четверг, декабря 15, 2011
вторник, декабря 13, 2011
DECEMBER 25 1991 - TWENTY YEARS AGO
This clip was released on december 25, 1991, covering Gorbachev's resignation and the end of the Soviet Union. It mentions also Yeltsin's gaining control over a stockpile of nuclear weapons.
PUTIN IN 1998
Putin appears in Kyrgyzstan in 1998 in meeting related to creating a common security umbrella in the CIS.
PUTIN IN 1992
This NTB interview was taken in 1992, when Vladimir Putin was 39 years old living and working in the Mayor's office in St Petersburg. It is part of a set of links on this blog to provide quick access to some of Putin's background in Russia before he became President, PM, and potentially President again. He may end up serving as much time as President as Tony Blaire did as PM, or as many as the Clintons aspired to. There is much to be mocked at the Hillary-Bill duo vying for power in a very similar way.
McCain on Putin's Russia
McCain looked into Putin's eyes and saw three letters: a K, a G, and a B. Although no one disputes Putin's background in terms of having been in the KGB, the views expressed by McCain are largely unfounded. Russia in the 1990s and the first decade of the 21st century has time and again offered co-operation to the USA. What the country has not done under Putin is simply follow Washington's orders, but what country would or should? There is considerable disagreement on what is happening, for example, in Iran, and whether the US should be involved at all let alone in which way. So I do not find it surprising that Russia would not simply follow the US "lead" (orders). More importantly, I am surprised that McCain thinks that disinviting Russia to the G-8 is punshiment and what he hopes to achieve other than acting like a big bully on a playground. What about the other members of the G-8? Don't they also have a say in who gets invited, or is this another case where McCain mistakingly thought that President of the USA means president of the G-8 also and the rest of the world included.
I am not sure if he has the definition of Empire right, it is the USA after all establishing bases in foreign countries, including massive arsenals, despite earlier agreements not to do so - incuding in Former Soviet bloc countries. Lastly, the USA does consider buffer zones around its country as legimately in its interest and has done so since the Munroe Doctrine was established, explicitly - and it would respond violently, and has, to any foreign encrouchment into any nonUS country in its Empire regardless of the sovereignty of the country in question.
PUTIN PRE PRESIDENT
Many people appeared surprised in 1999 and then in 2000 to see Putin become President of the Russian Federation. He seemed to come out of nowhere. But he was in St Petersburg after his time as an officer in the KGB in Germany. This short piece, taken in 1996 on Lenta, shows an excerpt of an interview with Putin.
воскресенье, декабря 11, 2011
There's More than One Way to See the Countryside
This bus is in fairly decent shape and probably still transports a lot of people from A to B at low cost. I rode a similar bus, in worse conditions, from Tashkent, Uzbekistan, across the Steppe to Bishkek, Kyrghyzstan, in 1999 for I think 4 USD. It was recommended to take lots of water on the bus and some food. Halfway along, I found out why. The bus broke down, the driver gave up, and we had to wait along the side of the road in the hot sun for hours until another one came.
REALLY SOCIALIST REALISM??
The exterior of apartment complexes can often appear bland and basic. Large concrete apartment blocks of near identical appearing rectangular boxes; sur eit might suggest an egalitarian principle, but also much more. I heard more than rumours that the original Stalinkas were designed and constructed with Hiroshima in mind; that if the US really does attack the Soviet Union using nuclear weapons, this type of construction will give the USSR a clear advantage in a recover scenario compared to wooden housing typical of North America. Not to mention many other benefits of solid construction, such as maintenance, fire proofing and such.
Inside the buildings are different story. there is often something very cozy about the apartment inside the block.
I often found in Paris that the decor was so elaborate on nearly every building that after a while I stopped noticing the beauty of such labour intensive designs - even the fact that they run in between the buildings or throughout where people are almost never going to see, appreciate and benefit from the craft. Here, this design really stands out.
пятница, декабря 09, 2011
среда, декабря 07, 2011
What You Don't See and Read is Perhaps More Important
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/hundreds-of-protesters-clash-for-second-day-in-russia/article2261776/For the past several days, some of my friends have been asking me what I think of the recent election results in Russia. So far, the media reports that the "ex-KGB" spy's popularity is dwindling and this is a sign that the population is tired of his tightening grip on power. Also, it has been noted that protesters have been detained, poorly treated and turned up in the hundreds from Vladivostok to Kaliningrad to argue or show support for some alternative.
It is difficult to be completely objective in such circumstances. The Yeltsin years were essentially a lost decade for Russia and the mass population. The severity of the depression and its impact on people's lives was deeper and more pronlonged than experts had imagined after the collapse of the USSR in 1991. A few well positioned tycoons added to this by tacking over the valuable social resources, such as oil and key factories, accumulating billions while the rest suffered, often in shady backroom deals. Adding further harm, Yeltsin was no democrat and not only dissolved the USSR without debate and against popular opinion, but he did not work well with Parliament.
The results were terrible to observe. People had no jobs, or when they did, they were not paid, and if they were, it was extremely low. Governments did not have funds to pay salaries for basic things like teachers' salaries, public servants salaries to keep water running, police services provided or basic fire protection and road maintenance and rule enforcement. Small and medium sized enterprises could not really emerge in such an atmosphere since, without law and order, or reasonable commercial practices, people could not borrow funds let alone feel secure to open a successful shop that would likely be plundered by local mafia. People did not go out at night. They bought extra locks and heavy steel doors, dogs, and likely had to pay a lot in cash for whatever medical services they needed and had to simply trust that the doctor was legitimate and was administering everything properly.
On New Years Eve, in 1999, I watched an ailing Yeltsin resign and name Putin, largely then an unknown in the West, to be successor. Further, I watched the ceremony on Russian television of the transfer of power where Yeltsin apologised for not improving the country during his time. The audience looked bored, tired, and at the end of their patience listening to each word, at best, that was delivered so slowly. When Putin entered the room, it was possible on TV to witness the change of atmosphere. A young, nervous, mild spoken (at that time) competent person appeared to take the stage. He spoke in Russian in an educated, yet understandable, manner with sincerity and concern for what had happened to the country, and with firmness that things needed to be done. The contrast between these two men could not have been greater and it made for a great deal of enthusiasm for what would happen next in the largest country in the world, and the former CIS space, that would play such a critical role in what would likely happen for the next decade.
And to be sure, he offered his hand to the USA and Europe, offered to cooperate in post Soviet space, he offered help with terrorism, NATO, and a potential partnership. There was a real chance for cordial peaceful relations. Investor attitudes also seemed at that time to be optimistic about the changes that would take place, and even upon the second election, there was a desire expressed for stability, for a change.
On the streets, I would be hard pressed to say that I did not witness many changes for the better. As I returned to Russia time and again, and eventually lived there in 2005-06, the contrast continued to sharpen. Yes, there were still lots of people experiencing difficulty with pay, finding work, and accessing the basics of life. Poverty and declining health rates was still an issue. But not all problems could be fixed at once, and like all transition economies, the simple number of pressing issues governments have to cntent with while having severely limited budgets is something the western economies have not experienced in recent memory (in general).
Suddenly, however, there were small shops opening up on streets. Small night clubs offering music venues and new art cafes emerged. Coffee shops numbered dozens within months in Moscow. There used to be only a couple of them in Moscow and they were dominated by foreigners, not Russians. Now the shops were Russians and packed with locals. Book shops grew, magazines catering to an audience that had been repressed as a consumer for decades were emerging. New films, theater venues, and fashions were also taking place. Home rennovations, and small cosmetics and luxury items were in abundance in many shops - perhaps offering people their first opportunity to treat themselves to something better.
Whatever caused this, the changes were noticeable and I would argue not possible without a serious change and committment in the way government works - to protect people from plundering by gangsters and thieves. It also has to offer this committment in a stable fashion for people to consider taking longer term risk as both a consumer or a producer. Although many people were likely involved from the St Petersburg group and elsewhere to carry this out, as well as people taking risk, there is also little doubt that this is one of the cornerstone items that Putin has brought to Russia. It likely explains part of his popularity, and it also likely represents not a tightening on power over what Yeltsin provided - so much as a restoration of some of the core programmes and services governments in any market oriented economy need to provide to operate effectively.
This is no small feat. Due to the wealth of the resources in Russia and the concentration of power structures left behind, there are a few people who would stand to gain a lot by taking over the country and who could afford to destabilise it for their own interests at the expense of the wider public. I do not pretend to know how Putin has successfully fended off some of these threats that emerged in his early years of his first term, but a new deal struck to ignore some of what happened in the 1990s in exchange for taxation and tolerance for the new wealthy seems to have worked (whether there was a better alternative, this is a serious question worth researching).
All of this is not to suggest that I think it is okay for Putin to return to power, or to hinder freedoms of speech of protest, etc. This is not my choice - I think ultimately this is a choice for the people in Russia to make - and they need to be able to make that choice in an informed and peaceful manner. That said, there are very few countries in the world where this can genuinely take place and Russians should also consider the fact that few so called democracies actually permit their populations much room to voice their concerns and have their interests taken into consideration. Often it is done as a side issue to simply give people enough to keep them in line (this would not be difficult to show). And actually mass protests across the country, much like the occupy situation in the USA (what does McCain think about this?? Well, I don't really care what he thinks) give society the type of information they need to know that something is wrong underneath. And if ignored, it will continue to grow. But it is also not enough - there has to be a way for society to examine what these problems are and come up with effective solutions. I am much more concerned about this than who precisely is in power. These fundamental institutions need to be built and defended so that stability can actually be achieved. I think Gorbachev was perhaps the last real democract - both for the West and for Russia, not because I agreed with him, but because he seemed willing to listen and change course with a more sincere concern for the welfare of the people.
It is difficult to be completely objective in such circumstances. The Yeltsin years were essentially a lost decade for Russia and the mass population. The severity of the depression and its impact on people's lives was deeper and more pronlonged than experts had imagined after the collapse of the USSR in 1991. A few well positioned tycoons added to this by tacking over the valuable social resources, such as oil and key factories, accumulating billions while the rest suffered, often in shady backroom deals. Adding further harm, Yeltsin was no democrat and not only dissolved the USSR without debate and against popular opinion, but he did not work well with Parliament.
The results were terrible to observe. People had no jobs, or when they did, they were not paid, and if they were, it was extremely low. Governments did not have funds to pay salaries for basic things like teachers' salaries, public servants salaries to keep water running, police services provided or basic fire protection and road maintenance and rule enforcement. Small and medium sized enterprises could not really emerge in such an atmosphere since, without law and order, or reasonable commercial practices, people could not borrow funds let alone feel secure to open a successful shop that would likely be plundered by local mafia. People did not go out at night. They bought extra locks and heavy steel doors, dogs, and likely had to pay a lot in cash for whatever medical services they needed and had to simply trust that the doctor was legitimate and was administering everything properly.
On New Years Eve, in 1999, I watched an ailing Yeltsin resign and name Putin, largely then an unknown in the West, to be successor. Further, I watched the ceremony on Russian television of the transfer of power where Yeltsin apologised for not improving the country during his time. The audience looked bored, tired, and at the end of their patience listening to each word, at best, that was delivered so slowly. When Putin entered the room, it was possible on TV to witness the change of atmosphere. A young, nervous, mild spoken (at that time) competent person appeared to take the stage. He spoke in Russian in an educated, yet understandable, manner with sincerity and concern for what had happened to the country, and with firmness that things needed to be done. The contrast between these two men could not have been greater and it made for a great deal of enthusiasm for what would happen next in the largest country in the world, and the former CIS space, that would play such a critical role in what would likely happen for the next decade.
And to be sure, he offered his hand to the USA and Europe, offered to cooperate in post Soviet space, he offered help with terrorism, NATO, and a potential partnership. There was a real chance for cordial peaceful relations. Investor attitudes also seemed at that time to be optimistic about the changes that would take place, and even upon the second election, there was a desire expressed for stability, for a change.
On the streets, I would be hard pressed to say that I did not witness many changes for the better. As I returned to Russia time and again, and eventually lived there in 2005-06, the contrast continued to sharpen. Yes, there were still lots of people experiencing difficulty with pay, finding work, and accessing the basics of life. Poverty and declining health rates was still an issue. But not all problems could be fixed at once, and like all transition economies, the simple number of pressing issues governments have to cntent with while having severely limited budgets is something the western economies have not experienced in recent memory (in general).
Suddenly, however, there were small shops opening up on streets. Small night clubs offering music venues and new art cafes emerged. Coffee shops numbered dozens within months in Moscow. There used to be only a couple of them in Moscow and they were dominated by foreigners, not Russians. Now the shops were Russians and packed with locals. Book shops grew, magazines catering to an audience that had been repressed as a consumer for decades were emerging. New films, theater venues, and fashions were also taking place. Home rennovations, and small cosmetics and luxury items were in abundance in many shops - perhaps offering people their first opportunity to treat themselves to something better.
Whatever caused this, the changes were noticeable and I would argue not possible without a serious change and committment in the way government works - to protect people from plundering by gangsters and thieves. It also has to offer this committment in a stable fashion for people to consider taking longer term risk as both a consumer or a producer. Although many people were likely involved from the St Petersburg group and elsewhere to carry this out, as well as people taking risk, there is also little doubt that this is one of the cornerstone items that Putin has brought to Russia. It likely explains part of his popularity, and it also likely represents not a tightening on power over what Yeltsin provided - so much as a restoration of some of the core programmes and services governments in any market oriented economy need to provide to operate effectively.
This is no small feat. Due to the wealth of the resources in Russia and the concentration of power structures left behind, there are a few people who would stand to gain a lot by taking over the country and who could afford to destabilise it for their own interests at the expense of the wider public. I do not pretend to know how Putin has successfully fended off some of these threats that emerged in his early years of his first term, but a new deal struck to ignore some of what happened in the 1990s in exchange for taxation and tolerance for the new wealthy seems to have worked (whether there was a better alternative, this is a serious question worth researching).
All of this is not to suggest that I think it is okay for Putin to return to power, or to hinder freedoms of speech of protest, etc. This is not my choice - I think ultimately this is a choice for the people in Russia to make - and they need to be able to make that choice in an informed and peaceful manner. That said, there are very few countries in the world where this can genuinely take place and Russians should also consider the fact that few so called democracies actually permit their populations much room to voice their concerns and have their interests taken into consideration. Often it is done as a side issue to simply give people enough to keep them in line (this would not be difficult to show). And actually mass protests across the country, much like the occupy situation in the USA (what does McCain think about this?? Well, I don't really care what he thinks) give society the type of information they need to know that something is wrong underneath. And if ignored, it will continue to grow. But it is also not enough - there has to be a way for society to examine what these problems are and come up with effective solutions. I am much more concerned about this than who precisely is in power. These fundamental institutions need to be built and defended so that stability can actually be achieved. I think Gorbachev was perhaps the last real democract - both for the West and for Russia, not because I agreed with him, but because he seemed willing to listen and change course with a more sincere concern for the welfare of the people.
вторник, декабря 06, 2011
Подписаться на:
Сообщения (Atom)