Pavlovian Putin
Putin gave his annual call-in-arama yesterday. Most of it was same-old-same-old. The only thing of interest was his response to a question about when Khodorkovsky would be freed.
Putin’s typical reaction to the mere mention of Khordokovsky’s name can only be described as Pavlovian. It appears to reflect a mixture of hatred and fear. Putin hates Saakashvili, but seems more to disdain him than hate him. Not so with Khodorkovsky. I get the sense that the thing that Putin fears most is for Khordorkovsky to walk free .
Putin’s reaction during the call-in was no different. Completely ignoring the actual crimes for which Khordokovsky has been convicted and charged, Putin asserted that Khodorkovsky was guilty of five murders because the former Yukos head’s chief of security was convicted of murder of Yukos foes. Khodorkovsky has not been charged in connection with, let alone convicted of, these crimes.
Setting aside the dubious nature of any conviction in a politically charged case in Russia (note the forced resignations from the Constitutional Court, and their implications for the Russian justice system), Putin may not want to be subjected to the same standard of “proof” as he applies to Khodorkovsky. After all, if benefiting from the murders of opponents carried out by security personnel under one’s command is sufficient to make one guilty of murder, just think of how many murders can be laid at Putin’s feet?
Combined with the resignations from the Constitutional Court and the Magnitsky death and on and on Putin’s outburst lays bare the political nature of “justice” in Russia, and the subordination of the judiciary to the power structures. (I was going to say “executive,” but Putin really isn’t the de jure executive, though he is almost sure such de facto.) Putin had no business even answering the question. The appropriate answer would have been that Khodorkovsky’s fate is not his concern: it is a legal matter to be handled by the proper authorities. That would be a joke, of course, but Putin quite often engages in such “humor.” But when Khodorkovsky is involved, Putin cannot help himself. He cannot keep his hatred and fear in check. His responses are reflexive, conditioned, uncontrolled. It is an amazing thing to witness.
I expect he knows that the main factor in the main factor in the improvement in Russia’s condition is that he has broken the independent political power of the Oligarchs. They now pay their taxes, and the oil/gas Oligarchs submitted to the taxing away of the energy windfall. They would not have done so prior to their power being broken.
Of course, Khodorkovsky in prison is a much bigger deal to some than Russian births being up by almost 250,000/year since he began serving his sentence, or Russian deaths being down by ~280,000/year. I expect that he does find the noise generated by those who make an more of an issue of Khodorkovsky than of the physical survival of the RF population pretty irritating.
Comment by rkka — December 4, 2009 @ 6:47 am
It’s simply hilarious that RKKA thinks he can rely on data about births produced by a proud KGB spy. Even more hilarious that the thinks Mikhail Khodorkovsky was responsible for Russia’s low birthrate while he was at liberty.
But it’s just said that RKKA doesn’t realize Russia’s population problems have NOTHING to do with birthrate. They have to do with THE MORTALITY RATE. Russia has, just for instance, one of the highest murder rates on the planet, and Khodorkovsky’s arrest is a symptom of that moral malaise. Courts are perverted with impunity, so why should Russians follow the law.
And as for the suggestion, that of a mere braying jackass, that the Russian economy imporoved for any reason other than the accident of spiking world oil prices, it’s simply pathetic. It’s the kind of naked Soviet lie that brought down the USSR, and will do the same for Russia.
Khodorkovsky? The real enemies of Russia, as it has always been, are the likes RKKA.
Comment by La Russophobe — December 4, 2009 @ 7:03 am
Putin is a terrific actor and a real controlled guy, so at first I thought his outbursts were also controlled: I thought he was acting outraged so he could go on a calibrated rant. But after watching him over the years, I think that’s not entirely true. A few subjects make him lose it. One used to Chechnya, but now that is less of a hot button. But you’re right, Professor, Khodorkovsky infuriates him. He foams at the mouth when he speaks of him. Rumor has it that among the many reasons why Putin is so vengeful towards MBK is personal: at one (or several, depending on who’s telling the story), the two men got into a screaming match. MBK didn’t back down. Putin can’t forgive him. Not sure how much credence I give to this, but Putin’s fury does suggest it’s deeply personal.
rkka — and so you know that all the oligarchs are paying their taxes now, huh? It is true that Putin broke the back of the oligarchs: they do not dabble in politics. They fight each other under the table, but they do not fight the powers that be and their economic interests, and they never, ever criticise the regime except in the most bland and acceptable ways. But it is not true that Putin “destroyed the oligarchs” — they are richer now than ever. But they are court pets. They pay their tributes and are allowed to make huge amounts of money. It has been a very good situation for the bureaucrats, but it hasn’t helped the people who live here.
Comment by mossy — December 4, 2009 @ 8:56 am
Phoby, Phoby, Phoby…
The fact that Russian wages are now far higher than the ~$20/month, often years in arrears, that they were in 1999 doesn’t indicate that the Russian economy hasn’t improved since Putin took over? Or the fact that Russians live longer, die less, and have more kids now?
You claim Putin fiddles with Russian vital stats. How do you know? And if so, what are the real ones?
I expect I’ll be waiting a long, long time for you to come up with anything factual to support your bilious spew.
Truly, the frenzy of impotent spite my points drive you to are hilarious!
Mossy, who said Putin destroyed the Oligarchs? Not me. I have no indication he ever meant to. And unless you have better access to actual Russian vital stats than the Hilarious Phoby, your claim that people in Russia haven’t been helped by Putin breaking the political power of the Oligarchs just isn’t supported.
Comment by rkka — December 4, 2009 @ 10:03 am
Thanks for this excellent post, Prof. We couldn’t have said it better ourselves.
For as much moaning as you are bound to hear from the rkka types, they really have no answer for murdered lawyers and stolen billions.
Comment by James — December 4, 2009 @ 11:16 am
[…] Leaving aside for just a moment the fact that Khodorkovsky is not a murderer, has never been charged nor convicted of any such involvement in violence, the logic and timing of this argument is ridiculous. […]
Pingback by Robert Amsterdam: Putin’s Big Lie about Khodorkovsky | News from: The Huffington Post - Breaking News and Opinion — December 4, 2009 @ 11:41 am
[…] Leaving aside for just a moment the fact that Khodorkovsky is not a murderer, has never been charged nor convicted of any such involvement in violence, the logic and timing of this argument is ridiculous. […]
Pingback by Robert Amsterdam: Putin’s Big Lie about Khodorkovsky | Old People News — December 4, 2009 @ 11:41 am
History didn’t begin in 1991. The Soviet Union — you remember that place — was a corrupt power that went bankrupt. As in belly-up bankrupt. In the last years of the regime, everything disppeared from the stores, food rationing was in place in the capital cities and food was nearly gone from the state stores everywhere else. The Ryzhkov reforms put in place a lovely system by which factory directors could form commercial entities that allowed them to use the factories as cash cows and transfer all the profits to the commercial entities, owned by the directors. Yeltsin inherited a country that was bankrupt, corrupt, and already had those sleight-of-hand companies. There were no laws regulating commercial activity, no banks, no regulatory boards, no exchanges, no advertisers, no marketing, no bankers or real estate agents, no commerical space — none of the institutions necessary for capitalism. And no money. Let me say that again, even louder: no money. They had a grain commission that met every night to move tons of flour around the country so that people could at least buy bread. The legislative branch wanted the old system back and did everything to thwart reforms that were necessary and that the people wanted. Let me say that again, even louder: people wanted capitalism. And oil was something like $9/b.
So yes, it was a mess, and people in most regions — not all — were not paid for months or years. Some good decisions were made; some bad decisions were made; some difficult decisions were made because there wasn’t another choice. Because they didn’t have any money, see, but they did have a population that wanted to live like people in the West.
By the time Putin came to power, the worst was over. There were laws and institutions. There was some money. The best thing he did (thanks, Mr Illarionov!) was to institute a flat 13 percent income tax. There were a few other good reforms under Mr. I. And then oil took off like nobody’s business.
So if you want to compare the two periods, you have to compare everything, not just the bits that you like, rkka.
And no, I don’t think that Deripaska buying up every friggin’ aluminium concern he could get his hands on — using cheap Western credit — has particularly helped Aunt Manya and Uncle Vanya. Especially when he couldn’t meet his obligations and had taxpayer’s money go into his pockets to bail him and his empire out. Today it was announced that communal services in Moscow are going to be raised up to 20 percent. My pensioner neighbors are literally in tears and panicked. They don’t seem to share your rosy view of the economic situation.
Comment by mossy — December 4, 2009 @ 12:38 pm
Actually, James, they DO have an answer. The answer is that they’re proud of the fact that people has murdered and stolen, and they want him to continue. They believe, as people did in Stalin’s time, that Putin will never get around to murdering or stealing from THEM.
But sooner or later, unless Russia collapses first, he will. And that will be the only justice Mr. Khodorkovsky ever receives from Russia.
Comment by La Russophobe — December 4, 2009 @ 1:49 pm
Here’s the proof Putin lies about basic statistica data, jackass:
http://larussophobe.wordpress.com/2009/11/02/putin-his-inflation-and-his-lies/
http://larussophobe.wordpress.com/2009/10/16/editorial-lies-lies-and-more-russian-lies/
Now, where is your call for PROOF that Khodorkovsky committed murders before Putin accuses him of them?
Do you even know what the KGB is, you braying doofus? It’s an organization WHOSE SINGULAR PURPOSE IS TO LIE AND MURDER. Putin spent his whole career there. For you to suggest that his claims about the birthrate must be believed are hysterically funny.
Meanwhile, you TOTALLY IGNORE the fact that birthrates are IRRELVANT to Russia’s population issues, which are caused BY THE MORTALITY RATE about which PUTIN HAS DONE ABSOLUTELY NOTHTING.
You’re just making a bigger fool of yourself with every single word. A wiser jackass would pipe down.
Comment by La Russophobe — December 4, 2009 @ 1:53 pm
“So if you want to compare the two periods, you have to compare everything, not just the bits that you like, rkka.”
“And no, I don’t think that Deripaska buying up every friggin’ aluminium concern he could get his hands on — using cheap Western credit — has particularly helped Aunt Manya and Uncle Vanya. Especially when he couldn’t meet his obligations and had taxpayer’s money go into his pockets to bail him and his empire out. Today it was announced that communal services in Moscow are going to be raised up to 20 percent. My pensioner neighbors are literally in tears and panicked. They don’t seem to share your rosy view of the economic situation.”
Yeah, Deripaska levered himself up, and is close to losing his shirt. And he isn’t the only oligarch who went nuts on credit. And if Putin had left it to the oilmen, the 600 gigabucks in the Central Bank and other reserve funds that Russia started the global financial collapse with would have been pi$$ed away too.
And who sez I have a rosy view of the economic situation?? The way I see it, the global economy is headed for the rocks, and I’m cutting debt and building cash as fast as I can. But Putin didn’t cause the global economic situation, and as I see it has done pretty well at preparing Russia to ride it out.
Which is exactly what has the global investor community furious with him.
Comment by rkka — December 4, 2009 @ 3:35 pm
The bleeding-heart liberals and HR activists do not endear themselves to he public by dropping Khodor’s name at every opportunity. When reading or listening to their commentary, one gets the feeling that they are contractually obliged to mention him. Fine, you think that Khodor is Jesus, but what about all the non-oligarchs unfairly persecuted by the system? They get a week or two of token attention at best, and then it’s Khodor 24×7 all over again. Nowhere does the public sympathise with the rich. This vocal minority is seen as Khodor’s pesonal PR agents. They discredit themselves, HR and the liberal cause.
Comment by So? — December 4, 2009 @ 7:55 pm
Speaking of “stolen billions”, it should be noted that James is an editor of Khodorkovsky’s lawyer’s blog. In the interests of transparency, full disclosure and all that.
Comment by Sublime Oblivion — December 4, 2009 @ 9:15 pm
[…] Streetwise Professor hits one out of the park on the Putin murder accusation: Completely ignoring the actual crimes for which Khordokovsky has been convicted and charged, Putin asserted that Khodorkovsky was guilty of five murders because the former Yukos head’s chief of security was convicted of murder of Yukos foes. Khodorkovsky has not been charged in connection with, let alone convicted of, these crimes. […]
Pingback by Official Russia | Reflexive, Conditioned, Uncontrolled — December 5, 2009 @ 1:01 am
So? — this is called making a straw man. No one is dropping Khodorkovsky’s name at every opportunity, calling him Jesus, or talking about him 24/7. And non-oligarchs like Politkovskaya have certainly gotten their share of press. And the Professor didn’t mention him out of the blue — he was commenting on Putin’s reaction to him.
rkka: Are you suggesting that the only possible way to ensure tax revenues is to practice selective and vindictive justice against one person? No other way, is there?
That reserve fund was and is one of the sensible aspects of economic policy here. But even economists with access to specialized sites and information can’t figure out how much of it has gone to the bail out, and exactly who has gotten the funds for what. And of course there has never been a second of public discussion or debate about how that money should be used. Is it better to give it to Deripaska so he can hold on to his bauxite mine in Australia, or is it better to spend it on, say roads? Oh, the problem with spending it on roads is that they cost 4 times more than in Europe, which doesn’t make sense given the comparative costs of labor.
And then, why is Russia doing so badly as compared to the other BRIC nations? Putin and the gang squandered an extraordinary opportunity. In those years when money was pouring into the country and Putin’s popularity was high (manipulated or not), they didn’t use it to develop new gas and oil reserves; they didn’t use it to carry out some of the painful reforms that still need to be done; they didn’t use it to rebuild and build the necessary infastructure; they didn’t use it to support small- and medium-sized businesses; they didn’t use it to solve the really difficult problem of “mono-cities”; they didn’t use it to begin to lower the appalling mortality rate among men. That’s what infuriates me: history handed them a pile of gold on a platter, and they pissed it away. It’s like alchemy in reverse: they turned gold into lead.
Comment by mossy — December 5, 2009 @ 2:07 am
Try listening to Echo Moskvy. Some of them just can’t help themselves – Khodor’s name comes up on any topic “…and the same can be seen in the Khodorkovsky’s case..”, “…as the persecution of Khodorkovsky has shown…”, etc.. BTW, I don’t deify Putin. He could’ve done a lot better. He could’ve also done a lot worse. He is no Stalin light (whatever you may think of Stalin), that’s for sure. Popularity figures mean nothing when an alcohol-embalmed zombie with a 2% rating wins elections (though I’m convinced they were rigged). The system is rotten. Unfortunately evolution in Russia has been impossible.
Comment by So? — December 5, 2009 @ 2:38 am
“http://larussophobe.wordpress.com/2009/11/02/putin-his-inflation-and-his-lies/
http://larussophobe.wordpress.com/2009/10/16/editorial-lies-lies-and-more-russian-lies/”
No actual lies anywhere.
“Now, where is your call for PROOF that Khodorkovsky committed murders before Putin accuses him of them?
Do you even know what the KGB is, you braying doofus? It’s an organization WHOSE SINGULAR PURPOSE IS TO LIE AND MURDER. Putin spent his whole career there. For you to suggest that his claims about the birthrate must be believed are hysterically funny.
Meanwhile, you TOTALLY IGNORE the fact that birthrates are IRRELVANT to Russia’s population issues, which are caused BY THE MORTALITY RATE about which PUTIN HAS DONE ABSOLUTELY NOTHTING.”
Um, where did you learn to read, especially the part where deaths are down by 280,000 since 2003??
“rkka: Are you suggesting that the only possible way to ensure tax revenues is to practice selective and vindictive justice against one person? No other way, is there?”
As long as the Oligarchs had political power, they exerted it to avoid taxation. Thus, that power had to be broken, and it was.
“And then, why is Russia doing so badly as compared to the other BRIC nations? Putin and the gang squandered an extraordinary opportunity. In those years when money was pouring into the country and Putin’s popularity was high (manipulated or not), they didn’t use it to develop new gas and oil reserves; they didn’t use it to carry out some of the painful reforms that still need to be done; they didn’t use it to rebuild and build the necessary infastructure; they didn’t use it to support small- and medium-sized businesses; they didn’t use it to solve the really difficult problem of “mono-citiesâ€; they didn’t use it to begin to lower the appalling mortality rate among men. That’s what infuriates me: history handed them a pile of gold on a platter, and they pissed it away. It’s like alchemy in reverse: they turned gold into lead.”
And if they had spent the ~600 gigabucks of accumulated reserves from the energy windfall on the good things you mention, what would have happened when credit stopped last September?
Comment by rkka — December 5, 2009 @ 5:43 am
Wow, what amazing intellectual cowardice by SUBLIME MORON ignoring the point of this post.
If Khodorkovsky is resonsible for alleged murders by his underlings, then why isn’t Putin also responsible for the alleged murders of HIS underlings?
SUBLIME LIAR cannot answer. So he tries to sling mud. It’s utterly pathetic.
Comment by La Russophobe — December 5, 2009 @ 7:08 am
Some interesting comments, Mossy. I esp. appreciate your mention of Illarionov, whom I admire a great deal. I agree generally with your diagnosis of the Putin economic legacy. Also sounds like we have a similar take on Deripaska (I wrote about him briefly in my most recent post).
I despise few Russian public figures more. A “Western chauvinist”, in the pay of neoliberal oligarch vampires to campaign against Russia, against AGW, and against state healthcare.
Comment by Sublime Oblivion — December 5, 2009 @ 4:31 pm
S/O: The trifecta! No wonder I like him.
No wonder. He is a propagandistic traitor to Russia, to non-oligarch Americans, and to humanity.
Comment by Sublime Oblivion — December 6, 2009 @ 6:03 am
Sublime Oblivion, in the best tradition of slavophiles vs. westernizers, I don’t think there’s much to hope from setting hemisphere against hemisphere. Illarionov has a number of valid points; one can’t simply forget about that.
Rkka, the point is that you ascribe Russia’s situation to Putin’s economical decisions. Others claim it was the result of oil price increasing — just as Russia getting out of this crisis may be the same thing again. You keep repeating that it was good to break the power of the oligarchs — but it wasn’t broken, since government officials (with vested interests in ‘private’ enterprises — remember Medvedev came from Gasprom?) are playing the same role, and corruption in Russia is no lower now than it was during the worst of the oligarch’s time. So, frankly, are you sure that you understand correctly where the good times have come from — either prior to, or after, the financial crisis?
Comment by Asehpe — December 6, 2009 @ 2:01 pm
rkka: I also wanted to point out that if in fact Russian deaths are down by 280 000 since 2003, that is less than .2%. Two tenths of a percentage over 5 years isn’t exactly anything to crow about. Furthermore, that figure on its own doesn’t mean much. In which demographic were the deaths “prevented?” If it’s in the maternal and infant mortality rates, that’s in large part due to the millions of dollars spent by USAID and other Western organizations since the 90s. If it’s in TB — ditto. If it’s women in general, that’s nice, but not the problem. It would only be statistically significant if it were men of virtually any age, but particularly after age 40.
SO? I do listen to Ekho Moskvy, every day. Yes, they mention Khodorkovsky. They also mention Politkovskaya, and Magnitsky, and Estimirova. There isn’t a particular obsession with Khodorkovsky.
Professor, yes, we do seem to agree on many things. But I’m not an economist, so I’ve always been puzzled by something. Perhaps you can comment. One of the reform problems is salaries for the “state budget” folks, particularly teachers and medical workers. A nurse friend in Moscow (20+ years, senior nurse, works in the Kremlin clinic) gets 9000 rubles, which a bit over $300/month. The way medical workers have survived is by 1) extorting money from patients and their families 2) taking on extra jobs 3) taking on “two positions” (ie a hospital has a staff budget for 50 nurses, but 25 nurses take “two positions” — obviously not in the interests of the patients). The policy position has been: we can’t just use all our reserve funds to raise those salaries everywhere in the country, because 1) we may not be able to afford it later and 2) it would raise inflation to even higher levels. I get that. But what can you do? You can’t have nurses making $300/month until the end of time. It’s the same huge problem with teachers. These are the reform issues that are just sitting here like big ugly frogs, waiting to be dealt with, only they are getting worse because of inflation and rising salaries in some of the private sector. Do you know if any of the other NIS or EE/CE countries have dealt with this successfully? Thanks.
Comment by mossy — December 7, 2009 @ 6:04 am
“rkka: I also wanted to point out that if in fact Russian deaths are down by 280 000 since 2003, that is less than .2%. Two tenths of a percentage over 5 years isn’t exactly anything to crow about.”
Hardly. Yearly deaths declining from 2,365,800 in 2003 to 2,081,000 in 2008 is far more than a decline of 0.2 percentage points. Try 12 full percentage points.
“Furthermore, that figure on its own doesn’t mean much. In which demographic were the deaths “prevented?â€
The biggest portion of the decline is in death rate per 100,000 population due to circulatory diseases, from 928 to 833. This was, and remains, the biggest cause of death among Russians. The rate of death due to alchohol poisoning dropped from 31 to 14 per 100,000 population. The homicide rate is down from 31 to 14 per 100,000 population. The rate of death by suicide is down from 36 to 27 per 100,000 population. The death rate due to cancer, the second biggest killer, is flat.
And just for Phoby, here’s the link:
http://www.gks.ru/bgd/regl/b09_12/IssWWW.exe/stg/d01/05-07.htm
“If it’s in the maternal and infant mortality rates, that’s in large part due to the millions of dollars spent by USAID and other Western organizations since the 90s.”
Nope, though the IM rate is down.
” If it’s in TB — ditto. If it’s women in general, that’s nice, but not the problem. It would only be statistically significant if it were men of virtually any age, but particularly after age 40.’
Circulatory diseases are big killers of Russian men, and Russians in general, so the significant decline in the rate of death due to circulatory disease probably captures substantial numbers of +40 men. I expect the declines in the alchohol poisoning, suicide, and homicide rates apply to men +40 as well.
Comment by rkka — December 7, 2009 @ 6:47 pm
rkka: I’d like to remind you that you posted the 280 000 figure, so it’s odd to see you now contradicting that.
I checked out the link, and I’m not convinced. I’m not convinced the figures are right, and I still don’t see any demographic breakdown. I do think, however, that there was a crackdown on illegal alcohol, so that figure might have some relation to reality.
My skepticism comes from first-hand experience. In the 90s Minzdrav made a real attempt to get real and accurate health data. They also changed some of their categories to match WHO standards (otherwise you can’t compare them). The sensible notion was: we have to know the story so we can improve it. But that began to change after 2000+. Local health departments started pleasing the top health authorities and leadership. So, for example, suddenly HIV prevalence dropped a huge percentage in Moscow in one year. Wow. Amazing. How did they do it? Simple: until that year HIV prevalence was for the at-risk population, and that year they changed it to a percentage of all people tested. Since Russian hospitals test everyone admited for HIV, that population included every babushka and dedushka, every 10-year-old, etc. And so the prevalence seemed to drop. At the same time, if you looked at the same population used in previous years, it went up dramatically.
I don’t see much improvement in health care, better provisioning of provincial hospitals, more efforts in prevention. While there are some world-class specialists and hospitals, and while some doctors have instituted modern practices (everything depends on the head doctor and head of the local health department; some are truly excellent), there has yet to be a real overhaul of the medical schools and system of refresher courses. A friend’s husband just had an ruptured appendix removed in a small provincial hospital. She had to buy everything: every drug, bandage, drain; she had to bring sheets and pillowcases, food, cup and plate and flatware. He spent two weeks in the hospital and has a recovery period of 2 months. For a ruptured appendix and no other health conditions! That is sadly still typical, and those excellent institutions are the exception. So until I see some major change, I’m not going to believe rosy statistics.
Comment by mossy — December 9, 2009 @ 5:19 am
“rkka: I’d like to remind you that you posted the 280 000 figure, so it’s odd to see you now contradicting that.”
Quel contradiction?? Here’s what I posted:
“Yearly deaths declining from 2,365,800 in 2003 to 2,081,000in 2008…”
The numerical decline is 284,000.
The remainder of the post is a discussion of the decline of death rates due to various causes, per 100,000 population, not declines in numbers of deaths.
What you believe is up to you.
Comment by rkka — December 9, 2009 @ 6:32 am
And as to your conspiracy-theroizing: “But that began to change after 2000+. Local health departments started pleasing the top health authorities and leadership.”
If the fiddling with the stats to “please the authorities and leadership” started in 2000+, why do the stats show deaths rising between 2000-2002 and from 2002-2003? Please explain why it would “please the authorities and leadership” to show deaths rising?
Go peddle your unsupported nonsense elsewhere.
Comment by rkka — December 9, 2009 @ 6:59 am
280 000 = .2 percent of population of 140 million.
My, getting nasty are we? That’s certainly unpleasant. I stand by what I wrote because it’s first-hand knowledge.
Comment by mossy — December 9, 2009 @ 10:39 am
Well mossy, if the whole population of Russia died every year, you would be right. 280000 fewer deaths per year would be no big deal.
However, deaths going from 1.7% of the population per year to 1.5% of the population is a big deal. Why, if that rate of improvement continues, death will be entirely abolished in the Russian Federation in a bit more than 20 years! 😉
So please note the hilarious failure of your effort to denigrate the achievement here.
And you sure do bleat entertainingly when someone blows up your fact-free conspiracy-theorizing by looking at the data.
By the way, your unsupported anecdotes=\= data.
Comment by Rkka — December 9, 2009 @ 1:25 pm
mossy, just read this – http://www.sublimeoblivion.com/2009/12/07/myths-russia-demography/
Comment by Sublime Oblivion — December 9, 2009 @ 1:40 pm
That’s a great post, SO, full of checkable facts and logical analysis, the very things thel likesof mossy and Phoby are most allergic to.
Comment by Rkka — December 9, 2009 @ 4:00 pm
I did glance at your little piece, SO, and here’s what I think:
1. You use strawmen. You make up extreme myths that are mostly about interpretation of data (good or bad, solid or fragile trend) and predictions for the future. You ought to try to write a piece that uses actual quotes of serious demographers. You might try reading Murray Feshbach.
2. You spend an inordinate amount of space on fertility rates, which really isn’t the issue. There may or may not be a solid trend for more than one child in a family, but in any case, the urbanization of the population is following the trend in all industrialized countries for smaller families.
3. I laughed over the Karelian program that went from the Soviet period to the Yeltsin years and ended 14 years ago. How is that relevant? It shows that if the government makes serious efforts, there can be an improvement in public health. Yeah. So?
4. You cherry-pick evidence.
5. It’s all irrelevant. So what if the doom-sayers are wrong?
The issue is this: what is the government doing to lengthen the horrendously short lives of men? Are less people dying in traffic accidents? Is the GAI taking fewer bribes and not closing their eyes to idiots driving without a license and zipping into the oncoming traffic to avoid a line at a stoplight? Are they cracking down on violations of safety procedures at factories (another major cause of accidental death among men)? Are they using the now substantial funds (supplementing by huge amounts of money from the West) effectively to stop HIV-AIDS? (Answer: no. They are spending it on random testing, the search for a vaccine; they are not using approaches like needle exchanges and methadone replacement therapy that have worked everywhere else in the world.) Have they launched a long-term, serious campaign to get people to stop smoking, exercise more, have annual check-ups, and eat better? (Answer: no.)
You simply change the focus of the discussion to never deal with those real questions. And of course accuse everyone who is unhappy with the state policies (or lack thereof) of being a Russophobe. This is just ridiculous. I want my male friends to live beyond the age of 58. I want them to lead long, healthy lives. I want young men to survive the roads and factories so they can produce two or three babies. I want young women to stop having abortions and get treated for STDs so they can carry to term healthy babies. I want young people who have HIV to get the treatment that will prolong their lives. I want drug addicts to at least use clean needles so they can survive long enough to get off heroin. I want a health system that encourages prevention, that makes it easy to get annual check ups. I want provincial hospitals and clinics to have all the necessary drugs and equipment they need. I want the fire regulations revised to eliminate the ridiculous rules (which leads to ignoring all the rules), and I want the inspectors to stop taking bribes to overlook a club with a plastic and reed ceiling strung with lights that holds fireworks.
Comment by mossy — December 11, 2009 @ 2:18 am
Post this critique at my blog and I will respond to your points in detail.
Otherwise, I will only note that 1) the myths are not made up but are all standard elements of mainstream analysis of Russian demography in the Western media, 2) I have no need to quote the people I am refuting, 3) your points 4-5 are inane, and 4) the rest of your post is insubstantive truthiness.
Comment by Sublime Oblivion — December 11, 2009 @ 4:14 am
“Are less people dying in traffic accidents?”
They seem to be.
“Have they launched a long-term, serious campaign to get people to stop smoking, exercise more, have annual check-ups, and eat better? (Answer: no.)”
Gorbachev set a national example of sobriety. It had an effect. Putin sets a national example of sobriety and athleticism. Its having an effect.
Comment by rkka — December 11, 2009 @ 5:25 am
>>The issue is this: what is the government doing to lengthen the horrendously short lives of men? Are less people dying in traffic accidents?
Male life expectancy from 2005-2008 rose by 3 years. It’s no coincidence that in this time period (and including 2009), deaths by alcohol poising have halved, while deaths by traffic injuries, suicide, homicide and other random accidents dropped significantly and continue to drop month by month.
Comment by G.I. Joe — December 14, 2009 @ 5:52 pm
Forgot my source: http://www.gks.ru/dbscripts/Cbsd/DBInet.cgi?pl=2415011
So the question isn’t whether the overall health of the nation is improving; that’s indisputable. The only question is: Why? Government, or natural recovery? I would tend to think both.
Comment by G.I. Joe — December 14, 2009 @ 5:57 pm
Hey, guys, nice and interesting discussion. Thanks to everybody. I would like to add to the list of mossy’s wishes the following:
1. It would be really great, if the number of crimes committed by russian police officers would go down as well.
2. It would be really nice, if the law and the judgment would become equal to everybody in the country. I hate the fact that the result of the court trial in Russia depends on the relations with authorities you have.
3. The army. I would like the death rate of young men in the army service because of the torture and abuse to go down.
4. I would like police to start working instead of hiding the crimes to avoid bad statistics. Try to start the investigation on the theft in Russia, you will be surprised with all the bullshit excuses the police will make to avoid it.
Rkka, I am glad that you can still keep your rosy glasses. That means, that you never faced the reality yourself. You didn’t have your relative being kidnapped in Russia yet? Good for you. I had that experience. And I know on the real life example, what does that mean to help the member of your own family being kidnapped by the police in Russia. It is a failed state already. It may be not yet visible to many people who live here, but it progresses rapidly towards the situation like in Argentine.
Comment by Dedok — December 23, 2009 @ 1:46 pm
To all people who tries to make a rosy picture of the reality I can say the following. In soviet Russia, everybody who was not prosecuted as an enemy of the state, were able to find the truth about their relatives, friends, colleagues, who vanished in the concentration camps after being sweepingly accused. But nevertheless, there were millions, who believed that the people they knew personally were prosecuted because of the solid, grounded accusations. Now, with many documents revealed public, it is easy to prove that the most if not all political processes of that time were groundless. But even now, there are stubborn idiots who believe that Stalin was doing good to the country, not just removing everybody who can prevent him to claim the power. I can only answer it with the words of Eufrosinia Kersnovskaya when she was condemned by the group of three judges to be shot: “The truth is as the light! Never a ray of darkness can penetrate into the bright space: so your lie is afraid of the truth!.. But, no matter what I say, you do not hear or do not understand. Because most deaf is the one who does not want to hear…”
I believe, that regardless the fact that the times have been changed and the country is not in its 1930ies, the deafness of the most of the population remains. They don’t want to see and understand what’s going on around them. So they keep lying to themselves until they hit the wall of the reality. The society which doesn’t learn from its past is doomed to repeat it.
Comment by Dedok — December 23, 2009 @ 5:18 pm