Faulkner Goes to Russia
Jonathan Brent is the editor of the Yale University Press who succeeded in opening Stalin’s archives (or portions thereof, anyway) for publication in the West after the collapse of the USSR. He has written an interesting memoir on the experience, which includes an exploration of the reasons for Stalin’s continued popularity in Russia. I’m about half-way through that, but did finish his essay on the subject in the most recent issue of The New Criterion.
Brent argues that post-Krushchev, the Soviets attempted to retain the essence of the Soviet system, but jettison the cult of personality. After the collapse, he concludes, Russia is attempting to distance itself from the essence of the Soviet system (a proposition that is debatable, given the move to a one party authoritarian state), but restore the cult of personality.
His explanation for the fascination with Stalin is quite interesting:
The question of why the image of Stalin, rather than a symbol of the Soviet system minus Stalin, has returned to daily Russian life, which is what [Russian historian Alexander] Chubaryan and Krushchev before him advocated, can be answered only by recognizing that the Soviet system has no other visible symbols of success. Lenin’s short reign did not represent Soviet success so much as the triumph of Marxist thought. It was Stalin who fought the great battles against Trotsky, the Nazis, and the sneering West. In the eyes of many today, Stalin vindicated the Soviet system, by transforming it into a great world power. No more “obsequiousness or groveling” before the West, or, as Stalin wrote in a letter to Gorky, “no more beggarly Russia.” In the end, the revival of Stalin has less to do with the image of Stalin than with the image of Stalin than with the self-image of the Russian people, their powerful need to look into the mirror and see not themselves but their deepest aspirations reflected back. [Emphasis in original.]
In brief: the worship of Stalin is a form of self-worship, an exercise in self-esteem building. If Brent is right, his theory has an implication: the intensity of the Stalin personality cult should vary inversely with Russia’s fortunes. The worse the present reality, the greater the need to retreat into an idealized past.
[It is interesting to note that Gorbachev, who is widely reviled in today’s Russia, was an ardent admirer of Lenin. This provides another data point in support of Brent’s view of the relative appeal of Lenin and Stalin to the Russian people, and the reasons for it.]
In Stalin’s time, the cult of personality had one god. Now, it arguably has two, with Putin joining Stalin in the pantheon.
According to Edward Lucas, this bodes ill, for Russia’s neighbors, but for Russia most of all. From a description of his upcoming talk:
Seen from the Kremlin, history is simple: the Soviet Union, with extraordinary sacrifice, liberated Europe from fascism and Europe should be grateful. Anyone who disagrees is a fascist. Stalin may have been bad in some ways, but he was an effective leader in difficult times. The Soviet Union had its flaws, but so do other countries. Criticism reflects double standards and jealousy of Russia’s recovery.
This simplistic and triumphalist version of 20th-century history is the central plank in Russia’s new ideology. Edward Lucas, a journalist and author who has been covering the region for more than 20 years, will show why it is not just mistaken but pernicious. The revival of Stalinist history is a threat to the countries of Eastern Europe–and a dreadful dead end for Russia.
To me, Putinism is all about dead ends. Economic dead ends. Political dead ends. Diplomatic dead ends. It is all part of the necessity of maintaining stasis in order to avoid destablizing the natural state.
In this regard, Medvedev’s sounding an admittedly uncertain trumpet of condemnation of Stalin (and importantly, of how Russians idealize him) has some significance. Russia’s future has a great deal to do with how it relates to its past (there is definitely correlation here, and perhaps causation). As Faulkner said of the South, in Russia, the past Is never dead. It’s not even past. Or, if you want to have some idea of where Russia is going, look at how it relates to where it’s been.
Any state needs legitimacy. Authoritarian states tend to appeal to ideology or religion – eg the Tsarist state took its legitimacy from God, and the Soviet state took its legitimacy from “the people”. The personality cult was just an adaptation of existing Tsarist discourse, that enabled the replacement of the Russian Orthodox religion with Marxism-Leninism. As the generation that had grown up under the Tsar died off, you no longer needed Tsarist era language.
The current authoritarian state cannot look to Marxism-Leninism for its legitimacy, and it mainly appeals to democracy, using the same discourse as in the West. So we have elections, parties, etc, although of course they are rigorously managed and controlled. (Remember Surkov’s idea of a “managed democracy”). So the elements of a personality cult, such as they exist in Russia, tend to be within a democratic discourse (“vote for us because we have the best leader”), and it’s really not the same sort of authoritarian personality cult that you got under Stalin, and that they tried in Turkmenistan. It’s the difference between worker’s loyalty to their manager, because he’s a good manager (хозÑйÑтвенник), and the out and out adoration of a leader who is appointed by God/the People.
To be honest, this is all just splitting hairs, and re-arranging definitions, and is really only useful in allowing political science departments to justify their existence. Russia is not a Western-style liberal democracy, nor is it the Soviet Union, nor is it a horse, nor yet a table. Any theory is really only useful if it can be used to predict. What can we predict? Well, Russia will probably not become any less authoritarian, which means that you will have less transparency or accountability in government, which means more corruption, and fewer rights for private individuals and corporations. That’s a concrete prediction, and it really doesn’t matter how you classify things.
Comment by Sleeper — November 23, 2009 @ 3:13 am
“To me, Putinism is all about dead ends.”
So, where did Gorbachevism and Yeltsinism end up? The Fourth Circle of Hell, where the economic Masters of Russia were unrestrained in the exercise of their vile maxim.
Putinism, as you said, put Russia in Purgatory.
Over Purgatory, there is no sign saying “Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch’entrate”.
Comment by rkka — November 23, 2009 @ 6:17 am
Once again, RKKA is babbling gibberish.
He seems to feel Yeltsin was bad, yet THE ONLY REASON PUTIN IS IN POWER IS BECAUSE OF YELTSIN.
He seems to feel that there should have been no need for a painful transition from the utterly failed catastrophe that was the USSR, that Yeltsin could have easily made it so DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE USSR WAS BANKRUPT and gutted by Stalin’s legacy of mass murder.
Only the most insane among us can spew forth this kind of anti-historical gibberish for the purpose of justifying the rancid regime of a proud KGB spy who represents ONLY the dead-end of a failed past. Only someone who truly loathes the people of Russia and wants to see them exterminated can do so. The likes of RKKA are the true enemies of the people of Russia.
Comment by La Russophobe — November 23, 2009 @ 4:56 pm
Even traitors sometimes manage to partially exculpate themselves.
Comment by Sublime Oblivion — November 23, 2009 @ 10:16 pm
“Even traitors sometimes manage to partially exculpate themselves.”
More hilariously ignorant gibberish! If Yeltsin was a traitor because the economy collapsed under him, the SO IS PUTIN because of the 2008 collapse.
Unlike Putin, Yeltsin never had soaring world oil prices to artificially inflate his economy.
The pathetic inability of the Putin defenders to simply tell the truth about basic undeniable facts clearly echoes the same behavior of the Communist defenders, and indicates Russia is headed towards the same end as was met by the USSR.
Comment by La Russophobe — November 24, 2009 @ 8:11 am
“no more beggarly Russia” – here we are in the 21st century, and we keep hearing the refrain over and over – “Russia got up off it knees, and the world needs to fear it.”
There’s an article over at RFE. The article itself is not that interesting, but here is a quote from Hohol in the article that illustrates the same concept of anti-beggarly roosha, for better or worse:
http://www.rferl.org/content/A_Bird_Over_The_Dnieper/1885942.html
Whether light- or heavy-handedly, Gogol provided us with the picture of Russia as a troika. The metaphor wraps up with a grandiose, “Before it, peoples and states step aside.” It’s not entirely clear, however, why they should step aside. You can step aside from a royal cortege, or alternatively when confronted by a thug brandishing a knife.
Comment by elmer — November 24, 2009 @ 3:09 pm
“He seems to feel Yeltsin was bad, yet THE ONLY REASON PUTIN IS IN POWER IS BECAUSE OF YELTSIN.”
Phoby, Phoby, Phoby…
Considering that the only thing Yeltsin cared about was his personal power, I have grave doubts that his handing the Presidency over to Putin prior to the expiration of his term was voluntary.
“He seems to feel that there should have been no need for a painful transition from the utterly failed catastrophe that was the USSR, that Yeltsin could have easily made it so DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE USSR WAS BANKRUPT and gutted by Stalin’s legacy of mass murder.”
Stalin ensured that the guy whose life’s work was winning Lebensraum in the East for Germans failed. If that failure hadn’t been arranged, the Germans would have commenced killing Slavic “subhumans” in numbers sufficient (~30 million civilians in RM Goering’s opinion) to persuade the remainder that life would be better for them in Siberia (where further tens of millions would die of starvation and exposure) than in European Eussia.
Stalin’s legacy is that European Russia now is populated mainly by Slavs, not Germans.
This upsets you, I know.
Stalin’s legacy includes Poles now living in Poland and Ukrainians now living in Ukraine as well, for Adolph had similar objectives for the Slavic inhabitants of Poland and Ukraine, though you would never know it to hear the present Polish and Ukrainian governments talk.
“Only the most insane among us can spew forth this kind of anti-historical gibberish for the purpose of justifying the rancid regime of a proud KGB spy who represents ONLY the dead-end of a failed past. Only someone who truly loathes the people of Russia and wants to see them exterminated can do so. The likes of RKKA are the true enemies of the people of Russia.”
Phoby, Phoby, Phoby…
The governance of that “proud KGB spy” you babble about was delivering material improvements to the lives of Russians before the world price of oil got past $30/bbl.
In sharp contrast to his predecessor.
He did this by telling Aslund/Summers etc. to pound sand. And by breaking the independent political power of the Oligarchs. Good work, that.
And as for Russians being exterminated, you’ll have to wait a bit. Births are up over 2008, and deaths are down.
Comment by rkka — November 24, 2009 @ 5:15 pm
And why did it “collapse” in 2008 as much as it did? Because of its reliance on WESTERN credit. So all the more reason for Russia to sever its humiliating dependency and re-embrace its glorious Eurasian destiny. 🙂
Comment by Sublime Oblivion — November 24, 2009 @ 8:11 pm
Crack is pretty cheap out there in Berkeley, huh, S/O?
But still more expensive than your hypocrisy, which comes free. 🙂
Still waiting for your acknowledgement on making wrong demographic predictions.
Comment by Sublime Oblivion — November 25, 2009 @ 12:29 am
Stalin’s rep is rising in spite of the authorities, not because of them. His achievements are impossible to ignore. Comparisons with the present “managers” become inevitable. Hence the buckets of faeces always at the ready.
Comment by So? — November 25, 2009 @ 4:05 am
“More hilariously ignorant gibberish! If Yeltsin was a traitor because the economy collapsed under him, the SO IS PUTIN because of the 2008 collapse.”
Phoby, Phoby, Phoby…
Quel collapse? Yes, a global financial collapse, the worst in over 80 years, has had an impact on Russia. However, the Russian economy certainly hasn’t collapsed. Russia retains an investment-grade rating for sovereign bonds, a substantial current account surplus, vast and rising foreign currency reserves, an increasing birth rate, and a decreasing death rate.
None of this was true when Yeltsin/Chubais/Summers/Harvard/Aslund/Berezovsky/Khordorkovsky had power in Russia.
These facts upset you, I know. You will never acknowlege them, I know. You will continue impotently spewing bile about the “proud KGB spy” that lives, rent-free, in your head 24/7.
It is very amusing to watch what that does to you.
Comment by rkka — November 25, 2009 @ 5:56 am
“beggarly Russia”
It occurs to me that Peter the Great made a huge attempt to improve “beggarly Russia” – by importing French and Italian architects adn architecture, by forcibly cutting off the beards of men (well, maybe except for goatees, which led people to remard that the men looked like goats, or “kak tsapy”), by changing clothing fashions, etc.
And as far as Germans are concerned – did not Catherine (I won’t call her great), the Prussian, import Germans, giving them land in Ukraine and Russia, and special rights and privileges? To this day, there are Mennonites, but many of the Germans left when, as usuall, rasha backtracked on its promises to them.
“beggarly Russia”
So other than Putler and a few siloviki/oligarchs, what is Russia today? Moscow is not Russia.
And how does it improve the lives of Russians for Putler to spend vast amounts of money to beat up people in Ossetia or Abkhazia?
“beggarly Russia”
And Putler is going to make sure to keep it that way – “strong men” always do, because they take away the strength of the people.
Stalin, the “strong man,” killed millions – of his own people in the glorious “strong man” sovok union.
“beggarly Russia”
Comment by elmer — November 25, 2009 @ 10:35 am
Lol!
On the one hand, we have the likes of Elmer and Phoby, babbling incoherently about what an economic disaster “beggarly Russia” is.
Then there’s the real story, told by Western “free market” ideologues, who lament that Russia’s recession was neither deep enough nor prolonged enough to discredit Putin to the Russian people and force the Russian government to undertake vague, undefined “reforms”.
Personally, I take the frustration of the latter as an indication of two things. The fact that they lament that the Russian people were insufficiently impoverished for their purposes by the global financial collapse indicates that the care not how, or even whether, Russians live, only that the Russian government quietly submit once more to their economic experiments.
It also indicates that the Russian government have conducted their policies, pre and post-crash, with considerable skill.
Comment by Rkka — November 25, 2009 @ 2:05 pm
No Stalin, no Ukraine. It’s that simple.
Comment by So? — November 25, 2009 @ 7:49 pm
There was no Ukraine under Stalin – there was only the sovok union.
“Nationalism” was forbidden in the sovok union – so everyone had to speak rooshan, and there was only “glory of leader Stalin” and “the peoples”.
“Nationalism” was a sovok sin, invented by the sovoks.
Plus, Stalin, with his artificial famine, murdered several million Ukrainians.
There is no stalin today – but there is a Ukraine.
Period.
Comment by elmer — November 26, 2009 @ 9:29 am
Elmer, Ukrainian nationalists came in the train of the Wehrmacht. Being fools, they gave assistance to Adolpf, who intended the extermination of the Slavs, Ukrainians veryuch included. Stalin was far more effective in opposing Adolpf’s plan for Ukraine than Bandera was. Ukranians in Ukraine owe their presence there to Stalin, far more than to any Ukrainian nationalists.
Comment by Rkka — November 26, 2009 @ 1:31 pm
Rkka, so did the Russian nationalists — not only those under Vlasov, but the whole Russian SS division (fighting under the Russian tricolore, for the greater glory of the Führer). If you blame Ukrainians for fighting on Hitler’s side, you should blame Russians as well.
See, it’s simple: Stalin defeated Hitler, which was good. And Stalin is bad. Is this so hard to understand?
Think of this. Millions of Jews were killed by Germans during the Holocaust. I’m sure that among them there were actual real criminals — say, serial killers, rapists, you name it — who probably would have killed other people if they hadn’t been killed in Auschwitz, Sobibor, Majdanek, you name it. There may be people who would have been their victims, but survived because their potential killers were annihilated during the Holocaust. Some of them might be alive — people whose life was possible only because der Führer decided he had to kill all the Jews.
So: evil deeds can have good consequences. Is that so hard to understand?
It is very possible that Ukraine exists today because Hitler was defeated. Not because of Stalin: all his policies seemed to go in the direction of assimilating Ukraine into Russia and slowly destroying the Ukrainian people. But because Hitler was defeated. So Ukrainians got more time, and Stalin’s policy to destroy them was certainly less efficient than Hitler’s, so that gave them time.
Again, why is it so hard to admit that a bad guy (Stalin) could have done things that ended up having good consequences? Hitler did, too. So did every bad guy in history.
Comment by Asehpe — November 26, 2009 @ 2:36 pm
Hitler does not deserve credit for anything at all. Germany was already a highly-developed civilized state, and on the mend after the hyperinflation of the 20s. The former Russian empire, OTOH, was a poor backward shithole, made much worse by WW1 and the Civil War. Stalin kicked it into modernity with an iron boot. BTW, before the Soviet Union, there’d never been such an entity as “Ukraine”.
Comment by So? — November 26, 2009 @ 8:15 pm
Well, yes there was a Ukraine before Stalin, for example, for a brief period starting in 1918, and for brief periods before that.
As far as stalin “kicking the former Russsian empire into modernity” – you’ve obviously never been there.
Even after stalin, and up until the break-up in 1991, Russia and the sovok union were just breaking into the 15th century somewhere.
I just spoke with a guy from the US who had been to Ukraine to work on the hydroelectric dams. Why? Because stalin had to import electric generators for those huge hydroelectric projects on the Dnipro River from – the US. The guy from the US was there to once again repair those generators.
Bad government, and bad copies of Western goods, finally bypassed by buying Levis and Wranglers and Michael Jackson CD’s and musical keyboards and Rolls Royces and cars directly, and learning how to steal and pirate videos and how to hack computers.
Leaving, today, a government of thugs in rasha who do everything for themselves, and nothing for their country, except to drop a few crumbs here and there. Mansions and yachts in Londongrad for Putler, Luzhkov, Abramovitch and all the other rooshan thugs.
Dead journalists, dead lawyers, no freedom of speech and worse for everyone else.
“beggarly Russia” it is.
Comment by elmer — November 26, 2009 @ 11:07 pm
No shit sherlock. Industrialisation has to start somewhere. Russia is not the USSR. Putin is not Stalin. He took an illiterate country from the plow to 100% literacy and the nuclear age. The present “management” is busily undoing all that.
Comment by So? — November 27, 2009 @ 12:56 am
roosha is trying to be the USSR, complete with Pioneers, oops, I mean the Putler Youth Corp United Rasha.
Putler is trying to be stalin, and roosha has even implemented textbooks glorifying stalin. The oily orthodox mother roosha church has talked about making stalin a saint.
The present management is not trying to “undo” anything – the present managament is busy doing what the nomenklatura used to do – feed and gorge, except that now they don’t bother to keep it out of the public eye that much. Mayor Luzhkov has a mansion in Londongrad. There are “Rollies” (Rolls-Royces) and SUV’s killing people all over roosha. I guess the current siloviki don’t like Lada’s and Chaika’s that much.
Oh, look – even assistants to MP’s have special privileges in oily orthodox beggarly mother roosha! Just pardon the “Billy Jean” Michael Jackson song playing in the background as the devooshka screams about her documents.
http://censor.net.ua/go/offer/ResourceID/140404.html
Comment by elmer — November 27, 2009 @ 9:31 am
The youth organisations are a sponge for hyperactive imbeciles. Better state-sponsored than foreign-state-sponsored.
The orthodox church made Nicholas the Idiot, a saint, and is busy rehabilitating Vlasov and other traitors. The Soviet nomenklatura lived like paupers in comparison, and went to jail for pennies. (Why Perestroika, otherwise?) Russia 2010 is Russia 1910.
Does the spawn of Yusch drive a ZAZ?
Comment by So? — November 27, 2009 @ 9:27 pm
Read Asehpe’s comments – he’s got some great points.
The sovok nomenklatura went to jail for nothing – if someone in power thought that they looked at somebody the wrong way, starting with stalin. Plus, they had to hide all their stuff, but they had just as much.
And you are right – the idiots in the oily orthodox beggarly mother roosha church made Nick the Idiot a saint
The spawn of Yushch drives BMW’s, and he gave one to a girlfriend, if you must know.
But Ukraine has free elections, and real, if fierce, political campaigns.
And between Ukrainian Pravda and the Savik Shuster show, and several others, Ukrainian people have a real voice, and are more and more making the politicians accountable.
Watch today’s Savik Shuster, for example, where the talk is about expenditures to “fight” the swine flu, and the journalists really grill the politicians for the truth. It’s pretty impressive:
http://shuster.kanalukraina.tv/video/3417_sgovor_tsenoi_v_milliard?/
Unlike in roosha, where there are only dead souls.
Comment by elmer — November 27, 2009 @ 11:09 pm
Ukraine and Russia have oligarchic systems. The Ukranian system is like the Russian one 10 years ago. The Russians robber barons have since installed a tsar to keep the peace. In Ukraine the dust hasn’t settled yet. “Fierce” competition when all the choices are terrible is meaningless. Society can only advance through consensus.
Comment by So? — November 28, 2009 @ 12:07 am
Yup. This is why Russia’s population decline has been tamed, while Ukraine’s is about 6 times as bad.
And notice that the Ukrainian government’s “Western orientation” is no solution to the problems that Russia and Ukraine have in common.
Comment by rkka — November 28, 2009 @ 12:59 pm
Ukraine and Roosha do indeed have oligarchic systems.
But somehow in Roosha, there is no freedom of speech, no freedom of assembly, no opposition, no accountability – and people like journalists and lawyers and others keep dying!
In Ukraine, there is freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, growing accountability of government (all you have to do is watch the Savik Shuster show, where the journalists ask politicians very tough questions, including – how has the money been spent), more and more free and open expression (Savik Shuster had Saakashvili on his show the other night – would Putler ever dare to do that???!!!!), no more dead journalists.
And Ukraine, more and more, is building a true representative democracy.
In Rasha, there is voting, but no elections – according to Russians who know.
In Ukraine, there are now free and fair elections – which leads to problem-solving through, by and for a strong electorate.
In Rasha, there is a tsar???? Who elected him? And the “peace” is only between thug oligarchs. There is no “peace”, and there is no “piece” (of the pie) for the people. And, as SWP has previously written, such a “peace” is not for long – it’s not going to last.
In the meantime, the people in Rasha get bupkus – they get trampled, abused, beaten, arrested by crooked cops out to make their quota of “crime-solving” – or did you miss the brave major who posted all of this on You Tube, and asked “tsar” Putler to help?
Has Putler helped? Nope – he’s too busy shtooping his little young mistress, a la KGB.
Beggarly rasha – nothing but dead souls. I wonder if Kyril and his $36,000 watch will “pray” for them in his Wizard costume?
Comment by elmer — November 28, 2009 @ 9:54 pm
“Ukraine and Roosha do indeed have oligarchic systems.”
And the Russian variety have far more sense of responsibility than the Ukrainian, though this was not entirely voluntary.
This is why Ukrainian demographics are in a nosedive, while the Russian variety have very nearly leveled off.
“But somehow in Roosha, there is no freedom of speech, no freedom of assembly, no opposition, no accountability – and people like journalists and lawyers and others keep dying!
In Ukraine, there is freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, growing accountability of government (all you have to do is watch the Savik Shuster show, where the journalists ask politicians very tough questions, including – how has the money been spent), more and more free and open expression (Savik Shuster had Saakashvili on his show the other night – would Putler ever dare to do that???!!!!), no more dead journalists.
And Ukraine, more and more, is building a true representative democracy.
In Rasha, there is voting, but no elections – according to Russians who know.
In Ukraine, there are now free and fair elections – which leads to problem-solving through, by and for a strong electorate.”
If conditions for the maintenance and perpetuation of human life in Russia are so bad, and Ukraine’s so much better, then why is Russia’s birth rate higher than Ukraine’s? And why is Russia’s death rate lower than Ukraine’s? And why do immigrants come to Russia, as opposed to Ukraine where people leave in significant number and have for nearly two decades?
Your colorful expressions are powerless before the facts. Allow me to suggest you acquaint yourself with them.
Comment by rkka — November 29, 2009 @ 8:26 am
Ah, rkka, the old sovok trick – assume facts that are not relevant and not proven, and then relate them to something else.
The topic is about Putlerism, and dead ends, economic, political and diplomatic. In other words – good government, in which Putler is not interested.
Apart from that you cite no links, no proof of your assertions about demographics.
Poland just did away with all commie symbols:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,577305,00.html?test=latestnews
Good for them!
In Ukraine, there are 18 candidates for President. The Savik Shuster show has had them on, or their representatives, several times, and other media have also posed tough questions to the candidates.
In rasha, the president is nominated by the president, who is then “elected” by the president.
Here is the 3-hour Savik Shuster show from November 27, with the Ukrainian presidential candidates or their representatives, with REAL discussion, and tough questions from journalists, discussing education, including education of history in Ukraine.
http://shuster.kanalukraina.tv/video/3433_esli_by_my_uchilis_tak_kak_nado…/
3 HOURS!! of serious discussion about policy. Not even the US media devotes that kind of time to serious discussion.
One of the guests says that there is no ideology or politics which should interfere with the teaching of history.
Unlike in roosha, where the teaching of history is all political.
Comment by rkka — November 29, 2009 @ 10:26 am
The relevent statistics are available for free from the various national public health and statistical Services.
I agree Ukrainian politicians and media move warm air in collossal quantities,
while Ukrainians die off.
Comment by Rkka — November 29, 2009 @ 11:32 am
Why don’t you show us the various national service sites?
And – the way for people to solve problems is to identify them, and discuss them – freely and openly and frankly – and then reach a consensus and solve them. Which, in Ukraine, is happening more and more. To the point where, for example, Savik Shuster had a student representative – and he solicited her ideas about the current education/university system in Ukraine, for the benefit of the various politicians present in the studio.
That doesn’t happen in roosha, where problem “solving” is done at the point of a gun. And propaganda – “nyet problema.”
Comment by elmer — November 29, 2009 @ 4:21 pm
Why, certainly!
http://www.ukrstat.gov.ua/
http://www.gks.ru/wps/portal/english
Though how you expect Ukrainian death/birth rates to be improed by a discussion of the teaching of history is a bit obscure.
Comment by rkka — November 29, 2009 @ 6:50 pm
You should read this article about rasha’s census – actually, the lack of a census – before you start spewing about how happy you are that Ukrainians are supposedly dying at a greater rate than Russians.
http://www.rferl.org/content/Russia_Is_Dying_To_Learn_Its_Census_Data/1869329.html
The lack-of-money plea seemed even more unconvincing considering the record of past Soviet and Russian governments in delaying or even canceling censuses. In 1937, a census was conducted, processed, tabulated, and presented to Josef Stalin. He didn’t like what he saw, so he jailed many of those who carried it out and covered up the results. Apparently, the demographic depredations caused by famine, purges, and collectivization were too severe to be made public.
Earlier in the 1930s, the government regularly failed to release data on birthrates and death rates. In later years, state statistical yearbooks periodically failed to report infant-mortality statistics. The omission of grain- or oil-production figures was clearly linked to shortfalls in these sectors of the economy.
….
Overall death rates in Russia have risen to at least three times the rates in Western Europe and North America.
Even Russia’s total population is open to doubt. Some observers have disputed the official figure of 142 million, arguing that the real figure is 139.8 million or, in one estimate, 137.8 million. Some analysts suspect the census could reveal dismal birthrate, death-rate, and migration figures.
Comment by elmer — November 30, 2009 @ 9:55 am
“You should read this article about rasha’s census – actually, the lack of a census – ”
Obviously, reading for comprehension is not a strength of yours. The article says the 2010 census will indeed be held in 2010, though it is true that the dishonest tite may well have led you astray.
“before you start spewing about how happy you are that Ukrainians are supposedly dying at a greater rate than Russians.”
Obviously, you do not like what I post. Dosn’t mean I’m happy about any of it. And even the World Factbook on the CIA home page, http://www.cia.gov agrees that Ukraine has a higher death rate and a lower birth rate than Russia, and that, net, people come to Russia to live, but leave Ukraine.
“Even Russia’s total population is open to doubt. Some observers have disputed the official figure of 142 million, arguing that the real figure is 139.8 million or, in one estimate, 137.8 million. Some analysts suspect the census could reveal dismal birthrate, death-rate, and migration figures.”
No evidence mentioned, whatever, or even names that could be googled.
Boy, Feshbach’s, and your, intellectual standards are worse than you claim mine are!
Comment by rkka — November 30, 2009 @ 5:11 pm
Not that it is germane to the topic at hand, which is that Putler’s “policies” are a dead end for rasha, but since you keep posting about it:
The CIA puts Russia’s death rate at 16.06 per thousand; and Ukraine’s at 15.81 per thousand, both as of July 2009.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2066rank.html?countryName=Ukraine&countryCode=up®ionCode=eu&rank=18#up
Where I come from, that means that rasha’ death rate is HIGHER than that of Ukraine.
The CIA puts Ukraine’s birth rate, estimated, for 2009 at 9.6 per thousand, and Russia’s, estimated, at 11.10 per thousand.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2054rank.html?countryName=Ukraine&countryCode=up®ionCode=eu&rank=202#up
My guess is that in the rashan federation, the Muslims are the ones getting busy, similar to what’s happening in Europe.
At any rate – Putlerism = dead end for roosha.
Comment by elmer — November 30, 2009 @ 10:36 pm