and provocative behaviour from the defence we have by now become used to in such trials when they happen in the former USSR. All the same bag of tricks we saw in the Pussy Riot trial were there in all their splendour: the repeated demands for adjournments, the arrogance and incompetence of the defence lawyers and their contemptuous conduct towards the judge, the long irrelevant and ultimately self incriminating political speeches, the calling of dozens of irrelevant witnesses, the bullying and abuse of prosecution witnesses, the endlessly repeated demands that the judge resign himself from the case and last but not least the endlessly repeated but entirely uncorroborated claim of a politically motivated trial and prosecution. The report incidentally considers and completely rejects the claim that the prosecution was a case of selective justice. I got the clear impression whilst reading the report that the American lawyers, used as they are to trials carried out in a certain way, were quite shocked.
Not only that, the matter of Tymoshenko negotiating a deal with Russia was brought up before the Verkhovna Rada, and she was told the matter was off the table, end of discussion, no ifs, ands or buts. It was after that she went to Dubyna and bullied him into signing. There could be no possibility she misunderstood; she was specifically denied authority to proceed.
She probably fantasized that she would go to Russia, whip Putin into custard with a fine point on top, and return a heroine with a smoking-hot deal in her handbag. There are only two possible explanations for what happened instead: one, she is an incompetent fool as a negotiator, as you said, or two, she got a sweet kickback from Putin that she is hiding somewhere.
“I think by the way that anti Russian Ukrainians who support Tymoshenko should read the Skadden report in full. They might in that case usefully ask themselves why they support a leader who proved so completely unable to take on Putin and the Russians in negotiation and who resorted to low tricks and deceptions to conceal the fact.”
****
She’s a politically drifting opportunist. At one point, she also said that Ukraine should only join NATO with Russia jointly.
Dear Mark ,
According to the Skadden report there was a suggestion during the trial of a possible kickback. It was suggested that Tymoshenko might have capitulated to Putin’s demands in return for Russian agreement not to pursue charges against her arising from her payment of bribes to five Russian Ministry of Defence officials. The alllegation was unsubstantiated however and was quickly dropped and the judge did not allude to it in his judgment at the end of the trial.
On balance I prefer the theory that it was all down to incompetence. I cannot believe that Tymoshenko was seriously concerned about a Russian prosecution, which at that time would have been a political gift for her. As is very clear from the Skadden report the price calculations in gas supply contracts are very complex and I suspect that having gone to Moscow the “gas princess” simply found herself out of her depth. For the rest I agree with everything else you say about her motivations in going to Moscow and to what Misha says about her complete lack of political principle.
According to Itar Tass the Defence Ministry has cancelled the deal to buy from Italy Centauro tank destroyers and armoured vehicles from Iveco. These were the two strangest foreign arms purchases of the Serdyukov era. It is not after all as if Russia has no experience or capability building such vehicles. In the light of what we now know was happening in the Defence Ministry on Serdyukov’s watch I wonder whether these deals were oiled by a few backhanders?
I agree but to put proper context on this: Wheeled “tanks” have been a popular military trend for over a decade and some point there was talk of standard tanks going the way of the dodo. The Centauro is nice light tank on wheels with some nice technologies. It looked to me like the purchases of Italian armoured vehicles was a way for Russia to avoid unnecessary development work. Of course the Italians would not just sell them a few samples for reverse engineering. Which is perfectly fine and Russia can afford it.
So I think that in this case it is not just corruption being undone, it could also be a case of backlash going too far. BTW, the same logic applies to unmanned aircraft drones. Russia has been well behind the curve in the development of this technology which is turning out to be a very useful battle field tool. So Russia was going to buy is Israeli UAVs but I am not sure what the status of that is.
Dear Kirill,
As I have discussed before, Russia is currently in advanced development of three separate armoured vehicle families (1) the heavy tracked Armata family (2) the lighter tracked Kurganets 25 family and (3) the wheeled Boomerang family. The Boomerang family will undoubtedly include a wheeled tank.
There is an interesting discussion of this programme on this site, which also has photographs of models of some of these vehicles shown to Rogozin amongst others during a design show. I gather that the prototypes of all three vehicles are now in a very advanced stage and will be show publicly later this year.
http://www.russiadefence.net/t2002-kurganets-boomerang-discussions-thread
Overall I still can’t really see what the Centauro offers which Russia cannot develop itself which would make buying it worthwhile even in small quantities whilst buying the Centauro in large quantities would undermine the entire basis of the Boomerang programme. As for the Iveco vehicles, Russia already produces similar vehicles such as the Tigr and the Volk and frankly they look superfluous especially as the Russian vehicles are apparently acknowledged to have better cross country capability.
As for drones, it is universally acknowledged that Russia has fallen far behind in this technology. The USSR apparently had an active programme to develop unmanned drones in the 1980s but the crisis that overwhelmed it meant that only the small and very light Pchela 1 (which is now anyway outdated) ever went into service. As you rightly say following the 2008 South Ossetia war Russia bought some Hermes 450 drones for surveillance purposes and to obtain insight into how such drones work. However despite what is sometimes said I cannot believe that this is an especially difficult technology and all Russian drones surely cannot be far off.
The one large scale military purchase that I think was sensible was that of the Mistral class amphibious warfare carriers. Russia has no experience building or operating such carriers and it made complete sense to buy such carriers off the shelf so that the design teams and shipyards could focus instead on developing and building those ships they know about and which Russia urgently needs such as destroyers and frigates.
“Overall I still can’t really see what the Centauro offers which Russia cannot develop itself which would make buying it worthwhile even in small quantities whilst buying the Centauro in large quantities would undermine the entire basis of the Boomerang programme. As for the Iveco vehicles, Russia already produces similar vehicles such as the Tigr and the Volk and frankly they look superfluous especially as the Russian vehicles are apparently acknowledged to have better cross country capability.”
From your lips to RiaNovosti’s ears.
I agree – if someone comes up with a better design for light tanks, Russia would be well-off to simply buy some, and they would serve as useful stopgaps until their own indigenous design is ready for broad release; the British did something similar when they bought the commercially-designed Vosper frigate (AMAZON Class) to fill a short-term gap. Although that’s not the best example because they were a horrible design, notwithstanding their sleek looks. Anyway, easily-transferable improvements could be incorporated in the Russian follow-on design.
I also agree that drones have added a new dimension to the battlefield, but with a cautionary note – most of their advantage goes unrealized when pitted against a country which has a capable, modern air defense system and a fast indigenous fighter with a good radar and sufficient legs for extended combat air patrol. Drones are not easy to detect visually, but their straight and level flight profile makes them easy meat for MTI (Moving Target Indicator) discriminators and they have no evasive maneuvers at all once engaged. They made their bones in Libya, where Gaddafi’s fighters could not fly because of NATO air cover and his air defense systems – never great to start with – were all destroyed.
Well it seems that some people within the Defence Ministry and the MIC disagree with me even on the subject of the Mistral purchase. I gather that the decision has been taken to limit the purchase to just the two that have already been contracted for.
http://en.rian.ru/military_news/20130124/178999888/Defense-Industry-Boss-Slams-Absurd-French-Ship-Deal.html
The sharks are circling round Serdyukov. I would not be surprised if we were to discover that backhanders for these purchases of foreign equipment have been paid to the likes of Vasilyeva & Co. If that turns out to be the case then this scandal will explode and will acquire an international dimension.
As far as I can tell bribes are standard procedure in the defense market. So all the western arms dealers are using bribes and kickbacks and Serdyukov was just a will recipient of this western generosity. Yes, Russia is a 3rd world country
“…all the western arms dealers are using bribes and kickbacks…”
Absolutely. And if any were paid to Serdyukov & Co it shows that their big mistake was precisely to think that Russia is a third world country where one can get away with that sort of thing. It is precisely because he was involved in corruption that Serdyukov is in big trouble and if any bribes and kickbacks were paid by western arms manufacturers to Serdyukov or his associates we could easily see criminal proceedings spreading to Paris and Rome.
It surprises me how many Westerners think of Russia as a third world country. In another thread a couple of days back the horrid tale of US citizens John and Maria DiMaria sexually abusing 21 adopted girls in Vermont, USA, led me to this site, wherein it is stated:
“Marian and John DiMarias, conservative evangelical Christians, adopted 21 girls from third-world countries … At least 2 girls were born in China, and Ukraine, at least one girl in India, Russia, Brazil, and Bolivia. (1996 they had 8 from: China, Russia, India, Brazil)”.
In other US sites concerning this horrific story the term “third world country” is also used when describing the countries of origin of these unfortunate children, some of whom being Russian and Ukrainian.
http://en.rian.ru/world/20130124/178986367/Foreign-Investors-Expect-Better-Russia-EU-Ties—Deputy-PM——.html
““In 2007 only 7-8 percent of companies [working in Russia] said Russia’s investment climate was good, but now the figure stands at 35-37 percent,” the deputy premier said.”
I think this is actually a real statistic and not like the BS TI corruption perceptions index. Yeah, Russia is not perfect and has likely another 15-20 years of necessary development but at least it is on a *rapid* track in the right direction. Trying to sell your country down the river and getting phony TI index jumps like Georgia is unforgivable.
http://en.rian.ru/business/20130123/178973877.html
The important point just barely mentioned is that the EU is trying to treat foreign investors like Gazprom as domestic monopolies and unilaterally break up their assets. This is egregiously illegal since none of the EU states invested in these assets. Gazprom’s multi-billion dollar investments should be compensated. And this is nothing like the PSA racket where supposedly Russia “sold” its resources to some foreign extraction companies such as Shell. That is pure rubbish and these companies received compensation for the investments they actually made.
More legal and financial problems for Berezovsky: according to this report in today’s Moskovsky Komsomolets, his former wife of 20 years, Elena Gorbunova, is demanding in court that he pay her £5 million out of the £25 million that he obtained from the sale of their former home in Surrey.
The case was filed last year and Berezovsky requested that it be closed to the public, but after complaints had been made about this, a judge has ordered that it be made open.
In addition to her demand that she receive monies acquired from the sale of her former home, the plaintiff claims her former husband wants to sell two south of France properties that he has long promised to give her.
On the direction of a London judge, after Gorbunova had filed her suit, part of Berezovsky’s assets have been frozen.
Poor old Boris! It never rains but it pours!
What a laugh! I thought the name Gorbunova rang a bell! MK has got it all wrong!
Just before pressing the post button, i checked it out, and…
… The MK article reports an article that has appeared in the UK Telegraph.
There’s a paywall up at the Telegraph for UK citizens that live abroad, so I no longer read that rag. (No great loss!) However, I just checked out the story in the Telegraph (got round the paywall) and here it is.
As I thought! Gorbunova is not Berezovsky’s “former wife of 20 years”: she’s his former floozy of 20 years. His real wife finally filed for a divorce the other year after having become annoyed over the fact that the British press had started calling Gorbunova “Mrs. Berezovsky”. And old Boris got hammered in the London divorce courts, as the Telegraph states: “In July 2011 his ex-wife Galina Beshanrova, 53, won the biggest divorce settlement in history worth ‘£100s of millions’.”
So Gorbunova, who dutifully appeared gangster-moll style by the side of Berezovsky every day during the Berezovsky vs, Abramovich trial in London last year, and even gave evidence there for him, has ditched big bad Boris.
That didn’t take her long!
Gorbunova is 43 years old, by the way; Berezovsky is 67. So she took a shine, it seems, to Boris when she was 23 and Berezovsky was 47 and in his pomp as the “Godfather of the Kremlin”.
Of course, Boris got hammered in court costs to the tune of hundreds of millions of pounds after losing his suit against Abramovich and now “his former wife of 20 years”, Gorbunova, has ditched him.
The expression concerning rats and a sinking ship springs to mind.
Very sad.
Elena realized that she needed to make a change after Boris lost all that money to Abramovich I mean became so emotionally distant to her.
Thinking further about this, Berezovsky is very likely entering dangerous ground: he has clearly, and very quickly, become impoverished in comparison with his former fabulously wealthy status, and he’s becoming poorer.
For filth like him, money is power. He’s much less wealthy and powerful than before, so much so that his sleeping partner of the past 20 years has now climbed out of his bed. I think there is a distinct possibility that other partners will also, metaphorically, climb out of his bed as well.
When Berezovsky had little further use for his fawning servant “Sasha” Litvinenko, he cut his wages, which caused the noble Litvinenko to seek other means of earning his daily bread in London-na-Temze, including blowing the gaff on other oligarchs and selling information to British security – and he got bumped off.
Somebody might now decide to blow the gaff on Berezovsky in view of the fact that he’s not got the clout moneywise to get things done. He can’t even keep his broad in bed!
Old Boris can’t pay off his debts, I’m pretty sure of that, and his creditors – or even Boris himself – might start threatening to tell some tales in order to earn a little money.
It wouldn’t surprise me if we soon hear news of Boris suddenly having a heart attack whilst jogging around the leafy lanes of Surrey.
It’s happened before – not to Boris, of course, but it has happened before; or there might be news of a suicide even: that’s happened before as well.
Is all this just too much Machiavelian, I wonder?
If Boris gets hisself whacked, it will be Putin’s fault!
Yeah, I was just thinking that. When he lost his claim against Abramovich, he said that Justice Gloster’s ruling sounded as though Putin had written it. I wonder how long it will be before he claims that Gorbunova is hitting him on Putin’s orders. Mind you, it would really be ungentlemanly if he did this; after all, she did stick by his side through the good times and the … er… good times.
Cue Tammy Wynette and “Stand By Your Man”.
Your wish is my command, my liege:
For my part, it’ll be a relief not to see any more Berezovsky-democracy Orange Revolutions, in which democracy meant nothing more than causing discomfort for people Berezovsky didn’t like. In Ukraine’s case, it ushered in one of the worst governments the country has ever had, but Berzovsky cared nothing for that, and rated it a great success. Good on him, say I, and I’d point out his loss of credibility with the formerly-fawning British press as well – his mate Tin-Tin has decided to keep his mouth shut on this one, apparently, instead of spouting a lot of twaddle about travesties of justice like he did following the Abramovich victory. Suddenly it’s OK to point out in the papers that Berezovsky puts on his pants one leg at a time and has bad breath when he wakes up, just like everyone else, where he was formerly some kind of benevolent icon. I wonder if he got a sympathy card from Putin.
The western elites have realized that Berezovsky is no longer a useful tool against Russia so they are discarding him. Naturally the elite mouthpieces, the so-called free media, are acting accordingly.
Hi. It’s been a long time since I commented something. Have not been doing much ‘Russia watching’ to give any better comments. Just a few things:-
1.) Ed Lucas’ Russophobia – perhaps we’ll never know what his inner demons may be.
2.) Regarding Iceland joining the EU – I suspect the Icelanders will reject EU membership in a referendum. Polls suggest that the majority of Icelanders are against EU membership.
http://www.icenews.is/2013/01/21/iceland-suspends-eu-accession-effort/
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-12-18/iceland-advances-eu-entry-bid-domestic-opposition-mounts
3.)Perhaps Alexander Mercouris can have a take on this:-
http://news.sky.com/story/1042246/cameron-were-not-turning-our-back-on-europe
4.)About China:-
“I agree Russia would be well-served to cultivate an alliance with China, but cautiously, because China can be a rapacious partner and it shows little regard for intellectual property rights, as its roundabout ripoff of Russian aircraft designs illustrates. China recognizes no equals and is ruthless about achieving its objectives; it would have to learn the value of partnership rather than imposed servitude, and its fairly easy economic conquest has not really taught it much of a lesson – China should realize that the enemy in that case supplied the sinews of his own destruction. But Russia has an advantage owing to geography, just as Canada has with the USA. China would not sit by and let a secure energy source upon which it depends become insecure and in the hands of those who would order it about if they could.”
Sino-Russian relationship depends on China’s perceived notion of its own strength(military/economic/political) vs Russia’s vs West(USA +/- EU). I think the relationship between China and Russia is pragmatic – lacking the ‘emotional’ component that besets Russia-West relations. The West basically is still smarting that Russia ‘failed’ to be yet another fief in their ‘conquest’ after the demise of Soviet Union. The problem with the West is she cannot ‘let Russia be’. This plays to China’s geopolitical benefit. If the West acknowledges Putin’s regime, lessen the anti-Putin rhetoric and at least can have constructive dialogue with Russia, that would be disadvantageous to China. And advantageous to both the West and Russia. The only problem is the West wants Russia to toe in THEIR line….and that won’t change unless the West loses its global dominance. However, Mark is right that Russia should be cautious in their dealings with the Chinese. Any weakness on the part of Russia’s leaders would set the Chinese on their rapacious course. As it is, the Koreans(including ‘Chinese-ally’ North Korea), Vietnamese and Mongolians are uneasy with China’s rise, and I cannot blame them(even though I myself am ethnic Chinese).
http://isnblog.ethz.ch/international-relations/why-is-russia-favored-by-mongolia-and-north-korea-2
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/business/article/mongolias-neighbors-vie-for-maximum-role/473715.html
http://www.irrawaddy.org/archives/24334
http://www.dailynk.com/english/read.php?num=5627&cataId=nk02500
http://korea.prkorea.com/wordpress/english/2012/03/15/balhae-kingdom/
(Balhae and Goguryeo were ancient kingdoms ruling parts of present Jilin, Liaoning and Heilongjiang provinces and much of North Korea – Balhae during the Tang dynasty era and Goguryeo during Korea’s Three Kingdoms era – Koreans have accused the Chinese of claiming these states as ‘Chinese states’ implying a ‘sinister’ Chinese motive of annexing the two Koreas)
I myself am supportive of a strong China – one that can stand up to Western hegemony but I am against a rapacious, power-crazy China. I’d prefer a strong China that have good relations with China and neighbouring countries.
5.) About Putin and Medvedev(off topic, I know):-
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/interview-with-putin-ally-alexei-kudrin-on-democracy-in-russia-a-878873.html
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-22/will-putin-dump-his-prime-minister-.html
Personally, I don’t like Medvedev(too pro-West and I think he has a very weak personality) but I hope, if really there is a possibility of him being replaced….it’s not going to be Kudrin!
sinotibetan
Hey, Sino-T!! Great to see you back, and true to form, your first comment in ages went straight into the spam filter. I agree with you on all points except the resistance of Icelanders to EU membership; that I didn’t know. As for Ed Lucas, it’s creepy enough for me that Ed Lucas is in there, never mind any demons he might be sharing his id with. I too support a strong China that is responsible and a good world citizen, even if it is only according to its own interests, because everyone now does the same. I also agree the Russia-China relationship is based on pragmatic concerns on the part of both, but that’s good enough and a willingness to stand by your allies for pragmatism is immaterial to anyone who is interested in overthrowing that ally; all they know is they can’t do it because you’re in the way.
Hi Mark. Thanks for your kind words!
“your first comment in ages went straight into the spam filter.”
Hahaha. I find that quite funny.
I agree with you that the Chinese leadership will stand by an independent, sovereign Russia. If Russia’s regime falls and is replaced by a Western-subservient one, it would be disastrous for China…. a ‘Western fief’ at the northern border – that would hamper China’s ambition to be the ‘supreme’ East Asian hegemenon. An independent Russia will check China’s dominance in East Asia but not to the point of becoming a national security threat should Russia diminishes to become a Western ‘fief’/'vassal-state’. A strong Russia is also in the interest of smaller countries to China’s north such as the Koreas and Mongolia as well as some of the new Central Asian states. I think all in all, the pragmatic Chinese leaders will support a strong, independent Russia in spite of the geopolitical rivalry in Central and East Asia that may occur from time to time. Better than a Washington always all out to cause internal chaos to ‘rival powers’.
sinotibetan
Hi sinotibetan,
Nice to see you again.
I agree with your assessment of and hopes for relations among the Russia-China-West triangle.
Dear SinoTibetan,
I too am delighted to see you again. Please accept my apologies for my delay in responding to your excellent comment. As everyone else on this blog knows I am currently experiencing severe eye problems for which I am due to have an operation on Tuesday. This unfortunately means that I don’t always read articles promptly.
I want to endorse entirely what you say about China. I used to know China very well, I even studied Chinese for a time until work commitments made it impossible, and I have a tremendous interest in Chinese history and culture. As anyone at all familiar with Chinese history knows China has historically been a profoundly unaggressive and pacific power. At no point in its history has China embarked upon any megalomaniac projects for world domination or global conquest and its sallies into Central Asia and Korea during the Han and Tang dynasties and into Vietnam and Mongolia during the Ming dynasty were almost entirely reactive and defensive. On the rare occasions when governments in China have sought to use Chinese resources for expansionist purposes (as under the Yuan and the Qing) these have always been under foreign non Chinese nomad dynasties. Even then these expansionist periods have been short.
Moreover anyone with any sense of objectivity would be hard pressed to find much evidence of aggressiveness about China today. China is involved in no foreign wars, follows a policy of non interference in the internal affairs of other countries, has no foreign bases and (given its size and relative wealth) has a relatively small military establishment. We should not in my opinion confuse US histrionics about the (non existent) “threat” from China with the reality. By way of example, there has been much lurid talk over the last few years about Chinese “expansionism” in Africa. In reality the countries with military bases in Africa are not China but the US and France and it is France and the US not China which have been waging wars in African countries such as Somalia, Libya and Mali.
As for Russian Chinese relations, they are currently about as good as they have ever been and will surely continue to get better. I have read articles in the English language Chinese press that specifically say how the ending of the “threat from the north” in the 1980s was a critical factor in releasing resources that made China’s economic expansion thereafter possible. In addition, as you absolutely rightly say, Russia is at the present time just about the only truly reliable and economically and politically powerful friend that China has at a time when largely because of US meddling its relations with India and its Pacific neighbours such as Japan remain difficult. Moreover this friendship is increasingly acquiring an important economic dimension. The size of Russian Chinese trade at around $90 billion a year is already very high and if it does indeed grow to $200 billion a year it will reach the same order of magnitude as China’s current trade with the US and EU, which given how much smaller Russia’s economy is would be truly remarkable. Lastly, given the importance to China of Russia’s friendship attempts to scare Russia with some sort of Chinese “threat” are farfetched. As you absolutely correctly say, China’s best interests are served not by a conquered or defeated Russia but by a strong, independent Russia that is China’s friend. As it happens I have read comments by Chinese leaders (including Hu Jintao and Wen Jiabao) which say quite explicity that China recognises Russia’s predominant position within the former Soviet space in return for Russia’s support for China’s One China policy.
That is not to say that the relationship is not without its problems. Negotiations for gas and oil deliveries from Russia to China have become stuck with disputes about price with the Chinese trying to drive what might be an excessively hard bargain based on what may be misplaced expectations of future declines in energy prices. The Chinese might be well advised to remember that Russia is the only country in a position to supply China with the energy and raw materials China needs that is currently stable and reliable and in a position to defend itself and so able to guarantee supplies. Similarly the Chinese have shown a possibly unwise lack of respect for Russian intellectual property rights in connection with weapons transfers. It is entirely proper and fully understable that China should want to develop its own defence capacity and it has made great progress in that respect and will doubtless continue to do so but if it is going to lean on Russian technology to any extent to do this then it would be better advised to do it by talking with Russia about setting up a joint military industrial commission (as Russia and India have done) rather than by copying or reverse engineering Russian designs like the SU27 in ways that can only annoy the Russians.
Having said this, I am confident that these are basically teething problems in what is a burdgeoning and increasingly successful relationship. The fact that it is based on hardheaded calculations of mutual self interest rather than any romantic illusions by each country about the other is the best possible guarantee that it will be a lasting one.
Dear Alexander,
Thanks for your kind words! Thanks also for your very interesting comment about China.
First, I wish you all the best and success for the coming eye surgery.
“As anyone at all familiar with Chinese history knows China has historically been a profoundly unaggressive and pacific power.”
You are absolutely right about this. The Chinese were(and perhaps still are) an ‘insular’ people – perhaps the Great Wall is an icon of that insular tendency. The Chinese often fought civil wars to ‘unite the country’(Warring States period of Zhou dynasty/Three Kingdoms period/’north and south dynasties’ period etc.) rather than have expansionist policies. Periods in which China was ‘expansionist’ were, as you correctly put, during the Yuan and Qing dynasties in which the emperors were ethnic Mongol(Chinggisid) and Manchu(Aisin-Gioro) rather than Han.Despite present China under the Communist Party rather than emperors, I agree that the same ‘insular’, ‘pacifist’ tendency remains. The long-term interest of any regime that would emerge in China remains the same: national unity(i.e. a Taiwan that would be reintegrated into China). I do not think that China is keen on annexing neighbouring non-Chinese Asian states. That China would consider herself to have the most influence in East Asia is most likely(‘spheres of interest’) rather than any outright conquering of Asian countries.
Regarding Russia-China relations, I agree with your last sentence :-
“The fact that it is based on hardheaded calculations of mutual self interest rather than any romantic illusions by each country about the other is the best possible guarantee that it will be a lasting one.”
I think this is one reason that I am optimistic of good Russia-China relations.
Regarding the gas and oil disputes – I agree they are teething problems and one that probably both sides will ultimately have a mutually beneficial solution. I believe that oil and gas supplies would become tight in the foreseeable future and with the Middle East slowly spinning out of control, not only China , Japan and the Koreas would benefit from a more stable supply of both commodities from Russia. It is to both China and Russia’s interest to realize the oil and gas delivery agreements – the agreement would sustain China’s economic growth(especially the more ‘isolated’ northeastern provinces) and for Russia that would mean further economic development of the Russian Far East and a ‘bargaining chip’ in future ‘energy disputes’ with Europe(i.e. Russia has another ‘channel’/'customer’ for her oil and gas in East Asia). A rich and powerful Russia would also mean more consumers for China’s product – especially in the Asian part of Russia. It’s a win-win situation and I am optimistic that leaders of both Russia and China will finally break through this impasse.
Regarding weapons transfers – China has a lot to learn in respecting intellectual property rights. In this, Russia would be , ironically, be aided by Western nations. I think the West had been annoyed with this wholesale ‘copy-catting’ of their products and technologies by China. I would not be surprised that in future some form of international regulation(with ‘soft’ punitive action as well ) would be set up. That said, I think the weapons technology transfer issue will be one long-standing issue that’s not so easily sorted out compared to the oil and gas price dispute.
Nevertheless, I agree and am optimistic that Russia-China relations will remain good and that a powerful, independent and rich Russia is China’s boon.
sinotibetan
Hi Anatoly,
Thanks for your kind words!
sinotibetan
Sorry …an error. Supposed to be:-
“I myself am supportive of a strong China – one that can stand up to Western hegemony but I am against a rapacious, power-crazy China. I’d prefer a strong China that have good relations with Russia and neighbouring countries.
sinotibetan
A tale of how two former Soviet republics (Moldova and Ukraine) are portrayed:
http://aminuk.org/index.php?idmenu=12&idsubmenu=323&language=en
Comparative geopolitics can get geopolitically slanted.
Related to the former Moldavian SSR, I’m reminded of how some trump up the inaccurately outdated image of Pridnestrovie as a corrupt, intolerant arms trafficking state, while being comparatively mute on the crime and violence situation in Kosovo.
RT reports that Adagamov has fled Russia.
Also according to the relevant Norway police chief no criminal investigation has been launched against him.
Well, let’s wait and see if it’s true, first – I’m thinking of similar stop-the-presses announcements of Serdyukov’s flight by those eager to be first with the story – but if so…Gee, why would he do that? I mean, considering he didn’t do anything wrong, and is only a gentleman who refuses to implicate his ex-wife in making up ridiculous charges against him that have no basis in fact whatsoever.
Also, forgive me if I’m having a little trouble staying on top of this case, but wasn’t it once the story that Delsal is only making the story public now because she just found out? That the victim only recently came out with the truth? Because the RT story claims that it was Adagamov’s abuse of a girl who was then 12 years old that “caused her to seek divorce”. Huh?
This is a contradiction, true, and it needs to be clarified what Delsal knew and when she knew it. Whether the rape of the minor was the cause of her divorce, or she only just found out recently. My gut tells me that Delsal knew what was going on even back then, but she kept her mouth shut, in order to keep her marriage intact. Then something happened recently to bring all this back to the surface.
The basic timeline is as follows: the alleged victim was allegedly raped between the ages of 12 and 17. Once she turned 17, Adagamov started leaving her alone. Maybe she went off to school, or maybe he considered her an old crone at the age of 17 and turned his energies to fresher tail. The girl is now a young woman of 27. She is a Norwegian citizen. Some reporters claimed that she had gone to the Norwegian police. But now other accounts say the Norwegian police deny that she ever came to them. Unless she goes to them, they cannot proceed with a case. But she won’t go to them unless they can guarantee her anonymity.
This piece in DNI by Elena Kalashnikova takes a slightly different slant: EK writes about how the Opposition, after some initial waffling, has decided to really double-down and present a united front in full support of Adagamov:
http://www.dni.ru/polit/2013/1/24/247070.html
To this end, Opps have launched a blistering propaganda barrage on several fronts:
1) Attack the character of the ex-wife,
2) Point out that the statute of limitations has expired,
3) Kremlin is out to smear an innocent man because he is a member of the Coordinating Council, and, last but not least,
4) Smear the alleged victim, even though nobody knows who she is.
As to the latter point, EK quotes Dmitry Gubin (“Did Adagamov seduce a child? I don’t know. Did the child seduce Adagamov? I don’t know…”) and the particularly odious writer Alex Eksler: “Into the local police station staggers a 28-year-old lady who is stuffed to the gills with anti-depressants. Sucking on her lollilop, she lisps: ‘So when I was a wittle girl, my neighbor waped me….’ ”
As to whether or not Adagamov raped the child, I am an agnostic. How could I possibly know what happened, with such few facts? But by the same token, Opps should not be so cock-sure that their guy is innocent.
Their mockery is an indication what this alleged victim is in for if she decides to proceed with her case: She will have to endure the full blast of propaganda from Russian Opps and their western backers. And unless she has it on videotape, she cannot prove what happened to her 10 years ago. Honestly, if I were in her shoes, I wouldn’t even bother to put myself through that. What are the odds the Norwegian police would even listen to her, let alone take her side against a Russian dissident?
Dear Yalensis,
The smear campaign against the alleged victim – who has so far said nothing publicly about the case and who has brought no complaint against Adagamov – is completely disgusting. I wonder what Miriam Elder and Julia Ioffe and their like think about it. I am completely sure that if similar comments were made about an alleged female abuse victim by pro Putin commentators they would be full of righteous indignation about it and for once I would agree with them. As it is I find their silence more eloquent of their hypocrisy than a million words.
Turning to the case itself, the Norwegian police official has apparently made clear that the Norwegian authorities will open an investigation the moment the alleged victim herself comes forward. By contrast in Russia (as in Britain) an investigation can apparently be initiated purely on hearsay evidence (in this case from the ex wife). I prefer the Norwegian system but there it is. To suggest that either the ex wife or the alleged victim are acting at the bidding of the Kremlin (which is the only way claims that this is a political prosecution could work) is absurd.
Incidentally, going back to the question of the limitation defence, what Adagamov’s Russian defenders do not seem to appreciate is that the limitation period is extended beyond 10 years if the alleged victim suffered harm as a result of the assault. We know that there is a prima facie case that she did because she appears to have suffered from mental health problems caused by her injury. Since the Norwegian police official has made clear that the Norwegian police will investigate this alleged crime if the alleged victim comes forward it is clear that they at least do not feel that Adagamov has a limitation defence.
Lastly, if Adagamov really has fled Russia then I am afraid that that looks to me like highly incriminating conduct. Surely if he was innocent he would have been far better advised staying in Moscow and answering the charges? Even if he thinks the case against him is politically motivated (and as I have said, this is one case where I don’t see how it could be) it simply cannot get off the ground until the alleged victim herself comes forward or unless there is some other conclusive evidence like a film that proves beyond doubt that an assault took place. In the absence of such evidence even a politicall prosecution would be bound to fall apart. If Adagamov has fled then I am afraid that strongly suggests to me that he knows that such evidence does indeed exist. If Adagamov has fled to the west then his action will prove doubly misjudged if the Norwegians bring charges. As we all know he could not be extradited to Norway so long as he was in Russia. If Adagamov has fled to an EU country the Norwegians will have little difficulty extraditing him to Norway even though Norway is not a member of the EU.
If Adagamov has fled to the west then his action will prove doubly misjudged if the Norwegians bring charges. As we all know he could not be extradited to Norway so long as he was in Russia. If Adagamov has fled to an EU country the Norwegians will have little difficulty extraditing him to Norway even though Norway is not a member of the EU.
Maybe that’s the plan? After all, Norwegian prisons are a lot nicer than Russian ones.
I am incidentally completely agnostic about what actually happened. I daresay at this point it is also the only correct position.
Viz Norwegian prisons, I didn’t think of that. Perhaps he is actually going to Norway in which case it is wrong to say he has fled.
Alex:
In all the rumors flying around the case on-line, there was one rumor that Delsal claimed to have a home-movie taken by Adagamov showing the alleged victim at the age of 12 prancing around in her underwear. If Adagamov did collect such trophy videos, that would probably be incriminating, even if they didn’t show the actual alleged crime.
Another rumor has it that Adagamov fled to Spain. As you point out, this could make his extradition to Norway a lot easier, if it ever gets down to that. But I think Adagamov’s plan would not be to make himself available for extradition, but rather to live a free man in the West and be protected by Western governments.
As to whether or not this case is politically motivated, I think it could be both a legitimate criminal case AND politically motivated at the same time. I don’t see a contradiction there. When somebody goes into politics, their enemies start picking over their lives. I can see how Adagamov made himself prominent, and then certain people started to take a closer look and see if there is some skeleton in this guy’s closet. They found the ex-wife, and next thing you know, she is spilling the beans. But, unless it is an egregious frame-up, the case rises or falls based on its own internal merits, not on WHY it ever came to light.
As I think I mentioned before, there is allegedly a video, made by Adagamov, which shows the girl in question in her underwear when she was plainly a minor. If it really does exist, it would be damning, provided it could be proven that Adagamov made it. What possible legitimate purpose could there be for such a film? Was Adagamov thinking of branching out into lingerie, and wanted to practice interviewing models? Come on.
I also don’t believe the victim never told anyone else. Probably not her mother, that part of the story sounds fishy to me, but that would be a terrible burden for a girl to carry all those years, and I would bet she told someone at least part of it. And if she didn’t, I’d bet that saying she did would make Adagamov crack and confess. That’s assuming he is guilty, which he may not be. But if he isn’t, his behaviour certainly is odd.
I am not a mental health professional, so I don’t get it either, But when it comes to abnormal, counter-intuitive behavior, we have to listen to the experts: They say that child sexual abuse victims usually DO keep the secret. We’re not talking about some stranger jumping at them from behind a bush: This is somebody they know, who comes to dinner and hangs out with their family. And then seduces them. The process of accommodating to this person’s inappropriate behavior goes by the name “Abuse Accommodation Syndrome”.
Here is one article, for example, there are many such studies:
http://www.secasa.com.au/sections/for-students/the-child-abuse-accommodation-syndrome/
Also, look at that whole sick Catholic thing with the choirboys. Didn’t these boys keep the “omerta” silence for many many years? Children can actually be very good at keeping secrets, it is in the child’s nature to have secret clubs and rituals, and so on. This tendency can easily be exploited by charismatic authority figures who make them feel special.
Dear Yalensis and Mark,
As I think I have said before, the fact that the ex wife who is the person making these allegations is Norwegian all but disposes of the argument that this is a politically motivated smear campaign. I find it very difficult to believe that the Kremlin is able to control what an outraged ex wife says in Norway. Given the ex wife’s obvious motives in making the allegations that she is making there is no need to introduce a Kremlin angle in this story.
Personally, given that the source of the allegations against Adagamov are an angry ex wife and given that the alleged victim has made no complaint against him I would not have given much mileage to this story (and did not do so originally) were it not (as Mark rightly says) for the highly self incriminating behaviour of Adagamov himself. Not only has he conspicuously failed to answer the ex wife’s allegations, for example by saying that the emails his ex wife has had published have been altered, but if he really has fled to Spain (instead of going to Norway to face his accusers) then his conduct can only arouse the most serious possible concerns about his reasons for doing so. On the face of it, it looks like an attempt to avoid answering questions about the case that the Investigative Committee want to put to him. Though obviously he should be given the benefit of the doubt as someone who enjoys the presumption of innocence the inevitable question investigators and possibly the public will be asking themselves is why would he choose to do this if he is an innocent man?
Incidentally, viz a point made by Mark, if the film merely shows the alleged victim in lingerie then in my opinion it is not evidence of sexual assault and should be excluded from consideration at Adagamov’s trial. However I would prefer to see the film (if it exists) before reaching a final opinion about it.
Incidentally, you are absolutely right that child abuse victims tend to keep the fact of abuse to themselves. That is why the limitation period can be extended and almost certainly will be in this case if the alleged victim ever makes a complaint against Adagamov to the Norwegian police.
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/symbol-argentinas-decaying-navy-sinks-port-18294579
This is not to bash Argentina. Things were much worse in Russia but I haven’t heard of a warship sinking like this. Maybe Soviet warships were of better quality.
Putin does the right advocacy:
http://en.rian.ru/sports/20130124/178995281.html
Excerpt –
“MOSCOW, January 24 (R-Sport) – Sport is a crucial weapon for Russia to fight its demographic crisis by keeping people healthy, President Vladimir Putin said Thursday.
Russia’s population has fallen by more than five million since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 as a result of lower births rates and life expectancy, although recent government estimates show a small rise since the 2010 census.
We’re carrying out large-scale targeted interventions in the field of demographics, but without instilling a taste for sport, all of our efforts will have little effect on progress,” he said.
‘University sport should be ‘absolutely depoliticized’ and promote ‘fitness and a healthy lifestyle,’ he said.
Putin signed a government order two years ago to introduce sports scholarships for talented student athletes by providing them with extra government funding at university, and expressed frustration Thursday that the plan had yet to be implemented.”
****
As has been reviewed with greater detail, Russia’s demographic situation isn’t so dire in contrast to a good number of other European countries.
As excerpted, he seems to be favoring a nationwide fitness regimen for the athletically gifted and the rest of the population.
In reply tp Pitin’s pro athletic competition and recreation comments, someone said:
“It may do some good, but it is also a way of ‘doing something’ without threatening any significant vested interests or advocating unpopular lifestyle changes, as he would be doing if he tried seriously to tackle pollution, alcoholism, smoking, reckless driving, AIDS, drug addiction, MDR TB in the prisons, etc.
My follow-up –
Like Michelle Obama, whose recreational basketball playing husband smokes. He half jokingly said of his wife’s health activism that the White House might get egged on Halloween if raisons are given out instead of Recess pieces.
I’m sure Putin isn’t pro-smoking, pollution, reckless diving and drunkenness.
You touch on a valid point having to do with how being physically active can nevertheless include a number of unhealthy habits.
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20130125/179020061/Moscow-Plays-Down-Kazakhstan-Space-Port-Row.html
Two-bit Kazakhstan nationalism. As if Baikonur is something the current regime built and has the capacity to maintain. Russia should hurry up with the building of Vostochniy and the Plesetsk expansion. Leave Kazakhstan to launch bottle rockets and thump its chest. Idiots.
Well said, my friend… When I first saw statements about these “problems” last year, I exactly thought the same… In addition to this, these losers want to change Cyrillic for Latin alphabet by 2020… What do they want? Sucking up to Turkey and Azerbaijan next to Uzbekistan… So why are they fooling around with Custom’s Union? They can’t even agree on Baykonur.
Regarding Baikonur, in the early years of the Soviet breakup, I recall Susan Eisenhower siding against the Russian role when she was on a Pacifica Foundation radio show. If I’m not mistaken, at the time, she was still married to a prominent and (as I understand) ethnically aware and proud Tatar physicist Roald Sagdeev.
So there’s no misunderstanding, I’m not supportive of bigoted, chest thumping Russia/Russians are great and screw the others. At the the same time, I’m not for the reverse, which in some circles is downplayed as an issue.
Nazarbaev recently gave a thumbs up to the Customs Union. Post-Soviet Russian-Kazakh relations haven’t been without some differences.
On the subject of Tatars:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nail_Yakupov
The first number one NHL Muslim draft pick, he was captain of the Russian junior ice hockey team at the IIHF World Junior (under 20) Ice Hockey Championship.
Yakupov is so far doing well with the Edmonton Oilers:
http://www.edmontonsun.com/2013/01/25/controversy-aside-edmonton-oilers-have-no-problem-with-nail-yakupovs-knee-sliding-celebration-thursday
I have some Tatar blood from mother’s side. Tatarstan is doing quite well without having to give Russia the middle finger. Kazakhstan is getting 115 million US dollars per year in rent for Baikonur. I guess they want $1 billion or something. It’s all one big extortion racket. The facility does not require Kazakh government expenditures and Russia is paying for the cleanup of hydrazine contaminated areas. So Kazakhstan is clearly in the wrong here and this is not a matter of Russian chest thumping.
BTW, Kazakhastan will have to mothball or scrap the facility if Russia leaves. It’s not in the position to actually use it. So I find their theatrics to be grotesque and absurd. If Russia leaves they will have ZERO revenue from Baikonur aside from selling it for scrap.
And BTW, Kazakstan is another example of over-generous (at the expense of Russia) territorial gifting by the Soviets. Northern Kazakhstan where most of the Russian and Ukrainian population resides should never have been incorporated into the Kazakh republic. They can hardly claim this land as deeply ancestral. I am sure that being semi-nomadic they traversed it on numerous occasions but then so did other ethnic groups.
South Siberia.
Agree.
Both sides have made an effort to downplay the report in question.
http://en.trend.az/regions/casia/kazakhstan/2112308.html
“Azerbaijan, Baku, Jan. 26 / Trend E.Tariverdiyeva /
A meeting of Russian experts with Kazakh Foreign Minister Erlan Idrisov took place in Moscow. The round table was attended by a member of Trend Expert Council Alexei Vlasov, who shared his impressions regarding the meeting of leading Russian analysts with the minister.
Idrisov told the Russian experts that together with his counterpart Lavrov they agreed not to create a negative atmosphere over the issue of Baikonur and not to politicize the issue. Apparently, the issues that remain unresolved are those concerning the financial side of the problem – the amount that Russia provides for cosmodrome’s lease and maintenance of the infrastructure of the city, until the payment of pensions. It turns out that Moscow and Astana both have unanswered questions.
However, Idrisov believes that these issues have to be resolved by negotiations and not create unnecessary tension in the media.
In a dialogue with the head of Kazakh Foreign Ministry Vlasov offered to pay special attention to communications between experts, not only on integration issues, but also on the issues of Caspian Sea, for instance. Lack of contact between experts, in turn, leads to a shortage of information on mutual intentions, causing growing distrust. Idrisov agreed that the issue of communication between experts has not yet been adequately addressed, noting that such a situation should not be observed in relations between close partners.”
http://www.china.org.cn/world/2013-01/26/content_27800557.htm
“Russia and Kazakhstan will upgrade their relations to a new level of cooperation, foreign ministers of the two countries said Friday, denying reports of discords over a space center in Kazakhstan.
Astana and Moscow have been preparing a new friendship treaty which would move the bilateral relations to a higher level ‘in all directions,’ the Interfax news agency quoted the visiting Kazakh Foreign Minister Erlan Idrisov as saying.
Idrisov and his host Sergei Lavrov also denied recent Russian media reports that the two countries have been at odds over the Baikonur space center which Russia rents from Kazakhstan.
Astana earlier formally informed Moscow that it has to decrease launches of Proton rockets from Baikonur from 17 to 12 times this year, citing environmental concerns.
Lavrov urged the media ‘not to make a mountain out of mole hill’ and said he was not aware of how that information has leaked into mass media.
‘I would not talk about any disagreements. This is a working situation, our presidents understand a necessity to sort out all similar situations,’ the minister told the reporters.
He added that Russia did all its best to improve the Proton’s ecological safety.
In October 2012, Russian Federal Space Agency Roscosmos said it plans to upgrade Proton rocket carrier and Breeze booster for the upcoming launches.”
Yes, the article is terribly written with the usual weasel words such as “critics say” and “months of protests that have sapped Putin’s popularity” (naturally, with no poll numbers to back up this claim). In fact, despite this just being another tireless effort in Putin Bashing, one would think that this article would make an attempt toactually find out what his position is on the matter since he didn’t actually vote on it. I know that, generally speaking, Russia is a conservative society which does not look highly on homosexuality, but I’m still wondering if this will be an actual law since I can never take one-sided articles like this seriously.
http://news.yahoo.com/russian-parliament-backs-ban-gay-propaganda-154920419.html
Dear RC,
I get the impression that Putin himself generally avoids talking about the subject.
Viz the reference in the article to Putin supposedly blaming homosexuals for Russia’s population decline, this is something of a misquotation. Putin did not say that homosexuals were responsible for population decline, merely that as President he had to be concerned about the country’s demographic situation. The comment was made directly after a statement that so far as homosexual were concerned his position flowed from his official duties as President which required respect for sexual minorities. The juxtaposition of the two comments could be seen as critical of homosexuals but were not interpreted by the homosexual community in that way at the time as this article shows
http://www.ukgaynews.org.uk/Archive/07/Feb/0102.htm
So far as the new law is concerned, it reminds me of a law that was passed in the 1980s in Britain by the Thatcher government that forbade local authorities (which in Britain are responsible for education) from promoting homosexual propaganda. The law was bitterly resented by the homosexual community in Britain and was repealed by the Blair government though I always got the impression that its effect was largely symbolic as I expect the Russian law to be.
I should make it clear (before Peter jumps on me) that I don’t agree with this law since I see no value or purpose in outlawing something which either isn’t happening (eg. homosexual propaganda in schools) or (as in the case of homosexual pornography targeted at minors) is presumably already illegal when it is. The only effect of such a law is to stigmatise further an unpopular minority whose sexual conduct is (as Putin himself has said) actually legal. Despite the denials of its authors that must be the true purpose of this law,which is why the Russian Orthodox Church supports it. It should not be necessary to say that any law that stigmatises people is wrong.
This law forms part of the continuing conservative cultural backlash from the Pussy Riot affair, which has yet to run its course but which will no doubt peter out before long. I hope this backlash doesn’t do too much more damage along the way before it does.
Thank you Alexander.
I knew you’d be able to articulate this better than anyone. I’ve spoken to a few friends here in Los Angeles who somehow expect Putin to stand up and publicly express vocal support for Russia’s homosexual community. I told them that anyone expecting this will probably be in for a long wait. He is the presdient of a nation where polls show that the Russian populace is pretty much where the US was on the issue 40-50 years ago. One couldn’t realistically expect a politician to come out and express support for something that the country overwhelmingly opposes. I agree that as far as Putin is concerned, I really don’t think he cares much for the issue either way. The fact that he’s said that their conduct is “legal” is probably as close as he’s going to get to expressing support.
Characterizing sensible advice on safe sexual practices and frank talk about de-stigmatizing homosexuality is not “homosexual propaganda”. The percentage of people who experiment with it for adventure because they thought the literature on it made it sound like fun must be practically nil, and you either are or are not. The notion that being in proximity to gay people makes you “turn gay” is the same stupid argument parents peddled against marijuana when I was a teenager – that it made you want to do harder drugs. The pushback against LGBT people is a culture war in which the intolerant are trying to co-opt the government’s support by characterizing any mention of it that isn’t “stop all that queer stuff right now, you queers” as “homosexual propaganda” which is “encouraging kids to turn gay”. “Turning gay” for an adventure is for dilettante rock stars like Mick Jagger and David Bowie, and pretty much nobody else does it.
Homosexual couples do not have to contribute to population decline: they can adopt, and there is no reason they cannot be as good and effective parents as any other couple. That’s not the same thing as producing children, but it is promoting stable family values which have the potential to lead to stable heterosexual marriages for children; having gay parents does not make you “turn gay” either.
Yes, excellent comment, Alexander. I suspect that Putin, as a modern civilized man, is secretly sympathetic to the gay agenda, but he has to deal with the usual troglodytes and the Russian Orthodox Church, and so on. As the President of Russia, he has to take into account everybody’s feelings, including the Troglodytes.
As you point out, a lot of this fuss is backlash for Pussy Riot. It is not in the Russian character to just start stimatizing and excluding a group, unless people have been stirred up somehow. Those Pussy Riot idiots caused so much damage that even non-believers are rallying around the Church because they think traditional family values are under attack.
The silliest thing is the belief that “homosexual propaganda”, which is really just sex education, somehow dissuades people from getting married and having kids. Even gays end up having kids. They either get artificially inseminated, or adopt, Come to think of it, gay marriage could be one partial solution to the orphan problem.
Section 28 as it is known:
http://www.factbites.com/topics/Section-28
That weaselly dissident Shevchuk finally broke with the “Bolotnaya” opposition, complaining that they had no political program. No shit, Sherlock.
http://www.dni.ru/polit/2013/1/25/247134.html
Shevchuk is a master of going which way the wind blows. Opps are not cool any more, that’s why he just blew them a raspberry.
As a reminder just how creepy Shevchuk is:
Recall that during the 5-day 2008 war with Gruzia, after Russian peacekeepers had been been shot at (and some killed) by Gruzian sneak attack in Ossetia, Shevchuk’s response was to sing at a concert his pacifist song “Don’t shoot”. It was clear from context that he was not calling on Gruzians to “not shoot”, but rather calling on Russian soldiers to “not shoot back”.
Shevchuk regarded the Russian side as the bad guys and basically supported the Saakashvili side of that conflict. That’s okay, if that is what he believed. But didn’t have the balls to just come out and say so. So hid behind a mealy-mouth pacifistic song that takes a position without taking a position.
Ю. ШЕВЧУК: Этот концерт «Не стреляй», это наше мнение по поводу последних событий в Цхинвали. Грузия, Россия на Кавказе.
TRANSLATION
Shevchuk: This concert, “Don’t shoot”, this is our opinion regarding the recent events in Tskhinvali, Gruzia, Russia in the Caucacuses.
END OF TRANSLATION
[Followed by more creepy Shevchukian bullshit in his interview with "Ekho Moskvy".]
The code word here is “Tskhinvali”. Supporters of the Kartveli side of the conflict call the town “Tskhinvali”. Supporters of the Ossetian/Russian side call it “Tskhinval”.
http://www.echo.msk.ru/programs/personalno/541962-echo/
He’s clearly a musician first.
Ganopolsky/Hanopolsky is among the wonders at that station.
Dear Yalensis,
I read an interview Shevchuk gave recently in which he compared the idealism of the youth of the 1990s to the cynicism of the youth today. I am afraid I didn’t save it so I don’t have a link. It might have been on Radio Liberty’s website but I can’t find it now.
PS:Thanks for explaining about Tskhinval/Tskhinvali. The British media of course always refers to it as Tskhinvali so I assumed that was the correct name. I will know which name to call it in future.
Well, some people without an axe to grind could get away with calling the town Tskhinvali, because that’s the way it appears on a map, or just quoting from some other piece. In Shevchuk’s case, he was deliberately speaking in code and using the Gruzian variant of the name with the “-i” suffix. It was the equivalent at the time of people wearing a Gruzian flag tie-pin, or something like that. People who supported the Ossetian side were equally adamant about calling the town by its Ossetian name “Tskhinval”. I suppose some people might get confused and use the wrong name, because they can’t remember which is which. But that’s not the case with Shevchuk. He well knew the code.
And P.S. that doesn’t surprise me that Shevchuk, like Navalny, yearns nostalgically for the “romantic 90′s”. Hopeless liberals!
I don’t blame Shevchuk too much; I don’t even think he seriously is that political. He just fell for all the attention he was getting as the new Bob Dylan of the Revolution, and the chance for his music and message to break out of its national niche market. I would not be surprised if he were a little bewildered when he read some of the reviews of his performances and their rapturous description of how the crowd (three or four times its actual size, of course) had been carried away by his soaring democracy charismakarma, thinking, what? Is that what really happened? And then, yes, it must be, because it’s so sweet to believe you are an inspiration to millions even if it isn’t true. Shevchuk just deluded himself; he wasn’t the first, and he won’t be the last.
Note how Putin earlier interacted with him in an openly covered situation .
Much different from how B Clinton chose to answer Sister Souljah (pardon the likely misspelling of her name) – not that I’m a great supporter of the latter (as well as the former).
Concerning a faulty BBC presentation:
http://grayfalcon.blogspot.com/2013/01/praising-darkness.html
@ Misha: That BBC-hosted GCSE Bitesize history timeline is terrible and not only in getting its facts wrong and simplifying complex situations into good-versus-evil scenarios. The language itself is patronising towards 15 and 16-year-olds.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/history/mwh/ir1/tensionrev1.shtml
According to the BBC’s GCSE Bitesize view of history, the Romanov family was turfed out of power because the calendar used in Russia was out of date … presumably the Russians were losing the war because they were two weeks behind everyone else, especially the Germans.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/history/mwh/russia/longtermcausesrev1.shtml
Note also the sloppy treatment of the background to the Russian Revolution in 1917.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/history/mwh/russia/longtermcausesrev2.shtml
Jen,
There has been a track record on such matter. Consider some of the sources getting propped unlike some others. One example was just posted below this thread concerning a faulty JRL promoted media piece.
An earlier mentioned example of a faulty BBC historical presentation:
A biased BBC overview:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-18409776
Excerpts –
Russia occupied Poland for more than a century and dominated it during the Cold War, after World War II.
* Late 1770s – Poland is partitioned, Russia begins over 130 years of occupation
* 19th Century – Russia crushes Polish uprisings
* Conflict with Russia continues after 1917 Bolshevik Revolution
* 1939 – USSR and Nazi Germany secretly agree on new partition of Poland
* 1940 – Soviet police kill some 22,000 Polish officers and other elite prisoners at Katyn
* USSR turns Poland into a communist satellite state after World War II
* 1980s – Solidarity union in Poland plays a key role in defeating communism
* 2010 – Polish President Lech Kaczynski and 95 others die in Polish plane crash near Katyn, in Russia; Moscow’s sympathy leads to warmer relations
****
The above timeline is credited to BBCRussian.com.
To his credit, the British ESPN sportscaster of the Euro 2012 Russia-Poland football (soccer) match was more objective, when he briefly noted that the two countries have histories of attacking each other.
The above BBC piece omits:
- the earlier Polish subjugation of Russia prior to the late 1770s
- the close to 100,000 Poles who joined Napoleon in his attack on Russia in 1812
- the tens of thousands of Russian POWs who died under extremely inhospitable conditions in Polish captivity, during the Soviet-Polish War.
- Poland joining Nazi Germany and Hungary in the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia in 1938
Related article:
http://www.russiablog.org/2009/10/russian-polish-history-averko.php
As regards the BBC’s and many of my fellow countrymen’s apparent infatuation with all things Polish – possibly, I suspect, because “Poles hate Russians”, so they can’t be that bad – and the deceit perpetrated by Polish apologists in the the UK and elsewhere by their portrayal of the Poles as a nation of sweet innocents continuously preyed upon by the evil Russians (little or no mention, of course, of Austrian and Prussian participation in the Polish partitions) and their ommission of less savoury points of Polish history, in particular that of Polish expansionism that resulted in the Polish-Muscovite War and the creation of the expansionist Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the attempt by Poland to recreate said Polish Commonwealth and its “Międzymorze” some 100 years or so after its demise by means of the Polish-Soviet War of aggression against the newborn and wracked by civil war Soviet Union, the German-Polish Non-Aggression Pact (if the German-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact was so odious a treaty, why not then the earlier German-Polish one?), the post-Munich crisis Polish seizure of Czechoslovakian and Lithuanian territory, it comes as no surprise that the Polish “revenge” alliance with Buonaparte in his 1812 attack on the Russian Empire is duly lauded by them.
The plucky Poles (they fought for us in the RAF during the “Battle of Britain”, don’t you know!) are, it seems, in popular British opinion always the oppressed underdog, their historical oppressors for centuries being the wicked Russians and in more recent times the evil “Soviets” (read: Russians) and the indescribably horrific Nazi Germany, which two political entities are, of course, the same thing, because Nazi means “national-socialist” and “Soviets” were “communists and that means “socialist” and they were both as bad as each other and blah blah blah….
How, I wonder, would these Polish apologists in the UK consider the actions of these plucky Poles then, as shown in this artist’s impression of the near annihilation of three out of four infantry regiments of a British army brigade at the Battle of Albuera (1811), where “only the fourth, the 31st Regiment of Foot, was able to save itself” from Polish lancers (Vistula Uhlans) and hussars “by forming into squares. The cavalry pressed on against … [a] supporting KGL [King's German Legion] artillery battery and captured its guns … Having captured five regimental flags and eight cannon the Uhlans swept past the 31st’s square, scattering Beresford and his staff, and attacked the rear of Zayas’s line”.
I say, steady on old chaps! We’re not damned Russkies, donchya know!
(By the way, I like Poles: I worked alongside them for many years and have always got on fine with them. Not all Poles hate Russians.)
True.
I reckon I’m in the running for winner of the “Writer of the Longest Sentence” contest after having perused that first paragraph of my last posting.
Eart your heart out Charles Dickens!
“it was a dark and stormy night, as the Polish lancers steadily advanced, their faces grim yet lustful for revenge, on the last, best, desperate survivors of the misconceived cavalry advance later known to history as the “Charge of the Light Brigade”, those few English survivors trembling in fear as a terrible death approached them; while the Polish hussars whipped past on their magnificent foaming steeds, the feathery manes on their helmets singing and screaming like wild animals on the attack…”
Historically inaccurate – I know, I know, don’t bother telling me… But no worse than some of the above…
The Anglosphere likes to support the politics of division, and I suspect pursues its love affair with Poland largely to keep the enmity with Russia alive and breathing. It’s true that not all Poles hate Russians, but it’s equally true that very far from all of Russia is “rising up” against the “tyrant Putin” although that’s the way the Moscow Times tells it; for an English-speaking audience, of course. I wonder how warm Washington would be to the idea of a Russian-language newspaper originating from Washington which heaped scorn and garbage upon America day in, day out?
The UK and USA see the possibility of splitting the Poles off from Russia and creating a vocal enemy of Russia on its doorstep. That’s why the insistence on stationing missile defense there or a fighter base, the constant crowing about Poland’s huge shale gas reserves which are about to finish Russia as an energy producer once and for all and the truculent taking of Poland’s side in every dispute, such as the crash of the Presidential plane at Smolensk. It’s just to make Poles feel how important and valued they are to the Western alliance and how much it loves them and yearns to bring them into the fold. I’m sure not all Poles buy it.
On that note, Craig James Willy has a couple of interesting posts about the EU’s economic woes, here.
This is nothing new for Poland. It has been trying to be a thorn in Russia’s side for hundreds of years. But these days Poland and the policy of sicking European statelets on Russia is obsolete. What is Poland going to do? Invade like in the 1600? In fact, open Russia hate begets a blowback as Russians who previously did not hold any hate for the west and Poland start to feel resentment and perhaps even do some digging about Poland’s history in the last 100 years.
The only thing that the British policy achieves is that the Russian electorate votes for Putin and in the future for similar candidates instead of Yavlinsky and other trash the British would prefer were in office. The deciders in the UK and USA seem to think that Russia is so weak that yapping from abroad will install a comprador regime. They really need to put the crack pipe down.
The western infatuation with Poland took off in the 1830s after the failure of the Polish uprising of 1830. By this time both Britain and France had become hostile to Russia and they picked up the Polish cause with enthusiasm. Adding fuel to the flame were large numbers of Polish exiles who fled Poland at this time and spread their anti Russian propaganda rhetoric across Europe. Chopin and Mickiewicz are examples. Chopin actually was only half Polish (his father was French) and he lived much of his short adult life in Paris. His very strong identification with Poland is typical of someone who is actually unsure of his roots.
The story of the 1830 uprising is in some ways a very tragic one since I personally cannot see that it was for Poland anything other than a major missed opportunity. Alexander I in setting up Congress Poland effectively re established Poland as an independent state with its own constitution (supposedly the most liberal in Europe) and its own army. He remained its King and continued to have overall control of its foreign policy but other than that the Poles were to a very great extent left alone to take care of themselves. This was the arrangement that worked well in Finland and I would have thought it was in the Poles’ own best iinterests to try to make the arrangement work. It is sometimes said that Nicholas I wanted to reverse this arrangement but I have seen no evidence of this. I understand that for Poles brought up on memories of the great Polish kingdom of the Sixteenth and Seventeeth Centuries the reduced version of Poland represented by Congress Poland represented a major retreat but given the power realities of the period it was the best arrangement on offer and on any objective assessment Alexander I’s settlement was a very generous one. The Poles threw it away so that Poland ceased to exist in any form until 1918. I am not sufficiently versed in Polish history to be able to say why. I have heard it suggested that what drove the revolt was fear on the part of the Polish aristocracy that the tsar might one day liberate their serfs. I have also heard that this was also part of the motivation for the Polish revolt of the 1860s, which of course happened shortly after Alexander II liberated the Russian serfs. If that is true then it looks to me like a perfect case of a ruling class hiding behind national slogans whilst defending its class interests (and bringing disaster on its people in the process).
Incidentally the single most extraordinary example for me of the British propensity to treat Poland as Russia’s perpetual victim was an article I read in the Guardian in connection with Kacszynsky’s burial in Wawel Castle following the Smolensk air crash. The Guardian mentioned that Kacszynsky was being buried next to Pilsudski, who it described as “the Polish General who defended Warsaw from an invading Russian army”. Those familiar with the history of the Soviet Polish War of 1920 do not need to have the absurdity of this comment explained to them. Following its logic Hitler was the German Chancellor who whilst fighting an “invading Russian army” died defending Berlin.
There is quite a bit of exaggeration about the wrongs perpetrated by Russia and then the USSR (Russia in their eyes) against Poland. Take the Warsaw uprising during WWII. The typical narrative is that Stalin betrayed the uprising by not sending forces to assist. This is utter rubbish.
1) This uprising was planned by the anti-Soviet Polish government in exile and not coordinated with the USSR. This by itself is enough to debunk the “USSR perpetrated indignity” myth.
2) The USSR did not have the leisure to dispatch forces willy nilly. The fighting on the *retreating* eastern front was intense throughout the war. The Germans were conditioned to hate and fear the Soviet untermenschen. In contrast, on the western front the German fight was much softer and at the end it basically collapsed totally unlike on the eastern front. Germans moved the heavy guns from coastal installations in the west to the eastern front and there was no letting up until the fall of Berlin. In other words, the eastern front in 1944 was not in a state of collapse with Germans running home which would free up Soviet resources to assist the Warsaw uprising.
3) over 17 million Soviet *civilians* died during WWII on top of the nearly 10 million solders of whom 3.4 million died from exposure and starvation in German open air POW “camps” aka compounds. The first people through the ovens at Auschwitz were Soviet POWs, who were forced to build the camp in the first place. Now we have revisionist Poles claiming they were the ones dying at Auschwitz. So, Polish nationalists, cry me a river.
On the Warsaw Uprising, Heinz Guderian is referenced for having expressed the view that the Soviets needed time to regroup.
The Nazi crushing of the Polish rebellion reveals that the former could still deliver a potent enough blow if their adversary didn’t prudently advance. it has alos been said that the Soviet had other strategic options to consider. I understand that In the initial phase of the Warsaw Uprising, there was some Polish nationalist propaganda brazenly suggesting that the Soviet Union wasn’t needed. That’s just what a shrewd SOB like Stalin needed to hear.
As was true with the Yugoslav royal government, Churchill had to go along with seeing the Soviet preferences in Poland and Yugoslavia. In contrast, the West supported the anti-Communist Greeks against their Communist adversaries. In that situation, the Soviet role in Greece was limited as part of the geoplitical understanding reached among the Big 3 (US, UK and USSR).
I’ve previously noted the comparative differences between how Poland and Finland were treated by Imperial Russia.
Prior to becoming a part of the Russian Empire, the Finns weren’t such a happy part of Sweden. The Finns’ hostility towards Russia was nowhere near that of Poland. Finland didn’t threaten pre-Soviet Russia the way Poland did. These factors likely played an influence on how pre-Soviet Russia viewed the two.
@ Misha: I’ve heard that the Finnish name for Finland, “Suomi”, comes from a Swedish word “somi” which means “the masses”, as in the hoi polloi. Finnish soldiers were used as shock troops against the Russians by the Swedes and supposedly had a reputation as unruly and lacking in discipline: not so very different from the way the British regarded Australian and Canadian troops and treated them during World War I. So perhaps it’s not so surprising that the Finns had a less combative attitude towards the Russian tsars than the Poles did. In a sense, the Finns aren’t really comparable to the Poles: a better if hypothetical comparison with Poland under Russian imperial rule would be Sweden under Russian imperial rule.
I believe also that the Polish nobility (szlachta) exercised immense influence in Poland-Lithuania, especially after the mid-1500s when they started the practice of electing foreigners as kings. This was originally to thwart favouritism at the Polish court but one weakness of the system is that it favours the election of impressionable men as kings. Another weakness is that foreigners wishing to take over Polish territory could present themselves as candidates for election and I think this is how Poland gradually became weaker and subject to power struggles among Austria, Russia and Prussia.
Jen,
I compared the two in question (Poland and Finland) to show why they were treated differently by pre-Soviet Russia.
As has been touched on, the Polish nobility had elements seeking foreign assistance. Especially when considering what the times were like, the Russian Empire didn’t seek to completely stamp out Polish identity. The Polish domination over Russia included some (put mildly) overbearing aspects.
And speaking of the “romantic 90′s”:
Politrash latest blog (on Western-inspired looting of Russia in the 90′s) links to 3 pieces by kovane and a book out on amazon called “Sale of the Century”:
http://politrash.ru/704/
Sale of the Century: Russia's Wild Ride from Communism to Capitalism
Has anyone read the Chrystia Freeland book? Is it any good?
Hey, yalensis! Just a little correction – that’s actually my post
My bad, sorry about that kovane. Good pieces, though!
The comment by Igor Biryukov is good and makes me lose interest in this book.
Here is a part of it:
“However, the most important thing is that the book appears, as the French say, engagé. I believe this book’s real purpose is to divert attention from the individuals and institutions, which are really responsible for the debacle of the Russian privatization. For one thing, she mentioned the name of Gregory Yavlinsky only once in her 360-page long book about Russian capitalist revolution and only at the end of the book. Yet, Yavlinsky, who is household name in Russia and twice-also-ran-presidential-candidate, was one of the midwives of Russian privatization. His `500 days’ program was written in the late 1980s with Mikhail Gorbachev’s blessing. It was supposed to transform Soviet centralized economy into a market economy by the end of 1993. Yavlinsky resigned form the government after Gorbachev rejected the program in 1990. Neither this is mentioned in the book, nor the fact the Harvard University fellows, like Graham Allison, were promoting ideas and giving intellectual impetus to Yavlinsky and Shatalin (another Russian co-author of the program).”
A classic Australian Open women’s final:
http://espn.go.com/tennis/aus13/story/_/id/8883841/australian-open-victoria-azarenka-defeats-li-na-second-straight-title
Congrats!
The men’s final looks to be a great one as well.
Good results for Russia in the pairs at the European Figure Skating Championships:
http://www.isuresults.com/events/cat00027962.htm
http://www.isuresults.com/events/cat00027961.htm
A faulty JRL promoted media piece on RT and The Moscw Times (TMT or MT for short):
http://russialist.org/re-2013-13-johnsons-russia-list-re-robert-bridge-on-the-moscow-times/
Note the broad swipe against RT without substantiation. As for TMT, it has definitely slanted in a certain brash direction with numerous examples. Put mildly, it’s questionable to believe that TMT is more objective than RT, with both exhibiting imperfections.
A few years back, TMT ran sympathetic commentary to the comparatively hypocritical view that Russia’s readopted national emblem is “too Christian”. (Hypocritical in the sense that numerous other flags and emblems throughout the world exhibit clearer examples of a given religious denomination.) The then MT editor shot down my reasoned rebuttal by simply saying that TMT doesn’t run such commentary.
On the subject of RT and TMT – INOSMI and The Kazan Times are among the venues which picked up this piece unlike JRL:
http://www.eurasiareview.com/02042012-coverage-of-russia-uncensored-analysis/
Excerpt –
“English is the modern day lingua franca, with reasonable pro-Russian advocacy regularly getting the shaft, in the world’s most influential language. On the subject of English language online newspapers, in the former Soviet Union: the Ukrainian based, non-Ukrainian owned Kyiv Post does a better job at presenting nationalist, anti-Russian leaning commentary than the Russian located, non-Russian owned Moscow Times does at presenting reasoned pro-Russian views.
The Russian government funded 24/7 English language television news station RT (which has formally dropped the name “Russia Today”) covered Harding’s denied entry without (to my knowledge) doing similarly with Trifkovic getting rebuffed. In reality, RT falls well short of this immature characterization that the Kyiv Post (KP) runs when posting selected RT material – ‘Editor’s Note: The following story was published online by Russia Today, a Kremlin funded information organization that has been criticized for its anti-Western and anti-Ukrainian propaganda.’ The KP does not provide disclaimers when it frequently carries material from the likes of Alexander Motyl, who exhibit clear biases against Russia.
(Specifics on Motyl’s commentary placed in the KP and elsewhere, are addressed in ‘Russia as Provocateur?,’ Eurasia Review, November 15, 2011 and ‘Addressing Some Views About Bandera, Russia and Ukraine,’ Eurasian Home, April 1, 2010. Concerning how RT is depicted and what that station has covered, see ‘Uncovering the Slanted Coverage of Russia,’ American Chronicle, November 10, 2010.)
RT is a blend of something different from Western mass media, while nevertheless being influenced by it. One anti-Russian source said that RT’s decision to formally drop Russia Today as its official name is due to (according to that source) Russia’s insignificance. Note the number of worldwide aired and (to a good extent) government funded television news networks maintaining a formal name revealing a national origin, along with a popularly used shorter version like the BBC-British Broadcasting Corporation, DW-Deutche Welle, CCTV-China Central Television, RAI-Radio Audizioni Italiane, Radiotelevisione Italiana and France 24. DW’s website has a passage stating: ‘DW represents Germany in the international media landscape. Germany’s international broadcaster conveys the country as a nation rooted in European culture and as a liberal, democratic state based on the rule of law.’
The decision by RT to formally drop Russia Today as its name is a wrong move. RT’s greatest appeal is offering something different, inclusive of a mainstream Russian perspective. Why diminish and/or not be proud of this attribute?”
****
On the subject of RT, the Valdai Discussion Club is among the venues which picked up this piece unlike JRL:
http://www.eurasiareview.com/20112012-marketing-putin-and-russia-to-a-foreign-audience-analysis/
Excerpt –
“The Russian government funded 24/7 English language television news network RT (no longer formally known as Russia Today) has served as a clear counter-point to the slants evident in Western mass media. The latter’s criticism of RT includes some negatively inaccurate comments. For quality control purposes, RT should receive a constructively fair review, along with other news organizations. Some folks come across as preferring to have a noticeably faulty RT to kick around. RT has the appearance of carrying on in an above the clouds mindset – something that seems to exist elsewhere.
The day following the nationally televised October 16 Obama-Romney debate, RT’s homepage listed as the number one world news headline, the arrest of two Green Party candidates, who decided to sit within a roadway near where the debate was being held. At the time, this act was done within hours before the event, in an area that was under heightened security. Before getting arrested, the Green Party candidates were informed by law enforcement personnel that their sit down position was hindering traffic. The two candidates did not move after being asked to do so by the authorities at the scene.
RT’s presentation of this occurrence (as the number one world news headline) appears like it could very well be an overkill payback for the faulty Western mass media coverage of Pussy Riot. This thought is stated with the belief that the motivation behind the Green Party candidates’ action (a protest, having to do with the limited clout of a political alternative to the Republicans and Democrats in the United States) is a worthy enough news item to cover. That said, countering BS with BS is not as convincing as an intelligently presented overview, which is not along the lines of an overt propaganda delivery.
In contrast to how some perceive RT, the October 22 RT posted commentary ‘The Unknown Putin’, un-approvingly describes the coverage (by a major Russian television network) of the Russian president living in opulence. Having not yet seen this particular segment, one respectfully wonders just how opulent the Russian president lives, relative to numerous other world leaders? At least for now, the level of Russian public discontent with Putin’s lifestyle seems to fall well short of a massive outrage and widespread protests.
Criticizing Putin and/or Russian mass media appears to offer greater professional opportunities than the criticism of some other subjects. The coverage stands to improve with a greater worldwide across the political spectrum, which should not include or be confused with factually limited diatribes. Seeing what has existed, consideration should be given to change some of the decision making at the higher profile of venues. For the purpose of providing a more objective coverage, this advocacy should not be subject to getting penalized.
In summation, the Western mass media and body politic are not solely responsible for the negatively inaccurate coverage of Putin and Russia. At times, this duh like observation seems to get overly deemphasized among some (certainly not all) Russophile leaning elements.”
****
Unlike JRL, Pravda.Ru is among the venues that picked up this piece which answers a Guardian article on RT:
http://www.eurasiareview.com/09052012-rape-russia-and-imagery-analysis/
Improvement comes with qualitative changes made in the decision making process.
Newly created venues that are purportedly intended to offer a different view are contradicting themselves when they promote much of the same old, same old.
Political biases and cronyism continue to hinder an overall more objective and better situation, among the higher profile of venues.
I blinked and almost missed this gem by Politrash from a couple of weeks ago. Acting in tandem with hacker Hell as he sometimes mysteriously does, Politrash exposes more Navalny private emails, this time focusing on Navalny’s correspondence with Thomas Firestone and Ali Jalili. (Hint: if you’re near-sighted like me, then zoom in to 200%, that makes the screenshots more readable.)
I don’t have to translate anything, because most of the emails are in English.
Thomas Firestone has title “Resident Legal Advisor” at the Moscow Embassy, and reports to the Department of Justice. His project is called “Support to the reform of the criminal justice system in Russia and assistance to increase the level and quality of U.S. -Russian law enforcement cooperation”.
Ali Jalili has title “First Secretary, Oil and Gas Officer, Economic Section”, American Embassy in Moscow. Along with Firestone, these two are extremely interested in crooked oil and gas deals with Russia. That’s okay, that’s their job. The issue is Navalny’s beaver-like activity in attempting to expose (using legal means such as shareholder-disclosure laws) secret oil/gas contracts and his incessant attacks against state-owned entitites such as Rosneft and Transneft. Well, Navalny is an anti-corruption crusader and whistle-blower who is pure of heart like Parsifal, right?
Or not… The implication is that Navalny’s ulterior motive in his “transparency” crusade is for the purpose of economic espionage and funnelling more info to his Western handlers. Well, this is nothing new, people have been poring over this stuff for a very long time.
Politrash ends with a slide-show that was downloaded by Navalny sometime in 2011, this slideshow concerns a closed auction for military contracts (weapons and so on). I think Apetian is implying that Navalny, using his usual methods, obtained secret info about a Russian weapons procurement auction, and then passed it along to his American handlers (??) – not sure though, this bit is confusing.
In the comments section, one commenter presents an e-ticket showing Navalny’s trip to Spain in summer of 2011, with the implication that he went there to pass the state secrets onto Firestone. My own theory at the time was that Navalny kept “vacationing” in Spanish-speaking countries because his CIA handler is Spanish-speaking. But I don’t think Firestone is Hispanic. Why go to Spain to meet with Firestone? They could just as well meet in Moscow. Or Navalny could just leave his slideshow for Firestone inside a drop. A hollowed out rock would be perfect for that.
I messed up first link, sorry, here it is:
http://politrash.ru/608/
This is why state ownership of the oil and gas industry in Russia is a good idea. It should be immune from US efforts to control it through dirty tricks and offshore operations. Mr. Jalili probably has little to do these days unlike back in the days of Yukos and Khodorkovsky. All dressed up and nowhere to go, how sad…not. This is why the west is staging a hate propaganda campaign against Russia and Putin. It is fuming mad it can’t f*ck Russia over like some 3rd world banana republic and get its resources for free. And to think that Russia actually makes money out of selling oil and gas on the world market and invests this money at home. The gall!
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-01-27/guest-post-monetary-malpractice-dysfunctional-markets
Good article on CPI fraud. The CPI definition changes over the last 30 years have been systematic in their downsizing of this measure. This is pure BS. So when comparing the CPI in Russia to the CPI in the USA one has to be extremely careful and not take them to be equivalent measures. A 6% inflation rate in Russia is basically zero inflation in the USA. Obvious nonsense.
I will also add that food availability in my local stores has degraded noticeably in the last few years. I live in Canada but it is subject to similar CPI shenanigans as the USA. So while allegedly the inflation rate is low and not rising, I see less availability and price rises that are several times the 2% claimed by official statistics for all of consumer inflation. The official statistic does not jive with reality even if only 1/3 is supposed to be from food. This reminds of inflation in the USSR with its fixed prices: longer bread lines and shortages. I am seeing the same thing in Canada. It hasn’t gotten as bad as the USSR but it is moving in that direction.
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20130127/179062461/Assads-Chances-to-Keep-Power-Smaller-and-Smaller—Medvedev.html
Medvedev is heralding the end of Assad’s regime.
I think I’m starting to “get” what everyone around here has been saying about Medvedev. The French & Jordanians finally come out and acknowledge that Assad isn’t likely going anywhere, so good ol’ Medvedev decides to throw a curve ball.
The only way the Assad government will collapse is with NATO intervention. It could still collapse without it eventually, but it would probably take years OR decades. Naturally, the western press has already taken Medvedev statements and spun them to mean this is the end for Assad (I think I’ve lost track of the number of times we’ve been told this) when he was likely just giving his own opinion. The facts on the ground now clearly contradict Medvedev’s view, and just what “moderates” do he think Assad should be speaking with? If he means those stooges that the US/NATO cobbled together who don’t reside within the country nor represent the Syrian population, then he’s got to be kidding.
Medvedev can be so damn naive…………
Al Jazeera really played up that comment from him.
Medvedev is not naive. Nor is he a traitor. He is simply a pro-Western liberal, those are his actual views. Only a small minority of Russian public agree with him, though. Putin’s views are more in line with majority opinion.
“Only a small minority of Russian public agree with him, though. Putin’s views are more in line with majority opinion.”
….And indeed, that’s a GOOD thing!
God yes! If Medvedev had been Prez another 4 years, Russia would have woken up one day to find herself an inadvertent colony of NATO.
http://en.rian.ru/sports/20130127/179061924/Russian-Bobsled-Team-Germans-Dont-Play-Fair.html
“Since the East German team of 1968 was stripped of their medals at the Grenoble Olympics for heating their runners to increase their track speed, German sliders have periodically suffered accusations of foul play.”
This story may sound like sour grapes but if it is true that the officials overlook the German team applying special coatings to their sliders then this is a valid accusation. Everyone knows about klisters and wax in skiing. With enough time and money you can play around with chemicals that will bind to metal and heat up on contact with H2O as well.
I always thought the endless yapping about Russian athletes “cheating” by blood cell boosting was lame. They can’t test for all types of chemicals in the blood stream and some natural compounds can be very effective at boosting muscle function and endurance. If we are going to have fraction of a second differences in the podium standings then all results are basically meaningless. It’s which country has the best research and development in human performance. Sounds not like such a big surprise that the Germans are using chemical engineering tricks and the USA uses athletic performance enhancement tricks.
I heard a doctor with some IOC involvement say that with better detection methods, it’s possible to retroactively check blood samples from years ago with a more accurate finding. That facet opens up a pandora’s box of sorts. It seems that the cheats are initially ahead. On the other hand, the Olympic movement stands to be greatly tainted by retroactively stripping medals that were awarded awhile back.
Americans are sore losers and they love to accuse other countries of cheating, but, damnit, “what about” Lance Armstrong?
Having said that, I personally believe the “war on doping” is as futile and unwinnable as the “war on drugs”. Might as well just let the elite athletes go at it and do whatever they want to their bodies. If everybody is doping, then the best person will still win.
People will say, “Where does it all end?” Well, obviously with cyborg athletes.
Further encourages a situation of haves and have nots. A difficult situation to manage. Somewhat related is the issue pertaining to technologically more advanced and expensive swimwear. Consider the advantages the talented and wealthy will have over the talented and not so wealthy. Putting that example aside, the latter face enough of an uphill battle.
Lance has been getting a good deal of negativity in the US. In Major League Baseball, sterioid and alleged steroid users didn’t fare well in the recent Baseball Hall of Fame voting.
I felt kind of bad about Lance Armstrong, too; I wanted it to not be true, because he was an inspiration to so many, and he seemed to be such a simple, great guy. He still is a tremendous inspiration as an athlete. But it’s like pushing the rules in any sport; I recall a stock-car driver being banned from a major race because he or his mechanic had bent his front license plate (this was at a provincial level, if I remember right; pro stock cars don’t have license plates and are usually trailered, but for certain classes the vehicle must be street legal and is usually driven to the race) in such a way that it served as an air scoop to funnel more cooling to his engine. How much of a difference would that actually make? Apparently, the answer is “enough”. For athletes not actually taking steroids – which I believe Armstrong was not – you can only ever build so much muscle mass, and it’s not about that, but about being able to tolerate higher levels of pain and exhaustion. I fully believe Armstrong could have won most or all of his races without any aid. But he took it, and that’s that.
I used to hate the way Americans scream “USA!!!! USA!!!!” at sporting events, until you can’t hear anything else, like it was a war or something instead of a game, and so far as I’ve noticed nobody else does it. But I guess that’s just their way of showing support and for them a victory for their team really is a victory for the country. It’s hard to be annoyed at that. And it’s better than sporting events that don’t draw any spectators because people think sports are boring.
As has been described in media reports, many are especially turned off by the way Armstrong used bullying tactics to hush up the claims against him.
The issue of who was great regardless of drug use is an issue in Major League Baseball. It’s generally accepted that Barry Bonds and Roger Clemons would’ve Hall of Fame careers had they not taken performance enhancing drugs.
If I’m not mistaken the “USA!” chant really first picked up in 1980 with the American ice hockey team. They were a great Cinderella story, coupled by the backlash mood in the US having to do with a number of factors like the American military experience in Southeast Asia, the Iran hostage crisis and the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan – the latter which the US at large shouldn’t have felt dissed.
I’m all for a reasoned patriotism that falls short of being especially chauvinistic. I agree that it’s better to have a packed enthusiastic crowd over a near empty arena. On a somewhat related note, the Oilers’ number 1 pick Nail Yakupov received some flack for this display:
On a weekly NY ice hockey show, the analysts were unanimous in giving that celebration a thumbs up, with some understanding why the opposing team might want to take a run at him. Something akin to a batter showboating a homerun trot in baseball. The next time up, he can expect getting shaved by an inside fastball.
Lance didn’t use steroids. I think he used testosterone, cortisone, his own blood, and a variety of other cocktails. Then he lied about it for years, and now he has to go crawling on his belly and give up all his medals. I personally don’t care, because bicycles mean nothing to me.
Have a care, you dilettante, debauched car-driving Philistine. I ride a bike to and from work every day, and while I will never win the Tour de France or have a rubber bracelet named after me, I am reducing my carbon footprint and staying healthy. Except for when we go to visit the Burgess Shale, of course, when we will drive in fossil-fuel consumptive style. I hope you didn’t forget.
This piece can be filed under the category of history as a propaganda tool:
http://greatersurbiton.wordpress.com/2012/12/10/remembering-the-crimean-peoples-republic/
From a biased anti-Russian (as well as anti-Serb source), no mention of the slave trade and raids against others from Crimea when it was Tatar dominated in rule.
Related piece:
http://www.eurasiareview.com/13102010-beyond-the-edward-lucas-peter-hitchens-exchange-on-russia-and-ukraine/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Crimean_Wars
Crimea was a bigger slave point than West Africa, and Crimean Tatars treated slaves much worse than slaves in the Americas. Also, Crimean Tatars would demand huge tributes from Russians, although they continued to capture Russian and Ukrainian peoples to sell in the Ottoman markets.
http://www.econ.hit-u.ac.jp/~areastd/mediterranean/mw/pdf/18/10.pdf
Regarding that Hoare promoted propaganda piece, the aforementioned Russian Civil War era Crimean Tatar entity didn’t have anywhere near the clout of the White Russian political presence as as been acknowledged by numerous academic sources with a specified expertise on that subject.
Without checking back, if I’m not mistaken, the Hoare promoted propaganda piece omits any mention of the Whites. Regarding violence/discrimination in Crimea, the Bolsheviks did a number on Crimean based elements who were considered pro-White. (Not that the Whites didn’t have atrocities committed from within their ranks.) Then again, the Whites had a non-Communist and Russian identity, which doesn’t make them popular with either Russia haters or left leaning Soviet nostalgic types.
In media, academia and mass body politic, there remains clear instances of cultural and ideological biases.
I’m reminded of this piece:
http://rbth.ru/articles/2012/12/06/hi-tech_museum_chronicles_jewish_history_in_russia_20877.html
Excerpt –
“Many famous Russians, were in fact Jewish, even if they did not identify as such. Leon Trotsky – a brilliant but cruel revolutionary – was Jewish and propagandized as one, even though he called himself an internationalist and declined to help out the Jews as the Whites carried out pogroms during the Russian Civil War.”
****
Trotsky wasn’t in a good position to help Jews in territory which wasn’t under Red control. Moreover, Russian Civil War era Red controlled areas weren’t (on the whole) effectively centralized and included instances of wanton violence.
The above article makes no mention of the pogroms carried out by forces headed by Ukrainian separatist Symon Petliura. For most of the post-Russian Civil War period, the general consensus seems to be that Petliura’s forces were mostly responsible for the pogroms. Among pro-Ukrainian nationalist/anti-Russian leaning sources and those influenced by them, claims have been made that the Whites committed the most pogroms.
Regarding this matter, consider the number of pro-Petliura/anti-White leaning sources over those reflecting more of a constructively critical White perspective. This book reflects the latter:
White Against Red: The Life of General Anton Denikin
The Whites had lower and some upper elements that were involved in the violence against Jews. There was no master plan for such activity, which included an unstructured manner; on territory where the pogroms had already been evident, during the prior period of control by Petliura’s forces. When Peter Wrangel became supreme commander of the Whites, the level of violence among White forces decreased.
In exile, Petliura was assassinated by a Jew, with the motive said to have been pogrom related. The claim of a Soviet orchestrated hit job was never proven. Even if so, a revenge factor could’ve still existed.
In exile, many Whites including Anton Denikin and Peter Wrangel lived respectable lives. During the Cold War era, Novoye Russkoye Slovo established itself as the largest English language newspaper in the US. Staffed with a good number of Jews, this paper reflected pro-Russian/anti-Communist views, inclusive of a respectful treatment of Denikin.
Posner gets to keep his job:
http://www.rosbalt.ru/main/2013/01/28/1086470.html
Recall that Posner has his own TV show on a government-owned channel. On December 23, while arguing against passing of the Dima Yakovlev Law, Posner cracked a pun by calling the “Duma” (Parliament) “Dura” (silly old woman).
This jab enraged parliamentarians so much that they prepared to pass a “Posner Law” forbidding any journalist of non-Russian citizenship (Posner is a citizen of USA) to host a TV show on a state-run channel.
Alarmed about losing his gig, Posner apologized TWICE, including yesterday, for his pun, saying it was just an unintentional slip of the tongue.
Posner’s double apology mollified the parliamentarians. They backed down on their threat and withdrew the draft law. So Posner gets to keep his show. Well, the guy is a slippery eel, and he always seems to survive, no matter what the circumstances.
Monsieur Pozner est aussi un citoyen français, mon ami! Il est né en France.
Monsieur Pozner est un citoyen du monde. Il est “cosmopolitain sans racines” – TROLOLO!
Also sagte Herr Bronstein!
Also sprach Zarathustra.
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20130128/179080998/Highway-Tank-Broke-No-Traffic-Rules.html
Idiots trying to smear Russia missed the red light in the video. This is like that stupid report about the sinking pontoon bridge. Really, you liberast clowns, if you are so right then it would be easy to produce *real* examples of your claims.
Today’s Moscow Times reports under the headline “Pressure Growing on Serdyukov With New Allegations” that according to an article in yesterday’s Kommersant the “net appears to be closing on former Defence Minister Anatoly Serdyukov after military investigators opened an investigation into extravagant improvements at a dacha belonging to his brother-in-law”.
The “dacha” is, in fact, a three-story fishing lodge situated at the Volga delta. Both Putin and Medvedev and other top rank bureaucrats have spent fishing weekends there at the invitation of Serdyukov’s brother-in-law..
Is this man ever going to be charged?
Or do Vova and Dima value their Volga fishing trips too much?
And that should be “storey”.
Not to sound like too much of an apologist, but I sure you can build a rather fine house for $200,000 in Russia since for $350,000 you can put up a $1.3 million dollar house in parts of Toronto with large land prices. I am not talking about a bungalow. So I find these stories to be pathetically innumerate. At least they accused Putin of owning palaces, now those are residences running into the tens of millions of dollars.
Frankly, Putin deserves to have access to a multi-million dollar villa and fishing lodge. He f*cking deserves it. I am quite sure he has stopped the siphoning of tens of billions of dollars out of the country. You know, if you find some large cash amount you get some reward for returning it to its owner. Russian presidents should have bonuses for good performance.
Provided it was not built with funds Putin personally siphoned off for its construction, I don’t suppose it would be in good taste to inquire too closely about where the money came from; I’m not sure of the position of the brother-in-law discussed, but wasn’t Serdyukov’s father-in-law a former Prime Minister and the current Chairman of the Board at GAZPROM? Would it be astonishing if that family had money? But maybe they’re talking about some other relative. Quite possibly, since Putin would have to be feeling quite cocky to commence an investigation that might lead into GAZPROM’s inner circle. But Serdyukov had a lot of connections – at least one too many, obviously – and the money for “expensive renovations” to this fishing camp might have come from a number of sources other than Serdyukov. In fact, had there been reason to suspect Serdyukov at the time, an investigation might well have commenced, since a Defence Minister who is on the take cannot be trusted and the immediate question would be, who’s paying him all that extra lolly? What if it’s our enemies?
I notice the press gets very excited at any evidence of corruption in Russia, especially if it perceives a way to tie it to Putin. Nobody seemed to turn a hair at the reality that Yulia Tymoshenko lived in a mansion, in a gated community, that had to cost at least a million, rode around in a $300,000.00 armoured Mercedes….but owns a 58 m2 apartment in Dnipropetrovsk – no savings, stocks, bonds, land or cars of her own, apparently. That’s only one example; the political class in every western country is comprised of some of its wealthiest citizens. Remember the charming story of the school’s-out party at Chateau Blair, in which the proud parents insisted the guests all be bussed up the drive of their £6 million country estate – for security reasons – and then billed each of the guests £ 10.00 for the bus ride up the drive? Hey, if ya got it – flaunt it!
Oops! Not just up the drive of the Blair house; the bus actually came from the school. But still; 10 quid per seat?
The Blairs didn’t even want the parents of their son’s guests to drive the children to their estate. It was either go by the bus or the children just didn’t go to the party. (And next we’ll discover that the children were obliged to attend.) The story has a happy ending: the parents refused to pay so the Blairs had to transport the children for free.
Why, that’s how they got their fortune and their ritzy estate – by being frugal!! I think we could all take a lesson here.
It’s not the money involved, it’s the principle!
Apart from the huge Ministry of Defence real estate scam that he and other parties have been accused of, Serdyukov is now accused of siphoning off Ministry of Defence money and resources to his brother-in-law for the improvement of that person’s fishing lodge. Furthermore, members of the armed forces were used for construction work at the same place.
Whether Putin and Medvedev were aware of these further accusations when they accepted invitations by Serdyukhov’s brother-in-law to stay at the lodge is, in my opinion, unlikely (I am not one of those holding the opinion that the Russian president knows in minute detail the activities of everyone of importance in Russia and controls their fate), but they ought to be aware of those accusations now and I think the former minister of defence should be arrested and charged, as has happened to at least one other senior MoD official associated with this Serdyukov affair, not to mention the fact that another involved party, Serdyukhov’s mistress, has long been under house arrest.
Serdyukhov, however, still walks free and refuses to answer questions concerning the accusations made against him, treating the Investigation Committee in a decidedly cavalier fashion: the “evidence” so far proffered by him to the IC consists only of a lengthy written statement of his own version of the events under investigation,
If Serdyukhov is not being protected by a powerful person or persons, he is certainly giving a good impression of that being the case.
He does not need to be protected by a higher up. He is likely protected by kompromat or top secret information he has put into some Swiss bank box. He was in the position to do heavy damage to Russia’s interests and since it is clear by now that he was a corrupt maggot he likely had a well developed exit strategy.
My point was about the inanity of trying to smear Putin because he stayed at some 3 storey house. I say big f*cking whoop. Obama and all of the US presidential candidates that have a chance of winning are all millionaires and this does not bother anyone other than some idealists running a few websites on the net that probably less than 1% of Americans bother to read of can dare to trust.
Yeah, Serd’ukov is probably blackmailing everybody. He probably knows all the nuclear codes, and he could threaten to give them to NATO if Russian govt doesn’t cut him some slack. What can they do? Like Kirill says, If they arrest him or try to liquidate him, he might have issued orders to publish secret documents from a locked vault in a Swiss bank. It’s like a bad Bond movie. They need to do a “worst-case risk analysis and damage assessment” before proceeding against him. If it were me, I would assume the worst about him, that he has been a Western mole all along. That could even explain the kerfuffle about the drones during the 2008 Gruzian war.
It makes a racy story, and you get full credit for imagination, but I think you just fancy yourself as a director, with puff sleeves and a poofter beret. I’m going with they are still running down evidence and connections before putting together any charges. It’s messy and looks embarrassing and stupid if you charge a crook and find him guilty, and then have to haul him out of prison and charge him all over again for a bunch more crimes you just found out about. Serdyukov is going to pay the piper, I feel sure, regardless what he might think. And while he might have a few friends in high places, he has none in the military he ran.
If they really thought he had a bunch of secret papers he might publish, they could just kill him in a particularly horrible way – like freezing his head solid with CO2 fog and then breaking it with a hammer – and then promise that anyone releasing documents on Serdyukov’s instructions would get the same. I don’t think too many people believe they are that untouchable. But that’s movie stuff. Somebody so imaginative and clever that he would put away insurance years in advance against the guy who appointed him is unlikely to be dumb enough to get caught boffing some girl he installed as a section head and openly stealing so that his scams would be discovered almost as soon as somebody bothered to look. Serdyukov was a particularly unimaginative crook.
Freezing somebody’s head and then busting it to bits with a hammer?? Geez, Mark, what kind of sociopath are you to even imagine such a thing?
Mental note to add that scene to my screenplay…
I agree with waiting to see what happens. But I disagree about the years in advance part. I am quite sure there is plenty of top secret information of the current variety that could be used as leverage. Perhaps kompromat would take some long term investment but it is not the only option for an exist strategy.
I’m sure there is; I’m just saying his stumbling about flashing his criminality under the very noses of investigators, not to mention his abrasive personality making him plenty of enemies and stepping out on the little woman when her daddy is a former Prime Minister who now has a serious hand in running what was the world’s most profitable company just a couple of years ago (and may still be, I don’t know) all suggests he is too stupid to take out any such insurance policy. He plainly did not ever expect to get caught.
Yes, I quite understand and sympathize with that sentiment, but it is my feeling that if Serdyukov was going to be given a pass, there would not even be the formality of questioning; they would just pretend Serdyukov was not involved. And Serdyukov’s arrogance suggests that is the treatment he expects; either that, or he believes all the government respects is strength and is hiding his terror much better than his observable acting talents would suggest. In my view, the patty-cake act about questioning is just a series of light ranging taps to establish where his nose is, just before the hammer-blow to the testicles. Putin is not such a hypocrite, I hope, that he would go around preaching about reform and fighting corruptrion while he intends to let Serdyukov walk free. Meanwhile, he isn’t going anywhere; there’s no hurry.
Having dispatched a daring journalist south, here’s today’s Komsomolskaya Pravda line on the Serdyukov story that broke in Monday’s Kommersant about the former minister’s brother-in-law’s “rest-base”, as it is literally called in Russsian, situated at the Volga estuary.
The article says the “base” cost 18 million rubles taken from MoD coffers and that the road to it and some of the buildings were constructed by military personnel fom Krasnodar region.
In the video inserted in the article, an old woman starts ratting away complaining about all the noise and machinery that was involved in the construction work and that even a helicopter was used. A man’s voice in the video says that there was no need for the private road to have beeen built.
And another one is charged, as reported today in ITAR-TASS.
The article states:
“Yekaterina Smetanova, her husband Maxim Zakutailo and head of the Defense Ministry’s’ economic department Nikolai Ryabykh are under arrest on charges of fraud within the framework of the resounding Oboronservis case. Former director of the Defense Ministry’s property department Yevgenia Vasilyeva is under house arrest, and former Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov was questioned as a witness”.
The former minister and Petersburg furniture store salesman was questioned – and he still refuses to answer any questions!
He still walks free while 10 criminal cases, now pooled into one, have been made against MoD staff who have allegedly been involved in a fraud said to have involved over 4 billion rubles; a scam that not only involved the fraudulent sale of MoD properties but the purchase of said properties were also allegedly made with monies stolen from the same ministry.
And Serdyukov knew nothing of this and simply remains a witness to the case.
And yet the apartment of his love interest – where he spent a good deal of time when he was likely supposed to be at work for the state – is said to have been stuffed with swag that he also apparently never noticed. It’s fortunate, I suppose, that Serdyukov was not running the police, since you could evidently wear jewelry belonging to missing people and central to their murder case without his taking any notice.
Fear not; Serdyukov’s time is coming. And he knows it – if he thought he was off the hook and was just going to get a smack on the wrist, he wouldn’t have lawyered up, and he would be singing like a bird when asked to answer questions.
“touring-base” really.
Here’s a story about allegedly hacked emails from a defense contractor called Britam Defense. One of them mentions a plot hatched in Qatar to use chemical weapons on Homs, and then make video evidence using Ukrainians speaking in Russian to try to point the evidence at Russia.
Leaked Files of Britam Defense Implicate the Plot Against Russia and Syria
I guess the liberasts reaction to this sort of evidence will be:
1) Putin’s evil FSB staged this farce
2) Putin’s evil regime deserves these sorts of dirty tricks since after all Qatar is a beacon of democracy together with its patrons USA and Saudi Arabia and the fight in Syria is the fight for freedom. So the ends justify the means.
Wow. That’s big. But I tend to agree with commenters who suggest nobody in this age of hacking scandals would be such an idiot as to spell out the plan so meticulously, including all the alarm-bells like “Washington” and “Assad” and “CW” and “Russian” and “money”. It could be genuine, but it just screams “setup”.
One thing; they did not actually – at least from as much as I saw – mention using the weapon on civilians or anything like that; just making a video of some sort and making sure that people were overheasrd speaking Russian. Maybe they were just going to show people preparing it. But even that would be tough to believe given all the hoaxes we have seen lately. Still bears watching, though. And they make a good point that the media did not pick it up. After all, it’s not like they are nervous about reporting bogus information, and have to check first to make sure it’s the real goods.
Here’s a nice bit of weasley reporting of a Russian story from the BBC: it seems that an Izvestia article has reported that the Russian army has issued guidelines about tattooing on conscripts.
Nothing unusual in that, I should say: the British armed forces do the same. For example, you can’t have tattoos on your face when serving Her Majesty and you certainly will not receive a commission if you have tattoos on the backs of your hands.
I once remember it being reported years ago how a British sailor had tattooed on the right edge of his right hand the expression “Fuck the Navy!” so that when he saluted, his opinion was received loudly and clearly by his officers. He did this in the hope of being discharged, but his plan failed. He had to have the offended tattoo laser-removed at his own cost and he was put in the brig.
Anyway, the weasley bit from the BBC report is at the very beginning: “Guidelines are being issued to the Russian army to check soldiers for intimate tattoos but a defence source denied gay men were being targeted” says the BBC article.
It’s that old “he doesn’t deny” trick again!
The report then goes on to say what a bloody awful organization the Russian army is and then, after having mentioned that the Russian president has “openly” stated that homosexual men were not banned from serving in the Russian army, leads on from that to stating at the very end: “News of the guidelines comes as the country’s parliament debates a controversial bill to outlaw the promotion of homosexuality among children, which some campaigners see as a veiled attack on gay rights”.
And all this from an army guideline regarding tattooing.
@ ME: So a sailor can be a Satanist and have some room set aside on the ship where s/he works to perform Satanic rituals, or at least those as approved by the Church of Satan, founded by Anton LaVey in the 1960s, but is not allowed to have tattoos on his/her face or hands?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk/3948329.stm
As for that sailor who had the tattoo on the right edge of his right hand, his superiors either think very highly of him in some way or they have a very droll sense of humour. Or most likely both options apply.
Same over here. There is nothing visible about a sailor in uniform to suggest he or she is a satanist (and in truth I doubt we would cater to that, if for no other reason than it would promote discord in the crew, although “pagan” is recognized as a religion), but tattoos on the face and neck are visible and, in some countries, suggest the bearer is a criminal. Non-offensive tattoos only on the neck, nothing on the face. No visible tattoos are allowed which are “pornographic, blasphemous, racist or containing vulgar language or design) or otherwise reflect discredit on the CF” are acceptable
I think that which the BBC reporter either doesn’t know or chooses not to reveal is that Russian tattoos are not like Western ones, in particular those of the anglosphere, such as bleeding hearts with arrows through them, “Mum”, names of wives and sweethearts, “Manchester Rules”, Scotland Forever! Eirran Go Bragha! HMS Dido, 16th/5th Queens Royal Lancers etc.
Russian tattoos are almost 100% associated with criminality, criminal acts, reputation and preferences.
A tattooed spider on a Russian, for example, means that he is a “narkoman” – a junkie; there are tattoos indicating lengths of custodial sentence, solitary confinement, use of
weapons etc.
I provided some links on this topic a while back. Here’s another such link.
What does the tattoo of a balaclava mean? Oh, wait; I know – I’m an asshole who will do anything for attention. Speaking of that, we don’t hear much these days about the Deathless Pussies who were eager to go to jail for their democratic beliefs. I thought the press promised to keep their names alive forever. Never mind; the Zeklettes will be out in less time than the lifespan of the average zucchini, mouthing it up and trailing a parade of western journalists wherever they go as they recount with awe that they were heroes to the prison population, almost all of whom were there for voting against Putin.
I shouldn’t imagine that the now incarcerated Pussy Riot freedom fighting, artistic heroine musicians will breathe the fresh air of freedom sporting tattooed symbols associated with their anti-social “achievements” and the terms and conditions of their custodial sentences. In fact, they both seem rather too snooty and bourgeois to associate with and imitate the mores of the criminal bydlo with whom they are now forced to live with in an open prison.
As regards the traditional and garish symbolism of Russian criminal tattoos, I should add that I feel it highly unlikely that 18-year-old conscripts would be covered with such lurid “body art” as displayed in the link included in my mailing above. However, I frequently see a certain class of youth that do have criminal-style tattoos on their hands and fingers that indicate that they have already embarked upon a life of crime, or profess that they have already done so.
I feel that the vast majority of Russians shun any kind of tattooing because of its connotations with criminality. However, I do see more frequently these days youths who sport modern tattoos: not tattoos in the style of those traditional ones in the anglosphere, but those that resemble those of the South Pacific or Maori tradition – something like what Mike Tyson has on his face.
In summer I occasionally see youths with such tattoos covering the whole of their forearms, upper arms and calves. These same types also like to sport piercings. They almost all seem to be bourgeois, guitar-strumming-, Garden-Ring-protesting-, white-ribbon types who, to a man, I am certain, do their damndest to avoid conscription at all costs, and are generally rather successful at this. They always seem to manage to get enrolled on erudite courses and become exempt from doing military service; either that, or their wealthy parents, more than likely former members of the nomenclatura and now “New Russians”, have considerable pull and can pay the right money to the right people so that their son can dodge the draft.
In fact, I have never met a member of the bourgeoisie with whom I work that has done military service: they’ve all managed to dodge the draft. This is not the case with those members of the bourgeoisie that I know who graduated before the end of the Soviet Union. In fact, it seems to me that some of them were even willing to do military service; or when they were students, take part during their long vacations in some public works (the building of the Amur railway for example) – at least, that seemed to be the case until the Afghanistan debacle.
The bulk of conscripts are, and always have been the proles and the peasants, and the majority of this class do not have tattoos, unlike, say, the working class of the UK, where a sizable number of them, both male and female, adorn themselves with “body art”.
Even the last king of England had a tattoo: that was how his widow identified his mutilated body.
Don’t think HRH Elizabeth II has one though.
Here’s a possible tattoo that Tolokonnikova may wish to have applied in prison in order to display her preferences to any interested parties.
@ ME: You must have been astonished at those photographs of Prince Harry in a very un-inked state in his Las Vegas hotel room.
BTW there was a documentary The Mark of Cain” by A Lambert made in 2000 which was supposed to be about tattooing in Russian prisons but also was a survey of prisons and the treatment of prisoners. The tattoos communicated what the crime was that got the prisoner in trouble and in jail, how many jails he had been through and what his status in the prisons had been. The tattoos were needed to help a prisoner through the system but on release impeded his progress through society: if you had tattoos, they meant that you had been in prison.
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/mark-cain/
Scientists believe that Ötzi, the Ice Age Alpine coppersmith, had tattoos. However, they may have been there as entry-marks to assist the acupuncturist rather than showing any criminal intent or Ötzi looking cool in the local Neandertal nightclub:
Ötzi had several carbon tattoos including groups of short, parallel, vertical lines to both sides of the lumbar spine, a cruciform mark behind the right knee, and various marks around both ankles. Radiological examination of his bones showed “age-conditioned or strain-induced degeneration” in these areas, including osteochondrosis and slight spondylosis in the lumbar spine and wear-and-tear degeneration in the knee and especially the ankle joints.[24] It has been speculated that these tattoos may have been related to pain relief treatments similar to acupressure or acupuncture. If so, this is at least 2000 years before their previously known earliest use in China (c. 1000 BC).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%96tzi
P.S. According to this, Ötzi’s DNA sequence shows him to be a Corsican who was lactose intolerant and suffered from Lyme disease. (Hence, the need for acupuncture, because the poor guy’s joints were always hurting him, and he had to do a lot of alpine hiking.)
Ötzi also had some Neandertal blood on his mother’s side (mitochondrial DNA). This explains why he was so intelligent, and also why he got involved in the copper-smelting gig. As every fan of Germanic legends knows, the Neandertals (aka “dwarves”) were expert miners. They even invented mining, probably.
Prince Harry = son of red-headed groundskeeper, eh? Inglorious basterd, is that what you are implying, eh, Jennifer?
I demand a DNA analysis!
Dear Jen,
I did not see those infamous photographs of the third in line to the British throne, which, by all accounts, were taken when he was in flagrante delicto; nor did I wish to see them.
Why do you think I live in exile?
I shall return to England’s green and pleasant land when it is a republic – and then probably only for a week or two: I like it here too much.
What the Scots, Irish and Welsh do with their respective plots is their own business.
@ ME: The photos of Capt. Henry Wales didn’t show scaly green or black skin, venom gland, claws or pelvic spurs, or any unusual habits like chomping down on live baby mice. Lack of such crucial evidence surely suggests what everyone suspects behind the Brit Royals’ backs: that his dad must be James Hewitt.
@ Yalensis:
Rumour has it, though I am not one to gossip, that the father of the third in line to the British throne, Prince Henry, is not a former groundsman or gamekeeper of the late Princess of Wales, but her erstwhile equerry, James Hewitt (born 30 April 1958), a former British household cavalry officer.
Hewitt denies his paternity in this issue, saying that his affair with the Princess of Wales began after her youngest son, Henry, had been born.
Be that as it may, many are of the opinion that young Prince Henry bears more than a passing resemblance to James Hewitt.
What an out and out bounder and absolute cad!
And yet Princess Diana looks so happy with that red-headed bounder.
Is Prince Chuck aware that he is a royal CUCKOLD??
Can somebody please do a DNA analysis? Inquiring minds need to know the truth!
What an unhappy marriage, overall, considering Prince Dumbo of the ears that made him look like a front view of a Volkswagen with the doors open was privately fantasizing over Camilla the horse-faced human walnut (not hard to divine where my sympathies lie, is it?) There’s only so much aphrodisiac value in being the future heir to the throne, after all.
Not that it should be thought that I am in any way criticizing the behaviour of my social superiors, but in reply to Yalensis’s comment that Diana Spencer cuckolded the Prince of Wales, I should like to point out that whilst Lady Diana, the then Princess of Wales, was well and truly being regularly rogered by her personal household cavalry riding instructor, Captain James Hewitt, old Chuck Windsor was in the saddle with the wife of another household cavalry officer, Brigadier Parker Bowles.
What’s good for the goose is good for gander, as they say.
@Moscow Exile: Oh, you wicked devil, you claim that you are “not one to gossip”, but then your evil tongue revels in imparting simply shocking and malicious gossip about the possible cuckolding of Prince Chuckie, as well as his cad-and-bounder like behavior implying that he was profaning his sacred marriage bed while rogering the delicate Lady Camilla.
Alas, is there nothing we can believe in any more? Has human wickedness actually reached to this extreme? Shall I have to do like Oedipus and pluck out my own eyes so as not to see these horrendous images of royal infidelity?
Ooops, sorry, that was tactless, I forgot for a moment that Mercouris had surgeons poking at his eyeballs just a couple of days ago….
I think Prince Harry actually looks more like Prince Charles than his brother. It’s the close-set beady eyes and big ears that he gets from him.
But the whole Windsor family has been a clan of bastards since Victoria. She was the first to pass on the genes for hemophilia in her family. Where did she get them?
Dear Cartman: I googled your question about where did Queen Victoria get the hemophilia gene? Here is what I found:
http://the-tap.blogspot.com/2011/12/did-hemophilia-gene-reach-queen.html
According to this, Queen Vic was actually illegitimate, her mom was rogering Nathan Rothschild, and Vic got the bum gene from him.
As usual, THE JEWS ARE TO BLAME!
Dear Yalensis,
Even if it were true that Queen Victoria’s mother was being tommed by Nathan Rothschild and even if he were Queen Victoria’s natural father, it is hardly likely that she inherited the haemophilia gene off him, for if Rothschild had been a haemophiliac, in the early 19th century he would have died long before he had reached maturity, let alone before he had had the opportunity of yanking the pantaloons off the German Princess Victoria of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld who became the Queen-Empress’ mother after marrying the Duke of Kent at short notice.
This quick marriage came about owing to the inheritance crisis caused by the death in 1817 of King George III’s only legitimate grandchild, Princess Charlotte of Wales.
The Duke of Kent was single when the heir to the throne died, as were all the king’s other legitimite brother’s, the eldest of whom became King William IV on the death of George III and who also died without any legitimite heir, though he had plenty of illigitimate offspring.
Anyway, in 1819 the German princess and wife of the Duke of Kent gave birth to a daughter, also Victoria and the rest is, as they say, history.
The lethal gene can be passed on from one generation to another by female carriers who do not suffer from the disease; out of her 8 children only one son, Leopold, was a sufferer of haemophilia and her daughters Alice and Beatrice were confirmed carriers of the gene.
This is what Wiki says:
“Although an individual’s haemophilia can usually be traced in the ancestry, in about 30% of cases there is no family history of the disorder and the condition is speculated to be the result of spontaneous mutation in an ancestor.
“Victoria appears to have been a spontaneous or de novo mutation and is usually considered the source of the disease in modern cases of haemophilia among royalty. Queen Victoria’s father, Prince Edward, Duke of Kent, was not a haemophiliac, and the probability of her mother having had a lover who suffered from haemophilia is minuscule given the low life expectancy of 19th-century haemophiliacs. Her mother, Victoria, Duchess of Kent, was not known to have a family history of the disease, although it is possible that the mutation began at her conception and was passed down only to Victoria and not to her other children. In the same way, had Queen Victoria herself only had seven children, the mutation would likely be assumed today to have occurred at the conception of Princess Alice, as she was the only known carrier among Victoria and Albert’s first seven children”.
The problem with conscription in Russia is that you’re as likely to fire guns or ride helicopters as build roads to the dachas of Serdyukov’s relatives.
When I first lived here, I used to see convoys of army wagons transporting what often appeared to me to be whole regiments of conscripts setting off for the countryside on spud picking missions. That was during perestroika days.
That’s why they used to call it “pojezdka na kartoshku” – a trip going for the potatoes. It was a dirty job, but somebody had to do it.
Even Medvedev picked spuds in his student years:
http://www.dni.ru/polit/2012/9/1/239807.html
So did my wife for that matter.
The communist swine, brutalizing a young city girl in such a manner!
You know what commies did to bad little boys and girls? Make them mash raw potatoes with a fork!
@Jen: I don’t understand why you think some Royal Navy officers thought highly of the rating with the offensive tattoo on his hand or that they had a very droll sense of humour: if I remember rightly, the sailor was imprisoned in the Royal Naval Detention Quarters (RNDQ), Portsmouth. RNDQs are not very pleasant places. He was charged with showing disrespect to a superior officer and, as I said, was not discharged from the service, which was the whole object of the exercise (he’d previously unsuccessfully applied for discharge) and, therefore, had to have the offending tattoo surgically removed at his own expense.
@ ME: I was being sarcastic about those Royal Navy officers.
Ah, I see!
Not bad:
http://www.opendemocracy.net/od-russia/ben-judah/why-russia-is-not-losing-siberia
—————–
Extremist balderdash:
http://www.kyivpost.com/content/politics/svoboda-urges-ukrainians-to-boycott-new-history-textbook-and-not-to-learn-russian-319487.html
—————–
Another twist to the matter of not paying bills:
http://atwonline.com/international-aviation-regulation/news/aerosvit-banned-russian-airspace-0128?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+AtwDailyNews+%28ATW+Daily+News%29
Latest from Ellen Barry:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/29/arts/dance/bolshoi-ballet-carries-on-amid-acid-attack-scandal.html?hp&_r=0
GOOD LUCK, ALEX!!! Break an eye, or whatever brings good fortune in these circumstances.
Yeah, today is the day. I have been thinking about Alex all day and wondering how his surgery is going.
Gosh guys THANKS!!!
Yesterday was indeed the day and it went fabulously well! I feel great and I am now starting to see properly. I have a check up on 19th February 2013 and there may be things to do after but so far everything is (quite literally) looking good. I am even starting to see colours properly.
Great news! Glad to hear it!
Sounds good!
Great news Alex.
If they say take it easy, make sure to do so. Proper recuperation can be a key difference maker.
That’s fantastic news, Alex; I’m really happy for you. I thought you would have your eyes bandaged for a week or so after the operation and not be able to use them at all – it’s amazing that there should be such an instantaneous restorative effect.
Excellent! Glad to hear that, Alex.
I too recall the sudden and amazing difference in sight quality when I first put on contact lenses. This must be an order of magnitude or two better.
Hoorah!
Very glad to hear the operation went well!
Real hard part now is take frequent breaks between looking at things and trying to catch up with work, and generally following doctor’s orders and doing any recommended exercises.
Thanks everybody. I am still very tired (I’ll hopefully be back properly tomorrow) but as the day has passed and my eyesight continues to improve the effect is extraordinary. It has been like leaving a dim lit world of shadows and entering a world of brightness and colour. My main problem at the moment (of which I was warned in advance) is that my brain is having problems processing so much more information than it has become accustomed to. The result is that I am having problems jumbllng up images. I understand this problem will sort itself out after a short while.
Thank you all again for your friendship and support, which was a great comfort and was much appreciated and a great help.
Take your time Alex and do check back at Leos’ blog where some substantive debunking remains ongoing.
Amazing what some people get away with. Get someone “prominent” to give a sound bite like kudos that’s questionable, but not challenged, and voila a dubious perspective gets readily accepted by a good number.
To be expected when seeing some of the go to sources that get propped over more effective options.
That’s great to hear. Happy for you.
Get well soon, Alex.
http://www.itar-tass.com/c9/629423.html
Some facts to put the foaming at the mouth drivel spewed by white ribbonists into context:
- Russia’s middle class grew by 3 times in the last 5 years.
)
- Russia’s per capita GDP grew by 10 times in the last 12 years (and this was not due to the population falling by 10 times
Yes, truly the Putin years have been a nightmare for Russia compared to the good old days of Yeltsin. But only according to lying sacks of sh*t 5th column liberasts. They should listen to themselves, they sound ridiculous.
I recall reading about this some years back:
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/For-40-Years-This-Russian-Family-Was-Cut-Off-From-Human-Contact-Unaware-of-World-War-II-188843001.html
****
Regarding the Russian adoptions:
http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/01/29/putins-baby-crime/
****
Ongoing discussion on the flawed anti-Russian perspectives evident among a minority of people of Ukrainian background:
http://austereinsomniac.info/blog/2013/1/21/ignorance.html#comments
Thanks for the Shamir piece on adoptions, as always, Shamir’s research and ability to cut through B.S. is awesome.
On Magnitsky Law, Shamir makes very disturbing point that $500 billion Russian cash is resting in American banks, this is a lot of dough, that could be confiscated at any time, at the drop of a hat, by American government. The purpose of Magnitsky Law was to give themselves the “legal” power to seize the cash. (Recall how Goldman Sachs and French government, plundered Libya’s gold and cash reserves in the course of overthrowing Gaddafi.)
Or, as Brzezinsky is quoted, this money is probably being used to blackmail Russian elites and oligarchs.
I would hope that Russian government’s next step after Dima Yakovlev Law would be to legislate that all that $$$ should be pulled out of American banks and invested in either Russian or perhaps Chinese banks.
On a somewhat related note:
http://www.imrussia.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=374&Itemid=95&lang=en
The problem is that the Russian elite keeps its money in western banks and they have no intention to bring it back to Russia. This is the reason why this same elite won’t make a legistlation that would force Russians to pull the money from America back to Russia.
Yes, this is a problem for Russia and it gives too much power to America. But this problem exist because of Russia’s own weakness. If Russia had a banking system that the rich Russians would trust this problem would be a lot less severe.
There is, however, a bank in Russia that Russian citizens trust: Sberbank, which is “the largest bank in Russia and Eastern Europe, as well as being the third largest in Europe”.
Sberbank is the preferred choice of the huge majority of those Russians that have a bank account, in that its largest shareholder is the Central Bank of the Russian Federation.
I bank with Sberbank and also with VTB, which, again, has as its major shareholder the Russian government.
Do rich “New Russians”, the so-called elite, chose not to bank with Sberbank or VTB because they don’t trust them, I wonder?
And if that is the case, why don’t they trust them when millions of their fellow citizens do?
Or are there other reasons for their banking with Western banks that have little to do
with trust and perhaps more to do with criminality?
You may be right but your argument does not take away the fact that this problem exists because of Russia’s weakness, may the weakness be the lack of trust or that the rich Russians are unpatriotic criminals.
Often the so-called “russophiles” blame outsiders (the West) or the so called “liberasts” for Russia’s problems when the reality is Russia’s internal weakness and lack of cohesion and patriotism is the root cause for the most of the problems in Russia.
I see. Russia is weak because it does not have trustworthy banks, but even if it is acknowledged that it may have trustworthy banks after all, Russia is still weak. Glad we got that cleared up. I’m getting a vibe here that Russia is always weak to you no matter what it says, does or is.
Rich people don’t hide money offshore because they don’t trust their own banks – in point of fact, a lot of rich people got that way because of crooked banks. Rich people hide their money offshore to avoid paying taxes; somewhere between $21 Trillion and $32 Trillion of it, if you believe people who have done an exhaustive study but can’t really be pinned down to hard numbers.
A bank that rich Russians would trust would be a private one that resists any requests and demands by the Russian government to be transparent in its dealings and investments, and which sends Russian money into tax havens beyond Russian jurisdiction. Rich Russians would want to minimise their tax obligations among other things and they would do this by using family or company trusts or transfer pricing arrangements that involve setting up dummy companies as tax shelters. Another way to avoid or minimise tax might be to live in other countries and spend minimal amounts of time each year (whatever is allowed legally) in Russia.
I agree. MoscowExile makes makes a good point that Sberbank is decent and has most of the financial services that a legitimate saver/investor would require. However, I suspect the reason that certain wealthy Russian citizens might not transfer their cash back to Sberank – could it be because that cash was ill-obtained and might be subject to future confiscation?
I mean, the whole point of the Yeltsin years was to strip Russia of all her assets built by 4 generations of Soviet workers and engineers, then monetize that wealth, and then transfer to Western banks.
Criminal Russian oligarchs might prefer to take their chances with Magnitsky (they could cut a separate deal with American government) rather than risk bringing their ill-gotten gains back itno Russia, where it could be confiscated if Communists ever come back to power.
Let’s see some statistics for a change, Karl, or some links, or anything other than your opinion that the lifeblood of Russia’s folding net worth is locked up in U.S. banks. How many, exactly, have all their money in western banks? How much money are we talking, here? And if the answer is, nobody knows, maybe it’s none. Nobody in their right mind whose fortune originates in Russia and who is in the slightest position to be used for leverage would have their money in a U.S. bank right now, or even in banks of close U.S. allies, for fear the U.S. government might suddenly take a notion to “freeze” (another word for “confiscate”) it.
That same report you quoted above estimates it at “almost £500bn.”
Just from Russia, yes, and since the 90′s, at least according to analysts whose figures are all over the place. But wealthy people trying to hide money from the taxman are stateless – they come from everywhere, and their interest in hiding their money in international banks has dee-diddly-dick-all to do with their trust in the solidity of their own national banks. Are there more wealthy elites in Russia, or in the USA and UK? Are their efforts to hide their money a measure of the weakness of their country and the unreliability of their banks?
Does “almost £500bn” sound particularly solid to you, considering the total amount proposed to be secreted in tax havens has a margin of error of £7 trillion?
I think it’s useful to calculate it as a percentage of GDP.
So, that’s about 40% of today’s Russian GDP squirreled away. It is also about 50% of Saudi GDP and 150% of Nigerian GDP.
Obviously the situation with offshore aristocrats is a lot worse in Nigeria than in Russia but that’s hardly the highest bar.
It’s entirely possible that the figure will be much higher in the US. Say it’s $3 trillion. That would only be 20% of its GDP though.
Finally, margins of error will inevitably be relatively smaller for individual countries.
I don’t know; maybe, but the parameters established seemed too broad to me to be really useful. I mean, “almost £500 Billion” since the 1990′s suggests nothing of whether it is easing or worsening, and describes nothing of the methodology by which this figure was compounded – did it incorporate the usual investments that westerners often like to term “capital flight” which is not, such as debt servicing and FDI in other countries? It seems to me if the authors of the report were able to so precisely establish what is the fortunes of the wealthy – which they have gone to great trouble to hide – and what is legitimate investment abroad, it should be fairly easy to recover it or simply impose national taxes on it in situ. Obviously, there is no such degree of precision. Besides, the quoted figure is higher than the cash reserves built up by Russia at any single point in its history since the 1990′s – has there really been that much stolen money floating around? Berezovsky was one of the richest of the oligarchs who fled with his fortune, and he might have had a billion or two. Khodorkovsky was something like the 16th-richest man in the world, and he had less than $20 billion. Is it realistic to imagine “the wealthy” of Russia have managed to squirrel away more than 25 times Khodorkovsky’s fortune? When there were only supposed to be less than a dozen true oligarchs who managed to corner fantastic wealth through sweetheart deals and asset-stripping?
Whatever the case, what I was contesting was Karl’s suggestion that large amounts of hidden wealth abroad implies Russian weakness because the Russian elite does not trust its own banks to safeguard its wealth, which is nonsense. It is highly likely that whatever the actual figures of hidden wealth abroad, that portion originating in the USA is several times higher than that originating from Russia, even taking into account the population difference. Does that indicate that wealthy Americans don’t trust American banks, and that we can therefore measure American weakness thereby? Of course not. Rich people around the world hide their money outside the country because they don’t like their own tax code and are trying to avoid it, and Russia has a very fair tax system by its laws.
It was Shamir who estimated half a trillion dollars in American banks.
I think it goes without saying that Americans will not punish Russian millionaires or billionaires who are willing to play ball with them. That’s why Magnitsky List is fluid and subjective.
The Russian banking system was negatively affected by the high inflation rate in the country. It was hovering around 10% for nearly a decade. Of course banks can’t lend at less than the inflation rate. So Russian business had a major incentive to borrow from western banks at cheap interest rates. This is simple market forces at work.
Now Russia’s inflation rate is about 6% and the lending rates are coming down. This will boost the domestic banks. But the artificially low interest rates in the west will still be offering an incentive to borrow abroad. The 2% CPI claimed by the USA is simply faked. The 1990 CPI metric stands at over 6%. The other problem is that the US Fed is lending US banks money at basically ZERO percent. So US banks can make a killing lending mortgages at 4% since they are not make 2% above inflation but 4% above zero.
The Russian Central Bank would have to engage in shenanigans such as the US Fed to get the lending rate to fall to 6% or lower. Perhaps Putin can start playing the game.
I think for once Karl is actually making a valid point. There is a problem with Russians having little trust in their banking and financial system. How could it be otherwise? Twice in the last quarter century the financial system all but collapsed in hyperinflation with people’s savings wiped out. Private and commercial banks didn’t even exist properly twenty five years. When they were set up in the late 1980s and 1990s they functioned largely as a criminal enterprise of the sort Bertold Brecht brilliantly parodies in Die Dreigroschenoper where the thieves set up their own bank. It is hardly surprising if Russians are reluctant to trust their banks and government with their money, hold much of their money abroad and (as in 2008 and to a lesser degree during the 2011 to 2012 election period) rush for the exit at the first sign of trouble. This would be the case quite apart from any question of tax evasion of the sort Jen absolutely rightly brings up.
This is an intractable problem that can only be solved over time. Realistically a great deal has been achieved. Though problems in the banking system still exist (witness the Bank of Moscow affair) Russian banks generally are far cleaner and stronger than they were 10 years ago whilst as Moscow Exile absolutely correctly says Sberbank and by the way VTB are beginning to acquire a very strong reputation internationally. Putin and the government have signalled a major campaign to repatriate Russian assets and money with pressure on Russian companies to register in Russia, float on Russian exchanges and apply Russian law to their contracts. As the banking and financial system gains in trust the habit of hedging by keeping money abroad will wane. Perhaps the best precedent is Germany. It too went through the Twentieth Century with a history of repeated financial crashes and bank failures with two periods of hyperinflation (in the 1920s and 1940s). What people often don’t realise is that much of the initiative for the setting up of the notorious secret numbered accounts in Swiss Banks came from the need to service wealthy Germans who in the first half of the Twentieth Century were looking to take their money out of Germany because of their lack of trust in their country’s financial system and politics. Then at some point in the 1960s, on the strength of the very conservative monetary policies followed by the Bundesbank and the German government, sentiment changed and for the remainder of its existence the German currency and financial system became amongst the most highly regarded in the world.
I am afraid I cannot agree Karl is making a valid point, because he is not arguing that Russians have good reason not to trust their banks. He is arguing that (a) wealthy Russians hide their money offshore because they don’t trust national banks, and (b) this means that Russia is weak, because if oligarchs trusted their banks they would hide their money at home instead of offshore.
I am arguing that (a) the trustworthiness of national banks matters not one jot or tittle to the wealthy who are hiding money in tax havens; they do it for the measure of imperviousness to scrutiny offered by the tax haven and based on the tax rate of which they can take advantage, and (b) the predisposition of the wealthy to hide their money offshore has no causal relationship to the overall weakness of the country, because the wealthy would actually prefer their national banks to be both unfriendly to transparency initiatives and loosey-goosey with their regulations.
I am substantiating this with the large numbers of wealthy Americans who hide their money offshore in tax havens: this apparently does not suggest that the USA is weak because its wealthy do not want to keep their wealth in its banks where the government can get at it, despite the USA having an extremely friendly policy toward wealth.
I didn’t open a bank account in the UK until 1988, when I was 39. This wasn’t because I didn’t trust British banks, it was because I had too little disposable income to even consider banking any of it. During all my working life in the UK I was paid on a Friday with cash in hand at a pay office window and received it in a pay packet after deductions had been made. Most of the working class in the UK at that time were paid likewise.
Most Russians do not not have a bank account for the same reason, I believe: not because they don’t trust banks, although their disposable incomes are increasing now as their standard of living increases. I still think that most Russians – and that means not the bourgoisie – think banks are “not for the likes of them”, as indeed I did over 30 years ago.
@ ME: 1988 was the year my grandmother died and she left $10,000 or close to her son and his family, all in furniture upholstery, her bank “account”. That was the amount my mother and one of her sisters (they were made executrices of my grandmother’s will) recovered. Not sure if they looked in the linings and frills of the window curtains though I think I told Mum to look there as well.
You’d be surprised at how many people in Western societies don’t have or have even given up bank accounts, especially since banks started phasing out human tellers in favour of ATMs and the practice of large profitable branches in cities subsidising small branches in quiet or unprofitable suburbs and country towns, the result of which has led to these small branches closing.
On second thought the inflation rate is a psychological barrier and there/were likely also structural barriers. If the inflation rate was 10% then the revenues of the corporate borrowers would increase enough to be able to afford the interest rate. After 1998 Russia was not in a Pancho Villa printing presses inflation regime but rather a structural transition where the economy was monetizing and finding a market price structure after coming out of a command economy and entering a barter regime thanks to the retarded shock therapy economics of the 1990s that were coupled to a tight money designed to artificially overvalue the rouble.
Russian banks did not have the capacity to service the volumes of lending being demanded. And here we have a circularity, not enough borrowing meant that banks were small and hence not able to lend enough to the market. (For banks loans are considered assets and deposits are liabilities).
Anyway, the Russian banking sector is growing, consolidating and is increasingly better able to service the needs of the Russian economy. Once again, we see how Putin’s policies have been pragmatic allowing normal market evolution, unlike the 1990s when Yeltsin and the Harvard boys were running their monetarist social engineering racket that was making the vast majority poor. Twelve years heading in the right direction is nothing to sneeze at.
Here’s Sberbank’s corporate governance structure. Looks pretty transparent to me.
I am always blown away by Shamir’s well-supported, but media incompatible arguments, and this one is no different. (I guess that is why he is smeared as an anti-Semite, despite his openness about his Jewish origins.) I had never heard of Katherine Lakhova, nor liberal feminist Maria Arbatova who were longtime advocates of this law. It seems the Duma plucked it for the wrong reasons, but it is unusual in politics to do things for the right ones.
I wish he had written about the bans in the rest of Eastern Europe. I would not doubt it if he said Latvia had similar issues with adoptions, because I remember a big scandal from there involving child prostitution and government officials. It was as horrible as you could imagine (I think the children were all boys), and none of the clients who were in government were punished. It may have been because they were very important persons, and crucial to Latvia’s NATO and EU aspirations.
EXTRY EXTRY! BYKOV DECLARES UNDYING LOVE FOR KHODORKOVSKY!
Oppositionist/poet Dmitry Bykov gave a radio interview yesterday to “Ekho Moskvy”, and tucked away in it (I almost didn’t notice) was an interesting nugget of news concerning one of the Navalny cases: the moderator Plushchev mentioned that Nikita Belykh was having his flat searched at that very moment by police in conjunction with the Surzhum Distillery Case:
А.ПЛЮЩЕВ: Дмитрий Быков сегодня в программе «Особое мнение». К новостям буквально последних часов и минут. Обыски проходят у Никиты Белых.
Д.БЫКОВ: За что?
А.ПЛЮЩЕВ: Ну, вроде бы, как говорит Следственный комитет, по делу о спиртовом заводе, связанном с Навальным. Одно из дел Навального. Как любит говорить Владимир Маркин, по этому делу также проходит Алексей Навальный.
http://echo.msk.ru/programs/personalno/999206-echo/#video
This is surprising because, as Bykov remarks, Belykh usually enjoys legal immunity, due to his status as Governator of Kirov region.
Bykov goes on to whine and pontificate about how Belykh/Navalny are innocent lambs being framed by a corrupt system. Bykov compares Navalny to Nelson Mandela, and then even goes so far as to predict that some fine day his hero Khodorkovsky will return on his white steed to rule over Russia. But in the meantime, people should keep their mouths shut and not talk about Khodorkovsky too much, so as not to stir up the forces aligned against him:
А.ПЛЮЩЕВ: Ну, уж какие надежды насчет такого будущего нового Манделы возлагали на Михаила Ходорковского. Однако, сейчас его почти не вспоминают.
Д.БЫКОВ: Нет, его вспоминают очень интенсивно. И не все то, что пишется в сети, является зеркалом общественного мнения. В сети плавает пена, вспоминают его очень много. Я со многими людьми говорил…
А.ПЛЮЩЕВ: Ну, в этом качестве – я бы так сказал.
Д.БЫКОВ: Когда мы задумываемся о потенциально возможном лидере оппозиции на будущих выборах любого уровня, мы не можем сбрасывать со счетов и Ходорковского. Почему его сегодня сравнительно мало упоминают, объяснить очень легко. Сегодня досрочное освобождение Ходорковского и Лебедева возможно, оно висит на волоске. Если мы будем слишком часто говорить о том, что он – потенциальный лидер оппозиции, он выйдет в 2017 году. Если мы будем говорить об этом поменьше, может быть, в 2014-2015, может быть, в 2013-м. Поэтому я думаю, что сейчас важно не говорить об этом, а думать об этом как об одном из важных вариантов. В конце концов, Ходорковский – человек, доказавший, что у него а) есть убеждения и б) есть внутренняя сила.
TRANSLATION
Plushchev: Well, in regard to the future Nelson Mandela (=Navalny), people also used to pin those hopes on Mikhail Khodorkovsky. But nowadays nobody even remembers him.
Bykov: Not true, he is remembered very intensively. (….)
Bykov: When you think deeply about a potential future leader of the Opposition, in future elections of any level, we cannot exclude from consideration even Khodorkovsky. The reason why he is not mentioned much nowadays is easy to explain. Early release of him and Lebedev is possible, it hangs by a hair. But if we keep talking about it too much, about the fact that he is the potential leader of the Opposition, then he won’t be released until 2017. If we keep our mouths shut about it, then maybe earlier, in 2014-2015, maybe even 2013. Therefore I think it is important to not talk about him (too much)…. In the final analysis, Khodorkovsky has proved that (a) he has convictions, and (b) he has strength of character.
END OF TRANSLATION
Bykov SO yearns for Tsar Khodorkovsky, along with his second-in-command Noble Knight Navalny to rule over a Greater Russia, stretching all the way from Moscow to Novgorod. Serving under his Tsar Khodorkovsky, I imagine that he (Bykov) would play the role of the poet laureate. (Or maybe the court jester?)
Strength of character? Khodorkovsky?? My, yes, so long as it is manifested by continued insistence that he never did anything wrong or illegal, and that he was only jailed for his political ambitions as well as the devotion the Russian people bore for him.
However, it’s perfectly true that if anyone could get the USA to repeal the Magnitsky Act, Khodorkovsky could; America would do anything for Saint Mike. Provided he was in a position to deal for it, mind you, and Russia would be a long time finding out what he gave away for it.
Nothing demonstrates better the white ribbon opposition’s complete detachment from political reality than its sanctification of Khodorkovsky. Not only is the man a convicted crook but as a billionaire he is just about as far from ordinary Russians as it is possible to get. By endlessly harping on about the (non existent) injustice done to Khodorkovsky what the white ribbon opposition does is tell Russians that it cares more for billionaires even when they are crooks than it does about them. From a political point of view it is beyond stupid.
As for Khodorkovsky being the Russian Mandela, the real Mandela would be outraged.
Alexander, they never disappoint. These are the same guys who thought making Misha “2%” Kasyanov leader of the party “For a Russia without Lawlessness and Corruption.”
When I asked their Facebook group what was the rationale behind their decision they said that those were merely allegations and in any case far less than what Putin stole.
http://www.lenta.ru/news/2013/01/17/resurs/
Another example of Kazakhstan being a stupid nuisance. Time to dump these clowns ASAP.
Wait my friend, here comes more:
http://en.rian.ru/business/20130130/179124175/Kazakhstan-Seeks-Russia-Oil-Product-Import-Cut.html
So Hillary Clinton is getting her wish for the “USSR” to not return in the form of the Eurasian free trade zone. The article is kind of funny since China is not exactly soft when it comes to haggling prices. I also hate articles where the innumerate reporter can’t even tell his readers at what price Kazakhstan exporting its crude oil to Russia that it thinks it is losing so much.
Cut Kazakhstan’s use of the Volga-Don for transport. The only thing they will be able too export is oil.
I think both this oil dispute and the Baikonur squabble are essentially minor spats. The Kazakhs must know that with time most manned launches will be transferred to Vostochny so not surprisingly they are trying to haggle up the rent while they can. They are doing the same with oil prices. Ultimately Kazakhstan is too integrated with Russia to want to quarrel with it in a big way.
Yet another that yearns for the return of the “romantic” Yeltsin years.
Even the most obtuse and dim-witted member of that which the elitist Latynina likes to label as the Lumpenproletariat has always known this, namely that these pampered bourgoise shites want only one thing: a return to that state of the ’90s feeding frenzy that took place at the cornucopia of Russian resources – and the devil take the hindmost, the hindmost being the great mass of the population: the ones that have no financial nous, no social clout, no connections with members of the former nomenklatura and its progeny, the “golden youth” such as Sobchak, that frequents and occupies the “elite” locations and the palaces that they cynically call “cottages”, as well as resorts and exotic watering holes both here and abroad, such as Abramovich’s tropical Carribean paradise island, where only “the beautiful people” go.
And this person who salivates at thoughts of the return of the king?
A bloody poet, biographist, writer, scenarist, film critic, journalist, sometime host to a Radio Ekho Mosckvy talk show – that bloody great lump of bourgeois lard Bykov!
Oh, the ghastly irony — a bourgeois Khodorkovsky-loving pig like Bykov wearing a Che Guevara T-shirt!
AAAAAAARGGGGGGG!
Here’s the prat saying in an interview that within 3 years there will be “another political system” in Russia (“free elections”, “free press” etc.) and either Navalny or Khodorkovsky will be at the helm of the ship of state.
So he wants either one convicted or one soon to be convicted criminal to be president?
We shall see.
No doubt he believes both his heroes are innocent of all charges made against them.
And here’s his web site.
What a bundle of laughs!
Father forgive me for I have sinned: I have made ad hominem attacks against a metabollically challenged person who has every right to express his own preferences as regards the political leadership of the Russian Federation.
Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.
It seems that some “political commenters” are finally admitting the obvious as regards this wondrous “opposition” that was going to overthrow the Evill Regime. In today’s Moscow Times, “political analyst” Georgy Bovt states:
“The opposition has been largely discredited in the eyes of the public due in part to the successful series of special operations the authorities waged against it, such as broadcasting smear campaigns on television. But it is also because of the opposition’s inability in recent months to put forward a coherent platform and plan of action or to demonstrate even a basic level of cohesion and organization. In the eyes of most Russians, many leading opposition figures, as well as the movement’s Coordinating Council, do not represent the people, and there is little faith that the opposition leaders can ever coerce the Kremlin to adopt any of their demands. Moreover, there is little faith that they would be effective rulers even if they were able to replace the current regime through democratic methods”.
Claiming that government “smear campaigns” are partly responsible for the opposition failure must be Bovt’s attempt to ease the pain involved in admitting what has been obvious for many months now: the opposition movement is well and truly dead in the water and it is now clearly obvious to most that the opposition does not represent the wishes of people.
And lo and behold! Right on cue in the comments section there appears Zigfeld, who adds her two penn’orth, stating:
“… the opposition has imploded because of its pathetic leadership”.
She has to add, as is her wont, a blatant untruth though: ” Putin has liquidated the press”.
I suppose she thinks that all the oligarch owned Russian press (which it mostly is), such as Kommersant, Novaya Gazeta, Vedomosti etc., follows the Kremlin line at peril of closure or, dare one say, the brutal liquidation of its journalists by agents of the “Mafia State”. And does she really not know that Radio Ekho Moskvy, the mouthpiece of “brave journalist” and headbanger Latynina, has as its majority shareholder a government organ, namely Gazprom?
This hackneyed attempt at claiming there is no freedom of the press in Russia seems to be in turn her attempt at easing the pain in admitting the blatantly obvious reason for the opposition failure: the white ribbonists are a tiny bourgeoise minority that have minimal support from the public at large.
But then she twists facts by saying: “… [E]ven at the height of the protest movement it was clear that that the vast majority of citizens would not stand against [Putin]“, implying that they are a craven mob that cower in trepidation before the Tyrant.
Bear in mind, not all those oppposed to “the regime” are of like mind as Bovt and Zigfeld are: Lucas wouldn’t agree with them, I’m sure; and Bykov is convinced that within 3 years happy days will return again: the Evil One will be overthrown, after which “regime change” either Navalny or Khodorkovsky will lead Russia to the heady heights of “freedom” and “democracy” – and for a happy few loads of lolly will once again be there for the making!
Oooooh goody! I just can’t wait!
Once again noting how well the anonymous troll coward Kim Zigfeld gets propped in contrast to considerably more earnest and intellectually gifted others, who don’t duck live situations where their views are tested.
The standard follow-up challenge to the print/electronic media bit will make note of Russian TV media and its stated greater influence. Never minding the diverse elements found on some Russian local TV stations and how major American TV news media favors a certain line that will show the likes of the late C. Hitchens in greater degree than those thinking along the lines of the late A. Cockburn.
This point has been met with the hypocritical “market forces” bit on what American public opinion want. The stature of the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street movements come to mind. In Russia, the political minority preferred by Western neolibs and neocons should get a disproportionately higher coverage.
BTW, did Shamir’s recent piece get picked up by JRL? If not, don’t expect JRL court appointed Rusia friendlys to highlight that relative to JRL’s ongoing propping of Brooke, Goble and a few others, much unlike Shamir, the American Institute in Ukraine and yes yours truly.
Once again noting how well the anonymous troll coward Kim Zigfeld left a comment in contrast to considerably more earnest and intellectually gifted others, who don’t duck live situations where their views are tested.
So true!
It’s easy for an anonymous crackpot like “Zigfeld” to posted absurdties in the comments section.
That activity shouldn’t be confused with successfully facing challenges in a situation like a live one hour BBC World Service feature. Ditto debunking nationalist leaning anti-Russian perspectives that find their way at some of the more high profile of venues.
Somehow market forces don’t apply to Russians and their wants. Russians must swallow whatever shit some tiny western-backed minority wants. The west thinks its hypocrisy will achieve anything. The west is living in a bubble of delusion.
So true.
TMT has its way of showing some limited diversity:
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/opinion/article/the-kremlin-needs-smart-pr/474656.html#ixzz2JSZtPoca
Never mind utilizing a substantively hard hitting and reasoned source on a regular basis that directly takes on such issues as nationalist anti-Russian leaning propaganda and such hypocritical tripe as the claim that Russia’s emblem is “too Christian”.
And yet another load of bollocks from a Moscow times commentor, this time Victor Ryzhkov:
“In the end, the general outline of the future for which most Russians dream is one marked by the idea of social rights taking priority over political privileges, a strong sense of justice, commitment to social equality and an understanding of freedom as the expression of freewill.
The question, of course, is how Russia can achieve these laudable goals. While at first glance 19 percent may seem like a small figure for the percentage of Russians who currently support a regime change, my prediction is that this percentage will increase at a sharp rate every year that Putin remains in power — especially among the large working class in the regions, Putin’s traditional electorate. This is inevitable as people’s standard of living continues to decline and more people become disillusioned and disappointed with Putin’s empty propaganda and his fundamentally flawed political and economic models for stability and growth”.
An increase in opposition to Putin “is inevitable as people’s standard of living continues to decline”?
What dream world does this man live in?
A continuation in the decline in the standard of living of Russian citizens?
Where?
When???
Who reads and believes this trash?
That’s strange!
The link above was a load of bollocks in that it linked back to this page.
Here’s the real load of bollocks that I wished to link to.
Dear Moscow Exile,
Thank you for providing a link to an utterly fascinating article. I would be very interested to see the survey upon which the article is based. Just a few comments:
1. Vladimir Ryzhkov who wrote the article is known to me as a prominent liberal politician and white ribbon oppositionist. I have not heard much of him recently and I suspect that he has been pushed somewhat into the background. This is in some ways a shame because despite the odd absurdity (such as one finds in places in this article) he always came across to me as a more intelligent and (yes) moral and realistic person than some of the other white ribbon oppositionists we have heard so much more of recently.
2. As for the survey itself, what it shows is why Putin is so politically dominant in Russia. Firstly it shows that a plurality of respondents consider the present time the best time in Russia’s history far above other times such as the Brezhnev period. Significantly just 2% think the 1990s was a good time (so much for the “romantic 1990s” of the likes of Navalny and Shevchuk). Secondly, the survey shows that an overwhelming majority of Russians identify strongly with precisely the sort of things Putin stands for: an active state, a strong emphasis on social justice, equality and stability. These are Putin’s key themes, which like the brilliant politician he is he returns to continuously and which the survey shows possess a tremendous resonance amongst Russians. In other words Putin is dominant politically because he has been successful and stands for what Russians want. He is in other words in his basic views one with his people.
3. The survey also validates Kirill’s point, which is that the only viable challenge there can be to the existing power structure at the present time is one that comes from the Left. Not only do Russians overwhelmingly hold what would in any western country be considered Leftist views, with no significant constituency at all for laissez faire Ayn Rand style liberalism, but what looks like a big majority of Russians who oppose the regime also appear to hold these views and may even do so to an even greater degree. As the survey shows they are not from the much talked about middle class but are those who for whatever reason feel that the changes since 1991 have left them behind. It is overwhelmingly likely that a majority of these are KPRF supporters. It is surely not a coincidence that the figure of 19% which the survey says is the percentage of Russians who want regime change is roughly the same percentage of Russans who according to official figures voted for the KPRF in the parliamentary elections of December 2011. I have always had the impression that apart from the tiny gaggle of liberals KPRF supporters are far and away the most hostile and alienated from Putin and the present government and this survey confirms that view.
I would add that an attachment to Leftism (or as Alexander Dugin in my opinion more correctly calls it, “national gauchism”) is a deep rooted historical and cultural characteristic extending well back into the Nineteenth Century. It is surely not an accident that a socialist revolution once happened in Russia. As I have repeatedly argued no free election in Russian history since the first Duma election in 1906 has ever been won by a party of the free market pro western Right and there is no realistic possibility of that ever happening at any point in the foreseeable future. If Putin’s government were ever to collapse in the midst of a major economic or political crisis (which is inconceivable) the beneficiaries would not be the liberals but (as in 1917) the Left. On the basis of this survey anticipating a Russian Liberal Millenium is like looking forward to the Greek Kalends, a day which will never come.
I vote for regime change in the KPRF. It’s time to get rid of deal leader Zyuganov and his fossil regime. I will repeat that Putin’s success is partly the result of his opposition consisting of clowns and losers. Perhaps there is no impetus for a sober leftist leader to arise because Putin is doing a good job. I don’t know. If there is 20% of the population which are KPRF supporters and are feeling left out of the transition, then you would think there would be some pressure to get effective leadership in the KPRF to challenge Putin. But at the same time it is possible that Zyuganov is really suppressing this being the dictator of the party that he is. Then KPRF should split and leave him to lord over a rump party.
I suspect that the 20% is composed of mostly elderly as it has been shrinking systematically since the 1990s and such people would actually think Zyuganov style leadership, a la USSR, is OK. I think most younger voters are pro-Putin and some fraction of these are liberasts.
Dear Kirill,
I agree with you. If there was regime change within the KPRF Putin might for the first time be faced with a viable opposition party. Perhaps it will happen one day but there’s no sign of it at the moment
I have to disagree here.
The KPRF represents a segment that will continue to decline into the single digits if West European experience is anything to go by.
Fair Russia meanwhile will steadily start to forgo its earlier real socialism into lefty neoliberalism, much like New Labour, the French Socialists after Mitterand, and the German Social Democrats in the 1960′s. Again as per W. European experience.
I hope that Russia will become a developed country by the time Fair Russia or its ideological ilk becomes influential enough to be elected into power and set about its weird economic and sociological experiments.
http://www.flonnet.com/fl1821/18210540.htm
The KPRF did not transition into a post Soviet entity and it has been declining as its support base dies off. If it had undergone a transformation it could have been in power as part of a coalition or by itself. I would say it has crowded out a left alternative during the 1990s and into the 2000s. Russia and its electorate moved on and the centrist United Russia now gets most of the support. The liberast parties like Yabloko are fringe parties with leaders associated with the Yeltsin regime and thoroughly discredited in the eyes of the majority.
The fate of the Polish former communists after 2005 would appear to indicate that center-left parties have lost support in Poland but this is some transient state. The Liberal party got decimated in Canada after 2006 but I don’t believe we will have the Conservatives in charge for ever and ever after.
So if the KPRF was retired from the scene and replaced with a modern leftist party it could form the government in the next cycle when support for United Russia wanes. Lack of a proper center-left party is a serious problem for Russia and should be fixed. The white ribbon clowns should not be seen as some sort of “real” opposition any more than fringe parties in the west are viewed as such.
The view pushed in the west that the current political order in Russia is not democratic is pure BS. By this logic Canada is a dictatorship too since we have a right wing regime with 40% popular support in power since 2006. And Harper can stay in charge for as many terms as he is able to win. There was no United Russia party before 2000 so nobody can justifiably claim that by 2020 there could not be a completely different party in power in Russia.
That would be “could not” instead of “could”. This forum needs an edit feature.
There, see? Fixed. This forum does have an edit feature, and it is I. Seriously, there are some major comment forums – like newspapers – in which you have 30 seconds or so to indicate you want to correct what you wrote after you submit it, but I’ve only ever seen two or three of them. There are quite a few more that have a preview pane that will let you see your comment as it will look when you post it, but you can already do that; you just have to scroll back through it and proofread. Unfortunately, only I can edit comments, but you can see the sense in that – if everyone could edit everyone else’s comments, people would change those that read “God, you’re an idiot” to “God, you’re brilliant” if it applied to themselves. Anyway, if there is a way to insert a preview pane I don’t know what it is.
Editing would require all of us to get password protected accounts like on other fora. But wordpress is not configured that way so an edit function would produce the problems you point out. I don’t think a password is such a big inconvenience and it would appear that the servers would not have that much more overhead.
Maybe. I use WordPress because it’s easy and it’s free, but it does have its limitations and I don’t love everything about it. Besides, I find that I never notice errors in my own submissions (on other blogs) until I’ve already pressed “Submit”. Even if I proofread rigorously, which I usually do, there’ll be something in there that my eye just skips over, and then when it’s published it will wave its little arms and shout, “Over here, durak – can’t you spell?” Sometimes I get halfway through a sentence and have a change of thought, so the resulting sentence is either unfinished or doesn’t make sense. At least here I can fix it.
I don’t actually see where the disagreement is. What the survey shows is that sentiment in Russia is presently strongly Leftist and that because of this the only possible challenge to Putin (whose policies in west European terms would also describe him as strongly Leftist) can at present only come from the Left. All of us agree that as it is presently led and constituted the KPRF cannot make this challenge and will eventually decline, though I should say that the KPRF’s decline and even disappearance has been constantly predicted ever since it was re established but its support base has remained surprisingly solid (it almost doubled its vote in 2011), which can only mean that it is attracting some younger voters. Anyway I was careful in my original comment to use the words “at present”. I do not know what the position will be in ten or twenty years time though to be frank I doubt that Russian politics will ever resemble those of western Europe, just as US politics don’t.
Speaking of future Russian President (or possibly Prime Minister under President Khodorkovsky) Alexei Navalny:
I guess it’s Musketeer Round-up time again. Yesterday we learned that they had searched Belykh’s flat in Kirov. Today we hear that Boris Nemtsov has been summoned for questioning (next Tuesday) on the “Navalny Case”.
Which Navalny case, you might ask? Because there are so many Navalny cases… Navalny is such a prolific grifter, I think he is personally responsible for keeping half the Moscow prosecutor’s office gainfully employed. He is a job creator!
This particular case (Part 4, Article 159 of Crminal codex of Russian Federation) is the old one involving Navalny’s alleged scamming of the political party “Union of Right Forces” back in 2007. Allegedly Navalny created a dummy (Cyprus) offshore called Allekt which charged URF for advertising services that were never completed. As a result of this scam, Navalny was expelled from the party.
Boris Nemtsov’s connection? I don’t remember. Was he also involved in URF? I thought he was a member of Yabloko at the time…?
Anyhow, this should be interesting, because everybody knows that Nemtsov hates Navalny’s guts. Even though American handlers order Nemtsov to be good little soldier and support Navalny, somehow he still manages to slip in his little razor-sharp digs whenever possible…
http://www.rosbalt.ru/moscow/2013/01/30/1087640.html
I’m still trying to figure out this new thing with Boris Nemtsov, but information is scarce. According to IZVESTIYA, Boris is supposed to go for questioning to the Investigating Committee on February 5, 11:00 o’clock. His attorney, Vadim Prokhorov, says that Boris is not in any trouble and is only being called as a witness in the case of embezzlement of funds from the party “Union of Right Forces” back in 2007.
http://izvestia.ru/news/543987
According to Prokhorov, the real target is Navalny, even though the latter was never a member of URF. (In my previous comment I might have mistakenly said Navalny belonged to URF at one time.) I think at one time they all belonged to Yabloko. However, membership in those parties was fluid at the time, I believe, and involved all the usual suspects of the liberal intelligentsia. Anyhow, Navalny is alleged to have ripped off URF for some cash and then stashed the loot away in his Cyprus offshore, which apparently he runs with his brother. Or something like that….
Meanwhile, in his own blog, Navalny and his ever-dwindling circle of loyalists are bitching about the fact that Bastrykin re-opened KirovLes case against him as early as February, 2011, but then pretended to re-open the case, with an Oscar-winning youtube video (“There will be no mercy!”) over a year later, on July 5, 2012:
http://navalny.livejournal.com/769111.html
In the year leading up to that dramatic video (showing Bastrykin ripping a new one for negligent Kirov-region prosecutors), Bastrykin was secretly pursuing the KirovLes case, and even receiving bi-monthly reports on it from his subordinates. Shocking revelation of competence!
Navalny theorizes that this is all one big conspiracy against him, because around that time (February 2011) he had started to make himself a thorn in the side of United Russia, what with all his Rospil and “Crook and Thieves” propaganda, yada yada.
I have said before, and I am willing to stipulate, that Navalny may well be a target of selective politically-motivated prosecution.
He might have gotten away with all his crooked deals if he had just flown under the radat and not made himself a thorn in important sides. “Yeh, and I would have gotten away with it too, if not for those meddling kids and their big goofy dog….”
But the fact is, he DID make himself a thorn. And so the powers that be started looking. Seek, and ye shall find. And find they did: up to 30 volumes of crooked deals. More than his team of low-IQ lawyers can even read, let alone comprehend.
And of all the crooked deals, Navalny is clearly most worried about KirovLes. He knows in his heart that they really snagged him on that. So now he flails all over the place, like a bug trapped lying on his back, waving his little legs, trying to deflect. But they have him.
Like I said before, he who enters into politics, particularly revolutionary politics, should be clean as a whistle and pure of heart. Like Sir Parsifal, who was the only Knight in the whole world deemed worthy to find and guard the Grail. Citizen Navalny: you are no Parsifal, Sir!
Dear Yalensis,
I agree. Navalny is in serious trouble. One wonder whether Nemtsov’s comment about Navalny being a fabricated individual that you quoted for us some time ago comes from Nemtsov’s knowing something about Navalny the rest of us didn’t. It will be interesting if Nemtsov does turn out to be a witness against Navalny. If so then Navalny’s goose would be truly cooked, though I wonder whether Nemtsov would be willing to go that far with all the inevitable charges of betrayal giving evidence against Navalny would earn for him.
Incidentally, on the subject of Bastrykhin, there was an utterly hilarious article about him in the British tabloid the Evening Standard written by none other than Evgeny Lebedev, the son of Alexander Lebedev, who is the Evening Standard’s proprietor. This accused Bastrykhin of being Alexander Lebedev’s prime persecutor and of presiding over a Reign of Terror. Putin it seems has lost control of Bastrykhin and is terrified of him. The article said that Bastrykhin is Russia’s equivalent of Senator “Tail Gunner” Joe McCarthy (he of the anti Communist witch hunts of the 1950s). I suppose Evgeny Lebedev thinks that readers of British tabloids haven’t heard of Beria or Yezhov.
Putin scared of Bastrykin? Now, THAT’S funny!
http://www.democracynow.org/2013/1/30/ex_cia_agent_whistleblower_john_kiriakou
This is what they do with whistle blowers in the USA. Note that the outing of Valerie Plame by some petulant minions of the W. Bush regime did not result in any jail time for anyone. So the whole “exposing” an agent excuse is absurd. A clear case of selective, punitive prosecution with political motives.
Just like a stuck needle in an old wind-up grammophone, Human Rights Watch states in its newly released 2012 world report that “The Kremlin in 2012 unleashed the worst political crackdown in Russia’s post-Soviet history”.
Do they never give up?
It’s the same old bloody song day in, day out.
The BBC, like the yapping dog that it is, is quick offf the mark to comment on the report.
Methinks the Human Rights Watch doth protest too much!
As opposed to 1993, when the results of two referendums were altered by fraud, the country’s constitution was cancelled, parliament was illegally dissolved and bombarded into submission, several newspapers were (thankfully only temporarily) closed down and a large number of political opponents of the government were arrested and detained until the newly elected Duma in December 1993 voted (against the then President’s wishes) to release them.
Of course the government that did all of these things was pro western and liberal and therefore “democratic” so Human Rights Watch will doubtless say that mentioning all this is in bad taste.
Not to mention the also-temporary banning of opposition parties. People said that Boris Yeltsin made it his mission – in which he was eagerly assisted by western interests – to so throughly wreck Communism that it could never come back. All things considered, that was a worthwhile goal, but quite a few babies were thrown out with the bathwater.
Boris the Drunk may have had a mission, but in a democracy it is the population that decides. They don’t need some messiah flushing them down the toilet of poverty in the name of goodness. By this stage it is clear that Yeltsin was nothing more than a comprador stooge who let the comprador oligarchs do as they please (including in the case of Khodorkovsky not even having investigations into killings associated with his property extortion rackets).
Human Rights Watch is a mouthpiece of the western elites. At one stage it had a list of the people on its board of directors and this included ex-CIA and other people that did not resemble grass roots activists but system insiders. Of course they stopped issuing such a list back in the 1990s. Recall how HRW was bending over backward in 2008 trying to make the Russian side into aggressor human right violators and Saakashvili’s MLRS and artillery bombardment on South Ossetia’s capital Tskhinval at midnight into something little to be bothered by. The 2000 civilians killed by sneak Georgian attack was being converted into a under 200 by HRW and dismissed as not important. Their other piece of BS was to try to claim that spent casings from cluster bomb assemblies were Russian in origin when it was clear from their photographs that they were Israeli models. This by itself discredits completely this f*cking liars as they were trying to fabricate Russian forces guilt for crimes perpetrated by the Saakashvili regime.
HRW also acted as apologists for the Israelis in 2006 when they were bitching about Palestinian militants fighting in civilian areas. For some reason HRW wasn’t bothered by the KLA using similar tactics in 1999.
In contrast to Shamir, AMINUK and yours truly, this is what some prefer to prop:
http://russialist.org/russia-worst-crackdown-since-soviet-era-government-should-stop-pressure-reprisals-on-civil-society/
HRW is sophisticated in its delivery. It can show isolated instances of criticizing some if not all of the folks you mention. Not that one should be duped by that. Somewhat akin to how The Moscow Times has operated.
Indeed. Of course the notion that there could be special-interest operatives among NGO staffs who would deliberately stir up political trouble for the Russian government – or, as Putin correctly accuses, paint a misrepresentative picture of the country – is dismissed as preposterous; much like the story of the “spy rock” planted by MI6 in “Operation Roadside”, which was by turns laughed at in Britain and angrily denied, until eventually it was admitted…6 years later. Coincidentally, mention of it was included in the linked BBC story.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/19/fake-rock-plot-spy-russians
I mentioned it earlier in a post on the ridiculous holier-than-thou attitude of the Anglosphere that what it does is “collecting intelligence” while what Russia does is “spying”. Up until very recently, as well, the west gave China a pass while constantly hammering on Russia.
http://marknesop.wordpress.com/2010/11/16/abort-retry-ignore-the-wests-hatehate-relationship-with-skolkovo/
The Guardian piece is made, if possible, even more hilarious with an hysterical defense of British spying in Russia by go-to turncoat Lev Ponomaryev, who squeals, “For any thinking person this rock meant nothing – it was simply a provocation, a cheap trick used by a former KGB agent.”
On the subject of spying, this TV series made its debut in the US last night:
http://insidetv.ew.com/2013/01/31/the-americans-premiere/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Americans_(2013_TV_series)
http://vod.fxnetworks.com/watch/theamericans
The setting is the DC area circa around the time that Reagan becomes prez.
I expect it will be a love letter to the CIA and torture, like other series and films (24, Homeland, ZD30) because the creator used to work for them.
Assuming it lasts long enough and the writers act accordingly, the episode with KAL007 in the background should be a highlight.
Thanks for the link on the Crimean Tatar raids. That Global Voices/Hoare promoted piece is easy to debunk anti-Russian crap history – pretty much at the level of the hack at Leos’ blog.
Depardieu’s acceptance of Russian citizenship as a gift from the Russian president and the resultant ire of the French nation notwithstanding, it seems that the Evil One clearly must have ways of making the French judiciary bend to his malevolent will, for how else can one explain that that epitome of integrity and model of prudence, that gifted entrepreneur, that genius mathematician and erstwhile guiding hand of Russian economic policy makers during the heady, “golden” Yeltsin years; that former “Godfather of the Kremlin”, who, in his own words was one of a handful that determined Russia’s fate in its heady embrace of unrestricted free-market capitalism and who became, consequently, one of the prime beneficiaries of the resulting feeding frenzy during the privatization of Russian state assets, in short: Boris Abramovich Berezovsky, may soon be charged with money laundering by a Marseilles court.
Well really!
The very thought of it!
Is no one safe from the clutches of that “proud KGB man” that passes himself off as the democratically elected president of Russia?
Ha, ha!! If you look at the comments and the summary of related stories in the sidebar, things in general are not going too well for old Boris. I remember back in the heady summer of 2010 when I used to duel with La Russophobe on her hateblog, Boris Berezovsky was – in her eyes – on a par with golden-boy Boris Nemtsov for leadership of the Russian state; when commenters responded that they enjoyed her posts and how great the blog was, she would modestly vow to stay in business until Boris Berezovsky or Boris Nemtsov (depending which had distinguished himself that week by being an irritant to the Putin government) was President of Russia. I imagine there were days that summer when Berezovsky himself thought that was possible; I mean, no matter what he did, the British authorities merely chuckled indulgently; it was obvious to him that he was untouchable and that the origins of his fortune were of no more consequence than how he spent it.
What a dark place the world must seem now. Suck it up, Boris – it’s been a long time coming, but better late than never. Not that I think any better of the French government for doing it – not now; there’s nothing they know now they didn’t know then. They just think it’s safe to pile on now.
There is some sort of feeding frenzy around Berezovsky. He must have really fallen out of favour with his western patrons. Looks like they are making an example out of him. He promised he could make a monkey the president of Russia and that he would topple Putin’s “regime”, but all he achieved was meaningless theatrics like the trip to Georgia. What a joke this clown is. And his western patrons are bigger jokes since they thought he could achieve so much with basically nothing.
Seems like this matter could very well be a situation which essentially involves an advocacy group losing patience with an incompetency.
With its own interests in mind, “Putin’s regime” should consider this mindset as well.