tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13406351.post1324384432891477444..comments2023-11-05T09:55:13.077+02:00Comments on Itching for Eestimaa: kaitsemisestGiustinohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04756707910693785516noreply@blogger.comBlogger98125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13406351.post-35769152552926972182009-08-04T14:25:42.712+03:002009-08-04T14:25:42.712+03:00Thanks, I thought so. Not that easy, uh? When I ...Thanks, I thought so. Not that easy, uh? When I first heard this word in the 90s I though it had something to do with lips or nose a la töllmokk or tattnina, only to gather soon after that Estonians did not like baseball hats and associated all unexplainable behavior to the strange custom of bending or rolling the hats visor. <br /><br />At that time few estonians had ever seen a golf player in their life, but the word stayed it seems. People at my golf club would be very confused if an Estonian would disparage this particular and very practical hat. Nobody would understand that in Estonia one does not need to shield his eyes from beating sun and anybody wearing this gear would be taken for a fool. <br /><br />The problem is, I cannot explain it in one word. And redneck aint really the word.<br /><br />But thanks, guys.LPRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09397977705898254598noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13406351.post-58923222720064270722009-08-04T12:30:09.874+03:002009-08-04T12:30:09.874+03:00"young Estonian rednecks"?"young Estonian rednecks"?plasma-jackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06485039580759398780noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13406351.post-54854943685097815882009-08-04T05:47:55.045+03:002009-08-04T05:47:55.045+03:00Said article from the Vikipeedia mentions chav as ...Said article from the Vikipeedia mentions <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chav" rel="nofollow">chav</a> as a possible equivalent in (British) English. Since I've never heard this word before, I don't know that it would be a succesful translation; but I'll defer to the native speakers (especially those from England).Lingüistahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06327147408198046253noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13406351.post-82504851193934146952009-08-04T04:57:35.612+03:002009-08-04T04:57:35.612+03:00Judging by (what I understood of) what the eestike...Judging by (what I understood of) what the <a href="http://et.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rullnokk" rel="nofollow">eestikeelne Vikipeedia</a> says, Estonian <i>rullnokad</i> look like average-stupid low-class young men pretty much everywhere... hard to give you a translation. The Vikipeedia also claims they're only an Estonian phenomenon...Lingüistahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06327147408198046253noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13406351.post-60259591672152223372009-08-04T03:32:05.166+03:002009-08-04T03:32:05.166+03:00In Moscow, in the middle of the 80s, I was attendi...In Moscow, in the middle of the 80s, I was attending a DDT concert in the Vorobyovie Gory near the University of Moscow, and as I recall it, the crowd was all hippies. It was like being at a Grateful Dead concert sans the smell of weed in the air.<br /><br />Oh, by the way, I need yous all help - how do ya translate the word 'rullnokk into proper English? Without this word I constantly run into shallow waters with my stories about Estonia.<br /><br />Thanks.LPRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09397977705898254598noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13406351.post-23059718010494385072009-08-02T16:42:43.880+03:002009-08-02T16:42:43.880+03:00[i]Weren't there any Russians also going aroun...[i]Weren't there any Russians also going around dressed like that, with the typical young man's defiance of the powers-that-be?{/i]<br /><br />I was three years old back then, but I think that Russian punks lived in Moscow or Leningrad. When legendary Russian band Kino played a gig in Tallinn in the 80-s, the crowd mainly consisted of Russian army recruits and ethnic Estonian punks and those two crowds obviously didn't mix very well. <br />But there definitely were many Russian hippies in Estonia in the 70-s and 80-s.plasma-jackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06485039580759398780noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13406351.post-23397182848806908842009-08-01T21:12:20.065+03:002009-08-01T21:12:20.065+03:00Giustino, I guess some of the Russian activists wo...Giustino, I guess some of the Russian activists would say that, even if the procedure is currently easier and all those 7.7% could probably get citizenship if they wanted, still it is a shame that it took almost two decades, etc. etc. etc.<br /><br />I imagine they would say something like: "So <i>now</i> the Estonians think we can get citizenship and we won't be doing any crazy things, right? Well, if now we're not dangerous, then we weren't all that dangerous then either, right? If we had gotten citizenship automatically -- if Estonia hadn't gone with <i>jus sanguinis</i> -- well, Estonia would still be here, it would still be democratic, etc. So was there a reason other than misperceptions and bad but unfounded expectations about what we would do?"<br /><br />And they might have a point there. Do you think Estonia would really have been much different now if all Russians had been granted immediate citizenship -- if not immediately after independence, then, say, a couple of years afterwards?Lingüistahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06327147408198046253noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13406351.post-24939791849911392122009-08-01T21:06:30.292+03:002009-08-01T21:06:30.292+03:00Plasma-jack, I'm curious -- the punks were onl...Plasma-jack, I'm curious -- the punks were only Estonians? Weren't there any Russians also going around dressed like that, with the typical young man's defiance of the powers-that-be?Lingüistahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06327147408198046253noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13406351.post-39749145630038272512009-08-01T12:36:01.608+03:002009-08-01T12:36:01.608+03:00i mean, a certain amount of courage was definitely...i mean, a certain amount of courage was definitely necessary when showing up in the street of 1986 looking like <a href="http://punk.bumpclub.ee/jmke/pildid/jmke1a.jpg" rel="nofollow">this</a>plasma-jackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06485039580759398780noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13406351.post-64132001637555814112009-08-01T12:19:40.983+03:002009-08-01T12:19:40.983+03:00I note the reaction of the very guy who uploaded t...<i>I note the reaction of the very guy who uploaded this clip -- he titled it "Internatsid ründavad Toompead"...</i><br /><br />That was how the Intermovement was commonly called back then by Estonians. Dunno who coined the word, but it was a quite obvious derivation. <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMH1NjPKhUY" rel="nofollow">This song</a>, recorded in 1989, probably written a bit earlier, might have done its part as well. This live clip is obviously way younger. Those who can read Estoninan, should check out the lyrics (in video information box) as well.<br />The punks were the real heros back then - at some moment they were the only ones stating openly how things were (and therefore constantly harassed by law enforcers, both KGB and militia), the were the first to come out with national tricolore (autumn 1987 in Võru) etc.plasma-jackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06485039580759398780noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13406351.post-15135178130141451372009-08-01T10:47:50.439+03:002009-08-01T10:47:50.439+03:00Giustino, do you really think that, if Intermoveme...<i>Giustino, do you really think that, if Intermovement hadn't done things like this attack on Toompea, the Popular Front might have convinced Estonians to grant citizenship to the post-1940 Russians as well?</i><br /><br />If you step away from legal and emotional arguments and look at it from one of national interest, then perhaps if local Russian leaders had read the writing on the wall, they would have been able to argue for a better deal. Instead, people saw them as disloyal and in cases threatening to statehood. <br /><br />Still, the current citizenship policy has been a pain in the ass. Officials are saddled with all of these negative reports from human rights groups, and at the same time many non-citizens don't want citizenship -- they want visa free EU and Russia travel and exemptions from military service. Foreign Minister Paet and former Population Affairs Minister Palo said: it's not that the procedures are especially difficult, it's that the stateless lack motivation to apply. I mean, what's the difference to them?<br /><br />So here we are, it's almost 2010, waiting for those 7.7 percent of the population to finally pick up a friggin' passport. Ai ai ai, as the Estonian say.Giustinohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04756707910693785516noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13406351.post-28932860858416723542009-08-01T10:20:15.654+03:002009-08-01T10:20:15.654+03:00Giustino, do you really think that, if Intermoveme...Giustino, do you really think that, if Intermovement hadn't done things like this attack on Toompea, the Popular Front might have convinced Estonians to grant citizenship to the post-1940 Russians as well? I had the impression that this would in principle be incompatible with the continuity thesis: if the 1941-1991 period was an occupation, then everything that happened -- including the arrival of USSR internal migrants -- was illegal.<br /><br />(I note the reaction of the very guy who uploaded this clip -- he titled it "Inter<i>natsid</i> ründavad Toompead"...)Lingüistahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06327147408198046253noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13406351.post-11252682063639092502009-07-31T23:29:49.941+03:002009-07-31T23:29:49.941+03:00In former USSR, Latvians and Estonians were always...<i>In former USSR, Latvians and Estonians were always seen as very much sophisticated people. So I guess Russians in Estonia and Latvia were little shocked that they were reduced to second rate non-citizens in 1992. (for few years, I think Latvia actually had 'non-citizen' passports for local Russians). I expected far more from Balts than 'stans'.</i><br /><br />The political forces in favor of a more inclusive citizenship bill (Popular Front) were unable to convince the majority of Estonian voters that it was in their interest to enfranchise people who had moved to Estonia after 1940. The majority of voters viewed that demographic as a threat, partially because of Intermovement.<br />Ironically, it was scenes <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_2UmCjN8qI" rel="nofollow">like this</a> that convinced voters to support the more conservative policies. At the end of that clip you'll see Edgar Savisaar and Marju Lauristin on the balcony, two Estonian politicians/thinkers who today are seen as being rather liberal on minority issues. Some of the same people who were trying to stop them in that clip probably vote for their parties today.Giustinohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04756707910693785516noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13406351.post-712591848336234992009-07-31T13:48:22.540+03:002009-07-31T13:48:22.540+03:00A.R.G., I agree with you that Russia isn't goi...A.R.G., I agree with you that Russia isn't going to disappear -- as you pointed out, Russia had it much worse in the past, and it survived.<br /><br />But I think the point is: Russia (or the current Russian government) doesn't simply want to exist; it wants to be a superpower, and to keep being a superpower forever. That, I think, is not realistic -- for the reasons Mr Friedman explores: demography, bad economy, bad leadership, etc.<br /><br />Unless the economic-demographic situation changes, the best Russia can get, I think, is to be like a European country (without the welfare state and economic development). Germany, England, France -- they are local powers, but they are not superpowers; and they can't be, despite their economic success. They have to rely on 'soft power' and looking attractive; they don't have the armies and the power necessary to be arrogant. And, as far as I can see, this is where Russia is headed, unless things change dramatically on the economic-demographic front.Lingüistahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06327147408198046253noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13406351.post-22055358004868992372009-07-31T13:34:15.719+03:002009-07-31T13:34:15.719+03:00A.R.G., I agree with you that Russia is not going ...A.R.G., I agree with you that Russia is not going to turn against the 'stan countries; the reasons you mention are good ones (and I would add that the 'stan countries also have authoritarian, autocratic governments, which makes them closer to the Kremlin in philosophy).<br /><br />But my point was not that Russia is going to do that -- no, I agree with you, Russia is not going to do that.<br /><br />My point is that, <i>if</i> the Kremlin wanted to turn against the 'stan states, it could mobilize the press against them. And in a few years, most Russians (the masses who follow Putin and understand the world via TV-Zvesda or Pjervyj Kanal) would agree. They would forget the Balts -- they wouldn't <i>love</i> them, but they would forget about their 'threats' and get angry about the 'stan countries, who would then become enemy no.1 in the polls.<br /><br />Again, I'm not saying that this will happen -- I'm saying the Kremlin could do this if it wanted. My point is: what the Russian masses think about foreign countries (and probably other topics as well) lasts only as long as the Kremlin wants.<br /><br />And this is not because of 'Russian character' -- it's simply a consequence of living in a country where most of the means of acquiring information are controlled by the state. Other non-Russian authoritarian states are also like that.<br /><br />As for Russians being treated worse in 'stan states -- you're probably right, it depends on the country. You said (on Turkmenistan): <i>Moscow didn't complain much publicly, for economical and geo-politics reasons. Sure from Baltic point of view, it looks like a double standard and you right! But thats what large countries do, USA is like a front runner in that.</i><br /><br />Yes, big countries tend to do that. But we should criticize them for doing this, because, as you point out, this is a double standard -- it's not right. I do criticize the US (and the EU) when they do similar things; I also criticize Russia. Any state who pretends to care about right and wrong while just paying attention to geopolitics gets my criticism.<br /><br />On Russia's demographic problems: you are right in saying that they are not as important as they were when Mr Friedman wrote his article. The natality rate is indeed comparable to Western Europe. But there's a catch: the mortality rate hasn't gone down, so the problem is still there. And even if the mortality rate had gone down... Russia would still have <i>exactly</i> the same demographic problems as Western European countries, which all have had to accept foreign workers and imigrants to get their economies going, and who have now small armies, less geopolitical power, and ageing populations. If Russia's demographics become just like, say, Englad's, or Germany's, or France's, this will undermine Russian politics for exactly the same reasons that Mr Friedman points out.<br /><br />In other words, the big problem is that Russia pursues a rather aggressive foreign policy that needs a non-European kind of demography. And up until now, its demography has, at best, looked like Europe's.Lingüistahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06327147408198046253noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13406351.post-6799710677170746302009-07-31T06:12:55.581+03:002009-07-31T06:12:55.581+03:00Thanks Inner Monologue, interesting article by Geo...Thanks Inner Monologue, interesting article by George Friedman. Except Russian demographics are better now than he thinks (or has old facts) <br />Russia actually has now higher birth rate than most European countries. <br />Russian birth rate is higher than white Americans. <br />Sure Russia has extremely high death rate among older men (due to drinking, smoking, etc) But in terms of geo-politics, to put it cruely, who needs old men! And spending tons of money on health care, pensions certainly needs alot of money. <br /><br />People who thinks that Russia will just fade away are surely not too familiar with 1000 years of Russian history. <br />Russia had it worse, MUCH WORSE before. <br /><br />I wonder what will happen to USA in 50 years, when whites will be a minority in USA? (less than 50%)<br />In year 2059,<br />Will Washington care about Europe as much as they do now?! Maybe Latinos in South-Western USA will try for their own country.<br />I guess will see.A.R.Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09556721850767668843noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13406351.post-83434866491690696462009-07-31T05:30:31.079+03:002009-07-31T05:30:31.079+03:00Hmmm... All 'stans' are very much differen...Hmmm... All 'stans' are very much different and useful for Russia. For example Russia needs Turkmenistan for its large natural gas fuilds. Russia needs Kyrgyztan for military base(s) Russia plays important role in all 'stans'. <br />All 'stans' depend to a large degree on Russia as well. Millions of 'stans' workers making a living in Russia and sending tons of cash back home. Thus you have certain co-dependence and respect between 'stans' and Russia.<br /> You don't have the same between Russia and Baltic States, thus it is much easier to focus on 3 tiny similar insignificant baltic states. If you telling me that Russians are treated worse in 'stans' than in Estonia and Latvia, I would say it is very much different between 'stans'. In Kyrgyztan, Russian is oficial language and plays imporant role in politics, business and everyday life but still, half of Russians fled this republic due to bad economic situation. On a other hand in Turkmenistan, things went terribly wrong for local (relatively small) slavic population. At times Russians couldn't even leave this republic and Russian education was seriously cut. Moscow didn't complain much publicly, for economical and geo-politics reasons. Sure from Baltic point of view, it looks like a double standard and you right! But thats what large countries do, USA is like a front runner in that. <br /><br />Russian population in Tajikistan is 1%, Moscow doesn't really care about this hell hole. <br /><br />In former USSR, Latvians and Estonians were always seen as very much sophisticated people. So I guess Russians in Estonia and Latvia were little shocked that they were reduced to second rate non-citizens in 1992. (for few years, I think Latvia actually had 'non-citizen' passports for local Russians)<br /><br />I expected far more from Balts than 'stans'.A.R.Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09556721850767668843noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13406351.post-74404784360168197932009-07-31T03:48:57.058+03:002009-07-31T03:48:57.058+03:00...
Such a regime is the one that can create mili......<br /><br />Such a regime is the one that can create military power in the face of broad poverty, something we will call the “Chekist state.” This state uses its security apparatus, now known as the FSB, to control the public through repression, freeing the state to allocate resources to the military as needed. In other words, this is Putin coming full circle to his KGB roots, but without the teachings of an Andropov or Gorbachev to confuse the issue. This is not an ideological stance; it applies to the Romanovs and to the Bolsheviks. It is an operational principle embedded in Russian geopolitics and history. <br /><br />Counting on Russian strategic power to track Russian economic power is risky. Certainly, it did in the 1980s and 1990s, but Putin has worked to decouple the two. On the surface, it might seem a futile gesture, but in Russian history, this decoupling is the norm. Obama seems to understand this to the extent that he has tried to play off Medvedev (who appears less traditional) from Putin (who appears to be the more traditional), but we do not think this is a viable strategy — this is not a matter of Russian political personalities but of Russian geopolitical necessity. <br /><br />Biden seems to be saying that the Reagan strategy can play itself out permanently. Our view is that it plays itself out only so long as the Russian regime doesn’t reassert itself with the full power of the security apparatus and doesn’t decouple economic and military growth. Biden’s strategy works so long as this doesn’t happen. But in Russian history, this decoupling is the norm and the past 20 years is the exception. <br /><br />A strategy that assumes the Russians will once again decouple economic and military power requires a different response than ongoing, subcritical pressure. It requires that the window of opportunity the United States has handed Russia by its wars in the Islamic world be closed, and that the pressure on Russia be dramatically increased before the Russians move toward full repression and rapid rearmament. <br /><br />Ironically, in the very long run of the next couple of generations, it probably doesn’t matter whether the West heads off Russia at the pass because of another factor Biden mentioned: Russia’s shrinking demographics. Russian demography has been steadily worsening since World War I, particularly because birth rates have fallen. This slow-motion degradation turned into collapse during the 1990s. Russia’s birth rates are now well below starkly higher death rates; Russia already has more citizens in their 50s than in their teens. Russia can be a major power without a solid economy, but no one can be a major power without people. But even with demographics as poor as Russia’s, demographics do not change a country overnight. This is Russia’s moment, and the generation or so it will take demography to grind Russia down can be made very painful for the Americans. <br /><br />Biden has stated the American strategy: squeeze the Russians and let nature take its course. We suspect the Russians will squeeze back hard before they move off the stage of history.LPRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09397977705898254598noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13406351.post-3532769710029747162009-07-31T03:48:34.471+03:002009-07-31T03:48:34.471+03:00...
The czar used repression widely, and it was n......<br /><br />The czar used repression widely, and it was not until the army itself rebelled in World War I that the regime collapsed. Under Stalin, even at the worst moments of World War II, the army did not rebel. In both regimes, economic dysfunction was accepted as the inevitable price of strategic power. And dissent — even the hint of dissent — was dealt with by the only truly efficient state enterprise: the security apparatus, whether called the Okhraina, Cheka, NKVD, MGB or KGB. <br /><br />From the point of view of Putin, who has called the Soviet collapse the greatest tragedy of our time, the problem was not economic dysfunction. Rather, it was the attempt to completely overhaul the Soviet Union’s foreign and domestic policies simultaneously that led to the collapse of the Soviet Union. And that collapse did not lead to an economic renaissance. <br /><br />Biden might not have meant to gloat, but he drove home the point that Putin believes. For Putin, the West, and particularly the United States, engineered the fall of the Soviet Union by policies crafted by the Reagan administration — and that same policy remains in place under the Obama administration. <br /><br />It is not clear that Putin and Russian President Dmitri Medvedev disagree with Biden’s analysis — the Russian economy truly is “withering” — except in one sense. Given the policies Putin has pursued, the Russian prime minister must believe he has a way to cope with that. In the short run, Putin might well have such a coping mechanism, and this is the temporary window of opportunity Biden alluded to. But in the long run, the solution is not improving the economy — that would be difficult, if not outright impossible, for a country as large and lightly populated as Russia. Rather, the solution is accepting that Russia’s economic weakness is endemic and creating a regime that allows Russia to be a great power in spite of that.LPRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09397977705898254598noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13406351.post-59343445473423567122009-07-31T03:47:59.155+03:002009-07-31T03:47:59.155+03:00...
Russian Power, With or Without Prosperity
Rus......<br /><br />Russian Power, With or Without Prosperity<br />Russia has been an economic wreck for most of its history, both under the czars and under the Soviets. The geography of Russia has a range of weaknesses, as we have explored. Russia’s geography, daunting infrastructural challenges and demographic structure all conspire against it. But the strategic power of Russia was never synchronized to its economic well-being. Certainly, following World War II the Russian economy was shattered and never quite came back together. Yet Russian global power was still enormous. A look at the crushing poverty — but undeniable power — of Russia during broad swaths of time from 1600 until Andropov arrived on the scene certainly gives credence to Putin’s view. <br /><br />The problems of the 1980s had as much to do with the weakening and corruption of the Communist Party under former Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev as it had to do with intrinsic economic weakness. To put it differently, the Soviet Union was an economic wreck under Joseph Stalin as well. The Germans made a massive mistake in confusing Soviet economic weakness with military weakness. During the Cold War, the United States did not make that mistake. It understood that Soviet economic weakness did not track with Russian strategic power. Moscow might not be able to house its people, but its military power was not to be dismissed. <br /><br />What made an economic cripple into a military giant was political power. Both the czar and the Communist Party maintained a ruthless degree of control over society. That meant Moscow could divert resources from consumption to the military and suppress resistance. In a state run by terror, dissatisfaction with the state of the economy does not translate into either policy shifts or military weakness — and certainly not in the short term. Huge percentages of gross domestic product can be devoted to military purposes, even if used inefficiently there. Repression and terror smooth over public opinion.LPRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09397977705898254598noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13406351.post-26019752216456036652009-07-31T03:47:37.205+03:002009-07-31T03:47:37.205+03:00...
Former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev was a ......<br /><br />Former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev was a communist, as we seem to forget, and a follower of Andropov. He was not a liberalizer because he saw liberalization as a virtue; rather, he saw it as a means to an end. And that end was saving the Communist Party, and with it the Soviet state. Gorbachev also understood that the twin challenge of concessions to the West geopolitically and a top-down revolution in Russia economically — simultaneously—risked massive destabilization. This is what Reagan was counting on, and what Gorbachev was trying to prevent. Gorbachev lost Andropov’s gamble. The Soviet Union collapsed, and with it the Communist Party. <br /><br />What followed was a decade of economic horror, at least as most Russians viewed it. From the West’s point of view, collapse looked like liberalization. From the Russian point of view, Russia went from a superpower that was poor to an even poorer geopolitical cripple. For the Russians, the experiment was a double failure. Not only did the Russian Empire retreat to the borders of the 18th century, but the economy became even more dysfunctional, except for a handful of oligarchs and some of their Western associates who stole whatever wasn’t nailed down. <br /><br />The Russians, and particularly Putin, took away a different lesson than the West did. The West assumed that economic dysfunction caused the Soviet Union to fail. Putin and his colleagues took away the idea that it was the attempt to repair economic dysfunction through wholesale reforms that caused Russia to fail. From Putin’s point of view, economic well-being and national power do not necessarily work in tandem where Russia is concerned.LPRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09397977705898254598noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13406351.post-73634208620003048112009-07-31T03:45:25.798+03:002009-07-31T03:45:25.798+03:00...
Even so, Biden’s visit and interview show th...... <br /><br />Even so, Biden’s visit and interview show the Obama administration is maintaining the U.S. stance on Russia that has been in place since the Reagan years. Reagan saw the economy as Russia’s basic weakness. He felt that the greater the pressure on the Russian economy, the more forthcoming the Russians would be on geopolitical matters. The more concessions they made on geopolitical matters, the weaker their hold on Eastern Europe. And if Reagan’s demand that Russia “Tear down this wall, Mr. Gorbachev” was met, the Soviets would collapse. Ever since the Reagan administration, the idee fixe of not only the United States, but also NATO, China and Japan has been that the weakness of the Russian economy made it impossible for the Russians to play a significant regional role, let alone a global one. Therefore, regardless of Russian wishes, the West was free to forge whatever relations it wanted among Russian allies like Serbia and within the former Soviet Union. And certainly during the 1990s, Russia was paralyzed. <br /><br />Biden, however, is saying that whatever the current temporary regional advantage the Russians might have, in the end, their economy is crippled and Russia is not a country to be taken seriously. He went on publicly to point out that this should not be pointed out publicly, as there is no value in embarrassing Russia. The Russians certainly now understand what it means to hit the reset button Obama had referred to: The reset is back to the 1980s and 1990s. <br /><br />Reset to the 1980s and 90s<br />To calculate the Russian response, it is important to consider how someone like Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin views the events of the 1980s and 1990s. After all, Putin was a KGB officer under Yuri Andropov, the former head of the KGB and later Chairman of the Communist Party for a short time — and the architect of glasnost and perestroika. <br /><br />It was the KGB that realized first that the Soviet Union was failing, which made sense because only the KGB had a comprehensive sense of the state of the Soviet Union. Andropov’s strategy was to shift from technology transfer through espionage — apparently Putin’s mission as a junior intelligence officer in Dresden in the former East Germany — to a more formal process of technology transfer. To induce the West to transfer technology and to invest in the Soviet Union, Moscow had to make substantial concessions in the area in which the West cared the most: geopolitics. To get what it needed, the Soviets had to dial back on the Cold War. <br /><br />Glasnost, or openness, had as its price reducing the threat to the West. But the greater part of the puzzle was perestroika, or the restructuring of the Soviet economy. This was where the greatest risk came, since the entire social and political structure of the Soviet Union was built around a command economy. But that economy was no longer functioning, and without perestroika, all of the investment and technology transfer would be meaningless. The Soviet Union could not metabolize it.LPRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09397977705898254598noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13406351.post-15204905647805249502009-07-31T03:44:53.386+03:002009-07-31T03:44:53.386+03:00Geopolitical Intel Report
by George Friedman | Ju...Geopolitical Intel Report<br /><br />by George Friedman | July 27, 2009<br /><br />U.S. Vice President Joe Biden’s visit to Georgia and Ukraine partly answered questions over how U.S.-Russian talks went during U.S. President Barack Obama’s visit to Russia in early July. That Biden’s visit took place at all reaffirms the U.S. commitment to the principle that Russia does not have the right to a sphere of influence in these countries or anywhere in the former Soviet Union. <br /><br />The Americans’ willingness to confront the Russians on an issue of fundamental national interest to Russia therefore requires some explanation, as on the surface it seems a high-risk maneuver. Biden provided insights into the analytic framework of the Obama administration on Russia in a July 26 interview with The Wall Street Journal. In it, Biden said the United States “vastly” underestimates its hand. He added that “Russia has to make some very difficult, calculated decisions. They have a shrinking population base, they have a withering economy, they have a banking sector and structure that is not likely to be able to withstand the next 15 years, they’re in a situation where the world is changing before them and they’re clinging to something in the past that is not sustainable.” <br /><br />U.S. Policy Continuity<br />The Russians have accused the United States of supporting pro-American forces in Ukraine, Georgia and other countries of the former Soviet Union under the cover of supporting democracy. They see the U.S. goal as surrounding the Soviet Union with pro-American states to put the future of the Russian Federation at risk. The summer 2008 Russian military action in Georgia was intended to deliver a message to the United States and the countries of the former Soviet Union that Russia was not prepared to tolerate such developments but was prepared to reverse them by force of arms if need be. <br /><br />Following his July summit, Obama sent Biden to the two most sensitive countries in the former Soviet Union — Ukraine and Georgia — to let the Russians know that the United States was not backing off its strategy in spite of Russian military superiority in the immediate region. In the long run, the United States is much more powerful than the Russians, and Biden was correct when he explicitly noted Russia’s failing demographics as a principle factor in Moscow’s long-term decline. But to paraphrase a noted economist, we don’t live in the long run. Right now, the Russian correlation of forces along Russia’s frontiers clearly favors the Russians, and the major U.S. deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan would prevent the Americans from intervening should the Russians choose to challenge pro-American governments in the former Soviet Union directly.LPRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09397977705898254598noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13406351.post-80843928965331013622009-07-30T18:30:26.784+03:002009-07-30T18:30:26.784+03:00So, if the Russian press wanted... all those thing...So, if the Russian press wanted... all those things could be misconstrued as 'threats to Russia', 'attempts by foreign powers to attack the Motherland', and 'evidence of anti-Russian attitudes among Turkic populations', etc. etc. etc. <i>If</i>, of course, the Kremlin wanted that. If the Russian media would start hammering that over and over again, I'm sure they could make Russians feel very angryu at 'those damn Turkic peoples' who 'should be happy' with the civilization that Russia brought to them but who instead are so 'uppity' and 'nationalistic' (their authoritarian governments are 'obviously' 'fascistic', etc.). <br /><br />And the Russians -- not all of them, mind you: I'm sure there are intelligent people in Russia who think about what they read; but the population as a whole, the masses -- would play along. They would forget about the Baltic States (With sufficient media propaganda, they might start thinking like: 'Reparations to Baltic states? No problem, we don't pay them anyway, that's just a joke; but the 'stan countries are selling oil to Western countries through non-Russian routes, that's <i>much</i> worse! Oppressed Russian minorities? What oppressed Russian minorities? They're in the EU, with a higher living standard than Russia's Russians -- while those in the 'stans are <i>really</i> suffering, you know? NATO presence? Oh, OK, the Baltic states are in NATO, but NATO isn't really interested in protecting them; they've done nothing for that thus far... while the 'stan countries, look, they're leasing real bases to NATO, where real soldiers with lots of materiel are really present! How long till they start putting missiles there? That's <i>way</i> worse! We really have to kick them out of there <i>now</i>, before they become a real threat to the Motherland!')<br /><br />Remember, the point is not whether any of the above is 'really true' or 'really an insightful analysis' of the situation. The point is what the Russian media could do with these things as propaganda if the Kremlin decided that they should. My guess: they'd forget the Baltic states (they wouldn't <i>love</i> them, mind you, but they'd forget, till it was again convenient to remind them of the 'bad Balts' who 'started the destruction of the USSR -- the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the XXth century!', etc.) and that the 'stan countries would become enemy nr. 1. State-controled media are a great propaganda weapon.Lingüistahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06327147408198046253noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13406351.post-33609072600211606722009-07-30T18:29:32.519+03:002009-07-30T18:29:32.519+03:00A.R.G., but you're neglecting the impact that ...A.R.G., but you're neglecting the impact that a good anti-'stan countries campaign could have if the Kremlin decided the Russian press should do it.<br /><br />Russians are indeed citizens in the 'stan countries, but think of the following:<br /><br />(a) workers from 'stan countries are "causing problems" in Russia (see the latest arguments from the Movement Againt Illegal Immigrants in their website);<br />(b) Russian citizens are citizens but are not being heard -- if you look at their own websites, they complain all the time about anti-Russian discrimination;<br />(c) Russian citizens have even voted with their feet: a large number of them have left the 'stan countries to go back to the Motherland (unlike the Baltic states, where they mostly stayed). Look at how in Kazakhstan Russians have finally fallen below 50% of the population -- a fact that even president Nursultan Nazarbayev (who keeps insisting Kazakhstan is a 'multiethnic state') has boasted about.<br />(d) Even though Russian is a 'state/official language', policies favoring the local languages and against Russian are widespread and often mentioned in the press (the latest one coming from Tajikistan, but you can find similar initiatives, officially or not, in all of the 'stan country -- I'm sure the Russian press could find lots of 'human/linguistic rights violations' if they wanted to).<br />(e) 'Pressure from abroad' to make these countries 'enemies of Russia' is growing -- the incident about the American base in Kyrgyzstan is an example (which the Russian press could exploit to show how 'anti-Russian' the Kyrgyz are -- this base is much worse than anything NATO has in the Baltic states), but there are others (e.g. Azerbaijan's claim that it could sell oil via Nabucco, etc.).Lingüistahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06327147408198046253noreply@blogger.com