In Which We Learn New Things About Russia

Edwin wrote:

Fixed.

Thanks!

SwampYankee wrote:

So I guess the next logical question would be:

Is it possible that Putin or other in government see the skinheads as potential brownshirts for a russian nationalist movement.

Yeah, probably.

I'd heard of these guys before. It's similar to the urban skinheads in America -- in that it's largely due to resentment over competition for jobs in a pretty rough economic situation.

The saddest thing about Putin is that he does know everything. Countless times he has demonstrated a very sharp command of current statistics, exceptional familiarity with minute affairs both domestic and foreign, sharp memory, and up-to-dateness with media reports (or what's left mattering of it). He's a KGB spook, with a cabinet filled with KGB spooks. He damn knows what's going on in the country.

He's my favorite super-villain.

CNN is saying the neo-nazi random beatings is a big problem in Israel too.

Edwin wrote:

CNN is saying the neo-nazi random beatings is a big problem in Israel too.

What the f*ck?

Man, foreigners are crazy!

I don't know how to intro this so I'll just link it.

Putin Takes Questions

MOSCOW, Oct. 18 "” President Vladimir V. Putin used a three-hour session in which he answered questions from the Russian people on Thursday to reiterate his criticism of the Bush administration's missile-defense plan, its stance on Iran and the Iraq war.

Mr. Putin also waded into domestic issues, trying to tamp down fears of rising inflation and saying that he wanted a powerful Parliament in place after legislative elections in December. But he did not offer any hint about whom he would endorse to be his successor as president when his term ends next year.

Mr. Putin announced this month that he would lead United Russia, the party that he created and that dominates the political landscape, in the parliamentary elections and that he might become prime minister after his term as president ends.

As he has in previous years, Mr. Putin displayed a detailed knowledge of numerous topics as he spoke before a live television audience and answered questions from Russians around the country, some delivered live, some phoned in or sent by e-mail.

Officials said more than 2.5 million questions were submitted; the president answered more than 50 of them. The questions were screened in advance. While many people expressed concern about specific issues "” including housing, the cost of food and the quality of health care "” none of the questions that were answered during the session were overtly hostile to Mr. Putin.

Edwin wrote:

I don't know how to intro this so I'll just link it.

Until I saw a pulled-back view, I could have sworn she was older than 13. She's got a lot of memories.

Mr. Putin also waded into domestic issues, trying to tamp down fears of rising inflation and saying that he wanted whatever branch he's going to be in charge of to be the most powerful branch after legislative elections in December.

Gorilla.800.lbs wrote:

The saddest thing about Putin is that he does know everything. Countless times he has demonstrated a very sharp command of current statistics, exceptional familiarity with minute affairs both domestic and foreign, sharp memory, and up-to-dateness with media reports (or what's left mattering of it). He's a KGB spook, with a cabinet filled with KGB spooks. He damn knows what's going on in the country.

The thing is, ever since the chaos that ensued in 1991, I've been hoping that Russia would shift into the hands of someone strong, sane, and sober. Putin is strong and sober, and 2 out of 3 is not bad.

Putin has to deal with a lot of issues with Islamo-fascists on his doorstep, yet he still manages to be buddies with Iran. And the responsibilty and blame for Afghanistan's state seems to someohoe have mysteriously shifted from the USSR and its offspring to us.

Maybe it is just me but Russia's diplomacy makes the US' look ham-fisted and slow-witted.

Maybe the concept of "Islamo-fascism" is not an accurate one to describe the factions and countries involved. And it's pretty easy to shift blame for Afghanistan when we A) allied with Pakistan, the country responsible for the Taliban; and B) shifted our attention to Iraq before we'd "solved" Afghanistan, leaving the job undone and allowing the situation to deteriorate with relative neglect.

Putin's had to do very little in either case. Bear in mind that Iran is threatened by Al Quaeda, to the point of offering us some high-level AQ operatives in 2002/2003 in return for a rapprochement. We turned them down. And we have actually given money to AQ-associated groups in Lebanon in return for pressure on Iranian-sponsored militias.

So the use of the term "Islamo-fascists" obscures the important relationships and, yes, nuances that matter in the region. Putin's diplomacy is not genius; instead, for years (before Condi, really) our was idiocy. I'd say Condi is an average Secretary of State, which puts her at the very high end of competency in this Administration. It's unfortunate she's up against Cheney in the policy arena.

It may do as you describe, but from what I understand of their goals, it seems appropriate to me.

Russia's Rioting. Gary Kasparov was on Real Time with Bill Maher last Friday.

Forgive me, but whose goals? The Saudis? Al Qaeda? Iran? Pakistani border tribes? Indonesia? Libya? Somalian fundamentalists? British terrorists? Afghan muslims? I mean, they can't *all* have the same objectives, but it seems like at one time or another, they've all had the label slapped on them.

I'd agree with "jihadism" for Al Qaeda, but I think Islamofascism is just a made up word to allow us to associate our far-flung police, intel and military operations against terrorists and states with the WWII fight against real fascists.

Robear wrote:

Forgive me, but whose goals? The Saudis? Al Qaeda? Iran? Pakistani border tribes? Indonesia? Libya? Somalian fundamentalists? British terrorists? Afghan muslims? I mean, they can't *all* have the same objectives, but it seems like at one time or another, they've all had the label slapped on them.

I'd agree with "jihadism" for Al Qaeda, but I think Islamofascism is just a made up word to allow us to associate our far-flung police, intel and military operations against terrorists and states with the WWII fight against real fascists.

"A form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion." [Robert O. Paxton, "The Anatomy of Fascism," 2004]

While some of what you said I'll stipulate to - the expressed desire of many of these groups to create fundamental Islamic states and to then to bring that same religion to the rest of the world - or to attack any country that does not share their belief system qualifies them as fascist in my book. So to answer simply, any group that proclaims that desire by word or deed to me = Islamofascist. In the instant case I was referring to the Chechens.

Note that traditional fascism is nationalist in origin and co-opts the existing power structures. The Islamic groups that are usually called fascists extend to ordinary authoritarianism in most cases, even Saudi Arabia, with it's desire to export Wahabbi Islam. Al Qaeda seeks the imposition of a religious caliphate - quite un-fascist in it's goals, and anyway it's immediate goals are to destroy US influence in the Middle East and destabilize secular governments in traditionally Islamic states.

I think we are projecting our own fears when we ascribe to the enemy the characteristics of incredible fanaticism, unbelievable capabilities and the desire to literally take over the world. This lets us ignore the fact that the terror groups are small and consist mostly of uneducated fighters who at best can be used as insurgents, but are perhaps best suited to the bomb belt. The state actors tend to be poor countries which talk big.

I honestly think we suffer more damage every year from Colombian drug lords and their effects on American cities - murders, addictions and the like. They actually do take over states - like Al Qaeda did once, but they've done it multiple times and still do - and they are efficient at placing covert networks in countries all over the world. They murder thousands if not more every year, perhaps every month. They are far more effective than all the Islamic groups combined and yet we don't have an irrational fear of them.

We can beat the Islamic terrorists. We already have a handle on the states and have for decades, modulo problems like Palestine. The threat we face outside of Iraq and Afghanistan is tiny compared to others we've faced down in the past and will do in the future.

So why do we have to grab the name of the biggest threat of the 20th century and promote these primitives with their 13th century world-view into a threat worthy of World War III? I don't buy it. We're being led by the nose into a policy of changing the world to fit a particularly narrow Christian worldview, and with Bush's "you are with us, or against us" declarations of 2001 and later, we actually come very close to your own definition of the enemy. It pains me to point it out, but this sloganeering is perhaps a way to excuse our attempts to adopt the world-changing approach that we fear in others, and apply it to the world in the name of self-defense.

I think we could do a lot more with a lot less effort if we didn't allow ourselves to fear people who, hated in their own mainstream, have to live in hovels in foreign lands and blow themselves up to get attention. Is this what we are reduced to? 300 million give up their rights and shuffle shoeless through sophisticated detectors on trips from Idaho to Illinois because we are afraid of what happened once 6 years ago? This is America?

Islamofascism must be *really* something. Because if it's not, we've *really* been sold a bill of goods.

From The Onion's Our Dumb World:

IMAGE(http://img337.imageshack.us/img337/4320/imgfn9.jpg)

If we shaved his head, we`d see a barcode tatoo for sure

And in the recent parliament elections, Putin's United Russia party won the absolute majority of seats in a landslide.
Re-affirming Putin's popularity, two independent polls captured the following statistics:

- 77% of people would welcome him Running for the 3rd term
- among those, 20% would not mind bending the Constitution to allow that

The problem is not so much in Putin, as you can see, as in the Russkie themselves.

Just to add some levity to this sad subject, here's a piece of shmaltzy Russian pop which I can't get out of my head lately.

A very good article in Time magazine, book-ending their rubric about Putin as the Man of The Year 2007.

The Russian arc of the story in World War Z makes so much sense.

Don't stop posting this stuff, 'rilla, very interesting.

"It was when Yeltsin was naming him as his successor [during a live New Year's Eve TV broadcast in 1999]. My soul exploded with joy! 'An ubermensch! God himself has chosen him!'" I cried.

"Yeltsin was the destroyer, and God replaced him with his creation," claimed Fontinya.

The sect possesses a President Putin icon that Fontinya claims miraculously appeared one day.

"He has given us everything," she said, pointing to the sky.

Russian sect prays to Putin icons.

Telling ya, the advent of the Holy Russian Empire from World War Z is at hand, sans the zombies.

From the Man of the Year thread:

Gorilla.800.lbs wrote:

These things are as central and as permeating to the Russian psyche as, for example, Confucianism is to the Far East. However, very little attempt is usually made to take that into account, much less to understand it.

I think part of the problem in the West trying to understand Russia (and I tend to believe at least that many folks in and around Russia have a similar confusion) is that Russia hasn't settled on this "national idea." The history of Russia culturally is one of vacillation between stubborn cultural pride and a similarly passionate embrace of western culture. It seems that, over the course of hundreds of years, the rulers of Russia repeatedly and predictably switch from iron curtains to mandatory beard shaving and powdered wigs. The fact that the "search" article in Time mentions eating fried sturgeon while drinking Red Label and then goes on to confuse this with Russian cultural traditions only serves to drive the point home for me.

Alien Love Gardener wrote:
"It was when Yeltsin was naming him as his successor [during a live New Year's Eve TV broadcast in 1999]. My soul exploded with joy! 'An ubermensch! God himself has chosen him!'" I cried.

"Yeltsin was the destroyer, and God replaced him with his creation," claimed Fontinya.

The sect possesses a President Putin icon that Fontinya claims miraculously appeared one day.

"He has given us everything," she said, pointing to the sky.

Russian sect prays to Putin icons.

You know, this is quite typical of Russia, the mix-up of politics and the traditional Christian orthodoxy (communism tried to switch itself with the Church on purpose, actually, especially at its very dawn in the 1920s). The same happened with Lenin, people in the villages have been building him shrines. And to these days Stalin's portraits serve Georgian drivers as a good luck charm in their cars, protecting them from harm. The feeling that the rulers are sent and empowered by God permeated the country for centuries and is still strong in rural Russia, hence the prayers to all-powerful Putin.

RISE FROM YOUR GRAVE!

Kremlin To Rig Election

The Kremlin is planning to falsify the results of this Sunday's presidential election in Russia by compelling millions of public sector workers to vote and by fraudulently boosting the official turnout after polls close, the Guardian has learned.

Governors, regional officials, and even headteachers have been instructed to deliver a landslide majority for Dmitry Medvedev - Russia's first deputy prime minister, whom President Vladimir Putin has endorsed to be his successor.

Officials have been told they need to secure a 68% to 70% turnout in this weekend's poll - with around 72% casting votes for Medvedev. However, independent analysts believe the real turnout will be much lower - with between 25% and 50% of the electorate taking part.

The Kremlin is planning to bridge the gap by the use of widespread fraud, diplomats and other independent sources have told the Guardian. Local election officials are preparing to stuff ballot boxes once the polls have closed with unused ballots, they believe, with regional officials also giving inflated tallies to Russia's central election commission.

Additionally, public sector workers including teachers, students, and doctors have been told to vote on Sunday or risk losing their jobs or university places. Parents have even been warned at parents' meetings that if they fail to turn up their children might suffer at school.

Marina Dashenkova, a spokeswoman for the Golos independent poll-monitoring organisation, said complaints to its hotline were following a similar pattern to those during Russia's rigged parliamentary poll in December. Forced use of absentee ballots, pressure on state workers and the banned use of state resources to promote Medvedev were the most common complaints, she said.

Renat Suleymanov, secretary of the Communist Party in the Novosibirsk region, said byudzhetniki (state workers) in schools, libraries, kindergartens and doctors' clinics as well as employees of private companies were "coming under intense pressure from the authorities" to vote in tightly controlled conditions at their place of work using absentee ballots.

Also in Novosibirsk, opposition websites published a letter from mayoral officials to health service chiefs and doctors, describing how they should monitor and report back on the voting of their subordinates.

In Vladivostok, Vladimir Bespalov, a deputy in the local parliament, said he had acquired a document showing bureaucrats were given an order to ensure a 65% turnout and a vote of more than 65% for Medvedev.

The document laid out precise figures to be achieved in certain districts, he told reporters, with some expected to deliver 88% for the Kremlin candidate. "Clearly, we are talking about instructions to bureaucrats who are expected to deliver a victory for Medvedev that corresponds to pre-planned results," he said. "According to my information, if these figures are not reached then the people responsible can expect punishment right up to being sacked."

As an aside, there's a great article in The Economist this week about Russia's economic state and future.

I always hear his name as "Medvyedyoff", is that correct? At least the NPR Russian correspondents say it that way.

I hear turnout is low, and anecdotal reports in news interviews indicate that workers are being pushed by their bosses to vote for Medvedev. Bad situation, but very Russian. Urra!