« Previous ·
Home
· Next »
Filed under: Russia
Yesterday, two different groups of political activists tried to go into the streets to demonstrate in Moscow, Russia. One, shown above, was the "Nashi" ("us Slavic Russians") pro-Kremlin youth cult. They wanted to praise the "victory" of Dmitry Medvedev in the "presidential elections" the day before, and to attack the United States. Not only were they allowed to march, they were allowed to snarl traffic and given widespread media coverage.
Here's what happened to the other group:
They represented opponents of the elections farce, and sought to protest the Kremlin's systematic exclusion of all viable opposition candidates from the presidential "race." Their leaders were arrested before they even reached the streets and then they were attacked with bloody violence by an army of the Kremlin's stormtroopers.
Make no mistake. Just as the people of Russia chose their president, they also ratified this aftermath. They are as much responsible for this barbaric violence as the Kremlin thugs who ordered it and who carried it out.
The people of Russia have made their choice. Now, we must make ours.
Social Bookmarking:
del.icio.us | digg | technorati | stumble upon | furl | reddit
Comments
Misha says:
Citzens have the right to peacefully assemble and make themselves heard, but most cities require demonstration permits, simply so they can make sure they will have adequate police on hand to keep order, perform traffic control, etc. For example, in the US extra police will be assigned if there is a demonstration by the American Nazi Party, or the KKK, simply because violence can often accompany such demonstrations (either violence by group member and/or by members of opposing groups or members of the general public). In the US the courts have long upheld the right of cities to require permits for marches, demonstrations and protests. It is not a method to repress freedom of speech or assembly, but simply good practical city management. And in Russia things are no different. For example, if there will be a large demonstration, then a city must schedule resources, overtime and so forth. All of this requires the ability of city administrators to plan ahead, hence the practical need for permits.
Weird Al Kasparov and his people insist on demonstrating without obtaining a permit, which is illegal in Moscow, St. Petersburg and many other Russian cities (as it is in almost every city and small town in the USA as well). Why don’t they simply get a demonstration permit and stage peaceful protests? But that would defeat their primary purpose, which is after all to provoke confrontations with the police, which they then portray to the world as the Russian government somehow violating their rights or denying them basic civil liberties. Even though they neglect to get permits for their demonstrations they always carry a large contingent of foreign media in tow to start the cameras rolling just at the moment when police invariably arrive to disburse them.
Kasparov has no base of support in Russia (none). When he is arrested he doesn’t bother to speak to Russian news organizations, instead preferring to speak in English to the foreign press. He is supported by western “NGO” organizations and their backers in western intelligence agencies (such as the US CIA).
As I pointed out earlier, Russia is a nation ruled by a single ruling party, United Russia. This fact alone is not unusual at all, as many nations have been ruled by a single ruling party for decades and even generations, while still maintaining the general outlines of freedom and democracy. (Some examples are Japan, S.Korea, Taiwan, Turkey, Mexico and many other nations.) A single-party state should not be viewed as a constitutional ideal, but rather as a transition phase to a more complete democracy. It would have been unrealistic, for example, to catapult the Empire of Japan into a fully functional multi-party democratic system, without missing a beat, in the immediate aftermath of the Second World War. The same thing applies to Korea, after the Korean War. The single Ruling party imparted stability and order during difficult periods of these countries histories, when they were undergoing large-scale transitions from one system to another. Russia is no different, with the possible exception that the west does not control Russia’s political process and system (which in the final analysis is the only thing about Russia’s circumstance that so enrages them and makes them insane—they have made their peace with single-ruling-party states many times, and with far worse regimes than that).
The time required for transition varies from country to country, but in the examples I gave, Japan was rules by the LDP for 40 years, for example, before an opposition party was finally able to win an election there (only after a massive corruption scandal shook the country). The ruling party in Mexico was in charge for over 100 years before the opposition won.
Weird Al Kasparov and his ilk are not part of the opposition in Russia. To say that someone is the opposition demands that they at least have some base of political support in the country where they claim to be the opposition and Kasparov has none.
Now Russia does have an opposition, but it comes from the right, from right wing ultra-nationalist, xenophobic, and even skin-head and neo-Nazi quarters. These ultra-right groups are officially suppressed by the Russian state, not allowed to run their candidates in Russian elections, ect.
This is why single-party rule of Russia is really a necessary part of Russia’s transition to full democracy. It is felt that with a continued improvement in the economic situation in Russia and an increase in general prosperity, the social and economic factors which contribute to the rise of ultra-right ideology and political activity can be ameliorated. But during the transition period it is necessary for Russia to suppress the opposition to some extent.
United Russia is a big tent, and any Russian of good will with genuine political aspirations can find a place for himself inside that tent. If the Russian government opened up the political field too completely at the present time, and new tents began to sprout up, they would not be the tents of Kasparov and his ilk (who might build a tent on the CIA’s dime but no one would be inside of it). The other tent would instead be the tent of Russia’s ultra-right opposition, which unfortunately is the only genuine opposition in Russia (if “genuine” means having the support of large numbers of people in the actual country in question).
Misha says:
Russia did not cut off oil shipments to the Ukraine, neither via the "Friendship" pipeline nor via any other route. Oil is an easily transportable liquid that can be pumped through a pipe, transported via rail car or sent via the sea in an oil tanker. So there truly is a global oil market and a global price for oil, based on global supply and demand for oil.
Ukraine's female Prime Minister, Yulia Tymoshenko, tried to play the same game with oil that she is now playing with gas, the last time she held power. But Russia promptly cut Ukraine off from its oil supply and that was that. Ukraine has been paying the world market price for oil ever since, so there is no longer any reason for Russia to cut Ukraine off from its oil (as long as they are willing to pay the going rate), and the same thing applies with gas.
But natural gas is different. It is much harder to transport gas via rail cars, or even by sea, because it must first be liquefied and compressed, which is a costly operation, and that cost cuts into the profit. That means that most gas travels as gas (not as a compressed liquid), via pipeline. This ties the gas markets to those places where pipeline infrastructure already exist (both in terms of the supply of gas as well as the demand). Gas can travel from the "seller" to the "buyer" just so long as a gas pipeline connects the two dots on the map. But there is no "market" where there is no infrastructure to connect buyer with seller.
Under Ukraine's current president, Victor Yushchenko (of "Orange Revolution" fame) all of the issues between Russia and Ukraine pertaining to gas had already been settled, on terms that were mutually agreeable to both Ukraine and Russia. Russia got to transport its gas to Europe, across Ukrainian territory, on agreeable transport fees, and Ukraine got access to low cost gas from Central Asia, via Russia, in return.
But the recent election of that bitch Yulia Tymoshenko, who is backed by the US intelligence agencies as a spoiler of both Russia-Ukraine relations as well as Russia-Europe relations, has reignited these old disputes.
Thus the European energy market is being thrown into turmoil by the Americans yet again. The Americans want to spoil Europe's energy markets and create antipathy between the major European countries (including Russia), who after all must find some way to co-exist and share the same continent together. The Americans would rather see turmoil in European energy markets than see some peaceful, normal and mutually beneficial relations develop between Europe and Russia.
Russia is currently building a vast infrastructure to connect Russian gas to Western Europe directly (bypassing the unstable transit countries such as Ukraine and Poland). Russia is currently building Nord-Stream (North Stream) and South Stream gas pipelines, which will carry massive amounts of Russian gas to Europe via the Baltic Sea and the Black Sea. But until these projects are complete (2010 - 2012), Russia is still dependent on Ukrainian infrastructure, which dates back to Soviet times (when everyone was all part of the same happy family).
Ukraine's president, Victor Yushchenko, is intelligent enough to realize that Ukraine's long-term future as a gas transit country (along with the lucrative fees that brings for Ukraine) is dependent upon Ukraine's ability to portray itself (both to Europe and Russia) as a reliable partner that can be counted on.
But that bitch Tymoshenko, the recently elected prime minister, is just an American CIA-backed Cheney-backed spoiler.
Let’s not forget that Tymoshenko is a true Ukrainian Oligarch, and she made her billions when the company that her husband owned stole Russian gas and resold it to Europe (via Ukraine) in the cowboy Yeltsin 1990’s. This is why she is known as the “gas princess” in Ukraine today. The more things change the more they stay the same. Now that bitch is trying to push out the intermediary companies and bring her own corrupt people back into the operation once again.
From Russia’s standpoint this is a Ukrainian problem (a struggle for power between Ukraine’s president and prime minister). All of Russia’s dealings on the gas issue are above board and completely transparent. It is the Ukrainian partners which are trying to pull an opaque shade across everything, and obstruct Europe’s energy security, while their internal oligarch factions fight each other to the bone.
The Ukrainian “gas pricessa” http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/Gas-Princess-named-Ukraines-acting-PM/2005/01/25/1106415555503.html?from=moreStories
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20080304/100643918.html
http://room12a.com/archives/yushenko-timoshenko.jpg
http://www.bat.mk.ua/1/foto/Timoshenko_01.jpg
http://www.russiablog.org/TimoshenkoDeskImage.jpg
http://www.heritage.org/Research/RussiaandEurasia/images/74743756.gif
Misha says:
Why is this blog so challenged when it comes to posting my simple quote " marks?
Anyway...
Russia did not cut off oil shipments to the Ukraine, neither via the "Friendship" pipeline nor via any other route. Oil is an easily transportable liquid that can be pumped through a pipe, transported via rail car, or sent via the sea in an oil tanker. So there truly is a global oil market, based on global supply and demand.
Ukraine's female Prime Minister, Yulia Tymoshenko, tried to play the same game with oil that she is now playing with gas, the last time she held power. But Russia promptly cut Ukraine off from its oil supply and that was that. Ukraine has been paying the world market price for oil ever since, so there is no longer any reason for Russia to cut Ukraine off from its oil (as long as they are willing to pay the going rate), and the same thing applies with gas.
But natural gas is different. It is much harder to transport gas via rail cars, or even by sea, because it must first be liquefied and compressed, which is a costly operation, and that cost cuts into the profit. That means that most gas travels as gas (not as a compressed liquid), via pipeline. This ties the gas markets to those places where pipeline infrastructure already exist (both in terms of the supply of gas as well as the demand). Gas can travel from the "seller" to the "buyer" just so long as a gas pipeline connects the two dots on the map. But there is no "market" where there is no infrastructure to connect buyer with seller.
Under Ukraine's current president, Victor Yushchenko (of "Orange Revolution" fame) all of the issues between Russia and Ukraine pertaining to gas had already been settled, on terms that were mutually agreeable to both Ukraine and Russia. Russia got to transport its gas to Europe, across Ukrainian territory, on agreeable transport fees, and Ukraine got access to low cost gas from Central Asia, via Russia, in return.
But the recent election of that bitch Yulia Tymoshenko, who is backed by the US intelligence agencies as a spoiler of both Russia-Ukraine relations as well as Russia-Europe relations, has reignited these old disputes.
Thus the European energy market is being thrown into turmoil by the Americans yet again. The Americans want to spoil Europe's energy markets and create antipathy between the major European countries (including Russia), who after all must find some way to co-exist and share the same continent together. The Americans would rather see turmoil in European energy markets than see some peaceful, normal and mutually beneficial relations develop between Europe and Russia.
Russia is currently building a vast infrastructure to connect Russian gas to Western Europe directly (bypassing the unstable transit countries such as Ukraine and Poland). Russia is currently building Nord-Stream (North Stream) and South Stream gas pipelines, which will carry massive amounts of Russian gas to Europe via the Baltic Sea and the Black Sea. But until these projects are complete (2010 - 2012), Russia is still dependent on Ukrainian infrastructure, which dates back to Soviet times (when everyone was all part of the same happy family).
Ukraine's president, Victor Yushchenko, is intelligent enough to realize that Ukraine's long-term future as a gas transit country (along with the lucrative fees that brings for Ukraine) is dependent upon Ukraine's ability to portray itself (both to Europe and Russia) as a reliable partner that can be counted on.
But that bitch Tymoshenko, the recently elected prime minister, is just an American CIA-backed Cheney-backed spoiler.
Let’s not forget that Tymoshenko is a true Ukrainian Oligarch, and she made her billions when the company that her husband owned stole Russian gas and resold it to Europe (via Ukraine) in the cowboy Yeltsin 1990’s. This is why she is known as the “gas princess” in Ukraine today. The more things change the more they stay the same. Now that bitch is trying to push out the intermediary companies and bring her own corrupt people back into the operation once again.
From Russia’s standpoint this is a Ukrainian problem (a struggle for power between Ukraine’s president and prime minister). All of Russia’s dealings on the gas issue are above board and completely transparent. It is the Ukrainian partners which are trying to pull an opaque shade across everything, and obstruct Europe’s energy security, while their internal oligarch factions fight each other to the bone.
The Ukrainian “gas pricessa” http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/Gas-Princess-named-Ukraines-acting-PM/2005/01/25/1106415555503.html?from=moreStories
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20080304/100643918.html
http://room12a.com/archives/yushenko-timoshenko.jpg
http://www.bat.mk.ua/1/foto/Timoshenko_01.jpg
http://www.russiablog.org/TimoshenkoDeskImage.jpg
http://www.heritage.org/Research/RussiaandEurasia/images/74743756.gif
Post a comment
TrackBack
TrackBack URL: http://publiuspundit.com/mt/contages.cgi/683
|