How was Alexander Litvinenko murdered? We don’t know yet; we may never find out, but what is clear is his death marks the start of a new Cold War. The question is how to win it.
Vladimir Putin’s thuggish and arrogant rhetoric; the routine use of murder in business and politics; the bullying of neighbours such as Georgia; energy blackmail; authoritarian behaviour by the Kremlin — all have crystallised a growing unease with the wishful thinking that has marked outsiders’ attitudes to Russia in the past 15 years.
It is still possible — just — to argue that this is a messy but necessary transition period, and that stability will produce a middle class in Russia that will want liberal politics and friendly relations with Europe and the US. Those hopes hang on a thread: that the 2008 Russian presidential elections will bring a real contest, rather than a fixed coronation.
But the overwhelming likelihood is that Russia will get worse not better. The Economist recently cautioned that Russia was heading towards fascism: blustery, bossy and brutal. It will have particular Russian features too, chiefly extraordinary corruption, waste and incompetence.
So what do we do? Fighting the last Cold War was easy in comparison, particularly towards the end, when it was clear that communism meant not just dictatorship, but poverty, injustice and backwardness. Now Russia is rich and strong, while the West, and particularly the alliance between Europe and America, is demoralised and discredited.
Russia no longer needs our money. Nor does it care much for our approval. The past few years have taught Mr Putin that when he needs something from the West, he gets it. Jacques Chirac, of France, is a Russian cheerleader, like Silvio Berlusconi and Gerhard Schröder before him.
The first response must be not to panic. For all its bombast, Russia’s strength rests on sand. Its demographics are disastrous: in the minute you may have taken to read to this point, five Russians died, and only three were born. Its roads and railways are still rickety, its pipelines and powerstations clapped-out. The much touted gas weapon may not be loaded: decades of neglect and under-investment may mean that Russia is an energy beggar, not an energy bully.
Then the West must stick together. Russia expertly plays off one country against another. British eurosceptics must drop their defeatist disdain for a common European foreign policy, especially in the field of energy security. Without it, we risk losing half the continent to the Kremlin’s new empire, one built on pipelines rather than tanks. Europe must dump its self-indulgent anti-Americanism and rebuild its alliance with an administration chastened and looking for friends.
That alliance’s big task will not be military defence, but diversifying energy supplies. We need new pipelines in the Balkans and the Caucasus to bring the oil and gas riches of the Caspian basin and Central Asia to European markets, bypassing Russia’s capricious, greedy and monopolistic oil and gas companies. We must also build more liquefied natural gas terminals, and interconnecting pipelines to hook up national gas grids. It sounds just as boring as the jargon of the last Cold War but it is just as important.
Similarly, we must give unflinching support to the countries in Russia’s viewfinder, such as Poland, Georgia and the Baltic states. They face hate campaigns in the Russian media, meddling in their energy supplies and arbitrary sanctions on their exports. All too often, the EU says that problems its new members have with Russia are “merely bilateral”. In future, the message must be: “If you mess with Estonia you mess with the whole of Europe.” These are brothers-in-arms and know a lot more about Russia than we do, and we have been slow to recognise it.
We must continue to expand Nato and the EU. Enlargement of both bodies has been an unsung triumph, spreading peace and security. The next phase will be more difficult, because the countries concerned are weaker and poorer. But that makes it all the more necessary. If our doors are not open, then the only choice available is Russia. It is a tragedy that this week’s Nato summit in Riga is hamstrung by division and timidity on the question of enlargement.
Thirdly, the West must recover the moral self-confidence that ultimately proved far more important than our guns and missiles. We believed in our system: it was not just richer and freer than theirs, but kinder, fairer, cleaner, healthier, more innovative, more tolerant and more truthful. It had flaws, certainly. But it also had the built-in capability to remedy them. In a market democracy, the crooked and cruel stand a better chance of being fired or jailed than they do in an authoritarian state-run economy.
So the most powerful weapon we have now is to to make our own system truly worth admiring. Integrity in public life would not only contrast with the Kremlin’s sleaze, but also immunise us against its bribes. Speedy justice, efficient government and public-spiritedness are lacking in Russia — and just what we need to make our system envied at home and abroad. It will be a long slog: but so was the last one.
Edward Lucas is Central and Eastern Europe correspondent for The Economist
Posts
41 comments:
In Francis Ford Coppolla's "The Untouchables," Kevin Costner's Elliot Ness asks Sean Connery's Jim Malone how to "get" Robert DeNiro's Al Capone (as oily and toadlike as Russia's Vladimir Putin). Malone says: "You want to know how to get Capone? Here's how you get him. He brings a knife to the fight, you bring a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. That's the Chicago way."
but what is clear is his death marks the start of a new Cold War. The question is how to win it.
IMHO it is very bad that you wish new war.
communism meant not just dictatorship, but poverty, injustice and backwardness
I'm not agree. Communism is the best system in theory. But it implementation in USSR was not good. More precisely building of communism in USSR was not completed. In any case this stage in Russian's history has positive sides too.
For all its bombast, Russia’s strength rests on sand.
AFAIK last man who told speech in the same spirit was Hitler.
The first response must be not to panic.
...
Its demographics are disastrous: in the minute you may have taken to read to this point, five Russians died, and only three were born.
No comments. So much bile and malicious joy. I'm in a shock. :(
Similarly, we must give unflinching support to the countries in Russia’s viewfinder, such as Poland, Georgia and the Baltic states.
IMHO this is just a clishe. Actually Russia has so many internal problems that it can't do any destructive politics abroad.
We must continue to expand Nato and the EU.
Yes of cource you can do this. But this is aggressive politics in relation to Russia. You will still break verbal contract between Bush and Gorbachev about nonexpansion of a military alliance NATO.
We believed in our system: it was not just richer and freer than theirs, but kinder, fairer, cleaner, healthier, more innovative, more tolerant and more truthful.
Really? When I'm reading your article I'm not shure in this.
Speedy justice, efficient government and public-spiritedness are lacking in Russia.
I'm agree. But Russia is in a progress. Just give a chance for us. Do not shot.
dmitry - Communism by every empirical measure, if you look around the world where it was employed, was a failure. It was a failure economically, in terms of personal freedom and creativity, in every realm that is measurable. It was applied in enough places to conclude that whatever flavor it came in, it failed miserably. Even China has been evolving away from their communist past. Why would any sane person want to reconstruct communism, give it another chance, and expect a different outcome?
Sadly, the clueless and insular lefties on college campuses still spout the communist's utopian garbage ignoring the tens of millions murdered implementing that ideology. They get to continue this because they are tenured, and like the Communists, refuse dissenting opinions in their academic fiefdoms.
I see no wish for a war with Russia expressed in Mr. Lucas' article. Your misconstruing him is disingenuous.
It's pretty obvious, isn't it, that Putin is re-Stalinizing Russia. Stalin, as you know well was an autocratic mass murderer. What different outcome do you expect after Putin consolidates his power? History generally is the best predictor of future outcomes, which is certainly true in medicine, economics and science. Of course, you could get lucky and just have your minds and souls imprisoned this time around. I'm curious as to why you perceive a stronger EU/NATO response to Putin's thuggery as a bigger threat to Russians than Putin? He is much more likely to ruin your lives. He will, just give him time.
As is often said, history repeats: 1st time it was a tragedy, 2nd time a farce. That really applies to the proposition of some new cold war.
But first, may I clarify why West has (thanks G-d) won the original one. Not because it was more gentle, fair, honest, clean, honorable, or whatever else laudatory adjectives one may attach. As though USSR people had some sort of nationwide conference in March 1985, where they suddenly realized all those wonderful qualities and decided to abandon communism in their favor. And not because the West had more bombs and missiles - it didn't, and how would it matter anyhow. And not because USSR people lived under difficult material circumstances -
most 3rd-world countries live far worse and their regimes are fine and dandy. And not because of puny squabbling dissidents, who could all be collected in one big room, and by 1985 >80% of them were in the West, dead, or in jail anyhow.
The regime dissipated because the rulers (not ##1 or 2, but a large swath of elite in party, govt., media, foreign service, KGB, local bosses etc.) fervently wanted for it to disappear. They wanted it because they were sick of it like no tomorrow, and felt brutally cheated by it, comparing their lifestyle to that of Western equivalents (CEOS, bankers, TV anchors, media owners, and such). Sure, they had their black Volgas (worse than the cheapest US-made car), apartments with one-two extra rooms in a better part of the town, distributors where they could get chocolate, western cigarettes, real coffee, and sausage, and once in a blue moon a vacation to "sanitarium" in Crimea or even East Germany or Chechoslovakia. But those pitiful privileges didn't raise even to the level of an average white-collar professional in teh US or UK, much less anywhere near equivalent "top" figures.
Not even to speak about the stability and security of possessions provided to those folks in the West, compared to
their tenuous semi-secret half-illegal privileges that the party could capriciously take back at any moment and through them into jail for "burgeois transformation".
So, as soon as it was possible,
they who had power have casted the nasty party regime away, along with a few 80-year old curmudgeons who were old and dumb, and ideologically brain-washed to not even figure their own best interest. Why did it happen around mid-1980s? It took the generation of Gorbachev and Yeltsin who had not really seen the war and Stalinist horrors to come to power, those before that were terrified for the rest of their life to even think of such things.
As a personal snippet, I recall a windy wet morning in April 1985, hitching a ride to school with a classmate in the limo of his father - then an upper-midlevel KGB officer who later made it to the top. We had a chat about the latest Party plenum with that famous Gorby's speech, and I asked in whispering tone (throughly surprized by my unheard of daring) - if things go this way, what would happen to the party? To which he (the father) answered most calmly and non-chalantly:
"Who cares? As though the party is what bring happiness to life".
I sat there in terrified silence for the rest of the trip and was so shocked for the whole day that got F on a school exam, which never happened to me before or after in 10 years. That day I understood 100% that the new time in our history was starting and there would be no party much sooner than anyone thinks.
That's why the West won - bacause
folks like that wanted castles in France, palaces in Zavidovo, houses in London, and stables of Mercedeses, not just a nicer apt. with an extra room, and a sorry Volga out of turn.
Now fast forward to today - communism is thankfully over, no one in Russia would think of it in a worst nightmare, not even the party still calling itself
"communist" - it's as communist a the Chinese one. The Russian elite
is exquisitely coddled like hardly any other in the world. So why would they want a system change?
Basically, in Western b-schools
they teach that, to make changes in a system, one needs to get a management "buy-in". That's what happened in the USSR in late 1980s, and that's the only way.
The other question is why to make changes. USSR actively sought to destroy and destabilize the West, seeking to spearhead its evil and ridiculous ideology wherever it could, by all means possible.
Naturally, West has fought back, and rightfully and thankfully so. Russia has absolutely no interest and intention to force its ideology or social system on anyone, in fact it has no ideology to force.
So why fight it - just because it may (just may so far!) had smth. to do with killing one fellow with criminal past and thoroughly detestable present, himself an admitted KGB assassin. And even if it might take care of Berezovsky and Zakaev, thus removing the stain on British reputation and standing resulting from their continued presence on UK soil? Gimme a break.
It is absolutely right that the moral standing of the West was its greatest weapon in cold war times. Well, what happened in Iraq has taken that away for at least a generation - I'd rather have
a lifetime of "fixed coronations"
for myself, my children, and their children than a couple years of democracy established there by US and UK well-wishers. So I'd suggest working diligently on getting that moral lustre back somehow (if you know how), and then we'll see.
Meanwhile, for those overdosing on Bond movies and Chicago ways, we'll just take real good care of our Strategic Nuclear Force - experience has shown that cools hot heads quite nicely.
fisk - trying to deconstruct your flawed ramblings is a task, but, I'll take a bite at it. For starters, communism collapsed economically. Period. It was not the benevolence of the ruling communist elite, never historically the group to surrender power, that willed the communist abomination away and restored democracy. I mean, just what are you smoking?
....most 3rd-world countries live far worse and their regimes are fine and dandy....
Probably one of the most ridiculous of oxymorons ever written. Want to share with us a country that fits that correlation of a third world country where the citizens are living "far worse" under a freely elected, "fine and dandy", democratic, open, fair, and market oriented "regime"? Your statement makes no sense.
fisk, by your self-described bio, you're telling us that you are a middle aged Russian? I'm not buying your story. I've see your moniker pop up on multiple sites, always as a Putin apologist. In my opinion, you are a troll and a phoney playing games. Or, worse, you are one of those morally compromised creatures that in the shallowest of thinking sees moral equivalences where no sane person would.
Well, prices for Russian gas to Europe are due to rise by approx 15% in 2007, porices for the Baltics will be going up 25-55%, Ukraine will pay 30% more - sure looks like Gazprom will have plenty of cash to develop its huge reserves. As for Central Asian and Caspian reserves, the latter are also in the Russian sector, the former, esp from Kazakhstan are mostly being sent through Russia and are contracted to rise...any gas sent from Turkmenistan that bypasses Russia will have to be via the pipeline on the bottom of the Caspian Sea and it would need permission from other littoral states, since the status if the sea is not yet determined...Russia will not permit that + Ukraine will get hurt becuase it will not be able to buy this Turkmen gas. Uzbekistan has signed contracts with Russia to export around 10 bn cubic meters a year. USSR/Russia has always sent gas to Europe on time and consistently...even during the Cold War - its not Russia's fault that Ukraine is a parasite that steals gas and wants it sold at 20% of the market price....its just under Putin's leadership, Russia is not going to make up the losses for Europe - the latter has to take responsibility and talk to Ukraine. Finally, notwithstanding Luca's hysterical plans - really, get realistic here, Europe has built/is building even more pipelines from Russia, but those that avoid Ukraine: Yamal-Europe, Blue Stream, and the EU supported NEGP system to Germany ....not that no gas shortages were experienced throught the 1st and 2nd of those pipelines during Ukrainian tapping.
elroz - your timely appearance is predictable and amusing. I remember you, the smarmy little fascist approving of state sponsored assasinations on an earlier thread which more or less disqualifies any utterances out of your mouth.
It's amusing how closely you and fisk monitor sites for any anti-Putin postings. Are you both paid? Or just voluteer trolls-for-fascism?
Or, maybe, as there is a uncanny coincidence in time and space between you both, are you just the same person?
Whatever.
How coincidental, I just noticed that fisk, elroz and dmitry, as per their Blogger profiles, all became members this month.
Three Putin defenders, always on task, all joining Blogger this month......
I'll leave it for others to draw their own conclusions.
Russophobe,
'The Untouchables' was directed by Brain de Palma.
Coppola had nothing to do with it.
And Armand Assante, for whom Boris Berezovsky (landlord of Alexander Litvinenko; opponent of Paul Klebnikov; mentioned by Kommersant in relation to the death of Anna Politkovskaya; landlord of Akhmad Zakayev; boaster of links to Lord Bell and the Conservative Party in 2003; declared persona non grata in Latvia on account of parapolitical activities; perhaps responsible for parapolitical activities in Ukraine, leading to the collapse of the 'Orange revolution'; 'business consultant' to Neil Bush in his educational software company Ignite Learning; and quoted by Agence France Presse in January 2006 as planning the overthrow of the Russian government) would be a dead ringer if he still had his hair, was not in it.
MARTIN: Thanks for the correction! Who said anything about Assante?
DMITRY: The best system in theory? That's crazy, since you have no experimental evidence AT ALL to show the theory is valid.
FISK: Are you demented? You think that if America had not invaded Iraq then Russians would be prepared to walk away from their 70%+ approval of Putin on America's say-so? You seem to be oblivous of the gigantic difference in power between America and Russia, to say nothing of the NATO countries and Russia, a difference which mandates Russia to satisfy the West, not the other way around. You can stand on your bull-headed Russian pride, but it will melt away under you and deposit you in the grave, just as it did in the case of the extinct USSR. Your claims that Russia WANTED to lose the cold war are childish and borderline insane. We read the Fox and the Grapes. You can't fool us, Mr. Neo-Soviet man.
PENNY: You go, girl!
..."mentioned by Kommersant"? And that would be the publication owned since August by a subsidiery of Gazprom? There isn't really much out there in the Russian media, those parts that are Kremlin controlled now, that a wise person would use as a credible source.
You know, martin, you are really spinning and burning unnecessary calories trying to deflect things away from Putin and his FSB, aren't ya? What's in it for you to try so hard to preserve his integrity?
And, I bet, martin, that if Bush or Blair so much as sent a political opponent a vulgar email, let alone an assassin, you'd be all over them.
Or, in martin's universe, with some selected sourcing from the eXile(idiotarian controlled rather than state), Pravda and MOSNEWS, he can come back and prove that Bush or Blair killed Litvinenko.
Go for it, martin.
To penny.
dmitry - Communism by every empirical measure, if you look around the world where it was employed, was a failure. It was a failure economically, in terms of personal freedom and creativity, in every realm that is measurable. It was applied in enough places to conclude that whatever flavor it came in, it failed miserably. Even China has been evolving away from their communist past. Why would any sane person want to reconstruct communism, give it another chance, and expect a different outcome?
I did not tell that I want reconstruct communism. I told that communism, in theory, determine aims (social equality, internationalism etc., just open Bible) which IMHO are better than they are in capitalism. Social systems in USSR and China ware just bad (and very expensive) implementations. But even those systems ware enough mature because they transformed in capitalism-like systems in bloodless way when undestood that there ware no perspectives for evolution. In my opinion on West this stage of Russia's history is showed from one side only (stalinism, KGB etc.). But there is other side too -- first space flight, advanced science etc. I think that humanity just not enough mature for communism. And I am not shure that this maturity can be reached in future.
Sadly, the clueless and insular lefties on college campuses still spout the communist's utopian garbage ignoring the tens of millions murdered implementing that ideology. They get to continue this because they are tenured, and like the Communists, refuse dissenting opinions in their academic fiefdoms.
I see no wish for a war with Russia expressed in Mr. Lucas' article. Your misconstruing him is disingenuous.
I don't see where I'm "disingenuous". Author's expression about bad demographic situation in Russia which was represented as big plus for West seems like dances on bones. Opinion that this article is just a bile formed on west too. Please see here.
It's pretty obvious, isn't it, that Putin is re-Stalinizing Russia.
No, I do not agree. Putin's strategy is IMHO creation of middle class. All his 'autocratic' steps are just ordering of anarchy which was early (with 'democrat' Eltsin). I can explain and discuss any his step(s) which in your opinion are autocratic.
Stalin, as you know well was an autocratic mass murderer. What different outcome do you expect after Putin consolidates his power? History generally is the best predictor of future outcomes, which is certainly true in medicine, economics and science. Of course, you could get lucky and just have your minds and souls imprisoned this time around.
Putin and Stalin completly different men. I have no time discuss this topic today therefore say that we just lucky :)
I'm curious as to why you perceive a stronger EU/NATO response to Putin's thuggery as a bigger threat to Russians than Putin? He is much more likely to ruin your lives.
This phenomen can be easyly explained. Russians better see an know Putin than any man abroad. And they trust him.
NATO is a military block. Military block can be friendliness or hostile. Because NATO does not invite Russia to be a member then it is hostile military block. Therefore from strategy point of view it should be as far from frointier as possible.
He will, just give him time.
Time will show truth.
To penny.
How coincidental, I just noticed that fisk, elroz and dmitry, as per their Blogger profiles, all became members this month.
Three Putin defenders, always on task, all joining Blogger this month......
I'll leave it for others to draw their own conclusions.
At this point men from West should be shure that these men are agents of FSB (former KGB) :)))
I read translated Edward's article on web site www.inosmi.ru. With help of Google I found this blog (by name of author of article) and post this address in forum where this article was discussed.
P.S. By the way, I can not open your profile.
To Russophobe
DMITRY: The best system in theory? That's crazy, since you have no experimental evidence AT ALL to show the theory is valid.
Which experimental evidence do you want for philosophical theory?
Penny,
The 'Kommersant' you're referring to? That's the one that Berezovsky owned until February?
Do Gazprom and the Russian state also control Global Challenges Research? The Times, The Daily Telegraph, The Daily Mail or the BBC? The Postgraduate Journal of Medicine?
The Observer?
The Independent on Sunday?
The Guardian?
The Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies?
Amazon.com?
Sanders Research Associates?
LewRockwell.com?
Penny, doll, I've linked to all these sources in the past week.
Have Gazprom gone on some kind of buying spree and I haven't read about it here?
"And, I bet, martin, that if Bush or Blair so much as sent a political opponent a vulgar email, let alone an assassin, you'd be all over them. "
Who would I be all over? Bush?Blair? The assassin?
Weak smear, darlin'. Weak smear.
To Russophobe
We read the Fox and the Grapes.
Very good. And What they wrote?
My only complaint with Putin is that his actions are harming the USA. Time will tell whether they are harming Russia more.
dmitry, your little game of English as a second language is amusing as well as futile. A moron could spot it as bogus a mile away reading through the glaring inconsistencies of your prose.
I'm not buying it and flat out calling you a liar in misrepresenting yourself.
martin, whatever. You don't seem to understand that's not the correct answer. I'll repeat the my comment and question:
"You know, martin, you are really spinning and burning unnecessary calories trying to deflect things away from Putin and his FSB, aren't ya? What's in it for you to try so hard to preserve his integrity?"
Go for it, martin.
Penny,
I'm copying this comment on to 'Word' and will post it on my own blog in the event of it being mysteriously deleted from here.
Well my dear, I weigh 14 stone, so a 5'7" 36 year old of that bulk has a lot of calories to burn.
Should probably spend more time away from the computer...
Your question 'What's in it for you to try so hard to preserve his integrity?' is an odd one - the kind asked by persons accustomed to analysing human behaviour solely in terms of personal advantage.
Like hardened political ideologues.
Or economists...
Personally, I hold no brief for President Putin, or for much of what one reads of Russian society. The Russian far right seem to be a throughly disgusting bunch, Russian social attitudes towards race seem almost comically backward backward and the Russian army's culture of bullying is a stain upon that nation.
Long may the Grandfathers rot in hell.
However, one cannot avoid the fact that Russia is a democracy - a tentative and fragile one at times, but a democracy nonetheless. The Russians are picking up the habit. We Brits sometimes seem to forget that their way is not our way; but they seem to be learning our way, or the version of it that best suits them. President Putin is the Russian peoples' electoral choice. He has pledged not to seek a third term - and from what one can see he has no reason not to fulfill that pledge.
Now let's throw Baldy Boris Berezovsky into the mix. Again, from what one can divine from reading a wide range of sources the one thing that Baldy's got going for him is money - oodles and pots and oceans of the stuff. He didn't seem to get it by particularly straightforward means - it's unlikely that the 'privatisations' by which he became enriched would live up he standards of the British laws governing such activities.
In fact, to call Berezovsky, Abramovich and Khodorkovsky thieves is to do a dis-service to thieves.
This one could live with - none of our business, all happening far away and all that. Let the good times roll on the banks of the Neva!
But then Baldy got ambitious. He wasn't happy just to settle for the power bestowed by enormous wealth - he wanted political power as well. Putin said 'Nyet', and Baldy discovered that for the first time he had encountered an opponent more determined and more ruthless than himself.
So now he lives in London, where someone has decided that he is worthy of my asylum.
But even that wasn't enough for him; in January of this year he announced that he was planning to overthrow the Russian government by force.
Hang on a minute! If we as British citizens are jealous of our democracy, shouldn't we be also be jealous of the Russians' on their behalf? Here's Baldy, possibly glowing in the dark from Polonium-210, over in London saying he plans to overthrow a friendly foreign power's democratically elected government by force!
Steady on, old chap! Not the done thing!
But Baldy's got lots of money, which gives him access. He's able to hire Lord Tim Bell to do his PR. He's able to house both Litvinenko and Akhmad Zakayev.
HE'S ABLE TO BUILD THE BEGINNINGS OF A CREDIBLE GOVERNMENT IN EXILE!
Hanging round Baldy, or criticising Baldy, seems to be bad for your life expectancy. There was his driver, decapitated in a car bombing in 1994. There was the TV host murdered in 1995. There was poor old Paul Klebnikov, iced in the street for no good reason. There was Anna Politkovskaya, whom he admitted to knowing and whose acknowledged lack of prominence in Russia might have served the interests of those interested in smearing Putin more than any interests of the Russian state.
And then there's poor old Litvinenko, who died vomiting his guts up in University College Hospital - by all accounts an unimportant figure in Russian public life, who had been acquitted at two separate trials before fleeing; whose 'friend' Alex Goldfarb turns out to be Baldy's right hand man (his words, not mine).
You know, if someone were interested in making Putin look bad; and had iced Anna Politkovskaya to prove the point; but if the Westerners hadn't really got the message; then maybe killing a British citizen on British soil might just ram the message home.
Of course, Baldy's got lots of money - so for many parts of the British establishment that makes him an all-round good guy. Some of the greedier, more pecculent and hardened in sin of the British upper classes might be willing to sponsor him for membership of their club.
But to this Tory hick, Baldy stinks. The reporting of the case stinks. The comment on the case stinks.
There is one thing that Berezovsky could do to rehabilitate himself in my eyes; and even that might not work.
He could buy out Farepak, ensuring that all those poor and middle income British families whose Yuletide is currently in ruins and whose shelter he enjoys are able to salvage something from the wreckage.
He can afford to do it, and it should keep him occupied for a while; a diversion from the serious business of agitating against and working to overthrow a friendly foreign power's democratically elected government.
Now, about you Penny.
Your profile isn't shared - do you have something to hide?
I don't have anything to hide.
I've just narrated my height, age and weight. Readers of my blog know that I practiced as a
solicitor for several years
and that I suffer from Tourette Syndrome.
They know my name, where I live and if they look hard enough they'll get an idea of near enough precisely where I live.
Anyone interested in looking could probably obtain my precise postal address from the electoral roll.
They'll be able to gather something of my home life - who I live with, who my parents are and where I'm from.
Long may all my loved ones and friends and their loved ones and friends come to no harm.
But what do you have to hide?
'Penny' is a terribly clever screen name, you know. Let's play a word game.
Thonk 'Penny' -think 'money'. Think 'money' - think 'economics'. Think 'economics'- think 'The Economist'.
Penny, are you Edward Lucas or an 'Economist' employee trying to pull the wool over our eyes?
Ed, you are sick and hateful. More to be pitied than to be scorned. You warned of the collapse of Russia in 1998 - with perfect authority you said that she would break up into warring regions, the communists would sweep moscow. GDP would collapse. Russia is now strong and prosperous. The best performing equtiy market in Europe, an increase in disposable income by 10% per annum for 8 year running. Russia is now robustly defending her own interests. I understand how sad this must make you feel. Bark! Bark louder! The Caravan passes...
martin, your amusing hyperbole aside, you still can't stay on task and answer the core question, your Berezovsky rant was another waste of neurons and calories. Gratuitously sharing your physical dimensions, age and Tourette's problem aren't really relevant either.
I owe you nor anyone else, beyond my comments here, any personal information about myself. You need to develope some better boundaries. As is the nature of cyberspace, I could be a very clever canine at a keyboard for all that it really matters. Deal with it.
Penny, dearest, you have me at a loss for words - which is something.
I cannot think what one more could say to answer your question - apart from the fact that as a British citizen and taxpayer, with no brief for any figure in Russian public life, even a cursory examination of the life, times and statements of Boris Berezovsky makes me believe that he is not a fit and proper candidate for British asylum, who should be popped on the first plane back to the other country.
If he wants to do parapolitical crap, let him do it from there.
And Penny, tootsie, the wonderful thing about blog comments is that is for the commentor to determine their comment's' relevance.
Who said I was talking to you?
And don't be so mean to the disabled...
dmitry, your little game of English as a second language is amusing as well as futile. A moron could spot it as bogus a mile away reading through the glaring inconsistencies of your prose.
Excuse me if my terrible english offend your. But you could be more polite.
I'm not buying it and flat out calling you a liar in misrepresenting yourself.
It is a pity that your patiens (and IMHO arguments) gave way. I planned use this blog to improve my english skills :(
Bye Edward.
Edward, what do you mean by "energy blackmail"? Gazprom's gas supplies to Europe are controlled by David Brown and Robert Shetler-Jones - shadowy British businessmen with secret services background.
EKRAUS: You make a living convincing fools to invest in the Russian stock market. No wonder you're mad that Edward is wising them up! You grossly distort facts and fail to disclose your personal bias; to your investors I say: caveat emptor. Your bilious personal abuse betrays your utter lack of substance.
An increase of 10% per annum on an average disposable income of $3,600 is totally meaningless (it's less than a dollar a day) even if there were no inflation, but Russia posts stratospheric inflation that wipes out that entire puny "gain". What's more, the vast majority of Russians live in poverty on an income of $1 a day or so, with a tiny cadre of superrich eating up most of the nation's revenues. That's why Russia has a declining population and is headed for the dustbin of history, along with any benighted fools dim enough to let you invest their money for them.
The vast majority of Russians live on ~10 $/day = 300 $/month, which makes 3,600 $/year, in major cities a bit more - $ 300-500/month. In Moscow, certainly much more. That's very far from wealthy, of course, and you may call it poverty if you wish. Still, that's hugely different from ~$1/day, which is exactly what it was for the majority in 1990s, before Putin.
The birth rate in Russia is ~1.3 children/woman, which is very close to that in several West Europe nations (for example, Spain or Italy) and actually slightly more than in Japan. The reasons for that have nothing to do with poverty - in poorest contries like in Africa and, of the former USSR, Uzbekistan and Tadjikistan, the birth rates are sky-high and population grows quickly. And in wealthier ones of Estonia and Latvia, the birth rate is just as low as in Russia. A low birth rate in Russia reflects the same trends as in Western Europe - female emancipation, easy access to contraception, delay of marraige to obtain higher education, and the general spread of egotistic culture. Those trends may well mean the impending doom of all European civilization (including Russia), which is however another subject.
As to investment, I certainly would not suggest anyone to invest >10-20% of portfolio in Russia or any other single country except possibly US, which has a huge market. But I have held and still hold some Russian stocks (like VIP) and did quite well, thanks.
Of course, I'm just a small benighted fool, Templeton and company who invest billions in Russia and have much better information and access did way better.
FISK:
Anyone can walk into a casino, plunk down money on the roulette wheel, and win a million dollars. But only a total idiot thinks he was somehow "clever" in doing so, or ignores the fact that the vast majority of people who gamble lose, or encourages anyone else to throw his money away in that manner.
You don't read well at all. I know that the average salary for a Russian is $3,600 per year. That's what I SAID. 10% increase on that figure is $360, AND THAT IS LESS THAN ONE DOLLAR increase per day (there are three hundred sixty FIVE days in a year, you see). So my point was that this average increase of less than one dollar per day is totally meaningless, not something to be proud of. Kraus misleads by failing to mention this fact, speaking as if 10% increase in Russia means just as much as it would in the West. That's a lie. It doesn't.
The fact that Moscow's average salary is higher than the country's is also totally meaningless, because it's expenses are far higher too. Moscow was recently rated the MOST EXPENSIVE city IN THE WORLD even though its average incomes are a TINY FRACTION of those in the other top 10 most expensive cities. Many people in Moscow are far poorer than they would be living someplace else.
I NEVER SAID that the BIRTHRATE was controlled by poverty. I said the POPULATION DECLINE was. You are quite correct that Russia's BIRTHRATE is matched by some countries in Europe, but it's DEATH RATE ISN'T. Russians live MUCH SHORTER LIVES than Europeans and that is because of poverty, and it is the DEATH RATE that is driving down Russia's population.
Please stop lying and deceiving. It can only lead Russia to doom.
I've been recently following the discussions here and I have to say i've been appalled at the amount of anti-Russianism going on here. Let alone the fact one of the posters is called Russophobe, which says a lot about the independence with which she will interpret any facts arising from that country.
Russophobe, you are a rude and obsessed debater, your constant use of caps lock, interrogations mark, personal attacks at the supposed lack of independence and ideology of anyone disagreeing with you is scary, you are obviously emotional about Russia, actually my guess is that if you are not a Ukrainian you could probably be granted nationality by sending Yushchenko the link to your blog.
The only persons posting here with a clear ideological bias are those who obsessively see evil imperial and manipulative ambitions in everything Russia does. Using economic influence for political goals is a recurrent theme of any functioning state, and the more powerful the state is, the more we will notice it. I honestly don't believe Russia is trying to conquer the world and turn it into fascist, communist, or whatever empire. Russia is simply aware of the big game of globalisation, free market, economic influence, and is trying to establish the most advantageous position it can achieve with the means it has before it's too late. That's an utterly rational behaviour for any state.
Now, this is my take, and i have my education, my life and travelling experience and my contacts to support it. But still i doubt the economist, penny, me, and especially a person suffering the sad disease of russophobia have any clue of what is going on in the private meetings of the kremlin. But the game of many paranoid liberals in the West is to point fingers at Russia at any chance and increase paranoia... just in case. Truth is, nobody wants another superpower if you are content with the one you have now. Logically, if you are pro-american, you are not fond of having a powerful Russia.
Did i attack America in any way? I hope not, because nowadays it's so easy to be put the tag of anti-american in europe if you are the least cynical about it, though i haven't heard anyone being beaten up in the streets or insulted simply for being american, unlike what happens with russians (but for some reason anti-russianism hasn't gained much currency, i wonder why...)
And before you call me a fascist, communist, anti-american, may i point out i am from a Central/eastern european country and have no russian blood, i never lived in Russia, don't have any particular sympathy for it, and have a good, steady job that does not involve any investments in Russia. Oh my god, what must be wrong with me then?
The thing is i'm not even defending Russia. Unlike Russophobe and Penny, who are incredibly protective of any criticism to America, those arguing for Russia do admit many of its flaws, and i agree with them on those points. So who is the fanatic here?
The same with the discussion on communism, it wasn't a 100% flawed system, though it did have many flaws. But you can't come here and tell me before communism easter europe was a wealthy land of happy free peasants driving seat ibizas and investing in the stockmarket. And suddenly they can adapt to the EU so quickly? What misterious things happened during the communist period i wonder? maybe, ehm, development, evolution? Didn't democracy also start out with lynching, executions and slavery by the way?
good luck trying to attack my integrity, ideology, intentions... i'll be here to enjoy the spectacle
"Unlike Russophobe and Penny, who are incredibly protective of any criticism to America"...
z, and that's a generous assumption that you aren't one of manic martin's multiple sock puppets on this thread, he's got more skits in circulation than Borat, anyways, I never mentioned America once nor defended America in any context, so, your comment is as ridiculous as your reading skills.
In fact, your whole spiel is fatuous and ridiculous.
Penny,
"...that's a generous assumption that you aren't one of manic martin's multiple sock puppets on this thread, he's got more skits in circulation than Borat"
Are you saying comic parodies of Kazakh TV journalists behave like Glaswegians?
How dare you say about comic parodies of Kazakh TV journalists!
Multiple sock puppets..hmm... yes, if you can imagine this comment being written in a sinister, Vincent Price sort of accent, with me manipulating my sock puppets from my lair for the sole purpose of frustrating Penny...
Give it a rest, hen. One way or t'other, Baldy Boris Berezovsky is a bad guy, does not deserve the asylum of British citizens and should be cranked off the first flight back to Moskva.
Penny,
Thanks for insulting me, i was expecting that. On the america thing I thought i remembered you had also commented on that, but don't think i was revising all the posts in this blog before replying, nor will i do that in the future, let's not take this -that- seriously. As a demonstration of my distance to the topic, observe how i will say: Sorry i took you for a protective american
I wonder if you would ever be capable of the same, your diplomatic skills so far seem quite unimpressive.
Still my quite insignificant mistake does not invalidate the other 99% of what i wrote, my arguments are certainly not ridiculous as I am a well-graded graduate from Central European University in Budapest who participated in class discussions with highly regarded professors and very intelligent students who never attacked my views in this way, nor called them "fatuous", and sorry if you force me to be even more arrogant but since you believe in meritocracy and market allocation, i get paid quite a lot (surely more than you?) for expressing my opinions on the region. Even if someone would call my views something less aggressive than that, they would bother to argue, which you didn't.
Indeed, as with many liberal preachers, you are probably only willing to enter discussions within your own terms and conditions, anything outside your narrow, liberal-democratic frameword is just too much for you too handle.
Or maybe i'm wrong, but you'll have to proove it. In a civilized manner please, and without resorting to insult or conspiracy theories. For god's sake discussing Russia should be interesting not emotional.
I do find the tone of debate here very depressing. In future I will delete without mercy any posts that contain ad hominem remarks, or that CONTAIN CAPITAL LETTERS. Use HTML tags if you want to emphasise something.
There are plenty of other forums in which you can trade abuse. This is a high-class dive here, at least as far as manners are concerned.
In response to Eric Krause, my former lunch partner in Moscow, I agree that my prediction of 1998 wasn't borne out by events. But it was predicated on the oil price staying at $10 a barrel. Nobody thought then (even the formidably farsighted Eric) that it would quintuple.
David Brown and Robert Shetler-Jones are interesting figures but I am not sure what their involvement proves or disproves. I have frequently written about the "Hurrah chorus" of toadies, hangers-on, idealists and naifs who are the accessories to Russia's financial/energy empire.
Berezovsky has a disreputable past and has bought respectability in London. Does that mean he should be deported to Russia? In my view, not. If it was a country with a proper criminal justice system, that would be another matter.
The discussion of the communist past is a bit stale. Sure, eastern Europe developed under communism. But what about the opportunity cost? The best comparison is Finland and Estonia. Imagine how prosperous Estonia would be now if it had not been under Soviet rule for 50 years. Ditto Austria and Czech republic. Anyone who doubts that communism was a disastrous failure is either very ill-informed, mad, stupid or incurably sentimental. That is not to say that other systems are perfect. Just that they are better.
Russia does have a comparable birth rate to many European countries. What makes its demographics so dire is the death rate.
I have frequently written about the "Hurrah chorus" of toadies, hangers-on, idealists and naifs who are the accessories to Russia's financial/energy empire.
I'm a newcomer here. Edward, could you link us to these pieces?
Also, some time back Putin was quoted as saying that the collapse of the USSR was a geopolitical tragedy. If you haven't already, could you comment on what he meant? I think I know. Of course, the American press jumped all over him, but insight isn't their stength.
Dear Edward,
Too bad that while acknowledging the discussion had degenerated, your phrasing: "Anyone who doubts that communism was a disastrous failure is either very ill-informed, mad, stupid or incurably sentimental" seems quite insulting. I also hope you don't delete this post because it's written politely and rationally and i'm trying to start what i think is a meaningful and urgent discussion.
I realize this view of communism is most common among liberal circles you frequent, but for someone who is supposed to know the reality of the region were i live you seem very ill-informed.
For someone in your condition, or a young person wanting to enjoy freedom and opportunities to travel abroad, i agree communism was a failure, a cancer. But what bothers me in this discussion is that we completely disregard the opinion of large amounts of people in these countries who were quite happy under communism and have all the right to be nostalgic about it, without that implying a support for its repressive side, and without thinking nostalgia is a synonym for stupidity or unrealism
No system is better for 'everyone', and the liberal bias is always in assuming "what's best for me, the well-educated cosmopolitan individual, is best for everyone". But allow others to disagree please, without considering them ignorant or brainwashed peasants. Why couldn't a miner be content with the social security, stability and predictability of communist life, and who are we to tell him we know better? I had this tendency as well, but fortunately i believe i matured.
You speak of hindsight in your latest post, but that's exactly the sort of judgement communism is constantly subjected to. My advice: Take it easy, it won't come back even if one doesn't say it's an utter failure, just like there is no global Russian conspiracy, there isn't a communist one. So can we start being rational about it? Scores of youths in eastern European universities who were subjected to its injustices are managing that, believe me, i had first-hand experience, so why can't so many people in the (north)west do the same?
I wish communism could be debated without us feeling anything we say has an enormous political weight and might carry dangerous consequences. But maybe the economist would fire you if you would.
Anyway, you are in no position to predict whether communism could have developed into a more tolerant political system had it not been for its early demise and the pressure it was subjected to. One interesting example of failed socialism is Chile, just to show how willing the west was to give it a chance.
This doesn't make me into a communist nostalgic, i am not a communist, nor a socialist, nor left-wing, nor a liberal, but i am also not pretending to have occultist powers. Communism saw many efforts to liberalize which were thwarted by Moscow, and Moscow is probably the biggest responsible for the failure of the system (now, how pro-russian was that?). Russia had no democratic experience beforehand, so it seems quite silly to expect things would happen instantaneously.
Remember communism had a 80-year life-span, and in most of central-eastern europe half of that time. Do you realize how little that is compared to any other historical political system, including democracy? we are in need of some perspective, it is not me who is being nostalgic about anything. It is, as you said once in an article on Hungary, about respecting history. If that sounds too conservative, I hope I didn’t spook anyone out.
I am not deluding myself here; you will find similar views among an increasing number of academics, students, journalists, though not always formulated in the same way. You would know that if you are in touch with academic work, not that it represents any absolutely superior interpretation of reality. But neither does yours, without wanting to get post-modern, thank god.
On your 'opportunity cost' (and note how i am making an effort to adapt to your economicist vocabulary, i hope you do the same with mine), don't try to make generalizations out of the Czech republic (which is an exception) and rather look at Central Asia, and the overwhelming majority of Eastern Europe. I am not at all a 'fan' of what you assume to be "development" (I am rather fond of good-old stable southern European societies) but you have to admit this portrayal of communism stalling efforts of the region to develop and keeping them in the stone age is an enormous misconception that you and your magazine don't do much to counter. How convenient.
Being from the region, also allow me to praise some of the nasty heritages of communism that i so much enjoy (you already do a good job pointing out the ones i don't enjoy so i won't bother to repeat them): I can walk around safely in the cities at any time, despite greater poverty than in the west, there is a sense of civism that translates to low street criminality, there is excellent public transport, there is a highly educated yet not overly-specialized and fanaticized population (the two are connected), good health care, a healthy amount of cynicism towards ideals and politics, and i could go on to more sophisticad arguments that would make this too long, so i'll leave it here.
Yet, if there's anything you find admirable about the region, you can't continue imagine it is because of their wonderful national history and suddenly there is this communist alien, un-national gap that ruined it all. Let's not be simplistic, history and politics are more complicated than that, and all I’m saying is we cannot dismiss communism completely because in all it madness and with all its prices, it carried out some quite ambitious experiments from which we can not just learn negative examples.
Z:
Your statements are truly outrageous.
You complain about "anti-Russianism" but you don't mention Eric Kraus calling Edward Lucas "sick" and heaping other personala abuse upon him. It seems personal abuse is just fine with you, as long as its directed against people you disagree with.
I guess you were "appalled" at the amount of anti-Naziism in World War II also, right? And "appalled" by the amount of anti-KKKism from Martin Luther King, and by his conclusion that "white moderates" might be worse then the KKK? I guess you think when black people calle each other "nigga" they are racists, right?
I haven't said a single word under this post "protecting" America. How dare you make such claims about me without giving any examples? You're just making the same ad hominem attack on others that you purport to decry. In other words, you're a blazing hypocrite. What's more, you judge me based on my name, without giving any examples of anything specific I've said that you find factually inaccurate or otherwise objectionable, and that's just more hypocrisy.
If you choose not to hate Russians because they are destroying their country, killing their children and destabilizing the world, that's your right, but you have no right to judge others so imperiously for making a contrary decision. You resort to a personal attack on me, rather than discussing substance, because you have no substantive argument to make, no suggestions for dealing with the problems Russia presents, no blog where you stand behind your position and make it clear to the world.
I think your words are helping to rationalize and thereby facilitate the destruction of Russia, the decline of the population and the failure of the society. I see no evidence whatsoever of you opposing the rise of dictatorship and imperialism in Russia. In other words, with friends like you Russia needs no enemies.
"Russophobe"... please...
Unlike you, i'll take your points one by one, because I can argue with everything you said, even when it means going back to things that should be self-evident. But I’m a nice guy, so I’ll bother to explain:
- I complain about anti-russianism in general mostly because i've seen it elsewhere, it doesn't mean i condone anyone calling Edward this or that. I don't know who the hell is Eric Kraus anyway. Therefore, i think it remains clear personal abuse is still fine with you, not me, i didn't direct it to anyone and i pointed (not attacked) to you because you clearly took it to a higher level (as was noticed by a previous post of a certain person you seem to highly regard)
- By comparing Anti-Nazism to Anti-Russianism you are equating Russia, not even communism, to a deadly ideology. I don't condone Anti-germanism, or anti-russianism, especially because i consider these terms refer to more than just disapproving of the countries’ politics. Countries are much more than solely their political system. So if you want to be a bit more careful, why don't you change your nick to "kremlinphobe", that would certainly make your voice slightly more respectable. And i don't have a problem with someone disapproving of Russian politics, i certainly wouldn't wish to be governed by them. But i have a different idea than you on how Russia might come out of that situation.
- You said, just to give an example: "You seem to be oblivous of the gigantic difference in power between America and Russia, to say nothing of the NATO countries and Russia, a difference which mandates Russia to satisfy the West, not the other way around." So you think during WWII Poland was mandated to satisfy the nazis, because they were more powerful? Having military power gives you no right to impose your will on anyone. That statement was both anti-russian and pro-american, because you would only make it in regards to america
- You also attacked someone for comparing america to Russia, accusing him of being stridently anti-american when he was only criticizing its policies. Your politicized view of anything that happens in the world would probably mean you consider criticism of Israel anti-semitism? That's what i suspect, because you seem to confuse ethnic-cultural and political terms almost permanently. Going back to comparisons to America, when we speak of Russia, a former superpower, it is only natural to draw comparisons to America, especially when the loudest critics of Russia come from there. So it is only proper to point-out American double standards, and remember, it’s not about being anti-anything, it’s about always making sure the most powerful country is kept under scrutiny, precisely because countries get easily carried away by power, and you might claim some American exceptionalism but I think any country is vulnerable to that danger.
- In your profile you also claim the USSR national anthem is a most dreadful song, which i've actually heard even staunchly anti-soviet estonians admit is a beautiful hymn. If you knew anything about music you would realize that, i don't care who it was written for.
- You also say Russia is headed to the "dustbin of history" (very marxist, deterministic way of predicting history by the way. Not to mention your use of sentences such as “it will destroy Russia”, “dangerous to the nation’s survival” “failure of the society”… ). You also imply that the fact Russians approve of Putin makes them legitimate targets of your outrage. That could only be truth if you think Russia is a democracy, otherwise you should admit Russians are too ill-informed to make the proper judgement, and you should feel sympathy, not anger towards that 70%.
- You also speak wrongly of Moscow. It has of course an enormous poverty, but it is a place that provides many opportunities and attracts migrants even from Kiev. There are possibilities and they are likely to increase, if not people wouldn’t flock from other countries, including pro-western ones.
- Finally, you also are obsessed that people who defend Russia are Putin's puppets, an overly-paranoid interpretation if I may say so. You have a tendency to project whatever happens within the kremlin or a few business circles to the rest of Russia, hence your insistence on considering anyone who disagrees with you an ally of Putin. That’s, simply and purely, anti-russianism. You have not allowed anyone to say absolutely anything positive about Russia. How is that not anti-russianism if you treat the country as some sort of satan on earth?
- If you are still not convinced, look at your last sentence: “If you choose not to hate Russians because they are destroying their country, killing their children and destabilizing the world”. So you are saying I should hate (all?) Russians because they are destroying their country (if you hate all Russians, why do you mind then?) killing their children (all of them again? and is this like this story about communists having children for breakfast?)? Did you even re-read this sentence before you posted it?.
Again, and this is directed to you Edward Lucas, you should really reflect on the choice of words and temper of your articles against Russia, a good measure is the sort of ‘characters’ that feel legitimated by your views and what it leads them to think or say about Russians in general. I hope you are satisfied with the ‘mission’ you are carrying out for the world, and with the protestant-missionary spirit of the economist in general.
“Russophobe” You wrote many more things in other posts and i won't bother to look them up any longer, i know its true, you know it's true, anyone reading this blog knows its true: You are highly prejudiced. I just realized it in the 3 days i've been around here... and I don’t need to have a degree in psychology to notice you have developed a very emotional and personal problem towards Russia which is surely fulfilling some sort of void in your life.
Moreover, you have to be utterly-self centered to think that my latest posts were solely directed to you. Actually, one was even clearly aimed at Edward. It says “Dear Edward” in case you didn’t notice. But I won’t insult anyone’s reading abilities here, that would be “low”, because I know you might have just meant something else.
To conclude, I don't see why my words are facilitating anything. Again, i insist: don't feel anything you say or I say should carry some sort of political responsibility, as if the demise of Russia depends on us. Why should I offer solutions? I am not a politician, I am simply concerned about biased assessments. So that is my small contribution here if you’d like (since you insisted I contribute something), to make sure this discussion is freed of prejudices, and then bridges between Russia and the West will be more easily built, agreements and understandings more easily found, and Russia will be less proud when reacting to Western criticism, or even better, recommendations. And I only say this because you insisted I should be contributing something, though I’m not as naïve as you and I don’t think politicians will come to this blog, read what’s in it and change the world because Russophobe said Putin is evil.
And I said before my analyses on the region get published, so that’s were my more direct contributions go, and even if I didn’t, it wouldn’t make a difference, I would still have a right to write what I wrote. But I need to remain anonymous as you should understand, but that doesn’t mean I am not putting my name out there sharing my (much more distanced and moderate) views. You might have come across them but it doesn’t mean you are entitled to know if the person writing that corresponds to me. Satisfied?
ANONYMOUS:
If Poland ignored Germany's overwhelming power when it formulated policy towards Germany, that was stupid. If you think otherwise, I'd love to watch you box Mike Tyson.
If you think merely stating the fact of America's overwhelming power advantage compared to Russia is some form of "protection" or "nationalism" in favor of America, then I guess you think when biologist notices that an elephant is larger than a gnat he's an elephant jingoist.
And if you think that your gigantic post is some kind of proof of how insignificant I am, then you clearly don't think at all.
ANONYMOUS: Let me ask you a question. Are you suggesting that the demands placed upon Russia by America are analagous in their burden to the demands placed upon Poland by Nazi Germany?
"Anonymous" was still z, i don't know why it appeared anonymous.
Russophobe, it took you that long to answer and that's all you've got?
"And if you think that your gigantic post is some kind of proof of how insignificant I am, then you clearly don't think at all." hahaha. The post is long because the subject is complicated, though in your brain you've done an enormous amount of convenient simplifications. To give yourself some peace of mind and fit everything into your pre-determined value-set. And what kind of inferiority complex do you have? Why would the whole post prove your insignificance? You probably do that yourself, and stop thinking this comments are solely directed at you.
You didn't understand the point about Russia. You said american power means others are obliged to please them. That power difference can be found in different periods in history, and according to your logic, the powerful ones always had to be pleased. Check your own words, and if you meant something else, rephrase it, because i won't fall for your "are you saying this is analagous to that?". You are escaping all the arguments made before. I knew you wouldn't have the capacity to reply to anything i had said before, you just probably dismiss what you don't comprehend as "ridiculous" or "outrageous" without arguing. I wonder why (no, acutally i don't). As always, you don't have arguments so you start to attack with unfounded accusations. But i'm patient my naive friend.
Z:
Wow, what a crazed egomaniac you are. Do you really think have nothing better to do than answer your crazed comments on this blog? I have my own blog, you cretin. If you think your personal abuse is likely to engage me in discussion, you must be drunk.
I said it is rational for Russia to realize that it can't make demands on America and must deal with America as what it is, a vastly more powerful nation. If you think confrontation is wise, then do it. The USSR lost that battle, and Russia will not even survive it.
You haven't answered my question, so obviously my few words were too much for you. They're certainly far more than you deserve (what you call "arguments" I call incomprehensible gibberish). If you don't answer my question, I won't respond again.
Russophobe,
In fact me and many others in the internet think you don't have a life outside blogging so yes, i don't think you have anything else to do. But thank you, you've been quite an entertaining hobby for me, you represent an extreme version of something i've seen around, and i'm always amused at your desperate reactions. You are an ideal-type (if you know what that means...)
Don't tell me "i said this" because what you said is this: "You seem to be oblivous of the gigantic difference in power between America and Russia, to say nothing of the NATO countries and Russia, a difference which mandates Russia to satisfy the West, not the other way around." and that's what i commented on. Whatever you came up with later is very different from that...
And on top of that, you are upset i haven't answered your question, when you haven't been able to respond to any of the dozens of arguments i put forward, hahaha, hilarious! your sense of mathematical balance is even worse than your lack of balanced views.
but just to make you happy again, and to show how unlike you i reply to your comments, yes i agree any state should take into account another state's superior (or inferior, or equal) power. You don't even learn that in university, you learn it in high school. But if that's how far your political genious goes, congrats.
Which explains why, as i had predicted, you insist to call what i wrote "gibberish". Which denotes a) A very low IQ - or - b) dishonesty - or - c) both.
Just try to prove any of my main arguments is ridiculous. Arguing. Try.
Post a Comment