Annals of Cold War: The Battle for Visa and Russian National Suicide

Yup Kim, denying a visa to some self-important international NGO type is "pure, black, utterly ignorant totalitarian evil"

If visa denial is that evil, though, what sort of verbiage would you use to describe actual, lived, totalitarianism.

Do you really think visa denial is just as "utterly ignotant totalitarian evil" as, say, the Katyn massacre, the terror famine in the Ukraine, the Great Terror, the deportation of various ethnic groups?

Posted February 28, 2008 5:25 AM

Kim, take it easy. You are right, sort of, saying that "Virtually nobody in Western countries has the slightest desire to partake of Russian culture" except that 'Russian culture' is an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms for the uninitiated. All Russia has to offer is great T&A, sauna, vodka, caviar. Which sell to Finnish lumberjacks and British yobs.
But on a serious note, the visa war is good for us. Screw them, let them boil and simmer in their own crap and vomit to extinction. We don't need them, but they need us. Our NGO's should have no business there. When they collapse, we'll send in the salvage experts and repatriate the babes if there are any left by then

Posted February 28, 2008 11:04 AM

'All Russia has to offer is great T&A, sauna, vodka, caviar. Which sell to Finnish lumberjacks and British yobs'

That and a motherlode of oil and gas.

But don't worry Vova, you came close.

Posted February 28, 2008 11:33 AM

right, you don't have to go there to buy oil and gas. They'll sell it to you at the border, lest they drink it and breathe it themselves. But babes are another matter--you have to go there if you want to come there

Posted February 28, 2008 11:56 AM

VOVA:

God DAMN young man, that may have been your masterpiece of comments. Ultrafine! Are you sure we cannot prevail upon you to write an actual post for publication on the blog? You are ready for the big leagues!

Posted February 28, 2008 12:04 PM

Kim, I am humbled by your comment. WFB, RIP, had a decive influence on me, both stylistically and ideologically, and it would be an understatement to say that he helped form my Weltanschauung. Rush devoted a whole hour to him yesterday and started off with a Buckley tribute today.
Now to your suggestion: Although I am a wordsmith by trade I am nevertheless a realist. I am a technical writer, not an author, and my translations are far superior than my original thoughts. I even rate my original thoughts as zero, so if you divide something by zero you get infinity. To wit, my translating skill is infinitely superior to my original writing. Besides, although English is my first language of use, I am not a native speaker.
By the may, Milov's piece in today's Hedgehog (ej.ru) is superb. Thunderclapping, as my USG contact described it. He is surely a rising star, unlike Ryzhkov who is a star too, but lacks Milov's economic and managerial insights. Ryzhkov reminds me of Newt--a former history professor, a conservative on our side of the pond (it's my side too despite being in the eastern Mediterranean) and a liberal in the Russian parlance.
Finally, Morar is quite a babe: she called the old farts' bluff, and they flinched. Way to go, girl!!!

Posted February 28, 2008 12:39 PM

Errata: read "superior to" :-)

Posted February 28, 2008 12:40 PM

i'm waiting for your clever explanation about how visa denial (what you claim is totalitarian) is comparable to genocide and mass murder (what other, smarter, people consider to be totalitarian)

Posted February 28, 2008 3:16 PM

People who travel to Russia do so for the same reasons people anywhere do anything: because it's in their self-interests to do so. Some go for Russia's famous beautiful women and many others for economic reasons, now that Russia's economy has recovered and Russia has the largest reserves of oil and natural gas, metals, timber and a whole lot of other stuff (That comes from controlling one-sixth of the world's landmass, largely underdeveloped during the Soviet period and before.)

As far as the Western "NGO types" go, Russia doesn't have a lot of use for them. They mostly come to Russia to meddle in Russia's internal politics. Most of them are funded by Western intelligence agencies such as the CIA and they operate as front organizations for those intelligence agencies. Others do the bidding of oligarchs such as American George Sorros and others (professional meddlers in other people's business by trade). As long as these NGOs register with the state, report their financial flows accurately, pay their taxes and obey all the other laws of Russia (including the traffic laws), they can be safely ignored. But if they violate Russian law then they will be tossed out on their ears, of course, as would happen in any other country. President Putin has largely put a check on the unrestricted activities of these anti-Russian NGO since he came to power. They don't like it; they prefer the cowboy days of Yeltsin's 90's, when they could get away with anything in Russia. But there's not much they can do about it other than whine. That's no problem. Frankly the Russian people would be more worried if these enemies and traitors of Russia were quiet.

The Russian people fully understand the conflict between stout Russian patriots such as Vladimir Putin on one side, and Russia's enemies and traitors on the other side. Despite all the slander directed against Russia from at home and abroad (which they are free to say of course), fully 80 percent of the Russian people support President Putin! I would say that's "democracy in action!" No one has the right to define Russia's social or political system for it, or impose alien "values" on Russia that Russia just doesn't want. In the end that's what enrages people such as the author of this blog; they know that there's some place in the world that they just can't control. Russia is immune to and inoculated against their existence and influence, for now and forever. No one listens to their constant self-righteous moralizing and their pedantic preaching, and still less to their constant hysterical screeching about a "new totalitarianism," even as they engage in stage-managed altercations with the Moscow police. Russians have lived under real totalianarism long enough to know the difference between it and the relative prosperity and freedom they now enjoy. Now no one goes to bed at night worried that the secret police might come in the middle of the night and take him to the Gulag. Anyone can say whatever he wants, travel wherever he wants, even abroad, and there is no problem. Many Russians are cynical or ambivalent towards politics in general, but that's hardly a unique Russian trait. Evangelize your own country before you send your silly missionaries to Russia.

The main problem in Russia is not any restriction imposed by the state, but rather the "universal" problem which afflicts the people in all the capitalist countries, namely the shortage of money. If someone in Russia can't travel where he wants or otherwise do whatever he wants to do, it's not because the Russian state is stopping him (for ideological reasons or any reasons) but simply because he lacks the financial means to do it. This of course is the universal economic problem, not just for Russia but for everyone everywhere. This "economic problem" has been the main focus of the tireless work of President Putin and his capable team during their two elected terms in office. (And they've had quite a bit of success too, I might add, even without your own personal blessing on Mother Russia.)

President Putin has spoken to the Russian people at length about the need to build democratic institutions in Russia, while at the same time preventing those newly-born democratic institutions from providing an opening for Russia's well-capitalized and highly motivated historical enemies. Russia's enemies have not lost one gram of their animosity towards Russia simply because Russia has had some problems lately. Putin calls his system "managed democracy." Many in the west don't agree with President Putin on this, but Putin is not proposing his system for the West (as you are constantly trying to impose your own ideas and values on Russia). The fact is that 80 percent of the Russian people do agree with their president. That apparently bothers you to no end and even keeps you awake at night for some strange reason.

You harp and harp about Russia and it has obviously become an obsession for you, but in Russia life goes on, fortunes are made and lost, people fall in and out of love, and no one really cares about you or what you think. The Russian people are not so much "against" you as they simply refuse to pay you any attention. This obviously has made you quite insane, but I'm not sure how anyone can really help you at this point.

Posted February 28, 2008 3:35 PM

Honestly, I don't see any reason for the NGO's being in Russia either. It used to be referred to as Upper Volta with nuclear weapons, now as Upper Volta with a gas pipeline. The political system, social environment, and mindset of the people are patently repugnant. For the unscrupulous there are business opportunities, for the leecherous there are girls, and the useful idiots there's "Russian culture" and whatever

Posted February 28, 2008 3:57 PM

The pattern of these racist anti-Russian rants is always the same, and it generally goes as follows: First they start out ranting against President Putin himself, and against Putin’s latest “outrage” against democracy in Russia (whatever they claim that is). But then it is pointed out to them that fully 80 percent of the Russian people approve of President Putin’s policies. How can something be “undemocratic” when the vast majority of people want it and approve of it? That simply defies logic. So then the rant shifts to its second refrain, and shifts away from attacking President Putin to attacking the Russian people themselves.

In general terms the pattern of the argument is as follows:

(1) That savage Putin is repressing democracy again and preventing those poor, poor long-suffering souls in Russia from just being free and doing the things that we here in the West do;

(2) But wait a minute… Putin and his policies are extremely popular in Russia…

(3) Oh those savage Russians… They just don’t know how to live and they won’t live the way we want them to.

You will see the same pattern, again and again, in this Russia-hater blog and others like it. Watch for the pattern described above and you’ll see it repeated again and again, ad infinitum.

What is at work here is not some genuine interest in Russia, her people or her political or economic future. Rather what’s at work is the pathological desire that some people have to control other people and to impose their own values and way of living on them. It’s the same impulse we saw in the western missionaries when they sailed the seas to “bring Jesus” to the savage tribes and put clothes on them. It is really a “new Puritanism” For the 21st century. As such it is deeply psycho-pathological.

They literally can’t stand the thought that someone can fully comprehend what they are selling and just not want it. It makes them lose their minds to think that there is some patch of earth somewhere that is immune to their influence and control. The fact that Russia is a country of tens of millions of people, and one of the world’s traditional major powers, and Russia occupies fully one-sixth of the world's landmass, makes them go all the more mad each time they think about it. They literally work themselves into a mad froth over Russia. Watch it! It’s rather amusing actually.

What they have in mind when they talk about “democracy” is definitely not the pluralism and tolerance usually associated with that word. Rather, their idea of democracy is a pre-formed, pre-baked system of ready-mix values that they want to impose on others, which just happens coincidentally to also serve their own neo-imperial interests. Their “democracy” is not the system that “the people” chose (as the word implies) but rather something to be imposed on the people, by deception and subterfuge, through manipulation of the media and undermining a country’s democratic institutions, when it is possible; but also imposed by the cynical use of violent force, when it is necessary. Their values are not genuinely democratic or tolerant, but rather they seek to impose one uniform, homogenized system of globalized values and political and economic forms, which they’ve already developed and tested on behalf of the whole world (lest any other country need to bother to try to find its own truth).

Posted February 28, 2008 4:22 PM

Right on, brother. Russia is indeed encircled by enemies, all those nasty Estonians and Georgians and other agents of American imperialism and Zionism dreaming of bringing Russia to her knees, enslaving the people, and raping the natural resources and minerals and all. The nasty Brits have sinister designs for the land east of the Urals while the Yanks--west of the Urals, all the way to the Pacific.
I suggest that instead of reading this stinking russophobic blog you spend more time watching Russian state TV, the likes of Misha Leontyev and Glev Pavlovskiy.
I am really scared. I feel like going there and joining the brave ranks of Putinjugend. I've heard that they have great girls, loose and totally uninhibited

Posted February 28, 2008 5:30 PM

Oh yeah, I almost forgot the "parting vex" or the "evil eye." That's the final phase of the cycle these Russia haters keep repeating again and again.

First they bash Putin, and when it is pointed out to them that Putin remains wildly popular, they shift to their second refrain, bashing the Russian people. But the final part of the cycle, as this "Russian National Suicide" post illustrates, is the "evil eye" or the "vex."

1. Bash the Russian leader for not allowing the Russian people to be democratic.

2. But wait a minute, if the Russian people all love their leader then isn't that democratic?

3. Bash the Russian people for not wanting to get rid of their leader whom they love and who won't let them be democratic.

4. Finally comes what I call the "Parting Vex," or the "Evil Eye" phase. Here's where they say, "Fine, Russia can just go commit suicide then! See if I care!" And then they stomp off in anger.

But just when you thought they were finally gone for good, they come marching right back to repeat the whole cycle again, right from step 1 above, within the next five minutes... (Just wait and watch!)

That's why I am able to get endless amusement from watching them work themselves more and more into a froth over Russia. (It's not that anyone is actually sparring with them--though I do spar from time to time--but for the most part they are just shadow boxing with themselves, and going round and round in an endless circle, like a dog chasing its tail till he falls down from exhaustion.)

Here's a clue: Russia isn't going to do your bidding. It's a big country with its own long history, it's own culture and its own way of approaching the world. Don't you think it would be healthier to just get over that and move on with your life? (I say that but then where would I turn for my amusement?)

Here's an idea... If you are looking for a totalitarian state to save (or just to bash), then consider China. China is still run by an actual real-live totalitarian government, a single-party communist state that brooks no opposition whatsoever. The Internet and media are totally censored in China. China's government doesn't just arrest protesters in the street, it shoots them down and runs them over with tanks. And yet the US and the West are happy as pie to be doing business with the Red Chinese, because their big Western corporations have profited by moving almost 100 percent of their production to China, to exploit low cost Chinese peasant labor.

But do you think these pathological Russia-haters lose a minute of sleep frothing about the situation in China? Nooo. Russia alone remains their singular obsession!

Posted February 28, 2008 5:39 PM

Actually president Putin used the term “Sovereign Democracy,” not “Managed Democracy,” to indicate that Russia is in favor of democracy, but a democracy that is informed and animated by Russian values, not "Western values" or some mystical “world values” (whatever such values would mean if they existed).

President Putin hails from the Russian security services (FSB) so of course he is well aware of the plots by Russia’s enemies to destroy Russia by infiltrating her democratic institutions and harming her from within. The progress that Russia has made since the horrific 1990's of Yeltsin era is largely due to President Putin’s success in blocking the efforts by foreign governments (along with billionaire "Russian" oligarchs in exile) to penetrate and undermine Russia’s political system.

So “sovereign democracy” means that the Russian government is by, of and for the Russian people alone. Russia is not asking for and will not accept the “help” of foreign NGO’s attempting to meddle in Russia’s own internal democratic processes and institutions.

For example, an NGO can ostensibly sound right as rain, with an innocuous title such as “The Center for a Free Press,” but when Russian Security Services looked into such an organization, they found that it received 90% of its funding from the US CIA. The NGO said its business was only about “teaching Russians how to be journalists and express themselves freely,” and so forth. After all, how can anyone object to such a laudable purpose? Then, as if by magic this NGO found financing to begin a new newspaper in Moscow. and it recruited many would-be Russian “journalists” which it proposed to train in the art of journalism to staff the new newspaper. But when Russian security services infiltrated this organization as would-be “recruits,” they found that this “journalism training” was really only a nest for anti-state activities, directing and managing people in how to spread anti-government propaganda and to criticize Russia’s president, etc. When such organizations (with foreign backing and shady financing) begin to take on an active and partisan role in Russia's internal politics, then they cross the line, and the Security Services of the Russian Federation must take prompt action to stop them. Would the United States or any other government tolerate such foreign meddling in its own internal politics and elections?

But while Russia is a novice at this game of using NGOs as fronts for intelligence agencies to manipulate the outcome of “democratic” elections, the West (and especially the USA) has perfected such operations as a fine art form. The US has already successfully staged coups in Georgia and Ukraine (and many other countries) by this method. But Russia’s guard is up, and Russia is capable of defending herself! Thank God the alarm was tripped on time, and we now have patriots on duty at the gates!

The irony is that by meddling in Russia’s political affairs, these Western-backed organizations actually slow Russia’s real transition to stable democratic institutions, because they force the Russian state and its security services to make counter-moves against them (and such counter-moves sometimes inhibits legitimate Russian democratic expression along with foreign-backed meddling). However I have no doubt that there are those in the West—and in Russia itself—who are perfectly happy to slow Russia’s transition to sovereign democracy, as this gives them yet another excuse for creating problems in relations between Russia and her partners. Their attitude is that if they cannot infiltrate and control Russia’s democratic institutions, then at least they can destroy those institutions; they can prevent Russia from developing her own (sovereign) democratic institutions, and thus they can maintain a wedge between Russia and her partners.

There are many who would have nothing to gain (and much to lose) if Russia actually succeeds in making the transition to sovereign democracy. Such a transition would offer the world a new political model which would point the way to a successful transition to democracy that did not involve a surrender of national sovereignty to the USA. Is there any other country in the world that can make such a boast? Can you see why certain elements don’t want Russia to succeed and why they would rather have Russia perceived as “totalitarian” (or even to actually be totalitarian) than to watch Russia stage her own successful transition to her own (sovereign) democracy?

Posted February 28, 2008 6:40 PM

Spent 3 years traveling all around the former SU. It is far worse than can be described. Russia now has the enemy it deserves, itself

Posted February 28, 2008 6:43 PM

Wohoho here is another fine reason that Russia is going to collapse again. How many does that make Kim? 10, 20 reasons? Certainly not enough for you to be confident enough in any of them to not have like 4 blogs dedicated entirely to why Russia sucks. With 20 or so good reasons for thinking something would happen I would pretty much stop thinking about it, but hey not you right, are you going for 100, 300 maybe? I just hope Russia doesn't commit suicide like china did, you know china that great beacon of democracy sucking up huge amounts of western wealth and producing all those goods to which the west is addicted.

Posted February 28, 2008 6:44 PM

Misha said:
"Actually president Putin used the term “Sovereign Democracy,” not “Managed Democracy,” to indicate that Russia is in favor of democracy, but a democracy that is informed and animated by Russian values, not "Western values" or some mystical “world values” (whatever such values would mean if they existed)."

B asked: So Misha please explain what these Russian values are? (I am genuinelly interested to know)...and please no tripe...I want an honest assessment.

Misha said: "The irony is that by meddling in Russia’s political affairs, these Western-backed organizations actually slow Russia’s real transition to stable democratic institutions, because they force the Russian state and its security services to make counter-moves against them (and such counter-moves sometimes inhibits legitimate Russian democratic expression..."

B asks: By this statement then are you not admitting then that Russia does not have stable democratic institutions or expressions? And what type of legitimate Russian democratic expressions are you speaking of?

By your assessment of Putin's actions thus far Misha, would you view him as an Ivan IV or a Peter the Great type historical figure?
Would you guess He views himself as either of these two figures (I know that Putin's name is now often said in the same breath with Joseph Stalin...but that's so yesterday)

As for travel to Russia; ya, I'd go and yes, I have met several Western businessmen who do business in/with Russia...I wouldn't call them riverboat gamblers.(at least in the deragatory sense that seems to be implied here)

Posted February 28, 2008 9:22 PM

Yes, indeed, yes, indeed!

What are "rooshan values"?

And how is "sovereing democracy" any different from Ivan the Terrible, or any different from Stalinism?

"rooshan values" - indeed.

Posted February 28, 2008 11:30 PM

"And how is "sovereing democracy" any different from Ivan the Terrible, or any different from Stalinism?"

I'm not really that knowledgeable about Ivan the Terrible, but I would posit these fairly obvious differences between "sovereing (sic) democracy" and Stalinism.

Sovereign democracy lacks:

1) A desire for world conquest (screwing with Ukraine's gas deliveries is not the same as invading and occupying numerous different sovereign states and backing revolutionary insurgencies all over the Third World
2) A messianic all-encompassing ideology with an allegedly "scientific" basis (there is no "All-Russian Institute of Sovereign Democracy" or an active project for a worldwide "Sovereign Demcocratic Revolution")
3) A command economy with extreme wastage focused solely on the development of heavy industry industry and armaments through coercion and physical violence (No one these days argues that Russia isn't capitalist. They have a rough, chaotic, and resource dominated capitalism, but Edward Lucas, Anders Aslund, and many others describe Russia as a "capitalist" state. You can certainly disagree with them on this matter, but I won't)
4) An officially sanctioned one-party state (Today's United Russia party is a half-rate and pale imitation of the Communists, who had a constitutionally guaranteed 'leading role' and formally excluded any and all rivals. Does United Russia compete fairly? No, but the Stalinist party-state, where the organs of state and party governance were completely interchangeable, is in an entirely different catagory from the petty nepotism and cronyism
that characterizes today's United Russia)

There, was that enough? Or do you want more?

Posted February 29, 2008 8:39 AM

Oh, geez, another delusional rooskie trying to make up excuses for roosha and re-write history.

1) a desire for world conquest

roosha threatens to aim missiles at Ukraine;
roosha meddles in Georgia;
roosha sell nuclear materials to Iran;
roosha meddles in Serbia;
roosha refuses to remove troops from Georgia, or its Black Sea Fleet from Ukraine

2)a messianic all-ecnompassing ideology

"managed corruption", with lots of propaganda about how electing Putin is the same as electing a board of directors

3)A command economy with extreme wastage focused solely on the development of heavy industry industry and armaments through coercion and physical violence

heavy concentration of billionaires and roosha Mafia in mooskva (actually, the rooshan Mafia spreads beyond maskva);

Putin and the Kremlin controlling Gazprom and other industries for their own personal benefit

4) An officially sanctioned one-party state

united roosha, and Vlad Dracul Putin, infiltrating opposition with spies;

opposition impossible to form through draconian statutes regarding "registration," petitions, meetings, etc.

the organs of state and party governance are completely interchangeable;

petty nepotism and cronyism
characterizes today's United Russia;

cult of personality with plenty of pictures of Vlad Dracul with his shirt off - at least Stalin kept his shirt on

You made the case for me.

Thanks.

Posted February 29, 2008 9:26 AM

Oh geez elmer why don't you mooselamps go eat sand or whatever Allah tells you to do.

Posted February 29, 2008 10:40 AM

I think Russian President Vladimir Putin resembles Tsar Ivan IV (“Ivan the Terrible”), whom Putin has said that he admires, more than he resembles Peter the Great. Although any such comparison is a bit imperfect, because President Putin is obviously not a Tsar.

Ivan the Terrible was really “Иван Грозный” in Russian, or “Ivan Grozny” (You may recognize the Russian word “Grozny,” which is also name of the mountain capital of Chechnya.) Grozny is a very unique and interesting Russian word, and to translate it as “the Terrible” is not a good translation at all. A far better translation would be the “Ivan the Awesome” or the “Ivan the Awe-Inspiring.” But as we see with the King James Bible and other works of literature, once a word is badly translated once it tends to be remarkably persistent.

One online Russian dictionary defines “Grozny” as “…redoubtable.”
http://www.rustran.com/odr.php4?q=1&word=%C3%F0%EE%E7%ED%FB%E9&x=50&y=16

The Encarta online English dictionary defines “redoubtable” as: “1. that is to be feared; formidable; 2. commanding or evoking respect, reverence, or the like.
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/search.aspx?q= redoubtable

The English word “terrible” can also mean “redoubtable,” at least in older usage, but in modern English usage the word “terrible” mostly means that which is simply “bad” or “awful.” So an “Ivan the Terrible” would obviously seem to describe a miserable tyrant, as opposed to say a “Peter the Great,” for example. But such is not necessarily the case. In Russian “Grozny” does not mean “bad” or “awful” in that simple English sense.

Certainly Ivan the Terrible (Ivan IV) was one of the key figures in Russian history. He first united the Muscovite Principalities under his unified command and then took his army on the March to defeat the cruel Tartar enemies who had invaded and occupied Russia for generations. Another title for Ivan was “Gatherer of Russian Lands.”

From a Russian standpoint this “Grozny” aspect was something absolutely essential for a Tsar. (A Tsar who was non-Grozny would have been pretty useless.) In this sense the term is more of a compliment than an insult.

Ivan IV broke the power of the boyars, who were Russia’s nobility and landowners and who often exercised cruel rule over the Russian peasantry. This lead to the strong Russian belief in the almost mystical bond between the common Russian people and their Tsar. However bad or unjust the conditions of local life could be for a Russian peasant, there was a mystical belief in the union between the Tsar and his people. It was felt that the Tsar would judge fairly between the boyars and the peasantry in local disputes.

The Russian peasantry was often the victim of cruel injustice by the ruling nobility (boyars), but every Russian felt that a direct appeal to the Tsar held the hope of achieving justice. Technically the Tsar was the head of the Russian aristocracy, or the king, but in practice, from the time of Ivan IV the Tsars often hated and mistrusted the boyars, whom they thought were trying to displace them on the throne.

A Russian Tsar was the protector and defender of all Russian people and the one charged with securing justice and equity for them, and any Tsar had to be grozny indeed (the more grozny the better from the standpoint of the peasantry, as long as the Tsar set himself against their boyar overlords and Russia’s cruel foreign invaders).

Ivan IV united Muscovy under his rule and expelled the Kazan Tartars that had invaded and cruelly ruled most of Russia for generations; he transformed Russia from a confederation of small fiefdoms centered around Moscow into a sprawling multi-confessional and multi-ethnic empire. Ivan IV set the stage for Peter the Great’s later accomplishments. Ivan’s hatred and mistrust of the boyars (Russian aristocracy) lead him to persecute them and to favor other classes in Russian society.

See this short interesting article: http://www.nndb.com/people/933/000092657/

Posted February 29, 2008 11:09 AM

I think Russian President Vladimir Putin resembles Tsar Ivan IV (“Ivan the Terrible”), whom Putin has said that he admires, more than he resembles Peter the Great. Although any such comparison is a bit imperfect, because President Putin is obviously not a Tsar.

Ivan the Terrible was really “Иван Грозный” in Russian, or “Ivan Grozny” (You may recognize the Russian word “Grozny,” which is also name of the mountain capital of Chechnya.) Grozny is a very unique and interesting Russian word, and to translate it as “the Terrible” is not a good translation at all. A far better translation would be the “Ivan the Awesome” or the “Ivan the Awe-Inspiring.” But as we see with the King James Bible and other works of literature, once a word is badly translated once it tends to be remarkably persistent.

One online Russian dictionary defines “Grozny” as “…redoubtable.”
http://www.rustran.com/odr.php4?q=1&word=%C3%F0%EE%E7%ED%FB%E9&x=50&y=16

The Encarta online English dictionary defines “redoubtable” as: “1. that is to be feared; formidable; 2. commanding or evoking respect, reverence, or the like.
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/search.aspx?q= redoubtable

The English word “terrible” can also mean “redoubtable,” at least in older usage, but in modern English usage the word “terrible” mostly means that which is simply “bad” or “awful.” So an “Ivan the Terrible” would obviously seem to describe a miserable tyrant, as opposed to say a “Peter the Great,” for example. But such is not necessarily the case. In Russian “Grozny” does not mean “bad” or “awful” in that simple English sense.

Certainly Ivan the Terrible (Ivan IV) was one of the key figures in Russian history. He first united the Muscovite Principalities under his unified command and then took his army on the March to defeat the cruel Tartar enemies who had invaded and occupied Russia for generations. Another title for Ivan was “Gatherer of Russian Lands.”

From a Russian standpoint this “Grozny” aspect was something absolutely essential for a Tsar. (A Tsar who was non-Grozny would have been pretty useless.) In this sense the term is more of a compliment than an insult.

Ivan IV broke the power of the boyars, who were Russia’s nobility and landowners and who often exercised cruel rule over the Russian peasantry. This lead to the strong Russian belief in the almost mystical bond between the common Russian people and their Tsar. However bad or unjust the conditions of local life could be for a Russian peasant, there was a mystical belief in the union between the Tsar and his people. It was felt that the Tsar would judge fairly between the boyars and the peasantry in local disputes.

The Russian peasantry was often the victim of cruel injustice by the ruling nobility (boyars), but every Russian felt that a direct appeal to the Tsar held the hope of achieving justice. Technically the Tsar was the head of the Russian aristocracy, or the king, but in practice, from the time of Ivan IV the Tsars often hated and mistrusted the boyars, whom they thought were trying to displace them on the throne.

A Russian Tsar was the protector and defender of all Russian people and the one charged with securing justice and equity for them, and any Tsar had to be grozny indeed (the more grozny the better from the standpoint of the peasantry, as long as the Tsar set himself against their boyar overlords and Russia’s cruel foreign invaders).

Ivan IV united Muscovy under his rule and expelled the Kazan Tartars that had invaded and cruelly ruled most of Russia for generations; he transformed Russia from a confederation of small fiefdoms centered around Moscow into a sprawling multi-confessional and multi-ethnic empire. Ivan IV set the stage for Peter the Great’s later accomplishments. Ivan’s hatred and mistrust of the boyars (Russian aristocracy) lead him to persecute them and to favor other classes in Russian society.

See this short interesting article: http://www.nndb.com/people/933/000092657/

Posted February 29, 2008 11:12 AM

Elmer,

First of all I'm not Russian. I unlike Kim, and apparently you since your writing appears stuck at a 6th grade level, am a native born American. I'm no more Russian than George W. Bush who, I'm sure, you greatly admire and respect. But thanks for the cheap insult, when people try to attack you for your ethnicity/nationality its always a sign that they are grasping at straws.

Let's look at your response, shall we.

1) a desire for world conquest

roosha threatens to aim missiles at Ukraine;
roosha meddles in Georgia;
roosha sell nuclear materials to Iran;
roosha meddles in Serbia;
roosha refuses to remove troops from Georgia, or its Black Sea Fleet from Ukraine

Elmer, do you understand what a "region" is and what the "world" is. Did I say Russia didn't bully its neighbors? No, I said Russia does not have an explicit mission of world conquest (like the Soviet Union did). I'm fully aware of the facts you posted, but these manifestly fail to constitute a mission of "world conquest."

2)a messianic all-encompassing ideology

"managed corruption", with lots of propaganda about how electing Putin is the same as electing a board of directors

Really, "managed corruption" is an all-encompassing ideology? There are Western sympathizers, mostly in university faculties, who are devoted adherents of "managed corruption?" There are lengthy tomes laying out how the world is inevitably and incontrovertibly moving towards "managed corruption?" There is an international organization of "managed corruption" parties?

If you really think that today's Russian 'ideology' is comparable to Marxism-Leninism, you're beyond all hope.

3)A command economy with extreme wastage focused solely on the development of heavy industry industry and armaments through coercion and physical violence

heavy concentration of billionaires and roosha Mafia in mooskva (actually, the rooshan Mafia spreads beyond maskva);

Putin and the Kremlin controlling Gazprom and other industries for their own personal benefit

Over 60% of the Russian economy is in private hands. Under Stalin, it was probably something like 3 or 4% (though that small percentage, mostly grown on small private plots, was critical in allowing people to stay alive)

The 'rooshan mafia' isn't any more interested in building socialism (that's what I meant by "command economy" in case you missed that) than you are in becoming a Russian citizen. They want to make lots of money and invest it in the West. What is so hard to understand about this?

Does this mean Russia's capitalism is "good?" Again, I never said that, I merely said its quantitatively different from a "command economy." I also noted that numerous high-profile Russia scholars, many of whom Kim regularly quotes, describe Russia as a capitalist state. In fact, this is part of why they think it is so dangerous: Russia is leveraging its considerable economic assets in order to gain influence abroad.

4) An officially sanctioned one-party state

united roosha, and Vlad Dracul Putin, infiltrating opposition with spies;

opposition impossible to form through draconian statutes regarding "registration," petitions, meetings, etc.

Again, you either didn't read what I said or you willfully ignored it. Show me the part of the Russian constitution that guarantees a "leading role" for United Russia and I'll retract my analysis. Since such an article, of course, doesn't exist, I won't exactly be waiting with bated breath.

This is what annoys me so much about this site and its fans. Rather than say "Russia is an authoritarian state with a chaotic brand of pseudo-gangster capitalism" (very close to the truth) you say "Russia is a Stalinist neo-Soviet Union."

Russia is very far from a developed Western democracy, but, thank God, it is also very far from a Stalinist totalitarian nightmare.

Posted February 29, 2008 12:37 PM

Elmer,

First of all I'm not Russian. I unlike Kim, and apparently you since your writing appears stuck at a 6th grade level, am a native born American. I'm no more Russian than George W. Bush who, I'm sure, you greatly admire and respect. But thanks for the cheap insult, when people try to attack you for your ethnicity/nationality its always a sign that they are grasping at straws.

Let's look at your response, shall we.

1) a desire for world conquest

roosha threatens to aim missiles at Ukraine;
roosha meddles in Georgia;
roosha sell nuclear materials to Iran;
roosha meddles in Serbia;
roosha refuses to remove troops from Georgia, or its Black Sea Fleet from Ukraine

Elmer, do you understand what a "region" is and what the "world" is. Did I say Russia didn't bully its neighbors? No, I said Russia does not have an explicit mission of world conquest (like the Soviet Union did). I'm fully aware of the facts you posted, but these manifestly fail to constitute a mission of "world conquest."

2)a messianic all-encompassing ideology

"managed corruption", with lots of propaganda about how electing Putin is the same as electing a board of directors

Really, "managed corruption" is an all-encompassing ideology? There are Western sympathizers, mostly in university faculties, who are devoted adherents of "managed corruption?" There are lengthy tomes laying out how the world is inevitably and incontrovertibly moving towards "managed corruption?" There is an international organization of "managed corruption" parties?

If you really think that today's Russian 'ideology' is comparable to Marxism-Leninism, you're beyond all hope.

3)A command economy with extreme wastage focused solely on the development of heavy industry industry and armaments through coercion and physical violence

heavy concentration of billionaires and roosha Mafia in mooskva (actually, the rooshan Mafia spreads beyond maskva);

Putin and the Kremlin controlling Gazprom and other industries for their own personal benefit

Over 60% of the Russian economy is in private hands. Under Stalin, it was probably something like 3 or 4% (though that small percentage, mostly grown on small private plots, was critical in allowing people to stay alive)

The 'rooshan mafia' isn't any more interested in building socialism (that's what I meant by "command economy" in case you missed that) than you are in becoming a Russian citizen. They want to make lots of money and invest it in the West. What is so hard to understand about this?

Does this mean Russia's capitalism is "good?" Again, I never said that, I merely said its quantitatively different from a "command economy." I also noted that numerous high-profile Russia scholars, many of whom Kim regularly quotes, describe Russia as a capitalist state. In fact, this is part of why they think it is so dangerous: Russia is leveraging its considerable economic assets in order to gain influence abroad.

4) An officially sanctioned one-party state

united roosha, and Vlad Dracul Putin, infiltrating opposition with spies;

opposition impossible to form through draconian statutes regarding "registration," petitions, meetings, etc.

Again, you either didn't read what I said or you willfully ignored it. Show me the part of the Russian constitution that guarantees a "leading role" for United Russia and I'll retract my analysis. Since such an article, of course, doesn't exist, I won't exactly be waiting with bated breath.

This is what annoys me so much about this site and its fans. Rather than say "Russia is an authoritarian state with a chaotic brand of pseudo-gangster capitalism" (very close to the truth) you say "Russia is a Stalinist neo-Soviet Union."

Russia is very far from a developed Western democracy, but, thank God, it is also very far from a Stalinist totalitarian nightmare.

Posted February 29, 2008 12:40 PM

B asked: “So Misha please explain what these Russian values are? (I am genuinely interested to know)...and please no tripe...I want an honest assessment.”

One Russian value, which might be contrasted with western values is the value and necessity of a strong central government in Russia.

Russia is not an ethnically or religiously homogeneous country. Rather Russia is an extremely complex federation which includes Muslim Republics such Tartasan, Chechnya and many regions of varying degrees of autonomy.

During Soviet times the USSR, as the name implies was a Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (or SSR’s). Each Soviet Republic had the “SSR” appended to its name to denote “Soviet Socialist Republic.” So, for example you had the Ukrainian SSR, the Georgian SSR, etc. But only Russia had not “SSR” but only Russia had not “SSR” but “RSFSR” appended, which stood for Rossiyskaya Sovetskaya Federativnaya Sotsialisticheskaya Respublika or “Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic” What this indicates is that Russia, in addition to being a Socialist Republic, was also itself already a federation in its own right.

When the USSR was dissolved by its member republics, each one of them became an independent republic. But Russia of course had to retain its federal structure. During Soviet times Russia had 18 “ASSRs” (Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republics), each of which had varying degrees of autonomy. The 18 autonomous republics were Bashkir ASSR; Buryat ASSR; Dagestan ASSR; Yakut ASSR; Kabardino-Balkar ASSR; Kalmyk ASSR; Karelian ASSR; Komi ASSR; Mari ASSR; Mordovian ASSR; Northern Ossetian ASSR; Udmurt ASSR; Tatar ASSR; Chechen-Ingush ASSR; Chuvash ASSR; Tuva ASSR; Kazakh ASSR; and Mountain ASSR.

Clearly after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the new constitution of the Russian Federation had to make allowances for this complex federal structure, and this was done. It is a mistake to think of Russia as somehow being one massive homogeneous structure, populated with an ethnically or religiously homogeneous population. Russia is a land of stark contrasts and remarkable diversity.

Here is an interesting map showing the complex political structure of the Russian Federation and its division into oblasts (regions), krays (territories), autonomous okrugs, and republics:
http://www.grida.no/graphics/CEE/russia/russieoblast.jpg

Russia’s constitution recognizes 85 Federal Subjects of varying degrees of autonomy. These Federal subjects are the official political units of the Russian Federation.
http://www.answers.com/topic/federal-subjects-of-russia?cat=travel

In May, 2000, Vladimor Putin divided the 85 Federal Subjects into 7 Federal Districts. These seven Federal Districts are not official political units recognized in the Russian constitution, but rather they are simply administrative districts, created for administrative convenience, which also roughly correspond to the Russian Ministry of Defense’s seven Military Districts.
http://www.answers.com/topic/federal-districts-of-russia?cat=travel

During the anarchy of the Yeltsin period, in the aftermath of the dissolution of the Soviet Union, almost all central authority broke down in Russia. The local regions increasingly “captured” the main offices and functions of the central government, including the police courts. Frequently these regions were run by extremely corrupt local elites who presided over the theft and distribution of state assets in their regions and who used their control over government institutions (the police and the courts) to further their corrupt aims.

The establishment of the 7 Federal Districts was part of President Putin’s wider effort to reign in these corrupt regional elites and to re-establish direct federal control over the 85 Federal Subjects (within the limits allowed by the constitution).

Certainly one issue that greatly concerns Russia is the issue of possible seccionist sentiment in any of Russia’s diverse regions. To date there has been remarkably little secessionist sentiment in Russia, apart from Chechnya, and that shouldn’t really surprise anyone, since the various regions of Russia have been politically united and have peacefully coexisted with each other in one form or another for centuries.

To date there has been fighting only in Chechnya where Russian federal forces fought two anti- secessionist wars (one unsuccessfully under Yeltsin and one successfully under Putin). The region is largely calm now and order has been restored. The rest of Russia has been remarkably calm with little or no expressions of secessionist sentiment. This is really not all that surprising, considering that these subjects have all lived together as part of the same political entity for centuries. After all the Russian conquest of Muslim Tartar Kazan by Ivan IV (Ivan the Terrible) occurred centuries ago. Russia has always engaged in an enlightened approach to administering the territories within its jurisdiction, granting them varying degrees of autonomy. (For example, the Tartars have practiced their Islamic faith unmolested for centuries, with the possible exception of the communist period, when all religion was suppressed equally). But Russian culture has achieved a remarkable degree of homogeneity, being largely secular, despite the enormous ethnic and religious differences in the composition of the populations of Russia’s regions.

So Russia is far from being a country of only one ethnic group, or only one religion. The Russian Federation is probably one of the most diverse nations on earth. The United States is also a diverse nation, but there are important differences. In the United States the diversity tends to be dispersed in the great "melting pot" that is American society. So, for example, 15 percent of the American population might be African-American, and some 20 percent might be Hispanic; but both of these large populations are geographically disbursed throughout the country. There are no "black states" or "Hispanic states" in the USA. But if the entire US black population was concentrated in 3 or 4 states in one corner of the country, then we might well expect some movement towards secession. In Russia, by contrast, the varied ethnic and religious groups have tended to remain concentrated in the places of their historical settlement. This concentration of minority groups into contiguous geographic zones makes the likelihood of secessionist sentiment higher in Russia. Even if there are no natural inclinations by these groups towards secessionism, we cannot exclude the possibility that Russia's external enemies might attempt to foment such sentiments, in the interests of breaking Russia apart and thus destroying it.

For this reason the Russian Federation has expressed its deep disapproval of the recent decision by the US and other Western governments to recognize the breakaway Serbian province of Kosovo, which is contrary to international law and the UN charter. For Russia, with its diverse regions, the issue of secessionism is an issue of extreme importance.

Russia is capable of defending itself and defeating any possible secessionist movement both now and for the foreseeable future. It is a vital Russian national security interest that the precedent of secessionism cannot be allowed to occur anywhere in the Russian Federation. Thankfully it was not necessary to go to such extremes to restore order, but Russia was prepared to flatten Chechnya so thoroughly that not one building would be left standing and not even a mouse could be found there, before Russia would part with one centimeter of her territory.

Before anyone in the west dares to point a finger at Russia over Chechnya I would remind the world of the US destruction of Fallujah, Iraq, which even more brutal than anything Russia did in Chechnya. The US first barred any media from entering the city, or from accompanying US forces into the city, and then the American Army proceeded to systematically destroy the place, not excepting men, women or children. Scores of civilians were killed by US airstrikes called on houses. Women and children were killed by US snipers using night vision scopes when they came out of hiding to relieve themselves. Entire families were shot my US machine-gunners when they tried to escape the American onslaught by swimming across the river. Furthermore, the US was not fighting to protect its own territorial integrity, as Russia was in Chechnya. Last time I checked Fallujah was not a US city. Rather the US inflicted its violence as part of a war of imperial conquest, on the opposite side of the world from where US territory is located.

I would further remind the world of what the American response was when it was actually faced with a secessionist war, during the American Civil War. Far from taking a liberal attitude to the Sothern states' desire to cede, the American government waged the most costly and bloody war in US history to "preserve the union." Such acts as Sherman's mad "March to the Sea" and the burning of Atlanta are still cited in military text books to this day as the best examples of wartime depravity and barbarism.

Russia first gave up her Eastern European buffer zone, which she acquired not through any invasion or act of aggression on her part, but through her enormously costly defeat of the Fascist armies which themselves had first invaded Russia. Russia was not "forced out" of any of these territories, but she chose to leave, in the interest of ending the arms race and the Cold War. But no sooner did Russia withdraw from these territories and her enemies scurried into them; even as we speak they are effecting plans to ring Russia with their military bases and missiles from these same territories. Russia also gave up the vast lands of the former Soviet Union itself, most of which were already a part of Russia even during Tsarist times, and all of which were a part of Russia centuries ago. Some of these lands had never known independence. For example, Ukraine was subject to the Polish Empire or the Austrian Empire when it was not part of Russia. Ukraine never had its own aristocracy or issued its own coinage. It has no history as a nation (though it is trying to create a revisionist history of its nationhood now). Georgia was a part of Russia since before the American Revolution. But Russia relinquished its claims to all these vast lands, and Russia is making no claim on them now. However Russia is now finished giving up its lands. If anyone wants to take a piece of Russia's remaining territory, they will have to fight and defeat Russia in a full-scale war first, because Russia will now fight to preserve its territorial integrity.

There is a distinct ethnic group called "Russians" which can be identified by their common ethnicity (Slavic Russian), common language and common religion (Orthodox mostly). However the country that bears the same name, the Russian Federation is not a nation that is constructed strictly along the lines of that Russian ethnic group. Rather the modern Russian Federation is a multi-ethnic and multi-denominational federation of autonomous subjects.

No one should form the impression that Russia rules over its region with an iron fist, as a conqueror. These regions have all been politically united and have peacefully coexisted with each other for centuries. They have full and equal representation with all other parts of the federation. Russia has a long experience of peaceful coexistence and mutual respect between its various religious and ethnic groups, and Russia will not permit any of these groups to use violence to obtain its political objectives.

Posted February 29, 2008 1:56 PM

This map shows the seven Federal Districts that President Putin created in Russia, coded by color. Each district contains several Federal Subjects (or regions), which are also shown in the map.

http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en-commons/thum

The Federal Districts are not constitutionally recognized units of the Russian Federation as such, but rather the districts were established for administrative convenience. Only the Federal Subjects (or regions) are constitutionally recognized units.

Geographically the Federal Districts correspond exactly to the administrative division of the Russian Ministry of Interior (which also controls the police).

Here’s a really excellent description of how the Federal Districts and Federal Subjects operate:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_districts_of_Russia

Posted February 29, 2008 2:38 PM

This map works better.
http://www.irkutsk.com/radio/images/rusmap.jpg

Posted February 29, 2008 2:40 PM

Misha, your historical perspective on Ivan the IV (I prefer IV due to the very misappropriation of word definition you stated)and his conflict towards the Boyars sounds remarkably similar to Putin's animus towards the oligarchs. At least those who thnk to politically oppose him. You also paint the picture of Ivan as championing the peasantry. Who is Putin championing? The peasantry in Russia was tied to the land, they had no rights. Russians of today, according to the Russian Constituion do have rights, including, I believe private land ownership. So why does Russia need so 'heavy' a hand as the Kremlin seems to have been dealing with?

I have also noticed you tend to use the term "enemy" very often, when describing alliances and countries that anyone can see as NATO, EU, The United States. Why? Why do you view America as the enemy? What a waste of energy. MHO.

And just a small side note. The American Civil War was not about secession, but States rights (including slavery) vs Federal rights. Secession resulted from the impasse over states rights.

What is, or is there, a concept of individual liberty and self-determination by the general populace of Russia? Wouldn't such a concept require more grozny from the head political leader than one who, no matter how benevolent, rules with an iron fist? "I appeal to you again to constantly bear in mind that not with politicians, not with Presidents, not with office-seekers, but with you, is the question: Shall the Union and shall the liberties of this country be preserved to the latest generations?"-Abraham Lincoln, ending to his Address at Springfield; Feb. 11, 1861.

So what other values? And thanks for the links.

Posted February 29, 2008 8:58 PM

so here's what we've got from a rooshan apologist and a rooshan:

- rooshan values are a strong central government

- the rooshan constitution does not guarantee a "leading role" for United Roosha

As to the first - it's not a value.

It is a curse.

Whether or not Grozny is translated "awesome" or "terrible."

Ivan Grozny prayed for 3 hours every day in the gd rooshan orthodox church, or pretended to, starting at about 4 in the morning - and then went out and murdered people. And if you were a courtier, you had better show up or you got - killed.

That sure does inspire "awe". Except it's terror, and it's terrible.

Now for the rooshan apologist.

How clever - NOT.

The whole point is that roosha has never honored its constitution. Look at the sovok constitution sometime, and look at the wonderful words they have in it.

roosha is hardly capitalist.

It's just a bunch of mafia thugs, in and out of government - and always has been.

By the way, the Oily Mother roosha Orthodox Church made a murderous czar, Nicholas, a saint.

Roosha is diversified?

Then why is Putin trying to wipe out Chechnya?

I'll give you some rooshan values:

- making simple things complicated
- re-writing history
- lying
- cheating
- no regard for human life
- no regard for law
- no regard for anyone or anything
- drinking (as witness the drinking song about the failed efforts of Copernicus)
- delusion
- despair
- misery

Posted February 29, 2008 8:59 PM

B wrote: “The American Civil War was not about secession, but States rights (including slavery) vs. Federal rights. Secession resulted from the impasse over states rights.”

I think you missed my point. It doesn’t matter what specific political reasons are used to justify a war of secession. The American South had one set of reasons and obviously the Chechnya rebels in the R.F. had a different set of reasons. But they both saw fit (for their own reasons) to declare their “independence” from the union that they were a part of.

The point is not the political reasons given by the secessionists, whether the reason is “states rights” or the “the vile Russian love of pork,” but rather how the mother country reacts once the secessionists declare their secession. History records that the US reacted with utter brutality, for the stated reason “to preserve the union” (note: no further political justification needed for all-out war).

A hundred years earlier the US had previously declared its own “secession” from Great Britain with a document that started as follows: “When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another…”

So in the US Declaration of Independence there is this presumption that it happens from time to time that “one people” needs to “dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another…” Yet when the American South actually tried to dissolve those bands, we all know what they got for their efforts: a brutal and destructive war, followed by the lunatic-general Sherman’s mad “march to the sea” and the burning of Atlanta (just for good measure, you understand).

But I certainly don’t want to get dragged into a debate with you about the US Civil War. That’s not my purpose and I refuse to go there. I cited the US Civil War only as one example of a country that launched a brutal war and killed lots and lots of people, all for the stated purpose of “preserving the union” (as if that was an end in itself, which justified the horrific means that were used to effect it).

So what was my point then? Only that the US is not in any position to stand in judgment over the Russian Federation as it now seeks to preserve its own union in a critical period of its own history. The example I added about the US slaughter in Fallujah Iraq (which was largely hidden from the world media) is also relevant, as the US cannot claim that the “scorched earth” methods it once used in the Civil War are now only a legacy of a long-distant past that no longer exists. The US reacts to its perceived enemies today the same way it always has: with the rather indiscriminate killing of men, women and children alike (or do I have to bring the Indian Wars, Vietnam and Hiroshima and Nagasaki into it as well?)

This does not mean that Russia can justify any brutality or atrocity simply because the “Americans have done it.” American behavior in the world can hardly be the standard that Russia aspires to. After all the Russian must not only stand before the court of world opinion, which can so easily be manipulated as we see, but before God too. But it does mean that the barbaric and savage Americans have no moral authority to point a finger at Russia for anything she does to protect herself and her country, whatever it is, as America’s own behavior is multiple times worse in every instance!

So if the Americans lack the moral authority to sit in judgment on Russia for her efforts to protect her sovereignty and her union, then who does have such authority? Germany maybe? Great Britain? Enough said.

Posted February 29, 2008 10:49 PM

Oh, so now I'm a "goddamn rooshan apologist." I would say that I'm a concerned American citizen, but I suppose you can call me whatever you want (You'll forgive me, of course, if I call you a moron)

"roosha is hardly capitalist

It's just a bunch of mafia thugs, in and out of government - and always has been."

Elmer:

Care to provide some proof for this statement? Before you seemed to think that having so many billionaires proved that Russia was still a 'command economy.' I don't really see how the two are connected, but you at least tried to offer some sort of explanation.

As I've said before, many writers that Kim links to on a regular basis (most notably Edward Lucas and Anders Aslund) describe Russia as capitalist. I'm prepared to listen to an argument as to why it's not, like they say, capitalist, but simply stating "roosha is hardly capitalist," as you did, isn't exactly convincing.

(The argument that the Stalinist command economy was simply mafia capitalism is also, to be honest, a bit crazy. It was a crappy and inefficient economy, but it was socialist through and through)

You seemed to have dropped your earlier arguments about world conquest and messianic ideology, or you didn't respond to them in any way, so I'm going to go ahead and assume that you've finally recognized that today's Russia (or 'roosha' if that pleases your bizarre habit of always spelling the country's name wrong, though you should think how annoying it is when left-wing types write Amerikkka) is NOT a carbon-copy of the Soviet Union.

Are there some continuities between the two? Absolutely, but that's exactly what is to be expected. What do you think should have happened? Do you really think that the Russians, or anyone else, were capable of casusing all of the governmental, social, and economic structures, built up over 70 years of Soviet domination, to suddenly and magically disappear?

Posted March 1, 2008 6:51 AM

for the rooshan apologist

Every former sovok country, whether republic or satellite, went through the same thing - a massive transformation from being dominated from maskva to freedom, independence, self-determination, democracy and a change from a central command economy that was not planned very well to - something else.

rooshans have a superiority complex to this day. The language in the sovok union was rooshan. And to this very day, rooshans try to hang on to imagined superiority, whether they live in roosha, or in one of the former republics or satellites.

This is especially true in Belarus and Ukraine, and you can see it all over the forums and blogs.

Other countries have managed to finally get rid of the stench of maskva-controlled serfdom, all throughout Europe.

Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Hungary, Bulgaria - the list goes on and on.

The rooshans now think that they can control the world through energy politics, and they are trying to buy up pipelines throughout Europe.

But the point is, one need only look at the vast differences today, 16 years down the road after the break-up of the sovok union in 1991, to understand that the rooshans did not learn anything.

Over and over, we hear about how roosha desires and pines for the "strong hand" of government, about how "managed corruption/Putinism" is somehow the same as democracy.

In other words, the Czech Republic, for example, has done a FAR better job of shaking off the shackles of communism that roosha.

In roosha, they are proud of the fact that they improted thugs, such as czarina Catherine, and Stalin, to perpetuate the legacy of rooshan brutal government.

Where would you rather go as a tourist - Prague or maskva? Hands down the choice is Prague.

Even the rooshans have moved en masse out of the country - to Londongrad, if they have money, or all around the world, by marriage, if they are female.

20-year old females get married to 70-year old men - just to get out of roosha.

You can apologize for maskva all you want.

I don't.

And here's something that might amuse you:

The mayor of maskva complaining about new construction next to his house - in England.

Go ahead, read the whole story. It's not the only case of rooshans escaping to something better.

And note especially the complaints about damage to public places in England.

Then look at maskva or any other rooshan city, where there is starvation in the street, poverty for most of the people, dilapidation, and misery.

Not to mention all the efforts of Putin to squelch opposition.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23445248-details/%C2%A380m:+most+expensive+house+sold+in+London/article.do

The whole of Upper Phillimore Gardens currently resembles a building site, with diggers, cranes and delivery trucks clogging the road. Two other massive construction projects are under way.

The property, 17 Upper Phillimore Gardens, was bought for £20 million in June 2006 by a company called Coll Hill Spink 2, controlled by developer Mike Spink, who specialises in top end properties.

The previous owners, thought to be Chinese, bought it in 1997 and before that it was a girls' preparatory school.

The work is said to have upset neighbours, who include the Mayor of Moscow and his wife. The complaints concern noise and disturbance from the cranes and lorries which have been driving over the pavements, cracking flagstones and damaging public areas.

Posted March 1, 2008 10:33 AM

Elmer,

Like Kim, you never get your story straight. You simply, to use a crude metaphor, spray the room with bullets and pray that you hit something. So, if someone asks you a pretty direct question about Russian capitalism, you talk about life expectancy, "sovok imperlism," Londongrad, Stalin, and anything else that comes to mind (except, of course, Russian capitalism)

"Every former sovok country, whether republic or satellite, went through the same thing - a massive transformation from being dominated from maskva to freedom, independence, self-determination, democracy and a change from a central command economy that was not planned very well to - something else."

Really? How could I have missed this "massive transformation" to "democracy" in Belarus, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, and Turkmenistan? Those countries don't still have dictators? I must have been sleeping!

On a more serious note, if you really think that Russia is uniquely authoritarian among countries of the Former Soviet Union, you need to have your head examined.

"In other words, the Czech Republic, for example, has done a FAR better job of shaking off the shackles of communism that roosha."

Please point out where I said the opposite? I know you think you must have landed a killer blow here, but stating patently obvious facts isn't exactly an effective debating strategy (ie, if I say "Elmer, the sky is blue!" what I'm saying is technically correct, but completely off topic)

I asked you to show me why you think Russia is not a capitalist country. You responded to my question by saying that it is authoritarian (which I've also said), that is hasn't done as good a job transitioning from communism as have Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary (which is blindingly obvious), that 20 year old girls typically marry 70 year old men (of course, without citation or support), and that the mayor of Moscow complained about construction noise near his house in England (which proves some point that has completely eluded me).

Elmer, I've seen some strange efforts to argue about the extent of Russia's capitalist transformation, but yours is certainly the strangest.

You seem, like many Americans, to directly associate "capitalist" with "good." Well, its not too hard to drum up several examples of countries that were thoroughly "capitalist" (ie there was a free market, private property etc.) but also quite nasty (ie they killed thousands of their own citizens): Chile under Pinochet, Argentina under its string of generals/strongmen, Spain under Franco, and China under today's 'communists' (who are now more capitalist in their thinking and actions than most Western countries).

If I say "Russia is capitalist" I'm not secretly trying to say "Russia is the best country in the world" or "I like Russia more than America" but rather, simply, that Russia has an (imperfect!) free market, private property, and state involvement in the economy broadly consistent with other capitalist countries.

Still waiting for a clear explanation of why today's Russia is not capitalist,
the "goddamn rooshan apologist"

Posted March 1, 2008 7:22 PM

Good Grief Misha! How can you truly say that the United States is standing in judgement of anyone, much less Russia? That is painting with a VERY broad brush; as well as clothing yourself in a martyr's syndrome.

Are there specific actions being taken by higher ups in the Kremlin that I find, at the very least questionable? Yes! Do I find some behavior/policies by some elected American officials reprehensible? Yes! But in the US there is ability for redress, I do not see that occurring in Russia. And just because I find policies by any country bad or questionable or what-have-you, does not mean I view every inhabitant of that country as a pairiha.

You brought up the idea of "moral judgement" and GOD. Russia, when typically thought of, has a Christian-Judea heritage. And what is the underlying guiding principles of such a heritage. The Ten Commandments. And how many of us get them right every single time? Not many I'm sure. But the standard is there. The moral standards are set for the individual as well as for a nation. It is our duty, both as individuals and as nations to reach for those standards, even if it means having to stretch and work harder than we ever have in our life.

The failure (or sin) comes when you either do not try or try to mask your own shortcomings by saying someone else is failing at the same thing so don't tell me I'm wrong. The tradegy occurs when a government will not allow its people to correct it.

Posted March 1, 2008 7:25 PM

well, well, well, the rooshan apologist chides me for being "irrelevant" - and then tells us something totally irrelevant.

First, you are correct, and in my haste I left something out - there are indeed a few former sovok countries who are not just as or more dictatorial and/or authoritarian as under the nightmare of the sovoks.

Now - what's the point of focusing on "capitalism" and whether roosha's is imperfect or not?

Heck, even during sovok times, people exhibit capitalist tendencies from top to bottom. At the bottom it was out of sheer self-preservation. Hence, a massive underground economy, including a barter system.

Under most definitions of capitalism, economists presume a free market - emphasis on free, and, among other things, predominantly private market ownership of goods, and predominantly private means of production and distribution.

If you want to equate the massively state-controlled economy of roosha with "imperfect" capitalism, feel free.

I don't.

British Petroleum, for example, just found out the hard way that private property is not respected in roosha - that is, BP's private property. Private property rights are a key element of capitalism.

There was an American accounting firm not too long ago that found out the hard way - roosha will raid you at any time, under any pretext, and you pay a "fine" for whatever imaginary crime you're committed.

There are armored Mercedes and Bentleys all over the place - but rooshan thugs still blow each other up.

With massive government and criminal distortions and externalities imposed in roosha, I don't care to call roosha a capitalist country.

If you want to engage in fine distinctions that have no meaning, feel free.

Imperfect free market? That's an oxymoron, and there is no free market in roosha.

There are a few oligarchs on top with obscene amounts of wealth, with no distinction between government or mafia (and that is something that rooshans freely admit) and the rest of the people suck eggs big time.

State involvement in roosha broadly consistent with other capitalist countries?

You are not an American, you are delusional, and you don't know anything about roosha.

If you want to invest your money in roosha, go ahead - see how far you get.

Many rooshans already found out the hard way how their own money disappeared after investing in rooshan ventures by assorted rooshan and other fraudsters.

As long as rooshans continue their "beat me better" mentality, the oligarchs and Putin and his thugs will continue to rob them, and roosha will fall apart.

Just like the sovok system did.

Posted March 1, 2008 8:56 PM

"First, you are correct, and in my haste I left something out - there are indeed a few former sovok countries who are not just as or more dictatorial and/or authoritarian as under the nightmare of the sovoks."

There aren't just a few, Elmer. This is a pretty critical error, it'd be like me trying to talk about the US election as if John McCain is a democrat.

The 15 former Union Republics and their type of government

Lithuania (democracy)
Latvia (democracy)
Estonia (democracy with official disenfranchisement of over 10% of the population, mostly ethnic Russians)
Ukraine (democracy, with significant regional fissures and voting irregularities)
Georgia (similar to Ukraine, only less democratic and the existence of several separatist regions)
Armenia (progress made in 2008 presidential election, however there were serious and persistent allegations of rigging in the 2003, and chronic political instability and chaos throughout the 1990s as well as a civil war in Nagorno-Karabakh)
Russia (thinly veiled authoritariansim)
Belarus (less thinly veiled authoritarianism)
Kyrgyzstan (straightforward authoritarianism until 'Tulip Revolution,' now slightly more democratic but government plagued by violence, including the assassination of 4 of the 75 members of parliament, and chronic instability)
Kazakhstan (ruled by a 'president for life' 'elected' with over 90% of the vote in an election that failed to conform to OSCE guidelines)
Uzbekistan (straightforward and unapologetic dictatorship)
Turkmenistan (officially a one-party state)
Moldova (somewhat democratic, but totally dysfunctional and failed state lost over 10% of its population between 1989 and 2004)

What other errors of hate have you made in your 'analysis' before, Elmer? Saying that Russia is uniquely authoritarian among countries of the former Soviet Union is like putting a large, flashing, disclaimer in the middle of your post saying "IGNORE: I DON'T HAVE A CLUE WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT"

Let's move on.

"Under most definitions of capitalism, economists presume a free market - emphasis on free, and, among other things, predominantly private market ownership of goods, and predominantly private means of production and distribution."

Thanks for the Econ 101 definition of a free market there Elmer (again, stating information that I already know as if it constitutes some rejection of what I'm trying to say). If you weren't so blinded by your hatred of Russia, you'd see that Russia has both a "predominantly private market ownership of good" AND a "predominantly private means of production and distribution."

Where do you think the goods in Russian stores, supermarkets, and malls come from? Does the government sell them? Did the government purchase them? What about all of those fancy Beamers and BMWs you alluded to? Do you think the Russian state purchases those? What about the exorbitantly pricey skyscrapers being thrown up all over Moscow? Do you think the government is subsidizing their construction? Or, gasp, is it possible that private owners and businessmen have a large role to play in all of those?

You refuse to call Russia a "capitalist" country. Ok, well, was it it then? There are not many communist/socialist countries that I know of with a 13% flat tax, government spending less than 33% of GDP, and private production over 64% of GDP.

Does this mean Russia is like America? I don't know how many times I have to say this, but no. Russian capitalism is not even two decades old, while America's is well over two centuries. This isn't "apologetics" but a fact that should be blindingly obvious.

Simply because Putin strong armed BP out of an investment deal doesn't mean that the country as a whole is non-capitalist: does the US' refusal to sell ports to a Dubai-based company (which by the way I agreed with, as I don't trust Arabs any more than you seem to trust Russians) mean that the US is no longer capitalist? Hardly.

Is private property in Russia totally secure? No, it isn't. But the high-profile disruption of Yukos, BP, etc. does NOT mean that the private property of tens of millions of ordinary Russian citizens is habitually being stolen by the government. In fact one could argue (though this says quite a bit about Russia's tortured past) that today its citizens enjoy the most stable property rights in the country's history. This is also a fact. You can say that this means Russia sucks (and you'd have a point) but it doesn't make todays' Russia any less 'capitalist.'

Again, is this perfect capitalism? Not by a long shot. Is it socialism? I don't think so. Is it, like I said, 'imperfect capitalism,' and judging from the facts (and from the reporting of Edward Lucas, Anders Aslund, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, etc.) I don't see how you could come to any other conclusion.

You must remember, Elmer, that it's not just me making this argument but the vast majority of Russia watchers. Is it possible that you are right, and that all of them are completely wrong? Perhaps, but it seems unlikely that a spelling-challenged commenter on Publius Pundit would have all of the answers while the entirety of the Russian studies community is mistaken.

Finally, I'm not a Russian. I'm not ethnically Russian (I'm a quintessentially American mixture of Irish, English, German, and Lithuanian) though I do speak some Russian and study it. Why do you insist on labeling your opponents as if they are somehow traitors or foreign agents?

Posted March 2, 2008 6:08 AM

'Second, and more fundamentally, Mr. Aslund explodes the myth that Russia’s economic growth is reducible to fossil fuel prices. (Ask Nigeria about the economic boom that is supposed to follow from a prolonged oil-price surge.)

Further, he suggests that the so-called oligarchs “do not own that large a share of the economy” (he identifies 30 groups accounting for one-quarter of the G.D.P.) and that they “face severe market competition.” No fan of Russia’s state-owned companies, Mr. Aslund notes that they, too, “are remarkably focused on their stock prices.”

Such realism about Russia’s state-owned companies is refreshing, as are the reminders that a broad private sector continues to dominate Russia’s gross domestic product.'

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/02/business/worldbusiness/02shelf.html?_r=1&pagewanted=2&oref=slogin

Posted March 2, 2008 8:41 AM

The NY Times article about Vladimir Putin and Dmitri Medvedev was very interesting, but you linked to page 2 of the article. Here’s the link to the start of the article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/02/business/worldbusiness/02shelf.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1204470059-jVY5SFw8YV5b/xu86tgsyg

“From December 1999 to the end of 2007, a period overlapping the presidency of Mr. Putin, the value of Russia’s stock market increased from $60 billion to more than $1 trillion.”

“When John F. Welch Jr. ran General Electric, from 1981 to 2001, the value of the company’s stock rose from around $14 billion to more than $400 billion. Fortune magazine named Mr. Welch “manager of the century” in 1999. No one is suggesting that Fortune give Mr. Putin the same title — except, perhaps, all those Russians who have consistently backed his strong-arm policies.”

“The growing millions of Russian homeowners…certainly value a strong ruble, moderate inflation, affordable mortgages, access to higher education, satellite television, Internet connections, passports, foreign visas and — above all else — no economic shocks.”

“Wages in Russia are leaping 10 percent a year, in real terms.”
Source: NY Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/02/business/worldbusiness/02shelf.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1204470059-jVY5SFw8YV5b/xu86tgsyg

By contrast, real wages (wages adjusted for inflation) in the United States actually fell between 2001 and 2007, the period of George W Bush’s presidency, and wages have fallen even more rapidly for black and Hispanic families:
Source: BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/5303590.stm

Note: The BBC article was published in September, 2006, when the US economy was still recovering. Now that US economic growth is grinding to a halt and the US appears headed for a major recession, real take-home wages can only fall further.

Posted March 2, 2008 10:24 AM

ok, rooshan apologist, you left out all the former satellite countries of the sovok union.

you want to call roosha an "imperfect capitalistic" country.

I call it a sewer, where there is no regard for human life, and the government exists to enrich Putin and his thugs.

"Where do you think the goods in Russian stores, supermarkets, and malls come from? Does the government sell them? Did the government purchase them? What about all of those fancy Beamers and BMWs you alluded to? Do you think the Russian state purchases those? What about the exorbitantly pricey skyscrapers being thrown up all over Moscow? Do you think the government is subsidizing their construction? Or, gasp, is it possible that private owners and businessmen have a large role to play in all of those?"

OK, rooshan apologist, I remember a video a few years back with the wife of the mayor of a rooshan city, who was outraged that any journalist would be taking a video of her, or daring to ask her any questions.

She owned a construction company - and there were all sorts of contracts coming her way - from the city, without any sort of public bidding process. Noone was supposed to know about the contracts.

Who is building and financing the skyscrapers? Very good question.

Where do the Mercedes and Beamers come from?

From Germany.

Let's not play with definitions of capitalism, shall we, because there is no exact definition, and you have chosen to apologize for roosha by claiming that it is in a state of "imperfect capitalism."

I repeat - roosha is a sewer.

It is a Wizard of Oz, trying desparately to tell people to pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

Why don't you ask Aslund if he wants to live in roosha - and how much money he's got invested in roosha?

Posted March 2, 2008 2:26 PM

"OK, rooshan apologist, I remember a video a few years back with the wife of the mayor of a rooshan city, who was outraged that any journalist would be taking a video of her, or daring to ask her any questions.

She owned a construction company - and there were all sorts of contracts coming her way - from the city, without any sort of public bidding process. Noone was supposed to know about the contracts.

Who is building and financing the skyscrapers? Very good question."

So what is the answer, Elmer? Who is building all of the new things in Russia (the construction market has been expanding at the rate of over 20% a year for the past couple of years.

I cited numerous well regarded scholars, journalists, and print media (not to mention international bodies like the EU that have officially recognized Russia as capitalist) while you cite "a video a few years back with the wife of the mayor of a rooshan city" as your source.

Why should I disbelieve the Michael McFauls, the Anders Aslunds, and Edward Lucases of the world and believe you? On the basis of a video you claim you saw 'a few years ago?'

Given your previous record of inaccuracy, why should I believe this this video exists? Even if it does, what does it prove? That there is nepotism in awarding of construction contracts in large Russian cities? The horror! No such thing could possibly happen in Philadelphia, New York, or Chicago, right???

"Let's not play with definitions of capitalism, shall we, because there is no exact definition, and you have chosen to apologize for roosha by claiming that it is in a state of "imperfect capitalism."

I repeat - roosha is a sewer."

Ok. So is Russia the first instance of "sewage" economics, or are there others you'd like to compare it to? Is it uniquely sewerish? Earlier you said Russia was a command economy, but now it's a sewer. What else is Russia's economic describable as, an outhouse? What about a cesspit? A stinking pile of feces? What is America's economy then? A rose garden? A water park? A roller coaster?

"Let's not play with definitions of capitalism, shall we, because there is no exact definition"

This is eerily similar to old Soviet propaganda tactics; throwing up your hands and saying "well, it's pointless, everything is all so complicated! We'll never agree on anything, so why bother talking!"

Of course since capitalism exists in the human world there is no precise mathematical definition of it. On the other hand, political scientists and economists have for decades very much been in the business of deciding which countries are "capitalist" and which countries are not.

Do you, Elmer, think that they are all idiots for trying to do this? Do you think that, when confronted with a complicated question such as 'is Russia really capitalist' we should just throw up our hands and start describing countries as "sewers?"

Posted March 2, 2008 3:15 PM

Russia hasn't had much to crow about since Count Leo. Ballet? Like I said.

Posted March 3, 2008 8:15 AM

I'm not throwing up my hands, rooshan apologist.

roosha is a sewer.

The vast majority of wealth and production and business is controlled by the Kremlin.

Where does Aslund get his figures? rooshan figures are notoriously unreliable - if they're available at all.

So a few rooshans get together, steal some goods, and have sales in apartments.

That's not capitalism. That's just thievery.

Gazprom tries to take over ownership of Ukraine's gas. That's not capitalism - it's thuggery and thievery.

You want to tell people that there is some comparison to be made between the US, or England, or Germany, or Japan, etc. and roosha - go ahead.

rooshan are voting with their feet, just like Mexicans - to go to the US and England and Germany, etc.

What do they seem to know that Aslund does not?

Aslund does not live in roosha - he just plays with their imaginary figures, and for that he gets credence and adulation from rooshan apologists.

The rooshans who vote with their feet know much better.

roosha is a sewer.

Posted March 4, 2008 9:37 AM

twelvesky Gold
12Sky Silver Coins
12 sky gold
wakfu kamas
wakfu gold
buy wakfu kamas
wakfu money
wakfu kama
knight gold
knight noah
knight online gold
knight online noah
cheap knight gold
requiem gold
requiem lant
requiem money
cheap requiem lant
requiem online gold
aoc gold
conan gold
age of conan gold
cheap aoc gold
aoc money
warhammer gold
warhammer Online gold
warhammer money
buy warhammer gold
cheap warhammer Online gold
FFXI Gil
FFXI gold
Final Fantasy XI gold
buy FFXI Gil
cheap Final Fantasy XI Gold
World of Kung fu Gold
WoKf gold
buy World of Kung fu Gold
cheap World of Kung fu Gold
World of Kung fu money
Sho Online Mun
Sho Mun
Sho Online gold
Sho gold
buy Sho Online gold
angels gold

Posted November 18, 2008 1:04 AM

Sho Online Mun
Sho Mun
Sho Online gold
Sho gold
buy Sho Online gold

silkroad gold
sro gold
silkroad online gold
silk road gold
cheap silkroad gold

Sword of the New World Vis
Sword of the New World Gold
buy vis
cheap snw vis
Sword of the New World money

Tibia Gold
Tibia coins
Tibia money
tibia gp
Tibia Platinum

Posted November 20, 2008 1:20 AM

warhammer gold
warhammer Online gold
warhammer money
buy warhammer gold
cheap warhammer Online gold
twelve sky Gold
12sky gold
twelvesky Gold
12Sky Silver Coins
12 sky gold
shaiya gold
shaiya money
cheap shaiya gold
shaiya online gold
buy shaiya gold
priston tale Gold
priston tale Money
buy priston tale Gold
cheap priston tale Gold
Anarchy credits
Anarchy Online credits
Anarchy gold
Anarchy online gold
buy AO credits
World of Kung fu Gold
WoKf gold
buy World of Kung fu Gold
cheap World of Kung fu Gold
World of Kung fu money
kal geons
kal gold
kal online geons
kal online gold
kalonline Geons
Archlord gold
Archlord money
archlord online Gold
Archlord cheap
buy Archlord gold

Posted November 28, 2008 8:10 PM

gw gold
GuildWars Gold
Guild Wars Gold
GuildWars money
cheap gw gold
Entropiauniverse ped
Entropia Universe Gold
Entropia Universe Money
Buy Entropia Universe Gold
cheap Entropiauniverse ped
aoc gold
conan gold
age of conan gold
cheap aoc gold
aoc money
Metin2 gold
Metin2 yang
Cheap metin2 yang
Cheap metin2 gold
Buy metin2 gold
9Dragons gold
9 Dragons gold
buy 9 Dragons gold
cheap 9Dragons gold
9Dragons money

9Dragons gold
9 Dragons gold
buy 9 Dragons gold
cheap 9Dragons gold
9Dragons money

Posted December 4, 2008 9:05 PM

sometimes,wholesale shoesis a best way to buy shoes,and u can gain so much discount from
Shoes wholesale,there are so many person like the same style shoes ,so
wholesale designer always try their best to design.in fact,so many youth prefer
wholesale athletic shoes,they enjoy it,because they're so comfortable.

Posted December 24, 2008 8:34 PM