If Vladimir Putin and the Russian Parliament believe that their own-operated orphanages are a better option than the American adoption, they better have answers to video showcased in this post. A friend of a friend of a family friend of someone who works at an orphanage in Amur Oblast sent this video to a local newspaper to draw the attention to the activities at the orphanage. The way the video was "discovered" means multiple adults were aware of the events at the orphanage. Children's screams in the video (now complimented by investigators' reports of heavy injuries on seven-year-olds' bodies) suggest that orphanage "supervisors" (Russian government employees) were in the loop as well. If Vladimir is truly concerned about the well-being of children, he has something to worry about much closer to home than in the far-away America.

Russian news outlets report that a "criminal investigation has been launched and police is conducting interviews with the orphanage staff."

My yesterday's interview with the Voice of Russia on the Berezovsky's death:

Voice of Russia's Kim Brown talks with Yuri Mamchur, Director of the Real Russia Project at the Discovery Institute:

Mamchur talks about the "strange relationship" between Russia and England during the last portion of Berezovsky's life, when the former Russian Oligarch was self-exiled to England in order to avoid tax evasion charges. Mamchur says that he believed that Berezovsky, renowned for his calculating approach to life, "ran out of countries to go to" and "ran out of money" and committed suicide after realizing he'd run out of options.

Listen to the full interview here.

The gas reserves of Cyprus apparently do not sufficiently tantalize the Russian government, at least not enough to persuade Mr. Putin to lend the Mediterranean island some six billion Euros. The government of Cyprus has a new plan to give the big investors a haircut, but it still won't be enough (only about two billion Euros), and the EU is unlikely to approve it.

The Wall Street Journal today editorializes in favor of bankruptcy as the best option for the Cypriot banks, which is what probably should have happened to some US companies in 2008. After a 40 percent loss for large investors (accounts with $100,000 or more Euros), the bankrupt banks would be reorganized. Oddly, some Russian investors in Cyprus would have a big position in the new banks, not that that would be a huge consolation to them.

My Discovery colleague Yuri Mamchur thinks that the political/military temptation for the Kremlin is insufficient to justify the risk of a big loan to the insolvent Cypriots. I guess the gas reserves are in the future and the payout for a loan would be today, so no deal (at least not yet). Also, Yuri points out, the Russian oligarchs who will get the haircut are not the reason Mr. Putin is in power, so why save their tax avoidance schemes?

The crisis in Cyprus still has not focused the world's attention as it should. Russia is poised to make a huge political/economic gain, almost unprecedented in a country that never before was under its sway.

Openeurope.org reports from varied sources,

"The Cypriot government announced yesterday that banks and the Cypriot stock market will remain closed until next Tuesday, as it rushed to find a new deal to raise the €5.8bn needed to unlock a €10bn loan from the EU/IMF. Cyprus reportedly submitted a plan which involved creating a fund made up of: revenue from a solidarity tax (not a deposit levy), nationalised pension assets, revenue from restructuring and selling off the two largest Cypriot banks and property of the Church of Cyprus. This was rejected by the EU/IMF/ECB Troika since it would increase Cypriot debt to unsustainable levels. Cypriot political leaders are meeting this morning to adjust the plan with the hope that they can get it approved and then vote on it in the Cypriot parliament this evening.

At the same time, Cypriot Finance Minister Michalis Sarris was in Moscow looking to secure further aid from Russia. Sarris reportedly offered Russia the chance to purchase the largest Cypriot banks in exchange for incentives linked to Cypriot gas reserves, although Russia remained cool on the prospect. In an interview with the FT, Russian Prime Minister

Faced with catastrophe, the people of Cyprus seem ready to accept the new dispensation. Openeurope.og notes that the Athens Daily newspaper (Kathimerini)

"(R)eports that a survey by Prime Consulting found that 91% of Cypriots backed their Parliament's decision to reject the deposit tax. The poll also found that 67% of Cypriots favoured their country's exit from the eurozone and a strengthening of relations with Russia."

If Washington is not very exercised over the Cyprus crisis, perhaps it is partly because the Europeans are not much exercised themselves.

Cyprus is in financial trouble and unable to pay its debts. Understandably, the Cypriot Parliament was unhappy with the solution of taxing bank depositors for their savings as a way to satisfy the Eurozone. Russia also was unhappy, since wealthy Russians use Cyprus for banking purposes.

But those aren't the only options. If the Cypriots are in Moscow for a deal, surely that deal might give government-linked Russian oil companies development rights for the sizable undersea deposits known to exist off the coast of Cyprus. Good idea, huh?

Except that would put a new Eurozone country in thrall to the Putin regime. Russian oil concessions almost certainly would result in at least some loss of Cypriot sovereignty. A military port even a possibility, though not without causing Cyprus to leave NATO. Even the prospect of such a development will cause heartburn in the EU--and in Turkey. After all, Turkey controls a part of Cyprus, is a NATO ally and historically is nervous about Russia. It would hate the idea that its big neighbor to the North could also become a neighbor to the West.

Energy diplomacy is paying off for the Kremlin in ways that old-style military power has not. Poland and other Eastern European countries that are dependent on Russian gas are bargaining away their ability to develop their own natural gas deposits by means of fracking. With energy dependence also goes at least some political dependence.

We have a song in America with the line, "I owe my soul to the Company Store."

My most recent visit to Russia was overwhelmed by one particular notion - the country has become so materialistic that even Ayn Rand and Daniel Plainview (main character from There Will Be Blood) would've found the obsession with money to be too much. In other words, the core of the Russian society, the so-called ruling elite and middle class, has become spiritless and valueless to the point of increasing physical deaths and criminal activities. The only part of the society that still genuinely puts family values and honesty first is Russia's fast-growing Muslim population. In other words, imagine a version of The Walking Dead where "zombies" literally don't sleep, don't eat, don't drink, don't have compassion, and walk and work with only one goal - to make more money (rather than eat people). That picture describes today's Moscow (complete with FM-radio soundtrack broadcasting the lyrics that "any b..ch is just a matter of price...").

Some libertarians may argue that greed is good. However, while the libertarian "religion" is heavily advocated by Atlas, Reason, CATO, and other U.S.-based foundations, American libertarianism is from a country where people don't hide behind six-foot fences, don't drive 200 miles an hour killing school kids at a bus stop, don't display their wealth by spending 98% of their monthly income on clothes and cars they can't afford, and regularly go to church. The sheer fact that libertarian non-profits exist proves that someone in America spends money on donations and charitable giving. And even that in itself is drastically different from today's Russia, where people would easily spend $15 on a cup of tea and $20 on a tasteless desert on the go, but wouldn't give a dime to a charity that feeds orphans. In fact, Russia today has more orphans than it did during World War II, and people with the means to take the children in prefer to buy expensive dogs and provide them with fancy dog snacks and toys. Two days before I left Moscow, a drunk driver, travelling 130 miles an hour, lost control of his car and wiped out a bus stop with 14 children, killing seven on the spot. Under Russian laws his maximum sentence can be nine years in prison.

How did it happen and who is to blame? the Russian Orthodox Church and its corrupt ex-KGB, tobacco-billionaire leader are the ones to share the responsibility.

Since Putin's government pulled the plug on tax-exempt status for non-profits (the law was a reform much-needed at the time when severe tax violations were real), the Russian Orthodox Church de-facto became the moral guide of the nation, empowered to educate the people about orphans, family values and moral behavior. Patriarch Alexey did a decent job at it. When he died, an ex-KGB operative "Mikhailov" (legal name Vladimir Gundyayev) became the new leader of the Russian church. Patriarch Kirill (Mihailov/Gundyayev) made his fortune abusing the same tax laws in the Nineties by using the Russian Orthodox Church's non-profit status and becoming the biggest market player in tobacco and alcohol imports. I doubt it was a conspiracy, but rather an alignment of values that made Patriarch Kirill supportive of Putin's government. That's when the church shifted its focus from "church things" to suppressing the opposition and actively advocating Putin's political party in most recent elections. As a "thank you" the government closes its eyes on the church's financial and criminal offenses. In the most recent case six weeks ago, Igumen Timofey (a head pastor of a monastery) crashed his BMW in downtown Moscow, taking out several more cars besides his own. Witnesses say he was too drunk to stand on his feet. The court dismissed all testimony and Moscow police blamed an unknown computer virus on precisely wiping out the video files of traffic cameras that captured the crash. In Russia, it surely pays off to support the government. This case is one of many.

The loss of notions of life as a valuable gift and honesty as a way of doing business has also led to the increasing number of deadly car and motorcycle crashes, wide-spread petty corruption, and the growth of drug abuse and sexually-transmitted diseases. In one conversation, my U.S.-educated Russian friend left me speechless saying that "an investment of $35,000 into bribing your way into Moscow City Government pays for itself within months; by stealing pension funds and the elderly's maintenance payments you can 'earn' enough to buy a couple condos in Miami within the first year!"

Handling of the Pussy Riot incident has shown above-and-beyond attempts of the church to not behave like a religious institution. I'll use a parable: When Nashville-based Cross Point Church was picketed by a notorious Kansas hate group, Cross Point's Head Pastor communicated via Facebook, Twitter, and email, urging people to not engage in arguments, but give water and food to the picketing haters (Nashville was above 100F and the pastor told church-goers to simply care about the protestors). At the end of the day, the hate group's picketing didn't make any news. PR-wise, there was nothing to report, and behavior-wise, the church did the right, Christian thing.

In stark contrast, the Russian Orthodox Church ensured the prosecution of Pussy Riot girls, making itself and the government look foolish, and further splitting the Russian society beyond repair. If only someone in Kirill's office was smart enough to say, "Why don't we do the Jesus thing - forgive them and pray with them to cast the pussy-rioting demons out of these girls," what a different effect could have been achieved! The news would've never reached international media, Russian opposition would've looked dumb, Putin would've stayed out of the picture, and the church would've shown compassion and leadership by example (as it's supposed to do). Instead, the Pussy Riot case was the last drop in a poisoned social stew; today, a majority of Russians straight-out hate the church. The prior orthodox aggressive strategy (supported by the government) ensured absence of the competition on the "church market" and the Russians are left with a notion that a KGB-led, drunken-driving, tobacco-selling institution is the Church.

Joseph Stalin's goal to get rid of the church was ambitious and well-calculated. A nation without moral guidance can be easily manipulated and sold the utopian idea of Communism. However, because of Ukrainian resistance, remote villages, and old believers Stalin never fully succeeded in his quest to eliminate the faith from the Russian society. Despite of killing priests and blowing up churches, Soviet people had strong family values, lasting marriages, a culture of volunteering, and understanding that wealth alone cannot be the source of happiness. Isn't it ironic that 80 years later, Stalin's dream came true? The job is being finished by church's highest leader who happens to have had a successful career in KGB, an institution founded by Stalin himself.

MOSCOW -- The famous legal battle that just took place in London between the two most famous Russian oligarchs attracted a lot of well-deserved attention. Reading The Economist readers' comments and listening to people in the streets of Moscow, one thing became apparent: both Berezovsky and Abramovich should have gone to prison. Instead, they're paying million-dollar bills to their attorneys, investing into the British court system, and making fools of other two players in the now-told fable of crime and corruption: Boris Yeltsin and Vladimir Putin.

Berezovsky was Yeltsin's darling (or vice-versa, depending on a year). Today, rightfully, Berezovsky is wanted in Russia on charges of multiple murders, bribery, extortion, tax evasion, and other things common to several Russian businesses of the Nineties. However, the only reason Abramovich isn't just as wanted is the fact that he is (or at least was) the darling of Tsar Vladimir. The point is - the wealth discussed in British court was amassed through the theft of then-Soviet public properties from the Russian nation. Through various kickbacks, one thief was more successful than the other in "keeping it real" a.k.a "legal" (why not employ the language appropriate to the situation...).

Russian legal and political systems are no enigma to anyone, especially since the most recent elections. However, the question of morality falls on the Brits: Is investment into a formerly broke soccer club and British banking accounts worth the downsides of letting two foreign criminals make mockeries of business ethics, international laws, and human morality? When I was in London two years ago, I noticed hundreds of not-so-sophisticated (yet loaded) Arabs and Russians, behaving, disrespectfully, as if they own the place and spraying thousands of pounds. Can anyone buy anything with money in perfidious Albion? Seems the answer is "yes." There will be trade-offs, and the Brits better beware of the realities which Russian blood money brings along with the wealth.

Central to fairness, American style, is an opportunity to be heard before judgment is pronounced, innocence until guilty is proven and the proof of guilt by actual evidence and not an alleged propensity to do wrong. This is why the unseemly rush to move the Magnitsky Act through the Congress ultimately is at least as damaging to America as it is to Russia. The proposed Act demands that Russia conducts a "thorough and unbiased investigation of the case" and the Russian prosecutors, albeit slowly, and even the parliament are in the process of doing just that.

The Russian parliamentarian report should be read in its entirety by those wishing to be fair and with an appreciation that it is just preliminary, but among other things, it makes the point that the legal context for the arrest of Sergei Magnitsky may be more complicated than Congress was informed by a British citizen William Browder who, it argues, had a motive to distort the facts to cover up his own activities.

According to this report William Browder implemented a scheme involving the use of Russian corporations he controlled to gain a larger interest in the Russian corporation Gazprom than was allowed by Russian law. The report further alleges that Mr. Browder developed a scheme to evade the payment of profit taxes by claiming a deduction for having a large component of special needs workers in their workforce which resulted in the substantial tax evasion.

Somehow, there is a feeling that those who push this bill through Congress do not really care about what happened to Sergei Magnitsky. Only if the primary goal of the bill is Russia bashing and ruining US - Russia relations, does it make sense not to determine the facts before acting. Besides, the Executive branch of the US government can deny visas or freeze the illicit property or bank accounts of any criminal or corrupt foreign national it deems proper without Congressional involvement and according to the existing US laws.

As for presenting Russia's graduation from the obsolete Jackson-Vanik Amendment (JVA) as a carrot, which has to be supplemented by a stick in the form of the Magnitsky Act is just too cynical for words. The great irony is that it is not Russia that now needs the JVA graduation (if it does, then for moral satisfaction only) as JVA has not been active since 1994 anyway. It is the American business that needs this graduation to avoid penalties after Russia formally joins WTO this month.

Congress is about to make a powerful statement to the world about American democracy. Either it will show that truth and fairness are central to what it means to be an American, or it will show that a mindless rush to judgment to score political points is more important than democratic principles.

"Cheap demagoguery and policies based on tabloid emotionalism make for bad - even dangerous foreign policy. The progress of what's known as "the MagnitskyAct" through Congress is a classic example of this" -- Martin Sieff, Foxnews

"When Congress takes the lead on foreign policy the result is not usually optimal. Some worry that America's first branch of government is about to add to its dubious record with passage of the Magnitsky bill" -- Financial Times

Edward Lozansky is president of American University in Moscow and Professor of the Department of World Politics at the Moscow State University.

Who could argue against the concept that corrupt officials should be punished? Didn't we hear from the Russian leadership, including President Vladimir Putin and Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev, that corruption is Russia's worst enemy? Why such an outcry, then, in Moscow as well as in the U.S. business community regarding the Sergei Magnitsky Act? It is currently moving through the Capitol Hill bureaucracy and, according to its sponsors, is supposed to help Russia fight its monstrous corruption.

This bill, which is turning into a major irritant in U.S.-Russian relations, threatening to deal a fatal blow to Obama's "reset" policy, references the death in Russia in 2009 of Sergei Magnitsky, who died while in pre-trial detention on a tax fraud charge after being refused medical treatment for his illnesses. The bill calls for U.S. visa denial and assets freeze for all Russian officials involved in mistreating Magnitsky or in some other "gross human rights violations."

Why, then, point the finger at Russia? Is it really the worst perpetrator of corruption and violator of human rights? Not by a long shot. Besides, the U.S. State Department has already compiled a black list of Russian officials to be denied U.S. entry visas. As for freezing their illicit assets, if it is proven in courts that they are indeed illicit, this can also be done by the executive branch of the U.S. government without congressional involvement.

Somehow, there is reason to suspect that the Magnitsky bill has little to do with fighting corruption or punishing Magnitsky's tormentors and much more with "baiting the bear" or, putting it more accurately, poking Vladimir Putin in the eye. Why the congressional sponsors of this bill would do that is anyone's guess. It is easy to see, though, that demonizing Putin, whose cooperation in many parts of the world we need, totally contravenes U.S. business and national security interests.

Some of the leading American business associations, such as USA Engage, National Foreign Trade Council (NFTC), U.S. - Russia Business Council, American Chamber of Commerce, and others uniting thousands of U.S. companies involved in foreign trade, are not very pleased with the Magnitsky Act either. NFTC President Bill Reinsch expressed the view that "this bill, if passed, will not only unnecessarily complicate U.S.-Russia relations, but it also has the potential to damage U.S. diplomatic relations worldwide. As the administration has already taken steps to enact appropriate measures regarding this human rights violation, we strongly urge Congress to refrain from taking any further steps that would put U.S.-Russian relations in unnecessary peril."

Another highly controversial action by Congress is the linkage of the Magnitsky Act to granting the PNTR to Russia by graduating it from the infamous Jackson-Vanik Amendment (JVA). Presenting this graduation from JVA to Russia as a carrot that has to be supplemented by a stick in the form of the Magnitsky Act is just too cynical for words.

The great irony is that it is not Russia that now needs the JVA graduation (if it does, then for moral satisfaction only), as the JVA has not been active since 1994, anyway. It is American business that needs this graduation to avoid penalties after Russia formally joins the WTO this month. In essence, the Jackson-Vanik nonsense would then become a sanction on American business.

As Martin Sieff from The Globalist points out: "Cheap demagoguery and policies based on tabloid emotionalism make for bad, even dangerous foreign policy. The progress of what's known as the Magnitsky Act through Congress is a classic example of this."

No wonder the latest congressional job approval ratings are in the single digits.

Edward Lozansky is president of American University in Moscow and Professor of the Department of World Politics at the Moscow State University.

The new elections in Egypt have proven that Democracy works. People's wish for a new leadership came true, and the Muslim Brotherhood is in charge of the strongest Islamic nation, a former ally of the West. The new government may rewind the hard-earned achievements of cooperation with the West and basic human rights by 500 (if not 1,000) years. And America, Russia, Britain, France and other prominent U.N. members will be simply watching the historic tragedy from the sidelines. The democracy has flourished indeed, and the Egyptians--not Russian or American intelligence operatives--are in charge of their nation, just as Palestinians and Hamas are in charge of theirs.

The change of government is yet to occur in Libya, but chances are high that the African nation--who enjoyed the fruits of the Arab Spring as well--will cast a vote for a similar leadership as the one Egyptians did (or the extremists, amid the chaos, will seize the power bypassing official protocols). This leaves the world at large with a question: is al-Assad really that bad? Or is he just evil, but the lesser of the available devils raging through the Muslim world? At the end of the day, Russia may not have only its own interests in mind, but also the interests of the overall stability in the region and the world. The death of 10,000 protestors is a tragedy. However, would the persecution of all non-Muslims, pushing the women to the sidelines of society, harboring terrorists, and--possibly--killing hundreds of thousands be a worse tragedy? The answer should be clear, unless some of the involved parties who advocate the protection of the human rights, in reality have a particular interest in destabilizing the region; such scenario borders with a conspiracy theory and, I hope, isn't true.

Realpolitik of Russia (and China) is weathered by 1,000 years (and 5,000 years respectively) of history. They may see the difference between the implausible wishful thinking and the unpleasant harsh reality. My own long trip to Washington D.C. is coming to an end, and sipping the Starbucks double-shot espresso on ice and thinking of the Founding Fathers and the French toast at the Kramer Books in DuPont Circle makes me wish the world were filled with peace and respect. However, Afghan, Libyan, Syrian, Egyptian, Iraqi, and Iranian villages do not have a Starbucks and do not serve French toast. Furthermore, they haven't heard of the Founding Fathers, and, quite often, do not know how to read or write. What they do know, is that Allah is the one and only God, who promises a pass to heaven and multiple virgins, a woman is less valuable than a horse, and the West and Israel are the enemies who need to be converted or erased from the face of the Earth.

Replacing the warm-and-fuzzy imaginary picture with a reality snapshot makes White House attitude look like the sentiment of a Seattle tree-hugger who cannot understand why some trees will have to get cut when the Jersey Pike is expanded. After all, Putin may have a valuable advice that Obama should consider. Americans have their own saying: Be careful what you wish for.

"We wish not to meddle with the internal affairs of any country..."

- President Thomas Jefferson

On Thursday, June 7, Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen will convene a hearing at the House Committee on Foreign Affairs which she chairs. However, instead of using her committee's significant resources to conduct the People's business, she will take up the Magnitsky Bill, a controversial issue that may hinder U.S.-Russia relations outside of logic and reason.

The name of this H.R. 4405 bill references the death in 2009 in Russia of Sergei Magnitsky who died while in pre-trial detention on a tax fraud case after being refused medical treatment for his illnesses. President Dmitry Medvedev at the time dismissed a number of top local and federal prison officials over it. Prime-Minister Vladimir Putin called the death a "tragedy." The investigation into Magnitsky's mistreatment and the whole case of alleged tax fraud by his employer - the Hermitage Fund - is still going on. So is there a role here for U.S. Congress to play? The short answer is "No."

Besides, attaching Magnitsky's name to such a bill is clear proof of selective justice - something that we frequently accuse Russia of - since, sadly enough, similar cases of deaths in prisons due to denial of proper medical service happen in many other countries, including the United States (consider, e.g., Adam Montoya's death at the Pekin, Illinois, federal penitentiary in 2009).

Somehow, there is a reason to suspect that the Magnitsky bill is not so much to do with punishing his tormentors as with poking the Bear, or more precisely Vladimir Putin in the eye. Why Congressional sponsors of this bill would do that is anyone's guess. It is easy to see, though, that demonizing Putin, whose cooperation in many parts of the world we need, totally contravenes U.S. national security interests.

This isn't the first time Congress is getting involved in a Russian witch hunt. In 2007, there was a Resolution alleging Russian government involvement in the poisoning death of Alexander Litvinenko, a Russian fugitive who became a British citizen. World headlines heralded that a "Former KGB spy was murdered on orders of Putin." The news stories were based on a deathbed statement of Litvinenko.

It turned out that the entire story was a fabrication. The reports were specious. A former Soviet citizen admitted that he had written the so-called "deathbed statement" himself, and tried to pass it off as Litvinenko's own words. The fabricator acknowledged he had no evidence to back up his wild claims. In fact, he was part of a group of London-based "human rights activists" who hired a top British PR firm to spread their phony story. This whole caper is subject of a book by media business analyst William Dunkerley called "The Phony Litvinenko Murder."

What a waste of Congressional time and prestige that 2007 Resolution was! The same goes for this new bill.

With all the problems that we face today, America needs more friends, rather than foes. Regrettably, all by-partisan sponsors of this dubious bill - which is supposed to replace the totally obsolete Jackson-Vanik amendment so harmful these days for U.S. businesses - obviously think otherwise. No wonder Congress approval rating is in the single digits now.

It is the time Congress members took the interest of the American people first rather than those of foreign and domestic lobbyists. It is the time to concentrate on building mutually beneficial U.S. - Russia security and economic cooperation instead of wasting tax-payers money on useless and harmful resolutions.

Edward Lozansky is president of American University in Moscow and Professor of the Department of World Politics at the Moscow State University.

Forgotten for a long time, popular Soviet artist Eduard Khil, achieved the worldwide stardom as "Mr. Trololo" in 2010; he died last night in a St. Petersburg hospital at age 77. His 1976 vocalized song "I'm so Glad I'm Finally Coming Back Home" became a YouTube sensation, scoring millions of views within days. His new fame put him back on the stages of Moscow and St. Petersburg hottest dance clubs, where he performed remakes and remixes of his old hits. Last April, he suffered a stroke, and his newly-found world-wide fans started collecting donations for an advanced heart surgery. Unfortunately, Eduard never got a chance to use the generous gift. However, doctors who spent the last minutes of his life with Mr. Trololo, said that he died happy.

The best gift of his life was the last-minute international stardom. What a way to end a long career for a retired Soviet singer! He was just another Soviet musician, who faced the hardships of the Nineties with the rest of the nation, and left Russia for Paris, where he sang at restaurants to make the living. He was old, and returned home in 2000-s to quietly retire and live the last days of his life in his old Soviet-built apartment; just another "old man." The 2010 YouTube phenomenon could have been taken as a prank or as a prompt to get back on the stage. He took it as the latter, and, despite his age, reconquered the hearts of millions. Eduard Khil experienced what no other Soviet singer could have ever dreamed of - an international fame, spanning across the continents and generations. In the last days of his life, he smiled and entertained the young crowds, who fell in love with his sincere love for life, appreciation of all genres of music, and enjoyment of Internet humor. He even hoped to make it to the States with the Mr. Trololo Tour...

You lived a full life and will be remembered far beyond the Soviet Union and its old generations. Today, the whole world will smile, listening to your 1976 hit. Rest in peace, Mr. Trololo.

In a recent interview with the Business Insider, I said that "problems in Iran and Syria are 'wonderful for the Russian economy.'" I meant it. Mark Taylor's article "For all the bluster, these three reasons show Russia's position on Iran may be surprisingly sane" explores well why Russia is interested in the ambiguity around Iranian nuclear program. In brief, two things to keep in mind: the unstable region means higher oil prices (good for Russia), and Iran as a neighboring Islamic nuclear power means an imminent threat to Russia beyond any American's imagination (bad for Russia). However, after all, world economics and politics are a fine art of balancing, and that's what Russia is doing; playing a dangerous game, that's paying off well so far with Putin's balanced federal budget.

The new unstable player of the region is Syria, and many Americans, including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, cannot wrap their mind around Russian and Chinese stance of non-involvement. The situation is similar to the one with Iran and Libya, but if one takes a closer look, it is different and only "better" for Russia and China. Suffering and dying of innocent people are bad things; however, they are bad only for the people experiencing them. The Russian Orthodox Church, led by former Putin's colleague, would condemn the violence, but would also remind you that there is a lot of suffering in the world, and the best immediate thing we can do is just pray for the victims. Gadhafi was a stabilizing force in his country, and NATO's help to the Libyan rebellion meant instability (higher oil prices, better budget in Russia). Gadhafi was a Russian ally, and Russia faced the loss of a $4 billion weapons contract. However, that monetary loss was offset by the significant increase in oil prices, and Gadhafi's old age helped Russia shape its decision to control the timing of his imminent "departure."

Syrian President Bashar Hafez al-Assad (coincidentally born on September 11) is a different animal. His leadership means instability in the region, for which American farmers are paying at the gas pumps, and with which Russian members of parliament are balancing the books. So, if the case of Syrian nation's slaughter is monetarily good for Russia, why would the Chinese go along? After all, they import oil as well. That's where many reporters (and Secretary Clinton) forget a small detail of a very large transaction that took place seven years ago.

As long as President al-Assad's regime causes instability, oil prices stay high; the Russian budget is balanced and Chinese gain the competitive advantage. The situation is nearly ideal for Russia and China, and is the result of a series of decisions that stretch as far as 2005.

One can argue that it is unethical to swap the killing of innocent people in exchange for financial and regional stability of a few nations. However, that argument needs to be weighed against such words as "democracy," "terrorism," "oil," "influence," "Iran," "Afghanistan," "Lybia," "Bosnia," "NATO"... The reader is welcome to mix and match these words to justify the death of hundreds of thousands of civilians in these countries, but should also keep in mind that President Assad is Syria's legitimate president, and no other nation technically has the right to meddle in his nation's affairs. Bill O'Reilly says that "spin stops here." Maybe it does in his studio, but it's the opposite in the real world of business, politics, and policy. It's all about the Spin.

The recent news of the Russian Sukhoi Superjet 100 going down in Indonesia and killing 45 has made it big around the globe. Experts and news agencies sighted bad visibility, unknown terrain, and questionable permissions from the flight tower as the reasons for the tragedy during the jet's inaugural international trade show. The St. Petersburg Times reports that "Russian intelligence agencies are investigating the possibility that the U.S. military may have brought down the Sukhoi Superjet." The guesses are plenty--some laughable, some believable--however, the true reason is one: system failure. And I'm not talking about the aircraft's on-board systems or even the processes at the Sukhoi design and construction facilities (which are plenty and where a brand-new engineer is offered a whooping salary of $500 a month). I'm talking about the Russian government's reliance on the so-called "vertical of power" and sheer luck instead of an organized legal system and business process. The plane's crash may be a foreshadowing of events that are about to follow, pending increase in the volatility of oil prices and Greece's financial collapse, as Russia's "system" simply does not work.

What would an American (or a British or a French) pilot do during the demonstration of a new plane to potential buyers or journalists? Would he allow other people into his cabin? Would he deviate from all protocols to take a closer look at the picturesque 7,200-feet-tall mountains by lowering his aircraft to 6,000 feet in rain and fog? Most likely, no. That is common sense, that is following protocol. And this is not just in aviation. If one tries to act by the book of law in Russia, he would wonder why most of the members of parliament officially live below the poverty line, yet drive Porches and Bentleys. Why it is that knowing someone's uncle in a city's fire department might prove useful in running a street-side café. Or why planes that are solidly built fly straight into the mountains at full speed.

Early Putin's cabinet relied on innovative strategies that improved Russia's financial system, dramatically simplified the tax code, and created the country's first-ever land ownership that resulted in the birth of the credit system. The processes were assisted by unprecedented rise in oil prices and nation's spiritual awakening after seventy years of communism and a decade of impoverished Yeltsinism. Economic wealth and growth of the middle class followed. However, most of Russia's wealth escaped the country through foreign and off-shore accounts, corruption stabilized at high levels, and the middle class settled with the status quo of rising salaries and lowering political stimulation. Putin has gotten older and lazier, Russian Orthodox church became involved in political and tax-evasion scandals, and now the luck of stable Europe and rising oil prices is slowly running out.

It was not the equipment, but current absence of open social discourse, ethical business practice, and just legal systems that brought down that Russian plane in Jakarta.

We extend our condolences to the affected families.

Had Andrey actually planned to kill the judge he would have had plenty of time (and the axe) on his hands. However, he allowed a surprisingly long amount of time for the court security to rush into the judge's office and detain him. Witnesses described him as "looking happy and accomplished" during the detention. The story itself seems merely "amusing," but the internet comments on the Russian websites are truly prolific. Having browsed through hundreds of comments and talked to a few Russians, I haven't found a single one condemning Andrey's actions. Quite the opposite; the Russian Internet made Andrey an overnight hero and led to fulsome calls for Russians to rise up and "kill them all with axes, forks, and chains" like in the good old times. One commenter says that "Andrey will get 10 years [in prison], had he axed her - he would've gotten 15 - extra five to finish off the corrupt judge who listens to Papa Vladimir would've been a good investment!" A few commenters think that the attack was a United Russia-administered conspiracy to show how violent the opposition can be. Whatever the truth is, the insinuation is obvious - progressive, Internet-using Russians endorse a violent solution to Russia's political stagnation. Those who've read Russian history books know that paranoia from any side is not a good social tendency for the Motherland.