R-E-S-P-E-C-T a la Russe
Believe it or not, US Army War College historian of Russia Stephen Blank and I are not twins, separated at birth, though you might get that impression reading what we write. We do, however, share a University of Chicago background, although in different departments a few years apart: maybe it was something in the water.
While I would not have recommended the OSCE resolution, the issue is not one of equating Nazism with Stalinism. The similarities and the unique aspects of each monstrosity should be studied dispassionately and with true academic rigor.
Nonetheless, Moscow has nobody to blame for this impasse but itself. The Putin regime long ago made a calculated decision to slam the door on a frank study of Soviet history, to glorify Stalin’s wartime and imperial policies, and to draw a veil of silence on the horrors of Stalin not to mention Lenin, no mean mass killer himself.
Admittedly the East European states are using history for nationalist purposes, but the success and utility of such calls were first revealed by Moscow. Indeed, the reason for the ever louder invocation of these cards is Moscow’s stonewalling on the truth.
The continuing glorification of Stalin, e.g., in refurbished metro stations (can anyone imagine the Germans using Hitler quotes in renovated Berlin buildings?) epitomizes the process. As long as Russia refuses to come clean about its past, it will be a morally perverted and politically dangerous society that cannot be trusted.
Russia should learn from Germany’s example (who is Russia’s Willy Brandt?) that genuine contrition and acknowledgment of the truth breeds respect, while Japan is still distrusted because, like Russia, it cannot bring itself to open the debate and tell the truth.
Because Russia will not tell the truth and its leaders still want to reap the benefits of associating themselves with Stalin by putting a positive glow on his actions, they must bear the responsibility for the costs that Russia will continue to incur. Indeed, the Russian Federation, because it will not acknowledge the truth, remains the last and by no means least of Stalin’s posthumous victims.
Russia wants to relive its Glory Days, but in so doing, it scares the bejezus out of its neighbors for whom those days were anything but glorious: Russian “glory” has been their misery. As Blank notes, Russia truly has a choice to make: acknowledge its past more honestly, and get along better with former Soviet republics and Eastern European nations, or continue the same truculence and feed fear and resistance. Sadly, given that the current elite believes that its domestic legitimacy rests on maintaining the image of a strong, overawing state, it is almost certain that truculent denial will be the order of the day, today, tomorrow, and for many tomorrows to come.
Blank mentions “respect.” Typically behind the curve, Newsweek has just figured out that Putin et al are obsessed with respect:
Russia’s apparent recalcitrance isn’t simply a manifestation of evil or pique; it is a reflection of a particular world view. Talk to Russians today from any walk of life about where they see their country’s place in the world and you’ll soon hear them use the word “respect.” Mention history, and you’ll likely hear a lot of blame slung at America for inflicting years of economic hardship and political chaos. No less a figure than the former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev complained recently that “the fall of the Soviet Union made America’s head spin—it was as though Russia was no longer significant, no longer a partner, and worthless to America. Then, when Russia was on its knees, when our economy collapsed, Americans came here and applauded the great job Yeltsin had done. We understood something important then: it suited the West for Russia to be half dead.”
But the important thing to recognize, which Newsweek’s Owen Matthews does not, is the distinction between the kind of respect that Blank is talking about, and the kind of respect that Putin et al (and far too many Russians) want. Blank means respect that connotes admiration, and a desire to emulate. The kind of respect Putin, the siloviki, and many Russians seek (nay, demand), however, is at root, a craving to be feared.
It is, as I’ve written in the past, a gangsta’s or mafiosi’s respect. It is a conception of respect that is rooted in a violent, distrustful, Darwinian, worldview, one that disdains cooperation for mutual gain, and conceives of all human relationships as zero-sum. It is, alas, in contrast to admiration/emulation-based respect which can support mutually gainful interactions, something that cannot be achieved without somebody else’s abasement. Since the Russian conception of respect cannot be realized without the subjugation of others, Russia’s continued demands for it are a recipe for chronic conflict.
Given Russia’s existential economic and social problems, this obsession with gangsta respect, and fixation on the past, is more than a little pathetic. In my mind, it evokes Marlon Brado’s Terry Malloy in On the Waterfront: “I coulda been a contender.” Living in the past. Except that even the simpleminded Malloy eventually realized that he had to confront the past and the present honestly. That is not in prospect anytime soon in Russia.
Hmm.. I was thinking it might be a good idea to blogroll blogs SWP regularly checks out.
Comment by Surya — September 5, 2009 @ 10:59 am
“Given Russia’s existential economic and social problems, this obsession with gangsta respect, and fixation on the past, is more than a little pathetic.”
Funny, those existential economic and social problems were far worse back before the Putin regime allegedly made some decision to “slam the door on a frank study of Soviet history.” Russia’s population decline leveled off to less than 0.1% per year in 2008, while the Ukrainian/Baltic declines are all several multiples of the Russian.
And births in Russia are higher for the first 6 months of 2009 than they were for the corresponding period of 2008!
Ya know, there were ~52 million Ukrainians back when “Soviet Genocide” ended in 1991. There are now ~46 million, and deaths exceed births there by almost 250,000/year. That’s a ppulation loss closing in on 12%. I’m just wondering what’s he population loss level that’ll get people re-thinking the “goodness” of brekup the USSR/Ukrainian independence thing. 15%? 20%? 25%? 50%?
Comment by rkka — September 5, 2009 @ 11:36 am
“The answer is of course, that it would be best to be both loved and feared. But since the two rarely come together, anyone compelled to choose will find greater security in being feared than in being loved.” – Machiavelli
Russia tried to make itself “loved” without being “feared” in the 1990’s by submitting to Western pressure, and look what that led to (see rkka above). So it seems sticking with being “feared” is the most optimal choice.
Comment by Sublime Oblivion — September 5, 2009 @ 1:32 pm
A Cool-Headed Look at 1939 by Anatol Lieven.
Comment by Sublime Oblivion — September 5, 2009 @ 1:37 pm
S/O. You crack me up sometimes. Yeah, Russia, looking for love in the 90s. Submitting to Western pressure. Tell me some other good ones.
In fact, just dealing with the consequences of collapse, its inherited pathologies, and the benign indifference of the end-of-history West that was far more involved in Bill Clinton’s escapades than in anything else.
And, btw, the foundations for Russia’s economic recovery, such as it is, were poured in the 1990s. Your whole historical narrative is so distorted, it’s hard to know where to begin.
You are a perfect illustration of somebody who can’t deal with the fundamental fact that the USSR was an abject failure–a failure that scarred Ukraine and the rest of its constituent parts, as well as Russia–and are casting about for villains to blame. Honesty begins at home.
If you and rkka really believe that it was the act of breaking up the USSR that explains the demographic and economic disasters in post-Soviet Ukraine, and perhaps to a lesser degree Russia, you are very mistaken. If you think that everything would be hunky dory if only Yeltsin hadn’t pushed for the dissolution of the USSR at Belovezhskaya, you are overlooking the deep structural problems that created the conditions that made the breakup possible.
On another subject, and I am quite serious in asking this: I’d like to know your opinion, as a self-proclaimed “Green Communist” living in the Bay area, on Van Jones.
The USSR was fundamentally stable – see Coercion, compliance, and the collapse of the Soviet command economy by Mark Harrison. If it wasn’t for Gorbachev’s relaxation of economic coercion, it would still exist, and would likely have a higher level of economic output output and socio-economic development than Russia, not to mention Ukraine, today.
From his Wikipedia entry, I think Van Jones is an upstanding citizen and correct on many things. He provides a good antidote to the Bible-bashing, climate-change-denying totalitarian freaks on the far right. However, though his optimism and zeal for justice is admirable, I’m afraid green collar jobs cannot create a new economic paradigm, at least under the current economic structure – hence his revolutionary inclinations.
I understand of course that as a cornucopian bourgeois reactionary your viewpoint on him will be a little different.
Comment by Sublime Oblivion — September 5, 2009 @ 2:26 pm
* broken link: http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/research/workingpapers/publications/twerp604.pdf
Comment by Sublime Oblivion — September 5, 2009 @ 2:27 pm
“And, btw, the foundations for Russia’s economic recovery, such as it is, were poured in the 1990s.”
Dating pretty much from the instant the RF government started ignoring Aslund, Summers, et al…
Although breaking the political power of the energy oligarchs enough to get them to submit to having the energy windfall taxed away from them helped a lot too.
“Your whole historical narrative is so distorted, it’s hard to know where to begin.”
What… that submitting to the notions of people that deep down care not how or even whether you live and who say nothing but “Keep reforming!” and “Expand NATO!” as your situation grows ever more catastrophic might be a bad idea?
Comment by rkka — September 5, 2009 @ 3:19 pm
Comment by rkka:
” Ya know, there were ~52 million Ukrainians back when “Soviet Genocide†ended in 1991. There are now ~46 million, and deaths exceed births there by almost 250,000/year. That’s a ppulation loss closing in on 12%. I’m just wondering what’s he population loss level that’ll get people re-thinking the “goodness†of brekup the USSR/Ukrainian independence thing. 15%? 20%? 25%? 50%? ”
rkka, so what is your conclusion?
Why do you think millions of Ukrainians die?
And why births in Russia are higher for the first 6 months of 2009 than they were for the corresponding period of 2008 ?
Are you suggesting that Ukrainians should go back into Russian Empire?
In comparison with Russian propaganda Hitler’s propaganda was simply innocent.
Comment by Michael Vilkin — September 5, 2009 @ 3:25 pm
Professor
In the 1990s, Russia inquired about NATO membership. This was answered with astonished bemusement. Shortly therafter, some crude anti-Russian propaganda was used to legitimize bringing in others into that org.
In the 2-3 years prior to the first Chechen war of the last decade, Russia stood militarily by. Three reasons come to mind. One having to do with the hope that Chechnya would become more peaceful from within. The other reasons having to do with Russia’s weakness at the time and its intent of seeking to impress an image of a non-militaristic country to others.
****
Michael Vilkin
“The Russian Empire” ended in 1917. Since the Soviet breakup, scientifically conducted polls indicate that in one form or another many Ukrainian citizens seek closer ties to Russia.
Comment by Cutie Pie — September 5, 2009 @ 3:36 pm
My last set of comments should’ve stressed early 1990s.
Comment by Cutie Pie — September 5, 2009 @ 3:57 pm
Here’s what really has folks in the West upset about Putin:
“At the end of the day, often after much pouting and shouting in the Kremlin, the West could always count on Yeltsin to accommodate and to cooperate–as he did, after swallowing hard, in the cases of NATO’s eastward expansion into the countries of the former Warsaw Pact, the United Nations sanctions against Iraq, and the West’s intervention in Bosnia and Kosovo. In Putin’s more assertive and self-confident Russia–smarting, moreover, from international condemnation that most Russians consider unfair and from what they perceive as a biased portrayal by Western media of the war on “terrorists” and “bandits” in Chechnya–the need for the West’s approval will not be nearly as important as under Yeltsin. The limits of accommodation will be tighter, and the pursuit of Russian national interests, as the Kremlin sees them, unapologetic. The time of largely cost-free U.S. policies toward Russia might be over; Washington may have to choose its priorities far more carefully.”
http://www.aei.org/outlook/11537
That was May, 2000.
And we still haven’t gotten used to the fact that the RF government dosen’t submit to our every demand, but insists on full value in return for its compromises.
Comment by rkka — September 5, 2009 @ 5:08 pm
Cutie, how come Russian Empire has ended?
Where did you get it?
Empire, by definition, is – in my own words – a collection of different peoples who have different interests.
During Soviet times it was Russian Empire, because Russia dominated it.
Do you think that there must be an emperor in the empire?
Russia is still Russian Empire. There are people in Chechnya and other republics that were concurred by Russia. Now they try to get independence.
It is still an empire.
You can say that by that definition America is also an empire.
Well, I’d agree.
With illegal immigration from Mexico, – yes, we are building an empire, with Mexicans coming to claim territories lost by Spain long ago,
and at some point it will blow up in our face.
Membership in NATO ? Sheesh, how nice…
Americans, educated in public schools by unionized teachers will be public schoolers for life, no matter how many degrees they will get in sociology and other commie-attracting disciplines.
You are a sociologist, are you not?
I’m asking because even the most stupid historian would not seriously consider to bring Russia into NATO during peredishka.
It would mean to present the whole Europe to Russia on a silver plate.
After which, of course, ” Yankees, go home ! “.
Cutie, do they pay you in rubles, or are you just unpaid political prostitute?
Comment by Michael Vilkin — September 5, 2009 @ 5:19 pm
“In comparison with Russian propaganda Hitler’s propaganda was simply innocent.” – Michael Vilkin
LOL! There is nothing like “…when we speak of new land in Europe today we must we must principally bear in mind Russia and her vassal border states…” in any Russian foreign policy concept.
Hitler intended the racial extermination of “subhuman” Slavs, a category which very much included Ukrainians.
The West dosen’t much care how, or even whether, Ukrainians live, only that their government are hostile to Russia.
I’d say that closer Russia-Ukraine political and economic relations would probably be good for both.
Comment by rkka — September 5, 2009 @ 5:19 pm
That kind of divide and conquer thinking (pardon the simplistic broadness) has been around for awhile.
Territories currently outside Russia have expressed a willingness to join it. On the other hand, there’re presently no Russian republics (Chechnya included) seeking to leave the RF.
Russians “dominated” the USSR because they were the largest group in the largest republic of that entity. Meantime, there’re some not so invalid claims on how the development in the non-Russian Soviet republics was at times at at the expense of Russia and Russians.
Comment by Cutie Pie — September 5, 2009 @ 5:48 pm
rkka,
I really wouldn’t bother “debating” with Mr. Vilkin about the relative character of Hitler’s and Putin’s propaganda, because he actually agrees with the former’s. Check out his rants I unearthed in previous threads about Holocaust denial and ZOG.
Comment by Sublime Oblivion — September 5, 2009 @ 5:55 pm
Thanks SO. I haven’t come across many of hs sort, apart from in my reading of the 1920s-1940s.
Good to know.
Comment by rkka — September 5, 2009 @ 7:08 pm
BTW— Has SWP expressed an opinion of Mr. Vilkin’s views?
Comment by rkka — September 5, 2009 @ 7:09 pm
No, SWP, penny and the other Russophobe fanatics here studiously ignore them.
PS. See https://streetwiseprofessor.com/?p=1890, comments #8, #14.
For a disturbing look into his world, you could browse through his posts at http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Alt/alt.politics.bush/, e.g. some “writings” of his:
Civil War in the USA, Police kill five in New Orleans shootout
Sometimes a small minority such as a Jewish gang of ACLU can terrorise
the whole country, but it will not last long.
We will have labor camps and gas chambers, and it will be democratic.
Democracy is a dictatorship of a majority. As simple as that. )
America needs fascism, Michael Vilkin
Porch monkeys, Michael Vilkin (yes, “porch monkeys” are who you imagine they are)
etc. A bit disturbing. But he’s also an idiot (i.e. for posting these under his true name).
Comment by Sublime Oblivion — September 5, 2009 @ 7:53 pm
S/O–To say that the Harrison paper is unpersuasive would be the understatement of this and many additional years. A silly toy game theory model proves nothing. A model like his at best can formalize some intuition, and demonstrate some possibilities in a very simple, stylized way. It’s not testable, and like most game theory models, virtually any outcome is possible under various parameter choices or specifications of beliefs. And even in the genre, this paper isn’t very good. His history is also, shall we say, quite selective and simplistic.
It’s not like Gorbachev woke up one morning and decided, “I’m gonna destroy a perfectly functioning system for no good reason.” (Although that is certainly the belief of many Soviet nostalgists.) He felt compelled to do something because the bad performance of the Soviet system was undeniable. Far too much to go into here, but the country couldn’t feed itself, it was uncompetitive in manufacturing, it was facing fiscal collapse, and was technologically backwards. Measured by its own objective–prevailing in a military competition with the US–it was clearly failing. Other than that, everything was great.
Not really. I could list many more problems. Not that you’d get the slightest hint of that from reading Harrison.
Now, the actions that Gorbachev took were disastrous, and accelerated the collapse of the system. But to think that there were ways of maintaining the system in any form that could remotely be considered “Soviet” through a reinvigoration of coercion is seriously mistaken. Indeed, Gorbachev’s main failure was that in trying to maintain a Communist system in which he believed, he undertook a series of half-baked, contradictory measures that only exacerbated the contradictions inherent in the system and thereby accelerated the decline.
The system of monitoring and coercion that Harrison models is best adapted to relatively simple manufacturing processes. It is woefully inadequate in more complex, technologically dynamic areas. (Note that hierarchical corporations in the US were often quite incapable of competing effectively in technologically dynamic industries. The US Rust Belt was dying about the same time. The USSR’s problem is that the entire economy was a Rust Belt.) Harrison, to be fair, hints at this, but the point is a fundamental one. The Soviet system could not prevail in a technological competition with the dynamic West utilizing a system of coercion. It was this recognition that drove Gorbachev and others to try to reform certain aspects of the system while retaining its essence. This was doomed to failure, but the alternative, at best, was to preserve a Stalinist dinosaur economy fit at best for the 1950s or 1930s, but destined to fall progressively (and rapidly) further and further behind the West.
If you want a more sophisticated discussion of these issues, I suggest that you read Mancur Olson’s work on the USSR and the transition. It does not rely on the faux formalism of toy game theory models, but is far more persuasive. It recognizes the (evil) genius in the Stalinist incentive system, and lays out in a far more intelligent way the reasons that such a system is not sustainable. That is, understanding the way that this system worked (and other economic systems) makes it clear that the commitment to coercion was not credible over the long run. Harrison mentions the time consistency problem, but does not give it the attention it deserves. Olson does.
I could go on and on, but I have some professional advice for you: you’re fooling yourself if you believe that the Harrison model/article convincingly shows that the continuation of a simulacrum of the Soviet system was sustainable.
Oy, these Russophile arguments are exhausting. Let me just start with what SWP actually wrote about first (though less articulately) and then I’ll get on to the rest of it. SWP was talking about respect, not love. I don’t know how this got distorted amongst the comments. He defined respect (via Stephen Blank)as admiration and desire to emulate. This further means that the U.S. has often, throughout history, created institutions and methods that have been proven to be effective for building up an affluent, free society. Many nations have therefore respected these creations and have tried to install these very things into their own societies.
Russia, however, has sought respect through fear. This is basically a cheaper, weaker, more primitive form of “respect” that is hollow on the inside. Russia cannot be respected until they create institutions and methods that others want to use for their (and their own) betterment. Putin and his narod can whine all they want about respect, but if using fear is their method of choice, then Russia will only create acrimony, not cooperation, with their fellow stakeholders in the world. I can’t describe this in any other way but that it is a very deformed, inferior method of engagement.
As for the Ukaine demographics discussion, here we go again with the same tired style of argument. If a negative statement is made about Russia, then Russians find an example where the situation is worse to justify themselves. C’mon guys, this type of argument is a waste of time and proves nothing. Of course Ukraine is a disaster, there’s no secret here, but like we’ve said a million times before, we’re not talking about Ukraine here, we’re talking about Russia. You simply can’t solve problems with this type of argument.
As for supporting Ukraine, yes, the West does because we’ve actually seen glimmers of hope there sometimes. Once in a while, they actually seem to want to emulate some of the methods proven so successful in the West so that they can improve themselves. What’s wrong with that? After getting our hand slapped so many times by Russia, we just move on.
Now, about NATO rejecting Russia, give me a break. What do you guys want? You blame the West for intervening economically in the 90’s and you’re blaming the West for not intervening when it comes to NATO membership. You can’t have it both ways. Do you want us in or out? Should we provide a menu for you so that you can select which areas we get involved with and which we don’t? Do we have the right to wash our hands of it later if you make the wrong menu selections or should we still accept the blame when things didn’t turn out the way you hoped? Try to be consistent for once.
As for the actual plausibility of Russia becoming a NATO member back in the 90’s, this is another whopper. Even if you take away the ill will that had accumulated over decades between NATO and the Soviet Union, a whole other mess was still there. In order for Russia to become a NATO member, they would have had to actually reform their military and share military secrets. I find it hard to believe that Russia would do that. All NATO membership would be for Russia is a license to steal everything they could get from the far advanced Western military alliance. NATO would also have had to pour billions of dollars into Russia to fix a huge, backwards mess. We’d have to tell Russian officers that, no, they really can’t tell their soldiers to build houses for them, and you can’t steal weapons and defense budget funds. In fact, despite NATO refusal, we still poured billions of dollars into the Russian military simply to keep it afloat so that their nuclear arsenal remained safe. Russia never thanked us for that, by the way. I really wish people would think through this more carefully before they gripe about a complete fantasy of the West turning our backs on poor Russia. Russia couldn’t and wouldn’t become a NATO member. You already complain enough about how the West is supposedly conniving to control Russia. Could you imagine how much control we’d have now if you were in NATO? Please, please, try to separate fantasy from reality. Lastly, if you recall, NATO membership requires that you have settled border and sovereignty issues before you can enter. After all, isn’t that what you are saying about Georgia? Back in the 90’s, Russia hardly had a handle on those issues, so yet again, try to be consistent.
That’s all I have to say right now. Russia has problems that need to be fixed no matter how many people are dying in Ukraine or how high the inflation is in Zimbabwe.
Comment by Howard Roark — September 5, 2009 @ 8:49 pm
Thanks for that, Howard. Couldn’t have said it better myself. And because of the exhaustion you mentioned 😉 didn’t have it in me even to try, not this evening anyways. It gets kind of old climbing on the hamster wheel for another spin with the “We’re not the worst!” and “Whatabout” tropes.
You hit many nails on the head, esp. re the whole NATO fantasy/want it both ways thing. Thanks again.
“Deformed, inferior method of engagement.” Well put.
“As for the Ukaine demographics discussion, here we go again with the same tired style of argument. If a negative statement is made about Russia, then Russians find an example where the situation is worse to justify themselves. C’mon guys, this type of argument is a waste of time and proves nothing. Of course Ukraine is a disaster, there’s no secret here, but like we’ve said a million times before, we’re not talking about Ukraine here, we’re talking about Russia. You simply can’t solve problems with this type of argument.”
What this argument does do is show that The West has no workable solutions to Ukrainian problems. At All.
It is likely that the West has no solutions to Russian problems either.
Therefore the West should come to the conclusion that its values/models are not universally applicable, that it lacks adequate understanding of the Russian/Ukrainian situations, shut its mouth, and let Russians/Ukrainians get on with the job of dealing with their problems without having to listen to a pile of hypocritical and ineffective blather.
Clear enough?
Comment by rkka — September 5, 2009 @ 9:58 pm
The least Russia friendly of Ukrainian views has had the upper hand in the West (especially in North America).
They’re the minority of overall Ukrainian thinking. However, their clout in Ukraine and outside of it is greater than their actual numbers.
Sometimes the majority can be lax. Hence, the term “tyranny of the minority.”
Comment by Cutie Pie — September 5, 2009 @ 10:06 pm
rkka wrote:
†Ya know, there were ~52 million Ukrainians back when “Soviet Genocide†ended in 1991. There are now ~46 million, and deaths exceed births there by almost 250,000/year. That’s a ppulation loss closing in on 12%. I’m just wondering what’s he population loss level that’ll get people re-thinking the “goodness†of brekup the USSR/Ukrainian independence thing. 15%? 20%? 25%? 50%? â€
I wrote:
“rkka, so what is your conclusion?
Why do you think millions of Ukrainians die?
And why births in Russia are higher for the first 6 months of 2009 than they were for the corresponding period of 2008 ?
Are you suggesting that Ukrainians should go back into Russian Empire?
In comparison with Russian propaganda Hitler’s propaganda was simply innocent.”
Now I continue.
rkka, you have no answer. You stuck your tong into your far behind and keep your silence. Good. Now read the answers, you sob.
Millions of Ukrainians die because during Soviet times they were abused.
Because of Chernobyl disaster millions of Ukrainians were subject to nuclear radiation, and in the nearest couple of decades they will die.
Their lives were cut short not by current government, but by Soviet government.
Next question, “And why births in Russia are higher for the first 6 months of 2009 than they were for the corresponding period of 2008 ?”
Because the last year’s level was low. Those 850,000 babies, or 12 births per one thousand persons represent increase about 5% in comparison with the last year’s 11.5 babies per one thousand persons.
But more people will die than will be born. This year at least a million people will die in Russia.
But when most of the drunks die, statistics will improve, and they will celebrate that the drunks are gone. Actually, new drunks are growing up.
Next question, “Are you suggesting that Ukrainians should go back into Russian Empire?”
Now take your tong out of your far behind point and answer this question.
I can not answer it for you.
Also, I think that Russian agents should be rounded up and put in gas chambers. You, Sub, and pretty Cutie, – all in the same chamber.
Nothing wrong in this suggestion.
Comment by Michael Vilkin — September 6, 2009 @ 12:56 am
rkka wrote:
“What this argument does do is show that The West has no workable solutions to Ukrainian problems. At All.”
Well, Russia does have a solution. To swallow Ukraine, – again.
Dream on, you sob. The most you can do is to take Crimea.
That’s all you can take. Ukraine will join Europe, because Russia sucks.
Comment by Michael Vilkin — September 6, 2009 @ 1:06 am
That’s not the consensus in Ukraine black shirt.
Many there would see your views as sucking some big time ****.
Comment by Cutie Pie — September 6, 2009 @ 4:11 am
“Millions of Ukrainians die because during Soviet times they were abused.”
then how did Ukraine get to a population of ~52 million by 1992?
“Because of Chernobyl disaster millions of Ukrainians were subject to nuclear radiation, and in the nearest couple of decades they will die.”
Nearly all of it blew north. Ukraine got very little of the fallout, Belarus far more.
“Their lives were cut short not by current government, but by Soviet government.”
After 18 years of mis-governamce, the Soviet government is still responsible for everything. Pathetic.
“Because the last year’s level was low. Those 850,000 babies, or 12 births per one thousand persons represent increase about 5% in comparison with the last year’s 11.5 babies per one thousand persons.”
Actually, a birth rate of 11.5/1000 population is one of the higher birth rates of major European countries. Higher than Germany, Italy, Poland, and I could go on.
And a birth rate of 12/1000 population is the second highest of any major European country, exceeded only by France.
“But more people will die than will be born. This year at least a million people will die in Russia.”
True. However the gap is closing.
“Now take your tong out of your far behind point and answer this question.
I can not answer it for you.”
The solution is for Ukrainians to decide. It’s clear the West has no clue.
“Also, I think that Russian agents should be rounded up and put in gas chambers. You, Sub, and pretty Cutie, – all in the same chamber.
Nothing wrong in this suggestion.”
Boy, good thing Mr. Vilkin will never get close to having any power, and thus can safely indulge his fantasy life.
Comment by rkka — September 6, 2009 @ 5:52 am
Pretty Cutie, are you a blond?
Comment by Michael Vilkin — September 6, 2009 @ 9:05 am
Nope, she’s bald as a baby’s azz.
Comment by peter — September 6, 2009 @ 11:49 am
rkka wrote:
“After 18 years of mis-governamce, the Soviet government is still responsible for everything. Pathetic.”
rkka, most of Russian men die by age 65.
Who is to blame, – Soviets or Putin?
Comment by Michael Vilkin — September 6, 2009 @ 12:28 pm
Re-Chernobyl. The claims that “millions” will die prematurely do not stack up. From what I’ve read, most scientific analyses come to the conclusion that a few thousands will lose a couple of years or so in life expectancy.
@SWP,
Now that is a better and more nuanced argument than you initially made, and Harrison did indeed acknowledge in the paper that it was adverse trends such as these, for instance increases in the costs of monitoring, that forced “the dictator to give up”.
Gorbachev, I think it is safe to say, did not know that his policies – the cessation of economic coercion / decentralization, his breakdown of the barriers between “virtual money” and the cash economy, etc – would lead to Soviet collapse, instead of reinvigorating it. Perhaps that is the most convincing argument you could give for the “inevitability” of Soviet collapse – that the system itself was simply too myopic to imagine its own demise. But on the other hand this argument is an example of historical determinism, a concept with which you said you have major issues…
But here I cardinally disagree. Why not? The cessation of coercion was fundamentally the single greatest contributor to the Soviet collapse (although it is true that this cessation was influenced by the afore-mentioned stagnation). Both Cuba and North Korea survived, even despite their economic collapses, brought forth by the withdrawal of Soviet subsidies.
The argument can be made that IF greater coercion could have been made to work in the late 1980’s (whether that is so is perhaps debatable, considering the stultifying power of the nomenklatura), then the dictator could have cracked down hard on the corruption that was debilitating the USSR at the time, undertaken efficiency and organizational improvements that had previously been discarded because of concerns over upsetting entrenched interests and labor unrest, forcefully halted and started to reverse the structural militarization of the Soviet economy (freeing capital and R&D resourced for the civilian industrial base), etc.
I am also pretty sure that if it hadn’t been for the Soviet collapse, then Russia’s fertility would have remained at around replacement-level rates, its population now would be at around 160mn, and it would not face anywhere near the severity of near-future economic problems as the numbers of new people going into the labor force dwindle by 40% from, well, today, to the late 2010’s.
Why? It’s known that historically, very coercive governments tend to gradually relax and decay into corruption and crypto-politicking, but I’d imagine a manager working under a Stalinist regime would concern himself more with everyday matters, instead of thinking, let alone systematically taking into account, these political theories.
PS. I’ve made a note to acquaint myself better with Mancur Olson’s work.
Comment by Sublime Oblivion — September 6, 2009 @ 12:51 pm
Pretty Cutie, you used to be a blond (Peter, I appreciate your info), so let me refer to you as a “blondie”.
Blondie, why are you on the side of the Reds?
Come on the other side, to the brown shirts.
The difference is not very big.
Do you support the government takeover of the health care and end-of-life consultations as O’Bum sees it? I know you do, and I also support O’Bum on this particular issue.
Get this. Benito Mussolini would do exactly the same thing.
Extreme left (the Reds) and extreme right (fascists) have much more in common than written in sociology textbooks.
So, blondie, come on the other side.
Comment by Michael Vilkin — September 6, 2009 @ 12:58 pm
Sub,
To increase coercion and terror was not an option.
After ReaGUN started his Star Wars arms race, Soviets realized that they would lose the battle, – and they folded. Soviets admitted that the game was over.
In 1983 I was telling people that Soviet economy was not capable to win the Cold War. Soon after I started making those predictions I was invited to a local party office, where I had a conversation with two men. I still don’t know exactly who they were.
They asked me where I worked, – like they did not know, and what I though about Reagan initiative. I told them that Soviet system will not be able to win the Cold War because the system did not follow Leninist theory.
I told them that productivity of work was lower than in capitalist countries, and it means that socialist system is not completed yet.
In the US 3% of the population worked in the agricultural sector, but in Russia about 30% of the population worked in the agricultural sector, and we were still buying grain from the US. Because workers in collective farms were paid 1 (one ! ) ruble per day. That means, I said, that the first law of socialism (to everyone according to his labor contribution) was not followed. I said, principles of socialism should be followed.
I advised them not to believe me, but to ask Academy of Sciences.
One of them told me that they would communicate my suggestion to the higher levels, and, if I was wrong, I’d go to see a psych doctor.
Believe or not, economists of the Academy of Sciences did receive such a request. After that there was a panic in Politburo.
I told them what many people were saying.
Comment by Michael Vilkin — September 6, 2009 @ 1:30 pm
“Nope, she’s bald as a baby’s azz.”
peter, so hilariously true! Well, to those that have been paying attention anyways.
Comment by penny — September 6, 2009 @ 1:40 pm
Beats being the puppet of an anonymous bigot that’s on par with excrement.
Comment by Cutie Pie — September 6, 2009 @ 3:39 pm
Let’s see if I get this straight non-anonymous “Cutie Pie”, your parents named you “Cutie” and your dad’s surname was “Pie”?
Could someone help “Cutie Pie” aka Michael? (getting closer to home, baldy) out of the corner he hilariously has boxed himself into?
….“anyone? anyone? Bueller? Bueller?”……
Comment by penny — September 6, 2009 @ 5:37 pm
Penny, please take it easy and keep your hand off my new pal Cutie.
I said that extreme right and extreme left don’t differ very much, and she did not object.
Now we will recruit other totalitarians into the team.
Cutie, you recruit the Reds, and I will try to make brown shirts out of the Reds, just like Benito did.
Avanti, Cutie !
Comment by Michael Vilkin — September 6, 2009 @ 9:12 pm
I find it morbidly fascinating, although not at all surprising, that penny leaps to label folks like me or Cutie Pie fascist, while at the same time engaging in a civil, cooperative dialog with a real fascist scumbag like Michael Vilkin.
This indicates that she is a crypto-fascist and a hypocrite. Penny, please admit to your fascism, I’ll respect you (slightly) the more for your honesty.
Comment by Sublime Oblivion — September 7, 2009 @ 2:54 am
Sub, you commie piece of human trash…
What makes you think that Stalin was better than Mussolini?
Because Stalin killed, probably, one thousand times more political opponents than Mussolini?
No, you red rat, Marxist Socialism is not any better then Italian Fascism or even German National Socialism.
You say discussion? You can present only propaganda points you are supplied from Moskow. Who are you kidding, red rat?
Gentlemen and ladies on this forum, probably, can not tell you the real truth, that I’m right. It’s not politically correct to say that fascism was not that bad as red and pink propaganda – including here, in the US – says.
Cutie, you don’t pay attention to that Russian Rat, Sublime. He is red rat in four generations. His grandpa was distributing vodka to drunk sailors before the military coup of 1917.
Three quarters of those commissars were Jews. It was a Jewish Revolution done with brilliant marketing.
In a country where 90% of population was peasants, how can you sell an idea of dictatorship of proletariat?
You say impossible? No, Cutie, Jewish genius came up with a solution.
They wrote on the banners of socialism,
“Factories – to workers ! Land – to peasants ! ”
It was a brilliant marketing campaign.
And then, of course, vodka.
Now, Cutie, imagine that you live in Italy in 1920’s.
Red marketers are selling you an idea of bolshevic revolution, civil war, and workers’ paradise afterwords. Your mind is intoxicated with political vodka.
The reds are telling you to go on barricades.
Which side of the barricades would have you been?
I’m proud to say that I would have joined Benito Mussolini.
He was certainly right to reject bolshevic revolution, civil war, and destruction of the economy.
Cutie, now you are a red comrade with Italian name Cutti.
Will you stand up for Italy and join fascists, or will you continue to be on the side of that russian sob red rat SOBlime?
Comment by Michael Vilkin — September 7, 2009 @ 9:27 am
“Given Russia’s existential economic and social problems, this obsession with gangsta respect, and fixation on the past, is more than a little pathetic.â€
SOB lime, would you agree that Putin has criminal mentality?
In a criminal world, here or there, respect is everything.
American criminals like to say something like “You don’t disrespect people”, meaning don’t disrespect other criminals.
In Russia even ordinary people are obsessed with respect.
SOBlime, would you translate this conversation Russians usually have when they are drunk?
-Ты Ð¼ÐµÐ½Ñ ÑƒÐ²Ð°Ð¶Ð°ÐµÑˆÑŒ?
-Я Ñ‚ÐµÐ±Ñ Ñ‚Ð¾Ð¶Ðµ уважаю.
If SOB does not translate, it can be translated with Google Translate.
Putin has a mentality of Russian mafia’s made man, вор в законе.
That is why his dilemma is either to feared, or to be loved, and his choice is to be feared.
The third choice – to be respected in the world – is not in the options, because Putin has enough respect from other members of his criminal world.
Now, SOB lime, consult with Moskow about talking points.
Comment by Michael Vilkin — September 7, 2009 @ 11:45 am
….that penny leaps to label folks like me or Cutie Pie fascist, while at the same time engaging in a civil, cooperative dialog with a real fascist scumbag like Michael Vilkin.
Excuse me. Out of 41 comments here, want to point out where I’ve had a dialog with Michael Vilkin? On this thread or anywhere?
You are totally disingenuous, but, you knew that. I suggest you try another tact at discrediting me, you’ve revealed yourself as a dishonest games player.
Comment by penny — September 7, 2009 @ 1:42 pm
Penny, I don’t expect you to approve any version of fascism, even Italian.
But why don’t you say that communists are not better than fascists?
SOBlime is a communist, but because of your political correctness he feels very comfortable on this forum.
Comment by Michael Vilkin — September 7, 2009 @ 5:49 pm
“I’m proud to say that I would have joined Benito Mussolini.”
And followed his “leadership” from defeat to defeat to defeat.
Okay, so he was able to avenge Adowa. But against anyone armed with something more than spears and flintlocks, he fully earned the name “Sawdust Caesar”.
Fer instance, he spent collossal sums rebuilding Cavour, Cesare, Doria, and Dulio, and further fortunes on Littorio, Vittoria Veneto, Impero, and Roma, all with oil firing, of which Italy hasn’t a drop. The world’s shiniest set of Dockyard Queens.
Whut a hoot!!!
Comment by rkka — September 7, 2009 @ 8:06 pm
penny, I said cooperative dialog – in that you join rhetorical forces to attack Cutie Pie, not that you necessarily talk to each other. In other words, you ally yourself with a self-confessed fascist against someone whose only “crime” is to have different opinions on the post-Soviet space from yours. This is a strong indication of crypto-fascism, amongst many others that you exhibited in the past.
Comment by Sublime Oblivion — September 8, 2009 @ 2:16 pm
Hmm, I think there are two points to be made that invalidate the arguments advanced in the post.
The first, and easiest, is the ‘respect’ one: who says that Russia wants it? I am sure that Russia wants its security (in defence, trade, etc) to be respected, but that is not the same as being respected. Where does the assertion that Russia wants the latter form of respect, an assertion that appears over and over, come from? What is it backed up by?
The second point, about ‘coming clean’ and finding Russia’s Willy Brandt, is absurd. Russians are informed of their country’s history, including its Soviet history. Its interpretion is, in some cases, a source of controversy, and some of its points are moot, but nobody says that things that happened din’t happen. The difference from Germany, and hence the lack of a need of a willy Brandt, is that the Germans for most part either welcomed the Nazis, or did nothing to resist them. The German made no substantial attempt to resist Nazism (and no, the attempt to blow up Hitler at the eleventh hour does not count), and instead were quite happy to fight in the Nazis wars, benefit from the pillaging of other countries, and their less fortunate Jewish countrymen. I believe the facts concerning Russi’s resistance to Communist rule are too well known to be repeated, but the main thing is that the Russians were the victims, not benefiaciries or abettors of the communist regime. Ergo, they cannot be held culpable for the regimes’ crimes, unlike the Germans, who most certainly can.
Comment by SK — September 9, 2009 @ 2:15 pm
SK
Check this spin out:
http://www.fresnobee.com/554/story/1631258.html
When the Russian government does something that would otherwise seem positive to its critics, some find fault.
On the other hand, when others like the Ukrainian government are discussed, one is hard pressed to find fault when the OUN/UPA are honored by Yushchenko’s presidency.
The Germans started to turn more against Hitler when the Nazi war effort was in decline. Its defeat further enhanced that aspect.
Such is human nature. In the US, opposition to the Vietnam War increased when that conflict showed signs of becoming especially problematical.
During WW II, the West supported Stalin, whose country played a leading role in the defeat of Nazism.
Russia’s post-Soviet transformation remains ongoing.
Comment by Cutie Pie — September 10, 2009 @ 4:44 am
[…] Streetwise Professor » R-E-S-P-E-C-T a la RusseBelieve it or not, US Army War College historian of Russia Stephen Blank and I are not twins, separated at birth, though you might get that impression reading what we write. We do, however, share a University of Chicago background, … Latest case in point, … While I would not have recommended the OSCE resolution, […]
Pingback by C russe | ChristianWarner — March 5, 2011 @ 3:58 pm