Living with Russia

[welsh]

So what's it going to be-

More authoritarianism or more democracy?

Either way you can find corruption. But which is better?

To those that argue that the Russians just need a strong authoritarian hand (and argument I don't make) is it because the Russians are just special that way?

Do the Russians really belong in the G8 anyway?

The G8 summit

Living with a strong Russia

Jul 13th 2006
From The Economist print edition

The best approach to the host of this weekend's G8 summit is wary engagement

FORGET the formal agenda at this weekend's G8 summit, given over to energy security, infectious diseases and education. The really awkward issue for the leaders of the seven rich democracies gathering in St Petersburg concerns their host: how to live with a strong, but increasingly undemocratic, Russia.

Since Vladimir Putin became president in 2000, Russia has in many ways been a remarkable success. Thanks largely to high oil prices, its economy has grown by an average of 6.5% a year. Living standards have improved and a sizeable middle class has emerged. The stockmarket has boomed. Russia is running a huge current-account surplus, it is paying off the last of its debt and the rouble has just been made fully convertible. At the summit Russia also hopes to surmount the last hurdles to its joining the World Trade Organisation.

But will it be able to transform the revenues from increased oil prices to a more viable, dependable and efficient long-term economy.

For the world is full of Petrostates that have flopped when under pressure.

As they say in Venezuela, "oil is the devil's excrement."

Russians are grateful for these things. They like the stability that Mr Putin has brought in place of the chaos under his predecessor, Boris Yeltsin. They welcome their country's bounceback from the dark days of August 1998, when it defaulted and devalued. They are proud that, as the summit demonstrates, Russia once more counts for something in the world. No wonder Mr Putin has a popularity rating in the 70% range—an achievement that none of his guests can match.

Hoot!
That said, better try not be a hostage in another terrorist seige (school, theatres... what's next?)

Yet as well as these steps forward Russia has taken steps backwards. In Mr Putin's early years optimists hoped that stability and prosperity would not come at the expense of liberty and democracy. Western leaders gave him the benefit of their doubts over such matters as the war in Chechnya or curbs on the media. But it has become ever clearer that Russia is moving in the wrong direction. Greater state control of the economy, especially in the energy industry, has bred corruption and inefficiency. Any serious political opposition has been crushed. The broadcast media have been shut down or taken over by the government and its allies. Regional governors have been squashed—one of the last elected governors was arrested recently—and parliament has been emasculated, continuing the Kremlin's drive not merely to centralise, but to monopolise, political power.

And yet it's America's own conservative realist Sam "Clash of Civilizations" who said (in a better book than that one) - "It's not the type of goverment that matters, but the amount of government."

Those were the days
There is much debate over when Mr Putin started to go wrong. Many date it to the attack on Yukos, Mikhail Khodorkovsky's oil firm, that began three years ago this month; others say the clampdown started after the Beslan school siege in September 2004; still others point to the “orange revolution” in Ukraine at the end of 2004, when Russia's choice for president, Viktor Yanukovich, lost to the pro-Western Viktor Yushchenko. In an irony of timing, only days before the summit, the Chechen terrorist who was responsible for Beslan, Shamil Basayev, was killed (see obituary); and Mr Yanukovich re-emerged as a possible prime minister of Ukraine (see article).

Yet the truth is that there was no particular moment when Mr Putin “started to go wrong”. Even Kremlin insiders admit that he was determined from the outset to control the television channels and to stamp out political opposition. They concede that Mr Khodorkovsky is in prison for political reasons. Such things reflect Mr Putin's background as a KGB officer. To him, restoring order, staying in charge and reviving Russia's influence are what matter—not wishy-washy worries over democracy and human rights.

I mean.. what can you expect from a former KGB guy, right?

(With a sense of humor- that crack at Cheney was pretty damn funny).

What to say to Putin
So what can the West do? The short answer is, not a lot. In the 1990s an economically enfeebled Russia needed help from abroad. Unless the oil price unexpectedly collapses, no such leverage will be available in the near future. Politically, too, pressure from outside is likely to rebound. With the Kremlin once again firmly in control, Russia will almost certainly change only from within—or not at all.

Or very little at best?

This is not to say that the West has no influence. Mr Putin, like other Russian leaders before him, is sensitive to outside criticism. The Kremlin was this week in high dudgeon because senior Western officials attended a conference in Moscow organised by some of Mr Putin's few remaining opponents. The Russians are also neurotically keen to curtail the activities of non-governmental organisations.

Here lie some clues to what Western leaders should and should not do about Russia. They should speak out against Mr Putin's moves away from democracy, against his policy in Chechnya, or against Russian use of energy to bully its neighbours (many west European countries have been too timid in their criticism). They should continue to help NGOs and others who are trying to establish a civil society that may, one day, provide an alternative to the dead weight of the Kremlin. As the next presidential election of March 2008 nears, they should insist that any move to amend the constitution so that Mr Putin can run again is unacceptable—and would result in Russia's expulsion from the G8. They should do what they can to press for free and fair elections, even if the Kremlin's chosen candidate seems sure to win.

But of course asking the US to make these complaints would be hypocritical. Let's compare political prisons and the use of torture, shall we?

But then again, two wrongs don't make a right either.

There are things they should not do, as well. Russia's membership of the G8 may be an embarrassment, since it is supposedly a club of democracies. But to throw it out now would only push Russia farther out of the West's orbit, and risk making it even less helpful over such issues as curbing Iran's nuclear ambitions. Equally, Americans and Europeans are right to assist countries in Russia's near-abroad that want to escape its baleful influence. But to push for Ukraine or Georgia, say, to join NATO before they are ready would serve no good purpose. Above all, Western leaders should avoid giving the impression that what they really object to is not an illiberal and undemocratic Russia but a strong and rich one—a paranoia that even Russia's few remaining liberals all too often share.

Sixty years ago a wise American diplomat, George Kennan, proposed that the right policy of the West towards an expansionary Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin should be “containment”. Russia today is clearly no such threat. But it still matters, and the West should care about where it is going. The best policy now is no longer containment but “wary engagement”.

I really wonder what Europeans think of a rising Russia.

 

[Pajari]

Welsh pretty much covered everything. The only thing I have to add is this.

The G8 has several lame-duck members that are democracies but are hardly economic superpowers. Canada and Britain spring to mind. I think adding India and Brazil couldn't go wrong, even though they aren't as industrialized as the others, they're rapidly getting there.

Also, this article was funny.

 

[Neamos]

Greater state control of the economy, especially in the energy industry, has bred corruption and inefficiency.

T3h EVilzorz Gazprom seems efficent to me.

Any serious political opposition has been crushed.

The dumbasses crushed themselves. Really, saying that, when you become president you will increase oil gathering(?) and sell it for 25$/barrel, and then complaining that the current gov. wants Russia to become a energetic-feeder of the golden billion isn't really a smart thing to do.

The broadcast media have been shut down or taken over by the government and its allies.

Government controled media > oligarch controled media.

one of the last elected governors was arrested recently

Only means, that now even governors have to go with law.

and parliament has been emasculated

Holy tzar, UnitedRussia emasculated?! I think this guy doesn't really know what the hell he is writing.

Many date it to the attack on Yukos, Mikhail Khodorkovsky's oil firm, that began three years ago this month;

Wtf? So, the day when the government and law overtook the bureucracy, oligarchism and power hungry billioneres is the day "Russia started to go wrong"?

stamp out political opposition.

This isn't really hard to do, if opposition tries to get support from the west, and not from russian people.

They concede that Mr Khodorkovsky is in prison for political reasons.

I wonder why does this opposition always forget the killing, stealing, and trying to overthrow the government with money...

Such things reflect Mr Putin's background as a KGB officer. To him, restoring order, staying in charge and reviving Russia's influence are what matter—not wishy-washy worries over democracy and human rights.

I wonder what's more important: food, stability and belief in tommorow, or having the ability to call my president an assclown freely. Hmm...

I mean.. what can you expect from a former KGB guy, right?

Eating babies?

In the 1990s an economically enfeebled Russia needed help from abroad.

I don't think the "help" Russia got in the 90-ies can be called help at all.

Unless the oil price unexpectedly collapses

Dream on biatch.

Western officials attended a conference in Moscow organised by some of Mr Putin's few remaining opponents.

Lmao, if two west sponsored political corpses and a leader of national bolshevik party are few remaining Putin's opponenets it's really a sad day for opposition... (Not even the most popular opposition parties were at that conference)

The Russians are also neurotically keen to curtail the activities of non-governmental organisations.

I am too, interested where the money of Berezovski is going.

or against Russian use of energy to bully its neighbours

Yes, Russia should take an example of USA: just bomb the shit out of countries.

They should continue to help NGOs and others who are trying to establish a civil society that may, one day, provide an alternative to the dead weight of the Kremlin.

If they aren't sponsored for overthrowing the current gov.(which a lot are, judging by the cry of the western politicians) they can do what they want.

As the next presidential election of March 2008 nears, they should insist that any move to amend the constitution so that Mr Putin can run again is unacceptable—and would result in Russia's expulsion from the G8.

I lost count on how much times Putin said he won't go for the 3 term...

They should do what they can to press for free and fair elections, even if the Kremlin's chosen candidate seems sure to win.

I smell an orange revolution coming up...

There are things they should not do, as well. Russia's membership of the G8 may be an embarrassment, since it is supposedly a club of democracies.

Monarchic Japan and Britain aren't an emberrassment, huh?

 

[PhredBean]

The broadcast media have been shut down or taken over by the government and its allies.

Government controled media > oligarch controled media.

Both are corrupt, why do you feel you should have either? The lesser of two evils is a cop-out solution to anything.

Such things reflect Mr Putin's background as a KGB officer. To him, restoring order, staying in charge and reviving Russia's influence are what matter—not wishy-washy worries over democracy and human rights.

I wonder what's more important: food, stability and belief in tommorow, or having the ability to call my president an assclown freely. Hmm...

That made me laugh, propogandists love people like you. That is one way to put it, but again, you make it sound like you should have to choose between the two.

or against Russian use of energy to bully its neighbours

Yes, Russia should take an example of USA: just bomb the shit out of countries.

Well done, redicule redirected by pointing at something worse. "At least we aren't doing that." doesn't solve problems.

As the next presidential election of March 2008 nears, they should insist that any move to amend the constitution so that Mr Putin can run again is unacceptable—and would result in Russia's expulsion from the G8.

I lost count on how much times Putin said he won't go for the 3 term...

Yes, because political leaders are always keen on keeping promises. I don't think many people were able to keep count of the times Bush Sr. stated "there will be no new taxes".

 

[Neamos]

Both are corrupt, why do you feel you should have either? The lesser of two evils is a cop-out solution to anything.

Independent media can be corrupt either. And not like I can change anything.

That made me laugh, propogandists love people like you. That is one way to put it, but again, you make it sound like you should have to choose between the two.

It's really easy for you to say, since when you were born you had both, mmkay. You should come to Russia and ask people what did they enjoy more: Eltsins democratic and free times, when people didn't have money to buy clothes, or teh corrupt, dictatorship-ish and evil Putin times. And yes, there isn't really a lot to choose from. There aren't any centrist-patriotical smart politicians.

Well done, redicule redirected by pointing at something worse. "At least we aren't doing that." doesn't solve problems.

Yes, but it helps to point out hypocrisy.

Yes, because political leaders are always keen on keeping promises. I don't think many people were able to keep count of the times Bush Sr. stated "there will be no new taxes".

There is a difference between the two. Bush really doesn't give a crap about his popularity, because after his term is done he will leave, while Putin might come back in 2012. AND if Bush will brake his promise, no one will even try to open their mouths, while if Putin goes for the 3 term there will be cries like "omg omg totalitarism omg omg no democracy!!!1one!"

 

[Makdaam]

And not like I can change anything

That pretty much sums it up.

Putin won't go for the 3rd term... he's go his man ready and showing him in tv more and more (can't recall his name right now, but who really cares?)

Russia is still going to be in Putin's hands whether he will be the president, the prime minister or just an ex-president. He's well prepared to rule, knows how to recruit people, knows how to social engineer people and knows how to get rid of opposition.

And, he has gasprom and will use it to get as many ex-USSR countries under his wings...

 

[Brother None]

To those that argue that the Russians just need a strong authoritarian hand (and argument I don't make) is it because the Russians are just special that way?

No, but they're a country in transition. There are better ways to be a country in transition than that of Russia, China for instance, but those paths weren't chosen, much thanks to Western influence. Putin is righting a lot of those wrongs, like it or not.

Do the Russians really belong in the G8 anyway?

Of course not.

But will it be able to transform the revenues from increased oil prices to a more viable, dependable and efficient long-term economy.

Able? Of course it will. Do you have any idea how much pure cash is going to available to spend as it will once that debt is gone? It all depends on who'll be at the helm at that point.

T3h EVilzorz Gazprom seems efficent to me.

Efficient? Hardly. Uncorrupt? Not at all. 1998-2000 is not that long a time ago and I don't think the cleanup was all THAT neat.

Government controled media > oligarch controled media.

What? No.

Only means, that now even governors have to go with law.

That's not even vaguely what it means, though there's a lot to be said against the old gubernatorial ministate system.

Holy tzar, UnitedRussia emasculated?! I think this guy doesn't really know what the hell he is writing.

Yes, I think it's fair to call the President's little left hand in the Duma emasculated. Jesus, man.

But that's not what he's referring to. I'm not sure what he *is* referring to, but you can take your pick from any of the number of acts countering a diversity of parties and weakening the duma that have been decreed lately.

Wtf? So, the day when the government and law overtook the bureucracy, oligarchism and power hungry billioneres is the day "Russia started to go wrong"?

Not hardly. Especially not since the deal Putin struck with the oligarches "You can keep your money and your power, but you will not go into politics or media" is years older than the Yukos-thing. Hell, it dates roughly from day one of Putin's presidency.

Khodorkovsky broke the deal, so he had to pay the price. To even try and portray this as a legitimate attempt to make the law go over criminal acts of oligarchs is laughable at best, though.

This isn't really hard to do, if opposition tries to get support from the west, and not from russian people.

Heh, well, I like Yabloko.

I wonder why does this opposition always forget the killing, stealing, and trying to overthrow the government with money...

That quote from the article wasn't from the opposition, it was from "Kremlin insiders".

I don't think the "help" Russia got in the 90-ies can be called help at all.

Nor is the article claiming as much, it's only saying help was needed.

I am too, interested where the money of Berezovski is going.

What? Platon isn't an NGO, now is he? So what does that have to do with anything?

sponsored for overthrowing the current gov.(which a lot are, judging by the cry of the western politicians)

Wait, you actually believe that?

That's incredibly funny.

Monarchic Japan and Britain aren't an emberrassment, huh?

Their nominal status as monarchies is indeed completely irrelevant, well called.

Yes, but it helps to point out hypocrisy.

Yes, but sadly it's not their hypocrisy you're pointing out, it's your own.

And not like I can change anything.

Yes, you can, please keep your straw men away from me.

There is a difference between the two. Bush really doesn't give a crap about his popularity, because after his term is done he will leave, while Putin might come back in 2012. AND if Bush will brake his promise, no one will even try to open their mouths, while if Putin goes for the 3 term there will be cries like "omg omg totalitarism omg omg no democracy!!!1one!"

Seriously, man, pay attention, he said Bush SENIOR.