Streetwise Professor

August 20, 2009

Cling Ons

Filed under: Politics,Russia — The Professor @ 9:15 pm

Philip Stephens gets it mostly right about Russia in today’s FT. He correctly notes that Russia is friendless, except for an odd assortment of international pariahs.  He is right that this reflects the facts that (a) Russia’s all gall no sugar approach of bullying, extortion, and threats is off-putting in the extreme, and (b) Russia’s socio-political-economic model is repulsive, rather than attractive.  This line is particularly wicked, and particularly on point: “To put it another way, what country in the world wants to be more like Russia? I cannot think of a shorter list.”  To which I might offer: Cubs post-war World Series Championships (unless the War in question is the Spanish-American).

Where Stephens is very likely wrong, in my view, is not his diagnosis of the present or the past, but his predictions for the future:

Moscow will discover eventually the limitations of its capacity to obstruct. It is starving itself of foreign technology and investment. Making life difficult for the west is not the same as shaping a different international landscape. Even those who now pay notional fealty to Moscow are hedging their bets with China or the west. . . .  To quote the plain-speaking Mr Biden, it is hard when you lose an empire, but you cannot cling on to the past indefinitely.

Since when has Russia discovered the limitations of obstruction?  Indeed, it is more reasonable to conclude that, based on Russian behavior, the more its conduct alienates others; the more isolated it becomes; the more pronounced its sense of victimization becomes, and the more contrary and aggressive it becomes.

Since when has the prospect of obtaining foreign technology and investment led it to restrain its pugnacity?  The dynamic of the natural state actually makes it virtually impossible to restrain its expropriations of foreign investors, and further makes it unwilling to accept the unsettling consequences of economic openness.

No, Russia will not discover the limitations of obstreperousness and obstruction.  A pernicious feedback cycle reinforces its behavior.  The past and present are prologue.  Russia will not just cling to its past; it will continue to rush headlong to embrace it.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

41 Comments »

  1. Well, isn’t it intrinsic with the notorious thug regimes like Chavez, Iran and Russia that external enemies are essential. Russia being the personality disordered global Blanche DuBois, a failed empire, aged, ugly and passe is going to push the envelope until a big smack down happens or internal decay becomes too self-absorbing and expensive.

    Russia is a sociey whose amnesia and willfull ignorance are pernicious as this Paul Goble article illustrates:

    http://windowoneurasia.blogspot.com/2009/08/window-on-eurasia-russians-increasingly.html

    You just can’t be that willfully ignorant and survive as a culture or state. Hey, but, all is good with Putin.

    Comment by penny — August 20, 2009 @ 9:35 pm

  2. Quite true. And absolutely nothing new about it.

    Even when Kozyrev was foreign minister, and the main method of Russian foreign policy was the preemptive concession, Russia had no actual friends.

    The one valuable thing the Russian people gained from the 1990s is a clear understanding that their fate lies entirely in their hands. While other countries are happy to exploit Russia’s problems to gain an advantage, none will do anything to actually help solve any of them.

    Unfortunately, the cost of this knowledge was millions of Russian lives. But now that they’ve gained it, things are looking up. Counting immigration, Russia almost reached zero population growth in 2008, and for the first 6 months of 2009, births are up and deaths are even compared to the first 6 months of 2008. Meanwhile, US clients Ukraine and the Baltic States have about the steepest rates of population decline in the world.

    Looks to me like the “friendship” of the US is worse than US enmity.

    Comment by rkka — August 21, 2009 @ 4:12 am

  3. “The one valuable thing the Russian people gained from the 1990s is a clear understanding that their fate lies entirely in their hands. While other countries are happy to exploit Russia’s problems to gain an advantage, none will do anything to actually help solve any of them.”

    Thanks for your kind words! But still…, by now, had there not been for Western financial aid, St Petersburgers would have been drowned, not by the waves of the Neva and the Gulf of Finland a’la Pushkin’s Bronze Horseman, but by their own human wastes:

    http://www.unwire.org/unwire/20010403/13835_story.asp
    http://www.sptimes.ru/index.php?action_id=2&story_id=29197
    http://www.water-technology.net/projects/uzos/
    http://www.helcom.fi/press_office/news_baltic/en_GB/BalticNews4217397/
    http://yle.fi/uutiset/news/2007/10/halonen_more_joint_finno-russian_environmental_projects_252392.html
    http://www.ebrd.com/new/stories/2005/051003.htm
    http://www.vacon.com/Default.aspx?Id=461537

    and so on…

    Comment by Dixi — August 21, 2009 @ 6:59 am

  4. RKKA:

    It’s truly amazing that you would be unable to recognize Russia might have any fault in being utterly alone, hated by the entire world. It’s the ravings of a psychopath.

    As for your absurd lies about Russia’s population, what you don’t even try to deny is that there is still a HUGE gap between birth and mortality in Russia, causing the native population to rapidly disappear. Russia’s efforts to bring back expats have ended in total, humliating failure, and only residual hatred of Russians in post Soviet space drives immigration, which will soon end. Russia leads the world in things like murder, fire fatality, road fatality, smoking fatality, AIDS and a host of other problems that the Putin regime has done NOTHING about, squandering Russia’s oil windfall on nuclear weapons and cold war politics and military attacks on tiny neighbors.

    You lie just as the Soviet leaders lied, and your silly antics are just as easily exposed. When Russia again collapses, the world will be reminded once again that such as you are Russia’s true enemies.

    Comment by La Russophobe — August 21, 2009 @ 7:01 am

  5. Russia’s average age for females is 41.6 years so even if its total fertility rate wasn’t 1.41 children per women (which it is) and was even above replacement rate, it would not help much since such a large fraction of the population is either post menopausal or nearing this stage.

    My question is about whether Russia’s end will come by war with one or more of its long-suffering neighbors or from internal civil war and what the fallout will be for Russia, the region and the world. I also wonder about the time frame.

    Comment by Snake Oil Baron — August 21, 2009 @ 12:18 pm

  6. rkka, I don’t think you missed one arrogant, paranoid, xenphobic, insular Russian nationalist talking point.

    “While other countries are happy to exploit Russia’s problems to gain an advantage, none will do anything to actually help solve any of them.”

    What a typically immature contradictory whine from you. And, may I add, no one owes Russia anything in regard their solving the problems of their own making, not the US taxpayer, not the EU taxpayer, not China, no one. This isn’t the fifth grade and sovereign nations aren’t providers of global social workers to others.

    The world pays a fair price for Russian commodites. No one is taking advantage of Russia economically, actually they are economically bullying others. No foreign forces are occupying Russia. The rot that infects Russia is their responsiblity to solve.

    Comment by penny — August 21, 2009 @ 1:31 pm

  7. Snake Oil Baron, I suspect Russia will simply decay to the point that the Chinese relieve them of their eastern commodity rich areas in a few generations. Rejecting shared values with the west Russians has doomed themselves to a very nasty fate.

    Comment by penny — August 21, 2009 @ 1:46 pm

  8. The hostile, deceptive, Nazi-like rhetoric on this board is just further proof Russia is correct to keep its distance from the West.

    Comment by Sublime Oblivion — August 21, 2009 @ 1:55 pm

  9. Regarding waste building up vicinity the Bronze Horseman, actually it would have floated out the gulf of Finland, and washed up on the EU’s shores. Hence the mutually beneficial mutual effort.

    And the world does indeed pay a fair price for Russian commodities. Hard value in return for hard value. No bloviation about common values, or “charters”. And Russia should continue developing ports and pipelines, to ensure that Russophobes cannot impede Russia’s trade or profit from transit fees.

    And Penny, the nasty fate for millions of Russians, and Balts, and Ukrainians, etc., already came as a result of the Soviet/Russian leadership seeking shared values with the West. There were at one point 52 million Ukrainians in Ukraine. Now there are 46 million, and in 2008 deaths exceed birthss by ~250,000. Yes, the West will defend Ukrainian independence… to the last Ukrainian…

    Comment by rkka — August 21, 2009 @ 4:05 pm

  10. And Penny, the nasty fate for millions of Russians, and Balts, and Ukrainians, etc., already came as a result of the Soviet/Russian leadership seeking shared values with the West.

    Trying to cut through your circular contradictory garble, what exactly are you suggesting? That during Stalin’s reign of terror in the 30’s so very well documented by Solzenitsyn, the death toll 30 to 40 million Soviets, was influenced by the Brits, FDR and the Vatican, the pillars of western values in that decade? All of the above have no mass graves to be accused of. An evil pig like Stalin like Hitler his historic counterpart were the opposite of western values. That’s the point and vindication of our western history. For Russians the evil of totalitarian oppression lives on with amoral dupes like you shilling for the pigs in the Kremlin and minimizing the violence and murderous nature of Soviet history.

    No offense, but, you move regularly from Robert Amsterdam’s site to here and I think LR’s with the same dumb Putin/Kremlin/Russian nationalist talking points.

    Whoever you are and I suspect you aren’t a native Russian your lame drivel isn’t working out for you in the marketplace of opinions.

    Comment by penny — August 21, 2009 @ 7:56 pm

  11. Penny, Soviet “genocide” left 52 million Ukrainians in 1991. There are now 46 million Ukrainians, and deaths exceeded births by ~250,000 in 2008.

    A pretty clear demonstration of how “Western values” are working out there since the end of the USSR.

    Comment by rkka — August 21, 2009 @ 8:26 pm

  12. The Asia Times Spengler agrees with rkka, at least so far as to the futility of pretending that certain countries that are “pro-Western” will thrive while evil Muscovy whithers away. Plus, AK has already done a good service by pointing out the hollowness of the Yellow Peril. Half of Russians probably have some Ghenghis Khan in their blood anyway, so it isn’t as if Russia has not dealt with it centuries before. There is reason to think, particularly since they would need the resources intact and not nuked, that the Chinese would do any better than Napoleon or Hitler. Plus how many young guys from Shanghai or Pudong want to relocate to Khabarovsk?

    And as I pointed out to the Prof, having examined the authors of the Cyberwarfare report more closely, what we have here is a huge double standard: everyone’s ex-chekist background in Russia is fair game, but nobody’s supposed to point out that Goble and at least the main spokesperson for that report were CIA. If you say that Soros has at times acted as a front for our government, you’re consigned to Alex Jones territory, rather than just acknowledging reality. The game may have been declared over twenty years ago for public consumption, but the gears of the Cold War propaganda machine grind on. Saying Russia is demographically doomed and therefore can be ignored and have its interests constantly shrugged off in its own back yard is part of that game.

    Comment by Steve J. Nelson — August 22, 2009 @ 9:55 am

  13. There is [sic] no reason to think, particularly since they would need the resources intact and not nuked, that the Chinese would do any better than Napoleon or Hitler. Plus how many young guys from Shanghai or Pudong want to relocate to Khabarovsk?

    Comment by Steve J. Nelson — August 22, 2009 @ 9:56 am

  14. Steve, there won’t be any nuking of Russia’s far East. Get real. It will simply in a few generations be colonized both physically and economically by the Chinese. It’s happening now. It’s in the numbers, demographics aren’t ignorable, Steve.

    And, please, Russian depopulation is severe in the Far East now, the Chinese face a very different paradigm than Hitler or Napoleon.

    History is filled with faded empires and people that got swallowed up by another invading tribe or conqueror.

    How about linking and sharing that Spengler piece so we can all see the context.

    Comment by penny — August 22, 2009 @ 11:07 am

  15. SJN–Do you have anything to say about the specifics of the report. Do you have the slightest shred of evidence to contradict it? Your constant resort to the ad hominem is tiresome. You are indeed a one-note Annie.

    The thoughts you string together in those two paragraphs are so disconnected and scattered that a coherent reply is impossible. Stream-of-consciousness-throw-everything-against-the-wall-and-see-what-sticks.

    I will address one thing, and kill two birds (you and rkka) with one stone–re the pro-Western thing. You are erecting a straw man. I, for one, have never been complimentary of say, Ukraine, or predicted that its future is a rosy one simply because it is striving to distance itself, however imperfectly, from its historical legacy (rather than racing to embrace it, like Russia). It too is burdened by its Soviet past–and its Russian Imperial one. That is manifested in corruption, economic incoherence, and demographic decline. The difference is the following: as equally dysfunctional as their domestic policies are, Ukraine and other states formerly under the Russian/Soviet thumb are not aggressive, revisionist powers bent on imposing their will on others. Ukraine is like a junky that is trying, fitfully, to break free from its past behavior; Russia is like a junky anxious to keep chasing the dragon, again and again and again. Russia is a failure with delusions of grandeur; Ukraine is a failure but lacks these particular delusions. And the source of the failures are ultimately the same: the Muscovite and Soviet legacies.

    The Russian obsession with Ukraine is very revealing. It speaks volumes about the psychological complexes that run rampant in Russia. (See Richard Pipes’s oped in today’s WSJ for a brief discussion.) Complexes that you share. How do you come by such complexes, “Steve” with the * IP?

    The ProfessorComment by The Professor — August 22, 2009 @ 11:16 am

  16. I never said you were complimentary of Ukraine. I’m just wondering what’s the population loss level that would get people to re-think the whole “break-up the USSR/Ukrainian independence” thing. We’re approaching 15%. Will it take 20%? 25%? 50%?

    Comment by rkka — August 22, 2009 @ 3:18 pm

  17. rkka–post hoc, ergo propter hoc. What is your counterfactual prediction? Do you actually think that Ukraine–or Russia, for that matter–would have a growing and flourishing population if the USSR were still in existence, or Ukraine were still united with Russia? The USSR’s economy was unsustainable, and its collapse inevitable. The effects of that collapse, in my view, would have been very similar even if Ukraine, etc., had remained united with Russia.

    Also, I would wager that the decline in Great Russian population in Russia proper would be of the same order you quote for Ukraine. In immigration from Great Russians from the CIS states, the immigration of non-Russians, and high birth rates among primarily Muslim populations–factors all missing from Ukraine–are what separate the bad Russian experience from the abysmal Ukrainian one.

    Tying together two drowning men is hardly likely to save either.

    The ProfessorComment by The Professor — August 22, 2009 @ 5:52 pm

  18. Actually there’s no real evidence the USSR was “unsustainable” and its collapse “inevitable”. You might be interested to read this paper by M. Harrison – http://www.uh.edu/~pgregory/conf/Collapse.pdf

    It is probably true that the decline in the Great Russian population during the post-Soviet period was little distinguishable from the Ukrainian, but the demographic recovery post-2006 (when Russia really started returning to the future) was significantly more pronounced in Russia than in Ukraine.

    PS. Re Muslim demography. Not to any significant extent. The ONLY Muslim region of Russia today which has a TFR higher than replacement level is Chechnya (even Ingushetia and Daghestan are at around 1.8-2.0). As for the Tatars / Bashkirs, the two most populous Muslim groups, they’re at 1.5-1.7 and hence only marginally more fertile than ethnic Russians.

    Comment by Sublime Oblivion — August 22, 2009 @ 8:46 pm

  19. Heh, more like 11235 Prof. But I do come back to see the fam from time to time. Anything else your State Dept. buddies would like to share? Perhaps my Social Security number too? Or an IRS audit?

    Comment by Steve J. Nelson — August 23, 2009 @ 3:06 am

  20. SO

    Regarding this obervation of yours:

    “The hostile, deceptive, Nazi-like rhetoric on this board is just further proof Russia is correct to keep its distance from the West.”

    ****

    It’s not like everyone is so committed to taking that line.

    Professor

    There you go again on being selective and ironic. The post-Soviet world sees Anglo-American led military action away from its borders, with some idealistic polemics about having the right to use such force for good.

    Post-Soviet Russia takes a more stay within its area route. Issues like saving American citizens in Grenada, fighting terrorists and seeking to prevent as great a humanitarian problem as possible isn’t something reserved for one power bloc.

    For good measure, the “obsession” with Ukraine concern some of the anti-Russian observations out there (talk about “psychological complexes”).

    Comment by Cutie Pie — August 23, 2009 @ 5:21 am

  21. S/O–“Nazi like”? Come on. Some specifics, please. Anti-Semitism? Support for genocide? Demands for lebensraum?

    Arguendo ad Hitlerum is beneath you.

    The ProfessorComment by The Professor — August 23, 2009 @ 6:57 am

  22. Ah, yes, the post hoc fallacy: “just because you see frogs after it rains doesn’t mean it’s been raining frogs.”

    Ukraine lost population because it adopted Western values?????

    The contrary is true – Ukraine lost population because the commie insiders created an oligarch government, robbing and stealing everything in sight for themselves, abusing government to do so. Roosha did the same.

    So Ukrainians left Ukraine in droves – for economic opportunity. Roosha lost population as well, for the same reason.

    One method of leaving was for young girls, in their 20’s, to get married to men in their 60’s or 70’s, in order to leave for the US, or England, or Australia.

    Exhibiting his sovok mentality, former Ukrainian President Kuchma called those who left to find work in Western Europe (the “zarobitchany” – people seeking employment) —- “prostitutes.”

    Yet what did the regimes in Ukraine or Roosha do for ordinary people? Nothing. Abramovych bought the Chelsea Football Club and a bunch of yachts. Berezovsky bought a mansion in England and a Gulfstream jet.

    Ukraine – and roosha – left in droves precisely because the so-called “political elite” did NOT adopt Western values of government.

    So, as with Mexico, people left for better economic opportunities elsewhere.

    In Ukraine, slowly, slowly, that is changing, and the people are demanding government.

    In roosha, as usual, the people are reverting to form: “Putler, beat me better, please.”

    Comment by elmer — August 23, 2009 @ 10:12 am

  23. That is, in Ukraine, people are demanding better government.

    Not so in roosha, where such a demand will get you killed.

    Comment by elmer — August 23, 2009 @ 10:13 am

  24. In Ukraine, Putin would win the Ukraiian presidency over any Ukrainian or other world leader.

    In Ukraine, there seems to be increased support for the idea of an effectively strong leader, who isn’t opposed with a politically gridlock kind of situation which often typifies democracies.

    Comment by Cutie Pie — August 23, 2009 @ 1:23 pm

  25. Actually, Putler Pee, no such thing exists in Ukraine – except for your wishful thinking.

    People are indeed thoroughly disgusted with Ukraine’s current government. But they do not wish to be killed or beaten over the head by Putler, Mudvedev, Roosha, or anyone else.

    http://foreignnotes.blogspot.com/2009/08/why-medvedev-is-not-right.html

    And Mudvedev seems to have done Ukraine a big favor by his stupid letter.

    http://www.kyivpost.com/nation/47264

    Comment by elmer — August 23, 2009 @ 5:44 pm

  26. Putler Pee, you might take a look at this interview of a representative of the Helsinki Commission by Myroslava Gongadze.

    http://www.voanews.com/ukrainian/2009-08-23-voa11.cfm

    Comment by elmer — August 23, 2009 @ 5:56 pm

  27. Elmer Fudd

    Are you a
    – comedian
    – FSB agent trying to make Russia look good
    – plain ****** ****
    – had a few too many at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Fg1cBe-mMU
    – or any combo of the four?

    The first link actually gives partial credence to the poll I’m referring to. I don’t think that the cited chap makes a strong case. As to date, I’m not aware of a significant jump, or any jump in Yushchenko’s popularity since Medvedev’s letter.

    Regarding your second link, the views of Felgenhauer, Kiselyov, O’Sullivan and Aslund aren’t good measures to judge Ukrainian public opinion. The third link is from a wishful thinker. In the last Ukrainian presidential election, some Ukrainians wrote in Lukashenko for president. I’m curious to see how he does this time around. I think it’s pretty clear that Yushchenko isn’t goung to win with Yanukovych maintaining his position and populist Tymoshenko having drifted away from Yushchenko.

    We shall see what we shall see.

    Comment by Cutie Pie — August 24, 2009 @ 12:16 am

  28. Rkka,

    “Regarding waste building up vicinity the Bronze Horseman, actually it would have floated out the gulf of Finland, and washed up on the EU’s shores. Hence the mutually beneficial mutual effort.”

    Yes, finansiation might have been a MUTUAL task (though, relying overwhelmingly on WESTERN AID), but the wastes were surely produced ONE-SIDEDLY by the Russian side only. Russian co-operation: let’s pay together the damage I’ve done only by myself? Indeed, what an unfair world we live in as regarded from a Russian point of view. Maybe I as a Western tax-payer should even apologize for not letting you have been overflowed by your OWN human wastes at first hand…

    Comment by Dixi — August 24, 2009 @ 2:17 am

  29. Dixi-as long as you admit that the EU had an interest in supporting the treatment plant, and you clearly do, I have no problem at all.

    Comment by rkka — August 24, 2009 @ 4:20 am

  30. Putler Pee, Yushchenko is not going to win because he failed to live up to his promises.

    He betrayed the Orange Revolution, and he is going to pay the price.

    What SWP said about Ukraine is exactly right. The sovok legacy is indeed a narcotic, and Yanukovych and his Party of Regions feeds on it.

    And junkies is exactly the right word.

    But overall, Ukraine is trying to break away from that narcotic.

    Indeed, the people themselves have already shaken free, for the most part – hence the overall disgust with the dysfunctional government. It’s the politicians who keep hanging on.

    Yanukovych and his wife (!) very famously referred to the Orange Revolution adherents as narcomaniacs. To which Ukrainians responded by taking oranges and sticking them with needles – to mock the comment.

    People like the “Witch of Konotop,” (Vitrenko, a good little sovok if there ever was one) who kept showing WWII sovok propaganda clips in her bid for office in 2004-2005 about how the sovok union “pobedyl” everyone and everything have completely fallen off the radar.

    But this clearly shows the Ukraine is trying to forge a new democracy – emphasis on democracy – while rasha is still doing everything it can to maintain misery, past and present, in rasha and beyond rasha’s borders.

    Comment by elmer — August 24, 2009 @ 8:13 am

  31. Elmer Fudd

    The polls contradict your ongoing spin.

    The Party of Regions isn’t the Ukrainian Communist Party, with Russia and much of Ukraine having ties that were ongoing before 1917 and for a period longer than Communism. Many Russian leaning people in Ukraine don’t support Vitrenko. This shouldn’t be hard for you to understand, given your stated opposition to Yushchenko.

    In Ukraine, the shortcomings since 2005 seem to have led to an increased yearning for an effective strong person rule, with little opposition. In popularity, Kuchma’s standing has increased.

    There’s more to Ukrainian politics than “Roosha.” Even with that in mind, the views of Yushchenko and yourself on Russia/Russian related matters are in the minority among Ukrainians.

    Your faulting of Yushchenko is like blaming the coach of a weak team. The best of coaches can’t turn a really bad team into a good one.

    Contrary to what some others besides yourself suggest, Russia is developing in a way that has yet to be fully determined.

    Comment by Cutie Pie — August 24, 2009 @ 11:53 am

  32. Show me the links to reliable Ukrainian polls, Putler Pee.

    There are others besides the Konotop Witch who have fallen off the radar screen in just a few short years – which to everyone, except kremlinoids like you, speaks volumes about the attitudes of Ukrainians, and the fact that they want a fully democratic, free, independent country, and that they are no longer quite as susceptible to the old sovok slogans and brainwashing and sovok intimidation, threats, insults, deception and distortion.

    Yushchenko was not a coach – he was a player.

    He surrounded himself with other players. He decided to play with the Party of Regions, which disenchanted most of his followers at that time. And it didn’t help that he and Tymoshenko engaged in a vicious, perpetual pissing contest.

    The people in Ukraine are not stupid – they are not demanding a “strong leader,” Putler style. As Yatseniuk has mentioned recently, in Ukraine, Putler is not necessary. Or, for that matter, desired, or desirably.

    What people are demanding is that the pigs, who constitute the “political elite” in Ukraine, 1) stop abusing government for their own personal gain, 2) stop the constant political infighting which has lead to political paralysis and 3) change and reform the system to make it more open, and more effective.

    And stopping the “war of all against all” being fought by the political elite, to the detriment of the public and of the public good.

    One such step would be the elimination of absolute parliamentary immunity, which was talked about by every single candidate, and now has once again surfaced as a proposal by BYuT/Tymoshenko.

    Another would be elimination of the “party list” system for election of Parliament, which also has been openly and widely discussed.

    Another would be elimination of corruption and corrupt judges – to wit, the recent prosecution of Judge Zvarych and other judges, who are now being prosecuted for taking bribes.

    And, contrary to what you believe, I am not against Yushchenko. I am sorely disappointed, as is virtually all of Ukraine, that he did not carry out what he promised. That is precisely reflected in his single-digit rating in the polls, as has been noted in Ukraine and throughout the world.

    All of this is in stark contrast to what is happening and developing in rasha.

    In Ukraine, people openly and freely discuss in criticism of government-by-oligarch.

    In rasha, that will get you killed. No matter how much kremlinoids like you try to deny it.

    Comment by elmer — August 24, 2009 @ 1:31 pm

  33. Elmer Fudd

    You carry on with long winded assertions which are off the wall.

    I provided two links on that matter at a recent SWP thread involving yourself. Instead of carrying on with an obtuse nationalist script, you should try paying better attention. Doing so might give you a better idea of what’s reality over fiction.

    https://streetwiseprofessor.com/?p=2382#comment-69187

    On another point of yours, Yushchenko sought some accord with the PoR out of practicality. This is something which folks like yourself seem to lack. Instead, you support leaders who become failures because (for good measure) their geopolitics aren’t in line with the constituency they seek to represent.

    Some refer to Ukraine as a “failed state.” I’ll refrain from that designation with the characterization of it being a challenged state. Regardless, Ukrainians have a highher view of Russia than vice versa.

    Contrary to what you say: in Russia a good number of folks like Ryzhkov get their views stated at outlets like RIA Novosti. On the other hand, patriots like Mikhalkov have gotten thrashed in an unfair way.

    Comment by Cutie Pie — August 24, 2009 @ 2:35 pm

  34. Look, Putler Pee, you’re going to need to present reliable polls and data – not trumped up kremlinoid polls. There are tons of opinion polls conducted in Ukraine – it’s become a fad, ever since they hired American “politechnologists,” and the rooskies came in with their own “politechnologists.”

    As far as Yushchenko trying to reach an accord with the Party of Roosha out or “practicality” – he did that out of a vitriolic hatred of Tymoshenko. In any event, his little venture 1) lost him a ton of supporters and 2) backfired on him, because the Party of Roosha, being rooshified, did not sign the “universal agreement”, and did not work with him. In fact, Yushchenko even started handing out medals left and right for dubious reasons to Party or Roosha members, and supported Firtash and Fursin and RosUkrEnergo – again, for mysterious reasons, maybe having to do with payoffs by Firtash to Yushchenko’s brother – against Tymoshenko.

    He also supported the Vanco Prykerchenska fiasco, which also involved rooshan oligarchs, just like RosUkrEnergo did.

    And where it got him, for all of this “rasha friendliness,” is – zilch in the ratings. Reliable ratings.

    As far as rashans’ view of anyone – rashans don’t view anyone favorably, except when they have their boots on your throat.

    Well, except for all of the 20-year old girls that escape from Rasha with 70-year old men by way of marriage.

    You keep mentioning the old sovok term, “nationalist” for some reason. People in the sovok union were supposed to cower in fear and cry at the mere mention of the term “nationalist.”

    Which is in line with kremlinoid propaganda – only rooshans were allowed to be “nationalists.”

    Everyone else was allowed to be “friendly” with rasha – meaning, of course, subservient to the Kremlin and whatever thugs crawled in that place at any given time.

    It’s clear that you still wallow in all of the “wonderful” sovok propaganda, and all of those sovok code words.

    Just like a junky.

    Comment by elmer — August 24, 2009 @ 6:51 pm

  35. Elmer Fudd

    I cited a scientifically conducted Ukrainian poll, which isn’t so out of sync with prior ones.

    Tymoshenko drifts in a way that Yushchenko and Yanukovych don’t. Given your views, why be so fond of her? Since Yushchenko became president, she has said that: Putin has played a positive role in limiting the role of oligarchs in Russia (said during her first stint as PM) – Ukraine should join NATO when Russia does, but not beforehand (also said during her first stint as PM) – hasn’t criticized Russia’s counterattack against the Georgian government – criticized Yushchenko for the bad relations between Russia and Ukraine (said shortly after last year’s war in the Caucasus).

    The PoR presidential candidate currently leads in the polls.

    You touch on the oligarch role in Ukraine (which involves Ukrainian oligarchs), while also saying that Ukraine is more advanced than Russia. Yushchenko’s dealings with Russian business interests were a matter of record before the so-called “Orange Revolution.” During his campaign, he’d note this when seeking the pro-Russian vote. Now, some who voted for him carry on with a righteous indignation of feeling betrayed.

    “Sovok” refers to people with a fondness for the Soviet past. You can find this among many non-Russians, including Ukrainians. Like I said, there’s also a non-sovok view of Russia and Ukraine, which doesn’t so negatively note the ties the two have had for a period longer than Communism.

    “Sovoks” aren’t the only ones who use the word “nationalist” to describe others. Heck, to get to your level, you’re a sovok, as shown by your non-opposition to Ukraine’s Communist drawn boundaries.

    Contrary to what you say, many non-Russians have been attracted to Russia and Russians at large. Like Russia, some other countries of considerable geopolitical stature have experienced this themselves, as well as the antipathy of some others.

    Comment by Cutie Pie — August 25, 2009 @ 1:58 am

  36. “Dixi-as long as you admit that the EU had an interest in supporting the treatment plant, and you clearly do, I have no problem at all.”

    Of course not. Neither would I, if somebody else would pay the damage I have done myself.

    Comment by Dixi — August 25, 2009 @ 2:02 am

  37. Well, Putler Pee, I see that you engage in the sovok habit of twisted logic. That includes leaping to conclusions, and making false assumptions.

    First, I did not express any support for Tymoshenko – I merely noted the conflict between her and Yushchenko.

    Second, it is obviously quite a stretch to call me a sovok on the basis that I don’t “oppose” Ukraine’s “communist drawn” boundaries.

    That, of course, reflects the oh-so-often repeated canard, dearly beloved by sovoks such as Pootler Pee, that Ukraine exists merely and only due to the “warm-heartedness” of sovok roosha, which “created” Ukraine – and its boundaries – out of thin air.

    That goes hand-in-hand with the “maybe we should return Halychyna (Galicia) to Poland” canard, which sovoks so dearly love to recite in various blogs and forums – and have over the years.

    Third – “scientifically conducted poll” – HA!

    The poll questions are preposterous, and full of loaded sovok terms, for one. Complete with the old sovok loaded “friendly country” terminology.

    The sovok lexicon was full of “friendly” countries. Hungary was forced to build schools in Ukraine to “repay” teh sovoks for “liberating” Hungary, for example. And so it went, and so it goes.

    Here’s the old sovok greeting that the sovoks taught all of their athletes to use on camera –

    (smile a fake smile and wave while saying)

    мир всем! привет всем!

    Sovok junkies like Pootler Pee cling on to dear little “warmhearted” greetings like that.

    And, finally, there it is yet again – short of slavic brotherhood, which also is thrown into blogs and forums – the “ties,” the oh-so- long “ties” between Roosha and Ukraine (which doesn’t exist, of course; no, maybe it does, when sovoks say so; no, wait, it exists when it’s convenient for rooskie sovoks).

    But considering what roosha did to Ukraine, noone needs “ties” like that, and noone needs “slavic orthodox brothers” like that.

    Not even Russians.

    http://zik.com.ua/en/news/2009/07/23/189761

    Russians continue unauthorized troop movements in Sevastopol

    http://zik.com.ua/en/news/2009/08/13/192345

    Russian scientist seeks political asylum in Ukraine

    Comment by elmer — August 25, 2009 @ 9:21 am

  38. Elmer Fudd provides another absurd round.

    His very last salvo has the propagandistic bent of someone from the US defecting to Cuba. This comparsion underscores the point of comparing the number of people from Ukraine going to Russia over people from Russia going to Ukraine.

    He didn’t quite understand my point of calling him a sovok, which was otherwise based on his own idiotic use of the term.

    Whether he likes it or not, many Ukrainians don’t accept his crackpot notions. The chances of a Bandera statue in Odessa or Crimea isn’t as likely as that of a Russian historical figure. Kharkov voted to have Russian as a primary language. Similar sentiment can be found in the Donbas region. Over the past few decades, central Ukraine has become more of a political mix due to the migration from western Ukraine. In Bukovina, the ethnic Moldovan/Romanian population are generally wary of the Elmer Fudd like nationalism. The same holds true with the Rusyn population in Trans-Carpathia.

    It’s of course his choice to twist reality from what it is.

    Comment by Cutie Pie — August 25, 2009 @ 2:39 pm

  39. The name of the city is Kharkiv, not Kharkov, Pootler Pee.

    And the vote by the city council in Kharkiv was overturned.

    And, lo and behold, Bandera surfaces yet again, to torment Pootler Pee!

    May you have many nightmares about Bandera, Pootler Pee, as I’m sure you do.

    And, knowing the psychotic need of rooskie sovoks to have the last word –

    go ahead, Pootler Pee, I give you the last word.

    Pee all over yourself to your heart’s content.

    Comment by elmer — August 25, 2009 @ 10:05 pm

  40. One more thing – Ukraine just celebrated its Independence Day, August 24, in fine fashion.

    Here it is:

    http://tap-the-talent.blogspot.com/2009/08/kyiv-military-parade-2009.html

    The last video has an especially impressive fireworks display.

    Ukrainian flags are everywhere.

    Go ahead, Pootler Pee, you miserable wretched piece of dung.

    The last word is yours.

    Comment by elmer — August 25, 2009 @ 10:14 pm

  41. “Dung” is perhaps what’s between your ears. If so, it explains your stupidity.

    Who “overturned” Kharkov’s decision?

    To further address an aspect of your ongoing stupidity: “sovok” refers to a liking of Soviet ways. Looking at the pre-Soviet era – Gogol saw himself as being akin to Russia – the majority of Cossacks on what’s now known as Ukraine opposed Mazepa – during the Russian Civil War, the Galician Ukrainians ended up preferring the Russian Whites over Petliura.

    On being a puppet, Petliura was willing to sacrifice Galicia to be Pilsudski’s stooge. Mazepa had earlier carried on in a similar fashion.

    Comment by Cutie Pie — August 26, 2009 @ 12:56 am

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

Powered by WordPress