Immediately after hearing Vice President Dick Cheney’s negative remarks about Russia, I thought to myself: things just don’t connect. Cheney's comments outraged both Russians and Americans alike, especially some people I know well who have spent considerable time in both countries. A good friend of mine who is an American lawyer, and has been doing business (and supporting the GOP) in Russia for nearly twenty years was dumbstruck by the Vice President’s remarks.
At the same time, I have been trying to decide what to write about Putin’s annual address to the Russian nation. Unfortunately, two long business trips prevented me from spending time on either topic.
So today, when I didn’t find any immediate Russian news to report, I decided to simply write about Russia as it is today, in the here and now. Recent events lend themselves to just such an informative and critical overview.
By now I’m sure you have heard about Hamas visiting Moscow, and Russia's demographic crisis, with the country possibly losing 1/3rd of its 140 million people by 2040. There is also the ongoing tragedy of Russian army conscripts being brutalized by their comrades, with some losing body parts and others going AWOL or committing suicide to escape daily torment at the hands of their comrades. Many of the same thugs who torture their fellow soldiers also display their adolescent ultranationalism by joining skinhead groups and killing blacks and gays.
What, you may ask, did Cheney get wrong about Russia? In my view, pretty much everything - but again, this my personal opinion so you are free to disagree or rely on other media reports.
For example, in a recent Russia Blog post about Russian media, we wrote that there are 1,100 TV channels, 670 radio stations and 50,000 newspapers in Russia. If you read the post, you will discover that the Russian government owned media reaches only 20% of the nation; the rest of Russia prefers to watch private channels with American boxing matches or just drink vodka in the countryside.
In a scathing report issued this year, the group Reporters Without Borders stated, “…the government steadily took control of all the country’s TV stations and stepped up pressure on the few independent papers, seriously threatening news diversity. Chechnya remained a void for news and journalists could not go there freely.”
Keep in mind that newspapers, including online media, bash the Kremlin and Putin on a daily basis, without much regard for the improvements that have been accomplished in the last few years. In the Anglo-American media, only Time magazine and a few other outlets have bothered to explain why Putin is popular. Time published a picture of a prosperous shopping mall in a small Siberian city - not a bad display of globalization and free-market economics in the “neo-Soviet Union”.
Now also consider for a moment that just two weeks ago, there were thousands of protesters marching through downtown Moscow , carrying banners that said “Putin and Successors, Go to Hell”. These protesters represented a significant part of the 25% of the nation that do not support Putin (approximately 75% do, according to Western-style public opinion polls). This angry minority doesn’t support the President because they see him as too liberal to ruthlessly deal with the problems facing Russian society. Putin is too soft on minorities and oligarchs for their taste, and it seems these ultranationalists want to bring Stalin back from the grave to crush minorities and make Russia a superpower again. It is almost comical to read articles published in Russia criticizing the Russian government and watch Putin-bashing Russians marching down the streets demanding a fascist or communist dictatorship to replace him. This leads me to conclude that the American Vice-President picked the wrong time to point the finger at Moscow. Perhaps if Cheney had seen what is really happening on the ground, he would have criticized Putin for being too soft on Russia's most restive citizenry.
To address Cheney's remarks regarding freedom of speech, I believe there’s more of it in Russia than there ever has been, and while it may not be as free as the American Government would like it to be, today represents the most freedom Russians have ever experienced. In fact, common Russians cannot really even begin to understand Western concerns about the freedom of speech in their country: the concept is still taking hold, and there are plenty of other serious human rights abuses to deal with at the moment.
For the first time in their history, Russians can say, write, and read nearly everything they want. As for the closing of a few local newspapers across Russia, Reporters Without Borders doesn't understand what actually happened. Many local community leaders actually lobbied to close the newspapers after they published the Prophet Mohamed cartoons. In the West, the idea of a furor erupting over pencil-drawn cartoons struck many people as ridiculous, but in Russia the understanding of Jihad runs deep. Russians have been suffering from Jihad for far too long not to understand what could happen if the cartoons were published in their town or city. It is easy to make assumptions about what constitutes a danger to free speech when you don’t share a continent and a border with Muslim countries and are not under constant assault from Islamic fascists. But as the U.S. media has brought front and center, America is also having a great deal of trouble keeping people from illegally crossing its borders. Now imagine if overnight Mexico turned into Iran or Afghanistan and Arizona launched a Jihad against America, sponsored by their "Muslim brothers" across the border. Perhaps then you might think twice before publishing such cartoons, especially when you've already seen some of the upheaval it could cause.
Keep in mind also that not all terrorists in Chechnya are Chechen, as we have written here at RussiaBlog many times: the recovered passports of dead jihadists come from many countries – Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Ukraine...even Great Britain. The notorious Finsbury Park Mosque where the "shoe bomber" Richard Reid was recruited has sent many young Britons to fight and die for Allah in Chechnya. So when the Russian government tells journalists that Chechnya is a dangerous place – you might agree. But it is patently false to claim that the Russian government prohibits journalists from visiting this troubled region. The Kremlin simply admits its weakness – it cannot guarantee your safety while you are in Chechnya. A stark reminder in my mind is of the French human rights workers who were forced to leave the region a few years ago, after several decapitated heads were mailed back home. The jihadist "pornography" emerging from Iraq today is directly inspired by snuff videos that have been produced in Chechnya for years.
It's true that Chechnya has seen more violence than Iraq, but any responsible journalist would note that the situation is improving. In 2005 more than 7,000 rebels freely laid down their arms and took part in elections. Russian army casualties have dropped from 1,397 in 2000 to 28 in 2005. The new Chechen government has been supportive of the Kremlin -- and leaders there have successfully enforced the new Chechen constitution. As a result, 250,000 refugees have returned home and established some 30,000 new businesses. If you are a reporter and wish to witness the dramatic changes in this Russian state, contact me and I will direct you to a visa agency, where two hours (and $100) later you will receive the opportunity to go; yes, it’s that simple! All of the recent Chechen elections were determined to be free and fair by international observers, and only a handful of minor technical issues were reported.
Now let's revisit the recent Hamas visit to Moscow, and remember that terrorist attacks have been a daily or weekly occurrence for several years in the Russian republics. Why have they stopped? It is true that Russian anti-terrorism units have killed and captured many of the jihadists, but since Hamas came to Moscow, nearly all terrorist attacks have ceased. Unfortunately, many people in the West still think that Putin talked directly with Hamas, but he did not; the Russian Foreign Minister made it very clear that Hamas would be treated as an “undeveloped teenager” until they recognize Israel. Putin later said that the meeting wasn’t possible, due to belligerent remarks made by Hamas’ representatives as they deplaned in Moscow, vowing that they would never make peace with Israel. True, Hamas still visited the Kremlin, but rather than joining the Russian president, they joined Moscow tourists at museums and cathedrals. The truth is, Hamas was humiliated during this visit and told to negotiate with the Israelis if they want to receive foreign approval.
Many Westerners aren’t aware of the fact that Russia has a very large Muslim population, and the meeting of Hamas with the Russian patriarch Alexei II was also very important to Putin's diplomacy. It’s hard to tell if these meetings have directly contributed to the sharp drop in terrorist attacks, but I speculate it may have been at least in part a result of a smart and well-balanced Kremlin approach.
Besides wide open borders, terrorism, war, and high energy prices, another topic that concerns Americans (especially conservatives) is the growth of the U.S. federal government and bureaucracy. Now imagine George W. Bush not just vowing to cut spending but actually laying off federal employees and cutting their wages, while having his approval ratings actually climb. Impossible in America? Not in Russia. This year 20% of government paid professors who fail to make “significant input into students’ education” will lose their jobs; the Moscow health department where my mother works just recently saw a 40% cut in employees and then suffered a 40% cut in salaries for the workers who kept their jobs. This is not Putin’s ADHD disorder in action, this is well thought through plan for the survival of the Russian nation in the 21st century. Besides the problems mentioned above, Russia has a resource-hungry superpower with 1.4 billion people next door.
Westerners could argue that Russia’s federal budget of 2005 is pitiful at 104 billion dollars, while an estimated 316 billion dollars were paid in bribes to officials, but Putin’s success can be described as follows:
During the Yeltsin era in the 1990s, a great deal of the Russian budget was divided up as bribes or taken as profits and sent abroad directly to offshore accounts in Cyprus or Switzerland. Now, much of the money is staying in the country and getting reinvested into 1) Russian businesses, and not just state-owned giants like Gazprom, and 2) Federal and local social projects (i.e. “bribes for a good cause”). Considering where Russia was five years ago, these kickbacks for Mother Russia look much more like a “grant project” and are a huge social and federal improvement. While I could simply despair over my countrymen’s inability to become transparent and work totally within the rule of law, if I remember right – it took many years in the 19th and early 20th centuries for markets in the U.S. to become transparent and relatively free of collusion and cartels. As anyone who has watched the Godfather trilogy knows, organized crime was also very powerful in the U.S. from Prohibition through the 1960s and 70s.
On a related note, the tax system still has a lot of space for improvement. Implementing the 13% flat tax has reduced tax evasion, however, it is still hard to make wealthy people pay up. The lesson of what happened to Khodorkovsky has made oligarchs on the Forbes Russia list of billionaires better understand the benefits of investing back into their own nation and paying what are comparatively small taxes. To be sure, dismantling Yukos and selling off its assets to state-backed firms definitely scared foreign investors, but it did not represent the Kremlin taking another step towards dictatorship, either. While RussiaBlog thinks Khodorkovsky is clearly being mistreated in prison, we don't think he is a prisoner of conscience or deserves to be free.
In the last five years, real wages across the country have risen 75% and the budget surplus is running at 12%. Many Western observers have scoffed that this economic success is a direct result of the bullish world energy market, specifically skyrocketing demand for oil and gas. While this is correct, I want to go back to Cheney’s remarks and pose the question: how can you not want to be an ally and friend with someone who has the largest gas reserves in the world – and doesn’t use profits from the sale of those resources to behead infidels? My point is why doesn’t America crack down on Saudi Arabia? Or why not simply be honest, and stop praising the “great democratic changes” in places like Kazakhstan, where Nazarbayev, the “president for life” just recently wrote the new lyrics for the Kazahk national anthem, and has set up a golden statue of himself to be worshiped by the citizens who “freely elected” him with 91.15% of their votes? America's ally Georgia, where President Saakashvili took more than 86% of the vote, is also not exactly more democratic than Russia.
Let’s not forget the NGO bill that has been in the news for almost a year, and which many Americans view as yet another attack on democracy in Russia. I have written many times before that the bill is actually a good thing. The bill restricts direct foreign financing of Russian election campaigns and spy activities; it eliminates opportunities for advanced money laundering schemes; and last but not least, it simplifies the registration process for Russian-sponsored NGOs. Naturally, the media boils the issue down to the simplest of contradictions. Why are Americans so concerned with foreigners being able to donate to Russian non-profits? Isn’t it time for Russians to learn how to put oil money to a legitimate use?
Looking back, many thought that Putin would snap back at the White House during his recent address to the Federal Assembly. In all truthfulness, last year’s address was mediocre –and simply another speech in what became an annual experiment in crafting more empty promises. This year Putin didn’t take Vice President Cheney’s bait – he steered mostly clear from commenting on what amounted to an international “put-down” by Cheney. Instead, Putin surprised many critics by using the occasion to address about topics that are crucial to the nation’s survival – demographics and alcoholism. A hallmark of Putin’s new program will pay a Russian family $50 a month for the first child and double that for the second. Seems like a good way of using the oil profits; $50 is a lot of money in the Russian countryside.
Overall, I find Americans in general, and the White House in particular, still very uninformed about Russian society, especially the centuries-old traditions of bribes and brutality. Conversations about Putin being a KGB agent 15 years ago are simply another annoyance for anyone in the know about the real Russia. I would strongly encourage Americans to embrace what Russia is today, and snap out of the Cold War mentality. While Russia is still a country in transition from many years of Soviet misrule, to be sure, there is hope and optimism to be found, as well. Focusing on positives rather than negatives would be a welcome change. America already has many enemies in this world. Why risk alienating a huge potential trading partner and ally against terrorism just to rack up political points with people stuck in a Cold-War mentality?
Comments
Excellent well written article! Many good points and insights.
Posted by: Tanya | May 19, 2006 1:51 PM
The young man of wisdom strikes again Tanya.
A great painting of old Muscovy to boot.
Posted by: Michael Averko | May 19, 2006 9:19 PM
The answer to the question “Why risk alienating a huge potential trading partner?” is not to rack up political points, nor to avert being perceived as an enemy. And while focusing upon positive progress is both correct and needed, ignoring negative policies and behaviors is simply myopic.
Neither the USA nor any of the western democracies is perfect in any respect. What has distinguished them since the later half of the 20th century is their legal system which not only allows critical debate, but promotes it.
The actions of the Putin government to consolidate state control over civil society through government control of the economic high ground (or commanding heights) are not a new approach.
The approach is that of Leninism. While Leninism proposed to use this power to advance the principals of Marxism, the concentration of power (a.k.a. dictatorship of the proletariat) did not result in the utopia Lenin and Trotsky believed in, but instead enabled Stalin. The result was the political, social, economic and military subjugation of Eurasia and Eastern Europe for half a century.
Russia and its people have made progress on the path to democracy and standard of living in the past 15 years. Relations between Russia and the USA have thawed from the bitter winter of the cold war.
But the acceptance of a return to an economic and political policy of autocracy bears great danger for both Russia and the rest of the world.
There need be neither trade war nor enemy made with “comrade wolf”. But if alienating a huge trade partner is the asymmetrical approach the Putin government chooses in response to criticism, then it is probable that the US government, its multi-national corporations and its ill informed citizens are willing to accept it.
Far better to lose $20 billion dollars in energy and aerospace business than to be silent in the face of tyranny.
Posted by: Anonymous | May 19, 2006 10:56 PM
Which directorate of the FSB you are reporting to?
Posted by: Mike | May 19, 2006 11:36 PM
Regarding freedom of speech and plenty of other problems to deal with, one could learn a great amount by studying the history of the formation of the US government and its constitution.
The US constitution, the longest lasting in the world in the most economically and militarily powerful nation ever seen on the face of the earth is well written and structured. But this document was fatally flawed from the beginning.
To ratify the US constitution required acceptance on the part of a diverse and divisive population. To move this document forward, it was necessary to modify or amend it.
The first 10 amendments to the US constitution known as the Bill of Rights, are part and parcel to what has made this document and its institutions last and prosper for 227 years.
And the most important amendment is the first. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
The principle of freedom of speech is the relief valve and the creative force that has allowed the US to survive and prosper.
In 1789 there were plenty of other problems for the American people to deal with. Too many to attempt to enumerate. But because freedom of speech was recognized as a first principle, the solution to those problems comes much easier.
Closing newspapers is not an option in the US, even when what those papers write is uncomfortable or wrong. While it has been common practice in the US to have tension between journalists and the political/economic interests in power, the principal of freedom of speech has enabled these skirmishes to be adjudicated to the benefit of the people to know. One recent example is the Pentagon Papers dispute with the New York Times.
And in no time in American history did we see the routine murder of journalists and lack of law enforcement against the murderers as we have seen in recent years in Russia.
Without freedom of speech there can be no open and public debate. Without free and open public debate there shall be no democracy.
Russia may be experiencing more freedom of speech than it has ever seen, but the exercise of freedom of speech is much closer to that of tyrannical nations like Saudi Arabia, China and Cuba than it is to Germany, France or Britain.
If Russia and its people aspire to be an influential nation on a level with western European nations, Japan and the USA, then it must step up to the principle of freedom of speech or offer some explanation for refusing it beyond “we have other problems”.
Posted by: Anonymous | May 19, 2006 11:41 PM
Yuri, I think that you point out some very relevant issues in your article. This is the first Russia Blog article that I have read but I'll keep an eye open for future postings. I do think that Russians also need to understand Americans a little bit better. I think that most Americans were much happier with Bill Clinton. Bush and the neo-conservitives have been and are a disaster for the U.S. and the world. Hopefully, next November there will be a big power shift in the U.S.
I do hope that Russia uses it's oil wealth to improve the lives of people who have suffered so many economic hardships in the last 15 years. I hope that some of this money finds it's way to rural poor and deserving. I hope that we do see $100. oil and that some genius entrepreneur in the U.S. or Japan or somewhere finally puts the world on track to get off of oil addiction. Hydrogen has to be the answer. Imagine how technology could reduce world tensions? I think that Russia needs to back away from "cracking" down on NGO's. They are the wrong target. What about the thousands of skin head untra nationalist Russian hate groups who operate openly while the government wants to close organizations like the Eurasia Foundation, the Helsinki Group and others? Like America,Russia too gets priorities out of whack. But good for you for thinking deeply on these important issues.
Posted by: Rick McQuady | May 20, 2006 12:58 AM
Answering Mike:
FSB is an equivalent of FBI. They deal with drug addicts, copyright violators, etc. I think you meant to ask “What department of GRU…?” Well, none actually. I report to my boss, the executive director of Discovery Institute, check in with the president of the company, compare notes with Americans working in Russia (Lindal, Robinson, Callison, etc.), and check in with the DC offices working on Russia. All the thoughts are very genuine. Thank you for reading this very long post and expressing your opinions! Yuri.
As per hatred and skinheads – it is a HUGE problem; and though I didn’t have time to make it into a post, but the leader of the largest Russian skinhead group in St Petersburg was shot in his head by the officers during his arrest 24 hours ago. No investigation will be launched; officers’ actions were justified according to the internal investigation. I hope this will send a clear message to the other insane youngsters.
Posted by: Yuri Mamchur | May 20, 2006 1:15 AM
Putin is right to ignore Cheney's and US scolding in general. The US has lost it's moral leadership and is losing it hegemony. The future is in the east and that is where Putin is looking. Like he said at a recent press conference "dogs bark but the caravan moves on".
Posted by: Rob | May 20, 2006 9:20 AM
An excellent article. Very informative and balanced. It helps dispel the myths some of the syndicated reportage and American politicians are peddling. A businessman friend of mine just returned from a long business trip in Moscow told me that the energy emanating from the place is akin to HongKong, Peking and Shangai
Posted by: Mario Formosa (pl.use "Mario"only) | May 21, 2006 10:01 AM
"Neither the USA nor any of the western democracies is perfect in any respect. What has distinguished them since the later half of the 20th century is their legal system which not only allows critical debate, but promotes it."
This is propagandist gobbledygook. There is no such standard uniform thing as Western democracy (besides America is neither Western nor a democracy, has never been one, will never become one).
The difference between France and say Sweden (or USA), and their respective publics, on private rights, centralism, educational system, are far greater than between France and Russia (or Sweden and Russia). The view of the world as a black and white arrangement with some uniform democratic West led by the United States, the champion of freedoms, in the middle, is no more than a caricature.
Russia would be wise to ban all US (US multinational) corporations from operating in the country. There is no need to trade with the enemy, especially because there are so many other good options. Russia’s advantage is that its enemy, the USA, is not only Russia’s enemy but is the enemy of humanity, hostis homini generic, but together I am sure we’ll overcome this evil as we overcame small pox or Hitler.
As of tyranny – the only tyranny we as humanity face and have to fight is that of the United States.
Posted by: Roobit | May 21, 2006 11:43 AM
"Closing newspapers is not an option in the US, even when what those papers write is uncomfortable or wrong"
What newspaper got closed in Russia? What babble nonsense about subject or country you know nothing about?
Posted by: Roobit | May 21, 2006 11:45 AM
a well written article.
but
It is not that
This http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bush
Or
That
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=cheney
need conflict with Russia personally.
It is that the USA, as a global empire in deep decline, needs to brew instability to postpone its demise. Pretty much as it needs to expand conflict in the Middle East to control others and to justify further militarization of its economy. USA does not import oil from the Middle East but Western Europe and Japan do. If you control Middle Eastern oil, then you control – well, it’s clear enough. USA relationship vis-à-vis Russia is and can only be adversarial. America cannot do many things directly and hence it has to use ethnic dictatorship like three ethnofascist satrapies of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania as potential launchpad for aggression against Russia and as regional irritant, America has helped to suppress of democracy wherever it did not hesitate to use ethnic nationalism to break up other societies (Kosovo, Bosnia). Emmanuel Todd in his 2002 book - After Empire predicted US behavior – from attempts to cook trouble in the Ukraine to the disastrous Middle Eastern adventure. Although France and Britain were never as opposed to each other as Russia is to the United States, a parallel can still be used as illustration – in the space of 70 years France went from being an absolute monarchy to republic, dictatorship, monarchical empire, constitutional monarchy and again republic. Despite change of governments, elites, borders and ideology, its relations vis-à-vis Britain remained adversarial. While Russia should get closer with France and Germany (it must in fact), its relations with the USA are doomed to be that of enemies because the USA (like Poland) is Russia’s enemy. They share no common interest; in fact their interests are diametrically opposed. Whether Russia is a democracy, republic, or monarchy (not self-excluding or contradictory concepts, for a republic can be tyrannical as a monarchy can be democratic) is utterly irrelevant. I think Cheney’s speech proved just that. I also hope that the Russians (especially Russian public) finally wake up to the fact that the enemy they face is not in Caucasus or Mecca or some other esoteric place but it is America which is overexposed, overstretched and has many vulnerable spots.
Posted by: Roobit | May 21, 2006 12:05 PM
The enemy is misunderstanding, of which there's a good deal of.
How to best approach it is key.
Posted by: Michael Averko | May 21, 2006 11:58 PM
Roobit,
per your
“What newspaper got closed in Russia? What babble nonsense about subject or country you know nothing about”
Many Russian newspapers have been closed since Putin assumed office.
A recent example is the small Nash Region in Volgograd.
http://www.cpj.org/news/2006/europe/russia21feb06na.html
Another recent example is the Pravad.ru shut down.
http://english.pravda.ru/russia/politics/23-03-2006/77765-pravda-0
Additionally, consistent attempts by the Russian government to control the media are protested routinely in Russia.
http://mosnews.com/images/g/s135.shtml
Posted by: Anonymous | May 22, 2006 7:31 AM
Under Putin's presidency MORE independent media outlewts have been created.
Many newsspapers close shop in America due to a tough market. Russia is no different.
Here's an excellent article on the media situation in Russia:
http://www.exile.ru/2005-April-08/pigs_at_the_printing_press.html
Posted by: Michael Averko | May 22, 2006 8:46 PM
My latest updates on Russia are here:
http://inplainview.monitor.us.tt/comm.PostSov06.htm
Thanks
Posted by: Henry James | May 25, 2006 7:11 PM
it is really true, as you noticed, that the problem has always two faces: how Russia and Russian are in Western mentality; how is Russia for Russian.
Regarding the problem of Stalin "rehabilitation" recently the Konsomol'skaja Pravda (I'd say "nearly a tabloid") published a couple of articles about this Soviet leader and today's nostalgics (http://www.kp.ru/daily/23656/49780/ - http://www.kp.ru/daily/23691/52039/).
However, also in Western Europe many people, talking about Russia, always underline that there is-were no democracy. Even my former Prime Minister, Mr Berlusconi, who during last electoral campaign accused all the time our left parties of being still soviet-communist, forgetting one of its good friends Vladimir Putin.
Posted by: cat | May 26, 2006 12:38 AM
Good article Yuri. Looks like it has generated some good debate. Roobit's comments I find especially amusing. I guess Russia has Kim and the US has Roobit to stoke the fires of nationalist hatred. Reminds me of a great quote from a cold war movie I am sure all here know and love:
The Colonel: All that hate's gonna burn you up, kid.
Robert: It keeps me warm.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087985/quotes
Anyway, back when I knew less about conditions in the Russian Fed. at the end of the USSR, my feelings (which I assume were the same as many other Americans) about Russia were as such:
When the USSR dissolved, I had high hopes that Russia and the other former soviet republics would evolve into a free, prosperous, liberal, democratic, representative republics like the US, Canada, Australia, UK, etc., relatively quickly. Obviously that was extremely naïve of me to think of at the time. After all, it could be said it took the US at least a century (if not longer) from the ratification of the constitution to evolve to a point were the country could be considered a true representative republic. Free, liberal democracies do not just spring up over night, as we are finding out in Iraq. It is a process that takes a lot of time, some luck, and usually a few generations to get to the point where this sort of model of government works somewhat effectively. But I digress.
Once the USSR dissolved, I had hoped that the hatchet would be buried between the US and Russia and that diplomatic and trade relations would improve to the point that Russia would be on the same level as any other European country. I think most Americans at this point wanted to reach out to Russia and its surrounding countries and provide a helping hand to get them on their feet and bring them into the fold of what one I guess would call “western democracy and prosperity”. This was initially tried through NGO’s, offering membership in NATO and the EEC/EU, and most all here know how this all turned out. It just ended up playing into the Russian paranoia that the US (or the “West”) is still trying to take over the world.
The problem is that most Americans don’t know or understand all the problems that Russia had to face during the 90’s. As a result, I think it is fair to state that if you are not aware of Russian history during the 90’s, the changes that Putin is trying to implement now seem anti-democratic and foolish.
Another problem that is throwing a wretch into the spokes is that Russians seem in general to be a bit xenophobic, a little too nationalistic, and too proud to accept a helping hand from the US. Even now, after all the backstabbing that has gone on with weapon sales and support to rogue nations, I am pretty sure that if the Russian Fed. wanted membership in NATO, the US/West would be happy to grant it as long as they met all the requirements that the other members have met. But we all know Russia is too proud to join the old enemy, it would just be too humbling for them. Instead, they are much more willing to continue to be a pain in the neck and fight the US on everything in the UN Security Council like in the good old days. As a result, US patience with Russian pride/paranoia has grown thin, and the US is less willing now to play nice on the international stage.
At this point, I think most Americans have resigned to the fact that Russia will always be a thorn in the side to US foreign policy, no matter what that policy will be, just because Russians like to hold a grudge and be contrary, and there is nothing anyone can do about it. Granted the French are the same way, but most Americans don’t want to be friends with France, so we don’t really care. I think most American would like to be friends with Russia, but Russia won’t let that happen, and that is what is so frustrating.
Posted by: Jason Herr | May 31, 2006 3:54 PM
You were so mad while writing this that you were not coherent at first - it is so obvious to you, but not to me. But later you came down to my level and explained the situation.
I have seen you, but not met you, at a Discovery event.
Posted by: Ron Hebron | June 7, 2006 7:57 AM