Hello, does anyone know the name of this camp in Anapa? I'm concerned, as I have a relative that attended a camp in Anapa 2 weeks ago. Do you know the dates of the session where this abuse occurred?

Eric,

The camp's name is "Уральские самоцветы" (Uralskie Samozveti), and the news came in on August 25, so I can assume the Russian media sources were talking about the sessions of the recent 2-4 weeks. Hope it helps. I am very sorry to report this stuff.

This is horrific!! What kind of culture has developed in Russia? First it is the army. Now it is the children destroying their own in the most perverted and abusive ways. This is the sign of a culture whose very soul has rotted. There is no regard for the sanctity and integrity of life.

Behavioral psychologists study rats to determine extreme stress responses. Behavior such as killing their young, cannibalizing, and abnormal sexual behavior are an indication of very poor conditions.

Certainly if an animal without the soul and intelligence of humans succumbs to such depraved behavior, what does that say about the "superior" humans who do the same?

What kind of culture has developed in Russia?

Sadly, this kind of behaviour is not unique to Russia and is common in institutions worldwide.

The extreme to which it is taken in Russia, and the extent to which it occurs, is probably more of a problem in Russia than most other places. I am speculating here, but I imagine the reason for this is a combination of a Russia's societal history of Soviet brutality followed by the social and economic collapse post-USSR.

A proper analysis would probably unearth a combination of factors, but I don't believe the commonly suggested reason that Russians are naturally more brutal and violent than anyone else.

I suppose this what happens when a group of people are forced into to a social/political experiment for some 70 years, the main intent of which was to turn everyone into an amoral, apathetic robot of the state.

The Soviet state had been pretty successful in abolishing religion and other forms of individual morality and replacing it with worship of the state.

Now that the state is gone and the external controls on human behavior are gone with it, there is nothing to keep people from acting like animals.

I don't subscribe to the Russian Orthodox faith, but it seems to me that a religious revival like what the US went through in the 30's would probably do a lot of good for the country. You don't have to believe in God to realize that religion can play a positive role in building community and establishing morality (with the obvious exception to this rule being some of the fundamentalist, extremist sects of different religions).

It stands to reason that such incidents have previously occurred in Russia.

If so, what was the media coverage like? A healthy society openly condemns and prosecutes such behavior.

This kind of abuse happens in advanced Western countries.

Tanya:

You aren't going KZ on us (a sarcastic love tap not meant with hostility)?

Have you heard of Jeffrey Dahmer (I'm probably incorrectly spelling his last name)? Regretfully, there're a good number of twisted acts of social misfitism in America. A country which I proudly call home and consider to be (overall) reasonably sane.

Acts of such sickness are unfortunately across the board. Of course, I toast its complete elimination.

Russia has had some prolonged tough times and as the house optimist, I'm banking on an overall improvement there.

whatta BS!
I'm sick of the idiots who host this blog!
What the freakin rape? What are you talking about, morons?
I see every news from Russia about Army or youth camps should have the word "rape".

Michael,

The difference between Jeffrey Dahmer and these incidents in Russia is that Jeffrey was a lone nut hiding in a societal crack. He acted in opposition to the societal norms, and I don't think any American authorities could possibly be accused of turning a blind eye to his actions or glossing over what he did.
I believe Tanya's critique is that Russia has an institutionalized culture of brutality that in the first place indirectly encourages this sort of behavior (often directly in the case of army abuses). In the second place the authorities turn a blind eye to it, and in the third place, once reluctantly acknowledging the activity, they try to play down the horrendousness of the acts.
I'm not saying Tanya is right or wrong, but I'm just clarifying that using Jeffrey Dahmer as some kind of parallel doesn't really work.

If you doubt the substance of the article, I advise you just to go to
google and search for "young russian boys". It is not pretty. So argue
all you want about semantics but the horrible truth is in the "search"

James:

The crime rate among Blacks in America is matter of factly higher than it is for Whites.

Is that because of Black culture or because of socio-economic constraints (due in part to the centuries of prejudice that Blacks faced in America) which greatly influence the ability of living a "normal" life?

I think that it has to do with the latter. At the same time, one can find instances where some poorer Black and White folks have greater morals over some richer Black and White ones.

Doesn't the above RB post detail how the discussed incident in Russia has been brought out in the open there and is this not reflective of a healthy society? How prevalent is such manner in Russia (the abuse of kids at summer camps)? Moreover, Jeffrey Dahmer isn't the only "lone nut" in America.

I saw you post about this matter at a venue which is bigoted, lie filled and slimey as per that site's creator, who has posted elsewhere under a series of different names. Are you at all critical of that individual? If I'm not mistaken that person is an American and an absolute disgrace to America and humankind at large.

Russian culture has a rich tradition in numerous internationally appreciated fields. Some of the most moral people I've ever met are Russians.

I have just returned from out of town, and out of touch with the blog. I am pleased to see this story has received attention from readers. When it was first posted, inside a story about a burned cathedral, I was worried such an atrocity would be overlooked.

Now back to the comments. Yes, I remember that twisted creepy monster Jeffry Dahlmer. Others like him as well. All very sick, with unbelievable behavior.

What upset me especially about this camp story is the fact that CHILDREN are the perpetrators of cruel, powercrazed violence upon other children.

It is not a "normally pathological" response from a mildly abused child. It is a sick, amoral, evil, life- destroying behavior of someone who has suffered years of dehumanizing abuse at the hands of an equally sick person.

I would fear that the same could happen here in the US. If so, I would hope that outrage would be huge, pan-continental, and everlasting.

Similar behavior has happened here in the US.

It doesn't reflect American society at large.

Michael,
Interesting allusion to a "venue which is bigoted, lie filled and slimey as per that site's creator, who has posted elsewhere under a series of different names .....would that be KZ?

And do we suspect KZ is still here in a different persona? I have often wondered.

(And no, I did not go KZ on you!)

Michael,

My earlier response was only intended to point out that the parallel to Jeffrey Dahmer was ineffective. And while I understand your intention, I think the Black/White America distinction also doesn't really address the question at hand. I would urge you to consider, perhaps, the latest book by Thomas Sowell, "Black Rednecks and White Liberals" which lays out historically how the modern plight of African-Americans is indeed cultural, but the irony is that their modern culture is in fact derived from Anglo "redneck" cultural norms and bears little relation to the culture of West Africa. Fascinating stuff, but beside the point at hand.
When addressing Russian "culture" I didn't intend to address the broad sweep, encompassing Dostoyevsky, Rachmaninoff, et al. (Indeed, I'm married to a quarter-Russian from Belarus, so I would take umbrage at being accused of bigotry). I was attempting to address what the business mags refer to as the "corporate culture." It's the culture of leadership. I stand by my observation concerning Jeffrey Dahmer. His evil is something that festered at the bottom of our society before catching the attention of those in the upper levels. My fear is that the evil in Russia is very much top-down, as evidenced by the leadership's choice to continue the tradition of claiming influence over territories and ethnic groups to whom Russians have no relation nor a right to power. Were we to talk about lies, one might be inclined to observe modern Russia's proud habit of calling a spade a duck (re: the '04 elections in Ukraine and any election in Belarus after '94).

I've seen this in the comments of this blog before. A bad story gets posted that takes place in Russia on a blog about Russia. People ask how this could happen and question the society's, institutions', and government's response and preventative measures for abuses such as this. Lo and behold, in comes someone that says "Holy crap, look! Something like that happened in America too, so no one ever in the history of the universe has any place to criticize Russian institutions!"

Good Grief!! We are all getting caught up in criticizing institutions and cultures of our countries!

The real point here is a horrific tragic incident happened. Human beings can be cruel and twisted and evil, throughout the world and throughout history. No doubt about that. And there is also no doubt that this event was cruel and twisted and evil, and happened in Russia at a children's camp. I would only hope that no matter where such events take place, in a "civilized" society, moral outrage would be heard, the perpetrators punished, the victims treated with care, and changes would be made.

"My fear is that the evil in Russia is very much top-down, as evidenced by the leadership's choice to continue the tradition of claiming influence over territories and ethnic groups to whom Russians have no relation nor a right to power."

****

In per capita terms, what happened to the American Indians? Ditto the indigenuous population in Australia. All things considered, Russia has a pretty good record of ethnic tolerance.

On Being Russian
http://www.russiablog.org/2005/12/on_being_russian.html

Why is Ukraine hesitant in acknowledging the Rusyn identity evident in Trans-Carpathia?

Trans-Dniester has more of a right to be with Russia than with Moldova. For much of recent history, South Ossetia and Abkhazia were a willing part of Russia. The two continue to express this desire.

How does Kosovo have a greater right to indpendence? It doesn't.

---------------------------

"Were we to talk about lies, one might be inclined to observe modern Russia's proud habit of calling a spade a duck (re: the '04 elections in Ukraine and any election in Belarus after '94)."

****

Whether one likes it or not, Lukashenko is the popularly elected leader in Belarus. If Saakashvili is better than him, then it isn't by much.
As per Ukraine, there was massive fraud on the Orange side. Likewise, with how Western mass media covered the so called "Orange Revolution.":

Yanukovych's Resurgence Should Come as No Surprise
http://www.russiablog.org/2005/11/yanukovychs_resurgence_should.html

Soviet Style Journalism in the "Free" Press
http://english.intelligent.ru/cgi-bin/loadtext.pl?id=2206&file=articles/text_e0025.htm

---------------------------

"I've seen this in the comments of this blog before. A bad story gets posted that takes place in Russia on a blog about Russia. People ask how this could happen and question the society's, institutions', and government's response and preventative measures for abuses such as this. Lo and behold, in comes someone that says 'Holy crap, look! Something like that happened in America too, so no one ever in the history of the universe has any place to criticize Russian institutions!'"

*****

How about let's be consistent and not hypocritical in our observations. You overlook the bigoted rants of someone who earlier hung themself here with his/her overt anti-Russian bigotry.

---------------------------

Tanya:

Welcome back and that includes your keen perception.

I wholeheartedly agree with you on the question of the treatment of the Native Americans, one hundred years ago.

The greater question is where respective nations are going now and what we can learn from our respective pasts. America, for all its ills, is repeatedly illustrated to be an open society prepared to correct itself. Case in point: a Supreme Court whose majority was put in place by Republican presidents nevertheless feels free to publically declare military tribunals used by the Republican president as illegal.

Can even a rough, low-level equivalent be possibly found in Belarusian or Russian legal precedent under the current regimes?

I'm not going to argue with the possibility that Lukashenka would have enjoyed a 50%+ support base. That being said, if it's true, why must Lukashenka suppress dissent and free media and conduct fraudulent polls? Why is displaying a white-red-white flag grounds for imprisonment? No majority vote by the Belarusian public, whether it be 82.6% (utterly ridiculous) or 50.01% has the power to take away human beings' fundamental right to engage in open and public, political discourse with the powers-that-be. I have no doubt that if I could control every broadcast network in the United States and enough cronies and thugs to kill or imprison my critics, I could probably manage a very nice majority vote myself. The Ukraine example only more broadly PROVES my point. Yanukovych's Party won a free, open, and democratic election. Did the US government argue the result? No! Instead, we slapped Ukraine on the back and said, "Not quite what we hoped, but congratulations on a well-run election!" Here it is straight from the horse's mouth: http://usinfo.state.gov/usinfo/Archive/2006/Mar/27-251693.html. Hell, the U.S. didn't even argue with the election of Hamas: http://usinfo.state.gov/mena/Archive/2006/Jan/30-302384.html

I don't want to make this excessively personal, Michael, but your response concerning Ukraine and Belarus reveals the exact problem at hand. You're making it a matter of "who," when the most fundamental question is the "HOW?" Russia's HOW grows less procedural and less governed by law with every day that passes.

As a matter of form, Michael, it might be more helpful if you were to link to articles written by someone other than yourself. Say what you will about the individual who is "bigoted, lie filled and slimey" (sic), that individual doesn't rely entirely on his/her own op-ed pieces.

Thank You.

On the very last point, I don't like repeating myself. That's why I linked those articles. Because of the lack of freedom in Anglo-American mass media, it's difficult to find such views on the record. They do exist. Make no mistake about it. Those articles reference other material. Feel free to directly reply to the specified points raised, as broad generalizations don't always lead to a better understanding of a given topic.

On Belarus - Lukashenko is probably a bit insecure because of the history of Western (especially American) intervention in countries whose governments haven't meshed with the desires of many influential American foreign policy elites. It's a mistake to politically liken Belarus to Russia.

Your seeming preference for that mentioned blogger highlights your biases.

My understanding is that the Russian legal system is making positive advances.

The US goverment and Israel shunned the PA after the Hamas victory. As for the so called "Orange Revolution," I gave the specifics in support of my contentions. I've yet to see any convincing evidence to the contrary.

Michael,

I'm trying carefully to stay on the topic at hand, so I worry that addressing any of your more off-topic critiques will lead to even further tangents.
So far as biases go, I can't address your claim. I have just as many biases as anyone else, including yourself. I'm trying as best I can to base my conclusions on hard data. My "bias," if it can be called that, is to favor the opinions of writers who base their conclusions on openly and well-cited hard data derived from external sources. The KZ blogger in question may have an unproductive and somewhat unprofessional habit of name-calling, but that blogger has also compiled and referenced mounds of third-party data. The KZ blogger also freely and openly links to the opinions of those with whom she she disagrees, allowing her readers to read and ponder said opposing material for themselves. I was asking you to illustrate the same openness to information, as opposed to hearsay and hidden identities, and to cite or link to as much external hard data as this individual. I certainly hope you are correct in your understanding that the Russian legal system is making positive advances. Do you have any evidence, to support the idea that this is true?
As for Belarus, it seems to me that if Lukashenka is so worried about American influence, why doesn't he engage in a nationally-televised, uncensored debate with Milinkevich or Kazulin, and pose the question of American support directly to them in front of the Belarusian people? If he believes that he is representing the ideals and opinions of the Belarusian people, he surely should be unafraid to address issues in an open forum.
As for the PA, the US and Israel shunned them because Hamas' stated goal is the destruction of Israel through any means necessary. Hamas may have been democratically elected, and the US and Israel never argued with that. But no 1st party is under obligation to pay out to a 2nd party whose stated intention is to violently eliminate the 1st party. The Palestinians were perfectly free to vote for the party of war, why should they complain or be surprised when war came to them?

James:

Putting my views under the microscope unlike those of that mentioned blogger is an eyesore (IMO). That blogger has an extra sleazy manner which you're very soft on (again IMO). Offhand, most if not all of my articles directly cite other articles, which frequently have different views from my own. I readily engage in respectful discussion. Here's one of many such examples:

http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@446.ieZNlQTQxIC.1@.77480649/4718

As for not getting personal, your critique of my linking articles of mine can be seen as such.

Lukashenko isn't obligated to debate politicians having little popularity inside Belarus. What's popular with the Carnegie Endowment isn't necessarily so in other parts of the world. Why didn't Bush accept the Iranian president's recent offer of a TV dialogue?

I've read that the Russian court system is becoming much more friendly when it comes to an individual suing a business. Russia's tax structure is also being better enforced thru the legal system (at least this is my understanding). A recent Moscow attack discussed here at RB saw an aggressive legal prosecution of the accused.

On how Israel and America deal with Hamas: You're right, in the sense that they don't have to deal with the PA.

Why did you bring that up? You suggested that Russia acted undemocratically during Ukraine's so called Orange Revolution and I suggested differently with articles that included the eye witness accounts of several orgs. reviewing that election process.

Mike,

Ok, let's break this down. Starting with your first post in response to me in the commentary string to this article, you linked to three op-ed pieces, all of which were written by you, two of which were posted here and one of which was posted at intelligent.ru. Within the first op-ed, you linked to two op-eds, both written by you, and the second link didn't actually go directly to the piece, nor to a page providing a link to the piece (we'll call this a "dud link"), no citations of other sources. Within the second op-ed, you linked to two other websites, the first to the front page of the BHHRG, the second was a "dud link" to someplace on Front Page Mag, no citation of other sources. In the third op-ed, you linked no other webpages and cited no sources, journalistic or otherwise. You didn't even provide a single actual quote by Kuzio; you dated no speeches, appearances, or events. Are we just to trust your word as to what Kuzio says or thinks, or are you actually going to give us the opportunity to evaluate it for ourselves?

So, giving you the benefit of the doubt, Mike, let's look at the content of your most recently provided link. Once again you're posting to your own writing, that writing is in the commentary field of an article in the UK's Guardian. In that commentary thread, you provide a non-cited block of text from the Organization of Russian Muslims. You then provide three links, for which you get called out by "loricat" for the exact same issues on which I'm calling you out here!

This isn't personal Mike, it's procedural, it's analytical, it's professional.

Quickly, to the other topics, on what basis are we to believe that Milinkevich is unpopular? On the polls produced by Belarusian state-run media? Why should we trust the word of someone whose employment is dependent on Lukashenka's good graces? And if Milinkevich was so very wildly unpopular, why was he on the ballot? If the openly stated standard for candidacy for president is a petition with 100,000 verifiable signatures (hey, look, a cited source with valid link!: http://www.kommersant.com/tree.asp?rubric=2&node=12&doc_id=645042), how many verifiable signatures are necessary to confirm sufficient popularity for participation in a publicly televised debate? Where's the law on the issue? What are the standards? (By the way, the cited article is an excellent read concerning the failure of the Belarusian elections to even approach democratic. A good quote: In spite of the fact that the election is only a little more than two months away, the campaigning has not begun yet under law. After the signatures are turned in, they are verified by the territorial election commission for three weeks and will be forwarded to the Central Elections Commission on February 11. It will make its decision on the registration of the candidates by February 21. Only then can campaigning begin legally. The election is March 19. Considering that Lukashenko has been shown on television at all times for several years already, and his opponents are practically unknown to the public, the month-long campaign is practically senseless.

Bush didn't debate Ahmadinejad because Ahmadinejad isn't running for president of the United States. But seriously, if not for a following vote, what would have been the purpose of such a debate? I don't disagree that it might have had some utility or might have been interesting, but unless Ahmadinejad had some specific result in mind I can't say that I see the reasoning.

But back to the topic at hand, being the methodologies of reporting, analysis, and commentary, let's go right down to your most recent assertion:

I've read that the Russian court system is becoming much more friendly when it comes to an individual suing a business. Russia's tax structure is also being better enforced thru the legal system (at least this is my understanding). A recent Moscow attack discussed here at RB saw an aggressive legal prosecution of the accused.

You've read WHERE? WHY is it your understanding? WHAT recent Moscow attack discussed WHERE on RB? So the cycle continues...

In the interest of making sure my sources are easy to follow, I submit my earlier link again in a different format:

http://www.kommersant.com/tree.asp?rubric=2&node=12&doc_id=645042

Russia Blog's recognition system accidentally viewed the ")," as part of the web address, and as such, anyone who clicks on the link will land on a page indicating an error. I apologize for the inconvenience.

No James - you aren't being analytical, as much as you're hypocritical, for the reasons I'd already presented.

The linked GUT International forum involves other views and my articles directly reply to commentary running contrary to my own.

As per that dud link, here's is where you can access Rachel Ehrenfeld's commentary on the so called "Orange Revolution":

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=16387

You should practice what you preach as per some of your unsubstantiated comments made in this section.

I'm being brief because of a commentary I'm putting together.

You're going around in circles unlike some of those who disagree with me on a regular basis.

Just came back from Maria's great victory. AWESOME!!

An example of straight forward intelligent discourse:

http://english.intelligent.ru/cgi-bin/loadtext.pl?id=8915&file=letters/letter_e0112.htm

An example of thought provoking fact based critique:

http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@578.JNdKlXXgx5R.3@.77480649/4741

Tah, tah.

I'm not sure how the discussion got off on so many tangents so quickly.

The questions posed briefly were: does this type of abuse happen in America too? Of course it has happened, but the more important question is how much brutality is tolerated in Russian society.

The overall crime rate in Russia may be about the same or lower as in the U.S. - that is, statistically recorded crimes. If you are a Russian businessman, Moscow is safer today than it was in the 1990s. However, Russians have many good reasons to distrust their cops and thus a lot of violent crimes (assaults, muggings) probably don't get reported if the victims are lucky enough to escape with minor injuries.

I do think that there is a deep cultural problem of not taking violence seriously in Russia, as long as people are not killed and the injuries are not life-threatening, and it is the same every dog for himself attitude that leads to so much bribery and hoarding.

The main point we made in the article is that dedovshina starts in the schoolyard and these kids are ticking time bombs long before they start torturing their comrades in the army.

Actually James I'm not so sure that KZ links to people who disagree with him/her, though maybe few people bother arguing with someone who works so hard to get attention through insults (seriously, don't these people have something better to do?).

The reason KZ was banned from this forum (and other handles whose style of personal attacks and pointless hectoring seemed identical) started when she/he accused us of lying about powdered sugar being available in supermarkets across Russia. Nevermind how many Russians have told me that it is available in numerous cities, there must be some dark neo-Soviet conspiracy to hide the sugar shortage.

From there it all went downhill, with KZ demanding that we ban commenters if they disagreed on some point of fact with her/him. Also, a point I made in an email about our comments policy - that we do not have time to fact check every single reader comment (though I do read them all) was twisted on her/his blog into the claim that we do not fact check our posts. Our readers have a right to be wrong about certain things, and if we took the time to correct every single misstatement or error on the part of our readers, we'd never get our work done. So this person is doing exactly what she/he accuses us of doing - peddling falsehoods, twisting people's words. But now if we took down the posts this person submitted when they were still polite and came across as sane, we'd be accused of covering up, so we kept them up.

KZ/Lenard's style is nearly identical to a person (who may or may not exist, I can't find anything about this person on Google :) named Oliver Bronson who was banned from numerous other Russia forums for the same trollish behavior.

I hope that explains for our readers what Tanya and Mike are talking about.

Thanks for the effort to maintain clarity, Charles. Similarly, my original observation was that Jeffrey Dahmer is not a parallel to the incident of Russian child-on-child violence, nor a valid point of contrast regarding cultural and institutional views of violence between the United States and Russia. I stand by that observation.

If I may be accused of defending KZ, it is only because I observe that she uses thorough documentation and actively provides resources to her readers, including op-eds and reporting provided by those who could be described as her ideological opponents. Getting in a shouting match over powdered sugar wasn't worth it.

Did anyone else notice that Mike used more writing space to attaching labels to me ("hypocritical") than actually addressing my specific questions regarding his use of substantiating facts and/or providing the specific facts and sources I requested? I should practice what I preach in regard to WHAT unsubstantiated comments made in this section?

In reference to Charles' comment that KZ doesn't link to people who disagree with her, I invite your readers to look at her piece of Mr. Averko himself: http://russophobe.blogspot.com/2006/05/mike-averko-legend-in-his-own-neo.html

There, she's provided 13 links to Mike's own materials in a variety of forums.

Mike, how many times did you link to even third party accounts of Kuzio's actions or quotes?

That's because no one challenges Kuzio in print. Try proving me wrong.

You don't mention the half truths and outright lies LR says about me in addition to his/her insults.

I also post/publish under my real full name.

Among James' unsubstantiated comments here was his assertion that Russia covets land it has no business having.

This is like KZ all over again. Selective nit picking in a way that's very hypocritical.

I've yet to be proven wrong in this particular Comments section.

Cripes, Mike, the question isn't whether anyone CHALLENGES Kuzio in print. Only whether anyone RECORDS Kuzio's actions in print. The source of Kuzio's words didn't have to be sympathetic to your position. The fundamental question I had for you is why you couldn't quote a single word or cite a single source of what he said. Period. And for the record, Kim has frequently posted under her own name at Publius Pundit:

http://www.publiuspundit.com/?p=2905
http://www.publiuspundit.com/?p=2893

Is that her actual name. Is she a female? Have you thoroughly researched this matter?

As per Kuzio - I noted the venues where he stated his comments.

Once again, you come up empty and hypocritical.