Showing posts with label Russia. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Russia. Show all posts

Wednesday, July 23, 2008

More maps of the Caucasus

A friend of mine who's based in Tbilisi has emailed me these four maps: three interesting German maps of the changing political geography of the Caucasus (sorry, I don't know the source or copyright holder), and a fourth one (also quite interesting in its own way) which goes more toward the present-day situation in a small part of the region.


Histrorical Georgia 1774-1878, full-size version available here.




Histrorical Georgia 1917-1936, full-size version available here.




Histrorical Georgia 1936 - 1959, full-size version available here.




South Ossetia Areas of Control (geor-SO), full-size version available here.
Areas controlled by South Ossetian de facto authorities in red, areas controlled by Georgia in blue.
Here's one good backgrounder on the conflict, and here's another fairly interesting brief.

More maps of the Caucasus, as well as my general disclaimer about how, while I think the old maps are fascinating, I'm also convinced they are a fairly unhelpful lens through which to view the resolution of current territorial conflicts, can be seen here.

Read More...

Sunday, July 20, 2008

Obligation runs into devotion

As some of my readers may be aware, I've been spending the summer preparing to take the New York Bar Exam. The stress and difficulty of this process is not a proper subject for a post on this blog, however I would like to share one sample multiple choice question which I encountered today in the course of my practice test-taking. This is a question that is supposed to prepare test-takers for the Multistate Bar Examination, or MBE, which is the second day of the bar exam in many states:

Gorby wanted to kill Yeltsin in the most horrible manner possible. He knew that Yeltsin had difficulty sleeping and took medication which nearly rendered him (Yeltsin) unconscious during the night. Gorby decided to burn down Yeltsin's house as Yeltsin slept, and seized his opportunity one night after they had finished playing chess. Yeltsin had taken his medication and was sleeping deeply.

Gorby got a coffee cup, filled it with lighter fluid, lit a cigarette, and put the cup underneath Yeltsin's bed with the burning cigarette balanced on the cup's edge. Gorby knew that as the cigarette burned, it would tip and fall into the cup of lighter fluid, setting the bed on fire. Gorby then left the house. The igniter worked just as Gorby had planned, except that Yeltsin's housekeeper smelled the smoke and called for help before the bed could ignite.

Yeltsin was killed by the toxic fumes emitted by the burning lighter fluid, but there was no other damage to Yeltsin's home except the blackening of the ceiling of the bedroom from the dense smoke.

If Gorby is prosecuted for arson of Yeltsin's house, he should be found... [multiple choice options omitted]
(c) Kaplan / PMBR

Read More...

Thursday, July 17, 2008

Disrespecting "Real Sovereignty"



Below are some excerpts from a review of Andrei Kokoshin's book Real Sovereignty in the Modern World System, revised edition published in 2006 (you can buy it here). I'm posting them because they are the sort of trenchant yet erudite takedown that one doesn't often see on the pages of a thick journal, especially when directed at someone on the masthead of the journal; and also because Kokoshin was - and probably still is - the kind of person who Western foreign policy elites meet with when they visit Moscow (an academic who has published extensively in English and held a high-ranking position in the Yeltsin Administration, and someone with extensive contacts in the West) and it's interesting to see this of assessment of his more recent work.

Finally, I want to recommend that anyone with time on their hands and a good reading knowledge of Russian navigate here and read some of the back-issues of Svobodnaya Mysl'. I'm a little concerned that by expressing my delight at finding full-text back-issues online I will reveal my ignorance of what would seem to be an essential publication, but I guess it's a risk I'm willing to take. Incidentally, I think an English-language summary of Kokoshin's thesis about sovereignty may be provided by this article of his in Russia in Global Affairs.

What We Have Come To
The Transformation of a Soviet Scholar into a Russian Propaganda Specialist
By Vladislav Inozemtsev
Svobodnaia Mysl', No. 4, 2006, p. 209
Translated in Russian Politics and Thought, March/April 2007

[...]

It is strange and puzzling to find the style of argumentation used here from a scholar of such stature. Kokoshin constantly invokes the opinion of “Western scholars,” but the reader will search in vain for any mention of the works produced by Western theorists of sovereignty over the last fifteen years. The urgent judgments of Jean-Jacques Rousseau are a different matter (pp. 49–50). That is, Academician Kokoshin clearly has no interest in attempts to comprehend the reality of the post–cold war world. Moreover, the positions of Western sociologists and legal scholars are cited, as a rule, not from the original sources but from materials published in Russian journals: Expert, Kosmopolis, and Mezhdunarodnye protsessy.

Finally, Kokoshkin uses public opinion surveys to support this or that argument. For example, he cites survey findings from the Russian Center for Public Opinion Research (VTsIOM) to support his statement that “a significant portion of the U.S. political elite has demonstrated its intent to weaken Russia’s position in global politics on a range of parameters ever since the end of the cold war, the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, and the collapse of the Soviet Union” (p. 29). His proof is that 30 percent of VTsIOM’s Russian respondents are convinced that the Americans intend to weaken Russia, and 51 percent think that U.S. “aid” to develop democracy in Russia has damaged our state (p. 118 n. 33). (By the way, of the book’s 173 pages, 78 are taken up with verbose notes—probably an odd sort of record for the genre.) No more proof is needed: no statements by U.S. officials, no materials from congressional hearings or reports by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), not even specific examples of actions against Russia funded by the United States! If this approach gains acceptance, the Academy of Sciences will soon be proving mathematical theorems with help from VTsIOM.

[...]

Anyone who finds the time to read Kokoshin’s new book will agree that its topic is not sovereignty. Rather, it offers a defense of the current Russian government. This defense includes the concept of “sovereign democracy,” which differs from “mere democracy” in being enriched by certain features that are “inherently characteristic” of the Russian state and, according to Kokoshin, “deeply rooted” in the Russian value system (for more detail, see pp. 74–77). It remains unclear whether these features include, for example, corruption and thievery, which are inherently typical of Russian officials, nor is it clear in general what exactly Kokoshin means by “features.” The book does, however, communicate unambiguously that it reflects ideally the
logic of the current ruling elite.

Kokoshin writes that the need to develop a theory of “sovereign democracy” has arisen because “in the current decade . . . a considerable segment of society began to view ‘democratic ideology’ as a negative phenomenon. Moreover, the public assesses the ‘democracy—nondemocracy’ juxtaposition not so much by the criterion of efficiency as by the dominance of emotion” (p. 75). But this raises the question: if Kokoshin is right, then is it not Russian professors’ job to teach their compatriots to avoid yielding to emotion and understand reality?! If an academician, professor, and teacher openly acknowledges that he has to adapt his teaching to the level of his failing students and stop teaching them basic knowledge (just to avoid having them kick him out of the classroom), then surely we must give up on the Russian scholarship that our deputy argues vehemently must be restored (see pp. 76–78, 86–88, 90–91).

[...]

Regrettably, the book by Kokoshin, an academician and State Duma deputy, has no scholarly value. But it is a peculiar literary record of a capable scholar’s transformation into a propaganda specialist for United Russia. It is a manual on how to search for and “elegantly” apply dubious sources of scholarly information. An amazed reader will find in it the names of the “well-known Russian political scientists” A. Kustarev, S. Zhiznin, N. Dolgopolova, and M. Khrustalev (the last of whom, let us note, has discovered that “the state has traditional ownership rights over certain territories and their resident population (citizens)” (quoted from p. 58; italics added—V.I.), as well as such giants of Russian scholarly thought as Valerii Fadeev, editor in chief of Expert, or Vladislav Surkov, deputy head of the Presidential Administration of the Russian Federation. Kokoshin offers abundant quotations from the latest speeches of such people, made during various meetings of the party’s economic leaders (in fact, these speeches, which timewise largely coincide with the date of Kokoshin’s publishing contract, constitute the “updates and additions” justifying a third edition).

This review has probably turned out to be excessively harsh. Today the shelves of Russian bookstores are breaking under the weight of printed materials next to which even Kokoshin’s deserves praise. But until the very last moment, this reviewer did not want to believe that the wave of obsequiousness could sweep up not only professional political technicians but also prominent members of the Soviet academic establishment. The realities of the struggle for real sovereignty, however, require even these sacrifices. Too bad.

Read More...

Saturday, July 12, 2008

Getting a job - and an education - in the new Russia

Translated from [info]barabanch (original is here):

A young lady came to interview for a job with a friend of mine.
She's a "Young Russia" activist.

Under "Professional Accomplishments" [on her resume] the one and only line read "Participated in the inauguration of Dmitry Anatol'evich Medvedev."
A couple of comments on the post:

by
[info]avdeev [my translation, punctuation as in original]:
it's funny, but things like that have been happening for awhile
for example at RGGU they accept [United Russia] party members into the graduate programs, and it's harder for people who haven't been vetted by the office to get in [...]

a couple of my friends were advised by the academic department that before turning in their grad school applications they should pay a visit to the [local United Russia] office, that it would be more correct and predictable to do so

at the office it was suggested that they write an essay about how much I love the motherland, i.e. [United Russia], and how much I want to join the party, well they told [United Russia] to go you-know-where and they submitted their applications anyway, we'll see what happens in September
by [info]el_cambio:
You don't understand.

[quoting from here, which also seems to have been quoted from a transcript of some kind:] Speaking at [a panel discussion on "the new Russian elite" at the "Strategy-2020 Forum"], Vladislav Surkov called on the participants in the discussion to "determine what the Russian elite is." In response to this, producer Andrei Fomin suggested compiling a "list of the elite," and the Andrei Korkunov, general director of the Odintsovo candy factory, noted that such a list already exists, and pointed out the list of participants in the presidential inauguration in the Kremlin.

Read More...

Looking back on Russia Day, a month later

The Washington Post's report, illustrated by my photo of the ice bear, followed by some personal observations:

At Russian Embassy, Vodka & Good Wishes Flow Thursday, June 12, 2008; Page C3

What this town needs is more vodka at noon. To celebrate Russia Day, the embassy invited 2,000 friends yesterday afternoon for vodka, music, caviar . . . and did we mention vodka?

Of course, we couldn't refuse. After almost 10 years in Washington, Ambassador Yuri Ushakov was tapped last week to become Prime Minister Vladimir Putin's deputy chief of staff -- a big deal, since Ushakov will oversee foreign-policy and economic issues. He heads back to Moscow on Saturday, so the reception turned into an impromptu farewell party.

Vodka at lunch? "We're celebrating," Ushakov told us. "Why not? It's permitted."

Well, sure! Technically, we were on Russian soil. There was a giant ice sculpture of a bear holding big (actual) bottles of booze, a band playing Russian folk songs, and generals mingling with diplomats and policy wonks. Waiters lined up with trays filled with shots; bartenders poured three different brands of vodka (each with subtle differences -- it was our duty to check) plus various alcohol-based concoctions. The only thing keeping people standing were vast buffets groaning with food.

Shortly after 2 p.m., guests were gently herded toward the door, where staffers passed out cute little vodka mini-bottles. One woman nodded to her companion approvingly: "Vas goot function."

It was indeed a good function - not to mention a great promo for the vodka purveyors - a fun way to spend the early afternoon and celebrate Russia here in the US at a time when there aren't quite enough good vibes in the bilateral relationship. I wish I'd photographed them better, but here are a couple of interesting bulletin boards that the Embassy had up to illustrate highlights of modern Russian politics and of the US-Russian/Soviet relationship over the years:

This was what one would expect - displays of superpower parity and cooperation: Yalta, Ike/Nixon/Khrushchev, Bush 41 and Gorby, Bush 43 and Putin, Clinton and Yeltsin (less prominently, of course), astronauts, military/athletic/scientific cooperation, etc. But also, perhaps less expectedly, Angela Davis.

And the Embassy's portrayal of Russia's leadership - presumably, this is part of what we were celebrating:

Some Putin, but more Medvedev, with the latter's showily pious wife also prominently featured (perhaps the idea is to appeal to Americans' presumed religiosity, or perhaps just to illustrate Russia's Orthodox "renaissance"). Many if not most of these photos look like they were from Medvedev's inauguration ceremony.

Embassy staff gave guests a colorful greeting and send-off:


And finally, here is what we all should have been celebrating, since it's shared economic interests which can hopefully pull the US-Russian relationship through various political storms:

Read More...

Dreaming of a color revolution vaccine?

Moldova Suverana's website. The cheesy photos and low production values
make it hard to believe this is the largest-circulation newspaper in the country.


Official newspaper Moldova Suverana celebrated the Fourth of July last week in fine fashion by publishing a rather over-the-top attack on two democracy-promoting NGOs operating in Moldova, IRI and NDI. The piece they ran was a first-person account from an aggrieved former IRI employee who seems to have a toolshed full of axes to grind (here are a couple of articles for background), but the most amazing aspect of it was the numerous passages which seemed to have been cobbled together from stale stock phrases as though taken from some do-it-yourself anti-American verbiage kit drafted in Moscow ("now your country, too, can prevent colored revolutions!").

The timing of this article is no accident - Moldova is gearing up for elections next year and President Voronin, who cannot serve another term, would no doubt like to ensure a smooth succession, whether to another representative of the Communist Party or some other designated successor (sound familiar?).

Thus, a full frontal attack on IRI and NDI, which are perceived as proliferators of "colored revolutions" in the post-Soviet space (based perhaps on the eagerness of some of their own people at times in the past to take a bit too much credit for mass political phenomena), could well be an attempt to lay the groundwork for a campaign strategy modeled on the one used by United Russia in the '07-'08 Russian electoral cycle. Under that model, any potential - or even long-shot - challengers are dismissed as foreign agents who - in concert with the "meddling Americans," of course - want to, in the words of this article, "overthrow...the Constitutional regime elected by citizens of the republic through democratic elections."

One Moldovan blogger , who seems to be in a good position to comment on such things, [update: not anymore (see comments below)] wonders whether Marian Bunescu, the ex-IRI employee who has stepped up with this conveniently timed denunciation, is being pulled into political games while trying to defend his rights and press his own (perhaps legitimate) grievances against a former employer, and also notes that Bunescu's screed excoriates both IRI and NDI, when he only had firsthand experience working with IRI.

Personally, I sometimes have mixed feelings about American democracy promotion efforts. I also tend to believe that colored revolutions are impossible without genuine, broad-based discontent within the country with the government, and I'm not sure that exists in Moldova at the moment, so attacking these NGOs may be overkill. In any event, my reservations about an activist democracy agenda are somewhat neutralized when I read passages like these (excerpted from the Moldova Suverana article, a full translation of which is below):
The purpose of those [democracy promotion] specialists was to favor and bring to power at all cost the parties that would undermine the statehood, integrity and sovereignty of the country where I was born and live. [...]

Since there is a lot of time till the Parliamentary elections in the Republic of Moldova and I do not want to be convicted of participation in bringing to power of politicians marionettes, I want to inform that NDI and IRI, under the aegis of USAID, plan to destabilize the situation in the country, as they tried before, but have not succeeded. Yes, yes, namely during the last elections in the Parliament in Chisinau, for the first time, officials of these institutions have made attempts to bring to power corrupt politicians, interested in the disappearance of the Republic of Moldova as a sovereign and independent state.
Parts of these passages could in fact be describing Russia's approach to Moldova - undermining the country's statehood and sovereignty by promoting the continued separation of Transnistria and applying punitive bans on Moldova's major exports to Russia. And Russia's policies probably have to be judged a success on their own terms - after all, Voronin, whether because he thinks it will facilitate a settlement of the Transnistria conflict, or because he has realized (like Uzbekistan's Karimov, who was the first to desert the nascent GUAM coalition) that an alliance with Russia is simpler than building bridges to the West since it requires barely a pretense of democracy and no real reforms, has swung eastward in his orientation of late.

Analyst and blogger Nicu Popescu also excerpted some of the more outrageous language from Bunescu's denunciation and paused make this observation (my translation):
These are not quotations from the press in Russia, Belarus, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, or Kuchma's Ukraine. They're from the July 4, 2008, issue of Moldova Suverana. An article that is probably the start of a harrassment campaign against [IRI] and [NDI] ahead of the elections, two American NGOs which provide assistance to Moldovan political parties.
Assistance which is made available, it's important to note, to all Moldovan political parties, including the Communists.

Popescu titled his post "Moldovan Putinism vs. IRI and NDI" and marveled at the approach of the Moldovan government:
At the same time as this harassment campaign is being launched against two American NGOs, Moldova is expecting several hundred million dollars from the US under the framework of the Millenium Challenge Account Moldova and is hoping to start talks with the EU concerning a new agreement under conditions where the EU's foreign policy Commissioner has clearly said that the prospects for such an agreement depend on the quality of Moldova's elections. But the harassment of international NGOs is totally inconsistent with democratic elections practices and strikes a blow against the government's hopes to start negotiating a new EU-Moldova agreement.
I don't really have anything else to add except to note that in the comments to his post on this Popescu quite rightly makes a distinction between Bunescu's personal employment beef with IRI, which is being resolved as it should be in the courts, and his rather sweeping and selective allegations (e.g., Bunescu mentions only the Our Moldova Alliance as receiving IRI support, when in fact pretty much all Moldovan political parties receive support from IRI on an equal footing).

I did find a small tidbit online about Mr. Bunescu's work with IRI in happier times (scroll down to the last item), but not much else.

Anyway, as promised, here is a translation of the full article (not by me):

Pharisaic Democracy

Dear reader, meeting inside the headquarters "Infotag" was dictated by the need to make public some data that I have become aware of thanks to the long-time activity in the representation of the International Republican Institute (IRI), a project funded and administered by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). My name is Marian Bunescu and I worked in the IRI a period of four consecutive years and have to make some clarifications. For a long period of time, I can not ignore anymore the actions and processes taking place with the participation of foreign citizens, especially the U.S., which are conducting on the territory of the Republic of Moldova activities and meetings with opposition political leaders, instructing and financing them in order to overthrow in the spring of 2009, the Constitutional regime elected by citizens of the republic through democratic elections in the Parliament from Chisinau.

Intensive activity to suppress the party that legally came to power has its roots even before the elections in the Legislature of the Republic of Moldova. Namely, before the elections, at the request of IRI and NDI leadership, an impressive number of "specialists" in the areas of conducting coup d'états and orange revolutions arrived in Moldova. The purpose of those specialists was to favor and bring to power at all cost the parties that would undermine the statehood, integrity and sovereignty of the country where I was born and live. Namely because of the reported and from the fact that many times, I directly informed the head of IRI Stiven Rader about the illegality of the support of the opposition parties, basically I lost my job, being ousted illegally.

In order of the above, I want to inform you that Constantin Tanase as a lawyer with whom I had discussions last week and the current week and who is actively defending IRI's interests on the territory of the Republic of Moldova warned me, quote: "The communists will lose elections in 2009 and will come to power other political parties and I'll make you very big problems ". Advocate Tanase intimidated me and proposed a sum of money to restrain me from accusing Americans.

In that context, I want to let you know that in my presence Serafim Urecheanu asked from Rader the amount of 1.5 million dollars, to prepare for the election campaign. On this occasion I want to let you know that Mr. Urecheanu came in person several times (about 4-5 times) to the IRI office, once he arrived even at night. In the IRI's office, he held many times confidential negotiations for numerous occasions with the American in the office of Rader, in order to get their support for the parliamentary elections. Namely, because of letting the American know about my position, which does not correspond to the interests of the IRI on the territory of the republic, I can not get employed, as neither was I fired from my position at the institute nor can I come to my work place, as the American stands in the door and behaves like I am a criminal of America.

I want to inform you, that working for IRI, I had the opportunity to directly to know what "democracy", implemented by the U.S. structures, means. And those who declare and speak loudly about political pluralism and democratic values finance and train such political parties as Our Moldova Alliance. Training and preparation for elections in 2009 of political parties, which main interest is their own enrichment, are held by representatives of the IRI and the NDI through the organization of seminars and trainings, where the average citizens of the Republic of Moldova do not have access. The access is limited because they (Americans) do not want to make public the things that they teach participants, like how to take people out on the streets and how to destabilize the situation in the country. It requires an increased attention the fact that the seminars and meetings of Americans with the leaders of the opposition political parties are funded directly by Americans by cash money, money that are not controlled by any state structures in the country. Many times, during the seminars I directly participated in, I had the opportunity to monitor the way in which are financed the seminars conducted by the IRI. The following question seems logical, would Americans allow, on the territory of the U.S., the activity of foreign political organizations, which are not registered anywhere and are practically doing whatever they want under the motto of "democracy development"?

I can not remain indifferent to the way the American "bosses" act and behave towards the Moldovan citizens that work in the institutions funded by them. Thus, I intend to draw your attention that no employee of organizations funded by the Americans on the territory of our state does not pay any taxes, nor to the state budget, or the social fund. In that context, there is a logical question - do they have a similar and identical behavior in U.S. like the one they expose in Moldova? And in cases of resignation, they do not respect the legislation of the Republic of Moldova regarding the payment of due wages. In this context, I would like to mention that in the case of being fired from the organizations funded by Americans, native citizens with great difficulty can get back their work book, in which usually the necessary information and stamps are missing. As a result, the time spent working in such organizations is lost in vain and does not add up to working experience.

Today I wish to give to publicity and some aspects, in my opinion, of illegal activity of IRI and NDI. Since there is a lot of time till the Parliamentary elections in the Republic of Moldova and I do not want to be convicted of participation in bringing to power of politicians marionettes, I want to inform that NDI and IRI, under the aegis of USAID, plan to destabilize the situation in the country, as they tried before, but have not succeeded. Yes, yes, namely during the last elections in the Parliament in Chisinau, for the first time, officials of these institutions have made attempts to bring to power corrupt politicians, interested in the disappearance of the Republic of Moldova as a sovereign and independent state.

Thus, seeing the dirty things that take place under the aegis of "development and propagation of democratic principles" on the territory of my country, I thought well and took the decision to leave IRI. Because I do not want to take part in the dirty things, that are priorities in the plans of the Americans chiefs of IRI and the NDI. Now I want to draw your attention that the democracy being propagated by the people behind these organizations is nothing else than a fiction, well-hidden, which aims at destroying the stability on the territory of Moldova. In proof of these statements, I want to bring to your attention that training of political parties loyal to Americans in Moldova is conducted directly through the involvement of NDI and IRI in their activity, through various forms. Sometimes, to increase efficiency and image of some politicians and political parties, at the initiative of the institution in which I have worked, experts that took part in the revolutions in Ukraine and Georgia are being invited. Thus, recently, at the IRI's initiative famous Serbian experts have been invited to Moldova, who have contributed directly to disorders in Ukraine, and are now familiarizing the AMN leaders with how to get the people out in the streets, in case of failure.

I address the free media for help, to clarify the case of my illegal dismissal and defend my rights provided by law. At the same time, I address to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and European Integration, as well as to the State Tax Inspectorate with the request to clarify the situation when citizens of the Republic of Moldova working for the American institutions and their labor rights are being ignored seriously.

I request, in my capacity of a citizen of the Republic of Moldova, who is not indifferent of the future of his country and its people, for the immediate implication of the organs of Prosecutor's Office and Judiciary in the clarification of the activity of the American organizations, above-mentioned. I want to inform you that due to NDI and IRI, in the neighboring countries was possible the overthrow and annihilation of legal interests of the population in favor of some politicians marionettes, who in the end have filled their pockets as a result of undertaken colorful revolutions. Pay special attention that at this moment, those countries are going through processes that influence negatively the life of simple and average people, from the countryside, who no longer have any other options but to leave the country in order to support their families by working abroad. At the moment I can declare with certainty that the main purpose of NDI and IRI is bringing to power in 2009 of the AMN leader, Serafim Urecheanu, who constantly has been seeking help and financial resources from the leadership of IRI, the American Steven Rader. He should be invited and asked if in America he participates in bringing to powers marionettes too? Does Serafim Urecheanu not understand that in the end he is selling his country and its people for some ambitions dictated from outside?

Marian BUNESCU

Read More...

Sunday, June 15, 2008

"Today's Pioneers"

"Today's Pioneers"

Last month there was some talk about the revival of the Young Pioneer organization in Russia. Russia Today did a talk-show segment asking, "Do Children Need Ideology?" All the fuss coincided with the anniversary of the organization's founding in May, which was marked more widely a year ago on the 85th anniversary of the Pioneers' founding.

RIA Novosti ran a photoset last year to mark the occasion ("День рождения Пионерии") with images from the organization's history, including one from a 2006 Pioneer induction ceremony on Red Square that could have been from 1986 except for the prominent involvement of post-Soviet Communist leader Gennady Zyuganov.

День рождения Пионерии
www.rian.ru
www.rian.ru
смотреть всю фотоленту >

Here are a few more pictures of that day's ceremony by RIA Novosti's photographer which didn't make it into the photoset linked above.

In May, a friend emailed me this somewhat amazing video clip from a news broadcast by ProTV of Chisinau (which unfortunately can't be embedded), showing a bemused news anchor reporting on the Pioneers' induction ceremony in Moldova's capital last month. The ceremony was timed to mark the 86th anniversary of the Soviet Pioneer organization's founding and involved the induction of around 70 children.

ProTV asked a few of the kids what they were there to celebrate and got responses like "I don't know...Victory Day" and "our teacher told us to come." The TV station titled the report "Pioneers Help Their Elders," which is part of the Pioneer's oath but also no doubt a tongue-in-cheek reference to these children's utility to Moldova's ruling Communist Party.

I pulled a few screen-shots from the video of the ceremony (below), but it's worth watching the video. The ceremony was conducted in Russian, and many of the kids interviewed were not able to answer questions put to them in Romanian, which explains the subtitles in the screen-shots:

[part of the Pioneer's oath]
"...to conscientiously fulfill the duties of a Pioneer..."


"Be faithful to the Pioneer ideal!" says the
elderly man sporting a St. George's ribbon.


One enthusiastic young inductee tried to explain what exactly those ideals meant to her:
"It's very important to be a Pioneer, because [Pioneers]
defend...their city from different...well, how can I put it..."

"...from different enemies and those who damage the environment."

Perhaps she just couldn't think of anything else to say, or perhaps for at least one young member, the ideals of the Pioneer movement in its ninth decade are morphing from red to green.

Read More...

Tuesday, June 10, 2008

Black Sea Coast of the Caucasus

This map took much longer than I'd care to admit to scan in, since it had to be scanned in bits and then digitally assembled - and I don't really have the proper software for that, so sadly I had to use the very basic MS Paint. I might have given up if the thing wasn't so visually spectacular. It dates from 1970 and has thumbnail photos and brief summaries of tourist attractions on the back.

Through sometimes painful experience, I've concluded that Flickr is a better photo host than Blogger, so I've uploaded the images there - if you want to see larger-sized versions, click on the picture or the link underneath it and then once you have been taken to Flickr, look for the "all sizes" icon above the photo. I've also added a link to the very largest version of each image in the captions below.


BlackSeaCoastMap, originally uploaded by lyndonk2; full-size version here.



BlackSeaCoastMap-Back, originally uploaded by lyndonk2; full-size version here.

Read More...

Remembrance of phobias past

The used bookstores of Washington offer the Russophilic book-lover a smorgasbord of stale fare - shelves full of antiquated Kremlinology; earnest discussions of the Soviet political system often shown by later revelations to have been misguided or naive; optimistic accounts of Russian democratization and marketization from the early 1990s; and travelogue accounts of the USSR which are often interesting only as ephemera, based as so many of them are only on the limited areas of the country which foreigners were allowed to see.

And of course, Washington being Washington, one can always find government publications which have made their way to the land of used bookstores by virtue of their obsolescence or their previous owner's need to free up shelf space. Often these are not just US government publications but Soviet products - Progress Publishers and the Foreign Languages Publishing House tend to be well-represented - or coffee-table books depicting foreign lands which visitors to DC bestowed upon their hosts. Sometimes, amidst the detritus, one finds items which have been preserved long enough to become interesting historical documents. Recently I found one such item, Vol. II of a report by the House Un-American Activities Commission entitled Soviet Total War: 'Historic Mission' of Violence and Deceit.


To be honest, I can't decide whether this book is more interesting as a compendium of enduring Russophobic stereotypes or as a monument to some of the actual (if perhaps superficial) policy continuities between the Soviet and post-Soviet periods and their ability to continue to engender hysteria among foreign observers (though I don't think Russophobic hysteria in today's America is quite at the fever pitch alleged by some).

I scanned in a few pages, although I now regret not scanning in the table of contents - the titles of many articles in this little paperback read as though they could have been snatched from some of the more sensationalistic headlines of today's Russia coverage: intimidation of neighbors, the use of trade as a weapon, domestic repression - all were present 50 years ago in the US perception of Russia, and indeed in Russian reality, though one suspects to a rather greater degree than is the case today.

I was finally inspired to post the scans after attending a presentation by David Foglesong at the Kennan Institute yesterday. Foglesong's book, The American Mission and the “Evil Empire”: The Crusade for a “Free Russia” since 1881, was the subject of a couple of interesting posts on Sean's Russia Blog, and his presentation - accompanied by a fascinating slideshow of political cartoons which sadly is not available anywhere online - did not disappoint. One of the cartoons can be seen at this post on the blog of Foglesong's publisher, which also reproduces his May 2008 testimony before the US Helsinki Commission. Foglesong's testimony is well worth a read, as it is a series of measured recommendations about how to approach Russia with good intentions but without those missionary impulses which do more harm than good to the bilateral relationship.

Anyway, back to the relic which is the main subject of this post. This fold-out graphic was what really induced me to buy the book (though since it was only eight bucks, it didn't require too much persuasion):


Here is an example of one of the articles - "Red Supersalesmen Muscle in," about unfair Soviet trade practices - which reads like a precursor of some things one reads in today's news coverage of Russian foreign economic activity (if you click on the graphic, you should get a readable couple of pages):


One of the articles in the compilation had some interesting charts which suggested that the identities of the parties in today's US-Russian relationship (a military/economic superpower vs. an energy superpower) represent something of a reversal of the roles in the relationship 50 years ago - at least as they were perceived by HUAC.

Of the two, the US would seem to have occupied the "energy superpower" role:




Meanwhile, the USSR had substantially more men under arms than the US (although that is actually still the case, at least on the books, though not to such a large degree; and then as now the US enjoyed advantages in naval and air power, though again, not to the same degree as today):

Read More...

Tuesday, June 03, 2008

Echoes of Victory Day and the Inauguration

I happened to catch a re-run of the Daily Show a week or two ago and saw Jon Stewart's hilarious and surprisingly on-point riff on the Victory Day parade and Medvedev's inauguration ceremony. Transcribing selected sound bites from the clip wouldn't do it justice - just watch it and laugh:




That - as well as the return of the outstanding Darkness at Noon, which is back on line and has posted an original video of the V-Day festivities in Moscow, inspired me to corral a few links to online material on the events in Moscow of four weeks or so ago.

CSIS's Sarah Mendelson wrote a "critical questions" brief about the significance of the re-militarization of the Victory Day celebrations, which included a brief digression down memory lane, as Mendelson recalled attending a Soviet military parade in late 1990.

Global Voices Online had roundups about both the inauguration and Victory Day. And the always interesting Wu Wei has an interesting account of what it was like to watch Medvedev's inauguration on Georgian TV.

[Update June 15: I wanted to direct readers as well to this link which fell through the cracks - Oleg Panfilov's brief comments stating that the question of who has the upper hand as between Putin and Medvedev will become clear when one of the two begins to enjoy an advantage in TV coverage.]

Read More...

Friday, May 30, 2008

More on my favorite topic

I heard an extensive and pretty even-handed report about Abkhazia on NPR's Morning Edition today. I guess that means it's finally "arrived" as a mainstream news topic - that, or they are trying to inform their listeners before open hostilities break out there.

In the meantime, I've been reorganizing some of my old books* which have been languishing in boxes since we moved back to DC from Moscow - the reorganization is in preparation for our move later this year to London, although we won't be taking these books with us. Before re-boxing them, I took some quick photos of a few of the books and the maps of the region therein which might be of interest to Caucasophiles (photos are of book covers and then one map from each of the books):


Caucasus Travel Guide, c. 1929


Schematic map of agriculture, industry, oil pipelines,
electrification, and railroads planned and under construction


Georgian Military Highway, 1925


Map of the Transcaucasian SFSR


Abkhazian Alps, 1930


Schematic map of the eastern portion of the Black Sea coast


* Please note that all of these books were exported from Russia with the appropriate permission from the Ministry of Culture!

Read More...

Thursday, May 29, 2008

Pondering the prospects for a post-Putin "perestroika"

I found this article fascinating - hopeful and yet pessimistic at the same time, it perhaps relies too much on comparisons with the USSR and makes a conclusion that may be too bold. But its author, an emigre sociologist and a long-time and prolific commentator on life and public opinion in the USSR and Russia, makes a number of important points in arriving at that conclusion.
Johnson's Russia List
27 May 2008
How the new Russian President could start a new Perestroika with friendly trips to the capitals of neighboring countries
By Vladimir Shlapentokh
Michigan State University

[...]

[M]aintaining the image of the world as an enemy of Russia is a crucial way to legitimize current regime, along with the political stability in the country. The imperial ideology exploits the nostalgia of many Russians for the great empire and abets nationalism. It pits the population against foreign countries, treating them as hostile toward Russia and its integrity, and as working against the restoration of the country’s previous geopolitical role. In order to maintain a climate of patriotic agitation and divert the people from the country’s real problems, Russian politicians and journalists talk incessantly about “great Russia,” “Russia’s great past,” and “the great victory in 1945.” It is remarkable that, on the official site of the Russian president (2000-2007), the adjective “great” was mentioned more than 3000 times.

The practicality of the imperial ideology is seen in the fact that up to 85 percent of the population, according to a survey by the BBC at the beginning of 2008, responded positively, in one way or another, to the xenophobic propaganda of the Kremlin and its foreign policy. In fact, the ruling elite do not possess other ideological ways to influence the minds of most Russians. Alternative ideological fundamentals, such as private property and the market economy (in April 2008, Medvedev underscored their importance for Russia), are not attractive at all to the majority of the population, which hates the corrupt bureaucrats and their illegal fortunes. Only 10 percent of the population, according to a survey by Levada’s polling firm conducted in November 2007, declared that they “respect people who became rich in the last 10-15 years.”

Only the imperial ideology allowed the Kremlin to pursue its deeply antidemocratic domestic policy and disregard the growing social inequality in the country. This ideology justifies the supremacy of the “national leader” and the mistreatment of democratic institutions. It presents the members of the opposition as almost foreign agents and makes it impossible for Western organizations, such as the British Council, to function in Russia. It justifies the rude intervention of the state in the activities of foreign companies, such as British Petroleum, which cannot protect their interests against Russian competitors. It helps persecute the Protestant Church in Russia as an American agent. The imperial ideology also treats Stalin as its main hero and maintains his positive image by silencing the media’s coverage of the mass terror in Soviet times.

In fact, the imperial ideology is only meant for a domestic audience and its influence on the relations with foreign countries is rather limited. The case involving the USA is typical. During the parliamentary (December 2007) and presidential (March 2008) elections, the volume of anti-American propaganda was extremely high. However, this propaganda did relatively little to deteriorate the relations between the two countries and in no way prevented the cordial meeting between Bush and Putin in Sochi where they, like a loving couple, went to see the sunset on the Black Sea on March 27.

In order to restart Russia’s move toward democracy, it is vitally important to break the spine of the imperial ideology. Germany and Japan, after the war, would not have been able to take the road toward democracy without a resolute and consistent rejection of the ideology of supremacy, militarism and expansionism.

The most peculiar fact is that a radical change of foreign policy is much easier than doing the same in domestic affairs. This is exactly what should be on Medvedev’s mind, if he wishes to be a liberal and not one of Putin’s clones. Medvedev seemingly understands the danger of using “greatness” as the central postulate of the official ideology. In April 2008, Nikolai Svanidze, a known Russian journalist, asked Medvedev, “What does great Russia mean to you?” Putin’s heir answered, “Russia, without doubt, is a great country.” However, he then called upon the Russians “not to be intoxicated” with the idea of “greatness” and to look soberly at the real position of Russia in the world.

Many liberals are waiting for the release from prison of Mikhail Khodorkovsky, an oligarch jailed by Putin for his political ambitions. However, Medvedev would have a more difficult time releasing Khodorkovsky than attacking the imperial ideology. As a matter of fact, liberalizations in post-Stalin Russia began in this area. Even before Khrushchev’s famous speech about Stalin’s atrocities at the Twentieth Party Congress, he proclaimed a policy of peaceful coexistence and undertook a number of actions that radically changed Soviet foreign policy. He was instrumental in the achievement of the armistice in Korea in 1953 and the peace in Indochina in 1954. Then, in 1955, he made a trip to Yugoslavia and apologized for Stalin’s policy toward this country and its leader Josip Tito. Then (still in 1955 and before “the thaw”) he reduced the Soviet army.

Mikhail Gorbachev’s foreign deeds also preceded his domestic liberal policy. Before the Soviet people and the world understood Gorbachev’s democratic intentions, which did not become clear until 1987, the new Soviet leader met with Reagan in November 1985, only a few months after his ascension to power. This meeting marked the beginning of the warming of relations between the two superpowers. It was followed by a new meeting with the American president in the next year in Reykjavik. By 1987, the USSR and USA prepared a treaty on the elimination of short- and middle-range missiles.

The experiences of Khrushchev and Gorbachev might serve as a playbook for the new president, if he had the guts to turn toward the democratic road. In fact, the major obstacle to democratization is the Kremlin’s support for the imperial and nationalist ideology.

Ironically, the key element of the imperial ideology and Russian foreign policy that should be attacked by a new reformer is not the animosity against the West, the USA or Europe. The hatred of Russia’s neighboring countries (the former Soviet republics such as Ukraine, Georgia and Estonia, and former satellites such as Poland) plays a much more important role today. For instance, in April­May 2008, Russian media talked much more about the perfidious Georgia than England, which now, after the Litvinenko case, is also treated as a committed enemy of Russia. What is more, the media talked about Georgia almost as much as it did about NATO, which is seen as another one of the country’s fierce enemies. Indeed, between April 21 and May 22 , Georgia was mentioned almost 590 in 50 major Russian newspapers; England was mentioned 420 times and NATO 425 . The Kremlin’s aggressiveness toward the neighboring countries is a major source of friction between it and the West, which became apparent at the Bucharest meeting of NATO in April 2008.

Many experts in Russia and the West believe that the imperial ideology is deeply rooted in the Russian mind. Of course, the traditions of the country’s political culture, with its authoritarianism and xenophobia, are quite strong. However, the impact of the media on the Russians is much stronger. Khrushchev easily and almost instantly transformed public attitudes toward Tito’s Yugoslavia, a “fascist country,” from deep hostility to friendliness. President Reagan was vilified by the Soviet media in all possible ways from the moment of his inauguration in January 1981. However, when he came to Moscow as Gorbachev’s guest in May 1988 (I was there and watched it myself), he was greeted by ordinary people and intellectuals with great joy.

It would be easier for the Kremlin to redirect the media away from its hostility toward the Ukraine and Georgia than make the judicial system honest and independent. If president Medvedev decided to “reboot” the Russian political process, he would have to go on friendly visits to the capitals of all neighboring countries, starting with Kiev and Tbilisi. These visits would be as historically important as Khrushchev’s trip to Belgrade in 1955. He also must remove (which would be even easier) the main hawks on TV, including Maxim Shevchenko and Mikhail Leontiev, who sow the hatred of the external world on an everyday basis by inventing the most absurd theories about the subversive activities of the United States and the Ukraine against Russia.

Whether and when Medvedev will choose this scenario is highly uncertain. Many subjective and objective factors are in the game. So far, all signals coming from Moscow indicate that Medvedev, as Putin promised, will stick to the imperial ideology. He had no objection against the military parade on the Red Square on May 9, which was clearly addressed not to foreign governments in order to scare them, but only to the domestic audience in order to fuel the imperial spirit in the country. In his speech at the parade, Medvedev talked about some enemies who present threats to the motherland. In his capacity as president, Medvedev deemed it necessary to visit the base of strategic missiles in order to “enjoy,” as reported by a Moscow newspapers, “the might of Russian weapons.”

The new president also hailed Russian TV, an open bulwark of the imperial ideology, and the antidemocratic policy as “one of the best in the world.” Instead of Tbilisi and Kiev, Medvedev chose as the place of his first visits Astana (the capital of Kazakhstan) and Beijing (the capital of China). Both visits, as Moscow newspapers wrote, demonstrated the continuity of Putin’s foreign policy. However, these first steps did not doom the idea of a future perestroika. Mikhail Gorbachev, in the first year of his tenure, verbally attacked imperialism and considered the improvement of the Soviet military forces as his main task.

However, it is almost certain that a return to democracy in Russia lies in the capitals of Ukraine and Georgia. Friendly relations with its neighboring countries are important to Russia because any hatred of them damages the Russian people. Whoever becomes the next American president, he or she should pay special attention to the relations between Russia and its neighbors. Without an improvement of these relationships, Russia will not be a stable partner in solving the world’s major problems.

Read More...

Wednesday, May 28, 2008

Russian popular opinion on the "frozen conflicts"