When Western journalists want to stress how poor Russians are they write about old people who have to survive on $200. Does it mean that if the Russian Central Bank decides to stop supporting the ruble and the dollar fall to its “natural” rate of about 16 rubles (from 28 rubles today), all poor Russians will become twice richer? This trick also solves the great Putin’s challenge to double GDP not in 10 years but in one day. The CIA Factbook uses its own methodology to calculate purchasing power parity. This way one gets a much better impression on how rich or poor different countries are. Here’s a list of GDP per capita purchasing power parity of the former Soviet republics. In brackets I put other countries to compare with.
Estonia $14,300 (Uruguay $14,500)
Lithuania $12,500 (Argentina $12,400)
Latvia $11,500
Russia $9,800 (Mexico $9,600)
Kazakhstan $7,800
Ukraine $6,300 (Colombia $6,600)
Armenia $4,600
Azerbaijan $3,800
Georgia $3,100 (India $3,100)
Moldova $1,900 (Sudan $1,900)
Uzbekistan $1,800
Kyrgyzstan $1,700
Tajikistan $1,100 (Afghanistan $800)
Also in the list:
Luxembourg $58,900
United States $40,100
Germany $28,700
United Kingdom $29,600
World $8,800
China $5,600
Saturday, May 14, 2005
Russian Allies
More and more often I hear, “Russia is loosing its allies among former Soviet now independent states”. Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova are gone. Only states with dictatorial regimes now stay with Russia but democratic countries want to be with America, EU and NATO. Really?
It was a surprise for Russians to discover that before multicolored revolutions in Georgia and Ukraine those countries were ‘pro-Russian’. Not even close to that. There is nothing new in Saakashvili’s rhetoric that wasn’t said by Shevarnadze before: Russian bases should be out quick, Russia should stop supporting Osetia and Abkhazia, Georgia wants to be in NATO and EU, American troops are welcomed. The main difference between him and Saakashvili is that Saakashvili is a hot head who loves to make pompous speeches before large crowds of people. Shavarnadze also tried a couple of times to take Osetia by military force but he didn’t make statements, “This is the war not with Osetia but with Russia” or “We will sink every ship with Russian tourists that will try to approach the coast of Abkhazia”. So the difference is simply in volume. Shavarnadze’s flattery towards the American president was also not so fulsome.
The same with Ukraine. If someone is interested in details of former Ukrainian president Kuchma “pro-Rusianness” should read his book “Ukraine Is Not Russia”. Yushchenko and Timoshenko seem to be more friendly towards Russia in comparison. Kuchma’s sudden and surprising “love” to Russia revealed itself only in 2004 when he realized that America and EU were playing against him.
The whole discussion on Russian allies sounds ludicrous. In its present poor state Russia simply cannot have allies in the geopolitical sense of this word. If one is given a choice between a Russian ruble and an American dollar one would choose rubles only when dollars are for some reasons unavailable. After the crush of the Soviet Union all it small former republics (with an exception of the Baltic republics, of course) plunged into such poverty that they instinctively clung to Russia. One today is worth two tomorrows. Fifteen years later most of them are doing much better. It’s quite natural for them today to think that two birds in the bush are better than one in the hand. Why is it so obligatory to be militant Russophobes in order to become allies to the US and NATO? That’s a different question.
It was a surprise for Russians to discover that before multicolored revolutions in Georgia and Ukraine those countries were ‘pro-Russian’. Not even close to that. There is nothing new in Saakashvili’s rhetoric that wasn’t said by Shevarnadze before: Russian bases should be out quick, Russia should stop supporting Osetia and Abkhazia, Georgia wants to be in NATO and EU, American troops are welcomed. The main difference between him and Saakashvili is that Saakashvili is a hot head who loves to make pompous speeches before large crowds of people. Shavarnadze also tried a couple of times to take Osetia by military force but he didn’t make statements, “This is the war not with Osetia but with Russia” or “We will sink every ship with Russian tourists that will try to approach the coast of Abkhazia”. So the difference is simply in volume. Shavarnadze’s flattery towards the American president was also not so fulsome.
The same with Ukraine. If someone is interested in details of former Ukrainian president Kuchma “pro-Rusianness” should read his book “Ukraine Is Not Russia”. Yushchenko and Timoshenko seem to be more friendly towards Russia in comparison. Kuchma’s sudden and surprising “love” to Russia revealed itself only in 2004 when he realized that America and EU were playing against him.
The whole discussion on Russian allies sounds ludicrous. In its present poor state Russia simply cannot have allies in the geopolitical sense of this word. If one is given a choice between a Russian ruble and an American dollar one would choose rubles only when dollars are for some reasons unavailable. After the crush of the Soviet Union all it small former republics (with an exception of the Baltic republics, of course) plunged into such poverty that they instinctively clung to Russia. One today is worth two tomorrows. Fifteen years later most of them are doing much better. It’s quite natural for them today to think that two birds in the bush are better than one in the hand. Why is it so obligatory to be militant Russophobes in order to become allies to the US and NATO? That’s a different question.
Thursday, May 12, 2005
Say you're sorry for the occupation
At a press conference devoted to the V-Day celebrations in Moscow a young Estionian journalist asked Putin, “Why is it so hard for you to say ‘Excuse us for the occupation of the Baltic republics’? Just a few words and after that relations between our countries will become friendly and warm.” Really, why not? Putin refused to do it. He has some sound reasons for that.
Accepting that the Baltic republics were occupied equals the recognition that Russian and Ukrainian speaking residents of these countries – ‘resident aliens’ to be exact – are colonists brought by the occupant. Thus according to the Geneva Convention they become something like illegal emigrants or like Jewish settlers at the West Bank meant to be deported back home – back to the USSR.
It also means that Russia is de facto a sole assignee of the Soviet Union. Thus it should solely be responsible for all sins of the Evil Empire. According to the Constitution of the USSR the country was a union of equal republics and the status of the Russian Federation within the Soviet Union was nothing different from Ukraine, Georgia or Latvia. Of course, it was unofficially accepted that Russia is special – the first among equals. The opening line of the Soviet anthem goes, “The unbreakable union of free republics was brought together by the great Russia”, but national anthem is not a legal document in international relations. All former Soviet republics (minus three Baltic republics, of course) should be held responsible for the occupation. The Soviet Army included soldiers and officers from Ukraine, Belarus, Georgia, Armenia, etc. Argument like, “Russia is responsible for the Baltic occupation because it represented the biggest chunk of the Soviet Union” is ludicrous. Russia started the Civil War in 1918 and forced all other republics into the Soviet Union? But then Siberia, the Urals, Krasnodar, Stavropol, the Russian Far East are also territories “occupied” by the Red Army. Thus, St. Petersburg – the cradle of the communist revolt – is responsible for all Soviet atrocities. Is it ok if the mayor of St. Petersburg apologizes for the occupation?
It's also worth mentioning that only in the 40s Stalin decided that there are such people as Russians or Georgians in the USSR. Before there was only one people – the Soviet people - and dividing it in ethnic group was a very dangerous thing to do. The words like, “I’m a Ukrainian” said in public were worth 10 years in Gulag.
But what if there will be no grave legal consequences for Russia after apologizing for the Soviet occupation? What if people in the Baltic republics need just moral satisfaction and nothing more? This way the act of apologizing becomes an act of good will. Good will assumes good relations but what we see and hear today from Latvian or Estonian politicians? Verbal abuses, threats, refusals to sign important agreements, pressure on the EU and American politicians to force Russia in apologizing. It looks like a schoolyard brawl to me – “Ok, I’m sorry. Just put your fingers off my throat” – “Now say – I’m a dirty russische Schwein”. – “Ok, ok. I’m a Schwein.” – “Good. Now get up from the ground and let’s be friends.” Is this the kind of moral satisfaction the Baltic republics need?
Accepting that the Baltic republics were occupied equals the recognition that Russian and Ukrainian speaking residents of these countries – ‘resident aliens’ to be exact – are colonists brought by the occupant. Thus according to the Geneva Convention they become something like illegal emigrants or like Jewish settlers at the West Bank meant to be deported back home – back to the USSR.
It also means that Russia is de facto a sole assignee of the Soviet Union. Thus it should solely be responsible for all sins of the Evil Empire. According to the Constitution of the USSR the country was a union of equal republics and the status of the Russian Federation within the Soviet Union was nothing different from Ukraine, Georgia or Latvia. Of course, it was unofficially accepted that Russia is special – the first among equals. The opening line of the Soviet anthem goes, “The unbreakable union of free republics was brought together by the great Russia”, but national anthem is not a legal document in international relations. All former Soviet republics (minus three Baltic republics, of course) should be held responsible for the occupation. The Soviet Army included soldiers and officers from Ukraine, Belarus, Georgia, Armenia, etc. Argument like, “Russia is responsible for the Baltic occupation because it represented the biggest chunk of the Soviet Union” is ludicrous. Russia started the Civil War in 1918 and forced all other republics into the Soviet Union? But then Siberia, the Urals, Krasnodar, Stavropol, the Russian Far East are also territories “occupied” by the Red Army. Thus, St. Petersburg – the cradle of the communist revolt – is responsible for all Soviet atrocities. Is it ok if the mayor of St. Petersburg apologizes for the occupation?
It's also worth mentioning that only in the 40s Stalin decided that there are such people as Russians or Georgians in the USSR. Before there was only one people – the Soviet people - and dividing it in ethnic group was a very dangerous thing to do. The words like, “I’m a Ukrainian” said in public were worth 10 years in Gulag.
But what if there will be no grave legal consequences for Russia after apologizing for the Soviet occupation? What if people in the Baltic republics need just moral satisfaction and nothing more? This way the act of apologizing becomes an act of good will. Good will assumes good relations but what we see and hear today from Latvian or Estonian politicians? Verbal abuses, threats, refusals to sign important agreements, pressure on the EU and American politicians to force Russia in apologizing. It looks like a schoolyard brawl to me – “Ok, I’m sorry. Just put your fingers off my throat” – “Now say – I’m a dirty russische Schwein”. – “Ok, ok. I’m a Schwein.” – “Good. Now get up from the ground and let’s be friends.” Is this the kind of moral satisfaction the Baltic republics need?
Wednesday, April 13, 2005
"It's too easy to write off Putin as a despot" by Erofeyev
Here's an interesting opinion published in the IHT Online.
Monday, April 04, 2005
What Lenin and Joseph Smith have in common
Randomly selected students were paid money to participate in a psychological experiment. They had to stay at a campus square for one hour with posters saying something like, “Save Parazonian red spider!” The students were given no explanations about the insect and no information about the on-going environmental campaign. Actually there was no campaign: the red Parazonian spider was a made-up creature and there is no such place on Earth as Parazonia. When some of the students asked questions they were told: “Just hold the poster for an hour and take your 10 bucks.” It comes as no surprise that after the “protest” students just took money and forgot about the whole affair. Next time another group of students was selected to participate in the same protest action. Only this time another group of students while passing by sneered at them, ridiculed their slogans and made them look stupid. After that “protest” most of students not just walked away with money but started researching, showed real interest in environmental problems of Parazonia and were sincerely indignant with people who didn’t take seriously problems of the red spider. They were ready to participate in future protests for free. Some of them even decided to start a “Parazonian Red Spider Rescue Group”.
Such “field experiments” were very popular in early 70s at West Coast universities in the US. Many of them didn’t meet rigorous academic standards but the results are quite believable and commonsensical. I know several people who soon after getting a job at a tobacco company started believing sincerely that smoking is not that harmful and in some cases is even good for you.
Since I met Mormons for the first time in a god-forgotten Northern Russian town of Arkhangelsk in 1991 I was fascinated by their Church. How can a sane person ever believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet? If he lived a thousand years ago one can argue that he was foully slandered by foes but he lived in the age of printing press in a free and open country. There are thousands and thousands pieces of evidence that he was an imposter, fraud, faker and trickster. His “prophesies” are so evidently self-serving. “The Book of Mormon” is a ridiculous collection of rambling fairy tales. We have on one side genuine Egyptian papyri with quotes from the “Book of the Dead” and on the other side Smith’s “translation” of them – “Book of Abraham”. What other evidence is needed? However ‘brothers’ and ‘sisters’ I met didn’t come across as mad zombies. They take their mission in spreading the teaching of Joseph Smith very seriously, they are never confused and no one can lead them astray. Moreover, this is the fastest growing church in the world.
The early history of Mormonism is one long violent struggle of “we” against “them”. That feeling – the whole world is against us – was overwhelming. Early Mormons were not innocent victims – their fate was really violent and at one time J. Smith had a private militia force that was bigger then the US Army. We are talking not about theological disputes but about violence, murders, bloody wars, driving out citizens of whole towns and even counties by force, exile, long journey west to nowhere. At the end the tormented community settled at the Salt Lake – a community of brothers and sisters surrounded by the hostile and blood-thirsty world. In this small world calling in question the honesty and truth of Joseph Smith’s teachings was tantamount to questioning the survival of the whole community. Uncompromising division – we against the whole world – sealed with blood, death, torment and starvation is probably the best way to make people believe in almost anything.
How comes that a small group of radical nihilists led by Lenin took the power in Russia in 1917? The Communist revolution by itself was nothing special. In 1917 in St. Petersburg it was possible to overthrow the government on weekly basis. One only needed a crowd of several thousand militant scums. Remember the Kyrgyzstan Revolution? Lenin’s “secret” is unimaginable cruelty and limitless violence – kill everyone who doesn’t agree with us on the spot, take hostages and murder them without remorse if the enemy doesn’t unconditionally surrenders, rob the robbers, terrorize, burn and forget about morality. Blind violence feeds counter-violence. The fly-wheel of rage turns faster and faster. The Civil War starts when atrocities committed by the Red Army are quite comparable to the atrocities of the White Guards. Violence makes a small group of “romantics” a strong force united by blood. The whole world is against us but we will not surrender – we will violently destroy the world of violence. This way it’s easy to compare Vladimir Lenin to Joseph Smith. Several years later the Civil War was over but the feeling of “we against them” was still there. One needed a new leader who would bring law and order without destroying that basis of the Communist regime. This way Joseph Stalin can be compared to Brigham Young. Only Utah is much smaller in comparison with the USSR.
Now what this post is about? I was asked – why there are so many monuments to Lenin in Russia? Why don’t you just torn them down and become a democratic country? Consider this post also as an answer why Russian WWII veterans still adore Stalin. Or why liberal democrats who ridicule Russian “slave” mentality have so little success. Or why Georgian revolutionary fight against “Russian imperialism” makes Saakashvili politically stronger in Georgia but at the same time this fight rears nationalism among ordinary Russians.
By the way, is there any way to make Mormons see that Joseph Smith was a fraud?
Such “field experiments” were very popular in early 70s at West Coast universities in the US. Many of them didn’t meet rigorous academic standards but the results are quite believable and commonsensical. I know several people who soon after getting a job at a tobacco company started believing sincerely that smoking is not that harmful and in some cases is even good for you.
Since I met Mormons for the first time in a god-forgotten Northern Russian town of Arkhangelsk in 1991 I was fascinated by their Church. How can a sane person ever believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet? If he lived a thousand years ago one can argue that he was foully slandered by foes but he lived in the age of printing press in a free and open country. There are thousands and thousands pieces of evidence that he was an imposter, fraud, faker and trickster. His “prophesies” are so evidently self-serving. “The Book of Mormon” is a ridiculous collection of rambling fairy tales. We have on one side genuine Egyptian papyri with quotes from the “Book of the Dead” and on the other side Smith’s “translation” of them – “Book of Abraham”. What other evidence is needed? However ‘brothers’ and ‘sisters’ I met didn’t come across as mad zombies. They take their mission in spreading the teaching of Joseph Smith very seriously, they are never confused and no one can lead them astray. Moreover, this is the fastest growing church in the world.
The early history of Mormonism is one long violent struggle of “we” against “them”. That feeling – the whole world is against us – was overwhelming. Early Mormons were not innocent victims – their fate was really violent and at one time J. Smith had a private militia force that was bigger then the US Army. We are talking not about theological disputes but about violence, murders, bloody wars, driving out citizens of whole towns and even counties by force, exile, long journey west to nowhere. At the end the tormented community settled at the Salt Lake – a community of brothers and sisters surrounded by the hostile and blood-thirsty world. In this small world calling in question the honesty and truth of Joseph Smith’s teachings was tantamount to questioning the survival of the whole community. Uncompromising division – we against the whole world – sealed with blood, death, torment and starvation is probably the best way to make people believe in almost anything.
How comes that a small group of radical nihilists led by Lenin took the power in Russia in 1917? The Communist revolution by itself was nothing special. In 1917 in St. Petersburg it was possible to overthrow the government on weekly basis. One only needed a crowd of several thousand militant scums. Remember the Kyrgyzstan Revolution? Lenin’s “secret” is unimaginable cruelty and limitless violence – kill everyone who doesn’t agree with us on the spot, take hostages and murder them without remorse if the enemy doesn’t unconditionally surrenders, rob the robbers, terrorize, burn and forget about morality. Blind violence feeds counter-violence. The fly-wheel of rage turns faster and faster. The Civil War starts when atrocities committed by the Red Army are quite comparable to the atrocities of the White Guards. Violence makes a small group of “romantics” a strong force united by blood. The whole world is against us but we will not surrender – we will violently destroy the world of violence. This way it’s easy to compare Vladimir Lenin to Joseph Smith. Several years later the Civil War was over but the feeling of “we against them” was still there. One needed a new leader who would bring law and order without destroying that basis of the Communist regime. This way Joseph Stalin can be compared to Brigham Young. Only Utah is much smaller in comparison with the USSR.
Now what this post is about? I was asked – why there are so many monuments to Lenin in Russia? Why don’t you just torn them down and become a democratic country? Consider this post also as an answer why Russian WWII veterans still adore Stalin. Or why liberal democrats who ridicule Russian “slave” mentality have so little success. Or why Georgian revolutionary fight against “Russian imperialism” makes Saakashvili politically stronger in Georgia but at the same time this fight rears nationalism among ordinary Russians.
By the way, is there any way to make Mormons see that Joseph Smith was a fraud?
Monday, March 28, 2005
New Articles
Kirill Pankratov's new article "Perestroika-20: The Great De-Build-ing" -
The idea that Gorby's Politburo was thinking, "Oh, no, they are going to put lasers into space and shoot down all our missiles! We better give up and declare the end of Communism" is beyond preposterous. This could only occur to somebody completely ignorant of how the Soviet system worked. Since the Washington plutocracy was never short on ignorance, this is not particularly surprising.
Also, Gary Brecher (aka "War Nerd") knows how to use Okkam's Razor when dealing with Lebanon problems - "Lebanon II: Hezbollah Boom!"
It took the Israelis a while to realize what a disaster the invasion really was. Like us in Iraq, the first stage was such an easy victory that they thought they could do anything. Turned out that by booting the PLO out of Lebanon, they'd tilted the gang-bang balance in favor of the Shia, the newest, most ready-to-die gangbangers on the block. And the Shia didn't stop hitting the IDF until it abandoned its last "buffer zone" in South Lebanon in 2000.
The idea that Gorby's Politburo was thinking, "Oh, no, they are going to put lasers into space and shoot down all our missiles! We better give up and declare the end of Communism" is beyond preposterous. This could only occur to somebody completely ignorant of how the Soviet system worked. Since the Washington plutocracy was never short on ignorance, this is not particularly surprising.
Also, Gary Brecher (aka "War Nerd") knows how to use Okkam's Razor when dealing with Lebanon problems - "Lebanon II: Hezbollah Boom!"
It took the Israelis a while to realize what a disaster the invasion really was. Like us in Iraq, the first stage was such an easy victory that they thought they could do anything. Turned out that by booting the PLO out of Lebanon, they'd tilted the gang-bang balance in favor of the Shia, the newest, most ready-to-die gangbangers on the block. And the Shia didn't stop hitting the IDF until it abandoned its last "buffer zone" in South Lebanon in 2000.
Revolutionary Flora
"Rose Revolution" - Georgia
"Orange Revolution" - Ukraine
"Tulip Revolution" - Kyrgyzstan
Comming soon:
Uzbekistan - "Hemp Revolution"
Afganistan - "Poppy Revolution"
"Orange Revolution" - Ukraine
"Tulip Revolution" - Kyrgyzstan
Comming soon:
Uzbekistan - "Hemp Revolution"
Afganistan - "Poppy Revolution"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
