• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Medvedev: Russia may target missile defense sites

Not an optomistic timeline by any means. The 50 years being discussed here takes Russia past the demographic collapse, and Russians in desparate straights have already expressed their preference for the "man on the white horse":

http://pjmedia.com/claudiarosett/the-long-rough-awakening-of-russia/?singlepage=true

The Long Rough Awakening of Russia
December 24, 2011 - 7:02 pm - by Claudia Rosett
     
Twenty years ago this Christmas day, Mikhail Gorbachev gave a speech announcing “I hereby discontinue my activities at the post of President of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.” And with that, the totalitarian and murderous construct of the USSR, already uncoupled earlier that month by Russian President Boris Yeltsin and the presidents of Ukraine and Belarus, was no more.

These were monumental events. Yet so tumultuous is the world right now that the 20th anniversary of the Soviet collapse is figuring as little more than a footnote in the news. In Russia itself, the events of the hour are the protests against the reign of Vladimir Putin, with tens of thousands of people bravely demonstrating in the freezing streets, alleging foul play in the recent parliamentary elections and, as the AFP reports, carrying banners with slogans such as “We woke up and this is only the beginning.”

If so, it has been a long beginning. Twenty years have passed since Russia officially embarked on its awakening. An entire new generation has come of age, and the years since Christmas of 1991 have been filled with trouble, disappointments, crude grabs for Russia’s colossal natural resources, the fading of freedoms once promised, and the rise of a new autocracy. There would be room for a more joyous celebration of the Soviet collapse, were there less call to deplore a great deal of what has followed.

But I would not give up on Russia, or at least on the Russians.

An anecdote: In 1993, I arrived in Russia to work as a foreign correspondent at the Wall Street Journal‘s Moscow bureau. It was a queasy time, fascinating but difficult. No one knew quite what the rules were anymore. Nothing worked the way one wanted it to. As one source explained it to me, no one even knew anymore whom to bribe.

There came a cold, gray miserable evening in the early autumn of 1993, during the standoff between Yeltsin and the Soviet-installed old parliament, when I was alone in the bureau — and the power went out. Yet another bout of news was breaking about the endless tussles in the Kremlin, and I had just a few hours to find out whatever I could, and file a story to the foreign desk in New York. The office was freezing, and without electricity the TASS machine had gone dead, the satellite phone was on the fritz, and the lights were out. I managed to place some phone calls, using the erratic Russian phone lines. Then, in my frustration, I made a call to the U.S., to seek some wisdom from an old family friend, economist Douglass North — who later that year received the Nobel Prize for his work on the interactions of economic and institutional change.

To my astonishment, the call went through. I reached Douglass North, and gave him a rundown on what I was witnessing in Russia. Then I asked him how long it would take before Russia might become a normal, free and, democratic society — in which both the utilities and the political institutions really worked. I was hoping against hope for an answer with a time horizon within the decade or so.

North replied: “Oh, about 50 years.”

He went on to explain that when a society has been through something as monumentally destructive as decades of Soviet rule, it can take generations to turn around the implicit rules, and create truly functional democratic institutions. I asked if there were any chance it might go faster. He said that even with luck and wisdom, it would take at least another generation coming of age.

Here we are, a generation later. The trajectory does not look good. How rough it might yet become is a big and terrible question, and the folly of expecting any simple “reset” in Russian state policy — whether foreign or domestic — should be brutally clear. But something other than Putinism is simmering in Russia. If, in this long and turbulent story, it comes to something good, that awakening began with the end of the USSR. For that, among so many other reasons, we can honor this day.

 
The same petrodollars that help us also help Russia. The only problem is Russia uses her petrodollars against us:

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2012/02/24/resource-curse-works-for-putin/

Resource Curse Works for Putin

The West knows Vladimir Putin as a cold, calculating strategist, but in the run-up to this spring’s presidential elections, he has been putting on a different persona. Over the past few weeks, he’s made a number of generous promises, from increased salaries for public employees to cheaper healthcare. As a result, his once iffy poll numbers have been steadily rising. Most pollsters now estimate that Putin would avoid a runoff if the election were held today.

The rising price of oil lies just behind these promises. Rising energy prices may be political poison for American politicians, but it’s just the reverse in Russia, filling state coffers and funding new rounds of government giveaways to keep a restless population happy. The FT estimates that Putin needs oil to be at least $80 a barrel to keep this system functioning smoothly. Fortunately for Putin, oil prices are currently around $120 per barrel, and may go even higher due to the situation with Iran.

Besides relieving pressures for democratic change, high oil prices have another effect as well: Russian foreign policy gets a lot tougher.
This is a great example of the resource curse at work.
 
Vladimir Putin's legacy. The problem is now that he has acheived what the voters want, they are starting to move in a different direction that what Putin sees as the way forward:

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2012/03/02/lawrence-solomon-vladimir-the-great/

Lawrence Solomon: Vladimir the Great
Lawrence Solomon  Mar 2, 2012 – 9:23 PM ET | Last Updated: Mar 3, 2012 12:50 AM ET

After centuries of serfdom, Putin has delivered prosperity

On Sunday, Vladimir Putin will be re-elected Russia’s President, likely by a margin so large that he’ll have no need to rig the election. By the end of this next term, which ends in 2016, he will have served more than four terms as either president or prime minister and as Russia’s sole de facto leader of the 21st century. In the unlikely event that he would then choose to retire, he would do so arguably as the country’s greatest leader since the magnificent czars of the 17th century, Peter the Great and Catherine the Great.

Putin’s stunning and prolonged popularity, as vouched for in numerous Russian and U.S. public opinion polls, exceeds anything seen in the Western democracies. Aside from a 2011 decline from which he is rebounding, his favourables never fell below 65% and often exceeded 80%, his unfavourables were often in the 20s and even in the teens. Women especially swoon over his macho photo-ops, but they aren’t alone. Putin is popular with most Russian demographics — rich, poor, young, old, Russian, ethnic, as well as male, female — and for good reason. After centuries of serfdom and privation under the czars, after decades of central planning and privation under the Communists, and after a decade of chaos and privation in the 1990s, Putin has delivered stability and prosperity.

By the end of 2006, the midpoint of his reign to date, his reputation was made. Russia’s GDP had almost tripled over the previous four years while its reserves had increased more than six-fold, the ruble was strong, inflation had been halved, the economy was growing at 7%, almost everyone had been made better off. Despite the recent recession which hit Russia’s energy-dependent economy especially hard — GDP plummeted by 8% in 2009 — Russia soon bounced back and it now boasts the world’s third-fastest growing economy. All told, since Putin came to power at the end of 1999, per-capita GDP rose an estimated six-fold, according to the IMF, and real disposable income is at its highest level ever.

That economic record, which including earning Russia elite membership as a G8 country, would be reason enough to re-elect anyone, but Putin has even more going for him: the restoration of Russian pride. After the fall of the Soviet Empire, Russians to their immense shame lost their superpower status as well as many of their satellite states, becoming a demoralized nation that the West could push around at will.



No more. Under Putin, Russia is once again flexing its muscles, hammering secessionist rebellions in Chechnya, invading neighbouring Georgia, putting its former satellite Ukraine in its place, forcing the U.S. to abandon its plans to install missile defences in Poland and Czech Republic, and quashing U.S. plans for Syria through a UN veto and by stationing a Russian aircraft carrier off Syria’s shores. What the West sees as bullying or even “despicable,” to quote Hillary Clinton’s characterization of the Russian UN veto, the Russian public generally sees as admirable and honourable. While the Obama administration is considering dramatic contractions in military spending, including an 80% reduction in its deployed nuclear weapons arsenal, Putin is running for re-election on a promise to bulk up Russia’s military capabilities, including its nuclear weapons.

The upshot? Despite his regime’s less-than-honourable attributes, such as rampant corruption and short life spans for too-curious reporters, Putin is expected to win as much as 66% of the vote in Sunday’s election, some 50 percentage points ahead of his nearest rival, at 15%. With the world coming out of recession and needing more of Russia’s oil and gas — these account for nearly two-thirds of Russia’s export revenue, half or more of the government’s budget, and as much as 30% of the country’s GDP — it is easy to foresee continued prosperity in Putin’s fourth term.

It is also easy to foresee a Russian economic collapse thereafter, following a collapse in oil and gas prices.

Until recently, the U.S. was the world’s largest importer of natural gas. It is now becoming a major natural gas exporter, thanks to new gas fracking technology that has unearthed vast new supplies. The U.S. remains the world’s largest importer of oil. It may soon become an exporter of oil, thanks to oil fracking technology that could make the U.S. the world’s largest oil producer.

China, now a major importer of oil and gas, has the world’s second largest known potential for frackable hydrocarbons, which it is now developing. European countries such as Poland, Ukraine and Great Britain also have vast reserves of frackable hydrocarbons, giving Europe as a whole the prospect of self sufficiency in energy, particularly since European countries on the Mediterranean have only begun to exploit the vast deposits of conventional oil and gas that lie beneath the sea bed. These immense new sources of oil and gas would flood international markets and act to depress the revenues that the Russia economy now relies on, as would major new finds of conventional oil and gas in Africa and South America.

Putin’s formula for economic success has been the same as that of Peter the Great and Catherine the Great: import Western technology to develop Russia’s raw resources for export, mostly under the tight rein of Russian state control. Neither of the 18th-century czars nor their successors liberated the Russian economy, leaving it backward and ultimately vulnerable, despite Russia’s immense natural wealth. Putin’s Russia will be doomed to the same fate, if in his remaining terms he follows in the footsteps of his illustrious predecessors.

Financial Post
Lawrence Solomon is executive ­director of Energy Probe.
 
I, for one, still believe that and incredible amount of resources will be discovered in eastern Russia, some that will dwarf even the oilsands in Ft. McMurray and mineral deposits in the Ontario shield.  It may not happen in our lifetime, but I'm sure given the similarities in our landscapes that it is there.  Think Tom Clancy's "The Bear and the Dragon".  And there's a whole lot of space north of China for them to move into.....we might be on the outside ring of two very large combatants.

It will be interesting to see how that affects things.
 
RDJP said:
I, for one, still believe that and incredible amount of resources will be discovered in eastern Russia, some that will dwarf even the oilsands in Ft. McMurray and mineral deposits in the Ontario shield.  It may not happen in our lifetime, but I'm sure given the similarities in our landscapes that it is there.  Think Tom Clancy's "The Bear and the Dragon".  And there's a whole lot of space north of China for them to move into.....we might be on the outside ring of two very large combatants.

It will be interesting to see how that affects things.


I'm repeating myself, but ...

In every Chinese school I have visited (a fair few) there is a big decorative world map in the main hallway - some are painted, some are mosaics, some are, really, quite beautiful. China is always bright red, the areas around China - Japan, Korea, Burma, Viet Nam, etc - are all in lighter shades of red or pink. Russia is usually in two colours - Eastern Russia, the part in Asia (East of the Yenisei River) is always coloured pale red or pink - just a shade less red than Mongolia. The Chinese regard Eastern Siberia as being East Asian and they regard East Asia as being within their sphere of influence.

My understanding is that the Chinese are willing (and able) to buy everything known or yet to be discovered in Eastern Siberia but they have cautioned the Russians that they, the Chinese, are not Europeans: Russia will not be allowed to cut off deliveries just because they are upset with some foreign policy matter - as long as the Chinese are paying they will demand full, on time delivery, without question.
 
E.R. Campbell said:
I'm repeating myself, but ...

In every Chinese school I have visited (a fair few) there is a big decorative world map in the main hallway - some are painted, some are mosaics, some are, really, quite beautiful. China is always bright red, the areas around China - Japan, Korea, Burma, Viet Nam, etc - are all in lighter shades of red or pink. Russia is usually in two colours - Eastern Russia, the part in Asia (East of the Yenisei River) is always coloured pale red or pink - just a shade less red than Mongolia. The Chinese regard Eastern Siberia as being East Asian and they regard East Asia as being within their sphere of influence.

My understanding is that the Chinese are willing (and able) to buy everything known or yet to be discovered in Eastern Siberia but they have cautioned the Russians that they, the Chinese, are not Europeans: Russia will not be allowed to cut off deliveries just because they are upset with some foreign policy matter - as long as the Chinese are paying they will demand full, on time delivery, without question.

Yup. China has no need at all to engage in expensive military conquest. They've got the 'state capitalism' thing absolutely down pat. They'll pick their corporate champions and buy what they can. With that said, Russia is also getting better at this game, so they'll be reticent to let China get their nose too far under the tent flap.

There are far too many direct foreign investment friendly jurisdictions (like us) for China to be bothered with wars of conquest. Those are too easily lost, and too hard to win these days if your goal is stable control and supply of resources. Russia could be expected to defend its resource base fiercely.
 
Dr Rice on how changing values of the Russian population may make Vladimir Putin's rule more difficult:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/how-russias-urban-middle-class-can-bring-an-end-to-putinism/2012/03/08/gIQA1FL1zR_print.html

The promise of Russia’s urban middle class
By Condoleezza Rice, Published: March 8

The election of the once and future president of the Russian Federation, Vladimir Putin, tempts one to despair that the brief and inspiring political awakening in Russia over the past year was for naught. He has gotten his way — replacing his protege Dmitry Medvedev and reclaiming the Kremlin to solidify authoritarianism and political stagnation.

But this victory may be both Putin’s last and the final one for Putinism. The future turns on the behavior of a rising Russian middle class that is integrated into the world and alienated by the Kremlin’s corrupt politics.

I first went to the Soviet Union in 1979 as a graduate student. I was immediately struck by how Soviet citizens walked along — looking at their feet. This was a frightened and cowed population, many of whom remembered firsthand the oppression and violence of Stalinism. Repression casts a long historical shadow.

When Putin took office, he reestablished the arbitrary power of the state — destroying the independence of the judiciary; appointing governors rather than voters electing them; and all but closing down independent television. Several journalists who challenged the authorities — such as Anna Politkovskaya — paid the ultimate price for doing so.

But Soviet-style repression it wasn’t — neither in its brutality nor its reach into the general population. Few now remember those darker days. Moreover, while television became the Kremlin’s mouthpiece, the Internet flourished as a place where alternative voices were heard.

At a meeting with young entrepreneurs during a visit to Moscow as secretary of state in 2007, I voiced concern about the absence of independent media. One young man stopped me, saying, “Who watches television? We’re all on the Internet.”

He might have added that all of them had worked outside Russia — in global law, consulting and accounting firms. More than half of them had studied abroad in prestigious business schools in Europe and the United States.

These young people are a relatively small percentage of Russia’s population. But look around Moscow, St. Petersburg or even Vladivostok: There is a burgeoning urban middle class who own their apartments, furnish them at Ikea and spoil their children at McDonald’s. They, too, have become accustomed to normal lives and have different expectations for the future.

Putin has staked his legitimacy on prosperity and order, but he seemed not to understand that a prosperous population would demand respect, too. In declaring that he would be president again and then engaging in election fraud during the December parliamentary voting, he insulted the Russian people. Many are fed up with a political system that sometimes behaves more like a natural resources syndicate than a national government.

It is not yet clear whether change will be revolutionary or evolutionary. If the powers that be read the lessons of the past year and make even modest reforms, they might give their people a great gift, one that knows no antecedent in Russian history: peaceful change. If they do not, conflict is inevitable. And Russia’s experience with revolution is not pretty.

Much depends on who capitalizes on the thirst for change. As daily protests wane, the hard work of political organizing must begin. In this regard, the liberal, or “right,” forces (as they are known) need to address the Russian people’s concrete economic and social concerns. Too often movements have rallied around a strong personality with minimal connection to the population’s aspirations. This time the liberals have a ready-made constituency in the rising middle class and its youthful vanguard. They cannot waste this opportunity.

Otherwise, the standard-bearers of change could be radical nationalists, even warmed-over communists who might well tap into the growing dissatisfaction but replace it with xenophobia and, ultimately, a rejection of democratic principles.

Do we have any influence in the outcome? Some, though not much. Certainly, we should speak even louder for respect for human rights and the rule of law. Undoubtedly, lower oil prices would rob the Kremlin of the easy money that fuels corruption, personal fortunes and authoritarianism. This is yet another compelling argument for developing North America’s significant sources of energy.

A Russia that fully develops its human capital, not just its resources in the ground, has the potential to make a real contribution to a more prosperous world. Medvedev once told me, “Russia has more excellent software engineers and mathematicians than any place in the world.” I held my tongue and didn’t answer, “Yes, but they are working in Palo Alto and Tel Aviv.” If they find work in Moscow and commit to its future, these Russians can make a difference. We can cultivate ties in the public and private sectors with these people. Diversification of the economy can also be assisted by Russian accession to the World Trade Organization, which should be supported.

For centuries Russia’s great-power status has largely rested on military might, natural resources, intimidation of its neighbors and suspicion of the outside world. U.S. foreign policy — “reset” or not — has not changed that reality because its foundation has been the character of Russia’s internal politics. How refreshing it would be if the Kremlin’s power were based on the creativity of its people — a not-so-farfetched idea for a nation that has produced extraordinary achievements in the arts and basic sciences throughout its troubled history.

A new generation of Russians has loudly voiced its insistence on respect from those who would govern — perhaps even demanding that they consent to be governed. We have a stake in their success and an obligation to help them achieve it.
 
Latest out of Russia...

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/05/03/nato-missile-shield-will-be-met-with-pre-emptive-strikes-russia-warns/
 
Russians protest the swearing in of Vladimir Putin:

http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/blog/vladimir-kara-murza/mass-protests-putin-inauguration

Mass Protests at Putin Inauguration
10 May 2012

As Vladimir Putin’s armored motorcade traveled the short distance from the Government House to the Kremlin on May 7th, downtown Moscow looked postapocalyptic, like something from a Hollywood movie. The city was deserted: not only the immediate route of the motorcade, but also the neighboring streets, central squares, and nearby metro stations were sealed off to the public. Residents along the route were forbidden to leave their apartments. Some 20,000 police and interior ministry forces occupied Moscow to protect the president-“elect” from his voters.

A day earlier, between 50,000 and 100,000 people marched through Bolshaya Yakimanka Street to Bolotnaya Square to protest the swearing-in of an illegitimate president. As riot police blocked the entrance to the square and to the bridge leading across the Moskva River to the Kremlin, demonstrators attempted a sit-in protest. The authorities responded with full force. After the first round of pepper spray, people began to run. “The gas was used several more times, and, amid the smoke in the sunset, one could see batons descending on the heads of opposition activists,” recalls a reporter for Gazeta.ru. “They were beating people brutally, into blood, smashing their faces on the pavement, dragging them by the hair and by the clothes, regardless of gender or age. Several officers were beating up a middle-aged man. The crowd began to shout: ‘Murderers!’” One particularly shocking video from Sunday's rally shows police officers beating up a pregnant woman, with one of them kicking her in the stomach with his foot.

The crackdown continued on inauguration day, as hundreds of activists were detained. Jean Jacques, a central Moscow cafe frequented by journalists and opposition figures, was ransacked by riot police: those inside, including opposition leader and former Deputy Prime Minister Boris Nemtsov, were arrested and driven to police stations (Nemtsov was beaten while being detained). Protest organizers Alexei Navalny and Sergei Udaltsov received 15-day prison sentences.Young demonstrators were being handed summons for compulsory military service. According to the official figures, some 1,000 people were arrested at anti-Putin protests on Sunday and Monday. Unofficially, 47 demonstrators were injured. This was, however, still not good enough for Putin’s press secretary, Dmitri Peskov, who suggested that the protestors should have had “their livers spread over the pavement.”

As Muscovites were being hurled into police vans, Vladimir Putin, his right hand on the Constitution, pledged to “respect and protect the rights and freedoms.” The lavish Kremlin ceremony attended by some 3,000 guests, including Putin’s Western errand boys, Gerhard Schröder and Silvio Berlusconi, marked the start of his “third” (in reality, fourth) presidential term. Few believe he will complete it. The rising discontent of the urban middle classes and the increased repression that will only fuel more protests hardly promise the “stability” trumpeted by Putin in the early years of his rule. For all the Kremlin pageantry, Vladimir Putin’s era is coming to an end. And, judging by the cleared-off streets and the startling military presence, he knows it better than most.


 
awwww good old apocalyptic rhetoric from the Soviets!  I mean the Russians!!  Brings me back.... Seriously, though, these sort of statements are meaningless pandering to his electorate and really quite tame when compared to the sorts of statements they would regularly issue during the cold war.

Sure, Medvedev, go ahead and target those anti-missile sites with your missiles.  Nothing like an outside threat to get peoples minds off those nasty domestic issues.
 
Members of the punk rock band "Pussy Riot" were sentanced to prison, resulting in a world wide round of protests, as reported in the WSJ. Glen Reynolds (Instapundit) maocks Vladimir Putin by suggesting he is afraid of girls. Certainly mockery is a meme which will be harder for the Russians to counteract, and if people like former world Chess champion Garry Kasperov is involved in the protests, then maybe the band is just the wedge that opens up the discontent of the Russian people:

http://blogs.wsj.com/emergingeurope/2012/08/17/supporters-stage-protests-around-the-world/?mod=e2tw

Supporters Stage Protests Around the World

Article
By WSJ Staff

By Elana Zak and Neal Mann

A Russian court has sentenced three members of punk band Pussy Riot to two years each in prison for their part in an anti-Putin protest in Russia’s main Orthodox cathedral. Around the world, people gathered to protest the court ruling.

The band’s colored balaclavas, which band members wore at the church protest, became emblems of support for demonstrators. In addition to wearing them, activists draped statues in Moscow and in cities as far as Montpellier, France, with the balaclavas.

Many of the demonstrations took place in front of Russian embassies. Here is a collection of photos from some of the protests.
 
While a female punk band is perhaps an easy target (not having connections); Garry Kasperov writes that this is symptomatic of a much larger problem in Russia; the rebirth of the police state. Protesting on behalf of the band is fine (and probably good for their morale to know they have friends and supporters outside), but as Kasperov says, Russia's leaders are only in it for money and power, if we really want to make a difference hit them there:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444375104577595811340186308.html

When Putin's Thugs Came for Me

I was dragged away Friday by a group of police—in fact carried away with one on each arm and legArticle Comments (287) more in Opinion | Find New $LINKTEXTFIND$ »smaller Larger facebooktwittergoogle pluslinked inEmail Print Save ↓ More
smaller Larger By Garry Kasparov
Moscow

The only surprise to come out of Friday's guilty verdict in the trial here of the Russian punk band Pussy Riot was how many people acted surprised. Three young women were sentenced to two years in prison for the prank of singing an anti-Putin "prayer" in the Cathedral of Christ the Savior. Their jailing was the next logical step for Vladimir Putin's steady crackdown on "acts against the social order," the Kremlin's expansive term for any public display of resistance.

In the 100 days since Mr. Putin's re-election as president, severe new laws against public protest have been passed and the homes of opposition leaders have been raided. These are not the actions of a regime prepared to grant leniency to anyone who offends Mr. Putin's latest ally, the Orthodox Church and its patriarch.

Enlarge Image

CloseReuters

Police detain author Garry Kasparov during the trial of the female punk band "Pussy Riot" outside a court building in Moscow, August 17, 2012.
Unfortunately, I was not there to hear the judge's decision, which she took hours to read. The crowds outside the court building made entry nearly impossible, so I stood in a doorway and took questions from journalists. Suddenly, I was dragged away by a group of police—in fact carried away with one policeman on each arm and leg.

The men refused to tell me why I was being arrested and shoved me into a police van. When I got up to again ask why I had been detained, things turned violent. I was restrained, choked and struck several times by a group of officers before being driven to the police station with dozens of other protesters. After several hours I was released, but not before they told me I was being criminally investigated for assaulting a police officer who claimed I had bitten him.

It would be easy to laugh at such a bizarre charge when there are already so many videos and photos of the police assaulting me. But in a country where you can be imprisoned for two years for singing a song, laughter does not come easily. My bruises will heal long before the members of Pussy Riot are free to see their young children again. In the past, Mr. Putin's critics and enemies have been jailed on a wide variety of spurious criminal charges, from fraud to terrorism.

But now the masks are off. Unlikely as it may be, the three members of a punk band have become our first true political prisoners.

Such a brazen step should raise alarms, but the leaders of the Free World are clearly capable of sleeping through any wake-up call. A spokesman for the Obama administration called the sentence "disproportionate," as if the length of the prison term were the only problem with open repression of political speech.

Mr. Putin is not worried about what the Western press says, or about celebrities tweeting their support for Pussy Riot. These are not the constituencies that concern him.

Friday, the Russian paper Vedomosti reported that former Deutsche Bank CEO Josef Ackermann could be put in charge of managing the hundreds of billions of dollars in the Russian sovereign wealth fund. As long as bankers and other Western elites eagerly line up to do Mr. Putin's bidding, the situation in Russia will only get worse. I hope that the chaos and outrage around the Pussy Riot trial shows Mr. Ackermann and others like him that Putin's Russia is a very dangerous investment.

If officials at the U.S. State Department are as "seriously concerned" about free speech in Russia as they say, I suggest they drop their opposition to the Magnitsky Act pending in the Senate. That legislation would bring financial and travel sanctions against the functionaries who enact the Kremlin's agenda of repression. Hit them where it hurts and expose them as the thugs that they are. Those who wish to help should pressure their representatives to pass such measures. If you live in a democracy you have a voice. Do not waste it.

Mr. Putin could not care less about winning public-relations battles in the Western press, or about fighting them at all. He and his cronies care only about money and power. Friday's events make it clear that they will fight for those things until Russia's jails are full.

Mr. Kasparov, a contributing editor of The Wall Street Journal, is the leader of the Russian pro-democracy group United Civil Front and chairman of the U.S.-based Human Rights Foundation. He resides in Moscow.
 
What Pussy Riot did was disgraceful and was only a bunch of spoiled brats acting like fools. 

That they were sentenced to two years is perhaps harsh, but I suppose a message was being sent.  (Contrast that to multiple offender Lindsay Lohan getting a minor slap on the wrist for her transgressions, and other celebrities in the West getting away with murder, and in some cases, literally.  Only because they are famous).


 
Technoviking said:
What Pussy Riot did was disgraceful in poor taste and was only a bunch of spoiled brats acting like fools. Very true

That they were sentenced to two years is perhaps harsh, but I suppose a message was being sent.  It's Russia, after all, why would anyone expect anything even remotely like law or justice? You're not expecting modern, sophisticated, civilized actions are you? (Contrast that to multiple offender Lindsay Lohan getting a minor slap on the wrist for her transgressions, and other celebrities in the West getting away with murder, and in some cases, literally.  Only because they are famous).
 
Mr. Campbell:  very good edits.  Yes, in poor taste. 

Actually, given that it's Russia...the results may be surprisingly lenient....
 
The jailing of the band "***** Riot" may have triggered something that Vladmir Putin and his gang were not expecting. Normally apolitical people are suddenly being engaged, and through means that had been overlooked by Russia's ruling elites. Clamping down on the Internet and widening crackdowns on dissent bring many risks (especially given the changing conditions of Russia; now there is a middle class not beholden to the Party who may well be willing to fight for their rights and freedoms [See "The Coming of the French Revolution]), while trying to look the other way may only encourage the growth of dissent and political opposition. Not exactly a win/win for Russia's rulers:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/08/23/anne-applebaum-dictators-may-need-to-start-censoring-pop-stars/

Anne Applebaum: Vladimir Putin’s Madonna problem
Anne Applebaum | Aug 23, 2012 6:10 AM ET | Last Updated: Aug 22, 2012 10:26 PM ET
More from Anne Applebaum

‘Topless woman cuts down Kiev cross for ***** Riot.” That headline ran at the top of a South African website a few days ago, accompanied by a picture of a half-naked member of a radical Ukrainian feminist group, chainsaw in hand, protesting the two-year jail sentence a Russian court had just handed down to three punk rockers. Al-Jazeera had a tamer headline: “Russian punk rockers jailed for hooliganism.” The accompanying picture was also tamer, showing the three punk rockers in question preparing for their trial, looking demure. But the harshest political statement was on Madonna’s website: “I call on all those who love freedom to condemn this unjust punishment,” the singer declared. “I call on ALL of Russia to let ***** Riot go free.” A clip from her recent performance in St. Petersburg showed her shouting at the crowd: “We want to fight for the right to be free, to be who we are!”

And of all the publicity that the three women of ***** Riot have received in the past week, that was by far the most dangerous. Not because Madonna is a serious political figure but because she isn’t. The Material Girl had never before expressed much interest in Russia and certainly not in the persecution of Russian women. When the human rights activist Natalia Estemirova was murdered three years ago in Chechnya, she was silent. Nor did her website register the death of journalist Anna Politkovskaya in 2006.

The fate of three fellow pop stars, however, is clearly different — and it is precisely that difference that poses an unusual challenge to Russian president Vladimir Putin.

Although it is often assumed otherwise, Putin’s regime has long permitted political dissent — so long as it appeals only to a small elite. Although most television stations are controlled in one way or another by the Kremlin, a few low-circulation newspapers have long been allowed to keep up some criticism. Although anyone with real potential to oppose Putin was put under financial or judicial pressure — or, in some cases, arrested or murdered — other critics have been allowed to keep talking, as long as too many people aren’t listening. The Internet is controlled in Russia, as it is in China, Iran and other authoritarian states, but with a relatively light hand: Confident that not many Russians read human rights websites anyway, the regime never bothered to block all of them.

At least until now, this formula has worked. Indeed, the genius of Putinism has always been its ability to keep the apolitical masses ignorant of, or apathetic about, the regime’s opponents, while at the same time eschewing mass arrests. Putin understood this very well: The modern elite Russian doesn’t want to live in a pariah state, and he doesn’t want to be cut off from the outside world. He might not care if his foreign friends think Russia unpleasant, but he isn’t keen to be compared to North Korea either. Putin’s solution was to keep the pressure on serious opponents while studiously ignoring those he deemed unserious. Political speech is controlled, but entertainment media are free.

But in a Russia open to global pop culture, it’s getting harder to recognize who is serious and who isn’t.

Three punk rockers, members of a band known more for its desire to cause outrage than to make music, surely didn’t look like much of a challenge to the Kremlin. But when one accounts for the vast potential for copycats — the same radical Ukrainian women’s group has recently protested not only in Kiev but also in Minsk and Davos, while others have protested in Marseille and New York — as well as the inevitable eye-catching photos, not just on news pages but also in the entertainment sections, one can see how this story could run and run. The simple fact is that Madonna and her ilk are more likely to defend stylish fellow musicians than serious journalists or activists — and far more likely to attract widespread attention for doing so.

It’s a conundrum not only for Russia, but for any regimes that seek to be open to some outside influences but not others. It might be possible for the Russian leadership — or the Chinese leadership, or the Iranian leadership — to block the websites of Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, but will they eventually have to ban TheHollywoodGossip.com and E! Online as well? How about Al-Jazeera? Or South African websites that report “human interest” stories involving girl punk rockers?

Global pop culture mutates and changes week by week, just as technology does: Modern dictatorships will have to make some fast decisions if they want to keep up.

The Washington Post
 
I, for one am all for half naked women protestors running amok with chainsaws.  Makes a great change from the croccupy movement.  Better looking too I'd wager.


Thucydides said:
The jailing of the band "***** Riot" may have triggered something that Vladmir Putin and his gang were not expecting. Normally apolitical people are suddenly being engaged, and through means that had been overlooked by Russia's ruling elites. Clamping down on the Internet and widening crackdowns on dissent bring many risks (especially given the changing conditions of Russia; now there is a middle class not beholden to the Party who may well be willing to fight for their rights and freedoms [See "The Coming of the French Revolution]), while trying to look the other way may only encourage the growth of dissent and political opposition. Not exactly a win/win for Russia's rulers:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/08/23/anne-applebaum-dictators-may-need-to-start-censoring-pop-stars/

Anne Applebaum: Vladimir Putin’s Madonna problem
Anne Applebaum | Aug 23, 2012 6:10 AM ET | Last Updated: Aug 22, 2012 10:26 PM ET
More from Anne Applebaum

‘Topless woman cuts down Kiev cross for ***** Riot.” That headline ran at the top of a South African website a few days ago, accompanied by a picture of a half-naked member of a radical Ukrainian feminist group, chainsaw in hand, protesting the two-year jail sentence a Russian court had just handed down to three punk rockers. Al-Jazeera had a tamer headline: “Russian punk rockers jailed for hooliganism.” The accompanying picture was also tamer, showing the three punk rockers in question preparing for their trial, looking demure. But the harshest political statement was on Madonna’s website: “I call on all those who love freedom to condemn this unjust punishment,” the singer declared. “I call on ALL of Russia to let ***** Riot go free.” A clip from her recent performance in St. Petersburg showed her shouting at the crowd: “We want to fight for the right to be free, to be who we are!”

And of all the publicity that the three women of ***** Riot have received in the past week, that was by far the most dangerous. Not because Madonna is a serious political figure but because she isn’t. The Material Girl had never before expressed much interest in Russia and certainly not in the persecution of Russian women. When the human rights activist Natalia Estemirova was murdered three years ago in Chechnya, she was silent. Nor did her website register the death of journalist Anna Politkovskaya in 2006.

The fate of three fellow pop stars, however, is clearly different — and it is precisely that difference that poses an unusual challenge to Russian president Vladimir Putin.

Although it is often assumed otherwise, Putin’s regime has long permitted political dissent — so long as it appeals only to a small elite. Although most television stations are controlled in one way or another by the Kremlin, a few low-circulation newspapers have long been allowed to keep up some criticism. Although anyone with real potential to oppose Putin was put under financial or judicial pressure — or, in some cases, arrested or murdered — other critics have been allowed to keep talking, as long as too many people aren’t listening. The Internet is controlled in Russia, as it is in China, Iran and other authoritarian states, but with a relatively light hand: Confident that not many Russians read human rights websites anyway, the regime never bothered to block all of them.

At least until now, this formula has worked. Indeed, the genius of Putinism has always been its ability to keep the apolitical masses ignorant of, or apathetic about, the regime’s opponents, while at the same time eschewing mass arrests. Putin understood this very well: The modern elite Russian doesn’t want to live in a pariah state, and he doesn’t want to be cut off from the outside world. He might not care if his foreign friends think Russia unpleasant, but he isn’t keen to be compared to North Korea either. Putin’s solution was to keep the pressure on serious opponents while studiously ignoring those he deemed unserious. Political speech is controlled, but entertainment media are free.

But in a Russia open to global pop culture, it’s getting harder to recognize who is serious and who isn’t.

Three punk rockers, members of a band known more for its desire to cause outrage than to make music, surely didn’t look like much of a challenge to the Kremlin. But when one accounts for the vast potential for copycats — the same radical Ukrainian women’s group has recently protested not only in Kiev but also in Minsk and Davos, while others have protested in Marseille and New York — as well as the inevitable eye-catching photos, not just on news pages but also in the entertainment sections, one can see how this story could run and run. The simple fact is that Madonna and her ilk are more likely to defend stylish fellow musicians than serious journalists or activists — and far more likely to attract widespread attention for doing so.

It’s a conundrum not only for Russia, but for any regimes that seek to be open to some outside influences but not others. It might be possible for the Russian leadership — or the Chinese leadership, or the Iranian leadership — to block the websites of Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, but will they eventually have to ban TheHollywoodGossip.com and E! Online as well? How about Al-Jazeera? Or South African websites that report “human interest” stories involving girl punk rockers?

Global pop culture mutates and changes week by week, just as technology does: Modern dictatorships will have to make some fast decisions if they want to keep up.

The Washington Post
[/qyote]
 
Madonna also once called the AIDS epidemic the worst tragedy of the 20 th Century.  I suppose she never heard of the
holocaust...
Another example of slacktivism...
 
Global pop culture mutates and changes week by week, just as technology does: Modern dictatorships will have to make some fast decisions if they want to keep up.

The Washington Post
I'm sure your average dictatorship gives a rat's buttock about keeping up with "modern pop culture".... and its mutants.  ::)
 
While you and I can smile knowingly at "slacktivism"; they engage the public in unpredictable ways with unknowable consequences. Sometimes you can ignore them (Koney 2012), sometimes they become annoying (the "Occupy" movement), but sometimes things get out of hand (G20 and anti WTO protests).

For Putin and his crony's, unpredictable consequences are to be avoided. A glare of negative publicity might shed light on other unsavoury doings by Russia's political elites, and blowback could include very consequential things including a reduction in the flow of Western investment (especially in the energy field) or a cancellation or modification of GAZPROM contracts to supply natural gas to Europe. Given the discovery of new supplies of natural gas in Europe and the Mediterranean using technologies like fracking and horizontal drilling, cutting off GAZPROM is now doable with limited effects on the European economy, but hugely consequential to the Russian economy.

So if (and it is a big if) enough Russians begin to follow the "Free ***** Riot" meme there will be trouble at home, and if enough people are being engaged by Madonna and other Western stars (for whatever reason) there may be trouble abroad. Either result will be troubling for Vladimr Putin and his crony's.
 
Back
Top