October 23, 2007
Inside the Kremlin
Last Friday I met Dmitry Peskov, Vladimir Putin’s spokesman, and so had a chance to put to him some of the criticisms of the Putin government, listed in my post "Fulminating against Russia." I will give an account of his views on missile defence et al, lower down.
However, I have found that most people I have spoken to about the meeting are far more interested in the question of what the Kremlin is actually like inside, than in what its representatives have to say to the world. The answer is that it is surprisingly dingy. Admittedly, it is also huge - and I only went into the first building that faces onto Red Square. However this is where, I am told, President Putin himself works. The corridors are long, sparse and lit by low wattage light bulbs. The lifts are elderly. And the security seems relatively lax, certainly compared to Downing Street or the White House. Peskov’s office has a great view over St Basil’s cathedral. But it is hardly opulent. There is a workaday conference table and a couple of beaten-up old sofas. I do not mean this as a criticism. Given that Mr Putin’s circle are regularly accused of enriching themselves, it is quite interesting that their working surroundings are not particularly flashy.
On Mr Peskov’s desk, there are no fewer than 12 internal phones. "Some of them are not so important, and some are really important." The phones have an ancient Cold War look. Peskov claimed that "I would prefer a modern, insecure Panasonic that was easier to use. And if people want to listen, let them listen." He is clearly a bit of a phone nut. He had a new Apple iPhone on his desk, although they are not meant to be usable outside the US. A friend who was also at the meeting and scanned Peskov’s desk more carefully than I did claimed to have spotted an invitation from the Kremlin film club - they’re watching "The Graduate" on Thursday.
Peskov himself is quite a classy spin-doctor - smooth, charming, funny, switching easily between "on" and "off". He has just turned 40 and is the child of diplomats. His only problem - it seemed to me - is a tendency to blush when he feels uncomfortable. When he discussed Kosovo, he spoke fluently and seemed completely at ease with the Russian position. When we got onto the investigation of the killing of Alexander Litvinenko, his answers were shorter and he flushed (with embarrassment, I thought) when he accused the British of not co-operating with the Russian investigation. And now onto the substance.
Kosovo: Things are not going well. There is a "very strong strategic disageement". The Russian position is that any unilateral declaration of Kosovan independence would set a dangerous and destabilising precedent. Peskov said - "I cannot say that a, b and c will happen if Kosovo is recognised. But it will lead to huge instability." But he stopped short of threatening to recognise South Ossetia and Abkhazia in retaliation. He said that this would be the easy "mathematical" response to western recognition of Kosovo, but asked rhetorically - "But would that create prosperity or stability for them?" He denied that Russia’s position was "because we are endlessly backing Belgrade."
Missile defence: The Russians don’t believe that the American system is really aimed at Iran. They think it is intended to "disable" their own "strategic nuclear facilities." I was interested that Peskov said that they were much more concerned about the planned interceptors in the Czech Republic than in Poland. An American friend who was at the meeting - and who understands this stuff much better than I do - said that this suggested to him that the Russians concern about the implications for their own nuclear weapons is genuine, since apparently the Czech interceptors are more threatening to this. But I also got the feeling that some sort of deal may be in the air. The Americans seem to be warming slighly to Russia’s offer to use Russian radar stations in Azerbaijan.
CFE and INF treaties: If Russia does decide to withdraw from these, it will not be as "measures of sweet revenge" - provoked by anger over missile defence. The Russians claim that there are separate problems, because other parties to the treaty have not fulfilled their obligations.
Iran: Peskov had just got back from President Putin’s visit to Iran and seemed to have enjoyed himself hugely. A lot of what he had to say was "off the record". But he did say that "the Iranians are very tough guys and they won’t be pressed into a corner". Russia is wary of further sanctions.
Ukraine, Georgia and Nato: "If Ukraine and Georgia want to join Nato, we have no right to object. They are sovereign nations." Off-the-record, however, Mr Peskov was rather less encouraging.
The US and Russia: There are plenty of things that are good in the relationship, It’s wrong to say that relations are at the their lowest ebb since the cold war. But - yes - the Russians are worried that "people in circles abroad" are trying to destabilise the country.
Russian democracy: "There is not a single full democracy in the world. Don’t forget that Russian democracy is just 15 years old.There are certain sets of world democratic values that are completely shared by all democracies. But the ‘modalities’ are different in different countries." It is also true that the Russian judicial system is more corrupt than in the west, but "there is very tense fight against that. It will come to a more normal situation. It simply needs time."
Putin’s future: "One thing is obvious: he will go. He is devoted to the constitution." That said, most Russians want him to stay -"And if you are talking of democracy, it is a strange situation. Most Russians want him to stay, but he has to go." Would Putin take up the post of prime minister? "There is a lot of talk of that. But it is hypothetical. Nobody knows if it will happen or not."
I’ve given a fairly verbatim account of the view from inside the Kremlin. Needless to say, there are plenty of people who would disagree with almost everything Mr Peskov said. I’ll give an account of other views I heard on my visit to Moscow later in the week.
“killing of Alexander Litvinenko, his answers were shorter and he flushed (with embarrassment, I thought)”
Posted by: Peskov | October 23rd, 2007 at 3:03 pm | Report this commentwith the anger.. it was anger, you ….
In your article you neglect to really value fully what the collapse of the USSR meant in ordinary people’s lives and what political consequences that sort of instability normally has.
After leaving the Russians to the mercy of Jeff Sachs and assorted Chicago boys, we are lucky to be confronted with Putin and not some Slavic Hitler. Nothing like the Marshall Plan was ever contemplated to alleviate the sufferings of Russian pensioners or children. The Russians feel with total justification that they were kicked when they were down, thus a unique opportunity for peace and friendship was tragically lost.
Curiously the best and most economical summing up of all of this that I have read is by someone who I noramlly don’t agree with, the paleoconservative Pat Buchanan, so I’ll end by quoting him here:
“At the Cold War’s end, the United States was given one of the great opportunities of history: to embrace Russia, largest nation on earth, as partner, friend, ally. Our mutual interests meshed almost perfectly. There was no ideological, territorial, historic or economic quarrel between us, once communist ideology was interred.” Patrick J. Buchanan
Posted by: David Seaton | October 23rd, 2007 at 4:06 pm | Report this commentDear Mr. Rachman,
Hasn’t the fact that Mr. Peskov had hugely enjoyed his visit to Iran tempted you to go to Iran and see things for yourself?
Unfortunately, currently Iran is only seen through the lense of the generally anti-Iranian corporate Western media and unfairly reported.
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | October 23rd, 2007 at 4:32 pm | Report this commentI agree with Pacifist. Mr Rachman, you seem to be one of the more informed, thoughtful and original writers around today, which is why I enjoy reading your blog. You should visit Iran and give us your very own account of what you find there. I would like to know.
If you haven’t already, may I recommend this before you go: http://www.amazon.co.uk/All-Shahs-Men-American-Middle/dp/0471265179
Posted by: Anonymous | October 23rd, 2007 at 4:45 pm | Report this commentDavid,
I couldn’t agree more.
I lived in Russia for several month right after the 98 crisis. And what was happening was dramatic. I’m glad you’re mentioning Sachs.
This Jacques Sapir book is fab on the “errors” and the “advice” given by Sachs and co to the Russians:
http://www.amazon.fr/Krach-russe-J-Sapir/dp/270712916X/ref=sr_1_1/171-3203748-2925055?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193155614&sr=8-1
The worst is that the Russians mostly followed what they were told to do… no surprise then that there’s general mistrust (to say the least) towards Westerners - especially when they dispense advices!
Posted by: French_in_London | October 23rd, 2007 at 5:11 pm | Report this commentI really enjoy your blog Mr. Rachman. And I would also join in urging you to go to Iran and do some similar reporting. That would be great!
Also, can you possibly give us a better idea of why Peskov “seemed to have enjoyed himself hugely” in Iran? It would give us some great insight on how Russian-Iranian relations are devoloping
Thanks.
Posted by: kian | October 23rd, 2007 at 11:38 pm | Report this commentPeskov prikolist
I think there are 2 (or more) sets of answers for all the topics you have outlined here - one is an export product for FT readers (and the likes) another one for internal purposes. Reading (and watching) russian media in coupe with the western media gives a more balanced picture I think.
Mr. Peskov, if you really are reading this blog maybe you have an answer to another topics not mentioned above:
Why is there a need for a military draft that does much more harm than good?
1. The army is underfunded - create a professional army with less people and much-much-much more potential.
2. Imagine what the approval ratings will be if you do that? You’ll get all the students, their mothers and probably most of their fathers too.
3. Finally (have to admit I have a personal interest here) young, ambitious people won’t have to sit in the U.S. and other countries after receiving western education (which I think there is high demand for in Russia), waiting to turn 28 (or do I hear 35 coming soon?). Cancel the draft in I guarantee you will scores of well educated managers and other types of young hardworking professionals returning to Russia.
4. Want an alternative? How about paying an official rate to get yourself out of the army into the budget. How about if man decides not to serve he, until turning 28 years of age, will have to pay 5% of the salary into the army fund. Thus you have some people serving in the army and others funding it. I have just moved a huge part of shadow economy into the light. Now if we can only get people not to steal from the budget…
Sincerely,
Young, ambitious graduate of a Business school, who longs to go back to Russia but has to wait until 28 (or 35?)
Posted by: MYV | October 23rd, 2007 at 11:40 pm | Report this commentDear chuvak MYV,
I perfectly agree with your suggestion on your army. I would suggest the same not only to Russia but other CIS countries as well.
So many talented people would go back to CIS now and Russia wouldn’t have to worry about its demography.
There is a new nationality emerging in the West: Soviet westerner.
By the way people, though politically Russia is at odds with Ukraine and Georgia, we all are very friendly to each other in the West living as people from one country called Soviet Union.
Posted by: Chen | October 24th, 2007 at 2:29 am | Report this commentPutin’s africanized Russia is a paper bear that is now being viewed as far stronger than it really is.
Under Yeltsin it was said that while the oil was in the ground, all the money was in Switzerland. Still true, though the bandits are now FSB operatives, their courtiers and their nephews– and corruption has, unbelievably, soared to even greater heights under the FSB bandit-thugs than it attained under Yeltsin and his semya.
A few other points that must always be made when one looks at the Potemkin prosperity of today’s Russia:
How can a nation whose population is literally dying off be considered “resurgent”?
What does it say about a society’s fitness to defend itself and its interests militarily when parents across the nation are relieved to find out their newborn is … a girl? As opposed to a son who will one day have to pay huge sums to avoid the hell that is their nation’s staggeringly incompetent, leaderless, brutal and literally lethal (to its own conscripts) military?
In what sense is Putin “reviving” Russia, given that Russian public institutions are now a complete shambles characterized by African levels of corruption and third-world standards of public health, educational infrastructure, IP protection and property rights, and environmental standards?
How can it be that Russia is considered an economic power, given that it has not developed a single civilian export-quality manufacturing or services company and the fact that it is a price-taker, not a price-maker, in the one commodity on which its entire prosperity depends?
Could we please, please have some honest and fact-based reporting about the utter shambles that is Putin’s criminalized state and its mussolini-esque foreign adventurism?
How about a look inside the devastation of the Russian educational system, to the extent that the legacy of more than a century of glittering achievement is pretty much destroyed, and with it the chances that Russia would even have a shot at catching up to its formerly piss-poor, backward little brethren to the west (Finland, home of Nokia; Estonia, home of Skype) or east (SKorea, LG and Samsung) and south (India, Wipro, Tata, Infosys)?
Posted by: thibaud | October 24th, 2007 at 7:42 am | Report this commentHi Gideon,
Posted by: Dusan | October 24th, 2007 at 9:03 am | Report this commentIn my mind everything comes down to how much influence one has over what happens in his own life. This is what creates need for democracy and freedom of speech. Need for booth is only a consequence of a need to control what happens to you, and if they cannot assist you with it, they have no value.
In last fifteen years we saw how American political elite understands preaching these values to the rest of the world. In their mind democracy in the world means that decisions on what happens anywhere on this planet is made by them. The problem is that they are not listening to American people any more, not to mention anyone else. American people want out of Iraq now, and this does not seem to bother Democratic Congress or Republican President. Why should they than care of what someone in another country that cannot even vote against them thinks or wants.
In my mind, anything that can prevent decisions important for my existence being made in Washington, by people who do not now anything about me, and care even less, is more than welcome. I really don’t care if this is resurgent Russia, China or Martians. To make things even worse, US has turned into selfish empire with feuding royal families and drawing parallels in history, things shall get only worse. Democracy as it’s currently preached by US, has lost value even for Americans and it will be met only with animosity anywhere else so whatever happens, don’t expect any changes in Russia, China, Iran or anywhere else until there’s change in US.
Great portrait on page 1 today, 24th. How one may scowl, and scowl, and be a villain.
Posted by: Jeremy | October 24th, 2007 at 9:12 am | Report this commentThe comments Felix makes about Russia’s economy and its relation to its political system are quite relevant.
Russia through her ownership of huge oil and gas resources (as well as diamonds, gold, aluminium, uranium….) has been turned into a “rentier state”. Of course, the extent of a state’s dependence on “rents”, varies and Russia is not as dependent as some in the Middle East but the main point is that the state’s finances are mainly from such revenues and not from taxing the incomes and profits of the citizens.
Mainly as a result of observations of the oil-rich Middle Eastern economies and their political systems, it has been proposed that rentier states fail to develop civil societies and democratic political systems because the nature of the social contract between the populace and the state is different. In a non-rentier state, the state depends on taxes from the citizens and has, in return, to take into account their views (in the long term anyway). This, supposedly, would lead to development of representative governments. In a rentier state, this process is stunted because the authorities control the main sources of income (oil, gas etc.) and the control of the purse strings can be used to coerce or co-opt the citizenry (perhaps different treatments given to different segments of the society). Instead of the government needing the consent of the people to collect taxes from them, it gets the income upfront and tries to bend the citizens to its will through selective allocation of funds.
Moreover, the lines between public service and private interest become increasingly indistinct (as seen not only in Iran and Russia but also across the Persian Gulf where the states’ and the royal families’ finances are often impossible to distinguish.)
The above probably explains the increase in the Russian state’s authoritarianism which has neatly coincided with the rise in the price of oil and other commodities.
P
Posted by: Pacifist | October 24th, 2007 at 12:13 pm | Report this commentOf course. And Norway is well-known for coercing its citizenry, while China is the craddle of democracy.
Nice theory, easy to grasp.
Posted by: A Russian | October 24th, 2007 at 1:23 pm | Report this commentHi Russian!
Norway always comes up in this (and you forgot to mention Canada)!
The standard answer is that Norway and Canada had well entrenched democracies long before hitting the oil jackpot and therefore could cope with the newly found wealth within the existing democratic structures and institutions.
The Middle Easterners didn’t have democracies before and their political / social development were stunted afterwards.
This is a pretty good summary:
http://www.semp.us/publications/biot_reader.php?BiotID=227
You may of course argue that there are other factors at work and this theory tries to fit the facts on an ex post basis but, imho, the theory is quite a thought provoking observation.
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | October 24th, 2007 at 1:45 pm | Report this commentI also forgot to mention oil-flush OPEC members Indonesia and Venezuella (with all democracy hallmarks present: free elections, different power branches etc.), resources-rich South Africa, Australia, and why not USA with its Alaska oil reserves (but I presume its well-etrenched democracy decided not to untap those in order not to mutate into a totalitarian regime).
This last argument (”Norway and Canada had well entrenched democracies long before hitting the oil jackpot and therefore could cope with the newly found wealth within the existing democratic structures and institutions”) is catchy: Russia also had well-etrenched despotic rule centuries before oil started to play any role in its economy (domestic in the 1930-s and exports in the 1960-s).
Actually what you say when faced with exceptions to the theory is that democratic countries’ previous history wisely guided them through oil bonanza without any changes. Well, I can say that non-democratic countries’ previous history also saw their authoritarian political regimes intact under oil shower. Basically, the theory says that those countries which were democratic before oil revenues - remained democratic, and those that were not - remained undemocratic or even moved closer towards democracy, as Venezuella, Indonesia and even Kuwait or Quatar (compared to what they were 50 years ago they are definitely less totalitarian now).
Does not explain much to me, your theory. Does not predict anything either, as any science-based theory is supposed to.
Posted by: A Russian | October 24th, 2007 at 2:23 pm | Report this commentDear Russian,
You make valid criticisms. I think it is true that a well-entrenched democratic or undemocratic system shall remain unmoved by the discovery of the wealth.
However, the theory seems to predict a marginal case like today’s Russia quite well and it is certainly true that the pace of change to democracy in most resource rich nations (who unlike Australia and America lack major industrial and agricultural secotrs, let alone democratic traditions) has been slower.
I think S Africa would be an interesting case to watch over the next few decades. Will it remain a democracy or will it succumb to the rentier state curse?
Best,
Posted by: Pacifist | October 24th, 2007 at 2:47 pm | Report this commentP
A scientist would say that the observation period is too short (some 50 years of oil influence on countries’ political systems) and the fluctuations in different national cases are too great to be statistically significant. If Russia is the theory’s only verifiable prediction (made post-factum), it looks more like a lottery to me.
Also, I’m not convinced by the 2nd point you make: that direct taxation of citizens is somehow linked to democracy, while authoritarian rule relies on natural resources revenues. I cannot see how my personal income tax would make the government more accountable before me than a tax of my employer. It’s like green electricity - who has ever seen it in his socket?
However, the idea that wealth per se, either oil-funded or not, leads to democracy seems more credible. Wealth, if not totally syphoned away by the rulers, is trickling down throughout the whole society and creates demand for non-basic goods (basic being food, clothes etc.) and increasingly services. There is a striking similarity between all democracies - a well-developped service sector. In a service economy democracy is the daily rule of the game and the clients vote with their feet all the time. Ultimately democratic service-based economy leads to democratic politics in any state, whether rentier or not, which is rich enough to go beyond basic needs and which shares its wealth with its citizens. Some prospect for Russian rentiers…
Posted by: A Russian | October 24th, 2007 at 3:31 pm | Report this commentHi,
Well, 50 years is certainly short in terms of Human History (although Iran has been producing oil for a hundred yars) but not too short for a social theory. Many others have come and gone over the past decades.
About your middle paragraph, the point is that in the rentier state, the government is financed independently of the citizen so he does not have to take his views into account but just to use the money to bribe or coerce him. If the government has to collect taxes, it will have more motivation to listen to the taxpayer and the citizen will be more motivated to demand a say in how his money is spent.
The issue of “no taxation without representation” is what triggered the American wars of independence:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_taxation_without_representation America
I think your last paragraph should probably be more about a well-developed market economy than a service sector.
The problem is, which one comes first? The developed market economy or the democracy? And how do we explain places like Singapore with advanced capitalist systems but flawed democracies?
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | October 24th, 2007 at 4:15 pm | Report this commentAlthough I hear the valid criticisms; I’m more with P on the rentier state point. When individuals in state positions can get away with taking cash from the till, that’s when the state is in danger of being hijacked to the benefit of a few. Clearly, if you add weath of the oil, gold, diamond type you have a potent incentive.
While Sudan was never an oasis of peace, isn’t it fair to say oil discovery became a very strong incentive for war? (the South emboldened wants independance, the Govt can’t allow it) I can’t remember the details of the deal between the oil major and the govt, but I recall it was hailed at the time as a huge progress as it technically prevented the govt from using oil revenues to purchase weapon etc.. Of course, a few years later, once oil started flowing, it didn’t take long for the govt to break its promise!
I think what is often ignored is the critical importance of institutions. It’s fairly intangible in a way; yet so essential to a “fair” society. And by institution, I don’t mean just the legal system, I also include respected and independent media, NGOs & lobby groups, associations, regulators (independent from the govt) etc…
I think in this instance Norway is a good example. it found oil late and had strong institutions. Once oil revenue flooded in, it had the sense to create a Sovereign Wealth Fund (SWF - the new plague - if you listen to some commentators!!!) - but in keeping with the country’s principles, the fund is transparent, has supervision from parliament but not interference in investment strategy, does publish regular report on its performance and functioning and its managers are civil servants.
During Russia’s transition, they “forgot” the importance of institutions. Russia didn’t have property laws, yet they strated privatising anyway.
But I must also concede to Russian that luck probably is important too. To begin with, it helps to be geographically located in a temperate climate, then some but not too lqny resources can help too. Then, some countries seem unlucky with the succession of nuts, despots, thieves that somehow get to power. In some cases, (Zimbabwe for example) a bit of luck to the people is long overdue!
On the point made earlier about the Russian army’s draft. I agree it would seem to make sense for it to be cancelled. I’m not that optimistic though because I’m not sure Putin or anyone for that matter has the appetite to take on the “generals” - this army establishment that runs part of the economy, extract bribes from concripts and generally run a profitable trafficking business. (ie: in Chechnya)
Posted by: a | October 24th, 2007 at 6:02 pm | Report this commentThanks for the link. Good slogan, but this particular case looked more like a typical colonial-style liberation war which ended with NEITHER taxation NOR representation (to the UK, that is). Could you explain to me how in practice a US citizen’s paying his/her tax directly to the IRS makes him/her more in control of his government’s actions? 70% of American tax-payers want their troops out of Iraque, but direct taxation does not help them much to convince their president (and not for the first time).
In Europe’s smaller countries like Belgium, taxes on businesses often outweight personal income taxes in the national budget. However, European democracies are arguably more representative and efficient than in the US.
Posted by: A Russian | October 24th, 2007 at 6:06 pm | Report this commentTo “a”: any sparce and valuable resource is a motivation for war. I’ve heard that water is at stake in Sudan as well. The same is said about Israel-Palestine conflict: shortage of water is to blame.
Of course, if individuals can rob the whole country (and wealth is not shared even unfairly within the society, as I said in a previous post), there is no talk of any liberalisation. However, Russia is not the case: despite income disparities, petrodollars enrich a large enough part of population. Booming retail and property markets are a proof: 70-80% of Russian are home owners, and real estate prices in many cities, including Moscow (over 10 mln residents) and St Petersburg (over 5 mln) have almost tripled in the past 3 years.
Institutions are critically important. However, Pacifist is saying that they do not have much chance of growing in a rentier state living off oil revenues (as if oil pours out of bath tabs in Russia!). I contest that they might actually grow out of rentier state oil bonanza. By the way, oil revenues could never make all Russian rich - it’s not 5-mln Norway or 1-mln (?) Kuwait. Try to divide all oil revenues by 142 mln Russians and you will get how much? Less than 100 USD per year i think. Not exactly a rentier’s dream…
Posted by: A Russian | October 24th, 2007 at 6:26 pm | Report this commentTo a:
Posted by: MYV | October 24th, 2007 at 6:33 pm | Report this commentgenerals will do as they are commanded - they are more afraid of Putin, than Putin of them.
Mr. Peskov - anything to note on this?
Putin’s Iran trip and this trip to EU-Russia Summit at the end of this week (Malfra Portugal) will finally establish that Russia is no longer re-emerging but HAS emerged as a world power. The West should graciously accept that fact. It’s a blessing in disquise for all. The world is not a better place with US domination. Further, it is wrong to see Russia as longing to be part of the”West”. More and more it is clear that Russia/Putin does not see Russia as “East” or “West” but straddling the great divide, in culturals, politics and religions. Russia will be the arbiter and go-to between for West and East, and in this century that is a key place/role to play. I hope Putin becomes Prime Minister, as his “State of The Federation” speech last spring showed he understands its now or never to address the need for a strong aggressive domestic agenda to address housing, healthcare, substance abuse and Russia’s millions of abandoned children. Putin will woo the Czechs with economic cooperation. Prediction: There will be no misssiles on Czech soil.
Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | October 24th, 2007 at 6:41 pm | Report this commentDon’t think so Lisa. Russia will trade that one off because Americans are very determined to place those missiles (in Poland, not Czech Republic, the former has the radar that Russia is very concerned about). Anyway - the missiles will go there, Russians will be allowed in, and in exchange they will get something else - say a praise of Putin in the west and endorsement of him effectively continuing to rule the country.
Posted by: MYV | October 24th, 2007 at 6:53 pm | Report this commentI wonder who needs that endorsement from Bush though. Maybe that’s why Russia wants to hold the decision off until new administration is in, so it can be a bargain with the new american president.
sorry - should read “the latter”, not “the former” in the previous post.
Posted by: MYV | October 24th, 2007 at 6:54 pm | Report this commentHi Russian,
I know this thread has gone “cold” but, in response to your question, did you read this link I posted?
http://www.semp.us/publications/biot_reader.php?BiotID=227
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | October 25th, 2007 at 1:31 pm | Report this commentMYV, It is not just US or Russians that have a say here. There is an internal debate among Czechs. The U.S. anti-missile radar base MUST be approved by the the Czech parliament, the Senate and lower house must approve the decision. That has NOT happened yet. The PM’s coalition controls the Senate by I think no more than one vote. Further, it was only last June that a no-confidence vote against Czech Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek’s government fell only four votes short, granted it was not related to US anti-missile radar base but to corruption charges against another elected official…but this is NOT at strong government, and the Czechs are divided as to whether this should go forward at all. It amazes me that all the articles on this subject discuss the postions of the US and the Russians and NEVER the Czech people!
Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | October 25th, 2007 at 6:58 pm | Report this commentThat is probably because western media sees it in US vs. Russia view (west vs. east, good vs. bad???) It is sort of assumed that Czechs want it.
Posted by: MYV | October 25th, 2007 at 9:03 pm | Report this commentOn the other hand Russian media talks about Czech point of view all the time (mostly negative point of view) trying to say that common Czechs don’t want this radar at all.
the truth, as always, is somewhere in the middle. Czechs can be pressured into both - accepting and rejecting this proposal. they are tied up with russian natural resources, but they are even more tied up with the EU.
“Czechs can be pressured into both - accepting and rejecting this proposal.”
Well “MYV”, you are obviously not a Czech…they will think this through and don’t be surprised if they, (i.e., Parliament) reject this…the ONLY selling point is it brings jobs…but that may not be enough reason to support it.
Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | October 26th, 2007 at 1:15 am | Report this commentBTW, Poland has a new government, much more clever one than the twin twits…they may agree to the US proposal BUT at a much higher price…US is not going to dominate EU anymore than it will the Middle East. The legacy of the Bush/Cheney plus neo-con years is that the US will continue to infuence outcomes but we will not determine outcomes…there is a big difference.
Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | October 26th, 2007 at 1:20 am | Report this commentNot a Czech, Russian
You might very well be right about Czechs and Poles, although I do believe that every decision can be traded in politics, so Poles, as you said, can be paid off, while Czechs will get some other candy in order to accept the proposal (or reject it).
Posted by: MYV | October 26th, 2007 at 9:22 am | Report this commentWhat I truly wonder about is what IS the real reason for the interceptors and the radar system in these 2 countries. I have a complete mistrust in Bush/Chaney claims for obvious reasons, so I wonder if it’s really all about Iran.
It is obviously sad that Russia is being viewed as one the world’s corrupt nations.
Unfortunately, such perceptions can be that wrong. The difference between Russia and the developed nations is that in developed nations, corruption and theft are intellectualised and highly regulated in what is now called democracy and good governance.
When developed nations operate in the Third World, they operate under a dirty veil of secrecy, but are quick to criticize any form of concern towards their operations by the host governments.
Thanks for your lovely forum
Mutimba Mazwi
Posted by: Mutimba Mazwi | October 26th, 2007 at 9:16 pm | Report this commentMYV,” I have a complete mistrust in Bush/Chaney claims for obvious reasons, so I wonder if it’s really all about Iran.” \
Of course it is not about Iran!..this is typical Cheney! …he wants Putin to loose his cool about the missiles and scare Europe in bellicose speeches …it just makes it all the easier to turn EU anti- Russia…Putin fell for it earlier, lost his cool, but quickly understood what was Cheney’s gameplan…Cheney is not a healthy man, and I am not talking about his often reported bad heart… he sees the world thru a very twisted lens …
Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | October 26th, 2007 at 10:26 pm | Report this comment