I thought Washington Post and NYT are outlandish when it comes to Russian politics. Well, in comparison with second pier American newspapers they should be called beacons of objectivity. Here's an editorial from Miami Herald (aka Sochinskaya Zvezda) called "Russia under Putin reverts to old habitsOUR OPINION: BLAME FOR ICY RELATIONS RESTS WITH RUSSIAN LEADER".
It has seemed like old times lately, what with the United States and Russia taking potshots at each other like the Cold War adversaries they once were. No one welcomes a return to that era, but let's put the blame squarely where it belongs -- on the shoulders of Russian President Vladimir Putin.
In his state of the union speech this week, Mr. Putin lashed out at the United States for criticism over his human-rights record. Instead of denying it, he adopted the ''so's your old man'' defense by claiming the United States is in no position to criticize anyone on this topic.
Delirium! Putin didn’t even mention the US in his speech. Calling his sarcastic remark about ‘comrade wolf’ who knows whom to it “lashing out” is not just over-reaction. It’s clinical paranoia.
Tuesday, May 16, 2006
Friday, May 12, 2006
NY Secrets of Birth Rate Boost
New York Times (aka NY Komsomolets) published today an incredibly insightful editorial “Mr. Putin's State of the Union”. Here’s the most interesting part of it:
After the Soviet Union collapsed, some hoped that freedom would encourage Russians to multiply, but the dislocation and insecurity of the era have had the opposite effect. So the Russian population continues to dwindle, at the rate of 700,000 a year.
Mr. Putin proposes to address the problem with a wide range of subsidies and financial incentives, along with improved health care, a crackdown on illicit alcohol, improved road safety and the like. These are all useful goals, but they've been tried before, to no avail.
Perhaps another approach would be to see whether the population could be increased through improved democratic institutions. If corruption and greed among the elite were curbed somewhat, and if Mr. Putin started worrying less about throwing Russia's weight around and more about allowing a greater part of the population to share in the country's governance, riches, debates and dreams, maybe the drinking and poverty would give way to larger families. There's no guarantee, of course, but unlike the measures Mr. Putin outlined, this approach has never been fully explored.
Right! Nothing encourages unprotected sex and sobriety more than participating in elections or taking part in a democratic rally. Especially when it is hosted by Ms. Novodvorskaya. Did Mr. Editor offered this piece of advice to European nations? Seems like Albania was the only country that listened to him.
After the Soviet Union collapsed, some hoped that freedom would encourage Russians to multiply, but the dislocation and insecurity of the era have had the opposite effect. So the Russian population continues to dwindle, at the rate of 700,000 a year.
Mr. Putin proposes to address the problem with a wide range of subsidies and financial incentives, along with improved health care, a crackdown on illicit alcohol, improved road safety and the like. These are all useful goals, but they've been tried before, to no avail.
Perhaps another approach would be to see whether the population could be increased through improved democratic institutions. If corruption and greed among the elite were curbed somewhat, and if Mr. Putin started worrying less about throwing Russia's weight around and more about allowing a greater part of the population to share in the country's governance, riches, debates and dreams, maybe the drinking and poverty would give way to larger families. There's no guarantee, of course, but unlike the measures Mr. Putin outlined, this approach has never been fully explored.
Right! Nothing encourages unprotected sex and sobriety more than participating in elections or taking part in a democratic rally. Especially when it is hosted by Ms. Novodvorskaya. Did Mr. Editor offered this piece of advice to European nations? Seems like Albania was the only country that listened to him.
Thursday, May 11, 2006
Comrade Wolf
Some information for those who are mystified by Putin’s “Comrade Wolf” metaphor. Comrade Wolf comes from an old Soviet joke.
Rabinovich and his pet sheep are walking in the woods. Suddenly they fall into a deep pit. A minute later a wolf also falls into the same pit. The scared sheep starts bleating. “What do you mean – baa, baa, baa?” – says Rabinovich, “Comrade Wolf knows whom to eat”.
Rabinovich and his pet sheep are walking in the woods. Suddenly they fall into a deep pit. A minute later a wolf also falls into the same pit. The scared sheep starts bleating. “What do you mean – baa, baa, baa?” – says Rabinovich, “Comrade Wolf knows whom to eat”.
Tuesday, May 09, 2006
Dick Shot Kremlin
Dick Chaney came to
What do we learn from such verbal maneuvers? First, that
Second, we learn that
Third, we learn that
American political system was based on the ideas of the Age of Enlightenment. Two hundred years ago educated public sincerely believed that power corrupts but absolute power corrupts absolutely. So the system of check and balances was introduced. Nowadays
Thursday, May 04, 2006
Demonizing Russia
I couldn't help but post this comment made by Patrick Armstrong, analyst for the Canadian government, from Untimely Thoughts (Peter Lavelle's project).
There's always a standing bill of indictment against Russia, although the details continually change. In 2001 the Washington Post warned that Russia would default on debt repayments; the Kursk sinking prompted reflections on the "callous disregard for human life" of Russia's leadership (Knight 2000); in 1997 Kissinger was complaining about Russia's "refusal" to demarcate its borders; no Russian leader had ever left power voluntarily and neither would Yeltsin, warned Stephen Cohen in 1994. Most charges prove ephemeral or false - nuclear tests in Nova Zemlya, the Security Council as the "new Politburo", war over the Black Sea Fleet - but others come up again and again. Some charges have validity. The war in Chechnya was certainly very brutal. Putin has centralized power and tightened control over the media. But, when these charges appear on the bill of indictment, they appear without context. The Russian army is brutal in Chechnya not necessarily because it wants to be, but because bad armies are brutal. And, despite "fabricated rumors of a Chechen-al Qaeda nexus" (Washington Times, 2002), we know better. Nor do we hear as much about "unresolved" (Guardian, 2000) apartment bombings when there have been so many jihadist bombings of nightclubs, railway stations, tourist resorts and mosques. Putin is centralising because he (and, be it clear, most Russians) agree that the 1990s were frighteningly chaotic. A centralised media is not desirable but neither was the media of the oligarch wars. Too many governors were the pawns of local hoods. Putin does have reasons, good or bad, for what he does: saying "tight-lipped 47-year-old KGB staffer" (Guardian, 2000) or "Andropov redux" (Gaffney, 2000) is not an explanation. When Brzezinski last year stormed that Moscow refused to repudiate the Hitler-Stalin pact, it wasn't just "nostalgic efforts by Vladimir Putin to restore Moscow's control": no country will assume responsibility for historical malfeasance when it knows the next step will be reparations claims.
While charging Putin with bringing back the "Soviet anthem" (Wall Street Journal, 2000), the fact that all the other state symbols were lifted straight from the Tsars was not mentioned. This is not argument, it is advocacy. The essence of the charge sheet style is that the conclusion determines the evidence. Take the everlasting assertion that Russia is naturally imperialist: this is the oldest of the charges - experts "knew" that Gorbachev would never leave Germany - and as time moves on, the accusation remains. The format is the same: Russia's so-called nostalgia for empire is asserted (Jonathon Eyal in 1993, Pipes in 1994 and 1998, George Tenet in 1997, Paul Goble 2000) and examples are filled in as needed: "democratic Georgia" today, the Baltics yesterday, Germany the day before. As the troops leave one country, another place is found to prove the point. The "energy weapon" is deployed against contumacious neighbors like Ukraine (but be careful not to mention that Gazprom is raising the price for "friends" like Armenia and Belarus, too). The charge predates Putin ЁC in 1993 The Economist decided that Georgia's independence had been already snuffed out and the energy wars have been going on since 1991.
Rarely, however, is it pointed out that Russia's neighbors are more independent each year and that Russian troops are leaving them too. Or that while Ukraine needs Russian energy, Russia needs Ukrainian pipelines to move its gas to those who actually pay for it. The boot here is actually on both feet. "Imperialist Russia", it is clear, is a premise, not a conclusion. The repetitive bills of indictment have a cumulative effect - people forget the alarums that never came to pass but remember the underlying message that Russia is a menace. Why try to take an objective look at the whole of Russian reality when "traditional Russian imperialism" (Kissinger, 1997) is all you need to know? A great deal of opinion in the USA and the West has been shaped by the continual drum roll of warnings, accusations and indictments. Eventually the message gets stuck in: Russia is an enemy.
Putin hires a Western PR company to help improving Russia's image in the world. Absolutely hopeless. I think it's better to forget about "image problems" and go our own way. Собака лает - караван идет.
There's always a standing bill of indictment against Russia, although the details continually change. In 2001 the Washington Post warned that Russia would default on debt repayments; the Kursk sinking prompted reflections on the "callous disregard for human life" of Russia's leadership (Knight 2000); in 1997 Kissinger was complaining about Russia's "refusal" to demarcate its borders; no Russian leader had ever left power voluntarily and neither would Yeltsin, warned Stephen Cohen in 1994. Most charges prove ephemeral or false - nuclear tests in Nova Zemlya, the Security Council as the "new Politburo", war over the Black Sea Fleet - but others come up again and again. Some charges have validity. The war in Chechnya was certainly very brutal. Putin has centralized power and tightened control over the media. But, when these charges appear on the bill of indictment, they appear without context. The Russian army is brutal in Chechnya not necessarily because it wants to be, but because bad armies are brutal. And, despite "fabricated rumors of a Chechen-al Qaeda nexus" (Washington Times, 2002), we know better. Nor do we hear as much about "unresolved" (Guardian, 2000) apartment bombings when there have been so many jihadist bombings of nightclubs, railway stations, tourist resorts and mosques. Putin is centralising because he (and, be it clear, most Russians) agree that the 1990s were frighteningly chaotic. A centralised media is not desirable but neither was the media of the oligarch wars. Too many governors were the pawns of local hoods. Putin does have reasons, good or bad, for what he does: saying "tight-lipped 47-year-old KGB staffer" (Guardian, 2000) or "Andropov redux" (Gaffney, 2000) is not an explanation. When Brzezinski last year stormed that Moscow refused to repudiate the Hitler-Stalin pact, it wasn't just "nostalgic efforts by Vladimir Putin to restore Moscow's control": no country will assume responsibility for historical malfeasance when it knows the next step will be reparations claims.
While charging Putin with bringing back the "Soviet anthem" (Wall Street Journal, 2000), the fact that all the other state symbols were lifted straight from the Tsars was not mentioned. This is not argument, it is advocacy. The essence of the charge sheet style is that the conclusion determines the evidence. Take the everlasting assertion that Russia is naturally imperialist: this is the oldest of the charges - experts "knew" that Gorbachev would never leave Germany - and as time moves on, the accusation remains. The format is the same: Russia's so-called nostalgia for empire is asserted (Jonathon Eyal in 1993, Pipes in 1994 and 1998, George Tenet in 1997, Paul Goble 2000) and examples are filled in as needed: "democratic Georgia" today, the Baltics yesterday, Germany the day before. As the troops leave one country, another place is found to prove the point. The "energy weapon" is deployed against contumacious neighbors like Ukraine (but be careful not to mention that Gazprom is raising the price for "friends" like Armenia and Belarus, too). The charge predates Putin ЁC in 1993 The Economist decided that Georgia's independence had been already snuffed out and the energy wars have been going on since 1991.
Rarely, however, is it pointed out that Russia's neighbors are more independent each year and that Russian troops are leaving them too. Or that while Ukraine needs Russian energy, Russia needs Ukrainian pipelines to move its gas to those who actually pay for it. The boot here is actually on both feet. "Imperialist Russia", it is clear, is a premise, not a conclusion. The repetitive bills of indictment have a cumulative effect - people forget the alarums that never came to pass but remember the underlying message that Russia is a menace. Why try to take an objective look at the whole of Russian reality when "traditional Russian imperialism" (Kissinger, 1997) is all you need to know? A great deal of opinion in the USA and the West has been shaped by the continual drum roll of warnings, accusations and indictments. Eventually the message gets stuck in: Russia is an enemy.
Putin hires a Western PR company to help improving Russia's image in the world. Absolutely hopeless. I think it's better to forget about "image problems" and go our own way. Собака лает - караван идет.
Giggling at V-Day
Josefina Lundblad, a poet and writer from Gothenburg, Sweden, and a student at the Omsk State Pedagogical University, wrote an op-ed in the Moscow Times today:
It's easy to laugh at Russia and the Russians when it comes to history. What other than a giggle can a country expect when it acknowledges only the sweeter bits from the cupboard of the past? How is an educated foreigner expected to swallow amusement when a state prefers legend to fact?
I have chuckled at everything from Poltava to perestroika in my Russian life, and I shamelessly laughed out loud at their Victory Day for more than a year. On May 9, Russia celebrates a Communist victory over fascism and the end of the Great Patriotic War, what those further west call World War II and consider to have ended on May 8, 1945.
Giggling about how stupid Russians celebrate their Victory Day is a personal problem of Josefina. She might probably laughs like mad looking at Jews commemorating Holocaust but why was it necessary to share the fun with thousands of MT readers, more than half of them Russians? Josefina at least could check some facts before writing. Great Patriotic War is a part of World War II and we mean by the name only the war between Germany and the USSR. Germany signed the Instrument of Surrender at midnight May, 8, 1945 when it was already May, 9 in Moscow. World War II ended September, 2, 1945 with the surrender of Japan. May, 9 is not a “Communist victory” over fascism. It is a victory of the USSR over Nazi Germany.
But Victory Day is not simply a day. Victory Day is a concept, an occasion that seems more like a national or maybe state brand. Its influence and force in everyday reality can easily be measured by taking a walk through any average-size Russian town, where the image of Victory Day meets you everywhere. Here in Omsk, the new Metro Bridge was renamed the "60 Years of Victory Bridge" when it opened last fall, partly because there is as of yet no existing metro. The biggest park is called Victory Park, and there are Victory Streets and countless Victory memorials that all in one way or another honor the triumph in the war.
It was at this hysteria that I giggled heartlessly for almost an entire year, until I realized why this day has the overly tense feel that it has. The Soviet Union left very little behind that inspires joy, pride and patriotism, and maybe, maybe out of 70 years, all that remains is one good day.
Needless to say – for every Russian Josefina’s words are blasphemous. I’m not going to start rants about 20 millions people who died fighting German Nazism. I can only add that the fact that these words are written by a Swede make then even more blasphemous.
Swedish schoolchildren today are taught that Swedish criminal “neutrality” during the WWII was not a shame but a good thing that helped so many Swedes not to be killed or wounded. Swedes valued their precious lives so much that they behaved as cowardly whores: letting German troops through their territory, selling them iron, signing anti-Jewish laws. Swedish government even censored press – all anti-German remarks were banned. They could anger Hitler. But the moment Sweden realized that Germany is loosing the war it started wagging its tail, licking hands of the Allies and barking at Germans. I imagine Josefina’s grandparents giggling and laughing in 1945. “We are so smart! Those silly Americans, Brits and Soviets lost so many people but we survived and even made a lot of money. He-he-he.” Ласковый теленок двух маток сосет.
It's easy to laugh at Russia and the Russians when it comes to history. What other than a giggle can a country expect when it acknowledges only the sweeter bits from the cupboard of the past? How is an educated foreigner expected to swallow amusement when a state prefers legend to fact?
I have chuckled at everything from Poltava to perestroika in my Russian life, and I shamelessly laughed out loud at their Victory Day for more than a year. On May 9, Russia celebrates a Communist victory over fascism and the end of the Great Patriotic War, what those further west call World War II and consider to have ended on May 8, 1945.
Giggling about how stupid Russians celebrate their Victory Day is a personal problem of Josefina. She might probably laughs like mad looking at Jews commemorating Holocaust but why was it necessary to share the fun with thousands of MT readers, more than half of them Russians? Josefina at least could check some facts before writing. Great Patriotic War is a part of World War II and we mean by the name only the war between Germany and the USSR. Germany signed the Instrument of Surrender at midnight May, 8, 1945 when it was already May, 9 in Moscow. World War II ended September, 2, 1945 with the surrender of Japan. May, 9 is not a “Communist victory” over fascism. It is a victory of the USSR over Nazi Germany.
But Victory Day is not simply a day. Victory Day is a concept, an occasion that seems more like a national or maybe state brand. Its influence and force in everyday reality can easily be measured by taking a walk through any average-size Russian town, where the image of Victory Day meets you everywhere. Here in Omsk, the new Metro Bridge was renamed the "60 Years of Victory Bridge" when it opened last fall, partly because there is as of yet no existing metro. The biggest park is called Victory Park, and there are Victory Streets and countless Victory memorials that all in one way or another honor the triumph in the war.
It was at this hysteria that I giggled heartlessly for almost an entire year, until I realized why this day has the overly tense feel that it has. The Soviet Union left very little behind that inspires joy, pride and patriotism, and maybe, maybe out of 70 years, all that remains is one good day.
Needless to say – for every Russian Josefina’s words are blasphemous. I’m not going to start rants about 20 millions people who died fighting German Nazism. I can only add that the fact that these words are written by a Swede make then even more blasphemous.
Swedish schoolchildren today are taught that Swedish criminal “neutrality” during the WWII was not a shame but a good thing that helped so many Swedes not to be killed or wounded. Swedes valued their precious lives so much that they behaved as cowardly whores: letting German troops through their territory, selling them iron, signing anti-Jewish laws. Swedish government even censored press – all anti-German remarks were banned. They could anger Hitler. But the moment Sweden realized that Germany is loosing the war it started wagging its tail, licking hands of the Allies and barking at Germans. I imagine Josefina’s grandparents giggling and laughing in 1945. “We are so smart! Those silly Americans, Brits and Soviets lost so many people but we survived and even made a lot of money. He-he-he.” Ласковый теленок двух маток сосет.
Wednesday, May 03, 2006
Case of Kim F.
The case of Kim F. (also known as La Russophobe) is an interesting and edifying example of neurotic escapism when a person develops a special mechanism of escaping freedom by negating the personal independence and merging her Ego with something or someone superior, thus gaining powers that the individual personally lacks.
The source of Kim F’s psychological problems certainly lies in her childhood. She was bred up by a very authoritarian, rigorous and stern Parent. In her childhood there was no place for love, for self-reliance or for feeling of confidence. Kim’s attitude towards power, as symbolized by her Parent’s figure, is ambivalent. On one hand there is always one power she hates and another power she worships. She is filled with severe loneliness, feebleness, spite but at the same her craving to rule over minds of other people is limitless. This irrational thirst for power and desire to be loved is what makes an authoritarian personality. It is not yet clear what exact roles Kim’s parents played in forming her personality but the fact that the object of her irrational hate is hard power autocratic Mother Russia and the object of her love is soft power theocratic Father America gives us some better understanding on the subject of role structure of Kim’s family.
Distinct forms of this mechanism could be found in the striving for domination and for submission. In everyday life this mechanism manifests itself in masochism and sadism. Let us start with the analysis of Kim F’s masochistic tendencies. At the core of masochism lies the feeling of inferiority, feebleness and insignificance. Kim F. always provokes other people to insult her and then finds immense pleasure in desperately fighting back provoking yet more abuse and humiliations. It comes as no surprise that Kim’s favorite poet is Mikhail Lermontov – a romantic Russian poet whose masochistic behavior was the major cause of his tragic death at the age of 27. Kim F. is fascinated with Lermontov’s poem “Mtsyri” that tells the story of a youth who run away from monastery, spent several days fighting for his life in the wilderness, started a hopeless fight with a mountain ounce and was mortally wounded by it. Kim F. associates herself with Mtsyri when she goes on with her personal crusade against Mother Russia.
It is evident that Kim F. is neurotic. In her fight with the Evil Empire her rhetorical instrument of choice is reductionism. She singles out some fact about life in contemporary Russia and makes broad generalizations on the “evilness” of Russia in general. This is not surprising as she approaches her own health in exactly the same way. Kim F. believes that she is a very sick person. She views one cough as a sign of TB, stomach pains as a sign of ulcer and headache as a sign of meningitis. Such neurotic phobias also manifest themselves in Kim’s hate of her body or of any human body in general. She is horrified at Myskina photographs in GQ that she calls soft porn and the idea of Russian banya disgusts her immensely. Most probably Kim F. is obese or unhealthy anorexic. It is also possible that the fear of human body is a result of strict religious education in the childhood.
Masochism in Kim’s personality comes together with sadism that is not at all surprising. Sadism is just another side of inferiority complex and utter loneliness. Kim F. enjoys abusing and humiliating people as it makes her feels stronger, smarter and more significant as she actually is. The rationalization of her sadistic behavior is simple, “Every means is right when you fight people who support the Evil Empire”.
At the same time Kim F. is incredibly sensitive towards flattery. She meets every commendation with almost childish joy and happiness. In case nobody cares Kim F. can indulge in self-flattery.
We could not help but notice that Kim’s severe depressions became less frequent and less severe as she started blogging. Blogging is definitely a perfect means of sublimating the patient’s irrational fears and phobias. Blogging makes Kim F. famous - Fame and Glory is what she values above all as they are evident proves of the person's Power.
We wish Kim F. well and ask all bloggers she comes into contact with to support the treatment of the patient by satisfying her sadomasochistic needs in the virtual reality.
The source of Kim F’s psychological problems certainly lies in her childhood. She was bred up by a very authoritarian, rigorous and stern Parent. In her childhood there was no place for love, for self-reliance or for feeling of confidence. Kim’s attitude towards power, as symbolized by her Parent’s figure, is ambivalent. On one hand there is always one power she hates and another power she worships. She is filled with severe loneliness, feebleness, spite but at the same her craving to rule over minds of other people is limitless. This irrational thirst for power and desire to be loved is what makes an authoritarian personality. It is not yet clear what exact roles Kim’s parents played in forming her personality but the fact that the object of her irrational hate is hard power autocratic Mother Russia and the object of her love is soft power theocratic Father America gives us some better understanding on the subject of role structure of Kim’s family.
Distinct forms of this mechanism could be found in the striving for domination and for submission. In everyday life this mechanism manifests itself in masochism and sadism. Let us start with the analysis of Kim F’s masochistic tendencies. At the core of masochism lies the feeling of inferiority, feebleness and insignificance. Kim F. always provokes other people to insult her and then finds immense pleasure in desperately fighting back provoking yet more abuse and humiliations. It comes as no surprise that Kim’s favorite poet is Mikhail Lermontov – a romantic Russian poet whose masochistic behavior was the major cause of his tragic death at the age of 27. Kim F. is fascinated with Lermontov’s poem “Mtsyri” that tells the story of a youth who run away from monastery, spent several days fighting for his life in the wilderness, started a hopeless fight with a mountain ounce and was mortally wounded by it. Kim F. associates herself with Mtsyri when she goes on with her personal crusade against Mother Russia.
It is evident that Kim F. is neurotic. In her fight with the Evil Empire her rhetorical instrument of choice is reductionism. She singles out some fact about life in contemporary Russia and makes broad generalizations on the “evilness” of Russia in general. This is not surprising as she approaches her own health in exactly the same way. Kim F. believes that she is a very sick person. She views one cough as a sign of TB, stomach pains as a sign of ulcer and headache as a sign of meningitis. Such neurotic phobias also manifest themselves in Kim’s hate of her body or of any human body in general. She is horrified at Myskina photographs in GQ that she calls soft porn and the idea of Russian banya disgusts her immensely. Most probably Kim F. is obese or unhealthy anorexic. It is also possible that the fear of human body is a result of strict religious education in the childhood.
Masochism in Kim’s personality comes together with sadism that is not at all surprising. Sadism is just another side of inferiority complex and utter loneliness. Kim F. enjoys abusing and humiliating people as it makes her feels stronger, smarter and more significant as she actually is. The rationalization of her sadistic behavior is simple, “Every means is right when you fight people who support the Evil Empire”.
At the same time Kim F. is incredibly sensitive towards flattery. She meets every commendation with almost childish joy and happiness. In case nobody cares Kim F. can indulge in self-flattery.
We could not help but notice that Kim’s severe depressions became less frequent and less severe as she started blogging. Blogging is definitely a perfect means of sublimating the patient’s irrational fears and phobias. Blogging makes Kim F. famous - Fame and Glory is what she values above all as they are evident proves of the person's Power.
We wish Kim F. well and ask all bloggers she comes into contact with to support the treatment of the patient by satisfying her sadomasochistic needs in the virtual reality.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
