Publius Pundit

« Previous · Home · Next »

Russia: Postcards from the Neo-Soviet Union

Filed under: Russia

putin1_161169a.jpg

Cue the Theme from Jaws. DA-dum. DA-dum, da-dum . . .

Reporting in the Times of London, Moscow correspondent Mark Franchetti adds more evidence that Russians have rejected the concept of democracy and are willingly returning to the dark days of Soviet dictatorship, underlining the extent to which we were misled by the idiots who said, during the first cold war, that ordinary Russians were decent democrats who would do the right thing given a chance, and that they could "never go back" to dictatorship once the Berlin Wall fell.

Seven years after coming to power, Putin, who served a third of his life in the KGB, has few friends left in Europe and America. West of Moscow he is vilified as an authoritarian despot who has crushed opposition to his rule, turned independent media into a sycophantic tool of the Kremlin and jailed or chased his critics into exile. In Litvinenko's case Putin has effectively been branded a murderer by parts of the western press. In Russia, by contrast, Putin enjoys popularity ratings that must surely be the envy of George W Bush and Tony Blair. Well over 70% of Russians support him, according to the latest polls -- by any standards a record for a leader at the end of his tenure. Under the current leadership this is an authoritarian country run mostly by a clique of former KGB agents. And yes, the control of the media is so draconian and pervasive that even the launch of a national children's TV channel has become a political issue. Nor would many dispute that the country's judiciary is a travesty and that corruption in Russia has become far more endemic than it ever was even during the turbulent years when Boris Yeltsin was in the Kremlin. But like it or not, Putin is genuinely popular. Ask most Russians and they will tell you that they would happily vote for the constitution to be changed so as to allow him to stay on a third term (he is due to step down in 10 months' time), a feeling shared by western investors whose primary concern is high returns and political stability rather than democracy and a free press. Many years ago, when I first came to work in Moscow, a political pundit close to the Kremlin told me that the problem between Russia and the West is that Russians are white. "We look like you. We look like Europeans and so the West expects us to think and act like you. As a result, when we don't you get all upset. Why can't they be like us, you fret. But you don't say that about the Chinese, for instance. You don't expect them to think and act like you. Well, we are white but we are different."

As if to show how right Franchetti was, a spate of developments over the past few days served as proof positive of the Kremlin's malignant intentions. More about them after the jump.

On Saturday, even as the Kremlin was refusing to extradite the man British police say was responsible for killing Alexander Litvinenko, a Russian dissident on British soil in an attack that could have poisoned hundreds of Britons with deadly atomic radiation, yet another British diplomat was physically assaulted in Russia.

On Sunday, Reuters reported that the Kremlin had crushed a gay pride parade in Moscow. A British gay rights activist who participated in the march stated:

The behaviour of the Moscow police was some of the worst I've ever experienced. The police stood back and allowed the fascist thugs to attack us. They made very few efforts to stop them. (It) was very reminiscent of the repression by the police in the Brezhnev era of old-style Soviet Communism. They (the police) seemed to be working hand in glove with the neo-Nazis and ultra-nationalists to get them to bash us. But either way, the end result was the same. We got arrested, we got bashed, and most of the assailants walked free.
Yesterday, May 28th, the famous Soviet dissident Vladimir Bukovsky declared he would be a candidate for president in the 2008 elections. Nothing could send a more emphatic message as to the neo-Soviet state Russia currently embodies than this decision.

Earlier today, Russia test-fired a MiRV ICBM, which can depoy several different warheads at different targets from a single launch vehicle, a direct challenge to the NATO defensive missile systems now being deployed in Eastern Europe. In other words, it's arms race part II, and Russia doesn't seem to see any hypocrisy at all in giving defensive missile systems to Iran to help that rogue state protect its infant nuclear technology from the West while simultaneously screaming about the presence of such systems in Eastern Europe, which it once tried to enslave. At the same time, the Kremlin continued to discuss pulling out of the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty unilaterally.

There is no way to interpret this horrifying litany of aggressive, provocative actions by the Kremlin other than as a direct frontal assault on the West, the intentional revival of the Cold War and the arms race that devastated the USSR, a nation with twice the population and far more financial resources than Russia.

It's either an act of suicide, or an act of pure insanity.

UPDATE: As of Tuesday 4 PM EST, this post is the #2 entry on Google News Russia out of 45,000 items under review. To view a screenshot, click here

Social Bookmarking:
Del.icio.us this del.icio.us | digg this digg | Add to Technorati technorati | StumbleUpon Toolbar stumble upon | Furl this furl | Reddit this reddit

Comments


dorotea says:

maybe it is an act of self-defence, er? Ever tried to think why are russians paranoid about NATO expanding to their borders ( hint: the war OF 1709 with Sweden, the war of 1812 with France, the war of 1914 with Germany, the war of 1941 - WWII)?


Alan Schwartz says:

Yawn....

Kim Zigfeld, the notorious extremist bigot is at it again LOL!

Americans are not convinced by your obnoxious screed.


La Russophobe says:

DOROTEA: If Russia wanted to act in self defense, it would deploy DEFENSIVE missiles, as NATO is doing. But instead, it is deploying OFFENSIVE weapons, proving that NATO is right in concluding that defensive systems are needed. Moreover, even if Russia had a basis to be afraid, confrontation by one poor nation against a host of wealthy ones is hardly rational. Instead, it's the same sort of pathetic self-destructive behavior that brought the USSR to its knees.

ALAN: Your comment is noteworthy for failing to mention a single word in this post that is "bigoted" -- and indeed, for failing to contain a single word of substance about anything whatsoever. I guess you think Martin Luther King was "bigoted" against white racists, and maybe he was. If so, I'm quite proud to be a bigot. And not a witless, vapid ape like you.


Nikolai says:

We would deploy defensive weapons if they were effective... but they are not. It's easier to put more ICBMs, less expensive and makes life of europeans more fun - to live under the gun sight.


Scott says:

There are basically two camps in the West about Russia. Those that have always been fearful of Russia and truly believe it was supremely evil and right around the corner about to get them during the Cold War days (kind of like the "terrorists" today) think Putin is an autocrat, that the Russian people are somehow different, strange, exotic and not-quite-civilized oddities from the East (read Said's "Orientalism" to understand how this works), and that Russia is now trying to start a new Cold War.

Camp two feels that Russia is genuinely a far more stable place under the leadership of Putin and that the bad old days of Wild West capitalism and the ascendency of the mafia was much worse than any of the centralizing tendencies of Putin, and even that Yeltsin was really just a weak puppet of the West. This camp will point to 6-7% GDP growth every year since 1999, the revitilization of St. Petersburg and Moscow, and that the recent problems in diplomacy between Moscow and the rest of Europe are the result of miscommunication and fear-mongering by the press. This article is an extreme example of the former.


I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle. Russia is clearly trying to re-assert itself on the international stage, and it has every right to do so. Putin is for sure not a democrat, but I'm not too sure he's an autocrat either. The centralization of the media under Kremlin-friendly corporations is bad, but as always--even during the Soviet days--most educated Russians have a pretty healthy distrust for what they see in the mainstream media (many consider it to be a joke), and most of the popular online news sites in Russia are actually not controlled by Kremlin-supported elements and have no traditional-media equivalents (i.e. the opposite of BBC and bbcnews.com, or MSNBC on tv and msnbc.com).

The real problem is that it is hard to analyze Russia within the context of other small, relatively homogenous European nation-states. Russia is not just a huge country, the largest in the world, it's really the world's last remaining multi-national land-based empire. This is a country with over 30 other languages co-official with Russian in the region, over 100 different indigenous ethnic groups and titular nationalities and that stretches 11 time zones. It's just really hard to envision this country managed and held together in any other way than by what Putin is doing. During the Yeltsin era a lot of the regional governors were just running their republics, krais & oblasts as mini-Tsardoms for their personal benefit. Federal law didn't mean much outside Moscow and Petersburg. The mafia was everywhere. The army was in total disarray and the economy had tanked. Putin has solved most of these problems, and you can't forget that in judging him.


dorotea says:

>>the world's last remaining multi-national land-based empire

A bit of an overstatement, this is. Both China and India have more nationalities living together 'under the same roof' than RF, not to mention the complex structure and language diversity in of these countries. And by the way - how about good ol' US and A? Ain't there still some few indian tribes living inside their own territories and speaking their own languages, not to mention all other ethnic and language minorities ( mexicans, puerto-rico-eans? To think of it 'small compact nation-states' are more of an oddity in Europe than multi-national and multi-lingual entities , and I mean Spain, UK, Balkans, Turkey, etc etc.


dorotea says:

But my point really was - each state is an entity in itself. It is fine and dandy for the europeans to huddle together under the EU umbrella and pretend they are equal and independent. Russia does not have a luxury of a collective security treaty, 200+ years of democratic electoral system or even 40+ years of free market economy. Give us a break. We will eventually get our own model of society that suits us best and is compatible with collective european security. We've been there before the 1917 and we will get there again. As they say - you can bring horse to water but you cannot make it drink. Same goes about democratic society and international security. If you want safer future try to learn to be patient, tolerant and respectful with Russia - and you will get the same attitude from her and her peoples. Getting hysterical and agressive is the worst way to deal with the nation that has always been reknown for its goddamned pride and drive for independence.


john says:

the UK/USA powers want to alienate Russia. The reason for this is that Russia has extremely large oil and natural gas reserves that western corporations would love to get their hands on. We are witnessing the opening moves of what will probably become the next world war.


Alex says:

Well said, Dorotea. I agree completely.

Yes, John. It looks this way.
Some in the West are mounting these attacks to grab Russian resources cheaply.
Great miscalculation! They are not center of the universe anymore thanks to emerging asian giants. If Europe fails with Russia, it will be an end of Europe on the world stage. It will take some time but it will happen in 20-30 years - old population without any resources, see what happens.
Russia will stand, always did.


La Russophobe says:

ALEX:

You are grossly mischaracterizing history. Not one but two different versions of Russia, a Tsarist one and a Soviet one, have both been destroyed. Millions of lives have been lost in the process, so that now Russia is a shadow of its former self, with half the population the USSR, losing 1 million per year, and an average wage of $2.50 per hour. At its current rate of population loss, Russia will be empty in less than two centuries, and even now it can't defend it's Eastern borders against China, which will gobble up Siberia without a fight.

If you think Russia can simply go on surviving such upheavals and can afford to sit around with its finger in its nose watching the debacle, you are more dangerous to Russia than any foreign enemy.


Aris Katsaris says:

China will only gobble up Siberia after it gets the aid it needs from Russia to gobble up Taiwan -- basically China still needs Russia to use its stranglehold on resources to neutralize Europe.

So though I wouldn't really mind seeing two fascist imperialist superpowers go against each other, I'm afraid that's only going to happen after they have devoured the nearby peaceful democracies first. That's Taiwan in China's case, and the Baltics and Caucasus in Russia's case.

And that's the thing really. The russophile propagandists here, keep on trying to present this as a "USA vs Russia" thingy.

But the truth of course is vastly different -- it's the Russian imperium against the peaceful tiny nations of Moldova (whose territory it has grabbed already), of Georgia (whose pieces it controls), of Estonia (which it is attacking through mobs and hackers alike). Even of Ukraine (whose eastern territories and Crimea it covets).

The Russian government are murderous imperialists, and those who support it likewise. The only way that Russia is "reasserting itself in the world stage" is the way that a serial killer reasserts himself in the public awareness via murder.

You russophile propagandist, choose to be the murderer, and proclaim it glorious. That merely shows your moral decadence.


David M says:

Trackbacked by The Thunder Run - Web Reconnaissance for 05/30/2007
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention.


armchair pessimist says:

In today's Telegraph there's a weird report that the Russian security services have unconvered a western plot to render the Russian population sterile by means of genetic technology.
My question is to any of you Russian experts here: Can the Russian government seriously believe this piece of science fiction? If it does't really, what on earth might be its purpose in pretending to?


La Russophobe says:

ARMCHAIR:

Could Nikita K. really believe banging his shoe might lead to something good? There's another report saying that the British secret service killed Litivinenko because he was their own agent out of control. Do they really believe that? Do they believe they can destroy Chechnya's Muslims, arm Iran with nukes, and get away with it? Do they think that Russia, with a population and economy a fraction of that of the USSR, can wage an arms race with the USA more successfully than the USSR did? Do they really believe the KGB has learned from its mistakes and can be trusted now to rule?

They can. They do. Hence, they have a $2.50/hour average wage and a $0.25/hour minimum wage, and hence their population gets smaller by 1 million every year. Hence, Zaire with permafrost.


K. Allyn Cosey, II says:

Russia is too large to govern. That is the problem. Period.


Bogdan of Australia says:

Sorry Scott, you have lost the plot... If you begin with praising the murderous thug because he just managed to introduce some artificial stability (based on the extrements that they can dig and sell out, anyway and not on the real technological progress) I'd like to remaind you that some eighty years ago, like-minded idiots were paising another murderous thug, who also managed to introduce some artificial stability into the life of another failed society. How it has ended, we all know very well. What does it tell about the intelligence of those who are notoriously unable to learn from experience and history?


Dalong says:

w


Dalong says:

w


Dalong says:

w


Dalong says:

The big elephant in the room here, the issue which is all but briefly touched upon by any of the previous writers, is the rise of the PRC. China's economy is growing very fast, and the threat to not only Siberia, Sakhalin and Primorsky Krai, but also to previous Soviet dependencies such as Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. Putin is a highly intelligent and shrewd politician. Could he have but realized this? My point is: is Putin only using "the threat from the West" as an excuse for developing arms and military functions that will later be necessary to counter China?


Dalong says:

The big elephant in the room here, the issue which is all but briefly touched upon by any of the previous writers, is the rise of the PRC. China's economy is growing very fast, and the threat to not only Siberia, Sakhalin and Primorsky Krai, but also to previous Soviet dependencies such as Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. Putin is a highly intelligent and shrewd politician. Could he have but realized this? My point is: is Putin only using "the threat from the West" as an excuse for developing arms and military functions that will later be necessary to counter China?


Dalong says:

The big elephant in the room here, the issue which is all but briefly touched upon by any of the previous writers, is the rise of the PRC. China's economy is growing very fast, and the threat to not only Siberia, Sakhalin and Primorsky Krai, but also to previous Soviet dependencies such as Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. Putin is a highly intelligent and shrewd politician. Could he have but realized this? My point is: is Putin only using "the threat from the West" as an excuse for developing arms and military functions that will later be necessary to counter China?









Post a comment


(will not be published)



Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)




TrackBack

TrackBack URL: http://publiuspundit.com/mt/contages.cgi/205