October 16, 2007
Fulminating against Russia
I will be in Moscow later this week which should be fascinating since I haven’t been for a couple of years. For reasons too tedious to go into, I won’t be able to do the blog from Russia. So, after this post, there will be a short period of silence.
In preparation for the trip, however, I’ve been talking to lots of people. The single most memorable conversation I have had about Russia was with a "senior administration official" in Washington,a few weeks ago. The man in question is not generally regarded as a hardliner or a hawk. But his view of developments in Russia was extraordinary bleak. Here are the edited highlights:
"The Russians are loaded with money and they think they’re back. The European Union is waking up to the fact that it has a Russia problem." The symptoms of this are many and various. They include - and here I am quoting - "the ‘hate week’ against Georgia, the cyber-attack on Estonia, the Litvinenko murder, the constant pressure on free speech and democracy, Russian recalcitrance over Kosovo, Russia’s threat to pull-out of the CFE treaty; the threats made to Poles over missile defence and Russia’s possible recognition of Abkhazia." This, according to the official, would make Russia a “revisionist power, which would be getting us into very dangerous territory”.
His summary of the situation was "Russia is authoritarian in politics, corporatist in economics and revisionist in foreign policy, with a rancid 1930s stew of nationalism and authoritarianism." So, I said, you are basically saying that Russia is a facist country. The official barely bothered to disagree: “I wouldn’t’ say that, because fascism is a loaded word", was his reply.
As this particular American sees it, the only solution to a newly assertive Russia is western solidarity. But he is worried that not everybody in Europe sees this. The French, the British and the German Greens are praised by him for "thinking strategically". Angela Merkel was praised for her handling of Mr Putin. But the German SPD were condemned as "acccomodationist".
The EU’s major strategic vulnerability, as the Americans see it, is its growing dependence on Russian gas. The administration official mused that sometimes the Americans seem more concerned about this than the Europeans themselves.
"Europe", he said "needs a serious gas policy, with a major high level EU push to get Caspian gas out on a pipeline that does not go through Russia." That means that Europe must make the building of the Nabucco pipeline through Turkey, a "top strategic priority". It also means continuing to support the independence of Georgia, for strategic as well as ideological reasons. If Georgia is brought back within the Russian ambit, then it becomes impossible to build a pipeline that is outside Russian control - unless (gasp) you go via Iran.
Europeans also need to develop their links to Norwegian and North African gas. And they should "revisit the decision to build the Schroder pipeline" - the shorthand name for the under-sea gas pipeline linking Russia and Germany, but bypassing Poland and the Baltic states.
And what happens if we in Europe don’t do any of this? “The biggest medium-term risk is that Europe becomes irreversibly dependent on Russia and Russia starts rolling back freedoms gained in the former Soviet Union - starting with Georgia and then moving onto Ukraine."
I will be interested to see what the Russians themselves have to say about all this.
The US senior official’s charge sheet against Russia is quite pathetic when you consider that instead of a “hate week” the Americans have been running “hate decades” against several countries including Iran.
The cyber attack on Estonia should be compared with America’s authorisation (and allocation of funds) to destabilise other countries (e.g. Iran and Syria) and the Litvinenko murder should be compared to the “shock and awe” conducted against the civilian population of Iraq. As for constant pressure on free speech and democracy, the Bush administration has been a rogue administration in the US and if you translate their actions in the context of of America to a Russian context, they have probably been worse than Putin.
Read this very interesting FT article of yesterday:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/fcd3a4aa-7a55-11dc-9bee-0000779fd2ac.html?nclick_check=1
Russian recalcitrance over Kosovo? How about US recalcitrance over Palestine?
Russia’s threat to pull out of the CFE treaty? How about Americans’ open flouting of the NPT, ABM and the Kyoto?
Threats made to Poles? How about US threats (and actual actions) against Iran, Cuba, Syria, Venezuela….the list is endless.
Russia’s possible recognition of Abkhazia? Well, how about the US attitude to Kosovo and indeed their plans to break up Iraq?
Those in glasshouses….
or maybe the Americans are sore over this sort of thing:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,2192195,00.html
P
Posted by: Pacifist | October 16th, 2007 at 6:29 pm | Report this commentPacifist,
Your glib rhetoric is very self-serving. Why are you not boycotting the UK, America’s closest ally? People like you used to be called “armchair communists”…
GOD BLESS AMERICA
Posted by: RCS | October 16th, 2007 at 7:44 pm | Report this commentRCS, you shouldn’t take Pacifist’s thoughts so personally. Any rationally minded person, after reading his post, would realize the truth in his perspective. Does that mean we are abandoning America and American ideals? Of course not.
Instead, it should mean that we have the capacity to empathize with our opposition in international relations (to be sure other rival powers see the situation as Pacifist does). Empathy, in my perspective, is integral to developing effective diplomatic relations and a prudent foreign policy.
As the world’s predominant power, we have a responsibility to not allow national interests (ours and others) to get out of control. We have seen the destructive consequences of such a situation.
So why don’t you argue against P’s points, or do you not have the capacity to do so? If not, that’s fine, just post another GOD BLESS AMERICA and everything will be o.k. Then you can go join the Minutemen on the border toting a flag and a shotgun looking for Mexicans.
Pacifist, Mochakerram az andeeshehaut
Posted by: kian | October 16th, 2007 at 10:46 pm | Report this comment“…a word that captures the paranoia and self-confidence, lawlessness and authoritarianism, populism and intolerance, and economic and political nationalism that now characterise Mr Putin’s administration. It is an over-used word, and a controversial one, especially in Russia. It is not there yet, but Russia sometimes seems to be heading towards fascism.”
Quoted from:
http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8031597 (12 oct 2006)
RCS, relativistic views are unfortunately widely held: Many people believe that nations that have a liberal democracy and are ruled by law are equivalent to nations that are dictatorial and are ruled by elites. That Kosovo, Poland and Estonia have chosen their path through liberal and democratic means is immaterial to them. It is a thinking akin to Machiavelli and von Clausewitz and it is a view Mr. Rachman will also find as rationalization for the politics of the Kremlin.
Liberal democracies are an ongoing threat to illiberal rulers in Venezuela, Iran, Russia, Syria, Zimbabwe and elsewhere because it is an endless populist struggle to make ones own people believe that liberal democracy is not for them, that it is a farce, that people in liberal democracies are worse off than they are. How can anyone make an illiberal person concede that granting people freedom and the right to vote are good things? In then not granting such rights they would also concede their own depravity.
Posted by: Felix Drost | October 16th, 2007 at 11:40 pm | Report this commentIt is disheartening to see the gap between perception of the same reality ,
the Russians are largely fed up with the west in general and the U.S.A. in particular .
The list of grievances is large, detailled and of long standing .
It is a sad comment that the U.S. diplomacy cannot ( will not ) grasp that the overiding Russian concern is security from western aggression
They have been invaded by the crusaders teutonics, poles , swedes , french ,germans , the two greatest world conquerors invaded and were broken in russia ,russia has been attacked during both world wars .
Now russia has lost a third of its population ,NATO an organisation created to fight russia has expanded within a couple of hundred miles of St petersburg ,the arm reductions treaties are ignored or rejected and finaly a chain of x band radars from northern norway to central europe is being set up on the most unbelievable of reasons .
Russian know about missile , the deployment of the planned interceptors threaten the russian nuclear capacity to retaliate after an american first strike attack , opening them to the grossest of blackmail
yes Russia is upset
Posted by: jeannick Guerin | October 17th, 2007 at 12:38 am | Report this commentSo Felix, do you think I support the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran?
Do you think I would like to see Russian interest to prevail over American interest?
Do you think I don’t realize that this society has given me more opprtunity than I would have had if my parents did not immigrate to the United States before I was born?
Do you think I want to deny people in Russia, Venezuela, Iran, etc. their human rights?
Please, let me know, because that is what you’re implying. I have lived in the US my whole life, and you have the audacity to claim that I don’t understand the merit of liberal democracies as opposed to an Islamic government, or a fascist one in Russia. You like to argue, and you do it well, so why are you making these claims without addressing the substance of the previous posts?
Posted by: kian | October 17th, 2007 at 12:43 am | Report this commentRight now the European Union is broadly an American Protectorate without authority, without autonomous Defense, without Sovereignty…so it is logical Sovereign Nations don´t care too much about what European leaders say.
The U.S. won the Cold War and the conditional surrender of the U.S.S.R. included the dismantlement of the Russian Empire which the Russian Federation couldn´t afford anymore in the same way Spain coudn´t afford the Empire during the first half of the XIX century and Britain couldn´t afford the Empire during the first half of the XX century.
The dismantlement of the USSR had an immediate military impact as it meant also the dismantlement of the SS-20 military missiles in Ukraine and Kazahstan.
Also it had a demographic impact as it meant the Russian Federation, with a decreasing population, has just 142 million people, not far from the unified Germany´s 82 million people and half America´s 300 million people, not to talk about the fact Russia means just 13% of the still growing China´s population.
From an economic point of view, the Russian Federation means just 10% of the American or the European Union´s GDP at PPP and just the same economic size as the Netherland´s 16 million people at current prices….
In the midterm it is ridiculous talking about “Georgia or Ukraine brought back within the Russian ambit” because ALL of Russia is withing the EUROPEAN ambit. The E.U. means 55% of Russia´s exports. The problem of the European Union is that Britain´s exclusion from the EURO weakens it as an economic HUB.
Posted by: Enrique Costas Mira | October 17th, 2007 at 3:50 am | Report this commentMr. Rachman: Your clever use of an American official to unload your gun on Russia over his shoulder is very instructive. Your laundry list of Russian offenses is equally telling. There has been–and is still–a geopolitical dagger pointed at Russia from every geographical direction possible. It is within this context that actions of Russian security elites can be read. There has been a reaction to the plundering and humiliation of Russia in the past decade and a half. Now that the Russian can reply back in kind, everyone is running around calling them fascists. Well, the Russians have not been running around invading and occupying countries lately. The great defenders of democracy, on the other hand, have their hands full with blood. Don’t you think that you should now write a column on what a certain Russian politicians says about the US?
Posted by: Rahuldeep | October 17th, 2007 at 6:51 am | Report this commentPacifist draws a number of reasonable parallels to highlight the hypocrisy of the administration official’s charge list against Russia.
But it is rather foolish to call this charge list pathetic. Hypocritical, yes, but pathetic, no. The charges made are largely valid, accurate and should be of concern to us all.
The fact that the Bush administration’s conduct is dubious on multiple counts doesn’t change the fact that there are grave issues with Putin’s record. To state that Bush’s record on democracy and human rights in America is worse than Putin’s in Russia is utterly absurd. There are many legitimate serious grievances against Bush, but he plainly hasn’t abrogated civil and political rights in the wholesale manner that Putin has *.
Arguing otherwise makes Pacifist sound like an apologist for Putin’s dreadful record. Sure, he may dislike Bush, and with good reason. But he’s fallen into the trap of letting his pet hate make him blind to other important abuses eslewhere, which really undermines his own arguments.
Unacceptable conduct should be confonted wherever it occurs.
* Who knows, maybe Bush and Cheney would have gone further in eroding civil liberties if they could, but it simply isn’t possible to do so à la Putin in a country with its numerous checks and balances, even if they aren’t all working as well as the founding fathers would have hoped.
Posted by: DM | October 17th, 2007 at 7:47 am | Report this commentI live in Russia and am a Russian citizen and I don’t see anything to disagree with in the post. But the most dangerous it is actually for us Russians.
Regimes like Putin’s earlier or later come to their end, but the form this end will take may vary from a peaceful Orange revolution to a bloody anarchy and civil war caused by sudden economic breakdown Russia is still in the danger of in the mid-term prospective.
Unlike democracies, authoritarist regimes are per definition very unstable in the long run - and so is Putin’s regime. So, it’s not Europe and the US who should be worried most - but we, Russians, ourselves, considering potential time-bombs of the Russian society: ethnic tensions in the Caucasus and Volga region, contrasts between rich and poor etc.
Posted by: czalex | October 17th, 2007 at 7:55 am | Report this commentPutin, judoka that he is, is exploiting America’s drive to dominate in order to rebuild Russia’s power and thus her own independence, an independence that was seriously threatened during the Yeltsin period.
The desire of nations to be sovereign, masters of their own fate, is one of the strongest forces in international relations. When Americans practice it, it is called “patriotism”, when others practice it, it is called “nationalism”, (fascism being a “loaded” word).
When, as a primary condition of their own safety and welfare, Americans use vast resources, military, economic and cultural to stifle the patriotism of others in benefit of their own, they are inviting the death of a thousand cuts.
Around the world countries that have nothing more in common than the desire to maintain their sovereignty in the face of US destabilization are banding together: Witness the unlikely alliance of Iran and Venezuela. This is the yeast where something massive could sprout. It is noteworthy that the Latin American military that once resisted Soviet internationalism, has no problem supporting present leftist governments that seek to maintain national sovereignty in the face of “American internationalism”.
So much hostility, cutting across ethnic, cultural, religious and ideological barriers, is a powerful negative energy to face. This is really sowing the whirlwind. The United States will end up paying heavily for interfering in the internal affairs of so many sovereign countries. In fact it is already paying heavily for all its mischief now.
Posted by: David Seaton | October 17th, 2007 at 7:59 am | Report this commentPacifist,
I have another comparison to suggest, one which is apposite for this blog:
The Politkovskaya murder versus the Watergate affair.
There is also a Little Russia - otherwise known as Syria - where Russia intimidates its ‘near abroad’, Little Russia intimidates Lebanon. Same manner, same tactics.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 17th, 2007 at 8:06 am | Report this commentI think there are three different aspects people should consider, when talking about Russia (or any other sovereign state for that matter): politics, economy and society. While the three are very much connected, and influence each other, it does not mean they are always correlated.
Russian political world seems very much about rhetoric lately. It is also in turmoil because nobody (maybe not even Mr. P. himself) knows what is going to happen in March. Putin’s political achievements are hard to define because they are largely correlated with high oil/gas prices - i.e. Russia commands more respect (and you should never forget a famous Russian saying “Afraid, means respectful”) in the world. All of a sudden countries in G8 and other alliances have to consider Russian point of view. This will end poorly for Russia, once commodity prices sink (eventually they will).
Will the economy be diversified enough by then? Diversified at all? Probably not. But a lot of politicians do not care for that, since their primary concern is to get rich NOW while there is money around. (Corruption is Putin’s biggest economic/political failure). Putin’s one and only indisputable economic achievement is the tax reform. Having said that, Russian economy has performed well because there are right people in charge of finances. Say what you will, but Putin is a good manager in addition to being a good puppeteer. But once the oil prices go down, not even the most genius economist will save this Dutch ship from sinking.
As for society… well fascism is on the rise, along with anti-Americanism. But the majority of population does not support the skinheads, viewing them as a disgusting menace (echo of WWII) and a lot of people do separate their hatred for Bush administration (point me out a place on the map, where people do not disapprove of Bush) from their feelings towards American population. Although, mostly state-run media is bound to have an affect on some percent of population and influence its opinion, xenophobia is not a recent phenomenon in Russia and as for anti-Americanism, well people who were inside the U.S. embassy in 1998 can tell you much about that.
At this point Putin’s list of achievements is short, list of faults is longer (though not outrageous comparing to a lot of other countries) but for the most part the guy has done nothing much for the country in the past 8 years and simply enjoyed the ride up the hill of commodity prices. The biggest and fast approaching challenge for the next guy (or the same guy) will be fixing the infrastructure. Everything else, although without doubt disturbing, is somewhat marginal right now.
GR enjoy your trip to Moscow. One thing is for sure - it will be expensive. I hope FT is picking up the tab.
Posted by: MYV | October 17th, 2007 at 9:10 am | Report this commentso:
“The EU’s major strategic vulnerability, as the Americans see it, is its growing dependence on Russian gas. The administration official mused that sometimes the Americans seem more concerned about this than the Europeans themselves.”
and, one could add:
“The [US]’s major strategic vulnerability, as the [Europeans] see it, is its [continuing]dependence on [Middle-east oil]… sometimes the [Europeans] seem more concerned about this than the [Americans] themselves.”
Pot? Kettle?
I thought international trade was SUPPOSED to make us dependent on one another, and that this was supposed to be A GOOD THING. Trading partners don’t go to war and all that…
Doesn’t seem to apply to commodities of course - despite the fact that these are the most basic forms of tradable goods conceivable. So if it’s no good for that - what IS trade good for?
Posted by: David | October 17th, 2007 at 11:21 am | Report this commentAgree with David. Mutual interdependence is good for our common security. 55% of Russian trade takes place with the European Union and the percentage is going to increase in the future in the same way European consumption of Russian gas, oil and other natural resources is going to increase. Trade in good and services between the EU and Russia will increase. That´s great and inevitable.
We, Europeans, have to leave the “maritime” conception imposed upon us by the USA and recover the “continental” conception. Europe is the Western Peninsula of EURASIA and there are just a few thousand Kms between the Eastern part of Europe (Greece) and the Western part of China (Xingiang)
Anglo-saxon actions are always guided by the determination to avoid the “Continental” dimension of EURASIA (remember Herny Kissinger´s words), the trade priviledge we have from our land connection with China through Xingiang (whose Independence is supported by the Bush Administration)
For the USA any action preventing the creation of an EURASIAN ECONOMIC AREA between the European Union and CHINA will be worth the effor…But now Europe cannot lose another opportunity; we have to play our cards. And Russia is the main corridor, the main connection between the EUROZONE and CHINA, two new players in World Affairs.
Posted by: Enrique Costas Mira | October 17th, 2007 at 1:43 pm | Report this commentIt is a pity that people throw around words like “relativistic” when they seemingly are not familiar with the concept.
I happen to think that the rights and lives of Iraqi and Palestinian people are as important as the lives and rights of whoever else that Mr. Rachman’s “senior US official” has chosen to shed crocodile tears for. This is, in fact, the opposite of moral relativism of the kind that leads Washington to deny human rights in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo by using suspect legal devices that Clive Crook of the FT calls brainless if not lawless.
It is also salutary that the US source did not include by far the greatest misdeed of the Putin regime, its genocidal treatment of the Chechens. Indeed in that context, Bush is on record praising Putin as a partner in the war in terror. I guess as Putin is involved in destroying another Muslim nation, a la Palestine, then it is acceptable as that treatment is good enough for Muslims?
As a Third-Worlder, I cannot but help feel entirely cynical about the kind of self-serving Human Rights advocacy that emanates from the “liberal democracies” in London and Washington that sustain and nurture the medieval brutalities of the Saudi government. I guess what Cordell Hall said all those years ago of the Dominican dictator, Trujillo, still applies “”He may be a son of a bitch, but he’s OUR son of a bitch.”
So long as you are a “son of a bitch” that is useful to the economic and energy interests of the “liberal democracies”, you are “OUR son of a bitch” and will be supported. I think both Yeltsin and Putin, have in the past, been “OUR son of bitches”. The current list of such “sons of bitches” is endless, from Ilham Aliev, the hereditary president of Azerbaijan to Hosni Mobarak and Pervez Musharraf, the dictators of Egypt and Pakistan respectively to the former KGB thugs who lord it over much of the oil rich central Asia to the presidents of West African states like that of the Equatorial Guinea who was feted at the White House in 2002 and of whom the BBC web site says:
“Since independence in 1968, Equatorial Guinea has been ruled by two men - from the same family - who have been described by a variety of human rights organisations as among the worst abusers of human rights in Africa. In recent years the former Spanish colony has become one of sub-Saharan Africa’s biggest oil producers. ” http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/country_profiles/1023151.stm
Therefore, please spare me the lecture on your moral superiority and go back to your alternative reality, NeoCon, world of bombing for democracy and f*cking for virginity.
Best Wishes,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | October 17th, 2007 at 1:48 pm | Report this commentwell, I think this gas dependency is actually much more both ways than most people on this blog seem to assume. For a start, increasingly gas is in LNG form meaning it is transported by sea from Qatar for ex (the largest in the world) to ports in the UK and southern Europe.
But much more importantly, the Russian (and Soviet) state has always imposed price caps on oil and gas domestically. When the Russians followed Mr Sachs and Co’s advises (ill-advised, ridiculously naive, but that’s another debate) on market liberalisation, they pragmatically realised that Russia is a rather cold place and that if people can’t afford heating, they wont accept any reforms and possibly revolt.
In any case, what allowed many oligarch to make their first millions (get price capped oil domestically for roubles, export by truck or donkey’s back illegally and get USD, make huge profit and do the same again) has been a headache for today’s russian companies. Because for Gazprom and Rosneft to be profitable they need export markets and of course, they will need massive capital investment to develop fields in Siberia and such cold, expensive places to operate in. Sure, they can bully a few international majors for cash and expertise but the point is that a few months without selling gas to Europe would be devastating for Gazprom. Of course, it would hurt Europe too.
Sure, Russia’s reactions have seemed erratic at times, but self-interest still determines its actions. As for its discourse, it’s another matter, because elections are coming up and Russians love “strong men” so a bit of gung-ho, macho comments doesnt hurt domestically, and if you can get a warning statement from the US, all the better!
I agree with czalex - the biggest problem is the fact that Russians are denied their right to choose their own destiny by the way Putin & co have taken the state & the economy. I think the west should refrain from directly supporting the opposition or the press or “lecturing” Russia on democratie, as these will inevitably be used skillfully by Putin to his own advantage. I think if the West keep standing for democratie, for civil liberties, for economic freedom, against corruptions etc.., most Russians will start to want the same and bring about those changes themselves.
Posted by: a | October 17th, 2007 at 1:54 pm | Report this commentTo “”: My counter proposal is that the Western equivalent of the Politkovskaya murder is the “suicide” of Dr. David Kelly. More finesse, same result. When will those clumsy Russians learn some sophistication from their slick Western counterparts?!
Mr. Putin should now learn from his British counterparts and appoint a Russian equivalent of Lord Hutton to whitewash (ooops..I meant investigate)the murder.
As for intimidating “Near Abroad”, why do you think small? Think big man… there is the whole continent of Latin America that has been intimidated by the US through direct military intervention, coups and sanctions.
Never overlook the obvious my friend.
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | October 17th, 2007 at 2:11 pm | Report this commentThis blog could have been written word for word in the late 1970’s when I was involved in North Sea oil and gas policy. The arguments were the same. The US predicted, correctly, a growing dependence by Europe on Russian gas.
We argued, as has David above, that we should be grown-up about trade, including energy, and see it as mutually beneficial and thus a powerful tool in relations between countries.
The US wanted faster development of Norwegian gas fields, which would have destroyed the Norwegian economy.
We pointed out that there were not one, but two pipelines. One brought the gas from Russia, the other conveyed dollars to Russia. On those grounds we believed there would be a mutual reliance that would moderate Russia’s behaviour.
This was all at a time when Russia was unreformed politically and economically. Little has changed. Russia is now vastly richer but still needs the flow of dollars. Arguments about the power of the weapon in their pipelines still seem open to argument.
Posted by: Philip | October 17th, 2007 at 2:50 pm | Report this commentI was born in the Soviet Union and had a childhood there.
Posted by: Chen | October 17th, 2007 at 3:49 pm | Report this commentI support US on many issues including the Iraq war and it’s position about Iran.
But I believe people in American don’t understand Russia very well. I can udnerstand why your official from the White House says what he says, I can see his point and logic behind it.
But please don’t forget that Russia was a superpower, it has strong culture, military, science - though its no match to american one it is still great and has big influence. Russian people are very proud of their past and people like Putin want to see Russia strong and respected rather than ‘another new democracy with market economy’. If Russia goes japanese way (which I think is good for Russia), russians may not be feared and respected enough.
In Russia there is a saying ‘If you fear me, you respect me’.
I don’t believe Russia is a big threat to the EU in the future as it doesn’t want to be another ‘Iran or North Korea’. Their energy policy (threat etc) are all part of the ‘fear=respect’ strategy. They well realise that ‘cutting gas supplies for long period of time’ is stupid.
Pacifist,
while your point might be valid, would you mind refraining a little bit about constantly bringing US & the West imperialism, Iraq etc.. into every post? This one is about Russia. Feel free to contribute on this.
While I enjoyed reading your posts, it’s now becoming a bit tedious when you basically re-heat the same points regardless of the topic.
Also, you seem to think that critising a non-western country for any reason equates to endorsing the past crimes of western countries.
Anyway, you obviously have a lot to contribute but i think Gideon’s blog would be much more enjoyable and informative if you kept focus on the topics.
Posted by: a | October 17th, 2007 at 4:16 pm | Report this comment“If you fear me, you respect me”. What childlike nonsense. I may fear Russia, but I will never repect her for the brutish strands in her culture. I do not fear Shostakovich, but I respect him very much. Same with Chechov. What a pity that the country has undergone such an atavistic reversion. A truly patriotic leadership would have striven to strengthen Russia’s institutions, not to undermine them with primitive chest bearing.
In Israel there are many Russian emigres. By observing them I have learned much about the Russian psyche: they are paranoid, they accord exaggerated deference to any person in authority, who in turn expect to obtain exaggerated privileges. In short: they are Byzantine. And they are insecure about their culture.
Posted by: RCS | October 17th, 2007 at 4:28 pm | Report this commentHmm-I think the key word here is “revisionist”. The Americans think they won the Cold War and inherited the world. Russia thinks it walked out of the Cold War, and in that way, won it. Why the Americns have spent the last 15 years telling Russia it is a loser is beyond me, but it would go some way to explain the hostility felt towards the US in Moscow.
Posted by: SK | October 17th, 2007 at 5:06 pm | Report this commentRCS- you should be aware that “Byzantine” is a meaingless term, brought into circulation through the ill-informed opus of E. Gibbons’. The reason that Russian Jews in Israel are insecure about their culture is that they are three things at once- Russian, Russian-Jewish and Israeli. BEWARE OF IGNORANCE!
RCS its not about primitivism. If you lived in USSR you might be able to understand it. Have you been to Russian Army where 1000 people die annualy when Russia is not at war??
‘Fear me = Respect me’ type of culture occured not because it is smart or anything but because this rules helped you to survive in USSR and modern Russia. Using this rule millionairs in Russia, Kazakhstan, Ukraine become millionairs. That’s how it works there.
I am not saying its good. Its the way it is, and if you don’t play by the rules (local russian rules, not american ones), you loose no matter how smart are you. I agree its not the best way of living but that’s why many russians leave Russia.
It was like that in Soviet Union and this cultural things don’t change in one day.
In Soviet Union you couldn’t get promoted without sucking up to the boss. Its human psichology. Its same in the West just to lesser extent. In the USA and the UK you have to suck up to your employer/supervisor to get a good reference. Don’t say its not like that, I live in the USA/UK/Canada these das and I see it does exist though to a lesser extent.
Posted by: Chen | October 17th, 2007 at 5:08 pm | Report this commentHi RCS…. Talking of Russian Jews in Israel, how do you explain this?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article2418221.ece
Is it perchance that the kitchen sink approach to try to outnumber the native Arabs backfiring embarrassingly?
- Speaking of Russian-Jewish-Nazis, what do you think of Avigdor Lieberman?
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=9923
If the Palestinians are punished for electing Hamas, shouldn’t Israel be punished for having him in the cabinet?
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | October 17th, 2007 at 5:51 pm | Report this commentAnother victory for Russia!!!
I wonder if Gideon had a bet on this one too!
http://msnsport.skysports.com/football/match_commentary/0,19764,11065_2665870,00.html
P
Posted by: Pacifist | October 17th, 2007 at 6:07 pm | Report this commentPacifist, you probably didn’t read that article carefully (neither did I, but I read that story somewhere else): the members of that gang, except for one, were not Jews.
Jewish immigration is not an approach to outnumbering the ‘native’ (many of whom are not at all native, but were attracted to early twentieth century Palestine by the economic prosperity brought about by Jewish immigration) population. Rather, it is the enactment of Israel’s mission to be a safe haven for Jews anywhere.
Avigdor Lieberman is definitely not a Nazi (try to avoid using that very loaded word). He is a blunt straight-talking, but ultimately pragmatic politician. I didn’t read the (probably opinionated) article you linked to, but I know he supports an exchange of territory with a future Palestinian state, so that the main Israeli settlement blocs remain in Israel in exchange for Arab-Israeli towns to be transferred to Palestine. I think that is within the bounds of legitimate political discourse.
Posted by: RCS | October 17th, 2007 at 6:36 pm | Report this commentKian, I didn’t mean that was your perspective; You posted just before me so perhaps it all ended up appearing that way, but that’s not at all what I intended.
Pacifist, this is Gideon’s blog, not yours. We’ve been asked not to engage in debate by the editors because we both apparently lack the flexibility to have a normal exchange. You’re telling me to go back to “bombing for democracy and f*cking for virginity”; your emotions are far too raw for me. I bid you to relent and make your points without casting me as the enemy of all that is human.
Jeannick Guerin: All nations that joined NATO did so democratically. For example in Hungary, 85% voted in favour in a referendum. NATO was not created to fight Russia, it was created to ensure peace in Europe through mutual assistance. The interceptors that would be placed in Poland can only intercept dumb ballistic missiles at a high point in their trajectory, not the advanced ones that the Kremlin has for which they would be in the wrong location. The Russian army is directly responsible for the death or disappearance of thousands of civilians in Chechnya, the leadership in the Kremlin has a history of mass violations of human rights and deportations (Chechens, Turkomen, Balts, Ukrainians, Chechs, Slovaks, Hungarians). If anyone strengthened NATO and the EU it’s the leadership in the Kremlin.
Posted by: Felix Drost | October 18th, 2007 at 8:59 am | Report this commentMany of the comments here are as sickening as they are puerile. The Russians have no enemies except those they create. They could as easily join the West as they could create their own little fascist hellhole. They have chosen the latter… or at least it has been chosen for them by their government and its enablers in the West. Either they will stand up and demand their freedom or they will place the yoke back upon their necks. We do them no favors by arguing that one is as good as the other. There is nothing sophisticated or nuanced about making excuses for oppression.
If someone wants to make an argument that Bush and Putin are birds of a feather, or that Iraq and Afghanistan would be better off under Saddam and the Taliban, or that Guantanimo is a gulag or that by monitoring the communications of terrorists the US is engaged in some sort of egregious human rights violation then they can do so. They just shouldn’t expect to be taken seriously.
Posted by: Voluble | October 18th, 2007 at 4:15 pm | Report this commentNone of this is terribly surprising. The sun is setting on the American empire. It has happened to every empire before it - it is only to be expected.
Posted by: Eric Kraus | October 18th, 2007 at 4:50 pm | Report this commentFew countries take well to a sudden loss of status - neither France nor England enjoyed the process, but certainly, the arrogance of the Americans renders it particularly galling for them to watch their views gradually slip into irrelevance.
Russia once cared deeply about what Washington thought - increasingly, they simply do not care. The prestige of America in Russia is nil. Even those who do not support the current administration here do not seek their model in America, but rather, in the European Union.
Putin gets up and says what most everyone thought, but which officials were too politically-correct to say: that the US invaded Iraq largely to grab control of Iraqi oil. The Russian people applaud loudly. A US president weakly supported by perhaps 25% of the US population gives lectures on democracy to a Russian leader supported by 85% (and who is adulated by, say, half of the populace). The Russians simply grin.
The American rhetoric will become increasingly shrill as it becomes clear to them that they are entirely without the means to influence the Russian political process. Their clumsy, arrogant and provocative diplomacy will be countered by scaled Russian reposts in any number of areas where the badly over-stretched American empire is most exposed.
Perhaps America will learn to live within her means.
I don’t know if this is a comment or a question.
Russia is a problem…fair enough. I am curious, however, about its so-called “intransigence” on Kosovo. I am starting to become a bit intransigent on that myself.
Here’s my problem. I don’t have much sympathy for Serbia…any problems that they have were, I think, brought on by themselves. They made their bed, now they have to sleep in it.
That said, Serbia is now a member state, in good standing, of the UN. It is a recognized member of the international community and is operating essentially as a democracy.
Any state has a right to uphold and defend its territorial integrity, doesn’t it? How can we blame Serbia for wanting to maintain its own borders? To this extent, I have difficulty in arguing against the Russian position (even if their motives may be less than pure).
More importantly, however, is the position of the UN. So far as I can see, the UN is actively working for the dismemberment of a member state in good standing. From where does the UN derive either the legal or moral authority to do that? What business is it of the UN to set about trying to take apart a member state?
As I say, Sebia has caused the world a lot of grief over the last 15 years, but that doesn’t justify, in my opinion, delegating to the United nations the right to determine which countries should or should not remain in one piece.
As Russia, I too am a bit intransigent on this point. I am interested in your view, however.
Posted by: Blaise MacLean | October 18th, 2007 at 5:56 pm | Report this commentBlaise,
Good point on serbia/kosovo. But I think this is a case of a country’s terrory Vs a people’s right to self-determination.
Because of the bloody history and evidence of genocide, it would be quite naive to assume all would be well and forgotten in the Balkans if only the UN (and the EU) left Serbia whole. The UN force there helped stabilise the situation, and (if I recall correctly - sorry can’t be bothered wiki my facts) organize an independance vote for which the people of kosovo voted in majority.
The Russian there are just backing their historic allies - not that convincingly I would argue - but it is a very popular cause in Russia. I was myself in Russia during the 99 bombing of Serbia, and they was absolutely no doubt that the Russian people in the street consider the Serbs as brothers. Sure it can be argued that the media wasn’t exactly reporting news about the genocide and that might have changed somewhat attitude towards the Serbs. But again, the point in Russia’s position there is the same as in most foreign policy initiatives under Putin: say or take positions that will be popular at home. And of course, if the EU or the US have opposite views, so much the better.
Let us not forget that Putin worst time in office was during the submarine that sank in the Baltic - a classic case of Russia’s historic carelessness towards loss of lives (the oft repeated, it’s a large country with lots of people attitude), of goverment incompetence and military cover ups. As long as people are focused on “Putin, the hero that restores Russia’s power in the world and stands up to the US” the questions about the brutality in the military, about property laws, corruption etc.. don’t even get asked.
Posted by: French_in_London | October 18th, 2007 at 7:11 pm | Report this commentEric Kraus is right and there is an empirical evidence of the diminishing influence of the US Administration in World Affairs: from the negative to support American invasion of Iraq (Russia, France and Germany), Spain reticence to support the occupation and finally Turkey´s national interests.
Posted by: Enrique Costas Mira | October 18th, 2007 at 8:05 pm | Report this commentHi RCS,
You are obfuscating my friend. Those Nazis were admitted to the country as Jews according to the Israeli law of return even though they don’t consider themselves Jews.
Why else would Israel be giving out Israeli citizenship to Russian Nazis if it weren’t out of desperation to bulk up “Jewish” numbers artificially?
I think I win this one
Posted by: Pacifist | October 19th, 2007 at 9:59 am | Report this commentP
Dear Pacifist
I don’t think such an argument can be won by way of one localised example, but since you need to have the last word, then let us leave it at that.
Posted by: RCS | October 19th, 2007 at 3:07 pm | Report this commentShabbat Shalom dear RCS,
The Times report says:
Quote
Israel’s law of return is based on the Nazi definition of what constitutes a Jew, as laid out in Nuremberg in the 1930s, on the grounds that if a person was considered Jewish enough to be murdered by the Nazi regime, they were Jewish enough to live in Israel. Under its rules, more than a million people from the former Soviet Union flocked to Israel in the 1990s. But according to the Immigration and Absorption Ministry, more than 300,000 of them do not consider themselves Jewish.
Unquote
THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND people who do not consider themselves Jewish have been given money and assistance to come and live in Israel under “law of return”. It is about 5% of the population.
Hardly a small localised example?
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | October 19th, 2007 at 3:51 pm | Report this commentSalam Agha-ye Pacifist,
It IS a localised example of the policy BACKFIRING. In most respects the Russian aliyah has been a great success, has brought about growth and prosperity and has helped catapult the country to the rank of a fully developed economy, earning it the sobriquet ‘the second Silicon Valley’. Now Israel is on the verge of joining the OECD. This is something European countries could take heed of in their own approaches to immigration.
ممنون
Posted by: RCS | October 19th, 2007 at 5:05 pm | Report this commentI’m wondering why so many people here, after the anonymous but “senior administration official” (very senior indeed, judging from the penetrating depth of his analysis) so easily call Russia a fascist country. Is this assessment based on any personal experience, deep knowledge, detailed sociological data, or at least on a recent trip to Russia (beaten-up British fans may be excused)? Russia may be xenophobic but xenophobia does not amount to fascism. Granted, there is a problem of illegal albeit active fascist-like movements in the country, there is a problem of dozens of ethnic and racial killings, there is an even greater problem of war atrocities in the Caucauses (Chechnya and increasingly Ingushetia). However, this does not make the country fascist.
I’m far from idealising my own nation which has historically been gagged, humiliated, enslaved, decimated and experimented on by its own “elites”. Try to breed a responsible and democratic people under those harsh conditions! However, one would expect a bit more responsibility and moral leadership from the developped democracies like the US. That’s why Pacifist is right and Voluble is wrong. All its democratic checks and balances for internal consumption have not stopped the US voters from electing AND RE-ELECTING their leaders whose main reckord after 8 years is (1) bombing down the entire nation for oil (thanks for spelling it out, Alan Greenspan) (2) helping Al Qaeda become a world terrorist force (3) derailing global climate discussions and silencing scientists while continuing to happily produce a QUARTER of the world’s greenhouse waste. Americans may rest assured, the grateful humanity will never forget these lessons of their democracy.
Now, if you call Russia fascist for putting its interests before the interests of others - what would call a nation which puts its interests before the interests of all the peoples and species on this planet? And what have 200 years of democracy taught this nation?
Posted by: A Russian | October 20th, 2007 at 9:49 am | Report this commentA Russian - I can’t agree with you on points (1) and (2), but I must admit your post is very engaging and cogent - one of the most impressive we’ve seen on this blog.
Posted by: RCS | October 20th, 2007 at 10:41 am | Report this commentOne important simplification that which some comments posted here exemplify concerns the relations of Russia with Eastern Europe and especially with thе former Soviet republics. These relations are far more complex and deep than many people assume. The western public sees them through the eyes of a bunch of russophobes, particularly from emigrant communities, vigorously supported and promoted in the media, especially by Americans and the British. Actually, the reflexive support of every crazy russophobe is one major claim that Russians have against the West. The NATO’s expansion was not as broadly supported as people like Felix Frost claim here, and many countries joined because, basically, the had been strongly advised to do so. A particular example was Slovakia. As for the liberal democracies like Latvia and Estonia, do many people in the West aware that 30-40 percent of their populations don’t vote or disenfranchised from participation in the government even if they do? Currently Ukraine is being pulled in the same direction despite the fact that the absolute majority of population opposes it.
Posted by: KF | October 21st, 2007 at 10:10 am | Report this commentThanks. MYV (just read his earlier post) has actually preceded me in defending us, poor silly xenophobic Russians, from the fascist label. And I cannot but sign up to his summary of Putin’s years (I’d be less sparing though and would not forget one of Putin’s geratest crime to his country - rigging court decisions and generally demoting and weakening the legal system).
As to my points 1 & 2, it seems that most Iraquis agree with them, if we can trust opinion polls and CNN’s Late Edition. Moreover, it seems now that 70% of the US population agree with them too. Unless, of course, we do not explain their sudden change of mood about the Iraque war in the past couple of years by a petty reluctance to overpay for democracy in the world with their lives and money.
However, the question remains: how can two nations with so different internal governance systems as Russia and the US end up more or less in the same place? What are the advantages of liberal democracy (or rather US-style democracy which has been patented in the world) versus authoritarian rule if both are hated and feared by so many other countries? Ok, US is feared and hated more right now, but envious Russia is making a real effort to catch up.
It seems to me that democracy has nothing to do with faireness or humanity of nation’s policies towards other nations. You may be a democratic American melting pot (with 30% approval rating for a democratically elected president) or an authoritarian xenophobic Russian boiler (with 70% approval rating for a half-appointed president), the end result is the same: you bomb, if you can afford it, or bully, if you cannot, other nations when it suits yours. Democracy does not seem to make your nation more responsible and loving, less bellicose and more altruistic. Trade and self-interest probably do.
James Lovelock, a great British geophysicist, said: “Terrorism and genocide both result from our tribal natures. Tribal behaviour is surely written in the language of our genetic code, or why else would we as a mob or a crowd do the evil things that only psychopaths would do alone.” Lots of material for soul searching for Russia here, but even more for the US which claims to be the unblemished moral authority preaching everybody else.
Posted by: A Russian | October 21st, 2007 at 10:11 am | Report this commentTo A Russian -
Interesting point you’re making here. And it’s difficult to argue with your comparison if one only looks at the last 7-8 yrs. For Russia, Putin understood from the start that to hang on to power he had to make Russians great again, which he did from the start - and oil price rises helped enormously. For the US, this administration’s approach of unilateral action, of do something first, think later about the consequences, and the administration full use of its powers (and grab for more) meant that it acted in a pretty unfettered way. And when those powers are excercised by incompetent, ideological and blind folded leaders, then you’re bound to be in trouble.
I would point that in the US, the president has enormous powers - which thankfully not many presidents have made full use of. But many other western democraties (like Britain) have an elected leader more directly accountable. For a democracy to function, the opposition has a vital role to play. In the US, it’s fair to say the Democrats have been in the political wilderness for 4-5yrs. They lacked the political courage to stand up to the Bush administration when it mattered. (Patriot Act, the ever more expensive and questionably effective homeland dept etc..)
I think if you include several more administration, the US system comes out better. Of course, for Russia it’s still too early to tell - and we’ll see how Putinism stands the test of time - when ordinary Russians’ aspirations of World greatness & respect become less important and their aspirations to a better life, fairer work prospects, justice etc… come first.
It is also in the nature of democraties to reform. A word overly used by most politicians and generally not accurately but democraties tend to be in a perpetual flux of changes - some better some worse. what is encouraging, is that they are regular moments of soul-searching, of wondering whether the constitution and institutions are adequate or need changing. It seems to me the US is heading that way because (or thanks to) the Bush administration abuses (be it the rendition, phone tappings, justification of torture, justice system etc..).
So I’m rather optimistic things will change for the better.
Posted by: French_in_London | October 21st, 2007 at 12:04 pm | Report this commentIt would be a would deal for the European Union changing the anti-European Poland for Russia. After all, as a market Poland has only 38 million people and Russia has 141 million people.
Russia also has the natural resources we Europeans need and we have the money and technology Russia needs.
So why we need Poland in the European Union? As an Spaniard I think a better deal would be having the anti-European Poland OUT and the pro-European Russia IN.
In fact i wonder why the Poles joined an insitution like the European Union that they hate so much. If Poles hate us LEAVE. WE DON´T WANT YOU IN THE EUROPEAN UNION. WE PREFER RUSSIA IN, MUCH MORE THAN YOU!!!!!!!
Posted by: Enrique Costas | October 21st, 2007 at 7:53 pm | Report this commentI mean a “good” deal
Posted by: enrique | October 21st, 2007 at 7:54 pm | Report this commentTo the French:
Putin’s use of nationalistic trends and forces in Russia is very limited as they are considered a threat to his and his cronies’ power. Ultra-nationalist parties like “Rodina” have actually been disbanded and some leaders even legally prosecuted. By the way, if anybody instead of crying hysterical about non-existing Russian fascism, wants to know more about the origins and track record of Russian nationalism in the USSR, here is an interesting article (in Russian): http://www.apn.ru/publications/article18137.htm
I happen to think that the EU is the example for the whole world to follow if it wants to survive. However, there is a catch here. Developped European democracies did not stop two world wars. Britain is actually a particularly bad example of responsible and human democracy as its centuries-old institutions made it responsible only to its own citizens, not to the citizens of its colonies. Forget the atrocities in the colonies: only a quarter of a century ago the UK waged a mini-war with Argentina for a forgotten piece of land which did not mean anything to it (if only militarily, but here we are back to square one).
What can – and mostly have - deter the European democracies from war is not the national democratic system but the supra-national EU system within which they have to live together and which is based on the common market. Therefore, again, trade and self-interest are the only remedy against war, not democracy per se.
Now, the US is a perfect proof of how inefficient national democracies are in the modern global world. The US democracy is mostly accountable to its voters (although one might argue whether indirect two-party elections can be really representative and democratic). However, its own population seems to be absolutely UNdemocratic towards other nations. It is the US population which elected “incompetent, ideological and blind folded leaders” who are getting the whole country in trouble. It’s the world’s leading democracy which authorised (by a 70% margin!) its leaders to start a war in Iraque under flimsy pretexts. It was the same democracy which RE-elected the same war-mongers to continue the job a year and a half later. And it was the same democracy which, when a couple of thousand of its soldiers were killed, started having second thoughts: is it really worthwhile to defend democracy abroad? Incidentally I liked this change of heart most: Americans cared so much about liberating Iraque from dictatorship that they could not see their military die for it! They are ready to invade and kill others, but when the price is measured in their own lives, they start wavering. The strongest democracy and the greatest military in the world indeed!
Posted by: A Russian | October 21st, 2007 at 8:13 pm | Report this commentAnd again, the same country voted for an incompetent, uneducated, inarticulate and unintelligent leader who for 7 years has been refusing to believe scientific evidence for the major global climate crisis – which potentially can put an end to the whole civilisation, both democratic and not. Now, what do you make of such a democracy? How has it managed to make the world better in the past 50 years? And in what respect – apart from personal wealth of its own members – is it different from, say, authoritarian Russia?
But again, you’re focusing way to much on the last 7 years. The point I was making is that a democracy will correct, improve itself, because of those soul searching moments following crisis, wars etc…
As for the Falklands, you’ll have to agree that if Japan was invading Sakhalin, Russia would not let it happen. Sure, there’s only fish in the Falklands, but still, once Argentina had attacked, Britain really had no choice but to retaliate. Which is incidentally, if I’m not mistaken, the only enschrined “legal” way to wage a war approved by the UN.
Also, you make the interesting point that democracies have a low tolerance for death on the battlefield. Which is why the Bush administration was so outraged by journalist’s pictures in 04 or 05 of flag-covered coffins filling a transport plane. It was the first time in this war that US deaths were real - and not just a number.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 22nd, 2007 at 11:19 am | Report this commentI would tend to think this characteristic makes it less not more likely that a democracy will go to war. Governement will have to make very strong cases to go to war. (remember Roosevelt wanted to go to war much before Pearl Harbor but couldn’t convince a reluctant US public opinion) Yet, the benign nature of the 1st Gulf war changed that view - as a French philosopher said - it was the first virtual war: ie only on TV, not many deaths, a bit like a video game, fairly straight forward, quick & painless. It basically made wars a more palatable option. I guess Kosovo reinforced this. The obvious problem of course is that both those wars were limited in scope - mainly destroy through airpower the ennemy’s military. Both Afganistan and Iraq of course have been “won” from that standpoint, yet you would have to be a fool to think these wars are won in the proper sense and that is because they are wars of occupation. And there, the superiority of an army’s equipment is much less critical - a home-made mortar mix can kill just the same way as the latest laser weaponry. It’s a street by street, cave by cave, no-rules war and those are unwinnable unless the majority of the locals are on your side.
To the French: Sorry if I did not make myself clear when I talked about the US democracy. I perfectly got your point about over-focusing on the past 7 years. However, my point is that if 200 preceding years of democracy end up a country and its voters in the same mess as 200 preceding years of authoritarian regime (e.g. drawing a parallel between Afganistan for the SU and Iraque for the US), then what’s the use of these 200 years of democracy? Where is their beneficial influence on the population? How could it have behaved as a mob in the past seven years if democracy taught it to be a free, responsible and humane society in the past two centuries? If after all its glorious history of freedom and informed decisions the US voters AUTHORISED and RE-AUTHORISED (and this is crucial: voting for Bush once may have passed as a case of national delusion; voting for him twice is a sign of the nation’s conscious choice) their leaders’ mis-concieved adventures, I can see little benefit of democracy versus totalitarism.
As I already said, democracies’ growing intolerance of (war and non-war) deaths is mainly limited to THEIR OWN deaths, not to other nations’ deaths. Americans applauded their war-time president for fulfilling his and their idealistic dreams about liberating Iraque when Iraque was swimming in bloodbath created by the US invasion. They did not give a damn how many lives Iraquis had to pay for US ideals. But when the same freedom-loving idealistic Americans saw pictures of their own soldiers killed, they started to cry foul blaming the Iraquis for chaos and inability to live democratically. Well, probably they should have thought about this BEFORE going to Iraque as uninvited liberators.
Another example: CNN International(!)reported about hundreds of China floods fatalities in 3-minute clips, while 30-somewhat victims of Virginia Tech shooting spree blocked their screen for a couple of days, as if the whole planet had stopped spinning!
Folklands incident apart (which in my mind still did not show the UK as a responsible grown-up democracy), you can also check some facts about the less humane side of the comparatively recent British history in this article from The Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,761626,00.html
which says, among other things: “While a Black Book of Communism has been compiled and everybody is aware of the horrors of nazism, popular historians have been surprisingly uninterested in the dark side of the British Empire.”
Posted by: Evgueni | October 22nd, 2007 at 1:04 pm | Report this commentHey Mr. Frenchman,
What do you reckon this?
http://www.lefigaro.fr/france/20071012.FIG000000291_les_etranges_accusations_d_un_cybercorbeau.html
Personally, I always smet it!
P
Posted by: Pacifist | October 22nd, 2007 at 1:42 pm | Report this commentI agree with one of the comments above that the Russians today are never willing to stay focused on Russia. Every time the discussion turns toward Russia they prefer to turn it around and just say: Hey, and how about you, the US - with your moron president, wimpy Democrats, a disaster in Iraq etc.? You are not much better yourself! This is a very old trick and but it is NOT an argument. Much rather, it demonstrates a total lack of arguments in defense of Russia. I agree with all those statements about the US but it still does not make me love what is going on in Russia.
Posted by: World_Citizen | October 22nd, 2007 at 3:31 pm | Report this commentI think the problem is that people argue from different positions without agreeing on what is “good” and what is “bad”. Westerners think that freedom, democracy, and human rights are “good”. From this position, they are concerned about Russia because Russia is unmistakably moving away from democracy and towards authoritarianism. And an authoritarian country is not to be trusted (and that’s correct!). Many Russians think that money is good; they could not care less about freedom, democracy, and human rights – and why should they? I mean, how COULD they – having never in their history experienced either? From their perspective, Russia is doing very well. There is more freedom than before (e.g., freedom to do business), there is more money to be had (especially with today’s oil and gas prices). And on top of that – the Mother Russia is back on the international arena with a strong tsar as its head. The only thing is that from that perspective Germany and its people were also doing much-much better in 1936 than in 1932. As far as what happened later – who cares and why should they? As the US invasion of Iraq just showed – neither the West nor the East seem to be willing to learn from the very obvious past.
Posted by: World_Citizen | October 22nd, 2007 at 6:12 pm | Report this commentTo French: Putinism standing a test of time.
Posted by: MYV | October 22nd, 2007 at 7:28 pm | Report this commentI think of all things you mentioned you forgot the only one that will truly test Putin’s strategy - falling oil and gas prices (might have to wait a bit for that one).
As for all the other ones - Moses and his people couldn’t enter the promissed land until the last one died, who remembered slavery. Maybe Russia will have to wait until the mentality of fear, servitude and hatred towards authority is gone. Will be hard to die out if Russian leaders keep bringing it back into society and Russian business keeps behaving regardless of the rule of law.
i agree with you - people want a good life, but when they are borought up believing it ’s nearly impossible to achieve one, and might be too dangerous if you try… they need to find some outlet for their frustration. the west is being made an easy target by Putin and his gang now, because if things are not right and you have no enemies outside, then you become an enemy.
It has a much better appeal to be wrong but strong, than right but weak. Especially with $$$ backing you.
World Citizen, it does not make me love what is going on in Russia either. However, what is going on in Russia is quite different from what is being discussed in this blog, and that’s sad. Instead of discussing the real problems of the country people start inventing non-existent ones like fascism. It is especially pathetic to hear such accusations from a “senior official” in the country which has been violating human rights and international law on many accounts since decades. Had it been Angela Merkel quoted by Mr Rachman, I would more than willingly lend my ears to her criticism. However, the US - and not only the arrogant and immoral US government but the brain-washed and undemocratic US population - is in no position to teach moral values to anybody. They amnesically jump from one war to another against souvereign states generation after generation - while blaming others for authoritarian nationalism. Once in every 20 years they go about deploying space anti-missile defence systems - and they talk of revisionist policies. I mean, there is a limit to hypocrisy, but not for the US apparently.
If one wants to put the blame on the Russians, at least one should speak about the real sores, not the imaginary ones. What exactly is going on in Russia? The corrupt law enforcement is at war with the people. Traffic and escort police are responsible for an increasing amount of road deaths in car-jammed cities. Police arrest people on no charges, sometimes torture them, sometimes kill them. Businessmen are being put in jail for months and years on end, without any charges, without court proceedings, in extortion opertaions mounted by prosecutors. Secret services (FSB and Drugs Control Agency) are waging wars with each other. High-ranking officials syphon billions of oil revenues to Austrian banks. This is a just a small part of what is going on in Russia. Do you think we, the Russians, love it? No. Can democracy help us cure these sores? Probably, but not sure; there is an ongoing debate in the liberal media about whether full-fledged democracy right now would not bring even more anarchy, chaos and corruption to the unprepared undemocratic population, as it was in the 90-s. However, these are all internal problems. Russia poses no threat to anybody but itself. And when a Russian like me then reads arrogant preachings and idiotic accusations of near-fascism coming from arguably one of the world’s most nationalistic countries, it’s just sickening.
Posted by: A Russian | October 23rd, 2007 at 9:38 am | Report this commentPacifist:
no sure about the figaro story - (to sum up: a cyber snitch send an email to top police officer alleging that Sarko & a few at the UMP were Mossad agents)
It seems so far-fetched that I find it hard to believe - and then again, history tells us that on occasion reality can be much stranger than fiction! (would cou really have thought that Ehud Barak was doing some dirty business in Lebanon in the 80’s? - and that’s for what is known of his past missions!)
On a serious note, over the last few years, there has been an increase in anti-semitic crimes in France that is shameful. I’m not singling out anti-semitism as any crimes on the basis of religion, race, sex etc.. is unequivocally shameful - but I feel these events are particularly unsettling for France.
To A Russian:
I’m finally understanding why you are so worked up about it - it’s more the actual word “Fascit” - which if I recall correctly is a word that has very strong feelings attached to it in Russia.
I don’t think neith GR nor the US official actually think Russia is a fascist state in the historically charged sense of the term. And personally, my view is that Russia is not a fascist state. It is simply trying to reassert it’s influence abroad like other states. What is worrying I think is the lack of counter power - no judicial, parliamentary, political or media is free from Putin’s interference and obviously cannot oppose him. Historically, that hasn’t been the best of recipe.
Also, thanks for your candid, honest view of Russia’s problems - please keep sharing your views - it’s much more insightful than criticisms of the US - this is what this blog is about!
And I think you’re probably right on democracy in Russia - longer term yes, but right now, might just cause chaos.
World citizen -
Agreed with Oil&gas price fall being a big challenge for Russia when it happens. A report I saw recently was alarming in that with the Russian state oil grab (Gasprom & Rosneft) a massive lack of investment in existing and new field was underway. It was even arguing that Russia could be on the verge of the first production slowdown since the collapse of the Soviet system.
A last point: the multi polar world that Chirac was so railed for looking forward to is here. This realisation has hit Washington and they don’t like one bit of it. Because it means that the US is bound to be less influent.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 23rd, 2007 at 12:12 pm | Report this commentA classic example of course is the Caspian and Central Asia, where the US had replaced the USSR as been the dominant power since the early 90’s. Logically (to me in any case) the regional powers decided that it was their backyard not the US’s (geographically, I don’t think even the neocons could argue otherwise!)
A similar situation is happening in Africa where China is replacing European power and in the Pacific where US influence is down too.
Not being the systematic top dog will be a tough thing for the US to get used too. But that is the logical conclusion to the emergence of a world where China, Russia, India and others like Brazil and Iran as poles of influence. It’s potentially scary, and that’s why I’d like to see most powers committed to multi-lateral institutions. (of course, the US’s recent history is a hindrance)
“and that’s why I’d like to see most powers committed to multi-lateral institutions” - could not be truer! The only recipy for the survival of the world given the unprecedented human power to destroy each otehr and nature.
The label of fascism brushed aside, I still fail to see how Russia as a state threatens anybody (please do not evoke the case of Georgia where unexploded bombs are regularly dropped by UFOs just on the eve of President Saakashvili’s fiery speech abroad - and then get blown up before OECD experts can inspect them). Where’s the evidence of Russia’s agressive, bellicose and dangerous deeds, not words? Or is citing Germany a-la 1936, which is very historically charged to me, the only argument?
Posted by: A Russian | October 23rd, 2007 at 12:48 pm | Report this commentTo A Russian:
Posted by: World_Citizen | October 24th, 2007 at 3:43 am | Report this commentI totally agree that, morally, the US is in no position today to dispense their moral judgment upon the peoples of the world (including Russia). Unfortunately, it just seems the trademark of today’s US administration… However, I usually try to separate the message from the messenger. In fact, I don’t really care who the messenger is if I agree with the message. (It’s a general statement.)
Regarding Russia’s aggression: Thank god Russia is not invading another Afghanistan (and things of that nature…)! It does go around happily selling arms and military technologies – for example, to Iran, but the same kind of thing can be said about the Western countries… My personal anxiety is rather pre-emptive in character… And as history teaches us – it’s better to worry while it’s too early than when it’s already too late.
Now, dear World Citizen, we either live in a real world or we dream about an ideal one. I’d be the first to applaud a global arms race end. So much money wasted in vain! We would already have an international space station on the Moon up and running if just the world’s biggest military budget had been diverted to NASA. However, the developped US democracy prefers to sell 20bn USD worth of arms to the Saudis and give 10bn USD worth more to the Jews (this is clever; I wonder why they have not offered some more to Iran, to be consistent). Sorry about finger-pointing again, but unless somebody - preferably the instigator - starts winding down arms race, nothing will change. Instead the instigator prefers to invest more billions in doubtful air defence which incidentally may be very easily converted into air attack system. What do you expect from the rest on this planet, to be saints?
Posted by: A Russian | October 24th, 2007 at 9:06 am | Report this commentSo, Russian: if I may use an analogy: a bunch of people live on an island. Some are rich and some are poor, some are more and some are less decent (as in any society). Some behave well and some don’t behave well at all - many are thugs, thieves, have illusions of grandeur, beat up their wives and children, some have very low self-esteem and aspire to be like those who are better off and are envious of them, some are totally corrupt and mean, some are stupid, etc. One of the people is very big and strong and has a lot of money (whatever is the money on that island). But he is a bully: he bullies a lot of people on the island. He thinks everyone should cater to his interests. He is aggressive and lately, has even been preaching some stupid nonsense that no one believes in. Now, one other island inhabitant - one that has historically been relatively poor and always wanted but never could measure up to some of the better offs suddenly discovers a lot of precious stones on his piece of land. He gets some money and suddenly starts to behave like he is a big boss. Before even trying to fix things at home he is off to show to everyone how rich and powerful he is: he annoys his neighbors, sometimes threatens them, sometimes supports some other well-known thugs – while at the same time repressing some of his own family members, etc. So, should now everyone say to this guy: You, little one, go ahead and behave like an ass – after all, this big bully behaves like a stupid idiot too. That gives you and the likes of you all the rights to do as you please and behave like stupid idiots as well. In fact, let’s behave worth than the big bully – just to show him that you can be even worse than him.
Posted by: World_Citizen | October 25th, 2007 at 10:11 pm | Report this commentI think this logic is wrong. Each person (country) should look at himself and try his best to behave decently - and not justify his own misdeeds by the misdeeds of others (especially if those others are stupid). Behaving like an ass will never earn you respect – especially if your eccentric (and frequently unjustified and misplaced) actions towards others are just an attempt to compensate for a historically low self-esteem.
If you expect Russia to plan hits political feet firmly in the West, then you will disappointed. You will be deeply disappointed if you have this limited, even silly view that the US western style democracy is some how far superior to other cultures and political systems. Russia looks East as much as it looks West and in this century that is not a bad position to be in or way to operate…I don’t think Russia’s future need be bleak at all. I think Russia will prove to be a Black Swan.
Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | October 26th, 2007 at 5:25 am | Report this commentWorld Citizen, you are shifting your arguments from one topic to another when unable to substantiate your mistaken conceptions. First you compared Russia to fascist Germany in 1936. When I asked you about the examples of Russia’s external aggression, you said: “Thank god Russia is not invading another Afghanistan (and things of that nature…)! It does go around happily selling arms and military technologies – for example, to Iran … My personal anxiety is rather pre-emptive in character…” I answered to that trying to demonstrate that selling arms by the Russians (as well as by the Chinese, Czechs, Israelis, South Africans etc.) is a relatively good thing in a world where one bad bully guy keeps on arming himself and his gang members. This is the conerstone of the mutual containtment policy, if you’ve ever heard of such. Without it, your bully guy would have bombed the whole world decades ago.
Now, in your last “analogy” post you start all over again about Russia abusing other nations (which I thought we’ve dealt with already – see “thank god” above): “he behaves like he is a big boss, annoys his neighbors, sometimes threatens them, sometimes supports some other well-known thugs.” Once again, what do you mean by this? Whom does Russia boss around, with half of its neighbours already NATO members and the others planning to join? Is annoying somebody (by contradicting his stupid statements, for instance) an act of aggression? And what do you mean by “threatening” - threatening with economic sanctions? It’s done all the time by all good guys on your island. Or with military intervention? If yes, whom and when? Be a bit more factual in your preemptive analogies. Also, what do you mean by “supporting well-known thugs” (Iran, I guess)? Well-known to whom? To you and G.W. Bush? Because, according to UNO’s IAEA Iran does not develop military nuclear programmes, and hence is not a bad guy. Because, as Zbignev Bzezhinski said: why do you expect Iranians will be friedly to the US military in Iraque if the US is financing military operations against Iran? Or do you mean any other bad guys? Name them. It’s difficult to argue with somebody who is using vague analogies from the “Lost” TV Series. Analogies are mostly used in the absence of any concrete data.
Finally, it was interesting to hear a couple of your more insightful historically-psychoanalytical statements about Russians who “always wanted but never could measure up to some of the better offs”, and their “attempt to compensate for a historically low self-esteem”. Measure up in what – the better-offs’ wealth at the expense of their slaves, brutal colonial wars and exterminated indigenous nations? It seems to me that you have been fixing your home by breaking down the homes of others for centuries. Is it what gives you, the better-offs’ offspring, your high self-esteem? Well, I can live with my low self-esteem knowing that my nation has been a bully mostly to itself.
Posted by: A Russian | October 26th, 2007 at 10:29 am | Report this commentRussian: here is an example for you. Right now there is one country in the world that has openly expressed its desire to annihilate another country. Iran’s president said quite clearly that it wants to do away with Israel. And who supports Iran and its efforts to become able to initiate a nuclear strike? Well - Russia. Probably, they just want to demonstrate to the rest of the world that they have teeth and that they are a great power once again. If this is just a self-presentation/ impression-management tactic, then such efforts are badly misplaced (at best) and Russia had better look for more civilized opportunities to express its greatness (but unfortunately it does not seem to be able to find them). If it is not - then, Russia is on the same side as Iran. Same with North Korea. Russia - for whatever reason - publicly aligns itself with thugs. Even as bad as they are, the Americans do not support any other country that openly states that it wants to obliterate another country and its inhabitants. The fact that Bush is also against Iran takes nothing away from the argument that Iran is a potential threat and one had better not encourage/support it - like Russia does.
Posted by: World_Citizen | November 17th, 2007 at 2:07 am | Report this commentAlso, right now the UN is not sure that Iran is not doing anything in this direction. I prefer to err on the conservative side when the president of the country says the kind of things that the president of Iran said. You might find his rhetoric amusing. I don’t. (and by the way - my argument has nothing to do with Iraq).
The argument about “your bully guy would have bombed the whole world” is toothless and is just a rhetoric - you can’t prove it even a-posteriori.
How Russia behaves itself in Georgia and Moldova are also less than optimal examples of a “good neighbor behavior”.
In terms of better-offs. Use whatever definition you want. There are always those who are better off and who are worse off. And Russia (starting with Peter the Great) - tried to show to the world that it is as great as the “better-offs” - without trying to do one simple thing first: learn to respect its people and other countries’ people.
Now, regarding how I have been “fixing my home” - you are just a tad mistaken here. I was “fixing my home” in 1987-1989 by doing my Soviet Army service during Afghanistan times - witnessing first-hand how “my nation” was bullying “itself”.
By the way, the last sentence of yours is absolutely correct - Russia has always been a bully to itself (i.e., to its own citizens). First learn to behave in your own home; then start displaying your “great power muscle”.
In the meantime, dear Great Power - I dare you to allow European observers to be present at the elections whose outcomes are 100% predictable anyway.
George Bush certainly reawoke the Apocalyptic side of the American psyche when he cast the world in axis-of-evil terms. Americans are different from most others on this planet in seeing things in such black-and-white terms. This latest wave of US paranoia is not fueling the country’s might, but is weighing heavily on existing imbalances within perhaps even more than elsewhere in the world.
Your post certainly reflects US foreign policy. Fortunately, it seems the US is running low on bullets and is upping its media campaigns. Nonetheless, it is acting desperate to act, and there is still much room for concern it will do so foolishly and wrecklessly. Even more so than we’ve seen in recent years.
Mr Ahmadinezad is no role model for statesmanship and I am among the observers who believes he should go. However, the US media is mistaken to repeatedly and tiresomely rerun his translated words so simplistically. Mr Ahamadinezad is not fit for the world stage, but he is neither stupid nor mad–nor evil. He is educated and has personal integrity that in the context of Iranian society commands respect on the streets and amongst the less fortunate and more religiously conservative. He also is an intelligence man and has won battle scars fighting against US-funded Saddam Hussein in the country’s Kurdish provinces, where he governed.
His comments on Israël were blount and rude. Make them not more than that. George Bush’s “Bushisms” are a Hollywood/Madison Avenue profit centre, but cause just as many nightmares as his Iranian homologue elsewhere. While perhaps not the result of a Bushism, but of his Administration’s arrogance and ignorance, (Pakistan is the latest nation to be turned inside out by simplistic Bushism or US “policy”.)
Israël’s right to exist has not been accepted by all of its neighbours or their inhabitants, and thus the reason for yet another peace week in a comfy spot near Washington. That is a fact, not an Ahamadinezadism.
As for Putin, I will try to be briefer, even though I arguably know Russia better than Iran. Nether Russia nor the world will gain from having US self-righteousness imposed on their upcoming political and historical coming-of-age moment. If you are American, you unlikely have the history to understand that the US and Russia are roughly the same age as continental nation-empires. One well cited benchmark is that the serfs were freed a year ahead of the slaves, and nearly a century after Europe had banned slavery. Both are expansive nations, but Russia lost the better part of a century in its political development. (Some fear we are now witnessing historic degradation in America; thanks to the media and globalisation, this still seems unlikely, but only nominally.)
Firstly, Putin’s achievements are nothing short of monumental in economic and social terms. Russia stands as one country. Secondly, Putin is exceptionally smart, even without being compared to your US president. Smart is not the same as being a poet, however. His soul remains a mystery, but his record speaks well to Russians. He may be the spy who is still in the cold, but he has ended chaos and reversed one of the greatest failures of modern history.
Assuming you are from the US, please let Mr Gorbachev and others lead the assault in the months ahead. Al-Jazeera recently aired an interview with Mr. Gorbachev. In it he credits Putin for nothing short of heroic success in saving Russia. He also says he is a good man. He also says that Russia needs to change and advance its democracy. It is on this last sentence that Russians need to be allowed to debate amongst themselves.
The United States of America is no longer a shining example to the rest of the world. Democracy there is CNN entertainment and fodder for Jon Stewart infotainment. Liberty is principally measured there in Visa-card credit limits, home equity and pension-fund performance, i.e., citizens are consumers and shotr-sighted shareholder value rules. Focus on your own political culture, elections and modes of economic production. You’re living on Chinese, Russian, Middle Eastern and European money. Not US dollars. This reality will change whether or not Putin or Ahmadinezad merit headlines.
Lastly, returning to Israël, I predict that in 2008 the FT will be forced to dedicate more coverage of Israëli politics. The story will be a marked divergence of Israëli interests from those of US political leadership, regardless as to whether it is the Bush, Cheney, Blackwater & Co. security agents or Hillary Clinton’s babes-and-boys who are running Starbucks’ marketing department. In fact, both subscribe to the same failed agendas, and AIPAC seems ill prepared to turn their machine around as fast as the Israëli leadership and elite.
The US has taken Israël into dangerous shoals. The most rabid Lidudites aside, Israëlis have awoken and realise that they are not as well off as they were a decade ago. Questions that were in faded ink are now again emblazoned on the paper mats in cafés in Tel Aviv and West Jerusalem. Their demographic realities and their isolation resulting from the militance of the Likud in not dealing with the rights of half of her population are, as they should be, matters for serious concern.
US might ain’t what it used to be. It can no longer provide cover while Israël comes to terms with her age, her new society and a new generation’s ideas of what it means to be Israëli or even Jewish. Across the Atlantic, US leadership reads only AIPAC briefs but now comprises a generation that never read history. The political landscape there is changing and blogs there suggest a rude break with Israël will loom should the US slide into decline while young men and women return in body bags.
As for the “Great Power”, fear not. Your real estate values have to fall much further before it will look like a good value. Land is judged by what it produces, and US product is not what it used to be.
Posted by: WCM | November 17th, 2007 at 9:59 am | Report this commentAs mentioned by several people above - in this particular discussion thread we were discussing Russia, not the US. To repeat what I said above, I, personally, am happy to agree with the criticisms above of who is running the US and what is happening to the US. In fact, it seems like we are all in violent agreement here (otherwise we would not be reading FT). However, bad or stupid behavior of the US and its leaders (and its people) is NOT a justification of the stupid acts of Russia. If Russia has anything to fear itself - the threat will be coming from the south/east, not from the West, not from Israel. If Putin is smart he’d better realize that. What he is doing now (muscle flexing) is not doing any service to Russia. In fact, it contributes to Russia’s isolation - same way as what Bush and his administration were (are) doing has caused the isolation of the US.
Posted by: World_Citizen | November 17th, 2007 at 1:12 pm | Report this commentI disagree with your take on Iran. And it has nothing to do with the US propaganda. Read the post above and you’ll see that EVERYTHNING that was said about Ahmadinejad (including things like: he is not as bad as he seems, he is smart, he stabilized his country) is virtually identical to the UK/France’s stand on Hitler in the 30s. It’s called appeasement. You might be right and Ahmadinejad might not be as bad as the Fuehrer. But I prefer not wait out to see your hypothesis tested. And I don’t like what I am seeing in Iran precisely because I am sure that the US will NOT/could NOT rush to Israel’s defense if Iran starts threatening Israel.
No one likes what we are seeing in Iran at the moment, and I do not discount the problems he causes. At the same time, I do not accept comparisons of Iran today with Hitler’s Germany. This reasoning is misleading and manipulative. Judge Iran on the context of its history and that of the region, and on trends relating Islamist politics. The latter are not being helped by current US actions in Iraq or Pakistan. On that point, I am willing to venture out on a limb and find comparisons with US policy vis-à-vis Cuba, but fortunately one need not go too far out.
Posted by: WCM | November 17th, 2007 at 4:51 pm | Report this commentWCM, not least because Iran has not invaded any nation while the US has invaded two nations of 26 million people each in just five years…something that didn´t happen since Adolf Hitler.
Posted by: Enrique | November 17th, 2007 at 10:03 pm | Report this comment