Maybe Nemtsov Should Have Ridden A Motorcycle to the Protest
At a motorcycle rally, Vladimir Putin waxed eloquent on democracy and freedom (h/t So?, though I had seen something about it in my daily news trolling trawling):
Bike is the most democratic transport vehicle. Bike is the most daring, challenging as it gives its owner the tempting feeling of freedom, that is why one can say without any exaggeration, bike is a symbol of freedom.
I’d sooner listen to a mollusk orate on quantum mechanics than pay attention to a Putin disquisition on freedom and democracy. The shellfish is more likely to know something about the subject, and will deliver his lecture without the hypocrisy oozing from Putin’s pores whenever he says anything about it.
As an illustration of the realities of democracy and freedom in Russia, consider this clip showing the arrest of Boris Nemtsov just walking to a 31 protest rally in Moscow (h/t R).
I find this puzzling. I know (pace S/O and Mark A. and others) that it is widely asserted that “liberals” in Russia are highly marginalized, and widely despised. So why go all dramatic with the arrests–before the guy even says anything–and the absurd crackdowns on any squeak of public protest?
One explanation. Putin et al are so fearful of the precarious nature of their rule, so terrified of a color revolution in Russia, that they take no chances and snuff out any protest and protest movement, no matter how puny. They suspect that opposition can go non-linear, and that permitting any protest could catalyze a chain reaction of opposition among a heretofore atomized but highly discontented populace.
Another explanation. Knowing that liberals are widely despised in Russia, Putin et al pander to populist sentiments by harassing and humiliating them.
I don’t know how to test these competing hypotheses, and it is hard to evaluate them merely on their plausibility.
As for the first explanation, the level of fear and paranoia would have to be extreme, almost implausibly so. It would speak volumes about the insecurity of the ruling clans.
The second explanation would reflect very badly not just on Putin and the ruling clique, but on Russians more generally.
Have at it folks, because I’m genuinely at a loss to reconcile (a) the assertion that liberals are intensely unpopular and discredited, and (b) the Russian government’s over-the-top reaction to any peep from them.
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Craig pirrong, Craig pirrong. Craig pirrong said: Updated my SWP blog post: ( https://streetwiseprofessor.com/?p=4113 ) […]
Pingback by Tweets that mention Streetwise Professor -- Topsy.com — August 1, 2010 @ 6:45 pm
(c) “Putin et al” aren’t 1) interested enough to AND/OR 2) able to micromanage what the police do.
Comment by Sublime Oblivion — August 1, 2010 @ 10:20 pm
Professor,
I don’t know if you are familiar with the Russian concept of “shpana” (street gangs), but that is pretty much what determines the logic of Russian government’s behavior. For shpana’s control of its turf, it is essential not to allow any such thing as opposition: nothing that could undermine the universal belief that the territory is theirs. Periodically and conspicuously beating up anyone daring to show any kind of dissent is a tried and true method to keep the idea palpable for anyone who might hesitate, both within the gang and outside it.
Comment by Ivan — August 2, 2010 @ 1:55 am
Ivan,
Are you insinuating that Putin is not fit for politics just because he was born on the wrong side of the tracks? Shame on you! The New Russia is a land of opportunity. Anyone can make it. You just have to be in the right place at the right time and have a steady hand. ?? ????? ? ?????.
Comment by So? — August 2, 2010 @ 2:17 am
S/O,
I do agree that Putin’s power is overrated. Politics is the art of the possible, as they say. But in this case, he could raise an eyebrow and the circus would stop immediately. After all, when Yuri Shevchuk ambushed him a couple of months ago, Putin justified the crackdown by saying that the 31-ers were obstructing traffic in a busy city and delaying people returning from their dachas. I guess that’s why they sanction Nashist events at the very same place and time. This time they organized a drifting show ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drifting_%28motorsport%29 ). I bet it did wonders for the traffic congestion.
Comment by So? — August 2, 2010 @ 2:34 am
Oh, definitely Option A, Prof, although it’s not exactly and not always (and everywhere) paranoia. These boys learned from the 1980s. Say you were a worker living in a small town in 1985. Work conditions stink, your apartment is cold, the streets aren’t clean, and you buy meat once a month. On the TV news, there is another report about rising meat production, or some city being awarded for being the cleanest in Russia, or a new factory has opened with air conditioning. You think: I guess things aren’t too bad in the country, but for some reason my city is a wreck. Then glasnost becomes policy, and you suddenly see that the whole country is like your city, and you hear articulate critics saying all the things you’ve been thinking. And the next day you’re one of the half million banging pots on Manege Square.
The authorities don’t want that to happen again, so they pulled talk shows off the air, instituted a black list so no “opposition leader” gets air time, and crack down on rallies and demonstrations. (BTW Saturday’s demonstration was NOT shown on any TV station except a small report on REN TV.) It should be said that the rallies took place and were “sanctioned” in some cities, and that in some places (like Perm and now Kaliningrad), the authorities are used to working with civil society groups. You’d think this is “proof” that the world won’t end (ie the authorities won’t be “overthrown”) if there is a rally or if the government works with NGOs. But Moscow and St Pete are different: rallies there could draw thousands, and if they were allowed, it would be a kind of signal that “it’s okay to protest.” There’s a lot to protest about, and the guys at the top know what they’ve been up to. They don’t want to risk it. And – speculation – I think there is a petty element of “I’ll be damned if you rabble shout slogans about me.” How dare you plebs complain! I gave you shopping malls and Fords! Shut up and be happy!
As for the “hatred of Russians for the liberals” – this is sort of a myth. 1) A lot of the population DO blame the 1990s liberals for their various woes (some of that is fair, some of that is exaggerated, and all of it is propagandized to the nth degree); 2) Nemtsov and particularly Chubais ran a ridiculous campaign the last time they could, and created the impression that they were “out of touch” with the masses; 3) even so, Nemtsov is a charismatic guy with a following who could attract more; 4) they aren’t on the air and haven’t been in 5-8 years. People don’t see them on talk shows and think: “Oh, he’s a jerk.” They don’t see them at all. But they do hear United Russia and other politicians SAYING that they are traitors, crooks, thieves, Russia-haters, etc. And I think the authorities are less scared of Nemtsov than they are of Kasyanov and Ryzhkov, who were not associated with the 1990s privatization and could make a good case for both their records and their criticism of the authorities. In any case, the most important factor here is #4. IF the “liberals” were on TV, IF they were on talk shows, IF they were allowed to run in elections and IF their campaign speeches were televised… I don’t think their ratings would be so low. No, I can’t prove that, but on the other hand, given the news blackout about them, no one can prove that they are unpopular on their own merits, as it were.
My personal opinion is that they arrested Nemtsov because they (not the cops, who are acting under orders, but someone in the administration or other agency) were pissed about the last book.
A friend of mine was arrested at the rally on Saturday, and he said that he thought the cops were scared and annoyed by the whole thing, that they are between a rock and hard place: they have orders to arrest them, and the protesters are there knowing they might be arrested. That’s interesting, too, because in the late 80s and 90s the cops and army went over to the side of the protesters, or at least refused to do the bidding of the authorities. Part of the strategy of these authorities has been to get the cops on their side by giving them free reign. That is, it’s in their (the cops’) interest to keep the rabble down and keep their income streams coming. But it’s one thing to hit some poor schmuck up for a bribe and another thing to drag someone into a paddy wagon while been photographed and filmed by every friggin’ Western news organization (and in St Pete – apparently by astonished and appalled tourists).
Comment by mossy — August 2, 2010 @ 3:14 am
At a motorcycle rally, Vladimir Putin waxed eloquent on democracy and freedom (h/t So?, though I had seen something about it in my daily news trolling)
Well it’s that time of the year… Wonder if we’ll still get to see the torso. (BTW, I think you meant “trawling”).
I’d sooner listen to a mollusk orate on quantum mechanics than pay attention to a Putin disquisition on freedom and democracy. The shellfish is more likely to know something about the subject, and will deliver his lecture without the hypocrisy oozing from Putin’s pores whenever he says anything about it.
Professor, shame on you for doubting Putin’s sincerity! ????????????? also has another meaning in Russian. “Acessible”, “affordable”, something that even the hoi polloi can get hold of. IOW, cheap. Can be, and often is, used perjoratively. Nothing to do with politics. He’s just one of the guys. Unlike that effete son-of-a-professor Medvedev.
One explanation. Putin et al are so fearful of the precarious nature of their rule, so terrified of a color revolution in Russia, that they take no chances and snuff out any protest and protest movement, no matter how puny. They suspect that opposition can go non-linear, and that permitting any protest could catalyze a chain reaction of opposition among a heretofore atomized but highly discontented populace.
Power easily attained is difficult to exercise. And vice versa. Putin is an appointee. I think deep down he’s aware of his extraordinary luck, hence the insecurity and overreaction. United Russia can get 50-60% without any shenanigans, but just to be safe the “administrative resource” is utilized to get an extra 10-20%. They don’t need it, but they can’t help themselves. Kind of a kleptomania, I guess.
Comment by So? — August 2, 2010 @ 3:46 am
As mossy and So? already said, the first explanation is broadly correct, but this “31” thing is also a tactical blunder on the Kremlin’s part. A zugzwang of their own making.
Comment by peter — August 2, 2010 @ 5:53 am
It is quite obvious that the first interpretation is correct. Putin thinks that Gorbachev’s glastnost policy was a huge mistake, and is envious of the Tiananmen ’89 success.
Comment by The Money Demand Blog — August 2, 2010 @ 10:26 am
@S/O. Come on. You have to try harder than that. Systematic crackdowns on all rallies by political opposition across all political jurisdictions in Russia are not the result of decisions by local “law enforcement” organs–you know that. Moving OMON troops from one region to another to break up demonstrations because the local troops are considered unreliable is obviously a decision made at the center. The arrest of a former First Deputy Prime Minister is not something that those guys in the blue shirts can do at their own whim.
There is clearly a systematic, nation-wide effort to suppress all opposition, and especially public expression of opposition. That comes from the center, specifically the top of the center. So? is right–a rising eyebrow, the throwing of a pen, etc., would all that would be necessary for this to stop, stat.
You don’t burnish your credibility by playing “The Good Tsar Doesn’t Know” gambit.
@The rest of y’all. Yes, you’ve persuaded me that the winner is behind Door #1. In particular, the fact that there is no media coverage of the protests and arrests is inconsistent with the second explanation.
Particularly inasmuch as it appears that Putin and the ruling structures pay absolutely no price for squelching dissent, either domestically or internationally, it is logical do to so. I’ve written before about the coordination game aspect of protest and opposition–that’s essentially Mossy’s point. Atomizing the populace, limiting information that would allow people to infer that the problems are country-wide, crushing any dissent are sensible when you believe that there are feedback mechanisms that if not disconnected/jammed can lead to a jump from a passive equilibrium to a widespread protest equilibrium. And the stakes are very high. Not just in power but in money, money, money.
Yes, “money, money, money.” That’s really the key to it all.
The boys learned a lot from the 1980s, but they didn’t learn the main lesson (or think they are smarter than the boys then, or think, like Mikoyan, they can run between the raindrops, or are simply following the path of others who get away with murder and think they are invincible). The main lesson was: it all comes out anyway.
BTW, the photo of Nemtsov being led away (on LR’s site) is magnificent, and the powers-that-be certainly don’t want that out. Someone sent me another photo from the May demonstration; it’s too bad I can’t upload it. Beautiful, serene, red-headed woman being hauled away by cops, looking like Joan of Arc being taken to the stake. They sure don’t want that to be plastered all over the news.
Comment by mossy — August 3, 2010 @ 3:52 am
I,ve read in AFP report about attack on Himki’s city hall that surprisingly Russian police usually fast to swap an unauthorized demonstration had been late to appear.
You see, every unauthorized action is forbidden and strictly prevented by force, whoever them be – gays, nazis, liberals or even proKremlin “Youth Russia” (not long ago). The case with Nemtsov and company – they are equipped with videocameras and connections to Internet and Western media most of all. And have the most of Western attention. May be that is the matter.
Comment by Marat — August 3, 2010 @ 4:58 am
I’m proceeding from what I would do in Putin’s shoes. (Yes, it’s unscientific; so is Kremlinology).
Now, would I really care about jokers/clowns/irrelevants/”saviours” (cross out as needed) like Nemtsov? No. They can rant all they want, and the police can handle them as they see fit. I might take a few minutes to tell them to tone it down just a bit when in front of cameras, but otherwise I have far more interesting and important things to do such as foreign policy, military affairs, juggling clans, economic development, etc.
But in any case, the West has long ago lost any right to lecture Russia about police brutality. Toronto 2010 is just the latest in the gargantuan heap of Western hypocrisy.
PS. If I had to choose just between SWP’s options, it’d be:
Another explanation. Knowing that liberals are widely despised in Russia, Putin et al pander to populist sentiments by harassing and humiliating them.
That affair was a pity. Had they actually read and analyzed that so-called Expert Report, they’d have realized it was full of lies and half-truths, and should certainly not be propagandized by confiscation (true, of 100,000 out of 1 million copies). Then again, I’ve never argued the apparat is smart.
Have you considered that the only rallies that make it onto the news are the ones that are cracked down on?
Apples and oranges. He got caught up in a clan war.
The Good Tsar does know, he just doesn’t care that much – IMO. Nor do I see any reason why he should.
Comment by Sublime Oblivion — August 3, 2010 @ 5:24 am
@ Marat: There are two versions of why the cops didn’t appear to protect the administration building in Khimki. Official version: the protesters (who threw Molotov cocktails and other dangerous things) moved so quickly that they were on a train pulling out of the station before the cops got there. Unofficial version: the cops didn’t want to deal with truly dangerous protesters.
SO: Your “Putin persona” posits a well-balanced psyche with no axe to grind and nothing to hide. A “normal leader” wouldn’t care, ergo Putin wouldn’t care, ergo Putin had nothing to do with it. But it ignores facts (like moving OMON around the country, or the phone calls the cops get before detaining someone). And it ignores the vindictive acts committed against scores of people and their families. If the Kremlin couldn’t care less about the opposition, why have they issued a black list that keeps the opposition off TV?
For cripes sake, of course demonstrations that get on the Western news are the ones that are violently broken up. That’s what makes it news; that’s what journalists do – report news. Although if there were a huge permitted demonstration, that would get on the news, too.
Comment by mossy — August 3, 2010 @ 6:44 am
S/O. So now we know. Solipsism/projection is your preferred analytical technique. That’s quite a useful piece of information. I’ll always keep it in mind.
Zugzwang is the best word for Kremlin’s position. I was present Saturday at the Triumfalnaya sq. in Moscow and I would say there was not much violence from the menti(cops) side- at least not as much as I was ready for. Menti did not use arms though they had reasons for that- there were some people among us (I think they are just fools and not provocateurs) who called for resistance during arrests- and in fact in some cases the resistance was effective- so some participants could have been jailed, and not just for a couple of days. Now all of them are free. Menti looked scared and did not know what exactly to do.
Comment by a.russian — August 3, 2010 @ 11:07 am
Russian police reaction to a citizen’s request to stop swearing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00KEF0lYXLM
Comment by Ivan — August 3, 2010 @ 12:20 pm
@SWP,
I think that “solipsism/projection” is better than blanket application of “authoritarian models” without taking into consideration the cultural specifics of the country being analyzed. At least my approach doesn’t lay false claim to scientificity.
What’s glaringly absent from your analysis is the fact that getting publicly arrested is one of the liberal movement’s main strategies to acquire sympathy and publicity from the public (as with highly marginalized political groupings in the West and elsewhere). E.g. consider who turned up to the Triumfalnaya sq. protest? 200 protesters. 300 protesters. These guys are preaching to the camera.
From this perspective, heavy-handed crackdowns are the single biggest boon to the opposition, because the nastiness of the police is really the only denominator they have in common with ordinary Russians. So if Putin (who is not an unintelligent person) really cares about and thinks this through to the extent that you believe he does, why would he not give the signals to cool it off?
The logical interpretation loops back to what I wrote at the beginning: “Putin et al” aren’t 1) interested enough to AND/OR 2) able to micromanage what the police do.
Comment by Sublime Oblivion — August 3, 2010 @ 3:19 pm
That should have been: 200 protesters. 300 journalists.
Comment by Sublime Oblivion — August 3, 2010 @ 3:20 pm
“I think that “solipsism/projection” is better than blanket application of “authoritarian models” without taking into consideration the cultural specifics of the country being analyzed. At least my approach doesn’t lay false claim to scientificity.”
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Blanket accusations of cultural insensitivity, throwing around buzz words like “authoritarian model.” No one is applying “authoritarian models” — we are just applying facts to analysis. Your projection model ignores facts. And why apply any model that has no claim to scientificity? In fact, why use a word that doesn’t exist?
Actually, you are guilty of the very sin you accuse others of. All you say over and over again is: it’s not logical. But there is a whole list of facts and actions and statements that are, by your definition, “not logical.” Example: if the opposition is so unimportant and marginalized, why black list them from TV? But since the black list exists, then there must be a reason for it. How about this: the opposition leaders and what they say threaten the authorities.
If there is constantly a crackdown on these demonstrations, that means that there is some logic to it. The logic is simple: intimidation. Ask a Russian who is, for example, concerned about the razing of historical buildings in Moscow why s/he doesn’t demonstrate. The answer is the same: 1) it won’t make any difference and 2) it’s dangerous. So the intimidation works.
Stop projecting your own models and base your analysis on the facts.
The number of protesters is FALSE. You got that from Pankin, who wasn’t there. The actual number is over 1000.
How do you “know” that the main strategy of the protesters is to get arrested? Are you a mindreader, too?
What arussian writes — and he was actually there! — is supported by other statements by other people who were there. In St Pete, however, the menty were far more brutal than usual. In other places the rallies were peaceful on all sides. What can we infer from these facts? That Moscow and St Pete are special cases. That there is some discretion (or lack thereof) in how the city authorities handle the rallies.
Comment by mossy — August 4, 2010 @ 1:29 am
mossy, I can confirm that the actual number of participants was over 1000- and that despite the record heat in Moscow. I guess 31st of august there will be more, as people are returning from vacations. Stay tuned.
Comment by a.russian — August 4, 2010 @ 4:12 am
@mossy,
1. “In fact, why use a word that doesn’t exist?”
Google harder.
2. “But since the black list exists, then there must be a reason for it.”
How about this: nobody cares about what the liberast opposition has to say.
3. “The number of protesters is FALSE. You got that from Pankin, who wasn’t there. The actual number is over 1000.”
Cool. That’s 0.01% of Moscow’s population instead of 0.002%. Changes everything. ???????? ????? will collapse any day now! 🙂
4. “Are you a mindreader, too?”
Yes, I totally am.
@a.russian,
So what are the plans for when the 31 thing gets old?
I suggest the “Solidarity March of the 31 Raging Dissenters”.
You heard it from me first! 🙂
Comment by Sublime Oblivion — August 5, 2010 @ 12:22 am
S/O, sneer all you like (and I see you failed to respond to any of the critiques of your “models” — easier to sneer, isn’t it?)
Yes, 1000 people isn’t much of the population. But then, the numbers that came out to protest in the 1980s and 1990s were also a small percentage of the population. The number of people who came out to protest the war in Iraq in the US and other countries was also a small percent of the population. So what?
What’s really strange about your reaction: are you against freedom of assembly? Are you against freedom of expression? What difference does it make if you agree with the protesters or not? Don’t they still have a right — a constitutional right — to express themselves? As usual, by focussing on 1) the “small number” 2) the “marginalized opposition” and 3) your projection of what Putin must be thinking and doing, once again you pull away from the real issue: freedom of assembly and expression guaranteed by the Russian constitution is not being respected.
Comment by mossy — August 5, 2010 @ 1:52 am
“How about this: nobody cares about what the liberast opposition has to say.”
This is really beneath even you. Do your really expect to be treated like a serious commentator when you make puns associating liberals with homosexuals? Do you think that’s a hoot? Are you against homosexuals as well?
And then, if no one cares about them, why are they blacklisted? Blacklisted. Got it? There is a list of people not allowed to appear on television. If the White House sent around a list of people not allowed on network tv — say, ecologists with data on the oil spill, or Republicans against the healthcare program, or critics of the war in Afghanistan — would you defend that? Would you say: it’s just because no one cares what they have to say?
Comment by mossy — August 5, 2010 @ 2:01 am
I don’t sneer. I’m succinct and to the point.
???????? isn’t my invention, ? ?????????.
Comment by Sublime Oblivion — August 5, 2010 @ 3:29 am
Despite all this yammering, NOBODY even TRIES to address the fundamental point of this post: If Nemtsov (Kasparov, etc.) have no support in the population and are not a threat, WHY ARE THEY BEING ARRESTED? Why are their publications being confiscated?
Isn’t it OBVIOUS that despite the neo-Soviet propaganda the actions of the regime, WHOEVER ordered them, make clear that the regime believes these men ARE a threat?
If not, isn’t the only other explanation that the police state in Russia is IRRATIONAL, and isn’t that even MORE TERRIFYING?
Those wishing to read the Nemtsov publications banned and suppressed by the Putin regime can do so here:
http://larussophobe.wordpress.com/nemtsov/
Comment by La Russophobe — August 5, 2010 @ 4:49 am
“???????? isn’t my invention, ? ?????????.” S/O – you’re sorry you didn’t invent a word that combines “liberal” with “pederast” – a derogatory slang term for a homosexual that suggests pedophile? The English equivalent might be “fageral.” Any gay folks out there reading this? How do y’all feel about that?
According to S/O, “no one cares what they have to say.” Well, the Russian people would disagree with you. Here are some poll results:
On the Strategy 31 rally:
The majority of Russians (85 per cent) are sure that the leadership of the country should listen to the opinion of protesters, an all-Russian poll conducted by the Levada Centre on 2-5 July has shown.
However, only 29 per cent believe that such a state of affairs is typical for Russia. More than half of respondents (56 per cent) believe that the authorities do not pay attention to protesters; 16 per cent had difficulty responding.
According to the sociologists’ data, since March 2009 the proportion of Russians who are sure that the authorities in the country treat protesters too harshly has increased from 18 to 28 per cent.
Around a quarter of Russians are aware to a greater or lesser extent of the existence of the “Strategy 31” civil movement…Out of those Russians who know about this movement, 37 per cent support events like “Strategy 31” to a greater or lesser extent. The poll showed that half (49 per cent) had difficulty in assessing their attitude to them, due to a lack of any information.
The Levada Center, a polling and sociological research organization, found, based on a July poll it conducted in 130 communities in 45 regions of Russia, that 39% of Russians have concerns that the authorities may start persecuting any criticism as a pretext of eradicating extremism. Meanwhile, the number of people who are tolerating unacceptable comments, and not calling them extreme, as long as they do not incite violence, is growing. The number of those supporting this position has increased to 53% in July 2010 from 36% in July 2002, while the number of those opposing this view has declined to 23% in 2010 from 35% in July 2002. About 25% of the respondents were undecided.
On corruption:
Of 1,600 people surveyed earlier this month, 60 percent said they believed corruption was worse than in 2000, when Putin was elected president, the Levada Centre polling station said. The proportion of people who believe corruption is getting worse rose from 45 percent in a similar survey in 2005.
On support for Putin and Medvedev:
Moscow, 20 July: In a hypothetical presidential election an opposition candidate could count on the support of 20 per cent of voters. Another 21 per cent said they would not take part in the election, according to an opinion poll conducted by the SuperJob.ru opinion research portal in all districts of the Russian Federation on 15 July. Almost one-third of the population, or 31 per cent, would be prepared to vote for (current Prime Minister) Vladimir Putin. A total of 14 per cent of respondents said they would back the current president, Dmitriy Medvedev. A total of 14 per cent of Russians said they had not yet made up their mind.
True, I’m not sure how reliable that last poll is (it may have been done online, which is a smaller and less representative sample.) But still – it’s interesting.
S/O, if you want to be taken seriously – and judging by your blog, you certainly have aspirations in that direction – you have to 1) defend or drop your gay-bashing 2) make a cogent and compelling case against freedom of expression and assembly and 3) deal with the fact that a lot of Russians are very unhappy with the state of the country. Oh — you also need to actually deal with facts and not play “if I were Putin.”
Comment by mossy — August 5, 2010 @ 6:22 am
Liberast is related to pederast, which is mainly associated with pedophilia, not homosexuality.
You can learn a lot about the latter from your good friends Oleg Kozlovsky and Vladimir Milov.
Comment by Sublime Oblivion — August 5, 2010 @ 2:17 pm
S/O you’re wrong. Pederast is used as a derogatory slang word for a male homosexual, implying that homosexuals are pedophiles. It is an extremely insulting word that is used for gay-bashing.
Don’t pretend otherwise.
Comment by mossy — August 6, 2010 @ 4:33 am
[…] Streetwise Professor would “sooner listen to a mollusk orate on quantum mechanics than pay attention to a Putin disquisit… […]
Pingback by Russia Blog Weekly Roundup – 7 August 2010 — August 7, 2010 @ 6:12 am
@mossy,
Just to make things clear, it is liberals I am bashing, not gays.
Gays don’t do anything to undermine Russia. Liberasts do.
Comment by Sublime Oblivion — August 7, 2010 @ 1:06 pm
[…] Streetwise Professor would “sooner listen to a mollusk orate on quantum mechanics than pay attention to a Putin disquisit… […]
Pingback by Official Russia | Russia Blog Weekly Roundup – 7 August 2010 — August 7, 2010 @ 2:02 pm